[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

Well, if you wish to taboo my choice of descriptive language, then consider what American philosopher/logician/scientist Charles Sanders Peirce had to say on the subject in his classic essay "How to Make Our Ideas clear" (Popular Science, 1898):

"Consider such a doctrine as transubstantiation. The Protestant churches generally hold that the elements of the sacrament are flesh and blood only in a tropical sense; they nourish our souls as meat and the juice of it would our bodies. But the Catholics maintain that they are literally meat and blood; although they possess all the sensible qualities of wafer-cakes and diluted wine. ... Such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe to be wine according to the qualities that we believe wine to possess. ... and we can consequently mean nothing by wine but what has certain effects, direct or indirect, upon our senses; and to talk of something as having all the sensible characters of wine yet being in reality blood, is senseless jargon."

As you can see, the sectarian Protestant animists do not even agree with the sectarian Catholic animists about what constitutes flesh and blood and what constitutes crackers and grape juice. So, why should non-animists care what confusion reigns among certain -- if not all -- sectarian animist orthodoxies?

I will add to Inziladun that, as a Catholic, I also find your word choice provocative. It's not the discussion of taboo topics, nor even the word-choice surrounding them, but the tone that does it. Of course, this is the internet, and tone is notoriously hard to read here, but I would say that if doesn't wish to accidentally put forth a tone that will be taken poorly, it helps to use another group's self-chosen terminology, as opposed to a deliberately alternative terminology.

That being said, though, while I am irked enough to post, I do find the discovery of someone who takes Catholics beliefs to their full shocking conclusions to be rather refreshing. It's nice to have the gravity of the situation recognised. After all, to quote St. Paul, if we're wrong about all of this, then "we are of all people most to be pitied." (1 Cor 15:19b). Of course, pitying us doesn't call for ridiculing us--at least not to our faces.

Thus, before actually returning to the topic at hand, I'd like to back up Inziladun by saying that it's not the question of "taboo topics" that's being asked, but the question of civility in our discourse on ANY topic. Granted, we're talking about the presence or lack of religion here, so even though it's a discussion of a fictional work, it's going to be hard to go about that without bringing in real-world references. However, since it's a given that religion is right up there with politics for "most incendiary topics known to man," it is to be expected that those participating in those topics will exercise commonsense--and may be even some common manners--in doing so.

And if I may be permitted a moment of caustic sarcasm: "honestly, you didn't think there might actually be one or two Catholics on a forum full of diverse, world-wide members about a book that, containing Catholicism or not, was written by a Catholic in a language spoken by millions of Catholics?"

Originally Posted by TheMisfortuneTeller

If you would revisit the topic of the thread: namely, "Imagine No Religion," then you would understand comments in this thread that imagine no religion (meaning "animism") in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. But as to the charge of "ranting" against "Christianity," I'll let the late great historian Barbara Tuchman speak for me:

“With the advent of Christianity, personal responsibility was given back to the external and supernatural, at the command of God and the Devil. Reason returned for a brief brilliant reign in the 18th century, since when Freud has brought us back to Euripides and the controlling power of the dark, buried forces of the soul, which not being subject to the mind are incorrigible by good intentions or rational will.” -- The March of Folly, p. 381

Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks. Therein lies the reason why I think professor Tolkien gave us Gandalf the Wizard instead of Gandalf the High Priest of Hobbiton.

Firstly, just because other people have seen Christianity in a paradigm that does not acknowledge its claims as healthy, let alone Revealed doesn't mean that you can't bring them up in an abrasive manner.

Secondly, you continue to associate animism directly with religion, or at least you seem to, to me. I am afraid I am going to have side more with Bêthberry, who brings up quite rightly that there are major distinctions between religions--not least regarding the subject of the individual. To look merely at Protestantism vs. Catholicism, it's hardly controversial for me to say that individualism is something that has grown out of Protestant culture, whereas Catholicism has historically tended towards a much stronger focus on the community of believers. However, I don't think you can say that a believing Protestant has much to do with "magic," unless you really change the definition of magic.

In a similar manner, you have brought up magic as empowering individualism before because "Magic empowers the individual whereas Animism inculcates powerless enfeeblement towards social authority exercised in the name of unseen spooks. Therein lies the reason why I think professor Tolkien gave us Gandalf the Wizard instead of Gandalf the High Priest of Hobbiton." If that is the case, however, then it is only powering very selective individuals indeed: Gandalf may be an empowered anti-animist (disregarding the fact that he is canonically an "angel" on a divine mission...), but Frodo Baggins isn't comparably empowered (or Sam, or Pippin, or Lotho, if you don't want me to use the Ring-bearer). In fact, he is pretty much as beholden to Elrond as the magic-wielding lord of Rivendell as he would be if Elrond were the High Priest of the Cult of Ulmo.