Hey, take that back that implication about Temujin Chinggis Khaan! He was nowhere near as horrible as the Moonies are.
Sure, but since she was quoting a Chinese writer, that would follow. I just ran with it, and quoted an Irish text in regard to these events. You'll note the slightly different focus there, what with all the "just cause" and no mention of either celebration or solemnity.
When Cormac was asked what is best for a king, he replied (among other things), "Military action for a just cause, justice without bloodshed, leniency within the integrity of the law".
My understanding of the phrase is that "New Age religion" refers to a group of religions which is different than the following ones, "paganism, Wicca, Druids and ancient Norse beliefs", and that both phrases are not the entirety of religions covered (the term "including" is important there).
Edited to add: Also, I agree about the capitalization of "Paganism".
You really do think that? I don't see it, myself, considering the extensive coverage that Dan Halloran got, to pick just one example. Wicca gets a certain amount of coverage, it's true, but the alternative would be to ignore one of the largest pagan religions out there. The Wild Hunt seems to do a pretty darned good job of covering a wide variety of religions which all have common cause, from Shinto and Hinduism to the Afro-Caribbean religions, Asatru, and Wicca, among others.
So, if you want more coverage of Asatru and other reconstructionist religions, perhaps you might start your own news blog. I'd read it, as I consider myself following a reconstructionist religion.
"For me one of the unhealthiest things Pagans do is this deep occupation on a past and very little thought of the future. I am a individual who explains and teaches about the future of our community, and developing resources that allow us to find our own truth. Of course, I will here that it must be rooted in the past, and tradition requires that we do things a certain way. That is nice, and I love some traditional ideas, but I would not give them all value or even current relevance."
Are you taking a stand against ancestor reverence, then? Or, if not, how do you square that stance with ancestor reverence?
What difference does it make to someone who hasn't experienced it? Why bother even attempting to prove experiences?
They experience their god, we experience our various gods, atheists experience no gods. I don't see the problem or the need to prove any of it.
Not all mixtures of ideologies bother me, which is rather what the point has become. Some, however, reinforce aspects of the other in ways that catalyze them to problems.
See, you keep insisting on reading things I didn't write, and arguing against those things. I said nothing about Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or Stalinist Russia, nor the British Empire or the French - each of those has its own particular tragic trajectory. I only described Imperial Japan and its problems combining ideas of the nation-state (some of which, Holland for instance, have not followed that terrible path, so it is not something inherent to the nation-state itself, but to particular historical situations) with its Imperial heritage. If you want to analyze those others, feel free, but don't attribute those analyses to my position.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Thingamajig