Elitist atheist? Not even close. I’ve had quite a few chuckles at the expense of the Madalyn Murray types too. And if elitism offends you, you ought to laugh at the “left hand path” types just as loudly as I do.
Or maybe LonesomePolecat, it’s that you care not a whit about social boundaries, and manners. If someone finds what you have posted offensive, and calls you on it, a better recourse would have been to say “I’m sorry to have given offense.”
Whether or not other pagans laughed at your little joke when you posted it previously doesn’t matter now. Lezlers, and I were offended by it. It was “over the top”. It went too far, and generalized too much.
I’m certain there will be others along shortly who will likely agree that it went to far. I’d guess the pagans that laughed at your post previously needed to feel better than Satanists that day, and so joined in.
I’m speaking up, because I don’t like it when people lump everyone who’s pagan together, and mocks them. I don’t like that, and so when I see it done, no matter what the religion, I’m going to speak up.
I practice Shaminism with a Celtic flair FYI. I have Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Native American roots, so it fits.
Your social boundaries sound more like social strait jackets, and a better recourse is to tell you to get a sense of humor. If someone finds a post offensive, the first question to ask is whether or not his offense is reasonable or if he’s a self-righteous twit like you who’s just looking for an excuse to offended. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the Pit.
Or maybe he was a SATANIST !!!
Well, what do you expect them to say? “Sure, it looks like he’s guilty, but he’s not. Just trust us.” They gotta throw the blame to someone else, and I think they found the mother of all targets. C’mon, people, SATAN! Plus, this leaves them with an almost unextinguishable amount of suspects. Remember Rosemary’s Baby? It could be anyone, for chrissakes!
Don’t even try and take offense, there, Mr. or Ms. alternative-faith. I’m not bashing you. I am revealing you as you are seen through the prism of the status quo. Ok? Fine. I’m glad we’re friends.
Lonesomepolecat,
Gee, has comedy central picked you up yet? Or did you just not get enough attention as a child and now insist bashing anyone different from you to get a few pitiful laughs? :rolleyes:
And thanks for explaining the pit to me, I’ve only been here a year and a half and have gotten the bulk of my post count here. One of the rules that is the same in all forums is the “don’t be a jerk” rule, which you don’t seem to have heard of.
Do you tell “tard” jokes to mentally handicapped people and then get pissed off when they take offense? Shit, they just need to get themselves a sense of humor right? And the colerds? Do ya get a good chuckle outta them when you tell them jokes? How bout the spicks? Are they lacking a sense of humor too?
Boy, people are just too damn sensitive, aren’t they lonsomepolecat :rolleyes:
Oh please, spare us from the “offended by proxy” people. I’m a Methodist. If lonesomepolecat had satirized my religon, I would probably get a good chuckle out of it. Being offended on behalf of Satanists is letting your mind be so open that your brains fall out. It’s SATIRE, people. Quit taking everything so seriously.
Besides, did any of you check out QueerGeekGirl’s link? The “religion” is almost a parody of itself.
satire is one thing, being openly and unapologetically insulting is quite another. And continuing with personal insults when someone voices their offense is just pathetic.
And this?
Isn’t satire, it’s a fucking personal insult. Learn the difference. Just because it didn’t happen to you doesn’t make it okay.
I vote LonesomePolecat’s comments as quite funny, and meant to be taken in jest. Come on! Lighten up. All faiths get parodied here. Screw the Gods if they have no sense of humor.
I do know the difference. I don’t think you realize that satire is supposed to be barbed. If you are so sensitive that lonesomepolecat’s comments have wounded your ego so severely, you need to crawl up on the pedestal with mockingbird.
I think the good State of California needs to crack down on lawyers who start touting false theories with no evidence. This latest stunt is right up (down?) there with the Van Damme defendant’s lawyers telling lies in court.
Both lezlers and lonesomepolecat have valid points.
I took lonesomepolecat’s post to be a satire on the way Satanism is viewed by the mainstream. I’m pretty sure if an actual Satanist were to read the post, they’d agree. He just gathered every cliche about Satanism ever put forth by horror films, 60 Minutes, fundamentalist propaganda, and black-clad teenagers hanging out at your local mall and magnified them for comedic effect. Lesse…I was raised Catholic, so I guess in the same vein someone could make jokes about pedophilia, cross-dressing, witch-burning, transubstantiation, the Inquisition, repression, and the Pope’s hat. Offensive? Maybe if you think the satirist is being serious. Otherwise, I’d have to say no.
On the other hand, lezlers may have reason to be concerned. Most people actually believe those things about Satanism, and are certainly not going to visit the church’s website on a fact-finding mission. As *Diane pointed out, this very same brand of ignorance has 1 person on death row and 2 serving life sentences in the state of Arkansas.
[hijack]
Good on ya, Diane. I second her suggestion that everyone visit the www.wm3.org website and watch the documentaries. You will be horrified. You will be angry. Hopefully you will do something about it.
[/hijack]
The fact that a lawyer would even consider using such a defense speaks volumes about both the American justice system and the American belief system.
Now then. Insulting someone’s religious beliefs is certainly rude. But I’m not so sure it qualifies as intolerant. No one here is calling for any religion to be banned. There’s a big difference in saying “These beliefs are ridiculous” and saying “Everyone who believes this should be shot”. There’s such a fine line here, and I’ll be the first to say I have no idea just where it lies. I’ll try to post my own feelings here. I think it’s extremely rude and hateful to say something like “All religious people are stupid.” I don’t think anyone would argue about that. But I don’t think it’s hateful to express negative opinions about particular beliefs. Rude, yes. But if you can back up your opinion with facts, I think one should be allowed to argue on this point. More tactful expression would help.
I think holding a negative opinion about a religous belief system is different from holding negative opinions about other personal characteristics, because religious belief is a choice. Belief is more-or-less a firmly held opinion, and as all us Dopers know, no opinion is sacred here. Tolerance for other people’s opinions does not automatically require one to quietly accept those opinions. It only requires respect for others’ rights to hold them. For example, let’s say someone posts that their favorite color is green. This is an opinion. It’s okay for other people to disagree with this opinion. I think it’s even okay, if bad manners, to say someone is dumb for having this opinion. It is not okay for anyone to say “How dare you disagree with me that green is the best color?! People who don’t like green deserve to be publicly flogged!”
Um. Just my thoughts on this.
You are being very pagan-centric.
Those are satanists, of course, but they aren’t the only satanists, there are those who believe in and worship the Christian devil, such as those reported in the Fortean Times (171:33), citing the Daily Telegraph (17 December, 2001):
The article cites various other examples, including attacks on horses in my area, after which the local paper received a torrent of hate mail from “fluffy bunny neopagans” for blaming pagans based on, as the Fortean Times puts it, “apparent black magic symbols, including pentagrams and double-headed axes” discovered drawn or carved nearby.
These people weren’t members of the church of satan, or fluffy bunny neopagans. So, what should we call them if not satanists?
Lonepolecat, I thought it was funny, but not that funny. It was too long, too.
Zabali_Clawbane, you seem very trendy.
Now Satanists have great p.r.!
Yes, Satanists (though now you will come along and say, well those aren’t real Satanists) do kill animals and people.
recall the quote; Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law?
The ends does justify the means for them.
Not wrong to lie about something, if you killed, wouldn’t you lie about it?
:rolleyes:
/hijack
I have never to my recollection been referred to as “trendy”. There’s a first time for everything. I feel strangely flattered, Cavalier. You did mean that as such, right? You weren’t sneering at me, and trying to discredit me by saying I’m only Pagan because it’s in style right? If so, I hope you will soon see the error of that hasty assumption.
Considering the facts that:
- despite the fact that I’m 30, but look younger
- dress comfortably in jeans t-shirt and sturdy shoes, (often entirely in black, good color vibes for me)
- am considered eccentric at the least, if not outright geeky, (I’m a goth in a VERY small town, I’ve been a goth since High Schol, but it was blended into a “weird art student” persona)
- have “geeky” hobbies like A D&D and Everquest,
- like Star Trek, and Star Wars
- actually read science mags and The National Geographic when I can get my claws on them,
- watch animal planet TLC and TDC etc.
- read science fiction, science fantasy, and murder mysteries,
- don’t even conform with non-conformists in that I do what’s comfortable to me, if it’s in style so be it, if not…eh, so what
- watch cartoons (Anime like Kimagure Orange Road, various animated movies, and Cartoon Network creations like 2 Stupid Dogs, Dexter’s Laboratory, Courage the Cowardly Dog etc.)
- laugh uproariously in public
- talk to small children as if they are thinking feeling beings
- talk to (my friend’s and my own) cats as if they have some understanding
- am known as “that weird goth chick” or “that weird hippy chick” or “that crazy white girl”
- have given up hiding my feline type traits (friends later told me that they thought of a cat when they first saw me)
- was raised Christian, but broke from that religion due to personal experiences that left a very bad taste, and a sense of hurt betrayal. I do not deny the existence of God or Jesus Christ, but I do not practice that religion any more. (There are many aspects to the male side of Divinity after all…)
I’ll take that observation as a compliment Cavalier. 
hijack/
Z_C - Maybe I missed it entirely, but what did your last post have to do with the price of tea in China?
Summertime, you’re generalizing again.
That’s like saying Druids sacrifice people at High Summer. (They don’t, but they sometimes did LONG ago. The sacrifices were willing, the people knew what they were getting into, that they might be killed so the crops would prosper.)
I guess I haven’t made this point well enough. To say that SOME people do this thing, and that they claim to be a part of (insert religion here) is one thing. To say that (name of religion) does this thing, is a blanket statement.
I’m calling for fairness, and accuracy here. I’m certain that there are people out there, who really believe that they are (insert any religion here) and commit crimes in the name of (insert any religion here). Yes, Satanism is one of those religions, but Druidism gets just as much flack due to their history.
It’s the blanket statements that peeve me. Not everyone who is a member of those religions are ticking time bombs waiting to explode in gory profusion. A small percent of any religion are criminals.
Do you see it now? You and I both know that Druids no longer sacrifice anything, but people still direct hatred and suspicion at them. People who practice Santa Ria do ritual sacrifices, but they are chickens, which they kill humanely, cook and eat as part of the ritual.
I’m pretty sure that if someone posted a thread about how “(All) Christians Commit Infanticide” we’d get a lot of angry people, and rightfully so. But, lately more than one Christian has killed her children, claiming “God told me to.” This does not make lumping all Christians into the same cubbyhole ok.
In short, I’m not saying you can’t have your own suspicion clouded opinions, I have my own and you are welcome to keep yours. Just please, don’t make blanket statements saying that everyone who is a part of a group does a certain thing, ok?
I’ll paraphrase what I said earlier. There are certain kinds of blanket statements, and generalizations that strike a nerve with me. Blanket statements that mock and accuse religious groups are among them. I don’t like it when such statements are directed at the religion I am a part of, and so I don’t put up with it at all. If it’s allowed with that one group over there, it should be allowed with this one too so I don’t put up with it period.
Diane, the previous post was responding (in a whimsical fashion) to a comment that was directed towards me. It was lengthy, but I hope it got the point across.
(great big enormous sigh) Y’know, Pagans like you are one of the reasons I’m a solitary.
One of the things I’ve always liked about the neo-Pagan movement is that many Pagans, unlike a lot of other religious movements, are very much aware of the various kinds of silliness going on in their ranks. Pretty much everyone has a funny story or two about a “Wicca wacky” she’s met, most fight desperately not to laugh out loud when talking to a 19-year-old who’s just read a couple of Wicca 101 books and proclaimed himself a high priest, many are all too painfully aware of and embarassed by the transparent scams and absurd merchandising (“spell kits” my fat cracker ass!!!).
And sometimes the silliness is dangerous–how many people have been emotionally or sexually abused and financially exploited by “elders” or “high priests” who were not at all reluctant to take advantage of gullible or desperate people? Quite likely you yourself know of some coven that formed with everyone swearing oaths of perfect trust and everlasting loyalty only to break up six months later with everyone flinging acriminous accusations at everyone else. I once got caught in the crossfire of a witch war, and I barely even knew any of the combatants–but all of them were dead sure that I was on the other side. I learned years later that some of 'em had cast some pretty ugly curses on me.
You see, I have this complaint with many neo-Pagans, and it’s the same complaint I have with ** all ** religions: * there is far too much gullibility and self-deception, which in turn makes many of the other abuses possible. *
Squeal and howl all you please about my intolerance and bigotry and all that, I’m not going to apologize because ** only a self-righteous jerk would have taken offense in the first place. ** If you’ll visit the Cauldron website at Delphi Forums and go to the humor section, you’ll find plenty of stuff that was every bit as rough on Pagans as my little bit of satire and perhaps even rougher. I’m certainly not the only Pagan who’s ever noticed these things.
And I don’t like Satanism or Satanists. To put the matter as bluntly as possible, they’re basically a bunch of dorks and losers acting out adolescent power fantasies, and they seem to have more than their fair share of sociopaths in their ranks. Google Isaac Bonewitz’ essay about his years with La Vey’s Church of Satan, and you’ll soon realize why most Pagans don’t want Satanism to be identified with the neo-Pagan movement in any way.
Take that broomstick out of your ass and learn how to laugh.
Ya know what? I’ve said my piece, that’s it. You’re obviously…well yeah…whatever. :rolleyes:
It’s not worth anymore effort from me, because it hasn’t soaked in yet, and I doubt it ever will. Now, I have much more important things to do, like cuddling Mr. Clawbane, or enjoying the mild Spring weather, or numerous other things that are so much more worthwhile than beating this dead horse.
:dubious:
Honey, your mind isn’t just closed, it’s hermetically sealed. Buh-bye. Don’t hurry back.
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is, of course, Crowley; the next line is “Love is the law, Love under Will.”
Crowley had this dementedly optimistic notion that people engaging in their True Will would not possibly wish to do each other harm, because the desire to do harm cannot be what people truly desire. Aleister Crowley, Father of Fluffy-Bunny Neopaganism. 
As always, terms of art make life difficult when removed from their context.
(Please excuse if this multiposts, I’m detecting tired, timed-out hamsters.)