#<-I say as the most anti Catholic anti Catholic ever

[counterpunches]

source

Caption:

[[@else: I suppose it's time to tell my abortion story. Of the abortion that didn't happen, that led to me.

A lot of anti-abortion people put words & thoughts into the mouths of the unborn.

Well, I'm one that was recommended to stay unborn, who got born, and here's what I say.

My mother found our very early in her pregnancy that there was an extremely high risk to her if she continued.

Terminating the pregnancy was floated by one of the doctors. It would have been legal due to the risk to her, but heavily stigmatized.

Her family was deeply Catholic. She was deeply Catholic.

She did not terminate. The risk became a reality.

So I'm here, and she's not.

I'm glad to be here.

It is hard to put into words the gratitude you feel to a mother who sacrificed herself entirely for you, and I'm not going to try here.

Because I'm also very angry.

Without in any way taking away from the courage and selflessness with which she bore her situation and which she showed in all aspects of her life

I don't believe she ever really felt like she had a true choice.

The stigma, the religious dogma, the judgement - everything she'd ever known - told her she could not save her own life.

Her parents would have, however sadly, believed she'd go to hell. Her family and friends and community would have judged her.

Everyone she'd ever loved believed it was wrong. And so she believed it was wrong.

Needlessly.

I don't know what choice she would have made if it had been a true choice.

Maybe she would have chosen me anyway. Maybe she would have chosen to stay for her two already-existing children and for all those who loved her so deeply.

But she should have had a real, true choice.

Would I trade being here for that?

In a heartbeat. Without hesitation.

My siblings could have grown up with their mother.

My grandparents could have seen their beloved daughter live out her beautiful life, instead of mourning her every day until their deaths.

Her brothers and sisters would not still thirty years later feel the pain of losing the sistre they loved so much.

She could have continued to bring the light to the world that she had always brought, that I have heard so much about.

My father perhaps would not have descended into the grief & guilt that destroyed him, our relationship with him, the innocence of our childhoods.

Now, I think about how my young nieces & nephews will grow up without her, without the kind of grandmother I had. That pains me too.

I grew up in the devastation of her death.

I've watched the consequences of it play out for thirty years.

I can see what might have been differently if she'd had a true choice and it snatches my breath away, to see the suffering that didn't have to be for the ones I love most.

I know that it is not my family, but it is also profoundly difficult to know that it is because of me.

Or to be more exact, because the world did not allow my mother her right to a true choice, and my being here is perhaps a result of that.

It's not a burden I'd wish on anyone

I wish that I could have told her. It's okay. Stay. Live. Be happy.

I wish I could know that she knew that that was more than ok.

Don't I want to be here? Don't I want to be alive, aren't I glad to live??

Now that I'm here, sure. But had I never been, what would I have lost? Nothing.

You can't miss what you never had. Can't lose anything when you never existed.

There's no pain or loss in not existing.

I didn't exist then, to want anything. I didn't exist to hope or wish or fear anything.

I didn't exist back then. Not me. There was a possibility. An idea, a hope maybe. Some cells, a process in her body. Not me, any more than a sperm was me or an egg was me.

*I" didn't become until much later. Til I was born.

My mother wouldn't have taken anything from me or cause me any pain by living for herself, because I didn't exist to lose anything.

There was so much pain, so much loss in losing her. Loss that will ripple down generations.

So I will say to my dying breath, as the person who only lives because she didn't abort, that whatever she thought or chose or did not chose, she should have had a real choice to abort.

That she should have felt that aborting me was valid and good a choice as not.

Everyone should feel that, and have real access to enact that choice without obstruction or shame or question.

Whether it is their actual life at risk, or not. A forced pregnancy can be the death of many things, not just the end of ther person's life.

Having me took away from the world everything that my mother could have given it.

Forcing someone to have a child against their will can take away what that person could be and bring if they had their choice, whether they live through the pregnancy or not.

Most of all it takes away their right - their inalienable right - to choose how they live their life in their own body.

A non-person, a hypothetical future event, the birth of someone who doesn't exist yet, doesn't have that right.

Other people, who claim to speak for the unborn do not have that right.

We all lose so much by it. It can cause such pain and suffering, for child-bearers, for children, for everyone.

Do not pretend to speak for the unborn.

Do not pretend to speak for the children born against their mother's will.

Do not pretend that you care for them while you hide misogyny behind dogma.

My mother deserved her right to a real choice.

Everyone does. Unconditionally.

As the child who could have been aborted, I tell you - to oppose that right, let alone work to criminalize it, is unforgivable.

I'd like to emphasize because I didn't say it loud enough in the original thread:

There doesn't need to be a tragic story or a threat to life to make abortion ok.

It can be simply because you don't want to have a child. That's all. You still have the right to a choice.

I told my sad story because:

a) it is important to me to counter the rhetoric of anti-choice folks, that claims that if the unborn could speak they would be anti-choice

b) forced pregnancies can really f*ck up lives in many ways and that needs to be recognized.

But:

There shouldn't have to be a tale of woe to justify bodily autonomy.

It's a right. An absolute right. It should be protected by law.

That's it. That's all.

Last thingL I want this point to be heard, but I don't particularly want to deal with blowing up on twitter.

I will probably lock my account down at some point, but I would like this still to be shared. Maybe use an unroll app and share from there if you would like to.]]

[lafemmemacabre]

I don't want to take away from the very important and much more urgent point in that post about why Evangelical US missionaries go to countries like Brazil despite the very obvious prevalence of Christianity there (Cristo Redentor and all), that these white supremacist Evangelical missionaries are obsessed with converting Indigenous communities and Black communities that practice African or African-descent spirituality the most. Again, that's the truly urgent part of it and so I'm saying this here and not in the post itself, BUT...

They also target Catholics. Especially people who're Catholic and very poor or otherwise vulnerable.

In general South America is mainly Catholic as far as Christianity goes (at least the cultures that were colonized by Spain, France and Portugal are, which are the vast majority of us), and Evangelicals, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are very anti-Catholic.

I wouldn't give a damn about it because I don't exactly love Catholicism as either a faith or in a political sense. I think the church is a monster, the faith is misanthropic, etc etc. EXCEPT...

Like I mentioned, most of the Catholics in South America who're targeted by these missionaries are very poor ones, often luring them in with prosperity gospel bullshit promises as well as in general entangling them with their cult-like tactics (thought-terminating clichés, love-bombing then withdrawal/threats of withdrawal of community, etc).

I see it in urban Chile all the time; you will rarely, if ever, see a Protestant church of any sort in wealthy areas, and if you see one it'll be a "normal" one like Lutherans. However, in poor areas? Every-fucking-where.

The advancement of Evangelicalism in South America is tightly linked to the advancement of reactionary conservative politics. They're becoming a voting block like they are in the US; nowhere near YET as big as they are in the US thank GOD, but they're there and they're radicalizing vulnerable people continuously and that's something local leftists are worried about, especially because at least here we actually have a history of important communist developments FROM the Catholic church, especially with communist Catholic priests (and that is absolutely part of why local Evangelicals dislike local Catholics).

[fangirleaconmigo]

Abortion in The Witcher Books

Would anyone like to come along with me on a deep dive regarding abortion in The Witcher books? Not enough people talk about the fact that Geralt of Rivia is explicitly pro-choice and that the sorceresses are seen providing reproductive care, including abortion, on multiple occasions. So, let's do that.

There are a lot of things you can say about The Witcher books, feminism, misogyny, and the male gaze. (I am considering doing my first video on this very topic. It is complicated. This is not a 'the books are perfect' post) But one thing we can never say is that they are wishy washy about bodily autonomy, and more specifically, abortion. (In fact, that is the entire point of Ciri and Geralt's arc, which I will get to at the end of the post)

This topic came up awhile back because a 'witcher school' was closed after the owners were found to have ties to far right organizations, including anti-abortion organizations. So, I did a little thread on twitter about it, wondering how you can call yourself a Witcher fan (to the extent that you license a fan activity business!), and miss the entire fucking point. It was my most popular (and ofc hated by others) tweet ever, which was interesting, but I was mostly surprised that so many people were shocked to learn that Geralt of Rivia is, as a character, canonically, verbally, explicitly pro-abortion rights.

So I’m going to put the info here too in case any of you here find it interesting. Obviously there will be spoilers for the books.

TW: discussion of sexual assault, pregnancy, and basically anything having to do with reproductive health.

Before I start, I want to say that the book refers to abortion in reference to rights for women throughout, so that is the language in this article. I want to be clear that I (as an individual) understand that abortion is relevant to other genders and that I support it for trans men, non binary people, literally anyone. Abortion should be safe and on demand for all. But this is not a post analyzing my views on abortion, but the appearance of abortion in fictional psuedo medieval-esque fantasy world of The Witcher books.

Ok, I’ll start with the fact that sorceresses provide reproductive care in the books, including abortions.

In, The Last Wish (p210) Geralt tries to give Nenneke money to help Yen with fertility treatments. (In the books he does not mock her desire to have a child) He knows Yen wants to be a mother, and he wants to help. Nenneke replies that she does not need his money, and that providing abortions pays a hell of a lot better than witchering.

"You're more of an idiot than I thought." Nenneke picked up the basket from the ground. "A costly treatment? Help? Geralt, these jewels of yours are, to her, knickknacks not worth spitting on. Do you know how much Yennefer can earn for getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy for a great lady?"

Witches as providers of abortion is a very common trope in fantasy fiction for a very good reason. In order to stamp out paganism and polytheism, European colonists vilified the village wise woman as a murderer of children, hence the 'boil them in a pot, stuff them in the oven' stories about witches. Many people interpret this as the vilification of abortion. In the classic 1972 feminist text Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers, Ehrenreich and English quote Malleus Maleficarum, the witch hunting manual written by Catholic clergymen in 1487, to show that women providing reproductive healthcare was one of the 'characteristics' of a witch.

The witch that provides reproductive healthcare fits in very well in the witcher world, where Geralt and the witchers are embodiments of the working class who are used as tools and exploited. They are loathed until they are needed. The same is true of abortion providers. They are hated until they are needed, and they are always needed.

It also fits in well with the themes of class. In the Witcher books, it is stated multiple times that it is upper class women who are accessing this care from sorceresses. That is real. It is the truth that outlawing something very very often only means outlawing it for the poor and working class. The wealthy always find a way.

In Season of Storms, the sorceress Coral and her assistant Mozaïk provide reproductive healthcare to "wealthy, upper-class ladies" on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. Geralt comes to speak to Coral in chapter sixteen and both of the women are wearing white doctor coats. They have just helped a woman deliver a baby and it is implied that the baby died and they are both upset. They do not want Geralt there, because (it seems to me) they need space to grieve, and they do not expect him to understand. They send send him away, suggesting he go spend time with Dandelion.

She walked over and kissed him on the cheek without a word. Her lips were cold. And she had dark circles under her eyes.

She smelled of medicine. And the fluid she used as disinfectant. It was a nasty, morbid scent. A scent full of fear.

"I'll see you tomorrow," she forestalled him...She looked at him and it was a faraway look, from beyond a chasm of time and events between them. He needed a few seconds to understand how deep that chasm was and how remote were the events separating them.

"Maybe the day after tomorrow would be better. Go to town. Meet that poet, he's been worried about you. But now go, please. I have to see a patient."

After she had gone, he glanced at Mozaïk....

"We had a birth this morning," she said, and her voice was a little different. "A difficult one. She decided to use forceps. And everything that could have gone badly did."

"I understand."

"I doubt it."

"Goodbye Mozaïk."

There are multiple other references to abortion in relation to sorceresses; I won't quote them all. But I'll leave you with one other reference. In Lady of the Lake (pp114), in a very funny moment, Angoulême says she has a 'small problem' and Fringilla replies:

"I understand," nodded the sorceress. "It's nothing dreadful. When was your last period?"

Angoulême is rather put out at the thought of being pregnant.

"What do you mean?" Angoulême leaped to her feet, frightening the chickens. "It's nothing of the sort. It's something completely different!"

So, sorceresses provide abortions and other reproductive care.

But what about the men? What about the heroes?

Well, several of the male protagonists state explicitly in no uncertain terms that abortion is an inalienable, sacred right. That includes Geralt himself.

Here is Geralt taking to Queen Calanthe in Sword of Destiny (p345). She asks him whether he hates his mother. In the course of his answer, Geralt says that abortion is “a choice which should be respected, for it is the holy and irrefutable right of every woman.”

"A choice. A choice which should be respected, for it is the holy and irrefutable right of every woman."

That’s a strong goddamn statement. There’s no doubting his meaning or the strength of his conviction. And it isn’t just Geralt. Dandelion (Jaskier), Cahir (he is traveling with Geralt as part of the hansa in the books, please set aside anything you think you know about him from TWN), and Regis (Geralts dear friend) all explicitly support abortion rights, quite passionately.

In Baptism of Fire (p317), one of Geralt’s dear friends (my favorite, the love of my life, Milva) shares that she is pregnant. They are on a brutal journey through a war zone looking for Ciri. So it’s complicated. Another friend, barber surgeon vampire Regis has prepared an elixir for her to induce an abortion. So, not only do sorceresses provide abortions, but so do vampire barber surgeons, one of the most lovable heroic characters in the books.

But before he administers it, Regis gathers the rest of the company. Regis knows Milva feels like shit at the prospect of burdening them, so he is worried that she is making the decision under duress. They don’t immediately understand why he is bringing the matter to them.

At first they think he is asking for opinions on whether she should get an abortion. They are baffled. Cahir answers first. He says in Nilfgaard it is always a woman’s right to choose.

"In Nilfgaard," Cahir said, blushing and lowering his head, "the woman decides. No one has the right to influence her decision. Regis said that Milva is certain she wants the medicament. Only for that reason, absolutely only for that reason, have I begun-in spite of myself-to think of it as an established fact. And to think about the consequences. But I'm a foreigner, who doesn't know...I ought not to get involved. I apologize."

So, Cahir says that maybe it’s a foreigner thing. Maybe it’s different for them. Dandelion (Jaskier) is offended and outraged by the implication that they believe any differently.

"What for?" the troubadour asked, surprised. "Do you think we're savages, Nilfgaardian? Primitive tribes, obeying some sort of shamanic taboo? It's obvious that only the woman can make a decision like that. It's her inalienable right. If Milva decides to--"

At this point, Geralt cuts Dandelion off. Geralt alone actually understands that there is something else happening here, that they are misunderstanding Regis and further questions are in order. Geralt begs Dandelion to stfu, which the bard misinterprets. He thinks Geralt is disagreeing with him and is considering opposing Milva's right to choose. Dandelion LOSES HIS TEMPER at the thought that Geralt would deny Milva her right.

Geralt becomes even more irritated and angry at the implication that he would do such a thing.

So, not only do we have witches as abortionists in The Witcher books, we have men, the hero (Geralt) his best friend (Dandelion), my beloved Regis, and Cahir say explicitly that abortion is an inalienable right.

And that should be no surprise.

Bodily autonomy and reproductive rights is at the very heart of the story. You do not have The Witcher story without it. It drives the narrative, the conflict, and Geralt and Yen's character arcs.

There is a criticism I see floating around quite a bit, that having Yen's story driven by her desire to be a mom and to physically reproduce is anti-feminist, or at least a tired reductive trope of women being defined by their maternal instincts.

I get that. I get tired of womanhood being defined by reproduction and motherhood as well. Biological essentialism when it comes to gender is exhausting and regressive. However, in this context, it is entirely clear to me that the point is NOT that all women should want to be pregnant. The point is the bodily autonomy, to be pregnant if you want to, and to not be pregnant if you don't want to.

Look at Ciri. She essentially becomes the main character by the end, and the idea of being pregnant repulses her.

So, in Lady of the Lake, Ciri is being held captive by elves, who want to do the same thing to her that everyone else does--breed her. The deal they offer her is, she does not 'have' to have sex with anyone until she is impregnated, but if she doesn't, she can't leave. (So, if she is to access what every human wants--freedom--she has to. This is still rape. It is coerced sex) She is understandably distraught and enraged. The part of that deal she seems most disgusted by, is the idea that she could be pregnant.

"But I don't want to!" yelled Ciri so loudly that the mare skittered beneath her. "I don't want to, understand? I don't want to! The thought of a bloody parasite being implanted in me is sickening. I feel nauseous when I think the parasite will grow inside me, that--"

She broke off, seeing the faces of the elf-women.

So yes, she is distraught that her bodily autonomy is being taken from her yet again. But perhaps the most upsetting part is the idea that she could be pregnant. It physically repulses her.

Now. Let's put this in context.

In this psuedo-medieval-esque setting with royal families, being used as a brood mare is COMMON and ACCEPTED. IN FACT, Calanthe, Ciri's OWN GRANDMOTHER was marrying her off against her will, betrothing her as a child. No one thought this was weird. It's your duty, right? No big deal. Even Geralt, when he first met Ciri, thought it would be a better life for her. Sure, it's against her will. But it's physically safe and luxurious. And he leaves her behind in Brokilon.

But at some point, Geralt puts two and two together. He connects his trauma with hers. He makes a decision that even if almost no one around him in his culture or on the continent, sees the importance of her bodily autonomy or agrees with him, he's protecting her. Not just against death, but against anyone taking her choice from her. When he is having a mental breakdown in Brokilon, worried about her, he tells Dandelion that he is trying to protect her from what happened to him. He doesn't say, she can't die. Or I can't let her be killed. He says she cannot be alone. She cannot go through what I went through. Here, I"ll let him say it: (Time of Contempt, p240)

"Listen to what?" shouted the Witcher, before his voice suddenly faltered. "I can't leave---I can't just leave her to her fate. She's completely alone...She cannot be left alone, Dandelion. You'll never understand that. No one will ever understand that, but I know. If she remains alone, the same thing will happen to her as once happened to me...You'll never understand that..."

"I do understand. Which is why I'm coming with you."

Honestly, I tear up thinking about it.

And Yen, well, she has a similar arc.

Yen has been abused and used as a tool, and along the way she has accepted that this is the way things are. Yen has even done the same to others. But she looked into that little face, those wide green eyes, and at some point she also connected the dots. There's another way of doing things, and maybe it is possible for a little girl to choose for herself. And even if it isn't possible, maybe the important thing is to fight for it. Maybe Yen can give her whole life to let a child just be a child.

Yen goes through torture and imprisonment for Ciri. She shoots lightning at a god, she shouts at a goddess, she drops through a portal into the sea, she gives up every last shred of political power she has spend ninety years accruing, she WILLINGLY tries to give her own life MULTIPLES TIMES, to save Ciri.

And from what? Death? Not always. At the heart of all this sacrifice is that Yen has made a decision that Ciri gets be a human who is given the dignity and respect of deciding what to do with her own body. To be a kid, not a tool. To be a person. To be free.

So Ciri gets to say, actually, for me, the idea of pregnancy is terrifying and repulsive and therefore, I don't want to do it.

In the end, Geralt, a person whose body was tortured and experimented on before he was too young to consent, and Yen, a woman who was abused and used, and BOTH of whom had their reproductive rights taken from them, decide to love Ciri and protect her bodily autonomy at any and all costs.

That is what drives the story. It drives the narrative. It drives both Geralt and Yen's character arcs. It is, in fact, the entire point.

So it should not be a surprise that abortion, and the right to have an abortion if necessary, is an inextricable part of The Witcher world. No, you cannot analyze these books and find 'perfect politics'. They are not politically correct. And there are many parts I can critique. I mean, we can critique anything. (and I do)

But I find it endlessly interesting that people who are conservative or right wing think that this property 'belongs' to them, and they want to push everyone else out, when all they have to do is pay the most minimal amount of attention and have really only two (2) brain cells to rub together, to see that they are indeed, incorrect.

[aziraphales-library]

Hello 💕 do you have any truth or dare fics to recommend? X

We have some fics involving dares here. Here are some truth or dare fics...

A Question of Who Started What by lumosity (T)

Aziraphale finds out that Crowley started the Catholic church during a game of truth or dare. ------- ���I really didn’t mean for it to go that far. I just kinda...yknow, made an eensy joke to some men at a bar and they, ah, took it too far,” Crowley said, tilting his head back to look at the scant clouds above. “What was that joke, exactly?” Aziraphale asked, trying his best to keep the tension out of his voice. “Something about putting saint’s body parts in the altars,” Crowley mumbled, tipping his face into his drink before taking a massive swig. “You’re the one who started the relics?” Aziraphale hissed.

Truth or Dare by JonsiGray (M)

It's a dark and stormy night, quite unlike the night Crowley delivered the anti-christ. Well, not delivered delivered. Aziraphale and Crowley are nestled on Crowley's sofa in their cottage under a thick blanket having a glass of wine. The power is out and Aziraphale lights an obscene amount of candles along with the fire in the grate. They are perfectly content until Crowley suggests an amusing, and frightful, way to pass the time. “I’ll be right back.” Crowley slid from under the cashmere blanket and ran off to the kitchen, the stone floor freezing under his bare feet. Crowley was quiet in there. Too quiet. Then suddenly Aziraphale heard whisking. Crowley ran back and slid under the blanket. "What is this?" "You have to drink it. All of it."

Truth or Dare by HopeCoppice (T)

It's Aziraphale's first time playing Truth or Dare. Crowley has a secret to protect, all the way from the Garden itself.

Truth or Dare by DarkRomance (E)

An AU where Crowley and Aziraphale are university students sharing a dorm room. It's Saturday night and Crowley is bored. Aziraphale is reading, but gets his book from him, asking if he wants to play a game. Aziraphale agrees. The game is "Truth or Dare"

Warmed from the Snow by PrincessDianaArtemis (E)

Aziraphale and Crowley find themselves snowed into the Bookshop and decided to play a couple of games to keep themselves entertained. One thing leads to another which leads to admissions, confessions, and some new experiences for them.

Truth or Dare by MirjamOmens (E)

“Let’s ask questions, like Truth or Dare!” Crowley burst out laughing. “You do realize what you are getting into?” he said, “I could dare you to all manners of sins, it's called tempting, I’m a professional!” “I’m not going to pick a dare, silly!” Aziraphale chuckled. “And you aren’t either, just the questions!” “It’s not the Truth or Dare then!” Crowley objected, still laughing. Aziraphale waved his hand to indicate something about not caring the least. “Do you not want to play then?”

The Tutor by tenandi (E)

Aziraphale is popular, outgoing, and one of the most accomplished students Holy Cross has ever seen. When he's tasked with tutoring the school's worst student he ends up getting schooled in a very different manner. (Waggles eyebrows). - “Aziraphale,” Crowley says thoughtfully, sounding out the name on his tongue. “You’re not asking me to corrupt you, are you?” The blonde doesn’t even bother to look embarrassed or uncertain. Instead, he affects one of his cockiest smiles. “Is that a truth or a dare?”

- Mod D

[nonegenderleftpain]

There are few things I hate more than "Jewish ally" anti-theists and atheists that spout complete bullshit about Judaism and our supposed beliefs as though they know better than we do what we believe. When we talk about cultural xtianity, this is the kind of shit we're talking about.

"You might not believe in hell but most Jews do, my ex-xtian interpretation of your holy texts is correct despite thousands of years of information on the subject, here's a video telling you that you're wrong." Spent several posts calling non-religious people "freethinkers," and continuously dodged the question regarding the harm eliminating religion would do to so many cultures. Not to mention going from "I think the world is better without religion" to "you have an anti-xtian bias that I don't like" as though there's not a reason for that.

Ex-xtian atheists - you need to address and unlearn your xtian belief that your way is the only right way. That you are objectively correct and everyone else is just ignorant. That you know better than the religious minorities you are addressing. People like this want an excuse to talk down to religious minorities under the guise of polite language, and if you don't want to be associated with them, you have to put in the work to not be like this. I say this as an ex-Catholic, and a former anti-theist - do better.

If you are making objective assertions about someone else's religion that you have not studied and cannot answer basic questions about, you're not being critical of religion, you're being an atheist supremacist. If you pull a "gods are more harmful than helpful" like this person but cannot tell me the impact of Kali or Sàngó on their respective cultures, you are not being critical, you're ignorant and self-absorbed. If you have not studied religion, you do not know what you are talking about, and if you are only accepting xtian interpretations of other religions as true, even as a basis for hatred of religion, you're just a xtian with a new wallpaper.

If you are advocating for anti-theism, you are advocating for the cultural genocide of hundreds of different cultures around the world. If you are advocating for anti-theism, you are inherently anti-Jew. And if you are talking over Jews when they correct you on your blatant misunderstanding of our culture, only to call us *liars* when we counter your misconceptions, or call out your cherry-picked sources for why you know better than we do, you're not just an asshole, you're an Antisemite.

I took this conversation in good faith, hoping that the ignorance was born from misunderstanding instead of malice. I should not have been so kind. And if you're going to come onto this post and whine and cry about "not all atheists," or "cultural xtianity isn't real," save us both the time and block me. I'm done entertaining atheists that will not acknowledge that y'all don't know better than the religious minorities you are insulting by assuming we're all just blind sheep being lied to by some hierarchy that doesn't exist outside of certain religions. My partner is an atheist. I was for a long time, and I chose to return to religion on my own. I'm still an atheist, but I am also very religious. I'm the "smart Jew" that ex-xtians love to talk about; enlightened and no longer clinging to the supernatural. And I'm telling you that you're a fucking asshole and I associate more with the most spiritual Orthodox Jew than I ever would with someone who thinks atheism makes you superior.

[cryptotheism]

Uh... I'm not a follower of your blog, but I hate Catholics SO MUCH that when you got that anon commenting on how much you like to "make fun of" Catholics, it effectively summoned me here. And as the most vehemently anti-Catholic entity you have ever encountered, I gotta say, your anti-Catholic content needs some serious work. Get on my level, chief. Start talking about how Pius XII denied the holocaust after signing a treaty with the Nazis and reblogging trad cath posts with screenshots of Francis apologizing for the latest sex scandal.

Alright man

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

Look at this....☠️ https://www.tumblr.com/bohemian-nights/737003196544958464/fuck-rhaenyra-fuck-the-writers-with-this-sapphic?source=share

Fucking hell.

First off: I find it interesting the anon doesn't acknowledge that Laena x Daemon is also incest. Sure, she's not his niece, but she is still related to him. They love projecting their insecurities about their ship onto daemyra.

Second: yeah, HoTD choosing to make the Velaryons black then sidelining them massively is shitty and, sure, could be interpreted as racist. However, how is that Rhaenyra's fault? She didn't make Daemon marry Laena when he couldn't have her neither did she kill Laena. Condal and Hess chose to write out Laena's relevance (which already wasn't much outside of being Daemon's wife and Baela and Rhaena's mother) in order to give Alicent more screen time. But again, that's neith Rhaenyra's nor Emma D'Arcy's fault, stop blaming them (also Emma is good at playing Rhaenyra as she is written, the only issues are the writing, which aren't their fault). Op also chose to ignore the fact that Daemon actually is confirmed by GRRM himself to have loved Rhaenyra the most.

Moving on, once again the Rhaenyra antis are bringing up how Rhaenyra isn't "feminist". Literally no one in F&B is feminist by our modern definition. Visenya and Rhaenys are probably the closest, and even then, they aren't writing feminist manifestos (which apparently Rhaenyra is expected to for some reason). Alysanne, the most proactive queen regent, still enforced arranged marriages on her daughters and granddaughters. Rhaenys didn't advocate for Laena's right of succession in the book and in the show refused to support Rhaenyra long before Laenor's "death". Her antis hold Rhaenyra to unfair and unrealistic standards while making excuses for or ignoring other characters who don't meet them.

In that same vein, I still can't get over how Rhaenyra antis will say that TG aren't the conservative group. They say Rhaenyra isn't a feminist and that TG, the ones who are obsessed with male primogeniture and believe being gay, a sexually liberated woman, a child born out of wedlock, or not adhering to the equivalent of the Catholic Church make someone subhuman are the "progressive" group. It's delusion at its finest. Alicent and the greens are misogynistic and, because of them, women's rights in Westeros ended up more repressed than ever.

The fact that the op says that Visenya and Queen Rhaena are acceptable shows they have no understanding for TG or F&B. First off, TG would never support either woman. Visenya was hated by the Faith and most of the Lord's of Westeros, she was a warrior accused of witchcraft and dared to interfere with the misogynistic customs alongside Rhaenys. Rhaena was gay, something she wasn't allowed to live fully because the Targaryens chose to conform to Westerosi ideals. She was also robbed of her inheritance, even Jaehaerys acknowledged that Rhaena was the rightful heir, just as Aegon acknowledged Rhaenyra was.

As for the racist allegations, those come exclusively from Mushroom, someone who is far from a reliable source. Mushroom invented an entire woman to try to add "spice" to Jacaerys' story: Sara Snow. A woman of whom there is no record of, even though she was raised in Winterfell and supposedly married Jace. If Mushroom is willing to make up a whole ass woman to make the story more dramatic, why should we trust anything he says?

Yes, Rhaenyra ordered Nettles' execution, but that was because of her rumored relationship with Daemon and Rhaenyra's paranoia which had grown massively since Hugh Hammer and Ulf White's betrayal. Was it just? No. Was it racially motivated? According to Mushroom, maybe, but looking at Rhaenyra's character, it doesn't make sense.

Moving on, what exactly does op mean by "she's done too many things to claim she's been wrongly framed by the narrative"? By the time Nettles comes along, Rhaenyra hasn't done much that could be considered reprehensible. Op seems to have an issue with Vaemond's death, which Rhaenyra did order in the book. They seem to think that Vaemond "rightfully called her out" and was wrongfully killed.

She ordered Vaemond's execution after he declared her sons bastards in order to challenge Corlys' decision regarding succession. Keep in mind, Vaemond in the book is Corlys' nephew, not his brother, which moves him even farther down the line of succession. Vaemond not only was putting Rhaenyra and her sons in danger but was also trying to usurp all of Corlys' line, including Baela and Rhaena, who op seems to like a lot.

Yeah Rhaenyra is much harsher in F&B, but that hardly makes her evil and irredeemable. Queens Visenya and Rhaena were both harsh and even cruel sometimes, yet op doesn't think they're irredeemable monsters.

I do agree with op's anger over the sidelining of the Velaryons, as I said earlier, but taking it out on Rhaenyra is completely uncalled for. Rhaenyra wasn't a monster, anyone who believes that has frighteningly little reading comprehension. Rhaenyra's reign would have greatly helped women's standings in Westeros and pushed along gender equality. Ignoring that fact and blatantly saying the greens aren't supporting the repressive patriarchy is delusional and idiotic. The greens' actions were damaging in every way. Vaemond was far from an innocent victim, he was power hungry and misogynistic in both the show and the book. Keep your angry focused on the right people, don't take it out on a woman who had her whole life destroyed by the patriarchy.

[betterbooktitles]

What makes a Jesuit boys’ school so entertaining is the irreverence in the face of certain damnation. There were adult authority figures, some imbued with the ability to forgive Mortal Sin, telling us we were going to Hell if we didn’t take our morality seriously. In response, we laughed and cracked jokes. We laughed so hard, in part, because the stakes were so high. If you could mock the Most Important Question, you could likely laugh off anything.

Humor was what opened me up to the idea that I didn’t share the values of the men teaching me to be a “good” person. Humor also taught me that I didn’t have to accept any of it.

The first time I heard shade thrown at the Theology department was during my freshman year when my favorite teacher sitting in a room in the fourth floor English department, in an entirely separate building from the Theology and History classrooms asked “what movie are they showing you over there this week?” It was true that for half the year, Theology teachers showed movies 40 minutes at a time to make important philosophical points. They screened The Matrix, Life is Beautiful (watched in tandem with our reading of Man’s Search for Meaning), and, my personal favorite The Shawshank Redemption which they showed to us in the summer before 9th grade to let us know what Jesuit school would resemble: something close to surviving solitary confinement. If you had music in your mind, you might make it out. I don’t doubt the efficacy of showing these movies to us to teach moral lessons. It was a better strategy than trying to force teenagers to read. I had never heard anyone mock the department, though, especially not another teacher.

To be clear, this scrutiny, at least of the lay teachers in the Theology department was justified. They fed us one-sided anti-intellectual drivel that had almost nothing to do with Catholic Dogma. Instead of learning about a biblical text, we spent hours listening to a guy tell us evolution was “just a theory,” that being gay was a choice, and that abortion was wrong in any instance (whatever your personal beliefs, understand that it’s kind of hard to hear both sides of that argument at an all-male school where the adult men were the authority on ethics). Then they showed us clips from Fox News of Terri Schiavo and told us the “correct” Christian response to the news.

One day, again in my freshman year when I was scared to question anything because of an inordinate fear that I could be thrown out of school at any moment, our Theology teacher pressed play on The Emperor’s Club (a 2002 Kevin Kline movie about a boy’s prep school that served in our teacher’s mind as some ethic antithesis to the more beloved (and frankly more entertaining) Dead Poets Society). A student in the back row raised his hand, and our teacher paused the movie. We sat in the dark room and rolled our eyes. Make this quick, buddy. We’ve got a movie to watch here!

“Jeff?” our teacher said, lifting his eyebrows.

“Yes, I was wondering about the prayer we read before class today,” Jeff said. He was a senior, a bit portly which was only noticeable because many kids did not bother buying new dress shirts every year. Once the stress of school forced you to eat your feelings four years in a row, you wound up with a gut putting pressure on your old shirts’ buttons. “It says in the prayer…” Jeff continued, “that Jesus descended into Hell. What’s that about?” 

“Well,” our teacher said, looking excited to finally talk about religion instead of answering some weird kid’s question about the ethics of having sex with aliens should they ever land on Earth, “according to scripture, we know the gates of Heaven were closed for a time, so when Jesus died he descended into hell first to free other righteous souls…”

“Yeah, a quick follow-up on that,” Jeff said, sounding interested, “does anyone believe this shit?” 

The cackles that erupted in the room nearly overwhelmed our teacher’s angry tirade. Jeff was sent to the Vice Principal’s office to await his judgment. It hadn’t occurred to me until that moment you were allowed not only to question those teaching us about religion but you were allowed to reject the faith altogether. 

From there, every argument began to collapse, mostly through funny moments:

A teacher tried to tell us IVF was wrong because “you have to jerk off into a cup. It’s not right.” One kid announced: “I’ve done weirder!” Guffaws. Cheers.

Another teacher claimed gay sex was always wrong because the sex itself was not ‘open to creating human life,’ to which a brave gay student volunteered “Oh, I’m open to it. I’ll keep trying and let you know if there’s a miracle.” Applause. 

When a teacher said video games could be considered a sin if they distract you from work, someone, half-asleep in the front row, let out a loud “Ah, shut up!” that made us all giggle.

My fellow students weren’t playing the game, arguing with the teacher on his terms, using logic. They were dismissing the arguments flippantly, and no adult could reply unless they were funny themselves. 

Read the rest here.

[eternal-echoes]

I wonder if a lot of Christian witches in this website started playing around with demonic magic because the Christianity they were taught was rote and mundane, so they try to look to foreign religions for a sense of mysticism. They probably weren’t taught about Eucharistic adoration and just went along with Christian traditions in a robotic routine so they didn’t think to go to Christianity to quench their thirst for spirituality by reverently worshipping in the Mass and admiring the beauty of the Biblical imagery in churches built in medieval period. They weren’t adequately taught about the mysticism of prayer so to answer that tug that says materialism is wrongheaded, they went to occultism, tarot card readings, and black arts.

Kinda like how there are communist Catholics and white nationalists Catholics. They were probably only taught that the only political stance that the Catholic Church stands for is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage not the political writings of Pope Leo XIII and St. Thomas Aquinas on the role of the government so they think it’s okay to be a communist Catholic and white nationalist Catholic. They didn’t think that the Catholic Church having the fullness of Truth would also have teachings on the proper earthly ruling in a way that is conducive to man's salvation so instead they thought political ideology and religious truth as separate rather than having the teachings of the Catholic Church shape their entire worldview.

It’s sometimes unavoidable to be cafeteria Catholics when we’ve only been fed little bits of Catholicism in small packages rather than the whole buffet. Granted, spiritual growth doesn’t take a day and sometimes the Holy Spirit can only spoon feed to us the truth so we can eventually learn more the full picture of the Catholic Social teaching and priests can only fit so much in a homily every Sunday but we can at least start by saying that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, she transcends all political ideology that every man has ever thought of and whatever doubts you have about the Faith she has the answer in the treasury of her wisdom so that can at least lead to the search for truth. Not everyone is into politics but anyone who is inclined to law has a duty to be an advocate for Catholic philosophy in that regard. Likewise, Christian witches would be better taught about the mysticism in contemplative practices within some religious orders for the sake of their salvation since their natural inclination for deeper spirituality has been disorderly led to pagan religions.

But even then, we can’t always look for that feeling of mysticism to feel God. Because in His silence is when He is the most active in our lives. Despite feeling of hopelessness we always have to remind ourselves that God is there because He is omniscient.

[transmutationisms]

could you talk more about catholicism vs protestantism in succession? I think roman accidentally buying the protestant football team instead of logan’s catholic team is super interesting

yeah the hearts/hibs mixup is a great detail. so in general i think this is a really funny level of the show. like, if you're making fun of american or british billionaires the obvious choice is to make them protestant. it's like, demographically likely, and in the american context in particular protestants have all these overt ways of reconciling their faith with capitalism and the desire to accumulate wealth. like, making money is configured as a signifier of bourgeois masculinity; it means you're productive (often implying and signified thru bodily fitness specifically, even though capitalists are ofc not the ones actually performing whatever labour is generating surplus value). catholicism is more uncomfortable generally with the open pursuit of worldly wealth, which is NOT to say catholics are never wealthy or that the church lacks wealth (it emphatically does not) but just to point out that this is a contradiction in ideals that catholics often just kind of uncomfortably ignore.

this is an undercurrent with the roys generally. they're ultrawealthy but rarely seem to enjoy their wealth all that much---like, they're comfortable and cosseted but they all have weird relationships with their bodies, food, sex, etc; also, their ways of signalling wealth are chronically uncool (their clothes) or else nouveau riche tacky (logan trying to host wine tastings or whatever that pierce make fun of him for). this also plays into how america has a relatively recent history of overt anti-catholic sentiment (like, see how people talked about jfk lmao) and combined with logan's canadian-scottish identity and lack of generational wealth, it gives him that persecution complex he retained even when he was literally one of the most powerful people in the world.

more to the point, logan has, like, the absolute worst and funniest case ever of catholic man who is uncomfortable with bodies disorder. it's tolerable if you're using your body to assert dominance in some way (pissing on kendall's floor, how logan wanted roman to say he was harassing gerri with the dick pics) but yuckydisgusting if you just like, have a body that is vulnerable or god forbid perceived by others (logan's attitude toward his illness, his disgust when it becomes clear roman was actually engaged in some kind of sexual affair with gerri---who is old and a woman and therefore also has a body). this is why it breaks logan's brain to think about shiv having affairs, and why, even though he is a misogynist, including to her, he does NOT talk about her body. it's also why he's so invested in getting roman "straightened out" and why he uses accusations of homosexuality to convey how much of a flop loser he thinks kendall is. his whole deal with masculinity is that Men Do Not Have Bodies. bodies are gross and physical, what are you, some kind of sissy? like, entire essays you could write on how each of the kids fits into this schema.

anyway, the obvious points of comparison here are the pierces (east coast blue-blood protestants), tom (germanic midwestern social striver protestant), connor's mother (american, lowbrow, implied/assumed protestant), caroline (protestant english aristocrat), and mencken (implied catholic convert, which is a whole other level). again you could write essays about this on any one of these characters, but in general the protestantism on the show is funny bc it's contrasting with logan's disgust at his body yet simultaneous desire for it to be Strong And Masc (NOT GAY!). caroline and the pierces bring out his persecution complex and insecurity about being boorish; tom is able to be "striving and parochial" partly bc he doesn't have the baggage of the roys, who are like, tormented by being wealthy in a gauche way ("how to control us news media in a god honouring way").

this is all like, peripheral obviously, but it's deeply funny also. and i do genuinely think the roys make more psychological sense when you understand that they have chart-busting levels of catholic martyr syndrome (kendall), guilt (roman), and repression (logan, shiv). even connor's "i'm like if napoleon was a us president" type beat is funnier through this lens (remember that napoleon very famously restored state relations with the catholic church after the revolutionaries had severed them and tried to found a secular 'republican religion').

with the three younger sibs in particular, this is one of the ways in which they fail to understand logan; they're aware on some level that he's catholic and were probably raised with some degree of religious practice, but it's heavily implied caroline interfered with this and the kids grew up less catholic than logan wanted, which was kinda the tradeoff for him having basically sought out an aristocratic pedigree for them. so, a misunderstanding like hearts vs hibs is a throwaway joke, but also hints at this much deeper level on which logan's kids don't get him or his priorities, and are never going to be able to respond adequately to his internally contradictory, repressed and repressive catholic-military-bourgeois standards for how they should relate to their bodies and how that affects his political worldview.

[queencolondarkwing]

AngelicaASMR’s current change

This post only about any info posted as of 7/25/2023 (will update in future if needed).

Ok so I’ve been following the Angelica Asmr shit pretty closely (don’t expect me to comment on gwen gwiz too because that girl is a grifter from the start). And as a mental health worker it REALLY freaks me out for her. I worked in a rehab for awhile. For people quitting drugs, but many of them also had bipolar, ptsd, schizophrenia, and similar diagnosises (some people also had the behavior due to being in crisis as well due to loss, recent homelessness, police brutality, etc.). So I know what psychotic breaks look like. I won’t armchair diagnose anything specific because I am not her medical provider, but while I can’t say she has anything for certain - she has a history of manic episodes in the past.

As someone with ADHD, a history of sexual and religious trauma, and c-ptsd like Angelica, I can honestly see how she fell into this. As someone who is also anti-capitalist, I can see why she thinks finding community would be beneficial (not sure why she would choose the Catholic Church instead of something from less individualistic, Eastern philosophy doesn’t make sense to me personally though...) to finding growth in an online era of isolation following a personal loss in her life. It seems weird how she went from talking about her Jehovahs Witness trauma from her youth...to going full on Orthodox, but I’ll get into details on why mentally this is actually super common in a minute.

I can also see how she would become a SWERF after having done OF, since as a former sex worker myself (camming, porn, fssw) who quit doing it after being raped - I can safely say that I myself am neither pro or anti sex work. I’m pro-decriminalization to keep workers safe, but also do feel a bit sick sometimes that MOST fssw on the streets are marginalized people. It is a complicated issue with nuance that non-sex workers have no business taking a side on. However, she is very hateful recently and anti-sex in general. Which is an issue.

She originally joined OnlyFans during a manic episode. So she HAS a history of mental illness and making major life decisions during mania. 

She went from pro-lgbtq to anti-lgbtq. Deleted her old progressive videos. Claimed to be a victim of MKUltra. Started making up delusions around the Catholic Church being anti-capitalist (Catholics individually can 100% be leftists, but the Church itself is VERY Capitalist). She posted homophobic and transphobic tiktoks where she would yell practically incoherently. Lots of staring. Inability to talk without looking away and laughing (she is normally a skilled actress).  Posting WAY more frequently than ever(she reposted 3 deleted videos last night and deleted them by this morning). She posted a video and lots of shorts and is way more active on Instagram. 

 The worst breakdowns I saw working rehab mostly always cycled through 4 topics: fame/self importance, inconsistent political and religious rambling, and sex. Always. Angelica has shown inconsistent spiritual beliefs (she has been mixing up Catholic, Orthodox, politics, and other religions). She has been focusing on sex in the context of trauma and posted a short of her in a bathtub on youtube again. She has been posting and immediately deleting content that has even positive comments on it.

Some medical signs of possible mania and/or psychosis that she is exhibiting:

Paranoia, trouble talking in a clear way/rambling, withdrawing socially (posting more often/online more but also alienating from her former fans), Confused speech, trailing off/lack of focus in videos, Generally disorganized way of thinking, no sign of restraint in expressing self, racing speech, goal-directed activity (seems to have a new anti-sex work goal), distractable/trails off topic, random giggling at nothing at camera like it is a person she is conversing with...etc. Tbh the amount of red flags I’ve seen are alarming.

I hope she gets support and help. And it is one reason I can’t blame her as hard as I would most, because she seems clearly unwell.  It isn’t an excuse. At all. And I don’t blame people for not supporting her going forward, but I plan to keep an eye on the situation for now and am hoping that somehow she can pull out of this shit, because I’ve seen this shit happen to a LOT of people with hard lives. Hell, I’ve even lashed out in smaller degrees and been delusional during my own ptsd breakdowns too, but when people are as far gone as Angelica is...I don’t usually see them come back again to the same state they were in previously. I’m hoping for the best, as a former fan and as a social worker, but Idk.

[tanadrin]

went back and listened to the episodes on david bokovoy's personal experience with religion, and man, it's funny just how different the stuff that people twig on in their experience of faith is--for bokovoy, even as a scholar of biblical criticism, it really isn't the truth claims of the LDS church that were ever a problem for him. like his academic career definitely primed him to move from a more orthodox, small-c conservative theology to a more expansive one (and he remains a pretty spiritual guy in general from the sound of it), but the thing that really started to fuck him up was the church's insistence on beating the anti-gay-marriage drum, starting with proposition 8, and culminating in the 2015 declaration about the children of gay parents not being welcome in the church unless they denounced them.

and it's a little infuriating to listen to him talk about how he feels about the LDS church after all of that--this whole "the leadership are good people deep down, i just disagree with them on this." like, come on, dude. i get that you're a straight guy whose experiences with mormonism have been generally very positive, but you are also self-aware enough to talk with compassion about LGBT people, about the experience of having a gay daughter, about the way in which people raised in Mormonism who are gay or even just a little bit nonconformist in some aspect of their life can have a really brutal time of it, and yet you cling to this idea of the organization as having some noble core, some inherently good quality that is only failing in its ultimate expression. he even talks about the experience of watching a movie that dramatizes the way different faith leaders came together during the civil rights movement, and having a moment of acute discomfort remembering that at the same time the leadership of the LDS church was still racist as hell in its teachings and policy

like, you should not be afraid to admit that the LDS church fucking sucks! it's always fucking sucked! most organized religion fucking sucks, and the organized religion that doesn't fucking suck has mostly gotten there by virtue of progressives splintering off and forming organizations that retain only a general flavor of the awful bullshit they grew up with and none of the core dogmas. i don't know of a human organization from the beginning of time that rigidly patrols boundaries of identity politics and creates structures of authority based on spirituality that didn't rapidly collapse into tyranny, a grift, or both, except the ones that were already that from the beginning.

and this, i suppose, is my disappointment with even the very open-minded progressives that John Dehlin interviews, which is that they want to redeem an organization that i think is fundamentally unredeemable. no particular shade to mormonism here--I think the Catholic church is also fundamentally unredeemable. hell, if i knew more about tibetan buddhism, i'd probably think that whole hierarchy was fundamentally unredeemable as well. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints cannot become progressive on LGBT issues and honestly pursue truth and cease to misrepresent its history and spend its money on helping the poor and needy instead of conservative political campaigns and exploiting eighteen year olds to do morally questionable missionary work in third world countries without ceasing to be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and its leadership knows this. for the exact same reason the Roman Catholic church can't go "lol you know what, our bad, this Pope guy isn't all that he's cracked up to be" and remain the Roman Catholic church.

i mean ultimately bokovoy doesn't go to church anymore; he says that the 2015 declaration was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back, and even if it was revoked tomorrow, it's not like he'd start going back. i assume he's not tithing anymore either. and he seems like a generally very gentle soul who wants to see the best in people, and i don't want to get on his case too much about that, because i admire that. but man, i think it's kind of disappointing to watch someone as apparently smart and compassionate as he is work himself into knots to excuse the behavior of the leadership of an organization like that when the simplest explanation is just that these people are assholes on a fundamental level and always have been.

[sunstar706]

Hear me out: Bucky Barnes is 100% not Jewish.

I’ve been doing a lot of scrolling on Tumblr/Ao3 the past few days looking for other people’s opinions on the nitty gritty of Bucky Barnes’ background, and realized- a lot (a *lot*) of people headcanon him as Jewish, which I find really interesting. Judaism, on the whole, is an extremely interesting subject, as the only non-universalizing Abrahamic faith, the only ethnic Abrahamic faith, and the oldest Abrahamic faith (making it one of the oldest monotheistic religions ever to exist).

Let me present to you my speculation on Bucky’s religious background. First of all, we know Steve is Catholic. Just getting that out of the way.

Am I a geography and demography nerd? Yes, yes I am. And I also have a strange hyperfixation on names. That’s why this stood out to me immediately.

James Buchanan Barnes, born March 10, 1917, into a poor family in Brooklyn, New York.

James is a really ambiguous name, with versions in pretty much every Indo-European language, as far as I know. It’s the number one baby boy name in the United States of all time, beating out the second place name (Robert) by over 300,000. Honestly, this name tells me nothing. Moving on.

Buchanan. It’s Scottish. That says a lot. It was fairly common at the time for the eldest sons middle name to be the mothers maiden name, so we can safely say that Winnifred Barnes (née Buchanan) was most likely Scottish.

Now, this is where we get historical, and also where speculation starts. As many Outlander fans will know, things went south for Catholics in Scotland after the battle of Culloden Moor and the Jacobite rebellion, however… The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy was reestablished in Scotland in 1878. Catholic emancipation occurred in 1829, and there was a revival of Papism in Scotland, along with an influx of Irish Catholic immigrants coming in (especially with the potato famine starting in the 1840s in Ireland), so, while Catholicism isn’t as popular in Scotland today (approximately 15% of modern Scots are Catholic), when Winnie was born (likely somewhere between 1897 and 1900, I usually put it at 1899) there would have been a good number of Catholics in Scotland. There’s a really good chance she was Catholic.

Now. Barnes. If there was ever an extremely English surname, it was Barnes. It’s pretty hard to provide reasonable evidence that George Barnes was not English, so, let’s run with that. While England today has high percentages of Islam, Hinduism, and even reasonable amounts of Sikhism and Buddhism, it was… very Christian back in the day. In fact, the only really established non-Christian religion in England was Judaism (England contained approximately 60000 Jews in 1880, a number which rose to 300000 by 1914. However, please consider that the majority of these people were fresh immigrants escaping anti-semitism in Eastern and Northern Europe, who would not have had the surname ‘Barnes’). Delving further into English Christianity- they were Anglican, pretty much.

Guess what? Protestants (ex. Anglicans like George) and Catholics (like Winnie) don’t like each other. While marriage between Protestants and Catholics wasn’t illegal in the uk at the time, it is extremely unlikely their families would have approved. So, Winnie and George moved to NYC. (Actually, this is how my very own great-great-grandparents ended up in New Zealand).

So, where does James Buchanan Barnes lie on the religion side of things? I can tell you The chances that he’s Jewish are very low. I’d say he’s probably Catholic, even if just to blend in- New York is extremely Catholic, even today. He could be Anglican. After all the shit Hydra put him through, he’s might’ve given up on religion all together. Or maybe he converted to Buddhism. A lot of people do that (Buddhism is the third largest universalizing religion on earth). I’m kidding, don’t take that seriously, he’s not a Buddhist.

I think he’s Catholic.

But hey, nothings concrete. I’ve read some really great stories where he’s Jewish. I’ve read great stories where he’s Catholic.

-Ranger616

[a-queer-seminarian]

Update: you all have been SO helpful in the replies, thank you so much!! I deeply appreciate it. Anyone else who wants to chime in is welcome to.

—

One part of Everything that’s gone down with me speaking out at my childhood church that’s been hard for me to unpack is

a couple folks who have — kindly!! — reached out to me to say that my priest wasn’t condemning the sisters of perpetual indulgence for queer stuff. but because they Add To Anti Catholic Bigotry

And I just. Like. Idk what to do with that. It’s like. I get where they are coming from. Kind of.

in the US I feel like Catholicism occupies a weird space where it is extremely privileged + is part of colonizing horrors AND YET there are even more privileged flavors of Protestant Christianity that totally dunk on Catholicism and I’m like. Is “bigotry” the proper word for what goes on in, say, some Protestants (like my wife’s grandma lol) saying there’s a special place in hell for Catholics?

Idk.

One video people keep sending me is of some sisters basically pole dancing on a crucifix. And I totally get how that had been hurtful to a lot of Catholics.

At the same time. Some of the sisters are Catholic themselves.

And also like. Of course the most offensive thing they’ve ever done is what is spread around :///

And there’s also my issue of like. Catholics see a pic of the sisters and see that many of them have beards along with their habits and I feel like the assumption that they are satirizing nuns or mocking nuns is so intertwined with transphobic “man in a dress” must = mockery crap

Idk. If anyone has any thoughts. About any of this. Especially on the idea of “anti Catholic bigotry.” I need help!

[bringmemyrocks]

I’ve seen discussion about it in the ex Christian community but from your perspective, what makes the “culturally Christian” stuff BS? One thing I’ve noticed is that almost everyone that uses it turns out to be a Zionist with a hateboner against atheists, Muslims and Catholics/christians which goes back to your “Christianity isn’t inherently antisemitic” post.

Part 2

I forgot to mention this in my previous ask, but you mentioned on your “Christianity/atheism/islam aren’t inherently antisemitic” post that you really don’t like the term “xtianity” that many jumblr bloggers use. What is it that you don’t like? It does come off as chauvinistic and insulting to people who are Christian/catholic and aren’t hateful, evil or antisemitic.

Thanks for asking me! Most of what you will find below is personal observation and opinion as it's not a well-documented phenomenon even though it happens all the time on here. I wanted to do more research, but there weren't many sources to consult as most of the people who use these terms have me blocked.

I'll share about the terms and end with a personal religious objection to the practice.

I know you’ve read my “Christianity is not inherently antisemitic” post, but I’ll link it for reference here: https://bringmemyrocks.tumblr.com/post/737277867614928896/i-noticed-on-your-about-the-point-saying 

Re: the term "cultural christianity"

So yes, almost everyone who uses the term “cultural Christianity” is a zionist and uses the term to silence disagreement. Some anti-zionists will use the term, but it usually still means they think that “all Christians oppress all Jews under all circumstances except maybe in Palestine” neglecting other racial/cultural inequalities. 

It’s a red flag, unless the person using the term is not doing so in an online way. (Eg. “My family are culturally Christian, so we celebrate Easter even though we’re not religious” as opposed to “culturally christian atheists stfu challenge.”) I don’t want to say that nobody can use the term ever, especially if people find it useful to describe themselves, but Jumblr basically uses the term as an insult towards anyone they don't like, which renders it rhetorically useless. 

I also had a Jumblr heavyweight tell me that any Jew who becomes an atheist becomes culturally christian. Tell that to Spinoza. Anyway.

It’s also incredibly vague. If you want to talk about right-wing evangelical protestant hegemony in the USA, be specific. (Note that this still does not mean that every single evangelical protestant holds privilege over every Jew, even in America. Race, class, etc. all play into power dynamics, and “hegemony” refers to large-scale dynamics rather than interpersonal interactions, online or otherwise.) 

Re: the term “Xtianity” 

In my experience, two groups of people write it this way: Christians writing abbreviations (less common on this hellsite but I still see it across the rest of the internet), and Jews and/or ex-Christians who buy into Jumblr “writing it differently is a way of subtly disrespecting this religion I don’t like.” The latter is what we call a maladaptive coping mechanism if you want to get technical (anti-psych crowd don’t come after me, I come in peace).  

For Christians: “X” is how “Ch” is written in the Greek alphabet, so “Xtianity” or “Xmas” are not actually censoring the word “Christ” as much as abbreviating it. That’s why you see “Happy Xmas” written on cards and such–it’s not meant as censorship in this case. I It’s faster to write and takes up less space. Obviously I don’t take issue with this. Christian writer and theologian CS Lewis often used this abbreviation in his notes. I think at least some ex-Christians may be writing it “Xtianity” as an abbreviation and not as an intentional slight, but you know this better than I do. 

The (ostensible) reason that Jumblr censors the word: Some Jews censor the word “Christ” in any context to avoid any accidental acknowledgement of Jesus as the messiah/divine/etc. I think God and people are smarter than that, but YMMV. Some ultra religious Jews also refuse to write or say “Jesus” and will instead write “JC” or say “Yoshke” or some equivalent. This is not a new tradition, but it is far from the norm in many non-hasidic Jewish circles today. I specify “hasidic” because it’s not the norm in the non-hasidic ultra-orthodox circles in my immediate area. 

Jews who can and do write out the word “Christianity”, a very abbreviated list: 

Religious Jewish biblical scholars Jon Levenson, James Kugel, and Amy Jill Levine

Orthodox Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and every single rabbi I’ve ever met, including several orthodox ones.  

Members of the yeshivish ultra-orthodox community in my state

Liberal Jews who aren’t chronically online 

Just about any Jew engaging in interfaith dialogue (Orthodox Jews are less likely to engage in interfaith dialogue than more liberal Jews.) 

Writing it out as “Xtianity” as a means of censorship absolutely does come off as disrespectful even if the person doing so insists otherwise. And people respectfully engaging in interfaith spaces know this. (But that said, writing it “xtianity” is not that common among Jews to begin with–I had a really hard time even finding a page explaining why some Jews do this, and there are chabad and myjewishlearning pages for just about everything Jews do.) 

The best source I could find is this Tumblr post where user progressivejudaism explains why they do not misspell “Christianity” out of respect: https://progressivejudaism.tumblr.com/post/168917584523/is-jewish-ppl-calling-christianity-xtianity-like

I’m not going to touch on the “does Judaism think Christianity is idol worship” question because that’s a longer post, but the answer definitely is not a unanimous yes, despite what Jumblr will tell you. That’s sometimes given as a reason for writing it “Xtianity”. 

In my experience on this website and on Jewish facebook, “Xtianity” used in a similar way to how Jumblr talks about “goyim” (Hebrew for gentile/non-Jew, sometimes meant endearingly but often used derogatorily esp among zionists). It’s used to say “this dirty religion I don’t associate with.” And that should tell you exactly how much respect is involved. If Jumblr is going to argue that “impact > intent” it needs to apply across the board. (Certain leftist Israelis on this site do this as well, and I side-eye it whenever I come across it because come on guys.) 

I acknowledge that some of it may come from trauma, whether someone’s parents or grandparents lived through pogroms or whether they left Christianity themselves, for atheism, for Judaism, or something else. But this misspelling in order to feel powerful or avoid thinking about other religions’ existence is called avoidance, and it is a terrible way of not dealing with your trauma, especially when it involves disrespecting others’ religion to this degree. It does not address the issue of Christian intolerance of Jews or of secularism throughout history–it simply flips and says “no you” with the bonus (for Jews) of claiming it as a religious practice that others can’t ask you to stop. For ex-Christians, it might just be a way of hiding their posts without alerting anyone who follows the "christianity" tag. Idk just a guess.

Coda, which you are free to take or leave (you’re free to take or leave this entire post; I am not an authority; I am just some guy online): 

In addition to the obvious issues of respect, I have my own religious objections to this practice as a religious Jew. I pray multiple times a day and say blessings every time I eat or drink. I believe that God is in heaven as well as in this world, and that every person is an image of God. I say this because reverence (“yiras shamayim”=“fear/awe of heaven”), and proper reverence is important to me. Being so scared of another religion that you refuse to spell it properly goes against both the commandment to love one’s neighbor, against the Jewish value of living peaceably among our neighbors, and the commandment to believe that God is one and all-powerful. 

The Torah teaches that Jews are not to worship other deities and are not to follow other religions (broad strokes). I believe that God knows the difference between me writing a “+” symbol in my notes and actually leaving Judaism for Christianity, the same way that he knows the difference between me kneeling to tie my shoes and kneeling before a cross, etc. 

The idea that writing out the name of another religious figure somehow gives that power figure over the Jew in question is antithetical to my understanding of Judaism. Some hasidic Jews will straight up not write the “+” symbol when doing math because it looks like a cross. I’m serious. This is our religion twisted into superstition, and superstition is its own form of irreverence. Our God is all-knowing–he cannot be hurt by a “+” on math homework or by us acknowledging that other faiths exist.

[briefcasejuice]

It's not that I necessarily want Matt to be Catholic. (I am not religious.) It's just that he is, and ignoring character traits for personal preference (to the point of complete disownment) has always been weird to me. Understandable (we want a character to be who we want them to be), just odd. I mean, there are traits I hate on certain characters and I'll ignore them, but I know they're still there in canon. That's why I said it's cool if you like atheist Matt, but that doesn't mean Matt is atheist.

I actually don't have a bias towards live-action.* I love the comics very dearly. But it's been nearly 60 years of comics, so that's quite a lot to look through for specific examples to support what I said. That's my fault though. I was being lazy.

You seem to have contradictory stances on Matt's comic religion across different posts, so it's hard for me to keep a consistent reply. Sometimes, you mention a compulsory faith for the time period. But then in post 746073669336498176, you say, "matt was never catholic before that." I can't get a read on your exact position.

But anyway…

Yes, Smith's run in 1998 can be considered an outlier. Some of its Catholic elements are as heavy-handed as the current run. And some actions (like trying to murder a baby for being the anti-Christ) are too distorted by Mysterio's gas to get the most accurate read on Matt's belief system throughout. But that arc still begins and ends with a not-gassed Matt in confession with a priest. Wearing a crucifix necklace while he is. Iterating his childhood spent studying in church. And the final words of #8 being, "To do my father's work," referencing God. The story is an outlier for its severe piety, sure, but… the whole thing is still canon. Still Matt being Catholic, for better or worse.

More religion and confession in #267... More in #348... But I hesitate to get nitpicky on every. single. instance. of Matt showing any signs. I'd have to comb through the whole catalogue.

Also with Nocenti, any time Mephisto comes up, you run the risk of one reference or another. #266 is one. #280-#281 is another-- in which Matt believes he's in a frozen Hell. Comes upon a church confessional he thinks will provide relief. He "prayed" (his word) he could make fire out of a cross, and does. It ends up being part of what saves him. Meanwhile, narration compares his journey to something like The Divine Comedy, with him traveling Heaven and Hell. (The symbolism alone is good. The accompanying religious belief is not absent.)

This is long enough, and I don't want to keep poring over the source material. I can if you want?

It's not that Matt isn't religious. It's just that religion doesn't come up often. (Good, this is about a superhero.) But when it does, all signs point to him being a believer. If you want to say, "Comic Matt isn't Catholic… as soon as I exclude this instance, this one, and this one," that's fine for your personal headcanons. But you are… ignoring the fact that Matt is Catholic. You're trimming off parts of canon so he fits in the box.

He's not devout. That is true. Matt's religion comes up so infrequently (excluding recent writing), it clearly isn't a large aspect of his personhood. But it still comes up. So… with his foundational youth in the church, occasional references he still believes in God/religious symbols, and no evidence he ever actually turned away from those beliefs, I still consider "lapsed Catholic" to be the best label for Matt. It's not like I'm trying to convert him for my own ends (I have no bias one way or the other), but I am plugging comic canon into Occam's Razor to arrive at the conclusion Matt Murdock is Catholic. The greater burden of proof is on the position he's atheist, and I can't think of any.

Maybe Matt being Catholic is boring for you personally, and that's fine.

*(My mention of the 2003 movie wasn't anything other than a reference to the reply where you said there was no evidence of him being Catholic prior to the tv series. But the movie is one really obvious one. I wanted to point out a too quick conclusion that the 2015 adaptation didn't come up with the concept first. Again, I was lazy and that's my fault.)

"He's not devout. That is true. Matt's religion comes up so infrequently (excluding recent writing), it clearly isn't a large aspect of his personhood." yeah okay. all that just to prove my point man