White House says Pagans don't have loving hearts and don't care for the poor

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: But alas, my audacity to point out that Pagans are still being harssed and disparaged by government and by some Christians is met with sublte personal attacks, preaching, and accusations that I hate Christians.

All I saw was a guy stating his interpretation of facts. Simly show facts that prove him wrong. [/QUOTE]Sounding like a broken record in here. Facts work better than emotional language. Use Facts... not emotional language.

Pagans ARE a fringer group Chewbacca - as was pointed out by another poster on page one - when compared with the rest of the population. You have provided no demonstration that the assertions Towry made were incorrect other than to play the victim and emotionally cite persecution and harrassment. Neither of which are evident in Towry's assertions.

For the last time, prove he is incorrect and post a list of pagan faith-group charities that exist solely for the purpose of providing charity services, or quit this foundationless tirade. [/QUOTE]I do hope this is the last time seeing as how you must be ignoring what I have posted:

Posted by Chewbacca through out the thread: What guy are you refering too? Towey? Pfffft. I have demonstrated by the defintion of the word fringe that pagans are not a fringe group, that pagans do indeed have what it takes to do the tough work involved with helping the poor and some official pagan charities do indeed exist. FYI The number of Pagans in the U.S. is 500,000(low estimate) to 10,000,000 (high estimate). This doesn't not include Buddhists, Hindu's, or non-Abrahamic philosophical paths either. This makes pagans a minority, not a fringe group. Dictionary defintion of fringe: fringe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frnj) n. 1.A decorative border or edging of hanging threads, cords, or strips, often attached to a separate band. 2.Something that resembles such a border or edging. 3.A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: “They like to hang out on the geographical fringes, the seedy outposts” (James Atlas). 4.Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe. 5.Any of the light or dark bands produced by the diffraction or interference of light. 6.A fringe benefit. Being a minority group doesn't not make one a fringe group. Pagans are not marginal, peripheral, not secondary to any other religion. We do not hold extreme veiws( typically). Using the word 'fringe group' to decribe pagans is wrong and misleading. Secondly, I have already explained the nature of Paganism lending itself to small groups and solitary practice, an understanding of the de-centralized and non-institutional nature of Paganism will lead one to a further understanding of why there aren't any great huge pagan charity organizations. But the fact that there are only a few official pagan 'helping the needy' programs like the Helping & Warming Program was not the issue in this thread. It was the disparaging remarks made in an official capacity implying that pagans DONT CARE! Understanding the de-centralized and non-institutional nature of paganism also leads one to the understanding that any helping of the needy done by pagans is typically going to be the work of indivudal/small group efforts that may not be "official charitys" But still we are giving. And we are not a fringe group. We are a small but growing group. Our small size may also help in reaching an understanding as to why there are not a whole lot of official pagan charityies. Of course I am pretty much repeating myself here, hopefully an understanding will be reached and I will suffer no more preachy demands for a list of official charities.

For probably not the last time, please stop.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Regardless, accusing me of being resentful of Christians and Christianity is just simply a false baseless personal attack that never should have been made in the first place. Good luck proving it.

{sigh} My "accusation" of you being "resentful" of Christianity was not a false, baseless, personal attack Chewbacca. In fact, it was not an "attack" at all. It was an observation based on your own words and reactions to posts made in this thread (and in others in the past).

"Good luck proving it" you say? I already listed some of the reason I made the observation. But if you want a recap, I can do that.

This thread started out as discussion of the Faith Based Initiative and the supposed prejudice of James Towey, who is in charge of running the F.B.I. He made some remarks in the context of a live internet interview that you found objectionable and that you believed proved pagans were being denied federal fund based on nothing more than this mans' personal prejudice....and you pointed out in your opening statement how angry this made you. You wanted to show James Towey how much you care for the poor and you suggested that a simple Google Search would provide numerous examples of pagans doing charity work.

I did the Google Search, and I found that all the "pagan charities" it provided were NOT set-up to help the poor or afflicted. Rather, their only goal was to promote the ideals of paganism. As I said then, there is nothing wrong with those "charities" doing that, but that doesn't meet the qualifications required to recieve federal funds from the F.B.I. So the implication that Towey is denying funds to pagans based on his personal prejudice appears to be innaccurate. Rather, it appears that his statement was based on his actual experience with the pagan groups that had applied for aid. According to Towey, every pagan group that applied for aid was NOT doing actual charity work for others, instead - they were merely set up to promote paganism. I agreed that it was ignorance that made him extrapolate that experience out to make the statement that pagans don't have loving hearts. Still, it appears that the pagans were denied funds based on their Mission Statements rather than on Towey's personal ignorance and prejudice.

So - up to that point - the discussion was going fine. Then, after I echoed Yorick's suggestion that you provide a list of pagan charities to Towey yourself, you responded with the post I listed above. You can sit there and say you aren't angry or resentful or whatever you want to Chewbacca. It doesn't matter to me. All I know is that, once I made that post, you responded with a VERY angry post saying "Christians had persecuted pagans for centuries" and that you had a right to be angry and that you werent' going to "lie down and take it" or "stay in hiding" anymore. You proclaimed that you were going to "speak out against prejudice" and if I didn't like it, that was just too bad. That was JUST as much a personal attack on ME as my response is to you.....because I NEVER suggested nor implied ANY of those things to you. I challenge you to go back and find ANY comments I made that suggested you should just lie down, take it, remain in hiding, or just keep your mouth shut. The fact is, I didn't say anything of the kind, Chewbacca...but all of a sudden you are angrily denouncing the centuries long persecutions suffered by pagans at the hands of Christians and are suggesting that I and Yorick had basically told you to sit down and be quiet about it. Then, you got very angry at Yorick for "dragging Christianity" into this thread and called it both "disgusting" and "distasteful". You then said that this thread should only be about examples of pagan persecution (in effect) and that you were simply going to ignore any more attempts to steer the thread off of that topic.

The fact is, Chewbacca, that - starting with the post I quoted above - your tone became extremely angry and personal. My pointing that out is NOT a personal attack on you...it is nothing more than an observation based on the tone and implications of your own words. My "attack" on you was simply an attempt to get you to recognize the anger in your posts and to realize that you were making some incorrect assumptions and "attacks" of your own.

You know, Chewbacca, I like you a lot. I'm very sorry that my comments have made you so angry and defensive. I suppose I am guilty of being "defensive" myself. I felt your comments to me that it was just "too bad" if I didn't like you speaking out against prejudice were unwarranted and I guess I felt the need to address that and "defend" my actions. All the while, I knew in the back of my mind that it was a bad idea and that it wouldn't be taken the way I meant it. I've listed the reasoning behind my comments and there is no point in repeating them anymore. Obviously I was wrong to make the statements I did and I should have just followed my first instinct to keep my mouth shut.

So I am simply going to leave this discussion completely. I will follow the thread for at least the next few posts, but I won't be adding (or distracting) from the discussion myself. [/QUOTE]Christians persecuting pagans is a historical fact and it still occurs today. If I were to omit the word 'Christian' from the previously mentioned post then it would not accurate. It would actually be misleading as no other group but Christians are on record for harrassing pagans. Its a fact. Are you ashamed of this fact or something and having trouble admiting it? It seems whenever I mention this fact I get accused of Christain-hating. Well that is going to have to stop.

My passion, which had been misconstrued as anger, is to insure this persecution ceases to exist.

Sorry if my being an uppity outspoken Pagan is so threatening to you guys but thats the way I am.

Well whatever, your 'observation' is incorrect and pretty much amounts to defamation of my character. It is going to have to stop. I dont care about an apology, I just want it to stop.

[pritchke]

"Christians had persecuted pagans for centuries" - Is this the entire truth as if Christianity suddenly appeared and overran the Pagans in a short period of time.

This actually is more likely to be cyclic. When Christians first came to the UK, they were a small group and eventually grew in size. The pagans began to fear that the old ways were dying as a result of Christianity and more than a few Christians died at the hands of angry pagans. It must have been hard to keep order as a leader in those times between the growing new religion and the Pagans who were opposed to any sort of change. Eventually the Christians equaled in size and than surpassed the Pagans, then it seems that the reverse applied with witch hunts, inquisitions etc to ensure that their new religion maintained its power base. Pagan worship seems to be on the rise again and it is possible that some Christians may feel threatened like the pagans did when Christianity first came to their isle and grew.

[ 12-08-2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Fine if you want to tell me to grow a thicker skin, great.

Controlling ones response to a situation is often the best, if not only thing, one can do. No-one makes me angry. I decide to be angry. No-one makes me happy. I choose happiness. Perceptional choices and response choices.

It was a simple piece of advice I've found works for me when my government has made decisions that adversely affect my people. It was said in a spirit of genuinity and concern for your wellbeing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I advised to put forth a list that proves him wrong. Use FACTS rather than emotional language to change the situation. [/QUOTE]"Again, I advised to put forth a list that proves him wrong. Use FACTS rather than emotional language to change the situation."

--Yorrick
December 7, 2003 (A date which will live in infamy)


WTF. I say again...WTF. This statement is, without a doubt, the great height of hypocrisy. Use FACTS...use FACTS....NOT emotional language....that very idea is the same one I've been trying to pound into your head. Last time we had a discussion you were saying 'faith not facts'--now your saying 'facts not emotion.'

Seeing as you validify your faith by expressing emotional experiences, I find your opinion here to lack all sorts of credibility. [/QUOTE]Apples and Oranges. There is a time for fact and a time for emotional language. The discussion calls for facts. Quantifiable things that prove a point. You can't apply the same modus operandi to every situation. If I am going to communicate my love to someone, I will communicate my emotion. In this instance facts are needed.

As a mucisian, it would be pointless ofr me to express political ideas in music alone. Words are needed to convey ideas...

more later

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by pritchke: "Christians had persecuted pagans for centuries" - Is this the entire truth as if Christianity suddenly appeared and overran the Pagans in a short period of time. This actually is more likely to be cyclic. When Christians first came to the UK, they were a small group and eventually grew in size. The pagans began to fear that the old ways were dying as a result of Christianity and more than a few Christians died at the hands of angry pagans. It must have been hard to keep order as a leader in those times between the growing new religion and the Pagans who were opposed to any sort of change. Eventually the Christians equaled in size and than surpassed the Pagans, then it seems that the reverse applied with witch hunts, inquisitions etc to ensure that their new religion maintained its power base. Pagan worship seems to be on the rise again and it is possible that some Christians may feel threatened like the pagans did when Christianity first came to their isle and grew.

Excellent observation Pritchke! It stands up to some scrutiny as well. For example a resurgence of anti-pagan activities occured around the end of the 90's and corresponed with a trend of a huge upswing of people exploring the various Pagan paths. We can find more correspondence for this cyclicle theory as well as other reasons when examining the medivial European burning times which came fairly long after Christianity had established itself.

[Maelakin]

The persecution of the Christians began in 64 A.D. by a Pagan Roman Emperor, Nero. The persecution continued up to it climax during the years of 303 A.D to 313 A.D., the reign of Emperor Diocletian. During this time, many Christians were severely tortured until death and scriptures were burned.

Come a few years later Emperor Constantine comes into power. He declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire and begins persecution of all others. Temples were desecrated, people were killed, and scriptures were burned. His persecutions expand into all areas of Asia Minor and Palestine. Divination of all forms, believed to be paganistic in nature, including astrology, is outlawed by Constantius.

The persecution of Pagans in this manner continues on through the Inquisitions.

So, as Pritchke suggested, it was a cyclic event.

[Maelakin]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Pikachu_PM: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Fine if you want to tell me to grow a thicker skin, great.

Controlling ones response to a situation is often the best, if not only thing, one can do. No-one makes me angry. I decide to be angry. No-one makes me happy. I choose happiness. Perceptional choices and response choices.

It was a simple piece of advice I've found works for me when my government has made decisions that adversely affect my people. It was said in a spirit of genuinity and concern for your wellbeing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again, I advised to put forth a list that proves him wrong. Use FACTS rather than emotional language to change the situation. [/QUOTE]"Again, I advised to put forth a list that proves him wrong. Use FACTS rather than emotional language to change the situation."

--Yorrick
December 7, 2003 (A date which will live in infamy)


WTF. I say again...WTF. This statement is, without a doubt, the great height of hypocrisy. Use FACTS...use FACTS....NOT emotional language....that very idea is the same one I've been trying to pound into your head. Last time we had a discussion you were saying 'faith not facts'--now your saying 'facts not emotion.'

Seeing as you validify your faith by expressing emotional experiences, I find your opinion here to lack all sorts of credibility. [/QUOTE]Apples and Oranges. There is a time for fact and a time for emotional language. The discussion calls for facts. Quantifiable things that prove a point. You can't apply the same modus operandi to every situation. If I am going to communicate my love to someone, I will communicate my emotion. In this instance facts are needed.

As a mucisian, it would be pointless ofr me to express political ideas in music alone. Words are needed to convey ideas...

more later [/QUOTE]Actually, I believe Pikachu’s comment refers to the discussion on the existence of God. In that discussion you used emotional statements as a basis of fact. This would be in line with the current assessment that sometimes solid evidence is needed in order to support an argument.

Describing something you feel will of course result in using emotional statements, but using emotional statements, as a foundation for a factual argument, doesn’t hold any weight, similar to what you yourself have stated.

[Chewbacca]

By Cerek: So the implication that Towey is denying funds to pagans based on his personal prejudice appears to be innaccurate. Rather, it appears that his statement was based on his actual experience with the pagan groups that had applied for aid. According to Towey, every pagan group that applied for aid was NOT doing actual charity work for others, instead - they were merely set up to promote paganism. I agreed that it was ignorance that made him extrapolate that experience out to make the statement that pagans don't have loving hearts.

This is not possible. The FBI is still a policy idea in the formative stages. Not group has applied for aid becasue no aid has been made available to apply for.

I have demonstarted that groups like the Helping and Warming program do exist with the sole purpose of helping those in need. Other exist that do not have a web presence. A friend of mine is working on getting me an address of one that specializes in helping battered women. I am looking for the address of another one with the mission to provide housing for the homeless is in the formative stages.

Regardless, Mr. Towey made the statements, he should be the one offering the proof to back them up. He should list all the Pagan groups he has run across and how he ran across them. If he is going to make such statement in an official capacity he should offer details to back it up. Obviously groups like the Helping and Warming program are registered as non-profit religious charities for tax purposes and shouldn't be too hard for the director of the Faith-based initiative to find.

Finally, he did not even answer the question that was asked.

Why didn't he respond with something like:

"Any organization thats exists with the sole purpose of helping those with need can potentially qualify for FBI aid, regardless of the organizations religious affiliation?"

I stand by my assessment that Mr. Towey is ignorant of the beleifs as well as the nature of the de-centralized small coven/individual organizational structure of Pagan groups. The choice of his words suggest prejudice as well as bias against Pagans. The fact he did not even answer the question that was asked goes further to back up this perspective.

[ 12-09-2003, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Maelakin: The persecution of the Christians began in 64 A.D. by a Pagan Roman Emperor, Nero. The persecution continued up to it climax during the years of 303 A.D to 313 A.D., the reign of Emperor Diocletian. During this time, many Christians were severely tortured until death and scriptures were burned. Come a few years later Emperor Constantine comes into power. He declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire and begins persecution of all others. Temples were desecrated, people were killed, and scriptures were burned. His persecutions expand into all areas of Asia Minor and Palestine. Divination of all forms, believed to be paganistic in nature, including astrology, is outlawed by Constantius. The persecution of Pagans in this manner continues on through the Inquisitions. So, as Pritchke suggested, it was a cyclic event.

Thanks for the facts! You have pointed me in a new direction for some research.

It should be mentioned that if it is up to Pagans, the cycle would end with us.

Considering we have no scriptural decrees that could be interpreted in way that would inspire intolerance or persecution, that we have no interest in declaring our faith as the only true faith, as well as the the Witch's rule: Harm none and do as thou will , It is unlikely that the persecution of Christians by Pagans will ever occur again. I did find an old news article from the 90's about an alledged incident involving an individual Wiccan threatening a Christian in Maine, but I could find no cross-reference for the event.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Maelakin: The persecution of the Christians began in 64 A.D. by a Pagan Roman Emperor, Nero. The persecution continued up to it climax during the years of 303 A.D to 313 A.D., the reign of Emperor Diocletian. During this time, many Christians were severely tortured until death and scriptures were burned. Come a few years later Emperor Constantine comes into power. He declares Christianity as the only official religion of the Roman Empire and begins persecution of all others. Temples were desecrated, people were killed, and scriptures were burned. His persecutions expand into all areas of Asia Minor and Palestine. Divination of all forms, believed to be paganistic in nature, including astrology, is outlawed by Constantius. The persecution of Pagans in this manner continues on through the Inquisitions. So, as Pritchke suggested, it was a cyclic event.

Some of your facts are incorrect.

1.Christian persecution began in Palestine with the Jewish execution of the first known Christian martyr Stephen. The Jewish leader responsibile for countless arrests and executions of many early Christians was none other than Saul of Tarsus, who later became the Christian apostle Paul.

By the time it had reached Rome Christianity had grown throughout the Empire from the land of it's birth. Nero's persecutions were horrific and extreme in barbarity, but certainly not the first.

It should be noted that each of the twelve apostles (except Judas) were executed for their beliefs by the Romans.

2.The inquisition largely targetted Protestants, Gnostics, Templar Knights, certain Franciscan orders as well as Jews, and Muslims. "Heretics" were Protestants and Gnostics.

The Pope only recently apologised to the Protestant Churches for the persecution of Protestants during the Inquisition.

As further proof I offer the persecution the French Huguenots, who were protestant Christians:
http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm
http://huguenot.netnation.com/general/huguenot.htm

Bear in mind the existence of the United States of America, which would not exist as we know it today, had the English government not persecuted the Puritans and speratist Christians who fled on ships like the MAYFLOWER.