Witches Shun O'Donnell

[kenofken]

Are witches and pagans such an important voting block in the country that this is important?

Probably not, in one sense. We’re still a distinct minority in this country, but not a vanishingly small one, and our numbers are growing steadily. Pagans are probably more important to politicians as members of the other important voting blocks - ie pagans make up some portion of the hallowed “soccer mom” demographic etc. Anyone running for office who is counting on environmentalist votes and platforms ignores pagans at their own peril. As goofy as many of us can be, it’s my impresssion that the vast majority of us do bother to show up and vote one way or another.

More broadly speaking, I would say that the Tea Party, like all nascent third-party movements, is not in a good position to write off many voting blocks of any kind. To the extent that the Tea Party becomes identified as a Christian fundamentalist party or one full of fringe/extremists elements, it will alienate large swaths of middle America who might otherwise have posed a real challenge to the entrenched special interests which are screwing over all of us.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Are witches and pagans such an important voting block in the country that this is important?

Probably not, in one sense. We’re still a distinct minority in this country, but not a vanishingly small one, and our numbers are growing steadily. Pagans are probably more important to politicians as members of the other important voting blocks - ie pagans make up some portion of the hallowed “soccer mom” demographic etc. Anyone running for office who is counting on environmentalist votes and platforms ignores pagans at their own peril. As goofy as many of us can be, it’s my impresssion that the vast majority of us do bother to show up and vote one way or another.

More broadly speaking, I would say that the Tea Party, like all nascent third-party movements, is not in a good position to write off many voting blocks of any kind. To the extent that the Tea Party becomes identified as a Christian fundamentalist party or one full of fringe/extremists elements, it will alienate large swaths of middle America who might otherwise have posed a real challenge to the entrenched special interests which are screwing over all of us.

Next year I’ve been told that we Pagans will out number Jews in America. Also 90% of us vote according to a census put out, this is compared to 50% in the general population.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Nice try but what actually said was:

I.E. the mocking of Christianity is childish. After all Christianity is a faith not an act.

But hey any excuse to put on our victim hats right?

Normally I’d assume you misunderstood me. But here most will twist my words to readily.

Actually, I’m late in responding but I’ll be Man enought to admit I was wrong. It was the way the words were put together and the fact that I read quickly that drew me to conclude you were saying these Witches and you thought it OK to mock Christianity.

So there—I was wrong. And I’m not trying to play the “victim” card here. There may be people here on ALL sides of the religious spectrum who do like to do that, but not me.
I sincerely thought you were implying what I thought you were implying, so I stepped up to defend My Faith.

I know where you Folks are coming from anyway, since I used to be in that New Age/Pagan wavelength----came THIS close to joining the Rosicrucians AND Crowley’s NOVO TEMPLIS ORDIS but thankfully the Good Lord had better plans for me.

However, the point still stands that mocking of BOTH sides’ Religion IS wrong. So yes, I do not condone it if O’Donnell Mocks Witchcraft. Although, given the fact that she is a devout Christian who of course considers Wicca and other faiths heretical and idolatrous, I sort of understand where she is coming from.
The same goes for Pagans/Witches/Etc. Mocking Christianity. I don’t condone it but I sort of understand why.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Probably not, in one sense. We’re still a distinct minority in this country, but not a vanishingly small one, and our numbers are growing steadily. Pagans are probably more important to politicians as members of the other important voting blocks - ie pagans make up some portion of the hallowed “soccer mom” demographic etc. Anyone running for office who is counting on environmentalist votes and platforms ignores pagans at their own peril. As goofy as many of us can be, it’s my impresssion that the vast majority of us do bother to show up and vote one way or another.

More broadly speaking, I would say that the Tea Party, like all nascent third-party movements, is not in a good position to write off many voting blocks of any kind. To the extent that the Tea Party becomes identified as a Christian fundamentalist party or one full of fringe/extremists elements, it will alienate large swaths of middle America who might otherwise have posed a real challenge to the entrenched special interests which are screwing over all of us.

The Tea Party is disliked anyway, not matter what platform they do or do not embrace.

The Left hates them because they are seen as Racist, Dumb Rednecks.

The Right sees them as Too Independent, too Equal-Opportunity Critics, and too “Anti-Establishment.” Plus, some in the Right still do not like Sarah Palin.

So the fact that you might think it will be seen to be tied to Christian Fundamentalism does not take away the fact that it will be criticized from ALL sides ANYWAY for a variety of reasons.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Actually, I’m late in responding but I’ll be Man enought to admit I was wrong. It was the way the words were put together and the fact that I read quickly that drew me to conclude you were saying these Witches and you thought it OK to mock Christianity.

So there—I was wrong. And I’m not trying to play the “victim” card here. There may be people here on ALL sides of the religious spectrum who do like to do that, but not me.
I sincerely thought you were implying what I thought you were implying, so I stepped up to defend My Faith.

I know where you Folks are coming from anyway, since I used to be in that New Age/Pagan wavelength----came THIS close to joining the Rosicrucians AND Crowley’s NOVO TEMPLIS ORDIS but thankfully the Good Lord had better plans for me.

However, the point still stands that mocking of BOTH sides’ Religion IS wrong. So yes, I do not condone it if O’Donnell Mocks Witchcraft. Although, given the fact that she is a devout Christian who of course considers Wicca and other faiths heretical and idolatrous, I sort of understand where she is coming from.
The same goes for Pagans/Witches/Etc. Mocking Christianity. I don’t condone it but I sort of understand why.

Crowley’s pseudo-religion is known as the Ordo Templi Orientis. Just FYI. Carry on.

 

[Darryl1958]

They obviously aren’t going along with the neocons who want to impose a Christianists theocracy in this country,

The accusation originally was that neocons were too Jewish.
'Christianists"?
Christianism?

 

[kenofken]

The accusation originally was that neocons were too Jewish.
'Christianists"?
Christianism?

Yes, Christianist. A similar term to “Islamists” to distinguish ordinary Muslims from the extremists who want to force the world to live by Sharia. Christian Dominionists is probably a more widely used term for what I’m trying to get at, and yes, the neocons were full of them. They were, to some extent, played for fools by the guys whose only interest was Wall Street and manipulating defense contracts, but they were, and are still there.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yes, Christianist. A similar term to “Islamists” to distinguish ordinary Muslims from the extremists who want to force the world to live by Sharia. Christian Dominionists is probably a more widely used term for what I’m trying to get at, and yes, the neocons were full of them. They were, to some extent, played for fools by the guys whose only interest was Wall Street and manipulating defense contracts, but they were, and are still there.

SO, what do you call the Progressive Christians who want to use government to forcefully redistribute wealth in the name of “the common good”?

 

[cyberwolf001]

SO, what do you call the Progressive Christians who want to use government to forcefully redistribute wealth in the name of “the common good”?

G.K. Chesterton thought it was a good idea. Along with Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI.

 

[kenofken]

SO, what do you call the Progressive Christians who want to use government to forcefully redistribute wealth in the name of “the common good”?

Modern humans.

The whole point of life post-state of nature revolves around a social compact and governance. We consent to forgo some of our wealth and some of our freedoms in exchange for a baseline of security and order. The whole deal runs on redistribution of wealth, and it’s ultimately not voluntary. Of course it is done with greater or lesser levels of citizen consent and legitimacy, but the concept is the same. It is true under conservative and liberal presidencies. Much of what is taken from me goes to support bankers and military contractors. It’s all welfare, and it’s only evil depending who you ask. The usual formula is that welfare is evil if the recipient is poorer and darker than you.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Modern humans.

The whole point of life post-state of nature revolves around a social compact and governance. We consent to forgo some of our wealth and some of our freedoms in exchange for a baseline of security and order. The whole deal runs on redistribution of wealth, and it’s ultimately not voluntary. Of course it is done with greater or lesser levels of citizen consent and legitimacy, but the concept is the same. It is true under conservative and liberal presidencies. Much of what is taken from me goes to support bankers and military contractors. It’s all welfare, and it’s only evil depending who you ask. The usual formula is that welfare is evil if the recipient is poorer and darker than you.

Social compact and governance?

We consent? You must have a mouse in your pocket.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Modern humans.

The whole point of life post-state of nature revolves around a social compact and governance. We consent to forgo some of our wealth and some of our freedoms in exchange for a baseline of security and order. The whole deal runs on redistribution of wealth, and it’s ultimately not voluntary. Of course it is done with greater or lesser levels of citizen consent and legitimacy, but the concept is the same. It is true under conservative and liberal presidencies. Much of what is taken from me goes to support bankers and military contractors. It’s all welfare, and it’s only evil depending who you ask. The usual formula is that welfare is evil if the recipient is poorer and darker than you.

Sorry, that is collectivism and isn’t part of the principles upon which this country was extablished, nor is it part of the principles upon which civil society is structured. What you are saying is the the individual must submit to the whim of the group, because the group is bigger than the individual. That is known as collective insanity.

 

[kenofken]

Sorry, that is collectivism and isn’t part of the principles upon which this country was extablished, nor is it part of the principles upon which civil society is structured. What you are saying is the the individual must submit to the whim of the group, because the group is bigger than the individual. That is known as collective insanity.

If there was no element of collective coercion involved, this country never would have survived its establishment. Once that union was formed, national law was no longer a take it or leave it proposition. From day one, there was a degree of collectivism. Taxes to support an Army and other things didn’t come from goodwill donations, they came from taxes. More than a few people even early on decided they weren’t going to be “collectivized” that way. Shay’s Rebellion, the Whisky Rebellion etc. They had guys with muskets on their doorsteps. The Civil War is ample evidence that governance at some level is involuntary. If it was not, we would have avoided the loss of 600,000 American lives and we would have two (or perhaps more) countries here.

If we had no collectivism and you had a heart attack, you’d die on your living room floor or the street unless you had the foresight to privately contract for ambulance service, in advance, or happened to have the cash on hand to pay for it before they put you on a stretcher.

There are place in this world where there is NO institutionalized collectvism, and where one has ultimate freedom to keep whatever they earn by their wits and strength. Somalia is a prime example. The fact that I see no American Libertarians emmigrating to that paradise of freedom tells me that life in the state of nature kind of sucks.

Now, there is plenty of room for debate about the scope of government involvement and taxation and whether individuals interests are being reasonably well represented in these decisions about forced redistribution, but no stable government or society in human history has operated on a purely voluntary basis.

 

[kenofken]

Social compact and governance?

We consent? You must have a mouse in your pocket.

Yes. If you ever read this country’s founding documents, and even more importantly, the work of philosophers like John Stewart Mill who inspired the founders, you’d understand that. Does that mean you consent to each and every one government policy or tax? Of course not, but at a very fundamental level, you agree to cede some of your liberty, and cash, by the act of living in (and off of) a civil society.

Libertarian purists like to say that because they never took a welfare check, they don’t owe the collective anything and that any taxation on them is just theft. The fact is that NO ONE in our society has gotten what they have 100% by the sweat of their own brow and wits. If you’ve ever driven on a paved road, flushed a toilet, had children who *didn’t * die of diptheria, received medical care of any kind, used any technology or gone to a public school, you’re the beneficiary of public goods which were, at some level, taken from someone else without their express consent.

Even if your’re “self-made” through business or some other means, none of it would be possible without the baseline conditions of security and infrastructure provided by “forced redistribution of wealth.” In a civil society, we are both a wealthy uncle and the useless dpendent nephew who needs a hand-out. On an individual basis, at some point in our lives we are all the uncle and the nephew, and some people play much more one role than the other, but anyone who thinks he’s never the nephew is delusional.

So unless you somehow manage to accurately tally all the public benefits that have accrued to you, pay them back, and then renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere, you’ve incurred an obligation to put something back into the system. Freedom without responsibility is an illusion, and a luxury which only comes to 15-year old kids with rich fools for parents.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

SO, what do you call the Progressive Christians who want to use government to forcefully redistribute wealth in the name of “the common good”?

In Europe they are called “Christian Socialists.” I guess that is as good of aterm as any.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Crowley’s pseudo-religion is known as the Ordo Templi Orientis. Just FYI. Carry on.

Thanks for that, Scott.

This was such a long time ago.

And I was going by memory. Yes, it was Ordo Templi Orientis. Creepy Crowley’s little Satanic-inspired Quasi-Religion. “Do what you wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” (shudder). Still can’t believe I actually considered joining that monstrosity of an organization.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Thanks for that, Scott.

This was such a long time ago.

And I was going by memory. Yes, it was Ordo Templi Orientis. Creepy Crowley’s little Satanic-inspired Quasi-Religion. “Do what you wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” (shudder). Still can’t believe I actually considered joining that monstrosity of an organization.

Ordo Templi Orientis is the organization. The bona fide Religion is called Thelema.

 

[kenofken]

Thanks for that, Scott.

This was such a long time ago.

And I was going by memory. Yes, it was Ordo Templi Orientis. Creepy Crowley’s little Satanic-inspired Quasi-Religion. “Do what you wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” (shudder). Still can’t believe I actually considered joining that monstrosity of an organization.

It is well you didn’t join it. You don’t understand the first thing about it, or Crowley.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes, Christianist. A similar term to “Islamists” to distinguish ordinary Muslims from the extremists who want to force the world to live by Sharia. Christian Dominionists is probably a more widely used term for what I’m trying to get at, and yes, the neocons were full of them. They were, to some extent, played for fools by the guys whose only interest was Wall Street and manipulating defense contracts, but they were, and are still there.

And these foolish "Christianists’ want to impose a theocracy on us? Did the Jewish neocons go along with this, or did they have other plans for the movement?

Are there any prominent Christianists whose names are familiar to all of us?

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Well, it looks like Christine O’Donnell has lost the support of the witch community:

mariopiperni.com/republikooks-2/witches-shun-christine-odonnell.php

[What could have gone wrong?]

Why does Catholic Answers always lock threads that are negative about Obama or liberals if they aren’t based on links from the mainstream media stories and yet they continually allow useless tripe like this from left-wing blogs? the link goes right into the typical left-wing name-calling like “bewitched and tea-bagged” and all that other stuff. I see this double-standard here on the World News forum all the time