Conference turris::womannotes-v3

>  But serious commentary about Goddess-based religions is offensive?
       ^^^^^^^
    
    I think you've found the key word to answer your question already,
    Atlant.
    
    Ad

    I guess I haven't been reading the right notes. I don't recall
    reading any "jokes" about Jehovah's Witnesses. All I recall
    reading were descriptions of how people deal with JW's when the
    JW's come calling at the door. Those aren't jokes.
    
    --- jerry

Re: .1:

  I'm sure (the noter whose note keeps getting deleted) feels
  that their comment *IS* serious.  Is it your place to decide?


Re: .2:

  You're picking semantic nits.  The line of discussion certainly
  trod onto the boundaries of offensiveness just as surely as the
  "Goddess" note.  Now I'm no Witness so you're certainly entitled
  to take shots at my authority to venture an opinion, but why would
  you want to take the risk of having possibly offensive material
  posted here?

                                   Atlant

    I may be a lot of things, Atlant, but I'm not yet completely na�ve. I
    trust that answers your question.
    
    Ad
    
    PS some people take offense if they're being assumed to be completely
    na�ve.

    re:.3
    
    No, I'm not picking semantic nits. If the comments were about
    solicitors in general, would you deem it "offensive"? There's
    a *big* difference between:
    
    	"I don't like people-that-follow-Belief-X coming
    	to my door proselytizing and this is what I do
    	to send them away."
    
    and
    
    	"I think Belief-X promotes this evil practice."
    
    --- jerry

    
    I think jokes or slurs against any religion are wrong and in
    bad taste.  I felt the stuff about the Jehova's Witnesses solicitors was
    mainly about the annoyance at being intruded upon, and I kept
    a careful eye on that string to make sure that the faith itself
    was not being maligned.  It was a judgement call, and perhaps some of
    you feel that the judgement was a bad one.  In fuzzy cases, we
    generally wait for the community to tell us what to do.  No one
    complained about the reference to Jehova's Witnesses, and as I said,
    I felt that the comments were on this side of the "line."  Rather than
    delete or hide notes in that string, I worked to redirect the focus
    to solicitors in general (yes, sometimes comods work in subtle ways),
    and if you look back there, I think you'll find that it was effective.
    
    It is an important goal of this conference to value everyone's
    experience, but we all have our blind spots, and sometimes it's not
    until something clearly crosses the "line" that we decide to redraw it
    more conservatively.  Once a clear violation occurs, something that
    might have been acceptable before is likely to be judged in a new
    light.  Some might call that inconsistency; I call it growth and
    learning.  For example, I intend to be much more vigilant whenever a
    religion is the subject of discussion.  
    
    Please, People, if someone writes something here that makes you 
    uncomfortable, speak up about it in the file, and/or write to the
    comods about it -- that's how we learn.  And, of course, the less
    accusatory your response, and the more you talk about your own feelings
    and your own experience, the greater the learning possibilities will be
    for the author of the words you found offensive and for us all.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Justine -- Womannotes Comoderator
                                     

    
    Withh the Jehovah's Witness situation - I feel very much about them the
    way I feel about my sister and her religion (she was "born again" about
    9 years ago and is still trying to convert the family).  I treat both
    situations the same way, I listen and learn, and yet I do not wish to
    convert.  My sister is far more persistant than any JW ever was - but
    does that mean I disapprove of her religion or slander it?  No.  It is
    merely difficult to say "no thank you" in a gracious way numerous
    times.  I'm still trying to be gracious.  I understand why the JW's do
    it - why the Mormons do it - why my sister does it.  The difficulty
    lies in the fact that their persistence sometimes shows either that
    they are not LISTENING to your response of no thank you, or that they
    wantt to "save you in spite of yourself" - which treads on my
    personal freedoms of choice, and my right to choose who I am and what I
    wish to be - particularly regarding religion.
    
    -Jody
    

    	RE: .6  Justine

    	Thanks - the mods weren't the only one watching the topic that
    	discussed Jehova's Witnesses - I felt a bit funny about seeing
    	people talking about how they avoid them (and I refrained from
    	telling my own JH story as a result.)

    	But, it really seemed to me that people were talking about the
    	approach (door-to-door) and said nothing derogatory about the
    	Jehova's Witnesses' God.  As annoying as door-to-door sales
    	and religious approaches can be, no one said or implied that
    	such activities are evil.

    	As someone who once tried "direct sales" as a living (for about
    	30 minutes, I think) - the people who train door-to-door sales
    	folk tell them up front that they must learn to be thick-skinned
    	about rejection.  It's a fact of life in the door-to-door game.

    	People who can't handle rejection don't belong in this particular
    	sales or religious approach.

    	This says nothing about the worth of the people as human beings,
    	though, nor is it a slam on anyone's God.

    I think that part of the JW belief is a requirement to prostletize
    (I *know* I spelled that wrong!).  If this is the case then it is hard
    to distinguish criticism of door-to-door, from criticism of the belief
    that requires it.  My discomfort with the issue is why there are two
    replies from me in that string; one is a 'how I got rid of them' story
    and the other is a 'but I respect their right to believe' reply.
    
    I agree that the get-rid-of-solicitors string required a judgement
    call, and that the call was made correctly.  No one in any reply
    made any statement like 'those horrible people and their beliefs
    are going to wreck the world/civilization/western democracy (take your
    pick)!'.
    
    But let's not sidestep the issue at hand.  Even if one case is in a grey
    area, shall we then ignore clear and deliberate slurs?  

    
    	It's news to me that resistance to door-to-door sales or religious
    	approaches is PC.
    
    	It always seemed to me that people IN GENERAL disliked this sort
    	of intrusion.
    

    In my reply on the JW issue, I was trying to show a hmorous way in
    which I disposed of them. I was not knocking their personal beliefs or
    them personally. I sure they got the point of how I felt about them and
    their religion. I took pains not insult them in here. I may have been
    remiss about doing it to their faces, but that is between me and them
    and has no place in this file. I think that everyone has a JW story,
    the same as they have a story about that other religious affiliation
    that frequents airports. Again no offense is meant against them or
    their beliefs which are obviously quite strong and sincere. I apologise
    to anyone who took offense by my reply and reiterate that it was not
    meant to be derogatory in any manner. I try to choose my words
    carefully when NOTING and weigh each one before I enter the NOTE.
    If anyone wants my personal oppinion on the subject they can call me in
    the evening at home, at (603) 882-3266. I am there most evenings after
    6. No, I'm not afraid to give out my phone number here.
    
    Phil

    EDP,  I am going to try and phrase this more gently this time.  
    
    1.  No one was critizing JW's or anyone else for their spiritual
    beliefs.  People were expressing annoyance at being solicited door to
    door, regardless of what the soliciters were selling.
    
    2.  The way that you "criticized" the Goddess religion, came out as a
    direct and intentional slam against a spiritual belief and it was
    extremely offensive to those who are following the path of the Goddess. 
    It would be offensive to most people if their religious belief, no
    matter what it is, were it referred to in the way that you referred to
    goddess worship.
    
    3.  Yes I was one of the people who complained bitterly about that
    topic, and also had a note deleted.  Probably best, as my reply was at
    best a direct defensive reaction to what I considered an extremely
    egregious attack on a set of beliefs that I hold near and dear, at
    worst could have been considered a trash note directed at you.  My
    apologies to the moderators for that outburst.
    
    4.  I will still suggest that you do some research on exactly what some
    of the Goddess religions are before you make statements, that must be
    from ignorance, or before you attack any other religion.
    
    Meg  

    I've made some comments in this string. I have nothing against JW's and
    their beliefs, but I am under no obligation or compulsion to talk to
    anybody who rings my door bell (or calls me up). 
    
    Nobody has made any derogatory statements about JWs -- this Note  has
    been low calorie comments on hints on getting rid of unwanted visitors.
    
    Bruce

    re .9, paraphrase:
    
    'the mods were asked how to phrase the criticism better, and did not
    respond.'
    
    I have faith that edp can think of other phrasings himself.  I found
    both the tone and phrasing of his criticism as presented to be
    offensive.  But unless he thinks he knows for sure that his criticism
    is factual, he could have asked for details of the belief, for example:
    
    "I'm having trouble understanding the Goddess religion.  I perceive it
    to be anti-male, and a religion that promotes hatred.  I cannot support
    the rise of such a religion."  Then those who know and/or practice the
    religion could describe it.  Such a discussion need not be hateful, but
    certainly will be if it begins with name-calling and negative
    assertions, a sure way to rule out learning and growth.
    
    disclaimer: I know next-to-nothing about that religion

    Re. .3 let there be no misunderstanding, your reply shows your reading
    of .1 is 100% correct.
    
    Ad

    
    
    I'm uncomfortable discussing a situation that is currently under
    negotiation, so there will be no "official" responses to any
    charges made here.  I tried to give a general description of how
    I make decisions as a moderator, and I think it probably holds for the
    other moderators, as well.  But I think that is really as far as we
    can go with this issue.
    
    
    Justine
    

	Just a comment from me on the "situation."  (Take if for what
	it's worth).  In the given situation, if a complaint was registered
	to me on the same subject in any conference I moderate, the
	following would be my response....(if you don't care what I
	think, then don't read this!)


	Negative opinions about a given religion are okay.

	Direct negative characterizations of a given religion are not
	okay.


	As offensive as someone's opinion might be, it's my opinion
	that the person has the right to express it...  Suppressing
	an opinion is censorship.  (ie, there's a woman in another
	conference who's opinion it is that women deserve to be raped.
	I find that offensive as do others.....her notes stand because
	they are "opinion.")

	Having seen the infamous note in question, yes....I would delete
	it because it states that a religion is X.  When, in fact, the
	author of the note only perceives that religion to be X.

	When an opinion is stated as such, it doesn't generalize and
	condemn a set of people...but rather expresses a concern and
	a perception.

	It's very hard to put into writing the distinction between the
	two, but it's very easy to tell which is which when it's read.

	Sorry, I can't support the note entered as such, but a simple
	rephrasing into the form of a personal opinion I would support.


	FWIW.......my perceptions.	


	kathy
	

    
    	RE: .19  Kath
    
    	> Negative opinions about a given religion are okay.

	> Direct negative characterizations of a given religion are not
	> okay.
    
    	Agreed!!!
    

    I think all religion is bonkers, and religion has, in the long term,
    done more harm than good.
    
    Nevertheless, you are entitled to your beliefs and practices, however
    bizarre or wierd they may seem to me, and you have my greatest respect
    for your religion. 
    
    Re: edp. I think you are 100% wrong -- not for your beliefs, but for your
    total lack of consideration for other people's beliefs.
    
    Re: The boundaries of religious freedom. It stops when you come
    knocking on my door and you want me to listen to your beliefs.
    
    Bruce

    
    if i were a jehovah's witness i might very well have taken offense
    at the 'how to get rid of...' topic and would have said so. if a
    jehovah's witness had expressed any offense, i would have accepted
    and supported their concerns.
    

    
    Nevertheless, when the beliefs inherent in a particular religion tend
    to denigrate a particular group of people, I have a problem with that
    religion. As far as I know, Goddess reverence doesn't fall into that
    category. Some other religions, however, do.
    
    D.
    

    I don't have a problem with the Goddess religion whatsoever.  I think
    it has some valuable things to say; for that matter, I feel the same
    way about Buddhism, Native American Spirituality, Judaism, and
    Christianity.  I also think many people would dispute the claim that
    given religions "inherently" denigrate particular groups of people.

    I fully support the right of others to express their interest in the
    Goddess religion in this notes conference.  However, when those same
    individuals combine such comments with negative remarks about other
    religions, with the implication being that their own religion (of the
    Goddess) is superior to that of others, I find that extremely
    offensive.  Unfortunately, that sort of religious intolerance *has*
    gone on in this notes conference.
    
    -- Mike

    
    .25, religions denigrating particular groups of people...take a look at
    # 270.3 ...
    
    D.

    I don't think anyone disputes that many religions have historically
    denigrated particular groups of people.  The question is whether or not
    that is "inherent" to the religious faith.  More importantly, do you
    have any business telling anyone that your religion is superior to
    theirs?  Do you have any business tearing down someone else's religious
    faith?
    
    -- Mike

    
    I wish that people would hold their religious beliefs privately,
    with reverence, and that such preciously held beliefs would have
    no place in conversation.
    
    it seems to cause such grief.
    
    Carla
    

    	RE: .27  Mike V.

    	Most (not all, but most) religions teach that theirs is the
    	"true way" (superior to other religions.)  As someone born
    	and raised Roman Catholic, I was taught that RC was the "one
    	true religion founded by Jesus" all during my childhood.
    	It was an integral part of the doctrine (no matter how it made
    	other people feel to hear it.)

    	It is legitimate to criticize a religion for the way it treats
    	certain members or groups of our species.  Such criticisms are
    	valid if they can be supported by the doctrine and religious
    	practices themselves.  For example, it would be valid to offer
    	harsh criticisms of religions that advocate human or animal
    	sacrifice.  It's also valid to criticize religions that force
    	women or men into subservient roles.

    	The problem is that no one has offered evidence to support the
    	contention that Goddess worship (ITSELF) involves treating a
    	group of people badly.  Someone has made sweeping accusations
    	about it, but on what does he base this information?  Has he
    	studied Goddess Worship?  Per my conversation with him, he
    	hasn't.  He bases his opinion of the Goddess religion on other
    	factors (eg, the words of a good number of people who don't even
    	BELONG to this particular religion.)

    	Such characterizations are neither fair nor logical.

    I agree with you, Suzanne, that many religions teach that they are the
    True way.  Although I should point out that Roman Catholicism now
    no longer believes that non-Catholics are doomed to hell, particularly
    after Vatican II.

    My point is that while it is valid to criticize negative activities
    done in the name of a religion, that does not necessarily imply that
    the religion is bad.  Many adherents of a religion will criticize
    historical actions taken in the name of their own faith, after all. 
    However, I am deeply offended by anyone claiming that someone else's
    religion is inherently inferior to one's own.

    -- Mike

    
    	RE: .30  Mike V.
    
    	> However, I am deeply offended by anyone claiming that someone else's
    	> religion is inherently inferior to one's own.
    
    	Isn't this the message, though, when someone knocks on your door
    	to convert you to theirs?  If they thought your religion was as
    	good, they wouldn't be there, would they?
    

    That's why I resent being proselytized.

    
    	RE: .32  Mike V.
    
    	> That's why I resent being proselytized.
    
    	It's a legitimate complaint, yet it could be interpreted as the
    	assertion that your non-proselytizing religion is superior (on
    	this basis.)
    
    	Should proselytizers be grossly offended by your opinions on
    	their religious practices?
    
    	See where the difficulties come in?
    

    Suzanne, I have had this discussion before in the Religion conference. 
    Am I being intolerant if I am intolerant of intolerance?  Or, put
    another way, you have the right to swing your religious fist as long as
    it doesn't hit my religious nose.
    
    -- Mike

    If any religion came to my door proselytizing, I would use humorous or
    biting wit to dispose of them. It's just that no one save the JW's ever
    bother. I'm leaning further and further towards Goddess reverance
    myself. Thanks to my reading list recommended by WOMANNOTER's. I don't
    think I want them pounding my door though. I realize that it's not
    humourous to the recipient and I don't want to make them feel bad.
    I did get a little sick of the JW's because thay gathered at a house on
    my street and always knocked on my door at least once a week. 
    
    On other topics, in my readings I have never found Goddess reverance (I
    like that term) to be hateful, evil, murderous or anything other then
    espousing love for all and any. I can see where it might be perverted
    into something else, being lumped in, wrongfully IMHO, with Satanism,
    Vaudouin, Wicca, and black magic. Most of which have also gotten bad
    raps. (Note, I said most of) I just hope that individual, who also
    contacted me by MAIL, can resolve his problems with the people in this
    file and see what is really being said in here.
    
    Phil
    

	RE: .28 (Carla)

    
>    I wish that people would hold their religious beliefs privately,
>    with reverence, and that such preciously held beliefs would have
>    no place in conversation.


    But then how could anyone grow?   I'm where I am now religiously
    because of the insight into other religious beliefs that I have
    receive over the years from others.


    I feel it's not the sharing of religious beliefs that causes the
    grief, but rather the dictating of religious beliefs that cause the
    grief.



	kath

        

    Very well put, Kath.  Thanks. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    good points, Kathy.
    
    C.
    

    
    .27 -
    
    If you mean me, I don't have any religion myself. I'm somewhere between
    an atheist and an agnostic. However, I'm extremely interested in
    goddess reverence (I've read that this is the preferred term to goddess
    religion, though I've heard both), for a number of reasons, the main
    one being that it gives women some part in the divine, which they have
    been deprived of for the past 2000 + years in the dominant religions in 
    our society. I think this is very important because it informs all of 
    society's other institutions; if women are left out of the divine, they 
    tend to end up being left out of everything else. 
    
    I don't mean to tear down anyone's religious faith. But when I see
    attitudes like those expressed in 270.3, I, as a woman, get offended, to 
    put it mildly.

    To answer your question, if I see religion A denigrating women and
    religion B not denigrating women or any other group of people, then I
    think I have every "business" to consider religion B superior. On the
    other hand, you don't have to if your values are different.
    
    Maybe I've been reading one too many books lately about the Inquisition 
    and what it did to 9 million or so women in those times...

    D.
                                                        

    >I can see where [Goddess reverence] might be perverted into something 
    >else, being lumped in, wrongfully IMHO, with [...] Wicca [...]
    
    Uh, isn't Wicca indeed one form of Goddess worship?
    
    D!

    
    Mike -
    
    Well okay, shall we agree to being mutually offended, and let it go at
    that? We can also agree to ignore history. I'm not that agreeable to
    having words put in my mouth, but what the heck, let it be...
    
    D._who_can't_help_but_wonder_how_offended_the_witches_were_by_the_flames
    

      I don't know if this will help, or make things worse, but I'll
      give it a try . . .
      
      Dorian, no one's denying that Christians burned women they
      called witches, or did and continue to do a lot of cruel things
      in the name of religion. 
      
      But it's not a requirement of Christian faith that one favor
      burning anyone, or that one not favor equal rights.  (There are,
      for instance, many Christians who are absolute pacifists.)
      
      Saying that cruelty and intolerance are ingrained in the
      tradition of the church, or that many people have committed some
      incredibly cruel acts in the name of their god or their goddess
      (check out Thuggee), is not the same thing as saying or implying
      that it's inherent in that religion.  Something inherent can't
      be separated or changed.  
      
      --bonnie

    Moderators are not infallible, and anyone who expects us to be is
    setting her- or himself up for disappointment. 

    We are constantly steering between Scylla and Charybdis, trying neither
    to shoot from the hip nor demand beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof before
    we take action.   Sometimes we think we've got it right and it later
    turns out we were wrong; as Justine pointed out, we watch the outcomes
    of our actions (or inactions), think about them, and -hopefully- do it
    better next time.

    If you think we should be doing A and you see us doing B, feel free to
    say something to us.  We may keep on doing B, but at least you can then
    be certain that the mistake is one of stupidity rather than ignorance.

    
    if a religion, any religion, promotes something immoral, does that
    make the religion itself immoral?
    

    
    how are the 'basic tenets' of a religion determined?
    

    
    .49
    
    It's pretty hard for me to see where else the immorality could be
    coming from.
    
    The term "religious tolerance" has been tossed about rather freely in
    this discussion. I'd just like to point out that it's asking a lot to
    be tolerant of religions that history has shown to be the epitome of
    *in*tolerance. (Especially when you're in a group they've not been
    tolerant of...) 
    
    Maybe we should consider introducing the term "religious
    accountability"?
    
    D.
    

    I knew I couldn't stay out of this notes conference for more than a few
    hours.

    I suspect that bashing the religious faiths of other people, and in
    particular claiming that a religion is inherently bad, is a violation
    of P & P.  If anyone sees nothing wrong with religious intolerance,
    that is their right, but I am inclined to consider it inappropriate to
    exhibit such prejudice in this notes conference.

    I have stated it before, and I will state it again.  No one denies the
    historical reality of bad things having been done in the name of
    various religions.  However, to suggest that a religion is "inherently"
    bad, particularly when there are many counterexamples that show that
    this is plainly not true, is insulting to the many believers of various
    faiths in this notes file.  I therefore politely request that the
    participants of Womannotes show consideration for the religious
    diversity that exists here, and refrain from assertions that certain
    religions are "inherently" bad.

    Thank you,

    -- Mike

    Thank you Mike,
    
    You speak for my thoughts also.
    
    as a noter.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Mine too. I find intolerance very upsetting.
    
    D.

    
    well, i went back and re-read this entire string. nowhere does
    anyone state that any particular religion (and at least a dozen
    are mentioned, from jehovah's witness to voodoo) is 'inherently'
    bad. i have raised the purely theoretical questions of 'religious
    accountability' (to use dorian's excellent coinage) and the
    definition of 'basic tenets' (both as in 'what are they? ' and
    as in 'who says?'). both of these questions approach the question 
    'what is 'inherent' in a religion?' 
    
    sure, i have my own thoughts on what the answers to these questions 
    are and what that might say about various religions. i may even think
    that a particular religion is inherently bad. but neither i nor anyone
    else has said that. as far as i'm concerned (and i admit this may
    be a rathole) this is a theoretical discussion of what, exactly, is 
    meant by the terms 'religion', 'inherent' and 'bad'.
    

Referencing 454.53 (Mike):

   What has gone on in this Topic is a prime example of the principle
that states that people consider all religions bad -- as long as those 
religions are not THEIR religion.

   It never ceases to amaze me that so many of the same people who have
been offended so much by perceived putdowns of the "Goddess" religion
(which, by the way, is a real misnomer), yet at the same time are 
willing to do more than suggest that "traditional" (usually called
"patriarchal" have something wrong or unnatural about them.

   I suggest that if such individuals want their beliefs tolerated,
then a good first step would be for them to tolerate other beliefs. Otherwise,
they lose a great deal of credibility when they talk of their own religion
(or ANY religions they defend) as being one of love.
   

   Incidently: welcome back, Mike.

   Please don't scare me like that again!

                                                      -Robert Brown III  

    -d

	I have to differ with you on this issue.

>   The basic tenets of Christianity, as agreed by
>    all Cristian sects, are defined by the Apostles' Creed:  
    
	Not all Christians follow the Apostles' Creed, in fact
	if they did there would probably be only one or two
	different 'sects' the Eastern, Roman and Protestant sects.

	This is a little myopic of you, which I am a little 
	supprise by and I don't really know why I am.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			Christians follow the teachings of Christ
			they do not necessarily deify Christ

    
    i am under the impression that there are many christian sects
    (both society of friends and congregationalists, leap to mind)
    that do not subscribe to the apostle's creed. furthermore,
    various christian sects use different wordings, 'virgin' instead
    of 'young woman' for example.
    
    i also am under the impression that current biblical scholarship
    suggests that not a single word of the 4 gospels can be proven
    to have been uttered by jesus and that the earliest gospel was
    written at least 50 years after jesus's death. 
    
    then, leaving aside the question of 'nearly contemporaneous',
    there is that large body of work by paul upon which much
    traditional doctrine/dogma (not sure which) is built and who
    definitely did not know jesus.
    
    my point is not really to pick an argument on biblical scholarship.
    rather to suggest that, while most people would agree with such a
    definition of the 'basic tenets' of a religion, it is still pretty
    vague. what is the difference between 'religious faith' and a 
    '[mere] set of ideas, concepts, or opinions'?
    

    This discussion of how to define Christianity is rather interesting in
    light of the recent issues surrounding the Christian notes conferences.
    The original "Christian" notes conference defined itself in narrowly
    fundamentalist terms, to the exclusion of large numbers of people who
    did not fit into that pigeon hole; as a result, a new, alternative
    conference was started, Christian-Perspective, which intentionally
    avoided using any restrictive definition.  In fact, the
    Christian-Perspective conference borrows from the American Heritage
    definition of Christianity:

    	A Christian religion, founded on the teachings of Jesus.

    -- Mike

    
    i don't know. to a person of my tender years 50-100 years does
    not strike me as contemporaneous. the world was a completely
    different place in 1940 and, no doubt, will be all but unrecognizable
    in 2040.;^)
    
    anyway, all i'm trying to say is that it is very, very difficult
    to determine what are the 'basic tenets' of a religion. even a
    well-phrased and well thought out description such as yours
    would not be accepted by many people who call themselves christians.
    
    for myself, since there is that difficulty, i tend to use the maxim
    'actions speak louder than words'.
    
    
    

    -d, I was not calling you narrow; I was referring to the definition of
    "Chrstianity" that is used by the Christian notes conference, which
    *is* very narrow, and which even excludes large numbers of Christians
    who *do* accept the Apostles Creed.
    
    -- Mike

	There are Christian Pagans as well as Pagan Christians, there
	are all flavors of Christians - that one does not necessarily
	identify as Christian with out looking/inquring without extra
	baggage.

	I still belong to a Christian Sect - an organized religion even,
	but I almost never refer to my self as a Christian - though I am
	still a little.

	_peggy

			(-)
			 |
				Recovering Catholic

    Peggy, I haven't heard the UU church referred to as a Christian Sect
    very often.  I understand that only 10% of the UU membership considers
    itself Christian.
    
    -- Mike