To paraphrase Granny Weatherwax, gray is only white that’s got grubby.
More to the point, white posing as black to make a point is not gray, it’s polarized and being viewed incorrectly.
2 Likes
A fungus.
1 Like
This is why all good believers take a respite of indefinite length at the Fanatical Weigh Station. Some see the problem and get back on the road, and all roads lead away from Fanaticism.
I was criticising the beliefs not the person. What you go on to suggest is that by criticising the beliefs, I am indirectly criticising the person… Your middle paragraph is full of false equivalencies because you listed ethnicity and sexual orientation as if they were comparable things.
Absolutely not. You can criticize anyone’s beliefs as much as you want to. That’s not what it’s about. When someone says ‘‘I am _____’’, you don’t just get to tell them ‘‘no, you aren’t’’ unless you have some pretty compelling evidence: eg. this ‘‘doctor’’ has never attended medical school. This ‘‘independent’’ candidate has voted along party lines 89% of the time. Whether the particular term in question is chosen, earned, or inherent is irrelevant.
If you ask me what I am, I will tell you I’m Scots-Irish American, an artist and musician, a Pagan, a left-libertarian, a maker, a businessman, and a dog person. I’m a lot of other things, but those are all pretty important to me.
Now, you can say whatever you like about my ancestors or my nationality. You can critique my work or my politics as much as you please. But if you put mocking quotes around one of those terms I use to describe myself, you’re telling me that I don’t deserve to call myself that- and that is what’s offensive. It is telling someone that you, rather than they, get to define who they are.
Almost every religion claims itself to be the one true religion and while most of them have learned to coexist, none of them really see believers of other faiths - particularly non-believers - as true equals.
The ironic thing here is that you’ve singled out one of the few religions that doesn’t do this. Most Pagan religions teach that all spiritual beliefs are valid on some level.
Fair points, well made. Though I should point out that haven’t singled anyone out but instead done the complete opposite by lumping them all in one big group. The original druids comment wasn’t mine and I don’t share it particularly, though the ambiguity of teh interwebs may be behind all of this, as when I read halloween_jack’s comment I presumed his quotation marks had more to do with judging the insincere practitioners of paganism who are onto their latest trend, rather than those who have made a considered decision for themselves.
I’d also say your final sentence provides a pretty good confirmation of the part of my comment that you quoted.
Most Pagan religions teach that all spiritual beliefs are valid on some level.
Yes… “none of them really see believers of other faiths as true equals.”
IRT one’s right to define one’s own self we’re on the exact same page, sir.
Not the mounds. Those were 99% wiped out in the 19th and early 20th centuries. There was a nifty book I read on this in the past year; I can’t recall the title or author to save my soul right now…
Something interesting I remember is how a number (a lot?) or early American towns were laid out on the grids of pre-Columbian towns - because of the roads, walls, mounds, etc. And that that layout persists today.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
