Well…the next town over. I’ve been to the witch museum every year for a school field trip since I can remember. I’m sick to death of the whole thing.
None of those people were wiccans. They weren’t satanists, didn’t have spells, didn’t do anything even slightly non-christian. The girls wanted attention. They wanted people to care. They got it. That’s all the witch trials were. Attention, and fear. People who realized what was going on were afraid to speak out. That’s all. It was classic mob mentality. It was NOT religious persecution.
[hijack]
What’s with all the wiccans in Salem, anyway? There’s hundreds of them, like they think the city’s history has ANYTHING to do with wicca. I don’t get it. They have nothing to do with the story at all, and yet they hang out there like it’s Wiccan Mecca or something. I just don’t get it, and I’ve never had the balls to go up and ask.
Wandered around Salem doing the touristy thing last year.
I thought the police having little “witches on brooms” symbols was pretty funny… but having the same witch on the local YMCA’s sign was much more amusing.
Greetings from the East Kingdom. This year marks my 12th year, and my 11th Pennsic War I’m also a “slightly important person,” and only took me 8 years to be recognized as such. :rolleyes:
Greetings from the East Kingdom. This year marks my 12th year, and my 11th Pennsic War I’m also a “slightly important person,” and only took me 8 years to be recognized as such. :rolleyes:
Greetings from the East Kingdom. This year marks my 12th year, and my 11th Pennsic War I’m also a “slightly important person,” and only took me 8 years to be recognized as such. :rolleyes:
Greetings from the East Kingdom. This year marks my 12th year, and my 11th Pennsic War I’m also a “slightly important person,” and only took me 8 years to be recognized as such. :rolleyes:
Ever heard of Clan Blue Feather?
OK, Johnny Angel, correct me if I’m wrong, as you say I’ve misread your posts. Here is what I’ve gotten so far:
[ul][li]You feel Wicca is not a “real” religion because your experience is that it has no orthodoxy (AHunter’s views aside for the moment).[/li]
[li]You feel Pagans have to prove themselves as a religion because you feel they don’t have the credibility, history, orthodoxy, etc. most other mainstream religions have.[/li]
[li]You feel that life is unfair, and therefore Pagans have to work harder to gain respect and/or equal treatment.[/li]
[li]It is wrong that Pagans are treated unfairly.[/ul][/li]
Answer yea or nay on these or amend as appropriate so I know where you’re coming from. I’ll even read every line. :rolleyes:
Perhaps you’ve just been playing devil’s advocate, and I’ve been misreading this as the truth you believe.
I don’t believe Wicca has established itself to the point where it can claim equal status with other religions that have, and I believe that part of why that is is that there is not Wiccan orthodoxy and that the average Wiccan would be appalled at the idea that there should be. You have said that this is not the case, and I didn’t ask you to prove this with examples and by citing an actual Wiccan cannon. For the sake of argument I have taken your word on this because another interesting issue arises from it – what will Wicca have to do in order to achieve the status they want, and are they willing to do it?
If they want the kind of recognition they complain about not receiving, they will have to, yes.
They would have to whether life was fair or not. In fact, it wouldn’t be fair for them not to have to work this hard, and it’s no more fair just because other fringe religions have been given the fast track.
It’s wrong to treat anyone unfairly – that’s tautological. But there is a question of how unfairly pagans really are treated, and what we or they are justified in doing about it.
I’m not playing the advocatus diaboli if you mean that I’m only pretending to disagree with you. I do disagree. But I thought we were starting a friendly dialogue that took a serious look at the issues which keep Wicca from achieving the kind of acceptance that other religions enjoy, when all of the sudden, out of thin air and clear skies of blue, you start calling me ignorant, accusing me of religious discrimination and bizzarely misconstruing the meaning of my statements. How silly of you.
That’s good, because I can’t. I, like you, am simply going off my own experiences with Wiccan acquaintances, plus a little research over the web.
An interesting question. Personally, I already seem them as having “status,” but then I’m admittedly of an extremely liberal mindset. You probably do better represent the majority of the way typical Americans would view them.
From a stricly legal point of view, it seems patently unfair for an employer to deny an employee taking a day off for their own religious observance (as was stated earlier in this thread), IMO. I suppose if we were bosses, we’d just boss differently.
I put it to you you may have been ignorant of the religion of Wicca because our personal experiences seem to be vastly different. I did not accuse you of religious discrimination, but said that if you were to deny equal treatment under company policy to a Wiccan simply because you didn’t think their religion had any credence, I would call that religious discrimination, and from a legal standpoint I might not be wrong (although if a lawyer is present, he might want to refer to that situation directly). And since you say I misconstrued your statements, that’s why I asked you to clarify.
Bottom line is we disagree on what Wicca is and/or should be. I can live with that.
I don’t mean status as some abstract quality independent of society. I mean status as the position a person or institution holds within society. So long as Wiccans complain that they are being discriminated against where Christians would not be, they do not have status.
This again. Liberals think I’m a reactionary, conservatives think I’m a pinko. What I definitely am not is a relativist. “Typical Americans” are relativists in principle, though when you actually get down to cases they think there really are rules that apply no matter who you are and what you believe.
A fact which bears equal evidence of your ignorance.
Yes, this is what I like to call modus ponens ad orem, which translates roughly to affirming the antecedent in your face. In stating the conditional, you insinuate the antecedent, and therefore the consequent. But since you can say that you only stated the conditional, you can deny having implied that a syllogism follows.
And with no one who has an actual stake in the matter piping in anymore. An athiest and a Unitarian hashing out somebody else’s religion. But, what are you gonna do? I think we’re boring the squares.
Well, since I am an interested party… I wish to put my 2 cents in (again)
I can see the logic behind both of your points. but there are a few things I think need to be said.
Firstly, wicca (and most pagan groups in general) have fewer members then the more common christian faiths. This certainly makes us less influential in society, but I do not think that it makes our beliefs less important.
In my opinion,because christanity (in general… and I realize that this lumps together a lot of groups who consider themselves seperate) has always been the most popular religon in this country, it stands to reason that the holidays and rites of that faith are most recognized. this is why schools and businees are generally closed for occassions like Christmas, and Good Friday.
Now, I don’t think this is fair, but I do think it is understandable.
I think it was Jonny Angel who said that until pagan faiths obtain a “status” or “recognition” (this seems to be an arbitry quantity that I don’t really understand) equal to more estabilished faiths, then they cannot expect equal treatment. In response may I say that I know large numbers of Jews and Muslims who complain that christmas and easter are recognized as national holidays in this country, while the important celebrations of their faiths are ignored. I personally would consider judism and islam to be at least as "well recognized’ as christanity on a world-wide scale. Yet their members also have difficulties that are not really all that different from the ones I have as a pagan.
Finally, the constitution of the United States grants citizens the right to freedom of religon. This document does not define “religon” and it certainly does not state the faith must be “accepted” or have a certain number of members or a “certain standing” in society. Therefore, as long as the practices of my faith do not harm others (no ritual sacrifices ) [Those who may take offence please note: wiccans and most pagans in general do not believe in or condone the harming of any living creatures… I was being sarcastic to make a point …probably badly… but what can I say] I have a right to participate in the rituals of my faith. If an employer allows some employees time off to participate in the rituals of their faith… the same policy must extend to all employees even if they chose to particapate in the religon of the church of bob. To treat one employee differently from others is discrimination. the reason is not important.
No one said life would be fair… I sure it would be a lot easier for me to go through life as a protestant… unfortunately, I cannot because I do not believe the elements of their faith. I didn’t ask for things to be easy… just possible. I don’t expect people to understand, accept, or va;ue my beliefs… I ask only for redspect, and the freedom to be who I am.
But they have gained a lot of ground in becomming recognized – after many years of patience. The Pagans seem to want it now.
And therefore you think we should assume a broad definition. What I have been talking about is a very reasonable standard for establishing one’s religion.
[quoteIf an employer allows some employees time off to participate in the rituals of their faith… the same policy must extend to all employees even if they chose to particapate in the religon of the church of bob.[/quote]
You’re just restating the opinion that was in question to begin with.
Sure, if I promote Hans over Janos because Hans is smarter, I’m discriminating. But the reason is important.
Although I will agree that Wiccans and Pagans do not much social standing among mainstream America, it still looks like we disagree on how we would react to that situation.
I wasn’t calling you anything of the sort. You say that Wicca is not a “real” religion. I think most Americans would agree with you, even if their reasons might differ from yours. Am I wrong? Didn’t you even say somewhere earlier in this thread that most people would think the way you do? Wasn’t that kind of your point from the start as to why Wiccans don’t get any respect from society?
Fine, we’re both ignorant. Surprise, surprise.
OK, fine, then I’ll ask you flat out - if you were an employer who gave time off to employees for religious holidays and a Wiccan came to you and requested time off for the Solstice, would you grant it to him/her? Outright? Conditionally?
Who says we need an audience? Remember, if UU’s had to choose between Heaven and a discussion of Heaven, I think we all know where we’d go…
Hans’ intelligence may affect his ability to do his job, and is therefore a valid reason to decide that he may be the better canidate for a higher position. My faith in no way effects my ability to do my job any more then any other faith would. therefore faith is not a vaild reason.
Hans’ intelligence may affect his ability to do his job, and is therefore a valid reason to decide that he may be the better canidate for a higher position. My faith in no way effects my ability to do my job any more then any other faith would. therefore faith is not a vaild reason.
It seems this discussion has turned to the “respectability” of Wicca as a religion. Frankly, I find even asking the question to be amazingly arrogant. When we start demanding a criteria for religious faith beyond honest personal conviction, we deny one of the most fundamental of freedoms: the freedom of belief. Consider these statements:
We should respect unconditionally the right of others to believe differently than ourselves.
We should respect the right of others to believe anything which is not too divergent from our own beliefs.
We should respect the right of others to believe anything for which they can provide sufficient weight of intellectual history.
We should give no respect to those who believe differently than ourselves.
All of those statements have been enacted by some group in human history. For myself, I find the first to be the most ethically correct. Though I have never lacked pride, I lack the particular hubris necessary to practice any of the others.
Please notice, by the way, that I respect the right to believe, not necessarily the belief itself. Personally, I find Wicca to be absurd. I find Catholicism to be equally absurd, no matter how much gravitas Augustus and Acquinas bring to the table. Nevertheless, I grant my Wiccan friends the same respect for their sincere belief that I do my Catholic friends (and, yes, I do have both).
As to holidays, I have long been of the opinion that businesses should simply give their employees a set number of days to use for religious observance and allow the individual employee to distibute them according to their religious priorities.
A friend of mine was the only non-Jewish person working for the Museum of Jewish American History here in Philadelphia (and, oddly, she was their accountant, something her Jewish co-workers found deliciously ironic). Of course she got all the Jewish holidays off, including going home at 3:30 before DST, and having just about every third day off in the month of September. On top of that, they gave her the Christian holidays off as well. It was a sweet job.
It seems that it could be–say the church of Bob had 75 holidays a year: would your employer be obligated to pay you for all 75? Even if they were unpaid holidays would he be obligated to work around such a convuluted schedule? If nothing else, the co-workers of the Bobists are apt to start feeling ill-used. What if the Church of Sue had one more holiday than an employer allotted in free days?
I think that one point has been lost in the shuffle–their is a difference between a religious observance and a religious obligation. Catholics are not allowed to demand every Church holiday off to go to Mass-they’d never have to come in at all. On the other hand, they can demand that they are not compelled to work all weekend without any time avalible for going to Mass (although in the real world of wage-earners this happens) because it is a tenant of thier religion that thier God insisits on their attendence. Most traditional religious holidays havethe same sort of sense of obligation. A traditional celebration is not enough–you’ve no right to your own birthday off. Because Paganism lacks anything resembling a cohesive dogma, and because many practioners of Paganism profess to believe in a religious system where there is no judgement, or if there is they claim that judgement is restricted to acts of harm, then they can make no claims to religious obligation. Without the element of obligation it is harder to argue that pagans are the subject of discrimination–no one is stoping them from doing anything essential to thier religious beliefs because they is nothing in those beliefs that can’t be done after work or on normal days off.
In real world terms I do think that the solution Spiritus mentioned is the most practical, and the most likely to dimminish work-place religious tension. But the Pagan lack of doctrine is a problem–It is diffucult to make demands on an employer based upon a religion that demands nothing.
Obviously, company policy regarding religous holidays is something that each company has the right to decide for themselves. Policy in my company is that we may have any necessary days off for religous purposes with the permission of our supervisors. I don’t ask for many days off… I certainly don’t take advantage of the situation. What gets to me is that because one of my supervisors refuses to recognize that my faith has value (and trys contantly to “bring me to christ”) it is all but impossible for me to get time off. I fI had a different supervisor… this would not be a problem. I made no secret of my beliefs when they hired me… and therefore, I find it unfair that "company policy’ applies to everyone but me.
**
Very true. But who gets to decide what is obligation and what is “observance”
As far as I am concerned, the celebration of solstice, and other holidays are as vital to my faith as easter to a christian… does someone else have the right to tell me that they are not?
While it is true that most of the more popular religions have well known “rules” which their followers are supposed to observe… however, in my experience, most people follow religous convention only when it is convient for them.
As an example, it is true, that chatholics consider easter a holy day of obligation, this would make it a sin not to attend easter mass… however, catholicism also makes sex outside of church sactioned marriage (preformed by a priest)a sin. I’ve known many catholics who only obey one of these… guess which one (as a side note, I was raise catholic)
In my opinion, this type of “personal discretion” means that catholic 'dogma" carries no more weight then the non-existant pagan dogma
most pagan faiths allow the individual practictioner the discretion to act as they see fit… partly because may people who class themselves as pagan do so because their beliefs are their own, and not necessarily exactly equivalant to anyone elses. In my experience, most practicers of “established” religions do that anyway (no matter what their offical dogma may say)so I really don’t see any difference.
As an example:
All of the christians I know took time off from work to celebrate christmas, only 3 families(out of several dozen) attended any sort of organized religous service as part of their celebration. My question remains, why can they get time off for this “religous” celebration but Icannot celebrate the festivals of my faith?
Remember, if UU’s had to choose between Heaven and a discussion of Heaven, I think we all know where we’d go… 