The Bright Movement (Dennett)

[theapportioner]

NYTimes July 12, 2003
The Bright Stuff
By DANIEL C. DENNETT

BLUE HILL, Me.

The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.

The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.

You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.

Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."

A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.

Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.

But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.

From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.

I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.

Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.

Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.

If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."

But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.

And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?

Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."

Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''

[theapportioner]

Richard Dawkins' article in the Guardian:

***

The future looks bright

Language can help to shape the way we think about the world. Richard Dawkins welcomes an attempt to raise consciousness about atheism by co-opting a word with cheerful associations

Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian

I once read a science-fiction story in which astronauts voyaging to a distant star were waxing homesick: "Just to think that it's springtime back on Earth!" You may not immediately see what's wrong with that, so ingrained is our unconscious northern hemisphere chauvinism. "Unconscious" is exactly right. That is where consciousness-raising comes in.
I suspect it is for a deeper reason than gimmicky fun that, in Australia and New Zealand, you can buy maps of the world with the south pole on top. Now, wouldn't that be an excellent thing to pin to our class- room walls? What a splendid consciousness-raiser. Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on up. The map would intrigue them as well as raise their consciousness. They'd go home and tell their parents.

The feminists taught us about consciousness-raising. I used to laugh at "him or her", and at "chairperson", and I still try to avoid them on aesthetic grounds. But I recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising. I now flinch at "one man one vote". My consciousness has been raised. Probably yours has too, and it matters.

I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends. They were obsessed with removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance (it was inserted as late as 1954), whereas I cared more about the chauvinistic nastiness of pledging allegiance to a flag in the first place. They would cross out "In God we Trust" on every dollar bill that passed through their hands (again, it was inserted only in 1956), whereas I worried more about the tax-free dollars amassed by bouffant-haired televangelists, fleecing gullible old ladies of their life savings. My friends would risk neighbourhood ostracism to protest at the unconstitutionality of Ten Commandments posters on classroom walls. "But it's only words," I would expostulate. "Why get so worked up about mere words, when there's so much else to object to?" Now I'm having second thoughts. Words are not trivial. They matter because they raise consciousness.

My favourite consciousness-raising effort is one I have mentioned many times before (and I make no apology, for consciousness-raising is all about repetition). A phrase like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should clang furious bells of protest in the mind, just as we flinch when we hear "one man one vote". Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit your parents'. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child? Especially in Northern Ireland and Glasgow where such labels, handed down over generations, have divided neighbourhoods for centuries and can even amount to a death warrant?

Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder. Everybody's consciousness should be raised to this level. Occasionally a euphemism is needed, and I suggest "Child of Jewish (etc) parents". When you come down to it, that's all we are really talking about anyway. Just as the upside-down (northern hemisphere chauvinism again: flinch!) map from New Zealand raises consciousness about a geographical truth, children should hear themselves described not as "Christian children" but as "children of Christian parents". This in itself would raise their consciousness, empower them to make up their own minds and choose which religion, if any, they favour, rather than just assume that religion means "same beliefs as parents". I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.

Please go out and work at raising people's consciousness over the words they use to describe children. At a dinner party, say, if ever you hear a person speak of a school for Islamic children, or Catholic children (you can read such phrases daily in newspapers), pounce: "How dare you? You would never speak of a Tory child or a New Labour child, so how could you describe a child as Catholic (Islamic, Protestant etc)?" With luck, everybody at the dinner party, next time they hear one of those offensive phrases, will flinch, or at least notice and the meme will spread.

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, of Sacramento, California, have set out to coin a new word, a new "gay". Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much. Like gay, it should be catchy: a potentially prolific meme. Like gay, it should be positive, warm, cheerful, bright.

Bright? Yes, bright. Bright is the word, the new noun. I am a bright. You are a bright. She is a bright. We are the brights. Isn't it about time you came out as a bright? Is he a bright? I can't imagine falling for a woman who was not a bright. The website http://www.celeb-atheists.com/ suggests numerous intellectuals and other famous people are brights. Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights. Look on the bright side: though at present they can't admit it and get elected, the US Congress must be full of closet brights. As with gays, the more brights come out, the easier it will be for yet more brights to do so. People reluctant to use the word atheist might be happy to come out as a bright.

Geisert and Futrell are very insistent that their word is a noun and must not be an adjective. "I am bright" sounds arrogant. "I am a bright" sounds too unfamiliar to be arrogant: it is puzzling, enigmatic, tantalising. It invites the question, "What on earth is a bright?" And then you're away: "A bright is a person whose world view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic world view."

"You mean a bright is an atheist?"

"Well, some brights are happy to call themselves atheists. Some brights call themselves agnostics. Some call themselves humanists, some free thinkers. But all brights have a world view that is free of supernaturalism and mysticism."

"Oh, I get it. It's a bit like 'gay'. So, what's the opposite of a bright? What would you call a religious person?"

"What would you suggest?"

Of course, even though we brights will scrupulously insist that our word is a noun, if it catches on it is likely to follow gay and eventually re-emerge as a new adjective. And when that happens, who knows, we may finally get a bright president.

· You can sign on as a bright at http://www.the-brights.net/. Richard Dawkins FRS is Charles Simonyi professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford University. His latest book is A Devil's Chaplain.

[Sethomas]

I've tried to rationalize to myself a disbelief in the afterlife because that would make living a great deal easier. As a schizoaffective with an utterly pessimistic outlook on life and the world, life is far too much effort to ever be conceivably close to worth living. This is so deeply ingrained into my psyche that I feel that there's something intrinsically wrong with the desire to clutch onto life so tightly as most people do in a world so bleak as ours. I mean, really, what is wrong with you people? So naturally, the only thing that has kept me alive since my early adolescence has been the fear of Hell. Obviously, this has been insufficient on more than one occasion.

Now, I wouldn't believe in an afterlife simply because that's in my religious credo. I've already poured much effort in the idea that perhaps its concept is a divine lie, like evolution, installed to make us feel better about something. I'm even willing to disavow the idea that we have a soul. The problem is that the idea of an immortal soul makes objective sense to me from a metaphysical perspective, and it follows that this soul would have to be stored in some form of existence not bound by a dimension of time. Call it Heaven, call it Hell. I assume there's both.

The principle reason for which I believe in a soul is that it's the only solution to the enigma I see in our observation of the passage of time. All of history, from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch, simply is. It is static, it doens't morph, it doesn't develop, it doesn't undergo any process. It is perfectly sensible to say that stellar debris coagulates into a planet on which complex lifeforms evolve, and the chemical processes within the higher lifeforms demonstrate intelligence. But I see no way for humans to be able to sentiently observe time itself on a moment-by-moment basis without the support of a soul. All of history is like a book that has long been written, but we humans have the illusion that we're writing it. If I could be convinced that there is a way to perceive time without arbitration from a parallel state of existence, I might abandon my belief of the soul and thenceforth the afterlife.

[VinceZeb]

Wow, a bunch of atheists don't want to admit they are a bunch of God-denying rejects.

These people need to grow the fuck up and face facts.

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but you are still an atheists. It's like when people talk about "swinging" and "open-marriage", when in reality they committing adultery.

[FS]

This coming from a guy who deeply resents being lumped together with other God-believing peoples all around the world because they don't believe in Jesus.

Not that I'm prepared to take seriously people who make up faggy new age names for their crystal healing club.

[AChimp]

You can sugarcoat it all you want, but you are still an atheists. It's like when people talk about "swinging" and "open-marriage", when in reality they committing adultery.
As opposed to calling yourself a Catholic and getting underwater handjob action while groping fake titties?

[The_voice_of_reason]

BOY GUYS THAT VINCE KID SURE IS DUMB :( >: :)

[kellychaos]

There are some pretty good articles on www.edge.org on the subject. The articles are by the same people you referenced so it way be somewhat redundant. There are some links provided, though.

[Vibecrewangel]

Not that I'm prepared to take seriously people who make up faggy new age names for their crystal healing club.

With ya all the way.
And as much as I hate to admit it I also agree in part with Vince. An atheist by any other name is still an atheist. Deal with it. Giving it a pretty name won't change what it is. If you are honestly happy with youself and your beliefs then you should be able to accept them for what they are. Make no appologies. And don't try to make what you believe easier to swallow for anyone else. They are YOUR beliefs. If you truly, honestly, deeply believe them then you would not need to hide it or disguise it. And (un-like most Catholics) you would not get angry when someone questions them. Getting defensive when someone questions you about your "faith" only shows that you doubt your own convicions. If you are completely secure in your faith (or lack thereof) then even when questioned.....even when badgered, you would only feel the peace and happiness that comes with clear and honeest conviction.

[FS]

Much as I want to be open-minded towards different ways of thought, I think if a woman came up to me at a party and said "Hi. My name's Champagne and I'm a Bright.", I don't think I could stop my fist from entering her face in several rapid, punch-like movements.

[theapportioner]

And as much as I hate to admit it I also agree in part with Vince. An atheist by any other name is still an atheist. Deal with it. Giving it a pretty name won't change what it is. If you are honestly happy with youself and your beliefs then you should be able to accept them for what they are. Make no appologies. And don't try to make what you believe easier to swallow for anyone else. They are YOUR beliefs. If you truly, honestly, deeply believe them then you would not need to hide it or disguise it. And (un-like most Catholics) you would not get angry when someone questions them. Getting defensive when someone questions you about your "faith" only shows that you doubt your own convicions. If you are completely secure in your faith (or lack thereof) then even when questioned.....even when badgered, you would only feel the peace and happiness that comes with clear and honeest conviction.

I think you're rather missing the point. Bright, as its ultimate aim, isn't meant to make atheism nicer and more palatable for others; nor for that matter is it fudging over the obvious fact that a bright does not believe in god. It also isn't only a matter of personal faith. Religion obviously plays a huge role in American politics, civil institutions, culture, etc. and you are skirting the social dimension of religion in your rant. Being questioned on one's lack of faith is one thing; having a society that regards you as immoral is another entirely.

The 'bright' idea, what it intends to do, is increase the social awareness of the political presence of nonreligious people in the USA and elsewhere. In short, to turn it into a movement. It achieves that goal by creating a name by which nonreligious people, skeptics, etc. can identify themselves by. An identity carries with it political weight and the power to create social change. Whereas the religious right and the Catholic church have a very real political presence in the USA, there really hasn't been a strong, organized movement representing nonreligious beliefs here (they have sometimes been attached to other things, like Marxist parties). Actually, to take an idea from Marx, you can think of it as a group of people developing 'class' consciousness.

[Vibecrewangel]

Oh no, I get the point. It is just that this kind of thing makes little sense to me. I just find it more productive to prove your point by being a good person on your own. Show the world instead of telling them. Each of these people can be all of those things without group support. To me this just seems desparate. A big LOOK AT ME. I understand they want political clout....and yes in this country unfortunately the mob mentality is stronger.
I just think it is better to try to get people to take more responsibility for their own actions, to think for themselves, to be individuals. Notice I hate organized religion too. Hold my hand. Tell me what to do. Think for me.
For fuck sake.....grow a set.....and a brain

[Big Papa Goat]

I just don't see why this has to be called the 'bright' movement, and why it just can't be called the 'atheist' movement. They'd probably get more respect anyway, since 'atheist' doesn't sound as fruity as 'bright'.

[kellychaos]

Would organized non-religion be any better? Sounds like sheep of a different color to me. Just sayin' :/

[Vibecrewangel]

My point exactly Kelly.

Claiming to be different but acting the same.....yeah that proves your point.

[The One and Only...]

So these people feel intelligent for giving up religion? Woo-hoo. That still doesn't change the fact that some of the lessons taught in religious scriptures are good ones.

[Sethomas]

How is this any different than the Humanist movement, exactly?

[kellychaos]

So these people feel intelligent for giving up religion? Woo-hoo. That still doesn't change the fact that some of the lessons taught in religious scriptures are good ones.

Are you talking about ALL religions? I tend to believe that too in most cases. Religions don't survive for lack of purpose and it's good to keep an open mind to what all of them have to say.

Seth,

Isn't all religion fundamentally orginated from man and therefore humanist? I do, however, realize the specific movement that you're talking about. This was just a splinter question.

[The_Rorschach]

There are moral lessons to Married With Children too, that is hardly a reason to begin a local chapter of NO MAAM. You can't validate religion, any religion, on the precept that it serves an instructive moral purpose. If taken in the context that God does not exist, then morality is merely a matter of perspective, and therefore religions are really just a waste of time. Why should one conform themselves to an alien belief system if there are no rewards to reap?

And the emotional comfort argument really doesn't work. Anyone is more comfortable with their lifestyle before they begin questioning which acts they are committing are sinful.

[The One and Only...]

Did I say moral lessons? No. I did not. I said lessons, but not all of them are moral.

[imported_Wicked Steve]

First of all, lots and lots of atheists never "give up" religion. We're fortunate enough to be born to non-religious parents and not indoctrinated to anything while we're young (I can remember only one talk regarding religion with my father before about last fall, and that was a history lesson - what is Christianity, what is Judaism, etc.).

Second, I agree with everyone that thinks these people are retarded for making up a euphemism for themselves. They're just trying to put a pretty wrapping on their beliefs in hopes that people who denounce or distrust atheists will be warmer towards "brights". Folks are already wise to "secular humanism," "agnosticism" and a host of other labels, why don't we make up a new one so they'll stop picking on us until they figure it out? "Brights" can call themselves what they want, I'll call them whiners.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Why is it allright for christians to have fifty five thosand different denomonations who all say the exact same fucking thing but if one group of atheists wants to give themselves a fruity name they get knocked for it?

[kahljorn]

"Day after day, the children would be reminded that north has no monopoly on up"

Except that it holds the magnatism of the world and from any point on earth with a compass you can find your way and all south does is house icebergs and glaciers and a science labratory. But the north pole has santa.

[Perndog]

Why is it allright for christians to have fifty five thosand different denomonations who all say the exact same fucking thing but if one group of atheists wants to give themselves a fruity name they get knocked for it?

For one, every Christian denomination has a certain tenet that sets it apart from the others (though some of them are very minor). Since atheists don't really go by doctrine anyway, all the Brights are doing is tacking, like you said, a fruity name on.

Regardless, I think the Christians deserve just as much ridicule. They just don't get as much because, well, there are more of them, and thus more Christians to pick on unbelievers than vice versa.

[kahljorn]

I don't know where you come from, around here we burn christians and eat all their food, shortly after eating them. BBQ christian is tastey.

[The_voice_of_reason]

That was shocking and funny

How original

I love you

>:

[Perndog]

kahljorn. Die. :die

[Big Papa Goat]

I don't know where you come from, around here we burn christians and eat all their food, shortly after eating them. BBQ christian is tastey.

:rock Black Metal! :rock

[The_voice_of_reason]

ALL of those christ loving bastards say the same thing "accept Jesus into your heart and you can go to heaven"

[kahljorn]

Perndog, suck on my left ball. not the right though, I save that for higher class whores.

[Big Papa Goat]

From now on, whenever Christians tell me that, I'll squirt them with barbeque sauce.

[Perndog]

And they're completely convinced that it's so important that you embrace Jesus that it doesn't matter how much it annoys the hell out of the rest of us. >: Because it's the most important thing in the world to them, and they just can't understand how everyone doesn't automatically agree.

I love how this is turning into an anti-Christian thread. :lol

[The_voice_of_reason]

I :love jesus



Chirstians have every right to force their beliefs down your throat.

[VinceZeb]

...We're fortunate enough to be born to non-religious parents....

That goes up there in the fucking idotic quotes of history, along with "Freethinkers", "Liberals are tough on national security", and "Communism is a good idea."

[imported_Wicked Steve]

Well thank you for your support.

[kahljorn]

I was born into a Christian family, I just managed to outgrow it in some ways. It makes me stronger as a person. You see, I was born without legs, and I prayed and prayed to God, but he never gave me new legs. But when I denounced his love suddenly I could walk on Phantom Stilts. I am now 20 feet tall and seem to be floating, I live the high life. Puns intended.

[The_voice_of_reason]

BUt seriously guys those brights are silly.

[ItalianStereotype]

concerning proselytizing individuals into the Christian faith; I understand that it is one of the basic tenets of Church doctrine, but I seem to recall that, whether mentioned directly or in an allegory, Christ said that it is better to worship privately and not to whore out the faith. it may have only applied to gaudy public worship, but I thought that it might be relevant here as well. Seth, I'm quite certain that you will know something of this.

[CaptainBubba]

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

-Matthew 6:5-8

I'll refrain from my interpretation as I'm woefully iggnorant in regards to Bible specifics. This is just my favorite part of the Bible so I felt like citing it in regards to the topic. For all the people who claim to have read the Bible there sure are alot of people who seem to disregard this ( And I know that it doesn't mean all public prayer is wrong. I'm reffering to people who pray every chance they get while in my pressence).

[kahljorn]

Just out of curiousity, wasnt paganism dated around 600ad or something? And wasnt it in the European region? How would "Matthew" know about them? Then again, I don't know shit about theological history, so im prolly wrong.

[FS]

I think in the Bible, "paganism" is just a chosen translation that applies to all forms of faith other than Christianity.

[kahljorn]

Hm. I doubt the hebrew word was "Pagan", sounds like a good indication that we fucked with the bible a couple hundred years ago when we translated it.
I do think I was probably wrong about the pagan date, though, I still think it was mainly a european religion. Like druids and shit.

lol, i just read the dictionary and it says: "One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion". That sounds so twisted to me. Something is wrong. SOMETHING IS WRONG. WRONG WRONG. ITS A CONSPIRACY. Oh wait, I was thinking of Wiccan not Pagans, damn I'm dumb.

"The state of being pagan; pagan characteristics; esp., the worship of idols or false gods, or the system of religious opinions and worship maintained by pagans; heathenism."
THE DICTIONARY'S ARE CONTROLLED MY CHRISTIANS.
I like how I don't delete thoughts when I'm wrong, it makes me look so sad and dumb to show my entire line of thought. Look at that, lines of thought about how dumb I am. What a moron. YOU FAGGOT.

[kellychaos]

Pagan originally applied to mountain dwelling people on the outskirts who hadn't converted to the monotheistic God of choice and who tended to worship Nature and the sacred female. It came to be regarded as an hillbilly insult after years of the Roman Catholic smear campaign to cast such religions into obscurity and persecute the remaining heretics (Little known fact: "heretics" root comes from the Jewish word for "choice" as in I choose not to believe in Christianity). Wicka is a prime example of that type of religion that still endures in present times.

[kahljorn]

omg they hated mountain folk?

[kellychaos]

omg they hated mountain folk?

Pagan's who maintained adherence to earth worship were thought to be ass-backwards by those who believed in the new fangled Greek mythology as well. Think of the goat as a symbol and what that entails.

It's much the same way today. Observe!!

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/tv/beverly-pic-9647.jpg

[VinceZeb]

Uhhh... Kelly, how can "Wicca" still endure in present times when "Wicca" wasnt even really formed until about 100 years ago? That is like saying that the DVD player endures today, when in fact it was just created.

[mburbank]

See, now, that's why reading comprehension skills are so important.

Here's what Kelly said:

"Wicka is a prime example of that type of religion that still endures in present times."
-Kelly.

Endures refers back to the phrase 'that type of religion', ie. Pagan and earth based. Paganism, not Wicca, endures. Wicca is an example of that type of religion.

One might equally say "Vintholocism is a prime example of that type of religion (ie. fundamentalist religous intolerance) that still endures in present times." without making any claim that your bizarre, craamped, self serving version of Catholocism predates you.

[kellychaos]

Uhhh... Kelly, how can "Wicca" still endure in present times when "Wicca" wasnt even really formed until about 100 years ago? That is like saying that the DVD player endures today, when in fact it was just created.

Uh ... Vinth ... witchcraft and paganism predates Christianity. In fact, much of the customs, historical dates, ceremonial rites, ect have been co-opted from paganism in an effort to make it more palatable to existing pagans.

ONE LINK (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8713/HistryNF.htm)

TWO LINK (http://www.monmouth.com/~equinoxbook/wicca3.html)

RED LINK (http://www.flindersclubs.asn.au/pagan/paganism/witchorigin.html)

BLUE LINK (http://www.itzalist.com/reg/religion/)

[mburbank]

Now dumbass, are you admiteding that you just said again that Wicca and paganistry are the same thing when what you just said is that one is new while the other of which is made up recently which are what I said making me the not dumbass one of us? Oh, I forgot, now you are a liberal communist who think the mass murder of the masses is like going home and saying "Oh, thanks, I'll have a cold one." Now you'd believe any dumass piece of missinformation Hitler would tell you if he had of told it in a good packaging of "progressive" speaking and called himself a "Free-thinker". Oh, I forgot, I have a brain in my head that's about as good as an expired roast beef.

[AChimp]

:lol

[VinceZeb]

Kelly, there was a little religion trotting along before Christianity called Judaism... you may want to look it up. It predates Christanity, worships the same God, so I would say the judeo-christian structure began than.


Big fucking deal that little unimportant tribal religions were before Christanity. There wasn't a country that was like ours before we founded the U.S. Does that mean our country is worse becaue it is just over 200yrs old? Could you be anymore of a pathetic pice of dog shit?

[kahljorn]

"there wasn't a country like ours" blah blah

Cept like, Egypt. And um. Those other famous places. Mostly egypt. Masadonia? The country that "Almost Ruled the World".

"Big fucking deal that little unimportant tribal religions were before Christanity"

There was also some forms of buddhism(which is still the same size as Christianity), the whole egyptian belief, the Roman Beliefs, Greek, what the fuck ever else. Druids. Hinduism. Lots of shit.

Point in case? Shit like america and Christianity has already came and went, and guess what. Before each of them there were other, "Big Important Things For People To Grasp and Suck On". Sadly they were replaced. Sadly most of them were around long before us, sadly they lasted longer than us, even in their prime. Our country will fall, so will Christianity. Shit changes. In a couple hundred years, granting our wonderful world hasnt been sploded, Christianity will be laughed at just as someone proclaiming he worships Apollo would be shunned.

Shunned. You will be the shunee, so look to that day, and realize everything you believe will be shuned and laughed at, much like now. Cept it will be the whole World, and you won't be in the majority. So the final comfort you have will be removed, and you will cry, then conform to the newest thing, cause that's the kind of person you are Vince. Attached and stupid. Unrealizing of the currents.

[VinceZeb]

Now kahl, I know you may impress the people in your psyche classes, but rest assured that Judeo-Christian thought isn't going anywhere. It has been around for about 12,000+ years. I doubt it is going anywhere soon.

As to do with America: As long as morons like you possess no control and do not exercise your right to vote, America will be around for a good long while.

[mburbank]

Now Vinth, there is a little religion the came trotting along after Christianity that worships the same God. It is called Islam. You might want to look it up.

I'm sure you want to discount it as some bizarre, debased splinter of Christianity.

That's kind of the way Jews think of Christians.

You might view Christianity as a direct continuation of Judaism. We just think of you as the typical maladjusted middle child, religously speaking.

Were did you study for the priesthood, corespondence school? Or maybe you just got a letter about becoming a preist and your roomate threw it away.

Could you be more of piece of dogshit? Oh, I forgot, you is.

[kellychaos]

Kelly, there was a little religion trotting along before Christianity called Judaism... you may want to look it up. It predates Christanity, worships the same God, so I would say the judeo-christian structure began than.




Well, there were some little paganistic rituals that came trotting along at that time that got absorbed into Christianity that must have been long standing in order for people to need them to better accept Christianity. So, before you eat your next Easter Egg ... and this information is fact, not conjecture. Look it up at the seminary!

[kahljorn]

"It has been around for about 12,000+ years"

No no, Judaism has been around "12,000 plus years". What the fuck. 12,000 years? Judaism hasn't even been around that long. The earliest recorded events are in Egyptian times(isnt that where we were just discussing how Egypt was earlier then Judaism?). Moron. Shut up. You're a schmuck. At first I liked you because nobody liked you, and I like to be a rebel. But this is like joining the poland army to rebel against the states, what the fuck?
There is no proof behind that statement, only "Faith". The bible doesnt even say anything about it. I have faith in Egyptian shit so I'm more right than you'll ever be :rolleyes.

"There wasn't a country that was like ours before we founded the U.S. Does that mean our country is worse becaue it is just over 200yrs old? Could you be anymore of a pathetic pice of dog shit?"

So it's only wrong to mention things that predate Christianity if it goes against your argument, you hypocritical bastard.

You also might want to look into Judaism, they don't Worship the same God, and they don't believe in Christ. Your religion is called Christianity, why? It has something to do with Christ. Your religion is, at best, a crappy spin-off off it.
Christianity has cut so many things out of the old testament it would make you cry. Mostly the parts where God is a vengeful hateful bastard, but that's ok because they left in other hateful parts. Christianity says God is a loving bastard. What bullshit. Your religion is nothing like Judaism. Your religion worships a God of Love, like aphrodite with less sex and not as hot. Not the Jewish God.
Also, like I said, Buddhism and Hindu predates all of those, so do Egyptian type religions. And druids, and most forms of Shamanism. All your points are moot, and you don't understand that countries and religions die out because you're horribly attached.

[kellychaos]

These links were supposed to be attached to my last post. There, now that makes more sense ... or does it? :/

Linky One (http://www.seekermagazine.com/v1202/tongues.html)

Linky Two (http://www.mommymojo.com/fertility_rituals.html)

Linky Three (http://www.sabbath.org/index.cfm/subj/holidays/page/articles.0411b.htm)

Linky Four
(http://www.pbministries.org/History/Goodwin_&_Frazier/churches_01.htm)

[Big Papa Goat]

I say, I'm starting to like this 'God' fellow, he's so delightfully evil!

[BaronVonBoner]

"Yea, and God said to Abraham, 'You will kill your son Isaac.' And Abraham said, 'I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone.' And God said, 'Oh, I'm sorry, is this better? Check, check, check. Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here.'"

[Vibecrewangel]

Wicca was created in the 1960s by Gardner. He based the religion on many old traditions. (Religions and traditions are quite different) Wicca is a religion with a very strict set of rules....what most people call Wicca today has NOTHING to do with what Gardner built. Wicca has become a synonym for "build your own pagan religion" and it really isn't. In addition being a witch and practicing Wicca actually have NOTHING to do with each other.

I hate most neo-pagans and "Wiccans" simply because they want the structure of a religion but insist on trying to build one out of traditions.....Shamanism conbined with Druidism combined with Witchcraft all using Greek and Roman gods in their rituals.....it's f'n stupid. If you want to practice traditions then practice them, but don't try to call it a religion and especially don't try to call it a religion it isn't. Like Wicca.

[kellychaos]

Vibe,

Aren't the roots of the word "wicca" IN witchcraft? I mean, can you really take a word which has roots thousands of years old and call it your own? Although, I agree, it's silly but there may have been people who were making up cross-culture hybrids that were "wiccan", in the old sense of the word and not necessarily Wicca (as a structured religion). I can see where confusion can easily arise.

[Vibecrewangel]

Actually it doesnt......

Wicca does not mean "wise one" nor does it mean or stem from "witch"
It actually means "to bend"
Wyche, wice, wic, wican all originally referred to plants and trees with pliant branches.
It is only recently that the word has been used in conjunction with witchcraft. Wicce being the most common "witch" word steming from wicca witch meant...."to bend"
It does make sense that the word came to be associated with witch later as during the rise of Christianity as anyone who practiced herbalism, shamanism.....was believed to be a witch.

I may be mistaken, I'll have to to a bit of research, but many of the words such as witch and pagan came about through Christianity. Prior to that there were shamans and midwives and healers......word meanings changed quite a bit as Christianity took hold. Mind you I don't see anything wrong with this. It is the way of things. I do however take offense to people who claim to practice something but don't even bother to learn how old it is and how different it is pre and post-christianity.


This is why I loath most neo-pagans. They tend to propogate information that is completly incorrect. And most never even bother to learn the truth themselves. Too happy to feel superior by wearing crystals and pentagrams without knowing that the meanings they attribute to them are quite recent. For example most of the "celtic" knotwork seen today is actually Christian. It was used to decorate the margins of religious texts. However, at some point the neo-pagans jumped on it and claimed it as their own creating meanings for each of the knots that really have no basis in anything remotely "old tradition" other than that the Celts drew some too. Most pre-Christan knotwork is tribal in origin. This does include the Celts and the Norse, however the knots had no meaning.
Many of the modern Celtic meanings are derived from similar looking knots found in other tribal cultures who did have meaning for their knots.
I've seen 1000's of books/sites/classes that teach that Wicca is the "Old religion" That simply isn't true. It is based on old traditions, but in and of itself is in no way even remotely old. Many wiccans including Gardenian Wiccans do parctice "witchcraft" (in other words, herbalism, spell casting, divination ) however, it is not a requirement. And that belief that Wicca is a "good" religion is the biggest load of crap ever. F'n Llewellyn books making it all fluffy for the masses. It's no wonder anyone who practices any old tradition is thought of as being full of shit.

[Vibecrewangel]

The celts did have knotwork early on....don't get me wrong....but what we see used today is predominantly the Christain form of knotwork.

Figured I should make that a bit more clear.......

"J. Romilly Allen has identified eight basic knots from which most Celtic knotwork patterns were derived. These knots appeared in repeating patterns that were used to fill borders and empty spaces in illuminated manuscripts, sculptures, and jewelry. The knots did not, generally, appear as isolated elements.

Therefore, it's my opinion that the Celts did not use knots as specific symbols. They did not have different knots to represent specific ideas or concepts. Knots were just nifty ways to fill a space. The symbolism of connectedness and continuity seem apparent from simply looking at knotwork patterns. This may have been an intended effect, but I've uncovered no evidence to suggest that knotwork patterns mean anything more than that.

This is likely to disappoint a great many people. Many visitors to my Web site ask if I have a list of knots and what they mean, or if I know of a knot that symbolizes a particular concept. I'm sorry, but my research indicates that the Celts who first drew knotwork patterns had no such meaning attached to their work.

Now, there have been hundreds of years since knotwork patterns were first invented. It's not impossible that meanings have been attached to certain patterns over time. From what I can tell, such meanings do exist, but as far as I know, they are very localized and relatively recent in origin. " : The Origin and Meaning of Celtic Knotwork - Drew Ivan

Pretty much the same as the Christian use for knots.....

[FS]

omg, like, you need to take a chill amethyst or something. :rolleyes

Keep your negative aura away from me, ok?

[Vibecrewangel]

Don't make me smack you upside your dome with my divining rod!!!

[kellychaos]

OMG! BLASPHEMERS!! :eek >:


Actually, I was mainly referring to paganism (of which I'm obviously not an authority but about which I've learned some interesting things lately) and only meant to mention Wicca as something relatively simliar in content. Evidently, I was wrong on that point an' I learned a lot o' shit in the bargain. Thanx.

[Vibecrewangel]

Anytime....you'll have to forgive my chattyness....I tend to like to squash misconceptions when I can....bad information is often worse than no information.

I used to be a very hardcore pagan. Back in highschool. I was EXACTLY the type of pagan I hate. Claiming I was Wiccan. Wearing all my spooky jewelry and happily telling everyone how witchy I was.

Ended up getting a crowbar to the dome so to speak and when I got off my high horse and actually did the research I found just how wrong most of what I thought I knew was. Much of it is because the mass produced books try to put a pretty face on the older traditions. Sad sad sad.