Showing posts with label Wicca. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wicca. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
We are rising!
No-one outside Paganism seems to have noticed that the number of out and proud Pagans has doubled since the last census.
Census 2011
Animism 541
Occult 502
Druid 4,189
Heathen 1,958
Pagan 56,620
Pantheism 2,216
Reconstructionist 251
Shamanism 650
Thelemite 184
Wicca 11,766
Witchcraft 1,276
______________________
Total = 80,153
Not included in the above total: Traditional African Religion 588, Vodun 208, Taoism 4144, Shinto, 1075, New Age 698, Native American Church 127, Chinese Religion 182, Satanists 1,893.
Here's the Office of National Statistics page with the spreadsheets if you want to download a copy and play with the numbers yourself.
Census 2001
Pagan 30,569
Wiccan 7,227
Druid 1,657
Pantheist 1,603
Heathen 278
Asatru 92
Animism 401
Ancestor Worship 101
Celtic Pagan 508
______________________
Total 42,436
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Gerald Gardner and homophobia
Was Gerald Gardner homophobic?
— Very probably, yes. (See Lois Bourne's memoirs.)
Does this matter for practitioners of modern Wicca?
— No.
Why not?
— Because whilst Gardner is respected as the founder of modern Wicca, his views on many issues are seen as a product of his time. in the 1950s and 60s, not being homophobic was the exception, not the rule. I can remember as recently as 25 years ago, it was rare to find a heterosexual man who was not homophobic. Now, thankfully, it is regarded as abnormal to be homophobic (at least in the circles that I move in).
Gardner does not have the same status in Wicca as Jesus does in Christianity. He is not believed to be some kind of messiah figure. Wiccan practice and tradition is not about Gardner, it's about magic and Nature.
There are some practices in Wicca that are heterocentric, but people are changing these to be more inclusive of LGBT people. If the coven you are in is not changing to include you, there are other covens that might be more flexible. There's also the option to start your own coven.
These heterocentric practices may have been started because of Gardner's homophobia, so in that sense it is still relevant, but for heavens' sake, Wicca is less than a century old, so it's perfectly possible to change things. Tradition is not set in stone; it evolves.
A good place to start is the excellent book, Cassell's Encyclopaedia of queer myth, symbol and spirit.
Further reading on LGBT sexuality and Paganism.
— Very probably, yes. (See Lois Bourne's memoirs.)
Does this matter for practitioners of modern Wicca?
— No.
Why not?
— Because whilst Gardner is respected as the founder of modern Wicca, his views on many issues are seen as a product of his time. in the 1950s and 60s, not being homophobic was the exception, not the rule. I can remember as recently as 25 years ago, it was rare to find a heterosexual man who was not homophobic. Now, thankfully, it is regarded as abnormal to be homophobic (at least in the circles that I move in).
Gardner does not have the same status in Wicca as Jesus does in Christianity. He is not believed to be some kind of messiah figure. Wiccan practice and tradition is not about Gardner, it's about magic and Nature.
There are some practices in Wicca that are heterocentric, but people are changing these to be more inclusive of LGBT people. If the coven you are in is not changing to include you, there are other covens that might be more flexible. There's also the option to start your own coven.
These heterocentric practices may have been started because of Gardner's homophobia, so in that sense it is still relevant, but for heavens' sake, Wicca is less than a century old, so it's perfectly possible to change things. Tradition is not set in stone; it evolves.
A good place to start is the excellent book, Cassell's Encyclopaedia of queer myth, symbol and spirit.
Further reading on LGBT sexuality and Paganism.
Friday, November 09, 2012
Liberal Christianity made me a better Wiccan
I am not a Christian, but I highly value the liberal Christian strand in Unitarianism, as its alternative interpretations of the new testament in particular have helped to liberate me from the oppressive and painful interpretations I received from my fundamentalist and evangelical upbringing. People who do not have that particular painful experience perhaps can't know the fear - and actual physical pain - that it induces. I am very grateful to liberal Christianity for liberating me from that fear. Despite being a Pagan since the age of 17, I still had that fear (of hell, basically) lurking at the bottom of my psyche, encased in a volcano of anger. Once the anger had gone, the fear was still there, and it is liberal Christian interpretations of the Bible that have liberated me from that fear.
On a more positive note, I also value the fact that I can find a lot of common ground with liberal Christians, on values, shared appreciation of the beauty of Nature, and frequently shared understandings of the nature of the Divine as immanent and loving and including both genders as well as transcending gender.
If we have travelled by very different paths and still arrived at a similar understanding, that suggests we might be onto something. I met an ex-Franciscan who has a remarkably similar apophatic understanding of the Divine. I have met Unitarian Christians with a deep appreciation of the Divine immanence in Nature.
As a dear liberal Christian friend remarked approvingly, "Ah, so liberal Christianity made you a better Wiccan?" To which I replied, "Yes."
Liberal Christianity liberated me from my fear so that I could concentrate on my spiritual path of joyous communion with the Divine in Nature, with spirits of place, and with the land.
On a more positive note, I also value the fact that I can find a lot of common ground with liberal Christians, on values, shared appreciation of the beauty of Nature, and frequently shared understandings of the nature of the Divine as immanent and loving and including both genders as well as transcending gender.
If we have travelled by very different paths and still arrived at a similar understanding, that suggests we might be onto something. I met an ex-Franciscan who has a remarkably similar apophatic understanding of the Divine. I have met Unitarian Christians with a deep appreciation of the Divine immanence in Nature.
As a dear liberal Christian friend remarked approvingly, "Ah, so liberal Christianity made you a better Wiccan?" To which I replied, "Yes."
Liberal Christianity liberated me from my fear so that I could concentrate on my spiritual path of joyous communion with the Divine in Nature, with spirits of place, and with the land.
Friday, September 07, 2012
What's wrong with the Incarnation?
Many Christians think that other religions don't like the idea of the Incarnation because they're offended by the idea of God becoming human.
The thing that is specifically offensive about the idea that Jesus is the only way to God is the idea that stems from it that all other religions are wrong, and that unless you have "accepted Jesus as your personal Saviour" you will go to hell. So according to this insane and offensive theology, that means Gandhi and other great luminaries are in hell. (Then there's penal substitution theology, which is also offensive, but that is a separate issue.)
I don't have a problem with the idea of Jesus being divine. I do have a problem with the idea of his being the one and only incarnation of the godhead. As far as I'm concerned, we are all divine.
In polytheist religions, the idea of humans becoming divine, or the divine becoming human, crops up frequently. There's Krishna, who is an incarnation of Vishnu. There's Oðinn, who is either a deified human or a god who became human. There's Aradia, who was Diana's daughter and came to earth to teach Tuscan witches their craft, and how to resist oppression. There are many, many deities who became human, and humans who became deities. So the idea that other religions have a problem with the Incarnation because they don't like the idea of God becoming human is laughably ignorant.
In Judaism, the soul has three components - the nefesh (the animal soul, which disperses at death), the neshamah (the divine part, which returns to God at death), and the ruach (the breath of God, which gives life). The more spiritually developed you are, the greater the neshamah becomes. When Jesus told his disciples that he would send his ruach (his Holy Spirit) to be with the disciples at death, he meant he would send that component of his soul to be with them. This insight must have got lost in the early centuries of Christianity when the Judaic elements were eradicated from Christianity by opponents of "Judaizing". Anyway, the point here is, that in Judaism, everyone is a child of God, and has God within them. (For more on this, see my earlier post, The Trinity and Jewish theology).
In the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), they say that everyone has "that of God" within them, and refer to the Inner Christ or the Inner Light. The idea is to uncover that light (not hiding it under a bushel) and let it shine.
In Unitarianism, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity back in the 16th century, the view is usually that everyone has the Divine within them, too. James Martineau, a great 19th century member of the tradition (who actually identified as a Free Christian), said:
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, although they believe that Jesus is the one and only divine incarnation, they also have the concept of theosis, which means that because Jesus opened the way between the human and the divine, we can all become divine. Indeed, Jesus himself said, "I have said, ye are gods."
So, no, the thing that annoys people about the Incarnation is not the idea that God became human - it's the idea that it only happened once.
Everyone has "that of God" within them - the neshamah, the ruach, the seed of a Future Buddha, the potential for theosis.
The thing that is specifically offensive about the idea that Jesus is the only way to God is the idea that stems from it that all other religions are wrong, and that unless you have "accepted Jesus as your personal Saviour" you will go to hell. So according to this insane and offensive theology, that means Gandhi and other great luminaries are in hell. (Then there's penal substitution theology, which is also offensive, but that is a separate issue.)
I don't have a problem with the idea of Jesus being divine. I do have a problem with the idea of his being the one and only incarnation of the godhead. As far as I'm concerned, we are all divine.
In polytheist religions, the idea of humans becoming divine, or the divine becoming human, crops up frequently. There's Krishna, who is an incarnation of Vishnu. There's Oðinn, who is either a deified human or a god who became human. There's Aradia, who was Diana's daughter and came to earth to teach Tuscan witches their craft, and how to resist oppression. There are many, many deities who became human, and humans who became deities. So the idea that other religions have a problem with the Incarnation because they don't like the idea of God becoming human is laughably ignorant.
In Judaism, the soul has three components - the nefesh (the animal soul, which disperses at death), the neshamah (the divine part, which returns to God at death), and the ruach (the breath of God, which gives life). The more spiritually developed you are, the greater the neshamah becomes. When Jesus told his disciples that he would send his ruach (his Holy Spirit) to be with the disciples at death, he meant he would send that component of his soul to be with them. This insight must have got lost in the early centuries of Christianity when the Judaic elements were eradicated from Christianity by opponents of "Judaizing". Anyway, the point here is, that in Judaism, everyone is a child of God, and has God within them. (For more on this, see my earlier post, The Trinity and Jewish theology).
In the Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers), they say that everyone has "that of God" within them, and refer to the Inner Christ or the Inner Light. The idea is to uncover that light (not hiding it under a bushel) and let it shine.
In Unitarianism, which rejected the doctrine of the Trinity back in the 16th century, the view is usually that everyone has the Divine within them, too. James Martineau, a great 19th century member of the tradition (who actually identified as a Free Christian), said:
The incarnation is true, not of Christ exclusively, but of Man universally, and God everlastingly. He bends into the human to dwell there; and humanity is the susceptible organ of the divine.What a truly great concept - the incarnation is true of all humans. Or as Shakespeare (religious beliefs unknown) so memorably put it:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animalsIn Buddhism, we all contain the potential to become enlightened, to become a Buddha, to become divine. We are all Future Buddhas.
Hamlet, Act II, Scene II
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, although they believe that Jesus is the one and only divine incarnation, they also have the concept of theosis, which means that because Jesus opened the way between the human and the divine, we can all become divine. Indeed, Jesus himself said, "I have said, ye are gods."
So, no, the thing that annoys people about the Incarnation is not the idea that God became human - it's the idea that it only happened once.
Everyone has "that of God" within them - the neshamah, the ruach, the seed of a Future Buddha, the potential for theosis.
Friday, May 04, 2012
Does this stuff actually work?
So then, religion and spirituality - do they actually work?
Paganism claims to put its adherents in touch with Nature by celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals (or at least that used to be its claim - this seems to have been largely sidelined in favour of talking to deities). Does celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals really put you in touch with Nature? Does it really transform the psyche? Do the rituals actually have a beneficial effect on the practitioners? (If not, at least they are fun.)
Unitarianism claims that it is building the beloved community, and that by being in community together, we can model a microcosm of the world, and create meaningful connections and communities. Does hanging out with people, some of whom one doesn't actually like, really make you a better person? Possibly, in that it is supposed to rub off the corners and make you more tolerant by exposing you to different viewpoints. But you have to really hang out with them and make actual community, not just see them on Sundays.
Buddhism claims that meditation is the transformative ingredient. I do know that the metta bhavana meditation really helped me to avoid conflict with someone I found incredibly annoying - but then maybe I could have saved myself an awful lot of trauma by just having the conflict with the person, because I was damaged by acquiescing to their nonsense.
Quakers claim that their gathered silence transforms the participants. At least Quakers do engage directly in social justice work, and attempt to allow their values to permeate every aspect of their lives. The trouble is, I couldn't actually be a Quaker, because it wouldn't suit me.
Pick and mix spirituality - once memorably characterised as 'a glowing and useful term in search of a meaning' - where, at its worst, you get to do all the bits you like and avoid the rest - just makes people disappear up their own bottoms, lost in a welter of crystals, pastel colours, dolphins, quantum vibes, and Mayan prophecies. Yes, it is necessary to seek rest and refreshment before re-entering the fray of activism - but maybe that would be better gained by going for a nice walk in the woods or listening to a really good piece of music. It certainly isn't gained by paying megabucks for some dubious bullshit.
There's a joke in the Pagan community: "Q. What's the difference between Paganism and the New Age? A: a couple of extra zeroes on the end of the price."
The trouble is, there is no objective way of testing the effectiveness of religion and spirituality. I've done lots of stuff, and I have become more relaxed and learnt to like myself, but did that happen because I practiced religion and spirituality, or would it have happened anyway? When I think of all the heartbreak and angst I have experienced over various aspects of religion and spirituality, I sometimes wonder if it was worth it. I do know that I have got spiritual burnout and need a rest.
I do not use my religion as a "crutch" - because it does not offer me the consolation of believing in life after death. I sort of believe in reincarnation, but I have no idea what form it might take, or whether the individual personality survives the transition; so there's very little consolation available there.
I guess I have been looking for "spiritual experiences" but I do not think they are really the point of spiritual practices; though they are an agreeable by-product of the process. The point of spiritual practices is (supposedly) self-development.
I started out on my journey because I decided the point of existence was to make the world a better place, and the most effective way to do that was to start on the self. The trouble is, it is very easy to get side-tracked into the whole self-development thing, and forget about the activism for social justice. I am an armchair activist, signing petitions, blogging and tweeting about LGBT issues and other causes - but I don't actually do any direct social justice work.
I think anyone who practices religion and spirituality should be constantly asking themselves, why am I doing this particular practice? Does it benefit me, and/or the wider community? Does it make anyone unhappy? Does it create false hope? Will it build up expectations, only to dash them later?
I think Walt Whitman really hit on something when he wrote:
Perhaps also my favourite Carl Sagan quote:
To be perfectly honest, I have got just as much benefit (possibly more) out of long walks in the countryside, making music, creating art, and reading novels.
Paganism claims to put its adherents in touch with Nature by celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals (or at least that used to be its claim - this seems to have been largely sidelined in favour of talking to deities). Does celebrating the seasonal cycle of festivals really put you in touch with Nature? Does it really transform the psyche? Do the rituals actually have a beneficial effect on the practitioners? (If not, at least they are fun.)
Unitarianism claims that it is building the beloved community, and that by being in community together, we can model a microcosm of the world, and create meaningful connections and communities. Does hanging out with people, some of whom one doesn't actually like, really make you a better person? Possibly, in that it is supposed to rub off the corners and make you more tolerant by exposing you to different viewpoints. But you have to really hang out with them and make actual community, not just see them on Sundays.
Buddhism claims that meditation is the transformative ingredient. I do know that the metta bhavana meditation really helped me to avoid conflict with someone I found incredibly annoying - but then maybe I could have saved myself an awful lot of trauma by just having the conflict with the person, because I was damaged by acquiescing to their nonsense.
Quakers claim that their gathered silence transforms the participants. At least Quakers do engage directly in social justice work, and attempt to allow their values to permeate every aspect of their lives. The trouble is, I couldn't actually be a Quaker, because it wouldn't suit me.
Pick and mix spirituality - once memorably characterised as 'a glowing and useful term in search of a meaning' - where, at its worst, you get to do all the bits you like and avoid the rest - just makes people disappear up their own bottoms, lost in a welter of crystals, pastel colours, dolphins, quantum vibes, and Mayan prophecies. Yes, it is necessary to seek rest and refreshment before re-entering the fray of activism - but maybe that would be better gained by going for a nice walk in the woods or listening to a really good piece of music. It certainly isn't gained by paying megabucks for some dubious bullshit.
There's a joke in the Pagan community: "Q. What's the difference between Paganism and the New Age? A: a couple of extra zeroes on the end of the price."
The trouble is, there is no objective way of testing the effectiveness of religion and spirituality. I've done lots of stuff, and I have become more relaxed and learnt to like myself, but did that happen because I practiced religion and spirituality, or would it have happened anyway? When I think of all the heartbreak and angst I have experienced over various aspects of religion and spirituality, I sometimes wonder if it was worth it. I do know that I have got spiritual burnout and need a rest.
I do not use my religion as a "crutch" - because it does not offer me the consolation of believing in life after death. I sort of believe in reincarnation, but I have no idea what form it might take, or whether the individual personality survives the transition; so there's very little consolation available there.
I guess I have been looking for "spiritual experiences" but I do not think they are really the point of spiritual practices; though they are an agreeable by-product of the process. The point of spiritual practices is (supposedly) self-development.
I started out on my journey because I decided the point of existence was to make the world a better place, and the most effective way to do that was to start on the self. The trouble is, it is very easy to get side-tracked into the whole self-development thing, and forget about the activism for social justice. I am an armchair activist, signing petitions, blogging and tweeting about LGBT issues and other causes - but I don't actually do any direct social justice work.
I think anyone who practices religion and spirituality should be constantly asking themselves, why am I doing this particular practice? Does it benefit me, and/or the wider community? Does it make anyone unhappy? Does it create false hope? Will it build up expectations, only to dash them later?
I think Walt Whitman really hit on something when he wrote:
I think I could turn and live with the animals, they are so placid and self contained;I also think that the Abraham Lincoln quote that I used as the strapline of this blog is a good acid test of whether a religion or spirituality is any good: "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God;
Not one is dissatisfied-not one is demented with the mania of owning things;
Not one kneels to another, nor his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
Not one is responsible or industrious over the whole earth.
Perhaps also my favourite Carl Sagan quote:
A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later such a religion will emerge.I do think that living by a particular set of values, rather than a particular set of beliefs, is a way forward, because beliefs about 'spiritual' matters are generally not very testable or falsifiable, whereas values and practices can be tested empirically, and discarded if they do not work.
To be perfectly honest, I have got just as much benefit (possibly more) out of long walks in the countryside, making music, creating art, and reading novels.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Unitarian Earth Spirit and Paganism
Recently Tony McNeile gave a talk at the Unitarian Earth Spirit Network at the General Assembly meetings in Keele, entitled Forward to Paganism.
My thoughts on Tony's article (as a Wiccan and a Unitarian):
Gerald Gardner was not a loony, whatever people might have thought at the time. He had some ideas which were based on erroneous history (such as the idea of an ancient witch cult, which he got from Margaret Murray), and his ideas about women and homosexuality were a bit off, but he tried to give women respect and equality. And very importantly, he contributed to the return of the idea of the Goddess.
What Tony describes as Paganism is more like Pantheism. But it doesn't really matter what label you give it.
I don't think worshipping the Goddess (or goddesses) is a prerequisite for Paganism, but I do think that being aware that the Divine (or deities) includes both genders, and transcends gender, is important. Women have been disadvantaged by being regarded as second class citizens because of not being reflected in the Divine, and the return of the Goddess has been incredibly important for women.
Very few Wiccan covens are women-only (only a few lesbian separatist groups exist, mainly in the states, and they are not really Wiccan). Men are welcome and equal.
Ritual nudity is liberating.
Magic does not have to be part of Pagan spirituality, but when it is, it is usually used for healing, and it is not irrational. People who practice magic usually have an understanding of it that they have squared with their rational side.
The pagan origins of Easter are now regarded as rather dubious. There is only one reference in Bede, and it's very likely that he got it wrong.
My thoughts on Tony's article (as a Wiccan and a Unitarian):
Gerald Gardner was not a loony, whatever people might have thought at the time. He had some ideas which were based on erroneous history (such as the idea of an ancient witch cult, which he got from Margaret Murray), and his ideas about women and homosexuality were a bit off, but he tried to give women respect and equality. And very importantly, he contributed to the return of the idea of the Goddess.
What Tony describes as Paganism is more like Pantheism. But it doesn't really matter what label you give it.
I don't think worshipping the Goddess (or goddesses) is a prerequisite for Paganism, but I do think that being aware that the Divine (or deities) includes both genders, and transcends gender, is important. Women have been disadvantaged by being regarded as second class citizens because of not being reflected in the Divine, and the return of the Goddess has been incredibly important for women.
Very few Wiccan covens are women-only (only a few lesbian separatist groups exist, mainly in the states, and they are not really Wiccan). Men are welcome and equal.
Ritual nudity is liberating.
Magic does not have to be part of Pagan spirituality, but when it is, it is usually used for healing, and it is not irrational. People who practice magic usually have an understanding of it that they have squared with their rational side.
The pagan origins of Easter are now regarded as rather dubious. There is only one reference in Bede, and it's very likely that he got it wrong.
Friday, February 12, 2010
LGBT-friendly religions
I was hanging out in a gay bar last night and we ended up talking about religion (yeah, I know, it's no great surprise when I'm around, as it's one of my favourite topics of conversation) and discussing which are the most LGBT-friendly religions and denominations. Some of the people had never heard of some of the religions.
So, in no particular order, here are some of the more friendly ones:
Unitarianism
- The Divine has no gender.
- Unitarians have ordained LGBT ministers since 1977, and passed a number of motions at General Assembly in support of LGBT equality.
- Most Unitarian churches are willing to do same-sex blessings, and welcome LGBT members.
- Find out more about Unitarianism
Metropolitan Community Church
- A Christian church, founded by LGBT people for LGBT people
- Find out more about MCC
Buddhism
- All sex is liable to cause ego-attachments, so there's no particular prejudice against same-sex relationships
- Buddhist sexual ethics do not preclude particular practices but rather promote considerate behaviour
- Lots of androgynous statues
- Find out more about Buddhism
Eclectic Paganism
- Generally LGBT-friendly, but sometimes heterocentric.
- Find out more about eclectic Paganism
Wicca
- Sometimes heterocentric, but has the potential to be queered
- Isolated covens can sometimes be homophobic, but the mainstream is not
- Find out more about Wicca
Druidry
- Generally LGBT-friendly, but sometimes heterocentric.
- Find out more about Druidry
Polytheism
- Deities of many genders and sexualities
- Lots of LGBT adherents
- Sometimes the deities are too gendered
- Find out more about polytheism
Quakers
- peace-loving, tolerant
- recently approved same-sex weddings (they have been doing same-sex blessings for more than 20 years, apparently)
- Find out more about Quakers
- offer same-sex commitment ceremonies
- Find out more about Liberal Jews
See also
| Religion | Christianity • Islam • Judaism • Hinduism • Buddhism • Sikhism • Taoism • Shinto • Bahá'í • Confucianism • Scientology •Zoroastrianism • Unitarian Universalism • Voodoo • Wicca • Ásatrú |
|---|
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Community among Unitarians and Pagans
As a long-term participant in Pagan groups (since 1990) and having recently joined a Unitarian church (for those who don't know, there are plenty of Pagans in British Unitarianism), I have been mentally comparing the two. There is no clear "winner" but the comparison is interesting.
Pagans are more focussed on individual friendships; Unitarians are more focused on gathering in community.
Unitarians are better at including everyone in the community, even if they are different from others in some way. (Lesson for Pagans - we need to focus on shared values instead of differing beliefs.)
In a crisis, Pagan friends will rally round, which is great, but if you want a trained full-time minister, with all that that entails, then you're more likely to find one via Unitarianism.
In terms of age and class and education, Unitarians are more diverse than Pagans. This is probably because Paganisms haven't been around so long.
In terms of the values we embrace, Unitarians are much less diverse than Pagans. Even though a Christian Unitarian may differ from a Pagan Unitarian in the mythology they happen to like, their values are remarkably similar.
Unitarians are better at focussing on values and regarding beliefs as less important. Unitarians have more shared values in common, simply because we are very explicit about what those values are. (Hopefully Pax's recent Pagan Values Blogging Month will go some way towards changing that - and I hope it will happen again in 2010).
Both communities are inclusive and welcoming and non-judgmental.
I'd be interested to hear from UU Pagans on this.
Incidentally, while I am still philosophically pagan, I have stopped referring to myself as Pagan (I now call myself Unitarian and Wiccan) because it is no longer clear what "Pagan" actually means (due to things like the reburial issue).
Pagans are more focussed on individual friendships; Unitarians are more focused on gathering in community.
Unitarians are better at including everyone in the community, even if they are different from others in some way. (Lesson for Pagans - we need to focus on shared values instead of differing beliefs.)
In a crisis, Pagan friends will rally round, which is great, but if you want a trained full-time minister, with all that that entails, then you're more likely to find one via Unitarianism.
In terms of age and class and education, Unitarians are more diverse than Pagans. This is probably because Paganisms haven't been around so long.
In terms of the values we embrace, Unitarians are much less diverse than Pagans. Even though a Christian Unitarian may differ from a Pagan Unitarian in the mythology they happen to like, their values are remarkably similar.
Unitarians are better at focussing on values and regarding beliefs as less important. Unitarians have more shared values in common, simply because we are very explicit about what those values are. (Hopefully Pax's recent Pagan Values Blogging Month will go some way towards changing that - and I hope it will happen again in 2010).
Both communities are inclusive and welcoming and non-judgmental.
I'd be interested to hear from UU Pagans on this.
Incidentally, while I am still philosophically pagan, I have stopped referring to myself as Pagan (I now call myself Unitarian and Wiccan) because it is no longer clear what "Pagan" actually means (due to things like the reburial issue).
Monday, August 10, 2009
The problem of historicity
Regarding the historicity of Pagan traditions. Given that we know next to nothing about what ancient druids (if they were really as described by the Romans) got up to or believed, or what medieval witches (who, even if they existed, were probably not pagans) got up to, or what early medieval heathens got up to (a bit more data, but a lot of it written down by Christians), the people who claim that they're doing something because their ancient forerunners did it, and not because they feel it to be the right way for them to be a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan in the here and now - that is what is irritating to the academically-minded.
You can be a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan because you feel you are one because it fits the image you have in your mind of what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is (and I affirm your right to do so).
But what happens when someone else with a completely different idea about what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is, does the same? Then we have confusion...
What is the solution to this dilemma? I'm not sure that I know. I know that we do need to have discussions about our theology, our values, our worldview, our ethics, and what is distinctly Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan about them. We don't want to establish a creed or an orthodoxy, because that could lead to persecution of dissenters. But that does not mean we can dodge the issue and just not talk about it.
As far as historicity is concerned, the rest of us could learn a lot from Heathens and reconstructionists, who have gone to the effort of reading as much of the available source material as possible, and comparing it with experiences and ideas of present-day Heathens, and creating a synthesis of historical and present-day insights. They are lucky because early medieval heathenry lasted a lot longer and was better-documented than other traditions. They also have a well-worked-out and widely publicised set of Heathen virtues. Wicca also has a set of virtues, but this is not so well-known.
Personally, I feel that we are also the heirs of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and Romanticism, and we cannot just ignore the intervening centuries and pretend they didn't happen. This is one of the reasons why I am interested in Unitarianism.
You can be a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan because you feel you are one because it fits the image you have in your mind of what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is (and I affirm your right to do so).
But what happens when someone else with a completely different idea about what a Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan is, does the same? Then we have confusion...
What is the solution to this dilemma? I'm not sure that I know. I know that we do need to have discussions about our theology, our values, our worldview, our ethics, and what is distinctly Druid/Witch/Wiccan/Heathen/Pagan about them. We don't want to establish a creed or an orthodoxy, because that could lead to persecution of dissenters. But that does not mean we can dodge the issue and just not talk about it.
As far as historicity is concerned, the rest of us could learn a lot from Heathens and reconstructionists, who have gone to the effort of reading as much of the available source material as possible, and comparing it with experiences and ideas of present-day Heathens, and creating a synthesis of historical and present-day insights. They are lucky because early medieval heathenry lasted a lot longer and was better-documented than other traditions. They also have a well-worked-out and widely publicised set of Heathen virtues. Wicca also has a set of virtues, but this is not so well-known.
Personally, I feel that we are also the heirs of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, and Romanticism, and we cannot just ignore the intervening centuries and pretend they didn't happen. This is one of the reasons why I am interested in Unitarianism.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Is this discrimination?
Jason over at the Wild Hunt has a post about a group of British Wiccans who tried to book a Catholic social club.
They didn't know it was a Catholic social club when they tried to book it, and they were completely honest that the booking was for a group of witches (the event was called the Witches' Ball). The man who initially took the booking said that the social club was a business and only tenuously attached to the Catholic Church. He was then overruled by the diocesan authorities.
The comments on the article in the Stockport Express explain what went on:
They didn't know it was a Catholic social club when they tried to book it, and they were completely honest that the booking was for a group of witches (the event was called the Witches' Ball). The man who initially took the booking said that the social club was a business and only tenuously attached to the Catholic Church. He was then overruled by the diocesan authorities.
The comments on the article in the Stockport Express explain what went on:
When I called to book the venue which had been recommended and which I had used many times I new it as The Flint Street Social Club, I never knew it was run or attached to the Catholic church and when the Gentleman, who was very nice by the way, answered with Our Lady's I then told him who I was, what we wanted and who were were, totally up front and said that I did not want to compromise them in any way. he assured me that this was a totally separate Buisness venture and that anyone could book the room and then 'do what we want in it' . I would not have continued with the booking had he said any different. I required a room large enough to take in excess of 150 people plus a stage where the nights entertainment Abba Fusion an Abba Tribute Duo could perform in complete safety with all there stage equipment.I guess they have a right to veto certain events (like arms' dealers conferences, BNP meetings and the like) but it's not as if the Wiccans were planning anything other than a family party at the venue.
The Witch's Ball is a family event with dancing, games etc just like any other party. The difference being that some of us Walk the well worn path of The Old Ways, ordinary people, with ordinary lives.
It is such a shame that all religions cannot accept each others ways as we respect every other religion.
The man who had to also tell me that we couldnt have the room was very apologetic and said embarrased at having to tell me they wouldnt let us have the venue.
I hope that dialogue rather than litigation will be the result of this, but I think, as another commenter points out, it's quite likely that other events at Catholic-owned properties could include Wiccans, Muslims, lesbians, gays and so on. So the line should be drawn at what is illegal (i.e. hate speech) not what the Catholic Church considers immoral. That is the rule that applies to discrimination against LGBT people wanting to book Christian facilities, so the same should apply here.
Is this discrimination? Yes, I think it is.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
What's so great about Gerald?
Gerald Gardner (the founder of Wicca) was a Conservative, and whilst he professed a deep reverence for women, the view of women he espoused was that of Jacquetta Hawkes, an archaeologist who popularised the notion of the Great Mother Goddess and promoted the idea of women as goddesses of the domestic hearth.
Doreen Valiente had to argue with him when he tried to get her to step down as High Priestess because she was "too old".
Also, according to Lois Bourne, Gardner was deeply homophobic (though this is perhaps surprising given his interest in alternative practices such as naturism).
Of course, we have to remember that he was a man of his time, and make allowances for some of his attitudes. He also had many fine qualities - wit, charm, originality, etc. And there are several things I am eternally grateful to him for:
Doreen Valiente had to argue with him when he tried to get her to step down as High Priestess because she was "too old".
Also, according to Lois Bourne, Gardner was deeply homophobic (though this is perhaps surprising given his interest in alternative practices such as naturism).
Of course, we have to remember that he was a man of his time, and make allowances for some of his attitudes. He also had many fine qualities - wit, charm, originality, etc. And there are several things I am eternally grateful to him for:
- he did not insist on being reverenced as Our Glorious Founder, and would make adjustments when people argued with him.
- he gave out different Books of Shadows to different High Priestesses, so there could not be a canonical version of the BoS (no matter how much some people want to turn it into the Wiccan equivalent of the Bible).
- he encouraged his covenors to use the bits of ritual they liked and not bother with the rest
If we compare him to other founders of religions, both ancient and modern, we can see that their religions either declined after their deaths or became rigidly dogmatic. So it is much better to have a flawed and human founder whose opinions you can question, than one whose every word is taken as a divine utterance. So he was great - and Wicca is a flexible and adaptable tradition - precisely because he was flawed.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
No to bigotry, yes to life
I've written before about the difference between interfaith dialogue, evangelism and proselytising.
Now a particularly sickening and insidious example of "evangelism" (or is it proselytising?) has been highlighted by my fellow Wiccan blogger over at Witches and Scientists.
So, a message to Christians of an evangelical and/or proselytising persuasion:
People of other religions than your own are not "lost". They didn't get "sucked into" the other religion because they somehow failed to notice the existence of Christianity. If they looked at Christianity, they probably rejected the disgusting doctrines espoused by some Christians, but not all, of exclusivity (the idea that only Christians can get to heaven), penal substitution, and the idea that the divine isn't immanent in the world, and is only masculine. They probably rejected the utterly sick idea of "dying to the world and living in Christ". They probably saw the humanity and spirituality of a gay friend and rejected the sick and perverse doctrines that seek to prevent that gay friend living and loving to the full.
Instead, we embraced the idea that all religions are paths to the Divine (with the possible exception of those espousing the above-mentioned doctrines); that the Divine is immanent in the world - that each rock and tree and living being is filled with the Divine - and that the messages of compassion, love and spirituality shine forth everywhere, in all times and places. And that all forms of love and pleasure are sacred, rituals of the Goddess of life and love (including same-sex love).
So, no thanks, we don't need the narrow, warped, cramped, life-denying, exclusivist, dreary creed of the sort of Christians who write utter drivel like "Generation Hex".
We are very happy to embrace as kindred spirits the kind of Christians who are prepared to acknowledge that other religions and lifestyles are valid paths to the Divine (and there are many more of them every day, thank the gods) but we will never, never compromise with the evil bigots who promote homophobia, bigotry, and hatred of other religions.
Now a particularly sickening and insidious example of "evangelism" (or is it proselytising?) has been highlighted by my fellow Wiccan blogger over at Witches and Scientists.
So, a message to Christians of an evangelical and/or proselytising persuasion:
People of other religions than your own are not "lost". They didn't get "sucked into" the other religion because they somehow failed to notice the existence of Christianity. If they looked at Christianity, they probably rejected the disgusting doctrines espoused by some Christians, but not all, of exclusivity (the idea that only Christians can get to heaven), penal substitution, and the idea that the divine isn't immanent in the world, and is only masculine. They probably rejected the utterly sick idea of "dying to the world and living in Christ". They probably saw the humanity and spirituality of a gay friend and rejected the sick and perverse doctrines that seek to prevent that gay friend living and loving to the full.
Instead, we embraced the idea that all religions are paths to the Divine (with the possible exception of those espousing the above-mentioned doctrines); that the Divine is immanent in the world - that each rock and tree and living being is filled with the Divine - and that the messages of compassion, love and spirituality shine forth everywhere, in all times and places. And that all forms of love and pleasure are sacred, rituals of the Goddess of life and love (including same-sex love).
So, no thanks, we don't need the narrow, warped, cramped, life-denying, exclusivist, dreary creed of the sort of Christians who write utter drivel like "Generation Hex".
We are very happy to embrace as kindred spirits the kind of Christians who are prepared to acknowledge that other religions and lifestyles are valid paths to the Divine (and there are many more of them every day, thank the gods) but we will never, never compromise with the evil bigots who promote homophobia, bigotry, and hatred of other religions.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"Witchcraft" in Africa
African "witchcraft" has been in the news again recently.
Here is my view of this issue:
Here is my view of this issue:
- There are African traditional religions which include magical practitioners. In the 18th and 19th centuries, these practitioners were mislabelled as "witches" by Christian missionaries and colonialists. At that time the word "witch" still had almost entirely negative connotations. When these people's roles are being translated into English by Africans, they don't use the term "witch".
- African traditional religions have two categories of "witchcraft":
- involuntary "witchcraft" which is a disease that the "witch" often doesn't know that they have. This is a complete misuse of the word "witch". (See Witchcraft among the Azande by W Evans-Pritchard for an anthropological study of this type of witchcraft belief.)
- sorcery or malevolent "witchcraft" - again, this has its own set of African words which probably don't map precisely onto the European concepts.
- During the late 19th and early 20th century, various European writers began to see witches as just traditional healers who were misunderstood, and so the word "witch" came to have positive connotations in some quarters; Gerald Gardner picked up on these writings and created Wicca (or the people who initiated him did so).
- This new positive understanding still hasn't reached many evangelical or fundamentalist Christians, who regard all magic as being of the devil. The more enlightened Christians understand the difference between contemporary Pagan Witchcraft, the negative stereotypes of the 19th century, and the magical practices of African traditional religions.
- In some circumstances, it may help to label traditional healers & magicians as being like Wiccans (where Wiccans are held in positive regard); in other cases, it may not (where Wicca is regarded as just another decadent Western practice, for instance).
- Labelling all magical practitioners as "witches" is a bit too much like saying that anyone who does anything that looks like shamanism is a shaman, when they may have their own indigenous term and understanding of the practice which is different from that of the original shamans of the Tungus in Siberia. People's practices should be understood on their own terms, and not in terms imported from another context. It is quite correct to say that understanding it in terms of "black magic" versus "white magic" is very unhelpful. I'm just going one step further and saying we should be extremely careful in applying European terms, metaphors, or concepts to the situation; if we do so, we need to understand it in terms of the historical factors which might be causing the situation, and to be aware of the differences as much as the similarities.
Friday, May 30, 2008
So be it ardane...
ROFLMAO! This version of the Craft Laws (which were in any case made up by Gerald Gardner one Tuesday afternoon when his coveners started questioning what he said) is very very funny.
I particularly like number 33:
Personally I think that rules (in the sense of guidelines which are emergent from the context and agreed upon by all members of a group) are a good idea, in order to prevent one ego dominating all the others; but it seems that the rules invented by Gerald would have exactly the opposite effect, so it is excellent that someone has parodied them so mercilessly.
I particularly like number 33:
It hath been found that two people sitting around with a bottle of Chianti discussing Atlantean Grandmothers will become fond of each other, if only because of the Stockholm Syndrome. Therefore, let it be resolved that a human being shall be taught in the Craft only by another human being, and screw the middle-class morality of the 1950's.I've always felt that the so-called Craft Laws were a pile of foetid dingos' kidneys. Sorry Gerald, but what were you thinking? And as for claiming that they were ancient.... oh please, gods give me strength.
Personally I think that rules (in the sense of guidelines which are emergent from the context and agreed upon by all members of a group) are a good idea, in order to prevent one ego dominating all the others; but it seems that the rules invented by Gerald would have exactly the opposite effect, so it is excellent that someone has parodied them so mercilessly.
Friday, June 15, 2007
queer Wicca article
My article is now online at the GLBTQ Encyclopedia!
Wicca - http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/wicca.html
Wicca - http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/wicca.html
Primarily a nature religion that seeks to commune with the divine through the contemplation and celebration of nature and its mysteries, Wicca and other contemporary pagan traditions celebrate
our existence in this world.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Queer Wicca talk
In other news, I will be giving a talk on Queer Wicca at the Cardiff LGB Mardi Gras on 1st September. They're having a faith tent, and there will be Jews, Christians, Buddhists and Pagans, all showing that you don't have to be homophobic if you are religious or spiritual. In fact, of course, I'd say being a homophobe automatically disqualifies you from the label 'spiritual'.
An exploration of Queer themes and traditions in contemporary Paganism: the tribe; gender-bending and androgyny; themes of darkness, nature, and vulnerability; finding the queer in the divine, and the divine in the queer; subject-SUBJECT consciousness.
All acts of love and pleasure are Her rituals
An exploration of Queer themes and traditions in contemporary Paganism: the tribe; gender-bending and androgyny; themes of darkness, nature, and vulnerability; finding the queer in the divine, and the divine in the queer; subject-SUBJECT consciousness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)