THIS is religious repression

[Blackadar]

If you think that your religious beliefs are being repressed or discriminated against, try this. Un-friggin' believable.

hxxp://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs
Father appeals order in divorce decree that prevents couple from exposing son to Wicca.

By Kevin Corcoran
[email protected]


An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.

Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple's divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

Bradford refused to remove the provision after the 9-year-old boy's outraged parents, Thomas E. Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie U. Bristol, protested last fall.

Through a court spokeswoman, Bradford said Wednesday he could not discuss the pending legal dispute.

The parents' Wiccan beliefs came to Bradford's attention in a confidential report prepared by the Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau, which provides recommendations to the court on child custody and visitation rights. Jones' son attends a local Catholic school.

"There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones' lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages," the bureau said in its report.

But Jones, 37, Indianapolis, disputes the bureau's findings, saying he attended Bishop Chatard High School in Indianapolis as a non-Christian.

Jones has brought the case before the Indiana Court of Appeals, with help from the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. They filed their request for the appeals court to strike the one-paragraph clause in January.

"This was done without either of us requesting it and at the judge's whim," said Jones, who has organized Pagan Pride Day events in Indianapolis. "It is upsetting to our son that he cannot celebrate holidays with us, including Yule, which is winter solstice, and Ostara, which is the spring equinox."

The ICLU and Jones assert the judge's order tramples on the parents' constitutional right to expose their son to a religion of their choice. Both say the court failed to explain how exposing the boy to Wicca's beliefs and practices would harm him.

Bristol is not involved in the appeal and could not be reached for comment. She and Jones have joint custody, and the boy lives with the father on the Northside.

Jones and the ICLU also argue the order is so vague that it could lead to Jones being found in contempt and losing custody of his son.

"When they read the order to me, I said, 'You've got to be kidding,' " said Alisa G. Cohen, an Indianapolis attorney representing Jones. "Didn't the judge get the memo that it's not up to him what constitutes a valid religion?"

Some people have preconceived notions about Wicca, which has some rituals involving nudity but mostly would be inoffensive to children, said Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion & American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

"Wiccans use the language of witchcraft, but it has a different meaning to them," Goff said. "Their practices tend to be rather pacifistic. They tend to revolve around the old pagan holidays. There's not really a church of Wicca. Practices vary from region to region."

Even the U.S. military accommodates Wiccans and educates chaplains about their beliefs, said Lawrence W. Snyder, an associate professor of religious studies at Western Kentucky University.

"The federal government has given Wiccans protection under the First Amendment," Snyder said. "Unless this judge has some very specific information about activities involving the child that are harmful, the law is not on his side."

At times, divorcing parents might battle in the courts over the religion of their children. But Kenneth J. Falk, the ICLU's legal director, said he knows of no such order issued before by an Indiana court. He said his research also did not turn up such a case nationally.

"Religion comes up most frequently when there are disputes between the parents. There are lots of cases where a mom and dad are of different faiths, and they're having a tug of war over the kids," Falk said. "This is different: Their dispute is with the judge. When the government is attempting to tell people they're not allowed to engage in non-mainstream activities, that raises concerns."

Indiana law generally allows parents who are awarded physical custody of children to determine their religious training; courts step in only when the children's physical or emotional health would be endangered.

Getting the judge's religious restriction lifted should be a slam-dunk, said David Orentlicher, an Indiana University law professor and Democratic state representative from Indianapolis.

"That's blatantly unconstitutional," Orentlicher said. "Obviously, the judge can order them not to expose the child to drugs or other inappropriate conduct, but it sounds like this order was confusing or could be misconstrued."

The couple married in February 1995, and their divorce was final in February 2004.

As Wiccans, the boy's parents believe in nature-based deities and engage in worship rituals that include guided meditation that Jones says improved his son's concentration. Wicca "is an understanding that we're all connected, and respecting that," said Jones, who is a computer Web designer.

Jones said he does not consider himself a witch or practice anything resembling witchcraft.

During the divorce, he told a court official that Wiccans are not devil worshippers. And he said he does not practice a form of Wicca that involves nudity.

"I celebrate life as a duality. There's a male and female force to everything," Jones said. "I feel the Earth is a living creature. I don't believe in Satan or any creature of infinite evil."

[Ksyrup]

By Order of this Court, you shall not play your Godsmack CDs in the presence of your child!

I've never attended a religious school, so I'm wondering - how common is it for people of no/different faith to attend a particular relgious school? Would I expect to find 1% of all Catholic school attendees to be Jewish? This seems to be the root of the Judge's concern. Of course, if it was a legitimate concern, he could have told them to take the kid out of a reoligious school instead of forcing them to stop practicing their religion. Maybe these people are only into Wicca for the smores.

[Tigercat]

In the Catholic School that I attended from 1-8 grade we had anywhere from 10-20% of our students that were not of the Catholic faith. Hell, about the same percentage made up our teachers that were not of the Catholic church. But all went to mass and sat through those proceedings, and I never recall anyone leaving the school because of religious strain.

[JPhillips]

I attend grad school at the Catholic University and I'd bet at least 10% are non-Catholic maybe more.

BTW-This judge should be removed from the bench.

[Ksyrup]

Not unless they find a penis pump.

[stevew]

The Hon. Cale J. Bradford, Judge, Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division Judge Bradford was first elected as a Superior Court judge in 1996. Prior to becoming a judge, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana from 1990 to 1995 and Chief Trial Deputy for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office from 1995-96. He also maintained a private practice from 1986-1990. He is a graduate of Indiana University and of the Indiana University-Indianapolis School of Law. As chair of the Marion Superior Court, Judge Bradford has presided over 175 major felony jury trials. He is a respected member of the bench, and has been rated as Highly Recommended in the IBA’s Judicial Evaluation. He is active with the Craine House, Lawrence Youth Football League and the Northeast Youth Soccer League.

[CamEdwards]

Wiccans have nude rituals? Where do I sign up?

[Desnudo]

Burn them

[Ksyrup]

"I celebrate life as a duality. There's a male and female force to everything," Jones said. "I feel the Earth is a living creature."


I'm assuming, then, that Mother Earth gets regularly boinked by Father Time.

[st.cronin]

I never realized wicca was a religion. I always figured it was a mental illness.

[Klinglerware]

I never realized wicca was a religion. I always figured it was a mental illness.

I see that this thread is proceeding according to schedule...

[Cuckoo]

I never realized wicca was a religion. I always figured it was a mental illness.

Countdown to the "I thought all religions were mental illnesses" statement...

[Blackadar]

I never realized wicca was a religion. I always figured it was a mental illness.

If you're going to troll, get the hell out.

[Crapshoot]

By Order of this Court, you shall not play your Godsmack CDs in the presence of your child!

I've never attended a religious school, so I'm wondering - how common is it for people of no/different faith to attend a particular relgious school? Would I expect to find 1% of all Catholic school attendees to be Jewish? This seems to be the root of the Judge's concern. Of course, if it was a legitimate concern, he could have told them to take the kid out of a reoligious school instead of forcing them to stop practicing their religion. Maybe these people are only into Wicca for the smores.

Well, my experience was at a Catholic school in India, so take it with a grain of salt. WHat used to happen is that we all went to assembly, said the prayers and what not, at which point the Christian kids went off to chapel while we went to moral science. Because of the Hindu majority in the country, I imagine they didnt want to force kids to go to chapel - especially since these schools were the bastion of the middle class- closer to US public schools then private schools.

[Raiders Army]

Countdown to the "I thought all religions were mental illnesses" statement...
I thought all religions preyed upon the how needy people are. It's funny that they say you're "enlightened". Maybe sarcasm?

[stkelly52]

By Order of this Court, you shall not play your Godsmack CDs in the presence of your child!

I've never attended a religious school, so I'm wondering - how common is it for people of no/different faith to attend a particular relgious school? Would I expect to find 1% of all Catholic school attendees to be Jewish? This seems to be the root of the Judge's concern. Of course, if it was a legitimate concern, he could have told them to take the kid out of a reoligious school instead of forcing them to stop practicing their religion. Maybe these people are only into Wicca for the smores.

There is a general belief, backed up by some evidence, that you can get a better education in private schools than you can get in public schools. There are a lot of parents who are willing to put up with religion in the school if it means that their kids will get a better education.

[st.cronin]

There is a general belief, backed up by some evidence, that you can get a better education in private schools than you can get in public schools. There are a lot of parents who are willing to put up with religion in the school if it means that their kids will get a better education.

I will agree with that. I went to one of the best public schools in Massachussetts, and it was much, much worse than the 'mediocre' parochial schools I attended.

If I ever have kids, there isn't a chance in hell that they will go to public schools.

[gi]

I will agree with that. I went to one of the best public schools in Massachussetts, and it was much, much worse than the 'mediocre' parochial schools I attended.

If I ever have kids, there isn't a chance in hell that they will go to public schools.
Agree as well. I went to a Christen Brothers college prep high school that had a much higher quality education offering. My parents were very impressed compared to the education my sister received at a public high school.

[sterlingice]

Countdown to the "I thought all religions were mental illnesses" statement...
*deadpan* "I thought all religions were mental illnesses"

Happy now? ;)

SI

[Passacaglia]

I never realized wicca was a religion. I always figured it was a mental illness.

well...

Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

[st.cronin]

I insist on everyone's (including my own) right to make fun of religions I don't personally believe in. I've never pretended otherwise.

[Passacaglia]

I insist on everyone's (including my own) right to make fun of religions I don't personally believe in. I've never pretended otherwise.

We've never accused you of more.

[Whar]

I would support this judge 100% if after careful measurement it was determined the parents weighed as much as a duck! :)

[Blackadar]

I insist on everyone's (including my own) right to make fun of religions I don't personally believe in. I've never pretended otherwise.

Nor would I expect more from a pathetic excuse for a "Christian".

[st.cronin]

Nor would I expect more from a pathetic excuse for a "Christian".

:confused:

[st.cronin]

There is a big difference between having a little fun with the general perception of a religion, and calling somebody a 'pathetic excuse for a christian.' I don't think I've warranted a personal attack like that.

I mean, if I offended anybody with the 'mental illness' crack, I'm sorry, I was trying to have a little fun. But, Blackadar, WHAT THE HECK IS THAT ALL ABOUT??

[Blackadar]

There is a big difference between having a little fun with the general perception of a religion, and calling somebody a 'pathetic excuse for a christian.' I don't think I've warranted a personal attack like that.

I mean, if I offended anybody with the 'mental illness' crack, I'm sorry, I was trying to have a little fun. But, Blackadar, WHAT THE HECK IS THAT ALL ABOUT??

Step 1: You call a certain religion a mental illness.
Step 2: I say if you're going to troll, get out of the thread.
Step 3: You say it's your right to make fun of religions you don't believe in.
Step 4: I call you a pathetic excuse for a "Christian".

Did I overreact? I don't know, but you pissed me off.

If you were being sarcastic, it didn't translate very well and I apologize. If you weren't, then my comment stands.

[Subby]

As long as you don't mind when people poke fun at your "religion" then it's all cool, St. Carrottop...

[st.cronin]

I wasn't exactly being sarcastic; I was using the stereotype of wiccans (people who think they cast spells on their exes, cure their pets illnesses with incantations, etc.) to make what i thought was a pretty funny joke, in a thread where pretty much EVERYBODY else was making jokes about witches.

And people make fun of Christianity on this board pretty much every day - but I never get pissy. Maybe I should start?

Or maybe we should just leave the personal attacks out of it?

[Draft Dodger]

There is a general belief, backed up by some evidence, that you can get a better education in private schools than you can get in public schools. There are a lot of parents who are willing to put up with religion in the school if it means that their kids will get a better education.

I was sent to a Christian school for Kindergarten and 1st grade in Barstow because the public school sucked. Religion was not a factor at all.
And there was a difference - right before 2nd grade we moved to LA...after the first day, I came home and told my mom I thought they put me back in kindergarten by mistake; they were WAY behind what I'd been learning in the private school.

[Glengoyne]

...

I've never attended a religious school, so I'm wondering - how common is it for people of no/different faith to attend a particular relgious school? Would I expect to find 1% of all Catholic school attendees to be Jewish? This seems to be the root of the Judge's concern. Of course, if it was a legitimate concern, he could have told them to take the kid out of a reoligious school instead of forcing them to stop practicing their religion. Maybe these people are only into Wicca for the smores.
I'm a protestant. My wife is the Music Minister at a Baptist Church. We are very involved with the church, yet I am working on sending my daughter to a Private Catholic shcool. The decision revolves around getting her the best education we can manage,and that isn't likely to be found in our public school. Oddly, I'd be more comfortable sending her to a catholic school rather than a Protestant "Christian" school, because quite frankly some of the people I've seen associated with "Christian" schools are freaking loons, and I don't want them messing with my kids. With Catholic school at least I know that the "religion" portion of the education is relatively harmless.

Oh and Blackie take a valium or maybe a laxitive or something. You seem wound a bit tight today.

[Ksyrup]

Nor would I expect more from a pathetic excuse for a "Christian".Next time, please remember that the period goes inside the quotation mark before you start "the judgment."

[Celeval]

Judge should be disbarred. Blantantly unconstitutional.

[st.cronin]

As long as you don't mind when people poke fun at your "religion" then it's all cool, St. Carrottop...

I don't mind - I never take it personal. Also I don't have red hair, except on my chin.

[Ksyrup]

I'm a protestant. My wife is the Music Minister at a Baptist Church. We are very involved with the church, yet I am working on sending my daughter to a Private Catholic shcool. The decision revolves around getting her the best education we can manage,and that isn't likely to be found in our public school. Oddly, I'd be more comfortable sending her to a catholic school rather than a Protestant "Christian" school, because quite frankly some of the people I've seen associated with "Christian" schools are freaking loons, and I don't want them messing with my kids. With Catholic school at least I know that the "religion" portion of the education is relatively harmless.
Interesting. Thanks for the comments on this point everyone. I haven't (and still won't) seriously consider sending our kids to a private school, mostly because I don't have a worry that the particular schools they are in/will be going to are anything but the best in this county. My wife's a former teacher, and the best we can tell, private school teachers make far less than public school teachers and have less to work with in terms of supplies, yet they are also teaching kids from well-off families who are more inclined to do well in school as a whole anyway.

This came up in another thread and I touched on it briefly - while I would agree that a teacher's salary isn't necessarily indicative of how good a teacher that person is, I always find it odd that the first thing I hear about public schools is, "Well, if we paid them what they are worth, maybe our school systems would improve." Then I see that my wife gets paid $5K+ less as a private school teacher. Hmmmm....

Between what our kids will learn in public schools AND at home, I don't see any reason why they can't do just as well as if I was shelling out $6K a year for tuition. My 5-year old finishes kindergarten tomorrow and is reading at a 3rd grade level. I don't expect her to become stupid overnight.

[Blackadar]

Oh and Blackie take a valium or maybe a laxitive or something. You seem wound a bit tight today.

Hey. If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Glengoyne, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorent, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is. Hallelujah. Holy shit.

Where's the Tylenol?

[Subby]

"Sometimes I get the menstrual cramps real bad."

[sterlingice]

Hey. If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Glengoyne, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorent, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is. Hallelujah. Holy shit.

Where's the Tylenol?
*snicker*

SI

[Shkspr]

Where's the Tylenol?

Ironically, in the medicine cabinet between the Valium and laxatives.

[JeeberD]

I don't mind - I never take it personal. Also I don't have red hair, except on my chin.


You gotta be more careful with those Cheetos, cronin...

[sabotai]

Judge should be disbarred. Blantantly unconstitutional.
My thought exactly.

[Cuckoo]

*deadpan* "I thought all religions were mental illnesses"

Happy now? ;)

SI


:D I'm not sure I believe it. I want to see more emotion, more venom. I think that you just might not have the reputation to pull it off, SI. ;)

[QuikSand]

I realize that what this particular judge is apparently against isn't terribly popular (and that makes all the difference)... but has there ever been a clearer example of the ever-present bad-bencher buzzwords "judicial activism" than this? Not just expanding beyond the literal words of the Constitution, but actively flouting the clear intent of the Constitution, all to advance a particular set of beliefs? Wow.

But it's Indiana. He'll probably be elected to the U.S. Senate next.

[Daimyo]

I wasn't exactly being sarcastic; I was using the stereotype of wiccans (people who think they cast spells on their exes, cure their pets illnesses with incantations, etc.) to make what i thought was a pretty funny joke, in a thread where pretty much EVERYBODY else was making jokes about witches.
Does it sound as strange to you if you substitute "people who think they cast spells on their exes, cure their pets illnesses with incantations, etc" with "people who think they can cure diseases and influence the world around them through prayer, that they live on in heaven or hell after they die, that the president gets guidance from God, etc"? People in glass houses... yada, yada, yada...

[st.cronin]

Does it sound as strange to you if you substitute "people who think they cast spells on their exes, cure their pets illnesses with incantations, etc" with "people who think they can cure diseases and influence the world around them through prayer, that they live on in heaven or hell after they die, that the president gets guidance from God, etc"? People in glass houses... yada, yada, yada...

... which does not accurately describe my understanding of Christianity but DOES very accurately describe my understanding of wicca/voodoo/certain strains of buddhism/hinduism. And I maintain that people who say they can cure diseases etc. with prayer are good targets for mockery.

[Daimyo]

Between what our kids will learn in public schools AND at home, I don't see any reason why they can't do just as well as if I was shelling out $6K a year for tuition. My 5-year old finishes kindergarten tomorrow and is reading at a 3rd grade level. I don't expect her to become stupid overnight.
From what I've read I think this is true. When you factor out socio-economic status, etc there isn't really any correlation between public/private education and future success. I don't have kids yet, but I think I'd only consider sending them to private school if it was a matter of safety (although I can't imagine I'd live in an area where that would be a factor at all).

[sterlingice]

:D I'm not sure I believe it. I want to see more emotion, more venom. I think that you just might not have the reputation to pull it off, SI. ;)
:( I swear, 8500 posts and no respect. ;)

And this after I was told I hated patriotic little kids the other day. :p

SI

[st.cronin]

From what I've read I think this is true. When you factor out socio-economic status, etc there isn't really any correlation between public/private education and future success. I don't have kids yet, but I think I'd only consider sending them to private school if it was a matter of safety (although I can't imagine I'd live in an area where that would be a factor at all).

Future success should not be the only consideration when deciding where to send your kid to school. I found the environment in public school to be incredibly negative and it was not a good experience. Sure, in the end I am what I am - but probably more kids hate school who go to public school than who go to private school, and I was one of them. I think that counts for something - whether your kid would enjoy a school.

[Ksyrup]

We'll see how it changes over time, but my daughter loves school and is actually sad (although not as sad as my wife) that school ends tomorrow. Of course, maybe all 5 year olds feel that way. I would hope she wouldn't fee the exact opposite in 10 years, though, and certainly not just because she's in public school.

[Subby]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for private school when the public alternative is just as good or better.

Even more ridiculous though are the kids who let their parents pay for a private college education...

[Raiders Army]

I don't mind - I never take it personal. Also I don't have red hair, except on my chin.
Man, no one came with the red headed guy's balls on his chin yet???

[Celeval]

This came up in another thread and I touched on it briefly - while I would agree that a teacher's salary isn't necessarily indicative of how good a teacher that person is, I always find it odd that the first thing I hear about public schools is, "Well, if we paid them what they are worth, maybe our school systems would improve." Then I see that my wife gets paid $5K+ less as a private school teacher. Hmmmm....
As does my wife. Yet she still chooses to work in private over public, despite being paid less - simply because the environment is so much better both as a teacher and for her students. If the better teachers choose private over public despite a lower pay, doesn't that point towards something?

Between what our kids will learn in public schools AND at home, I don't see any reason why they can't do just as well as if I was shelling out $6K a year for tuition.
Well, one reason is simply what you stated before - perhaps private school is filled with more affluent families who would learn more/better anyhow... but wouldn't that create a better environment to learn in all on its own? I'd rather my children (when they arrive) be in an environment that fosters learning - and if that means surrounding them with families who may be more predisposed towards learning, whatever the socioeconomics behind it, I'm willing to do that.

[stkelly52]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for private school when the public alternative is just as good or better.

Even more ridiculous though are the kids who let their parents pay for a private college education...

But in most cases, the alternative is not just as good.

[Klinglerware]

But in most cases, the alternative is not just as good.

The irony is that the majority of those kids going to elite prep schools already live in places with excellent public schools...

[Drake]

But it's Indiana. He'll probably be elected to the U.S. Senate next.

Just remember that I know where you live and I'm pretty sure my tractor will get me that far, Mr. Quiksand.

[MrBigglesworth]

I hate these damn liberal activisit judges.

In other news, Judge Cale J. Bradford was nominated to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals by Bush today...

[cuervo72]

Just remember that I know where you live and I'm pretty sure my tractor will get me that far, Mr. Quiksand.

Who are you, Richard Farnsworth??

[HomerJSimpson]

I realize that what this particular judge is apparently against isn't terribly popular (and that makes all the difference)... but has there ever been a clearer example of the ever-present bad-bencher buzzwords "judicial activism" than this? Not just expanding beyond the literal words of the Constitution, but actively flouting the clear intent of the Constitution, all to advance a particular set of beliefs? Wow.

But it's Indiana. He'll probably be elected to the U.S. Senate next.


Exactly what i was thinking. Like that idiot judge in Alabama that purposely broke the law, and then used his "persecution" as a stepping stone to money and fame. "Activist judges" indeed.

[Ksyrup]

Well, one reason is simply what you stated before - perhaps private school is filled with more affluent families who would learn more/better anyhow... but wouldn't that create a better environment to learn in all on its own? I'd rather my children (when they arrive) be in an environment that fosters learning - and if that means surrounding them with families who may be more predisposed towards learning, whatever the socioeconomics behind it, I'm willing to do that.
The thing is, though, there are plenty of public schools filled with kids who come from families who are affluent and/or care about education. Obviously, there are schools that are bad learning environments, but the schools in our area, in particular, are filled with kids who are from upper middle class or well-off families. I'm sure there are a portion of families whose kids go to those schools who couldn't pay for a private education, but overall, I think the learning environment is great. I could understand at least thinking about it in other areas of the city, but where we are, absent some religious or learning disability issues, I just think paying for private school is absolutely unnecessary.

[Blackadar]

Exactly what i was thinking. Like that idiot judge in Alabama that purposely broke the law, and then used his "persecution" as a stepping stone to money and fame. "Activist judges" indeed.

Roy Moore. That motherfucker should have been tossed in jail for contempt. I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

[QuikSand]

Just remember that I know where you live and I'm pretty sure my tractor will get me that far, Mr. Quiksand.

Do you even know what time it is?

[QuikSand]

Just remember that I know where you live and I'm pretty sure my tractor will get me that far, Mr. Quiksand.

Come to think of it, you probably do know exactly where I live. Bastard. There can't be that many of us, after all. (not a barb)

[cuervo72]

Come to think of it, you probably do know exactly where I live. Bastard. There can't be that many of us, after all. (not a barb)

Yes it is - you're saying nobody buys his stuff.

You gonna take that Drake? Huh? HUH??

[HomerJSimpson]

Roy Moore. That motherfucker should have been tossed in jail for contempt. I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.


I have actually said that same comment about him. Weird.

[sterlingice]

Come to think of it, you probably do know exactly where I live. Bastard. There can't be that many of us, after all. (not a barb) That many of you whats?

http://www.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de/%7Eiug03/gdi/Spezialthemen/Zahlenstrahl/1997_deepblue.jpg ?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

You know... I wonder if the religion being barred was a Christian religion there would be more outrage on this thread and less silliness...

But, of course, Christians are repressed in this country :p.

[MrBug708]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for private school when the public alternative is just as good or better.

Even more ridiculous though are the kids who let their parents pay for a private college education...

If parents can afford to pay for their kids education at a private school, why not? I'd say 90% of parents whose kids attend public school cannot afford to. My parents were paying for part of my sisters education at Biola University and that's upwards in 25,000 dollars. State of California was also paying at least 15 grand of that. Love it when the government pays for religious colleges. :D

I actually thought and liked my public school better then HS but that was moreso because of the people.

[Abe Sargent]

Does it sound as strange to you if you substitute "people who think they cast spells on their exes, cure their pets illnesses with incantations, etc" with "people who think they can cure diseases and influence the world around them through prayer, that they live on in heaven or hell after they die, that the president gets guidance from God, etc"? People in glass houses... yada, yada, yada...


I don't know too many people who think that *they* can change the world through prayer. Rather God changes the world, and they simply request intercedence.


-Anxiety

[Sharpieman]

The irony is that the majority of those kids going to elite prep schools already live in places with excellent public schools...
Exactly. The quality of a Public School is determined by the area it is in. A rich neighborhood will have great public schools (In most cases) while a poorer neighborhood will have average to poor public schools (In most cases). I never understood why some parents would shell out thousands to send their kid to a private school when they could send their kid to a perfectly good public school.

[HomerJSimpson]

Exactly. The quality of a Public School is determined by the area it is in. A rich neighborhood will have great public schools (In most cases) while a poorer neighborhood will have average to poor public schools (In most cases). I never understood why some parents would shell out thousands to send their kid to a private school when they could send their kid to a perfectly good public school.


To some extent. The exception to that rule would be smaller, rural communities. I have seen communities were the public schools were awfull mainly because the wealthier families with money sent their kids to private school, and did everything they can to keep funding from the public schools (which help to provide their businesses with cheap labor with no hope of a future). One school system in an area I lived in for a short time was even taken over by the state because it got so bad.

All of this of course was short sighted, as at the time I lived there the main businesses that needed cheap labor all closed, and the county couldn't draw new businesses because there were not enough potential employees that had anything resembling a decent education. One business that did come in there quickly found they couldn't even find enough employees that could do simple math problems (I'm talking simple) to stay fully staffed. Of course, the wealthy of the county just moved.


Anyway, this is all a complete threadjack.

[Passacaglia]

... which does not accurately describe my understanding of Christianity but DOES very accurately describe my understanding of wicca/voodoo/certain strains of buddhism/hinduism. And I maintain that people who say they can cure diseases etc. with prayer are good targets for mockery.

Again, since you've said this

Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

how can you mock any religion? Is Christianity the only concept too hard for human brains to fully understand? Or is it simply acceptable to choose one of these difficult concepts, and reject all others to the point of mockery?

[wade moore]

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to shell out tens of thousands of dollars for private school when the public alternative is just as good or better.

Even more ridiculous though are the kids who let their parents pay for a private college education...


Word my W&M Brethren..

[st.cronin]

Again, since you've said this



how can you mock any religion? Is Christianity the only concept too hard for human brains to fully understand? Or is it simply acceptable to choose one of these difficult concepts, and reject all others to the point of mockery?

Please forgive me for not believing that all worldviews are equally worthy of my respect. Perhaps I need to be clearer - faith-healing (which is essentially what wiccan is - using 'magic' to alter physical laws) is a concept quite worthy of mockery, whether it be dressed up in witches gear, shamanistic buddhism, or christianity.

[Klinglerware]

Faith-healing (which is essentially what wiccan is - using 'magic' to alter physical laws) is a concept quite worthy of mockery,

Do you really think that Wicca is simplistic enough to be reduced to a singular concept? I don't know much about Wicca myself, but even a cursory google search will yield info that suggests that Wicca, like any other religion, is much too complicated to be encompassed by the six word definition you suggest...

[st.cronin]

I suppose like any metaphysics it's more complicated than that. I'm simplifying based on my very limited readings and interactions with people who call themselves wiccans.

[Telle]

Please forgive me for not believing that all worldviews are equally worthy of my respect. Perhaps I need to be clearer - faith-healing (which is essentially what wiccan is - using 'magic' to alter physical laws) is a concept quite worthy of mockery, whether it be dressed up in witches gear, shamanistic buddhism, or christianity.

So believing that there is something greater than ourselves (god/goddess/gods/the divine/the tao/"the force"/etc) and that we can connect to that something (through prayer/meditation/magical works/etc) and that through that connection change can occur, is worthy of mockery? Wow, I guess you mock pretty much every religion in existance.

[Blackadar]

I'm ignorant about Wicca and feel compelled to insult what I don't understand.

Fixed that for you

[st.cronin]

So believing that there is something greater than ourselves (god/goddess/gods/the divine/the tao/"the force"/etc) and that we can connect to that something (through prayer/meditation/magical works/etc) and that through that connection change can occur, is worthy of mockery? Wow, I guess you mock pretty much every religion in existance.

I should probably get out while I can, but no. What you're doing is twisting my words.

Believing that there is something greater than ourselves is a belief that pretty much everybody shares, and that I have no problem with.

Believing that we can connect with that is... well, same as above.

And that through that connection change can occur ... again, same as above.

What I object to in the metaphysics of 'faith-healing' (a metaphysics prominently featured in wicca, according to my admittedly limited research) is the idea that the physical laws of the universe can be changed with the right recipe of incantation or supplication or whatever.

[Drake]

Do you even know what time it is?

Heh. Why does the fact that you keep up on Indiana political debates not surprise me?

[Telle]

I should probably get out while I can, but no. What you're doing is twisting my words.

Believing that there is something greater than ourselves is a belief that pretty much everybody shares, and that I have no problem with.

Believing that we can connect with that is... well, same as above.

And that through that connection change can occur ... again, same as above.

What I object to in the metaphysics of 'faith-healing' (a metaphysics prominently featured in wicca, according to my admittedly limited research) is the idea that the physical laws of the universe can be changed with the right recipe of incantation or supplication or whatever.

I think this pretty much comes down to your ignorance of Wicca. The belief isn't that you can just stand in front of a candle and say a few special words and bend the laws of physics. The belief is that standing in front of a candle and saying a few special words can help you to connect to something that is larger than yourself, and through that connection, and through the power of that thing that is larger than yourself, change can occur which may or may not appear to alter the laws of physics.

[Celeval]

What I object to in the metaphysics of 'faith-healing' (a metaphysics prominently featured in wicca, according to my admittedly limited research) is the idea that the physical laws of the universe can be changed with the right recipe of incantation or supplication or whatever.
I think you need to improve your research. It is extremely limited, and likely insulting to any who may follow that particular faith.

You may take it as an insult yourself, if you wish, but drawing a stereotype from that is very similar to drawing a stereotype of Christians from one particular, narrow denomination - say, faith healers and televangelists. The collection of beliefs often referred to as Wicca doesn't necessarily include that at all - in the same fashion that the collection of beliefs of Christianity don't necessarily include that a preacher can lay hands on someone and they may be instantly healed. I believe Jesus did that, I'm not convinced that Billy Graham can.

In the same fashion - really the only shared tenet of Wicca across the hugely different variances is essentially the golden rule - as long as you don't harm anyone/anything, you're free to do as you wish.

[Drake]

Just a quick comment on the debate raging between st. cronin and the rest on what constitutes appropriate criticism of other belief systems:

When it comes to religion or favorite sports teams or politics or the best way to raise one's kids or, well, just about anything worth having an opinion about, it seems to me disingenuous to even pretend that you (the generic you) support the potential validity of the competing positions. I mean, if you bother to form an opinion and decide that doing something a particular way is the *right way*, isn't it pretty silly to turn around and say well, that could just as easily be the right way and invalidate your own choice? Making a choice implies that you believe one position is inherently better than all the rest. To say that all the other choices may also be right is the same thing as saying that you wasted your time choosing in the first place. Let's try not to confuse toleration with critical thinking.

That said, I've been Wiccan. I've been Pagan (undifferentiated). I've been Protestant. I've been Catholic. I've flirted with Hinduism and Islam. I made my choice after concluding that the other systems in one way or another failed. I found what I believe to be the truth, and it would be silly of me to pretend that the "truth" I walked away from is just as valid as the Truth I now believe in. If you don't believe you're right, what's the point in believing at all?

Now, the first person who says something parochial like so you're arguing that we shouldn't let people believe things that disagree with you? is a silly git, and I won't bother to respond to idiocy of that nature. Toleration is not, and should not be, the same thing as support.

[Subby]

So you're arguing that we shouldn't let people believe things that disagree with you?

[Klinglerware]

Well, the question is phrased in the classic BW question structure format. :p

[Celeval]

When it comes to religion or favorite sports teams or politics or the best way to raise one's kids or, well, just about anything worth having an opinion about, it seems to me disingenuous to even pretend that you (the generic you) support the potential validity of the competing positions.
Not necessarily. At some point you can get to the place where you say "I believe XYZ even though I know I could be wrong." How strong can faith be if there is never doubt to overcome?

[st.cronin]

Exactly! Freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to listen to speech I consider offensive. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that *I* have to embrace (or even respect) religions distasteful to me.

At the same time, it's not my intention to offend anybody - I live in a town that probably has a higher percentage of wiccans and/or wackos than anywhere in america, and am exposed to their crap on a pretty regular basis, so I'm probably a bit more cynical about it than is always appropriate. I was making what I thought was a pretty funny joke, in a thread teeming with other people making jokes. I imagine I was picked out because I often freely comment on my own Christianity (a religion which I am always bewildered to discover offends some people).

But, whatever. I believe what I believe, and nobody on the internet is going to make me feel bad for thinking wicca is a bunch of nonsense.

[Blackadar]

Exactly! Freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to listen to speech I consider offensive. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that *I* have to embrace (or even respect) religions distasteful to me.

At the same time, it's not my intention to offend anybody - I live in a town that probably has a higher percentage of wiccans and/or wackos than anywhere in america, and am exposed to their crap on a pretty regular basis, so I'm probably a bit more cynical about it than is always appropriate. I was making what I thought was a pretty funny joke, in a thread teeming with other people making jokes. I imagine I was picked out because I often freely comment on my own Christianity (a religion which I am always bewildered to discover offends some people).

But, whatever. I believe what I believe, and nobody on the internet is going to make me feel bad for thinking wicca is a bunch of nonsense.

Distasteful? What's distasteful is that you don't have a clue about Wicca yet you feel compelled to judge it, castigate it, insult it and beliittle it. That's what's distasteful. You've proven yourself to be so closed minded that you won't even learn about something before you deem to be "nonsense".

I don't mind differing opinions as long as you're informed. After all, not everyone draws the same conclusions from the same facts. For example, someone like Cam can drive me up a wall with his opinions, but I know that he has done his homework.

Someone like Drake, who's been there and done that, is then informed enough to judge the merits of Wicca. You, on the other hand, are not - you're ignorant and seem to be proud of it. Of course, you're ignorant of many of the tenants and teachings of Jesus and that's why I called you a pathetic excuse of a Christian. I now modify that statement to be a pathetic and ignorant excuse of a Christian. Because Jesus wouldn't deem something distasteful and nonsense without at least first understanding it.

When it comes to religion or favorite sports teams or politics or the best way to raise one's kids or, well, just about anything worth having an opinion about, it seems to me disingenuous to even pretend that you (the generic you) support the potential validity of the competing positions. I mean, if you bother to form an opinion and decide that doing something a particular way is the *right way*, isn't it pretty silly to turn around and say well, that could just as easily be the right way and invalidate your own choice? Making a choice implies that you believe one position is inherently better than all the rest. To say that all the other choices may also be right is the same thing as saying that you wasted your time choosing in the first place. Let's try not to confuse toleration with critical thinking.

We'll disagree here. I believe the most incorrect "trapping" of religion is that there's only ONE path. Many religions preach this and I think it's total bunk. There may be more than one right way. I'll choose the way that I think is the best way, but it doesn't mean that it's the only way.

So to say that other choices may also be right does NOT mean the same thing as saying that you wasted your time choosing in the first place. Remember, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice (I love quoting Rush in a religious thread). So your statement is a logical fallacy - you may want to rethink that one.

[dawgfan]

At the same time, it's not my intention to offend anybody - I live in a town that probably has a higher percentage of wiccans and/or wackos than anywhere in america, and am exposed to their crap on a pretty regular basis, so I'm probably a bit more cynical about it than is always appropriate. I was making what I thought was a pretty funny joke, in a thread teeming with other people making jokes. I imagine I was picked out because I often freely comment on my own Christianity (a religion which I am always bewildered to discover offends some people).

But, whatever. I believe what I believe, and nobody on the internet is going to make me feel bad for thinking wicca is a bunch of nonsense.

Here's a little exercise for you - take the above statement and replace "wiccan" with "christian" and vice versa and see what you think of it.

[Drake]

Not necessarily. At some point you can get to the place where you say "I believe XYZ even though I know I could be wrong." How strong can faith be if there is never doubt to overcome?

I think one should always be prepared to re-evaluate one's opinions or beliefs based on new information. Belief reflects the tools you use to grapple with the reality you've encountered. But if you're going to actually state "I believe X", then you should damned well believe it and assume that it is right until the weight of evidence to the contrary proves that belief to be false. Otherwise, you should simply say "I haven't made up my mind yet" or "I'd like to believe X, but am still considering the options".

Faith that does not overcome doubts isn't faith. It's wishful thinking.

[Drake]

We'll disagree here. I believe the most incorrect "trapping" of religion is that there's only ONE path. Many religions preach this and I think it's total bunk. There may be more than one right way. I'll choose the way that I think is the best way, but it doesn't mean that it's the only way.

I'll accept that position, but I won't believe it. ;)

Seriously, when it comes to religion specifically, I'm of the opinion that if what you believe doesn't transform your life, your worldview and your eye on being-ness, then you don't really believe it at all. And once you've come to that place of belief--of having touched the Ineffable in a transformative way--it doesn't make sense to believe anything else.

So to say that other choices may also be right does NOT mean the same thing as saying that you wasted your time choosing in the first place. Remember, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice (I love quoting Rush in a religious thread). So your statement is a logical fallacy - you may want to rethink that one.

I'm going to mull this one over, Blackadar. Not sure what to do with it yet.

[Telle]

Seriously, when it comes to religion specifically, I'm of the opinion that if what you believe doesn't transform your life, your worldview and your eye on being-ness, then you don't really believe it at all. And once you've come to that place of belief--of having touched the Ineffable in a transformative way--it doesn't make sense to believe anything else.

But not all religions claim to be "the one true way". Most of Christianity does, but you can't just assume that all other religions do.

[Celeval]

Faith that does not overcome doubts isn't faith. It's wishful thinking.
Indeed. But there are still those doubts. I'm not saying faith doesn't overcome them, but the fact that faith overcomes doubts means they exist (or had to have at some point).

I don't place much stock in faith that has never been tested.

[Blackadar]

I'll accept that position, but I won't believe it. ;)

Seriously, when it comes to religion specifically, I'm of the opinion that if what you believe doesn't transform your life, your worldview and your eye on being-ness, then you don't really believe it at all. And once you've come to that place of belief--of having touched the Ineffable in a transformative way--it doesn't make sense to believe anything else.


If you believe in a just, loving and benevolent God, you almost *have* to believe in my position. For example, God commands that you must believe in him. How that belief is performed is between myself and God. Only man-made trappings of organized religion dictate that you must believe in him and worship him ONLY in a certain way.

If that's the truth, then people who don't believe in that particular way are left behind or punished. This does NOT fit with the image of a just, loving and benevolent God. Therefore, there's no singular way to worship God.

You can have faith in God and not believe in certain religious trappings that man has created to further his own ends. And one of those major trappings is exclusivity, a premise I utterly and completely reject.

So I believe you have faith and religon confused. They are not the same thing.

[Telle]

Exactly! Freedom of speech doesn't mean that *I* have to listen to speech I consider offensive. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that *I* have to embrace (or even respect) religions distasteful to me.

At the same time, it's not my intention to offend anybody - I live in a town that probably has a higher percentage of wiccans and/or wackos than anywhere in america, and am exposed to their crap on a pretty regular basis, so I'm probably a bit more cynical about it than is always appropriate. I was making what I thought was a pretty funny joke, in a thread teeming with other people making jokes. I imagine I was picked out because I often freely comment on my own Christianity (a religion which I am always bewildered to discover offends some people).

But, whatever. I believe what I believe, and nobody on the internet is going to make me feel bad for thinking wicca is a bunch of nonsense.

You're welcome to have any opinion you like. However, it's quite rude to spout ignorance.. and that is what was objected to.

[Drake]

I just sort of assumed that dealing with doubt is a regular part of the process for maintaining belief. I don't think faith is static (or at least it shouldn't be). Anyway, I think we're saying the same thing, just hitting different emphases.

[Celeval]

I just sort of assumed that dealing with doubt is a regular part of the process for maintaining belief. I don't think faith is static (or at least it shouldn't be). Anyway, I think we're saying the same thing, just hitting different emphases.
Sounds about right.





Holy shit, did not only two, but three (including Blackie) people actually agree in a discussion about religion?

[st.cronin]

I do not claim that Christianity is the 'only' way. In fact, a large part of my spiritual 'work' involves Buddhist meditation. My brother has converted to Judaism, and I fully support his choice. Had he decided to convert to wicca, I would be making fun of him every time we talk.

And if anybody thinks I'm ignorant about wicca, well, I suppose I may be - but I feel like I've known enough wiccans, talked about their beliefs with them, and done enough reading to realize that spending more time learning about wicca would be a massive waste of my time.

[st.cronin]

Dola - As for doubt, I am constantly in the process of exploring different truths, asking questions about my own faith, etc. I'm far from a fundamentalist.

[Drake]

But not all religions claim to be "the one true way". Most of Christianity does, but you can't just assume that all other religions do.

Right, right. I think you're assuming that I'm thinking more narrowly than I am. As far as I'm concerned, whether one says what they believe is the "only way" or merely "the best way", it still comes down to a value judgment. One still weighs a particular path as better than the others because those others are in one way or another flawed.

My whole point is that making a choice implies that the non-choices are deficient to varying degrees. And what's more, that's okay. Finding things that others believe to be true to be completely wrong, flawed or just plain foolish because they conflict with things that you believe to be true is a necessary part of belief. To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. You're wrong." is okay. If you don't believe in your convictions, what's the point in having convictions in the first place?

[Celeval]

Right, right. I think you're assuming that I'm thinking more narrowly than I am. As far as I'm concerned, whether one says what they believe is the "only way" or merely "the best way", it still comes down to a value judgment. One still weighs a particular path as better than the others because those others are in one way or another flawed.

My whole point is that making a choice implies that the non-choices are deficient to varying degrees. And what's more, that's okay. Finding things that others believe to be true to be completely wrong, flawed or just plain foolish because they conflict with things that you believe to be true is a necessary part of belief. To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. You're wrong." is okay. If you don't believe in your convictions, what's the point in having convictions in the first place?
You're missing the possibility of "the best way for you", though. The statements you make are perfectly reasonable if you make the assumption that the value of X belief is entirely not dependent on the person or persons who believe it. If there can be a dependency there, then you can very easily say that X is best for you, but someone who believes Y may not be wrong.

[Telle]

Right, right. I think you're assuming that I'm thinking more narrowly than I am. As far as I'm concerned, whether one says what they believe is the "only way" or merely "the best way", it still comes down to a value judgment. One still weighs a particular path as better than the others because those others are in one way or another flawed.

My whole point is that making a choice implies that the non-choices are deficient to varying degrees. And what's more, that's okay. Finding things that others believe to be true to be completely wrong, flawed or just plain foolish because they conflict with things that you believe to be true is a necessary part of belief. To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. You're wrong." is okay. If you don't believe in your convictions, what's the point in having convictions in the first place?

But so long as the religion in question does not claim to be the "one way," then that leaves room for me to say that religion X is the "best way" for me, but that religion Y might be the "best way" for you. That in no way lessons the strength of faith that I have in my own beliefs in being the best way for me.

[Blackadar]

My whole point is that making a choice implies that the non-choices are deficient to varying degrees. And what's more, that's okay. Finding things that others believe to be true to be completely wrong, flawed or just plain foolish because they conflict with things that you believe to be true is a necessary part of belief. To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. You're wrong." is okay. If you don't believe in your convictions, what's the point in having convictions in the first place?

There's a big difference between the best way and the only way. I may take the highway home, but it doesn't mean the back roads won't get me there too.

To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. You're wrong." is NOT okay. It's insulting.
To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. I think you're wrong." is OK.

Why? Because faith is not a statement of fact. Even if you believe it with every fiber of your being, it is still nothing more than your opinion. And as such, you should have the courtesy and respect to recognize that not everyone else will share your opinion.

[st.cronin]

There's a big difference between the best way and the only way. I may take the highway home, but it doesn't mean the back roads won't get me there too.

To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. You're wrong." is NOT okay. It's insulting.
To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. I think you're wrong." is OK.

Why? Because faith is not a statement of fact. Even if you believe it with every fiber of your being, it is still nothing more than your opinion. And as such, you should have the courtesy and respect to recognize that not everyone else will share your opinion.

There is no sharp line such as you are drawing between 'religious beliefs' and an entire worldview.

If somebody told you they believed they were living in a simulation designed by somebody named Solecismic, what would you tell them?

If somebody told you they believed the world was flat, what would you say?

If somebody told you they believed the world was created by God 6000 years ago, what would you tell them?

If somebody told you they still believed we were going to find WMD's in Iraq, what would you tell them?

[Subby]

You're missing the possibility of "the best way for you", though. The statements you make are perfectly reasonable if you make the assumption that the value of X belief is entirely not dependent on the person or persons who believe it. If there can be a dependency there, then you can very easily say that X is best for you, but someone who believes Y may not be wrong. I think I know what Gilbert K. Chesterton would say about this line of thinking... :D

[Telle]

There is no sharp line such as you are drawing between 'religious beliefs' and an entire worldview.

If somebody told you they believed they were living in a simulation designed by somebody named Solecismic, what would you tell them?

If somebody told you they believed the world was flat, what would you say?

If somebody told you they believed the world was created by God 6000 years ago, what would you tell them?

If somebody told you they still believed we were going to find WMD's in Iraq, what would you tell them?

"I think you're wrong, and there's a whole lot of evidence that suggests that you're wrong."

If they said "two plus two is five", then I'd say "you're wrong."

[Celeval]

There is no sharp line such as you are drawing between 'religious beliefs' and an entire worldview.

If somebody told you they believed they were living in a simulation designed by somebody named Solecismic, what would you tell them?
I think you're wrong. And you've been watching far too much of the Matrix.

If somebody told you they believed the world was flat, what would you say?
Um. How do you explain looking at the earth from space, then?

If somebody told you they believed the world was created by God 6000 years ago, what would you tell them?
I think you're wrong.

If somebody told you they still believed we were going to find WMD's in Iraq, what would you tell them?
Did we bring them in? I think you're wrong.

[RendeR]

I think what this comes down to St.dumbass, is that without a thorough understanding of something you do NOT have the right to mock it. Ignorance is not bliss and does not withhold from you the title of ignorant religious bigot if you choose to mock someone elses religion or belief system.

Grow up you little self indulgent putz. Show some respect to others.


Every time you've posted in this thread pissed me off one step further. You know nothing of the things you mock, and you freely admit you don't care to and that you feel justified in mocking them because "its your right" well guess what, its just as rightful that others call you a pathetic excuse for a christian too, based on their knowledge of YOUR religion. The street rolls both ways.

[st.cronin]

If somebody told you they believed they were living in a simulation designed by somebody named Solecismic, what would you tell them?

"I think you're wrong, and there's a whole lot of evidence that suggests that you're wrong."

I'm pretty sure there CAN'T be any evidence that that's wrong.
:D

[Drake]

If you believe in a just, loving and benevolent God, you almost *have* to believe in my position. For example, God commands that you must believe in him. How that belief is performed is between myself and God. Only man-made trappings of organized religion dictate that you must believe in him and worship him ONLY in a certain way.

I almost *have* to, eh? Meaning that if I don't, I'm wrong? ;)

If that's the truth, then people who don't believe in that particular way are left behind or punished. This does NOT fit with the image of a just, loving and benevolent God. Therefore, there's no singular way to worship God.

It does not fit with the image of a loving and benevolent God, yes. It does fit with the image of a Just God.

You can have faith in God and not believe in certain religious trappings that man has created to further his own ends. And one of those major trappings is exclusivity, a premise I utterly and completely reject.

So I believe you have faith and religon confused. They are not the same thing.

I think we more or less are saying the same thing. I just think we draw the line between faith and religion at different points on the spectrum. Doesn't mean that I don't think where you've chosen to draw the line is wrong. And the bottom line is that's okay. This is what I'm trying to get at: I can tolerate your belief, examine it closely if I want or just dismiss it out of hand, and that's all that anyone has the right to expect out of me (or you, or anyone else).

(Can you tell that I'm really, really trying to stay away from specific theological arguments? Or really anything that has to do with theology in general?)

[Blackadar]

I think what this comes down to St.dumbass, is that without a thorough understanding of something you do NOT have the right to mock it. Ignorance is not bliss and does not withhold from you the title of ignorant religious bigot if you choose to mock someone elses religion or belief system.

Grow up you little self indulgent putz. Show some respect to others.


Every time you've posted in this thread pissed me off one step further. You know nothing of the things you mock, and you freely admit you don't care to and that you feel justified in mocking them because "its your right" well guess what, its just as rightful that others call you a pathetic excuse for a christian too, based on their knowledge of YOUR religion. The street rolls both ways.

The major difference is that he mocks Wicca in general - and therefore everyone who subscribes to it. Even more disgusting is his admitted lack of understanding of what he mocks. I just mock him and his ignorant views and how they entirely disagree with what goes into being a good Christian.

[Drake]

Feh. This thread took a turn I'm not interested in between my two posts. I'm not interested in the Truth vs Truth For Me argument.

That said, the only bit I want to touch on is Blackadar's comment:

To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. You're wrong." is NOT okay. It's insulting.
To say "I believe X. You believe something else, Y. I think you're wrong." is OK.

Why? Because faith is not a statement of fact. Even if you believe it with every fiber of your being, it is still nothing more than your opinion. And as such, you should have the courtesy and respect to recognize that not everyone else will share your opinion.

I continue to argue that it is okay. It's fundamental to belief as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, it *isn't* okay to declare it out loud, especially in a way that is hurtful or disrespectful to the person who believes otherwise. Because really, the difference between "I think you're wrong" and "you're wrong" is a social semantic game we play to keep from causing offense. Even when we say "I think you're wrong", what we're saying inside our head is "nope, you're just wrong". Don't misunderstand, this is a useful social game, because it keeps us from going at one another hammer and tong (literally, I mean), but it's still a game.

----

Additionally, you argue that faith is not fact. I hold to the scriptural definition that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". The Apostle Paul is defining faith as a supposition of fact. It is fact for which proof is unnecessary because it is apparent. That's a tough definition. It's hard to get my mind around. Most days, I'm not even sure that I really understand it, but it rings true. To me. :)

[RendeR]

The major difference is that he mocks Wicca in general - and therefore everyone who subscribes to it. Even more disgusting is his admitted lack of understanding of what he mocks. I just mock him and his ignorant views and how they entirely disagree with what goes into being a good Christian.


And I have no problem with what you've said or how you've said it thus far.

I just get irate when ths so-called "religous right" thinks they can claim soveriegnty over what is "right and above mockery"

Every religion is the same, it helps those who belive to feel safe, secure and comforted when they are in spiritual tuermoil. When st.cronin steps all over one religion because he believes in another, he simply become an ignorant bigot.

can I say IGNORANT BIGOT one more time?

I can: Ignorant BIGOT.

thank you, nothing more to see here, please move along.

[Blackadar]

Feh. This thread took a turn I'm not interested in between my two posts. I'm not interested in the Truth vs Truth For Me argument.

That said, the only bit I want to touch on is Blackadar's comment:



I continue to argue that it is okay. It's fundamental to belief as far as I'm concerned.

On the other hand, it *isn't* okay to declare it out loud, especially in a way that is hurtful or disrespectful to the person who believes otherwise. Because really, the difference between "I think you're wrong" and "you're wrong" is a social semantic game we play to keep from causing offense. Even when we say "I think you're wrong", what we're saying inside our head is "nope, you're just wrong". Don't misunderstand, this is a useful social game, because it keeps us from going at one another hammer and tong (literally, I mean), but it's still a game.

In some ways, that's true - it is a social game.

I'm a more logical/scientific person, so even though what I believe may be entirely FACT to me, it still cannot be logically or scientifically proven. Therefore, there's no way for me to say "you're wrong" because there's no way for me to prove that I'm right. Because when I say "I'm right", the onus is on me to prove that - and it's unprovable. Therefore, I have to say "I think I'm right".

Is it a social distinction? You betcha - and as you said, one that is useful and respectful of others.

But since I also believe there are multiple paths to achieve the same end, I can truly say to someone that I think I'm right - and so are they.

[Telle]

The difference between "I think you're wrong" and "You're wrong" is that in the first case you're expressing the fact that you respect the right of the person to believe otherwise. It may just be a social construct, but it's a damn important one if you ask me.

[st.cronin]

And I have no problem with what you've said or how you've said it thus far.

I just get irate when ths so-called "religous right" thinks they can claim soveriegnty over what is "right and above mockery"

Every religion is the same, it helps those who belive to feel safe, secure and comforted when they are in spiritual tuermoil. When st.cronin steps all over one religion because he believes in another, he simply become an ignorant bigot.

can I say IGNORANT BIGOT one more time?

I can: Ignorant BIGOT.

thank you, nothing more to see here, please move along.

Well, I'm not a conservative (although in this town I probably lean more right). I have voted for Dukakis, Clinton, Perot, Gore, and Bush.

And every religion is NOT the same. Even agnostics who study the issue realize, for example, that there's never been a genocide or a war started by a Buddhist army - but one of the first things that happened after the founding of Islam was an army raised and a city massacred. Do you really think those two religions are EQUAL?

But even if we disagree on that point, I'm being skewered for making a *joke*. I wasn't challenging anyone's right to practice any religion; I agree with everyone calling the Judge in the story an ass; I made a joke, was skewered, and stood up for my right to make a joke. I think even wiccans will tell you that the worst thing about being a wiccan is all the jokes.

It's not like I was the only one making a joke, either.
:(

[Drake]

I agree that it is an important social construct. I also think the failure of that social construct is at the core of our current partisan political wrangling in ths country. Somehow we've gotten ourselves wedged into this corner where people who believe different things don't feel like it's safe politically to tolerate the views of their opponents because they're afraid that their toleration is going to be mistaken for support. And that's a shame.

[RendeR]

But even if we disagree on that point, I'm being skewered for making a *joke*. I wasn't challenging anyone's right to practice any religion; I agree with everyone calling the Judge in the story an ass; I made a joke, was skewered, and stood up for my right to make a joke. I think even wiccans will tell you that the worst thing about being a wiccan is all the jokes.

It's not like I was the only one making a joke, either.
:(


Your initial comment was insulting and as far as I'm concerned a VERY personal attack on those who believe in Wicca.

You're the one asking to stop the personal attacks, perhaps you ought to start by not making assinine comments that cross the line between joke and being a prick?

[st.cronin]

The other jokes weren't insulting? Was it because of who made those jokes?

[RendeR]

no, if Blacky or Skydog or anyone else had said what you did I would be equally as pissed off, and probably a lot MORE vocal in my response as I know their styles better.

How about this, simply offer up an apology, a sincere one, for making an ignorant and distasteful statement about a group of people you know nothing about?

that would satisfy my ire at this point.

Until then yer just another piece of useless flotsam hanging on around here to troll and belittle others.

[st.cronin]

It was not my intention to insult *anybody*. I've seen much harsher comments about all sorts of things go on here, and if I crossed a line, I apologize (again).

[RendeR]

It was not my intention to insult *anybody*. I've seen much harsher comments about all sorts of things go on here, and if I crossed a line, I apologize (again).


Thank you, for both the sincerity and promptness. It is much appreciated.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hey. If any of you are looking for any last-minute gift ideas for me, I have one. I'd like Glengoyne, right here tonight. I want him brought from his happy holiday slumber over there on Melody Lane with all the other rich people and I want him brought right here, with a big ribbon on his head, and I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorent, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is. Hallelujah. Holy shit.

Where's the Tylenol?

tsk tsk tsk, somebody's not playing well with others :eek:

[Bubba Wheels]

Your initial comment was insulting and as far as I'm concerned a VERY personal attack on those who believe in Wicca.

You're the one asking to stop the personal attacks, perhaps you ought to start by not making assinine comments that cross the line between joke and being a prick?

Take two aspirin and say a prayer to Stevie Nicks, it will calm you.

[Drake]

You're not helping.

[Blackadar]

tsk tsk tsk, somebody's not playing well with others :eek:

Yes, we know that you're too young to get references to National Lampoons' Christmas Vacation. :rolleyes:

[Pacersfan46]

Please forgive me for not believing that all worldviews are equally worthy of my respect. Perhaps I need to be clearer - faith-healing (which is essentially what wiccan is - using 'magic' to alter physical laws) is a concept quite worthy of mockery, whether it be dressed up in witches gear, shamanistic buddhism, or christianity.

As someone who has actually been healed by nothing but praying along with a healer, I can say your mockery is quite ignorant of what can happen. Are there phonies? Of course.

Yet, I was 10 years old, and I had a terrible ulcer. I was vomiting regularly, and was taking what's now known as medicine for "acid reflux disease". Which I'd really like to rant about the pharmascetucal industry and their labeling of things as "disease" so they can have a monopoly on the treatment .. but I'll leave that for another day.

Regardless, I prayed along with this healer, I swear to you not longer than 30 seconds later I felt an intense heat rush. Strangest thing I've ever felt. Not long after it happened, he said if I had an intense heat rush, or cold chill .. I was healed by god. Which I questioned at the time, but refused to keep taking my medicine. To the point, I've never had a problem again.

I try to thank god everyday for what happened. I was miserable with stomach pains, and vomiting regularly.

[Bubba Wheels]

Yes, we know that you're too young to get references to National Lampoons' Christmas Vacation. :rolleyes:

Not at all, from your previous description of yourself I can actually picture you as cousin Eddie.

[Blackadar]

Not at all, from your previous description of yourself I can actually picture you as cousin Eddie.

"He's cute, ain't he? Only problem is, he's got a little bit of Mississippi leg hound in him. If the mood catches him right, he'll grab your leg, and just go to town. You don't want him around if you're wearing short pants if you know what I mean. A word of warning though: If he does lay into you, it's best to just let him finish."

[Greyroofoo]

i myself went to a private elementary school and i found myself to have been taught better than those who went to a public school.

[Bubba Wheels]

"He's cute, ain't he? Only problem is, he's got a little bit of Mississippi leg hound in him. If the mood catches him right, he'll grab your leg, and just go to town. You don't want him around if you're wearing short pants if you know what I mean. A word of warning though: If he does lay into you, it's best to just let him finish."

The only problem is, though, he stole that whole 'crush-the-beer-can-on-the-head" thing from John Belushi. The original is always better!

[Bubba Wheels]

i myself went to a private elementary school and i found myself to have been taught better than those who went to a public school.

This "Leave no child behind" thing is actually causing some real problems to learning in some school districts. Smart kids are getting less attention, less challenge and are getting bored as the slower-paced kids get more attention. The smarter kids have to wait for the slower ones to catch up. This could easily be solved by grouping the faster-paced and slower-paced kids together, but that would be "politically incorrect' as the slower-paced kids could start to suffer from 'lower self-esteem' issues. It will soon get to the point that if you want a real, quality education you will have no choice but to go private school. This has been a real disaster from Bush, IMO.