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:

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.

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 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.

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.

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:

• 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.

metaphors for religion

Religions as languages - the idea that religions are languages, each with their own dialects, discourses, and ability to spread through trade and conquest. This metaphor is a very helpful way to understand religions, though it's not the whole picture. Wittgenstein's concept of language games could also be useful here. Jeff Lilly explores this metaphor in two excellent articles, The Future of Neopaganism in the West, Part I: Prestige and Stigma and The Future of Neopaganism in the West, Part II: Going Organic. Similarly, Andrew J Brown likens religions to irregular verbs:

Christianity is an irregular verb par excellence (as too, of course, are all the other world religions). To speak it and understand its hopeful message you simply have to learn them, live them, always use them in the context of the world in which you find yourself. They are never reducible to a set of simple unifying, rational rules.

Religions as vinegar tasters - there's a Taoist painting of Confucius, Buddha and Lao Tsu tasting vinegar; only Lao Tsu is smiling and enjoying the vinegar for what it is. The vinegar represents life, the world as it is. Another article by Jeff Lilly explores the idea of the vinegar tasters.

Religions as software - if your brain is the hardware and your mind is the operating system, religions are the software installed on it (and sometimes it's really difficult to uninstall them). My article, Religions as software, explores this idea.

Religions as ex-girlfriends - Al Billings' hilarious article (available via the Wayback Machine) explores the idea of religions as ex-girlfriends, which means they naturally have opinions of each other:

[Wicca] complains about your “kablahblah” and rolls her eyes while mumbling about patriarchal power schemes. She can’t stop talking about Roman Catholicism and how wrong she was for you… in fact, she seems pretty obsessed with her sometimes.

Religions as explanatory tools for various situations - like why shit happens (surprisingly accurate); why your web page cannot be found; and of course, how many adherents it takes to change a lightbulb (there are Christian lightbulb jokes, Pagan lightbulb jokes, Jewish lightbulb jokes, Buddhist lightbulb jokes, and there may be many others that haven't been discovered).

Religions as cities - this one's been popular ever since someone dreamed up the heavenly Jerusalem, and Augustine burbled on about the City of God. Nevertheless, not a bad metaphor; different denominations can be different suburbs. As Evelyn Underhill famously said, ‘the Anglican Church may not be the city of God but she is certainly a respectable suburb thereof’. Andrew Brown has a lovely article on religions as cities. If Christianity is a city, is Paganism another city (possibly with more trees), or is it the surrounding countryside?

Religions as receivers of frequencies - it occurred to me the other day that each religion has its own frequency for tuning in to the numinous, and that in between the frequencies, there is static (but perhaps one day a new radio station will appear there). Or perhaps one religion is tuned to light, another is sound, and another is radio waves, and so on -- so each religion is a different type of receiver for detecting the emissions from the numinous.

Religions as colours - each religion has a different set of colours representing the philosophical and cultural ideas within it.

Religions as rhizomes or river systems - Deleuze and Guattari's idea of the spread of ideas as being like the growth of rhizomes could also be useful here. Similarly, religions are discourses, so the idea of discourses as rivers could also be useful. R Diaz-Bone (2006) describes discourses as an 'expression, indeed part of a certain social praxis, that already defines a certain group of possible texts, that express that same praxis, indeed can be accepted as representatives of that same praxis.'

Religions as trees: Tolkien described the Catholic Church as a big tree growing into time with its roots in eternity; and regarded the Protestant Reformation as an attempt to chop down that tree, with all its interesting gnarly bits, and start again with a new sapling. Regardless of what you think of his particular religious politics, it's a great metaphor. Trees grow in a particular place and are nourished by the soil and shaped by the winds that blow, so each religion is shaped by its environment; but all trees are recognisable as trees and have some features in common, by which we can compare them, so this metaphor gives you essence (the quality of treeness) and particularity (type of tree, environmental conditions).

Don't forget to vote

(even though this banner clashes with my blog's colour scheme)

A theophany

Christian theologians (especially Orthodox ones) love to point out that Pagans are worshipping the creation, whereas they are worshipping the creator.

It is one of the first rules of interfaith dialogue to listen carefully to what others say they believe, rather than telling them what they believe.

This creator and creation thing is a bit of an old chestnut and not really true (it may be so in terms of some Christian theological systems, but it doesn't translate into ours).

In other words, Mu. (A Japanase word meaning, "your question is irrelevant in my paradigm"; kind of like "meh".)

Most Pagans see the Divine as immanent in the Universe, not necessarily as identical with it (and yes, don't tend to pay much attention to the unknowable, or believe in the transcendent aspect) so the categories of creator and creature are a bit meaningless, really... in fact I personally find the idea of an external supernatural creator offensive, because to me the Universe was born, not made. It is a theophany: a manifestation of the Divine.

As Sam Webster wrote in his 2007 article, How Close the Gods? Transcendence, Immanence and Immediacy in Pagan Religion (given at Pantheacon 2007):

Immediacy is a more modern term for wrestling with this problem, although one can find the idea discussed in the deep past. It is a subtle idea but its implications are vast. Here we would say, "the Goddess made the Tree and is present AS the Tree (not just IN the Tree)." To touch the Tree is to touch the Goddess. She is immediately present. Nothing is between us and Her. The whole World IS Her, made BY Her and OF Her, and by implication, there is Nothing BUT Her.

In this way of looking at it, it is not that we are focussed on the creation instead of the creator / creatrix: the two are identical, and so making a distinction between them is meaningless.

De-baptism

The UK National Secular Society has produced a de-baptism certificate for atheists - however it's not really suitable for Pagans or other liberal religious traditions, as it denounces "superstition" (under which heading they would probably include Pagan beliefs).

I ________ having been subjected to the Rite of Christian Baptism in infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out. In the name of human reason, I reject all its Creeds and all other such superstition in particular, the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed by Baptism of alleged ORIGINAL SIN, and the evil power of supposed demons. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege.

The main reason for doing this, as far as I can see, is that the number of bishops in the House of Lords is based on the number of adherents to the Church of England, and that number is apparently based on the number of people baptised in a Church of England church.

So here's my suggested wording for Pagans and Unitarians:

I ________ having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out. By all that I hold sacred, I reject all its Creeds, in particular, the erroneous belief that any baby needs to be cleansed by baptism of alleged original sin. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege.

A new tradition

A new tradition has arisen in deepest, darkest Bedfordshire: The Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley. Who knew that you could mix Taize prayer with Beaker spirituality and tea-lights? They also have a festival of the nativity of Thomas Hardy, and one for Morrissey (which should both be adopted immediately by all Pagans).

They have a website and a blog. And articles of faith:

The Articles of the Beaker Faith

1. Anything that can be reasonably conjectured when it comes to the original Beaker Folk, and not disproved, can be assumed to be true and therefore a genuine Beaker tradition.
2. Anything we don’t understand about previous generations was probably concerned with fertility rituals. Any object we don’t understand had symbolic meaning. Even if it could just have been a ritual back-scratcher.
3. The more inclusive you are, the less you have to worry.
4. There’s no spiritual power in the universe greater than wishful thinking.
5. All contributions to the Community are strictly optional. But don’t think that means you can get away without paying them.
6. Don’t jump and down on Thin Places in steel toe-capped boots. They’re liable to break.
7. Tea lights are nice.
8. Don’t ask the Archdruid about what she puts in her pipe, or why she needs such regular deliveries of hydroponic supplies. Or why the snow never settles on the roof of the Great House.
9. If it feels good, it’s probably fine.
10. Hi-viz is good for your physical safety and your eternal soul. We don’t just wear it because the Archdruid bought a job-lot of personal protective equipment in her old job as a Health and Safety advisor.
11. Whenever referring to "Celtic" Christianity or the "Celtic" tradition, we will always put the word "Celtic" in inverted commas, to indicate that it is no such thing. We’re still considering putting the word "tradition" in inverted commas also.
12. Never attempt astral projection without a safety belt and hard hat.
13. Avoid ever trying to understand what Beaker People mean by "the divine". Once we start to try and understand "the divine" it might in return make some demands on us. Keep your tea lights alight and your theology vague.
14. All religions contain at least grains of truth. But some religions are more profitable than others.

Hat-tip to Notes from Underground

Fame!

Cat over at Quaker Pagan Reflections has written a very interesting post about fame.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that fame and wisdom are not the same thing, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that there are no Pagans who do not know the difference (famous or otherwise). It's rare for me to disagree with Cat, but on this occasion I have to say I do.

I've thought a lot about the whole fame thing. Part of my reason for writing books was that I wanted something to live on after death; but I've never wanted to be famous in a Big Name Pagan sort of way. Most of the Big Name Pagans that I really respect are the ones who do not expect everyone else to agree with them and fawn over them. I have a selection of people whom I have commissioned to give me a big kick up the backside if ever I turn into one of those people surrounded by fawning neophytes. Of course there are one or two of those sort of Big Name Pagans in the UK, but apart from their small gang of neophytes, they are widely regarded as Too Big For Their Boots. Another part of my reason for writing books was that I aimed to write the sort of books I wanted to read (on the assumption that there might be others interested in the same topics as me). The other day, someone did say to me that they were very grateful for my books as they thought they were the only one interested in such things - I was very glad to have been of assistance in this way, but I can't say it inflated my ego, though I was very pleased to discover a kindred spirit. I can certainly honestly say that I don't write books in order to acquire followers or be seen as super-spiritual; I write because I enjoy writing and hope that other people will enjoy the results. I've never wanted to be famous to the extent of being recognised in the street or anything like that; I certainly don't crave the attention of tabloids and paparazzi; and I would rather someone develop their own opinions than quote mine as an "authority" (if they happen to agree with me, that's nice, but only if they have come to their views after independent thought and reflection).

The authors I respect know what they think, cultivate wisdom, are generally humble, and do not expect the biggest table or spotlight at conferences. I happen to know quite a lot of Pagan authors, and for the most part they are people of integrity. Rather than keeping a coterie of dependent neophytes, they encourage others to develop their own opinions, walk their own path with integrity, and cultivate their own wisdom. A person who keeps others in a state of spiritual or intellectual dependence (beyond the point where they might be expected to think for themselves) is certainly to be suspected of overweening ego; but fortunately such people are reasonably rare. I personally couldn't be bothered to keep a flock of neophytes dangling at my tail, because it would be too much effort looking after their neediness, and people who can't think for themselves irritate me. If anyone says to me that I am wise or special, I just feel squirmily embarrassed, quite frankly. I mean, okay, I take a fair amount of pride in my breadth of knowledge and ability to express it clearly; but I don't pretend to superior wisdom on anything.

The Hávamál implicitly make the point that fame must be earned:

Happy is he who wins for himself
fair fame and kindly words;
(Hávamál, 8)

Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself too soon must die,
but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
fair fame of one who has earned.
(Hávamál, 75)

Fame is not merely earned by spouting opinions; it is earned by wisdom and a life well lived.

A person with integrity walks the walk, and does not merely talk the talk.

I have discussed Pagan virtues and ethics elsewhere at length (especially compassion), and they most definitely do include humility - but a humility tempered by honour, which in the Pagan sense is an accurate assessment of one's own self-worth (naturally not flinching from being aware of one's flaws). Honour and humility together bring integrity. And Pagan virtues (ideal and actual) certainly include the cultivation of wisdom - a wisdom that includes compassion for all life (including those less "spiritually advanced" than oneself).

Reviews

A series of amusing Bible reviews (reproduced here in case Amazon remove them or something):

Lots of plot holes, but mildly interesting bit of semi-historical fiction, May 1, 2009
By Joshua N. Petersen

This book stars a weird sociopathic anti-social bipolar hermaphroditic superbeing with an intense hatred of foreskins. (He's loving one minute, killing everyone the next, loving again, then killing again, never shows his face, creates stuff apparantly for the express purpose of destroying it, and beats up constantly on his 'chosen' people... whom it never says what he chose them for, and has all these 'songs' in them where they admire his bosoms -aka breasts-) I mean, that's definitely an original character, but feels like it'd make a better villian or foil than the main character.

Also, feels like the authors needed to collaborate more. I mean, the "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" sections repeated the same story over again, but re-ordered the same parts. In one, a group of events may take a week, and in another, it make take over a month. On top of it all, breaking everything into miniature sized 'chapters' (more like pages) and then sub-dividing further into verses, really breaks up the reading and makes it hard to get through an entire short story (called 'books) in one sitting.

Setting the book in past historical settings was interesting, but at some places the authors obviously didn't do their research. One example being that crazy Jonah story (what's with the giant fish, giant vine, and giant worm?). The mentioned king didn't rule over Ninevah, they're separated by hundreds of years!

I did like the hippy-character though. Jesus was alright, at least until the book of Revelation kind of ruined it and that Paul guy began teaching against everything Jesus taught while pretending to be on the same side.

Although the line in Titus 1:12 (supposedly made by someone writing to convey knowledge of an infallible God) "It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, `Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.'" Okay... logical problem here. "Cretans are always liars" and a CRETAN prophet says, "Cretans are always liers" Now would could assume the Cretan was lying about ALWAYS lying, but the author follows, saying, "This testimony is true". It's a logical impossibility! The only solution is that the author himself is lying, and if you can't trust the narrator in a book, who can you trust?

For reasons of weird under-developed main characters, logical fallacies and impossibilities, historical inaccuracies in historical fiction, inconsistent and repeating timelines, and creepy forskin obsessions, I need to give this 1 star.

Although I still stand by that I like the hippy, too bad so many of the 'followers' screw up his teachings. I mean, he says the most important thing is to love people, and then his followers say the most important thing is to worship him... kinda loopy.

However, psychiatrists will probably have a hayday analyzing this thing!

Don't Leave It Lying Around the House, October 23, 2008
By Carl Wong (Van Nuys, CA USA)

This book should never be left where it could fall into the hands of children. Recurrent themes of bloody violence, murder, racism, incest and rape are dealt with extremely irresponsibly. Horrific events are presented as justified by circumstances and as solutions to petty wrongs.

Worse than the depictions in the book are actual historic examples of such depictions being used to justify the worst kind of degradation and humiliation that humans have ever been forced to endure. These acts are not just inspired by this book, but characters in the book urge its readers to follow its example. Worst of all, however, is that, despite this book's obvious lack of coherent logic or sense, it inexplicably possesses a following of people that somehow find comfort in its horror.

No doubt about it, the horrific images, and lack of intelligent discussion of those images, contained in this book makes it entirely unsuitable for children, or sensible adults.

It is very doubtful that a book that meanders so terribly, and contradicts itself so often, is truly inspired by a deity. What you will read in here can be found in other mythologies. There is nothing truly unique about it.

Upon close scrutiny, we discover that the content of Bible is a compilation of historically and archaeologically unsupportable Myths such as Noah's ark, Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc.

Had Promise, But Squandered It, February 11, 2009
By Mark Twain

The Lucifer character seemed like a nice enough guy. Refused to bow down to unjust authority, etc. Was pretty much a George Washington / King Leonidas type. For some reason they chose to focus on the Yahweh character however. He was a pretty big jerk, always commanding people to be killed and raped and whatever. Didn't really understand the part where the guy offered his daughters up to be raped. Come to think of it, way to much rape in this book. Anyways, it was cool when the bear ate the children for making fun of that guy, but the scene was not nearly long enough. Also, didn't quite understand how the author got away with so much plagiarism from Egyptian and Sumerian books, but whatevs. Liked the part where he said not to eat seafood. Its nice to see he also had a bad Red Lobster experience. Would recommend the author try Joe's Crab Shack. It's divine.

(spotted by Christina)

404 explanations

Why your page wouldn't load according to various religions and denominations (read carefully as it initially looks like a normal 404 page). I especially liked this one:

Unitarian explanation: All links are equal, so if this link doesn't work for you, feel free to experiment with other links that might bring you joy and fulfillment.

To which could be added various Pagan explanations:

• Fluffy bunny: the fairies ate it
• Animist: You must be at one with the link before it will reveal itself
• Heathen: Sorry, we offered it to the wights as a libation
• Wiccan: Sorry you can't see it because it's a third-degree secret
  

Pagan weddings

While we're on the subject of marriage, I would like to see Pagan weddings given legal recognition in England and Wales, and in the USA.

Pagan handfastings already have legal recognition in Scotland.

In 2007, a woman named Cassandra M set up a petition on the Prime Minister's petitions website to make handfasting legal (now closed). The response was that they had reviewed the Marriage Act previously but were unable to come up with anything sensible so it was dropped. Furthermore, they said,

Traditional Pagan ceremonies are held in the open air. All outdoor ceremonies in the UK need an additional legal ceremony for the marriage to be recognised by law.

Well, Pagan ceremonies don't have to be held in the open air - even if we don't own many buildings, we can always hire them. Perhaps we need to re-open this issue with a slightly different wording of the petition.

I wonder if Hindu, Muslim and Sikh weddings are legally recognised under the current provisions for "Marriage solemnized in a registered building without the presence of a registrar, by the authorised person in whose presence the marriage is solemnized" which seems somewhat ambiguous - can Hindu, Muslim and Sikh celebrants be an "authorised person"? Why couldn't a Pagan become an "authorised person"?

Also, both Pagans and Unitarians would like the right to perform same-sex weddings.

Support gay marriage

A clear and concise video explaining why opposition to gay marriage limits the rights of religious minorities who want to perform gay marriages:



Via the Wild Hunt.