January 18, 2005

• This is precisely why the government giving money to Christians is a bad idea. It opens the door for any other cult to bilk taxpayers in the same way. That said, anything that takes advantage of the idiocy of this administration's pro-Christian policy is good news. I wish the "pagans" all the luck in the world in getting the gov't to cut as big a check as possible.
• My word. There's something about reading badly-written, wildly inaccurate editorial about a confused pseudo-religion which attacks the confused pseudo-religion for not be a specifically dogmatic organised religion in a superior tone of voice that completely leaves the notion of logical argument behind and which only briefly touches upon fact long enough to wilfully misunderstand the origin of Satanic imagery and when all of this is talking about something with the same name as an interesting if flawed scientific hypothesis and it uses the word pagan and it's Canadian and it's about America and the whole thing's actually an argument about government budgets that just really really really makes my head hurt. What's happening, again? Where are we? Whom? Oy. Also, can I just say that I interperted the name Canada Free Press as implying a press that is free of Canada?
• *loves flasher* *also owes AR for excellent computer advice* *is irrelevant, but fortunately has beer and a sleeping baby*
• Flashboy about summed it up.... About the only useful purpose for that article is as a teaching tool... bad writing at its best! Finally something to feel sorry for Canadians about! :-)
• I want a group of Satanists to sue for the right to faith-based money. It would be teh funE.
• But green groups aren't getting funding. He doesn't point to one example, just bitches that it maybe somehow could happen.
• This is precisely why the government giving money to Christians is a bad idea. It opens the door for any other cult to bilk taxpayers in the same way. Is Christianity "any other cult"? That said, anything that takes advantage of the idiocy of this administration's pro-Christian policy is good news. I wish the "pagans" all the luck in the world in getting the gov't to cut as big a check as possible. In other words, you're a hypocrite.
• Is Christianity "any other cult"? Yes.
• f8xmulder, Christianity is America's #1 cult. There is no criterion besides "habitual public acceptance" to raise "mainstream" Protestantism and Catholicism (if both can be called "Christian") above any other supernatural-based logic-defying theistic belief-system. That said, if "faith-based organizations" are entitled to government money to propagate and further themselves then Gaia "pagans" -- or Hare Krishnas, Moonies, Satanists, devotees of Big Davey, or whatever -- are every bit as entitled to it a Christians, Muslims and Jews. The only criteria for "faith-based" funding should be that the group have a belief-system centered around some "higher power" and some kind of ritual worship, and that it should be at least as law-abiding as any other business whether non-profit or not. This is because Christianity, on Constitutional grounds, should not be favored over any other religion; if the government is going to any recognize religion it should recognize all religions. And if that means they'll wind up having to scrap this "faith-based" stuff because all that funding and the bureaucracy to do it are too expensive, oh well, it was a crappy idea in the first place. (In other words, I am a practical realist.)
• This country was founded on the principles of secular humanism.
• In other words, you're a hypocrite. I prefer to call it pragmatism. The more people take advantage of stupid rules to rip off the system, the more attention will be paid to how bad an idea this "faith-based" stuff is in the first place (from a Constitutional standpoint). Especially when smelly hippies game the system, because everyone loves to hate smelly hippies. I hope these folks cash in and spend the money on things the Bush administration hates, like paying for lesbian marriage ceremonies in Massachusetts or Canada, or buying hybrid cars, or funding a child's education properly. I think I'll form a new cult just to collect handouts from the government. I really need a new yacht: my fluorescent suntan is fading and I miss the delicate tickle of champagne bubbles on my tongue. Praise Jesus and pass the checks!
• What Big Davey said. I don't care for singling out Christinanity (or any other religion) for the atrocities committed in its name; nor do I think much of giving it special recognition/treatment.
• Christianity is America's #1 cult. There is no criterion besides "habitual public acceptance" to raise "mainstream" Protestantism and Catholicism (if both can be called "Christian") above any other supernatural-based logic-defying theistic belief-system. Okay, let's just continue to dilute the meaning and power of words. By your definition, our country's independence was founded upon a cult document, and our government itself is a cult (due to the number of references to a logic-defying faith in a supernatural deity). Christianity is not a cult, any more so than Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other major world religion. That said, I'm not a fan of faith-based initiatives myself, especially when it's a government sponsored program.
• f8x, the Founding Fathers' version of Christianity is very different than what is living in the White House today. The Deists were much closer in spirit to Secular Humanists or Unitarians than to modern day evangelical Christians. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
• f8xmulder I agree, ”Christianity is not a cult, any more so than Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other major world religion.”. I think in modern usage cult is applied to a set of beliefs outside the popular norms. I use superstition rather than cult.
• In common usage, "cult" generally refers to a group of people who practice non-mainstream religious beliefs (to put it politely). In it's more general usage, though, cult means "A system or community of religious worship and ritual," or "The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual." Therefore, though I self-identify as a (left-wing) Christian, I can call Christianity a cult. (It's the same as calling certain religious stories myths. The Judeo-Christian creation story is a myth, under the word's more general usage.) Also, I see no problem with giving pagans or satanists faith-based money. The law cannot define "faith-based" as Christian (or Jewish or Muslim), because that's non-Constitutional. If people want to perform good works, let 'em.
• arse_hat wrote: f8xmulder I agree, ”Christianity is not a cult, any more so than Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism or any other major world religion.”. I think in modern usage cult is applied to a set of beliefs outside the popular norms. I use superstition rather than cult. In modern usage you're right, for those who don't read up on this stuff. From Merriam-Webster: cult: 1. 1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. 2. The followers of such a religion or sect. 2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual. 3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual. 4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease. 5. 1. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing. 2. The object of such devotion. 6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest. Technically speaking, to a theologian "cult" is defined by definitions 2 and/or 3, "a system or community of religious worship and ritual" and/or "the formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual." (The other definitions are slangy add-ons, an example of what makes some people prefer prescriptive rather than simply descriptive dictionaries.) That is, 'a "cult" is an organized ritualistic way of enacting a "superstition"'. But yes, I'll gladly go with "superstition" too, so 'Christianity is America's #1 superstition. There is no criterion besides "habitual public acceptance" to raise "mainstream" Protestantism and Catholicism (if both can be called "Christian") above any other supernatural-based logic- defying theistic belief-system.' Better? [Dammit, on preview I see meredithea just more or less beat me to it, but I'll post this too 'cuz we're not saying exactly the same thing -- and I worked hard on mine too!]
• Big Davey: There are more non-Christians than Christians. Therefore it is generaaly considered false. So it fits that definition nicely. Especially if one considers demoinations with leaders who claim supreme authority (Popes, I'm looking at you...) "Cult" and "religion" are labels not unlike "pon" and "erotica." Things we like, things we don't like.
• Just to snark share: Man Accused Of Killing Fellow Church Member. What struck me especially was this: "She was not interested in dating or anything like that. That was not even a consideration because God was working to heal her family."
• But yes, I'll gladly go with "superstition" too, so 'Christianity is America's #1 superstition. Well, I can see I've met my match in the fields of religion AND linguistic semantics. But hey, at least you're tolerant, if not respectful or sensitive! I consider my faith and religion to be far more important and meaningful than a 'superstition', and while you may not, it doesn't endear me to your point of view by calling Christianity a cult (in effect, labeling me and all other Christians fanatics and cult devotees) when it is clearly a mainstream religion. While I can understand (if not agree with) your desire to denigrate something you view as foolish or weird, I didn't think it would be necessary to twist what something is to fit into a box to ridicule.
• f8xmulder I’m not sure whom you are addressing but I’ll jump in. I would never call Christianity a cult but superstition does fit well. But that is not to say ALL Christians are superstitious. I subscribe to Hobbes’s view of religious belief. If the supreme power can be described and known by man then it (He) is not spiritual but simply another physical phenomena albeit a more powerful one. Because the supreme power (God) can never be known or described my knowledge of it (Him) can only come from my personal experience of it (with Him). Your knowledge of it (Him) is likewise your own. What I can tell you of God is simply an anecdote that rightfully should have no impact on your belief or behavior. “I consider my faith and religion to be far more important and meaningful than a 'superstition'” That is as it should be but your faith and religion have no role in the public realm other than to guide your own behavior. You religious experience can never be any other person’s experience. I argue that anyone following the dictates of his/her religious experience is NOT superstitious. Any following the teaching of an earthly person in the dictates of belief is most certainly superstitious *Scuttles back into his crack in the floorboards*
• I think I took too much theology in college, and so think of the term "cult" in that sense, rather than the "assemblage of crazies" sense. I would call Christianity (or, indeed, any mainstream religion) a "cult," and anything like the Koreshians (of Waco, TX) or the Heaven's Gate folks (both ended up being suicide pacts) an "anti-mainstream cult" (if I'm being polite) or "an assemblage of crazies" if I'm not.
• I guess the Koreshians are also called Branch Davidians.
• I consider my faith and religion to be far more important and meaningful than a 'superstition' So does everyone else, including the Gaia followers in the original post. Apparently, we denigrate people by opining what they like isn't objectively superior to what others prefer. rodgerd is right: "cult" versus "religion" is no different from "porn" versus "erotica." Same meaning, different tone. It's of vital importance that we get which is which to whom. In that vein, I apologize to f8xmulder. For more respect and sensitivity (not to mention convenience), let's not call any belief system a cult! We wouldn't need the denigratory word then.
• f8xmulder said: "I consider my faith and religion to be far more important and meaningful than a 'superstition'" Of course you do, they're yours. I'll bet you also see other people's faiths and religions as being not quite as important and meaningful as your Christianity. I'll also bet you don't consider that "mainstream" is a very relative term, e.g., in Iran the "mainstream" belief system is Twelver Shia Islam, and Christianity of any form, especially what's called "mainstream" Christianity in the USA, is a very non-mainstream kind of thing over there. Closer to home, in Utah the LDS is the "mainstream" Christian faith, which gives a lot of Baptists fits -- both quietly there and noisily on the Web. You also seem to be missing a related point, that public acceptance -- even 100% of a population -- does not make a belief-system true, or even any more valid than any other belief system. Like my mom used to say, "If all the other kids were jumping off a cliff I bet you'd want to do that too!" You don't have to feel singled out: I do the same with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, Satanism, Gaiaism, or any other "supernatural-based logic-defying theistic belief-system." But then I think people are entitled to believe anything they want -- as long as they keep it off my case. I'd have at least as hard a time being a secular humanist atheist in Iran as I do here, because, like anti-abortion and/or anti-homosexual Christians here, they don't view religion as a personal private matter binding only on the informed individuals who voluntarily accept it. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread: an attempt by a "non-mainstream" "faith-based" group to get recognized as being as valid and worthy of U.S. government recognition and money as Christianity -- when the Separation Clause clearly forbids the government from recognizing any religion, even something as warm & fuzzy as Gaiaism. If the government is going to start recognizing any religion then at least they should be fair and recognize them all, at least until such time as Jesus or Buddha or Thor or whomever appears in undeniable glory and tells us what to do (or else). The benefit of recognizing any and all "faith-based" thingies would be to encourage free competition, so there would not be one monopolistic state-backed "faith" trying to tell me how to live and think; the ultimate aim is of course to let the government find out that they were better off not being in the religion business in the first place. The issue is not whether any "faith" is somehow better than any other, but that according to the First Amendment of the Constitution the federal government should ignore them all equally. As opposed to their present policy, which unfairly favors "mainstream" Christian "faith-based" organizations -- because the "mainstream" Christians have not only the gall but also the muscle to dismiss other "faiths" as "cults" to be combatted rather than as simply competitors in the free marketplace of belief systems. As for the "faith-based" initiatives themselves, I see no distinction between Christians of whatever stripe taking government money to teach kids that "abstinence is the only way" and Black Muslims using government money to teach that "the white man is the Devil" -- both are religious beliefs that it's not the government's business use our taxes to further. (Oh, and kenshin, I had to look it up: my first hunch was wrong, "denigratory" in fact is an English word. Salute!)
• BD I’m going to worship Thor and apply for federal funds to throw a kick ass concert to convert people to something…
• 'd have at least as hard a time being a secular humanist atheist in Iran as I do here,At least as? More like, considerably harder. Somewhere like Turkey is probably a much better comparison.
• I'd hate to derail, but "Buddhism, ...or any other "supernatural-based logic-defying theistic belief-system." Buddhism does not fit that mold. One or two sects do, but as a whole, it doesn't.
• I want funding for my athiest humanist based charity. It's "faith-based" in that I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I've got a hunch. So gimme some money!