Now here's a potentially tricky question for Toadfish. What are the limits of religious tolerance when faced with the intolerant? For example, someone who believes:
Quote"[Allah] created the UK: it doesn't belong to you, or to the Queen, or to the Government, but to Allah. He has put us on earth to implement Sharia law."
For more details see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/24/do2405.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/09/24/do2405.xml)
(I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions of that opinion piece by the way).
What is the correct atitude? Is it any different to the one we should take to Christian fundamentalists?
There really is nothing you can do except to stand firm on the platform of secularism and multiculturality.
Under sharia, I would be DEAD.
That, to me, is a reason to fight it....I'm not fond of being dead. :smite:
Personally, I don't like the idea of anyone imposing their religious views on anyone else.
Where I live, there was a recent attempt to introduce Sharia law that is in more of a grey area, though: in alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
ADR's an alternative to the normal civil court system. If both parties agree, they choose a qualified arbitrator who facilitates an equitable solution according to certain rules and laws. The proposal was to allow arbitrators to use Sharia in place of the normal rules, but only if both parties agreed.
While I don't want someone else's religious values imposed on me, I'm not sure how I feel about imposing an external secularism on the affairs between people who don't want it.
Hmm...
Wasn't there a lot of worry that people would be pressured to go to the sharia courtt by their communties? i remember some women's rights groups being concerned....
Kat
:stupid:
Yes... and in the end, the worries around women's rights were the biggest reason that the proposal was defeated.
Though I don't know if it isn't already a problem. In many religious communities (Christian, Muslim, and I imagine others), it is discouraged for members to settle their differences outside the church/mosque; religious leaders act as arbitrators already. I would venture that Sharia law is already being applied (along with pressure to be subject to it), but under the radar, with few safeguards or accountability, and without means for appeal.
For me, it's a murky issue that raises a lot of questions: does acknowledging a practice in law imply state approval of it? Should adults be protected from coercion by denying them the right to something they say that want? If so on this issue, why not on others?
Murky indeed.
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on September 25, 2006, 08:32:57 PM
...In many religious communities (Christian, Muslim, and I imagine others), it is discouraged for members to settle their differences outside the church/mosque; religious leaders act as arbitrators already. I would venture that Sharia law is already being applied (along with pressure to be subject to it), but under the radar, with few safeguards or accountability, and without means for appeal.
I think this is very likely. It's actually quite hard to leave a religous community, too.
[thinking now about the polygynous sect of RLDS and their unschooled little girls.]
Changing the subject slightly (still staying on topic), this is a slightly modified version of a post of mine on Venganza in the UU thread, that is even more (I think) appropriate here.
'Sacrilege'.
What is a reasonable, tolerant person to do when confronted with a usage of a symbol, or place, or object sacred to them, by someone to whom it means something very different, or even trivial, or even radically opposite?
My own take on the matter is "get over it"! I can think of several usages that I encounter reasonably often that quite deeply offend what beliefs I do have. Unless that usage is intended to offend me, I have learned to grumble quietly under my breath (sometimes quietly to my wife - who is greatly amused when I do) about the 'mis-use', and go about my business. I suggest I have a right to expect others to behave similarly (at least to the extent of keeping their objections private).
As I said then, I respectfully disagree.
Part of using a symbol, place, etc, assuming you're a reasonable person, is knowing its context. If you know it's context, you know if your use of it is offensive...an act that belittles the things of value of another culture should be avoided....
Now, I find this different from cultures who go out of their way to force other cultures to comply with them....there is a big difference, in my opinion, between the idea that eating meat (or pork, or beef, or beans) is wrong so we should bomb grocery stores and saying that the only person who can adopt you into the Turtle Clan of the FuggaWugga Tribe of Zanzibibia'ar is someone who is a member of said clan already.
Either we respect the stuff we borrow or we hoard it...the problem with hoards being they spoil.
Quote from: beagle on September 25, 2006, 08:12:42 AMQuote"[Allah] created the UK: it doesn't belong to you, or to the Queen, or to the Government, but to Allah. He has put us on earth to implement Sharia law."
Mero's coping mechanism is fine. Until the other's belief is imposed. Of course Henry 8 and Elizabeth 1 changed the picture in the hmm not quite the UK.... but you get the drift. I haven't gone and read the artilce (time-and-brain challenged) but it immediately strikes me that a statement as above is not merely a different person having a different symbol. Given the numbers of people living under Sharia law in the UK it can only be seen as a statement of intent to impose. I.M.V.H.O.
During the discussion on the potential "incitement to religious hatred" offence here there was a lot of discussion on whether there was, or should be, "a right not to be offended" and how that might conflict with freedom of speech.
Comedians (e.g. Rowan Atkinson of Blackadder fame) for example were very concerned they could be hauled before the courts for what was once considered normal comedy banter. I don't think this issue was ever resolved. Instead the government just tried to say it was only expecting a handful of convictions. Even so it was obliged to backtrack considerably.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3873323.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3873323.stm)
My opinion is that while misusing symbols or offending religious sensibilities is undesirable, enshrining protection is actually more undesirable, and there is no right not to be offended, only not to be threatened or intimidated.
It's the freedom of speech thing. Either you have it or you don't.
Incitement is an action. If you say the same words but don't incite anyone then that would be ok wouldn't it?
Legislation for the difference between speech and incitement would be excellent but is it possible except in retrospect?
There are also situations in which two (or more) different groups have effectively the same symbol with very different meanings. The most obvious one is the Swastika, but there are actually quite a lot of others. For example, there are groups in which a five-pointed star is significant, to some of them it is offensive to display that star with one point up, to others it is offensive with one point down; my own family crest involves a hand reaching up to grasp a five-pointed star (point down), I have seen family members display the crest with the point up, and even with a six-pointed star (that one is deeply offensive to me)... (That's also one of the ones I mutter to my wife about :)). In America the 'Stars and Bars' flag is a respected symbol of their heritage to many southerners, to other southerners, and to most northerners it is an overt endorsement of Racism...
It's not always a simple case of someone misappropriating someone else's symbol...
Quote from: NoName on September 25, 2006, 09:50:11 PM
Legislation for the difference between speech and incitement would be excellent but is it possible except in retrospect?
I don't believe so. I'm against hate crimes legislation, too. If someone says that the Jews eat babies and it causes people to go attack a Jewish settlement, then the people who attacked the settlement should be tried for whatever crimes they do, and the ones who incited should be tried for malicious slander, defamation or whatever.
(and a murder done with extreme malice should be handled the same whether the malice was towards gays or the murderer's wife...)
If we applied laws with any kind of rationality, a lot of these speech issues would be nonissues.
Quote from: Sibling Quasimodo on September 25, 2006, 10:14:41 PM
It's not always a simple case of someone misappropriating someone else's symbol...
But sometimes it is. I mean, that's why it comes down to understanding the bloody thing before you use it.
A little more understanding, and a lot more common sense, would do far more than walking on eggshells.
Unfortunately, symbols become bits of 'fashion'...
I wonder, at times, about these people with Chinese "lettering" or some sort of other 'symbolic' tattoos. Do they know what they're espousing? Are they aware of the deep symbology? Maybe, maybe not. Can we castigate them for being stupid? Well, not to their faces, so, no, we can't..
Do we educate them to the meaning of their symbols, or do we refrain?
At a tattoo shop in Shreveport Louisiana about 8 years ago, I watched an artist try to talk a guy out of a "neat Chinese thing" he'd found on line. It was a symbol with lettering around it, and the guy had been told in was 'spiritual'. It was a feminine hygiene product advert, with lettering that said "for a pleasantly clean --some Chinese word that sorta translated into inner being, but meant, umm, you know--" What was the intent? What was the responsibility of the Chinese reading people in the shop? What was the guy's responsibility to understand what the thing meant? (How many Chinese-reading people was he going to run into in Bossier City?)
Celtic knots, Claddaghs, 'tribal' markings...some of these have meanings extended beyond the original meaning, through common useage. At what point do symbols again become the exclusive property of one group? And how does one prohibit the abuse of those symbols?
I wear a Hopi silver medallion of 'The Maze'. It's a deeply meaningful symbol to the Hopi, the Navaho and others, and I've known them get very upset at it's trivial use. Yet a Hopi silversmith made it and sold it and from that point cannot control it's use.
In fact I regard it and treat it as a sacred object, but the maker had no guarantee of that. I'm often asked about it, and always give at least a brief explanation of it's origin and significance (The longer explanation seriously confuses the unsophisticated, I've found :D -Not unusual with the Hopi). It's extremely significant to me, and I am never without it for longer than a few minutes (and that under duress - like during an MRI). Interestingly, it's often mistaken at first sight for a Celtic Knot (doesn't look like it to me! ::) ), but once I've explained a little, no-one has ever wanted one 'because it's beautiful', though they do before the explanation.
The slightly expanded explanation "I use it to hold being alone and afraid until I have time to deal with that..." has often produced an instant warm hug :D People are very sweet!
Having looked it up I can see why the symbolism might put people off (though I'm not sure if I found the short or long explanation ??? ).
I'm woefully ignorant on Native American religion and ought to read up on it. So far I only know some of the beliefs very briefly displayed in the film Koyaanisqatsi (and the ones selected might have been cherry-picked to appear particularly portentous).
QuoteCeltic knots, Claddaghs, 'tribal' markings...some of these have meanings extended beyond the original meaning, through common useage. At what point do symbols again become the exclusive property of one group? And how does one prohibit the abuse of those symbols?
I don't think we can prohibit anything, but we sure can be open and honest about what we use.
I think it's really up to the potentially insulted person whether or not anything is offensive and under what circumstance.
The other day I was at school picking up my child when a gorgeus little kid came in. She had golden-tan skin and a beautiful mop of ringlets. I said hello to her and that I loved her curls. The woman next to me suddenly said to me (as if the child couldn't hear) that she thought that the term 'African American' was ridiculous and that she just called 'them' blacks. I was flabberghasted and did not reply. Firstly, how rude of her to talk about this child as if she were some sort of object, and right in front of her. Secondly, who was she to decide what was acceptable? I mean, why bother saying anything about the kid's race? She was a charming little kid, that's all that matters. I don't believe I'll be saying much to that woman again.
My older sister (yeah, that one) tried to get me started by insulting the FSM back when she knew I was involved with that movement. I just ignored her comments. I figured she was simply ignorant on the subject, which she was.
Quote from: Opsanus tau on September 26, 2006, 10:02:54 PM
I think it's really up to the potentially insulted person whether or not anything is offensive and under what circumstance.
I respectfully disagree and suggest that there are plenty of things you would find offensive without "choosing" to be offended. I think we all know what things are just blatantly offensive and we refrain from doing them, naturally.
I believe we have to be taught to disregard the feelings of others altogether and that, to bring it back to symbols, we have to be taught it's okay to use something out of context.... I think neither is a natural state of a social animal.
I think it is a bit harder to determine. Context helps but while a svastika in India has a very different meaning than in Germany, is it offensive to a German or a Jew if an Indian wears one in the west?
Like the so-called satanic symbols (the inverted pentagram or the up-side-down cross), context may well be relative (didn't Peter asked to be crucified in an inverted cross because he wasn't worthy to die as Jesus?).
Quote from: anon1mat0 on September 27, 2006, 12:27:08 AM
I think it is a bit harder to determine. Context helps but while a svastika in India has a very different meaning than in Germany, is it offensive to a German or a Jew if an Indian wears one in the west?
Context certainly matters. For example, hand - finger - arm movements- facial movements - all have different meanings in different countries. The sign for yes in one place can be the sign for no in another. Mistaking one for the other could be fatal.
Quote from: NoName on September 27, 2006, 01:04:10 AM
Context certainly matters. For example, hand - finger - arm movements- facial movements - all have different meanings in different countries. The sign for yes in one place can be the sign for no in another. Mistaking one for the other could be fatal.
You've been watching the HSBC adverts again ;)
Quote from: Opsanus tau on September 26, 2006, 10:02:54 PM
The woman next to me suddenly said to me (as if the child couldn't hear) that she thought that the term 'African American' was ridiculous and that she just called 'them' blacks. I was flabberghasted and did not reply.
Certainly a bizarre way to start a conversation. The annoying thing is it takes you by surprise so you only think of an appropriate rejoinder ten minutes later. We did have a South African visitor at work during the apartheid years who kept coming out with stuff like that. Eventually when someone asked what the time difference was with South Africa I couldn't resist saying "About a hundred years".
The linguistics in the UK are even more complicated (or simpler, depending how you look at it). "Blacks" would certainly be unacceptable, but you would need "Caribbean Briton", "African Briton", "Indian subcontinent Briton" just to cover the major ethnic groups if you tried for something on the "African American" model. This tended to confuse visiting Americans at the multi-national where I used to work. They'd go to use that term, then find it didn't work on either level.
I'm just bloody Scottish....except for in Scotland where I am a Canadian.
(Well, until I pull out the blue passport, but, you know, it's legal to use a passport case, and I use a red one.....)
Quote from: Sibling Quasimodo on September 25, 2006, 10:14:41 PMIt's not always a simple case of someone misappropriating someone else's symbol...
Though it often is misappropriation at those "get your family coat of arms" booths at the mall or the fair. They tend not to tell people that under British heraldry rules*, a coat of arms is bestowed on an individual, not a family, and is not passed down hereditarily.
Interestingly, if a person co-opts someone else's coat of arms, it could technically backfire: a coat of arms as a mark on an object indicates ownership, and it could be argued that when a person prominently displays a coat of arms in their house, they are declaring that the house belongs to the owner of the coat of arms, or that person's heirs (which would likely not include the homeowner, especially if he or she happened to pick the arms of a non-relative who only happened to share the same name).
Just a pet peeve of mine - I don't like to see people misrepresenting something they're selling.
*Note that this does not include Scottish clan badges, which do rightly apply to the entire clan (when encircled with only a leather belt, as they are normally depicted).
I do see your points about intent. It's not always easy to tell what people intend with symbols. If they intend to offend, then offense can be claimed. But how do we know when it is?
I don't think the lady in my story meant to be offensive to me and possibly not even to the little girl. I just didn't get why she had to mention race at all in that case, and why the heck she mentioned it to me. Maybe she was seeing if we shared a like mind on the subject. I guess one of us at least found out the answer to that one.
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on September 27, 2006, 07:17:30 PM
*Note that this does not include Scottish clan badges, which do rightly apply to the entire clan (when encircled with only a leather belt, as they are normally depicted).
Ha! the comment I would'a made in the footnote. I have my own coat of arms, which of course cannot be recognised by law, as it represents an American. (And is based on the non-Scottish part o' my family, the Cornish ones... It's derived from the Morgan sable griffin)
Anywho.....
I'm sensitive enough about this to make my son wear "Flower of Scotland" at our upcoming re-confirmation of our Domestic Partnership, which will be the last time this branch of the family will don the Campbell tartan.(Unless my as-yet-unconceived daughter or grandchild wants to wear my dress in the future....which is a whole other thing.)
It's really a case about having respect over something that's not a big deal to you...if you're going to use a symbol without some knowledge of its context, then it obviously doesn't matter THAT much to you, so the feelings of those to whom it DOES matter trump yours....
FYI, this is one reason some UEWwies often sport the five-petaled rose with pentagram, as seen at http://www.vircle.org/ (http://www.vircle.org/) instead of the pentacle.
Which is why I used the term 'family crest' to refer to my clan badge (Henderson) rather than 'coat of arms' (damn new-fangled, jumped-up, self-styled 'nobility') ;D
[/rant]
And don't get me started on those damned Germans posing as British Royalty!
* slowly fades into obscurity, muttering dire imprecations and fulminating about...*
Quote from: Sibling Quasimodo on September 27, 2006, 07:51:18 PM
Which is why I used the term 'family crest' to refer to my clan badge (Henderson) rather than 'coat of arms' (damn new-fangled, jumped-up, self-styled 'nobility') ;D
Yep, I picked up on the word "crest" in your first post. :)
Quote from: Penultimate Sibling Outis the Unready on September 27, 2006, 07:49:48 PM
...
FYI, this is one reason some UEWwies often sport the five-petaled rose with pentagram, as seen at http://www.vircle.org/ (http://www.vircle.org/) instead of the pentacle.
Pinch
our symbol would they:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_rose)
Some people have no respect ;)
Actually their's looks rather more abstract.
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on September 27, 2006, 07:17:30 PM
Interestingly, if a person co-opts someone else's coat of arms, it could technically backfire: a coat of arms as a mark on an object indicates ownership, and it could be argued that when a person prominently displays a coat of arms in their house, they are declaring that the house belongs to the owner of the coat of arms, or that person's heirs (which would likely not include the homeowner, especially if he or she happened to pick the arms of a non-relative who only happened to share the same name).
I display an armful of coats in my home.
Quote from: beagle on September 27, 2006, 09:25:36 PM
Quote from: Penultimate Sibling Outis the Unready on September 27, 2006, 07:49:48 PM
...
FYI, this is one reason some UEWwies often sport the five-petaled rose with pentagram, as seen at http://www.vircle.org/ (http://www.vircle.org/) instead of the pentacle.
Pinch our symbol would they:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tudor_rose)
Some people have no respect ;)
Actually their's looks rather more abstract.
Ayup. And the Tudors, themselves did pinch it, too.... at least ours is pinched from the same lot.
I came across this article today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901055.html) in the Washington Post. Note: You may have to sign up with the Washington Post to read the article. Signing up, though, is free.
QuoteWith little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion.
It seems that there has been a law on the books for about 30 years that a lawyer who wins a civil rights case against the US government is awarded his lawyer's fees paid by the government. This was done to encourage suits dealing with civil rights issues.
But the new law eliminates the recovery of fees by the lawyer in cases dealing with the establishment clause...that is, separation of church and state. If the bill makes it all the way to become law, it would all but eliminate cases brought by individuals on this issue.
This is something that should be a MAJOR talking point of anyone doing a political discussion.
Setting the one issue apart is tanamount to effectively silencing ALL religious abuses, not over the picayune stuff like the Holiday/Christmas issue, but over bona-fide religious discrimination.
"First they came for..."
I think Harper just put a more general version of this into action up here... our most Toluous Sibling seems more read-up on it than me (see Politics thread).
Here is a question, what really is the difference in the religions? What is the fight about? You have cristians saying their beliefs are completely different then chathoics, and muslims saying their beliefs are completely different then Jews. To my way of thinking we are all the same. This is of course my own opinion and based on my own viewpoints. However I do not see where there should be room for intolerance. Humans cover every continent, we have created so many civilizations and religions, empires and customs that the fact that we should be steeped in ideals new and old and celebrate them all for what they are. Symbols are forms of communication mostly right? And please correct me if I am incorrect. A symbol represents a meaning something you are expressing to others. Those who use a symbol as a fad item something "cool" are really going to show themselves to be fools. The first time they are asked the meaning they show their ignorance. The same goes for those who have religious intolerance. Here is an example, I went to get a part-time job at a mall store and the store manager took a likeing to me the first few times I went in. But she didnt have any positions open with enough hours. I tell her that is okay I am working with my mother on our buisiness and can make do with fewer hours till a position opens up. She askes what the buisiness was called, so I gave her a buisiness card and explained we make scented bath products for pagans. She tells me she cannot give me the position we had talked about now because I would make her and the rest of the staff uncomfortable. She knew for a fact that the rest of the staff were christian. When I mentioned that that was illegal she said it was her store she could hire who she chose. Ignorance. When she discovered that what she had done really was illegal she claimed she was just about to call me with a job offer but now felt insulted that I would imply such a thing as religious intolerance. I have never gone back but nor have I pressed charges. I felt it was not worth the effort to eek something out of someone already suffering with a narrow world view. :)
I think it's interesting that Abraham is the Father of the Christian, Muslim and Jewish faiths, all thinking they are the only right religion.
Sorry to hear about your job opportunity going wrong. Most Christians think Pagans are Devil worshipers or something don't they?
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 20, 2006, 05:01:55 PM
Here is a question, what really is the difference in the religions? What is the fight about? You have cristians saying their beliefs are completely different then chathoics, and muslims saying their beliefs are completely different then Jews.
I think it's safe to say that most Catholics consider themselves to be Christians ;) (though I've met Protestants who claim that Catholicism isn't Christian).
I'm conflicted when it comes to this sort of thing. On the one hand, I think it's a very positive thing to be ecumenical and inclusive. On the other hand, I realize that if I were given a set of specific instructions by the one and only Lord our God (as I'm sure many believers of many faiths feel they have been given), I'd certainly feel compelled to follow them to the letter.
On the gripping hand*, since "do to others as you would have them do to you" is a central tenet of all the Abrahamic religions (right?), you'd think they'd be generally tolerant of each other.
BTW - how do bath products for pagans differ from other bath products? ???
*Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle rock! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripping_hand)
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on December 20, 2006, 07:07:40 PMBTW - how do bath products for pagans differ from other bath products? ???
I'm gonna guess they are made from pure and natural 'organically grown' ingredients, and flavored and scented with hand grown and hand harvested herbs.
Hm! Maybe I should check 'em out, sounds yummee! :) (mind you this thought is from a fat old Englishman who uses Joy Lemon Liquid as shampoo sometimes ::))
What confuses me most is that religion, faith, spirituality. In my humble opinions these should be private and individual things. Anyone can look at any religious text and interpret it different then someone else. That is actually part of what drove me from being a catholic (which I once was) or a christian (which I looked at amungst other faiths). I want to decide what I beleive based on my mind not someone promiseing rewards or suffering when I am dead. The earth is my church, I am my own preistess, and I commune with divinity with long hikes up mountains and clear nights with stars. However that is of course me, and I lead only myself. And I beleive that no matter what you believe you are right, if only to yourself. So I am confused at how
some members of other faiths can fight and bicker like children. The problem is that they are not children and the damage they do is not small. To be honest it frightens me, the power they have.
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on December 20, 2006, 05:13:02 PM
Sorry to hear about your job opportunity going wrong. Most Christians think Pagans are Devil worshipers or something don't they?
Thank you, though I am much happier with what I do now. I work as a tech support for MSN Games.
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on December 20, 2006, 07:07:40 PM
BTW - how do bath products for pagans differ from other bath products? ???
Basically we take bulk unsceanted handmade shampoos, conditioners, and body wash, and use natural oils to make them smell pretty. They corrispond with herbs sacred to the different goddesses, gods, chakras, and spells.
And they smell gooooooooood.
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 20, 2006, 09:08:00 PM
The earth is my church, I am my own preistess, and I commune with divinity with long hikes up mountains and clear nights with stars.
Cool! I just hiked the Grand Canyon. It was beautiful. Maybe I should look into "being my own priestess." ;D
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 20, 2006, 09:08:00 PM
Thank you, though I am much happier with what I do now. I work as a tech support for MSN Games.
That sounds interesting at least. More fun than supporting business apps.
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 20, 2006, 09:08:00 PM
Basically we take bulk unsceanted handmade shampoos, conditioners, and body wash, and use natural oils to make them smell pretty. They corrispond with herbs sacred to the different goddesses, gods, chakras, and spells.
And they smell gooooooooood.
Cleary this will bring the apocalypse. It must be stopped. ;D
MB
I have never been to the grand canyon but what I have seen of pictures has made me yearn to go more then once.
Do you support business apps? Wow I admire your patience. Support can drive one crazy.
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on December 20, 2006, 10:49:12 PM
Clearly this will bring the apocalypse. It must be stopped. ;D
*Giggles* apparently it is one of the greatest evil known to man. Must be stopped indeed, eradicated even.
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 21, 2006, 12:23:26 AM
I have never been to the grand canyon but what I have seen of pictures has made me yearn to go more then once.
It's a must hike. It's much more difficult than one would expect, but well worth it when properly prepared. Someday I hope to figure out how to be properly prepared.
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 21, 2006, 12:23:26 AM
Do you support business apps? Wow I admire your patience. Support can drive one crazy.
I am a programmer but I spend much time on the phone with the tougher problems.
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 21, 2006, 12:23:26 AM
*Giggles* apparently it is one of the greatest evil known to man. Must be stopped indeed, eradicated even.
I would never have suspected shampoo could be so evil and powerful. ;D
MB
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 20, 2006, 09:08:00 PM
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on December 20, 2006, 07:07:40 PM
BTW - how do bath products for pagans differ from other bath products? ???
Basically we take bulk unsceanted handmade shampoos, conditioners, and body wash, and use natural oils to make them smell pretty. They corrispond with herbs sacred to the different goddesses, gods, chakras, and spells.
And they smell gooooooooood.
That makes sense... for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what "pagan soap" would be, but that sounds nice.
My avatar is a pic of my hubby and I on top of Mt. Si, not the hardest mountain here but gorgeous at the top. I am looking into learning a language or two for programming. I admire your patience wow. Hee Hee, evil shampoo bad shampoo *dons paladin armour to fight the monstrous Shampoo and his sidekick The "slightly less evil" Conditioner*.
:D We also make nice smelling Shampoo and Conditioner for anyone, we just focus more on the pagan side, more fun making up names and scents for.
Ah, topic drift... business as usual around here. :mrgreen:
Back on topic a bit (although I'd like to hear more about DIY bath products - sounds like an excuse to pick up some more essential oils) I think I can speculate a bit where religious intolerance comes from.
It seems to me that people who have come individually to their actual faith, no matter what religious tradition or lack thereof they may have been raised with, have a greater capacity to tolerate other personal expressions of faith. It's one thing to know what works best for yourself, and quite another to have the hubris to insist that it'll work for everyone. I think that religious intolerance has a lot less to do with the faith aspects of religion and a lot more to do with social aspects, and xenophobia in general. When one has been raised in a regionally dominant faith, and hasn't ever met someone that didn't belong to their religion, the simple fact that they are dealing with an unknown can be uncomfortable for them... and that's assuming that they haven't been deliberately misinformed or taught to be intolerant of a specific faith.
As an example, one of my friends (Friend A) hadn't ever had much contact with people of other races and nationalities (also, his father is mildly racist), and was very uncomfortable when we went over to the home of another of my friends (Friend B), who is a Vietnamese immigrant. It didn't take him long to adjust, once he got to know Friend B and see the common interests and values... he actually made the dead-innocent, but revealing, comment to me afterwards that "(Friend B's family) are just like everybody else" (http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/85/Happy46.gif). Um... duh. Of course they are - but apparently this isn't common knowledge. It's a big part of why people can discriminate based on superficial differences.
Quote from: Agujjim on December 21, 2006, 04:08:23 PM
It seems to me that people who have come individually to their actual faith, no matter what religious tradition or lack thereof they may have been raised with, have a greater capacity to tolerate other personal expressions of faith. It's one thing to know what works best for yourself, and quite another to have the hubris to insist that it'll work for everyone.
Hmm... I've found the opposite in some atheists. I think they see their beliefs as the culmination of their personal journey of logic and rationalism, and decide that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion can't be logical or rational (or is just stupid).
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on December 21, 2006, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: Agujjim on December 21, 2006, 04:08:23 PM
It seems to me that people who have come individually to their actual faith, no matter what religious tradition or lack thereof they may have been raised with, have a greater capacity to tolerate other personal expressions of faith. It's one thing to know what works best for yourself, and quite another to have the hubris to insist that it'll work for everyone.
Hmm... I've found the opposite in some atheists. I think they see their beliefs as the culmination of their personal journey of logic and rationalism, and decide that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion can't be logical or rational (or is just stupid).
Well,
I came to those same conclusions
when I was much younger. I don't come to those conclusions now. So maybe age and developing wisdom have a lot to do with it. I mean 'everyone' develops age, but a lesser number seem to develop wisdom along the way...
Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on December 21, 2006, 04:24:37 PM
Hmm... I've found the opposite in some atheists. I think they see their beliefs as the culmination of their personal journey of logic and rationalism, and decide that anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion can't be logical or rational (or is just stupid).
Yah, I left atheists out... 'hard' atheists are a special case. I'm getting more and more convinced that some people don't have spiritual perception.... and that not all atheists are aspiritual. There's also the issue of those who follow a 'one and only true faith' that cannot accept that altenative paths can have personal validity to other people.
When I went through my "black period" or crisis of faith or whatever name suites (though really it is just justifying my place in life, the universe, and everything) I realized that everyone is right. If only to themselves. I do think you are right though about it being more of a social thing. People, generally want to belong though too. I feel they want to be right and they want to be told they are right. Every group has fluffy bunnies though, not just Christian's or Muslims but any group you can name will have a few loud obnoxious creeps who ruins it for the lot. Age is a common affliction and you are right that not all who age become wise, however you do not need to be very old to be very wise. I have met young people, not yet corrupted by society, who have a greater under tanding of people and life then those who profess the ability to lead multitudes to divinity. Wisdom is a tricky thing to gain, I only hope one day to be able to acquire it.
Quotehe actually made the dead-innocent, but revealing, comment to me afterwards that "(Friend B's family) are just like everybody else"
My family (and when not at college, I) lived (yes, in The South, in 1973) in a very racially
mixed middle class area. I had a group of people that stayed at our house when there was a meeting we all wanted to attend--300 miles away from our small town college, and light-years away from some of the small towns they came from.
My favorite comment of the weekend??
"Their dogs look JUST LIKE white people's dogs!"
And their houses, and their cars, and their wardrobes and their... Culture shock really hit when we all went to church, and our white pastor and black assistant pastor shared the platform with our Hispanic music director, and NOBODY TALKED "DIFFERENT"!! Granted, that was a bit unusual for a southern Baptist church in the 70's but it was sad to realize that these students weren't aware enough to realize that the multi-racial student body at HPU wasn't made up of Oreos and Pinto Beans (black/brown on the outside, white on the inside).
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on December 22, 2006, 12:25:09 AMGranted, that was a bit unusual for a southern Baptist church in the 70's but it was sad to realize that these students weren't aware enough to realize that the multi-racial student body at HPU wasn't made up of Oreos and Pinto Beans (black/brown on the outside, white on the inside).
Heh, I'm an Egg. Or maybe more like
kimchi mandu.... look like a perogy on the outside.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/fatman_seoul/mandu/mandu12.jpg)
Quote from: Willowsmith on December 21, 2006, 08:50:14 PM...(though really it is just justifying my place in life, the universe, and everything) ...
Douglas Adams Reference! Yaaay!
Hee Hee gotta have at least one Douglas Adams reference somewhere. ;D
Quote from: Agujjim on December 21, 2006, 04:08:23 PM"(Friend B's family) are just like everybody else"
When I was at college a newly made friend looked at me in blank astonishment on finding out I was Jewish, saying in a seriously shocked tone of voice "you look so ordinary. I thought Jews had pointy green ears or something." This was a shy lad from a northern english town who had never met anyone jewish before, in fact had never met many people before, and who probably had never expected to ever meet someone like me. It's hard to believe he really thought exactly what he said, but he really did.
Quote from: Agujjim on December 22, 2006, 12:32:43 AM
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on December 22, 2006, 12:25:09 AMGranted, that was a bit unusual for a southern Baptist church in the 70's but it was sad to realize that these students weren't aware enough to realize that the multi-racial student body at HPU wasn't made up of Oreos and Pinto Beans (black/brown on the outside, white on the inside).
Dan says to tell you that it's getting expensive to have me look at this picture and then take him the keys and say DUMPLINGS NOW!! It's a good thing College Station has several reasonable Dumpling places... He thinks i've definitely started channeling Jennie from tDP...
Heh, I'm an Egg. Or maybe more like kimchi mandu.... look like a perogy on the outside.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/fatman_seoul/mandu/mandu12.jpg)
I was raised secular scientist in a UU and liberal Jewish neighborhood in a blue state union town and refer to Muslims, Christians and Jews collectively as "abrahamicists" and my Pagan shampoo is pantene.
That being said, when I was an atheist (and briefly a non-theistic Satanist) it was because I had no religious experiences. When I had a religious experience, I realized that, just like I could not prove my experience to others, others couldn't prove their experience to me, and if their deity was fair (as they claim) that their deity would contact me if it wanted me to follow it.
That sort of experience does change how you view stuff.
It's great to see you posting again Outis. I noticed you using the term abrahamicists in another thread. I'm intrigued by what may be the difference between that and abrahamists. I think I prefer the latter but I'm not sure why.
Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on December 29, 2006, 02:03:56 AM
It's great to see you posting again Outis. I noticed you using the term abrahamicists in another thread. I'm intrigued by what may be the difference between that and abrahamists. I think I prefer the latter but I'm not sure why.
I like abrahamicists. It sounds like I can go get a prescription to have my goat's entrails examined or something.
Hey! Where's Goat Starer? Here goat... Here goat...
Quote from: Outis the Unready on December 28, 2006, 11:49:25 PMThat being said, when I was an atheist (and briefly a non-theistic Satanist) it was because I had no religious experiences.
:o Just caught that... hey, path convergence! I definitely think now that faith (like the rest of life) is a journey, not a destination.
---------
We still have some brainstorming to do in regards to increasing religious tolerance (since it's a stated Toadfish goal), though.... other than simply EXPOSURE and EDUCATION, what can we do to encourage interfaith tolerance and understanding?
Ecumenical foosball?
Foosball brings everyone together.
Yeah, but it can cause some pretty big rivalries, not to mention it'd be a pain getting all the little foosmen dressed in proper religious attire every match. ;)
I like foosball, though!*
*the Dream Monastery needs a foosball table, with robes on the little men!
Quote from: Agujjim on February 14, 2007, 08:58:02 PM
Yeah, but it can cause some pretty big rivalries, not to mention it'd be a pain getting all the little foosmen dressed in proper religious attire every match. ;)
You may be right.
I guess we'll just have to have everyone over for a few beers (or non-alcoholic cocktails for the Muslims & other non-drinkers), then. ;D
Quote from: Agujjim on February 14, 2007, 08:58:02 PM
*the Dream Monastery needs a foosball table, with robes on the little men!
Now I have this mental image of my foosball table with all the players being those fat little monks with tonsures (like cruets). ;D
A guy I know that's a Fransiscan Monk calls that the "chunky monk-y" haircut, because almost everybody looks sorta fat-faced with it.
For them, it's no longer mandatory.