Re: "Lily" and religious references

[smc@gandalf.rutgers.edu (kirke)]

Chris,
	I read your response to my post with interest.  Here are my thoughts.
In responding to your post, I was attempting to comment on three things:
your contention that:

	"There have been a number of people posting some fairly involved
descriptions of the "ritual", and not one of them has added one iota of new
actual information or worthwhile analysis of the *song*."

and,

	"It's just "believers" taking the opportunity to post about their beliefs, (one od which is that Kate must *share* their belief.)"

finally, I was responding to your tone, which was patronizing, superior and
generally disparaging of anyone whose beliefs were very different from yours:

	"Kate is a *writer* who create (sp) fictional characters who do believe
things that she doesn't.  I think it's fairly obvious that I don't need to explain the difference between fiction and reality."

	I chose to talk about the importance of examining possible sources
because you began by asserting that involved descriptions of the ritual hadn't
added anything to discussion of the song.  Since several people had been
asking for the text of the ritual, this information was new to them, and they
at least felt that it would add to their own analysis of the song.  Yet you
responded by stating that:

	"This is a representation (sorry--misrepresentation- I don't know
the commands to correct errors while posting-) of my position.  I have done
plenty of examination of source material myself.  That is a worthy thing, but
my objections came true.  Several people have used this "research" as an
excuse to pour hundreds of lines of nonsense verbage only tangentally related
to the song onto rec.music.gaffa."

	You seem to be contradicting yourself: examination of sources is a
worthy thing but examination of this source is not?  Why?  Because, as you
state, " my objections came true...people have used this research to pour
hundreds of lines of nonsense verbiage...onto rec.music.gaffa."

	Another way of saying this is to say that sources are well and good
to examine unless they offend your sensibilities by suggesting interpretations
that disturb you.  But I say that we must all accept that some source matrials
will challenge our basic beliefs.  We just compare sources and decide which
ones we can trust.  You are free to challenge Jean's belief that Kate is
Wiccan.  She is free to put forth the belief, supported by textual material,
that Kate is Wiccan.  Individually, we evaluate the evidence and decide,, no,
yes, too little data.
	Likewise, some people offer the ritual, and others can then evaluate
it and come to their own conclusions.  Nobody is trying to tell anyone else
that they must believe that Kate is Wiccan.  In fact, Jean is very clear in
stating that this is her opinion, and she even apologizes in advance in
case she offends someone else merely by expressing her beliefs and offering
the textual evidence that led her to her conclusion:

	"...Granted, there is some debate on whether Kate actually believes
in this so called "bullshit" or not...personally, being very well read on the
subject, there isn't a doubt in my mind that Kate has most certainly dabbled
in the arts of the white wtch..or the "wiccan" as many prefer to say...But
then again...this all may be just too far out for most people (sorry--most of the group readers) to accept, so i apologize if I have offended anyone's beliefs
.."

Jean has stated that this is her belief and that she even suspects that most
of the group readers will disagree with her.  Finally, amazingly, she apologizes in the event that her personal beliefs may offend someone.  Apparently, she
was correct in her assessment that the evil deed of believing differently,
stating her beliefs, and most horribly, providing some textual support for
those beliefs would offend someone.  I don't know about you, but most
prosyletizers That I know don't sell their religion in this way.  They
present their beliefs as the only true and reasonable way, and try to
convince you that any other way of thinking is blasphemy (religios extremists)
or stupidity (materialist extremists).  Jean's post fits neither of these
descriptions.
	In your post, you state that:

	"I never used the word "fool" and I would prefer to be quoted rather
than paraphrased.  And it certainly was prosyletizing."

in your response to my statement that you suggested Jean was a fool.  You are right...uo you never used the word "fool" because you didfn't have to.  Your
tone, you exaggerated literalness, your superiority, said the word for you.
You implied that she was an extremist, an idiot, who could barely tell fiction
from reality

	"...I think it's fairly obvious that I don't need to explain the
differences between fiction and reality."

Of all three objections that I had to your post, this one was the most
immediate.  It is painful to see another person mocked for their beliefs,
and it is disrespectful and mean.  Of course, you are free to express all
of your opinions, even in a nasty way.  Unfortunately, this tends to
embarass and shame others who feel differently than you do, and perhaps
it was this fear of a nasty response that made Jean feel the need to actually
apologize in advance for expressing an opinion.  When I stated that:

	"If you are uncomfortable with Kate's use of magical/spiritual
references, don't read posts about them, and certainly don't attempt to
derail or suppress discussion about them"

I was refering to this.  By treating others who believe in Wicca, the
supernatural and/or other things that you don't believe in as idiots or 
as deluded you shame and embarass them and discourage them from putting
forth their ideas again.  Ridicule is a powerful means of controling
discourse, as generations of human beings have discovered.  By exposing
those who disagree with you to unpleasant accusations of delusion, implications
of stupidity and the like, you attempt to show their discourse to be
illegitimate.  If you are unfamiliar with this idea, which I doubt, please
see Foucoult, Derrida or Barthes.  I do not say this to imply that you are
uneducated, for I believe you to be educated and intelligent, but to offer
you a way of looking at your statements which may suggest how strong and effective  they can be.  And, perhaps, to show you how detrimental they can be.
	You have the right to disagree with anyone, but if you do so without
ridiculing them your arguments will be more effective anyway.

	Finally, you and I had this exchange:

	"She might be (Wiccan).  We don't know.  Since her lyrics suggest it
as one possibility, that is a logical hypothesis.  You are simply being
unreasonable."

You respond:

	"*This* is annoying.  If anything, I am being *hyper-reasonable*.
It is my insistence on reason that you seem to find objectionable.  I
believe the word you meant was "pliable.""


	No, the word is reasonable.  My definition of a reasonable person
is one that can see how textual evidence suggestive of magickal knowledge
can suggest the hypothesis that the writer herself is involved with
magickal work.  Or, more genewrally, a reasonable person cam  can see the connection between the appearance of smoke and the hypothesis that there is a
brushfire.  Now, smoke could mean any number of things: someone burning
leaves, a car on fire, smoldering ashes of a campfire, any number of things.
But a reasonable person could see that the hypothesis of a brushfire is
certainly one possibility.
	Your post denied this possibility and demanded proof.  The latter is certainly logical and reasonable, if somewhat belligerantly put, but reasonable.
The former was not.  A reasonable person does not deny potential causality.
Question, yes.  Deny that it is even a valid line of inquiry? No.
	
	Who is the zealot here?  You object that you warned "everyone that it
would serve as a forum for a bunch of zealots." meaning our discussion of
"Lily" and its possible sources, I presume.  Yet, no one but you is being
extreme.  Extreme materialism is just another form of fanaticism.  Worse,
the need to ridicule others who don't share your beliefs is a tell-tale
sign of it.  kirke (smc@gandalf.rutgers.edu)