#that christianity is somehow the ‘reasonable’ or ‘civilized’ religion

[deathdefyinglifeleaps]

thanksgiving texts with my friend who was raised fundamentalist:

im tired of christian beliefs being treated as not insane

[ominous-feychild]

I have a Problem in that I love to over-explain things even when I don't need to.

Especially when I don't need to. 😭

On that note! I'm working on my introduction post again (take a guess how many times I've gone to work on it and then stopped) and I went too in-depth when I should really be focusing on making it shorter, haha.

Except... I don't want to get rid of what I've written, and still want to share it.

SOLUTION!

My Obsessions:

✦ Fantasy, horror, mystery, action, and exploration of realistic characters' reactions to the things they go through.

What I write tends to be a reflection of this. My main works are high fantasies placed in what I feel is a more realistic setting--not as in grimdark "realistic", but places that are very used to the existence of magic. Someone who's grown up in a place with magical basically-electricity shouldn't spend five pages fawning over the existence of teleporters. Maybe they'll be surprised. Maybe they'll even be impressed. But unless they have some kind of a special interest in the subject, they'll probably spend more time thinking about how convenient it'll be for them rather than how it works, what it means, and the long, long history of magic... which has been around them for their whole life.

✦ Fairy tales, mythology, and folklore

I called myself "ominous-feychild" for a reason, haha. I like horror, I love fantasy, I adore faeries, and dear god--am I in LOVE with putting them all together! In folklore, faeries weren't cute little pixies that helped everyone around them... or even tiny little pixies that annoyed everyone around them (most of the time). They were the things that went "bump" in the night, that you huddled in close with your loved ones when you thought you might've caught their attention... Or, they made you question if your sister's eyes were always that far apart. Wait, was your bedroom there before? Did... did you even have a sister??? Well, you do now. And you might want to start running.

✦ "Ye Olde History" and language

"Ye Olde" meaning "the further away from modern day, the better." I can appreciate steampunk and actually often implement it into my own writing, but I do not consider Victorian England to be old. Civilization has been tracked back to as early as 4000 BCE, and it's way too easy to google that to think history actually started when Jesus was put on the cross. (Note: I am a merciless agnostic and hate what Christianity did to our world's history. So much was erased just because some bigots thought "stupid people don't think and act exactly like me, they're clearly barbaric! Time to erase their entire culture, massacre their people, and/or destroy their creations! Empathy be damned!!!" Fuck Christianity. To any Christians reading this, I don't mean you--just your religion. But you have to admit, it really sucks.)

✦ DIVERSITY!!!

As I just alluded to, I love learning about things that are unlike me. And, even more than that, I love people feeling like they have a place they belong. I've gone most of my life feeling ostracized, I'm not just going to perpetrate that cycle myself. Besides! It gets exhausting being in echo chambers with the same-old white cishet stories all the time.

✦ Explorations of "evil-coded" characters and abilities--aka, not just showing them as evil. Show them as people (for characters) and tools (for abilities)!

This is actually kind of personal to me. Autism and other disabilities have historically most often been relegated to villains because we're somehow "worse" than everyone else. Even I fell into that trap in the past, accidentally making a villain autistic-coded before I got my diagnosis. Now, I love putting people with questionable traits, powers, and backstories on the good side while the typically "good" things end up as villains. Something something, humans want freedom and freedom is chaos, something something, order is forcing things into boxes they might not particularly fit in because "otherwise, where else would they go???"

✦ Learning!!!

This might be weird, but I have a genuine love for just learning! (Not school, just learning.) I go down rabbit holes researching things all the time--and not just for writing! Obviously two of my favorite subjects are history and language, but I also love earth science and the ways our planet regulates itself to try to maintain balance! (And then we humans screw it up but.) Even in general, I love learning about random things, so if you ever have a weird infodump you really want to share, feel free to tag me in it and I'll check it out!!!

Yeah, by the way, this is linked to my actual intro post!

Divider by @cafekitsune

[aripoimaa]

Sorry to get personal but Im going to be getting married very soon. Now the reason I'm getting married isn't because I want to celebrate my love for another person with people in my life. I don't really feel the need to do that. I already know I love this person and I want to be with them forever and I don't want to celebrate that with a bunch of other people and family. I think marriage is absolutely archaic and stupid. I understand it's so the government can see your union as a legitimate thing and for financial reasonz but surely there's some things that can be worked out or removed..for example like having to post your marriage to the public 20 days before because somehow we have to have to give time for someone to object.. HOW STUPID!! I get the sole choice of who the fuck I marry and still!!! we have that idiotic rule in place. Ceremonies stupid.. officiants stupid... And also not fitting to my situation but the civil union thing being invented so gay couples couldn't say they were married STUPID!!!! I would love to just sign some fucking documents and be done with it.

I don't like that the institution of marriage is deeply tied with religion and Christianity in the west. I think that is absolute bullshit. I think you have to be a caveman to believe that marriage is to solely procreate.

I need to do this shit to immigrate fully so I can be with the one I love and it has been putting alot of stress on me with the immigration process. Visitor records, sponsorship and open work permits... My financial situation also stresses me out. I need to seek a more definite employment in the US than the one I currently have and work my ass off to save money during the sponsorship process.

But through all of this I want to look back at this time as just a period that was rough but necessary to get me to where I am today. If I don't succumb to stress and worry, I'll be able to work as hard as I can for something that I want. I'll look back and know i did the best I could with my own hands and I'll thank myself for the work I put in. If I enjoy the present moment during this time... Take each day at a time with my husband then I know it will be okay.

And thinking about other people struggling too during this time.. it certainly does suck but it helps to know that everybody is working through things as best as they can and they might have some challenges but they're trying to survive.

I have some plans for my art I want to see through before I have to be booted out of Canada again(at least I'll be a married woman by then) but hopefully with some patience, I can achieve them.

[shadowfromthestarlight]

Gonna say something that maybe doesn't make sense to anyone else but it does to me lol.

The biggest reason I've chosen to be a Christian, as opposed to just a theist or a New Ager or something like that, is that I see the hand of God in so many turning points in history, and I've come to genuinely believe that God works in mysterious ways, but He is in control. The idea that God let a person like Jesus Christ be in the world, preaching what he preached, at a time and place where civilization was developed enough for a new religious movement to spread rapidly, a time when there is enough of a literate population, and when there have been centuries of deep and mature religious and philosophical thought paving the way for a complex belief system like Christianity to be accepted, and then on top of that we have St. Paul having his conversion experience and becoming the foremost articulator of the faith when he was originally a very unlikely candidate for this - IDK. It's just too crazy to me to think God just let all this happen without a purpose. God really wanted a man to say that he was the way, the truth, and the life, that he was the route to salvation, in circumstances where this man's teachings would dominate entire civilizations, to the point where billions of people have been baptized in a faith centered on him... when it wasn't true? when he was just some random delusional dude? or he was some random dude whom a bunch of fisherman made believe was their savior, and somehow their beliefs took over the world? Nah, God is way too much in control for that.

This is really horribly put but this is what stops me from converting to another religion lol, I'm actually serious. I can't reconcile trusting in God, and by God I mean a supreme being, the creator and master of the universe, who's interested in human affairs, and not trusting in Jesus Christ.

[small-plant-friends]

Hey there, long time! Somehow, you're the only person I still follow who loves Star Wars, and I just wanted to share an article (link below) that came out today. Do you agree/disagree with the article's premise that Star Wars, the MCU, etc. serve as an outlet for folks who are looking for meaning outside of traditional religion?

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/3986205-a-new-hope-star-wars-day-is-about-more-than-just-a-movie-franchise/

Ok well you've got me going now. Not sure if you were expecting all this but I've been wanting to write an essay and this is a great prompt for me. I honestly don't know if I even answered the question, this is all just rambling. So first off I think it is very important for me to say all of this is my own opinion and I am not a researcher. Also this article is very pro-organized religion.

The article is a very good one. I found it really interesting but not for the reason the article is talking about . The article is basically speaking on the ways in which people are leaving religion, as things like Star Wars and the MCU become more popular. Now I want to make it very clear that I in no way think that Star Wars or the MCU or anything else of the sort are a religion. The article touches on this by saying “of course most Star Wars Day observants are not true believers of the Jedi religion.” 

The article says “even though the vast majority of fans …are not consciously seeking a religious experience, the fact that people in wealthy, technologically advanced nations are turning away from traditional religion may make them more likely to turn fandom into something that resembles faith.” This is where I really start to disagree with the article. This quote is basically saying that people are thinking of fandom as a religion because they don't believe in any traditional religions. They go so far as to say “…research suggests that the growing interest in these alternative beliefs is driven by the need for meaning that traditional religious faiths have historically helped meet.” It is very, very important to point out this research article that is linked is from a journal website and it is therefore not a reliable source. This is a statement saying that religion is a vital part of the human experience and we must feel the absence of it. Now I can say personally, the absence of religion is felt in my life but in a way that is keeping me from ever joining another religion (I was previously christian, it was not the best experiance). This article is so pro-religious that I don't find anything in the article to be an unbiased analysis of the connection between religion and fandom. 

Now, with all that out of the way, here in the opinion of a 21 year old college senior. Disclaimer, I was a hard core christian for the first 13/14 years of my life and have been out of the religion completely for the last 6 years. Also I am a fine arts major, neither writing or research is my specialty, I was just asked a question and had some big thoughts on it. 

So, to segway into this and quote the article one more time with possibly the only thing I agreed with, it says, “...function of fiction suggests content like “Star Wars” isn’t mere entertainment.” Even though the article was using this quote to say Star Wars isnt just entertainment because it was made to secretly be pushed into a religion, this is still true. Stories that people get so invested in are not just entertainment, but a community. I don't think people need religion to have a fulfilled life the way the article above says, but we do need community. With things like growing mental illness, and covid, make these community connections in real life harder than ever before. One way we make a community connection is with the shows and film themselves. People get invested in shows, we become part of the story, we feel anxiety over the plot, and we mourn characters that aren't real but that grief absolutely is real. Christiane Manzella is a grief counselor at the Seleni Institute for Women, she is cited in a TIME article stating “We create meaning and then experience actual grief when that connection is broken.” We love and lose with the people we see on screen just the same as if we knew the fictional people face to face. 

This brings me to the next point; fandom. Fandom is another way that people create community. I don't think it is a religion, I don't think anyone in fandom thinks it's a religion but it is just as important to some people as religions are to others. All fandoms of all parts of media are a way for people to find deep connections with those that have like minds. We grieve together, we celebrate together and we create a sense of community surrounded by many of the same ideas. These are also things that most religions have but most people in fandom don't worship the fandom or blindly believe in the fandom with no critical thinking in regard to the bad things that inevitably occur in fandom. Now there is an increase in people, especially young people joining alternate religions but its not because of fandoms but more directed to the blind faith and support of the bad things that happen and are actively supported by religions.

@zuko-is-crazy I'm so sorry if I rambled myself right out of answering your question but this is an essay on the thoughts that sparked in my mind when I saw your ask.

Dockterman, E. (2015, April 24). 'grey's anatomy' Derek Shepherd: It's OK to mourn MCDREAMY DEATH. Time. Retrieved May 4, 2023, from https://time.com/3834589/grief-counselor-mourn-fictional-character-death/ 

[beesandwasps]

I’m all for saying that not all Jewish people are Zionist, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that Israel isn’t a Jewish state. It’s akin to people who want to pretend that the racists in the South and the slaveowners pre-Civil-War weren’t “real Americans” — yes, they were and are “real Americans”, and if you’re going to try to redefine the United States to exclude the people you don’t agree with, sooner or later you’re going to come up against the hard cold reality that those people still exist and wield a lot of power.

Jews, whether religious or ethnic, aren’t somehow magical perfect people. They aren’t mystically wiser than anybody else by virtue of being Jews. They’re just humans like the rest of us, and humans do this kind of evil stupid shit so frequently that I doubt there has been a single human lifespan at any point in written history where mass killings driven by human bigotry didn’t happen somewhere on the planet. For a species that named itself “sapiens” we are in the main a bunch of idiots — even the smartest among us have a vein of stupidity running through them.

Furthermore, the specific cruelty and bigotry of Israel is a reliable feature of any human community which is consciously designed around ethnic or religious exclusivity. You can trivially predict that any time anybody tries to put such a thing together, the result will be a factory for cruel bigots. This is not unique to Israel — not even the constant denial for PR reasons of the state being a theocracy, despite all higher government offices being reserved for people who are religiously Jewish, is unique to Israel or Judaism. It’s how theocracies work in the modern period. You get too many people who have the same religion or ethnicity in charge of one region and they will decide they must be better than anybody else. The only reason Christianity isn’t even more obnoxious than it is, is that it has enough large sects which hate each other and disagree about relatively major things that they can’t unite to hurt the rest of us as much as they would like to. The same is true of Islam, what with the Shiite/Sunni split and how that works out politically.

But, conversely: it is because Jewish people are just people and not somehow special mystical geniuses that it is important to remember that Jewish people are individuals and not uniformly genocidal Zionist bigots. Don’t let the backlash against Israel include Jews who don’t support Israel — especially the ones who deliberately aren’t living there.

Free Palestine interlude 🇵🇸🇵🇸

[disorganisedautodidact]

Autodidact’s Library No. 15: Amartya Sen, Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny

I read this book because of a tumblr post. I can’t find the post any more and don’t remember who made it, but they said it was a sort of antidote to Huntington’s infuriatingly stupid “clash of civilisations” idea, and after spending 8 years in a Middle Eastern studies department of a European university, I really, really needed that. Anyway, I wasn’t promised too much – the book not only rebutted Huntington’s simplistic idea of “civilisatons” and “cultural identities”, but it made me chuckle a few times with some rhetorical dig or other at Huntington and his ilk.

What the book is really about is the multiplicity and complexity of identity and the freedom of choice we all have in deciding which of our identities are important to us and what consequences to draw from that. No one is just German or just Indian or just English or just Mexican, but instead the same person can identify as an American citizen, a white person, a woman, a lesbian, a member of her local chess club, a left-wing person, a computer engineer, a Christian, etc. etc. etc., all at the same time. According to Sen, it’s not just right-wing nationalists who tend to flatten people into a singular identity (or a very few identities) and use that to form in-group cohesion and turn people against the out-group, causing a lot of violence, but he claims liberals make the same mistake even in their efforts to counter said right-wing rhetorical strategy. For example, there is a lot of focus on intercultural cooperation or interfaith dialogue, but always with a focus on people as members of cultures or religions (and often focused on religious leaders as spokespeople), when it might be, in Sen’s opinion, more effective to encourage people to work together as a civil society and find a common identity instead of just a collection of cultural groups that remains focused somehow on their divisions.

Even more important, according to Sen, is encouraging people to apply reasoning and free choice to their various identities. There are obvious limits to this, as a young-ish person from Germany I can’t choose to identify as an African man, but I can choose to regard my queerness as a more important part of my identity than my nationality. (Or vice versa, which sadly several conservative politicians in Germany are doing.)

I found his theses clear and worth thinking about, and the various historical examples he brings are interesting. I did think the book gets a bit repetitive at times, like the same points could have been made in 100 pages rather than 150. Still, I’m glad I gave this a read!

[nightly-sun]

About New Atheism

You can always count on New Atheists to be advocates for tolerance and opponents of extremism, only to attack anyone whose views are the slightest hint more spiritual than theirs regardless of nuance and claim a very smug, zealot-like air of moral and intellectual superiority. If they want to keep their minds and hearts closed to anything outside the material realm, I can’t fault them for that. Some people really are better off without some form of spirituality or even if they’re just not predisposed towards it, but what these trilby-tippers don’t understand is that it isn’t a one size fits all situation. Certainly, it’s wrong of them to outright dismiss others’ personal experiences or accuse them of fraud, delusion, or attention-seeking, because it just goes to show how little they actually know or understand.

Additionally, this particular breed of atheist lends credence to many Christian stereotypes. Remember that fabricated story about the Christian student who humiliated his atheist professor? Or the movie they based on it starring Kevin Sorbo? Yeah, it’s when atheists and anti-theists start embodying the otherwise comically ignorant caricatures pushed by those stories, attacking theists* or even anyone who keeps an open mind, that they add fuel to the fire. It’s bad enough that conservative Christians (and the far-right in general) have such a severe persecution complex, or at worst, project their persecution of others who they would persecute should they reject their attempts at conversion, onto those same others. New Atheists are practically just handing out free ammunition to the religious and spiritual people they so avidly despise, then exposing their bare flesh and begging to be shot by the same extremists who are the reason behind their irrational hatred for anyone who is not an atheist, or who they perceive as not being enough of an atheist.

One thing I will concede is that I have no rebuttal for atheism as a whole. I have no way of knowing or proving if any of the "supernatural" things I've encountered are real or not, and I accept that there might very well be a rational, scientific explanation behind them. I'm not smart enough to fully grasp, let alone explain, exactly how we play such tricks on our own minds, but I'm willing to believe it's possible. I already accept evolution and the Big Bang as facts, even if there's still so much left to piece together. Likewise, I acknowledge all spirits, gods, and entities as — if nothing else — archetypes and energies, extensions of the unconscious with the myths surrounding them being just that: myths. Where once these myths were created to explain the unexplainable in primitive civilizations, they still serve a core function in present-day occultism, which is to give the practitioner something to work with.

Regardless, the New Atheist movement is quickly becoming just as much of an extremist sect in and of itself, even if that was not the intention of, say, Richard Dawkins. Similarly to many Christians who preach fear and post scripture to anyone outside their faith on the Internet in the futile hopes that they'll convert, the average Internet-dwelling New Atheist will mock and ridicule them and tell them their beliefs aren't real, seemingly somehow under the misguided impression that it will convince them to close their eyes and their minds to what they have experienced firsthand. Ironically, you may even encounter these two polar opposites in tandem with each other. No, seriously. Just check out look up occult questions on Quora. And needless to say, there's the occasional Craig Stephen Hicks, whose hatred for believers takes a murderous bend. They may be a rarity compared to other extremists, but they still exist, and that's a problem.

Furthermore, I find the insinuation that spiritually-minded people are somehow complicit in the atrocities committed in the name of religion to be absurd. By that same logic, shouldn't atheists be considered complicit in the Soviet Union's suppression of religion? Don't get me wrong, I think atheists have every right to be angry about the persecution they've faced. Unfortunately, many vocal New Atheists refuse to distinguish between your everyday person with spiritual or religious beliefs and practices, and those who would strap a bomb to their chest and take as many people with them as they can. That sort of absolutist thinking is on par with Christians who justify their antisemitism by blaming the Jews for the death of Christ, or their misogyny because Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and prompted Adam to do the same.

People will always do ugly things. It's human nature, and regardless of what ideology humans follow, if any, that's not about to change, and if it would, the change wouldn't be through any amount of harassment or suppression, not in the long run.

*Should mention that I don’t identify as either a theist or as an atheist, but having a mystical framework helps, even if only looked at through an allegorical lens.

[sissa-arrows]

[Description: tags saying “Why is France so Islamophobic??” “Man the person I’d usually go to with this kind of question has become bizarrely pro-Israel lately” “so idk if I can trust her opinion on this” “may have to look into this myself if I somehow get time next week”]

France is so Islamophobic because it allows them to be racist while denying any racism because “It is a religion not a race you cannot be racist against a religion”. There’s a reason if in France people perceived as Muslims = all of Africa. It’s because it allows them to reject both Black and Brown people while hiding behind the fact that Islam is a religion not a race but without acknowledging that THEY racialized Islam. I said it in the past and will say it again but a white revert will face less (casual) Islamophobia than a Black Christian or a Brown Atheist.

The second reason is colonialism. France didn’t do any work on its colonial history. Especially on Algeria. People really think we were savages in need of being “civilized” by white men. They really think colonialism was good. A LOT of those who know it was bad don’t realize HOW bad it was and minimize it not out of spite but out of ignorance. Because of that lack of work they resent Algerians for the independence. They refuse to understand but we’re the biggest minority in France and we know our history we know our past so we don’t let them lie and they resent that. They resent that our grandparents had the audacity to still see themselves as equal and as humans after more than a century of colonialism. They resent the way we are loudly, visibly and proudly Algerians. They resent the fact that they were kicked out by men and women who didn’t have tanks, planes… not even an actual trained army because settler colonialism historically ends in favor of the white colonizers but this time it didn’t. They resent that France is dependent on those same people they hate so much (not just Algerians but African immigrants in general). So they hide behind Islamophobia because it’s acceptable in France so it allows them to hate on us without consequences. And Muslims/people perceived as Muslims are treated like colonial subjects not like citizens

Short answer: Islamophobia is acceptable here so it’s a good way to hide their racism and that racism is so present because they resent Algeria’s independence.

Ahmad Abu Shamla, a Palestinian man, was killed by Israel in Rafah. He had been working for France since 2002 in the French institute.

Wanna know why he was still in Gaza? Because France refused to put his 4 oldest sons in the list of people allowed to evacuate through Rafah. Because of his job France could repatriate him and his family but they chose to put only part of the family in the list and refused to put his 4 older sons. Ahmad told the rest of his family who were on the list to leave and he stayed behind with his 4 sons and on Saturday he died because of his wounds after the house he was staying at was bombed. He was killed by Israel because France expected him to leave his sons behind.

It’s just so fucking disgusting I wanna throw up.

[pearl-tarotist]

PAC: PAST LIFE, who were you in a past life?

“Everything will be clear to you in time. But you must have a chance to digest the knowledge that we have given to you already.”(Brian L. Weiss, Messages from the Masters)

This PAC will answer: 1) Who were you? 2) What did you do? 3) What challenges did you face? 4) How did you die? (In your past life)

If you do not reasonate with any of them, do not worry, it may not be for you (these situations are specific). The reading is done with the “Past life” Oracle Cards of Brian Weiss. Obviously, TW: death and sensitive topics.

¡Disclaimer! Even if my words sound somehow hard, have in mind, that I am not trying to put any pressure or view on anyone. Do not change if you do not want too, I’m just trying to advice you.

Masterlist: Other readings.

P1-P2-P3

P4-P5-P6

PILE 1 – TW: slavery, religion.

Who were you? “Spirituality and Religion”

In your past life you were someone that was truly into religion (possible spiritualism). I got the “biblical” card at the back of the deck too. These two cards tell me that in your past life you were someone religious, someone that almost devoted their life to religion. This experience has surpassed your past death and it still inside of you. As you were present in the time of Jesus and of Moises, you do feel inside of you the truth. And I think you won’t agree with the actual religious texts because you know it did not happen like that. You my have felt an opposition to actual religion because it lies.

 With the next point on the reading, I will explain the suffering this brought you and why you may reject religion.

What did you do? “Imprisonment and slavery”

This card tells me that you were persecuted and imprisoned for your believes. I think you were in a period where your religion was not accepted. I’m feeling the beginnings of Christianism in the Roman Empire. You could have possibly been a slave or suffer a really dark life that still has a hold on you. (I kind of feel a pressure on my hearth, do you suffer from anxiety or fear the dark and small rooms? It may be related to your past life). You were mostly always in a dark room, not just because of slavery but because you could not practice your religion in freedom. I think religion has brought a lot of pain to you, but its time to reconnect with this part of your life and stop with your opposition. Try to connect with spiritualism and religion in a deeper way. No one can hurt you nowadays.

What challenges did you face? “Trees”

The trees card in my opinion, is a clear reference to freedom. The trees just want to go up and up. Free from the trunk that unites them to the earth. For some of you, I think this also has to do with religion (the Celtic one). These trees tell me that even if you were in such a religious ambience, you were not able to communicate with the trees (the religious people) or express your believes. Someone was holding you from that life, from being able to communicate spirituality, with God even. Clear reference to the imprisonment that you suffered.

How did you die? “Mother” TW: not for sensitive people.

I have two options for this pile:

1) You died while giving birth. If this is your case, one way to end it is that you must stop being scared to children or motherhood, creating a family is not that bad.

2) Your mom caused your death indirectly. I feel that somehow all this energy of being locked up in a place could be your mom’s fault as in she did try to protect you but failed. She was too protective of you and thought that your ideas were not right. Her pressure took a toll on you.

Little annotations: It’s kind of funny how the pic that you and I choose without knowing represents the situations of being locked up.

Other readings. Let me know if this reasonates thanks!

PILE 2

Who were you? “Atlantis”

Wow, this is intense. You were someone from Atlantis, someone close to the Greeks. You were from an old civilization close to the sea. Atlantis have always reminded me to the Minoans. I think that sometimes you feel the pull to the ancient eras and think about how marvellous it would have been to life in a city like Atlantis. It’s possible that in this life you suffer from phobia to the sea or that you love it, no middle term.  You were also peace lover, so you may be a pacifist or someone that moves a lot for social causes. You were an idealist.

This follows the connection to the second card of the reading.

What did you do? “Boats”

I think you were a sailor, someone that investigated the sea. You were someone free and clever.  The sea has this pull on you. Maybe you even get random dizziness from time to time, to remember your soul a boat’s movement. At first, I got the idea that you went into the sea to trade and to kind of explore new territories, the world was still new at that time. And you met a lot of foreigner civilizations, even the Egiptians.

What challenges did you face?  “Monk”

The idea that I get from this card is that you put yourself trough a lot of vows. Self-vows that tied you up on a lot of things that you wanted to do. In the past, to get on ships, sailors had a lot of rules (nautical vows) as “do not let women get in the ship” or “my life belongs just to the sea” or something like this. I think it will relate to every person reading this in a different level, but I think, that in general, everyone was just to focused on the sea life to try to construct a life outside of it (no spouse, no kids, no family). To try to break these vows you just must reject them in your head or out loud. Reject it in all dimensions.  Follow your past life dreams now that you can.

How did you die? “Forgiveness”

You did not want to forgive. You clung to anger and madness. You died like a true pirate. I think you died while being angry at someone. This madness is represented in this life trough possible hypertension, falling into addictions and insomnia. I think that with the past cards you could possibly suffer from vertigo disease. You need to forgive in this life too. I think you could have died in the ship from thirst. Lost in the sea and looking at the sky, a few birds following the ship to rest from long trips.

Little annotations: It’s kind of funny how the pic that you and I choose without knowing represent some of the cards that I got (mostly the bird wings).

Other readings. Let me know if this reasonates thanks!

PILE 3

Who were you? “Karmic relationship”

This card does not truly answer the question but there’s an obvious story going on. You are someone that has reincarnate a few times. In recent past lives you have always reincarnated with the same people (it has happened at least once). Your job had something to do with being a healer or a witch (working with energies). You were a lover, a tragic lover, someone who had not a reciprocated love (maybe, not because the other person did not love you).

What did you do? “Unrequited love”

I think someone tried to bring both of you apart. There was a betrayal that you still have to heal, a love-relationship that you still have to live. This has affected your actual life and you must not have had a lot of relationships. You do not trust in love, you do no trust in yourself. There’s insecurity in love. You are afraid of love and trust and confidence. You would rather be alone that to try.

What challenges did you face? “Galactic”

This is really interesting!!! This card is telling me that in this past life could have been the first one in Earth, that your past life was the first in Earth. Your soul has lived outside of this Earth and dimension. That’s why you had so many problems with love and marriage, you were just not used to it. You must have thought that humans were violent and aggressive creatures. You were confused about how humans worked, and you did not see compassion or friendliness in them. Your soul work in this life is to trust in them and in their love.

How did you die? “High priestess”

I think people around you did notice that you were not someone from Earth, that you were a witch or a worker of some type. You were “galactic”. I think you will be really inclined toward astrology and the stars. I think you tried to teach them what you knew, what was carved and printed into your soul. They did not like it, I’m sorry. I think you died from loneliness or at hands of some maniac.  Your soul work in this life is to enjoy humans and their ways, to live and feel love. I’m pretty sure you have your soul family, your soulmate, and your karmic soulmate around there. You have all reincarnated together to learn and enjoy. Good luck!

Little anotacions: it could be that your genders were changed in the last life (example: if you are a woman, you were a man) or that this relationship is LGBT.

Other readings. Let me know if this reasonates thanks!

PILE 4 -TW:self-harm

Who were you? (Phobias)

This card is telling me that you are kinda blocked in the sense that’s not easy to reach your past lives for others, you may have a lot of phobias related to past lives that do not leave me get in. However, I’m inclined to say that this aura is medieval. You were someone that was not in complete control of your life, that scares you nowadays. You have no confidence because of certain events that happened in the past.

What did you do? (Vows)

In your past life, you were someone that I think, was forced to adopt a lot of rules and vows, I think it’s a more religious ambience. Such as vow of poorness, abnegation, even selflharm (I will explain in the next section). It’s like you were summered into some cult; it may not even be a cult but a really extreme and strict society. Oh, wait, maybe you were close to some of the holy wars (crusades). The Knight templars. It was a really hard time to be alive.

What challenges did you face? (Medicine-man/ witch-doctor)

I think that the challenges you had to pass were related to your health. You were never attended; your scars did not matter at all. Health was not important at that time, but what I think it’s the worse is that some of you could self-inflict some of the pain or the scars. As if it was a divine punishment or a way to show your value and discipline.

              “The Knights Templar They had all joined taking three vows: poverty, chastity, and obedience for they were monks: warrior monks, dedicated to the protection of pilgrims in the Holy Land…”. www.addall.com/books-in-order/knights-templar-mysteries/

How did you die? (knightage)

This has correlations to the other cards, your death was caused due to the holy wars, due to the Knight templars. I think one of the knights may have killed you or that you were moved out aggressively of your house. This has to do with a knight, a cruel medieval war.

Little annotations: A few cards have a hood on them, I don’t know if you have any mark in your face that you try to hide or you don’t like people looking at you. It could be related to this past life.

Other readings. Let me know if this reasonates thanks!

PILE 5

Who were you? “Live in community”

I think this past life was your first life in Earth, before it you were just living in the spiritual realm. You were a “galactic”, a spirit of some sort. You were born in a lovingly family, (somewhere around the ends of the 19th century for some of you). I see old houses and mansions. It was a really close community. You were just a baby; I think you were kind of the spoiled one in the group.

What did you do? “Baby”

I think you did not have the chance to take a lot of important decision, you were just worried about eating and sleeping. You did not develop your senses enough to be able to take decisive choices. I kind of see this vision of someone looking at a window, at the sky in a peaceful way, as if I was a baby in a crib looking up. Somehow, discovering for the first time what was around me.

What challenges did you face? “Trees”

I think that your main challenge was that you were not able to grow. You did not get as tall as you must have. I think you were also, a curious kid (the majority of you were boys in this past life). I see you trying to stand up and run in a garden or in the shore of the forest. Getting close to some trees, you may feel an intense connection to nature in this life. You may feel really comfortable in it.

How did you die? “Wars and battles”

As it says in the card, I think you died in a war. I kind of see the idea of different tribes (more inclined to Celtic or native Americans) fighting between them. It’s not a direct injury of a gun, but maybe, as you were young your body was not able to endure the consequences of a war. But, I have to say that your first years were really happy and that you were a really loved child.

Other readings. Let me know if it reasonates, thanks!

PILE 6

Who were you? “Asia”

You were from the Asian continent!! Vietnam and the Tibet are really hitting my brain. I see you as someone that had to wear their typical clothes, yellow clothes. I think some of you could be attracted to this continent because of their culture ( I said culture, not just K-pop and Anime���). This connection has to do with their religion too, I kinda think your principles will relate to Hinduism (dharma), because you were like that in the past. It’s a fulfilling feeling of peace and spiritualism.

What did you do?  “Arts”

You were someone that enjoyed music, I think you played a traditional instrument, something with cords. You had beautiful and fast hands (do you have any marks on them in this life)? It was traditional music, so so beautiful, I can kind of hear light and high notes. You did this for a life, I think you played in the street or in some bars/restaurants that hired you for a show. ( I have been investigating; the instrument could be a guzheng or a tibetan lute).

What challenges did you face? “Orphan”

I think you grow up without your parent’s help. You could have lost your parents at a young age, or they could have broken off their contact with you. I think you had to survive of your own. I think you had to panhandle in the streets. And you asked from house to house for something to eat. This way you met your soul family, people that adopted you and teached how to play these instruments. I see an old Asian man with a bit of a bear and wrinkles around their eyes, tan skin, so they may have been farmers.

How did you die? “Father”

I think it was the betrayal of your father, the one of bloodline. I feel that he was not a good father. He felt jealous of your good luck, of the fame you achieved while making music. He never saw you as his son?? I think he was a bad person, I think he did not trust your mother and did think you were not his son (like, your mom cheated on him). There’s a lot of work you have to do in relation to your parents, I think you have to forgive them for your own well-being.

Other readings. Let me know if it reasonates, thanks!

[bsaka7]

if you had to introduce yourself with 4 books, which ones would they be?

tagged by @metamatar!!! my cell service today is on the fritz due to snow so i added an extra requirement of "books i currently have on my bookshelf" (so i didn't have to search for pics) which means they made the cut of being moved from where i grew up to college to where i live now...which is not a huge selection so it's easier to pick here 😁.

East of Eden by John Steinbeck: I've talked about this book kind of a lot on here. I think I read it my freshman year of college? It's maybe my favorite novel. I enjoy the style he writes in. I like the big, overarching themes. I like how it's constructed. I don't know. There's probably more to it, I guess, but I like it.

A Good Man is Hard to Find and Other Stories by Flannery O'Connor: Okay this is kind of a cheater pick because I really only read this because of Bruce Springsteen and maybe only liked it because of him. He credits this collection with inspiring some of the album Nebraska which is my fav Bruce album. So I read it and liked it...she deals closely with religion and morality and I like the style she writes in. There's a lot of interesting criticism around her work and legacy as well.

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek by Annie Dillard: I read this shortly after Desert Solitaire by Edward Abbey which I also enjoy. I think Dillard writes in a really lovely way that weaves the beauty (why was the first word to come to my head "eroticism") of the natural world with the science of it (there's a Christian element to her work as well). I think it made me more attentive to the mundane world around me. I remember distinctively, shortly after rereading this early in the pandemic, running next to this ditch, and watching as all the frogs jumped from the grass by the road into the water. I am a fairly unobservant person but I just like. The idea of something being so connected no matter how small.

All Art is Propaganda: Critical Essays by George Orwell: I think this is the only book from this list I read in high school (I did not read a lot in high school... Its an unfortunate gap...truly bizarre how busy high school students are). I was really into George Orwell for a time (why??? Who knows. For some reason I was obsessed with the Spanish Civil War as well) - mostly his nonfiction. I haven't reread this at all recently so I somehow doubt it would hold up to my memory but I think it was probably the book that introduced me to criticism as an art. I also remember enjoying this collection more than it's accompanying Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays. From one of these, I adopted his "rules for tea," because my family are not tea drinkers but I am. Thanks George.

I don't know. I think all of these were impactful because I read them right at the beginning of college and they've shaped my taste in what I read for fun. I definitely try to read a lot more outside of what's represented here, but I think these four get at some key things I like: sweeping ambitious works of a characters lifetime, literary darkness, an attention to the natural, and... thoughtful essays lol.

sorry for not checking who's already been tagged but i tag @quinnfabreys @lespleen-deparis @hungaropeng @insideline @tamaupogi and @charlesxcx!

[qqueenofhades]

Hi, I’ve been tasked with researching Richard Plantagenet for a paper and thus far found extremely negative accounts of the king, his religious bigotry being a reoccurring theme (his treatment of Jewish dignitaries attending his coronation and his reasoning to join the third crusade etc)

I stumbled across your wonderful tag for Richard at the weekend and wondered if you wouldn’t mind sharing your informed opinion of Richard and his views on religions ? Your writing seems very well balanced regarding his attributes and flaws. Thanks :)

Oof. Okay. So, a short and simple question, then?

Quick note: when I was first reading your ask and saw "Richard Plantagenet," I briefly assumed that you meant Richard Plantagenet, father of Edward IV, or perhaps Richard III, both from the Wars of the Roses in the fifteenth century, before seeing from context that you meant Richard I. While "Plantagenet" was first used as an informal appellation by Richard I's grandfather, Geoffrey of Anjou, it wasn't until several centuries later that the English royal house started to use it consistently as a surname. So it's not something that Richard I would have been really called or known by, even if historians tend to use it as a convenient labeling conceit. (See: the one thousand popular histories on "The Plantagenets" that have been published recently.)

As for Richard I, he is obviously an extremely complex and controversial figure for many reasons, though one of the first things that you have to understand is that he has been mythologized and reinvented and reinterpreted down the centuries for many reasons, especially his crusade participation and involvement in the Robin Hood legends. When you're researching about Richard, you're often reading reactions/interpretations of that material more than anything specifically rooted in the primary sources. And while I am glad that you asked me about this and want to encourage you to do so, I will gently enquire to start off: when you say "research," what kind of materials are you looking at, exactly? Are these actual published books/papers/academic material, or unsourced stuff on the internet written from various amateur/ideological perspectives and by people who have particular agendas for depicting Richard as the best (or as is more often the case, worst) ever? Because history, to nobody's surprise, is complicated. Richard did good things and he also did quite bad things, and it's difficult to reduce him to one or the other.

Briefly (ha): I'll say just that if a student handed me a paper stating that Richard was a religious bigot because a) there were anti-Jewish riots during his coronation and b) he signed up for the Third Crusade, I would seriously question it. Medieval violence against the Jews was an unfortunately endemic part of crusade preparations, and all we know about Richard's own reaction is that he fined the perpetrators harshly (repeated after a similar March 1190 incident in York) and ordered for them to be punished. Therefore, while there famously was significant anti-Semitic violence at his coronation, Richard himself was not the one who instigated it, and he ordered for the Londoners who did take part in it to be punished for breaking the king's peace.

This, however, also doesn't mean that Richard was a great person or that he was personally religiously tolerant. We don't know that and we often can't know that, whether for him or anyone else. This is the difficulty of inferring private thoughts or beliefs from formal records. This is why historians, at least good historians, mostly refrain from speculating on how a premodern private individual actually thought or felt or identified. We do know that Richard likewise also made a law in 1194 to protect the Jews residing in his domains, known as Capitula Judaeis. This followed in the realpolitik tradition of Pope Calixtus II, who had issued Sicut Judaeis in c. 1120 ordering European Christians not to harass Jews or forcibly convert them. This doesn't mean that either Calixtus or Richard thought Jews were great, but they did choose a different and more pragmatic/economic way of dealing with them than their peers. This does not prove "religious bigotry" and would need a lot more attention as an analytical concept.

As for saying that the crusades were motivated sheerly by medieval religious bigotry, I'm gonna have to say, hmm, no. Speaking as someone with a PhD in medieval history who specialised in crusade studies, there is an enormous literature around the question of why the crusades happened and why they continue to hold such troubling attraction as a pattern of behavior for the modern world. Yes, Richard went on crusade (as did the entire Western Latin world, pretty much, since 1187 and the fall of Jerusalem was the twelfth century's 9/11). But there also exists material around him that doesn't exist around any other crusade leader, including his extensive diplomatic relations with the Muslims, their personal admiration for him, his friendship with Saladin and Saladin's brother Saif al-Din, the fact that Arabic and Islamic sources can be more complimentary about Richard than the Christian records of his supposed allies, and so forth. I think Frederick II of Sicily, also famous for his friendly relationships with Muslims, is the only other crusade leader who has this kind of material. So however he did act on crusade, and for whatever reasons he went, Richard likewise chose the pragmatic path in his interactions with Muslims, or at least the Muslim military elite, than just considering them all as religious barbarians unworthy of his time or attention.

The question of how the crusades functioned as a pattern of expected behavior for the European Christian male aristocrat, sometimes entirely divorced from any notion of his private religious beliefs, is much longer and technical than we can possibly get into. (As again, I am roughly summarising a vast and contentious field of academic work for you here, so... yes.) Saying that the crusades happened only because medieval people were all religious zealots is a wild oversimplification of the type that my colleague @oldshrewsburyian and I have to deal with in our classrooms, and likewise obscures the dangerous ways in which the modern world is, in some ways, more devoted to replicating this pattern than ever. It puts it beyond the remit of analysis and into the foggy "Dark Ages hurr durr bad" stereotype that drives me batty.

Weighted against this is the fact that Richard obviously killed many Muslims while on crusade, and that this was motivated by religious and ideological convictions that were fairly standard for his day but less admirable in ours. The question of how that violence has been glorified by the alt-right people who think there was nothing wrong with it at all and he should have done more must also be taken into account. Richard's rise to prominence as a quintessentially English chivalrous hero in the nineteenth century, right when Britain was building its empire and needed to present the crusades as humane and civilizing missions abroad rather than violent and generally failed attempts at forced conversion and conquest, also problematized this. As noted, Richard was many things, but... not that, and when the crusades fell out of fashion again in the twentieth century, he was accordingly drastically villainized. Neither the superhero or the supervillain images of him are accurate, even if they're cheap and easy.

The English nationalists have a complicated relationship with Richard: he represents the ideal they aspire to, aesthetically speaking, and the kind of anti-immigrant sentiment they like to put in his mouth, which is far more than the historical Richard actually displayed toward his Muslim counterparts. (At least, again, so far as we can know anything about his private beliefs, but this is what we can infer from his actions in regard to Saladin, who he deeply respected, and Saladin's brother.) But he was also thoroughly a French knight raised and trained in the twelfth-century martial tradition, his concern for England was only as a minor part of the sprawling 'Angevin empire' he inherited from his father Henry II (which is heresy for the Brexit types who think England should always be the center of the world), and his likely inability to speak English became painted as a huge character flaw. (Notwithstanding that after the Norman Conquest in 1066, England did not have a king who spoke English natively until Henry IV in 1399, but somehow all those others don't get blamed as much as Richard.)

Anyway. I feel as if it's best to stop here. Hopefully this points you toward the complexity of the subject and gives you some guidelines in doing your own research from here. :)

[poisonfallen]

Your take on cancel culture and stan culture?

Oh boy, oh boy, it's happening.

Alright, let's talk about toxic people on the internet. And keep in mind that my opinion goes beneath the mcyt community. I feel the same about the kpop community and any other community that is famous for having lots of toxic people. 

Also, keep in mind that this is my opinion about these topics, I don’t intend to offend or misinform anybody. I might be wrong, and if I am wrong indeed, please help me correct any mistake that I’ve done.

Cancel culture

Before ranting about its toxicity, let's understand what it actually means and how it works.

What is cancel culture? 

Well, according to Wikipedia, “cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person” (source). 

Basically, cancel culture is the process of ceasing offering support to a public figure after saying or doing something that is considered objectionable or offensive. 

In theory, cancel culture is a good thing that helps the victims speak up and properly defend themselves, as well as preventing other people from doing the same mistakes. No harm done to innocent people, just a way of saying why a certain person or a certain company has done something that really hurt a category of people. Some even say that it’s an exercise of free speech.

However, while a culture that encourages calling out inappropriate behaviour is important, a culture that is quick to cancel and reluctant to forgive is something that divides the internet and starts wars in the trial of defending an opinion that is not shared by every single person on the internet, thus becoming the thing that its purpose is to defeat. (a vicious cycle of hatred)

So why is it toxic?

From my point of view, I don’t think that cancel culture is a toxic thing in theory. But the way people actually use it is what concerns (and bothers) me. 

In its current form, anonymous and fuelled by negative emotions, cancel culture has the power to destroy a person’s career in a matter of minutes. There are no gray areas, just the white and black pack mentality: “I am right and you are wrong”. 

The subject of the cancelation becomes “cancelled” for disagreeing with a certain opinion, and the cancelled one feels like the whole world is hating them. No one can argue that going through a cancellation, no matter how big or small it is, can severely affect one’s mental health and leave them scarred for life. 

Cancel culture, at this point, is bullying someone famous without facing the consequences. We are already used to surf the web and stumble across someone’s cancelation over something that not even in our wildest dreams we would be able to imagine otherwise. 

I think that all of us are familiar with a stupid cancelation, like canceling someone over a burger that somehow became the sole reason of obesity (see: Dream MrBeast burger). We can’t help but laugh at people trying to cancel someone for a stupid reason. 

But, unfortunately, not all of our cancelations are stupid or laughable. There are people cancelled over their physical aspect or them not being political active, people cancelled over being friends with certain people or over saying something that is now considered to be slightly offensive a few years ago. The ones who are under the spotlight can’t make jokes or take decisions by themselves, they are supposed to be the marionettes of their fans. 

(I do not intend to say that all cancelations are bad, but I’m trying to highlight how the majority of the most recent cancelations are out of place. If someone actually tries to actively harm your minority, your beliefs etc. you should call out that inappropriate behaviour, but without purposely harming that person as a means of payback) 

There is also a toxic behaviour that I’ve noticed in a cancelation: the “I forgive you”/”I don’t forgive you” phrase used by people who have no right to do so. If you are part of the minority who has been hurt, then you have every right to forgive or not someone for saying or doing something hurtful towards your minority. 

But if you are not a part of that minority, shut the f*** up. By speaking on behalf of a minority while you aren’t part of that minority you take away the right of actually addressing the issue from the people who are part of that minority. You can support them from the sides and let them express their pain with their own voice. They perfectly capable of addressing the issue, they need your support but not you taking the spotlight away from the actual problem.

What is my take on cancel culture?

I think that there are more civil ways of resolving an issue without actively trying to destroy someone’s career. Instead of cancelling that person, we could educate them (but not in that harmful way I’ve seen on twitter) on the subject and on why their words or actions are hurtful. 

We should remember that we are all humans and that every human makes mistakes. Don’t forget that children learn by making mistakes. And while I’m well aware that we are not talking about children here, you should also be well aware that we are talking about actual humans with feelings. 

Cancelation should be the last weapon we use, but only if that person refuses to give an apology and educate themselves on the subject. 

Overall, don’t. Just don’t cancel people. Don’t attack people on the internet. Don’t try to harm people on the internet. 

Some of you might disagree with my opinion and I’m open to criticism as long as you can help me educate more on the subject.

Now let’s move on to the other topic

Stan culture

Before I start talking about this one, I’d like to point out that stans actually scare me, a lot. 

What is stan culture?

“Stan culture describes an online phenomenon in which communities of stalker fans, or stans, engage in overly enthusiastic support of a favorite celebrity online (called “stanning”), including at times vehement, coordinated attacks against detractors and critics” (source). 

Basically stan = stalker + fan. 

There are also people who say that the word stan comes from Eminem’s song “Stan” which tells the story of a crazed fan. I do recommend listening to the lyrics of this song if Eminem is not your cup of tea, it’s a good intake in what stan culture was at the beginning of 2000′s.

To be honest, I don’t have anything more to add at this section. Anything more I’d say would, in the end, be the same as what was already stated. (but you can see my opinion on it with more comments at the end)

It stan culture toxic?

You have to live under a rock if you had never seen a stan on twitter or tumblr. You usually recognize them by their profile pictures, the content they share, their posts and their ready to argue behaviour in case you insult or disagree with the ones they worship. 

I’d like to point out that there is a fine line between a stan and a fan: stans know no length when it comes to defending their object of worship and often have really toxic ways of expressing their opinions, while a fan is there just to enjoy their favourite content without engaging in harmful discussion and hate speeches. 

This topic is filled with controversy. In essence, stanning should be a means of showing support. The majority of them don’t even realize the toxicity they spread only after leaving the fandom. 

The real problem here is the moment when they engage in conflicts without entertaining the thought that they might be wrong. Anything they do is right and their object of worship can say or do no mistake. This extends to the point of sending death threats and even doxxing. 

For those who don’t know about doxxing, short for dropping dox: doxxing is an internet slang that means to publish personal information (of an individual) on the internet. You can find more about it here.

With no intend to disrespect or disregard one’s religious beliefs, you can say that stanning is like being part of a religion. The stans are the extremist people who practice that religion, while the fans are those who practice it from time to time (eg. like a Christian who goes to Church only on Christmas and Easter - me). 

In the end, stan culture is toxic to both the stans and celebrities. 

Is there a connection between stan culture and cancel culture?

They are both toxic internet cultures, this one is right for sure.

From what I’ve noticed during my short timed stay on twitter, a lot of cancelations are made by stans from the same community or different communities. 

I’m part of mcyt community, so I’ve seen a lot of Dream fans and Dream antis fighting over the past months, trying to cancel each other and harm each other. It’s mental seeing people actively trying to do these kind of things just because they love or hate a certain person. Of course that we can’t tie the situation to a certain content creator. 

I know that his also happens a lot in the kpop community where stans are in a constant fight to destroy the career of each other’s favourite idol group or bias (someone's most favorite member of an idol group). 

What is my take on stan culture?

I feel like I need to repeat myself: stans scare the s*** out of me. 

It’s like their sole purpose in life is to support someone and don’t have the basic sense of boundaries. A lot of problems arise with this: like shipping people who are uncomfortable being shipped with, intense sexualizing (sexualizing the minors is the worst from my point of view), creating drama and intentionally ignoring real world problems just to make their favourite person(s) trend, and the list is so long that I feel like I’d create a record on tumblr for the longest post if I go on. 

We are talking about some weird adaptation of Lord of the Flies where children raise each other on the internet. It’s like a cult and they are brainwashed into believing what everybody else thinks. And the worst part is that I don’t think we’ll ever get better from this, things are only going south to heaven. 

I might be wrong and biased, so I do expect someone to help me understand these topics better, but for now these are my firm opinions. 

I’d also like to clarify, once again, that in the religion example I’m not making fun of Christianity, I’m just using it as a means to help people better understand my point.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

From: Ali A. Rizvi. “The Atheist Muslim: A Journey from Religion to Reason.”

The reality is, for most ex-Muslims who were raised in Islam, leaving the religion is a moral choice, as became readily apparent in the #ExMuslimBecause social media campaign described in chapter 3. This isn’t unique to Islam. Atheists from all kinds of backgrounds frequently say they broke from their religious upbringing because they found these religious “values” to be unacceptable. They consider the secondary status of women, the often-violent discrimination against gays, and the tribalistic exclusion and “otherization” of those deemed “infidels” and “kuffar”—or those who aren’t “chosen” or “saved”—to be divisive and morally abhorrent.

Why is it that rejecting illiberal ideas like misogyny and homophobia is a hallmark of liberalism, but when the exact same ideas are part of a religion like Islam, criticizing them becomes bigotry or Islamophobia? Why is it that domestic violence is considered unacceptable in any civil society, but truthfully stating the Quran endorses beating your wife (verse 4:34) is seen as an offense to an aggrieved minority? Why is it that homophobic rhetoric from the Ku Klux Klan or evangelical Christians is widely denounced by liberals, but correctly stating that the deplorable treatment of gays by Saudi Arabia, Iran, or the Islamic State has basis in the Quran and hadith is considered anti-Muslim bigotry? Why is it that men who marry children are universally lambasted, but speaking critically of the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to his best friend’s nine-year-old daughter is “disrespectful”?

On October 3, 2014, liberal talk show host Bill Maher brought this up to his guest and fellow liberal, Sam Harris. Why is it, he asked, that liberals become upset when it is pointed out that the same values that they otherwise applaud—free speech, freedom of religion, equality for women, gays, and minorities—are lacking in the Muslim world? Harris expanded on this, pointing out how liberals openly criticize Christians, referencing abortion clinic bombings in the 1980s, but somehow cower when one brings up the inhumane treatment of women, homosexuals, and secularists in the Muslim world. Notably, he denounced the term “Islamophobia” for conflating any legitimate criticism of Islamic doctrine with bigotry toward Muslims, calling it “intellectually ridiculous.”

Also present as a guest on the show was actor Ben Affleck, who was growing visibly agitated. He angrily interrupted the interview to tell Maher and Harris that what they were saying was “gross” and “racist.” By the time Harris tried to clarify that he was pointing out the difference between criticism of Islam (an idea) and bigotry against Muslims (a people), Affleck had become too emotional to listen clearly, accusing Maher and Harris of “stereotyping” and “painting the whole religion” with the same brush. In essence, Affleck proved Harris’s point—that liberals too often miss the crucial distinction between criticizing ideas and demonizing people, and end up conflating the two.

Anti-Muslim hate is a real thing, and is no longer limited to just white supremacists, nationalists, or far-right bigots. On November 19, 2015, a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl in New York City was placed in a headlock by three boys in her class who punched her repeatedly and called her “ISIS” while trying to yank off her hijab. Just imagining something like this happening to my own beloved niece is heartbreaking to me. As a man with a similar name, heritage, and look as the Muslims I grew up with, I am as much a potential target for these thugs as my Muslim family and friends. So, again, let me be clear: anti-Muslim bigotry is real, it exists, and it is wrong.

This is all the more reason why umbrella terms like “Islamophobia”—which conflate criticism of Islam with anti-Muslim bigotry—are so sinister. Semantics matter. When legitimately criticizing illiberal elements of Islam—as we might do any other religion or political ideology—elicits accusations of bigotry and racism, it abruptly ends an important conversation that needs to be had. Calling someone a bigot, racist, or Islamophobe isn’t a counterargument. It’s a lazy substitute for one. Yet we all fall for it. Liberals—particularly conscientious white liberals well informed about history—don’t want to be called bigots or racists. And they certainly don’t want to be seen as beating up on a minority. I can tell you firsthand that many religious minorities know how this works. They know they can deflect criticism against their cultural or religious beliefs simply by accusing white liberals of bigotry or racism, guilting them not only into silence but also, on occasion, a near-unconditional advocacy for everything good or bad the minority group does.

I can also tell you firsthand that many white Western liberals privately acknowledge holding back their opinions on Islam for fear of being seen as Islamophobic—what I call “Islamophobia-phobia”—or in the interest of supporting moderates within the Muslim community who share their goals of fighting jihad and fundamentalism. This is not to say they are not sincere: they do believe the vast majority of Muslims are good people, and that the only real hope of eradicating the scourge of jihad is to bolster them. Still, many have reservations about Islam, the religion, as they do about Christianity, which is easier to publicly criticize. They’ll talk to me about it because they know how I think, but won’t bring it up in front of our Muslim friends out of respect. It’s also much more difficult for a white person to make those arguments the way a person with my looks can, without accusations of racism or bigotry. Bill Maher and Sam Harris dared to do it, and that was exactly the response they got.

[panatmansam]

Pantheism Has No Creed

Pantheism is not a religion or even a philosophy. It is simply an observation about the state of reality. So, for this reason, neither I nor anybody else can say that your particular ethical system or behavior is somehow not pantheistic.

Ethics do not derive from such lofty concepts. I can be a serial killer (i'm not, I promise) and believe that God is immanent, impersonal and identified with the universe and there be no contradiction. Morality derives from NATURAL LAW not GOD.

Natural law is common to all humankind and derives not from holy writ or the pronouncements of priests or prophets but from our common humanity. Don't murder. Don't rape. Don't steal. Don't perjure your neighbor in a court of law. These rules are common to all civilized societies and are refined as cultures are refined. No need for Gods.

Pantheists don't much care. Are you are Christian and you want to be a pantheist too? Okay? Hmm. If God is the universe then that sort of tosses that whole trinity thing out the window but okay by me so long as you don't try to convert me. St. Theresa of Avila was a pantheist they say. In Islam the Sufi mystics are pantheists, but Allah has always been couched in almost pantheistic terms in Islamic literature.

So you see Pantheists are not the enemy of religion. We understand that our world view has been incorporated into many of your faiths. We get it. Many of us traveled here from religion often with stops at atheism along the way.

A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

-- (Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot)

[gemsofgreece]

Okay I just saw this and yes I know @alatismeni-theitsa has a load of super helpful relevant posts in their tags but the mail moved me and I felt like personally telling Anon, if they see this, you don’t have to be a Greek Orthodox to be Greek and you don’t have to be straight to be a Greek Orthodox ✨🌟✨

I mention this because I know this is where the homophobia mostly derives from and how hard it is to establish yourself as Greek far from the grip of Orthodoxy in the diaspora.

There is a civilization of 1500++ years to explore prior to Christianity.

It is also true that Christianity blended with Greek culture at a certain point veeeery long ago and together they became critical and formative for all of Greek history. It would be wise to acknowledge this for the truth that it is, because anything else would be denial, but it doesn’t mean that you personally have to adopt the religion or that there is no Greek identity without religion.

But even if you want to be part of the religion but you feel marginalised by your peers, the good thing with Orthodoxy is that you can regulate how much you let it control your life and what it means to you. Sure, there will be narrow-minded priests having opinions but you can avoid interacting with them. Orthodoxy might be one of the churches where the priests do the least preaching, in fact, and it is entirely up to you whether you will attend it. Nobody can ever stop you from attending the church or participating in the Holy Communion or praying or having icons and all that for any reason. This is your private and personal right. There will be of course restrictions in rituals like the marriage etc but the personal choice of one to believe and worship cannot and won’t be prevented by anybody. It is in fact the very essence of the Orthodox Church - it doesn’t chase you down and it doesn’t knock your door down. You go to it, when you want and if you want and for how much you want.

Then getting in touch with your Greek heritage without religion is possible through language, history, arts, famous historical figures, politics, keeping up with current news, (the few good) movies and shows, the several books and poetry, THE MUSIC, food, maybe learning about the Greek topography and how it influences the lifestyle, learning about other Greek minorities across the world etc Also celebrating national days and Greek carnival days and whichever days are loose and open to all people even though they are religious in essence (ie Clean Monday or Easter Sunday) with the respect that is appropriate in those cases of course.

As for those who are toxic in your community, as with all toxic people in all communities, you know, somehow the effect they may have on your psyche should be minimised.

Hopefully this gives you a little courage to go on with your goal 💙

Γεια σου! I'm a queer Greek American, and recently I've been trying to reconnect with my Greek heritage, but I don't know how to because the homophobia of my local Greek American community makes me nervous and feel like I'm not “Greek enough”. I'd deeply appreciate any suggestions for how to better reconnect! Sorry if this doesn't make any sense. I hope you have a good day, and thank you for all you do!

Γειά σου 💙I think I know what you mean! It's hard to keep contact with a culture when it carries lots of bigotry toward minorities, but we can do it! The world is experiencing a progressive shift and newer generations from most cultures around the world are trying to adapt in the healthiest way.

You will find my previous answers on this matter in the tag #greek diaspora and #greek american. Please come back with more questions if you don't find what you seek 💙 I'm always happen to discuss more, it's just that I think I have already something for you in the tags.