On 7 February 2011 10:07, Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jymn,
>
> Whatever it is that you find obvious is lost on me. That is why I am asking.
> Please be patient and try to  understand where I am coming from here.

I am trying to understand, and hence the post you replied to.
I deleted a large chunk of a post because it was intemperate and
unlikely to benefit the larger discussion.

> I have read and reread all these responses with interest, but I don't see
> how they
> respond to Robert's question. Simply put, isn't there a difference between
> the way
> one regards a religion that one would choose for oneself, and the way one
> regards
> a religion that one would not choose for yourself?

Yes there is a difference between how I regard my religion and how I
regard those of others. That does not imply that I do not respect the
religions that I do not follow.
Without going into too much depth, I'm Pagan my partner is Wiccan,
though in some ways related there are significant theological
differences between our religions. Among my close friends are a
Krishna devotee, a Roman Catholic, a Methodist and a Church of England
minister, there is no lack of respect between us of each other's
religions. There are often deep philosophical and theological
discussions, and attempts to understand where the other is coming from
(not always successful).
I believe my path is right for me, I do not believe it is the only
right path or that it may or may not be suited for others. I do
believe that a better understanding of what other religions teach and
what their followers practise may make the world a better place.

> Robert isn't attacking
> Wicca in any
> way by raising this issue. He's not saying that Wicca doesn't "respect"
> other religions
> in the way that some readers seem to be getting offended about. But he is
> saying that
> he is skeptical of the use of the term "respect" to refer to a religion that
> one sees as
> wrong.

Being one of those readers, I had taken it that Robert was saying
precisely that adherents of one religion could not respect another
religion. That the expression of respect was an acknowledgement of
superiority and that being the case, why didn't one convert to the
superior religion.
I'm pleased to realise that I am wrong in this interpretation.


>  We have seen plenty of examples of Wiccans holding forth on what they
> see
> as wrong about Christianity.

I've seen at least as many examples of various Christian denominations
doing the same.
Vocal minorities are frequently not the best guide to the attitudes of
the majority. Many Wiccans have come from a Christian background, and
at least part of what is said is the justification of that
"conversion."

> Experts on conversion are arguing that Wicca
> has a better
> method of conversion, and you are arguing that Wicca is better because it
> respects faiths
> in a way that Christianity does. This seems like a problem to me, and it is
> not obvious how
> you can avoid the problem by making the sort of claims you are making.

I've come across very few examples of any Pagan group seeking converts
(I can recall 2 such in 30 years), Paganism in general does not seek
converts, I do not see that makes it better, merely different.
I do not contend that Wicca is better because it respects other
faiths, I do contend that respecting other faiths is part of what
makes Wicca different from Christianity - though in terms of
differences that respect is a fairly minor aspect.

> I am
> not saying that
> by holding to a religious belief one is doing anything wrong, and I am
> skeptical of these
> defensive reactions that seem to be claiming that Wicca is a special
> category of religion

Nor do I perceive Wicca/Paganism as a special category of religion,
there are other religions that do not actively seek converts and
respect other religious traditions, Hinduism and Buddhism among
others.
I do see monotheistic religions as substantially different from
polytheistic religions.

> that is immune to criticism, or claim that it is constructing a way of
> believing that is right
> when other constructions of belief like Robert's are wrong.

I certainly don't see any of the Pagan religions as immune to
criticism. I do object to being told what Wiccans believe by someone
who admits to no knowledge of the religion, and that is how I read
Robert's posts - my apologies if that is incorrect.

>How can you
> disagree with
> Robert and yet claim that you are respecting his belief? If we can't be
> civil in an online
> conversation about this stuff, how is it that we are so confident that we
> are being
> respectful of the whole religious tradition?

I tempered an earlier post because I felt that it was disrespectful to
the List, not just in regards of Robert.
I have no knowledge of Robert's religion, what I have tried to put
forward is the perspective of a practising Pagan with a knowledge of
both lineaged and eclectic Wicca as pertains to the points raised
concerning Wicca.

Though I will admit that I found Robert's earlier posts to be more
than a little annoying, his latter posts have forced me to reconsider
my views and position. Anyone who does that gains no small measure of
my respect, whether or not I agree with them.
My earlier annoyance is actually my own problem, how much of it was
Robert's words and how much my reaction to them is impossible to
quantify.  I find myself pondering possible uses and interpretations
of the word "Respect," wondering whether that respect has come about
because the various forms of Paganism are relatively new and
numerically of little significance in a Western world dominated by the
Abrahamic  religions, which being dominant do not need to respect
other religions in the same way.

Jymn