established religions

4

March 28th 1871: Paris Commune declared

On this day in 1871, following elections held two days prior, the Paris Commune was officially proclaimed. The Commune seized power in opposition to the election of a conservative National Assembly February 1871; republican Parisians feared that when they met in Versailles the royalist Assembly would restore the monarchy. When officials of Adolphe Thiers’s government tried to remove the city guard’s cannons as a precautionary measure on March 18th, the people rebelled. The city guard called municipal elections for March 26th, which saw victory for the revolutionaries, who established the Commune to govern the city of Paris. On March 28th, the new government held its first meeting and was formally declared. The Commune immediately set about enacting socialist policies, which included a ten-hour work day, abolition of the death penalty, end of military conscription, banning established religion and promoting female suffrage. They adopted a plain red flag as the flag of the Commune, and envisioned that the situation in Paris would encourage a nationwide revolution. The Commune’s lack of internal organisation left them vulnerable to attack, but the catalyst for retribution came when Communard soldiers killed two French troops. On May 21st, national forces entered Paris through an undefended area, launching a violent campaign of street fighting known as ‘Bloody Week’. Around 20,000 insurrectionists were killed before the Commune fell on May 28th. The government treated the surviving Communards and their supporters ruthlessly - arresting around 38,000 and deporting another 7,000. The Commune became a symbol of socialist revolution in Europe and further abroad, with their supporters lamenting the martyrdom of the Communards.

What are your rights at a protest?

Animation by KAPWA Studioworks

Citizen activism is as American as apple pie. Whether you call it a protest, a parade, a tea party, a town hall, a march, a sit-in, a patriotic rally, a picket line, a free speech event, or a nonviolent demonstration, your right to stand up peacefully for what you believe in is protected by the US Constitution. Read the  First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

To learn how to turn protest into powerful change, watch this TED-Ed Lesson.

Ready to exercise your constitutionally protected right to protest? Before you go, know your rights. Below, read an excerpt from the American Civil Liberties Union guidelines for protestors. [For a pdf of the full ACLU ‘Know Your Rights’ guidelines for protestors, click here.]

Keep reading

The First Amendment

Just for reference, because there seems to be a LOT of confusion: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We have the right to live our lives, with God or without, as we choose. There is a prohibition against the establishment of a state religion in our Constitution, and we have the right to choose with whom we live, whom we love… and who and what gets to interfere with our bodies. As Americans, men, women, people, gay, straight, L, B, G, T, Q, all of us have the human right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. And if you think people got mad when they thought the government was coming after their guns? Wait’ll they come and try to take away our Happiness!”

- Meryl Streep , recipient of the National Ally Award attends the 2017 Human Rights Campaign Greater New York Gala  (Waldorf Astoria Hotel on February 11, 2017)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.”

Further went on to say —

“We must never remain silent in the face of bigotry. We must condemn those who seek to divide us. In all quarters and at all times, we must teach tolerance and denounce racism, anti-Semitism, and all ethnic or religious bigotry wherever they exist as unacceptable evils. We have no place for haters in America — none, whatsoever.

— 

Part of a speech President Reagan from 10/26/1984

I don’t normally quote Reagan…

One of the most irritating things I’ve seen from the recent bullshittery we called an election and everything that ensued is all the outcry about freedom of speech being violated.

More specifically, I’ve heard a lot from the right regarding protests and shutting down said bullshittery (think protests against actual human garbage disposal Milo, or boycotts against shit news sources). For some reason, a lot of conservatives seem to think that this protesting and boycotting are violations of free speech when we take away someone’s platform.

THAT SAID, let me lend a friendly reminder that civilians can in NO WAY violate your first amendment right to freedom of speech:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” and some other stuff. When civilians stand up against/protest the horrors that spew from the mouths of our current legislators, we’re actually exercising our right to assembly.

Freedom of speech can only be violated if a government official, whether it be a police officer or a president, does the silencing.

Twitter suspending an account because of hate speech is not a violation of free speech.
Milo having to cancel a talk because of protests and concerns of safety is not a violation of free speech.
Punching a nazi in the face to get him to shut up is not a violation of free speech. It’s assault, but who cares when it’s a nazi?

SO, moral of the rant: If you don’t want to be shut down, don’t be an intolerant bucket of dicks. And don’t complain about free speech when you are because you are stupid and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

In case anyone not from the US wants to know, I’m currently studying the U.S Constitution and I can tell you that our government ignores almost every single thing in it. 

Freedom of Speech is the 1st Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”        

This means: 

  • That there shall never be an official established religion, guaranteeing religious freedom and PROHIBITING THE DISCRIMINATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL BASED ON RELIGION.
  • That the freedom of speech (or the press) shall never be prohibited, guaranteeing people cannot be killed or imprisoned for voicing their opinions, nor shall they be ordered into silence.
  • That people have the right to peaceful protest without being imprisoned or killed or hurt.

Somehow we have ignored most (if not every single one) of these….. Our government is discriminating against people of the Muslim faith, the press has been ordered to shut up (this actually happened), and people are being shot, killed, tear-gassed, hurt and arrested in peaceful protests.

The 14th Amendment to the United states Constitution says: 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I’m getting REALLY tired of people bitching about children of “illegal immigrants” “not being citizens” if they were born here. OUR OWN CONSTITUTION SAYS THEY ARE, FUCKERS. STOP BEING RACIST. 

The 4th Amendment of the constitution says: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

And yet we “randomly search” anyone not white all the time and in Arizona it is legal to racially discriminate against people and stop and search their cars for drugs based solely on what they look like. 

Also in case you thought our awful government is the result of the past ten years, that isn’t the case. Plessy Vs. Fergason in 1896 (121 years ago) ruled: 

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.

The Court decided that the mere fact of segregation, in itself, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause so long as the races could enjoy equal access to public goods (which it wasn’t equal but they deemed it was since they had access at all regardless of the restrictions). In other words the official US Courts ruled that racism was the fault of the victim.

And it wasn’t until 1954 (58 years later and only 63 years ago) in Brown vs. the Board of Education that the courts FINALLY decided: 

“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children… Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.”

(note the phrase “retard” is in brackets because it is considered inappropriate language now and should be replaced with “inhibit” or “stunt”). 

It took 58 years to let schools no longer be segregated. 

The 1965 Voting Rights Act abolished the use of discriminatory acts that made it hard for people to vote (literacy tests, non-affordable poll taxes, deliberate intimidation etc). And yet during this past election what did Americans do? They made the poling places smaller, less accessible, have more restrictions and close too early and some even turned people away. Some places even forced voters to show two sets of ID. This is discrimination and it;s unconstitutional….. 

They’ve broken our own laws and get away with it constantly. 

And I am so fucking tired of hearing people think the United States is one of the best countries in the world. It’s not. It SUCKS and it keeps getting WORSE. 

4

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.”

THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 15, 1791

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—  the First Amendment

I feel that, even if worship of the Phoenix Witch is the most prominent display of killjoy spirituality and religion, there must be a diverse samplings of religious practice in the zones.

This could range anywhere from already established religions that were either prominent in battery city or have been passed down through the generations, to certain gangs starting to revere just, one particular rock and it just grows out of proportion and now there’s a hundred people worshipping a rock and no one really knows why. (This could take the less humorous form of killjoys really devoted to a dead friend spreading around stories and devotion to a dead friend to the point that that person becomes a religious feature)

There’s also a possibility of a pantheon that exists around the Phoenix witch. She seems mainly to be a goddess of death and the afterlife, and whether there be one other figure who contrasts her in representing life, or an entire group of gods and goddesses presiding over anything from music to the sky

There’s just a lot to talk about here and I think that, because of the focus on individuality in the zones, basically any theory about killjoy religions could coexist, and it would be interesting to see how they interact with each other

Atheists and edgy “anti-established religion” types: “G@d is a barbaric war deity who is prone to capriciousness. We might as well say they have a personality disorder.”

Me: Where the hell have I heard this before?

Me: *has flashbacks to Christian fire and brimstone treatments of a deity who is supposed to be wrathful*

Me: *remembers Christian ministers who basically said “be on G@d’s good side or else”*

Me: *remembers same said ministers saying not believing Jesus to be the savior of the whole world means I’m automatically going to hell*

Me: Oh yeah. Those guys were definitely raised Christian if they have to think of it in those terms.

Say a Prayer and Light a Candle

Say a Prayer and Light a Candle by tiptoe39
Rating: NC-17
Word Count: 57,000
Summary: Dean comes home with Castiel for the holiday. Only the holiday is Hanukkah, and Dean’s not Jewish. Which presents a problem.


With so many “bring him home for Christmas” stories, it was wonderful reading about Dean and Cas navigating the difficult waters of an interfaith relationship during the winter holidays. The author shared their own experiences while shining a light on the fact that Judaism is so much more than just a religion. There are no simple answers, no sudden realizations, no easy decisions. Instead there is an authenticity and truth that lets you know this story comes from experience, pain and hope: from Cas’ prayer of Please, let this week not be a disaster, to his mother asking if she raised him to lie.

The challenges Dean and Cas face while hiding their relationship from Cas’ family during the holidays are interwoven with flashbacks to when they first met. Those first moments of friendships, lust, love and understanding are set side-by-side with fear, shame, conflict and misunderstandings. The end is not really an end at all, but instead it is a satisfying resolution that marks a important transition for Dean, Cas and those they love.

Does Freedom of Speech Give You the Right to Use Hate Speech?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says the following:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

The part I’m going to focus on is the part that says, “…or abridging the freedom of speech.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that there are some categories of speech such as threatening words, “fighting words”, ect., which are not protected by the Constitution.

This alone means that hate speech is not part of freedom of speech. However, this doesn’t really seem to matter to people. When people hear that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution, they assume that we’re trying to take away their constitutional right to form and state their own opinion. But this really makes no sense at all unless literally all of your opinions are hateful, threatening, or violent ones. I think the real solution to this is to stand up for what we believe in, speak up and do what we think is right, without being cruel and violent towards each other. We have to stop putting each other down, and saying terrible, immature things.

We have to stand together in order to resist.


Do you think hate speech is a part of free speech?

Let’s talk about the First Amendment.

Some time ago, some neanderthal in a reblog informed me that hate speech was protected by the First Amendment so I couldn’t be upset about it, and I rolled my eyes and continued with my day. Watching Trump caterwaul about people protesting his rallies taking away his freedom of speech reminded me of it, so for fun, let’s talk about it.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Things this means:

- the government can’t arrest you for having and voicing an opinion that it doesn’t like.

- the government can’t arrest or exile you for having religious beliefs that it doesn’t like. (For example, I don’t know, someone wanting to deport all of the Muslims because they don’t know anything about Islam and are terrified of things they don’t understand)

- the government can’t make laws that promote any religion over any other religion. (For example, I don’t know, prioritizing Christianity in a country that was founded in part to escape religious persecution)

- the government can’t arrest you for being an asshole if that’s the only thing you’re doing wrong.

- the government can’t arrest you because individual police officers don’t like your tone of voice or the color of your skin.

- the government can’t arrest you for participating in a peaceful protest. So people showing up at a Trump rally with signs and chanting isn’t restricting his freedom of speech, it is their exercising their freedom to peaceably assemble. His supporters violently removing protesters from rallies or starting fights after his appearance is canceled, however, is assault and punishable by law.

Things this doesn’t mean:

- regular citizens have to tolerate you being an asshole. They can call you out, they can refuse to listen to you, they can disagree with you loudly. You still have the right to the freedom of speech because you’re not in jail. Other people have the same right to tell you you’re wrong.

- people in other countries have to respect it. The First Amendment only applies to the Constitution, which only applies to the United States. When you’re posting on the internet, you’re interacting with people all over the world. Different countries are bound by different laws.

- that the things you’re saying are right. You can’t be arrested for having opinions, but that doesn’t mean every opinion a person voices is a correct or even worthwhile opinion. 

So the next time you get into an argument and your only defense for your statement is to cry “freedom of speech!” maybe take a moment to assess if your argument is actually worth defending.

Article [I] (Amendment 1 - Freedom of expression and religion) 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Buddhism, An Art of Living

‘By learning to remain balanced in the face of everything experienced inside, one develops detachment towards all that one encounters in external situations as well. However, this detachment is not escapism or indifference to the problems of the world. Those who regularly practice Vipassana become more sensitive to the sufferings of others and do their utmost to relieve suffering in whatever way they can - not with any agitation, but with a mind full of love, compassion and equanimity. They learn holy indifference - how to be fully committed, fully involved in helping others, while at the same time maintaining balance of mind. In this way they remain peaceful and happy while working for the peace and happiness of others.

This is what the Buddha taught: an art of living. He never established or taught any religion, any “ism.” He never instructed those who came to him to practice any rites or rituals, any empty formalities. Instead, he taught them just to observe nature as it is by observing the reality inside. Out of ignorance, we keep reacting in ways which harm ourselves and others. But when wisdom arises - the wisdom of observing reality as it is - this habit of reacting falls away. When we cease to react blindly, then we are capable of real action - action proceeding from a balanced mind, a mind which sees and understands the truth. Such action can only be positive, creative, helpful to ourselves and others.’

- S. N. Goenka, The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation.

Scotland and Ireland were literally some of the first countries to have Christianity established as a religion among the people I don’t know why certain people are so intent on portraying Gaelic languages as somehow pagan.