#anyone with a basic understanding of Islam knows why this is nonsensical

[menalez]

Sorry if this is rude please I am trying to educate myself As an ex Muslim woman I kind of struggle because people say I should support Is ra. El. Since it's the only country in the middle east that actually gives gay people and women their rights. I am genuinely trying to learn a bit more so I would appreciate sources and things to read. There is also arguments around the way that Pale.....stinians are of Arabian descendants who came in during Muslim conquests. I support a middle east that is de arabized and instead embraces it's other indigenous identities. So I struggle a bit because Jewish people are descendents of Hebrews and Isra..eli.....tes. Shouldn't we technically support that as ex Muslim feminists?

why does being ex-muslim mean we should support a colonial state? its such a bizarre argument to me 😭😭

“the only country in the middle east that actually gives gay people and women their rights” for one their pinkwashing is ridiculous because they dont. even have same sex marriage. they just will recognise it if you get married elsewhere. i dont know their women’s rights but they certainly arent the beacon of either gay rights or womens rights and its still bizarre to me to weaponise giving basic human rights to minority groups and then saying this state should be unconditionally supported on that basis despite the racism and inequality and colonialism underlying the existence of the state & its continuation.

the stuff about palestinians being from the arabian peninsula is just uninformed unbacked nonsense. u can check my tags on the topic but theres numerous studies which show that palestinians are very much indigenous to the levant and are very clearly a different group from saudi arabians for example. in fact studies found that every jewish group has shared ancestry with palestinians. research indicates that palestinians were the same indigenous people who never left.

this is in line with other arabised populations— we werent replaced as populations in the muslim conquests. we converted. sure, many of us have some arabian admixture but its clear that the “arabs” in the middle east & north africa share linguistic and cultural and religious traits, but not actual lineage. plus we look pretty visibly different from one another for a reason…

arabisation is primarily found in things like language and some superficial cultural traits, not genes. supporting the genocide or persecution for palestinians isnt somehow supporting dearabisation

“jewish people are the descendants of hebrews and israelites” not all of them are, and jewish people have lived in various parts of the world for thousands of years so, as is normal, they’ve mixed with the populations they’ve lived among and arent somehow more entitled to palestinian land due to distant ancestry. palestinians have distant and modern ancestral ties to their land. framing them as coloniser arabs is baseless nonsense.

“shouldnt we technically support that as ex muslim feminists?” i honestly do not understand why you believe zi0nism is sth anyone Should support esp not ex muslims or feminists. before the formation of israel there were palestinian christians and palestinian jews, palestinians were never just a group of muslims altho yes after the islamic conquests, the majority became muslim. this is the case for most of arabised nations but it doesnt mean that we somehow deserve to be harmed and persecuted and have our homes & dignity & land taken from us bc our ancestors converted over a 1000 years ago. im just not understanding ur logic here tbh.

[niuniente]

I’ve been curious, as you appear to be someone who practices witchcraft and holds faith in fair folk and spirits, what made you want to write a comic about a priest?

A good question! Sorry, the answer will be long as it has many things to explain.

First, you must understand my nationality and the culture or religion here; it basically doesn’t exist. This is a Lutheran-Christian country but do people go to church and live in fear of God like in the USA? Absolutely not. Only fundamentals  do that, majority belonging to a subcategories of Christianity, like Pentecostals. So, my general experience and approach to priests and religion is neutral due my cultural background. I have a feeling that would you go to ask a general Lutheran-Christian priest if witchcraft is OK, depending of the priest and are they from East or West, they might just shrug like “well, possibly?” or “Witchcraft can’t exceed the power of God and thus it is not dangerous”. 

We go to church only when there’s christening, marriage, funeral, end of a school year, if you participate in confirmation at age 15 and some people go on Easter and/or Christmas. Otherwise God has no presence in our lives and  even priests can be very casual; we have a one priest here who is also a known stand-up comedian.

Witchcraft has always been a prominent part of Finnish culture. Church tried to shoo people like “God is the only power, stop doing this nonsense!” but people still practiced daily witchcraft in 19th and 20th centuries (unfortunately the quick rise of education and economy after WWII has erased all practices, but I do remember some “witchcraft” jinxes and worries from my childhood from 1980′s and 1990′s we had at home).  Spirits, spirit animals, up in Lapland shamans, wisemen, wisewomen, witches, blood stoppers (a special Finnish form of witchcraft/spiritual ability), pet snakes, house gnomes, elves, monsters, the folklore devil, cursing, blessing etc. have been strong in this culture; stronger than the church wanted them to be,

The common American way of living regarding religion and God is seen very fundamental and wacky from Finnish standards. Actually my spirituality and belief in a higher power is also wacky in Finnish standards!

OKAY, so why priest for a main character for a comic? There are multiple reasons

Demon Sanctuary started as a reversed comic to Fuzzy; Irene seer = Ilta Demon and Fuzzy monster = Furmann priest. Now it is a story of its own and Ilta and Furmann have no connection to Fuzzy or Irene in anyway. We actually had Irene visiting the comic as herself.

If I was a man, I might have seek out to become a priest of myself. The spirituality is present in my daily life on other way now.

While I don’t follow any established religion or group myself, I value the real teachings of the founding figures of the said religion(s); Love, Honestly, Equality, Looking after others, Being One, Respecting Life, Protect weak, Honor all life, As a Man honor and protect women and kids and elderly

I wanted the priest do what he is supposed to do; helps everyone, not shun anyone out, love and cherish and protect, give shelter and support, feed the hungry. Basically be the embodiment of True God, not the religious fanboys’ own headcanon versions of Jesus. 

Jeffrey Burton Russell’s books of Medieval Christianity, Catholicism and Islam have inspired me a lot and I wanted to use that knowledge to something

In early Christian times, there was a real debate; what to do with Satan and the teachings of God being unconditional love, who forgives all sinners if they only repent their sins? If Satan said; “I did a wrong thing, forgive me, Father. I have sinned” shouldn’t God be then saying “Of course, my child”? If so, where does this place all the horrible things and Satan’s personality in relation to God and the world’s horrors? Can Satan be forgiven and if not, how do you explain the Unconditional Love of God? Shouldn’t God allow Satan fail as many times as needed, as long as he asked for his sins to be forgiven the God would do that? Where does this place Satan in the scale of Unconditional Love when God tossed him out from the Heaven? 

Also demons were debated in Medieval times: Are demons really fallen angels or lost just souls? Are they willingly doing what they do or are they also prisoners of Hell and Satan and suffering themselves? Is Satan suffering of the separation he has from God?

Creation of Satan was also an issue; God is ever-knowing and omnipotent. Why God creates Satan when he sees what will happen? Why would God punish Satan for something God himself created and saw coming? This leads to the premise of Demon Sanctuary; everything created comes from God and thus, as a priest, Furmann’s jobs is to unconditionally love and cherish all living things as a servant of God, as an extension of God. Even when they would be deemed as bad and wrong and horrible. That is also what Jesus teaches and what is the basis of Christianity and Catholicism. 

[quranreadalong]

#175, Surah 36

THE QURAN READ-ALONG: DAY 175

Hello brothers and sisters. I am Doctor Zakir Naik--a medical doctor, who has been invited to discuss the first half of this surah with you. And I will tell you of a story. Brother came to me and said I have question: the Quran is the perfect book. Yet some say “these are ravings of a clown from 7th century Arabia who had confusion over science, history, and theology, and also a clear personality disorder”. So how can it be perfect, this book, if it has all these issues? These are his words to me.

Brother ask a very intellectual question. As a medical doctor, I will provide you with answers. We will find that--not only are there no errors in our Noble Quran, but in fact it is a greater science textbook than any produced for a thousand years. As well, this fact has been acknowledged by Western professors. According to famous scientist Steven Hawking quote, “How can anyone deny the miracles of the Quran” end quote. (Source: islam-truth-religion.co.uk/praise.html)

We will look now to the surah Ya Sin, revealed in our beloved Prophet (SAW)’s mid-Mecca days. You see immediately that we begin with "YS”. Random letters, some might tell you, if they are uneducated. But if we examine them closer, we see that they stand for Yes Science. All scholars agree. The Noble Quran is a book of wisdom, sent to our beloved Prophet (SAW) and those with him on the correct path of Islam, from Allah who is God. This was necessary, because no prophet had been sent to the kuffar of Mecca before.

But if you note, brothers and sisters, we are then told in 36:7:

Already hath the judgment, (for their infidelity) proved true of most of them, for they believe not. Lo! We have put on their necks carcans reaching unto the chins, so that they are made stiff-necked. And We have set a bar before them and a bar behind them, and (thus) have covered them so that they see not. Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not, it is alike for them, for they believe not.

What does this mean, brothers and sisters? Why does God send a prophet (SAW) to a people who, in His words He says, most of them will not believe--or are incapable of believing, we should say, by His own orders? Why does He make a people spiritually blind, and then punish when they do not convert? Is this not bad and nonsensical, the earlier brother might ask me.

A very good question. But look closer and you will see the truth is already stated for us and in fact it provides much sense: God is bored and playing a video game, and He is giving himself a handicap so the game is not boring, you see now. If everyone in Mecca converted, you see, the game would be over too soon and He would have to go back to His sad daily life as a programmer at Alibaba. Those who have carefully studied Islam know this. Have you seen Sword Art Online, brothers and sisters? The kuffar will tell you that it is a terrible show, but in fact it is a careful depiction of the true faith Islam, as the creator of the show himself has stated (source: anime-invites-to-islam.org/testimonials).

But dear reader, you may think still “is this not unfair?” Think of your favorite MMO, or if you have social life think yourself to have a favorite MMO. Who decides what is correct, you or the creator of the game. Exactly, you are understanding.

Now that we have establish this truth we may continue. The Quran was sent only to those who believe in God, and they will be rewarded. God can bring the dead to life and records actions in his book.

[There is a very dumb backstory to this verse, according to al-Wahidi. The “book” in question is generally interpreted as the same thing as the “Preserved Tablet” or al-lawh al-mahfuz, which we will see later. It’s basically Allah’s record of everything everyone has ever or will ever do.]

Brothers and sisters, let us conclude this day with a story. God sent messengers to some people. He sent three to these people, in fact, because they denied the first two, yet also they denied the third. The messengers assured all that they were in fact conveyors of the true religion, yet in response the disbelievers threaten to stone them to death. Note brothers, note how yet again God cannot come up with a version of the persecuted-messengers story that does not involve this element. It is a technique designed to emphasize how evil the disbelievers are, called “repetition”. Islam invented this literary “repetition”, which the West would not emulate for a thousand years.

Another technique we the ummah have invented is the technique of “cliffhanger”. What will become of these mysterious three people and the rejectors? We must wait for tomorrow, like a story in One Thousand and One Nights, which invented literature.

NEXT TIME: Miracles of the Noble Quran as all believe, including Western scientists!!

The Quran Read-Along: Day 175

Ayat: 18

Good: 0

Neutral: 15 (36:1-7, 36:11-18)

Bad: 3 (36:8-10)

Kuffar hell counter: 0

⇚ previous day | next day ⇛

[unicornprincessinthetardis]

My (often relatively reasonable) dad: ...so Enoch Powell was right, what he said has happened.

Me: and you don't think maybe he could've said it without inciting racial hatred and literally saying that in time the rivers might run with the blood of 'native' British people because of immigration, do you?

My dad: no, you're being ridiculous, it had to be said, and there really are areas of cities that are majority black or Muslim now so he was right in his predictions, and it didn't change how things were anyway

Me: *goes away to calm down and read up on the 'Rivers of Blood' speech*

[I already knew some of this but here's a précis for those unfamiliar: in April 1968, in Wolverhampton, UK, a Conservative MP, Enoch Powell, made a speech, about the proposed 'Race Relations Bill' (which subsequently made it illegal to refuse housing/ employment/public services to people on the grounds of race/colour/ ethnic & national origins).

The speech was strongly anti-immigrant, calling for 'voluntary re-emigration' and for moves to be made to stem the tide of immigration, else Britain would be 'overrun' and sooner or later white British people would find themselves fully second-class citizens, and that in some ways they already were. He also talked about a "tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic", which I take to mean immigration in the USA to the similar end of white people no longer being in charge - which in 1968 was so far from the truth, and just horrible baseless fear-mongering, playing on people’s xenophobia and racist prejudice - and compared pro-immigration/anti-discrimination newspapers to the ones that had denied and hid the rise of fascism and threat of war in the 1930s. Plus, he talked about a constituent of his, a woman who lived on a street that had become occupied by mostly black people, who lost her white lodgers and complained to the council for a tax rate reduction because she wouldn't take black tenants, and instead basically got told not to be racist, and presented it as a bad thing that she'd been treated like that.

The speech's common name comes from a phrase he quoted from the Aenid (because he was also a Cambridge-educated classics scholar), 'I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood"', although he just called it 'the Birmingham speech' and seemed to be surprised by the uproar he caused.]

Me (to self): So it didn't change things did it? How do you explain the attacks against nonwhite people where the attackers literally shouted his name and repeated his rhetoric? Oh, they would definitely have happened if he hadn't made that speech, wouldn't they? And the British people of foreign descent who were so afraid they might be removed from their lives just for not being white they always had cases packed to go? And the fact that experts says he set back progress in 'race relations' by about ten years and legitimised being racist/anti-immigrant in the same way UKIP and some pro-Brexit types have done within the last few years here (fun fact: immediately after the Brexit vote, people were being racially and physically abusive to visibly Muslim and/or South Asian people, telling them to leave because of Brexit, which was of course extreme nonsense because their presence would be nothing to do with the EU, and more likely the British Empire and the Commonwealth, but they were doing it because it seemed suddenly okay to be openly racist, because Nigel Farage and his ilk, and a legally non-binding vote surrounded in lies, said so) and others have done elsewhere, in the US and Europe and Brazil and so many other places.

Powell was interviewed about the speech in 1977 and stood by his views, said that because the immigration figures were higher than those he had been 'laughed at' about in his speech, he was right and now governments didn't want to deal with the "problem", were passing it off to future generations and it would go on until there was a civil war!

He also said he wasn't a 'racialist' (racist) because he believed a "'racialist' is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief" so he was in fact "a racialist in reverse" as he regarded "many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans." (I mean, I know I can't hold him to our standards but a) that's still racism and b) he did think that mankind was divided into very distinct, probably biologically so, races, which, yes, normal for the time, but the whole 'each with different qualities and ways in which they were better than others' is iffy)

Me: *goes back to Dad to make my point and definitely not get upset* So here are some things that literally happened as a consequence of the 'Rivers of Blood' speech...

So even if he was correct to say what he did (I mean, he wasn't but you have to tiptoe around Dad and I had points to make), he shouldn't have said it the way he did

My dad: so you think the truth should be suppressed? You're only looking at this from one perspective (he thinks he knows better because he was alive at the time and my brother and I weren't despite the fact that we're both into politics and history and, y'know, not into scapegoating, behaving oddly, and laying blame because people are different to us - he and mum also have issues with trans people and we're trying so hard to change their views/behaviours but I'm not sure it's working & that's a whole different story) and there are these areas that really are Muslim-only (because informal lending and wanting to keep the community together is such a crime, right?) and they don't integrate and want to impose Sharia law (only he couldn't remember what it was called right then) and you don't know what it's like (he is an engineer surveyor and travels all over to inspect boilers and cooling systems and all sorts of stuff, and this includes into majority-Black or -Asian (Muslim and otherwise) areas in Birmingham - which is not a no-go area for non-Muslims, I'm a deeply agnostic white woman, it's my nearest big city and I wish I went there more often but it's tricky as I don't drive, public transport is bad/inconvenient, and I have no friends to go with except depression and anxiety [which are worse 'friends' than the ones that I found out only liked me in high school because I always had sweets and snacks at lunch so when I got braces and my mouth hurt too much to eat much of anything which meant I certainly didn't have snacks, they dropped me pretty quickly] so apparently he's the expert on all such matters)

What I wish I'd said: *staying very calm* well, and that's your opinion, I'm going, I've got sewing to finish *leaves*

What actually happened:

Me: have you considered that they are able to buy up areas like that because white people leave because of their prejudice against the 'influx'?

Dad: they buy up great areas because they buy in groups (I think this refers to a sort of community lending thing to be compliant with various parts of Islam? [Please correct me if I'm wrong] which is effectively what building societies/credit unions were, at least to begin with, and he doesn't take issue with those) and want to stay together. Why do they do that? Sikhs don't do that, they buy big houses and aren't bothered about being close together.

Me: different religious ethoses? I don't know... But you do know that they people who want the UK to be a caliphate ruled by Sharia law are just a minority, and that most Muslims would not want that at all, just like you?

Dad: but they still do want it, and it could happen, if there was a charismatic leader,

Me: *incredulous* you know it's about as likely for that to actually happen as for strictly Orthodox Jewish people to be able to make this country into another Israel, right? Besides, there are the police, and the armed forces, and intelligence agencies, not to mention the Government and civil service (thought I'd got a win there, he hates the unchanging upper-class-public-school-Oxbridge nature of the people who effectively really run the government, constant no matter the leaning of the elected party, but no) who have a vested interest in preserving themselves in their current state so would be able to stop anything like that

Dad: yes, but the cutting of funding to police and public services means they might not be able to stop it (I realise now that he's oddly economically left-wing but also really quite socially conservative in some ways)

Me: *getting angry* but it's still an absolute minority, most Muslims would be horrified if it really did happen, and have you ever considered that maybe they wouldn't be so ill-disposed to us and to integration if we didn't demand it of them the moment that they arrive, demand that they assimilate or go away (he often uses the phrase "yes, but they're in somebody else's country, they should make an effort") and maybe young people wouldn't be so easily radicalised and people generally mistrust the people who don't try to understand them, you know, want them to change everything about themselves (for instance, Dad is violently opposed to the burqa etc and not really a fan of the hijab - still doesn't get that it's a choice and people can do what they want because apparently 'anyone could be wearing one of those things' - burqas/niqabs, I presume - and that it must all be forced because who would possibly choose to dress like that - I have half a mind to show him those sites about Christian modest dressing (one was a shop and a lot of their range was pretty cute!) that I once found, just to see if that'll prove to him it is a choice thing) *tries to leave*

Dad: *angry* You stay there and listen to me! You're just looking at it from one perspective and that's not the truth, you're so biased and closed-minded, you only look at things your way!

Me: *furious* Really? Really? Am I? *Scoffs/incredulous exhalation* I'm closed-minded, am I?... *Storms out, shouts as I go* I'm not the one who said Enoch Powell was right!!

This is all heavily paraphrased, because I've been writing this for literal hours now and I was angry and don't remember well at the best of times, it may have been worse than how I'm writing it

Also, going to be tricky to patch up but right now I stand by what I said, because I know my perspective is limited, but at least I actually admit that and try to find out what people different to me think, rather than basing all my opinions and things on my own experiences which can't be universal, as he seems to

Other bs my dad said during the two conversations: "don't get so upset about it, it's only history" (which is bold, considering it was the 50th anniversary this year and he was literally 11 years old when it happened so probably saw/heard news coverage)... "Yes of course far right groups use 'Enoch was right' as a slogan, it doesn't mean anything"... Reiterating the 'nothing changed' thing multiple times... Dismissing the fact that Powell said there'd be a civil war because apparently just because the British/Europeans were aggressive conquerors anyone else who came in numbers anywhere would eventually have that aim and how ridiculous that view actually is... Dismissing the fact that Powell basically incited racial hatred and violence with the inclusion of an irrelevant Classical phrase which spread fear on all sides...

I could go on but I'm so tired and don't want to make myself more upset

I love my parents but I really don't like them very much lately but I don't know if I just put up with it or leave sooner or later and if I do leave I don't know where I'd go because no friends

Basically I'm so sorry for my parents' prejudices which I'm still trying to unlearn myself - I apologise wholeheartedly to all Muslim and Jewish people and honestly pretty much everyone they're prejudiced against

[nicemango-feed]

Qasim Rashid's Tasteless Independent Piece about Sex Abuse

I was appalled to see this article on Twitter the other day. I don't even have the words to express how tacky and distasteful this is.  As the far-right rises in the West, I find myself more interested in pushing back against that (since it's more of an urgent issue impacting our day to day existence here).....than constantly criticizing Islam in a climate where Muslims are singled out, generalized and targeted.  Nuanced and legitimate criticisms are lost anyway nowadays, to fear-mongering about Mooz-lums raping their way across the globe to secretly instill Shariah.  But then there comes a situation where you just have to rebut something as stupid and insensitive as the article above...with all you've got. Hopefully, my rebuttal won't get lost with ignorant takes like: "Islam is worse than Nazism" or "90% of Muslims are ticking time-bombs"... ..so here goes:   With all the overuse and false accusations of "Regressive Left" floating around atheist twitter, its hard for an actual left-leaning person to recall a time when this term had meaning and referred to an actual problem. Well, this article is a great reminder on how the left can utterly fail in the way it deals with the topic of Islam. I can't believe such an article was approved and put out by such a well known publication. What were they thinking? Who is making these decisions? I mean...they may come from the perspective that they're doing this to offset the increasing anti-muslim bigotry, to normalize Muslims in a political climate where they become dehumanized more and more each day....but they can't seem to comprehend that defending Muslims can be separated from championing Islam. Before seeing this one, I came across quite a few tasteless takes regarding the awful Weinstein scandal. It seemed everywhere I looked someone was hijacking it to further their own agenda. A few standard "Oh you think Weinstein is bad, but what about Islam...that's way worse!!" type takes from ex-muslims that I've become used to seeing....and cringing at. Oh you think the alt right/white nationalism/nazism is bad? What about ISLAM - it's way worse!!" It seems, that some are incapable of discussing anything other than that one topic (which makes it all the more off-putting for me). There's a time and a place....there's a way to acknowledge multiple problems without minimizing the suffering of Weinstein's victims. This isn't to say, of course that when the conversation is turned towards sexual abuse that we cannot also bring up other forms that people often let slide.... especially when religion gets a pass on everything. I saw some Saudi feminists bring up some important points about how migrant domestic workers are assaulted on an everyday basis in Saudi society by privileged Saudi men...who get away with it. But they didn't do the, "Oh you think Weinstein is bad? Well Saudi men can be WAY worse" thing....where they bring the other topic to light only by minimizing the harm that Weinstein did. That is the difference.....one that many 'but what about Islam' types don't understand. "Yes we have similar problems too which we need to discuss" is a whole lot different from "Oh, Pfft, this? It's nothing compared to the cause *I've* dedicated *my* life to. And you know what, no one's perfect we're all likely to fall into that trap accidentally sometimes... but the ones who have a distinct repeated pattern of constantly being unable to address any issue without the added, "but what about Islam/The left" have become incredibly unhelpful voices. ...Speaking of unhelpful and cringeworthy voices though..I have to say Qasim Rashid, the author of the Independent piece is one of the worst I've encountered on this issue. The 'but what about Islam' takes are bad, but fuck....using a sex scandal to spread religious propaganda, to *proselytize*.... is a whole new level of scummy. Not only is it scummy but he goes about it in the most dishonest way. Yes we should absolutely encourage liberal, progressive interpretations of Islam. I find it incredibly unhelpful when people hold every liberal muslim to an 'ISIS purity test', that basically no one passes...and therefore the only 'real' muslims are the extremists. That is not a good approach. But, when it comes to more progressive interpretations of religion there are those who acknowledge the plurality and plausibility of multiple interpretations. They admit that some verses are just not ok by today's values. People like Qasim however will argue that everyone else has it wrong... they've misinterpreted and HE somehow has the correct interpretation. They cherry pick without acknowledging they are cherry picking, unlike more honest reformists who openly say that cherry picking is the path forward. Like all the Abrahamic religions, obviously...Islam too is full of contradictory crap er...stuff. So naturally you can pick a bunch of things that sound alright, or you can pick a bunch of things that sound barbaric. But if you really want to look at the whole picture you can't ignore either...both anti-muslims and apologists for scripture like to ignore the aspect convenient to their narrative and push the other. "Islam is PURE EVIL" or "Islam is PERFECT and PEACEFUL and FEMINIST" .... there are some pretty vile, murderous, misogynistic, hateful things in there...certainly some of that is 'evil'....but there are some alright bits that are cherry picked by modern progressive muslims, which makes most of them peaceful. 'Perfect', it certainly is not...'feminist'...nope. Be wary of anyone claiming either of those. I mean its absurd on the face of it...morals from centuries ago are simply not going to work today. If you try to claim they are *perfect* for today, then you're endorsing or twisting some pretty awful shit. Anyway.... *Cracks knuckles* Lets get into it....this fuckin' article. What a crock of shit. "My advocacy is informed not just by the law, but by strategies detailed in Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example to pre-empt sexual abuse." Almost spit my beverage all over my keyboard...thanks for that Qasim. Would Mo's example pre-empt sexual abuse here?

From Sahih Bukhari

Slavery too....if defined by scripture is permissible in Islam....and slaves were to accept that owners are allowed to sleep with them at will. As stated in Quran 33:50

Obviously this is not a practice any decent Muslim would endorse today, but if you want to go by Mo's example...then it's worth mentioning. It would be one thing to make some excuse about it being a different time....and the example not measuring up by today's values... but if you are going to literally say a sex slave owner's values are what can prevent sexual abuse....I'm going to have a thing or two to say. Yes such slavery predates Islam, and so continued under Islam...I am not a fan of people using archaic texts to define an entire diverse group by today. So no this is not for you far-righters who paint all muslims as pedophilic rapists. What about this strategy detailed in the Quran, 4:34

Does making men in charge, commanding women to be obedient, and giving permission to 'strike them' also pre-empt sexual abuse?

***

I have to say I cringe a little while I'm picking out these verses to debunk this idiotic article, because I'm all too used to seeing how anti-muslims use these to dehumanize and generalize Muslims who may not even be aware of such verses. I know many like myself were taught curated versions of scripture. Religion is full of this kind of nonsense.... slavery, stoning babies, virgins...killing people who disobey...fathers ok-ing rape of their daughters for a few $$. Islam is certainly not alone in this, so think twice before painting Muslims with a broad brush. I cannot say that enough, especially in the Trumpian era.

***

"Let’s start by understanding two facts. First, a woman’s attire, alcohol intake, marital status, and education level do not contribute to sexual abuse – abusive men do. Second, sexual abuse doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Every level of society – social norms, media, and Government – is complicit in promoting the rape culture that perpetuates sexual abuse." "Social norms demonise a woman for speaking out, victim-blaming her by asking what she was wearing, whether she gave signals inviting abuse, or asking why she didn’t speak up sooner." Very good Qasim...I'm glad you pointed out that a woman's attire doesn't matter. But the Quran (24:31) seems to disagree,

Here it tells believing women not to flaunt their assets, and even wrap a portion of their headscarves/outer garments over their chests. Clearly a woman's attire mattered to Allah, and therefore Mo quite a bit. (24:60) only postmenstrual woman are allowed to cast out their 'outer garments' even then being careful not to display any 'adornment':

So Qasim, when you talk about social norms demonizing a woman, victim-blaming her by asking her what she was wearing....perhaps look honestly at the things you yourself recommended to 'pre-empt' sexual abuse. Laughable really. Don't even get me started on the punishments Islam prescribes someone for adultery...so I'm pretty sure marital status matters too. You're right when you say every level of society can be complicit in promoting a culture that perpetuates abuse....but you conveniently miss out religion - old value systems that simply didn't classify abuse in the same way we do now. If you want to be a women's advocate, how about not preaching a misogynistic religion to them while they open up about their painful abuse experiences. "state laws only punish the actor once the act is completed, they don’t prevent the act in the first place. This scenario plays out repeatedly worldwide, whether we’re discussing “revenge porn”, gender based violence, or sexual harassment in the workplace.

This is where Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example provide a solution that no state truly can. "

What the fuck, dude. What are you even trying to say here? While you're right that banning cat calling won't work, and that it isn't preventative... what's your solution? Islam and Mohammed? Are you for fucking real right now? Are you saying that being fearful of some god that would burn you for eternity and that following in the footsteps of a prophet who's example isn't known for his fair treatment of women, who owned slaves...and consummated with a child is what will prevent sex abuse better than modern man-made law?!  Right because religious people NEVER sexually abuse anyone....if only they had had access to the teachings if Islam and the example of Mo. It's embarrassing really, to even debunk this.

Read story here

"Yes, Islam implores accountability to the creator, but rather than preach empty dogmatic theories, Islam instead prescribes a proven secular model." What are you even on about? Accountability to the creator? How old are you... how well has that worked to prevent religious people from sexually abusing people or committing any crimes? Secular model? What? "Thus, the Quran 4:2 first establishes men and women as equal beings. Chapter 4:20 then forbids men from forcing a woman to act against her will, thereby ensuring women maintain autonomy and self-determination. " Now, just because theres some contradictory more benign seeming stuff in there... doesn't mean you can ignore the wife beating verse (4:34), where aside from the 'strike them' nastiness...it literally says this: "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other" Or how about the women are your farmland... plough them however you like (just don't do anal tut tut) verse (2:223)?

I mean, I hate to put on my "let me point out all the awful verses in the Quran/Hadith" hat right now, because I know the alt/far-right loves that stuff and uses it to stir hatred for whole groups which include people like me and my family. But in the face of this tasteless absurdity, I cannot remain silent. I can only hope I put enough "I dislike anti-muslims" caveats in here that it prevents them from latching on to this particular piece. I'm not alone in feeling that my criticism of Islam is sort of stifled at the moment because it's too easily hijacked by bigots, anyone with a shred of decency is feeling that right now.

Anyway, back to this unfckingbelievably ridiculous piece. I honestly can't wrap my head around how awful it is..and what kind of person you'd have to be to write something like this, especially in the midst of a high profile hollywood sex scandal. "Here..... stop fussing about this sex scandal...and listen to all the good things about MY religion, one that has a bad reputation for it's treatment of women" ....Oh ok @ssh*le.  -___- Aaand it gets a whole lot worse than I imagined. Qasim actually links to a previous even more nauseating piece he did about THE WIFE BEATING VERSE FFS, where it's a bunch of the most pathetic and weak twisted apologetics for 4:34, and it's actually titled: "The Islamic Solution to *stop* Domestic Violence" [emphasis mine] I can't....I have to take a break.....I walk away from the computer, pour a drink, take a breath. Alright, I'm back...What was I saying? Oh yeah... His fucking *solution* is the verse that says men are in charge of women and you can strike them. THAT, to him is pre-empting domestic violence.. because by making men in charge it gives them some responsibilities and shit. He's thrilled it doesn't go straight to beating....this is a good thing apparently....An 'anger management strategy' - what the actual fuck is wrong with this guy and how is he allowed to pump this shit out in mainstream liberal publications like Huffpo and Independent?? And I quote, from the Huffpo piece, "Pre-emptive deterrence is the key. And this precisely is the wisdom behind verse 4:34 to decrease and stop violence against women. The verse in its totality describes a process of restraint, anger management and reformation." 'Wisdom' he says...About an infantilizing, abusive verse that clearly doesn't hold women in high regard. Just because it doesn't jump straight to the beating, it's a process of restraint. Fucking hell. "Employed effectively, these two steps help reconcile the vast majority of domestic disputes. Should the first two steps fail, however, the Quran allows — never commands — men to consider the third step, translated as “to chastise them.” Look, it *allows* --- it doesn't *command* you to 'chastise' your wife. (since the beating isn't compulsory...that makes it totally ok) Firstly Qasim, slick replacement of strike with 'chastise'. Secondly, obviously this is only for the rarest of times...for when the first two infantilizing and humiliating methods don't work on her (that totally excuses the fact that u can resort to ..you know... beating her) If the first two steps don't sort out your domestic dispute, it's because you didn't employ these perfect strategies 'effectively'.... Of course then his article delves into semantic bullshit about how the word for strike isn't actually that. Nothing I haven't heard before...but I haven't come across anyone with the audacity to argue they are progressive *and* suggest the wife beating verse as a goddamn *solution* to domestic violence. There are many Muslims who genuinely acknowledge that this verse is not palatable today....Qasim is not one of them. He would rather twist it to say it means the opposite of what it says in mainstream interpretations of the Quran. He'd rather appear dishonest in front of anyone who knows anything about Islam. This doesn't help Muslims, or their reputation...quite the opposite in fact. So I sincerely don't understand why left leaning publications put out stuff like this. All this does is breathe fire into anti-muslim movements. It energizes them, gives them something to rally around.

***

Sorry I went off into a rabbit hole there for a bit, so enough about the horrid Huffpo piece, and back on to the horrid Independent one....where were we... "And when it comes to the Islamic concept of Hijab, it is men who are first commanded to never gawk at women, and instead guard their private parts and chastity, regardless of how women choose to dress – pre-empting sexual abuse." I just love how he selectively points to the male requirements for modesty, saying that it tells men to lower their gaze... but he completely skips over the modesty requirements for women. You know, what hijab is literally KNOWN for? Slut-shaming women into covering head to toe and holding them responsible for provoking lust....no mention of the double standards about what men are required to do vs women. Of course men are commanded first because the whole Quran refers only to men directly (with a couple of exceptions)...when it refers to women it is in third person or via men..."tell your women/wives" type stuff. The Quran isn't some great feminist book, it puts men first because it only talks to *them* directly. "Accordingly, the Prophet Muhammad by example demonstrated that the burden of modesty, respect, and combating abuse of women rests on men. Indeed, men must take the lead in stopping such sexual abuse." Oh COME ON, the guy who married a six year old and had slaves? I really hate to sound like a broken record here... but Qasim is being one, so I need to keep repeating the obvious. "After all, while the Quran obliges women to dress modestly as a covenant with God, Islam prescribes no punishment whatsoever for women who choose to dress otherwise." Oh yeah totally, it's just an afterthought that the Quran obliges women to dress modestly...nothing to do with placing the blame on them for enticing men. Oh and the Quran doesn't describe the details of Salaat/prayer either....so I guess that must not be Islamic either. Here's a verse specifically commanding the wives of the prophet to stay home and not display themselves if they want to be 'purified' (funny thing is, this is one of like 2 or so verses that directly address women, and it's to tell them to not put themselves on display! Imagine that.)

O wives of the Prophet, you are not like anyone among women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech [to men], lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak with appropriate speech.

And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet's] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification.

And 33:59 spells it out clearly, women of the believers....cover yourselves so you aren't abused.

Just because the book hasn't specifically prescribed a beating in *this* situation... (I mean... a lot could be covered under 'disobedient wives') - doesn't mean that the general climate of "stay at home, do not put yourselves on display... or else you won't be pure" crap isn't pressuring women with the threat of hellfire.

"women in Islam rise to the rank of legal scholars, warriors, entrepreneurs, and philanthropists while lovingly embracing identities as mothers and housewives.

Weinstein is a symptom of the greater disease of arrogance, unaccountability, societal apathy, and from men who knew of the abuse but did nothing. Islam and Prophet Muhammad provide a practical solution."

Oh ffs, a man who ok-ed wife beating and keeping them at home, married a child and thought women could be owned as slaves does NOT provide a practical solution to sexual abuse. You're an embarrassment Qasim. 

So shameless...

"Together, we can employ a proven Islamic model that will stop this madness, and re-invoke gender equity today in America, and the world."

Who is he preaching to? How did the Independent let this happen, this is like a lecture you'd hear at Islamic Sunday School....does no one understand that this kind of horrific dishonesty, easily debunked....does nothing to help muslims. 

It's a real shame this man gets a platform like this. I'll say again, who approved this and what were they thinking? Who is the audience they hoped to reach with "together lets employ an Islamic model to stop sexual abuse"? This is some bullshit 'religious right' propaganda....get it together Independent. 

I'm all out of facepalms. I think that's all I got for today. 

***

Thanks to my wonderful Patrons who make this work possible. Your support means a lot to me. 

If you enjoy my work, please consider supporting via Patreon

from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2zxZP67 via IFTTT

[bartroberts]

New Post has been published on Black Barth News

New Post has been published on http://blackbarth.com/ridiculous-official-propaganda-still-works/

Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works

Share

For students of official propaganda, manipulation of public opinion, psychological conditioning, and emotional coercion, it doesn’t get much better than this. As Trump and his army of Goldman Sachs guys, corporate CEOs, and Christian zealots slouch toward inauguration day, we are being treated to a master class in coordinated media manipulation that is making Goebbels look like an amateur. This may not be immediately apparent, given the seemingly risible nature of most of the garbage we are being barraged with, but once one understands the actual purpose of such official propaganda, everything starts to make more sense.

Chief among the common misconceptions about the way official propaganda works is the notion that its goal is to deceive the public into believing things that are not “the truth” (that Trump is a Russian agent, for example, or that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, or that the terrorists hate us for our freedom, et cetera). However, while official propagandists are definitely pleased if anyone actually believes whatever lies they are selling, deception is not their primary aim.

The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an “official narrative” that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between “the truth” as defined by the ruling classes and any other “truth” that contradicts their narrative.

Imagine this Maginot line as a circular wall surrounded by inhospitable territory. Inside the wall is “normal” society, gainful employment, career advancement, and all the other considerable benefits of cooperating with the ruling classes. Outside the wall is poverty, anxiety, social and professional stigmatization, and various other forms of suffering. Which side of the wall do you want to be on? Every day, in countless ways, each of us are asked and have to answer this question. Conform, and there’s a place for you inside. Refuse, and … well, good luck out there.

In openly despotic societies, the stakes involved in making this choice (to conform or dissent) are often life and death. In our relatively liberal Western societies (for those of us who are not militant guerillas), the consequences of not conforming to the official narrative are usually subtler. Despite that, the pressure is still intense. Conforming to the consensus “reality” generated by these official narratives is price of admission to the inner sanctum, where the jobs, money, professional prestige, and the other rewards of Capitalism are. Conforming does not require belief. It requires allegiance and rote obedience. What one actually believes is completely irrelevant, as long as one parrots the official narrative.

In short, official propaganda is not designed to deceive the public (no more than the speeches in an actor’s script are intended to deceive the actor who speaks them). It is designed to be absorbed and repeated, no matter how implausible or preposterous it might be. Actually, it is often most effective when those who are forced to robotically repeat it know that it is utter nonsense, as the humiliation of having to do so cements their allegiance to the ruling classes (this phenomenon being a standard feature of the classic Stockholm Syndrome model, and authoritarian conditioning generally).

The current “Russian hacking” hysteria is a perfect example of how this works. No one aside from total morons actually believes this official narrative (the substance of which is beyond ridiculous), not even the stooges selling it to us. This, however, is not a problem, because it isn’t intended to be believed … it is intended to be accepted and repeated, more or less like religious dogma. (It doesn’t matter what actually happened, i.e., whether the “hack” was a hack or a leak, or who the hackers or leakers were, or who they may have been working for, or what whoever’s motives may have been. What matters is that the ruling classes have issued a new official narrative and are demanding that every “normal” American stand up and swear allegiance to it.)

The ruling classes are not exactly making it easy for their followers this time. Their new official narrative (let’s go ahead and call it “The Putinist Putsch to Destroy Democracy”) is so completely fatuous that it’s beyond embarrassing. The plot is more or less what you’d expect from a mediocre young adult novel or a Game of Thrones-type fantasy series. And if that wasn’t already humiliating enough for the liberals being asked to pretend to believe it, the PR folks in charge couldn’t even be bothered to assemble a new collection of liars to market their childish fairy tale for them. Not only are they insisting that liberals take the word of the “Intelligence Community” and the mainstream media that sold the world the “Saddam Has Secret WMDs” hoax, they actually dispatched James R. Clapper to sit there, in more or less the same spot he sat in the last time he lied to Congress, and do his dog and pony show again.

Meanwhile, the ruling classes’ papers of record, which cosmopolitan liberals rely on to provide a simulation of “serious journalism,” highbrow “arts and culture,” and so on, have descended to the level of the National Enquirer. Among the recent highlights was The Washington Post‘s “Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid” story, which it turned out involved neither Russians nor hackers, nor the Vermont power grid’s actual computers, and was basically just another made-up story, like the one about Putin’s Fake News Army. The New York Times, which has also been dutifully rolling out the new official narrative, has taken the leash off Charles M. Blow (aka “The Withering Gaze”), who is accusing Trump of being Russia’s appointment” and proclaiming his election “an act of war.” And now, as I was writing this piece, they hit us with the “Golden Showers” story, in which Trump paid a bunch of Russian hookers to pee on the bed where Obama slept. Any day now we are going to be told that Elvis is secretly working with Putin to deploy a Zhirinovskian gravitational weapon in a UFO disguised as Jesus that Assange and Snowden will personally pilot across the Atlantic to sink America. It’s like some kind of loyalty test in which the ruling classes are trying to determine just how far they can go with this crap before liberals refuse to salute any more of it.

The point of all this propaganda is to delegitimize Donald Trump, and to prophylactically reassert the neoliberal ruling classes’ monopoly on power, “reality,” and “truth.” In case this wasn’t already abundantly clear, the neoliberal ruling classes have no intention of giving up control of the global capitalist pseudo-empire they’ve been working to establish these last sixty years. They’re going to delegitimize and stigmatize Trump (and any other symbol of nationalist backlash or resistance to transnational Capitalism), bide their time for the next four years, and then install another of their loyal servants … after which life will go back to “normal,” and liberals will do their best to forget this unfortunate period where they pretended to believe this insipid neo-McCarthyite nonsense.

If I wasn’t worried that Trump is going to launch an all-out War on Islam, or that one of “our boys” in the tanks Obama has theatrically ordered to the Russian border was going to go bonkers and try to “git some” for Clinton, I’d be looking forward to seeing just how batshit crazy it’s going to get.

Source

Join the debate on Facebook

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.

[xoxojustbreathe]

Religion

Completely random thoughts at 3:57am.

DISCLAIMER: If you are of any faith, please if you’re going to read this have an open mind and don’t get offended because I have no intention in offending anyone. These are just my personal thoughts and beliefs. Thank you.

Religion. There are so, so many types of religions. When I googled “how many typed of religion are there”  this is what I got

“As of 2014, there are an estimated 4,200 different religions in the world, and these can be categorized into several main religions. These include Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism, although Roman Catholicism is often categorized under Christianity.”

SO many. And how is one supposed to choose? The probability of people choosing their religion based on their personal beliefs is probably slim to be honest. (maybe the numbers gone up in the past few years, but it still doesn’t seem as much)

Then theres being born into religion.

When you’re born into religion, you’re being raised on what your parents beliefs are. When you’re young and all church is to you is that place you go to every Sunday and or Wednesday (or both) and you get told bible stories in Sunday school. When you’re older and more apt to actually soak things up and understand church and religion, whose to say that’s what you personally truly believe in? It’s just something you were brought up with, so it’s normal for you. It’s what your family believes in. So it’s what you should believe in, right? And when you’re brought up in a religion, they don’t give you much chance to explore other things, find what you believe in. It’s just Here. Believe in this and only this and follow these rules and you won’t go to hell.

And that just doesn’t seem right to me really.

I think that when you’re old enough, you should be able to decide for yourself. Which technically, you can I suppose.

But there still isn’t that opening.

Sometimes it’s a situation where if you were to left that faith, your family wouldn’t be happy with you. 

But it shouldn’t be that way.

Everyone is different. Each soul is unique and everyone feels and thinks differently.

I don’t know. I feel like this is just nonsense that will end up offending someone which is not what I intended at all. 

I was just watching videos of Brendon Urie on YouTube and there was a vine he made where the radio was playing some christian thing and then his next vine he was like “I may have offended some christians in my last vine, all I can say is... forgive me?” and he laughed. 

And then I went over to his Wiki page to see what his decent was because he’s absolutely beautiful and it was Hawaiian on his moms side.

ANYWAYS to my point that sparked this thought.

In the write up of his early life it said that he was raised in a mormon family but “left the faith when he was around 17″

anyway, that’s what sparked the thought for this...assortment of words. idk what to describe this as lol.

BUT yeah anyways.

I live in an area that’s known as a “bible belt” where everyone is very very religious and if you aren’t you’re seen as a bad person.

I have a friend that’s Christian and she goes to church and everything and she preaches about stuff online but then in person she's completely different. But that has nothing to do with this. idk.

My sister’s best friend grew up in a very strict christian family where they couldn’t wear certain clothes because they were “provocative” so they had to wear long skirts and whatever and they couldn’t watch certain things or listen to certain music or do this or do that and yeah

idk.

"The concept of doing good, as opposed to being good, the idea that a lot of us have been taught, many and you see it a lot, where people push to get you to do certain things. Give you a check list 'Do this, do this, DON'T Do that, and don't do that, don't do that, but DO this and this' and everything's cool. And they miss the whole heart of the issue. If the bible teaches anything, it teaches that god is much more interested on what's on the inside, then what's on the outside. And I grew up in a place where it's a Sin to go to movies, it's a Sin to have short hair, or long hair, you gotta have short hair, it's a Sin for woman to wear dresses that are too short, it's a Sin to dance, it's a Sin. All of these 'dos and don'ts. And while there may be some merit in that, and I'm sure there is, but I'm not saying any of those things are bad or good, my point is, it misses the heart. There are millions of people, and churches and institutions  who've built an entire religion out of dos and don'ts. And there empty inside because at the end of the day, following the rules and regulations has nothing to do with grace and mercy. Because, you know what, I am as foolish and frail as everyone here, we are all, simple human beings, right? We all do stupid things from time to time, We all say things we wish we wouldn't have said, we all mess up from time to time, but here's the cool part I want you guys to know: God is not some taskmaster  whose just waiting for you to mess up and that he's gonna go whaoom! He's not he wants the best for all of us, and if we get  past the idea of 'I gotta do this, and i gotta do that, and I can't do that, and I CAN'T do that!' And you walk around in fear all the time, and you try your best to keep this list of dos and don'ts and rules and regulations, and there's no joy in that! And, Our creators greatest desire for us, is to have joy, not just fun! There's a deference, not fun, but joy." -Vic Mingogna, Sunday Reflections 2008 (video below)

I just think...idk.

I think that religion is too forced in some ways. 

And it’s such a big thing that people forget what it’s actually really about.

Since theres so many types of religions and so many different stories and gods and beliefs it’s hard to fathom sometimes.

I’ve had a few really deep conversations about religion with my best friend because neither of us really have one. I don’t remember about her parents, if they had a religion or not but growing up, I didn’t. 

Before I was born my parents had my older sister and when she was growing up they were very christian, they went to church every wednesday and sunday and read the bible regularly and all that jazz and by the time I came along they didn’t really do that anymore. I forget why, but I’m glad they did stop because I like how I am.

I don’t have a religion and that’s perfectly okay.

I do believe in some god. I believe there’s someone that unconditionally loves you and believes in you.

"Embrace God's love for you and God's desire for you, because it's good, he wants the best for all of us, he wants you to be the best person you can be. And when I say God, I don't know what image comes into your mind, everybody has a different image, right? When I say that word, maybe you think of a guy in a black outfit with a little white square around the neck. When I say God, maybe you think of a church in your neighborhood with a certain steaple and a cross on top, When I say God maybe you think of a man in a white robe with a beard, right? Every body has a different concept , when I say god maybe you think of some kind of a silver haired, big bearded guy sitting on a big throne somewhere up on a cloud, So I'm not trying to get everybody to have a single review of god, that is not my desire, my desire is just to let you know, you are an extream value to god he spared no expnece and making you, and making you unique and special in your own way, and as we go through our lives we can either make choices that make us more like he wants us to be, or less like he intended for us to be, So my desire for all of you and for myself as well is not to follow a list of rules and regulations, but to invite every day, to invite god into your life." -Vic Mingogna, Sunday Reflections 2008

If you’re still reading.... 

Watch that. If you don’t want to watch the whole thing, just skim through it, but it’s so important and so life changing. Go to 25:50 in that video and it’s basically exactly what I’m trying to say about religion. <3 

In the link I posted below I basically typed up a lot of what he said in that video or some other one and here is one of those. This always hits me right in the feels honestly.

"I gave an example once at an event, but I don't think it was this one, but I love this example: How many dad's in the room? One? Fathers, anybody? Two, three, okay. Let me ask you guys a question. When your baby was small and was learning to walk, do you remember like, going across the and going, *he gets on his knees and holds one arm out* 'Come on, walk to me, come onnnn, come onnnnn little walker, look at your legs walking!' and your baby's going *and he stand up and wobbles around, like a  baby trying to walk* Right, Right? When your little boy or little girl fell did you go "AH COME ON! CAN'T YOU GET THIS RIGHT?! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?! LOOK I CAN DO IT!" Did you do that? No. What did you do? "Come on, get back up, you can do it! Come on, I believe in you" God is referred to as our heavenly father, that is a beautiful image, of god. He's not standing up in heaven going "Ah come on! Can't you get this life thing right?! It's so easy!" No, no, he is reaching out going "It's okay, it's alright, you fell down, so what? Get back up, I believe in you, you can do it." If you can hold on to that image, and I'm talking to myself this morning, If I can hold on to that image, if we can hold on to that image of God, not the 'waboom' god, but the God whose like *gets down on his knees and holds out his hand* 'Come on, Come on, oh it's okay, so what you stumbled, you lost your balance, it's alright, come on, I believe in you' If we can hold on to that image of god it will revolutionize your life and my life, it will change the way we do business in our lives, the way we relate to others. We're gonna find ourselves wanting to share that with others because it was shared with us, and we're gonna find this huge burden lifted off our shoulders, "ahh! I don't have to follow the list anymore? I don't have to go down the checklist of the dos and don'ts and the better not and the better have?" No, no. But we're all just human and we can't do everything by ourselves, the longer you live the more you'll know that's true, some of you that are thirteen or fourteen or fifteen you'll find that out and those of us that are older  we've learned that you can only do so much in your own strength, but there is an infinite amount of power available to you from your creator, just ask him. You don't have to jump through any hoops, you don't have to wear any particular clothes, you don't have to cut your hair a certain way, just ask him." - Vic Mingogna, Sunday Reflections 2008

I don’t remember if he says it in that one or not but one year he said this (He did. It’s at 27:00)

“God is madly in love with you and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

and that is so important to remember. Regardless of anything.

My religion is that video. It’s every year that he did Sunday Reflections at that convention and I got up early to go sit and listen to him. 

I really don’t know what else to say http://tamakisgirl.deviantart.com/journal/Religion-221930193

There’s a link that little 2011 fifteen year old me wrote about this same matter. 

At the end of the day, EVERYONE is allowed to believe what they want to believe.