Why does Paganism scare Christians?

[ContraMundum]

But let's take the case of our Native American children who are forcibly removed from their homes and placed in missionary schools where they are indoctrinated into Christianity. Without the soldiers would such a thing have been possible?

But a child can be coerced into believing what authorities tell him to believe. If the practice of any religion but Christianity is banned then the following generation will know nothing but Christianity. If you insist on seeing conversion as an internal process what you suggest maybe true but that definition is not that relevant when it comes to historical analysis. The Saxons were forcibly converted to Christianity whether Charlemagne changed the heart of any individual Saxon or not.

I suppose if your looking at the birth of fundamentalism as not occurring until the close of the nineteenth century with the publication of The Fundamentals of Christianity. However, if you trace American Evangelical Christianity back to the first and second Great Awakenings I think it shares something else with the rise of Islamic Revivalism of 18th and 19th century, namely the spread of mass literacy on a fairly low level. This contributed to a literalism which took hold in both religions about the same time.

Wow...I just realized that to you Christianity is just another choice on the religious smorgasbord. Nothing at all to do with knowing God or the new birth. Amazing.

No wonder these posts always end in politics. It's just not the point at all.

 

[smaneck]

Wow...I just realized that to you Christianity is just another choice on the religious smorgasbord. Nothing at all to do with knowing God or the new birth. Amazing.

LOL. I just don't imagine as you do, that Christianity has a monopoly on such things. All religion is about spiritual transformation, but that may or may not coincide with conversion.

No wonder these posts always end in politics. It's just not the point at all.

None of the posts you quoted mentioned politics. But religion is not merely about transforming individuals, it is also about transforming the world. A religion which is merely about personal transformation is a selfish religion.

 

[Zoness]

I suppose if your looking at the birth of fundamentalism as not occurring until the close of the nineteenth century with the publication of The Fundamentals of Christianity. However, if you trace American Evangelical Christianity back to the first and second Great Awakenings I think it shares something else with the rise of Islamic Revivalism of 18th and 19th century, namely the spread of mass literacy on a fairly low level. This contributed to a literalism which took hold in both religions about the same time.

Huh, I never considered a connection between literacy and literalism. What an interesting thought. It makes a lot of sense.

Yes. I think that's pure hyperbole. It's a broad slander, basically. I've read, studied and critiqued a lot more Church history that your average CF'er and I don't see what you see.

Well that makes sense. I mean, I'd have a hard time identifying as a Christian if I thought that my religion was committing a lot of evil acts. Not that it reflects Christians nowadays but I don't accept the idea that Christianity has always been peaceful. Taking a look at five minutes of American politics indicates to me that Christianity is just as popular of a Casus Belli as anything else.

Even in more peaceful terms I have a high level of suspicion of Christian politics especially in the States. As the prime directive of Christianity is to convert people and eliminate opposing thought, decisions made under the cover of 'religious freedom' are suspect due to their typically Christian-centric nature. It's sort of like the whole Satanist statue thing (would link thread if it wasn't deleted).

 

[morningstar2651]

So....just pick your favorite philosophy or religion and that makes it all good. "As long as its not X"

Not really - the key word is Secular. Politics shouldn't be religiously motivated, and religion shouldn't be politically motivated.

 

[smaneck]

Not really - the key word is Secular. Politics shouldn't be religiously motivated, and religion shouldn't be politically motivated.

I would agree that people need to be careful lest they use political power to force their religious beliefs on others, but how can religious motivations not play a part in politics. Religious motivations represent our deepest values. Can or should politics be divorced from values?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So....just pick your favorite philosophy or religion and that makes it all good. "As long as its not X"

The best way to ensure a religiously impartial government is to make sure that no single religion starts to legislate its particular beliefs.

Personally, I do not care much what religion a particular politician belongs to, as long as s/he's not trying to infringe upon the religious freedom of others by giving his world view a legal privilege.

In other words: you are perfectly free to live by your religious idiosyncracies. It's not my business whether you reject blood transfusions, shun pork, don't eat meat on a friday, cover your hair in public, pledge to never be involved in a relationship until your wedding day, or abstain from drinking alcohol.
What you are NOT free to do, however, is to force these particular, religion-based prohibitions on everybody else, regardless of THEIR religious (or irreligious) beliefs.

Therefore: keep church and state separate, and keep religion out of political policy making. Otherwise, you'll end up violating the very freedom that allows you to practice your own religion without interference from others.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I would agree that people need to be careful lest they use political power to force their religious beliefs on others, but how can religious motivations not play a part in politics. Religious motivations represent our deepest values. Can or should politics be divorced from values?

I outlined my take on the issue in my last post, above. I disagree that religion reflects our "deepest values". I think our most fundamental values exist on a level that could be called plain "humanity", or common human decency.

And the separation of church and state *does* work rather well in Europe, where (only a few centuries ago) we used to bash each other's head in over the question of whether the bread and wine turn into the literal flesh and blood of Christ or not.

Even in Germany, where the separation is nowhere near as pronounced as in France, the kind of religious partisanship that's so common in the USA is virtually unheard of. Our conservative party might be called "Christian Democrats", but they are decidedly less religiously biased than your average US-Republican.

 

[smaneck]

And the separation of church and state *does* work rather well in Europe, where (only a few centuries ago) we used to bash each other's head in over the question of whether the bread and wine turn into the literal flesh and blood of Christ or not.

Even in Germany, where the separation is nowhere near as pronounced as in France, the kind of religious partisanship that's so common in the USA is virtually unheard of. Our conservative party might be called "Christian Democrats", but they are decidedly less religiously biased than your average US-Republican.

Technically speaking the US has more separation of church and state than does Europe. In Europe churches can be state supported and public schools give classes on religion taught by pastors. That doesn't happen here. It would be a mistake to equate religious values informing political decisions on the basis of the Republican Party. Catholics and Jews tend to support Democrats and there too their political beliefs are informed by their religion. Former President Carter's Habitat for Humanity sells houses with interest-free mortgages. The reason? According to Carter because the Bible says you don't charge interest to poor people. TG's politics are intimately tied to his religious beliefs and God bless him for it, though I sometimes feel he is a better man than his theology.

 

[elephunky]

Awitch is correct on every point; nobody cares about Neopagans because Neopagans aren't actively manipulating the political landscape of their native countries.

I have found this to be the case also.

 

[awitch]

The best way to ensure a religiously impartial government is to make sure that no single religion starts to legislate its particular beliefs.

And the worst case scenario is when privileged is granted to one of those exclusive religions who views everyone else as either wrong or evil.

In other words: you are perfectly free to live by your religious idiosyncracies. It's not my business whether you reject blood transfusions, shun pork, don't eat meat on a friday, cover your hair in public, pledge to never be involved in a relationship until your wedding day, or abstain from drinking alcohol.
What you are NOT free to do, however, is to force these particular, religion-based prohibitions on everybody else, regardless of THEIR religious (or irreligious) beliefs.

Therefore: keep church and state separate, and keep religion out of political policy making. Otherwise, you'll end up violating the very freedom that allows you to practice your own religion without interference from others.

I would also add that holding personal religious beliefs should not be sufficient to exempt you from laws that apply to everyone else equally.

 

[Zoness]

And the worst case scenario is when privileged is granted to one of those exclusive religions who views everyone else as either wrong or evil.



I would also add that holding personal religious beliefs should not be sufficient to exempt you from laws that apply to everyone else equally.

I agree with you and Jane both. As long as the government is completely secular and treats all religions equally, I have no problem.

 

[LoAmmi]

I would also add that holding personal religious beliefs should not be sufficient to exempt you from laws that apply to everyone else equally.

But holding some religious beliefs can be protected in certain ways. For example, my workplace needs to work with me to make reasonable accommodations for my religious holidays and such. Of course, I make it easier by saving up my time to take my holidays off and put in for it way ahead of time but I still make it known it's for my religious holidays so that they know they cannot simply say no because they feel like it.

 

[Zoness]

But holding some religious beliefs can be protected in certain ways. For example, my workplace needs to work with me to make reasonable accommodations for my religious holidays and such. Of course, I make it easier by saving up my time to take my holidays off and put in for it way ahead of time but I still make it known it's for my religious holidays so that they know they cannot simply say no because they feel like it.

So to me the question is what is reasonable religious freedom from certain things? I don't think there is an issue with Jews getting holy days off but I have a major problem with a large quadrant not wanting to pay insurance costs because its 'against their religion', for example.

I'm sure others can offer more examples that we could debate ad nauseum.

 

[LoAmmi]

So to me the question is what is reasonable religious freedom from certain things? I don't think there is an issue with Jews getting holy days off but I have a major problem with a large quadrant not wanting to pay insurance costs because its 'against their religion', for example.

I'm sure others can offer more examples that we could debate ad nauseum.

That is a line that is going to be defined by the laws of the United States and court rulings.

 

[Zoness]

That is a line that is going to be defined by the laws of the United States and court rulings.

The beauty of a secular government, indeed.

 

[awitch]

But holding some religious beliefs can be protected in certain ways. For example, my workplace needs to work with me to make reasonable accommodations for my religious holidays and such. Of course, I make it easier by saving up my time to take my holidays off and put in for it way ahead of time but I still make it known it's for my religious holidays so that they know they cannot simply say no because they feel like it.

Keyword is "reasonable" and they must be made equally to all religions. Being religious should never trump non-discrimination laws, for example.

 

[LoAmmi]

Keyword is "reasonable" and they must be made equally to all religions. Being religious should never trump non-discrimination laws, for example.

Of course not. And I support all religions being able to keep their traditions as long as it is reasonable.

 

[ContraMundum]

LOL. I just don't imagine as you do, that Christianity has a monopoly on such things. All religion is about spiritual transformation, but that may or may not coincide with conversion.

I don't think you give that equally to Christianity, it always ends up in political point taking when it comes to every religion but your own.

None of the posts you quoted mentioned politics.

Right....so why are they reduced to denying things to make political points? Is that not definitive of avoiding the issues?

 

[ContraMundum]

Not really - the key word is Secular. Politics shouldn't be religiously motivated, and religion shouldn't be politically motivated.

Do you believe people enter politics and shelve their own personal convictions? I don't. For that reason we can't stretch the definition of secular to include "non-religious", as people will always bring their faith into their decision making.

IOW- I don't think pure secular gov't is possible, even when it was tried in the 20thC by Stalinist nations etc- because a political platform can take the form of religion.

 

[ContraMundum]

The best way to ensure a religiously impartial government is to make sure that no single religion starts to legislate its particular beliefs.

Personally, I do not care much what religion a particular politician belongs to, as long as s/he's not trying to infringe upon the religious freedom of others by giving his world view a legal privilege.

In other words: you are perfectly free to live by your religious idiosyncracies. It's not my business whether you reject blood transfusions, shun pork, don't eat meat on a friday, cover your hair in public, pledge to never be involved in a relationship until your wedding day, or abstain from drinking alcohol.
What you are NOT free to do, however, is to force these particular, religion-based prohibitions on everybody else, regardless of THEIR religious (or irreligious) beliefs.

Therefore: keep church and state separate, and keep religion out of political policy making. Otherwise, you'll end up violating the very freedom that allows you to practice your own religion without interference from others.

Again, very sane and good words.