(no subject)

[badstar]

You know it really frustrates me to no end to see anything that might be a "positive value"- love your neighbor, protect children from harm, etc referrred to as "christian values" and then if you happen to comment to that extent, you're on a soapbox, or you have an axe to grind.

You'd be frustrated too, if all the things that you agreed were good, were commonly referred to as being held in monopoly by a single religion other than your own.

note...this isn't in reference to livejournal, so don't go looking through my friends list for posts to bitch at.

edit: what I actually intended to be the point of my post, but didn't realy word it as to indicate it cleary was the fact that so often, if someone says somethign about this, then they're automatically assumed to be up on a soapbox or had an axe to grind. As for the instance in question, I honestly had never even metntioned the idea of referring to any positive values exclusively as Christian, a I had done at the time was to ask another poster to clarify something that she had said...and I made it clear that I was asking for clarification of somehting BEFORE I posted anything in response. I literally said "Before I post in response, I'd like to ask you to clarify what you mean by....Because depending on you answer, I may or may not have somehting to say."

Now the person in question did clarify...and acknowledged that what she said was not necessarily the best way to put it, and everyhtign was find in talking to her, but a few other posters just jumped in before I said anything and started on about how some people just can't resisting grinding the axe every chance they get. What annoyed me most was that this is a topic that I have NEVER mentioned in that particular forum, and the ones who made those comments, were a couple of the most frequent responders to other things that I HAVE posted.

Comments

[fervid-dryfire.livejournal.com]

My problem is the hypocrites who hijack the phrase and use it to promote their own warped political agendas and shove their theocratic ideals down non-Christian Americans' throats.

Non-Christians have done comparable things in return. Hypocrites and rotten apples abound on all sides.

[pagandenma.livejournal.com]

Oh, certainly in history. You've got the Roman Pagans killing off Christians, the Jews killing off the Pagans in their neck of the woods, the Christians (especially in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages) killing off anyone who disagreed with them, Sunnis and Shi'ites offing each other, Muslims and Hindus murdering each other - the list marches on.

But the one exception I see in today's modern world is the NEO-Pagans. They seem to be the one group A) staying out of mixing politics and religion, B) shouting the loudest and working the hardest for religious freedom for everyone, and C) not caring that you don't agree with them, as long as you don't persecute them.

Makes me glad I'm a Druid, thank you very much. Doesn't make me better than anyone else, mind you, just not likely to persecute someone for their beliefs. More of a "thanks, but not interested" approach to other faiths, rather than wanting to wipe them out . . .

[fervid-dryfire.livejournal.com]

Regarding points A), B), and C); ya got any examples of those? Last thing I remember reading in the news was this- an action which doesn't follow any of the tenets you listed.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

really, i think if any praying is going to be done before any sort of governmental meetings, it should be strictly between the individual and whatever entity/ies they're praying to. but if there must be prayers in that situation it should be non-specific in whose name is being prayed...and my reasoning for thinking this- even beyond holding one religion over others- is that in this setting, you're essentially praying on behalf of everyone in he room.

one thing that is not generally mentioned in news articles about that case is that this all started when Wynne was barred from speaking at a town council meeting because she stepped out of the room while the prayer was said- and she was TOLD by someone on the council that she should do this if she didn't want to be part of the prayer. She also wanted to be one of the people on the roster to periodically offer a prayer...but was barred because she was of a non-abrahamic religion. As it happened, she wanted to offer a non-sectarian prayer, but was barred even frm that.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

regarding your request for examples...

You don't see many news articles about Pagans trying to keep reliion out of politics altogether...and that's not to say the media is biased against us either, because you don't see much in the news about ANYONE trying to keep religion out of government altogether, with the glaring exception of the ACLU (and I've addressed my thoughts on them in a previous post)

You really do hear a LOT more about who's trying to drag one group or another down, or elevate one or another over everyone else, you hear very little about those who try to life EVERYONE up equally (I'm slowly in the process of trying to find examples of A,B & C...whether they be pagan, christian, whatever)

Out of A, B and C, I have to say I personally have seen a lot more of C than of A and B for the reasons I mentioned above. Now there are a number of pagans out there- and other than christianity, I have seen more examples of this within the pagan community than those of other religions- there are a number who DO seem to believe that "freedom of religion" is "freedom of religion as long as it's not christian"...they may not say this, but it's obvious though what they DO say and do that it's what they believe.

I'm really sorry to say that I have met a number of such people...and even sorrier that they are among the numbers of what I consider to be my spiritual community. I consider this to be more problematic than those who believe that "freedom of religion" means "freedom of christianity" because the "freedom of christianity" crowd at least tends to be very up front about it, instead of attempting to hide it.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

Kat...I have to disagree wth you there *. There are MANY of us who embrace those tennets, but it's certainly not universal. Now, we're not off killing anyone, and I don't see any trying to convert anyone (I've heard of a few isolated examples, but it's been a while) but there ARE those out there who take "freedom of religion" to mean "freedom of religion as long as it's not christian", whether they come right out and say it or not, and most don't.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

er, I meant i have to disagree *a little*