Non Fluffy Wicca

When the controversey first started, it was rather quaint, and although silly, not anything that worried me terribly much, since I knew that even a highly conservative Supreme Court would not do the "wrong thing." But now with the circus that has become the Alabama State Court system, the abject stupidity, sheer arrogance, and "I'm more righteous than you are" attitude has just gone too far.

Anyone with half a brain realizes that separation of church and state is a founding policy of the United States. That's why, of all the amendments, that is the FIRST one. Part of this separation ensures that no one religion will become state sanctioned. There is no debate that the Ten Commandments is a founding premise of christianity. It is a highly christian list of rules, that chrisitans are expected to live their lives by. It is clear to anyone who objectively analyzes the situation, that a monument to a christian tenet does not belong in a public court building.

So what are those hundreds of people DOING out there? They are there out of fear. The world is a scary place, and bad things are happening in it. The abstract concept of their god and their church has done nothing to quell the rampant badness floating around, so perhaps they feel that a concrete (pun intended) manifestation would work better.

The point that these activists are trying to make is indeed a bit more insidious than even that. It is relatively easy for non christians to avoid the overt messages delivered by certain zealots in most of their forms. Religious tracts can be thrown away. We can walk away from people stop us on the street to tell us about Jesus. But you can't walk away from a public building where you have important business. Oftentimes, you MUST be there, and therefore you MUST see somone else's idea of right and wrong. Further, the fact that it is situated in a public building, paid for by taxpayers, and maintained by tax dollars is a subtle means of "proving" that they are somehow "right" and we (those who either are not christian, or do not believe the monument should stay) are somehow "wrong" and they are going to prove it if they have to shove two tons worth of rock into our faces.

This idea of sticking it in our faces until we change our minds is not limited to the crazies in Alabama. Every December or so we have the same issues raised again and again as nativity scenes are erected on public property, public school children are asked to re-enact the mythical birth of Jesus, and children are taught Christmas Carols. In fact, the religion itself mandates that practitioners "bear witness" to their faith, which has been taken to mean that one must force as many people as possible to listen to their beliefs.

The whole idea of the newest volley in the whole fight is so patently offensive as to be absurd. A new lawsuit claims that the removal of the statue will pit "those who believe in God against those who do not." What ARROGANCE to believe that your version of god is better than mine, and you will prove it to me by means of a public display. What a pathetic means of getting converts. And what a hypocritical method of elevating your religion above others who also profess to believe in a god or supreme being.

In 1991 I proposed a new legal test to decide whether or not a religious display is permissable under the First Amendment. Unfortunately, no one has taken me up on it. I call it the "Satan Test." Essentially, one takes the display, item, enactment, or ceremony in question, and replaces it with a similar one from the Church of Satan. If the display, item, enactment or ceremony would be permitted by the community if Satanic instead of Christian, then it should be permitted under the First Amendment. Otherwise, no.

I cannot imagine how those fighting to maintain a religious monument in a public court house would react if the Ten Commandments were replaced with verses from the Satanic Bible. Would the cause still be couched in terms of "Those who believe in God vs. those who do not?" Or would the TYPE of god suddenly come into question?

And this question about whose god is best, is exactly what the First Amendment is about. Only the individual, not the state, not the court, and not your parents must decide that question, without coersion, without pressure, and without dropping a two ton rock in your path.

Posted by mikki at 04:27 PM | Permalink

Occasionally, I am asked the question, "Why are you a Witch?" The question itself always causes me a bit of disconnect. I find the question to be rather misplaced. I would never ask "Why are you a Jew?" or "Why are you a Christian?" mostly because the answer I would get, in general, is meaningless. In general, I would be told, "I was born that way" probably followed with cursory reasoning as to why the person's religion is correct or true. And frankly, it is in part those attempts to convince me that are one of the reasons I should state when asked why I am a Witch. But "because you felt the need to ask me why" is not the whole reason.

There's much more to choice of belief system than "because people need to think more." By illustration, I offer a rather long and drawn out tale that I will attempt to condense by means of reference to one of my favorite books, "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" by Robert Anton Wilson. One of the characters in the book is suddenly enlightened, a kind of light switch in his head is toggled, whereby he suddenly saw things for what they were. This was called "seeing the fnords." And to his shock and amazement, there were fnords everywhere he looked that he just hadn't seen before.

I postulate that the question, "Why are you a Witch" is generally asked by those who cannot see the fnords. "Narrow minded" is an unfair characterization, in that being narrow minded is in itself a conscious choice when presented with contrary information. Failure to contemplate other possibilities is a much more passive process, especially when the information that would cause the process of careful contemplation to begin is often simply not available in a form that would trigger the appropriate response. In other words, their reality is a subset of the whole. This reality has labeled as "truth" the religion that they were brought up with, exposed to, and validated externally. Oftentimes, alternatives are not presented in a form that triggers a thoughtful response, and instead is passed off as whimsical or fantasy, likely dreamed up by people who have read too much science fiction as children.

This "reality" is further validated by the people they choose to keep around them, the community they live in, and oftentimes the country as well. For example, their reality is validated by a hunk of rock bearing the Ten Commandments erected in a public courthouse. It is validated by Christmas and Easter being public holidays. It is validated every time a politician intones that America is a "Christian nation."

When these validation mechanisms are questioned, oftentimes those who hold their version of reality as dear, will do some very strange things, sometimes even against the tenets of their own religion, to keep the validation. After all, questioning core beliefs can be quite frightening. While this may seem like throwing the baby out with the bath water, it often happens when the validation becomes more important than the actual message on which the reality is based.

So why am I a Witch? Because I saw the fnords. My core value system was called into question. Alternate information was presented in a form that triggered a deep contemplative response. In my case, the information was presented, unwittingly, by a Sunday School teacher. Once the process was begin, there was no going back. The comfortable little cubbyhole called Christianity no longer worked on most levels. There were too many holes, too many contradictions, my foot outgrew the shoe. But there were some parts that DID work, and I chose to keep those parts as my personal reality, and eschew the rest.

But that still doesn't quite resolve why I am a Witch. It explains why I am not a Christian, but that is not the whole of the story. Once one sees the fnords, they are everywhere. They are in all religions, in the holy teachings, in the books, in the clergy, everywhere. But unlike other religions that call those who see fnords "heretics" or "unbelievers" or burn them at the stake, Wicca EMBRACES them. The religion REQUIRES you to think them through, not to accept discongruity on "faith." It provises a skeletal structure on which you fashion the flesh of your own reality, complete with your own fnords. And so long you accept the skeleton as your foundation, your reality can look almost any way you desire.

Unlike other religions, you must THINK and LEARN and accept or reject pieces before they are grafted to the skeleton of your reality. And if a piece no longer fits, you can refashion it, so long as the skeleton remains whole.

This is not to say that the skeleton itself cannot be changed. It can. It just then is not Wicca, but something else. The point is that to be a Wiccan you must examine your core, do research, create writings, learn lessons, and formulate your OWN ideas of right, wrong, and what's in the middle. Most Wiccans know that shades of grey exist everywhere, and that life cannot be dictated by stone tablets, unchanging books, or because someone else said so. And THAT is why I am a Witch.

Posted by mikki at 03:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Namibia: Parents are threatening to remove their children from a primary school because they are convinced that witches are behind the deaths of three children last year.

It is now believed that the alleged culprits are accused of harnessing the power of an invisible blood-sucking zombie which can cause a sudden death whenever it craves for more blood.

This information was provided by witchdoctors. The appropriate ministry has pointed out its policy that nothing other than educational matters should be brought on the school ground and noted that it did not recognise witchdoctors as any sort of authority. Witchcraft fears at Katutura school - The Namibian, 22nd August 2003.

Posted by mikki at 03:48 PM | Permalink

Roy Moore's appeal to the 11th circuit has been rejected and a load of fundies have turned up proclaiming that God is insulted by the separation of church and state... [Morons Dot Org]

Posted by mikki at 04:28 PM | Permalink

County's 'approved religions' for official prayer: dangerous and wrong
Inside the First Amendment

By Charles Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar
08.10.03

Only “approved religions” get to offer an invocation before the Board of Supervisors in Chesterfield County, Va. Pray to one God and you’re in; pray to many Gods and you’re off the list.

That whirling sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson and James Madison spinning in their graves.

It was Jefferson, you will recall, who wrote the law that disestablished religion in Virginia more than 200 years ago. And it was Madison who got it passed. Their lofty aim? End the entanglement of church and state, a leading cause of repression and coercion throughout human history.

Officials in Chesterfield County still don’t get it. So a few weeks ago a priestess of the Wiccan religion took them to court, challenging the “prayer policy” as a violation of religious freedom. It seems that the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors has decreed that “Judeo-Christian” prayers are constitutional – apparently because they are part of something called “American civil religion.” And since they worship one God, Muslims have been added to the list. Other faiths with deities that don’t pass muster – including Wiccans, Hindus and Buddhists – need not apply.

This absurd fight over “official prayers” would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. As Jefferson and Madison knew well, once you give government the power to decide which religions are favored and which are not, conflict is inevitable.

Is Chesterfield County an isolated example? Or are growing numbers of Americans willing to breach the “wall of separation” built by Jefferson and Madison, first in Virginia and later in the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

For an answer, look at the results of the 2003 survey of Americans’ attitudes toward the First Amendment, conducted by the First Amendment Center in collaboration with American Journalism Review. Two key findings suggest that a majority of Americans appear ready to lower the wall dramatically – and then poke holes in what remains:

Fully 62% of those surveyed agree that government officials should be allowed to post the Ten Commandments inside government buildings.

Sixty percent favor government funding for religious institutions to help them run drug-abuse programs, even if religious messages are included as part of the program.

These numbers add up to good news for proponents of posting the Ten Commandments in government buildings and for those who support the Bush administration’s faith-based initiatives.

But is the survey bad news for religious freedom?

The answer is yes, if you accept Jefferson’s conviction (found in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom) that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.” This means that state promotion or funding of religion is, by definition, a violation of religious liberty.

If the survey is any indication, Jeffersonians are hard to find these days. It would appear that a growing number of Americans fail to see “no establishment” as a core principle of religious freedom.

Part of the problem may be that “separation of church and state” has gotten a bad name. Endless lawsuits filed by the “freedom from religion” folks in the name of the First Amendment strike many people as aimed at making America’s public square a religion-free zone.

Jefferson and Madison, however, didn’t intend for “separation” to keep religion out of politics or public life. On the contrary, they strongly supported a public square where all people “shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their own opinions in matters of religion.” What they sought to prevent was state involvement in religion.

Here’s a prediction. Once government starts to promote or fund religions many Americans don’t like, support for “separation” will go way up.

The day a court orders Chesterfield County to add a Wiccan priestess to the prayer list will be the last day of prayer at a board meeting. The moment tax dollars are sent to a drug-abuse program run by an unpopular religious group, public outcry will push Congress to put more safeguards on “charitable choice” initiatives. And when the Ten Commandments in the courthouse are surrounded by other scriptures or statements from humanists and atheists, we’ll hear a clamor to get the state out of the religion business.

The way to avoid these conflicts is to stop using government to favor one religion over others – and to insist that the government remain neutral toward all religions. History tells us that state religion in any form violates conscience, endangers religion, and provokes conflict.

Madison knew his history. That’s why when the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom finally passed in 1786, he famously wrote to Jefferson: “I flatter myself [that we] have in this Country extinguished for ever the ambitious hope of making laws for the human mind.”

Unfortunately, many Americans suffer from historical amnesia. Madison spoke much too soon.

Posted by mikki at 04:30 PM | Permalink

I made a serious mistake this morning. I went searching around for some non fluffy weblogs I might be able to subscribe to, and maybe get some useful knowledge, enlightenment, rituals, you know....something that makes you say, "yeah, that's pretty cool." But I came away disenchanted (pun intended) by a myriad of "I'm 12 and a persecuted Wiccan," "Why Christians Suck," "If You Don't Put Your Chalice Exactly 3.256 CM From The Approved Flavor of Incense, Your Ritual Will Fail," and "Send Me Money To Be A Real Witch[tm]" that I got quite annoyed and pretty much gave up.

This made me do some soul searching. What is "real?" Why do some people use Wicca as a crutch for their own inadequacies? Why do some people feel they need to be Wiccan because they hate christians? And why do some people feel the need to candy-coat, roll in honey, and then sprinkle with sugar ANYTHING that has to do with paganism?

If you know the answer, please tell me.

Posted by mikki at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I've always had great difficulty when asked to define myself. It's not because there are no words that describe who I am - it's more the case that there are too MANY words. Perhaps I should be the poster child for adult ADD.

In any case, in terms of Wicca, I am a Second Circle member and Third Circle student of the Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca, Athames Edge Clan of the Coven of the Far Flung Net. All of that means not very much without context, as like any other "credentials," so I'll leave that part there. I've been a student of alternative religion since my Sunday School teacher told me to stop asking so many questions she couldn't answer. I was 7 years old then. I haven't looked back since.

I began the practice of Wicca in England in an eclectic coven of college students where I went to school. When I returned to the US I became a solitary practitioner, then lapsed into not doing much of anything besides the occasional reading until I decided to become more involved. A search revealed CUEW and CFFN, and since an online coven was perfect for my lifestyle, I applied and was accepted by AE. The rest, as they say, is history.

Of course I have other facets of self besides Wicca. I am the mother of a very interesting young woman named Morgan who turns 12 in October. I am the wife of a young man I met on a diving trip (he turns 53 in October). I have been inhabiting this particular body for 43 years now, and hope I get used to it sometime soon.

In my work life, I am an intellectual property and software licensing attorney, working for various clients when I can. I also do work as a civil libertarian, trying to balance intellectual property rights with speech and expression rights. In my opinion, the tables should be far more skewed in favor of speech and expression, but those with money and funding disagree with me. In my relatively spare, spare time, I teach Tae Kwon Do 4 nights a week, make and sell jewelry made of charged stones, teach scuba diving when possible, act as a flight instructor when I can, am an author, mentor, wannabe geek, macintosh enthusiast, web designer, and practitioner of anything else that looks like fun.

In a former life, I co-founded and ran the first software company to offer commercial Internet applications for the Macintosh (founded in 1988), flew around the world to ridiculous meeting to attempt to shape what became the nightmare of ICANN, have been quoted in various and sundry publications like Scientific American, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, various and sundry television shows like TechTv and MSNBC, and too many radio programs to mention concerning how the little guy is being trashed by big company and govermental power on the Internet (nobody cared), and semi-retired in 1995 after being told I was "unemployable."

I live in Great Falls, VA in a house shared with the aforementioned daughter and husband, three insane parrots, four crazy dogs, and two sickly cats.

Posted by mikki at 03:41 PM | Permalink

I've been doing quite a bit of thinking lately about who "should" and who "should not" be in an online teaching clan. On the one hand, it is wonderful to look for the cream of the crop, the really bright people who are crazy enough to be ok with a group of slightly off people. On the other hand, I keep thinking about the line in Men in Black, "The best of the best of the best, SIR...and he doesn't even know what he's talking about." (paraphrased of course, not having the movie in front of me currently :-)). It seems to follow that only the best can pick out the best....but are we good enough for that?

No need to panic, said my little brain to me. No need to try to figure this out. We can always just go by the old pornography standard - I know it when I see it.

I believe that we made good choices this time around with the people who have joined the group. I don't see anything wrong with looking for papers that are truly outstanding. The person doesn't have to know everything about Wicca and the Five Points, but they sure need to be able to write a kick ass paper, not go making ridiculous statements about what they believe they KNOW already (like the one who said the Rede meant "do no harm, no exceptions.") and just seem like the right kind of person to fit in with our crazy group. Anyway, we got two new people for now, maybe a few more soon, and I think everything will be happy happy :-)

Posted by mikki at 12:19 AM | Permalink