First, I present this requisite disclaimer.
Although I have been identified as a member of the United States Army (and still proud to be so) any comments made in this forum under my name represent the thoughts, musings, and political diatribes of Daniel Allen Maine alone. I do not speak for the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the Government of the United States in any fashion. My opinions do not represent policy of any of the afore mentioned Agencies. Anyone seeking policy statements from said agencies are asked to seek out the Public Affairs Office of the military post nearest their location.
Next, I would like to thank Jason Pitzl-Waters for the invitation to present my meanderings to this audience. I hope to be worthy the trust you have shown me. I have read the postings of my fellows that have been presented as of this writing and find myself in good company. I believe I will be challenged by the conversations we will have in the future. To each of the authors of these pages, PROST!
Power! Human beings and political parties alike seek to amass power. Some wish to have enough power to control their own lives. Some seek power to control the world. Wherever human beings come together and try to accomplish anything they play politics, establish a pecking order, or competing factions, all positioning for control, for power.
I have been a political hack. I worked grass roots politics in Seattle, attending caucus meetings, special elections, and political conventions. In that arena, the principles are understood. People are positioning, helping people they agree with, earning IOU’s to be called on in the future, or working to defeat someone they disagree with. It is pure. There is no deceit, at least in motive, nor are there hard feelings, until there is deceit in deed. I was out as a pagan while working in Republican politics. I was received with surprise and curiosity, but welcomed and put to work.
As I began moving about in the pagan community in Seattle, I kept my political proclivities to myself. My coven mates knew, but I wanted to be known for who I was as a pagan before I was known for my party affiliation. When I came out to the community at large that I was a Republican, I was not surprised. The reaction was mixed, of course. There was acceptance, but there was also shock, rejection, and mistrust. I found it humorous that I had received more acceptance from a party accused of exclusion than I had from a community that prided itself on acceptance.
As I watched the interaction within the community and listened to the conversations being discussed in public, I came to the conclusion that the Polytheistic Community at large had a bi polar disorder. In one moment, the vast majority would decry the evils of politics, how it was a base and degrading, a pursuit for the uncouth. In the next moment, I would see politics being practiced with a fervor unmatched in the most heated of national campaigns. The infighting was enough to push one of the more successful leaders and groups, Pete Pathfinder and the Aquarian Tabernacle Church, to separate themselves from the at large community.
I watched as pagans came together to attempt to plan events. A bylaw of the organization decreed that no decision would be acted upon without consensus. This bylaw empowered one person to hijack any planning. Nothing got done unless it happened the one person’s way. It could be done by anyone with the patience to hold out until the others came around to do things their way just to get anything done. This person understood power, I disagree with the person’s use of it, it prevented a lot of good work being done, but the person understood. That organization no long exists in Seattle.
Pagans need to be involved in politics, eventually it must happen. Without our participation in the political arena, our status as equal under the law will continue to be chipped away. California already treats pagan chaplains who work the prison system differently from those of the majority faiths. The courts will only sustain our position for a while. If we cannot stand for ourselves, become a force that cannot be ignored, we will become marginalized. We do not even need to win, although that would be a blessing. We must, however, back a viable candidate, a reasonable initiative, something that shows we are capable of putting up a winnable fight.
Pagans must first get past themselves. In my line of work we call it “embracing the suck”. To do this we must stop arguing about how we are all so different and start finding the ways we are the same. Highlighting the differences to find our identity will only keep us divided and marginalized, giving those who would keep us down the opportunity to do so. We must accept politics as necessary. You cannot succeed at something you abhor.
I wish Cara were right when she said that “most people and political Parties want the same outcome; a happy, healthy, open and caring populace.” Most people and political parties want to gain power for their use as they see fit. Cara’s statement is only accurate if it benefits those attempting to wield power. A disaffected, disgruntled populace is often far more useful for wresting or wielding control. It can keep your people energized and your opponents’ people demoralized. It isn’t the way things should be, it is the way things are. Wishful thinking doesn’t work in politics. Ask John McCain’s campaign staff.
Thus ends my first salvo in this my field of dreams. I invite your opinions, your arguments, and perhaps your agreement. The road ahead should be interesting.
Dan
I believe that all Pagans, whether Reconstructionist, Wiccan, or Native, must stand shoulder to shoulder on key issues. Religious differences are irrelevant when factions of dominant religions want to wipe you out together.
“We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin
The problem is competing interests. What we must realize is that power can influence both party candidates. Some people will only vote for pro-choice candidates. But look at Mass. Sen. race. Even the GOP candidate was pro-choice.
Why does this matter? Because as Pagans, we must back candidates that back our rights. But what happens if that person doesn’t match our other personal choices? What if they are pro-business and conservative on environmental issues… But are otherwise very alternative lifestyle friendly?
True power is subtle. We don’t want a flash pan experience. You want a sustained effort. We must realize that true change comes over generations. And we must focus on specific issues. We can’t be wishy-washy, unfocused, and stumbling around.
We can be party neutral, but we cannot be candidate neutral. I vote centrist. I’ve voted for Dems and Reps. I vote based on a number of factors, one of which is the strength of their leadership ability.
We must remember that a weak candidate will not really help us long term. Incumbents have the advantage, and removing a soft apple is harder than removing a bad apple.
If Pagans really get serious about politics, we would be a powerful lobbying force for our rights, and find many allies. But until we take ourselves seriously, nobody else will either.
Exactly. Pagan Rights are my #1 litmus test when looking at a candidate. I want my children to grow up in a world where they don’t have to worry about Dominionists and Christian Supremacists.
99% of the time, the candidate that is going to be more in favor of religious freedom for all (or at least a secular view of government…without any specific religion being held above others…) is going to be the more Liberal candidate, and the candidate more in favor of Christian supremacy, Dominionism, or imposing Christian beliefs and morals upon others, is going to be the Conservative candidate. Yeah, the candidates might have no particular opinion on that subject, but when they do, it usually adheres to the above criteria. This is not a debatable topic. It just happens to be true.
On the other hand, had I been able to vote in the NY election of Dan Halloran, I would have voted for him. His religion was being used to attack him, and in that particular case, the Democrat was essentially making fun of him for being Heathen. In that case, I could not in good conscience vote for the Democrat.
Conservative Pagans often overlook their candidates’ blatant hatred of our faiths. They’ll often hold their noses and vote for people like Palin, Bob Barr, or W, citing other issues as more important to them. Sorry, but I can’t do that.
“This is not a debatable topic”
All topics are debatable in some ways. I’m hopeing that this is an exception, but look at the California prision system debacle in terms of religious rights. I would hardly call California an unconqurable citidel of the conservitive-right; even the GOP in California isn’t a bastion of convervatism.Yes, I hope that this is only another exception to the rule you mentioned, but I think it really needs to be disscussed.
If pagans are having a hard time in California the future looks grim. Just mentioning it to state that debate, on any topic, should never be stopped if there is cause for concern.
My point is that Christian supremacy/Dominionism/etc. is a Conservative ideal, just as much as “small government” or “fiscal responsibility.” Not all Conservatives are Christian Supremacists, but I challenge you to find a Christian Supremacist who isn’t a Conservative. Who knows? Maybe there’s one out there…but highly doubtful.
It’s like saying that being pro-choice is not a Liberal position. Sure, there are Conservatives who are pro-choice…but they are taking a Liberal position on that particular topic.
And there are Liberals who are pro-life. All kinds of cross-over.
Being a Christian Supremacy/Dominionism/etc. (which is different from mainstream Christianity) is not a Conservative “ideal” – although it may be an ideal for some Conservatives. There’s a difference. Just as there are those in the Liberal movement who are hostile to any religion, but I wouldn’t say that is a Liberal ideal. Generally, though, Liberals who feel that way don’t publicly speak out against religion, they just don’t lift a finger to help minority religions when they need it.
The Family (Aka The Fellowship) and other groups like that which work to influence powerful people in our government and industry are very successful with people of all political ideologies. The Family takes care to be extremely low key, and while they started out among Conservatives, they are pulling in many Democratic lawmakers as well. (Currently the highest place Democrat in associated with The Family is our Sec. of State) More than Dominionists, this is a group to keep your eye on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29
Cara,
Regardless of how you wish to spin it, Dominionism is a _right wing_ position. Sure, there are predominantly left-wing people who occasionally support right-wing issues…but that does not mean that those right-wing issues suddenly become left-wing. Next, you’ll be telling me that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia…Jeez…
And I’m quite familiar with “The Family.” I have read Jeff Sharlet’s book, and like most big ‘L’ Liberals, I didn’t need to hear about Hillary’s involvement with The Family to not support her. Just type “MoveOn.org” and “Hillary” into Google and read the news reports that come up. Hillary is to Liberals, what John McCain is to Conservatives. Both will support whatever they think is “popular,” but neither have any conviction or backbone…
And if you had read Jeff Sharlet’s book, you would have noticed that 99.9999% of The Family’s work is with Conservatives, who are much more likely to support their Dominionist agenda because well…it’s a Conservative position. Democrat =/= Liberal, just as Republican =/= Conservative.
And the fact that you think The Family is something different from Dominionists is hella strange…since they are the most powerful Dominionist group around.
As I mentioned before, when I get a moment to do it, I’m going to be making a website for Pagans to keep track of politicians who are in any way connected to Dominionist or anti-Pagan policies or rhetoric…and since I have been actively following these issues for many years now, it’s not going to be any surprise to anyone…except maybe you…when the vast majority of those people call themselves “Conservative.”
Byron,
Dominionism is only a conservative idea if the principle of dictating how people can live their lives is only applied to religion. When you widen the scope of that principle and look at who is attempting to dictate how people should live their lives, The extremist wings of both parties fit the description.
Its not conservatism anyway, when its guided by religion, its theocracy. Funny how that term only gets applied to Muslims. When the principle is guided by cult of personality, its authoritarianism. There is even a term for the principle when it is applied by the educational elite, but the term escapes me at the moment.
The basic problem comes from anyone with the hubris to think that they know how others should live their lives and that they should have the power to make them do it, even against their will. I am all for pursuasive debate changing minds. I cannot support dictated will, regardless of their motivation.
Redefining Dominionism to encompass all forms of authoritarianism is illogical. Dominionism is a political idea based on a Fundamentalist interpretation of the Christian Bible. It is inseparable from the Christian religion. Theocracy is a political idea based more loosely on the imposition of government based on _a_ religion, but is not confined to Christianity. Dominionism is a type of Theocracy, but that label is usually loudly decried (by those on the Right) when it is applied to Christian Dominionist activity.
I pose the same question to you as I posed to Cara: Will you at least pledge not to actively support or vote for candidates who oppose Pagan Rights, or who promote a Christian Supremacist/Dominionist agenda?
I am already there my friend. I see them as a threat to my way of life.
I am a firm believer that words mean things. Dominionism uses the root word dominion. Borrowing fron dictionary.com the definition of dominion is: do?min?ion??/d??m?ny?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [duh-min-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun 1. the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.
2. rule; control; domination
This is not limited to Christian Supremicists. They clearly fit the Theocratic definition, and don’t deserve a special class of wrong, they are still just plain wrong.
The origin of the _usage_ of the word Dominionism as a political ideology is from the Bible:
“And God blessed [ Adam and Eve ] and God said unto them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”" —Genesis 1:28 (KJV)
It is a word that they coined THEMSELVES to denote their ideology. (…probably because it sounds better than “Christian Supremacist” or “Christian Theocrat”…)
The KJV translation is a joke; there are several Greek and Hebrew words, such as diakonos (deacon/overseer) and chasaph (poisoner), that were rendered according to the politics of the day. I often wonder where we’d be if The Gunpowder Plot had succeeded, or if Tyndall hadn’t been burned for his translation, and James hadn’t been such a neurotic jackass. While I personally think Christianity was FUBARed by the time of Paul’s writings, and it got worse from the Nicean Council onward, a lot of the crap that now passes for orthodoxy is founded on lore that has nothing to do with Mosaic Law or even what the Council did vote to include. You want a more accurate text, look at the ones that were translated from Hebrew and Greek by Arabic scholars instead of the stupid early Latin-speaking church.
The Hebrew word “radah” translates as “to have authority over”, but the accompanying word “abad” means “to serve”, with a connotation of “to take care of”. These were other victims of current politics and became “dominion” with the power connotations we’ve seen for the last several centuries. There are plenty of Biblical admonitions against abuse of authority and the environment, that get conveniently ignored by people for their own agendas:
“And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18:28″
Christians are changing the way they look at dominion/stewardship; they’ll do it a lot faster if they’ll get with the research and figure out they’ve been conned.
BTW, I might be mistaken Snoozpossum, but I think that we are arguing over something that is a misinterpretation. I wasn’t saying that Dominionism is an essential PART of being Christian…Rather, I was saying that Dominionism was created as a Christian movement. Whether their Bible actually used the word “dominion” or not, that’s the passage that they used when they coined the term “Dominionism” to define their weltanschauung.
My statement earlier was that “Dominionism is inseparable from the Christian religion” was _not_ that the Christian religion is always Dominionist…but rather that Dominionism is _always_ Christian, because that particular form of Theocracy is based on this movement’s interpretation of the Bible. There are no Islamic Dominionists, because they call themselves something else (Islamists).
Byron Morrigan: “I wasn’t saying that Dominionism is an essential PART of being Christian…Rather, I was saying that Dominionism was created as a Christian movement.”
Absosmurfly agree there, except that I know Muslims who emigrated here because they were sick and tired of the Islamic version of Dominionists. I may just be getting shellshocked lately.
I like the use of both Theocrat and Christian Supremacist. Theocrat has all the connotations to apply to any fruitcake who wants his doctrine to rule the world; C.S. is good for when you need to make blatant, obvious comparisons and be purposefully invalidating at the same time.
My point in bringing up the translation screwyness is that the Dominionist dogma is founded on verbage that has been skewed for the benefit of someone”s power play more than academic accuracy. They’re not anti-intellectual by accident; it keeps people from having reasons to question.
The very expulsion from the Garden of Eden is a lesson in Dominionism. Adam lost status because he didn’t obey in every detail. Loss of status means disaster to a person totally invested in a Dominionist culture.
As I grew up in the Christian church, a lot of emphasis was put on the responsibility of stewardship if you were going to assume authority. This forgotten principal is one of many things about christians I have mourned.
The Greeks established the idea of deontological ethics. Basically, that with every right that is assumed, given, or taken, there is a responsibility attached to it as well.
It isn’t that they have been conned, like the teachings of Jesus, they have forgotten that part of their heritage. Christianity today is not really the teachings of christ, it is Paulism.
Absolutely, Paul is the founder of today’s Christianity but even Paul would be astounded to where it has gone. I think he’d have died of apoplexy at the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea.
Hrafnkell: “Absolutely, Paul is the founder of today’s Christianity but even Paul would be astounded to where it has gone. I think he’d have died of apoplexy at the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea.”
Yep. There’s also the increasing debate over the authenticity of some of the writings that are attributed to Paul, amid discrepancies such as time of origin, writing style, and terminology used. I would not find it hard at all to believe that the Pauline letters had been added to or altered to suit someone’s agenda.
And the Nicaean Council should never have happened. Let a bunch of bigwigs pick and choose a written doctrine and establish it as inerrant, in a largely illiterate population, and you’re screwed.
Byron,
My point here is that if you give them a special label i.e. dominionist or acknowledge their use of it if they coined it, you give them the power to control the debate. If you classify them and refer to them in common terminology i.e. theocrats, you widen the understanding of a larger populace, expose them for what they are, ultimately marginalizing them.
We (my unit) found the same principals to be true in IRAQ. We discovered when we started capturing the insurgents working the neighborhoods we were assigned that many of these terrorist “freedom fighters” were in fact common thugs with criminal records in their communities, and I don’t me as political prisoners to the Hussien Regime. When we started talking to the people about this fact, the peoples willingness to remain silent about the activities and locations of these bandits soon subsided, they started providing information, and we were able to quiet there neighborhoods.
If we call the dominionists what they are, common theocrats no different from the muslim ideologs running Iran, there is no chance their ideas will gain traction in this country. A vast majority of Americans, and Christians for that matter, still believe in the First Ammendment, and won’t support anyone who wants to water it down, redefine it, or abolish it. Continue calling them theocrats long enough, and politicians will distance themselves from groups like “the family”, I would even go so far as to predict the politicians will start returning their donations, publicly, to create a very public distance from groups who promote unconstitutional ideology.
If it didn’t happen, my faith in the American puplic would be crushed.
If you look at my posts, I usually use the terms “Christian Supremacist/Dominionist” separated by a slash. I personally think the term “Christian Supremacist” is more ‘damaging’ than “Theocrat” because it implies a connection to white supremacists.
Why are the comments not “nesting” to who you are replying to? It’s making it difficult to follow conversations…
Good – I just tweaked a lot of my system and thought maybe I had hiccups with the not nesting view!
“Dominionism is a political idea based on a Fundamentalist interpretation of the Christian Bible. It is inseparable from the Christian religion. ”
Gotta disagree with you there. I live in the middle of a Dominionist infested area, and grew up in a family of them. My great grandparents were largely responsible for bringing the more legalist form of the charismatic movement to the NC Piedmont back in the 60′s.
I’m seeing a lot of people who advocated total Christian solidarity 10- 20 years ago who are now looking at the newest crop of hardliners and “The Family” and saying “you’re too scary for me”. Many of them have figured out that the people screaming the loudest about “taking America back for God” are people to be wary of. Many of the hardliners are watching their children and grandchildren join more liberal, inclusive churches, or not join any, because they’re sick of the dogma that their parents grew up with.
The sticky part is, even the ones who don’t believe that all other faiths are the result of demon possession, and therefore evil, have been told that any NRMs or PHA beliefs have an ultimate goal of totally wiping out Christianity. If we think we’re getting wiped out, then we’re going to fight that, and so are they. And the ones who do want everything but themselves wiped out look like a majority because they’re shouting the loudest, or in the case of The Family are bullying people into being afraid of speaking out against them.
I do not believe that it’s a foregone conclusion that one or the other must be destroyed. What has to be destroyed is the mindset that no other religion than one’s own can be allowed to exist, on any side. The idea that Christianity must be enforced in civil law and social norms is not Biblical, and needs to be denounced for the self-serving propaganda it is.
The best way for any of that to happen is for thinking Christians to have an opportunity to question whether the enemy really is The Enemy, or just other people, and whether their leaders’ vision of religious freedom is really freedom. Do that, and we’ll have more candidates who don’t make opposing religious freedom for all faiths part of their campaign platform.
HEAR, HEAR. Preach it brother!
“The basic problem comes from anyone with the hubris to think that they know how others should live their lives and that they should have the power to make them do it, even against their will. ”
(applause!!!)
I think more parties would be the best way to shuffle the political deck. But seeing as how that’s not going to happen anytime soon (unless the entire government has a complete meltdown), I think we need new words for degrees of conservatism/liberalism. The classic definitions aren’t accurate on the wide scale, and people get unfairly lumped in with people they have almost nothing in common with, and credited or saddled with extremes of ideas and views that they don’t rigidly adhere to. The terms are being used to divide and conquer more than they are being used to establish positions.
Or, as I occasionnally wish to point out to some of the worst offenders among the Christianist parts of our population:
“You who judge yourselves to be among the most ‘Righteous’ of humanity, have most assuredly and pridefully condemned yourselves to your ‘hell’.”
““You who judge yourselves to be among the most ‘Righteous’ of humanity, have most assuredly and pridefully condemned yourselves to your ‘hell’.””
(salutes)
Nail, meet hammer!
Yeah, nesting has gone clusterfrack-ish. Maybe we put names/quoted material on all replies till they figure out what’s up?
Or we could just make neutral comments like:
“Interesting. That gives me something to think about.”
…in the meantime. That way, all comments can just be applied equally across the board.
Bryon Morrigan: “Or we could just make neutral comments like:
“Interesting. That gives me something to think about.”
Yeah, but that’s the same thing I tell my uncle every time he tries to sell me life insurance . . . ;0)
Well said, I especially like your last bit: “The basic problem comes from anyone with the hubris to think that they know how others should live their lives and that they should have the power to make them do it, even against their will. I am all for pursuasive debate changing minds. I cannot support dictated will, regardless of their motivation.”
And there are Pagans who are just as dogmatic as the Christians they criticize.
Your line of reasoning, That Dominionism is a Conservative “ideal”, only works if you believe the following: Most Conservatives hold Christianity as the ideal. Most Christians hold the doctrine of Dominionism as as the ideal. Therefore Dominionism is the Conservative ideal.
You can certainly believe that Most Conservatives are some type of Christian (as are most Americans – just over 75%) – but Dominionism is a small subset of Christianity. (a very small subgroup of the 25% Evangelicals) Add to this that Dominionism is also alive and well in historically African-American churches, especially ones with strong ties to sister churches in Africa, and they tend to be politically Liberal.
The world is much less cut and dry than we would like to think and humans can be very complex.
I just created a very short version to begin my little “project”:
http://thepoliticalpaganactionreport.blogspot.com/
Cara,
Will you at least pledge not to actively support or vote for candidates who oppose Pagan Rights, or who promote a Christian Supremacist/Dominionist agenda?
When people have a proven track record to look at, I look at it. People can lie with their words, but they tell the truth with their actions. I don’t care what a politician says they believe or what they will do – I care about what they have done.
Now…if they do not have a track record, I have to go by what they say. In general, my vote goes to the person that I think can accomplish the least – unless they are a serious problem child. And yes, I consider Bob Barr (really Libertarian Party, what were you thinking?) a problem child. That man would never get my vote.
(waves)
With a few of our local groups and events, we’ve also had the situation where an effort to insure that no one person could become a petty tyrant was the very means for it to happen. Part of the problem was, per your example, someone who was willing to fight and endless war against everyone else, part of it was the unwillingness of the rest to say the behavior was wrong and take action to disable it, for fear of someone crying “witch war!”
“Embracing the suck”, if I get the phrase as you mean it, needs to happen for any group of people to accomplish anything. I forget who coined the phrase “refraining from personalities”. But for it to work, I think you to have to allow for the fact that some of the “suck” are going to refuse to be embraced. Letting them derail everything else around them in the name of unity is not unity.
Snooze,
I have seen all of your referenced behavior myself. It allows those who are willing to be confrontational to dominate a situation when in a completely non-confrontational crowd.
“Embracing the suck” is a catch all phrase that means accepting that a distasteful, often uncomfortable, probably dangerous, many times embarrasing job or chore must be done and that You are just the person who must do it.
LOL – Dirty job is right, but I’d rather be unpopular and able to look in the mirror than tell the Emperor how stylin’ his new threads are. There’s a fable-type thinger running around from somewhen way back, to the effect that when a dike failed a caused a flood, particular people waded in and got busy with bags of dirt and logs. Other particular people saw them covered in mud and cried that they must have been the ones who ruined the dike and should be arrested.
Should be “and caused a flood”.
“Part of the problem was, per your example, someone who was willing to fight and endless war against everyone else, part of it was the unwillingness of the rest to say the behavior was wrong and take action to disable it, for fear of someone crying “witch war!” ”
This kind of behavior seems to be one of the very definitions of Trollish Behavior. (pretty well spelled out in the booklet “Trolls — How to Keep Your Coven From Being Destroyed.”)
Once you get more than one person in a single place, you have politics.
Zactly – and politics is expected to have elements of ruthlessness, and people have been complaining about corruption and underhandedness for as much of history as we have written record. But past a certain point it’s no longer a gritty commitment a view or cause, it’s just selfish petty bitchery. Pity is, it seems to be trendy to call anything less than wholesale vicious butchery a lack of integrity or a sign of weakness, and people who try for some level of cooperation get derided as either credulous fools or sellouts. Power may go to the winner, and people may opt to follow a “winner” in hopes that (s)he will then protect them as loyal supporters. But people need to consider that a person who wants to be on top by any means necessary will frequently classify “supporters” as “liabilities” once they get there. Do people really want a government where “a knife in every back” is the overwhelmingly ruling motto? Absolute partisanship is getting us there.
Hokay, should be “gritty commitment to a view”.
Am I just really slack this morning, or is there code funkyness going on?
Got that; it’s a great reference even if you don’t have a coven-style group. I tried giving away hard copies once and people told me it was too judgmental (insert large sigh here).
I figured this was my next nest bet:
http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2009/09/anti-troll-ritual.html
Excellent and thoughtful post, Daniel. I have been looking forward to seeing some diverse viewpoints and I haven’t been disappointed.
I absolutely agree that Pagans need to be involved in politics. I also believe it’s very difficult for Pagans to find a comfortable home given how polarized the American political landscape has become. I’m not more comfortable among far left-wingers than I am far right-wingers. There are Pagans who insist that a Pagan must not eat meat, not use leather, etc.I’ve been compared to people who engage in the human slave trade because I like a steak. Far too many issues have become either/or – moderation is hardly considered – even by some Heathens even though the literature from the period extols moderation and happily portrays the bad things that happen to the immoderate folks.
Paganism is a diverse thing and it always will be. We will always have things that separate us. But I do think Pagans have a lot in common and we should stress these similarities without surrendering the things that set us apart. Polytheism is by its very nature diverse and I see that as a strength; we’re not as likely to be log-jammed by either/or or good/evil; we have many of the same gods in common (or they can be at least identified as the same) and we are not a revealed religion with a moral code handed down from on high.
My own feeling is that whether we are or not at present (or to sufficient degree), we’re more capable of finding those subtle hues in between. There are enough of us that we can affect political changes if we exert ourselves and one thing most of us have in common is our feelings about nature and the environment. I suspect that at present that is where we can make our presence felt most.
I wish I could ever find the source where I first discovered this quotation:
“I don’t believe in anything to excess — especially moderation.”
Hrafnkell – I agree that even pagan folks seem to be a product of their environment, especially prevalent in the United States, to see everything as polar opposites, an either/or view. Rightly or not, I assign blame to the Christian fervency that one finds here and not in Europe. We keep to two political parties, instead of making coalitions with a multitude of viewpoints as necessary in a parlimentary system. I am a big proponent of the third option (or fourth, fifth, sixth…) and I think Pagans need to embrace that third option just like they don’t limit their pantheon to two.
Gretl, I was with you right up till the end.
I too would agree that a parliamentary system would help us move away from the polarization that is naturally part of a two-party dynamic, and would hope that one day we might have some more actual choices and more adequate population representation, as there is never only two opinions on a given topic. More dialog and points of view would really help broaden our minds and encourage healthy debate of ideas rather than encouraging heavily polarized ideologies. At least, I’d like to think so. I don’t follow British politics very closely to know how much a system like this really plays out according to my ideas.
As to your comment about pantheons, I wasn’t sure if you were meaning individual people and their pantheonic (new word?) traditions of choice, or the various traditions practiced by so many which happen to each contain their unique pantheon (which can be a problematic term on its own merits). If you had been meaning to refer to any given person involving him- or herself with two or more pantheons, I wouldn’t say that it is a given that every person who could be described as pagan involves themselves with multiple pantheons, but perhaps I misunderstood your intent here.
Let me try to restate the ending a little more clearly, as it was meant as a dig towards the Christians. Christians believe themselves to be monotheists, but I think they have a pantheon of two, (God and Satan) or up to 4 (God, Christ, the Holy Ghost and Satan). Anyway, their system is dualistic and everything that flows from it (like their politics) is seen in this childish manner. However, most pagan pantheons (singular culture or mixed) have more than two gods, and many gods have various aspects. So, logically, if your experience is with more than either/or, if your experience is with a multitude of choices when dealing with your Gods, your political choices should reflect more than either/or. The 3rd option.
We have a puritan streak a mile wide in this country. Europeans certainly notice it. I went to college with a gal from Spain who continually expressed her surprise at American attitudes towards sex and sexuality – and even the human body in a non-sexual context. There are, I think, plenty of Pagans who have not distanced themselves from the Christian worldview. I hope that will change in time, but it’s not at all surprising.
Pagans shouldn’t be accused of being close minded when they are not supportive of close mindedness. It isn’t open minded to support and accept close minded politics. The republican party I know is dominated by the religious right, is anti-gay marriage and equal rights, and is against equal religious rights for non-christians. I have nothing against with fiscal conservatives, libertarians and other sorts of political right leanings–having different ideas than liberals about the flow of money is not an issue for me of open or closed mindedness, its about the physics of the economy, and there is plenty of disagreement on that. I firmly think if you give money to people who spend it a lot it will flow more than giving it to people who hoard, but thats not a judgment on people’s rights–its just about where to distribute cash and taxes and such. Another issue that separates liberals and conservatives is often guns, that is an issue of whether all types of weapons automatic, semi automatic and all should be available to all citizens. Its a complicated one, but I think I side with the conservatives on this, if you criminalilze guns only criminals have guns.
You might have gotten a prettified view of republicans in Seattle, I don’t know. But the power in the Republican party is out to stomp out paganism and homosexuality. And that is not something I am willing to be openminded about.
As a veteran, and someone who enjoys the shooting skills, and was never much of a hunter, I have to put forward an amendment to your old bumper stickers:
“If you criminalize guns, only criminals and the Jack-Booted Thugs of the Totalitarian State will have guns.
One of Hitler’s little tricks was to get “gun registration” passed into law. Once they had their lists of private citizen gun owners, they made the rounds and confiscated the guns. Made things a whole lot harder for those German citizens who wished to stand up against the Nazi Party and the brown-shirted party thugs who went on to become the core of the SS (or have I confused that detail).
I’ve often wondered (especially during the 8 years of Bush II) when the Republican party would begin to field its own brown-shirts.