The Government is now attacking "non mainstream religions" - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pac-man · 05-31-2005, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

My point is quite obvious to anyone not looking from a biased viewpoint trying to get the 'evil right wing'. Had the parents been in Heavens Gate instead would there be a story here? Had they been giving the child peyote to go on a vision quest would there be a story?

My question is the fundamental question of the story. What makes something a 'religion' and therefore protected?

That's a very good question. Maybe the degree that a belief system diverges from acceptability of the majority. Which automatically places all "fringe" religions in that gray area.

What makes Christianity a religion and not a cult?

Stompy · 05-31-2005, 07:56 AM

I'm going to create a religion where people worship toasters and eat toast as a form of prayer.

...and people better respect it and treat it seriously.

I am dead serious.

Bill O'Rights · 05-31-2005, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

At what point does a cult become a religion?

Ustwo was called out for this question. I do not know why. It seems a valid one. Let's face it...at one time, Christianity was a cult. I do not have an answer to the question, other than political power and, of course, money. Money seems, to me, to be the driving factor in any religion obtaining "mainstream" status.

Insofar as the topic at hand goes, from what I know of Wicca, it is a beautiful, gentle and harmless religion. It is also a religion that is riddled with misconceptions and distrust. I see nothing wrong with two Wiccan parents raising their child in that religion. It is both normal, and natural. I do, however, question why they would choose to educate their child within the confines of a parochial school. Surely, they had to foresee some conflict there. Granted, a parochial school education is one of the finest available, so perhaps they were looking at it merely from a quality of education viewpoint. Still...they had to know that the religious issue was going to colide eventualy.

Well, this is why we have a Constitution with a Bill Of Rights. To protect those that choose to march to the beat of a different drummer from the tyranny of the majority.

Cynthetiq · 05-31-2005, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Ustwo was called out for this question. I do not know why. It seems a valid one. Let's face it...at one time, Christianity was a cult. I do not have an answer to the question, other than political power and, of course, money. Money seems, to me, to be the driving factor in any religion obtaining "mainstream" status.

right, just like in the early 90s Alternative music became mainstream.

Part of it is money based, there's a tipping point of critical mass that happens at some point, where something goes beyond fad or cult, to something more culturally or socially acceptable.

tecoyah · 05-31-2005, 09:05 AM

OK....I have not replyed here simply because it hits a bit close to home....literally.
My wife is Wiccan....and I was for some time as well. We do not use nudity any more than you do, in ritual, or practice. Yes there are aspects of Sex in the religion, just as there are in the day to day lives of every healthy human who walks the earth. Our children are not wiccan, simply because they have not asked to be. We do not practice "witchcraft" as many believe, we do not sacrafice bunnys to some Pagan Goddess, we simply hold a reverence for different things than Others might. Just as a Christian will differ from a Buddhist, So a Wiccan will differ from yourself in some ways.
Most Pagan people dont care to become involved in the petty politics of the world, as they would rather focus on the big picture, but obviously we all react when it comes to self preservation. That is in fact, how the wiccan faith came to be recognized by our Government.
My children are home schooled, and attend a Waldorf program. They would be in Catholic school as a second choice due to the quality of education. Should issues arise due to misunderstanding of what we, the parents believe, I would be dissapointed but not suprised.I am of the opinion that the descision by these judges is isolated and holds little wieght in the world, it is also unlikely to stand up for long. So my point is....If I can deal with this without overreacting, perhaps others might try to as well.

roachboy · 05-31-2005, 09:15 AM

this seems to me one of those issues that lets you see how the peculiar world of the evangelical right interacts with wider matters--in other words, what can happen if the far right evangelical community actually gets power politically. think about it: recent evangelical discourse has been very much about a state of spiritual warfare that pits the good (themselves, of course) against Evil/satan (everyone who is not them)--this is not in itself a new worldview, but its social situation is new.

if this is your basic view of the world--spiritual warfare--and the animator is understood to be "satan" then it follows that, for these folk, the fact of wicca, the fact of paganism functions as a bizarre confirmation of the worldview as a whole--regardless of what the content of these formations might be--for the evangelical right--and this is based on my own experience within that world--what wiccans or pagans might say about themselves is discounted up front--they are "instruments of satan" pure and simple. it follows from this that these folk would not feel the need to know anything about wicca, anything about paganism in their current forms to be quite persuaded that both are bad bad things.

it makes some sense that, motivated by the above (more or less) you would find lawyers fronting for rthe religious right trying to exclude these groups from the category "religion"---and also that this argument would rest on the flimsiest possible logical grounds, in that it provides no answer for ustwo's question about the definition of a religion on the one hand (this agreement with ustwo indicates the possibility of radically opposed positions running across the same question for very very different reasons)--but it also introduces its opposite, which is a freedom of religion question. on these latter grounds, the decision cited earlier seems to me self-defeating for the right--they have set up the grounds for their defeat across what they might take as a victory.

two funny things within it: the usage of the term "mainstream" is idiotic outside the context of conservative ideology in general, within which the right's claim that it and it alone represents the "real america" and "the mainstream" are common currency--totally empty claims, but no matter.

second, is that i am not surprised to find folk who actually know something about contemporary wicca or paganism bewildered by the ruling--it only really makes sense if you assume the above concerning the ways in which these signifers operate in rightwingworld.

it seems that the right would prefer to see wicca through the lens of the inquisition than to take at all seriously what the beliefs systems are actually like, what they do and how they work from the viewpoint of practioners.

killeena · 05-31-2005, 09:20 AM

Heh, the way this thread is going is why I think the whole Left vs. Right thing is bullshit. The paranoid say that this is the way the government keeps us busy, by getting us fighting with each other, while they screw us over. I don't totally believe that, but I can definately see where they are coming from.

Ustwo · 05-31-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Ustwo was called out for this question. I do not know why. It seems a valid one. Let's face it...at one time, Christianity was a cult. I do not have an answer to the question, other than political power and, of course, money. Money seems, to me, to be the driving factor in any religion obtaining "mainstream" status.

I was called out because I am me, by disagreeing with some people they think I must be trolling

Obviously money is a big part of it, but money alone isn't enough. If that were true Scientology would be 'mainstream'. I believe Scientology is officially labeled a dangerous cult in Germany, and I don't think its treated as a 'true' religion in the US, though I may be wrong.

I think part of it is the traditions involved and time.

Islam and Christianity are both 'young' religions. One required state sponsorship from the most powerful Empire in history, the other required a non-stop wave of violent invasions to take hold. Both draw upon a far older tradition. Even Mormonism stems for those same roots and traditions.

The only 'new' major religion I would think would be Buddhism, but to me true Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and by now has been around long enough to have its own tradition and history.

Wicca is basically 50 years old. While the concept of druids and nature gods is as old as European history, the practice was lost long before Mr. Gardner came long. It has a 'made up' feel to it much like Scientology, and while the basic tenants of Wicca may be good and wholesome unlike Scientology, from a standpoint of tradition and 'believability' they are pretty much the same. We are taking one mans word for it.

So while I wouldn't place Wicca as dangerous, subversive, or unwholesome (even those who do it naked) I am very reluctant to give it a religion tag.

Ask me again in 500 years.

xepherys · 05-31-2005, 12:04 PM

It's nice to see that the beautiful development of the human language has again failed us miserably...

Let us address the issues of both "cult" and "fringe". Both are words that at their most core meaning, do not denote a negative intonation, but do to their use in the common tongue have come to do so. Let us replace the word "cult" with the word "following" as it is a synonym listed in the Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus. This then provides a basis of comparison. Is Christianity a "following"? Yes, it is the following of the belief that Jesus Christ was the one true Savior. It is a belief that is based on Judaism (Old Testament) and continues forth where Judaism believes that the Savior has yet to come. Oh, and on the note, Mormonism is the Christianity as Christianty is to Judaism. It simply offers a third "testament" post Christ. So in this regard, Wicca is the same as Christianity, Judiasm and Mormonism (among others) which are protected religions. Another associated word with "cult" is "discipleship"... you know, like the disciples of Jesus!?

Let's look at "fringe". You could use the word "marginal" as a replacement. A marginal belief... much like Christianity was roughly 2000 years ago. It's crazy how similar they are.

As a side note, if one takes a look at Papal records, one might note the similarities of Christianity and many pagan beliefs that are, in fact, due to changes to the way the Catholic (and hence later Protestant) doctrine are viewed so as to make it a more friendly religion for pagans to convert to (worship on Sunday vs. Saturday, the true 7th day as worshipped upon by Jews and Adventists). Sunday was a convenient day for worship as pagans already worshipped (mostly) on Sunday... the day of the Sun. Also note the uncanny similarities between "spells" and "prayer" where in both you are asking a higher power to align reality to suit your own needs.

Sorry, I know this is jumbled, but I have oh-so-much to say on this topic...

Now let's move onto the possibility of nudity during worship and the potential negative effects this has on children... a) There are nudists colonies in the U.S. They are Constitutionally protected, and often include families with children. b) The U.S. is one of the few industrialized countries left where nudity is a horrific event. Most European countries have televised nudity, often even on daytime commercials. c) How is worshipping in the nude a worse value than teaching your child to partake of the "flesh and blood" of the savior, even symbolically (also uncannily akin to spellcasting and magic-weaving).

Lastly, WTF ever happened to freedom of religion in this country... the one thing, above all else, that caused people to come here in the first place?

*sigh*

~X

Bill O'Rights · 05-31-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I was called out because I am me, by disagreeing with some people they think I must be trolling

It could be that it was also in the way that you phrased the question. Hmmmm?

And I may be wrong (Hey, it happens), but isn't Wicca, albeit a fairly "new" religion, based upon tenents that are thousands upon thousands of years old?

Hardknock · 05-31-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Ahh moosenose always good for a good laugh.

No one has mentioned yet all the crazy shit in the book of Morman. Status as a "religion" in the U.S. has more to do with skin color and $$$ than any kind of belief system. Try getting tax-exempt status for your voodoo temple and you won't get very far, depending on your state. Nonetheless the voodun tradition predates the Mormans and most other Christian flavors.

And he hits the nail right on its head!!

What happened to freedom of religion? This is exactly what I was talking about in other threads. They're taking away our freedoms. Slowly but surely. First, they'll take things that no one will notice, like religion and cases such as this one are a prime example. Until Americans stand up and say no more, this will continue.

xepherys · 05-31-2005, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

It could be that it was also in the way that you phrased the question. Hmmmm?

And I may be wrong (Hey, it happens), but isn't Wicca, albeit a fairly "new" religion, based upon tenents that are thousands upon thousands of years old?

Sure, but Chrisianity is older than 2000 years as well, in this light... being that's it's based on Judaism which is much older.

Ustwo · 05-31-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

It could be that it was also in the way that you phrased the question. Hmmmm?

And I may be wrong (Hey, it happens), but isn't Wicca, albeit a fairly "new" religion, based upon tenents that are thousands upon thousands of years old?

It could be but its not.

Anyways, no Wicca is not based on thousand year old tenants. No one knows any of the 'old religion'. All we really have is pieced together Roman or early Christian accounts. There are tales of mass human sacrifice, (aka the burning man where prisoners were stuffed into a life size wodden 'man' and set ablaze) which may or may not be true. One thing that is true is that human sacrifice was part of the religion as the victims have been found, but why/were they prisoners or volunteers etc is not known.

My guess is the true 'old religion' would horrify most modern day Wiccans.

This is a very interesting and long review of the subect of the 'age' of Wicca.
http://paganwiccan.about.com/gi/dyna...d_history.html

Here is a snippet, (and I think the author IS a Wiccan)

Quote:

However, the stories woven around Wicca can only hurt the religion from both inside and out. What followers may gain from false stories can certainly only be temporary. On the outside there is little gain at all. Not only has Wiccan history not been accepted, it has been disproved again and again. This accomplishes exactly what Wiccans attempt to avert: the image of an invented religion followed by people imaginative and uneducated. It makes Wiccans appear to be provocative and uncompromising, and as these are the same accusations Wiccans are making toward others, they look to be hypocritical as well

Quote:

It would certainly help if the world was more tolerant to new ideas: to at least let new religions be if not embrace them. However, people like the Scientologists and the Branch Davidians have made this all but impossible. New religions have a bad reputation in general because of what has come before them. But instead of attacking society for this inflexibility, Wiccans must simply accept it, not be antagonizing, and wait out the storm. One day Wicca will be accepted if it can manage to conform with society. As it is now, as it strains to be different, to outright attack Christianity, and to identify the feminist feelings of its members as being part of the religion, Wicca will not be taken seriously. As it stretches to find legitimacy it only manages to shoot itself in the foot because quite simply the historical basis does not exist, and the search for such makes Wiccans appear very simple, uneducated, and provocative.

Cynthetiq · 05-31-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Sure, but Chrisianity is older than 2000 years as well, in this light... being that's it's based on Judaism which is much older.

if we can agree on what defines a religion then maybe we'd find that atheism predates everything.

FoolThemAll · 05-31-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Where are you Righties? Show me that you can demoan a conservative judge as much as the Shiavo Judges..... (and by the way Schiavo was not a Fed. case (nor a Constitutional case) but was IMHO wrongly made to be one...... this is very much a Constitutional case, very much legislating from the bench and yet silence, excuses and not 1 of you are saying the judge is wrong.

The judge is wrong. It's none of the government's business if the parents wish to pass on their Wiccan faith.

There you go.

xepherys · 05-31-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

if we can agree on what defines a religion then maybe we'd find that atheism predates everything.

In this case, I'd say Agnosticism predates it all... in the time before there was language, one can only assume there were still internal questions...

pan6467 · 05-31-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

The judge is wrong. It's none of the government's business if the parents wish to pass on their Wiccan faith.

There you go.

Cool.... I see another is more busy trying to debunk Wiccan as a religion rather than admit the judge made a mistake.

Now Fool, one quick question and I am really wanting an answer.... how is this judge legislating from the bench ok (silent approval) and Schiavo's judges were having their heads called for.

Is that not hypocrasy or am I missing something?

Hardknock · 05-31-2005, 04:15 PM

Sounds like it to me....

The right wants to have their cake and eat it too. This shit won't go on forever.

pan6467 · 05-31-2005, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It could be but its not.

Anyways, no Wicca is not based on thousand year old tenants. No one knows any of the 'old religion'. All we really have is pieced together Roman or early Christian accounts. There are tales of mass human sacrifice, (aka the burning man where prisoners were stuffed into a life size wodden 'man' and set ablaze) which may or may not be true. One thing that is true is that human sacrifice was part of the religion as the victims have been found, but why/were they prisoners or volunteers etc is not known.

My guess is the true 'old religion' would horrify most modern day Wiccans.

This is a very interesting and long review of the subect of the 'age' of Wicca.
http://paganwiccan.about.com/gi/dyna...d_history.html

Here is a snippet, (and I think the author IS a Wiccan)

It's easy to find anything that debunks anything on the net and say "well this was written by I think a Wiccan and proves what I am saying."

What your site fails to mention is Gardner was brought into a coven in 1939 and because he felt the beauty of WIcca was dying he worked to bring it to people's awareness.

Anyway, when a religion has to be hidden or you face society's wrath.... then it's history will be shrouded and guarded because even today Wiccans face prejudices as the court ruling shows.

I don't see why debunking Wiccan is so far more important to you than admitting the judge was wrong.

Anyway, here is a site that that has a "true HIstory" with many dates. LINK:http://occoquan1.f2w.net/custom4.html
LINK:http://www.wiccanet.net/wicca/bookst...timeline.shtml

Then there is this very articulate piece: http://www.jaguarmoon.org/public/History/History1.htm

Again who's side is right doesn't truly matter..... Wiccan is a governmentally recognized religion and the judge is wrong for his decision so why argue the merits on the religion?

Ustwo · 05-31-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Cool.... I see another is more busy trying to debunk Wiccan as a religion rather than admit the judge made a mistake.

I already admitted the judge made a mistake (go back and read) provided all the facts as presented to us are true.

While you were trying to blame Bush I was trying to have a more serious discussion about what makes a religion and what makes something protected as a religion. It is far deeper than the usual for the board.

Quote:

Now Fool, one quick question and I am really wanting an answer.... how is this judge legislating from the bench ok (silent approval) and Schiavo's judges were having their heads called for.

Is that not hypocrasy or am I missing something?

Yes you are missing someting vital. No one will die as a result of the 'Wiccan' judges decision. Big difference.

pan6467 · 05-31-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I already admitted the judge made a mistake (go back and read) provided all the facts as presented to us are true.

While you were trying to blame Bush I was trying to have a more serious discussion about what makes a religion and what makes something protected as a religion. It is far deeper than the usual for the board.

Again, I truly would like to know where I bashed Bush. I made 1 admitted sarcastic comment when you asked about Cults..... (and that was based in fact as Moon is the leader of a cult and a HUGE donator and media supporter of the GOP AND W).

(And yes USTWO.... it was your second post (#16) in which you phrased the question.... it was very trolling (and again in post #19 in which you compare Wicca to Heaven's Gate.... )

For that I was accused of Bush bashing..... it was solely a sarcastic remark in answer to your insinuating question that Wicca was a cult.

As far as your saying the judge made a mistake.... you have gone to great lengths to debunk Wicca as a religion and find many disclaimers to allow the judge to get away with this.

The judge is either right or wrong.... don't give the BS disclaimers you give and say ....... he's wrong but we don't have all the information or try to debunk Wiccan as a religion.

I have already said if he had logical reasons for not allowing the child to be present..... why not expound and not just throw in the blanket very prejudicial statement he did?

Perhaps, he has no logical reasons, other than prejudice, yet you seem bound to find him one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes you are missing someting vital. No one will die as a result of the 'Wiccan' judges decision. Big difference.

I see, so it is ok to take rights away and throw the Bill of Rights away..... so long as noone dies?

Sorry still hypocritical and an unreasonable argument for me. Because the loss of rights is death..... at least to me.

By the way I am still waiting for these rulings where polygymous Mormons have had the same rulings against them that you said were happening.

cellophanedeity · 05-31-2005, 06:28 PM

I'm quite suprised that I hadn't heard of this case before now. I disagree with the judge's ruling. I think that people should have the right to raise their children in whichever faith that they feel is best suited for them and the child, despite marital status.

I don't know the details of the case, of course, and so I can't start screaming at one side. Perhaps there is more to this that we're missing? Perhaps the parents sacrifice goldfish and encourage the kid to eat peyote. I don't know, but I do believe that until it is proven that what you are teaching is harmful, or at least illegal, then it should be an option.

I was raised without a god, and instead with values and introductions to spiritualities, and I tend to think that this was the best possible way to be raised. But that's my business. No one elses. I wouldn't stop a Catholic family from teaching Catholic ideas, I wouldn't stop Sikhs from practising Sikhism, and I won't stop pagans from doing their thing.

I think that this ruling is fundamentally wrong, based upon my understanding of freedom of religion and the little I know of this case.

xepherys · 05-31-2005, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cellophanedeity

Perhaps the parents sacrifice goldfish and encourage the kid to eat peyote.

If only they'd stuck to sacrificing peyote and eating goldfish (crackers)... Crazy pagans!

ScottKuma · 06-01-2005, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

You know what's funny, one of my good friends told me that if Bush were reelected one of the first groups he'd come after were Wiccans. I laughed thinking he was just paranoid and insecure with the religion he has practiced for 40 years.

I do owe him a huge appology when I see him again.

A single judge's ruling does NOT constitute Bush or Bush's administration coming after Wiccans. It DOES constitute an asshat judge making a mistake. Should get thrown out easily, as it's clearly unconstitutional.

[After reading the rest of the post (sorry about that!) I noticed that you've addressed this issue...but I still fail to see how or why Bush should get involved in this....UNLESS a superior court or two fail to make the obvious ruling to strike that portion of the order. The other question is this: are the parents challenging/appealing the order? If they aren't, I'm not sure a superior court or the President can even get involved!

I'm pretty sure that if they go along with it like sheep, nothing will happen on any level.]

pan6467 · 06-01-2005, 05:55 AM

Yes the whole article is about how the parents (in particular the father) are fighting the ruling.

The whole thing about Bush and the GOP staying silent is why was it ok to interfere and make Schiavo's case national and yet they stay silent on this....... it's just hypocritical and approval by silence in my opinion.

Appology accepted and I understood the attack.... no harm no foul. Thank you for appologizing.

xepherys · 06-01-2005, 06:45 AM

Well, you can't make a huge deal about EVERYTHING... nobody has that much time. Frankly, I feel it's the other way around. I don't think GWB had any right or business getting involved in the Shiavo case at all. That's not the President's job.

pan6467 · 06-01-2005, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

Well, you can't make a huge deal about EVERYTHING... nobody has that much time. Frankly, I feel it's the other way around. I don't think GWB had any right or business getting involved in the Shiavo case at all. That's not the President's job.

He nor Congress didn't have any right or business but they did..... and the all these GOP Senators and Reps. started talking about how "liberal" the courts were. But they are all quiet when this a TRUE CONSTITUTIONAL issue has come up. NOT 1 has stood up and said the judge was wrong.... and no it may not be their job.... but Schiavo set the precedent that the FED Sen and Reps can say whatever they want and hold emergency meetings to make a case Federal.

The BS that someone was dying and therefore it HAD to be moved fast.... is just that BS.....

There's pressing questions on this case that are just as important and need immediate attention such as......

What about the time these parents aren't going to be able to practice their religion around their child???????

What about court costs and lawyers fees????????

Are these parents going to be financially able to fight this???????????????? And if so...... assuming they aren't millionaires..... how much will it cost them????

(There's the HUGE way the courts and Religious Right will win..... effectively bankrupt people into silence.... have them fight until they can't afford to anymore and then precedent is set and judges can get away with it for the next 20-30 years. Paranoia or economic truth???)

We always hear how backlogged they are and with political clout the Religious Right can get the judge to docket it as far back as possible so how long will this drag out in the courts??????

How will those parents explain it to their child?????

What repercussions will it have on the child????????

Loss of freedoms is ok for any amount of time???????

So IMHO, this may seem like an open and shut case but just look how the Right on this board have conducted themselves and if they did say it was a bad ruling, they had to throw in a disclaimer, and make sure that they insinuated Wicca as a cult. (Foolthemall and ScottKuma exempted, they came straight out said it was a bad ruling.... 2 out of how many?)

I really think this case is going to go a lot farther than many on here think it will. The judges are being pressured by the Religious Right to be conservative. Which is scary but on the other hand the one branch that so far has been able to maintain some center.... but not for much longer if the Right gets its way......

THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING..........

Cynthetiq · 06-01-2005, 07:18 AM

and I count on you to fight the fight pan.

I refrained from stating that it was a bad decision by the judge because my statement was simple, about non mainstream religions and what constitutes a religion by US government definition. I was more interested in the mechanics of the judge's thinking versus the ruling itself without prejudice of religious right pressure.

I'm refraining from descending deeper into the political dialogues because of people like yourself who SHOUT at the listeners who are just trying to digest what is being said.

I hear, "BUT look at this and this and this..." with quotes, links, books, media to watch. But I cannot digest all of that in 15 minutes as I read a thread. I cannot corroborate and discount or validate some of the mountain of links and threads that people inundate others with when trying to convince them that they need to act.

So like others I just stop.

roachboy · 06-01-2005, 07:42 AM

i am increasingly unclear about this sort of statement, what you imagine it is doing when you make it into your part in a dialogue, cyn--
first: not everything is reducable to simple sound-byte form.
second: if you work in opposition to an ideology, you find that one disadvantage you have to work around is that you have to explain what you are doing, lay out your arguments, provide information--you cannot rely on, say, television to fill in the gaps for you. if i were to take your position seriously as a political and not a personal one, i would conclude that you are arguing for a particular political position not so much because you agree with it, but because it prechews information for you and so lets you feel connected to politics in the context of a busy life.
but it seems to me that you give up alot if you really operate along these lines.
like you disable your own ability to pose questions.
you make it much more difficult for yourself to step outside the dominant opinion management of the moment.
i wonder if this position you have of late taken to outlining here is worth holding, really...it seems to me that the costs outweigh the benefits.

for example: in the responses from ustwo above, you get an interesting idea of how difficult conservatives in the main find it to historicize their own position--they can't seem to get their heads around the idea that christianity has a history, that this history is very particular and quite important for understanding the particulrities of that belief system, etc. because they seem to have trouble imagining that the present was not always more or less thus. they even go so far as to claim their own innovations are simply righting a historical wrong--history then comes up as transient, while their own views are transcendent, ahistorical, true. this must be the happy result of thinking that god likes you better than he or she does others.

this is followed by an attempt--a disengenuous one, but i would expect nothing less--to further rationalize the court decision that prompted this thread by calling the term wicca into question on the one hand, and to insinuate that "we do not know the whole story"----while of course not providing anything like the whole story himself, and so on.
but his sentences are short.
does that in itself make his arguments more compelling for you?
he does not have to lay out the basis for his argument--sometimes it seems like a tv is going the whole time he writes and that to get arguments he simply has to turn and watch for a while--never any logic outlined, never any real information given, just the mirror of conservative media, apologies for the bush administration, for conservative organizations, for conservative legal decisions in ways that do not make any sense unless you watch these same tv outlets, listen to the same talk radio, read the same washington times-style press. but than again, maybe this is all just my problem.

on another note
i am well to the left of pan, but i have to say i find something really endearing about his tendency to yell "TO THE BARRICADES COMRADES"

Cynthetiq · 06-01-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i am increasingly unclear about this sort of statement, what you imagine it is doing when you make it into your part in a dialogue, cyn--
first: not everything is reducable to simple sound-byte form.
second: if you work in opposition to an ideology, you find that one disadvantage you have to work around is that you have to explain what you are doing, lay out your arguments, provide information--you cannot rely on, say, television to fill in the gaps for you. if i were to take your position seriously as a political and not a personal one, i would conclude that you are arguing for a particular political position not so much because you agree with it, but because it prechews information for you and so lets you feel connected to politics in the context of a busy life.
but it seems to me that you give up alot if you really operate along these lines.
like you disable your own ability to pose questions.
you make it much more difficult for yourself to step outside the dominant opinion management of the moment.
i wonder if this position you have of late taken to outlining here is worth holding, really...it seems to me that the costs outweigh the benefits.

for example: in the responses from ustwo above, you get an interesting idea of how difficult conservatives in the main find it to historicize their own position--they can't seem to get their heads around the idea that christianity has a history, that this history is very particular and quite important for understanding the particulrities of that belief system, etc. because they seem to have trouble imagining that the present was not always more or less thus. they even go so far as to claim their own innovations are simply righting a historical wrong--history then comes up as transient, while their own views are transcendent, ahistorical, true. this must be the happy result of thinking that god likes you better than he or she does others.

this is followed by an attempt--a disengenuous one, but i would expect nothing less--to further rationalize the court decision that prompted this thread by calling the term wicca into question on the one hand, and to insinuate that "we do not know the whole story"----while of course not providing anything like the whole story himself, and so on.
but his sentences are short.
does that in itself make his arguments more compelling for you?
he does not have to lay out the basis for his argument--sometimes it seems like a tv is going the whole time he writes and that to get arguments he simply has to turn and watch for a while--never any logic outlined, never any real information given, just the mirror of conservative media, apologies for the bush administration, for conservative organizations, for conservative legal decisions in ways that do not make any sense unless you watch these same tv outlets, listen to the same talk radio, read the same washington times-style press. but than again, maybe this is all just my problem.

on another note
i am well to the left of pan, but i have to say i find something really endearing about his tendency to yell "TO THE BARRICADES COMRADES"

No I don't give up alot. Anyone who knows me more than 5 minutes knows that I'm not one to give up on things.

What's the turn off point to ideology and dialogue isn't so much having someone prechew it. It's getting the message into the brain as simple as possible.

I'm sorry roachboy, but I skip lots of your posts. Why? Basically for the same reasons...quite simply because I cannot read it without a dictionary nearby checking and doublechecking the definitions to some of your vocabulary to make sure that I am getting the point that you are tyring to get across. Some of the references you make to literature and political commentators requires me to know some background of their ideas and writings, being unfamiliar with them, I cannot glean the information you are trying to get across.

what I said is frustrating is trying to understand these things, without having to resort to spending HOURS upon HOURS of time of looking up facts, critically analyzing them, looking for counter arguments and thoughts to those facts to either affirm or refute them. I have plenty of other interests in life that also scream for my eyeballs and min.

sure I ask questions, what do I get in return? Basically homework of having to read, refute or affirm more information... again.. it becomes a voluminous deluge of information. A turn off.

I engage things on my terms not someone elses, thus I'm not interested in getting hyper-educated via political threads. I'm trying to understand them on my own terms and own timeframe.

Ustwo · 06-01-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this is followed by an attempt--a disengenuous one, but i would expect nothing less--to further rationalize the court decision that prompted this thread by calling the term wicca into question on the one hand, and to insinuate that "we do not know the whole story"----while of course not providing anything like the whole story himself, and so on.
but his sentences are short.

Your personal attacks grow tiresome. After your last smug and arrogant diatribe I tried to be the better man and just ignore it. I suppose I can blame Cynthetiq for this response, because I read his posts and if it were not for his reply, yours would have gone unnoticed. I find your posts cumbersome and often skipped, not due to vocabulary, depth, or their brilliant arguments, but due to the lack of capitalization and run on sentences. Regardless, while you attempt to obfuscate the meat of any issue with excessive script, I like to get to the point. Nothing is gained by a long build up if it bores your audience.

So while you may lament that your mighty prose is ignored while mine generates such interest, perhaps you can take a lesson and just get to the point.

Now it is quite true I did not provide the 'whole story'. My guess is, had I convinced the judge to break his required silence, or even perhaps snuck into the courthouse and stolen the sealed documents to give you the 'whole' story, I would have far more pressing issues to deal with currently than some petty prose.

I simply stated that we have only one side of the case at hand and later that if the parents claims are in fact true then the judge will indeed be overturned for an unjust ruling. I am not one to jump to conclusions based on one side of the story. I would hope that more people acted in a similar manner.

I do hope you forgive me for delving into a more pertinent issue, which includes and goes beyond the case at hand. What makes a religion protected under the constitution is a very tricky subject, and one worthy of a debate on the boards.

I hope the moderators forgive me for this post, but I can only leave such condescension unanswered for so long.

roachboy · 06-01-2005, 09:16 AM

cyn: thanks for that clarification.
it is hard to know how to take things in messageboards sometimes--intent seems almost always to be garbled when what one is thinking is crunched into this form.
i hope that the political dimension to the questions i posed was evident: your posts push on one of the main problems faced by anyone who works in opposition to a dominant or near-dominant ideology--that you have to explain your arguments--folk who work within that ideology have the everyday frame of reference that explains their arguments for them, so shorthand is possible.

how i write is how i write. i dont necessarily expect everything to communicate with no residuum. i write this stuff while i am taking breaks from doing other things. i think about it, write what i have to say, and return to the other tasks. like now.

FoolThemAll · 06-01-2005, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Now Fool, one quick question and I am really wanting an answer.... how is this judge legislating from the bench ok (silent approval) and Schiavo's judges were having their heads called for.

Is that not hypocrasy or am I missing something?

Well, what immediately comes to mind is that I don't think this has gotten nearly as much attention as the Shiavo case. Much, perhaps most, of the "silent approval" may come from people simply not knowing about this. People who don't watch/read/listen to the news at all knew about Shiavo.

But as for those who do know of it:

1. I think Ustwo's response is actually one likely possibility. Shiavo was life and death. This is case of religious freedom that I, myself, am not incredibly concerned with - I don't believe the infringement will survive and I think the damage will be nominal.

2. It's possible to hold the view that Wicca is a dangerous cult and that the judge in this case did the right thing, while also holding the view that the Florida judge legislated from the bench. I don't think this is correct, but I see a possible non-hypocritical assimilation of these views.

3. Yeah, there are probably hypocrites in this as well, people who neglected to sufficiently examine their positions or refuse to.

On a side-note, I lean towards both the "judge acted correctly" side and the "Shiavo should've lived" side. What gave me pause about the whole issue was that she only required what everyone else in the world requires - food and water. But enough of that, I don't want to derail the thread.

Cynthetiq · 06-01-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

cyn: thanks for that clarification.
it is hard to know how to take things in messageboards sometimes--intent seems almost always to be garbled when what one is thinking is crunched into this form.
i hope that the political dimension to the questions i posed was evident: your posts push on one of the main problems faced by anyone who works in opposition to a dominant or near-dominant ideology--that you have to explain your arguments--folk who work within that ideology have the everyday frame of reference that explains their arguments for them, so shorthand is possible.

how i write is how i write. i dont necessarily expect everything to communicate with no residuum. i write this stuff while i am taking breaks from doing other things. i think about it, write what i have to say, and return to the other tasks. like now.

I agree with you taking in anything new or trying to find new dimensions, there's lots of "lingo" and "background" to learn, but trying to forcefeed someone this information is a fast way of getting them to not listen.

You write the way you write no fault to anyone and I'm sure that there are some there who can appreciate and understand your writing much better than myself.

roachboy · 06-01-2005, 09:42 AM

ustwo: please.
in general i am not interested in arguing with you at an ad hominem level.
but for this, i'll take a little time.
remember this is about what i read from you, not you as a human being--as a human being, i know nothing about you apart from the curious factoids you occaisionally offer up to explain to us the basis for your superiority in things political.

when i bother to respond directly to your posts--which are consistent in a kind of tedious way--- i simply take you at your word and unpack such thinking as i can imagine possible behind them.

i figure that i am giving you benefit of the doubt in assuming there is much thought in what you write, frankly. i mean your own thought--your posts usually read like a pastiche of conservative commentaries.

so when i respond directly to your posts, ustwo, i usually walk through such logic as there is in them.
sorry if you dont like the results: the logic is usually yours--all i do is provide a gloss on it.
if you really dont like how i recast to your posts, maybe think them out more before you post them.

take for example, your comments about "socialism"--about which you clearly know nothing--or about people who oppose you "vandalizing society"--your assumption that if everyone was just like you--that is "grown up"----that they would see the world as you do--that, ustwo, is arrogance.
it is not arrogance to attack such a position.

what i see in your reactions is yet another conservative trope:
when you cannot control the terms of debate, and so cannot win an argument (the two are closely tied together in conservativeland--even you should recognize this) you decide that you are being victimized.

and on that one, i dont know what to tell you.

back out of this mode of argument.
it really doesnt interest me.

Cynthetiq · 06-01-2005, 09:47 AM

Let's try to keep it not at a personal level.

pre yellow warning

Ustwo · 06-01-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

--a disengenuous one, but i would expect nothing less-

That roachboy is not only false, there was nothing disengenous about my posts, but it is also inflamitory. This is not the only example, but I'm sure a quick read through your posts will help identify them. I won't put up with it unchallanged anymore. You may disagree with what I post, in fact I'd be worried if you agreed with anything I posted, but do not claim to know my motivation, you do not sir. If you wish to accuse me of an action, do so directly, not in the third person.

roachboy · 06-01-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

remember this is about what i read from you, not you as a human being--as a human being, i know nothing about you apart from the curious factoids you occaisionally offer up to explain to us the basis for your superiority in things political

this is a note i appended to the front of the previous post.

thought i'd remind you of its presence, what it entails.

as for the term disengenuous--i did not use the term with reference to your particular motives, ustwo: it pertained more to your use of source material--selective citation and/or misleading use of cited material--i understand this to be technical.

but i suspect you know this
and because i suspect you know this, i am backing out of this exchange altogether at this point.
it is obvious that there is nowhere productive to go with it.

powerclown · 06-01-2005, 12:31 PM

Quote:

...you cannot rely on, say, television to fill in the gaps for you....i would conclude that you are arguing for a particular political position not so much because you agree with it, but because it prechews information for you and so lets you feel connected to politics in the context of a busy life.

...i wonder if this position you have of late taken to outlining here is worth holding, really...it seems to me that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Quote:

take for example, your comments about "socialism"--about which you clearly know nothing...

Well done, Sir!
Amazing show there, Old Chap!!
This has redefined the word "PRESUMPTUOUS"!!
Downright Cocky, Sir!

I ASK: Does it get any more Arrogant, Smug or Obnoxious than this? Intellectually chastising a respected and long-standing member of this Board - nay, a Grown Adult! - charging that he is incapable of distinguishing between Right & Wrong, and unable to come to the Proper decisions in life?? That, in effect, he needs an Intellectual Babysitter to think for himself? That the political decisions he makes in his life are Null & Void? I thought it was The Left that lived and died by the tenet of respecting the Dignity, Ideas & Opinions of the Individual?

THE INDIVIDUAL, ARMED ONLY WITH THE POWER OF HIS IDEAS!!!, OVER THE OPPRESSION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT!!!

Apparently, this universal human right holds true only for those in-the-know, intellectually superior individuals such as himself.
How ironic! How exclusive! How CONSERVATIVE!!!

* * * * * * * * * * *

Let this thread stand as a terrifying glimpse into the intellectual bankruptcy of the Liberal Lunatic Fringe. Let this thread stand - for Generations to come - as an example of the hypocritical void that constitutes the bedrock that such radicals operate from. A curious day indeed.

Elphaba · 06-01-2005, 12:55 PM

My obsure mystic religion tells me that a bright yellow warning is on the way.

05-31-2005, 07:56 AM	#42 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I'm going to create a religion where people worship toasters and eat toast as a form of prayer. ...and people better respect it and treat it seriously. I am dead serious. __________________ I love lamp.

05-31-2005, 09:05 AM	#45 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	OK....I have not replyed here simply because it hits a bit close to home....literally. My wife is Wiccan....and I was for some time as well. We do not use nudity any more than you do, in ritual, or practice. Yes there are aspects of Sex in the religion, just as there are in the day to day lives of every healthy human who walks the earth. Our children are not wiccan, simply because they have not asked to be. We do not practice "witchcraft" as many believe, we do not sacrafice bunnys to some Pagan Goddess, we simply hold a reverence for different things than Others might. Just as a Christian will differ from a Buddhist, So a Wiccan will differ from yourself in some ways. Most Pagan people dont care to become involved in the petty politics of the world, as they would rather focus on the big picture, but obviously we all react when it comes to self preservation. That is in fact, how the wiccan faith came to be recognized by our Government. My children are home schooled, and attend a Waldorf program. They would be in Catholic school as a second choice due to the quality of education. Should issues arise due to misunderstanding of what we, the parents believe, I would be dissapointed but not suprised.I am of the opinion that the descision by these judges is isolated and holds little wieght in the world, it is also unlikely to stand up for long. So my point is....If I can deal with this without overreacting, perhaps others might try to as well. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

05-31-2005, 09:15 AM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this seems to me one of those issues that lets you see how the peculiar world of the evangelical right interacts with wider matters--in other words, what can happen if the far right evangelical community actually gets power politically. think about it: recent evangelical discourse has been very much about a state of spiritual warfare that pits the good (themselves, of course) against Evil/satan (everyone who is not them)--this is not in itself a new worldview, but its social situation is new. if this is your basic view of the world--spiritual warfare--and the animator is understood to be "satan" then it follows that, for these folk, the fact of wicca, the fact of paganism functions as a bizarre confirmation of the worldview as a whole--regardless of what the content of these formations might be--for the evangelical right--and this is based on my own experience within that world--what wiccans or pagans might say about themselves is discounted up front--they are "instruments of satan" pure and simple. it follows from this that these folk would not feel the need to know anything about wicca, anything about paganism in their current forms to be quite persuaded that both are bad bad things. it makes some sense that, motivated by the above (more or less) you would find lawyers fronting for rthe religious right trying to exclude these groups from the category "religion"---and also that this argument would rest on the flimsiest possible logical grounds, in that it provides no answer for ustwo's question about the definition of a religion on the one hand (this agreement with ustwo indicates the possibility of radically opposed positions running across the same question for very very different reasons)--but it also introduces its opposite, which is a freedom of religion question. on these latter grounds, the decision cited earlier seems to me self-defeating for the right--they have set up the grounds for their defeat across what they might take as a victory. two funny things within it: the usage of the term "mainstream" is idiotic outside the context of conservative ideology in general, within which the right's claim that it and it alone represents the "real america" and "the mainstream" are common currency--totally empty claims, but no matter. second, is that i am not surprised to find folk who actually know something about contemporary wicca or paganism bewildered by the ruling--it only really makes sense if you assume the above concerning the ways in which these signifers operate in rightwingworld. it seems that the right would prefer to see wicca through the lens of the inquisition than to take at all seriously what the beliefs systems are actually like, what they do and how they work from the viewpoint of practioners. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-31-2005, 09:20 AM	#47 (permalink)
killeena Crazy Location: Meechigan	Heh, the way this thread is going is why I think the whole Left vs. Right thing is bullshit. The paranoid say that this is the way the government keeps us busy, by getting us fighting with each other, while they screw us over. I don't totally believe that, but I can definately see where they are coming from. __________________ Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. - Theodor Adorno

06-01-2005, 05:55 AM	#65 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Yes the whole article is about how the parents (in particular the father) are fighting the ruling. The whole thing about Bush and the GOP staying silent is why was it ok to interfere and make Schiavo's case national and yet they stay silent on this....... it's just hypocritical and approval by silence in my opinion. Appology accepted and I understood the attack.... no harm no foul. Thank you for appologizing. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-31-2005, 12:04 PM	#49 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	It's nice to see that the beautiful development of the human language has again failed us miserably... Let us address the issues of both "cult" and "fringe". Both are words that at their most core meaning, do not denote a negative intonation, but do to their use in the common tongue have come to do so. Let us replace the word "cult" with the word "following" as it is a synonym listed in the Merriam-Webster Online Thesaurus. This then provides a basis of comparison. Is Christianity a "following"? Yes, it is the following of the belief that Jesus Christ was the one true Savior. It is a belief that is based on Judaism (Old Testament) and continues forth where Judaism believes that the Savior has yet to come. Oh, and on the note, Mormonism is the Christianity as Christianty is to Judaism. It simply offers a third "testament" post Christ. So in this regard, Wicca is the same as Christianity, Judiasm and Mormonism (among others) which are protected religions. Another associated word with "cult" is "discipleship"... you know, like the disciples of Jesus!? Let's look at "fringe". You could use the word "marginal" as a replacement. A marginal belief... much like Christianity was roughly 2000 years ago. It's crazy how similar they are. As a side note, if one takes a look at Papal records, one might note the similarities of Christianity and many pagan beliefs that are, in fact, due to changes to the way the Catholic (and hence later Protestant) doctrine are viewed so as to make it a more friendly religion for pagans to convert to (worship on Sunday vs. Saturday, the true 7th day as worshipped upon by Jews and Adventists). Sunday was a convenient day for worship as pagans already worshipped (mostly) on Sunday... the day of the Sun. Also note the uncanny similarities between "spells" and "prayer" where in both you are asking a higher power to align reality to suit your own needs. Sorry, I know this is jumbled, but I have oh-so-much to say on this topic... Now let's move onto the possibility of nudity during worship and the potential negative effects this has on children... a) There are nudists colonies in the U.S. They are Constitutionally protected, and often include families with children. b) The U.S. is one of the few industrialized countries left where nudity is a horrific event. Most European countries have televised nudity, often even on daytime commercials. c) How is worshipping in the nude a worse value than teaching your child to partake of the "flesh and blood" of the savior, even symbolically (also uncannily akin to spellcasting and magic-weaving). Lastly, WTF ever happened to freedom of religion in this country... the one thing, above all else, that caused people to come here in the first place? sigh ~X

05-31-2005, 04:15 PM	#58 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Sounds like it to me.... The right wants to have their cake and eat it too. This shit won't go on forever.

05-31-2005, 06:28 PM	#62 (permalink)
cellophanedeity Heliotrope Location: A warm room	I'm quite suprised that I hadn't heard of this case before now. I disagree with the judge's ruling. I think that people should have the right to raise their children in whichever faith that they feel is best suited for them and the child, despite marital status. I don't know the details of the case, of course, and so I can't start screaming at one side. Perhaps there is more to this that we're missing? Perhaps the parents sacrifice goldfish and encourage the kid to eat peyote. I don't know, but I do believe that until it is proven that what you are teaching is harmful, or at least illegal, then it should be an option. I was raised without a god, and instead with values and introductions to spiritualities, and I tend to think that this was the best possible way to be raised. But that's my business. No one elses. I wouldn't stop a Catholic family from teaching Catholic ideas, I wouldn't stop Sikhs from practising Sikhism, and I won't stop pagans from doing their thing. I think that this ruling is fundamentally wrong, based upon my understanding of freedom of religion and the little I know of this case.

06-01-2005, 06:45 AM	#66 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	Well, you can't make a huge deal about EVERYTHING... nobody has that much time. Frankly, I feel it's the other way around. I don't think GWB had any right or business getting involved in the Shiavo case at all. That's not the President's job.

06-01-2005, 07:18 AM	#68 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	and I count on you to fight the fight pan. I refrained from stating that it was a bad decision by the judge because my statement was simple, about non mainstream religions and what constitutes a religion by US government definition. I was more interested in the mechanics of the judge's thinking versus the ruling itself without prejudice of religious right pressure. I'm refraining from descending deeper into the political dialogues because of people like yourself who SHOUT at the listeners who are just trying to digest what is being said. I hear, "BUT look at this and this and this..." with quotes, links, books, media to watch. But I cannot digest all of that in 15 minutes as I read a thread. I cannot corroborate and discount or validate some of the mountain of links and threads that people inundate others with when trying to convince them that they need to act. So like others I just stop. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-01-2005, 07:42 AM	#69 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i am increasingly unclear about this sort of statement, what you imagine it is doing when you make it into your part in a dialogue, cyn-- first: not everything is reducable to simple sound-byte form. second: if you work in opposition to an ideology, you find that one disadvantage you have to work around is that you have to explain what you are doing, lay out your arguments, provide information--you cannot rely on, say, television to fill in the gaps for you. if i were to take your position seriously as a political and not a personal one, i would conclude that you are arguing for a particular political position not so much because you agree with it, but because it prechews information for you and so lets you feel connected to politics in the context of a busy life. but it seems to me that you give up alot if you really operate along these lines. like you disable your own ability to pose questions. you make it much more difficult for yourself to step outside the dominant opinion management of the moment. i wonder if this position you have of late taken to outlining here is worth holding, really...it seems to me that the costs outweigh the benefits. for example: in the responses from ustwo above, you get an interesting idea of how difficult conservatives in the main find it to historicize their own position--they can't seem to get their heads around the idea that christianity has a history, that this history is very particular and quite important for understanding the particulrities of that belief system, etc. because they seem to have trouble imagining that the present was not always more or less thus. they even go so far as to claim their own innovations are simply righting a historical wrong--history then comes up as transient, while their own views are transcendent, ahistorical, true. this must be the happy result of thinking that god likes you better than he or she does others. this is followed by an attempt--a disengenuous one, but i would expect nothing less--to further rationalize the court decision that prompted this thread by calling the term wicca into question on the one hand, and to insinuate that "we do not know the whole story"----while of course not providing anything like the whole story himself, and so on. but his sentences are short. does that in itself make his arguments more compelling for you? he does not have to lay out the basis for his argument--sometimes it seems like a tv is going the whole time he writes and that to get arguments he simply has to turn and watch for a while--never any logic outlined, never any real information given, just the mirror of conservative media, apologies for the bush administration, for conservative organizations, for conservative legal decisions in ways that do not make any sense unless you watch these same tv outlets, listen to the same talk radio, read the same washington times-style press. but than again, maybe this is all just my problem. on another note i am well to the left of pan, but i have to say i find something really endearing about his tendency to yell "TO THE BARRICADES COMRADES" __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-01-2005 at 07:45 AM..

06-01-2005, 09:16 AM	#72 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cyn: thanks for that clarification. it is hard to know how to take things in messageboards sometimes--intent seems almost always to be garbled when what one is thinking is crunched into this form. i hope that the political dimension to the questions i posed was evident: your posts push on one of the main problems faced by anyone who works in opposition to a dominant or near-dominant ideology--that you have to explain your arguments--folk who work within that ideology have the everyday frame of reference that explains their arguments for them, so shorthand is possible. how i write is how i write. i dont necessarily expect everything to communicate with no residuum. i write this stuff while i am taking breaks from doing other things. i think about it, write what i have to say, and return to the other tasks. like now. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-01-2005, 09:42 AM	#75 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ustwo: please. in general i am not interested in arguing with you at an ad hominem level. but for this, i'll take a little time. remember this is about what i read from you, not you as a human being--as a human being, i know nothing about you apart from the curious factoids you occaisionally offer up to explain to us the basis for your superiority in things political. when i bother to respond directly to your posts--which are consistent in a kind of tedious way--- i simply take you at your word and unpack such thinking as i can imagine possible behind them. i figure that i am giving you benefit of the doubt in assuming there is much thought in what you write, frankly. i mean your own thought--your posts usually read like a pastiche of conservative commentaries. so when i respond directly to your posts, ustwo, i usually walk through such logic as there is in them. sorry if you dont like the results: the logic is usually yours--all i do is provide a gloss on it. if you really dont like how i recast to your posts, maybe think them out more before you post them. take for example, your comments about "socialism"--about which you clearly know nothing--or about people who oppose you "vandalizing society"--your assumption that if everyone was just like you--that is "grown up"----that they would see the world as you do--that, ustwo, is arrogance. it is not arrogance to attack such a position. what i see in your reactions is yet another conservative trope: when you cannot control the terms of debate, and so cannot win an argument (the two are closely tied together in conservativeland--even you should recognize this) you decide that you are being victimized. and on that one, i dont know what to tell you. back out of this mode of argument. it really doesnt interest me. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-01-2005 at 09:48 AM..

06-01-2005, 09:47 AM	#76 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Let's try to keep it not at a personal level. pre yellow warning __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-01-2005, 12:55 PM	#80 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	My obsure mystic religion tells me that a bright yellow warning is on the way.