Tags
I did wonder, after yesterday’s encounter, whether I had been too harsh, but I agree with Hamish and Jabba who make in different ways the excellent point that this sort of syncretism insults all the religions from which it plunders.
As some of you know, I have two friends who converted to Islam while at University. They take their religion extremely seriously and when I talk with them, neither they nor I try to pretend that we are sharing the same religion. Indeed, I am not even sure (although I think the Vatican says otherwise) that we really worship the same God. My God is the Triune God revealed to us in Scripture; their God is more akin to the one a non-Christian reading of what we cal the Old Testament will give. Now it may well be that far wiser people can tell us that we are really worshipping the same God, but as we can’t see that, we simply avoid the topic; with four children a piece, we’ve plenty of other things to discuss.
The chaplaincy where yesterday’s talk took place is one shared by all the great faiths represented at the university. But we have had a request (more of a demand really) from the ‘PagSoc’ (Pagan Society) that they should be allocated times and space there. Some of my fellow Christians have bridled at that and want to protest. I am less clear about this.
As fa as I can see, modern paganism is a made up set of beliefs culled from new age philosophy and crossed with old beliefs. But if it is a belief system which some students have, or find useful, then I di not see how we can properly say to the university that those students do not have the right to use its premises. I gather that a couple of years ago the Christian Union had to fight off attempts from the secularists to take the chaplaincy for other uses, which seems to me another reason to extend tolerance in this instance.
The interesting thing about the discussions so far is that those who argue as I am are finding ourselves under fire from both sides. Some of the Pagans want simply to take this as an ‘equality’ issue and insist on their ‘rights’; some of my fellow Christians want to make it an issue of ‘principle’ and refuse to allow ‘such people’ into a sacred space. I ended up speaking to a very sweet young Pagan woman who was upset that we couldn’t understand that they, too, had the concept of ‘sacred space’ and she insisted they would never misuse the space if they were allowed to use it.
I don’t know where this one is going to end. Much as I deplore syncretism, and much as I adore Christ, it seems better in this instance to acknowledge that the university itself is a shared space. If a place of higher learning cannot find its way to an answer to how those of different faiths (and none) live together, then I really will be close to despair.
I agree with you. There is no reason why people of good will (repeat: OF GOOD WILL) cannot share space. Without good will, it becomes impossible. From what you have said you, and I as well, are very lucky in our Islamic friends. Wish there were many more like them.
It is the good will bit which is crucial. We share our space at the moment with Muslims, Anglicans, Catholics and Copts, so there’s no intrinsic reason we can’t accommodate these newcomers.
I’ve only known one or two pagans over the years they were fine, although it stuck me as a very cafeteria religion, they tended to mix Greek, Roman, Scandinavian, and whatnot together with no thought of unity.
Other than the Muslims (which depends on which part of the Koran they read seems like, the rest should be pretty compatible as all are some variant of Christian, although certainly varied.
Yes, that’s what I have found.
I for the life of me don’t understand why colleges need to present such lectures etc. unless it is part of a comparative religion course. When I went to college our various religious life never demanded or even afforded an outlet such as a series of lectures by every religion known to man nor was that the intent of the prevailing learning experience in college – unless, of course, the college was doing a comparative religious program that might be discussed for merit of thought, history and major beliefs. But given equal time to Wicca or Satanists along side Paganism, Muslims, Judaism, Christianity ad infinitum seems to me a rather silly waste of time, space and money. This is a relatively new concept of equality as you have aptly stated that has little to do with the education of our youth. Is this really popular? In the college I attended, I doubt you could have attracted 10 people to attend such a talk or presentation as nobody was in the least bit interested unless they wish to someday teach comparative religion themselves (a rather small group of people such as those that take courses in women studies or other modern degrees that have little opportunity for the student to earn a living after receiving such a degree). It simply strikes me as a colossal waste of time, money and energy for a college to pursue this. What, may I ask, is the stated purpose or goal that your school might be trying to accomplish?
I could be wrong but, my impression was that the lecture was a voluntary thing, done in the chaplain’s office/chapel. If that’s so I tend to assume it was at no expense to university, we had all sorts of cultural stuff when I was in school from poets to the New York Philharmonic, students fees covered whatever you wanted to go to, just like football and basketball. Again like sports, the big draws like the Philharmonic, or Balanchine Dance Company, would sell enough tickets in the community to finance the event and usually enough to help subsidize some of the others.
Today she was talking about a group of pagans wanting to share the space set aside for the chaplain, which most likely comes down to a binary solution set. Either you share or the chapel is gone – at least that’s how it would play out here in a public university. Of course, if you’re a private enterprise you have more wiggle room but, not all that much anymore, really.
But Jess will have to tell us how that works there, different law, not to mention a state church. Even when I was there, my university offered no facilities, or personnel for that matter, for any religion. There were facilities available, usually owned by various synods/churches but, adjacent to, not on campus.
Good input NEO. I was confused how this all played out in the British School System. My other thought is that (speaking as an American with schools that have literally gone to hell) we have stopped teaching logic and critical thinking. That used to be a prerequisite to courses in philosophy and theology in the college arena. I’m afraid that if you just get a bunch of folks waving their personal religious flags that the winner would be whoever was the best and most charismatic teacher and who swayed emotions rather than convincing people by logic to their position. What I have seen done in this country with some success were debates by prominent theologians for various religions that were moderated and topic specific. That seems to world out well if the students are truly interested in getting to the meat of the subject. Just a thought from an American that has no idea what the situation is like in Great Britain.
Yeah, I don’t really know either, SF, but you made me think through it a bit, and that’s where I ended up.
I get the impression from Jess, and C, and Geoffrey that they have much the same problems as we do, so I kind of went off that.
Even when I was in school, logic didn’t have much to do with philosophy (at least 101), although there was some critical thinking involved.
That would be an interesting discussion that you describe.
I’m stretching my knowledge here, so I’ll guess we should probably wait and see what Jess has to say about it.
Probably right NEO. I know next to nothing about how things are over there right now in their Universities and Colleges.
Me either, all I really know is what Jess has written here and that’s mostly bad examples, and mostly at the primary or secondary level.
You have been here longer than I have, so I don’t even have rudimentary understanding of the primary and secondary schools to boot.
Jess and I did a few posts about it while you were down – we need to do more but, got sidetracked. Mostly a lot of stuff comes in from various places and I try to make sense out it, with her professional expertise to help. You know the basic story but we need to start finding real solutions, rather than what feels good and makes the union happy, same story as everything else, of course.
Indeed so. There seems to be a lack of fortitude in ferreting out a hierarchy of credulity among different things as being “inclusive” trumps everything: for instance our Air Force Academy now pandering to the occult ‘religion’ of Wicca. We used to be smarter than that and tolerance was not mentioned as anyone with any intellect knew that Wicca was not per se a religion. Now Scientology has religious status – go figure.
In a sense it is, there are worse ones. I’m inclined to think there as valid as some of the more famous cults, at least they don’t attempt to suppress half of their adherents.
I guess it is the fear of the ‘brain washing’ that our young people are getting from out education systems these days. Things were not that rosy in the ’60′s either but we had a lot of hold-overs from the earlier educational practices. Instead of saying logic was pre-requisite I should have said that it was a required subject for 1st year philosophy majors along with philosophy 101. It ran concurrent with the other. But our philosophy department was not challenging enough and we had some teachers that were not very good thinkers themselves. That’s when I changed majors to English Literature: I got more philosophical thought from the classics than I ever was in the philosophy classes. So the deterioration was already present in a nascent sense even back then.
I hear that, our whole Humanities cirriculum tended towards the weak side but, then again it was an engineering and science school. I’m mostly self taught from my reading over the years as well.
Yes, you are right Neo. The talk was a lunch time, voluntary activity. like most UK universities we exist on a mix of State and private funding from fees. The chaplaincy is a common facility, which will mean we have to share with all who want it.
Sometimes I get lucky but similar problems lead to similar solutions, which is not always good.
Very true – good day dearest friend
xx
Good day to you dearest friend, a somewhat slow start, combined with leaping into daylight saving time. Soon I’ll be more coherent
xx
Living here in the tip of Cornwall we’re surrounded by various pagan cults, including satanic groups. Our secular society sees them as harmless and ignores threm. However they cn do a lot of harm. I could relate some bizarre events that have come my way, but I’m not sure it would be wise.
I agree with you, Malcolm.
If you are to be a martyr it is because you have core beliefs that you value more then your life. People do require and are due respect, but juggling relative values will just weaken you. You of course must listen, but you are not required to change your core beliefs today maybe tomorrow.
Now I talked to Malcomlxx on the OT and had to go to confession because of my pride, I will not give up my core beliefs, but I should not make enemies needlessly, to me but more importantly to the church. On enemies, is my enemy’s life worth more then my friends? no it is not, nor to him is my life worth the life of his friends. But I can respect him, but we all must choose what core values we cannot change.
Church is respecting your neighbor, but accepting other views that weaken core beliefs is dangerous, it is like you loving yours neighbor’s child more then your own. This drive of relative values is the death of western civilization. I believe that relative values has been the death of the Church of England with more churches to follow.
Relative values are of the world and we are called not to be of the world.
Relative values leads to abortion, the LiverpoolPathway, Gay Bishops, woman priests, medical ethics of harvesting organs while people are still alive, that the poor are the responsibility of the state, that sharia law is acceptable, the quality of life argument for the purpose of culling the young, the isolation of the church from the public sphere, the banning of offense speech, on and on until the ending of the age.
There is a real danger here.
There is indeed, Tom, and the best we can do is to see that as Christians the core beliefs we have in common are more important than the things which divide us.