From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Hitler and Christianity
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:14:25 GMT

In article <bszu8q.m2p@wang.com> smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>
>The reason you see bigtime abuse of Christianity is not because it lends
>itself especially to abuse. I can find abusable charactistics in *any*
>philosophy. It is because so many folks are (or perhaps think they
>are, but let's not get into that) Christians, so if you can graft your own
>twisted beliefs into the system, you can gain a big following. 

I still think there's more beneath the surface, but this is very true.
I just have to wonder WHY still . . . If you try to gfraft sick beliefs
into the system, why don't most people just say, "Oh, look at the
weirdo," and pass on by?  I still have to wonder WHY the following
swells when christianity is brought in; why can you gain such a big
following for a twisted belief by connecting it with a dogmatic
religion? 

>It happened
>in the Middle ages and it seems to happen in America today. You'd be
>surprised at the number of fundamentalists (using the old meaning of the
>word) 

You've got me curious -- what is the old meaning of the word? 

>who are appalled at the politicalization of Christianity and
>Christian-associated topics. But of course, the ones being appalled don't
>have access to prime time TV, so they go unnoticed.

Again, I wonder why a religion must have a set book to follow and
dogmatic rules to believ in if not for political ends.  But, your point
is well taken nonetheless.

>>  Makes me think that the religion has to undergo a pretty thorough
>>housecleaning to keep it from attracting hate-peddlers.  Just as with
>>people, you can judge a church by the company it keeps, and some people
>>who call themselves christians need to be broomed into the trashheap.
>
>I agree. It is perfectly valid to judge a church by its actions. It should
>happen more often.
>
>However, there are some real flakes in the neo-pagan movement.

You got that right. 

>Not many, but that is because the neo-pagan movement itself is small
>(compared to Christiandom.) 

nd it doesn't have any set book or set of rules or even set rituals. 

>I don't think you'd be happy if I made value
>judgements about all of neo-paganism, based on a few oddballs who occasionally
>fill my mailbox with incoherent thoughts (but don't usually post to
>alt.pagan, it seems). And in fact I try not to do this.

I'm glad you do, and your post doesn't seem to warrant any such flaming
IMNSHO.  But, there is a fundamental (no pun) difference between the
two.  In any kind of P/paganism (was that quiestion ever settled, or am
I going to have to type P/p for the rest of my life -- oh, screw it.
This is ME writing this thing, so I'm using the capital letter.  If you
don't like it, don't use it in your posts), you won't find two people
who work from the same exact book and have the same exact rituals unless
you are talking about common groups or covens or whatnot.  Paganism is
just so decentralized.  Jeez, the mere POSSIBILITY of a group coming up
and calling itself universal was enough to throw the entire net into a
frenzy for weeks.  Christianity is just more central and more rigidly
(no negative connotations intended) defined -- perhaps stringently
defined would be a better way to say it.  There are plenty of Pagans on
this net; I haven't the damnedest idea how they spend their time or how
they perform ritual.  But, no matter where you are in the country, if
you stop into a catholic mass, you can repeat WORD FOR WORD what the
priest is going to say, excepting the homily.

Christians and Pagans are both varied and wonderfully diverse, but the
rituals and writing for christians HAVE BEEN set in stone for the most
part.  Whereas, you won't find two christians who necessarily agree
wqith one another on all issues, they will at least worship almost
identically, and read exactly the same words or faith.  You won't find
two Pagans that agree even on that much.  

>I agree that some folks calling themselves Christians have no idea
>what they are talking about. I don't think anything can be done about it,
>either. Jesus saw the problem coming (look at the parable about the
>weeds and the wheat) and offered no solution.

Good point. 

>And anything with a following as big as Christianity's is *going* to attract
>people with an agenda, hate-filled people, and kooks. You see the same
>phenomena in the US goverment. And in most places in history. Vultures go
>where the most meat is. You can blame the meat if you like.

Ida no.  Still makes my feet itch. 

>Some pagans have this odd view, that all of Christianity is like the
>mainstream catholic church, where there is a central authority on earth
>who gives folk like televangelists the go ahead to preach this or that
>idea in the name of Christianity. 'Taint so, folks. It isn't even strictly
>that way in the catholic church, as I understand it; it is not true at all
>in the protestant churches. 

You ain't kidding.  The catholics that are home are the kind that give
the pope his headaches.  Most people who are catholic (a lot of my
family and friends, although my family is incredibly secular) think of
the pope as a nice old fart who's stuck in the 15th century.  The pastor
of my old parish deliberately risked wrath from the archdiocese by
allowing nuns to distribute communion; women aren't "allowed to,"
strictly speaking, although lay men are.  There are factual accounts as
well of nuns who are pro-choice and are threatened with getting dumped
out of their orders for it.

Strangely, this does not seem to be the case out here (CA).  The only
catholics I've met out here are SERIOUSLY catholic -- the whole nine
yards.  Bleah.  They honestly think that everyone else will go to hell
but them; this is "supposed" to be a catholic dogma, but even the
priests scoffed at the idea of heavenly exclusivity back home.  I know
one guy who screws around with women like you wouldn't believe, but
wants to marry a virgin catholic girl; he's in his thirties, and I think
he's in for a long search for a thirty-five year old virgin.  (Actually,
I suppose he's more hypocrite than catholic . . . )  At any rate, the
people who are catholic out here are professional catholics -- not like
back home (Philadelphia).

>Most Christians I know are horrified by some
>of what gets taught on the airwaves in the name of Jesus. But these preachers
>are answerable to no one but their followers, and if those followers keep
>sending money...

Bleach.  No kidding.  I haven't decided yet whether or not those
televangelists with cash-register brains are doing anything evil.  Are
they bilking poor people out of hard-earned cash or just mining the only
inexhaustible resource known to humanity -- stupidity?  (Okay, so I
wonder this when I'm feeling bitchy . . . )

>>I honestly think that christianity needs to undergo a long, hard period of
>>self-reflection and examination to find out why bigots are so attracted
>>to it.
>
>I think Christiandom need to do a *lot* of things. It is in no position to
>rewrite its original creeds, 

Dunno why not, but that's another issue.

>but I for one don't think those creeds are the
>problem.  A little clarification of what its creeds *are* would go a long way

The creeds are unimportant aside from their interpretations.  If you
rework the interpretations, you rework the creeds. 

>(and that, originally, is what a fundamentlist was - someone who only
>held the core creeds of Christianity. Boy is *that* term lost forever.)

Actually, I've heard that it was someone who trusted the bible totally
-- another definition of holding the core creeds.  It depends on who you
talk to as to what the "core creeds" are.  

>>Blessings,
>>Janis
>Vaya con Dios,
>Scott

Vayas con diosa,
Janis

P.S.: Por fa-VOR, Scott!  Puedes tutearme!  Nos conocemos bastante bien
aqui a alt.pagan.