From: altheimm@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: New Age paranoia
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:57:26 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <Nov.18.04.45.34.1992.3200@athos.rutgers.edu> ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Peter Farrell) writes:
>In article <Nov.17.03.37.33.1992.26564@geneva.rutgers.edu> massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu writes:
>>With due respect for Mr. Farell's patriotism, I would suggest that this
>>country is founded on Greco-Roman systems of government, as well as our
>>Judeo-Christian heritage.  Intolerance such as he proposes has already
>>brought many people to shores to become Americans.  Our country would be
>>less great without them.  Should we invite them to leave now?
>
>I have not said that at all. What I DID say is that there is good reason
>for concern at the rise of many very bizarre neo-pagan and occultic practices
>whose practitioners are trying to find validity for their indefensible and
>despicable practices (such as human sacrifice, kidnapping, mutilation, 
>theft, vandalism, extortion, terrorism, drug smuggling, murder, etc.) in
>the Constitutional protection of freedom of religion.
i
Other than some goofy television show, or the National Enquirer, I challenge
you to find any instances of human sacrifice, kidnapping, mutilation, etc.
that are distinctly part of a modern pagan religious tradition. While the
Christian method of societal control is founded on the concepts of sin,
guilt, and the fear of God, most pagan religions use a much simpler system:
personal responsibility. This manifests in many ways, but commonly rests on
the concept that the negative energy you create (whether in thoughts or
in deeds) will return to you. In fact, the Wiccan tradition as well as
that of witchcraft before it believes it will come back three times. The
corollary is that positive acts return positive energy. (I use the word
"energy" only to refer generally to both thoughts and deeds)

>I also said that the Constitution was NOT written to protect this
>kind of behavior under ANY guise, religious or otherwise.

Which I heartily agree with. 

>Nowhere did I express intolerance for anything but ideas and deeds
>which are manifestly against the very notions that made our country
>possible. This sense of this is so self-evident it should not need
>defense or explanation.  That it has (three times, already) is 
>more evidence in support of my position that pluralism has run wild,
>both in American popular culture and even in many churches.

I think you begin treading on thin ice when you try to define exactly
what those notions are. For a simple example, while you might call this
country manifestly Judeo-Christian, some Christian fundamentalists
exclude the Jewish religion as valid. Does this mean that if these people
come to power the Jews would be barred from practicing their religion?
Where do you draw the line? My suggestion, which you allude to from a 
oblique angle, is that this country (and any claiming to be a Federal,
Democratic, or otherwise representational form of government) be founded
on a set of agreed upon _laws_, not a religious code.

The formation of a Christian theocracy is what I (and I would assume most
people) are against, and is what I have reacted to in your post. I could
only consider you a fanatic if this were truly your stance.

>Peter Farrell			| "Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, 
>ptfarre@afterlife.ncsc.mil 	| shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he
>				| who does the will of my Father in heaven."
>
>[It was not clear from your original posting that when you referred to
>the Constitution not being used to protect bizarre cults, you had in
>mind only activities such as human sacrifice, theft, etc.  As far as I
>know, no one has asserted here that religious freedom should cover any
>of these activities, nor do I think such claims are common.  I suspect
>many readers read your posting as opposing use of freedom of religion
>to cover unpopular non-Christian religions of all sorts, i.e. the
>vast majority of "pagan" and "new age" groups, Eastern religions, etc.
>--clh]

I would also submit that the VAST majority of "pagan" people, including 
both "traditional" and "new age" religions, are probably just like you in
just about everything except religious beliefs. I would haphazard a guess 
that the incidents of violence you cite are found in similar numbers in
both Christian and pagan populations. It is fairly well established that
psychotic personalities exhibit strong religious tendencies along with
their psychosis, so that many commit their heinous acts in the name of 
their God, including the Christian God. This does not mean that the
underlying belief system they ascribe to is at fault.

And in my experience, most pagans I have met are opposed to killing 
animals for anything other than food, and believe that ALL life is 
sacred. The next time you bite into a hamburger, realize that a life
was taken so that you could eat, which is a personal desire for meat,
not a physical necessity. Many of my friends are vegetarians for this
reason. And you might call that part of their religious beliefs.

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."