Belief-O-Matic update

I noticed that I haven't done the Belief-O-Matic questionnaire since 2010 - so here's an update. It's a pity they don't have a category for Wicca.

Unitarian Universalism 100%
Secular Humanism 98%
Liberal Quakerism 84%
Atheism 67%
Taoism 66%
Liberal Christian Protestantism 64%
New Age 62%
Theravada Buddhism 59%
Mahayana Buddhism 58%
Neo-Paganism 58%
Reformed Judaism 53%
Scientology 50%
Sikhism 48%
Jainism 47%
New Thought 47%
Church of Christ, Scientist 41%
Orthodox Quakerism 34%
Bahá'í Faith 28%
Hinduism 26%
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 15%
Conservative Christian Protestant 14%
Islam 12%
Seventh-day Adventists 8%
Jehovah's Witnesses 5%
Orthodox Judaism 3%
Roman Catholicism 0%
Eastern Orthodox Christianity 0%

Letter to the book-burners

Dear Wearside Women in Need,

I am dismayed by the article that appeared on the BBC website today, describing how your charity plans to burn copies of Fifty Shades of Grey.

I am not planning to read Fifty Shades of Grey, and I agree that the character of Edward Grey is a stalker and potentially abusive. (Also, it is a very badly written book.)

However, Edward Grey is not abusive because he is into BDSM. He is abusive because he is a stalker who denies Anastasia's autonomy and consistently ignores her boundaries.

The book does not describe BDSM as it is practised by the majority of the BDSM community. BDSM practitioners generally abide by the ethos of "safe, sane and consensual".

There may be abusers who try to hide in the BDSM community, but they are no more numerous than abusers who engage in vanilla sex.

BDSM is not abuse. Please do not conflate the two.

May I refer you to a couple of articles and books which may help to clarify the difference for you:

• "A kink in the process" by Su Connan, in Therapy Today
• "Fifty Shades of Grr" by Adele Haze
• "The SM feminist" by Clarisse Thorn 

Furthermore, book-burning is what fundamentalists do. It is profoundly against democracy and the free dissemination of ideas. I do not like Fifty Shades of Grey because it is a gross distortion of BDSM, but at least it has enabled a conversation in the public square about what BDSM is actually about.

The Endless Knot

By Yvonne Aburrow

Paperback, 49 Pages

Price: £5.99 

Ships in 3–5 business days

Preview

Poetry of place, experience, the seasons, and the sacred. 

Written over many years, these poems are the distillation of experiences of ritual, landscape and mythology. 

Lovers of landscape and nature will enjoy this collection. 

Also available as an eBook (suitable for Kindle and other formats)

"We", or "I and thou"?

So I went to read a (very long) blogpost about relationships, and how being in a relationship makes people want to refer to themselves as "we".

OK, I confess that I haven't read the whole paper (it was more of an academic paper than a blogpost), but my first thought on reading the author's tweet about it was, "no, I want to be 'I and thou' / 'me and thee' with a partner, and I want that to be reciprocated. In other words, I want to be intimate, but I want my autonomy respected. (I'm thinking of Martin Buber's ideas about "I/Thou" here, too, where the other, the Thou, is sacred and beloved and respected.)

So I tweeted in reply: "hmm, not sure about that, I'd rather be a me and a thee." (I then went off to read the article and posted the comment on which this blogpost is based.)

The author of the article tweeted back "I guess u dont think not wanting to be a 'we' makes u incapable of forming an ongoing romantic relationship? "

To which I replied: "No, I bloody well don't, and I find that insinuation offensive."

And he replied: "not meant as insinuation just clarification that you take the thesis to be wrong."

He then tweeted: "Is your objection to idea of forming a 'we' that you think such a notion undermines autonomy?"

To which I replied: Yes.

Harry Hay came up with the idea of Subject-Subject Consciousness to describe relationships where both partners are equal. He criticised most heterosexual relationships as being Subject-Object relationships, where the man gets to be the subject and the woman is the object.

Luce Irigaray came up with a similar concept, intersubjectivity. Pemberton (2004:252) writes:

Of course the subject is always subject in her own eyes when not objectified and displaced by the gaze and the analytical grid of the other. Subjects speak, think, act, love, cry, scream, ululate, make love, feel fear, carry history, dream dreams. They do this best in a radical intersubjectivity[.]

  (from a chapter in Juschka, D.M., ed. (2001) Feminism in the Study of Religion: a Reader. London and New York: Continuum.

The trouble with a heterosexual "we" is that it is all too likely that the woman's subjectivity and autonomy is subsumed in that of the man.  Even if the man is trying to be feminist, trying to regard the woman as a subject in her own right. (Maybe this kind of subsumption can occur in same-sex relationships as well, but I do not have enough experience of them to be able to say.)

I am reminded of that advert from the mid-nineties where a couple is speaking to camera. She says "we want to be out painting the town red". He says "we want to be settling down and having a baby". Clearly there is a huge disconnect in their ideas, so that their use of "we" is completely meaningless - and you are left wondering whose agenda will win out. Will they settle down and have a baby, or will they be out partying all night?

Kahlil Gibran wrote a beautiful thing about marriage (I have boldened the bits that I think are particularly relevant to this discussion):

 You were born together, and together you shall be forevermore.
You shall be together when the white wings of death scatter your days.
Ay, you shall be together even in the silent memory of God.
But let there be spaces in your togetherness,
And let the winds of the heavens dance between you.

Love one another, but make not a bond of love:
Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls.
Fill each other's cup but drink not from one cup.
Give one another of your bread but eat not from the same loaf
Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone,
Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music.

Give your hearts, but not into each other's keeping.
For only the hand of Life can contain your hearts.
And stand together yet not too near together:
For the pillars of the temple stand apart,
And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other's shadow.

 Now that seems to me to be a recipe for happiness.

There is also a Celtic wedding vow:

You cannot possess me for I belong to myself. But while we both wish it, I give you that which is mine to give. You cannot command me for I am a free person.

Another recipe for happiness.

I am not saying that being in a relationship that involves being "we" rather than I is necessarily a recipe for loss of autonomy and a subsumption of one person into the other, but there is a considerable risk of that happening.

Someone suggested to me a 40:40:20 rule for successful marriages. That is, you spend 40% of your leisure time doing stuff on your own, 40% with your partner, and the other 20% is variable depending on circumstances. I think that is an excellent idea.

I think that, all too often, what is described as "fear of commitment" is actually a fear of loss of autonomy. A guy once said to me, in all seriousness, that he didn't want a girlfriend because if he had one she would tell him that he couldn't have a hi-fi system. Presumably there are actually people out there who tell their partners that they can't have things, but it's not something I would ever do. I mean, I would expect to negotiate large purchases if they would impinge on necessary expenditure like rent and food, but otherwise I would not want to tell my partner how to spend his/her money (and certainly would not tell them what to do with their existing possessions), and I would not expect him/her to have jurisdiction over my expenditure or possessions, either.

The other problem is, if I am in a relationship with another person, and I say "We think x, y, and z" then I presume to speak for my partner. Unless I have consulted him or her about his/her opinions, and established that s/he really does think x, y, and z, then I have no right to include him/her in my expression of my opinion. Similarly, if someone invites us to dinner, or away for a weekend, I think that I can accept on my own behalf, but not necessarily on behalf of my partner (they might not want to attend for a variety of reasons).  Despite best intentions at the outset of a relationship, it can become all too easy to assume that you know what your partner wants, accept things on their behalf, express opinions on their behalf, and so on.

It used to annoy me intensely when an ex of mine, who could not drive, referred to my car (which I always drove, had bought, paid for, insured, paid for the repairs and road-tax on, and so on), as "our car". In what sense was it "ours"? If he had contributed to its purchase, maintenance, tax, insurance, and been able to drive it, then it would have been "ours". But it was, in every sense, mine.

So no, my relationships will remain "I and thou", subject and subject, intersubjectival. I will respect my partner's autonomy, and will expect him or her to respect my autonomy. We will not grow in each other's shadow. And I expect that our relationship will be all the happier and healthier for it.
 

A simple guide to social media

How to market your brand / book / website on social media:

Set up a Facebook page and/or group where you will post regular news items (from your site and those of other relevant sites). Attract attention to it by posting it in other related Facebook groups (search in Groups for related keywords for your topic). Keep it updated regularly.

Set up a Twitter feed where you will post regular news items (from your site and those of other relevant sites). Attract attention to it by following other similar Twitter accounts (search for related keywords for your topic) and retweet and reply to their tweets. Keep it updated regularly.

Set up a blog where you will post regular blogposts about topical items in your subject area. Attract attention to it by adding other similar blogs to your blogroll (search for related keywords for your topic) and post comments on their blogs. Keep it updated regularly.

If you don't "get" Twitter, there's a remarkably succinct and clear summary of what it is and how it works in today's verdict on the Twitter joke trial. (PDF)

And remember, all publicity is good publicity - except the kind where you are caught trying to sweep your blunders under the carpet. If you do screw up, admit it and apologise. If you have not screwed up, apologise to anyone you may have offended, and point out why you chose to do the thing that you did.

My UFO experience

So apparently it is World UFO Day today, so I thought I would celebrate by sharing my (one and only) UFO experience.

When I was six years old, I saw a UFO. And I mean Unidentified Flying Object. I have no idea whether it was of terrestrial origin or not. It was late at night, and I looked out of my bedroom widow, and I saw this thing (a drawing is on the right) hovering over the trees in the park. It was glowing, but seemed curiously flat - not curved or anything. I was scared, so I got back into bed and hid under the covers. That was it - there were no other phenomena associated with it.

A theory of swearing

What makes a swearword?

To qualify as a useful swearword, a word must have one of more of the following qualities:

• Transgression. It must be a taboo word that is generally regarded as unacceptable, either because it refers to a sexual organ, a sexual act, a taboo person, a deity whose name must not be taken in vain. 
• Plosiveness. It should contain the consonants "sh", "k", "t" or the vowel sound, "uh", or (even better) a combination of these. (These are the relevant phonemes for English - other languages may vary.)
• Brevity. It must be short.

Currency

The more a swearword is used, the less transgressive value it has, because it becomes part of the user's normal vocabulary, and its transgressive quality is lessened by over-familiarity (my dad came up with this aspect of the theory).

Sometimes you really need to swear because you have dropped a brick on your foot, or discovered that your bank-account is empty in the middle of the month. So you might as well save those really satisfyingly transgressive swearwords for when you really need them. Using swearwords as a hyphen isn't really very cool. (Unless you're Ian Martin, in which case it's absolutely fucking hilarious.)

Ethics of swearing

If a word ought not to be taboo because the thing, person or act referred to is not shameful or disgusting (e.g. witch, "bugger", cunt, prick), then it should not be used as a swearword. Unless it has become so current that the original meaning of the word has been forgotten (e.g. "bugger", "bloody"). Again, this rule does not apply to Ian Martin, who has taken swearing to a high and magnificent art-form.

If the person referred to does not exist, how can they be offended by their name being taken in vain? (Nevertheless, it does seem odd for atheists to say "goddamn" or similar. Maybe they could say "Dawkins!" instead - it has a great plosive quality...)

What's left?

 That pretty much leaves only scatological swearwords.

However, the Latin names of fungi have great possibilities as swearwords. How about "Hidnum repandum!"

Swearing in a foreign language is also rather satisfying, e.g. "Arschloch!"

Functions of religion

I guess the social function of religion is to maintain social cohesion by suppressing urges that lead to individuality (such as sexuality, magic and mysticism) and providing rituals to guide people through the trauma that this will inevitably create. Examples: the way that mystics, magicians and sexual and gender-variant individuals are shunned and persecuted by religions. Also, rites of passage are designed to negotiate the tensions created between individual impulses and the needs of the group. This is why they take place at times of stress.

This is all very well if the religion functions to maintain a just society, but not if the society being maintained is fundamentally unjust. I also suspect that all esoteric systems will eventually settle down and become religions in that sense - which is why Aleister Crowley rejected the idea of "Crowleyanity". He knew that his path would be turned into a religion for others to follow, and wanted to prevent that.

If you look at the way religious movements develop, their eventual assimilation into the host society is all too frequent. Sometimes they influence the host society, but all too often the reverse is true. Religions start out radically counter-cultural, and then gradually assimilate. If their rules are particularly demanding, this is probably a good thing, but in many cases, it's a bit of a disappointment. Christopher Partridge describes the assimilation process particularly well in The Re-enchantment of the West.

Of course, there are many values promoted by liberal religions which are worth having, like celebrating diversity, radical hospitality, community, and so on. But they still tend towards the sacrifice of individuality for the greater good.

Sometimes it can be painful to be in community with others. There's a certain element of impersonality about it. There is also an expectation of serving the community, and this can be in conflict with individuality, even in very liberal groups.

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:

I think I could turn and live with the animals, they are so placid and self contained;
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.

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."

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.

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.

This video makes me uncomfortable

The Campaign for Equal Marriage video, Homecoming, made me uncomfortable.

As I am sure you are aware if you read my blogs or follow me on Twitter or Facebook, I support marriage equality. I want people to be able to marry each other if they want to, or have civil partnerships if they want to, regardless of gender. I want religions that want to perform marriages to be able to marry whoever they want.

So why did the video make me uncomfortable?

The main thing was the military setting. I'm a pacifist. I accept that wars happen sometimes, and that soldiers also carry out peacekeeping roles, but I think that we should do everything in our power to avoid war, and not to glorify it. The guy who is coming home is clearly returning from a military campaign (presumably in the Middle East as he is wearing desert camouflage). Given the controversy over Britain's recent wars in the Middle East, I find this difficult.

Then there's the statement at the end of the video "All men can be heroes: all men can be husbands". This has its good points, in that it undermines the myth that gay men are "effeminate" - but it also reinforces the view that gay men are OK if they're butch, but not if they're effeminate. And what about women who want to marry? What about bisexual and transgender people? What about disabled people who want a same-sex marriage? The statement is almost (but not quite) saying that being prepared to die for your country is what confers civil rights (so no marriage equality for conscientious objectors, then). No - being a citizen of a country is what confers civil rights.

Many GSD (gender and sexually diverse) people have criticised the marriage equality campaign for trying to make GSD people too much like the straights, and/or seeking to reassure the straights that we are just like them. I can understand this criticism; I do not want to be straight, I have never wanted to be straight, and I don't want to reassure the straight population that we are just like them. I think this video is a prime example of trying to reassure the straights that we are just like them. Would I be right in thinking that this video is aimed at people who read the Daily Mail?

What I did like about the video was the tender expressions on the faces of the two men, and the kneeling to propose marriage, and putting the wedding ring on the guy's finger. That was lovely. Put it in a non-military setting and I'll watch it lots.

But please, can we have a video with two guys, or two women, or both, in an ordinary setting?

Support marriage equality

Now is a good time to write to your local county councillors to ask them to support marriage equality.

Here is the letter I have written to my local councillors:

I am writing to ask you to support marriage equality in Oxford County Council.

Thanet has become the first local authority in the UK to endorse the government’s proposals for marriage equality.

Some county councils have not yet made available information on how churches and synagogues that wish to do so can register for religious civil partnerships, and the registration fee is higher than for registering as a marriage venue. Please could you lobby for Oxfordshire County Council to do this.

In addition, I want to see marriage equality in the UK, and would hope that Oxfordshire's county councillors would support this. I want to see religious same-sex marriage made available for those religions and denominations that wish to perform these ceremonies (namely Unitarians, Liberal Judaism, Reform Judaism, Quakers, and the Metropolitan Community Church). Pagans would also like to be able to perform same-sex marriages, but as Pagan opposite-sex weddings have no legal standing in England and Wales, the nature of the obstacle to Pagan same-sex weddings is more complex.

Please also support the option for same-sex civil marriage and opposite-sex civil partnerships. This is important as many same-sex couples would like the opportunity to be married, and many opposite-sex couples would prefer the less traditional option.

This is also important for transgender people, who may be in either a civil partnership or a marriage currently, and in order to register as the opposite sex to the one they are currently labelled as, would have to divorce their partner and get either a civil partnership or a marriage.

The background to this is that Thanet County Council has endorsed the government's plans.

Thanet has become the first local authority in the UK to endorse the government’s proposals for same-sex marriage. Please ask your councillors to pass a motion supporting same-sex civil marriages & opposite-sex civil partnerships. Find out your local councillors & email them via this website: www.writetothem.com

BBC report 

Pink News report 

Please ask councillors to support same-sex marriage for those religions who want to do same-sex marriages too.