#author is an israel hands apologist

[doushitemacaron]

Unpopular Opinion: Izzy doesn't take shit from Ed

Izzy is frequently depicted in fanon to be kind of subservient or willing to put up with anything from Ed, which I think is really inaccurate to how he's portrayed in the show. Izzy is actually always shown to have really strong lines for what he will and won't take from Edward and from everyone else the whole time. People just get confused because the toe thing makes them think that he'll accept anything from Edward, but it's very untrue. That particular thing just doesn't cross one of Izzy's lines. Violence in Ed is something Izzy is deliberately trying to cultivate; therefore, it's not something he objects to even when it's directed at him. In contrast, he stands up to Ed multiple times when he disagrees, and is even willing to quit at one point, mostly when he thinks Ed is putting himself or the crew in danger, which is honestly not that unreasonable if he's trying to run a pirate ship and keep them all alive (including Ed.)

[wolf-in-a-trenchcoat]

I'm bored, so have a (possibly) triggering first chapter look-see of my Ouizzy fic "A Dance With The Devil" that I'm gonna post. I plan to rewrite it to be more canon-accurate but also throw in a little personal spice since I love writing angst.

Also! For those of you who happen to read it anyways, I'd absolutely LOVE some feedback. (That includes the negative feedback. I don't get better unless it's given, and I strive to better my writing). Alright, let me put the trigger warning so we can be prepared!

TW/CW: implied/explicitly expressed abuse, canon typical violence, panic attack, mild aggression, and mentioned amputation and consumption of a toe.

⚠️Reader's discretion is advised.⚠️

Chap 1: Izzy's Torment.

Edward was in a horrid mood again.

Well, Blackbeard.

As typical, Izzy tried keeping things running as smoothly as possible, only speaking when spoken to and snapping orders at the crew if any were caught slacking. He spent the majority of his day limping around the deck, weight leaned on his cane. His foot fucking hurt, and the bandages around it chafed and caused the somewhat healing wound to open and bleed.

Izzy bites back a curse. Literally just a week ago when Blackbeard returned from being willingly captured by the English, Izzy had been force-fed his toe. He remembered that night with very little fondness despite the relieving excitement that coursed through him seeing that dark, malicious glare from Blackbeard. He swallowed thickly, once again reliving having to consume a piece of himself. How fucking poetic.

Leaning against the railing of the Revenge, Izzy stared out into the expanse of water surrounding the ship. The sun was hanging high in the sky, beating down on the deck in exhausting heat. He pulls away, sighing roughly and turned heel towards the lower decks to check in on the crew, to make sure they weren't slacking. They had a tight schedule, and Izzy made sure of it so they would stay busy.

As he descended, he could hear soft murmurs and hurried conversations before they went completely silent. Izzy's stony glare cast over the crew as they stand awkwardly in a circle, eyes directed at the ground as if in submission. Maybe it was genuine submission- that's all Izzy had disciplined into them in his fourteen hour power-trip when Edward was gone.

"What's with all of this... nonsense? Having a little chat with each other? Talking feelings?" Izzy rasps in lilting sarcasm, leaning on his cane with a scowl. No one responds, all except Jim. Their eyes remained trained on the ground, something unusual and out of character to their normally intense glare.

"We need an intervention." Their voice was slow but sure, and then the intense stare strays to Izzy. There was a small shock that ran through him, so subtle he wasn't sure it even happened. He nods his head upwards, chin slightly higher in curiosity.

“An intervention, ay? Ed wouldn't be too fond of that.” Izzy points out, tapping his cane against the floorboards to emphasize it. He sauntered forward, his scowl turning softer. “It's suicide to try and talk him out of this.”

“Still- it'd be better. For all of us.” Frenchie piped in, nervously looking anywhere that wasn't the shorter-statured man. Izzy had noticed the bard was very iffy about eye contact, fluctuating between a hard stare and no eye contact at all. The first-mate didn't know what to make of it, and instead decided it wasn't worth his time- knowing Stede Bonnet's crew, they'd have Izzy soft-side up and forcefully coddled like he was part of their crew. Part of them.

“Get back to work. Fuckin’ useless twats.” Izzy snarled, turning away. A deeper part of him knew that Jim was right- hell, even Frenchie! Of all people, excluding Jim, Frenchie actually had a point- one stating that sitting idly by would only make things worse. Izzy would never admit it, even in his dying breath that he agreed with Stede fucking Bonnet's maniac of a bard. Shame worms its way up Izzy's spine, settling in the center of his chest like a weight in his ribcage.

He… wanted to mutiny against Blackbeard. The one thing Izzy swore his life to uphold the name of, and here he was regretting his choices. A sickening feeling sits ominously idle in his gut, like a viper waiting to strike… waiting until Izzy is distracted. The first-mate swallowed back the rising pain in his throat, stalking off to the top deck and not even waiting to see if the crew listened.

He found himself below deck in his cabin. He was pacing the cramped room, hands tangled in his graying hair, trying to calm the raging storm of emotions in his mind. Izzy was never one for emotions, always keeping them bottled up until they all came out in spiteful insults and barked orders. Right now was not one of those times.

In a swift attempt of releasing his pent up self-destructive loathing, he grabbed a stool and threw it against the wall, the wood exploding into splintering shrapnel as it made impact. Izzy let out a strained shout, heaving in breaths as his attempt of control became vain. He had never let the thought of mutiny cross his mind.

“Fuck. Fuck!” Izzy growls, sitting roughly on his rickety cot and burying his face in his hands. He was sure his death was imminent if Blackbeard heard any whisper or word of possible opposition. The crew would die alongside Izzy if they didn't cower to the Kraken's absolutely mental demands and pressuring emotional manipulation.

Izzy Hands wanted to turncoat on Blackbeard, the man- no, the myth- he helped create. To break the promise he had made so long ago that it became the very air he breathed to upkeep. All for just a little taste of comfort in a trying time that won't last. He was stupid for letting himself be so… invested in the damn crew. How they felt, how they saw him, how they fucking bitched and moaned about how horrible Blackbeard treated them and yet, Izzy understood. How, he'd never know and even if he did, he'd never tell.

Of all people, Israel Hands understood their pain. Of all things, he could empathize with their distaste and wariness of Blackbeard's volatile behavior. The only grace Izzy gave the crew was being the one who took the brunt of all of the Kraken's anger and physical violence. And he wanted it. He deserved it.

A strangled sob left him, his heart hammering in his chest as his throat felt like it was closing. The walls felt like they were closing, his vision tunneling into the abysmal darkness of his own mind, eating away at whatever control he had garnered before it all went black. Silent. His body ached, his chest tightened and he couldn't breathe. He blindly grabs at his shirt, the collar, ripping at his clothes just for some air. Another noise left him as his struggles proved fruitless and he felt suffocated in the weight of this newfound desire to flee. To run from his past, his choices, his actions.

And as if it were as sudden as it set in, he calmed. His breathing was still yet heavy and sharp, sweat soaking his brow and clothes. He was shaking, hands gripping the front of his leather vest like his life was on the line. And it was. If he even told Ed about any of this, he'd lose another toe- no, his entire foot, maybe his life. He inhaled sharply, shakily. He had to set this right.

Whatever it was he needed to do, he'd do it. He stiffly removed his hands from his shirt, gingerly flexing his fingers to get feeling back into them. Smoothing back his disheveled hair and wiping his forehead with his sleeve, he took in a steadier breath. He'd steel himself, force back all of this panic and anguish and become Izzy Hands again. Cold, stoic, and damn near emotionless. Calculated- not some emotional disaster who couldn't even fathom not being dependent on his captain.

[ofmd-renewed-yet]

Had to take my like away when I saw the author is an Izzy Hands apologist.

Izzy Hands apologists are abuse apologists and need to stop being allowed to interview the people involved with the show. Every article they put out ends up being all about Izzy and Con, they constantly bring him up, to the detriment of other characters and cast members.

And they downplay the villainy of Izzy. It's disgusting. Izzy Hands stans can get fucked with something hard and sandpapery.

lmao my guy you sent this to the wrong blog i love israel hands and ill say it with my whole chest.

he’s so pathetic and he tries SO hard and has so much emotion but thinks the only one he’s allowed to show is anger. when he thinks ed and stede are fucking his reaction is to say ‘oh my god’ with tears in his eyes. “villiany”?? literally the worst thing he did in the entire show was sell out ed and even that backfired. he was captain for like a day before his crew mutinied. he can’t even be homophobic correctly ‘oOoOhHhh dAddYyy’ like. what do you want me to say. he’s one of the best characters in the whole show and con o’neil retweets bdsm izzy fanart with nice comments. stay mad about it.

[jellybeanium124]

man, if you're reading a fic you don't like, just close the tab instead of leaving a dickish comment. got a reminder today to tag my fics with izzy "author is not an israel hands apologist." not everyone who likes izzy (I like izzy) is a fuckin dick who leaves asshole comments when a fic doesn't align with their batshit fucking views, but I have noticed a certain subset of izzy stans who will comment rude stuff if the fic isn't having ed and stede grovel at izzy's feet foot for 40 days and 40 nights. not every fic in the fandom is for you. hell that applies to literally every fandom. not every fic will be for you. close the tab. and if you really dislike my work and don't wanna see me, then block me lol.

[laceratedlamiaceae]

At this point I'm afraid to read anything with Izzy in it because of the way he is treated in a lot of fics. I need a tagging option for telling me if the author loves him or hates him because I've found some amazing fics that were immediately ruined when he came in and suddenly it's cool to not give him basic human rights. I dont get it.

Yeah, I've seen the "Author is an Israel Hands apologist" tag but I don't love the "Izzy apologist" term. I've seen some suggestions for "Izzy enjoyer" or "Izzy appreciator" but it doesn't seem like they've really caught on. I usually just check to see if the description and/or tags seem sympathetic to him and disregard it otherwise. I'm sure I've missed out on a few good fics that way but it's better than getting disproportionately mad at someone else's interpretation of him.

On the other side, I've seen a few fics use "Antagonist Israel Hands" (which doesn't actually say much; he's an antagonist in the show itself and I still love him, but it does kind of imply that he's just used as a villain) and I know there's one with the ship tag "Izzy Hands/Me Making Him A Decent Fucking Person" which is a convenient warning for me to stay far away from it. There's also "Author is not an Israel Hands apologist" but that one isn't super common.

In general I just assume any Ed/Stede fic that's tagged for Izzy is going to treat him like the embodiment of all evil, which isn't that much of an issue for me since I'm not into fics with them but I can imagine how annoying that would be for anyone looking for a good blackbonnet fics. Maybe someone could set up a reclist for fics for Izzy enjoyers?

[griseldagimpel]

Izzy Hands fans: looking at the responses to this post, would those who read fan fiction benefit if those of us who write fan fiction started using something like a "pro-Izzy Hands" tag on AO3 fics that are sympathetic to Izzy?

The goal would be to give readers an easy way to find fics that appeal to them. With AO3's tag wrangling, we wouldn't have to be perfectly aligned in our tag usage (think "pro-Izzy Hands" vs "pro-Izzy" vs "pro-Israel Hands") as long as the practice was wide spread enough. What do y'all think?

Update: Per discussion in the comments, I have learned that there is an Author is an Israel Hands Apologist tag in use, and I am considering using Author is an Israel Hands Fan.

[hjohn3]

The Forever War

How Binary Positioning on the Israel/Palestine Conflict Ignores Its History

Source: BBC News

By Honest John

POLITICS LOVES binaries. There is nothing that pundits, journalists, activists and the committed like more than a straight good guy/bad guy narrative in which complex issues can be reduced, ultimately, to that of a wholly malign force oppressing a virtuous victim bravely standing up for freedom, democracy, common sense or equality - particularly on the left. And no issue dispenses with subtlety and context more readily and thoughtlessly than the tragic forever war of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Since the Hamas attack on the border settlements of southern Israel on 7th October, the partisans have been out in force. Whether it is the pro-Israel “shoulder to shoulder” rhetoric of the US, EU and U.K. governments, Keir Starmer and most of the conservative media offering almost unconditional support to the Israeli regime in the face of those attacks , or the pro-Palestinian sectarian left, street protestors, Muslim communities worldwide and much of the liberal left press appalled at the extent and depth of the Israeli assault on Gaza in response, the space for nuance seems vanishingly small. Lines are drawn: you are either with Israel and its right to defend itself, or you are a hate-filled terrorist apologist and borderline antisemite; or you are either with the Palestinian population being bulldozed in Gaza or you are supporter of neo-colonialism, racism and violent attacks on a defenceless civilian population. It has always struck me as curious that one of the least straightforward geopolitical issues in the world can be reduced to emotional adherence to one cause or the other, each filled with an enraged righteousness that is unwilling to give any room to the narrative or case of their opponents. No wonder this conflict appears intractable. But this habitual positioning is simply not good enough. If the partisans in a conflict now nearly a century old cannot even begin to discover empathy for the other side then the war, violence and misery that infects this narrow eastern Mediterranean coastline will truly never end.

On the left, nothing triggers moral outrage more than the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the state of Israel. Since the end of South African apartheid, no other issue of social or political justice arouses such passion, denunciation and disproportionate attention than the spectacle of the Israeli military pulverising Gaza or protecting the settler extremists in their efforts to seize more and more of the West Bank from the enfeebled grasp of the Palestinian Authority. Much of the left’s position on Israel is indeed a moral standpoint that supports an asymmetrical struggle of street resistance against overwhelming military force, particularly since the PLO ceased to be a credible military presence in the 1980s. But the left’s position is not motivated purely by liberal handwringing. Its roots lie in the ahistorical ideology of anti imperialism, a transfer of the moral turpitude of apartheid South Africa seamlessly to the state of Israel, and a far darker antipathy to a Jewish ethnic state that leans into the long and ignoble history of left wing antisemitism.

Where the left analysis, such as it is, is so inadequate is in its bending of inconvenient truths about the foundation and development of Israel into a sub-Trotskyist narrative of neo colonialism versus internationalism. It is simply untrue to characterise Israel as a neo-colonial tool of the US, which is the standard narrative of far left parties and the Stop The War Coalition: in fact American military support for Israel did not become significant until after the Six Day War in 1967, when Israel was attacked by six Arab nations committed to destroying it. Before then Israel had looked to France and Britain for support, with the USA wary of Israel as a disruptive force in the region. It is equally incorrect to describe Israel as a “European settler state”, characterising it as a projection of European land grabbing power into the Muslim world. This account demonstrates a failure to understand what European settler colonialism actually was and ignores the status of Israel as a Jewish homeland, which is its fundamental purpose. Indeed, it is impossible to understand why Israel behaves as it does without also understanding the Jewish historical experience of lethal antisemitism.

The Jewish contact with European Christian civilisation was characterised by, at best, a grudging tolerance, punctuated by occasional bursts of terrifying violence. Whether this was the burning alive of Jews in York in the twelfth century; the expulsion of Spain’s Jewish population in 1492; the vicious antisemitism of the early Reformation; the regular lethal pogroms in Eastern Europe or the culmination of anti-Jewish genocide in the Holocaust which, in a sick irony, took place in Germany, a country viewed by many Jews as an accepting refuge, the message appeared to be the same: European Christians hated Jews and frequently wanted them dead. The Holocaust, with its industrialised slaughter, removed all meaningful opposition to the establishment of a Jewish homeland: the German National Socialists had proved the Zionist case for them in the most graphic and horrendous manner. Getting away from Europe for many Jews in the late 1940s was not a matter of land grabbing or colonialism, it was a matter of survival. When the leadership of the new state of Israel said “never again”, it absolutely meant it.

Taken in an historical context, therefore, the Hamas attacks were simply a continuance of the centuries-old murderous assaults experienced by Jews in Europe. Israeli fear of physical extermination is hardly pacified by the fact that Hamas is probably the most antisemitic organisation the world has seen. Its founding charter calls not only for the eradication of the state of Israel, but seeks the physical liquidation of all Jews in Palestine and the wider Middle East. Netanyahu and his gang of nationalists and racists may have viewed Hamas as useful idiots to keep the West Bank PLO survival, Fatah, weak, but its radical Islamist ideology was always there in plain sight. The 7th October atrocities were simply the gruesome enactment of that nihilistic world view. From the Israeli perspective therefore calls for restraint when faced with an enemy as ideologically committed to the killing of Jews as the Nazis ever were, is a luxury. Does Israel care if its air and ground assault to dismantle Hamas kills thousands of civilians in the process? Not at all: from the Israeli perspective it’s them or us, the same reductive mindset as their enemies.

There is therefore an historical context to the systematic brutality of Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians, especially in Gaza. But just as its critics show little interest in the history of antisemitic persecution and death that directly led to the foundation of the Jewish homeland, so Israeli public discourse allows little or no concern for the Palestinians, a dispossessed people oppressed and murdered in their own land without even the restraint of common humanity when it comes to the inflicting of mass civilian casualties, including those of children. Whatever moral high ground Israel may have been able to claim after the psychotic Hamas attacks last month, this has been utterly undermined by its policy of collective punishment and war on non combatants. The war crimes inflicted by Israel on the people of Gaza in acts of rage and revenge have effectively put the country beyond the pale of moral acceptability. These actions infuriate international public opinion, radicalise another generation of Gazans and give succour to those who would see Israel wiped from the face of Palestine “from the river to the sea”. In this inferno of never ending grievance and hate, it is hard to find any hope. However, there is a fundamental truth that may yet, one day, see an end to this forever war. Both Palestinians and Israelis have one overwhelming urge in common: both wish to live in peace, dignity and security. If one day the two communities can rid themselves of their current calamitous leaderships, understand each other’s history and thereby glimpse the humanity of their enemies, the realisation may dawn that continued attempted mutual destruction provides no security at all.

6th November 2023

With thanks to Chris Alcock, conversations with whom have helped inform this blog

[our-flag-means-death-ao3feed]

so little left

by dinoromance89

Izzy is struggling to support Ed after Stede leaves him. Things get sad, as they do.

Words: 601, Chapters: 1/1, Language: English

Fandoms: Our Flag Means Death (TV)

Rating: Teen And Up Audiences

Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply

Categories: Gen

Characters: Blackbeard | Edward Teach, Israel Hands

Relationships: Blackbeard | Edward Teach & Israel Hands

Additional Tags: Missing Scene, Episode: s01e10 Wherever You Go There You Are, Post-Break Up, Pre-Kraken, the breakup robe era, Suicidal Thoughts, Depression, Blackbeard | Edward Teach Has Abandonment Issues, Blackbeard | Edward Teach Needs a Hug, instead he gets Izzy, Israel Hands is Bad at Feelings, Author is an Israel Hands Apologist, Hurt No Comfort, Ficlet, short and sad, Angst and Feels

source https://archiveofourown.org/works/40275984

[wearfinethingsalltoowell]

🤭 for the fanfic writers ask

Do you have a favorite tag to use when posting your works?

I have recently discovered that “Calico Jack Rackham Being An Asshole” is a tag and I love it and use it on any fic where Jack appears

Also “Author is not an Israel Hands Apologist” and “Stede Bonnet Loves Edward Teach”

[creepingsharia]

Professors at U.S. Universities Advance Qatari Influence Operations on ‘Islamophobia’

by Ahnaf Kalam

In February, the College of Islamic Studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU) in Doha, Qatar, hosted a panel titled “Global Islamophobia: Understanding its Roots, Challenging its Impact.”

It was a fitting venue for a misinformation campaign based on the weaponized term “Islamophobia,” coined not to advance debate but to end it. Emad El-Din Shahin, interim provost and dean of the host College, is a member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood sentenced to death in absentia in Cairo. Its faculty include a former Texas imam who encouraged his listeners to attack Israel, and several affiliates of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Virginia-based think tank founded by the Muslim Brotherhood “that is the nexus of a terror-finance network named the SAAR Network,” according to security analyst Oren Litwin.

Qatar uses its oil wealth to support extremism worldwide, including jihadi groups in Iraq and Syria. It has lavished over $1 billion in support to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, and houses the leaders of the Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas in Doha. Abroad, it spends billions of dollars on influence operations, including the international propaganda network Al Jazeera.

Its efforts to Islamize American education are no less impressive. Since 2011, Qatar has donated over $1 billion to universities in the U.S., making it the largest foreign donor. Additionally, six American universities have branch campuses in Doha. Qatari money also supports secondary education in the U.S., including through biased teacher training programs.

As detailed in the Peninsula, a state-run Qatari newspaper, panelists at the Doha conference discussed how anti-Muslim discrimination has “effectively gone global,” spreading from its place of origin in Western capitals, metastasizing, and leading to genocide, mass incarceration, and human rights abuses in Qatar’s “regional neighborhood.”

The panel included four Western scholars with experience in Islamic and Middle Eastern studies chosen, no doubt, for their records of whitewashing Islamism and blaming the West for systemic problems in the Middle East. Predictably, they peddled the false assertion that Uighur Muslim concentration camps in China and mob violence against Muslims in India are Western exports stemming from racism, xenophobia, and anti-Muslim prejudice.  

Advertised as “a dynamic mix of academic perspectives and thought leadership,” the panel included Karen Armstrong, a British author on comparative religion; John Esposito, founding director of the Saudi-sponsored Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding (ACMCU) at Georgetown University and current director of its pro-Islamist Bridge Initiative; and Asifa Quraishi-Landes, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and apologist for sharia. Nader Hashemi, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver and an apologist for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, moderated the discussion. All were happy to support Qatar’s foreign policy agenda: spreading a pro-Islamist, conspiratorial worldview that paints the West as a neo-imperialist aggressor in eternal conflict with Islam.

Our panelists have first-hand experience of the challenges posed by Islamophobia in its original heartlands,” Emad El Din Shahin, told the Peninsula. “They also know what works when it comes to countering harmful narratives and negative perceptions.” In other words, they are experts at extracting the maximum political capital out of perceived Muslim injustices by using identity politics to shut down debate and force concessions.

Hashemi has long been a mouthpiece for Islamist talking points, including his opposition to the state of Israel, which fundamentalists regard as the embodiment of Western imperialism in the Middle East. In the past, Hashemi has publicly endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign, an organized effort to single out, delegitimize, and ultimately destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

Hamas-apologist: Nader Hashemi, Univ. of Denver

His apologias for Hamas include an article he tweeted during Israel’s 2014 Operation Protective Edge against Hamas terrorists in Gaza falsely claiming Israel has “ethnically cleansed, occupied, subjected to apartheid, and repeatedly slaughtered” the “imprisoned” Palestinians. In fact, Israeli Defense Force mounted clearance operations in Gaza in response to a relentless barrage of rocket and mortar attacks, many of which Hamas militants staged in hospitals, schools, mosques, and United Nations facilities.

Unsurprisingly, Hashemi has in the past disavowed legislative efforts to designate as a terrorist entity the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its numerous militant offshoots. When reminded in 2016 of Hamas’s genocidal charter calling for the destruction of Israel, he dismissed the assertion as a “pro-Israel talking point,” adding “if you were living in Gaza you would be sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood, I guarantee you.”

Of course, many senior Hamas commanders refuse to live in Gaza, preferring the glamor and safety of Doha. And if top Muslim Brotherhood brass use Qatar as a launching pad for jihadist operations, Middle East studies professors such as Esposito have joined the emirate in whitewashing and minimalizing Islamic terrorism. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are archrivals, but Esposito happily cashes checks from both Wahhabi powers. While the Saudis funded Georgetown’s ACMCU under his direction, the university is now the largest recipient of Qatari aid. Esposito’s allegiance to Islamist-supporting regimes in the Middle East is, then, transparent: he even implied that Muslim rulers who fail to back jihadist movements are Islamophobic. In a 2012 interview with Ahram Online, he argued that Muslim dictators who are “keen to display a negative image of Islamists” do so to preserve Western interests. “Authoritarian regimes always used the idea that any opposition was Islamist,” he said. 

Esposito denies any connection between nonviolent Islamism and terrorism. In a 2016 essay, he pointed to “American and European foreign policies in the Middle East” as the culprit for terrorism in the region. The Georgetown professor’s record of perpetually blaming the West made him an obvious choice for HBKU’s Islamophobia conference.

Armstrong, a former Catholic nun an author of many books on comparative religious studies, also disparaged Western civilization. During the panel discussion, she diagnosed bigotry in the West as people “retreating into ever more narrowly defined ethnic, religious, political, and national groups. They enhance their own identity by denigrating or belittling the ‘other.’”

She later did a bit of “denigrating or belittling” Westerners herself according to the Daily Q, the student paper of Northwestern University in Qatar, by suggesting that bigotry and hatred against Muslims is a uniquely European innovation. As a point of reference, Armstrong once said in PBS interview that “Islam is a religion of success. Unlike Christianity, which has as its main image, in the West at least, a man dying in a devastating, disgraceful, helpless death.”

Qatar’s ongoing efforts to weaken the West is, therefore, multifaceted: In addition to funding Islamist preachers and militant jihadists, it sponsors willing Western academics, master dissimulators skilled at using social justice and grievance politics to deflect criticism of religious extremism. By assigning unilateral responsibility to the West for acts of anti-Muslim persecution in China, India, and the Middle East, Qatar hopes to legitimize the violent Islamist factions it hosts and supports. American or Western scholars who embrace and spread Qatari/Wahhabi-sponsored propaganda should be shunned as disgraces to their profession. Sadly, they are its leaders.

[examiningmormonism]

Divine Perfection and Presence in Christian Theism and Mormonism

The Mormon doctrine of God claims, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, that Mormonism holds to a being of far greater reality than the normative view of God. When a Mormon says “God exists” its defenders argue, they don’t invent esoteric meanings for the word “exist” so as to show God as “wholly other.” God exists as you and I exist. The traditional view of God, Mormon apologists have claimed, is so esoteric that it’s not clear that such a being can coherently be spoken of as existing in the first place. Latter-day Saints are very fond of quoting an Egyptian anthropomorphist monk after the teaching (that God the Father has a physical body essentially like our own) was condemned: “they have taken my God away from me, and I have none to rasp, and I know not whom to adore or to address.” 

C.S. Lewis in “Miracles” pointed out the pitfalls that our theological language can slip into when we subconsciously associate a set of visual images with a particular concept without recognizing the association or unpacking its implications- which would allow a person to see misconceptions driving questions or criticisms about a particular point of view. In defending what I am calling the normative view of God, I emphasize that this view of God is not the provincial view of Hellenic metaphysics and Abrahamic traditions under Hellenic influence, but constitutes the view of God prevalent among countless and widely varied cultures who preserve their memory of the God of Heaven. This is true for cultures as far flung as ancient India and ancient Africa- see an interesting survey of indigenous African views of God in “African Origins of Monotheism” by Gwinyai Muzorewa. 

In launching this discussion, I will quote a small bit of an attempted satire of the normative view of God by a Mormon in a (quite old) email thread. This person, in trying to conceive of God as historically conceived, began with the following:

“Once upon a time there was this ethereal essence that roamed around somewhere in the cosmos...”

A couple problems immediately stick out to the person familiar with normative theism and its associated philosophical traditions. 

-The terms are not well defined. What is “ethereal” and “essence” in this context? It appears that the terms are not chosen for their conceptual significations, but because they relate to an image in the author’s mind. It is this image which dominates his understanding of the normative view of God- the words are haphazardly chosen to capture the sense of this vague image. Lack of definition is a consistent recipe for philosophical disaster.

-If this being is “roaming around somewhere in the cosmos”, clearly we are not dealing with the normative view of God. This being exists in relation to a larger preexisting cosmic background. Because this being’s mode of existence is described in terms of that preexisting cosmos, the latter is more ultimate than the former and defines its existence. 

—

What is the image driving the critic’s dismissal of the normative doctrine of God? Clearly, it is something like a thin gaseous substance, spread over a wide area of physical space. This is what most Mormons understand the doctrine of divine incorporeality to entail. And it must be admitted that many Christians have been theologically sloppy in talking about incorporeality as if the “incorporeal” is a distinctive property had by certain substances, one of which is God. 

—

In fact, it is exactly the opposite. Words like “ethereal” convey a sense of a being who is thin, hard to see or get a sense of, spread throughout a wide space but only very subtly present in any particular point in space. In reality, the normative view of God is that God in His divine perfection is far *more* “thick” and “concrete” than anything which we experience. Next to the infinite God, the embodied life in which we exist is barely present. C.S. Lewis describes the heavenly places as a world of intense thickness and weight. A human creature in an earthly body could not so much as move a blade of grass in that world. God is, in Lewis’ words, “so truly body that He is no body at all.” When we think of something ethereal and gaseous, we are thinkin of a failure of presence. By contrast, the Christian rejection of anthropomorphism is rooted in its declaration of the totality of divine presence in and through all things. 

Consider how Joseph Smith framed the notion of divine embodiment. For Smith, the Father and the Son each have a glorious, resurrected body. (contra consistent LDS misconceptions, Christians believe that Jesus has and will have forever a glorious body- before trying to use this teaching in an attempt to disprove classical theism, Mormons need to study the precise theology of the Incarnation articulated by the Fathers and Councils. Otherwise, they will have arguments which sound decisive to each other but deeply shallow to a person committed to the traditional doctrine.) Why does the Holy Spirit not have a glorious body? Smith’s answer is striking- so that the Spirit can dwell in us. This underscores a very serious problem, to my mind, in Mormon theology. Attempts to raise arguments against the Mormon doctrine of God by vaguely waving at texts identifying God as spirit are doomed to fail because the terms are not well defined. It is clear that, even prior to the Incarnation, God reveals Himself to the children of Israel in the form of a glorious man. 

But the key texts- the ones which decide the issue- are texts like Jeremiah 23:24- “Do I not fill the Heavens and the Earth?” Or Psalm 139:7-10: “Where shall I go from your Spirit, and where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to Heaven, you are there. If I made my bed in the grave, behold, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there your hand shall lead me and your right hand shall hold me.” Or 1 Kings 8, where Solomon proclaims that “Heaven [the starry skies] and the Highest Heaven [the throne-room of God] cannot contain” the Lord.  For Latter-day Saints, embodiment is an essential step on the path to exaltation unto divine glory. Even for those Mormons who take the non-traditional (and I applaud this, which I believe comes from a grace-inspired pious instinct) view that God is God from everlasting to everlasting, the Father’s glorified body is understood to be one of his divine perfections. But it is precisely this embodiment which constitutes a *limitation* for God. For Smith’s view of God, glorious embodiment restrains the modes according to which God can be present to all things and through all space. As such, at least during the time of the human family’s mortal probation, there must be a kind of “compromise” in the Godhead where the Holy Ghost refrains from taking a glorious body in order that he might dwell in the saints. 

The classical view of God is that His all-suffusing presence is a divine perfection intrinsic to what it means for Him to be God. To say that He lacks “parts” is simply to say that all things true of Him come as a package. If God were made up of parts, then these parts would be prior to the whole- God would exist as a being within a larger cosmic order. This is, after all, the traditional Mormon view of God. And His lacking passion means that He is “impassive”, not that He is cold. He is active in all things, and no creature can impose its will on the Creator. The creature endowed with freedom who uses that freedom in rebellion finds, immediately and unavoidably, that his rebellion is assimilated and integrated into divine providence and will which is acting at all times through all things for the realization of God’s purpose to sum up all things in Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son. No act of God is “reactionary.” He is infinitely and gloriously serene, unfolding His wise purpose without stress or question of defeat. If you needed immediate heart surgery, you wouldn’t want a doctor who was so “moved” by your plight that he was too broken to operate. You would want a doctor who is genuinely and utterly committed to your healing but is in perfect control throughout the whole surgery. His fingers do not shake or slip. His mind never wavers. His next step is always clear in his mind. This clarity and purposefullness is the means by which his fingers nimbly stitch up a heart which would have stopped beating without his skill and calm. 

Rather than being an “ethereal” gaseous presence distributed thinly throughout space, God is so intensely thick and concrete that everything else- from the most solid diamond to the thinnest layer of hydrogen gas- exists by His free constitution of the creation out of the superabundance of His own glory.

Biblically speaking, this perfection is signified in the symbolism of the “Rock.” God is described as the Rock of Ages. The word “glory” is very closely related to the word “heavy.” And this association exists in English parlance, too. A person of great authority and influence, who immediately communicates a sense of presence and sovereignty is said to be “weighty.” God in His glory is infinitely heavy. He is infinitely heavy because there is an infinite “amount” of God to put on the scale. He’s the Rock which is never moved but always moves. He’s the Rock which gives birth to a creation taken up into His glory- a creation described as a stone Temple with a “cornerstone.” We become glorified in Him- we are little stones and bricks in the temple of Christ according to 1 Peter and Ephesians. 

[cbcdiversity]

Rafi Mittlefehldt guest post

Hypable

Hi Rafi.

It’s Monday, November 27, 2000. You just got off the phone with Dad and a weight has lifted. He told you he didn’t like how Saturday’s conversation ended because he never explicitly said that nothing’s changed; he didn’t say, “I love you.” He wanted to make sure you knew.

You did, but hearing it makes all the difference. That creeping first regret at coming out evaporates. It’s done. Everyone at college knows; now your parents know too and it’s cool. You’re done. 

You’re not. It will be years before you even realize you hide this fact of you in small ways from anyone you meet. You try to act straighter than you are. You take comfort in your own natural masculinity, thinking you’re one of the lucky ones, not understanding how destructive that mindset is. You’ll avoid Pride, telling yourself it’s not your scene. You will actually think having pride in your own self is a scene.

This is the misery of internalized homophobia: Each tiny step is a battle you don’t even know you’re fighting until it’s behind you. You’re never really sure whether it’s over or another invisible battle is just gearing up.

You’ll get there, but, kiddo, it will be years. Part of that will be through your writing. Writing helps you learn so much about yourself that is there, right in front of you, but obscured behind decades of wall-building. This is how your first book will come to be.

And then, when you’ve finally, truly gotten to a point of fearlessness with one part of your identity, you’ll find you’ve been discounting another.

Remember in high school, those two kids who got in the habit of using “jewed” as a verb? They would turn to you afterwards and sheepishly apologize, every time. You would tell them you didn’t care. The worst part: you didn’t.

At an Italian restaurant, you told your friends two awful jokes. Later, the manager handed you a napkin. The family seated next to you had overheard and written you a note. They didn’t know you were Jewish too, but did that matter? You still think about their kids. They looked like they were maybe eight or ten. Do they still think about it, twenty years later?

You will.

How Jewish have you ever felt? You’ve always held that identity at arm’s length. You will continue to do that for years and years.

Then there will be an election you aren’t prepared for.

Suddenly, Jews will become more explicitly targeted than you – you, personally – have lived through. Hate crimes will increase exponentially. People carrying swastika flags will march down the street and you will think, Where did they come from?, not yet getting that they were always there.

On a Friday evening in October, a man will storm into a Pittsburgh synagogue during Shabbat services. As he shoots eleven people to death, he will shout, “All Jews must die!”

On Saturday, everyone will start adding a frame to their profile photos. Six interlocking arms forming the Star of David, with the words: “Together Against Antisemitism.” Something will finally click.

You’ll know what that frame is. You’ll know you’re supposed to feel comforted seeing so many non-Jews tell us we aren’t alone in our horror. That you’re supposed to look at those frames and see empathy, support, kinship, allyship.

You will hate those frames. They’re better than nothing, but only just. What you see instead of allyship is a way for people to provide cover for themselves. How many of the people who set their temporary profile photos engage in casual antisemitism regularly?

You will come to understand the architecture of liberal antisemitism. That it exists because too many liberals don’t view Jews as a legitimate marginalized people. They see the power dynamic within Israel, between Israelis and Palestinians, and extrapolate that to the Jewish diaspora in America.

They will say Israel should cease to exist. They will say the Star of David should be banned. They will make sly references to the power Jews hold, furtive allusions to money or loyalty or globalism. You will think a lot about how enduring anti-Jewish tropes are, even for people who pride themselves in their enlightenment.

You will call out casual antisemitism when you see it, and immediately be labeled a Netanyahu apologist. You will never again feel comfortable criticizing fellow progressives without first making clear your positions on racist Israeli policy. This will baffle you. It shouldn’t. You are an Israeli Jew, so what’s the point of nuance?

When they finally understand your beliefs are aligned with theirs, they will tell you you’re too sensitive. They, white non-Jews, will explain to you what antisemitism is. It’s Pittsburgh you should be focused on. It’s Trump. They will define thresholds that allow them to see their remarks, perversely, as a tool of social justice. They will use euphemisms – “confrontational language” and “justified criticism” – to make their antisemitism more palatable to their own consciences. You will learn what fraudulent progressivism looks like.

You will realize one day that white right-wing anti-Semites kill Jews, but only because white liberal anti-Semites give them cover to believe our lives are worth less.

You’ll write a second book. It will, to your great shame, need prodding from other people to become as Jewish as it obviously should have been. But a round of editing will take you from hating this book to loving it. It will end up meaning so much more to you than you ever expected. It will become a reflection of things you felt but couldn’t yet name.

It won’t be near enough. You’ll read the final version and be… content. It will stick to capturing right-wing antisemitism. Because that’s more violent, because it’s more urgent and orders of magnitude more deadly.

But there will be so much more you want to say. Words you left between the lines, for those who care to find them. But between the lines is a poor substitute for black and white.

You’ll get there. You’re not there yet, but you will be. There will be more books. You’ll use them both to learn more about yourself and to tell others what can be.

Rafi Mittlefehldt is a writer who has worked as a newspaper reporter, freelance theater critic, and children’s author. His debut novel was It Looks Like This. Rafi Mittlefehldt lives with his husband in Philadelphia.

[savedfromsalvation]

Compiled by Jim Walker

The Biblical view of women

The God of the Bible decrees that woman must submit to the dominance of man.

"The social and legal position of an Israelite wife was inferior to the position a wife occupied in the great countries round about... all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons to perpetuate the family line and fortune, and to preserve the ancestral inheritance... A husband could divorce his wife; women on the other hand could not ask for divorce... the wife called her husband Ba'al or master; she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him, in fact, as a slave addressed his master or subject, his king. The Decalogue includes a man's wife among his possessions... all her life she remains a minor. The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or married woman needs, to be valid, the consent of the father or husband and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession."

-Roland de Vaux, archaeologist and priest

Blue words represent Bible quotes

Burn The Daughter!

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

Comment

A priest's daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.

How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"?

(See also Genesis 38:24)

Cut Off Her Hand!

"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Comment

A wife would naturally wish to come to the aid of her husband in any way she could if he desperately struggled with an opponent, but the Hebrew law specifically forbade a wife to help her husband in distress if that support consisted of her grabbing the enemy's genitals in an effort to stifle his onslaught. The penalty? Amputation of the hand that fondled the genitals!

Only in an overly obsessive male dominated culture could men create such atrocious laws. As such, the penis ranked sacrosanct in the minds of men (as it still stands today). If a male lost his penis for any reason, he would lose the right to enter a congregation of God. (See Deuteronomy 23:1)

Female Births Get Penalty

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

Comment

A woman who gives birth to a child must undergo a purification ritual lest her "uncleanness" contaminate others. This not only entails her isolation, but also payments to priests for the ritual acts. Thus the male dominators had even made birth dirty.

Notice here that if a woman bears a female child, her isolation must last twice as long as that if she gives birth to a male child!

(See also Psalms 51:3-5)

"The Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."

--Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Female Inferiority

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Comment

The Bible's decree of male supremacy has kept woman inferior to men for centuries. For the religious, it comes as a sad fact that a human must have a penis to receive any respect or power within the Church.

All woman should realize that such phrases in the Bible has justified for many Christian men, not only their supremacy but a reason to sexually abuse women.

(See also I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19)

Jesus Will Kill Children

"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)

Comment

If anyone thinks Jesus represents only a peaceful loving soul, then think again. For an act of adultery, Jesus would kill innocent children for the adultery of others; hardly fair justice, love, or the concern for human beings.

Some apologists claim that "children" refers to the followers of a cult of Jezebel and not to children birthed from Jezebel. However, if this proved the case, the situation would appear even more horrific, for a cult of believers could number in the dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more. The deaths of these multitude of cult believers (which would include children within its membership) would only make the moralistic problem far more atrocious.

"It's interesting to speculate how it developed that in two of the most anti-feminist institutions, the church and the law court, the men are wearing the dresses."

--Flo Kennedy

Kill The Witches!

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20)

Comment

These verses attest to the power of belief as they led to the slaughter of thousands of defenseless people throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Understand that these verses not only authorize the executions but they explicitly command them.

Verse 18 justified the burning of women in Europe judged as witches. In early America, the Salem witch trials resulted in the deaths of women and men.

Verse 19 refers to bestiality, a sin considered worthy of death. Christians used verse 20 to justify religious wars, Crusades and the slaughter of unbelievers throughout Europe. And the condemnation of heretics still goes on.

Rape My Daughter

"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Comment

Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.

Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of compassion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.

Silence The Woman!

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Comment

Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.

"Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being. For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female."

--Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex 1949

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)

Stone The Woman!

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)

Comment

(Read also Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

The discovery of a bride lying with another man can yield disastrous results.

If the wife's parents can produce tokens of the damsel's virginity and spread the cloth before the elders of the city, the husband has to pay the bride's father one hundred silver shekels and he may not send his wife back to her parents as long as she lives. But if the bride's virginity does not satisfy the requirements, the husband can get rid of her by letting the men of the city stone her to death.

From a practical level, these designed laws regulating women's virginity protected economic transactions between men rather than for the sake of morality. (See Virgin's Worth below)

"Virgin" Mistranslation

"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Comment

Perhaps the most famous mistranslation of the Bible, the word virgin here comes from a mistranslated Greek word for virgin.

The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.

Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.

Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)

Apparently either God makes errors or the Bible does not come from god, but rather from fallible men.

Virgin's Worth

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Comment

The belief some get about the Biblical law leads them to think that it represented a great advancement in morality. However, if we look at this law in the social and economic context, it becomes evident that it did not come from any moral ground, but rather to protect men's property rights of their wives and daughters.

This law says that since an unmarried girl, a non-virgin, no longer serves as an economically valuable asset, her father must receive compensation. As for the legal requirement of the man that caused the economic problem, his marriage in that society gave him practically unlimited power over their wives. Such forced marriage can hardly serve as a concern for the poor girl's welfare.

Wives, Submit Yourselves!

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Comment

These words of Paul describe another instance for the calling of the submission of women to their husbands. Note that the all inclusive "everything" could allow husbands to submit their wives to anything, including rape, beatings, slavery, etc.

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Col. 3:18-19.)

Women Shall Not Speak

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Comment

If one ever wishes to find an explanation of woman's inferiority to men, one only has to look in the Bible. Paul makes clear and delineates the importance of woman recognizing her place, "ad nauseam."

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)

"The bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire... Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up."

--Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Women's Sorrow

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

Comment

Not only does the Woman get blamed for the Fall, but God decides to multiply her sorrow, plus, she must submit to her husband like a slave.

Religionists have used this verse as justification and "reason" for the pain and punishment (sin) of childbirth and the sin of mankind. And to this day many Christians, Jews and Islamics place women lower then men in the ranking of Godly order. If ever there existed a more cruel justification against women, it could not have done as much damage as from belief in Genesis 3:16. Because of the belief in the Fall, countless Christians have branded the entire human race as depraved.

Before the advent of male dominated religions, cultures around the world respected women and worshipped goddesses. The Old Testament records the brutal slaughter of surrounding cultures and slowly throughout the centuries, the goddess religions faded away in place of the belief-system of a jealous, scatological, male war god.

"Christianity teaches that the human race is depraved, fallen, and sinful." --D. James Kennedy (Why I Believe, World Publishing, 1980)

Rip Up Pregnant Women

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

Comment

Throughout the Bible, God smites those who do not believe in him or those who do not follow his commands. Here we have the grotesque description of infants dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped up. Whatever rebellious nature an infant's father or mother may have had, it bears no justice to an innocent child or to an unborn fetus who could not possibly have rebelled against God, much less understood him.

Anyone who claims to love such a God, must accept infanticide as one of God's ugly revenges.

(See also Psalms 137:9)

The Wicked Woman

"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)

"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)

"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

Comment

Ecclesiasticus of the Apocrypha does not appear in most Bibles. However, in Catholic Bibles, the inferiority of woman still appears in the verses of Ecclesiasticus. These verses give only a sampling from this book that lowers the status of women.

[militant-holy-knight]

Islamophobia: A “Zionist Plot”?

In response to Hating Muslims, Loving Zionists: Israel a Far-Right Model, where Al Jazeera gets everything wrong

Al Jazeera penned an opinion piece trying to lump anti-Muslim terrorism, rational critics of Islamism with Zionism of all things. The “logic” goes that “x Israeli politician is a far-righter”, many leading political figures in far-right politics that criticize Islam have expressed affection and approval for Israel; Palestine is oppressed by Israel and as such all of these things are related to each other. They even used the censored picture of Brenton Tarrant to drive the point home that “See? if you hate Islam, you are also just like this guy and oh, you support Israel too”. 

I can’t even begin pointing out what is wrong with this “some x are y, some y are z, therefore x are y” fallacy, I am even more surprised that right-winged critics of Israel didn’t even try to debunk it. In one hand, it’s pretty observable that support for Israel is strong among mainstream conservatism than other movements across the political spectrum. On the other hand, there is one figure who is never discussed when the topic of alt-right and Zionism overlap, being very little-known outside of Israel.

This is Meir Kahane, a ultra-Orthodox Jewish rabbi from the USA who migrated from to Israel and was a co-founder of the Jewish Defense League and the Kach political party. Also known as “Israel’s Ayatollah”, he urged the establishment of a Jewish theocracy codified by Maimonides (a Reconquista-era Spanish Jew), the immigration of all American Jews to Israel before a “second Holocaust” could take place and was very vocal about advocating the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, violence against Palestinians and those he deemed as “anti-semites”. He was extremely divisive: there were people who found his Jewish supremacist rhetoric intolerable and equated him to the Nazis, while in other camp you had those who supported him largely because of Arab aggression as The Los Angeles Times reported that “[he] is a reaction to the wanton murders of innocent men, women and children in Israel” (which you can find many parallels with modern day politicians supported by the alt-right). Kahane was arrested at least 62 times by Israeli authorities for inciting hatred.

While in prison, Kahane wrote a manifesto titled “They Must Go” where he advocates the complete exile of Palestinians and the necessary process how to do it arguing that if they didn’t they’d begin outbreeding the Jewish population and take over Israel in 20 years (he wrote it in the 80s). His manifesto reads a lot like the anxiety Europeans feel about Muslim migrants which isn’t alleviated in the slightest by them speaking out in the open how they will establish a European caliphate.

Kahane was popular enough with the Israelis that he was elected with one seat to the Knesset. However, he was never really popular with his fellow parliamentarians, whom he regarded as “Hellenists” (Jews who assimilated into Greek culture after being conquered by Alexander the Great), since Kahane thought they weren’t Jewish enough. Most of his proposed laws included: imposing compulsory religious education, stripping citizenship status of all non-Jewish citizens (including Christians) and demanding that relations with Germany and Austria being cut but monetary compensation for the Holocaust being kept.

In 1990, Kahane was assassinated by an al-Qaeda member (it’s believed he was one of the first victims of the terrorist group), who was initially cleared of the murder, but was arrested later for being implicated in the 1993 WWC bombing attempt, where he confessed his first crime and was jailed to life imprisonment. His death made him a martyr leading to Kach member Baruch Goldstein to swear revenge and in 1994, he walked into the Cave of the Patriarchs on the West Bank and shot up the place, killing 30 Muslims before being lynched by the survivors. Given the Cave of the Patriarch status as a important religious site to Islam, this atrocity would have provoked probably worse reactions than Christchurch.

While researching about these things, I couldn’t help but see so many parallels between that and the Christchurch mosque incident. Kahane’s manifesto reads a lot like Tarrant’s own. Even if they were not familiar with Kahane’s own views, it was probably not lost to those that really read into Tarrant’s manifesto that not once he denounces the State of Israel for the current state of Europe - instead he blames Angela Merkel, Reccep Erdogan and Sadiq Khan, straight up calling for their deaths. This seemed enough for many people to conclude Tarrant was an Mossad agent.

To those reading this you may be asking: you listed so many things in common with the alt-right, Islamophobia and Zionism, so what did Al Jazeera get wrong?

Ah, if you actually paid attention to the fringe discourse, you realize that nothing discredits you faster than declaring yourself far-right and voicing support for Israel. I sincerely doubt that white supremacists would have liked a Jewish supremacist like Kahane, specially his demands that Germany to continue paying reparations forever. The fringe right actually finds lots of solidarity with Palestinians and common ground with the liberal left than either side cares to admit. Sure many right-wing politicians happen to be Zionists, but those are the mainstream old guard. 

I also observed that they also are overwhelmingly in support of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in large part because he is an authoritarian model that stands up against Israel. Does it mean that all people who support Assad are also the same? No. Many support Assad because he is considered a bulwark against Islamism (even though he is a Muslim himself, albeit not considered one by terrorist extremists because he is Alawite). Despite his many flaws, normal people are willing to stand up for him because he represents stability in Syria.

I also take huge issue with Palestinians being referred to as exclusively Muslim because it erases their small and long-suffering Christian minority, which is never on anyone’s minds every time someone discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite the fact that Palestinian Christians played a huge role in resistance against Israel before the rise of Islamism ended up alienating them and Christians across the Middle-East aren’t necessarily thrilled about Israel either, not even Israeli Christians themselves.

It’s probably no coincidence that Al Jazeera, who denounces both Israel and the Assad regime who are antagonistic to each other, also happen to be big Islamist apologists which explains why they insist in portraying the Palestinian cause as a religious struggle rather than a nationalist one. It’s in their interest to denigrate critics of Islamism who run across the board in the political spectrum from atheists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris, Christians like David Wood, Brother Rachid and Zacharias Botros and Muslims like Majid Nawaz, Ed Hussein and Mohammed Tawid and many, many, many people worried about the dangers of Islamism, which they use so vociferously the term “Islamophobia” coined by the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization disguised as political party. This way they can lump all the opposition into one camp and paint them as Zionist Islamophobes.

With all that said, the rise of conservatism and nationalism across the world is co-related with the modern liberal left’s weakness to confront the Islamist Question. One of the key reasons that led to Donald Trump’s election were fears of Hillary Clinton increasing immigration as observed by the skyrocketing of sexual abuse cases in Western Europe. Even though he is a more despotic and authoritarian figure than Trump, Erdogan from Turkey is subjected to much less scrutiny from the Western media when he locks up more journalists anywhere in the world.

And this isn’t contained to the West either, the Bharatiya Janata Party characterized as Hindu nationalist and anti-Islamic continues being elected into power because of India’s spats with Pakistan and being formed in the first place because of Indian secularists appeasing to Muslims. And if the future is any indication, you can expect more persecutions of Muslims in Sri Lanka by Buddhists and Christians after the Easter bombings from this year. Those has less to do with Zionism and more with the fear of Islamism.

There is a good reason why I brought up Kahane into this editorial: much like modern day politicians, he was considered too radical by the status quo of the time yet gained the support of a silent majority like modern day because the current status quo proved intolerable. The same thing happened in my country with Jair Bolsonaro, who was already saying absurd things as early as the 90s and would never be considered as President of Brazil yet here we are, though Kahane was assassinated before he got the chance of being Prime Minister.

How many times are we going to deflect the problem like Al Jazeera before we confront it straight in the eye?

[automatismoateo]

Christian apologetic sources cannot be trusted as they are dishonest in their work and purposely suppress information in order to lead astray those who are unsuspecting enough to believe them via /r/atheism

Submitted October 11, 2020 at 03:14PM by MelodicEarth2 (Via reddit https://ift.tt/3lB6tQ4) Christian apologetic sources cannot be trusted as they are dishonest in their work and purposely suppress information in order to lead astray those who are unsuspecting enough to believe them

Let's take the example of the Genocide of Midian.

"So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18)

I was talking to someone about this verse and he, like many other religious people, bring up the idea that these girls weren't raped. They were forcibly married to their captors (and then used for intercourse), maybe at an older age. When you search for religious apologetics on this verse, this is one of the top links that show up: https://askjohnmackay.com/divine-rape-how-you-believe-in-god-would-order-girls-raped-in-numbers-31/

The apologetic talks about the Isrealite marriage laws for kidnapped, non-Jewish women. So he tries his utmost to make it appear that this isn't rape. Murdering the families of these young virgin daughters and then kidnapping them to "marry" them. Call me an evil atheist, but I think girls should get to choose who they get to marry, and who they give their virginity to.

Christian apologists are honest people, at least, that's what I believed when I myself was Christian. They are men of the good book after all. The book says lying is a sin. But let's examine what the apologist says about this:

"No act that could be called rape is ever described in Numbers 31. Yet the God who ordered Moses to war, who did allow soldiers to take captive women as wives, also gave rules for marriage to such captive women. Deuteronomy 21:10 records Moses informing the people that: "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and >>the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands<< and you have taken them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails, and she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.”

"You may approach her and have intercourse with her", God is saying it is okay to do this to these captured daughters. Did God ever think about the feelings of these girls? Or are they just sexual property? The daughter didn't have any say in the matter.

To my surprise, the Deuteronomy verses quoted in the Christian apologetic article conveniently left out the last verse where it says the following:

"And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you violated her."

Just to note again, it says "if you do not want her let her go", not "if she does not want you let her go".

At first you might have thought that the "intercourse" mentioned prior could have been consensual (yeah, I'm sure this kidnapped girl that just had her parents murdered by these people would have consensual sex with these people), but it turns out that God is giving these kidnapped virgin girls into their hands in order to rape them, or to have them forcibly married and then raped.

I will use the verse which the Christian conveniently and dishonestly left out to prove that the holy and just God of the Bible is aiding and abetting mass sexual abuse of daughters. As you read the Bible, you suddenly notice the children of Israel are precisely all the time being ordered to covet. Being enjoined to covet, being told they must envy and hope to annex the lands, the animals and the women and young daughters of neighboring tribes. They kept going by greed, by the thought that soon, all these peoples properties shall be ours. And that we'll be licensed to take it by force, and kill them and have the land but not their people. This is perhaps why there are no prohibitions against, say, slavery, rape, genocide, or child abuse in the 10 Commandments.

It's not a matter of leaving these out or applying situational ethics to a time that was not ours. It's not that. Such things have always been known of and usually deplored. It's more I fear that such terrible things as rape, enslavement, genocide and child abuse, were just about to be mandatory during this time. They're just about to be forced on people by God, as things they must do if a conquest was to continue.

The biblical text of Deuteronomy 21:10-14 deals with the treatment of sexually desirable non-Jewish women who are captured in war. It addresses the sexual privileges of the captors, as well as the legal rights and the process of the socialization into Israelite society of the captives.

What is the nature of the sexual act contemplated in Deut. 21:10-14?:

"When you go forth to war against your enemies, and >>the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands<< and you have taken them captive, And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails, And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife. And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her.

We shall focus on the expression "violated her," 'initah in Hebrew, from the root 'anah. It is in the translation of this word that an attitudinal difference between the Targumim becomes apparent. In 2 Samuel 13;11-14, the story of Amnon and Tamar, the root 'anah is used twice: "do not violate me," and then "he overpowered her, he violated her, and he lay with her." If we understand "and he lay with her" to mean "and he had intercourse with her," we may understand from the juxtaposition of the two concepts that 'anah can be considered sexual violence. That is, in this instance the use of 'anah together with "had intercourse" seems to imply actual rape.

This seems to be the case as well in Gen.34:2, the story of Dinah and Shechem. There the text says: "He [Shechem] took her, and he lay with [had intercourse] with her and he violated her [vaye'anehah]." 'Anah alone would not mean necessarily rape, but simply sexual violence of some sort. Rape is again implied here by the use of 'anah and "had intercourse" together.

The idea of rape may also be expressed with other terminology. In Deuteronomy 22:25, 28 we find the verb "had intercourse" used with the verbs "took hold of," "grabbed", to imply the idea of forced intercourse i.e. rape. The verb 'anah is used alone in Lamentations 5:11, Ezekiel 22:10, and Judges 19:25, and from the context in these instances seems to imply rape.

We must recognize, however, that though it is important to determine what is meant by 'anah in Deuteronomy 21:14, rape is only one way of exerting sexual violence. Clearly sexual violence is conveyed in all the quoted instances where 'anah is used. Thus although there is no specific mention of rape in Deuteronomy 21:14, the word 'initah implies that the woman's consent (if any) to intercourse was due to her circumstances.

The expression 'initah is particularly poignant, a point that seems to have been recognized in both the Onqelos and Neophyti Targums. Onqelos actually uses the root 'anah in his translation, while Neophyti 1 has "you have exercised your power/authority [reshut] over her." Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, on the other hand, considers 'anah to be only actual intercourse, translating with the verb shamash, and thus failing to transmit the Bible's sensitivity to the captive's powerlessness.

Source: Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1

From Jewish sources:

Rav Yosef says: Come and hear a resolution from a mishna (Nidda 44b): A girl who is three years and one day old whose father arranged her betrothal is betrothed with intercourse, as the legal status of intercourse with her is that of full-fledged intercourse.

My own research from conservative orthodox Jews:

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/65726/does-the-talmud-promote-pedophilia

Bear in mind that that website’s answers are generally by Orthodox Jews and so should be read as potentially composed with that bias. Like some of the quotes are portrayed in a way that doesn’t really show some of the ugliness underneath, like the quote saying that relations with girls too young to bear children delays the messiah in context is because there need to be a certain number of Jewish souls born and so it’s not productive to have relations with them, or certain places where the answer states that someone says it's outright forbidden to have relations with girls too young to bear children, the answer leaves out that the explicit reason given is that it's wasting seed and applies to adult women with a closed womb too, and it misdirects from this fact by saying "safe childbearing age". You'd see that by actually going to the sources referenced -- https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960669/jewish/Issurei-Biah-Chapter-Twenty-One.htm and https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh%2C_Even_HaEzer.23?lang=bi-- but the answer itself didn't make that easy since it only links to the Hebrew-only versions. Or it downplays the opinions that say it's merely discouraged.

Or the Talmudic ban on marrying children leaves out that before then it was not prohibited and not uncommon. See https://utj.org/viewpoints/responsa/concerning-the-marriage-of-a-minor-girl/ for discussion. E.g. the Gemara has stories of women claiming to be married as children, such as https://www.dafyomi.co.il/nidah/points/ni-ps-045.htm

This is not to say what is generally accepted Halacha, nor that the halacha would necessarily reflect the intent of the Priestly source author of Numbers 31, just that the Stack Exchange answers given by the religious may be light on certain details.

And, it’s not at all clear that it is just some sort of legal technicality as it relates to the case in Numbers 31, since the Gemara does seem to regard 3 as practically significant as the age above which girls were considered fit for relations and thus killed: https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.60b?lang=bi

It may have to suffice to say that it’s a really immoral, but dubious, tale.

So this is what the Christians are hiding from you, and for good reason. This is something that would deconvert a human being that loves justice and morality. Christians worship their God because they think he is love and just. But this is the opposite of that, this is the opposite of Jesus words,

"This is the message we have heard from Jesus and now proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).

Also this isn't the first time Christians have lied and suppressed information regarding these type of controversial issues. They also lie about the time in the Bible when God had children sacrificed in fire -- and then lied about it.

[our-flag-means-death-ao3feed]

Never let me go

by Missey0_0

Sometimes though, in his weakest moments, when it’s still early and he’s alone on deck, Izzy fantasizes what it might be like to still have Edward like this. But that’s all Izzy allows himself, he indulges those thoughts and goes back to work, because there is nothing else he can do. And when he feels a stab of sharp pain in his chest every time, he sees Edward and Stede come out of their cabin, then that’s Izzy’s business and his alone. TLTR: After a raid Izzy has to deal with his feelings for Ed, he's not very good at it, thankfully Ed is.

Words: 2365, Chapters: 1/1, Language: English

Fandoms: Our Flag Means Death (TV)

Rating: Not Rated

Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings

Categories: M/M, Multi

Characters: Blackbeard | Edward Teach, Israel Hands, Stede Bonnet

Relationships: Blackbeard | Edward Teach/Israel Hands, Blackbeard | Edward Teach/Stede Bonnet, Blackbeard | Edward Teach/Stede Bonnet/Israel Hands

Additional Tags: Bathtubs, Bathing/Washing, Men Crying, Israel Hands Needs a Hug, Israel Hands-centric, edward teach is good at feelings, Background Steddyhands, Author is an Israel Hands Apologist, Out of Character, kind of, They're In Love Your Honor

source https://archiveofourown.org/works/44662732