Thank you everybody for your great points. I can now see both sides of the issue now.
I have no intention on correcting my friend on his belief, unless he brings it up again. I don’t see that happening. I posted the question, not to find proof against him, but rather to satisfy my own curiosity.
Thank you again.
“The bitch, oh the bitch, the bitch is back…I’m a bitch cuz I’m better then you, it’s the way that I move
The things that I do…” Elton John
“People try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend…” The Moody Blues
“To start, press any key. Where’s the any key?” Homer Simpson.
Here’s where you’ll run into the rub that the young man mentioned in the original post and Pandora were concerned about. They want their religion to be recognized as equal with others. But this will never happen if they have no orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is what gives you the foundation to demand such rights.
The Chrispy can say, “You can’t make us work Christmas. Our religion says we have to celebrate it.” And they’ve got Christian orthodoxy to back it up.
If you say, “I have to get off work to celebrate the solstice” your employer can say, “Will your God be angry if you don’t? Will you be breaking a covenant with any divine agent? Will this affect your after life?”
The Chrispies don’t get special dispensation just because they say they have a religion. They get special dispensation because in their religion and in their religious communities it is considered morally, spiritually and socially unacceptable not to celebrate these holidays – that is, because they have orthodoxy.
If your religion places obligations upon you, then you have an orthodoxy, and you have the right to petition the world to allow you to fulfill your obligations. Without orthodoxy, there are no obligations and no rights to demand special dispensation to fulfill them.
This is what’s known as The Principle of Harm. This archaic form is often cited as the only principle a pagan (or Wiccan) feels obliged to live by. Sadly, this is another reason Wicca doesn’t get much respect. Ethics is a very deep and complex issue that has been struggled with by a lot of brilliant people for a great many years, and the fact that so many self-styled pagans think that right and wrong can be reduced to just the harm principle is the reason people don’t take Wicca seriously – they claim to be righteous, but live by an ethical principle that doesn’t require any thought and which will easily fit on a bumper sticker. In the long, long, tradition of ethical thought that dates back ages before you or any Wiccan you know was born, certain fundamental principles of ethics were understood through the ages, and among them the Harm Principle is only one.
matt_mcl wrote:
I’ve heard it, but it was absent from AHunter3’s post. And it can’t have been that I wasn’t being charitable enough, because the argument in question was about a universal connection among people that AHunter3 claimed to feel kinship with.
Danielinthewolvesden wrote:
Well, geez; you got me there. I can’t trump the OED. But I’m sure as hell not going to take etymology from a guy named Starhawk.
Here’s where you’ll run into the rub that the young man mentioned in the original post and Pandora were concerned about. They want their religion to be recognized as equal with others. But this will never happen if they have no orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is what gives you the foundation to demand such rights.
The Chrispy can say, “You can’t make us work Christmas. Our religion says we have to celebrate it.” And they’ve got Christian orthodoxy to back it up.
If you say, “I have to get off work to celebrate the solstice” your employer can say, “Will your God be angry if you don’t? Will you be breaking a covenant with any divine agent? Will this affect your after
life?”
The Chrispies don’t get special dispensation just because they say they have a religion. They get special dispensation because in their religion and in their religious communities it is considered morally,
spiritually and socially unacceptable not to celebrate these holidays – that is, because they have orthodoxy.
If your religion places obligations upon you, then you have an orthodoxy, and you have the right to petition the world to allow you to
fulfill your obligations. Without orthodoxy, there are no obligations and no rights to demand special dispensation to fulfill them.
This is what’s known as The Principle of Harm. This archaic-sounding form is often cited as the only principle a pagan (or Wiccan) feels obliged to live by. Sadly, this is another reason Wicca doesn’t get much
respect. Ethics is a very deep and complex issue that has been struggled with by a lot of brilliant people for a great many years, and the fact that so many self-styled pagans think that right and wrong can be reduced to just The Harm Principle is a pretty good reason not to take Wiccans seriously – they claim to be righteous, but live by an ethical
principle that doesn’t require any thought and which will easily fit on a bumper sticker. In the long, long, tradition of ethical thought that dates back ages before you or any Wiccan you know was born, certain
fundamental principles of ethics were understood through the ages, and
among them the Harm Principle is only one.
matt_mcl wrote:
I’ve heard it, but it was absent from AHunter3’s post. In fact, if he had even implied it, he wouldn’t have been able to claim a kinship with the victims of the Salem Witch Trials, because his argument was based on a notion of a universal connection.
Danielinthewolvesden wrote:
You got me there. OED trumps Bosworth and Toller trumps Starhawk.
I’m not sure if I agree with this. Paganism and Wicca (and other like religions) must have orthodoxy in some form, even if it’s liberal and flexible. Now, I have no idea of the particulars, as I’m neither. But I recognize both as a legitimate system of worship and religion. (Can someone more knowledgable than I chime in here and give me some specifics?) Do individuals within that religion always adhere strictly to those doctrines? No. Same could be said for many other religions (Catholics are the first that come to mind).
Actually, I seriously doubt your employer could ask those questions, let alone deny you the right to take the time off if the answers aren’t what he wants to hear.
From a hypothetical point of view, though, I don’t see how those questions are relevant. If a Wiccan says, “I need to celebrate the Solstice,” it’s because his religion, either by its doxology or his own individual interpretation of the Wiccan beliefs, says he must. And there is a history of Pagans celebrating the Solstice - longer than Christians have been around, even.
I suppose I should really ask, not being an expert in religion, how you’re defining “orthodoxy.”
I guess another question here is, how does Wicca not place an obligation on you? Do all Catholics go to mass every Sunday, as their religion prescribes? Do all Jews keep kosher as their religion prescribes? I think you’re applying an unbalanced standard to Wiccans that you’re not placing on others.
And I will agree that the Principle of Harm is only one basic tenent of ethics as a whole, but it’s a fairly basic starting place. After all, us UU’s start off our Purposes and Principles with the statement, “We respect the inherent dignity and worth of every human being,” and a lot of people use that as the “catch phrase” for UU philosophy. Simplistic, yes, but really, it hardly covers everything we believe. I dare say there’s more to Wicca and Paganism than just that one statement. To say they have no merit because they use this as their guiding, but certainly not only principle is unfair. IMO.
Truth be told, the many arguements listed here as to why Paganism, Wicca and other “non-mainstream” (this is the best term I can think of)faiths don’t get the same offical regcognition as other (larger) religions have pretty much hit the nail on the head.
My company (though small) has a number of different religion represented, and the offical policy is that anyone may take any day off for religious reasons with the permission of their supervisor. Since my supervisor chooses to take this oppertunity to deny the validity of my faith, and evanglize at me, I take vacation days instead. This is just the type of thing I expect to have to deal with when appoaching governmental or administrative entities that do not have a “box” in which place me…
I accept this type of inconvience as part of the choice I have made, just like many jews accept not eating pork as a part of the religious choice they have made.
What I don’t like is when individuals take the same attitude to me. I refuse to allow myself to be “demoted” on a personal level because of what I believe…
the young man that pepperlandgirl enountered deserves the same personal respect for his beliefs as any other person on this planet.
Pepperlandgirl, I know you were laughing at fact/fiction aspect of his statement, but sometimes it hard to seperate that from laughing at him personally (at least from his point of view)
“If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research.” - Albert Einstein
I think it has to, and really should. But in spite of the problems in assuming Wicca doesn’t have them, AHunter3 doesn’t like orthodoxy and doesn’t think most Wiccans do, I suspect that Wiccans fall into the same subgroups that we find in any religion, one of which will be interested in the establishment of orthodoxy – i.e., what rites must be performed, how are they to be performed, what will the cannon be and what are the core beliefs of the religion.
The conundrum there is that it’s only forbidden to the extent that we are dealing with a real religious necessity, and that can only be determined by asking these questions.
It means correct opinions.
I’ve already dealt with this point in my previous post. The failure of certain members of a religion to live up to the demands of their religion does not make them optional for everyone else. If no one drives the speed limit, do you suppose there is none?
But if Wicca is to be allowed the same indulgences without having definite liturgical burdens, that would be unbalancing. It would become the “anything goes” religion. So I don’t see how you see that as unbalancing in the Christian’s favor.
If we can agree that that’s all it is, a starting place, then I have no beef. But surely you too have met Pagans who will claim with conviction that in fact the Principle of Harm is the only moral principle you need. You probably don’t argue with them, either, because many of them are like AHunter3 – they think not arguing is what Wicca is all about. But to develop an intellectual tradition, which every religion needs, you’re going to have to be willing to disappoint this crowd and not alienate intellectuals, who, if they are told not to look any further than the harm principle, will move along to something else.
pandora wrote:
Everything in life has consequences, and the willingness to accept those consequences is a mature response that seems to be becoming rare. Christians will harp on the martyrs of the past as though they had inherited their conviction, but I suspect very few Christians can even conceive of the harsh lives led by those martyrs.
No one deserves respect that they have not earned.
I think it has to, and really should. But in spite of the problems in assuming Wicca doesn’t have them, AHunter3 doesn’t like orthodoxy and doesn’t think most Wiccans do, I suspect that Wiccans fall into the same subgroups that we find in any religion, one of which will be interested in the establishment of orthodoxy – i.e., what rites must be performed, how are they to be performed, what will the cannon be and what are the core beliefs of the religion.
The conundrum there is that it’s only forbidden to the extent that we are dealing with a real religious necessity, and that can only be determined by asking these questions.
It means correct opinions.
I’ve already dealt with this point in my previous post. The failure of certain members of a religion to live up to the demands of their religion does not make them optional for everyone else. If no one drives the speed limit, do you suppose there is none?
But if Wicca is to be allowed the same indulgences without having definite liturgical burdens, that would be unbalancing. It would become the “anything goes” religion. So I don’t see how you see that as unbalancing in the Christian’s favor.
If we can agree that that’s all it is, a starting place, then I have no beef. But surely you too have met Pagans who will claim with conviction that in fact the Principle of Harm is the only moral principle you need. You probably don’t argue with them, either, because many of them are like AHunter3 – they think not arguing is what Wicca is all about. But to develop an intellectual tradition, which every religion needs, you’re going to have to be willing to disappoint this crowd and not alienate intellectuals, who, if they are told not to look any further than the harm principle, will move along to something else.
pandora wrote:
Everything in life has consequences, and the willingness to accept those consequences is a mature response that seems to be becoming rare. Christians will harp on the martyrs of the past as though they had inherited their conviction, but I suspect very few Christians can even conceive of the harsh lives led by those martyrs.
No one deserves respect that they have not earned.
I wholeheartedly disagree that this is something you should accept and “put up with.” I don’t know how big or small or liberal or conservative your company is, but if they’re going to acknowledge that they have a diversity of religious beliefs among their employees enough to grant them time off on a case-by-case basis, you’re clearly being treated unfairly, and specifically by your supervisor, not the company. I would start going up the chain of command not only because there is a clear imbalance here, but also because your supervisor has no right to proselytize at you in the workplace.
Not only for his inherent worth, but also because this Christian Club took the time in a public forum to pronounce its views, so it seems only fair he should have the same right to do the same.
[quote]
Originally posted by Johnny Angel:
First, I was talking from a legal standpoint; and second, I don’t see how those questions are relevant anyway. If I tell my employer I am Wiccan, and I need to take the afternoon off for the Solstice, there is enough precedence from a historical standpoint to warrant granting the request. If I can take a holiday for being UU, which technically didn’t exist as it is today until 1961, or my black co-workers can take time off for Kwanza, which also started in the 60’s, I really don’t see how Wiccans could be denied when they’ve been around for quite a bit longer.
Originally, you said:
My point was that most Pagans/Wiccans I know celebrate the Solstice; ergo, their religion places this demand on them by their own choice (regardless of whether or not the religion proscribes it in its doxology). Not every Catholic goes to Mass each Sunday, as proscribed by its own doxology, but no one would say they weren’t Catholic, and no one would deny them the right to take time from work for Catholic holy days. Just because all Pagans don’t observe the Solstice doesn’t mean it’s not part of their religion, too. (Are we both saying the same thing? ;))
To not allow a Wiccan to take off the Solstice but to allow a Christian to take off for Christmas is, to me, unbalancing - you’re demanding something from a Wiccan that is taken for read from a Christian simply because more people are, or more are familiar with, Christians. An “anything goes” religion is ridiculous not only because the likelihood of someone making up a religion just to get time off from work is slim to none, but even more importantly is that Paganism does have a long history and tradition, regardless if a lot of people practice it currently or not.
Would it surprise you to know I know a lot of Christians who claim with conviction that accepting Christ as your savior is the only moral principle you need?
Frankly, no, I don’t know any Wiccans or Pagans who claim it is the only thing you need, but rather that it is, as I said, the foundation upon which a belief system is built. Anyone who claims otherwise is not a very knowledgable or very serious Pagan, IMHO, and if I did meet someone like that, I’d point them towards my much more knowledgable Pagan and Wiccan friends.
You’re assuming Pagans don’t have either an intellectual history or a current intellectual community. I beg to differ.
Regarding orthodoxy and religion, it has been my experience that orthodoxy and dogma are symbiotic upon another. Wicca prides itself in its lack of dogma thus the orthodoxical (like that word…I should trademark it ;)) aspect of the religion is equally lacking.
On a pagan list I belong to, there was a long internal discussion of how ethics and dogma relate. I will look for it and post it here.
People are obliged to treat eachother with respect. That doesn’t mean people deserve it.
Esprix wrote:
Those also are iffy cases. I don’t know from UU, but Kwanza followers have political leverage to get their religion accepted, fair or not. But it doesn’t follow that the gates are wide open. As for how long Wicca’s been around, my understanding is that it’s been since the 1930’s, which is still further back than the 60’s, but I’m afraid you picked an uphill battle. That doesn’t mean you can’t fight, but nobody’s going to level the field for you.
I’m only disagreeing with you if you’re agreeing with the other guy.
Personally, I know people who would do so. It’s by no means just a non-issue.
Nope. I’ve dealt with them too. A little better are those who at least look to the whole Ten Commandments. Then you have the Chrispies who are pick-and-choosy about the Old Testament…
In any case, my critique of Christianity as it’s practiced is another issue. Surely you don’t look to Christianity to judge how imperfect you should be?
Well, here’s the outsider’s perspective. Most pagans I’ve met talk this way, and most pagans that most non-pagans I’ve spoken with talk this way, and in a very haughty tone.
If you say that’s not the rule, that’s fine. Just so you know, I’m not making thus up. But even if you accept that there are many among you who are giving the world the wrong impression, what are you going to do? Probably, like the Christians, you will accept them in your flock and try to set them straight. In the meantime, they’ve left quite a mess for you to clean up – not only the bad PR from the “anything goes” crowd, but the zealous teenagers who got into it because they heard, like, chicks get naked and stuff, dude. (And no, I don’t put too much stock in Chrispy teen zealots either).
I have known serious scholars of paganism, as a historical pursuit. But most of what passes for scholarship among pagans are those trade paperbacks in the New Age section of the library, and most of those are concerned with spells, not with the fundamental theological issues in the religion.
The Catholics, for example, have such theological giants on their side as Aquinas, Augustine, Origen. They rest on two thousand years of gravitas. What have the pagans got, Starhawk? Where’s the gravitas there? =)
As for the community, it’s worth noting that the pagan community is almost indistinguishable to the outsider from SCA or Live Action Roleplayers. Obviously, all these groups will have common interests, and because of that, a lot of the same members. While I like the SCA, let’s face it, it’s full of kooks. No matter how serious your religion is, you’ll always be associated with these guys wearing wrap pants saying, “Verrily, good day m’lord. What ho, varlet!”
I don’t know why the “Save Your Souls Christian Club” got to perform in a public place on school property, or voice their opinions. I didn’t investigate, quite frankly I don’t care why they were there.
I respect the Wiccans I know because I respect their right to believe what they want and who they are. However, I do not have to respect a history they do not have.
“The bitch, oh the bitch, the bitch is back…I’m a bitch cuz I’m better then you, it’s the way that I move
The things that I do…” Elton John
“People try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend…” The Moody Blues
“To start, press any key. Where’s the any key?” Homer Simpson.
Pepperlandgirl,
Please don’t think that I meant you should agree with, respect, or acknowledge, the young gentleman’s version of history.
I justed wanted to point out that laughing is a reaction that is easily taken very personally by the person at whom it is directed. In this case, that you were laughing at him as a person and a wiccan insead of at the mistakes in the statement he made.
If he brings up something like that in your presence again, might I suggest “Really?..I was unware that wicca went back that far… I thought it was founded early in this century. Do you have a book you could suggest to me for further information.” Best case, he may do some actual research into the religion he follows and learn to understand the mistakes in his original statement… worse case, you might be directed to one of the more goofy “new age” publications in the field… and they can be a fun read (some of them should be cataloged in the humor section).
You seem to be a very intelligent girl, and to expect the same from the people around you. I hope you are able to surround yourself with people who can live up to the challange.
-Pandora
“If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research.” - Albert Einstein
At the risk of offending, Johnny Angel, I submit that you have an extraordinarily skewed view of Paganism. On what are you basing all of your statements?
Well, that might be true for you, but not necessarily everyone. Still, even if someone doesn’t deserve respect in your opinion, does that still give you the right to deny them their religious faith?
Obviously not. Unitarian Universalism is a small denomination that is technically considered Protestant, but we embrace a wide variety of religious influences. Separately, Unitarianism and Universalism have existed for centuries, but the two churches joined in 1961.
My point still stands - if somebody can take off to celebrate Kwanza, I don’t see how fair it is to deny someone else the right to celebrate the Solstice.
(By the way, erroneously I’m using “Wiccan” and “Pagan” interchangeably, which isn’t technically correct, but explains why I said they’ve been around for hundreds of years, if not thousands - then again, I don’t know details about the history, so I suppose I should shut up and let someone else talk about it ;))
You seem to imply here that it’s ok for people to treat Wiccans/Pagans differently, and if they don’t like it, well that’s just tough. I certainly beg to differ here.
Which other guy?
I wrote:
You wrote:
I put it to you this is an incredibly small number of people, statistically insignificant. Paganism does have a history, regardless if people agree with it or not. I doubt anyone would take “Bob’s Church of BBQ” seriously.
Certainly not, but I don’t see how this is germane to the discussion at hand.
Granted, there are a lot of misinformed Pagans out there (and similarly, a lot of misinformed Catholics, and Muslims, etc.). But your impression of them or their beliefs really ought to have no bearing on not only what their beliefs really are (something that we both, it seems, are more than a little ignorant of) but more importantly on whether or not you treat them fairly or not. If you’re maintaining that a Pagan should not be allowed to take a holiday to celebrate the Solstice, then I would accuse you of religious discrimination.
(I’ll assume here you mean “you” in the general sense, as I’m not Pagan myself.) I’m not denying that there are misinformed folks out there claiming to be Pagan while knowing precious little about it. But their misguidedness has no effect whatsoever on the legitimacy of the religion itself. Obviously those same teenage Christian zealots also need a little schooling in what it means to be Christian, but their behavior certainly doesn’t invalidate Christianity.
Your approach here seems to be that because Paganism is small in number, has no political influence, and is generally misunderstood by the majority, it is somehow invalid as a set of religious beliefs. Am I wrong here?
I don’t know the writings of Starhawk, and I probably wouldn’t agree with them if I did, but I still maintain that an absence of what you consider “serious theologians” or “historical scholarship” does not mean a religion is invalid.
Well, as a SCAdian myself, I’m going to have to amend your above statement by adding the phrase, “In my opinion.” I don’t see how the SCA and Paganism have “common interests,” and we have far more “normal” (for lack of a better term) folks that participate than “kooks,” as you put it. (Oh, and that quote really makes no sense, and in all my many years in the SCA have never heard anyone utter anything even close to it. So nyeh. :p)
It seems to me that you are woefully ignorant of what Paganism is all about. I, too, am no expert, but I see where our differences lie - because of this, you will not grant it the respect due to a religion, whereas despite this, I would. In a broader sense, and outside of the “set of beliefs” purview, I still maintain that discriminating against them is illegal and wrong.
Wicca itself may be modern, but its roots go back centuries. Similarly, my own religion, Unitarian Universalism, has existed in its present form since only 1961, but its roots go back as far as Christianity does.
Esprix: You’re in SCA, too? Been in for 24 years. “Slightly important person” WEST.
OH, and whateverthehellyournameis, the SCA is not, and has never been a Pagan org. Yes, a few more of us are Pagans than the % in the US as a whole, but the same could go for people who go to SF cons, or game cons, or work Renfaires.
First, you’re pulling a side discussion into the main one. Second, no one is denying anyone their faith.
Yes, I’m familiar with the Unitarian Universalist church. I’ve never heard them referred to as the ‘UU.’ It’s true that their denomination has been very successful at gaining acceptance, but that is because they are inherently non-threatening. In spite of the fact that they believe in, as the joke goes, “at most, one god,” they don’t raise a lot of sand among Christians. Plus, they fulfill the social function of church without a lot of religious pressure. That’s why the church attracts a number of atheists and pagans, who don’t believe in the Judeo-Christian god, but who want to have pot luck dinners anyway.
The fact that Kwanza has become accepted doesn’t mean the door’s wide open. It doesn’t remove the need for the pagans to do what it takes to gain acceptance for their own views. Life is under no obligation to be fair. Maybe you don’t think these other religions deserve recognition any better that Wicca. That may be the case. But complaining doesn’t fix anything.
I’ll usually just be casual about it until I get called on it. So far, no one seems to care.
I never implied that it was okay. But it is just going to be tough. Life will not trouble itself to be fair to you, no matter how much you whine.
AHunter3, who claimed that Wicca is antithetical to orthodoxy – which, for a religion, is unworkable, and it’s the opposite of what you have been claiming.
On that, we’ll just have to disagree, because we’re apparently dealing with radically different population samples.
I wrote:
Esprix wrote:
It’s relevant because you and others bring up the behavior of Christians with respect to their religion anytime paganism is questioned. This is in effect pleading, “It’s okay if the Christians do it.”
That’s not what I was talking about. I was discussing the reasons pagans don’t get the acceptance they so desperately crave, and suggesting what could be done about it. Among other things, they need to be aware of how they look to outsiders, and not merely because of prejudice but because of the actions of their own kind.
If you think I have been maintaining such a point, then I would accuse of you smoking crack. Throwing around a term like discrimination is a shabby substitute for reading what I’ve said and trying to understand it.
Every other religion of the world has worked hard for the aura of legitimacy it has. Why should the pagans get a free pass?
Again, we’re getting radically different sample populations here. Personally, I’m wondering if you’re perhaps from the Mars chapter of the SCA.
Yet, better informed than you in many ways. Strange.
Not just because it wants me to, no.
It’s not illegal yet, and it won’t be so long as the only effort to change the situation consists of bitching about how unfair it all is.
And yet, whenever the issue comes up, some Wiccan will pop up and claim that Wicca predates Christianity. You can’t have it both ways.
[quote]
OH, and whateverthehellyournameis, the SCA is not, and has never been a Pagan org. Yes, a few more of us are Pagans than the % in the US as a whole, but the same could go for people who go to SF cons, or game cons, or work Renfaires.
[quote]
I never claimed that the SCA was a pagan organization. Don’t take my word for it, you can read my post yourself. I claimed that it has a lot of common interests with the pagans, which is very much what you’re saying, and that the reason pagans have problems being taken seriously is because they’re associated with the likes of them, making it seem less like a religion and more like an escapist fantasy involving an elaborate game of let’s pretend. And since I now know that Esprix only reads every other line, let me state that I am not claiming that paganism actually is some sort of live action roleplaying game, only that it is perceived this way. And since I now know that Esprix only reads every other line, let me repeat that I am not claiming that paganism actually is some sort of live action roleplaying game, only that it is perceived this way.
