The termites have dined further: now you can’t convert to a “non-white majority religion”

This is not a joke. Kristin Rawls is a journalist who writes for the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor, Alternet, Salon, and other sites, while Ian Miles Cheong writes for the conservative website the Daily Caller. Have a gander at Rawls’s tweet.

I couldn’t find Kristin Rawls’s Twitter feed to check on this, as I thought her tweet may have been satirical, but later on Ian Miles Cheong answers that question.

Here’s what you see when you go to her site:

Given that this is accurate, it’s reprehensible, for it means that, as Cheong maintains, you can’t even adopt someone else’s religion if that means you’d be “believing down”, i.e., adopting a religion—or any religious beliefs—held by those considered more oppressed than you.

But it is not freaking problematic, it’s just religious appropriation—analogous to cultural appropriation. In fact, religious appropriation is even less problematic than cultural appropriation, as there isn’t a way I can see to adopt someone’s religious beliefs in a way that mocks or denigrates that religion.

I realize that Kristin Rawls is only one person, but she publishes in visible places, and her excoriating someone who “appropriates” Buddhist beliefs is just one more step in the Left’s policing of thought and behavior. Believe me, this is not an isolated incident of stupidity, but a bellwether of change to come.

But, as Cheong notes, this also violates the Left’s general acceptance of freedom of religion. I guess we have to modify the First Amendment to permit freedom of religion only if, when converting, you adopt a religion held by those seen as more oppressed. (Does this include, by the way, conversion to Judaism? Can Buddhists convert to Islam?)

There is such a thing as being too woke.

66 Comments

  1. GBJames
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    These people are satirizing themselves.

  2. Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    For god’s sake. We now have people fighting over the proper way to have imaginary friends.

    • GBJames
      Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:16 am | Permalink

      ‘Twas ever thus.

      • Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:26 am | Permalink

        That’s true. But in a certain sense this is more meta than simply insisting other people’s religions are false while yours is true. This isn’t “my imaginary friend is the best”; this is “you’re not allowed to play with my imaginary friend”.

        • Graham Head
          Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:29 am | Permalink

          Ìt seems to be ‘You can’t play with someone else’s imaginary friend’.

          • Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:37 am | Permalink

            I have no doubt Rawls thinks she speaks for Buddhists.

            • GBJames
              Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

              Only the brown ones.

            • Graham Head
              Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:55 am | Permalink

              She seems to be applying her ‘rules’ to all religions practised by non-white people not just Buddhism.

              • Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:03 am | Permalink

                Yes. I had typed “or whatever” after “Buddhists”, but deleted it thinking the point was clear enough.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:13 am | Permalink

              No appropriation, no appropriation; she‘s the appropriation.

    • Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      People like this have failed to mature. I am raising four children, and there are many behaviors that they and their friends exhibit that people like this also exhibit. A four year old will frequently throw a fit when other children do not abide by his/her script when playing make believe.

  3. Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    … this also violates the Left’s general acceptance of freedom of religion.

    Does the Left generally accept the right of Muslims to become ex-Muslims?

    I’m not so sure. Such people tend to get called “Islamophobes”, “anti-Muslim extremists”, “acting White”, and all sorts of things that imply that at least the ctrl-Left do not accept the freedom to do anything except stick with what you’re “born with”.

  4. Rasmo Carenna
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    This is pure madness.

  5. Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    Or sleepwalking …

    On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Why Evolution Is True wrote:

    > whyevolutionistrue posted: “This is not a joke. Kristin Rawls is a > journalist who writes for the Guardian, the Christian Science Monitor, > Alternet, Salon, and other sites, while Ian Miles Cheong writes for the > conservative website the Daily Caller. Have a gander at Rawls’s tweet. ” >

  6. Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    The emperor Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries out across the known world, including to the Jews of Alexandria. The Buddhists wanted others to ‘appropriate’ their religion/philosophy.

    Per Rawls’ idiotic construction, the Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, all appropriated Buddhism, too. But in her twisted world, they along with the Indians all count as one non-white entity.

    • Steve Pollard
      Posted May 23, 2018 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

      Some would say that the Emperor Ashoka’s strategy was highly successful, in that Christianity absorbed many aspects of Buddhist philosophy into its dogmas.

      • Posted May 24, 2018 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

        One of the most dramatic demonstrations of this is the “woman at the well” story in book of John. A very similar story appears in Buddhism about 500 years earlier.

    • Posted May 23, 2018 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      Most religions that have proliferated were intentionally made available for “religious appropriation” by cultures other than the one(s) where they originated. There was a period of time when Buddhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity (no doubt, others)all were evangelized in many parts of the world contemporaneously, to some degree in competition. Religions would not have been disseminated as far as they have without the effort of the followers of originators of the religions to spread them to as many cultures as possible.

    • Posted May 24, 2018 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      Indeed. In fact, the proselytization of Buddhism, Christianity and Islam is one reason why they’ve been very successful.

      This is IMO the negative side of what is one of the good things about those religions – the universalism, even if only of believers. (As opposed to tribal religions.)

  7. pck
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    It should also be noted that Ian Miles Chong is a special kind of idiot and generally isn’t to be taken as a voice of reason. Not someone you want to associate yourself with.

  8. AC Harper
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    I read Kristin Rawls to be saying the *equivalent* of “You’re not brown enough to be a Buddhist”. If the paraphrase is truly equivalent then this seems to suggest a racist world view.

  9. Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    I’m with the “I can’t even” guy.

  10. Craw
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Catholicism is a non-white majority religion. As is Anglicanism.

    • Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Good point. I wonder which religions are white majority. I think even Mormonism is non-white majority. It’s very popular in the South Pacific and Southeast Asia.

      • GBJames
        Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        Druidism?

        • Posted May 23, 2018 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

          Scientology?

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted May 23, 2018 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

            Is Scientology a religion? Some countries say it isn’t and they can’t claim as such for tax purposes.

      • Posted May 23, 2018 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        Beyond stoooopid. Assume for a moment that Buddhism is objectively more true than Christianity. Should people still adhere to a false belief system simply because of their skin color?

    • David Evans
      Posted May 23, 2018 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      Very true. Also, it originated among a colonised and oppressed people on the fringe of the Roman empire. Surely the Romans should not have been allowed to adopt it.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted May 23, 2018 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps it’s a call for all white people to become atheists?

      Then when that happens, the woke people will recognize atheism as superior because it’s the way of the dominant culture. So they will call everyone else to abandon religion too as their right!

      In fact, why aren’t they doing that already given that a majority of atheists are white?

  11. barn owl
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    White people need to stop practicing yoga. No more punching downward-facing dog!

  12. Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Does this go for only religions without a strong proselyting tradition or are white people not allowed to convert to Christianity or Islam too?

    • Historian
      Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:57 am | Permalink

      Yes, your observation indicates why this tweet is ridiculous and its author is profoundly ignorant. Many religions want adherents of different races and ethnicities since they claim to be universal in their “truths.”

      • DrBrydon
        Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        These people fundamentally reject the idea of universality.

  13. Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    LOL…we ought to not let anyone become an atheist then. 🙂

  14. Brian Jung
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    What, exactly, does “problematic” mean?

    If it means that you should be aware and considerate of issues of cultural difference and appropriation as you contemplate matters of faith, I think I could agree with that. It’s just a matter of being thoughtful and sensitive and certain contexts. At least that notion isn’t offensive to me.

    But if it means that a white person should be forbidden from practicing a non-white majority religion, then that is ridiculous. As neither Judaism and Christianity are originally “white-majority” religions, I’m not sure what that would leave for us religious white people. Norse mythology?

    • GBJames
      Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      “Problematic” is a shaming word used to elevate the user within the woke community.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 24, 2018 at 12:34 am | Permalink

        Agreed. It’s one of those appalling mealy-mouthed weasel words that makes me want to beat the perpetrator repeatedly over the head with the complete Oxford Dictionary. (Americans may use Websters if they prefer).

        Like ‘privileged’, ‘transgressive’ and so on.

        cr

  15. Ken Kukec
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    So much for The Dharma Bums, let alone the works of Christmas Humphreys or Be Here Now.

  16. DrBrydon
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:03 am | Permalink

    FFS. The logic of this is that, for Rawl’s to take on the idea that, for example, black people are oppressed, she is committing cultural appropriation.

  17. Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    So she has condemned me to the everlasting fire then. I want to convert to Islam because otherwise I will go to hell and she says I can’t. Woe is me.

    • Posted May 23, 2018 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      Of all far-left insanity I have read recently, I’d give the cake to this ban for whites to convert to Islam!
      (And deans who are against everybody feasting in sombreros should also ban hijab days, on the same ground.)

  18. Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    *massive eye roll*

    You can’t parody these people.

  19. Okaro
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    This is very strange if applied to Islam considering it is an expansionist religion that intends to convert everyone. If a Buddhist or Muslim converts into Christianity she would blame religious imperialism. The white guy is always wrong.

  20. Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Given that this is accurate, it’s reprehensible, for it means that, as Cheong maintains, you can’t even adopt someone else’s religion if that means you’d be “believing down”, i.e., adopting a religion—or any religious beliefs—held by those considered more oppressed than you.

    If the Romans had thought that way there wouldn’t be any Christianity.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 24, 2018 at 12:36 am | Permalink

      Too bad. Too late. 😦

      cr

  21. Doug
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    If people convert to a religion, it’s because they believe that religion is true. So, you’re not allowed to think that someone else’s religion is true?

    • GBJames
      Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:47 am | Permalink

      I think you can do it if you aren’t a problematic white person.

  22. Doug
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    If people convert to a religion, it’s because they believe that religion is true. So, you’re not allowed to think that someone else’s religion is true?

  23. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    Damn!!!
    It’ a good thing my mother converted to Buddhism in 1951, 4 years before my birth, too early for Ms. Rawls to explain to her why she was being imperialistic!!!

    Is this the same Kristin Rawls who criticized the musical “Book of Mormon” for having its score draw material from other musicals?? (She notes the BofM’s “I Believe” resembles “I Have Confidence” from The Sound of Music, etc.)

    I confess I like her self-written bio on the website “Killing the Buddha” which reads in part “Kristin Rawls has a useless MA in ethics and international relations and an even more useless one in philosophy.”

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 24, 2018 at 12:38 am | Permalink

      … and is doing her best to demonstrate how useless they are…

  24. Jon Gallant
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Tibetan Buddhism was “appropriated” from India in the 12th/13th centuries, driven into Tibet by the Muslim conquest of northern India. An examplar of the conquest was the Muslim warlord Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji (died 1206), whose army annihilated the great Buddhist monastery/university of Nalanda. In its place, as Wikipedia informs us, “Mosques, madrasas, and khanqahs arose in the new abode of Islam through Bakhtiyar’s patronage.”

    Our pop-Left termites would no doubt be puzzled trying to decide whether the Buddhist monks or the soldiers commanded by Bakhtiar were sufficiently non-white to qualify for their approval—puzzled, that is, if they had even an inkling about the world before yesterday’s twitter feed. Come to think of it, if told about this history, they would probably denounce the 12th century Indian Buddhist monks for Islamophobia.

  25. nicky
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    I feel very stupid here. Can’t understand what this is all about. Do not most religions try to expand their appeal and adherents? I’m very confused now.
    The only point I want to make is that if some convert to Buddhism, we should all be happy they didn’t convert to Islam.
    I think that Buddhism compares to Islam as a comedo (blackhead) compares to oesophageal cancer.

  26. Jonathan Dore
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    The silver lining: since no major religion in the world (I’m not counting things like Mormonism or Scientology as major) has a white majority, whites aren’t allowed to believe in *any* of them. The only option that Ctrl-Left thinking therefore allows is … atheism. I can live with that.

  27. chris moffatt
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    “Believe me, this is not an isolated incident of stupidity, but a bellwether of change to come.”

    Not to come; it is already here and has been for several years. As the brainwashed continue to graduate from their regressive indoctrination centres and spread out into the world it is becoming more and more widespread especially when fostered by MSM – such as the Guardian. Some of them even become prime ministers as in my boreal homeland of Canada.

  28. John Dentinger
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Boy, am I lucky for NOT converting to Pastafarianism (didn’t have the right size colander) from Presbyterianism. I couldn’t have taken the shaming.

  29. Posted May 23, 2018 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    “My imaginary friend is greater and better than your imaginary friend, so I get more repressed than you do, so there!”! 😀

  30. SusanD
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Beam me up, Scotty, no intelligent life down here…

  31. Jay
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 8:32 pm | Permalink

    There is such a thing as being too woke.

    To a good first approximation, if anyone who thinks they’re woke, thinks you’re woke, you’re too woke.

    • Posted May 24, 2018 at 11:42 am | Permalink

      Then the best way to be woke is not to think one is. How does one do *that*? 😉

  32. Hempenstein
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    So how does it work with blood transfusions, then? By this logic, it would be OK for a black person to get blood from a white donor but not the other way around?

    And then there are organ donations. IIRC, former PA Gov Bob Casey, suffering from amyloidosis, got a heart/liver combo from a black donor, altho this account doesn’t mention that aspect.

    • Posted May 24, 2018 at 8:00 am | Permalink

      The second ever heart-transplant recipient, Dr. Blaiberg in South Africa, received a heart from a black donor, in 1968. I remember watching news about this on the TV. His wife said that before the operation, he was always grumpy and stressed and obsessed with work, but that since the operation he was cheerful, relaxed and pleasant. When I heard that, I exclaimed “But of course, dear – he’s had a change of heart!”

  33. Commen-tater
    Posted May 23, 2018 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

    Leftists are *not* friendly toward freedom of religion. Thay are hostile toward religion generally (with an exception for Third World religions like Islam and Buddhism and for New Age religions like Wicca and Gaia worship).

  34. Posted May 24, 2018 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    One religion I’ve come to appreciate recently is the Hawaiian religion, with its god, Pele. At least their god is visible.

    • Posted May 24, 2018 at 8:17 am | Permalink

      Goddess, actually.

      I think I’ll change that to “deity” when I post this somewhere else, such as in a discussion where Christians are complaining that the Hawaiians should be praying to Jesus instead.


%d bloggers like this: