James Towey, the director of Bush's office of "Faith-Based" Initiatives managed to anger a number of Pagans, Heathens and other adherents of what's sometimes called "Alternative Religions" recently when he recently published this question and answer set on an "Ask the White House" page at the White House website:
Colby, from Centralia MO writes:Now, I'll grant that, as of yet, there aren't a large number of Pagan groups out there running soup kitchen, homeless shelters, tutoring programs or providing other social services. While Towey seems to believe that this is because either (a) Pagan groups don't exist (they do) or (b) Pagans don't care (we do!), it's simply a matter of there not yet being that many Pagan groups that have access to the kind of funds needed for the kind of programs Towey would be evaluating.
Do you feel that Pagan faith based groups should be given the same considerations as any other group that seeks aid?Jim Towey:
I haven't run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it.
Unfortunately, because there is so much prejudice against Pagans and Paganism, especially from the more fundamental Christian groups, for many people, being public about their Paganism can be a big risk. People have lost jobs or housing once it becomes known that they are Pagans, and it's sadly common that the Pagan religion of a parent becomes a factor against them in a child-custody case. In addition, I have known Pagans who have had their property vandalized or crosses burned in their yards. As a result, many people are unwilling to publically associate themselves with Paganism or Pagan groups, which can make it hard to put together a group to work on social serivce-type projects.
This, along with the fact that Paganism is still very much a growing religion, as opposed to an established one, means that many Pagan groups are quite small. In most cases, an individual group that would have the same functions as a church for a mainstream faith, has no more than maybe 15 or 20 people in it - if that. In many areas, several of these smaller church-like units (often called Covens, Hearths, Kindreds, or Groves, etc.) will band together to work on building more of a Pagan community within the area. These larger groups sponsor activities like Pagan Pride Day (usually held in September each year) or celebrations for the various Holy days that are observed each year, both to help various Pagans in the area get to know each other and also to help bring some visibility to the fact that Hey! Pagans exist! (and we're really NOT that scary!)
Oftentimes, money is raised at these larger-group gatherings for donation to various charitable causes or food-drives are held to help bolster the local food pantry.
In the past three years, Pagan Pride groups have collected 74,000 pounds of food and donated $51,000 to homeless shelters, interfaith food banks, the American Red Cross and other charities, according to the Indianapolis-based International Pagan Pride Project.Regrettably, the stigma of being Pagan has been know to make some of the organizations Pagans are trying to help turn down their donations, as they don't want to risk having other religious groups decide that they won't support them any longer if they're going to take anything from Pagans.In Chicago, pagans support a battered women's shelter. In Massachusetts, they have given $20,000 for children with AIDS.
As the Post article notes, however, the number of Pagans (especially in terms of those practicing Wicca, probably the larges and most well-known of the Pagan faiths) is growing, and fast.
According to one major study, Wiccans -- one of several subgroups of pagans -- made up the fastest-growing religion in the continental United States in the 1990s. The American Religious Identification Survey, based on a randomly dialed telephone survey of 50,281 households by the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, estimated that the number of Wiccans rose 17-fold, from 8,000 to 134,000, between 1990 and 2001.Hopefully, as the Pagan faiths continue to grow, they will become more accepted and people who share the Pagan path will feel more comfortable about working with publicly-Pagan groups, and charitable organizations will be more willing to accept Pagan donations. As long as we have officials making comment that indicate that Pagans aren't caring or willing to do work on behalf of others, however, that acceptance is going to be slow.The survey also estimated that there are 33,000 Druids and 140,000 other pagans in 48 states. That adds up to about 300,000 people in what pagans call their "family of religious and magical paths."
One thing that Towey got completely wrong, though, is in saying that "Once you make it clear to any applicant that public money must go to public purposes and can't be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work, and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it."
One thing common to almost all Pagan groups is that we don't try to promote our ideology. The idea of a Pagan group running a homeless shelter or soup kitchen and telling people coming in to receive aid that they must convert to a Pagan faith to get help, or even just making them listen to a religious lesson is laughable. For one thing, how on Earth would they decide exactly which path the person would have to accept or what God or Goddess to give the lesson on? There are so many that from a pragmatic standpoint, it wouldn't be feasible. More importantly, though, is the belief you will find in virtually all Pagan religions that there is no "One True Way™" and that individuals should be free to follow their conscience in matters of the spirit.
Yes, we will talk about our faith and are generally happy to educate someone about what it is we believe and why, but we don't then try to tell the person that they must believe it also. In fact, that's probably one of the main reasons why the Pagan faiths are still fairly small in terms of overall membership.
I have to say, though, I'm really glad to see that enough of a stink has been raised about this guys comments that it actually rated a story in the Washington Post. Sure, it's tucked away in the back pages, but a few years ago, it wouldn't even have gotten that much attention. The Post did a great job with the article, and managed to present a pretty balanced look at Paganism. I doubt we'll ever get an apology from Towey, though it would be nice. He certainly owes us one.
Unlike the US, in Denmark, there is an official state church. That church, however, has the authority to recognize other religions, giving their clergy the ability to have their religious ceremonies - such as weddings - recognized by the state. Recently, they granted such recognition to Forn Sidr, an Asatru/Heathen group that serves as an "umbrella" organization for both solitary Heathens and Heathen church-like groups, generally called Hearths or Kindreds.
Home to the Vikings of yore, Denmark said Wednesday it will let a group that worships Thor, Odin and other Norse gods conduct legally-recognized marriages.This makes Denmark the second nation (that I'm aware of) to grant official status to Heathens. Asatru, the most common "denomination" is officially recognized by Iceland. While these recognitions may not seem like a big deal overall - especially in a country such as this where there are no "official" religions - but each time a nation investigates a Heathen tradition and decides that it can be granted official recognition, it helps add legitimacy to the religion as a whole."To me, it would be wrong if the indigenous religion of this country wasn't recognized," Tove Fergo, the minister for Ecclesiastic Affairs and a Lutheran priest, told The Associated Press.
Under Danish law, the state Evangelical Lutheran Church has sole authority to recognize other religious communities.
The 240-member Forn Sidr, which worships Odin, Thor, Freya and the other members of the Norse pantheon, sought recognition in 1999, said Tissel Jacobsen, the group's president.
Last year, an Ecclesiastic Affairs panel of scholars recommended that Forn Sidr, whose name mean "Old Custom" in old Norse, be approved, but only if their rituals were clearly detailed in its bylaws.
"At a general assembly, we added and described our four annual heathen rituals -- spring and fall equinoxes, and the summer and winter solstices, and our marriage ceremony," Jacobsen told the AP. "We then returned our application and the panel approved it."
Fergo said she would give her final approval "in a few days."
About 1,000 people worship the ancient gods in Denmark, Jacobsen said.
This is an issue even in the US, despite the fact that the US does not have a list of accepted religions or religions that are considered "unrecognized" or "invalid", but because most Pagan and Heathen traditions don't use the same kind of system to ordain their clergy that most Christian denominations do, some states are still hesitant to recognize Pagan and Heathen clergy as being able to perform legally binding weddings, officiate at funeral services or serve in other kinds of official clergy roles. While there are groups trying to find legitimate ways to alleviate the problem, if the question of whether or not a religion is "real" comes up, being able to point to other nations that have given the religion official recognition can make a big difference.
Congratulations to the members of Forn Sidr, and thank you for taking the time and putting in the effort to earn recognition!
UPDATE: 9/24 pm 11/06 - be sure to read the comments section, as Ole has posted a clarification on the story.
Jessica (age 15) left the following comment on one of my posts about the Ten Commandments monument controversy:
The people who decided to suddenly remove the monument are a little late, don't you think? The monument has been in the building's rotunda for two years already, right? Why are these people waiting until now to remove it? The monument has never done any harm to anyone ( My gosh, it's just a 5,300 pound monument). It's not like it's going to start killing anyone or hurt anything! These people could start by taking away stuff that will really make a difference, right? Taking away somthing that is good to remember and does no harm to man-kind or pollutes our air or anything is senseless. This world does not need to be destroyed by hatred (evil), so please put the monument back where it belongs; reminding everyone that God is still in the world today, and evil will not intervene.I thought I'd go ahead and share my response:age 15
Well, Jessica, you should know that being young doesn't get you off the hook for not having your facts straight. The removal of the monument is not "sudden". The people removing the monument are working within the legal system to do it properly, with the support of the courts. It's only been there for 2 years because that's how long it's taken for the court case to get to a point where someone can legally order it to be removed. This isn't a new thing - it's been underway for a while.When Judge Moore installed it, he did so KNOWING it would be wrong to do so - that's why he did it in the middle of the night when only he and the people helping him were around. He also did this without consulting with or informing the other Justices on the Alabama Supreme Court - another indication he knew what he was doing is wrong. If it was such a great and noble thing to do, why not do it in the light of day with everyone watching and knowing what you're up to?
Besides, it's not "harmless". As a symbol of only the Judeo-Christian faiths, that monument makes it clear that people who follow other faiths - which they're allowed to do freely in this country - are going to be looked upon differently than Jews and Christians, and that the state is perfectly fine with this. That monument says to every person who comes in that only the Christian and Jewish faiths are revered. In a country that holds the principle that the state cannot establish an "official" religion or hold one religion to be better, more important, more "right" or just more highly looked upon, having that monument in the middle of the State House is simply unsupportable.
Also, keep in mind that its not uncommon for governments that are run hand in glove along with a strong commitment to a specific religion - with the idea that "God's laws" are to be enforced by the government - usually end up with a great deal of blood on their hands. There are reasons why we've said that even if the Iraqi's want to democratically elect a theocracy, we won't allow them to have one. The mixing of government and religion is at the heart of far too many of the wars in the world. As such, its important in a country like our to put down any attempts at making this nation a theocracy - even a Christian theocracy - because theocracies are generally very bad for the people who live in them. Maybe this seems like a small thing now, but if we don't fight the small things, then those who want a theocracy will start on bigger ones, and we can't let that happen.
As to the popular claim that the Ten Commandments are the foundatinon of American Law, keep in mind that only 3 of those commandments appear in ANY form in our laws (prohibitions on killing and stealing, and a prohibition on lying while under oath - though lying at any other time is allowed), one is outright contradicted by the First Amendment to the Constitution (by granting Freedom of Religion - meaning that people can follow any faith or any God they choose - the First Amendment contradicts the First Commandment), and following one (no coveting) would pretty much destroy our entire economic system, which is based on the idea that people will work hard or be innovative in order to earn enough money to get those things they want. So there's no way to support the contention that the Commandments are somehow fundamental to our legal system.
The monument doesn't belong in the State House. It never did, and it should never be returned. The State House should be for people of all faiths who are there to seek justice, and the law is what matters.
Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama chief justice who has refused to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments that he snuck into the state judicial building's rotunda in the middle of the night two years ago, has been suspended by the Judicial Inquiry Commission pending investigation of alleged ethics violations.
Chief Justice Roy Moore’s actions next face a hearing before the state Court of the Judiciary after the Judicial Inquiry Commission found merit in a complaint by Montgomery lawyer Stephen Glassroth that Moore violated ethics rules by ignoring U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson’s order.While I doubt anything will ever convince Moore that he's wrong in having established the monument and in refusing to remove it, it's good to see that the Judicial Inquiry Commission agrees that there is at least reason to review his actions and that he may be held accountable for his ethical violations.Moore, who was suspended with pay, had no immediate comment. He has 30 days to respond to the Court of the Judiciary, which holds trial-like proceedings and can discipline and remove judges.
[...]
Moore said he told the commission that he upheld his oath of office by acknowledging God. Moore has said Thompson has no authority to tell the state’s chief justice to remove the monument.
Moore’s eight associate justices on the state’s high court ordered the granite marker taken away Thursday after Thompson’s deadline passed. But court officials were still trying to determine Friday where it might go in the building — it weighs 5,300 pounds — and whether the area would allow proper security.
Kynn at Shock and Awe has an excellent evisceration of the claim that the Ten Commandments are the "moral foundation of law" in the US as claimed by Judge Ray Moore of Alabama (among others). Moore, as you probably know, erected a 2.5 ton monument to the Ten Commandments in the the rotunda of the Alabama state judicial building.
Moore had the monument placed in the building without the knowledge or consent of his fellow justices in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001.Even though the court ruled against him, Moore has refused to remove the monument and so the case continues, and both sides expect it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court.Privately raised funds paid for the sculpture, but Moore allowed a film crew from Coral Ridge Ministries -- the Religious Right organization run by Florida-based television evangelist D. James Kennedy -- to tape footage of the monument's construction and placement. Coral Ridge later sold the videotape as a fundraiser, and has paid for Moore's legal defense.
Moore has said he acted secretly to protect his fellow justices from being named in the lawsuit he was certain would result from his actions.
Moore's expectation became reality shortly thereafter, when Montgomery lawyer Stephen Glassroth filed suit in federal court. Two other Montgomery attorneys joined Glassroth in the suit.
Lawyers from three civil-rights groups -- the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- represented the plaintiffs in the October trial.
"The Ten Commandments monument, as the Chief Justice made clear both at the unveiling ceremony and at trial, is a granite reminder to Alabama judges and justices and all other state citizens of the ultimate sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God over both the state and the church," Judge Thompson said in his opinion that accompanied the ruling.
Thompson said Moore's intent in having the monument installed thus violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits governments from endorsing or promoting a religion
In a fiery speech given just six days before a federal deadline to remove the monument, Chief Justice Roy Moore said he would take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.Now, personally, I think the question is whether or not he will disobey a court order and whether or not he will remove the monument. He does not have to deny God to do so. His personal faith should be in no danger from the removal of the monument. Removal of the monument, in fact, should have no effect whatsoever on his faith. If it does, then Judge Moore has a much bigger problem then a 5,300 pound piece of rock that he's been ordered to get rid of."I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments, the moral foundation of our law," he said. "To do so would, in effect, be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state.
"The question is not whether I will remove the monument," Moore added. "It is not a question of whether I will disobey or obey a court order. The real question is whether or not I will deny the God that created us."
This is part of what puzzles me sometimes about extreme fundamentalists like Judge Moore. While my decisions are guided by the tenets of my own faith, whether those tenets are posted somewhere for someone else to see is irrelevent to my dedication to them or to the Gods whom I serve. I don't need to see them displayed each time I enter a place to be reminded of the place they have (and should have) in my heart and in my life. I'm quite capable of keeping them as a priority without an outside reminder, thank you very much.
Moore said he will file the motion "to preserve our rights as a state and nation to acknowledge God."It was meant to keep the government from tell us what religion we had to follow and to prevent them from interfering in our religious lives. When the state of Alabama puts a huge rock in their justice building with the Ten Commandments on it, claiming that they are the "moral foundation of our laws", the state is, in effect, telling people that they consider Christianity to be the only religion worth upholding - which, while perhaps technically different than saying someone must follow Christianity, makes it clear that those who choose not to follow Christianity will not be treated with the same respect as those who do. It creates the impression, if not the legal actuality, of a dual-tier system based on what religion a person follows."Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our government. It was never meant to separate God from our law," he said.
This is precisely the kind of thing the First Amendment was intended to prevent. Our Founding Fathers wanted people to be free to follow their conscience in matters of religion.
The First Amendment's "very purpose is to allow us the freedom to worship Almighty God. That freedom is being taken from us by federal courts who misuse the First Amendment to take away our rights instead of as a shield to preserve them for us."The problem, of course, is that what Judge Moore says is the state's and nation's right to acknowledge God is a right that the state and national governments don't have. They are barred by the Constitution from establishing any kind of a state religion.
The Freedom of Religion is not a "states' rights" issue. It is an issue of personal freedom. The state and federal governments have to treat my religion exactly the same as it treats yours or anyone else's. It can't just go and decide that it likes one faith better, and so is going to make everything in the state more "friendly" or "accessible" (or anything else) to that particular faith.
As a Heathen (the "technical" term for a Norse Pagan, I've learned), I would never feel the least bit comfortable attending court in a building with the Ten Commandments emblazoned on a piece of statuary, hung on a plaque or otherwise posted about the place. I would feel like if the topic of my religion came up, I wouldn't be able to get a fair shake - that the court people, in accord with their Christian faith, and as sanctioned by the system that established and maintains such monuments, declaring the state's decision to hold that particular faith in a higher regard, would consider me, at best, some kind of fruit loop, and at worse view me as some kind of lesser being. And granted, I could provoke that same response in people even if the state didn't endorse their particular faith - but the difference would be that without the state's endoresement, they would likely feel less free to act on their religious bias, and I would feel like if I were subjected to religious discrimination, I'd at least have some kind of recourse in which to pursue my grievance.
At any rate, Kynn's article is great - he not only takes a look at what the monument says compared to what the actual Ten Commandments are, but he also examines each commandement individually to see if it actually holds up as a "moral foundation" for our laws. Give him a buzz.
Mel Gibson's new movie, "The Passion" is getting a lot of that pre-release publicity - also known as controversy - that's been known to take movies that might have appealed to a limited audience and make them the subject of curiosity to many more paying ticket-goers.
The focus of controversy with this film - which is Gibson's attempt to portray the final hours before the crucifixion of Christ - is that some percieve it as being anti-Semetic.
Some Jewish groups, like the Anti-Defamation League, are charging Gibson with promoting anti-Semitism. According to a variety of reports, Abraham Foxman, ADL national director has said, "The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus."The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has also commented on the film.Foxman also added, "We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate."
Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Wiesenthal Center's office in Los Angeles said in a statement issued overnight that the centre had received hate mail accusing it "of being Christ killers" after the group publicly expressed reservations about the film.I've not seen the movie, so I can't comment on whether the concerns are valid or not, nor am I familar enough with Gibson's beliefs to know if he would be likely to include an message that could be taken as anti-Semetic or not, so this isn't about the movie itself, per se, or about Gibson's views. It's about the issue that seems to be at the heart of the controversy - the belief by some Christians that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death, and the fact that much of the hatred of Jews throughout history has stemmed from the anger of Christians who consider them - as a race - to be the murderer's of Christ."For 20 centuries, the false charges ... have been the core reasons for anti-Semitism, causing the death and persecution of millions of Jews," Hier said.
Here's the problem I have with that line of reasoning: If, as Christians believe, Jesus is the Messiah who was promised in the Old Testament, and if salvation was made possible by his ability to overcome death when he was resurrected following his crucifixion, doesn't it stand to reason that - regardless of who ordered the crucifixion, his death was not only necessary to save humankind, but was also an integral part of God's plan.
See, the way I look at it (and the way I looked at it when I was still a Christian), it shouldn't matter one whit who - on earth - brought about the circumstances of Jesus' crucifixion because his crucifixion was required for God's plan to be fulfilled. If you think about it, in fact, the whole purpose of Christ even coming to earth in the first place was so that he could die and be resurrected again, thus providing a means for God's salvation to his followers. If (and I'm not saying I think this is necessarily the case, but if the allegation is true) the Jews (as a race) were the earthly agents of Christ's crucifixion, I would think that the Christians should be grateful to them for doing Gods will rather than hating them for it. I mean, if Christ hadn't died, they wouldn't be saved, would they?
It brings to mind one of the questions I had when I served as a missionary disc jockey at my church's radio station in Nome, KA, that led the church's minister to ask the station manager to have me on the air during church services so I couldn't "cause problems". I just could not understood why Judas was condemned to hell for his betrayal of Christ, since that betrayal was a necessary part of God's plan. In order for Jesus' crucifixion to occur, he had to be betrayed to the authorities, so logically, someone had to betray him. In betraying Christ, Judas was doing exactly what God needed him to.
Maybe there's something fundamental I'm not grasping here, but it just doesn't make any sense.
Below is a news release published today by New Witch magazine. First, let me state that I'm not endorsing the magazine. I saw a piece about it at The Barbaric Yawp and was a bit curious to check it out, since the info he had quoted from the magazine in his piece seemed just a bit off from my own experience. (When I first started exploring Paganism, Wicca was the easiest of the Pagan paths to find information on, so that was where I started. As such, I have a fair amount of experience with Wiccan and "witchy" practices and beliefs.) Personally, the magazine is a bit "fluffy bunny" for my tastes, but the issue itself is one that deserves an airing.
An additional caveat: New Witch Magazine isn't an uninterested bystander in this case. The issue arose because New Witch was trying to get Hot Topic stores to carry their magazine, and Hot Topic indicated that they would not be able to because they had made a corporate decision not to carry any merchandise related to "Witches" or "Wicca" due to pressure from the Religious Right. If you decide to participate in the boycott or to write to Hot Topic's management to protest their decision, I would suggest focusing on the general issue of religious discrimination rather than on their specific decision not to stock New Witch. I think that such an approach would be more readily accepted by management as a legitimate market concern, as opposed to a "stunt" by a specific product maker who is trying to get their product stocked.
One last comment: I fully recongize Hot Topic's right to make such decisions about what products they will or won't stock. I'm actually quote surprised that Hot Topic would make such a choice since, as the release below notes, there is a significant overlap between Goth/Alternative Lifestyles demographics (Hot Topic's primary customers) and Pagans.
But while I do believe they have the right to make this choice, in this case, I strongly disagree with their having done so, and, as such, am happy to give publicity to an effort to change their minds, not through the force of law (such as via a lawsuit), but through the force of the market demands (letting them know that customers and potential customers want a certain category of products to be made available). New Witch magazine has not said anything to indicate that any kind of lawsuit is even under contemplation. They have said absolutely nothing, in fact, about using any tactics other than a boycott, publicity and a petition. This I can support wholeheartedly, and if you agree, I ask that you do also.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 21, 2003
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Dagonet Dewr Managing Editor, newWitch Magazine
(317) 916-9115
m_editor@newwitch.com"HOT TOPIC" STORES ADMIT TO RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN COMPANY POLICY
In an email sent July 15, 2003, to newWitch Editor-In-Chief Anne Newkirk Niven, California-based apparel and accessory retail chain Hot Topic (http://www.hottopic.com) admitted a company policy of religious discrimination in merchandise selection for their stores.
According to Papergoods Buyer Marissa Mitchell, "[newWitch] sounds great, and potentially would have been a good fit for our stores a few years back when we used to carry Wicca merchandise. Unfortunately, about 4 years ago we ran into some complicated issues and as a company, we had to make some difficult decisions. One of those decisions included not going forward with merchandise that reads the word 'witch' on it." In a phone conversation with Niven, Ms. Mitchell admitted that some of these 'complicated issues' involved pressure from the Religious Right to Hot Topic's management to ban all Wicca and witch-related merchandise from its stores -- despite the fact that there is a considerable demographic overlap between Hot Topic's customer base (goth and other alternative lifestyles) and Paganism. It appears that Hot Topic has chosen to give in to said pressure rather than insisting on equal religious rights for all their customers.
newWitch Magazine would like to encourage the Pagan community -- as well as all other persons who shop at Hot Topic and who believe in religious rights and the importance of tolerance in America today -- to respond in one or all of the following ways:
1) Boycott Hot Topic and its affiliated chain, Torrid (http://www.torrid.com);
2) Write letters to Hot Topic, encouraging them to forgo their discriminatory policy in favor of protecting the rights of all Americans to practice whatever religion they consider appropriate, and to provide Hot Topic with some idea of the number of Pagans and Pagan-sympathetic persons in Hot Topic's potential customer base;
3) Write emails to Hot Topic, with the same goal in mind. Or,
4) Sign our online petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/hottopicandreligion . This petition will be sent to Hot Topic's corporate management on October 31, 2003, the Third Annual Out Of The Broom Closet Day.
Do not call Hot Topic! Phone calls, while perhaps more immediately satisfying, are harder to document and more likely to anger the customer service people answering the phones -- who are not the people who made or who enforce this discriminatory practice. Also, please keep your communications with Hot Topic professional, polite, and respectful -- we're not going to get anywhere if we're rude or juvenile.
The boycott will continue until Hot Topic rescinds its company policy of entrenched discrimination against Wiccan, witch-related, and other metaphysical merchandise.
Hot Topic's mailing address is as follows:
Corporate Headquarters
Hot Topic Inc.
18305 San Jose Avenue
City of Industry, CA 91748Email can be reached off their website, http://www.hottopic.com. For more information, contact Dagonet Dewr, Managing Editor of newWitch Magazine, at m_editor@newwitch.com.
It may not seem like much, but if the Pagan Federation in Scotland is successful in their to get a recount of how many people indicated they follow a Pagan faith in the 2000 Scottish census, they may be able to get official recognition of Paganism as a relgion from the Scottish government. This would be a major step from Pagans everywhere - though obviously for Pagans in Scotland, most of all.
Scotland's Pagan community is set to gain official status as a recognised religion after raising funds for a recount of the 2001 Scottish census.While the change in status would obviously have no real effect for Pagans in the US, having a western nation recognize Paganism as a genuine religion, with all the attendant benefits thereof, helps increase Paganism's legitimacy, and that is important.Pagans were lumped into the 'other religion' category at the time of the original count. But they claim they have thousands of members in Scotland and that the faithful -- which includes witches, druids and healers, and is based around a connection with nature -- should have formal recognition within the Scottish landscape of religion. Their eventual aim is that the state should recognise weddings, funerals and other rites of passage within a Pagan context and that Pagans should be allowed to take holidays for events like the summer solstice without prejudice.
MSPs turned down their public petition to extract the data from the census at the Scottish parliament in February this year because of 'technical difficulties', but the Pagan Federation claim they are now almost ready to ask the Registrar General for a recount.
John Macintyre, spokesman for the Pagan Federation in Scotland, told the Sunday Herald that Paganism is the fastest-growing religion in Scotland and should be recognised at civic level.
The article notes that the Pagan Federation estimates that 4,000 to 5,000 Pagans live in Scotland, "which would put us on a comparable level with Hindus or Sikhs in Scotland." Unofficial counts, however, have indicated that it may be even more than that - even as high as 10,000, with as much as "100% year-on-year" growth. They estimate that there are roughly 108,000 Witches (a sub-set - or denomination - of Paganism) in the UK as a whole, with as many as 225,000 Pagans overall.
While I would never want to see the US start recognizing "official religions" the way that other countries do - not just because it would be a horrible violation of the anti-establishment clause, but also because it would quickly become politicized. The one drawback, however, of not having "official religions" is that there is little to no consistency in how ordinations are viewed legally.
For many Pagan churches, groves, covens, kindreds, hearth or other groups, there is no "governing body" that can set standards for or grant ordinations. The Priest or Priestess of the group is chosen by the group members, and serves at the pleasure of the God(s)/ess(es) that the group honours and worships. This works well on a spiritual level, but legally, it's a bit dodgy.
Some Priest/esses end up going through the Universal Life Church, which offers "instant ordinations" that are supposed to be legally acceptable in all states, but which are often viewed suspiciously (since there are no actual qualifications - you go to a website, fill out a form, and - congrats! - you're a minister), and, in some states, can't be used for things such a presiding over a wedding or a funeral.
Initially, I had gone this route, but have since renounced my ULC ordination. For one thing, spiritually, it just didn't feel right. While I do believe that Thor has called me to serve Him as a Priestess, I know there are still many things He wants me to learn before I am qualified to take that title. In addition, since I am disabled, I have been effectively rendered a solitary (for non-Pagans reading this, a solitary is a Pagan who does not belong to any coven, kindred, hearth, grove, church or other group), so there wouldn't be much I could do with an ordination at this point, anyway.
The good news is that I've seen several national Pagan groups start to try and develop clergy programs that would help by being able to offer standards for credentialing and ordination. I hope that more of this will continue, so that Pagans will be able to provide the same kind of services to their congregations that ministers of other faiths offer to theirs. Until then, many Pagans end up having to do things like have a spiritual marriage ceremony led by their Priest/ess as well as a civil ceremony performed by a Justice of the Peace in order to make their marriage legally binding.
This is one place where having countries like Scotland officially recognize Paganism can also help American Pagans. As our faith is recognized as legitimate in more places around the world, it becomes harder for American authorities to deny that it is a true faith path, to which followers are as sincerely devoted as those who follow more mainstream paths.
I would just like to take a moment to offer my best wishes to the Pagan Federation of Scotland and all Scottish Pagans in this endeavour. I hope that your efforts are successful, and I am truly happy that you have this opportunity - not just for what it might mean to Pagans here in the states, but just because I know its important to you!
God(s)/ess(es) bless!
Ok, so I may be something of a Witchy-come-lately, but I just recently started reading the Harry Potter books. I'd seen both of the movies and had been utterly charmed by them, and decided the books would be a good bet as well. Besides, as a part of the Pagan community, it's been impossible to escape all the stories of people trying to get Harry Potter books pulled from school library shelves or banned from being usable by teachers who may want to use them as a way to help get kids reading for the fun of it. It made me curious as to just how far these books might go in giving kids the idea that they, too, could become little witches and wizards, the most oft cited fear of parents who want the books kept away from their kids.
I am, of course, still confused on what it is that parents find so objectionable. Apparently, so is a judge in Arkansas, who recently ordered that the Cedarville School District return the books to the shelves, rather than keeping them in a back room and require a parents' permission slip for a kid to check them out.
The books written by British author J.K. Rowling have been assailed by some Christian groups for their themes of spells, sorcery and magic. The American Library Association says the books were the most frequently challenged of 2002, but rarely did those challenges lead to restrictions or bans.One of the chief complaints from Christian groups has been that the books will lead children to become interested in religious witchcraft (the most common form of which is Wicca). Some parents have claimed that having the books in the schools is a violation of the separation of church and state because witchcraft is a religion. (Ironically, under almost any other circumstance, most fundamentalist Christians will say that Wicca and witchcraft are not religions - and are generally quite adamant about it. Now, when it works to their advantage to claim that they are, well, guess what?)
The problem with all of this, of course, is that there is naer a trace of religious witchcraft contained within the Harry Potter books. A few of the more significant differences:
For parents who are worried that Harry Potter will have a negative effect on their children, I would recommend that rather than trying to prevent anyone else's children from reading it as well, try reading the books yourself. As an adult, your faith should be strong enough to withstand any perceived threat that the books might represent, and it will give you a first-hand perspective of whether or not the books would be harmful for your children. It will also help you be able to guide your child in recognizing the difference between what is real and what is fantasy.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has an interesting column today about the difficulty reporters had getting answers to questions from the White House last week. In two separate press conferences, deputy press secretary, Claire Buchan managed to dodge virtually every question put to her by the press corps - even on such apparently innocuous topics as whether or not the President's parents would be joining him for Easter or if any of the POWs would be attending the church service.
He also commented on the latest flap regarding the Bush administration's apparent lack of objection to plans from Christian groups to proseltyze to Muslims while provinding aid to them in Iraq.
Muslims were upset that Franklin Graham, who had condemned Islam as evil, preached at the Pentagon last week. Now comes word that the White House held a private briefing for 141 evangelical Christian leaders March 27 to discuss the Iraq war and other subjects.Whether Bush "shares" these views or not, and whether he holds briefing for other groups or not, Bush's tacit approval of their actions - evident by his not trying to stop them - is only going to make matters worse. Muslims will - and to an extent already do - assume that they are acting on the behalf of America rather than being a church group operating independently of the American government. They know that Bush has the authority and the ability to tell them to stay home, or to avoid anything that could be construed as an attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity. They also know he hasn't and probably won't.Those invited included Jerry Falwell, who apologized last year for calling the prophet Muhammad a "terrorist," and broadcaster Marlin Maddoux, who has proclaimed an "irrefutable connection" between Islam and terror. Also invited were the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is sending food to Iraq labeled "grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ," and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said Iraqis are "desperately in need of the gospel." Invited, too, was D. James Kennedy, whose ministry published an article calling Islam "one of the greatest challenges to Christianity."
A White House spokesman said Bush does not share these views and that similar briefings were held for groups such as veterans and think tanks.
Not enough can be said about how disasterous this could be. Muslims are already angry at us for so many things and attempting to essentially witness their religious out of existance through the combination of proclaiming it to be evil and pushing the Christian faith instead only gives them that much more to be angry about.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post has an interesting column today about the difficulty reporters had getting answers to questions from the White House last week. In two separate press conferences, deputy press secretary, Claire Buchan managed to dodge virtually every question put to her by the press corps - even on such apparently innocuous topics as whether or not the President's parents would be joining him for Easter or if any of the POWs would be attending the church service.
He also commented on the latest flap regarding the Bush administration's apparent lack of objection to plans from Christian groups to proseltyze to Muslims while provinding aid to them in Iraq.
Muslims were upset that Franklin Graham, who had condemned Islam as evil, preached at the Pentagon last week. Now comes word that the White House held a private briefing for 141 evangelical Christian leaders March 27 to discuss the Iraq war and other subjects.Whether Bush "shares" these views or not, and whether he holds briefing for other groups or not, Bush's tacit approval of their actions - evident by his not trying to stop them - is only going to make matters worse. Muslims will - and to an extent already do - assume that they are acting on the behalf of America rather than being a church group operating independently of the American government. They know that Bush has the authority and the ability to tell them to stay home, or to avoid anything that could be construed as an attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity. They also know he hasn't and probably won't.Those invited included Jerry Falwell, who apologized last year for calling the prophet Muhammad a "terrorist," and broadcaster Marlin Maddoux, who has proclaimed an "irrefutable connection" between Islam and terror. Also invited were the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is sending food to Iraq labeled "grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ," and Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who said Iraqis are "desperately in need of the gospel." Invited, too, was D. James Kennedy, whose ministry published an article calling Islam "one of the greatest challenges to Christianity."
A White House spokesman said Bush does not share these views and that similar briefings were held for groups such as veterans and think tanks.
Not enough can be said about how disasterous this could be. Muslims are already angry at us for so many things and attempting to essentially witness their religious out of existance through the combination of proclaiming it to be evil and pushing the Christian faith instead only gives them that much more to be angry about.
Franklin Graham has made it clear that he plans to take his humanitarian aid organization "Samaritan's Purse" to Iraq, not only to help provide humanitarian support in the aftermath of the war, but also to prosyltize to Muslims and try to convert them to Christianity.
Not long after the 9/11 attacks, Bush made the unfortunate decision to use the word "crusade" in describing the War or Terror. Even though it may have been a few centuries, Muslim's are still very touchy about the whole topic of the Crusades - and understandably so.
In the Arab News, Dr. Mohammad T. Al-Rasheed has published an article that discusses the Arab view of Franklin Graham's plans, and how Graham's known closeness to Bush now makes it appear that maybe Bush really is planning a new Crusade to bring Christianity to the Middle East.
Needless to say, this is not a good thing.
The hidden items on this war's agenda are becoming clearer by the day. Graham is a close friend of Bush and his family. He was the one who delivered the invocation at this president's inauguration. For him to come proselytizing and evangelizing in the heartland of Islam is an insult, and a dangerous one at that. He should understand that he is not authorized to speak in the name of Jesus. Muslims know Jesus. Granted, that they do not know him as the "Son", but they know he does not condone the hatemongering Graham is so accomplished at.Iraq is home to the Shiite holy places. Graham has no idea what that means in terms of the dogma, fidelity, and deep faith these places and their residents have. I cannot put it better than Steven Waldman who wrote: "I am not sure any of this means that America's foreign policy objectives are served by having a Bush-loving, Islam-bashing, Muslim-converting Christian icon on the ground in Iraq tending to the bodies and souls of the grateful but deeply suspicious Muslim population. Or, to put it more simply, the idea is absolutely loopy."
I might add that it is also extremely dangerous and will play into the hands of extremists on all sides. It will not do for the Bush administration to say that Graham has the right to go where he wishes. They should stop him.
No one has the right these days to go where he wishes, least of all to the United States. People are vetted, interrogated, finger-printed, and perhaps denied a visa to enter America. So what gives this madman the right to enter Baghdad when we know what his agenda is? Will the occupying power facilitate his entry?
Franklin Graham has made it clear that he plans to take his humanitarian aid organization "Samaritan's Purse" to Iraq, not only to help provide humanitarian support in the aftermath of the war, but also to prosyltize to Muslims and try to convert them to Christianity.
Not long after the 9/11 attacks, Bush made the unfortunate decision to use the word "crusade" in describing the War or Terror. Even though it may have been a few centuries, Muslim's are still very touchy about the whole topic of the Crusades - and understandably so.
In the Arab News, Dr. Mohammad T. Al-Rasheed has published an article that discusses the Arab view of Franklin Graham's plans, and how Graham's known closeness to Bush now makes it appear that maybe Bush really is planning a new Crusade to bring Christianity to the Middle East.
Needless to say, this is not a good thing.
The hidden items on this war's agenda are becoming clearer by the day. Graham is a close friend of Bush and his family. He was the one who delivered the invocation at this president's inauguration. For him to come proselytizing and evangelizing in the heartland of Islam is an insult, and a dangerous one at that. He should understand that he is not authorized to speak in the name of Jesus. Muslims know Jesus. Granted, that they do not know him as the "Son", but they know he does not condone the hatemongering Graham is so accomplished at.Iraq is home to the Shiite holy places. Graham has no idea what that means in terms of the dogma, fidelity, and deep faith these places and their residents have. I cannot put it better than Steven Waldman who wrote: "I am not sure any of this means that America's foreign policy objectives are served by having a Bush-loving, Islam-bashing, Muslim-converting Christian icon on the ground in Iraq tending to the bodies and souls of the grateful but deeply suspicious Muslim population. Or, to put it more simply, the idea is absolutely loopy."
I might add that it is also extremely dangerous and will play into the hands of extremists on all sides. It will not do for the Bush administration to say that Graham has the right to go where he wishes. They should stop him.
No one has the right these days to go where he wishes, least of all to the United States. People are vetted, interrogated, finger-printed, and perhaps denied a visa to enter America. So what gives this madman the right to enter Baghdad when we know what his agenda is? Will the occupying power facilitate his entry?
When I saw the title for Peters Stinfels NY Times article "A Pagan View of Waging War", I have to admit I was momentarily a bit worried. One of the hardest parts of being a public Pagan is that I hear from many people who assume that Pagans are violent - engaging in bloody rituals and sacrifices - and that our acknowledgement that death is a part of the natural cycle of things, that somehow means we "worship" death and want to bring as much death into the world as we can.
While every religion has a wide range of theological intepretations amongst its practioners, and while every religion also has it share of dangerous crackpots, in general, you'll find that most Pagans are more likely to be pasifists than warmongers, that few condone - and even fewer practice - any kind of blood sacrifices (non-blood sacrifices would be actions that involve giving up something that is a particular enjoyment, making donations of money, clothing, or other physical items, or volunteering to participate in some kind of community service program), and that while we don't view death as something that is, by necessity, evil (we see it more as just something that *is*), we certainly don't "worship" it, either, nor do we have any desire to bring death to ourselves or anyone else.
Now, as I said, these are generalizations, and I'm sure it's not hard for someone to locate an example on the Internet of a Pagan promoting violence, killing animals for ritual sacrifices or proclaiming that s/he worships death and can hardly wait to get there. Just be aware that they are no more representative of "mainstream" Paganism than people who claim God ordered them to kill someone, or that their religion tells them that whites are superior to all other races are representative of "mainstream" Christanity.
That said, I was extremely pleased to find these paragraphs about halfway through the article:
"Mr. Kaplan, a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly with years of reporting experience from some of the world's most violent war zones, made the case for conducting United States foreign policy according to such an ethos in his book "Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos" (Random House, 2002).
Mr. Kaplan was not invoking the pantheistic spiritualities espoused by Wiccans and other contemporary adherents of nature religions. Rather, he was writing of the lessons to be drawn from the harsh world of the Peloponnesian Wars between Sparta and Athens as recounted by Thucydides, the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage as recounted by Livy, or the era of the Warring States in China in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War."
Maybe this doesn't sound like a real big deal, but having a article in a paper as widely read and generally viewed as "reputable" as the New York Times actually make the effort to distinguish modern Pagans from other uses of the word "pagan" - and to do so in a non-judgemental way is something of a rarity, so, for me, it's cause to be feeling really happy at the moment. :)
I saw this image at Industrial Technology and Witchcraft and thought it was just great!
It's by Kirsten Ehls and is reposted here with her permission
I posted yesterday about House Resolution 153 which would designate a day as a national day of prayer, fasting and humility. Well, the damnable thing passed today. If you'd like to find out whether your representative voted in favour of it or not, here's the vote roll at thomas.loc.gov so you can find out.
Over at Atrios' Eschalon, several people have suggested various ways to protest this action, including declaring your own day of gluttony, bragging and hedonism. One suggestion is to - on whichever day is eventually chosen to be The Day - spend the day visiting every all-you-can-eat buffet you can find, bragging about yourself and having some good, not-so-clean fun. While I can't actually go out to do something like this, I love the concept, and want to encourage anyone who thinks this kind of a resolution is inspiringly insipid - not to mention a violation of the separation of Church and State - to join in.
Below is the text of a resolution that has been submitted to the House of Representatives. (Found via Atrios at Eschaton)
It seems that now our Congress thinks we need to spend time praying and fasting in order to convince God to help us. Of course, if the war truly was what God wanted Bush (and hence, us) to do, wouldn't he be helping us already?
And even though it may be something of a tradition for such resolutions to be put forth, exactly what business does the secular government of this secular nation have in calling upon the citizens of the US to "seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and learn how we can do better in our everyday activities"? I'm sorry, but I think I have failings that require divine assistance, I think I can figure that out for myself, thankyouverymuch, and will decide on my own if I want to pray or not. I certainly don't need the House of Representatives to call upon me to do so!
Another thing I found interesting - the resolution states that "all of the various faiths of the people of the United States" recognize "the need for fasting and humble supplication". Somehow I don't think they did a comprehensive survey before making that assertion. While I'm sure there are some people of almost any faith who would engage in prayer and fasting as a means of communicating with their God or Gods, it's not an actual tenet of every religion in the nation. Many of the Pagan faiths, for example, have no position whatsoever about whether or not one should fast and pray. It's certainly not something that is viewed as "needed".
This is just another example of why it is the government should stay out of religion entirely, and if you think this resolution has me a bit incensed, you're right. I am. Granted, the resolution clearly has no binding legal effect on me to do anything, but the government simply has no business trying to tell me what I should or shouldn't do as part of my own personal spirituality.
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 153
Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 20, 2003
Mr. AKIN (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. HAYES, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. SOUDER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.
Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States are currently engaged in a campaign to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq;
Whereas, on June 1, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses called for a day of fasting and prayer as an expression of solidarity with the people of Boston who were under siege by the enemy;
Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the `Liberties of America are imminently endangered' and the need `to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God', called for a day of `Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer' ;
Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;
Whereas, on March 30, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, at the bequest of the Senate, and himself recognizing the need of the Nation to humble itself before God in repentance for its national sins, proclaimed a day of fasting , prayer and humiliation;
Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before
Providence;
Whereas humility, fasting , and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;
Whereas, through prayer , fasting , and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and
Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--
(1) designating a day for humility, prayer , and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) calling on all people of the United States--
(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting ;
(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and
(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.
"The storm is from God," he said, looking out his trembling window. "Until the aggression started, never in my life did I see a storm like this. We all believe in God, we all have faith in God. And God is setting obstacles against the Americans." [Washington Post]
Our President believes that his divine purpose is to rid the world of Saddam Hussein (and probably anyone else he believes is a terrorist), and that God chose him to lead the nation at this time in history. He also believes that God is on "our side" in the war.
Now Iraqis are wondering if maybe God isn't on "their side" - and is now helping them out by sending an intense sandstorm to interfere with our ability to wage this war effectively.
Maybe one of the embedded reporters will get a chance to find out where God is currently staying and ask him about it.
I was just telling my husband about the post below on Satanic Ritual Abuse, and had to share with him this section from one of the articles I'd found on the Great Satanic Panic:
The Strange Case of the Crucified Toad
Some poor fool who had the bad fortune to be walking along the bank of a river near Oscoda, Michigan, was confronted by an unspeakably horrible sight: Occult-type graffiti, spray-painted on the base of a bridge, and on the ground beneath it, gutted candles and a dead toad. Having stumbled upon the remains of a Satanic altar, the poor fool called the police. The officers looked things over and decided that, well, there was no evidence of any crime having been committed. But they wrote up a report, and the details made it into the paper the following week.
The headlines, of course, screamed about the Great Satanic Conspiracy. The article contained an amusing reference to a "murdered toad," which prompted me to write a letter to the editor asking if killing toads was considered a capital offense in Michigan. But the poor amphibian was, undeniably, dead. It was right there in the police report. And it caused quite a stir, even though an average half-mile stretch of the state highway that ran west of town contained, oh, probably a whole bushel basket full of deceased toads. A rumor began to fly around that the toad had been (gulp) crucified, which I found to be rather creative until I recalled that Aleister Crowley had boasted about doing just that in his Confessions. Well, perhaps it had merely succumbed to a common toad disorder and shriveled up in the sun.
No one really knew how the miserable toad met its end, but the proximity of its corpse to Satanic paraphernalia and graffiti left few without a shred of doubt that the unfortunate creature's demise was the work of deranged devil-worshippers. The spectre of a sinister cabal of candle-burning, spray-painting toad-killers haunted the land.
His response? "I can just see it now: Friday the 13th part 47: Ribbit"
He is SO no help sometimes :)
Posted on Fri, Dec. 06, 2002
Courtney sentenced to 30 years in prison for diluting medicines
By MARK MORRIS
The Kansas City Star
In a case that stunned the nation and outraged Kansas Citians, former pharmacist Robert R. Courtney received a maximum 30-year sentence Thursday for diluting cancer patients' drugs so he could make more money. [...]
[...] In his confession, Courtney said greed motivated him to dilute drugs. He also said he diluted medications to cover $1.1 million in income taxes that he owed in 2001 and to make the final $333,000 payment on a promised $1 million contribution to his church's building fund.
I have long had serious problems trusting doctors and other medical personnel, largely because I have had so many health problems, and too often it seems that the doctors, therapists and other professionals haven't had any answers. In the last decade, though, my distrust has grown significantly, after watching my father struggle through a year of pain due to a botched knee replacement surgery, and my mother-in-law's death following what was supposed to be a simple outpatient test. The case of the pharmacist diluting drugs has not done anything to inspire greater trust.
When this story first broke, I was shocked. The idea that someone would tamper with medicine that people depended on for their lives was astounding - at least until I realized just how much more money he could make by stretching each order of the drugs that much further. Part of why it hit me so hard, though, was locality. I've been in the hospitals where two of him pharmacies were located. I even bought drugs from one of them, though nothing that could have been diluted. Still, having something this monstrous happen so close to home puts a very different perspective on it.
I think part of what shocked me more than anything else, however, is that when he finally got around to saying why he did it, one of the top reasons he listed was because he had made a $1 million dollar pledge to his church, and needed help raising the money to live up to that pledge. I think that, in many ways, this case speaks to the whole concept of faith as a fashion accessory. We hear so often about how Americans believe in God and how many go to church each week. Most of our politicians make their religious affiliations known - often because it helps buy them political support. People make sure that they dress their best for Sunday morning services, and its not that uncommon for people to make a big show of the things they do to help out the church or the community. Yet in their everyday lives, their supposed faith is pushed aside - its tenets no longer binding them to act, speak, dress or think in a certain way, and little, if any, thought is given to the ethical standards that the religion teaches.
For Robert Courtney, it was important that he be seen as a strong supporter of his church's desire to expand, so he made a pledge to donate $1 million. Many would see this as a sign of his commitment to his faith, yet he then turns around, and in order to help raise the money to fulfill this pledge, he takes actions that he must know can only cause greater pain and suffering his patients, or kill them. Drugs that were intended to kill cancer cells were too weak to have any impact on them. While God may look favourably on a nice new church expansion, somehow I don't think He wants to see it done at the expence of people's lives.
Courtney was sentenced today, and will be serving 30 years in prison. Personally, I don't think that's nearly enough, but I'm not the one handing out the sentence.... Prior to his sentencing, victims and their families were allowed to speak, as was Courtney. So, what did he have to say for himself? In part, this:
[...] "From this moment, and for a long time to come, I will be agonizing over what I have done," Courtney said. "My hope is that...everyone knows that I apologize. And I'm sorry. For the rest of my life, any good that I can do, any kindness that I can show, I'll do."
As the Church Lady might say: "Well, isn't that special".
Usualy, when I hear that some fundamentalist or conservative Christian group is promoting a boycott of some childrens' book or books, I just shake my head a bit and wonder why they don't think that parents can actually control what their children read as opposed to needing the material to be made unavilable to all children, even those who's parents wouldn't find the book(s) to be objectionable.
So when I first heard, today, that Ex-Witch Ministries and Focus on the Family were promoting a boycott of Scholastic Books (the publishers of the Harry Potter series, among others), I figured this was just another example of the usual tempest in a teapot these things turn out to be. It was with a bit of surprise, then, that I found myself agreeing with them on one of their major points.
In this particular instance, they are not asking for a boycott of all Scholastic products, nor are they trying to get any books pulled from regular bookstores. Their specific issue is with the Scholastic Book Fairs, in which children can purchase books through their schools, and frequently, the books offered at these fairs also have lesson or discussion guides available so that the teacher can use the books in class. Their specific concern is that some of these books may be teaching Witchcraft, "New Age" beliefs or Wicca, and that religion should not be taught in schools (though I have to admit, they're not as quick to object when its their own religion being taught, but I'm going to let that slide for the moment).
Most of the books that they indicate having concerns about - including the Goosebumps series, the Harry Potter books, and Midnight Magic - are pure fantasy, and don't do anything to promote or teach about religion. There's a big difference between fantasy magic - the typical witches, wizards, goblins, ghosts and other denizens of the night - that populate many of the highly imaginative childrens stories that have been popular throughout the ages, and spiritual magick (spelled with the "k" on the end, to help make it easier to tell the difference when reading something), which is the kind of magick practiced by modern Witches, Wiccans and many Pagans. Fantasy (or "Hollywood") magic is all about flash and sizzle, shooting lightning bolts from your fingertips, flying, creating objects out of thin air and other such powers. These are not things you will see a spiritual Witch doing. Spiritual Magick is more about focusing energy and will on a specific goal to bring about a desired change. It involves recognizing and attuning to the divine energy that is in all of nature as well as within the self. No flying brooms, no disappearing in a "poof" of smoke.
Recently, though, there's has begun to be a melding of the two kinds of magic(k) in fiction aimed at teenagers. While it's still a fairly small market, these books use the flash and sizzle of Fantasy magic to catch the attention of the teens, and then promote spiritual magick as part of the storyline. The most blatant series of thse that I've seen is the "Teen Witch" series by Silver RavenWolf, which are published by Llewellyn publishers. While I'm not fond of the "Teen Witch" books, they are being published through one of the largest occult publishing houses that exist and are written by a noted Pagan author, so its not that big of a surprise to find that there are themes throughout the books that help to teach kids about Wicca, Witchcraft and/or Paganism.
One similar series, however, appears to be the "T*Witches" series published by Scholastic and offered through the school book fairs. Now, I've not read these books personally, but after looking through the website for them today, I actually have to agree with the Ex-Witch Ministries in saying that these books are not appropriate for sale through the school.
The first thing that caught my eye is that the website uses the "magick" spelling, which is something I've rarely seen outside the Pagan community. I then looked at the "Spellbook" section, and was rather surprised at what I found there. The site offers "Magick Tips" for kids wanting to write their own spells, and then gives kids the opportunities to post the spells they've written for other fans to read, and, presumably, try. The "Magick Tips" does have a few suggestions that, from the standpoint of a spiritual Witch, are rather "out there" - for instance, rhyming isn't mandetory when writing a spell -- it just makes it easier to remember, and making up "nonsense" words won't accomplish anything. But most of the other suggestions - talking about the moon phases and timing of spells, the use of herbs and working out in nature - sound like they could come straight from any Witchcraft 101 book.
Reading through some of the spells in the "Spellbook" section, I have to say they don't sound or look all that different from some of the spells I've seen from full-fledged Witches and Wiccans. Now, granted, while providing tips on how to write spells, they don't (at least on the website) to into such depth as to provide lists of correspondences (i.e. Herb "A" is good to use for Issue "1"), so it seems that the kids doing the writing are sort of just "picking" specific times when their "spells" should be done or what herbs to use, but the basic concept is still there.
One thing I did find very irritating is that the website has a catagory for "love" spells, but no discussion of the ethics of that kind of working. In most Wiccan or Witchcraft traditions, casing a spell to cause someone to do or feel something that goes against their own free will is considered highly unethical. Love spells intended to cause a specific person to fall in love with the caster fall under that category and are strongly discouraged by many Witches, Wiccans an Pagans. If the people writing these books and running the website wish to teach spiritual Witchcraft through these books, it would be good if they could teach the ethics that go with it as well.
So, this, then, is where I actually agree with those planning the boycott. These books, from the way they're promoted on the website, appear to very definately cross the line between being an entertaining and imaginative fantasy into promoting or teaching a specific religion. I know I'd be very upset if some "Christian" Teen novels made their way into the schools, and I can't blame Christian parents for being upset about this particular series. There has to be consistancy on this kind of an issue for the Constitution to mean anything.
Boy Scouts to Atheist: Accept A God or Get Out
By Michael L. Betsch
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 30, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - The assistant scoutmaster of a Pacific Northwest Boy Scout troop must either profess his belief in a "supreme being" or face banishment from the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). However, 19-year-old Darrel Lambert said he's been an atheist since the ninth grade and he's sticking to his convictions.
Lambert's track record with the Seattle-based Troop 1531 is impressive. Throughout his 10-year scouting career he earned 37 merit badges to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout; served as a quartermaster and three-time senior patrol leader; and has dedicated himself to more than 1,000 hours of community service.
For many people, participating in Boy Scouts is considered to be a normal part of American life - something that little boys are just expected to be able to do.
The Scouts themselves are often viewed as being representative of what right in America - teaching young boys to behave honourably, know the difference between right and wrong - and to choose to do what is right, to be helpful, kind and courteous, and helping them develop a variety of skills while building their character.
The problem, of course, is that they are also an example of what's wrong with America. They reject gays, atheists and agnostics, which teaches the boys who are a part of scouts that gays, athiests and agnostics aren't "good" enough to associate with. They also teach that exclusion is acceptable, even if that exclusion is not based on the unique merits or faults of a specific individual, but because of that individuals inclusion in some kind of a demographically undesireable group.
But Lambert is also passionate in his rejection of the existence of any supreme being, even though the BSA's regional Chief Seattle Council informed him that expressing a reverence for Mother Earth would be an acceptable form of worship."
I have to admit, I find more than a bit of irony in this statement, given that Pagan children have had difficulties being accepted into Boy Scout troops. The problem was big enough that the Aquarian Tabernacle Church in Seattle has started their own scouting program called SpiralScouts.
Davis, who serves as the Archpriest of the Wiccan Aquarian Tabernacle Church, said his main argument with the BSA is that the group has refused to recognize Wicca as an acceptable form of worship, but at the same time, the BSA incorporates the symbols of myriad Christian denominations into its Religious Emblems program.
He said the Scouts rejected a Wicca badge that was designed and submitted by a well-known Wiccan priestess.
In response, the BSA stated that: religious emblems are the property of approved religious scouting organizations and are awarded at their own discretion. For example, he said the National Catholic Council on Scouting and the National Jewish Committee on Scouting each have their own unique religious emblem.
"There is no national Wiccan organization," Shields [a BSA representative] said. "So, that's why there is no religious award for Wiccans."
The Covenant of the Goddess, however, which is a national Wiccan organization, offers the Hart and Crescent award to any youths who wish to work for it, and promote it as available to kids who are a part of youth Scouting organizations.
So, what is one to make of all this. If the Boy Scouts are truly willing to accept any profession of faith, and will accept badges and awareds sponsored by national religious organizations, then why will they not accept the Hart and Crescent award from CoG?
To a great extent, all of this would just be something I'd consider inappropriate and more than a bit shameful, but within the Scouts rights to do, if it weren't for the fact that, by virtue of holding a Congressional Charter, counting the President as their honorary Commander-in-Chief, being able to come into schools and recruit new member and receive some funding from governmental sources, they are at the very least a quasi-public organization. As such, they should be required to adhere to all non-discrimination policies on both the federal and local levels. If they are unwilling to do so, then they should return the charter, end the association with the president, refrain from using schools as recruiting grounds and refrain from taking any kind of public funding.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
| E-mail: |  |
AKA: | ThorsWitch |
 | INTP |
 | B7 d++ t+ k++ s+ u- f+ i++ o+ x- e l c- |
 |
    
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| « ? ProChoice Is Not AntiLife # » | ||||||||||
| << | domain-ated | >> | ||||||||||
| << ? domain girls # >> | ||||||||||
| <·· PWA ··> | ||||||||||
| < ? blogs by women # > | ||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| ‹ # Circle of Shadows ? › | ||||||||||
| <-- ? In MY Opinion # --> | ||||||||||
| « # blogshares ? » | ||||||||||
| « # Scorpio ? » | ||||||||||
| < # Blogrollers ? > | ||||||||||
| < ? six degrees # > | ||||||||||
|
[ <<
?
Verbosity
#
>>
] |
||||||||||
| domain whore | ||||||||||
|
Are you a  ? Domain . Addict # |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
)O(
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
|
Rate me at Eatonweb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
![[ Registered ]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/diarist.gif){kind=small}
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Recommended sites |
Please note: The Salon Blog mailing list and web rings are not managed by Salon Magazine, but are specifically for the owners/authors/editors of Salon Blogs. The Salon name is used with permission.
| < £ Salon Bloggers & > |
| Do you own/edit/write a Salon Blog? Join the Salon Bloggers Webring! |
|
|
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.differentstrings.info/images/valid-rss-dylan2.gif "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
|
|
|
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/br.gif)
