i really wish…i can share the warmth i feel when i’m at synagogue with other people at the least i want non-jews to hear our worship and how beautiful it is i think it would change a lot
if you’ve never heard a jewish prayer please just take a little time out of your day to listen:
Once upon a time, there were a group of people migrating from northern India and Pakistan after the invasion “of the Persian Muslims who have since settled in Trukey, all of Europe, and the Americas These people are called the Rromani.” (x)
Once the pale bird feces people of Europe came into contact with the Rromani, they believed them to hail from Egypt, thus calling them Gypsies.
Now about what disgusting white people like you have been trying to turn this racial slur into. There is nothing about being a free spirited traveller if you’re called such a word. What is up with white people romanticizing everything to make it seem all nice and rainbows for them?
“They were not nomadic by choice. They moved around because they had to… they were persecuted everywhere they went, and still are, to this day. They were persecuted alongside the Jews in the Holocaust – the Roma & Sinti”. They were forced to have this sort of nomadic lifestyle because “no country wanted them there”. (x)
Let’s not forget these lovely things Rromani people did and still go through because of who they are:
“Forced sterilization (yes, it is still happening)
Eviction
Harassment (by law enforcement as well as civilians)
Fingerprinting (this is happening in Italy right now – all Romani people are being fingerprinted, simply because our race is considered ‘criminal’)
Concentration camps
Starvation
Exclusion from public schools and welfare programs
Bombings (it is not uncommon in places like the Czech Republic for people to throw molotov cocktails into the windows of Romani homes)” (x)
“First and foremost: THE WORD “GYPSY” IS AN ETHNIC SLUR. It is a pejorative. It is an exonym that is hurtful and offensive. You need to accept this, period.
We are NOT your halloween costume. We are NOT your flowy skirt. We are NOT your fashion sense. We are NOT your wanderlust. We are NOT ‘boho.’
Gypsy is not fashion. Gypsy is not traveling. Gypsy is not a headband or a costume, or boho, or a long skirt.
Gypsy is a hurtful ethnic slur used to refer to the Romani people.
We cannot seem to emphasize this enough to people. This word is a slur. It was created to be a slur. Its meaning does not change. It will always be a slur. It will always be offensive.
‘The word is not yours. It’s ours. We can use it as we see fit. You cannot.’ – biggadjeworld
We are a real people, with traditions, culture, and colorful heritage that spans centuries.” (x)
The “x”s in the post refer to sources you can click on and educate yourself with. On those pages, there are more links to become familiar to this slur and the Rromani people.
This is some shit that the witchcraft and neopagan communities really need to get straight. You are not a “gypsy” witch, that does not make you mystical, you are not special, you are just racist. V sorry.
I REALLLYYY need everyone to read this at least three times so there is no chance for confusion.
This is important! In America we are not used to hearing it as a slur, so it can be hard for us to realize it’s one if we don’t run into it or seek it out. Fly across the pond and say it you will get VERY different responses. If you want replacement words for free spirit and bohemian aesthetic, just use “free spirit” or “hippie” or even “flower child” honestly. Hippie Witch sounds more catchy anyway 🌻
Never appropriate someone’s culture for the sake of ‘aesthetic’!!! Learn the history of the words you use. Respect people. Say what you mean (and if you use these slurs, you MEAN to be racist, no two ways about it!). If “free spirited traveler” appeals to you there are suggestions above- other suggestions:
Many people still don’t know this! I told someone in a mom group I was in. I say was bc I left soon after bc some people were being intentionally bigoted “OMG everyone is so sensitive these days. You’re too PC. I don’t care. I’m still going to use the word.” Major yikes! But I already knew that there are racist in this town
could u imagine if ppl talked about catholicism the same way they talked about like… indigenous ppl’s religions….
girl in horror movie holding a bible open: “according to legend, a mob tortured a half-man, half-god, and nailed him to a wooden cross, leaving him to starve to death. But days later, on this very night, they found he had clawed his way out of the grave. Now those who believe lie in wait for him to rise again, To honour him, they have weekly gatherings where they chant and sing, and at the end of it they eat his flesh and blood.”
girl’s friend: “wow.. thats so creepy…”
horror movie jock: “it’s only a myth, don’t worry”
This is revolutionary y’all. I remember being 13 and refused to go do any ceremony because my parents tried to force me to go through a bar mitzvah. By virtue of the masculine name alone I just couldn’t do it. After that, I felt very alienated from the Jewish community. Having this option is so important for us to repair these binary aspects of our culture (link)
one of our rabbis actually gave a message earlier this month about bnei mitzvah and how judaism encourages us to reject all sorts of false binaries that might be imposed on people, including gender ones if that’s your situation.
like i was so afraid she was gonna just use some nonbinary kid as a metaphor but she DIDN’T.
like… ok yes she got a metaphor out of a kid asking if there was a ???? mitzvah that fit them… but also she came back around to the real life situation at the end and said that yes you could have a bnei mitzvah or some other phrase that fits your identity… so she got the metaphor and the situation that gave her the sermon idea both right.
you’ve heard the jewish proverb about this, right?
as for myself, from what I gathered growing up religious and reading the bible as well as hearing theology students’ findings, it can be sufficed to say that jesus was queer, whether he was bisexual or gay (or, in other interpretations, aroace). his disciples were all men, and he had deep, personal relationships with them. he would spend most of his time with them, often alone in privacy. their emotional connections crossed the platonic boundary many times, with intimate actions like “washing each other’s feet,” which is recognized as a metaphor for sex. it’s likely he was polyamorous, but if he were in a monogamous relationship with any of them, it probably would have been John, whom he was closest with. all in all, these men were devoted to each other in body and soul, and were in a sense practically married. given the facts, this virtually debunks any semi-logical notion that Jesus was heterosexual, and rather a polyam gay man.
exactly what “agenda” are you referring to?
According to this homophobe, Jesus was asexual
which ironically makes him queer
uno-reverse
christian here! just clearing something up: you’ve heard the phrase “married to your work” right? think of that in Jesus’ terms being married to his religion. he didn’t have romantic partners.
one of the primary metaphors in christianity so that we can understand it is that the church (aka christians) is the “bride of christ”. Jesus is a pure being, like God, who cannot sin. he can be tempted, but he cannot sin. he didnt have sex, he didnt marry, he didn’t even kiss anyone (well, im assuming anyway, because that would require romantic affection and jesus only loved in a devoted platonic way). so in modern terms, if you want to say it like that, jesus was aro-ace.
as for the disciples, it’s possible they were gay, but never for jesus. they weren’t virgins likely because jesus got ahold of them when they were later in life, and from there the majority became celibate as they devoted their lives to Jesus. again, not in a romantic sense, but in a “you are my God, my King, and I will serve you until I die” (think old medieval kingdom loyalty). they spent time together in prayer, helping the poor, ministering to the people, healing the hurt and feeding the hungry, talking to prostitues and criminals and encouraging them, and doing all sorts of miracles with jesus. they were good, authentic christians and good people.
my opinion is, the bible speaks against homosexuality in a manner that qualifies it as a sin. sin doesn’t send you to hell. sin doesn’t make you a bad person. you can sin and still go to heaven. being gay doesn’t send you to hell just like being straight doesn’t send you to heaven. these men could have been gay, they could have made mistakes, but they still would have been loved by Jesus (platonically) as his brothers and sisters.
it’s really hard to explain the kind of love jesus had for christians and people in general to nonbelievers, but please stop with the misconception that any of it was romantic. i understand yall are just trying to make sense of the bible or fit it into modern terms, but this is mine and other’s religion: i would appreciate if the facts you were spreading were true 🙂
hi I’m an ex-christian, and I’ve been where you are. but sex is not a sin or else god would be condemning humans for procreation, which makes no sense at all; so given that sex isn’t sinful, jesus therefore would not have sinned by engaging in sexual activity. it is an act of love, and jesus was loving and caring, especially for his disciples. furthermore, being gay is not a sin either. i don’t know why so many Christians refuse to acknowledge mistranslation, but in the original text, homosexuality is not mentioned. like, at all. the verse everyone always quotes is leviticus 18:22, which has been translated to “man shall not lie with man as with a woman; it is an abomination”. but the original line says “man shall not lie with child as with a woman.” this is explicitly about pedophilia, which is obviously wrong for many reasons. this mistranslation was purposeful; it was to enforce gender roles and keep women submissive and subservient. men were to be sexually dominant over them. male intimacy was seen as a rejection of gender roles, and the church (particularly the male leaders) took great offense to this. so homophobia is closely related to misogyny, and both are intrinsic to the church as of the 19th century. before then, christianity was much more accepting of same-sex relations, and it was actually common practice for male preachers and pastors to openly discuss or even publish writing about same-sex desire or relationships. and this shaming people for being in same-sex relationships and condemning them to hell was and is a fear tactic meant to keep people compliant in an unjust patriarchy.
sorry to tell you, but your bigotry is unjustified, and I’d really appreciate it if the facts you were spreading were true 🙃
oh, and by the way- no one is attacking you or your religion. the only ones “twisting” your religion is other believers. this was a calm discussion about historical events that aren’t or shouldn’t be offensive to anyone, so if you feel attacked or like my correcting misconceptions about the bible is “tearing christianity apart,” you should really consider why and how your views on christianity and homosexuality distort the lens you’re looking through, and why you’re so adamant about rejecting lgbtq equality and representation in religion and defending bigotry, because that’s pretty ahistorical and un-Christ-like.
Jesus: has deep emotional and physical connections with his disciples, spends all of his time being intimate with them, and is even explicitly stated in the bible to have kissed them
ifesbob 