Texan sect girls 'in abuse cycle'

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm sure you can think of a few exceptions to that rule, eg. the dignified garments of the sacrificial priests in old Mexico.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you are trying to think of a counterexample to my claim,
then you'll have to elaborate. That is, if you are trying to say that human sacrifice doesn't get a
person closer to God, then I personally agree with you. But if people willingly volunteer to
sacrifice themselves for the good of the community or to appease what they believe are angry
gods or whatever reason, I can respect that. People do that all the time in combat. Jesus is
said to have sacrificed Himself for the good of the world and the sinful people in it.

But I might have missed your point, so if you want to elaborate, I'm game.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you are trying to think of a counterexample to my claim,
then you'll have to elaborate.

You seem to be saying that all religious behaviour, let alone apparel, is necessarily beautiful because it is religious. Well, I'm sure the Aztec priests looked just fine (although they were said never to wash, hair matted with blood) but their victims were captured in war (a reason they were hated by neighbours who sided with the Spanish). But I thought of a better example: suttee. How beautiful is that!

Rather than strain a nerve trying to see the beauty in something I respond to as being flatly hideous, I'd rather call it like I see it at the same time as making an effort to understand the principle behind it. Beyond ugliness and beauty lies the sublime.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You seem to be saying that all religious behaviour, let alone apparel, is necessarily beautiful because it is religious. Well, I'm sure the Aztec priests looked just fine (although they were said never to wash, hair matted with blood) but their victims were captured in war (a reason they were hated by neighbours who sided with the Spanish).

Well, now you're talking about the imposition of a religious principal upon another person; that is,
sacrificing an unwilling victim. I think I've been pretty clear in my opposition to that.

I'm sure I wouldn't find the Aztec priests beautiful, but I'm not Aztec. And it's not
so much that I find them beautiful, but whether through their appearance -- ugly or beautiful --
I can be inspired to sense the presence of the Divine. That is, perhaps the intent of the Aztec's
appearance was to inspire awe, or humility, or emphasize mortality (I don't know, I'm not really
knowledgeable about theology). I have no objections to that.

But I thought of a better example: suttee. How beautiful is that!

(I didn't know it by that spelling.) Again, a voluntary sacrifice in the name of love, I can see
the Divine Spark in that. I mean, c'mon, how many examples of this can you find in Western literature?
Like a million? Now, I wouldn't want it for myself or for my wife, or a future bride of my
son, but I would also not prevent someone from committing it who felt so devoted to her
husband that she felt life on earth would be barren of meaning without him. (I'd disagree, of
course, and would offer my perspective in an effort to convince her otherwise, but I'd respect
it if she would not hear my objections.)

Now, according to wikipedia:
Sati was supposed to be voluntary, but it is agreed that in many cases it may not have been
voluntary in practice. Setting aside the issue of social pressures, many accounts exist of women
being physically forced to their deaths.

As above, I am utterly opposed to forcing a person to kill themselves. There is nothing beautiful
or Divine in the stripping a person of their rights.

Rather than strain a nerve trying to see the beauty in something I respond to as being flatly hideous, I'd rather call it like I see it at the same time as making an effort to understand the principle behind it. Beyond ugliness and beauty lies the sublime.

I don't see how voluntary sacrifice of even one's life to a cause or notion fervently believed in
is hideous. I do see how the involuntary sacrifice is.

And, I find 'calling it as my gut immediately reacts to it' generally interferes with my ability to
see the sublime behind what I view as ugly or beautiful.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio

I'm sure I wouldn't find the Aztec priests beautiful, but I'm not Aztec. And it's not
so much that I find them beautiful, but whether through their appearance -- ugly or beautiful --
I can be inspired to sense the presence of the Divine. //

And, I find 'calling it as my gut immediately reacts to it' generally interferes with my ability to
see the sublime behind what I view as ugly or beautiful.

Nemesio

They were supposed to scare the crap out of people and succeeded admirably by all accounts. The fact that the Aztec empire was a militant theocracy might have had something to do with that.

Calling it like I see it is not the same as going by my gut reaction, as I'm sure you understand. I might just have done a little thinking before making that call.

Your talk about 'willing sacrifices' is more than a little chilling! Scythian kings were buried with an entire entourage of willing sacrifices -- it was their cultural duty, just like Indian wives (you see an obligation to commit suicide after husband's death the same as 'dying for love' in literature? Great! I'm sure you see the beauty in suicide bombing too); yet that mass interment (some on horseback with stakes up their backsides), or that fatalistic resignation to the flames, must surely horrify you. Similarly, the image of Christ suffering on the Cross is redolent, to me, with horror. Of course the 'Divine presence' is notoriously ambiguous.


What do you consider the function of the grotesque in religious expression?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What do you consider the function of the grotesque in religious expression?

This question deserves a thread of its own...

Are Scottish kilts funny? Are we wrong to laugh at them or only if they are used for religious expression?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are Scottish kilts funny? Are we wrong to laugh at them or only if they are used for religious expression?

Do you find them funny? From an aesthetic and functional viewpoint, they look just fine to me.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Do you find them funny? From an aesthetic and functional viewpoint, they look just fine to me.

Not particularly, but only because I grew up knowing about them. Otherwise I would find me wearing skirts hilarious.
I don't see anything particularly funny about the underclothes that were under discussion earlier and suspect that the main reason you find them funny is that they are a fashion that you are not used to.

Now what about a man in a pony tail?

I see nothing wrong with finding something funny at first sight especially when it is different from what you are used to. But that should not lead you to ridicule the wearer or fail to realize that the wearer may find your garments just as hilarious. It is also disrespectful to poke fun at someone based on their fashions or garments.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I don't see anything particularly funny about the underclothes that were under discussion earlier and suspect that the main reason you find them funny is that they are a fashion that you are not used to.

Your kilt example fails. I'm quite familiar with the (Western) fashion of bubble skirts but I find them ridiculous. Much the same as I laughed at big 80s hair. Or mullets. But I laughed at the hair, without ridiculing the person for having it. Of course I've already said that a few times, but you insist on ascribing reasons for my position which are consistent with your own ideas, not mine.

A man in a pony-tail? It really depends on the face and the hair. It's not quite as clear-cut as mullets; I've never seen one of those that looked good.

I don't mind at all if someone finds my garments hilarious; it's irrelevant to the point under consideration.

Your and my subjective views of whether a given piece of clothing looks silly are immaterial to this discussion, which seems to be whether or not I have the right at all to laugh at something I consider ridiculous. The underwear looks like what it is: a baggy hangover from Victorian times, which produced many silly garments, like hoop skirts and bustles. Although the flea-traps that went with them were quite useful.

To make it quite clear: my laughing at the holy underwear doesn't mean that I hold Mormons in contempt. If you want to establish an objective criterion for the ridiculous -- be my guest.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Of course I've already said that a few times, but you insist on ascribing reasons for my position which are consistent with your own ideas, not mine.

I suspect you are confusing me with Nemesio. I don't think I have stated a position on the issue. I do think the original poster was attempting to ridicule the Mormons and I do think you have a right to laugh at clothing that you find funny or dislike for whatever reason.

However your comment:
The underwear looks like what it is: a baggy hangover from Victorian times, which produced many silly garments, like hoop skirts and bustles.
Seems to imply that you maintain that their garments are inherently silly - that I disagree with. I see nothing wrong with people maintaining a Victorian style and nothing wrong with hoop skirts and bustles. In fact I might prefer them to the current fashion of showing the triangle of a thong well above the jeans line.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suspect you are confusing me with Nemesio. I don't think I have stated a position on the issue. I do think the original poster was attempting to ridicule the Mormons and I do think you have a right to laugh at clothing that you find funny or dislike for whatever reason.

I concede your first point -- my response was rushed.

I see nothing wrong with people wearing Victorian clothes, not that I've seen any who do, but I find particularly women's clothing of that time highly impractical (function) and absurd (form). That is of course just my opinion. I also think the thong fashion you mention is ridiculous. It serves no practical function and is visually grotesque. Almost as though youth were mocking itself. Luckily it's not universally fashionable ... But where is this all going?

Originally posted by Big Mac
They're not good.
They're not all old.
They're not all originally from Texas. (In fact, according to FOXnews.com, the girls were told by their "spiritual husbands" that the world outside the compound was the, well, outside world, therefore I'd hardly think that they think of themselves as Texans, which anybody who knows anybody from Texas, that is almost m ...[text shortened]... uess, I don't agree with anything you posted here. Oh well. No offense. Cheers.

Funny old christians...