Talking about religion in a SCA context....
Joseph Dunphy
No apologies will be offered, for the fact that I spoke of religion on
these threads. For I neither praised nor condemned any religion, and one
will search in vain for any attempt on my part to convert the reader to
one faith or another, or even any mention of what my own faith is.
It would be disingenuous in the exteme, though, to expect me to accept a
rule, that in the course of discussing what came up, I could not mention
something that was so basic a part of the formative process that lead to
the issue in question, as the religious upbringing of the person
mentioned. To excise the mention of that from the text, would be to excise
all understanding from the discussion. Which, indeed, is the true purpose
of the rigid application of such "rules", which seek to thwart the
expression of those inconvenient points, to which the makers of the rules
have no convincing answers, at the moment.
One thing that one should be clear on, though, is that the practice of a
religion, and the religion itself, are two very different creatures
altogether. The practical Christianity, which one can't discuss Western
society in any sort of sensible fashion without bringing up, may, at the
moment, be in support of the sort of manipulative behavior described;
but Christianity, the religion, expressly forbids it. Unless someone would
care to voice support for Hypocrisy as a way of life, one must acknowledge
that if one wishes to espouse a religion, one should be ready to practice
it. The gap between belief and practice, after a point, becomes something
of a scandal, in any faith.
As for whether or not someone should follow a particular faith, I have not
and will not comment. If there is one lesson that comes out of this, it is
that each religion seems to need the others around, as counterweights to
its own worst tendencies, in practice, lest it become a monstrous
caricature of itself. Given this, I would be loath to evangelise on
matters of theology. Ethical issues, though, are a different matter
entirely.
_____________________________________________________________________________
My filter has been sent to intercept incoming e-mail, so please
don't send any. It will be lost, and the work you put into writing
it, will go entirely to waste. Please respond by followup instead.
I hope that this causes no inconvenience. While you, yourself, are
probably a perfectly reasonable and intelligent individual, I have
found that those who answer to neither description, are extremely
fond of sending abusive "private e-mail" to people who they will
never have to face in person. As a personal choice, I've decided
to never make it easy for these people to darken my day with their
presence again. Let us see how "courageous" they are, when their
trolling can only be done, where all can see.
____________________________________________________________________________
Trevor Barker
Joseph Dunphy <st...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote
>
> No apologies will be offered, for the fact that I spoke of religion on
> these threads. For I neither praised nor condemned any religion, and one
> will search in vain for any attempt on my part to convert the reader to
> one faith or another, or even any mention of what my own faith is.
>
> It would be disingenuous in the exteme, though, to expect me to accept a
> rule, that in the course of discussing what came up, I could not mention
> something that was so basic a part of the formative process that lead to
> the issue in question, as the religious upbringing of the person
I'm an atheist, but my personae are both (Roman) Catholics. This causes
*me* no problems, as I'm of the opinion that history is the only proper
place for religion.
At 12th Night Revel, in conversation with two Tudor ladies who claimed
Anglo-Saxon ancestry, I stated (in persona) that God was on the side of "us
Normans", since (a) the Pope was on our side, and he is God's voice on
Earth, and (b) He delayed sending winds blowing toward England until after
the Norwegians had weakened the English.
Now, my comments might possibly have been impolite (though in character),
but was I evangelising? (The ladies may have been Protestants?) If I was
evangelising, it must have been solely "in persona", as I'm an atheist "in
the mundane" and have no wish to convert anyone to any religion.
Any comment?
Trevor.
(Yes, I'm willing to apologise to the ladies if I offended them - it was
not my intention to do so.)
--
Opinions expressed are mine and not those of Logica
sheriff "at" weylea "dot" demon.co.uk