Wiccan beauty queen rejected as pageant judge (no spam)

[Loki[D.d.G]]

"We hope that Stephanie Conover will turn from these belief systems and will repent from her practice of them."

This is discrimination to the highest level. It is the same as saying religion M is bad, convert to the pure and good religion C, or something alse along those lines.

"We want to be in line with God's word when it comes to this type of activity and this isn't anywhere near God's word," he said.

God's word or man's (the organizer's) word?

[QuenGalad]

Open discussion of controversial issues is a sign of democracy, imo. It can become heated, sometimes.
I don't see anything wrong with such discussions. Do you?
I’d rather say there is a problem with some people avoiding open discussions at all cost and gravitating towards a comfort zone – e.g. a group of like-minded individuals brooding over "issues" and “evils” to their hearts' content, unopposed.

Fear not. You live in a country that is striving to rediscover its lost identity. Catholicism is a part of it, is it not? You witness a conservative, nationalistic reaction to the long communist era. The pendulum swings back and forth. It is swinging back at present. I hope the Inquisition is not burning heretics at stake, at least?
It would be helpful if you could define "religious segregation", its desirable alternative as you envision it, and why you find it strange that Catholics, Lutherans, Druids and Satanists do not joyfully mix together.

Well, if you know so well what is happening in my nation's mind, you should know whether we have burning stakes or not. We don't, because people other than catholics are afraid to admit that. Religious minority in Poland does not exist, so there's no-one to burn. And yes, call me an undemocratic, retarded and whatever, but I do see something wrong when someone starts pulling religions out as an argument in a discussion where they do not belong. If we discuss the best strategy to beat Firkragg on BG2 boards, we should not ban some member from giving an oppinion because they're jew. The religious side of anti-Firkragg strategies does not exist, and should not be artificially created. As to your wish of a definition, I believe your request already shows your attitude towards anything I would say, and I can hardly see you actually thinking over my oppinion, so I shall withdraw form the discussion.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Well, if you know so well what is happening in my nation's mind, you should know whether we have burning stakes or not. We don't, because people other than catholics are afraid to admit that. Religious minority in Poland does not exist, so there's no-one to burn. And yes, call me an undemocratic, retarded and whatever, but I do see something wrong when someone starts pulling religions out as an argument in a discussion where they do not belong. If we discuss the best strategy to beat Firkragg on BG2 boards, we should not ban some member from giving an oppinion because they're jew. The religious side of anti-Firkragg strategies does not exist, and should not be artificially created. As to your wish of a definition, I believe your request already shows your attitude towards anything I would say, and I can hardly see you actually thinking over my oppinion, so I shall withdraw form the discussion.

I know it is much easier to "withdraw" than present a valid argument. Are you offended by the fact that somebody dared to ask you to clarify your statement? How your (or some other members') intolerance of critical comments is different from intolerance displayed by the "oppressors"?
I've never called you "undemocratic, retarded and whatever" (where did you get that idea?) and I actually showed interest in your opinion, yet you say "I believe your request already shows your attitude towards anything I would say, and I can hardly see you actually thinking over my opinion". Why wouldn’t you help me and other people understand you better by answering my questions?

And please do not presume you know what I am thinking. A lot of people have made that mistake before. Stick to what I am saying, OK?
Maybe it is you who refuse to think over my opinion?

I agree with what you are saying about wrongness of "pulling religions out as an argument in a discussion where they do not belong". I disagree that a trivial incident involving pageant board dumping a Tarot card reader in order to prevent possible undesirable complications (whatever they might be, in their opinion) and later trying to awkwardly and stupidly cover up their lapse in judgment by invoking God's name, deserves more than a chuckle and eye-rolling. I am with Xandax on this.

From the original post:

Conover said she practises Wicca, which to some means she's a witch. But she said the Miss Toronto Tourism people didn't know that and that they based their rejection of her on tarot cards and reiki.

Please bear that in mind before accusing the board of discrimination against a Wiccan. They did not want a Tarot card reader, not a Wiccan. They had no clue about her being a Wicca practitioner.

Booth said the pageant feared Conover would consult tarot cards to pick a winner.

Tarot cards or Reiki is not a religion. However, as I've already mentioned, it is considered an abominable pastime by God-fearing Christians. They are entitled to their beliefs no less than you are entitled to yours.
Wicca is not mentioned at all. And Wicca, if memory serves, is just a superficial imitation of Celtic rituals, a pet project of one guy - Gerald Gardner. Fable can probably tell more on the subject.

[fable]

And Wicca, if memory serves, is just a superficial imitation of Celtic rituals, a pet project of one guy - Gerald Gardner. Fable can probably tell more on the subject.

I have my take on it. QuenGalad will definitely have her own, being that she is a Wiccan. However, I think a discussion of where and how Wicca started is getting away from the subject of the thread. I wouldn't mind a thread about Wicca, however, if someone wishes to start one.

[Scayde]

Apparently it is a bit of lost and forgotten history that 'Tarot' cards derived their origins from the Torah. During a time of intense persecution of the Jews in Europe, the Gypsies (Descendant of the lost tribes of Israel) would carry the Torah in this fashion as a prayer tool in disguise. The position of the Church that they were a tool for the Black Arts was an offshoot of their disdain for Jews in general at the time.

Quite ingenious really...Disguising their Holiest of tomes as a parlor trick must have worked since no one seems to remember this.


So much for being a tool of the Devil

[fable]

Scayde, you're a dear friend, and I don't want to contradict you, but...the facts are other than you've stated. You're repeating a myth about the tarot that has no basis in fact, and keeps popping up. It's not you alone, by any means. In fact, a few shameless publishers love to keep pushing this as if it's true, as a means to "build up" an aura of wisdom about their products, and sell them more heavily. The fault is theirs for purveying this stuff. They know it, and they don't care.

The tarot came about in the late 18th century, during the French craze for all things mystical and Egyptian/Indian/Persian/whatever. That's when the first tarot makers began pulling cards from the individual Italian decks that had been produced over the last 300 years as play, art and mnemonic tools for the wealthy leisured class. The play cards became the minor trump, without any associations. The purveyors of mysticism glommed onto a small handful of the "art" cards, announced them as containing secrets from Ancient Egypt, and sold the result. Very handily, too.

Then the Golden Dawn, the British occult society, came along in the latter part of the 19th century, linking this tarot with astrology and the qabalah. They gave each of the cards an image and a meaning...and the thing was launched. Personally, I use the tarot, and enjoy it. I do feel that "it works," but whether that's the tarot, or the person using it, or a combination of both, I can't say. There's no evidence of any tarot deck as such before the late 18th century, however, and no evidence of tarot cards as we consider them before the early 15th, in Italy.

This is an excellent link with a brief, factual history of the tarot. It not only goes over what's real, but what isn't.

[Scayde]

Thanks fable I'll have to check this site out

[Lady Dragonfly]

I just wanted to point out that Gypsies are not descendents of lost tribes of Israel. Some say they hailed from India. Ottomans called them Egyptians. Their origin is murky and still debated.

Fable, you are right - let's start another thread. I love History and Mystery.

[Scayde]

Well my head is swimming from the past thirty minutes of reading and it seams that both the origin of the Tarot as well as the Gypsies are each a hotly debated topic and rather than join the fray (As I am neither a scholar nor talented researcher, I will leave it to those who are, or at least to those who are passionate enough to chose sides (for I am not )

Thanks fable for showing me that link....It seams that while the truths behind of all these myriad of theories are yet to be presented....they are all reasonable explanations and do make for interesting speculation.

I tend to like the way this site presented their position, but again, I have neither the time nor means to double check any of thse sites so I will just keep enjoying my cards as they are with out worrying too much about the religious significance. As parlor tricks go, I find them to be amazingly accurate

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

OOC, do we have any other 'reiki practitioners' on the boards besides myself?

[Kheros]

This belief is based on a biblical text which implies that the gods of other religions are really demons.

To add to that, practicaly every bloody name in the bible for a demon/devil is taken from ancient myth/religion. Belial, Baal, etc. were all gods of citystates (or even nations). I think Satan and Lucifer are the only original creations in the Bible concerning demons/devils.

The rest is simply propaganda