#there needs to be a better way to refer to refer to religious jewish people

[kob131]

Okay first off-

-Jewish people are not white. That's factually just not true. They do not originate from Europe, which is the region where the group of 'white people' come from. They literally come from Israel. So if people native to Israel are not white then the Jewish people as an ethnicity as not white. And in fact, have been discriminated against in 'white' circles for decades if not centuries. I mean, remember all those jokes about rich white clubs that had the rule of 'No Blacks or Jews'? Yeah, that actually rings true.

-The argument for the Jewish people being native to Israel not 'helping' '''indigenous struggles''' should not affect you. You are arguing a moral standard, you must apply said moral standard in all applicable situations regardless of if it benefits you. The entire point of arguing a moral standard is that it helps makes things better for everyone- basically going 'this doesn't apply here because it fucks me over' is surrendering the moral argument. You just want an uneven playing field, not to be moral and principled.

All of this ignoring that if you can just strip the Jewish People of their 'native' card- Well...what's stopping other countries of stripping their natives of their own status? What's stopping the USA from looking at the Natives and saying 'Since no one alive in your communities actually lived during the time that they owned the land, it's ours now' and then just killing them? The whole argument for natives is that other cultures got the chance to build up their own histories so they should too. If said histories no long matter because *insert bullshit here* then anyone can make anything up to justify it.

-I think that if you were to apply that standard to everyone- You would quickly find the world screeching to a halt. Native tribes murdered and conquered each other too. Same with African tribes, who then sold their prisoners in the slave trade. We can't focus on every single atrocities committed because the number of atrocities exceed human comprehension.

-What's even the point here? That you would get sunburned from living in Israel thus it means you have changed so much that you no longer count? You do know that if I dropped you in the middle of Africa, you'd likely die of exposure right? Does that mean all African Americans have no rights to live in Africa?

This is such a dumb argument. Especially if we take the simplified version of 'This happened so long ago that it no longer counts' because to a human, 2000 years and 158 years aren't that different. You basically made the argument 'The US and Europe are off the hook for slavery'.

-And that's the problem isn't it? This isn't about 'what is indigenous?' It's 'what is beneficial for me?' You side only with the people who are a part of your argument. You care only for advancing your own privilege and ensuring everyone else is below you. The same mindset that caused the evils of imperialism.

The African Jews, ironically, have even less of a right to Israel than the 'White' Jews. Because the 'White' Jews have an actual ethnic history there, the African Jews don't. If you actually believed in the standard of 'Ethnic people deserve to have their ancestral home' then you would care more for the Jewish people you disregard than the religious Jews you support. Again, you only care about them because you see it as increasing your own privilege.

-It's literally more of a claim that the sub groups you support by your own logic but okay.

-Gonna be honest here-

You are native to America.

The only reason I accept this conflict in the slightest is because both groups have lived and grown up in that area. They accept that area and it's ideals, culture and beliefs. They are actually native to that area. Your hypothetical does not apply because you did not grow up in England. You did not accept that culture as your own. You do not have a right to it because you never earned it.

The Arabs and the Jewish People in Israel did.

-'still black ppl enslaved in the US-'

Literally been illegal for 158 years, dumbass. To such a point it's not even a part of fringe political discourse. And no, the prison system doesn't count- that isn't slavery.

-'And the discourse around Jewish Indigineity to Isareal won't change anything for other indigenous groups nomatter which way the wind blows.'

Well if the argument that 'being separated from country of origin for X years means you no longer count' is accepted- You're gonna quickly find yourself up shit creek without a paddle.

Gentile leftists, this is a PSA, and I am begging you to listen. Sharing claims that Jews aren’t indigenous to the land of Israel, that Jews don’t come from the Middle East, and/or that the Zionist movement wasn’t created in response to centuries of antisemitism & genocide is fringe revisionist history with a long antisemitic history. These aren’t anti-imperialist or anti-colonial stances. They are just antisemitic conspiracy theories.

And on the flip side, acknowledging the simple fact that Jews are indigenous to the region currently occupied by Israel & Palestine does not imply any opinion about the modern states of Israel & Palestine, their governments, or the conflict in the region. This post is not voicing support for Zionism or the state of Israel. This is literally just historical fact: both Jews and Palestinians are indigenous to the region where modern day Israel & Palestine are.

If you make this about the politics or conflicts of the modern states of Israel or Palestine—if you comment or send me asks to that effect—you will be blocked.

[writingwithcolor]

Depicting Real World Religions Alongside Constructed Religions

Maya asked:

Hi WWC! Thank you so much for this blog, it's an infinitely wonderful resource! Do you have any suggestions for how I can balance representation of real religions with fantasy religions, or should I avoid including these together? Does the fact that certain things bleed over from our world into the fantasy world help legitimize the appearance of real world religions? I feel like I can come up with respectful ways to integrate representation in ways that make sense for the worldbuilding. For instance, no Muslim characters would practice magic, and both Jewish and Muslim characters would conceive of magic in ways that fit their religion (rather than trying to adapt real religions to fit my worldbuilding). I also have some ideas for how these religions came about that fit between handwave and analogous history (though I realize the Qur'an is unchangeable, so I'm guessing Islam would have come about in the same way as IRL). BTW—I'm referring to humans, not other species coded as Muslim or Jewish. I may explore the concept of jinns more (particularly as how Muslims perceive fantastical beings), but I definitely need to do a lot more research before I go down that road! Finally, I saw a post somewhere (*but* it might have been someone else's commentary) suggesting to integrate certain aspects of Judaism (e.g., skullcaps in sacred places/while praying, counting days from sundown instead of sunset) into fantasy religions (monotheistic ones, of course) to normalize these customs, but as a non-Jewish person I feel this could easily  veer into appropriation-territory.  *One of the posts that I'm referring to in case you need a better reference of *my* reference: defining coding and islam-coded-fantasy

[This long ask was redacted to pull out the core questions asked]

"Both Jewish and Muslim characters would conceive of magic in ways that fit their religion (rather than trying to adapt real religions to fit my worldbuilding)."

Just a note that while having religion be part of magic is a legitimate way to write fantasy, I want to remind people that religious characters can also perform secular magic. Sometimes I feel like people forget about that particular worldbuilding option. (I feel this one personally because in my own books I chose to make magic secular so that my nonmagical heroine wouldn’t seem less close to God somehow than her wizard adoptive dad, who is an objectively shadier person.) I’m not saying either way is more or less correct or appropriate, just that they’re both options and I think sometimes people forget about the one I chose. But anyway moving on—

Your decision to make the water spirits not actual deities is a respectful decision given the various IRL monotheistic religions in your story, so, thank you for that choice. I can see why it gets messy though, since some people in-universe treat those powers as divine. I guess as long as your fantasy Jews aren’t being depicted as backwards and wrong and ignoring in-universe reality in favor of in-universe incorrect beliefs, then you’re fine…

"I saw a post somewhere (but it might have been someone else's commentary) suggesting to integrate certain aspects of Judaism (e.g., skullcaps in sacred places/while praying, counting days from sundown instead of sunset) into fantasy religions (monotheistic ones, of course) to normalize these customs, but as a non-Jewish person I feel this could easily veer into appropriation-territory."

That was probably us, as Meir and I both feel that way. What would make it appropriative is if these very Jewish IRL markers were used to represent something other than Judaism. It's not appropriative to show Jewish or Jewish-coded characters wearing yarmulkes or marking one day a week for a special evening with two candles or anything else we do if it's connected to Jewishness! To disconnect the markers of us from us is where appropriation starts to seep in.

–Shira

To bounce off what Shira said above, the source of the magic can be religious or secular--or put another way, it can be explicitly granted be a deity or through engagement with a specific religious practice, or it can be something that can be accessed with or without engaging with a certain set of beliefs or practices. It sounds like you’re proposing the second one: the magic is there for anyone to use, but the people in this specific religion engage with it through a framework of specific ideas and practices.

If you can transform into a “spirit” by engaging with this religion, and I can transform into a “spirit” through an analogous practice through the framework of Kabbalah, for example, and an atheist can transform through a course of secular technical study, then what makes yours a religion is the belief on your part that engaging in the process in your specific way, or choosing to engage in that process over other lifestyle choices, is in some way a spiritual good, not the mechanics of the transformation. If, on the other hand, humans can only access this transformative magic through the grace of the deities that religion worships, while practitioners of other religions lack the relationship with the only gods empowered to make that magic, that’s when I’d say you had crossed into doing more harm than good by seeking to include real-world religions.

Including a link below to a post you might have already seen that included the “religion in fantasy worldbuilding alignment chart.” It sounds like you’re in the center square, which is a fine place to be. The center top and bottom squares are where I typically have warned to leave real-world religions out of it.

More reading:

Jewish characters in a universe with author-created fictional pantheons

–Meir

[frownyalfred]

Hello! I’m not Jewish and I just learned about Pikuach Nefesh. Being Jewish yourself, I’m guessing you have a lot of thoughts on this and how it relates to Bruce’s no-kill policy. I’d be really interested in hearing them if you want to make a post!

Hey friend!

I absolutely have thoughts, but I must begin with a disclaimer:

My perspective does not cover all Jews, nor is it the authority on what is or isn't Jewish. I grew up Reform/Reconstructionist, in an ethnically Ashkenazi Jewish family, and these are just my thoughts as a Batman blog.

Another important note: different types of Jews hold the halacha (rules/principles) of Judaism to be far more important in their lives. An Orthodox Jew will observe halacha much more strictly than a Reform Jew. Despite what some people will tell you, this doesn't make either of them better. Just different.

Whew, okay. Now that that's out of the way, let's get down to business.

What is Pikuach Nefesh?

In very general terms, Pikuach Nefesh (hard ch sound in the back of your throat) allows Jews to override other religious "rules" or values in the pursuit of preserving or saving a life.

A good example of this is a an Orthodox Jewish person, who, following halacha, will not drive or operate items with electricity during the Sabbath (Shabbat). But what happens if someone has a heart attack and they need to call 911? Pikuach Nefesh would permit them to use electricity, despite it being Shabbat.

If a Jewish person who keeps total kosher is in a situation where they will starve if they do not eat non-kosher food, they are permitted to eat non-kosher food.

Exceptions

There are some notable exceptions to Pikuach Nefesh, which I suspect is what your question is getting at. The threat to an individual's life generally has to be known, urgent, and not abstract.

Murder is another large exception, with some conditions. Generally, the intentional act of killing another person, or injuring them to the point where they might die from their injuries, is not an act that can be permitted by the principle of Pikuach Nefesh.

The slim exceptions to this include highly specific cases of self defense of oneself or another against an aggressor. One may kill to preserve a life in very strict situations, but they cannot murder. There are even times where killing is obligated, such as war.

So how does this relate to Batman/Bruce's no-killing rule?

Okay. So. I've had a lot of discussions with folks about this, and the answer I've learned is: it doesn't. Not really.

Pikuach Nefesh refers to the principle that a Jewish person should preserve life over almost any other rule or halacha. It does, actually, permit Bruce to kill under very specific situations. It does actually forbid him from gravely injuring people and doing so in the name of fighting against abstract threats, which are both things he does in canon.

The last time I wrote about this, I was definitely off about the details of Pikuach Nefesh in regard to Batman. I was corrected and I stand by that correction. I didn't grow up in the Orthodox faith and I don't observe much of their halacha, which is where a lot of religious theory questions arise from. I'm not an expert, and my explanation is only as deep as my own experience.

I think a good way of looking at Pikuach Nefesh is not as a way to define what, if any, killing is acceptable, but rather, what are we obligated to do to save a life?

The more important Jewish principle shaping Batman's ideology (in my opinion)

"Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire."

This is much more of an important focal point for Bruce's Jewish-influenced ideology. The flipside of this quote, from the Talmud, is equally important: "Whoever kills one life, kills the world entire."

Bruce's no-killing rule is famously tied to his parents' deaths during his childhood. In a way, his entire world ended with their murder. He sees his mission to clean up Gotham as a way to prevent that loss from occurring for anyone else.

Saving one person, like he tells Barry in Justice League, is enough. That is a viciously Jewish thought. It is frequently quoted in reference to those who acted in support of Jews during the Holocaust, doing what little they could against a fountain of evil.

Conclusion

In that regard, yes -- Pikuach Nefesh tells us that preserving a life is the most important thing above all else. But Bruce's no-killing rule would swiftly be broken if he followed the principle of Pikuach Nefesh closely, in that he would a) likely have to kill someone in self-defense at some point in his duties and b) it would not allow him to injure or hurt people to the extent that he currently does in canon.

More importantly, Bruce's no-killing rule is a better reflection of the Talmudic quote that "he who saves/kills a life, has saved/killed a world entire."

It is not much of a stretch, in my opinion, to connect Bruce's trauma from losing his parents at young age to his outright refusal to kill later in life. The more interesting question, in my mind, is if the creation of this no-killing rule truly was shaped by Batman's Jewish creators and their view on life and death, especially post Holocaust.

Comics became more widely available during and after WWII and the Holocaust, during which time many -- many -- Jews entered the field as writers and artists. Their influences on the characters we see today are obvious, often intentionally Jewish, but just as often un-intentional.

Was Batman's no-killing rule a product of the post-WWII Jewish comic writers who shaped his character? Was it a coincidence that lined up well with the Talmud, but not necessarily all the conditions of Pikuach Nefesh?

How else does Batman represent, or not represent, the goal of Pikuach Nefesh (the necessity that a person act in the preservation of human life, above almost all else)?

[matan4il]

Hey, I just felt the need to vent and see if you or your followers had any advice for me because I feel so stuck.

I don't have any relatives or friends in Israel so sometimes I feel I have no room to talk on the conflict. I'm in the US, I'm 'safe', my family is safe, but I still feel so hurt and the grief from everything happening to 'my people'

I was talking to a friend and I know we have conflicting opinions on everything happening. I just feel so heart broken by him as we were discussing things and he cuts the conversation when I said "Hamas is a terrorist organization". I don't know how I can trust him anymore when he can't even see that. I love him so much. He's essentially my best friend. It hurts so much and I don't know what to do. At this point I just keep quiet but there is resentment building and I hate it.

Any advice would help. Sorry for rambling. I'm just emotional.

Hi Nonnie! I totally understand, you're being legit in how you feel, and I'm sending you many hugs!

I believe I've answered a similar ask at some point since the war, I'm just not sure how to find it, because Tumblr's search option sucks. Maybe through the ask tag, IDK. If anyone's better at handling this site, and can find it and link it in the comments, I'm sure the anon (and definitely me) would appreciate that!

I think that ask was more generalized though, so here I'll refer more specifically to yours.

First of all, if you're Jewish, you have family in Israel. All Jews are one big family, one tribe, and I consider every Jew a part of my extended family. That said, there's actually a good chance that, given enough genealogical research, you'll find that one, two or three generations ago, the family tree split, and there's a branch where people returned to Israel, so you have distant relatives you weren't even aware of here. If you're interested in looking into this, a good place to start is to contact the Anu Museum, which delves into the history of the Jewish people, and also keeps extensive genealogical records for Jews.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, that's not an opinion or debate, it's a fact. People tend to claim that resistance can be seen as terrorists or freedom fighters, depending on one's opinion, and it's true that at times the term "terrorists" has been abused, but there's actually a very simple way to figure out the matter. If an organization intentionally targets civilians with violence, including lethal violence, for the sake of achieving some sort of a political change (and that includes political change in service of an extremist religious cause), then we're talking about terrorists. The differentiation between a regime as a legit target for a struggle, and innocent civilians who should never be targeted with violence, that's the difference between freedom fighters (whether we agree with them or not) and terrorists.

The exact date of Hamas being established as a terrorist organization is not known, most believe it was Dec 1987 (it announced it was joining the First Intifada on Dec 15, when it started on Dec 9. Hamas escalated it considerably, as it did the Second Intifada), while the son of a Hamas founder (Mosab Hassan Yousef. He was repeatedly jailed by Israel for terrorist activity in the service of his dad's organization, but as a teen in prison saw how Hamas was torturing Palestinians. He decided to flip and help Israel in order to save his own people from Hamas) says it was actually slightly earlier, in 1986. Either way, by the end of 1989 (just two years after its first public statement), Hamas was already so brutal and violent, that it was outlawed here. Soon, especially as it started carrying out extensive suicide bombings (the very first one was on Apr 16, 1993), it was also recognized as a terrorist organization and outlawed by multiple governments (including the UK, the US, Jordan, the EU, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Australia and Paraguay).

Not only is Hamas clearly a terrorist organization since its very first act of terrorism, after Oct 7 it is also one of the most successful ones ever (second only to Al-Qaeda after 9/11, though if you look at the number of fatalities per population size, then Hamas have surpassed Al-Qaeda as well). To not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization is to not recognize terrorism, and that it is fundamentally wrong, because nothing ever justifies killing civilians to affect a political change, and THAT is an incredibly disturbing position to take.

On top of that, Hamas is Islamist, it wants a world ruled by an Islamist regime, and sees the eradication of Israel as a first step on the way there. It will only condemn other Islamist terrorist organizations for digressing from this plan of eradicating the Jewish state first, before taking on the rest of the world. Hamas is also genocidal towards Jews. Its founding charter declares this explicitly, that Judgment Day will not come until all Jews are exterminated. Its leaders have continuously and repeatedly expressed themselves in similar ways, calling upon "true believers" to kill Jews everywhere around the world, and in fact since Oct 7, several Hamas terrorist cells have been exposed as operating against Jews outside of Israel.

Someone who can't even admit Hamas are terrorists will likely not recognize the genocidal, antisemitic and extremist Islamist nature of Hamas, either. If you're Jewish, what that means is that your "friend" is willing to turn a blind eye to the declared statements of those who wish to kill you simply because you're Jewish. And if you ask me, that's not a friend at all. But even if you're not Jewish, I think the willingness to allow Hamas' genocidal antisemitism by denying the nature of this organization is morally despicable. I would kind of get it if your friend lived in a non-free country, where he can't get the true info on Hamas. But if you live in a free society, and your friend can get online, and go to one of the sites that share info on Hamas, especially the footage from Oct 7, but he's still denying what this terrorist organization is really like? I think you're very right to be upset by that.

At the end of the day, how you deal with it is up to you. It sounds like this person is really important to you, and I get it. At the same time, it sounds like you're having a hard time living with his views of Hamas, which is beyond justified. If your friend is willing to overlook this, what else is he willing to allow? I guess the question is whether you feel like you can have a talk with him, where you put this all on the table, not just Hamas being a terrorist organization, but also the genocidal, Islamist and antisemitic nature of it, and explain to your friend that it is personally distressing to you, that he can act as if Hamas is a legit organization? Do you feel like you can talk to him, and if he understood what it means to you, he might be more willing to listen? If you don't talk to him about this, do you feel like you can live with his views?

I'll be honest, I personally would not want such a person as a "friend." I would never feel like I could trust him. That doesn't negate all of his other good traits and what he can and does give you as a friend, though. I get that. I understand that it is a loss, if this ends your friendship. And that's why I say that it's up to you. It's up to what you feel is in the best interest of your well being. Do you still trust him to have your back despite his views? Do you think you'd be worse off to lose everything else about your friendship? Or do you think he values your friendship enough to listen? Do you feel like the distress of knowing what he supports is too much, and is bad for your well being? At the end of the day, only you can answer these questions.

Just know that no matter what you decide, you're not alone. There are others who feel like you do, and who would accept you, all of you, anti-Hamas views included, and will be true allies and friends. You def have a friend here. I'm wishing you well with whatever you decide to do, and if you feel like sending follow up asks, please don't hesitate to! Much love, Nonnie. xoxox

(for more of my posts regarding Israel, click here)

If this is a person who you define as your best friend, but they're cool

[nalyra-dreaming]

Heyyy

What are your thoughts on religious symbolism or just religion in general in the story? Cos I started reading the books and was really surprised by how much the characters GET INTO IT lmao it’s really present in the story in a way the show mostly shied away from after the first episode I think, other than a couple exceptions it was mostly not explicit except a few references to hell.

Sooo I’m pretty hyped seeing some crucifixion imagery in season 2, I suppose I makes sense that Louis would be having a religious reckoning after losing lestat, and Armand is a character really defined by his faith so it will be interesting to see how deep they go with it. What are you hoping to see?

Hey!

Yes, there is a LOT of religious symbolism in the books (Anne struggled all her life with it, and that is threaded through). Lestat (and others) has a rather complicated relationship to the divine. In Memnoch he literally encounters God, and drinks his blood. Lestat is often likened to Christ in the books, something the show has obviously picked up on. After his ordeal with Memnoch he is bound and raving mad before he quiets into a coma, in a chapel.

(Young Lestat wants to become a monk/priest, prays to be released from his abusive family, shivers at the vicious futility at the Witches' Place.)

We have other characters who come from a vastly different backgrounds, too, like Marius in pre-Christian Roman Empire, or in the extreme (in a way) Akasha and Enkil in ancient Egypt, building themselves up to (Blood) Gods. For example.

The show has given Armand a muslim background, Daniel might have yet another one, maybe jewish.

I do not actually think they're shying away from all that - but they are giving themselves time to reach the important points here... and, of course, season 1 being told by Louis, put the focus somewhere else, because Louis actually did not wish to think about all that too deeply. Or, better, address it.

Now Louis obviously believed ... enough. Enough to feel deeply and utterly tortured about it all. I think that is true for book and show, and the show has taken the book comment and made it literal:

"What would Christ need have done to make me follow Him like Matthew or Peter? Dress well, to begin with. And have a luxurious head of pampered yellow hair."

Louis goes and runs to church when all else fails, in desperation. He kills the priest there, in the book.

Louis... will lose his faith in god, or, maybe better, switch it over to Lestat as his god, book canonically. (And he struggles with this, for a long time):

"He leaned close to me, and he put his hand on my arm. “ ‘Wither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people’; and because I have no other god and never will, you shall be my god."

Armand has also spoken of "I serve a god", which might be a callback to the events surrounding Memnoch. And, as you say, he is deeply defined by his faith. It will be truly interesting to see where they go for it in the show - how they go for it.

Of course the image of Lestat as if on a cross is imbued with meaning.

Louis himself later mediates on the fact that he "hated Lestat for the wrong reasons", and that the feelings that Lestat arouse in him did not have "hatred among them".

Lestat has been murdered, for sins he did not commit(*).

(*)Of course there is plenty to say about that - and Lestat himself never blamed Claudia! - but that which they (ultimately, simplified) hated him for... was not his fault, not really. Vampirism never freed any of them, it simply could not, and Claudia didn't have a choice in any case... and eternity is a long time to build up emotions. Or hate. (Or forgiveness.)

And so Lestat as Christ on a cross... calls back to that, in Louis' imagination.

So what I hope to see... hmm.

I don't think they'll put Memnoch into the show. I think if anything then Memnoch or a Memnoch-like event has already happened.

I hope... that we will get to see the characters struggling with their faith - or lack of it. I hope that we will get to see Lestat destroy the Parisian coven and the satanic cult there. I hope that we will see Armand struggling to find something to hold onto (and find it!). I want Louis to free himself from the shackles of catholic guilt, whether they go book canon or not. I want Lestat to make his peace with the Witches' Place and the futility of it all, the "dark" moment. I hope that we will see characters reflect and mirror the perceived truths of faith - and destroy the preconceptions.

I want all that.

I hope for all that :)

We'll see if they dare, but... I'm carefully hopeful^^.

Oh yes, and at the end... I want them to find their peace in their own religion, as in the books... their "Blood Communion".

[edenfenixblogs]

The Jews who argue against the word “genocide” do not do so because they support what is happening; they do so because they are arguing that what is happening is better described by the term “ethnic cleansing,” which is also a horrifically bad and inexcusable thing. It just also doesn’t have the antisemitic connotation here.

Hey, need to point out using Ethnic Cleansing (which i only saw used by slightly less radical left) is just as bad and inaccurate to use as Genocide- Jews have experienced Ethnic Cleansing and to label this war as such disregards the actual ethnic cleansing Jews experienced for centuries- most recently SWANA Jews! And I would argue Ethiopian Jews too. Individuals willingly and temporarily leaving their home because it is a war zone (due to a war their leadership systems!) is not ethnic cleansing. We can look to what is happening to Armenians, and Afghans in Pakistan- that is ethnic cleansing.

I really need people to brush up not only on their dictionary terms but on the legal definitions that help determine something. Definitions and the correct usage of them matter! Languages matters- when we use definitions wrongly we water them down.

This is why we have people screaming genocide at something that isn’t one! Because their definition of genocide has been watered down- because every war is suddenly a genocide and every bad person I disagree with is a Nazi.. You get my drift. I’m very sensitive to correct usage of words and definitions.

I absolutely understand this perspective and I refrain from using either term personally with regard to this conflict.

I respect your sensitivity, which is one of many reasons I urge people to try to understand the impact of these words on the Jewish community.

That said, I am sensitive also to the fact that there are dictionary definitions of things and legal definitions of things and scholarly definitions of things. I try to keep in mind that everyone is approaching this conflict from their own cultural context so I am not as intense personally about correcting people's usage of these terms, simply because I'm not expert enough to determine which definition is "best." I think legal definitions should definitely always be used in the context of legal discussions, but I don't know if the legal definition is best in a sociological context.

I want to be clear: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just respecting my own limitations on this subject matter.

Rest assured, we agree on the main point here: It is important to be specific and accurate in the usage of terms. We cannot allow emotions running high to justify the watering down of such serious terms.

People of all identities affected by this conflict should approach discussions of terms in the same way they approach everything else about this conflict: with good faith, an open heart, and a goal of peace.

I respect that you also disagree with the use of the term ethnic cleansing. However, I personally do not agree that it is "as bad." This is not me trying to tell you that you're wrong. I just think this particular discussion point has a lot of equally valid takes. Your take is absolutely valid. But allow me to explain my take on the situation, which I consider to be equally valid:

I think there is a lot more wiggle room in the term "ethnic cleansing" than there is in the term "genocide." When I use the term ethnic cleansing, I am referring to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.

The key takeaways I have from the United Nations here is that ethnic cleansing is not actually a crime under international law. The two very loose definitions offered here are:

… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.

a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

I consider Palestinians to be a an ethnic group. I know some critics do not, but I disagree with those people. So if you do not agree with me on that, I doubt we will agree on the specifics that follow. I think recognizing Palestinian identity is vital to fostering a peaceful future for all currently residing in the Levant. However, I know that there are also politics and political realities in Israel between those who call themselves Arab-Israelies vs. Palestinians. I do my best to stay informed about topics, but this is too fraught for me to parse with any authority. I believe in Palestinian ethnic identity because of several reasons I won't elaborate on here, but can elaborate on upon request.

I am not particularly swayed by the first bullet point. I do not believe that Israel is trying to render Palestine as ethnically homogeneous, even though they are using force on the area.

The second bullet point has merit to me. I do not believe all Jews or all Israelis wish to eradicate and remove Palestinians from the Levant, so I do not consider Israelis in general or Jews in general responsible for the cleansing. Furthermore, even though I am personally a pacifist, I am also pragmatic. I believe there are much less violent ways to eradicate Hamas than the heavy bombing currently taking place. I also know Hamas has been firing rockets into Israeli civilian areas for quite a long time and Israel has every right to treat Hamas like the hostile, terrorist organization it is.

But I do hold Netanyahu and the Likud party responsible for their affect on Palestinian civilians. I was disgusted when Netanyahu justified his violent actions by invoking Amalek. And I believe that by invoking Amalek he did in fact cause all of his actions as commander of the military to be in support of ethnic cleansing. I do not deny the parallels between the Amalekites relationship to the ancient people of Israel and Palestine's relationship to the modern state of Israel: namely, repeated attempts to destroy Israel, repeated attacks on Israeli civilians (including the taking of hostages and the attack of women and children and the elderly as a terror tactic). However, what I cannot and will never endorse is the implication that we should treat Palestine the way ancient Israel treated the Amalekites.

G-d ordered the people of Israel to blot out the living memory of the Amalekites from the earth--to eliminate every living Amalekite as well as their city and livestock so that they would only be remembered for the horror they inflicted.

We cannot and must not treat modern Palestinians in this manner, and by invoking a religious precedent in this manner as justification for the modern assault on Gaza, I cannot really conceive of a way in which this is not a specific, religious directive to violently target a civilian population on the grounds of their ethnic identity.

Before anyone uses this as an excuse to demonize all Israelis or Jews, I want to explicitly shut that down as well. I know for a fact that not all Israelis or Jews support or agree with Netanyahu here. And while Netanyahu's horrific invocation of Amalek must be rejected, that rejection does not mean that there should be no consequences for Hamas terrorists and those who support their terror. What it does mean, is that as long as Netanyahu is directing the military response, he is, in my personal opinion, carrying out an ethnic cleansing. And we must be able to criticize him for that and respect Palestinian civilians enough to give them the grace to use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the horror they are experiencing. Criticizing this does not mean Israel has no justifiable military response. Hamas has been engaging in antisemitic terror and mass violence against Israelis and Jews for a long time, even prior to 10/7, in a way that must be stopped by force. However, the main goal for all people of good faith affected by this conflict should always remain peace, not retaliation or attacks on ANYONE (Jewish or Arab) based on their ethnic identity.

I fully respect that you may disagree with this. As there is no legally widespread accepted definition of ethnic cleansing, you may be operating under a different set of criteria to define the term "ethnic cleansing." That's OK, too. I would not call myself uninformed on the topic of the i/p conflict. I have been actively affected by it for over 25 years. That said, I'm also no scholar or international expert on the topic either. I would rate my knowledge and familiarity with the conflict and relevant terminology to be much higher than average and steeped in years of observation and personal experience. So, if I still view his as a matter up for a variety of interpretations, I cannot fault others for feeling the same way, even if that means they disagree with me. I hope this makes sense, and you are able to see my stance as legitimate, even if you disagree with it.

[gay-jewish-bucky]

image ID for infographics:

orientalism

If your Instagram bio has On [Indigenous name] land and you've been calling Israel "Isnotreal or Israhell", we need to talk.

Referring to "Israel" as "Isnotreal, Israhell, Isr*el, "Israel"," and such is anti-Indigenous, antisemitic, and Orientalist. Let's start with some history.

Archaeologists date the first archaeological record of a reference to Israel to 1205 BC.

And indeed, secular historical record clearly points to The Kingdom of Israel existing on this land. The Kingdom of Israel was a nation made up of tribal peoples called Israelites. Israelites are understood to have been descendants and not conquerors of Canaanites and then the Hebrew tribes. Today, several peoples have Israelite ancestry.

Jews and Samaritans are peoples whose ethnogeneses stem from Israel and who fit all the criteria for Indigeneity. Secular history, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, genetics, understandings of ethnicity, migration, and Indigeneity, and more support this.

"Wait, I thought this whole land was called Palestine first?"

Nope! Let's pick up where we left off. Israel then got conquered by empire after empire. This is that imperialism you hate so much. Some of these rulers included: Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and British.

During Roman Empire rule, the region was called Judea, after The Kingdom of Judah, which was a southern Israelite kingdom (Jew literally means of Judah). However, with the Indigenous Jews trying to revolt against imperial rule, the Roman imperialists renamed the land from Judea to Syria- Palaestina. Palaestina is understood to come from Pelishtim aka the Phillistines, a Greek people who had earlier come to settle on land in the region, battled the Indigenous Israelites, and are unrelated to modern day Palestinians. It thought that the Romans renamed the region this to humiliate and punish the Jews for attempting to resist imperialism and to try to sever their Indigenous ties to the land.

When future empires conquered the land, this name given to it by imperialists stuck. The Byzantine Empire used Palaestina Prima, Secunda, and Salutaris; the Arab Empire used Jund Filastin; the British Empire used Mandatory Palestine.

Why is it called Israel today?

Jews, who maintained a presence on their Indigenous land while being persecuted by conquering empire after conquering empire, finally declared independence from imperialism (the British Empire this time) in 1948.

This is an example of an Indigenous people seeking and achieving self-determination on their Indigenous land. As we've covered, Jews are a nation with tribal origins (despite the modern framing of them as more of a religious group, which comes in part from their colonizers' attempts to control them, by the way). Take a look at Cherokee Nation's mission: "The Cherokee Nation is committed to protecting our inherent sovereignty, preserving and promoting Cherokee culture, language and values, and improving the quality of life for the next seven generations of Cherokee Nation citizens."

Indigenous peoples all around the world want these things. When deciding what to call the modern state that would be a re-establishment of an Indigenous nation finally free again from imperial rule, Israel using a pre-colonial name like Israel was an act of decolonization. It is thought that they went with Israel (over, say, Judea) to be more historically geographically accurate and inclusive of non-Jewish citizens.

If you live in America and aren't Native American, you may have guilt over being a beneficiary of settler colonialism.

Writing On [Indigenous name] land in your Instagram bio may make you feel better about living on stolen land. It is also a fairly empty gesture in that it doesn't do a ton for Native Americans and takes essentially no sacrifice from you. You don't have to give up any of the privilege you've accrued as a beneficiary of settler colonialism. Telling people in SWANA to get off their Indigenous land may be a way you are assuaging said guilt. But let's be clear: this is anti- Indigenous, antisemitic, and Orientalist. The irony of your telling Indigenous people to get off land to which they're Indigenous while you chill on land to which you're not? Palpable.

Jews aren't a scapegoat for your guilt. Take a look in the mirror and at history and realize you are in a way more whom you accuse Jewish Israelis of being than they are, and you've said they were deserving of being burned alive in their homes, tortured, mutilated, SAed, and more. What might it be like to apply that logic to you? (Though to be clear, Jews are Indigenous to Israel whilst you are not to America.)

While land back by any means necessary may sound sexy and righteous to you for those people over there (again, it doesn't even accurately apply since Jews are Indigenous to Israel), if it were applied to you, you'd be the subject of violence. Promoting violence in SWANA but not wanting it for yourself reeks of Orientalism. Your comfort with violence against Jews enmeshed in erasure, double standards, and scapegoating is antisemitic.

If you care so much about Indigenous people, stop telling Indigenous people to get off their Indigenous land. Maybe focus a bit more on the Indigenous land you, not a Native American, are occupying.

Advocacy for Palestinians need not erase Jewish history.

Living in the West telling Indigenous peoples of SWANA who they are and what to do is Orientalist.

Disagreeing with actions of the Israeli government isn't a free pass making it ok for you to be antisemitic, anti-Indigenous, or Orientalist.

Soviet Antisemitism and Candace Owens:

The antisemitic Soviet propaganda that got Candace Owens, explained:

Background of Soviet antisemitism.

Many are unaware of how antisemitism, at its peak, inspired Soviet propaganda through anti-Zionism. The Soviet Union created and disseminated anti-Zionist conspiracies after initially siding with Israel, then becoming threatened by Israel's growing alliance with the U.S. Observing this threat, the Soviets quickly unleashed some of the most commonly known anti-Zionist theories, today often repeated by fringe leftists, such as:

"Zionism is racism" "Zionism is elitism" "Zionism is colonialism" "Zionism is American imperialism" "Zionism oppresses people of color" "Zionism is bourgeoise classism”, and the like.

In addition, the Soviets argued that anti-Zionism was "not antisemitism," because many Jews endorsed their theories.

Historians argue that the UN's adoption of Resolution 3379 determining that "Zionism is racism" (later revoked by resolution) was orchestrated by the Soviet propaganda machine.

Soviet Anti-Zionism quickly perpetuated communist circles, concretized in writing and becoming required reading in educational & military institutions.

Soviet Holocaust Distortion and Holocaust Inversion.

Alongside its widespread anti-Zionist propaganda campaign, Soviet propaganda is also responsible for much revisionist history known as "holocaust distortion" and "holocaust inversion."

Whether distorting the facts surrounding the holocaust (through denial, minimization, "universalization," or reversal of victim and offender) or inverting the Holocaust (accusing Jews of being Nazis), the central aim of this propaganda tactic is to convince its target audience, just as the Nazis had done, that the Jews are the cause of the world's problems, never the victims.

Examples of Soviet Holocaust Distortion

1) "Universalization"

Universalization sought to convince audiences that Jews were not the "main victims" of the Holocaust, that many others suffered, suffering was "universal," and even that the "real genocide" happened to other ethnic groups.

This is exactly the Holocaust distortion employed by Candace Owens, seemingly considering herself a masterful revelator of "hidden truths," but actually discovering dusty soviet propaganda that has long been explored and rejected as toothless.

The Nazis murdered 98% of Jews that remained during the occupation. No other groups were systematically and sweepingly targeted in the same way as Jews. No amount of distortion and revisionist history can make it so.

Examples of Soviet Holocaust Distortion

2) Denying and displacing victimhood

When the Soviets referred to Nazi Germany, they famously described the "innocent Soviet citizens" as the "real victims." This branched out to other ethnic groups, just as Candace points to the "innocent Germans that suffered genocide" as the "real ethnic cleansing."

While others were targeted before, during, and after the Holocaust, it is well understood that "not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims" Eli Weisel.

This is exactly the juncture where Candace's logic falls short and proves her untoward agenda. The insistence that Jews "love to play the victim" and "it really isn't about you," and "other groups suffered genocide" is the exact universalization of a specific Jewish tragedy and displacement of Jewish victimhood crafted by the Soviet propaganda.

Examples of Soviet Holocaust Distortion

3) Reversing Victim and Offender

Candace's opinion that Germans were the "real victims" is formulated in a void of historical understanding. The Nazi regime was never entirely separate from the people. It is well understood that the Nazi regime was a widespread and deeply infiltrated network, saturating the political, social, cultural, and economic sphere, and spanning from high officials to local Nazi activists, leaders, paramilitary organizers, the SS, the SA, and citizen informants and collaborators.

The "Final Solution" to "the Jewish problem" could not have been achieved without a deep network of collaborators and widespread citizen involvement, both inside and outside of Germany. Antisemitism was so deeply pervasive at the time that only a minority remained immune, with mass involvement at a military, paramilitary, and civilian level.

Candace's reference to "innocent German citizens" as "the real targets" of genocide is not only ahistorical and counterfactual, but more concerningly, a classic Soviet reversal of victim and offender, designed to vilify Jews as either "not the real victims," or worse, the "true aggressors," and thereby, the cause of their own decimation.

"Turn your pockets out!"

An old Jewish Expression goes, "the antisemite does not accuse the Jew of stealing because he actually thinks he stole something, he just enjoys watching the Jew turn his pockets out to prove his innocence."

One of the pleasures antisemites take in constant Holocaust Inversion (you are the real Nazis, prove that you're not), and Holocaust Distortion (you aren't the real victims here, prove that you are) is watching Jews turn out their proverbial pockets.

Every time a new Soviet conspiracy resurfaces, Jewry must rush to defend their history and are condemned to a life-sentence of proving their victimhood, even in the context of arguably the worst genocide in all history, specifically organized around and formed on millennia of virulent antisemitism.

Much like what this post is doing now.

This tactic forces Jewry into a perpetual state of self-defense, evoking pleasure in the antisemite who gleefully smirks as she watches the Jew turn her empty pockets out.

Ultimately, the goal of old Soviet antisemitic conspiracies are to convince the target audience that Jews are never victims, always aggressors, and with monumental historic twists, leaps, flips, and turns, the source of all the world's problems.

Ironically, this is exactly what led to the Holocaust in the first place, a lesson that is too quickly forgotten by antisemites who are so enthralled by watching the Jew turn her pockets out that she cannot see the Holocaust she is reenacting in the Holocaust she is denying.

[mr-president]

I have a question (To be perfectly clear this is not an ask trying to strum up controversy, but just my own curiosity of your views, and I love your analysis and how you say things. But if you have nothing to say on this matter feel free to delete this ask)

There’s some controversy in the funger fandom about the writing of the Bremen army, also in Pav. Some people think it’s too sympathetic or the choices that Miro made are in poor taste. Do you have any opinions on this?

CW: fascism, Nazism, antisemitism, and what have you. also, sorry if i get things wrong, again, it’s been a while.

Yes, I do think that portraying a historical, fascist, genocidal regime in Nazi Germany as the Bremen army was in poor taste. It’s one thing to just have a fantastical, fictional totalitarian government and another to use an actual historical allegory as stand in for history. The Bremen army is an allegory for Nazi Germany, there is absolutely no denying that, and Mr. Haverinen made that conscious, authorial choice to make that connection.

However, and this is my personal opinion, I don’t think he properly understood, articulated, or represented the impact that Nazi Germany had on Europe, the world, and especially for Jewish people. And this is a problem, because Nazi Germany still has lingering influences on society and culture today, and Mr. Haverinen’s choice to not only write Nazi Germany in the story but portray it in such a way is…in poor taste.

I understand why Mr. Haverinen likely used Nazi Germany as an allegorical tool—the same reason why he uses religious allegory throughout the story. Because we are all familiar with WW2 and Nazism, we have a general idea and basic understanding of this fictional totalitarian, colonialist regime. And that is perfectly fine and is a valid shorthand storytelling device.

Additionally, the Bremen Empire is still depicted as Not A Good Thing. Like, that’s very clear within the narrative—Mr. Haverinen is not a Nazi and clearly does not support that ideology. However, I do believe that he could have done better in understanding/depicting a sensitive historical subject beyond showing how they are bad. If that makes sense.

My problems with the Bremen Empire are that it:

fails to articulate a coherent ideology as to why their influence is so vast,

gives them a somewhat “good” motive that kind of validates their existence

does not empathize with or represent the minority group (Jewish people) who were most affected by this historical tragedy.

For 1), though there are references to the Bremen army’s horrific atrocities, it’s kind of hand-wavey as to why they’re really doing it, seemingly only because Le’garde’s general bloodlust and assholeness. I’ll discuss that more in the second point, but I just want to state that Nazi Germany had a legitimate, compelling, and actual ideology behind it that perpetuated the attitude of nonchalance and “justice” that came with the atrocities they committed.

It is not merely power, it was fascism. Fascism cleans up your neighborhood, gives you jobs and school and work, gives you what made you great, and gets rid of what put you down. Fascism creates a problem and posits that the solution is to exclude the…undesirables and raise yourself up to your truest potential.

And here, Bremen fails. Somewhat.

Point 2). Their motive. The ultimate goal of Le’garde’s bullshit is for him to usher in new era of humanity, where he becomes Logic, ascends to new-Old Godhood, and helps humanity overcome the rule of the Old Gods and truly live for themselves rather than their whims.

Ultimately, it’s uncertain if this will be a positive thing, but in Ending A it’s kind of a good thing, especially with Reina becoming Logic instead of Le’garde. Of course, much like Funger 1, it begs the question of “was this suffering all worth it,” but like many people have criticized with Reina’s usage at all, that question doesn’t hit as hard as Funger 1.

And Funger 1 didn’t even need a wholeass Nazi allegory to ask that question. Was the suffering of every innocent civilian worth it to get Logic? To usher in this new era of humanity?

The question seems more on the side of “Yeah” because unlike Funger 1, Logic’s existence is depicted as a good thing for humanity. Thus, Bremen is sort of a “good thing,” that at least it was towards something positive and for the betterment of people everywhere.

Which is…a really awful thing to say when, again, this was an actual fascist regime who discriminated against, subjugated, and had a system that enforced the oppression of numerous minority groups.

Point 3). Not really interacting with the minority groups subjugated. Termina’s cast is pretty much entirely made up of minorities, and many of them do have or would have tangible interactions that conflict with the Bremen army.

Levi and Pav are perhaps the best examples of characters who were genuinely traumatized by the Bremen army, and their actions and characterization are substantial for recognizing the psychological impact colonization has on people.

However…no character or even allegorical minority group is a stand in for Jewish people, who are one of the most affected groups of Nazism.

Ok, there didn’t need to be a Jewish character who actually went through the atrocities of Nazism in graphic, Funger-grade detail. That could be very triggering, and it could also spell problems of getting the story censored. And also, misrepresentation is a genuine thing to fear when depicting something like that.

But to scrub most if not all references of Antisemitism? Isn’t that kinda fucked? I think it’s fucked. Let me know if I’m wrong.

Anyways, I need you (audience) to understand something.

It is imperative to understand that this is Fear & Hunger. These are games which depict suffering, mass, unavoidable, tragic, yet wholly unnecessary suffering. You the player suffer and understand suffering. And then Mr. Haverinen has an allegory for a fascist regime which caused so much mass, tragic, colonialist, yet entirely unnecessary suffering and chose not to depict who were those sufferers.

It’s my own opinion, but if you make Nazi germany you can empathize with the people who suffered from it if your central theses revolve around suffering.

Additionally, I understand that this story is supposed to be a fantastical retelling of history, but girl, like. You could keep the historical allegory and the historical context and just have it be vaguely referenced. But you interact with the Bremen army in the game. Le’garde acts as a stand in for fucking Adolf Hitler.

Like, you could keep the historical allegory and the historical context and just have it be vaguely referenced. But to interact with that history in such a direct manner, on the side of the oppressor? Without much depiction of the oppressed?

In my opinion, Mr. Haverinen doesn’t really have an excuse for depicting what is essentially Nazi Germany in such a strange way. He didn’t need to make an allegory to Nazi Germany. He didn’t need the game to interact directly with Nazis and their leader. He didn’t need to even depict Nazism to begin with, or have it be such a dominant force in the narrative.

For that reason, it is fucking worthy to critique his authorial choices about a major historical tragedy in a game about tragedy.

Of course, you can say “it’s fictional, people shouldn’t be stupid and believe Nazi Germany was actually like this; there are penis gods, don’t be stupid,” but guess what?? People will be stupid. Fiction doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and though I doubt actual Nazis will come about from Funger, I think Mr. Haverinen isn’t absolved of criticism for portraying Nazi Germany in such a way. It still perpetuates harmful narratives about authoritarianism, minimizes the impact of fascism, and what have you.

We unfortunately exist in a society where people could take away that authoritarianism is maybe cool because you get the internet out of it and maybe sovereigns are trying to help society.

We exist in a society where the portrayal of suffering as perhaps a necessary evil for societal gain is the standard. And for a series that seems to want to say something meaningful in portraying suffering, shouldn’t it aim to critique oppression by sympathizing with the oppressed?

Plus, fuck you if you just tell people not to be stupid and to shut up. That has always been a tactic used by privileged individuals to…talk around the issue. But I’m getting off topic—a rant about alt-right or moralist tactics to end or control a conversation is for another day.

Basically, hey. I care enough about this series to write this critique. I care enough about it that I drew it every day in June, and here I am still thinking about it.

Your art can and will be criticized. This is the right of your audience, and you should listen to their critiques. You should be afraid of potential backlash but people will love your work still despite its grievances. And you should try and do better.

And you should talk about problems in representation. That’s like, how things get better. Be a bitch. Don’t let those with the privilege to ignore continued systemic oppression control the narrative and silence you.

On the subject of Pav, I think he’s…fine? He’s basically Russian, and I think the problems with his characters have more to do with the Bremen Empire being poorly written than his character conceptually. Because I think conceptually, he’s fine—illustrates the cycle of abuse, the trauma of war, whatever, whatever.

tldr; oh yeah, it was not a good representation and we should criticize it.

[hypogryffin]

Genuine curiosity as well as making sure I can express myself properly in the future. You mentioned dislike for the term "Abrahamic" when referring to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths as a singular classification. And I totally get that a TON of people saying Abrahamic really just mean Christian.

So, what term would you use if you wanted to refer to the shared origins of these religious groups? Like, what would be the good religious term that is similar to linguistic terms like Germanic or Romantic? Or would you say there really isn't or shouldn't be one term that can refer to all of them?

fyi im a uni dropout in buttfuck nowhere manitoba so my opinion is highly uninformed and furthermore as my credentials are "stranger on the internet who draws good" im crazy underqualified to give you a new term to use.

"abrahamic" is probably the most alright term i know of, since its supposed to be the blanket terms for "[monotheistic] religions that have abraham as a "patriarch" ". this is a fine category of religions that is not exclusive to judaism, christianity, and islam, though those are the 3 most prominent. its distinctive, its not crazy niche or crazy unspecific, and it works. my problem with the term is that people Use It Wrong to the point it kinda ruins my "relationship" (for lack of a better term) with the word. its not that the term belies classification i dislike, its that i hear people Use It Wrong so often that i associate it with people or arguments that i disagree with, think are in bad faith, or are entirely too uninformed on the matter.

if we "needed" a new term, i guess the only things i could "reasonably" suggest would be something to the effect of "monotheistic" (but that widens the category, im just not sure How Much as im, again, not informed on many world religions past my own and the ones i experience) or maybe "western religions" (which is a bit of a disingenuous name for a lot of reasons but first and foremost because all of "the big three" and as far as i can remember at least some of the smaller, less known abrahamic religions were formed in "the middle east").

i cant say there shouldnt be one term to describe the group of religions were talking about or what a better one is, first and foremost because whatever the broad category is called, im literally not using it? i think this post and the one where i first talked abt my dislike of the word are the only times ive used that word outside of middle&high school social studies classes. i think abrahamic is a fine descriptor, because i dont need to describe what its defined as in my day to day life. i just *personally* take issue with the way ive heard people use it.

[a-really-big-cat]

A recent post and a heated response has caused me to think more about the issue of catholic and jewish interactions. i couldn't understand how or why somebody could compare genocide and evangelization, since the difference seems so clear to me. But a friend helped me understand there's emotional and cultural context that autism makes it difficult to see. Here's what they said about it:

i think the situation between jews and christianity is a bit more complicated than that. it seems to me that the person in that post is carrying some hurt about the antisemitism in the church, which is pretty valid. we can't just say "that's not what the catholic church teaches" when there is in fact a long history of people claiming to be christian but acting terribly towards jewish people. its important to recognize this isn't necessarily an academic conversation but an emotional one

it wasn't that long ago that a commonly held belief was that jews were all collectively responsible for Jesus's death, and should all be blamed for it. the Catholic church has repudiated this, but even that was fairly recent. and a lot of this reflection happened after the holocaust. for reference: https://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01111997_p-31_en.html and there's a bunch of christian churches who actually STILL have not disclaimed this idea i've heard catholics talk about how all the jews need to be converted before the second coming. and like that is not at ALL taught in theology, but it is a cultural thing. and its important to recognize that people saying these things, even when its ignorant of and flies in the face of church teaching, will still affect how people view the church in a massive way the religious aspect is part of it. but it's also this huge cultural thing and ethnicity thing that has gone on for quite some time. and is still worryingly sticking around in some internet communities. most conspiracy theories are drawing from antisemitism talking points, about evil people being in charge of the global banking system and secretly scheming to kidnap children and use their blood for dark magic. which sounds ridiculous, but hey, qanon is a thing! which is Very Bad i guess i'm saying that i don't think this person is really talking about the theology of the church at all they're feeling attacked and attributing that to the broader culture of discrimination, which like it or not is culturally christian in a lot of places. think of how we get holidays for christmas but it's difficult for jews to get yom kippur off. thats culturally christian, and for people who've been hurt by antisemitism it's going to sting like that's an intentional slight, whether or not it is

i think a lot of the resistance comes mainly from the idea that the jews are going to be "erased." which was a fear back in Jesus's time! because the jews have been historically oppressed a lot! to some, it probably feels like betraying their family by choosing a new religion or choosing a new culture, because of the number of jewish people who were martyred. i don't think its accurate to say the christian goal is "no more jews". judaism has been fulfilled through the coming of Jesus the Messiah. and there are a lot of jewish traditions that can give catholic traditions lots of meaning, like the canopy over the altar (which is from jewish wedding traditions). but i can see why people would feel that way, especially if they've interacted with people who've told them being ethnically jewish is something they need to atone for, and they must abandon their culture and traditions and language to become redeemed.

i think it's usually a matter of broken trust, and feeling like this "good news" is actually just an attack in disguise. a way to silence them. and thats not an issue with the theology, its an issue with christians. and we need to do better to reach out to those who've been hurt.

[mrlnsfrt]

Your Sins are Forgiven

"The miracle of salvation has to be the greatest miracle of all, for it meets the greatest need, brings the greatest results (and they last forever), and cost the greatest price"  -- Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 p.199

An invitation for a meal.

Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. - Luke 7:37 NKJV

Who were the Pharisees? Pharisees were the most influential of the three major Jewish sects (the other two being the Sadducees and the Essenes). We first read of them in the second century b.c. (see Josephus, Antiquities13.10.5–6 [13.288–98]). In contrast to the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the existence of angels and demons (Luke 20:27; Acts 23:6–9), predestination as well as free will, and the validity of both the written and the oral law. Politically they were more conservative than the Sadducees, but religiously they were more liberal due to their acceptance of the oral law. (Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 175.

This is not the only time that Jesus ate with Pharisees. Luke 11:37; 14:1 also mentions Jesus eating with Pharisees. They “reclined to eat” is a better translation than “sat down to eat,” since “sat down to eat” invokes a mental picture of European-style tables and chairs, when they were more likely reclining at a short table. This detail will come in handy later on. That they reclined at the meal indicates that it was a banquet or Sabbath meal. Concerning the latter, it was quite common to invite a visiting rabbi or teacher to the Sabbath meal after he had taught in the synagogue (see Mark 1:29–31). If it was a banquet meal, Jesus may have been invited because of his reputation as a prophet. (Robert H. Stein, p. 235–236.)

According to Wiersbe, “It was customary in that day for outsiders to hover around during banquets so they could watch the “important people” and hear the conversation. Since everything was open, they could even enter the banquet hall and speak to a guest. This explains how this woman had access to Jesus. He was not behind locked doors. In that day women were not invited to banquets.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

Commenting on this passage, Bruce Larson points out that the Pharisee did not invite Jesus as a social equal since he did not provide the usual amenities for Him: the anointing of oil for the head, the ritual footwashing, and a kiss of greeting. This would indicate that the Pharisee invited Jesus out of curiosity. He had heard that Jesus was a prophet and he wanted to see for himself who this questionable celebrity was. (Bruce Larson and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Luke, vol. 26, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1983), 141.

Along these same lines Robert Stein shares that while it was not mandatory, it would have been a kind gesture for Simon (the Pharisee) as the host to have had his servants wash the feet of his guest (foot washing Gen 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam 25:41; John 13:13–14) Simon was not necessarily being rude in neglecting to do this, but he certainly did not go out of his way to show hospitality to Jesus. It is evident that Simon in no way expressed any affection toward Jesus when he came to his home. (Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 237.

Behold, a sinner.

37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. - Luke 7:37-38 NKJV

Sometimes people are referred to as sinners because of their occupation. For example, tax collectors, tanners, camel drivers, and custom collectors, among others were considered ceremonially impure because of their occupations and could be labeled “sinners.” However, as it will become clear as the story progresses, her sins were not simply a matter of ceremonial uncleanness. (See Luke 7:47-50)

This sinful woman had undoubtedly repented and changed her life and wished to show her gratitude to Jesus who had rescued her. Her bad reputation as a harlot clung to her and made her an unwelcome visitor in the Pharisee’s house. - A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Lk 7:37.

When this woman, who was a sinner, knew that Jesus was at the Pharisee’s house she brought fragrant oil and came to Jesus’ feet. This is where the height of the table and “sat down” vs. “reclined” at the table makes a significant difference. If Jesus and others were sitting down in a European-style table and chairs she would have had to crawl under the table by everyone else’s feet and make her way to Jesus’ feet. However, if it was a low table and everyone was reclining, perhaps on some pillows, their feet would be behind them, away from the table and not underneath the table.

This woman, who is a sinner, makes her way to Jesus’ feet and begins to weep, she then uses her tears to wash his feet, and her hair to wipe them. This is very humbling, and if that were not enough, she also repeatedly kisses His feet and anointed them with fragrant oil. It is very likely that she had knelt by Jesus’ feet to anoint them with the fragrant oil and did not expect to weep and to have her tears reach His feet before the fragrant oil.

If this man were a prophet…

39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.” - Luke 36:39 NKJV

The Pharisee doubts that Jesus is a prophet. According to the Pharisee’s thinking, if Jesus were a prophet, then He would know that this woman was a sinner and He would not have allowed her to touch Him. Jesus addresses similar issues in Luke 7:34, where He recognizes that people accuse Him of being a friend of sinners. The Pharisee believes that he knows something that Jesus doesn’t, except that Jesus not only knows exactly who this woman is, He even knows what the Pharisee is thinking.

Let me tell you something.

And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Teacher, say it.” - Luke 7:40 NKJV

I find it interesting that the Bible says “Jesus answered,” yet no question was asked of him, at least not out loud. Jesus is answering the thoughts of the Simon. Jesus had come to Simon’s house, not because it would be an honor to do so. Jesus did not come looking for support or resources. Jesus came to the Pharisee for the same reason he hung out with tax collectors. Jesus knew Simon also needed the forgiveness and peace that He came to offer to all of humanity.

Story Time

41 “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?”

43 Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.”

And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.”

Jesus used stories as a non-threatening way to engage his audience, see for example Luke 10:36 (Parable of the good Samaritan). This parable revealed to Simon that Jesus was indeed aware that the woman was a sinner. The parable also revealed that Jesus was aware of Simon’s thoughts, and not only that, the story revealed that Simon was also a sinner in need of forgiveness.

We don’t know how Simon reacted, but he is exposed. He knew everything about religion, liturgy, theology, ethics, temple worship, and the law. He knew all about the things of God but somehow he missed the essence of it all, which this woman captured. The woman knew how sinful she was. Simon’s problem was that he thought he was better than he was and he misunderstood the nature of God who is the giver of unconditional love. - Bruce Larson and Lloyd J. Ogilvie, Luke, vol. 26, The Preacher’s Commentary Series (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc, 1983), 141.

Do you see this woman?

44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. - Luke 7:44-46 NKJV

Simon thought he knew something that Jesus didn’t, that the woman who was touching Him was a sinner. In reality, it was Simon who had failed to see. Simon had failed to see that Jesus was the Messiah, something the woman clearly saw.  

Everything that Simon neglected to do, the woman did—and she did it better! - Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

It is worth noting that “The parable does not deal with the amount of sin in a person’s life but the awareness of that sin in his heart. How much sin must a person commit to be a sinner? Simon and the woman were both sinners. Simon was guilty of sins of the spirit, especially pride, while the woman was guilty of sins of the flesh (see 2 Cor. 7:1). Her sins were known, while Simon’s sins were hidden to everyone except God. And both of them were bankrupt and could not pay their debt to God. Simon was just as spiritually bankrupt as the woman, only he did not realize it.” (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198. Bold mine)

The main difference between Simon and the woman is not the amount of sin they had committed, but rather that she accepted God’s free offer of salvation and expressed her love openly. While Simon rejected Jesus’ offer and remained unforgiven. What a tragedy, to be so close to Jesus, yet fail to benefit from what Jesus had to offer.

What a tragedy to know so much about God, yet fail to understand the heart of God.

How tragic to have an intellectual and theological knowledge of God but miss the practical and relational understanding of our great need for the salvation that God offers us.

Have you ever wondered why, out of all the possible ways Jesus could have begun His sermon on the mount He chose to begin with “Blessed are the poor in spirit?” (Matthew 5:3) Because it is those who realize their need of Jesus that benefit from what Jesus has to offer. Simon probably knew much more about God, prophecy, the laws, and history than the woman did, but because that knowledge failed to cause Simon to recognize his need for Jesus it was all worthless. Maybe even worse than worthless, it was dangerous for his theological knowledge gave him a false sense of security. His hope was not found in Jesus or God’s great mercy, but rather in his intellectual prowess and religious discipline.

It was true that the woman had sinned more than Simon (according to the parable) but she is the only one who recognized her need for forgiveness and received it.

Your sins are forgiven

47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” - Luke 7:47-48 NKJV

Jesus did not downplay the sinfulness of the woman. Indeed, she was a sinner who had committed many sins. However, the multitude of her sins did not make her more lost than Simon. How many sins do you have to commit in order to be classified as a sinner? There are degrees of consequences on a human, physical, and emotional level. However, when it comes to salvation, a small or large sin, or one or one million sins don’t make much of a difference. Once again, here on earth, there is a difference, the more you sin or the different types of sins cause varying levels of pain and suffering. But when it comes to salvation, one is all it takes for you to need to be rescued by Jesus.

The fact that the woman had many sins did not matter because she came to Jesus who was more than happy to forgive her of all her sins! Simon, on the other hand, had different sins, sins people would probably refer to as smaller sins, less offensive, less disruptive. However, Simon was also in desperate need of the forgiveness and salvation that Jesus had to offer. His failure to notice that prevented him from experiencing the deep love the woman had for Jesus.

All true penitents have a dear love to the Lord Jesus. - Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1847.

As you read this you might identify with the woman with many sins, or you might identify yourself more closely with the Pharisee. Maybe your life has been pretty good, you might have never done anything terrible. Maybe you don’t feel a great need for Jesus and as a result, you don’t particularly feel much love towards Him. Maybe you look down on those who have more sins, those who have caused more pain and suffering and have also experienced a greater degree of pain and suffering. This story is a warning, lest you forget how you need Jesus’ salvation just as much as the worst sinner this world has ever seen.

Your faith has saved you.

49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.” - Luke 7:49-50 NKJV

Though the woman was forgiven much and loved much, her love was a result of her salvation, not the cause of it. She loved much because she had experienced forgiveness. Her forgiveness was a result of her faith.

We are not saved by faith plus works; we are saved by a faith that leads to works. This anonymous woman illustrates the truth of Galatians 5:6, “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (NIV). - Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996), 198.

Onlookers who had not experienced forgiveness to the degree that that woman had probably thought her behavior was over the top. We must be very careful not to judge someone else’s spiritual journey. They may seem fanatic to you, over-zealous, but perhaps they have just experienced God’s love in a way that is still foreign to you. Some dedicate their lives to God in such a passionate way that others wonder how it can be possible for anyone to live like that. Others live lives that barely give any evidence of their love for God.

I am still learning how to live my life in a way that is dedicated to God but sustainable. By this I mean I want to live in such a way that I will be around a long time to serve and bless those around me. However, I want to allow the Holy Spirit to move in me and make me uncomfortable as often as necessary for me to minister to those that God sends my way.

What about you?

What is your spiritual journey like? Is it vibrant and alive? Is your love for God passionate yet sustainable?

Or are you satisfied with a cheap and easy religion? Are you just sitting in your comfort zone judging those you consider less worthy of salvation? Do you love little and judge those who seem to love God way too much?

These are difficult questions. I am always asking God to guide me in this. I invite you to do the same. Ask God to reveal to you what you need to surrender to Him. Ask God to remind you of who you once were, and who you are now thanks to Him and His great love for you.

Instead of grudging greater sinners the mercy they find with Christ, upon their repentance, we should be stirred up by their example to examine ourselves whether we be indeed forgiven, and do love Christ. - Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1848.

Practical application

Jesus is not here for us to anoint his feet. Some of us don’t have hair long enough to wipe His feet, so what should we do?

Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ - Matthew 25:45 NKJV

Though Jesus is not here, there are those in need that we can help because of our great love for Jesus.

So here is my challenge for you. Pray that God will send you someone to help this week. Someone you can help in the name of Jesus. You will help this person not because of anything they can do or has done for you, you will help this person simply because of what Jesus has done for you, a selfless act of kindness, that will reflect your great love for Jesus and your recognition of all that He has done for you.

[merrybrides]

Match Your Values With Your Wedding Vows

As you think about writing your wedding vows, have you considered how to infuse your values into your vows? Whether your values center on your culture, faith, or your family (or all three!), we have tips for making sure that your wedding vows reflect what you value most (plus sharing our favorite examples!).

STYLES OF WEDDING VOWS

PERSONAL, SENTIMENTAL & ROMANTIC

This is perhaps the most classic, traditional style of custom wedding vows. Wedding days are full of emotion, and it’s perfectly normal to feel romantic and sentimental when writing your vows (However, if this isn’t something you’re comfortable with, that’s ok! Our vow books are the perfect place to document vows you prefer to keep more private).

Example:

My sister, Arielle embraced the notion of Love Letter Wine Box ceremony when she married her husband. They were inspired by moments in their dating relationship when they had many great conversations over a glass of wine. It became a ritual for them to open a bottle that they loved and settle in for an evening of conversation. The wedding box ceremony was the perfect way to recognize those special moments and make their ceremony personal and sentimental. It also fits in perfectly with their Napa wedding.

Prompt:

What moment did you know you wanted to spend your life with this person?

What special rituals have you created as a couple?

FUNNY / PLAYFUL

If your relationship is full of laughter and silliness, your vows don’t need to be somber and stiff (although they are serious, they don’t have to be square).

Example:

We love this example we found via Offbeat Bride.  It’s playful, certainly, but we love what’s behind this playful vow: a commitment to know and understand your partner as much as you can, and to do everything you can to make them happy. What a lovely sentiment!

“I promise to give you half the cream cheese I would want on a bagel. I promise to under jelly your sandwiches but over toast them. But most of all I promise to work on this, on us. I promise to try. I promise to choose you and us and our family every day.”

Prompt:

What are your favorite quirks about your partner?

What are yours or their endearing pet peeves?

Is there anything about these that you’ve had to compromise on in your relationship, that’s brought you closer?

RELIGIOUS

Many couples find wisdom in the scriptures to use in their wedding ceremony. No matter your faith, you can choose to involve scripture in your vows or wedding ceremony to express your commitment and sentiments to each other.

Example:

A common scripture from the Christian tradition comes from the books in the bible. In the scriptures, while these don’t necessarily refer to romantic love, they do express the ideals of commitment and love that many people want to have in their marriage, which is why these (and other) verses are so popular.

“Two are better than one. For if they fall, one will lift the other up”Ecclesiastes 4: 9-10

And above all these put on love, which binds everything in perfect harmony.  Colossians 3:14

A common Jewish (and Christian) scripture reading comes from the Songs of Solomon 6:3:“I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine”.

Prompt:

What lines of scripture do you want to inspire your marriage?

If you have a different faith from your partner, what will you blend from each of your faith backgrounds?

CULTURE BASED

Weddings are a universal tradition, and each culture has developed their own beautiful, symbolic, and rich practices around two people pledging commitment of eternal love. Consider adopting a tradition from your own culture, or your partner’s culture.

We love the The Knot Guide To Wedding Traditions which is a fabulous guide for nearly every cultural wedding ceremony tradition you could think of. If you don’t identify strongly with a culture, you may find great beauty in borrowing or adopting a piece of another that resonates with you as a culture.

Example:

We love the Japanese wedding tradition of a sake ceremony. The ritual is called a San San Kudo, literally translating to “Three Three Nine Deliver”. Sake is immensely important in Japanese culture and carries historical and cultural significance. It harkens back to the time in Japanese culture when sharing sake carried weight as a formal bond, much like a handshake in Victorian times.

Here’s how it works:

Each partner drinks 3 sips from both sake cups, then offers sake to both sets of parents. The parents then take sips, making for a total of 9 sips, symbolically solidifying the bond between the families. This celebrates the new formed unity between the families.

Prompt:

What you might bring from your culture into your vows?

Are there traditions from another culture that’s meaningful or symbolic to you as a couple that you might want to adopt?

FAMILY-BASED

If this is your second wedding, you may be blending families together, making your union about more than just your twosome. This is a wonderful opportunity to include sentiments about how you’ll care for each other’s family as you come together. Whether your children are still young or grown with children of their own, blending two families always brings unique challenges, and of course, also requires

Example:

A wonderful trend we’ve seen in blended family weddings is a vow from the parents to the children. This is a time for the new stepparents to express to their new stepchildren how, in choosing their partner, they are also choosing the child for life. This is a wonderful opportunity to strengthen the bond with the child, and publicly declare love and commitment.

Prompt:

How will you incorporate your family into your new life together?

What are your promises individually and together to the children involved

[psychologeek]

hi!

So, I'm in a better headspace now (hopefully), and can go through this now.

I'd like to be very clear that I'm not denying your right to have your own thoughts, opinions, feelings, etc. I just want to address some of the things you said. But some of the things you said are either inaccurate or very biased, and so I wanted to address them.

I'm not trying to change your (or anyone else's) opinions. I do, however, want to address some of the things you said.

Due to my accessibility needs, this would be divided into several rbs.

in here:

Zionism

Barrier

settlers

religion

indigenous

Zionism

First of all, What is Zionism in your opinion?

This is a key question, as "Zionism" seems to hold very different meanings for people with different views on it.

My definition of Zionism (ציונות) includes 3 key points:

1. Jewish people have the right to live safely and undescriminated. 2. This can only happen when there's a Jewish autonomous state. 3. Due to historical, religious, and other reasons - that state should be located in the area of the Levant between the meditarian Sea and the Jordan River.

This is what I mean when I say Zionism.

Other refers to Zionism as "the right to self-determination of Jewish people", which I agree with, but I don't feel like it's not fully capturing this.

It's also important to remember that there are many types of Zionism. For example, I'm religious-Zionist. For me, this means I believe this land was granted to us by god (though not only for us), but also that if you're looking for salvation you should work towards it. I believe we belong to this land, the way it belongs to us - not ownership, but rather a co-existence? partnership? of that kind.

others have different opinions, of course, and that's okay. I mostly see the "לעבדה ולשומרה" - "to work (also worship, can also read as "to process, to farm") and keep (/guard)".

The Barrier

For example, once I said I didn't like the separation wall dividing Israel proper from the West Bank but that it was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and they were like "No, that wasn't the wall, it was a change in PA policy."

2001 - 31 terror attacks (84 killed), 2002 - 46 TA (225), 2003 - 22 TA (142). 2004-2017: 1 TA (in 2006), 11 killed.

Other reasons include changes in the military strategy of IDF, and the military operation in 2002 ("Operation Defensive Sheild") that led to many arrests and the destruction of weapons-creating labs.

It is, in many places, a literal fence.

I will not get deeply into it, as my understanding of this subject isn't the best. I can tell that most of the people against it were from the extremist sides of the political map (left and right) and that the supporters were pretty much political-centered

Settlers

Another time I was like "I don't understand [West Bank] settlers, if they want to be pioneers and settle more land they should settle the Negev, where they're not encroaching on Palestinians!" and they explained to me more about the situation between Israel and Bedouins and how that actually still would involve encroaching/displacement.

Have you ever considered asking a "[West Bank] settler" about it? There are several reasons, including security, prices, area, and location.

Ideologically, it varies from "this is our land" to "if we don't live there, it's gonna be like Gaza" (subtext: do you want rockets on Tel Aviv?), and more.

I assume, when you say "[West Bank] settlers", you mean "the small\new villages\living points".

Most of the Israeli citizens in Judea and Samaria (and Binyamin) live in cities. 36% are Charedim (mostly Modi'in Illit and Beytar Illit), 35% are Dati-Leumi, and 29% are secular (nonreligious, Hiloni)

religion

They're very religious, and so they had the tools to poke into my "but just open a siddur! you can see all the references to returning to Jerusalem!" and discuss how that differed from and predated zionism the political ideology. They were able to break through my dismissiveness/derision of Chareidi antizionism and help me understand that it has legitimate religious underpinnings. (They're not Chareidi though.) They affirmed for me that they do feel connected to Eretz Yisrael and they love Eretz Yisrael.

are you talking about "Shlosh HaShvu'ot" (the 3 vows?) Bc

1) this is a very Ashkenazi POV.

2) specifically countered by many Poskim (including רמב"ן, רמ"ם, הגר"א, חפץ חיים, and more).

indigenous

They also explained that indigenous doesn't mean "from a place" but rather describes a relationship to colonialism. It still didn't totally click for me, and they and I have both since come to understand that there are a lot of definitions of indigenous, but what it did help me understand was that when people push back against "Jews are indigenous to EY" they're not always trying to say we're not from there.

???

"rather describes a relationship to colonialism" (and, uh, what do you call authority that strips people out of their names, religions, and languages, and puts those who refuse as second-grade citizens?)

So, let me get that straight - Arabs, who colonized the SWANA area, and controlled the area for about 1,200 years (I'm referring to the Islamic Caliphate (s): a pan-Arab Muslim empire/s - Rashdon, Dynasties, Mamluks, Ottomans) are "indigenous to the area".

But Jews (which, btw, comes from Judea - aka reign in Eretz Israel, a tribe, and the last standing Jewish kingdom) are not. Okay. Cool.

This also pretty much denies\ignores the Jewish communities that lived in EY non-stop. And the immigration in and out.

Question - how long does it take before someone loses their "right" to be indigenous? Like, is it a 500-year thing?400? Is it when they move to a different area?

@wiisagi-maiingan @cree-future-rabbi

l I feel like you might have some. Uh. OPINIONS about this definition of "indigenous".

op -

So, just to get this straight - your Zionism was based solely on the Jewish-land connection, and your beliefs that antizionists deny it. So when you found AZ who doesn't deny that connection, that stopped being an issue?

[I'm really confused here, sorry if it sounds offensive. I just. Not really get it?]

Hi! I saw your tags on unlearning zionism and I was wondering if you've ever spoken about that/the kind of processing you had to do? I think it's... Interesting (for lack of a better word) how this is a sentiment I've seen reflected on pretty much all explicitly non-zionist Jewish blogs I follow, and how much that reflects both how closely entwined the concept and Jewishness has become and the fierce zionism in some people.

Obviously you're free to not discuss this at all, I also understand it's deeply personal. (I'm also not intending to make anyone change their mind, I believe this is a process Jewish people should be afforded on their own terms; I'm really just trying to understand where they're coming from). ♥️

The tl;dr was through talking to people, breaking my rigidities, and being lucky enough to encounter people who were kind, committed to dialogue, and not dismissive.

Longer version under the cut.

In winter 2019 I started dating a non-zionist, so a lot of the early stuff was through conversations with them.

Here are the specific things I recall through them:

They validated my experience of having felt traumatized by a negative experience I had at a protest. I felt very on the defense, and dismissed, as a zionist who wanted to be in leftist spaces and they validated that. I don't know if they were faking it or not, but it felt real, and being heard and not dismissed was super important to building trust and safety. Ultimately, building trust and safety was the most important thing.

They would sometimes patiently poke holes in things I said. Matter of factly, not confrontationally. For example, once I said I didn't like the separation wall dividing Israel proper from the West Bank but that it was necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, and they were like "no, that wasn't the wall, it was a change in PA policy." Another time I was like "I don't understand [West Bank] settlers, if they want to be pioneers and settle more land they should settle the Negev, where they're not encroaching on Palestinians!" and they explained to me more about the situation between Israel and Bedouins and how that actually still would involve encroaching/displacement.

They're very religious, and so they had the tools to poke into my "but just open a siddur! you can see all the references to returning to Jerusalem!" and discuss how that differed from and predated zionism the political ideology. They were able to break through my dismissiveness/derision of Chareidi antizionism and help me understand that it has legitimate religious underpinnings. (They're not Chareidi though.) They affirmed for me that they do feel connected to Eretz Yisrael and they love Eretz Yisrael.

They also explained that indigenous doesn't mean "from a place" but rather describes a relationship to colonialism. It still didn't totally click for me, and they and I have both since come to understand that there are a lot of definitions of indigenous, but what it did help me understand was that when people push back against "Jews are indigenous to EY" they're not always trying to say we're not from there.

In general it helped me break down what I thought an antizionist was. I thought that an antizionist was someone who didn't think Jews had a meaningful spiritual and communal connection to EY, thought we weren't from there, didn't give a shit if all Israeli Jews ended up pushed into the sea, hadn't opened a siddur to see references to return to Jerusalem, etc. I was also pretty rigid in my thinking and had collected a bunch of talking points, mostly that I'd co-created with other members of Jewbook (Jewish facebook). They helped me break out of that rigidity and once I'd done that I was open to learning more.

What happened next is that in fall 2019 is I did a fellowship that, while unrelated to the topic, put me in contact with other Jewish antizionists.

There was one person whose project we visited during an outing on the fellowship, who had discussed their project's antizionism. I was bothered by it and asked them one question: Did they feel Jews were connected to Eretz Yisrael? Did they feel connected to Eretz Yisrael? They responded yes of course.

Another person was my roommate on the fellowship, a leftist antizionist Syrian Jew. For a while one of my sticking points had been Mizrahi support of Zionism -- my thought process here had a few pieces. One, it seemed like white privilege to go against what most Israeli Jews of color believed and wanted. Another was that I felt that a lot of antizionists were dismissive of and racist towards Mizrahim and don't understand or care to understand their needs, history, or motivations (I do still think that's true). I also saw the expulsions from SWANA and the fact that Israel took in the SWANA Jewish refugees as proof of the necessity of Zionism.

So, I think that interacting with a Mizrahi antizionist both taught me expanded perspectives on the issue, and taught me that it's possible to be antizionist and still in solidarity with Mizrahim. I learned more nuance, for example around Israel's taking in of the refugees; I knew they had been mistreated, but I think it helped me connect the dots about what that meant about the entire Zionist project. That was also the year A-WA's album Bayti fi Rasi came out, and when I listened to Hana Mash Hu Al Yaman, I think that's when it clicked for me that Israel taking them in was not some sort of miracle or blessing in disguise but rather a last resort for people who did not want to go but had no choice. The main characters in that song wanted to stay in Yemen which is I think something that hadn't clicked for me before. That may not be the majority Mizrahi perspective but it is a perspective and one I hadn't previously considered.

By the same token, my partner at the time (the one I talked about at the beginning of the post) was raised as a Yiddish speaker, and we talked about Yiddish suppression during the early days of the state, as well as Ben Yehuda's disdain for Yiddish, and the general early Zionist disdain for Eastern European Jewry and "old world" Jewish culture. I was already aware of the New Jew concept (the idea that the old Jew was studious and unathletic, but we should put that behind us to become strong and agricultural). They helped me frame this in terms of antisemitism, connecting it to the vitriol Chassidim receive from other Jews, antisemitism directed towards Jewish men and the ways it's about gender and goyish and Jewish constructions of masculinity, anti-circ rhetoric that depends on the Hellenistic idea of the body as perfection, and Naomi Klein's analysis of the dislike of Yiddish by Ben Yehuda et al as sexist due to their association of it as "feminine" and therefore lesser.

We also talked about the ways that Zionism devalues diaspora culture. I definitely see this in the ways that eg Jewbook zionists used to see the Ashkenazi past in Eastern Europe as simply a time of pogroms and violence with nothing generative or valuable. It seems that zionism posits Israel and Israeli culture as the "right" or "completed" version of Judaism, and discourages us from mourning the loss of culture we experienced during the Holocaust and our subsequent exodus.

I think there is nuance here; there are Israeli Yiddishists, there are people practicing all kinds of diaspora Jewish cultures in Israel, etc. I think this is a case where antizionists take something real and over emphasize it to sound bigger and more harmful than it is. It's not Israel's fault that European Jewry got destroyed and it's not Israel's fault that A-WA's family had to leave Yemen. Sometimes it feels like antizionist project those harms onto Israel and Zionism.

At the same time though, there is a kernel of truth in the way at least that many North American zionists view Ashkenazi culture, thought I can't say how much of that is their Zionism and how much is the legacy of American assimilationism (even among religious Jews).

In any case, 2020 is when I started on my journey to deepen my understanding of old world Ashkenazi culture and history. I started with a day spent in the kids' section of the Yiddish Book Center using the beginner education resources there to start teaching myself Yiddish (I had a lot of familiarity because my extended family speaks it, but I didn't yet). About half a second later the pandemic started, and the chaos from that took all my attention for a while, but by the end of the summer I did a deep dive on my genealogy and spent two weeks tracking down documents and names and towns. At that point my family history was no longer abstract, and I started wondering more about what their lives were like in the old country.

I started watching Yiddish plays on zoom, including a production of the Dybbuk that I fell in love with. I got involved in the shtetlcore movement, which was a social media aesthetic fad that was basically the shtetl version of cottagecore. That spring the duolingo Yiddish course came out and I did a six month streak. The following winter I went to a virtual Yiddish conference. I went again two more times in person, and last summer I went to a week-long retreat where we were only allowed to speak Yiddish. I also do Yiddish drag and burlesque.

With this emphasis and knowledge it's hard for me to accept any framing that the only "right" place for Jews to live is Israel, or that diaspora cultures are lesser-than. At some point I encountered a belief among some zionists (though I don't think most believe this) that the Jewish people's differentiation into a myriad of different cultures was a bad thing, and constituted negatively picking up pieces of non-Jewish culture, and that it's good we're back together in Israel so we can become just one culture again. I obviously strongly disagree and I while I wish we had not had to experience the trauma of Khorban Beis Hamikdash and the ensuing displacement, I think the variety of different cultures we split into is beautiful.

Ironically, Israel is actually a place of great cultural exchange between those cultures. And yes, I do worry there will be cultural loss if everything blends together melting pot style, but that's more of a function of how societies work as opposed to official state policy. And I also think the Jewish subcultures will endure. Also the cultural loss is the fault of the Holocaust, the Soviet Union, and nationalist SWANA countries way way more than it is Israel's.

At this point I've come to view the idea that Zionism is detrimental to Jewish culture as weak, but I still am not a Zionist, and that's because the issue with Zionism is not that it harms Jews but that it harms Palestinians.

In early summer 2020, I, along with many other white people were called to reckon with the realities of white supremacy in the US, and our part in it, far more deeply than we had before. I learned to understand how racism functions as a pillar of the US's underpinnings, how white supremacy morphs to sustain itself, how I as an individual and Jews as a group were being used to maintain white supremacy. It fundamentally shifted how I view these topics and how I understand the way that states function.

It was impossible not to apply these concepts to Israel-Palestine. While it is obviously not a one-to-one comparison and I am frustrated with folks who seem to think it is, the concepts and analyses I learned in June 2020 were very elucidating in understanding Israel as a state, and how white supremacy and Jewish supremacy operate in Israel-Palestine.

One of those concepts is a deeper understanding of power dynamics and the oppressed-oppressor relationship. While that is not the be-all end-all, and it is still possible for an oppressed group to do harm and commit war crimes (as they did on Oct 7), it helped me understand the ways it makes no sense to view Palestinians and Israelis as equal parties or to view Palestinians as "the aggressor" as many zionists do. Riots are the language of the unheard and, yes, so is violence. Do not imagine that I excuse, condone, or celebrate Oct 7, but I understand why it happened.

These past seven months have forced a magnifying glass on Israel-Palestine and I have spent a lot of time thinking and talking about it. I have had many experiences and interactions that have illuminated different things to me, but I'll leave you with this one.

In 1956, a young man named Ro'i Rothberg was killed in Kibbutz Nahal Oz by Palestinians who lived in Gaza. Moshe Dayan came to give a eulogy and in it, he said:

Why should we declare their burning hatred for us? For eight years they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages, where they and their fathers dwelt, into our estate.

Which is to say, he is stating point blank that the Nakba happened, and that Nahal Oz -- and in fact Israel -- is built on land that had been farmed and inhabited by Palestinians. The hasbarist canard of "we didn't steal their land" falls away when Moshe Dayan himself admits it, doesn't it?

He is acknowledging, also, that he understands why the people of Gaza are enraged, and why some of them express this rage as violence. He gives his solution: That the Israeli people, and especially the people of Nahal Oz, must always be on their guard. Must never become peaceniks and forget the rage of the people of Gaza. He says "we are a generation that settles the land and without the steel helmet and the cannon's maw, we will not be able to plant a tree and build a home."

His vision is of an Israel that is always militarized and militant, always on its guard, never to know peace. A people who will send their children to the army generation after generation after generation. Never to rest. Never to be able to lower their guard.

And that is awful! Not just for Palestinians, but for Israelis! Dayan lays out here that if the Nakba is not redressed, this will continue forever. He wants it to continue forever; I want the Nakba redressed.

He knew Nahal Oz would be attacked again. And he was right. On the morning of Simchat Torah of this year, 5784, twelve residents of the kibbutz were brutally murdered. A family that my family knows hid there in their bomb shelter for ten hours with their small children until they were rescued. The kibbutz was destroyed.

And Moshe Dayan knew it would happen, all the way back in 1956. And yet did nothing to change our trajectory. I cannot forgive him that.

In the months since the destruction of Nahal Oz, we have seen Gaza pummeled with a terrifying vengeance. For years I have encountered, albeit few and far between, people who have clammored for Gaza to be "turned into a parking lot." I was horrified by them, but did not take seriously the threat they represented. Yet now, their genocidal flowers have borne fruit. Gaza lies in ruins. 60% of the roads and infrastructure are destroyed. The descendants of refugees are refugees again, chased from their homes by the descendants of refugees. The live in tents, they scrabble for water and food. They live under threat of bombing, or being shot, or dying of illness and malnutrition.

And still Nahal Oz remains destroyed. The Jewish dead of Europe remain dead. The synagogues of Tunis and Algiers remain empty. Nothing is fixed, only more and more broken.

Is it to continue this way? Is this the world we want?

I say no. I say another world is possible. And on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.

[msfbgraves]

I disagree strongly on Terry being Jewish.

I think he just went to Sensei Rosenthal's Shabbat Service to recruit him. Terry plays all sides; he is as loyal to ideas and abstract thoughts, religion and politics--as smoke and shadow. The only thing he's loyal to is certain people, and only when they are loyal back.

Circulating back, if Terry really is Jewish, than I think that's a mistake on the CK writers part. Oh look, yet another wealthy, evil, money-hungry, power-hungry Jewish man who is the villain...really? I still headcanon him as being Irish-Catholic just like his actor, though only attending mass to again, recruit people. Build up a front, a cover image like a glossy magazine. And again, while 'Silver' might be derived from 'Silber', there are people with that surname, and surnames of jewels etc., who have zero Jewish relation. I'm one of those people with both a first and last name of origin that does not match my ancestry or Catholic religion one bit, so people often assume otherwise.

I think Terry saying Shalom Sensei is just his usual way of being an affable villain, a sinister, yet totally charming man. Like I said, he plays all sides, and will butter people up before slipping them the knife and twisting it in deep.

I agree with your objections on Terry having Jewish heritage (I've made a whole post in november why that is, um, yikes going by so many antisemitic stereotypes), but it was placed there quite deliberately, and in my eyes randomly, by the writers. A dojo is not a place where this naturally comes up.

I agree we do not need another Jewish manipulative billonaire villain who buys influence and endangers children. But others have argued that the writers are Jewish and it reads differently to Americans because many of these antisemitic stereotypes are distinctly European. I honestly have no idea how liberal Californian synagogues are; maybe gentiles are incredibly welcome at services (not where I live! Gentiles are asked point blank not to attend services unless by express invitation...) but the writers put the whole Ashkenazi Germanic name = Jewish coded there themselves (Rosenthal), and well, Silber, like Edelstein, is in the same vein and they are discussing shabbat services!

I headcanon Terry as Irish too but that evidence is also only in the name Terry and the frequent use of "Danny boy". That's less obvious than this.

Honestly, if I'd been in the writer's room I'd have told them not to put it in but they did.

I assure you I am not trying to make him into an antisemitic stereotype but it is text and the two names plus the referring to the religion, unprompted in a situation where religion is not associated with the place the characters are or the activity going is quite a strong suggestion that the writing team, for better or worse, put in there.

Again, I would have suggested Mass, or a charity board meeting, a squash session, a wine tasting, an art show, a baseball game. But no. They chose two people with Jewish coded names meeting up and referring to a Jewish religious service. If I have two characters named O'Sullivan and Murphy refer to a meetup after Mass, well of course that does not prove they are Irish or even Christian, but it quite strongly suggests it.

I don't like it but I can't deny someone put it in.

[randomshyperson]

I'm going to pretend I remember everything about my stories and try to clarify this…

The necklace thing -> Yes, there are 23 people already wearing one, 'cause it's a way to identify the instructors of the cult. But they have different colors (golden for the common instructors and red for Wanda's Apprentices). And yes, I would explain this better into a series, Kate has a red one too. Reader's necklace is special not only because she was chosen to be an apprentice, but it was the last necklace of both golden and red ones.

Wanda's apprentices would also be an in-depth subject in the series, which I didn't think much about since I wrote it as a one-shot. But yes, they are like personal servants, and because of this, the position is often mocked (like in the cafeteria scene). I also haven't finished the lore of this story, there should be a hierarchy in the cult with Wanda at the top, and everyone else below. Her apprentices are the only ones who could acquire certain positions, and even though they were servants for a while, it would be a disputed position. I didn't choose whether the Cult would be diplomatic, but I imagine not, without council or votes. Wanda would have authority over all decisions as she is seen as an almost divine authority.

Regarding the solstice, I didn't delve into it and it's not necessarily faithful to the real concepts, like in astronomy where the solstice occurs twice a year. If I'm being completely honest, the word sounds mystical and I like to use it whenever I talk about witches, there isn't necessarily a calendar about it. But I think we can consider it an annual event.

Regarding Christianity/Judaism, I was trying to do something that refers to both Wanda's origins in the comics and in the MCU (where Steve was her mentor and apparently is a Christian); she would have grown up in a mixed household, with Erik being Jewish but much of the family not. I just imagined Wanda having many different influences, and creating something of her own in the cult. I myself grew up in a multi-religious home, so a lot of things end up conflicting in my mind on the subject, and I see this story following the same path. With Wanda trying to practically create a new religion and contradicting herself along the way like the vast majority of religions haha

Y/N is the only person Wanda is currently having sex with, mainly because I'm jealous. but sure, in the past, she had other apprentices who wanted to help her in any way she needed it haha Also I wanted the story to be about Wanda falling hard for the first time, to be a unique experience, she would probably think this is just a non-attachements thing, and then boom! She's actually really in love with reader.

The drink scene is a reference to the Yellow Jackets show! No hiding meaning, just a tribute since I only wrote this fic after being inspired by Lottie Matthews.

I hope all your questions were clarified :)

Sanctify - Cult Leader!Wanda Maximoff x Reader - Kinktober #06

Summary: After your worst semester at NYU, your Aunt Agatha convinces you to join the Children of Chaos as an alternative, and very expensive form of therapy. Leaving the cult becomes a very difficult task when you develop an unexpected affection for their leader.

Warnings: (+18), dom!wanda and brat!reader, rough smut, face-fucking, power dynamics, brat taming (ish), praising, lots of tension and teasing, definitely blasphemous on some levels, a lot of plot, mentions of past toxic relationship, unspecified age gap.  | Words: 7.900k

A/N-> I’ve been dying to write something about Cult Leader Wanda since I watched the second season of Yellowjackets and became obsessed with Lottie Matthews, so while writing this, I was picturing Lottie’s cult to be fair. I also like how I ended this, as it makes it possible to turn it into a series. Good reading!

General Masterlist | Kinktober Collection | AO3 | Wattpad

-&-

Although the movement of the car brought a gentle breeze through the window, the weather was hot enough to actually make thinking painful.  In an attempt to relieve the temperature a little, and perhaps escape Aunt Aggie's provocative reminiscences about the long journey and the events that made this trip necessary in the first place, you put your arm on the door, and propped your chin up, your face on the safety edge outside the window.

New York had been out of sight for hours and had given way to countless trees and a plantation further and further away. You figured it wouldn't take long for the radio signal to stop working, but to your pleasant surprise, the soft melody of cassette tapes hidden in the glove compartment by Nicholas were picked up once that happened.

Your cousin had grown up over the summer - His still youthful appearance now featured neatly cut curly hair and reading glasses that he often hung on the collar of his shirt. When younger, it was common to hear how much he resembled Sir. Scratch, his scumbag father in the words of Agatha and the other adults, not yours - but over time, he looked much more like his mother.

Nick met your gaze through the rearview mirror and gave you an assuring smile. You didn't reciprocate, but not because you were upset. Just because you were distracted by the huge sign coming around the next corner. 

"Oh, boy, I've missed this place." Agatha commented with a nostalgic sigh, as soon as she noticed the entrance plaque. She slowed down enough that the wind wasn't enough anymore, so you returned to your original position with a low snort.

"There's still time to turn around." You muttered, getting a warning look from the older woman.

She leaned over, without answering you, to grab something from the open glove compartment. You pushed your hair back as a pamphlet was dropped into your lap.

"I know you hated the idea, but you need to trust your elders for once in your life, darling." Agatha began, as you grimaced at the crumpled paper. The title Children of Chaos was painted in red, but it was faded in several places. "The 70s were the apex for this place, I had a lot of fun here. It's such a unique experience, connecting with nature and the chaos that is part of us all."

Nick chuckled through his nose. "Mom, don't start your witch thing again, you'll scare her." Mocked your cousin from the passenger seat, but Agatha waved him off.

"She'll thank me when she gets there, I'm sure." 

But you didn't do that. When the car finally came to a stop, and what looked more like a fancy farm merged with the forest took over your vision, all you did was crumple the Immersive Community pamphlet into your pocket and throw your old backpack over your shoulder.

Aunt Aggie and your cousin hugged you tightly, saying they were going to write, but they couldn't get past the reception desk since they weren’t part of the program. You saw Agatha take your mom’s borrowed credit card out of her purse to start your so-called treatment, and the last goodbyes left your tongue before one of the tutors started the tour of the place.

In between presenting a large number of different huts that served as dormitories and classrooms for the most diverse activities - painting, handicrafts or poetry were the ones you memorized - Mr. Emil Blonsky also took the time to welcome you, emphasizing how incredible the community was and how lucky anyone was to be there. You bit your tongue to keep from telling him that only those with money could.

Finally, Blonsky showed you the stables and greenhouses on the edge of the property, and on the way back to the rest of the huts, you noticed the path up the hill.

"And what's up there?" 

The man stopped walking with a small smile. He was wearing clothes very similar to those of the other people you'd seen on the tour, the difference being a golden necklace with a strange symbol that was hidden by the movement of his loosely buttoned shirt.

"We must not go up there without permission." He begins, although he's smiling, there's something in his gaze that says this rule cannot be disrespected. " The Prophetess' Retreat is a sacred place of peace and reflection." 

You look back at the hut at the bottom of the mountain, far enough away that you can't make out the decorations on the balcony, but still beautiful and quiet, high enough to make it look like the prophet had her own little piece of heaven.

"So, no bothering the boss without asking? Got it." You retort, getting a chuckle from the other at the summary. He starts walking again along the path towards the general area, but you can't help the curiosity burning in your chest. "About this prophet, will she be isolated up there or will I get a chance to meet her?"

Blonsky walks up beside you, and looks you in the eye to say; "You'll meet her when it's time to meet her, not early and not late."

You don't know what to say to that, everything here is so theatrical in a way. Mystical, you might say. It suits Aunt Aggie so well, that it's not hard to imagine her here, dancing to the midnight moon and talking to the trees. She already does that in New York, it should have been much simpler in the middle of the forest.

"Come, child. You must start the cleaning process soon." Announces the man as he picks up the pace on the trail. With a sigh, you decide not to contradict him by saying that you bathed before coming, thank you. 

It was soon revealed that the cleansing process really meant a bath - the colleagues around you who helped you laughed when you joked that it was a strange way of saying that someone stinks, before clarifying that it was nothing of the sort. The Cleansing Process was a bath of salts and herbs, in a tub of stones and some kind of botanical baptism, the latter of which only members who had completed thirteen full moons could take part in. You would be invited to the baptism with the prophet's blessing, but there was still a long way to go.

Blonsky handed your uniforms, and explained the last rules before leaving you alone, or almost, since your hut was shared with six other people, and despite this, it seemed very comfortable and organized. There were bunk beds and private bathroom spaces, and at least three spacious shelves for each. The latter wouldn't be of much use to you, since you'd brought almost nothing and the vast majority of your belongings had been left at NYU. Just thinking about that place gave you a terrible stomach ache: You would have skipped dinner, but the mere suggestion of not attending made one of your colleagues frown in concern and repeat the rules, so you ended up giving that up.

The routine that followed was calm: it didn't surprise you that the new members were responsible for the hardest tasks, and it didn't bother you either. You were never afraid of hard work, and keeping your hands busy also helped to calm your mind, so it was a win-win. Besides, even if you didn't get the jobs nobody wanted, all veterans had chores. There was some rule about the amount of service time and dedication being rewarded, so those senior members could choose what they wanted to do first. 

You didn't have to worry about this anyway: you would do what you had to do because, after all, the agreement was to stay here only for the summer. However, with each passing day away from exams, traffic, and New York's typical filth, it became harder to imagine leaving the Children of Chaos and their strange harmony and kindness.

After three weeks in the group, you learned to knit. You also earned the privilege of mail when you showed up for all your appointments without delay and decided to check the items in the privacy of your cabin during the last hour of prayer.

Since you hadn't yet found your faith or received your calling or whatever weird way Blonsky explained this, you barely joined in the prayer sessions. This evening, excited to receive news from home, was no different.

Aunt Aggie wrote about the store doing well and mentioned your mother, who didn't write to you with more than vague words about hoping you'd feel better soon. The best present was hidden in Nicholas' letter about the university being a sack without his favorite cousin. Wrapped in silk and next to a lighter.

You haven't earned the right to write outside yet - something about a month in isolation to accomplish. So you just clutched the items to your chest and wished your cousin knew how grateful you were.

Your initial intention was to save the weed for some more stressful day - which was rare in the leisurely pace of this place - but the last letter made you consider using it all that night.

The recipient's perfect handwriting, and the address you knew by heart. You didn't even open the item, you put it away in your drawer and stood up with the weed hidden in your pants pocket.

The common area was empty, as the vast majority of your colleagues were praying. You stepped up to one of the bonfires and threw the unopened letter into the flames, without hesitation and without caring to see it burn. You turned on your heels and continued along the trail, heading for one of the few more secluded spots you had discovered during the hours of exploring between tasks.

The rules were clear about the prophet's hut but said nothing about the road towards it. And since apparently everyone there was afraid of upsetting the boss, that spot was always empty and the perfect place to smoke in hiding.

You leaned against a tree, curled up and lit the weed, and tried to keep away all the painful memories about last semester that the damn letter had brought up.

You were halfway through a joint when you heard a voice at the end of the trail next to you.

"Good evening, Y/N."

"Jesus fucking Christ." You gasped, jumping with fright and almost dropping the blunt to the ground. You looked sideways abruptly, imagining that you were hallucinating because of the weed, and were almost sure that you were when the words escaped you due to the apparition in front of you. The most beautiful woman you've ever seen in your life. Instead of a uniform, she wore a loose dark wine dress that hugged her curves perfectly; her long red hair cascaded down her shoulders and back and her emerald eyes shone curiously in your direction. The dim light from the fire lamps scattered along the trail and the moon really made the woman look like an angel. 

You coughed awkwardly. "Sorry, you scared me." You clarified, the cigarette hidden behind your back a stupid attempt to mask what you were doing. Sure enough, your pupils were dilated, and it was very easy to see the smoke. So, as soon as you tried to hide it, you gave up, offering the woman an awkward chuckle and gesturing the cigarette gently. "Don't tell on me."

There was a soft pause, which you couldn't tell from the intoxication in your system. The woman watched for a moment as the charming gesture of bringing the cigarette to the smile formed on your lips and blew the smoke into the starry sky with your neck slightly stretched. Your mind seemed to clear, and before the woman could speak, you grimaced. "Wait, didn't you just say my name? How..?"

She smiled, folding her hands in front of her body. "It was premeditated that we met today, of course. I'm Wanda."

You've heard her name before, in conversation circles and in advertisements about her heavenliness hanging around. 

"Shit." It was your natural reaction, which made her laugh softly, and it must have been the weed's fault that the sound echoed in your mind and made your body shudder.

"Don't worry, I won't snitch on you." She assures you with an easy smile playing on her lips, and you swallow dry, completely at a loss.

"Thanks... but I thought you were the boss." You mumble, and Wanda makes a funny expression, like a false realization. 

"Oh, you're right." She murmurs amusedly. "I think I can let this one slide if you'll share it with me." 

"Fuck, of course, here." Your limbs feel strange, almost too heavy to move around her. You awkwardly hand her the cigarette, certain that your face is flushed. Hell, the last time you were this clumsy was last semester, with-

"You swear a lot." Wanda's comment pulls you out of your daze. She takes a long drag before adding: "Especially for a Christian."

You chuckle, shaking your head. "My father's a Christian, not me." You retort, and end up grimacing. "And how do you know-"

"This is a very exclusive program, sweetheart." Wanda cuts you off again, the cigarette between her fingers but her gaze is completely focused on your face. "Having a lot of money or being someone's niece isn't enough to guarantee you a spot, but a good letter of recommendation might. And Agatha wrote me almost everything about you, except the reason for rushing to get you here before the next recruitment period."

The sentence was an invitation for you to speak, but you didn't fall for the bait. On the contrary, you looked away with tense shoulders, and Wanda didn't press. At least, not now. She took another drag before commenting more softly:

"We have general meetings every Wednesday. We encourage members to open up." 

You grimace softly. "Group therapy isn't my thing."

But Wanda smiles lopsidedly, giving you back the joint. " Neither is nice weed." She retorts a little provocatively, attracting your attention. "If you want to try something new, show up next week. And if you want to try something good, you should try the weed from our greenhouse. It won't taste like crushed dirt." Adjusting her hair around her shoulders, she offers you a wink. "Have a good night, darling."

You think about the color of her eyes for the rest of the night.

-&-

Sooner than you'd expect, you'll discover that Wanda isn't the type to let things slide. Far from it, she notices everything, especially those who are being too slack and prone to not following the teachings of the Children of Chaos, possibly ruining their record of total efficiency or something.

She puts an end to your plans for a quiet summer, trying to go unnoticed among the countless other followers just as abruptly as she left her meditation hut. Wanda seems to appear at every moment that you consider escaping from your commitments - it even occurs to you that she has a particular interest in watching you, but the idea sounds so absurd that you push it away while forcing a polite smile before returning to your duties.

Less than two weeks after you met, you finally stopped avoiding Group Therapy and showed up on time to join the session. The presence of Wanda, in a loose dark purple dress and her red hair tied up in a neat braid, makes you almost give up, convinced that you couldn't say anything without stuttering in the presence of such a stunning woman.

But she offers a gentle smile, opening her arms softly. "Come along, darling, you're just in time." She greets and you stumble towards a corner in the background, begging the gods that you can attend in silence this time.

It doesn't seem so difficult when it's other people doing it. A young man with whom you've already shared the task of looking after the stables spoke of the frustrations of returning from enforced service with a missing limb, and how the support he didn't get from the government and family members, he found here. Bucky received a finger-snapping applause - something that was explained to you as a way to avoid triggers on the countless ex-combatants or victims of post-traumatic stress that make up the crowd - before giving his turn to another ex-military woman, Carol Danvers.

More stories were shared until Wanda's gaze fell on your slumped figure and she called your name. All the attention in the room fell on you too, and you chuckled awkwardly.

"Thanks, but I'm not good at public speaking." You retorted, but Wanda, with her hands folded over her stomach, gave you a gentle smile.

"Don't worry about it, dear, this is a no-judgment zone." She says, but you make no mention of getting up, and her gaze becomes more insistent. "It's important that we all make an effort to be present at these exercises. We encourage participation around here. Come along, dear, please." And she smiled so kindly that you could only trust her.

The group offered a small chorus of encouragement, and before you knew it, you were a few steps away from the redhead, who held out her hands for your wrists.

"I want you to take a deep breath and close your eyes." Wanda guided, her melodic voice bringing goose bumps all over your body. "Turn all your attention inward. And tell me, is there anything in there that you'd like to share with the group?"

The memories of last semester hit you full force. But Wanda massages your wrists and it feels as if she can calm down the whole storm inside of you.

You sigh, before opening your eyes. "I... I don't know where to start." Your whisper is met by another chorus of support from the members, who retort that you're safe. Wanda releases your wrists to sit with the others, and you try not to be so self-conscious while you're in the spotlight. "I think I can share with you the reason why I'm here." You declare a moment later, taking another deep breath.

Bucky gives you an encouraging smile, mimicking that of the people around him, and you swallow.

"I don't have a history of fighting and overcoming war or any illnesses, so I'm sorry to disappoint anyone." You mumble, receiving confused looks.

The former sergeant assures you: "No problem competes with another. All our pains have their importance." And it seems to be something that has already been repeated here a few times because everyone shakes their heads in agreement.

You scratch the back of your head awkwardly. "Right... well, I won't beat around the bush. A month ago, when I was first enrolled here, I had just been kicked out of my house. Well, it wasn't exactly my house anymore, because I'd been living on campus for about three years, but I think you get the idea." You say, laughing awkwardly at the anxiety in your chest. You try to clear your throat so that your voice doesn't come out so shaky, but only Wanda's gaze really helps to calm your nerves. "And the reason for this was a relationship that my parents, more specifically my mother, didn't approve of. To be fair, no one really approved, because, well, the person... hm, I don't think there's any other way to put it, was another woman. An older woman, and also my professor. And well, the whole thing would have been a scandal anyway, but I really let myself believe that when the worst was over, we'd be fine. Bad news, we weren't." You laugh sadly. You pause, imagining that you'll get judgmental looks, but everyone listens attentively. "For a while, I thought the worst part was afterward. When everyone knew and judged me, and how my mother freaked out, and I tried... but no. The worst part was not realizing what that love if I can call it that, was doing to me. How ill it was making me. And until I got here, learned things about myself, and managed to take a break from everything that was left behind... For a while, I really hoped to go back and fix everything, but now... damn, sometimes I don't even think about leaving this place."

The group celebrates quietly, exchanging words of encouragement. Your ears feel warm, and Wanda stands up again. "You can stay as long as you need, darling." She says, massaging your forearm. She calls someone else to speak, but doesn't miss the opportunity to whisper in your ear: "I'm proud, stay a little longer today, I want to talk to you." 

And you think you haven't absorbed anything for the rest of the morning.

Eventually, the session ends, and as soon as the room is empty, Wanda turns her face towards you.

"You were brave today, sweetheart." 

Your hands, busy putting the cushions away, tremble a little. But you offer her an incredulous chuckle.

"Yeah, right." It's your answer, which makes Wanda frown in curiosity. At her inquisitive silence, you sigh before clarifying: "Everyone's nice, but I know it's kind of silly that my big trauma is a break-up and not post-traumatic stress from war or something that actually matters."

Wanda presses her lips together, studying you for a moment, and you take the opportunity to put away the last of the cushions. Suddenly, she says:

"This lack of respect for your own feelings comes from parental negligence, I suppose."  You turn your face away in surprise, but Wanda gives you a small smile: "James wasn't lying when he said that no pain should compete with another. We all have our internal and external battles, and we shouldn't belittle our pain. I believe we should honor it, and wear it. And here, dear, you will learn to do that." Wanda makes her way around to one of the cupboards at the back, and you watch her movements in silence, from reaching into one of the last drawers to returning to you with an item in hand. "I have an invitation for you."

She opens the box she's brought, and inside is a necklace very similar to the one the instructors wear. The main difference is the symbol, the crown that Wanda also carries on the pendant around her neck. You frown in confusion.

"What is it?"

She wraps the item between her fingers, her gaze on you. "The disciple's necklace. The last one from the current solstice." 

You imitate the gesture, touching the item with the tips of your fingers. Wanda doesn't move her hand away as your fingers brush together, and you ignore your own shyness as you watch her bite her lip for a moment. "I don't understand what it means."

She licks her lips, and the movement doesn't go unnoticed by your eyes. "It means that you would be my apprentice. You would accompany me during periods of meditation, you would study my teachings closely, you would be... entirely dedicated to..."

"You?" you add, and Wanda lets out a shuddering breath, warm against your cheek. When did she get so close?

"If you wish." She whispers, and you pull away gently, your face hot but the last thread of sanity in your mind.

"I'm sure there are more experienced members dying for this position. It wouldn't be right-"

Wanda shakes her head, interrupting you. "They weren't chosen. You were." She assures you, pressing the box with the necklace against your chest. "And if it wasn't you, the place would be empty until the next solstice. You don't have to accept it, darling. It's not a summons. It's an invitation."

You sigh, holding the box against your chest. "I just... I've never done anything like this. I don't want to mess things up."

There's a bell in the distance, signaling the start of the next activities. Wanda glances outside briefly before stepping close enough to press a kiss to the corner of your mouth that makes your whole body heat up at once.

"Just listen to your instincts." She whispers, before pulling away with a small smile.

You write to Agatha about it the following evening, but you don't have the courage to seal the letter for sending. The whole conversation with Wanda seems too private to be shared in this way. 

Although the woman said it was just an invitation, you could feel some pressure to make a decision, and it seems that the news had been circulating ever since one of the tutors couldn't find the box of the last chaos disciple pendant, and Wanda ended up mentioning that she had extended another invitation.

In a way, you were stalling. Between your activities and meetings, you hadn't made any decisions and you hoped that the end of the summer would force Wanda to choose someone else. But there was also the question of the new, burning feelings that had appeared since you first laid eyes on her, and which seemed to awaken every time you two were in the same environment. 

The idea of departing, of leaving her behind like a closed chapter in your life, seemed absurd every passing day.

In your second month with the Chaos Children, you received a rather unusual request: take the prophet her morning drink.

The crumpled piece of paper was handed to you by one of your cabin mates: Kate Bishop. A former student, a little younger than you, who, after destroying a bell at the university, was sent here by her millionaire mother. Kate was to stay until she had balanced her irresponsible impulses and could take over the family's security empire.

She seemed a little reluctant to interrupt your concentration on cleaning the garden, but much more determined not to disappoint Wanda.

"Just give it to the kitchen staff, they'll know what to do. And prioritize, she doesn't like to wait." Said the girl, but you gave her hand a gentle tug before taking the paper.

"But why did she ask me?" you asked, but Kate had no idea and just shrugged before leaving the garden.

While the kitchen staff prepared the item, you tried to improve your appearance in the bathroom next to the lounge, wiping all the soil from the plants from under your fingers, and even what had run into your cheeks. 

When you came out, there was another order on the counter and a small group of people who hadn't been there before. They didn't see you. Blonsky, accompanied by two other women you didn't know, were talking to each other.

"I bet it was Carter. She hasn't stopped talking about her private piano lessons with the Prophetess for four whole weeks." Said the first, but the other laughed quietly.

" Sharoon is a simp, that's all. Wanda wouldn't choose her after the episode with Rogers last year, she knows she can't trust her." Rebutted the other. "Besides, I would have assumed it was Bishop, after all, she already acts like a maid. Why train another when you already have one so dedicated?" The women laugh amongst themselves until they finally notice you approaching, and fall silent. Blonsky smiles, but he appears very vicious. 

"Hello, miss. Wouldn't you like to have a say in who our next disciple is?" He asks you, but you shrug, moving forward in the queue in front of the canteen to grab the prophet's items that were clearly being prepared in priority. 

"I don't know anything about it." That's your answer, but the shorter woman gets in your way.

"Come on, dear, it's easy." She begins with a giggle. "Every solstice, the prophetess chooses her disciples. There are 24 of them, 12 of whom will become apostles after their apprenticeship."

You grimace softly. "It's very biblical."

Blonsky chuckles. "Of course, it is, despite the multiculturalism of our group, Wanda was raised in a Jewish Christian home. You're not going to tell me you didn't know that?"

You clear your throat. "Not really. Sorry, I have to run."

But the man puts a hand in your way, only to stretch his body out on the counter and reach for some colored leaves that he crushes and drops into Wanda's glass.

"She likes it this way. I would know, I prepared many when I was her houseboy for the first few weeks here." He says, and you swallow dry, mumbling an awkward thank you before hurrying off.

The path is a little tiring, you think it makes sense of Wanda's physique if she had to climb that trail every day, and you mentally curse yourself for thinking about her body. It's not at all appropriate, honestly.

The door is open, but you knock anyway. The woman inside, wearing her typical long, loose dresses at the edge, is busy finishing a loose fringe in her hair and offers you a smile.

"Come in, dear." 

You do so a little awkwardly, almost overwhelmed by the moment of entering the most private place in the whole camp. It's a beautiful cabin, you let her know, without stopping to admire the perfectly arranged surroundings. You would have thought that the privacy of this place would allow her to make some kind of personal mess, but everything is impeccably in place.

Wanda approaches to pick up the items, and the smile falters on her face at the first sip of her drink.

"Did you put... did you put maca root in this?" She asks, and your natural reaction is a short laugh.

"I didn't prepare it, Wanda."

But she doesn't smile again, her tone of voice remains the same but her attitude changes to one of false kindness. "My morning drink is an ashwagandha. I need my concentration to increase, not my libido." It really sounded like a scolding, and her attitude of handing the cup back to you, accompanied by the memory of the recent events, made your blood boil.

"Well, I'm not your fucking maid, so if it's not good, get another one downstairs, or even better, make it one yourself."

It's the first time you see any kind of fury in her gaze, hot and vibrant, and it makes something in you rouse. Your mention of leaving the cabin is prevented by her hands closing the door and trapping you against the wood.

Wanda takes a deep breath, and the gleam in her eyes changes. "Can I ask... where did this attitude come from?"

You hold the glass tightly against your body, very aware that you'll drop it if Wanda doesn't step away and let you breathe. "I just want to make things clear." You retort with a seriousness that doesn't do justice to the way your heart is racing. "I didn't come to this place to be your personal servant."

Wanda chuckles briefly, letting her gaze drop to your mouth. "Oh, of course not, darling." She whispers. "You're not the type to follow orders willingly. You'd do a terrible job."

Swallowing dryly, you retort: "And why am I here then?"

Wanda smiles innocently. "I asked you to bring my drink." It's her reply, clearly trying to tease you, and you snort impatiently.

"I bet you expected an answer. Well, I haven't made up my mind yet, so if there's nothing else, I'll just go."

Wanda moves to take the glass from you and put it on the table by the door. The next second, her hands are in yours.

"Don't be silly, of course, there's another reason." She retorts, pulling you along as she walks backward into the cabin. "I hear you love painting."

What you had assumed was her personal painting canvas is offered to you. The laugh that escapes you is shy and genuine.

"Wanda, I don't... paint anymore."

But she doesn't flinch, her hands still in yours. "I know you haven't since last semester. It was in the letter. But you've progressed so much, that I thought you could paint for me." When you don't answer, she makes such an adorable expression that your heart skips a beat. "Please?"

Wanda definitely knows how beautiful she is, and how those puppy-dog eyes can take her anywhere. You bite back a smile, agreeing, and almost forget to breathe when she jumps excitedly onto your neck, hugging it for a whole moment before letting go as if she hadn't turned you into a complete mess with one touch.

She doesn't complain about the cocktail again - instead, she drinks it entirely while you get comfortable on the painting stool, doodling for a few moments before starting to paint the only thing you could after so many months without touching a paintbrush.

It's only when the drawing is clearer on the frame that Wanda becomes restless again. Loud sighs take your attention away from the painting and towards her.

"Is something wrong?"

She smiles half-heartedly, and only now do you notice the soft color of her cheeks. "I shouldn't have ignored my own complaints and drunk that juice."

You frown in confusion, letting the brush rest next to the paints. "Was it that bad? If you want, I'll complain to the kitchen-"

Wanda chuckles, shaking her head and you have to shut up because she reaches over to push the canvas out of the way and stops right in front of you, close enough to touch.

"Remember what I said? About focus and about... my libido." She asks, and you can swallow dryly, looking up in the direction of her dilated eyes. She lets her hands rest on your shoulders, pressing the weight of her body gently into yours. "Well, I suppose you'll have to see for yourself. Hold out your hand sweetheart, no, no, down... yes, you can move my dress out of the way." Your trembling fingers brushed against her knee, and immediately obeyed the order. Slowly making your way under her dress, while Wanda bit her lip and watched you draw patterns on her thighs. Finally, your fingers reached the side of her underwear. Instead of pulling it down, you let the inks drop to the ground, and your other hand went under her dress too, repeating the same path as before while you and Wanda panted together. Your face fell forward, flush into her dress, and you pressed your nose against her, inhaling deeply the scent of arousal she exhaled so strongly.

Her hands squeezed your shoulders as yours began to pull down her panties right away. A moment later, gracefully as everything so far, she kicked the item aside and spread her legs gently so that you could slide your fingers between more easily.

You looked up the second your index finger met her warmth, gasping at the mischievous smile of the woman in front of you.

"All this time I've been here..." You started hoarsely, your fingers spreading the wetness between her folds, and enjoying the way Wanda's breath caught in her throat. "Were you this wet?" 

Despite the failure of her own breathing, and the way it's harder to stand up with your intimate stimulation, Wanda gives you a mischievous look and leans her forehead against yours, her red hair making a curtain between your faces. 

"I get like this every time I'm around you." She confesses, giving you a provocative tug on your lower lip that forces you to thrust inside her with more determination. Almost enough for her to lose her pose. Almost. "It's disconcerting, to be honest."

Your thumb presses down firmly on her clit, and Wanda almost buckles into you, the delicious sound that escapes her throat will be in your dreams for sure. "Well, should I apologize, high sanctity?"

She chuckles at the teasing hidden in the nickname, before leaning in completely and capturing your mouth in a fervent kiss that takes you out of orbit for a whole moment, intense enough for you to whimper into her tongue, and force her hips down into yours, practically begging her to grind your lap. Wanda's response to this is a dirty giggle mixed with a moan into your mouth.

Without breaking the kiss that turns into a much hungrier one the next second, you get to your feet, adjusting your hands to grab her thighs to pull her onto your lap and carry her around the room. Between stumbles, you press each other against the various surfaces of the room, tables, and cupboards, exchanging increasingly hot and desperate kisses, and you're pretty sure you're going to have Wanda against the bookshelf if she keeps grinding into your abdomen like that.

In a pause for breath, when she's still wedged between you and the bookcase, your mouth descends on her jaw and Wanda struggles to keep her eyes open. She whimpers shamelessly as your curious hands advance down her body, pulling her dress out of the way and leaving it barely hanging off her body for you to clasp your palms over her now-bare breasts.

Her patience for release is quickly exhausted by the precise stimulation of her breasts, your eager fingers teasing and pinching her nipples until you turn her into a whimpering mess. She gives a determined tug on the hair at the nape of your neck, forcing your face back to hers in a hard, dirty kiss that makes you shudder. She breaks it only to give an order: 

"On your knees." And you groan in obedience, falling to the floor almost at once, desperately pulling her dress aside to force your face into her, now with nothing in the way. Wanda arches her back once your hot mouth finds her drenched cunt; her hands desperate for some kind of support on the shelves behind her, while her chest heaves and her hips are restless against your face. 

Your hungry mouth leisurely devours her, your tongue teasing her folds, spreading her wetness around and making a mess on your face. Your closed eyes show your dedication and surrender to the task, but Wanda tugs at your hair again, trying to gain a little control back and order you to quit the teasing and fuck her the way she needs you to. Fully dilated Irises then confronts her from between her legs, and Wanda loses her breath. 

"Beautiful." She panted, staring back, shamelessly grinding herself into your face. "So beautiful... fuck... on your knees for me... oh, God, detka." She struggles to compliment you, but her native language begins to escape mixed with English shortly afterward, her climax approaching. You moan contentedly at the scene, aware of the state of your own underwear from all this play. Wanda's body begins to betray her, trying to pull away so you grab her thighs with a strong grip, and one of her legs ends up over your shoulder, increasing your reach just the way she needs it to fall over the edge.

Wanda comes on your tongue, spasming against the books, and in a deep moan. You don't let her pull away, keeping her restless hips in place as you lick your way through her previous climax in search of a new one. Soon her whimpering protests at the overstimulation turn into begging, and you fail to hide the smug smile at feeling her so at your mercy for a second time.

She's so close, so close, that the Sokovian comes back to her tongue, but there's a sudden knock on the door, and all the stimulation is interrupted by your fright. Wanda gasps incredulously, losing the time to react in time due to her own lust, and having to watch you stumble away - quickly wiping her cum from your chin with the back of your hand - as she tries not to fall down on her shaking knees.

"Why the fuck did you stop?" she asks in frustration through her teeth, but you, with a very flushed face, look at her with a certain desperation.

"Wanda, there's someone at the door!" You retort as if it were a very justifiable reason to steal an orgasm from her. Wanda huffs angrily, lunging at you and ignoring your confused eyes to pull you upright by the collar of your shirt, hurriedly throwing you onto the mattress. "W-wanda, what?"

"Quiet." She cuts in, pushing your shoulders until you're lying down and following the movement of your body to straddle your lap. The person outside knocks again, and although she's pulling her off, and is still shaking from her last orgasm, Wanda manages to speak in the same tone of voice as she does every morning meeting: "What is it?"

Your protests are muffled when Wanda sits on your face, and in fact, you would have forgotten any guests if Blonsky's voice hadn't sounded in the next second.

"Good morning, Reverend, I've come to join you for today's service." Says the man, but Wanda has to bite her lip hard because you're eating her out again, somehow even better than before. "Reverend?"

Wanda shakes her head, frowning at the difficulty of maintaining a rational thought when she has your tongue inside her. "Hm, I'm not going today, Blonsky... Deliver the service in my place." She fails to sound so breathless and has to close her eyes when your hands grip her thighs tightly, holding her down. 

Blonsky then sounds concerned: "Aren't you feeling well, Reverence?"

Your nose nuzzles into her clit and Wanda reaches for the headboard, a satisfied sigh escaping her. "I feel great." She murmurs back and has to take a deep breath so that the next sound that escapes her isn't a moan. "Just busy. Anything else, Blonsky?"

The man clears his throat, Wanda has to press a hand against her own mouth as you reach another right spot. 

"Hm, yes, Reverend... As you know, the deadline for the selection of the disciple is coming to an end." He begins, luckily unable to hear the muffled sighs inside the room through the closed door. "I have expressed my concerns to Your Reverence about a premature choice of new members-"

Wanda snorts impatiently. "Are you really going to question my choices again, Blonsky?"

"N-no, reverend!" He defends himself quickly. "Never. I just worry that the... affinity, that Your Reverence has acquired for some new members, might affect your judgment about their vocations. The premature choice of a disciple could result in their departure from our community, and we know how the withdrawal of one of our own affects everyone..."

"Don't worry about it." Wanda cuts dry, and now, she's remarkably close to climaxing. She doesn't care about the roughness, she thrusts her hips frantically into your face, muffling your breathless moans. "Y/N is the best choice... she's... so-god... dedicated and-hm... talented-" Wanda's lucky you're quick to react too. She would have screamed to the ceiling, exposing all the inappropriate activities in the room if you hadn't grabbed her thighs and spun her on her back onto the mattress. She didn't have time to lose this orgasm by the brief interruption of your movements - your fingers took the place of your tongue when you hovered above her, and your free hand covered her mouth when you sank inside her again.

Wanda came harder than before, squeezing your fingers and wetting the bed. She clings to your body in a desperate grasp, shocked by the achievement over her body, and grateful for the muffling of her moans. You keep thrusting until she stops squirting on the sheets.

You only remember that Blonsky is still outside because he speaks again. "I'll take your word for it, Your Reverence. And I hope you've made a good choice." He says at last, the sound of his footsteps moving away is ignored by you and Wanda, who meet in a hot kiss in the next second.

Your fingers continue to thrust lightly inside her, even though Wanda shudders from the excessive stimulation. And despite this, she also controls the kiss, which slows down so that she can ask in between: "Tell me, love. Did I do it? A good choice."

You kiss her a little harder. "I still don't know... what I want... or what I should do, Wanda."

She brings one of her hands up to your wrist, stopping your movements. You open your eyes to look at her. Wanda smiles, but her eyes are very mischievous. "You think too hard when the answer is right here." She retorts, giving your hand a gentle tug. You follow her lead, and soon, you have your drenched fingers with her cum inside your mouth. Your hips move instinctively, pressing down on her, and Wanda giggles mischievously, her free hand trailing down your back to encourage the movement. "Don't you want that, baby? You can be all mine."

You suck your fingerprints clean, removing them from your mouth to support yourself on the mattress now that you're so wildly grinding your hips against Wanda's thigh. She doesn't let you indulge in the sensation, grabbing your cheek and stopping your hips with the other at your silence.

Your soft protest is ignored, and your voice is almost a pathetic plea when it comes out. "It's not fair... I was feeling so good."

"Oh, darling, I can make you feel even better, every day if you decide to stay with me." She retorts, her grip softening on your cheek. You look at her, but there is still hesitation in your gaze and Wanda wishes to replace this doubt with something else. She kisses you but pulls away when you go to increase the intensity, ignoring your protest and pushing you gently away by the shoulders. "No playing, until I have an answer."

Wanda flees - because she doesn't think she'll live up to her words if she is under you - and slips out of bed before you can grab her back. Your next long protest is muffled against the mattress because you press your face down.

Wanda giggles half-heartedly as she stands up, reaches for her dress, and tries to adjust her appearance a little. "Thank you for the sex, sweetheart, it was a very pleasant surprise, but I can't let Blonsky lead a communion, he's not good at it. And you have errands, so if you'll excuse me..." Your silence made Wanda, now dressed, look at the bed again. To her surprise, you were sitting on the mattress, hanging something around your neck. 

Your gaze met hers as the disciple chain was secure on your skin. The mischief in your gaze made her swallow. Twirling the symbol between your fingers, you smiled as you asked: "So how does this work? Should I confess my sins so that you can forgive me?"

"God offers forgiveness, not me." Wanda whispers back, brazenly watching you start to unbutton your shirt, the necklace hanging in the valley of your breasts is doing things to her. 

"Hm, since I'm going to be forgiven, maybe I can sin a little more..." Wanda moved on instinct, crawling onto the bed to meet you halfway like a magnet being drawn towards you.

Your foreheads touched, and she sighed against your lips. "I should punish you for this blasphemy." She says, to which you smile naughtily before sticking out your tongue to tease her lips, eliciting a low moan from her.

"Promise?" You challenge, and Wanda gets tired of wasting time.

[jewishconvertthings]

PSA, because I've now seen a few posts floating around like this and also just hear it all the time IRL: Please don't use the term "convert" (or any synonyms) as a stand-in for any other concept or experience except Jews that had to go through a conversion process.

Jews who went through a conversion process may:

Have Jewish ancestry

Have been raised with a Jewish identity

Have a Jewish father

Have a Jewish mother

Have both a Jewish mother and father

Have been raised practicing Judaism as part of their religious upbringing

Have been raised practicing Judaism as their sole religious upbringing

Had a bar/bat/bnei mitzvah as a 12 or 13-year-old

Any combination or all of the above

The reality is that unless and until all branches of liberal Judaism and all branches of orthodox Judaism agree on what's a valid conversion (and I am not personally holding my breath) we are going to have children born to Jewish parents who only practice Judaism and raise their kids as Jews, but whose mother's conversion is not accepted in all branches and therefore must convert to be married in their preferred community, count in minyan, etc.

Those experiences are so vastly different from mine, someone who was a true outsider before my conversion - and everything in between. I personally have far more in common with, say, a halachic Jew from birth who was adopted out to xtian parents and never knew they were Jewish until they became an adult and is now a baal teshuvah. And on the other hand, a convert who went through a conversion process so they could join a more traditional movement has way more in common with halachic Jews by birth who were raised Jewish than me. Yet people (inside and outside the community) use "convert" as a shorthand to refer to people like me when they really usually something more along the lines of "person raised totally outside the community who has had to assimilate in and most likely has no or distant Jewish ancestry."

The only thing that connects all gerim in terms of experiences vis a vis Jewish identity is the fact that we all went through a conversion process to establish our halachic status in our communities. That's it.

tldr; we need better, more varied words to describe the diversity of Jewish experience and identity, but regardless please don't make assumptions about someone's Jewish background based on whether or not they went through a conversion process.