#secular vs non-secular

[derangeddolphinofmagic]

society recreates itself

[ranilla-bean]

The Iconoclast: Appendix

This is the appendix for my fic The Iconoclast, in which I will discuss some of my cultural and historical inspirations for the worldbuilding.

Disclaimer: I'm certainly not an expert on or practitioner of all the cultures I took inspiration from. In outlining my influences I hope to show my admiration and give appropriate credit to them.

Contents

Intro

Religion

Martial culture

Talent show

Miscellaneous

The Iconoclast is set in the same world as ATLA, about 800 years before the era of the cartoon. I was inspired by 10th-11th century societies; the Fire Nation is inspired by the Khmer empire, Kyoshi Island is inspired by Heian period Japan, and so on. Of course, the aesthetics of Hari Bulkan are heavily inspired by Angkor—Virtual Angkor was a huge help in visualising the city. 

The immense population of Angkor was sustained by intricate water management techniques. The Khmer built reservoirs to collect water and sustain agriculture through the dry season. However, the impressive structures of Angkor had a dark side: they were built by enslaved labourers. Enslaved labour was extracted through human trafficking and debt bondage. In The Iconoclast, I integrated the institution of slavery with the caste system.

The exception to my adherence to periodisation was in the Inuit traditions that inspired the Southern Water Tribe, as the 10th-11th centuries appear to have been a period of migration eastwards across the Arctic for Inuit people. In addition to this, periodisation in Inuit history is more difficult to reconstruct due to the colonial destruction of knowledge. As a result, I took broader inspiration from pre-colonial Inuit culture.

Religion

The Fire Nation is based on the Khmer empire, which in this period adhered to Hinduism before the uptake of Buddhism. The cult of the Devaraja (lit. “god-king” in Sanskrit) arises from the specifically Southeast Asian branch of Hinduism. The Devaraja is regarded as the avatar (in this case, a human incarnation) of Vishnu. The Khmer king was marked out by dress: he wore a golden crown, or a wreath of flowers. His palms and the soles of his feet were stained red. He wore a sampot patterned all over with flowers—the more flowers, the higher the status.  

I conceptualised Zuko as being seen as an incarnation of the sun. Following Hinduism, this would be Surya. Fanon tends to use “Agni”, in fact the god of fire. Either way, as a non-practitioner of this religion, I’ve personally avoided using gods still worshipped today in my worldbuilding. My inspiration has largely been in the philosophy of religion.

Such philosophical ideas include: dharma, avatara, ahimsa, and brahman vs. atman. I found the Bhagavad Gita highly informative in developing these concepts—themselves debated in Hinduism—as well as ideas about the dilemma of Arjuna and the imagery associated with Krishna. I had an enlightening conversation with my friend Tana, who convinced me of the need to address the legacy of caste and casteism arising from the text. Ideas of caste carry certain baggage in the western world that I wanted to pare back, hence the differing terminologies of “in-” and “out-caste” used in The Iconoclast.

The philosophies of Hinduism overlap with and develop in slightly different ways in Buddhism, which I explored through Choden. One instance is the Hindu notion of the Chakravarti, an ideal universal emperor (lit. “the one whose wheels are turning” in Sanskrit). A non-secular Chakravarti would in fact be a Buddha, someone who has reached enlightenment. Since Choden is the one who introduces this concept, I used the more literal term “the Turner of the Wheel” to disambiguate from “Buddha” (which immediately draws certain connotations), and also to draw a more direct relationship between the Arjuna imagery associated with Zuko.

This religious worldview stands in contrast to animism of pre-/early Shinto Japanese religion and Inuit spirituality, as reflected by Suki and Sokka. Princess Mononoke was in fact a huge inspiration! I conceived of the kami in the context of Shintoism before the major influence of Buddhism; Suki also worships at a kamidana shelf.

For the Inuit, all things have anirniq, “breath/soul”, which lingers even after death. Therein lies the tension: between the need to hunt for survival and the vengeful soul that the act of killing liberates. The website I used as my source has a great quote on this: “the great peril of our existence lies in the fact that our diet consists entirely of souls.” These souls must be placated through ritual and observance of taboo. 

Importantly, I was interested in how each practitioner of religion approaches that philosophy in their individual ways, so none of the characters are perfect “representatives” of an ideal embodiment of that religion. Zuko is wary of his god status. Choden’s obsession with Zuko as Chakravarti makes her an outlier among the airbenders. Sokka trusts his “material” technologies of survival (i.e. weaponry) over spirituality, even though he practises the rites still, such as the smearing of lampblack and ritual words.

Martial culture

Sokka’s weapons generally mirror the ones he had in the show, with some additional embellishment. The snow knife is used to cut snow, but applied into a martial context by Sokka. The metal is sourced from a meteorite and cold forged; my inspiration was the Cape York meteorite, which Greenlandic Inuit used to fashion tools. Sokka’s club is made of jawbone, the strongest bone and stronger still from a herbivore. I combined the caribou and wombat into the “caribombat” for this, a nod to both an important Arctic animal to Inuit culture and to Sokka’s antipodean roots.

Suki is based on early samurai. She uses the fans from the show, but instead of the katana (which we see her wield in “Appa’s Lost Days”) she uses a tanto, which is a kind of predecessor of the katana and can be used as an offhand blade or a weapon in its own right. Women could also carry a smaller version of this blade for self defence. Her armour is Heian period do-maru armour, which was a lighter development on older styles of armour, made of scales of lacquered leather. I was particularly in love with the idea of her having a helmet and a men-yoroi mask, which was used as facial armour.

Zuko’s fighting style is inspired by bokator, a Khmer boxing style. He uses the short sticks instead of the dual dao, which can become truly dynamic weapons!

Talent show

Suki’s performances are based on the Japanese tea ceremony and bianlian from Sichuanese opera. The preparation method of the Japanese tea ceremony—whisking powdered tea—is in fact borrowed from the Chinese Song dynasty, which fits the time period of the world. Bianlian involves a performer very quickly changing a series of masks to a secret technique. It’s way more fun to watch on video than to read, I admit!

Osha’s dance is… meant to be the royal Cambodian ballet. The dance evokes the apsaras, dancing celestial beings in Hindu culture (incidentally, they are depicted on the walls of the fire temple on Full Moon Island). And just like western ballet, it takes years of training and skill to master!

Miscellaneous

Druk is, in this conception, a naga instead of… whatever unholy mix of cultures’ dragons LoK drew him as. Nagas are found across South and Southeast Asian cultures, and in Khmer culture they are typically represented as serpents—sometimes with multiple heads. They are associated with water, prosperity, and various other positive connotations. There’s a whole rabbit hole I don’t really want to get into about why I’m putting a water-associated creature in the Fire Nation (East Asian dragons are associated with water too!) but I do want to point out that there is a natural phenomenon on the Mekong called “naga fireballs” so… I’m running with that. 

Full Moon Island is Crescent Island… before the eruption that turned it into a caldera.

Osha’s name is not a health and safety pun; I’m not American and I call it WH&S, it was a total coincidence. It means “shining” in Sanskrit—apt for a Fire Nation character, I think. 

[germiyahu]

I would like to politely request that if you find yourself not understanding the point of my posts, don't engage with them. Don't embarrass yourself.

Because I certainly don't want to have to point out the irony of a person reacting to my (long winded) wry post about how uninformed uninterested Americans project and misinterpret the motivations, on a societal level, of Israelis and Palestinians... in a way that completely confirms that. You don't understand Zionism, point blank. You have not done your research, you do not understand why Jews for their entire history have yearned to return to Eretz Yisrael, and so you lie about that history, or you uncritically regurgitate other people's lies that you've heard about it.

You don't expect better of Muslims either, and there's a reason I only mentioned how people like you interpret this conflict to be about Jews vs Muslims, so do not pretend you care about the maybe 10% of Palestinians who are Christians. I note that the antizionist crowd routinely erases Bedouins, Druze, Samaritans, Circassians, Christian and Muslim Arabs who choose an Israeli identity over a Palestinian one. Not a single antizionist can mention the actual diversity of Israeli society without acting like their teeth are being pulled. So spare me.

My post was a (long winded and wry) assessment of what I have seen and what I think the general slacktivist Left conceive of Israel and Palestine. That it's a conflict between enlightened secular Christian-Lite white people who should know better, who should be over things like wanting a return to Zion... and what you see as noble savage barbaric Muslims who at least live a good honest non capitalist life, and we as the West owe them whatever they want because the War on Terror was horrific, yes.

But in the process you 1) erase the Jewish heritage and connection to their indigenous homeland, and replaces every single motivation for Zionism as racist imperialist bloodthirsty greed. Have fun gaslighting all of us as to how that's not blood libel. And you 2) excuse suicide bombing, targeting civilians, stabbing and driving over random people, mass shootings, war rape, hostage taking, torture, making fun little games out of torture... you'll excuse everything Hamas and their allied groups do in the name of "resistance," not just because you dehumanize Jews, but because I believe you really don't think Muslims are capable of being better than that. And because yeah, they're attacking Jews, who you view as privileged and annoying and the root of all problems in the world, so that's another reason not to expect better of them.

It ignores that there are tens of millions of Muslims who care about democracy, human rights, coexistence, peace... a lot of them are Palestinians. But you don't listen to them, you don't let them take the lead in their own liberation movement. You cheer on fascists because that's what a Muslim is in your head. Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, now the Houthis: masked insurgents who have no regard for the sanctity of human life, no regard for their own people, sadistic manchildren who are only interested in enriching themselves and causing pain in the world, thinly scaffolded with the most cruel interpretations of a religion that a billion people follow. The only difference between you and your conservative racist parents is that you think the terrorists are the good guys now.

But thanks for stopping by :)

[oc-poll-tournament]

OC Poll Tournament Round 1 Poll 6

Propaganda below the cut:

Eddie Alfaro (she/her) @calicohyde: Eddie Alfaro, she/her. Eddie is the third person narrator of my horror WIP Curse The Messenger, about her and her sibling Fred using their clairvoyant abilities to solve a paranormal murder. Eddie has premonitions in her sleep, where she dreams from the point of view of someone else as they die. She has severe PTSD and Survivor's Guilt from this! Because of that, and because of her grief for her missing parents, she struggles with alcohol dependence.

Normally, Eddie and Fred only solve the typical kinds of Private Investigator cases - theft, infidelity, etc. They are mistrusted in their community because of their gifts, as other witches tend to think clairvoyants are mentally unstable and dangerous. In the novel, they get their first - and only - murder case when Jessica Hase, a secular (non-magical) femme fatale, brings them the very weird case of her girlfriend's death. Throughout the novel, Eddie falls in love with Jessica, starts attending an alcoholics' support group, learns to use her gift to see the positive aspects of death, and tentatively starts to repair her strained relationship with Fred. And solves the murder, of course.

Eddie is Latina, 24 years old, and a butch lesbian. She likes sporty punk fashion, cuts her own hair, and doesn't shave or wear makeup. Her favorite color is red and her favorite flavor is cinnamon.

Chess (she/her) @concealeddarkness13 (the picture for her is made by the wonderful @drabbleitout, and she is the person on the left with the prosthetics in the picture): Chess is a special character, and I hope to show how special and awesome she is! She’s extremely distrustful, but she’ll trust people who even treat her with an ounce of decency, and she’ll protect the people she cares about with her life. She’s flirty and confident, but underneath, she has an abysmal amount of self esteem and thinks she’s a monster that will never have love or friendships. She is my blorbo who has been rotating in my mind for the past two years, and I hope you can love her as well! Someone described her in one of the AUs I’ve done as oscillating “between being a poor, wet little meow meow and a fierce feral protective lioness being held back by the scruff of her neck because she is still little”. (credits to @ratracechronicler)

She did start out with a loving family, but like all good protagonists, her parents were murdered when she was 10, and she was left alone. Especially because the society she lives in ignores violent crimes and the victims of those crimes, erasing them all from society as if they never existed. So, she technically didn’t exist in society’s eyes, so she couldn’t get a job or own property or anything. The people around her helped her for a few years until she was old enough to take care of herself, and then she learned to steal.

At twenty years old, she was kidnapped and forced into prosthetics experiments that gave her fire magic that hurts her, from her prosthetic right arm and left leg now. She has a magic fire in her lungs that flares up during physical or mental stress and burns her throat and makes her cough up smoke. Aeflin, the person running the experiments, believed her to be very strong (because she snarked at Aeflin so much and didn’t let her see her pain as much as possible), so she decided to make Chess into her weapon.

She changed her name (since Chess’s original name was Ezra) to Chess, and she put her through even worse torture. Finally, Naivi, the other person running the experiments, got Chess her own team and sent her out into the world to do what the experiments were for and to get her away from Aeflin.

Chess tried to escape that, but a random person found her and took away her memories and brought her back into the enclosure, where most humans are trapped. And she realized right away that the humans inside the enclosure found she was from the experiments and hated her and hurt her and called her a monster because God forbid women do anything (just trying to survive). She learned that the only way that she could get a warm place to sleep (not an alley) was to make herself attractive to people and flirt. She liked sleeping with people, but she mostly did it to have a warm and somewhat safer place to sleep. And even then, she’d have to stay alert because her partner could wake up and try to hurt her.

That’s where she is at the start of her story! She will get a found family and someone or someones to love! She’s pansexual and polyamorous and flirty, and she loves physical touch! She just wants people to treat her decently, and if she has to, she’ll fight to protect her boundaries. And she loves punching jerks in the face with her prosthetic! And we love a woman who loves to fight, right? Thanks for reading!

[world-of-wales]

The Indian PM is asking for votes in the upcoming election by saying that voters shouldn't support the opposition leaders coz they eat........Non-vegetarian food.......

This isn't him relating environment problems and veganism/vegetarianism, but rather him campaigning that in a secular country only his party is the best because they follow the moral and vegetarian majority religion. Which is funny in itself since, except for North India, the rest of the Hindus in other parts consume all kinds of non vegetarian food items.

And to most people outside India, this vegetarian vs non-veg debate might seem foolish, but here it is proving to be the main election agenda now. A lot of people may think oh he's advocating for being vegetarian, that's great. But unfortunately not in this case coz his party which is filled with upper caste Hindus mostly use this argument of food choices to demonize minority communities in the country, they deny protein to poor children in the meals provided to them by the state in public schools, their supporters go and harass & have in many cases k-worded innocent people in name of 'Cow protection', force butchers who come from low income backgrounds to shut down their stores making them unable to earn even the meagre ammount that they do etc etc. So veg/non-veg in the case of Indian elections rn is so much more than just a debate on dietary choices.

So, no talks of education, health, economy, jobs etc this election season but rather cheap and completely nonsense topics during campaigning. And I wish I could call it satire, but unfortunately this is what the so-called largest democracy has come to.

This issue is just the tip of the iceberg of all the things that need to be changed in this country to take it back to where it was before this train wreck that the past decade has been and to start rebuilding it brick by brick.

The reason I'm posting this today is that, I want to request anyone who's eligible to vote in India to PLEASE GO VOTE! exercise ur right. Don't let anyone tell you that your voice doesn't matter coz it does. And it's never been more essential for you to make use of Article 326 and cast your vote. It is ur fundamental right.

I don't think there could be a more appropriate time to ask you for this, as it is the 133rd birth anniversary of Dr. Ambedkar today, the father of the Constitution. The man who fought all his life to make sure everyone in his country had democratic fundamental rights. He gave you that Constitution that protects you and your interests and rights. The tip of his pen changed the world you live in today for the better. So please don't let that the sacrifices made by him or of all those in the Constituent Assembly, of all those who came before you go to waste. They gave this country their all, so you could have all the freedoms that you do today. They gave you a constitution based on liberty, equality, fraternity, secularism, socio-economic democracy etc to protect you, the citizens. And now, as these rights slowly get encroached upon, it is more important than ever before for you to assert these rights.

Go read the election manifestos of the parties and learn about the candidates fighting elections from ur constituency. Please make an informed choice. Don't go and vote for people on the basis of religion, caste, etc. Go and vote for that person who actually talks about the on ground issues you face, who has plans to make ur life, and the society you live in better. Who promises to give you the basic rights that you deserve, someone who promises not to infringe upon the fundamental rights as enshrined in the constitution, the one who talks about creating better employment, creating a robust health system, making sure every child in this country has access to quality education, someone who wants to create a safe space for women not just out in the world but also in the private sphere, someone who promises to work towards dealing with the problems of inflation & other economic problems you face, someone who wants to work towards dealing with the vast enomic disparities that exist across the board. Someone who wants to work towards providing safeguards for the most vulnerable people and communities, etc etc.

Go on the website of the election commission, check out the dates of vote casting in your area, mark that date, wake up that morning take ur voter id card and please go push a button on the machine at the particular booth you fall under.

Don't let people tell you that you are young, you don't know what you need, you shouldn't be jumping into political discourse, don't let them discourage you from exercising the most important right the constitution has given you. TRUST ME, YOU DO KNOW WHAT YOU NEED, POLITICS AFFECTS YOU TOO, THE GOVERNMENT POLICIES AFFECT YOU TOO, SO YOUR VOICE IS JUST AS IMPORTANT IN THESE UPCOMING ELECTIONS AS THAT OF THE OTHERS!

YOUR VOTE MATTERS. IT'S NEVER MATTERED MORE!

[starstuffandalotofcoffee]

hey, can we avoid absolute statements about "terf" being "meaningless"? obviously it gets misused and distorted, like many other terms. but in reality there are many feminist-identified cis people who explicitly or implicitly see trans people's existence as anti-feminist and unworthy of feminist goals. the right has successfully exploited this view to pull people into their generally transphobic agenda, but the phenomenon also exists on the left, even among those who otherwise call themselves trans allies. if we want the left to defend trans people, be a political home for trans people, we all have more reason than ever to notice and resist this type of thinking. please let's keep a little perspective.

I mean this very seriously: I do not know who you are at all, and I have not made any original posts. This is a conversation you should be having with OP.

With that said, this post, which I assume is the one you're talking about, is literally saying "call people transphobes if they are transphobic." Period. End of Sentence. It does not say "this is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon." It does not say "you should not call out transphobia in feminist spaces." The issue is that many people have successfully conflated being a transphobic radical feminist with being a feminist at all, or alternately conflate being a general run of the mill shithead rightwing transphobe with being a radical feminist. It is horrifyingly common for people online to call outright "we must get up the birthrate/women are property" types "terfs" instead of "misogynist homophobic transphobes".

like...OP, for example, has been a big proponent of 4B. and you know what, I have complicated feelings about that because I'm someone in my mid-30s who really didn't think I wanted children until quite recently, and am single and am having a lot of difficult personal considerations that this election has complicated even further. but I do support women who are choosing 4B. and that includes trans women. And it is people from the left who are attacking 4B as transphobic (vs. people on the right who are just attacking it bc they are misogynists who think women should submit to men) even though it is about avoiding sex and children and marriage with men. If you think that trans women are women then you should automatically think that trans women can be 4B and can be partners of people who are 4B. If you see the word "woman" and don't automatically assume it means "trans women" that is on you, and in fact I think it will be more effective to fight these transphobic self-identified feminists by, instead of acting in bad faith and assuming that whenever any feminist says "men" they mean "cis men and trans women" and therefore by extension assuming all feminists are inherently transphobic unless they shout from the rooftops "NO, WHEN I SAY WOMEN I ALSO MEAN TRANS WOMEN", using the word "women" and assuming anyone who isn't a violent bigot knows that trans women are part of that group.

(obviously if you are trans I understand that you might need to do a calculus based on context clues, in the same way that any oppressed minority needs to confirm that spaces do in fact include them. It is not different than how I as a Jewish woman need to sus out if non-denominational/secular/interfaith means "not anti-semitic"; this post is not about that.)

There are people who identify as radical feminists who are trans-exclusive. I personally think TERF is not a useful term anymore BECAUSE if you are not for ALL bodily autonomy for ALL women you are not a feminist. Being trans-exclusive should, in my opinion, take away your feminism card. We should treat them as transphobic infiltrators in feminist spaces, and not as feminists of any kind, radical or otherwise, and we should call them transphobes. That is what I mean, and that's what I think OP means. It is not a denial that there are self-identified feminists who are virulently transphobic (and specifically transmisogynist). It is saying "we need to stop calling these assholes feminists and start using the word 'transphobe' across the board, regardless of the other political beliefs they may have or claim to have." When it's not uncommon for people to call both Putin a TERF AND actual trans people who (correctly) point out that "uterus-havers" is a really alienating way to talk about people who can potentially get pregnant TERFs, yeah, I think it's worth retiring the term. This isn't a denial of the reality; it's saying that the specific word isn't used to reflect that reality in a meaningful way.

[tinyladofladdies]

welcome to tinyladofladdie's ! blog . . 𖦹°‧★🐚

about this page . . ˙✧˖° 🫧 ⋆｡˚꩜ :

i felt compelled to make a blog centered around sharing ✞the Gospel of Jesus Christ✞ on tumblr. the internet and technology oftentimes tend to be the source of a lot of evil and secular living, but i believe that for modern-day Christians, with a sudden inability to avoid technology in most spaces, if we are going to use social media, we can add a lot to the internet space to glorify God in the way we present ourselves online.

i want my page to be a safe space to share the Gospel, share testimonies, talk about Christian issues as well as how to navigate modern topics as a Christian, ask questions, and seek help 𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝 ( keep in mind, i am no mental health professional nor pastor. if you are facing a serious crisis, i will pray for you and do my best to help you with biblical advice, but i would highly recommend seeking immediate sources of help if something is more troubling than any help i can provide. )

🌊☆⋆｡🪼 if you’re a Christian and want to participate in this blog by testifying of God’s goodness, sharing advice, answering questions, or just interacting, feel free to stick around! please remember to operate through God’s grace and truth and represent Christ well as you interact with this blog. 𓆉︎ ࿔*

𓇼🧉❀🐚 if you’re a non-believer and find my page interesting, or a non-believer interested in asking questions / finding information (whether for the sake of skepticism or for the sake of seeking salvation), you’re also welcome to stick around! you’re so loved here regardless <3

𓆝 ⋆｡𖦹°‧🫧 heed . . while this page may eventually contain topics that are controversial at times, i believe there is a difference between conversation and argument. all people are welcome to exercise their opinions, questions, etc., but the last thing i want is for this page to become a place of toxicity or for anyone to feel mentally drained after a conversation. arguing for the sake of insulting or bringing anyone down, asking questions in bad faith with the intent to trap, mock, etc., are not what this page is for. disagreeing in a conversation is normal and not discouraged! starting an argument for the sake of bringing toxicity to my page is not welcomed or encouraged (see below for more details on how to interact with this blog!)

🌊☆⋆｡🪼𖦹°‧★ how to interact . . ˙✧˖° 🫧 ⋆｡˚꩜

｡ﾟﾉ 🪸🪼`◌ some ways that i encourage anyone to interact: come as you are, share what’s on your mind regarding the topics spotlighted on this page, ask questions, share your perspectives, seek safe space, reassurance, or advice. <3

Ꮺ °˳◌🫧`˳ how not to interact: trolling, bad faith “questions,” only entering or starting a conversation on this page for the sake of disrespecting Christianity (vs. asking a genuine question and simply disagreeing on a topic), insulting others, anything along these lines.

while i understand that the culture of today commonly uses certain phrases that many don’t think twice about, i respectfully ask that whether you are Christian or not, you do not in any way use the Lord’s Name in vain when commenting, asking, or submitting on my page. any blasphemy or disrespectful remarks about God will be removed & blocked. thank you.

◌🌊🐚Ꮚ°˳´ about me !

๋Ꮺ🗯️ you can call me scotty or little lad! the former is not my real name and the latter obviously isn’t, but both are alias’ i would like to be addressed as here on my tumblr. i commonly use little lad or something along those lines as an online username, and that phrase reminds me of scotland, which is part of my heritage and scottish gaelic is a language i am currently attempting to learn, hence where “scotty” came from.

˖°𓇼🌊⋆🐚 i am a ✞follower of Christ✞, currently attending and serving a non-denominational Christian church in socal. i am an 18 year old girl and still a senior in highschool as of now (graduating soon!). some of interests of mine include: learning about history, theology, and religion as a whole, marine biology & chem, music/choir, certain video games, TV shows, and movies [franchises], the ocean & sharks !! i have many miscellaneous interests and things i eek ! over, so honestly either ask more if ya want or wait to unlock the lore as i casually show how much i love some random small thing online from time to time. i love making friends so please don’t ever feel intimidated to interact with my blog simply for friendship purposes!

˚˖𓍢ִִ໋🌊🦈 if you’re ever interested in learning about my viewpoints on specific theological topics, feel free to ask in the ask box or in a comment or message! theology, Christianity, and religion as a whole is such a complex topic that i cannot list every in-and-out of what i believe regarding church history, theology, etc. however, one other label i would give myself is “Bible-believing Christian,” on all topics of all time periods, what God defines as right and wrong remains regardless of culture or personal feelings!

◌🌊🐚Ꮚ°˳´ some other resources:

what is the Gospel? ✞

my testimony ✞

𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 𓆝

｡ﾟ 🪸🪼 creds!

copy & paste symbols: xiaosworld & moontslight

dividers: roseraris

[quietbluejay]

Horus Rising 4

Horus: okay so where to next? well I have someone who wants to talk and Mal (best Mal) limps in

time for our intro to him

<3

no one really likes him except Horus lol until they thought he was dead and he came back and now he's permanently injured

he gets hugged by Horus and Abaddon lol

anyways it looks like they'll be heading out to succour the Blood Angels who have encountered some resistance Horus says he's going to consider all the options but i mean

okay time for the inner circle to meet in private

oh, and Dorn too Dorn, I will note, as I noted the first time I read this, does not get a fancy description he just gets described as being as big as Horus lol

time to run through some more primarch names and their reactions to Horus' appointment as Warmaster and again there's the mention of Perturabo not being happy about it (and Angron) so like what was up with that re Perturabo also I note the names that are left off the list completely: Curze, Corvus, Vulkan, Alpharius, Ferrus

dorn does not understand the need to give em the ol razzle dazzle

also dorn is wearing red armour interesting and a red velvet cape

oh Sigismund is also there i forgot about this he approves of Loken lol he also thinks the Crusade will never end

i do wonder how much of a characterization sigismund got before this like i know there were those other horus heresy books that covered some stuff

torgaddon trying to dispel the tension and stop this fight before it gets physical right in front of dad torgaddon: cmon sigismund do you really think you have a chance in a straight fight vs the luna wolves? we're the best of the best sigismund: whatever helps you sleep at night tension successfully dispelled

they all banter a bit more with Sigismund before Dorn jumpscares them

Dorn has a 1 on 1 with Loken that's hm interesting choices of words

Dorn: just be yourself

heh that's a good way to end a chapter with the first crack in the perfect horus façade

school trip lmao iterator is bringing a bunch of remembrancers to the embarkation deck euphrati is there but not mersadie it's extremely noisy also the iterator is doing tour guide stuff lol

keeler takes a shot of the stormbirds in a row iterator: i told you no records!!! keeler: i thought you were joking - i'm a photographer, what did you think i was going to do? iterator: i…uh… then he quickly has to go herd some more cats as a couple of the remembrancers start wandering off iterator returns back after she takes a flurry of pictures iterator: please can one of you stay in line, things are tricky enough as they are after the Incident keeler: ??? iterator: i don't know the details but it was bad keeler: you have a very nice voice~ you could ask me to do anything~ the iterator blushes lol

time to explain oaths of moment which are also a thing in 40k, i've gathered

their totally secular and non-religious rituals oh the rest of the mournival showed up to say bye to loken he does his oath of moment

loken does in fact have a sense of humour lol

so it's done with, keeler reviews her photos and has a spy (sindermann) watching over her shoulder he likes her photos lol so sindermann managed to wrangle keeler and the others in this group of six as going down to the surface to document things

:) ah i remember what's coming up

heh

heh heh they try cleaning it up and all the static is there but now there are actual words

"like a rustle of silk" yeah im once again putting a word choice under the microscope but also samus for once actually being kind of cool loken figures it's their enemy trying to scare them heh

so the stormbirds are causing panic among the rural inhabitants of the area bad omen they're also more religious out here

so they're up in the mountains

classic loken takes an ominous step towards the officer

rip officer dude officer: ok so what's up with the voices officer: samus has been talking loken: they're just trying to scare us officer: well, it's working

samus is continuing to mutter into the vox lol

loken: it's pretty effective as a tactic, huh loken: but we're here now so it's not gonna work

couldn't happen to nicer people oh there's some symbolism

samus is still going and loken is really irritated

back with the remembrancers, they're also asking who is Samus sindermann: uhhh it's nothing he gets a message over the vox sindermann: oh that's interesting sindermann: yeah nothing to see here! keeler goes over to talk with him privately they're also all pretty high up and a lot of them are having to use oxygen

the insurgents who held off the regular army for six weeks fold like paper under the assault of the luna wolves loken isn't bothering to do a kill count "there was little glory in this, just duty"

:(

next room is a natural cave and it's full of…stuff

loken: these are offerings. destroy them.

geez they killed nearly a thousand people, zero casualties on their side, in slightly more than an hour

they found a bunch more offering caves loken feels bad that these men all died for nothing, as he sees it "they're scared of the truth we bring" uwu

vipus: at least samus has shut up now you just haaad to jinx it lol

heh

Jubal is standing near a waterfall at the edge of a mountain

there are words in the water captaiinnnnn

loken gets his men to restrain jubal, then asks where the rest of hellebore squad went jubal: they couldn't see it! time for jubal to start attacking everyone

for all we complain about samus being annoying later i do think he worked pretty well in his initial intro

[slavicafire]

very interesting breakdown regarding rodnovery from Scott Simpson’s Strategies for Constructing Religious Practice in Polish Rodzimowierstwo:

A purely academic reconstruction of a religion from the past is “legitimate” when it is made up of fragments which have been selected solely on the basis of the academic authenticity and reliability of the evidence. When a particular fragment had not been recovered, a scholar may always choose to simply leave that space blank without perverting the intention of the reconstruction (whether it be pottery or religion). Rodzimowiercy, in contrast, need to have a complete and functional religion in order for it to be legitimate. If the participant finds her- or himself in personal need of a Slavic marriage ceremony, then that space must be filled by something in spite of the lack of a conveniently pre-existing Pagan marriage script from, say, the Wiślanie tribe in the early 10th century. It would be a serious perversion of the religious intent of such a reconstruction to give up suddenly at that point.

the strategies Simpson describes below the cut. a very recommended reading, too, so I hope the full text will get some attention as well. 

1. Direct re-enacting: faithully replicating a custom described in sources such as chronicles - which Simpson notices is rarely possible as stand-alone strategy given all the blanks and generally limited sources. the most classic of issues everyone interested in neo-paganism knows and battled. 

2. De-Christianising: removing obvious Christian elements from “sacred” folk practices - think rodnovery Kolęda removing Christian elements from a folk tradition - one that is rooted in customs predating Christianity on slavic lands, and so can be stripped back into its more “original” (and pagan) form.

3. Sacralising folklore: taking elements of “secular” folk tradition and re-framing them in religious practice - for example, elevating folk melodies to sacred songs accompanying rodnovery rituals, or adapting the circular toasting custom of passing a drinking vessel among participants of an event as a religious expression other than just a secular way of toasting common among peasants.

4. Sacralising the archaic: emphasising ancient, archaic, timeless, non-modern aspects, moods and motifs - similar to above, putting religious emphasis on things which in the past were simply common. think archeological finds regarding clothing and adaptation of everyday clothing of the past as sacred or ritual clothing for modern reconstructionist practice. another example: drinking horns and mead being chosen for religious ritual because they are seen as more authentic (incorrectly) than wine or cups which are “too modern”.

5. Sacralising the natural: emphasising that which is organic, untamed, rustic. the clear emphasis on low-tech content, everything is wood or stone or raw wool - celebrations are more likely to be felt as legitimate if they happen in the forest rather than in a bar. 

6. Aesthetising: artistic embellishment of existing practice. think how focused rodnovers are on creating religious visual art, music, craft mead for celebrations, hand embroidered banners and altar cloths, representations of deities and reimaginations of symbols. this helps build a language of religious expression which for rodnovers is much more communal and reliant on members of the religion. not every member of christianity feels responsible for making religious art to be used by the religion - that task is usually fulfilled by the hierarchical structure.

7. Indigenising: localisation of ideas and practices found elsewhere. so some foreign ideas are rejected in order to maintain cohesion (for example Valentine’s Day being seen as a US tradition which does not belong on slavic lands) vs acceptance and adoption of others. the biggest example Simpson gives is the widespread usage of Internet and social media in creation of this religious belonging. or utilising fire poi in kupala celebrations.

8. Direct revelation from sacred beings (ancestors, spirits of nature, gods): If the sacred beings are understood as currently real, and if they have made their presence known to the Slavic tribes in the past, then they may do so now. think shamanic approaches, divination, contacting ancestors as beings with agency and influence, interpreting signs from gods.

[nazmazh]

Okay, not that I remotely believe anything resembling this, but...

Right, so, the whole "Anti-Christ"-thing that some groups of fundamentalist assholes believe in and fixate on -

The kind-of consensus/archetypal image of this Anti-Christ figure is a popular, charismatic celebrity-type who, on the surface/to the non-Believers, appears to be doing good things for humanity and building a popular following, inspiring people to be more like him and raising money and resources for his great and noble causes.

(most stuff I've encountered in this vein has male Anti-Christs, but there have been some that have made the character a woman).

[Sometimes they make the character expressly a politician (usually socialist/communist/New World Order for realsies), but sometimes they have him downplay that as a ploy to seem less divisive.]

Anyway - The True Believers (TM) see him for the fiend he truly is! And they're always like "How can the rest of the world be so ignorant?" And, as the stories are written, the characters aren't wrong on that point, because the AC will always be acting like Snidely Whiplash just off-screen (or even on-screen), despite their handsome and caring persona they put front and centre.

And they're always named something like "Judas Heller" or "Cain Lightbearer" or "Nicholas Scratch" something similarly over-the-top obvious.

Anyway, my whole point here is that while I categorically do not believe in any of that stuff, and while he seems to be a genuinely okay dude who is sometimes a little out of step with what we might consider "normal" vs. "Kinda tacky/exploitative/crass/whatever" - Certainly not an evil, scheming, misanthropic villain at any rate...

Imagine a guy who builds his fortune and reputation doing entertaining content (because any entertainment is evil and takes away bible study time and encourages secularism or whatever the fundies would frame it as) on the internet (new media - inherently evil), who then uses large amounts of money to do big, showy, acts of good on the public stage, increasing his following.

And he goes around calling himself Mr. Beast.

Like... that's just handing them the setup of a Left Behind-style Anti-Christ story, don't you think?

(I can't possibly be the first one to think of this, right?)

[concretecrisiscompatible]

tldr: Let's stop calling things 'demonic'.

When we as Christians start labeling anything any one of us could possibly disagree with as 'demonic' it takes away all the power that word has and reduces spiritual warfare to something only weirdo conspiracy theorists believe in. It's even more insidious when people use it as a marketing tactic.

"Secular music is demonic, so you should listen to my song out on Spotify!" Are there destructive artists out there? Absolutely. There are artists who write hateful songs and do horrible things outside of their music, too. Does that mean all secular music is bad? No.

"[Insert brand here] is demonic, so you should buy this thing I sell!" Do brands do immoral stuff sometimes? Absolutely. Sweatshop labour, exploitative working conditions, environmental impacts, etc. are all very real things. Does that mean that only Christian brands are good?

Boiling everything down to 'Christian vs non-Christian' is super destructive. When it comes to brands or music or behaviors it assumes that every person in the world has no ability to discern good and evil for themselves. It's never black and white.

Not everyone is able to consume alcohol in a healthy and safe way, so not everyone should have alcohol. Does that mean we should ban it altogether? No. We should empower people to make their own decisions in life.

This 'Christian vs non-Christian' mindset is also super exclusionary and divisive. Who is a "real Christian" and who isn't a "real Christian?" Does this mean that we should treat people of other faiths differently?

There are absolutely forces of evil in the world, just look at systemic racism and poverty, the prison industrial complex, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, etc. Not any one person started that, and not any one person will fix it by making Christian sweatshirts and guilting people into buying them. (And I have SO much more to say about using guilt as a marketing tactic, but that's for another day. And even more about treating evangelism like marketing, again for another day.)

Jesus speaks about lifting up the marginalized, loving your neighbor, and creating a healthy community through which injustices rectified.

The Beatitudes:

“'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

'Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

'Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

'Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

'Blessed are those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

'Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.'" - Matthew 5:3-12

And from the rest of Matthew 5:

“So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison." - Matthew 5:23-26 NRSVUE

"But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:44-48

That's all I have to say for now.

Happy pride month! 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️⚧

[blackcrowing]

Book Review of Ireland's Immortals: A History of the Gods of Irish Myth by Mark Williams

While I genuinely enjoyed reading this book, given that it is absolutely packed FULL of information regarding the early written works of Medieval Ireland, I personally struggled with the overly 'anti-nativist' interpretations of absolutely everything.

I think if you study enough mythology you will come to have a healthy appreciation for the 'grey' areas in life, and when it comes to interpreting the meanings and understandings behind the Irish literature regarding their pagan past I find the 'grey' exceedingly nessicary. As Williams himself points out the learned men of Ireland consisted of both literary monks, firm members of the church, and the filid, a type of political/historical secular learned men who were something of a hangover from the druid class of pre-Christian times. He also points out that the Irish as a peoples held great skepticism for 'untrue stories' and intellectually gives space for the Christian learned to work their pagan past into the new world order as a way to elevate themselves into a position of being 'special' even in their pagan past.

But with all of this noted I found Williams' analysis frustrating in regards to when he chooses to pursue 'nativist' thinking vs 'non-nativist'. Williams' seemed, to me, to have a tendency to excuse any potentally original concepts found in Irish writings, or at least shared IE traits, off as metaphors for biblical tales or political powers, failing to even entertain the idea in most cases that (as with many oral stories) it could be both. The writers could have easily taken the existing pagan stories and weaved subtle changes into them to accommodate them to a modern audience without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We have modern retellings of fabels all the time and generally they are still recognizable as the original story regardless of modern adjustments to reflect the current time. On the flip side he also seems to take what appear to be clear later additions, like the physical deformities associated with the Formorians, and simple write it off as being missing from earlier texts because the author was ignorant of them or wished to avoid them.

Don't get me wrong, I think this book is an must have addition to a personal library of anyone seriously interested in the Irish literary tradition, Williams provides a absolute mountain of research history and provides an invaluable introduction to the stories, history and themes around early Irish writtings. I just believe that his personal views on the subjects can be troubling and one should be aware of what they're getting and adjust their expectations accordingly.

[keshetchai]

I think somebody asked you this already but first further clarification, what is the functional difference between a religious law and a secular one? As I understand it secular laws can potentially just be abolished or thrown out or whatever if a large enough majority agree to it (at least in an ideal democratic society) whereas while a religious law can be reinterpreted it presumably can’t simply be removed completely?

This is kind of too nebulous to answer the way it's phrased.

From a Jewish specific perspective, the answer is that Judaism simply doesn't conceive of laws as "secular" and "non-secular" because no one in the ANE divided laws into those exclusive and neat categories. This sort of thinking simply didn't exist, because categories of explicitly secular vs non-secular was not a mindset people used. If anything there would be "our laws" and then "their laws which apply to us."

Even into the middle ages, Christianity had things like "secular clergy" which illustrates rather neatly that "secularity" has definitionally changed over time.

Also from Wikipedia:

Scholars recognize that secularity is structured by Protestant models of Christianity, shares a parallel language to religion, and intensifies Protestant features such as iconoclasm, skepticism towards rituals, and emphasizes beliefs.[9] In doing so, secularism perpetuates Christian traits under a different name.[9]

So the very notion of secularity is fundamentally keyed to a Christian framework and perpetuates Christian norms and ideas about what religion is or is not, and what is neutral to religion or not.

I'll paste the wiki references because they're interesting:

Berlinerblau, Jacques (2022). Secularism: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 9780367691585.

"In the first part of this book we will chart the slow, unsteady development of political secularism (Set 2) across time and space. You might be surprised to see that we'll trace its origins to the Bible. From there we will watch how secularism's core principles emerged, in dribs and drabs, during the Christian Middle Ages, the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment. Secularism, some might be surprised to learn, has a religious genealogy."

Thomas, Hugh M. (2014). The Secular Clergy in England, 1066-1216. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198702566.

Secular Priest Religion Past and Present Online. Brill. April 2011.

Eller, Jack (2010). "What is Atheism?". In Zuckerman, Phil (ed.). Atheism and Secularity. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. pp. 12–13. ISBN 9780313351839. 

"The point is that the sacred/secular dichotomy is, like most dichotomies, false. "Secular" certainly does not mean "atheistic" or without religion, definitely not anti-religion; in fact, as I illustrate in a chapter in the second volume of this collection, there is a proud tradition of "Islamic secularism." Despite the predictions of the "secularization theorists" like Marx and Weber, "modern" or secular processes have not meant the demise of religion and have actually proved to be quite compatible with religion—have even led, at least in the short term, to a surprising revival of religion. The problem with earlier secularization theories is that they presumed that secularization was a single, all-encompassing, and unidirectional phenomenon. However, as Peter Glasner has more recently shown, "secular" and "secularization" embrace a variety of diverse processes and responses, not all of which—indeed, few of which—are inherently antithetical to religion, Glasner identifies ten different versions of secularization, organized in terms of whether their thrust is primarily institutional, nonnative, or cognitive... The upshot of this analysis is that secularism most assuredly does not translate simply and directly into atheism. Many good theists support the secularization of the American government in the form of the "separation of church and state," and all of them go about at least part of their day without doing religion."

 Blankholm, Joseph (2022). The Secular Paradox : On the Religiosity of the Not Religious. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 9781479809509.

Judaism addresses "Jewish law" (which does discuss "secular" topics - that is, laws which are not explicitly about religious ritual or religious events) and "not Jewish law" which may be secular or may be the religious laws of another religion entirely.

At the end of the day, jews follow non-Jewish law of the lands that they live in, with the exceptions of like, laws demanding non-Jewish religious worship.

In terms of Judaism, halacha is based laws with origins from the Torah (mitzvot d'oraita) and Rabbinical laws (mitzvot d'rabbanan).

[rametarin]

'Political balance'

Linguistically, we need to stop talking about "political balance" when it comes to left-wing right-wing stuff in history and social studies. The elephant in the room is that it's not a left-wing right-wing thing. And it hasn't been, for a long time.

It's ideological vs. empirical and objective.

Ideologically, the "left wing" has been fashioning interpretation and telling of history around the idea anti-capitalism is correct and Marxist greviance is as well, and proudly coming to conclusions with these operators without ever explaining that these are interpretive lenses, not mathematical formulas to determine truth and fact. No different in their function than trying to apply creationist, religious dogma to the perception of the world.

Secular, objective, empirical facts and reality do not require Class Struggle Theory, or Queer Theory, or Critical Gender Theory, to validate or shape their positions or interpret them. And that is the conversation being had here.

The Left Ideological position is that all white historical figures were bad, aided, abedded or committed genocides of non-whites because rich and white and male, and that if there were no white people, there would've been no slave trade nor slaves nor disrupted lives in Africa. They go on to say industrialization that destroyed the environment is solely the responsibility of Eurocentricisism.

And even more insulting is they go on to talk about your average mewling leftist who complains about exploitation abuse of indigenous communities as just a liberal, "whom is pretty much just a conservative-lite, anyway." If that latest crank I watched on youtube is to be believed. The kind of professorial twat that put these extremist ideas in the useful idiots and sheep anyway, just to turn around and make fun of them as feckless radicals that no one told to act that way and they're somehow above it and right, because they're Progressive, not Liberal.

We don't need conservative historians, social studies teachers or sex ed teachers. We need people that aren't fucking drinking anti-capitalist, socialist flavor-ade like it's a Jonestown hootinanny. We don't need the sort of people that will support the idea the Lincoln Memmorial should be destroyed, "because Lincoln didn't really care about slaves."

The time is right. We can call it for what it is, and there's enough understanding and awareness across communities and ethnic enclaves and islands for the conversation to be understood. It's not right/left. It's "woke" just being the wink and nod of intersectional feminists and socialists trying to consolidate all minorities under a single political tent, and everybody else. And the hard-left is hungry and looking to eat.

And it's good that they're emerging and separating themselves from liberals. They've polluted liberalism with their profoundly illiberal bullshit and hid behind them for too long, as liberals tried to keep them hidden both because the Progressives work hard to rally, and because in a two party system, they can't afford those stubborn purist assholes sequesting themselves into their own party instead of trying to co-opt the liberal democrat platform.

But they're starting to get more visible and aggressive, and the accusation there's more than one person in those pants is getting more and more substantive. We don't need "balance" between right wing and left wing views, we need to point out when one view is ideological horseshit and requires entire textbooks worth of mental gymnastics in order to even exist in the room, and when one doesn't.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Ryan Burge

Published: Oct 26, 2023

The nones are rising.

If there’s anything that I’m probably known for - it’s that simple statement. There are more non-religious people in the United States today than at any point in the history of the country. The best estimates put the share of folks who are non-religious right about 30% of the American population.

You can’t get to that share of the population without touching every single demographic group in a country. This can’t just be a phenomenon that impacts younger people, or white people. You name a niche demographic in the United States, there’s a very good chance that they are less religious today than that same demographic group fifteen years ago.

Obviously one of the biggest predictors of this phenomenon is age. Younger adults are way more likely to be non-religious compared to older Americans. The graph below makes that clear.

Among the Silent Generation (those born between 1925 and 1945), just over half are Protestant and nearly a quarter are Catholic. At the same time the share who are non-religious (atheist, agnostic, nothing in particular) is just 19%. Seventy-four percent are Christians and 19% are nones. Pretty big spread between those two groups.

But here’s that same spread - Protestant/Catholic vs Non-Religious by Generation:

• Boomers: 67% versus 27%. +40 points • Gen X: 56% versus 39%. +17 points • Millennials: 45% versus 48%. -3 points • Gen Z: 38% versus 51%. -13 points

Generation Z is the first generation in American history where it appears clear that the share who are non-religious outnumbers the Protestants and the Catholics.

A very crucial part of this conversation needs to be laid out, however. This is not happening at equal rates among generations if you break it down by racial groups. The religious composition of white Americans looks much different than the patterns exhibited by Hispanics or Asians. The graph below makes that really clear.

The white graph at the top is just such a consistent stair-step down for each successive generation. Each younger generation is significantly less likely to be Protestant. A typical decline is six or seven percentage points from one generation to the next. For Catholicism, the drop is still there but it’s way more modest, just 2-3 points per generation.

At the same time, the nones are just exploding. Nineteen percent among the Silents, begets 27% among Boomers, 39% among Gen X, 49% among Millennials, and then 52% among Generation Z. 19% to 52% - that’s the rise of the nones among white Americans by generation.

That same stair-step down is also clear among Black respondents, too. The share of Protestants among Silent Generation African-Americans is the highest of any category in this graph - 70%. There are still a lot of Protestants among Black Boomers, too - 67%. But then, it just falls off a cliff. Fifty-two percent among Gen X, 40% among Millennials and just 27% among Gen Z African-Americans. A forty-three point drop from the top to the bottom.

At the same time, the nones are rising. It’s about a quarter of older Black respondents, but leaps to nearly forty percent of Black members of Generation X. That seems to be the biggest leap for African-Americans, by the way, between Boomers and Gen X. Something shifted there, big time. Now, 52% of the youngest Black adult Americans are nones. Basically the same share as white Gen Z.

For Hispanics, it’s not Protestants who take the biggest hits - it’s Catholics. I think this is fascinating. Among Hispanic Boomers, 21% are Protestant. It’s the same share among Gen X. It does drop slightly to 15% among Millennials and Gen Z. But that six point slide is minute compared to the forty point drop between Black Boomers and Gen Z. That same number for whites is 22 points. Hispanic Protestantism is just not declining that fast.

The Catholics, though, are a much bigger story. Nearly three quarters of the oldest Hispanics in the United States are Catholic (72%). However, there’s a huge decline between the Silent Generation and Boomers - down nineteen percentage points. Then, the declines slow down some. It’s a six point drop for Gen X, a five point drop for Millennials, and then a huge dip - 11 points for Gen Z. The total decline in Hispanic Catholic share is 41 points from the top to the bottom.

The nones are the big gainers among Hispanics, clearly. Just 23% of Boomer Hispanics are non-religious. It’s 30% among Gen X and 40% among Millennials. Nearly half of Gen Z Hispanics are non-religious. Not that much different than white or Black young adults.

The pattern for Asians is just completely different, no other way to describe it. The share of Asians who are Protestant or Catholic by generation doesn’t really deviate that much. I think it’s very fair to say that younger Asian Americans are just as likely to be Catholic or Protestant compared to their older counterparts. That’s the only racial group where that’s the case.

In fact, there are just not these huge generational differences between older Asians and younger ones when it comes to religion. About the same share are from the “other world religions” category, regardless of generation. When it comes to the share who are nones, I can’t definitively say that the youngest Asians are more likely to be atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular compared to older Asians. That really stands out in comparison to every other racial group in the sample.

[ Continued... ]

Unfortunately, the rest of the article is behind a paywall, and a cached/archived version doesn't seem to be available at the usual locations.

[gay-jewish-bucky]

image id for this post

lee-the-goat

The English Wikipedia article on Zionism, 2021 vs 2024. Absolutely disgusting filth shoved into the article by rabid drones of the (((antizionist))) movement

Zionism is both an ideology and nationalist movement that espouses the establishment of, and support for a Jewish state centered in the area roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, the region of Palestine or Eretz Israel on the basis of a long Jewish connection and attachment to that land. In 1844 [cut off]

vs

Zionism is an ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe. It eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became the ideology supporting the protection and development of Israel as a Jewish state and has been described as Israel's national or state ideology.

humphul

the whole wiki article is incredibly loaded and filled with buzzwords, generalisations and claims that don't match up with their excessive sources:

The movement itself recognized that Zionism's claim to Palestine went against the commonly accepted interpretation of the principle of self-determination.

Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist.

thinly veiled comparisons to Nazism (and erasure of Jewish ethnicity) (the "volk" part is especially disgusting):

Early Zionists were the primary Jewish supporters of the idea that Jews are a race, as it "offered scientific 'proof' of the ethno- nationalist myth of common descent". Zionist nationalism drew from a German ethnic-nationalist theory that people of common descent should seek separation and pursue the formation of their own state.

This re-conceptualization of Jewishness cast the "volk" of the Jewish community as a nation-race, in contrast to centuries-old conceptions of the Jewish people as a religious socio-cultural grouping. The Jewish historians Heinrich Graetz and Simon Dubnow are largely credited with this creation of Zionism as a nationalist project. They drew on religious Jewish sources and non-Jewish texts in reconstructing a national identity and consciousness. This new Jewish historiography divorced from and, at times at odds with, traditional Jewish collective memory.

(please, goy, tell us more about Jewish collective memory...)

historical revisionism (and quoting random Syrian Arab Muslims on the question of Jewish indigeneity):

According to Hassan S. Haddad, the application of the Biblical concepts of Jews as the chosen people and the "Promised Land" in Zionism, particularly to secular Jews, requires the belief that modern Jews are the primary descendants of biblical Jews and Israelites. This is considered important to [cut off]

assumptions, playing into the hands of Israel's critics and fueling the indignation of the displaced and stateless Palestinian people," whilst right-wing Israelis look for "a way of proving the occupation is legitimate, of authenticating the ethnos as a natural fact, and of defending Zionism as a return". A Jewish "biological self-definition" has become a standard belief for many Jewish nationalists, and most Israeli population researchers have never doubted that evidence will one day be found, even though so far proof for the claim has "remained forever elusive".

(sorry for cutting the quotes short, the author uses extremely long run-on sentences)

and it gets real vague whenever any actual Jewish concepts come up. pay attention to how they fill their gaps in knowledge with buzzphrases like "nationalism as a doctrine":

Haredi Judaism and Zionism (See also: Haredim and Zionism) Some Haredi Orthodox organizations reject Zionism as they view it as a secular movement and reject nationalism as a doctrine. Hasidic groups in Jerusalem, most famously the Satmar Hasidim, as well as the larger movement they are part of, the Edah HaChareidis, are opposing its ideology for religious reasons. They number in the tens of thousands in Jerusalem, and hundreds of thousands worldwide.[citation needed] One of the best known Hasidic opponents of political Zionism was Hungarian rebbe and Talmudic scholar Joel Teitelbaum.

and "for religious reasons" lol this was neither written by a Jew nor by a goy who cares to learn about what they're writing

(for those who don't know: their religious reasons are about waiting for the construction of a third temple in Jerusalem and the ushering of the messianic era. they boil down to "I support Jews returning to Israel, just not yet")

and finally:

This page is protected to prevent vandalism

they turned editing off. Yay