She's been on the Taliban's hit list for years, but she pushed them over the edge by saying that President Barack Obama was her idol during a recent interview.
This just makes me sick. I'm trying so very hard to understand why we aren't just swarming Afghanistan and killing every last one of those fucking Taliban. I know, I know. Knee-jerk reaction with insane consequences, but this has to stop. It just has to.
CBS News Article (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57528637/pakistani-teen-girls-activist-malala-yousufzai-shot-on-school-bus-by-taliban-gunman/)
QuoteMINGORA, Pakistan A Taliban gunman walked up to a bus taking children home from school in Pakistan's volatile Swat Valley on Tuesday and shot and wounded a 14-year-old activist known for championing the education of girls and publicizing atrocities committed by the Taliban, officials said.
The attack in the city of Mingora targeted 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai, who is widely respected for her work to promote the schooling of girls — something that the Taliban strongly opposes. She was nominated last year for the International Children's Peace Prize.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, calling Malala's work "obscenity."
"This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter," said Taliban spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan by telephone. "We have carried out this attack."
The school bus was about to leave the school grounds in Mingora when a bearded man approached it and asked which one of the girls was Malala, said Rasool Shah, the police chief in the town. Another girl pointed to Malala, but the activist denied it was her and the gunmen then shot both of the girls, the police chief said.
Malala was shot twice — once in the head and once in the neck — but her wounds were not life-threatening, said Tariq Mohammad, a doctor at the main hospital in Mingora. The second girl shot was in stable condition, the doctor said. Pakistani television showed pictures of Malala being taken by helicopter to a military hospital in the frontier city of Peshawar.
In the past, the Taliban has threatened Malala and her family for her activism. When she was only 11 years old, she began writing a blog under a pseudonym for the BBC's Urdu service about life under Taliban occupation. After the Taliban were ejected from the Swat Valley in the summer of 2009, she began speaking out publicly about the militant group and the need for girls' education.
While chairing a session of a children's assembly supported by UNICEF in the valley last year, the then-13-year-old championed a greater role for young people.
"Girl members play an active role," she said, according to an article on the U.N. organization's website. "We have highlighted important issues concerning children, especially promoting girls' education in Swat."
The attack displayed the viciousness of Islamic militants in the Swat Valley, where the military conducted a major operation in 2009 to clear out insurgents. It was a reminder of the challenges the government faces in keeping the area free of militant influence.
The scenic valley — nicknamed the Switzerland of Pakistan — was once a popular tourist destination for Pakistanis, and honeymooners used to vacation in the numerous hotels dotted along the river running through Swat. But the Taliban's near-total takeover of the valley just 175 miles (280 kilometers) from the capital in 2008 shocked many Pakistanis, who considered militancy to be a far-away problem in Afghanistan or Pakistan's rugged tribal regions.
Militants began asserting their influence in Swat in 2007 — part of a wave of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters expanding their reach from safe havens near the Afghan border. By 2008 they controlled much of the valley and began meting out their own brand of justice.
They forced men to grow beards, restricted women from going to the bazaar, whipped women they considered immoral and beheaded opponents.
During the roughly two years of their rule, Taliban in the region destroyed around 200 schools. Most were girls' institutions, though some prominent boys' schools were struck as well.
At one point, the Taliban said they were halting female education, a move that echoed their militant brethren in neighboring Afghanistan who during their rule barred girls from attending school.
While the Pakistani military managed to flush out the insurgents during the military operation, their Taliban's top leadership escaped, leaving many of the valley's residents on edge.
Kamila Hayat, a senior official of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, praised Malala for standing up to the militants and sending a message across the world that Pakistani girls had the courage to fight for their rights. But she also worried that Tuesday's shooting would prevent other parents from letting their children speak out against the Taliban.
"This is an attack to silence courage through a bullet," Hayat said. "These are the forces who want to take us to the dark ages."
The problems of young women in Pakistan were also the focus of a separate case before the high court, which ordered a probe into an alleged barter of seven girls to settle a blood feud in a remote southwestern district. Such feuds in Pakistan's tribal areas often arise from disputes between families or tribes and can last generations.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry began proceedings into the allegations, which were first reported in the local media. The alleged trade happened in the Dera Bugti district of Baluchistan province between two groups within the Bugti tribe, one of the more prominent in the province.
A tribal council ordered the barter in early September, the district deputy commissioner, Saeed Faisal, told the court. He did not know the girls' ages but local media reported they were between 4 and 13 years old.
However, the Advocate General for the province could not confirm the incident.
Chaudhry, the chief justice, ordered Faisal to ensure that all members of the tribal council appear in court on Wednesday, as well as a local lawmaker who belongs to one of the two sub-tribes believed involved in the incident.
The tradition of families exchanging unmarried girls to settle feuds is banned under Pakistani law but still practiced in the country's more conservative, tribal areas.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
This just makes me sick. I'm trying so very hard to understand why we aren't just swarming Afghanistan and killing every last one of those fucking Taliban. I know, I know. Knee-jerk reaction with insane consequences, but this has to stop. It just has to.
It should, but it won't.
Women's issues are not a major foreign policy concern for the United States. Hell, they're not even a domestic policy issue, so what makes you think we'd do anything about it in Islamistan?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
This just makes me sick. I'm trying so very hard to understand why we aren't just swarming Afghanistan and killing every last one of those fucking Taliban. I know, I know. Knee-jerk reaction with insane consequences, but this has to stop. It just has to.
It should, but it won't.
Women's issues are not a major foreign policy concern for the United States. Hell, they're not even a domestic policy issue, so what makes you think we'd do anything about it in Islamistan?
No, I'm sorry, but you don't get to compare this to what's going on in the US. There just is no comparison. These women aren't worried about getting the pill with their insurance. They're not even second-class citizens. They're brood animals to the Taliban, to be auctioned and traded and killed as necessary.
They are the slaves of the Taliban.
This makes me want to punch somebody in their beardy face.
This is all the same crap they were doing in Afghanistan in the 90s.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
'm trying so very hard to understand why we aren't just swarming Afghanistan and killing every last one of those fucking Taliban.
Isn't that what we've been trying to do?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 03:55:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
'm trying so very hard to understand why we aren't just swarming Afghanistan and killing every last one of those fucking Taliban.
Isn't that what we've been trying to do?
This happened in Pakistan. Last I checked, we weren't doing much (and the Pakistani don't seem to be doing much, either) in regards to the Taliban there. And by 2014, we'll be out of Afghanistan.
Before you ask, no, I've never been for pulling our people out of Afghanistan. It's one of the few recent wars that I firmly believe that we should be in, and that we should finish rather than just pull out.
Because this is to be expected of them. This is what we've been fighting for.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 04:02:58 PM
This happened in Pakistan. Last I checked, we weren't doing much (and the Pakistani don't seem to be doing much, either) in regards to the Taliban there. And by 2014, we'll be out of Afghanistan.
Before you ask, no, I've never been for pulling our people out of Afghanistan. It's one of the few recent wars that I firmly believe that we should be in, and that we should finish rather than just pull out.
I happen to agree that protecting Afghan women from savages is one of the few worth-while activities in that country.
But do you sincerely want to spend a hundred billion dollars and a couple thousand dead GIs to protect a few random Afghan women?
Do you sincerely believe that the Taliban affect only "a few random women" in Afghanistan? And you know what, if we're going to spend billions of dollars on our military, make it do something worthwhile other than sit in the fucking ocean playing chicken with the fucking Irani.
I believe that if we're going to waste our resources (including the young men and women serving in Afghanistan), then it should be doing something worthwhile, and this is absolutely worthwhile. So, yeah, I do sincerely believe that it's fucking worth it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 03:33:38 PM
No, I'm sorry, but you don't get to compare this to what's going on in the US. There just is no comparison. These women aren't worried about getting the pill with their insurance. They're not even second-class citizens. They're brood animals to the Taliban, to be auctioned and traded and killed as necessary.
They are the slaves of the Taliban.
Then I'll repeat what I said:
Women's issues are not a major foreign policy concern for the United States.We don't fight wars against Islam, remember?
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 04:59:13 PM
Do you sincerely believe that the Taliban affect only "a few random women" in Afghanistan? And you know what, if we're going to spend billions of dollars on our military, make it do something worthwhile other than sit in the fucking ocean playing chicken with the fucking Irani.
I believe that if we're going to waste our resources (including the young men and women serving in Afghanistan), then it should be doing something worthwhile, and this is absolutely worthwhile. So, yeah, I do sincerely believe that it's fucking worth it.
The hundred billion for an extended deployment is *on top* of what we're already "wasting" on the military.
Don't forget the KIAs. And the maimed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 05:00:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 03:33:38 PM
No, I'm sorry, but you don't get to compare this to what's going on in the US. There just is no comparison. These women aren't worried about getting the pill with their insurance. They're not even second-class citizens. They're brood animals to the Taliban, to be auctioned and traded and killed as necessary.
They are the slaves of the Taliban.
Then I'll repeat what I said: Women's issues are not a major foreign policy concern for the United States.
We don't fight wars against Islam, remember?
Pity I was looking forward to 'Operation Equal Vehicular Privileges', as US F15-E carpet bomb the driver registration offices in down-town Riyadh. :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 05:00:15 PM
Then I'll repeat what I said: Women's issues are not a major foreign policy concern for the United States.
We don't fight wars against Islam, remember?
I just don't get why so few people are even talking about this as a major issue. How can women, especially, just ignore that this is happening?
I'm the last person to say that we should go to war, but this is no less imperative, in my mind, than fighting the Nazis. The Taliban are looking to enslave half the population and murder those (men and women) who speak out about it. I'm struggling to see how this is different.
As a rule, I don't discuss this here because I just can't stand the idea of it being mocked, but this is one of the very few items on my "No Compromise" list. There can be no compromise when it comes to the Taliban. It's not just women, it's anyone who chooses to think for themselves. The Taliban need to be destroyed, and I'm pretty comfortable saying, "Send in the troops."
(Mind you, my son is planning to join the military so I could be sending my own son to his death by advocating this. That makes me sick to my stomach to think of it, but at least he would be dying for something worthwhile.)
What are we going to do, invade and occupy Pakistan?
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
What are we going to do, invade and occupy Pakistan?
I'm suggesting that we wipe the Taliban out in Afghanistan and then sanction the hell out of Pakistan until they do the same.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 05:10:10 PM
I just don't get why so few people are even talking about this as a major issue. How can women, especially, just ignore that this is happening?
It's complicated.
Left wing folks who normally would be outraged by this sort of thing are hesitant to attack third worlders and Muslims in particular too much because they are worried about Imperialism and forcing Western Values on local cultures...also enhancing Islamophobia.
Meanwhile the Right just sorta places this along with a whole list of really really bad things Muslims and Third Worlders do.
And frankly it is something that is almost impossible to do much about which limits people really getting worked up of any ideology.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 05:10:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 05:00:15 PM
Then I'll repeat what I said: Women's issues are not a major foreign policy concern for the United States.
We don't fight wars against Islam, remember?
I just don't get why so few people are even talking about this as a major issue. How can women, especially, just ignore that this is happening?
I'm the last person to say that we should go to war, but this is no less imperative, in my mind, than fighting the Nazis. The Taliban are looking to enslave half the population and murder those (men and women) who speak out about it. I'm struggling to see how this is different.
As a rule, I don't discuss this here because I just can't stand the idea of it being mocked, but this is one of the very few items on my "No Compromise" list. There can be no compromise when it comes to the Taliban. It's not just women, it's anyone who chooses to think for themselves. The Taliban need to be destroyed, and I'm pretty comfortable saying, "Send in the troops."
(Mind you, my son is planning to join the military so I could be sending my own son to his death by advocating this. That makes me sick to my stomach to think of it, but at least he would be dying for something worthwhile.)
Because it all runs counter to the 'Saudis are our special ally in the Arab world' gig; excuse my language, but most of this shit, originates in and is finance by the Saudi princes, whether it be funding for the madrasas in Pakistan where these, brainwashed thugs with AK47s are 'educated' or sick propaganda that finds its way into UK religious schools that few if any here are willing to challenge.
It's origins go back to the close links forged between the Pakistani military when the provided a couple of divisions deployed to Saudi in the late 70s; ever since the Pakistani establishment has been seduced and still further corrupted by Arabian oil dollars.
Well and there is the Saudis and their ideology backed by Oil dollars. See? Its complicated.
These people have a different culture, a culture that is deeply offensive to us.
I'm afraid that murdering them will do no good and colonial empires have been out of fashion for some time.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 05:18:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
What are we going to do, invade and occupy Pakistan?
I'm suggesting that we wipe the Taliban out in Afghanistan and then sanction the hell out of Pakistan until they do the same.
I'm not sure how effective sanctioning a government that can't keep flies away from itself is.
The problem with fighting and having troops in Afghanistan for the purpose of advancing the rights and education of women, is that that is the kind of struggle that would require us to completely dominate the country and run it ourselves. Not of this Hamid Karzai, Loya Jurga "build domestic democracy" bullshit. But total, post-WW2 Germany/Japan "ram democracy down your throat" control and pacification. Most likely for at least a few generations.
I am not necessarily opposed to that...but I am quite sure we haven't had the the political stomach for that for quite some time.
Quote from: Valmy on October 09, 2012, 05:22:45 PM
Well and there is the Saudis and their ideology backed by Oil dollars. See? Its complicated.
Yeah, I'm not pointing the finger exclusively at the US, most countries feel they benefit from the status quo in Arabia, even if it means turning a blind eye to the origins of 15 young men.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2012, 05:30:37 PM
The problem with fighting and having troops in Afghanistan for the purpose of advancing the rights and education of women, is that that is the kind of struggle that would require us to completely dominate the country and run it ourselves. Not of this Hamid Karzai, Loya Jurga "build domestic democracy" bullshit. But total, post-WW2 Germany/Japan "ram democracy down your throat" control and pacification. Most likely for at least a few generations.
I am not necessarily opposed to that...but I am quite sure we haven't had the the political stomach for that for quite some time.
Much harder than in Germany and Japan. Those countries had institutionalized acceptance of the legitimacy of the central government, and central governments who knew they were beaten and therefore had to comply.
It would be like Germany if every German in 45 were a Werewolf nut case.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 05:36:34 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2012, 05:30:37 PM
The problem with fighting and having troops in Afghanistan for the purpose of advancing the rights and education of women, is that that is the kind of struggle that would require us to completely dominate the country and run it ourselves. Not of this Hamid Karzai, Loya Jurga "build domestic democracy" bullshit. But total, post-WW2 Germany/Japan "ram democracy down your throat" control and pacification. Most likely for at least a few generations.
I am not necessarily opposed to that...but I am quite sure we haven't had the the political stomach for that for quite some time.
Much harder than in Germany and Japan. Those countries had institutionalized acceptance of the legitimacy of the central government, and central governments who knew they were beaten and therefore had to comply.
It would be like Germany if every German in 45 were a Werewolf nut case.
I also left out the "firebomb their major cities until they know they've been defeated" part. But yeah, much harder than Germany/Japan, but as I said...essentially the same model, and on a much longer timescale (40-60 years verses 10 or so).
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2012, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 09, 2012, 05:36:34 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2012, 05:30:37 PM
The problem with fighting and having troops in Afghanistan for the purpose of advancing the rights and education of women, is that that is the kind of struggle that would require us to completely dominate the country and run it ourselves. Not of this Hamid Karzai, Loya Jurga "build domestic democracy" bullshit. But total, post-WW2 Germany/Japan "ram democracy down your throat" control and pacification. Most likely for at least a few generations.
I am not necessarily opposed to that...but I am quite sure we haven't had the the political stomach for that for quite some time.
Much harder than in Germany and Japan. Those countries had institutionalized acceptance of the legitimacy of the central government, and central governments who knew they were beaten and therefore had to comply.
It would be like Germany if every German in 45 were a Werewolf nut case.
I also left out the "firebomb their major cities until they know they've been defeated" part. But yeah, much harder than Germany/Japan, but as I said...essentially the same model, and on a much longer timescale (40-60 years verses 10 or so).
Which plan was what we need to do in both Iraq and Afghanistan starting in 2003. Heck, part of the reason that I supported the invasions of both countries was because that's what I thought we were going to do.
The other big complicating difference, when comparing Iraq/Afghanistan with Germany/Japan, is that both Iraq and Afghanistan are basically surrounded on all sides by enemies and with long, porous borders. It'd be hard to turn them into something that is essentially completely counter to all their backwards neighbors.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 05:18:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on October 09, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
What are we going to do, invade and occupy Pakistan?
I'm suggesting that we wipe the Taliban out in Afghanistan and then sanction the hell out of Pakistan until they do the same.
I actually largely agree with this, but I think from there we'd have to move on sanctioning half the Arab world. Which I really hope we do after this whole Oil business blows over.
So Meri's a neocon, huh? Interesting.
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2012, 05:44:14 PM
I also left out the "firebomb their major cities until they know they've been defeated" part. But yeah, much harder than Germany/Japan, but as I said...essentially the same model, and on a much longer timescale (40-60 years verses 10 or so).
Why would these guys care if their major cities were firebombed? Cities are hated because they corrupt the pure, Dark Ages spirit of the Afghan.
No, the Air Force can't win this kind of fight. It's exactly the sort of fight that the Air Force has been losing ever since it was created. The only way to win this sort of fight is to have the Army advance, shipping the people away to special camps, and then the Einsatzgruppen clean up afterwards. Not just the men, but the women and children too. Mainland Asia as a whole would have to be cleansed of human life, except for maybe South Korea.
Quote from: Neil on October 09, 2012, 07:12:10 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on October 09, 2012, 05:44:14 PM
I also left out the "firebomb their major cities until they know they've been defeated" part. But yeah, much harder than Germany/Japan, but as I said...essentially the same model, and on a much longer timescale (40-60 years verses 10 or so).
Why would these guys care if their major cities were firebombed? Cities are hated because they corrupt the pure, Dark Ages spirit of the Afghan.
No, the Air Force can't win this kind of fight. It's exactly the sort of fight that the Air Force has been losing ever since it was created. The only way to win this sort of fight is to have the Army advance, shipping the people away to special camps, and then the Einsatzgruppen clean up afterwards. Not just the men, but the women and children too. Mainland Asia as a whole would have to be cleansed of human life, except for maybe South Korea.
I just got a murder boner.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 09, 2012, 05:25:01 PM
These people have a different culture, a culture that is deeply offensive to us.
I'm afraid that murdering them will do no good and colonial empires have been out of fashion for some time.
I don't think that's an acceptable answer. First off - this isn't simply a matter of cultural quirks but as Meri said the oppression of over half of their populace and the slaughter of those who think for themselves.
As to your second sentence - so what, we're just supposed to sit by and so well evil things happen in the world, nothing much we can do about it?
Short of murdering every male above the age of 3 and raising the rest ourselves there's not much we can do.
Yeah, sad but true. Unfortunately too many people over there either want to live that way or are at least willing to go along with it.
Same shot happens in Africa but they don't bother Western cities so we don't care.
Edit- now I see why people keep complaining about autocorrect. Though why it wouldn't recognize shit... :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 08:22:17 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 09, 2012, 05:25:01 PM
These people have a different culture, a culture that is deeply offensive to us.
I'm afraid that murdering them will do no good and colonial empires have been out of fashion for some time.
I don't think that's an acceptable answer. First off - this isn't simply a matter of cultural quirks but as Meri said the oppression of over half of their populace and the slaughter of those who think for themselves.
As to your second sentence - so what, we're just supposed to sit by and so well evil things happen in the world, nothing much we can do about it?
If it were a matter of "cultural quirks" it might be much easier to solve. Firstly, there is just the practical problem of what the USA could actually *do* to solve the problem. I think the experience in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq has shown how difficult (if not impossible) this could be.
Secondly, I am still unsure why this is America's fight. Haven't there been enough foreign adventures and spent American blood and treasure trying to enlighten savages? And in this case, there are arguably very few interests at stake (even fewer than Iraq, if that's possible).
I'm not saying that Meri's solution is the answer - but simply going oh well, nothing we can do, hardly seems admirable.
Quote from: derspiess on October 09, 2012, 09:58:59 PM
Yeah, sad but true. Unfortunately too many people over there either want to live that way or are at least willing to go along with it.
You're joking, right? A small group of people who have assumed an evil and barbaric form of control - using fear, death, and torture - have taken control of a country, and you're saying that people want to live under them or are willing to go along with it? They don't really have any choice in the matter.
If they voice any opposition, they die, their families die, everyone dies. Or worse, are tortured in front of them, and then they all die.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on October 09, 2012, 11:14:25 PM
If it were a matter of "cultural quirks" it might be much easier to solve. Firstly, there is just the practical problem of what the USA could actually *do* to solve the problem. I think the experience in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq has shown how difficult (if not impossible) this could be.
Secondly, I am still unsure why this is America's fight. Haven't there been enough foreign adventures and spent American blood and treasure trying to enlighten savages? And in this case, there are arguably very few interests at stake (even fewer than Iraq, if that's possible).
You're right. It's not America's fight. It's the world's fight, and it would have to be a unified force that went in and beat the shit out the Taliban in order for it to have any long-term affect whatsoever. It couldn't just be the US and the UK and one or two other European nations, either. It would need to be China, India, Egypt, and a fair few others to make the point that their kind is not tolerated by anyone.
This is what the UN was created for, but it's been neutered by its own member nations to the point that it's effectively worthless.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 11:19:53 PM
I'm not saying that Meri's solution is the answer - but simply going oh well, nothing we can do, hardly seems admirable.
In so far as "nothing we can do" means no military intervention can solve the problem (which is what I think RH was saying), then in my view it's just being realistic, even though it is pretty pessimistic and unfortunate.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
You're right. It's not America's fight. It's the world's fight, and it would have to be a unified force that went in and beat the shit out the Taliban in order for it to have any long-term affect whatsoever. It couldn't just be the US and the UK and one or two other European nations, either. It would need to be China, India, Egypt, and a fair few others to make the point that their kind is not tolerated by anyone.
This is what the UN was created for, but it's been neutered by its own member nations to the point that it's effectively worthless.
I imagine nothing short of a Timmayesque alien invasion could galvanize the world's powers into such a coalition, and perhaps not even then. But you probably know that.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
You're right. It's not America's fight. It's the world's fight, and it would have to be a unified force that went in and beat the shit out the Taliban in order for it to have any long-term affect whatsoever. It couldn't just be the US and the UK and one or two other European nations, either. It would need to be China, India, Egypt, and a fair few others to make the point that their kind is not tolerated by anyone.
China, India and Egypt should probably tend their own gardens first.
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
This is what the UN was created for, but it's been neutered by its own member nations to the point that it's effectively worthless.
Sorta conflicts with the whole "self-determination" thing the UN is pretty big on, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 11:39:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
This is what the UN was created for, but it's been neutered by its own member nations to the point that it's effectively worthless.
Sorta conflicts with the whole "self-determination" thing the UN is pretty big on, though.
Is the Taliban the governing body of Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 09, 2012, 11:38:53 PM
China, India and Egypt should probably tend their own gardens first.
Yeah. I was thinking about the prevalence of female genital mutilation in Egypt and the Economist's controversial 'gendercide' cover on India.
To an extent I think the best thing we can do is continue to support women's groups in other countries and push (and help fund) female education - ironically it's one of the things that communist regimes have been very good about. It may not have an effect in Afghanistan any time soon, but they've been isolated and backward for centuries. But it can make a difference elsewhere and, I think, eventually even Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on October 09, 2012, 11:28:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 11:19:53 PM
I'm not saying that Meri's solution is the answer - but simply going oh well, nothing we can do, hardly seems admirable.
In so far as "nothing we can do" means no military intervention can solve the problem (which is what I think RH was saying), then in my view it's just being realistic, even though it is pretty pessimistic and unfortunate.
The UK has intervened militarily, has a large and increasing foreign aid program and, through organisations like the BBC's World service and the British Council, promotes liberal Western values. I support all that but it is sometimes dispiriting how little progress is being made.
I don't think that these problems are caused by a few nasty Afghans or Islamotards. The sex balance in China and India is completely buggered due to the murder of female embryos
in utero. The situation for women and children is hardly perfect even in the most advanced countries, all you have to do is take a look at the rough end of town.
The fact is that these liberal Western values are held by a small minority of the world's population. We promote them because we sincerely believe it is the best way to live. I don't think we should delude ourselves about the scale of the task or that it is effectively cultural imperialism.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 11:55:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 11:39:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
This is what the UN was created for, but it's been neutered by its own member nations to the point that it's effectively worthless.
Sorta conflicts with the whole "self-determination" thing the UN is pretty big on, though.
Is the Taliban the governing body of Afghanistan or Pakistan?
Whether we like it or not, they're part of any real discussion of Afghani governance. They were before 9/11, and they will be after we're gone.
Quote from: garbon on October 09, 2012, 11:55:11 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 09, 2012, 11:39:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 11:28:26 PM
This is what the UN was created for, but it's been neutered by its own member nations to the point that it's effectively worthless.
Sorta conflicts with the whole "self-determination" thing the UN is pretty big on, though.
Is the Taliban the governing body of Afghanistan or Pakistan?
both and neither, at the same time
Quote from: merithyn on October 09, 2012, 11:22:23 PM
You're joking, right?
I wish I were :(
QuoteA small group of people who have assumed an evil and barbaric form of control - using fear, death, and torture - have taken control of a country, and you're saying that people want to live under them or are willing to go along with it? They don't really have any choice in the matter.
They are a larger group than you think. They're also pretty fluid. Someone who is Taliban today may not be tomorrow, and vice-versa. That makes it a lot harder to fight them. The people over there who really want western-style human rights are a pitifully small group.
QuoteIf they voice any opposition, they die, their families die, everyone dies. Or worse, are tortured in front of them, and then they all die.
It's horrible, I know. One of the biggest faults of the muslim world is that the moderates allow themselves to be cowed by the extremists. I wish they would fight back.
We've been trying to help Afghanis save themselves from themselves for 10 years. It was a noble mission, but I'm afraid it's time to pack up & come home. No use spending more precious American lives and money we don't have.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2012, 09:21:41 AM
It's horrible, I know. One of the biggest faults of the muslim world is that the moderates allow themselves to be cowed by the extremists. I wish they would fight back.
I am sure they would in some countries, the Taliban would never fly in Tunisia or Turkey. But the area the Taliban lives in is pretty bereft of moderates.
Thank God for Ataturk! Inspirational military leader, politician of genius and colossal piss-artist!
Let's raise a glass of raki to his memory.
Or 20. I'd prefer to raise 20.
Pakistanis Unite in Outrage Over Girl's Shooting by Taliban (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/world/asia/pakistan-erupts-in-anger-over-talibans-shooting-of-malala-yousafzai.html?_r=0)
QuoteKARACHI, Pakistan — Doctors on Wednesday removed a bullet from a Pakistani schoolgirl shot by the Taliban, as Pakistanis from across the political and religious spectrum united in revulsion at the attack on the 14-year-old education rights campaigner.
A Taliban gunman singled out and shot the girl, Malala Yousafzai, on Tuesday, and a spokesman said it was in retaliation for her work in promoting girls' education and children's rights in the northwestern Swat Valley, near the Afghan border.
Ms. Yousafzai was removed from immediate danger after the operation in a military hospital in Peshawar early Wednesday, during which surgeons removed a bullet that had passed through her head and lodged in her shoulder, one hospital official said.
The government kept a Boeing jet from the national carrier, Pakistan International Airlines, on standby at the Peshawar airport to fly Ms. Yousafzai to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, for emergency treatment if necessary, although senior officials said she was too weak to fly.
"She is improving. But she is still unconscious," said Mian Iftikhar Hussain, the provincial information minister, whose only son was shot dead by the Taliban in 2010. He said Ms. Yousafzai remained on a ventilator.
Mr. Hussain announced a government reward of more than $100,000 for information leading to the arrest of her attackers. "Whoever has done it is not a human and does not have a human soul," he said.
Across the rest of the country, Pakistanis reacted with outrage to the attack on the girl, whose eloquent and determined advocacy of girls' education had made her a powerful symbol of resistance to Taliban ideology.
"Malala is our pride. She became an icon for the country," Interior Minister Rehman Malik said.
The army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, visited the Peshawar hospital where Ms. Yousafzai was being treated; in a rare public statement he condemned the "twisted ideology" of the "cowards" who had attacked her. Her parents and a teacher from her school remained at her side in the hospital.
Imran Khan, the cricket star turned opposition politician, offered to pay for her treatment, while officials from his party parried accusations that they were soft on the Taliban.
Last weekend Mr. Khan led a motor cavalcade of supporters to the edge of the tribal belt as part of a demonstration against American drone strikes in the area — a theme that, until now at least, has frequently been a more concentrated focus of public anger than Taliban violence.
Even Jamaat ud Dawa, the charity wing of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which follows a different strain of Islam from the Taliban, condemned the attack. "Shameful, despicable, barbaric attempt," read a message on the group's official Twitter feed. "Curse b upon assassins and perpetrators."
The anger was amplified by the Taliban's brazen claims of responsibility for the shooting, and by avowals that the group would attack Ms. Yousafzai again if it got a second chance. Reports circulated that the Taliban had also promised to target her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, who privately appealed to neighbors from Swat not to visit the hospital in case of a second attack.
In the Swat Valley, private schools remained closed in protest over the attack.
Some commentators wondered whether the shooting would galvanize public opinion against the Taliban in the same way as a video that aired in 2009, showing a Taliban fighter flogging a teenage girl in Swat, had primed public opinion for a large military offensive against the militants that summer.
"The time to root out terrorism has come," Bushra Gohar of the Awami National Party, which governs Swat and the surrounding Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, told Parliament.
But no military drive is in the works in Swat for the moment, officials say — in fact, a large army contingent has occupied the picturesque mountain valley since 2009, which contributed to alarm by the prospect of a Taliban resurgence in the area.
Among some commentators, there was a sense that rage was redundant: that unless Pakistan's military and civilian leaders drop all equivocation about Islamist extremism, the country is likely to suffer further such traumas.
"We are infected with the cancer of extremism, and unless it is cut out we will slide ever further into the bestiality that this latest atrocity exemplifies," read an editorial in The News International, a major English-language daily.
Meri, did you ever see the movie "Osama" (2003)? And no, it's not about Bin Laden.
*shrug*
Islam.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 10, 2012, 06:27:42 PM
Meri, did you ever see the movie "Osama" (2003)? And no, it's not about Bin Laden.
No. I can't. I know what it's about (and how it ends) but I can't watch it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2012, 06:25:51 PM
Pakistanis Unite in Outrage Over Girl's Shooting by Taliban (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/world/asia/pakistan-erupts-in-anger-over-talibans-shooting-of-malala-yousafzai.html?_r=0)
Quote
Mr. Hussain announced a government reward of more than $100,000 for information leading to the arrest of her attackers. "Whoever has done it is not a human and does not have a human soul," he said.
Which is the same amount the Pakistani Minister of Railways personally offered to subborn the murder of the Coptic Filmmaker.
Imran Khan's an interesting figure right now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 06:47:12 PM
Imran Khan's an interesting figure right now.
Imran Khan is always a fascinating figure.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 06:47:12 PM
Imran Khan's an interesting figure right now.
So was Benazir Bhutto, back in the day.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 10, 2012, 07:01:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 10, 2012, 06:47:12 PM
Imran Khan's an interesting figure right now.
So was Benazir Bhutto, back in the day.
Less so. From what I can see Imran's got a unique reputation in Pakistanis politics: he's apparently incorruptible. Aside from cricket he's most famous for using his fortune to fund a cancer hospital. Though I understand lots of people who've joined him lately don't share that reputation.
Between the Islamoid weirdbeards and the military he might as well just make sure all his relatives get matching-colored Mercede's
If India manages to transition to something higher than an open air toilet than maybe Pakistan will feel obliged to follow suit.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2012, 06:25:51 PM
Pakistanis Unite in Outrage Over Girl's Shooting by Taliban (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/world/asia/pakistan-erupts-in-anger-over-talibans-shooting-of-malala-yousafzai.html?_r=0)
Yeah, that's another thing the Taliban seem to have a hard time grasping: that martyrdom doesn't just work for them. Or that someone could be considered a martyr without having to actually be dead.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 09, 2012, 05:25:01 PM
These people have a different culture, a culture that is deeply offensive to us.
I'm afraid that murdering them will do no good and colonial empires have been out of fashion for some time.
Cultures can change faster than you think, just look at those thieving Germans and lazy Japanese.
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyandcapital/chang.pdf
QuoteFinally, the British thought the Germans to be overly emotional.
Today many British seem to think that Germans have an almost genetic
emotional deficiency. Yet talking about excessive German emotion, Sir
Arthur observed that "some will laugh all sorrows away and others will
always indulge in melancholy".
18
Sir Arthur was an Irishman; so his calling
the Germans emotional would be akin to a Finn calling the Jamaicans a
gloomy lot, according to the cultural stereotypes prevailing now.
:lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2012, 01:20:01 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 09, 2012, 05:25:01 PM
These people have a different culture, a culture that is deeply offensive to us.
I'm afraid that murdering them will do no good and colonial empires have been out of fashion for some time.
Cultures can change faster than you think, just look at those thieving Germans and lazy Japanese.
http://www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/research/events/conferences/povertyandcapital/chang.pdf
Yes, cultures can change fast, but the direction of travel is important too. In the Islamic world they seem to be moving in what we would consider the wrong direction.
It doesn't help that often the most progressive elements end up living in the West anyway, further dumbing-down their homelands.
I don't know about that, Tunisia and Libya are definitely moving in the right direction and the judge is out still on Egypt and Syria.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2012, 02:25:25 AM
I don't know about that, Tunisia and Libya are definitely moving in the right direction and the judge is out still on Egypt and Syria.
Very sceptical about that. You
hope they are moving in the right direction but I am a pessimist, remove the strongman and a lot of creepy-crawlies emerge from under their stones.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2012, 02:25:25 AM
I don't know about that, Tunisia and Libya are definitely moving in the right direction and the judge is out still on Egypt and Syria.
that's not what sane people have been seeing. In Tunisia a lot of people -mainly women- fear that their rights will be eroded and then taken away.
Meanwhile, a pregnant teenage girl died in Poland of an intestine cancer because doctors refused to perform chemotherapy on her because, being devout Catholics, they thought it would be tantamount to an abortion.
Chemo is not emergency care, why couldn't she just find another doctor?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 05:45:36 AM
Chemo is not emergency care, why couldn't she just find another doctor?
Maybe they're the only doctors in Poland?
:hmm:
I hadn't considered that possibility.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 11, 2012, 02:21:20 AM
Yes, cultures can change fast, but the direction of travel is important too. In the Islamic world they seem to be moving in what we would consider the wrong direction.
It doesn't help that often the most progressive elements end up living in the West anyway, further dumbing-down their homelands.
I think a better point to take from the article is that the direction of change and what trends will happen is far harder to judge from the present within a culture or examining from outside. That is why the social sciences are so poor as predictive studies.
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:33:42 AM
Meanwhile, a pregnant teenage girl died in Poland of an intestine cancer because doctors refused to perform chemotherapy on her because, being devout Catholics, they thought it would be tantamount to an abortion.
Well, it's aborted now, isn't it? <_<
I'm seriously starting to become more and more like Viking when it comes to religion, if only because of how the most popular religions abuse women. We seriously need a good push toward goddess-based religions to take hold if only for the sake of women.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:21:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:33:42 AM
Meanwhile, a pregnant teenage girl died in Poland of an intestine cancer because doctors refused to perform chemotherapy on her because, being devout Catholics, they thought it would be tantamount to an abortion.
Well, it's aborted now, isn't it? <_<
I'm seriously starting to become more and more like Viking when it comes to religion, if only because of how the most popular religions abuse women. We seriously need a good push toward goddess-based religions to take hold if only for the sake of women.
It'd probably be best if more people let go of religion - not catch hold of another one.
Can I cast magic missile with these goddess religions?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:41:56 AM
It'd probably be best if more people let go of religion - not catch hold of another one.
That ain't happening. Which is why I decided to embrace a religion that I think will do social good.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 08:45:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:41:56 AM
It'd probably be best if more people let go of religion - not catch hold of another one.
That ain't happening. Which is why I decided to embrace a religion that I think will do social good.
If you say "Unitarian", I am gonna punch you in the nuts.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 08:47:30 AM
If you say "Unitarian", I am gonna punch you in the nuts.
Unitarian. My faith protects me -_-
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 08:43:04 AM
Can I cast magic missile with these goddess religions?
You only get to heal or cause wounds, depending on your alignment. Oh, I think you can also turn undead.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:21:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:33:42 AM
Meanwhile, a pregnant teenage girl died in Poland of an intestine cancer because doctors refused to perform chemotherapy on her because, being devout Catholics, they thought it would be tantamount to an abortion.
Well, it's aborted now, isn't it? <_<
I'm seriously starting to become more and more like Viking when it comes to religion, if only because of how the most popular religions abuse women. We seriously need a good push toward goddess-based religions to take hold if only for the sake of women.
Religion isn't either the problem or the solution. The problem is that the folks who happen to follow these particular religions tend to be from conservative societies. They follow religions and they follow traditional ways concerning the status of women for the same reason - because they are, basically, from a backward, medieval-style culture. The world has moved on and they have not.
Replacing their current religions with women-friendly woo cannot solve the problem - or rather, if you could change their culture to be more modern in its attitude towards women, why not simply change it to one that lacks woo altogether?
Quote from: PDH on October 11, 2012, 08:51:25 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 08:43:04 AM
Can I cast magic missile with these goddess religions?
You only get to heal or cause wounds, depending on your alignment. Oh, I think you can also turn undead.
I want to cast fireball. Meri's hippie goddess sucks.
It's always the mages that get the cool spells.
Call me Raistlin.
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:52:14 AM
Replacing their current religions with women-friendly woo cannot solve the problem - or rather, if you could change their culture to be more modern in its attitude towards women, why not simply change it to one that lacks woo altogether?
Because people like woo. And a certain percentage of them seem to need woo.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 09:00:54 AM
Call me Raistlin.
At one point in Everquest I grouped with four dudes all named different spellings of Raistlin.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:02:40 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 09:00:54 AM
Call me Raistlin.
At one point in Everquest I grouped with four dudes all named different spellings of Raistlin.
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 08:52:17 AM
I want to cast fireball. Meri's hippie goddess sucks.
Well damn. If we're making up the religion, why can't we have fireballs?? :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 08:45:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:41:56 AM
It'd probably be best if more people let go of religion - not catch hold of another one.
That ain't happening. Which is why I decided to embrace a religion that I think will do social good.
I'm not sure on that. I'd think if we look over time that we have more people who don't belong to an organized religion than before.
Also on your religion bit, that's like saying NewYorkCares is my religion. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 08:52:17 AM
I want to cast fireball. Meri's hippie goddess sucks.
Well damn. If we're making up the religion, why can't we have fireballs?? :huh:
I'd like to sign up for bringing back Isis in the version where she conveniently couldn't find Osiris's penis and fashioned her own implantation device.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:01:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:52:14 AM
Replacing their current religions with women-friendly woo cannot solve the problem - or rather, if you could change their culture to be more modern in its attitude towards women, why not simply change it to one that lacks woo altogether?
Because people like woo. And a certain percentage of them seem to need woo.
Fair enough. There is nothing stopping people from having the woo they want and need and being socially progressive.
Hell, look at the Jews. Ain't nobody more backwards when it comes to women than the ultra-Orthodox - but if you want that Orthodox religiousity but want to ditch the anti-women stuff, you can be Reconstructionist. Many of my relations are.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 09:14:04 AM
I'm not sure on that. I'd think if we look over time that we have more people who don't belong to an organized religion than before.
Sure. It helps when the social pressure to belong to one goes down. But people are still nuts for woo and religion stuff.
QuoteAlso on your religion bit, that's like saying NewYorkCares is my religion. :rolleyes:
No it is saying I joined a religion that shares my beliefs and values Marty.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:19:20 AM
No it is saying I joined a religion that shares my beliefs and values Marty.
My son - a devout atheist - joined the local Unitarian church for the youth group. I'm amazed at how important it's become in his life. He loves the "good works" aspect. I've never gone, but I think this Sunday I'm going to go to their service to see what it's all about. Their pamphlet was interesting, anyway.
I'm more of a ceremonialist (having been raised Catholic and all) so I need a bit more ritual in my services than I suspect the UUs have, but I'm trying to be open-minded. It would be nice to belong to a congregation again.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:19:20 AM
No it is saying I joined a religion that shares my beliefs and values Marty.
Volunteers at New York Cares have shared beliefs and values. :)
Hell my company talks about shared beliefs and values.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 09:27:32 AM
Volunteers at New York Cares have shared beliefs and values. :)
Hell my company talks about shared beliefs and values.
It warms my heart to hear that garbon. Many things can share my beliefs and values but many are not religions.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:23:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:19:20 AM
No it is saying I joined a religion that shares my beliefs and values Marty.
My son - a devout atheist - joined the local Unitarian church for the youth group. I'm amazed at how important it's become in his life. He loves the "good works" aspect. I've never gone, but I think this Sunday I'm going to go to their service to see what it's all about. Their pamphlet was interesting, anyway.
I'm more of a ceremonialist (having been raised Catholic and all) so I need a bit more ritual in my services than I suspect the UUs have, but I'm trying to be open-minded. It would be nice to belong to a congregation again.
I have a lot of friends who are Unitarians (and similarly were in the youth group in High School). None are religious. When I went to a service, there were no bibles in the church, and the pastor invoked basically every major religious figure outside of Christianity. I think it was the Easter service. :lol:
God dammit! Who gave count directions to the site?
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:31:05 AM
I have a lot of friends who are Unitarians (and similarly were in the youth group in High School). None are religious. When I went to a service, there were no bibles in the church, and the pastor invoked basically every major religious figure outside of Christianity. I think it was the Easter service. :lol:
Well if it is UU one of their big things is showing the common spiritual lessons of every religion.
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:23:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:19:20 AM
No it is saying I joined a religion that shares my beliefs and values Marty.
My son - a devout atheist - joined the local Unitarian church for the youth group. I'm amazed at how important it's become in his life. He loves the "good works" aspect. I've never gone, but I think this Sunday I'm going to go to their service to see what it's all about. Their pamphlet was interesting, anyway.
I'm more of a ceremonialist (having been raised Catholic and all) so I need a bit more ritual in my services than I suspect the UUs have, but I'm trying to be open-minded. It would be nice to belong to a congregation again.
I have a lot of friends who are Unitarians (and similarly were in the youth group in High School). None are religious. When I went to a service, there were no bibles in the church, and the pastor invoked basically every major religious figure outside of Christianity. I think it was the Easter service. :lol:
WTF? Count? How's it going man?
Also yeah we shouldn't (further) commit tons and tons of troops to Afghanistan (or god forbid Pakistan). We've managed to kill a hell of a lot of 14 year olds ourselves with our video game like drone strikes. It's not the same thing, of course, but this isn't the sort of thing we can solve with the military.
My son's church (which still feels weird to say :wacko: ) includes Xianity along with all of the others, I think. I was invited for a parents' night with the Youth Group, and there was a pretty good mix of symbolism etc.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2012, 09:32:59 AM
WTF? Count? How's it going man?
He said in the other thread he did not want any greetings SO STOP IT :P
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:32:36 AM
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:31:05 AM
I have a lot of friends who are Unitarians (and similarly were in the youth group in High School). None are religious. When I went to a service, there were no bibles in the church, and the pastor invoked basically every major religious figure outside of Christianity. I think it was the Easter service. :lol:
Well if it is UU one of their big things is showing the common spiritual lessons of every religion.
Yeah, I really like the UU but I was still surprised at how starkly non-Christian it appeared. I think if I ever became religious I'd just go to a Reform temple, which has similar values but maintains some of the traditional stuff I like.
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
Yeah, I really like the UU but I was still surprised at how starkly non-Christian it appeared. I think if I ever became religious I'd just go to a Reform temple, which has similar values but maintains some of the traditional stuff I like.
I wish there was a Reform Catholic Church. :( I suppose Episcapalian is close enough. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 09:30:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 09:27:32 AM
Volunteers at New York Cares have shared beliefs and values. :)
Hell my company talks about shared beliefs and values.
It warms my heart to hear that garbon. Many things can share my beliefs and values but many are not religions.
Thanks for agreeing with my point. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
Yeah, I really like the UU but I was still surprised at how starkly non-Christian it appeared. I think if I ever became religious I'd just go to a Reform temple, which has similar values but maintains some of the traditional stuff I like.
I wish there was a Reform Catholic Church. :( I suppose Episcapalian is close enough. :hmm:
High Lutheran churches are pretty similar as well.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 09:40:13 AM
Thanks for agreeing with my point. :)
Those things do not share my spiritual beliefs and principles so they would fail at being a religion that would work for me. They would be other things that would work for me. So if your point is there are things in the world I do not find objectionable then...well well stated. I just do not find it a particularly interesting point.
Anyway just to clarify what I meant by the idea that I thought my religion did social good I meant that I thought if society was more attuned to its spiritual teachings it would do society some good. Not that they feed the hungry and shelter the homeless (which they do also but, as you say, lots of other organizations also do those things).
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:21:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:33:42 AM
Meanwhile, a pregnant teenage girl died in Poland of an intestine cancer because doctors refused to perform chemotherapy on her because, being devout Catholics, they thought it would be tantamount to an abortion.
Well, it's aborted now, isn't it? <_<
I'm seriously starting to become more and more like Viking when it comes to religion, if only because of how the most popular religions abuse women. We seriously need a good push toward goddess-based religions to take hold if only for the sake of women.
Checks Meri off the list. Can't blame religion for your female lobular mutilation of your children though. This goddess shit is just hippy crap that is, well, crap. Listen to your son and go to the UU church, where there is no religion or dogma.
But seriously. I am sceptical about this polish chemotherapy murder by malpractice thing. I found an example of a report of a similar case in the dominican republic, but no reports of this kind from poland. I am inclined to doubt that this thing happened in poland OR that there are some significant vital facts that Marty is leaving out.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
Yeah, I really like the UU but I was still surprised at how starkly non-Christian it appeared. I think if I ever became religious I'd just go to a Reform temple, which has similar values but maintains some of the traditional stuff I like.
I wish there was a Reform Catholic Church. :( I suppose Episcapalian is close enough. :hmm:
We had this thing called The Reformation back in the 16th century. It literally was a reform movement of the catholic church.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 10:58:08 AM
Checks Meri off the list. Can't blame religion for your female lobular mutilation of your children though. This goddess shit is just hippy crap that is, well, crap. Listen to your son and go to the UU church, where there is no religion or dogma.
I had nothing to do with that. I left the decision up to the boys' atheist father, and he chose to chop them. :sleep:
And what's wrong with hippy crap? In general, it tends to lead one to being nicer and to taking care of others. Not seeing any glaring issue there.
Quote
But seriously. I am sceptical about this polish chemotherapy murder by malpractice thing. I found an example of a report of a similar case in the dominican republic, but no reports of this kind from poland. I am inclined to doubt that this thing happened in poland OR that there are some significant vital facts that Marty is leaving out.
Hadn't thought that he's fabricate a story like this. Seems a silly thing to do.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
Quote from: Count on October 11, 2012, 09:35:18 AM
Yeah, I really like the UU but I was still surprised at how starkly non-Christian it appeared. I think if I ever became religious I'd just go to a Reform temple, which has similar values but maintains some of the traditional stuff I like.
I wish there was a Reform Catholic Church. :( I suppose Episcapalian is close enough. :hmm:
We had this thing called The Reformation back in the 16th century. It literally was a reform movement of the catholic church.
As part of that though many churches got rid of ritual...now the point that I've been to churches which mainly consist of a rock band playing with bits of scripture stuffed around it. :bleeding:
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
We had this thing called The Reformation back in the 16th century. It literally was a reform movement of the catholic church.
*sighs*
I know, Viking. It was a joke. Hence the Episcapalian reference (ie the Church of England)?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:01:19 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 10:58:08 AM
Checks Meri off the list. Can't blame religion for your female lobular mutilation of your children though. This goddess shit is just hippy crap that is, well, crap. Listen to your son and go to the UU church, where there is no religion or dogma.
I had nothing to do with that. I left the decision up to the boys' atheist father, and he chose to chop them. :sleep:
And what's wrong with hippy crap? In general, it tends to lead one to being nicer and to taking care of others. Not seeing any glaring issue there.
Neil and Cartman are right about hippies. Just being nice and taking care of others just leads to some bullies stealing your stuff and you living in a dumpster.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:01:19 AM
Quote
But seriously. I am sceptical about this polish chemotherapy murder by malpractice thing. I found an example of a report of a similar case in the dominican republic, but no reports of this kind from poland. I am inclined to doubt that this thing happened in poland OR that there are some significant vital facts that Marty is leaving out.
Hadn't thought that he's fabricate a story like this. Seems a silly thing to do.
I don't think he fabricated it. I think he selectively presented the facts or the fact were selectively presented to him.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:03:24 AM
*sighs*
I know, Valmy. It was a joke. Hence the Episcapalian reference (ie the Church of England)?
:o
Nobody has ever confused Viking and I before.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 11:02:05 AM
As part of that though many churches got rid of ritual...now the point that I've been to churches which mainly consist of a rock band playing with bits of scripture stuffed around it. :bleeding:
Hell, before I left the Catholic Church, the one I attended in Schaumburg, IL, was like that. No kneelers (WTF??), no prayer candles, guitars and drums by the altar. And the "pews" were folding chairs. FOLDING CHAIRS!! *shudders*
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 11:05:43 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:03:24 AM
*sighs*
I know, Valmy. It was a joke. Hence the Episcapalian reference (ie the Church of England)?
:o
Nobody has ever confused Viking and I before.
Mea culpa. :blush: I'll fix that.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 11:05:43 AM
:o
Nobody has ever confused Viking and I before.
Maybe you should take off the heels.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 11:05:43 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:03:24 AM
*sighs*
I know, Valmy. It was a joke. Hence the Episcapalian reference (ie the Church of England)?
:o
Nobody has ever confused Viking and I before.
I often don't get jokes. You (plural you) often don't get mine.
QuoteAnd what's wrong with hippy crap? In general, it tends to lead one to being nicer and to taking care of others. Not seeing any glaring issue there.
It is culturally, philosophically, historically and intellectually degenerate.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:05:51 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 11:02:05 AM
As part of that though many churches got rid of ritual...now the point that I've been to churches which mainly consist of a rock band playing with bits of scripture stuffed around it. :bleeding:
Hell, before I left the Catholic Church, the one I attended in Schaumburg, IL, was like that. No kneelers (WTF??), no prayer candles, guitars and drums by the altar. And the "pews" were folding chairs. FOLDING CHAIRS!! *shudders*
Yeah best luck I've had so far with a semblance of what I feel is the right church environment is at the nicer Episcopalian churches as well as the High Lutheran ones. Of course, those are also the one's that typically only have old people in attendance. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 11:02:05 AM
As part of that though many churches got rid of ritual...now the point that I've been to churches which mainly consist of a rock band playing with bits of scripture stuffed around it. :bleeding:
It's all feely crap now. It's like a blasted therapy session for people to feel safe in the arms of Jesus or whatever. My god it's terrible. At least when I was a kid the church my parents attended had all the dudes get together and fix somebody's roof every now and then. There was a point to it occasionally.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 11:23:16 AM
Yeah best luck I've had so far with a semblance of what I feel is the right church environment is at the nicer Episcopalian churches as well as the High Lutheran ones. Of course, those are also the one's that typically only have old people in attendance. :D
:hug:
Us high-ritual folks have got to stick together before it all dies out. :(
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
QuoteAnd what's wrong with hippy crap? In general, it tends to lead one to being nicer and to taking care of others. Not seeing any glaring issue there.
It is culturally, philosophically, historically and intellectually degenerate.
:huh:
I get the "historically degenerate" bit since most of them make up a history that goes back centuries for why they believe what they believe (when it really only goes back a few decades at most), but the rest seems a bit overboard. I don't see how Pagans are any more culturally, philosophically, or intellectually degenerate than any other religion. In fact, the Pagans I do know are mostly highly intellectual, with the odd fruitcake to make them colorful.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:32:03 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
QuoteAnd what's wrong with hippy crap? In general, it tends to lead one to being nicer and to taking care of others. Not seeing any glaring issue there.
It is culturally, philosophically, historically and intellectually degenerate.
:huh:
I get the "historically degenerate" bit since most of them make up a history that goes back centuries for why they believe what they believe (when it really only goes back a few decades at most), but the rest seems a bit overboard. I don't see how Pagans are any more culturally, philosophically, or intellectually degenerate than any other religion. In fact, the Pagans I do know are mostly highly intellectual, with the odd fruitcake to make them colorful.
They are the ultimate relativists that abandon fact to achieve "just gettin' along maan", that is why are degenerates. It takes a talented philosopher to express the truly idiotic ideas out there.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:32:03 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 11:21:56 AM
QuoteAnd what's wrong with hippy crap? In general, it tends to lead one to being nicer and to taking care of others. Not seeing any glaring issue there.
It is culturally, philosophically, historically and intellectually degenerate.
:huh:
I get the "historically degenerate" bit since most of them make up a history that goes back centuries for why they believe what they believe (when it really only goes back a few decades at most), but the rest seems a bit overboard. I don't see how Pagans are any more culturally, philosophically, or intellectually degenerate than any other religion. In fact, the Pagans I do know are mostly highly intellectual, with the odd fruitcake to make them colorful.
They tend to be pseudo-intellectuals more than actual intellectuals, in my experience.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 11:58:38 AM
They are the ultimate relativists that abandon fact to achieve "just gettin' along maan", that is why are degenerates. It takes a talented philosopher to express the truly idiotic ideas out there.
Huh. Not my experience with those I know. Maybe I just happen to know the handful of intelligent Pagans out there.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 11:58:38 AM
They are the ultimate relativists that abandon fact to achieve "just gettin' along maan", that is why are degenerates. It takes a talented philosopher to express the truly idiotic ideas out there.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. What sort of facts are they abandoning? What? And 'just getting along' is idiotic? I guess they should be doing...what exactly? Care to express a coherent thought?
Or is this another joke? :hmm:
Quote from: dps on October 11, 2012, 12:01:12 PM
They tend to be pseudo-intellectuals more than actual intellectuals, in my experience.
There do tend to be a lot of those in the movement, I'll grant you. But I'm not thinking any more so than in the general public. I could be wrong. That being said, the Pagans that I know are all people that I can stand to be around, ergo, not the type you're talking about. I may have filtered them out of my group of friends unintentionally.
Quote from: dps on October 11, 2012, 12:01:12 PM
They tend to be pseudo-intellectuals more than actual intellectuals, in my experience.
Well most people who aspire to be intellectuals end up there.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 12:06:30 PM
Quote from: dps on October 11, 2012, 12:01:12 PM
They tend to be pseudo-intellectuals more than actual intellectuals, in my experience.
Well most people who aspire to be intellectuals end up there.
Then again, certain segments of our society regard all intellectuals as pseudo-intellectuals.
I guess I just see those who adhere to a Pagan philosophy as no different than any other group. They're no better and no worse, simply more likely to follow the path less traveled. There are fruitcakes in all religions - as well in the general population at large. There are also the psuedo-intellectuals (I find them most often among atheists, truth be told) and "go-with-the-flow" types, too.
Being Pagan doesn't, in my opinion, diminish any of these people to me anymore than being Jewish or Catholic or Buddhist does. It's their spirituality, after all. Why do I care how they find enlightenment?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 12:04:25 PM
Quote from: dps on October 11, 2012, 12:01:12 PM
They tend to be pseudo-intellectuals more than actual intellectuals, in my experience.
There do tend to be a lot of those in the movement, I'll grant you. But I'm not thinking any more so than in the general public. I could be wrong. That being said, the Pagans that I know are all people that I can stand to be around, ergo, not the type you're talking about. I may have filtered them out of my group of friends unintentionally.
Well, there are definately pseudo-intellectuals outside of pagans, yes. But I'd say that among the general public you tend to find people are, in general anti-intellectual rather than pseudo-intellectual. Though I'm sure you'll find pagans who are anti-intellectual as well.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:01:19 AM
And what's wrong with hippy crap? In general, it tends to lead one to being nicer and to taking care of others. Not seeing any glaring issue there.
Because it leads to being poor, dirty and losing touch with reality, which is every bit as deleterious as when Jesus-screeching loons do it. At least the religious crazies are clean.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 12:04:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 11:58:38 AM
They are the ultimate relativists that abandon fact to achieve "just gettin' along maan", that is why are degenerates. It takes a talented philosopher to express the truly idiotic ideas out there.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. What sort of facts are they abandoning? What? And 'just getting along' is idiotic? I guess they should be doing...what exactly? Care to express a coherent thought?
Or is this another joke? :hmm:
"That''s just your opinion, man."
In effect they accept anybody who is not confrontational. They completely live within their own self contained subjective truth. The Hippy lifestyle lasts until they have to deal with the consequences of their invented truths. In effect they are so open minded that their brains have dropped out.
The facts they are abandoning are any facts that conflict with their own invented truths. Just getting along only works when there is a shared common set of values and view of reality, you can't just get along with hitler or charles manson.
Respectable Paganism died in the 6th Century with the last followers of Iamblichus and Plotinus.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
Respectable Paganism died in the 6th Century with the last followers of Iamblichus and Plotinus.
I'm not sure how the resurrgence of the past couple hundred years is less respectable. Nor why you care so much as to have such a strong opinion on how others tap their spiritual side.
Plotinus was a genius. Gerald Gardener made Joseph Smith look like Augustine served in Philo. Totally unworthy of the horrifying faiths they ape.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 12:58:54 PM
Plotinus was a genius. Gerald Gardener made Joseph Smith look like Augustine served in Philo. Totally unworthy of the horrifying faiths they ape.
What does that have to do anything? How is that not true for many followers of faiths today (including followers of faiths like Christianity that haven't gone defunct but certainly changed with time)?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
Respectable Paganism died in the 6th Century with the last followers of Iamblichus and Plotinus.
http://historyofphilosophy.net/
I love this podcast.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 12:49:07 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
Respectable Paganism died in the 6th Century with the last followers of Iamblichus and Plotinus.
I'm not sure how the resurrgence of the past couple hundred years is less respectable. Nor why you care so much as to have such a strong opinion on how others tap their spiritual side.
It is less respectable because the ancients cared if it was true. But do not that these old pagans were borderline deists since they (we at least the neo-platonists) believed in the one god, the unity, the form of forms. These guys were not the pagans of the kind "Zeus lives on Mt Olympus", they were more like "Divine Plato figured it out what the nature of the one God is."
They figured out from (what they thought were first principles) that there was only one god and that was the form of forms itself. That is what made them respectable. These guys did not trapse around forest clearings at midnight with drums and aroma candles.
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 12:58:54 PM
Plotinus was a genius. Gerald Gardener made Joseph Smith look like Augustine served in Philo. Totally unworthy of the horrifying faiths they ape.
Gerald Gardener was only one of hundreds of people who brought the resurrgence of Paganism, and he was late to the party, at that. His only claim to fame was bringing about the practice of Wiccanism in the 1950s, probably the most well-known of the Pagan faiths today, but by no means the only one or the earliest.
What about the Druid traditions that started 300+ years ago in England and came to the states 200 years ago? Very few of them claim anything whatsoever to do with the ancient traditions other than the name. They used the term because it seemed appropriate to call their nature-based philosophy something that others would recognize and understand on sight.
The reality is that there are hundreds of belief systems that fall under the "Pagan" label, and most of them look nothing like what you're describing. Some use the old gods and old symbolism because they're familiar, easy to use, and provide a good framework. Some don't use any gods at all, instead prefering to worship the idea of a God or a Higher Power. Some fall somewhere in between, seeing divinity in both gods, nature, and in the totality of it all. And some are even monotheistic, believing that the old gods are all parts of a singular divine entity.
It's just not possible to make a blanket statement that all Pagans are one thing or another. In general, they're all spiritual people who believe that there is value in the traditional methods that were used before, and that those methods can be used in some fashion today. Beyond that, it's pretty much a crapshoot what you're going to come up with. Some may not be so easy to respect, while others are actually pretty interesting and worth looking more deeply into.
And just like I tell my kids, spirituality is such a personal thing that unless someone is using their religion or spiritual path to harm others, it's really none of our business how people get from Point A to Point B in their spiritual lives.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
As garbon said, it's about drawing spiritual inspiration. I know that you don't see the value in that for yourself, but surely even you recognize that there must be value in finding spiritual inspiration for many or religions wouldn't exist at all.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
I said respectable. Slaughtering captured soldiers for Tiwaz, forming Thor's hammer out of the entrails of Christians, or ritual cannibalism to honor Perun isn't respectable. It was hideous, horrifying superstition.
Spirituality. :rolleyes:
Every Wiccan I've met has been a total fruit loop.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
Every Wiccan I've met has been a total fruit loop.
Worse than the granola-birkenstocks-patchouli-hairy pits crowd, definitely.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
I said respectable. Slaughtering captured soldiers for Tiwaz, forming Thor's hammer out of the entrails of Christians, or ritual cannibalism to honor Perun isn't respectable. It was hideous, horrifying superstition.
Wow. I didn't realize that modern Pagans did that! Well, since you put it that... oh wait. They don't. <_<
Coming from your background, I would think you would be a little more understanding (and certainly less scathing) about alternative religions from the The Big Three. Surely you recognize that people have a right to find their own way without having to bend to what's most common or understood or known.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:28:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
Every Wiccan I've met has been a total fruit loop.
Worse than the granola-birkenstocks-patchouli-hairy pits crowd, definitely.
I admit that I tend to think poorly of Wiccans, but that's because the few that I've met were less than pleasant people. I don't, however, paint everyone who follows that faith with the same broad brush. I'm absolutely certain that there are regular people who happen to believe in that particular religion, even if I haven't met any yet. At least, I hope so. :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
I said respectable. Slaughtering captured soldiers for Tiwaz, forming Thor's hammer out of the entrails of Christians, or ritual cannibalism to honor Perun isn't respectable. It was hideous, horrifying superstition.
Wow. I didn't realize that modern Pagans did that! Well, since you put it that... oh wait. They don't. <_<
Coming from your background, I would think you would be a little more understanding (and certainly less scathing) about alternative religions from the The Big Three. Surely you recognize that people have a right to find their own way without having to bend to what's most common or understood or known.
They certainly do not. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2012, 01:33:07 PM
They certainly do not. :mad:
Even if they're allowed to wear pleated pants during their rituals? :D
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route. But that's hard, and some people would like some flaky faith they just made up that corresponds to their political beliefs. Also, Indo-European paganism tended to be rather racist (which what attracted extreme right wing groups to in the 19th and 20th century).
Religion isn't suppose to be easy. It's about sacrifice, restraint, self-discipline, yes even scholarship. It's hard. Take Catholicism for instance, you ever try to be good Catholic? I mean, really delve deep into what it means, and practice it? It's fucking hard. Hell it's nigh impossible. That's part of the point. You draw strength from it, because you work at it. It's making you stronger.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
I said respectable. Slaughtering captured soldiers for Tiwaz, forming Thor's hammer out of the entrails of Christians, or ritual cannibalism to honor Perun isn't respectable. It was hideous, horrifying superstition.
Wow. I didn't realize that modern Pagans did that! Well, since you put it that... oh wait. They don't. <_<
I also like that the only sources neo-pagans can draw from are the pagan religions of Europe.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:23:00 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
As garbon said, it's about drawing spiritual inspiration. I know that you don't see the value in that for yourself, but surely even you recognize that there must be value in finding spiritual inspiration for many or religions wouldn't exist at all.
Thats a non-sequiter to the post you are replying to. garbon seemed to accuse me and spellus of demanding that all pagans be olympian style pagans. We have both denied holding that position.
OK, but take on your post. Tell me what "spiritual inspiration" is. Our brain can produce mystical and ecstatic experiences, brain chemistry is funny that way. What is it that we need a non-material source to explain an inspirational experience?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
Religion isn't suppose to be easy. It's about sacrifice, restraint, self-discipline, yes even scholarship. It's hard. Take Catholicism for instance, you ever try to be good Catholic? I mean, really delve deep into what it means, and practice it? It's fucking hard. Hell it's nigh impossible. That's part of the point. You draw strength from it, because you work at it. It's making you stronger.
That might be one view, but I'm not sure that's even a prevailing view these days.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
Thats a non-sequiter to the post you are replying to. garbon seemed to accuse me and spellus of demanding that all pagans be olympian style pagans. We have both denied holding that position.
Psellus noted the last respectable pagans and I took issue with the notion that those were the last respectable ones as their have been many pagans from many different regions since then.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route. But that's hard, and some people would like some flaky faith they just made up that corresponds to their political beliefs. Also, Indo-European paganism tended to be rather racist (which what attracted extreme right wing groups to in the 19th and 20th century).
Religion isn't suppose to be easy. It's about sacrifice, restraint, self-discipline, yes even scholarship. It's hard. Take Catholicism for instance, you ever try to be good Catholic? I mean, really delve deep into what it means, and practice it? It's fucking hard. Hell it's nigh impossible. That's part of the point. You draw strength from it, because you work at it. It's making you stronger.
Just curious. Beyond the white-washed version you see in movies and in the odd newspaper article about flaky folks in the woods, what do you actually know about any Pagan religions? Do you have any idea whatsoever is required by any of them in order to be on the "correct" path for themselves? Because from what I've read there is no easy path, especially when they're trying to figure it all out for themselves.
As for "if someone were really serious about paganism", you say that as if these people have just gone, "I think I'm going to be pagan!" rather than that they found a spiritual path that resonnated with them and they decided to look more into it. Most Pagans know a good bit about the Eastern religions - probably far more than you do - and have incorporated a lot of those systems into their own. Meditation is a prime example.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route. But that's hard, and some people would like some flaky faith they just made up that corresponds to their political beliefs. Also, Indo-European paganism tended to be rather racist (which what attracted extreme right wing groups to in the 19th and 20th century).
Religion isn't suppose to be easy. It's about sacrifice, restraint, self-discipline, yes even scholarship. It's hard. Take Catholicism for instance, you ever try to be good Catholic? I mean, really delve deep into what it means, and practice it? It's fucking hard. Hell it's nigh impossible. That's part of the point. You draw strength from it, because you work at it. It's making you stronger.
Sometimes I get tempted to reply to Raz, but then I remember who and what Raz is, the thing is none of the above is true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddAi8FF3F4
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
OK, but take on your post. Tell me what "spiritual inspiration" is. Our brain can produce mystical and ecstatic experiences, brain chemistry is funny that way. What is it that we need a non-material source to explain an inspirational experience?
Some need not only the experience but verbiage to discuss it, people with whom to discuss it, and a sense of community with others who have experienced something similar. That is what religion is.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:49:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:41:20 PM
OK, but take on your post. Tell me what "spiritual inspiration" is. Our brain can produce mystical and ecstatic experiences, brain chemistry is funny that way. What is it that we need a non-material source to explain an inspirational experience?
Some need not only the experience but verbiage to discuss it, people with whom to discuss it, and a sense of community with others who have experienced something similar. That is what religion is.
Basically you need to buy into spirituality to understand it, right? Do you have any idea how that just means it cannot possibly be true? Facts are what remain after we are no longer there.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
Basically you need to buy into spirituality to understand it, right? Do you have any idea how that just means it cannot possibly be true? Facts are what remain after we are no longer there.
And if facts were enough, there would be no religion. For a hell of a lot of people, facts just aren't enough. And what you define as "true" isn't the same as what I define as "true". To me, truth is what I not only know, but what I feel, think, am, and can be. None of those fit your criteria, which is fine. That way of thinking works for you. It doesn't for me.
There's a huge part of my life that doesn't rely strictly on facts. For me, my spirituality fills holes that straight facts leave. I don't think that requires that you buy into it to understand it. Ultimately, it requires that you accept that others have differing needs and desires than your own in life and spirituality is one of those things.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:34:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2012, 01:33:07 PM
They certainly do not. :mad:
Even if they're allowed to wear pleated pants during their rituals? :D
Not even then. :mad:
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
I said respectable. Slaughtering captured soldiers for Tiwaz, forming Thor's hammer out of the entrails of Christians, or ritual cannibalism to honor Perun isn't respectable. It was hideous, horrifying superstition.
Wow. I didn't realize that modern Pagans did that! Well, since you put it that... oh wait. They don't. <_<
Round here, they would almost certainly be better respected if they *did*. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:28:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
Every Wiccan I've met has been a total fruit loop.
Worse than the granola-birkenstocks-patchouli-hairy pits crowd, definitely.
My Wiccan sample size is only 3, but I agree.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
Basically you need to buy into spirituality to understand it, right? Do you have any idea how that just means it cannot possibly be true? Facts are what remain after we are no longer there.
And if facts were enough, there would be no religion.
Precisely. The metaphysical claims of religion are not true in the material world. They are only true in the fantasy in your mind.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:00:34 PM
For a hell of a lot of people, facts just aren't enough. And what you define as "true" isn't the same as what I define as "true". To me, truth is what I not only know, but what I feel, think, am, and can be. None of those fit your criteria, which is fine. That way of thinking works for you. It doesn't for me.
Facts are. Reality is usually not enough for most people, that is why there are religions. If spirituality is pretending that a fantasy is true then it is not only BS, but harmful BS.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:00:34 PM
There's a huge part of my life that doesn't rely strictly on facts. For me, my spirituality fills holes that straight facts leave. I don't think that requires that you buy into it to understand it. Ultimately, it requires that you accept that others have differing needs and desires than your own in life and spirituality is one of those things.
Again. What is spirituality?
I don't have to accept anybody else's delusions as relevant and I get to mock them if people pretend that their delusions should matter to me.
Fantasy is harmful? :huh:
Also what happens when we don't have all the facts? Is it surprising that people might speculate?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route.
Why the hell would that be true? Surely following your own religion is more serious than one someone else defines?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 02:09:48 PM
Fantasy is harmful? :huh:
No, relying on fantasy is.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 02:10:32 PM
Also what happens when we don't have all the facts? Is it surprising that people might speculate?
When we don't have all the fact we don't go around pretending that something not supported by the facts is true. Speculate all you want, just don't pretend to have knowledge based on ignorance.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:07:22 PM
Precisely. The metaphysical claims of religion are not true in the material world. They are only true in the fantasy in your mind.
Facts are. Reality is usually not enough for most people, that is why there are religions. If spirituality is pretending that a fantasy is true then it is not only BS, but harmful BS.
Something that is true within the mind is real within that scope.
Beliefs are things that are true within the mind.
If something can have real effects on the material world it is real in the material world.
The contents of the mind can affect the material world through the actions of the individual.
Ergo beliefs are materially real.
QED
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:15:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 02:09:48 PM
Fantasy is harmful? :huh:
No, relying on fantasy is.
But sometimes that is all you have.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:15:48 PM
When we don't have all the fact we don't go around pretending that something not supported by the facts is true. Speculate all you want, just don't pretend to have knowledge based on ignorance.
Except that you eventually have to act as though something is true - unless you are just going to stay paralyzed by not knowing. Mundane example - choosing to believe that one's spouse is not cheating on one. In many cases, it isn't really possible to be certain that such is the case but one either has to act as though that's true or end the relationship. Anything in between will just be needlessly painful.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:07:22 PM
Precisely. The metaphysical claims of religion are not true in the material world. They are only true in the fantasy in your mind.
If that's true, why is that bad? How do my mental gymnastics that help me lead a happier more fullfilled life matter to you in the least?
Quote
Facts are. Reality is usually not enough for most people, that is why there are religions. If spirituality is pretending that a fantasy is true then it is not only BS, but harmful BS.
Harmful? Pretending? My mental gymnastics to lead a better life are very real to me, and it does help guide me to being a better person. And it is my reality. Just as two witnesses seeing an accident tell two different stories, two people who live a similar life can do so very differently, having two very different "realities". Because it's not yours doesn't make mine any less real.
Quote
Again. What is spirituality?
Sprituality is believing that there there is guidance from the spirit or soul. It can be intuition, going with the heart, or following the direction set down by another to lead a life that helps build continuity with the soul. It's a recognition that the soul goes beyond matter and that it is just as important.
Quote
I don't have to accept anybody else's delusions as relevant and I get to mock them if people pretend that their delusions should matter to me.
Actually, yes, you're right, you do. But in doing so you close yourself off entirely from a different perspective of life and limits your personal horizons. It means that your experiences in life are that much more shallow and colorless. It also closes you off from a large portion of the population who won't deal with you deciding that their reality is flawed and yours is the only "right" one.
And I'll be honest. I don't have a lot of desire to interact with a small, petty tirant who believes that his reality is the only valid one.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 02:19:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:07:22 PM
Precisely. The metaphysical claims of religion are not true in the material world. They are only true in the fantasy in your mind.
Facts are. Reality is usually not enough for most people, that is why there are religions. If spirituality is pretending that a fantasy is true then it is not only BS, but harmful BS.
Something that is true within the mind is real within that scope.
Beliefs are things that are true within the mind.
If something can have real effects on the material world it is real in the material world.
The contents of the mind can affect the material world through the actions of the individual.
Ergo beliefs are materially real.
QED
That is putting it trivially.
First of all there are facts about your brain chemistry and wiring of your neurons which are true. These are your emotions and memories. They do have an effect on the outside world through your body and what it does. False beliefs can affect your emotions and memories but that does not make false beliefs true. Yes, they are real in the sense that the have consequences, but they are false in the sense that they do not fit with reality.
You may believe that you once ran a sub 4 hr marathon or you have always paid at least 14% on your taxes, but those beliefs are only real in the sense that they really are beliefs, not that the facts that you believe to be true actually are true.
You are conflating two different statements
"I believe that x = true"
and
"x = true"
both are beliefs that affect the outside world, but "x = true" is either true or not true independent of your belief or even your existence or ability to hold any belief at all.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 02:07:19 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 01:28:44 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 11, 2012, 01:27:51 PM
Every Wiccan I've met has been a total fruit loop.
Worse than the granola-birkenstocks-patchouli-hairy pits crowd, definitely.
My Wiccan sample size is only 3, but I agree.
Dude, that is 3 too many to come across in one's life.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:28:58 PM
Yes, they are real in the sense that the have consequences, but they are false in the sense that they do not fit with reality.
The fact that they have consequences make them part of reality.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:28:58 PM
You are conflating two different statements
"I believe that x = true"
and
"x = true"
both are beliefs that affect the outside world, but "x = true" is either true or not true independent of your belief or even your existence or ability to hold any belief at all.
I'm not conflating them. One has a truth value that is independent of belief and one has a truth value that is not. Both need to be accounted for. I do not hold to the belief that simply dismissing one of them makes it irrelevant. One might call that a fantasy.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 02:07:19 PM
My Wiccan sample size is only 3, but I agree.
My sample size is a bit bigger (probably 12-15), and none of them were very lovely people. That doesn't mean that I judge the entire religion based on it. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
Except that you eventually have to act as though something is true - unless you are just going to stay paralyzed by not knowing. Mundane example - choosing to believe that one's spouse is not cheating on one. In many cases, it isn't really possible to be certain that such is the case but one either has to act as though that's true or end the relationship. Anything in between will just be needlessly painful.
In that case you'll have to admit to yourself that it is a guess and not based on knowledge. Kierkegaard's leap of faith was to guess then live as if the guess were true. My leap of faith is to guess and proceed knowing that it is a guess.
To press the issue a little further; there will never be a situation where you have literally no facts and there will almost never arise a situation that your brain cannot analogize with some previous situation you experience yourself or have been informed of by others. In almost all cases of choice we are choosing between alternatives supported by differing sets of incomplete imperfect facts. We must use the facts we have rather than invent knowledge based on non-facts.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:33:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 02:07:19 PM
My Wiccan sample size is only 3, but I agree.
My sample size is a bit bigger (probably 12-15), and none of them were very lovely people. That doesn't mean that I judge the entire religion based on it. :P
It's good enough for me. Btw is it correct to even refer to it as one religion?
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:33:49 PM
In that case you'll have to admit to yourself that it is a guess and not based on knowledge. Kierkegaard's leap of faith was to guess then live as if the guess were true. My leap of faith is to guess and proceed knowing that it is a guess.
:huh:
That's pretty much how I live my life, too. My guess just includes an aspect of my spirituality, and yours doesn't. I have faith that my guess is as good as any, just like you do. So where is the problem?
T
Quoteo press the issue a little further; there will never be a situation where you have literally no facts and there will almost never arise a situation that your brain cannot analogize with some previous situation you experience yourself or have been informed of by others. In almost all cases of choice we are choosing between alternatives supported by differing sets of incomplete imperfect facts. We must use the facts we have rather than invent knowledge based on non-facts.
It seems to me that you just make a judgment call based on what you believe to be an incomplete imperfect fact and what's a non-fact, but then don't accept that others may choose differing answers.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 02:36:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:33:43 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 02:07:19 PM
My Wiccan sample size is only 3, but I agree.
My sample size is a bit bigger (probably 12-15), and none of them were very lovely people. That doesn't mean that I judge the entire religion based on it. :P
It's good enough for me. Btw is it correct to even refer to it as one religion?
Wiccanism is a specific set of requirements based on a specific set of rituals and guidance, so yes. That being said, there are a lot of people who claim to be Wiccan who don't adhere to those requirements, so don't really qualify as Wiccan, per se.
It's kind of like Catholics who believe in abortion rights, birth control, women's rights, and that confession is a joke. Sure, they're kind of Catholics, but not really.
Btw I had a fun conversation with my oldest brother (who is a lot more religiously conservative than I) a little while ago. I had run into a gal he used to date back in the day and I was telling him she still looked pretty young and that he ought to look her up.
He said he had talked to her fairly recently and had also found out that she was a witch.
I said, "Oh, you mean she *thinks* she's a witch."
He replied, "No, she's a witch."
I shot back, "That implies witchcraft is something real, rather than imagined."
He said, "Yes, I know. She's a witch."
Then I changed the subject, lest we get into a DORK-SIDED argument.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:21:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:07:22 PM
Precisely. The metaphysical claims of religion are not true in the material world. They are only true in the fantasy in your mind.
If that's true, why is that bad? How do my mental gymnastics that help me lead a happier more fullfilled life matter to you in the least?
The diabetic believes that sugar will not harm him, the HIV+ person believes he will not infect, the mother believes her children will go to heaven after she drowns them, the jihadi believes that his act of martyrdom will provide places in heaven for 20 of his closest relatives.
If you cannot see why these real-life examples of fantasy cause harm then I don't think anything can convince you.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:21:19 PM
Quote
Facts are. Reality is usually not enough for most people, that is why there are religions. If spirituality is pretending that a fantasy is true then it is not only BS, but harmful BS.
Harmful? Pretending? My mental gymnastics to lead a better life are very real to me, and it does help guide me to being a better person. And it is my reality. Just as two witnesses seeing an accident tell two different stories, two people who live a similar life can do so very differently, having two very different "realities". Because it's not yours doesn't make mine any less real.
Thats the tricky thing about reality, it is real. Reality shatters your fantasy when they are confronted every time (unless you start constructing convoluted religious or conspiracy theories to explain away the dissonance). There is only one reality. Your fantasy (or my fantasy) doesn't count. The only honest thing we can to is our best to make sure that our internal mental fantasies do not contradict reality.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:21:19 PM
Quote
Again. What is spirituality?
Sprituality is believing that there there is guidance from the spirit or soul. It can be intuition, going with the heart, or following the direction set down by another to lead a life that helps build continuity with the soul. It's a recognition that the soul goes beyond matter and that it is just as important.
We know the material mechanisms in the brain that generate such intuitions.
Where does this guidance come from? How can we know that source is reliable? How can we know there is such a thing as a soul? When does the soul start, what is the soul, why can changes in the brain change the person if the person is a soul?
If you are going to claim that there is such a thing as a soul you are going to have to give good answers to all of these questions.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:21:19 PM
Quote
I don't have to accept anybody else's delusions as relevant and I get to mock them if people pretend that their delusions should matter to me.
Actually, yes, you're right, you do. But in doing so you close yourself off entirely from a different perspective of life and limits your personal horizons. It means that your experiences in life are that much more shallow and colorless. It also closes you off from a large portion of the population who won't deal with you deciding that their reality is flawed and yours is the only "right" one.
And I'll be honest. I don't have a lot of desire to interact with a small, petty tirant who believes that his reality is the only valid one.
I don't close myself off from other perspectives, I just insist that your perspective is not pure invention on your part. I do not limit my personal horizons because I have a mechanism for abandoning cherished ideas which you do not. I test my ideas for truth and my perspectives for relevance.
Look, I want to live in a world where I am married to a blind-mute-nymphomaniac-brewery heiress, that belief can give me comfort and hope as well as give my life depth and colour. It just isn't true, my credit card will be rejected, I'll come home to an empty apartment rather than a mansion, my fridge will not be filled with beer and I will not get fantastic sex. The truth of your ideas matter. If you want to say that your ideas give you comfort, just don't pretend they are anything but fantasy.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 02:40:52 PM
Btw I had a fun conversation with my oldest brother (who is a lot more religiously conservative than I) a little while ago. I had run into a gal he used to date back in the day and I was telling him she still looked pretty young and that he ought to look her up.
He said he had talked to her fairly recently and had also found out that she was a witch.
I said, "Oh, you mean she *thinks* she's a witch."
He replied, "No, she's a witch."
I shot back, "That implies witchcraft is something real, rather than imagined."
He said, "Yes, I know. She's a witch."
Then I changed the subject, lest we get into a DORK-SIDED argument.
The whole witchcraft thing is pretty interesting to me, especially given my take on differing realities.
I mean, is witchcraft just moving the table across the room without touching it, turning princes into frogs, etc? Or can it be altering a person's perspective on things via some kind of trance? Obviously, the first can't happen no matter how much you want to try to believe that it does. But the second can, kind of. I mean, it can't change facts, but it can change how a person reacts to the world, which can make real changes happen. In which case witchcraft is kind of real. But my natural aversion to saying things like that because of the first perspective makes me hesitant to argue it in any real fashion.
Take Tarot cards, for instance. I do not believe that Tarot dictate the future. However, I do believe that they can guide a person to make different choices for themselves. So, in that way, they're an effective tool for the finding out the future of a person. So long as the individual believes what he or she is seeing/hearing, it works.
It's very confusing for me, because my natural inclination is to mock this kind of thing, but when I really think about it, I can't. Those things are no different than my own beliefs at the core of it.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 02:19:17 PM
If something can have real effects on the material world it is real in the material world.
This is where you overstepped.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 02:32:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:28:58 PM
You are conflating two different statements
"I believe that x = true"
and
"x = true"
both are beliefs that affect the outside world, but "x = true" is either true or not true independent of your belief or even your existence or ability to hold any belief at all.
I'm not conflating them. One has a truth value that is independent of belief and one has a truth value that is not. Both need to be accounted for. I do not hold to the belief that simply dismissing one of them makes it irrelevant. One might call that a fantasy.
No, both statement have truth value independent of belief. One is a statement about a fact about x, the other is a statment about a fact about your state of belief. No belief is required for either statement to be true or false. They are either true or false independent of my belief in their truth or falseness.
The only fact that is relevant about a belief is it's existence. Belief has no effect on truth.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:33:49 PM
In that case you'll have to admit to yourself that it is a guess and not based on knowledge. Kierkegaard's leap of faith was to guess then live as if the guess were true. My leap of faith is to guess and proceed knowing that it is a guess.
:huh:
That's pretty much how I live my life, too. My guess just includes an aspect of my spirituality, and yours doesn't. I have faith that my guess is as good as any, just like you do. So where is the problem?
Which. Mine or Kirkegaard's?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:38:15 PM
QuoteTo press the issue a little further; there will never be a situation where you have literally no facts and there will almost never arise a situation that your brain cannot analogize with some previous situation you experience yourself or have been informed of by others. In almost all cases of choice we are choosing between alternatives supported by differing sets of incomplete imperfect facts. We must use the facts we have rather than invent knowledge based on non-facts.
It seems to me that you just make a judgment call based on what you believe to be an incomplete imperfect fact and what's a non-fact, but then don't accept that others may choose differing answers.
How you use your facts is not the point here. We can have the same facts and come to different conclusions. Non-facts are units of information that are not facts.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
Look, I want to live in a world where I am married to a blind-mute-nymphomaniac-brewery heiress, that belief can give me comfort and hope as well as give my life depth and colour. It just isn't true, my credit card will be rejected, I'll come home to an empty apartment rather than a mansion, my fridge will not be filled with beer and I will not get fantastic sex. The truth of your ideas matter. If you want to say that your ideas give you comfort, just don't pretend they are anything but fantasy.
You're refusing to see the good for the bad. All you can focus on is the negative affects of religion, and you've transcribed that to mean that everything that has to do with religion and spirituality is wrong, bad, and worthless (or worse, damaging) fantasy.
Spirituality made Mother Theresa save millions of lives. It helped Mahatma Ghandi direct a nation and a world toward peace. On the smaller scale, it guides my ideals and my ethics to be a positive, caring, understanding individual. It's helped me face things that might have destroyed another person. It's kept me sane during insane times, and it's helped me become the person that I am. It works in a very positive way for me, personally, every day of my life. That is enough for me to be perfectly happy with my trumped up fantasies and chemically-induced intuition.
It's also taught me to be accepting of other perspectives, seeing beauty where before I may have found confusion or disgust. Your way of looking at all of this has caused you to only see the negative, unhappy aspects of life. How can that possibly persuade anyone that your reality is the better one?
Quote from: Malthus on October 11, 2012, 08:52:14 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 08:21:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 05:33:42 AM
Meanwhile, a pregnant teenage girl died in Poland of an intestine cancer because doctors refused to perform chemotherapy on her because, being devout Catholics, they thought it would be tantamount to an abortion.
Well, it's aborted now, isn't it? <_<
I'm seriously starting to become more and more like Viking when it comes to religion, if only because of how the most popular religions abuse women. We seriously need a good push toward goddess-based religions to take hold if only for the sake of women.
Religion isn't either the problem or the solution. The problem is that the folks who happen to follow these particular religions tend to be from conservative societies. They follow religions and they follow traditional ways concerning the status of women for the same reason - because they are, basically, from a backward, medieval-style culture. The world has moved on and they have not.
Replacing their current religions with women-friendly woo cannot solve the problem - or rather, if you could change their culture to be more modern in its attitude towards women, why not simply change it to one that lacks woo altogether?
We had this discussion many times before so in short: any religion espouses the GIGO fallacy. So it is bad in the end.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:48:49 PM
The whole witchcraft thing is pretty interesting to me, especially given my take on differing realities.
I mean, is witchcraft just moving the table across the room without touching it, turning princes into frogs, etc? Or can it be altering a person's perspective on things via some kind of trance? Obviously, the first can't happen no matter how much you want to try to believe that it does. But the second can, kind of. I mean, it can't change facts, but it can change how a person reacts to the world, which can make real changes happen. In which case witchcraft is kind of real. But my natural aversion to saying things like that because of the first perspective makes me hesitant to argue it in any real fashion.
It's still imagined IMO.
QuoteTake Tarot cards, for instance. I do not believe that Tarot dictate the future. However, I do believe that they can guide a person to make different choices for themselves. So, in that way, they're an effective tool for the finding out the future of a person. So long as the individual believes what he or she is seeing/hearing, it works.
Okay, so it can randomize decisions. Doesn't make it any more real to me. Stuff like that (like scapulancy) used to have an actual real value (randomizing hunting areas, thus preventing over-hunting) but I don't see value it today's world.
QuoteIt's very confusing for me, because my natural inclination is to mock this kind of thing, but when I really think about it, I can't. Those things are no different than my own beliefs at the core of it.
I'm okay with mocking it. It's not like anyone mocking my religion in return would bother me any.
What can be alarming to non-religious people is the insistence of many religious people that human children playing in the sun have little or no intrinsic value. That they have value only if the Sky-Father made them.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:33:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 02:20:59 PM
Except that you eventually have to act as though something is true - unless you are just going to stay paralyzed by not knowing. Mundane example - choosing to believe that one's spouse is not cheating on one. In many cases, it isn't really possible to be certain that such is the case but one either has to act as though that's true or end the relationship. Anything in between will just be needlessly painful.
In that case you'll have to admit to yourself that it is a guess and not based on knowledge. Kierkegaard's leap of faith was to guess then live as if the guess were true. My leap of faith is to guess and proceed knowing that it is a guess.
To press the issue a little further; there will never be a situation where you have literally no facts and there will almost never arise a situation that your brain cannot analogize with some previous situation you experience yourself or have been informed of by others. In almost all cases of choice we are choosing between alternatives supported by differing sets of incomplete imperfect facts. We must use the facts we have rather than invent knowledge based on non-facts.
Except that weighing heavily into a decision would be the thoughts of others. If many people I know are Christians, why wouldn't that be a point in favor of inclining me to believe in the Christian god? Who am I to reject out of hand what so many of my peers see so easily?
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 03:00:33 PM
It's still imagined IMO.
Sure, but so is taking communion, unless you truly believe that you're eating the body and blood of Christ. It has an affect on you, though, or at least it did for me. I may have never believed that I was eating and drinking Christ, but I did feel as though I was part of a community who believed in his teachings. All imagination, really, but no less important to my faith at the time.
Quote
Okay, so it can randomize decisions. Doesn't make it any more real to me. Stuff like that (like scapulancy) used to have an actual real value (randomizing hunting areas, thus preventing over-hunting) but I don't see value it today's world.
But if it helps someone make a positive change in their life, isn't that an actual real value? Would it make it more of an actual real value if that person then went on to build a hospital for children, or to work harder to find a cure for cancer? At what point does it become more real and more valued?
Quote
I'm okay with mocking it. It's not like anyone mocking my religion in return would bother me any.
That's perfectly fair, I just don't see the point. Going back to value, where is the value in judging how another finds peace?
I find peace through imperialist war.
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 03:00:29 PM
We had this discussion many times before so in short: any religion espouses the GIGO fallacy. So it is bad in the end.
So does being gay. So straighten up.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2012, 03:07:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 11, 2012, 03:00:29 PM
We had this discussion many times before so in short: any religion espouses the GIGO fallacy. So it is bad in the end.
So does being gay. So straighten up.
According to Seedy it is a key part of one's individuality.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
Look, I want to live in a world where I am married to a blind-mute-nymphomaniac-brewery heiress, that belief can give me comfort and hope as well as give my life depth and colour. It just isn't true, my credit card will be rejected, I'll come home to an empty apartment rather than a mansion, my fridge will not be filled with beer and I will not get fantastic sex. The truth of your ideas matter. If you want to say that your ideas give you comfort, just don't pretend they are anything but fantasy.
You're refusing to see the good for the bad. All you can focus on is the negative affects of religion, and you've transcribed that to mean that everything that has to do with religion and spirituality is wrong, bad, and worthless (or worse, damaging) fantasy.
Spirituality made Mother Theresa save millions of lives.
Source?
Sisters of Charity ran hospices giving paleative care to the terminally ill. Mother Teresa saved precisely zero lives.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
It helped Mahatma Ghandi direct a nation and a world toward peace.
Source?
Mahatam Gandhi directed a nation peacefully towards independence. His teaching and behaviour led directly to the greatest case of ethnic cleansing in human history and the second or third largest genocide. His influence in economics guaranteed that india remain poor and horrible until the end of the cold war. He didn't do what you said.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
On the smaller scale, it guides my ideals and my ethics to be a positive, caring, understanding individual. It's helped me face things that might have destroyed another person. It's kept me sane during insane times, and it's helped me become the person that I am. It works in a very positive way for me, personally, every day of my life. That is enough for me to be perfectly happy with my trumped up fantasies and chemically-induced intuition.
I don't need non-facts to guide my ideals and ethics. I don't need non-facts to know to respect my fellow man, I don't need non facts to realize that mutilating foreskins and earlobes of infants is wrong. My rejection of non-facts have made me a better person because it takes away my excuses. I am responsible for my own actions and I cannot justify them with feelings, emotions or vicariously transfer blame or responsibility to anybody but myself.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 02:58:03 PM
It's also taught me to be accepting of other perspectives, seeing beauty where before I may have found confusion or disgust. Your way of looking at all of this has caused you to only see the negative, unhappy aspects of life. How can that possibly persuade anyone that your reality is the better one?
I have learned to accept other perspectives only if they are true and have utility. I am not prevented in seeing beauty at all since I find it in truth. I use truth to confront confusion and disgust and see my duty to understand and act in those cases rather than sit idly by. I see the positive and happy aspects of life in truth. False positiveness is negative and false happiness is unhappiness; you may just not know it yet.
My reality is the better one because my sole purpose in life is to remove the word "My" from in front of it.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 03:05:31 PM
Sure, but so is taking communion, unless you truly believe that you're eating the body and blood of Christ. It has an affect on you, though, or at least it did for me. I may have never believed that I was eating and drinking Christ, but I did feel as though I was part of a community who believed in his teachings. All imagination, really, but no less important to my faith at the time.
Methodists do communion, but we don't do the transubstantiation thing.
Quote
But if it helps someone make a positive change in their life, isn't that an actual real value? Would it make it more of an actual real value if that person then went on to build a hospital for children, or to work harder to find a cure for cancer? At what point does it become more real and more valued?
I guess if it always had positive outcomes, sure. But I'm a bit, ehm, skeptical on how often that is the case.
Quote
That's perfectly fair, I just don't see the point. Going back to value, where is the value in judging how another finds peace?
It's not like I go out of my way to judge people like that. It's just when it's presented to me. I'd prefer to let wiccans/pagans/whatever do their own thing as long as they keep to themselves about it.
OMG DERSPIESS THATS WHAT WE ATHEISTS THINK ABOUT YER CHRISTIANITY :D
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
I don't need non-facts to guide my ideals and ethics. I don't need non-facts to know to respect my fellow man, I don't need non facts to realize that mutilating foreskins and earlobes of infants is wrong. My rejection of non-facts have made me a better person because it takes away my excuses. I am responsible for my own actions and I cannot justify them with feelings, emotions or vicariously transfer blame or responsibility to anybody but myself.
I've never discounted that this works for you. I'm not sure why you persist in claiming that my way of living shouldn't work for me.
Quote
I have learned to accept other perspectives only if they are true and have utility. I am not prevented in seeing beauty at all since I find it in truth. I use truth to confront confusion and disgust and see my duty to understand and act in those cases rather than sit idly by. I see the positive and happy aspects of life in truth. False positiveness is negative and false happiness is unhappiness; you may just not know it yet.
My reality is the better one because my sole purpose in life is to remove the word "My" from in front of it.
And yet from your perspective, your method of living , to you, is the only way to live, making it wholly selfish.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
Mahatam Gandhi directed a nation peacefully towards independence. His teaching and behaviour led directly to the greatest case of ethnic cleansing in human history and the second or third largest genocide. His influence in economics guaranteed that india remain poor and horrible until the end of the cold war. He didn't do what you said.
His hagiography won critical acclaim and was directed by a guy who was in the Great Escape. That's more than I can say about your hagiography.
I have learned to accept other perspectives only if they are true or have utility.
That's what makes me better than Viking, because I understand that religion is important to keep the proles down.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
I don't need non-facts to guide my ideals and ethics. I don't need non-facts to know to respect my fellow man, I don't need non facts to realize that mutilating foreskins and earlobes of infants is wrong.
Those aren't facts. Those are values--non-facts, and hence harmful fantasies by your arguments. I'm not saying that you have to have religious beliefs in order to have morals or ethics, but you have to believe in
something, because the alternative would be to do nothing except to do anything you can get away with, no matter how vile or harmful to others, if it's in your self-interest or gives you pleasure.
QuoteMy rejection of non-facts have made me a better person because it takes away my excuses. I am responsible for my own actions and I cannot justify them with feelings, emotions or vicariously transfer blame or responsibility to anybody but myself. [/b]
Religious belief doesn 't take away one's responsibility for one's own actions. And lots of criminals blame society for their actions without holding to any religious beliefs.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 03:27:49 PM
I guess if it always had positive outcomes, sure. But I'm a bit, ehm, skeptical on how often that is the case.
It doesn't when people who are less than honest use these methods against another. But one can claim the same of anything, not just Paganism or even just religion. When it has positive outcomes, it has value, imo. Therefore, the process of doing a Tarot reading can have value, even if it doesn't have magical qualities, per se.
Quote
It's not like I go out of my way to judge people like that. It's just when it's presented to me. I'd prefer to let wiccans/pagans/whatever do their own thing as long as they keep to themselves about it.
OMG DERSPIESS THATS WHAT WE ATHEISTS THINK ABOUT YER CHRISTIANITY :D
It's the bolded part that I don't understand. Why does it matter to you if they openly worship or practice their faith? It sounds an awful lot like "I don't care if they're queer so long as they don't act like it." Should they never acknowledge that they aren't like you so that you can be safe in your coccoon of your version of normalcy?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 03:28:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
I don't need non-facts to guide my ideals and ethics. I don't need non-facts to know to respect my fellow man, I don't need non facts to realize that mutilating foreskins and earlobes of infants is wrong. My rejection of non-facts have made me a better person because it takes away my excuses. I am responsible for my own actions and I cannot justify them with feelings, emotions or vicariously transfer blame or responsibility to anybody but myself.
I've never discounted that this works for you. I'm not sure why you persist in claiming that my way of living shouldn't work for me.
I'm not saying it shouldn't work for you, I'm just saying it is untrue and will eventually come into conflict with reality. You are the one telling me that I live a life without joy, happiness or meaning. That just isn't the case.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 03:28:28 PM
Quote
I have learned to accept other perspectives only if they are true and have utility. I am not prevented in seeing beauty at all since I find it in truth. I use truth to confront confusion and disgust and see my duty to understand and act in those cases rather than sit idly by. I see the positive and happy aspects of life in truth. False positiveness is negative and false happiness is unhappiness; you may just not know it yet.
My reality is the better one because my sole purpose in life is to remove the word "My" from in front of it.
And yet from your perspective, your method of living , to you, is the only way to live, making it wholly selfish.
WTF? I wonder if you are reading what I write. This has nothing to do with selfishness. My acceptance of an idea is mediated only by it's truth value, if that truth makes my life uncomfortable I must deal with it. Your acceptance of an idea is mediated by the comfort it gives you.
I ask you, which is more selfish? Is my putting truth as the highest ideal more selfish than your putting your own comfort as the highest ideal?
You have this the wrong way round, I am not trying to force my arbitrary truth on the world, I am trying to force the world on my arbitrary truth.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 03:35:35 PM
It's the bolded part that I don't understand. Why does it matter to you if they openly worship or practice their faith?
For starters I'm generally uneasy about being showy about religion in general. For me it's more of a private thing. Even people in my own church make me feel uncomfortable if they make a big display about it.
But to go further I'll flat-out admit I dislike wiccanism/paganism.
QuoteIt sounds an awful lot like "I don't care if they're queer so long as they don't act like it."
:shutup:
QuoteShould they never acknowledge that they aren't like you so that you can be safe in your coccoon of your version of normalcy?
Yeah, kinda.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:14:34 PM
Mahatam Gandhi directed a nation peacefully towards independence. His teaching and behaviour led directly to the greatest case of ethnic cleansing in human history and the second or third largest genocide. His influence in economics guaranteed that india remain poor and horrible until the end of the cold war. He didn't do what you said.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:44:56 PM
I'm not saying it shouldn't work for you, I'm just saying it is untrue and will eventually come into conflict with reality. You are the one telling me that I live a life without joy, happiness or meaning. That just isn't the case.
I never said that you didn't have joy, happiness or meaning. I said that you're missing a part of life that I am not. I also said that by only focusing on the negatives of religion you are missing all of the wonderful things that it's accomplished.
Quote
WTF? I wonder if you are reading what I write. This has nothing to do with selfishness. My acceptance of an idea is mediated only by it's truth value, if that truth makes my life uncomfortable I must deal with it. Your acceptance of an idea is mediated by the comfort it gives you.
I ask you, which is more selfish? Is my putting truth as the highest ideal more selfish than your putting your own comfort as the highest ideal?
You have this the wrong way round, I am not trying to force my arbitrary truth on the world, I am trying to force the world on my arbitrary truth.
By declaring that your view is the only "true" view, you are selfishly trying to force everyone else to live as you do, regardless of the vast benefits we derive by living differently. And please don't pretend that your view of the world doesn't give you comfort, because it obviously does. Not only does it give you comfort, but it also seems to provide you with a superiority complex over all of those who are handicapped by believing in religion.
I acknowledge that you have a valid world view, that it obviously works well for you, and that there doesn't appear to be a need to change it, even though it is very contrary to my own world view. You do not accord me the same respect. Which is more arrogant, especially since you've admitted that we're all, really, just guessing here?
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
No, both statement have truth value independent of belief. One is a statement about a fact about x, the other is a statment about a fact about your state of belief. No belief is required for either statement to be true or false. They are either true or false independent of my belief in their truth or falseness.
The only fact that is relevant about a belief is it's existence. Belief has no effect on truth.
:huh: Are you claiming that the truth of the statement "I believe x" is independent of whether or not I, in fact, believe x?
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 03:46:46 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 03:35:35 PM
It's the bolded part that I don't understand. Why does it matter to you if they openly worship or practice their faith?
For starters I'm generally uneasy about being showy about religion in general. For me it's more of a private thing. Even people in my own church make me feel uncomfortable if they make a big display about it.
But to go further I'll flat-out admit I dislike wiccanism/paganism.
QuoteIt sounds an awful lot like "I don't care if they're queer so long as they don't act like it."
:shutup:
QuoteShould they never acknowledge that they aren't like you so that you can be safe in your coccoon of your version of normalcy?
Yeah, kinda.
Well, okay then. At least you recognize where it comes from and own it. Can't really fault you for that. :hug:
Quote
Coming from your background, I would think you would be a little more understanding (and certainly less scathing) about alternative religions from the The Big Three. Surely you recognize that people have a right to find their own way without having to bend to what's most common or understood or known.
:lol:
Let me divulge a little bit of my "background."
My first memories of a religion are of Judaism. I went to a local Jewish pre-school. Judaism was one of my first characteristic obsessions. The school was right next to a Synagogue. Some of my first memories are of the building-I remember walking in to talk to a seemingly ancient Rabbi, staring at the collection of art on the wall besides the Synagogue, asking exuberance questions on the Tanakh and trying to find similarities between my friend's Judaism and my semi-Christianity.
From a very, very early age I was far more enamored with Judaism than with Mormonism. I once broke a Minorah in a store because I thought it was stupid that, being Mormons, we didn't even properly celebrate Christmas, so there was no reason we couldn't celebrate Hanukkah, what I assumed was a more ancient holiday than Christmas. The Mormon dietary laws struck me as stupid-the Old Testament specifically forbade ham but allowed wine, but my parents were silly and did the opposite. A part of this was, as you no doubt guessed, motivated by a childhood urge to conform-I didn't really enjoy being the foot-taller blond gentile in my class, and hated that I had to leave after Kindergarten. I remembered talking about the Bible and real, ancient tradition in class every day, and I
fucking loved it. My teachers still remembered me as "the blonde kid who asked a lot of questions on the Torah." The spirit of scholarly pursuit and inquisitiveness was infectious.
My first memories of Mormonism are almost all negative. One day in Sunday School when I was about 6, my teacher explained to me that Joseph Smith was born in America, and that Mormons didn't come over with the Mayflower. I actually asked my teacher "Wasn't Joseph Smith lying, then?", because I already had a bunch of kid's books on Archaeology that didn't gel with Mormonism. The songs were stupid. The Church was hideous, and smelled of cleaning supplies. The people were boring, and the classes were all brainwashing rather than attempts to interact with religious texts.
Negative opinion turned to hatred when I was about 9, and my dad explained to me the then-current controversy of Mormons baptizing Holocaust victims. The idea that the gift of 5,000 years of tradition-of beauty, art, scholarship and culture-would be
written off after they had died for their faith filled me with such a wave of disgust that I started screaming.
15 years later, and it's still a source of deep personal shame that at some point all of my ancestors abandoned the faith of
Pilgrim's Progress,
Paradise Lost and good, sensible Upstate New York Puritan values for a book that can charitably be described as sub-par Conan the Barbarian fanfiction. I have
zero respect for Mormonism as a faith and the entire Mormon religious hierarchy. It's a complete perversion of Christianity, and nearly completely devoid of intellectual and cultural heft. The Yankee Protestantism my ancestors abandoned gave the world
Moby-Dick, while Mormonism has given the world John McNaughton and Stephen Covey. Mind you, Neopaganism has given the world
less than Mormonism by any metric.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 02:52:00 PM
No, both statement have truth value independent of belief. One is a statement about a fact about x, the other is a statment about a fact about your state of belief. No belief is required for either statement to be true or false. They are either true or false independent of my belief in their truth or falseness.
The only fact that is relevant about a belief is it's existence. Belief has no effect on truth.
:huh: Are you claiming that the truth of the statement "I believe x" is independent of whether or not I, in fact, believe x?
No, I'm saying the statement "I believe x" is independent of the fact "x = true".
How the hell do you interact with a religious text in a way that's even remotely suitable for children?
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:59:10 PM
No, I'm saying the statement "I believe x" is independent of the fact "x = true".
:huh: Of course it is. How does that have anything to do with what I said?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 03:57:25 PM
Quote
Coming from your background, I would think you would be a little more understanding (and certainly less scathing) about alternative religions from the The Big Three. Surely you recognize that people have a right to find their own way without having to bend to what's most common or understood or known.
:lol:
Let me divulge a little bit of my "background."
My first memories of a religion are of Judaism. I went to a local Jewish pre-school. Judaism was one of my first characteristic obsessions. The school was right next to a Synagogue. Some of my first memories are of the building-I remember walking in to talk to a seemingly ancient Rabbi, staring at the collection of art on the wall besides the Synagogue, asking exuberance questions on the Tanakh and trying to find similarities between my friend's Judaism and my semi-Christianity.
From a very, very early age I was far more enamored with Judaism than with Mormonism. I once broke a Minorah in a store because I thought it was stupid that, being Mormons, we didn't even properly celebrate Christmas, so there was no reason we couldn't celebrate Hanukkah, what I assumed was a more ancient holiday than Christmas. The Mormon dietary laws struck me as stupid-the Old Testament specifically forbade ham but allowed wine, but my parents were silly and did the opposite. A part of this was, as you no doubt guessed, motivated by a childhood urge to conform-I didn't really enjoy being the foot-taller blond gentile in my class, and hated that I had to leave after Kindergarten. I remembered talking about the Bible and real, ancient tradition in class every day, and I fucking loved it. My teachers still remembered me as "the blonde kid who asked a lot of questions on the Torah." The spirit of scholarly pursuit and inquisitiveness was infectious.
My first memories of Mormonism are almost all negative. One day in Sunday School when I was about 6, my teacher explained to me that Joseph Smith was born in America, and that Mormons didn't come over with the Mayflower. I actually asked my teacher "Wasn't Joseph Smith lying, then?", because I already had a bunch of kid's books on Archaeology that didn't gel with Mormonism. The songs were stupid. The Church was hideous, and smelled of cleaning supplies. The people were boring, and the classes were all brainwashing rather than attempts to interact with religious texts.
Negative opinion turned to hatred when I was about 9, and my dad explained to me the then-current controversy of Mormons baptizing Holocaust victims. The idea that the gift of 5,000 years of tradition-of beauty, art, scholarship and culture-would be written off after they had died for their faith filled me with such a wave of disgust that I started screaming.
15 years later, and it's still a source of deep personal shame that at some point all of my ancestors abandoned the faith of Pilgrim's Progress, Paradise Lost and good, sensible Upstate New York Puritan values for a book that can charitably be described as sub-par Conan the Barbarian fanfiction. I have zero respect for Mormonism as a faith and the entire Mormon religious hierarchy. It's a complete perversion of Christianity, and nearly completely devoid of intellectual and cultural heft. The Yankee Protestantism my ancestors abandoned gave the world Moby-Dick, while Mormonism has given the world John McNaughton and Stephen Covey. Mind you, Neopaganism has given the world less than Mormonism by any metric.
:mellow:
I know. You've told us all of that before. It's why I said what I said, specifically the bolded part. Your background was one of breaking free from that which you were taught was law, and finding your own path. I mistakenly assumed that you might recognize that as a valid option in life for others.
Quote from: The Brain on October 11, 2012, 04:00:07 PM
How the hell do you interact with a religious text in a way that's even remotely suitable for children?
:hmm:
Keep in mind, childhood memory is malleable, and constantly nostalgic. It probably helped that I was stuck in Sunday School until I was about 16, while by 1st Grade I was out of the Jewish school.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 04:03:15 PM
I mistakenly assumed that you might recognize that as a valid option in life for others.
If they make the right choices. :secret:
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 03:51:25 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:44:56 PM
I'm not saying it shouldn't work for you, I'm just saying it is untrue and will eventually come into conflict with reality. You are the one telling me that I live a life without joy, happiness or meaning. That just isn't the case.
I never said that you didn't have joy, happiness or meaning. I said that you're missing a part of life that I am not. I also said that by only focusing on the negatives of religion you are missing all of the wonderful things that it's accomplished.
Yes, I'm missing out on the joy and happiness I could get from believing that I had a winning lottery ticket or a 2 kg diamond buried in my back yard. I refer you to what Russel said about the happiness of drunks.
Quote"The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 03:51:25 PM
Quote
WTF? I wonder if you are reading what I write. This has nothing to do with selfishness. My acceptance of an idea is mediated only by it's truth value, if that truth makes my life uncomfortable I must deal with it. Your acceptance of an idea is mediated by the comfort it gives you.
I ask you, which is more selfish? Is my putting truth as the highest ideal more selfish than your putting your own comfort as the highest ideal?
You have this the wrong way round, I am not trying to force my arbitrary truth on the world, I am trying to force the world on my arbitrary truth.
By declaring that your view is the only "true" view, you are selfishly trying to force everyone else to live as you do, regardless of the vast benefits we derive by living differently. And please don't pretend that your view of the world doesn't give you comfort, because it obviously does. Not only does it give you comfort, but it also seems to provide you with a superiority complex over all of those who are handicapped by believing in religion.
I acknowledge that you have a valid world view, that it obviously works well for you, and that there doesn't appear to be a need to change it, even though it is very contrary to my own world view. You do not accord me the same respect. Which is more arrogant, especially since you've admitted that we're all, really, just guessing here?
I'm not declaring my view as true. I'm doing the precise opposite. I want to replace as many as possible of my false beliefs with true ones. If I accepted your facts as true my world view would change. If I thought some other world view more more true than mine I'd change my world view.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 04:02:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 03:59:10 PM
No, I'm saying the statement "I believe x" is independent of the fact "x = true".
:huh: Of course it is. How does that have anything to do with what I said?
then why did you continue to argue with me when I kept repeating this?
jeeze, you people need to start asking yourselves "what did he mean when he wrote this?" before writing long posts telling me I'm wrong...
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 01:46:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route. But that's hard, and some people would like some flaky faith they just made up that corresponds to their political beliefs. Also, Indo-European paganism tended to be rather racist (which what attracted extreme right wing groups to in the 19th and 20th century).
Religion isn't suppose to be easy. It's about sacrifice, restraint, self-discipline, yes even scholarship. It's hard. Take Catholicism for instance, you ever try to be good Catholic? I mean, really delve deep into what it means, and practice it? It's fucking hard. Hell it's nigh impossible. That's part of the point. You draw strength from it, because you work at it. It's making you stronger.
Just curious. Beyond the white-washed version you see in movies and in the odd newspaper article about flaky folks in the woods, what do you actually know about any Pagan religions? Do you have any idea whatsoever is required by any of them in order to be on the "correct" path for themselves? Because from what I've read there is no easy path, especially when they're trying to figure it all out for themselves.
As for "if someone were really serious about paganism", you say that as if these people have just gone, "I think I'm going to be pagan!" rather than that they found a spiritual path that resonnated with them and they decided to look more into it. Most Pagans know a good bit about the Eastern religions - probably far more than you do - and have incorporated a lot of those systems into their own. Meditation is a prime example.
Yes, actually I do. I met several, and I've taken courses on classical culture (which included religion). I've even read books by neo-pagans. So yeah, I'm familiar with this bullshit. If you are finding "a spiritual path that resonated" with you personally, or found a "correct path" for yourself, then it's not really hard is it? You are finding a path of things you want to do or want to believe. Take Wicca for example. It's no coincidence that majority of it's practitioners are feminists. Since Wicca is predicated on the idea there was was an ancient prehistoric pro-socialist matriarchy, people inclined toward feminism would find this idea attractive. They feel empowered by it, they want to believe it. Even if it's not true. I believe the term is "ennobling lie". Most of the pagans I've met don't know shit. One chick claimed that the Catholic Church murdered 20 million witches during the middle ages (which would be about the population of 18th century France). It's actually a common idea that bounces around pagan circles. It's bullshit of course (it's based on really bizarre methodology), but it "resonates" with them.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:46:54 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route. But that's hard, and some people would like some flaky faith they just made up that corresponds to their political beliefs. Also, Indo-European paganism tended to be rather racist (which what attracted extreme right wing groups to in the 19th and 20th century).
Religion isn't suppose to be easy. It's about sacrifice, restraint, self-discipline, yes even scholarship. It's hard. Take Catholicism for instance, you ever try to be good Catholic? I mean, really delve deep into what it means, and practice it? It's fucking hard. Hell it's nigh impossible. That's part of the point. You draw strength from it, because you work at it. It's making you stronger.
Sometimes I get tempted to reply to Raz, but then I remember who and what Raz is, the thing is none of the above is true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddAi8FF3F4
That's because you know what you are. You are a hateful man. You hate religion. You have said on this board (and then got angry when I pointed it out and said you never did say it).
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
If you are finding "a spiritual path that resonated" with you personally, or found a "correct path" for yourself, then it's not really hard is it? You are finding a path of things you want to do or want to believe.
Which is kind of what happens with most organized religions anyway. I mean it isn't as free-form as there is a lot of historical background, but still not everyone chooses to believe the same things. Just look at the multitude of denominations of Christianity.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route.
Why the hell would that be true? Surely following your own religion is more serious than one someone else defines?
Cause it's the height of hubris? "I know better then anyone else." It's this kind of thinking that has people rejecting vaccines cause they aren't "natural" or whatever.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
If you are finding "a spiritual path that resonated" with you personally, or found a "correct path" for yourself, then it's not really hard is it? You are finding a path of things you want to do or want to believe.
Which is kind of what happens with most organized religions anyway. I mean it isn't as free-form as there is a lot of historical background, but still not everyone chooses to believe the same things. Just look at the multitude of denominations of Christianity.
I know, it's a shame ain't it?
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 04:14:44 PM
then why did you continue to argue with me when I kept repeating this?
Because I assumed you were arguing rather than just repeating your catechism. Silly me.
Quote
jeeze, you people need to start asking yourselves "what did he mean when he wrote this?" before writing long posts telling me I'm wrong...
I never said you were wrong about that. I said it was irrelevant.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 02:40:52 PM
Btw I had a fun conversation with my oldest brother (who is a lot more religiously conservative than I) a little while ago. I had run into a gal he used to date back in the day and I was telling him she still looked pretty young and that he ought to look her up.
He said he had talked to her fairly recently and had also found out that she was a witch.
I said, "Oh, you mean she *thinks* she's a witch."
He replied, "No, she's a witch."
I shot back, "That implies witchcraft is something real, rather than imagined."
He said, "Yes, I know. She's a witch."
Then I changed the subject, lest we get into a DORK-SIDED argument.
Was her name Christine O'Donnell?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
That's because you know what you are. You are a hateful man. You hate religion. You have said on this board (and then got angry when I pointed it out and said you never did say it).
A quick search of posts that contain the word hate by Viking turn up with posts where he quoted you saying that he hates religion.
Closest I could find is this flippant comment by him: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5358.msg273758/topicseen.html#msg273758
Quote from: Viking on June 18, 2011, 03:26:30 AM
Why do I hate religion? Well, duh....
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:02:00 PM
http://historyofphilosophy.net/
I love this podcast.
Me to. Along with History of English/History of England/Hardcore History are my four currently running favorite podcasts.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:19:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
If you are finding "a spiritual path that resonated" with you personally, or found a "correct path" for yourself, then it's not really hard is it? You are finding a path of things you want to do or want to believe.
Which is kind of what happens with most organized religions anyway. I mean it isn't as free-form as there is a lot of historical background, but still not everyone chooses to believe the same things. Just look at the multitude of denominations of Christianity.
I know, it's a shame ain't it?
I don't think so. I think people choosing what they feel like believing move us further from being dominated by organized religion. I don't see an issue with that. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:20:26 PM
Cause it's the height of hubris? "I know better then anyone else." It's this kind of thinking that has people rejecting vaccines cause they aren't "natural" or whatever.
I don't know if I'd go that far. For some, organized religions are the answer, even if their proponents claim to know better than everyone else.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:24:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
That's because you know what you are. You are a hateful man. You hate religion. You have said on this board (and then got angry when I pointed it out and said you never did say it).
A quick search of posts that contain the word hate by Viking turn up with posts where he quoted you saying that he hates religion.
Closest I could find is this flippant comment by him: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,5358.msg273758/topicseen.html#msg273758
Quote from: Viking on June 18, 2011, 03:26:30 AM
Why do I hate religion? Well, duh....
I found two. That one, and another. I brought them up recently I believe.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
I don't think so. I think people choosing what they feel like believing move us further from being dominated by organized religion. I don't see an issue with that. :)
I suppose you wouldn't if bought into the idea that "Organized religion" was really bad.
Moby Dick is overrated.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2012, 04:30:40 PM
Moby Dick is overrated.
You have to be an American to really appreciate it.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
Yes, actually I do. I met several, and I've taken courses on classical culture (which included religion). I've even read books by neo-pagans. So yeah, I'm familiar with this bullshit. If you are finding "a spiritual path that resonated" with you personally, or found a "correct path" for yourself, then it's not really hard is it? You are finding a path of things you want to do or want to believe.
Wouldn't the easier path be to just follow the crowd and do what they do? How many Christians actually follow their faiths edicts by contributing to help the poor or by being accepting of those different or less fortunate like Christ was? Yet, as a person finding their own personal way, it requires a lot more education, effort, and general work to find what works for them to find the peace they seek. When discussing Pagans, in general, most have to write their own rituals, following symbolism that they found through trial and error that worked for them, and generally figure out which of the thousands of possibilities actually affect their soul while they practice their faith. It would be much easier to just go along with what someone else came up with and take their rules instead of starting over from scratch.
QuoteTake Wicca for example. It's no coincidence that majority of it's practitioners are feminists. Since Wicca is predicated on the idea there was was an ancient prehistoric pro-socialist matriarchy, people inclined toward feminism would find this idea attractive. They feel empowered by it, they want to believe it. Even if it's not true. I believe the term is "ennobling lie". Most of the pagans I've met don't know shit. One chick claimed that the Catholic Church murdered 20 million witches during the middle ages (which would be about the population of 18th century France). It's actually a common idea that bounces around pagan circles. It's bullshit of course (it's based on really bizarre methodology), but it "resonates" with them.
Wicca, according to Gardener, was never meant to be a feminist religion. It was created in order to have an egalitarian religion where both men and women have an equal part to play in the running, growth, and spiritual happenings. It was based on a poorly written and even worse researched anthropolgical study called "Drawing Down the Moon" by Margo Adler from the turn of the last century. Gardner took the book to be a faithful account of the history of paganism and using his experience as a member of the cabalistic magical lodge The Golden Dawn, created Wicca.
At some point in the 1960s or 1970s, a woman took over the religion and altered it completely, focusing entirely on the Priestesses and goddess and leaving out the part the men and gods had to play. (I can't remember her name off the top of my head.) By this time, Margot Adler's book had been thoroughly denounced as more fancy than history, but the Wicca movement was pretty big by this time, as were a lot of other Pagan movements. Rather than adjust their practices after 25 years, they decided to disregard the facts surrounding Adler's book. Instead, they ended up tenatiously defending the book, trying very hard to make it true by sheer force of will. Obviously, that didn't work, but it persists to this day.
Wicca is, in my opinion, a blight in the Pagan community. Many of their members intentionally distort facts to make their cases, alter history as they feel the need, and completely disregard anything that doesn't fit with their world view. In other words, they've become more like the mainstream religions they used to fight against. Again, I refuse to paint the entire religion as bad because of the few that I've met or read, but it is a constant struggle for me.
So if you're basing your entire opinion of Pagans on this one religion, you're doing a huge disservice to a much larger community of people who are no less reasonable, logic, and intelligent than you are. Of course, given to whom I'm speaking, more than you are. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route.
Why the hell would that be true? Surely following your own religion is more serious than one someone else defines?
Cause it's the height of hubris? "I know better then anyone else." It's this kind of thinking that has people rejecting vaccines cause they aren't "natural" or whatever.
:huh:
I think what you mean is: I know better than anyone else
how to find personal fullfillment for myself. How that's the height of hubris, I don't know. Shouldn't the individual be the best judge of finding that fullfillment for his or herself?
Yeah I was amused when we visited Salem that there was this pro-Wicca thing acting like their people were presecuted at the Witch Trials. Um none of the people who were killed were actual witches people. That is the whole meaning of a Witch Hunt.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 04:41:44 PM
Yeah I was amused when we visited Salem that there was this pro-Wicca thing acting like their people were presecuted at the Witch Trials. Um none of the people who were killed were actual witches people. That is the whole meaning of a Witch Hunt.
Not to mention that Wicca came some 250 years later. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:28:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
I don't think so. I think people choosing what they feel like believing move us further from being dominated by organized religion. I don't see an issue with that. :)
I suppose you wouldn't if bought into the idea that "Organized religion" was really bad.
Fair enough but I do as its clearly done a lot of harm.
I don't think I would say organized religion is bad. Its dominance is bad, as are most cases where an area is dominated by a particular viewpoint.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:47:40 PM
Fair enough but I do as its clearly done a lot of harm.
It has done alot of good as well. It is almost like it is a human institution, doing both harm and good.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 04:52:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:47:40 PM
Fair enough but I do as its clearly done a lot of harm.
It has done alot of good as well. It is almost like it is a human institution, doing both harm and good.
:hug:
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 12:35:13 PM
"That''s just your opinion, man."
In effect they accept anybody who is not confrontational. They completely live within their own self contained subjective truth. The Hippy lifestyle lasts until they have to deal with the consequences of their invented truths. In effect they are so open minded that their brains have dropped out.
The facts they are abandoning are any facts that conflict with their own invented truths. Just getting along only works when there is a shared common set of values and view of reality, you can't just get along with hitler or charles manson.
Wait so being open minded actually means you are incredibly dogmatic? I don't know the hippies I see work and hang out with their friends and grow old and die just like everybody else. They just have a little subculture. I haven't notice their worlds collapsing as their dogmatic beliefs fail in the face of rampaging Hitlers and Mansons.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 03:57:25 PM
15 years later, and it's still a source of deep personal shame that at some point all of my ancestors abandoned the faith of Pilgrim's Progress, Paradise Lost and good, sensible Upstate New York Puritan values for a book that can charitably be described as sub-par Conan the Barbarian fanfiction. I have zero respect for Mormonism as a faith and the entire Mormon religious hierarchy. It's a complete perversion of Christianity, and nearly completely devoid of intellectual and cultural heft.
This reminds me: Waaaaay back, we had a thread about whether or not Mormons are Christians. As part of that thread, it was proposed that anyone who could read the Nicene Creed and mean it should count as a Christian, but we weren't sure if Mormons could do so or not. We thought you would, but AFAIK, you never posted anything in that thread. So, what is the answer to the question, "Can Mormons read the Nicene Creed and sincerely mean it?".
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 04:57:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 12:35:13 PM
"That''s just your opinion, man."
In effect they accept anybody who is not confrontational. They completely live within their own self contained subjective truth. The Hippy lifestyle lasts until they have to deal with the consequences of their invented truths. In effect they are so open minded that their brains have dropped out.
The facts they are abandoning are any facts that conflict with their own invented truths. Just getting along only works when there is a shared common set of values and view of reality, you can't just get along with hitler or charles manson.
Wait so being open minded actually means you are incredibly dogmatic? I don't know the hippies I see work and hang out with their friends and grow old and die just like everybody else. They just have a little subculture. I haven't notice their worlds collapsing as their dogmatic beliefs collapse in the face of rampaging Hitlers and Mansons.
Yeah, I'm not getting where Viking is coming from with that, I think maybe he was rejected by what he saw as some form of in crowd ?
Personally I don't see what's especially wrong with being "mostly harmless", it's almost something to aspire to ? :unsure:
I've know more than a few 'hippies' in my time and as with all sub-cultures there's good and bad in all of them.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 04:43:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 04:41:44 PM
Yeah I was amused when we visited Salem that there was this pro-Wicca thing acting like their people were presecuted at the Witch Trials. Um none of the people who were killed were actual witches people. That is the whole meaning of a Witch Hunt.
Not to mention that Wicca came some 250 years later. :D
Not to mention that it would be hard to see the burning of wiccans as a bad thing.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 04:57:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 12:35:13 PM
"That''s just your opinion, man."
In effect they accept anybody who is not confrontational. They completely live within their own self contained subjective truth. The Hippy lifestyle lasts until they have to deal with the consequences of their invented truths. In effect they are so open minded that their brains have dropped out.
The facts they are abandoning are any facts that conflict with their own invented truths. Just getting along only works when there is a shared common set of values and view of reality, you can't just get along with hitler or charles manson.
Wait so being open minded actually means you are incredibly dogmatic? I don't know the hippies I see work and hang out with their friends and grow old and die just like everybody else. They just have a little subculture. I haven't notice their worlds collapsing as their dogmatic beliefs fail in the face of rampaging Hitlers and Mansons.
Well yes. The statements "My dogma is right" and "All dogmas are equally right" are equally dogmatic. The fact that their society doesn't collapse is because it is a sub-culture with policemen, firemen, soldiers and tax payers to fund their social security and jobs teaching bongos at community colleges.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:12:10 PM
Well yes. The statements "My dogma is right" and "All dogmas are equally right" are equally dogmatic. The fact that their society doesn't collapse is because it is a sub-culture with policemen, firemen, soldiers and tax payers to fund their social security and jobs teaching bongos at community colleges.
I have never ever heard a hippie say "all dogmas are equally right" before. In fact I don't think anybody in the history of the world has said that, except out of nihilism. They are not exactly high social climbers as a group but they work. You need cash to buy all that weed and bongos.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 04:37:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
Yes, actually I do. I met several, and I've taken courses on classical culture (which included religion). I've even read books by neo-pagans. So yeah, I'm familiar with this bullshit. If you are finding "a spiritual path that resonated" with you personally, or found a "correct path" for yourself, then it's not really hard is it? You are finding a path of things you want to do or want to believe.
Wouldn't the easier path be to just follow the crowd and do what they do? How many Christians actually follow their faiths edicts by contributing to help the poor or by being accepting of those different or less fortunate like Christ was? Yet, as a person finding their own personal way, it requires a lot more education, effort, and general work to find what works for them to find the peace they seek. When discussing Pagans, in general, most have to write their own rituals, following symbolism that they found through trial and error that worked for them, and generally figure out which of the thousands of possibilities actually affect their soul while they practice their faith. It would be much easier to just go along with what someone else came up with and take their rules instead of starting over from scratch.
QuoteTake Wicca for example. It's no coincidence that majority of it's practitioners are feminists. Since Wicca is predicated on the idea there was was an ancient prehistoric pro-socialist matriarchy, people inclined toward feminism would find this idea attractive. They feel empowered by it, they want to believe it. Even if it's not true. I believe the term is "ennobling lie". Most of the pagans I've met don't know shit. One chick claimed that the Catholic Church murdered 20 million witches during the middle ages (which would be about the population of 18th century France). It's actually a common idea that bounces around pagan circles. It's bullshit of course (it's based on really bizarre methodology), but it "resonates" with them.
Wicca, according to Gardener, was never meant to be a feminist religion. It was created in order to have an egalitarian religion where both men and women have an equal part to play in the running, growth, and spiritual happenings. It was based on a poorly written and even worse researched anthropolgical study called "Drawing Down the Moon" by Margo Adler from the turn of the last century. Gardner took the book to be a faithful account of the history of paganism and using his experience as a member of the cabalistic magical lodge The Golden Dawn, created Wicca.
At some point in the 1960s or 1970s, a woman took over the religion and altered it completely, focusing entirely on the Priestesses and goddess and leaving out the part the men and gods had to play. (I can't remember her name off the top of my head.) By this time, Margot Adler's book had been thoroughly denounced as more fancy than history, but the Wicca movement was pretty big by this time, as were a lot of other Pagan movements. Rather than adjust their practices after 25 years, they decided to disregard the facts surrounding Adler's book. Instead, they ended up tenatiously defending the book, trying very hard to make it true by sheer force of will. Obviously, that didn't work, but it persists to this day.
Wicca is, in my opinion, a blight in the Pagan community. Many of their members intentionally distort facts to make their cases, alter history as they feel the need, and completely disregard anything that doesn't fit with their world view. In other words, they've become more like the mainstream religions they used to fight against. Again, I refuse to paint the entire religion as bad because of the few that I've met or read, but it is a constant struggle for me.
So if you're basing your entire opinion of Pagans on this one religion, you're doing a huge disservice to a much larger community of people who are no less reasonable, logic, and intelligent than you are. Of course, given to whom I'm speaking, more than you are. :D
No it wouldn't be easier. Let us say, I want to rape goats. But my religion says raping goats is wrong. It's much easier for me to go my own way, and rape goats. Even better if I can create my own moral code where raping goats is a virtue rather then a vice. I'm not basing my opinions just on Wiccans, also druids (who were a hateful bunch), and of course Nazis and other right wing pagans.
Oh and by the way, Margo Adler post dates Wicca by a lot. I think are thinking of Margret Murray. Interestingly, Gardner's association with the Golden Dawn means that Wicca has a sort of "cousin" religion. Another alumni of that group was none other then L. Ron Hubbard who went on to found his own religion, Scientology.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:20:26 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 02:11:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 01:37:52 PM
What about India? They are essentially Indo-European paganism. If someone were really serious about paganism they'd go that route.
Why the hell would that be true? Surely following your own religion is more serious than one someone else defines?
Cause it's the height of hubris? "I know better then anyone else." It's this kind of thinking that has people rejecting vaccines cause they aren't "natural" or whatever.
:huh:
I think what you mean is: I know better than anyone else how to find personal fullfillment for myself. How that's the height of hubris, I don't know. Shouldn't the individual be the best judge of finding that fullfillment for his or herself?
Not really. Some things are true whether or not you want to believe them or not. You don't try to find your own personal fulfillment in mathematics. "2+2=4 just doesn't
feel right to me. I prefer 2+2=5". Hubris was the Greek Vice of thinking you were better or knew better then the Gods. I would say that picking your own religious practices because of personal fulfillment would neatly fall into that category.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 05:15:24 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 05:12:10 PM
Well yes. The statements "My dogma is right" and "All dogmas are equally right" are equally dogmatic. The fact that their society doesn't collapse is because it is a sub-culture with policemen, firemen, soldiers and tax payers to fund their social security and jobs teaching bongos at community colleges.
I have never ever heard a hippie say "all dogmas are equally right" before. In fact I don't think anybody in the history of the world has said that, except out of nihilism. They are not exactly high social climbers as a group but they work. You need cash to buy all that weed and bongos.
Thats probably because the hippies which have thought this issue through have tenure at continental departments of philosophy, or found something productive to do.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 04:50:21 PM
I don't think I would say organized religion is bad. Its dominance is bad, as are most cases where an area is dominated by a particular viewpoint.
Why?
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:47:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:28:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 04:25:53 PM
I don't think so. I think people choosing what they feel like believing move us further from being dominated by organized religion. I don't see an issue with that. :)
I suppose you wouldn't if bought into the idea that "Organized religion" was really bad.
Fair enough but I do as its clearly done a lot of harm.
Perhaps, but less then it has good.
Quote from: Maximus on October 11, 2012, 04:50:21 PM
I don't think I would say organized religion is bad. Its dominance is bad, as are most cases where an area is dominated by a particular viewpoint.
Well, of course, but I think in large part those two have been intertwined throughout history.
Quote from: Raz
Oh and by the way, Margo Adler post dates Wicca by a lot. I think are thinking of Margret Murray. Interestingly, Gardner's association with the Golden Dawn means that Wicca has a sort of "cousin" religion. Another alumni of that group was none other then L. Ron Hubbard who went on to found his own religion, Scientology.
:huh:
No, he wasn't. Hubbard lived with an Aleister Crowley follower named Jack Parsons who was a member of OTO, not Golden Dawn. And there's nothing so far as I'm aware that said that Hubbard even joined OTO.
You're right on the Margaret Mead thing though. I always get those two women mixed up. :blush:
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Raz
Oh and by the way, Margo Adler post dates Wicca by a lot. I think are thinking of Margret Murray. Interestingly, Gardner's association with the Golden Dawn means that Wicca has a sort of "cousin" religion. Another alumni of that group was none other then L. Ron Hubbard who went on to found his own religion, Scientology.
:huh:
No, he wasn't. Hubbard lived with an Aleister Crowley follower named Jack Parsons who was a member of OTO, not Golden Dawn. And there's nothing so far as I'm aware that said that Hubbard even joined OTO.
You're right on the Margaret Mead thing though. I always get those two women mixed up. :blush:
Sorry they mix up the names quite a bit. Golden Dawn, AA, OTO. Gardner and Hubbard were part of Crowley's outfit (whatever he was calling it at the time), as was Parsons (who was rocket scientist of all things). Hubbard ran off with Parson's wife and Parsons blew himself up. Crowley seems to have seen Hubbard as shyster (which was accurate). In his occult days Hubbard called himself "Frater H". Flakes a feather, flock together.
Quote
I know. You've told us all of that before. It's why I said what I said, specifically the bolded part. Your background was one of breaking free from that which you were taught was law, and finding your own path. I mistakenly assumed that you might recognize that as a valid option in life for others.
So, my hatred of a recently invented faith founded on Victorian misconceptions would make me more likely to be sympathetic of a recently invented faith based on Victorian misconceptions?
Love your avatar spellus.
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
Surely there must be respectable Hindus. Hinduism, like the Greco-Roman and Norse pantheons derives from the original Indo-European pantheon does it not? So does it not count as Pagan?
EDIT: Beaten by Razberry :(
Raz is a person, not a berry. :(
How razian of you Sbr.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 10, 2012, 10:59:40 AM
Thank God for Ataturk! Inspirational military leader, politician of genius and colossal piss-artist!
Let's raise a glass of raki to his memory.
It doesn't always work out. Just look at whisky loving, bacon eating Jinnah.
It is interesting though. I've seen adverts for whisky in Egyptian newspapers from the 30s. Nowadays that simply wouldn't happen. Ataturk was helped by being a great man but also a genuine nationalist defending his country. Sadly too many of his type like, say, the Wafd Party were more than happy to drink Commissioner's whisky and formed a corrupt, decadent, effete, westernised elite of collaborators.
Egypt has been ruled by foreigners since Saladin. Or, frankly, since Cambyses II. I think that's just endemic to the Arab World.
If we're going to start talking shit about Victorians, I'm gonna get pissed.
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2012, 07:41:52 PM
If we're going to start talking shit about Victorians, I'm gonna get pissed.
:lol:
I don't think Joseph Smith or Gardener represent the high point of the epoch. That's all I'll say.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 07:39:37 PM
Egypt has been ruled by foreigners since Saladin. Or, frankly, since Cambyses II. I think that's just endemic to the Arab World.
Yeah. Ruled by foreigners for at least 1000 years. Probably fucks you up a bit.
QuoteIf we're going to start talking shit about Victorians, I'm gonna get pissed.
The Wafd Party's comfortably Edwardian :P
There are not as many great men as one would like.
Not really sure about Jinnah. I confess to a dislike because he helped make partition a certainty and then had the bad taste to die just after Pakistan got independence leaving it to the kleptocrats; but I don't really know much about him :hmm:
I was intrigued by how Western Istanbul was when I visited a couple of years back, very similar to Athens in the general feel of the place; though they did blare out the Call to prayer, the most noticeable being the one that woke one up in the small hours.
I've not read enough on the subject to comment, and what I've read is anti-Jinnah. But this article by Perry Anderson (a lefty intellectual historian) is fiercely anti-Nehru and interesting:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n14/perry-anderson/why-partition
It goes against what else I've read and I've always like Nehru, but I think he makes his case well.
I always felt that Jinnah was problematic but ultimately right, working for partition pretty much from the beginning. Still even when he did make some moves to trust Congress, Nehru would shoot his mouth off about how once they took power, he wouldn't be bound by any deals he made with Jinnah anyways. The fact of the matter is that Congress simply wasn't capable of dealing honestly with the Muslim League. As far as they were concerned, nobody other than them had any right to take any political action on the subcontinent.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 06:46:10 PM
Quote
I know. You've told us all of that before. It's why I said what I said, specifically the bolded part. Your background was one of breaking free from that which you were taught was law, and finding your own path. I mistakenly assumed that you might recognize that as a valid option in life for others.
So, my hatred of a recently invented faith founded on Victorian misconceptions would make me more likely to be sympathetic of a recently invented faith based on Victorian misconceptions?
I'm glad that you completely ignored what she said in favor of saying something stupid. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Raz
Oh and by the way, Margo Adler post dates Wicca by a lot. I think are thinking of Margret Murray. Interestingly, Gardner's association with the Golden Dawn means that Wicca has a sort of "cousin" religion. Another alumni of that group was none other then L. Ron Hubbard who went on to found his own religion, Scientology.
:huh:
No, he wasn't. Hubbard lived with an Aleister Crowley follower named Jack Parsons who was a member of OTO, not Golden Dawn. And there's nothing so far as I'm aware that said that Hubbard even joined OTO.
You're right on the Margaret Mead thing though. I always get those two women mixed up. :blush:
Lol, next I guess you're going to bring Margaret Mitchell into this.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 04:32:12 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 11, 2012, 04:30:40 PM
Moby Dick is overrated.
You have to be an American to really appreciate it.
No, Neil is right.
Btw QQ, I hope you've learned since you were nine that almost none of the victims of the holocaust died for their faith.
At least I'm white, you filthy Irishman.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:47:06 PM
I'm glad that you completely ignored what she said in favor of saying something stupid. :)
I understood her comment and replied with what-to me-are extremely obvious points of comparison between Mormonism and the New Age faiths.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:40:38 PM
No, Neil is right.
Btw QQ, I hope you've learned since you were nine that almost none of the victims of the holocaust died for their faith.
Moby-Dick is the greatest novel in the English language.
I think Jews were targeted for being Jews. Part of being a Jew is Judaism. What part of that is questionable?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:47:06 PM
I'm glad that you completely ignored what she said in favor of saying something stupid. :)
I understood her comment and replied with what-to me-are extremely obvious points of comparison between Mormonism and the New Age faiths.
It's always sad how closed-minded so called American liberals are.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:12:36 PM
I think Jews were targeted for being Jews. Part of being a Jew is Judaism. What part of that is questionable?
Jewish is an ethnicity, not just a religion. The Nazis were big on racial theory, not religious bigotry.
Quote from: dps on October 11, 2012, 09:10:19 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 06:06:17 PM
Quote from: Raz
Oh and by the way, Margo Adler post dates Wicca by a lot. I think are thinking of Margret Murray. Interestingly, Gardner's association with the Golden Dawn means that Wicca has a sort of "cousin" religion. Another alumni of that group was none other then L. Ron Hubbard who went on to found his own religion, Scientology.
:huh:
No, he wasn't. Hubbard lived with an Aleister Crowley follower named Jack Parsons who was a member of OTO, not Golden Dawn. And there's nothing so far as I'm aware that said that Hubbard even joined OTO.
You're right on the Margaret Mead thing though. I always get those two women mixed up. :blush:
Lol, next I guess you're going to bring Margaret Mitchell into this.
Well for fuck's sake. :blush:
That one stupid chick who thought she knew what she was talking about with some historical group of witches only pretty much made it all up.
There? You happy? :ph34r:
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:15:06 PM
It's always sad how closed-minded so called American liberals are.
My preference for traditional Christianity over New Age faiths is proof of how indoctrinated I am as an American Liberal?
QuoteJewish is an ethnicity, not just a religion. The Nazis were big on racial theory, not religious bigotry.
I think it is fair to say they were persecuted for a Jewish heritage-a part of this was ethnicity, obviously, but the religion was another part of it.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:12:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 11, 2012, 09:40:38 PM
No, Neil is right.
Btw QQ, I hope you've learned since you were nine that almost none of the victims of the holocaust died for their faith.
Moby-Dick is the greatest novel in the English language.
I think Jews were targeted for being Jews. Part of being a Jew is Judaism. What part of that is questionable?
Malthus and minsky would be targeted every bit as readily as siege.
I very seriously doubt that there would have been a Jewish ethnicity in 1900 if the Jewish religion had stopped existing in any of the proceeding centuries. I think it is hard to argue that there isn't a relationship between the religion and the ethnicity.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:21:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:15:06 PM
It's always sad how closed-minded so called American liberals are.
My preference for traditional Christianity over New Age faiths is proof of how indoctrinated I am as an American Liberal?
It isn't a preference issue though but rather how you appear to loath something largely innocuous like neo-paganism.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:03:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 08:47:06 PM
I'm glad that you completely ignored what she said in favor of saying something stupid. :)
I understood her comment and replied with what-to me-are extremely obvious points of comparison between Mormonism and the New Age faiths.
However they were begun, to me, it's how they move forward that matters, and I suppose the biggest difference between the two now are that Mormonism believes that their path is the only true path, much like every other form of Christianity out there, and the New Age faiths recognize that there are many paths. That's what I find so appealing about them.
Hell, the first several hundred years of Christianity went through a very similar discourse until it was finally solidified into the "one true faith" at the first Nicene Council - 300+ years after Christ died. It's taken 1700 years of beating and hammering and wars and martyrdoms and everything else to get where it is, but it sure didn't start out this cultural haven you so love. Before that it was a bunch of people trying to figure out ways to celebrate the short life of a man who did some kind of neat stuff.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 10:31:44 PM
but it sure didn't start out this cultural haven you so love.
Is it even that? I still know Christians who though who seem to care about me, are still convinced that I'm going to hell if pressed.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:36:59 PM
Is it even that? I still know Christians who though who seem to care about me, are still convinced that I'm going to hell if pressed.
I don't believe it is, no, but Spellus seems to think so, and he's holding all other "newer" religions up and finding them wanting comparatively. Not only wanting, but loathsome.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:30:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:21:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:15:06 PM
It's always sad how closed-minded so called American liberals are.
My preference for traditional Christianity over New Age faiths is proof of how indoctrinated I am as an American Liberal?
It isn't a preference issue though but rather how you appear to loath something largely innocuous like neo-paganism.
Innocuous? I remind you that Himmler was neo-pagan. In fact the right wing, racist aspect of it was the predominant aspect until WWII.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 10:43:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:30:03 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:21:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 10:15:06 PM
It's always sad how closed-minded so called American liberals are.
My preference for traditional Christianity over New Age faiths is proof of how indoctrinated I am as an American Liberal?
It isn't a preference issue though but rather how you appear to loath something largely innocuous like neo-paganism.
Innocuous? I remind you that Himmler was neo-pagan. In fact the right wing, racist aspect of it was the predominant aspect until WWII.
And Hitler painted. The arts are evil and corrupting?
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 04:03:15 PM
I know. You've told us all of that before. It's why I said what I said, specifically the bolded part. Your background was one of breaking free from that which you were taught was law, and finding your own path. I mistakenly assumed that you might recognize that as a valid option in life for others.
Lord no.
QuoteI think what you mean is: I know better than anyone else how to find personal fullfillment for myself. How that's the height of hubris, I don't know. Shouldn't the individual be the best judge of finding that fullfillment for his or herself?
Religion's not about personal fulfilment. Aside from that I, unsurprisingly, broadly agree with Spellus.
Edit: Also on the whole Salem-Wicca thing I knew a lecturer at Bristol who was a serious pagan, but also a specialist in Stuart England - in particular the witch hunts - and paganism. His views are quite fun and bracing. He's sort-of half loved by the Pagans for being a serious historian writing interesting books and doing good research and half hated because he doesn't believe they're part of an ancient nature religion (though he thinks there are continuities, and they survived in Christianity too) and he thinks the common Pagain idea of early matriarchy 'rather delightful', but not at all true. Very interesting guy though.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 10:43:41 PM
Innocuous? I remind you that Himmler was neo-pagan. In fact the right wing, racist aspect of it was the predominant aspect until WWII.
And Son of Sam was a devout Christian, as are most serial killers. What's your point?
Quote from: Queequeg on October 11, 2012, 10:25:50 PM
I very seriously doubt that there would have been a Jewish ethnicity in 1900 if the Jewish religion had stopped existing in any of the proceeding centuries. I think it is hard to argue that there isn't a relationship between the religion and the ethnicity.
I don't have to make that argument though. The argument that I am making is that the Nazis didn't kill Jews because they kept kosher, or because they wore ringlets and those silly little aprons, or because of circumcision. They killed them because they were Jewish. They didn't spare people with Jewish ancestry that had been assimilated into societies for decades or centuries.
Also I though Spellus may be intrigued by this, from the Plymouth International Book Festival:
http://www.mobydickbigread.com/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 11, 2012, 07:10:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 11, 2012, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2012, 01:08:13 PM
Also who says that any given neo-pagans belief stem from a Greaco-Roman tradition? There are plenty of other pagan faiths on which to draw inspiration.
Who said that neo-paganism has to stem from Greco-Roman models? The late Classical Pagans were brought up as the last example of respectable pagans.
Surely there must be respectable Hindus. Hinduism, like the Greco-Roman and Norse pantheons derives from the original Indo-European pantheon does it not? So does it not count as Pagan?
EDIT: Beaten by Razberry :(
Your mixing identity and attribute here. Plato talks quite a bit about it.
A Respectable Person Who is a Pagan /= A Person Who Is A Respectable Pagan
The Respectable Pagans of late antiquity had long since abandoned polytheism. Neo-Platonist Pagans were monotheists. They had a rigorous justification from first principles of their faith. I know that means it isn't actually a faith, but rather metaphysical science.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2012, 11:01:44 PM
For me, religion's not about personal fulfilment.
fixed
If what you find fulfilling about religion is that that it's not about personal fulfillment then that's fine, but you don't get to define what religion is about for other people.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2012, 08:01:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2012, 11:01:44 PM
For me, religion's not about personal fulfilment.
fixed
If what you find fulfilling about religion is that that it's not about personal fulfillment then that's fine, but you don't get to define what religion is about for other people.
Yeah, Raz seems to suffer from that same issue as well.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:27:08 AM
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2012, 08:01:15 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2012, 11:01:44 PM
For me, religion's not about personal fulfilment.
fixed
If what you find fulfilling about religion is that that it's not about personal fulfillment then that's fine, but you don't get to define what religion is about for other people.
Yeah, Raz seems to suffer from that same issue as well.
Yeah, it does seem somewhat odd that Shelf and Raz are defining what are valid religious beliefs for others to have; something islamists are also keen on doing.
Quote from: mongers on October 12, 2012, 10:25:34 AM
Yeah, it does seem somewhat odd that Shelf and Raz are defining what are valid religious beliefs for others to have; something islamists are also keen on doing.
Don't forget Viking. He's doing the same, even if his "religion" of choice is the lack of one.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 10:31:44 AM
Quote from: mongers on October 12, 2012, 10:25:34 AM
Yeah, it does seem somewhat odd that Shelf and Raz are defining what are valid religious beliefs for others to have; something islamists are also keen on doing.
Don't forget Viking. He's doing the same, even if his "religion" of choice is the lack of one.
Well, the thing is words have meaning. If you are going to ignore the bulk of the Koran then your claim to be a muslim is in doubt. If you call yourself a catholic then that has meaning, you don't just get to make it up. The word Religion has a meaning as well. If the word religion can mean anything you want it to mean the word no longer means anything and the concept itself is meaningless.
If a word can mean anything it means nothing.
This is why post-modernism pisses me off so much and why I don't respect people who use this kind of justification for their faith. It is an attack on language itself.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
Well, the thing is words have meaning. If you are going to ignore the bulk of the Koran then your claim to be a muslim is in doubt. If you call yourself a catholic then that has meaning, you don't just get to make it up. The word Religion has a meaning as well. If the word religion can mean anything you want it to mean the word no longer means anything and the concept itself is meaningless.
If a word can mean anything it means nothing.
This is why post-modernism pisses me off so much and why I don't respect people who use this kind of justification for their faith. It is an attack on language itself.
Maybe you should learn what the word means, then.
QuoteDefinition of RELIGION (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I'm not opposing the personal bit, I'm opposing the lack of system, attitudes, beliefs and practices.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:35:00 AM
I'm not opposing the personal bit, I'm opposing the lack of system, attitudes, beliefs and practices.
But those are all present! Just because they're not something that you can readily recognize doesn't mean that they don't exist! There may not be a system for some, but no one can argue that they don't have attitudes, beliefs and practices. Hell, it's those very things that make them so objectionable to those with a conservative mindset on what denotes a religion. The Pagan movement's attitudes, beliefs, and practices are anathema to the norm, ergo "wrong" and not a "real" religion. And yet, by the very definition they are exactly that!
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
Well, the thing is words have meaning. If you are going to ignore the bulk of the Koran then your claim to be a muslim is in doubt. If you call yourself a catholic then that has meaning, you don't just get to make it up. The word Religion has a meaning as well. If the word religion can mean anything you want it to mean the word no longer means anything and the concept itself is meaningless.
If a word can mean anything it means nothing.
This is why post-modernism pisses me off so much and why I don't respect people who use this kind of justification for their faith. It is an attack on language itself.
:lol:
Yes, I'm sure Christians and Muslims should take advice on their faith from you.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:35:00 AM
I'm not opposing the personal bit, I'm opposing the lack of system, attitudes, beliefs and practices.
I agree. The Viking-Sheilbh line on religion is something I never thought I'd see :blink:
I also have issues with the personal bit though.
Well words have meaning. If anyone can just say "I don't like the dictionary definition, I'm going to make up my own" then they lose meaning.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2012, 12:25:25 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:35:00 AM
I'm not opposing the personal bit, I'm opposing the lack of system, attitudes, beliefs and practices.
I agree. The Viking-Sheilbh line on religion is something I never thought I'd see :blink:
I also have issues with the personal bit though.
You have issues with a definition? :huh:
You don't have to agree with these people. No one's asking you to start adhering to their beliefs. Simply recognizing that they adhere to a religion - by definition - really isn't that hard. It is a fact. They have a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices. They are, by the very definition of the word, following a religion.
What I think you really have a problem with is WHAT those attitudes, beliefs, and practices are and from whence they come. You don't like that they don't have a rich history steeped in traditions that you recognize as valid. That's fine. You don't have to. It's not YOUR religion. That doesn't mean, however, that they are any less valid than a Christian or a Jew.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2012, 12:31:43 PM
Well words have meaning. If anyone can just say "I don't like the dictionary definition, I'm going to make up my own" then they lose meaning.
Viking and I entirely disagree on that though :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:40:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:35:00 AM
I'm not opposing the personal bit, I'm opposing the lack of system, attitudes, beliefs and practices.
But those are all present! Just because they're not something that you can readily recognize doesn't mean that they don't exist! There may not be a system for some, but no one can argue that they don't have attitudes, beliefs and practices. Hell, it's those very things that make them so objectionable to those with a conservative mindset on what denotes a religion. The Pagan movement's attitudes, beliefs, and practices are anathema to the norm, ergo "wrong" and not a "real" religion. And yet, by the very definition they are exactly that!
No they are not. You have just repeated tired tropes claiming that your faith gives you meaning. You have said nothing about system, attitude, belief or practice.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 12:56:07 PM
No they are not. You have just repeated tired tropes claiming that your faith gives you meaning. You have said nothing about system, attitude, belief or practice.
A quick search on Google comes up with the following:
QuoteThe Ohio State University (http://pagansa.org.ohio-state.edu/beliefs.html)
Pagan Student Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Basic Pagan Beliefs
Please note: these beliefs are generally held in Paganism but because Paganism consists of many religions and is so individualistic, beliefs vary. The beliefs summed up here are by no means the only beliefs there are and some Pagans may have different views than these.
[What They Believe]
Belief in Deities
Pagans believe in the existence of Gods and Goddesses that affect our lives. Paganism tends to be polytheistic (belief in more than one Deity).
Individuals often follow a specific pantheon such as Celtic, Norse, Greek, etc. Some Pagans worship the whole pantheon while others choose to direct their worship to a few or even one of the deities. Some Pagans consider the deities to be aspects of reality or personality, which helps them to focus on specific attributes of life or the self tsuch as strength, learning, or love. Other Pagans consider the deities to be external beings who embody certain traits again such as strength, learning, or love. Pagans have very Personal relationships with their deities and so how they perceive them is very personal and individualistic.
Reincarnation
Most Pagans believe that after death, the spirit is reborn in another body. Again, beliefs in exactly what happens and wheter or not you are punished for you wrong doings in this life or the next, vary.
Magick
The ability to use your will to effect real and positive changes in your life is magick. You do not have to practice Magick to be Pagan but many Pagans do practice Magick in one form or another (actually, much of today's modern medicine was once considered to be part of Magick until science explained how it worked). Magick is, of course, controversial. Magick, and the fear that it caused (and still causes in some situations), is what led to the persecution of Pagans.
[What They Practice]
Ritual
Like the rituals in most religions, Pagan rituals mark changes and events in human life: birth, death, marriage, and so forth. Ritual can be a ceremony of celebration (as in the holy days) or a way of honoring the Gods and Goddesses and thanking them for Their blessings. Offerings made to the Gods and Goddesses often include things of beauty, flowers, art, stones, crystals, or things of art made by the practitioner, poems, songs, and dance. These offerings demonstrate the level of dedication and devotion of Pagan worshippers.
Sabbats
There are usually eight major holy days, or holidays, in the Pagan calendar. All are agrarian, four relate more to plants (planting, harvest, etc.) and four relate more to animal husbandry (cycles of fertility).
Quote
[Pagan Attitudes]
Post Paganism - Agnostic Witch (http://www.agnosticwitch.com/articles/pagan-perplexity.html)
In the Webster dictionary under paganism, there is a line that, if taken out of context, may give a clue to what Neo-Paganism means today. The line reads: "state of being— as in attitude or outlook". The question then remains— what outlook and what attitude?
Neopaganism was and still is a religious movement that counters many of the ideologies and beliefs within society's mainstream religions. As part of the larger sixties Hippie Counterculture, Neopaganism incorporates many of their anti-establishment and liberal attitudes.
You're grasping for straws here, Viking. It won't matter what's provided - and plenty has been provided - you'll still not consider it a religion based on your own biases, ignoring the very facts you claim to hold so dear.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 12:32:05 PM
What I think you really have a problem with is WHAT those attitudes, beliefs, and practices are and from whence they come. You don't like that they don't have a rich history steeped in traditions that you recognize as valid.
AKA religious intolerance. Not surprising from Viking or Raz, but somewhat more surprising from some of the other people in this thread.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
You're grasping for straws here, Viking. It won't matter what's provided - and plenty has been provided - you'll still not consider it a religion based on your own biases, ignoring the very facts you claim to hold so dear.
and do you believe any of this? if yes, which bits?
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:17:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 11:02:33 AM
Well, the thing is words have meaning. If you are going to ignore the bulk of the Koran then your claim to be a muslim is in doubt. If you call yourself a catholic then that has meaning, you don't just get to make it up. The word Religion has a meaning as well. If the word religion can mean anything you want it to mean the word no longer means anything and the concept itself is meaningless.
If a word can mean anything it means nothing.
This is why post-modernism pisses me off so much and why I don't respect people who use this kind of justification for their faith. It is an attack on language itself.
Maybe you should learn what the word means, then.
QuoteDefinition of RELIGION (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)
1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
2 references itself and 4 is clearly too broad.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
and do you believe any of this? if yes, which bits?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FF0X5s.jpg&hash=5fa7a132949d95f160469a4fdbe135cb73f18aec)
"explain this heresy you call heliocentrism."
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
You're grasping for straws here, Viking. It won't matter what's provided - and plenty has been provided - you'll still not consider it a religion based on your own biases, ignoring the very facts you claim to hold so dear.
and do you believe any of this? if yes, which bits?
I have no idea what my beliefs have to do with any of this, but sure, I'll play along.
Do I believe that Paganism is a religion? Absolutely. Do I follow Pagan tenets? Some of them I do, yes, in some variation, but then, a number of more mainstream religions follow some of their tenets, too.
I believe in a god or gods (in my case, I call it a Higher Power rather than giving it a name or a gender).
I believe in a form of reincarnation in that I believe that our souls continue on once our bodies die through tales told about the individual and through that person's mark on the world. That, to me, is the signature of that person's soul's energy, which allows it to carry on beyond the grave.
I believe in the power of prayer and meditation to transform the individual, which could be considered a form of magick.
I believe in the value of ritual (as I've already said), and actually crave it as a way to order my mind and heart.
I celebrate holy days (though maybe not the same ones as those mentioned above) because I believe that there is value in recognizing important times of the year and in our history.
I also believe in the value of being anti-establishment and having a liberal attitude toward all religions, as I think I've already shown.
Based on that, I could easily self-identify as Pagan, though I typically refer to myself as Spiritual rather than as any particular religion. Is that what you wanted to know?
EDIT: Reading through that list, I'm struggling to find a single mainstream religion that doesn't follow most of those tenets. The words used to describe what they believe and the attitude of anti-establishment is all that changes one religion from mainstream to counter-culture, really.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2012, 01:10:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 12:32:05 PM
What I think you really have a problem with is WHAT those attitudes, beliefs, and practices are and from whence they come. You don't like that they don't have a rich history steeped in traditions that you recognize as valid.
AKA religious intolerance. Not surprising from Viking or Raz, but somewhat more surprising from some of the other people in this thread.
I've said it before - modern paganism would have a much higher cred around here if its followers actually practiced human sacrifice and the like. ;)
The problem with modern pagans is that they take their religion out of sheer contrariness, and that they attack the unity of society.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
The problem with modern pagans is that they take their religion out of sheer contrariness, and that they attack the unity of society.
:huh:
What unity?
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 02:26:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
The problem with modern pagans is that they take their religion out of sheer contrariness, and that they attack the unity of society.
:huh:
What unity?
The loving embrace of Christianity of course. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 02:26:10 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
The problem with modern pagans is that they take their religion out of sheer contrariness, and that they attack the unity of society.
:huh:
What unity?
The common beliefs that allow society to function smoothly. The sense of belonging to a group that allows people to sacrifice their own good for the benefit of other members of the group.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:48:22 PM
The common beliefs that allow society to function smoothly. The sense of belonging to a group that allows people to sacrifice their own good for the benefit of other members of the group.
:mellow:
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
The problem with modern pagans is that they take their religion out of sheer contrariness, and that they attack the unity of society.
Exactly.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 02:55:38 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
The problem with modern pagans is that they take their religion out of sheer contrariness, and that they attack the unity of society.
Exactly.
Well shit. Then let's get rid of everyone that's different at all. I'm sorry, derspiess, but your wife and children have to go. Afterall, they attack the unity of society by twarting the sense of belonging to a group that allows people to sacrifice their own good for the benefit of other members of the group. They are: Outsiders.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 01:39:50 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 01:09:23 PM
You're grasping for straws here, Viking. It won't matter what's provided - and plenty has been provided - you'll still not consider it a religion based on your own biases, ignoring the very facts you claim to hold so dear.
and do you believe any of this? if yes, which bits?
I have no idea what my beliefs have to do with any of this, but sure, I'll play along.
Do I believe that Paganism is a religion? Absolutely. Do I follow Pagan tenets? Some of them I do, yes, in some variation, but then, a number of more mainstream religions follow some of their tenets, too.
I believe in a god or gods (in my case, I call it a Higher Power rather than giving it a name or a gender).
I believe in a form of reincarnation in that I believe that our souls continue on once our bodies die through tales told about the individual and through that person's mark on the world. That, to me, is the signature of that person's soul's energy, which allows it to carry on beyond the grave.
I believe in the power of prayer and meditation to transform the individual, which could be considered a form of magick.
I believe in the value of ritual (as I've already said), and actually crave it as a way to order my mind and heart.
I celebrate holy days (though maybe not the same ones as those mentioned above) because I believe that there is value in recognizing important times of the year and in our history.
I also believe in the value of being anti-establishment and having a liberal attitude toward all religions, as I think I've already shown.
Based on that, I could easily self-identify as Pagan, though I typically refer to myself as Spiritual rather than as any particular religion. Is that what you wanted to know?
EDIT: Reading through that list, I'm struggling to find a single mainstream religion that doesn't follow most of those tenets. The words used to describe what they believe and the attitude of anti-establishment is all that changes one religion from mainstream to counter-culture, really.
Reading through that list, I'm struggling to find a single explicit and definitive statement there.
You believe in a god of some sort but can't say anything about him/her/it. You believe in re-incarnation, but not rebirth, you believe in the soul but only through memory and the effects of the person in life.
You believe in the power of prayer to transform. I'll actually grant you that one, I agree, a similar process brought me to where I am now philosophically.
You don't believe in organizing religion; in which case I refer you to the dictionary definition you touted earlier.
You self identify as pagan, but that doesn't fit the definition of pagan you used earlier.
You have basically delivered a non-definition which states nothing and makes no claims. All you really are asserting is that your feelings deserve validation and fantasy makes you feel good. Nothing in your "religion" says anything about the world, organizes your community or claims to help your self development anymore than secular self reflection, philosophy or psychotherapy.
It is the absence of specific metaphysical claims or fact claims of any sort that make it trivial and structured to be unfalsifiable. Your statement of belief did not match a single criteria listed below from the description of paganism other than the name you give it. That is what I object to.
Well there's a shocker.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:48:22 PM
The common beliefs that allow society to function smoothly. The sense of belonging to a group that allows people to sacrifice their own good for the benefit of other members of the group.
:lol: That's cute.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
Well shit. Then let's get rid of everyone that's different at all. I'm sorry, derspiess, but your wife and children have to go. Afterall, they attack the unity of society by twarting the sense of belonging to a group that allows people to sacrifice their own good for the benefit of other members of the group. They are: Outsiders.
They're pagans?! :o
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
FWIW, Argentines are pretty much pre-assimilated when they get here and my kids are red blooded Buckeye Americans.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 02:58:16 PM
Reading through that list, I'm struggling to find a single explicit and definitive statement there.
You believe in a god of some sort but can't say anything about him/her/it. You believe in re-incarnation, but not rebirth, you believe in the soul but only through memory and the effects of the person in life.
You believe in the power of prayer to transform. I'll actually grant you that one, I agree, a similar process brought me to where I am now philosophically.
Still trying to figure out what my personal beliefs have to do with anything. Nonetheless your first paragraph is negated by your third. In addition, I didn't lay out all of my beliefs or get detailed because what I believe is, frankly, none of your business. I'm certainly not about to lay out my beliefs for you to tear apart because you don't happen to agree with them. I don't need your approval for them to make a powerful difference in my life. I, also, don't feel a need to "convert" you to my way of thinking.
I'll say it again: You believe what you believe and it works for you, and that's great. I believe what I believe and it works for me, which is just as great. I only asked that you recognize that a person's beliefs are their own to determine, something that you absolutely refuse to do.
Quote
You don't believe in organizing religion; in which case I refer you to the dictionary definition you touted earlier.
I believe in organized religion. I simply haven't found one that works for me. As such, it's very difficult to self-identify as anything in particular.
QuoteYou self identify as pagan, but that doesn't fit the definition of pagan you used earlier.
I said that I
could self-identify as Pagan based on that list of beliefs and attributes, not that I did.
QuoteYou have basically delivered a non-definition which states nothing and makes no claims. All you really are asserting is that your feelings deserve validation and fantasy makes you feel good. Nothing in your "religion" says anything about the world, organizes your community or claims to help your self development anymore than secular self reflection, philosophy or psychotherapy.
I'm not sure what definition you're looking for. You asked what Pagans believed, and I provided you with a list of the basics of that style of faith which included the requirements to meet the Merriam-Webster definition of a religion. You then asked me if I believed in those tenets, which I gave a cursory view of what I believe based on those tenets. As for how what I believe affects the world, organizes my community, and otherwise affects my self-development, I've told you repeatedly that my beliefs guide the way that I live my life, how I interact with my community (food drives, volunteer work, etc), which affects the world as a whole if in a small way, and how it helps me become the person that I am through a variety of actions and practices to do with those same beliefs. Those beliefs are how I, spiritually (ergo not secularly), participate in my life.
QuoteIt is the absence of specific metaphysical claims or fact claims of any sort that make it trivial and structured to be unfalsifiable. Your statement of belief did not match a single criteria listed below from the description of paganism other than the name you give it. That is what I object to.
And again, I have never claimed to be Pagan. I simply believe that they qualify as a religion just as much as any other belief system does.
That being said, I do believe that most reasonable people assume that a belief in a god falls under "metaphysical", as in beyond the known physical world. I firmly accept that there is something greater than myself somewhere out there that directly affects my life. That I can't or won't put a name to it doesn't change that belief.
What are you looking for here, Viking? What are you trying to prove with all of this? I'm trying very hard not to get bogged down in individual words so that we can have a real conversation of meanings, but I think I'm losing that now. What are you trying to get me to say?
For my part, I would just be happy to hear you say that religion - of any ilk - has value for those who practice it, even if you don't understand or accept it for yourself.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
They're meant to. Most of them want to force people to think outside the box, and most people don't like being forced into that. The status quo is the prefered, and pushing against that irritates people.
Quote
FWIW, Argentines are pretty much pre-assimilated when they get here and my kids are red blooded Buckeye Americans.
I know. I was only teasing you. :)
Am I thinking in a box? Am I thinking in a cardboard box?
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
But so many people do that / also find out that they really enjoy that non-traditional way of life. You must be annoyed a lot.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 03:30:21 PM
Am I thinking in a box? Am I thinking in a cardboard box?
This is not about your dick in a box. <_<
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
But so many people do that / also find out that they really enjoy that non-traditional way of life. You must be annoyed a lot.
You have no idea.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
But so many people do that / also find out that they really enjoy that non-traditional way of life. You must be annoyed a lot.
You have no idea.
:console:
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
But so many people do that / also find out that they really enjoy that non-traditional way of life. You must be annoyed a lot.
You have no idea.
:lol:
In case you guys didn't notice it amongst all the paganism talk--Al Q has stated that if the girl ends up surviving the attack, she "won't survive the next one". This poor girl is living in fear all the time. Maybe forever.
She's only 14.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 04:07:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:58:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 03:54:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
But so many people do that / also find out that they really enjoy that non-traditional way of life. You must be annoyed a lot.
You have no idea.
:lol:
;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
In case you guys didn't notice it amongst all the paganism talk--Al Q has stated that if the girl ends up surviving the attack, she "won't survive the next one". This poor girl is living in fear all the time. Maybe forever.
She's only 14.
Only a man on a mission from god could possible be so evil.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
In case you guys didn't notice it amongst all the paganism talk--Al Q has stated that if the girl ends up surviving the attack, she "won't survive the next one". This poor girl is living in fear all the time. Maybe forever.
She's only 14.
They said that shortly after it happened. I can only hope that the Pakistani government gets her and her family far away from that district.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
In case you guys didn't notice it amongst all the paganism talk--Al Q has stated that if the girl ends up surviving the attack, she "won't survive the next one". This poor girl is living in fear all the time. Maybe forever.
She's only 14.
They also said that they will now target the father.
Quote from: Viking on October 12, 2012, 04:15:23 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 12, 2012, 04:10:27 PM
In case you guys didn't notice it amongst all the paganism talk--Al Q has stated that if the girl ends up surviving the attack, she "won't survive the next one". This poor girl is living in fear all the time. Maybe forever.
She's only 14.
Only a man on a mission from god could possible be so evil.
There's some truth in that. Extremists of any type are dangerous, but religious zealots seem to be the worst.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 04:27:08 PM
There's some truth in that. Extremists of any type are dangerous, but religious zealots seem to be the worst.
I don't know. Communists seem to have them beat.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 02:51:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 02:48:22 PM
The common beliefs that allow society to function smoothly. The sense of belonging to a group that allows people to sacrifice their own good for the benefit of other members of the group.
:mellow:
Indeed. Mellow.
It might be too late for your people.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 03:23:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
They're meant to. Most of them want to force people to think outside the box, and most people don't like being forced into that. The status quo is the prefered, and pushing against that irritates people.
IMO that's fucked up. Thinking outside the box as a means to an end is fine; thinking outside the box simply for the sake of thinking outside the box is a pointless as adhering to tradition for the sake of adhering to tradition, just more annoying.
Quote from: dps on October 12, 2012, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 03:23:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
They're meant to. Most of them want to force people to think outside the box, and most people don't like being forced into that. The status quo is the prefered, and pushing against that irritates people.
IMO that's fucked up. Thinking outside the box as a means to an end is fine; thinking outside the box simply for the sake of thinking outside the box is a pointless as adhering to tradition for the sake of adhering to tradition, just more annoying.
Some people think pointless rebellion against society is a virtue.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 10:43:41 PM
Innocuous? I remind you that Himmler was neo-pagan. In fact the right wing, racist aspect of it was the predominant aspect until WWII.
And Son of Sam was a devout Christian, as are most serial killers. What's your point?
Actually he was a Jew. He only became a devout Christian after going to jail. My point, Himmler's neo-paganism wasn't just some minor thing. Neo-paganism much like old paganism was heavily political in nature. The right wing neo-pagans of the 19th and early 20th century adopted it for political reasons. As a rejection of Christianity which was deemed too weak and unfit for a imperial cultures of Europe at the time. They wanted something stronger, less forgiving, more
European. A lot of modern neo-pagans are doing the same thing but for opposite reasons. It's cause Christianity is in their opinion dominant, authoritarian, patriarchal. The motive is the same. So, no it's not innocuous.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2012, 11:04:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 11, 2012, 10:43:41 PM
Innocuous? I remind you that Himmler was neo-pagan. In fact the right wing, racist aspect of it was the predominant aspect until WWII.
And Son of Sam was a devout Christian, as are most serial killers. What's your point?
Actually he was a Jew. He only became a devout Christian after going to jail. My point, Himmler's neo-paganism wasn't just some minor thing. Neo-paganism much like old paganism was heavily political in nature. The right wing neo-pagans of the 19th and early 20th century adopted it for political reasons. As a rejection of Christianity which was deemed too weak and unfit for a imperial cultures of Europe at the time. They wanted something stronger, less forgiving, more European. A lot of modern neo-pagans are doing the same thing but for opposite reasons. It's cause Christianity is in their opinion dominant, authoritarian, patriarchal. The motive is the same. So, no it's not innocuous.
That was actually rather astute.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
Actually he was a Jew. He only became a devout Christian after going to jail. My point, Himmler's neo-paganism wasn't just some minor thing. Neo-paganism much like old paganism was heavily political in nature. The right wing neo-pagans of the 19th and early 20th century adopted it for political reasons. As a rejection of Christianity which was deemed too weak and unfit for a imperial cultures of Europe at the time. They wanted something stronger, less forgiving, more European. A lot of modern neo-pagans are doing the same thing but for opposite reasons. It's cause Christianity is in their opinion dominant, authoritarian, patriarchal. The motive is the same. So, no it's not innocuous.
So your big point is that people adopt paganism because the mainstream religions don't work for them? How very "astute".
His point was that people who adopt religions outside the mainstream are defective. That's the great point he made.
Quote from: dps on October 12, 2012, 05:53:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 03:23:41 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 03:12:35 PM
Anyway, the part of Neil's post that resonated more with me was the contrariness thing. People who adopt a religion or other major lifestyle choice just to be different do irritate me.
They're meant to. Most of them want to force people to think outside the box, and most people don't like being forced into that. The status quo is the prefered, and pushing against that irritates people.
IMO that's fucked up. Thinking outside the box as a means to an end is fine; thinking outside the box simply for the sake of thinking outside the box is a pointless as adhering to tradition for the sake of adhering to tradition, just more annoying.
That's your point of view.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 08:21:16 PM
His point was that people who adopt religions outside the mainstream are defective. That's the great point he made.
He showed that some terrible people at one moment in time adopted paganism. Meanwhile we've had lots more time of Catholic priests using their position to abuse children.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:47:26 PM
Meanwhile we've had lots more time of Catholic priests using their position to abuse children.
What's that got to do with religions outside the mainstream? Scientology and Mormonism have to be around for another 2,000 years before their bullshit is acknowledged?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 12, 2012, 09:13:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:47:26 PM
Meanwhile we've had lots more time of Catholic priests using their position to abuse children.
What's that got to do with religions outside the mainstream? Scientology and Mormonism have to be around for another 2,000 years before their bullshit is acknowledged?
I thought we already acknowledged the quackery of those two.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:47:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 08:21:16 PM
His point was that people who adopt religions outside the mainstream are defective. That's the great point he made.
He showed that some terrible people at one moment in time adopted paganism. Meanwhile we've had lots more time of Catholic priests using their position to abuse children.
Small sacrifices to maintain social order.
Besides, if it wasn't for your faggoty laws and cowardly morals, the molesting priests could simply be burned at the stake for heresy. You have weakened America.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 09:43:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 08:47:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 08:21:16 PM
His point was that people who adopt religions outside the mainstream are defective. That's the great point he made.
He showed that some terrible people at one moment in time adopted paganism. Meanwhile we've had lots more time of Catholic priests using their position to abuse children.
Small sacrifices to maintain social order.
Besides, if it wasn't for your faggoty laws and cowardly morals, the molesting priests could simply be burned at the stake for heresy. You have weakened America.
You continue to be confused that acceptance of homosexuality means acceptance of pedophilia.
You continue to pretend that homosexuality isn't a paraphilic disorder.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2012, 10:39:36 PM
You continue to pretend that homosexuality isn't a paraphilic disorder.
I think all homosexuals would agree that homosexuality isn't a typical condition. Even at the extreme estimate of 10% that's still a small segment in society.
Quote from: garbon on October 12, 2012, 10:41:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2012, 10:39:36 PM
You continue to pretend that homosexuality isn't a paraphilic disorder.
I think all homosexuals would agree that homosexuality isn't a typical condition. Even at the extreme estimate of 10% that's still a small segment in society.
Many mentally ill people want to think that their condition isn't serious.
Quote from: Maximus on October 12, 2012, 08:13:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 12, 2012, 07:52:56 PM
Actually he was a Jew. He only became a devout Christian after going to jail. My point, Himmler's neo-paganism wasn't just some minor thing. Neo-paganism much like old paganism was heavily political in nature. The right wing neo-pagans of the 19th and early 20th century adopted it for political reasons. As a rejection of Christianity which was deemed too weak and unfit for a imperial cultures of Europe at the time. They wanted something stronger, less forgiving, more European. A lot of modern neo-pagans are doing the same thing but for opposite reasons. It's cause Christianity is in their opinion dominant, authoritarian, patriarchal. The motive is the same. So, no it's not innocuous.
So your big point is that people adopt paganism because the mainstream religions don't work for them? How very "astute".
What, you can't read or something? They are constructing religions to bolster their political leanings.
I think being rejected by mainstream religions (like homosexuals are, for example) is a great gift, since it helps one reject the whole hocus pocus and embrace rational thought. It boggles my mind when people reject that gift and try looking for another set of idiotic beliefs just so they can be "spiritual-while-sucking-dick".
Why would anyone need help to say no to retardism? Oh right, they're fags.
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2012, 02:44:21 AM
Why would anyone need help to say no to retardism? Oh right, they're fags.
Not more retarded than heteros. Just look at the number of Langushites who engage in some form of religious activity.
What's wrong with spirituality while sucking dick? Much better than mmm, this dick cheese gross but so appealing.
Wait so you are going to embrace rational thought Marty? Great when did you plan on doing this?
They're moving her to the UK for on-going treatment - and probably safety. Hopefully, her whole family will be going with her.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
They're moving her to the UK for on-going treatment - and probably safety. Hopefully, her whole family will be going with her.
I'm giving 100-1 odds against her returning to Pakistan within 1 year.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
They're moving her to the UK for on-going treatment - and probably safety. Hopefully, her whole family will be going with her.
I'm giving 100-1 odds against her returning to Pakistan within 1 year.
I'm hoping that she never goes back. I know she's fighting for her country to be better, but sometimes, it's better to do it from afar.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 08:57:15 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 08:54:25 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 08:53:11 AM
They're moving her to the UK for on-going treatment - and probably safety. Hopefully, her whole family will be going with her.
I'm giving 100-1 odds against her returning to Pakistan within 1 year.
I'm hoping that she never goes back. I know she's fighting for her country to be better, but sometimes, it's better to do it from afar.
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:04:40 AM
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
How about we let her have her first fucking period before we worry about sending her back into the mouth of the beast, eh?
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:04:40 AM
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
How about we let her have her first fucking period before we worry about sending her back into the mouth of the beast, eh?
I want her to get back to doing what she knew was right before the western media found out about her. Pakistan needs her.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:04:40 AM
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
How about we let her have her first fucking period before we worry about sending her back into the mouth of the beast, eh?
Agreed, though I'm also not sure I'd agree with his analysis as I think often these sorts of individuals (especially think of this pre-teen to early teen crusader) end up going back as they believe in helping out their country. See Benazir Bhutto where everyone was like - if you go back, you will die.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:09:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:04:40 AM
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
How about we let her have her first fucking period before we worry about sending her back into the mouth of the beast, eh?
Agreed, though I'm also not sure I'd agree with his analysis as I think often these sorts of individuals (especially think of this pre-teen to early teen crusader) end up going back as they believe in helping out their country. See Benazir Bhutto where everyone was like - if you go back, you will die.
Benazir didn't give up on her country. You seem determined to let it go to hell.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:09:06 AM
I want her to get back to doing what she knew was right before the western media found out about her. Pakistan needs her.
Pakistan can wait until she's a little older, I would think. She's only 14, Viking. She has no business walking around worrying about getting shot, hung, drawn and quartered - or worse, being the reason that it happens to her mother or father.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:04:40 AM
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
Gandhi returned to India in his mid-40s. :contract:
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:11:01 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:09:33 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:04:40 AM
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
How about we let her have her first fucking period before we worry about sending her back into the mouth of the beast, eh?
Agreed, though I'm also not sure I'd agree with his analysis as I think often these sorts of individuals (especially think of this pre-teen to early teen crusader) end up going back as they believe in helping out their country. See Benazir Bhutto where everyone was like - if you go back, you will die.
Benazir didn't give up on her country. You seem determined to let it go to hell.
She didn't leave Pakistan? :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 09:11:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:04:40 AM
If all the people who want to make pakistan a more civilized place make the same choice pakistan will remain a hell hole forever. Competent and hard working pakistanis leave at the first opportunity and that just means that there are no competent and hard working pakistanis left. Exiles rarely change things, it's the ones who stay behind like mandela, walesa, havel, king and gandhi that change the world. If she stays here (in the west that is) she'll be dissident of the month, get some awards and some press and then be forgotten while we move on to the next brave girl fighting oppression.
Gandhi returned to India in his mid-40s. :contract:
Yes, to work for freedom. His dad had sent him to south africa to be a lawyer.
Point being, there's no reason this teenage girl needs to throw her life away now.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:11:01 AM
Benazir didn't give up on her country. You seem determined to let it go to hell.
She didn't leave Pakistan? :huh:
She didn't even return fire.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
She didn't leave Pakistan? :huh:
She returned and has the car bomb crater to prove it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
Point being, there's no reason this teenage girl needs to throw her life away now.
Was she throwing her life away when she first started fighting for girls education?
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
Point being, there's no reason this teenage girl needs to throw her life away now.
Was she throwing her life away when she first started fighting for girls education?
No, because she didn't have a target on her back then. Now, however, she does, and they've already taken two shots at it. Now, it's time for her to lay low, get healthy, take care of herself and her family, and grow up. Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:25:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
She didn't leave Pakistan? :huh:
She returned and has the car bomb crater to prove it.
I take it you didn't read my post? Let me paste again.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:09:33 AM
Agreed, though I'm also not sure I'd agree with his analysis as I think often these sorts of individuals (especially think of this pre-teen to early teen crusader) end up going back as they believe in helping out their country. See Benazir Bhutto where everyone was like - if you go back, you will die.
Which specifically means that this young girl has ample time to return and crusade for her country. She doesn't need to do it all and end her life in the next month.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:27:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:25:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
She didn't leave Pakistan? :huh:
She returned and has the car bomb crater to prove it.
I take it you didn't read my post? Let me paste again.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:09:33 AM
Agreed, though I'm also not sure I'd agree with his analysis as I think often these sorts of individuals (especially think of this pre-teen to early teen crusader) end up going back as they believe in helping out their country. See Benazir Bhutto where everyone was like - if you go back, you will die.
Which specifically means that this young girl has ample time to return and crusade for her country. She doesn't need to do it all and end her life in the next month.
Pakistan is a hopeless case then?
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:28:37 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:27:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:25:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:16:00 AM
She didn't leave Pakistan? :huh:
She returned and has the car bomb crater to prove it.
I take it you didn't read my post? Let me paste again.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2012, 09:09:33 AM
Agreed, though I'm also not sure I'd agree with his analysis as I think often these sorts of individuals (especially think of this pre-teen to early teen crusader) end up going back as they believe in helping out their country. See Benazir Bhutto where everyone was like - if you go back, you will die.
Which specifically means that this young girl has ample time to return and crusade for her country. She doesn't need to do it all and end her life in the next month.
Pakistan is a hopeless case then?
How the hell do you get that from what he said?? :blink:
You don't think that Pakistan will still require a crusader for women's rights in the next 10 years? Hell, I expect it for the next 25-50 years. That doesn't mean that it won't or can't get better. It just means that it will take a long time to get things to where they ought to be.
Islamic countries are hopeless cases.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
Point being, there's no reason this teenage girl needs to throw her life away now.
Was she throwing her life away when she first started fighting for girls education?
No, because she didn't have a target on her back then. Now, however, she does, and they've already taken two shots at it. Now, it's time for her to lay low, get healthy, take care of herself and her family, and grow up. Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
:yes:
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
Point being, there's no reason this teenage girl needs to throw her life away now.
Was she throwing her life away when she first started fighting for girls education?
No, because she didn't have a target on her back then. Now, however, she does, and they've already taken two shots at it. Now, it's time for her to lay low, get healthy, take care of herself and her family, and grow up. Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
She had a target on her then, that's why they shot her. Now she has the possibility of being protected.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
So she doesn't know what she's doing now?
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 10:34:59 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
Point being, there's no reason this teenage girl needs to throw her life away now.
Was she throwing her life away when she first started fighting for girls education?
No, because she didn't have a target on her back then. Now, however, she does, and they've already taken two shots at it. Now, it's time for her to lay low, get healthy, take care of herself and her family, and grow up. Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
She had a target on her then, that's why they shot her. Now she has the possibility of being protected.
You'd trust Pakistani police and security guards, let alone their bosses ?
Haven't Pakistani politicians been murder by members of their own security detail ?
Not a Taliban deep cover agent, but someone who wakes up one morning and just decides it's gods work to kill their protected person later in the week.
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:28:37 AM
Pakistan is a hopeless case then?
I thought that was a given.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 10:45:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
So she doesn't know what she's doing now?
I can't imagine that a 14-year-old child fully understands the implications of what she's doing, no. Would she have done what she did if she knew it might get her parents killed? Could she possibly understand what the political implications might or might be as a result of her own death? That's an awful lot to put on such a young person.
Do I think she's brave as hell and do I believe that she's a hero for all that she's done? Oh yes. Do I think that she knew from the beginning that she could be killed? Yes, I think she did, and I think she took on that risk fully aware that her own life could be forfeit. But I can't imagine that she was capable of understanding the full picture, and all that it implies.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to accept that possibility. Nonetheless, she's still a child, and as such, she deserves to be cared for as a child, not as a martyr or as a crusader. That can wait.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2012, 10:45:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 10:34:59 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 09:19:45 AM
Point being, there's no reason this teenage girl needs to throw her life away now.
Was she throwing her life away when she first started fighting for girls education?
No, because she didn't have a target on her back then. Now, however, she does, and they've already taken two shots at it. Now, it's time for her to lay low, get healthy, take care of herself and her family, and grow up. Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
She had a target on her then, that's why they shot her. Now she has the possibility of being protected.
You'd trust Pakistani police and security guards, let alone their bosses ?
Haven't Pakistani politicians been murder by members of their own security detail ?
Not a Taliban deep cover agent, but someone who wakes up one morning and just decides it's gods work to kill their protected person later in the week.
No, I'd say that if pakistani liberals all run and get asylum in the west then pakistan will never reform.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:11:09 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 15, 2012, 09:09:06 AM
I want her to get back to doing what she knew was right before the western media found out about her. Pakistan needs her.
Pakistan can wait until she's a little older, I would think. She's only 14, Viking. She has no business walking around worrying about getting shot, hung, drawn and quartered - or worse, being the reason that it happens to her mother or father.
Your infantilization of a foreign culture is inappropriate.
Our allowing anyone who doesn't want to live in shit to escape to our civilized lands has been devastating to the Third World, and you are a terrible person for trying to hold Asia in the Dark Ages.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2012, 12:18:56 PM
Your infantilization of a foreign culture is inappropriate.
Our allowing anyone who doesn't want to live in shit to escape to our civilized lands has been devastating to the Third World, and you are a terrible person for trying to hold Asia in the Dark Ages.
The people who are able to realize it is shit are more deserving of escaping said shit than the ones making it so.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 11:32:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 10:45:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
So she doesn't know what she's doing now?
I can't imagine that a 14-year-old child fully understands the implications of what she's doing, no.
in regions of the world like that you're generally no longer considered to be a child when 14. Especially girls. Plenty enough have had their first child by then.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 15, 2012, 12:48:55 PM
in regions of the world like that you're generally no longer considered to be a child when 14. Especially girls. Plenty enough have had their first child by then.
That doesn't change the physiological make-up of human beings. The frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the mid-20s. There is no way that any child, regardless of which cultural they are raised in, can fully comprehend all of the implications of their actions, nor even know how to figure them out.
This girl goes to school with her school friends. She's not a mother, nor is she married. By most accounts, one could guess that she most likely still thinks an awful lot like a child rather than an adult, even if she sounds more grown than not.
Stop blaming your frontal lobe Meri.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 12:54:37 PM
That doesn't change the physiological make-up of human beings. The frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the mid-20s. There is no way that any child, regardless of which cultural they are raised in, can fully comprehend all of the implications of their actions, nor even know how to figure them out.
Meh. Adults aren't capable of comprehending all the implications of their actions either.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 15, 2012, 12:37:35 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2012, 12:18:56 PM
Your infantilization of a foreign culture is inappropriate.
Our allowing anyone who doesn't want to live in shit to escape to our civilized lands has been devastating to the Third World, and you are a terrible person for trying to hold Asia in the Dark Ages.
The people who are able to realize it is shit are more deserving of escaping said shit than the ones making it so.
Neither are. They must fight it out in order to civilize their own societies. Bringing them here doesn't help them, as the failed experiment with bringing Africans to the US should demonstrate.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2012, 01:51:31 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 12:54:37 PM
That doesn't change the physiological make-up of human beings. The frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the mid-20s. There is no way that any child, regardless of which cultural they are raised in, can fully comprehend all of the implications of their actions, nor even know how to figure them out.
Meh. Adults aren't capable of comprehending all the implications of their actions either.
Mooselimbs are fully capable of comprehending the implications of their actions. They know exactly what they're doing.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2012, 01:54:05 PM
Neither are. They must fight it out in order to civilize their own societies. Bringing them here doesn't help them, as the failed experiment with bringing Africans to the US should demonstrate.
The Africans were chosen randomly, making this a different experiment.
She is now going to mooch off the British taxpayer and get whore pills now.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
She is now going to mooch off the British taxpayer and get whore pills now.
your wife is one needing those pills.
Quote from: katmai on October 15, 2012, 03:25:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
She is now going to mooch off the British taxpayer and get whore pills now.
your wife is one needing those pills.
Not allowed.
Back in school (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-21846817)
Quote
Malala Yousafzai attends first day at Edgbaston High School in Birmingham
Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head by the Taliban after campaigning for girls' rights to education, has attended her first day at school in the UK.
The 15-year-old was shot on a school bus in Pakistan in October.
She has now recovered following treatment at Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
She described starting at the city's Edgbaston High School for Girls as "the most important day" of her life.
She said: "I think it is the happiest moment that I'm going back to school, this is what I dreamed, that all children should be able to go to school because it is their basic right.
"I am so proud to wear the uniform because it proves I am a student and that I am living my life and learning."
Malala is in year nine and will start her GCSE curriculum next year.
She said she was looking forward to learning about politics and law.
'Normal teenager'
Headmistress Dr Ruth Weekes said she believed Malala needed the stability of being at school.
She said: "She wants to be a normal teenage girl and to have the support of other girls around.
"Talking to her, I know that's something she missed during her time in hospital."
Malala is staying in the UK after her father Ziauddin Yousafzai was appointed education attaché at the Pakistan consulate in Birmingham.
Surgeons in Pakistan removed a bullet from Malala's head after she was shot returning home from school in the Swat valley on 9 October.
She was flown to Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth Hospital for specialist treatment.
The teenager had a titanium plate and cochlear implant fitted and was discharged from the hospital in February to continue her rehabilitation.
The Taliban in Pakistan has threatened the lives of both Mr Yousafzai and Malala since the shooting.
She has received support from around the world, with tens of thousands of people signing an online petition calling for her to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 11:32:04 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2012, 10:45:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2012, 09:27:44 AM
Once she's old enough to fully understand what she's doing, THEN she can go back and fight for her country.
So she doesn't know what she's doing now?
I can't imagine that a 14-year-old child fully understands the implications of what she's doing, no. Would she have done what she did if she knew it might get her parents killed? Could she possibly understand what the political implications might or might be as a result of her own death? That's an awful lot to put on such a young person.
Do I think she's brave as hell and do I believe that she's a hero for all that she's done? Oh yes. Do I think that she knew from the beginning that she could be killed? Yes, I think she did, and I think she took on that risk fully aware that her own life could be forfeit. But I can't imagine that she was capable of understanding the full picture, and all that it implies.
Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to accept that possibility. Nonetheless, she's still a child, and as such, she deserves to be cared for as a child, not as a martyr or as a crusader. That can wait.
I think you vastly underestimate the capabilities of young people who don't grow up in the protective bubble of a modern postindustrial society.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2013, 08:40:35 PMI think you vastly underestimate the capabilities of young people who don't grow up in the protective bubble of a modern postindustrial society.
Yeah.
When Tim and Jacob agree on something, there might be something to it.
It was a mistake to give women the vote.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2013, 08:40:35 PM
I think you vastly underestimate the capabilities of young people who don't grow up in the protective bubble of a modern postindustrial society.
And then there's Ide.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2013, 08:40:35 PM
I think you vastly underestimate the capabilities of young people who don't grow up in the protective bubble of a modern postindustrial society.
So you see nothing wrong with allowing her to go back to Pakistan, knowing that it will result in her death?
Quote from: merithyn on March 20, 2013, 08:44:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2013, 08:40:35 PM
I think you vastly underestimate the capabilities of young people who don't grow up in the protective bubble of a modern postindustrial society.
So you see nothing wrong with allowing her to go back to Pakistan, knowing that it will result in her death?
"Allowing"? I didn't realize that it was Timmay's decision.
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2013, 09:27:42 AM
Quote from: merithyn on March 20, 2013, 08:44:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 19, 2013, 08:40:35 PM
I think you vastly underestimate the capabilities of young people who don't grow up in the protective bubble of a modern postindustrial society.
So you see nothing wrong with allowing her to go back to Pakistan, knowing that it will result in her death?
"Allowing"? I didn't realize that it was Timmay's decision.
I was addressing the fact that the girl wanted to go back home in the post that Tim commented on. My point was that she was too young to be allowed to martyr herself in that way. In this case, allowed by the state of Pakistan, not Tim.
While I see the point, I can't imagine any country telling one of its citizens, regardless of age, "no, you can't come home because we can't guarantee your safety".
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2013, 09:40:43 AM
While I see the point, I can't imagine any country telling one of its citizens, regardless of age, "no, you can't come home because we can't guarantee your safety".
Because at the end of the day, they're not concerned about her safety so much as the destabilizing influence of her likely murder.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 20, 2013, 01:39:07 PM
Quote from: dps on March 20, 2013, 09:40:43 AM
While I see the point, I can't imagine any country telling one of its citizens, regardless of age, "no, you can't come home because we can't guarantee your safety".
Because at the end of the day, they're not concerned about her safety so much as the destabilizing influence of her likely murder.
No, that wasn't what I was getting out. I was suggesting that no country really wants to go on record as saying it can't protect its citizens.
Another story from Pakistan on the same subject:
Quote
Maria Toorpakai: The Pakistani squash star who had to pretend to be a boy
By Bethan Jinkinson
Maria Toorpakai Wazir is a star squash player with a promising international career. Born in Waziristan, a highly conservative region of Pakistan, she had to disguise herself as a boy when she took up the sport - and later received ominous threats for playing in shorts.
"I am a warrior, I was born a warrior, I will die like a warrior."
Maria Toorpakai is courageous - and she's had to be, to play squash in a region where many girls are denied more than a primary education.
When she was four, she put on her brother's clothes, cut her hair and took all her girly clothes outside and had them burnt.
"My father started laughing and said, 'Here we go, we have a Genghis Khan in the family,'" she says, referring to the Mongolian warlord of the 12th Century.
As she grew older, Toorpakai was often involved in fights. She says it was how she made friends. "My hands, elbows, knees were always bleeding - my eyebrows and face were always swollen."
So 10 years ago, when she was 12, her father decided to channel her energies towards sport - in particular, weightlifting.
"He was a bit shy to tell people that I was a girl, so he said, 'That's my son and his name is Genghis Khan,'" Toorpakai says.
After a couple of months, she was entered for a boy's tournament - and won.
"Giving her a false boy's name allowed her to take part in whatever games she wanted," says Toorpakai's father, Shamsul Qayyum Wazir.
"Then someone told me that if she carried on weightlifting, she would not grow taller, and she would become plump and heavy. So I encouraged the interest she had already discovered in playing squash."
.....
At first, Toorpakai couldn't quite believe he was the real Jonathon Power. Several months later, in 2011, she arrived in Toronto and started training with him.
She is currently Pakistan's top female player and ranked the 49th best woman in the world. Power is convinced that she will go far.
"She absolutely has the talent and determination to become the best player in the world," he says.
"It's going to take time - she did have four years where she didn't get to progress, playing in her room.
"But now she's in a great environment, she's got great people around her helping her physically and learning the game of squash on a tactical level."
As for Toorpakai's father, he couldn't be prouder. "Pakistan and the whole Muslim world should be proud of her," he says.
"In our society people celebrate when a boy is born and they are aggrieved when a girl is born - this attitude must change. I want every tribal girl to have the same chances as other girls."
.....
The full story here, is worth reading:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21799703 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21799703)
There's professional squash? :huh:
There's all kinds of weird sports in Europe and the Third World.
Like Canadian Football.
I don't know if that qualifies, all its best players were developed in the good ol' USA.
Quote from: katmai on March 21, 2013, 07:32:41 AM
Like Canadian Football.
As my wife says, everything is either a penalty or a rouge.
Still, we won the war of 1812, so Canadian football is a small price to pay for freedom.
Quote from: Neil on March 21, 2013, 07:38:03 AM
Quote from: katmai on March 21, 2013, 07:32:41 AM
Like Canadian Football.
As my wife says, everything is either a penalty or a rouge.
Still, we won the war of 1812, so Canadian football is a small price to pay for freedom.
Uh No.
Quote from: katmai on March 21, 2013, 07:42:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on March 21, 2013, 07:38:03 AM
Quote from: katmai on March 21, 2013, 07:32:41 AM
Like Canadian Football.
As my wife says, everything is either a penalty or a rouge.
Still, we won the war of 1812, so Canadian football is a small price to pay for freedom.
Uh No.
You invaded us, we didn't end up american, we win :D
No, it really is. Besides, in this modern world, I can be as connected to the NFL as any fan who doesn't live in an NFL city.
And when the alternative is living in the United States... :x
Quote from: HVC on March 21, 2013, 07:45:23 AM
You invaded us, we didn't end up american, we win :D
WE CHANGED OUR MINDS
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 21, 2013, 07:36:30 AM
I don't know if that qualifies, all its best players were developed in the good ol' USA.
And the only people watching them in the good ol' USA are their parents.
Quote from: HVC on March 21, 2013, 07:45:23 AM
You invaded us, we didn't end up american, we win :D
Canada didn't end up part of the US. That means the US won. :contract:
If Canadians want to insist that they won as well, that's fine with me. :bowler: