Religious cults
Matthew Vincent
------------------
WHAT COULD have driven an educated young American from a loving and
prosperous family to embrace the Taliban cause?
His parents have said that he was brainwashed. I have not met John
Walker Lindh, who was recently captured in Afghanistan, but I believe
his parents are probably right. In fact, I had a similar experience as
a student at Queens College in New York City when I was 19 - Lindh's
age. I never participated in actual combat, but I was engaged in a
holy war on the streets of New York.
In the fall of 1974, I was invited to join a group of fellow
students who said they were interested in making the world a better
place. Within weeks, I dropped out of school, cut my long hair, and
put on a three-piece suit (worn by the group in public, like a
uniform). I was told to cut off contact with friends and family,
apparently just like Lindh.
I didn't know it then, but I had been recruited into a front group
within a worldwide cult that wants to rule the world with a so-called
automatic theocracy led by the group's supposed messiah. I was
programmed to believe that Armageddon would take place in 1977, that
Satan loved democracy, and that we were going to be the future rulers
of the new kingdom of heaven on earth.
As I was indoctrinated by the cult, I underwent a radical
personality change. I was programmed to kill off the old Steve who
knew and loved my friends and family. A new cult identity was created.
I was trained to shut out any doubts that entered my mind, thinking
they were from Satan. Raised in a conservative Jewish home, I hadn't
believed in Satan at all, but once in the cult, Satan was omnipresent,
and everyone outside the group was viewed as a child of Satan. To my
horror now, I was so programmed that I believe I would have died or
killed on command.
Then circumstances changed my life once again. While driving a van,
I fell asleep, crashed, and was seriously injured. While recuperating
in a hospital, I telephoned my sister, and for the first time in many
months my family knew my whereabouts. They and former cult members
then tried to get me out of my cult trance. To my surprise, I wasn't
beaten and tortured by the deprogrammers. They were very nice to me
and taught me about brainwashing tactics. After five days, I realized
I had been under cult mind control. I was saved by those who could
offer me love and concern - my family and the ex-members who cared
about me.
Many are now calling for Lindh's execution as a traitor to his
country. There is no doubt that CIA operative Johnny Spann is a hero
of the highest level and deserves our praise and thanks. However, I
doubt that Lindh is an evil person who deserves to die. I think he is
a victim, as I was 27 years ago, and I think it important that his
fate be decided in a public trial in US federal court. I believe that
with proper counseling, Lindh would be horrified at what brainwashing
has made him do. Indeed, it appears that mind control techniques
similar to those used by my cult leader have been used by Osama bin
Laden and his cronies to recruit, train, and exploit talented
people to do their bidding.
Now that Lindh is in American hands, I sincerely hope that mind
control experts assist his interrogators, supervising the sessions.
Otherwise, we risk losing a valuable opportunity in the war against
terrorism. I remember as a cult member how I was taught to block out
criticism and doubt with simple chants such as ''Crush Satan, Crush
Satan.'' I expect that Lindh will do the same.
How can we reach Lindh if he is indeed a victim of mind control?
Since coming out of my group, I have worked with thousands of people
impacted by destructive mind control. I have assisted former cult
members in reclaiming their minds and their lives. It is important
that family members and friends be coached on how best to connect with
their loved one's pre-cult identity with love, respect, understanding,
and compassion. When counseling people, I talk about my own cult
experiences and tell them about other people who have
been deceptively recruited into destructive groups. It helps them to
know others have had experiences similar to their own.
I believe that Lindh will eventually realize that he was duped
into accepting terrorism and murder, which is condemned by the faith
he adopted at age 16. For now, he must accept responsibility for his
actions. It is my hope that he will provide valuable information about
the activities of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. (He already has, according
to reports.) Perhaps more important, he might provide a valuable
example for future generations about the workings of mind control
techniques.
Nothing is more powerful than a personal story, especially one
that tells of the journey from slavery to freedom. Such a story - the
promise of redemption in the afterlife - is said to fuel the actions
of suicide terrorists. The stories of Taliban and Al Qaeda members who
reject terrorism and leave their cell groups need to be heard and
examined within our culture and within the Arab and Muslim worlds.
The war against the Taliban is nearly over, but the much harder
war against terrorism continues. There is an important story behind
John Lindh. It may be a key to learning how to help win the war on
terrorism.
Steven Hassan, author of ''Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to
Think for Themselves,'' is director of the Freedom of Mind Resource
Center. © Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.
Steven Hassan M.Ed LMHC has...@freedomofmind.com
Resource Center http://www.freedomofmind.com
mist
wrote:
>I found this article interesting...
>
"brainwashing" that the story talks about.
Iona
Steve,
I found your analysis insightful and compassionate. What I find
extraoridinary is that so many people want to dehumanize this person,
much like we accuse 'them' of doing to 'us', yet find no problem with
our own attitudes. It is good to be reminded that religious freedom
can mean many things, and take many forms. We may not always like the
form they do take, but it should not be a basis for closing the door
even a little on religious freedom.
The fact that our Founding Fathers were all white male Christians is
almost amusing in light of what religious freedom the U.S.
Constitution provides, or at least has provided in the past. It is
obvious from recent lower court decisions that there is a swift
movement to begin shutting the door on all the rights and freedoms we
have. How we treat someone who exercised their right to believe and
act according to their belief should be distinguished from the
individuals duties as a citizen. I fear that distinction will not be
made.
This is not an easy or simple issue. I don't know all the facts about
this person's situation, but it is easy to see that religious
prosecution in any form can easily begin to crumble the precious
freedoms we have now. I am not a Christian, and I would not want to
be forced to be one by any government. But when goverment and religion
are mixed, there are often many losers. Whatever laws this man broke,
those are the ones that are at issue, my only hope is that as its
mixed in with religious freedoms, that somehow the two can be
separated and viewed so that one does not diminish the other.
Iona
Noinden
<war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
Go to www.neopagan.net and read Isaacs Cult evaluation form ... most
monotheistic religions are cults most polytheistic (or in wiccas case
Duotheisitic) are not ... he lists (else where in the site) an
exception!
Matthew Vincent
>Steve,
>
>I found your analysis insightful and compassionate.
I did too.
>The fact that our Founding Fathers were all white male Christians
They weren't Christians, actually; they were mostly Unitarians and
atheists. "...of the presidents who had thus far been elected
[Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a
one had professed a belief in Christianity.... Among all our
presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of
religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." -- The Reverend
Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a
sermon preached in October, 1831.
The Founding Fathers were constantly in a battle to maintain the First
Amendment and to prevent the clergy from taking over the government.
One only needs to look at the shrubbery that the Eagle's feathers are
currently entangled in to see that somewhere along the way, the
success of this mission has wavered. I hope that the Eagle is able to
spread its mighty wings and free itself from the shrubbery that has
entangled it, because this planet desperately needs the US as a force
for good in the 21st century.
>But when goverment and religion are mixed, there are often many losers.
"Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of
government." -- James Madison
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses
in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the
support of government. Truth can stand by itself." -- Thomas
Jefferson.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
God the things that are God's." -- Jesus, Matthew 22:21
Blessed be,
Matthew
Yowie
Since the USA has not formally declared war on Afghansitan, and so far we do
not know that Lindh had a hand in any terrorist activities as such, then all
I can see is someone who decided to defend a country against an invading
one.
If being a member of a group that has had *some* members commit atrocities
makes someone guilty merely by associataion, then all Christians are guilty,
by defintion, of the horrid occurances in the Crusades, all non-indigenous
Australians guilty of attempted genocide, all Muslims guilty of terrorism,
and the whole of the USA governemnt guilty of getting a blow-job from
Monica.
This is clearly not true.
The Taliban, whether we liked it or not (and I certainly *didn't* like it)
was the governement of Afghanistan. A member of that government, to my mind,
had a right to defend "his" country from what he would consider invaders. He
may not have committed any actual crimes at all besides defending what in
his own mind is his country. Ok, he was picked the wrong side to be on, but
until he has been proven guilty of *actual crimes* the only thing he is
guilty of is taking up arms against his oppressors, something I would do if
I thought another country was invading my own adopted one.
I'll be very interested in how this case pans out.
Yowie
Songweaver
Me, too. From what I've read about him, it appears that he started out
at a madrasa in Pakistan and was fighting for Pakistan in Kashmir. He
was then told to go fight for the Taliban against the Northern Alliance,
and that's when he ended up in the jail - I've been trying to keep up
with this story, but I'll admit to being a bit behind in my news
reading, so other evidence may have come to light. I'm not convinced
that he knew that it was Americans who were coming into the jail; he and
others may have believed that it was Northern Alliance troops coming in
to kill them, which is why he fought back.
There is all this talk about charging him with treason. Treason is one
of the only crimes that has evidence needed for conviction spelled out
in the US Constitution; evidence for conviction is only if he confesses
in court to specific actions (yeah, he's said he fought with the
Taliban, which may be enough, but how much did he really know about what
exactly was going on?), or if two witnesses attest to specific acts that
he did. Knowing this, I think it would be dumb of the government to
file charges of treason. I think they will get more useful information
from him by filing lesser charges and picking his brain about how the
Taliban operated. Since he was a soldier and not one of the rulers he
may not be able to help with locating anyone, but it may give the
military information about what tactics to use while fighting.
Blessings,
Songweaver
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>Since the USA has not formally declared war on Afghansitan, and so far we do
>not know that Lindh had a hand in any terrorist activities as such, then all I can
>see is someone who decided to defend a country against an invading one.
Does that justify it, though? The mitigating factor is that he
probably didn't understand the circumstances, due to the limited
information he had of the situation. In any case, I'd basically agree
with your conclusions, because only the alpha males from the Taliban
are really worth getting. The rank-and-file were mainly recruited as
children using the threat of starvation and all that.
>If being a member of a group that has had *some* members commit atrocities
>makes someone guilty merely by associataion, then all Christians are guilty,
>by defintion, of the horrid occurances in the Crusades, all non-indigenous
>Australians guilty of attempted genocide, all Muslims guilty of terrorism,
Well, I'm certainly not guilty of patriarchal oppression nor of the
British state and military invading New Zealand in the 19th century -
as much as a few radicals with an agenda would like to think that I
am. They shoot their own cause in the foot by projecting their anger
onto too large a range of targets.
>and the whole of the USA governemnt guilty of getting a blow-job from Monica.
You never know. ;) Women would have to get some other kind of oral
stimulation from Monica, of course.
>The Taliban, whether we liked it or not (and I certainly *didn't* like
>it) was the governement of Afghanistan.
Only because they overtook Afghanistan by force and then used gross
acts of barbarism to stay in power.
>A member of that government, to my mind, had a right to defend "his"
>country from what he would consider invaders.
Would you say the same for David Koresh's supporters at Waco? If not,
what's the grounds for the difference?
>He may not have committed any actual crimes at all besides
>defending what in his own mind is his country.
He was probably an accessory to unjust executions and the like.
>Ok, he was picked the wrong side to be on, but
>until he has been proven guilty of *actual crimes* the only thing he is
>guilty of is taking up arms against his oppressors,
Oppressors? It wasn't the US who were severing hands off the people of
Afghanistan, and hanging corpses and severed limbs out in public in
order to intimidate the population. The Taliban were the main
oppressors, and only his brainwashing prevented him from seeing that.
>something I would do if I thought another country was invading
>my own adopted one.
If my government ever starts severing people's hands or executing them
for trivial crimes, I'll welcome UN intervention. Of course, as a
citizen I also accept personal responsibility for doing my best to
keep my government in check so that never happens.
>I'll be very interested in how this case pans out.
Me too. I think he should be treated humanely but kept in custody for
psychological analysis. He may very well not be especially malicious,
but just had been deceived, as Steve suggested.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
<Lady_...@altcastlenet.com> wrote:
>There is all this talk about charging him with treason.
Treason is a strange "crime", in that it can sometimes be ethically
appropriate to fight against one's own government. For instance, if I
was an officer in the Iraqi military and found out that Saddam was
going to kill millions of people with biological weapons, I'd be
morally required to report him to the UN in the hopes that they could
do something. As another example, if I was a man living in Pakistan
and my sister had some kind of consensual sex and was going to be
executed for it, I'd be morally obliged not to execute her. If the
authorities were going to come for her and I had a good chance to help
her escape, then I'd be morally obliged to do so.
Blessed be,
Matthew
MysticGoat
Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3c3c2bbd...@news.dun.ihug.co.nz...
Piggybacking on your post, Matthew, but not directly addressing your
points. The discussion motivated me to look into "treason", American
style.
US Costitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The clear intent is to make it very difficult for anyone in power to use
"treason" as a way to eliminate his political opposition, which was an
occasional practice in European nations at the time the US Constitution
was being developed. The need to protect US citizens' rights to stand in
opposition to the federal government's policies and practices is held
more important than protecting the government from the acts of
individuals or small groups.
A reputable source, Steve Mount
(http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a5.html#Q92), states that the US
Code (of federal law) defines "enemy" as a nation at war with the USA.
So on the face of it, it would seem that under US law no one in the
Taliban could be convicted of treason as the US has not declared war on
Afghanistan (or any other nation). Nor could treason be applied to any
american members of Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist groups, unless the
US formally recognizes the group to be a nation, and congress then
declares war on the group.
Of course these restrictions of US law do not apply in other country,
nor should they stifle the use of the word "treason" in arwm
discussions. It is a very useful term in a more general sense, and
without it, Matthew, you would have had much more difficulty in making
your points (which I agree with, btw). But while we should use the term
in its more general sense here most of the time, we need to also
recognize that it has a much tighter definition when talking about US
legalities.
Steve Mount's web site, http://www.usconstitution.net, is all about the
US Constitution, and is a great resource. The site has been up for 8
years, and the FAQ has kept getting larger and better every year.
bb
mg
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> US Costitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
> against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
> Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
> of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
That would seem to make it difficult to prove treason without a formal
Declaration of War on the part of the Congress of the United States -
which, in this case, is lacking....
Blessed be,
Baird
MysticGoat
Baird Stafford <ba...@newstaff.com> wrote in message
news:1f5qzf9.1qrzkg81ns74roN%ba...@newstaff.com...
That's my take on it as well. It served to prevent a bloodbath following
the american Civil War, and at least one public figure, an actress
daughter of a famous actor, would likely have been tried for treason
during the Vietnam war if this part of the Constitution had not been so
carefully phrased.
Shez
<mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes
Yes I remember Hanoi Jane as well, I admired her courage, She didn't
help the enemy, If you can call the bombed, savaged and starving people
of Vietnam the enemy.
She very strongly criticised the U.S. governments interference in
Vietnam, and was very anti the Vietnam war. I gather a lot of Americans
also believed America should pull out of Vietnam after years of
stalemate,
They might not have been as loud about it as she was, but she certainly
brought the subject into public view, and the government after trying to
make her the enemy, eventually got the point, that it was not a popular
war, and that America was not going to win it.
--
Shez, the Old Craft lady sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/shez/
Shez
<roseg...@attbi.com> writes
>On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 05:38:52 CST, war...@es.co.nz (Matthew Vincent) wrote:
I do feel some sympathy for the guy, he was a teenager when he went to
Pakistan, he is only twenty now,
I do remember when I was 18 and 20 I thought I know everything, was
ready to take on the world based on my assumptions, and I felt
everything very strongly,
I am sure a lot of us Older ones can remember those days, how exiting it
could be, how possible it seemed that you could put the world to rights.
How easy it was to stand up and be counted...
I suspect that he became a Moslem because he felt that Moslems were very
badly treated, and if he knew the politics of the middle East, and the
interference of Western governments America, Britain, France and
Germany, then he would feel strongly about how his country was treating
third world countries.
With that sympathy, and if he was easily led, or persuaded, then the
Taliban and Al Quada would easily persuade him to join and fight for
there cause
He seems to me to be very young for his age, and easily led, I doubt he
had any idea what was really going on, and He didn't seem to have in
fact fought against any Americans, So how can he be a traitor. ?
America is not at war with Afghanistan, only with terrorism.
I believe he needs help, psychiatric help to allow him to get over this
period in his life, I don't believe he should be imprisoned for years,
or Killed. That would be barbaric
Shez
>>Does that justify it, though? The mitigating factor is that he
>>probably didn't understand the circumstances, due to the limited
>>information he had of the situation. In any case, I'd basically agree
>>with your conclusions, because only the alpha males from the Taliban
>>are really worth getting. The rank-and-file were mainly recruited as
>>children using the threat of starvation and all that.
>>
>>>If being a member of a group that has had *some* members commit atrocities
>>>makes someone guilty merely by associataion, then all Christians are guilty,
>>>by defintion, of the horrid occurances in the Crusades, all non-indigenous
>>>Australians guilty of attempted genocide, all Muslims guilty of terrorism,
>>
>>Well, I'm certainly not guilty of patriarchal oppression nor of the
>>British state and military invading New Zealand in the 19th century -
>>as much as a few radicals with an agenda would like to think that I
>>am. They shoot their own cause in the foot by projecting their anger
>>onto too large a range of targets.
>>
>>>and the whole of the USA governemnt guilty of getting a blow-job from Monica.
>>
>>You never know. ;) Women would have to get some other kind of oral
>>stimulation from Monica, of course.
>
>Not necessarily oral. As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar" <g>
>
>>>The Taliban, whether we liked it or not (and I certainly *didn't* like
>>>it) was the governement of Afghanistan.
>>
>>Only because they overtook Afghanistan by force and then used gross
>>acts of barbarism to stay in power.
>
>My belief - they overtook Afghanistan because it was easy, ripe for the
>picking,
>and whose fault was that? I'm not meaning that the U.S. brought anything on
>itself. But in the last of its Cold War phase, U.S. negligence on the heels of
>its interference breathed life into the very Frankenstein that it's fighting,
>IMO. Maybe we've figured out (or will) that real power can't have an agenda
>unless its all inclusive - not centered on one nation. The power itself cannot
>be both exclusive and successful in the long-run.
>
>Excuse my waxing whatever.
>
>>>A member of that government, to my mind, had a right to defend "his"
>>>country from what he would consider invaders.
>>
>>Would you say the same for David Koresh's supporters at Waco? If not,
>>what's the grounds for the difference?
>
>Maybe an informed decision (don't know). Koresh and his people were all over
>the media and the media all over them. When was the last time Lindh heard from
>anyone other than the Taliban, let alone had access to mass media?
>
>>>He may not have committed any actual crimes at all besides
>>>defending what in his own mind is his country.
>>
>>He was probably an accessory to unjust executions and the like.
>
>I'm not sure in a country where you die for disobedience that one can be an
>accessory to something like that. Once a person is in that vulnerable a
>position, how could you ever back out, even if you learned the score? He was
>only 20 years old.
>
>>>Ok, he was picked the wrong side to be on, but
>>>until he has been proven guilty of *actual crimes* the only thing he is
>>>guilty of is taking up arms against his oppressors,
>>
>>Oppressors? It wasn't the US who were severing hands off the people of
>>Afghanistan, and hanging corpses and severed limbs out in public in
>>order to intimidate the population. The Taliban were the main
>>oppressors, and only his brainwashing prevented him from seeing that.
>
>Or not brainwashing. He went in not knowing and once in had no way out.
>Again,
>don't know, just sayin.
>
>>>something I would do if I thought another country was invading
>>>my own adopted one.
>>
>>If my government ever starts severing people's hands or executing them
>>for trivial crimes, I'll welcome UN intervention. Of course, as a
>>citizen I also accept personal responsibility for doing my best to
>>keep my government in check so that never happens.
>>
>>>I'll be very interested in how this case pans out.
>>
>>Me too. I think he should be treated humanely but kept in custody for
>>psychological analysis. He may very well not be especially malicious,
>>but just had been deceived, as Steve suggested.
>
>Yes. He would be pretty badly traumatized either way it happened, any way it
>happened, I would think.
>
>Blessings,
>
>Rose
Matthew Vincent
<mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote:
>US Costitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason
>Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
>against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Interestingly, there is a fairly good article about Jerry Falwell's
recent remarks that describes them as being treasonous:
http://www.thisistrue.com/taliban.html
>The clear intent is to make it very difficult for anyone in power to use
>"treason" as a way to eliminate his political opposition, which was an
>occasional practice in European nations at the time the US Constitution
>was being developed.
Sounds like a good precaution to take. How does one measure what the
US public's interests are? Surely it would be a matter of what would
benefit the average happiness of the US people overall, rather than
the petty interests of the individuals with power in the government.
>So on the face of it, it would seem that under US law no one in the
>Taliban could be convicted of treason as the US has not declared
>war on Afghanistan (or any other nation).
The Taliban declared a holy war on the US, though.
>Steve Mount's web site, http://www.usconstitution.net, is all about the
>US Constitution, and is a great resource. The site has been up for 8
>years, and the FAQ has kept getting larger and better every year.
Thanks for the link, it looks like a useful site.
Blessed be,
Matthew
MysticGoat
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 09:39:23 CST, "MysticGoat"
> <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote:
>
> >US Costitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason
> >Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
> >against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort.
>
> Interestingly, there is a fairly good article about Jerry Falwell's
> recent remarks that describes them as being treasonous:
>
> http://www.thisistrue.com/taliban.html
I've not read Cassingham before. I think he is on target with this. But
I think it unfortunate that he used the word "treason" where it doesn't
fit well. In their comments after 9/11, Robertson and Falwell exposed
themselves as opportunistic, self-serving, loathsome little worms, but
while their attack upon the american way of life was reprehensible, it
was not an act of treason. Not every betrayal is treason. Those two did
betray the common human decency upon which all civilized behavior is
based, but that isn't treason. In some ways its worse.
> >The clear intent is to make it very difficult for anyone in power to
use
> >"treason" as a way to eliminate his political opposition, which was
an
> >occasional practice in European nations at the time the US
Constitution
> >was being developed.
>
> Sounds like a good precaution to take. How does one measure what the
> US public's interests are? Surely it would be a matter of what would
> benefit the average happiness of the US people overall, rather than
> the petty interests of the individuals with power in the government.
I'm not sure I understand the question. The US Constitution does not
address what is best for the USA. It describes a complex mechanism that
allows different factions with different ideas on what is best to hash
things out without too much bloodshed. It isn't particularly good at
that, but there doesn't seem to be anything better (for a country with
as many different groups that would be at each other's throats in a
moment). And in any event, we are stuck with it and need to make do with
what we've inherited.
> >So on the face of it, it would seem that under US law no one in the
> >Taliban could be convicted of treason as the US has not declared
> >war on Afghanistan (or any other nation).
>
> The Taliban declared a holy war on the US, though.
This gets just a little tricky. It has been reported in the US press
that Taliban religious leaders have called for a holy war of all of
Islam against the US, but this is not being interpreted over here as a
declaration of war by a foreign nation. The Taliban has never been
considered the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan by the USA (or by nearly
all other countries in the world, including most moslem nations-- as I
recall, only Pakistan had established diplomatic relations). But more to
the point, the way of creating a state of war in the USA is specified
within the US Constitution and makes no reference to anything a foreign
nation may or may not do. The USA is at war if and only if the US
Congress issues a declaration of war. That hasn't happened here.
<snip>
bb
mg
Raven
(thanks, Matthew, for posting it!), is also the author of the book
COMBATTING CULT MIND CONTROL (1988), one of the books I highly recommend
to anyone interested in brainwashing and anti-brainwashing issues.
To see sample pages: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892813113
Other books I recommend on the same topic:
Margaret Thaler Singer, CULTS IN OUR MIDST (1996).
Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman, SNAPPING (1978) -and- HOLY TERROR (1982).
Anne and Adrian Greek. MIND ABUSE BY CULTS AND OTHERS.
Austin Miles, DON'T CALL ME BROTHER -and- SETTING THE CAPTIVES FREE.
Lenore E. Walker, THE BATTERED WOMAN (1979). [similar techniques of control!]
Also, Isaac Bonewits, in REAL MAGIC (1979 edition, Appendix 1), featured a
"Cult Danger Evaluation Frame" (CDEF), more recently expanded as the "Advanced
Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame" (ABCDEF). This is on Isaac Bonewits's
own personal website -- at http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.HTML -- and asks its
user to measure a group (on a scale of 1 to 10) in fifteen questions of degree:
internal control, wisdom claimed, wisdom credited, dogma, recruiting, front
groups, wealth, political power, sexual manipulation, censorship, dropout
control, endorsement of violence, paranoia, grimness, and surrender of will.
As a rough indication, the higher a group's total score, the more likely it
will be dangerous, a true "cult".
- - - - -
Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> Iona <ion...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The fact that our Founding Fathers were all white male Christians
>
> They weren't Christians, actually; they were mostly Unitarians and
> atheists.
. ^^^^^^^^
Not quite. Like Thomas Paine, these were Deists rather than atheists.
Deists believe in a God as First Cause -- who created the Universe and
then did not intervene: no miracles, no appearances, no incarnations.
Deists don't think the Bible describes that God, or that anyone in the Bible
has anything more to do with that God than anyone else who has ever lived.
Paine's article "Of the Religion of Deism Compared with the Christian Religion"
spells that out: http://www.deism.com/paine_essay01.htm
Paine's book THE AGE OF REASON (1795) is a debunking of the Bible:
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/p147a/
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=3743
Other books, letters, and essays by Thomas Paine:
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/index.shtml
Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a materialist, labelled himself "Christian"
only in a sense which *denied* that Jesus was God incarnate:
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the
genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense
in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in
preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence,
and believing he never claimed any other."
(Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.)
Under the *usual* definition, of course, that is not "Christianity" at all.
To your other quotes, Matthew, add the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under
President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and ratified
by the United States Senate, with the clause: "the government of the United
States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".
Songweaver
Raven wrote:
<snip, but saved links for Thomas Paine - thank you!>
> Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a materialist, labelled himself
"Christian"
> only in a sense which *denied* that Jesus was God incarnate:
>
> "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to
the
> genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense
> in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines
in
> preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence,
> and believing he never claimed any other."
> (Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, April 21,
1803.)
>
> Under the *usual* definition, of course, that is not "Christianity" at
all.
Not at all. I believe Jefferson's "official" religion was listed as
Unitarian. If you haven't read _The Jefferson Bible_ for TJ's view on
the life and teachings of Jesus you may want to take a look. It's a
small book and a quick read. Basically, he took the gospels (using 4
versions; Greek, Latin, French, and King James) and pieced them together
in an order that made sense and only including parts that pertained to
Jesus' life and teachings. No virgin birth, no miracles, no indication
of Jesus as the Son of God.
At one time, incoming members of Congress (both houses) were given a
copy of this when they took office. Maybe it's time to make sure all
535 members of Congress, as well as the President and his Cabinet
members, have a good long look at what one of the Founding Fathers
really thought about Jesus.
> To your other quotes, Matthew, add the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated
under
> President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and
ratified
> by the United States Senate, with the clause: "the government of the
United
> States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion".
Next on my reading list is David McCullough's biography of John Adams,
and the quote above is one of the main reasons I want to read it.
Blessings,
Songweaver
Raven
> Raven wrote:
>
> <snip, but saved links for Thomas Paine - thank you!>
>
>> Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a materialist, labelled himself "Christian"
>> only in a sense which *denied* that Jesus was God incarnate:
>>
>> "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the
>> genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense
>> in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in
>> preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence,
>> and believing he never claimed any other."
>> (Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.)
>>
>> Under the *usual* definition, of course, that is not "Christianity" at all.
>
> Not at all. I believe Jefferson's "official" religion was listed as
> Unitarian.
No; *sympathetically* he was a Unitarian, but not as his "official" religion.
That is, he *approved* of Unitarians, to the point of expressing the hope that
every young man then alive might die a Unitarian, but he was not himself a
member of the denomination -- though I would have liked to claim him for it,
being myself a lifelong member of the Unitarian (now Unitarian-Universalist)
denomination (of the Humanist variety).
He remained a member of the Episcopal Church, though not a Trinitarian.
http://www.2think.org/tj.shtml
Both Unitarians and atheists have claimed his *theological* agreement:
http://members.aol.com/cwood64801/jefferson.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/jeffstein.htm
But actually you've supported my point, because Unitarianism is *also* not
considered Christian by the National Council of Churches of Christ -- for
the same reason: refusal to accept Jesus Christ as divine (the incarnation,
or Son, of God). In this refusal, Unitarians, Deists, and atheists agree.
In fact the UUA now *includes* Deists (I've met some) and atheists (I am one).
> If you haven't read _The Jefferson Bible_ for TJ's view on the life and
> teachings of Jesus you may want to take a look. It's a small book and
> a quick read. Basically, he took the gospels (using 4 versions; Greek,
> Latin, French, and King James) and pieced them together in an order that
> made sense and only including parts that pertained to Jesus' life and
> teachings. No virgin birth, no miracles, no indication of Jesus as the
> Son of God.
Thank you. I have a copy, agree with your summary, and join in suggesting
it to others as an interesting look at Thomas Jefferson's way of thinking.
(The Beacon Press edition discusses some of TJ's other writings on religion.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/080707702X
> At one time, incoming members of Congress (both houses) were given a
> copy of this when they took office. Maybe it's time to make sure all
> 535 members of Congress, as well as the President and his Cabinet
> members, have a good long look at what one of the Founding Fathers
> really thought about Jesus.
You may also enjoy his correspondence with James Madison, while Jefferson
was in Paris and Madison was helping compose what became the Bill of Rights;
particularly their agreement on the dangers of religion, as they discussed
the reasoning behind what became the First Amendment.
>> To your other quotes, Matthew, add the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated
>> under President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and
>> ratified by the United States Senate, with the clause: "the government
>> of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
>> Christian Religion".
>
> Next on my reading list is David McCullough's biography of John Adams,
> and the quote above is one of the main reasons I want to read it.
Adams didn't *write* that statement. The man who did, in the course of
negotiating the treaty, was Joel Barlow, who doesn't get much attention
in the history books, but was in some interesting situations, and conducted
himself both bravely and honorably.
Barlow had been a chaplain in the Revolutionary Army under Washington,
became a good friend of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, and eventually
abandoned Christianity for rationalism.
When Thomas Paine was in Paris, working with the French revolutionary
government and also writing "The Age of Reason", it was to Barlow that
Paine entrusted his just-completed manuscript, shortly before the French
came and arrested Paine; and it was Barlow who saw to its publication.
Later, as the American representative to France, he was with Napoleon's
army during the disastrous retreat from Russia, and died of exposure.
A brief bio: http://www.nagasaki-gaigo.ac.jp/ishikawa/amlit/b/barlow1718.htm
Shez
<ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes
As an aside, The Statue of Thomas Pain in his home town of Thetford
England is placed in front of the church. Considering his religious
beliefs, I find that slightly amusing,
--
Matthew Vincent
>I should mention that Steven Hassan, whose article begins this thread
>(thanks, Matthew, for posting it!),
You're most welcome. :) Thank you for your references also.
>Margaret Thaler Singer, CULTS IN OUR MIDST (1996).
I've skim-read this one, and although it might contain some useful
material, I'd advise taking note of the author's bias. She seems to
come from a fairly fundamentalist Christian perspective, viewing cults
as a threat to "legitimate religious institutions". Now, this raises
the question: what, exactly, determines the difference between a
legitimate religious institution and a cult? Is it a matter of
degrees? Bonewitz's checklist provides some criteria here, but still,
I think it's a pretty open question.
>Lenore E. Walker, THE BATTERED WOMAN (1979).
I've read this one too, for my sociology projects.
<snip>
>Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a materialist, labelled himself "Christian"
>only in a sense which *denied* that Jesus was God incarnate:
>
>"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the
>genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense
>in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in
>preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence,
>and believing he never claimed any other."
Yeah, Jefferson believed that the personal morality of Jesus was the
best he'd come across in his readings, but didn't subscribe to a great
deal of the Christian religion as a whole.
>To your other quotes, Matthew, add the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under
>President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and ratified
>by the United States Senate, with the clause: "the government of the United
>States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".
Thanks. I'd heard this one before, but I take it that you think it's
an especially important one to include..? Btw, do you think it's good
for a New Zealander to be talking about this stuff on other
newsgroups? It might be less effective if I look like I'm butting in
since I'm not a member of the ingroup (i.e. US citizens); but adding
quotes from former US Presidents should help. Do you think it might be
helpful that I'm getting involved, because it will make US Christians
conscious of the fact that they'd look stupid to other countries if
they allowed the Religious Right to violate their own Constitution?
Blessed be,
Matthew
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> I should mention that Steven Hassan, whose article begins this thread
>> (thanks, Matthew, for posting it!),
>
> You're most welcome. :) Thank you for your references also.
>
>> Margaret Thaler Singer, CULTS IN OUR MIDST (1996).
>
> I've skim-read this one, and although it might contain some useful
> material, I'd advise taking note of the author's bias. She seems to
> come from a fairly fundamentalist Christian perspective,
Er, no. I'd suggest actually *reading* the book, because I think you've
taken skimmed phrases in a different meaning than she wrote and explained.
I've corresponded and conversed by phone with Singer, who's a psychology
professor at the University of California's Berkeley campus -- noted as a
liberal and sometimes even radical campus, far from being fundamentalist.
She herself is writing from a perspective of concern for mental health.
> viewing cults as a threat to "legitimate religious institutions".
> Now, this raises the question: what, exactly, determines the difference
> between a legitimate religious institution and a cult? Is it a matter of
> degrees? Bonewitz's checklist provides some criteria here, but still,
> I think it's a pretty open question.
Matthew, you've seen churches, synagogues, covens, etc., that were variously
functional or dysfunctional, in terms of how they supported the mental
health of their individual members and the social well-being of their
communities -- or else took financial, political, and even sexual advantage
of those members and that community, abusing them for the leaders' gain.
Setting all issues of theological creed aside, would you agree that between
these two approaches there is a difference in moral legitimacy?
Think of the "People's Temple", the "Solar Temple", the "Heaven's Gate",
and the mass suicides (or murders-and-suicides) in which they ended.
Were they as legitimate as the institutions whose members get to die of
old age, natural causes, or other reasons not imposed by the religion?
Think of the groups that take over their member's lives and work them hard
to recruit more members to work them hard to recruit more members -- and
make all those members empty out all their bank accounts and sell all their
assets to contribute to the group, draining the members dry and using them up,
so that the leaders can live in luxury -- as compared to groups whose members
get to live their own lives while helping each other (and outsiders) do so.
Now, there are long-standing religious communities that I think legitimate,
where members do live communally and in poverty, working for others -- but
becoming a monk or a nun in such places is *voluntary*, and candidates may
even be required to show a determined intent over a period of time before
being accepted. What of religions that actively dragoon people into such a
life with pressure tactics and deceptive fronts? Equally legitimate?
Yes, there are degrees.
Tithing, for instance is traditionally 10% of one's income, given voluntarily.
A forcible tithing of 100% is just a bit excessive, wouldn't you agree?
<snip>
>> To your other quotes, Matthew, add the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under
>> President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and ratified
>> by the United States Senate, with the clause: "the government of the United
>> States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion".
>
> Thanks. I'd heard this one before, but I take it that you think it's
> an especially important one to include..?
Well, yes, for at least three good reasons.
1) The claim has been made that the United States was *legally* Christian
from its founding. In rebuttal one may point to the Constitution as
lacking any such indication (no mention of God or Christ) and requiring
religious freedom (even before the famous First Amendment, the original
text says no religious test can be required for office), but these are
not as forceful as something saying expressly that the United States was
*not* "founded on the Christian Religion". That phrasing doesn't have to
be explained; it speaks very clearly for itself, as explicitly as possible.
2) Unlike personal writings by Presidents and other Founders, a treaty has
formal legal status. Under the Constitution a treaty is part of the
"supreme law of the land" once ratified, and can be enforced directly by
the courts, unlike the British Commonwealth's old two-step system where a
treaty had no legal force until Parliament passed enforcing legislation.
(This has changed since the Bangladore Principles were adopted, so that
now Commonwealth judges can enforce treaties directly too.)
Although the Treaty with Tripoli was subsequently changed (due to some
piracy and a small war memorialized in the US Marine Corps anthem's words
"... to the shores of Tripoli..."), there is still a historical force in
the fact that this *was* law, while no law made the USA "Christian".
3) There is also historical force in the date of its origin. If the Founders
had intended the USA to be Christian, then George Washington (commander in
chief during the Revolution, as well as first constitutional President)
would never have allowed such a clause; John Adams (the major proponent of
Independence in the Continental Congress, and the second President) would
never have signed it; and that early Senate would never have ratified it.
That they did, so it could *become* law, speaks loudly to their intent.
> Btw, do you think it's good for a New Zealander to be talking about this
> stuff on other newsgroups? It might be less effective if I look like I'm
> butting in since I'm not a member of the ingroup (i.e. US citizens); but
> adding quotes from former US Presidents should help. Do you think it might
> be helpful that I'm getting involved, because it will make US Christians
> conscious of the fact that they'd look stupid to other countries if
> they allowed the Religious Right to violate their own Constitution?
You do face the vulnerability that, if those you correct cannot refute you
on any other grounds, they may bring up your being an outsider as negating
your opinion. Also, if you don't get your own facts exactly right (and know
the full background), you can get sucker-punched by the others bringing up
some detail you don't know about (like that later change in the Treaty, after
which this famous clause no longer existed) and leave you looking ignorant.
I'd suggest that you study the issue thoroughly before debating about it,
and stock up on references to cite -- books or websites that go into detail
and are themselves well "sourced". This is a good habit for *any* debate.
And consider keeping your side to direct quotes of irrefutable sources,
rather than your own contentions. That way, people can't claim that *you*
are the one who's misinformed, because nothing was said on your own say-so;
they'd have to argue against your source, who should have greater authority.
"Excuse me, but doesn't noted historian X.Y. say, "[quote]"*? How does this
affect your claim that...."
"* See [URL/book]"
In this case, that would be "... but didn't the Treaty of Tripoli say,...".
("Didn't" rather than "doesn't", because, well, it doesn't any more.)
As long as it's a question of fact rather than opinions about how things
*ought* to be, there's no reason you should defer to an American's opinion;
you don't get to vote on how the USA *should* work, but you have as much
right as anyone to point to what historical events have actually occurred.
Richard Ballard
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
>Tithing, for instance is traditionally 10% of one's income,
>given voluntarily. A forcible tithing of 100% is just a bit
>excessive, wouldn't you agree?
I believe that *any* forcible tithing is excessive.
Elected Government and its taxation exists to solve social issues.
I could not support any redundant organization (like a cult) that
enforced mandatory (redundant) "taxation".
<snip>
>I'd suggest that you study the issue thoroughly before debating
>about it, and stock up on references to cite -- books or websites
>that go into detail and are themselves well "sourced". This is
>a good habit for *any* debate.
>
>And consider keeping your side to direct quotes of irrefutable
>sources, rather than your own contentions. That way, people can't
>claim that *you* are the one who's misinformed, because nothing
>was said on your own say-so; they'd have to argue against your
>source, who should have greater authority.
>
>"Excuse me, but doesn't noted historian X.Y. say, "[quote]"*?
>How does this affect your claim that...."
>
>"* See [URL/book]"
I appreciate people who provide references when their opinions
are controversial, and I attempt myself to provide explicit text
references when appropriate. I credit text references higher
than URLs -- publishers screen authors for expertise, while
websites are common and more available to people with
special agendas.
Nevertheless, I do *not* believe that Internet newsgroup
discussions should be limited to those who are/have become
"experts" with a reference list. If we had to supply references
everytime we spoke, we'd never get beyond the first-grade
primer: "See Dick run, see Jane run, see Spot run".
As to your statement "And consider keeping your side to direct
quotes of irrefutable sources, rather than your own contentions.
That way, people can't claim that *you* are the one who's
misinformed, because nothing was said on your own say-so;
they'd have to argue against your source, who should have
greater authority.", I have nine year's education at a private
University, I have taught a Junior-level college couse, I have
worked both as a high level engineer and manager, I have traveled
on three continents, and I am a lifelong voracious reader.
There are people under 15 years of age (experts?) with websites.
*****Are you saying that my opinions have no value?*****
M-y 0-p-in-i-ons.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "The Immortals" by Andrew Neiderman
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes:
>
>> Tithing, for instance is traditionally 10% of one's income,
>> given voluntarily. A forcible tithing of 100% is just a bit
>> excessive, wouldn't you agree?
>
> I believe that *any* forcible tithing is excessive.
Then we agree.
<snip>
Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> had previously asked me:
"Btw, do you think it's good for a New Zealander to be talking about this
stuff on other newsgroups? ..."
And Richard Ballard now quotes the advice I gave Matthew:
>> I'd suggest that you study the issue thoroughly before debating
>> about it, and stock up on references to cite -- books or websites
>> that go into detail and are themselves well "sourced". This is
>> a good habit for *any* debate.
>>
>> And consider keeping your side to direct quotes of irrefutable
>> sources, rather than your own contentions. That way, people can't
>> claim that *you* are the one who's misinformed, because nothing
>> was said on your own say-so; they'd have to argue against your
>> source, who should have greater authority.
<snip>
> I appreciate people who provide references when their opinions are
> controversial, and I attempt myself to provide explicit text references
> when appropriate. I credit text references higher than URLs --
> publishers screen authors for expertise, while websites are common
> and more available to people with special agendas.
True to an extent, and I've said the same (particularly debating with
people who cited loony websites), e.g. in news:5lgn4r$h...@solaria.sol.net
On the other hand, there are plenty of loony *books* out there, too,
from publishers who are willing to sell anything they can (pause to
let the denizens of arwm shout a certain Welsh surname, all in chorus),
or who simply may not know the subject well enough to catch the authors
in their fits of fallacy or factual falsehood. Oh, I could name cases.
But if you can cite an *accurate* and well-sourced website, that has the
advantage of being easier for your readership to find and read than if
they must log off and go to a library or bookstore, particularly if they
may live in some region distant from such conveniences, or even where
the book may not be available at all. For instance, posting a link to
FindLaw's text of a US Supreme Court decision or a section of US Code is
going to be more helpful to .uk/.au/.nz readers than just the reference.
> Nevertheless, I do *not* believe that Internet newsgroup discussions
> should be limited to those who are/have become "experts" with a
> reference list.
Nor did I suggest such a thing. Matthew is facing a *debate* situation,
and my suggestions were directed toward strengthing his skills, defenses,
and positions. That's about strategy and tactics, not permission to post.
And I didn't suggest becoming an *expert*. Being "reasonably acquainted
with the subject", and being able to *quote* or *cite* the experts or the
source material, or even simply checking one's facts before spouting off,
would be good enough to give one quite an advantage in most Usenet debates.
> If we had to supply references everytime we spoke, we'd never get beyond
> the first-grade primer: "See Dick run, see Jane run, see Spot run".
True, but we don't always face debate opponents who will hunt for errors in
our posts, debunk them, and discredit us; who will challenge everything we
say, and take our being unready to support it as reason to dismiss it; or
who might in turn make false claims which we (being unready) might accept.
Thus -- again, tactically -- it's good to know the subject already, so that
(1) one's statements are accurate to begin with, (2) one can support them
with documentation if they are challenged, and (3) one can recognize when
the opponent is presenting falsehoods for *his* side of the argument.
Everyone is *free* to be unready for a debate, but it ups the odds of losing.
> As to your statement "And consider keeping your side to direct
> quotes of irrefutable sources, rather than your own contentions.
> That way, people can't claim that *you* are the one who's
> misinformed, because nothing was said on your own say-so;
> they'd have to argue against your source, who should have
> greater authority.", I have nine year's education at a private
> University, I have taught a Junior-level college couse, I have
> worked both as a high level engineer and manager, I have traveled
> on three continents, and I am a lifelong voracious reader.
How nice for you. Then you know how to debate effectively, if you wish;
and if you don't do so, that is by choice and not from lacking the option.
> There are people under 15 years of age (experts?) with websites.
> *****Are you saying that my opinions have no value?*****
This wasn't about *you*, Richard. Why must everything always be about *you*?
Richard Ballard
>On the other hand, there are plenty of loony *books* out
>there, too, from publishers who are willing to sell anything
>they can (pause to let the denizens of arwm shout a certain
>Welsh surname, all in chorus), or who simply may not know
>the subject well enough to catch the authors in their fits
>of fallacy or factual falsehood. Oh, I could name cases.
A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles and solitary
worshippers are free to define their own Traditions. Nothing
prevents some or all of a Wiccan Tradition to be fantasy-based
-- in fact, a fantasy-based Tradition might be *desirable*! (Do
you believe that *all* of the God/desses listed in "Bullfinch's
Mythology" actually existed?) By your "Welsh" comments I assume
that you reference Edain McCoy, an author of popular witchcraft
books who is almost universally villified on ARWM. I have read
Ms. McCoy's texts -- they are well- and clearly-written. I
believe her texts are *very* suitable reading for Prospective
Wiccan Novices because the texts provide a very *positive and
wholesome* discussion about Wicca and witchcraft. Many ARWM
critics ridicule positive and wholesome Wiccan Traditions as
"fluffy-bunny" Traditions. These critics discredit positive and
wholesome Wiccan Traditions as "weak" because the Traditions do
*not* include dark and sinister magick. If Wiccan Covens and
solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions,
this criticism is *not* right.
>But if you can cite an *accurate* and well-sourced website,
>that has the advantage of being easier for your readership to
>find and read than if they must log off and go to a library or
>bookstore, particularly if they may live in some region distant
>from such conveniences, or even where the book may not be
>available at all. For instance, posting a link to FindLaw's
>text of a US Supreme Court decision or a section of US Code is
>going to be more helpful to .uk/.au/.nz readers than just the
>reference.
I am unfamiliar with "FindLaw" -- I recognize the "Lexus" online
searchable legal database. I know several *subscription-based*
reference websites that both are indisputable and also are *not*
available to the general (unsubscribed) public. I question the
validity of anonymous URL's -- the Internet is so large and
diverse that somebody can find a website supporting *any thing*.
I prefer supplying recognized, good-quality references only when
required -- this preference minimizes the administrative burden
accompanying a discussion.
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
>>Nevertheless, I do *not* believe that Internet newsgroup
>>discussions should be limited to those who are/have become
>>"experts" with a reference list.
>
>Nor did I suggest such a thing. Matthew is facing a *debate*
>situation, and my suggestions were directed toward strengthing
>his skills, defenses, and positions. That's about strategy and
>tactics, not permission to post.
>
>And I didn't suggest becoming an *expert*. Being "reasonably
>acquainted with the subject", and being able to *quote* or
>*cite* the experts or the source material, or even simply
>checking one's facts before spouting off, would be good enough
>to give one quite an advantage in most Usenet debates.
By definition a debate is unstructured -- One does not receive
a predefined list of questions to answer. (Do you remember the
Carter/Reagan debates? "Aw, you did it again!!!") Debating
is a real-time version of Internet dialogue -- respondees have
no opportunity to consult texts and websites in a debate. A
debater requires the self-confidence to participate in the debate,
a general knowledge of the subject matter, and what engineers
call 'a finely-tuned cr*p detector' -- the ability to recognize
when your opponent is bullsh*tting plus the will to go for a
bullsh*tting opponent's throat. Arcane trivia does *not* win
debates. Common sense and knowledge of *major* issues wins debates.
>>If we had to supply references everytime we spoke, we'd never get
>>beyond the first-grade primer: "See Dick run, see Jane run, see
>>Spot run".
>
>True, but we don't always face debate opponents who will hunt for
>errors in our posts, debunk them, and discredit us; who will
>challenge everything we say, and take our being unready to support
>it as reason to dismiss it; or who might in turn make false claims
>which we (being unready) might accept.
A finely-tuned cr*p detector turns away false claims.
>Thus -- again, tactically -- it's good to know the subject
>already, so that (1) one's statements are accurate to begin with,
>(2) one can support them with documentation if they are challenged,
>and (3) one can recognize when the opponent is presenting
>falsehoods for *his* side of the argument.
>
>Everyone is *free* to be unready for a debate, but it ups the odds
>of losing.
I restate my believe that common sense and knowledge of *major*
issues, rather than knowledge of arcane trivia, winds debates.
And major issues should not require corroborating references.
You stated a requirement that *every thing* be accompanied by
a reference. I believe this is an excessive, costly, and frivolous
administrative burden, an impediment to progress.
>>As to your statement "And consider keeping your side to direct
>>quotes of irrefutable sources, rather than your own contentions.
>>That way, people can't claim that *you* are the one who's
>>misinformed, because nothing was said on your own say-so;
>>they'd have to argue against your source, who should have
>>greater authority.", I have nine year's education at a private
>>University, I have taught a Junior-level college couse, I have
>>worked both as a high level engineer and manager, I have traveled
>>on three continents, and I am a lifelong voracious reader.
>
>How nice for you. ...
Thank you. Those are my qualifications. I can provide references
if mandatory, but somebody must pay *my* costs.
>... Then you know how to debate effectively, if you wish;
>and if you don't do so, that is by choice and not from lacking
>the option.
>
>>There are people under 15 years of age (experts?) with websites.
>>*****Are you saying that my opinions have no value?*****
>
>This wasn't about *you*, Richard. Why must everything always be
>about *you*?
It *was* about your statements which, in effect, discard educated
and knowledgable people whose experience provides finely-tuned
cr*p detectors in favor of Internet "experts" with a pocketful of
URL references.
In a former assignment we defined an expert as "anybody
50 miles from home with a briefcase". With the Internet,
an "expert" can stay home, need not own a briefcase, and
doesn't even require good clothes.
The relevance of good clothes? If an expert can *not* afford
good clothes for professional activities, I question both the
expert's desire to effectively represent the Customer and also
the expert's success in his/her field. Just like expertise,
it takes time to build One's wardrobe.
When Canadian engineers graduate from college they receive a
*thin* gold band similar to a man's wedding ring -- they wear
this "engineering ring" on a different hand/finger. Over time
the engineering ring erodes. Colleagues judge an unfamiliar
engineer's experience partially by the state of his/her
engineering ring. Senior engineers no longer wear an enginering
ring -- their rings have worn through. Presumably a young engineer
not wearing an engineering ring is viewed with (a-hem) "confusion".
N`osal Woodbender
Greetings Richard
> >On the other hand, there are plenty of loony *books* out
> >there, too, from publishers who are willing to sell anything
> >they can (pause to let the denizens of arwm shout a certain
> >Welsh surname, all in chorus), or who simply may not know
> >the subject well enough to catch the authors in their fits
> >of fallacy or factual falsehood. Oh, I could name cases.
>
> A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles and solitary
> worshippers are free to define their own Traditions. Nothing
> prevents some or all of a Wiccan Tradition to be fantasy-based
> -- in fact, a fantasy-based Tradition might be *desirable*! (Do
> you believe that *all* of the God/desses listed in "Bullfinch's
> Mythology" actually existed?) By your "Welsh" comments I assume
> that you reference Edain McCoy, an author of popular witchcraft
> books who is almost universally villified on ARWM. I have read
> Ms. McCoy's texts -- they are well- and clearly-written. I
> believe her texts are *very* suitable reading for Prospective
> Wiccan Novices because the texts provide a very *positive and
> wholesome* discussion about Wicca and witchcraft. Many ARWM
> critics ridicule positive and wholesome Wiccan Traditions as
> "fluffy-bunny" Traditions. These critics discredit positive and
> wholesome Wiccan Traditions as "weak" because the Traditions do
> *not* include dark and sinister magick. If Wiccan Covens and
> solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions,
> this criticism is *not* right.
Dark magick is not sinister, if you got that impression, I would
like to know where from. In everything there is balance, you cannot have
the light without the dark. And dark magick includes working in the
soil, or doing works during a New Moon. Do you find that sinister? If
details about both are not discussed with new comers. It is like giving
a phony sales pitch, or half of a story. I have seen your post on
alt.witchcraft, and if you are refering to the discusion that happened
just awhile back about witchcraft versus high magick, that is totaly
differnt.
Most of the information on advanced forms of magick are just not in
book form. They are experienced, not read. And it takes time and hard
work for the most part. And there are two halfs of the whole that are
experienced in this learning process.
I could not give you a review on my experience, most I cannot translate
into English yet. If I could, you would probably be doing a review on a
book about crafting tools for magick by me. But that is probably years
down the road. I still have a long path ahead of me.
<snip>
Ya'at'eeh, Greg
http://home.attbi.com/~nosalwoodbender/
Gale
<snip>
>
> Dark magick is not sinister, if you got that impression, I would
> like to know where from. In everything there is balance, you cannot have
> the light without the dark. And dark magick includes working in the
> soil, or doing works during a New Moon. Do you find that sinister?
A few thoughts on the written word (and maybe a few ramblings or
rumblings thereafter). Some writers use "Dark of the Moon" to refer to
those most advanced days of the Waning Moon (the three days immediately
before the New Moon) or to the period when the Moon is "void of course,"
a period of some hours or a day or so preceding the New Moon and
determined by the moon's astrological position.
In metaphoric terms at least (and Magic tends to work through metaphor),
these are times to be cautious regarding spellwork. In times of
contraction, one would work a spell to "close down" problems rather than
to open opportunities; in times when the Moon is void of course, one
would be very careful of intentions going awry.
However, if one is using the Dark of the Moon to refer to all that
period when the moon appears invisible for all or most of the night,
then your observation regarding the Dark becomes particularly apt and
accurate. The Dark is the Unconscious or the Subconscious; the Anima;
the feminine; or the Dionysian (depending on the dualism you select; I'm
offering a variety of definitions, *not* a string of synonyms). The Dark
is the half (or is it 9/10, like an iceberg?) of the self that is
hidden. We have empirical science and deductive reasoning for daylight
and Apollo's world; but for values, emotions, and purpose we have to
venture deeper and seek out the treasure which is buried in darkness.
Sinister? -- Or maybe just scary. ;-)
And maybe (at least if you look from behind my spectacles) that is the
whole point of Magick --- I can deal with Apollo's world quite well
enough with the tools he offers; I've no need of parlor tricks. But as
for tools to approach the Darkness, when the only light from Apollo is
the thin band reflected back to Earth from the Crescent Moon, for that I
need Magic; for that I need a whole different kind of sight. And within
that realm of Shadow, always 9/10 hidden, is where I suspect my Self
dwells. (And if I've an inner demon, I suppose it lives there; but I
know that whatever part of me partakes of the Divine lives there too).
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, Tarot at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Wood Avens
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:50:28 CST, Gale <ga...@futuresouth.com> wrote:
>A few thoughts on the written word (and maybe a few ramblings or
>rumblings thereafter).
[snip superb stuff about the Dark]
That was beautifully expounded. Expresses it perfectly. Thank you!
BB
Wood Avens
spamtrap: Remove number to reply
..
Gwynyth
> In article <7d8764ba.02011...@posting.google.com>,
> ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
>
> >On the other hand, there are plenty of loony *books* out
> >there, too, from publishers who are willing to sell anything
> >they can (pause to let the denizens of arwm shout a certain
> >Welsh surname, all in chorus), or who simply may not know
> >the subject well enough to catch the authors in their fits
> >of fallacy or factual falsehood. Oh, I could name cases.
>
> A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles and solitary
> worshippers are free to define their own Traditions. Nothing
> prevents some or all of a Wiccan Tradition to be fantasy-based
> -- in fact, a fantasy-based Tradition might be *desirable*! (Do
> you believe that *all* of the God/desses listed in "Bullfinch's
> Mythology" actually existed?) By your "Welsh" comments I assume
> that you reference Edain McCoy, an author of popular witchcraft
> books who is almost universally villified on ARWM.
Nope. Publisher. (see in Raven's comment above?) Name begins with an L,
I think, is what Raven was aiming at.
> I have read
> Ms. McCoy's texts -- they are well- and clearly-written. I
> believe her texts are *very* suitable reading for Prospective
> Wiccan Novices because the texts provide a very *positive and
> wholesome* discussion about Wicca and witchcraft. Many ARWM
> critics ridicule positive and wholesome Wiccan Traditions as
> "fluffy-bunny" Traditions. These critics discredit positive and
> wholesome Wiccan Traditions as "weak" because the Traditions do
> *not* include dark and sinister magick. If Wiccan Covens and
> solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions,
> this criticism is *not* right.
I think that a couple of McCoy's books are not bad (her one on covens,
for example, fills a useful niche and as it is based mostly on her
personal experiences, there's no historical accuracy issues, really). I
think that some of them have *no* concept of historical accuracy. That
one author has written one book that is good does not automatically mean
that all books they write are worthwhile. (Just as the fact that an
author has written one book that is bad means they're all horrible)
Personally, I tend not to recommend any author's work wholeheartedly,
but prefer to recommend specific works for specific reasons, or
disrecommend specific works for specific reasons. I do this even with
fiction authors - someone who is particularly interested in an author
might find one series written by that author much more compelling than
another series by that same author.
I do strongly believe that there is a point of "Do what you
want"/"Incorporate what you want" is no longer Wicca. Defining that
line, is, of course, complex and partly a matter of personal choice.
Personally, I tend to believe that Wicca is an initiatory and mystery
tradition (explanation of what I mean by those terms next paragraph) and
one that involves fertility and the life cycle. And therefore that
people who incorporate or wish to incorporate none of those things are
doing something sufficiently different from what I am doing that we
should probably be using different names for them. It doesn't mean that
what they're doing is wrong or bad - but it *does* mean it's got a
different focus, intent, and so on that makes it different. It's just
like the fact that Ido
(Initiation: in the sense of initiation involving having and seeking
perception changes as part of religious belief. Mystery being the aspect
that some things, you've just got to come to understand yourself - no
one can teach them to you, they can't just give you a definition and
understand.)
*However*, my major complaints with some of the 'positive and wholesome'
traditions you describe has nothing to do with not including dark and
sinsister magic (which I have very little interest in myself, except for
curiousity about theoretical aspects)
Some of my major complaints of *some* of those groups (please note the
'some' - there are certainly groups who focus on the lighter side of
practice that do not have the problems I'm about to mention) are as
follows:
1) That some of them have absolutely no clue about history. I'm not
talking about minor stuff here, but about claims that plants that are
New World in origin were venerated/ancient sacred plants in places they
did not exist until the last handful of centuries.
Or take another, perhaps easier, example: the idea that hundreds of
witches died in Salem, or that witches were burned in Salem. This is
*factually completely false*. Hundreds of people were accused, but only
a small proportion of them actually died (19 by hanging, 1 becuase he
was pressed to death because he refused to enter a plea). This
misinformation (that hundreds died, or were burned) turns up in a
variety of resources of such groups.
Salem is one of the easiest things to research, honestly. There are a
wide variety of reliable web resources (including a National Geographic
website) that give the basics of the time period. It's relatively easy
to get acess to copies of the original documents. Books about the Salem
trials are easily available in at least American libraries, as well,
since they are often covered as part of an American history or
literature curriculumn in high school (the latter usually in conjunction
with Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", since for all that he meant it
partially as allegory for the McCarthy trials, his basic facts are quite
accurate.)
Do I take someone seriously who *keeps* repeating inaccurate and
outright wrong information, and who refuses to consider correcting it
when provided with clear evidence? Absolutely not. I may keep an eye out
and see if they improve over time - but I'm pretty likely to keep double
checking their information against independent resources if I need to
use it. Conversely, once someone has proven themselves a reliaable
resource, I'm more likely to take their word for it, though I do follow
up in other resources if I actually start exploring the information or
wish to use it.
Do I take someone seriously who says "Ok, we've got the following
evidence, but here we enter the realm of speculation, because it's not
documented. Here's what I think happened..." - sure. I might not agree
with their eventual conclusions, but I can look at the existing evidence
they have, at other sources, and respect the fact that they can
differentiate between documented evidence and supposition. (This, for
me, comes up a fair bit when people try to document a history of Pagan
practice that survived through to the modern day.)
2) Like I said above, I believe that Wicca *needs* to concern itself
fundamentally with the cycle of life, if you're going to keep it being
considered Wicca. If you completely ignore the death and dying part of
the cycle, then you not only break the cycle, but you leave out a
significant set of thoughts and concerns.
Someone who ignores those cycles is not doing the same thing I'm doing.
3) My third issue is usually how someone handles the fact that there are
differences of opinion about a variety of issues (say the issue of going
skyclad, the use of a consenting person's blood under carefully
controlled circumstances in ritual settings, and so on.) There are a
variety of reasonable and thoughtful perspectives on these issues, even
though individuals might disagree or have different comfort levels.
*However* there is a vast difference for me between "Ok, that's
reasonable, but I prefer not to do it that way." and "Oh, you are
horrible evil mean people, and nothing you do is untainted by the fact
that you actually go skyclad/use blood of consenting people in specific
circumstances/etc."
There's some other related issues, but those cover the basics of my
concerns with some groups. Again, it's not that I think they're horrible
people, but that they *are* often doing things very differently.
I personally strongly prefer not to closely associate myself with people
who view the whole world in black and white, or with those who have no
understand or respect for the difference between documentable historic
evidence and supposition or fantasy, and so I avoid spending much time
among people who think that way.
However, there are also times when correction of misinformation is
important - so I still try to keep myself aware of the issues, and to
raise them when necessary.
--
Gwynyth * gwy...@polyamory.org * http://www.polyamory.org/~gwynyth
Richard Ballard
gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>Do I take someone seriously who *keeps* repeating inaccurate
>and outright wrong information, and who refuses to consider
>correcting it when provided with clear evidence? Absolutely
>not. I may keep an eye out and see if they improve over time
>- but I'm pretty likely to keep double checking their
>information against independent resources if I need to use it.
>Conversely, once someone has proven themselves a reliaable
>resource, I'm more likely to take their word for it, though I
>do follow up in other resources if I actually start exploring
>the information or wish to use it.
Do I know the person that you are referring to?
>Do I take someone seriously who says "Ok, we've got the
>following evidence, but here we enter the realm of speculation,
>because it's not documented. Here's what I think happened..." -
>sure. I might not agree with their eventual conclusions, but I
>can look at the existing evidence they have, at other sources,
>and respect the fact that they can differentiate between
>documented evidence and supposition. (This, for me, comes up
>a fair bit when people try to document a history of Pagan
>practice that survived through to the modern day.)
Do I know the person you are referring to?
>2) Like I said above, I believe that Wicca *needs* to concern
>itself fundamentally with the cycle of life, if you're going to
>keep it being considered Wicca. If you completely ignore the
>death and dying part of the cycle, then you not only break the
>cycle, but you leave out a significant set of thoughts and
>concerns.
Do I know the person you are referring to?
A recurring ARWM theme is "Why not write a Wiccan defining
charter?" Such a charter *would* be useful for public education
and for easing unknowledgeable unease about Wicca. The
recurring response has been "Wicca's diversity makes that an
impossible task." I have my beliefs as to Wicca's nature, but
Coven and Tradition secrets *might* make me the blind man
viewing the elephant.
>Someone who ignores those cycles is not doing the same
>thing I'm doing.
Your Tradition does not uniquely define Wicca. Wiccan Covens
and solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions.
>3) My third issue is usually how someone handles the fact that
>there are differences of opinion about a variety of issues (say
>the issue of going skyclad, the use of a consenting person's
>blood under carefully controlled circumstances in ritual settings,
>and so on.) There are a variety of reasonable and thoughtful
>perspectives on these issues, even though individuals might
>disagree or have different comfort levels.
Individuals have the privilege of stating their opinions in a
non-violent manner. Individuals have the privilege of ignoring
other peoples' stated opinions.
>*However* there is a vast difference for me between "Ok, that's
>reasonable, but I prefer not to do it that way." and "Oh, you
>are horrible evil mean people, and nothing you do is untainted
>by the fact that you actually go skyclad/use blood of consenting
>people in specific circumstances/etc."
I personally believe that use of blood in *any* ritual is an
unacceptable public health risk due to diseases potentially
transmitted by blood, but I do not intend "to make a Federal case"
out of my opinion.
<snip>
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes:
>
>> On the other hand, there are plenty of loony *books* out
>> there, too, from publishers who are willing to sell anything
>> they can (pause to let the denizens of arwm shout a certain
>> Welsh surname, all in chorus), or who simply may not know
>> the subject well enough to catch the authors in their fits
>> of fallacy or factual falsehood. Oh, I could name cases.
>
> A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles and solitary
> worshippers are free to define their own Traditions. Nothing
> prevents some or all of a Wiccan Tradition to be fantasy-based
> -- in fact, a fantasy-based Tradition might be *desirable*! (Do
> you believe that *all* of the God/desses listed in "Bullfinch's
> Mythology" actually existed?)
Katherine Kurtz's book "Deryni Magic" (based on her fantasy series)
would be an excellent example of such a "tradition", but it is very
clearly *not* being presented as factually true authentic history.
That's the important difference between fiction and lies.
> By your "Welsh" comments I assume that you reference Edain McCoy,
No, "McCoy" is an Irish surname, not a Welsh surname; and "Edain" is
of course an Irish given name, from an ancient Irish legendary tale:
http://www.belinus.co.uk/folklore/Files9/WildeL047.htm
> an author of popular witchcraft books
But I said "*publishers* who are willing to sell anything they can".
> who is almost universally villified on ARWM.
And whose publisher, Llewellyn Books, has a mixed reputation due to its
very mixed catalog, of some honest books and some meretricious trash.
By strange coincidence, "Llewellyn" *is* a Welsh surname.
> I have read Ms. McCoy's texts -- they are well- and clearly-written.
> I believe her texts are *very* suitable reading for Prospective
> Wiccan Novices because the texts provide a very *positive and
> wholesome* discussion about Wicca and witchcraft.
Does factual truth enter into your considerations at all?
> Many ARWM critics ridicule positive and wholesome Wiccan Traditions
> as "fluffy-bunny" Traditions. These critics discredit positive and
> wholesome Wiccan Traditions as "weak" because the Traditions do
> *not* include dark and sinister magick.
As a *practice*, fine. As a *history*, it's like telling the history
of Western civilization without mentioning wars, tyrants, or killings.
It ill serves the young to teach them of roses but not of thorns, for the
first real rosebush they reach into will then complete their education,
far more painfully than if they'd been taught the whole truth earlier.
I prefer the unexpurgated Shakespeare over Thomas Bowdler's version,
and I agree with Yevtushenko that telling lies to the young is wrong.
> If Wiccan Covens and solitary worshippers are free to define their
> own Traditions, this criticism is *not* right.
Again, doesn't truthfulness (or lack of it) matter too?
>> But if you can cite an *accurate* and well-sourced website,
>> that has the advantage of being easier for your readership to
>> find and read than if they must log off and go to a library or
>> bookstore, particularly if they may live in some region distant
>> from such conveniences, or even where the book may not be
>> available at all. For instance, posting a link to FindLaw's
>> text of a US Supreme Court decision or a section of US Code is
>> going to be more helpful to .uk/.au/.nz readers than just the
>> reference.
>
> I am unfamiliar with "FindLaw" -- I recognize the "Lexus" online
> searchable legal database. I know several *subscription-based*
> reference websites that both are indisputable and also are *not*
> available to the general (unsubscribed) public. I question the
> validity of anonymous URL's -- the Internet is so large and
> diverse that somebody can find a website supporting *any thing*.
> I prefer supplying recognized, good-quality references only when
> required -- this preference minimizes the administrative burden
> accompanying a discussion.
See http://www.findlaw.com for yourself.
> [RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
>>> Nevertheless, I do *not* believe that Internet newsgroup
>>> discussions should be limited to those who are/have become
>>> "experts" with a reference list.
>>
>> Nor did I suggest such a thing. Matthew is facing a *debate*
>> situation, and my suggestions were directed toward strengthening
>> his skills, defenses, and positions. That's about strategy and
>> tactics, not permission to post.
>>
>> And I didn't suggest becoming an *expert*. Being "reasonably
>> acquainted with the subject", and being able to *quote* or
>> *cite* the experts or the source material, or even simply
>> checking one's facts before spouting off, would be good enough
>> to give one quite an advantage in most Usenet debates.
>
> By definition a debate is unstructured -- One does not receive
> a predefined list of questions to answer. (Do you remember the
> Carter/Reagan debates? "Aw, you did it again!!!")
However, debating on *Usenet* allows one the time to look things up
before posting, which is an easy way to avoid a lot of mistakes.
> Debating is a real-time version of Internet dialogue -- respondees
> have no opportunity to consult texts and websites in a debate.
Which is why competitive debaters spend a great deal of time reading
up on the issues of the day, and keep stacks of index cards with either
handwritten notes or cut-and-pasted articles, so that -- in the precious
few minutes between the topic being announced and the debate starting --
they can review their notes on that topic and have the facts fresh in mind.
> A debater requires the self-confidence to participate in the debate,
> a general knowledge of the subject matter, and what engineers
> call 'a finely-tuned cr*p detector' -- the ability to recognize
> when your opponent is bullsh*tting plus the will to go for a
> bullsh*tting opponent's throat. Arcane trivia does *not* win
> debates. Common sense and knowledge of *major* issues wins debates.
This falls short of corresponding to my experience of competitive debate.
>>> If we had to supply references everytime we spoke, we'd never get
>>> beyond the first-grade primer: "See Dick run, see Jane run, see
>>> Spot run".
>>
>> True, but we don't always face debate opponents who will hunt for
>> errors in our posts, debunk them, and discredit us; who will
>> challenge everything we say, and take our being unready to support
>> it as reason to dismiss it; or who might in turn make false claims
>> which we (being unready) might accept.
>
> A finely-tuned cr*p detector turns away false claims.
It's the "finely-tuned" part that requires knowing the actual facts;
otherwise there's a serious risk of disbelieving a true statement, or
believing a false one, through misreading cues like voice/face/body.
People *believed* Reagan's claims about having balanced budgets in
California, because he said it so convincingly, but these were false.
>> Thus -- again, tactically -- it's good to know the subject
>> already, so that (1) one's statements are accurate to begin with,
>> (2) one can support them with documentation if they are challenged,
>> and (3) one can recognize when the opponent is presenting
>> falsehoods for *his* side of the argument.
>>
>> Everyone is *free* to be unready for a debate, but it ups the odds
>> of losing.
>
> I restate my believe that common sense and knowledge of *major*
> issues, rather than knowledge of arcane trivia, winds debates.
I had *suspected* that some public speakers were wound up by cranks.
> And major issues should not require corroborating references.
So... "The United States was founded as a Christian Nation". Clearly
a major issue, given the long and forceful campaign to impose that
religion by law. The "pro" side feels free to use fraudulent quotes
in support. Try debunking them without corroborating references --
it would come down to "he said, she said", and split-the-difference.
> You stated a requirement that *every thing* be accompanied by
> a reference.
No, Richard, as I told you already, and you've ignored, I didn't state
any *requirements*, I was giving Matthew some *recommendations*.
> I believe this is an excessive, costly, and frivolous
> administrative burden, an impediment to progress.
Excessive -- to refute with references and thus avoid endless cycles
of "Yes, it's true!" "No, it isn't!" "Yes, it is!" "No, it isn't!" ?
As in many other fields, putting a little extra effort in up front
can save you a lot of frustration and even more effort later on.
Costly -- to surf the web? I suppose that depends on your ISP rates.
Public libraries often offer free web access as well as free book access.
Frivolous -- to expose widespread, much-repeated, and popular lies,
or to support a doubted and ridiculed truth? That's a matter of values.
To some people, the truth doesn't matter that much. I would prefer that
such people always be on the *other* side of any debate.
<snip>
>>> *****Are you saying that my opinions have no value?*****
>>
>> This wasn't about *you*, Richard. Why must everything always be
>> about *you*?
>
> It *was* about your statements which, in effect, discard educated
> and knowledgable people whose experience provides finely-tuned
> cr*p detectors in favor of Internet "experts" with a pocketful of
> URL references.
But getting to *be* knowledgable about a debate's topic is the issue.
Matthew is going up against a political position that has had its
(largely phony) literature widely distributed, so that many people
believe it simply because they've never seen it disproved. That's
the argument by propaganda, the ad nauseam fallacy, the Big Lie.
In order to improve his chances of fighting that argument successfully,
Matthew needs to know the subject well enough to not only recognize some
very highly polished lies, but be able to *prove* them false with cites
to authentic history. His bare assertion would be steamrollered flat.
Sending him into that situation with the advice not to worry about study
beforehand would be like telling a recruit to go directly to the war's
front without bothering about basic training or carrying along any weapons.
<snipping RB's dress-for-success strategy, as singularly useless on Usenet>
Richard Ballard
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles and solitary
>>worshippers are free to define their own Traditions. Nothing
>>prevents some or all of a Wiccan Tradition to be fantasy-based
>>-- in fact, a fantasy-based Tradition might be *desirable*! (Do
>>you believe that *all* of the God/desses listed in "Bullfinch's
>>Mythology" actually existed?)
<snip>
>>I have read Ms. McCoy's texts -- they are well- and
>>clearly-written. I believe her texts are *very* suitable reading
>>for Prospective Wiccan Novices because the texts provide a very
>>*positive and wholesome* discussion about Wicca and witchcraft.
>
>Does factual truth enter into your considerations at all?
Repeating my previous statement, "A recurring Wiccan theme
is that Wiccan Circles and solitary worshippers are free to define
their own Traditions. Nothing prevents some or all of a Wiccan
Tradition to be fantasy-based -- in fact, a fantasy-based
Tradition might be *desirable*!"
A fantasy-based Tradition need include no factual truth. All
factual truth and no factual truth are two extremes and both
extremes are acceptable Traditions. *Everything* between these
extremes and including the extremes is an acceptable Tradition.
"I don't approve of your Wiccan Tradition" is an acceptable statement.
"Your Wiccan Tradition is not valid" is *NOT* an acceptable statement.
<snip>
>>A debater requires the self-confidence to participate in the
>>debate, a general knowledge of the subject matter, and what
>>engineers call 'a finely-tuned cr*p detector' -- the ability
>>to recognize when your opponent is bullsh*tting plus the will
>>to go for a bullsh*tting opponent's throat. Arcane trivia does
>>*not* win debates. Common sense and knowledge of *major* issues
>>wins debates.
>
>This falls short of corresponding to my experience of competitive
>debate.
Your statement is critical with providing supporting rationale
or an alternative.
I stand behind my previous statements. In Graduate School we
had an expression that illustrates how to debate an *incompetent*
opponent: "If you can't satisfy them with substance, baffle them
with bullsh*t." I believe that relying on arcane trivia and/or
opponents' incompetence (rather than common sense and knowledge
of *major* issues) is a losing debating strategy.
<snip>
>>A finely-tuned cr*p detector turns away false claims.
>
>It's the "finely-tuned" part that requires knowing the actual
>facts; otherwise there's a serious risk of disbelieving a true
>statement, or believing a false one, through misreading cues
>like voice/face/body.
Answer #1: Common sense and knowledge of *major* issues, rather
than arcane trivia, wins debates.
Answer #2: Sniff. I usually recognize it when I detect it.
<snip>
><snipping RB's dress-for-success strategy, as singularly useless on Usenet>
Why is this discussion limited to Usenet debates? And why dismiss
the confidence that accompanies proper clothing?
Good clothes add confidence -- "Lookin' good, feelin' great."
Bad clothes reduce confidence -- "Lookin' poor, feelin' fine."
The cumulative effect of those fines can be staggering both
for your business success and your social life. And don't
get fat -- you'll be forced to buy new clothes.
Gwynyth
> In article <1f6awd0.1maxucg53xpmoN%gwy...@polyamory.org>,
> gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>
> >Do I take someone seriously who *keeps* repeating inaccurate
> >and outright wrong information, and who refuses to consider
> >correcting it when provided with clear evidence? Absolutely
> >not. I may keep an eye out and see if they improve over time
> >- but I'm pretty likely to keep double checking their
> >information against independent resources if I need to use it.
> >Conversely, once someone has proven themselves a reliaable
> >resource, I'm more likely to take their word for it, though I
> >do follow up in other resources if I actually start exploring
> >the information or wish to use it.
>
> Do I know the person that you are referring to?
General statement. It applies to a fairly large number of people I have
come across, both in person and online. The same goes for your other two
statements of "Do I know the person you are referring to" in your reply
- I'm not going to duplicate the text to say the exact same thing.
(When I say 'fairly large', I've been reading and interacting online
since fall of 1994. Anyone reasonably familiar with Usenet and email
lists can probably figure out that the numbers are therefore in at least
in the high hundreds and quite probably low thousands of people whose
posts I have read on an ongoing basis (at least a few months) over that
time. Never mind people I've interacted with face-to-face)
I, and I suspect most people, do develop patterns by which I view the
world. My past experience has taught me that at least for *me*, the
patterns I mentioned in the post you reply to here work well as a basic
filter for contemplating knowledge.
People who consistently state things I know to be inaccurate get looked
at more closely than people whose information has been reliably proven
over time to be accurate (i.e. their facts when double checked prove to
be widely accepted or documented; their opinions are clearly stated as
opinions.)
Other people might have different concerns - but your assumptions about
what *my* concerns might be with some groups was innaccurate as applied
to me, and I thought that you or other people might appreciate a
different viewpoint.
> >Someone who ignores those cycles is not doing the same
> >thing I'm doing.
>
> Your Tradition does not uniquely define Wicca. Wiccan Covens
> and solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions.
I'm not talking about my Tradition - I am still a student and do not
feel I can speak for any tradition at this point. I am talking about
*my* own opinions, and always have been. People are welcome to ignore my
opinions, but I still feel they are worth stating to give people another
perspective.
This issue came up recently on another group I'm a participant in. The
discussion of the need to draw lines *somewhere* made at least three
people there aware that what they were doing (claiming to be Wiccan when
few of their beliefs or practices matched reasonably mainstream Wiccan
beliefs) was both not in their best interests, and potentially confusing
and/or damaging to others whose good opinion they cared about. Those
three people have all decided to be more careful in explaining their
beliefs - not just stop with the "I'm Wiccan" but to say something more
like "I combine some Wiccan beliefs with <followed by details>. I don't
consider myself Wiccan, however, because what I'm doing is sometimes
quite different from mainstream Wiccan belief or practice"
I really appreciate that they understand this issue - and the confusion
it can lead to. It is a relatively simple matter for them to change what
they say, but I greatly respect their ability to see that there are
differences.
I'm a firm believer in someone's right to self-identification. But part
of the risk of self-identification is that if you claim it, and it
doesn't make much sense to anyone (because it doesn't fit into more
mainstream uses of the term) you've got to be prepared for the fact that
people are going to look at you oddly and/or avoid you if you keep
pushing the issue.
If someone continues to claim an identification that makes no sense to
me, refuses to consider the complications it might cause for other
people, and can not explain why they feel that what they are doing *is*
sufficently the same as the name they choose for it despite the
differences, then I'm going to give them a wide berth and probably go
and spend more time with people who are more able to understand nuances
and the implications of using names for things.
As an example, I think that there are lines in Wicca, just the same way
that there are lines in Catholicism - someone who says that they don't
ever need to go to Mass, for example, is *not* practicing mainstream
Catholicism. (This is different from someone who would like to go to
Mass, but for some reason is unable to attend - illness, lack of
transportation, etc.)
They may very well share some beliefs with Catholicism, and might very
well be Christian. But they are not conventionally practicing Catholics,
and saying "I could go to Mass, but I don't, and I believe that's just
fine and I'm still a practicing Catholic in good standing" *is* going to
be very confusing and possibly offensive to others.
In exactly the same way, I think that someone who says they never
observe Sabbats or Esbats is not practicing Wicca. They might borrow
some other ideas from Wicca, but if they're not observing the Sabbats
and Esbats in some way, then they're doing something sufficiently
different that *I* think that using a different name would be a very
good move on their part.
> >3) My third issue is usually how someone handles the fact that
> >there are differences of opinion about a variety of issues (say
> >the issue of going skyclad, the use of a consenting person's
> >blood under carefully controlled circumstances in ritual settings,
> >and so on.) There are a variety of reasonable and thoughtful
> >perspectives on these issues, even though individuals might
> >disagree or have different comfort levels.
>
> Individuals have the privilege of stating their opinions in a
> non-violent manner. Individuals have the privilege of ignoring
> other peoples' stated opinions.
Yep. And what I'm saying is that I prefer to do other things with my
time (at least in person) than spend it with people who can not see that
the world is not black and white, and that there might be multiple
acceptable answers to a given question. Or multiple acceptable answers
that might not work for *them* but which they can see working for other
people.
I don't think this is particularly unusual - certainly it is not in the
circles I generally move in. I was simply stating that I prefer to spend
time with people who view the worlds in shades of color, not in
monochrome. If you prefer monochrome, I'm sure there are people out
there who are like you too. I just don't want to spend much of my time
in looking at the world that way, or around people who do.
Such is my privilege. Again, I have never said that such people are
wrong or evil or should be wiped from the earth or anything remotely
like that. Simply that given the choice, I will generally avoid groups
or people who think that way.
Which was, of course, the original apparent question you posed -
assuming that people here avoided groups for reasons you stated, which
are *not* true for me. I have different reasons. I've stated them.
If you don't care for them, and would make different decisions, that's
fine. But the reasons I avoid some groups have little to do with what
you stated
(For the benefit of anyone who doesn't want to go hunt up the post,
here's what Richard said)
Many ARWM critics ridicule positive and wholesome Wiccan Traditions as
"fluffy-bunny" Traditions. These critics discredit positive and
wholesome Wiccan Traditions as "weak" because the Traditions do
*not* include dark and sinister magick. If Wiccan Covens and
solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions,
this criticism is *not* right.
<end of what Richard said>
To try and summarise:
I don't care about the *beliefs* nearly so much as I care about people
recognising the difference between historical fact and personal opinion.
If people want to believe in small pink mammoths from Alpha Centauri who
built Atlantis, that's fine by me. If they want to draw aspects of
fantasy novels or science fiction series and use those, that's fine.
But I want them to be *honest* about whether they're using factual
information or made-up information, or whatever it is their using, and
to be forthright about it. I have very little trouble with a group which
says "Yes, our inspiration comes from X fantasy series." I might not be
interested in it - but I respect them for being up front and thoughtful.
I have a lot more trouble with aa group which says "X is historical
reality, I don't care if you can prove otherwise, we said it, so we're
obviously right..."
I think that groups get to define their own beliefs.
But there's a difference between defining your own beliefs and rewriting
history to suit your own desires (and then refusing to consider
corrections from documented sources), or claiming someone *else's*
terminology simply because it's eaasier than actually thinking things
through and coming up with alternative terms that better suit your
situation.
I don't respect intellectual laziness. I particularly don't respect
people who persist in it after being politely told that what they're
doing doesn't make sense. And I'm not going to spend much of my time
with people who think that belief overwhelms historical fact. I don't
think this is *that* unusual a view of the world, though it is perhaps
more rare than it used to be.
Richard Ballard
gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>I'm a firm believer in someone's right to self-identification.
>But part of the risk of self-identification is that if you claim
>it, and it doesn't make much sense to anyone (because it doesn't
>fit into more mainstream uses of the term) you've got to be
>prepared for the fact that people are going to look at you oddly
>and/or avoid you if you keep pushing the issue.
The consensus opinion does not always equate to the correct opinion.
<snip>
I find your response wordy and confusing. I do not understand
if you are criticizing me and my statement (which you quoted),
or if you are criticizing the apparent Wiccan consensus (based
upon much textual and ARWM reading) that Wiccan Covens and
solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions
(independent of history).
I do not understand your criticism, other than recognizing a
statement that you do not want to associate with individuals
who disagree with your understanding of history. That is
your perogative -- no disagreement there.
<snip>
Gwynyth
> In article <1f6buzg.hvqpuqaxuflsN%gwy...@polyamory.org>,
> gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>
> >I'm a firm believer in someone's right to self-identification.
> >But part of the risk of self-identification is that if you claim
> >it, and it doesn't make much sense to anyone (because it doesn't
> >fit into more mainstream uses of the term) you've got to be
> >prepared for the fact that people are going to look at you oddly
> >and/or avoid you if you keep pushing the issue.
>
> The consensus opinion does not always equate to the correct opinion.
No. But if you insist on swimming against consensus, you're much better
(as a general rule, and 'you' being a general term of address) realising
what's going on, and dealing with it, than ignoring the issues that
going against consensus/mainstream practice/etc raises.
> I find your response wordy and confusing.
I was trying to be clear about what I meant. If you found this
confusing, well, that was not my intent.
> I do not understand
> if you are criticizing me and my statement (which you quoted),
> or if you are criticizing the apparent Wiccan consensus (based
> upon much textual and ARWM reading) that Wiccan Covens and
> solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions
> (independent of history).
I disagree with your assumption of why people on here dislike the kinds
of traditions you named. I have other, different, reasons for my
concerns, which I've named twice and am therefore not going to repeat.
If you haven't understood the first two explanations, I don't think a
third one is going to help unless you explicitly can say what you found
confusing in the first two explanations.
I also do not believe that the "Wiccan consensus ... that Wiccan Covens
and solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions
(independent of history)" is exactly an accurate statement. That is
*not* the consensus I have seen, either here or elsewhere.
I've read many people - both here and in other Wiccan and Neo-Pagan
discussion forums - who feel similaarly to what I do. In other words,
that there is a point at which some things cease to become Wicca, and
start being more something else.
This does not mean that people are not welcome to define their own
traditions - but rather, that I (and other people who have commented on
this issue in various places) believe that there is a point out there
(and outside a fairly widely drawn circle of belief - few people I've
seen are very concerned, say, about which specific deities one might
work with as a dividing line, or about requiring specific wording in a
ritual) where I think Wicca is not a very useful or descriptive term for
those people to be using.
And as I said, I have seen more support for this point of view (both
here and elsewhere) I think than I have for yours - which seems to be
that *anyone* who uses the term "Wiccan" to describe themselves gets to
redefine their tradition *and historical facts* to suit themselves, even
if little about their ritual practices still resembles reasonably
conventional Wiccan practice.
Again, I gave examples in my last post, I'm not going repeat them here.
If you're confused by the examples, you have only to ask for further
explanation, but as you didn't, I'm not going to try again right now.
If this is not what you mean, then your meaning is not clear to me.
Please feel free to try to expand on what you mean, if you wish.
> I do not understand your criticism, other than recognizing a
> statement that you do not want to associate with individuals
> who disagree with your understanding of history. That is
> your perogative -- no disagreement there.
I'm not talking about 'my understanding of history' here - there's some
stuff that can be definitively proven and not proven by existing
records, archaeological knowledge, and so on. Again, I gave the example
of the Salem witchcraft trials. All the court records are still
available - I've seen them in person - and other corroborating evidence
is also available.
I know that there are many areas of uncertainty in history (one of my
undergraduate majors was Medieval/Renaissance Studies). However, I'm
also well aware that there are many places where we *do* have some
definitive information.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles and solitary
> worshippers are free to define their own Traditions.
As with all generalizations regarding Wicca, this one is true in general
and false in particular. Members of the Elder Trads - Gardnerian and
Alexandrian - are NOT free to define their own Traditions: they are
expected to remain true to the precepts laid down by their founders.
This is also true, in the US, of the mutltitude of Trads descended by
one or the other or both of them. Even those members who have attained
their third degrees are constrained, to a greater or lesser degree
depending on the individual Trad, by this.
The only sense in which the above statement may be taken as true of the
vast majority of those Wiccans I mentioned is that each individual is
perfectly free to *choose* his or her own Trad. If something grates in
the teachings of one, the individual is free to move to another - or to
drop out completely and form his or her own Trad.
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles
Many, but not all.
>and solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions. Nothing
>prevents some or all of a Wiccan Tradition to be fantasy-based
>-- in fact, a fantasy-based Tradition might be *desirable*!
How are you defining "fantasy" here? The line between fantasy and
reality can actually be somewhat blurry when it comes to religion,
because religion (by its very nature) involves putting faith in things
that we don't know for sure. It involves making guesses about things
which human science hasn't discovered yet, and trying to fit
worldviews to the limited evidence we have available. So, by
"fantasy", do you mean that the believer considers the belief to be
false? Or that the belief is actually false in reality? If the latter,
then how are you measuring this?
>(Do you believe that *all* of the God/desses listed in "Bullfinch's
>Mythology" actually existed?)
No, nor do I believe that all the miraculous events mentioned in the
Bible actually occurred.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>I've corresponded and conversed by phone with Singer, who's a psychology
>professor at the University of California's Berkeley campus -- noted as a
>liberal and sometimes even radical campus, far from being fundamentalist.
My mistake, then. I'd jumped to hasty conclusions, because the book
was one of many I was reading from a list of mostly fundamentalist
Christian references that a past girlfriend of mine wanted me to read.
I wasn't feeling in a very charitable mood towards organised religion
at the time, and so I probably over-reacted to Singer's distinction
between cults and legitimate religious institutions, which does
actually sound reasonable based on the criteria you gave. I should be
more cautious about judging books. There's a big difference between
quick assumptions that I make in order to determine whether to bother
reading further, and a thorough review. I had only given Singer's book
the former. It does sound like it might be worth another look.
Btw, what are your thoughts on why the FBI were so keen to kill the
people involved in David Koresh's cult at Waco, and obscure the
process of gathering the evidence? Do you think that maybe they didn't
want inconvenient questions being raised about the potential for
psychopathology in fundamentalist Christianity?
<Good advice snipped - thanks>
Blessed be,
Matthew
Gale
><snip>
> "I don't approve of your Wiccan Tradition" is an acceptable statement.
> "Your Wiccan Tradition is not valid" is *NOT* an acceptable statement.
><snip>
-----BULLS**T-----
The Universe is not so arranged that I am required to accede to idiocy.
Raven
>>
>>> On the other hand, there are plenty of loony *books* out
>>> there, too, from publishers who are willing to sell anything
>>> they can (pause to let the denizens of arwm shout a certain
>>> Welsh surname, all in chorus), or who simply may not know
>>> the subject well enough to catch the authors in their fits
>>> of fallacy or factual falsehood. Oh, I could name cases.
>>
>> A recurring Wiccan theme is that Wiccan Circles and solitary
>> worshippers are free to define their own Traditions. Nothing
>> prevents some or all of a Wiccan Tradition to be fantasy-based
>> -- in fact, a fantasy-based Tradition might be *desirable*! (Do
>> you believe that *all* of the God/desses listed in "Bullfinch's
>> Mythology" actually existed?) By your "Welsh" comments I assume
>> that you reference Edain McCoy, an author of popular witchcraft
>> books who is almost universally villified on ARWM.
>
> Nope. Publisher. (see in Raven's comment above?) Name begins with an L,
> I think, is what Raven was aiming at.
<donning pince-nez for the appropriate nitpicking-academic appearance>
Actually it begins with an LL, which in Welsh is a separate "letter" of the
alphabet from L, just as DD is a separate "letter" from D. Yes, I *know*
these are digraphs, letter-pairs, to an English-speaker, but they are listed
separately within the Welsh alphabet, and dictionaries and indices in Welsh
will put all LL items after all L items, not between the LI and LO items.
Although English tend to pronounce "Llewellyn" as sounding like "Lou-Elen",
the LL in Welsh is a hissing sound, like S or TH, with the tip of the tongue
touching the palate. It is the hardest Welsh sound for English to get right.
<tucking pince-nez away again> Isn't language fun?
<snip>
> I do strongly believe that there is a point of "Do what you
> want"/"Incorporate what you want" is no longer Wicca.
Sure, let's say my tradition is "Eclectic[1] Syncretist[2] Wicca[3]"
[1: picking what I want from various sources] [2: incorporating a mix]
[3: in fact I'm not a Wiccan at all, but this is for the sake of example].
And let's say that what I pick and incorporate happens to all come from,
mmmm, Catholicism rather than from anything resembling Gardner's religion,
so that what I practice is pretty much solid Catholicism in every respect.
At some point, it would be more reasonable to say that I was Catholic
(though perhaps of some dissident or fallen-away kind) than to keep saying
that this is my tradition of Wicca.
Otherwise, one could call every religion in the world a tradition of Wicca.
> Defining that line, is, of course, complex and partly a matter of personal
> choice.
The best attempt I've seen at a definition that *works* -- by which I mean it
*includes* what most people include, and *excludes* what most people exclude
-- was the "orthopraxis" definition in Widdershins, the summer 1995 issue,
which uses a checklist of ritual practices (casting the circle, calling the
quarters, drawing down the moon, cakes and ale, etc.) so that the more items
are checked, the more something qualifies as "Wicca". This is a "fuzzy logic"
approach, which is very appropriate to such a fuzzy-bordered religion-cluster.
More to the point, this defines Wicca by "orthopraxis" (right practice) rather
than "orthodoxy" (right belief) -- so that such *beliefs* as polytheism,
monotheism, or even atheism, are *not* defining factors of Wicca.
That 1995 issue of Widdershins Magazine had Sylvana SilverWitch's interview of
Fritz Muntean (teacher of "Wicca and the Unconscious Mind", founding member
of the New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn, founding member of
the Aquarian Tabernacle Church's Moonstone Circle, Covenant of the Goddess
elder, founder of Circle of Amergin, and initiate of the American Gardnerian,
Georgian, Fairy and Lavender Magick traditions), just after he finished his
degree in religious studies at the University of British Columbia.
SS: What is your definition of a Wiccan?
FM: I'll take it from the top. Somebody from the university called me
up a while back and said, "How many Wiccans are in Vancouver?" I said,
"About 20." Then he said, "Ohhhhh, well, I talked to so and so and he
said there were about a thousand." Here's the problem: When I say
Wiccan, I mean someone who was trained personally by a qualified
initiate, initiated into a lineage tradition and continues to do some
sort of devotional activity on a regular basis in the company of other
people who are equally trained, or thus trained and initiated.
SS: You don't count solitaries?
FM: If you count self-trained, self-initiated and solitary
practitioners; there would be several hundred. I disagree when we
start counting all the people who we would like to think we have
something in common with, like the heavy-metal Enochians, and the OTO
people, the Dianic separatists, then there's the Afro-Caribbeans, and
native American spirituality, count all of them. Only by including all
of these would you get anywhere near the thousands.
SS: What would we be in your definition, since we are not Wiccan?
FM: Who's we?
SS: Our circle, the Sylvan tradition. We don't consider ourselves a
Wiccan religion; we consider it a tradition, a way of life. And it has
religious aspects, but it's a Craft. It's what you do, and what you
are, rather than what you believe. Which is how I define religion, as
a set of beliefs.
FM: There are two different kinds of religion. One is the religion of
belief systems, like if you can get up and say "I believe in God the
Father Almighty...," you've got what is called an orthodoxy, which is
where everybody believes the same thing. Or you can have a religion of
practice; it doesn't matter what a Zen person believes, but if you do
certain things, then you're Zen. That's called an orthopraxis:
Everybody has the same practice. Wicca is the latter category, a
religion of orthopraxy, that is, everybody does the same thing.
What the same thing is, is: form a circle, cast a circle, invoke the
elemental energies and deities of both genders. Raise energy through
body movement, chant, sing, dance, heal, share cakes and wine, devoke,
hug and smooch and go home. That's our practice. If you're doing that,
you're practicing the Wiccan way.
What Wicca is, is Gerald Gardner's invention, a combination of folk
magick and ceremonial magick. Both of those things existed; nobody
ever tried to do them together. Gerald did them together, and since
then we've had Wicca. We have some record that the very earliest
circles that Gerald did were where a male ceremonial priest cast the
circle, and a female priestess worked magick inside the circle, and it
evolved from there.
(end of quote)
Although this snippet is quoted as "fair use", I believe the article is
Copyright (C) 1995 Sylvana SilverWitch.
> Personally, I tend to believe that Wicca is an initiatory and mystery
> tradition (explanation of what I mean by those terms next paragraph) and
> one that involves fertility and the life cycle. And therefore that
> people who incorporate or wish to incorporate none of those things are
> doing something sufficiently different from what I am doing that we
> should probably be using different names for them. It doesn't mean that
> what they're doing is wrong or bad - but it *does* mean it's got a
> different focus, intent, and so on that makes it different.
Okay. Notice that your criteria include both the externally observable
(what people DO) as well as the internal (what people BELIEVE), while
the Muntean criteria are kept to the externally observable.
<snip>
> Some of my major complaints of *some* of those groups (please note the
> 'some' - there are certainly groups who focus on the lighter side of
> practice that do not have the problems I'm about to mention) are as
> follows:
>
> 1) That some of them have absolutely no clue about history.
Which might not matter in an admittedly fantasy-derived tradition
(though then I'd worry about members mistaking fantasy for reality),
but surely does matter when the tradition *claims* to be historical.
<snip>
> Do I take someone seriously who *keeps* repeating inaccurate and
> outright wrong information, and who refuses to consider correcting it
> when provided with clear evidence? Absolutely not. I may keep an eye out
> and see if they improve over time - but I'm pretty likely to keep double
> checking their information against independent resources if I need to
> use it. Conversely, once someone has proven themselves a reliaable
> resource, I'm more likely to take their word for it, though I do follow
> up in other resources if I actually start exploring the information or
> wish to use it.
>
> Do I take someone seriously who says "Ok, we've got the following
> evidence, but here we enter the realm of speculation, because it's not
> documented. Here's what I think happened..." - sure. I might not agree
> with their eventual conclusions, but I can look at the existing evidence
> they have, at other sources, and respect the fact that they can
> differentiate between documented evidence and supposition. (This, for
> me, comes up a fair bit when people try to document a history of Pagan
> practice that survived through to the modern day.)
Hurrah, hurray, amen, ahmin, bombio, so mote it be, and thank you, Gwynyth!
<snip>
Gale
><snip>
>
> "I don't approve of your Wiccan Tradition" is an acceptable statement.
> "Your Wiccan Tradition is not valid" is *NOT* an acceptable statement.
> <snip>
I initially responded with:
"-----BULLS**T-----
The Universe is not so arranged that I am required to accede to idiocy."
Yes, following my own post in case the previous poster might not
understand that "idiocy" refers to various invalid systems and should be
taken as such rather than be presumed to be directed at the previous
poster. {Apologies for my breach of netiquette; it seemed preferable to
allowing the possible misunderstanding.}
Now, further elucidation:
Many persons who work in axiological areas recognize and enforce on
their students standards for *validity*. The standards for validity
(certainly in literary interpretation, presumably also in theology) are
considerably less rigorous than empirical standards for truth but are
hardly non-existent. Such standards as internal coherence, factual
accuracy, etc. can be evaluated and judged without making unsupportable
claims regarding "truth."
The claim, advanced by many intellectually lazy relativists, that "it's
all opinion so one is as good as another" is 1) non-productive and 2)
defensible only by the same grounds as solipsism is defensible (a system
with no standards for coherence can arbitrarily ignore all opposition
and contrary evidence). Persons wishing to know or to understand do not
make such pointless claims --- they are equivalent to "why am I taking
this dumb class anyhow?" and not much else.
So, yes, there *are* standards for validity for even the most synthetic
sort of theological system. This comment is independent of comments such
as Baird's explication regarding Traditions, reflective of the issue of
defining Wicca, as I would also suggest, despite the difficulty of
defining Wicca, that the notion that "all theological systems may be
called Wicca if anyone wishes to" reflects puerile and pointless
rhetorical gameplaying. Such claims serve *only* to prevent productive
discussion, never to augment it.
As to why a non-Pagan who does not accept the concept of axiological
validity ("some ideas appear valid; others appear not to be defensible")
chooses to participate in a Wiccan discussion group is, meantime, an
entirely different puzzle. In the context of the initial statement I
must ask, "Err, Richard, why are you taking this dumb class, anyhow?"
Richard Ballard
gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <1f6buzg.hvqpuqaxuflsN%gwy...@polyamory.org>,
>>gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>>
>>>I'm a firm believer in someone's right to self-identification.
>>>But part of the risk of self-identification is that if you claim
>>>it, and it doesn't make much sense to anyone (because it doesn't
>>>fit into more mainstream uses of the term) you've got to be
>>>prepared for the fact that people are going to look at you oddly
>>>and/or avoid you if you keep pushing the issue.
>>
>>The consensus opinion does not always equate to the correct
>>opinion.
>
>No. But if you insist on swimming against consensus, you're much
>better (as a general rule, and 'you' being a general term of
>address) realising what's going on, and dealing with it, than
>ignoring the issues that going against consensus/mainstream
>practice/etc raises.
Life is like a swimming in a river -- you'll get where the current
takes you, regardless whether you swim alone or with a crowd.
<snip>
>>I do not understand
>>if you are criticizing me and my statement (which you quoted),
>>or if you are criticizing the apparent Wiccan consensus (based
>>upon much textual and ARWM reading) that Wiccan Covens and
>>solitary worshippers are free to define their own Traditions
>>(independent of history).
>
>I disagree with your assumption of why people on here dislike the
>kinds of traditions you named. I have other, different, reasons
>for my concerns, which I've named twice and am therefore not going
>to repeat. If you haven't understood the first two explanations,
>I don't think a third one is going to help unless you explicitly
>can say what you found confusing in the first two explanations.
>
>I also do not believe that the "Wiccan consensus ... that Wiccan
>Covens and solitary worshippers are free to define their own
>Traditions (independent of history)" is exactly an accurate
>statement. That is *not* the consensus I have seen, either here
>or elsewhere.
I have seen that statement *repeatedly* both in Wiccan texts
and in ARWM threads. My opinion, your opinion, no need to
argue.
<snip>
>>I do not understand your criticism, other than recognizing a
>>statement that you do not want to associate with individuals
>>who disagree with your understanding of history. That is
>>your perogative -- no disagreement there.
>
>I'm not talking about 'my understanding of history' here -
>there's some stuff that can be definitively proven and not
>proven by existing records, archaeological knowledge, and so
>on. Again, I gave the example of the Salem witchcraft trials.
>All the court records are still available - I've seen them in
>person - and other corroborating evidence is also available.
I am going to explode a bomb by making a statement. Given the
enormity of persecution and cruelty running rampant throughout
global history and given the number of people involved, I
*never* have been excited about the Salem witch trials. I
recognize the relevence of the Salem witch trials to witchcraft
and Wicca-related topics. I also know that in the late 1990's,
African guerilla fighters attempted to intimidate and subdue
civilian populations by rounding up ten thousand civilians,
chopping off both of each civilian's hands, and leaving those
ten thousand civilians to "cope" -- the survivors were left to
observe the penalty for resistance. The Salem witch trials
affected several hundred people three hundred years ago in
an era of ergot poisoning. I can *not* get excited about the
Salem witch trials. And I recognize that some witches and
Wiccans use the Salem witch trials as an emotional rallying
cry everytime they are losing a dialogue.
>I know that there are many areas of uncertainty in history
>(one of my undergraduate majors was Medieval/Renaissance Studies).
>However, I'm also well aware that there are many places where
>we *do* have some definitive information.
I emphatically *am* talking about your 'understanding of history'.
You have not established your credentials as an expert witness
in the topic of history. Until you establish those expert witness
credentials, its "My opinion, your opinion, no need to argue."
Richard Ballard
One (answerable?) question: Is there any penalty associated
with moving to another Tradition, or with dropping out
completely and forming his/her own Tradition?
M-y 0-p-in-i-ons.
In article <1f6ca66.196lx4ce7igaoN%ba...@newstaff.com>,
ba...@newstaff.com (Baird Stafford) writes:
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Wood Avens
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 06:31:18 CST, ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
>Gwynyth <gwy...@polyamory.org> wrote:
>> Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> writes:
[snip]
>Although English tend to pronounce "Llewellyn" as sounding like "Lou-Elen",
>the LL in Welsh is a hissing sound, like S or TH, with the tip of the tongue
>touching the palate.
Thus 'Fluellen', which is Shakespeare's approximation.
><tucking pince-nez away again> Isn't language fun?
Not half! And perpetually distracting ...
>Gwynyth <gwy...@polyamory.org> wrote:
>> I do strongly believe that there is a point of "Do what you
>> want"/"Incorporate what you want" is no longer Wicca.
>The best attempt I've seen at a definition that *works* -- by which I mean it
>*includes* what most people include, and *excludes* what most people exclude
>-- was the "orthopraxis" definition in Widdershins, the summer 1995 issue,
>which uses a checklist of ritual practices (casting the circle, calling the
>quarters, drawing down the moon, cakes and ale, etc.) so that the more items
>are checked, the more something qualifies as "Wicca". This is a "fuzzy logic"
>approach, which is very appropriate to such a fuzzy-bordered religion-cluster.
>
>More to the point, this defines Wicca by "orthopraxis" (right practice) rather
>than "orthodoxy" (right belief) -- so that such *beliefs* as polytheism,
>monotheism, or even atheism, are *not* defining factors of Wicca.
[snip the rest, and the extract from Widdershins magazine]
Thanks for this, Raven. I hadn't seen this approach before, and I
like it a lot. I'm still rolling it around and trying its fit, and it
seems to work very well. I very much like the emphasis on praxis and
the de-emphasis of belief, and it gives me a nice (in both senses) new
word to use when I'm answering the question I get every now and then -
"So what do Wiccans believe, then?"
Wood Avens
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 07:40:57 CST, Gale <ga...@futuresouth.com> wrote:
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>> "I don't approve of your Wiccan Tradition" is an acceptable statement.
>> "Your Wiccan Tradition is not valid" is *NOT* an acceptable statement.
>> <snip>
>
>Many persons who work in axiological areas recognize and enforce on
>their students standards for *validity*. The standards for validity
>(certainly in literary interpretation, presumably also in theology) are
>considerably less rigorous than empirical standards for truth but are
>hardly non-existent. Such standards as internal coherence, factual
>accuracy, etc. can be evaluated and judged without making unsupportable
>claims regarding "truth."
>
[snip Gale expanding further on this]
I entirely agree with Gale. But further, I'd question Richard's first
proposition, the acceptability of "I don't approve of your Wiccan
Tradition". If you'd expressed it as "I don't *like* your Wiccan
tradition" I'd have no quarrel with it - that's simply an expression
of personal preference. But disapproval implies to me a position of
assumed authority or superior judgement.
Maybe I'm being too pedantic. If you simply meant "don't like", in
the sense that "this doesn't appeal to me", then I agree that that is
acceptable.
>
>As to why a non-Pagan who does not accept the concept of axiological
>validity ("some ideas appear valid; others appear not to be defensible")
>chooses to participate in a Wiccan discussion group is, meantime, an
>entirely different puzzle. In the context of the initial statement I
>must ask, "Err, Richard, why are you taking this dumb class, anyhow?"
I confess this continues to baffle me, too. What, exactly, are you
getting out of it?
Shez
<nosalwo...@attbi.com> writes
You have to remember Greg, that this poster is neither pagan or wiccan,
and they speak only from information gathered from books or the
Internet.
Its very difficult to understand a complex spiritual and magick system,
with simply book lore, You need hands on experience to pick up the
nuances, and to find your own path in paganism and wicca.
The poster is an expert on reading books and the Internet, not on
paganism or wicca. For those of us who have been involved for many
years, It seems obvious that you have to balance your personality, we
are not all good, or all evil.
Understanding you subconscious which is often referred wrongly to as the
dark side, is always a good idea.
If you have explored the negative side of your nature, as well as the
positive then you know what the worst of you is, and the best, it gives
you balance.
--
Shez, the Old Craft lady sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/shez/
Gwynyth
> Gwynyth <gwy...@polyamory.org> wrote:
> > Nope. Publisher. (see in Raven's comment above?) Name begins with an L,
> > I think, is what Raven was aiming at.
>
> <donning pince-nez for the appropriate nitpicking-academic appearance>
>
> Actually it begins with an LL, which in Welsh is a separate "letter" of the
> alphabet from L, just as DD is a separate "letter" from D. Yes, I *know*
> these are digraphs, letter-pairs, to an English-speaker, but they are listed
> separately within the Welsh alphabet, and dictionaries and indices in Welsh
> will put all LL items after all L items, not between the LI and LO items.
>
> Although English tend to pronounce "Llewellyn" as sounding like "Lou-Elen",
> the LL in Welsh is a hissing sound, like S or TH, with the tip of the tongue
> touching the palate. It is the hardest Welsh sound for English to get right.
>
> <tucking pince-nez away again> Isn't language fun?
*grin* My apologies for the carelessness, as in this case, I did
actually know better.
My mother spent her high school and college years in Wales (this would
be most of the 50s), and still more or less speaks conversational Welsh.
(It was a required subject for her in school, and her university
newsletter is bilingual among other things.) Llewellyn is actually one
of the few Welsh words I can pronounce more or less accurately, due to
visiting the town of that name at one point and getting coaching on the
correct pronounciation.
> The best attempt I've seen at a definition that *works* -- by which I mean it
> *includes* what most people include, and *excludes* what most people exclude
> -- was the "orthopraxis" definition in Widdershins, the summer 1995 issue,
> which uses a checklist of ritual practices (casting the circle, calling the
> quarters, drawing down the moon, cakes and ale, etc.) so that the more items
> are checked, the more something qualifies as "Wicca". This is a "fuzzy logic"
> approach, which is very appropriate to such a fuzzy-bordered religion-cluster.
>
> More to the point, this defines Wicca by "orthopraxis" (right practice) rather
> than "orthodoxy" (right belief) -- so that such *beliefs* as polytheism,
> monotheism, or even atheism, are *not* defining factors of Wicca.
<snip some very interesting stuff>
Yep. If I were speaking for someone other than myself (i.e. self+other
people), I'd vote more for an orthopraxy solution as a distinguishing
feature.
However, when I examine my personal feelings about the subject, I do
find that I have a hard time letting the idea of belief go entirely as a
defining factor (though it's perhaps more accurate to talk about
paradigm or world view, with the stuff I'm interested in, than actual
'belief')
On the other hand, it's fairly likely (somewhere in the realm of 80-90%,
I think) that a group that met whatever orthopraxy stuff I might decide
on would probably also meet a comfortable proportion of the belief
stuff.
I'm making the above statement more from experience in other parts of my
life than specifically Wiccan issues - however, I want to leave the
wiggle room because I suspect it's simply that I can't come up with any
examples right now, rather than that the examples don't exist.
An example from other parts of my life: I'm polyamorous, meaning I have
multiple romantic relationship partners.
Now, there are lots of different ways to make polyamory work, though
most people who make poly work seem agree there are some fundamentally
basic concepts that make it work much better (honesty, consent of all
the involved people, good communication skills).
Now, there are people who are poly (who have multiple romantic and/or
sexual partners and who are making that work out) who have very
different philosophies of poly than I do. I'm poly in large part because
I dislike having to say "Sorry, I can't do that, I already have a
relationship like that" if there's no other reason (like available
time/lack of interest) to decline.
I am *definitively* not polyamorous because I think it's a 'more
natural' way to run relationships, because it's 'more evolved' or
because of personal philosophy about things like group ownership of
property/removing oneself from corporate society/communal living.
But there are people out there who are poly because of those things (or
at least, have said so enough that I'm willling to take their word that
that's why they're doing it)
Are they still doing polyamory? Yes. Could I be in a relationship with
them? Quite probably not. Their worldview is sufficiently different from
mine that despite some common practice aspects, that it would just be a
lousy fit.
Some of the communal living stuff sends me metaphorically cowering in a
corner. I'm an introvert. I need private time and space to recharge.
Statements about, for example, "Walls just create psychological distance
between people and I don't want to live anywhere with walls or closed
doors" do not suit me as a living style, and I know it.
But again, that doesn't mean they're not doing polyamory in some form -
just that their philosophy looks very different from mine (and that
therefore, some practical stuff looks very different from mine.) and
that that does make a difference.
While I can't recall having come across a Wiccan example (where I agreed
that their practice was like mine, but their beliefs were sufficiently
not like mine to make me uncomfortable to that level) I do suspect they
exist. However, given the commonalities in *practice*, I'd probably
still consider such people (who share practice but not beliefs) to also
be Wiccan or poly, with a very few exceptions. (I'd have problems, for
example, with a truly atheistic practice of Wicca, I think.)
> > Personally, I tend to believe that Wicca is an initiatory and mystery
> > tradition (explanation of what I mean by those terms next paragraph) and
> > one that involves fertility and the life cycle. And therefore that
> > people who incorporate or wish to incorporate none of those things are
> > doing something sufficiently different from what I am doing that we
> > should probably be using different names for them. It doesn't mean that
> > what they're doing is wrong or bad - but it *does* mean it's got a
> > different focus, intent, and so on that makes it different.
>
> Okay. Notice that your criteria include both the externally observable
> (what people DO) as well as the internal (what people BELIEVE), while
> the Muntean criteria are kept to the externally observable.
Yep. However, if we're talking about what feels to *me* like Wicca and
not-Wicca, I can't (and therefore won't) deny that there's an aspect of
belief or worldview or attitude or paradigm or whatever that is also
something of a defining factor.
It is, however, a whole lot harder to pin down, as you observed. And
much more inclined to be personal.
> <snip>
>
> > Some of my major complaints of *some* of those groups (please note the
> > 'some' - there are certainly groups who focus on the lighter side of
> > practice that do not have the problems I'm about to mention) are as
> > follows:
> >
> > 1) That some of them have absolutely no clue about history.
>
> Which might not matter in an admittedly fantasy-derived tradition
> (though then I'd worry about members mistaking fantasy for reality),
> but surely does matter when the tradition *claims* to be historical.
Exactly. If people admit they're working from fantasy and not from
history, I stop caring about historical accuracy. It's when they claim
to be making historical statements which are either fundamentally untrue
(i.e. they're claiming stuff there's absolutely no evidence for and in
fact evidence *against*) or where they start extrapolating things that
don't make any logical sense, then I have concerns.
I'm not actually quite so concerned about *them* - as I am about people
who come across their information and take it as fact becaause it's
written down somewhere. That tends to drive my
librarian-provides-accurate-knowledge tendencies batty.
<snip>
> Hurrah, hurray, amen, ahmin, bombio, so mote it be, and thank you, Gwynyth!
<grin> Thanks.
Gwynyth
> In article <1f6c16u.1vonbdwcif26kN%gwy...@polyamory.org>,
> gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
> I am going to explode a bomb by making a statement. Given the
> enormity of persecution and cruelty running rampant throughout
> global history and given the number of people involved, I
> *never* have been excited about the Salem witch trials. I
> recognize the relevence of the Salem witch trials to witchcraft
> and Wicca-related topics. I also know that in the late 1990's,
> African guerilla fighters attempted to intimidate and subdue
> civilian populations by rounding up ten thousand civilians,
> chopping off both of each civilian's hands, and leaving those
> ten thousand civilians to "cope" -- the survivors were left to
> observe the penalty for resistance. The Salem witch trials
> affected several hundred people three hundred years ago in
> an era of ergot poisoning. I can *not* get excited about the
> Salem witch trials. And I recognize that some witches and
> Wiccans use the Salem witch trials as an emotional rallying
> cry everytime they are losing a dialogue.
I used them as an example of something that comes up in Wiccan circles
reasonably often, and where we *do* have definitive information. It was
a handy example. I was not picking an example I thought might be
personally interesting to you - but rather because it was a convenient
example, and unlike many other ones that sprung to mind, more likely to
come up in Wiccan circles than others.
I know that the definitive information (about who was killed, how they
were killed, and so on) exists, because when I was in 10th grade, I
wrote a history research paper on them (at the time, I lived within
driving distance from the Essex County Historical Society in Salem, and
spent a day up there doing research.) The paper went on to win in the
National History Day district contest, and placed at the State level.
Obviously *someone* thought my research skills were at least adequate.
> >I know that there are many areas of uncertainty in history
> >(one of my undergraduate majors was Medieval/Renaissance Studies).
> >However, I'm also well aware that there are many places where
> >we *do* have some definitive information.
>
> I emphatically *am* talking about your 'understanding of history'.
> You have not established your credentials as an expert witness
> in the topic of history. Until you establish those expert witness
> credentials, its "My opinion, your opinion, no need to argue."
I'm talking about a general understanding of history, such as someone
who has done a reasonable amount of work at the college level might do.
I do not believe I need to establish myself as an 'expert witness' to
suggest that reasonable people interested in differentiating history
from supposition might readily understand the difference between "Hey,
we can prove that this happened, we have direct evidence" and "We think
this might have happened, but we're not entirely sure about the details"
and "This is a neat idea, but we don't actually have any kind of
evidence that it existed."
Now, since I know high school students who can get this concept, I don't
think it's directly linked to someone's academic credentials.
(In fact, in my experience, it quite obviously isn't. I've met as many
people who are twits about this in academia as I have in other areas of
my life, and as many people who don't have college degrees or much
college background in history who immediately understand this issue as
those with formal background.)
However, since you keep insisting on credentials, let me give them once.
As I said, one of my undergrad majors was Medieval/Renaissance Studies.
Out of the 32 courses required for graduation in my college, 9 of the
courses I took were history courses. (Another 8 were literature courses,
10 were music courses - my other major) The remainder were language
courses and other requirements.
(I also came in with AP credits in US History and European History - for
anyone reading this who's not familiar with the US educational system,
AP courses are 'Advanced Placement' - college level courses taken in
high school, followed by a nationally standardised test that involves
multiple choice questions for testing factual knowledge, and in the case
of the history exams, a couple of essays, at least one of which involves
document analysis. I'd also taken an AP level Classical History class in
which we did all the same kinds of analysis and work, but there's no
Classical History AP exam.)
I'm currently working on my Master's degree in Library and Information
Science, and I am particularly interested in Reference and Instruction
librarianship - which is basically how to help people find accurate
information, distinguish fact from theory/hypothesis/assumption, and
make use of that information. I've got 4 out of 12 courses left to
complete, but I *have* completed all the available reference courses in
my areas of interest. (i.e. I'm not particularly interested in science
reference work, so I'm not planning on doing coursework in that area.)
Do I have a Ph.D in history? No. Do I think I've earned the right to
express a reasonably informed opinion on broad outlines of historical
evidence? Yes, I think I have.
I'm well aware that I'm not a specialist - part of what drives my
interest in library work is that I enjoy being a generalist with a few
deep-running interests in specific but wide-spread areas.
But do I think I can say "There's some stuff in history you can prove
with given evidence and some stuff you can't"? Yes, I do. And I'm going
to keep saying it, when I feel like it and it's appropriate. If you
don't want to listen to me say it, you're welcome to stop reading my
posts, just like anyone else is.
Dragon Mama
Gale wrote:
>
> Richard Ballard wrote:
> ><snip>
> > "I don't approve of your Wiccan Tradition" is an acceptable statement.
> > "Your Wiccan Tradition is not valid" is *NOT* an acceptable statement.
> ><snip>
>
> -----BULLS**T-----
>
> The Universe is not so arranged that I am required to accede to idiocy.
>
> --
> Blessed Be,
> Gale
>
Right on, Gale!
As Wiccans and pagans, we are free to decide for ourselves what to
believe, and what to do. As an American, I will insist on my personal
right to be and do anything that harms none, and when necessary, to opt
for the lesser of two evils. In my initial Wiccan formal training, for
Degree one, I was taught what Gardnerian Trad Wicca consisted of. I
made it to Third Degree, and HPS of my coven, and became a respected
old Priestess of the Trad, and respected as founder of a still active
eclectic Circle for women only. I am now too old and weak to be active,
but I believe that I have evolved a very personal brand of Wicca. I may
not say all the words of the Gardnerian Rituals when working solitary,
or make all the "right" motions, or even do the rituals when I am too
sick or too tired, but my heart is Wiccan to its core. I do not listen
to those who say if I am not living or practicing by the "code" I am not
really Wiccan. They are only playing "more Wiccan Than Thou" and not
worth respecting, IMHO..
After years of politely not smacking younger folks who would tell me I
should quit smoking, lose some weight, etc. I realized that I really am
the Captain of my own Life Ship, and the opinions of others are only
interesting, not any law I must follow. One gets to be somewhat
stuffily one's own person in aging. Something to do with evolving?
I am enjoying your debate over what is and is not Wicca, but have no
personal stake in it. For me, one can be Wiccan with very little
resemblance in practice or lifestyle to this old dame. Just not covening
with me, unless I have reason to respect the individual you are. I am
what I am, and will change that ID when I have reason to do so, without
consulting any of you or anyone here in my area. A Wiccan is bound by
Oath and self-respect, not by the opinions of others who do not live by
one's own rules.
Have fun, kids.
Hi, Baird. Hi, Shez. It is grand to see you posting again! And grand
to be feeling strong enough to read and to post occasionally.
Blessed Be, All Here!
Dragonmama
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Btw, what are your thoughts on why the FBI were so keen to kill the
> people involved in David Koresh's cult at Waco, and obscure the
> process of gathering the evidence? Do you think that maybe they didn't
> want inconvenient questions being raised about the potential for
> psychopathology in fundamentalist Christianity?
Ermmm... I'm not yet persuaded that the FBI were "...keen to kill...
and "obscure...gathering evidence" at Waco. While I am of the opinion
that the whole thing was mishandled almost from the start, I have yet to
read any *concrete* evidence of intent (save, perhaps, for the perfectly
human desire to cover up one's own errors - or at least blame them on
someone else).
All the claims I've seen so far that the FBI *meant* that particular
outcome to occur have been from sources that had their own
politico-religious agendas to further - in particular, more fanatic
members of the "Militia movement" such as Mr. VcVeigh.
Blessed be,
Baird
Baird Stafford
> Baird- Thank you for the clarification.
> One (answerable?) question: Is there any penalty associated
> with moving to another Tradition, or with dropping out
> completely and forming his/her own Tradition?
That, I *think*, depends more on the personalities involved than on the
Trads proper.
If the parting is amicable - and, in the case of those Trads who require
a year and a day of study before initiation in order for the applicant
to make up his or her mind whether she or he really *wants* to do this,
that seems to be the more likely scenario - then no penalty is involved.
Splits made in anger, however, take on a whole new dimension; and Witch
Wars have frequently resulted in the past.
Blessed be,
Baird
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> <donning pince-nez for the appropriate nitpicking-academic appearance>
Saved to my "Wicca" folder.* Thank you, Raven!
Blessed be,
Baird
*along with all the other articles from Raven that have made sense over
the years....
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
>> I've corresponded and conversed by phone with Singer, who's a psychology
>> professor at the University of California's Berkeley campus -- noted as a
>> liberal and sometimes even radical campus, far from being fundamentalist.
>
> My mistake, then. I'd jumped to hasty conclusions, because the book
> was one of many I was reading from a list of mostly fundamentalist
> Christian references that a past girlfriend of mine wanted me to read.
> I wasn't feeling in a very charitable mood towards organised religion
> at the time, and so I probably over-reacted to Singer's distinction
> between cults and legitimate religious institutions, which does
> actually sound reasonable based on the criteria you gave. I should be
> more cautious about judging books.
<grin> Thinking of hasty judgments, I remember trying to get Diana to
visit my UU church (First Unitarian, Milwaukee) with me, after her CAW
Nest disintegrated. Having a religious community had meant a lot to her,
and she'd tried for years to get the Nest involved in larger community
affairs, so I thought she'd be a good fit with the UUs. But she refused
every time I invited her, and finally explained that she had attended one
service, years before, the speaker that day had talked a lot about Jesus,
and so Diana felt the church was much too Christian. I couldn't help but
grin, and offered her a splendid lunch afterward (I resisted the temptation
to say "a free vegetarian dinner", lest she insist on potato salad <vbeg>*)
if she would just keep me company that Sunday morning. No Jesus talk that
Sunday, but lots of other eclectic stuff, and announcements for CUUPS and
the Social Concerns Committee, the "Build Your Own Theology" workshop, etc.
Diana dove in, signed up for everything, and it has been her religious
community ever since, giving her strong drive to help people another outlet:
she's co-taught Sunday school, counseled youth groups, been a driver to and
chaperone for youth conferences, and stood host duty at the overflow shelter.
Not that Sunday, but at lunch few weeks later, she was looking over her
calendar and commenting that she had no free time any more, because she'd
committed so much of it (bustling from project to project). Thinking of
how much free time she'd had before, and been unhappy about, again I
couldn't help but grin, because of the wonderful difference in her mood
and how she felt about herself. She looked up at me sharply, "What?",
jumped to a conclusion, and angrily warned me not to say "I told you so".
(Life with a redhead can be fun, if you survive the bouts of temper.)
> There's a big difference between quick assumptions that I make in order
> to determine whether to bother reading further, and a thorough review.
> I had only given Singer's book the former. It does sound like it might
> be worth another look.
I'd be interested in seeing your comments, if and when you do read it.
> Btw, what are your thoughts on why the FBI were so keen to kill the
> people involved in David Koresh's cult at Waco, and obscure the
> process of gathering the evidence? Do you think that maybe they didn't
> want inconvenient questions being raised about the potential for
> psychopathology in fundamentalist Christianity?
No, I think it had more to do with reports that Koresh had gathered an
armory of illegal weapons and explosives, those being matters that concern
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and *Firearms*. The BATF doesn't go after
psychopathology or fundamentalism; in fact, law enforcement officers tend
toward conservative Christianity themselves.
I think it escalated from what might have been a less violent outcome,
had not Koresh's people shot at the federal agents -- after which there
was no chance that the feds would simply go away and leave them alone.
That is, I think the people in the compound who were shooting, and refused
to surrender during the long standoff, had their own responsibility for
how things came out. Pity they kept the children in that compound.
Might there have been better ways for the Feds to have handled the situation?
Probably, in hindsight. But they didn't have the advantage of hindsight at
the time, and we can't really *know* how any other strategy would have turned
out, since we don't get to go back and try it. As Aslan said, no-one is
ever told what *would* have happened.
Here's a FAQ from the PBS show Frontline (noted for its in-depth reporting):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/topten.html
- - - - -
* About that "free vegetarian dinner" line....
This story has gone the rounds, with various people named as the burly
SCA fighter on his way from one place to another, when he is accosted
by two Hare Krishnas in their saffron robes and their shaven heads and
their beads all jingle-jangle, who offer him a ticket to a **free**
vegetarian dinner, with a talk on Hare Krishna.
How to refuse? "Well, gee, I don't know...."
"Oh, but sir, it will be a delicious free vegetarian dinner, and a
FASCINATING talk on Hare Krishna!"
When all else fails, play dumb. "Will there be po-tay-to salad?"
Blink. They look at each other. They look at him. "Well... no...
but it will be a del-"
He grabs each one by the robe at the neck, lifts, and shakes them while
he bellows in rage: "I want po-tay-to salad! I WANT PO-TAY-TO SALAD!"
He then drops them, and -- WHISH! -- they scurry off.
The story is told and re-told through the SCA's grapevine. Some weeks
later, another burly SCA fighter in another city is accosted by two
Hare Krishnas in their saffron robes and their shaven heads and their
beads all jingle-jangle, who offer him a ticket to a free vegetarian
dinner with a talk on Hare Krishna. He pouts and frowns in puzzlement.
"Well, gee, I don't know. Will there be po-tay-to salad?"
WHISH!
(It appears that Hare Krishnas have a grapevine too.)
Raven
> Richard Ballard wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>> "I don't approve of your Wiccan Tradition" is an acceptable statement.
>> "Your Wiccan Tradition is not valid" is *NOT* an acceptable statement.
>> <snip>
It seems any Wiccan Tradition that does not think all Traditions valid would,
by Richard's rule, therefore not be valid itself. But then Richard's rule
would be calling *that* Tradition not valid, which (by his rule) would mean
that Richard's rule *itself* would not be valid. Hmmm, self-contradiction.
<snip>
> The claim, advanced by many intellectually lazy relativists, that "it's
> all opinion so one is as good as another" is 1) non-productive and 2)
> defensible only by the same grounds as solipsism is defensible...
If it's all opinion, then "It's all opinion so one is as good as another"
is also an opinion, and a different opinion would be "as good"; that is,
the opinion that "NOT all opinions are equally good" would also be valid.
In fact, one who holds the first opinion *must agree* that the second is
valid, or else he contradicts the first. Thus, while not everyone agrees
that all opinions *are* equally good, everyone *does* end up agreeing
that "NOT all opinions are equally good" is a valid statement.
It's all in logic, all in logic; bless me, what *do* they teach them in
these schools? (pace C.S. Lewis... and Lewis Carroll)
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Hi, Baird.
Hi, Dragonmama! Good to see you're feeling better again!
Hugs and Blessed be,
Baird
Yowie
news:7d8764ba.0201...@posting.google.com...
Just stumbling along here....
If I self-identified as "Wiccan" (Hi, I'm a Wiccan) and then started talking
about my belief in Yahweh as the One and Only true God (with a triune
nature) that Jesus Christ is my Lord & Saviour who was born of the virgin
Mary, died on the cross for my sins and was resurrected ont he third day,
and insisted that anyone who did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord &
Saviour was doomed to an afterlife in hell, would you still consider me a
Wiccan because of my self-identification, or would you consider my
self-identification as somehow incorrect, and reclassify me in you head as a
Christian?
Just asking because I'm getting confused with the philisophical language,
although the topic interests me.
Basically, I guess my question is a Wiccan a Wiccan just because s/he says
s/he is, or is there some 'test' to see whether they are truly Wiccan or
just "Pagan" (and if there is, what is it?). Should anyone put much stock in
someone else's self-identification, or use it as the first "model" to try
onto our own perceptions of the other person.
My BIL insists that "there is nothing wrong with him", but we can clearly
see otherwise. Him insisting that there is nothing wrong with him and that
he doesn't need help and he certainly doens't need to go to hospital or see
anyone doesn't convince us or his doctors (and now the police <sigh>) in the
slightest. I can see same analogy of someone insisting that they are Wiccan
but all they do and say suggests otherwise (I'd like to talk to you about
Jesus). On the same token, what characteristics, actions, beliefs etc etc,
would I have to have to convince you that my statement "I am a Wiccan" is
true?
And does it matter that my statement "I am a Wiccan" is in conflict with
your pre-conceived notion of what a *real* Wiccan is & does?
Yowie
Richard Ballard
gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
Nevertheless, when you consider the number of people killed
in World Wars, after regional wars (after the Vietnam War
Cambodia fell -- the Khmer Rouge killed thousands of civilians
and left their bodies littering the countryside as object lessons
to political dissenters), after civil wars (e.g., the African
"chop off their hands" example I gave previously), and even "small"
terrorism events (the bombing of the Marine barracks in
Lebanon, the Lockerbee aircraft bombing, the Oklahoma City
bombing, September 11 2001), the Salem Witch trials are
*not* major events in global history. I recognize the Salem
Witch Trials' ARWM relevance, but they do not constitute
a flag to be waved each time somebody is losing in a dialogue.
<snip>
You have undergraduate history courses that provide you with
a sense of history in some areas. Coupled with your library
science background (and given sufficient time) you are capable
of doing excellent and detailed historical research.
That might be overkill for the Internet, however. In graduate
school we had two related sayings:
1) An undergraduate Liberal Arts education teaches you less
and less about more and more until you know nothing about
everything." [Comment: I believe the purpose of an undergraduate
education is to teach One to think and to utilize knowledge
sources. Ten years' ago's Library Science is today's standard
operating procedure. And I acknowledge that I am picking on
Liberal Arts a bit -- engineers specialize early.]
2) "Graduate school teaches you more and more about less
and less until you know everything about nothing." [Comment:
I believe that common sense and knowledge of *major* issues
wins debates -- arcane trivia does not win debates.]
M-y 0-p-in-i-ons.
Jackdaw
"Dragon Mama" <drag...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3C4C644A...@rahul.net...
You may not be able to "wave your bits around" but I still get a warm, glowy
feeling, when Dragon Mama emits flames!¬)
Nice to see you posting.
Have a Magic Chocolate Frog.
--
Dicon ... A Cornish Jackdaw
Maker of Ambries and sausages.
Collector of facts, trivia & bright twinkly things.
And skulls and bizzare items and...........
Fenris
<sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I believe he needs help, psychiatric help to allow him to get over this
>period in his life, I don't believe he should be imprisoned for years,
>or Killed. That would be barbaric
I agree with your assessment. What you need to know is that Americans
would rather punish than rehabilitate, as if abusing those who have,
mostly, already been hideously abused is going to accomplish anything
positive. We refuse to confront the difference between consensual and
nonconsensual crime, in the context of a free, democratic society iwth a
commitment to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and separation of
church and state. And as I recall we have the highest percentage of
citizens incarcerated in the first world.
Blessings,
Terry
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Shez
<drag...@rahul.net> writes
( Throwing hat in the air) Hurrah, and good for you Dragonmama, being
pagan or wiccan is personal, their is no one thing you need to do, or
not do, its in your mind, heart and soul. Nothing to do with rituals, or
tools or anything else. Its the spirit.
I do wish people who have never walked this path and only walk it
second-hand through books and the Internet would mind their manners, and
not tell wiccans and Pagans what they can and cant do.
They have no understanding of the concept of being pagan. They are
simply talking about something they have book knowledge of only.
I can talk about Christianity, I have studied it, But I have never been
a Christian, So I don't know what it feels like to believe in the
Christian God, or the bible,
If I joined a Christian congregation my lack of knowledge apart from
reading and research would mark me out very quickly indeed.
I understand Christianity as a personal belief and faith, no more than
this poster appears to understand paganism and wicca.
To give advice to a practising Christian on their faith, or how they
practice that faith seems to me to be insulting and silly.
I wouldn't do it.
I wish this particular poster would keep that in mind when he advice's
pagans and wiccans on their faith and their beliefs.
Its wonderful to see you posting again Dragonmama, and to see you on
this group.
I hope your feeling somewhat better to. :)
Fenris
<ga...@futuresouth.com> wrote:
>And within
>that realm of Shadow, always 9/10 hidden, is where I suspect my Self
>dwells. (And if I've an inner demon, I suppose it lives there; but I
>know that whatever part of me partakes of the Divine lives there too).
I think the Self is The Goddess. And Jung has written that the "Collective
Unconscious" may be another word for God.
Fenris
<mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote:
>... Robertson and Falwell exposed
>themselves as opportunistic, self-serving, loathsome little worms...
Yet again. : )
Synnoveah J Cooke
Synn scratches her head and raises her hand in class?
So whatever my opinion is, its at least as good as yers? <g,d,r>
~
Synn
~~~~~~~~
Never try to teach
a pig to sing.
It wastes your
time and annoys the pig.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> If I self-identified as "Wiccan" (Hi, I'm a Wiccan) and then started
> talking about my belief in Yahweh as the One and Only true God (with a
> triune nature) that Jesus Christ is my Lord & Saviour who was born of the
> virgin Mary, died on the cross for my sins and was resurrected ont he
> third day, and insisted that anyone who did not accept Jesus Christ as
> their Lord & Saviour was doomed to an afterlife in hell, would you still
> consider me a Wiccan because of my self-identification, or would you
> consider my self-identification as somehow incorrect, and reclassify me in
> you head as a Christian?
I would reclassify you as a "Christo-pagan." That's the term that has
been used most frequently on usenet to identify folks who believe as you
do.
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
Richard Ballard
In article <1f6ct22.9xiy4y14dmmteN%gwy...@polyamory.org>,
gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
Nevertheless, when you consider the number of people killed
in World Wars, after regional wars (after the Vietnam War
Cambodia fell -- the Khmer Rouge killed thousands of civilians
and left their bodies littering the countryside as object lessons
to political dissenters), after civil wars (e.g., the African
"chop off their hands" example I gave previously), and even "small"
terrorism events (the bombing of the Marine barracks in
Lebanon, the Lockerbee aircraft bombing, the Oklahoma City
bombing, September 11 2001), the Salem Witch trials are
*not* major events in global history. I recognize the Salem
Witch Trials' ARWM relevance, but they do not constitute
a flag to be waved each time somebody is losing in a dialogue.
<snip>
>However, since you keep insisting on credentials, let me give them once.
You have undergraduate history courses that provide you with
Richard Ballard
ba...@newstaff.com (Baird Stafford) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Baird- Thank you for the clarification.
>
>>One (answerable?) question: Is there any penalty associated
>>with moving to another Tradition, or with dropping out
>>completely and forming his/her own Tradition?
>
>That, I *think*, depends more on the personalities involved
>than on the Trads proper.
>
>If the parting is amicable - and, in the case of those Trads
>who require a year and a day of study before initiation in
>order for the applicant to make up his or her mind whether
>she or he really *wants* to do this, that seems to be the more
>likely scenario - then no penalty is involved.
If a Wiccan novice amicably leaving a Tradition *prior* to
completing the "year and a day of study before initiation"
is *penalized*, does not make the "year and a day" a period
of de facto *indenture*?
>Splits made in anger, however, take on a whole new dimension;
>and Witch Wars have frequently resulted in the past.
Will you please provide examples of (tangible/intangible)
penalties resulting from past "Witch Wars"?
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> Gwynyth <gwy...@polyamory.org> wrote:
>
>>> Nope. Publisher. (see in Raven's comment above?) Name begins with an L,
>>> I think, is what Raven was aiming at.
>>
>> <donning pince-nez for the appropriate nitpicking-academic appearance>
>>
<snip>
>> <tucking pince-nez away again> Isn't language fun?
>
> *grin* My apologies for the carelessness, as in this case, I did
> actually know better.
I suspected as much, given your name and other comments you've made.
In any case, you were not discussing the Welsh language, but hinting
at the name of an American publisher, in an English-language post to
an English-speaking correspondent, so "begins with an L" was the right
way to put it in that context, not "incorrect" or "careless" at all.
Rather, please forgive my nitpicking; I just thought that was an interesting
tidbit of trivia to share with our readers, most of whom won't have known it.
<snip>
>> The best attempt I've seen at a definition that *works* -- by which I mean
>> it *includes* what most people include, and *excludes* what most people
>> exclude -- was the "orthopraxis" definition in Widdershins, the summer
>> 1995 issue, which uses a checklist of ritual practices (casting the circle,
>> calling the quarters, drawing down the moon, cakes and ale, etc.) so that
>> the more items are checked, the more something qualifies as "Wicca".
>> This is a "fuzzy logic" approach, which is very appropriate to such a
>> fuzzy-bordered religion-cluster.
>>
>> More to the point, this defines Wicca by "orthopraxis" (right practice)
>> rather than "orthodoxy" (right belief) -- so that such *beliefs* as
>> polytheism, monotheism, or even atheism, are *not* defining factors
>> of Wicca.
>
> <snip some very interesting stuff>
>
> Yep. If I were speaking for someone other than myself (i.e. self+other
> people), I'd vote more for an orthopraxy solution as a distinguishing
> feature.
>
> However, when I examine my personal feelings about the subject, I do
> find that I have a hard time letting the idea of belief go entirely as a
> defining factor (though it's perhaps more accurate to talk about
> paradigm or world view, with the stuff I'm interested in, than actual
> 'belief')
Sure; aside from choice of patron deities (if any), Wiccans *tend* to
respect or even venerate nature, and to enjoy "magical" themes. One might
well doubt that someone was Wiccan if they hated and feared all "magic",
were hostile or indifferent to nature (perhaps centering their hopes on an
afterlife altogether outside this universe), and demanded that everyone
adhere to a code of morals taken from the Bible. Circle or no circle....
> On the other hand, it's fairly likely (somewhere in the realm of 80-90%,
> I think) that a group that met whatever orthopraxy stuff I might decide
> on would probably also meet a comfortable proportion of the belief
> stuff.
As a whole bunch of people who aren't "Wiccan" at all might well do --
there being other neopagan religions, for instance, with similar worldviews;
or even "stewardship" Christians who feel a responsibility to help keep the
world and its people in good health; or even <ahem> certain atheists....
I think Muntean's criteria were to help distinguish between Wicca and other
such neopagan religions, who have compatible attitudes but different rituals,
i.e. ways of practicing "worship" (or whatever word should be used for the
ceremonial aspect of religion), so that the word "Wicca" wouldn't get applied
so loosely as to refer to *all* neopagan religions, e.g. Druidism, Asatru....
> I'm making the above statement more from experience in other parts of my
> life than specifically Wiccan issues - however, I want to leave the
> wiggle room because I suspect it's simply that I can't come up with any
> examples right now, rather than that the examples don't exist.
Like you, a lot of people have wrestled with this definition issue (and
wrangled with each other over it), because they had the clearest feeling
that *these* examples belong *in* the set called "Wicca", while *those*
examples belong *outside* that set, and yet it has been hard to come up
with a clearly stated, simple, easy-to-follow, and generally-agreed-upon
set of rules or guidelines to make the distinction. The fact that Wiccans
may worship *just* a God (as the Frosts used to), or *just* a Goddess (as
the Dianics do, following Leland's ARADIA), or a pair but by a variety of
different names, makes definition-by-theology much less helpful for Wicca
than it is for Christianity or Buddhism. I think Muntean's solution of
looking at ritual *practice* is ingenious, but of course it looks away from
that varying and therefore hard-to-define core of the religion in order to
find clear and visible distinguishing traits on the surface. I've noticed
this in some dictionary definitions, that they seem to focus on some minor
peripheral trait rather than on the essential heart of what they're defining;
but sometimes that peripheral trait is what helps distinguish one group from
another, similar, group which shares most of the same "essential heart".
> An example from other parts of my life: I'm polyamorous, meaning I have
> multiple romantic relationship partners.
And just from your photo, it's not suprising; you're quite lovely. Of course
that's not a criterion for polyamory, but no doubt it draws many suitors.
Diana, my bride of two months (as of today), was in CAW, which is heavily into
polyamory; she and her fellow Nest member introduced me to it five years ago.
> Now, there are lots of different ways to make polyamory work, though
> most people who make poly work seem agree there are some fundamentally
> basic concepts that make it work much better (honesty, consent of all
> the involved people, good communication skills).
Yah, those would have to go on *among* people, as aspects of how they
interact. Other such aspects would be courtesy, consideration, caring,
compassion... by which point we're talking about what's *inside* each
person -- again, the invisible core and not just the visible exterior.
And each person's *expectations* of what will happen and what others will do,
and each person's individual *willingness* or *commitment* of what to do in
turn for others, would also have to be compatible with what all the other
partners expect and are willing to do. It may not be 100% reciprocation
(as caregiving with a handicapped partner may often not be 100% reciprocal),
but at least you'd want no-one to feel shortchanged and resentful.
The communication skills would be needed in order to *accomplish* that goal.
The *internal* part, the attitude and intentions of each person, being willing
to give more than one might get, may be even more essential -- but again that
is harder if not outright impossible to actually *check*. Usually all anyone
can do is observe external behavior; is it compatible with that inner state?
But all the above applies just as well to *any* relationship, poly- or mono-.
> Now, there are people who are poly (who have multiple romantic and/or
> sexual partners and who are making that work out) who have very
> different philosophies of poly than I do. I'm poly in large part because
> I dislike having to say "Sorry, I can't do that, I already have a
> relationship like that" if there's no other reason (like available
> time/lack of interest) to decline.
>
> I am *definitively* not polyamorous because I think it's a 'more
> natural' way to run relationships, because it's 'more evolved' or
> because of personal philosophy about things like group ownership of
> property/removing oneself from corporate society/communal living.
>
> But there are people out there who are poly because of those things (or
> at least, have said so enough that I'm willling to take their word that
> that's why they're doing it)
Now I, having a carefree and pragmatic attitude but a nasty suspicious mind,
wonder why any personal choice needs to be justified in such grandiloquent
social-philosophical terms. "It works for us, so far" ought to be enough.
"It is the Divine Will that you should..." or "For the Good of Humanity,
you should..." makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck, no matter
whether it ends with "... make me your leader" or "... go to bed with me".
> Are they still doing polyamory? Yes. Could I be in a relationship with
> them? Quite probably not. Their worldview is sufficiently different from
> mine that despite some common practice aspects, that it would just be a
> lousy fit.
I.e., "It's not that I'm unavailable; I'm just unavailable to *you*."
Some men seem to have trouble wrapping their brains around that concept.
> Some of the communal living stuff sends me metaphorically cowering in a
> corner. I'm an introvert. I need private time and space to recharge.
> Statements about, for example, "Walls just create psychological distance
> between people and I don't want to live anywhere with walls or closed
> doors" do not suit me as a living style, and I know it.
What, you mean you're willing to share *some* part of your life with
someone (or some several), but not every last moment and every cubic
centimeter of space, not every single thought and breath? Wowwwwww....
Gee, I guess that makes you an *individual* or sumthin' strange like that.
> But again, that doesn't mean they're not doing polyamory in some form -
> just that their philosophy looks very different from mine (and that
> therefore, some practical stuff looks very different from mine.) and
> that that does make a difference.
<snip to end>
Yeah, you might feel just a bit *jostled* in a total-possession relationship.
> While I can't recall having come across a Wiccan example (where I agreed
> that their practice was like mine, but their beliefs were sufficiently
> not like mine to make me uncomfortable to that level) I do suspect they
> exist. However, given the commonalities in *practice*, I'd probably
> still consider such people (who share practice but not beliefs) to also
> be Wiccan or poly, with a very few exceptions. (I'd have problems, for
> example, with a truly atheistic practice of Wicca, I think.)
Hmmmm. What about someone who takes joy in life and in living things and
in the sheer beauty of the universe, but who feels no urge to give it all a
*human* face, no need to anthropomorphize what has its own form and pattern?
As an atheist with that attitude, a UU-Humanist, I'd really like to know.
(Though I'm not and have never been a Wiccan.)
Raven
>>> I do not understand your criticism, other than recognizing a
>>> statement that you do not want to associate with individuals
>>> who disagree with your understanding of history. That is
>>> your perogative -- no disagreement there.
>>
>> I'm not talking about 'my understanding of history' here -
>> there's some stuff that can be definitively proven and not
>> proven by existing records, archaeological knowledge, and so
>> on. Again, I gave the example of the Salem witchcraft trials.
>> All the court records are still available - I've seen them in
>> person - and other corroborating evidence is also available.
>
<snip>
> ... I can *not* get excited about the Salem witch trials.
> And I recognize that some witches and Wiccans use the Salem
> witch trials as an emotional rallying cry everytime they are
> losing a dialogue.
Richard, it's hard to lose a *dialogue*; did you mean to say *argument*?
Then do try to keep track of what position was actually being *argued*.
Gwynyth didn't say that the Salem witch trials were more *exciting*
than any other event in history, or that they should be so to you.
She said that the *records* of that set of events are still available;
thus many of the facts are ascertainable with some certainty, whenever
anyone really wants to know what *factually* occurred there. The many
false claims that have been made about Salem Village in 1692 -- e.g.
that hundreds of witches (or Wiccans) were burned at the stake there --
are *factual* claims, which are shown *factually* false by the records;
they are not simply matters of *opinion*, nor all opinions equally good.
Notice that Gwynyth's concern with factual truth is *opposed* to the
contrafactual use of those false claims as an "emotional rallying cry".
Richard, your irrelevant objection, that you aren't "excited" by that case,
comes off as smokescreening. It has no bearing on the issue of truth.
Yes, other historical events involved more deaths. That also is not
the issue; Salem isn't being discussed as a competitor in death tolls.
But I've come to realize that you *do not get* any point about factual truth.
Gwynyth, for your files about "post-modern" attitudes (dis)regarding facts:
Post-modernism's premise that there is no objective reality, and that to
change beliefs is to change reality itself; thus all opinions are equally
good, and only such social processes as majority vote or institutional
approval create any distinction between them. PoMos don't accept the old-
fashioned idea that facts should be established by checking them against
recorded events, rather than merely asserting whatever one wants to assert.
This is why judging a debate by how one likes the styles in which debaters
are dressed, or the scent of their colognes ("sniff!"), makes more sense to
them than ascertaining which party has proven its case factually correct.
See http://www.nap.edu/issues/15.4/br_barbiero.htm
Here's an extended quote on the subject:
"If the Emperor is Naked, Then He is Naked:
The Problem with Post-Modernist Thought"
by William J. Matthews, Ph.D., August 8, 1998
http://goinside.com/98/8/emperor.html
In essence, the post-modernist position is that truth is only
relative and has no general application given that said truth is a
mere construction created by a given social context. As Fox (1996)
points out, such a statement even under the most cursory inspection
is paradoxical and falls prey to the same problem as that of our
ancient Cretan friend (whom you will remember told us that all
Cretans are liars). Since truth is only relative and subject to
various prejudices, the statement that "all truths are relative and
have no generalizability" is itself simultaneously relative and
absolute.
As such it offers us no reason to accept it. Relativism makes no
distinction (because for such folks there is none) between objective
verifiable knowledge and superstition (astrology, creationism,
"flat-earthers," to name but a few). It is deeply flawed as an
epistemology. It is, by definition, a direct attack on science,
scientific method, and critical rationality. This view would offer us
no way to distinguish between superstition and verifiable knowledge
and as such is both nonsensical and intellectually dangerous.
Philosopher John Searle points out that the anti-realist (anti-
realism being the epistemological underpinning of the post-modernist
position) confuses the epistemological with the ontological.
Ontological realism is a position virtually everyone takes
automatically, while anti-realism is incoherent. Levitt (1997) simply
states that realism is not so much a formal doctrine as it is the
unspoken ground of all discourse, all attempts at communication
(p.81), Any sincere declarative utterance is an attempt to give a
true account of something assumed to be real.
Thus, when the post-modernist says that science is just one of many
narratives (there implying science to be no more value than a
superstitious belief) he is absolutely stating that science,
scientists, narratives, logical positivism and superstition *exist*
(i.e. have a stable reality independent of any particular knower).
As such, the post-modernist is, malgre lui, as much an ontological
realist as any logical positivist. This is not an insignificant point
to be lightly considered and dismissed.
It speaks to the heart of the matter. [...]
Ultimately post-modernism and its equivalencies (social
constructivism, deconstructivism, etc.) offer nothing. Such a belief
system is nihilistic and not radically dissimilar to that which gave
rise in the past to unpleasant behaviors (e.g., Nazi mythohistorical
notions, Aryan science, etc.) and to current unpleasantness such as
Holocaust deniers (i.e., "since there is no historical fact, the
Holocaust is a (Jewish conspiratorial) narrative" (Crews 1996).
While most folks who would subscribe to post-modernist thought would
not be given to such extremism, the underlying principle of nihilism
remains. Science does not suggest an absolute paradigm, it offers
paradigms and shifts as described by Thomas Kuhn based on internally
consistent theories and falisifiable hypotheses subject to public
experience (empirical data).
[end quote] (and thanks to SAJ for those links and quotes.)
--
Raven | "He who does not bellow the truth when he
| knows the truth makes himself the accomplice
raven @ solaria.sol.net | of liars and forgers." Charles Peguy,
| _Lettre du Provincial_, 21 Decembre 1899
Raven
>> reasonably often, and where we *do* have definitive information. It was
>> a handy example. I was not picking an example I thought might be
>> personally interesting to you - but rather because it was a convenient
>> example, and unlike many other ones that sprung to mind, more likely to
>> come up in Wiccan circles than others.
>
> Nevertheless, when you consider the number of people killed in World Wars,
Irrelevant; Salem isn't being discussed as a competitor in death tolls.
> the Salem Witch trials are *not* major events in global history.
Irrelevant; no such status was claimed.
They are *recorded* events, about which we can determine *facts*, so that
not all statements about them have equal truth values, nor are they all
simply "matters of opinion" such that all opinions are equally good.
> I recognize the Salem Witch Trials' ARWM relevance, but they do not
> constitute a flag to be waved each time somebody is losing in a dialogue.
This restates your earlier smokescreen, "And I recognize that some
witches and Wiccans use the Salem witch trials as an emotional
rallying cry everytime they are losing a dialogue."
But stating that these (or any other examples) are recorded events, about
which many statements can be shown objectively true or objectively false,
is not "an emotional rallying cry". Quite the contrary.
And, far from Gwynyth "losing a dialogue", you are the one losing the point
of this discussion, and apparently that is deliberate, since you persist
despite correction.
Raven
Gale <ga...@futuresouth.com> wrote:
> The claim, advanced by many intellectually lazy relativists, that "it's
> all opinion so one is as good as another" is 1) non-productive and 2)
> defensible only by the same grounds as solipsism is defensible (a system
> with no standards for coherence can arbitrarily ignore all opposition
> and contrary evidence). Persons wishing to know or to understand do not
> make such pointless claims --- they are equivalent to "why am I taking
> this dumb class anyhow?" and not much else.
Post-modernism's premise is that there is no objective reality, and that to
change beliefs is to change reality itself; thus all opinions are equally
good, and only such social processes as majority vote or institutional
approval create any distinction between them. PoMos don't accept the old-
fashioned idea that facts should be established by checking them against
recorded events, rather than merely asserting whatever one wants to assert.
But as I noted before, this involves a self-contradiction: to assert that
all statements are equally true leads to a paradox, one way or the other.
If the claim is phrased as "All statements are false" (or "No statement is
true"), then it applies to itself as well, so *that* claim is false/untrue;
i.e. the claim negates itself, so NOT all statements are false.
If the claim is phrased as "All statements are true" (or "No statement is
false"), then it also applies to its negation -- i.e. the statement must
also be true that "NOT all statements are true" (or "SOME statements are
false") -- so again the claim negates itself.
In the course of negating itself, however, this claim ends up demonstrating
that not all statements are false and not all statements are true, thus
there *is* a difference in truth-value between statements.
Thus, even in pure logic, Post-Modernism can't survive examination.
See http://www.nap.edu/issues/15.4/br_barbiero.htm
--
Raven | "Qui ne guele pas la verite, quand il sait
| la verite, se fait le complice des menteurs
raven @ solaria.sol.net | et des faussaires." Charles Peguy,
Raven
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>> If it's all opinion, then "It's all opinion so one is as good as another"
>> is also an opinion, and a different opinion would be "as good"; that is,
>> the opinion that "NOT all opinions are equally good" would also be valid.
>>
>> In fact, one who holds the first opinion *must agree* that the second is
>> valid, or else he contradicts the first. Thus, while not everyone agrees
>> that all opinions *are* equally good, everyone *does* end up agreeing
>> that "NOT all opinions are equally good" is a valid statement.
>>
>> It's all in logic, all in logic; bless me, what *do* they teach them in
>> these schools? (pace C.S. Lewis... and Lewis Carroll)
>
> Synn scratches her head and raises her hand in class?
>
> So whatever my opinion is, its at least as good as yers? <g,d,r>
<grumble>...never can find a good snow-ballista when you need one...</grumble>
But how very appropriate to the Screwtape Letters discussion, at least to
the sequel, Screwtape Proposes a Toast, and the diabolical-democracy theme
of "I'm As Good As You" (which is truly believed by nobody who says it).
Gale
<snip>
> Gwynyth, for your files about "post-modern" attitudes (dis)regarding facts:
Beautifully stated. Thank you for a very useful summation.
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
original fiction, poetry, Tarot at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Richard Ballard
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Gwynyth <gwy...@polyamory.org> writes:
>>
>>>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>>>I do not understand your criticism, other than recognizing a
>>>>statement that you do not want to associate with individuals
>>>>who disagree with your understanding of history. That is
>>>>your perogative -- no disagreement there.
>>>
>>>I'm not talking about 'my understanding of history' here -
>>>there's some stuff that can be definitively proven and not
>>>proven by existing records, archaeological knowledge, and so
>>>on. Again, I gave the example of the Salem witchcraft trials.
>>>All the court records are still available - I've seen them in
>>>person - and other corroborating evidence is also available.
>>
><snip>
[RB comment: Unfortunate snippage of Richard Ballard's
assertion "You *are* talking about your understanding of
history."]
>>... I can *not* get excited about the Salem witch trials.
>>And I recognize that some witches and Wiccans use the Salem
>>witch trials as an emotional rallying cry everytime they are
>>losing a dialogue.
>
>Richard, it's hard to lose a *dialogue*; did you mean to say
>*argument*?
Dialogue, debate, argument. No need to argue.
>Then do try to keep track of what position was actually being
>*argued*.
>
>Gwynyth didn't say that the Salem witch trials were more
>*exciting* than any other event in history, or that they
>should be so to you.
>
>She said that the *records* of that set of events are still
>available; thus many of the facts are ascertainable with some
>certainty, whenever anyone really wants to know what
>*factually* occurred there.
Her pushing that "hot button" topic [Salem Witch Trials --
let's create an emergency so that we can manage it!!!]
is a predictable ARWM response to controversy.
You disbelieve the existence of predictable responses to
controversy? How about "Honey, a new infant will save our
failing marriage!!!" Or "Honey, if Mother moved in and
provided childcare, I'd have more time and energy to spend
with you!!!"
<major snippage of much irrelevant material>
Gwynyth
> Gwynyth <gwy...@polyamory.org> wrote:
> Rather, please forgive my nitpicking; I just thought that was an interesting
> tidbit of trivia to share with our readers, most of whom won't have known it.
No worries, I'm always fond of language information :)
<snip>
> I think Muntean's criteria were to help distinguish between Wicca and other
> such neopagan religions, who have compatible attitudes but different rituals,
> i.e. ways of practicing "worship" (or whatever word should be used for the
> ceremonial aspect of religion), so that the word "Wicca" wouldn't get applied
> so loosely as to refer to *all* neopagan religions, e.g. Druidism, Asatru....
Yep. And in that usage, it makes a very handy tool indeed, I think.
> > An example from other parts of my life: I'm polyamorous, meaning I have
> > multiple romantic relationship partners.
>
> And just from your photo, it's not suprising; you're quite lovely. Of course
> that's not a criterion for polyamory, but no doubt it draws many suitors.
*blush* Oh, thank you! And may you have much happiness together with
whomever you wish :)
<snip some more>
> Now I, having a carefree and pragmatic attitude but a nasty suspicious mind,
> wonder why any personal choice needs to be justified in such grandiloquent
> social-philosophical terms. "It works for us, so far" ought to be enough.
>
> "It is the Divine Will that you should..." or "For the Good of Humanity,
> you should..." makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck, no matter
> whether it ends with "... make me your leader" or "... go to bed with me".
*nod* I tend to feel exactly the same way. If it works, it works. If you
need power or justification handed down from on high somehow to make it
work, there may well be something wrong with your reasoning or that
needs to be addressed.
<futher snipping of interesting stuff, since I want to post this before
I need to leave for work, and would mostly be saying "You make sense
here.">
> Hmmmm. What about someone who takes joy in life and in living things and
> in the sheer beauty of the universe, but who feels no urge to give it all a
> *human* face, no need to anthropomorphize what has its own form and pattern?
>
> As an atheist with that attitude, a UU-Humanist, I'd really like to know.
>
> (Though I'm not and have never been a Wiccan.)
I think for me (and just speaking for myself here), that it depends on
whether or not one recognises that there is some sort of power outside
oneself at all or not, with some potential for deliberate choice as an
option, even if the option isn't exercised often.
I don't particularly care about what *form* someone thinks that take. (I
mean, I have pretty strong opinions about the form when it comes to my
own life, but other people see and experience things differently.)
Non-human face, etc, wouldn't work well for me (because it directly
contradicts some of my own experiences, and I'm sort of unwillling to do
that without good reason, even allowing for the fact that the
experiences are quite certaintly tinted by my beliefs in the first
place) but there's a difference for me between 'There's no greater power
out there at all' and 'There's a very amorphous something out there, but
I don't feel a need to worship or anthropomorphise it.'
If that makes any sense.
--
Gwynyth * gwy...@polyamory.org * http://www.polyamory.org/~gwynyth
Daven
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:14:46 CST, ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
>
> >Gale <ga...@futuresouth.com> wrote:
> >> Richard Ballard wrote:
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>> "I don't approve of your Wiccan Tradition" is an acceptable statement.
> >>> "Your Wiccan Tradition is not valid" is *NOT* an acceptable statement.
> >>> <snip>
> >
> >It seems any Wiccan Tradition that does not think all Traditions valid would,
> >by Richard's rule, therefore not be valid itself. But then Richard's rule
> >would be calling *that* Tradition not valid, which (by his rule) would mean
> >that Richard's rule *itself* would not be valid. Hmmm, self-contradiction.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> The claim, advanced by many intellectually lazy relativists, that "it's
> >> all opinion so one is as good as another" is 1) non-productive and 2)
> >> defensible only by the same grounds as solipsism is defensible...
> >
> >If it's all opinion, then "It's all opinion so one is as good as another"
> >is also an opinion, and a different opinion would be "as good"; that is,
> >the opinion that "NOT all opinions are equally good" would also be valid.
> >
> >In fact, one who holds the first opinion *must agree* that the second is
> >valid, or else he contradicts the first. Thus, while not everyone agrees
> >that all opinions *are* equally good, everyone *does* end up agreeing
> >that "NOT all opinions are equally good" is a valid statement.
> >
> >It's all in logic, all in logic; bless me, what *do* they teach them in
> >these schools? (pace C.S. Lewis... and Lewis Carroll)
Okay, massive deja vu here. Didn't we have this discussion about a
year and a half ago?
Daven
Gale
> <snip>
>
> Her pushing that "hot button" topic [Salem Witch Trials --
> let's create an emergency so that we can manage it!!!]
> is a predictable ARWM response to controversy.
>
> You disbelieve the existence of predictable responses to
> controversy? How about "Honey, a new infant will save our
> failing marriage!!!" Or "Honey, if Mother moved in and
> provided childcare, I'd have more time and energy to spend
> with you!!!"
>
In my viewpoint you are trolling, that is deliberately attempting to
provoke emotional responses by offering inappropriate accusations. In
this case, it appears to me that you are "picking on" another poster in
an attempt to discourage her from posting.
The Salem Witch Trials *are* an appropriate topic in this newsgroup.
The next such patently false accusation directed at an on-topic poster
will result in my attempting to convince the rest of the moderating body
that the perpetrator is, indeed, trolling, and should be removed from
the pre-ap list.
Shez
Fenris <nos...@emptymind.com> writes
>In article <vjRR2yC6...@oldcity.demon.co.uk>, Shez
><sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I believe he needs help, psychiatric help to allow him to get over this
>>period in his life, I don't believe he should be imprisoned for years,
>>or Killed. That would be barbaric
>
>I agree with your assessment. What you need to know is that Americans
>would rather punish than rehabilitate, as if abusing those who have,
>mostly, already been hideously abused is going to accomplish anything
>positive. We refuse to confront the difference between consensual and
>nonconsensual crime, in the context of a free, democratic society iwth a
>commitment to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and separation of
>church and state. And as I recall we have the highest percentage of
>citizens incarcerated in the first world.
>
>Blessings,
>Terry
>
One of the reasons I don't believe in The official murder of criminals,
is the fact that so many murderers have been hung, gassed, or
electrocuted and later proved innocent.
Their have been several cases in Britain that were obvious miscarriages
of justice, and we have not hung anyone in years. The death penalty is
illegal here and in Europe.
Sending people to prison when they are obviously mentally ill or
brainwashed is a miscarriage of justice to, If they are dangerous they
should not be in prison, But a secure mental facility,
If he is sent to a mental facility, he could get treatment and they
might also get some idea of how he was recruited, what persuasion was
used, and how deep the persuasion was planted.
I have never seen a murder victim brought back from the dead by
officially murdering the criminal, But I have seen innocent men killed
by courts who could have been proved innocent with more time and
research. If an innocent man or woman dies, it means the original
murderer has killed two people, one with the consent of his government
and the court system.
Gwynyth
> In article <7d8764ba.02012...@posting.google.com>,
> ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
> >She said that the *records* of that set of events are still
> >available; thus many of the facts are ascertainable with some
> >certainty, whenever anyone really wants to know what
> >*factually* occurred there.
>
> Her pushing that "hot button" topic [Salem Witch Trials --
> let's create an emergency so that we can manage it!!!]
> is a predictable ARWM response to controversy.
Erm. No. Would you please listen to why I picked that example? I picked
that example because:
a) it is an event for which we have good primary source documentation,
and where that primary source material is actually pretty available to
the layman (at least in the US)
b) an event that I'm reasonably familiar with (because, gee, I grew up
30 miles from Salem, and it turned up several times in my history and
literature classes over the years, even without the paper I chose to do
on it.)
c) because the subject material was reasonably likely to be familiar to
people here.
d) because it is a subject on which I know people have misrepresented
the material, and where people here would be more likely to know about
that misrepresentation. (i.e. it is a subject where the kind of
disagreement under discussion existed)
And e) the subject matter was actually on topic for this discussion.
Now, I *could* have chosen any number of other topics, potentially. But
the Salem trials were the first one that came to mind which I felt
people here would be reasonably likely to be aware of, reasonably aware
of the misrepresentations of fact, and which I didn't have to do a whole
lot of research to remind myself of the details. (I don't mind research,
but I did have other stuff I needed to do the evening I picked the
example.) In other words, it was a suitable example, and one which
wouldn't take me a lot of time to prepare.
When I'm doing my research on my own time, and fit into the rest of my
life, you get the examples I feel like using. If you don't like them,
well, ok. Don't read them. Or if you want different examples that would
require further research on my part, you could either ask nicely or
offer some reason for me to do that research.
Implying that I chose that example because I wished to 'push a hot
button as a reply to controversy' is inaccurate. It does not incline me
towards continuing the discussion or offering alternative examples.
However, if you want a few other potential examples, here are a few.
Bear in mind that it was necessary for my example to involve some
controversy or disagreement to illustrate my point - stuff that everyone
agreed on would not make a good illustrative example in this case.
1) How Richard III was viewed by his contemporaries, given the surviving
sources both from the time he was King, and after Henry took over.
2) The actual details of what led up to the Boston Massacre, and the
events leading directly to it. (Which is not what most people think or
entirely what turns up in the history books, unless they've looked at it
in some detail, despite lots of eyewitness accounts which agree with
each other.)
3) Or, if you *really* want a hot button issue, Holocaust revisionism.
Viable examples I thought at the time from Wiccan sources tended to be a
bit more obscure - I'd need to do a bit more research to feel
comfortable using them as a basic example, to start with, and it was
more likely that other people reading here might be unfamiliar with the
details.
However, I think this is likely to be my last reply to this bit of
thread. If you don't believe my reasons for chosing the examples I did,
there isn't much more that can be productively said in this bit of
conversation.
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>One of the reasons I don't believe in The official murder of criminals,
>is the fact that so many murderers have been hung, gassed, or
>electrocuted and later proved innocent.
<snip>
Good comments, Shez. There's some more on the issue at:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
It is estimated to cost over $2 million more to execute someone than
to imprison them for life, due to the legal costs of trials and
appeals. Even with the current lengthy process, some wrongful
executions of innocents still occur. One of the reasons for this is
over-zealous law enforcement officials, sometimes with racism involved
in there too. Also, the crime rate was higher (in 1999) in death
penalty states (5.5 murders per 100,000 population) than in non-dp
states (3.6). That's about a 3:2 ratio, or 50% higher. Presumably,
this is because the death penalty encourages more violence, so it's
actually the reverse of the intended deterrent effect.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
><grin> Thinking of hasty judgments, I remember trying to get Diana to
>visit my UU church (First Unitarian, Milwaukee) with me, after her CAW
>Nest disintegrated.
What's CAW? Does the W = Wicca?
>Having a religious community had meant a lot to her, and she'd tried
>for years to get the Nest involved in larger community affairs, so I
>thought she'd be a good fit with the UUs. But she refused every
>time I invited her,
I'd have gone and checked out the UU church. Sounds very interesting.
My beliefs are somewhere in-between Wicca and UU, I think.
<interesting story snipped>
>> There's a big difference between quick assumptions that I make in order
>> to determine whether to bother reading further, and a thorough review.
>> I had only given Singer's book the former. It does sound like it might
>> be worth another look.
>
>I'd be interested in seeing your comments, if and when you do read it.
Cool, I'll let you know if I do at some stage.
>The BATF doesn't go after psychopathology or fundamentalism; in fact, law
>enforcement officers tend toward conservative Christianity themselves.
Yeah, unfortunately. What I meant was that maybe the authorities
wanted to obscure the fact that David Koresh's beliefs quite closely
resembled other forms of fundamentalist Christianity. I might be
barking up the wrong tree here, though.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Raven
>> in the sheer beauty of the universe, but who feels no urge to give it all a
>> *human* face, no need to anthropomorphize what has its own form and pattern?
>>
>> As an atheist with that attitude, a UU-Humanist, I'd really like to know.
>>
>> (Though I'm not and have never been a Wiccan.)
>
> I think for me (and just speaking for myself here), that it depends on
> whether or not one recognises that there is some sort of power outside
> oneself at all or not,
Well, I'm not a solipsist. All *sorts* of powers exist outside me/you/us.
Including, for just one example, other human beings. Or, for another,
nonhuman beings who have sentience and compassion, sometimes even for us
(two kinds of examples: http://www.epcomm.com/fmbr/editoral/bintajua.htm );
or who lack either or both of those qualities. We might never interact with
some such beings, never even know they exist, which is a separate matter from
whether they *do* exist. And then there are, not *organisms* like us, but
*systems* (a category of which organisms are only a subset) like ecosystems
and weather systems, or even the Earth's biosphere as a whole -- which may
very well react to what we do to them, possibly with major effects upon us.
Or the Sun, about which I said (to Matthew Vincent on 10/29/02):
| Yes, it is beautiful, and grand. Consider also the sincere gratitude that
| we should feel for the light and warmth the Sun gives us without charge,
| for the ability it gives us to see, for the oxygen it lets plants produce
| through photosynthesis, for the power it gives our solar power panels,
| for "pumping" our planet's air so that we have wind and weather, for the
| fact that Earth itself isn't an eternally dark lifeless lump of frozen rock.
|
| Don't you now feel like greeting it every morning with a song of praise?
<news:7d8764ba.01102...@posting.google.com>
So, yes, there *are* powers outside us. We don't make the universe up.
Alan Watts, in "The Book", uses the image of a vortex (like a whirlwind
or an eddy in a stream) as expressing the nature of our lives -- a brief
pattern into which matter is swept up before being scattered again, never
to repeat that *particular* pattern. We are not the matter that composes us,
but the patterns it forms. Yet there are other patterns all around us; and
we ourselves are part of a larger pattern, which in turn is part of larger
patterns; and we also have patterns within us that have patterns within them;
so the *scale* of all these patterns stretches both upward and downward --
and many of them both predate and outlive the patterns that we call *us*.
Likewise I have used the repeated metaphor of *dance*, the dance of our lives
interacting with the dance of others: the background preceding us influences
how we dance; the consequences of our actions linger on after us to influence
the dance of others; so in a way our own dance has always been going on, and
always will, long before we were born and long after we die.
> with some potential for deliberate choice as an option,
> even if the option isn't exercised often.
Every time I do or say or write anything, I can make it kind or cruel,
thoughtful or thoughtless. I may make that decision without thinking,
for instance by sheer habit, but it is my *choice* each and every time.
> I don't particularly care about what *form* someone thinks that takes.
> (I mean, I have pretty strong opinions about the form when it comes to
> my own life, but other people see and experience things differently.)
>
> Non-human face, etc, wouldn't work well for me (because it directly
> contradicts some of my own experiences, and I'm sort of unwillling to do
> that without good reason, even allowing for the fact that the
> experiences are quite certaintly tinted by my beliefs in the first
> place) but there's a difference for me between 'There's no greater power
> out there at all' and 'There's a very amorphous something out there, but
> I don't feel a need to worship or anthropomorphise it.'
>
> If that makes any sense.
Sure. Well, here's something I posted originally in response to a question,
and perhaps it will suffice to answer "what *form* [I think] that takes."
|> I am trying to establish a relationship with Goddess, but I don't exactly
|> know how at this point. I'm handicapped in a big way. Much pagan thought
|> makes a great deal of sense to me but I'm still handicapped by the cults I
|> was in. I would love to understand the Goddess as a spiritual being. I
|> have read enough books to choke a horse; now I need/want some actual
|> experience...but those old bugaboos keep popping up.
|
| Don't sweat the theoretical theology. Spend some time just living.
|
| Dance. Dance in crowds, with friends, in pairs, or alone. Find a
| Celtic ceilidh (KAY-lee) somewhere, and learn its folk dances. Or
| watch "Zorba the Greek" and imitate the steps. Or do Tai Ch'i Ch'uan.
| Dance until you feel the energy running through you like fire. Place
| your hand upon your chest, over your beating heart, and say to yourself:
| "This too is alive. This too is divine."
|
| Sit and hold a cat or a dog, or a child, or a friend, or a lover, warm
| against you, until they sleep at peace. Feel their breathing, and say:
| "This too is alive. This too is divine."
|
| Walk among the plants of a field or forest, park or backyard garden,
| watching them drink in the sun -- and again in moonlight or starlight,
| hearing small animals calling out to each other, prolific life unseen,
| until you realize how filled with activity, with sometimes desperate
| attempts to find (and not become) food, this "still life" really is.
| Lie on the grass, or wade into the pond or stream, and say:
| "This too is alive. This too is divine."
|
| Look out sometimes, out and up, to the sun and the moon and the stars.
| Marvel at the scale, the sheer inconceivable size, of our universe, and
| the equally incomprehensible scale of the thing we call "time". Say:
| "This too is alive. This too is divine."
|
| After that, read any book in your stack. Or none of them. Whatever.
Here was part of another reply to another post:
| ... and even when your body's old, and winter winds blow bitter cold,
| then over hearthfire's welcome heat you'll lean, and from that fireside seat
| your voice will rise to bless the flame; then, rocking gently, call the name
| of all you worship, all you love, all life on earth, all light above.
|
| This too is dance. This too is song.
|
| In all of these you dance along
| with everyone who lived upon the earth -- no matter if they're gone,
| their dance continues -- and when you are gone, your dance continues, too.
|
| Let those with wit to see the rhyme within my words, see within time
| just such a pattern hidden deep: within the pendulum's slow sweep,
| within all fate, within all chance; for all of time is but a dance.
-- Raven | , "Y Gwir yn erbyn y Byd." (Welsh)
| "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil." (Irish)
raven @ solaria.sol.net | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
baird
<snip>
> <grumble>...never can find a good snow-ballista when you need
> one...</grumble>
Well, the Silverdragon pops in once in a while to srp. You might ask
him if you could borrow it....
Blessed be,
Baird
baird
<snip>
> What's CAW? Does the W = Wicca?
Church of All Worlds, founded by Otter (later Oberon, IIRC) Zell (and I
think I read recently that it's something else entirely, now) to honor
precepts found in Bob Heinlein's STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND.
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
probably summarizing too completely, again....
Matthew Vincent
>>If it's all opinion, then "It's all opinion so one is as good as another"
>>is also an opinion, and a different opinion would be "as good"; that is,
>>the opinion that "NOT all opinions are equally good" would also be valid.
>>
>>In fact, one who holds the first opinion *must agree* that the second is
>>valid, or else he contradicts the first. Thus, while not everyone agrees
>>that all opinions *are* equally good, everyone *does* end up agreeing
>>that "NOT all opinions are equally good" is a valid statement.
Good call. Relativism is not an internally consistent theory.
"According to my culture, the Saudi Arabian culture's theory that the
Earth is flat is equally likely to be accurate".
"According to my culture, cultural relativism is the correct ethical
theory, and so female genital mutilation is an acceptable practice as
long as it's accepted by the culture that practices it".
In neither case does the relativist's argument actually state anything
about whether the epistemic and ethical claims concerned are actually
correct in reality. The relativist can only make claims about what the
relativist's culture believes to be correct. Of course, even claims
about what a culture believes can be contested, since beliefs vary
between individuals. They can also be measured by a survey.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Synnoveah J Cooke
Absolutely.
Yowie
news:1f6hpgr.switpiliqunsN%ba...@newstaff.com...
> Matthew Vincent <war...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What's CAW? Does the W = Wicca?
>
> Church of All Worlds, founded by Otter (later Oberon, IIRC) Zell (and I
> think I read recently that it's something else entirely, now) to honor
> precepts found in Bob Heinlein's STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND.
Which I found to be a very *odd* book, interesting, but odd.
I did the free Druidry101 course (when it was still witchcraft101) offered
by The Order of Mithral StarRefomed Druids of North America. The Order of
Mithral Star is sort of an off-shoot of CAW splitting off after some sort of
internal conflict (or so I understand). The course goes through druidry (or
witchcraft as it was for me) based on the ideas of Robert Heinlein in
_Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land_ as epressed through his character Mike Smith, a
man raised by Martians.
The main ideas is that *everyone* is God, hence the common greeting "Thou
art God", and the communal (polyamourous) living arrangements between water
siblings (a deep relationship, much like a marriage but more, err, thorough)
in which a watersibling of mine is *by definition* a watersibling of yours
if you are also a water sibling of mine, even if you had never actually
shared water with my friend (concatenive assemblage). Basically, the Order
of Mithral Star appear to beleieve that any pleasure is a good thing, as
long as it is not addiction or causes harm to another or to oneself. I have
no grief with that philosophy. Robert Heinlien does a lot better job at
explaining the philosophy than I do, and Mithral Star has taken this basic
philosophy and has mixed in their own semi-celtic ideas to make their own
'religion' for want of a better word.
I'd recommend that people take up the offer of the free course. If nothing
else, it does make you think deeply about your basic assumptions about life,
and to compare their ideas with your own. The freely accepted me into the
course knowing that I was Christian, and when I finished it, offered me the
self-inititiation ceremony. I eventually declined after thinking about it
some more, but they were fine with that as well. Their ideas, while not
repulsive to me, are not the sort of thing I would find particularly
satisfying, but nevertheless, the course did give me a greater understanding
of where my own path lies, and for that I am grateful.
Yowie
Richard Ballard
gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <7d8764ba.02012...@posting.google.com>,
>>ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
>
>>>She said that the *records* of that set of events are still
>>>available; thus many of the facts are ascertainable with some
>>>certainty, whenever anyone really wants to know what
>>>*factually* occurred there.
>>
>>Her pushing that "hot button" topic [Salem Witch Trials --
>>let's create an emergency so that we can manage it!!!]
>>is a predictable ARWM response to controversy.
>
>Erm. No. Would you please listen to why I picked that example?
>I picked that example because:
Another generic hot button example? "Don't argue with
me, I'm your mother." You shut up with the thought that
"Mother isn't always correct. One less issue to discuss."
I repeat: The Salem Witch Trials are a prime example of an
ARWM "hot button". (Losing a dialogue? Salem Witch Trials.
Let's make an emergency so that we can control the
situation.) Audience-specific issues work best. *Thousands*
of Cambodian bodies left littering the countryside in
post-Vietnam-War Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge "educators"
(deliberate sarcasm) seems irrelevant to ARWM readers.
The *hundreds* effected by the Salem Witch Trials do not make
this event a cornerstone of global history. And I am totally
desensitized to the Salem Witch Trial issue due to its
***continuous overuse***.
I am not interested in the history of the Salem Witch Trials,
and I am not interested in arcane issues. Dialogues are won
by common sense and knowledge of *major* events, not by arcane
trivia. And psychological mental manipulation (with resulting
semi-voluntary physical control and/or potential PERMANENT
emotional damage) are the *only* cult issues worth discussing.
Skeptical? Recreational drugs make One susceptible to
"manipulation".
Several days ago I asked Baird two questions:
1) Baird commented that in some cases an initiate leaving a
Tradition amicably prior to completing the "year-and-a-day"
initiation period incurs a penalty. I asked if this does not
make the initiation period a "de facto" INDENTURE. I also
asked what sort of tangible and intangible penalties might be
levied.
2) Baird commented that when somebody leaves a Tradition
*unamicably*, Witch Wars sometimes result. I asked what
penalties typically result from Witch Wars.
To my knowledge nobody replied to my questions. I believe
these are common sense, *major* issue questions, and that the
issues involved are *more important* (and more relevant to
cults) than the events of the Salem Witch Trials 300 years ago.
<big snip>
>However, I think this is likely to be my last reply to this
>bit of thread. If you don't believe my reasons for chosing
>the examples I did, there isn't much more that can be
>productively said in this bit of conversation.
M-y 0-p-in-i-ons.
Richard Ballard
In article <1f6h4ji.1t1lsvq1q6n0goN%gwy...@polyamory.org>,
gwy...@polyamory.org (Gwynyth) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <7d8764ba.02012...@posting.google.com>,
>>ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) writes:
>
>>>She said that the *records* of that set of events are still
>>>available; thus many of the facts are ascertainable with some
>>>certainty, whenever anyone really wants to know what
>>>*factually* occurred there.
>>
>>Her pushing that "hot button" topic [Salem Witch Trials --
>>let's create an emergency so that we can manage it!!!]
>>is a predictable ARWM response to controversy.
>
>Erm. No. Would you please listen to why I picked that example?
>I picked that example because:
Another generic hot button example? "Don't argue with
$$$ <big snip> $$$
>However, I think this is likely to be my last reply to this
>bit of thread. If you don't believe my reasons for chosing
>the examples I did, there isn't much more that can be
>productively said in this bit of conversation.
M-y 0-p-in-i-ons.
Richard Ballard
Fenris
(Matthew Vincent) wrote:
>Good call. Relativism is not an internally consistent theory.
>
>"According to my culture, the Saudi Arabian culture's theory that the
>Earth is flat is equally likely to be accurate".
>
>"According to my culture, cultural relativism is the correct ethical
>theory, and so female genital mutilation is an acceptable practice as
>long as it's accepted by the culture that practices it".
>
>In neither case does the relativist's argument actually state anything
>about whether the epistemic and ethical claims concerned are actually
>correct in reality. The relativist can only make claims about what the
>relativist's culture believes to be correct.
True, which is why it is important to distinguish between nonconsensual
and consensual behavior, that which harms another and that which does not.
>Of course, even claims
>about what a culture believes can be contested, since beliefs vary
>between individuals. They can also be measured by a survey.
Anthropologists distinguish between the ideal and real values of a culture
and between manifest and latent functions (the reasons Natives give for
behavior versus the actual effects of the behavior).
The recognition that values are relative to culture is, I think, very
useful for begininng to perceive the difference between spirituality and
religion (some would say "religion" versus "creed") cutting through the
religious dogmas that separate us from the Divine.
Blessings,
Terry
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Shez
<ga...@futuresouth.com> writes
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> Her pushing that "hot button" topic [Salem Witch Trials --
>> let's create an emergency so that we can manage it!!!]
>> is a predictable ARWM response to controversy.
>>
>> You disbelieve the existence of predictable responses to
>> controversy? How about "Honey, a new infant will save our
>> failing marriage!!!" Or "Honey, if Mother moved in and
>> provided childcare, I'd have more time and energy to spend
>> with you!!!"
>>
>
>In my viewpoint you are trolling, that is deliberately attempting to
>provoke emotional responses by offering inappropriate accusations. In
>this case, it appears to me that you are "picking on" another poster in
>an attempt to discourage her from posting.
>
>The Salem Witch Trials *are* an appropriate topic in this newsgroup.
>
>The next such patently false accusation directed at an on-topic poster
>will result in my attempting to convince the rest of the moderating body
>that the perpetrator is, indeed, trolling, and should be removed from
>the pre-ap list.
>
Personally I agree with Gale, I blocked his posts, but the amount of
people who post answers to him, getting more and more irritated is
becoming a problem.
baird
<snip>
> 1) Baird commented that in some cases an initiate leaving a
> Tradition amicably prior to completing the "year-and-a-day"
> initiation period incurs a penalty. I asked if this does not
> make the initiation period a "de facto" INDENTURE. I also
> asked what sort of tangible and intangible penalties might be
> levied.
Did I? Odd. I'm almost certain I wrote that *no* penalty is incurred.
If not, that's certainly what I *meant* to write.
Blessed be,
Baird
Richard Ballard
question incorrectly. Please allow me to rephrase my
question.
If a Wiccan initiate decides to leave a Tradition *for any
reason* prior to completing the typical "year-and-a-day"
initiation period can penalties be levied? If penalties can
be levied for any reason, what are examples of those
penalties? If the initiate can not afford the penalties,
does not that make the "year-and-a-day" initiation period
a form of INDENTURE?
My earlier message (retrieved from my archives) is quoted
in toto below.
In article <1f6inwy.10vxvmca0oxocN%ba...@newstaff.com>,
ba...@newstaff.com (baird) writes:
My original reply (which quotes your original message and
the message ID number) is quoted below -- my archives
are the source:
*****Beginning of previous message*****
Subject: Re: Religious cults
From: rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:28:19 CST
In article <1f6dapr.15eu0ie1vssdpN%ba...@newstaff.com>,
ba...@newstaff.com (Baird Stafford) writes:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Baird- Thank you for the clarification.
>
>>One (answerable?) question: Is there any penalty associated
>>with moving to another Tradition, or with dropping out
>>completely and forming his/her own Tradition?
>
>That, I *think*, depends more on the personalities involved
>than on the Trads proper.
>
>If the parting is amicable - and, in the case of those Trads
>who require a year and a day of study before initiation in
>order for the applicant to make up his or her mind whether
>she or he really *wants* to do this, that seems to be the more
>likely scenario - then no penalty is involved.
If a Wiccan novice amicably leaving a Tradition *prior* to
completing the "year and a day of study before initiation"
is *penalized*, does not make the "year and a day" a period
of de facto *indenture*?
>Splits made in anger, however, take on a whole new dimension;
>and Witch Wars have frequently resulted in the past.
Will you please provide examples of (tangible/intangible)
penalties resulting from past "Witch Wars"?
M-y 0-p-in-i-ons.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "The Immortals" by Andrew Neiderman
*****End of previous message*****
baird
<snip>
> If a Wiccan initiate decides to leave a Tradition *for any
> reason* prior to completing the typical "year-and-a-day"
> initiation period can penalties be levied?
Since the answer to the first question also answers the rest, I shall
content myself with the one:
No.
No Wiccan Trad of my acquaintance has the kind of police powers required
to track someone down and "make 'em pay." Nor are we the
Inquisition....
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
Brock Ulfsen
baird wrote:
I think I know where RB may be coming from on this. Your reply did imply
the possibility of penalty in some trads. I suspect RB assumed that
penalty was in some concrete sense, rather than loosing "face" with the
group they left, especially if they did so in negative circumstances,
not to mention the loss of credibility that may accompany such a parting
of the ways.
And then there are WitchWars and rumors, social "costs" that may be
incurred...
....Brock.
--
A wolf in your inbox.
An identity,
as illusory as ASCII.
Wood Avens
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:48:51 CST, ba...@newstaff.com (baird) wrote:
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If a Wiccan initiate decides to leave a Tradition *for any
>> reason* prior to completing the typical "year-and-a-day"
>> initiation period can penalties be levied?
>
>Since the answer to the first question also answers the rest, I shall
>content myself with the one:
>
>No.
And as Ronald Hutton says somewhere in Triumph of the Moon, Wiccan
covens are like lobster-pots in reverse: very hard to get into, very
easy to leave ...
BB
Wood Avens
spamtrap: Remove number to reply
..
Té Rowan
> > Tradition amicably prior to completing the "year-and-a-day"
> > initiation period incurs a penalty. I asked if this does not
> > make the initiation period a "de facto" INDENTURE. I also
> > asked what sort of tangible and intangible penalties might be
> > levied.
>
> Did I? Odd. I'm almost certain I wrote that *no* penalty is incurred.
> If not, that's certainly what I *meant* to write.
You wrote what you meant to write. I checked. Not your fault he doesn't
have enough stack to parse your statement.
But what does he want hot, juicy gossip on witch wars for?
Té Rowan (reyn...@binet.is)
Jackdaw
"Daven" <da...@priest.com> wrote in message
news:120e4190.02012...@posting.google.com...
I think he must have accidentally turned to the wrong page in his "One
hundred ways to get people to notice me" book!
--
Dicon ... A Cornish Jackdaw
Maker of Ambries and sausages.
Collector of facts, trivia & bright twinkly things.
And skulls and bizzare items and...........
Matthew Vincent
>No Wiccan Trad of my acquaintance has the kind of police
>powers required to track someone down and "make 'em pay."
Yeah, and at least *Wiccans* don't believe in Hell. ;)
Blessed be,
Matthew
heavy...@thunderstar.net
w(V> What's CAW? Does the W = Wicca?
Actually, no. The "W" in CAW stands for Worlds...as in Church of
All
Worlds.
ЪДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДї
і E-Mail: hme...@thurston.com і
ЪДДДБДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДБДДДї
і via TransX: lmdme...@thurston.com і
АДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДДЩ
Le Maison De Metal BBS Lacey, WA.
.... Oxymoron: Football scholarship
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30