Girl suspended for...

[s_stabeler]

I agree it is ridiculous to try and legislate, spells and vodoo dolls and whatnot. But I understand that s_stabeler said that from a moral/philosophical point of view, making an action you believe will cause harm on someone else, is an attempted attack, even if failed or inefective.

Bingo. I also pointed out that in THIS case, they were being ridiculous. I'm saying that IF the girl HAD actually tried to put a spell on her teacher, I'd have backed the school.

[TheHuckster]

Bingo. I also pointed out that in THIS case, they were being ridiculous. I'm saying that IF the girl HAD actually tried to put a spell on her teacher, I'd have backed the school.

I agree. When someone gets suspended, intentions and demeanor can play a larger role that isn't applicable to criminal actions. And it has nothing to do with religious beliefs either. A student casting a spell to cause harm is comparable to a student wishing a teacher would get into a car accident. I would back the school had they suspended a student for those ill wishes as well.

[Andara Bledin]

People would actually back up suspending kids over wishing others ill?

Wow, thought crime, indeed.

[Ginger Tea]

I agree. When someone gets suspended, intentions and demeanor can play a larger role that isn't applicable to criminal actions. And it has nothing to do with religious beliefs either. A student casting a spell to cause harm is comparable to a student wishing a teacher would get into a car accident. I would back the school had they suspended a student for those ill wishes as well.

I agree with Andara on this one, thought crime much?

The post about poisoning is valid though, if someone believes that food safe liquid is poisonous and willingly uses it, then it is just as bad as using actual poison or liquid like optrex to cause non fatal harm.

someone saying to a teacher "I wish you dead" and the teacher believing the student has the power to make it so, well I doubt the teacher's ability, if the student was rubbing a lamp saying it, it's 70:30 with the teacher being the crazier of the two, if the student then moves onto another lamp then another thinking that sooner or later they would reach a magic lamp by statistics, then I am of the conclusion that the student is in need of psychiatric help.

Granted there could be the isolated case where a student unable to cause harm by the power of thought, magic or genie might resort to more traditional forms, but outside of those the teachers look like those that suspend a child for pointing a finger and saying 'bang'.

[Rapscallion]

I will concede to your argument that if things were different, they'd be different.

They're not different. The christians were once a jewish splinter sect, and there is much made of how they've been persecuted in the early years.

A bit of underdoggery and a few centuries on, the peace-loving proto-hippies of the middle east became quite the fighting force in the crusades etc.

I have to admit I don't know as much about the rise of islam. However, a group that grows in numbers changes. Persons are clever, people are different. A group behaves differently the more people are in it.

The larger the group, the less the individual responsibility for the acts of the group.

Know what? I reckon that if pastafarians or atheists become a majority, I'd expect to see similar behaviours.

Human nature. Wiccans will be no different. It's how we as a species act.

Prove me wrong

If you are from the future, then no, your statement was not a petty insult. If you are not, however, you have STILL not shown me anything to back it up.It is irrelevant to what was said at the time, which was about Wicca as it is now. Your point appears to be that Wicca, if it had more followers, and was established in the same way other major religons are, would be more like other major religions.

I've yet to see anything to back up the claim of the existence of these gods. They're certainly claimed to exist, and I know a wiccan or two, and these are people I have a great deal of respect for. Religion has never been a topic of conversation for us.

If your point is that if things are different, they're not the same, then I suppose you're right. I was trying to argue about the differences held by different Wiccans today, not future Wiccans, who I have no contact with and thus cannot make a statement about what they think one way or the other.

They aren't different. Why would future wiccans be different? Would they believe different things? Then they're surely not wiccans. My point is that they're the same - they're human.

It also remains that the point that I made, that Wicca is different, and the 'what's true/what's not true' is a substantively different debate being made in a substantively different manner, has still not actually been contested, perhaps because you feel you don't need to know about Wicca, and thus what the debate actually is, to discuss it.

I'm aware that it's a pantheistic religion. I'm also aware that it's not been able to prove that its rites work.

How do I know this? Simple - if it were proven and worked, I'd be drawing the pentacles or chanting after Astarte or Lucifer or Pan's favour (I've not googled for the names, those are ones I think are involved). I'm more interested in truth - were wicca proven to be how the world works, I'd follow it. I also know that the religions in the world can't all be true.

Wicca isn't different. It's got a slew of supernatural figures, but no proof of them. It's also got humans. Not a good mix.

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

It's exactly how it will be, and I pointed out how the mainstream religions are at the moment.

Except the point is not how Wicca may or may not be in the future, it is how it is now. You cannot use a supposed future to back up an argument about todays Wiccans, especially when the supposed future is a far cry different than the current reality.

Incorrect.

The only difference between wicca and other religions is the aspect of numbers. Get enough numbers together, and the anarchy of well-meaning people will organise. It's human nature. Leaders will take over, and someone will want something done, and rationalise away the thricefold law of return or whatever it's called these days, and shit will occur.

Well thats lovely, if you had any proof.

Current estimates for Wiccan population in the US place it at somewhere between 750,000 and 800,000, depending on the source. Possibly higher, because its hard to get a good consensus on wicca and other neopagan religions, largely due to the fact that there is no one organizing church or the like.

So...whats the magic number? Or is it an amount of time? The catholic church was around for a long time before the Protestants splintered off in the 1500's. (Population in europe at the time was roughly 80 million).

It's how the world is.

I've begun pondering the concept of instead of removing religion as an aim, removing people. Bit harder to accomplish, of course. Not necessarily preferable. However, the main flaw in every socio-economic grouping (religious, political etc) is people.

Yes, removing people is a rather messy situation. And thank you for admitting that the problem is people, rather than religion--it's nice to see the blame fall where it really belongs for once in a religious argument.

That they existed is not in doubt; as to whether or not this was a good thing...

The churches of the time were responsible for the spread of literacy, preservation of knowledge, and were pretty much the only reliable source of charity that existed for a long, long damn time. We would likely not have even a tenth of the knowledge of those times we do have without church documents and the like.

As for wicca, once there are enough practitioners, they will follow the same path of division. Humans run into a limit of about a hundred to a hundred nad fifty people they associate with - try looking up the monkeysphere concept. We have hardwired limits in our wetware, and that's when things split and divide and we tribalise.

It'll happen just the same.

I fail to see the relavence of the monkeysphere here. What does it have to do with your assertion that Wicca will follow the same path that other organized religions have? Unless you're trying to assert that it's responsible for tribal conflict type things, which is a valid argument.

I would remind you, however, that there are well over seven hundred thousand wiccans in the US alone, and it hasn't happened.

It'll happen just the same. Get to critical mass, and the same paths will be trodden.

Again, proof please? I'd like to see something to back these claims up other than wild theories. Further I'd like to see you refute that facts that Wicca doesn't preach any one true path, and that finding ones own path is, for many, a major part (and appeal) of the religion. Hell, there isn't even a codification of the deity(s) worshiped.

How can it follow the same path when it's not even in the same ballpark as Christianity or Islam?

Hell, would you say the same thing about Buddhism? Shinto? There are, roughly speaking, 350 millions buddhists in the world. Yet I have yet to hear of a violent schism between sects, or one trying to oppress another.

It's almost like this claim that all religions are the same and follow the same path is bull.

I don't need to understand wicca in great detail. I've got a reasonable amount of knowledge of people, though. I'm no trained sociologist, but I've done a bit of reading and can recognize trends.

Thank you for invalidating every argument you would like to make about Wicca.

If you want to discuss something with any sort of authority, you need to understand it in some detail. I would not presume to lecture on physics when I know comparatively little about it--that you think you can speak with any legitimacy about a religion while freely admitting to not know about it in great detail puts your roughly on the same level as people who like to equate Dungeons & Dragons with devil worship.

You admit you are talking out your ass. Thank you.

By the way, christians, muslims, and wiccans all believe in the existence of supernatural beings and perform various acts based on this, usually prayer in one form or another. If anyone has been able to reliably prove any sort of end result of these prayers through reliable reproduction, I missed the press release. Other than that, we're talking about unsubstantiated claims, so on a macro level they are the same in function.

Rapscallion

Yes, and a cow and a chicken are, in macro, the same thing, since both are simply biological organisms of the animal variety that are routinely slaughtered for their meat by humans.

It's not like details matter or anything.

[Duelist925]

They're not different. The christians were once a jewish splinter sect, and there is much made of how they've been persecuted in the early years.

A bit of underdoggery and a few centuries on, the peace-loving proto-hippies of the middle east became quite the fighting force in the crusades etc.

I have to admit I don't know as much about the rise of islam. However, a group that grows in numbers changes. Persons are clever, people are different. A group behaves differently the more people are in it.

There is a marked difference in how a religion can grow during, say, times in the long past when people routinely died because we hadn't figured out anything about medicine other than "grind up this root", and a religion that has grown the most in the past sixty years, during a time of unparalled historical peace an plenty.

They are not the same.

The larger the group, the less the individual responsibility for the acts of the group.

Know what? I reckon that if pastafarians or atheists become a majority, I'd expect to see similar behaviours.

Human nature. Wiccans will be no different. It's how we as a species act.

Prove me wrong

How about your prove yourself right? Actually study. Maybe you'll learn something!

And believe me, I've run into enough asshole atheists, neopagans, and etc, that I'm not disputing your claim that people suck.

I am disputing your claim that all religions must follow the same path. -_-

I've yet to see anything to back up the claim of the existence of these gods. They're certainly claimed to exist, and I know a wiccan or two, and these are people I have a great deal of respect for. Religion has never been a topic of conversation for us.

This...what? This had absolutely nothing to do with what Yena wrote. You're not even trying to refute his claim, this is just falling back to the old "Can't prove its true, so it must be a lie" bullshit I see all the time.

If you're going to debate, please debate the subject at hand.

And, so as to not stray too much: Once more you are argueing from a future possibility rather than a current fact.

They aren't different. Why would future wiccans be different? Would they believe different things? Then they're surely not wiccans. My point is that they're the same - they're human.

Once more, you do nothing to actually respond to Yena, and simply fall back to the most basic of assertons.

And, once more: Future possibility does not equal present fact.

I'm aware that it's a pantheistic religion. I'm also aware that it's not been able to prove that its rites work.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at han

How do I know this? Simple - if it were proven and worked, I'd be drawing the pentacles or chanting after Astarte or Lucifer or Pan's favour (I've not googled for the names, those are ones I think are involved). I'm more interested in truth - were wicca proven to be how the world works, I'd follow it. I also know that the religions in the world can't all be true.

You weren't kidding, you don't know shit about Wicca if you equate if with Lucifer in any way.

And, for the third time: We are not discussing whether or not religion is correct, or real, or what have you. Stop trying to change the bloody subject, and argue your original point, if you can even remember it.

Wicca isn't different. It's got a slew of supernatural figures, but no proof of them. It's also got humans. Not a good mix.

Rapscallion

I refer you back to my cow/chicken argument. Details matter.

[Hyena Dandy]

I know a wiccan or two, and these are people I have a great deal of respect for.

Not enough respect to actually find out about their religion before talking about it.

How do I know this? Simple - if it were proven and worked, I'd be drawing the pentacles or chanting after Astarte or Lucifer or Pan's favour (I've not googled for the names, those are ones I think are involved).

So much respect, in fact, that you won't even GOOGLE it. You won't even do the same amount of research into a faith and its followers as you would for when Avengers 2 comes out. I put more research into this debate than you have when I googled Gardner to make sure I was spelling his name right. I don't know why you think boasting about NOT RESEARCHING makes your point STRONGER.

Once again. You were speaking in the present tense, about something someone said about Wicca in the modern day. You did not make a comment about the future, and now seem to be making an entirely new point, totally irrelevant to the original one.

You have still not responded to the point I repeatedly made, and are making claims about the future in order to back up a statement about the present. I cannot debate your claims about possible futures, because my TARDIS's dematerialization circuit was removed after I was found guilty of interfering with history, so I've been exiled to the 21st century as punishment.

[Rapscallion]

Oh fek, hit the wrong button on my mouse and backed a page, erasing a load of typing.

Except the point is not how Wicca may or may not be in the future, it is how it is now. You cannot use a supposed future to back up an argument about todays Wiccans, especially when the supposed future is a far cry different than the current reality.

Prove me wrong.

So...whats the magic number? Or is it an amount of time? The catholic church was around for a long time before the Protestants splintered off in the 1500's. (Population in europe at the time was roughly 80 million).

No idea, I'm not a trained sociologist. How many per capita had to join the nazi or communist parties to take over?

Yes, removing people is a rather messy situation. And thank you for admitting that the problem is people, rather than religion--it's nice to see the blame fall where it really belongs for once in a religious argument.

Religion does not get a clean card from that. People are evil, but there are plenty of examples of evil in religion.

The sword verses of the koran, for example, are ones the average moderate muslim tends to overlook.

The bible and torah/talmud (from where it started) has all those awkward verses about how slavery is acceptable and how to be a slave owner. Plenty more.

See, every time we get down to this, there's an effective assertion that the good stuff is god's and the bad stuff is humanity's fault. I don't accept that.

For me, the central point about the religions we're familiar with in the western world is to explain where the world came from, how it is, and how you should behave - along with the consequences of not following the rules. To say that there is a god is a statement of how the world is. If these claimed beings did as is told in their holy texts, then they're some pretty nasty people.

Kill your son.
Sure thing!
Just joking.
Hey man, I was going to do it!

That shade of thing. Toyed with Moses a few times, hardening pharaoh's heart and all that jazz. I always though that was a dick move, actually.

The world and its creator - if there is such - is not necessarily a nice place. One of the nicest and most giving people I know has had a rather shit time of things.

People don't help either. However, there's no guarantee that religion is all nice and unicorn dust.

The churches of the time were responsible for the spread of literacy, preservation of knowledge,

For their own perpetuation and within their own cadres. Had they encouraged general education and debate of religious positions without bringing a blasphemy law into being, I'd be more impressed.

and were pretty much the only reliable source of charity that existed for a long, long damn time. We would likely not have even a tenth of the knowledge of those times we do have without church documents and the like.

Charity, sure. However, they're not known as the Dark Ages for nothing...

I fail to see the relavence of the monkeysphere here. What does it have to do with your assertion that Wicca will follow the same path that other organized religions have? Unless you're trying to assert that it's responsible for tribal conflict type things, which is a valid argument.

The relevance is that we're hardwired to be tribal. It will happen.

I would remind you, however, that there are well over seven hundred thousand wiccans in the US alone, and it hasn't happened.

Prove it won't. By the way, from a quick google search there are about a half-million people in the US who identify as atheists (not just irreligious - 1.6% of 317million population).

Again, proof please? I'd like to see something to back these claims up other than wild theories. Further I'd like to see you refute that facts that Wicca doesn't preach any one true path, and that finding ones own path is, for many, a major part (and appeal) of the religion. Hell, there isn't even a codification of the deity(s) worshiped.

Prove it won't. I have faith that there are several stages of critical mass in social movements. Get to a certain number of similarly minded people and they will organise. Get to another number and splits will start. Another number and you'll see some form of violence erupting.

How can it follow the same path when it's not even in the same ballpark as Christianity or Islam?

All three have claims of supernatural beings, all three involve humans, all three say that if you follow certain procedures and believe in certain ways you'll get certain results. As a species we excel at arguing over the fine details as a past-time.

Hell, would you say the same thing about Buddhism? Shinto? There are, roughly speaking, 350 millions buddhists in the world. Yet I have yet to hear of a violent schism between sects, or one trying to oppress another.

Well, there's the buddhists who rioted against muslims recently. Different religions, but then there are misogynist sects within Buddhism (a bit of background in the link). Not the mainstream faith, but it happens. Misogyny is against half the population.

I'm no expert on buddhism, and I know very little about shinto. I do know that neither are evangelical with a desire to convert others. I can live with that. I have issues when a faith tells the government that they should have special religious exemptions from laws or special treatment.

It's almost like this claim that all religions are the same and follow the same path is bull.

All social movements, actually - I include politics in my hypothesis of why people are doomed to repeat the same bollocks generation after generation.

Thank you for invalidating every argument you would like to make about Wicca.

Au contraire! I have my hypothesis and other people are desperate to prove it for me!

If you want to discuss something with any sort of authority, you need to understand it in some detail. I would not presume to lecture on physics when I know comparatively little about it--that you think you can speak with any legitimacy about a religion while freely admitting to not know about it in great detail puts your roughly on the same level as people who like to equate Dungeons & Dragons with devil worship.

You admit you are talking out your ass. Thank you.

It's a religious movement, and I can talk in generalities about what I've seen as trends over the years. Actually, social movement for that matter, including nationalism.

Besides, physics can be proven, D&D admits to being fiction, and religion ... hasn't really passed any tests unless you know of any?

Yes, and a cow and a chicken are, in macro, the same thing, since both are simply biological organisms of the animal variety that are routinely slaughtered for their meat by humans.

It's not like details matter or anything.

Apparently not.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Prove me wrong.

This isn't how honest debate works. You made a claim, it's on you to support it.

How many per capita had to join the nazi or communist parties to take over?

So, you're rolling in a slippery slope argument with Godwinning the thread?

Two bad debate tactics for the price of one!

People are evil, but there are plenty of examples of evil in religion.

There are plenty of examples of evil in everything. Full stop. If we avoided everything that people used for evil, we'd all be hermits in isolated caves too afraid of our fellow man to venture out for anything that wasn't an absolute necessity.

The bible and torah/talmud (from where it started) has all those awkward verses about how slavery is acceptable and how to be a slave owner.

You are aware that a large percentage of the worst parts of this were instrucitng people how to live in the societies in which they were framed, right? Secular vs religious distinction wasn't considered much during that time period.

But, hey, millions of religious people can't manage to stop trying to live in the past, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the irreligious would do the same.

For their own perpetuation and within their own cadres.

No matter their motives, what they did was of great benefit to the whole of society. It's not even like they were doing it at someone else's expense.

Charity, sure. However, they're not known as the Dark Ages for nothing...

Actually, they were. Well, not nothing, but out of ignorance, really. You need to bring yourself up to speed on this one, as does most of society.

An excerpt from Wikipedia:

The medieval period is frequently caricatured as supposedly a "time of ignorance and superstition" which placed "the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity." However, rationality was increasingly held in high regard as the Middle Ages progressed. The historian of science Edward Grant, writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed [in the 18th century], they were made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities". Furthermore, David Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led".

The relevance is that we're hardwired to be tribal. It will happen.

But not all tribes are equal, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn all religious people into the same pigeonhole. Otherwise, Atheists would be no different than those who are Religious and your fight against religion is utterly and completely without merit.

Either we're all headed down the same path and religion is irrelevant, or the focus of the "tribe" matters, and those who follow different paths will act differently. You can't have both and expect people to treat you seriously.

Prove it won't. By the way, from a quick google search there are about a half-million people in the US who identify as atheists (not just irreligious - 1.6% of 317million population).

Again: You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you.

Unless you agree that it's up to you to, say, prove that God doesn't exist...

Prove it won't. I have faith that there are several stages of critical mass in social movements. Get to a certain number of similarly minded people and they will organise. Get to another number and splits will start. Another number and you'll see some form of violence erupting.

Again, see above. Your cake can be in your hand or your belly, but it can't occupy two places at the same time.

Also, following this in a logical and rational manner, then religion is irrelevant other than one of the many tent poles that people crowd around and your entire fight against religion is entirely irrational.

For someone who so strongly claims to be on the side of knowledge and rational thought, your entire history in this thread is based on willful ignorance and appeals to history (all without any citation at all) and massive amount of vigorous assertion that you seem to expect everybody to just take as true on faith.

I can't be the only one that sees the incredible amount of cognitive dissonance in this.

[Duelist925]

Prove me wrong.

Make an actual fucking argument. One that doesn't rely on suppositions based on how things happened hundreds of years ago, one that can be tested without having to wait an untold amount of time to see wether or not its correct.

Actually debate rather than pulling shit out of your ass.

Do you think you're being clever with this "Prove me wrong" Bs?

No idea, I'm not a trained sociologist. How many per capita had to join the nazi or communist parties to take over?

Not having any training in sociology makes me take everything you say with a grain of salt so big it'll give me a goiter.

And yay, godwin, and red scare in one sentence! Impressive.

And, for the record: The rise of the Nazi party was influenced by so many sociological and historical things that people can and have written multiple dissertations and books on it. Everything from the outcome of WW1 to the fucking food supply of the time is cited, and thats just from my fucking history text book from last semester.

It is not that cut and dried.

Do. Your. Research. Or admit you're talking out of your ass.

Religion does not get a clean card from that. People are evil, but there are plenty of examples of evil in religion.

The sword verses of the koran, for example, are ones the average moderate muslim tends to overlook.

The bible and torah/talmud (from where it started) has all those awkward verses about how slavery is acceptable and how to be a slave owner. Plenty more.

See, every time we get down to this, there's an effective assertion that the good stuff is god's and the bad stuff is humanity's fault. I don't accept that.

See, I dont know where the hell you're getting that--Ive seen people make multiple arguements, even here, about that. That a very basic message was over complicated, or that certain parts were added in because they were necessary or expected at the time, or that things were misunderstood, or mistranslated. And thats just a damn start.

So I don't see where you're getting that the only argument presented is gods stuff=good, humans stuff=bad.

This isn't even research fail, this is willful ignorance over shit that happens on your own message board.

For me, the central point about the religions we're familiar with in the western world is to explain where the world came from, how it is, and how you should behave - along with the consequences of not following the rules. To say that there is a god is a statement of how the world is. If these claimed beings did as is told in their holy texts, then they're some pretty nasty people.


Kill your son.
Sure thing!
Just joking.
Hey man, I was going to do it!

That shade of thing. Toyed with Moses a few times, hardening pharaoh's heart and all that jazz. I always though that was a dick move, actually.

The world and its creator - if there is such - is not necessarily a nice place. One of the nicest and most giving people I know has had a rather shit time of things.

The debate over the morality of god/yahweh/the sisters three/what have you is not what I am here for. You want to debate that? Make a thread for it.

Stop. Trying. To change. The subject.

People don't help either. However, there's no guarantee that religion is all nice and unicorn dust.

No one. Is claiming. That religion. Is perfect. Stop building strawmen.

For their own perpetuation and within their own cadres. Had they encouraged general education and debate of religious positions without bringing a blasphemy law into being, I'd be more impressed.

As opposed to...no one doing it? And oh yes, in a time when people regularly shit themselves to death because of lack of hygiene, people are going to care about religious debate. -_-

Charity, sure. However, they're not known as the Dark Ages for nothing...

The dark ages weren't that dark. Life expectancy was up, wars were down (And smaller), and everywhere outside of europe flourished.

Further, the role of the church in the cause of the fall of the roman empire (Which is what led directly to the Middle or "Dark" Ages) is debatable to some extent. While it played a role, the size of the role is not set in stone.

The relevance is that we're hardwired to be tribal. It will happen.

I'd love if you actually made an argument, rather than simply making a baseless assertion.

Prove it won't. By the way, from a quick google search there are about a half-million people in the US who identify as atheists (not just irreligious - 1.6% of 317million population).

You're...point? Yes there are a lot of atheists, with an equal or greater number of Wiccans.

And the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, so prove your damn point and then maybe someone will rebut it.

Prove it won't. I have faith that there are several stages of critical mass in social movements. Get to a certain number of similarly minded people and they will organise. Get to another number and splits will start. Another number and you'll see some form of violence erupting.

You have...faith.
...
I...I really hope you are aware of the definition of irony.

You are making a claim....on FAITH...without backing it up in any way shape or form, and freely admitting that you argue from an ignorant point of view (Don't even bother denying it, you've stated multiple times that you aren't trained or studied in sociology and that you're not even willing to do a basic google search to get basic religious points correct).

All three have claims of supernatural beings, all three involve humans, all three say that if you follow certain procedures and believe in certain ways you'll get certain results. As a species we excel at arguing over the fine details as a past-time.

Cow/chicken. What you are pointing out is fundamentally worthless, as exactly the same logic can be used to equate humans and dolphins as the same thing.

Well, there's the buddhists who rioted against muslims recently. Different religions, but then there are misogynist sects within Buddhism (a bit of background in the link). Not the mainstream faith, but it happens. Misogyny is against half the population.

Hey, you actually did research! I'm so proud. I would like to point out that the first two lines of the first link point out how this is not usual for Buddhism in general, and how it goes against the general non violent nature of Buddhism.

And in the second, it points out how the misogyny in Buddhism likely stems from the fact that female priests faced more dangers than males, and how the restrictions put on them in that time have been used later down to line to denigrate them.

Gee, it's almost like you just skimmed the articles, or read the titles, and didn't bother putting any actual thought into what was said.

I'm no expert on buddhism, and I know very little about shinto. I do know that neither are evangelical with a desire to convert others. I can live with that. I have issues when a faith tells the government that they should have special religious exemptions from laws or special treatment.

Hey, something we can agree on.

All social movements, actually - I include politics in my hypothesis of why people are doomed to repeat the same bollocks generation after generation.



Au contraire! I have my hypothesis and other people are desperate to prove it for me!

A: What people? Provide links. Provide actual arguments regarding your pet hypothesis.

B: Since you freely admit you have no sociological training, you're hypothesis carries as much weight as a tweens understanding of economics.

It's a religious movement, and I can talk in generalities about what I've seen as trends over the years. Actually, social movement for that matter, including nationalism.

It's a religious movement born in a time that is fundamentally different from the time that the religions you're comparing it too were born in. It's like comparing a modern businessman with a fifth century scribe. Talking in generalities may work, but once you get to ANY level of detail, it falls apart.

[quote]
Besides, physics can be proven, D&D admits to being fiction, and religion ... hasn't really passed any tests unless you know of any?[quote]

So fucking what? Physics can be proven, but I still won't lecture you about it since I freely admit that I don't know enough about it to speak as an authority.

Why do you feel as though you can speak with any authority about a religion that you know fucking nothing about? Not even the most basic of shit, like the fact that Lucifer has no presence in it. Nor does Astartes or Pan, though they have their own place in neopagan worship.

You admit you are not trained in sociology, and have proven that you won't do even the most basic of research, so why should anyone give your pet hypothesis the time of day?

Apparently not.

Rapscallion

If details don't matter, than I can quite freely say that all atheists are smug entitled dipshits.

This is despite knowing that this applies to only the most vocal fringe of the group.

Just like it is with every fucking social, religious, or political group to have ever existed.

[Hyena Dandy]

All three have claims of supernatural beings, all three involve humans, all three say that if you follow certain procedures and beli them. eve in certain ways you'll get certain results. As a species we excel at arguing over the fine details as a past-time.

I'd say that your categorization of religion is totally wrong here. The details are that they're about supernatural beings. That's not the POINT of them. If you actually studied religion, you'd find that the belief in the fact claim is not what the primary goal is. See "God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World."

What's important to Christianity isn't that Jesus made bread for thousands of people. It's what that symbolizes.

Charity, sure. However, they're not known as the Dark Ages for nothing...

They're known as the dark ages because Petrarch believed that the time of Rome and Greece was the height of knowledge, and the lack of their writings made the period from the 500s to the 1200s 'Dark' ages.

Most contemporary historians I've talked to find the term "The Dark Ages" ridiculous and insulting. One of the things I'm most interested in studying is the medieval era, and I find the phrase "The Dark Ages" slanderous.

Science did advance through the middle ages. The most striking example would be castles. Compare Harlech Castle, from the 1280s, near the end of the "Dark ages" to the castles of the 500s or so. You cannot back up the idea that the Dark Ages had no scientific advancement on the grounds that it was called the Dark Ages.

And still, STILL, you have not addressed the original point. You CONTINUE not to address the original point, and dismiss things vital to the faith as irrelevant, make statements about the future that cannot be questioned, due to the majority of members here not having operable TARDISes. To ask me to disprove a statement about the future is ridiculous and you surely KNOW that. You do not, have not, addressed anything specific to Wicca, you have boasted about your lack of knowledge of the faith, and feel qualified to discuss it without so much as a cursory google search. Your "I have Wiccan friends" is as paltry a defense as "I have black friends."

You are not a sociologist, and make claims of sociology. You are also not a Historian, and make claims of history. You feel qualified to make claims on religion, due to its not being 'true,' a statement that brushes away whole departments in the majority of universities in my country and yours. Religion may not be true, but I cannot claim that Christians believe that the Holy Trinity are Anubis, Zeus, and Thor and expect to be taken seriously.

[Kheldarson]

. Religion may not be true, but I cannot claim that Christians believe that the Holy Trinity are Anubis, Zeus, and Thor and expect to be taken seriously.

To be fair, wouldn't that Holy Trinity kinda rock for it's sheer overwhelming power?

Thor: We must go out and defeat the giants with hammer and lightening!
Zeus: Great! Let me just rumble up a few bolts...
Anubis: I await the tally of your victory.



...I'll let you get back to the argument now...

[TheHuckster]

People would actually back up suspending kids over wishing others ill?

Wow, thought crime, indeed.

Back in highschool if I told my teacher to go die in a fire, I think that'd be grounds for disciplinary action, yes.

Note that I'm not talking about what students write in diaries or think amongst themselves. When they make those thoughts public it becomes inappropriate and, if done frequently enough, threatening and bullying behavior.

[Duelist925]

Back in highschool if I told my teacher to go die in a fire, I think that'd be grounds for disciplinary action, yes.

Note that I'm not talking about what students write in diaries or think amongst themselves. When they make those thoughts public it becomes inappropriate and, if done frequently enough, threatening and bullying behavior.

This, however, is a far cry from what was being discussed at first--public crap like that can easily be construed as harassment, yes.

But simply thinking it, or casting a spell - which, in Wicca, is most often a fairly private affair, and not something one does out and about (and is rather akin to prayer, actually) - is not the same thing, and does not require the same reaction.