#the heretic and the invalid

[owlexarts]

Laika-esque experimentation

[scattered-winter]

man it just really sucks having to go through all the motions and acting like i'm happy and proud of my family members when i'm really, really fucking not. sick of this shit

[ludinusdaleth]

i need to preface this meta with a million versions of "i do not think ludinus is or ever will be a good person who deserves forgiveness or will have a happy ending", and it will take me a second to get to my perhaps bad point, but here we go:

as many (and myself) have noted, ludinus is blinded by his trauma. he cannot in any way shape or form see around it, and even though he is very wise, intelligent, and able to mediate almost any conflict of interest, he becomes childishly closed in when anyone challenges his idea, says that his crusade of warfare against the gods has hurt thousands of mortals. he is an active danger in his position of power by refusing to show care for anyone but himself, while convinced hes doing it for exandria.

i think this stems out of the fact that no one has ever been able to reach him in a way he craves. he can get validation of trauma from the vanguard, but he made them thralls to his ideas; do they really mean it or did he manipulate them into it? he obviously cant be validated in his grief by vasselheim and their stranglehold on calamity history, who think any heretic outside of their worship of warlords deserved their fate. and he cant find comfort in fellow calamity survivors, either due to not knowing they were alive (presumably devexian, alyxian), or being angered and in disbelief they chose to pursue religion despite their torture (leylas). because no one starts with the goalpost of saying his people didnt deserve their fate and that his anger is valid, he has been losing his mind with the belief he needs to forcibly show everyone what he experienced and for the world to see him as correct, after an eon of being the only one in his mind with a semblance of a correct pov.

which brings me to my point, which people will react badly to initially, but god, i need to say it aloud: the most important line he has ever said, which has rung in my head like a bell since last episode, is:

"Speak your mind, and I will speak mine. But all I ask is a moment. To show you."

ludinus has refused to entertain anyone else's pov as long as we have known him. fearne mouthing off at him one too many times about the vanguard caused his calm demeanor to snap in favor of him snarling at her about what he had seen in the calamity. he made his speech at the key as everyone there was actively trying to kill him. he never asked a soul for their input on what he was doing. not one ounce of him wants another perspective. and that isnt because hes scared of being called a tyrant. he tells exandria to "make me your villain", and there are so many moments of self hatred in his interactions with others i think he knows damn well what he is. no, hes terrified that someone will invalidate what he went through.

and he has asked the bells to witness the calamity's trauma firsthand, and to judge it and him freely. that is.... a massive change.

before you react, no. ludinus cant be fixed. no persuasion check in the world could convince him to forgive the gods and no one would ever allow him to walk with no consequences and start anew - as if his body wouldnt fall apart before that anyway. but the bells are at the only moment in history where ludinus is completely stuck between reality and his hero complex. almost nothing has gone his way and the world is rallying against him and evontra'vir itself said the bells were destined to defeat him and that is more preordained than the gods deaths and he knows he must teach them the truth but what if his methods were truly for nothing? he needs someone, anyone, to tell him something, to ground him. he will do his best to convince the bells of what he thinks. but he knows he has to leave a decision up to them. the next generation.

he didnt consider what they thought until now. isnt that a sobering thought for him.

and while they dont owe it to him, if the bells actually start the conversation by acknowledging what he went through? i think for the only time in exandrian history, the only moment that it will ever be feasible.... that you could move his second goalpost by starting at his first. those abused & grieving due to him will finally be able to say that to him, by sating the need hes had for 1000 years. and i think he will absolutely accept whatever else is thrown at him if it means someone listened. he will never give up on killing the pantheon. but i think this is the moment that will define whether he dies by the bells hands, or at the bells side against another system. this is the only time that his fate is in flux. and this is the only time this old dog can learn a new trick: that the role of parent can be guidance, and defense for the children you hurt. and acceptance that has been the parent, who must step up, now, or never again.

[no-where-new-hero]

Emily of New Moon Book Club Catchup Post! Chapter 5-6

"Talk about your not being Murray! The Starr is only skin deep with you."

This is a VERY interesting thing for Jimmy to say immediately after Laura's gladness that Emily isn't a Murray. Jimmy will end up being more correct in the end (in some ways), but it's interesting to see their different perspectives from the get-go and what that says about both them and their perceptions of Murrayness.

She fled to the kitchen stove--she whisked off a cover--she crammed the book into the glowing fire. It caught and blazed merrily. Emily watched it in agony. It seemed as if part of herself were burning there...A line of white writing came out vividly on one.

This is an exact mirroring of what Emily does to her manuscript in Emily's Quest, down to the description of writing coming out whitely on the burning page. LMM even uses the same term for the object burned: "something incalculably precious." I think it's very telling that Emily does the destruction, both times, at her own hand but under psychological duress. Always, Emily must destroy a part of herself to protect herself or receive love, and that's a dark dark message for LMM to weave through this series.

And as she lighted them, elvish "rabbits' candles" flashed up amid the trees outside the windows.

First of all, I never noticed before that LMM used "elvish" instead of "elfish," several decades ahead of Tolkien. Second, I LOVE the idea that candle reflections are called "rabbits' candles."

Elizabeth Murray involuntarily remembered the ashamed, smothered feeling of relief when old Archibald Murray had died--the handsome, intolerant, autocratic old man who had ruled his family with a rod of iron all his life and had made existence at New Moon miserable with the petulant tyranny of the five years of invalidism that had closed his career.

The fanfiction potential this paragraph suggests! We get a lot of exposition in this scene between Elizabeth and Emily--not only an echo of Elizabeth's past but also the foreshadowing of Emily's ambitiously independent future, making her own living, her desire to be like a heroine, a continuation of Emily's borderline heretical notions, and Emily's ability to dramatize literally any situation--the bleaker the better. Unlike Anne, who imagines herself as a beautiful and beloved girl named Cordelia, Emily imagines funerals, death from famine, and other mournful possibilities. She's beyond dark academia, she's a full blooded goth girl.

[i-eat-deodorant]

yeet these baals I need to know

[WIP ASKS]

Before he departed for the surface world, The One Who Waits had given him a very specific set of instructions. 

Head to the dilapidated lighthouse rising out of the ocean. Talk to the keeper, and extinguish all the lights whether they want to or not. At nightfall, follow what remains of the pier, to where wind-scuffed planks are eaten away by the ocean. Drop a single heretic’s head into the dark waters. 

(Lamb had been all too willing to provide the head–they seem to have those in excess, he thinks, and all pretty fresh too. He can see why his mentor was so pleased with them compared to all his other vessels–under the thin veneer of civility was a war machine that followed unerringly like a sheep and killed like a wolf.) 

The waters were thicker here, his candlelight only glancing off the surface of inky depths. With the low fog shrouding the pier, he could barely see what’s beyond his own face. The severed cow’s head Baal tossed in barely made any ripples at all as it sank to the bottom. 

Now all he had to do was wait for this Teeth in the Darkness to emerge. 

Baal didn’t mind taking his sweet time waiting. To feel the wind against this corporeal body, taste the saltiness of the breeze and feel the solidity of his sun staff against his paws, all of it was a welcome reprieve from the stifling atmosphere inside the Gateway. He appreciated his master for giving him and Aym a second chance to prove his strength as his right-hand men, he really did, but when you died on the cusp of puberty, spending the rest of the afterlife with a dating pool of your mentor and your brother got dull fast. 

Perhaps he’ll lie about the negotiations taking longer than usual. Find a nearby fishing town, flirt with a couple fishing boys before the heretics come to chase him out. What his master didn’t know won’t hurt him, although there’s probably a reason he sends Aym on these kinds of missions more often. His brother would rather get things done, then go home and sleep. 

Small bubbles were beginning to rise up to the surface. The Teeth in the Darkness rose slowly, water like black oil sluicing off their hooded form. Baal gripped his staff tight, hackled bristling. The only features he could see of the Ravenous were his snout and smile, teeth unnaturally sharp.

-

Baal bared his own teeth. “If you’re already aware, then cut the pleasantries. Master has far more power than a false thing like you can ever imagine. Tread carefully, or your gullet will taste the full force of my wrath. Sate that ravenous hunger of yours once and for all.” 

Fox let out hissing laughter, like wind whistling through bone chimes. “Haha! Bold words from someone so tasty. Very well, a deal is a deal. What does he wish for?” 

“Protection. Clean up. Surveillance.” Baal unfurled the map he had on hand, tapping an unsheathed claw on the places he and Aym had spotted heretics in and being careful not to draw too much attention near the portal to the Gateway.  “Master still retains some influence over the southwest lands claimed in his name, but recently there’s been an influx of heretics wandering into his territory. My brother and I are becoming recognizable, and he needs more discreet methods of dealing with the infestation.” 

“More heretics? Would it have something to do with a certain Lamb who has been taking the Old Faith by storm?” 

“You know of Lamb?” 

“Do I?” He smiled. “We’re well acquainted.” 

baal is sent to strike a deal with the fox. the fox agrees, but has a proposition of his own. and what proposition is that? well my friend that is a mystery it's smut it's smut if you haven't guessed already it's just smut. i think baalxfox is an incredibly funny crack ship ok

i wrote this... right before the relics of the old faith update, which kinda invalidated all my baal headcanons after it came out. he's written as very pedantic and abrasive here, which was fine with the base game dialogue but fell apart with the introduction of the dlc dialogue. yeah. perils of having your lore invalidated by updates, i suppose.

[gabityaby]

An Act whereby the Queen's Highness Elizabeth is restored in Blood to the late Queen Anne Boleyn, her Highness's Mother, 1558

In her first parliament on the 5th of December, 1558, Queen Elizabeth I restored The Act of Supremacy declaring her as Supreme Governor of the Church of England which brought some doubts into the spotlight, especially regarding her rights to the throne.

Now, the matter of her legitimacy was and always remained unclarified since her mother, Anne Boleyn, was found guilty and executed. The Church of England and an act of Parliament declared her marriage to Henry VIII null and void in 1536 the night before her execution, so she died a marchioness [of Pembroke]. Henry VIII, all his life after May 1536, declared his marriage to Anne was invalid, and when Queen Kateryn Parr convinced Henry to add Mary and Elizabeth to the succession it was with the condition that they marry someone vetoed by the majority of Prince Edward's appointed Privy Council, and as we know, after Edward died and the Earl of Northumberland's rebellion was put down Queen Mary rose to the throne and the conditions of said will was unattainable (referring as to the support of the majority of the PC), all that was left was a clear line of succession:

"As to the succession of the Crown, it shall go to Prince Edward and the heirs of his body. In default, to Henry's children by his present wife, Queen Catharine, or any future wife. In default, to his daughter Mary and the heirs of her body, upon condition that she shall not marry without the written and sealed consent of a majority of the surviving members of the Privy Council appointed by him to his son Prince Edward. In default, to his daughter Elizabeth upon like condition. In default, to the heirs of the body of Lady Frances, eldest daughter of his late sister the French Queen. In default, to those of Lady Elyanore, second daughter of the said French Queen. And in default, to his right heirs. Either Mary or Elizabeth, failing to observe the conditions aforesaid, shall forfeit all right to the succession."

-https://www.tudorsociety.com/30-december-1546-henry-viiis-will/

So, after attaining her crown through the strength of arms and said will, Queen Mary undid the Act of Supremacy of 1534, brought back the powers of Rome, and with their support made the marriage of her father and Katharine of Aragon legal and the Church of England heretical, thus Elizabeth was doubly the bastard.

After Queen Mary's death and Queen Elizabeth's accession, following the order of the will, the binds with Rome were severed this time and the laws and acts passed by Queen Mary regarding this were repelled, thus leaving Katharine of Aragon again with the title of Dowager Princess of Wales (as to her marriage to Prince Arthur, Henry VIII's older brother) and the Church of England reinstated, which came with the mere fact that twenty-one years ago it declared the marriage of her parents null and void. But she couldn't simply overturn a decision made by the King, her sire which gave her the claim to the throne without undermining the power of kings, and there was also the fact that her mother was a convicted felon for which by the relation of blood in the English law of yore made one unfit to receive high titles, but of course, the majority of people, protestants and such, wanted her and thought her fit.

So Queen Elizabeth can't openly make the marriage of her parents legal without undermining the CoE nor make the charges against her mother be posthumously dropped without undermining her new office and late father, but what she can do is make herself the daughter of a true Queen of England which had her name marred unjustly, she can't change the law and edicts but she can change the people's perception of who is right, so thus:

"Elizabeth I reinstated her mother Anne Boleyn as a Queen, as Anne had been stripped of her titles during her trial. This would have reinforced Elizabeth's right to the throne and perhaps been important to the new queen privately"

-https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/succession/

As the head of the protestants in the nation, the idea that she was the daughter of a martyr of religious freedom was spread and made her a beacon of hope, the way people viewed Queen Anne back then would have been of a woman wronged who's favor and righteousness God showed by the daughter that would save them from the inquisition. Excellent PR if you ask me.

Parliamentary Archives, an edict that restores the title of Queen to Anne Boleyn (if anyone can read and make a transcript it would be amazing) HL/PO/PU/1/1558/1Eliz1n21

[creature-wizard]

Bill Schnoebelen, a man who claimed to be an ex-satanist (of the global satanic conspiracy sort) and has been demonstrated time and again to be a fraud, tries to establish a link between witchcraft (of the modern neopagan sort) and Roman Catholicism in Wicca: Satan's Little White Lie:

Both teach “salvation” through ritual acts and good works.

Both have a god and a goddess (Mary) figure in their pantheon.

Both have a slain and risen god who dies and is reborn in a seasonal cycle of ritual dramas.

Both have magic or thaumaturgy (Transubstantiation in the Mass) as central elements in their theology.

Both make extensive use of incense, statues, candles and ceremonial robes in their devotions.

Both believe in a kind of second chance after death (Purgatory).4

Both believe the rituals of the living can affect the dead.

Both believe in rituals of pain and mortification for purification.5

I'm sorry, Bill, but if you think that three and four are actual problems, then you might as well just give up on Christianity altogether, or at least admit that your version of Christianity regards a good portion of the New Testament as heretical. Because you've literally just declared that both Communion and the Resurrection are unchristian.

Also, if the idea of transubstantiation makes you uncomfy, 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 should have you crawling out of your skin.

Regarding number two, Mary is revered because she's a saint and the mother of Jesus. That doesn't make her a "goddess," because Catholicism has clear distinctions between saints and deities.

Regarding number five, this is because Catholic religion makes use of worship traditions that were widespread throughout the ancient Mediterranean world. Modern neopaganism drew from these same traditions. There's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about it.

Regarding number six, Schnoebelen elaborates on this one in the footnotes:

Catholics offer prayers for the dead, to get them out of Purgatory. Witches believe in communicating with the dead, especially at Samhain; and that they can, through mediumship, help lower level spirits achieve higher areas of growth before they incarnate again.

Loads of people believe you can interact with or affect the dead in some way. This doesn't prove any special connection between modern witchcraft and Catholicism.

He elaborates on number eight with:

Although this self-mortification element has been toned down recently in U.S. Catholicism, wearing of hair shirts, barbed wire corsets and self-flagellation (whipping) were regularly practiced within Catholic monasteries and nunneries until at least the 1960’s. It may still be going on today in the U.S. and is definitely still practiced overseas. Witches believe you must be willing to “suffer in order to learn” and most practice at least ceremonial whipping of each other. Wiccan authors also brag about how they whipped each other into a magical frenzy in order to raise a large enough “cone of power” to turn back both the Spanish Armada and the forces of Hitler.

Bill. Bill, my man. You might be shocked to learn that the New Testament has a lot to say about the value of suffering. Romans 5:3-4, 2 Corinthians 1:5, Philippians 1:29 2 Corinthians 11 and 2 Corinthians 12 - Paul was kinda big on this whole suffering thing, ya know?

So basically, Schnoebelen's made up a bunch of problems where none exist, and in doing so, implied that the very religion he professes to follow is actually invalid, lol.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

On the topic of the name of the rose and apostolic poverty it only occurred to me while looking over that Italian record I mentioned a while back of the inquisition of Michael di calci that much of the bizarre obsessive fixation and loathing accorded to William of Ockham in the more rightwing segments of the Aquinas fandom is almost certainly in large part downstream of ockhams and Aquinas’ role in the papal persecution of the defenders of apostolic poverty—the former as an explicit and active ally to the fraticelli, the latter as an anti shibboleth insofar as his canonisation was overseen by the abhorred John xxii (and thus, by the lights of those to regard John as a heretic, invalid and nonbinding). I’d known for a while about some of the more recent major vectors for the Ockham hate boner disease (weaver, the gang of illiterates who called themselves the “radical orthodoxy movement”, etc), and I doubt most of the ppl credulously repeating the idea that Ockham was smth akin to the antichrist could even describe in general terms what the debate over apostolic poverty was. But this is indeed a more satisfactory and “historical materialist” lead on a full account of the Ockham anti-fetish than like, anyfin proffered overtly on the matter by the anti fetishists themselves

[swissmissficrecs]

Hello! I'm asking everyone who might know, though I'm not sure which blogs are still active...I'm looking for a fic where Sherlock and John were at a monastery. Sherlock had taken a vow of silence and John talked to/prayed a lot to the virgin Mary. It was such a good fic. Thank you!

Sorry I didn't see this before. It might be In the Name of the Lord by Philomena85 (details below). I could have sworn I had a religious-themed rec list already, but it seems not. So here you go, in case that's not it maybe it's one of these others:

Clergy Johnlock

Fics in which either Sherlock or John is a member of clergy or masquerades as one.

A Second Time After the Last Time by S_IRIS (10K, E, Johnlock) In an era when science was condemned by religion, Sherlock Holmes was a man of science and John Watson a man of religion. Will they be condemned for their love and for the felony, or will John be able to convince Sherlock to escape?

All We Ought to Ask by achray (56K, E, Johnlock) “It’s a quiet parish,” Stamford added, beckoning to the maid to pour more. “Apart from that heretic Holmes, of course,” said the Archdeacon.

Children of the Small Gods by alexxphoenix42 (174K, E, Johnlock, JohnAdlock) Brother John is a recent addition to the Temple of the Small Gods on Baker Street. A mysterious stranger catches his attention one night when he does something that no one else has ever managed to do.

Faithful by Megg33k (14K, E, Johnlock) AU (Monk!John & Angel!Sherlock) in which John Watson's life has not gone as planned, and it's about to get even stranger…

Gallant Darling, Pray for Me by SinceWhenDoYouCallMe_John (104K, E, Johnlock) The priests at the seminary school of St. Sebastian's on the coast of Wales are preparing for a new group of ordinands in the fall of 1927. Father John Watson is not prepared for one of those ordinands to be Sherlock Holmes.

Hearts at Home series by yalublyutebya (74K, M, Johnlock) A series of stories chronicling the intertwined lives of Father John Watson and Sherlock Holmes.

In the Name of the Lord by Philomena85 (70K, T, Johnlock) After returning from Afghanistan, John Watson has managed to get back into professional life - but something is missing. His quest for meaning leads him for a time to a monastery, where he soon acquainted with an exceptional monk. But there’s more there than he had suspected at first glance …

Infidelis by unholiest (13K, T, Johnlock) “I have noticed a decline in my regular parishioners. I do hope none of them have come to any harm.” Sherlock chuckled, and the low pitch of it resonated against the cold brick, letting it echo back into John’s ears. It was nice. It felt like velvet, and John had an inkling that he was one of a few that had actually heard it. “Quite the contrary, Father, I believe you are to be the next victim.”

Jesus Loves Me by OMSP (11K, M, Johnlock) In this AU, Father Holmes befriends a young, struggling musician named John Watson. They strike up an unlikely friendship born of violence. Can the kindly priest help John fight his demons without losing his own soul?

Mercy by lookupkate (31K, E, Johnlock) John Watson asks God to save him while wounded in the desert. When God does he figures he'd better pay him back. After two years as a vicar at a large parish he finally gets to move to a small town and have a parish of his own.

Take Me To Church by CarmillaCarmine (12K, E, Johnlock) In hiding, John is impersonating a priest. Everything goes according to plan until one of his parishioners confesses the dirty thoughts he has about him.

The Adventure of the Six Painted Virgins by Saathi1013 (14K, E, Johnlock) Sherlock dons an unusual disguise for a case. John is…conflicted. Character study, casefic*, & smut (in that order).

The Beast of Baskerville by mildredandbobbin (74K, E, Johnlock) 15th Century/fairy tale AU. An invalided John Watson comes to the isolated village of Baskerville seeking shelter with his sister, only to become embroiled in a grisly murder. As the villagers point to a local werewolf legend, the odd but brilliant friar, Brother Sherlock, disagrees and soon he and John are on the the trail of a murderer. Captivated by the enigmatic friar, John finds himself struggling with his illicit feelings for the celibate man of God.

The Sacred Bond by ampersand_ch (42K, E, Johnlock) A series of mysterious deaths among priests puts John and Sherlock onto the trail of an ancient, secret brotherhood. Little do they suspect how deeply their own situation is tangled up with the case.

[apesoformythoughts]

«An implicature is a communicative act which, by virtue of its context or manner, relays a meaning that goes beyond the literal meaning of the actual words that may be used. To take an example I’ve used before, suppose you go out on a blind date and a friend asks you how it went. You pause and then answer flatly, with a slight smirk: “Well, I liked the restaurant.” There is nothing in the literal meaning of this sentence, considered all by itself, that states or implies anything negative about the person you went out with, or indeed anything at all about the person. Still, given the context, you’ve said something insulting. You’ve “sent the message” that you liked the restaurant but not the person […]

Now, here is the context relevant to Fiducia Supplicans: The secular world hates the Church’s teaching on sexual morality perhaps more than any other of her doctrines. It constantly urges her to abandon it, many supposing that it is simply a matter of time until she does abandon it. Most churchmen rarely discuss it, and on the occasions when they do, the tendency is to give a vague and perfunctory acknowledgement following by an impassioned plea for acceptance of those who do not obey it. The current pope tends to favor and promote churchmen who deemphasize traditional teaching on the subject, and strongly to disfavor churchmen who happen to have a reputation for upholding it. He is also widely perceived as being inclined to soften Church teaching in other areas. Those who have most loudly favored the blessing of same-sex and other “irregular” couples are precisely those who reject the Church’s traditional teaching on sexual morality, whereas those who have most loudly opposed such blessings are those most keen to uphold that teaching.

Meanwhile, no one could fail to realize in advance of issuing a document like Fiducia Supplicans that the qualifications it makes would be known to few who would hear about it and understood by fewer – that, to most laymen who would learn of these qualifications, they would sound confusing and legalistic and make far less of an impression than the new policy itself.

It cannot reasonably be denied that, given all of this context, the Declaration has the implicature that the Church is now at least in part conceding the criticisms of those who reject her teaching, and that she now in some way approves of certain same-sex and other “irregular” arrangements (such as those involving fornication and invalid marriages). It cannot fail to send that message whether or not it was the message intended. And it does so regardless of all the silly wrangling over the meaning of “couple,” and whether or not one could somehow cobble together a strained reading that reconciles the new document with the 2021 document. Even if the Declaration is not strictly heretical, it is manifestly “prone to cause scandal,” “badly expressed,” and “ambiguous.”»

— Edward Feser: “The scandal of Fiducia Supplicans”

[owlexarts]

They love each other fr

even tho he pops leeches like gushers

[twofacedtrickery]

({visible to everyone})

The Heretic sighed and rubbed his temples, picking up his burner phone. He scrolled partway through his former devotee's blog. While he knew he wouldn't get them back, he did find it very frustrating that everyone was so wrong about his feelings. Certainly, some of what they were saying was true (though he would never admit it), but to invalidate his held emotions was frustrating. He did have a date that evening, but he decided to make a decision he knew he could regret. At least his ex's devotion was helpful, even if they couldn't be together any longer.

He typed, "I understand you are all concerned about things. I do think it is horribly unfair to expect anyone but the person with the intentions in question to know what was meant by things. I will be around for approximately 6 hours to handle your concerns, as my old darling should not be tasked with fielding them, no matter what has happened between us."

[snowfelledayah]

Testimony of Faith

The very first pillar of Islam, outlined in the Qur'an (3:18), is Shahada or Testimony of Faith.

What people may not know: The Shahada should never contain the name of the Prophet(AS) -- doing so would violate Qur'anic instruction which in and of itself would make Shahada invalid. This is a problem considering the majority of Muslims include the Prophet in their Shahada both at the time of conversion, and every single day in prayer.

Shahada is an act of worship, and worship belongs solely to God, not man. Adding the Prophet's name to the Shahada is a true bid'a ('heretical innovation') -- either you believe the Qur'an when it states it is complete, fully detailed, and sufficient, or you add things to it and therefor you reject the Qur'an's message.

While there is a clear requirement to believe in the messengers (plural) as part of Islam, there is zero instruction to worship them or create testimony-of-faith including them. We are also very clearly instructed by God to make no distinction between the messengers of God (2:285, 46:9).

The only part of the Qur'an mentioning the second part of the Shahada with the name of the Prophet is (63:1) in which it states this is what the hypocrites come to say to you. It appears nowhere else in the Qur'an (sufficiently detailed, complete).

Islam is the act of submission to God and God alone. Even Jesus(AS) said "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).

Islam is the act of submission to God and God alone. Even Jesus(AS) said "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29).

So what is the correct Shahada?

Phrased for recitation:

Ashhadu Alla Elaha Ell-Allah ("I bear witness that there is no god but GOD").

Technically speaking the second item "alla" is actually "anna la" but it combines to create idgham -- smooth recitation), or even shorter, "Laa Elaaha EllAllah" (There Is No god But God). I use the "E" here instead of a capital i simply because it is easier to tell where the short i sound ends and the "L" sound begins, otherwise it looks like this: Ill)

References:

(2:285) The messenger acknowledges in what was sent down to him from his Lord and those who have acknowledged. All acknowledged God, His angels, His books, and His messengers, "We do not discriminate between any of His messengers;" and they said, "We hear and obey, forgive us O Lord, and to you is our destiny."

(3:18) God bears witness that there is no god but He; as do the angels, and those with knowledge; He is standing with justice. There is no god but Him, the Noble, the Wise.

(6:162) Say, "My contact prayer, my devotion and offerings, my life, and my death, are all to God the Lord of the worlds." (6:163) "He has no partner, and this is what I was commanded; I am the first of those who have peacefully surrendered."

(21:25) We did not send any messenger before you except that We inspired him that: "There is no god but Me, so serve Me."

(39:45) When God Alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not acknowledge the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned beside Him, they rejoice!

(46:9) Say, "I am no different from the other messengers, nor do I know what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is inspired to me. I am no more than a clear warner"

(63:1) When the hypocrites come to you they say, "We bear witness that you are the messenger of God." God knows that you are His messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites are liars. (63:2) They have chosen their oath as a deceit, thus they repel from the path of God. Miserable indeed is what they do.

[sporadicarbitergardener]

October 27, 2023

In 238 there were ...... emperors due to a succession of generals marching on Rome 6

2. Babylas , the bishop of Antich, refused to let....... partake in the Euchrist even though, as emperor, he was pontifex maximus.

Philip the Arab

3. The persecution of Christians under Decius was the first empire wide persecution.

true

4. The Jews escaped much of the Roman persecution during the third century crises because they...had an ancient tradition.

c

5. According to Dr. Calvert, Christianity is mostly a European religion.

false

6. The first Latin Christian theologian, ....... , argues against the immortality in Rome, especially concerning the treatment of young girls and the practice of abortion.

Tertullian

7. Tertullian argues that Christianity was better for Rome than paganism because the Christians.

all the above : were mortal , had good family lives were obedient to the law

8. Contrary to many Christians, Cyprian argues that Christians who had abandoned their faith under Rome persecutors should be.....

welcomed back to the church after a period of penance

9. Stephen, the bishop of Rome, Argued that any sacraments conducted by Novatian were invalid because of his heretical views.

false

10.0 ........ argued that Socrates and Greek philosophy prefigured Christianity.

Clement of Alexandria

[imgonnascreamandnoonecanstopme]

To abrahamic witches(muslim, jewish, christian), from an abrahamic witch (christian, fuck if im in any denomination lmao, no tradish christian accepts me), i'm sorry about everything people say to you. I just saw some horrifying posts and messages to people about their faith without even knowing the person.

You know the god youve grown up with, you know your life, they have no right to judge you even if they think they do. And you are certainly not a heretic, faking, invalid or whetever else people may call you and judge you as /gen

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The following was sent to me through private message.:

I wanted to reach out privately and earnestly to let you know something that (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) you probably didn't know.

Advocating for the abolition of ALL religion is cultural genocide.

Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions will be eradicated, taking important cornerstones of people's culture with them.

Most of these people are disenfranchised (at least in the west anyway) and advocating for their culture to be wiped out is both harmful and dare I say a very insidious kind of bigotry.

I don't blame you if you didn't know but I wanted to tell you so that, well, you would know. What you choose to do with that information is up to you but seriously consider whether who you WANT to hurt is worth hurting thousands of people you might not even have been thinking of.

Anyway, thanks for reading all this and please consider focusing on more constructive efforts, like advocating against cults and proseletyzing.

Have a good day, whenever it is that you see this.

As there is far too much to address in e mere private chat (this is one of the longest posts I've ever written), I said I would address it in a full post and gave her the option of how I would convey her original question:

Quote the whole thing, including her name.

Quote the whole thing, but removing her name.

Summarize as faithfully as possible the issue, but in my own words and understanding.

I also answered that in short, the answer is no.

The response was that she didn't want this taken public, followed by:

And it IS cultural genocide. Judging by your blog, you either grew up or still are culturally Christian so it isn't really your place to tell religious minorities or disenfranchised people how to handle our own disenfranchisement.

Basically, that I'm not allowed to have an opinion or better information. Or less racist ideas. Based, as usual, on stereotypes (don't worry, we'll get there). She assumed my identity categories in order to justify ignoring me. This is Standpoint Epistemology.

https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1410359907249971207

Standpoint theory combined with intersectionality, taken to the extreme (as is currently being done), is the codification of the ad hominem fallacy into an epistemology. It no longer matters what is said; it matters who said it.

They will assume your categories and decide "your place" (their word) for you. And you must stay in the lane they have prescribed for you, and adhere to their higher awareness, or you're a blasphemer and heretic. You must not burst their confirmation bubble. You must adhere to the narrow path. You must not offer an "outside" (by their judgement) perspective to counterbalance groupthink.

"Listen and believe." "Shut up and listen."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial

Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)

argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: appeal to bias, appeal to motive, appeal to personal interest, argument from motives, conflict of interest, faulty motives, naïve cynicism, questioning motives, vested interest)

Description: Suggesting that the person who is making the argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid.

She then proceeded to block me.

Except, that's not how this actually works, no matter how shrill the protestations. And how racist the assumptions are.

So, I have decided to make the choice for her (#2), and proceed to point out how ignorant and also racist this entire mess of nonsense is.

Whether or not she wanted this public, I can certainly write up my own post on this topic. While I will generally try to honor the wishes of those I talk to - e.g. anonymity for ex-Muslims who are in physical danger - I am not beholden to such demands, least of all from people who insist I must only talk about a particular topic in private, and cannot write anything publicly on the subject. (This is not unlike the current campaign against curriculum transparency, opposing the idea that you should be able to see what people are up to.)

Strap in, this is lengthy, which is why I wasn't prepared to do it in private chat.

Let's begin.

==

In your opening, you indicated that you wanted to reach out "earnestly." The follow-up would suggest otherwise, that this was not for discussion, but for immediate action and compliance. The postmodernist equivalent of being told to accept Jesus Christ or burn in hellfire.

Yeah, I don't do that. You clearly don't know anything about me.

Confirmed.

So, in the interests of that earnestness and sincerity, I suggest we cut to the chase and name up front what we're talking about. Let's be clear, this is very specific terminology that doesn't just come from nowhere.

A person doesn't just come up with such histrionic ideas and hyperbolic language out of thin air, from her own contemplations. As we've already seen based on your complete, unrepentant adherence to the Ad Hominem fallacy through Standpoint, this is postmodern Critical Theory activism being parroted. It's textbook. Literally. There are no new or independent ideas here, just the vacuous, empty echo of a drone repeating its programming.

So, just so that we're clear, yes, I see you.

But what actually gave it away is the phrase "cultural genocide". Because this is what we're actually referring to.

To normal, sane humans this looks, well, insane. While activists will try to gaslight you into accepting that this is a more enlightened, greater understanding - as the private messager did - it truly is deranged and unhinged from reality.

So, let me explain. Critical Social Justice does not deal with individuals or with universal humanity. Indeed, it actually explicitly rejects it.

"Many of these movements initially advocated for a type of liberal humanism (individualism, freedom, and peace) but quickly turned to a rejection of liberal humanism. The logic of individual autonomy that underlies liberal humanism (the idea that people are free to make independent rational decisions that determine their own fate) was viewed as a mechanism for keeping the marginalized in their place by obscuring larger structural systems of inequality. In other words, it fooled people into believing that they had more freedom and choice than societal structures actually allow."

-- Sensoy/DiAngelo, "Is Everyone Really Equal?"

Only categories matter, since CSJ views society as stratified by categories, and individuals are simply puppets in this structure (i.e. literally a conspiracy theory).

And this includes Ability/Disability as an identity characteristic. That is, they think people do and should consider their (dis)ability as a core element of their identity.

This is the exact opposite of the "I am not my disability" that is the counterpart of the Liberal mainstay of color-blindness: I am not defined by my skin color. I am not defined by my disability. You may observe and note them, but I am not defined by them, and I don't want you to deal with me through those aspects.

This is actually the foundational premise of Critical Disability Studies. Also not a joke. This is a real - in the sense that it exists, not in the sense it's legitimate - pseudo-discipline in the Theoretical Humanities.

(So is Critical Animal Studies, by the way, which asks why we grant humans rights and privileges that we don't grant to other non-human animals, and encourages us to rid ourselves of the language of oppression we use when referring to our pets. Such as the word "owner". Not a joke.)

So, when you consider that people are born deaf or may become deaf through some kind of condition or accident, CSJ theology regards that as an identity category, rather than simply a medical condition.

It is actually opposed to medical treatments that would restore or grant hearing, because it would erase that identity group. Nobody would die, but nobody would identity with this medical condition any more.

(They won't have any qualms about transitioning a four year old, though.)

This is what CSJ activists mean by "cultural genocide." They mean that "deaf culture," whatever that means, will be systematically exterminated by powerful groups to enforce "normativity", akin to how the Nazis exterminated Jews. They're not joking.

Make no mistake, cultural genocide exists, such as the Uyghurs. People can, and have, invaded and sought the decimation of entire people.

But, while activists are desperately trying to pretend they're equivalent, they're not. And it's testament to this ideology's disconnect from reality that they would work so hard to pretend so, and how they would throw people's wellbeing under the bus of their theology's virtue.

Nobody dies by finding technologies and medical procedures to grant people hearing, or prevent deafness occurring in the first place.

Nobody dies by people discarding superstitious beliefs and changing their culture to be aligned with reality and non-theistic values, which is what we mean by embracing the ongoing decline of religion.

All that happens is that an identity label disappears. Because nobody needs it any more.

This bizarre mentality isn't just reserved for deafness, it's pervasive across Disability Studies, including curing blindness, restoring limbs, treating mental illness, and for some bizarre reason, autism. That is, it's "cultural genocide" to treat "schizophrenia culture" or to support research into eliminating autism. It's typical for people with this kind of activism to adopt the mental health identities, as they're self-identified and invisible; my interlocutor had self-diagnosed and self-identifeid as "autistic." In her bio, of course.

It's also pervasive across the anti-science of Fat Studies, which views "the effort to eradicate fat people via weight loss as a form of genocide perpetrated by the medical profession" (direct quote from the doctrine).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy7O-xgN3hw&t=24m36s

"More recently we've seen the rise of Critical Studies of Ableism and Fat Studies. These draw to a great extent on Queer Theory.

They ask themselves why we think it is better for body parts to work and for people not to be morbidly obese.

They answer themselves that it's because science, that false authority that seeks to police and oppress people, has declared it to be so due to an underlying hatred of disabled and fat people.

They advocate a different form of knowledge. One that relies on the lived experience of disabled and fat people.

Unless they prefer not to be disabled or fat, in which case they've internalized this medicalized oppression, and they need to be reprimanded and ignored."

-- Helen Pluckrose, "The Rise and Whys of Grievance Studies"

(BTW, this is the reason that there was precious little talk about the significant risk factor obesity plays in survival of COVID. Activists will say "hey, this slim person died too" - not knowing what "risk factor" means - "so this is just medicalized bigotry.")

It's like getting upset when Ford discontinued all cars in favor of SUVs, and calling it "vehicular genocide." No one actually dies, and no production capacity is actually reduced, but nothing will roll off the assembly line with the badge "Taurus" ever again. Just like how people discarding Islam will mean that their children will be born, but won't call themselves "Muslim" any more.

What this is really bemoaning is the end of a label. Because that's what this ideology cares about. Ones that it fetishizes, while ignoring the ones it doesn't. Like Xianity. You'll see no such alarmist language over the decline of Xianity.

Why this is the case is itself worth a look, because it's just as deranged as the resulting wails of "cUlTuRaL gEnOcIdE!1!!"

==

The aforementioned stratified power structure is formalized in the Intersectional Wheel of Power. This Sesame Street-level understanding of society is taught unironically in colleges, and increasingly, in the lower schools by activist teachers sneaking it into their curriculum. It takes everyone and pigeon holes them into stereotyped "oppressor"/power and "oppressed"/"marginalized" classes within each identity category - race, gender, ability, etc.

It cares nothing about the individual or their circumstances. For example, Oprah Winfrey, with her millions of follows and billions of dollars is "oppressed" and "marginalized" as a black woman.

To disagree with this higher wisdom means you have "fragility," or "internalized oppression."

While "religion" does not appear on the above linked copy of the Wheel, I've seen some that do. And Xianity is an "oppressor" class in this domain, with... what was it?

Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions

Ah yes, that... as the "oppressed" class. It doesn't matter to the activist that Hinduism has 1.2 billion adherents, or that Hindutva fundamentalists are seizing control of segments of India. It doesn't matter that Islam is dominant in many countries, to the point of making it illegal to not be a Muslim in some. It doesn't matter that there are 1.9 billion Muslims. Because Xianity has been the most prevalent in the USA and many western countries, and Islam much less so, this means "Muslim" is an oppressed identity, while "Xian" is a privileged, oppressor identity.

Notice how parochial and juvenile this proposition is, though. This is all about the limited, childish view of academics in privileged positions in higher education in first world countries. It's a completely US-centric view, ironically colonized to other countries.

But it's why people critical of Islam, and particularly ex-Muslims, are routinely accused of "Islamophobia". The fact that someone can simply think their way out of a (purported) "oppressed" class just blows their tiny minds. Because in the Clown World of Intersectionality, opposing Islam is opposing a marginalized, oppressed group. Even where it's dominant.

This is also why it's okay to whine about the "oppression" of women in first world secular countries, where their rights are enshrined in law and their voices hugely influential, but where Xianity is prevalent. But you must not mention that women are routinely arrested for removing hijab or being unaccompanied, gay people are routinely executed, and blasphemers routinely sentenced to death.

The only thing surprising to me about this person's unhinged "genocide" claim is that it included Judaism, as Jews are traditionally given "white privilege" by Intersectionalists.

"Another aspect of the construction of whiteness is the way certain groups have moved into the white race. For example, early in our history Irish, Jews, and Italians were considered nonwhite—that is, on a par with African Americans. Over time, they earned the prerogatives and social standing of whites by joining labor unions, by swearing fealty to the Democratic Party, and by acquiring wealth, sometimes by illegal or underground activity. Whiteness, it turns out, is not only valuable, it is shifting and malleable."

-- Delgado/Stefancic, "Critical Race Theory, An Introduction."

Which is the reason for the recent uptick in antisemitic attacks. Antiracist (i.e. neoracist) and Intersectional activists view Jews as "white allied" and therefore fair game. The Squad is notorious for exactly this.

Ditto the anti-Asian violence. All fuelled by Intersectionality, and unsurprising given the stratification Intersectionality invented and insists is pervasive, the "normal science" of society.

A look at her blog, however, suggests she herself is Jewish, providing the explanation, as self-interest will always win out in the more ambiguous areas.

==

With all of that out of the way, there isn't a whole lot else that needs to be said to rebut this idiocy, where people can't walk away from their religion or it'll hurt the feelings of Intersectional lunatics.

Still, it's worth exploring some of the other fallacious and reality-disconnected thinking.

If you were simply trying to puzzle out the meaning of this bizarre claim, you now have your answer: a label will fade out of use. Nothing more, nothing less. Like "Ford Granada," "Hellenist," "slave owner" or "Führer." If you're happy with that explanation, you can probably scroll on to the next post in your dashboard.

For more on how this mentality meanders, crashes and burns, feel free to Keep Reading after the jump. Be forewarned that it's very long.

Now that we know what "cultural genocide" means in this context, we can reject this entirely and need address nothing further. It's already fallen apart. But let's proceed.

Advocating for the abolition of ALL religion is cultural genocide.

Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions will be eradicated, taking important cornerstones of people's culture with them.

Let's notice the sleight of hand being pulled here. Going from "all religion" in the first line to "people" and "groups" in the second. And even going so far as to attempt this gem of blatant dishonesty.

hurting thousands of people

Religions are just ideas. They're not entitled to exist. We have thousands of abandoned and discarded religions through our history, and nobody need weep for them. We have even more abandoned ideologies and beliefs than full-blown religions.

"People" and "groups" are, well, people.

Not only does this conflate - or misrepresent - religion with culture, worse, it's conflating culture with the people participating in it. That people are their beliefs.

More insidiously, that one can deduce someone's beliefs from their identity categories. That all people in any given category have the same experience and viewpoint, or if they don't, they have "internalized oppression" and are dismissed as not Authentic.

So, let's rephrase this just a little, but not actually all that much.

Advocating for the removal of magical thinking and ancient superstition is cultural genocide. Abandoning magical thinking and ancient superstition will eradicate Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups (of people) of folk religions and pagan religions, taking away the foundation (magical thinking and ancient superstition) they sit upon.

Read the original and the rephrasing again. How did I do? Does it seem more sane or less sane when clarity is added.

While, as we've already seen, it is true that removal of religion will remove the terminology of "Jew", "Muslim", etc, because those terms will serve little purpose, that's like complaining that if we get rid of Nazism, we won't be able to call people "Nazis" any more. I doubt Intersectional activists know, let alone worry, what a Zoroastrian or Hellenist is, or why there are so few of them.

In any event, it's not phrased that way, is it? It's phrased as if advocating for people to abandon primitive superstitions is the same as calling for them to be hunted down, rounded up and killed. Using the incendiary word "genocide," after all, not to mention "hurting thousands of people."

But people abandoning religions doesn't involve anyone dying or being hurt. Non-belief has steadily grown in countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia and many others without a single death. Except, you know, when the fundie relatives "honor kill" the apostate. But that's probably their "culture."

Sure, people's feelings might be hurt.

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, 'I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.'

In this country, I've been told, 'That's offensive' as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment.

Not to me they don't."

-- Christopher Hitchens

But, so what? It's trivially easy to manufacture offence from nothing. Anyone can claim offence, real or imagined. People's feelings are their problem. The person who messaged me doesn't seem to give a shit about my feelings while lecturing me, so clearly this doesn't really bother her.

"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that" - as if it gives them certain rights.

It's no more than a whine. "I find that offensive. " It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase.

"I'm offended by that."

Well, so fucking what?

-- Stephen Fry

Or is it that she only cares about certain people's feelings? Like any garden variety bigot?

People can simply change their minds. And they don't need arrogant ivory-tower ideologues to gatekeep whether they do so. One of the best ways to actually destroy a culture is to gatekeep it, because people will simply stop participating. People don't need to be made to feel guilty by shallow, racist activists invested in sustaining the romantic stereotypes they've built up in their minds.

Because that's what this ideology runs on: cliches and stereotypes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

A noble savage is a literary stock character who embodies the concept of the indigene, outsider, wild human, an "other" who has not been "corrupted" by civilization, and therefore symbolizes humanity's innate goodness.

The noble savage is exotic, unfamiliar, has a mystique, glamor and romanticism compared with the boring predictability of the familiar. The grass is always greener. "Hijab is empowering!"

What's not stated outright in this fetish, but is made clear in the assertion of "cultural genocide" is that cultures other than liberal, western society are sufficiently dependent upon superstition and magical thinking for their "other ways of knowing" that if you take those away, there is nothing left of them.

While western societies are stuck scrutinizing the minutiae of mathematic calculationa and fussing about with testing evidence, non-western societies are engaged in broad, romantic storytelling of sweeping tales that tell of an imaginary origin, and which they hold dear. Even if they're not true. To take that away is to destroy them, because they have nothing else. Science, evidence and reason are "white, western" ways of knowing.

Except that non-Western societies haven't collapsed as they've already been discarding superstition and magical thinking, and are continuing to do so.

(On the other hand, Western civilization itself might collapse if the postmodern form of superstition of numinous forces, magical thinking about language, and anti-science, anti-objectivity social constructivism continues to infect it.)

This ideology doesn't actually think very highly of other cultures. It regards them as primitive and credulous, and its members practically another species. That they don't have the same wishes and desires. It just regards that as a good thing. A good thing for them to be immune to science. A good thing to put myth and storytelling above objective reality. It just wants to appear more morally righteous about "diverse" and "inclusive" and "tolerant" it is about looking down on them.

Because this ideology is founded on stereotypes and cliches. Where we had spent decades abandoning stereotypes of all types, this ideology recapitulates them as virtues. It is thus extremely racist, sexist, bigoted and, ironically, colonialist. See: Anti-colonial Diktat.

==

Let's take a moment though, because we've been talking about "culture" but we need to consider what we mean by that.

Culture is something you participate in, it's something that you do, it's what surrounds you, it's your way of life.

Culture is not a biological or inherent property of anything or anyone. It is what people do and the way they do it. And that is completely independent of any inherited, biological trait.

I know two people from different parts of Africa. Both were born, raised and grew up in Africa. They even completed mandatory military service. Both are white. Both are more culturally "African" (ignoring for a moment that "Africa" is not a monolith or single culture) than Oprah Winfrey or Kanye West, who are black Americans; both Oprah and Kanye are culturally American, not African.

There are some particularly troubling inevitable conclusions/side effects of this culture vs ethnicity train of thought. Because it positions someone like Oprah as being not- or less-American, as being outside of American culture, by associating her with being African. She's not. She's culturally American. Her ethnicity and biological ancestry trace back to Africa, but she herself is culturally American.

Because culture does not travel down ethnic or biological lines. It's worth noting here that the average black American has between 16-24% European ancestry, and about 5% native American ancestry.

Since it's something you participate in, culture changes all the time, because what people do and how they do it changes. It's not a defined box of someone's personal preconceptions that must be protected at all costs. When people discard a tradition, it's not for you to decide that they shouldn't, or that it ruins their culture, or that their culture has been destroyed by not complying with your expectations.

Nobody owns culture.

https://cheshireinthemiddle.tumblr.com/post/131407267302

And to top it off, basically 80 percent of japanese customs, traditions, and food, came from other countries. Japanese is an integration of different cultures, like america. Japan takes influences from places like korea, china, russia, and europe. If japan stuck to itself, there would be no tempura, japanese tea, tea ceremonies, kabuki, japanese bread, japanese curry, j- pop, anime, cars, or modern fishing techniques.

Not only do these change over time, but one of the key points about culture is that it's shared and adopts parts of other cultures it encounters. Cultures mash together, they split apart, they change and evolve.

That's what humanity does. It stops living in isolated boxes and thinking it got everything right the first time, and instead interacts and learns from each other.

People like this clearly sheltered activist should try it some time.

And religion itself is not "culture." An American Xian and an American atheist will have far more in common culturally than an American Xian and a Zambian Xian. Religion is only one part of any given culture, and yes, that includes Islam and Judaism and other religions. Those religions are not practiced the same everywhere in the world, and to think so would be incredibly ignorant.

The Arabs existed as Arabs long before Islam came along and conquered them 1400 years ago. The Canaanites existed before Judaism arose. Indonesia was a country with people in it long before it became infested with Islam. Ditto Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iran.

Remember Egypt? Remember Egyptian culture? Existed long before Islam came along and imposed its dogma onto the country.

Consider Islam itself. Moderate, "religion of peace" Islam is an invention of the last 100 years. Its purported inclusiveness and congeniality is a modern, Western fabrication. As any recognized Islamic tafsir (exegesis/commentary/analysis, e.g. Ibn Kathir) will confirm, traditional Islam looks far more like the Taliban than the "religion of peace" hijabi with a tattoo showing in the small of her back above the waist of her low-rise jeans.

Is it "cultural genocide" if Islam moderates and becomes less fundamentalist as many Muslims are trying to achieve, as Xianity underwent reform? Are you suggesting that it's unreasonable for Islam to change, and that it should remain in its original war-like state? If you're concerned about "cultural genocide," shouldn't you want Islam to remain in its purest, most untainted, most fundamentalist original state? Rather than adopting values and ideas from Western cultures?

And no, that's not a misconception.

Islam has also only existed for the last 1400 years. When it arose, it stole "borrowed" from Xianity and Judaism. It plagiarized the previous mythology (compare Sura 5.32 with Sanhedrin 37a) and claimed to be the "true" version of the word of the Abrahamic god. Does it trouble you that the spread of Islam wiped out the Quraysh? Both the people and the culture? How do you decide which cultures to get upset about and which ones to let die out without any concern?

Women being trapped in black body bags might be - nay, is - completely Islamic, but it's not Afghan culture, Somali culture or Indonesian culture. Those still exist, buried and half-remembered under the Islamic bullshit.

If you want to talk "cultural genocide," let's talk about the obliteration of many cultural traditions at the point of an Islamic sword. About how distinct, rich cultures are now haunted by interchangeable Dementors, who only exist and never get to live.

Given all of this, labelling the decline of religion "cultural genocide" is one of the single stupidest things I've ever heard.

People are not their beliefs. They are not their traditions.

==

Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and several groups of folk religions and pagan religions will be eradicated, taking important cornerstones of people's culture with them.

Cornerstones will be removed? Good. Build new cornerstones. Better ones. Ones built on reality. Ones built on truth. Ones built on humanity rather than power and control justified by magic, divine revelation and the god of the gaps.

This mentality seem to convey the misconception that religions and cultures don't already do this anyway.

Islam consistently tries to pretend that the quran doesn't say that the Earth is flat. Judaism has already abandoned the notion that the Exodus is literally true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Origins_and_historicity

Mainstream scholarship no longer accepts the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons. Most scholars agree that the Exodus stories were written centuries after the apparent setting of the stories.

So, what's going on here then? "Cultural suicide"? People aren't allowed to change their own cultures? They're only allowed to make them more superstitious, more magically thinking, rather than less? They're to be denied access to such resources as scientific archaeology, and instead remain under traditional, ancient misconceptions?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Tradition

Appeal to Tradition argumentum ad antiquitatem (also known as: appeal to common practice, appeal to antiquity, appeal to traditional wisdom, proof from tradition, appeal to past practice, traditional wisdom) Description: Using historical preferences of the people (tradition), either in general or as specific as the historical preferences of a single individual, as evidence that the historical preference is correct.  Traditions are often passed from generation to generation with no other explanation besides, “this is the way it has always been done”—which is not a reason, it is an absence of a reason.

Religions didn't get into place by being true, or by reasoning themselves into their positions of influence. It was wrong for them to seize that influence and control in the first place. That they've had it for a long time is not a reason to perpetuate it.

Eliminating religion has literally nothing to do with eliminating people. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with everything else about their culture that is not religious.

Over 100 infant boys die each year of circumscision-related causes. That's 1.3% of all male neonatal deaths. One day, Jews may finally abandon the superstition that they should cut off a chunk of their baby boy's penis in order to garner the favor of a god who stars in a book they wrote declaring themselves to be that same god's Chosen People. One day, Muslims may abandon the same to comply with the demands of their prophet's sock-puppet god.

Innumerable children would be saved, by abandoning these primitive superstitions. Not to mention the lives of their potential offspring (that was me doing a cute callback to 5.32/Sanhedrin 37a).

Imagine for a moment that all these superstitious, religious traditions start to fall away. People abandon them, as they've abandoned stoning non-virgin girls to death (well, excluding Islam, of course), and justifying slavery with religious doctrine (again, excluding Islam, of course).

So, who has actually been exterminated by abandoning these myths? Uh, nobody. What has been lost? Belief in a magical man in the sky who was never there in the first place, and people praying to him instead of solving their problems, and devoting their lives to something that isn't true.

And an identity label. But, of course, this is the most important thing of all to the Intersectionalist.

What culture has been lost? Evidence-free - and false - superstitious delusion. What happens to Jewish culture now? It adapts using human traditions, including the history of magical myths and delusions, but without the continuation or declaration of them being true.

As their children - well, the ones who survive - become less and less religious, what exactly has been genocided? Why not evolve what could - admittedly, uncharitably - be regarded as an absurd weekly Friday-night seance, conducted over scriptural events that never happened, and turn it into a cultural tradition of gathering as a family once a week to Chromecast photos. What's wrong with a cultural tradition that no longer includes the threat of some ghastly overlord who will rebuke them for serving ham?

This type of person really doesn't seem to understand that culture and traditions are not people. That it's the people who determine and make the culture, not the other way around. This really seems to be how little they understand culture.

Many of the members of these religions are themselves trying to reshape the religions. While Western feminists are prancing about playing dress-ups in hijab, women are getting arrested in Iran for removing the hijab because they want the same privileges that the feminists take for granted.

And yet, activists lecture us about preservation of "culture." There are people literally dying to reshape their own culture to gain access to the privileges they spit on.

Muslim Reformist to Sally Kohn: Stop Working Against Us

it is not "genocide" when the people decide not to do it any more. Even when triggered activists don't like it and somehow conjure offence out of asserting the cultural agency that they would prefer to deny them.

Using absurd, alarmist language - and the fallacy of Argument by Repetition - doesn't change that.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-by-Repetition

Argument by Repetition

argumentum ad nauseam

(also known as: argument from nagging, proof by assertion)

Description: Repeating an argument or a premise over and over again in place of better supporting evidence.

Simply insisting over and over that it's "cultural genocide" doesn't make it true. It might be "true" by the tortured, contrived jargon that some ivory tower academic has invented for political means. But that doesn't make it legitimate complaint.

As the second message indicates, this person didn't really have anything else to offer. She just repeated her assertion and expected - nay, demand - it to go unchallenged. I am neither stupid nor gullible.

I mean, really, I didn't have to go to all this trouble of writing all this up. She offered literally nothing, so I could really simply ignore her.

But this is more fun, so here we are.

So for someone to insist that culture can be exterminated by the decline of religion is just a roundabout way of saying that they don't have any idea what culture actually is.

==

Most of these people are disenfranchised (at least in the west anyway) and advocating for their culture to be wiped out is both harmful and dare I say a very insidious kind of bigotry.

Except that people actually travel to the west, don't they, in order to seek and participate in the benefits of such a society. To find and obtain enfranchisement. This is playing pretend like they're trapped and imprisoned in western societies, at the mercy of some repressive regime.

You're thinking of the Taliban, sweetie.

disenfranchise | ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz | (also disfranchise | disˈfranCHīz | )

verb [with object]

deprive (someone) of the right to vote: the law disenfranchised some 3,000 voters on the basis of a residence qualification. • (as adjective disenfranchised) deprived of power; marginalized: a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don't feel connected to the school. • deprive (someone) of a right or privilege: a measure that would disenfranchise people from access to legal advice. • archaic deprive (someone) of the rights and privileges of a free inhabitant of a borough, city, or country.

Nobody in a western country is "disenfranchised." Liberal, secular societies are notoriously neutral in their applications of rights and privileges, including voting. As long as you're a citizen, which is not an unreasonable requirement.

What's amusing is that activists like this will wail about disenfranchisement or marginalization on the one hand, and also rail against "The Wall" on the other. Look at the way she phrased it:

disenfranchised (at least in the west anyway)

This means certainly disenfranchised in the west, and maybe, but maybe not, disenfranchised elsewhere. That things will be worse in a western country with liberal, secular values.

Surely if this is the case, one should really be in favor of "The Wall" to prevent immigrants from wasting their time in a country where they'll be worse off? I wonder whether the people who risked their lives, or abandoned everything they knew to make the journey, to find new opportunities, who now drive this activist's Ubers and tend the grounds to her college think the same way? What a luxury belief to hold.

In regards to "power," there are people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was elected to Dutch parliament, you have the proudly unrepentant antisemite, Ilhan Omar, among many others. Nobody is preventing anyone from accessing all levels, all opportunities within society, if they wish to, or have the capability.

You know where people are disenfranchised? India. Where there are castes and untouchables. In Iran, where women are denied rights and privileges on religious grounds. In Saudi Arabia where an actual patriarchy exists, and women are subject to guardianship laws. Who else is disenfranchised? Women in Pakistan, gay people in Iran, the Uyghurs in China.

But wait a minute. The word "power" doesn't mean that in a postmodern sense, does it? It's more vague, and refers to the idea of one's practices being the cultural norms. That is, that groups are "disenfranchised" simply by virtue of being in a relative minority.

That's literally all it means. It doesn't matter what those people actually think or what they actually experience. It doesn't matter that people want to be in countries where these norms exist, because they value them too, the ideology defines this "problem" into existence.

"I read Alexis de Tocqueville, and I read about democracy, and I lived in countries that have no democracy, that have no founding fathers… so I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom."

-- Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The postmodern conception of being "disenfranchised" is the trivial fact of being held to the same standards and expectations as everyone else in the country in which they choose to reside - and in many cases, risk their lives to emigrate to.

This absurd, postmodern ideology is based on identity groups, and it finds it unreasonable for cultural relativism (I refer you once again to Yasmine above) to not be applied, no matter what the outcome. Because noble savage. Because different species. Because there's no universal humanity, only categories and boxes and lenses and identity groups and positionality.

What it calls for, and this isn't even a secret, is segregation. We're seeing exactly this in schools. Because with people divided into superficially homogenous groups (ala "affinity groups"), there are no "minorities." The "norms" of the group are perceived to be all the same. Which is to say, this ideology is racist, sexist and full of every other bigotry ever invented, because it assumes everyone with the same superficial group markers has the same values. It values only diversity of these superficial attributes, not diversity of ideas.

What's actually bigotry is cultural relativism. Holding one culture to a lower standard than another. The bigotry of low expectations. Expecting and accepting lower or different standards because of the belief that they're not capable of it and cannot achieve it.

Such as the notion that it's unreasonable to expect immigrants to Sweden to not rape.

Even when people come to liberal, secular countries to embrace the freedom and opportunity and marketplace of ideas, the adherents of this idiotic and racist ideology want to keep those immigrants in their box, to maintain the "purity" of the culture. Even when the people don't want it. Even when they want to live a pluralistic life, where they are both an Indian and a Canadian. Nigerian and a Brit. Somali and Dutch. Jewish and American.

No, it's not "cultural genocide" for cultures to change and adapt. Every culture that has survived, has survived because it does so has throughout time, and continues to do so, despite the protestations of activists.

==

So, if by "cultural genocide" you mean that people will actually die, then I call you a histrionic liar.

If by "cultural genocide" you mean that humans put old ideas out to pasture and discard them, like they've discarded Ford sedans, then I say, sweet. An excellent synonym is "idea expiration." We've discarded lots of bad ideas.

So, I say bring it on.

==

I don't blame you if you didn't know but I wanted to tell you so that, well, you would know. What you choose to do with that information is up to you but seriously consider whether who you WANT to hurt is worth hurting thousands of people you might not even have been thinking of.

I will continue to do exactly as I always have been. And not merely because nothing you've said actually holds up when examined.

I advocate for rationality, reason, evidence and logic over superstition, purported divine revelation (as told only by humans) and magical thinking, just as I advocate for science, evidence and reason over pseudoscience, woo, anti-science, anti-vax, denial of reality and ignorant bullshit.

But i'm not the racist bigot you are, applying this inconsistently and selectively, and reserving criticism only for preferred political targets.

I support the ongoing erosion of Xianity and Islam and Judaism and every other superstitious belief. All of them.

For the exact reason of humanity. Because humans cannot reliably navigate this world without an accurate and objective understanding of it.

We know through long painful history, that ignorance or denial of objective reality has actual genocidal consequences. The Russian Famine brought on by Lysenkoism, the Black Plague, the devastation in China during the Cultural Revolution, and even the unnecessary deaths due to COVID are all testament to our need to discard superstition and ignorant beliefs so that we can accurately deal with a world that doesn't give a shit what we believe or prefer.

Your insistence that we must not disrupt this reality-denial out of some misplaced sensitivity is something I unequivocally reject and oppose. Your priorities are fucked up, sweetie.

Flat Earth is no more true than Islam, and I reject both on the same grounds. Will it bother you if Flat Earth culture disappears?

Or do you only care about culture associated with brown people? What about the preservation of Cosby fan culture, or R. Kelly fan culture?

Anyway, thanks for reading all this and please consider focusing on more constructive efforts, like advocating against cults and proseletyzing.

Oh, don't worry, I am. I'm advocating against the cult you've joined. Because your belief system itself functions the same way as a cult. I am, after all, a heretic, a blasphemer. People who disagree with you and do not comply are burned as witches (online mob).

The entire point of you messaging me was to proselytize your born again faith to me and tell me to accept your beliefs and seek salvation. Beliefs that are as unfalsifiable as any god. Beliefs that are performative and allow you to be as hateful as you like as "divine" virtue. Beliefs that are held with faith, not reason or evidence. Beliefs that are based on insular circular scripture that refers to nothing but itself. Beliefs that created the vulnerability that they purport to solve.

You are a religionist. You have every hallmark.

==

One striking thing that stands out about this is the sheer paternalism and audacity to speak on behalf of Jewish, Muslim and a long string of other religions, as if you represent all of them. You do not. You speak only for yourself. One person.

While also remaining silent on the decline of Xianity, other than to frame it as an accusation leveled at me.

And this is where the unrepentant sociopathy of this ideology comes into play.

Protect Judaism and Islam from "cultural genocide", but let Xianity slide into oblivion without protestation. Because reasons. Because hegemony power normative marginalized structural discursive intersectional genocide hegemony. Yes, I know the language. The empty, empty word salad, obscuring the empty, empty claims. The juvenile, parochial view of someone with the first world privilege to be able to waste their education studying vanity courses about luxury beliefs.

"Hate" is bad and wrong... except when it comes to hating the "right" people; particular people from particular groups or categories, because then it's a virtue. Because then we can pretend it's not really hate. Because they deserve it. Because they're the Bad™ people. Because we're on the "right side of history."

Because our bigotry to them isn't the same as their bigotry to us, because they're different. Because our bigotry is justified. They're not capable of the same range of emotions or understanding. Being vilified doesn't impact them the same way it impacts us.

https://cheshireinthemiddle.tumblr.com/post/190100729802

'Except for the fact that boys don't experience "some form of sexual abuse" ever, and all apparent "cases" of male sexual abuse are always from people who lack any understanding of the definition of such terms.

Sexual abuse involves mental trauma, males do not experience mental trauma as they are incapable of doing so, similar to how males cannot experience emotions such as remorse and generosity and therefore the term sexual abuse does not apply to men, there should be another term that does apply to men but I have been unable to locate such a term.'

https://torontosun.com/2017/02/11/black-lives-matter-co-founder-appears-to-label-white-people-defects

“Whiteness is not humxness,” the statement begins. “infact, white skin is sub-humxn.” The post goes on to present a genetics-based argument centred on melanin and enzyme.

“White ppl are recessive genetic defects. this is factual,” the post reads towards the end. “white ppl need white supremacy as a mechanism to protect their survival as a people because all they can do is produce themselves. black ppl simply through their dominant genes can literally wipe out the white race if we had the power to.”

What you're actually looking for is special treatment. You're okay with Xianity being attacked and would likely be thrilled for it to collapse and fade away entirely, as the statistics currently suggest it will, long term. The "cultural genocide" of Xianity is acceptable, even to be applauded. Because Xianity isn't like all the others. The others are cornerstones of fetishized groups, while Xianity is a (supposed) cornerstone of a disfavored group: western society.

Cheering the removal of the cornerstones of hated groups is a virtue. Consistently advocating for the removal of superstitious, primitive and false cornerstones of all groups - and doing so consistently, as I do - is like literal genocide or someshit.

And I don't think you'd even disagree with this, which is worrying. Because it's this exact mentality that proposed Proposition 16 in California, to re-legalize discrimination based on race, gender, etc, as a virtuous endeavor. Treating people differently to construct preferred outcomes based on identity groups, and denying qualified, merit-based promotions and admissions.

But this ideology is so invested in this fetish, this hypocrisy, this double-standard, this discrimination, this bigotry that you've adopted as core to your identity, that you're willing to discard real human people into the abyss of toxic, destructive, and false religious beliefs. As "culture" that must be protected from the intrusion of reality.

This ideology is one of the most dehumanizing, hateful I've ever encountered.

==

The problem here isn't me. The problem here is that you put ideas, myths and beliefs above people. Oh, you talk a big game about "groups", but what you're referring to is the categories, not the individuals.

And this is the great tragedy and destructiveness of the woke theology It both denies the universal (e.g. common humanity, one single race), and the individual, and instead fixates entirely on categories and identity groups based solely on stereotypes and cliches, about what it means to be that type of person. This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

As usual, this broken, deranged ideology goes in exactly the wrong, anti-human direction, especially when it uses its authoritarian nature to lecture to others how they should feel and what is an "authentic" way to feel or be a particular category of person. It divides humanity up into categories and insists on preserving and upholding the boundaries between those categories as a virtue.

Here's the difference between you and me. I believe that people can change their beliefs, that they can discard old, bad ideas, and adopt new, better ideas. That they can evolve their cultures and societies to the benefit of their own and everyone else's humanity. It's how we got where we are today.

You just want to protect ideas rather than people, and make sure everyone acts out the roles you've assign them in your head.

Sweetie, the problem is you've become an authoritarian bigot who has subscribed to a hate-cult. You lost your shit when I simply said no, before I even explained why - you weren't interested in that.

Your beliefs are toxic shit. Your values are completely messed up. It's time to stop using your adopted identity categories as an excuse for your shitty ideas and untreated personality disorders. You can be better than this.

Genocide your bigoted, hateful, sociopathic cult-like beliefs, sweetie.