Wicca/New-Age/"Pagan"- watch... [Archive]

ComradeMan

29th October 2011, 21:45

i dont know why dont you ask the author of the website? i would imagine that wiccans realized that shit was whack and has nothing to do with their religion and ostracized them

If you can call "wiccan" a religion... that is, but anyway- there's a lot of sinister stuff that goes on I'm afraid...

http://www.pagan-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=20402.0

whats that really popular book where they smash babies against rocks and entire cities are destroyed for being kind of gay?

Except we are not talking about that, which we are reminded of over and over and over again by "new-agers" and so-called "pagans"----:rolleyes: Except what you are referring to as well hardly proposes itself nor should be proposed as a kind of "manual" for life either. But anyway, what's that got to do with this? I notice a typical "pagan" response here... instantly accuse Judaeo-Christians- well this thread isn't about Judaeo-Christians and their "bullshit", it's about wiccan/"pagan" types and theirs... deal with it. The Bible does indeed describe some pretty nasty stuff but it doesn't say you should go out and do it either- and it was written a long time ago. Just because David slew his tens of thousands doesn't mean the Bible says "hey, go out and slay tens of thousands of people"- a big chunk of the Bible deals with the "history" of the Israelities, which like most ancient peoples, was full of wars and fighting- that doesn't mean it encourages it.

I sometimes wonder about these so-called new-agers/"pagans"... what do they do? Ignoring the really creepy stuff, inventing history to justify why they hate "x-tians" etc and writing a lot of shit so they can sell shitty books to gullible teenagers. :rolleyes:

bcbm

29th October 2011, 21:58

If you can call "wiccan" a religion... that is, but anyway- there's a lot of sinister stuff that goes on I'm afraid...

http://www.pagan-network.org/forums/index.php?topic=20402.0

um that guy isn't a wiccan and it sounds like his 'religion' was an excuse to justify his child-rape, not the other way around. and i think wicca ranks pretty low on the list of people using it to justify fucked up shit

Except we are not talking about that, which we are reminded of over and over and over again by "new-agers" and so-called "pagans"----:rolleyes:

you missed the point. lots of books have disturbing content. most people don't read a book and immediately think 'well thats horrible but since this book says to do it...'

Except what you are referring to as well hardly propses itself nor should be proposed as a kind of "manual" for life either. But anyway, what's that got to do with this? I notice a typical "pagan" response here... instantly accuse Judaeo-Christians- well this thread isn't about Judaeo-Christians and their bullshit, it's about wiccan/"pagan" types and theirs... deal with it.

i'm an atheist. if you are seriously practicing your interpretation of religious rituals 3000 years ago i think you're a moron, but hey do whatever you want. but as long as we're slinging stereotypes, i notice this thread is a typical 'christian' thread where some nonsense most practitioners of wicca don't believe in is touted as being important and then random stories that have nothing to do with wicca are tossed in for good measure. also the lumping all paganism together as one thing so you can rant about it.

I sometimes wonder about these so-called new-agers/"pagans"... what do they do? Ignoring the really creepy stuff, inventing history to justify why they hate "x-tians" etc and writing a lot of shit so they can sell shitty books to gullible teenagers. :rolleyes:

most pagans are like most other religious practitioners. they have their beliefs and they are part of a community that shares their beliefs and values and they worship in their own way. who cares?

and know whats more popular than paganism? creationism. talk about selling shitty books to the gullible.:rolleyes:

ComradeMan

30th October 2011, 09:06

most pagans are like most other religious practitioners. they have their beliefs and they are part of a community that shares their beliefs and values and they worship in their own way. who cares?

It's turned into big business.... take a trip to your local book store, look round the web.

There are indeed genuine people out there but there are also a lot of charlatans, frauds and people who I believe prey on psychologically vulnerable and/or gullible people and people do get hurt or messed up in the head by cults and playing around with various so-called "new-age" spiritualities etc. I'm not talking about the harmless druids going to Stonehenge or dowsers, or the "gypsy" fortune teller at the fair either. I'm also not talking about genuine indigenous traditions and/or people practising their folkloric revivals and such either. This is not meant to be an attack on people just because of their own beliefs. However I do think there are some worrying and sinister currents in a lot of this "new-age" stuff too.

and know whats more popular than paganism? creationism. talk about selling shitty books to the gullible.:rolleyes:

Except a lot of "pagans" etc propose their belief system(s) as a positive alternative to the traditional/mainstream religions. I'm not so sure how accurate your statement is either... again have a look at your local book store, however stop bringing the argument back to Christianity....

i'm an atheist. if you are seriously practicing your interpretation of religious rituals 3000 years ago i think you're a moron,

Why? Out of curiosity...

but hey do whatever you want. but as long as we're slinging stereotypes, i notice this thread is a typical 'christian' thread where some nonsense most practitioners of wicca don't believe in is touted as being important and then random stories that have nothing to do with wicca are tossed in for good measure. also the lumping all paganism together as one thing so you can rant about it..

No one is ranting and this is not a "typical Christian" thread. A "typical Christian thread" would take a theological/spiritual view, quote the Bible and talk of spiritual dangers, the deceptions of Satan and such like. Now, I am not an atheist and I have my own beliefs however I'm not doing that and nor is anyone else- let's keep the argument materialistic. I'm not targettting individual people/groups who have their own belief systems, that's up to them as you say too. However I notice that you can't resist bringing Christianity into the argument can you? Judaeo-Christians and Muslims also get a lot of shit thrown at them for what most practicioners of those religions don't believe in or do... ;) ... but it's okay if it's them, is that it?

Another thing that irritates me in general about a lot of these "new-age" religions is they distort people's views of history big style, these distortions even creep into mainstream perceptions too. I believe that some Native American groups also protested about the misappropriation of their traditions and symbols as well. I knew a guy who had studied with yogis in India and spent years learning ayurvedic medicine and different meditation techniques and he had quite a few interesting things to say about this kind of stuff.

B5C

30th October 2011, 18:43

ComradeMan, who freaking cares if that book is for sale. There are worst books on sale than this pagan book. Let me give you two:

1. http://s3.hubimg.com/u/1543002_f260.jpg The book promotes child abuse because "God Said So"

2. http://cdn.www.carm.org/images/bible6.jpg It caused so much death, persecution, and wars.

Franz Fanonipants

30th October 2011, 18:49

2. http://cdn.www.carm.org/images/bible6.jpg It caused so much death, persecution, and wars.

A book. It causes death, persecution, and wars.

Obv. you are a social democrat because you just fucking failed at mat'l analysis.

Susurrus

30th October 2011, 18:58

IThe Bible does indeed describe some pretty nasty stuff but it doesn't say you should go out and do it either

Oh?

"The priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put in into the water. … And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that brings the curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain. … If she has acted unfaithfully against her husband, … her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children." Numbers 5:17, 24-28

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

"He that sacrificeth unto any god save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20

Proverbs 23:13-14

Do not withhold discipline from a child. If you beat him with a rod, he will not die. If you beat him with the rod, you will save his life from Sheol.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father; or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-- I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her ... He must marry the girl ... He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

Iron Felix

30th October 2011, 19:19

Raping children is not ok when some silly witches do it, but when the Vatican supports it, it's fine.

ComradeMan

30th October 2011, 20:18

Oh?
Numbers 5:17, 24-28
Exodus 22:20
Proverbs 23:13-14
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

Is most of that practised and recommended today? That stuff was written between 2-3000 years ago, as opposed to stuff that is being printed today.
:rolleyes:

Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Two questions: What was meant by witch? I have read it probably meant poisoner/someone who made potions/concoctions. If it does mean "witch" as we understand it, what were they doing that the Israelites found it so abominable?

Raping children is not ok when some silly witches do it, but when the Vatican supports it, it's fine.

Except it's not okay and no one says it's okay and most of the church say it's not okay and it's also in dire contrast to Biblical and Judaeo-Christian teaching, unlike of course what has been alleged about this book in particular.

Now, I see the staggering hypocrisy here.... this thread has nothing to do with Christianity... yet the only arguments that people seem to be coming up with are "What about Xtianity" type tu quoque bullshit.

Susurrus

30th October 2011, 20:23

No one is trying to defend the book. They're just saying "Yeah, it's fucked up, big surprise. Just like x-tianity."

ComradeMan

30th October 2011, 20:33

No one is trying to defend the book. They're just saying "Yeah, it's fucked up, big surprise. Just like x-tianity."

Stop bringing Christianity into the argument. Wtf is it with you people? What would you do if you didn't have Christianity to point to, blame and use as anti-justification? We are all well aware of the failings of many Christians now and historically... funny no one mentions the good things a lot of Christians have done and do... but anyway, this is not a thread about Christianity. :rolleyes:

I also found some stuff in the Satanic Bible that is pretty damn ominous in my opinion.

Leaving the ominous stuff aside, what do you think about people being duped into systems of spirituality that portray themselves as authentic and old and yet in actual fact are not?

Or perhaps people who are psychologically vulnerable being exploited for financial gain?

Or very dubious "new age" medicine and so on?

Or what do you think about indigenous peoples having their authentic spirituality abused in order to sell books and so on?

B5C

30th October 2011, 20:46

A book. It causes death, persecution, and wars.

Obv. you are a social democrat because you just fucking failed at mat'l analysis.

What does being a "social Democrat" have to do about it?

B5C

30th October 2011, 20:48

Stop bringing Christianity into the argument. Wtf is it with you people? What would you do if you didn't have Christianity to point to, blame and use as anti-justification? We are all well aware of the failings of many Christians now and historically... funny no one mentions the good things a lot of Christians have done and do... but anyway, this is not a thread about Christianity. :rolleyes:

So what Christianity is our main target. Christianity is the biggest religion where we live and that religion has major influence over our lives.

CleverTitle

30th October 2011, 21:32

Or perhaps people who are psychologically vulnerable being exploited for financial gain?

I'm not sure where you're going here. This is hardly something exclusive to Wicca or what have you. It is a trait of pretty much every large, substantive organized religion on the planet.

ComradeMan

30th October 2011, 21:40

So what Christianity is our main target. Christianity is the biggest religion where we live and that religion has major influence over our lives.

You've revealed a lot there.... But surely someone who puts Buddhist on their avatar label should not be targetting anyone... I am not targetting anyone who I think is genuine/sincere... ;)

Zukunftsmusik

30th October 2011, 21:45

I'm not sure where you're going here. This is hardly something exclusive to Wicca or what have you. It is a trait of pretty much every large, substantive organized religion on the planet.

This could just as well be applied to something else ComeradeMan said earlier:

I sometimes wonder about these so-called new-agers/"pagans"... what do they do? Ignoring the really creepy stuff, inventing history to justify why they hate "x-tians" etc and writing a lot of shit so they can sell shitty books to gullible teenagers.

Change "New-agers/pagans" to "religious people in general", and tadaaa.

ComradeMan

30th October 2011, 21:48

I'm not sure where you're going here. This is hardly something exclusive to Wicca or what have you. It is a trait of pretty much every large, substantive organized religion on the planet.

But aren't the "old ways" and the "new age" supposed to be against all of that? And are not these the sorts of objections that are often made in defense of these groups and in attack of "mainstream" religions?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th October 2011, 23:21

But aren't the "old ways" and the "new age" supposed to be against all of that?

Are they? Wiccans, not having much of an organised institution of clerics that I know of, represent themselves or whatever relatively small groups they form part of, but don't claim to speak for Wiccans as a whole, unlike the Pope for Catholics, for example.

Most Wiccans, like most Christians and most humans, are decent folks under ordinary circumstances. But unlike Christianity, Wicca lacks a centuries-old sclerotic gang of perverts and their rich protectors, with the ability to squirrel away offenders from justice.

And are not these the sorts of objections that are often made in defense of these groups and in attack of "mainstream" religions?

Mainstream religions make use of excuses and special pleading, just like non-mainstream religions do. What they do is ordained by God or is the Cosmic Path or whatever, they say this in their scriptures for fuck's sake.

The fact that this time it's a Wiccan doing it only shows to highlight the overwhelming absurdity of it all, since we haven't grown up in a society with a fawning and completely undeserved respect for the Wiccan religion.

B5C

31st October 2011, 06:19

You've revealed a lot there.... But surely someone who puts Buddhist on their avatar label should not be targetting anyone... I am not targetting anyone who I think is genuine/sincere... ;)

Being a Buddhist does not ban us from criticizing other philosophies or religions.

ComradeMan

31st October 2011, 10:34

Being a Buddhist does not ban us from criticizing other philosophies or religions.

kshanti see Brahmanavagga, Brahmans (Dhp XXVI).

...

Completely irrelevant points to the discussion. So I suppose the next time someone posts an extremists fundie preacher or hardcore crazy rabbi you'll be pointing out the same things with such magnanimity.

Let's have a look at Garderian Wicca, Gardner being the founding father of this "old" religion in the 1950s and the influences from Alistair Crowley- if you read their writings you'll find a lot of stuff people may find disturbing.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

31st October 2011, 12:11

Completely irrelevant points to the discussion.

Sez you, troll.

So I suppose the next time someone posts an extremists fundie preacher or hardcore crazy rabbi you'll be pointing out the same things with such magnanimity.

What things? There's no excuse for rotten behaviour, least of all to be found in religion. Wiccans get less flak from me because:

1) There aren't a lot of them, relatively speaking

2) Most often when I hear of a Wiccan in the news, they're the victims rather than the aggressors. Yet when Christians make the news, either idiocy or bigotry is often involved on their part.

3) The Wiccan religion commands nowhere near the amount of utterly unwarranted social privilege that Abrahamic religions do.

Let's have a look at Garderian Wicca, Gardner being the founding father of this "old" religion in the 1950s and the influences from Alistair Crowley- if you read their writings you'll find a lot of stuff people may find disturbing.

So what? I find parts of the Bible to be disturbing; never mind the atrocities, Revelations was a complete mindfuck for an imaginative 13-year-old (the first time I read that chapter in full, I believe). But at least I was spared from believing it to be true in any meaningful sense.

ComradeMan

31st October 2011, 13:19

Sez you, troll.

= I can't argue so I'll use ad hominem attacks.

1) There aren't a lot of them, relatively speaking

2) Most often when I hear of a Wiccan in the news, they're the victims rather than the aggressors. Yet when Christians make the news, either idiocy or bigotry is often involved on their part.

3) The Wiccan religion commands nowhere near the amount of utterly unwarranted social privilege that Abrahamic religions do.

I wasn't talking about inidividual wiccans I was talking about the publications and written materials that are put out there.

Learn to read the posts and think about your answer before you open your big virtual mouth.

The rest of your argument is just completely stupid- it's not about who's bigger.

Do you judge everything by how much and what news coverage it gets? You must have a pretty negative view of a lot of things then.... ;)

So what? I find parts of the Bible to be disturbing; never mind the atrocities, Revelations was a complete mindfuck for an imaginative 13-year-old (the first time I read that chapter in full, I believe). But at least I was spared from believing it to be true in any meaningful sense.

We're not talking about the Bible though (and the Bible wasn't written in the 20th-21st century by people claiming to be enlightened etc....)

It's actually hilarious how you can't actually talk about the matter in hand without reverting to diverting attention to Christianity and the Bible....

RGacky3

31st October 2011, 13:52

It's actually hilarious how you can't actually talk about the matter in hand without reverting to diverting attention to Christianity and the Bible....

No its absolutely not divertiing attention, just asking you to be consistant.

Franz Fanonipants

31st October 2011, 15:26

What does being a "social Democrat" have to do about it?

You're not really a marxist, and as such you have no need to actually utilize any sort of dialectical thought or material analysis.

Hence you maintain dumb shit like "WELL THIS BOOK MAKES PEOPLE"

Azraella

31st October 2011, 16:08

...

I'm religious and ÑóẊîöŉ hits the nail on the head. If there is one thing I wish religious people would do in general(and something I can improve on) it's have some gods damned morals. It's one thing to believe that you know the Truth but it's another to be hypocritical, abusive, and shitty and to mangle scripture to justify it.

It's actually hilarious how you can't actually talk about the matter in hand without reverting to diverting attention to Christianity and the Bible....

Let's talk about my holy books then. The Eddas, Havamal, the Sagas... all of it. They were written by men, were historically relevant then, and are filled with justifications for shitty behavior that any sensible society would not tolerate right now. I understand and accept that my ancestors were bloody, violent, and war mongering. However they were products of their time. I don't think it is acceptable to have cults of Odin stab captured people into trees, but I aknowledge that it is a part of the religion's history.

The point is, is that most ancient texts have been used to justify shitty behavior. Most religious people are decent in this regard, they'll never dream of killing another person, breaking their religious rules, and they actually give a shit about others. The fundamentalists and extremists are the ones that tend to become cults of personality and manipulate the truth. If people think that their ability to freely worship or not to worship is being attacked, then religious violence takes root.

B5C

31st October 2011, 19:52

You're not really a marxist, and as such you have no need to actually utilize any sort of dialectical thought or material analysis.

Hence you maintain dumb shit like "WELL THIS BOOK MAKES PEOPLE"

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Strawman-motivational.jpg

B5C

31st October 2011, 20:01

kshanti see Brahmanavagga, Brahmans (Dhp XXVI).

How does patience have to deal with criticizing other philosophies?

Heck the Buddha did criticize Hinduism philosophies.

Franz Fanonipants

31st October 2011, 22:30

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Strawman-motivational.jpg

responding w/a image from the "Freethoughtpedia" is a v. liberal move comrade

B5C

31st October 2011, 22:46

responding w/a image from the "Freethoughtpedia" is a v. liberal move comrade

Another straw man. Should I host a image on imageshack or photobucket if that will make you happy?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st November 2011, 03:26

= I can't argue so I'll use ad hominem attacks.

The one who completely dismisses one of my posts accuses me of being unable to argue? Pot and fucking kettle, troll.

I wasn't talking about inidividual wiccans I was talking about the publications and written materials that are put out there.

Learn to read the posts and think about your answer before you open your big virtual mouth.

What's your point? We already know that religious believers like to write utter crap and have it taken seriously.

The rest of your argument is just completely stupid- it's not about who's bigger.

If more Christians take the Bible seriously than there are even practising Wiccans, then why the fuck should we not be more concered about Christianity?

Do you judge everything by how much and what news coverage it gets? You must have a pretty negative view of a lot of things then.... ;)

No, that was merely an example of why Christianity is the bigger issue - it's social role is overwhelmingly reactionary (and has been throughout history), while the social role of Wicca is trivial because it's a minor cult.

We're not talking about the Bible though (and the Bible wasn't written in the 20th-21st century by people claiming to be enlightened etc....)

It was still written by men, for men. I say men because when the Bible was written, women weren't considered to be fully paid-up members of the human species. Another reason to toss the Abrahamic religions into the trashcan of history.

It's actually hilarious how you can't actually talk about the matter in hand without reverting to diverting attention to Christianity and the Bible....

It's funny how you're so desperate to point out that other (and in this case, small and socially unimportant) cults have shitty writings as well. We know this, thank you, and we also know that it's really fucking rich for a known apologist like yourself to point your own bloody-by-association fingers at a much smaller target.

WeAreReborn

1st November 2011, 03:58

It's actually hilarious how you can't actually talk about the matter in hand without reverting to diverting attention to Christianity and the Bible....
To be fair, you brought up an attack of Wicca from a Christian site. Naturally there will be references to the absolute hypocrisy that it poses.

Nicolai

1st November 2011, 04:13

I don't get what you're trying to achieve with this thread; us hating on one faith cause of some dubious books said so, while you rage when we criticize Christianity?

Nigga please.

Lenina Rosenweg

1st November 2011, 04:38

Why do some theists have an intense fear/dislike o "earth centered" spirituality? I've bee in a neo-pagn group for a while. Very nice people, highly intelligent and well meaning people. Nothing sinistr at all. I've never hear of "Frost Wica", it seems the vast majority of people involved in the various pagan movements would regard this as just as yicky as does Comrade Man.

Everyone by now knows Gardnerian Wicca isn't authentic. That is besides the point. Most people in the neo-pagan movement see "ritual magic" as an outward manifestation of psychological processes.

A beter guide to "pagan" thought today is the feminist anarchism of Starhawk. Her most recent book is about a revolutionary socialist pagan society which emerges n the San Francisco Bay area.

http://www.starhawk.org/

It is easy to cherry pick to find bizarre or sinister elemets in almost any tradition. As others have pointed out christian fundamentalism certainly has its share of evil and sinister characters-Christian Sciebntists who allowed their children to die from treatable ilnesses, a fundi sect in the US which advocates beating children, publicity hungry Koran burners, people who openly advocate the murder of reproductive health care providers. Does this typify the Abrahamic tradition?

According to a historical materialist tradition, religions evolve as they fill different roles and beeds in a societies mode of production. Chrstian today is a different religion than it was in 1000CE. Neo-pagan revival movements today might be regarded as silly but they are certainly not evilo r sinister, as many conservative Christians see to think.

Zostrianos

1st November 2011, 04:56

I've studied different forms of Neopaganism, and I've never heard of the Frosts. I can say with certainty that the shit they advocate would never be condoned by any self respecting Neopagan. They were fringe at best. It's also unfortunate that their book has the same title as the Farrar's Witches' Bib (http://www.amazon.com/Witches-Bible-Complete-Handbook/dp/0919345921/ref=pd_sim_b_1)le, in my opinion the best book ever written on modern Paganism (before it turned New agey and commercial).
Wicca is actually one of the safest religions to be in today. When you look at child abuse in relation to religion, you will notice that most of it takes place in monotheistic circles (Fundamentalist mormonism, Jehovah's witnesses, Catholic altar boys, etc). And there are daily reports of Christian priests and staff of every denomination, who take advantage of their status to molest kids. Just a small sample:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU7q6ZSAUZw (a 4 year old girl..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DSfOetEF8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgxXI3hKNTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp8c3Ugeobw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZO6IhS3Xb4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GU094bWTsI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NiE7i3nyMA&feature=related

I think the Neopagan examples you mention pale in comparison to this. While I understand you're trying to show another side of the coin, you picked possibly the safest religion one could belong to, and found a couple of fringe examples of malfeasance and questionable material with which you've sought to taint the whole movement.
And while many covens engage in ritualized sex, this is always between consenting adults.
You want to warn people against pedophilia and child abuse in religion? Start with Christianity.

Is most of that practised and recommended today?

Some Christians do that, yes:
YgsMM_rKrmY
To add a vile insult to injury, these good Christians first told the cops their daughter killed herself....

Xn2Vl_klC9w

Also, I believe this was already mentioned, but just look at the book "To trainup a child"

RED DAVE

1st November 2011, 04:59

There are indeed genuine people out there but there are also a lot of charlatans, frauds and people who I believe prey on psychologically vulnerable and/or gullible people and people do get hurt or messed up in the head by cults and playing around with various so-called "new-age" spiritualities etc.Be specific. Who are you talking about? Otherwise, you're just ranting.

I'm not talking about the harmless druids going to Stonehenge or dowsers, or the "gypsy" fortune teller at the fair either. I'm also not talking about genuine indigenous traditions and/or people practising their folkloric revivals and such either. This is not meant to be an attack on people just because of their own beliefs.Okay.

However I do think there are some worrying and sinister currents in a lot of this "new-age" stuff too.Again, be specific. Name names and, more important, indicate specific things that these people and/or groups have done.

RED DAVE

Zostrianos

1st November 2011, 05:34

Here's a few more relevant examples of modern abuse and atrocities in the name of Christianity:
o0qgX1K0S04
OLSlBs7Uzvg
yXHJP1_AQyQ
4Hx-2fiTsTM

And yes, I understand this is not a thread about Christianity, but I want to make a point that you're barking up the wrong tree.

Zostrianos

1st November 2011, 06:04

Except we are not talking about that, which we are reminded of over and over and over again by "new-agers" and so-called "pagans"----:rolleyes: Except what you are referring to as well hardly proposes itself nor should be proposed as a kind of "manual" for life either. But anyway, what's that got to do with this? I notice a typical "pagan" response here... instantly accuse Judaeo-Christians- well this thread isn't about Judaeo-Christians and their "bullshit", it's about wiccan/"pagan" types and theirs... deal with it. The Bible does indeed describe some pretty nasty stuff but it doesn't say you should go out and do it either- and it was written a long time ago. Just because David slew his tens of thousands doesn't mean the Bible says "hey, go out and slay tens of thousands of people"- a big chunk of the Bible deals with the "history" of the Israelities, which like most ancient peoples, was full of wars and fighting- that doesn't mean it encourages it.
I sometimes wonder about these so-called new-agers/"pagans"... what do they do? Ignoring the really creepy stuff, inventing history to justify why they hate "x-tians" etc and writing a lot of shit so they can sell shitty books to gullible teenagers. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, nowadays everything is diluted in order to sell books to the masses, including religious and occult philosophies. But ultimately, most people have a brain and can choose whether or not to buy or read certain books. While you may criticize certain aspects of Wicca as bullshit, in my opinion if you seek spirituality, the best place to find it is in occult or mystical circles, not at your local church.
While there is no evidence that occult rituals have any effect on reality, there is plenty of evidence that they (meditation especially) have neurological effects that validate them for their practitioners. These experiences are subjective and probably due to brain chemistry, but they provide something that organized Christianity does not. In my opinion, religion without mysticism is completely useless.
Christianity is primarily founded on theonomy, divinely inspired rules whereby people should live their lives. Theonomy, however, is completely useless and obsolete in a society with laws and post enlightenment ethics. Afterlife benefits and salvation from hell? That is completely unproven, and likely bullshit, so we can also strike that out. What do you have left? Nothing much.

Occultism and mystical movements, on the other hand, produce experiences that attract more and more followers, and while they are subjective, they give meaning to their adherents, a deep meaning they would never obtain from sitting in a pew listening to some pastor.

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 06:17

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 08:12

Comrademan: "We have daily reports here about how nasty christianity is. Here is some nasty things Wiccans are allegedly doing."

Everyone else: "Ya but Christianity! Grrr...... Christians are evil so evil Wiccans are not that important!"

:lol: Nice job making us all look like anti-christians, rather than anti-religion... :thumbup1:

It wasn't even aimed at individual wiccans and new agers... rather at the ways that they get conned and tricked by unscrupulous people and also some of the more sinister things that may lie behind it.:rolleyes:

Conclusion: people are anti-christians, rather than anti-religion...

:thumbup1:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st November 2011, 09:10

RGacky3

1st November 2011, 09:13

Conclusion: people are anti-christians, rather than anti-religion...

The conclusion is that your not consistant, at all, the reason people bring up christianity is because you are known for this sort of thing, especially when it comes to religion, and even more when it comes to Israel/palestine, i.e. downplaying one side and upplaying another side.

This is comming from a christian btw.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 09:26

Because a recently-formed religion with next to no social power is a comparable threat to a centuries-old religion with over a billion followers around the world and the concomitant state power that comes with that? Give us a fucking break...

Who's talking about one religion being a "threat" to another? Why can't you analyse these issues from within without recourse to "other" religions?

Nice strawman...

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 09:32

Because a recently-formed religion with next to no social power is a comparable threat to a centuries-old religion with over a billion followers around the world and the concomitant state power that comes with that? Give us a fucking break...

It's comparable like Joe's Crab Shak and Wal Mart. Wal Mart is bigger and more established, fuck it. And fuck Joe's Crab Shak too.

Nasty shit is nasty shit, no matter what the source is.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 12:34

I found an interesting blog here

There are actually four parts where the author deconstructs what he calls "Wicca Lies".

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/123218.html
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/123637.html
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/123661.html
http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/123912.html

Manic Impressive

1st November 2011, 13:05

I'm seriously considering becoming a disciple of Glycon
Cam2kK7J_8k
All hail the mighty Glycon

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 13:36

To be fair, you brought up an attack of Wicca from a Christian site. Naturally there will be references to the absolute hypocrisy that it poses.

Err... I posted three links, one of which was from a pagan site too. As long as the quotes about the book in hand are not factually incorrect it doesn't matter who posts them. Sorry, you fail on the hypocrisy charge here. Furthermore, the author of the site on his/her homepage says that he/she used to be "into" the occult and is now a Christian. Circumstancial ad hominems/genetic fallacies are also fallacious you know....

I'm seriously considering becoming a disciple of Glycon

All hail the mighty Glycon

That guy seems to be sincere, he's also not trying to sell books as far as I can see nor is he making any absurd and ahistorical claims about his belief. I also notice that when the interviewer talks about fundamentalism it's automatically Christian Fundamentalists- despite the fact that really I don't think it's a problem in the UK that much anyway ;)- however the man with the beard actually shows quite a tolerant and informed attitude. His presentation of Glyconism isn't based on attacking "Xtianity" and making up an "ancient" religion... ;)

Manic Impressive

1st November 2011, 14:09

That guy seems to be sincere, he's also not trying to sell books as far as I can see nor is he making any absurd and ahistorical claims about his belief. I also notice that when the interviewer talks about fundamentalism it's automatically Christian Fundamentalists- despite the fact that really I don't think it's a problem in the UK that much anyway ;)- however the man with the beard actually shows quite a tolerant and informed attitude. His presentation of Glyconism isn't based on attacking "Xtianity" and making up an "ancient" religion... ;)
Well the interview is from a documentary about christian fundamentalism in the UK which reared it's ugly head when it was announced that Jerry Springer the opera was to be shown on BBC 2. But as it points out in that interview it's not as big a problem as in other countries. Although there were a few creationist MP's at least before the last election, no idea if they kept their seats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU

I'm glad you like Glycon any chance of you becoming a disciple of Glycon? It is afterall a Roman god ;);)

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 14:40

Well the interview is from a documentary about christian fundamentalism in the UK which reared it's ugly head when it was announced that Jerry Springer the opera was to be shown on BBC 2. But as it points out in that interview it's not as big a problem as in other countries. Although there were a few creationist MP's at least before the last election, no idea if they kept their seats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU

I watched another Youtube about this issue. To be quite frank I think at times one side is as bad as the other. I do wonder why the play wasn't based on Islam though? ;) It seems to me that there is a fashion of attacking Christianity these days, parodying and mocking that does not actually affect most of the 2.2 billion Christians but does serve to provoke the small hardcore groups. At the same time, protesting outside the theatre with guitars and songs is their right too- as long as there is no attacking people- so what? If you don't want people to get offended don't write stuff that's offensive... :crying: If/when it's the other way around people are quick enough to be offended- although my attitude is a bit like the politician guy- if you don't like it don't go or switch over.

I'm glad you like Glycon any chance of you becoming a disciple of Glycon? It is afterall a Roman god ;);)

No.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st November 2011, 14:52

Who's talking about one religion being a "threat" to another?

Certainly not I! The threat I'm talking about is to humans, not religions. Wicca is also a threat, only a much smaller one, which is why I don't give it anywhere near as much attention.

Why can't you analyse these issues from within without recourse to "other" religions?

Because it's the same bullshit in different permutations. Childhood indoctrination, use of the human impulse to superstition as leverage, the grand sweeping claims without evidence, I could go on. Not all religions have all these characteristics to the same degree, as history and culture shape religions significantly. But certainly all religions have to be taught - while we have a natural tendency to think in magical terms, nobody is born with the knowledge of Jesus or Vishnu or of Samsara, or the Tao.

Nice strawman...

Well, we can't see god, so the invisible part is down right. His son can do magic tricks, so I assume the Big Daddy can as well. The god of the Christian bible is clearly male. You don't seem to know what "strawman" actually means.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 15:24

Certainly not I! The threat I'm talking about is to humans, not religions. Wicca is also a threat, only a much smaller one, which is why I don't give it anywhere near as much attention.

New-age spiritualities/wicca/paganism are amongst the fastest growing groups in the West.

Well, we can't see god, so the invisible part is down right. His son can do magic tricks, so I assume the Big Daddy can as well. The god of the Christian bible is clearly male. You don't seem to know what "strawman" actually means.....

G-d is neither male nor female- the "he" etc is a linguistic device and nothing more. But anyway, we are, for the millionth time, not talking about Christianity.... :rolleyes:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st November 2011, 15:36

New-age spiritualities/wicca/paganism are amongst the fastest growing groups in the West.

Well, if they start demanding special privileges I'll be sure to tell them where to stuff it.

Azraella

1st November 2011, 15:39

Comrademan: "We have daily reports here about how nasty christianity is. Here is some nasty things Wiccans are allegedly doing."

Everyone else: "Ya but Christianity! Grrr...... Christians are evil so evil Wiccans are not that important!"

:lol: Nice job making us all look like anti-christians, rather than anti-religion... :thumbup1:

I'm not anti-religion >.>

I feel left out now. I mean seriously, I'm just against the negative effects of organized religion. I don't really care if Bob is a worshiper of a cheese sandwich. What I care about is his politics, and if he is going to force his belief in the Cheese Sandwich God on me. If he's a commie and is non-imposing I really don't give a fuck.

Don't kill me.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 17:28

I'm not anti-religion >.>

I feel left out now. I mean seriously, I'm just against the negative effects of organized religion. I don't really care if Bob is a worshiper of a cheese sandwich. What I care about is his politics, and if he is going to force his belief in the Cheese Sandwich God on me. If he's a commie and is non-imposing I really don't give a fuck.

Don't kill me.

A lot of people here are, based on Marx. Take a look around the threads....

Azraella

1st November 2011, 17:40

A lot of people here are, based on Marx. Take a look around the threads....

Oh, this is just an aspect of the left that I have come to love and adore. :D

I'm personally against organized religion, most radical leftists are. So I'm with them when they say things like "down with the Catholic Church" but quite frankly, I find the idea that religion needs to be abolished to be ludicrous and crypto-authoritarian. I'd rather people stop having oppressive and imposing beliefs, learn to think for themselves, and finally at the end of the day be a happy communist >.>

But alas! The left underestimates the power of Science! and won't convert everyone through scientific means to be happy communists.

B5C

1st November 2011, 17:46

Some Christians do that, yes:
YgsMM_rKrmY
To add a vile insult to injury, these good Christians first told the cops their daughter killed herself....

Personal side note: I personally live in the same county where this happen. This event is a horrible stain in our community. I have a friend who is very Christian is defending the family who is accused in the little girl's murder. What is my friend claiming what happen? The girl did kill herself and it was a conspiracy of DSHS.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 17:47

Oh, this is just an aspect of the left that I have come to love and adore. :D

I'm personally against organized religion, most radical leftists are. So I'm with them when they say things like "down with the Catholic Church" but quite frankly, I find the idea that religion needs to be abolished to be ludicrous and crypto-authoritarian. I'd rather people stop having oppressive and imposing beliefs, learn to think for themselves, and finally at the end of the day be a happy communist >.>

But alas! The left underestimates the power of Science! and won't convert everyone through scientific means to be happy communists.

No, this is RevLeft where religious user groups were all banned, bar one, and a religious people have been referred to in rather unflattering terms as "mentally ill" and non-leftists may be excused if they are militant atheists however religion is never excused. :(

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 17:51

Another straw man. Should I host a image on imageshack or photobucket if that will make you happy?

idk buddhist comrade

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 17:58

atheism/anti-christian sentiment is the most boring revleft position to have guys.

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 17:59

Here's a few more relevant examples of modern abuse and atrocities in the name of Christianity

none of these things had ANY sort of underlying economic conditions.

restrict radical atheists for discarding dialectic thought.

Azraella

1st November 2011, 18:01

No, this is RevLeft where religious user groups were all banned, bar one, and a religious people have been referred to in rather unflattering terms as "mentally ill" and non-leftists may be excused if they are militant atheists however religion is never excused. :(

This seems exaggerated... (to be honest, I'd rather discuss religious versions of communism in a specific group kind of like a subreddit at reddit or in a private group)

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 18:02

none of these things had ANY sort of underlying economic conditions.

restrict radical atheists for discarding dialectic thought.

Fat chance of that. Marxism is not the totality of leftism, comrade.

No, this is RevLeft where religious user groups were all banned, bar one, and a religious people have been referred to in rather unflattering terms as "mentally ill" and non-leftists may be excused if they are militant atheists however religion is never excused. :(

Probably because militant atheists aren't calling for people's deaths, while militant religious people are? Idk :lol:

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 18:03

Fat chance of that. Marxism is not the totality of leftism, comrade.

so bourgeois idealism should be fucking tolerated or what

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 18:06

Probably because militant atheists aren't calling for people's deaths, while militant religious people are? Idk :lol:

*cough.... Pol Pot.... Stalin.... and they were anti-religious in the name of their atheism, there is no way round it.

Err... most religious people I know, of different religions, don't call for the death penalty and so on. Italy is where the abolition of the death penalty in modern times was conceived, arguably one of the most Catholic countries in the world. The USA, a secular nation, has a big death row....

Azraella

1st November 2011, 18:17

Before we continue this discussion, these posts from my blog sum up my opinions on religion:

This (http://pagananarchist.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/demanding_religious_freedom/) and this (http://pagananarchist.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/is-religion-anti-anarchist/) sums up my opinions on religious freedom. We can toss this (http://pagananarchist.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/communal-duty/) in for good measure about communal duty.

Quotes:
.
I believe that every person has the right to believe and worship the way that they want, every person has the right to make their own choices and take risks whether or not they may seem harmful to themselves. However, I do not believe in doing things or making choices that harm others. Any ancient text — including the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, the Upanishads, The Republic, City of God, to name just a few — has sentences that can be taken out of context by extremists in attempts to rationalize behavior that most modern followers or readers would reject as inconsistent and unacceptable in this day and age. I believe we must stand against such acts, and the spin and propaganda (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=propaganda) they represent, before they take root.

Freedom of religion means that you may believe anything that you want and you may worship freely so long as it does not impinge upon the freedom of others. And the moment an anti-theist or religious fundamentalist/extremist tries to infringe on my religious beliefs then my religious freedom is being violated. Period.

I do not beg for tolerance. I do not expect acceptance. I do however demand liberty. And that liberty extends to everybody else regardless of religious belief or lack of it

Finally… I am ultimately for freedom and freedom requires more than some rigid dogma or strict guidelines to be considered free. I have strong religious beliefs and my ancestors and their ways influence how I approach anarchism and activism. I have an entire worldview that leads me to anarchist conclusions about how society should be. I do believe strongly that people have responsibilities to their communities and are bound by forces greater than themselves. I also believe that people are basically good. I know we can have a world where religious differences aren’t the cause for ostracism or violence. We, as anarchists, don’t need to repeat mistakes.

The myths teach us the virtues to strive towards, and where our duties lie. Because we are left to judge for ourselves how to meet the challenges and responsibilities that are given us, there can be no one Asatru answer to those questions; no commandments, just the need to judge for yourself.

<snip>

All of this leads to the idea of communal duty. Communal duty is another name for primordial morality which is an outgrowth of Wyrd (http://pagananarchist.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/anarchists-as-wyrd-shapers/) . In all of the amazing ranges and reaches of human experience, we often find ourselves comparing our way of living and thinking to others, after the many “ways of being and experiencing” collide and interact with one another, sometimes to good impact, sometimes to disaster. Wyrd forces us to take seriously our deeds and way of thinking; it also forces us to consider the way others act and think, for the deeds, thoughts, tendencies, and beliefs of other people can and will affect us all, eventually.

Those who wish to fall into a sort of laziness regarding the lives of other people, in the name of a truly unrealistic sense of “non-involvement” or even “leaving others to their ways” will swiftly find the danger involved. History gives us many examples of how disastrous social movements and conflicts began in very distant lands, but had a way of spreading out and eventually consuming the entire globe in their power. Understanding Wyrd forces us to realize that all events in our world are relevant to us, and carries us to the full meaning of the old saying “involvement is the primary duty of the wise”.

When we think interactionally, we easily find our way into what I refer to as “primordial morality”- You begin wherever you happen to be, and you see yourself as a part of the social system that you are necessarily involved with- one’s people, one’s family, one’s friends, and one’s society. Those human groupings are necessarily involved with what we call the “natural” system of the world- the local water, land, forests, animals, and environment.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 18:19

....

:thumbup1:

Db40S82sqic

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 18:20

so bourgeois idealism should be fucking tolerated or what

I don't know. I don't see how pointing out the abuses of a specific religion is "bourgieousie idealism" unless it's bourgie idealism to be against rape in all circumstances, regardless of the economic conditions underlying it.
What I do know is that we should not be seeking the advice of someone who has called for the restriction/ban of anyone who has ever disagreed with him/her.

*cough.... Pol Pot.... Stalin.... and they were anti-religious in the name of their atheism, there is no way round it.

Err... most religious people I know, of different religions, don't call for the death penalty and so on. Italy is where the abolition of the death penalty in modern times was conceived, arguably one of the most Catholic countries in the world. The USA, a secular nation, has a big death row....

Ok, I could see calling Pol Pot and Stalin militant atheists. That makes sense. Calling some dude with a webcam a militant atheist because he asks questions, non violently, that you don't like is absurd.

Notice I said "while militant religious people are." I didn't say "religious people" are.
But you know... religious people are normal, and athiests are not. We all know, from experience, that this is the basic mindset of your general religious person. :rolleyes:

Azraella

1st November 2011, 18:23

*cough.... Pol Pot.... Stalin.... and they were anti-religious in the name of their atheism, there is no way round it.

Please for the love of the Steam Powered Zombie Jesus(tm), they were brutal tyrants who killed people for reasons totally unrelated to their atheism.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 18:30

Please for the love of the Steam Powered Zombie Jesus(tm), they were brutal tyrants who killed people for reasons totally unrelated to their atheism.

No, I'm sorry. They actively persecuted relgious people in the name of materialism and atheism.

Stalin

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Godless)), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Religion
Citing: Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York (1988) p. 89

Pol Pot

"The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism) monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, disabled people, and the ethnic Chinese, Laotians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos) and Vietnamese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_people).[/URL]"
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot#cite_note-14)

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 18:30

I don't know. I don't see how pointing out the abuses of a specific religion is "bourgieousie idealism" unless it's bourgie idealism to be against rape in all circumstances, regardless of the economic conditions underlying it.

poverty, violence, etc. are not caused by religion. they are caused by class warfare. any other analysis is fucking bunk.

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 18:31

Please for the love of the Steam Powered Zombie Jesus(tm), they were brutal tyrants who killed people for reasons totally unrelated to their atheism.

comrade s has to disagree

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/315911_10150775912920571_616120570_20581661_282092 7_n.jpg

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 18:36

poverty, violence, etc. are not caused by religion. they are caused by class warfare. any other analysis is fucking bunk.

And so someone posting the abuses of a specific religious actor are "bourgie idealism" how?

Face it dude; every argument you have ever had has been "ban this person that I don't like." :lol:

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 18:42

And so someone posting the abuses of a specific religious actor are "bourgie idealism" how?

lack of material analysis.

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 18:47

lack of material analysis.

So If I post a video about the abuses in a sweatshop factory, and don't say "they are forced to do this because capitalism constantly needs to push down labor power" I should be restricted? What I would be doing is posting specific abuses of capitalist franchises without material analysis behind it.

What you really mean by this is "I don't like what they have to say, but I am utterly incompetent at argumentation, so it is much easier to call for the ban of people I disagree with. Afterall, I am a leninist. :thumbup:"

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 18:52

So If I post a video about the abuses in a sweatshop factory, and don't say "they are forced to do this because capitalism constantly needs to push down labor power" I should be restricted? What I would be doing is posting specific abuses of capitalist franchises without material analysis behind it.

not the same thing. the key is that you don't say "these people are free to labor, because the ideas behind their employment are salient."

posting about the atrocities of religious people without understanding that their actions come from a dialectical process, not simply from the Word of God, is rank liberalism and the enshrinement of ideas. militant atheism is the perfect example of this.

but way to go on constructing an unfair argument fuckstick.

E: As for my abysmal argumentation, is this like that time you called me a nothing, then said you didn't?

Azraella

1st November 2011, 18:52

No, I'm sorry. They actively persecuted relgious people in the name of materialism and atheism.

I'm sorry but you can't do that. Atheism is not a unified group. There are some spiritual atheists, just as there are completely secular atheists. Stalin and Pol Pot murdered people for ideological reasons/ideological purity not for their atheism. Seriously, I'm religious and this idea is ludicrous to me. Atheism is not an ideology it's a philosophical position. I can't go out and claim my lack of belief in God made me kill people because they happened to be Different(tm) and not completely allied with the Cause(tm).

comrade s has to disagree

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/315911_10150775912920571_616120570_20581661_282092 7_n.jpg

This is amusing, that is all.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 18:55

But you know... religious people are normal, and athiests are not. We all know, from experience, that this is the basic mindset of your general religious person. :rolleyes:

Source? Evidence? I don't think you can make such a generalisation. Or others could generalise that atheists often seem to go out of their way to be offensive, rude, provocative and mocking as they like and then play the victim when they are told to fuck off, acting sanctimonious and pointing to how bigoted religious people are. It's subjective, you can't generalise. ;)

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 18:58

lol "you being religious is like heteronormativity!"

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 19:06

Source? Evidence? I don't think you can make such a generalisation. Or others could generalise that atheists often seem to go out of their way to be offensive, rude, provocative and mocking as they like and then play the victim when they are told to fuck off, acting sanctimonious and pointing to how bigoted religious people are. It's subjective, you can't generalise. ;)

It was a joke :lol: as could be seen by the :rolleyes:

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 19:08

It was a joke :lol: as could be seen by the :rolleyes:

Okay---- ;)

I don't understand franz' comment......:confused:

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 19:12

Okay---- ;)

I don't understand franz' comment......:confused:

there's a movement amongst some atheists that i've encountered on the internet to equate their epistemology with "queerness", i.e. their lack of belief is something that cannot be changed and therefore religious people are similar to performances of heteronormativity.

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 19:23

Idk, when I was an atheist evertime I brought up my atheism around regular people (not just religious people, but people in general) I was seen as some kind of weirdo, lacking something. The general sentiment is "you can be anti-religious, but belief in G-D is necessary!"

I would never equate it to what gays go through. But atheists are seen, by the average person, as a "weirdo" in my opinion.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st November 2011, 19:28

not the same thing. the key is that you don't say "these people are free to labor, because the ideas behind their employment are salient."

lolwhut

posting about the atrocities of religious people without understanding that their actions come from a dialectical process, not simply from the Word of God, is rank liberalism and the enshrinement of ideas. militant atheism is the perfect example of this.

Oh, so we shouldn't mind things like creationism being taught in science classes or the bigoted screechings of clerics and their clerical fascist supporters, after all they're just ideas right? :rolleyes:

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 19:30

Oh, so we shouldn't mind things like creationism being taught in science classes or the bigoted screechings of clerics and their clerical fascist supporters, after all they're just ideas right? :rolleyes:

no one said that motherfucker.

go back to your nerd forum and leave the rest of us alone.

lol i bet i can guess the ethnic identity of most of your alleged clerical fascist supporters though you fucking faux-victorian moron.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 19:32

Oh, so we shouldn't mind things like creationism being taught in science classes or the bigoted screechings of clerics and their clerical fascist supporters, after all they're just ideas right? :rolleyes:

What about atheist bigots? Or don't they exist? Is every priest/rabbi/imam etc a raving "clerical fascist supporter"? Yey for generalisations....

no one said that motherfucker.

go back to your nerd forum and leave the rest of us alone.

lol i bet i can guess the ethnic identity of most of your alleged clerical fascist supporters though you fucking faux-victorian moron.

Ouch.....

Why Victorian? :lol:

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 19:33

Ouch.....

Why Victorian? :lol:

the deep and unabiding belief that technological progress = moral progress this fuckhead has.

plus he's a fucking racist.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 19:35

the deep and unabiding belief that technological progress = moral progress this fuckhead has.

plus he's a fucking racist.

Wow.... calm down. There's no need for insulting each other, as I have also said to him on occasion. However I don't see where he has ever said anything racist, unless you can point to the post.... :confused:

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 19:37

Wow.... calm down. There's no need for insulting each other, as I have also said to him on occasion. However I don't see where he has ever said anything racist, unless you can point to the post.... :confused:

his repeated use of the word "tribal" and tribalism as a pejorative and his defensiveness thereof. i recognize that in uk english and commonwealth english, tribalism etc. are all recognized social science terminology, but when told that tribalism is a problematic word the dude flipped out.

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 19:40

What is his "nerd forum?" Science and Tech? lol

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 19:42

What is his "nerd forum?" Science and Tech? lol

yes.

and its unfortunate that unbearable fucks like him run it because i actually do have a very real interest in science, esp. ecology. some of my work is in the field and having the place to talk about it would be nice except for the unfuckingbearable ideological baggage talking about the sciences has on revleft.

ComradeMan

1st November 2011, 19:45

Revolution starts with U

1st November 2011, 19:46

yes.

and its unfortunate that unbearable fucks like him run it because i actually do have a very real interest in science, esp. ecology. some of my work is in the field and having the place to talk about it would be nice except for the unfuckingbearable ideological baggage talking about the sciences has on revleft.

No you're probably just dumb and incessant about your ignorance, and so people don't like you :thumbup1:

:laugh: I'm just kidding man, don't take it seriously. Much love :wub:

Franz Fanonipants

1st November 2011, 19:47

Link....?

I think we need to be a little patient given that there are many linguistic and cultural divides on this forum....

it was p. much what made me drift off the site for a while. i can't recall the specific thread.

and yeah, i agree. which is why if someone says "hey dude, amazingly using that kind of language as a pejorative is kind of offensive" you should admit that maybe it can be. i understand that tribalism is an entirely accepted term in uk english academic discourse, but it's not used everywhere uncritically.

Astarte

2nd November 2011, 00:46

It's turned into big business.... take a trip to your local book store, look round the web.

There are indeed genuine people out there but there are also a lot of charlatans, frauds and people who I believe prey on psychologically vulnerable and/or gullible people and people do get hurt or messed up in the head by cults and playing around with various so-called "new-age" spiritualities etc. I'm not talking about the harmless druids going to Stonehenge or dowsers, or the "gypsy" fortune teller at the fair either. I'm also not talking about genuine indigenous traditions and/or people practising their folkloric revivals and such either. This is not meant to be an attack on people just because of their own beliefs. However I do think there are some worrying and sinister currents in a lot of this "new-age" stuff too.

Yes, this is true - I mean look at Heaven's Gate and Applewhite - they were like the quintessence of "New Age Cult", then you have "Scientology", the Manson family ... all essentially "New Age" - and there are a myriad more smaller ones no one has ever heard of that are abusive and exploitative to the people that practice them.

On the other hand though, there are Jim Jones, David Koresh, early Mormonism - all violent and abusive cults, surely "New Age" in their own way, but certainly not "pagan".

Notice how none of them really became new mass religions. Even Scientology and Mormonism are just fringe sects - and the reason is because of their track records of abuse.

I think all these sects actually represent a vacuum in society for new ideas as far as spirituality. I think that the purpose of secularism, ultimately is to allow for people to spiritually grow unimpeded by the state or organized religious institutions. What fills the vacuum can't be filled externally by "New Religions" or "Prophets", but must be found inside of yourself.

Zostrianos

2nd November 2011, 04:01

his repeated use of the word "tribal" and tribalism as a pejorative and his defensiveness thereof. i recognize that in uk english and commonwealth english, tribalism etc. are all recognized social science terminology, but when told that tribalism is a problematic word the dude flipped out.

I don't see anything wrong with those terms. There were far worse ones used up until the middle of the 20th century. It was standard practice for academics, especially in the Victorian era, to refer to traditional peoples and natives as "savages". I think that's several times worse than "tribal\tribalism" &c.

Notice how none of them really became new mass religions. Even Scientology and Mormonism are just fringe sects - and the reason is because of their track records of abuse.

Actually, the Jehovah's witnesses, which exert a repressive control over their adherents, are a huge movement. They can certainly be considered a cult. Another is the Unification church which is quite prominent and uses questionable methods to keep their flocks in line.

Zostrianos

2nd November 2011, 04:30

The USA, a secular nation, has a big death row....

The USA, secular? You're kidding right? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

You're talking about the world's #1 hotbed of Christian fundamentalism, where 76% of the population are Christians... where there are states trying to push laws based on the Bible, pushing creationism into schools, banning abortions based on "biblical values", where there are huge and rich theocratic organizations with endless funding trying to turn the country into a religious state, publicly calling for gays to be executed, and atheists and non-Christians forcibly converted, and claiming that freedom of speech only applies to Christians. Where it's common to see billboards like this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_j9oDqG2zBGE/SSBnZtggoiI/AAAAAAAACYg/58u13yH3d8s/s400/christian+billboard+five.jpg
http://www.briankaneonline.com/images/christian-billboard.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_j9oDqG2zBGE/SSBmDUWcsEI/AAAAAAAACYA/RGi2-q0RZRo/s400/christian+billboard+one.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cvX9VUi7VDU/TSYlIP4iO-I/AAAAAAAAAPU/uMGQ9XI6rDQ/s1600/christian+billboard+four.jpg

And there's an unwritten rule that you have to be a Christian to be president. A country whose presidents publicly adopt the Christian God as their guide and justification for waging wars (Bush....) A country where in many places (especially in the Bible belt) if you come out openly as an atheist or non Christian you have an extremely high chance of being ostracized, fired, attacked, or having your house firebombed....

Zostrianos

2nd November 2011, 04:44

Coming back to charlatanism, it's true that there are conmen everywhere, fooling the gullible to control them with hokum and false promises. But the same could be said for monotheism, which tells people that if they don't go to Church they will burn in Hell after death. This is the worst form of charlatanism, because it can't be disproven (as no one has ever come back from the dead to say otherwise, so we can't know for sure). This is control by fear, and the fundies do it regularly, preaching passionate sermons on the terror of hell, making movies and propaganda based primarily on the notion of hell and how the unconverted will perish in the end...
And most Christian cults used this as a primary brainwashing tactic, telling their sheep that if they don't obey God will punish them, etc....

Blackburn

2nd November 2011, 05:08

The book was published in 1972, and has pretty much been rejected by 90% of pagans...that have heard of it.

You are really digging up very old controversies.

Perhaps we could associate the pope, with the protestant cult leader Jim Jones. Both claim to be Christians right? They must be the same!

The reality is Wicca, has become an eclectic and varied religion that is non-dogmatic, and has no formalised structures outside various traditions.

In fact as it has progressed, we have found more and more that traditions are becoming democratic and that today, the majority of Wiccans are solitaries, having never formally joined a group at all.

The Wiccan movement today would not resemble anything called 'religion' that Marx would understand in his day. This is because it's a product of leftist social rights movements, breaking down the old religious power structures of society.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

2nd November 2011, 09:59

no one said that motherfucker.

go back to your nerd forum and leave the rest of us alone.

Fat chance, coming from a dipwad like you.

lol i bet i can guess the ethnic identity of most of your alleged clerical fascist supporters though you fucking faux-victorian moron.

If you guessed anything other than white, you're wrong.

What about atheist bigots? Or don't they exist?

They do, but most of the time their bigotry is not predicated on their atheism. Folk like Geert Wilders aren't anti-Muslim because they don't like religion, they're anti-Muslim because they don't like brown people.

Is every priest/rabbi/imam etc a raving "clerical fascist supporter"? Yey for generalisations....

Highly likely if they issue forth "bigoted screechings", yes. Otherwise no.

the deep and unabiding belief that technological progress = moral progress this fuckhead has.

I see you've not quite got where I'm coming from. I consider technological progress in general to be a good thing, but not necessarily synonymous with moral progress. Maybe you would have picked that up had you not been so desperate to erect a strawman and attack it so viciously.

plus he's a fucking racist.

I see you're still seething over a petty argument about word usage. What a pathetic little shit you are.

yes.

and its unfortunate that unbearable fucks like him run it because i actually do have a very real interest in science, esp. ecology. some of my work is in the field and having the place to talk about it would be nice except for the unfuckingbearable ideological baggage talking about the sciences has on revleft.

"Ideological baggage"? Er, welcome to Revleft. Ideological baggage is what we do here, numbnuts.

ComradeMan

2nd November 2011, 10:12

They do, but most of the time their bigotry is not predicated on their atheism. Folk like Geert Wilders aren't anti-Muslim because they don't like religion, they're anti-Muslim because they don't like brown people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Views_on_Islam

But the same could be said for monotheism, which tells people that if they don't go to Church they will burn in Hell after death. This is the worst form of charlatanism, because it can't be disproven (as no one has ever come back from the dead to say otherwise, so we can't know for sure). This is control by fear, and the fundies do it regularly, preaching passionate sermons on the terror of hell, making movies and propaganda based primarily on the notion of hell and how the unconverted will perish in the end...And most Christian cults used this as a primary brainwashing tactic, telling their sheep that if they don't obey God will punish them, etc....

Sorry but "monotheism" is not one religion and there are all kinds of doctrines on life, death, heaven and hell etc- some which are in stark contrast to the so-called "American religion". It's interesting that some claim the idea of "hell" actually came from paganism in the first place.

The USA, secular? You're kidding right? You're talking about the world's #1 hotbed of Christian fundamentalism, where 76% of the population are Christians... where there are states trying to push laws based on the Bible, pushing creationism into schools, banning abortions based on "biblical values", where there are huge and rich theocratic organizations with endless funding trying to turn the country into a religious state, publicly calling for gays to be executed, and atheists and non-Christians forcibly converted, and claiming that freedom of speech only applies to Christians. Where it's common to see billboards like this....

76% of the population are Christians = 76% fundamentalists???

In that case I don't think it's what's wrong with religion but more like what's wrong with US society. Again, living in arguably the most Catholic country in the world (although not a "state" religion it is recognised), with err... the seat of the Papal Throne right in the middle of it ;)... none of those things you mention are really issues.... The US is officially a secular nation and I believe, I may be wrong, that religion is not taught in schools(?), and yet you have this..... :crying:

Or is it that it's just so much easier to get airtime and publicity in the US for just about anything?

Zostrianos

2nd November 2011, 10:50

76% of the population are Christians = 76% fundamentalists???

In that case I don't think it's what's wrong with religion but more like what's wrong with US society. Again, living in arguably the most Catholic country in the world (although not a "state" religion it is recognised), with err... the seat of the Papal Throne right in the middle of it ;)... none of those things you mention are really issues.... The US is officially a secular nation and I believe, I may be wrong, that religion is not taught in schools(?), and yet you have this..... :crying:
Or is it that it's just so much easier to get airtime and publicity in the US for just about anything?

Those 76 % may not be all fundies, but a lot of them are; about 26 % of Americans are evangelicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States)
More importantly, those who hold the most power in the Republican party are religious conservatives, and they usually try and pass laws in accordance with their "values". They started with constitutional amendments (like the one against gay marriage), and are thereby taking gradual steps to turn America into a theocracy. You are right that the US is secular on paper, but in practice this is very different. The secular deism of America's founders has been tossed aside and dragged through the mud, and usually swept under the rug by fundamentalists, who prefer to preach the false idea that the founders were actually fundamentalists.
Here's a great website on the subject of US fundamentalism:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Danielle Ni Dhighe

2nd November 2011, 11:29

As a former Wiccan and Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan, I don't think this book represents Wicca or Paganism in general.

ComradeMan

2nd November 2011, 13:00

Those 76 % may not be all fundies, but a lot of them are; about 26 % of Americans are evangelicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States)

So basically it's an assertion that cannot be made. At best 26% of Americans are evangelical, and does evangelical de facto mean fundamentalist?

More importantly, those who hold the most power in the Republican party are religious conservatives, and they usually try and pass laws in accordance with their "values".

Sure, but last time I looked the Democrats were in charge.

I am not denying that there seems to be a rise in fundamentalism and a rise in any form of fanaticism is not, in my opinion at least, very positive. However I do think you tend to exaggerate and go over the top with things.... If you look at some of the countries with very dubious LGBT rights records you may find that there were also so-called "communist" regimes on the list and if you look at the countries with some of the most positive records in modern times you'll find they are predominantly Catholic- and if you look at public opinion within religious groups you'll see it divided and so on. It's not a simple black-and-white matter.

Revolution starts with U

2nd November 2011, 13:20

Congressional Democrats are just Republicans with a (D) before their name :lol:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

2nd November 2011, 13:30

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/17/netherlands.islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders#Views_on_Islam

He says that Muslims should "tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands" - does he ask the same of Christians and their Bible?

Franz Fanonipants

2nd November 2011, 16:23

I don't see anything wrong with those terms. There were far worse ones used up until the middle of the 20th century.

well you see if you actually read my post I said that people using UK english or in the commonwealths use those terms without thinking there's anything wrong with them, so...

e: as to the rest of your "argument" you're a fucking idiot.

Zostrianos

2nd November 2011, 20:09

e: as to the rest of your "argument" you're a fucking idiot.

Welcome to my ignore list :rolleyes:

Franz Fanonipants

2nd November 2011, 21:41

Welcome to my ignore list :rolleyes:

canadian liberal says a thing

ComradeMan

2nd November 2011, 21:49

He says that Muslims should "tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands" - does he ask the same of Christians and their Bible?

That's not the point. The point is that, at least according to Wikipedia, he is agnostic. Also that Pat Condel guy seems to hate religion a lot too.
....

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd November 2011, 00:16

That's not the point. The point is that, at least according to Wikipedia, he is agnostic.

So what you're saying is, he's a militant agnostic? Wouldn't that apply to Christianity as well?

Also that Pat Condel guy seems to hate religion a lot too.
....

And he can't be racist as well?

Franz Fanonipants

3rd November 2011, 18:29

I see you're still seething over a petty argument about word usage. What a pathetic little shit you are.

pedantic white supremacist says a thing

Revolution starts with U

3rd November 2011, 18:38

I think I'm going to join Po in putting you on ignore. You will be my first; I don't like to ignore people. But you're nothing more than an annoying little troll with nothing to say other than baseless accusations and judgements and an incessant desire to restrict/ban/punish everybody but yourself. You and Rafiq should start the "We Want to Imprison Everybody" club :rolleyes:

I'm giving you one more chance. But in the future, if you don't see me responding to you when you talk to or about me, it's because I can't see it. :thumbup1:

bcbm

4th November 2011, 19:30

sorry it took me so long to get back here i don't have the internet anymore. i also didn't read the whole thread, time is of the essence.

It's turned into big business.... take a trip to your local book store, look round the web.

sounds like... every other religion!

There are indeed genuine people out there but there are also a lot of charlatans, frauds and people who I believe prey on psychologically vulnerable and/or gullible people and people do get hurt or messed up in the head

sounds like... every other religion!

However I do think there are some worrying and sinister currents in a lot of this "new-age" stuff too.

sounds like... every other religion!

Except a lot of "pagans" etc propose their belief system(s) as a positive alternative to the traditional/mainstream religions.

sounds like... every other religion!

I'm not so sure how accurate your statement is either... again have a look at your local book store, however stop bringing the argument back to Christianity....

why go for the small fish when the big fish are so much worse?

Why? Out of curiosity...

because worshiping tree spirits or sky men or the sun or whatever is dumb?

However I notice that you can't resist bringing Christianity into the argument can you? Judaeo-Christians and Muslims also get a lot of shit thrown at them for what most practicioners of those religions don't believe in or do... ;) ... but it's okay if it's them, is that it?

no i'm pointing out how stupid your argument is because you're doing the same shit. 'new age is scary because of this one weird child rapist' = 'christianity is scary because of this systematic child abuse'

well actually one is a little scarier because its widespread and has political power, but you get the idea.

Another thing that irritates me in general about a lot of these "new-age" religions is they distort people's views of history big style, these distortions even creep into mainstream perceptions too. I believe that some Native American groups also protested about the misappropriation of their traditions and symbols as well. I knew a guy who had studied with yogis in India and spent years learning ayurvedic medicine and different meditation techniques and he had quite a few interesting things to say about this kind of stuff.

yes, people are morons.