Inara - a Wiccan perspective

POSTED BY: incongresswiththebeast
UPDATED: Friday, May 12, 2006 15:14
VIEWED: 21665
PAGE 1 of 1

INCONGRESSWITHTHEBEAST

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:06 PM

Hi! I've been lurking here for a while, but this is my first post. *coughs, and looks about nervously*

I've read a couple of posts that give a religious perspective on Firefly and Serenity, and I wanted to add my two cents. Most of the posts I've read have been from Christians. I'm Wiccan, which is a Pagan religion based on pre-Christian religion, although the brand of Wicca I practice is new age.

So why am I posting a religious perspective on Firefly? It's not like there are any witches aboard Serenity. Even if people do try to burn River occasionally. Although my own religion isn't represented in the show (Christianity and Buddhism being the only two that make an appearance)I still see some neopagan perspectives in the show. Particularly in the character of Inara.

Um... this is the part where I warn the kiddies that this post talks about sex. So if talking about that subject offends you, you may want to skip this post.

Still with me? Okay. Let's start with a very quick summary of the Wiccan attitude to sex. To a Wiccan, sex is sacred. It represents the highest form of magick there is, since it unites male and female, creates an altered state of consciousness, and has the potential to create new life. When it's done in the right frame of mind, sex actually puts you in touch with the creative force of the universe itself (or so most Wiccans believe.) You don't get anything more special, or more powerful, than that.

For that reason, sex becomes incredibly important, something you should share only with someone close to you. Celibacy closes the door to something incredibly special, while promiscuity degrades it.

So how does this apply to Inara?

I think Inara fits in very neatly with this perspective. As Joss has mentioned in interviews before, Prostitution wasn't always illegal. In some cultures in the distant past it was actually considered to be a sacred role, performed only by a Priestess. It was used to heal, to comfort, and to worship certain deities. The role of a Companion seems very similar to this, something Inara mentions herself in "Jaynestown".

HIGGINS
(sees tea set-up)
what is this? I brought you here to bed my son, not throw him a tea party--

Inara is polite, but afire with firmness.

INARA
Sir, the Companion Greeting Ceremony is a ritual with centuries of tradition behind it. There are reasons for the way we do things.

HIGGINS
Listen, Inara, I called on you for one thing and one thing only. My son is twenty-six years old and he ain't yet a man. Twenty-six! (looks at son w/
contempt)And since he can't find a willin' woman himself -

Inara takes Higgins by the arm and starts gently but firmly guiding him out of the shuttle. He blusters but goes along.

INARA
Mr. Higgins, you are not allowed here.

HIGGINS
I--What?

INARA
As I said, this room is a consecrated Place Of Union. Only your son belongs here.

So it's clear that Inara sees her role as traditional, even sacred. The problem she faces is that very few others do. Not only is Higgins incredibly crass about the whole matter, but she constantly faces criticism from Mal too. He makes it very clear that he doesn't respect what she does, constantly referring to her as a whore, and making derogatory comments about her work.

And Mal isn't the only one. Inara has to cope with Jayne's comments too, since his incredibly one track mind isn't able to grasp anything other than that Inara is having lots of sex with people who aren't him. Even her most respectable clients turn out to be narrow minded about what she does - Atherton Wang from "Shindig" being the clearest example. That's without having to deal with people like the misogynistic Burgess from "Heart of Gold".

In short, Inara is a person who considers sex sacred in a world that doesn't, something that a lot of Wiccans can sympathise with. From my point of view, this makes her a fascinating character. She isn't Wiccan, but she inspires the same feelings in me that I imagine Book does in a lot of Christian fans.

That'

INCONGRESSWITHTHEBEAST

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:07 PM

Um, forgot to add a thank you to twiztv.com for the script excerpt!

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:48 PM

That’s an interesting prospective. The issue of Inara’s particular career choice in the show is a contentious one, probably intentionally. Although open sexuality with arbitrary and multiple partners was used as a sacred right by some religions, I don’t know how common such practices were historically. I’m inclined to believe not very, but certainly not with the Christian and Buddhists religions, who both hold celibacy, not sexuality, as sacred.

This seems to beg the question of a plausible justification for Inara’s occupation, which is perhaps meant to be symbolic of the old American West brothel harlots, but it doesn’t seem to be a very good fit. Prostitution wasn’t (and isn’t) always illegal in the US, but it has never been revered as a religious or even a sacred right. Prostitution, where and when it wasn’t illegal in the US, was generally tolerated as a necessary evil to sooth the supposed barbaric impulses of men. One might argue, though, that both 19th century America and the Firefly ‘verse, would view prostitution as “therapeutic,” but certainly not in the same context.

So is Inara’s occupation simply artistic license of the 19th century American harlot? Or something more? I think your post suggests that perhaps the contention might have been to introduce some of the supposed pre-Christian pagan European sexual freedom? Although even in that context, it is a poor fit. Pre-Christian pagan Europe may have been a world were sexuality was looked upon as much less taboo then it became in the prudish Victorian Era, but the prostitute was by no means revered in most circumstances. It might surprise many people that in the pre-Christian Roman world prostitutes were viewed much as they were in 19th century America, as a necessary evil, not necessarily sacred. In fact, the Vestal Virgins suggest that like, Christianity and Buddhism, it is celibacy, not sexuality that is revered as sacred.

It’s hard to say what if any plausible historical justification for Inara exist, but I enjoyed reading your post. It offers an insight that I’ve not heard in a while. Particularly in that Inara may be more a prediction of the direction modern society is moving, then a historical one. Inara represents, from Joss’ perspective, the anti-Mal: socially Progressive in contrast to Mal’s social Conservativism, which are not only dichotomies of social thought today, but also in the late 19th century America.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CEDRIC

Saturday, March 4, 2006 5:13 PM

That is an interesting perspective. I've long held that Shepherd Book is on the show to represent the Western religions (and he dies a martyr's death, interesting) while Inara is there to represent the Eastern religions. Of course, it's not simple allegory, but it is interesting to see the respect they have for one another.

As a Wiccan myself, I've found that people of devout but diverse spirituality often have more in common with each other than with those who aren't devout, even within the same congregation.

Much of the movie focuses on the importance of belief--and we can see that with Inara. She views her actions as sacred rather than smutty, and so they are sacred. She is not bothered by nudity when Shepherd Book is--because she knows that nudity and sexuality are not the same thing. (Anyone who has been to a skyclad ritual has learned that, even though people who haven't rarely grasp that truth.)

Cedric

"Some things stay with you, 'til the day you die."
On the Drift: Music Inspired by Firefly and Serenity, now on sale at
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bedlambards/from/celtic

DAVESHAYNE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by incongresswiththebeast:
Hi! I've been lurking here for a while, but this is my first post. *coughs, and looks about nervously*

Hi, welcome aboard. There's mudders milk and strawberries and the supply clerk should be by shortly to issue your browncoat.

If you haven't already read it I suggest picking up a copy of Finding Serenity. One of the essays ("Whores and Goddesses" by Joy Davidson) argues along similar lines to your post.

Quote:
So it's clear that Inara sees her role as traditional, even sacred. The problem she faces is that very few others do.

I think your missing some subtext here. The times when people are treating Inara (or companions in general) with disrespect are meant to be the exceptions as opposed to the general attitude. Certainly one gets the impression that on the central planets Companions have a good deal of say in society. This however is less true on border and rim worlds perhaps because the Guild is seen as an Alliance organisation, foreign and unwanted.

With Higgins this lack of respect for the ceremonies of companions is a result of his ignorance of the niceties of society. The man knows about slaveholding, mud, and not much else. He's just out of his league with Inara and doesn't even know that he's acting with disrespect.

Atherton also appears to be a bit ignorant of a companions true standing but he is trying to climb the social ladder in the only way available to him - hiring a companion. When at the end of Shindig Inara tells Ath that he has been blackmarked she is relegating him to the fringes of the society he wishes to be the center of.

Mal's relationship with Inara is of course much more complex. On the surface he shows a great lack of respect but underneath the snark he does respect Inara and maybe even the work she does. He just can't say that for a number of reasons most of them relating to his "intimacy issues" as Wash calls them.

Anyway fine points all and again welcome.

David

"A lot of people are asking me, you know, what exactly is Firefly? It's a tv show you morons!" - Joss Whedon

BRIGHIT

Saturday, March 4, 2006 6:23 PM

YAY! I'm a Wiccan too, never thought I'd find another one here!
And yes, your post is very interesting. I must say I do agree with most of what you said.

ZOID

Saturday, March 4, 2006 6:47 PM

incongresswiththebeast:

Welcome to the board. I love discussions like these (i.e., with substance), about the underpinnings of Firefly.

I joined this board on April Fool's Day in 2004, which you'll find is fitting, once you get to know me. I had been posting my signature, long-winded diatribes on alt.tv.firefly for over a year before I stumbled on this place. A day that will live in infamy...

As a 'hello' to the board, I quite rudely reposted a three-part series on "Firefly and Religion" that I had previously annoyed folks with on a.t.f. Luckily, as has been noted above, the folks here are wonderful -- and always have been -- and tolerant of n00bs, even gasbags like me.

So, without further ado, here's a link to "Firefly and Religion, Part III", originally (re)posted on the day I joined, nigh on 2 years ago. (See http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=4558) The 3-part series focused on the loss of faith, or apostasy, exhibited on Firefly. Part III deals entirely with my speculations on Inara's religion and how she is losing her belief in that faith; the first two were on Mal and Book, respectively.

I thought you might like to read 'Part III', since it varies from most folks opinions, and there's a fairly representative sample of other opinions in the thread, from my dear, long-lost friends who've since shuffled off to other websites (apparently).

Please remember, in April 2004 there were no series DVDs (came out in Dec 04). So, we were doing it all from memory of watching the series on F*X (mostly ), at that point in history. Please forgive any inaccuracies or misquotes...

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
One respondent, 'LuppinAdams' identified himself as "For the record, I've been a practitioner of sex-alchemy for over 20 years and after studying many religions, consider myself a Taoist of the heretical 3-Aspect school". I think he's got you beat for off-center religious practice, and he wasn't particularly nervous about the reception he might receive, so you shouldn't be either. With the exception of outright trolls, we're a pretty accepting bunch.
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

BITTERBIERCE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 7:48 PM

So I'm the only person here who thinks the term "Wiccan's perspective" is utterly hilarious? You know, speaking as the only trained philosopher here who has actually studied theology, my considered opinion is "Ahhhh ha ha ha ha ha!". Oh Christ, upon reading you it occurs to me that I must have dated at you at some point.

Yeah, me 'n Mal have si-mu-lar views. Which is going to make the coming deluge for my meanyness all the more ironic, seeing as how I'm sneering and copping little comments at the sacral sex and religious views the same way he does. Why, all that back-and-forth is fine for the show, but do we have to have people on these boards being so snippy like Bierce? Can't we all just agree and use words like "valid perspectives" and "alternative ethics" just like Firefly doesn't?
Why, he's using negative energy! Negative viewpoints aren't valid!

Also, you wanted to say empathy, not sympathy. If you empathize, you're emotionally connecting to someone or some situation familiar to your experience or beliefs. You can identify with it. When you sympathize you feel for something inherently alien: like feeling for people suffering in a gulag. Wiccans can empathize with the idea of sacred sex, not sympathize. I know Wiccans aren't real big into exacting concepts, but I thought I'd write just in case someone else was reading.

THEPISTONENGINE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 7:55 PM

incongresswiththebeast:

Ok, one question. Well, a preface followed by a question. Something like that.

In Heart of Gold, Inara mentions to Mal about not being Puritanical about sex (obviously she was lying, as the next scene revealed), but she seems to be expressing more of a Companion's Guild philosophy. The distinction she seems to be making does not fall solely on the sacredness of celibacy (Puritanical) versus sexuality (Wiccan). She is implying that he has a right to have sex with a willing partner of his choice, and by her reaction it is my opinion that intellectually she feels that to be true.

Obviously, this is not a direct contradiction to what you have said, but it does raise some questions. Yes, obviously she holds sex as something deeply personal and sacred, but she doesn't expect that of others. Ok, so maybe she's a very tolerant/fed up wiccanish Companion.

Ok, so my question is, if her beliefs about sex are as strong as you make them out to be, which is entirely plausable, why does she restrain herself from expressing that to anyone? Obviously she wouldn't to Mal, that'd be honest and straightforward. But to Shepherd, perhaps? Maybe we didn't have enough episodes to get to it.

I think I changed my mind whether or not I agree with you several times while writing this.

_________________
Carry the Nuttin'

THEPISTONENGINE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 8:10 PM

Bierce:

Are you going to actually back up your sneers with some disagreements, or just poke fun at her because she's a Wiccan? Or maybe you'll laugh at be because my religious beliefs are indifferent to a point beyond Agnostism?

For being semi-Atheist, I am very connected to religious people. I hold a lot of their values, I just don't belief in the theology. Heck, I'm more conservative than most people who go to church every Sunday.

Why do I mention that? Because it's to show you that people can look upon each other and respect each other not simply in spite of theological beliefs, but BECAUSE of theological differences. My personal semi-lack of faith has been reinforced by discussing religion with people of vastly different perspectives.

So allow me to dissect your post.

"You know, speaking as the only trained philosopher here who has actually studied theology..."
You may not be the only one, and you being a trained philosophey gives you no more special insight than anyone else who can think objectively and logically (although many argue the number of people who can is very few). It's like me proclaiming a mechanical engineering degree means I can fix my car if it breaks on the highway.

"Negative viewpoints aren't valid!"
Negative viewpoints are valid, provided you give a viewpoint rather than just negativity.

I can understand your religious sensibilities being offended by someone of a completely opposed faith (ok, so I don't really know Wiccan's are completely opposed to Christains, but let it go). However, it's completely inexcusible to lash out at them.

I am with you, in a small part. When I hear Wiccan, I think a college goth who's given up brainless adherence to his/her parents religion to brainless adherence to another. It's my gut reaction, but, seeing as I don't know the person in question, and the person in question presented a well articulated and reasoned discussion, I put my gut aside, open my mind, and not apply my own personal stereotypes.
Heck, you might say I can sympathize with him/her.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
So I'm the only person here who thinks the term "Wiccan's perspective" is utterly hilarious? You know, speaking as the only trained philosopher here who has actually studied theology, my considered opinion is "Ahhhh ha ha ha ha ha!". Oh Christ, upon reading you it occurs to me that I must have dated at you at some point.

Yeah, me 'n Mal have si-mu-lar views. Which is going to make the coming deluge for my meanyness all the more ironic, seeing as how I'm sneering and copping little comments at the sacral sex and religious views the same way he does. Why, all that back-and-forth is fine for the show, but do we have to have people on these boards being so snippy like Bierce? Can't we all just agree and use words like "valid perspectives" and "alternative ethics" just like Firefly doesn't?
Why, he's using negative energy! Negative viewpoints aren't valid!

Also, you wanted to say empathy, not sympathy. If you empathize, you're emotionally connecting to someone or some situation familiar to your experience or beliefs. You can identify with it. When you sympathize you feel for something inherently alien: like feeling for people suffering in a gulag. Wiccans can empathize with the idea of sacred sex, not sympathize. I know Wiccans aren't real big into exacting concepts, but I thought I'd write just in case someone else was reading.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

BITTERBIERCE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:07 PM

Quote:
Are you going to actually back up your sneers with some disagreements, or just poke fun at her because she's a Wiccan?

Well duh, poke fun! I'm a big believer in fun. I argue more serious folk elsewhere. This is where I come to roll around in the flowers and smile at pretty girls and fart during "Diversity Is Our Strength" lectures. Too bad Gutterball isn't around, we'd have fun with this.

Quote:
Or maybe you'll laugh at be because my religious beliefs are indifferent to a point beyond Agnostism?

Well in philosophy its called indeterminism, but I suspect you're more the real life "who gives a s..." version. Cool! I am perfectly find with your pareto-agnosticism, to coin an obscure reference.

Quote:
For being semi-Atheist, I am very connected to religious people.

Yeah, I like 'em too. I don't have the problem most agnosto-atheists have, but I also reserve the right to treat religions differently. Some, the ones with good morals and the exquisite and almost respectable Aquinas-like metaphysics aren't so bad. And some, like Wiccans, Mohhamedans and Scientologists are fricking HILARIOUS and I don't have to respect them a bit.

I don't have to argue like my opponent is serious. As the great Mencken once said, one good laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.

Quote:

Why do I mention that? Because it's to show you that people can look upon each other and respect each other not simply in spite of theological beliefs, but BECAUSE of theological differences.

No, and that's specious crap to say. Respect is earned by definition. What you are arguing for is a de facto bland acceptance of other ideas no matter how stupid or ill-formed. I don't respect Nazi ideas and I don't respect Wiccans and I won't be forced to take them seriously. Now, I don't disrespect both the same way, and I disrespect them both for very different reasons, but the key is respect as an earned right. She earns respect by being witty in reply and slyly forcing me to address her actual issues, and then she has to earn it again by arguing for them well. That's how it works. That's how Wiccans gain respect. It won't come with a Title IX clause and bland American puritanical PC clucking.

I believe modern society has things precisely backwards: they are rude in everyday real life and cringingly sensitive in the realm of ideas. I violently disagree with this notion. Be kind to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas. Politeness in debate is one of the worst curses of mankind, right after mass murder and the Lifetime channel.

Quote:
So allow me to dissect your post.

No! No you can't! Weeeelllll, ok. But you've gotta give me popcorn!

Quote:
You may not be the only one, and you being a trained philosophey gives you no more special insight than anyone else who can think objectively and logically

What you're looking for in formal logic is called the "fallacy of assumed authority" and you're right, it doesn't give me special imprimatur to anything. But then that wasn't my point. It wasn't an attempt at authority so much as an attempt to undermine it- namely her unearned respect. But yes, you are entirely correct that I have EARNED nothing by stating that. Then again, I didn't advance any argument. And for this I refer you to above.

Quote:
Negative viewpoints are valid, provided you give a viewpoint rather than just negativity.

Why? I mean, I did have another reason -fun- but I want to know why I can't merely be negative. Some of the greatest critics in history merely tear down without building anything in its place. Hell, Voltaire alone was a little philosophical assassin on that score. And like I said, Mencken was truly great, but I'll be damned if I can find a constructive thing he ever said.

I remember Rodney King whining "Can't we just all get along?" Well no, actually. Thank (insert diety here).

Quote:
I can understand your religious sensibilities being offended by someone of a completely opposed faith (ok, so I don't really know Wiccan's

THEPISTONENGINE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:40 PM

Ok, since you use Voltaire as a great critic, I think we can simply stop here. But I'm bull-headed, so I won't. First of all, being simply negative doesn't put you at the elevation of Voltaire, who at least critized certain aspects of his target, rather than a general "Hee hee haw haw." That being said, satirical criticism is an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual, which you seem to favor rather abundantly in your posts. Instead of marking down my arguments and carefully refuting them, you make fun of them, inserting what unimplied stereotypes you feel will make me look stupid.

Respect, to the common degree, is not something to be withheld until earned, it is something to be taken away once abused. Of course you take away respect from groups that abuse their authority (Nazi's, KKK, the democratic party [joking!]). Nor did I imply that you accept any ideas as if your brain is a sponge. I simply stated that you should respect someone for their differences of belief. Yes, that is an overly generic statement. It should have been stated clearer, you are right on that score. You can satirize it all you want, but most fair minded people, even those who reject Wiccans as a faith, give the individual respect.

"I believe modern society has things precisely backwards: they are rude in everyday real life and cringingly sensitive in the realm of ideas. I violently disagree with this notion. Be kind to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas. Politeness in debate is one of the worst curses of mankind, right after mass murder and the Lifetime channel."
--Agreed to wholeheartedly. Again, an example of you implying I'm making an argument that I'm not.

And yes, I can empathize with you being offended. There are many things about many faiths I find offensive, particularly Christianity. I am merely making the natural assumption that other people are human too, and feel certain beliefs so opposed to their own as to be offensive. That doesn't mean you play the Voltaire card, saving yourself from having to actually having to make an argument, and ruthlessly mock the opposing faith.

And again, in my last argument, my logic certainly did not fail me. I merely acknowledged that I have personal prejudices and stereotypes like eveyone else (If you think you don't, you are egotistical, arrogant, and condescending) including the parenthetical one. It was a means to show that we don't have to let these stereotyoes get in our way.

See how I don't use "poke fun" as an excuse for flaming on you. Next time you have a beef with someone, articulate it. Don't put words in their mouths, don't satirize it. That's just fallicious ways of making your opposition look stupid rather than you look smart.

One point of hypocrisy, I might mention.

" I suspect you're more the real life 'who gives a s...' version."

Then:

"Oh you can understand me being offended, can you? Just curious, how precisely have my religious sensibilities been hurt here? Also, while you're at it, can you tell me what my religion is? I'm just dyin' ta know."

And, because I'm halfway positive you will tell me your assumption is based on facts I already revealed, I will respond in advance. By proclaiming the Wiccan faith as below respect, you are also showing your religious sensibilities as one of a faith who does not tolerate Wiccans. Ok, I'm assuming it's a religious sensibility that does not tolerate, but there's certainly no logic to it. Adhering logic to a person's lifestyle and religious beliefs doesn't generally work.

And just because I'm feeling particularly long-winded and self-righteous (self-deprecating humor, don't satirize it as a self-admission of anything), who the hell do you think you are to place Wiccan's beneath respect? You play the card that says, "Of course I can make the judgement, we judge the same for other groups like Nazi's." Why don't you make a few comparisons to New Age Wiccans and the National Socialist movement? How can you make a comparison between a voluntary faith and a corrupt party that brutally mu

THEPISTONENGINE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:08 PM

Oh yeah, because I forgot the first time around: This is the satirical farce that doesn't make for good intellectual discussion you previously promoted. I don't think I implied this in anyway, but hey, you go ahead and put it in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:

Yeah, if she's pretty enough I stop my critical thinking processes too. You never know, she might be easy.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

STDOUBT

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:32 PM

Hey BitterBierce~
How about you stick this into your philosopy toolbag: "You don't have to respect anyone. But you should treat everyone with respect."
Difference too subtle for ya? Hope not. Too much to ask? Probably.
Adopting this view might actually make the world a better place but that's not what it's about for you. Being nice to the OP would have been against your philosophy? Or what? Would it have meant that you're politically correct? No. Just nice. But you're not. You're a dick. So be it, but if you're going to say snide things to new posters maybe you oughtta come over to the air-lock with me.
The glaring fact here is that the original poster said things that offended you. Wah wah wah.
Admit you're offended. We don't care why you're offended, most of us will chalk it up to narrow-mindedness. News flash...this just in... could be nobody's interested in gaining your respect -what a thought.

In my little philosophy, all humans deserve a default ammount of respect just for being human. That sound silly to you? Then F**k off.
"speaking as the only trained philosopher here"
(get a life)

SCREWTHEALLIANCE

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:31 PM

Gotta speak up.

Firstly, to the matter of how much respect or disrespect Wiccans are accorded:

There are a lot of misconceptions about Wiccans, and a few of them bear clearing up. Firstly, the idea that all Wiccans are either 18 year old Buffy-fanatics with a gothy wardrobe and poor interpersonal skills, or middle-aged Boomer women who listen to New Age music and have homes festooned with crystals and cats. While both stereotypes certainly have their basis in truth, they are, like all stereotypes, neither universal or definitive. Case in point: I'm a 38 year old white male with a wife, three kids, a mortgage, an SUV and a day job.

Secondly, the idea that "Wiccan Philosophy", "Wiccan Perspectives" and Wiccan religion is a slap-dash affair, a mish-mosh of elements from everywhere without any cohesive philosophy or theology is also wrong. I know this because I have been a Wiccan Theologian for almost twenty years now, and I have studied the matter in depth. Wicca has a very complex and sophisticated theology based on a duotheistic/polytheistic godhead with an emphasis on personal psychological development using a Jungian-type method of ritual expression.

Yeah, we take a lot of heat for a lot of stuff; the point, though, is that we are as syncretic as any "world" religion, we just don't feel compelled to restrict our religious inspiration from a limited number of texts or collections of beliefs. Many of the syncretic elements of Wicca and the other neo-pagan religions are not even, from a Abrahamic perspective, particularly religious: in particular the focus on Nature, the inclusion of Magick in our practice, the lack of reliance on a single male divinity, and the elevation of sexuality to the level of the sacred. Whether or not these inclusions are reflective of the beliefs of our paleo-pagan ancestors is moot; the fact is, we consider them legitimate parts of belief and practice, and we're pretty firm about it.

All of that being said, I do think there is room for a Wiccan (or, more precisely, Neo-Pagan) perspective on Inara, the Companion's Guild, and the role of Sacred Sexuality. Which I will publish here the next time I have a few moments to write coherently on the subject.

Hope this clears some stuff up for folks.

ScrewtheALliance

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:31 AM

Quote:

Ok, since you use Voltaire as a great critic, I think we can simply stop here.

Actually I don't think that's something you can dispute on anything except with personal taste. I didn't make any judgement about him except that he is a known man, considered great by multitudes of intellectuals, and a profoundly negative meanie. But with the way you write that, I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't really know who he is or what he meant to his time.

Quote:
First of all, being simply negative doesn't put you at the elevation of Voltaire, who at least critized certain aspects of his target, rather than a general "Hee hee haw haw."

I didn't say it did, nor did I say I was Santa Claus for all the relation it has to do with what I said. I wasn't trying a positive assertion of my bad-asslitude, I was disproving the silly puritanical assertion of non-judgementalism combined with sweetie-pie verbal aesthetics. I was disproving a negative, not proving a positive. I don't have to prove my post is anything, all I have to do is prove I have the right to put it there. See how that works?

Quote:
That being said, satirical criticism is an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual,

So? I really think you need to look up the technical word "fun" I used in the dictionary.

Quote:
Respect, to the common degree, is not something to be withheld until earned, it is something to be taken away once abused.

No, and that's a really stupid to say. You're conflating the words kindness and respect. Not only are you wrong about that, you're deeply wrong, a kind of penultimate wrong: you must center yourself in the universe and become one with your own inner wrongness.

Quote:
Nor did I imply that you accept any ideas as if your brain is a sponge.

Yeah you did, clearly, with the "open mind" crap. That means "you can disagree, but only if I like how you do it". How about this- you stick with your open mind, I'll stick with my critical thinking skills.

Quote:
I simply stated that you should respect someone for their differences of belief.

And I simply said that's a load of hooey and I don't have to "accept" a goddamn thing, much less her absurdist spiritualism.

Quote:
Yes, that is an overly generic statement. It should have been stated clearer, you are right on that score. You can satirize it all you want, but most fair minded people, even those who reject Wiccans as a faith, give the individual respect.

So then your problem is not so much with me as with the entire concept of satire. Um, ok. Good for you, you don't approve of satire. That's another idea so lividly dim I don't feel the need to refute it or even address it.

Quote:
--Agreed to wholeheartedly (note from me- to the idea that society has things backward) Again, an example of you implying I'm making an argument that I'm not.

Wrong again. You not only implied I should be cringingly sensitive the way Americans always do nowadays in our censorious culture, but you also did so using the same stock phrases and shit colloquialisms that the PC police always use. You said the same kind of stuff in the same kind of way they use it, so I conclude you meant the same thing. Not only is it a reasonable inference, but nothing you wrote so far has even given a HINT that it could mean anything else.

Quote:
And yes, I can empathize with you being offended.

Offended? In what universe did you pick THAT inference up? Neither she nor you offend me in the least- I'm as close to being immune to offense as its possible to get outside of certain American Idol contestants*. Seriously, the dictionary definition of "fun" is quite instructive, you should look it up.

In fact, I want to hazard something that will, as Otto from the Simpsons would say, "totally mess with your mind, dude"- I'm having fun right now.
I am neither offended nor do I dislike you. I mean, unless you tell me you believe in something too stupid for me to like, like anarcho syndica

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:32 AM

Quote:

In my little philosophy, all humans deserve a default ammount of respect just for being human. That sound silly to you? Then F**k off.

Aw, I love you too, sparky!

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:47 AM

Ok, some tidying up before this thread gets pushed aside. First of all, welcome to the forums Incongresswiththebeast. I hope this thread doesn't scare you off. In truth, though I'm fairly ignorant of Wiccans, I am more scared of the general nerdiness of my fellow browncoats than anything else. If I'm not making too much of an assumption, I think your pseudonym is hilarious, it definately appeals to the stereotype of Wiccans that many people hold.

Second of all, Bitterbierce did in fact bring up a good point. Politeness should not extend into accepting other's ideas at face value without arguement. I think both myself and STDoubt agreed with him on that score.

People are entitled to believe what they wish. They aren't entitled respect for it. But at the same time, when they bring it up in a place meant for exchange of ideas, they should not be subjecting themselves to ridicule.

If a belief is so radical, outrageous, against common sense, and all decency, it should be fairly easy to refute that belief without resorting to emotion appeals of satire, planting stereotypes and unsaid arguments into others' statements, and general ridicule.

If a belief is personally offensive -- suck it up. I do it all the time. As I said before, I'm agnostic. I don't feel generally good-natured to Catholics who say I'll have to sit in Purgatory because I wasn't baptised and I don't confess my sins. I don't just accept the Lutheran belief that only faith alone will save me. But I suck it up, because their beliefs don't make them worse persons. I was with some Wiccan's once, and one was giving the other a backrub. Periodically, he would grasp at the air, as if he were pulling bad energy from the other man, and cast it aside. I thought it was silly, almost egotistical, for someone to think they could remove "bad energy" from a person. I'm an equal opportunity disbeliever, it's my nature. I use these examples to show how these behaviors and beliefs, from my point of view, don't make sense. But I don't "throw the baby out with the bath water."

Ok, so we've now know how to deal with outrageous and offensive beliefs. Any other kind would probably be amicable or benevolent, so we'll leave those by the side.

Bierce, your comments were totally unjustified. Especially the one "Why, he's using negative energy! Negative viewpoints aren't valid!" With my previous example, it should be obvious to outsiders why that was particularly sneering and mocking. You hide behind a cloud of being a trained philosopher and not giving anyone respect they haven't earned, yet you yourself have the arrogance to think your particular views have any more merit.

Yes, we all believe our own personal views to be correct. But some of us actually refine our views when faced with our own hypocrisy. Some of us are able to have reasonable dialog and dissent without, as you would say "a de facto bland acceptance of other ideas no matter how stupid or ill-formed."

Further more, some of your other comments on other threads I have found to be very assanine. It seems everytime I notice your name, it isn't something smart or clever, but a unwanted and uncalled for insult, retort, or generally negative comments. Keep them to yourself.

I hope this thread dies. If anyone disagrees with anything I have said, including you Bierce, just hit the reply button. Refute MY arguments, not a similar argument that is easier to ridicule. Who knows, I just might be faced with my own hypocrisy and have to admit it.

--Tristen

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 1:01 AM

Quote:

There are a lot of misconceptions about Wiccans, and a few of them bear clearing up. Firstly, the idea that all Wiccans are either 18 year old Buffy-fanatics with a gothy wardrobe and poor interpersonal skills, or middle-aged Boomer women who listen to New Age music and have homes festooned with crystals and cats.

I agree, which is why the beautiful thing about Wicca is that there is so much more of them to make fun of. Why, when you've done all the Buffy girl crap you haven't even BEGUN to exhaust the ways you can make fun of them!

Quote:
Secondly, the idea that "Wiccan Philosophy", "Wiccan Perspectives" and Wiccan religion is a slap-dash affair, a mish-mosh of elements from everywhere without any cohesive philosophy or theology is also wrong.

Oh no, son. I know rather more about them than I want to, and their theo-spirituality is complete mumbo-jumbo. I was serious when I said it was statistically likely I dated her*. I have quite a lot of familiarization with standard Pagan (as opposed to Wiccan) works, most all owing to being bored in arious Pagans' houses. It comes as close to being metaphysically meaningless as it's possible to be. In terms of metaphysics, it's primitive, rock throwing reasoning. And yes there are HUGE New Age influences throughout every last strand of Paganism.

Quote:
Yeah, we take a lot of heat for a lot of stuff

Proof justice exists in this world. And really, you don't take enough heat for your views.

*- Well, not I wasn't, but I sure did date a lot of 'em. I don't know, it was like a thing.

"One seldom discovers a true believer that is worth knowing" -HL Mencken

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 1:23 AM

Ok, my last post was written as Bierce posted his last, so I feel the need to respond.

You assumption is wrong. I've read Voltaire, I know what he meant for his time. I know he used satire to great effect. So did Ben Franklin ("How to lose your empire"), and he wasn't wrong about what he wrote. But satire is an emotional appeal. No matter how much logic you pour into it, it centers on making the opposition look rediculous. I'm glad you inferred my dislike of Voltaire to mean total ignorance. If I was feeling particularly mean spirited, I'd have to come back with an unjustified comment such as "Wow, I can't even dislike a much revered figure without being branded as ignorant. I guess thinking for myself and not swollowing what I learned in college for granted makes me ignorant. I'll have to just believe in what my professor says without making judgements of my own."

Yes, you did elevate yourself to Voltaire. You pointed out the best critics tear down without building in it's place. That's what you did. Case in point, don't backpedal. I've admitted I was wrong on a score, and am about to do so again. You should do the same.

I looked up fun at www.m-w.com. The only non-enjoyment related definition was "4 : violent or excited activity or argument "
How that in away way refutes my statement that satire is an emotional appeal is beyond me.

About every person getting a certain amount of respect until showing otherwise:
"No, and that's a really stupid to say. You're conflating the words kindness and respect. Not only are you wrong about that, you're deeply wrong, a kind of penultimate wrong: you must center yourself in the universe and become one with your own inner wrongness. "

How exactly am I confusing kindness and respect (of which you showed neither, by the way)? I said respect, I meant respect. If your so into Aquinas, why don't you look into Natural Law. I think he'd say respect goes towards Sociability, one of the human foundations that should never be debased. Since the principle of forfieture does not apply (Unless you consider her privately practiced beliefs forfieting respect), I think she's entitled to some. See, I can use pretty philosophical words too. And I don't even have a degree. Too bad I'm still ignorant of who Voltaire really was.

Ok, so I said "open mind," and "treat others with respect." If that means I'm totally warm fuzzy wuzzy, not only am I clearly being hypocritical, then I need to look in the mirror. Because I used similar phrases to those who would open their minds like a sponge doesn't mean I'm one of those persons. I already admitting dropping the ball with my vague words, no need to beat a dead horse.

Me:
"I simply stated that you should respect someone for their differences of belief."

"And I simply said that's a load of hooey and I don't have to "accept" a goddamn thing, much less her absurdist spiritualism. "

Who's confusing words now? I said respect, not accept. Completely different. See natural law argument above.

On me disagreeing with satire as a form of argument:
"That's another idea so lividly dim I don't feel the need to refute it or even address it."

Good for you. Glad to see we can have meaningful discussion. I believe I have explained everyone one of my counterpoints to your positions. I'm certainly giving you a hell of a lot more respect than you are giving me, or than you deserve. I'm also glad you see anyone who disagrees with you on such a score is so stupid, or "lividly dim" (You said the idea is lividly dim, it's my idea, so that means I'm lividly dim. Not perfect logic, I know.)

Ok, so maybe I assumed you were offended. I failed to realize you needed absolutely no provocation to belittle someone. My bad, I was giving you a little more credit, once again, than you deserve.

Even atheists have religious views, they're just expressed as a negative instead of as a positive. If you believe there is no god or spiritual guidence, then a belief that th

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 1:31 AM

You only said two sentences that interested me.

Quote:
Bierce, your comments were totally unjustified.

In a roundabout way, my whole argument with this fella is that I don't have to justify myself to you or to anyone else, or the way I approach things.

Quote:
Keep them to yourself.

I think instead I'll just say what I want when I want to and otherwise act under the (admittedly incorrect) assumption that I live in a free country. Czeslaw Milosz once explained how he generally defeated the oppressive nature of the Eastern European regimes: act as if you were free and say what you want, no matter what your conditions. You'd be surprised how far it can get you.

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 1:40 AM

I think you may have fallen in the same trap I did, that trap being reading and posting a reply as another relevent post is being sent up. So please, if you want to back your opinions up with something other than "freedom of speech," (go ahead, speak all you want. I don't believe there is a freedom of fff.net forum anywhere in the constitution), feel free to look at my latest post.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
You only said two sentences that interested me.

Quote:
Bierce, your comments were totally unjustified.

In a roundabout way, my whole argument with this fella is that I don't have to justify myself to you or to anyone else, or the way I approach things.

Quote:
Keep them to yourself.

I think instead I'll just say what I want when I want to and otherwise act under the (admittedly incorrect) assumption that I live in a free country. Czeslaw Milosz once explained how he generally defeated the oppressive nature of the Eastern European regimes: act as if you were free and say what you want, no matter what your conditions. You'd be surprised how far it can get you.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 1:54 AM

Quote:
Oh yeah, because I forgot the first time around: This is the satirical farce that doesn't make for good intellectual discussion you previously promoted.

I thought I was promoting fun, not intellectual argument. There's a place for it, and it ain't here.

Quote:
I don't think I implied this in anyway, but hey, you go ahead and put it in my mouth.

Wow, it didn't even occur to me you might take that seriously. I don't quite know what to say other than "it was a joke, I didn't mean it".

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 2:01 AM

(Begin satire)Well, it's good to see your satirical arguments have fallen to "I didn't mean it," "we live in a free country," and "I was promoting fun." I'm sorry I completely mistook you from the very beginning. I guess I failed to see how obviously insinuating commments about Wiccans (You are obviously fairly schooled, so I am sure you knew every implication you were making), such as poking fun at "negative energy" and openly professing disrespect, was simply fun. I'm guessing the Catholic Church thought Voltaire was all in good clean fun, not really trying to promote any intellectual argument. (End satire)

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

SCREWTHEALLIANCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 2:20 AM

Quote:
I agree, which is why the beautiful thing about Wicca is that there is so much more of them to make fun of. Why, when you've done all the Buffy girl crap you haven't even BEGUN to exhaust the ways you can make fun of them!

You have far too much free time on your hands.
The fact is, any Wiccan past the fluffy-bunny stage is quite willing to poke fun at themselves. Humor, you see, is a religious experience to many Wiccans. And we have internal stereotypes to make fun of that you haven't even heard about. The fact is, you can't say anything about us (that is true, that is) that we haven't said already about ourselves.

Quote:
Oh no, son. I know rather more about them than I want to, and their theo-spirituality is complete mumbo-jumbo.

If you consider it mumbo-jumbo, then no, you don't know very much about it. If you see only mumbo-jumbo, then you have missed the point about the religion and any further criticism you have about it loses validity fast.

Quote:

I was serious when I said it was statistically likely I dated her*. I have quite a lot of familiarization with standard Pagan (as opposed to Wiccan) works, most all owing to being bored in arious Pagans' houses. It comes as close to being metaphysically meaningless as it's possible to be. In terms of metaphysics, it's primitive, rock throwing reasoning. And yes there are HUGE New Age influences throughout every last strand of Paganism.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
Metaphysically meaningless? Only if you have a flat-headed, text-wedded narrow Radical Monotheistic point of view. What, exactly, do you find meaningless about our theology? Indeed, what do you know about your theology? Our metaphysics is quite robust and well developed in some circle -- I'm not talking about the Scott Cunningham crowd. And as far as the New Age influences, I repeat: Like all religions, we are syncretic, and we will absorb concepts and practices we find beneficial to our spirituality. It's commonly noted that the beliefs of the "New Age" are quite old, just with a new coat of paint. That doesn't bother us. Sorry if it bothers you.

Quote:
Proof justice exists in this world. And really, you don't take enough heat for your views.

And what views would those be? What do you know of Wiccan/Pagan theology? The real stuff, not the hype and the propaganda.

Don't pick on us just because we're an emergent religion -- if you have a philosophical bone to pick, slap it on the table. I brought the BBQ sauce.

StA

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 2:31 AM

Careful ScrewTheAlliance... you fast going down a bad road debating the viability of your religion, its origins, its practices, the customs of its members, and whole slew of things near and dear to your heart. And I think you missed some of what Bierce is saying, I don't think he has much respect for any religion, I just think he ascribes more value to monotheistic ones that represent some of Thomas Aquinas's values.

There are plently of people who see, perhaps ignorantly so, Wiccans as juvenile, or satanic, or whatever stereotype you want.

I delibertly tried to keep the discussion in the flow of Bierce's bad tactics, bad taste, and arrogance. Don't get too caught up in the particulars, it will turn the light from his lack of being able to have an intelligent discussion and allow him to speak unbacked opinions. There is no way that's going to end well.

Better leave this between two ignoramuses who don't care much for Wiccans (joke!)

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

COPILOT

Sunday, March 5, 2006 2:35 AM

Interesting take on Inara. I really enjoy hearing about all the Browncoats different beliefs and prespectives.

An I carried such a torch

SCREWTHEALLIANCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 2:40 AM

Hey, that's fine -- I just thought that the original discussion topic was an astute one. While Inara is by no means a Wiccan -- she is obviously a Buddhist -- there are aspects of her profession that have religious resonance with modern Wiccan/Pagan ideas. First and foremost, the idea of sexuality as an inherently sacred -- as opposed to sinful -- expression of our humanity.

But a Wiccan perspective on the Companions goes further than that. The determination that sexuality is sacred, which is one of the foundations of Wiccan spirituality, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the componant genders are also reflections of the Divine -- complementary, equal reflections. The Rebirth of the Goddess is a powerful theological argument in modern Paganism, and one the Radical Monotheists have no clear answer for.

As far as the gadfly, my skin is thick. I've been beat up by better people than that, and ones who had a real theological clue. I've seen challenge after challenge to my faith over the course of twenty years, and yet my faith remains stronger today than when I first found the religion.

KPO

Sunday, March 5, 2006 3:27 AM

Quote:
The Rebirth of the Goddess is a powerful theological argument in modern Paganism, and one the Radical Monotheists have no clear answer for.

Rebirth of the Goddess? What is that?

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

Sunday, March 5, 2006 3:54 AM

Thanks "SCREWTHEALLIANCE" for your perspective. I really enjoyed reading your posts and I thank the thread originator for starting this whole discussion.

I have done a little study in this area and found information like this.....

(from The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer)

'Thus at Babylon every woman, whether rich or poor, had once in her life to submit to the embraces of a stranger at the temple of Mylitta, that is, of Ishtar or Astarte, and to dedicate to the goddess the wages earned by this sanctified harlotry. The sacred precinct was crowded with women waiting to observe the custom. Some of them had to wait there for years.

At Heliopolis or Baalbec in Syria, famous for the imposing grandeur of its ruined temples, the custom of the country required that every maiden should prostitute herself to a stranger at the temple of Astarte, and matrons as well as maids testified their devotion to the goddess in the same manner. The emperor Constantine abolished the custom, destroyed the temple, and built a church in its stead.

In Phoenician temples women prostituted themselves for hire in the service of religion, believing that by this conduct they propitiated the goddess and won her favour. "It was a law of the Amorites. that she who was about to marry should sit in fornication seven days by the gate."

At Byblus the people shaved their heads in the annual mourning for Adonis. Women who refused to sacrifice their hair had to give themselves up to strangers on a certain day of the festival, and the money they thus earned was devoted to the goddess.

A Greek inscription found at Tralles in Lydia proves that the practice of religious prostitution survived in that country as late as the second century of our era. It records of a certain woman, Aurelia Aemilia by name, not only that she herself served the god in the capacity of a harlot at his express command, but that her mother and other female ancestors had done the same before her; and the publicity of the record, engraved on a marble column which supported a votive offering, shows that no stain attached to such a life and such a parentage.

In Armenia the noblest families dedicated their daughters to the service of the goddess Anaitis in her temple at Acilisena, where the damsels acted as prostitutes for a long time before they were given in marriage. Nobody scrupled to take one of these girls to wife when her period of service was over.

Again the goddess Ma was served by a multitude of sacred harlots at Comana in Pontus, and crowds of men and women flocked to her sanctuary from the neighbouring cities and country to attend the biennial festivals or to pay their vows to the goddess.'

I can easily see the character of Inara expressing some of these anchient beliefs. From what I have read of The Great One (all Hail Joss!), he is quite the history nerd. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if he used this character to explore some of those old ideals.

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

KIZYR

Sunday, March 5, 2006 5:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ScrewtheAlliance:
Hey, that's fine -- I just thought that the original discussion topic was an astute one.

I wanted to chime in on this by now. A grounded philosophy is a philosophy; it shouldn't matter whether or not it stems from religion, a set of amalgamated belief systems, personal ethics, or whatever to be worth listening to. I'm a strict monotheist myself (Muslim, specifically), but I really enjoy hearing different perspectives on certain issues coming from other backgrounds; when it's on a topic that's originally fictitious (Inara and Companions), it means that the topic can be delved into without any reason to approach denigrating other folks' beliefs.

So, yeah, I think this perspective really adds something onto the idea of Companions in general and Inara specifically. There's been a lot of parallels with the original concept of a Geisha--respected women in high positions being the main thing there. But, the entire idea of a Companions' role being to unify seems like an additional concept. That seems like it's taken from not just pre-modern East Asian history, but ancient history as well; it didn't seem so obvious 'til hearing this perspective.

Quote:
As far as the gadfly, my skin is thick. I've been beat up by better people than that, and ones who had a real theological clue.

Some folks, very simply, should be paid no mind and aren't worth arguing with--or, more precisely, aren't worth being drawn into an argument with. KF

EDIT: It occurs to me that just as interesting would be a Hindu perspective... Sex is an extremely significant thing in old texts like the Mahabharata, and sex between the gods was supposed to symbolize unity... or rebirth... or something.

I'm not the one to give this perspective, obviously... KF

~KF

Lord, I'm walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged.
Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all.
Forgive what you can and send me on my path. I will walk on until you bid me rest.
~Haven Prayer

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 6:57 AM

"So please, if you want to back your opinions up with something other than "freedom of speech," (go ahead, speak all you want. I don't believe there is a freedom of fff.net forum anywhere in the constitution), feel free to look at my latest post"

Then go complain and get me kicked off. You're the type. As for the rest, you clearly haven't been reading.

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 7:14 AM

Oh? So now you know I'm the type to complain to get you kicked off. First I'm the "don't give a shit about God one way or the other" type, then I'm the "lets silence this dude type." I believe every post I have made has challenged you to respond, and therefore I really do feel you should be allowed to speak your piece. I was merely calling to your attention that living in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" doesn't give you special priveledge to give unruly and disrespectful opinions.

I suspect your subconscious is starting to realize your opinions are, while perhaps not fallacious, grounded in fallacious reasoning. If not, you would have something more substantial than proclaiming yourself a member of a free speaking society and, again, attack me instead of defend yourself. You direct the attention away by painting me as a silencer of dissenting opinion. Wrong, I am enjoying nothing more than you making yourself look stupid.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you do have something more substantial than how many ways you can make fun of Wicca or telling me "You only said two sentences that interested me." (Well, I'm glad your high sense of intellect only allows you to respond to the most carefully groomed of sentences.) Maybe you actually have perfectly legitimate grounds for belittling Wiccans and not oftering any backing other than trying to be funny and poke fun.

PROVE IT. Refute my arguments, which until very recently have been made against your ideas, not you. Show us you have something other than a high education to back your opinions.

I suspect you feel you have absolutely nothing to prove to me, I'm nothing but a screenname on a website. I suspect you also feel it's beneath you to reason with me, hell, I can't even see the enlightenment of Voltaire and satire. What an ignorant savage I am!

But I could be wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"So please, if you want to back your opinions up with something other than "freedom of speech," (go ahead, speak all you want. I don't believe there is a freedom of fff.net forum anywhere in the constitution), feel free to look at my latest post"

Then go complain and get me kicked off. You're the type. As for the rest, you clearly haven't been reading.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

SCREWTHEALLIANCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 7:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
The Rebirth of the Goddess is a powerful theological argument in modern Paganism, and one the Radical Monotheists have no clear answer for.

Rebirth of the Goddess? What is that?

The idea is that when the Radical Monotheists took control of the Western World (and then exported their beliefs via empire to the rest) the god that they exalted as the One True God was understood and worshipped as male. Jehovah/Jesus/Allah were all male divinities from firmly patriarchal societies. The Mother Goddess that was universally revered for thousands of years of prehistory and protohistory was demonized or de-deified, at best given second-class status and at worst condemned as evil.

The modern Rebirth of the Goddess as understood by Wicca and the other neo-pagan religions is a ressurection of the ancient "fertility" goddess, but it goes beyond that. Modern Pagans view divinity as a reflection of our own humanity (or humanity as a reflection of the divine order) and recognize the Divine as both male and female. The Goddess is Mother, Maiden, and Crone in Wiccan belief, that is representitive of the fertility, sexuality, and wisdom of women and the essential divinity of womanhood through the Goddess.

This is brought home by a woman's ability to provide Caritas -- originally the love between a mother and child, but extended through our lives as the essentially sexual love a woman expresses for a man and later in life for the compassion she displayed for her community. Caritas was once seen as the prime motivating force in the universe. When Radical Monotheism and it's penis-packin' divinities showed up, the compassionate nature of Caritas was cheapened by the church into "Christian Charity". Caritas, however, goes far beyond that.

When you view the Divine as feminine, a lot of the preconceptions about our social roles in Western society become challenged: specifically the idea that men are the default gender, and that women are mere appendages or awards to male success. The Goddess personifies the self-realized woman, one who is in complete control of her sexuality, her psyche, and her spirit. She isn't just Jehovah in drag, but brings a uniquely feminine point of view to many profound questions in our society.

Inara is a purveyor of this Caritas in its most sexual form. What she and her sisters do is a trade, true, but it is more a devotion to compassion through sexual expression. I may go into this in more detail later.

StA

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 7:29 AM

I must make another acknowledgement of a mistake:

I incorrectly title Ben Franklin's satirical essay earlier. It was bugging me that I may have misstated it, so I took the time to find the right title.

"Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One."

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

CEDRIC

Sunday, March 5, 2006 7:34 AM

BitterBierce,

As a former agnostic turned Wiccan, I just have to say that I enjoy hearing your vitriol nearly as much as you do yourself. There was a time I would have found it upsetting. After that, there was a time when I might have found it sad. But now it's just plain ruttin' high-larious.

And just to reassure you, I'm pretty sure we never dated--I'm another one of those 38-year-old guy Wiccans who leads a fairly normal life.

For all the rest of you who may have been turned off by stereotypical Wiccans--and I've met my share of them, too--let me just remind you of what the Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis once wrote: "The best argument against Christianity is Christians." Don't judge every adherent of a faith by what the most stereotypical members do.

Cedric

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:08 AM

Quote:
You have far too much free time on your hands.

Well you're a Wiccan, I guess it shouldn't come as a shock that you've descended into cliche-speak in the very first sentence.

Quote:
Humor, you see, is a religious experience to many Wiccans. And we have internal stereotypes to make fun of that you haven't even etc etc lecture lecture

Oh god, it's a flashback to my 20's and the dreary lectures about how Summerians think shoelaces contain keras essense. I'm trying to explain to you how many of your type I've been around in my life: I don't know why, it just turned out that way. Let me state it simply- you're kind are not a mystery to me. And no, it's not true as you state below that to know your theology is to accept it. In point of fact, many theologians hold the same disdain for it I do.

Quote:
If you consider it mumbo-jumbo, then no, you don't know very much about it.

Like Christianity, it is an entirely self-contained set of illusions, but completely without a thousand years of philosophers jabbering about it (yes, I know paganism "predates" Christianity...just not the reconstructed religion anyone alive today adheres to). Acceptance and respect are absolutely not a requirement of knowledge. Christians adhere to nonsense, but at least it's extremely sophisticated nonsense.

Quote:
You say (there are New Age influences in all Paganism) like it's a bad thing.

Yep.

Quote:
Metaphysically meaningless? Only if you have a flat-headed, text-wedded narrow Radical Monotheistic point of view

Uh look, I don't agree with their point of view any more than you do, but denying the sheer amount of energy the Church put into exploring the philosophy of theology is absurd. In fact, the Christian drive for metaphysics are what created the modern university system of explored knowledge- the direct precursor to the scientific method and the englightenment came directly from their toiling. The nonsense those flatheads adhere to is several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than yours.

Quote:
Our metaphysics is quite robust and well developed in some circle -- I'm not talking about the Scott Cunningham crowd

Really! Do tell. Name me texts, I'll review them.

Quote:
It's commonly noted that the beliefs of the "New Age" are quite old, just with a new coat of paint. That doesn't bother us. Sorry if it bothers you.

What is it with people that think someone has to be pissed or sad or angry to disagree with their positions? Truth be told, your crowd has always been amusing to me. I literally cannot imagine a more benign set of phantasms than Wicca, especially because it's a fad that will fade in time. In fact, even my amusement is mild and close to dead neutral. My emotional content with Wicca comes to right about nothing. Dude, I don't hate you. Your kind is...cute.

This reminds me, mostly off the topic- I used to be a bouncer at the Ale House in Houston (peace be upon it), and one day we had to keep out some Wiccans who gathered (I forget the reason why), and this older Wiccan woman told me that it would "come back to me karmically" and that she was putting a curse on me.

Oh wait I remember now. We couldn't let in her four kids because of the booze codes. Anyway, it was the way she put it- she was hopping around in a very stately manner (I don't know how else to put it; I'd never seen stately hopping before). I couldn't keep that serious/frowny face bouncers are supposed to have and I started smiling. This made her more mad, which made me more amused, so I started laughing. This sent her into an exquisitely dignified rage. I was kinda impressed with the quality of her anger. My entire family died in a car wreck next week and I lost my left arm, but I'm sure it was a coincidence*.

By the by, the Ale House had the distinction of having the best educated doormen and bouncers I think in all history. I don't think there was a single one of us without a doctorate or about to get one. I did hear in a fight (that I

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:22 AM

Quote:
And I think you missed some of what Bierce is saying, I don't think he has much respect for any religion, I just think he ascribes more value to monotheistic ones that represent some of Thomas Aquinas's values.

Well close, but not quite. I respect the sophistication of the metaphysics and the sheer maniacal energy they put into it- I like people who think hard and systematically, it's a prejudice of mine. The values are seperate and probably not all that closely related to their exquisite thinking: Christian values are just the values of an old, established system. You know; stability, be nice to your neighbor, learn to behave, all that stuff. Because of the Englightenment, Christianity went through a long process of being tamed, and as such isn't all that dangerous anymore. Younger religions (read "Islam") haven't had that extensive series of religious debates that kills everyone yet. My thinking about religions is thus almost entirely sociological and detached. I tend not to like the Arthur Miller atheists- they remind me of the nutters to much.

Quote:
I delibertly tried to keep the discussion in the flow of Bierce's bad tactics, bad taste, and arrogance

Tell me the truth. Are we no longer dating anymore?

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:36 AM

You see Bierce, your last post is exactly what torques people like me. You talk down to this person as if you are a parent explaining something to a child. At least, this time, you had the decency to reason out your gripes rather than randomly poke fun and pinch nerves.

You first start out insulting ScrewWithTheAlliance by saying he is speaking in cliches, and then insult Wiccans by saying they all do. That seems to be a favorite gripe for you. Have you realized, in all your drunken conversations with doctorate bound bouncers, that humans think, read, and speak in phrases? It's more efficient, its quicker. Now, perhaps, you can move on to the actual argument and not the particulars of how many people used a the phrase before hand.

Then he states humor is a religious experience. You and I probably both have the same opinion on humor and how it relates to spiruality, IE no connect. My response: if I'm grumpy, "so what?" If I'm not, "That's interesting."
Your response: "Oh, how stupid. Other theologians agree."

Then he criticizes you for simplifying their faith to mumbo jumbo. The fact that you've been around it all you life and managed to still sneer at it offers you no special insight into saying it's any less than a Christain faith. Sure, it's less organized, but how is that a guiding stone for a topic we both agreed could not be approached as logical? (you still insist on trying. Note I am not approaching the topic of Wiccan in a logical why, I'm approaching your reasoning that way.

You still offer no support for Paganism being a bad thing.

Ok, wait here's an actual, legitimate point you have made. "Christianity has led to scientific and enlightenment thought." Except your wrong. All the reformation Catholics and new Protestants did is further Aristotle's line of thought. Scientific and Enlightment thought is no more a Christain revolution than the Renessaince a British origin.

You refer to the lack of Pagan texts. Since I hardly see you as being a person to appreciate the Koran or the Bible for it's religious pretexts, then how is the Pagan word of mouth inferior? Is is not organized enough for you?

Then you say he is on the wrong side of legions of smart people. Does that mean he's not smart? 'Cause that's what it means to me. Well, since your the authority of who is smart, we must accept your argument.

What if these exact same people professed the necessity of devoutness, whatever flavor, in life? They would make them not smart, right? That's circular logic, dude. Don't use other's opinions as a shield to your own. I did that in my ninth grade social studies papers, just quoted people who said the same thing I did.

I have noticed, by the way, you have drifted away from acknowledging my arguments? Could it be that a fellow non-religious person with brains and capacity for intellectual argument actually disagrees? What is this? If I'm not blinded by the metaphysical impracticality of Paganism or monotheism, what is so driving my error of judgement?

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:37 AM

Quote:

As a former agnostic turned Wiccan...

You know it's funny you say that because I don't think there is any other kind. I mean, I know there are, but I noticed a lot of people started like you; they usually came from irreligious familes. It lends credence to the personality theory of religion: some people just need it, but since we live in a secular age where the dominant system is under attack and in retreat, naturally religious people go for the purest religious experience.

That's also where the finely-honed metaphysics of the Christians works against them: they actually say and believe solid things and have reasoning for them. That's always a mistake. Best to keep it as silly fru-fru and fuzzy as possible. Religion is about feeling, not thinking.

Just to let you know, I didn't start an agnosto-atheist. It came as a long, slow, steady process of de-believing in my solid Catholic upbringing combined with the beginnings of systematic thinking.

Quote:
And just to reassure you, I'm pretty sure we never dated--I'm another one of those 38-year-old guy Wiccans who leads a fairly normal life.

Well then yeah, it probably is unlikely I've dated you then. I guess you just sound like a chick. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ThePistonEngine:

You refer to the lack of Pagan texts.

I know that you didn't say this, but I really don't want to confer with BB. Just thought I'd address it.

There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century.

I've only gone through a portion myself, but it is an interesting read

Interestingly enough Agrippa also believed that Christians could practice magick and still be good with God. Something that early Christians actually did without reservation.

At any rate, just thought I'd point out that there are a number of base texts for Pagans.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:11 AM

"Oh? So now you know I'm the type to complain to get you kicked off. First I'm the "don't give a shit about God one way or the other" type, then I'm the "lets silence this dude type." "

That is awe inspiring illogic. The term "non-sequitur" commonly translates in formal logic as "it does not follow", which is the perfect description of what you've done here. It doesn't follow that if you don't give a shit about religion (something that I merely guessed at idly) that you don't have other prickish qualities. Why would it?

"I believe every post I have made has challenged you to respond, and therefore I really do feel you should be allowed to speak your piece"

And its funny you mention too, because it just doesn't flow off you. You seem the type to demand
someone else shut up people you don't like.

"Maybe you actually have perfectly legitimate grounds for belittling Wiccans and not oftering any backing other than trying to be funny and poke fun"

My God, I've never met so many people that can't understand the word "fun"! I was having fun making fun! And it wasn't like he made some assertion on the matter, what is there to attack?

Well no, I guess that's not true- there was all the prostitute talk. But that was kinda boring for me so I ignored it. It's not a crime to avoid talking philosophy once in a while: I do it enough in my daily life to be sick of it by the weekend.
Firefly and this area is how I chill. Well, that and hard drugs. And by hard I mean injecting Clorox into my eyes. And juggling puppies for hard cash at the Whiskey Go-Go. But that's a whole other subject.

"Well, I'm glad your high sense of intellect only allows you to respond to the most carefully groomed of sentences"

I can't help it if your post was boring. I'm sorry, I was bored- the thing was just bland. Blah blah, you think I'm arrogant. I get it. Condescensding- right. I understand. No good, a stinker. What's the word...pretentious? Yes, I understand.

And notice I responded to virtually every sentence of other posts. There's a hint in there somewhere, if'n you wanna find it.

(oh, as a side issue- I just now saw your post beginning with the sentence "Ok, my last post was written as Bierce posted his last, so I feel the need to respond", so I'm apparently not answering or reading you in order anymore. So all this post was in reference to is the last post of mine you referenced)

"PROVE IT. Refute my arguments, which until very recently have been made against your ideas, not you"

What argument? To my knowledge, you've not said a thing EXCEPT to attack me as opposed to my ideas. Please tell me the hidden genius I missed, I wanna hear it.

You did, however, give a single sentence that deserves refutation, and it is this:

"I was merely calling to your attention that living in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" doesn't give you special priveledge to give unruly and disrespectful opinions"

Actually, that's exacti-fucking-lutely what free speech gives me; special privelage for disrespectful and unruly opinions. I can't even think of a better reason for free speech. I like it so much I'm going to pop it into my next article on the subject. And, I hasten to note, every nasty regime in history has used EXACTLY that same excuse to deny free speech to people it doesn't like. If I only slightly suspected you were the type to get others to stop speech before, I HIGHLY suspect it now.

"I suspect you feel you have absolutely nothing to prove to me, I'm nothing but a screenname on a website"

Ding ding ding! A prize for that man! Did you clue into that secret knowledge when I said as much earlier? You perceptive type you!

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:24 AM

I really should go back and read your other earlier posting before going to this one, but oh well. Anyway.

"You see Bierce, your last post is exactly what torques people like me. You talk down to this person as if you are a parent explaining something to a child"

You know, this is true. I can't deny it. That is actually a valid criticism. And I don't even have the excuse of of being a teacher because I was like this BEFORE I taught.

One day I wasn't thinking and when my girlfriend said "I did good" I corrected her before I thought about it: "It's 'I did well'. Now say that again correctly".

She was walking away and her back was turned and she just froze. I think my balls actually said "you're on your own, dude. Don't involve us" and retreated up into my aorta. To this day the right side of my body feels numb and I now hear the color red.

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:39 AM

"That is awe inspiring illogic. The term 'non-sequitur' commonly translates in formal logic as 'it does not follow', which is the perfect description of what you've done here. It doesn't follow that if you don't give a shit about religion (something that I merely guessed at idly) that you don't have other prickish qualities. Why would it? "

I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me. If you failed to recognize your own ideas in the sentance, no fault on me.

Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!

Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith? Did you honestly think you'd get a "ROTFLMAO"? Your fun seems to be much at the expense of others.

My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious. They have evolved, even adding some historical context. But the main crux is "You have no special insight to judge the religion of others based on your theological learnings, your experiance you often profess to, and your keenness on logic."
Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance. But nothing makes your especially able, or especially unbiased, which you make yourself out to be.
The fact that you use philophers who wrote in the height of religious tyranny as your cornerstones of logic is laughable. They're as biased as anyone else.

Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se. But yes, since that's the broader spectrum this particular point falls under, we'll go with it.
Freedom of Speech means the government can't silence you or coerce your enunciations. Period, end of point. It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to. Yes, my quote, out of context, is fairly barbaric. Take it in context, and it's simply facing you with your unwillingness to back yourself up. Rather, you threw up the "Freedom of Speech" shield. Freedom of Speech protects you from Uncle Sam, not from my counter points.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:41 AM

"There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century"

Those are what are called "secondary sources" and reconstructions in theology. You have no primary texts. That was my point. There are no actual Wiccans around because the religion died some jillion years ago, just a vaguely reconfigured new religion called "Wicca" with an extremely tenuous link to an older real religion (or, rather, four). Most everything substantial in the earlier religion is probably gone and permenantly lost to time. There is not a single founding or primary text in modern Wicca (and its unlikely there ever was one, but not impossible: most practices and stories were probably traditions and oral practices permenantly destroyed by a certain monotheism).

Although there isn't much to go on, if you ever get a chance, you should read Ceaser on it: he had interesting things to say about the Gauls and was a pretty perceptive guy when it came to their religious practices. He noticed stuff, which is a pretty impressive find in the 'pre-standardized history' eras. He wasn't Thucidides or anything, but you might be interested in his thoughts on Gaulish mumbo-jumbo.

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:54 AM

All very fine historically, but I fail to see how any of this means their any less meaningful, spiritual, or enlightened than the Bible?
Because there is distinguishable break in the history? Because It's a recreated faith? I don't understand how those distinctions put it on a different level than the bible.

We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion. I'm almost enjoying it.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century"

Those are what are called "secondary sources" and reconstructions in theology. You have no primary texts. That was my point. There are no actual Wiccans around because the religion died some jillion years ago, just a vaguely reconfigured new religion called "Wicca" with an extremely tenuous link to an older real religion (or, rather, four). Most everything substantial in the earlier religion is probably gone and permenantly lost to time. There is not a single founding or primary text in modern Wicca (and its unlikely there ever was one, but not impossible: most practices and stories were probably traditions and oral practices permenantly destroyed by a certain monotheism).

Although there isn't much to go on, if you ever get a chance, you should read Ceaser on it: he had interesting things to say about the Gauls and was a pretty perceptive guy when it came to their religious practices. He noticed stuff, which is a pretty impressive find in the 'pre-standardized history' eras. He wasn't Thucidides or anything, but you might be interested in his thoughts on Gaulish mumbo-jumbo.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:57 AM

"I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me."

No you weren't, you were conflating them as if they were mutually exclusive propositions, not ticking them off seperately. This raises the distinct possibility that you can't even read what you wrote, a disturbing enough quality.

"Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!"

Your sentences are so entertaining sometimes.

"Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith?"

And AGAIN you want me to explain the concept of "fun" to you! It's like a thing with you! I have this vision of you hunched over a computer with a frown, furiously typing.

"My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious"

You delved into the "why"? I thought it was just bald assertion stated over and over and over and over (pant pant) and over and over. I hadn't realized you'd explained why, I missed it. Why?

"Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance blah blah".

Oh god, it's the 'we all have assholes and they all stink' lecture: if you think you're going to bore me to death, you're sadly mista...hmm. Maybe you will succeed after all.

"Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se."

So we can talk about it but not refer to it? You save my life from boredom implosion with your, um, "colorful" logic.

"It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to."

Not only was it NOT my implication, I clearly stated what my real motivation was. And we're back at the mysterious "fun" concept yet again: I'm responding to you not because I don't expect to be attacked, but BECAUSE it delights me that you're attacking and I like to engage. This is fun for me, I smile when I'm typing. This thing where you make up that I don't want you to respond? It's all in your head, dude. You made it up, like playtime.

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:07 AM

"All very fine historically, but I fail to see how any of this means their any less meaningful, spiritual, or enlightened than the Bible?"

What the fuck is it with you and making up things that I never said? Listen, cause this is the last time I'm gonna say it before boredom truly sets in: this religion is funny and silly on its own terms, by its own logic. It will never need goth chicks and quartz crystals to make it stupid 'cause it was already there.

You see, the stupidity here is what scientists call "multi-causal", a fancy way of saying there's a whole slew of reasons not to respect it! Why, it's dumb because of it's metaphysical assumptions, the people who worship it, AND the fact that it, you know, technically isn't actually Wicca.

Or, let's put it in terms you understand: maybe you should have an open mind about the many reasons to laugh at it.

"We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion. I'm almost enjoying it."

You know, sometimes I get glimpses of you as a real grim fella. It interests me to think: I wonder how many people here would ACTUALLY get along with the rough and tumble types of the Firefly crew. I don't think everyone would: you, for instance, I could see getting killed by any number of the main male leads you quote.

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:11 AM

You misinterpreted what I wrote. I was ticking them off. Oh, was it the structure that threw you off? Did I use a cliche sentance structure in a non cliche way? Excuse me.

Again, instead of actually refuting something, you just mention how it bores you to death. Well, ok. I'll have to accept it. Heck, you've done similar tactics enough already. I guess I'm a slow learner.

"I think instead I'll just say what I want when I want to and otherwise act under the (admittedly incorrect) assumption that I live in a free country."

If that isn't throwing up the shield of Freedom of Speech instead of actually being responsible for what you say, I don't know what is.

Why do people think it's alright to say stupid things because it's writ in a document? It's not. It's simply much more wrong for the government to stop them.

And yes, it clearly delights you at my apparent frustration. I have certainly spoken vehemently enough for you to think I may actually be angry. I think I even tweaked your goad a couple of times. THAT's the problem, you take delight in eliciting other's emotional responses. That's not why I jumped on you from the beginning, back then I thought you might actually be talking from some sort of philosophical context that you were too good to share. Now I realize, as you have all but enunciated yourself, that your full intent is to laugh when other people feel anger.

If I said to you "You didn't make me angry," you probably wouldn't believe me. Because that's ok, that'll be the third bad assumption you've made about my character tonight.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me."

No you weren't, you were conflating them as if they were mutually exclusive propositions, not ticking them off seperately. This raises the distinct possibility that you can't even read what you wrote, a disturbing enough quality.

"Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!"

Your sentences are so entertaining sometimes.

"Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith?"

And AGAIN you want me to explain the concept of "fun" to you! It's like a thing with you! I have this vision of you hunched over a computer with a frown, furiously typing.

"My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious"

You delved into the "why"? I thought it was just bald assertion stated over and over and over and over (pant pant) and over and over. I hadn't realized you'd explained why, I missed it. Why?

"Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance blah blah".

Oh god, it's the 'we all have assholes and they all stink' lecture: if you think you're going to bore me to death, you're sadly mista...hmm. Maybe you will succeed after all.

"Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se."

So we can talk about it but not refer to it? You save my life from boredom implosion with your, um, "colorful" logic.

"It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to."

Not only was it NOT my implication, I clearly stated what my real motivation was. And we're back at the mysterious "fun" concept yet again: I'm responding to you not because I don't expect to be attacked, but BECAUSE it delights me that you're attacking and I like to engage. This is fun for me, I smile when I'm typing. This thing where you make up that I don't want you to respond? It's all in your head, dude. You made it up, like playtime.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

CHRISMOORHEAD

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:13 AM

I dunno, I always thought of Inara's sex thing as being more of the "Eastern Lovemaking" philosophy. Not as metaphysical as wicca, but more practical like from the Kama-Sutra and the way Geisha were trained to entertain men.

I read the Kama-Sutra once to try and understand women. It didn't help.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"All very fine historically, but I fail to see how any of this means their any less meaningful, spiritual, or enlightened than the Bible?"

What the fuck is it with you and making up things that I never said? Listen, cause this is the last time I'm gonna say it before boredom truly sets in: this religion is funny and silly on its own terms, by its own logic. It will never need goth chicks and quartz crystals to make it stupid 'cause it was already there.

"Uh look, I don't agree with their point of view any more than you do, but denying the sheer amount of energy the Church put into exploring the philosophy of theology is absurd. In fact, the Christian drive for metaphysics are what created the modern university system of explored knowledge- the direct precursor to the scientific method and the englightenment came directly from their toiling. The nonsense those flatheads adhere to is several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than yours."

So yes, you did say Christains are more enlightened, hell you said they spawned the Enlightenment. And yes, you did point to a lack of Wiccan texts as an example.
It has been brought to your attention that there are, in fact, Wiccan texts. You differ them from the Bible is several ways. Therefore, the only possible conclusion you could have meant is that their texts don't compare.

I most certainly did not misintrepret you. Perhaps you need to follow your own thread of though closer.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
You see, the stupidity here is what scientists call "multi-causal", a fancy way of saying there's a whole slew of reasons not to respect it! Why, it's dumb because of it's metaphysical assumptions, the people who worship it, AND the fact that it, you know, technically isn't actually Wicca.

Or, let's put it in terms you understand: maybe you should have an open mind about the many reasons to laugh at it.

That was actually funny. First you make a grandiose statement, saying we shouldn't respect religion because there's a lot of reasons we shouldn't respect it. Then you say I can't understand those terms (perhaps because it's circular logic), and then you paraphrase something else entirely. Clever.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:

"We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion. I'm almost enjoying it."

You know, sometimes I get glimpses of you as a real grim fella. It interests me to think: I wonder how many people here would ACTUALLY get along with the rough and tumble types of the Firefly crew. I don't think everyone would: you, for instance, I could see getting killed by any number of the main male leads you quote.

You have no idea what I think on any of the issues I have brought forth other than my own prejudices I have explicitly stated, so saying I wouldn't fit is yet another bad assumption of my character. And it is another satirizing comment which I can only assume is meant to gall browncoats into thinking that I'm not a real browncoat, so my opinions don't matter.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

CHRISMOORHEAD

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:38 AM

I think the only way to solve this is to dress all the Christians up in white tabbards with red crosses, full plate mail and long swords. Then, dress all the Wiccans up in ropes and wooden stakes with some dirty rags for decency. If their magic is real, they'll find a way.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

RCAT

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:45 AM

incongresswiththebeast,
Howdy, and welcome. Sorry your original post got hijacked into this debate (tho' it has been mildly entertaining). Interesting thoughts on the wiccan spin to the companions. My take on the companions and the guild was more along the lines of the geisha (not chinese but still eastern). I figured a lot of the 'sacredness' of the rituals was to make it acceptal to polite society and, over time, it became truth (and believed by most involved). Early on, considering all the dirt the guild (a consolidated group of 'working' women and men) had on wealthy clients, they would easily have enough leverage to elivate their status initially. After a while the rituals were real, the social status and power of the guild was too.

-Some people juggle geese!

CHRISMOORHEAD, rofl! Isn't that the point the BDH's show up in the nick of time? "Yea, but they're our witches".

CHRISMOORHEAD

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:58 AM

Mmm, yes, indeed, with rifles to match our swords. Damn those big... damn heroes...

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 11:17 AM

The rest of it was boring, but the end, oh the end. I've never seen ANY inferences so tenuously made in my life, this is almost brilliantly inane. I'm going to quote both side-by side in case anyone else is watching. They need to see how crazy you are:

What I said:

"You know, sometimes I get glimpses of you as a real grim fella. It interests me to think: I wonder how many people here would ACTUALLY get along with the rough and tumble types of the Firefly crew. I don't think everyone would: you, for instance, I could see getting killed by any number of the main male leads you quote."

What you managed to glean from it:

"You have no idea what I think on any of the issues I have brought forth other than my own prejudices I have explicitly stated, so saying I wouldn't fit is yet another bad assumption of my character. And it is another satirizing comment which I can only assume is meant to gall browncoats into thinking that I'm not a real browncoat, so my opinions don't matter"

The hell? It's like you were responding to the guy talking in your head. I said you seem grim to me, and somehow this turns into me knowing about your beliefs or prejudices or anything else I wasn't talking about. Holy CRAP you're random.

The second part was the most bizzare, though: by me idly wondering whether you'd get along with the crew, somehow I'm angling to get you to look bad in front of others? You're not grim, you're stone cold nuts. Or intensely stupid, one or the other or a combo pack. I couldn't care less about what they think of you. And just so we're clear, what you said was broadcast on W-KRZY. This is clinical dysfunction-level insane on your part.

"So yes, you did say Christains are more enlightened, hell you said they spawned the Enlightenment."

How can they be more enlightened if their central idea is wrong? The definition of enlightenment assumes correct notions that Christians don't have. Oh, and for today's history lesson: the Enlightenment was a REACTION TO the Age of Faith. It happened DESPITE the Church, not because it was the Church. The spawning of the Enlightenment was merely an unintended result of their metaphysical flights of fancy. The Enlightnment was enlightened because it defined the world away from Church authority. So no, I didn't say Christians are more enlightened and if you could read you'd know that.
I said I respected people who think systematically and hard, which they did. Those two things, enlightenment and systematic thinking? Not related.

You seem entirely immune to exact concepts.

"I most certainly did not misintrepret you"

Fuck, I'm beginning to think you didn't even READ me. I'm not sure you can understand this sentence.

BITTERBIERCE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 11:25 AM

All we need to understand this posting is to quote one sentence from it and compare it with what you'd said in the previous one:

What you say now:

"...instead of actually refuting something, you just mention how it bores you to death"

What you said previously:

"We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion"

And that about covers the consistancy of your mental processes.

CEDRIC

Sunday, March 5, 2006 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:

And that about covers the consistancy of your mental processes.

I hope that someday, you are able to laugh at yourself as much as I'm laughing at you now. I'd explain why, but you just wouldn't get the joke.

CEDRIC

Sunday, March 5, 2006 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by ThePistonEngine:

You refer to the lack of Pagan texts.

There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century.

At any rate, just thought I'd point out that there are a number of base texts for Pagans.

I'd like to chime in on this.

It's true, Wicca is not based on texts the way that the Abrahamic religions are. Those who believe that God can be found in a book see this as a weakness. Many who follow Wicca realize that direct experience of the Divine is more important than experience filtered through books.

Having said that, I'll add that many Wiccans supplement, enhance, or even bring about direct revelation by studying texts from many different sources; most Wiccans engage in a lot of comparative religious study. Some prefer secondary sources, though I like to read primary sources (in translation, unfortunately) whenever I can. I've found insight in various mythologies as well as the teachings of the major religions, even the teachings of Jesus.

In fact, it was Christ who advised spiritual seekers not to cast their pearls before swine, which is part of why I'm not going to bother trying to impress BitterBierce.

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
All we need to understand this posting is to quote one sentence from it and compare it with what you'd said in the previous one:

What you say now:

"...instead of actually refuting something, you just mention how it bores you to death"

What you said previously:

"We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion"

And that about covers the consistancy of your mental processes.

Yes, obviously my opinions changed somewhat. between now and then. Probably because you again decided to get of the track of discussing your opinions and just started, well, randomness. It's amazing how you twist yourself into thinking you didn't say what you plainly did.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
The rest of it was boring, but the end, oh the end. I've never seen ANY inferences so tenuously made in my life, this is almost brilliantly inane. I'm going to quote both side-by side in case anyone else is watching. They need to see how crazy you are:

What I said:

"You know, sometimes I get glimpses of you as a real grim fella. It interests me to think: I wonder how many people here would ACTUALLY get along with the rough and tumble types of the Firefly crew. I don't think everyone would: you, for instance, I could see getting killed by any number of the main male leads you quote."

What you managed to glean from it:

"You have no idea what I think on any of the issues I have brought forth other than my own prejudices I have explicitly stated, so saying I wouldn't fit is yet another bad assumption of my character. And it is another satirizing comment which I can only assume is meant to gall browncoats into thinking that I'm not a real browncoat, so my opinions don't matter"

The hell? It's like you were responding to the guy talking in your head. I said you seem grim to me, and somehow this turns into me knowing about your beliefs or prejudices or anything else I wasn't talking about. Holy CRAP you're random.

There is nothin fallacious about my reasoning. You assume I'm grim, which has nothing to do with the ideas I set forth. Therefore its comment on my personality. Then I go on to mention You have no idea what I actually believe. Its true, you don't. I've explicitly stated a few opinions and prejudices I have, but you don't. So you've no business how well I'd get along on Firefly and who'd shoot me. Now, as I was searching for any motive behind that statement, the only thing I could think of was wahat I said before. I did mention it's an assumption. But YOU said it. I merely broke it down.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:

The second part was the most bizzare, though: by me idly wondering whether you'd get along with the crew, somehow I'm angling to get you to look bad in front of others? You're not grim, you're stone cold nuts. Or intensely stupid, one or the other or a combo pack. I couldn't care less about what they think of you. And just so we're clear, what you said was broadcast on W-KRZY. This is clinical dysfunction-level insane on your part.

Good cold analysis. Keep it up.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:

"So yes, you did say Christains are more enlightened, hell you said they spawned the Enlightenment."

How can they be more enlightened if their central idea is wrong? The definition of enlightenment assumes correct notions that Christians don't have. Oh, and for today's history lesson: the Enlightenment was a REACTION TO the Age of Faith. It happened DESPITE the Church, not because it was the Church. The spawning of the Enlightenment was merely an unintended result of their metaphysical flights of fancy. The Enlightnment was enlightened because it defined the world away from Church authority. So no, I didn't say Christians are more enlightened and if you could read you'd know that.
I said I respected people who think systematically and hard, which they did. Those two things, enlightenment and systematic thinking? Not related.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:

Many who follow Wicca realize that direct experience of the Divine is more important than experience filtered through books.

I never thought of it like this, but looking back this makes perfect sense. Every book that I've looked at on Wicca isn't anything like a bible, but more like a recipe book. They state the basic philosophy and then a large number of spells. Basically stating, here's what we're about, now do do it, experience it. How can you write that down?

Kind of like Buddhists refusing to write down what nirvana is.

Thanks for this. I got some pondering to do

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

SAMEERTIA

Sunday, March 5, 2006 8:57 PM

Forgive me if this has been said, but I got bogged down by the nasty arguement going on and couldn't possibly dig through all the viciousness.

I see Inara's view of sacred sex as far older and more Eastern/Buddhist than Wiccan.

The practice of Tantra- Living in the full senses of the body- encompasses harnessing and using physical desire to strengthen the soul and spirit. This goes back far deeper in Eastern civilization than the Celtic Wiccan practices.

Today's Wicca encompasses portions of Tantra as part of it's collection of beliefs, and I think that is where the comparison takes place.

Everything that we see and know of Inara points to the practice of the Sacred Tantric- She lives in her body. The slow sensuality of the sponge-bath- a ritual cleansing. The way she holds her cup of tea close to her, smelling it's fragrance before sipping- living with all of her senses.

Frankly, Bitter, you are attacking the religious views of another member. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is called Prejudice and Intolerance. I'm sure you think that it's perfectly all right for you attack others on the basis of their religion. You mentioned Nazis before. Notice any resemblence?

I'm not saying that it's the case with you, but I have to mention here that all the 'trained philosphers' who I know have all the spirituality of a dung-heap in summer.

Of course, some Buddhists would argue that a dung-heap in summer has it's own fragrance, it's own life-source in the worms and insects that break it down, it's own beauty as part of the process of nature, imbueing it with it's own spirituality.

I'm a Priestess of the Goddess, not a Buddhist monk, so I'm afraid I stand by my original interpretation of such.

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:02 PM

I really think this is an interesting discussion topic (Inara, Wicca, Sacred prostitition, the church, eastern versus western sexual values) but I think that many will not bother to read the thread due to the serious hijack.

Should we start a new thread? Any why doesn't this forum have an IGNORE MEMBER option??

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:06 PM

Good call.

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
I really think this is an interesting discussion topic (Inara, Wicca, Sacred prostitition, the church, eastern versus western sexual values) but I think that many will not bother to read the thread due to the serious hijack.

Should we start a new thread? Any why doesn't this forum have an IGNORE MEMBER option??

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:

I really think this is an interesting discussion topic (Inara, Wicca, Sacred prostitition, the church, eastern versus western sexual values) but I think that many will not bother to read the thread due to the serious hijack.

I agree entirely.

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:

Should we start a new thread?

Not sure that would help. Those that we don't want to come with us would just come anyway.

It would make the thread shorter though

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:

Any why doesn't this forum have an IGNORE MEMBER option??

Up until very recently, it hasn't been even close to necessary. Everyone just respected eachother (for the most part). Perhaps it's time that something like this be implemented.

*sigh* 'Tis a sad day when we start talking about something like this.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 9:39 PM

The sad thing it is it's mostly my fault, if I just ignored BitterBierce we'd have no problem... Or would we just have an ignored and vieled problem? Blah, don't really care. I felt Bierce needed to be taken down a coupla notches, I did my best to do it (I think I suceeded, he thinks I'm a moron[feeling is genuinely mutual], everyone has their own opinion), and I'm done talking to him, probably forever.

But I do think a new thread would be better suited to continuing the discussion. I promise not to flame unless someone starts to be condescending/disrespectful without cause in their opinions.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

HIXIE129

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:02 PM

This was very interesting on both sides.

I had always thought that Wicca was a type of furniture. :)

KPO

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:20 PM

Quote:
*sigh* 'Tis a sad day when we start talking about something like this.

I think everyone's over reacting here. There are much more offensive and hateful types on internet messageboards than old BB here.

Nobody's suffered sever psychological trauma from this thread have they? No? Good

, then lets carry on as we were before.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
*sigh* 'Tis a sad day when we start talking about something like this.

I think everyone's over reacting here. There are much more offensive and hateful types on internet messageboards than old BB here.

Nobody's suffered sever psychological trauma from this thread have they? No? Good , then lets carry on as we were before.

The problem isn't just this thread, it's the general tone right now on these forums.

Perhaps I am overreacting, perhaps not. Time will tell.

One thing's for certain though, I hope I'm wrong about this.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

THEPISTONENGINE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 10:51 PM

I know what's wrong.
It's bitterness. We're all so bitter because our firefly fixes are simply repeated episodes, watching the deleted scenes, and searching the net for paraphenelia. When we get Firefly back, we'll all be less snappy.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

CUNNINGORANGETOQUE

Sunday, March 5, 2006 11:38 PM

I am a 17 year old male, brought up in a Christian household, going to a United Church, but in the past year or so i have been practicing Wicca, because my old girlfriend is wicca, and it really interested me, because it made a lot of sense to what was and is going on in my life. It is kindof annoying to get past the stereotypes, as my parents don't really take it seriously, and my friends critisize. THERE CAN BE MALE WICCANS!!There just aren't as many as female. Aside from that i have been practicing it and getting away from the "Fluffbunny" stage, and getting into it more in-depth.

I'll try and bring this back on topic:

Very interesting topic, i must say INCONGRESSWITHTHEBEAST! It brings up many interesting points, such as Inara's views towards sex and sexuality. this may be a a neat topic to explore, but perhaps not in this area. Perhaps we could get a group together and make a site to discuss or somesuch, because it would be pretty cool.

-Noel

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Creator of "THE OTHER SHINY CAPTION GAME"!
www.livejournal.com/users/the_zeppo01
Time for some thrilling heroics!
poor_noel2@hotmail.com

SMOOF

Sunday, March 5, 2006 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by incongresswiththebeast:

Atherton Wang from "Shindig" being the clearest example.

Freudian slip?

ZOID

Monday, March 6, 2006 1:58 AM

UnregisteredCompanion wrote, in part:

Quote:
...(from The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer)

'Thus at Babylon every woman, whether rich or poor, had once in her life to submit to the embraces of a stranger at the temple of Mylitta, that is, of Ishtar or Astarte, and to dedicate to the goddess the wages earned by this sanctified harlotry. The sacred precinct was crowded with women waiting to observe the custom. Some of them had to wait there for years...

I would quote your entire post, since it all applies, but I fear the space on this thread is primarily reserved for pissing.

This is exactly what I was driving at in my 2-year-old post linked above. I believe the Companion's Guild is religiously related to Babylonian/Assyrian/Sumerian 'whore priestesses' (of which Cleopatra was reportedly the last). So, thanks for the quotes.

Additionally, I believe there may be some Herbertine "Bene Gesserit"-style manipulation of many religious elements into a combinatory form, which allows for the greatest control of practitioners (read: Companions). See also, The Orange Catholic Bible at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Catholic_Bible and Missionaria Protectiva at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit#Missionaria_Protectiva.

In this way ancient Middle Eastern religions might be mixed with Far and Near Oriental religions in a way that serves the Guild best.

Be that as it may, Inara -- even if she is supposed to be totally secure in her sexuality -- is clearly having a crisis of conscience, which is caused by her own open sexuality. Otherwise, why does she cry when Mal has sex with Nandi? Or did she just stub her toe nastily and we didn't see it? And remember the last scene of Serenity in which she plainly tells Mal that she is unsure whether she wants to resume her previous life; if that ain't a crisis of faith, of losing one's religion, I don't know what is. In much the same way that some people are not cut out for celibacy, perhaps Inara is not cut out for anything but monogamy. That's something I can relate to (even tho' I'm male

), and in which I'm a 'true believer'.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
BitterBierce and ThePistonEngine: You guys ever consider taking the act on tour? No lecture halls, either. I'm thinking an open field at sunrise, ten paces and matched uzis... Now, who wouldn't buy a ticket for that?
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

INCONGRESSWITHTHEBEAST

Monday, March 6, 2006 4:05 PM

Um... wow. Over 70 replies to my first post. And it appears I've started a board war too. Start how you mean to go on.

There are FAR too many replies here for me to address, but I'll do my best to answer a few of the points raised.

Yes, Inara cries just after she's told Mal that Companions aren't puritanical about sex. For me, that scene doesn't contradict the way I think she views sex. If anything it underscores it. Inara has sex for a living, and she sleeps with a lot of people, but she never loses her awareness of it's importance, and the connection it creates between people (no doubt the reason why companions are allowed to choose their clients and not the other way around.) Nandi has shared something very special with Mal, connected with him in a way Inara has never been able to. She isn't squemish about it, but it's natural that she'd be upset. If she saw sex as an unimportant but pleasant diversion then she would have no reason to cry.

Yes, Companions are respected on the core planets. That's established from the very beginning - Mal mentions in the pilot episode that most planets won't allow a vessel to dock without a decent companion on board. But while Inara commands a great deal of respect throughout the series - as when she "claims" Mal and Zoe in "The Train Job", the day to day attitude she faces is very different. Very few people, Mal included, are able to get past the thought of what she does for a living. On a side note, It's hugely interesting to me that, after Kaylee, Book is the first person seen to accept who Inara is and what she does without fuss.

Does Inara always act as though sex is a hugely sacred thing? Nope. Do Wiccans? Nope. We respect it deeply, it's true, but we also accept it as natural and, well, fun. It can put you in touch with the creative force of the universe, but only when both those taking part are in the correct frame of mind and focusing on that intent. Do we do that every time we have sex? Nope. What we ~always~ do is treat ourselves, and the person we're having sex with, with respect. Like Inara, it means that Wiccans in general don't tend to be puritanical about sex. But I still would have been upset if the man I loved slept with someone who wasn't me!

I chose my board name because I thought it was funny. The scene it's taken from my all time favourite scene on the show, and I liked the reference.

I've never been in congress, with or without a beast.

Yes, Wicca does take it's inspiration from many different cultures and religions, so a lot of people describe it as a mish-mosh of elements from everywhere. There is an underlying theology that we stick to, but other than that we find what works for us and go with that, adapting it where we need to. It's a lot like philosophy that way. It's also why I posted this as a Wiccan perspective on Inara, not the Wiccan perspective.

My post is pretty much my view on Inara, as it relates to my own personal beliefs. Obviously, those beliefs colour my view of the character, and Inara is definately not Wiccan herself - she's Buddhist. Still, because of her role in the 'verse, she's become a character that deals with the issues a lot of Wiccans face. That's the perspective I wanted to share with the board, to see what other people thought.

I'm not 18. I'm not middle aged. I don't wear gothy clothes, and I'm fairly certain my interpersonal skills are at an okay level. I don't listen to New Age music, but I do listen to Guns and Roses which I've been told is much, much worse. I have a few crystals, but no cats. I do love Buffy though. Who doesn't love Buffy??? It's a great show!!!

Um, that's it. Excuse me while I run away and think very hard about what the heck I'm going to post next!

KIZYR

Monday, March 6, 2006 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Be that as it may, Inara -- even if she is supposed to be totally secure in her sexuality -- is clearly having a crisis of conscience, which is caused by her own open sexuality. Otherwise, why does she cry when Mal has sex with Nandi? Or did she just stub her toe nastily and we didn't see it? And remember the last scene of Serenity in which she plainly tells Mal that she is unsure whether she wants to resume her previous life; if that ain't a crisis of faith, of losing one's religion, I don't know what is.

It might even run deeper than that... Right in the pilot episode, you had Inara needing to feel 'cleansed' after her last client. It wasn't even anything too bad: he asked her to stay there, she declined, and he made a little slight with the comment about her clock being rigged.

Oh, and then there's the line in Objects in Space which River heard: "I'm a big girl", etc.

And then, after Mal's insulted her profession so many times (I'm thinking Shindig here, where during the dance, too, he pointed out that her life was dishonest), she's still in love with him.

I think Inara's always been a little ambivalent and unsure of her chosen profession. Maybe, like Book, her leaving the Guild and settin' sail with Serenity was a journey to find herself once again. And Mal's certainly helped her find herself, even though it ain't pretty at first glance. KF

~KF

Lord, I'm walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged.
Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all.
Forgive what you can and send me on my path. I will walk on until you bid me rest.
~Haven Prayer

DONCOAT

Monday, March 6, 2006 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by incongresswiththebeast:
Um, that's it. Excuse me while I run away and think very hard about what the heck I'm going to post next!

There are times that I wish more people did that...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree on any particular point.

BITTERBIERCE

Thursday, March 9, 2006 1:06 AM

I can agree with that. Hell, I promise to buy you ten beers and a good meal the day FF comes back.

Forgive my lack of response, I haven't even had time to see what you've written yet- the girlfriend came back on Sunday and I've been involved in getting nooky and going out with those couples friends. It's been very nice not being a hermit. I'll get to the rest of these later on in the week.

ERIC

Thursday, March 9, 2006 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

Additionally, I believe there may be some Herbertine "Bene Gesserit"-style manipulation of many religious elements into a combinatory form, which allows for the greatest control of practitioners (read: Companions). See also, The Orange Catholic Bible at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Catholic_Bible and Missionaria Protectiva at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Gesserit#Missionaria_Protectiva.

Yay! I knew there was some way to bring Dune into this...just wasn't sure how. Anyway, if a total newb may speak freely...

I think Mal's attitude toward Inara and her profession contains a pretty heavy socioeconomic element. Although he constantly degrades what she, a "Registered Companion" (in gold calligraphy, etc.), does, he never once bats an eye about helping out Nandi's girls without payment, as soon as he knows they're common whores. He treats Nandi and the others with a respect he never shows Inara. Although whores, they're still working stiffs like him, trying to survive. I think then that his hostility toward Inara has to do with resentment at the (real or perceived) "easiness" of her life. Not only does she have sex for money, she gets to choose from among many rich people to have sex with, for LOTS of money. In his eyes, it might look like just getting paid to live out your (his) fantasy. And for someone who's lost everything, and has to scrounge just to get by, that might strike him as just really unfair.

Also, the closest he gets to enunciating his objections to her career is in "Shindig," when he decries "the lie of it." Simple prostitution is at least straightforward, but a companion is expected to act like it's all real, at least for official engagements. His hostility could then also be not just his rejection of the whole "sex is sacred" idea, but contempt in others' (possibly perceived) pretension in accepting it. So I don't think it's just his attitude toward sex, but towards a society where rich people get to delude themselves into believing they're more enlightened than they are, and where pretty girls get paid to have a good time. Not saying this is how it is, but maybe a bit how Mal might see things. My guess is he'd have the same view of, e.g., Hollywood celebrities from Earth-that-was.

Course, this might all be painfully obvious, and i just wasted many minutes making myself look dumb. Web anonymity is a good thing.

THEPISTONENGINE

Thursday, March 9, 2006 3:58 AM

No, as a noob you have to earn your right to speak freely by a carefully laid plan of hazing. ChrisMooreHead was in the Army, so he probably knows better than anyone here how to haze. We'll delegate the responsibility to him.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

ZOID

Thursday, March 9, 2006 8:04 AM

Eric wrote:

Quote:
...Anyway, if a total newb may speak freely...

A "total newb" is encouraged to speak, when the n00b in question speaks as well as you do. And knowing your Herbert is a great calling card...

As to your commentary, I don't believe I've ever seen it put that way specifically, and I believe your analysis is sound.

I've always seen Mal as chivalrous: helping the weak, championing truth, et cetera. His rendering aid to the HoG girls (how wrong does that sound?) makes sense from my perspective because they are in distress from an oppressive force (Burgess) of overpowering strength. And Mal is the patron saint of lost causes.
(NB: Okay, technically, that's Saint Jude; but, go with me here.)

Inara is not poor, defenseless or weak, in any sense of those words. Mal is enamored of her, but he just doesn't know how to approach her. Inara is used to polite men who dance around her sense of propriety like bees around honeysuckle, not men who cut to the chase and 'tell it like it is'. Every time she makes a polite overture toward Mal, he speaks openly, she gets frustrated by his lack of tact, and an argument ensues (sounds a lot like my marriage, btw).

But your argument works as well or better than mine, in many respects. Unfortunately, I'm an old school romantic. I need Mal to be ultimately noble; not petty, or even subconsciously ignoble.

I'm with Book: I think Mal's got 'a way' about him that's inherently good. Even when he doesn't know why, he rescues young girls and their naive brothers because they are weak and need protection. He is instinctively good...

A pox upon you for making me doubt that, with your impeccable logic!

Antiquatedly,

zoid

P.S.
Seriously, excellent post, dude. Write more.
_________________________________________________

"...I knew you let her kiss you." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Firefly, "Our Mrs. Reynolds"

DOFFE

Thursday, March 9, 2006 10:18 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL wrote:

Quote:
certainly not with the Christian and Buddhists religions, who both hold celibacy, not sexuality, as sacred.

Buddist religion (if You call it that) has different paths. Some of them use celibacy as the tool, some use sexuality. Look at Tibetan traditions, You find some interesting stuff about sex there.

What all of them have in common is that sexual misconduct is a pretty unskilled way of being, ultimately agreeing that "misconduct" means causing harm to yourself or others.

In other words it is not WHAT you are doing but HOW and with WHAT ATTITUDE and WHAT OUTCOME you get. And here we have Inara, warm hearted, compassionate, forgiving being that helps others ot overcome their problems, when possible.

Sound quite buddhist to me :) And hey, Wiccan perspective is just another angle on the truth, too :) At least I'm being non-Wiccan can see some common sense in it and like it.

Keep flying.
Doffe.

KIZYR

Thursday, March 9, 2006 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doffe:
Buddist religion (if You call it that) has different paths. Some of them use celibacy as the tool, some use sexuality. Look at Tibetan traditions, You find some interesting stuff about sex there.

What all of them have in common is that sexual misconduct is a pretty unskilled way of being, ultimately agreeing that "misconduct" means causing harm to yourself or others.

I think it's implied in the series (and stated explicity in the Serenity RPG book) that the dominant Buddhist tradition is Mayahana Buddhism.

Regardless, Siddhartha Gautama himself spoke about the importance of accepting responsibility for the consequences and outcomes of one's given actions; i.e., that it's not enough to just examine your intentions and motives when doing something, but you have to figure best you can on the outcome of your actions.

The same belief carries through to the idea of both reincarnation and karma. Both of them are more direct manifestations of consequences--or benefits, as the case may be. So, while individual Buddhist sects and traditions might not disagree on the importance of considering consequences, sex is a subject more specific that opens room up for debate. KF

~KF

Lord, I'm walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged.
Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all.
Forgive what you can and send me on my path. I will walk on until you bid me rest.
~Haven Prayer

BROWNCOAT2006

Monday, May 8, 2006 3:24 AM

Wow... lots and LOTS of posts here to read.... I personally am semi-athiest... and I will explain this... I do not belive that one religion has all the right answers... and I am still looking for one that can cover how I feel about God... or Buddha, or whatever it is someone worships... I have no problems with anyones religons, unlike a LOT of biggits I know here in Prior Lake, Minnesota... most of the most biggoted people I know are christans, but w/e not meaning to insult christianity or anything... just seems that hardly any religion actually practices what they preach... I have noticed a lot of the parrallels that you are all discussing about Firefly and because I know a (very very) small amout about most religions (as I am trying to find my way in this crasy messed up 'verse of ours) I came to a lot of the same conclusions the rest of you did about Inara's wicca bits.... hmmm, Im not very eloquent tonight, can't seem to say what Im trying to say... and it's makeing me mad :( anyways, just throwing some of my own personal feelings in here and hopeing the general jyst of what I was trying to say got through.

FREDGIBLET

Monday, May 8, 2006 5:33 AM

This is a blast from the past, this thread is two months old. Wow.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat2006:
just seems that hardly any religion actually practices what they preach...

Which is why I abstain

EMMAZULE

Monday, May 8, 2006 7:22 AM

Quote:
That's how it works. That's how Wiccans gain respect. It won't come with a Title IX clause and bland American puritanical PC clucking.

...you do realize that Title IX is about gender, not religion? It's the clause folks use to get equal numbers of boys' and girls's athletic teams, it has nothing to do with religion (of course, it has almost nothing to do with reality, either, but that's a moot point).

Just thought I'd point that out... also, Wiccans as a whole aren't HALF as ridiculous as Scientologists (*coughTomCruisecough*), you're only thinking of the New Age Biddy and Goth Teen "Wiccan" subcultures. Having briefly belonged to the latter during freshman year of high school myself (well, minus the "goth" aspect. I was too lazy to go Goth.), I can confirm that most kids getting into it don't know what the actual religion really entails - once they do, they tend to get bored and abandon it, so you really can't call them genuine "Wiccans". Well, you COULD, but I'd have to respectfully disagree on the grounds that a "genuine Wiccan" would actually actively follow and want to follow all of the core bits and pieces of the religion, not, as Willow on BtVS once put it, "[Get] a pentagram and a spice rack and call [oneself] Wiccan." ;)

Quote:
Quote:
Negative viewpoints are valid, provided you give a viewpoint rather than just negativity.

Why? I mean, I did have another reason -fun- but I want to know why I can't merely be negative.

They didn't say you "couldn't be negative". They said pure negativity isn't "valid", and "valid" here would obviously be "valid in the minds of others", since other than your own personal opinion of what is or isn't "valid", that's the only type of "validity" you can have.

So, they're (he's? She's?) right. I don't see very many people agreeing with you here, I mostly see people expressing an opinion that you're being annoying and/or mean for no real reason other than to be mean (which is not a "valid" reason to be mean, in their eyes).

I think in large part your view's potential "validity" in this thread isn't helped by the fact that most people were actually clicking on the link to expect an actual, reasonable, intellectual discussion of an aspect of the Firefly 'verse... not a guy acting like an asshole because he feels like it (and if that's not the only reason you're acting like this, do enligthen me, although it would have to be ONE reason, since I'm sure you "felt like it"; it would seem silly to assume that you're being held at gunpoint and forced to act like this on a random internet site). And, of course, it isn't helped, either, by the fact that you dismissed the OP's thread idea as essentially a load of New Age hooey... without, apparently, having read anything more than the title of the thread (or at least, that's how it read to me, and I'm sure it's how it read to at least some of the others).

Quote:
I "lashed"? Silly me, I thought I just poked a bit o' fun. Here it turns out I was causing welts and bruises! She should put that plant stuff on the wounds, it really helps the burning.

That was a pathetic attempt at satire, you do realize that, don't you? In order for that to work, "lashed out" would have to NOT be an extremely common idiom meaning exactly what it was being used to mean in that context. Jeez, at least have some pride in your asshole-ery, willya? At least it would be remotely funny to read, then.

Ahem.

Now, in response to the OP: Wow, you really should read that essay in "Finding Serenity". It actually references that kind of thing, albeit in a historical context, not a modern one, mostly referring to I believe ancient Greece and other civilizations at or before that time (though I believe it completely ignored the Aztec version, in which the temple preistesses were also holy prostitutes... and before you beat me to it, yes, that DOES sound like a deleted line from the old Batman TV series, heh).

Also interesting is the fact that Inara is portrayed as being primarily Buddhist...ish. E

KHYRON

Monday, May 8, 2006 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by incongresswiththebeast (posted 06 March):
Um, that's it. Excuse me while I run away and think very hard about what the heck I'm going to post next!

I don't think she ever posted anything after that.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

EMMAZULE

Monday, May 8, 2006 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat2006:
Wow... lots and LOTS of posts here to read.... I personally am semi-athiest... and I will explain this... I do not belive that one religion has all the right answers... and I am still looking for one that can cover how I feel about God... or Buddha, or whatever it is someone worships... I have no problems with anyones religons, unlike a LOT of biggits I know here in Prior Lake, Minnesota... most of the most biggoted people I know are christans, but w/e not meaning to insult christianity or anything... just seems that hardly any religion actually practices what they preach... I have noticed a lot of the parrallels that you are all discussing about Firefly and because I know a (very very) small amout about most religions (as I am trying to find my way in this crasy messed up 'verse of ours) I came to a lot of the same conclusions the rest of you did about Inara's wicca bits.... hmmm, Im not very eloquent tonight, can't seem to say what Im trying to say... and it's makeing me mad :( anyways, just throwing some of my own personal feelings in here and hopeing the general jyst of what I was trying to say got through.

That's not "semi-atheist". Atheist is anti-religion, period. The word you're searching for is "Agnostic".

As the saying goes, "Atheists don't believe in anything, and Agnostics don't know what to believe."

I'm pretty much an Agnostic myself. I had one freaky experience that led me to beleive that maybe there's something "out there", and I beleive in some forms of ESP (you know, like that thing that happens when you dream about something and then it actually happens in real life? Happens all the time to me, I even have some of them, every so often, where when it happens, I'm reminded of the dream and can recall how distorted the "picture" or audio were in the original dream. Also, to some extent, I'm willing to believe in "telepathy" between people who are very close to each other, having felt it between my mother and I. But most of that seems to be ending up thinking of the same exact word or phrase, so that could very well be me having been raised by her and having half her genes

)... but other than that, I'm a bit of a skeptic, especially on the afterlife stuff. After said freaky experience, I tried getting into Wicca, but then I just couldn't really believe the whole reincarnation or Summerland things, so I just went back to being an Agnostic, albeit a more Agnostic-y Agnostic than I was before. :P

~Emma

Shiny.

KHYRON

Monday, May 8, 2006 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaZule:
That's not "semi-atheist". Atheist is anti-religion, period. The word you're searching for is "Agnostic".

Yes, he was looking for "agnostic", but I want to point out that atheism isn't about being anti-religious. It's about not believing in God and not belonging to a religion, but that doesn't mean one is opposed to the concept of religion.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

EMMAZULE

Monday, May 8, 2006 8:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by EmmaZule:
That's not "semi-atheist". Atheist is anti-religion, period. The word you're searching for is "Agnostic".

Yes, he was looking for "agnostic", but I want to point out that atheism isn't about being anti-religious. It's about not believing in God and not belonging to a religion, but that doesn't mean one is opposed to the concept of religion.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

Oh, I apologize for the misconstru...eption. I meant exactly what you said, actually: the person themselves is the opposite of "religious", in their own views. Didn't mean to imply that atheists were against other people having one.

I know some very nice atheists that have no problem with it at all.

~Emma

Shiny.

PHOENIXROSE

Monday, May 8, 2006 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by incongresswiththebeast:
Inara is a person who considers sex sacred in a world that doesn't, something that a lot of Wiccans can sympathise with.

I certainly sympathize, yes. Wow, it's nice to know there are other Pagan Browncoats somewhere!
Has nyone read the essay in Finding Serenity that addresses this topic? I thought it was very well thought out and it's probably my favorite essay in there. It has a great deconstruction of Heart of Gold telling the story of the lost/sacrificed Goddess. It made me love the episode even more than before.
River is still my favorite character, but I do love the symbolism Inara embodies.

*************************************************
One summer.
One mission.
One legion of Browncoats.

Starting June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.

SAHARA

Monday, May 8, 2006 8:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:
BitterBierce,

As a former agnostic turned Wiccan, I just have to say that I enjoy hearing your vitriol nearly as much as you do yourself.
Cedric

Hee hee. Good one Cedric.

I guess I'm an insomniac, dyslexic agnostic. I stay up nights wondering if there's a Dog!

I'm also new to this board. Thanks for a very interesting introduction everyone!

Blackbird fly into the light of the dark, black night.

CEDRIC

Monday, May 8, 2006 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sahara:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cedric:
BitterBierce,

As a former agnostic turned Wiccan, I just have to say that I enjoy hearing your vitriol nearly as much as you do yourself.
Cedric

Hee hee. Good one Cedric.

I'm also new to this board. Thanks for a very interesting introduction everyone!

Glad you liked it, Sahara. While I certainly have a sense of humor about religion, I get tired of people who denigrate my faith as though it's some sort of joke--or perhaps it's a joke they don't get.

Welcome to the board, Sahara!

Cedric

"Some things stay with you, 'til the day you die."
On the Drift: Music Inspired by Firefly and Serenity, now on sale at
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bedlambards/from/celtic

BITTERBIERCE

Friday, May 12, 2006 7:34 AM

I lost the point of this thread a while back, but you seemed a little confused in your first sentence:

"...you do realize that Title IX is about gender, not religion? "

It was an allegory about unearned respect. I was likening it to other absurd aspects of politics, see?

"I can confirm that most kids getting into it don't know what the actual religion really entails - once they do, they tend to get bored and abandon it, so you really can't call them genuine 'Wiccans'."

Its of interest to me how often an ersatz class snobbery crops up in religious groups. You sound precisely like a Pentacostal friend I had once. If there's one commonality across all religions, it's the "I'm more authentic" posture, which is directly related to the "those guys aren't authentic, the REAL [Mormons/Scients/Wiccans] are deep and wholly unlike those other silly folks" meme.

"They didn't say you "couldn't be negative".etc. etc. etc. etc."

Yeah, here's where I kinda lost interest earlier, too. Just kinda lose the will to keep reading.

DEEPGIRL187

Friday, May 12, 2006 2:29 PM

All I have to say is wow. This thread has gone to the very edge of Troll Country without managing to fall into its depths. Hopefully it will be able to stay that way. *hint, hint to certain unnamed parties*

Keeping with the original post, I really like your perspective. While I'm not religious myself, I have studied about Wicca, and I think Wiccan beliefs about sex really apply to Inara's character. Inara does consider sex to be a sacred, healing act. In fact, I think she believes that healing and providing comfort is a Companion's primary duty, not just sexing clients. However, I also believe that Inara is conflicted in her views toward her job (her job, not sex) because of her relationship with Mal. She felt that she could retain emotional distance regarding everything in her life, but her time aboard Serenity has proven otherwise.

One of the great things about Firefly is how each character is really a metaphor for some aspect of life (check out Flame's thread on the BDH's as psychological symbols for more on this topic). Inara is a metaphor not only for lust, but for spirituality. While she is not overtly religious, faith means a great deal to her. All of these facets of Inara's character are the things that make her interesting to watch.

*whew* Sorry about the rant, but this thread gave me a lot to talk about.

At last.
We can retire and give up
this life of crime.

NIANI

Friday, May 12, 2006 3:14 PM

Not to participate in any argument, but isn't it just a common human courtesy not to trash people's beliefs, if they're not harming anyone?

References to Nazis being comparable to Wicca were made, and in their case I'm all against their beliefs on account of the massive amount of damage done to other people, but it's not very relevant to Wicca.

Wicca and Paganism are just different ways of thinking. Just because they haven't had mass amounts of scholars dissecting and debating them doesn't mean they're worth any less. And even if you think so, it's just polite not to turn your opinions into insults at whatever it is you don't agree with.

On the original topic: I wouldn't say that all Wiccans hold sex to be as important as it seems. Yes, it's considered to be a very sacred act and can create lots of energy, but as I understand it you can go without it within the religion.

Inara seems to be more a sensual creature than a sexual one anyways. Rather than being all lustful and aggressive with it, she's spiritual and passionate with it. The sex seems to be incidental to what she does, contradictory as that sounds. I got the impression that every part of what she does is important, like the tea ceremony being just as holy as the act itself.

Interesting discussion.

-----------------------------
Serenity became my haven-place far too quickly to be healthy