Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Baby worship in paganism

This is prompted by an otherwise valid rant on kinky/oversexualized behavior/dialog in general public spaces. While I don't believe that kids should be exposed to sexuality before they are ready (as determined by their parents and/or biology), I don't think that kids should be the "most sacred thing" in any religion.

Children are the most sacred element of your religion.

It may be a blow to some people, but the most important element is NOT THE SELF, maybe the self is the most important part of your spiritual journey (although I pity you if it is), but your religion is nothing, absolutely nothing without a generation to hand it off to.

No, they aren't. Each person's "most sacred" element is different. It's not a "blow" to me, it's a stupid pronouncement that bears no damn obligation on my part.

I hate to tell this guy, but kids aren't the center of everyone's universe, nor should they be. Really. He is welcome to take his stinking pity and tuck it. I don't need to breed a "generation to hand it off to" in order to have a valid religion. My religious views definitiely do not include forcible indoctrination of children, and/or requiring children to indoctrinate. I would much rather support those who chose to have children, than feel compelled to produce my own, no matter how unwanted by me.

Children should have a place in our religion(s), but should not be the center of it. They should be protected, but our rites should not all be dumbed down to what children can handle. Adults only spaces should be honored, as well as general or "child safe" spaces. IMO, if it is *NOT* designated "adults only", then it should be able to be assumed child/abuse survivor safe.

What's so hard about that? Why does the cult of the child have to be dragged forth? Why does someone feel the need to tell me and everyone else that, essentially, my religion is invalid unless I consider the most sacred thing in it to be completeing a simple biological act? Yuck!


Jan. 12th, 2006 07:33 pm (UTC)

"I didn't say anything about validity."

Nor did I say you did. If you'll read what I wrote, you’ll see I used proper generic phrasing so the questions would be considered in the serious light intended. By taking my comments personally, you have removed the discussion from the realm of rationality where I placed it and made of them an emotional issue.

My questions were serious and, while you may have dismissed them as unimportant, I won’t.

How you raise your children - while interesting information - is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Why do we need to "hand off" our religion to anyone else? is a pretty straight forward question. I completely and utterly fail to understand the urge to "hand off" those beliefs to anyone else as if those beliefs were unchanging one-size-fits-all material objects. People who are close to me will pick up on them, and take or leave what they will. That's family/community life. Inheritability should not be an important or even a defining characteristic of a religion.

What is it about religion that makes people think they have to share it or it's not valid? is also a pretty straight forward and clear question. It sort of goes hand-in-hand with a few other questions, but I'm not asking those here and now, just the one that relates to Ravan's issue (which is, after all, the whole point of this conversation). I don't have any supportive evidence that says a religion is more valid if it's shared with other people. I don't have any evidence supporting the contrary view, either. So, my stance on this is a neutral one pending evidence - all religions are valid so long as one person holds that religion in their heart, even if they never share it with anyone else and even if no one else knows the religion exists. Again, inheritability should not be a defining characteristic of a religion.

Why shouldn't each generation discover religion for themselves? was perhaps poorly phrased, but the intent is still obvious. The trappings of religion are worthless without personal understanding. All the teaching, all the proselytizing, all the missionary work is a waste of time if the person being preached to doesn't discover it for themselves. I suppose this should have been phrased as an observation rather than a question. Each person (and thereby each generation) must discover religion themselves, must "re-invent the wheel" themselves. They can use tools and symbols and all the other outward trappings that develop around religion, but in the end, if they don't discover religion for themselves within themselves, it's useless (albeit sometimes entertaining) drivel.

Jan. 12th, 2006 09:42 pm (UTC)
My response was not at all emotional. It was factual. I answered your third question since I had no opinion on the first two nor do I find them particularly relevant since I operate in a community that has children and is sharing religion with them.
Jan. 13th, 2006 12:13 am (UTC)
Not everyone does, so they are perfectly relevant, since you really can't validly generalize your community to all of paganism.
Jan. 13th, 2006 10:00 pm (UTC)

"I answered your third question"

Actually, no, you didn't answer the third question I posed at all. If you'd answered the flip side of my question, I would have agreed that you answered my question. But you didn't. You flipped my question around and then left it hanging there all naked and alone.

"I had no opinion on the first two"

That's very sad.

"nor do I find them particularly relevant"

And that is beyond sad. This statement makes it seem as if you only care for "us four and no more", and everyone else is unimportant. I do hope that's not truly the case.

Latest Month

January 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner