That’s not what contested means. The definition of “theory” is not contested because it means different things in different uses. You’re still probably right about “religion” here because even in what should be the same use we’re arguing particulars, but that some definitions apply and some don’t isn’t scoring you the point.
Second, I can’t know because they haven’t followed up, but I’m pretty sure I’m using the word the same way Phoenixz was and Zarkanian is who swapped in their definition to fit their interpretation of Satanism. I am confident that, in any case, Phoenixz did not mean “every possible definition of religion, up to and including metaphor and hyperbole.”
Fighting for the legal protections that exist for religions does imply mean sincere religious belief, it can easily be pragmatism. (Further, Adler was doing this 150 years ago with the vocabulary that was available. And he knew he was so limited. “The word ‘spiritual’ becomes a synonym of muddy thought and misty emotionalism. If there were another word in the language to take its place, it would be well to use it. But there is not.”) I could well be wrong in this case. But I don’t think I’m wrong about UU, at least in general terms. The embracing of (almost) all beliefs and philosophies means that various forms of spirituality are a common thread that weaves through much of their identity. Or less charitably, accepting nonsense is supporting nonsense.
You may not like religions
You can get rid of that “may.” I’m openly and unapologetically hostile to all forms of magical thinking, religion-excused ignorance and abuse, and the protected status as “cultural default” theistic thought and structure has enjoyed forever (and especially the Abrahamic faiths in the modern world). It’s fucking weird and I’m tired of pretending it isn’t.
That’s not what contested means. The definition of “theory” is not contested because it means different things in different uses. You’re still probably right about “religion” here because even in what should be the same use we’re arguing particulars, but that some definitions apply and some don’t isn’t scoring you the point.
Second, I can’t know because they haven’t followed up, but I’m pretty sure I’m using the word the same way Phoenixz was and Zarkanian is who swapped in their definition to fit their interpretation of Satanism. I am confident that, in any case, Phoenixz did not mean “every possible definition of religion, up to and including metaphor and hyperbole.”
Fighting for the legal protections that exist for religions does imply mean sincere religious belief, it can easily be pragmatism. (Further, Adler was doing this 150 years ago with the vocabulary that was available. And he knew he was so limited. “The word ‘spiritual’ becomes a synonym of muddy thought and misty emotionalism. If there were another word in the language to take its place, it would be well to use it. But there is not.”) I could well be wrong in this case. But I don’t think I’m wrong about UU, at least in general terms. The embracing of (almost) all beliefs and philosophies means that various forms of spirituality are a common thread that weaves through much of their identity. Or less charitably, accepting nonsense is supporting nonsense.
You can get rid of that “may.” I’m openly and unapologetically hostile to all forms of magical thinking, religion-excused ignorance and abuse, and the protected status as “cultural default” theistic thought and structure has enjoyed forever (and especially the Abrahamic faiths in the modern world). It’s fucking weird and I’m tired of pretending it isn’t.