#National Secular Society

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Jack Rivington

Published: Sep 29, 2023

Ahead of International Blasphemy Rights Day, Jack Rivington says freedom of religion or belief must include the freedom to criticise or dissent from religious orthodoxy.

The freedom to question and criticise religious ideas in the same manner as any other kind is foundational to a democratic society. Where it exists at all, this freedom is constantly threatened, both by its traditional enemies of theocracy and religious fundamentalism, but also increasingly from a misguided interpretation of liberal values.

A recent report from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom identified 95 countries which criminalise blasphemy in some way. That number is at least one too few, as it fails to include the United Kingdom, where the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel remain on the books in Northern Ireland.

Punishments in countries which outlaw blasphemy vary, from fines to imprisonment and execution. Unjust though such legal processes are, the extra-judicial violence licenced and encouraged by such laws is of equal importance. The Center for Inquiry, which established September 30th as International Blasphemy Rights Day, has said to "charge someone with blasphemy is to value a person's life less than an idea". Though this is particularly true in countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan, where those accused of blasphemy are often murdered, it is also the case worldwide. Last year, Sir Salman Rushdie was attacked in Chautauqua, New York, 34 years after the Ayatollah Khomenei called for his murder for the supposed offence of blasphemy.

Those who would impose and enforce blasphemy codes on others do not respect or recognise national borders or sovereignty. A commitment to free speech must therefore be equally international in its scope. In failing to fully abolish its blasphemy laws, the UK validates the notion that perceived offence to religion or God should be prohibited, thereby undermining its ability to promote the right to freedom of expression elsewhere.

Attempts to shield religion from criticism are also underway via systematic efforts to characterise such criticism as a form of racial or ethnic bigotry. The concept of 'Islamophobia', vigorously promoted by Islamists both in the UK and abroad, is the most pressing example. Integral to the concept is the claim that criticism of ideas is equivalent to attacking individuals. Under the term's definition formulated by the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG), to question Islamic ideology is to effectively express hate for Muslims.

This is a blasphemy law in another form – a point demonstrated by the case of Erika López Prater, who was fired last year by Hamline University after discussing artistic representations of Muhammad in an art history class. A Muslim student complained that as images of Muhammad are banned in Islam, the content of the lesson – and by extension Prater – was thus blasphemous and Islamophobic.

By agreeing that images of Muhammad are Islamophobic and should therefore not be shown, Hamline generalised the personal feelings and religious interpretation of one individual as the definitive position of Islam. But this view is not shared by all Muslims. As Anna Khalid - an associate professor of history at Carleton College and herself a Muslim - pointed out, in endorsing the supposed Islamic ban on images of Muhammad, Hamline "privileged a most extreme and conservative" point of view.

A policy which empowers the most fundamentalist elements within a religious community is neither liberal nor inclusive. Yet that is precisely what the current arguments around 'hate speech' have achieved. What we have, in effect, is a code which polices a particular theological interpretation of Islam against other interpretations. It is a gross perversion of laws intended to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief to enlist them in sectarian theological disputes in this way.

If the right to freedom of religion or belief means anything, it must include the right of those within religious groups considered blasphemous by more doctrinaire views to practice their faith as they see fit. The current understanding of 'Islamophobia' threatens those who perceived not to conform to traditional theology – Muslim women who reject the hijab, openly LGBT Muslims, and minorities within the religion such as Ahmadis, for example. It is absurd to think that a gay Muslim could be labelled 'Islamophobic' for criticising elements of their own faith which are homophobic. Yet under the current conceptual framework, such criticism could be labelled as such. The ability to criticise religion must therefore be seen as an essential component of the right to freedom of religion or belief, not in conflict with it.

However well-intentioned, politicians who endorse the concept of 'Islamophobia' are effectively reintroducing blasphemy laws by the backdoor and empowering fundamentalists within religious communities in the process. Concerningly, a significant part of the UK's political establishment appears unaware of the problem – the APPG definition has been accepted by all major parties except the Conservatives, along with one in seven UK local authorities.

The UK must not sacrifice the right to free speech in a misguided attempt to promote social cohesion. Secularism, and a robust defence of the ability to criticise all ideas and ideology, is the only genuine way to achieve an properly inclusive society which respects everyone's right to freedom of religion or belief. In defending that right, we must remain vigilant.

#Jack Rivington #blasphemy #blasphemy laws #cancel culture #International Blasphemy Day #Blasphemy Day #National Secular Society #religion #religious sentiments #hurting religious sentiments #religion is a mental illness

[cathnews]

Christian GP who offers to pray with patients settles disciplinary case with NHS

Christian GP who offers to pray with patients settles disciplinary case with NHS

A Christian GP who offers to pray with his patients has settled a case with the NHS after they tried to impose disciplinary measures on him. Dr Richard Scott, a GP for 35 years who practices at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, Kent, was set to contest a ruling by the NHS in a hearing at Ashford Tribunal Centre this week. But his planned appeal did not go ahead on Monday after the case was…

View On WordPress

#Bethesda Medical Centre #Christian GP #Dr Richard Scott #National Secular Society

[asagi-asagiri]

The US with ordinary east anglian whites, random midlanders and scots/welsh instead of puritans/quakers/borderlander fundies would have been so much better.

#like imagine an anglo society like australia or NZ but without those two's neurotic moralism from wanting to be proper Middle Class #This means the US is way less of both religious and moralistic/first generation secularization prude lib #at minimum national healthcare and no prohibition for sure #alternate history #albion's seed

[indizombie]

Submitting ourselves to this political agenda of the communal forces will defeat our Christian mandate to work for the establishment of God’s just world on earth and blemish its legacy in this country towards holding up the values of secularism and social democracy. This is nothing but a violation of the Christian moral principles and the teachings of Jesus Christ. No Christian leaders have been given any mandate from the faith communities to represent them and to compromise with the majoritarian politics. The leaders who indulge in this exclusive politics deceive the grassroots Christian people who face violent attacks from Hindu fanatics. The leaders who forget the history of Indian Christian public witness will take the Indian church to its impending doom and we don’t want to do that. The Indian church wants to challenge the exclusionary politics of the communal forces and stand in solidarity with the other minorities and the subjugated section who are not even considered citizens in this country. Today, Christian participation in nation- building finds its location in the civil society movements that uphold the values of secularism and diversity.

Fr. Dr. Y.T Vinayaraj, director, Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society (CISRS)

#CISRS #YT Vinayaraj #India #Jesus Christ #Christian leaders #majoritarian politics #grassroots Christian people #Hindu fanatics #Indian Christians #Indian church #communal forces #nation- building #civil society movements #secularism #diversity

[germiyahu]

There's such an intricate interplay between antisemitism and islamophobia from the slacktivist left. For every reason they can think of to delegitimize the Jewish People's connection to Eretz Yisrael, it's propped up by some Noble Savage presumptions about Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims.

Since Jews in America are seen as a model minority, seen as having accessed whiteness and privilege, and "antisemitism" is at worst having to explain what Hanukah is to clueless Christians, the Left is confused as to exactly why Jews care about Jerusalem and the Land of Israel so much. Shouldn't they be above such petty and barbaric and outdated concerns such as a dusty old book from 2,000 years ago?

They should be more enlightened than that. They're all rich suburban secular Democrats. They're the leftist religion, according to bloggers on this very platform. There is no room for Judaism to be a religion, there's no acknowledgment of ancient customs, rituals, and the deep mysticism that's still alive and well in the Jewish community. There's no attempt to understand Jewish history and culture and why a group of people you think shares your vaguely atheistic vaguely liberal (and not in the Tankie sense) vaguely smug detached Western worldview... is more complex and unique than that.

Jews should be happy living in Diaspora because clearly the problem of antisemitism is fixed now, and never really was a problem in America. There must be something sinister behind a desire to reestablish a country by and for Jews. There must be something colonial, oppressive, European and White about it. Because why else would they do it? They have it good here. And no we won't acknowledge where Israelis primarily descend from because that requires us to do research and have a shred of nuance and integrity when it comes to Jews. No thanks!

A lot of the modern left is nonconsensually dragging Jews kicking and screaming from their own unique demographic toward the banal Norm. To themselves. But not totally. See they think they relate to Jews and vice versa, but not enough that when they think Jews should "know better," or haven't "learned their lesson," from the Holocaust, it engenders a deep seeded disgust and mistrust and rage that's not felt for actually privileged mainstream dominant society.

Conversely, the slacktivist Left sees Arabs as savages. Silly desert people who eat sand and worship a big black cube and cover every inch of their bodies for some reason. How quaint! When the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim cause explains that Jerusalem is important to them, the White Western Leftist nods sagely and says "Your culture is so valid queen," because they don't care. They just accept that Muslim society would be willing to fight over an ancient city proscribed as holy in dusty old tomes. Because that fits the narrative already surrounding Muslims.

They're seen as backwards, but the Left, reacting to their conservative parents and the Bush era, see "Muslims are backwards," and says not "No actually they're modern groups of people with practical geopolitical goals," but instead "Yeah and that makes them better than us!" Especially with this new crop of baby Leftists who think Islamo-Fascist "Feudalism" or whatever the best term would be, is aspirational or at least harmless... because it's not capitalism :)

So Muslims are infantilized and condescended to because the Western Leftist is still just as racist as their parents, but they feel guilty about their parents without considering their contribution to White Supremacy and the Post Bush surveillance state. And all the while Jews are reprimanded and held to an impossible standard because the Western Leftist, again, rejects their conservative parents' philosemitism, and decides that Jews Must be Punished when they step off the pedestal that Suffering the Shoah placed them on.

Jews should be above nationalism, Jews should know that demurely suffering pogroms and ethnic cleansing and genocide and general inequity and humiliation will earn them their divine reward in the end. Muslims should not be above nationalism, because they're not capable of being above it, and can't we throw them a bone, after all Obama was the worst president in history because of the Drone War and let's not mention George W Bush at all :0

Hot take, but I believe this is an essential underpinning of where the average disaffected White millennial/zoomer Leftist's head is at with regard to Israel and Palestine. They won't acknowledge it of course, but I can generally see through things like this.

#jumblr #israel #palestine #antisemitism #leftist antisemitism #islamophobia

[captainjonnitkessler]

I understand if you want to stay out of it but I’m curious as to you’re thoughts on this discourse

https://www.tumblr.com/dappercat123/737173649266737152/your-arguments-sum-to-in-my-perfect-world-there

Anon, I'm going to be entirely honest with you. I have been waiting for an excuse to put my thoughts about this down. Forewarning that this is going to be long and take a dim view of organized religion.

TL;DR: I think everyone in that thread is maliciously misinterpreting evilsoup's point, which is basically that they think Gene Roddenberry was right about what a post-utopian society would look like re: religion. And you can agree or disagree about whether a post-religious utopia is likely or desirable, but to say that anyone who thinks it is is actively calling for and encouraging genocide is a gross misuse of the term (especially coming from at least one person that I'm pretty sure is currently denying an actively ongoing actual fucking genocide).

@evilsoup can correct me if I'm misinterpreting their points, but as far as I see it there are two main points being made:

A) In a perfect utopia with absolutely no source of oppression, marginalization, or disparity, religion would naturally whither away with no outside pressure being applied.

B) This would be a good or at least a neutral thing.

As far as A) goes - a lot of the responses evilsoup got were basically "well *I* would never choose to be nonreligious, so therefore the only way to create that world would be by force, and therefore you are calling for literal genocide". But aside from the fact that evilsoup was very, very clear that they thought this would be a *natural* event and that trying to force people to be nonreligious would be evil - we're not talking about (general) you. You can be as religious as you want but you don't get to make that choice for your grandkids, or your great-great-great grandkids, or your great-great-great-great-great-etc. grandkids. Just because religion is an integral part of your identity doesn't mean it's something you can pass down, and if you're not comfortable with the idea that your kids might choose to leave your religion, you shouldn't have kids.

I personally don't foresee religion disappearing entirely, but it is pretty consistent that as a country becomes happier, healthier, and wealthier, it also becomes less religious. Religiosity is inversely correlated with progressive values. And the more democratic and secular a nation is, the less powerful religious authorities become - In the 1600s blasphemy and atheism were punishable by death* in Massachusetts and today I can call the Pope a cunt to his face** on Twitter with no repercussions whatsoever. Political secularism is an absolute necessity for true democracy and it necessitates removing power from religious authorities, which has and will likely continue to lead to a decline in religiosity - not just a decline in how many people identify as religious, but also a decline in how religious the remaining people are.

*Blasphemy laws and death penalties for blasphemers/apostates are still VERY much a thing in many places. It's hard to see a path where those places become more democratic but don't become more secular and repeal those laws.

**Well, to the face of whoever runs his Twitter account, but the point remains.

I also believe that many religious communities have been held together for so long via coercion - either internal coercion like blasphemy and apostasy laws, shunning, and threats of hell or other supernatural punishment, or external coercion like oppression from the majority religious group or ethnic cleansings. In a perfect utopia, neither form of coercion would exist and I don't think it's crazy to think that religiosity would drop severely and become a much less important part of people's identities, in the way I think the queer community would not exist in a world where queerphobia didn't exist.

ANYWAY, all this is actually kind of moot. It could happen, it could not, nobody is calling for it to be forced so we'll just have to wait and see. The real point of disagreement is on B).

I'm gonna be honest - I think a lot of the responders are rank hypocrites and are really hung up on the idea of cultural purity, which is something I'm wildly uncomfortable with.

First of all, the idea that a deeply-held religious belief could be diluted until it's just a cultural thing that nobody really remembers the origins of isn't some evil mastermind plot evilsoup is trying to concoct, it's just how cultures work. There's tons of stuff about American culture that are vaguely rooted in what were once deeply-held beliefs and are now entertainment. Halloween is rooted in sacred tradition and now it's a day to dress up and get candy. Christmas is one of the most sacred holidays in Christianity but nobody bats an eye if a non-Christian puts up some lights or decorates a tree just because it's fun. I have no doubt that every culture on Earth has traditions that used to be deeply sacred but are now just fun family traditions. People in Japan use Christian symbology as an "exotic, mythical" aesthetic the exact same way people in the West use Eastern symbology. And if you're okay with it happening to Christianity, why wouldn't you be okay with it happening to any other religion in the absence of oppression?

And there's the idea that if a culture fails to get passed down *exactly* as it is now, it's a terrible loss and the result of malicious outside influence. But . . . cultures change over time. No culture is the same now as it was two or five or eight hundred years ago and I don't believe that change is inherently loss. The things that are sacred to you may or may not be sacred to the people of your culture in the future. That's just the way things work, and I don't think it's inherently good or bad.

And finally, people keep accusing evilsoup of "just wanting everyone to assimilate to your culture", but it absolutely does not follow that a lack of religion means a lack of diversity. Different nonreligious cultures are every bit as capable of being diverse as different religious cultures, so it's weird to insist that evilsoup wants there to only be one culture when they never said anything to indicate that.

#me still nursing the burn i got from touching the Discourse Stove last week: well surely it's not still hot #time to hit post and then log off for the night #atheism #skepticism umbrella

[ranilla-bean]

The Iconoclast: Appendix

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

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

Contents

Intro

Religion

Martial culture

Talent show

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

Religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Martial culture

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

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

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

Talent show

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

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

Miscellaneous

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

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

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

And finally… Mo Liudou’s name is a Cantonese joke! 冇料到 means “lacking results”. And the place where he comes from, “Mo Gwaiyong” (冇鬼用), means “no bloody use”. So he's Lacking Results from No Bloody Use.

#read chapter 5 first! #zukki dp wip #atla #my fic #yeah ok i know im a nerd no one @ me #putting my 2 ancient history degrees to good use

[unbidden-yidden]

Someday everything that made you you will be gone. Your people, your tribe, your family - they will all have chosen to go gently into that good night and your genetic descendents will no longer look or act or think like you. You will have no spiritual descendents. Every feature that made your people distinct will have softened into the general pool of humankind, and evened out to become exactly like everyone else. They will have shed the ritual items that made up your daily life and eschewed the traditional words that connected them to thousands of years of wisdom. The tapestry of your religious and cultural life will have been completely unwound into string and repurposed or disposed of to make a new fabric in the image of the masses. Your people will look and sound and act and speak and think like the homogeneous mass of humanity. No longer will your people's language be heard, for there is no need now that we can all communicate freely. The prayers that connected one generation to the next will be discarded in the garbage heap with all the other pesky superstitions. No more will the rituals that sustained generations in exile and preserved at risk of life and limb be a source of comfort and pride. The beauty of the High Holy Days, the music of the psalms, the flavors of foods designed around kashrut, the scent of b'samim after the sacred rest of Shabbat will reside in the genizah alongside every sefer Torah and siddur and set of tefillin.

None of this will be carved out of you. This is not a threat. This is inevitable, because no enlightened person could possibly choose to live like you. Already an anachronism today, your lifestyle will be unthinkable tomorrow. The names and covenant of commandedness will be willingly forgotten, as your descendents bow to the one Truth of the universe, as defined by the secular society of the day. That I imagine this secular wisdom as matching my culture and defining truth as being singular in the same way that I do is totally coincidental and not at all hegemonic. In this future, there will be no need for your silly superstitions and obviously meaningless rituals and quaint efforts to make the world a better place, because it already will be. Your people will no longer identifiably exist, and that will be right and good and the best possible outcome for everyone. Again, this is definitely not a threat. Your descendents will finally see the light of Logic and Reason and willingly become one with the world. They will have saved themselves from the barbaric practices of a Bronze Age religion and have no need for any such relics. They will shake off the yoke of Torah like raindrops and emerge into the glorious future indistinguishable from the nations. And in so doing, will have accomplished what 2500 years of war and bloodshed and imperialism and exile and pogroms and genocide have not yet achieved: the Jews will willingly surrender their Jewishness, quietly and unceremoniously, as they become enlightened. Remember, this is not a threat. This is simply progress. And inevitable.

#anyway this is what some of y'all really do sound like

[ghelgheli]

Recognizing this central ambivalence in regard to so-called Western values—whereby they are cast out as “postmodern authoritarianism” only to be embraced as the “true spirit” of societies to come—is essential to understanding the strategic significance of the anti-gender misappropriation of postcolonial language. This ambivalence sheds light on the fact that the superficial takeover frames the “gender ideology” colonizer not simply as the “West as such but [rather as] the West whose healthy (Christian) core had already been destroyed by neo-Marxism and feminism in the 1960s” (Korolczuk and Graff 2018: 812). Very often, the anti-gender misappropriation takes on a decidedly Islamophobic hue; for all their catering to anticolonial sentiments, anti-gender thinkers often claim that “gender ideology,” with its historical roots in anti-European “neo-Marxism and feminism,” goes hand in hand with the threat of (Muslim) immigration. A blatant example of this can be found in former Cardinal Sarah’s proclamation against the two unexpected threats of our times:

On the one hand, the idolatry of Western freedom; on the other, Islamic fundamentalism: atheistic secularism versus religious fanaticism. To use a slogan, we find ourselves between “gender ideology and ISIS.” . . . From these two radicalizations arise the two major threats to the family: its subjectivist disintegration in the secularized West [and] the pseudo-family of ideologized Islam which legitimizes polygamy [and] female subservience. (Sarah 2015)

Sarah aggressively draws up a dual picture of the true enemy—the biopolitical survival of the family is threatened on the one hand by excessive secularization and sexual freedom, and on the other by “ideologized Islam’s pseudo-family,” which marks the degraded and uncivilized counterpart to Christianity’s proper tradition. This discursive construction of “terrorist look-alikes” as possessing an excessive, uncultivated, and dangerous sexuality yet again plays into the same fundamental racialized mapping of progress that colonial gender undergirded (Puar 2007). This rhetoric is mirrored by Norwegian right-wing politician Per-Willy Amundsen (2021) when he writes that:

I will never celebrate pride. First of all, there are only two sexes: man and woman, not three—that is in contradiction with all biological science. Even worse, they are allowed access to our kids to influence them with their radical ideology. This has to be stopped. If FRI [the national LGBT organization] really cared about gay rights, they would get involved in what is happening in Muslim countries, rather than construct fake problems here in Norway. But it is probably easier to speak about “diversity” as long as it doesn’t cost anything. (Amundsen 2021; translation by author) Here Amundsen draws on the well-known trope of trans* and queer people “preying on our kids” while at the same time reinforcing the homonationalist notion that Europe, and in particular Norway, is a safe h(e)aven for queer people—perhaps a bit too much so. In his response to Amundsen, Thee-Yezen Al-Obaide, the leader of SALAM, the organization for queer Muslims in Norway, aptly diagnoses Amundsen’s rhetoric as “transphobia wrapped in Islamophobia” (as quoted in Berg 2021). Amundsen mirrors a central tenet of TERF rhetoric by claiming to be the voice of science, biology, and reason in order to distinguish his own resistance to “gender ideology” from the repressive, regressive one of Muslims. In this way, his argumentation, which basically claims that trans* people don’t exist and certainly shouldn’t be recognized legally, attempts to come off as benign, while Muslim opposition to “gender ideology” is painted as destructive and anti-modern. This double gesture, which allows Amundsen to have his cake and eat it too, is a central trope in different European iterations of anti-gender rhetoric. In France, for example, such discourse claims that, “while ‘gender ideology’ goes too far on the one hand, the patriarchal control of Islam threatens to pull us back into an excessive past. Here of course, ‘Frenchness’ is always already neither Muslim, nor queer (and certainly not both)” (Hemmings 2020: 30). Therefore the French anti-gender movement sees itself as the defender of true Western civilization, both from Western “gender ideology” and from uncivilized “primitives” who are nevertheless themselves victims of “gender ideology.” A similar dynamic plays out in Britain: “Reading Muslims as dangerous heteroactivists and Christians as benign points to how racialization and religion create specific forms of heteroactivism. . . . Even where ‘Muslim parents’ are supported by Christian heteroactivists, they remain other to the nation, and not central to its defence” (Nash and Browne 2020: 145). In the British example, it is clear that white anti-gender actors represent themselves as moderate, reasonable, and caring—often claiming that their resistance to the “politicization” of the classroom has nothing to do with transphobia and homophobia.

Is “Gender Ideology” Western Colonialism? Jenny Andrine Madsen Evang

#reading #evang

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Stephen Evans

Published: Dec 17, 2021

The UK is one of the 'most intolerant' countries in Europe towards Christians. That's the extraordinary claim of a report published this week by Observatory of Intolerance Against Christians in Europe (OIACE).

The report identifies the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden as the top five countries driving what it describes as a "rising phenomenon" against Christians.

The scientist Carl Sagan famously said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". This report offers little.

A few examples of the supposed "discrimination" and "intolerance" faced by UK Christians illustrate just how scant the evidence is.

One of the more bizarre examples provided by the report is schools being "pressured to provide atheist content".

What's being referred to here is one instance of a Church of England controlled multi-academy trust agreeing to provide a meaningful alternative for pupils withdrawn from Christian collective worship after two parents launched a legal challenge. The parents simply wanted their local (non-faith) school to provide a more inclusive environment for their children.

The authors are looking through the wrong end of the telescope here. Those on the receiving end of intolerance and discrimination when it comes to state education are the pupils locked out of local faith schools due to discriminatory admissions policies – and those compelled to take part in Christian rituals by a law that forces all schools to hold daily acts of Christian worship.

But this report never lets the reality get in the way of its victim narrative.

The report's authors go on to cite 'buffer zones' as further evidence of victimisation of Christians. These are the zones introduced around abortion clinics by a handful of local authorities where women were facing harassment and intimidation when accessing healthcare.

It takes a very myopic mindset to refuse to recognise that the right to oppose abortion shouldn't interfere with the fundamental right for women to make individual reproductive choices and access sexual health services.

The report goes on to claim the requirement on schools to provide LGBT inclusive relationships and sex education; the refusal to allow religion-run adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex parents; and even the inclusion of places of worship in measures to curb the spread of coronavirus indicate a "decline in religious freedom".

The point entirely and intentionally missed by this report's authors is that human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to everyone, not just Christians. In pluralistic societies, competing rights sometimes clash – and a balance needs to be struck. When the practicing of your religion encroaches on the rights and freedoms of others, a restriction on your right may be reasonable. The belief that not always entirely getting your own way amounts to discrimination is a highly narcissistic and flawed approach to human rights.

The appalling treatment of Christians and other religious and nonreligious minorities in countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, China, and Nigeria is deserving of everyone's attention. This year's #RedWednesday campaign did a fine job of highlighting the persecution faced by millions of Christians, not least the girls and women living under the constant threat of abduction, sexual violence and forced conversion.

But claiming that the human rights of Christians are "under pressure" in a country where, in almost all walks of life, Christianity is uniquely privileged, is simply absurd.

Nevertheless, hardline Christian advocacy groups continue to push a false narrative of Christians being persecuted here. So loud became their calls that in 2016, the Equality and Human Rights Commission carried out a comprehensive review of equality and human rights law relating to religion or belief.

The Commission's findings gave lie to the claim that Christians are being unfairly treated. Their report said the law strikes the right balance between protecting religious freedom and upholding the right to non-discrimination.

The labelling of National Secular Society backed legislative attempt to end the automatic right of 26 Church of England bishops to seats in the House of Lords as an 'incident' of anti-Christian intolerance is further evidence of the crybully tactics deployed by unscrupulous Christian campaigners.

But the cries of persecution will undoubtably grow louder as those wanting to impose their beliefs on others see their privileges challenged.

Secularism isn't intolerance of Christian beliefs. It's the view that those beliefs shouldn't be elevated or privileged above others.

All around the world well-funded Christian activists are lobbying for laws to allow them to discriminate and impose their beliefs on people who don't share them – all under the guise of 'religious freedom'.

Human rights advocates everywhere need to be wise to these bad actors claiming victimhood to gain special privileges to trample on the rights of others.

#National Secular Society #secularism #christianity #christian privilege #crybully #persecution #persecution complex #victimhood #victimhood culture #Observatory of Intolerance Against Christians in Europe #OIACE #religion #intolerance #discrimination #religious discrimination #Equality and Human Rights Commission #human rights #religious freedom #freedom of religion #freedom from religion #religion is a mental illness

[gothhabiba]

During the hundred years of new Jewish settlement in Palestine, whose starting point is conventionally assigned to 1882 (and commonly called "the First Aliya"), a society was produced whose nature and structure proved to be highly fluid [...]. Each new wave [of immigrants] resulted in a restructuring of the whole system. It is, however, commonly accepted that around the time of the establishment of the State of Israel, in 1948, a relatively crystallized Jewish society existed in Palestine with a specific cultural character and a high level of self-awareness, as well as established social, economic, and political institutions. It differed, culturally and otherwise, from the old Jewish, pre-Zionist Palestinian community, and from that of Jewish communities in other countries. Moreover, this distinctiveness was one of its major goals, involving the replacement of the then-current identifications "Jew" and "Jewish" with "Hebrew." [...]

[...] [T]he cultural behavior of immigrants oscillates between two poles: the preservation of their source culture and the adoption of the culture of the target country. [...] Most migrations from England tended to preserve the source culture. European immigrants to the United States at the end of the nineteenth century, on the other hand, left their home countries with the hope of "starting a new life in the new world" [...]. [This slogan's] effect was to encourage the replacement of the "old" by the "new" and often engendered attitudes of contempt towards the "old." Such replacement assumes, of course, the existence of an available cultural repertoire in the target country [...]. [...] [I]t is precisely here that the case of immigration to Palestine stands in sharp contradistinction to that of many other migrations. A decision to "abandon" the source culture, partially or completely, could not have led to the adoption of the target culture since the existing culture did not possess the status of an alternative. In order to provide an alternative system to that of the source culture, in this case East European culture, it was necessary to invent one.

The main difference between most other migration movements and that of the Jews to Palestine lies in the deliberate, conscious activity carried out by the immigrants themselves in replacing constituents of the culture they brought with them with those of another. [...] Zionist ideology and its ramifications (or sub-ideologies) provided the major motivation for immigration to Palestine as well as the underlying principles for cultural selection, that is, the principles for the creation of an alternative culture. [...] [T]he governing principle at work was "the creation of a new Jewish people and a new Jew in the Land of Israel," with emphasis on the concept "new."

At the end of the nineteenth century, there was sharp criticism of many elements in Jewish life in Eastern Europe. Among the secular, or semi-secular Jews, [...] Jewish culture was conceived to be in a state of decline, even degenerate. There was a notable tendency to dispense with many of the traditional constituents of Jewish culture. The assimilationists were prepared to give up everything; the Zionists, in the conceptual tradition of the Haskala, sought a return to the "purity" and "authenticity" of the existence of the "Hebrew nation in its land," an existence conceived according to the romantic stereotypes of contemporary (including Hebrew) literature, exalting the primordial folk nation. It is interesting to note that both assimilationists and Zionists accepted many of the negative Jewish stereotypes, promulgated by non-Jews, and adapted them to their own purposes. Thus they accepted at face value the ideas that Jews were rootless, physically weak, deviously averse to pleasure, averse to physical labor, alienated from nature, etc., although these ideas had little basis in fact.

Among the numerous ways manifested for counterposing "new Hebrew" to "old Diaspora Jew" were the transition to physical labor (mainly agriculture or "working the land," as it was called); self defense and the concomitant use of arms; the supplanting of the old, "contemptible" Diaspora language, Yiddish, with a new tongue, colloquial Hebrew (conceived of at one and the same time as being the authentic and the ancient language of the people), adopting the Sephardi rather than the Ashkenazi pronunciation; discarding traditional Jewish dress and adopting other fashions [...]; dropping East European family names and assuming Hebrew names instead.

[...] [E]xperiments were continuously carried out in Palestine to supply the components necessary for the fulfillment of the basic cultural opposition new Hebrew-old Jew. It was not the origin of the components which determined whether or not they would be adopted, but their capacity to fulfill the new functions in accordance with this opposition. Green olives, olive oil and white cheese, Bedouin welcoming ceremonies, and kaffiyehs all acquired a clear semiotic status. The by now classical literary description of the Hebrew worker sitting on a wooden box, eating Arabic bread dipped in olive oil, expresses at once three new phenomena: (a) he is a worker; (b) he is a "true son of the land"; (c) he is not eating in a "Jewish" way (he is not sitting at a table and has obviously not fulfilled the religious commandment to wash his hands).

— Itamar Even-Zohar, "The Emergence of a Native Hebrew Culture in Palestine, 1882-1948." Studies in Zionism 4, 1981. DOI 10.1080/13531048108575807.

#Itamar Even Zohar #quote #Palestine #Israel #food #Zionism

[racefortheironthrone]

Maybe this is too broad, but wondering if there's a better term than "conspiracy theorist" to describe some large figures in the ongoing national discourse? Not that "fluoride in the drinking crowd" were serious thinkers or total harmless, but am I alone is finding "conspiracy theory" too quaint and mild to describe how mainstream rather fringe these things are and also how totally evidence-free and something just plain dumb they can also be?

I don’t think conspiracy theories have ever been quaint and mild.

Think about the history of antisemitism from medieval blood libels to 19th century theories of Jewish financial cabals to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” dreamed up by Tsarist agents-provocateur that took the theory global and spawned untold numbers of imitators, to Hitler’s invention of “Judeo-Bolshevism” that married traditional antisemitism to anti-Communism and nationalist populism. Conspiracy theories one and all, but fully capable of spawning pogroms and fascist dictatorships.

Likewise, we think of Anti-Masonic or Illuminati conspiracy theories as self-evidently ridiculous and harmless, but we forget that they were used by cultural conservatives in church and state to wage culture wars on the Enlightenment, liberalism, secularism, democracy, every revolution from America to France to 1848 and beyond, feminism and almost every social movement of the 18th and 19th century. People died or were surveilled or were sent to prison, political parties were formed or banned, and conservatism itself was founded in the name of “poisoning the minds of the lower orders” to inoculate them from the influence of secret societies.

As Dan Olsen has shown, even seemingly benign conspiracy theories like the JFK assassination cover-up or the Moon landing was faked or the earth is flat can hide much more malign motivations, just waiting for the opportunity to radicalize and proselytize:

#history #historical analysis #cultural history #conspiracy theories #conspiracies #anti semitism #illuminati #freemasons #flat earthers

[thethirdromana]

The droughtula is lasting forever so here are some headcanons about Dracula's characters' politics.

Arthur Holmwood (Lord Godalming) Let's get the difficult one out of the way first. Arthur is nobility, a hereditary peer in the House of Lords, in the 1890s. He's literally entitled to a say on legislation solely because of who his ancestors were. So he's unlikely to have views that we'd find sympathetic in 2023, and is probably a Tory.

He's well-travelled and outward-looking, so I think his greatest political concern is empire. He's eager to ensure that Britain is victorious in the Scramble for Africa, concerned about growing tensions with the Boers in South Africa, and admires the leadership of Lord Salisbury.

(sorry about this)

Jonathan Harker I think Jonathan is and always will be aware of how lucky he's been, as an orphan who's then catapulted into vast wealth thanks to the generosity of Mr Hawkins. As a result, I think he would be very keen to support others and generally vote for a government that's focused on the eradication of poverty. At the same time, I don't think he would be particularly radical; I think he would shy away from revolutionary thinking.

I see him finding reasonably a happy home in the 1890s Liberals, and supporting the beginnings of the welfare state in the early 1900s. He might even join the Fabian Society. By the 1920s, his sympathies would shift to the Labour Party.

Mina Harker I've written a bit about Mina's politics already. The obvious question is what she thinks of women's suffrage, and I'm inclined to say that her view is that women should have the vote one day, but not yet. At least, not at a national level; I think she'd support the move in the 1890s to allow women to vote in local elections. She would be more focused on women's access to education, so that when the time came for them to get the vote, they would be educated enough to use it wisely.

Unfortunately one other thing we know about Mina is that she's interested in physiognomy, a pseudoscience that's connected to eugenics. So it's depressingly plausible that a real-life Mina would have an interest in eugenics as well.

Lucy Westenra I think Lucy is probably less politically aware than Mina is, but also quite possibly more radical in her views. After all, we see more of Lucy chafing against her social role than we do Mina (though Lucy's life is also a lot more restricted than Mina's). As an upper-middle or upper-class woman, doing charitable works is a big part of her role. That would bring her into contact with poverty, and I think she would want to do whatever she could to help.

I don't think she would be formally a member of any campaigning organisations, but I suspect she might be sympathetic to the temperance movement. That would be her route to women's suffrage, as the two causes were connected in the 1890s. Where Mina might worry that women lacked the education to use their vote wisely, Lucy would feel that in a good marriage, a husband would help his wife to make the right choices.

Abraham Van Helsing One sec, just need to give myself a crash course in Dutch politics of the 1890s.

OK I'm back. Dutch society at this time was divided based mostly on religion: Protestant, Catholic and a secular socialist grouping. This was called 'Verzuiling' ("pillarisation") and it meant that each of the sections of society were effectively segregated: separate schools, separate institutions, separate newspapers and little intermarriage between the "pillars".

By rights that puts Van Helsing into the Catholic pillar, but I can't see it - this is a man whose close friend is an English Protestant who's half his age. The group most likely to oppose the notion of Verzuiling were the Liberals, sometimes treated as a pillar of their own. And I think that's where Van Helsing would most naturally fit.

People who learned about this bit of Dutch history more than five minutes ago should feel free to chime in.

Quincey Morris I know about as much about US politics in the 1890s as I do Dutch politics, but that's not going to stop me.

I instinctively feel that Quincey Morris has strong views on something relatively niche, like the adoption of the gold standard. So I'm pleased to learn that the adoption of the gold standard was in fact a live political debate in the US in the 1890s. Quincey is in favour. He supports hard money policies and - as a wealthy landowner - particularly worries about the rise of the People's Party back home.

Jack Seward The biggest wildcard of the lot. Other than Van Helsing, I think Jack is the character most likely to have read widely and to be open to unexpected ideas. But ultimately I think his attitude to politics is driven by his interest in and desire for technological progress, which would lead him towards the Liberal Party.

He would be horrified by Tory prime minister Lord Salisbury's repeated opposition to change (e.g. his 1879 statement that "Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible"). If he lives long enough, he'll be delighted by Wilson's "white heat of technology" speech in the early 1960s.

#dracula daily #droughtula

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Fwiw, i think the realistic answer to scott aaronsons question of "how would we prevent a surge of antisemitic violence afterwards?", given my fantasy ~end state of a unified multiethnic palestine with generous redistribution of land and wealth, is probably the traditional solution for transitions to democracy after the ouster of despotic regimes marred by ethnic-sectarian bloodshed: a foreign peacekeeping force, probably administered by an international body like the UN. This would be in keeping with the coercion by the intl community that would be necessary anyway for any satisfactory resolution to the havoc israel has contributed to the region since 1948

This state of affairs would have benefits beyond the direct goal of preventing outbreaks among the victorious arab population of revenge against random former israelis (and, even more importantly, quashing any recrudescence of violent jewish supremacism and separatism among ex-israeli citizens and their immediate descendants). It would have the salutary psychological effect of impressing upon the former citizens of the local hegemon their dependence on the intl community at large, and facilitating the dissolution of an israeli national identity. The sight of armed convoys in tel aviv emblazoned with the insignia of the UN mission in united palestine would signal that the post-apartheid jewish palestinian population, while worth defending, was not worthy of self-defence as a distinct cultural/ethnic unit, any more than it would be tolerable to organise internal security along racial lines in the US or religious lines in Ireland. It would, hopefully, be a bridge to acknowledging the legitimacy of an integrated and democratically controlled law enforcement wing of a secular and multiethnic successor state, and a funeral for any dreams of a sectarian ethnostate

Obviously this comes with problems. No occupying power, even the most transitional and well intentioned, has ever been devoid of misconduct. But its hard to see how israeli society could otherwise be trusted to accept the terms of secular democracy, given its amply evinced intransigence otherwise in the face of even moderate palestinian demands, or how this envisioned occupation could hope to match up to the horrors of the ongoing one. Plus none of this is particularly likely to happen in the foreseeable future so i might as well daydream

[zvaigzdelasas]

More than two months into Israel's war against Hamas, the militant group's popularity appears to be rising dramatically among Palestinians in the West Bank. "Hamas made the most important action against Israel since its existence," says Nihad Abughosh, a Palestinian journalist and political analyst, who describes himself as a secular moderate.[...]

"Palestinians do not support the harming of innocents," Quran says. "From the first day, there was a question on many Palestinians' minds: [are Israeli claims of militant violence against civilians on 7 Oct] all true?" Quran says he supports a peaceful resolution to the war. But he believes many Palestinians now see Hamas as a symbol of strength and defiance against Israel's occupation. "This idea that Gaza, after 17 years of blockade, was capable of challenging the blockade, challenging the military occupation, was seen as an inspiring act of resistance," he says.[...]

"Three months ago ... we had 12% support for Hamas in the West Bank, and today it is 44%, so that's more than tripled," says Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Research.

Public support for Hamas in the Gaza Strip also rose modestly during the same period, from 38% to 42%, according to the center's survey conducted from Nov. 22-Dec. 2. The survey, published Dec. 13, found less than half of Palestinians support Hamas as an organization, but respondents showed "wide public support for Hamas' offensive" against Israel. A previous poll conducted by the group Arab World for Research and Development in late October and early November found 68% of Palestinians in the West Bank supported Hamas' Oct. 7 attack.

People in the West Bank say there's another reason Hamas' brand has surged in popularity. In November, Israel agreed to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, many of them held without criminal charges, in exchange for Hamas freeing some of the hostages taken during the Oct. 7 attack.

To many Palestinians, that deal represented another victory for Hamas, another sign of strength.[...]

Even many moderates say the time has come for Hamas' militant, armed approach to resistance and confrontation with Israel. They also say the more moderate Palestinian Authority — the official government of the West Bank, which still supports a negotiated "political" settlement with Israel — has seen its popular support collapse in recent years, in part because of what many Palestinians view as collaboration with Israeli security officials.[...]

In the West Bank, too, there has been increased violence by Israeli settlers and more aggressive Israeli military raids into refugee camps that have killed more than 290 Palestinians since Oct. 7, according to United Nations figures. "The nonstop violence is really radicalizing all Palestinian society," says Quran, who himself is not a supporter of Hamas and supports a nonviolent end to the war.

"Basically, the people do not feel safe around anyone who even professes support for Israel."

21 Dec 23

[queerprayers]

Today is (for many of us) the feast of Christ the King, and I wanted to take a moment to honor that. I was baptized on this feast, and I've always been drawn to it. Originally instituted by the pope in 1925 as a response to growing nationalism and secularism, making it the newest element of the liturgical year, most Lutherans and other liturgical Protestants also honor this day.

I have differing opinions on secular rule/the separation of church and state (and evangelism, for that matter) than the founders of this feast did, but I can appreciate the yearning for more world leaders/political groups/religious groups to recognize our true callings as human beings--to each other, to Love. And I love the concept of combating nationalism with allegiance to a higher power!

"King" has a lot of political implications, and mostly negative associations for anyone like me, so I wanted to point out how the original encyclical describes this title of Jesus's, by quoting Cyril of Alexandria: "Christ," he says, "has dominion over all creatures, a dominion not seized by violence nor usurped, but his by essence and by nature." Today is the reason I'm not a monarchist--there is no earthly ruler that has my allegiance. There is no earthly rule established without force. My allegiance is to Christ, the ruler of the only valid kingdom; to God's house, the only state without lines on a map; to Love which is the universe, the only empire that includes people by embracing them rather than conquering them.

We can only understand so much of who God is. We separate out God's roles; we can only focus on one tiny piece of the universe at once. (This is why we have holidays--to honor pieces of our religion in human time.) The king we are called to serve is only called "king" because that's one of the closest words we have in our language to describe what we're talking about--the old-fashioned meaning of king, one born for the role and called to die for the role. A romanticized meaning perhaps, one that has never been true in any society, one that has caused so much harm, but nonetheless one used throughout centuries to get across one of the ways we approach God--along with "father" and "friend" and "bridegroom" and "creator."

We pray for God's kingdom to come because that's an idea we can understand--we can logically process that a new kingdom coming, a new empire conquering, means everything changes, the rules are turned upside down. We hold this language while acknowledging there is so much more to it. If you can't stomach using these words, if they are filled with violence for you, I encourage you to sit with that truth, consider what it would be like to take earthly ideas and fill them with Love, and also acknowledge you do not have to use this language. We try to hold God with our words and fail over and over. We come to God from our culture and language and time and we squint at the universe. We see in a mirror dimly, for now.

As we encounter earthly nationalism and imperialism and colonialism and warmongering, as we see people claim that their nation-state is chosen by God, we honor power turning on its head today. We see Jesus revealing what kingship, what ruling, what power is when Love is the center of the universe. Jesus, who had more power than any human, fed the hungry, hung out with the oppressed and misunderstood, threatened the powerful without violence, was killed by earthly empire, and conquered death with life.

May we, as members of God's kingdom, under Jesus's rule--by choosing this as our practice--serve the only king who has ever deserved our allegiance. We work to bring our communities and religious groups and, yes, our nation-states, closer to the image God has set for us, but ultimately we know we are creating and navigating human-made borders between things that will one day be one.

You already know what God has asked of you. It's not a democracy but neither is it a monarchy, really--it's something else. Something you have to opt in to, but don't really get a choice in. Something you can run from but never escape. Something that once you see clearly, you'll never be satisfied without. You are technically free to abandon the work, but you would be abandoning the only thing that will make us whole. Call your government representative. Go to a protest. Give money to the person by the side of the road. Read a book. Hug your lover. Feed the birds. Denounce your country in favor of your community and every single human being. You are a citizen of the universe, which is God, which is love. Christ the King, the reign of Christ, means what rules us is Life.

(We look down the road to Advent--to new year, rebirth, apocalypse. "Apocalypse" meaning unveiling, revelation, disclosure. We see in a mirror dimly, and then--thy kingdom come--we see face to face. All at once, awfully, blindingly, daylight after years of darkness. Christ the King says, what if New Year's Eve was a surrender to time and power? What if before you even remembered Christmas exists, you were confronted with the reality of your calling? This is the feast of victory to our God. Alleluia!)

#having a lot of thoughts!