On 7 February 2011 18:04, Ted Hand <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "Does maintaining respect, mean that you can't disagree
> or work in opposition to points of view which are contra to those you hold?
> "
>
> It seems to me that Robert is indeed saying this.
> Perhaps we need another term besides respect.
> I suggested distinguishing between "strong" and
> "weak" respect in order to account for the "weak"
> variety you're suggesting that "respectfully disagrees."

I am not using the sense "respectfully disagrees"
I use the word respect with the definition "esteem for or a sense of the worth"


> Thing is, from the point of view of a religious studies
> scholar like Prof. Segal, having a disagreement about
> a religious belief is not the same thing as liking coffee
> rather than tea. Religious beliefs are defined in terms
> of their peculiar intentionality. "Strong" respect per
> Segal only works for those beliefs one takes a stand
> regarding. If Wiccans (or any religious believer) are
> taking a stand, according to Segal, then they can't
> "strong" respect another tradition because they are
> not willing to take that stand, and indeed defining their
> belief in such a way as to exclude the possibility of
> taking that stand.

Whereas I agree with Prof.Segal's sentiment expressed above, I
disagree that taking a stand precludes respect.
Perhaps because the NeoPagan Religious Movements are relatively new,
they seek to learn from some of the lessons that history offers.
Sectarian and religious disputes are probably the most bloody of human
conflicts,  they start with a process of othering that uses the
differences between religious viewpoints to turn the "other" into
something very different from "us," a process of dehumanisation.
Remberering that however much you disagree with the point of view,
that the other group are human is  at least a starting point to
resolving conflict. Respect for the others point of view allows people
to work together where there is common ground.

> This doesn't necessarily involve
> some attitude of "disrespect" or the kind of superiority
> that Robert did not imply with his choice of the phrase
> "at least inferior" to indicate the road not taken. He's
> not saying Wiccans take a contemptuous attitude of
> snobbish superiority towards Christians (the way
> some that Christians do toward Wicca, admittedly)

And that is held by some Wiccans (and other Pagans)

> but he is saying that in choosing Wicca, Christianity as
> an option has been un-selected. This is a logical issue
> more than an ethical issue, contrary to some readings.

<nods>

> When we agree with a proposition, we are implicitly
> accepting that the contrary to that proposition is false.

Only in a bivalent system,

> Now, I appreciate the input from epistemological scholars
> of religion who point out that religious beliefs are not
> quite like logical propositions, but nevertheless, don't
> you think it is the case that one holds a religious belief?
> When you hold "hard polytheism" aren't you saying that
> you think monotheism isn't the case? If not, why not call
> yourself an Agnostic?

Does monotheism mean there is only one God, or that you should only
worship one God.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me". (Exodus 20:1-3) Does this
not state that their are other Gods, but the Covenant is to worship
only one.
I have no problem with the concept of only worshipping a single Deity.
There again I have no problem with people living without Gods, atheism
whether or not they deny the existence of said Deities.

> What is it about your belief that
> matters, if you aren't making a stand in the way that
> Segal claims is the necessary condition for belief? It
> seems to me that if you aren't making a stand, if you
> are working from a framework that judges religions
> only on the basis of them being a nice path for people
> who happen to arbitrarily decide to follow them, you
> may be doing violence to the very concept of being
> religious.

Just because I make a stand (and I do) does not invalidate the beliefs
of others.
A nice path is not how I'd describe my religion, there again as I
understand other religions, none of them are particularly easy on
adherents.

>I'm not saying any of this to attack your faith
> or your views, but to explore this theoretical problem.

Understood, and I'm answering in the same vein.
I have a right to set standards for me to adhere to and standards to
aspire to. I don't have a right to inflict that on others. If I were
to judge the actions of a Christian, I could only do so in the context
of their belief system - it would be wrong of me to judge them by the
standards and values I adhere to. More likely I'd judge them on the
basis we share, as another human against the standards commonly
regarded as human decency.

> Speaking of hard polytheism, are you familiar with the
> research of Edward Butler on Proclus? He's done some
> excellent work on the "henadology" that is the metaphysics
> of polytheism in Proclus' theology, arguing that Neoplatonic
> scholars fail to understand the philosophy because there is
> a bias against taking the polytheistic worldview seriously.
> http://henadology.wordpress.com/

I'm aware of his work, I wasn't aware of the blog, thank you for the link.

> I was going to bring it up earlier as another example of the
> kind of hermeneutical violence I'm describing as a failure to
> "respect" the alterity of another religious tradition. His recent
> blog post on polycentric polytheis in Yoruba gets into some
> issues regarding problems sociology of religion runs into when
> it refuses to at least heuristically model the religious beliefs that
> it can't accept at face value, methodologically constrained to see
> religious beliefs as meaning something other than they do in the
> context of the religious discourse itself. It's not the case that
> Neoplatonic scholars under criticism fail to respect polytheism,
> it's that they can't even think it because of the monotheistic
> blinders preventing understanding concepts like "beyond being."


I suspect I have many hours of informative reading ahead of me.
I have been wondering if there is a related issue in this thread.
Points which seemed eloquent explanations to me, which even when your
attention was drawn back to them did not assist you.
At the beginning of this post I rejected your attempt to redefine
Respect, not only because I disagree with the direction you were
taking it, but I wonder how much this is an ingrained concept with me
that I have an understanding which I am struggling to convey (Please
don't get me started on honour)

> It seems to me that Robert is arguing that, like the sociologists
> who can't actually consider the idea of there being many gods,
> neither can somebody who is committed to a particular faith
> choice actually consider the possibility that another faith is true.

That is a distinct possibility.
I have the inverse problem, whereas I have no problem with the idea
that something is the right path for an individual or a group I have a
problem accepting the idea of a one true way. (Intellectually I know
the idea but don't accept it, if you see what I mean)


> It's not a matter of whether a spiritual path "works" for you, but
> that committing to a spiritual path means something more than a
> pragmatic path following procedure. If we can't see ourself as
> ever walking the same path as another, how can we say that
> we are respecting their decision?

The converse would be, that if I don't see others walking the same
path  as I do, how can I accept that my path is right for me.
My path is far from pragmatic and my spiritual practise informs and
guides the whole of my life. Part of that practise is to regularly
examine and challenge the assumptions I hold.
If I were to challange another in the same way and seek to convert
them to my way, then I would be failing to respect their decision.
>
> It seems to me that the kind of respect you are talking about is
> only possible if one has not really made the kind of commitment
> that Robert is talking about. This is why I raised the question of
> whether Wicca requires a different model of committment and/or
> conversion--especially considering that Wiccans are arguing that
> their form of committment/conversion is "better" because it doesn't
> have the problems that Christian belief does.

Whereas I would argue that respect is only possible because of the commitment.
(I've known many people who have realised that a Pagan label was
appropriate to their beliefs, I've not met a convert as yet.)
I am sure that within most, if not all, religions there are different
levels of commitment exhibited by different adherents at different
times. I doubt that commitment and living your life according to the
ethics are particularly easy in any religion and that all religions
have problems. I don't see Christianity or Wicca as being any
different in that respect.

> While I'm sensitive to
> the problem that "belief" in different religions is constructed differently,
> I'm not willing to go so far as Angela, who's arguing that Christianity
> is "not very religious" because it forces people to take a stand to
> become a member. This strikes me as an incredibly dangerous move.

I didn't read her post that way, though I agree with your general sentiment.

> Do we really want a theory of religion that excludes the biggest
> religions because they don't do what we want a religion to do?

Definitely not

> Do we need some new categories to understand the way that
> Wiccans believe without losing respect for things they don't
> believe in?

I have no idea,

> Do we need to redefine religion based on this new and
> unprecedented special case of being able to respect things one
> rejects?

I don't see it as a new or unprecedented case.
I cited Hinduism and Buddhism further up this thread as examples of
religions which share this concept (at least in part)

> Or have we run into a theoretical problem that needs unpacking?

Until this debate I wasn't aware there was a problem.
It may well be that we have, though I'm unsure how much of that
unpacking may be relevant to the current discussion venue.

Jymn
>
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Jymn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7 February 2011 16:54, Samuel Wagar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I'll have to disagree. I'm not a unitarian. I'm a true
>> > polytheist, not believing that "All Goddesses are one Goddess, All Gods
>> > are
>> > one God, and the Two are One in Love," as Dion Fortune put it. I see
>> > real
>> > and true differences in approach between religions and do not long for a
>> > unified field.
>>
>>
>> I'm also what is sometimes referred to as a hard polytheist. Though
>> there appear to be some Deities with multiple names or aspects, I do
>> not believe that all Deities are simply aspects or facets of a supreme
>> Deity.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I guess I'm a "splitter" not a "lumper," ultimately. I'm also gradually
>> > shifting somewhat more toward Prof. Segal's position. Although I reserve
>> > the
>> > right to a greater amount of fuzz and more permeable boundaries.
>>
>> Returning to a point he made earlier in this discussion:
>> "The topic is Wicca.   Unless Wicca offers both metaphysics and
>> ethics, it is not a religion.   If the metaphysics and ethics it
>> offers are at odds with those of even one other religion, then Wicca
>> cannot be respecting all other religions."
>>
>> I would go further than Prof. Segal, in that I would add practical
>> application to his definition of religion. Though I disagree with his
>> wording, I do (now) think I see what he is getting at.
>> If Wicca has at its heart a sacred ecology, then a religion which
>> regarded the Earth to simply be  a consumable and disposable resource
>> would be antithetical.  A religion which regarded life as merely the
>> necessary suffering to reach an afterlife would be diametrically
>> opposed to Wicca's celebration of that life.
>> However does that mean that Wiccans should abandon one of the tenets
>> of their own religion in dealing with either of those theoretical
>> religions or their adherents?   Does maintaining respect, mean that
>> you can't disagree or work in opposition to points of view which are
>> contra to those you hold? Or does maintaining respect dictate how you
>> react to those points of view?
>> (For what they are worth, my answers would be no, no and yes)
>>
>> Jymn
>
>