truthie

I assume that the site is biased regarding wicca and “neopagans.�?

One of the web pages says:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm

However, wikipedia.org’ s version seems more reasonable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism


I know that atheists are discriminated too, like in the Boy Scouts and also, atheists cannot hold public office in the government.
I do not see that in religioustolerance.org

Even so, Wicca is shown on the main page, under Descriptions of individual “religions.�? Why not secular humanism or other non-theistic philosophies?

T.

Evolutionist

As far as "liberal" versus "conservative" Christianity is concerned, it's as unbiased as I tihnk it possible to get. It presents information for both sides, summing them up as best it can, given the fact that it usually is only a summary.

Also, looking up atheist and atheism on there- I was mildly suprised to note that it dealt with atheism fairly and realistically- and muslim friends of mine say it does the same thing with Islam.

Overall, I think it's an excellent cite for non-experts such as myself.

Plus, Sarfati hates the place- which means it must be doing something right.

brighid

I have found religioustolerance.org to be on of the least biased, most informative sites on the web about religious matters. They do quite a good job at explaining Wicca and Neo-paganism, even if they don't say what you want it to say.

Wikipedia and RT.org say about the same things, and I see no bias on the part of any of these things.

As to discrimination, I certainly does happen and there have been a number of recent and well publicized cases of pagan groups and individuals suffering from harassment. Most Wiccans, et al that I know do not "advertise" because of this fear of discrimination and I think that is a reasonable response in a predominantly Christian country where non-Christian faiths are often demonized.

As to why secular humanism is not listed as an individual religion ... well it isn't a religion. This site does not claim to be comprehensive. Furthermore if you do a search on their site you will find multiple links for Humanism. http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm

Brighid

Gurdur

Yeeeeeeeesssssss; that was a really hard question from Truthie, wasn't it ?

Yahzi

I agree, and in fact, if anything, I would say the Wikipedia quote looked almost biased, insuinating as it does that pagans are all a bunch of lying whiners.

Warthur

You what?

I mean, I know about the Boy Scouts - religious organisation, after all - but the government?

You're joking, aren't you? *Surely* the First Amendment absolutely forbids that sort of thing?

I know some of the far-right Christian groups in the States want to stop anyone who is not a Jew or Christian working for the US government, but they haven't gotten into the White House yet. (People who adopt right-wing Christianity to get votes such as GWB do not count.)

Bede

The problem with rt.org is not so much bias as spectacular levels of ignorance.

They know nothing about history and report loads of stuff as fact when we know it is rubbish. Just from the quote in the OP, we know neo-paganism was invented in the 19th century and has no direct connections with ancient paganism whatsoever.

They have a page on science and religion that actually takes Andrew Dickson White seriously! I note, however, that they have finally figured out the flat earth myth. Progress is being made, albeit slowly.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Nasreddin

Not the First, the Fourteenth - the "equal protection" clause.

Eight states *do* have it written in their constitutions that atheists cannot hold public office - though, as far as I know, these provisions are not enforced (nor are they really enforceable, under the Fourteenth). That might be what Truthie was referring to.

Then again, there are also the polls that say over 50% of the voters would not vote for an atheist politician even if s/he was otherwise perfectly qualified for the job... :banghead:

case

I agree. Their page on Scientology is particularly interesting; by reading it you'd think that Scientology needs to be protected from its critics. It's almost as if they don't want to delve to deeply into the history or the lawsuits. One wonders if they don't want to be sued as well, and thus are covering their behinds.

Malachi151

neopagans are a bunch of lying whiners though

Neopaganism isn't discriminated against at all, hell its freaking popular and trendy!

Its also comepletely retarded and the stupidest thing I ever saw. I assume that people get into just for idle amusement, I certianly hope they don't actually believe this crap!