#and the way religious people can talk about their beliefs all day long but if an atheist dares to vocalize theirs

[hybbat]

I do think a good chunk of the 'cringey atheist' stereotype did come from the fact that, especially americans, regardless of their actual religious status are just casually christian and refer to things through a religious filter and that isn't seen for how overwhelming/obnoxious/frustrating it is. Its absense, such as when writing a story and things like "oh god" or other casual references are remove or replaced, is seen as notable the same way people find the cast being all women or queer being 'abnormal'.

And I think more people, especially here on tumblr, should take a moment from ragging on some kid being "cringey" saying god doesn't exist or making atheist jump around like dancing monkeys to establish they're one of the good respectful ones before they ever even begin to talk about their own thoughts, and examine why so much content just inserts god into a conversation that had nothing to do with religion like it's the expected norm, the same way they examine the invasiveness of casual heteronormativity.

[captainjonnitkessler]

Atheists can talk about their atheism in the blandest, most matter-of-fact way possible and will still get accused of being “angry” and “bitter” and “pushy”. I just saw a post where a pushy Christian tried to preach to a room of non-Christians and verbally got their ass handed to them (and then everybody clapped, I’m sure), and one comment said they liked it because “the snooty atheist AND the pushy Christian both got their comeuppance!” The only thing the atheist said was “I don’t believe in God”, after everybody else had listed all the gods THEY believed in. There was a post on AITA where an atheist got badgered about their beliefs - at work, and after their coworkers had a twenty-minute discussion on THEIR beliefs - and after several minutes of trying to deflect the conversation, admitted that they don’t believe in an afterlife. They got voted the asshole because someone in the room was grieving and they “should have been more tactful” - even though they tried multiple times to deflect out of tact and were essentially harassed for it. I once reblogged a post that said calling victims of Christian abuse “cultural Christians” was cruel and someone I thought was a friend publicly announced that I was a bigoted asshole who was just angry because I knew that what they were saying was true.

And once again I cannot stress enough that that’s exactly what the fundamentalist party line is on atheism. Atheists are angry because deep down they know that fundamentalists are right and just don’t want to admit it. Atheists are pushy because they’re miserable and they want everyone else to be just as miserable. Atheists are bitter because they know they can never truly be happy. Atheists are joyless because you can’t know joy without God. There’s a whole fundamentalist movie genre about those snooty, elitist, angry atheists getting taken down a peg by good faithful Christians and some of those plots are identical to posts on this website.

Atheists are allowed to be angry. But I know so many who walk on absolute eggshells around religious people and still get these accusations thrown in their face the second they try talking about any atheist issue. And if your “progressive” space is using the exact same language about atheists as your average evangelical then maybe that’s a good reason to be angry actually.

[noxtivagus]

ain soph aur brainrot

[wlwanakin]

hi keaton! thoughts on anakin and obi-wan’s relationship if anakin left the order for padmé and the kids? the mess and fallout is so interesting to me and no one ever talks about it

i’ve been thinking abt this a LOT bc i chronically keep writing stuff where obi-wan and anakin don’t talk anymore lol and a falling out feels like such an inevitability with most “fix it” scenarios that people just straight up don’t consider?? and i do find that annoying. any scenario where anakin leaves the order for padmé (and the twins) would cause a rift (of varying size, depending on the circumstances) and i don’t think it’s an unfixable one but i do think that to get to that idealistic uncle obi-wan point everyone loves it’d take years and a lot of working through things and a lot of Talking About It, which obi-wan is generally not super fond of as he processes approximately one emotion a year, so it’d be a laborious process and he is not going to be attending the twins’ first birthday party.

throughout the war obi-wan is aware of anakin and padmé’s relationship and he’s fine letting them have it, and honestly i think that might make things worse if anakin found out bc it’s instance #2517485857 of obi-wan refusing to vocalize support for him, and also would not soften the general disapproval for anakin Choosing To Leave. and that is a bit explosive! as most things are with anakin really. bc obi-wan did let anakin have that but he is also extremely steadfast in his belief that anakin Needs the jedi, that they’re his family etc and obviously there’s the responsibility aspect of it all and i’m sure he’d make that known and that’s gotta be an infuriating thing to hear from someone you’ve always yearned for familial affection from but never gotten a sufficient amount of it from. and i do think anakin’s rots novel mindset of “my wife and kids are my family, not you guys” would cross over, along with the resentment buildup, and…well! they certainly wouldn’t be parting amicably.

i think the specifics of how long the fallout lasts, how severe it is etc really depends on the specifics of the scenario. like if we’re talking an au where the clone war is still raging there’s a much bigger sense of abandoning duty and i think it’s also harder to process the moral ills of your closely held religion when you’re smack in the middle of them and you kinda have to push all your growing disillusionment aside and keep clocking into The War every day and i think that might lead to a worse and longer-lasting relationship rift, just because too much shit is happening at once and no one has processed anything and why would they wanna process more things. a peacetime scenario would probably fare only slightly better, though i think how much better highly depends on how obvious the moral rot of the order becomes to obi-wan due to whatever circumstances led into ambiguous happy au, and frankly if he doesn’t let himself process his own disillusionment then anakin’s is going to continue to be incomprehensible and that disconnect will continue to make his perception be “you abandoned your religious moral obligation” which is not gonna fare well!! obviously!!! especially if obi-wan’s loyalty to the order remains to such a degree that he expects the twins to be brought to the temple.

in General i think anakin leaving would leave to an explosive fight where obi-wan tries to talk him out of it, and maybe they do stay in contact in whatever strained limited way they can or maybe they don’t but it can’t really be The Same. they do love each other and i do think that deep down they want each other in their lives and that is the main reason i don’t think a fallout between them would be permanent but like i said at the start it would be laborious to get to a point where they’re actually close again. they have to Communicate Their Feelings, they have to close decades old wounds, obi-wan has to admit his wrongs and express affection in a way that is actually remotely normal, anakin has to actually sit down and process things that happened to him, entire worldviews must come into question, like it’s not really gonna be fun for either of them (esp for obi-wan). and i really think this is the kind of thing that has to take years bc anakin needs time to heal from his Everything and obi-wan needs time to come to terms with the fact that hey maybe his worldview was not correct? maybe the order he gave his life to is not entirely noble? and neither of these things are things that come easy. and while those things are happening it’d probably be better for them to not talk bc any talking they do would probably be incredibly unkind lmao

[tacky-optic]

SINNERS, ALL OF 'EM

the seven deadly sins + the gang = way too much overthinking

Lupin's Gluttony The world's his for the talking, yet he can never be satisfied. That'd be a real bummer if he were anyone else, but that hunger for more challenges, more adventures, seems to only add more fuel to an already roaring fire. He's a Glutton for a lot of things: Punishment, mainly. But also attention and experiences. His curiosity is insatiable. The only issue with Lupin's Gluttony is that he isn't inherently wasteful, which is a pretty glaring caveat. In that case, the big question would be "does the damage he leave in his wake outweigh that which was stolen in the first place?"

Jigen's Sloth/Envy "Man, I'm too old for this shit" incarnate, with a little dash of "I'm still going to silently judge you from my dark little corner, though" on top. It isn't Sloth "I'm gonna take a decade to get to this" so much as it is "I'm gonna do what you want me to do so rapidly and effectively that you're gonna think twice about waking me up again after I get back to my nap." But he really doesn't do jack-all if it isn't Lupin-related. If it were just him all on his lonesome, he'd kind of just rot. He is indifferent to his effectiveness. Bored, even. His loyalty to Lupin is an inherent aversion of his responsibilities as an individual.

His Envy brings him to action. He's a man of a lot of subtle wants and no willpower to take them, but with the right motivator, he'll bring down armies. Fujiko is a pretty good spur-on, as well as anything that remotely puts Lupin in the line of inconvenience or danger. If it's for one of his very, very few friends, he'd go through hell and high water just to get them a decent sandwich or something. Just be thankful his Envy's benign instead of malicious...

Goemon's Pride Mr. "Once again, I have cut a worthless object". There's literally an entire movie about his ego getting so utterly shattered that he gets all cagey/stabby mode about it for the rest of the movie, on top of training so hard he rewrites his entire goddamn nervous system just so he can do said stabby better. It's fantastic. To dedicate oneself so fully to one skill, then to restrict it to your own judgement as to not tarnish it, feels like the antithesis of humility. Pride, in a biblical sense, is to sever oneself from God; to become so wholly individual and confident in said fact that you forsake conventional belief in favor of your own. So congrats on netting the literal Worst sin, Goemon, you've earned it. God ain't shit when you can cut through anything.

Fujiko's Greed Does... does this even need elaborating. She's a woman that knows exactly what she wants and exactly how to get it, plain and simple. Why settle for anything less than the best?

Zenigata's Wrath/Lust What a wombo-combo, damn. This guy's the definition of love/hate. He's a man simultaneously impassioned and overwhelmed by his emotions, yet they lend so heavily to his professional and personal effectiveness that without them, he wouldn't be him anymore. Wrath and Lust go hand in hand, in a roundabout sort of way. It's about loving something so much that you want to crush it. A brutal dimorphous expression of emotion. To long for something to intensely, so vehemently, that it guides every action, fuels every decision... Underneath it all, would it even be possible to know what you are if that drive is all that defines you? Could you even call that living? We're talking about a guy who unironically wears heart boxers and almost exclusively eats cup noodle, people. This symbolism's very disturbing...

That's A Wrap You can always argue other sins for each of the cast members, of course. Lust for Lupin, Wrath for Jigen, Envy for Zenigata-- whatever. At the end of the day, they're all objectively terrible people. It's semi-safe to say that outside of religious contexts, the seven deadly sins have grown subjective in common culture/media. So why not take liberties? I sure as hell did. It's a goddamn miracle these managed to turn out so succinct.

[uboat53]

All right guys, in light of the current situation in Israel and the discourse around it in the US, we need to have a talk about Evangelical Christians. Consider this a SHORT RANT (TM).

EVANGELICALS AND ISRAEL

Christian support for Israel in the United States actually didn't start from a bad place. Initially it was the position of mainline and liberal Protestants that Jews needed a safe place to flee from intensifying persecution in Europe and that this would be a part of a broader rapprochement between Jews and non-Jews.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, however, and particularly since the Six-Day War in 1967, American Evangelicals have become the primary supporters the Zionist conception of Israel. In particular, they view the Jewish dominion over the historical Israel as a necessary step to the rapture and the end of days.

PROPHECIES

Long story short, the Evangelical interpretation of the prophecies of Revelations and those surrounding them is that the Jews need to take control of the holy land and then be destroyed in order to bring about the end times. The problem with this, though, is that the people who destroy the Jews will, themselves, be destroyed, so they can't do it directly.

Hence, the current plan. Israel is to be encouraged to expand, making about as many enemies as is possible, then, at some point in the future, any military aid would be pulled, allowing the prophecy to be fulfilled without Evangelical Christians themselves being the "bad guys" of Revelations.

ACTUAL JEWS

You can see that this plan isn't great for actual Jews or for Israel itself. In fact, it's even worse than it sounds. According to the prophecy, all Jews in Israel will either convert or be destroyed, a cultural and religious genocide by any definition.

You'll also notice that this doesn't do much for Jews outside of Israel. In fact, the Evangelical interpretation of the prophecy seems to be that all Jews need to go to Israel in order for this to work, so their support of Israel goes alongside efforts to push Jews in other countries out.

RAMPANT ANTISEMITISM

All of this leads up to the fact that many so-called "Christian Zionists" are also raging anti-Semites. John Hagee, the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, believes such anti-Semitic nonsense as that Adolf Hitler was born from a lineage of "accursed, genocidally murderous half-breed Jews", that the persecution of Jews throughout history is justified by Jews' refusal to embrace Christianity, that the Holocaust was good because it pushed Jews to Israel, and that the anti-Christ will be "partially Jewish".

Other prominent and popular Christian Zionists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are likewise on record as holding abhorrently anti-Semitic beliefs such as the belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy that is cited by any number of those who commit atrocities against Jews in this country.

CONCLUSION OR TL;DR

Evangelical Christians can speak all they want about their "unswerving support of Israel", this support does not in any way change the fact that a huge amount of them are virulent anti-Semites. They do not support Israel as a refuge for Jewish people or Jewish people in general, they support Israel as a trap into which Jews must be forced so they can be destroyed as part of their apocalyptic vision and, meanwhile, their zeal for all Jews to go to Israel leads them to embrace and encourage violence against us elsewhere in the world.

These people are not friends of Jews, they are as much enemies as those who wield rocket launchers and automatic weapons against us. Remember that the next time you hear them speak of their support for Israel.

[poindexters-labratory]

Talk about your version of William or I will spill hallucinogenic nightmare gas all over your blog =3

OKAY, FINE, YOU FORCED MY HAND

...heheheheh. >:3

Hurricane William Afton Lore Dump Part One

!!CW Warning!!: mentions of abuse, religious trauma, religious OCD, alcohol abuse, underage drinking and drug use, and addiction

William Anise Afton was born October 10, 1947 in a wooded area of Reading, a borough in Berkshire, England, to a shit awful family. This family consisted of his father (Edward), mother (Grace), and four older siblings (two older brothers and two older sisters), making William the baby of the family. The way they were shit awful, I'm not going to get into.

He went to Catholic school until he was twelve and developed a pretty big obsession with death during primary school because of a belief that what was happening to him with his family was his fault, making him guilty of sin, therefore condemning him to Hell at the age of nine. This resulted in obsessive thoughts that had him believe that everywhere he went, he was in mortal danger and had to prepare himself to die. He was petrified of dying because he always believed he was just meant to go to Hell and be tortured even before he got older.

Psychology bit: OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) can be a wide range of obsessive thoughts combatted with a wide range of compulsive behavior. In William's case, he has obsessional intrusive thoughts about death and Hell, which leads him to stay away from situations where he could die and be tortured for eternity, which is the compulsion. He avoided streets, stairs, heights, etc. the best he could for a long time.

When he was twelve, his father took him away after he discovered the at-home circumstances were horrible for the youngest member of the family. William then moved to London with his father, and they lived in the place where Edward worked, which was a mechanic shop he supervised for the owner of a small company.

Edward Afton had always been cold and old-fashioned, he was a veteran of the second World War, Irish, and very smart. He was also a mean bastard, an alcoholic, and emotionally unavailable for his traumatized son that he called Billy (even though that was nowhere near William's name, no matter how many times he was told it was a nickname). Not to mention that William confused him, and Edward didn't like things he couldn't understand.

William had always been... different. He was a shy and quiet boy, nose always in a book, (Will's favorites being Alice in Wonderland, The Velveteen Rabbit, The Wind in the Willows, and whatever books he could find with fantastical animals involved), had stereotypically feminine interests and habits compared to his older brothers when they were growing up, and had an odd obsession with rabbits.

Edward tried for a few years to "fix" him, to make Will "more like a boy". This included getting him involved in fixing cars, which William took to quickly, and bullying him out of his habits. Seemingly.

At this point in time, William was feeling a lot of shame for his lack of masculinity, self-conscious about his appearance, teenage hormones going haywire as he wasn't developing to fit the description of what people said a man should look like, and his father seemingly hating him more every day. This drew him to a group of boys that roamed the streets of London around his father's workplace. They were tough, toxically masculine, everything William thought he was missing.

This is where we mention William has always been charming and charismatic. He's learned it from the books he's read, movies he's seen, and stories he's heard. It's how he got money, food, books, and short-term relationships out of people whenever he wanted/needed it. The people he's charmed generally liked him, even though he was a stupid kid. At fourteen, he joined the rocker group that roamed around where he lived.

For a few years, to the age of seventeen, he ran around with them, dressed like them, did what they did, and became increasingly loud, impulsive, spiteful, incredibly violent, very tall, developed his father's drinking problem, and a drug addiction (that he kept secret). He dropped out of secondary school and had no plans other than someday soon he'd curl up into a ball and die somewhere. He didn't really care if he died at that point in time, William was too exhausted to care, and he lost his belief in a god and an afterlife. All of that shit he heard in primary school was just a scary story.

Then he met Henry in spring of 1964. Henry Emily was a twenty-year-old American student attending one of the universities for an engineering degree. He was working in that mechanic shop, the same one his father supervised; a trade offer given to him by the owner who knew Henry's father when they both served in World War II. The trade was this owner would pay for Henry's schooling while Henry (who was a mechanical genius apparently) would work in this shop.

History Bit: The 1960s was regarded as the "counterculture decade" in America, and in England, "The Swinging Sixties". There were massive differences between the two countries' views on the changing world and the changing cultures between them. One of the biggest things that caused this culture shift was widespread television access, giving the younger generation access to the world around them. American society was also thrown into the Vietnam War with the draft being set in place in 1966. There were many American movements in the decade, such as civil rights, anti-war, and gay rights, all seen as a direct attack on the "American way of life". England didn't have much involvement in the Vietnam War, the new generation was trying to move past the post-war era their parents came from. This will become relevant later.

William and Henry met on the circumstances that Will was trying to steal some of his stuff. From all Will's rummaging around in his stuff, he discovered some drawings of Fredbear (at this point, just known as Fred). This seemed to snap William out of this stupor he'd been in because he also had an animal character he'd draw. A golden yellow rabbit with purple eyes, that wore a little bow and waistcoat. He just called it Bunny (generating names wasn't his strong suit).

William couldn't pass up on the opportunity to meet someone that actually liked the same things as him. So, they talked. And then talked some more. And then spent the entire day together. And then they became best friends. Henry was reserved, calm, and headstrong, able to balance out William's high energy and impulsive nature.

The two of them could talk for hours on end about their animal characters (autistic people at their finest), pretty soon associating them with the other. Animatronics just started as a joke, both of them having an appreciation for Walt Disney and his Audio-Animatronics. Then it kind of stopped being a joke when Henry started brainstorming ideas for how a giant singing bear might actually work.

History Bit: Walt Disney coined the term "Audio-Animatronic" in 1961, the first of their kind being Disney's "Enchanted Tiki Birds" debuting in the Disneyland Resort, June 23, 1963.

Throughout the year, they became closer, and William started to feel more and more like a person living a life instead of going through the motions to survive. His mental health started to get better and he was slowly starting to express himself in the ways that he wanted to. He broke away from the rocker subculture and gained some social independence, doing what he really enjoyed doing, which was talking to Henry about Fred and Bonnie (Bunny renamed), reading on everything to help them on their journey to making a giant animatronic, drawing the two characters together, being Henry's best friend, and he was very happy.

Henry invited William to come back to his hometown in Utah (which William had never even heard of) and their goal became getting him across the Atlantic, slowly working off of his addictions and dependences. They were talking about owning a restaurant now with Fred and Bonnie as entertainment, everything was going to be perfect. But then there was a wrench in that plan.

William got mixed up with an upper-class girl slightly older than him, nineteen-year-old Claire-Marie Schmidt. He got her pregnant and neither of them wanted to abort the pregnancy and William didn't want to leave her to deal with this by herself because this was his fault, so Claire hung around to the displeasure of Henry.

Henry is just like William in a lot of ways. First of all, he gets jealous easily and second of all, he's lonely. All of William's attention seemed to get taken away by Claire and this unborn baby, and he felt abandoned. Not to mention that William and this girl had to get married per traditional values of Claire's father which they both respected. The baby was due in July and Henry was graduating in May, leaving soon after that. William could only pick one or the other. And he chose his wife. It was a painful and bitter goodbye at the airport, and William had to watch his one friend leave, not sure if he'd ever see or hear from him again.

He saw him again after about three minutes.

Henry cancelled his flight last second because he couldn't make a huge mistake like this. They made plans for all three of them to fly to Utah and that summer they did.

As soon as Claire got to close her eyes in the bed within the Emily ranch house, the contractions started, and Michael John Edward Afton was born a few weeks early in that room. When William laid eyes on Michael for the first time, something changed. Nothing else mattered more than who was in his arms right now, he loved nothing more. Of course, William got huffy when they had to give Michael back to Claire.

William and Claire had an interesting relationship. They didn't love each other like a married couple would, they were very good friends if anything. They confided in each other, told each other their problems, but William was a gay man and Claire knew this, and had no issue with it. They loved each other as good friends, they weren't romantically or sexually inclined to the other, so they formed an agreement that she could do what she wanted, and he could do what he wanted. And it worked for a while.

Part 2 ->

[educating-bimbos]

The Pinned Post 2

new pinned post because tumblr hid my old one from my view so I can't see, edit it, or reblog it to add an addendum. I only have a few things to add, so I am just going to copy and paste it.

Who is Educating Bimbos?

My name is Nicolette. I am a technical artist, musician, and an outdoorsy type of gal. I enjoy the finer things in life, and I fancy myself a traditional woman and a bimbo. I don't really enjoy mindlessly obsessing over labels, but if it helps people gauge where my brain is at, I am pro-patriarchy, in favor of traditional gender roles and dynamics, an ex-feminist, and before all else a believer in one's ability to exercise personal freedoms. My beliefs, mannerisms, and presentation attract the ire of feminists, born-again-religious types, and any number of anti-fun douchebags. At the end of the day, just remember that behind this silly blog is a silly person.

What is Educating Bimbos?

It is a blog and small community of bimbos looking to learn more about and express a traditional lifestyle. It is also about people who may not be familiar with or comfortable around things like BDSM get a nice and soft introduction to it without being exposed immediately to the idea of how people can enjoy things in a pseudo-sexual context. At the end of the day, it is a blog and community where I and other like-minded people can express silly ideas without the fear of being lambasted by people seeking to harm others.

Where is Educating Bimbos?

Educating Bimbos can be found in one of these two places.

Why is Educating Bimbos?

Well for a while I was annoyed by the lack of communities that focused on a kind of "hyper-feminine" aesthetic while also promoting more traditional ideas. There was also the issue of communities that have tried this before of devolving into bigoted and abusive communities that would do everything under the sun to create an insular and ToS breaking community. I spoke with a friend of mine who runs a similar community a while ago and she inspired me to give this a shot. Now - close to 3 years later - I have a steadily growing community that pulls from all corners of ideology, cultural, ethnic, and interest level and the discord has been almost completely drama-free in its whole existence.

When is Educating Bimbos?

I am alive and doing silly stuff all day, every day. Except when it is nap time in which case I will be in the realm of dreams.

What's an ex-lesbian and why do you call yourself that?

For a number of very personal reasons, I have decided to call myself an ex-lesbian. I did this of my own volition, and I was not pressured into doing so. For a long time, I had thought of myself as a lesbian, mostly because of socialization and how all the girls around me were so might as well follow suit. I experienced a number of harmful and traumatic events when I considered myself a lesbian and it effected how I view myself. After a while and talking to some friends who I trust dearly, I came to the realization that I am not a lesbian and that it really isn't a thing I identify with the same way others do. I am still trying to come to grips with that given I only relatively recently had that realization. I also feel that people use that term in bad faith to harm people and to push bad narratives and ideas so I thought "hey might as well try and take back what should be an innocuous phrase."

In short, I think an ex-lesbian is just a way of identifying one's sexuality similar to asexuality or demisexuality. It is not that I am one sexuality or another, it's that my sexuality is defined by my experience and coming of age.

I have had a number of people confront me about this, talk to me about it in sincere curiosity, and even attack me. I welcome anyone who is curious or has a genuine contention to come to me in DMs, I am not a mean person, and I will love to talk honestly and respectfully. I find that disagreement is not grounds to discredit or avoid befriending people, I hope you can do the same.

Further questions for Educating Bimbos?

If you find that these questions are unsatisfactory in any regard, or you wish to try your hand at doing what I do, follow these two links!

Ask me anything!

Ask me anything you want! I have some personal rules with regards to what I can and cannot upload, but this is generally the best way for me to answer any question you may have. I also have anonymous asks enabled just in case you are shy.

Submit a post!

If you think I should be made aware of something, post something, or if you just want to signal boost something try this. So far, I have no real rules or expectations so do whatever you want with this button.

[perfectlyvalid49]

Hello, I am not Jewish, but I grew up in an area with a noticeable population of Jews who, historically, were able to be openly Jewish. I learned from a young age about the horrors that have happened to your people throughout history, and have been disgusted by the rise in more blatant antisemitism that has reared its ugly head in the days and months since October 7th, a day which also horrified and disgusted me. I have also long considered myself to be pro-Israel, seeing the neccessity for Jewish self-determination in this world.

With my background out of the way, I saw one of your posts mentioned things we non-Jews might not notice are antisemitic due to it being part of our culture and what not, and I was hoping you could tell me some of them? I've detested antisemitism for as long as I can remember, so if I've been unintentionally doing anything that fits that, I would like to stop. Thank you and have a nice day.

I want to start by saying that I really appreciate the fact that you’re trying, and that you want to learn to do better in case you’re making any mistakes. I am a firm believer that EVERYONE has blind spots when it comes to how they treat members of minority groups, be it antisemitism, racism, homophobia, or whatever else, and that while intent isn’t all that matters, it matters a lot. While I’m answering your question, I’m going to cover some stuff you may already know based on the background you gave in the hopes that this answer will be useful for other people as well. I hope you don’t mind.

I also want to put a couple caveats on what I’m about to say. The first is that this is not a comprehensive list. It’s just whatever came to mind while I was typing this up. I’m sure I’ve missed things, but hopefully this gives you an idea of the kind of thing I was talking about. If anyone sees this and wants to add additional examples, please do!

The other caveat is that different Jews will have different definitions of what is and is not antisemitic. The big obvious stuff, like people chanting “Gas the Jews,” or accusations that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their bread, almost everyone is going to agree that’s antisemitic. The more subtle stuff, which is what we’re going to be talking about here, is more likely to prompt disagreement. For example, last year there was a lot of conversation on Tumblr about how the goblins in the Harry Potter game were an antisemitic caricature. The reaction from Jews I know in real life basically boiled down to, “Yeah, I guess I can see it. I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal though.” So, some of the stuff I mention, other Jews might disagree that it’s antisemitic. And there are some things that I might leave out because I don’t think they’re antisemitic that other Jews think really are antisemitic. That’s OK!

I think that if we’re going to talk about antisemitism that is present in Western culture, then we need to talk about the antisemitism that’s baked into Christianity, and acknowledge that because a lot of Western culture has been heavily influenced by the church, even if a person is not religiously Christian, if they are culturally Western, then Christianity has had a large impact on their culture, and we can say that they are culturally Christian. And if this post gets big, I know that I’m going to get murdered for that statement, but that’s ok, there’s nothing Christians love more than a crucified Jew (THIS IS A JOKE (mostly.)) I don’t know if you’re Christian or not, but I live in the US, and most people here are heavily influenced by Christian thought and philosophy without realizing it, even if they’re not Christian, and these are the people I was talking about when I made the comment that prompted the ask.

So how is antisemitism baked into Christianity? Well, to understand that, we need to understand some of the problems early Christianity had, namely, the fact that the Jews of the time rejected their beliefs and the fact that Rome persecuted early Christians pretty hard. And we also need to talk about Supersessionism.

Early Christians had a major issue with contemporaneous Jews because the Jews rejected their teachings. Like, Jesus and his followers were Jews, and after his death they wanted all other Jews to agree that he was the messiah, even though he didn’t do all the things the Jewish messiah was supposed to do. This is both why Christianity has the second coming (so that he can do those things) and why the New Testament opens with a genealogy linking Jesus to David (the messiah is supposed to be from the line of David), the early Christians were *desperate* for legitimacy in their new religion. And when the rest of the Jewish community rejected it, they got a little mad, and decided that Christians clearly understand Jewish holy texts better than Jews do (up to and including editing said texts to better support their views), something that persists to this day. I have actually seen Christians show up on posts about being Jewish and try to explain to the Jews about how we’re wrong about our own religion. This is absolutely antisemitism, and it does really happen.

The other thing early Christians decided is that the Jews have been presented with the true word of G-d and have rejected it, so they must be evil. This is true of the early Christians, but I also want to stress that almost every major player in the Protestant Reformation absolutely HATED Jews. Luther literally published a treatise entitled “On the Jews and Their Lies”, and some scholars think that there is a direct line between Luther’s hatred of Jews and the formation of the Nazi party. I think Luther was the worst of them, but none of those guys were cool with Jews, so just know that all of the protestant denominations were founded by guys who would kill me if they could.

Because the Jews were now considered evil, the Christians concluded that the covenant G-d had made with the Jews now applied to the Christians. Now, in Christian thought, they were the Chosen People, and the Jews were no longer so blessed. This is the premise behind supersessionism, and it basically posits that Christians have replaced Jews as the true people of Israel, and it was embraced by many of the men who shaped what Christianity is today, in virtually every denomination of Christianity that exists.

The early Christians dealt with their Roman persecution problem by allying themselves with the Romans. One might think that this would be difficult, as the Romans are very much the bad guys in the new testament. Like, the guys who arrested Jesus were Roman, and following Rome’s orders, Pilate was Roman, and the men who put Jesus on the cross were Roman. So how could Christianity ally with the people who killed Jesus? Well, it’s simple, they were already mad at the Jews for rejecting their new religion, so they would claim that all of that was the Jews’ fault so the Romans could be allied with for political power. And Rome didn’t like the Jews anyway, so they loved it when the Christians threw the Jews under the bus.

So, a lot of cultural antisemitism has its basis here, with this idea that Jews are not like the rest of us, they’re somehow worse (“the rest of us” meaning people in Christian cultures). And while a lot of it has turned into more overt antisemitism (“Jews killed Jesus,” Jews kill Christian children for their blood to make bread/matzoh, Jews control money/media/government). But this also turns into things like sermons about the evils of the Pharisees or praising Jesus for the cleansing of the Temple. How is that antisemitic? Well, the Pharisees are the fathers of modern Judaism, so if their evil, then the modern version of our religion is based on the thoughts of evil men. Jesus’s cleansing of the Temple was, from a Jewish perspective, a story about a man deciding that the systems that Jews established to make worship easier should be taken away. Praising that is praising the disruption of Jewish worship.

And on the other end of things, we have people (mostly Christians, but some not), who are in love with the idea of Jews, but not actual Jews. In non-Christians, this looks like people with the opinion “Christians suck, but the Jews are cool.” As an example, I had a guy show up on one of my posts to let me know that he used to hold Jews in high regard because he thought our culture would make us immune from nationalism and far-right ideologies. He was so disappointed in us when we behaved just like other groups of human beings. And while he said that he had thought well of us, he still thought of us as being not like other human cultures – that’s antisemitic. And being mad at us for acting like other humans? That’s antisemitic too.

In Christians, it usually looks like people saying “We love Jews, Jesus was a Jew!” This implies that the only reason to love Jews is because of a relation to a deity we don’t believe in. It ignores real, live Jews in favor of people who if real, have been dead for 2000 years, and makes it seem like our only value is that you like one guy from a very different version of our culture (modern Judaism is VERY different than what Jews contemporary with Jesus would have practiced). These people are also the ones who are most likely to try to connect with Judaism through cultural appropriation. The most common example of this is churches that hold a “Passover Seder.” Judaism is a mostly closed religion, and our holidays are not for other people to play dress up. Like, imagine if a church in the US said it was going to do a Native American ceremony with no Native American input, and you have an idea of the level of cultural appropriation. And people would rightly call that out as not ok, but churches do this all the time. The excuse that they use is that the last supper was a Seder, but while that may be true, the modern seder, which is what most churches try to do, is not how Jesus would have celebrated in the time of the Temple. So, their reasoning doesn’t hold much water, Jews tend to be pretty clear that it’s not ok as far as we’re concerned, so this behavior is very problematic.

Moving on from Christianity, there’s also stuff that has been around so long we’ve forgotten their antisemitic origins. I mentioned goblins at the start of this, but did you know that witches are also based on antisemitic stereotypes? The green skin, the big nose, the hat which matches hats Jews were required to wear in parts of medieval Europe, the magic received from a deal with the devil – these are all heavily based on antisemitic caricatures of Jews. And while I don’t think witches by themselves are antisemitic, if you start pairing them with other antisemitic things it gets bad fast. Like, a witch is not antisemitic, and a person kidnapping children is not antisemitic, but a witch kidnapping children is raising some serious red flags. And a cabal (the word cabal is derived from Kabbalah, which is a Jewish practice, and its use is ALSO antisemitic) of witches doing so is a big freaking problem.

Or we could talk about Charles Dickens. His works are considered classics, and are often required reading in school. But Fagin in Oliver Twist is a walking antisemitic Jewish stereotype, and that’s never called out in lesson plans. So to people who have never met a Jew, but have read this classic of English literature, Fagin is what they think of when they think Jews. For the classes with one Jewish kid – how do you think it feels to have everyone in class be like, “Oh you’re Jewish, just like Fagin the bad guy!” Of note, Dickens did write a much less antisemitic Jewish character in a later novel, Our Mutual Friend, but of these two, which one gets taught?

I also want to talk about institutional antisemitism. This is similar to the idea of institutional racism, if you’re familiar with that concept – the idea that racism has worked its way into how our very society is structured, so even if you try very hard to be anti-racist, the society you live in is designed to make life harder for POC. Institutional antisemitism is the same thing, except the system is rigged against Jews instead.

We’ll start with one that Jews and Blacks have in common – redlining. It’s the practice of not allowing people (mostly Black people, but also other POC) to buy houses in certain areas. Usually this was done by banks not giving mortgages to people, but there are also homes where it’s in the deed to the house, or in the by laws of the local HOA that you’re not allowed to sell to Black people. It turns out that some houses/HOAs also have “no Jews allowed” rules as well. And it’s super subtle – is a neighborhood Jew free because we’re an incredibly small portion of the population and just so happen to not live there? Or are they legally barred from living there? It can be hard to tell without doing some significant digging. My synagogue actually had a booth at our Purim carnival last year so that we could see if our neighborhood still had anti-Black housing laws so we could work on getting them changed if so. Solidarity.

There’s also probably some institutional antisemitism in your workplace. There sure as heck is in mine, and the last time I brought it up I was told that I could find work elsewhere if I had an issue with company policy. One of the more common ones it that many jobs that require work on Sundays give a higher rate of pay for that day. The historical reason for that is because Sunday is the Sabbath, and if your company is going to force you to work on the holy day, then they’re going to value that time more highly (my company does an extra dollar an hour for Sunday hours.) But Sunday isn’t the Sabbath for Jews, and when I asked if I could be compensated for my time on MY day of rest, well, see above for the answer I got.

You can also look at the holiday situation. My company is open 357 days a year. Of the 8 days we are closed, one is for Christmas, one is for Easter and one is for New Years on the Christian calendar (It’s the Gregorian calendar after POPE Gregory). Most people don’t work Sundays, so there’s no pay for Easter, but Christmas and New Years are both paid holidays. But the Jewish New Year, which is a religious holiday, is not. Nor are any other Jewish holidays. And we have a lot, and many of them require that you not work if you’re religiously observant. Enough that most people would have to spend their entire allotment of PTO for the year, just to have off for religious observance. You could argue that Christmas and New Years and Easter are federal holidays, except Easter isn’t, and also at my company we aren’t given off for all federal holidays (we’re open for president’s day and MLK day and so on), so you actually kinda do have to defend why these made the cut. Also I’m still waiting for the reason why a Christian holiday is also a Federal holiday in a country that supposedly values the separation of Church and State.

Jews also feel this at school. In college I had a professor schedule a midterm on Yom Kippur – the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, and a holiday that is observed, in part, by not consuming any food or water for 25 hours. I asked if I could take the test on a different day, and my request was denied. I’m sure my school probably had someone I could have talked to about this but I didn’t know that at the time, so I felt like my options were come in to class on a holiday or take a 0% and screw over my grade for the semester. I chose to celebrate as best I could, and duck out of services for an hour and a half to take the test. The professor (in what I’m sure he thought was an act of kindness) had brought several barrels of apples, so that we could each have a snack while we tested. I almost committed murder that day (what, my blood sugar was low enough to be non-existent at that point and I was feeling pretty cranky). And like, I don’t think the professor was trying to be antisemitic. He was trying to be fair by making us all test at the same time, and kind by bringing us a snack. But in effect, he made life much harder for the one Jewish student in his class by refusing an easy accommodation.

And is not being accommodating to Jews antisemitic? Yeah, kinda? It sure feels that way when it seems like your only options are 1) things are shitty because people won’t accommodate you, 2) you have to work extra hard to figure out how to accommodate yourself, or 3) you can stop being Jewish and then everything suddenly is so much easier. Another really common example of this is getting invited to a party, and then none of the food is kosher. Your options are 1) go hungry, 2) bring enough food that’s kosher for yourself and everyone else (otherwise they might eat the kosher stuff and you’re back to 1), or 3) the problem goes away when you stop keeping kosher. And the reason I feel this is antisemitic is that the host is making the space unwelcoming to Jews – you can come, but you’re not gonna like it, so you might as well not come. 

The last thing I want to talk about is treating Jews as white. A person might think that this is a good thing, like it’s granting us access to white privilege, but in reality it’s ignoring our needs as a minority. Claiming that Jews are white ignores that some Ashkenazi and many non-Ashkenazi Jews are definitely not even close to white, and it downplays the real discrimination Jews face. Studies have proven that it’s harder to get hired with a Jewish sounding name, and an article recently came out that said the prosecution was deliberately excluding Jews from juries (this is illegal discrimination) because they were less likely to give the death penalty, as examples. And even for white-passing Jews, the Shoah was very much about how Jews were not white. That was a pretty significant part of the Nazi ideology.

And this becomes an even bigger problem when the people who should want to be allies – other minorities and their white allies deny us the ability to seek help from them. When we talk about the discrimination that we face, we’re very frequently ignored, or told that we’re white and that we don’t know what it’s really like. This is what the left is doing right now when it calls us “oppressors” or “colonizers” – it’s denying our history of being oppressed and our history of being colonized because some of us look like we came from Europe.

Anyway, if you’re still here (I know this is VERY long), I hope this was helpful in understanding some of the ways that antisemitism can be present in small things, from church sermons to pay rates to fairy tales. And I want to be clear, I’d much rather deal with the antisemitic implications of Hansel and Gretel than deal with people chanting “Jews will not replace us.” But in an ideal world, I wouldn’t have to deal with either.

[cath-lic]

Hallo! I was pleasantly surprised to open up your profile to find out you're both trans and catholic!! (This might be a long read)

I'm the same! But in recent years due to my transness/queerness + my criticisms of the church I've kind of distanced myself from the church. I still go to mass and receive communion and do what is expected of me (I'm in a very catholic family) but I do it with a hollow feeling in my heart.

Almost paradoxically though, I really like Jesus, I think he's a cool guy, I have unending respect for him + I take bible classes and I find it to be really fun and interesting, esp the gospels and I guess the new testament in general. Studying the characters, the setting and the meaning of the story is always so cool to me and I really really love it.

However, the environment i grew up in and the Catholics I grew up with gave me a really sour feeling and I feel a lot of spite because of the blatant hate they spew towards lgbtq people/ their hypocrisy at times (things like defending isr4el's actions vehemently even though they're contradicting themselves to their face when they preach about love and anti harm and stuff) umm I lost my sentence, basically I feel like lgbtq people would be the last thing Jesus would consider a problem and I'm just soo sick of hypocrisy among catholics and Christians that it's made me almost resentful but I'm not quite there yet

What I wanted to ask was, how are you keeping your faith despite all these things? Despite all the horrible actions people commit each day in the name of Jesus and Christianity (just look at, say, the treatment of trans people in the US, Project 2025, all that, book banning, just... Blatant misuse of the faith, I hope you know what I'm talking about). I feel like the more I hear about stuff like this, the less I want to associate myself with the church. I feel ashamed, I guess. I figure that I've lost myself in all this, but any advice? I'd love to hear your thoughts :)

this ended up being a long answer, so i'll put it under a cut!

hello my sibling, i know exactly how you feel. i was lucky enough to grow up in a non-hostile and fairly liberal environment, but for similar reasons, i am in the closet as well.

seeing the violence and vitriol that so many christians espouse on a daily basis is extremely upsetting to me. i absolutely despise the fact that christianity has become popularly associated with hatred. at the same time, i acknowledge that many christians have wielded our faith in such a way that they are absolutely deserving of that reputation.

what helps me is having catholic friends IRL and online that make me feel sane. building this type of community online honestly helped me in so many ways—i no longer feel like one of the few catholics in the usa that aren’t associated with the alt-right.

another thing that helped me was, ironically, finding a different church. though i am still catholic, i go to an episcopal church. it’s smaller and friendlier, and i felt much more welcomed there as well, and i feel comfortable knowing that these are people who share both my values and (most of) my religious beliefs.

i think i become more gung-ho about the faith when seeing the horrible things that people do in the name of christianity, actually. i tend to post more when i’m riled up about it, because i KNOW they’re wrong! so basically, when i’m feeling down, i turn to the source material. more often than not, they reaffirm my faith and reaffirm that god has sanctioned absolutely none of the shit that republicans are trying to pull.

i want people to know that being catholic does not mean being conservative, so i yell about it in my own space here. i don’t want to, you know, proselytize to people—so i make sure that this is a blog they can block. i would like to attend pride events and bring my own signs, and protect others from protestors at some point.

i’m sorry i don’t have a more succinct answer for you, my sibling. i can only assure you that you are not alone, and that so many of us trans catholics feel the exact same way. sending all my love to you ❤️❤️❤️

[huntunderironskies]

A Call to Action

Hi all.

I wish I had better news to give. I thought long and hard about whether or not I should share this because I will be functionally doxxing myself when I do. But I've had several days to sleep on it and think about what to do. I've come to the conclusion that this is more important than me. This will be a long post but I urge you to read all of it. I'm afraid I have to be thorough here given the situation.

I think everyone who has been following me for more than a week knows how much I love religious studies as a field. It is my single greatest passion in life.

Unfortunately my school, UNC Greensboro, is trying to eliminate our department under claims of it being "not financially justifiable," among others (including anthropology and all Korean language classes.) These claims are highly spurious. Debunking this in full will take some time but I'll try to cover as much ground as I can in the relatively short space I am given and provide some sources. If anyone needs further elaboration, I'll report to the best of my abilities.

This is all to lead into the fact that I would like to provide some opportunities for people to help us out over here, which I will cover at the end. The shortest possible version is: please signal boost this. I do urge you to read it in full, though.

With the first introduction out of the way...

A Second But Very Brief Introduction to Religious Studies and a Justification of Its Presence in Academia (Given the Natural Bent of this Site is Sometimes Towards Antitheism)

Feel free to skip this if you have any familiarity with religious studies as a discipline, I'm putting it here because I find that it's often confounded with theology and every time I talk about it someone asks me if I'm going to be a priest (no.)

To be clear, religious studies is not theology. It does not purport the existence of any higher spiritual powers or presences. It is strictly the study of religion and spirituality as a force in human culture. This falls under both negative and positive effects, and covers everything from historical impact to individual psychology to macrosociological effects of religion to the simple understanding and study of mythology and folklore.

While internalized cultural norms are of course an issue that must be overcome by any scholar, for a religious studies scholar the Catholic Worker, the Sikh ragi, and the long-dead Sumerian ašipu should all have their beliefs and inner lives treated with the exact same sort of gravity and understanding, no matter how far their own beliefs might be from our own. It is, in my subjective opinion, the most humanizing of all the humanities because we are forced to operate on a deeply personal, vulnerable level.

I wish I didn't have to explain why these sorts of skills are important, especially given the current climate of intolerance that has been growing across the world and the growth of anti-intellectualism. I recognize that I might have to but I don't want to linger on that given everything else I have to cover in this post. Go ahead and ask as I do love talking about my field but I might take some time to answer.

A Brief Summary of Events Beforehand

My school has hired a firm known as rpk Group (lack of capitalization true to actual title) to restructure school funding financially with a focus on eliminating programs deemed to not earn enough for the school. Here is a brief explanation from the source itself. I apologize if the school website's CSS is still broken and it's difficult to read due to the social media icons being about thirty times the size they should be. Apparently they couldn't find the funding to pay a web designer instead of an expensive financing firm.

Those of you who have kept up with news in American academia may recognize this as the same group that forced cuts at West Virginia University. Please keep that in mind as we go forward.

Here are the high points:

Religious studies attained a passing grade under the rubric set out by the school. There have been active attempts to hide the scoring system from anyone but faculty. The spreadsheet in which the data was published has been password protected (source, which also contains several other refutations to the chancellor's talking points.)

For those who wish to keep score, anthropology did as well and our anthropology program is known for being quite good. This is without going into the other benefits the anthropology program provides the school with, which include such things as a community garden.

There were lower scoring programs that were kept. In other words, the decision-making process has been entirely inscrutable.

This is supported by the fact that the administration has been giving out incorrect numbers regarding program attendance to both news outlets and students, with some programs proposed to be cut having their student enrollment off by several factors.

Religious studies had over five times as many students as was originally reported. The Chinese language minor was reported to have zero students when there were thirty-six. To operate with this level of error from alleged professionals beggars belief and undermines any faith I would've had in this process.

The administration has claimed that they used the correct numbers in their rubrics. As they will not publish further data to myself nor the public, I have no evidence this is actually true.

They were going to cut Korean language as a minor. We don't have a Korean language minor. We do have a track of Korean language and I am given to understand as of this semester, culture courses. Which are operated solely by one professor and are consistently full or close to capacity due to popularity. There is no evidence they are losing the school money and I have several testimonials that the Korean culture-related programs have drawn students to UNCG as it is a unique niche the school gives not just over other UNC schools but over other colleges and universities.

Faculty and students were given information about what programs would be cut at precisely the same time, through an email sent schoolwide. Many students and faculty were in class at the time this was sent and had to proceed as if they weren't about to have their programs eliminated.

The administration alleges that current students will be able to finish their degrees. I have little faith this is the case for reasons that will take a while to get into but, to summarize as briefly as possible, completion of a degree here requires certain high-level classes that may be difficult to obtain with faculty cuts.

The chancellor alleges that Jewish Studies and Islamic Studies will not be affected by the elimination of religious studies, despite the fact that they are hosted under the department and Islamic Studies uses the same funding. As such, I believe that the highly technical and academic category used to refer to this sort of thing is "a blatant lie."

The administration has tried to quietly edit out any errors in original reporting. I am pleased to report that, as many of us intensely online people know, the Wayback Machine exists. Here is the original statistically incorrect press release that was given, which they have tried to bury.

While they have held forums, these have largely been ceremonial gestures rather than serious attempts at communication. At the one I went to, all non-administration speakers were given only two minutes to speak while the chancellor and dean were given as much time as possible to respond. Their responses to concerns were often dismissive and rarely addressed the necessary issues. I believe any person present will back me up on this, though I am not currently in possession of a voice recording.

I must operate within the evidence I am given. The best-faith interpretation of their actions is that the metrics they were using to determine what cuts should be made are incorrect and must be re-done before going through with any sort of program cuts, and that the administration's collaboration process with the group they employed is poor to nonexistent given the scattershot information provided. There is very, very clearly a communications breakdown somewhere along the line that raises this entire procedure into question.

I think it goes without saying it's all downhill from there. The level of arbitrariness with regards to cuts, lack of professionalism, and total lack of transparency would lead a reasonable person to believe there are heavy political motivations involved here and not simple brute facts. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions anywhere along this spectrum, of course. I encourage you to be skeptical.

Lastly, if I can't convince you that it's worth stopping this process to save religious studies, think about the anthropology department. Think about the languages that are getting cut. Think about physics or mathematics. A large-scale public university without a physics program is quite frankly unreal and the fact it's primarily humanities being targeted runs parallel with some sinister trends within American education. This process should, at the very least, be halted for time being.

What You (the Reader) Can Do

Firstly, be aware that we have until February 1st before decisions are finalized. I apologize for the short time limit. Myself and other members of the community were taken completely by surprise as well, and once again as I mentioned above it has caused some level of cynicism around the motivations of the administration.

With that out of the way...make noise about this. The school administration is making all efforts to keep this quiet. I can say the good news is that according to other people on the ground, they are beginning to lose control of their narrative that they are making difficult financial decisions to keep the school financially solvent.

Believe it or not, the farther removed you are, the better. If this hits a national scale then the school may be finally forced to acknowledge they are rapidly causing the otherwise prestigious UNC system, typically considered to be one of the best public university systems in the US, to be a national laughingstock and that they will lose money as their reputation declines in a way that they would not have if they'd simply carried out this process in a more reasonable way.

You can sign our petitions here and here. Easy enough, takes about three minutes, self-explanatory.

Finally, reach out to an academic or any passionate learner in a specialized field today. A lot of us feel understandably threatened and demoralized. Again, this is not just about me or even about my school. This is about trends within the American education system. Explaining the hows and whys in full detail is not within the scope of this post, but I think a reasonable person can conclude after looking at the current evidence that there is a dismantling of American schools in favor of a corporatized existence. For those of us who love knowledge and learning, this is incredibly sinister. Knowledge should not have a price tag put on it.

A Final Word

I and several other people have Chancellor Gilliam on record saying that he has dedicated his life to working at the collegiate level and towards students. While he and the administration have tried to ensure that their statements outside of highly controlled environments are not easily accessible, I should be able to provide a clip if needed given that this statement was livestreamed and North Carolina is a one-party-consent state in regards to recordings.

They have consistently characterized this process as having to make hard decisions to keep the university afloat. The chancellor is currently the highest-paid employee within UNCG itself and the fourth highest-paid member of administration within the UNC system as a whole (source.) Please be aware this does not include other benefits, which in 2022 put his salary above $500,000 (source.) As others have, I must ask why these "difficult decisions" within the school have not included a salary cut for himself if he is so dedicated to improving the lives of students.

Thank you for your time and consideration. If you've gotten this far, you've already listened more than anyone outside of the academic departments have and that means a lot to me in and of itself.

[azrielgreen]

Hey Az, sorry this isn’t like your typical ask and you totally don’t have to answer if you don’t want to or are uncomfortable with it! I’ve been following you and your writing for a long time and I see your “moon bitch” and “witch” in your caption and I’m absolutely obsessed with your characterization of Steve and Eddie being so in tuned with Mother Nature and the moon in your stories. I’m not religious at all but I have been exploring different spirituality and the relationship we share with the earth and nature and I feel such a strong connection to your idea of “Mother” whether that be the moon or the sun or the trees telling stories. I was wondering if this is based in some of your own beliefs and if you found it through readings or stories or online or anything else you would be willing to share?? I’m just kind of starting this spirituality journey of my own and feel really inspired by your writing and the worlds you create (not in like a weird culty, religious way, I’m so sorry if this comes across as totally weird to you). Anyways, sorry if this is so out of left field! I hope you’re having a wonderful start to your week!

Hello lovely, firstly I'm sorry this took so long to reply to! I'm working my way through to answer as many as I can today💜 What a beautiful ask, these kinds are always welcome!

So, most of what you're referring to is in fact my personal beliefs and self exploration of magic, connections to the earth and Mother, the universe and all it contains. This is a part of who I am and how I go through the world. I think I've always been this way but I did lose that part of myself in my late teens and early twenties for sure. Around thirty, it came back when I decided one day to be "open to the universe". A FLOOD of incredible change swept in and it was such a beautiful and transformative experience that I've never looked back. I'd forgotten about magic, which seems impossible now, but I really did lose it for a long time and became so trapped under the glass ceiling of small, oppressive needs and desires, caught in a low vibrational funfair with people who unintentionally dragged me down, not realising I needed to get out. Letting go of that was like being reborn, finding myself again, realising I'd watered myself down SO much to be "accepted" by people I didn't even like that much.

My writing is usually, in some way or another, exploring the duality of both having once lost this part of myself and then finding it again. I think Touched is probably the best example of this and one of the most explicitly personal explorations of my spirituality I've ever written, but it's in everything and it always has been, even when I look back to like stuff I wrote in 2009, it was there, I just couldn't see it.

I think once you're on that path and you know you're on it because you can feel it, just try to stay open and not close off. I resisted watching ST for YEARS because I was convinced I wouldn't like it, it was too mainstream for me etc... and then one day in March 2022 I thought, "OK why not?" and I look back now and I think what if I had stayed closed off?

Follow your joy, follow your inspiration and where something resonates, make a little campfire and stay a while. The natural world is too easily forgotten when we think we have everything we want at our fingertips on screen, but when you go back outside and walk barefoot and spend time with the moon and stars, you realise, I think, how fucking starving you were for the world you left behind as a child and how unfair it is we're taught to abandon it as a symbol of maturity.

All my love and best wishes to you, please feel free to DM me if you'd like to talk more.

Azriel💜💜💜

[aesethewitch]

Hey friend 👋 I just stumbled across your ghost analysis post and was intrigued, and saw that you do tarot readings?

I recently began looking into tarot, but the two decks I have aren't traditional ones, but I've read from a lot of people that traditional tarot decks are the (only?) way to go. I'm curious about your journey in learn to interpret the deck(s) you have, since I'm also struggling with that.

I also see that you have a free tarot reading Friday, and since it IS Friday, I'd like to ask- how can I overcome the political and religious obstacles that force me to hide?

(if this is a question that isn't so suited for tarot, that's my bad)

-SC

Hey there! (:

So, anyone who tells you there's only One Right Way to do something is full of shit. Folks just like to feel superior for doing things More Correctly Than You.

You can use whatever for divination and get solid results. You could make a functioning system out of coupons. Hell, you could doodle on printer paper, cut it into squares, and then use it as a tarot deck. That would probably work, as long as you understood what the pictures meant.

Some folks have an easier time with traditional decks, others don't. I tend to vibe with decks that are a little funky. Extra cards, different suits, interesting presentations, etc.

The deck I use most often, the Alleyman's Tarot, is technically not a tarot deck at all -- it's an oracle deck, since it doesn't follow the "traditional" composition of a tarot deck (major arcana + minor arcana). But I still call it a tarot deck because I can and I use it like one. It works great.

I do have the Deviant Moon Tarot, which is based on the Rider-Waite-Smith, and it would be considered a "traditional" kind of deck. It's a great deck, and it's the one I taught myself to read with many years ago.

When I got that deck, I believed that someone else had to buy tarot decks for you; it was "selfish" and would "taint" the deck's power if you bought it yourself. Also bullshit, by the way, but I had that belief in me. A kind lady overheard me lamenting and pining for the Deviant Moon in a bookstore, bought me a gift card, and gave it to me with a note telling me to buy the deck for myself. It was a life-defining moment for me, to be sure, and one that sticks with me today. I strive to live up to that kindness.

Learning was an interesting thing. I didn't look up any spreads, and I barely used the book. Mostly, I just wanted to look like I knew what I was doing right out the gate (I didn't; I was 18 and had self-image issues, lmao). So I taught myself to interpret based on vibes and imagery, then went back to reference the book when I really needed to. It helped that I had a spirit ally hanging around that was looking for a vessel; it's still attached to those cards to this day, and it helped me learn how to hone my abilities. For a long time, the act of pretending I knew what I was talking about prevented me from actually learning much at all.

It isn't... well, it isn't great advice. I wouldn't recommend "learning" tarot the way I did. I figured it out after a while, but there was no real system to it. If I could go back and relearn it the way I would do it now, I absolutely would. Here's what I've learned is a fairly good method for learning any new tarot deck:

Shuffle the cards and lay the pile face-down.

Draw the top card.

In a notebook, write down your immediate, knee-jerk impressions of the card. I recommend just key words or single sentences.

Then, take a closer look at it. Note the colors, positioning of figures, background imagery, and other details. Write down what you see, not how you would interpret it.

Now interpret. Take your time writing down how the card's specific imagery makes you feel. What does it remind you of?

Jot down an example question and how you would apply the card to the answer. For example, the question "What do I need to know right now?" answered by Temperance could be something like: "Patience is a virtue. Take your time." Or however you would interpret that.

Set the card aside. Repeat until the entire deck is done.

Congrats! Now, you have a general idea of the entire deck's meanings and a handy guide to help you remember what they mean to you.

Bonus step: Review periodically. Opinions and interpretations change as you do.

I follow this routine with every new deck I get. I've figured out that the same card in two different decks could have vastly different meanings, depending on how it's depicted. It's really cool!

Also, it's kind of important to note that I'm not really a full animist. I don't think that tarot decks (or other tools) have individual spirits. My Deviant Moon deck has one, but that's because of the ally I mentioned before. The Alleyman's deck doesn't have a spirit as far as I can tell. I've got spirits hanging around that enjoy assisting with divination and magic and such, though.

As for free tarot, it's closed for now! The update reblog was sent to my drafts instead of posting,,, sorry about that!! Your question would definitely be fine for tarot interpretations (though a little shallow with only one card; situations like that are typically better interpreted with more cards I've found). I do open it up every Friday, though, so feel free to stick around and send another next week! (: (Or visit my Ko-Fi linked in my pinned post if you want a more in-depth paid reading! /shilling)

[blahaj-blastin]

Hi! This ask is asking for tips relating to trans stuff so you can ignore if you don’t have any! thanks

Basically, I’m a genderqueer person who might be a trans man. I cut my hair recently but unfortunately it wasn’t short enough. I was wondering if you had any tips to make hair look more stereotypically masculine?

Secondly, do you have any tips for weeding out who are Allie’s and who aren’t? I’m not exactly sure who I can be open with and studd

thanks! Have a good day

This question make me smile so much, I’m more than happy to help!

Keep in mind, this is all from my own experience, but I’ll try to include some things in here that I have heard from other people too.

To me, the most important tip is to experiment a little bit. There are always gonna be lots of different people telling you lots of different things, don’t be afraid to try a few of them. I can tell you what ended up working for me, but don’t limit yourself to just that, everyone finds their gender euphoria in different ways.

For me, it was when I started wearing dark clothes and neutral colors that really helped. Baggy clothes have helped a lot too with my body dysphoria, especially with the added help of layering. I have a couple long sleeve tees I like throwing under short sleeved ones, and button ups and jackets that can go on top, anything to help hide my form and give a darker, more masculine appearance.

I’ve talked about it a little bit before on here, but tall shoes are a good way to add a little height, and I like ones that do so subtly, like heelys (you can take out the wheel and they just look like normal sneakers, but add about two inches). I like wearing eye liner and dark eye makeup especially on the under eye, as men tend to have more defined eyebags. There’s a lot of other masc makeup tutorials out there, but as someone who is not good at makeup, that was the option I went with. More subtle things that no one really noticed, but helped me, were switching to men’s deodorant and soaps.

As for hair, it definitely depends on the texture. I kept my hair short for a long time though in fear that longer hair would make me less of a trans man. My hair isn’t too long, but it’s around shoulder length, which I was very worried about dysphoria wise, and it was hard for a moment, until I figured out how to style it. Obviously, this comes down to texture. I have very fine straighter hair, and so for me, adding a little volume, layering, and curl helped it become less of a bob, and more masculine. I don’t know the science behind that, but it helped. Layering really helped so it wasn’t just flat longer hair, it looked messier, and it also helped me to get just some medium hold pomade and slick it back slightly.

As for allies, that is honestly one of the hardest parts. I got pretty lucky in having family that I knew was open, like my siblings and cousins, and I didn’t really have many friends as a whole at the time, so I was mostly starting on a blank slate, but I did have one pretty religious friend that I was terrified about. It starts with trying to observe small things about them. Have they ever said anything about the trans community? What would their other beliefs do they that that may sway their opinion in one way or another? Have they ever talked about pronouns or gender expression? Then try bringing up transgender topics in popular news and media and see their response. With a lot of people, there may not be a definitive way to say, and a really scary jump has to be made. Just remember, that if anyone does respond poorly, it reflects on them, not you. It’s not worth keeping a secret from someone in a friendship and not living happily as yourself. The friendships you are meant to keep, will stay through this change, or they’ll come around. And yeah, losing people hurts like hell, but knowing who you can then trust to be yourself makes those good relationships all the better.

I hope this helps. If you have any more questions, don’t be afraid to ask or reach out, cause I am more than happy to help on this amazing journey of yours. Being trans and being able to find yourself in that way is a beautiful experience, even through the heartbreak and pain. More than anything, do not give up on this journey. You are so strong for taking all this on, and if you ever feel isolated, know that you are never alone, and there are always those of us out there that will support you.

Edit: Elaborating on the hair thing below the line

These are both pictures of me, a few years apart, but both pre medical transition. My hair is about the same length, only the second is a lot “messier” with more layers and using volumizing mouse and gel. Some people will also use hair irons in a certain way, it just takes a little more time.

[tollingreminiscentbells]

Hi! I would like to ask a question about All changed, changed utterly if it’s not too much trouble. In the last installment of the main arc we saw that Michael is willing to cooperate with Lucifer, and in the scene where he negotiates with Lucifer and Alastor, it seemed to me that although Michael is held back by the thousands of years of Heaven's prejudice towards his brother, he is trying to open up to him regardless. So, at the dawn of this new order they’ll create together with Lucifer, and with everything at the beginning of changing utterly (heh), would Michael try to reconcile with Lucifer? At least to a certain degree? For me it seemed that he is still pained by what happened at the beginning of time and misses his brother. Would there be a chance for them to bond again as family? And also, would Michael try to get to know Alastor because he’s Lucifer’s new partner? I imagine he didn’t have to with Lilith because they’ve already known each other from Eden, but now Michael hasn’t the foggiest about what Alastor is like and why Lucifer chose him. To tell you the truth, I don’t think Alastor would be especially receptive toward bonding attempts from Michael (would totally drop a few verbal nuclear bombs on him) but perhaps just the sentiment of it would make Lucifer warm up to the idea of reconciliation a bit more. Sorry for the long ask, I just have a lot of feelings about Michael and Lucifer as siblings. Thank you for your time and have a very nice day!

I love this and it is never too much trouble! I am delighted beyond words to answer questions—the inbox is always open. I'm putting my answer to this one under a cut, because it got a bit long.

The problem with reconciliation is that Lucifer still thinks he was right, and Michael still disagrees. Vehemently. Michael's feelings about Lucifer are very similar to those of a younger sibling in a deeply religious family whose older sibling became an atheist and left the community. Love and, to a certain extent, pity because (from Michael's perspective) Lucifer is just blind to how obviously wrong he is. Michael sees Lucifer as lost and the only path toward reconciliation would be for him to try to repent in some fashion.

From Lucifer's perspective, Heaven can go fuck themselves. At this point, he doesn't view Michael with pity so much as disdain. In Lucifer's mind, his actions were rational and he doesn't understand why none of his siblings see it the way he does. We're in a sort of unstoppable force meets immoveable object situation with these two.

It's a lot of messy, complicated feelings and grief. And judgment. The sort of dynamic that comes with the schism of one member of a family rejecting everything they were taught and that the rest of the family still believes wholeheartedly. Unless one of them shifts their position, it's not reconcilable, though the working relationship will improve and become somewhat more functional now that Lucifer has power and agency back.

No one understands why Lucifer chose Alastor, honestly. Even people who know Alastor don't understand why Lucifer chose him. But the truth is that it would never even occur to Michael to want to get to know Alastor as a person because, while he is trying to respect his position, Alastor is still a sinner with no interest in redemption. A soul not just beyond saving, but preferring to be damned, and Michael finds that deeply disturbing. No matter how pained Michael still is by Lucifer's loss, and how willing he is to work with him productively, he's still an Angel and his fundamental underlying beliefs are rock solid.

So, ultimately, the answer is that they are far, far away from any attempts at reconciliation or any sort of family bond. The chasm between them is so wide that, until someone bends at least a little bit, it just can't be bridged. Maybe one day, in the distant future, but they're nowhere near it at the point that the story ended.

Thank you for this question! I love getting to talk about stuff like this! <3

[queerprayers]

hello, i hope you are having a lovely day! thanks for having this blog! 💖 my exposure to faith has mostly been through mainstream doubt-unfriendly environments so it felt eye-opening to follow your blog and a few others that are quite welcoming to it!

do you possibly have any recommendations for nurturing faith when one has so many doubts, including the existence of God or belief in the events of the Bible? or possibly even reading recs?

i was raised agnostic in a Muslim-majority country and i have a diverse friend group with Muslims, Christians, Pagans and agnostic friends so whenever i wish to believe i find myself both doubting and also not knowing how anyone chooses any religion or denomination to follow, but i like to think everyone's faith/religion is valid and connects them to God. anyway that was a bit long, thanks for the blog and answering asks again! :)

Welcome, beloved! I'm so glad you're here and it brings me so much joy to know that people can be honest about their doubt here—it's an integral part of so many people's experience and to repress it or pretend it doesn't exist is misleading and painful.

I'm currently reading A History of God by Karen Armstrong (which I'll probably quote from a couple times) and thinking a lot about how conceptions of God have changed over time, and therefore how doubt has changed—we can only doubt when we have something to doubt! For some people, this book would probably increase their doubt (just a fact, not a bad thing), but for me, learning about how culturally-specific and constructed and interconnected religion deepens my faith in a God watching over it all.

One way that I see people talk about doubt (and I've definitely done it myself) is address it as if it were a stumbling block on the road to faith. That it's something we get over. That there's a linear path to certainty. Even when people praise doubt and call it holy, sometimes they imply that that's only because it strengthens the faith that always comes afterward. Doubting Thomas was the first person to name Jesus as God—we know this, this is all true and is very meaningful to so many. But I've learned to accept other ways that doubt exists, because not everyone has this experience. Doubt is a companion sometimes, not a temporary roadblock. Sometimes it's an inherent part of faith, and sometimes it doesn't lead to religious faith at all. In case you need to hear this: don't create some imaginary end of the road where you'll be certain! Maybe you will, but don't expect that of yourself. Your doubt is your questions and your desires, your creative thinking and your love for your friends, it's you caring about finding something meaningful. It's proof that this matters to you, and even if someday doubt is no longer a major part of your religious experience, don't lose it all. Doubt does not need to be cured—it needs to be listened to.

I'm thinking a lot about the existence of God while reading Armstrong's book—how she presents a constructed God, used as a tool for good and evil, and how beautiful and terrible ideas of God can be. While talking about medieval Islam, she tells us this:

. . . [T]he Arabic word for existence (wujud) derives from the root wajada: "he found." Literally, therefore, wujud means "that which is findable" . . . An Arabic-speaking philosopher who attempted to prove that God existed did not have to produce God as another object among many. He simply had to prove that he could be found. . . . [T]he word wajd was a technical term for [Sufi mystics'] ecstatic apprehension of God which gave them complete certainty (yaqin) that it was a reality, not just a fantasy. . . . Sufis thus found the essential truths of Islam for themselves by reliving its central experience."

What if God is more than existence? What if God is more than we could ever believe in—and so instead of believing in Them, we seek to find Them, see Them a little bit more clearly every day? There's such a Christian emphasis on believing the right thing, and I do think it matters what we believe. But there's more than that—there's how we believe, and what we do about it.

C.S. Lewis believed that the fact that we desire something this world can't satisfy is itself proof that we were made for and by something more. I can't talk you into believing in God, and I don't want to. But the desire for more is a space where God can reside, if you let Them. The desire to believe is a kind of belief. Wanting to believe in God is wanting God, and I'm not claiming proof of anything, but I am saying if you connect with that desire, God is already a part of your life, whether because They're there, or because you can't find Them. The lack of God is still a relation to God. Doubt in a god existing is still a relation to God. God exists in relation to you, in you. If we can only doubt when we have something to doubt, if we can only disbelieve when there's something to disbelieve in, that means we have something.

The Bible is more specific than God's existence, and for some this makes it harder to relate to. It is a more clear presence for many people, though—it's something we can hold, memorize, study. Every person of faith relates to their scriptures differently, and I can't tell you exactly how to do so, or which way is "right." But I will say it is not a thing to believe in—"it" is a living, breathing library of transcribed, collected, translated, loved (and hated) books. We could talk about taking the Bible literally vs. metaphorically, or whether it's "historically accurate," or whether God wrote it or told others to write it or had nothing to do with it. Ultimately where I am, the foundation I come back to, no matter how my beliefs change, is that I believe God wanted us to have it. I believe it matters. Once someone asked me whether a psalm was "theologically accurate" and while that's an interesting conversation, my first instinct when reading a poem written thousands of years ago by someone I've never met is not to theologically analyze it but to say, "Yes! I've felt that way too! I hear you! And God hears both of us!" I don't think you believe or disbelieve in myth or poetry or oral history or prophecy or personal letters—I think you listen to them. Before asking yourself whether these things happened, or if we can prove certain figures existed, or anything else super useful but very overwhelming, especially without a history degree, first ask yourself what they would mean if they mattered. What would change about how you move in the world if these books were close to your heart? If you listened across centuries to find people also believing and doubting and searching and finding?

While recommending the Bible (as well as the other books closest to his heart) in Letters to a Young Poet, Rainer Maria Rilke tells his student, "A whole world will envelop you, the happiness, the abundance, the inconceivable vastness of a world. Live for a while in these books, learn from them what you feel is worth learning, but most of all love them. This love will be returned to you thousands upon thousands of times, whatever your life may become—it will, I am sure, go through the whole fabric of your becoming, as one of the most important threads among all the threads of your experiences, disappointments, and joys." Don't believe in a book—live in it, love it, let it weave you together.

Reading A History of God, I'm being reminded how much dialogue there has always been between religions, especially Judaism/Christianity/Islam, and how so much of the Bible is built on traditions outside of it. The writers of the Bible were also living in diverse communities, interacting with and reacting to other faiths, sometimes with hostility but also with synthesis—so much of all three of these religions is built on the local pagan traditions of where they evolved, and all three incorporated Greek philosophy in various ways. None of the major religions of the world are solitary faiths that sprang up out of nowhere—we have always lived with each other, and we've been alternately mad about it and inspired by it.

Having relationships with many kinds of people is beautiful and fulfilling, but it also inevitably brings up questions! I've found myself saying, "I love this person, I think they're intelligent and well-meaning, and they genuinely believe in something I do not. What does this mean for me? Am I doing something wrong?" Embracing others' faiths is, to me, a really important part of loving them, but it's also often a challenge to work through. It has ultimately been beneficial to my faith for me to work through this, but sometimes it just feels hard, and that's okay.

Although I never really questioned the existence of a god, there have been moments in my life where I had no particular conviction that Christianity was true or especially holy. I've been captivated by Jewish and Muslim traditions/beliefs/scriptures, and admired countless philosophies and practices. Christianity has hurt me and so many others—does that mean it's inherently wrong? But in every season of my life, I've said a Christian prayer every night. Everyone experiences religion differently, but for me? I am not a Christian because I think it's better than all other religions, or because I reasoned my way into it, but because it's where I'm from, where I live, where God meets me.

Your statement that everyone's faith is valid and connects them to God—it's a beautiful belief and it opens us to explore and love what we might not be able to otherwise. Reading A History of God—I do believe it's all God. If God cannot hold contradiction, why would I honor Them? How could I believe They encompass the (paradoxical, contradiction-filled) world if They can't exist fully in paradox and contradiction? This Sunday is the Feast of the Holy Trinity for me, and I love its mystery and its acknowledgement that God is always past our understanding, that God has more than one face, that God comes to us in more than one way, can never be pinned down. I and Christians throughout history encounter God as Trinity, but the day that I limit God is the day I have thrown away everything I've worked to build in myself.

The good news for you is if you believe all religions connect to God in some way, then you also believe that you will always be connected to God—no matter how your beliefs change, no matter where you call home, no matter what your practice looks like. We can't let ourselves believe one thing for others and another thing for ourselves—I did this all the time, believing I could never be forgiven but never dreaming of saying that about someone else. Give yourself the same grace and openness and hope you give your friends. You know they are valid, you know you love them—what can that help you learn about yourself? your own validity, your own ability to be loved?

I'll let you in on a secret (in case you didn't already know): the majority of people do not sit and look without bias at the major world religions and decide which one is "true" and convert to it. I'm sure people have done that, and maybe that's what you want to do (I won't stop you). I don't even know to what extent we can "choose" a religion—I think often one (or many) finds us—but for me and so many others, religion is a culture and a practice as much as, if not more than, a belief. And often it's wholly or mostly inherited—I don't know if I would be Christian if my parents and grandparents and ancestors weren't. I don't know exactly what you've inherited, but we all inherit beliefs (even if the belief is not believing in something), and yours are also built on tradition and ideas throughout the centuries.

This all means that doubt is part of any inherited culture and practice. It means that doubt and participating in a religion have always gone together. If religion is action and community and music, you don't have to believe anything in particular to live in it. My Jewish friends have shown me this most clearly—I know of many Jewish people who don't especially believe in the existence of a god, but eat kosher and observe holidays and say prayers. If you ask them why, they say it's because they're Jewish, because it makes them a more fulfilled person, because they're connecting with their ancestors. If religion is connection to God, as you've said (and I agree), then you don't have to have belief to connect with God.

I am absolutely not saying that we should never question the traditions passed down to us, or that conversion is not a valid choice, or that if you weren't raised religious you can't have religion. I just wish to point out that many people do not first believe in a system and then join a faith practice, but the other way around. They practice their way into faith. So often we cannot know what a belief means unless we first do it. Unless it first has meaning to us. From A History of God:

[Anselm of Canterbury, the 11th century theologian] insisted that God could only be known in faith. This is not as paradoxical as it might appear. In his famous prayer, Anselm reflected on the words of Isaiah: "Unless you have faith, you will not understand":

"I yearn to understand some measure of thy truth which my heart believes and loves. For I do not seek to understand in order to have faith but I have faith in order to understand (credo ut intellegam). For I believe even this: I shall understand unless I have faith."

The oft-quoted credo ut intellegam is not an intellectual abdication. Anselm was not claiming to embrace the creed blindly in the hope of its making sense some day. His assertion should really be translated: "I commit myself in order that I may understand." At this time, the word credo still did not have the intellectual bias of the word "belief" today but meant an attitude of trust and loyalty.

If you haven't already, ask to go to a religious service/event with a friend, read/listen/experience the faiths of others. When you encounter things you're not sure if you believe, ask yourself what it would mean for you if you encountered it as truth. If God exists, if God is [insert attribute here], if God commanded [insert commandment here], if this or that book is something God wants us to have—how would that change your life? My belief in a loving God transforms my world. My prayer practice orders my days and centers my emotions. I am living (or attempting to live) my beliefs, not just thinking them. What can you trust, what can you be loyal to, what can you live, even if you don't believe it right now? "Lord I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24)

You can live as if something were true, even if you have no proof, even if you're not sure about it. I live as if there is a loving God—I have no scientific proof of this, I have not always been sure of it. But I live as if there is one, and there is more love in the universe because of it. I have only experienced a loving God when I was living in relation to one. You can go to a church without reading its whole catechism, without knowing all the words, without being sure. My pastor once told me he likes the Nicene Creed more than the Apostles' because it says "We believe" instead of "I believe." A creed not as a personal certainty, but as a communal agreement. I don't always know what I believe, but this is what we believe. I can leave it behind, but I cannot pretend it does not exist. It is my inheritance.

My advice for nurturing faith? Be willing to be wrong. Any god I've heard described is outside of our powers of description. It's dangerously presumptuous to think we can be right about God. Once I let go of the pressure to be right, once I accepted that I could be wrong about everything—that's the only way I got to faith. And the worst thing I can think of is coming to a belief through fear (of hell, of being wrong, of uncertainty, of spiritual homelessness). Fear is sometimes present, but come to it because you want it, because it fills your days with life and love. I'm obviously not a scientist or a philosopher—I've never really searched for capital-T Truth, and maybe it sounds like giving up to say all this, to think that I can never be right. But I have only truly come to Christianity when I've accepted that, as Rachel Held Evans said, it's the story I'm willing to be wrong about.

While it's definitely from a Christian perspective (I'm not sure how relatable that will be to you), the book that's calling to me right now for you is Holy Envy: Finding God in the Faith of Others by Barbara Brown Taylor. It's incredibly honest and interested in the experience of exploring envy in a religious context. It completely changed how I approach finding meaning in others' beliefs, and gave me so much peace in my own. And if you do ever begin to follow a religion/denomination, you might need a reminder that you are not abandoning everything else. You may be choosing a home, but you are not locking yourself inside it. We don't look for a home to denounce everyone else's—we look for a place we can live. Taylor says:

I asked God for religious certainty, and God gave me relationships instead. I asked for solid ground, and God gave me human beings instead—strange, funny, compelling, complicated human beings—who keep puncturing my stereotypes, challenging my ideas, and upsetting my ideas about God, so that they are always under construction. I may yet find the answer to all my questions in a church, a book, a theology, or a practice of prayer, but I hope not. I hope God is going to keep coming to me in authentically human beings who shake my foundations, freeing me to go deeper into the mystery of why we are all here.

What are you willing to be wrong about? What do you want to hold close even when you doubt it? What do you want to do, even if you don't believe in it? What brings you closer to the life you know exists for you, the one that fulfills that desire for God? There might not be one religion that is all this for you. Whether or not you ever create/join a concrete belief system, whether or not you're ever sure about any of it, God is with you. Many people live fulfilling lives outside of institutionalized religion; not all who wander are lost; your existence in a diverse community will serve you so well on this journey, which doesn't have an end and always includes doubt, and from which we can always find a new path, and is all encompassed by a many-faced Universe of Love.

And, as I find myself doing so often, here's some more Rilke to his student, which we can receive whether or not we're young or a Sir:

You are so young, so much before all beginning, and I would like to beg you, dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

<3 Johanna

P.S.—As well as the things I've quoted from, I would also recommend Not All Who Wander Are (Spiritually) Lost: A Story of Church by Traci Rhoades and all of Rachel Held Evans' books.

P.P.S.—People quote this last Rilke passage a lot, but I'm not sure how many have read the full context? He's mostly giving advice regarding sex anxiety in that letter, which I think is great. It's relevant to most journeys in life, but in case you were wondering what journey it's originally about, there you go.