I don't usually pipe in here, but regarding the nature of religion, belief and practice - 

I would largely agree with Robert in that having a belief implies some (even week) intolerance of the veracity of other beliefs. 

What I see a lot of in today's language of 'multiculturalism' is an intolerance of intolerant beliefs. To add to the logical position of having a religion, I think it is a tenet of some people's belief system to believe in their tolerance of other faiths. 

There is sometimes a logical contradiction, or a cognitive dissonance within many contemporary faiths on this issue that many people can't consciously self-describe as part of their total belief system, but can be visible from an outside perspective.

Anyway that's my observation from looking at some of the more extreme NRM examples. 

Suzanne



Suzanne Newcombe, PhD
Research Officer
Inform
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE
[log in to unmask] 
(+44) 20 7955 7654
www.lse.ac.uk/collections/INFORM 

Please note: Inform takes every care to provide as accurate and balanced an account as possible, but we welcome corrections and comments. 




-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic on behalf of Ted Hand
Sent: Mon 07/02/2011 09:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
 
Dave,

that's a great parable and I'm glad you bring it up, because it makes a
great
thought experiment for illustrating the problem I see Robert raising.

Doesn't this Sufi theorist seem committed to a view of spirituality that
holds that all facet-readings are valid? Doesn't this view hold that it
would be a mistake to think the opposite, that no facet readings are
valid? I don't see a problem with Robert's understanding of holding
commitments when applied to this Sufi theorist. Anybody who thinks
that anything goes because at root all religions express some universal
core of spirituality are in fact committed to a certain view about the
validity of all religions.

In Robert's terms--that is the only religion they respect? They certainly
don't seem to respect (seem to be excluding) views that hold that only
one facet works.

I don't necessarily see this as a trap, or something to get angry about...

Ted
MA student in holding opinions about the way religious people hold opinions


On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:03 AM, kaostar <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> nice, Anglela- yes, facets! a wise old Sufi gentleman who i one had the
> privilege to spend an afternoon with, in conversation about religion
> produced
> a large crystal pendant, and said (words to effect of) 'each facet is a
> faith,
> each reflects different colours as it moves in the light, each person finds
> a
> certain colour attractive, and follows that light, seeks more of that
> colour,
> and cannot see the colours on the other side of the stone' .... he then
> enclosed the rock in his hands and said simply 'but god is in the whole
> stone'
>
> which i thought was both elegant and beautiful as a summary
>
> Dave E
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Angela Voss <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:57:57 +0000
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
>
> > I think it is a paradox of spiritual paths that it is possible to
> > choose or be led to the path that most resonates with you as an
> > individual, and therefore is true for you, whilst acknowledging that
> > other paths resonate for other individuals. There are many facets on
> > the one diamond. The taste of strawberries may be truly perfect for
> > you but you would not insist that it must be for someone else, or
> > that it is the only fruit worth eating.  We are all different and
> > need different ways of awakening our souls. To say that my way must
> > be true for all because it is true for me is a fundamentalist
> > blindspot, unable to understand the power of religious forms as symbolic.
> >
> > angela
> >
> > Dr Angela Voss
> > 10 Arnold Road
> > Chartham
> > Canterbury CT4 7QL
> >
> > 07787 434958
> > 01227 732457
> > www.cosmology-divination.com
> > www.phoenixrising.org.gr
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ACADEMIC-STUDY-
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Segal, Professor Robert A.
> [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 8:47 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
> >
> > Feb 7
> >
> > Dear Ted,
> >
> > I don't want to re-enter the discussion.   But since you ask me (as
> > well as everyone else) what I have been trying to say, let me put my
> > spiel one last time:
> >
> > To be religious is not merely to act a certain way but also to
> > believe something.   The belief can be metaphysical or ethical or,
> > of course, both.   For me--if not for others, so be it--religion
> > involves belief as well as practice.  I would be skeptical that a
> > practice would not rest on a belief, but in any case a practice
> > without belief would, for me, fall short of a religion.   There may
> > be other criteria for religion, but belief is necessary, and so is
> > practice.   Belief without practice would be a philosophy but not a
> religion.
> >
> > One may well grant that others have their own beliefs, and one may
> > "respect" them for their sincerity, decency, and maybe even
> > profundity.    But unless one's belief is so open-ended as to be
> > compatible with the beliefs of all other religions, one is taking a
> > stand.    Taking a stand is a logical, not a sociological, matter.
> >  One can intend to be so respectful of other religions as never to
> > utter a peep against them, but one's commitment to a belief pits one
> > against holders of beliefs that, at least in part, are at odds with
> > one's own.
> >
> > Insofar as one commits oneself to the beliefs of religion X, one is
> > asserting that those beliefs are right--not just for oneself but in
> > fact.   Replying that one is not taking a stand on the beliefs of
> > religion Y is simply sidestepping the consequences of one's
> > commitment to religion X:   why else embrace religion X unless one
> > deems it right in fact?   For what else makes it right even for oneself?
> >
> > There are degrees of respect.   And in the world today it is
> > conspicuous that some religions are more tolerant of contrary
> > convictions than other religions.   I claim only that no religion,
> > even the most tolerant, is altogether respectful of other religions.
> >   For to treat other religions with full respect would be to accept
> > those religions as well as one's own.
> >
> > That's it.
> >
> > Thanks, Ted, for your lucid summary of my view.   Much appreciated.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Robert
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [ACADEMIC-STUDY-
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ted Hand [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 6:13 AM To:
> [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] How to Cure a Witch...
> >
> > 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 [ACADEMIC-STUDY-
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On
> > Behalf Of Samuel Wagar [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 7:46 AM To: ACADEMIC-STUDY-
> > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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.
> >
> > The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No
> SC013683.
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>


Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer