" /> Non Fluffy Wicca: May 2005 Archives

« April 2005 | Main | June 2005 »

May 28, 2005

Religious Tolerance in the Air Force?

So this is a great start. The Air Force has noticed that there is a problem and is looking into it. Now if we can only get the rest of the armed forces to put a bit of pressure on the National Cemetery Administration to approve an Emblem of Belief for Wiccan headstones. Various organizations have been trying for a minimum of 7 years to comply with procedures the VA claims are not yet in place.

When I get a bit more time, I'll write a more comprehensive article on the annoyances we've found in trying to get a simple pentacle put on headstones for our military dead. It has not been fun, and there is still a long way to go.

My Way News: "DENVER (AP) - The Air Force has told its top commands worldwide to make sure officers don't use their positions to advance religious beliefs, following criticism of religious intolerance at the Air Force Academy. An Air Force task force spent several days at the academy two weeks ago looking into allegations that Jews and others were harassed by evangelical Christians. A new values statement was sent to all major commands on Tuesday. 'From an Air Force perspective, one of the reasons we did that is because we are taking what is happening at the Air Force Academy seriously,' Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens said Thursday from the Pentagon."

(Via .)

May 27, 2005

Messing Around with Podcasting

Oh dear. Kestra is now playing with podcasting, and is trying to find an appropriate server to house my brilliance. I have successfully put something up on blogmatrix that you can hear if you click here. I am still trying to make audioblog work, but don't quite understand how to make it work. But the xml for RSS readers is at
http://ooblick.audioblog.com/rss/nonfluffy.xml I will keep trying to figure it out :-)

Do Not Let Paranoia Get The Better of Common Sense

Yes, a totally bigoted judge made a seriously bad call when he told two divorced parents that they were prohibited from teaching their faith to their son. The parents, although divorced, are both Wiccans, and both wish their child to be taught their faith. However, the judge decided that because the child might be confused, since he attends a catholic school, parental rights to teach their religion were trumped and the child would learn catholicism.

Coming on the heels of dire prediction about the horrible Christian conspiracy to take over the country and the world, this could seem like proof of the claim that "they" are out to get "us." Not surprisingly, I don't see it that way.

Judges are human. Many of them are idiots. That is why this country has a judicial system that includes appeals to higher courts. Christianity doesn't have the corner on stupid judges. They come in all religious flavors, both genders, and a large variety of adult ages. As with all professions, stupidity is non discriminatory, and does not constitute a conspiracy.

This particular case will likely be quickly overturned as contrary to public policy before it even hits constitutional arguments. It is legally a non-event except that the parents are now required to pay more to take the case one step further in the process than they would have had to had the judge had a semblance of a clue. However, these parents will very likely have their costs defrayed by various organizations who are totally outraged with the decision. But that isn't the real danger. The real danger is going to come from those who are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is part of the ongoing Christian conspiracy.

Like the McCarthy era, some are seeing a Christian behind every tree. Most Christians don't even know what Wiccans are. Of those who are aware of us at all, they don't care, or certainly don't have the time to enter into a vast nationwide conspiracy. We as a group seem SO much quicker to attempt to blame others for things that we are at least partially responsible for. It is so much easier to pass the blame than it is to examine what we might have done in a given situation to make it better.

And no, I'm not saying here that these parents were anything but victims of a bigoted judge who seems to have been sleeping through his Constitutional Law classes. But maybe, just maybe, this judge saw some of the crazy antics in the news by people who call themselves Wiccans and was as turned off as I was. Now, if I was a person who knew nothing of Wicca, and thought that perhaps it was some strange cult, and the only things I had heard about Wiccans included that a man in Australia is claiming his religious freedoms are being discriminated against because he is in jail for child abuse, I might have to think. If the next thing I saw about Wicca was that a 13 year old child claimed that his religious rights were being violated because he was not allowed to trowel his face full of Tammy Fae Bakker make up to go to school, my opinion might continue to be a poor one. When no Wiccans stood up and put out press releases or got on television or radio saying "no, that is not what Wicca is about" I might certainly get a very bad idea about Wicca's suitability for a child.

The line between cult and religion can be a very precarious one. When you are brought up in a sheltered family with a privileged life in white bread America, anything that is not a "mainstream religion" might be seen as a cult until proven otherwise. And where's the proof? Not in the same media that breathlessly announces that Wiccans condone child abuse and cross dressing, not to mention the general Satanism and Christian hating that many already think of us (which gets more solidified every time someone hysterically announces a Christian conspiracy). If you were a judge, and two parents from Heaven's Gate or from David Koresh's group were divorcing, would YOU allow a child to be indoctrinated by a cult? Obviously, Wicca is not a cult (at least the trads I know) but how would anyone know this if they had only heard the negative.

At one point, there was an attempt to set up a group of Pagans who would field media questions. Unfortunately, interest waned. I think perhaps it's time to rekindle it. I will put some thoughts into it.

Iraqi Christians to American evangelists: Piss off

Iraqi Christians to American evangelists: Piss off: "

Iraq: American evangelists have managed to really annoy one particular group of Iraqis - Christians. Patriarch Emmanuel Delly is the head of the Chaldean Catholic Church, Iraq's largest Christian denomination, affiliated with the Vatican. Delly, who ranks as an archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church and is tipped to become a cardinal, explained his problem with the evangelists that have plagued the country since the invasion in March last year:

Delly told Al-Jazeera News on May 19 that Iraq did not need Christian missionaries because its churches dated back long before Protestantism. He objected to the aspect of trying to convert Muslims and said, You can’t even talk about that here.

According to Delly, the evangelicals attract poor youths with displays of money and then take them out in cars to have fun. Then, they take photos and send them here, to Germany, to the United States and say ‘look how many Muslims have become Christian.’

The (atheist) correspondent at uruknet.info goes on to discuss the role of well-known fundies like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell in bringing these pests to Iraq.

Reuters has more detail on the story, and notes that Christians in predominatly Muslim countries tend not to make pains of themselves.

Many Muslim countries consider Christian missionaries as part of a Western campaign against Islam and punish both the preacher and the apostate Muslim severely. Violent Iraqi groups killed at least five evangelical missionaries last year.

At least 20 Iraqis were killed in bombings of Christian churches last year as unknown attackers stepped up pressure on non-Muslims there. Christian minorities in Muslim countries usually keep a low profile and do not evangelise.

JUST WHAT EVERY IRAQI NEEDS: A BIBLE - uruknet.info, 23rd May 2005; Patriarch denounces U.S. evangelicals in Iraq - Reuters, 19th May 2005 (via The Sideshow and The Green Knight).

"

(Via The Pagan Prattle Online.)

Concord Monitor Online

Hooray for my home state! Even as solidly republican as NH can be, they voted the correct way. Kudos to my mom, the NH State Legislator who also voted for this important bill even though she is a republican :-). Way to go, MA.

Concord Monitor Online: "N ew Hampshire will soon become the seventh state in the nation where women can obtain emergency contraception without a prescription. After a months-long debate touching on religion, medicine, parental rights and reproductive choice, the House voted yesterday to allow specially-trained pharmacists to dispense the drug. The Senate endorsed the bill last month, and Democratic Gov. John Lynch says he'll sign it into law. Women's health groups lauded yesterday's vote, saying it will prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortions. But conservative lawmakers and religious groups were troubled. Some feared teens will have easy access to the drug, while others said they couldn't support the bill because they believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion. 'It's kill me now, or kill me later,' said Rep. Kathleen Souza, a Manchester Republican. Often called the 'morning after pill,' the drug delivers a concentrated dose of the hormone levonorgestrel, which works in one of three ways: blocking the release of an egg, preventing fertilization, or stopping a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. To work, a woman must take it within 72-hours of unprotected sex."

(Via .)

May 18, 2005

How We Sabotage Ourselves - Part 1

Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic or critical. Perhaps I'm just being a horrible nasty brittle person who doesn't know what she's talking about? But all I can do is speak my mind, what I have observed over the years, and report what I see. And what I see is that we are sabotaging ourselves.

As I watch this list of annoying things on parade, I have to wonder whether or not the "perpetrators" understand that their actions are certainly not in furtherance of our religion although it definitely may be in furtherance of something else. It would definitely be nice if they would at least read what I have to say and consider it before their next installment of sabotaging behavior.

In any case, here's my list of horribles:

1. Dilution and Adulteration for "Inclusiveness" - While it is true that no one group can lay claim to the definition of Wicca, there are some aspects of the religion that MUST exist in order for it to actually be Wicca.

So, after consulting with various and sundry other people, we came up with the following definition of Wicca:

Wicca is a polytheistic religion of diverse origins grounded upon duality of Deity as masculine and feminine, immanent and transcendent. Wiccans see themselves as an integral part of Deity, and worship Gods in whichever form They present themselves.

Now before anyone starts yelling at me, keep in mind that this is my blog and my opinion. You are more than entitled to disagree with me, post comments to that effect, call me names, or whatever else makes you happy. I see my job here as prodding others to think. If you are ranting at me, you are obviously thinking about what I had to say. Fine enough.

So, to me anyway, to be Wiccan, one must be polytheistic, believe in Deity as masculine and feminine, immanent AND transcendent, and that one is an integral part of Deity. If one does not understand those concepts, or disagrees with those concepts, that is perfectly fine. Nobody HAS to believe it. Every entity has the right to believe whatever they choose. But what they do NOT have the right to do is to redefine an established religion for their own purposes.

And this is one of my biggest pet peeves. You have many people who feel that it is perfectly ok to blend 2 or 3 different religions (not just practices from religions, but religions themselves) and call it [fill in the blank] Wicca. It doesn't seem to matter to them that [fill in the blank] religion is openly hostile towards Wicca, or sometimes towards any other religion for that matter. They somehow think that putting the name on it will somehow magickally blend everything just right and all will be well. Well, no it won't, and how DARE you belittle my faith in that manner? How can we have Wicca of any sort when groups feel they need to chip away at it? Our definitions of Wicca are loose enough as they are without adding "anything that we feel convenient with at the time, regardless of whether it is polytheistic, grounded in duality of Deity, or roundly disbelieves in the immanence of Gods?

Another serious pet peeve in the light of dilution of faith is the idea that Wicca must be extended to include even those who do not have the capacity to understand the responsibilities inherent in the religion, or even those who are capable of making the CHOICE to follow Wicca. In many cases (though not all) you find that the advocates of this idea are those who are charging money for classes, or "registration" of some kind, or to attend rituals. These groups often wish to include children in their "rolls."

I have to ask "why?" The general answer I have received is that "other religions count children as adherents." My response is we are not like other religions. Wicca requires an active participation with full knowledge and full responsibility. It is not a passive religion where you bring your children to be indoctrinated at an early age, and continue forcing them to attend services so they don't "go to hell." Children do not have the capacity to understand enough about Wicca to make an informed choice, nor do they have the capacity to understand the responsibility inherent in following the Rede, the Law of Return, or the Ethic of Self Responsibility. Many don't even have the capacity to understand the responsibility of not disrupting ritual, but that's a completely separate argument.

Religion "In Your Face" - The "in your face" brand of religion is the stereotypical long black fingernails, goth like makeup, wearing only black, 13 inch silver pentacle, huge Triple Goddess tattooed person with the Baphomet, and the "Fear Me, I'm a Witch" bumper sticker. These types *wear* Wicca rather than practice it. Yes, these people have the perfect right to dress this way, act this way, and be this way and even sometimes smell this way. However, they are sabotaging the rest of us. If I don't take them seriously, and I'm pretty open minded (although not to the point where my brains fall out of my ears), what does the rest of the world think? Inevitably, if a reporter goes to a Wiccan function, especially if video is involved, they will seek out the most outrageous looking person possible to represent Wiccans to the rest of the world. If this person happens to have spent 90% of their religious study checking out where to get garb, how to put on make-up and how can we keep your nails from chipping, think they'll be a good advocate for the rest of us? To most mundanes, the stereotype becomes the reality. If *I* avoid them, and I'm pretty damn Wiccan, what do the "non believers" think? If you want to be taken seriously as a spiritual being, dressing in funny costumes and skipping down the yellow brick road ain't the way to do it. Neither will holding your bondo buggy together with bumper stickers.

Wicca For Money This one is pretty controversial, I know. And I didn't used to think that charging money to learn Wicca was inherently a bad thing. Then I took a good look around. There are people out there charging multiple thousands of dollars for your 3rd Degree Clergy status. Way back when, when I was neck deep in the world of martial arts, there was a similar but not identical conundrum in play. How could one charge a certain amount of money in exchange for a degree (or a black belt) when one had no way of knowing in advance whether the person would be able to physically or emotionally capable or achieving their goal. Meantime, the person would have a sense of entitlement because they had paid so much money.

To a much lesser sense, but still non trivially, payment "as you go" for lessons in Wicca also is problematic. I've personally seen many cases where it has become increasingly clear that a candidate for Clergy or for a certain Degree of whatever, would not be capable of achieving their goal. However, because they had paid money, both teacher AND student were unwilling to accept the inevitable, until major hard feelings were created. And then, because money had changed hands, it was somehow more of a "betrayal" when the student was finally dismissed. Money also causes much more external scrutiny by legal entities, the Better Business Bureau, and other regulatory bodies which then brings a further myriad of nasties upon the whole situation.

It hasn't escaped my observation that there seems to be a correlation between money and numbers, in that many of the groups who charge want to see many more people identify as Wiccan IN THEIR TRADITIONS. Coincidence? Dunno, what do YOU think?

To Be Continued

May 12, 2005

I Wonder if She Knew...

I wonder if people understand that acts of kindness are not perpetrated based solely on religion, or an externally imposed code of "morality." We've all heard many different opinions that religion (obviously the Christian religion is meant here) must be taught in schools, else our society will degrade to the point of anarchy.

So here we were today, leaving a doctor's appointment when a woman almost in tears asked us for help. Her older Ford was not starting, and she didn't know what to do. The woman was approximately 60 or so, wearing a prominent cross, with MANY anti choice stickers on her car, a Jesus fish, and a license plate proclaiming the Gospels. It would have been easy to say "screw off, Lady. You stand for things I don't agree with, so you can stand there crying all day long." But our internal gage of right vs. wrong said that there was no reason why we couldn't take the spare few minutes and help this poor woman out.

After a short primer on car batteries and electrical systems given while my wonderful Wessiepooh backed the car over and attached the jumper cables, the woman's car was started, and she was pleased. She told us she had prayed for help, and was just about to give up and start crying when we arrived. In retrospect, I should have said something to the effect of "what an interesting result to a prayer - a Witch arrives to assist you." Instead, we just smiled, and accepted her "God Bless Yous." On our way leaving, I said "Blessed Be" but doubt she recognized the phrase.

So, what would have happened if she had realized I was a Witch who was helping, not because someone told me I should, not because a book told me to, but because it was the "right" thing to do based on my own internal chronometer of "good." Would she have thought that perhaps it isn't "us vs. them?" Might she have considered that many different religions teach people how to think and do good things to help others, regardless of their religious affiliation? I would hope that indeed she will. That wasn't the reason why we stopped to help, but it would certainly be a nice bonus.

May 06, 2005

Time to Start Boycotting Walgreens

Time for us to put our money where our mouths are. Time to boycott the entire Walgreens chain. Online, offline, whatever, just don't shop there. Any corporation that would place lives at risk by allowing pharmacists who are NOT medical doctors, to decide what medications are appropriate based solely on what they believe their invisible friend tells them, should not receive our money.

This is not a christians vs. others, or a choice vs. anti choice, or even a women's rights issue. This is instead a medical rights and a human rights issue. In a world where we already watch our doctors medical advice questioned and countermanded by insurance companies, now we go through a second gauntlet, while HOPING our pharmacist is professional enough to fill legally and medically valid prescriptions.

The result of these "ad hoc" decisions based on the misplaced morality of certain pharmacists is not limited to women's health. Nothing in these Walgreens guidelines says that if a pharmacist decides that she doesn't have to dispense Viagra if she considers impotency to be a punishment from God. How about AIDS drugs? Anabuse for alcoholics? Herpes medications? Where does it end?

It is time to show these companies and these pharmacists that they cannot substitute vague personal ides of what others may and may not do, for doing their jobs, i.e filling valid prescriptions written by state licensed medical doctors. It's time to end this HERE.

Walgreens Allows Pharmacists To Not Dispense Drugs They Object To: "A WISN 12 News investigation has discovered that a Milwaukee-area pharmacist has refused to fill prescriptions for women citing religious reasons. A Milwaukee mother of six walked into a north side"

(Via Witchvox - RSS Feed - News from the Nest.)

May 03, 2005

Fla. Won't Appeal Abortion for 13-Year-Old

Perhaps they are getting some sense? Maybe? Hopefully?

Fla. Won't Appeal Abortion for 13-Year-Old: "WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.-A judge ruled that a 13-year-old girl at the center of an abortion fight with the state may terminate her pregnancy, and Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the state will not appeal further."

(Via FindLaw: Top Legal Headlines.)

May 02, 2005

It Gets Worse....

So I finally get someone to run to the post office for me after addressing a box to a service member. Person comes back carrying the box, and a form. Apparently, in order to ship to the Fleet Post Office (not any particular ship mind you... but the FLEET Post Office, located INSIDE THE UNITED STATES) one must fill out a customer declaration form.

Besides necessitating yet another trip to the post office with yet another wait in line, you may ask what the POINT is to filling out such a lovely form. If I was a bad guy who wanted to do bad things to the fleet post office, I would just fill in "Nothing Dangerous Here" while stuffing the box full of naughty things and ship it on over. Or, I would just go there and do naughty things. Either way, a stupid customs form that does nothing but invade the privacy of both shipper and service personnel does nothing except annoy and cost more money to process more useless bits of paper.

I have no idea why I even bother to get surprised at the ridiculousness of any branch of the US Government.

May 01, 2005

Lip Service To Supporting the Military

The military is an important aspect of American life, and unfortunately necessary in a world that has still not figured out how to "just get along." So long as we have individuals who risk their lives and limbs in the service of their country, we, as a nation, should be willing to make certain sacrifices for them in return. Examples of these include maintaining adequate funding for military families to have proper health care, ensuring jobs are held for those who have been called to duty, and generally supporting the people and the job they do for us.

Unfortunately, it seems that at least one branch of the US Government refuses to make life just that little bit easier for those who want to support individuals in the military. The United States Postal Service states on its website that they do not support their Internet "Click and Ship" service to military addresses.

While it might be easy to say that this is not really a big deal since you can just march on down to the post office, wait in line for however long it might take, fill out the paperwork and ship the package, that isn't really the point. The point is that our government take that little bit of an extra step (in this case, providing scanners to post offices) so that we can more easily ship to our fighting men and women around the world, not to mention assist our disabled veterans to send packages and messages to their comrades by themselves, without having to ask someone to go to the post office for them.

It may be just a "little thing" to some, but to a business owner who wishes to fulfill orders made by members of the military, it means leaving work to stand in line. To a new mother it means packing up the baby and then standing in line and hoping he doesn't start crying. To the disabled it means having to ask someone else to go to the post office for them. All of these things CAN be done, but shouldn't our government try to make things LESS difficult to keep up the morale of the troops?

And before you say "use UPS or Fedex" they are prohibited from delivering to military addresses. The monopoly belongs to the USPS. Good try though :-)