#and b) is literally contradicting his own stated beliefs | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tuber-culosis · 3 years

Text

I've been reading through a lot of radfem blogs and posts lately. and gotta say, i'm leaning a lot towards radical feminism. And im definitely gender critical.

but one topic I want to talk about in particular is the criticism of Islam.

Which I feel is totally valid considering the current state of mainstream islam and Muslims.

Mainstream Islam (is what you see on all social media, seemingly practised by a lot of Muslims) IS sexist. And homophobic. There's no use denying it, neither do I think I'm a bad Muslim for not supposedly defending my own religion. You have to recognise the flaws in your own system to improve and progress.

Then arises the question why am I still Muslim then/ why do I still practise Islam? If I recognise the way it is practised is sexist and homophobic, which are things I'm against?

The difference lies in my belief that "mainstream Islam" is much different from the root of Islam.

Many (read: a LOT, not all) modern Muslims have been influenced by ultra conservative movements that want to return Islam to the way they believe was practised during the time of the Prophet (pbuh), ie; some centuries back. This is propagated by the ideas of Salafism and Wahhabism that frankly, prevent progress, reform or any sort of growth in Muslim communities.

I personally have witnessed this in my own country, India, where women are increasingly wearing the hijab and even full body covering purdahs, not talking to the opposite gender, men not looking a woman other than their wives in the eye, etc compared to when my mother was a child, when almost all Muslim women dressed in normal comfortable clothes and there were no much gender segregations. (Gender segregation still existed to a certain degree due to conservative Indian culture ofc)

This radicalisation led to the development of ultra conservative Muslims who enforce sexist, homophobic and separatist policies in the name of God.

They claim to want to return to "true Islam" but they add so many unnecessary rules and regulations you have to follow in order to be a "true Muslim" that are almost so impossible to follow I can vouch I have unconciously broken like 50 of them in one day maybe. These "laws" are derived from:

1. The hadith

2. Arab culture

3. Poor translation of the Quran to fit these radical ideals.

Explaining each of these in a little more detail,

1. A lot of practising Muslims might come at me for this one, but I feel that considering the hadith to be a holy source of guidance and believing everything in the Hadith when there are so many contradictions and logical fallacies, is foolish.

For those who have no clue what the hadith is, Islam basically has the Qur'an, which is, as we believe, a holy book revealed by God to the Prophet (pbuh), which acts as divine guidance on how to live life as a good person. It has rules, suggestions, and guidance to take desicions on a lot of everyday matters we face. It was a godsend (hehe pun fully intended) to women, who weren't even allowed to own property back then. Muslims believe that the Quran is guaranteed againt corruption by God, as revealed in one of the verses. Therefore, to a believer, it is THE book to consult, and the verses will never change, no matter how many years pass. There's actually a really interesting way the Quran is coded, so people can know if it has been tampered with or not, if anyone is interested. But the bottom line is, for a Muslim, the verses of Quran cannot be challenged. There are various INTERPRETATIONS of said verses, but the core Arabic text is the same.

Now there is a secondary source of guidance in the form of Hadith, which is literature that claims to record things the Prophet (pbuh) has said in his lifetime. The problem I find, along with other hadith critics, is that it was compiled much later after the death of the Prophet. Muslims argue that these hadiths were passed down in a proper recorded chain of transmitters that can assure the message hasn't been altered or tampered with. The problem is, that the standard used then was just how reliable was a person's memory and how trustworthy they were, and they did not actually judge the actual content of the hadith. So even if a hadith hypothetically said "Kill all the disbelievers", (which, fyi, it does NOT) and it had a reliable chain of recorders, it would be accepted as "sahih" (trustworthy) hadith, even though it clearly goes against the guidelines of the Quran, where it says there shall be no compulsion in religion (which implies you cannot just murder anyone who refuses to believe/ believes another religion). If one actually examined the content of this imaginary hadith, it would be easy to see it's tampered with by people with or without malicious intent (for eg, it might've actually been "You can kill the disbelievers ONLY if they attack you and will not leave you and your family alone") or some may not even remotely be the words of the Prophet, as he only followed the Quran.

Also, the integrity of the Hadith isn't guaranteed by God anywhere in the Quran. To know more about this, I suggest you read this link , and this one.

So yeah, I take hadith with a (large) grain of salt. So I will not be including them in my discussion obviously.

Now a lot of these hadith have been fabricated, as established, or reflect something that was applicable specifically in that time and setting, seeing that the Prophet was an ordinary man who couldn't predict the future or know about all the different cultures of the world.

So even if the headscarf was a part of Arabian attire, that doesn't mean it has to be assimilated into our cultures now. Just because prostitutes used to pluck all their eyebrows out to signify that they are prostitutes (sex work is forbidden in Islam, because of the negative impact on women and society), doesn't mean that women are not allowed to pluck their eyebrows now.

Following these hadith blindly without considering for a moment that hey, these might be outdated, seeing it isn't meant for all time periods like the Quran, and half of these contradict themselves, maybe we shouldn't consider this as an authority on rules in Islam. Personally, I don't believe anything is forbidden that is mentioned as such solely in the Hadith, and not in the Quran.

But the staunch belief in all of these Hadith leads to micromanaging of women, and literally everyone else. Few ridiculous examples include:

women can't pluck their eyebrows

men can't wear silk or gold, and they need to grow beards

music and dance is forbidden (seriously???)

the Prophet married a literal child of nine years (no do not try to justify it as "it was acceptable back then". According to the Qur'an it wasn't. Girls had to be mature enough to reject or agree to marriages and literal children can't do that. There is plenty of research to prove that Aisha (ra), his wife, was at the very least 19 or 20. Again a case of unreliable and maybe purposefully manipulated Hadith. Scholars and people who uphold the theory that Aisha was 9, and hence, child marriage is legal are pedophiles through and through)

I feel that if anything, hadith should be considered with the authority of historical commentary, giving us more context to the times, and should never be blindly trusted just because a lot of scholars say it is a "sahih" (trusted) hadith.

Also a main feature of Islam is that you don't need an extra priest (no offence to religions who have priests) or a scholar to tell you things and intervene with God for you. You have a holy book, your own common sense and humanity, and you pray to establish a connection with God. Scholars are secondary OPINIONS who can provide insight from their knowledge and research to people who want it, but by no means any authority on things, just like hadith.

2. Arab culture and society, especially back the times that radicals want to emulate, was heavily patriarchal. Islam gave women rights and protection, but they were still limited by the cultural norms of that era.

What these people actually want is to return society to Arabic culture in that time period. (Exhibit A: the abaya/purdah for women and khandoorah for men. exhibit B: sex-segregated spaces)

Back then, women were expected to be caretakers and mothers, and men were expected to be the strong masculine protector.

Enforcing said cultural norms into modern day Islam is ridiculous. Saying that women rarely left the house back then, hence women shouldn't leave their houses now is the same as saying there weren't phones back then, so I shouldn't use one now. Would you ever give up your phones? So how about we do the same to women's autonomy and freedom? Adapt to modern times like regular humans?

If women were meant to stay at home, and meant to just rear children, and never meant to be seen in public, and never meant to be seen by the opposite sex, as extremists say "is God's will", then why is none of this found in the Quran? Do you seriously believe that God, describe multiple times as All-forgiving and generous and kind, would ever persecute women to such a fate? If you do believe that, then maybe you need to re-examine in the nature of God that you believe in. Also if you tell me the "it's for their safety" gimmick, I will flip out. It has been proved multiple times that a woman's dressing has nothing whatsoever to do with why men rape.

Sure, Islam advocates for modesty in dressing, for both sexes. Both are called to not stare rudely (many Muslim men seem to forget that part of the verse, strangely), both are advised to dress in modest, comfortable, clean and practical attire. Never once is anything remotely like "YOU'LL GO TO HELL IF YOU EXPOSE YOUR ELBOW, WOMAN". But the way modern Muslims enforce the dress code (some even going to the lengths of saying women shouldn't wear BRIGHT COLOURED CLOTHES, so as to not attract attention!!! I'm looking at you, Mufti Menk), you'd think that God says something much worse than that. Infact God pulls out Uno reverse, and encourages us to dress as beautifully as we want, especially when visiting the mosque.

3. A lot of English translations of the Quran come from Saudi Arabia. A country famous for its conservative practise of Islam. While the original Arabic text cannot be changed, a lot of these translations include information in parantheses that add "rules" based on the above mentioned factors, that a casual reader or a new Muslim who doesn't know Arabic will consider to be authentic rules of the Quran, extrapolated from the verse, and not extra additions that are often derived from hadith. A very good example of this is the headcover verse, which you can see in this link.

Even all the hostility surrounding homosexual people has been derived from cultural influences and one set of verses. From around 6000 verses, just a single set passingly mention homosexuality. Don't you think that if it truly were such a great sin, God would have explicitly forbidden it? Also why would he create such a natural variation in sexuality and then forbid it? Why isn't it forbidden for animals then? Is all-loving God that cruel to create this natural and healthy attraction in them and then explicitly forbid it when straight people get to marry and live life in bliss? (Please don't say that "God also created pedophilia, and that's natural, so by this logic shouldn't we allow that too?" because pedophilia IS NOT HEALTHY, AT ALL. IT'S IS A DISORDER. Unlike homosexuality) I'm also not picking and choosing things to fit my lifestyle, as some might say, as I am straight, and the only reason I support the LGBT community because I have basic humanity?? And they're humans who deserve rights and joy and freedom and acceptance just like the rest of us.

There have been reformed translations of Quran which examine the verse without prior bias against LGBT people, and they have presented an alternate translation, that the verse condemns sexual assault, which happened to be homosexual in the particular story. Check out this link too, which explains how closely examining the words used could change the meaning from one thing to another.

What I attempted to prove in this extremely long post is that the practise of a religion isn't necessarily the reflection of its true nature.

There are progressive open-minded people who believe in Islam because it gives them hope and solace. People who believe because core beliefs of Islam aligned with their own views and simple logic.

NOT to say there aren't religious bigots who will totally use religion to manipulate people into oppressing themselves or other people. There are, there are a LOT of people like that who call themselves "scholars". And there are a lot of people who follow these extremely harmful regressive version of Islam without critically thinking about what they are following.

I've seen a post discussing the meaning of the word Islam, which means submission to God. It said that it implies total submission, without questioning what we believe.

That is an argument used by both religious extremists to further their beliefs, and by the opposite side, who say the religion is oppressive.

I wish to present a view that Islam itself tells us to think critically, to use our brains to question everything and anything we believe. And then to arrive at our own conclusions. And if you're a decent, kind human, those beliefs maybe align with Islam (not saying that if you're not Muslim, you're horrible, that is not what I meant at all). And if the opinion between people differs, there's always logic and reasoning behind every rule that is presented in the Quran. Don't believe me? Here's the verse that tells people not to blindly follow their parents' religion. And here's a list of verses about critical thinking.

The reason we (atleast reformist Muslims) submit to God is because we questioned it, we came to the conclusion that Hey! This is right. I can submit to my Creator by, who is basically the consciousness that created everything and is the source of all goodness, love and strength, because the rules mentioned here make sense and they privde a moral framework for me to base important desicions on. They feel right. And there is logic behind everything written in this.

I don't mean to present Islam as an all-perfect amazing religion everyone should believe and that I'm right, everyone else, especially those liberal atheists who criticise my religion are wrong and WILL BURN IN HELL. I consider Islam a perfect moral framework, and that's my business only. Anyone can follow what they want and it's none of my business. In fact there is no compulsion in religion at all, and people who say Muslim or go to hell are wrong imo.

What I intended was to paint a picture of reformist Muslims who are still out there, who follow the religion because they questioned it. And not the religion as this stringent rule book we all have to follow down to a t, micromanaging every aspect of our lives and living in perpetual fear of hell, but rather this basic moral guide that teaches us tact, compassion and justice, to bring us closer to God spiritually. I wanted to show that the majority isn't always reflective of what I think is the true core of Islam.

I feel that many practises in the name of Islam are highly questionable and should be criticized, but I also want people to know that the people who seemingly represent the religion, are not representative of the entire mass of believers. That sometimes the practises you might criticize might have nothing to do with the actual religion, atleast according to some of us. It was also for fellow Muslims who might be in the same place I was a few years ago, questioning everything I had learnt was part of my religion.

This is also NOT to undermine struggles of people forced to follow Islam and its seeming requirements like hijab. This is not to claim that nope, every Muslim is fine and ok, and we're all peaceful progressive people. In fact I wish to do the exact opposite, to show that people who enforce oppressive policies in the name of Islam aren't actually backed by the religion and neither should they be backed by other Muslims. I'm also not trying to say no one should criticize Islam. Criticism helps us grow. Criticism is necessary to uncover oppression and eradicate it. So by all means, criticize.

I'm so glad I found the subreddit r/progressive_Islam when I did because it helped me a lot, and opened me to other like-minded progressive Muslims, who actively hope to counter the negative effects of Salafism and conservatism that is overtaking Islam.

So yeah, I think I covered almost everything I wanted to talk about and here's a final link that pretty much just states my position on things.

PS idk why this thingy is in different colours it just seemed cooler and less boring to read

#religion #islamicpost #radfem #gender critical #muslim #progressive #change #critical thinking #sexism #feminism #feminist #allies #humanity #extremism #womenempowerment #freewomen #headcovering #mine

83 notes · View notes

beepbeepbobop · 3 years

Text

Back again.

I was telling my friend (who isn’t a Baccano! fan, but listens to me ramble) about my take on immortals and Czeslaw, and I don’t know where to put it, so! It goes here. As a warning, this is mostly me rambling and probably treads ground that has been talked about a lot in the past, but I hope it’s interesting anyway.

(This and the Infinity Train post is not a sign that I’m going to be more active in the future. Social media and the prospect of interacting with other people’s posts still make me anxious. Maybe one day.)

So! The first thing to keep in mind is that change is a major theme in Baccano!. No one is incapable of changing, but people have different relationships with it depending on who they are. Czes can't believe that he has changed seventy years after Isaac & Miria stealing him despite clear evidence that he has. Meanwhile, Nile actively resists change: His greatest fear after becoming immortal was that he would become desensitized to the loss of human life and begin to devalue it, so he spent decades fighting in active war zones so that he'd never forget the reality of death. This backfired, and instead left him inured to loss of life...but it's clear that he doesn't want to be this way? Realizing that he's gotten to the point where his expression doesn't even change if someone dies is devastating for him. Chane is the opposite: While it's absolutely for the best that she stops being a hitwoman and killing machine for her father, softening up is terrifying to her because then she can't serve her father the way she wants to. Czes is on the opposite end of the spectrum, because he wants to be better because he thinks he's a bad person (later on, he decides that he's the only bad person left in the world. Sir.), but can't recognize it because he doesn't feel different.

And...this is pertinent to the older immortals in particular - I'd argue even moreso than with the younger ones. Aside from the fact that the Elixir literally stops you from changing in the sense of age or injury...it also has to place inhibitors on your brain. Your brain is, after all, a physical part of your body! There are some....weird aspects about immortality that no one is able to figure out (for example, immortals can give birth; someone also pointed out that there are no examples of crying in reverse even though that's also a part of your body), but it's still safe to say that the brain doesn't age either because then...then a lot of the cast would be catatonic from Alzheimer's. Even without that, the human body can only retain so many memories. If an immortal's brain had the ability to deteriorate over time or overload based off of the amount of memories it contains....well, I don't think any of the older immortals would be able to function. Szilard definitely wouldn't be able to function (and neither would Firo after he devours Szilard) because Szilard has the memories of over a dozen people running around in his brain. Which brings me to my next point: If an immortal's brain functioned like a human's, devouring would not work as a concept. One of the hallmarks of being immortal is gaining other people's memories. Imagine the strain that would cause. And yet, it doesn't seem to be a problem! The chief worry of those who have devoured other immortals is worrying that having the memories of the other person might change you consciously or subconsciously. This is Firo's concern over devouring Szilard.

So...the fact that the brain doesn't physically grow older or change (with some leniency given because real world science sure is iffy here)...feels relevant because, mn...

Many of the older immortals feel stagnant, or stuck in time. Firstly, if the immortals changed at the same pace as a human being, I don't think most of them would be recognizable from one era to the other. And yet, they are! The Victor Talbot of the 1700s is clearly the same person as the Victor Talbot of the 1930s, albeit with alterations (because what kind of person would stay exactly the same after centuries?). The answer to that question is Elmer, by the way. Everyone comments on how he acts just like the Elmer they remember back in the day. But Elmer is a special case, seeing as he's our local empty shell and probable sociopath (not that he has ASPD! ASPD, sociopathy and psychopathy all present and function entirely differently from each other, which makes it....strange that they're lumped under the same umbrella - but that's another matter). Secondly, immortals...Uhm, they all handle grief horribly, and seem to feel stuck in the past? Maiza, for instance, acts starkly different from his past as a rebellious noble-boy gang member, but he's never forgiven himself for giving Gretto the information that led to his death. (Gretto being his brother.) Huey's overarching goal is to bring his dead girlfriend back to life, and he's been working towards this goal for centuries. Sylvie, who admittedly was not an immortal when Gretto died, held off on drinking the Elixir until she was all grown up, then set out to finding Szilard to take revenge on him for killing the boy she had run away with. This lasted for, you guessed it, centuries.

This isn't to say that immortals don't change, or even that they don't change drastically. I mentioned Nile, who became inured to death after fighting in war for decades. Czes went from a trusting, innocent child to someone paranoid and self-centered enough to try and get an entire train car's worth of people killed for his own safety to someone who wants to be a good person, but thinks he never will be and that there's something fundamentally wrong with him. But changing appears to be very, very difficult, and happens over an extended period of time in response to extreme situations.

And...this is particularly relevant to Czes (who keeps coming up as an example because he's the main person I'm thinking about with this tangent) because....it arguably hits him harder than any of the others due to being a child. Only the best decisions were made aboard the Advenna Avis, which includes letting the eight year old drink the immortality elixir. But...mn. It's one thing to be perpetually in your thirties, or twenties, or sixties, and another altogether to perpetually be eight years old. Czes can't truly 'grow up' even though he has more life experience than most adults combined, and it shows in his extreme emotional reactions, his self-centeredness, ect. There's a certain misconception about anime-only fans that he's an adult in a child's body, but I think it's easier to tell in the light novels that that's not the case, especially since you see what he's like back before the Advenna Avis. (He is shy. Very shy. Did nothing wrong ever.) Also, the fact that SAMPLE goes, "Yes! The perfect sacrifice!" when they specifically take a child to target emphasizes this. It's not proof - I'm pretty sure that SAMPLE would focus on his physical age as an 'eternal child', and may or may not have the resources to analyze him and go, "This boy is still eight years old in his head," - , but it hammers the point home.

Then...mn. One thing that's stuck out to me ever since the start is how long Czes was with Fermet. There's such a thing as learned helplessness, and it's not like Czes had anywhere to go, so that's not what is odd to me...especially when Fermet is known for manipulating people, and could definitely seed the idea that Czes can't go anywhere. More than physical proximity, I think about how long Czes believed in Fermet. It's explicitly stated that Czes absorbing Fermet's memories is what made him realize that - oh, Fermet was just sadistic and everything he said was an excuse. And...I think this is both an example of being controlled in many respects, and....another example of an immortal being stuck in the past - but in a very, very different way.

First off, learning that the people you look up to want to harm you is...difficult at best, especially when you're younger? But being mentally 'stuck' at a certain age would make things worse, because Czes is perpetually an age where it's natural to depend on a parental figure, and at an age where the brain isn't equipped to make those kinds of calls or realizations. There's also the matter of cognitive dissonance! Cognitive dissonance means a lot of things, but essentially, it's the idea that you have two conflicting beliefs, but the actions you take can retroactively alter your beliefs/place emphasis on one more than the other, as the mind is predisposed to reduce dissonance. I...take issue with how cognitive dissonance is interpreted because many examples don't account for the beliefs or opinions not being equal in the first place, but that's not the point. The point is that, as a child, the impulse to reduce dissonance is present while also being played against difficulty reading intentions, perceiving the world outside of yourself, and thinking critically. (For what it's worth, abusers also tend to discourage critical thinking because it damages their narrative, which would also play a part.) So, for example...

Say that, theoretically, Czes was yelled at every time he questions the idea that Fermet's intentions are right, or that maybe Fermet doesn't have his best interests in mind. (Czes is insightful, and they lived with each other for a long time, so this probably happened at least once unless the text directly contradicts me.) This is tame compared to the things we know about his time with Fermet, but ignore that. The desire to not be yelled at would lead him to hurriedly agree later on, and cognitive dissonance means that you're inclined to try to make your beliefs agree with your actions. In other words, the more he plays along, the more his brain tells him that he definitely believes this, and it makes perfect sense to! Fermet has shown that he cares about him, and took him in after his grandfather died, so of course. It only makes sense. And it's even harder for him to bridge the gap to a different conclusion because of how difficult it seems to be for immortals to change. It's only when Czes devours Fermet (or...or at least gets his memories) that everything snaps into place, because he can't reconcile that no matter how hard he tries (coincidentally, this also happens when he gets memories of being an adult, and while I seriously doubt that Czes went through Fermet's memories willingly, it kind of hammers my point about how difficult being eternally young would make things). So of course he snaps as hard as he does. It'd be kind of amazing if he didn't, honestly.

TLDR: Being immortal made it even harder for him to recognize or comprehend his trauma. Sorry for that.

#baccano #baccano!#czeslaw meyer #nile (baccano)#I don't know who else I discussed enough to tag #but the segment about szilard made me wonder whether you would have more memories from devouring a dozen people or from living #for a couple centuries #I think it depends on how old the immortals were #discord ramblings

20 notes · View notes

akisata-moved · 3 years

Text

a little bit of divine worldbuilding 🕊️

hi everyone! i said i would make a post about my angel worldbuilding and the lore surrounding it, so here we are. let's get into this!

(as a forewarning: this got really long really fast. sorry lol)

i. at the beginning of the universe: what's the deal with god, heaven, and hell?

you know... this guy. ...or, guys? i use they pronouns for god, not because they're nonbinary rep or anything but because the classic collection uses they pronouns for god because they are literally plural. so, multiple guys.

a. the universe's first inhabitants 🌟

we can't have angels (or anything, really) without god. so... what is god?

to put it simply, "god" is a small collective of beings that hail from a primordial race of creatures called aeons. contrary to popular belief, "god" did not create the universe as a whole.

that being said, they WERE the first beings to exist in the universe; gifted with near-immortality and the power of creation, they were essentially burdened the cosmic purpose of bringing the universe to life. think of them as... like, demiurges, really. despite being the first beings in the universe, they didn't really start popping up until ~370,000 years into the universe existing.

(whether or not there is a "supreme" being above them isn't something i've given TOO much thought to. my working idea is that the universe is quite literally a supreme being in itself.)

so, our "god" is not the only ones of their kind. there isn't a large amount of them, but considering the size of the universe and how it's ever-expanding... there's enough of them to go around, you know.

as the early stages of the universe progress, they start to become aware of the existence of each other. it's difficult to be what is essentially a god and be unaware of the presences that surround you.

the attitudes that they held towards each other varied from aeon to aeon. some of them worked in tandem, others remained solitary. some of them competed with others, and others dedicated themselves to watching over their corner of the universe and making it a home.

there weren't many "overstepped boundaries" in the infinitely expanding stretch of space they had at their disposal. in the early stages of the universe, there was no need for that kind of thing. they all mostly stayed in their own lanes.

during the early epochs, they mostly just spent their time experimenting, growing and changing, and learning the ins and outs of their little cosmic playground.

due to the nature and scope of their abilities, and their immortality, they were mostly aware that their exploits were relatively infinitesimal. they had a very acute awareness that every planet and galaxy they created would eventually crumble.

similarly to their attitudes towards each other, the attitudes they held towards their creations varied. some liked to stay disconnected, and hopped from creation to creation, moving on as soon as they finished working on their little project. others were more involved.

in regards to their abilities, they aren't omnipotent. in fact i wouldn't even really call them omnificent. if there was a way to describe what they were able to do, it would be... transmute? the universe provided all the materials for creation, and so it was their job to use their divine power to... make something with it, really. they can't create something out of absolutely nothing. there has to be something for them to make stuff.

they also don't really have any kind of set moral compass. so none of them are inherently evil, good, bad, whatever.

of course, given the fact that they mostly reside in space (we'll get to what exactly "heaven" is in a little), they aren't necessarily bound to one physical shape or form. we love shapeshifters.

b. the devilman "god", and the prison of light 🕯️

the devilman "god" is a trio of aeons who bonded over a certainty and awareness of what they wanted from the universe. they strove to create something perfect— something beautiful. better than every other creation out there. other aeons' work was... sloppy, imperfect, and quite ugly.

as stated before, the aeons aren't necessarily physical beings. that makes it really easy for them to fuse with each other, as they aren't really bound to any kind of physics or laws governing their consciousnesses and bodies.

"so are they a hivemind" not necessarily? they're all just... fused together. the pros of fusing together like that means that one single entity now has the power of three aeons, which lets them do a lot more than if they were all separate, and on a larger scale. god is a throuple

they probably aren't the only aeon group to do this, honestly.

fun note: the devilman "god" never refers to themselves as another aeon. they always refer to themselves as a "god", and it's mainly just because they think they're better than the rest of the aeons lol. i'll be referring to them as god from here on out just because it's easier.

so, then what? god decides that they need a place for themselves. a pocket of space only for them (+ eventually, the angels). they needed a home base of sorts, a place that represented their vision as they imagined it. and so, they created heaven.

so what even is heaven? it's essentially a sub-universe, or a pocket of the universe that god hid away just for themselves.... and for the angels, which were created afterwards.

once again, i doubt heaven is the only realm of its kind. i doubt that god is the only aeon who had the idea for a "home base" of sorts.

heaven started out as a home just for god, but as angelic society grew, it eventually turned into a whole kingdom. that being said, god still has a palace Just For Them at the very top layer of it!

people don't go to heaven. nope. that doesn't happen. mainly because it's not an "afterlife".

after god created heaven and the angels, heaven because a home for all of them. heaven was created to be perfect (in the eyes of its creator), or as close to perfect as god could manage while also having a species with (sort of) free will residing within it.

heaven is almost like a hidden galaxy, except a LOTTT smaller.

heaven is mostly made up of clouds and solid energy. there are actually five layers of heaven; one for each sphere of the angelic choir, one for the Archangels, and one for god.

that isn't to say that the angels are confined to one layer. they can freely travel about, it's just that they'll usually spend time in the layer dedicated to their sphere, unless they're stationed to work elsewhere.

the need for more and more angels became more important as time went on. god became more... power hungry, and they fell harder into the belief that they alone were the ones worthy of the universe. they eventually gained a very hostile attitude towards other aeons and cosmic societies. this wasn't unheard of, really, but considering how most of them stayed in their own lanes, having god be all... aggressive was a little bit of a shock. needless to say, this resulted in the formation of enemies... and other forms of cosmic politics.

heaven and angelic culture has a lot of emphasis on architecture! ...although, not in a way you would expect. the best way i can explain it is that it's very... suess-like.

lots of staircases, lots of columns, lots of... that kind of thing...

while we're on the topic of sub-universes, we can talk a little about hell, too.

hell was actually created by the universe itself, not by the aeons or god or anything. it has always existed, and is sort of a universal collection all life and souls. sorta like the universe's garbage can for all dead things.

it’s less of an eternal resting place and more of an intermediary location you go while the universe works to basically recycle your soul and convert it back to its original state.

ii. what is an angel?: a little on angelic society

a. the angelic choir at a glance📜

angelic society as a whole is referred to as the angelic choir.

the main thing about angelic society is that it's split into different spheres based on how much power an angel has/the specific task they were made to do.

why do angels exist in the first place? they were made to be servants of god, and basically do everything that they do... for them. so, deliver messages, be soldiers, do tasks and chores and watch over the things god makes... all that kind of thing.

angels have free will, but were created with an ingrained sense of duty that usually outweighs said free will. or perhaps it influences their free will. hard to tell. that being said, most angels will not do anything if it directly contradicts their purpose.

also, angels are not inherently “good” aligned. like I said, they have free will, which means they have choices. angels can be shitty people! whether or not an angel “falls” has nothing to do with what their character is like, and everything to do with whether or not they are defiant to God.

not a lot of angels do defy god, either. an angel being kicked out of heaven is pretty rare.

anyways, back to the angelic choir... there are three spheres of angel, each with three types of angel in them. the highest ranking angels are the first order of the first sphere, and the lowest ranking are the third order of the third sphere. yeah.

in the first sphere you have the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones. the first sphere angels are the only angels that tend directly to god.

the second sphere is made up of the dominations, the virtues, and the powers.

the third sphere consists of the principalities, the arches, and the angels (generic term).

Archangels are above the first sphere in rank. they're the most powerful angels, and there aren't very many of them.

b. archangels and the angels of the first sphere🔥

Archangels, as stated before, are the most powerful angels and the ones with the most important duties. they're mostly angelic supervisors that manage angels with different specialties. who are the archangels? before lucifer's fall, there were eight different archangels.

jophiel (archangel of wisdom and inspiration), chamuel (archangel of divine justice), gabriel (archangel of revalation), raphael (archangel of healing), uriel (archangel of truth and light), zadkiel (archangel of healing), and, of course, michael (archangel of strength and courage) and lucifer (archangel of love and empathy).

the first sphere angels are the angels that are closest to god, and the only ones that can interact where with them directly. they're the least... replaceable angels, except for the archangels. that's why they don't really leave heaven.

the seraphim are the bodyguards of the throne, and those who directly guard and protect both god's palace and the different layers of heaven itself. they're stationed just about everywhere on the fifth layer of heaven, and then scattered about in the other layers just to keep an eye on everything. they're also stationed at the entrances and exits.

they're busy a LOT of the time. they take their jobs very seriously.

the seraphim are the angels that interact the most with god. the cherubim and the thrones do, too, but not as frequently.

the tradition when interacting with god is to cover their faces and bodies with their wings when interacting directly with them. it's a sort of humbling thing, to show that they regard themselves as lesser than them. just out of respect.

the cherubim are the celestial recordkeepers of heaven, and the ones that really hold the knowledge of god and heaven.

they're known for their wisdom, and they keep records of everything that happens in their part of the universe. nothing goes undocumented, really. heaven's historians are also cherubim.

along with keeping records of events, they also keep track of all of the angels that are created, and those that come in and out of heaven. and those who go out and dont come back. yeah.

jophiel is the archangel who supervises the cherubim.

the thrones are some of the most intellectual angels and have wonderful minds. they serve as both teachers, guides, and counselors for the lower ranks of the angels.

they're the ones in charge of receiving orders from god and dishing out duties to the lower ranks (dominations, mostly) and explaining them. celestial teachers, really. they're very engaged with the rest of angelic society, and are always willing to offer an explanation or a helping hand to other angels.

they're also the head order that deals with cosmic laws and making sure everything that god makes works the way it's supposed to. god doesn't really have time to keep everything in check themselves, so it's up to the thrones and the virtues to make sure their creation... functions like it should.

lucifer was supposed to the archangelic supervisor of the thrones...? but, uh... that didn't exactly.... uh.... work out....

after lucifer was cast out, jophiel was put in charge of both the thrones and the cherubim. it's a lot of work for one angel, really, but she doesn't mind.

c. angels of the second and third spheres☄️

the first order of the second sphere is the dominations. think of these guys as... well, management.

they're in charge of managing the angelic kingdoms, and of regulating the second sphere angels in lower orders.

they help keep everyone organized. there's a lot of things to keep track of.

the dominions get their orders from the thrones (who receive orders from god), and pass along orders to the principalities in the third sphere along with the virtues and powers. it's just a big chain.

zadkiel is the archangel in charge of the dominations rank. he also deals with some of the stuff that the principalities handles, but mostly sticks to dominations.

the second order of the second sphere is the virtues. if seraphim are the guards and watchers of heaven itself, then the virtues are the watchers of the universe (well, god's part of the universe, anyways).

they watch over everything god creates, from planets, galaxies, luminaries, and other celestial bodies to make sure the cosmos are in order. and that nothing is going wrong.

they work closely with certain thrones angels for this reason.

it's actually very important to make sure shit isn't going wrong. especially considering how their god's... hostile attitude... attracts some not so friendly faces.

uriel is the archangel in charge of the virtues, and because of the close ties between the virtues and the thrones, he quickly became good friends with lucifer.

the powers are the third order of the third sphere, and they make up the angelic army.

can basically be split into two groups— soldiers and healers. the soldiers were originally led by chamuel, but the job was pretty much taken over by michael once he showed up, and chamuel instead switched gears to deal more with strategizing after that. raphael supervises those more geared towards healing.

running an army is hard work, turns out. there's a lot that goes into it.

the third sphere is the most populous sphere; they're like worker bees. they're very easy to replace, and are very expendable.

third sphere angels actually leave heaven a lot. they deal with intergalactic relationships.

in the first sphere, the principalities are the main managers of the lower-ranking arches and angels. they're very similar to the dominations in that regard, and they actually get their orders from them. like i said before... it's a big chain.

they're the ones that are stuck dealing the most with cosmic politics.

arches are celestial envoys, while your everyday angels work as messengers, running back and forth between heaven and other places in space. angel postal service!

the angels and arches are also assigned most of the mundane tasks not given to any higher ranks.

usually the angels go out in groups, because there's safety in numbers, and space is REALLY big. at least one arch will accompany an angel group, and on occasion, a principality will come too, depending on how important things are.

that being said, there have been many, many instances where angels don't come back. sometimes they get lost. this happens more often than it should.

gabriel is the head messenger archangel. he's the postmaster. angel. guy.

d. okay i'll bite. what are angels made of. aka, angel physiology 🌠

angels are special. lol.

they're made of photon energy (in the case of most angels) and thermal energy (in the case of seraphim).

(lucifer is an Archangel, so he is... as stated above, made of photons.)

as stated before, god can't create something out of nothing. the energy needed to create angels actually is specific to the energy emitted from dying stars. every angel comes from the death of a star.

so, this means a couple of things. first of all, as angels are created, not born, they don't actually have a functional reproductive system. because they weren't created with the intention of reproduction. the genitalia is decorative essentially tbh. also, every angel looks like this. it's definitely not a reproductive thing. it's entirely aesthetic.

"romance" is essentially nonexistent in angel culture. uh, they all see each other as some kind of equivalent of siblings, considering they were all made directly by the same creator. they all refer to god as their parents, and so they all see each other as siblings.

(that being said, it's not like they're incapable of love or anything. ryosatanlucifer retains his feelings for akira even after he turns back into an angel, so it's not like he can't feel love or anything like that. i mean, that should be obvious, but i felt the need to specify anyways)

the second thing this: angels lack all forms of physical sensation. their bodies are... kind of numb to all sense of touch, taste, smell, etc. they are, in some circumstances, intangible. what does that mean? well...

sorry for having so much stuff from go nagai world.... we never got to see satan in the actual ovas </3

they can float through stuff sometimes. their tangibility (on earth) is actually up to them. so, for example, if they wanted to, they could float through a door. or they could open a door by turning the doorknob. though, they wouldn't be able to experience the sensation of actually touching the doorknob.

anywho. there are actual a few variations of angelic appearance depending on what rank of angel they are! i have... erm... drawn a few examples of some of the angels, but not a whole lot? ahh.... there they are anyways. some of the descriptions are a little outdated bc i've changed into since then but YEAH!!

Archangels, at the very top of the angelic choir, are beautiful with 12 large snow-white wings— two on the head, two from the shoulderblades, two on the middle back, two on the lower back, on on each arm and one on each ankle. they’re all nearly identical- though, most of the angels within each order looks nearly identical. they’re identical in the way that cats of the same coat color and breed are identical. michael and lucifer are actually identical, though, because they’re like real life twins, and are born from the same star. yeah!

seraphim are made from condensed thermal energy rather than light energy. they’re super hot. Lol. they have 10 wings (head, shoulders, lower back, arms, and ankles) unlike the Archangel’s 12. They’re warmer in color scheme than the Archangels, which are usually a sort of yellow-white color? they glow. seraphim are more red-orange because they’re… heat. They also have the ability to manifest flames out of their body, though it’s kind of just for show considering how it can't really do anything.

the cherubim are covered in eyes. or, their wings are covered in eyes- they have 8 of them! wings, I mean (head, shoulders, lower back, and ankles). they have way more than eight eyes. Also, they can open eyes up on their bodies when they get really stressed or angry! it’s a fun neat cherubim trait. all the cherubim are so tired. let them go home please.

the thrones are the third order in the first sphere of the Angelic choir, and these are our ringy-boys. they're the angels with the most emphasis on halos- they can make them spin really fast and manifest more rings around them whenever they feel strongly or honestly just when they want to. they’re usually surrounded by them, just as a sort of status thing. they typically serve as messenger angels (delivering orders to the second sphere) and bodyguards for the cherubim. they have 6 pairs of wings (head, shoulders, and lower back).

from there on out appearance is mostly dictated by sphere— second sphere angels (dominations, virtues, and powers) have two sets of wings (on the head and the shoulders), while first sphere angels (principalities, arches, and angels) have only one set of wings on their shoulders, and look pretty similar to the standard depiction of angels.

e. some more about angel culture in general

i just wanted to share some more fun little details about angel culture, because there IS stuff beyond work for these guys lol

society is really easy to be sustained when there's no need for "hard labor", and when everyone is created with a sense of purpose. and the fact that they don't really need to eat or anything.

since there isn't much of a need for extra work outside of everyone's Assigned Jobs, when there is free time, it's mostly dedicated to the arts. there's actually a LOT of focus on art in angelic culture!

though, it's a lot less... genuine? than "human art". the idea of "perfection" is heavily exalted in angelic society, mainly because that's what god wishes for, and god is the One Real Authority in their society. a lot of angelic art tries to reflect this idea of perfect beauty that they've had drilled into their heads from the beginning of their existence.

of course, perfection is unachievable for the angels. so sad.

art that depicts any kind of "flaw" is entirely unheard of. angels are the ultimate perfectionists.

since none of the angels actually LOOK at god (the archangels and first spheres cover their eyes with their wings when they come in direct contact with them), a lot of art is actually of god. it's always sort of a contest to see how perfectly and beautiful they can depict god. it's a form of worship, really.

they do have a written language. but "novels" aren't really a thing. they aren't super big on fiction. what's the point of that?

instead, they use written language to keep historical accounts, archive events, and write PSALMS. so so many psalms. they really love to write music dedicated to praising their god.

"music" in quotes, because it's... not exactly comparable to human music. it's angel music, guys. cmon.

they also like writing poetry a lot.

because of the way they worship perfection in art/writing, things end up feeling a little bit... sterile? yeah.

obviously, since they are in space, they don't use any kind of timescale similar to days/hours/weeks/etc. there's a sort of "day" equivalent in which things are a lot... brighter? but that's really it.

angels don't age, either. they have no concept of age.

they do have another consistent method of keeping time, though, and it's based on how long it takes for angels (third rank of the third sphere) to be created. lower rank angels are really being produced at a constant rate, to make up for losses, so it's easy to divide time this way. the time it takes to make one angel = one angelic "day".

they don't really have any equivalent of years, instead naming longer periods of time (ages) after whatever archangel was created last. so, the age of gabriel, or the age of uriel.

when michael and lucifer were made At the same Time, the cherubim got into a lot of arguments over who to name the age after. it wasn't like there was any way to choose between the two.

so they just decided on both eventually. lol. they called it the age of lucifer and michael.

after lucifer well, a new Age started. so the age of lucifer and michael and the age of michael are two separate time periods.

michael is sooooooooooooo cocky about that, too. what a bitch.

anyways, like stated before, the idea of perfection is super important to angels. to them, god represents the ULTIMATE perfection.

and on that same note, talking bad about god, and going against god's will, is a very big NO!!!!!!. they REALLY do not do that.

.......okay!!!!!!!! whew!

that was a LOT, but if you read all the way through... mwah! thank you so much for listening to my thoughts!!!! i might make a separate post about lucifer's history/his relationships with the other angels/his fall later on. but for now.... here's just some basic stuff about angels and how they work!!! yeah!!!!!

#devilman #hi i made this post because i ... erm... saw some other posts that just horrified me today<3 #how is everyone else doing.#me pulling info from three different word docs i have up rn #tbh... i dont expect anyone to read this. this more of a personal post for myself #LONG POST BTWWW #angel stuff #<- new TAG

31 notes · View notes

stray-tori · 3 years

Text

Emma’s character arc in the anime (or what I think it is, anyway) (anime-only)

Her "nothing has happened in a year and it's my fault" vent is -- a) kind of meta (they literally have only been passengers in their s2-story so far*. rescued by mujika/sonju, directed by Minerva, chased out by the farm force & now on the run. right now, they have so small agency in the story and not only is the narrative acknowledging it, Emma's development herself seems to be a result of it)

* in part that's also true for s1, they have always been carried a little. By Krone, for giving them the pen, and by Norman for generally being the connecting piece until he was gone and even then he outlined most elements of the plan for Emma.

-- b) interesting because right now it makes her the opposite of Norman who despite not being in the season for almost half of its run time, arguably made more goal-related progression (i.e. stealing children from farms - assuming it was them -, while Emma couldn't even go back for the Phil and others; probably having a base to bring the children they steal (i doubt the group that was with him are ALL of them), while Emma's base, the bunker, had to be abandoned). He’s the plot-driving character even when he's not there and now that he is, I'm assuming there will be more of a lead / idea of where to go from there.

It feels like a foil setup but I'm not entirely sure for what.

so, clearly this season's theme is not burdening everything by yourself - proof:

Ray spelled it out in ep1, Gilda reaffirmed it in ep2 and the opening’s visuals with her in the vidaflower field also seem to carry the whole “we’re finding hope together” angle

Emma did agree to it but then still said “I’m fine” after the vidaflower scene and is now blaming herself for everything that has been going subpar

also, the tidbit about the older kids always leaving more food for the younger ones also fits this theme, though it's not just Emma in that regard. and Lani and Thoma were the “don’t burden everything on yourself” argument in that scene.

I actually think Emma has slowly become more self-burdening, because I feel like back in s1, while she always seemed strong, it never felt like she actively hid from anyone. She did some things by herself like figuring out the room measurements, but she still felt free to bring up anything to the others and involve the children (place trust in them) later with the execution of the escape plan. Even when Norman's life was on the line, she never really intended to fully sacrifice herself like Ray had with the distraction plan or Norman did with his shipment - she never said anything like taking his place, she was still very much in the "we" mindset (at least if I remember correctly). We haven’t seen her work together like towards the end of s1 where she coordinated everyone - even when the kids were a huge part of the solution, like Chris knowing the bunker’s layout, it wasn’t because she told them to do that.

In a way, I feel like Emma's development actually made her more like Norman (who usually used to keep stuff to himself, and tried to juggle all the conflicts himself, and in the end, took the burden of making the plan work even at the expense of his """"death""""). Heck, her words after the vidaflower scene ("I'm / it's okay" (daijoubu)) is something Norman says/said a lot, it's basically his trademark pff-

So I can't help but assume these are connected, and Emma is - whether intentionally or not - trying to mirror Norman because in her mind, everything's been going wrong since he wasn't there to aid them anymore (which she's actually right about, which leads me to my next point).

The fine line between character angst and the savior trope. I hope the anime will use this whole setup with Emma’s arc instead of just being like “ah, Norman Christ has arrived, our lord and savior, how good that we don’t have to worry about anything anymore”. Because they actually, in-universe, acknowledge that "nothing has happened" and that's imo a fine line they have going on right now, which could lead to some interesting character moments.... or they completely ignore it and thank god, our lord and savior.

Because it's not a problem that they are being carried, in fact, as mentioned before they have been carried outside of s2 as well, by Norman specifically as well too. He's always been a sort of savior figure, even after his death he motivated them to go on (see ghost Normans, see Emma talking about how she promised him, see Ray on the ground wanting to continue because he promised (to Emma too but you get the point, and Norman was the one who initially saw through his plan)) - he IS in a lot of ways, a savior. So I'm not saying it's bad narratively if now he's back and the plot moves more towards the goal again. I'm saying it's questionable, if now Emma's and the narrative's acknowledgement of that lack of progression go away too. Because THEN it's actually just "everything is solved now and we're useless without you", and I think it NEEDS to develop Emma further in order for that angle to still be there (and to still be kind of questionable), but to be narrative-ly significant because it's part of Emma's arc and therefore her later actions.

In short, Emma’s low-point revolves around the stagnation and to resolve it (the lowpoint) with Norman’s return would be questionable.

SO I have hope for juicy angst but also see how this could horribly backfire.

Now, I've been trying to figure out were her arc is going, considering all of that.

"Burdening everything by yourself is bad" theme

Emma hates herself for not being able to do anything

Norman is her opposite / foil in that regard

So possible ways to go here are

a) further make Emma feel inferior to Norman, since she never got to do all those things she took upon herself and make her mental state even worse

b) it will probably lead to Emma contributing whatever she can to her family’s rescue, no matter what it takes out of her.

likely both.

The interesting thing is that while narratively this sets up a sort of opposite-dynamic between Emma and Norman, they do both share the self-burdening-thing now (I doubt that changed about Norman, but maybe it did); so I feel like this can only end in a "who's more self-sacrificial and bottling up" contest.

Taking the theme into account, I feel like it’s going for one of the following things, maybe multiple:

a) they all work together in the end to reach their future (probably Ray has to bonk them both and be like "shut up, we're doing this together" because I feel like he's the only one who actually got out of his self-damning hole somewhat)

b) the kids come barging in with the/a solution while Norman and Emma are busy trying to be self-sacrificial (Lani and Thoma HAVE been observing and trying to balance the self-sacrificial out throughout the season, mostly by humor, so I feel like that could work even if I don't know how it could be DONE so hmmm)

c) if someone has to do a sacrifice like Norman in s1, it won’t be done through trickery of the others, or won't work / will be stopped / backfire

Because I don’t think what will happen is that someone actually gets to sacrifice themselves without massive consequences from the other characters because that’d contradict both the overall season's theme and if it was forced upon the others, it would just mirror s1 and show no narrative growth.

It's a fickle situation because I feel like the natural evolution of this arc would be to have Emma be, the "hero" or a leader-position or something of the sort. But the self-sacrificial theme forbids her from doing it on her own or by massively hurting herself in the process so.... ahhh idk how they'll handle that!

because I like the "together" message it seems to be aiming for but at the same time, having a character struggle with not being able to do anything by herself in the same like 6 episodes as “yay, we need to do it together!” is a little risky since while it could work, doing teamwork in a way where everyone is important, while also not validating Emma's belief is.... hard.

It could work if Norman’s arc is the opposite, to let others do more for him and let Emma take over (who needs to built confidence as a leading figure); but even then Emma has to be driving force. If Norman initiates that, he’s actually saving her in every sense.

#tpn #tpn s2 #tpn anime #the promised neverland s2 #tpn anime-only #tpn emma #tpn theory #tori has opinions #tori talks #long post

16 notes · View notes

quellgame · 3 years

Text

Prolegomena 1 - Nietzsche's Legacy

a. Cringe Culture as Philistinism

In his book Anti-Nietzsche, Malcolm Bull provides a thorough critique of Nietzschean aesthetic thought. “Philistine,” Bull claims, is the insult of contemporary times. A philistine is somebody who refuses to appreciate high culture, or fine art; one who denies aesthetic value. Yet, for all the vitriol, nobody seems to have taken on the mantle of philistinism. If there are no philistines, what explains the endless accusations?

If philistines were to have a theory, argues Bull, it must take shape as the transience of all values. We know from Nietzsche that nihilism approaches the devaluation of all value - but that this very devaluation requires a re-evaluation. For Nietzsche, evaluation ultimately takes the form of aesthetic valuation. It is easy to deny specific values, but it is not so easy to be rid of value altogether. Nietzsche argues that it is impossible to completely remove valuation. Once all other values have been removed, nothing is left but pure preference. This is the role of the superman: as taste-maker - the creator of value. But if there is no base on which value rests, why not re-evaluate these newly created values?

Thus, although value may be ineradicable, it may also be fragile, and its existence in any one area a contingent historical fact dependent on local conditions. [...] With this in mind, it is worth asking whether the fact that philistinism is a form of negation that is universally condemned but nowhere visible may be [...] a historically significant indication of the nature and location of positive value in contemporary society. (Bull, 6)

Nowhere can a challenge to aesthetic norms be seen more clearly in contemporary culture than in the based/cringe debate. “Based” refers to content that is aesthetically appealing in some undefined but culturally understood sense, while “cringe” refers to content that makes one “cringe” - is unappealing both aesthetically and morally. If Bull’s method is correct, it would do us well to take a look at based culture in an attempt to understand where its values lie. We’ll argue that based culture is oppressive. As based culture’s aesthetic opposite, we have a moral imperative to examine cringe culture so as to discover and replicate its value framework.

Bull’s genius lies in his method of deconstructing Nietzche: instead of reading Nietzsche as intended - on the side of the oppressor, or against the oppressor - Bull decides to read Nietzsche like a loser - as the one to whom all the fiery rhetoric is spoken. In this way, Bull discovers Nietzsche as a groomer, and positions himself as a rejected candidate. He examines Nietzsche’s rhetoric and theoretical framework to understand how and why Nietzsche is so capable of pulling in an audience and making them believe him. I’ll argue that Nietzsche’s abusive rhetoric is directly mirrored in both fascism and in based culture.

b. Nietzsche as Groomer

Nietzsche intends his books to be read for victory. He calls to an audience like himself, those who “belong to a time that has not yet come to pass;” in other words, people who might transcend the “idiotic,” “subhuman,” “slave-like” nature of contemporary society. Clearly, this is cruelty, but it is

[n]o wonder Nitezsche can so confidently identify his readers with the Supermen. It is not just flattery. If Nietzsche’s readers have mastered his text, they have demonstrated just those qualities of ruthlessness and ambition that qualify them to be ‘masters of the earth’. (Bull, 35)

One might recognize this as the first step in any grooming process: flatter your target, make them feel safe and loved. Fulfil for them a need: in this case, the need for power. Once the indoctrination has begun, those in power can begin to ostracize and criminalize the group they have othered. In Nietzsche’s case, few are left unscathed: only those powerful enough to say “yes” to the void will find within themselves the power to create value - and only they can survive the onslaught of nihilism. The rest will perish - and to Nietzsche, that is a good thing.

This is clearly mirrored in grooming tactics used by white supremacists and pedophiles. I will use my own experience as an example.

// CW: pedophilia, white supremacy //

As a child I spent a lot of time on a forum dedicated to the Super Mario Bros. franchise. The forum was not age-appropriate - several members talked openly about their time on 4chan; about pornography and subculture. Naturally I was curious. I wanted to consider myself grown, so I could talk about my interests. So I emulated the adults’ behavior. Eventually I started consuming pornography and visiting 4chan’s /b/ board. That’s where I was first exposed to Nazism and to child pornography. I recall having conversations about loli and shota when I was fairly young. I thought this was all quite normal - or at the very least, that I was strong enough to overcome whatever may happen to me as long as I could satisfy the need to see bodies like mine in a sexual context. In many cases, child pornography would be packaged alongside pornography featuring trans actors, as both were considered equally “alternative.” This is how I first discovered trans women - and this is not an uncommon narrative.

I was made comfortable: welcomed into a community where I could talk about my interests to a sympathetic audience. I was told I was special. I found myself trusting this community more than my local culture - they gave me an outlet to explore my queer identity from a young age. Then they showed me content that was actively harmful to my psyche - and I was threatened with jail time and social ostracization should I be caught. This is the grooming pattern.

Nietzsche makes his audience comfortable: he fulfils the need to obtain power through his writing style. He tells his audience they are special - literally superhuman. Then he launches abuse at every opportunity. He creates his sense of power through relating to the master race, the blonde beast; by actively deriding others and openly calling for the extermination of all “slave-like races.” And he says: we are unlike the others, you and I; and should you tell them this, you will be ostracized. So stay with me. Let’s conquer the world together.

This is directly echoed in the fascist grooming pipeline. Gamergate is an exceptional example: gamers were made to feel oppressed; they were made to be othered, then used the rage at their so-called oppression to be swayed into fascist beliefs. And should they leave, they too would be exterminated. You must be based. Kill the cringe. We see now the slogan “6MWE.” We see open genocide and warmongering in the American government (which, frankly, is nothing new). America has become a proudly fascist state - and much of this is with Nietzsche’s influence.

// CW //

If Nietzsche’s core project is abusive, how do we overcome it? Bull’s method is to reject the core hermeneutic: instead of reading for victory, we’ll read like losers. Whenever Nietzsche fires abuse at some subhuman thing, we will take the position of the abused. “Rather than reading for victory with Nietzsche, or even reading for victory against Nietzsche by identifying with the slave morality, we read for victory against ourselves, making ourselves the victims of the text. [...] Reading like losers will make us feel powerless and vulnerable” (Bull, 37). We can see this displayed quite clearly in cringe culture - it is an entire aesthetic created from the feeling of being worthless and small; of being less-than, plentiful, disposable - and embracing it. What does it mean to be one of these herd-creatures, so deprived of power? What could our values be?

c. Levelling

To understand what the losers of the nihilistic future believe in, we need to take a quick look at the history of Nietzsche’s interpreters, and how our understanding of the history of nihilism has developed over the years. This is the same history as the history of Being, the history of Nothingness. Bull spends much of the text discussing this, and it is well worth the read, but we’ll have to suffice for a brief synopsis here.

Bull brings us from the superman down to the lowest form, travelling from subhuman to animal to inanimate. He does so by continuing to read like a loser: examining Nietzsche himself, then Heidegger, then contemporary scholars Vatimo, Nancy, and Agamben. In each of these scholars Bull finds a target: for Nietzsche, the subhuman; for Heidegger, the animal; and for our contemporary scholars, the inanimate. In each case we must consider ourselves the loser of the exchange - we must consider ourselves as one with the subhuman, the animal, and the inanimate. We must become a mirror, reflecting on mu - absolute nothingness.

In essence: We must bring ourselves down to the lowest level of the un-valued if we are to escape the extremities of prejudice which Nietzsche’s lessons, so embedded in our culture, have taught us. This is levelling. Its essence is radical empathy. Nietzsche’s earlier works were focused on overcoming nihilism; he later gave up and decided that he must himself be a nihilist, one who destroys. Yet, in declaring himself a nihilist I think he was grasping at a concept that Hegel explains best: non-nihilating contradiction. To overcome nihilism is the same as to become a nihilist: to become dynamite - self-nihilating. If we are to reevaluate all values, we must obliterate ourselves. We must re-evaluate the concept of self, the concept of reality.

#philosophy #nietzsche #trauma #nihilism

7 notes · View notes

firelxdykatara · 4 years

Note

Literally what? It makes perfect sense for Sozin to outlaw homosexuality. He wanted a war. He needed an army. He heralded the fire nation as the master race. That’s textbook “homosexuality is bad because we need to do whatever we can to make as many perfect fire nation babies as we can.” The fire nation as a whole, sure, doesn’t make much sense. Sozin specifically, abso-fucking-lutely he’d be the supremacist straights only because reproduction vital guy.

It only ‘makes perfect sense’ if you ascribe to the very childish system of morality that spawned it: well, he’s definitely evil. @araeph explained it quite well in this post, which I’m assuming you didn’t read, despite the fact that I linked it in the comment to which you are referring. I’ll quote the relevant bits, though:

The easiest, cheapest way to discuss morality in media is to gather all of the “evil” traits on one side of a conflict, all of the “good” traits on the other, and then assign people “good” or “evil” status while not allowing any overlap. We can give a bit of a pass to children’s cartoons (although they, too, have become more complex in recent years) because children are still in the earliest stages of learning right from wrong. But Legend of Korra is intended for an older audience than A:TLA, while being infinitely more childish in its morality.

Also below, an excerpt from a post defending Bryke’s portrayal of LGBT issues:

and there is Sozin banning same sex relationship which again doesn’t contradict the source material, and Sozin being evil isn’t anything new,

Here is the premise both these arguments are working from: that because person A believes in wrong idea B, that that person must also believe in wrong idea C, D, and E, all the way down the alphabet. Because they’re Definitely Evil. But that’s not the way it works at all, and Sozin himself is a prime example.

People with discriminatory beliefs always have a system for them, a rationale that they use to justify their worldviews and fit them into a larger belief structure. There is a method to the madness; if there weren’t, hatred would be much easier to conquer because dismantling it wouldn’t require undermining other deeply held beliefs, with which it’s often intertwined. Sozin’s madness was an extension and expansion of his idea that the Fire Nation is superior to all other nations, and that he alone is the guardian of that superiority. Every evil action he takes stems from those premises:

Colonizing the Earth Kingdom. In Sozin’s mind, the Fire Nation experiencing an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity equaled a mandate to restructure all other nations so that they would be as “great” as the Fire Nation.

Challenging Avatar Roku in the palace. In “The Avatar and the Firelord,” Sozin flatly states that Roku’s allegiance should be to Sozin first, and everyone else second. After all, if the Fire Nation is the greatest country in the world, anything that might challenge that belief—such as the equality and balance between four nations—is a threat and must be eradicated. In a similar vein:

Leaving Avatar Roku to die after helping him fight the volcano. The volcano was a threat to Sozin’s homeland, and so when Sozin and Roku battled it together, they were working as two Fire Nation citizens. However, as soon as Roku’s premature demise left an opening to begin Sozin’s conquest, the Firelord couldn’t see past his own vision of a perfect world, in which he and his country dominated everything.

Hunting the dragons. Sozin’s aggressive world conquest required that the general philosophy behind firebending be changed and all traces of the old ways be extinguished. Humans could be bought or frightened into suppressing the “fire is life” belief, but that wouldn’t work on the dragons. Thus, in his mind it became necessary to wipe out all traces of the dragons, and therefore, the true meaning of fire.

There is nothing in Sozin’s worldview that suggests he would invent, from whole-cloth, without it existing before in his nation, institutionalized homophobia--not unless you subscribe to the ‘well, he’s definitely evil’ mode of thought, which LoK does, but which AtLA approached with considerably more nuance:

Toph: It’s like these people are born bad. Aang: No, that’s wrong. I don’t think that was the point of what Roku showed me at all. Sokka: Then what was the point? Aang: Roku was just as much Fire Nation as Sozin was, right? If anything, their story proves anyone’s capable of great good and great evil.

And, at the end of the day, it all comes back to my personal problem with that entire storyline (nevermind the fact that Korra had nothing to say about Sozin except a petulant ‘that guy was the worst’, as if this was new information and she didn’t already know that he had orchestrated the Air Nomad genocide): the fact that it was completely unnecessary.

This was a fantasy world, and while inspired by many real world cultures, it was not beholden to real world history the way historical fiction would be. There was no need to inject institutionalized homophobia where there was no hint of its existence before in the entire franchise. Evidently, it was too much to ask that this one fantasy world exist where people like me were never persecuted for their sexuality. And it absolutely does not sit right with me that a couple of straight men shoved that ham-fistedly into the story they were telling with their newly revealed bisexual lead.

And it doesn’t even make sense that the Fire Nation--the nation with women in the armed forces, and a distinct lack of evident misogyny, particularly when contrasted with the anvils dropping all over the place in the Northern Water Tribe--was the one with homophobic attitudes (and not just attitudes, but actively pulling people from their homes for the crime of Being Gay), and not, say, the Water Tribes:

But you know where homophobia would most likely gain traction? In the Water Tribes. Sexism and homophobia often go hand in hand, and in a culture where men reign supreme and gender roles are fixed, it would make sense for Korra and Asami’s romance to be a threat to the perceived natural order. But you see, the Water Tribe are the “good guys”, so they can’t be discriminatory, right?

#atla #atla comics critical #anyway no it absolutely does not make sense for sozin to have created institutionalized homophobia out of thin air #especially not considering his on-screen relationship with roku #thank you and good day #Anonymous #asked

33 notes · View notes

olliedollie1204 · 4 years

Text

what if moxiety talked about their issues and also deceit is there

spoilers for “Are There Healthy Distractions?”

this is a weird concept that got out of hand but hear me out. i wrote a scene that could have taken place in ATHD, picking up around 6:28 and replacing the scene up until 7:17. i’ve seen people worried that a) Patton and Virgil were somewhat tense with each other in this video, and b) Deceit wasn’t at movie night. ironically, i don’t think either of these things necessarily imply angst in canon, BUT i still came up with an idea of how to address both of these in one lil fic!

straight up tho, I genuinely think that, between the writing, acting, and editing combined, ATHD is one of the most impressive videos in the entire sanders sides canon (second only to Learning New Things About Ourselves). i’m beyond thrilled that the team is experimenting with new concepts and ideas!! it rocks man!!

word count: 2,553

“No, should Thomas be staying home right now?”

“Well, Virgil, Thomas made his decision, and I think we should all just try to settle into it.”

Virgil looked at Patton for a beat longer before bringing his gaze back to the screen. “Hm.”

The silence thickened in the room, with the musical number happening on screen somehow not seeming loud enough.

Patton broke it first. “I hope you’re not... blaming yourself?”

“I-” Virgil’s eyes widened slightly, but he quickly pulled back into his normal expression. “I don’t know. I mean, I am the one who pulled the plug on our party plans.”

“Nice alliteration,” Logan mumbled, eyes glued to the screen.

Virgil darted his eyes to Logan, lips quirking briefly. “Thanks. But, uh,” he continued, looking down at his clasped hands, “I mean, I could maybe understand if you think that, uh, someone else should... you know.” He shrugged lightly, meeting Patton’s eyes. “Shoulder the blame?”

“Nope!” Patton answered far too quickly. He tried to cover up his mistake with a light laugh. “I-I mean, I just wanted to check how you’re feeling.”

Virgil looked disappointed. “Oh.”

“Uh, Pat, I’m confused.” Roman leaned forward to look at Patton quizzically. “Do you want Virgil to blame himself, or not?”

Patton’s expression turned slightly panicked. “Of course I don’t want him to blame himself!”

“Of course Patton doesn’t want Virgil to blame himself.” Deceit’s voice rang out from his position against the wall, near where Patton stood for videos. He had a sleeping bag pulled against his chest as he reclined, able to see both the TV and the sides on the couch simultaneously.

Virgil’s eyes narrowed. Patton blinked in confusion.

“I don’t,” he said uneasily.

Deceit smirked. “And why would you? It’s not like he’s the one controlling our dear Thomas’ emotional state or anything.”

“Actually, although Patton is technically the figurehead of Thomas’ emotions, Virgil’s presence has a significant enough impact to influence his emotional state at any given time,” Logan stated plainly, too distracted by the surprisingly enthralling movie to detect the tension in the current conversation.

“Especially in this instance,” he continued, unaware of Roman making a horribly unsubtle throat-slashing gesture from the other side of the couch, “when the inciting incident of Thomas’ current anxiety was actually caused by his moral outrage, which is ironic, given the proximity of Virgil and Patton’s friendship-”

“Oh-kay, hey!” Roman interjected with faux cheer, finally catching Logan’s eye, causing him to falter. “I think we should all just... watch the movie! All of us!”

He jerked his head in Deceit’s direction, hoping beyond hope that Logan would understand the universal signal for “stop giving this guy ammunition to work against us, Logan, please stop talking, for once!”

Logan’s eyes widened slightly. Message received. “Ah. Apologies for interrupting, Roman. I would hate to miss a moment of this... fantastical, frivolous film.”

“Well, isn’t this interesting?” Deceit asked, ignoring Roman and Logan’s attempt at changing the subject. “I guess, in this case, the side to be blamed for causing poor Thomas all this trouble is... both of you.” He grinned, eyeing the two sides in question. “Funny how that happens.”

“Lay off, Deceit,” Virgil muttered, crossing his arms as he tried to watch the screen. “Don’t bring him into this.”

“Virgil...” Patton started, but couldn’t finish. He didn’t know what he wanted to say. He just didn’t like the way Virgil was curled in on himself. An uncomfortable, unidentifiable feeling wormed into Patton’s stomach.

“Go on, Patton. Do finish your thought,” Deceit pushed. “How do you feel about Virgil blaming himself for all this trouble?”

Virgil tightened his grip on his arms.

“I don’t think Virgil should blame himself,” Patton mumbled, feeling the pain in his stomach worsen. He wished Deceit would just drop it.

“So, he should blame you then?”

Virgil glared at Deceit. “Don’t.”

“I mean, look at him, Patton. Our dear friend Virgil isn’t handling this well at all.”

“I’m handling it just fine,” Virgil snapped.

“Oh, truly, of course you are. Because ‘handling’ a difficult social interaction by becoming a hermit is the image of stability.”

Roman scoffed. “One impromptu movie night does not make Thomas a hermit!”

“Indeed,” Logan added. “A hermit is one who lives in solitude as a practice of religious discipline. Unless Thomas has decided to become a devout follower of Idina Menzel, he does not fit the criterion.”

Roman looked pensive. “Well-”

“That was not a suggestion, Roman.”

“Can we all just stop talking about it?” Virgil said in a raised tone. “I know I’m the fuck up here, I’m sorry I ruined our plans, and I blame myself.” He turned to Deceit, eyes narrowed. “Is that what you wanted to hear?”

Deceit smiled and opened his mouth to speak again. Patton looked at the pain on Virgil’s face, and made his decision.

“Virgil should be blaming me,” he announced, setting his mug down harder than necessary. “I caused all of this. It’s all my fault.”

All of the sides’ attention went to Patton. The pain in his stomach intensified greatly.

Virgil was stunned into silence.

Finally, Deceit smirked. “Well, Patton, I’m thrilled at your confession,” he said, breaking the silence. “Although frankly, it took much longer than it should have. I think I can speak for Virgil when I say-”

“You do not ever speak for me,” Virgil said forcefully, whipping around to face him.

“Oh, really?” Decit replied, folding his arms and peering at Virgil. “So you don’t blame Patton for what you’re feeling right now?”

Patton inhaled sharply, and waited for Virgil’s response. There was an uncomfortable pause before Virgil huffed, rolling his eyes.

“I’m not explaining myself to you.”

Deceit gasped. “Ooh, a non-answer to my rhetorical question! Bold new strategy.”

“Deceit, if I may. What do you stand to gain from this confrontation?”

“Me? Why, I’m not looking to gain anything! Really, I’m just looking out for Thomas.”

“Yeah, if ‘looking out for Thomas’ means ‘being a dick until everyone feels bad and movie night is ruined’.”

“I don’t believe I should have to explain that that is not what ‘looking out for Thomas’ means, Roman.”

Belatedly, Patton realized what the unfamiliar feeling in his stomach was. It wasn’t guilt from hurting Virgil. It wasn’t regret from hurting Thomas. It was a deeper, more personal shame.

“But I’m sure Thomas is just so glad to finally know that he can’t trust his own heart to not let him down,” Deceit continued, unfettered. “Truthfully, it’s about time.”

Virgil slammed his fists down onto his thighs. “Can you stop lying?”

Deceit chuckled maliciously. “No. Now, Patton-”

“Wait,” Logan interjected, hand raised. “Do you mean- was that a ‘no’, as in, ‘no, I can’t stop lying’, in which case your truthful answer of ‘no’ was a lie- but if that was a lie, then the truthful answer is ‘yes’, as in, ‘yes, I can stop lying’, which, your answer of ‘no’ then would contradict that fact-”

The deceptive side blinked. “I- what? Shut up... what?”

“Yeah, that one made my head hurt,” Roman added.

“I lied! I’m sorry!” Patton’s outburst stopped the other sides in their tracks. Again, everyone turned to look at the moral side- Logan and Roman with trepidation, Virgil with disbelief, and Deceit with a smug satisfaction.

“You lied?” Virgil replied dully.

“Not about the ‘I-don’t-want-you-to-blame-yourself’ part,” Patton added hastily. “But...”

He bit his lip slightly, eyes furtively darting around, before taking a deep breath and meeting Virgil’s gaze again.

“But I don’t want to be blamed either,” he said with uncharacteristic somberness.

Roman and Logan exchanged glances. Virgil kept his eyes locked on Patton.

Patton fiddled with his mug before continuing. “I- I know it’s irrational,” he continued. “It’s... illogical and unfair to try to absolve myself of any blame. But I just feel like... you guys don’t get how much this hurt me- me, specifically,” he emphasized. “I mean, obviously it hurt us all. But it’s not just the fact that Rico used to hold different beliefs. It’s- it’s knowing that he used to condemn both Thomas’ most personal moral beliefs, and his core emotions. I mean, his morals and emotions? That’s literally my entire thing!”

Patton felt himself getting worked up again. He tightened his grip on his mug, taking a deep breath before continuing. “I shouldn’t have taken over like I did.”

The other sides stayed silent. They all remembered the conversation with Rico, the sick moment of realization at what he was admitting to, how Logan had attempted to rationalize Thomas’ response but was almost physically pushed aside as Patton rose to the forefront of his mind. Patton’s anger, sharp and cold, and the way he couldn’t stop, even as Logan and Virgil and even Roman tried to calm him.

The way Virgil begged Patton to stop, stop, before he’d do something he’d regret. The way Patton, for the first time in a long time, refused to hold back out of fear of the consequences of speaking from the (figurative) heart.

And now, this evening. How Patton couldn’t take it back. How Virgil couldn’t let it go.

Patton forced himself to meet Virgil’s eyes. The anxious side stared back, unblinking.

“I hate that this is hurting you so badly. I really, really hate it, and I’m sorry. But I can’t lie and say that I regret it. I don’t. I can’t.”

Another silence. The high-pitched cartoon voices continued to blare from the TV. Patton found, with some small relief, that his stomach no longer hurt.

Everyone was looking at Virgil, whose fists were digging into his thighs. The hood from his onesie had fallen slightly over his face; Patton could no longer see his expression.

After what felt like an eternity, Virgil’s fists unclenched.

“...Thank you for your honesty, Patton.”

Patton looked at Virgil with wide eyes. The latter straightened up slightly, pushing his hood back to look at Patton directly. Deceit quirked a brow, but Virgil continued before he could speak.

“Of course I’m glad that you stood up for what you believe in. You are Thomas’ heart, and it wouldn’t be fair to you if you couldn’t stand up for yourself.” As Virgil spoke, he ran his hands across his thighs, letting the texture of his skeleton onesie calm him.

“Your reaction may not have been the best, but you did the right thing. And I’m not mad at you. But if I can also be honest,” he added, cutting a glare to Deceit before returning his gaze to Patton, “you did put Thomas- me, specifically- in a difficult situation. And I know that wasn’t your intent, but I’m not gonna lie. It kinda sucks right now.”

Patton twisted his mouth into a grimace before looking down at his mug. “I get that, Virge,” he said softly.

Virgil softened in return. “I don’t blame you, Patton... at least, not just you,” he added, eyes flicking away from Patton’s for a moment. “I just need some time to work through this whole thing.”

The two sides looked at each other. Logan and Roman leaned forward slightly, ready to intervene if this olive branch was not accepted.

Finally, Virgil offered Patton a sad smile. Patton hesitated, then returned it. The two broke their gaze, looking down at their respective laps.

Another silence. Logan and Roman side-eyed each other, similar expressions of surprise on their faces.

“Wow, Virgil,” Deceit suddenly drawled. “What impressive conflict resolution. Truly, you’ve made us all so proud.”

“Okay, Two-Face, you know what?” Roman interjected in annoyance, leaning forward to meet Deceit’s eyes. “It’s one thing to instigate conflict between two of my best friends for no good reason-”

“Thanks, Princey,” Patton said, giving him an appreciative smile.

“-But what’s more, you’ve been talking forever and I’ve missed far too much dialogue already!”

“Thanks, Princey,” Virgil muttered, giving him a thumbs up.

“Do you want to be excused? Is that it? You want to be released from the terrible punishment that is movie night?” Roman flopped back on his throne of pillows, waving his arm exasperatedly. “I just thought it’d be nice to spend some time together when you’re not being a jerk, but if you want to leave-”

Deceit gasped, one hand coming to rest on his cheek. “No, Roman, why would I want to leave? I love the thought of being stuck out here with you nerds watching ‘Frozen’ for the dozenth time.” As he spoke, Deceit rose from his spot against the wall, making sure to block everyone’s view of the screen as he crossed the room to the staircase. “It’s not like I voted to watch ‘Coco’ or anything.”

Logan sipped his iced coffee. “Remus is back there.”

“Hey.” The intrusive side appeared just as Deceit made it to the bottom of the stairs.

“Oh my God-” Deceit reeled backwards before catching himself on the railing. “Oh, fuck. You gotta- you gotta stop doing that, man.”

“But you’re a liar!” Remus replied gleefully. “So you’re telling me to keep doing it! Right?”

“Oh, for fuck’s- I can’t. I just can’t deal with you tonight.” With that, Deceit turned and went up the stairs, giving an exasperated sigh as he exited.

The sides were quiet once again.

“You know, I’m not surprised he’s a fan of ‘Coco’,” Roman remarked idly. “That- that seems right.”

~Later~

“Olaf fully melts by the fire while accompanying a dying Anna,” Roman started, with a rapidly building enthusiasm. Although Logan would not have necessarily elected for Thomas to spend the next few hours rewriting a children’s film to be more narratively satisfying, he did have to admit that he was pleased that the creative side seemed to be taking his suggestion to heart.

Speaking of heart, Logan peered at Patton on the floor. He was fully engaged in Roman’s brainstorming, making all of the appropriate response faces for the situation. He was so engaged, in fact, that he did not seem to notice Virgil tapping his back with a socked foot.

Logan noticed. Tuning Roman out, he attempted to subtly observe as Virgil managed to get Patton’s attention.

The moral side looked over his shoulder; although his face was partly obscured by the angle, Logan could still make out his worried expression. Virgil’s spiral earlier had been troubling for several reasons, not least of which was the fact that he directly referenced how Patton was a factor in his anxiety. Logan wondered, not for the first time, if the two sides’ friendship was genuinely mutually beneficial. They had found themselves at odds before, of course- all of them had, at one point or another. Despite their strengths, Patton and Virgil were both highly emotionally charged, which could serve as either a benefit or a hindrance when the two worked together.

Logan watched as Patton mouthed something unidentifiable to Virgil. Virgil nodded, inhaling slowly and releasing the breath. Another pause, then Virgil gave Patton a small thumbs up.

Patton’s lips quirked up in a relieved smile. He returned the gesture.

Logan saw as both of the sides relaxed, the tension leaving their bodies almost visible, before the two turned back to debate the merits of Roman’s ‘Frozen’ fanfic.

The logical side grinned to himself, fixing his tie. Maybe his fellow sides could help each other, after all.

#sanders sides #sanders sides fic #sanders asides #my posts #my writing #i literally can't believe this is the first fic i've written since march #and it came so easily #and i'm so proud of it #and it's the longest fic i've ever actually written????#i can't believe this tbh

29 notes · View notes

themiscyra1983 · 4 years

Text

The Elephant In The Room

Let me preface all this by saying I do not have time for assholes. If you come at me with insults and contempt, I will block you.

The other day on Twitter I said the Harry Potter books aren’t good. I said this to a friend but I guess some people just keep an eye out for whatever Harry Potter shit pops up on Twitter and/or the algorithm just likes to spit in people’s eyes because hoooo boy people saw and lost their minds. I blocked two people over it because they decided to be assholes, and had a somewhat terse conversation with someone who was more politely insistent before going, finally, “I’m glad you find joy in something I no longer care for” and putting an end to the conversation.

It’s no particular secret that I’m in the fandom, and prior to J.K. Rowling going full, ‘no plausible deniability here’ transphobe, I’d bought my share of official merch. Frankly I should have stopped that sooner, but it took getting figuratively slapped in the face multiple times before I finally admitted Rowling’s ignorance carried a distinct air of willfulness and malice. Anyway I still HAVE the stuff I bought before, the Ravenclaw crap, the wands I was collecting (no more of that, I fear, though I’d hoped to pick up Tonks and Ginny’s wands at least before I brought an end to it), the Ravenclaw goblet I was gifted from a friend who bought it before JKR passed the plausibly just clueless horizon. There is still much in the world that I love, but much of that love comes now from the creations of others, and I cannot in good conscience spend money in ways that directly benefit Rowling’s financial empire.

And the Harry Potter books are not, in my view, good books. I’ve felt that for a while now. I’ll go a step further: I think they’re dangerous stories to tell children; I think I would be uncomfortable reading them to any children I might have. They are not stories that should be viewed without a critical eye. I loved them as a teenager. I’ve grown more uncomfortable with them - and, as with Twilight, far more comfortable with how critically thinking fans have transformed the work - as time has passed.

This actually has very little to do with the fact that, well...Rowling is not the best writer. Listen. I’m a Power Rangers fan. I’ve watched every incarnation of Star Trek, and every single movie. I have no problem with trashy fiction. You will find me rooting around in the garbage with the finest raccoons. But that is part of it, yes; there are flaws in the craft of it, and I don’t feel that, inherently, we needn’t judge children’s fiction by adult standards. I would argue that the very BEST children’s fiction is also excellent by adult standards. But this is the least of my concerns.

Here are my actual concerns.

Rowling wants credit for declaring Dumbledore gay after the fact, for saying Hogwarts is a safe space for all students in ways not reinforced (and in fact actively contradicted) by the text, for cheering the fan-created same-sex marriage of Dean Thomas and Seamus Finnegan, but she doesn’t want to take the creative risks that go along with that. When she had the opportunity, with the Fantastic Beasts movies, to make that subtext text, she and her cronies outright declined it. At every opportunity she has shied away from actually putting her high-minded ideas to the page. This is a cowardly choice at best.

Further, Dumbledore’s only canonical love interest (and it is not clear whether the love was requited) was a pretty fascist with whom he fell in, politically, for a time. I get it, we’ve all had crushes on terrible people. But this is literally his one and only love, requited or not, and after he defeats Grindelwald he is left to pine away for the remainder of his days. The one gay love story in the books - if you tilt your head, and squint, and accept Rowling’s word for it - is a tragic one that leaves one man in prison and another celibate and alone and, increasingly, a manipulative bastard who upholds the status quo.

There’s nothing wrong with a tragic love story. I’ve enjoyed quite a few. But when this - THIS - is what you hold up as a triumph of representation, in the absence of ANYTHING else...no. No cookies for you.

Let’s also talk about how I don’t feel Rowling wrote Dumbledore or approaches him with a critical eye. There is NO excuse for leaving a child in an abusive home. No, fuck your blood wards. You’re telling me that Albus Dumbledore - ALBUS DUMBLEDORE - could not devise protections better than leaving Harry with abusive relatives who despised him and everything he stood for? Then, too, when Dumbledore did intervene in Harry’s life, he did so with full knowledge that he was setting Harry up to be a sacrificial lamb, AND WITH THIS SPECIFIC END IN MIND. None of this is acceptable. Dumbledore is a fucking manipulative, abusive bastard who uses people and throws them away, and the fact that it WORKED OUT for Harry does not absolve him of his crimes.

Moving on, and bear in mind I’m still getting my steam up on this whole rant: Seamus Finnegan. Seamus Finnegan is the one canonically, obviously Irish character in the books, named quite stereotypically, but more importantly, in the books and movies, is shown to be interested in (a) liquor and (b) making things explode. He’s REALLY GOOD at making things explode. Do I need to explain why it’s problematic for the one Irish character to blow things up all the time? He also does this in defense of UK wizardry’s status quo, so, you know, even if you were all IRISH FREEDOM FIGHTER YEAH, I assure you he is not that guy.

There is an entire species of sapient magical creatures who exist solely to serve witches and wizards. Hogwarts is run on slave labor and most of the finest wizard families hold slaves. But it’s all right! Only one of them has ever, in the context of the books, wished to be emancipated, and everyone else views Dobby as a weirdo for wishing to be free, and paid for his labor. Dobby, incidentally, later lays down his life for the wizarding savior who tricked his master into freeing him. The only other emancipated house elf we see in the books, Winky, spends her time in a state of drunken depression, rendering her useless and scarcely capable even of caring for herself. She wished to remain enslaved, do you see, and was helpless without the benevolent guidance of her master.

There’s fan work that has tried to address this by exploring a mystically symbiotic relationship between house elves and wizards and witches, and yes, yes, J.K. Rowling is drawing on European folklore here, but let’s not give her credit, okay?

Goblins. Goblins! Goblins have a long history of being antisemitic stereotypes to begin with (hence why I have seen multiple Jews on Tumblr push back HARD on ‘goblincore’), but J.K. Rowling just...right. They’re short, ugly, have hooked noses, generally look like antisemitic cartoon figures. They are locked out of power but control all the wizarding world’s banking, and do so in very usurious ways, for example charging wizards to hold their money, etc. Now this might be an interesting commentary on how Jews have historically been oppressed and forced into fields that goyim felt themselves too ‘pure’ to work in, were it not for the fact that Rowling’s fantasy Jews LITERALLY AREN’T HUMAN, and more, ARE ACTUALLY GREEDY, CONNIVING, AND WILLING TO BETRAY YOU AGAINST THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST FOR PERSONAL GAIN. FUCKING GOBLINS, MAN.

Then there’s the travesty of Magic in North America, which disrespected the intelligence of Native Americans (none of them figured out you could point a stick at something to make the magic go until white people showed up to help, apparently, but don’t worry, they’re really CLOSE TO NATURE and GOOD AT NATURAL MAGIC), disrespected the beliefs of specific peoples (no, skinwalkers aren’t just misunderstood shapechanging wizards and witches smeared by the greedy and ignorant, you’re whitesplaining actual mythology to the people who hold it sacred), made the ONE wizarding school in America white with an appropriated Native veneer, and generally just...Did Not Get America. As bad as the UK Wizarding World is, Rowling demonstrated complete IGNORANCE regarding the long history of what we now call North America, ignorance of even modern American culture (there’s a reason why American fans particularly tend to ignore the idea that wizardry is locked down tight behind a wall of secrecy here), ignorance and disrespect toward Native populations, and an unwillingness to do the research necessary to do this shit right.

There’s more. There’s blood purity, and gender politics, and Severus Snape’s portrayal, and all kinds of shit that grates, and I’m just tired.

Writers make mistakes. it happens. But Rowling does not recognize her mistakes. She does not seek to make amends. She just barrels on with her shitty opinions, regardless of who she hurts.

it is at the point where I am no longer even willing to thank her for graciously allowing us to play in her sandbox. We don’t need her blessing; the OTW has done far more for fanfic than she has. And it is, indeed, beginning to grate on me that people constantly try to apply Harry Potter metaphors to real life and real politics. As my friend Doc often says, find another book.

I love butterbeer (or at least the knockoffs available outside the Universal parks), I still read fanfic sometimes, I still like to play with ideas like the Harry Potter movies as performed by Muppets, with Dan Radcliffe as Snape and Tom Felton as Lucius. I’m glad the movies brought us a generation of actors, mentored by performers like Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith and so many others, who have gone on to bigger and better things. Much of my merch is packed away, but I still hold on to some of it because it has new meaning for me in light of fanwork, or because (in the case of my Ravenclaw hat and scarf) it’s warm, winters here are cold, I don’t want to buy new shit, leave me alone.

I am accustomed to seeing fans turn trash into treasure. I’ve tried to do it myself. But I feel, quite strongly, that the original text in this case is trash. it is radioactive, stinky trash. You won’t persuade me otherwise, and I’m done apologizing for it. If Rowling wants me to respect her and her work again, she’ll have to earn it, but I’m very trans and she low-key hates my kind, so even if I weren’t a random reader I wouldn’t be holding my breath.

And I really, really need to emphasize to you all that it is okay if people don’t like a given work of fiction. It is okay if people HATE that piece of fiction. You don’t need to change the minds of everyone around you. You absolutely will not succeed in doing so. Please, I’m begging you, make peace with that - and please, I’m begging you, even if you like something, try to consider it critically.

5 notes · View notes

ghoultyrant · 4 years

Text

FoZ Notes 22

Okay, here we go, final volume of the series. Not likely to be much added value here, but I took these notes regardless, so I’m posting them.

---------------------------------

We open with a bit about Brimir and Sasha, showing he put the Lífþrasir rune on her to potentially avert catastrophe while really hoping he didn't have to do so. It seems to be implied he doesn't want to get Sasha killed, but it's ambiguous and could be taken as him not wanting to nuke the Elves or something of the sort. Looking back after reading the rest of the volume... I honestly have no idea how this is meant to be taken.

The narrative refers to Colbert as being one of the 'rare realists' of Halkegina. That's... morbidly comedic in how grossly wrong it is, but there you go: Colbert is supposed to be a realist in the pessimistic sense of 'that sounds too good to be true, so it probably isn't true'.

Vitorrio apparently already knows that the place Saito comes from is 'the holy land'. I... have far too many questions...

Vitorrio dumps on us a backstory about how Brimir being God or Jesus-analogue is a lie and actually Brimir came from Earth and all magical nobles come from Earth having fled from the technology-using humans who are our ancestors. This is dumb nonsense, but foreshadowed dumb nonsense. Much worse is Vitorrio randomly claiming commoners haven't awakened to their magical power as an inevitable consequence of 'the blood thinning', where returning to Earth is supposed to be a solution. HOW???

If magic is a genetically inherited thing where breeding with non-mages is 'diluting' magical blood and reducing the portion of the population who can do magic, going back to Earth with it's technophile non-mage population is the OPPOSITE of a solution to magic power fading. Furthermore, how did we end up with mages in a minority in the first place? Did the original mages actually run away with a massive population of non-mages? If so, why? Were they slaves? SO MANY slaves that Halkeginia is predominantly non-mages? 'cause if so I have zero sympathy for the population that became Halkeginians.

Furthermore, Halkeginia is FILLED with magical races! If Vittorio wants to make magical humans the default form of human and the narrative is going to invoke magical eugenics while making Vitorrio entirely amoral in pursuit of his goals, the correct solution is to fight to overcome human prejudice against elves and orcs and other demihumans and in fact attempt to institutionally encourage cross-species breeding between commoners and assorted magical species. It's not like this series has been shy about sexualizing eg Tabitha's dragon when she's in human form, so you can’t tell me the series is shying away from bestiality undertones!

But no, Vitorrio's True Plan For Real This Time is literally to conquer Earth in some insane, nonsensical attempt to Get Magic Back. And of course nobody calls him on this being utterly insane nonsense that cannot POSSIBLY accomplish his stated goal.

Okay, and he also wants to conquer Earth to escape the Wind Stone-based catastrophe, with eyebrow-raising logic about how surely nobles will survive it just fine and only commoners will die, but seriously the magic genetics bit is blatant, horrifying nonsense, and it’s Vittorio’s inner thoughts so there’s no room to headcanon it as a lie or something else that would excuse this awfulness.

Also Vitorrio magically gets to drain Saito's life force as a side effect of opening the door. No explanation or justification provided. Just... loldrama.

This conveniently causes Saito to go into an Expositional Flashback™ in which he meets Brimir again and Brimir conveys that he's trying to kill all elves everywhere because "we can't understand each other", with this somehow supposed to be connected to magic stone catastrophe stuff. So, you know, stuff we already knew that doesn't make any more sense than last time.

When we cut back to Louise and company, we learn they immediately screwed off to wring their hands over Saito's unconscious form, instead of fighting Vitorrio’s horrible plan. Really?

Louise is explicitly willing to DIE to prevent Earth from being invaded... but no one entertains the notion of eg killing Vitorrio to stop his nonsense. Nah, they're going to try to talk him out of his insane plan. Really?

Henrietta is now using -dono when referring to Saito. Are you kidding me?

Henrietta and Vitorrio magically recognize a relatively modern pistol as being better than Halkeginian firearms... by just looking at the pistol laying around. Not testing it and seeing it has superior performance, or even remarking on something like it being made of parts too fine for a smith to pull together so precisely. Just... magically knowing it's good on sight.

Vitorrio also reveals that Earthlings have somehow invaded Halkeginian in ages past via a never-before-established natural portal between the world's, and now claims he wants to hit Earth before Earth figures out how to harness the Void (Why he thinks non-mages will be ABLE to do so goes unexplained) and attacks Halkeginian. This is ALMOST like a sensible, coherent motivation, but requires ignoring how contradictory and insane the premise is.

Turns out Vitorrio somehow knows for a fact that Louise can cancel the Wind Stone catastrophe, but is withholding this information from everyone to try to force people into going with the Conquer Earth plan. This is dumb, but plausible human dumb. Much dumber is the narrative talking directly to the audience to reveal that Julio is being left out because he's totally unsuited to deception and is actually a naive innocent sort... in utter contravention of literally EVERY prior scene Julio was in.

The Romalian church steals a nuke from under the sea, and Julio magically surmises its principles and informs Vitorrio that it's operating on Void principles. So... Void magic is now supposed to just be atomic shenanigans? I'm pretty sure the narrative previously heavily implied they're quantum shenanigans and regular magic is somehow atomic shenanigans. Consistency!

Pegasi are apparently a thing in Halkeginia. I don't think such came up before and it feels like a poor fit, but it's been a while since I last read so I might be forgetting something is all.

It's now being retconned in that Saito being the Lífþrasir familiar means that A: ANYONE using Void magic will tap Saito's life, and B: he will die in a matter of days for no good reason even if nobody taps his life force any further. Really? That admittedly makes the earlier bit of Saito collapsing into an Expositional Flashback™ a part of this retcon instead of pure arbitrariness, but this is a blatant, stupid retcon that cannot possibly be reconciled with prior events.

Derflinger is continuing to absorb magic while 'asleep', which I'm pretty sure contradicts what happened in prior volumes.

Also, Saito is perfectly willing to attack Romalian forces in an attempt to stop them from using nukes... but people continue to completely ignore any possibility of attacking Vitorrio himself. What is this garbage?

We get introduced to the Vysendal, Tristan's royal flagship built to carry dragons for the fight with Albion... which we somehow never heard about the many volumes ago it should've cropped up in. It’s basically a fantasy aircraft carrier airship.

Three loud knocks followed by two quiet knocks is how Agnes announces herself to Henrietta, apparently, and it's apparently forbidden for anyone else in the Tristainian palace to use this knock. O...Kay?

Bizarrely, Henrietta is of the opinion Saito would never cause trouble without a good reason. Attempted-rapist Saito, you mean? The Saito who has picked fights with people over issues of ego? That Saito? Mind, she barely knows him to be honest, but that just shifts the issue elsewhere. Hell, she even describes him as 'not hot-blooded', which is just laughably wrong.

We get introduced to Château d'If, which is an Elven prison. This is a little confusing given Elves have always solved these kinds of problems with exile or murder historically, but okay. Really, I'm more baffled by the French-sounding name, given Gallia is Not-France and the Elves haven't previously had Frenchness to them. In any event, it's an island prison off the shore of Eumenes, which... seems unlikely...

Also, it's directly named after a real place. Oh, and the narrative draws attention to the French naming, saying the name means 'prison island's in Gallian... but doesn't explain WHY it's named in a language Elves sneer at.

We get explicitly told only Elves that have committed serious crimes, such as treason, get locked up here. You know, the kinds of crimes we previously got told got Elves exiled. We also get told the island has been nearly totally abandoned by the Great Will (for some reason...) so Elves can't use Ancient Magic on it... except apparently the guards can due to making contracts of some sort, in contravention of prior Ancient Magic mechanics.

... and now Guiche is joining in on the 'Saito wouldn't make trouble without a good reason' nonsense train. He actually kind of knows Saito! Not only that but he's repeatedly projected his own shitty behavior onto Saito! He's very nearly the last character I'd buy this belief from!

The 'Great Will' is supposedly a giant chunk of magic rock (I forget if this already came up or if I’m getting mixed up by having run across some spoilers in earlier note-taking), and it grounding arbitrarily accumulating spiritual energy periodically is what causes the Wind Stone disaster stuff. We get this info from Brimir, with no explanation of how he drew this conclusion.

The story also throws in a line about how even blowing up the Wind Stones with Void magic isn't a valid answer because yadda yadda exhaustion. Honestly, this looks like a Suspiciously Specific Denial, like readers raised exactly this possibility, and the author is going 'shit, that's a really good point, but I can't have my intended drama if that's a valid answer so I've gotta invent a reason why it isn't'. Because seriously, with the scale of destructiveness Void magic is capable of, particularly considering how much the story is playing it up... yeah, blowing the Wind Stones up really ought to be a valid answer.

Compounding this is that Brimir explains his plan to prevent the Wind Stone disaster was... to blew up the Great Will. And it apparently worked. So the story is just contradicting itself; which is it? Explosions aren’t helpful, or explosions are helpful? It can’t be both.

Oh, and there's drama about how Brimir tried to explain his plan to the Elves, but they refused to move their city away from the Great Will so he could nuke it without killing them, with Elven leaders saying that if the Great Will wants the world destroyed then so be it and Brimir also remarking arbitrarily that the city at the foot of the Great Will would be the only place safe from the Wind Stone disaster so the story is kind of implying the Elves are actually going 'well, we'll be fine, so we don't care if you all die'.

Anyway, Brimir was pushed over the edge into nuking the area because his home village was slaughtered by Elves while he was trying to talk the Elves into letting him nuke the Great Will. So honestly this is revenge in part. (No explanation is ever offered for why they slaughtered his village, incidentally)

We also learn Sasha killing Brimir was in response to nuking the Elven city, and that Brimir let himself be killed, at least in part to free Sasha of her Familiar runes so the arbitrary death-by-being Lífþrasir won't kick in.

A recurring thing in this final volume is that the Gandalfr boost for just holding a weapon lets Saito function in spite of being heavily weakened. As in, he literally cannot stand, and then holding a weapon let's him walk, and in fact fight athletically.

There's a surprisingly clever moment during Tabitha and Saito's escape where she summons some water to use it as a reflective surface to check around a corner. It's just a variation on using a hand mirror to check around corners, but if characters had been using magic in this kind of way the whole time I'd be a lot more willing to overlook the series' many, many flaws.

We get told the Knights of Parterre are good at casting spells undetected... no explanation for how this works... and that Tabitha has mastered this skill, too. Ambush spellcasting is a neat idea, admittedly, but the context this is being invoked in is just confusing to invoke it in.

There's a bit about Elves being helpless if they can't complete magical chants. It's been a while, but I'm pretty sure previously part of what made Elves scary-powerful was that Markey needed to chant and Elves did not. Certainly, I remember for sure that Markey were chanters the whole time, which is conspicuously failing to be mentioned in this volume...

Aaaand now the story is saying Saito being emotionally moved by his rescuers (Louise not being among them, note) is helping to power his Gandalfr abilities, trampling on that whole 'powered by love' thing. Really? Like, it’s a dumb plotpoint, but undermining it by making emotions-in-general provide power has a lot of thematic and practical problems.

Vittorio's other name is Serevare, apparently. I presume that's his personal name, though it's not actually clear. I don't think this has been alluded to before. In any event, him spending a night praying is able to make mountains rise from underwater. 'cause Void magic. The exact justification provided is that he's specifically manipulating the magic Stone with Void magic, but this just raises obvious questions about the potential to use this capability to address the Wind Stone catastrophe, since those are also magic stones of the exact same sort. Sure, Vitorrio is lying about being unable to deal with the crisis, but nobody within the story notices this. Even with how low my opinion is of the intelligence of these characters, I can't suspend disbelief over this. It's a gaping hole in the argument Vitorrio is using to coerce Louise into helping him invade Earth. The story HAS to address this, and it doesn’t, instead stacking on drama scene after drama scene even as it rips out their foundations as they’re being pushed.

We get told Gandalfr powers can't actually compensate for lost vitality (even though that's exactly what Saito has been doing for a while now), but Derflinger can do so. (Never mind that he was re-acquired only minutes before this claim) Gandalfr powers can 'only' make Saito light as a feather. Yeah, just ignore this nonsense, it's just a crappy attempt to say Saito is even closer to death than ever before without actually impairing him in combat scenes any.

You remember how Derflinger has Convenient Magical Memory Loss? Yeah, while he was 'asleep' he got rid of that. Gosh. How convenient. And no, the story isn't going to try to explain why he didn't do this sooner, or explain how he knew how to do it now. Admittedly it's completely in-character for Derflinger to create problems for no actual reason while claiming to be helping... with the qualifier that's clearly not meant to be part of his character.

This is dumb and arbitrary, is what I'm getting at.

"Wow, even swords can cry." "No I won't, because then I'd rust." Wow, that's actually a great exchange that legit got me to laugh.

Holy crap, the story also remembered about crow familiars being used as serial scouts. That last showed up, what, 15 volumes ago?

Vitorrio apparently deliberately aims the portal at a US army base. At least, that's how Saito's internal narration presents it, but I'm pretty sure this is just the writer talking directly at the audience. This is presented as a sensible and intelligent course of action, which is confusing given I'd think Vitorrio would want to get his entire army on the other side before they had to face resistance. Even considering how intrinsically dumb his entire plan is, this is just confusing.

Turns out the Gandalfr killing their master makes Void magic go away. Because Reasons. So naturally Louise has committed suicide-by-Saito, to save his life. I cannot express in words how thoroughly I hate this stupid, monstrous, lazy culmination.

Then the story doubles down on the stupid, lazy, monstrous writing by having Derflinger commit suicide to revive Louise.

Bafflingly, Louise mourns Derflinger. I honestly cannot think of a single even marginally positive interaction the two had to justify this response. Like sure fine I can buy her feeling grateful for his sacrifice -ignoring how garbage everything about the sacrifice and its leadup is- but the story has her reminiscing about how he was 'always helping' and all. Conspicuously, where Saito flashbacks to a bunch of Actual Prior Events when mourning Louise's death, Louise doesn't name even a single incident in which Derflinger was helpful. So the writer can't remember any such moment either, and just hopes readers won't notice the lack.

Also, in literally the final volume, the place Saito was originally summoned finally has a name: Austri Plaza. Uh. Sure?

Cattleya gets convenient 'secret Elf medicine's to cure her incurable condition. So never mind that bit of respect I had for the series.

Louise permanently awakens to wind magic, because of course she does.

The elemental siblings show up, and we get told they're... vampire-human hybrids??? What? Did that crop up before and I just totally forgot?...

Oh, and Louise and Saito go live Happily Ever After in Japan after a bunch of drama is wrung out of Saito intending to first stay in Halkeginia and then more drama was wrung out of him deciding to go home even though it meant being separated from Louise. The story conspicuously fails to address how this could possibly work out well; Louise has pink hair, and is unlikely to completely avoid using her magic. She’s going to end up on an MiB dissection table in no time flat, frankly, not live happily ever after. This isn’t even touching on how messed-up it is for Louise to throw away her life in Halkeginia to follow Saito back; she has responsibilities of myriad sorts in Halkeginia. Heck, so does Saito at this point! Whereas back in Japan, the story has consistently indicated Saito’s parents are literally the only people who will notice or care about him going missing.

For that matter, there was this whole thing with Siesta, Louise, and Saito working out a three-person relationship, and while I found it cringe-y and was dubious because of the likely motives, this is just throwing that out by summarily cutting out Siesta. And also trashing the creepy, stupid crap with Tabitha and Henrietta loving Saito for no actual reason.

This ending is awful and antithetical to what lead up to it on so many levels.

-----------------------------------------------

So that’s it, I’m done taking notes on this series. I have a few things I’ll be saying in the coming weeks, but the note-taking is done, finally.

#FoZ Notes #Familiar of Zero

1 note · View note

amwritingmeta · 7 years

Note

dean said cas to stop being their nurse. what’s wrong in that? this is how people show their love - for protect and support someone you are loved. it’s like dean with his sam - yeah, they are more codependent but the same reason - take care, show love. and dean has nothing like "this is wrong". so why he told that to cas? he doesn’t need his help bc cas blundered? Or he doesn’t care at all? I can’t believe in that tbh

Hello, my dearest darlingest Anon!

I believe that you’re referring to the scene in 12x19 when Dean tells Cas off for acting like their “babysitter”?

This comment comes off of Cas explaining his reasons for not contacting them when –>

a) he went off piste and decided to bring Kelly to Heaven instead of shooting her with the stolen borrowed Colt

b) his truck broke down and he knew he needed help

And Cas’ foremost reason for not contacting them is that he believes Kelly and the baby - because they’re an extension of Lucifer being free from the cage - are his responsibility.

A sentiment he’s stated more than once throughout S12.

A sentiment rooted in his need to feel useful and to have a purpose.

This need, in turn, rooted in the fact that, at this moment in time, he’s never felt more lost or uncertain of where he truly belongs, feeling like he doesn’t belong anywhere, like he doesn’t even know who he is anymore, loving Dean with all his heart and feeling no hope that the love will ever be returned he’s drifting, without any anchor whatsoever.

Of course, Dean then doesn’t help the situation when he negates Cas’ biggest motivator and dismisses it as though it’s really all in Cas’ own head: protecting them isn’t his job.

Dean is right, of course. It was never his job. He made them his job, he interpreted his orders to protect them in a way that would justify staying close to them and I think that’s underlined in 7x21 when he tries to stop Hester from hurting the brothers by saying “Please, they’re the ones we were put here to protect” and Hester replies simply with a “No, Castiel”.

And that’s the truth.

Cas has extended his order to bring Dean out of hell and secure Michael’s vessel to protecting the brothers against all odds. Because he’s falling in love with Dean, and he can’t make sense of that emotion.

This has made him dress himself as the hammer and assign all his worth to that role because, again and again, it’s underlined the brothers only call on him for angelic assistance. The problem is, again, miscommunication, because throughout S12 Sam finally, and very vocally and earnestly, contradicts Cas every single time he says that Lucifer is his responsibility. Sam is the one to repeatedly tell Cas he’s wrong in S12, they’re in it together, and he should come to them for help.

But Sam isn’t the person who needs to say it.

Dean agrees, but he agrees in vague ways, like being pissed off - which to our literal angel is the same as negating Sam’s words or being nothing but hyper critical of Cas’ opinion, which for our as-stubborn-as-Dean-Winchester Cas more or less means he’ll just dig his heels down even deeper - or Dean agrees by saying stuff that only underline Cas’ belief that Dean can’t possibly see any real worth in him. That he’s a liability. And expendable. Only useful for the powers he brings to the fight.

This is in 12x23, of course, where they’re together, TFW about to assemble, but instead of there being a sense of team spirit, Cas gets a Dean who barges in, takes over and then asks if he still has the immense power that killed a Prince of Hell.

In 12x19 they finally begin to open up the doors to open communication during the Mixtape Exchange, but that episode is titled The Future and I believe that cornerstone was placed there to show what they’re working towards. That scene is a beautiful study of body language because both of these actors are remarkably attuned to using it as a tool of expression. And that’s more or less the basis for the entire Destiel narrative because it’s so much in the subtext of how these two interact with each other.

That’s how you build a will-they-won’t-they, btw. No matter the genders involved. There has to be a dance of long looks and glances when the other isn’t looking. There has to be stuff neither one says out loud. There HAS to be miscommunication because complete honesty takes away the obstacles and without obstacles there’s no character growth and there’s absolutely no fucking intrigue to following the progression of the love story.

But now I digress.

So if 12x19 gives a cornerstone to open communication, then why don’t they keep building on that? They are, and they will. Moments of misunderstanding - like this one in 12x23 where Dean is more or less hinging their survival on whether Cas still has the power up juices flowing through him (look at Cas’ face - it hurts him!) - are more or less essential at this juncture, and these misunderstandings stem from the fact that these two men care so much about what the other thinks of them that they can’t stand the thought of disappointing the other, or failing them in any way, neither understanding that how they feel the other can’t disappoint them or fail them no matter what they do is how BOTH OF THEM FEEL ABOUT EACH OTHER!

(dance my pretties dance!)

There is all the love here, darling Anon, don’t you fret!

The reason Dean tells Cas that he isn’t their babysitter comes from Dean’s conviction that Cas still thinks of himself as their protector foremost, like he stated out loud and unequivocally in 7x21. That statement came as a horrified surprise to Dean back then, because that was Dean’s biggest fear, wasn’t it? That Cas was one of those angels that, when they try to care, it ends up breaking them apart?

That’s how he views Cas’ choices and sacrifices by the end of S7: they’re breaking Cas apart and Cas made them because he cares.

The problem for Dean is that he’s wanted to humanise Cas - to make him CARE - almost from the moment their story began: giving him his nickname is just the beginning. Why did he do that?

Because Dean Winchester is a control freak, plain and simple.

I don’t believe it’s love at first sight with these two. It’s attraction at first sight for Dean (that I do believe), but Dean is out of his depth with Cas and he has an immediate need to bring him down to Earth. To make him feel like an equal. Possibly even an inferior.

Which is why, at least this is my interpretation of it, whenever he gets to put Cas in a tight spot doing human things - such as taking Cas to a den of iniquity - Dean is practically bouncing in his seat from having the upper hand completely and irrevocably.

S12, however, does a lot to tell us that much has changed since S7, including how the brothers view Cas and his choices and his sacrifices.

In 12x10, after the whole Ishim incident, Sam tells Cas that Cas may have changed, but it’s for the better. And Dean voices support as well, telling Cas he’s not weak, like Ishim proclaimed him to be.

So for Cas, nine episodes later, to come off as though he still considers himself the brothers angelic protector rubs Dean the wrong way. He doesn’t want Cas to feel like he has to protect them because he’s not their defender, he’s not the hammer: he’s their friend and brother in arms and worth a helluva lot more than whatever responsibility he feels like placing on his own two shoulders.

(Also Dean is completely in love with him and, I’d argue, is subtly terrified that Cas still, after all these years, is so much an angel that whatever that “I love you” in 12x12 was, it sure as hell didn’t mean Cas is in love with him, because Dean’s still nothing more than a mere ward for Cas, someone he feels responsible for, someone he’s formed a bond with, sure, but a bond that never could be romantic based on how they’re from two so completely different worlds - hence the mixtape from Dean, as he tries to over-subtly test the waters)

So, you see? Dean telling Cas off for acting like he protects them by excluding them comes from a place of love.

“You, me, and Sam - we’re just better together.”

Dean tries to convince Cas with this statement, but the Mixtape Exchange is a Destiel scene, and Cas is done now, after having said “I love you” out loud, no matter how vaguely, to pretend like he doesn’t want more. That’s why he gestures between him and Dean when he says “We?” and Dean ruins it when he says “Yes, we. You, me… and Sam.” Unable to give Cas more than his little finger and leaving Cas thinking that, after all is said and done, Dean Winchester does not love him back. And again, neither is stating the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help them Chuck - dancing around each other for this fear of rejection, this fear that stems in the feeling that they’re really not worthy of the other’s love.

There is a complex web of emotion that these men are stuck in, and I, for one, cannot wait to watch it slowly detangle.

And Dean cares. Oh, he cares.

Looooooook at his faaaaaaaace! :)

#answered asks #destiel #spn 7x21 #spn 12x19 #spn 12x23 #dean winchester #cas #all the love #ALL OF IT #forever #and ever #the greatest love story ever told #spn meta

229 notes · View notes

hyacinth-halcyon-blog · 7 years

Note

Okay so this might be a looong shot but I was trying to think of who might have any knowledge regarding this and you were the only one that came to mind (bc you're amazing and your resources are literally the best!). But I've been trying to find a modern (or hell, even an ancient) philosophical/metaphysical defense for polytheism. I know philosophy is not /exactly/ your thing but have you come across anything like this??

Philosophy is far from my thing thanks to a really bad philosophy class I took aha. But I did some poking for you to see what I could find. It’s worth noting that pretty much all of these will be Western philosophy because a) I’m more knowledgeable on the topic and feel more comfortable navigating the arguments and b) Western philosophy is incredibly elitist in its views of world religion and tends to regard polytheism as “primitive” whereas ‘Eastern’ philosophy lacks this elitism so has less of a need for these arguments.

First thing that came up was a book entitled The Case for Polytheism by Steven Dillon. Haven’t read it but the entire thing is based on this exact topic. It’s a recent-ish book. Wildhunt has a review that breaks down the book into what feels like a massive oversimplification (at least I hope it’s a massive oversimplification as someone who has had to seriously read philosophy.) The oversiplified explanation is essentially if the universe was created by something and it must have been because it isn’t essential for it to exist, then at least one god exists and then something along the lines of “number of gods relies on amount of gods perceived, multiple gods are perceived and so there are multiple gods”. As said, I really hope wildhunt failed to understand a nuanced argument and broke it down poorly because otherwise… this is not a good argument IMO and I wouldn’t recommend using it. It’s about as poor as the circular logic Descartes employs in his theory okay it’s bad and a weak argument.

The next result I could find is older and is from the philosopher and psychologist William James. His arguments for polytheism revolve around the moral problem of evil and the diversity of religious experiences. His view of religion stems from having a pluralistic rather than monistic view of morality. In essence, his view of good and evil influences and informs his view of theology. Basically, he says that monism in religion means that evil is an inescapable moral truth and that humans have no free will in regards to it. A pluralistic view of the principal of evil allows for reducing evil, stating it to be unnecessary and combatable, and something we are not bound to irrevocably. Basically, he argues that in monotheism, evil is an inescapable part of God and human nature and how could a fundamentally good being create evil? (A trouble that theologians still grapple with.) Furthermore, if God were all powerful he should be able to destroy evil but he cannot and so he must be finite. In pluralistic theology, evil is merely one of many concepts existing and not an absolute truth nor something created by what is supposed to be a benign creator. It’s one of many oppositional forces. It also allows for free will on our parts. (I hope I’m making sense here; trying to state things simply but not oversimplify) He also explains that there are numerous religious truths and experiences and that these often contradict and yet are no less true despite the contradictions. This means that there must exist multiple divinities capable of making all these differing truths. In addition, communication means reciprocation must happen aka we influence said god as they influence us. This means that god must be limited and therefore not all-powerful, again, opening the case for multiple gods. Together, he sees this as a convincing evidence for polytheistic beliefs.

Another source - and a more modern one - is the writings of Edward P. Butler. He is a theologian and philosopher as well as a polytheist. He runs the blog Henadology and has a lot of writings worth reading. I’m having trouble tracking down a paper that looks like it gives a specific explanation of a defense for polytheism but he has writings I can’t access that look like they would.

Some much older writings in defense of polytheism are from the Greeks. Plotinus is a name that has come up a lot. I also found a paper arguing that the oldest argument for polytheism over monotheism is made by a Pythagorean by the name of Pseudo-Onatas. I would summarize this and look for specific writings by Plotinus but my spoons are super low right now. But I hope this gives you some places for your own search. :>

#Anonymous

12 notes · View notes

scribeofthenewworld · 4 years

Text

Speculation On Creation

NOTE: this paper was originally written in Chicago format and utilises footnotes. The footnotes are not available in the text below; for the full paper with references, follow the link below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11A944lIB8yrlg9Ltai1_8enJ-DIK9413P5lCztlM4iA/edit?usp=sharing

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. A simple enough statement, but under further scrutiny, one wracked with controversy. The creation account in Genesis 1 raises such questions from believers as ‘was the earth really created in six days?’, ‘how much of the creation account is literal, and metaphorical?’, ‘where does science fit into the story of the creation of the world?’, and so forth. This paper will attempt to answer these questions and others like them, as well as examining evidence for and against each of the creation theories and reconciling scientific and Biblical agendas. Although the majority of Christians today seem to adhere mainly to young earth theories of creation, upon examination, the scientific evidence backing any of the old earth creation theories is vastly superior in both credibility and abundance.

Before embarking on this journey of scientific discovery, a good Christian must take proper inventory of their Biblical angle and thoroughly consider their beliefs. The most important question, in this particular instance, would probably be “Do I take every last thing in the Bible literally?” If answering “yes” to this question, one must then consider “why?” Not to say that the Bible should not be studied and followed, but simply that, in certain cases, taking a literal interpretation makes little sense. Many places in scripture, whole books even, are classified as poetic – Psalms, for example. Why, then, should other parts not be also? Furthermore, “Language differences increase the difficulty of comprehending the meaning of the creation ‘day.’ The entire Old Testament… comes to us from ancient Hebrew”. Most English-speakers simply do not take into account the language gap present when considering the Bible. Yet it remains acutely present – biblical Hebrew contains a few thousand words, as opposed to English’s vernacular of nearly four million. As such, many Hebrew words have multiple potential translations. More than that, though, the very essence of the language differs from English: ancient Hebrew is a rich, poetic, meaningful language, with nuances and structures that no one who has not studied it can hope to understand. The language’s nature being thus, the Hebrew Bible was written not with the intent of providing precise, scientifically-acute data, but of conveying to its reader the character and might of God. Moreover, the Hebrew culture differed astronomically from ours in many aspects, one of which being its unconcern with precision and hard fact; the Hebrews were much less concerned with hard science and time. Rather, the ancient Hebrew language emphasized poeticism and meaning, being more ‘big picture oriented’ than English. The discontinuity between the two creation accounts in Genesis accentuates this; had the tales been transcribed literally, each would contradict the other. Within the context of poetic imagery, however, each can be appreciated as a tribute to creation and God’s creative splendor.

Now bearing all this in mind, one can further contend interpretation of the Biblical creation accounts. Before engaging in more intensive speculation, though, one must keep in mind this: true science does not contradict scripture, for scripture does not contradict facts of the natural world. “Both the Old and New Testaments emphasize the importance of testing, of making sure the evidence supports truth claims”. God created a world of order, with laws and functions comprehensible to man; therefore, it should stand to reason that not only can science and scripture exist compatibly, but harmoniously. Now, it is surely no disputed matter that differences in scriptural interpretation can be met with some quarrel. Yet to properly assess one’s points of belief, one must put aside emotional responses and examine the facts. Foremost, one must consider the intended meaning of the word “day” in Genesis. The Hebrew word translated as “day”, yôm (יוֹם) is used “to indicate any of four time periods: (a) some portion of the daylight (hours), (b) sunrise to sunset, (c) sunset to sunset, or (d) a segment of time without any reference to solar days (from weeks to a year to several years to an age or epoch)”. It is entirely possible, therefore, that the “days” to which Genesis 1 refers are not twenty-four-hour days at all, but indiscriminate amounts of time. Moreover, Psalm 90:3 states “A thousand years in your sight [o Lord] are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night”, and again, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day”. Because God exists outside any human concept of time, he need not conform to any specific timeframe. Also, mankind did not even exist for the first five “days” of creation, so man’s concept of time would have been irrelevant in any case; God’s only timeframe would have been his own.

The most compelling evidence for the earth’s age, however, can be found in the earth itself. It should be noted that, for the sake of the length of this paper, explanation of scientific processes and methods must be minimal, if not forgone altogether. Keeping this in mind, the most common method for precise dating, radiometric dating, measures the presence of long-lived radioactive ‘parent’ isotopes and their stable ‘daughter’ isotopes in minerals. Over time, radioactive elements decay into lighter elements, which is one of the ways scientists know the earth to be at least one billion years old – those radioactive elements with shorter half-lives cannot be found that originated in the earth’s crust. Radiometric dating puts the oldest mineral fragment ever found (zircon), according to the journal Nature Geoscience, at 4.375 billion years old, give or take about six million. Obviously, this is significantly longer ago than some people believe the earth to have even existed. What to think? To begin with, radiometric dating has been proven one of the most accurate methods of mineral dating used due to the variety of radioisotopes and the constancy of decay; its (notably slight) error margin accounts almost entirely for timeframe miscalculation (different radiometric methods are used to date relics from different time periods). To examine the constancy of decay, one must understand that “radioactive decay is the process whereby an unstable nucleus either ejects or captures particles, transforming the radioactive nucleotide into an isotope of another element”. Decay constancy can be expected for two reasons: first, atomic nuclei are extremely well insulated by their electron cloud, preventing them from interacting with other atoms’ nuclei. Second, the energy required for nuclear changes is 106 times greater than that involved in chemical activity – an energy level naturally attainable only in nuclear reactions. Because radioactive decay necessitates elemental transmutation, and therefore nuclear changes, such an unlikely interference of external factors means that, barring some fundamental change in the nature of matter and energy, rates of decay have remained constant.

The cosmos serves as another huge indicator as to the passage of time. The better part of the universe remains largely mysterious to man – he has neither the technology nor the time to explore deep space. Still, man has discovered quite a goodly amount about his own solar system, to his credit. Based on much of the knowledge garnered by astronomers and astrophysicists, science has been able to ascertain the age of the universe. NASA’s oldest estimation of the universe falls around 13.7 billion years old – far older than planet earth, they posit. These conclusions were reached by extensive study of sound and light waves and how long they take to reach earth, and of the background microwave radiation avowedly produced at the dawn of the universe. Additionally, the majority of meteorites that have fallen to earth have been dated at between 4.4 and 4.6 billion years, and the oldest recorded supernova has been dated back a measured 4.3 million years; because “supernova explosions occur only when a massive star has burned up nearly all its nuclear fuel... this burning process takes several million years – even longer for less massive stars”. Therefore, all white dwarfs claim that age, at least. Moreover, by study of ancient galaxy clusters, astronomers have been able to determine that some stars therein date back tens of millions of years by comparing them with more newly formed adjacent stars. As a matter of fact, the simple reality that things billions of lightyears away can be observed attests to the solar system’s exceptional age; “lightyear” refers to the distance light can travel in a year, ergo light-sources billions of lightyears away would yet be unobservable were the solar system young, for the light from them would not as of yet have had sufficient time to reach earth. As a matter of fact, an excerpt from Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith notes, “Space and time, the cosmological coordinates, are correlative. Interlocking of the two is pronounced in God's seventh day rest, a temporal concept that connotes the spatial reality of the holy site of God's enthronement. Also indicative of their correlation is the giving of the temporal names ‘day’ and ‘night’ to the spatial phenomena of light and darkness [Gen. 1:5]”.

Likely the most controversial affair within science today, particularly among theists, is evolution. While evolution remains technically a theory, nearly overwhelming evidence exists in its favour and it represents a fundamental piece of biological history. To clarify, the term “evolution” is used here to express the concept of microevolution. Evolution does not purport to know how the first life came to be upon this earth, nor does it automatically posit the so-called “Big Bang Theory”. However, usually when one says they do not believe in “evolution”, it automatically connotes both evolutionary concepts. Such a claim sounds a bit foolish, if not downright absurd. First of all, the evidence for microevolution is abundant enough that it could very nearly be considered confirmed; furthermore, it is treated by the scientific community as fact. The most popular example of this principle in action is the study of the Galapagos Finches, however a clearer example lies in the sudden emergence of complex multicellular organisms (Eukaryotes) in the fossil record, following the Proterozoic period. Evolution within species causes an organism to adapt to its environment through mutation – in this way, they are better able to survive. It is not the subversion of species separation, but simply the division of already-existing species.

The tenets for young earth creationism are numerous; therefore, as much of the science forming the groundwork for various young earth arguments has already been discussed, from here on shall focus primarily on the different young earth views and their theological premises. One theory, “mature creationism”, postulates that God created the earth with an appearance of age, just as he presumably created Adam and Eve as mature adults. The problem with this theory is its inference that God not only created an earth that looked old, but that had every detail of an age to which it could not truly contend. To what end would God scatter fossils and mud cracks about in the sediment to make the earth look unnecessarily ancient? It would accomplish naught but confusion for his people, and worse, it would make him a deceiver -- something that God most decidedly is not. The other popular young earth position, called “flood geology”, speculates that the flood in Genesis 6-9 severely altered the geology of the earth’s crust, giving it an appearance of advanced age. This theory hypothesizes that the flood spanned the entirety of the earth, wiping out all -- plants, animals, and humans alike. However, the case for a geographically global flood lacks both Biblical and scientific basis – in fact, Psalm 104:7-9 seems to directly contradict the thought. Furthermore, the Hebrew word used throughout the Old Testament commonly translated as “world” was ‘erets (אֶרֶץ), which can also be translated to mean “land” or “country”. In fact, it was more commonly used to mean “land” than “earth”! Additionally, geographic evidence stands in opposition to flood geology; fossils, impressions, and patterns within sedimentary structures in other areas of the world bespeak no great hydraulic catastrophe.

Probably the most vexing young earth queries are those involving the question of death before the fall; obviously (assuming the advanced age of the earth), death of animals would have had to occur for fossils to be deposited as they are, and had animal death not occurred beforehand the planet would have been nearly overrun by the time the creation of man occurred. It then stands to reason that God’s creation was not entirely perfect, even before the introduction of sin. Yet, Genesis never says anything about God calling his creation perfect; Hebrew has multiple words that could be potentially translated as “perfect”, and God used none of them. Rather, he used the word tôv (טוֹב), which simply means “good”. As “good” presents a far more vague definition than “perfect”, it can be argued that an imperfect creation involving physical death could still be considered “good”. Since God (presumably) did not create animals with the same moral distinguishments as man, sin did not exist before him (“sin” meaning willful deviance from God’s instruction). This premanifestation of physical death may make sense even with concern to pre-fall humans – in part, due to the language used when forbidding consumption of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil: rather than simply using the regular form of the Hebrew word for “die”, môt (מֹות), God used an intensified form (מֹות תָּמֽוּת). This indicates a more extreme sort of death than mere physical death: spiritual death. The fact that God said post-fall “He [man] must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” backs this up; God would not have needed to proscribe man from the tree of life were he already predestined to live forever, be it in the physical or the spiritual sense.

Ross makes the statement that “Current culture subscribes to this false dichotomy: facts and faith don’t mix. Yet the Bible claims that faith is built on reasonable evidence”. It seems silly, then, that some scorn evidence and fact on the part of faith, when in reality neither need jeopardize the other. It is true that some questions exist to which no one can ever truly know the answer. Yet, whilst man dwells upon this earth, should he not seek to study and understand it to the best of his ability? Earth is mans’ God-granted home, and as such man should not view attempts to explain and fathom it as heretical, but as explorative and progressive. God did not beget for man a random world, but one that can be ordered, analyzed, and explained; therefore, it stands to reason that he desires humanity to explore and decipher their home. The world God created for his people makes wonderful sense, and one day when everything is revealed, people will also be able to look at the gloriously harmonious congruity of creation and say “it is good”.

Bibliography

"New International Version (NIV)." Blue Letter Bible. Accessed April 02, 2016. https://www.blueletterbible.org/.

Dalrymple, G. Brent. The Age of the Earth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991.

Hill, Carol A., and Stephen O. Moshier. "Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon: A

Critique." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, June 2009, 99-115.

Kline, Meredith G. "Space and Time in the Genesis Comogony." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 15th ser., 48, no. 2 (1996). Accessed April 2, 2016. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF3-96Kline.html.

NASA. "Ancient Galaxy Cluster Still Producing Stars." Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Last modified August 18, 2010. Accessed April 2, 2016.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA13335.

Nemiroff, Robert, Jerry Bonnell, WMAP Science Team, and NASA. "Astronomy Picture of the Day." APOD: 2003 February 17. February 17, 2003. Accessed April 02, 2016. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030217.html.

Ross, Hugh. A Matter of Days. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004.

Valley, John W., Aaron J. Cavosie, Takayuki Ushikubo, David A. Reinhard, Daniel F. Lawrence, David J. Larson, Peter H. Clifton, Thomas F. Kelly, Simon A. Wilde, Desmond E. Moser, and Michael J. Spicuzza. "Hadean Age for a Post-magma-ocean Zircon Confirmed by Atom-probe Tomography." Nature Geoscience, February 23, 2014, 219-23. Accessed April 01, 2016.

Widbin, Bryan. Lecture, Biblical Hebrew II: Readings, Alliance Theological Seminary, Nyack, NY.

Widbin, R. Bryan, and Peg Kershenbaum. A Guidebook For Learning Biblical Hebrew.

N.p.: Alliance Theological Seminary, 1997.

#writing #academic writing #scientific writing #theological writing #research #original content #sad writer gang

0 notes

jonathanalumbaugh · 6 years

Text

What I learned

January 13th, 2018, 7th issue. A roundup of what I learned this week, sources linked. Published weekly. All blurbs written by yours truly unless otherwise noted. Grouped in quasi-random order.

Design

Land art is awesome. — 10 Female Land Artists You Should Know

There's free money out there for projects! — The Complete Guide to 2018 Artist Grants and - Artwork Archive

Better design can help guide the user to what they want to do, while leaving them in control. Bad design lets them flounder. — Hawaii missile alert: Blame terrible interface design for the Hawaii debacle — Quartz

Looking at a familiar environment through a photo can give us a new perspective. — January Cure 2018 Assignment 7 - Photograph Your Home - Apartment Therapy

Design-centered companies like IBM seem like the ideal, if there must be monoliths like them. — IBM’s Quest To Design The “New Helvetica”

Things that are interactive get more attention than things that are static. Things that are interactive in strange and unexpected ways, probably even more so. — Ikea’s New Ad Is A Pregnancy Test You Pee On. Really.

The impact of simple choices ("this font or that one?") is important. — The importance of typography in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

International fire code/OSHA guidelines for evacuation floor plans are a thing that exists. — Is there a Standard for Emergency Evacuation Maps? - NFPA Xchange

Basic principles of animation apply to more than just animated films. — Making CSS Animations Feel More Natural - CSS-Tricks

CNC made houses cause quite a stir in the comments section. — The PlyPad: CNC Machine Yourself A Tiny House - Hackaday

Design nostalgia looks to an era that never existed, a charicature of an era that wasn't as glorious as it's made out to be. — That font you hate is coming back in style - The Outline

Git

Yes, a section dedicated solely to all the things I learned about git.

Git is a powerful way of managing projects that have releases, ongoing development, and multiple team members. — A git Primer

Use "git checkout" to use files from a different branch in the current branch. — Git: checkout files or directories from another branch – clubmate.fi

This was supposed to help me deploy my website. — Git: copy all files in a directory from another branch - Stack Overflow

Git can also be used to automate deployment of web apps or websites, especially powerful when combined with post receive hooks. — Setting up Push-to-Deploy with git - Kris Jordan

Order of operations: git commit > git pull > merge whatever needs to be merged > push to server. — When do I need to do "git pull", before or after "git add, git commit"? - Stack Overflow

Finance

In systems of continually growing complexity, administration becomes more and more difficult. — An Alleged Theft of a Billion-Dollar Fund Grips ETF World - WSJ

A lot about retirement accounts. — Congratulations, Your Income Is Too High: Non-Deductible IRA Conversions - Part 2 - Seeking Alpha

Ethereum is a crypto-currency that is built to be used for smart contracts, which function as multi-signature accounts, manage agreements between users, store information about an app, and more. — How Do Ethereum Smart Contracts Work? - CoinDesk

Scandal

In a shitstorm of bad apologies for terrible assaults, a victim accepts her harasser's apology. — Dan Harmon’s apology to Megan Ganz was a moment of self-reckoning - Vox

Excerpt: “We are talking here about destroying all the ambiguity and the charm of relationships between men and women,” explained the writer Anne-Elisabeth Moutet... “We are French, we believe in gray areas. America is a different country. They do things in black and white and make very good computers. We don’t think human relationships should be treated like that.”

What I learned: I'm not really sure.

— Opinion: Catherine Deneuve and the French Feminist Difference

In the almost every one of the differing opinions about Ansari's wrongdoings, even the ones who decry his accuser, there is at least some shred of truth. — The Humiliation of Aziz Ansari

Social media

Facebook has shifted its focus from personal connection to advertising. Can it be saved? Probably only by killing it. — Facebook Can’t Be Fixed. — Facebook (FB) is using an old drug dealer tactic to keep its users hooked to News Feed

In a society anxious to be texted back, we value the ability to put off replying. — How It Became Normal to Ignore Texts and Emails

youtube

Algorithmic systems like Youtube feed off of its users preferences. If we don't like it, it's our fault. — Making a Better YouTube

There is a new dialectic, or at least one that has been brought to the fore by the over-availability of news: virtue signalling vs. engagement. Every inflammatory headline begs to be shared with righteous opinion attached, and every time one is it fans the flames of the 24 hour news cycle. Maybe before long, it'll be called the 1400 minute news cycle. — Seriously, You—Ok, We—Need To Stop Watching The News This Year

Massive systems like Youtube are now almost completely run by algorithms that are exploitative. It's not that there is aberrant behavior in the algorithm; it is built to be exploitative, and it's now being taken to its natural end. And yes, as users, we are complicit. — Something is wrong on the internet – James Bridle

We need to consider the root beliefs collectively held by society that have given rise to the services that now run our lives. — Lost Context: How Did We End Up Here?

Life

A catch-all category for stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else, or fits in too many other categories!

There are points in time that we're more likely to work to push beyond our current capabilities; perhaps by preparing for them, we could push even farther. — The Bizarre Motivating Power of Aging Into a New Decade

Spiciness is carried to our brains through nerves in the dermis on our tongues, not through taste buds. — Did You Know That "Spicy" is Not a Taste?

Alcohol hits the bloodstream very quickly (~90 seconds) but takes hours to be fully released into the bloodstream, so BAC can climb even after the last drink. — Here's Why You Vomit After Drinking Alcohol And How To Feel Better After Getting Sick

Discomfort and fear keep us from enjoying ourselves. When we experience them, slow down, check them at the door and forge ahead. — I Was the Youngest Person at the Dump - Kathleen Ann Thompson

The authors argue that inequality is almost the same as it has been for decades, the top 1% is simply receiving their large slice of the pie in salary, rather than in increasing shareholder value pre-Reagan tax changes. — A new study says much of the rise in inequality is an illusion. Should you believe it?

Making room for opportunity to occur is the first step to seizing opportunity. — Opportunity Knocks When You Least Expect It. - Kathleen Ann Thompson

What I learned: The internet is a utopia; it does not physically exist, it's a virtual space that enables the amplification of the moral outrage that is a tool of self-absolution. And now we are no longer able to shape the internet, what we made now shapes us. Excerpt one: "The utopian ideal of the internet—unregulated access to information, pure connectivity—now feels antiquated. Also antiquated: trying to determine if the internet is simply good or bad. Possible and necessary: thinking more deeply about how it’s rewiring our brains and warping our experience of time, about the vistas of reality it’s revealing and creating, and what to do with our positions therein, so that we do not go mad from it all nor flee altogether." Excerpt two: "Communicating every thought about every moral conflict has become so effortless, even obligatory, that it feels like nothing could possibly be informing our reactions beyond the conflicts themselves." Excerpt three: "The myriad reckonings we’re desperate for might be cultivated in the kind of safe space Kaufman describes. Not a literal dream state, but somewhere where you don’t feel watched or compelled to perform. Somewhere private, or where you’re listening to one person at a time rather than a ton of little representations of people all at once. Somewhere where the discomfort of moral responsibility can’t be mowed over with the stimulus of an outrageous story. Where, if you’re disturbed to come upon a transgressive thought of your own, the next move is to pick it apart, rather than to go online and project an image of yourself as perfectly evolved." — Rookie » Editor's Letter

Automating repetitive tasks using whatever tools at hand is a powerful way to reach past a productivity plateau. — Schedule Tasks on Linux Using Crontab

Giving our viewers "everything" is doing our audiences a disservice. Shows like Twin Peaks make us work to understand. — ‘Twin Peaks’ Episode 8 Explained: Recap & Top Theories

B teams at Google (teams that were not composed of top performers) made more significant contributions to the company than its A teams, once again proving that soft skills are incredibly important. — The surprising thing Google learned about its employees — and what it means for today’s students

Figure out your most productive hours and be prepared to work on your most important projects in that time. — Work During Your Hours of Peak Productivity

Google may not be explicitly evil, but it is starting to force web developers to do things the Google way. — Web developers publish open letter taking Google to task for locking up with web with AMP / Boing Boing

Psychology

I have no idea what's going on here. — Carl Jung Was Alt-Right

Contradicting perhaps decades of psychology, personality (as measured by OCEAN, or the "Big Five") shows downward trends in all traits except agreeableness. — Study of 50,000 people shows personality changes throughout life

A free "Big Five" or "OCEAN" test! — Understand Yourself - Personality Test

Beginnings, endings, and other psychological landmarks are powerful times to take advantage of in our lives. — You’re Most Likely to Do Something Extreme Right Before You Turn 30

#Weekly Digest

0 notes

vernicle · 7 years

Text

A Biblical View of Punishment Redefined

[ad_1]

A biblical perspective: abandoning retribution as a doctrine for legal punishment

I. Introduction

The Old Testament is filled with different mandates regarding punishment for certain acts and crimes, a great deal of which includes the penalty of death. Conversely, the New Testament somewhat disregards the Old Testament idea of punishment, in that it became secondary to Jesus' message of love and redemption. In this respect, both reward and punishment are seen as taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. How do we reconcile these differing views? What are the reasons for the sharp shifts in these fundamental concepts? Moreover, to what extent should our system of criminal law incorporate these biblical models of justice?

II. Criminal Law

Two broad theories of punishment exist which guide our current criminal justice system: utilitarianism and retribution. These theories guide lawmakers in developing general principles of criminal responsibility.

Utilitarianism

From a utilitarian perspective, punishment exists to ensure the continuance of society and to deter people from committing crimes. The primary utilitarianism objective is to augment the total happiness of the community by excluding everything that subtracts from that happiness. There are three distinct forms of utilitarianism: A.

Deterrence

The theory of deterrence suggests that the pain inflicted upon a person who has committed a crime will dissuade the offender (and others) from repeating the crime. Deterrence hinges around the idea that punishment has to be appropriate, prompt, and inevitable. Deterrence protects the social order by sending a message to the public at large. An English judge once defined the standard long ago when he remarked, "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen." The general theory of deterrence is further divided into two categories. General deterrence describes the effect that punishment has when it serves as a public example that deters people other than the initial offender from committing similar crimes. General deterrence illustrates punishment delivered in order to send a message to everyone that crime doesn't pay. Specific deterrence describes the punishment of an individual designed to prevent that individual person from committing future crimes. This idea generates from the concept that it is impossible for an individual to commit another crime while they're in prison. Both forms of deterrence as punishment methods are meant to discourage individuals from recidivating.

B. Incapacitation

Specific deterrence is very similar to and often takes the form of the notion of incapacitation. Incapacitating a known criminal makes it impossible for this individual to commit another crime. If a criminal is confined, executed, or otherwise incapacitated, such punishment will deny the criminal the ability or opportunity to commit further crimes which will harm society. The only total, irrevocable punishment is the death penalty. Other punishments, such as imprisonment, produce only partial and temporary incapacitation. Incapacitation, however, does not decrease offenses of convicts who would have not committed additional offenses anyway. Examples of this would include generally law-abiding citizens who committed a "crime of passion" in a specific, non-recurring situation.

C. Rehabilitation

Advocates of the rehabilitative form of utilitarianism believe that punishment will prevent future crimes by reforming prisoners by providing them with skills and assets that could help them lead a productive life after their release. Supporters of rehabilitation seek to prevent crime by providing offenders with the education and treatment necessary to eliminate criminal tendencies, as well as the skills to become productive members of society. Rehabilitation seeks, by means of education or therapy, to "bring a criminal into a more normal state of mind and into an attitude which would be helpful to society." Rehabilitation is based on the notion that punishment is to be inflicted on an offender to reform them as to make their re-integration into society easier. This theory is firmly grounded in the belief that one cannot inflict a severe term of imprisonment and expect the offender to be reformed and to able to adjust into society upon his release without some form of help.

Retribution

The theory of retribution is grounded in the belief that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified as a deserved response to a wrongdoing. Unlike utilitarianism, which punishes in order to prevent future harm, retributivists punish because of the wrongdoing. Thus, the criminal gets his "just deserts" regardless of whether the punishment serves to prevent any future crime. An assessment of desert will take into account "both the harm done and the offender's culpability." The focus on culpability is based on the "presupposition that people are morally responsible for their actions, and requires the court to take into account mitigating factors or excuses such as diminished capacity, duress, and provocation." Under a retributive theory of penal law, a convicted defendant is punished simply because he deserves it and for no other purpose. There is no exterior motive such as deterring others from crime or protecting society - the goal is simply to make the defendant suffer in order to pay for his wrongdoing. Some scholars believe that it is entirely natural for an individual to seek revenge and retribution when injured or harmed by another. Thus, one of the primary reasons for the existence of retribution as a doctrine recognizes the reality that people often need to be relieved of their need to retaliate against those who have wronged them. In fact, it can be argued that it is potentially harmful to the state if it does not satisfy these needs and urges. If the people are not satisfied, as history has shown, then people will sometimes take the law into their own hands in the form of mobs and vigilantes.

III. Biblical Concepts of Punishment

The Old Testament is replete with references and examples of God punishing the Israelites for their transgressions. In Genesis God defines that punishment is based upon a belief in the sanctity of life. God instructs the Israelites in several places within the Pentateuch that with respect to certain crimes, the penalty shall be an "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." A closer look at this historical tradition, however, seems to teach that this penalty was not to be interpreted literally. Instead, what the Biblical instruction really intended was for the victim of an assault or another crime to receive from the criminal the equivalent value of whatever was taken. Regardless, the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" axiom has become synonymous with harsh retribution and supporters of this theory sometimes justify their viewpoint based on this rationale. As well, how do we properly reconcile the prevailing view under the Mosaic Law with the teaching of Jesus? The scriptures tell us that Jesus asked God to forgive his executioners and promised the repentant thief beside him that they would be together in paradise when being crucified. Jesus also told his followers that they were to forgive their enemies, turn the other cheek when assaulted, refrain from judging others, minister to crime victims, visit prisoners, proclaim release to captives and liberty to the oppressed. All of these concepts seem to be in direct contradiction to the punishment concepts laid out under the Mosaic Law, so analyzing the teaching of Jesus to develop our own theory of punishment would prove worthwhile.

Mosaic Law

According to Hebrew teachings, Moses led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt around 1250 B.C. and received the 10 Commandments from God. The Hebrews then put the commandments and other principles into written form as a code of religious and moral laws known as the Mosaic Law. The laws given were in the context of a treaty with the Israelites so they could live according to God's plan and engage in a meaningful relationship with Him. The Hebrew word law when translated always has a positive meaning and is commonly identified as the term "instruction." The law, therefore, was "like an outstretched finger pointing the direction a person should take in life." The Mosaic Law was explicit in its teaching regarding punishment. The sixth commandment was, "thou shall not commit murder." Accordingly, the punishment for murder was, "he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." There are 36 eight capital offenses under the Mosaic system detailed in the Pentateuch which prescribed the death penalty. The Mosaic Law even prescribed the death penalty for violating the Sabbath. It would seem on first glance that the Mosaic era centered its system of punishment around principles of retribution. The phrase "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" expressed a principle of justice also known as lex talionis, which in Latin translates to the "law of retaliation." The literal meaning of this passage would undoubtedly lead one to presume that this calls for punishment very similar to retribution. Prosecutors have even used the phrase in closing arguments in trials to persuade jurors to return particularly harsh punishments, including the death penalty. Accordingly, "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is widely understood to equate to harsh retribution pursuant to a mentality commonly referred to as "Old Testament justice." However, what the lex talionis actually called for was simply proportionate punishment commensurate with the crime.

If punishment was to be administered, the guilty man was to receive "the number of lashes his crime deserves." Another passage that disregards the literal interpretation of "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is illustrated by the decree in Exodus how a "person who injured their servant was to let them go free as compensation." In other words, a free mandate for mutilation was not given. Instead, "the aim was proportionate and not imitative retribution, often by way of compensation or restitution." From this, it appears that punishment should be imposed on an offender - normally and certainly no more than - in proportion to what their offense deserves. New Testament The Old Testament's "eye for an eye" is often contrasted with the "turn the other cheek" compassion of the New Testament. Jesus' teaching in the New Testament never directly concentrates on the subject of what method is best to punish criminals. In fact, it should be noted that Jesus' main teaching point focuses on the unseen, remarking, "My kingdom is not of this world." One of the main scriptural references that is readily apparent, which accurately demonstrates this concept is the thief on the cross: Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." It is pertinent to recognize that Jesus' assurance of salvation only came into effect after the thief died. It should be noted that Jesus did not restore the thief to his status on this earth, which would have thereby recognized his rehabilitation and repentance for his earthly sins. As shown previously, the concepts of justice and proportionality were recognized under the Mosaic Law, while in the New Testament "the virtues of redemption and forgiveness are frequently extolled." Therefore, what the Old Testament says has to be tempered by the examples of mercy shown by Jesus. Christian interpretation of the biblical passage regarding the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" passage has been heavily influenced by Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Jesus urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.

When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow." Analyzing this passage would assuredly lead one to conclude that Jesus' teaching does not promote a system of justice analogous to the retributive principles discussed previously. Another New Testament passage that is relevant when analyzing how punishment should be considered is the story of the man and woman caught in adultery: At dawn He appeared in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around Him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees then brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law of Moses commanded that such women be stoned. But what do you say?" This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. When they kept questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first even until the last. And Jesus was left alone with the woman standing in His midst. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." Then Jesus said to her, "Then neither do I condemn you; go now and sin no more." This passage typifies Jesus' message of forgiveness and redemption. It is hard to justify condemning a person for any offense in light of Jesus' teaching here.

This passage conveys that Jesus personified the message of hope and compassion to those who are perhaps undeserving. I personally believe that Jesus' teaching here was a message to the people that they had perhaps taken the Mosaic Law out of context over the years. Assuming this proposition to be true, it would be hard to rely on the Mosaic Law as a justification for any of the punishment methods in our current society. An additional passage that could be interpreted with regards to those incarcerated is Jesus' teaching describing how He will separate the "sheep from the goats" based on how people treat others: Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." Then the righteous will answer him, "Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? When did we see You a stranger and invite You in, or needing clothes and clothe You? When did we see You sick or in prison and go to visit You?" The King will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for Me." Jesus' teaching in this passage is in direct opposition to anything resembling an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to leaving prisoners detained for incapacitation or specific deterrent reasons. Instead, Jesus directly mentions the virtue of visiting prisoners while they are incarcerated and maintains that the righteous are those who remember to consider the individuals who society has forgotten. Taken as a whole, it seems at the very least Jesus warns against not having compassion for those in prison. Jesus' entire message focused on love and forgiveness. When Christ was executed, he gave a model response to his enemies in His dying words: "Father, please forgive them." Before God, all of us are accused and found guilty. This alone stands for the assertion that all of us fall short of God's grace in many ways, yet Jesus through his divine love still finds the compassion to plead for our forgiveness. Given this, I believe it should be hard for any man to stand in judgment against another. Jesus imparted this knowledge in the Sermon on the Mount: "Judge not, or you will be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." Based on this, it should be hard for Christians to justify punishment based on traditional retributive principles of letting those harmed seek retaliation in response to a wrongdoing.

Ancient Israel

When interpreting the Mosaic Law it is important to consider that their society was far different from our own. Most religious scholars believe that God revealed to Moses the Torah around the thirteenth century B.C. It was not until the fifth century B.C. that the Hebrews actually put the commandments and other legal principles into written form. According to Jewish tradition, the written Torah was never meant to be read entirely by itself. Rather, it was the starting point for learning the Oral Law, which supplemented the written text in many ways. Considering this, scholars believe that most of the seemingly harsh criminal laws were never applied literally. As such, an "eye for an eye" was never meant to include an actual maiming of an offender. Rather, it called for the monetary compensation for the value of the victim's lost eye. Likewise, there were many significant evidentiary and procedural safeguards for criminal defendants that caused a court to rarely carry out the death penalty, believing God was better suited to "settle accounts." Restitution, rehabilitation, and atonement were paramount considerations regarding criminal punishment - not retribution - contrary to what would likely be assumed given the explicit meaning of "an eye for an eye." Moreover, prison as a method of punishment was virtually non-existent. The use of prisons was limited primarily because the retributive aspect which is so prevalent in our system was not subscribed to as a reason for punishment. That being said, the idea of a violent criminal being able to roam free in the city while trying to make restitution is an absurd idea. It is for this reason why "cities of refuge" were implemented where manslayers were exiled.

IV. Imprisonment as a Form of Punishment in the United States

What is the true aim of our prison system? Some would argue that it is to punish those who have committed wrongs asserting the theory of retribution as justification. However, the more important goal of prisons, arguably, should be in rehabilitating and reintegrating criminals to function in society. John Braithwaite is a renowned scholar and proponent of the restorative justice movement. Braithwaite's hypothesizes in his book Crime, Shame, and Reintegration that fear of shame and having pride in being law-abiding should be the major social forces for preventing crime, but modern criminal justice has become "severely disconnected from those emotions." Instead, the criminal justice system often creates "anger and indignation at the state for offending citizens' dignity in response to the inhumane conditions of prison life." To further support his theory, he invokes the New Testament theory of "hating the sin but loving the sinner." In large part, this rationale is maintained by our increasing reliance on confining individuals within a penitentiary for wrongdoing while having virtually no alternate forms of punishment.

Theory of Incarceration

The overarching remedy in the United States is to punish people when they commit crimes through incarceration. Restitution is sometimes included, although most often it is afforded as a civil remedy and is not considered in the criminal context. As Americans we pride ourselves in our freedom and our ability to freely engage in the "pursuit of happiness." Perhaps the reason we rely so heavily on threatening offenders with incarceration is because by doing this society is effectively taking away a fundamental privilege enjoyed by every American citizen. However, it would unquestionably be wise if legislators and policymakers would evaluate if incarceration is indeed the only way to achieve the objective of discouraging crime. A prevailing view among the law enforcement community reflects the attitude "if you commit the crime, you do the time." Once a person willingly engages in an activity that is prohibited by law we feel that person has subjected itself to the absolute certainty of imprisonment if apprehended. Once incarcerated the prisoner will spend their sentence in the hostile environment of a penitentiary awaiting either parole or release, often subjected to violent crimes from other inmates which are sometimes ignored by prison officials. Our prisoners often face degrading living conditions, filled with overcrowding and a general atmosphere of brutality of physical and sexual violence. These conditions undoubtedly create stress, fear, and anger which promote dysfunctional behavior that is damaging and dangerous to society once the prisoner is released. According to Michael Foucault, given the isolation, boredom, and violence prisoner's face, "the prison cannot fail to produce delinquents." As noted previously prison was almost completely ignored in Ancient Israel as a method of punishment. The Israelites did not see any objective to locking someone up in a cell without using this time to make them more productive members of society. One flaw of our system that was recognized with the Ancient Israelites centuries ago was the benefit of segregating criminals within the cities of refuge based on the degree of offense. Only negligent killers were allowed asylum in the cities of refuge, while intentional and reckless killers were not afforded this privilege. In our current system violent criminals often are interspersed with other offenders who are confined for far less serious offenses. Empirical studies have shown that recidivism rates are far lower if low-risk offenders are segregated from more serious offenders.

A Debt Owed to Society

It is often said that a criminal who has served a term of imprisonment has "paid his debt to society." In almost every case, however, the crime usually involves the criminal offender and some victim. Notwithstanding, society as a third party intervenes and our concept of justice revolves around payment to, it as opposed to the victim. Victim participation, from arrest to sentencing, needs careful examination as to what extent the government should actually play in these roles. The idea that the criminal pays a debt to society when punished assumes that "all members of society have made a tacit promise to obey its laws that they have broken." They then pays this debt when the "compensates society for their broken promises." This assumption presumes a membership that is not "voluntary which cannot be avoided and implies a promise made without assent." So, if the criminal did not "technically promise to do anything, the lawbreaker had no promise to keep, and therefore no debt to pay." For this reason few offenders accept punishment and even fewer repent of their offenses. Our system has lost sight in many respects the role of the victim in most crimes. For instance, with most thefts monetary restitution is usually neglected in our present legal practices. Punishment is not concerned with the actual loss or damage caused by the prohibited act, but only with the integrity of preserving the legal order. The punishment threatened by society proclaims the wrongness of the act and seeks to deter potential offenders, rather than actually compensate individual victims. If society is to be compensated for anything it should be for the breach of its peace. Our criminal justice system knows no other remedy except imprisonment in order to punish for crimes which possibly could be satisfied by alternate means.

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a growing movement that involves an approach which strives to maximize forgiveness, hope, and a positive outcome for all parties. The Dalai Lama is a strong proponent of restorative justice, and has taught that "the more evil the crime, the greater opportunity for grace." In the words of the Dalai Lama: "Learning to forgive is much more useful than merely picking up a stone and throwing it at the object of one's anger, the more so when provocation is extreme. For it is under the greatest adversity that there exists the greatest potential for doing good, both for oneself and for others." Advocates of restorative justice see "crime as an opportunity to prevent greater evils, to confront crime with a grace that transforms human lives to paths of love and giving." Current restorative justice philosophy centers around "bringing together all stakeholders to engage in neutral dialogue regarding the consequences of the injustice which has been done." These stakeholders meet in a circle to discuss how they have been affected by the harm and come to some agreement as to what should be done to right any wrongs affected. The key component to restorative justice is that it is wholly distinguishable from punitive state justice. Restorative justice is about healing rather than hurting. Responding to the hurt of crime with the hurt of punishment is rejected because the idea is that the "value of healing is the crucial dynamic." The restorative justice movement has been growing in strength, although there are different and conflicting conceptions of what exactly the concept entails. The central theme is a process of reparation or restoration between offender, victim and other interested parties.

Rehabilitation

As a society we must help alienated people by reviving their dignity and giving them the skills and knowledge to help themselves. Through education and job training, criminals can have the power to take control of their own life and contribute to the community when they are released. Once able to contribute to the community, a person will feel a sense of ownership to the community. They will therefore want to protect the community, and uphold its laws. In short, a criminal with the right rehabilitation can be turned from a menace to society into a very valuable asset. The primary goal optimally should be the reintegration of the suspended individual back into the main stream of life, preferably at level greater than before. Many individuals after their stint in prison try to make it on the outside, but sometimes have to resort to committing more crime in order to survive. Most convicts have no money, education, or training and have a "stigma of being an ex-convict" which makes finding employment all the more difficult. Most of those who are caught and convicted are released either free or on probation at some point. However, they rarely receive the benefit of treatment. A prisoner who is not given the chance to get an education, receive job training, and have healthy interactions with others is likely to walk out of prison in worse shape than when he went in. Conversely, after undergoing effective reform programs and treatment, he could hopefully have a positive impact on the community when he re-enters. The true aim of our prison system, therefore, should be to reform and rehabilitate criminals, not simply to punish them.

VI. Conclusion

Policy towards offenders has grown more punitive, and thus more retributive, over the last few decades. Most states and the federal government have instituted mandatory sentencing guidelines, the lengths of sentencing has grown tougher, and harsher penalties have been imposed reflecting this retributive shift. As a result, the prison population has exploded out of control and the rate of incarceration has increased exponentially. Considering the amount of individuals who have spent time in some form of a correctional facility within the United States, we must collectively assess what we realistically expect of these people after they are released. This article is not advocating that we incorporate implicitly the techniques used by the Ancient Israelites such as the cities of refuge or involuntary servitude because these methods are likely outdated. Rather, it is suggesting that anyone using a conception of punishment based on strict principles of harsh retribution using "Old Testament justice" as justification are relying on a misguided view. Although popular perception might be that the Ancient Israelites used harsh retribution as the cornerstone for meting punishment, a closer examination indicates that rehabilitation and restitution were their primary goals. As such, while specifically incorporating their ideas such as the cities of refuge might be impracticable in our current society, their underlying ideas for their use may not be. Surrounding criminals with positive influences, preserving a humane environment for prisoners, protecting their physical safety, allowing for opportunities for education, and an increased reliance on intermediate forms of confinement are all factors that might serve to collectively improve the U.S. penal system. These are all utilitarian objectives aimed at improving society, so abandoning the notion of retribution as punishment might be required under a Biblical conception. Moreover, while the teaching of Jesus focused on the eternal concepts of life, it is undeniable that His message included the virtues of exhibiting grace and mercy to those undeserving. Therefore, locking prisoners in an inhumane environment with absolutely no consideration for their well-being is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught that his grace and love is available for anyone who will receive Him. The scripture never indicates that there is anyone who is beyond the infinite love of the Savior of our world. Accordingly, anything akin to an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to warehousing criminals in a cruel and callous environment assuredly cannot be justified pursuant to the teachings of Jesus.

[ad_2] Source by Carl Ceder

from Viral News Around The World - Feed http://ift.tt/2sqUMAE via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Viral News Around The World - Feed

0 notes

worldbestlawyers · 7 years

Text

New Post has been published on World Best Lawyers

New Post has been published on http://www.worldbestlawyers.com/a-biblical-view-of-punishment-redefined/

A Biblical View of Punishment Redefined

A biblical perspective: abandoning retribution as a doctrine for legal punishment

I. Introduction

The Old Testament is filled with different mandates regarding punishment for certain acts and crimes, a great deal of which includes the penalty of death. Conversely, the New Testament somewhat disregards the Old Testament idea of punishment, in that it became secondary to Jesus’ message of love and redemption. In this respect, both reward and punishment are seen as taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. How do we reconcile these differing views? What are the reasons for the sharp shifts in these fundamental concepts? Moreover, to what extent should our system of criminal law incorporate these biblical models of justice?

II. Criminal Law

Utilitarianism

Deterrence

The theory of deterrence suggests that the pain inflicted upon a person who has committed a crime will dissuade the offender (and others) from repeating the crime. Deterrence hinges around the idea that punishment has to be appropriate, prompt, and inevitable. Deterrence protects the social order by sending a message to the public at large. An English judge once defined the standard long ago when he remarked, “Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.” The general theory of deterrence is further divided into two categories. General deterrence describes the effect that punishment has when it serves as a public example that deters people other than the initial offender from committing similar crimes. General deterrence illustrates punishment delivered in order to send a message to everyone that crime doesn’t pay. Specific deterrence describes the punishment of an individual designed to prevent that individual person from committing future crimes. This idea generates from the concept that it is impossible for an individual to commit another crime while they’re in prison. Both forms of deterrence as punishment methods are meant to discourage individuals from recidivating.

B. Incapacitation

Specific deterrence is very similar to and often takes the form of the notion of incapacitation. Incapacitating a known criminal makes it impossible for this individual to commit another crime. If a criminal is confined, executed, or otherwise incapacitated, such punishment will deny the criminal the ability or opportunity to commit further crimes which will harm society. The only total, irrevocable punishment is the death penalty. Other punishments, such as imprisonment, produce only partial and temporary incapacitation. Incapacitation, however, does not decrease offenses of convicts who would have not committed additional offenses anyway. Examples of this would include generally law-abiding citizens who committed a “crime of passion” in a specific, non-recurring situation.

C. Rehabilitation

Advocates of the rehabilitative form of utilitarianism believe that punishment will prevent future crimes by reforming prisoners by providing them with skills and assets that could help them lead a productive life after their release. Supporters of rehabilitation seek to prevent crime by providing offenders with the education and treatment necessary to eliminate criminal tendencies, as well as the skills to become productive members of society. Rehabilitation seeks, by means of education or therapy, to “bring a criminal into a more normal state of mind and into an attitude which would be helpful to society.” Rehabilitation is based on the notion that punishment is to be inflicted on an offender to reform them as to make their re-integration into society easier. This theory is firmly grounded in the belief that one cannot inflict a severe term of imprisonment and expect the offender to be reformed and to able to adjust into society upon his release without some form of help.

Retribution

The theory of retribution is grounded in the belief that punishment of a wrongdoer is justified as a deserved response to a wrongdoing. Unlike utilitarianism, which punishes in order to prevent future harm, retributivists punish because of the wrongdoing. Thus, the criminal gets his “just deserts” regardless of whether the punishment serves to prevent any future crime. An assessment of desert will take into account “both the harm done and the offender’s culpability.” The focus on culpability is based on the “presupposition that people are morally responsible for their actions, and requires the court to take into account mitigating factors or excuses such as diminished capacity, duress, and provocation.” Under a retributive theory of penal law, a convicted defendant is punished simply because he deserves it and for no other purpose. There is no exterior motive such as deterring others from crime or protecting society – the goal is simply to make the defendant suffer in order to pay for his wrongdoing. Some scholars believe that it is entirely natural for an individual to seek revenge and retribution when injured or harmed by another. Thus, one of the primary reasons for the existence of retribution as a doctrine recognizes the reality that people often need to be relieved of their need to retaliate against those who have wronged them. In fact, it can be argued that it is potentially harmful to the state if it does not satisfy these needs and urges. If the people are not satisfied, as history has shown, then people will sometimes take the law into their own hands in the form of mobs and vigilantes.

III. Biblical Concepts of Punishment

The Old Testament is replete with references and examples of God punishing the Israelites for their transgressions. In Genesis God defines that punishment is based upon a belief in the sanctity of life. God instructs the Israelites in several places within the Pentateuch that with respect to certain crimes, the penalty shall be an “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” A closer look at this historical tradition, however, seems to teach that this penalty was not to be interpreted literally. Instead, what the Biblical instruction really intended was for the victim of an assault or another crime to receive from the criminal the equivalent value of whatever was taken. Regardless, the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” axiom has become synonymous with harsh retribution and supporters of this theory sometimes justify their viewpoint based on this rationale. As well, how do we properly reconcile the prevailing view under the Mosaic Law with the teaching of Jesus? The scriptures tell us that Jesus asked God to forgive his executioners and promised the repentant thief beside him that they would be together in paradise when being crucified. Jesus also told his followers that they were to forgive their enemies, turn the other cheek when assaulted, refrain from judging others, minister to crime victims, visit prisoners, proclaim release to captives and liberty to the oppressed. All of these concepts seem to be in direct contradiction to the punishment concepts laid out under the Mosaic Law, so analyzing the teaching of Jesus to develop our own theory of punishment would prove worthwhile.

Mosaic Law

According to Hebrew teachings, Moses led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt around 1250 B.C. and received the 10 Commandments from God. The Hebrews then put the commandments and other principles into written form as a code of religious and moral laws known as the Mosaic Law. The laws given were in the context of a treaty with the Israelites so they could live according to God’s plan and engage in a meaningful relationship with Him. The Hebrew word law when translated always has a positive meaning and is commonly identified as the term “instruction.” The law, therefore, was “like an outstretched finger pointing the direction a person should take in life.” The Mosaic Law was explicit in its teaching regarding punishment. The sixth commandment was, “thou shall not commit murder.” Accordingly, the punishment for murder was, “he who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” There are 36 eight capital offenses under the Mosaic system detailed in the Pentateuch which prescribed the death penalty. The Mosaic Law even prescribed the death penalty for violating the Sabbath. It would seem on first glance that the Mosaic era centered its system of punishment around principles of retribution. The phrase “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” expressed a principle of justice also known as lex talionis, which in Latin translates to the “law of retaliation.” The literal meaning of this passage would undoubtedly lead one to presume that this calls for punishment very similar to retribution. Prosecutors have even used the phrase in closing arguments in trials to persuade jurors to return particularly harsh punishments, including the death penalty. Accordingly, “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is widely understood to equate to harsh retribution pursuant to a mentality commonly referred to as “Old Testament justice.” However, what the lex talionis actually called for was simply proportionate punishment commensurate with the crime.

If punishment was to be administered, the guilty man was to receive “the number of lashes his crime deserves.” Another passage that disregards the literal interpretation of “an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is illustrated by the decree in Exodus how a “person who injured their servant was to let them go free as compensation.” In other words, a free mandate for mutilation was not given. Instead, “the aim was proportionate and not imitative retribution, often by way of compensation or restitution.” From this, it appears that punishment should be imposed on an offender – normally and certainly no more than – in proportion to what their offense deserves. New Testament The Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” is often contrasted with the “turn the other cheek” compassion of the New Testament. Jesus’ teaching in the New Testament never directly concentrates on the subject of what method is best to punish criminals. In fact, it should be noted that Jesus’ main teaching point focuses on the unseen, remarking, “My kingdom is not of this world.” One of the main scriptural references that is readily apparent, which accurately demonstrates this concept is the thief on the cross: Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us.” But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” It is pertinent to recognize that Jesus’ assurance of salvation only came into effect after the thief died. It should be noted that Jesus did not restore the thief to his status on this earth, which would have thereby recognized his rehabilitation and repentance for his earthly sins. As shown previously, the concepts of justice and proportionality were recognized under the Mosaic Law, while in the New Testament “the virtues of redemption and forgiveness are frequently extolled.” Therefore, what the Old Testament says has to be tempered by the examples of mercy shown by Jesus. Christian interpretation of the biblical passage regarding the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” passage has been heavily influenced by Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. Jesus urges his followers to turn the other cheek when confronted by violence: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil.

When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.” Analyzing this passage would assuredly lead one to conclude that Jesus’ teaching does not promote a system of justice analogous to the retributive principles discussed previously. Another New Testament passage that is relevant when analyzing how punishment should be considered is the story of the man and woman caught in adultery: At dawn He appeared in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around Him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees then brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The Law of Moses commanded that such women be stoned. But what do you say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. When they kept questioning Him, He straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first even until the last. And Jesus was left alone with the woman standing in His midst. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said to her, “Then neither do I condemn you; go now and sin no more.” This passage typifies Jesus’ message of forgiveness and redemption. It is hard to justify condemning a person for any offense in light of Jesus’ teaching here.

This passage conveys that Jesus personified the message of hope and compassion to those who are perhaps undeserving. I personally believe that Jesus’ teaching here was a message to the people that they had perhaps taken the Mosaic Law out of context over the years. Assuming this proposition to be true, it would be hard to rely on the Mosaic Law as a justification for any of the punishment methods in our current society. An additional passage that could be interpreted with regards to those incarcerated is Jesus’ teaching describing how He will separate the “sheep from the goats” based on how people treat others: Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? When did we see You a stranger and invite You in, or needing clothes and clothe You? When did we see You sick or in prison and go to visit You?” The King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for Me.” Jesus’ teaching in this passage is in direct opposition to anything resembling an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to leaving prisoners detained for incapacitation or specific deterrent reasons. Instead, Jesus directly mentions the virtue of visiting prisoners while they are incarcerated and maintains that the righteous are those who remember to consider the individuals who society has forgotten. Taken as a whole, it seems at the very least Jesus warns against not having compassion for those in prison. Jesus’ entire message focused on love and forgiveness. When Christ was executed, he gave a model response to his enemies in His dying words: “Father, please forgive them.” Before God, all of us are accused and found guilty. This alone stands for the assertion that all of us fall short of God’s grace in many ways, yet Jesus through his divine love still finds the compassion to plead for our forgiveness. Given this, I believe it should be hard for any man to stand in judgment against another. Jesus imparted this knowledge in the Sermon on the Mount: “Judge not, or you will be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Based on this, it should be hard for Christians to justify punishment based on traditional retributive principles of letting those harmed seek retaliation in response to a wrongdoing.

Ancient Israel

When interpreting the Mosaic Law it is important to consider that their society was far different from our own. Most religious scholars believe that God revealed to Moses the Torah around the thirteenth century B.C. It was not until the fifth century B.C. that the Hebrews actually put the commandments and other legal principles into written form. According to Jewish tradition, the written Torah was never meant to be read entirely by itself. Rather, it was the starting point for learning the Oral Law, which supplemented the written text in many ways. Considering this, scholars believe that most of the seemingly harsh criminal laws were never applied literally. As such, an “eye for an eye” was never meant to include an actual maiming of an offender. Rather, it called for the monetary compensation for the value of the victim’s lost eye. Likewise, there were many significant evidentiary and procedural safeguards for criminal defendants that caused a court to rarely carry out the death penalty, believing God was better suited to “settle accounts.” Restitution, rehabilitation, and atonement were paramount considerations regarding criminal punishment – not retribution – contrary to what would likely be assumed given the explicit meaning of “an eye for an eye.” Moreover, prison as a method of punishment was virtually non-existent. The use of prisons was limited primarily because the retributive aspect which is so prevalent in our system was not subscribed to as a reason for punishment. That being said, the idea of a violent criminal being able to roam free in the city while trying to make restitution is an absurd idea. It is for this reason why “cities of refuge” were implemented where manslayers were exiled.

IV. Imprisonment as a Form of Punishment in the United States

What is the true aim of our prison system? Some would argue that it is to punish those who have committed wrongs asserting the theory of retribution as justification. However, the more important goal of prisons, arguably, should be in rehabilitating and reintegrating criminals to function in society. John Braithwaite is a renowned scholar and proponent of the restorative justice movement. Braithwaite’s hypothesizes in his book Crime, Shame, and Reintegration that fear of shame and having pride in being law-abiding should be the major social forces for preventing crime, but modern criminal justice has become “severely disconnected from those emotions.” Instead, the criminal justice system often creates “anger and indignation at the state for offending citizens’ dignity in response to the inhumane conditions of prison life.” To further support his theory, he invokes the New Testament theory of “hating the sin but loving the sinner.” In large part, this rationale is maintained by our increasing reliance on confining individuals within a penitentiary for wrongdoing while having virtually no alternate forms of punishment.

Theory of Incarceration

The overarching remedy in the United States is to punish people when they commit crimes through incarceration. Restitution is sometimes included, although most often it is afforded as a civil remedy and is not considered in the criminal context. As Americans we pride ourselves in our freedom and our ability to freely engage in the “pursuit of happiness.” Perhaps the reason we rely so heavily on threatening offenders with incarceration is because by doing this society is effectively taking away a fundamental privilege enjoyed by every American citizen. However, it would unquestionably be wise if legislators and policymakers would evaluate if incarceration is indeed the only way to achieve the objective of discouraging crime. A prevailing view among the law enforcement community reflects the attitude “if you commit the crime, you do the time.” Once a person willingly engages in an activity that is prohibited by law we feel that person has subjected itself to the absolute certainty of imprisonment if apprehended. Once incarcerated the prisoner will spend their sentence in the hostile environment of a penitentiary awaiting either parole or release, often subjected to violent crimes from other inmates which are sometimes ignored by prison officials. Our prisoners often face degrading living conditions, filled with overcrowding and a general atmosphere of brutality of physical and sexual violence. These conditions undoubtedly create stress, fear, and anger which promote dysfunctional behavior that is damaging and dangerous to society once the prisoner is released. According to Michael Foucault, given the isolation, boredom, and violence prisoner’s face, “the prison cannot fail to produce delinquents.” As noted previously prison was almost completely ignored in Ancient Israel as a method of punishment. The Israelites did not see any objective to locking someone up in a cell without using this time to make them more productive members of society. One flaw of our system that was recognized with the Ancient Israelites centuries ago was the benefit of segregating criminals within the cities of refuge based on the degree of offense. Only negligent killers were allowed asylum in the cities of refuge, while intentional and reckless killers were not afforded this privilege. In our current system violent criminals often are interspersed with other offenders who are confined for far less serious offenses. Empirical studies have shown that recidivism rates are far lower if low-risk offenders are segregated from more serious offenders.

A Debt Owed to Society

It is often said that a criminal who has served a term of imprisonment has “paid his debt to society.” In almost every case, however, the crime usually involves the criminal offender and some victim. Notwithstanding, society as a third party intervenes and our concept of justice revolves around payment to, it as opposed to the victim. Victim participation, from arrest to sentencing, needs careful examination as to what extent the government should actually play in these roles. The idea that the criminal pays a debt to society when punished assumes that “all members of society have made a tacit promise to obey its laws that they have broken.” They then pays this debt when the “compensates society for their broken promises.” This assumption presumes a membership that is not “voluntary which cannot be avoided and implies a promise made without assent.” So, if the criminal did not “technically promise to do anything, the lawbreaker had no promise to keep, and therefore no debt to pay.” For this reason few offenders accept punishment and even fewer repent of their offenses. Our system has lost sight in many respects the role of the victim in most crimes. For instance, with most thefts monetary restitution is usually neglected in our present legal practices. Punishment is not concerned with the actual loss or damage caused by the prohibited act, but only with the integrity of preserving the legal order. The punishment threatened by society proclaims the wrongness of the act and seeks to deter potential offenders, rather than actually compensate individual victims. If society is to be compensated for anything it should be for the breach of its peace. Our criminal justice system knows no other remedy except imprisonment in order to punish for crimes which possibly could be satisfied by alternate means.

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a growing movement that involves an approach which strives to maximize forgiveness, hope, and a positive outcome for all parties. The Dalai Lama is a strong proponent of restorative justice, and has taught that “the more evil the crime, the greater opportunity for grace.” In the words of the Dalai Lama: “Learning to forgive is much more useful than merely picking up a stone and throwing it at the object of one’s anger, the more so when provocation is extreme. For it is under the greatest adversity that there exists the greatest potential for doing good, both for oneself and for others.” Advocates of restorative justice see “crime as an opportunity to prevent greater evils, to confront crime with a grace that transforms human lives to paths of love and giving.” Current restorative justice philosophy centers around “bringing together all stakeholders to engage in neutral dialogue regarding the consequences of the injustice which has been done.” These stakeholders meet in a circle to discuss how they have been affected by the harm and come to some agreement as to what should be done to right any wrongs affected. The key component to restorative justice is that it is wholly distinguishable from punitive state justice. Restorative justice is about healing rather than hurting. Responding to the hurt of crime with the hurt of punishment is rejected because the idea is that the “value of healing is the crucial dynamic.” The restorative justice movement has been growing in strength, although there are different and conflicting conceptions of what exactly the concept entails. The central theme is a process of reparation or restoration between offender, victim and other interested parties.

Rehabilitation

As a society we must help alienated people by reviving their dignity and giving them the skills and knowledge to help themselves. Through education and job training, criminals can have the power to take control of their own life and contribute to the community when they are released. Once able to contribute to the community, a person will feel a sense of ownership to the community. They will therefore want to protect the community, and uphold its laws. In short, a criminal with the right rehabilitation can be turned from a menace to society into a very valuable asset. The primary goal optimally should be the reintegration of the suspended individual back into the main stream of life, preferably at level greater than before. Many individuals after their stint in prison try to make it on the outside, but sometimes have to resort to committing more crime in order to survive. Most convicts have no money, education, or training and have a “stigma of being an ex-convict” which makes finding employment all the more difficult. Most of those who are caught and convicted are released either free or on probation at some point. However, they rarely receive the benefit of treatment. A prisoner who is not given the chance to get an education, receive job training, and have healthy interactions with others is likely to walk out of prison in worse shape than when he went in. Conversely, after undergoing effective reform programs and treatment, he could hopefully have a positive impact on the community when he re-enters. The true aim of our prison system, therefore, should be to reform and rehabilitate criminals, not simply to punish them.

VI. Conclusion

Policy towards offenders has grown more punitive, and thus more retributive, over the last few decades. Most states and the federal government have instituted mandatory sentencing guidelines, the lengths of sentencing has grown tougher, and harsher penalties have been imposed reflecting this retributive shift. As a result, the prison population has exploded out of control and the rate of incarceration has increased exponentially. Considering the amount of individuals who have spent time in some form of a correctional facility within the United States, we must collectively assess what we realistically expect of these people after they are released. This article is not advocating that we incorporate implicitly the techniques used by the Ancient Israelites such as the cities of refuge or involuntary servitude because these methods are likely outdated. Rather, it is suggesting that anyone using a conception of punishment based on strict principles of harsh retribution using “Old Testament justice” as justification are relying on a misguided view. Although popular perception might be that the Ancient Israelites used harsh retribution as the cornerstone for meting punishment, a closer examination indicates that rehabilitation and restitution were their primary goals. As such, while specifically incorporating their ideas such as the cities of refuge might be impracticable in our current society, their underlying ideas for their use may not be. Surrounding criminals with positive influences, preserving a humane environment for prisoners, protecting their physical safety, allowing for opportunities for education, and an increased reliance on intermediate forms of confinement are all factors that might serve to collectively improve the U.S. penal system. These are all utilitarian objectives aimed at improving society, so abandoning the notion of retribution as punishment might be required under a Biblical conception. Moreover, while the teaching of Jesus focused on the eternal concepts of life, it is undeniable that His message included the virtues of exhibiting grace and mercy to those undeserving. Therefore, locking prisoners in an inhumane environment with absolutely no consideration for their well-being is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus taught that his grace and love is available for anyone who will receive Him. The scripture never indicates that there is anyone who is beyond the infinite love of the Savior of our world. Accordingly, anything akin to an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to warehousing criminals in a cruel and callous environment assuredly cannot be justified pursuant to the teachings of Jesus.

#Custody Lawyer

0 notes