Religious Freedom...Was Re: Faith Education

[msbeadsley]

> > Sandy
> >Iggy, did you mean to come across like, "Well, you know, if it had 
> >been *me*, I'd have gotten into it with them and stood up for my 
> >principles"?  (FYI: It's the impression I got.) I put back in what 
> >you snipped of Erin's post (and marked it with asterisks) because 
> >it's germane to what I want to say.
> 
> Iggy here:
> No.  How I intended it to come across was:  I am the kind of person 
> who, if an argument had started, would happily have been in the 
> middle of it. My close friends know me well enough that, if they 
> disapprove of my personal views and try to impose theirs on me, 
> they'll have an argument on their hands.  (*chuckle* I can enjoy 
> debates about religion, philosophy, and sexuality at the drop of a 
> hat...)

I used to debate more; lately (mellowing with age? :-O) I am more 
inclined to exchange ideas: less "debate" (which implies competition) 
than "share."

> If someone asks if I'll sign a petition I don't agree with, I'll 
> flat out say "No."  If they ask why, I'll tell them. And if someone 
> looks at me like they're aghast that I'm not a real Christian, then 
> they don't know me at all... and I would respond to their looks by 
> either simply walking away (friends or not) or calling
> them on it.
> 
> I'm not saying that she failed in defending her principles.  Had she
> signed a petition she didn't agree with, then she would have 
> failed.  I was simply stating that I tend to be (and happily, 
> sometimes) more willing to have a confrontation about these 
> things.  Personally, I *enjoy* shaking up people's views about 
> things sometimes and seeing if their eyes are really open to what's 
> going on.

*sly smile* You're no kind of Christian (real or not) and neither am 
I! And your friends certainly know this, and so this situation would 
no more come up with you than with me. (I have a brother who recently 
attended a Promise Keepers rally; we love each other dearly (and he 
knows very well not to start with me because he will not win, but 
mostly it's about respect. Anyway, for me it comes down to whether or 
not it works. Whatever your flavor. What really bothered me about the 
petition-signing scene was the lack of respect; but I think there are 
kinds and degrees of friendship, and all of them have worth. I also 
wonder if we can really put ourselves in those shoes anymore (since 
we have have climbed *very* obviously and deliberately out of the 
religious mainstream to stand (skyclad?) on the shore).

Hmmm...doesn't "...(s)eeing if their eyes are really open to what's 
going on" imply that there is some sort of absolute truth 
regarding "what's going on," and further, that you consider yourself 
in possession of it and capable of measuring their vision against 
yours and determining which is more valid? I'm not just <g> being 
confrontational here; I really want to know. Because I used to 
enjoy "shaking up people's views about things sometimes," too. I've 
stopped. Mostly (unless there are ramifications). I still exchange 
ideas; now I usually do it for the sake of finding out about 
the "other" rather than to see if they're (by my standards) awake and 
aware. I think I figured out that *my* motives were grubby: I was 
reacting out of impatience with people who refused (IMO) to think 
beyond the end of their noses as well as in some sense taking on 
responsibility for "awakening" others. (Until one day I heard this 
*voice* booming, "And just who do you think *you* are?")

> > Sandy
> >(So, 'scuse me, Iggy, but what happened to not backing down on 
> > things you believe in? Yes, I'm messing with you here a bit.)
 
> While I won't back down from a confrontation, I also won't seek one 
> out when it could make things difficult for the rest of my family.  
> If someone challenges me on something, then I'll back up what I >
> believe... and it's happened before.  But, at least until we have a 
> house of our own that we can't get kicked out of or have things 
> become difficult at for my beliefs, I'm not going to go "borrowing 
> trouble" as it were.
 
> Get the difference?

Yes, I think so. (Although I confess the term "situational ethics" 
did leap to mind. Not that there's anything wrong with *that*; 
personally, I think they're *all* situational. Honestly.)

> One of the problems I ran into on my last job was when I asked for 
> Oct 31 and Nov 1 off.  They asked me why I needed to get those days 
> off, and I told them that they are a "holiday of faith" for me.  
> The manager asked me about what faith I was, and I told her.  Like 
> many I've encountered, her first comment was "Oh, you're a Satan 
> worshipper."

When I get this "Satan worshipper" comment, I react, aghast, 
thus: "Oh, no, we pagans don't *believe in* Satan--he's a *Christian* 
deity!" (Granted, sometimes I'm a *bit* subtler, depending on whether 
or not that person signs my paycheck. Uh, situational ethics, anyone? 
Then again, I've often been lucky enough to be (or made myself) 
indispensible enough to have my religious and other foibles seen as 
ah, say, merely interesting aspects of my character.)

> Needless to say, I had to spend a good amount of time explaining 
> the error of that statement.  (She had never even heard of a Wiccan 
> or a Druid...)  For some reason, since then, I got some very odd 
> shifts, and had a decision made against me that got me fired in a 
> dispute with another employee... I was never able to charge them 
> with discrimination since it was "at will" employment.

Until 2+ years ago, I worked for the Colorado agency which enforces 
the State's civil rights statutes. Colorado is also an "at will" 
employment state; and I saw employers forced to change policies, 
educate their workforce, make apologies, and sometimes reinstate or 
otherwise financially compensate employees, including pagans, who 
carefully documented the instances of religious discrimination they 
experienced. (It's hard, and harder in "at will" states, but it can 
be done.) FYI: religious discrimination in housing (whether you are 
dealing with a landlord, management company, owner, condo or 
homeowners' association, seller, or mortgage lender (and I may have 
missed a few more)) is also illegal (at the Federal level; the agency 
I worked for had work-sharing agreements with EEOC and HUD). Again, 
it's hard to prove, but the law is there if you have the need and the 
fortitude. (On the other hand, as a fellow pagan reminded me once, it 
hasn't been *that* long since the burning years, and sometimes it's 
smarter to just cut your losses and trust to recursion. Uh, Karma.)

> On the good side, Karma hit them in the butt, since they got bought 
> out and shut down about a month later and without any warning.  
> Some of them went to work for the company that had originally owned 
> the other business, but about 3 months later, *that* company get 
> bought out, shut down, and all the original employees fired...  
> (Ain't Karma a **tch to mess with sometimes?  *grin*)

Oh, yes; the two worst superiors I've ever had (fifteen years and 
many miles apart) were each fired very abruptly (after they no longer 
had me at their mercy and I'd stopped feeling the pain).

> And another of my friends is an atheist who's into S&M...

He's not an artist whose initials are J.M., is he? ('Cos if so, we 
may have a mutual friend. One of the things I *love* about science 
fiction fandom is the eclectic mix of people; another of my fannish 
friends has been a Methodist minister in Nebraska for umpteen years 
now.)

> What's the real difference between a prayer and an incantation?
> Both are a series of words said with intent to enlist the aid of a 
> Power to help you achieve a desired result.

Beats me. Incantations are sexier; don't ask me why.

> What's the real difference between Ritual, and a religious Rite 
> such as Communion? Both involve the structured use of items, both 
> literal and symbolic, in a structured manner, and accompanied by 
> prayer/incantations with the intent to achieve a desired result 
> with the aid of a Power.

I think it's endorsement or lack of same by a widely recognized 
religious authority. (I'm a solitary practioner who's been 
asked, "How do you know if you're doing it right?" Well, ah, I 
*listen*, you see...and then there's the result, or lack of same...)

A very well-known and charismatic (in more ways than one) Chicago 
(SF) fan died several years ago after a brief (and losing) fight with 
cancer. (He wasn't a exactly a friend, but had been a houseguest and 
was someone I was very fond of having on the planet...to fight with  
if nothing else.) I prayed for him (but that's all, no hocus pocus) 
during his illness, only to find out (after he died) that he had 
*specifically* requested that only Christians make that effort. Oops. 
(I wish I could forward these questions to Ross; he'd have some 
definite answers for you!)

> What's the real difference between the Ten Commandments and the
> Threefold Law? With the exception of "Thou Shalt Have No God Before 
> Me," it all basically boils down to:  Be a good person and respect 
> others.

Uh, adultery? (No loophole for consenting adults in the Commandments.)
Some pagans I've known have had interesting concepts of "marriage," 
including how many people can go into one.) It seems to me that the 
main difference is in what the Threefold Law *doesn't* say, like 
specifically that "these ten things" in particular are verbotten. And 
the exception you cite is a BIG one, IIRC back over more than twenty 
years to my Christian days.

> Just my two centaurs worth... (oh, and since I was raised a pixie
> earlier, I'll see your pixie and add two House Elves.)

It wasn't me. I think it was June, who certainly can tap me for a 
couple of Thestrals and a Boggart if she needs a loan!

Sandy