#i'm really not religious i know i talk about religion kind of a lot who claims to not be religious but

[thefabelmans2022]

sometimes i think about pope francis saying he hopes hell is empty and i get. strangely emotional.

[morlock-holmes]

The Conspiratorial Mindset

So, I've always had a bit of an interest in scams and hokum, and what people call "Cults".

One of the common refrains when you talk about religious Cults is, "If you think about it all religions have beliefs that seem odd to outsiders" and this is true, but as I read more about cults I started to think,

"Wait, a lot of these groups aren't united just by having unusual religious or supernatural views; a lot of them also seem to have matching patterns of behaviors that have nothing to do with belief in psychic space aliens"

I'm talking about things like,

Having a leadership structure which is absolute, where the top leaders cannot be disciplined or even openly criticized by lower members;

Exerting tremendous control over the dress and behavior of adherents;

Telling adherents that outsiders are untrustworthy and that contact with outsiders should be strictly limited and heavily monitored by organizational leadership;

The extensive and common use of shunning and reprogramming in response to violation of any of the above rules.

In some groups, failing to adhere to the dress code and spending a lot of time with outsiders is, at worst, the subject of a few little jabs at family gatherings. In other groups, those same behaviors are treated as Defcon one crises and become the central issue of the adherent's relationship with everybody else in the organization until they can be bullied back into doing the organization's bidding.

It was gratifying to learn that other people have noticed these patterns (Some people prefer the term "High Control Group" to "Cult" because it highlights what the actual problem is)

I am starting to notice similar dynamics in what are commonly called "Conspiracy theories".

The thing about conspiracy theories is... Well, conspiracies exist, and sometimes groups of powerful people get together to do something in secret which would get them in big trouble if they were to do it openly.

But I am starting to notice a particular, I don't know, a particular way of conceptualizing the organization and purpose of conspiracies which is unique to some people and which characterizes the kind of conspiracy theorist who takes Alex Jones seriously.

I kind of think of it as a "Witch-Hunting mentality".

For certain people in more primitive times and places, if they, say, slipped off a ladder and hurt themselves, their first thought would be, "That must have happened because a witch cursed me. We need to find and punish the witch who cursed me."

And this isn't just the attribution of malice that characterizes this idea:

One malicious conspiracy that might make you fall off a ladder is a manufacturer who doesn't care about safety ratings. Imagine that the manufacturer is really deliberately malicious here. A subordinate comes to him and says, "Our ladders can't reliably hold the weight of a person and a lot of them will probably break and cause people to fall and hurt themselves." and he says, "I know that but who cares, by the time people figure it out it'll be too late to get their money back."

That's a malicious conspiracy, but, importantly, if Bob buys a faulty ladder and falls off, the conspiracy wasn't trying to hurt Bob; it merely didn't care whether Bob got hurt.

Now, this distinction doesn't take away the malice and hostility towards Bob, but if you go to the ladder manufacturer and say, "Hey boss, Bob bought one of our faulty ladders, but he's really skinny so the ladder didn't break" the manufacturer will go, "Who the fuck is Bob? And good, that's one less angry person."

Whereas imagine Bob's ladder has been cursed to break by a witch. The witch did it because she hates Bob, and wants him to fall, and if she finds out he didn't fall, she'll go, "Curses, I'll have to find some other way to hurt Bob."

Conspiracy theorists, it seems to me, are far more inclined to conceptualize conspiracies as acts of deliberate malice aimed at them rather than acts of negligent malice.

@loving-n0t-heyting posted this article from the New York Post which contains a good example of what I mean:

“I thought I was on the cutting edge of promoting rights for gay people,” Yang said. “But then I started looking deeper into where this was coming from and who was paying for it, and I started to get very disillusioned...

I assume the people paying for it are LGBT advocacy groups? Did you, uh, not know that the people you were working for were paying you to work for them?

“When you really dig down you can see how much of this comes from documents and plans at the United Nations,” Yang said, referring in part to the UN’s “Gender Equality” initiative. “It’s part of a global agenda to restructure society, re-structure our social norms and the economy,” Yang claimed. “They are undermining the sexually dimorphic nature of reality and breaking down the differences between the sexes to break down our identity. They are constructing identities for us and they want us to adopt them.”

Oh, I see.

This is exactly what I mean. LGBT rights efforts make Yang and others feel disoriented, like society is being restructured and that they are being left behind, like they aren't quite in control of social norms and that stable identity categories can't be relied on anymore.

Now, one kind of conservative might look at that and say, "These are bad second order effects of LGBT people trying to assert their lifestyle in public and that's why we should oppose them."

But another kind says, "These changes make me feel unstable. Therefore, the main purpose of the changes is to make me feel unstable. In order to understand these changes, I need to figure out who wants me to feel unstable and what they would gain from making me feel unstable."

The idea that Yang's feeling of instability is simply a side effect of a series of efforts mainly focused on LGBT rights is incomprehensible. Instead, she believes that there is a series of efforts focused mainly on making her feel unstable, with LGBT rights as a kind of side effect to the main goal of making her feel unstable.

This kind of thing is, to me, a big red flag that indicates that we are starting to float away from reasonable conspiracy thinking into crazy town.

I am particularly curious if folks can recommend any writers or researchers who have noticed this dynamic.

[wolfythewitch]

Wolfy I dont know if this ask will be okay to send or if it will be to heavy, but I want you to know that your religious posting has pretty much singlehandedly gotten me more comfortable with christianity + religion as a whole. I'm a pagan, but I have a lot of trauma and issues around the subject, and for a long long time it really triggered me. But the way you talk about it is extremely comforting, and seeing your posts and stuff about it (esp the silly ones and fanart but also the genuine discussions) have made me a lot more comfortable with it. Sometimes I forget that bigot christians are not a monolith and that this is just genuinely peoples religious beliefs same as my own, and your posts are a helpful reminder that there are good and kind christian folk in the world who arent hurting anyone and even a lot who are fighting for a better future for their own spirituality and beliefs and religious grounds. Thank you a lot, genuinely for what you do :) 🫶🩷

glad it helps!

[grison-in-space]

I'm genuinely sorry, I was really tired and couldn't think of the word that mad pride movements use. I'm new to all of this. I thought you would be more open to it because you've reblogged from radical leftists (anarchists and communists both) within the past couple of weeks and they're all for Veganism afaik. The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different. I'm not spamming people with it, but I was inspired by an ask by a nonvegan and started asking popular bloggers why they weren't vegan to open up conversation and potentially change people's views on animals. If I've made you uncomfortable I'm sorry, though I admit I'm really confused by your standpoint. You do know that the only reason communism hasn't succeeded is because of America? Anyway, sorry again, I'm also autistic and I didn't mean to dismiss your legitimate dietary needs. Can I recommend acti-vegan's posts? While I understand that you can't go vegan, perhaps their blog will at least help you understand our points, they're much more well-written than my asks and they have plenty of legitimate science resources at hand. Thanks for listening, I'll take your advice into account. I'm not trying to not listen, it's just frustrating because so many people say they get it but they don't change, and if they truly got it they would, you know?

Okay, I get that you didn't mean to be offensive, and fuck knows I shouldn't throw stones when it comes to forgetting specific words. (This happens to me fairly frequently; it's a thing.)

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

So yesterday I actually wrote out and then deleted a whole paragraph to the effect of "part of my deep, deep frustration with animal rights activism hooks into my commitment to the phrase 'nothing about us without us,' because I frequently see the same kinds of emotional projection without making the effort to listen to animals on their own terms from animal rights activism groups."

The first thing I need to make clear to you is that this--veganism and animal rights activism (ARA) more generally--is not new to me. I am in my mid-thirties and I have never had a job of any kind that did not revolve around animals in some way, I've spent time in rescue spaces and vets and universities, I'm queer and I have spent most of my life in leftish progressive circles, so it's kind of hard to miss.

Essentially, you are proselytizing to me as if you were a newly baptized evangelical convinced I had never heard of Jesus, because if only I had heard and understood his holy word, I would be converted instantly to his light! It's not any less irritating when the belief system isn't explicitly a religion.

More under the cut, because this one is long.

Disclaimer one: Veganism isn't synonymous with ARA ideology, but it's deeply entangled with it, and ARA ideology drives the movement of veganism as a (theoretically non-religious) ethical decision. And I object very strongly to the framework imposed by ARA activists. When I say I am not vegan, I am saying that I have considered the ethical framework that underpins veganism as an ethics movement and I have deliberately rejected it.

The second piece of context you should know that when I talk about being a behavioral ecologist, I mean that I'm a researcher who works on animals and that my framework is rooted in trying to understand animals in their own natural ecological context, without necessarily comparing them to humans. There's a lot of ways to study animal behavior you might run into, including attempts to understand universal principles of behavior that transcend species (animal cognition) and attempts to understand how to better treat animals in human care (animal welfare). You know Temple Grandin? Temple Grandin is an ethologist (the field that gave rise to behavioral ecology, also focused on animals within their species context) who worked on animal welfare (finding ways to make slaughterhouses less stressful to livestock, among other things).

Third point: my profession also means is that I work directly with animals--in my case, currently mice--and that I do not think research with animal subjects is wrong as long as all efforts are made to ensure maximal welfare and enrichment for the animals involved. This is another major bone of contention politically between my entire field and ARA groups, and you should know that I have also spent my entire professional career under the shadow of, well, people who care strongly enough about those ideas to invade my workspace and potentially seize my animals and "free" them into a world they do not have the tools to survive in.

So there's where I am coming from. Let's get back to what you're saying. Here, I'll quote again in case you have the same crappy short-term memory I do.

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

Point the first: Even within humans, I don't think that all brains should be treated the exact same. Especially in a disability context! After all, what is an accommodation if not an agreement to treat someone differently because they need certain things to access a space? Accommodations by definition fly in the face of this "treating everyone the same" understanding of fairness. I think all (human) brains are equally valuable, and I think all brains are worthy of respect, but I do not think that it's wise or kind of me to assert that everyone should be treated in the same way. For one thing, I teach students. If there's one thing teaching has taught me, it's that a good teacher is constantly assessing and adjusting their instruction to meet students where they're at, identify failures of understanding, and keep the attention of the classroom.

Point the second: animals do have different brains from humans. That does not mean that animals are inferior, but it does mean that they are alien. There's a philosophy paper, Nagel, What Does It Mean to Be a Bat, that you might find illuminating on this front. Essentially, the point of the paper is that animals have their own experiences and sensory umwelts that differ profoundly enough from humans' that we cannot know what it is like to be a different species without experiencing life as one, and therefore we must be terribly careful not to project our own realities onto theirs. That is, our imagination cannot tell us what a bat values and what it experiences. That is why we have to use careful evidence to understand what an animal is thinking, without relying on our ability to identify with and comprehend that animal. I have watched ARA groups deliberately encourage people to shut their reasoning brains off and emotionally identify themselves with animals without considering within-species context for twenty years. This is a mainstream tactic. It is not an isolated event and for that reason alone I would be opposed to them.

Point the third: there is a definite tendency in lots of people to care deeply and intensely about both animals and people who are seen as "lesser" in status--children, poor people, disabled people, etc--just as long as those groups never contradict the good feelings that come from the helper's own assessment of themselves and their actions. In humans, when the "needy" point out that some forms of help are actually harmful, the backlash is often swift and vicious. This is why animals are such an appealing target of support and intervention. They can't speak back and say "in fact, you are projecting my love of this frilly pink tutu onto me, and I think it's uncomfortable and prevents me from walking." They can't say "I kind of like it better when I don't have to worry about getting hit by a car, actually?"

(By the way: this is also why it's offensive to compare disabled people to animals, because this is generally done at least in part to silence the voices of disabled people speaking for our selves and our communities. We have access to language, and we use it, thank you.)

All forms of animal welfare intervention going right back to the founding of the first RSPCA have been incredibly prone to being hijacked by classist, racist, and otherwise bigoted impulses. This is because animals offer an innocent face for defense that conveniently cannot criticize the actions taken by their champions, and they therefore provide a great excuse for actions taken against marginalized members of human society. Think about the very first campaign the RSPCA ever did, which was banning using dogs as draft animals: a use that is not inherently harmful to dogs, which many dogs actively enjoy, but also one that was specifically used by poor Londoners and which in fact immediately resulted in a great butchery of the dogs that Londoners could no longer afford to feed rather than allowing poor people and their dogs to continue working together. No one was, of course, challenging the particular uses of dogs or any other animal favored by the wealthy. This kind of thing is so, so, so common. Obviously it doesn't mean that all interventions to prioritize animal welfare are inherently bigoted, but it does mean that we have to be critical about our choice of challenges.

On top of everything, the animal rights activist movement's obsession with "exploitation" is a function of the idea that humans are sinful or otherwise Bad in how we interact with animals by definition. For example, take the chicken rescue near me that is so obsessed with the possibility that some human somewhere might benefit from an animal in their care that they implant every hen they adopt out with hormonal implants such that the hens no longer lay eggs--a function that is normally a natural byproduct of a chicken's reproductive system, fertilized or not. A mutualistic relationship involves both parties benefiting, and that is the case for an awful lot of human relationships with animals. In general, the idea that associating with animals is a thing that can only harm animals rather than being a trade between two species to enrich one another is all over these groups. It's just so myopically focused on human shame that it prevents practical interventions that might benefit everyone, and often promotes interventions that don't directly benefit animals but sure do make humans miserable. For example, this kind of thinking is why groups like PETA are absolutely awful at effectively rescuing unwanted dogs and cats: they think pets living in "bondage" with humans are an essentially sad outcome, rather than one that might be mutually enjoyed by all parties.

I'm tired and my meds haven't kicked in, so I'm not currently going to handle the communism thing except to point out that while the US absolutely did destabilize a number of leftist regimes in South America and Africa, Russia and China between them have certainly not treated their own people kindly, either (and more so their own client-nations, as with the former members of the USSR). Please do some reading about the Holodomor and Lysenko in Russia (and frankly all of the details of Stalin's regime) and the Cultural Revolution in China in particular. Khmer Rouge might be worth looking into, too. I am not saying the US's hands are clean, you understand, because they are not; they're as steeped in red as anyone else's. What I am saying is that for people living on the ground, communist revolutions have this nasty habit of turning into bloodbaths and arbitrary slaughters. Do not let your distaste for the US's bloodsoaked imperialism (which, yes, is and was bad) let you fall into the trap of becoming a tankie.

And if you don't know what a tankie is, you really, really should take some time to learn.

[pangaeaseas]

The Problem of Religion in Harry Potter (or, what is Wizard God?)

tl; dr: I wish more hp fics did something with religion and the wizarding world

so to state my credentials up front: I've read a lot of hp fanfiction, a little on the Reformation and religious history--like, I have probably more background knowledge than the average person but I am very emphatically not an expert and have never actually taken a class specifically on any kind of religious history, and I'm an ex-Catholic who did ten ish years of religion classes. There are probably a LOT more people more qualified to talk about this than me but whatever I've never actually seen very much meta written out on this specific issue so I'm giving it a try. (if you have written or read such meta, please send me recs)

ahh the Problem of Religion one of the great unsolved mysteries of the hp world building (similar issues include What the Fuck is Going on with Ireland, How Does the Ministry Actually Work, What is the Population, etc) and I call it 'unsolved' because the fandom has no massively popular solution (like Lordships for the Problem of the Wizengamot) and in general tends to just not think about it, much like JKR originally did. Now IMO she probably intended most wizards to be, like, generically Church of England or whatever without much investment--basically copying the Muggle equivalent whenever it isn't spelled out how the two worlds differ, which is I think a lot of her un-filled-out world building is meant to be. Which. OK. You can do that, but, you know, religion is a very very important aspect of worldbuilding and in my opinion ignoring it and expecting it to be just the same as 1990s Muggle Britain is uninteresting and lazy.

This (wizards are meant to be some kind of Christian and probably Church of England just for simplicity's sake) is evidenced by things like Hogwarts having Christmas and Easter breaks, James and Lily having a Bible quote picked out by Dumbledore on their tombstone, and Draco Malfoy, most emblematically wizard of wizard characters who can be taken as a potential baseline, automatically saying things like 'Good God'. Which, you know, implies that the idea of a single God, and probably the Judaeo-Christian God because that's the same cultural background as the rest of Britain, is taken for granted by wizarding society. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about Draco's or even the Malfoys' personal beliefs, and of course you have other characters saying things like 'Oh my Merlin' and "Morgana" and things like that. Which in my opinion wasn't meant to be indications of some kind of Merlin or Morgana worship but more quirky and fun flavor things of the kind jkr loves to include without thinking out the implications. But you absolutely can take those statements that way--this post is absolutely not meant to dictate how people want to headcanon and I am absolutely here for giving wizards a well thought out pagan or Non-Christian religion, I just don't think that was the author's intent. There's also plenty of other things that imply Wizarding cultural Christianity that I'm not remembering off the top of my head.

And, of course, much better writers than me have extensively discussed all the Christian themes in HP. Of course, themes don't need to affect how people worldbuild in fanfic.

So: with HP canon, we are looking at a society that is probably culturally Christian and probably (key word) intended to be Church of England. But, because JKR wasn't putting much thought into it and basically just took a Chrisitian bedrock of society for granted, the implications of this are not really explored at all. So what I'm interested in is how fandom deals with it.

Mostly, that is...not at all, either taking cultural Christianity in the Wizarding World for granted the way JKR does or by ind of handwaving that wizards have evolved beyond the need for religion and that's just how it is. And that's perfectly fine! Not everyone wants to come up with a full, working, wizard society, and even if they are trying to worldbuild some aspects of wizarding society religion is often ignored, because people don't want to deal with it for often valid reasons (religious trauma, just disinterest, grew up agnostic, not Christian but thinks wizards probably are etc, etc, etc, ) Personally I wish more fics delved into what wizarding religious belief actually is, but to put it bluntly, that's just me. And I have never dealt with religion in my own fics. So don't takethis as judgement at all.

But there are interesting headcanons when people do choose to try and worldbuild religion in HP.

Fom what I've seen, one of the major ways to deal with religion in HP (aside from not dealing with it at all) is to give wizards, often pureblood wizards, some kind of pagan, often Celtic-inspired, religion. And this is quite defensible! Sometimes this is badly executed and/or turned into Death Eater apologia, but the idea of wizards having a different religion is really interesting and a good deal more interesting (IMO of course) than just not mentioning religion at all. Most fics that I've seen don't delve too deeply into, like the actual history and theology of these religions, but there are definitely some that do. (Also if you know any PLEASE send me recs). So if handled well, this is a great way to add some religion worldbuilding in the world of Harry Potter.

However, my personal favorite set of possibilities--obviously I have some personal bias as a history nerd with a long standing if never as deeply researched as I would like to interest in the history of Christianity and as an ex-Catholic--is that, well, we know the statute of secrecy started..when, exactly? 1690. So this much is obviously a result of JKR's Hollywood understanding of witch hunts (a subject for another time and someone far more qualified). For interested wrodlbuilders, we can take this as a guideline at best, as personally I think it would have taken a good deal longer than one year to agree on and implement something like the Statute and I tend to take 1690 as an end date, not a start. I also tend to take the Statue as a largely European phenomenon, at least at first. But, uh, what was happening in Britain at the time..oh, right...the Glorious Revolution....what was happening that created the conditions for the Glorious Revolution...oh, the English Civil War...which was because of...oh yeah, and what was also happening on the continent, maybe it involved, wait, thirty years..oooh, the Thirty Years War...wait weren't there a whole bunch of massive social shifts happening in Europe at this point in time isn't that funny but surely the stature of secrecy could be considered a part of these massive social shifts...all of which was heavily influenced by...you guessed it, the Protestant Reformation.

Wait. So. Maybe, the separation of Wizards from Muggles, at least in Britain, wasn't actually about Muggles hating wizards or wizards hating Muggles. Maybe it was about religion. Now personally I find this ABSOLUTELY FASCINATING. The possibilities, the possibilities...

Wizards had a massive religious civil war that created the blood status system in its modern form? Particular families have wildly different denominations? Excellent. Religion both in terms of level of religiosity and in terms of denomination is a blood status marker? Excellent. Purebloods are all Catholic (what does this do to both Catholic and not Muggleborns?) Excellent. Purebloods are all Puritans? Weird, but if you can pull it off excellent. Purebloods are all one of the wacky new denominations that sprung up after the Reformation and then either died out or conquered the world? Excellent. Pure bloods are all Lutherans who really hated Henry VIII? Excellent. One of my favoirite ways to create a wizarding religion was someone who had most pure bloods follow a denomination that split off from Catholicism in the Great Schism and then a small minority being Catholic, with the worlds splitting around the Reformation. Even the paganism headcanons can be incorporated: the Reformation could conceivably have made it much more difficult to keep practicing wizard paganism causing separation of the worlds.

Personally I would love to see a world that used the history of the Protestant Reformation super well, but it's not the only way to relate a Wizarding religion or a Wizarding religious history. I just wish more people tried to do that at all. Let wizards be religious! Or let them be irreligious but have thought about it, instead of just ignoring religion at all as something that might conceivably have influenced human societies. Maybe Wizarding Britain has state sponsored atheism. Just say that outright!

Another thing I'd like to see more fic doing is theology: how does having magic impact people's religious doctrine? Does every major religion essentially have a wizarding branch with its own theology because magic impacts their view of the world so much, or do most wizards simply follow the majority Muggle religion in their country with no modifications? if so, why? Do some wizards disagree, potentially violently, over how to incorporate magic into their religion? Do some people refuse to use magic because they think it goes against their religion? Etc etc etc you could go on forever. I've seen fic, which randomly enough was about Regulus Black, do this pretty well (or I thought so as a non-Jew) for Judaism, and I'd love it if done with other religions.

Anyway. Now I have to figure out how the hell religion works in the Wizarding Britain of my own headcanon.

[obae-me]

I saw your post about the characters with a traumatized MC and the part about the angels made me start thinking about how they'd handle an MC who has religious trauma (because I thought that was where it was going in your post)

MC avoiding Simeon and Luke because everything related to heaven creeps them out (they're legit scared of angels, god, etc) and feeling way too comfortable living in the devildom and being around demons because they "always knew they were going to end up in hell when they died" because that's what was hammered into their head growing up or something

that would sure change the cast's views on human religion huh?

Yes, absolutely. I can't remember if I mentioned it before or just kept that brainworm tucked safely inside my skull, but I think about this a lot. Namely, because I have SO much religious trauma (yippie!).

I've thought a lot about how the Celestial Realm harbors a lot of the same toxicity that certain organized religions have the tendancy to exhibit here on good ol earth. I mean, we've seen some things in game that suggest that things aren't all rainbows and roses up there. The way that Luke talks early game suggests a lot. And so I'm sure a religiously traumatized MC would have SUCH a hard time around the angels at first. (I actually had my own reservations with the angels when they were first introduced and I even kind of disliked Luke a ton before I eventually took a step back and thought about the fact that he's just a BABY who is just spitting out ideals that were shoved into his head. It's not his fault, and I think his character development is something that the fandom does not address enough. I'm so proud of him!! Having your expectations of the world be broken and then having to relearn everything you thought you knew is actually SO hard.)

MC getting along well or feeling more comfortable with demons because they don't feel like they're being judged or under the watchful eyes of others.

MC talking about "not being as afraid to come back" VERY early on in game and the other characters taking WAY too long to realize they mean come to purgatory after they pass, and the demons themselves don't feel good about knowing that.

MC avoiding certain sins/pleasures/temptations due to the fear that's been embedded in them over it. Even if those things are COMPLETELY normal and harmless to enjoy.

All of the characters being extremely patient and understanding about this sort of thing and very slowly chipping away at certain stigmas they still hold onto, making the human feel safe while they do.

MC avoiding Simeon because of mixed feelings of shame and maybe a bit of resentment and then eventually learning that he's actually such a down to earth and sweet guy and spending more time with him just to learn that he's been in many similar situations is so...so good to think about. Learning that he'll never force certain ideologies onto them, that he doesn't see them as someone who needs to be "saved". A human and an angel sitting together and discussing what being "good" really means. Sharing confessions to each other that they've both held on their backs for such a long time because they've been too ashamed of themselves and confused to heal from it alone. They're not a sinner and a Saint, they're just normal people who make mistakes and want to do good in the world.

I do have many thoughts on this clearly...

[sheydgarden]

How do you feel about jewish supernatural creatures being portrayed in media? Is it okay if done correctly, since it is a closed religion? I'm really curious, especially since you obviously know so much about them.

I also want to say that I love your art! And I love being able to learn more about these creatures.

thank you for the kind words, i appreciate it!

i have to say i'm confused by the question, or possibly its framing - i'm not sure what Judaism being a "closed religion" has to do with portraying creatures from folklore in media. "closed religion" is a term people generally seem to use when they're talking about not appropriating the actual religious/cultural practices of a (usually contextually marginalized) religion that you don't belong to. recently i've seen some pushback against the term "closed practice/religion" for Judaism, as it's not literally true. yes, Judaism is for Jews, but anyone can convert to Judaism - it's just that it's a whole process that involves a lot of learning & then being accepted by a Jewish community. to my knowledge, "closed practice" as a term grew out of the pagan/neo-pagan community anyway & was used to describe any religion whose symbols, deities & practices weren't socially considered fair game for use in your own personal spiritual practice - i have a lot of thoughts on this odd sort of "restaurant view" of religion & culture, where some things are at a free-for-all buffet so you can just take what you want (who put them there?) while other things are only served at certain tables by reservation (is anyone else ever invited?), but that's a whole other post.

i'm assuming you're asking how i feel about non-Jewish people portraying creatures from Jewish folklore in various kinds of media, & the answer is that it totally depends on the thing & how it's done? i definitely don't subscribe to the idea that creators should never step outside their own experience/culture. i do think portraying (elements of) other cultures is something that should be done carefully & sensitively, ideally with input from members of that culture! unfortunately, it is very, very easy for creators to unintentionally fall into antisemitic tropes & stereotypes, because those ideas are so old & so pervasive, especially when it comes to monsters & other supernatural creatures (Jews having been literally demonized by Christian culture for centuries). i think if you're not Jewish, then making sensitive, educated work about Jewish monsters is probably hard mode, but that isn't to say it can't be done. i can think of plenty of bad examples off the top of my head, but i'm sure i could come up with some good ones too if given the time.

of course, this is all just my opinion, & should not be taken as a ruling on what's "okay"! other Jews will agree & disagree with me, which is fine & good. :)

[tanadrin]

The Gish Gallop was a term coined I think on the 2000s internet for a rhetorical maneuver where to buttress an argument you provide a ton of low-quality evidence; that the evidence is bad means it should be easy to refute, but the very large volume means it will take much longer to explain why it's all wrong than it did to copy-paste a bunch of links, and to a certain kind of very naive onlooker, it looks like the galloper is winning--after all, the one interlocutor has presented a ton of evidence! The second interlocutor has to spend so much time bending over backwards to refute it! Surely the first guy is more knowledgeable and authoritative. You aren't going to look at all that evidence yourself, of course--who has the time?

But listening to Dan McClellan talk about the Gospel of John this morning, it occurs to me that I don't think this is disingenuous. Not entirely. I think this is just the style of argumentation a lot of Christians (of a particular religious flavor) are used to. And I'm not just talking about in non- or para-religious matters like evolution. This is how Christianity understands the Bible.

This week's Data over Dogma is about the theology of John, and why it is non-trinitarian (because the Trinity is a much later doctrine developed as a kind of political compromise, maintained only because it had state backing) and does not actually identify Jesus with God (the theological developments are more complicated here; but suffice it to say it was not at all a given that "authorized bearer of the divine name" and "actually God" were the same being in 1st century Hellenistic Judaism, and indeed the distinction between the two had developed in Jewish thought precisely to avoid the awkwardness of anthropomorphic figures proclaiming themselves God in some of the older sections of the Hebrew Bible).

The funny thing is, there are a ton of passages in John that get trotted out as proof texts that Jesus is God. There are very good reasons in the case of each one to doubt that that is actually the correct reading; but of course, if you don't know anything about Greek, all you have are modern translations produced under the assumption of the dogma of the Trinity--mostly for devotional readers of the Bible who would be outraged if the Trinity wasn't in the New Testament--and you have been raised in a cultural and/or educational milieu where it is simply a default assumption about the way the world works that the Trinity is a timeless concept that has been in the Bible from the beginning, it sure looks like one side is spinning up tendentious arguments based on silly semantics that have nothing to do with the religion you learned as a kid.

But this exegetical approach (really, eisegetical) is common to many topics in traditional Christian theology. There are a ton of passages from the Septuagint that the Gospels warp to be about Jesus, even though, in their original context, this doesn't make any sense; sometimes even they're based on obvious mistranslations, like having Jesus ride into Jerusalem on the back of two animals simultaneously because you don't understand appositives. And you can poke holes in any individual bit of this exegesis, but psychologically having a ton of low-quality evidence for a thing is a pretty effective bulwark against thinking critically about that evidence; for every individual argument you knock down, the person you are arguing against is probably thinking, "yeah, but what about all that other stuff," even if they can't actually name all that other stuff in the moment.

And it's not mendacious! This is the stuff of true belief; this is how you get breathless Christian commentators saying the Bible couldn't possibly be written by human hands, because it so perfectly predicted Jesus even in the Old Testament--and the evidence they point to is, to anyone not steeped in traditional Christian exegesis, and especially to Jews who have their own exegetical traditions, absolutely barmy. Like really pants-on-head crazy stuff. But of course even now it is still being processed, in many parts of the world, through a two thousand year old tradition trying to reconcile it all and to normalize it all, and--to bring it back to discussions of evolution on the internet in the 2000s--I can't help but think of all those people who talk about the experience of thinking evolution was so obviously nonsense, because all they were exposed to was the fundamentalist strawman of it. When they finally sat down and began to read about it on their own, from unbiased sources--often with the intent of criticizing it--they realized how distorted their understanding was, and how limited their supposed outside view.

(If there are general lessons to be wrung from this situation, I think it's simply "beware of echo chambers." Social consensus in a bubble can make bad arguments feel much stronger than they really are, especially if you are not exposed to the actual opposing view. Be on guard against mistaking "quantity of evidence" for "quality of argument," especially if you're not gonna evaluate that evidence yourself. Also all religious traditions are fundamentally eisegetical, because in order to keep holy writ relevant to the community its meaning has to be constantly renegotiated. So, uh. If you want high-quality exegesis, ask an academic, not a theologian.)

[my-unorthodox-life]

okay can i vent for a minute? get real personal with all y'all?

i've been a tumblr user since i got my first tablet at age 12, over a decade of having at least one active blog (usually more) so it's safe to say i've both gotten my fair share of hate and found ways of using this app to benefit me and keep me detached from this hate

currently i have 4 active blogs, my main where i do the typical reblogging and updates on my fanfics, this one where i post like a proper blog and reblog jewish things that matter to me, my mental health recovery blog where i talk about my eating disorder and ptsd, and my adult one where i reblog fun sexy stuff and chat about the struggles of dating as sex positive people with trauma.

all very important to me and all have various levels of anonymity when it comes to knowing about me as a person. some have my name, some a nickname, one just my age. plus various tidbits so people know what to expect from my posts and what we can chat about, basic blog rules essentially

in the past few months as antisemitism has gotten more and more common place i of course get more anon hate, i don't turn of inboxes since i do get nice stuff from time to time, and that's kind of the territory of running a blog (i had a trans rights one in the age of kalvin garrah, i think i'll live)

out of those four blogs the one that gets the most antisemitic messages, i mean full paragraphs of truly vile ramblings that read like a nazi fever dream, is the one for my mental health recovery. a blog that i block all but mutuals on, meaning either a stranger or someone i've interacted with is sending these messages

i've started replying to them, cause i feel if they want to be mean and make a fool of themselves i might as well let everyone see (poor guy keeps sending me weird reviews of "my" wattpad fics. i've never had a wattpad account but this doesn't seem to stop him), but what gets me is that blog has the least personal information on it. no name or nickname, no hobbies or interests listed, nothing about what i do for work beyond "pet care", and the only mention of my religion or politics was one post that joking about how my mental health often gets worse around the high holy days (very demure, very mindful)

and yet that's the blog that gets straight up death threats, not even disguised as anything else, just straight up calling me a pig who deserves to burn. not the personal blog where i've posted about israel and palestine, or about dating while religious, or hell even this one that might as well be a "i'm a sensitive jewish minded person! thoughts?" blog.

no the one blog that people feel safe harassing is the nondescript recovery and relapse blog. that's where people feel comfortable.

and it makes me sad, not because of what was said, but because it *was* said. that there's people out there comfortable enough in their bigotry to go up to someone and spew vile hate like it's nothing, but only of course if they can't put a name or face to the person they're talking to

what this reminds me of is when i was in high school i had an art teacher who didn't stand for antisemitic jokes, and there were a lot in my school. one day a kid just asked him "Mr.Dexter, are you a jew?" and his response really stuck with me. he said "It doesn't matter, maybe I am, maybe I used to be, maybe my wife is. But you shouldn't not say mean things just because you don't want to get in trouble, you shouldn't say them because you know it's wrong. If you didn't know, you wouldn't ask."

and i think that really sums up all these trolls i've seen running through jewish blogs or even ones that casually mention it, they know it's wrong but the aren't saying it to a jewish face, they're just saying it to the idea of judaism

these people wouldn't walk up to you on the street and look you up and down and say half of what they feel comfortable typing, but here where they can not only hide their face, but seek out a target that has hidden their own they've found a way to give themselves free reign to say and do whatever they want. to them it's not a person on the other side of the screen, it's the strawman caricature of a jewish person, out here just for them to yell at to get whatever anger they have out of their system

of course there are some people who would say truly despicable things to a random person on the street, but cmon is that person really on tumblr hunting through buzz words to send hate?

anyways i know the compassionate thing to do would be to pray for them to heal what's hurting them so bad, but yanno what, they can suffer a bit first

[liesinmyeyes]

hey, so I'm a new pagan witch and one who has barely practiced anything yet/ has only like 10 pages filled in their book of shadows

i am seeking advice on what to do with myself and my craft and practices, or just hoping someone has felt/currently feels the same way I do because I'm the only pagan witch I know irl and have no one to tell this to.

practicing witchcraft makes me anxious? I haven't really done anything aside from wearing crystal necklaces and sleeping with an amethyst below my pillow, but i'm lowkey afraid to do much more than that because whenever I do research across the internet (don't worry, I don't only take one pinterest source at face value, I make sure to look at other sources on the internet and always check with multiple witchy forums/threads or just simply history sources if the practice is closed/appropriated or should be done as a beginner) - but here is my issue. There's soooo many sources on the internet that tell you so many differing opinions. Some sources will say "NO WAY DON'T EVER DO THAT" while others will go "it's okay and totally safe". I haven't ever read a book abt witchcraft because I know how much TERF-y and culturally appropriate-y agendas they have and the amount of misinformation in a lot of them. I almost got radicalized once before and I told myself "never again", so i'm too afraid to pick up a book half the witches praise for being so good and accurate and half condemn for including TERF bs. I know I should form my own opinions on magic(k) and how I percieve witchcraft but i just get this BOUT of anxiety whenever I see a post anywhere on the internet saying "DONT EVER DO THAT AS A WITCH" or something along those lines... i can never tell what's just gatekeepy fear-mongering and what's an actual closed/dangerous practice anymore and it makes me too afraid to pursue anything because I fear bad things happening to me more than anything. I think it's a side effect of my neurodivergent self wanting to be told exactly what I can and can't do (considering my ethnic identity) and how and when to do it, what moral code to abide by, which is a tough ask in something like witchcraft.

i often feel swayed and get these bouts of guilt for NOT being christian. I grew up areligious in a very christian country with an added sprinkle of shaming people for being religious (which i dont agree with obvs). When I was agnostic and not giving any thought to religion at all, it was fine and dandy. But now that I identify myself as a pagan who worships the greek gods, I often feel, idk, ashamed of it? I'm friends with some very devout christian gals and whenever they talk about going to church or getting their sins forgiven I just feel so guilty and kind of like I'm sinning myself. I feel like I shouldn't be believing in the Gods and should be christian instead, even though SO many of my world views don't align with christianity's teachings and frankly, I don't want to be christian? I want the Gods to be real and I want to worship them. But I often doubt my faith in them and feel the guilt of not being christian like everyone else in my country. Is this a faith issue? On some days I won't doubt the Gods existing at all and feel all happy and uplifted and sure in my faith and on other days I'll be sitting around all day, questioning all my morals and beliefs and questioning whether I'm going to hell for praying to the greek gods. Maybe it's because of all my sorroundings (multiple churches in my town, Jesus statues everywhere, very christian friends) that I feel that way, but if anyone could tell me how to stop these thoughts I'd give ANYTHING to do that. (Not that there's anything wrong with christianity or finding comfort in it, its just that whenever I think about it I get anxious because the concept of eternal torture just for enjoying life on earth scares me. On the other hand, I DO find comfort in worshiping the greek gods. I feel more beautiful, inspired to write, so on and so forth...)

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

What do you think of Grrm's portrayal of religion?

Hi anon, this is a really interesting question, and it took me awhile to put together what I hope is a coherent answer.

For context, I think GRRM's background is important to keep in mind. George is almost exactly my parents' age and belongs to the same demographic of American anti-war ex hippies who aged into broadly liberal baby-boomers. Their radicalism has largely mellowed over the years, they may not be the most up to date on the appropriate terminology, and they tend to prioritize nonviolent solutions to systemic problems (my mom often tells me the younger generation needs to do another March on Washington). One thing liberal boomers also tend have in common is that often they grew up religious but, as they entered their 20s and went to college, broke away from the churches of their childhood. My family is full of ex-Catholic liberal boomers like George. They might have dabbled in Buddhism or Hinduism in the 70s, New Age mysticism in the 80s or 90s, and ended up settling into statements like, "I'm spiritual, but not religious." Almost invariably, they have a sort of disdain for organized religion, which they associate with a kind of yokel mentality, a place for anti-Choice anti-LGBTQ traditionalists. Although they will profess "to each his own," to the average liberal boomer, the church represents regressive values and they cannot imagine why anyone would willingly return to it. Even those who did remain religious take great pains to make it known they are not like those Christians. And to be fair, liberal boomers have a good reason to feel this way. The churches of their childhoods were not fun places for people whose own ideas and values went against post-WW2 broadly white middle class values. Unsurprisingly, SFF authors tend to fit into this category.

And this sort of bleeds into a lot of 90s SFF. You see a lot of worlds that have religion, but rarely do you have characters that are religious, and even more rarely do you have sympathetic young protagonists who are religious. You might have the occasional kindly priest or nun type, but far more often these characters will be abusive, mean spirited, or narrow minded (think of Brienne's childhood septas). Religion is often treated with the same disdain by in-world characters as it is by the authors themselves. You might even have worlds that are almost entirely secular, with vague references to "The Gods," but without any real religious traditions constructed around them (Robin Hobb's Realm of the Elderlings series, which features two vague dieties, Eda and El, who seem to have no religious traditions surrounding them whatsoever). You might have cultish religions that are actively dangerous and must be stopped, or you might have Catholic church analogues, existing in opposition to everything cool and fun. Protagonists tend to be cynical non-believer types, or they might start off as true believers and lose their religion along the way. Rarely are they allowed to have sincere and abiding faith.

And you can see a lot of this in George's writing, in the way he portrays the Faith of the Seven and other religions, and the way the fandom receives them. The Faith of the Seven is Westeros' answer to the Catholic church, but there are also the Old Gods, the faith of R'hllor, and others, often presented in opposition to each other. George himself sees religion as a divisive force, and in ASOIAF, we see religions in conflict with each other, we see them weaponized to fuel vendettas, we see them used to drive prophesies and start wars. There's a clip somewhere, of George at a panel, where he's talking about religious conflict and his take is very reminiscent of George Carlin's-- you can tell he knows the bit. "Are you really going to kill all of these people because a giant invisible guy in the sky told you too? And your giant guy in the sky is different?" George asks, receiving a round of applause from the crowd. It's a very modern view on religion, which is fair, I think. He's writing for a modern audience who have modern conceptions of the church, and he is making a deliberate point about the harm religion can do. .

What I do think is missing, or at least downplayed, are the ways in which the medieval church was really a driving cultural and social force in medieval Europe. We live in a secular society, so we have the luxury of disregarding the church in a way that medieval people did not. This is one major way in which the worldbuilding of ASOIAF departs from the real world middle ages. To portray the medieval church as a primarily regressive institution that mostly drove conflict is too simplistic. The Catholic church is what culturally unified most of western Europe into what was known as "Christendom." The clergy served political functions, such as providing an important check upon the power of medieval kings, and when the power of the church declined, despotism grew. Socially, for most western Europeans, the church was also the center of day to day life. Insofar as medieval peasants had any opportunities for leisure time and celebrations, most of these revolved around the church. The church was for centuries a driving force behind art, music, literature, and architecture, and it also performed important social functions, such as operating poorhouses and leper-houses, and providing educations for children.

And all of this was just extremely normal. Most people prayed multiple times each day, and sincerely believed in heaven a hell. The state of one's soul after death was such a real concern that the sale of indulgences-- a way that you could pay to get your dead loved ones whose souls were in purgatory into heaven more quickly-- became a major racket for the Church. I've seen the HotD fandom react to Alicent Hightower's level of devotion calling her a religious "fanatic" and I cannot stress enough how absolutely normal Alicent would have been in medieval times. This is where I blame the framing of the show more than George, because it does set Alicent's faith in opposition to Rhaenyra's seemingly more modern values, but does it in a selective way. For instance, Alicent comes off as prudish, and modern audiences hate a prude, but we never see how her faith would have certainly inspired her, as queen, to take other more progressive actions such as giving alms to the poor or bestowing her patronage upon motherhouses. In another post about the fandom perception of Valyrian culture, I talked about how this modern view of devout belief, particularly Catholicism, tends to cast anything that is presented in opposition to it as an unequivocal good, and I see this sort of rhetoric slung around the fandom a lot, "why would you defend the pseudo-Catholics who hate women??" But the pseudo-Catholics are really just normal medieval people, and they didn't hate women, they simply lived in a patriarchal society and the material conditions did not yet exist which would allow them to challenge that in any meaningful way.

[stagefoureddiediaz]

what if we've missed some major Eddie foreshadowing???

What if we all followed the red herring and missed a massive clue the show has given us about Eddies arc?! I'm going back to season 7 - 7x05 to be exact and the conversation Eddie has with Marisol when he gets back from Bucks.

The scene plays out like this;

Marisol: I should have told you, about the nun thing. Eddie: Why didn't you? Marisol: Because no man has ever looked at me the same after he found out. There's two types of guys, the ones that get freaked out by it and the ones who get a little too into it. Eddie: Maybe theres a third? The kind of guy who just needs a minute. Marisol: You don't need to slow walk it. If you're not ready for this... Eddie: Yeah. I don't think I am. Yet. so here's something you don't know about me. This moving too fast. I do it a lot. I just go with my gut and let my head catch up later.

Obviously the literal meaning is obvious - the reality of relationships as experienced when something that has been kept secret is revealed. The meaning of the words said can be taken at face value but thats doesn't have to be the only meaning and fandom explored the subtext.

Now I don't think our theorising about the subtext of Eddies storyline in that episode and that scene being about catholic guilt and it setting up Eddie's reckoning with the catholic faith is wrong - I think it very much is about that. But what if there is a second subtextual meaning hidden underneath the catholic guilt and the set up for a catholic faith arc. One that is part of that catholic faith and Eddie arc, but is also its own thing separate from it?!

I know I always read those lines and the idea of a third guy being a play on the idea of people falling into three categories - religious, agnostic or atheist. The third guy being the agnostic as it sits in the middle of that spectrum. Eddie sees himself as catholic and therefore religious. Even though he is lapsed and therefore agnostic is something he hasn't really grasped about himself because he hasn't needed to. until now.

The conversation preceding the Eddie-Marisol conversation above is also really key for this scene - because it sets up the idea of a third way. There is plenty of subtext and metaphors in that scene - Eddie not wanting to go home is a metaphor for the house of god - the church. Eddie at this point in the scene thinks his only options are to go home - to religion - to be fully practicing, or to not return at all - become atheist. Buck revealing he and Tommy were on a date is a metaphor for the third way - agnostic.

This is still a valid way to view the meaning of the scene and sets up Eddies arc for the rest of the season and going into season 8 really well.

But...

The Eddie - Marisol conversation takes place immediately after Eddie’s chat with Buck - when Buck comes out as bi and Eddie says nothing is going to change between them. A loaded line that make it clear that things have already changed between them and that they will continue to do so.

What if it’s also a metaphor for sex in a more literal sense.

'The ones who get a little too into it' are the ones who enjoy and have sex regularly (we're shown and told that is who Marisol is in this episode multiple times) - we'll use hypersexual as the term here

'the ones who get freaked out by it' are not interested in/ don't want or need sex and don't have it - are ace.

Those are the only two guys Marisol describes and that is key. It is Eddie who suggests a third way and describes what that third way is - 'The guy who just needs a minute' - doing this means that this is who he is - he is the third way which is a metaphor for demi sexuality - needing a minute is short hand for needing a connection - needing a bit of time to build up that connection that then allows sex to become part of the conversation. It’s foreshadowing- hinting at Eddie’s demi-sexuality and setting up his s8 arc. 

Eddie also talks in that scene about really getting to know each other, that line works on all the various levels of subtext as well - Marisol gives eddie that minute and they are shown 'getting to know each other better' getting to know each other better is also a reference to the idea of Eddie seeking out religion again and getting to know that aspect better but it also plays into the idea of demi-sexual Eddie. Him getting to know himself better and not going with his gut without paying attention to his brain. Figuring out that giving himself that time to see if sexual attraction does develop - rather than starting out with sex early on and then panicking when it doesn't.

This plays into what happens later in season 7 with Kim - it gives him the parallel of Shannon - who he was friends with first - which is why he had sexual attraction to her when their friendship turned romantic. Things with Marisol are not following the same pattern - he isn't finding that connection with her. But he's still learning and figuring things out so when he comes across a doppelgänger of Shannon it allows him to test things out further on that front and not just the not being having let Shannon go of it all.

The fact we see nothing remotely sexual for Eddie in the rest of the season with Marisol, and the decision of the show to go with Eddie hugging Kim rather than kissing her along with the Adam and Eve and snake imagery we get with Kim (her hair is up in a snake knot bun) is really interesting.

Whilst the time we see him spend with Kim can be read as being dates (which is the intention and technically what they are) they can also be read another way because of the lack of romance and sex we see when it comes to Marisol. Marisol is the representation of the church - of catholicism. Kim is the opposite end of the spectrum - she is atheism which is why she has the snake knot bun and the leather outfit and also the dark lighting. she is the snake in the garden of eden tempting Eve (Eddie) to eat the apple. If they had kissed in the later scene then it would have represented him eating the apple - him not doing so means he didn't - that he resisted temptation where Eve did not. Its the play on the religious meaning, but its also a play on the sexual spectrum meaning as well - catholicism v atheism v agnostic.

Buck is very heavily connected to all of this narrative. not only because of the scene preceding the scene about three types of guy, but also because it is him Eddie drops Chris off with before he sees Kim and he is the person Eddie opens up to about Kim. He is always the middle ground. He is the representation of agnosticism in the religious subtext and demi-sexuality in the sexual subtext (what Bucks position on the sexual spectrum is is irrelevant - he represents the connection needed to feel sexual attraction in this context)

There is a third subtextual reading as well (again a subtext that is foreshadowing) - that has only become more clear as we've started season 8. They do like their threes in connection with Buck and Eddie!!

Eddie is going to reckon with/seek advice from the church - so he is going to explore his faith which sets up another 3 way situation- this time it’s the religious agnostic and atheist metaphor from a sexuality standpoint- religious = straight - heteronormative, agnostic = bi and atheist is gay - the opposite of heterosexual! 

Eddie won’t need the third way here (or maybe he will - perhaps the show is going to make Eddie Demi and bi - it would be kind of amazing rep if they did. Or maybe Eddie is going to to be Demi and bi initially because he thinks that’s what he is because of Shannon, Ana and Marisol but will ultimately figure out he’s gay when he is shunned by the church for dating a man (metaphorically speaking - it is his parents who would most likely be the representation of this!) 

I don't know how this became so long and how it went off on a tangent I didn't mean it to but here we are welcome to my brain 😂😂😂

[nightmare-foundation]

I'm thinking again about the take that the brother cult religion as seen in The Infinite Man (or similar to it) is a widespread/well known religion in modern Remnant.

And like... i do LIKE the idea of there still being a Brothers-based religion on Remnant. Fantasy religions are always fun, and it'd be fun to explore how that might effect Remnants societies.

But like. It's almost laughably false. It's a cool headcanon, and I like seeing it in AUs (I use it myself), but when talking about canon, it's just not true.

For one, there isn't any discussion of religion in any rwby material, at least nothing truly in-depth. None of the characters are ever stated to be religious in RWBY, and we also don't really get any hints of religion in the entire show? We never see any churches in Vale, Mistral, Atlas or Mantle, and the only thing I can think of that MIGHT be a church is the building in the v4 Ruby-focused short, though we never see the inside of it and it could just as easily be like, a town hall or something. Specifically, it has statues of 2 women in front of it, so if it IS a church, it doesn't appear to be Brothers-based.

Also in v4, Qrow states to RNJR that "Not many people are religious these days". I highly doubt that this line is untrue? First of all, Qrow has absolutely no reason to lie. Second, I doubt this is a case of Qrow being an unreliable narrator; even if he believed that all of the other religions were "fake", this would still be a very odd thing to say if religion is widespread?? It's like if you were talking to your friends and said "haha yeah not a lot of people are religious these days :)" which would obviously get you VERY weird looks. On top of that, none of RNJR ever seem to recognize what he's talking about. Qrow never says like, idk, "Do you know about [insert name for Brothers religion]? Yeah, they're real. In case you don't know the story- [insert convenient religion/lore dump for the audience]". At least, if i were writing RWBY and wanted to make it clear the Brothers were still being worshipped, that's how I'd write it.

Qrow does, obviously, phrase it like it WAS a religion- which is true. But it doesn't seem like it's like still a religion, and if it is, it's certainly not big anymore because religion on Remnant has slowly died out.

And about Fairytales of Remnant, it isn't a "propagandistic hit piece", it's a book of fairytales that Ozpin put into Beacons curriculum. I doubt a tale in a widespread religion (or religions) would be put in a book containing fairytales, at least not without public backlash. That'd be like if you put the story of Noah's Ark into a book containing things like Cinderella and Snow White. If Ozpin really wants to create a Light-based cult in the modern day, he wouldn't do that lmfao. (Though that would be a HYSTERICAL move on his part)

Also, the topic of the Brothers (and separately, them being real) is treated like it should be kept secret. Ozpin never told the Inner Circle about his task either- they follow HIM, not Light, and the Gods aren't really treated as important by anyone. The Relics are more important, both before and after the reveal in v6.

And in general, there's nowhere in RWBY on Remnant that shows that it's main religion is a doomsday cult. If it was as widespread as Christianity is in the modern day, that would SHOW. And people on Remnant seem very against controlling religions and doctrine like these, both The Infinite Man and the Great War showing this. Oz's biggest achievement up until that point... was creating a TOWN dedicated to his task. A freaking town. Where peoples main desire was to learn how to defend themselves and the people they cared about, which was promptly destroyed by people who HATED the idea of a doomsday cult (reasonably so) and completely forgotten afterwards. And you're telling me he'd be more successful with an oppressive religion right after the war that was fought partly BECAUSE people hated that kind of oppression?

And like... idk it doesn't track with Ozpins character as it is now. It's sort of a Rose Quartz/Pink Diamond situation- we see how he is now, and then shown how he WAS, and think how he was is how he is now. And like. I don't think how he is now would do that kind of thing- it's blown up in his face multiple times, why would he keep trying? On top of that, there's multiple other pieces of evidence that he's saying NO to Lights task and the Gods' return. And like... i feel like the end of the war and post-war kinda shows that he kinda Gets the balance thing? Even if he doesn't realize he gets it, he kinda... did the thing the Blacksmith was talking about. Destruction to clear away the wilderness (the Relic of Destruction was presumably used during the final battle, then he tore down the world's militaries and monarchies), and then he created (created institutions of learning, created an entirely different form of government, and raised Atlas. Idk which this one goes into, but he also helped free Vacuo).

He... kind of Gets the whole balance/actual meaning of destruction thing (hello, the circle/cycle theme in the Infinite Man?). I mean, it's sort of how his reincarnation works. I don't think his current belief system is very compatible with Lights at all. Plus it seems like he kinda... doesn't like the Gods. So it doesn't make sense for him to continue working towards his task at this point.

Anyways. There's no proof there's a modern Brothers-based religion in RWBY, and it doesn't fit with Ozpins character at all. I like the idea, but it's better as an au.

[deathsbestgirl]

In my mind, I've always considered Scully to have a difficult relationship with desire. She feels it--deeply, intensely--but she feels it's too revealing to own up to. The greater she desires someone, the harder it is to confess to this out loud/publicly. It feels incredibly intimate, almost too exposing to bear. What are your thoughts on this? How would you describe her relationship with desire?

ohhh! i love this question, it's something i think about a lot. i don't think i quite have a clear cut answer. i agree completely with what you say. scully feels very deeply and that definitely extends to desire and love, which is something i have a hard time integrating with her religion.

scully believes in god but she drifts from it & the church throughout the series and goes back to it, it's a pretty consistent thing she experiences. and something i've always loved about her faith is how private & personal it is to her. she wears her cross because maggie gave it to her. sometimes i think of it as something she bears. but she does believe, it's just still hard for her.

now, i'm not religious, i didn't grow up religious. but my wife did and so did one of my friends. and their experiences are wildly different. there are some sects where you do not question god, the bible, the church. but there are others where they encourage, to really learn it & understand it and build a relationship with god (to my very small understanding??) and i imagine scully was allowed to question. she talks about prayer as a conversation with god, and just. the way she lives i don't think her belief of/in god aligns with the church and is part of her drifting from the church and fighting it at different points. (all this basically to say, i don't think she sees any of it as sin or against her beliefs/religion.)

and openly expressing it, i feel a lot of it is tied to knowing where the other person stands and her insecurities. like she can show mulder such love & care in specific ways (the doctoring, the support she gives him in demons, etc) and even ask him to get out of the car (their odd little communications lol) but taking the leap? it scares her. giving herself completely is terrifying to her, especially when she's already given so much of herself. i think it's actually very consuming to her and the breadth of it is what scares her, what she's capable of.

like the closest she gets with mulder is detour and he ran, and she never does something so overt again. but with jerse, she didn't have a problem. she wasn't looking for something lasting. there was desire, and rebellion. but not love, not something deep or life changing. even with daniel, she might have been able to fall back into something with him but ... that would have been "easy" and scully doesn't choose the easy thing. she chooses mulder and the x files every time. her experience with daniel in all things is what helps her come to terms with her choices & desires.

i always come back to scully's "always the strong one" and she hides her vulnerability. i think of mulder as her conduit for vulnerability & compassion. because she cares as much as he does but she keeps it locked up, private as much as she possibly can. she loves her family but she doesn't confide in them about big important things (mulder is the one who calls maggie when she has cancer & decides to get treatment, wetwired was an anomaly of her extreme paranoia toward mulder aka the only person she trusts).

so i just find it very hard to unravel with scully. it's something so layered and kind of contradictory. but it's also so clearly intense & deep. when they're finally together and mulder is abducted, the depth of her pain can't be hidden. she rails at doggett but sobs in his arms. skinner feels incredible guilt for having lost mulder, cries when he tells scully, fights for what he knows to be the truth and scully pulls him back just by gently touching his arm. in season nine, she writes with such beautiful heartfelt intensity, no one has any doubt of what mulder is to her. she reaches a point that it doesn't matter what people know or don't know, she can no longer contain it in that tiny body of hers. after all things (and even before that, in smaller but still very noticeable ways) it pours out of her.

and actually, this made me think about emily. when she talks about holding people at a distance because she is so aware of death & loss that connection almost seems fruitless. i think we talk a lot about how mulder can't lose scully, but it's equally true for scully. the idea of loving him completely and losing him crushes her. and we get to see her without him in s8&9 and she really is barely holding it together. i genuinely think the only thing that kept her going was william and the minuscule possibility that he would come back. be returned to her like she was to him. she had to believe that would happen because the alternative was too scary to believe. and then she still had to go through his death. she had to bury him while carrying his child. (and she already had gotten a taste of losing him in field trip, and she completely lost it in her hallucinations too, before they were ever "really" together.)

i don't know what exactly i mean by all of this. but i don't think it's desire she really struggles with, i think it's her intensity. the lengths she'll go to because of it. what she's capable of because of it. the possibility of loss she can't bear and doesn't want to burden someone else with either. but it's something she can't walk away from, can't abandon when it's expressed to her or it's her "only" chance.

[spacelazarwolf]

Seeing how you're responding to a lot of insensitive asks from Christians, I was wondering if I could ask a good faith question as a change of pace?

I am religiously a liberal quaker, so one of the most important things to me spiritually is learning about how other people engage with god/their higher power. By listening to their experiences and making a strong effort to understand their perspective, I feel more connected with God and my community. Specifically, I want to learn how individuals engage in their faith and not just the "by the book, this is what x religion believes" you find online.

I've always had a deep respect for Judaism, and I want to approach the people in my circle and try to have those good faith learning experiences if they are willing, especially since the Jewish faith is so rare where I live.

Unfortunately, with a lot of my ethos and language being derived from Christ (even if I'm not a christian), it makes it feel like a minefield to even start the conversation. I'm queer, and the man who raised me was native American. I'm very aware of how being connected to Christianity, even only tangentially, will immediately raise red flags for people. And for good reason.

So, how do I disarm myself? I want to hear people's stories, I want to know the Light in them because I truly wish to love and understand them as they are. How do I approach and ask for consent for such a thing without it feeling like I'm waving a torch in their face?

i would start with gauging your level of awareness and education when it comes to general jewish stuff like history and practices and holidays. if you want to get more into the nitty gritty with hearing people's stories you'll need that foundation first if you really want to understand them. there's tons of books, websites like myjewishlearning, and you could even try contacting a rabbi and asking for an in person or phone appointment with them to ask some questions and get some suggestions for what resources to use. once you have that foundational level of understanding of judaism and the jewish people, it'll be much easier to talk to jews about more personal things.

in terms of actually approaching people, if they're your friends, then hopefully they already have a good idea of what kind of person you are and if they're comfortable sharing with you. if you don't know them as well, make sure you're not just going into the encounter with the goal of "learn jew stuff" and that's it. they're whole people, and you don't want to treat them like a jewish encyclopedia.

we can usually tell when someone is being genuine and when someone has weird or bad motives, so as long as you're respectful and honest about what you want from the conversation, and maybe share a bit of yourself as well, most of us are happy to talk about it.

also quakerism and quakers have always seemed very cool to me. i heard it's much more about a way of life instead of a set faith, which feels a lot like judaism to me. also y'all have the public universal friend so u r winning.

[wortcunningwitch]

i work with my ancestors. for this reason, as painful as it is to see my grandma decline mentally and become increasingly brainwashed by her far-right church, i still try to keep up with her life.

the whole concept of being able to love people that spew hatred towards my identity would have been a lot harder to embrace at the beginning of my practice. now, though? if they're part of my family, nothing, to me and my current practice, is more important than connecting with them.

talking to my grandma -- really relating to who she is outside of her church -- has strengthened my bond with my ancestors, which is crucial to my veneration of them. she was born just before the post-ww2 baby boom; many of her childhood memories, which she gladly shares with those who listen, are of people like my (2x-great-) grandma "goldie": born in the late 19th century, raised in the rural midwest.

my ancestor goldie is someone that i would've learned jack shit about if not for my own grandma. if i hadn't dedicated myself to pushing through the frustration of hearing my grandma's right-wing word vomit, i wouldn't even know this ancestor went by one of her middle names. i wouldn't know that she never cut her hair, and that she always wore it in a bun at the nape of her neck. i wouldn't know that she read bible stories to her grandchildren -- my grandma and her siblings -- in her living room. i wouldn't know that she used to sit under a tree with my grandma and prepare green beans to be used in stew -- a memory that my grandma shared while i was doing the exact same thing with her one day. if not for my grandma, i wouldn't get to call my ancestor goldie my grandma, too. i wouldn't be growing out my hair in her memory.

it's difficult. i know it is, especially at this super tense moment in our history. i'm a queer, disabled leftist, and to some extent, my grandma knows this. but i understand why she is the way she is. i understand, through talking to her, why she copes with her trauma through religion. she can be incredibly rude, inconsiderate, and bigoted; but somewhere underneath that front is a kind, vulnerable woman that was manipulated by a religious institution.

you can cut ties from your bigoted family. you can remove yourself from their life. none of this is wrong, unjustified, or bad. but if you're a bit like me, and ancestor work is a priority in your practice, please never underestimate the resources -- memories, heirlooms, stories -- that your relatives can provide (and google can't). your ancestors are more than a name, birthday, and death date on a page.