The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum (Archive Board)
May 27, 2020, 02:07:59 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: This is our Read Only Archive Board (closed to posting July 2011). Join our new vBulletin board!
 
  Portal   Forum   Help Rules Search Chat (Mux) Articles Login Register   *

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 27, 2020, 02:07:59 am

Login with username, password and session length
Donate!
The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.
TC Staff
Important Information about this Archive Board
This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
Author Topic: Would you be offended?  (Read 9903 times)
Ecgwine
Senior Newbie
*
Last Login:June 01, 2011, 04:16:47 pm
United States United States

Religion: Anglo-Saxon Heathen
Posts: 10

Blog entries (0)

therhyno


Ignore
« Reply #30: March 23, 2011, 05:26:22 pm »

  I would never insult my gods by not inviting them to an important religious ceremony.

She did mention having a separate ceremony, but it felt like she mention that as a "token" to keep me happy.


I would add to Darkhawk's reply:

If your faith is as important as you say, get married with a Justice of the Peace or some other sort of non-religious ceremony. Then, appease her family by allowing them to throw a huge and expensive party for you, before which you need to go through some sort of Christian ritual. Since she volunteered to do a ceremony with your faith, everyone is equal and happy.

As long as her family isn't a micromanaging and intrusive gaggle of bullies, they should remain none-the-wiser. If they are....well, maybe it isnt a great match, and the wedding isnt the source of any problems.
Logged

Normal is just another word for average/ordinary. Please, dont be either.

Welcome, Guest!
You will need to register and/or login to participate in our discussions.

Read our Rules and Policies and the Quoting Guidelines.

Help Fund Our Server? Donate to Lyricfox's Cancer Fund?

mlr52
Master Member
****
Last Login:April 05, 2016, 04:47:17 am
United States United States

Religion: Unitarian Universalist
TCN ID: mlr52
Posts: 636


ACT OF FAITH LABYRINTH

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #31: March 23, 2011, 09:34:08 pm »

I would add to Darkhawk's reply:

If your faith is as important as you say, get married with a Justice of the Peace or some other sort of non-religious ceremony. Then, appease her family by allowing them to throw a huge and expensive party for you, before which you need to go through some sort of Christian ritual. Since she volunteered to do a ceremony with your faith, everyone is equal and happy.

As long as her family isn't a micromanaging and intrusive gaggle of bullies, they should remain none-the-wiser. If they are....well, maybe it isnt a great match, and the wedding isnt the source of any problems.

This brings up children, what will they be taught? What will they tell their grandparents, about what they were taught?
Logged

Light your candle.
In Love and Service, Blessed Be.

A Notary Public for The State of New York, I Live in Brooklyn, Work in Manhattan - No Fee
Star
Message Board Coordinator
Senior Staff
Grand Adept Member
****
Last Login:January 12, 2013, 08:36:08 am
United States United States

Religion: Hellenic Reconstructionist
TCN ID: star
Posts: 9033


Etcetera, Whatever

Blog entries (0)

ilaynay starcr
WWW
« Reply #32: March 24, 2011, 07:45:07 am »

  I, of course, respect democracy and constitutional rules, but I do not worship them.  This simply means that I don't try to fully manifest them in myself as a person, a follower.  Meaning I think a taboo can exist regardless of what a few English men said several hundred years ago.  I also mean that having right and having wrong depends on more than what the constitution says, and I will never normally talk in terms of legality on spiritual matters.  She can do it, and for this reason she has the allowance to say this, but not the right to do so.

I think you're conflating "right" (as in the opposite of "wrong") and "a right" here.  "A right" has legal implications, but not necessarily moral ones.  Randall is referring to the Bill of Rights.  It gives certain rights to the people of the US--which appears, at least, to include the poster's girlfriend.

You clearly don't feel it's right for her to make this demand, but that's not the same as her not having the right to do so.
Logged

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."
-- Aart Van Der Leeuw

Main Blog:  Star's Journal of Random Thoughts
Religious Blog:  The Song and the Flame
I can also now be found on Goodreads.
son of dhamma
Permanently Banned
Journeyman
***
Last Login:April 12, 2011, 10:06:37 am
United States United States

Religion: -
Posts: 113

Blog entries (4)



Ignore
« Reply #33: March 24, 2011, 10:48:43 am »

I think you're conflating "right" (as in the opposite of "wrong") and "a right" here.  "A right" has legal implications, but not necessarily moral ones.  Randall is referring to the Bill of Rights.  It gives certain rights to the people of the US--which appears, at least, to include the poster's girlfriend.

You clearly don't feel it's right for her to make this demand, but that's not the same as her not having the right to do so.

  I know what he was referring to.  I make it a point to pit the two against each other because of my views of a transparent legislation.  If that communicates anything.
Logged

-
Star
Message Board Coordinator
Senior Staff
Grand Adept Member
****
Last Login:January 12, 2013, 08:36:08 am
United States United States

Religion: Hellenic Reconstructionist
TCN ID: star
Posts: 9033


Etcetera, Whatever

Blog entries (0)

ilaynay starcr
WWW
« Reply #34: March 24, 2011, 11:40:43 am »

  I know what he was referring to.  I make it a point to pit the two against each other because of my views of a transparent legislation.  If that communicates anything.

It doesn't, sorry.  You don't seem to be pitting the two against each other here, you seem to be trying to make them mean the same thing.  They don't.
Logged

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."
-- Aart Van Der Leeuw

Main Blog:  Star's Journal of Random Thoughts
Religious Blog:  The Song and the Flame
I can also now be found on Goodreads.
son of dhamma
Permanently Banned
Journeyman
***
Last Login:April 12, 2011, 10:06:37 am
United States United States

Religion: -
Posts: 113

Blog entries (4)



Ignore
« Reply #35: March 24, 2011, 12:22:25 pm »

It doesn't, sorry.  You don't seem to be pitting the two against each other here, you seem to be trying to make them mean the same thing.  They don't.

  No they don't.  I don't think they are both true.  I think "a right" is part of a transparent legislation and I manifest this idea by replacing the legislative right to do something with the right of righteousness to do something.  My point, as I shared already, is that I didn't mean the same thing when I said "no right".  Apparently I meant to discredit legislative authority in this matter.
Logged

-
son of dhamma
Permanently Banned
Journeyman
***
Last Login:April 12, 2011, 10:06:37 am
United States United States

Religion: -
Posts: 113

Blog entries (4)



Ignore
« Reply #36: March 24, 2011, 12:35:39 pm »

It doesn't, sorry.  You don't seem to be pitting the two against each other here, you seem to be trying to make them mean the same thing.  They don't.

  I'm sorry that I'm so intuitive with my words.  I'm quite accustomed to communicating in person, but I'm adapting and working in different forums.
Logged

-
Star
Message Board Coordinator
Senior Staff
Grand Adept Member
****
Last Login:January 12, 2013, 08:36:08 am
United States United States

Religion: Hellenic Reconstructionist
TCN ID: star
Posts: 9033


Etcetera, Whatever

Blog entries (0)

ilaynay starcr
WWW
« Reply #37: March 24, 2011, 12:51:30 pm »

  No they don't.  I don't think they are both true.  I think "a right" is part of a transparent legislation and I manifest this idea by replacing the legislative right to do something with the right of righteousness to do something.  My point, as I shared already, is that I didn't mean the same thing when I said "no right".  Apparently I meant to discredit legislative authority in this matter.

I didn't say anything about what you "meant" to do.  I don't know what you meant to do; I'm not in your head.  I do not presume to address your intentions; I'm just looking at the words you have posted.

I still don't quite know what you mean--transparent legislation, to me, would be a law that's easy to understand, but by the context of your post you seem to be implying something else by it. Regardless, I don't think attempting to redefine words is really helping you communicate clearly here.  We're *not* in your head, so using existing words in a way you deem fit rather than in the way most people use them is not going to be helpful because we will lack the context (i.e. that of your definition) to understand what you're saying.

I have issues even with saying that she has no moral right to say what she said, but I think others have mostly covered that already.  The most I'm willing to commit to is that it was a tactless thing for her to say and the issue bears further discussion.
Logged

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."
-- Aart Van Der Leeuw

Main Blog:  Star's Journal of Random Thoughts
Religious Blog:  The Song and the Flame
I can also now be found on Goodreads.
son of dhamma
Permanently Banned
Journeyman
***
Last Login:April 12, 2011, 10:06:37 am
United States United States

Religion: -
Posts: 113

Blog entries (4)



Ignore
« Reply #38: March 24, 2011, 01:09:55 pm »

I didn't say anything about what you "meant" to do.  I don't know what you meant to do; I'm not in your head.  I do not presume to address your intentions; I'm just looking at the words you have posted.

I still don't quite know what you mean--transparent legislation, to me, would be a law that's easy to understand, but by the context of your post you seem to be implying something else by it. Regardless, I don't think attempting to redefine words is really helping you communicate clearly here.  We're *not* in your head, so using existing words in a way you deem fit rather than in the way most people use them is not going to be helpful because we will lack the context (i.e. that of your definition) to understand what you're saying.

I have issues even with saying that she has no moral right to say what she said, but I think others have mostly covered that already.  The most I'm willing to commit to is that it was a tactless thing for her to say and the issue bears further discussion.

  It was tactless for her to say.  The actual doing or carrying-out of the idea is what I say she has no right to do and what I consider a trespass of the order of the divine.

  Transparent:  "so sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous... easily seen through."
  Legislation:  "1  :  the making or giving of laws.  2.  a law or a body of laws enacted."


  A transparent legislation according to these definition is what I meant to say.
Logged

-
Inca
Master Member
****
Last Login:December 31, 2011, 11:49:06 am
Netherlands Netherlands

Religion: agnostic
Posts: 279


Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #39: March 24, 2011, 01:49:14 pm »

 A transparent legislation according to these definition is what I meant to say.

Perhaps you could explain how that is applied? Because, in the most physical sense laws are immaterial so material properties like 'transparence' don't really apply. In a less literal sense, the law in this case seems crystal clear to me: anyone has every right to voice an opinion. So just the dictionary definitions don't bridge the gap. Explain how you feel it applies, how those definions actually work out in the case at hand. (And, if people don't understand, trying different explanations, saying the same thing in different wordings, will usually help more than just repeating the phrase or definition.)
Logged
catherine
Master Member
****
Last Login:November 08, 2013, 10:51:52 am
United States United States

Religion: temporarily unavailable, renovations in progress
Posts: 332

Gravatar

Blog entries (0)



Ignore
« Reply #40: March 24, 2011, 01:55:59 pm »

  The actual doing or carrying-out of the idea is what I say she has no right to do and what I consider a trespass of the order of the divine.

How is staying true to her own religious beliefs a trespass of the order of the divine?

She absolutely does have the right to choose for herself what type of religious rituals to be a part of.  Just as Thor has the right to decide for himself what kind of ceremony he's willing to be a part of. If those two things don't mesh, then there are other alternatives that don't involve either of them going against their religious beliefs.

Honestly, I really don't understand what you're saying here.
Logged
Star
Message Board Coordinator
Senior Staff
Grand Adept Member
****
Last Login:January 12, 2013, 08:36:08 am
United States United States

Religion: Hellenic Reconstructionist
TCN ID: star
Posts: 9033


Etcetera, Whatever

Blog entries (0)

ilaynay starcr
WWW
« Reply #41: March 24, 2011, 02:03:31 pm »

  It was tactless for her to say.  The actual doing or carrying-out of the idea is what I say she has no right to do and what I consider a trespass of the order of the divine.

All we were discussing was what she said.  This was a hypothetical discussion between two people who haven't been in a relationship that long, may or may not actually wind up married, and if they do get married will probably discuss this issue further before the wedding happens.  The carrying-out of the idea isn't an issue yet.

Whether she has the legal right to carry out that idea, I don't know.  Whether she has the moral right is still not a black-and-white question, and I suspect the answer is mostly up to her and the person who posted the question, given it would be *their* wedding.

Quote
  Transparent:  "so sheer as to permit light to pass through; diaphanous... easily seen through."
  Legislation:  "1  :  the making or giving of laws.  2.  a law or a body of laws enacted."


  A transparent legislation according to these definition is what I meant to say.

I'm aware of what the words mean.  That still doesn't tell me how you're using them.  (But Inca has addressed this already, and done a good job of it.)
Logged

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."
-- Aart Van Der Leeuw

Main Blog:  Star's Journal of Random Thoughts
Religious Blog:  The Song and the Flame
I can also now be found on Goodreads.
son of dhamma
Permanently Banned
Journeyman
***
Last Login:April 12, 2011, 10:06:37 am
United States United States

Religion: -
Posts: 113

Blog entries (4)



Ignore
« Reply #42: March 24, 2011, 02:22:09 pm »

How is staying true to her own religious beliefs a trespass of the order of the divine?

  It is not.

Quote
She absolutely does have the right to choose for herself what type of religious rituals to be a part of.
She does.  However, if she were to ask her husband not to invite his gods to such a ceremony, in this case, it would be a trespass of the order of the divine, as far as I'm concerned.  If that's not your view then it's certainly okay.  If that's not anyone's view then that's okay but there is no need for anybody to respond to another person's view in such strong defiance.

Quote
If those two things don't mesh, then there are other alternatives that don't involve either of them going against their religious beliefs.
That's quite true.  I wasn't talking about that, merely the notion at hand.

Quote
Honestly, I really don't understand what you're saying here.

  Does that help somewhat?
Logged

-
son of dhamma
Permanently Banned
Journeyman
***
Last Login:April 12, 2011, 10:06:37 am
United States United States

Religion: -
Posts: 113

Blog entries (4)



Ignore
« Reply #43: March 24, 2011, 02:25:13 pm »

Perhaps you could explain how that is applied? Because, in the most physical sense laws are immaterial so material properties like 'transparence' don't really apply. In a less literal sense, the law in this case seems crystal clear to me: anyone has every right to voice an opinion. So just the dictionary definitions don't bridge the gap. Explain how you feel it applies, how those definions actually work out in the case at hand. (And, if people don't understand, trying different explanations, saying the same thing in different wordings, will usually help more than just repeating the phrase or definition.)

  Honestly, I'm trying to avoid getting into my idea of the transparency of legislation.  I did bring it to the table, but I'm trying to keep in the discussion of the topic.  Meaning, that I think it is insulting to him--yes.  I added that I considered it a taboo, which lead to the discussion with Collins.  I think I finished everything with Collins and there's no need to go into legislative transparency.
  Thank you though, very helpful.
Logged

-
Star
Message Board Coordinator
Senior Staff
Grand Adept Member
****
Last Login:January 12, 2013, 08:36:08 am
United States United States

Religion: Hellenic Reconstructionist
TCN ID: star
Posts: 9033


Etcetera, Whatever

Blog entries (0)

ilaynay starcr
WWW
« Reply #44: March 24, 2011, 03:05:22 pm »

  I think I finished everything with Collins and there's no need to go into legislative transparency.

We're only trying to understand what you're saying.  This concept of "legislative transparency" might not be directly relevant to the question of how to balance the requirements of two different religions in a relationship, no.  It does, however, relate to your choice of words in describing how this issue should be dealt with within the relationship.  You say "she has no right"; we cannot understand what you mean by that until you explain it.  Since legislative transparency contributes to your choice to use the word "right" in a nonstandard way, defining legislative transparency *is* directly relevant to our understanding of what you're trying to say.

And if you disagree and don't want to get into it--that's up to you, but don't expect us to get what you're trying to say.
Logged

"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced."
-- Aart Van Der Leeuw

Main Blog:  Star's Journal of Random Thoughts
Religious Blog:  The Song and the Flame
I can also now be found on Goodreads.

Donor Ad: Become a Silver or Gold Donor to get your ad here.

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Add bookmark  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
  Portal   Forum   Help Rules Search Chat (Mux) Articles Login Register   *

* Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)

EU Cookie Notice: This site uses cookies. By using this site you consent to their use.


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 46 queries.