#religion overreach

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Zach Greenberg

Published: Dec 29, 2022

The Syracuse University Orange is one of the few athletic programs named after a color, personified by the bright, cheery Otto the Orange mascot. But when it comes to free speech, this university is closer to the bleak hellscape of Anthony Burgess’s “A Clockwork Orange” than its exuberant, fruity mascot. This time, Syracuse suspended a student for hosting a campus scavenger hunt.

In August, student Orientation Leader Eriendeep Uppal helped organize an optional campus scavenger hunt for fellow OLs, awarding points to those who dared lick the Abraham Lincoln statue, barrel-roll down the Carnegie steps, or kiss an orientation leader on Syracuse’s famous Kissing Bench. This camaraderie-building exercise was a brief, fun respite for the OL team as they worked hard to help incoming students move into their dorms, to answer questions from families about campus life, and to coordinate events to help acclimate students to college life.

While her fellow OLs thoroughly enjoyed the experience, Syracuse administrators — apparently allergic to all things joyous and merry — inexplicably charged Uppal with hazing and “threaten[ing] the mental health” of others. But among more than 50 students Syracuse interviewed about the event, administrators found no one physically or mentally harmed by the activity. One student even testified how much she “enjoyed her experience participating in the [scavenger hunt] activity, including kissing another OL (who she knew) on the mouth on the kissing bench.” Students affirmed that at no point did they feel pressured, compelled, or forced to partake in the scavenger hunt or any of its tasks, which were completely voluntary.

Nevertheless, Syracuse found Uppal responsible for the charges and suspended her until the 2023 summer term. For this so-called “hazing,” Uppal must also fulfill 45 hours of community service, complete a decision-making assignment, and create an “Anti-Hazing Information Program,” among numerous other conditions for readmission. Apparently brainwashing was not an option.

Uppal decided to fight back. She shared her story with FIRE and we were shocked, SHOCKED, to see Syracuse — one of the nation’s worst schools for free speech and shameful recipient of FIRE’s 2021 Lifetime Censorship Award — suspend yet another student for exercising expressive rights. This is the school that used the same nebulous ban on causing mental harm to punish a female student for asking a man if he was a sex offender, and to dismantle an engineering fraternity for its private, satirical roast.

Only at Syracuse would administrators derail an upstanding student leader’s academic career over a harmless, voluntary scavenger hunt.

In our December 22 letter to Syracuse, we explained how the university’s clear, written, public commitment to free speech protects Uppal’s right to host expressive events such as scavenger hunts. Filed together with Uppal’s appeal, our letter spells out why her actions fall far short of Syracuse’s definition of hazing or of threatening mental harm.

Syracuse alleged “the task where OL’s were asked to kiss another OL on the mouth on the ‘Kissing Bench’ creates an environment where some OL’s may feel peer pressure resulting in emotional trauma or confusion,” because “[k]issing someone is a personal decision which should not be influenced by other individuals or a group.” Administrators also claimed the scavenger hunt “could lead to sickness, or hospitalization, and fractures or broken bones,” because “the Abraham Lincoln statute [sic] placed on Syracuse University campus in 1968, is unsanitary,” and “if a person were to roll down Carnegie steps they could be severely hurt or injured.”

According to the university, Uppal’s mere listing of such activities “caused a substantial risk to the mental and physical health of the fellow OL’s.” Even assuming the farcical task of rolling down a large, concrete flight of stairs was taken seriously, Uppal did not pressure anyone to take this risk. Likewise, no student felt the alleged “emotional trauma or confusion” of kissing someone on the mouth on the Kissing Bench — an activity Syracuse itself encourages for students in love. In what world is merely listing optional scavenger hunt activities considered hazing? Also, why are university administrators instructing adult college students about proper kissing etiquette? What year is this?

Ignoring the absence of any pressure, Syracuse sustained its hazing charge on some OLs potentially feeling pressure from Uppal’s actions. Yet those very same OLs testified that Uppal is “deeply personable, caring, and good-natured,” “bubbly, genuine, and caring,” “an incredible leader and anchor for the team who helped make sure we were a cohesive team,” and “lifted the overall demeanor of the team.”

When questioned by Syracuse investigations, dozens of OLs explained how she “comfort[s] anxious parents and warmly welcome[s] freshman to campus,” “create[s] a positive culture for the organization,” and does “her best to make others feel like the best versions of themselves even if she didn’t feel too good.” Other OLs told administrators “Her work ethic is uncanny and her ability to make anyone feel comfortable is unwavering,” and that “it would be a devastating injustice for the school to . . . persecute[] [Uppal] for doing nothing but providing joy and a safe space for all of us on the OL team.”

Despite the overwhelming evidence of Uppal’s excellent character and dedicated service to the campus community, Syracuse branded her a hazer and derailed her academic career.

Over the years, Syracuse has earned its dystopian reputation for free speech, punishing students for parody blogs, satirical skits, Halloween costumes, Facebook comments, sharp questions, words they didn’t say, and now, scavenger hunts. Is this “Clockwork Orange” university intent on sterilizing campus of all expression unpalatable to squeamish administrators? How long until Syracuse starts reconditioning students into forgetting this school “is committed to . . . protecting the free speech rights of the members of its community”? With Uppal’s appeal pending, Syracuse has a golden opportunity to reverse this egregious violation of an upstanding student leader’s free speech rights. FIRE urges Syracuse to make 2023 the year it finally wakes up and shows its students its free speech promises are not completely worthless.

==

“tHeRe iS No fReE SpEeCh cRiSiS!!“

Growth of bureaucratic bloat has exceeded student enrolment growth for years.

#Syracuse University #dystopia #administrator overreach #beuroc #bureaucracy #bureaucratic overreach #academic corruption #corruption of education #higher education #free speech #freedom of speech #academic freedom #religion is a mental illness

[puppyluver256]

I came across a post earlier about Serious Issues that I otherwise agree with, and while I would otherwise just reblog it with this appended to it I can’t seem to find it on desktop (I suspect Tumblr Savior hid it and I have no idea what term would have been picked up on to do so) and I’m not a fan of trying to add onto reblogs on mobile so I will just post a screenshot of the relevant portion.

Now for full context, this was on a post about the far right trying to get rid of contraceptives after they’ve dissolved Roe, and yes that is an important thing to talk about and convince people to vote for people who won’t try and push this country into a theocracy and ruin one of the main things it was founded on. But that’s not what I’m going to bring up here. You may notice a little punctuational oddity there.

Namely, what’s with the sarcasm quotes on the word “christian” here?

Let’s be honest with everyone here: evangelical christians are christians. They believe that jesus guy was a real person who lived, died, and came back to life. They believe he is the “christ”. They live their lives in an attempt to serve and follow “him” (ie. people who claim to speak for both him and his asshole dad). They are christians. Those are the only qualifications one needs to be a christian. They sarcasm quotes here seem to imply that the writer of this portion of that post does not believe evangelicals are christian, or more likely, are trying to separate evangelicals from “mainstream” christianity. Sorry to burst this person’s bubble, but at least in the US where this stuff is taking place, evangelicalism has pretty much become mainstream christianity. At the very least they are the majority of all protestant groups.

And yeah, I don’t like it either. I may not be christian myself, but I’d still prefer if more christians were the mild easy-going ones who apply the oft-stated christian principles of love and acceptance in honest ways that update with the changing social norms rather than the whole “love the sinner hate the sin let’s all go back to the days where god ruled everything through proxy men” nonsense. But that’s not the case! The majority of christians in the states are, or at least follow and listen to, these nasty theocratic people! (at the very least, according to my brief research, 55% of protestants in the US are evangelicals, and afaik protestants are more common in the US than catholics) And pretending otherwise is, to use a behaviorally inaccurate metaphor, burying your head in the sand.

There’s a big difference between acknowledging that there are groups of assholes under your shared group umbrella and pretending that they are not “really” part of your shared group umbrella to distance yourself. People who are terrible, awful examples of a group are unfortunately still part of that group so long as they claim that label.

#knock knock get the door it's religion #and the lengths people will go to distance theirs from the people who use that same religion for bad things #roe mention #theocracy mention #religious overreach #edit: added the evangelical percentile and the final paragraph #i'd searched up the percentage before saying it was the majority but had neglected to mention it sooner #if i had not searched that up at all i would not have mentioned it #or at the very least would have kept it to the realm of mere speculation

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/of-human-bondage-2/

Of Human Bondage

If past practices are a justification for anything, then slavery should be legal. Slavery existed long before the birth of Christ, and several passages in the Bible sanction the institution. Many of us may think slavery is illegal in the modern world.  But, those of us who do are wrong.  Nearly half of existing countries have no laws against slavery and do not punish those who engage in it.  Over 10,000 slaves are estimated to be entrapped in England, alone.  In the United States, the non-profit organization Exodus Road estimates 400,000 slaves suffer in plain sight. Slavery’s victims are impoverished people lured to foreign destinations with the promise of work. When they arrive in their new country, few of them speak the prevailing language and know nothing of its customs, or laws. Denied their passports from the outset, they are a the mercy of unscrupulous traffickers who beat and bully them until they agree to work in the sex trade or as factory or domestic servants. Poverty makes slaves of natural-born citizens as well. The growing gap between rich and poor has become wide enough to swallow middle-class professionals who work in high-income and resort areas. Surrounded by conspicuous consumption, teachers, policemen, and firefighters struggle to find affordable housing.  Most of them don’t. They live in their cars, RVs, or tents. Some work two jobs while the rich buy two houses. Though they aren’t subjected to physical abuse, these employees endure the indifference of those whom they serve. Veterans suffer a similar fate. Recently, their health care benefits became political fodder in a power game between Democrats and Republicans. Comedian Jon Stewart charged these so-called leaders with callousness,  people who see veterans not as human beings but as the lowest hanging fruit in their political games Women have a long history of living as chattel. For centuries, coverture deprived them of their property and their freedom.  Patriarchy, according to Catholic and Evangelical doctrine, confers upon men a God-given right to dominate women.  In the United States that legal yoke remained in place until early in the twentieth century. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appears to prefer the old ways. Raised as a Catholic, he is comfortable with his decision to overturn Roe v Wade, a 50-year-old precedent that said the right to an abortion was protected by the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. He denied that interpretation, saying his predecessors misconstrued the language.  His subsequent remarks on the subject suggest his religious belief shaped his conclusion.  In public appearances, he’s called for  “positive law,” one that defends religious freedom in an “increasingly secular society.”  His goal, he admits, is one of conversion: to convince those who do not identify with a faith, or view it as a negative, that religious freedom is worth protecting. Solicitous of his religious freedom, Alito is willing to trod on a woman’s freedom to seek medical care.  U. S. Attorney General Merrick Garland views that position as overreach.  To prove it, he has taken Idaho to court, challenging its draconian anti-abortion legislation.  It violates the provisions of EMTALA, a federal law that governs medical emergencies, he argues. The success of that suit notwithstanding, Alito’s religious freedom argument is spurious.  Catholics and Evangelicals might be satisfied with legislation that says personhood begins at the moment of conception, but what about other faiths? Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg says her religious duty lies in preserving the life of the mother. A conflict like this one has drawn Jewish, Buddhist, and Unitarian leaders together.  According to them, abortion bans violate their religious freedoms.   Atheists object, as well. They see no reason to be bound by any religious tenet.  On another level, abortion bans hurt the economy. The summer edition of Ms magazine notes that pulling women out of the workforce during their productive years slows the GDP and throws scores of these workers into poverty.  (“Bad Business,” Linda Burstyn, Ms, Summer edition, pg. 21.). Already, states that ban abortion are experiencing a brain drain. Young, educated women are voting with their feet, moving to escape discriminatory laws. Others are refusing employment where those laws exist. (Ibid, pg. 21.) Likewise, universities and colleges affected by the ban are bracing for enrollment declines. (Ibid, pg. 23.) Turning back the clock on women’s rights won’t be easy. Females are half the population and, as we saw in Kansas, they vote.  What’s more, Alito’s veiled attempt to give political credence to the narrow view of one religious sect doesn’t widen religious freedom. It narrows it. As a member of the highest court in the land, the judge would serve his country better if he focused his attention less on Christianity and more on the delivery of liberty and justice for all.   (Reprint from 8/9/2022)

#14th Amendment #a woman's right to health care #abortion vote in Kansas #coverture #EMTALA #history of slavery #Linda Burstyn #Merrick Garland sues Idaho #middle class slavery #Ms magazine #patriarchy #patriarchy and religion #poverty and slavery #religious diversity in the U. S. #religious overreach #Roe v Wade #Samuel Alito #slavery #unaffordable housing #women as slaves

[bimboficationblues]

What is the difference between liberal and reactionary defenses of the family?

I don’t think they’re easily generalizable, and to some extent they’re not wildly different from each other (this is part of my project in understanding contemporary familialism as a key component of reactionary modernism, which in turn was forged within the fires of liberalism - that is to say they’re nested subjects rather than mutually exclusive or merely overlapping)

but generalize we shall. liberal familialism is about the importance of preserving private life from the overreach of the polity and civil society, which I think ties into liberalism’s interest in procedural quasi-agnosticism about what is “the good life.” because that’s contentious and different people will have different intuitions about it, the idea is that leaving families alone, letting them act as sort of societies or states in miniature (though with some degree of oversight/obligations because of state interests) kind of keeps things relatively stabilized socially. it’s an attempt to generally depoliticize the family.

reactionary familialism is more about the polity as a macrocosm of the family (and religion), treating it as the fundamental mode of social organization and a model to emulate - they’re all about relations of proper place in the world and obedience to that telos. it’s an attempt to renaturalize the family as a prepolitical entity.

the reasons I say they’re nested subjects is that these justifications bleed together because of both the unfirm boundaries between ideologies and the history and development of the bourgeois state as a security state (which is clearly attentive to both of these different ideas), you might see the language of “parental rights” or concerns about the rationality of children (a la Mill) for what is nakedly a desire to subordinate. or biological justifications for why the family arrangement is ultimately the most pragmatic.

trans kid debates are illustrative - the reactionary position is that this needs to be stomped out by government power, “parental rights” only really matter insofar as it’s used to make it functionally impossible to be something that they regard as destabilizing to familial and political life. whereas I think a lot of liberal discourse tries to stake out a sort of minimalist parents’ rights positions (hence the “it’s all blockers, no kids go on hormones or get surgery” refrain). transfeminist or more radical discourse just says bodily autonomy or perhaps “children’s rights” are the salient values.

[lemonhemlock]

OMG HAVE YOU SEEN THE VIDEOS THIS ACCOUNT POSTS

https://youtu.be/T44VzPAPvSc

Oh my god finally someone with brain cells!!! You have to see their videos they make such good points!!

I, too, enjoy Hills Alive's content, anon! I don't agree with everything she says, but I appreciate how she's not afraid to go against the grain and make the unpopular argument.

My thoughts on House Hightower are very similar to hers, in truth. The amount of hate they get from the audience is downright embarrassing. House Hightower are in no way the villains of ASOIAF. Lord Leyton and Malara have been studying something magical and arcane up in their high tower (heh) for nigh on 10 years and are getting ready for an insane showdown with Euron Greyjoy, one of the actual villains of the series.

The Hightowers are connected to the Great Empire of the Dawn, with sorcery and science and religion and, in a lot of ways, represent the very essence and the very best of Westeros. Their modus operandi for most of their history has been to assimilate, negotiate and rely on soft power, as opposed to violence, conquest or trickery. Their interests comprise education, spirituality and the combination of both within the arcane mysteries. They maintain an open mind and are politically adept. They're very rich, but prefer not to participate in regional or country-wide politics, leaving the Gardners and then the Tyrells to be the official representatives of the Reach. The city of Oldtown is beautiful and cool AF, as opposed to the foul stench of King's Landing.

In the context of the HotD fandom, the problem I have with the majority of black stans is their utter refusal to look at the wider picture of Targaryen rule. For the people of Westeros, they are colonisers equipped with the medieval equivalent of nuclear weapons, threatening them with extreme violence and forcing their bizarre customs on them. They do not negotiate, they demand complete submission or else.

So the way I perceive House Hightower's role within the wider narrative is that their ideology has always centered on incremental progress and societal change via the proliferation of ideas. The only time we see them getting involved in Westerosi politics is by providing two Queens. This happens at a time when House Targaryen is very set on inter-marriages or, at most, alliances with the Velaryons and the Baratheons, if they have to marry outside the family. Both of those noble houses are of Valyrian descent as well. The Targaryens are still setting themselves apart from the society they have conquered and now wish to rule.

The first of the Hightower queens, Ceryse, marries Maegor in the period immediately following the Conquest. There is a 10-year age difference between them, why her? She is the High Septon's niece. If you ask me, this was the Hightowers' first attempt to try to "domesticate" the Targaryens into something more palatable to Westerosi society. The Faith Militant rises up in rebellion against Maegor when he insists on Valyrian customs like incest and polygamy.

Jaehaerys and Alysanne marry very young, so the possibility of another marriage alliance is out of the question. Alyssa and Baelon, a similar situation. Viserys marries his cousin Aemma, naturally, but what happens the next time there is an opening for the position of queen? Alicent enters the stage.

Now, Targ stans perceive the Hightowers as some kind of overreaching, overly-ambitious upstarts, but they are literally one of the oldest great houses of Westeros. The Great Empire of the Dawn predates Valyria. I am not saying that Otto or Alicent couldn't have their very own personal motivations or ambitions, but I do wonder if there is a sort of ideological background or the concept of a higher purpose informing their actions. Not necessarily as part of the show (hard to prove whether they chose to go down that route), but certainly permeating out of the text material and bleeding throughout the course of Westerosi history.

So, in this sense, Aegon II would, in a way, represent the ideal Targaryen king for them - someone connected to the Hightowers via blood, content to let them administer the realm in his stead, while he goes off and does whatever, as long as he performs his ceremonial roles and doesn't cause the kind of trouble that cannot be contained. For the first time since the Conquest, the Hightowers would finally have control over those feared mass destruction weapons and would be able to enact their particular style of ruling, via appeasement and integration.

What I ultimately find funny and ironic is that the Hightowers do achieve these objectives, just not in the way they may have initially envisioned. The debates involving Rhaenyra's ancestors being the ones to carry on the Targaryen line I ultimately find meaningless, because, in the end, the Hightowers got what they wanted. Yes, they sacrificed an entire branch of their family and lost a great deal of human resources and wealth in the war, but the dragons are gone. They lost their queen(s) and their king, but now the Targaryens are just like everyone else. And they'll have to play by the same rules. If they don't, well, expressing dissent has just become a lot easier.

You can definitely argue that the purpose of every noble house is to advance their own cause and their own family and that the actions of House Hightower should be strictly interpreted through this lens. However, after the Dance, the Hightowers do not seem interested in attempting another takeover ever again and are content to exert their influence throughout Westeros via their two very wide-reaching and powerful instruments: The Citadel, who trains all maesters, and The Faith, the main religion of the land. They effectively opt out of the game of thrones again.

The biggest military advantage House Targaryen held over the Seven Kingdoms has effectively been neutralised. The balance of power is much fairer. This creates the conditions that will allow Robert's Rebellion to succeed years later, finally ejecting the Targaryens from a continent they terrorized. Whereas the Hightowers are still there, thriving in their beautiful city.

If you ask me, the blacks can keep this "victory".

#house hightower #house of the dragon #dance of the dragons #asoiaf #ask #anon #i am talking abt macro-politcs and over-arching ideologies here #ofc that on the micro individual level their actions can be just as petty as everyone else's #hotd meta

[bogmonstergeneral]

ok wait so

Crowley isn’t Raphael. very sorry.

but i think Aziraphale might be. Two quick things to consider:

Firstly - Aziraphale and Raphael.

Secondly - we know Neil pulls from different religions for Good Omens. In Islam, Raphael is Israfil.

Phonetics aside, let’s break it down a little. I'm gonna lay out some points all onto the table and we'll sort them at the end.

In Christianity and Judaism, Raphael is a healer. In The Book of Tobit, he is disguised as a human, and acts as a physician and expels demons.

In Christianity, he is the patron of of travelers, the blind, happy meetings, nurses, physicians, marriage, Catholic studies, medical workers, and matchmakers.

In Islam, Israfil's job is to hold a trumpet to his lips at the ready for The Second Coming.

In astrology, he's associated with the sun, and, if we wanted to throw Milton a bone - in Paradise Lost, he's assigned to Eden to warn Adam of the consequences of eating the apple.

In season 1, we see Aziraphale heal Anathema, and in season 2, we see him almost excited to heal wee Morag. In episode three, we also see him pretending to be a doctor, although I think this has less to do with his character and more to do with the plot of the episode. Obviously, the expels demons part... he's not too hot at that, considering he certainly didn't expel Crawly. But it was absolutely in his job description.

That matchmaker thing feels almost too on the nose.

In season two, the Metatron asks Aziraphale to rejoin heaven as an archangel to carryout the second coming, which parallels Israfil's job (of course, we have no idea what kind of work he's about to do up there. Maybe he'll be doing paperwork, maybe they'll have him ready with a trumpet to announce the second coming. I certainly don't know.)

And, of course - Raphael is associated with the sun; the sun rises in the east; Aziraphale is the guardian of the eastern gate. And the idea that Neil might have pulled from Paradise Lost is a bit of a stretch, but we have another parallel if I'm not overreaching.

Of course, there's a lot that would prove me otherwise. And I am often wrong! I am also sick right now, so I might be very wrong.

#good omens #good omens season 2 spoilers #good omens season 2 theories #good omens headcanons #crowley #aziraphale #i need to go sleep

[bonefall]

i like the idea of cats gaining more magic over the more worshipped they are. starclan exists thanks to the clans that believe in them and watch over them. in a way, the collective belief of clans allowed to manifest starclan itself and with it, prophecies, rituals, magic.

i like to think that if there was a certain starclan cat worshipped enough, someone who has enough cats to admire them, someone who is treated like a “god” then they can have certain special powers.

like firestar being immortalized in history as the great thunderclan leader to the point where he is basically considered the same status as a god. thus firestar can have fire powers.

(what if sol was trying to do something similar? we already know he was a spirit of some kind but what if the same logic goes for spirits? the more power you have depends on how many cats worship / treat you as a god? what if he was trying to collect followers for more power?)

I think there's a certain point where, if you're a Diety and the religion that supported you crumbles, you persist indefinitely. A sort of 'rebirth.'

I think that might be what happened to Sol, Midnight, Sharptooth, and Rock at some point. They no longer NEED followers, though they are nice to have. They are entities on their own which evolved past the need for mortal praise. The belief was so strong and so concentrated over so many generations that they were made real.

And yet, they can't be killed in a way that matters. They're too powerful, they will always come back.

Tigerstar was probably onto that. That's why he wanted his name to go down in infamy for any possible reason. He might have even succeeded, if he didn't overreach, and if Firestar hadn't taken him out.

So, someday, perhaps it could happen to the Clan founders, or Firestar himself. But it won't be for a long, long time. Even combined, the entirety of StarClan is equivalent to one of those Four Seasonal gods.

They've got growing to do.

#Spirituality overhauls #Bonefall StarClan

[samueldays]

Two hundred thousand pounds a year to be Company Priest

Nice gig, if you can get it.

I go on sometimes about the Peace and Truce of Westphalia, the big European religious peace arrangement from 1648 where the Catholics would have Catholic countries, and the Protestants would have Protestant countries, and they had a mutual agreement to stop trying to compel each other to convert, which laid the foundation for later "secularism", whatever that is, because I have growing doubts about that word.

Individual countries (and some sub-country units) still had state religions and might even be theocratic, which is an important piece of understanding what kind of religious truce it was. Roman Catholicism was the rule in Austria, while Sweden had Lutheran Protestantism as its state religion, but the Peace of Westphalia established an arrangement where Austria would not try to invade Sweden to change Sweden's state religion, or vice versa.

The First Amendment operated similarly in America a century later. The individual states could have state churches, and several of them did, but the Federal government was supposed to stay out. This was a truce and a compromise to reduce fighting by having there be multiple small 'prizes' rather than an existential fight for the single big 'prize' of capturing the central government.

Later, there was a rise in "secularism", and a lot of very clever abstract thinkers looked at an ad hoc compromise signed in blood, and decided they wanted to make a generalized universal principle out of it. 'European countries and American states should be secular too! For that matter, individual companies also should be secular - enforced by state power if necessary! Abolish the state churches! No more religious discrimination in the workplace!'

(I feel like this is a repeating problem: abstract thinkers trying to make contingent agreements into universal principles and overreaching, but that's another essay.)

The major churches mostly agreed and complied with the truce, with some foot-dragging, and gradually settled down in the hope of a peaceful new era and doing missionary work by reason instead of the sword, which was a lot less risky for everyone involved. Even if it was tempting for a church to [re]capture the state and simply order everyone to praise Jesus while helping itself to tax money and organizational power.

And then this happens. A "Chief Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Officer" is a Company Priest for a sort of nontheistic religion that is capturing the state and breaking the truce. It names itself 'antidiscrimination' in order to cover the very discriminatory practice of requiring it be taught to nonbelievers in schools, funded by the state, enforced at companies, and demanding important people sign affirmations of faith commitments to diversity. It is not a formalized religion - formalization would break its cover - but it is a particular religion with beliefs, creeds, and moral demands (particularly racial quotas) that are not merely the neutral "secularism" of keeping Protestants and Catholics from fighting. Its restrictions on "hate speech" and "hate facts" amount to nontheistic blasphemy laws.

This is not a novel thought, but sometimes I see a striking illustration of it like the exchange above, and I'm torn:

Part of me says that maybe someone could patch up the edges of "secularism", perhaps expand the definition of "religion", name the Name-Eating Thing as a religion to be kept away from government, or ban ideology from government (lol) and do classical liberalism better by preventing it from decaying into...this. The free market is the best cure for bigotry; Diversity Officers are useless wastes at best and bigots themselves at worst.

Part of me says that classical liberalism was always going to lead here via modern liberalism and leftism, and I should shed my lingering qualms about supporting a coercive state church, because evidently there is no alternative. There will be Company Priests, and given that fact, it is best the Company Priests be Christian not heathen. What looked like growing secularism was in retrospect a transitional period, not a condition that can be sustained in its own right.

#all #peace of westphalia #history #religion #moldbuggery #essaying #diversity

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has signed the “Protections of Medical Conscience Act,” a law that allows healthcare providers or payors to deny service on the basis of “a conscience-based objection,” including any ethical, moral, or religious beliefs. The bill provides no definition for what constitutes a “moral” or “ethical” belief.

The law seeks to protect health care providers and payers from the “threat of discrimination for providing conscience-based health care.” However, advocates worry it’ll be used to deny LGBTQ+ people gender-affirming care, HIV-prevention medication, and other essential and life-saving care.

The law allows any medical provider — including doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, pharmacists, mental health professionals, lab technicians, nursing home workers, and hospital administrators — as well as insurance companies and payment entities, the right to deny care on the basis of any conscientious objection. This care can include refusing to conduct research and recordkeeping or denying medical tests, diagnoses, referrals, medications, and therapy, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes.

The newly signed law says denial of care can’t be based on a patient’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, but it provides no protections on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Additionally, the law also allows healthcare employers to discriminate in hiring and bars medical boards from disciplining doctors for spreading misinformation, essentially forcing employers to keep workers who refuse to do their jobs, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) noted.

In a statement, the HRC said the newly signed law “creates a license to discriminate by allowing healthcare employers to discriminate in hiring, and it bars medical boards from disciplining doctors for spreading misinformation.”

Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel of the ACLU of Florida, wrote, “This bill is shocking in its breadth, vagueness, and government overreach into the private sector and regulated businesses. It goes far beyond any alleged claims of religious freedom.”

Gross notes that anyone in the medical field — including at public and private schools, colleges, and universities — could choose to deny service to someone they personally dislike. Medical workers could refuse to assist in an active medical emergency, such as helping an unwed mother to give birth. Medical office clerks could refuse to return patient calls, and pharmacists could refuse to dispense contraceptives or medications to heal sexually transmitted infections, citing their “ethical” or “moral” beliefs.

Brandon Wolf, press secretary for the LGBTQ+ organization Equality Florida, told the Pensacola News Journal, “This puts patients in harm’s way, is antithetical to the job of health care providers, and puts the most vulnerable Floridians in danger.”

“Our state should be in the business of increasing access to medical care, not giving providers and companies a sweeping carve out of nondiscrimination laws,” Wolf added. “Shame on the Governor for putting Floridians’ health at risk to score cheap, political points.”

DeSantis was joined at the signing ceremony for the new law by State Surgeon General and Department of Health Secretary Joseph Ladapo. He has spoken out against science-based federal guidelines that support gender-affirming care for transgender teens, citing debunked studies about transgender people.

In July 2020, Ladapo appeared in a viral video as part of a group called America’s Frontline Doctors. The video was organized by the Tea Party Patriots, a right-wing group backed by wealthy Republican donors.

The group in the video, which had no epidemiologists or immunologists, promoted the anti-malaria medication hydroxychloroquine as a “cure” for COVID-19, said that face masks don’t slow the virus’s spread, and that COVID-19 is less deadly than the flu — all three claims are untrue. Lapado has written numerous op-eds repeating the video’s false claims.

The video also featured Dr. Stella Immanuel, a pediatrician and religious minister who has said that “demonic seed” inserted into sleeping individuals causes endometriosis and ovarian cysts.

#us politics #news #lgbtq nation #lgbtqia+ rights #lgbtqia+ #lgbtqia+ representation #gender affirming healthcare #gender affirming care bans #gov. ron desantis #Florida #Protections of Medical Conscience Act #let them die act #American Civil Liberties Union #human rights campaign #ACLU of Florida #Kara Gross #Brandon Wolf #Equality Florida #Pensacola News Journal #Joseph Ladapo #2023 #transphobia #republican homophobia

[tanadrin]

Do you think it could be argued that humans have a right to privacy? Thoughts on the NAP and libertarian argument for it?

the nonaggression principle is badly defined and incoherently applied and so i generally find it a not very interesting tool

rights are a construction of law, which doesn't mean they're not important, but does mean we should look at what they're for rather than treating them as atomic natural objects. and i think the right to privacy is really important even from a purely instrumental perspective! humans need and like a degree of private life. the right to privacy is an important protection against overreaches of state power, especially victimless crimes created by moralizing busybodies like sodomy. a right to privacy also contributes to a right to autonomy in general, including bodily autonomy, and other rights like freedom of religion and thought.

all of these things intersect with one another and are covered by a general right to privacy, so enshrining it in law as a distinct right is very useful. i'm a big fan!

[thaliajoy-blog]

Personal best ASOIAF quotes (no particular order) :

⭐ "A man will tell you poison is dishonorable, but a woman's honor is different. The Mother shaped us to protect our children, and our only dishonor is in failure." (Lysa Tully)

👉 I love what it implies thematically about honor, which is a very important theme of the book ; implicitly, the question "what is honorable/what is dishonorable" is often asked (and many answers given). Lysa tells something very meaningful & powerful there about the constructed differences between genders, suggesting also that women's honor is both a adherence to a law set by the Gods, to a certain nature, and a defiance towards the systems set by men. Women's nature essentially defies men and the society they've built for themselves.

⭐ "Is it how it goes, round and round and round forever ? I ask you again, where does it end ? Here is [Oberyn's / my lover's] killer. Can I take a skull to bed with me, to give me comfort in the night ? Will it make me laughs, write me songs, care for me when I am old and sick ?" (Ellaria Sand)

👉 maybe a pretty heavy-handed way to insert morals into the story but man is this heartfelt. Man does it hurt. Ellaria doesn't just talk about vengeance and it's deadly consequences (in a way that generally goes against most of the Dornish sentiment we get from ASOIAF and F&B, but it's all the more meaningful that a Dornish woman say this, cause vengeance is a core theme of the storyline in that corner of Westeros) - but makes a loving portrait of a loving relationship that she mourns.

⭐ "I rose too high, loved too hard, dared too much. I tried to grasp a star, overreached, and fell." (Jon Connington)

👉 just love that quote for how poetic it sounds. How it is also very heartfelt and melancholic. So much of ASOIAF is people thinking about the past, about their mistakes & about how "things were better back then" and there's a bit of both there.

⭐ "Love is the bane of honor, the death of duty...what is honor compared to a woman's love ? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms...or the memory of a brother's smile ? Wind and words [...] We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love." (Maester Aemon)

👉 again there's kind of the idea that there's a contradiction between human laws & human nature. That men have burdened themselves with a system that might be somewhat necessary, but that it is also something that takes a bit of their deeper, more authentic humanity.

⭐"How much can a crown be worth, when a crow can dine upon a king ?" (Jaime Lannister)

👉 I'm stating the obvious but if course, reflexion on the shared humanity of men, the most common denominator being death. And again, it's freaking poetic ✨.

⭐ "- I am a man. I am kind to my wife, but I have known other women. I have tried to be a father to my sons, to help them make a place in this world. Aye, I've broken laws, but I've never felt evil until tonight. I would say my parts are mixed, m'lady. Good and bad. [...] It seems to me that most men are grey."

- "If half an onion is black with rot, it is a rotten onion. A man is good, or he is evil."

(Davos Seaworth & Melisandre)

👉 Get to learn about the complexities of good & evil with Davos & Melisandre ! The exchange is a way of giving material for thoughts to the reader, showing Davos' view on the question is all about the "and", the nuance (he's a rather average man who's lived the highs & lows of life, and his answer actually tells us that he is very moral, has a sense of honesty and truth - admitting what he's done & how he feels - truly evil persons generally don't feel evil, have no moral sense). It's about what you do, and what you do has nuance, and a context. While Melisandre (a fanatic of a very binary religion) responds by an ultimatum, the "or". There can be no nuance. I think she does regard Davos as a good man though, and that his transgressions just can't be categorized as evil. That his good outweighs the evil, so much that the evil just isn't. Same for herself ; her "necessary evils" mentality drives her to consider them as no longer evil since they serve the good she works for.

⭐ "Mother of dragons. Mother of monsters. What have I unleashed upon the world ? A queen I am, but my throne is made of burned bones, and it rests on quicksand. Without dragons, how could [I] hope to hold Meereen, much less win back Westeros ? I am the blood of the dragon. If they are monsters, so am I." (Daenerys Stormborn)

👉 the dragons are both wondrous and terrible, by making the world more magical they also make it more dangerous and incertain, which is the stuff magic is made of really.

#best asoiaf quotes #asoiaf #lysa tully #ellaria sand #jon connington #maester aemon #jaime lannister #davos seaworth #melisandre of asshai #daenerys stormborn #honor #duty #vengeance #good and evil #monsters #death #crown #king #dragons

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/of-human-bondage/

Of Human Bondage

If past practices are a justification for anything, then slavery should be legal. Slavery existed long before the birth of Christ, and several passages in the Bible sanction the institution. Many of us may think slavery is illegal in the modern world.  But, those of us who do are wrong.  Nearly half of existing countries have no laws against slavery and do not punish those who engage in it.  Over 10,000 slaves are estimated to be entrapped in England, alone.  In the United States, the non-profit organization Exodus Road estimates 400,000 slaves suffer in plain sight. Slavery’s victims are impoverished people lured to foreign destinations with the promise of work. When they arrive in their new country, few of them speak the prevailing language and know nothing of its customs, or laws. Denied their passports from the outset, they are a the mercy of unscrupulous traffickers who beat and bully them until they agree to work in the sex trade or as factory or domestic servants. Poverty makes slaves of natural-born citizens as well. The growing gap between rich and poor has become wide enough to swallow middle-class professionals who work in high-income and resort areas. Surrounded by conspicuous consumption, teachers, policemen, and firefighters struggle to find affordable housing.  Most of them don’t. They live in their cars, RVs, or tents. Some work two jobs while the rich buy two houses. Though they aren’t subjected to physical abuse, these employees endure the indifference of those whom they serve. Veterans suffer a similar fate. Recently, their health care benefits became political fodder in a power game between Democrats and Republicans. Comedian Jon Stewart charged these so-called leaders with callousness,  people who see veterans not as human beings but as the lowest hanging fruit in their political games Women have a long history of living as chattel. For centuries, coverture deprived them of their property and their freedom.  Patriarchy, according to Catholic and Evangelical doctrine, confers upon men a God-given right to dominate women.  In the United States that legal yoke remained in place until early in the twentieth century. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appears to prefer the old ways. Raised as a Catholic, he is comfortable with his decision to overturn Roe v Wade, a 50-year-old precedent that said the right to an abortion was protected by the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. He denied that interpretation, saying his predecessors misconstrued the language.  His subsequent remarks on the subject suggest his religious belief shaped his conclusion.  In public appearances, he’s called for  “positive law,” one that defends religious freedom in an “increasingly secular society.”  His goal, he admits, is one of conversion: to convince those who do not identify with a faith, or view it as a negative, that religious freedom is worth protecting. Solicitous of his religious freedom, Alito is willing to trod on a woman’s freedom to seek medical care.  U. S. Attorney General Merrick Garland views that position as overreach.  To prove it, he has taken Idaho to court, challenging its draconian anti-abortion legislation.  It violates the provisions of EMTALA, a federal law that governs medical emergencies, he argues. The success of that suit notwithstanding, Alito’s religious freedom argument is spurious.  Catholics and Evangelicals might be satisfied with legislation that says personhood begins at the moment of conception, but what about other faiths? Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg says her religious duty lies in preserving the life of the mother. A conflict like this one has drawn Jewish, Buddhist, and Unitarian leaders together.  According to them, abortion bans violate their religious freedoms.   Atheists object, as well. They see no reason to be bound by any religious tenet.  On another level, abortion bans hurt the economy. The summer edition of Ms magazine notes that pulling women out of the workforce during their productive years slows the GDP and throws scores of these workers into poverty.  (“Bad Business,” Linda Burstyn, Ms, Summer edition, pg. 21.). Already, states that ban abortion are experiencing a brain drain. Young, educated women are voting with their feet, moving to escape discriminatory laws. Others are refusing employment where those laws exist. (Ibid, pg. 21.) Likewise, universities and colleges affected by the ban are bracing for enrollment declines. (Ibid, pg. 23.) Turning back the clock on women’s rights won’t be easy. Females are half the population and, as we saw in Kansas, they vote.  What’s more, Alito’s veiled attempt to give political credence to the narrow view of one religious sect doesn’t widen religious freedom. It narrows it. As a member of the highest court in the land, the judge would serve his country better if he focused his attention less on Christianity and more on the delivery of liberty and justice for all.  

#14th Amendment #a woman's right to health care #abortion vote in Kansas #coverture #EMTALA #history of slavery #Linda Burstyn #Merrick Garland sues Idaho #middle class slavery #Ms magazine #patriarchy #patriarchy and religion #poverty and slavery #religious diversity in the U. S. #religious overreach #Roe v Wade #Samuel Alito #slavery #unaffordable housing #women as slaves

[julie-su]

You know what is incredible? You have so much vent art, but none of it has catholic trauma vibes. What's up with that? How do you do it?

CAM ON ENGLAHN!!!!

Catholicism is very rare in this part of the country, for very prominent historical reasons which I will glaze over.

That said, I was also raised a mix of Celtic Pagan and Judeochristian, on the Protestant side of Christianity. I do not claim judeochristianity, nor do I consider myself a Protestant.

I don't really have any trauma around it, I would say that Protestantism is a much more passive form of Christianity - 'confess in God, ask for Forgiveness, be good to thy neighbour'

There was never this concept of constant vigil that I see coming up with these American Catholic guilt posts, that "God is always watching, even your thoughts, don't even think anything remotely sinful!' No, there was more so just the concept of repentance, and asking for forgiveness, making amends, if you committed a sin.

Our Rev, she would frequently say "It is easier to ask forgiveness, than to ask for permission" XD

It was probably healthier to grow up on "If you do something bad, it will come back to bite you unless you own up to it and make it up to the people you have hurt" rather than "DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT DOING IT. YOU THOUGHT ABOUT IT? HELL. YOU ARE GOING TO HELLLLL!!!!"

...

Is Protestantism just 'Fuck Around And Find Out' The Religion? Though, I don't really know much worldly about either, so forgive me if I am overreaching. I grew up in a small village which is almost too small to be a village, and everybody there was from the immediate 30 minute car journey radius. I haven't sought out any form of Christianity since my childhood. Who knows what I've got mussed around?

[jellogram]

"How many AR-15s do you think Jesus would have had? Well he didn't have enough to keep his government from killing him!" is still one of the funniest things anyone has ever said about Jesus. Everything about that statement is fucking insane. The implications that Jesus was fighting for his life not to die on the cross completely flies in the face of the entire story. Girl he didn't even get himself a sword?? Do you think if he had an AR-15 then Jesus would have blown all the Romans and angry mobs away?? Do you think that would have been the better outcome?? You cannot possibly claim any shred of Christianity if you think that would have been a better outcome. That 100% contradicts the fundamental tenet of the religion, ie, that Jesus agreed to die for our sins. Lauren Boebert misunderstood the New Testament and thinks Jesus should have filled the Romans with lead in retaliation against an overreaching government, so now we all go to hell for eternity. What in the everliving fuck. It's an entire microcosm of modern American Christianity and conservatism. You can throw out the entire theme of the religion if it's catchy and aligns with right-wing politics. Insane.

[butcheredtongue]

I think there’s something quite valuable about accepting mental illness as illness.  Like, it helps a lot with understanding one’s own condition if the preconception that mental illness is something uncontrollable and greater than you is removed-- treating illness like religion is something I am very prone to, but stepping back and saying ‘the world doesn’t hate me, I’m just sick today’ and giving myself the extra care I would if I had, say, the flu, goes a long way towards my forgiving myself for being ill. Even if my illness does arise from emotion, treating it as a sickness that will pass makes it feel less total and makes my trucking on, as it were, feel less futile. Full disclosure, my own depression is no longer an overreaching part of my life, and there are many days when I am not tangibly sick at all. But allowing myself to be sick, giving myself the patience I would give myself for any illness, does make things feel more manageable on days like today when it returns full force.

#ciarán.txt #i am gonna make it through this year if it kills me etc etc

[vanessaroades-author]

If your protagonist was in DND, what would their class and alignment be? (and more info if you want!)

Oh this is so fun!! I'll get the main three POVs from Deep Roots.

(art: lesyablackbird)

NAME: Irving Isabren Whitfore

RACE: Half-Elf

CLASS: Rogue with the most NPC energy

ALIGNMENT: Chaotic Neutral // Irving's concerned with themselves & a select few other people. The focus of their (long-standing) grudges can burn for all they care--namely, the elvish kingdom that can't stand them and the gods who have no claim to them. The more distance they can put between themselves & those things, the better, even if they have to resort to unlawful or, honestly, totally idiotic methods to do it. (running away from home? sure. getting a cult to rip out your rib for their rituals? well...) Not so easy when your father's the high priest of the elvish goddess...

NOTES: The world of Deep Roots (Realmweaver) started with me writing D&D oneshots. Irving was the quest-giver/main DMPC in a mini murder mystery in a steampunk metropolis. As the project got bigger and bigger, one thing stayed the same: they've always sold sacred elvish flora as drugs in the human realm, and the story's always kicked off with them finally getting arrested by the elves.

(art: lesyablackbird)

NAME: Eirjatal Ga'vrynn

RACE: Elf (Sun)

CLASS: Sorcerer (packed all his slots/points with the fire spells)

ALIGNMENT: Neutral Good // Eirjatal is more concerned with protecting his country & loved ones than rules & religion as written. His tendency to carry responsibilities that are too heavy for him is both from a belief that his history makes him uniquely capable of handling danger (not many elves who have stared down a god and lived to tell the tale), and his fear that if anyone goes through what he has, they will feel the effects that he has: two centuries of resurfacing nightmares, paranoia, and aimless fear. He can overreach and break the rules to do what he thinks is right in the name of other people.

NOTES: People in the Realmweaver world have specific and narrow types of magic because that magic is a little slice of a god's specific power. Eirjatal's is fire from the Iron Phoenix. Unfortunately, he has no tether--a neutral object to share the burden of the magic for the sorcerer, a human law--so his control can often slip. This ranges from flaring nearby candles when he's annoyed to setting himself entirely on fire when he's PISSED.

(art: ireen chau)

NAME: Rhoheme Ges'ill

RACE: Elf

CLASS: Artificer

ALIGNMENT: Chaotic Good // Unlike Irving and Eirjatal, who put their lot in with either the human realm or the elf realm, Rho wants to save both--no matter how impossible that becomes as the battles between the gods unfold. She worries about the here and now, the future of all mortal things, and her integrity and her magic. Her ability to make impossible metal creations and automatons are integral to her. And she can't learn more about it if the realms keep fighting.

#wip: deep roots #wip: realmweaver #ch: irving #ch: eirjatal #ch: rhoheme