Best Posts in Forum: Race, Religion, Science and Politics

Deep in the Himalayas you’ll find Bhutan, an ancient kingdom with an equally ancient Buddhist monastery that is bound to make you blush. It’s called Chimi Lhakhang, and it’s a temple dedicated to fertility and the “sacred phallus.” Emphasis on the phallus.



©MIKE STEWART

A carved “welcome” sign invites Western visitors to explore the monastery and its surrounding village, dedicated entirely to the worship of the sexual organ. Foreigners only began discovering Bhutan when the country opened its borders to tourism in the 1970s, but the temple was built in 1499 by Ngawang Choegyel, the 14th Drukpa hierarch. And on closer inspection, it too is covered in penis art, intricately painted on the walls.


©VOIXDESFEMMES


THE TEMPLE. ©BHUTANINDEX

Why build a penis monastery here, in a quiet village surrounded by paddy fields? Legend has it that a “demonic” dog was refusing to let villagers cross the nearby Dochula Pass, and that the 15th century yogi Drupka Kunley trapped the demon in a chorten, the smaller structure outside of the temple that remains to this day. It’s a fairly modest structure, and from a distance its neighbouring houses appear to make up a run-of-the-mill Himalayan village. Of course, a closer look reveals some of the seriously colourful embellishments…


©INSIDEHIMALAYAS


©DEADMADDY


©PINMING

So why was this yogi so into penises? Locals called Kunley “the Divine Madman” due to his sexual methods of enlightenment, and to this day he’s pretty much Buddhism’s Black Sheep. He’s one of the only Buddhist teachers to consistently appear topless in paintings, and also earned the nickname “The Saint of 5,000 Women” in his life.



He’s also the one credited for amping up the area’s decorative phallus game, and proclaimed his own penis a “Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom” which he used to combat evil. He was also known to have a outrageous sense of humour, and his followers saw his “penis temple” as an audacious gesture against what the “rigidity” of other monasteries.



©FTHMB

As symbols of fertility and life, the presence of penises — on rooftops, on walls, you name it — would ward off negativity. Kunley’s particular method of healing was also to touch his “thunderbolt” to the heads of visitors. It’s also how he vanquished the demon dog, apparently.


©TRAVELSHOEBUM

Today, locals continue to carve wooden phalluses for good luck, worship, and the increasing amount of passing tourists. The symbol is just another part of everyday life for residents, who go about their daily routine without giving them a second glance…


©FLICKRIVER


©BLURTING

The region is proud of its history, and upon entering a sign explains to outsiders that the penises “symbolise the discomfort that society expresses when facing the truth.” Another monastery in the area, Tango Goemba, is even the guardian of a thangka (a religious painting) that Kunley is rumoured to have urinated on.


©MIKESTEWART

It’s the dawn of the internet that really ushered in a new financial boom for the monastery and Bhutan in general — quite a feat, given the reclusive track-record of the country. Until 1999, television and internet were actually illegal there. “Bhutan was long kept a secret from the rest of the world” stated a PBS journalist in 2002; it’s made up of unspoiled landscapes, and opening the floodgates to tourism could’ve jeopardised that cultural heritage. Alas, the Internet is prime territory for a penis monastery to go viral, and the village hasn’t been the same since.


©MIKE STEWART

These days, a tourist visa to Bhutan can cost you up to $250 per day. Curious wanderers and couples hoping to conceive still make the pilgrimage to its notorious monastery, and often a Monk’s blessing will include a prediction of the hypothetical baby’s name and gender. There are even a few restaurants in the village, so you can make a full-blown day trip out of your expedition to what one visitor called “the Disneyland of Penises.”

Learn more about visiting Bhutan here.

A Pilgrimage to the Ancient Penis Monastery

 

I commend homeboy for what he did. These scammers and the Cancer of the Black Community aka The Black Church need to be eradicated. These pastors out here stealing from folks and enslaving them mentally that they abandon all logical thinking to serve the pastor and his needs. When will Black ppl start becoming free thinkers, and take their destiny and actions into their own hands, than depend on some fictional character in the sky?
However, another part of me is cheering for the pastor to keep looting from them, cos that's what they deserve for all the Homophobia they embody.
FUCK CHRISTIANITY AND FUCK THE BLACK CHURCH!!!

 

A new exhibit at a Washington, D.C., museum featuring an abridged version of the Bible sheds light on how Christian missionaries converted enslaved Africans to Christianity by teaching them the Gospel... except the parts about freedom, equality and resistance.

According to NPR, Parts of the Holy Bible, Selected For the Use of the Negro Slaves, in the British West-India Islands, is on display at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., and is one of only three known copies of this abridged version of the King James Bible. Printed by the Missionary Society For the Conversion of Negro Slaves, the text of the Bible was used by missionaries from England to convert slaves to Christianity.

The book is basically the enslavers extended remix of the King James version of the Bible, leaving out all that unnecessary junk that might lead slaves to turn on their masters. For instance, Moses doesn’t even exist until he is an old man in the “Slave Bible.”

“You’ll see a jump from Genesis 45, and they’ve cut out all the material to Exodus 19,” says Anthony Schmidt, associate curator of Bible and Religion in America at the museum. “What they’ve cut out is the story of the Israelites captivity in Egypt and their eventual liberation and journey to the promised land.”

The censored version removed 90 percent of the Old Testament and 50 percent of the New Testament, eliminating potentially seditious passages such as Exodus 21:16, which reads: “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

However, the curators of the Slavery Bible did keep some passages that they thought were necessary for slaves, including Ephesians 6:5:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

The Missionary Society For the Conversion of Negro Slaves was a group of missionaries’ that was formed in 1794. The society’s original intent was to convert Native Americans to Christ but the group began to focus on enslaved Africans after the American Revolution.

The extremely rare artifact is on loan from Fisk University in Nashville, Tenn., which has housed the “Slave Bible” in their special collection for more than 50 years. The only other known copies of the artifact are in the United Kingdom.

https://www.theroot.com/slave-bible-converted-slaves-to-christianity-by-omittin-1830982707

 

Andrew Gillum has become the first African-American nominee for Florida governor, pulling off an upset win over favorite Gwen Graham and two big-spending businessmen in a crowded Democratic primary field.

The Tallahassee mayor will face Jacksonville congressman Ron DeSantis, who easily defeated state agriculture commissioner Adam Putnam thanks to the backing of President Donald Trump.

Gillum never led in any public polling, but was showing signs of gaining momentum in the final weeks. He benefited from being chosen by the progressive wing of the party’s most generous benefactors ― including billionaires Tom Steyer and George Soros ― as well as from a barrage of negative ads against Graham by billionaire Jeff Greene.

Greene wound up finishing fourth in the five-way pack, but he spent $10 million on ads attacking Graham ― more than she spent on television on her own behalf. Liberal outside groups, meanwhile, coalesced around Gillum and served as his turnout operation, particularly in urban areas with large concentrations of younger and minority voters.

The race will now become a referendum on Trump’s presidency, with Gillum painting DeSantis as a Trump clone and DeSantis hoping to bring out as many Trump voters as he can in November.

Trump has spent winter weekends and holidays at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach for years and considers himself a part-time resident of the state. It is unclear how frequently, if at all, he will campaign for DeSantis in the two months leading up to the Nov. 6 general election. Whether Republicans retain control of Congress could determine the survival of the Trump presidency, and his political advisers may choose to focus his time on House and Senate seats.

Trump campaigned with DeSantis only once during the primary, at a rally in Tampa in July, and sent out a handful of supportive statements on Twitter, including the message “VOTE FOR RON” in all capitals late Monday. But in a GOP primary electorate bearing little resemblance to the one that supported former Gov. Jeb Bush and former U.S. Sen. Connie Mack, Trump’s seal of approval allowed DeSantis to overcome enormous disadvantages in cash and traditional support.

The state Republican establishment was solidly behind Putnam even before he announced his candidacy. From a cattle ranching and citrus family in the heart of the state, Putnam had been grooming himself for this run from the time he graduated college. He won a state legislative seat at age 22, then moved to Congress four years later, returning to Florida in 2010 to run for state agriculture commissioner.

He served two terms, coinciding with Rick Scott’s years as governor, and had appeared the heir apparent to the job as Scott leaves because of term limits.

DeSantis, in contrast, entered politics just six years ago, when he ran for Congress from the wealthy suburbs of Jacksonville, his hometown, after serving as a Navy prosecutor. His deployment to Iraq during President George W. Bush’s “troop surge” there was a highlight of his biography on the campaign trail. Despite the populist, pro-Trump rhetoric he has delivered for years from the Fox TV studio near the U.S. Capitol, DeSantis graduated from Yale and received a law degree from Harvard.

And while Putnam also praised Trump repeatedly on the campaign trail, his standing with Trump likely was irreparably damaged in October 2016 after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape that featured Trump bragging that his celebrity enabled him to grab women by the genitals. Putnam criticized Trump for the remarks, while DeSantis did not.

DeSantis leaned on Trump’s approval heavily, mentioning it often in stump speeches and in TV ads. He even produced an ad using his young children as props, dressing up his infant in a “Make America Great Again” onesie.

Yet while DeSantis’ love for and from Trump clearly helped him against Putnam in the Republican primary, it may wind up hurting him in the November election against Gillum. Trump is not popular with many independents and even some moderate Republicans. Democrat Margaret Good defeated the son of sitting Republican congressman Vern Buchanan in a special election for a state House seat in Sarasota earlier this year, even though the district leans solidly Republican.

Gillum, though, may have his own vulnerabilities as a candidate while the FBI investigates Tallahassee city government. Gillum has said he has been told he is not a target of the probe, but one of his closest friends and a former political ally has been the subject of federal subpoenas examining a restaurant he developed in part using city money.

Florida Democrats have not won a governor’s race since 1994, when Lawton Chiles won a second term by defeating Republican Jeb Bush. The party has come within a single percentage point in both 2010 and 2014, losing both times to Scott.

 

No text has had a greater influence on attitudes toward gay people than the biblical book of Leviticus, which prohibits sex between men. Before Leviticus was composed, outright prohibitions against homosexual sex — whether between men or women — were practically unheard-of in the ancient world.

Chapter 18 of Leviticus contains a list of forbidden incestuous acts, followed by prohibitions against sex with a menstruating woman, bestiality and various other sexual acts. In Verse 22, we find its most famous injunction: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13 repeats this law, along with a punishment for those who violate it: “They shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”)

Like many ancient texts, Leviticus was created gradually over a long period and includes the words of more than one writer. Many scholars believe that the section in which Leviticus 18 appears was added by a comparatively late editor, perhaps one who worked more than a century after the oldest material in the book was composed. An earlier edition of Leviticus, then, may have been silent on the matter of sex between men.

But I think a stronger claim is warranted. As I argue in an articlepublished in the latest issue of the journal Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel, there is good evidence that an earlier version of the laws in Leviticus 18 permitted sex between men. In addition to having the prohibition against same-sex relations added to it, the earlier text, I believe, was revised in an attempt to obscure any implication that same-sex relations had once been permissible.
The chapter’s original character, however, can be uncovered with a little detective work.

The core of Leviticus 18 is the list of incest laws, each of which includes the memorable phrase “uncover nakedness.” This is typically understood as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, so “you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister” would mean something like “do not have sex with your father’s sister.”

Most of the incest laws are presented in a straightforward manner, but two are not. The first exception is: “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness” (emphasis mine). At first, this verse appears to outlaw sex between a man and either of his parents. However, the italicized explanation, or gloss, suggests that the law actually addresses only one parent: the mother. It is difficult to reconcile the two parts of this sentence.

The same thing happens again a few verses later: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother.” Simple enough, right? The following gloss, however, may give you whiplash: “you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt.” By the time we’ve finished reading the gloss, a prohibition against intercourse between a man and his paternal uncle has transformed into a law about sex between a man and that uncle’s wife.

Each verse in Leviticus 18’s series of incest laws contains a similar gloss, but the others are merely emphatic, driving home the point. (For example, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law; she is your son’s wife, you shall not uncover her nakedness.”) Only in these two cases — the father and mother, and the father’s brother — do the glosses alter our understanding of what is prohibited. A law prohibiting sex with one’s father fades away, and a law against sex with one’s uncle is reinterpreted as a ban on sex with one’s aunt.

What we have here is strong evidence of editorial intervention.

It is worth noting that these new glosses render the idiom “uncover nakedness” incoherent. The phrase can no longer denote sex if uncovering the nakedness of one’s father is an act that also involves one’s mother — as the gloss implies.
But more strikingly, the two exceptional verses are the only ones that address incest between men — all the others involve women. Once the new glosses were added to the text, the prohibitions in Leviticus against incest no longer outlawed any same-sex couplings; only heterosexual pairs were forbidden.

If a later editor of Leviticus opposed homosexual intercourse, you might wonder, wouldn’t it have made more sense for him (and it was probably a him) to leave the original bans on homosexual incest intact?

No. The key to understanding this editorial decision is the concept of “the exception proves the rule.” According to this principle, the presence of an exception indicates the existence of a broader rule. For example, a sign declaring an office to be closed on Sundays suggests that the office is open on all other days of the week.

Now, apply this principle to Leviticus 18: A law declaring that homosexual incest is prohibited could reasonably be taken to indicate that non-incestuous homosexual intercourse is permitted.

A lawmaker is unlikely to specify that murdering one’s father is against the law if there is already a blanket injunction against murder. By the same token, it’s not necessary to stipulate that sex between two specific men is forbidden if a categorical prohibition against sex between men is already on the books.

It seems that with the later introduction in Leviticus of a law banning all male homosexual intercourse, it became expedient to bring the earlier material up-to-date by doing away with two now-superfluous injunctions against homosexual incest — injunctions that made sense when sex between men was otherwise allowed.
This editor’s decision to neutralize old laws by writing new glosses, instead of deleting the laws altogether, is serendipitous: He left behind just enough clues for his handiwork to be perceptible.

One can only imagine how different the history of civilization might have been had the earlier version of Leviticus 18’s laws entered the biblical canon.


Idan Dershowitz (@IdanDershowitz) is a biblical scholar and junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Opinion | The Secret History of Leviticus

 

Listen to him respond to the French Ambassador...brilliant.

 

A black gay candidate for the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives won his primary bid on Tuesday — in spite of an opposing group printing and distributing homophobic flyers on the eve of his election.



Philadelphia Magazine reported Wednesday that candidate Malcolm Kenyatta’s Democratic primary win was historic because he’s the first openly gay candidate of color to do so. The win came after flyers of Kenyatta and his husband hugging each other circulated with a message encouraging North Philly to “say no” to the gay candidate.

The 27-year-old third-generation Philadelphian beat out four opponents, including the cousin of the retiring 15-term incumbent. Another of his opponents was another gay black candidate, Philadelphia politico Alex Deering.

Kenyatta will face Republican candidate T. Milton Street in November, who was unopposed in the GOP primary. Philly Mag noted that Kenyatta is likely to win in November given the city’s Democratic-voting electorate, as is Rep. Brian Sims, the first and only openly-gay member of the Pennsylvania state House who also won his primary.

 

In leading the exploration and colonization of Africa, the Portuguese became the first Europeans to realize that African sexuality and gender diverged in surprising and, to them, shocking ways from their own. In the early seventeenth century, their efforts to conquer the Ndongo kingdom of the Mbundu (Umbundu) were stymied by the inspired leadership of a warrior woman named Nzinga (c. 1581-1663). Nzinga had become ngola, or king, by succeeding her brother, which was not unusual in a matrilineal society like the Mbundu’s. Less typical was the fact that she had ordered her nephew’s death to prevent him from claiming his father’s title. Nzinga proceeded to organize a guerilla army and personally led her warriors into battle. She successfully outmaneuvered the Portuguese for nearly four decades.

In the late 1640s, a Dutch military attache observed firsthand what must have struck him as the strange organization of her court. As ngola, Nzinga was not “queen” but “king” of her people. She ruled dressed as a man, surrounded by a harem of young men who dressed as women and were her “wives.” Wherever she appeared, her subjects fell to their knees and kissed the ground. Nzinga managed to preserved Ndongo independence. It was not until the early twentieth century that the Portuguese finally broke Mbundu resistance.

Other early reports from Angola make it clear that Nzinga’s behavior was not some personal idiosyncrasy but was based on beliefs that recognized gender as situational and symbolic as much as a personal, innate characteristic of the individual. A result of these beliefs was the presence of an alternative gender role among groups in the Kongo and Ndonga kingdoms. According to Andrew Battel, an English prisoner of the Portuguese in the 1580s, natives of the Dombe area were “beastly in their living, for they have men in women’s apparel, whom they keep among their wives”.

Will Roscoe and Steven O Murray
Boy-Wives and Female Husbands

 

Ok…SOME white gay dudes. Click bait title aside; years ago after visiting and scrolling through numerous mainstream gay websites and blogs, the only thing that showed color was the shadow I was casting on my desk. These sites were dominated by all white faces and bodies. When you did see a rare non-white face it was discussing the HIV/AIDs crisis or showing a mug shot of some male criminal who happened to have preyed upon a gay. This was one of many factors that went into creating Cypher Avenue and years later not much has changed.

I didn’t need Frank Ocean to call out GLAAD for being eerily silent on Trayvon Martin because I recall how these sites didn’t care about James C. Anderson until they found out he was gay. A few years ago the LGBTQ member heavy Black Lives Matter begin to call attention to police brutality, racial profiling and white supremacy – and by extension of their interests – call out these LGBTQ websites on social media for their lack of attention of seemingly non-white issues impacting non-heterosexuals. This was all happening coincidentally at a time when many of these sites were worshiping at the altar of Beyonce and Big Freedia, while many white gay men were (and still are) mimicking the dispositions of Black women.

Years later, a few of these white male imagery dominated sites have included non-white faces as thirst trap fodder, Drag Race episode recaps and Tiger Mandingo updates to supplement their twink or masc leaning obsessions. Diversity boxes checked.

I periodically visit these sites and blogs to affirm my view points and observations…leaving with a ‘yall-still-aint-shit’ smirk on my face.

My ‘(some) white gay dudes are the worst’ rector scale meter deep past critical when reading…or should I say viewing the piece of shit post on Queerty “Underwear designer Modus Vivendi proudly presents the Hip-Hop 90s Sports Brief”. I want to point out this particular posting of theirs was categorized under “Street Cred” because nothing says street cred like a pair of underwear.

This is the title / banner pic they used for their posting…I shit you not.



This is the underwear model used within their post, which is from the designer’s website…



Yep…a hairless twink wearing a pair of underwear. My dumb ass was thinking I was going to see a boom box or a purple cassette tape or some graffiti embossed on said bloomers…nope. Just a twink in a $20 pair of underwear.

Designer Christos Bibitsos’ website states:

“Inspired by classic 90s street fashion, this retro menswear line by Modus Vivendi is fit for athletes, sportsmen and streetwear fashionistas.”​

What the fuck is ‘street fashion’ or ‘street wear’? Do you see hip-hop when you look at this twink in these two sizes too small underwear?

According to the author of this post, Queerty’s Derek de Koff;

“So if you’re a huge hip-hop fan, you should probably swagger through the streets in a pair of these.”​

Really my Wigga?



It’s not just the “what did you just say” terminology in the post…it’s the whole post (please click on the link. Yes I know it will give them page views). The post copies the horrible style that BuzzFeed made popular by not really writing anything (lazy) and filling the page up with outdated gifs and memes to appear hip, cool and sassy for their mostly white liberal audience.

As far as the designer is concerned; not only isn’t there any non-white men on his website, there aren’t any non-white men modeling his hip-hop inspired fashions…not hardly shocking from a hip white gay male fashion designer.

Dear White Gays,

1. Please come up with better ways to display your liberal white guilt besides posting bullshit like this article on Queerty.​

2. While you’re at it, can you also stop harping on dating app racism? Most non-white gays, who date non-white gays, don’t give a fuck about dating app racism because it doesn’t apply to the majority of non-white non-heterosexual men.​

3. Stop mimicking Black women’s mannerisms and sayings. They obtained their mannerisms and slang from Black gay men, who -according to the dating app racism- you don’t fuck with any way.​

Also for good measure…

4. Madonna did not invent Voguing. If you were brave enough to enter any Black Ball Room contest, you would leave with your hip hop inspired underwear in your purse.​

Signed,
A Black (non-heterosexual) Dude Who’s Peeped Your Game Years Ago













Read the whole post here.

 

I know that the Squad doesn't discuss religion or personal religious beliefs much...Without trying to convert anyone to your beliefs or mock anyone for theirs, share your religious belief or lack thereof, especially how it relates to being gay...

I'll go first:

Last night a (straight) Black male friend tried to sell me on going to his Bible Study while I'm here in Los Angeles. He said it was a great gathering to get re-charged by the Word of God.

I then told by him, "I'm the opposite of religious."

He replied, "Opposite? You mean you're just spiritual?"

"Nah, I'm an atheist."

(Awkward Pause)

"But I'm not militant about it. I respect others' beliefs."

"You mean you don't believe?! What exactly don't you believe?"

Sigh.

Whenever I reveal this to Black people, it always ends up a spiraling series of followup questions for a conversation that I don't want to have, especially on a night out of drinking. They typically want to find the root cause of my Atheism, which they assume is always a negative trauma: My mother didn't hug me enough, I had the wrong pastor, God hasn't "touched" me yet.



However, when I say this to White people, if the response isn't "I'm a non-believer too" it's shrugged off and not made into a big deal. Especially since most of my White friends are Liberals, not Christian Conservatives.

To answer the question of the root cause of my Atheism, it wasn't anything typical like a struggle with my homosexuality and religion...it was:



As a kid into science fiction, I was always curious about the world and universe. I remember being 9-10 years old in "Bible Study" and asking the teacher or whatever about missing dinosaurs and all that. I kept getting the "God works in mysterious ways" answer. The "answers" to other questions in the Bible never made sense to me either (Ex: The talking snake, Adam and Eve are the first people having only 2 sons, yet there are whole villages of other people out there too).

So I turned to science (through books and documentaries) and found the factual explanations for my questions more fulfilling and even more imaginative than what was in the Biblical text.

But by college I was still trying "find" my religion. I remember trying to give Christianity one last shot...for a straight boy, of course. He was a tall, dark skinned, slim fellow student I was good friends with. We hung out a lot and I wanted to do whatever I could to be around him more, including going to church with him.

It wasn't a big church, maybe about 100 people tops. I went a couple times and was bored but kinda dug the community aspect. Then one sermon, the Black pastor was getting into it...



The crowd was in the palm of his hands...then he started laughing hysterically. I mean, like a crazy man. He said God was touching his soul and bringing that much joy (or something to that effect).

Then, as if it was a case-study for The Power of Suggestion, the entire congregation started hysterically laughing as well. Some were rolling on the floor, others waved arms frantically in the air. I looked to my sexy college friend sitting next to me, he was hunched over in his chair laughing with tears (of joy?) coming from his eyes. He looked up at me and I was like:



The room was filled with raucous laughter to an unsaid Joke. But the Joke was me. If there was a God, at that moment he was testing my conviction and I failed it.

I left the Church (both literally and figuratively) that day and never looked back. That was also the last time I hung out with that friend, although we remained cordial at school.

So then I tried Islam, the Nation of Islam and even The Five Percenters (mainly thanks to 90's NYC rap music).

None of it stuck, so I had to have a conversation with myself. This religion thing was not going to happen.



I started researching "spirituality" and even non-belief, but the latter just felt right. As much as I love fantasy and magic in my fiction, I can't accept it in my reality. Especially since God, who seemed so grandiose, active and magically-involved for 2,000 years in the Bible, had suspiciously become pretty shy in modern times now that we had cameras to document overt miracles that used to occur with great frequency.

I played it safe and called myself "Agnostic" for a long time because it was more "acceptable," but I soon realized that was a cop-out. In my opinion: You either Believe in the magic or you don't. For example, you can't be just a little pregnant. You either are or you're not.

I was officially an Atheist.

My mother, who often quoted long Bible verses and/or gave sermons to me and my brother over the phone, was the first to find out. She had always known I was non-religious but this was a big difference. She was confrontational at first but she eventually got over it by deciding she would "pray for me."

To be honest, she had more of a negative reaction from finding out I was an Atheist than me telling her I was Gay.

 

As President Barack Obama weathered through his final days in the Oval Office, a scramble to preserve evidence of the Trump-Russia scandal occurred around him.

The Obama administration understood the severity and depth of the allegations into the Donald Trump – Putin connection, and allegedly felt that the Russian hack into the Democratic National Convention and email servers had not been taken nearly seriously enough.

As a consequence, The New York Times reported that Obama’s administration worked tirelessly to essentially leave a trail of breadcrumbs, so that the incoming administration could not hide any evidence.

Investigators would inevitably work to unearth the information they had, and so they spread the information as far as possible, while being respectful of security clearances and other safeguards. One such method outlined by The Times was sharing the information among European allies and raising specific questions during Senate Intelligence meetings, knowing the discussion would be documented.

The New York Times specifically articulated this by writing:

‘As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.’​

One such example that the Russian hacks were not being taken as seriously as they needed to be was the duration of time it took to determine that the origin of the attack was inside Russia. The hack was known about as early as April, and it took until July until the source country was identified.

Furthermore, there is the added evidence that at least six officials confirmed contact between campaign aides of now-President Donald Trump and senior Russian intelligence officials. It was well known that Putin saw America as much more favorable under Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton, having blamed her for many of the issues he was facing in his own country.

These communications between Trump campaign staff and Russia were regular, but it could not be determined what the nature of these conversations were. The duration and frequency of these conversations was however, thoroughly documented by American intelligence agencies and those of our allies.

In September, it was determined that cyberattacks initiated by Russia as was the extent of the collaboration between the Trump team and Putin’s officials.

Unfortunately, even with all of this information, it wasn’t until after the election when Donald Trump snagged the presidency due to the setup of the election system that anyone truly realized that the direct purpose of Russia was to aide Donald Trump to victory.

The New York Times wrote that:

‘The administration began to grasp the scope of the suspected tampering and concluded that one goal of the [cyberattack] campaign was to help tip the election in Mr. Trump’s favor.’​

Despite this, who now sits at the chair in the prestigious Oval Office? The man who Russia colluded to have sit there — a Mr. Donald Trump.

It was indicated by The Times that they made the decision to run this story as they wanted to point members of Congress in the right direction, in terms of where to look for evidence to substantiate these claims.

As investigations continue, and advocates of legitimate democracy rise up, they must have some semblance of an idea where to look in order to proceed and be successful in their endeavor.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees are presently investigating. Given the issues that the American intelligence community has had in fostering a strong working relationship with the Trump administration, we suspect they will not be deterred from uncovering the truth.

It is said that more than six former and current officials described to The Times these efforts to preserve and distribute the report such that Trump could not possibly track down and eliminate all knowledge of it. While Donald Trump may try to retaliate by disparaging the quality of the information the The Times obtained, it is reasonable to assume that the American people, the House, and the FBI will comprehend that more than six sources, even if they remain anonymous, is nothing to scoff at.

America has Obama and his administration to thank once again for working to safeguard the country, its freedoms from foreign control and fundamentally working to uphold democracy, literally until its final days.

The number of Republicans close to Donald Trump that will be implicated when the final information is discovered and released, remains to be seen, but hopefully it will be enough to be done with a heck of a lot of them. Many people, it seems, believe that is not a far-fetched possibility.

Perhaps this is why Barack Obama was able to remain so diplomatic when interacting with Donald Trump during the transition, and really kick back and put his feet up, following the end of his time in Washington.

 

I was up super late last night. Actually, I went to bed early this morning. Work and surfing on the internet had me awake longer than I should have been.

So when my CNN alert notification came a few hours after I dozed off, I groggily checked it and rolled back over. Something about Kanye West, one of my favorite rappers, and Donald Trump, the politician I’ve grown to despise more than any other in my life.

Most of my friends and family know this about me: Nick Loves Kanye West with a passion…He Hates Donald Trump with a passion.

Even longtime readers of Cypher Avenue know how much I Stan for Ye. I paid crazy bread to see The Life of Pablo Tour in the row right behind 2 Chainz and Lil Yatchy in Atlanta last September.



Sleep was good, it was oversleep actually. When I awoke it near afternoon, but I’m self employed and I work from home, so there were no worries about seeing a phone screen full of missed calls from angry bosses and supervisors.

Instead, I saw a screen full of missed notifications. Text Messages. Tweets. Facebook Comments. Cypher Ave Alerts.

All were asking what I thought about a blond hair dyed Kanye West meeting with Donald Trump.



Jesus.

Even just thinking about that photo turns my stomach.

I’m not in denial. I know full well that Kanye West is very polarizing and narcissistic. Some would say just as much as Donald Trump. But Kanye is my narcissist. One that gave me the courage to display my own confidence and self pride. Arrogance is subjective. Hell, even Phife Dawg in “Word Play” said:

“Ego. I’m on my own jock skill/Cuz if I don’t say I’m the best, tell me who the hell will.”​

So, over the years, I grew to love Yeezy’s confidence, self esteem, arrogance, ego and even his emotional vulnerabilities. And that’s the biggest difference between Ye and Trump, he seems to actually care about other people.

This is the same man that went on Live Television after Hurricane Katrina and did this:



I saw this moment live when it happened.

The whole world reacted just like Mike Myers:



So to hear Ye recently go on a 20 minute rant during a concert to say that he would have voted for Trump (if he had voted), that definitely caused concern and confusion.



Then West was hospitalized, with doctors citing exhaustion and stress as the reason. While this didn’t completely explain away my concern for the homie, it at least gave me the impression that he would take a much needed break and come away with a clearer head.

Then this happened.



Seriously, Yeezy?!



So back to the notifications on my phone this morning.

All I could do was try to make a joke out of it. I told others that I just hoped Kanye didn’t agree to perform at Trump’s inauguration. I even added an “LOL” in my replies to make it clear I wasn’t bothered. But I was. I should have seen this coming though.

Kanye, married to Kim Kardashian, is in many ways addicted to fame and attention. Donald Trump embodied that this past election cycle. Just this summer Yeezy showed us his interest in Trump and Fame with his controversial video for “Famous” where he depicted wax figures of tabloid celebs all in bed together.



This is Kanye. The good and the bad. And I will always love him for that.

Seriously.

If I have to stomach his recent support for Trump while also getting rants like his EPIC 3-part Zane Lowe interview, I’ll take it. I mean, name one other rapper/musician that will speak this kind of truth:



The main person that helped me reconcile the events of the day was Kanye West Himself. After his meeting with Trump, he took to Twitter to clarify a few things:









So for now, I’m good. That’s all I can be.

We’re in for a rough four years and, in all honesty, Yeezy’s political views will be the least of my concerns. I’ve managed to still support the works of a lot of actors, artists and musicians who had different views as me. Kanye will just have to be added to that compartmentalized list.

At least until #2024.

 

Christianity has played a central role in African-American life from the late 18th century to the present. Black churches raised funds for fugitive slaves, served as schoolhouses, and provided space for political meetings and activities, among other functions. Leaders of black congregations such as Richard Allen or Daniel Payne were often leaders of the broader black community. The spiritual messages of redemption and justice appealed to a people who experienced the brutality of slavery and the indignities of Jim Crow segregation laws. However, while many black churches were radical advocates for political and economic equality, others remained conservative institutions that failed to challenge the status quo. This conservatism helped give rise to an increasingly vocal and influential group of African Americans – the new black atheists.

Who are the new black atheists and what is behind their recent growth? First, let’s briefly look at the ‘old’ black atheists.

As long as people have proclaimed the existence of God, others have rejected the idea of a deity. Among African Americans, the earliest evidence of atheism and agnosticism comes from 19th-century slave narratives. Peter Randolph’s Sketches of Slave Life(1855) and Austin Steward’s Twenty-Two Years a Slave (1857), for example, posit that the brutality of slavery drove many blacks to become atheists. Likewise, prevalent proslavery religion turned many enslaved blacks away from Christianity and religion in general.

The Union victory in the Civil War and passage of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution abolishing slavery convinced many skeptical blacks that perhaps a just God was indeed looking out for their interests. But the nation’s retreat from reconstruction, from protecting the rights of its black citizens, and the onset of Jim Crow, gave new life to black atheism, which grew sharply in the early 20th century.

This growth coincided with the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s and ’30s. Urbanisation, technological advancements and growing opportunities for education promoted secularism among black intellectuals such as Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Nella Larsen and Richard Wright. This secularism included atheism but also a commitment to improving human life through reason rather than faith. The Renaissance did not precipitate black atheism so much as foster the rise of an increasingly self-conscious secular community. Rather than attend church on Sunday mornings, black freethinkers gathered in A Philip Randolph’s parlour in Harlem to discuss socialism, labour politics, anti-imperialism and solutions to the race problem.

This early secular community differs from the new black atheists of today in their acceptance of Christianity and their lack of evangelical zeal to promote atheism. Black freethinkers such as Hurston and Hughes did not wish to disabuse black Christians of their religious ideals. They simply felt that religion was not for them. Hubert Harrison, a black socialist freethinker in Harlem during the 1910s and ’20s was an exception. He saw it as his duty to bring freethought to African Americans, whom he believed should be most desirous of jettisoning Christianity because the religion had historically strengthened both slavery and Jim Crow.

Black freethinkers also played significant roles in the Civil Rights movement. Its leaders such as James Forman, Eldridge Cleaver and Stokely Carmichael rejected Christianity, which they associated with Martin Luther King, Jr’s strategies of nonviolent resistance. Notably, however, the 1960s generation saw themselves as political activists first and freethinkers second.

It was only in the 1990s that black freethinkers began to build their own institutions. For decades, many had participated in the Ethical Culture movement, in Unitarian Universalism, or other organisations hospitable to freethought. The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and the American Humanist Association were also notably not Christian. But it wasn’t until 1989, when Norm Allen, Jr founded African Americans for Humanism, that there was an explicitly secular organisation for blacks. Black Atheists of America and, more recently, Black Nonbelievers Inc, as well as local groups such as Black Skeptics Los Angeles, soon followed.

New black atheists are not content to personally reject religion but instead have a goal of spreading freethought to the broader black community. For example, the author Sikivu Hutchinson and the founder of Black Nonbelievers, Mandisa Thomas, argue that religion hurts the black community by promoting sexism, patriarchy and homophobia. They claim that black churches have failed to address drug addiction, housing inequities, health disparities, lack of employment opportunities and other pressing social problems facing black Americans. Rather than adopting religious solutions such as abstinence-only education to a problem such as teenage pregnancies, black atheists call for more sex education and access to birth control.

Today, new black atheists are more likely than ever to be women. While there have been prominent black women freethinkers such as Hurston, Larsen and Alice Walker, until recently it had been much more likely for men to openly embrace skepticism, rather than women. New black atheists reject the politics of respectability that have held sway in the black community since the early 1900s. These politics demand that black women must be chaste, temperate, industrious and socially conservative. Above all, they must be religious. They must always portray the race in the best light.

With women leading the contemporary freethought movement, the politics of respectability and its sometimes anti-feminist tendencies are being undermined. As Hutchinson notes in her book Moral Combat (2011), ‘for many black atheist women, atheism’s appeal lies in its deconstruction of the bankrupt mores, values and ideologies that prop up patriarchy, sexism, heterosexism, racism, white supremacy, imperialism and economic injustice’.

Feminism is an essential part of the new black atheists’ humanism. New black atheists think that it is not enough to deny the existence of God, teach evolution in schools or fight for the separation of church and state. They want to bring worldly solutions to practical problems. Many have embraced Black Lives Matter (BLM), a secular movement that is notably unaffiliated with black religious institutions and ideology. In doing so, they believe they will improve the lot of blacks in particular but also promote a more just, democratic and less racist American society.

As the black atheist Sincere Kirabo posits of BLM: ‘There’s a social activist movement underway continuing the unfinished business of the Civil Rights movement era. Want to make a difference? What we need is grit and involvement in the struggle, not a tribe satisfied with the empty promises of scriptural white noise. Please, for the sake and love of our own futures: abandon your fabled white messiah. Wake up. We are our own salvation.’

By Christopher Cameron

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

 

Even though I agree with some points here, the mental gymnastics the religious zealots go through...this seems exhausting.

 

Meet the Eye of Horus. It’s a newly discovered galaxy system that’s hiding something incredible in those fuzzy swirls of light circling it: a way of looking back into even further and older galaxies.

The new galaxy system was discovered by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan using the Subaru Telescope over the course of a massive survey that it’s been conducting of deep space. During a session for student astronomers, the galaxy was flagged for its unusual appearance. In addition to the galaxy you can see right in the center of the above image, there are actually multiple galaxies behind that appear as swirling lights you see around the main galaxy’s center.

That we can see the more distant galaxies at all is due to gravitational lensing. It’s the same phenomenon responsible for letting us see those images of galaxy clusters in deep space through the Hubble telescope. The strong gravity of multiple galaxy clusters makes the space around them bend, which means the light around them also bends. This creates a “zoom lens” into space which we can combine with the power of telescopes like the Hubble to see incredibly deep and far into space.
The phenomenon occurs with single galaxies, too. When a galaxy has a strong enough gravity to bend the space around it into a lens, it can sometimes reflect a galaxy behind it, so that it initially appears to be part of the galaxy itself. That’s what’s happening in the Eye of Horus—except there are two separate galaxies, creating two separate reflections. You can see them in this diagram:


The end result of this effect is that both galaxies—one 10.5 billion light years away and the other 9 billion light years away—are reflected in different rings. Although many galaxies can reflect a single galaxy behind it, the Eye of Horus’ ability to reflect multiple galaxies is rare. Researchers at NAOJ hope to find even more examples of this phenomenon as they continue the survey.



View attachment upload_2016-7-27_12-40-16.gif

View attachment upload_2016-7-27_12-40-16.gif

 

Can you guess which one is Republican and which is Democrats?

 

Even though I live in the relatively liberal city of Seattle, I regularly have to put people in check in response to their biases and stereotyping.

Earlier this week, I was too lazy to cook dinner so I decided to grab takeout from a bar a couple blocks from my house. As I entered, I could see a white guy and a Brotha standing toe to toe at the end of the bar beginning a rather lively, but brief discussion. There was no one behind the bar, but I could see the bartender in the kitchen at the back. It quickly became clear that the white guy, like the Brotha, was a customer. The white guy was confronting the Brotha demanding to know whether the Brotha had paid his bill. The Brotha let the white guy know that, of course, he had paid his bill, let loose with a few more choice words and left the bar.

As the white guy turned to walk back to his seat, the bar tender was just returning from the kitchen. The white guy was clearly a bit unsettled. As he reached his seat, he asked the bartender whether the guy who had just left had paid his bill. By this time, I had taken a seat at the bar, which was 2 seats away from where the white guy had been sitting. The bartender confirmed that the Brotha had indeed paid his check. The white guy promptly muttered that he "probably shouldn't have said anything." Since I couldn't leave this situation alone, I turned to the white guy and said "you shouldn't have said anything; you would never be approached like that."

The bartender, perplexed, asked what had happened. The white guy repeated that he probably shouldn't have said anything. Then he said, "oh nothing, the guy who just left saw me on Sunday and he didn't like who I was cheering for." I said "that's not what happened; you shouldn't have said anything; that would never happen to you." The white guy responded that he just didn't understand why the Brotha "took it that way." I told him that he didn't have to understand because he would never be confronted like that. I informed him that the Brotha's reality and my reality were different than that of most, if not all, white men. I said that I am a 51 year old professional who works for a Fortune 100 company and that situations like the white guy confronting the Brotha happen to me on a DAILY basis. He again muttered that he didn't understand why the Brotha reacted as he did. I repeated that he didn't have to understand because that's not his reality. Yet, he could learn from this experience.

The white guy looked a bit wounded and said "I didn't mean it like that." I emphatically said that it didn't matter how he meant it. There was no other way for the Brotha to take it and that while he (the white guy) may not have meant it that way or even understand why the Brotha reacted, he could learn from this experience. The white guy said "you're right…"

To me, it honestly looked like a light bulb may have gone off in the white guy's head and that he was going to do his best to engage in some self-reflection. By this time, my food was ready. I looked the dude in the eye, shook his hand and headed for the door.

Without a doubt, all of us regularly put folks in check. I'm curious whether any of you have been presented with an opportunity for a teachable moment? If so, did you take the time to educate the ill-informed and what was the result?

 

When you have a greedy powerful 1%-ter calling you dangerous, you know you have tapped into something.
**********

The head of a major banking firm is “feeling the Bern” but not in the way many of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ voters are.

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said Sanders is tapping into class-based anger against growing inequality and called his candidacy a “dangerous moment.” Blankfein was speaking Wednesday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” according to Politico.

“It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line,” Blankfein said. “It’s a liability to say I’m going to compromise I’m going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you do you have to back track and swear to people that you’ll never compromise. It’s just incredible. It’s a moment in history.”

In January, Sanders was asked to list examples of corporate greed, and he listed Blankfein, according to Politico.

Blankfein said he doesn’t “take it personally” because he has never met Sanders.

But Politico points out that there’s an awareness of the anger against the so-called 1% that arose and continues to simmer after the 2007 mortgage crisis that led to a widespread economic recession.

 

I know this is old but this sh!t had me laughing.

Attention college football fans: Ohio State quarterback Cardale Jones doesn’t have to tweet only about college football.

Got it?

Jones, the junior QB who led the Buckeyes to the 2015 National Championship, let his roughly 200,000 followers know Thursday that #BlackLivesMatter.

Jones also questioned why some feel the need to respond to #BlackLivesMatter with #AllLivesMatter. Jones wondered why so many of the victims of mysterious deaths and fatal encounters with police “happen” to be black.

And what does “All Lives Matter” even mean? One fan didn’t appreciate Jones venturing into “bullsh*t.” Read their exchange below:

 

Millennials embrace a long-standing tradition: Letting someone else fight their wars

A quick little data nugget from the new Harvard Institute of Politics survey of people aged 18 to 29. (We looked at the economics earlier.)

The poll was conducted between Oct. 30 and Nov. 9, with a few questions asked again in the wake of the Nov. 13 terror attacks in Paris. One of those questions dealt with the willingness of young people to support the use of ground troops in the fight against the Islamic State. Before the attacks in Paris, 47 percent of the people surveyed supported the use of ground troops. After the attacks, that jumped up 13 percentage points, to 6 in 10 adults under 30 years old.



But the very next question added more context. "If the United States needed additional troops to combat the Islamic State," the pollsters asked, "how likely would you be to serve?"

To that question, 85 percent of respondents said they'd probably or definitely not join the military.



In other words, at least 45 percent of people under the age of 30 would like to send troops to fight the Islamic State but wouldn't themselves be willing to go.

• This is not a new phenomenon in the post-draft world, to be sure, but it is one that will apparently survive into another generation.

 

“I think everybody understands all lives matter,” Obama said during a panel discussion at the White House. “I think the reason that the organizers use the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ was not because they were suggesting nobody else’s lives mattered. Rather, what they were suggesting was there is a specific problem that is happening in the African American community that’s not happening in other communities. And that is a legitimate issue that we’ve got to address.”

Obama praises Black Lives Matter movement for raising policing issues

 

And it's begun.

Hillary went there yesterday- real heavy with the whole "he's gonna use the nuclear codes peeps! run for your lives!!!!" She said it at least 2x. I'm pretty sure she's gonna run a nuke ad. It's gonna be epic.

If you all don't believe me, check out this little portion. Watch from 31:00 for 30 seconds...



"Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?"

Yep. That's how she's gonna play it. Hillary doesn't care about likability. Don't like her? Whatevs, you'll like her opponent less. She cares about electability, so she's gonna make sure Donald is unelectable. For the next 5 months she's gonna troll Trump, and just say, "f*ck your face, f*ck your yuck-mouth teeth, f*ck your hairpiece, f*ck your fake-ass Brooklyn accent, f*ck your plastic wife, f*ck your plane, f*ck you. And if I see you in the streets Imma slap the sh*t outta you".

She better have this.

 

There is no getting around the fact that the abrahamic religions' texts are deeply homophobic. If you say homosexuality is good, you are challenging the morals of the bible. Likewise if you say the bible is good, you are challenging the the morals of gay people. It seems like the only people who have a problem accepting this are gay christians.

 

I can't take these copy and pasted Adobe Photoshop CS 9 tears.

They ain't even much falling from the tear ducts. Just big ass droplets.

 

Look light/Bleached skin is winning now. I am ordering my Pack from India and next thing you know I will find me a mens and leave all the basics behind! #TeamlightlikeJesus #FreeYourEpidermis #Transparent

 

Nope! As the resident killer and/or forensic detective here, them hoz don't need his phone! Unless Jussie is claiming they knocked him upside his head so hard that he can't remember, then they alrdy have a location to work with. And his cell records will prove what tower/location was giving him service.

Now, that said, if my suspicions are correct, Jussie doesn't want to provide any further details. Gotta keep them stories straight...

 

Even though some races didn’t turn out how I wanted I still have to give it up to the democrats for taking the house. We need some sort of checks and balances for that man. I hope Dems are smart and don’t make impeaching Trump their main agenda but, actually passing legislation that would beneficial for all Americans and not just the privileged!

 

I can deal more with a church that says "i disagree" when it comes to homosexuality and tries to back it up objectively more than I can deal with one that spews outright hate because "two mens is wrong".Like a difference of opinon type of thing .But usually churches try to advocate things I disagree with in general like staying in a failed marriage for the kids or stuff like that so I've more or less moved away from the institution.It feels like empty tradtions that people aren't sure why they follow.I have my own beliefs and spiritual practices,and feel I don't need the church(someone else's system of functioning) to further any of that .

Short answer: No.If you are gay and believe in God that will be to radical to be accepted in the church as much as it will be to tell the church mothers you read Jiddu Kishnamurti .