When (if ever) does it become offensive to co-opt a relgious tradition when you're not a member of the religion?

[Sarahfeena]

I was reading a "what are you doing for Lent" thread on another message board, and inevitably every year, someone says that they aren't Catholic/Christian, but that they observe Lent by giving something up. Usually the reason is given that they just think it's good to practice self-denial, and it's a good opportunity to do so.

So my question is...when does this kind of thing become offensive, if at all? I mean, many many people in the US who aren't Christian do some kind of Christmas and Easter celebration, leaving out the religion part, and it makes sense to me to want to participate in these sort of "celebration" holidays. But when it comes to deeply spiritual practices like fasting, that seems odd. I mean, I think it would be really cheap of me to fast on Yom Kippur while putting my own personal meaning to it that doesn't have a lot to do with the actual purpose or meaning that exists for the Jewish people. Or if I said, "gee, I think I need a body cleanse, I'm going to observe Ramadan this year."

Any thoughts?

[Ramses]

My honest opinion?

As an incredibly passionate man of secular non-belief, I find it reprehensible that religion gets to mandate so very often the actions of those who aren't faithful to begin with. Whether this is medical or scientific advancement, or something as socially significant as equal rights for anyone who isn't classically gendered or heterosexual.

So if someone secular to a belief decides to adopt a religious practice of their own free will, that's their prerogative. Who does it hurt that they don't believe in the representative tooth fairy that they're putting their tooth under the pillow for? It's their tooth. If you want to try to meditate, you aren't insulting Buddha.

Now, if you actually are making a MOCKERY of a religious rite, and disrupting the event for others? Then that is too far. It's reprehensible for you to disrupt someone else's life in general, regardless of religious sentiment. It's just tacky and ridiculous, and if people are doing something that they feel is significant, it's pretty cruel to make them suffer just because you're getting a kick out of it or have a chip on your shoulder.

But if you treat their rite with respect, and do nothing to in any way inconvenience them, but they take offense to YOU practicing a rite they "own"? Then that's a problem for them to get over.

[What Exit?]

Boy am I the wrong one to ask I guess. I can't see how someone doing there own thing personnel thing for Lent or even Ash Wednesday should ever be offensive. I mean if Lent was being co-opted as a time to do something horrible to others or protest the church; that would be offensive. However, even if someone made an annual event out of the beginning of Lent being when they did their spring cleaning and such every year, I can't see that as offensive.

Besides, as we all know, Christmas and Easter both co-opted lots of other religious practices. So it is fairly normal overall.

Come to think of it, Does Fat Tuesday and the Mardi Gras celebrations rise to offensive? I mean they are tied to Ash Wednesday and Lent therefore but are known/notorious for partying and public nudity.

[Orual]

If you want to try to meditate, you aren't insulting Buddha.

When I try to meditate, I'm pretty sure I'm not only insulting the Buddha, but 3-500 bodhisattvas as well.

Now, if you actually are making a MOCKERY of a religious rite, and disrupting the event for others? Then that is too far. It's reprehensible for you to disrupt someone else's life in general, regardless of religious sentiment. It's just tacky and ridiculous, and if people are doing something that they feel is significant, it's pretty cruel to make them suffer just because you're getting a kick out of it or have a chip on your shoulder.

But if you treat their rite with respect, and do nothing to in any way inconvenience them, but they take offense to YOU practicing a rite they "own"? Then that's a problem for them to get over.

I agree with all of this, though.

[Sarahfeena]

Here's the thing, though...words have meaning, and Lent doesn't just mean "forty days of fasting." There's a specific reason that you fast, or give something up, and if your own personal reason is different, then it isn't observing Lent. Getting something out of it is great, and go for it if you want to, but why call it Lent if it isn't? Make up your own name for it, that expresses what it means to you. See, to me it's about not respecting what it means to people to just decide you're going to follow the rules without the meaning.

[What Exit?]

Sarahfeena, this sounds a lot like the anti-gay marriage argument I use to use.

I mean I said stuff close to this:

Here's the thing, though...words have meaning, and Marriage doesn't just mean "man and man" There's a specific reason that you marry, gays should have legal protections as couples but it isn't observing Marriage. Getting something out of it is great, and go for it if you want to, but why call it Marriage if it isn't? Make up your own name for it, that expresses what it means to you. See, to me it's about not respecting what it means to people to just decide you're going to follow the rules without the meaning.

Seriously, I use to believe this and even offer opinions like this before my wife changed my mind that I was being unfair and I was the one hung up over a word. So while I understand what you mean. I think Lent just means something else for these people are talking about.

Also, what about Mardi Gras? I am really curious about your take on that. Is it offensive to a belief in Lent and Ash Wednesday or is it old enough that you never thought about it to take offense or not?

[Sarahfeena]

Mardi Gras isn't a solemn religious observance. In fact, it isn't religious at all...it's strictly cultural, and there's no obligation at all to participate in it, so I don't think it's a good comparison.

As far as marriage goes, there are two "meanings" of that word in our culture, a religious meaning and a secular meaning. You can expect the government to recognize a marriage legally that a church wouldn't recognize religiously, and when we talk about legalizing gay marriage, it's obviously the legal/governmental meaning we're talking about. No one would argue that religions should be forced to perform gay marriages (even if we would like for them to do so). There are other religious rites that have very specific meanings within a religion, and don't have a secular or legal component. For instance, I would consider it offensive for a non-Jew to throw their son a 13th birthday party and call it a Bar Mitzvah, just so he could have a big party and get presents.

[What Exit?]

That's interesting, what about a non-religious Jew have a Bar Mitzvah?

My son has expressed interest in just that but of course is not interested in doing the work. My wife and I each have different reasons to be against this idea.

Lent does pretty much only mean Lent, was the poster in question a lapsed Christian or never Christian, because if lapsed, it becomes an old tradition then and runs a bit counter to you're argument. But at any rate, I still don't see why you or any religious person should take offense.

[Sarahfeena]

I can't presume to speak for the Jewish people. But, it's a Jewish cultural tradition, so I say no, not offensive. On the other hand, if I were Jewish, I wouldn't want my child to take it lightly, even if we weren't religious.

In regards to Lent, I realize that a lot of people give up meat on Friday without a lot of thought about it, cause it's what they've always done. Which I can't get up in arms about, I think everyone does stuff like that (and, incidentally, I'm not exactly up in arms about any of this...it's just something I find a little annoying sometimes.) But most of those people are at least nominally Christian and understand there's a deeper meaning to it. I don't get someone just deciding it sounds like a neat idea, and just doing it because of that.

[What Exit?]

I keep thinking that Lent works well for the Hippy-Crunchy-Granola crowd though. It is probably easier to use the existing word in giving something up for 40 days. Myself, I left the church so long ago, that when a co-worker came into work with the ash mark over their eyes, I did not realize what it was at first and mentioned that had something smeared on their forehead. She didn't say anything though and it was not until later I realized it was Ash Wednesday.

I'm guessing many non-Christians know more about Lent then I do.

BTW: For you is Lent 40 days or 40 days + 6 Sundays? (Just curious, this has nothing directly to do with this thread.)

[artifex]

I personally think the point of religion should be to give an individual a framework in which to live a better, more meaningful life. So if a non-Jew wants to fast for 25 hours in atonement and prepare to go forth and do better next year, who the fuck am I to tell them they shouldn't do that? If someone wants to borrow from other religions' traditions in their effort to live a better life, that's a-OK with me, we need more people in this world living examined, conscientious lives. (Christians, IMO, have no business telling non-Christians they can't co-opt Christian holidays, not while they're still putting up trees and hard-cooking eggs.)

(A lot of Jews would vehemently disagree with me, though of course a lot of them would say I have no business calling myself Jewish, because a) they adhere to exactly the sort of rigid observance that I don't go for and b) I'm a convert and a Reform convert at that, which in some circles doesn't "count." )

[Marsilia]

Reading this thread, I'm tempted to start calling my Confirmation a Bat Mitzvah. It was actually the weekend before my thirteenth birthday. Generally, I'm not inclined to worry too much about people co-opting the names and seasons of "my" religious holidays. It gives us something in common, even if we're doing it for different reasons. I'm far more bothered by the focus on our differences.

[Ramses]

I wish you were right about marriage meaning two separate things.

Voters usually disagree with that, Sarah.

As for the rest - like I said. If they get something out of it, why condemn them for benefiting, respectfully, from the appropriation of a rite?

[Zuul]

I'm not a Christian--though my mother was born into the Catholic Church and I know there's been a cultural influence in many small ways--so I'm hesitant to say what should and should not be offensive to a Christian. But fasting has lengthy roots as a tool for enlightenment, and if you're speaking English referring to a spring fast as Lent (which was originally just the word for spring) seems more sensible to me than a spring fast getting some new and convoluted term. You call it a Lenten fast and people will know that it involves giving something up without actually starving yourself, it's taking place in the spring, and it's more about some spiritual/mental situation than trying out the latest trendy juice fast.

So I guess for me if the appropriation is with pure intentions rather than born out of mockery, I don't mind.

Out of curiosity, how familiar is everyone here with the Japanese celebrations of Christmas, with the KFC dinners and emphasis on romance?

[Marsilia]

I wish you were right about marriage meaning two separate things.

Voters usually disagree with that, Sarah.

Voters can disagree, but Sarah's actually right about marriage meaning two different things, especially for Catholics, who don't recognize the dissolution of marriage by legal decree of divorce . My mom's late husband's ex-wife was married to her second husband for years by law before she could remarry in the Catholic church after my step-dad passed away. It's not an unfamiliar concept.

[Zuul]

I wish you were right about marriage meaning two separate things.

Voters usually disagree with that, Sarah.

Voters can disagree, but Sarah's actually right about marriage meaning two different things, especially for Catholics, who don't recognize the dissolution of marriage by legal decree of divorce . My mom's late husband's ex-wife was married to her second husband for years by law before she could remarry in the Catholic church after my step-dad passed away. It's not an unfamiliar concept.

Oddly, my mother discussed these things with a priest a few years ago (when she was interested in an observant Catholic) and was told that for the purposes of remarriage her first marriage wouldn't interfere because it was to a non-Catholic in a civil ceremony and so was invalid.

[Marsilia]

Voters can disagree, but Sarah's actually right about marriage meaning two different things, especially for Catholics, who don't recognize the dissolution of marriage by legal decree of divorce . My mom's late husband's ex-wife was married to her second husband for years by law before she could remarry in the Catholic church after my step-dad passed away. It's not an unfamiliar concept.

Oddly, my mother discussed these things with a priest a few years ago (when she was interested in an observant Catholic) and was told that for the purposes of remarriage her first marriage wouldn't interfere because it was to a non-Catholic in a civil ceremony and so was invalid.

Yeah. My step-dad was a lapsed Catholic, Methodist convert, so his first marriage was religiously valid.

Meanwhile, my grandmother is a Southern Baptist and doesn't actually recognize my mom's second marriage, now that my step-dad's dead.

Personally, I'm all about the idea of abolishing legal "marriage" to save confusion. Civil unions for everybody!

[Sarahfeena]

I wish you were right about marriage meaning two separate things.

Voters usually disagree with that, Sarah.

As for the rest - like I said. If they get something out of it, why condemn them for benefiting, respectfully, from the appropriation of a rite?

Don't get me wrong, no condemnation here. I just think that there's more to a rite than the outside trappings. If I'm going to observed Lent, I'm not going to claim I'm observing Yom Kippur or Ramadan, when those days have a different purpose and meaning than Lent. Likewise, Lent has a specific purpose and meaning...if you're going to fast for some other reason that's only tangentially related if at all, then why claim you're observing Lent?

[Sarahfeena]

I'm not a Christian--though my mother was born into the Catholic Church and I know there's been a cultural influence in many small ways--so I'm hesitant to say what should and should not be offensive to a Christian. But fasting has lengthy roots as a tool for enlightenment, and if you're speaking English referring to a spring fast as Lent (which was originally just the word for spring) seems more sensible to me than a spring fast getting some new and convoluted term. You call it a Lenten fast and people will know that it involves giving something up without actually starving yourself, it's taking place in the spring, and it's more about some spiritual/mental situation than trying out the latest trendy juice fast.

Well, except that if you told me that you were observing Lent, I would think something very specific, much more so than just being some spiritual/mental situation. I would think you were Christian, and actually one of a limited number of denominations, and that you were doing it to spiritually prepare for the most solemn holy day of the year. So, I don't think by calling it Lent instead of a "spring time renewal fast" or some such that you are being less confusing about your intentions.

[Hatshepsut]

Once in a while I fast during Ramadhan - to see how it feels, to express solidarity with the people around me, because an opportunity to practice a little self-discipline is good. I've been known to then break my fast with a glass of wine.

The Moslems I know have appreciated the fasting, and as for the wine at the end, they think that's as amusing as I do.

I think the responsibility falls on the practitioner of a religion as much as it does on the person "borrowing" a behavior to remain relaxed and tolerant. As long as no malice or disrespect is intended, it is pointless to get upset.

[CatInASuit]

Given that Christianity has co-opted several pagan festivals into its own calendar, it can't really say too much.

However, something that does bother me, is when people who are not religious start using religious holidays to try and assuage some guilt they may or may not have picked up due to its festive nature.

[The Original An Gadaí]

It's never offensive imho. Get over yourselves religious people.

[Sarahfeena]

See, AG that seems like you're dismissing it because you don't think religion is important. Is it ok to appropriate ANY cultural practice, even if you don't understand the history and/or meaning of it, because the outside trappings seem appealing?

[The Original An Gadaí]

See, AG that's just dismissing it because you don't think religion is important. Is it ok to appropriate ANY cultural practice, even if you don't understand the history and/or meaning of it, because the outside trappings seem appealing?

Yeah, of course it is, everyone get over themselves. Culture isn't concrete and never will be. Mind your own garden and don't worry about everyone else's. And as an ex-Catholic I would say that the notion that most Catholics really have a deeper understanding of the meaning and value of their enshrined traditions than non-Catholics is probably just not true. Just cos we turned up for mass every Sunday doesn't mean we understood, nor it held any great meaning for us. It certainly didn't for me. In general with regard to religious practice, I find the postmodern religious emphasis on a la carte-ism, and essentially consumerist spirituality a bit distasteful but to be honest it's probably less distasteful than some priest lording it over me and my community.

[The Original An Gadaí]

I should add that the above probably sounds like an anti-religious screed but I'm not really. I just think that you can't force others to find what you find important, as important. Doesn't work for my hobbies, doesn't work for religions or any other cultural matters.

[Sarahfeena]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But maybe I used a bad example starting right out with mainstream Christianity...it's not like it's threatened as a religion. It just happened to be the example that got me thinking about it

Maybe this is a better example...here in the US, some Native Americans are unhappy about how their culture is appropriated into fashion, or by hippies who co-opt the spiritual practices, such as having a "blessingway" for their new baby, as sort of a replacement for a baptism (a blessingway is I think a Navaho tradition). I do think some of this is problematic and disrespectful, just not quite sure where the line is crossed.

[Zuul]

Appropriating other people's cultures has been going on for a very long time, so while people might get offended over it nothing special or new is going on. The Romans did it to everyone around them, the Greeks did it to everyone around them, Native American tribes did it to each other, as did many different East Asian peoples, etc, etc. Offense is such a personal experience that any appropriation might make people upset, but I have a hard time being particularly concerned about it.

As far as Lent goes, I think the view of it as spiritual preparation for the most solemn holy day of the year is a specifically Catholic, specifically educated about Catholicism viewpoint. If people from other Christian sects--like Marsilia--encourage me to take part in Lent and the traditions I'm taking part in are very much not Catholic, is that still offensive to Catholics? In the same way, a lot of Native Americans will actually actively proselytize many of their traditions. When those traditions are taken on by those outside those particular tribes, they're often divorced from their larger historical context. There are people who are offended by that, I know. There are also a lot of people who don't think knowing the history and fully grasping the cultural significance of certain traditions is enough, because if you aren't the right ethnicity you have no right to certain aspects of a culture, similar to artifex's reference to those who don't consider converts to Judaism to be properly Jewish.

I just can't buy into that. If the person appropriating is doing it out of respect, admiration and genuine interest, then I don't care. I don't think there are intellectual property rights to culture.

[The Original An Gadaí]

Maybe this is a better example...here in the US, some Native Americans are unhappy about how their culture is appropriated into fashion, or by hippies who co-opt the spiritual practices, such as having a "blessingway" for their new baby, as sort of a replacement for a baptism (a blessingway is I think a Navaho tradition). I do think some of this is problematic and disrespectful, just not quite sure where the line is crossed.

People get offended too easily. They can take offence but it doesn't mean what the hippies or fashionistas have done is wrong. How do others taking on your rituals hurt you?
Wasn't there also a case lately of German re-enactors being brought to Indian reservations to teach various crafts? I know craft isn't the same as religion but it's all of a piece. Should we ban non-Irish people from appropriating St. Patrick's Day? No, because a) that would be completely stupid and unenforcable and more to the point b) nobody own's St. Patrick, or his feast day. By all means accuse others as being wannabes or lamos when they take on your religious trappings without converting. You also have the dodgy issue of when people of one ethnicity have exclusive access to a rite it's essentially a form of racism.

[hobbler]

I hate Westerners who blindly follow Tibetan Buddhism without actually understanding the social and historical contexts behind it.

[What Exit?]

I hate Westerners who blindly follow Tibetan Buddhism without actually understanding the social and historical contexts behind it.

Why?

I'm no Buddhist but it seems silly to hate those that follow a fairly inert set of religious-lite principals.

[hobbler]

Score! Tibetan Buddhism isn't "fairly inert", it's set up in a way that's reminiscent of the Catholic church and Divine Right of Kings, distilled into a complete theocracy that lasted until the Chinese knocked it down. Buddhism I have no problems with, but Tibetan brand Buddhism is a bastardization of the precepts, designed only to give a religious backing to the theocratic rule of the Tibetan Lamas. The current Dali Lama is the only segment that can be considered "inert". They've had a great PR campaign with him at the head.

[What Exit?]

Score! Tibetan Buddhism isn't "fairly inert", it's set up in a way that's reminiscent of the Catholic church and Divine Right of Kings, distilled into a complete theocracy that lasted until the Chinese knocked it down. Buddhism I have no problems with, but Tibetan brand Buddhism is a bastardization of the precepts, designed only to give a religious backing to the theocratic rule of the Tibetan Lamas. The current Dali Lama is the only segment that can be considered "inert". They've had a great PR campaign with him at the head.

Oh, so you mean you find Richard Gere promoting Tibetan Buddhism hateful. That I guess I can support.