NeoNote — A different myth
Friday - 13Sep2019 Filed in: NeoNotes&Quotes & Thinkums
❝❝Strictly speaking, what makes you think the apple was unintended in that myth?NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Think about that very carefully for a moment.
Although never explicitly stated, the implication is that nothing could happen in that garden without the approval of it's Creator. That includes the existence of the tree, the existence of the fruit, the existence of the "serpent," and the curiosity of Eve.
So the "Creator" didn't know the possibilities and what would happen, wasn't the real "Creator" (as some Gnostics believed), or the garden was never supposed to be anything except a transitory state.
This last is the commonly accepted alternative. Eden is a metaphor for childhood, something that must be put aside if the person and the culture is to survive. It's not about the "Fall," it's about adaptation and outgrowing what was once enough.❞❞
Comments
Playing around
Why are taxpayer dollars collected by force being spent on a playground? Any playground?
Read More...NeoNotes — Are you trying to make me irritated with you?
❝❝Mrs. Bookworm,NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Are you trying to make me irritated with you?
You keep going off on these anti-pagan rants. This is what, the ninth or tenth? It's blood libel. You wouldn't stand for it if the targets were Jewish or Christian. I don't see why I should "turn the other cheek" when you target pagans.
Nature worship as such is not the problem. Any more than the KKK (a nominally Christian organization) is. Intolerance is the problem. Demanding that others follow the rules of your faith is the problem. Yes, Nature is red of tooth and claw. So are humans when untempered by civilization. And no, I do not mean civilization is Christianity. I regularly tell people that Christians (and the other two Big Monotheisms) are nicer people when they aren't the only game around. Yes, Christianity says some pretty nice things in that book. But it only plays by it's own rules when there is competition keeping it honest.
The vice or virtue is not in the label. It's in the words and actions of the individual. We're measured in the lives we touch.
You want to go after someone for intolerance, be my guest. You want to go after someone for monoculture and echo chambers, go for it. You want to go after someone for Nature worship, then you'll have to start with me. And I will turn it back on you with a vengeance. Not nicely, like I usually do with these discussions. Because you would do the same if it were your faith that was attacked. And so would everyone else here.❞❞
Preamble
““Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.””
tip of the hat to The Wild Hunt
Greet the sunrise
❝❝I also greet the sunrise every day that I can. That's something I learned from my Baptist deacon grandfather. Granted, I do it with a bit more ceremony than he ever did. He was content to do it from the front porch with a cup of coffee.
Oh, and I've been known to dance naked in the light of a full Moon.
You can't embarrass me for following rites and rituals, anymore than you can embarrass a Christian for taking communion or an orthodox Jew for keeping kosher. My faith isn't my politics, and it doesn't matter to me what others think about it. It's between me and the Divine.❞❞
NeoNote — Abortion is not about women's rights
❝❝Abortion is not about women's rights.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Yes, I know most here do not agree. But there are two things you must consider. First, it's not a right unless the other person has it too. Which means that "reproductive rights" just excluded half the population. Now, that doesn't mean I am saying no abortions. I'm just pointing out that abortion is not a right, any more than designer shoes.
Second, not all women think that abortion is a right. You can denounce them, you call call them misguided, but they don't agree that abortion is a right.
Finally, before you complain about judicial decisions, remember that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial decision that circumvented existing law.
And as I told you before, "these people" see it as a matter of preserving human life. The "opening bid" was Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with them on everything, but let's get the timeline right.
Like it or not, the rights of the fetus are a part of the discussion. As are the rights of the father. Reproductive "rights" can't trump that, but reproductive privilege certainly does.
If this were a matter of rape, you might have a point. But sex is still (mostly) a consensual activity.
Their passions and their beliefs are just as strong as yours are. They aren't going to accept defeat quietly, anymore than you would.
While neither you nor they will admit it, the other side has some truth.
And in case you hadn't noticed, you have damn little power over your health care now. The left isn't blameless and totally virtuous in this matter, and I wish we would stop pretending that they are. Government is government and power over is power over. No matter how noble the motives, no matter how much it's for the common good, it still takes away choice.
Practically every reason that healthcare is messed up is because of government interference. Whether it is special perks and privileges extended to major pharma firms, or the approval period for new drugs and procedures, or Medicare and Medicaid setting prices for procedures and treatment while exploding costs far beyond inflation, or the active suppression of nurse practitioners, or screwing up insurance so badly that people have no idea what they are paying for or if it would be cheaper not to go through their insurance, the list goes on and on.
It doesn't help that every government fix involves more government.
And why do people keep raising the issue of rape when it comes to women's medical care?
Just to point out the obvious, both Republicans and Democrats have turned women's bodies into battlegrounds where there can be no compromise.
*sighs* The original stat for American women was one in five women will be sexually abused in their lifetime. Abused, not necessarily raped. It's also not accurate.
I don't accept your premise of either/or.
Nor do I accept that sex and abortion are tied to rape. Funny, I don't think that most relationships have to be about who has the power.
If you don't think that Democrats exploit women's bodies, then why is it so important to denounce the women who don't agree?
The original study was the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study conducted by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. Here's what two of the authors had to say:““As two of the researchers who conducted the Campus Sexual Assault Study from which this number was derived, we feel we need to set the record straight. Although we used the best methodology available to us at the time, there are caveats that make it inappropriate to use the 1-in-5 number in the way it’s being used today, as a baseline or the only statistic when discussing our country’s problem with rape and sexual assault on campus.
Second, the 1-in-5 statistic includes victims of both rape and other forms of sexual assault, such as forced kissing or unwanted groping of sexual body parts—acts that can legally constitute sexual battery and are crimes. To limit the statistic to include rape only, meaning unwanted sexual penetration, the prevalence for senior undergraduate women drops to 14.3%, or 1 in 7 (again, limited to the two universities we studied).””
Until someone else mentioned it, I deliberately avoided mentioning rape. I specifically talked about sex, responsibility, and abortion. A casual reading of some of the other responses here (including yours) would seem to excuse a woman's responsibility before the fact because of, you know, rape. Maybe I'm just being extra dense here, but it seems like the only reason rape isintroduced into the discussionmentioned is to specifically excuse women from responsibility.
When someone starts offering two and only two alternatives, that's the cue to look for the fourth, fifth, and sixth choices.
There are conservative women who disagree with you on abortion. Why aren't they a part of the discussion?
Why should your morality and choices govern the actions of another? Isn't that what you say would happen if conservatives "win?"
One other thing. Roe vs. Wade. Decided by eight old, rich white dudes and one rich, old black dude.
“You can't circumvent the topic of rape when discussing abortion.”
Why not? Are all or most women raped? Do all or most abortions happen because of rape? Why is it so very very necessary to make this part of the discussion when rape is not usually the reason for abortion?
Again, I am not saying that abortion should be illegal. I am saying that it is more than just the woman involved. I am not arguing over the definition of life. I am not dragging out charts and pictures to show a fetal heartbeat or how it responds to touch at what point in the pregnancy. I am saying that abortion is not a right when it excludes the man. And at a certain point (which I have no idea what is), the fetus.
If you want men to act responsibly, that means their sex partners should too. That means that yeah, women should think about consequences before sex. That means that if abortion is an option, it should happen before the last trimester and probably before the second. And yes, that means that the man should be involved in the decision. If they aren't, then men are just being encouraged to be irresponsible.
Just like what is happening now.
The default is for the man NOT to be involved. The default is for the man to ignore the consequences. Claim that only the woman can choose, and the man doesn't have to choose.
That's why abortion as it is now is not a right.
I am not denying that rape happens, although I do not think it is nearly as common in America as some claim.
I just think that always discussing rape when talking about abortion doesn't do your argument any good. As it is, based on what you say abortions should be performed if the woman was raped and never for any other reason.
Yes, I am arguing. I am saying that abortion isn't a right if even the discussion doesn't have to include the man. And the man is not usually or even mostly a rapist.
That's it.
Everything else is something that others have tried to hang on me.
*shrugs* Your choice has reduced this to either/or.
Here's the inevitable result. You can imprison them and/or kill them, or they can imprison/kill you. Force rules. Might makes right. Submission must happen. Power over, now and forever.
Is that what you want?
*shrugs*
Like I said, reproductive privilege excludes the man. And if a woman excludes the man from the choice, then he has no reason to be responsible. “He is literally just a donor of genetic material…”
Who said I didn't consider women as human beings?
I'm a guy who believes the aunts and grandmothers theory of history.
I seek the Divine in every lady I meet. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes not. I knew my first strong woman from before I was born. She learned it from her grandmother, the strongest woman I've ever known (www.neowaylandDOTcom/files/StrongWoman170330.html).
Why do you assume that because I dissent on some things I would throw you to the Christian patriarchy?
Why are you measuring somebody's strength by something granted by politicos?
Again, I haven't said no abortions. I've just said that if it's only the woman's choice, then it's not a right.
For the last fifty years or so, American men have lost rights when it comes to children. Somehow the discussion about abortion always includes vague allegations of rape and domestic violence as if most men did terrible things to women.
Most men don't do these things. We're not guilty, we shouldn't be blamed for what we didn't do and are not likely to do. The presumption of guilt should not shape relationships and sex.
Even now, you are escalating. The discussion started about abortion. Then domestic violence got added. Then rape. And now you added murder.
Everybody shares a right. Privileges exclude people. Only some get privileges. Privileges are not rights, and rights are not privileges.
Now I am not talking about rape, I am not talking about domestic violence. I am not talking about what happened 100 years ago or last week in France.
What I am saying is that if the baseline of social behavior now means that a man will not be involved the decision to have an abortion, then it is a privilege, not a right
You keep assuming that I have their beliefs.
I don't.
I'm saying that it is not about rights when only one person is allowed to decide.
Then if the man's desires don't count, does that mean they don't owe child support?
"Want" doesn't have anything to do with it.
Accepting responsibility does.
But not if they are denied the choice.
Then give me numbers instead of allegations.
At the same time, I'll point out that by excluding men from the decision, they never have to be responsible. Under the circumstances, the surprise is not that some men flake out. It's that others don't.
It's not just "men" who have this opinion. That's the point. Women don't all agree with you and it's foolish to pretend that they do.
My first sex rule is "Consenting adults only.". The first derivation of that is "Your desire does not control another's choice."
I absolutely agree that children need happy families. I also think they need male and female role models, but that is another discussion.
I think the power and the responsibility doesn't just lie with men.
I do know that for a while, CA had a law that if the mother published the name of a man she claimed was the father a certain number of times, that man was obligated to pay support even if genetic testing showed there was no relationship. I know a few guys who got caught in that trap.
I am not saying most women are irresponsible.
I am saying that having sex without considering the consequences with your partner is irresponsible.
I'm saying that our "system" of excluding men from the decision about abortion encourages men to be irresponsible and guilt free.
Do I think that birth control is a good thing? Yes.
Do I think that abortion is a right? No, not if it doesn't include the man.
Do I think that late term abortion is a good thing? Definitely not in the third trimester and I would question any that happen in the second.
Do I think that men can be unfeeling jerks more concerned with their own pleasure than their partner's feelings? Yes, especially if they are not held responsible for their actions. If the man isn't allowed to talk about abortion with his partner, why should he care? That is the society we live in. He's encouraged to think it's the woman's fault if she gets pregnant.
The hook-up culture certainly hasn't helped. If the guy doesn't have to work at seduction, why should he pay attention to her feelings?
I still don't think that rape should be part of the discussion about abortion because most abortions happen without rape. The only reason I can see for treating rape as the norm for abortions is to silence criticism about abortion.
If you want to shut people out of the conversation for whatever reason, that is your choice. Just don't expect them to accept your "rights."
If you want to blame all of this on men, that's your choice too. But most of them will resent you for it because they didn't do what you are accusing them of.
So that's where we are. Because I said abortion wasn't a right, you've said I am anti-woman and a bad Pagan and a bad person. But I've not prevented abortions. I've not voted against abortion. I'm not arguing against abortion. All I've said is that abortion is not a right. I haven't tried to turn back the clock.
If you really want to fight what's happening in these states, you're going to have to find a justification other than the "right to an abortion." I'm being honest with you. I'm not attacking you and I am certainly not attacking women as a group. I am telling truth. It's what I do.❞❞
NeoNote — Unjustified privilege
❝❝You're making unjustified assumptions.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Is the climate crisis a thing? To some (like most pagans), yes. To others like (not conservative) me, no. It's an article of faith, not far removed from monotheism or forgiveness of sin. The issue is that because of the alarmism, those who believe in the climate crisis don't tolerate dissent because of the "urgency" of the problem.
At their best, American Christian conservatives are extremely community minded. A child lost in the woods? They are there looking. Death in the family? Somebody is bringing meals by. The problem is who they identify as being part of the community. Something that is not helped by some like pagans setting themselves outside the acknowledged community.
Most claims of conservative racism are because the conservatives involved didn't see any reason to grant special privilege when people already had rights recognized by law. It doesn't help when conservatives are routinely accused of white supremacy simply for being the wrong skin color regardless of their words and actions. There is a vast difference between not supporting the claims of groups like BLM and being racist. Because conservatives (and libertarians too) see rights as individual and not collective, the idea of identity politics is repugnant. You have rights because you are human, not because you are Hispanic, female, wore a pink hat in a march, or consider yourself non-binary.
What's more, the idea that only "whites" can be racist because of something that was done in their great-great-great grandparents time just doesn't fly. Racism comes in all colors. I've seen casual racism my entire life. I've also seen most people reach out for no other reason than someone else needed help.
Finally, judging people by label is a mistake. The label has no inherent vice or virtue. It's the individual who makes the label mean something through their words and actions, not the other way around. Power from victimhood depends on the pity of others and will make you less than you are.
Here are some of the demands for privilege I've seen during my life.
The idea that one skin color and one skin color alone can decide what is and is not racism. I still know people who try to convince me that a "black" minister saying "Hymietown" is not racist.
The idea that inner-city poverty is a more important than reservation poverty.
The idea that a person whose family came from Nigeria two generations ago has a claim on the success of a person whose family came from China five generations ago.
The idea that skin color should trump evidence in a crime.
And as long as we keep qualifying the legal definition of who is and is not allowed to marry, that problem will not go away. Previously I've pointed out in discussions on this site that somehow in the call for marriage equality poly marriage wasn't even a consideration. That selectivity is a consequence of defining rights by group instead of individual.
Pardon, but the bit about how some threw poly people under the bus should be stressed. Because the "struggle" wasn't about marriage in whatever form it could take between consenting adults, it was about "gay marriage."
It wasn't about rights. It was about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.
No, there wasn't a "polyamorous community" fighting to be recognized. I had some LGBT activists tell me emphatically that poly people didn't deserve marriage because they hadn't fought for it.
That is where my issue is. I'm perfectly willing to fight for equal rights. But I hear demands for "black" rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, and for all I know rights for people with ingrown toenails. Not to mention Christian rights, pagan rights, Muslim rights, atheist rights, and pastafarian rights. That doesn't even count the constant efforts of government to define government powers as rights (police rights, Congress has the right…). It seems that everyone wants to carve out their own piece but no one is willing to help carve out a piece for any group but theirs. Especially if they don't agree with other groups.
It's not about rights. It's about privilege for some taken at the expense of others.
Oh, and by the way, "white" cis males are guilty for all the troubles in the world. Especially when they don't abase themselves to the demands of self-identified victims-of-the-week. No matter what they personally have done or said, "white" cis males are undeniably and collectively guilty. Or so I am told. Again and again and again.
How that is not racist is beyond me.
Meanwhile "people of color" tell me that they are fighting for the rights of the victimized. And they are. But not if those victims live almost invisibly and don't advance certain causes. And definitely not if those victims have different politics. If there is an oil pipeline that gets TV coverage, the "champions" are all over it. But every day poverty on Amerindian reservations, well, that just isn't important enough.
So tell me, when is it reasonable when some victims are deliberately overlooked? Maybe it's not about rights. Maybe it's about privilege.
Human rights are the only ones worth fighting for. Maybe we should worry about the rights we share instead of a place in the pecking order. It's not a right unless the other has it too.
“I still wouldn't characterize them as privileges.”
I know. That's what's so frustrating. Human rights get moved to the back seat, then to the bicycle with a flat tire thirteen rows back.❞❞
Rite to right
I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.
Read More...NeoNote — Nature and the World are not cruel.
Monday - 19Nov2018 Filed in: NeoNotes&Morality & Modern Life
Friday roundup
Changing the Rules
Controlling the internetWhy Is Social Media So Toxic?
Have we really wiped out half of all animals?
If Dems win the House, ‘climate committee’ will return – seeking energy taxes
Napolitano Teaches Basic Civics to Desperate ‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts
It wouldn't be the first time Trump said something outrageous to set the discussionWe Need a #MeToo Movement for Political Consent
How Trump Is Winning The Midterm Elections
Pakistan acquits Christian woman on death row
Surveillance Cameras Can Identify Anyone by “Talking to Their Cellphones”
Everything you need to know about economics you can learn in the pet food aisle
'Stalked within your own home': Woman says abusive ex used smart home technology against her
If You Liked 'Axis of Evil,' You're Gonna Love 'Troika of Tyranny'
Foxconn: Failure & Fraud
Us versus them
Thursday - 25Oct2018 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
NeoNote — Human rights
❝❝For the record, there are no LGBTQ rights. There are no black rights. There are no women's rights. There are no Hispanic rights. There are no pagan rights. There are no Chinese rights. There are no Christian rights. There are no police rights.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
There are human rights. Period.
It's not a right unless the other has it too.
Too many times there are privileges passed off as rights. Privileges benefit a select few at the expense of everyone else. Too often, what should have been rights for everyone were enforced privileges for some. This is a big reason why rights and privileges are confused.
It's not a right unless the other has it too.
Which means they get a head thump when they demand I submit.❞❞
NeoNote — Absolutism
❝❝The problem with making the personal political is that you drag everyone around you into politics, whether they want to be or not.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
The environment is a hugely complex topic. Where do we start? Water rights? Ethanol eradication? GMO seeds? Climate change? I'm willing to bet that no one here is going to agree on all of those.
Likewise the "religious right." Obviously we need to take a stand against people like Roy Moore. It took me twenty-plus years to get on speaking terms some of my relatives younger than me, I'd rather not throw that away. Not all of the religious right is a monolithic block, any more than all pagans. Individual relationships work better than shunning everyone with the wrong label.
Pardon, but I've found environmental issues particularly troubling, to the point where I'd rather discuss ecology rather than environmentalism. There are some in the climate change crowd who are just as absolutist as any hard core evangelical Christian. As another example, when I call for the eradication of ethanol because it is subsidized, requires food crops, consumes more than a gallon of gas to produce one gallon of ethanol, and is harder to store and transport than gasoline, I'm attacked because I am "in the pocket of big oil."
Perhaps it's that absolutist quality that is the real problem. There's more than one answer and one answer doesn't fit all. I'd say there is more than one problem too, but most don't want to deal with that.❞❞
NeoNote — Control
❝❝So some religions should get protection and others should not? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that if we start making those distinctions we've just sacrificed religious freedom.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
There are times I want to discriminate.
There are people I do not want to have anything to do with. Yes, sometimes those people are Christian fundamentalists. But sometimes those people call for imprisoning climate deniers. Sometimes those people call for the redistribution of wealth. Sometimes those people call for the suppression of ideas they are "triggered" by. Sometimes those people want others removed from history because of things the others have been accused of.
So tell me, why should any of those people get their way?
We draw the line for a reason. No, it's not perfect and not everyone will be happy. But it comes down to parity. If I don't think someone has legitimate power to tell me how to think, what to say, or how to act, then I have no legitimate power to tell them how to think, what to say, or how to act. Which means that public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws are so much bunk.
Otherwise we're just raising one victimhood over another. Last week it was women, this week it is transgenders we're "protecting." Can't have equal rights because Black Lives Matter. If your faith offends, you aren't allowed. At that point, at this point, the only "solution" is to control the law so that you can control what is "allowed." Never mind that just sets up a future where you will lose control. You must be free, but the Other is not allowed.
Everyone should have freedom to discriminate.
The moment that the law declares this group of people off limits is the moment when you invite the law to be abused.
Look at the bill that sparked the original article. It's a "fix" of another law, which was a fix of a previous law, and so on.
The solution to government is always more government. And the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.
If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.
The only practical solution is making sure the law gives no advantage. "Protecting" one group over others is just going to perpetuate the injustice.
As far as the rest, I don't blame labels. There's no vice or virtue in the label. "Christian" includes Roy Moore and MLK. It's not every Christian and we should stop declaring that Christianity is a threat to our chosen way of life. Like it or not, American religious pluralism made American paganism possible.
As far as scapegoats go, well, you (among others) are blaming Christians because they are Christians and not because of what the individual has done.
My point all along this thread is that the law should not benefit or harm any religion. There are some very vocal Christians who want the law to shield Christianity. There are some very vocal people who want the law to contain Christianity. Both groups are wrong.
Actually yes.
Starting with a big one. I'll repeat it for you.
If Christians are wrong to enshrine their beliefs in the law, then anyone else is wrong trying to constrain them with the law.
Freedom of religion is exactly that. Neither help nor hinder. You can't fix bad law by making more law. You can only repeal it. Politics is about control. Freedom is about choice.
Ah, but that isn't what people like Bill Nye, Lawrence Torcello, Mark Hertsgaard, and Brad Johnson said. They all said that the mere act of climate change denial should be a crime.
Behold the new heresy. You are not allowed to dissent.
And yes, that is every bit as authoritarian as anything any Christian fanatic demanded.❞❞
NeoNote — Manifest your faith
Thursday - 24May2018 Filed in: NeoNotes&Morality & Modern Life
❝❝You do realize that if "the Bible is all one piece," you can't pick and choose bits and pieces to quote, don't you? If you eat all your veggies and are especially nice, I won't demand that you start following all those bits in Numbers and Leviticus. We won't talk about the deleted texts now.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
How do you suppose those disciples did it? They had to work without a New Testament.
So, only the True Believers® are allowed to quote the Bible as they choose because they are special.
I told you before, that says more about your faith than it does my arguments.
It's not enough that I be a good person, I must supplicate myself before the altar of your dogma and beg forgiveness.
Not going to happen, My gods gave me a pass. They also told me what was up.
It's not your god who demands those things. It's certain pesky humans who claim to speak in his name.
All this fixation on the Bible is missing the forest for the trees.
Your scripture isn't nearly as important as how you manifest it.
I don't care about your god. I do care about the people around me. I'd rather not fight a religious war, but I can fight to defend me and mine.
The way I see it, it's better if we humans at least talk to each other. Maybe argue and wave fingers in each others faces.
You have your god, I have mine. For all we know they may go out together for beer and wine every seventh year. So let's honor the gods and treat each other decently.❞❞
NeoNote — Religion in public schools
❝❝One reason why the public school movement gained so much ground in America was in direct response to Catholic schools. Control over what should be taught in public schools is a distraction.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Hardly anyone asks if there should be public schools in the first place.
Mandatory school attendance is backed by the force of law. Much of it has degenerated into who gets to control the conditioning. Which raises some interesting questions. The Daily Caller reports that the Mountain Ridge Middle School in West Virginia requires students to write out the Shahada to practice calligraphy. There are no requirements to write out Christian or Jewish affirmations, and apparently those are not part of the curriculum. Obviously Buddhist and pagan beliefs aren't included either.
Why is this a big deal and a much bigger deal than is being reported? According to Islam, reciting the Shahada makes one Muslim forevermore.
I want to stress that the issue is not Christianity, Islam, or any other faith. The issue is public schools requiring faith lessons. If public schools force religion on the students, then most likely they are teaching other questionable propaganda as well. We notice the religion because as members of minority faiths that is one thing our antenna are tuned for, we overlook the other.
All of this returns to the question why have public and compulsory schools to begin with?❞❞
Kafkatrap
❝❝Kafkatraps are THE keystone of victimhood politics and most identity politics. Without someone recognizing or assuming blame, kafkatraps cease to work.Kafkatrapping centers on guilt. Don't accept it. Don't reject it. Act as if the accusation is so silly and undeserved it's not even worth discussing. They will repeat, and you still shouldn't pay any attention to the claims. Go on as if the accuser had said nothing of importance. Indeed, go on as if you are trying to keep them from embarrassing themselves further. You're doing them a favor if only they were rational/sober enough to know it.Kafkatrapping came by way of certain Christian denominations and mala prohibita laws. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."❞❞
— NeoWayland, kafkatrap
Truthful answers
Saturday - 24Mar2018 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
❝❝What I do know is that sometimes I wander in where I am not wanted and give truthful answers. I'm the pagan that tells Christian conservatives that they don't get to dictate what others worship or how others worship. I'm a male who tells feminists that not all men are guilty. And I'm the libertarian who tells the climate crisis crowd that the climate models don't work.
I appreciate the warning, but I've been troublemaking for a long time. It's one of Coyote's gifts and I'm honor bound not to squander it.❞❞
— NeoWayland
PragerU and the Alt-Right
Wednesday - 07Mar2018 Filed in: Politics
In the interest of fairness, I am linking to a response. Obviously I don't agree with the response or I would feature it here. Here is another response I don't agree with.
First, I don't care about the technicalities or the numbers. Group identity politics are still about group identity. The average conservative is more likely to treat people mostly as individuals than the alt-right.
Second, there is one race and it is human.
Third, I don't care "what the other guy does." If you are raising your particular group above all others, then I'm not interested.
Fourth, you can spot all the Christian rhetoric you want. I'm more interested in how you touch other people. That's how I'm going to judge what is a "true Christian." Even if I am pagan, I've spent time studying Christianity for all it's flaws. Deeds, not words.
First, I don't care about the technicalities or the numbers. Group identity politics are still about group identity. The average conservative is more likely to treat people mostly as individuals than the alt-right.
Second, there is one race and it is human.
Third, I don't care "what the other guy does." If you are raising your particular group above all others, then I'm not interested.
Fourth, you can spot all the Christian rhetoric you want. I'm more interested in how you touch other people. That's how I'm going to judge what is a "true Christian." Even if I am pagan, I've spent time studying Christianity for all it's flaws. Deeds, not words.
“On the Death of John Brown”
Thursday - 08Mar2018 Filed in: American classic
NeoNotes - Real religion
❝❝Pardon, I don't think anyone is capable of judging what is and is not a "real" religion. I can't tell you how many times certain Christians have told me that my faith isn't real.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
Pauline Christianity is something completely different that what Yeshua Ben Yosef preached. Gnostic Christianity is something completely different yet again. Which is true? Who knows? Who am I to judge what happens between someone else and the Divine?
I think these are the wrong questions. Christians are much nicer when they aren't the only game around. From what little I've seen, the same applies to Muslims.
I think what matters is how we treat others, especially others who do not share our faith and culture. Ramming it down other's throat by force will cause resentment. That's where some monotheists go wrong. It's not that they have the True Faith™, its that no other faith can be allowed. Because of their Greater Understanding and enlightenment, they can break society's rule for the Greater Good. Thou shalt not dissent.
Climate change alarmists stole the game lock, stock, and barrel. It's common for some of the radical feminists too. If anything, I think it indicates a weakness in the argument. Their faith isn't strong enough, they can't convince others, so it must be forced.
Getting back to Christianity, how much would history have changed if Constantine hadn't made it the state faith? How would it have developed if it had stayed one faith among many? How much of the Official® was really about politics and controlling the populace?
Could it be that control is really the issue?❞❞
Celebrate
Sunday - 03Dec2017 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Liberty
❝❝Celebrate your beliefs and cherish your faith. All I ask is the same. Just don't demand that my beliefs and actions are bound by yours. Live and let live.
What you believe isn't important to me. Your freedom to choose what to believe, that is vital. That is what I will defend.❞❞
— NeoWayland, A Pagan looks at “Christian America”
Society is not Christian
Saturday - 25Nov2017 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums
Forbid
❝❝If someone wants to forbid gay marriage, what would they do if the law only allowed gay marriage? If someone wanted Bible study in schools, what would they do if the law only allowed the Koran in schools? If someone wanted a Christian president, what would they do if the law prohibited a Christian president?❞❞
— NeoWayland, United We Stand - Dragging religion into politics
Good person
Saturday - 25Nov2017 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
Folly
Insulting
Saturday - 25Nov2017 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
NeoNotes —Somebody finally said the C word
Tuesday - 21Nov2017 Filed in: NeoNotes&Morality & Modern Life
❝❝Ah, somebody finally said the C word. And that means I can say not all Christians.NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.
I can say something else too. For all of the evidence of Christian bigotry, there's tolerance and pluralism right there beside it. America is the probably the only nation where it could happen. Religious diversity made it happen. And it goes right back to the Civil War. While there were plenty saying (with reason) that the Bible justified slavery, there were others making the case that a human was a human no matter what the color skin. The ones fighting hardest against slavery took their best arguments from their faith. That continued through the woman's rights movement, through the civil rights movement, and on through the gay rights movement. Without Christians speaking and fighting, those movements would have stalled.
As a newbie back in the 80s, I had a lot of baggage. I spoke and wrote against Christians with the best of them. Some of my stuff is probably still floating around there. But I discovered that I didn't like who I was. There were other things too, I was not a nice person. After some serious soul searching and couple of Divine thumps on the head, I came back to a very simple idea. In magickal terms, the energy you put out is the energy you get back. It's the Ethic of Reciprocity, Christians call it the Golden Rule. It's probably the cornerstone of Western civilization. Long story short, if you look for the negative in others, that is precisely what you will find. And that is precisely what you will allow to shape your own life.
But if you look for the positive, "catch them doing right," there will be enough good to overcome the bad.
Christians made marriage legal in the first place. But do you honestly think there would be legal gay marriage without a whole lot of Christians saying, wait, we have to fix this to be fair to everyone.
Because not every Christian, you see. Sometimes in the places you least expect and from the people you'd never consider, there is tolerance and acceptance and even encouragement. Not everyone wraps themselves in the fire and brimstone of the OT. Some really do believe that their god is love.
We need those people badly.
So, not every Christian.❞❞
A class="pvc" HREF="http://www.paganvigil.comLabel
Sunday - 19Nov2017 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
❝❝It's not liberalism, it's the label. And it doesn't matter if the label is progressive, conservative, Christian, atheist, or United States Senator. The label has no virtue or vice, no morality, and no inherent worth. It's the individual that owns the outcome of their thoughts, words, and deeds. It's the individual and the individual alone who can take responsibility.❞❞
— NeoWayland
Christian message
Wednesday - 01Nov2017 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
One thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads
Wednesday - 02Aug2017 Filed in: Quotes & Thinkums&Morality & Modern Life
❝❝If there is one thing I wish I could literally pound into Christian heads, it's this: Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society. Other cultures and other faiths have contributed heavily. It's amazing that I even have to mention this where one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial fasces. Even The Magnificent Seven was a remake.❞❞
— NeoWayland
NeoNotes — Religion enshrined in law
❝❝Simple questions.
Why should any religion be enshrined in law? Raised above all others as THE Moral Standard?
Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?
Or at least something calling itself your religion.
Pardon, but that isn't the question.
Why should any religion be enshrined in law?
Shouldn't faith be between you and the Divine?
Shouldn't religion be your choice and not imposed on you by some government functionary?
Coke may be less disagreeable than Pepsi, but I don't want armed special agents making sure I drink it.
Only if you think government must be predicated on or derived from religion.
Which, thankfully, the Founders did not.
But it's not about if religions are "equal" or not.
It's about if a single religion should be enshrined in law. And what happens if you are not a member of the religion that is made part of law.
Should you be bound by a religion you are not a part of?
Yep, I did. And for very good reason.
I also said this:
Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?
I've really tried to be polite on this board, but believe when I say I've seen more than enough Christian intolerance to last me several lifetimes. It's not every Christian, but it is there. Nor are Christians alone in their intolerance.
What I am trying to say is that by making religion a part of government you're setting the grounds for much more intolerance.
Even if you stuck to Christians, you'd be asking for trouble. Should Catholics have precedence over Baptists? What about the Mormons and the Methodists?
Yep, that happens too.
But when someone defines intolerance as everyone else not putting that someone's religion over every thing else, well, the someone crossed the line and they are fair game.
No, that isn't what I said.
Look at what Moore said in the article. He's talking about defending Christianity in the law. And creating more law that incorporates "Christian principles."
"Do not murder." That's a good idea. It also predates Christianity by quite a bit and is shared by many cultures and faiths.
"Do not murder because of the Ten Commandments and what Jesus said." That's not the same thing and it adds baggage to something that should be simple.
Pardon, but that is an opinion.
My gods prefer that people work it out for themselves.
That's an opinion too.
You mean other than Roy Moore up there in the original post?
You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order ….
That's certainly a religious point of view.
Nondenominational? Ah, I see.
It's only the Christians that need apply? You don't need the Jews.
I live next to the Navajo reservation. Will you exclude the Sky People?
One of my neighbors three doors down is a Buddhist. Doesn't she get a say?
One of my companions is an atheist. She's also one of the wisest women I know. Should she get a say?
Why or why not?
And I've answered it several times, twice directly.
When you assume that government is based on a religion you are imposing and enshrining that religion.
When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.
Then why is Roy Moore making so much noise?
I'm not demanding that you give up your faith.
I'm asking why religion should be enshrined in law.
Faith is between you and the Divine, no other person can change that. It's up to you and your choices.
I'm asking for no sacrifice unless you believe that your religion should govern the faith and religion of others.
And if that's the case, I'm asking why.
No, actually we weren't.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.
It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.
Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.
They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.
Talk about timing…
I always find it amazing when I have to point out the U.S. was not founded as a "Christian nation" when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate.
I've written about this many times before. But please don't take my word for it.
http://www.usconstitution.net
That's a site created to explore and explain the Constitution. Look for yourself. Try to find any mention of the Bible or the Divine.
Considering the custom of the times, omitting "those words" was even more revolutionary than the Declaration of Independence and the battles that followed.
Again, that doesn't mean that the Founders weren't devout. It does mean that they knew about the English Civil War and the problems caused by some colonies and their religious restrictions.
I'd like to think that each of the Founders decided that if his church wasn't going to be "top dog," no one else's would be either.
And that is why Roy Moore is wrong.
Can you show where I'm wrong?
The question you should be asking yourself is not if the Founders were religious or if the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation."
No, the question is why the Founders, among the best educated men of their time, chose not to make the Constitution dependent on any faith.
I'll give you a hint. Too many people are in religion for the politics.
I am, and it relates to the question in the title of the post.
If anyone thinks their religion needs the force of law to back it up, then they are doing it wrong.
The law should neither help nor hinder religion. But no religion should rely on force either.
If it's a straw man, then why did Roy Moore say what he did?
There's a difference between personal faith and public policy.
Pardon, but I think that's wrong.
It's not that the American people hate the Divine. And I don't think they may object because it is a Christian policy.
I think they object because it is a religious rule made policy.❞❞
NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.