Ted,
Perhaps there is a communication problem, I thought the issue had been
answered several times.

The original phrase "Wiccans respect the spiritual choices of other people"

Mogg:
"I'd say that Paganism, unlike Abrahamic faiths is not a counter
religion, not does it claim absolute power for its deities nor that
its view is absolutely correct and others wrong."

Toyin:
"More modern religions like Wicca are more likely to have adherents
who do not see other faiths as false or illogical but possibly as
paths that, even though they are   contrastive  may  demonstrate their
own  relative validity."

Jason:
"The idea that Wiccans are only Wiccans because they believe
themselves and their beliefs to be superior to all others is just
ridiculous. I don't know many Wiccans who believe that. They might
think that their spiritual path is best for them, but they don't say
it's the ONLY right way."

Bob:
"Wicca is not an exclusive religion in so much as many, though not all
practitioners of 'the craft' as it is often called by insiders in fact
assert that wicca is the path that feels 'right for them', that it is
'not for everybody', and that 'others must find their own spiritual
path'."

Perhaps the US Army's "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain
Selected Groups: A Handbook for Chaplains" (2001) may be useful.
"Wiccans do not proselytize and generally resent those who do. They
believe that no one Path to the Sacred is right for all people, and
see their own religious pattern as only one among many that are
equally worthy. Wiccans respect all religions that foster honor and
compassion in their adherents, and expect the same respect. Members
are encouraged to learn about all faiths, and are permitted to attend
the services of other religions, should they desire to do so."

Respect does not acknowledge superiority per se and respecting another
religion or the practices of its adherents does not mean you consider
those practices to be superior, merely that you consider them worthy
of respect. (Nor do I wish to imply that I automatically respect all
adherents of all religions, I'm human and there are behaviours,
whether justified by religion or not, that are repugnant to me)

Returning to the subject of the original post,  Janet makes an
interesting point, though in view of the Pope Benedict XVI’s
encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the point of whether this is a Roman
Catholic book or a book by a Roman Catholic may be of small
consolation to Pagans.

Perhaps Melissa's mention of the reaction of the Oxford Pagan Circle
is a useful yardstick by which to gauge a Pagan reaction. It would
also be worth noting the difference between the Daily Mail headline
and the title of the publication.


Jymn


On 7 February 2011 06:13, Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> Are you saying that anytime somebody becomes a Wiccan, they are implicitly
> agreeing with
> some statement like "being a wiccan is better than being any other religion,
> or no religion." ?
> Those who disagree with Robert: is that what you think is wrong about his
> argument? If so, why
> not respond to his problem and explain why you think people can--logically
> consistently--choose
> to become a Wiccan without doing something like that. I understand that
> people are getting angry
> about what Robert said, but I don't see anybody really responding to his
> problem. He's saying that
> he sees a logical problem with this notion of "respect for other religions."
> It seems like Wiccans who
> are getting defensive see "becoming a Wiccan" as a completely different
> process than "becoming a
> member of a religious group" as Robert sees it, so perhaps you all think
> he's wrong to come at this
> from a religious studies point of view? I'm not asking in a disingenuous
> way, I'm honestly confused
> as to what the problem is. It sure seems like people are saying "Wicca
> doesn't do this awful thing
> Christianity does" are not respecting Christianity according to the strong
> definition of respect Robert
> is demanding. We might call this other version of "respect", which Robert is
> saying isn't ["strong"]
> respect at all, "weak respect" because it doesn't fulfill the demands of
> strong respect (not ruling out
> the possibility in the way that we do when we choose an alternative) but
> nevertheless pays some
> kind of lip service to an ecumenical ideal, however shallow and apparently
> hypocritical Robert sees
> it. Surely there is a need to distinguish between weak respect, which is not
> the kind of respect
> somebody shows a religion one would choose for oneself, and strong respect,
> which is obviously
> different in quality since there is no reason to pretend one would choose
> the religion if not for the
> better alternative?
>
> I'm disappointed in all the vitriol but I would be honestly interested to
> hear how people respond to
> what Robert is really saying.
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 7:15 PM, A Clanton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I am a bit late entering this discussion, but I'd like to point out that
>> choosing one set of beliefs or practices for one's self does not necessarily
>> imply that the beliefs or practices of others are considered "illogical or
>> erroneous or simply inferior." It simply means that they are different.
>>
>> Wiccans believe what they deem best for themselves, individually. As was
>> mentioned in a previous post, the same ritual might be performed by a coven
>> comprised of people who have wide-ranging beliefs about the nature of the
>> deities they worship. They only agree that the ritual will be effective in
>> achieving its intended result; they don't necessarily have to agree how.
>> Now, while it is true that there can be some lively debate on issues of
>> belief, these debates often end with an agreement to disagree.
>>
>> The prevailing attitude toward varying beliefs is that people choose the
>> belief system that works best for them, and the belief system that works for
>> a Wiccan might not be good for a Catholic, which might not work for someone
>> who is Jewish. There is a difference between deeming something "better" and
>> deeming something "better for me." Wiccans, generally, do not think that the
>> world would be a better place if everyone believed or practiced exactly as
>> they do.
>>
>> -Amy Clanton
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Segal, Professor Robert A.
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Feb 6
>>>
>>> Dear Sam,
>>>
>>> So now we all seem to agree that Wiccans may be no different from
>>> adherents to other religions.    Then I fail to fathom what the fuss has
>>> been about.    Converts to Judaism and to Roman Catholicism often stress
>>> noncognitive factors--e.g., attention to the family and the richness of
>>> practices.   Not all by any means cite beliefs.   My point nevertheless
>>> remains that part of being religious is having beliefs and thereby rejecting
>>> other beliefs, in which case other beliefs are deemed illogical or erroneous
>>> or simply inferior.
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
>>> [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Samuel Wagar
>>> [[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 7:46 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
>>>
>>> I must now start preparing for this week's classes at the University of
>>> Aberdeen on my course on Theories of Religion.
>>>
>>> Impressive list of publications, Professor Segal.
>>>
>>> I was just rereading Jonathan Z. Smith's collection of essays "Imagining
>>> Religion" for the online course I'm teaching in ritual theory, and I liked
>>> his discussion of taxonomy in discussing Judaism. It's the idea of a
>>> polythetic taxonomy that bears on the current question - if it's not an
>>> either/or but a yes/but kind of distinction then we can see the happy grey
>>> area of tolerance.  In logic terms the difference between a cogent and valid
>>> argument.
>>>
>>> Wicca has a set of beliefs, but not all of us hold to exactly the same
>>> set of beliefs. In fact, as Ms. Magliocco pointed out, people may have the
>>> same practices but extract quite different personal meanings from them. Just
>>> as there are Jews ranging from the very orthodox to secular who all consider
>>> themselves, and, with varying degrees of tolerance, each other, to be Jews,
>>> so with Wiccans. And with other religions, also - the taxonomic problem is
>>> there in the same way as it is with "race" - differences between members of
>>> the same group are often as large as the differences between groups.
>>>
>>> So, I tolerate others' beliefs and practices as working for them while
>>> not being as likely to work for me. Not because they are, in many cases,
>>> better or worse, but because of personal taste and style - if there are a
>>> few dozen choices which are morally equivalent and I select a half dozen to
>>> concentrate on that does not mean I reject the others as invalid, just not
>>> to my taste. The rest may fit into a taxon of Wicca, or a larger one of
>>> 'religions I like' but just not suit my style or personal taste. Or else
>>> must condemn those unfortunate souls that don't like Miles Davis and MIA
>>> like I do to the Outer Darkness?
>>>
>>> At some point, we have to embrace a fuzzy grey area. I agree with you, by
>>> the way, that Wiccans pride ourselves on tolerance beyond what we deserve -
>>> I'm not a relativist and I believe that some ideas in religion, and
>>> elsewhere, are simply wrong, and in extreme cases like racism, sexism,
>>> homophobia, immoral.
>>>
>>> But my reasons for being Wiccan have to do with personal style and
>>> attraction, not rejection.
>>>
>>> Blessed Be
>>>
>>> Sam Wagar (3rd degree HP, MA)
>>>
>>>
>>> The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No
>>> SC013683.
>>
>
>