Mar 252010

Many Pagans hold with what is variously called the Rule of Three or the Law of Threefold Return. What it says is that, whenever you wish or will harm to befall another (creating the magical energy behind harm), or cause that harm to happen, it will come back to you three times over.

I’m not sure whether or not that law only applies to Pagans, but it makes sense to me that it applies to anyone. After all, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? And if you doubt that the extremists are raising harmful energy, just take another look at video clips from last Sunday’s demonstration outside the halls of Congress, soundly encouraged by members of Congress shouting down in agreement from the balcony of the Capitol Building.

So I guess we need to issue a warning to those folks out there who are actively endangering the families of members of Congress who supported health insurance reform, like the threatening letter followed by a severed gas line at the home of Virginia’s Rep. Tom Periello’s brother:

or the faxes of nooses like those received by Reps. Jim Clyburn and Bart Stupak

or the coffin placed on Missouri Rep. Rus Carnahan’s lawn

or the fact that  Republican Senators will not allow the business of the Senate to continue, bring to a halt an attempt to help our homeless veterans

or the many acts of vandalism on Congressional offices and Democratic Party offices throughout the country, encouraged by the extremist blogosphere (and when you get to the blog, be sure to read the entire page and comments)

or….and you can add your own list here as well.

Now, before you remind me that extremism and conservatism are not one and the same, let me say with absolute clarity that I do not believe they are.

I’m from Maine, and we well remember our Republican Senator, Margaret Chase Smith, who worked hard to stop Senator Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt perpetrated by the House Un-American Affairs Committee. Senator Smith was a true conservative who had the courage to speak up when Americans were being persecuted by extremists of her own party.

Where are the courageous Republicans of 2010, where are the true conservatives willing to stand up to the extremists, to the bloggers and radio talk show hosts who spread terror and incite citizens to commit crimes of violence

(and why are none of these people being charged with incitement or conspiracy?)? Why is it that, whenever an elected Republican does stand up to Rush or his compatriots that representative of the GOP seems to back down within a few days?

But those questions are for the Republicans among us, the conservatives who love the rule of law as much as I do (really!)….and I truly hope that those questions will be asked and discussed within their own community. I hope they will read commentary like the piece written so well by John Cory:

My question is this: what harm will befall those who bring terror, threats and acts of violence, who have built the wall of fear that separates Americans from each other? I hope none, but whether you believe in the Law of Threefold Return, or just “what goes around, comes around”, either way their negativity is as dangerous to them as it is to the rest of us.

Let’s hope they figure that out. I wish them only safety, health, and peace.

  19 Responses to “Warning–Law of Threefold Return”

  1. I was raised in a Republican family that upheld the value of the Constitution. My mother is alas too much of a party liner and has herself lost sight of those values under the waves of fear that the loud-mouthed bullies representing the Republican party have issued forth, trying to preserve a status quo that serves only them at the complete expense of the party’s original values. While I can’t say for sure whether any law of return will return in a way that we can see it, there is an important role often overlooked when we’re caught in the horror of observing all this unnecessary fear and contentiousness: we as citizens can actually do quite a bit about this, through small measured actions that will not give us over to a life of politics.

    The role of the citizen is to speak out when leadership gets crazy, and as long as it’s done in a civilized way, your voice will be heard. Writing letters and holding quiet polite conversations still has so much more power than waving signs and shouting. These days we tend to trot out the nukes, metaphorically speaking, rather than starting with diplomacy and engaging in active listening on both sides. Both parties have gotten to think of the entire situation as win/lose, and too many dire things are connected to whether we win or lose – without recognizing that despite the ideological, economic and perceived racial divisions, when it comes to most of the US, when one loses, we all lose. A farmer protected by the Republican party has his farm go under, a liberal Democrat in a city has to pay higher food prices. And that’s only one example of our connection.

    We are all in this together. I may not agree with a person’s moral or political outlook, but that person has the same tax-paid right to use the roads I do – because they belong to us both.

    This may sound long-winded and indirect, but the way I see it, the karma of one is the karma of all. Even though I personally did not make choices for some of the politicians that have lost sight of their purpose in leadership, I am affected by it and bound to at least make my will known in an effort to move the country into a healthy new place.

  2. Whether it’s the Threefold Law, karma, or “What goes around, comes around,” that’s what I wish for them. Period.

    And to paraphrase their own belief system, you reap what you sow. They are sowing ill-well, hate, and misery and their harvest will be a terrible one.

  3. I’m somewhat ambivalent on the idea of the Threefold Law, but I will offer my thoughts on it, I apologize here at the outset if it is confusing.

    Matter and energy are equivalent, based on Einstien’s general relativity (i.e. E = Mc^2). Also, both matter and energy, at the quantum level, break down into probabilities at best, and at the very lowest level of reality, exist as fluctuations or waves of possibility out of the quantum foam of the universe. I believe that thought and belief are a type of energy, and are at the very least patterns of our bioelectric field, which means that belief itself, even without action, is capable of performing change to our surroundings.

    Taking these base ideas, I believe that our actions and beliefs tend to propagate as waves from our position at any given time, through the fluctuations of the quantum foam. And, given the nature of waves, they will tend to reflect and distort, depending on what they encounter (and this is entirely path-dependent, that is, the reflection of the energy you get back will depend on what the wave hits or refracts through on its way back to you, just like the difference in the sound of one’s voice between an empty room and a busy subway station. It has nothing to do with one’s Path or Tradition.)

    Another analogy that I like to sometimes use (though the advent of string theory makes me cringe a little saying this), is that of the Web that has no Weaver: each of our lives are threads in a tapestry, and our actions are tiny vibrations of those threads, which reverberate along and across the threads we are near and intertwined with. Once those vibrations reach the edge of the Loom, they are reflected back, like the ripples on a still pond (except in this case, it would look more like a pond in a torrential downpour, but you get the idea).

    thats my two bits, anyways.

  4. We have no Three-fold Law or Law of Return.

    I don’t mind the signs and the shouting, people have a right to protest as long as they do so peacefully. Peacefully, however, doesn’t mean prim and quiet. People have a right to express themselves to our elected officials and sometimes they are going to express anger – doing so at length with a raised voice. Again, as long as they are non-violent I don’t have a problem with this. It may be rude, it may be ineffective – but it is legal. When it comes to political speech, I’m going to almost always come down on the side that it should be allowed.

    BUT – the idiots who cut the gas line and the idiots who shot at Cantor’s office should be found and should do some serious jail time.

    Both political parties like to do finger pointing about the level of hatred and violence and bemoan how the other Party doesn’t do enough to denounce it – when what should be done is to point the finger at the violence itself no matter if it is “your team” doing it or not – and harshly punish those who engage in it. But that would mean putting Nation before Party (or even common decency) and it seems that average people in the USA are less and less inclined to do so.

    • Cara, there’s a good question here: who is truly to blame, the fear mongers who use the politics to terror to manipulate otherwise good people, or the people who are made to believe that only their acts of violence can save this nation for their children and grandchildren? In other words, will the real people behind this, the corporate interests funding the fake grassroots movements, the “entertainers” who enjoy dividing this nation with a wall of fear, will those folks ever be prosecuted for what they have done to us, all of us?

      • When a person commits an act of violence, they alone are responsible for their actions. Not that I see all acts of violence as morally wrong.

        I especially don’t want to see people prosecuted for unpopular, rude, or even vulgar political speech. Terroristic threats – yes, that can be prosecuted. But I would very strongly resist anything that encroaches on our freedom of speech.

        • So, you’re implying (or is it inferring?) that those who order their followers out to commit acts of violence are innocent of the violence done on their behalf? I think that’s the defense that Cheney is using about his responsibility for torture of US held prisoners.

          I do hope that isn’t what you mean.

    • “People have a right to express themselves to our elected officials and sometimes they are going to express anger – doing so at length with a raised voice.”

      Absolutely. Shouting will happen. But aggressively shouting down anyone else who tries to speak, thereby interfering with their right to express their opinions, or threatening them that dissenting speech or action will get them shot (or in the case of one legislator, his kids shot), is not on the same playing field as just “voicing your opinion”.

      We got some seriously pissed off people running around right now, who are spouting Revolutionary War soundbytes that lean over into at least the “incitement to riot” category, and plenty of people who don’t really care what’s reasonable or honest as long as they have a convenient scapegoat to take their frustrations out on. That fire does not need more lighter fluid, especially when people are so ready to swallow whatever makes them feel proactive, even if it isn’t true.

      • Remember this?

        Did this point of view apply then but not now?

        • Not following whether you’re saying you see inconsistency on my part, or agree with the statement – that’s not my video.

          • No, no. Just reminding folks that Mrs. Clinton beilieved we all have the right to speak out. Some now don’t seem to think so.

      • But aggressively shouting down anyone else who tries to speak, thereby interfering with their right to express their opinions, or threatening them that dissenting speech or action will get them shot (or in the case of one legislator, his kids shot), is not on the same playing field as just “voicing your opinion”.

        It may be rude, but it is “voicing your opinion.” – Except for the threat of violence towards a person. That is not protected speech. It worries me that people see someone who is just being rude and someone who is making actual threats of specific violence as the same thing. One is (and should be) illegal. The other is (and should be) legal.

        • A threat is a threat. If someone tells someone else “you may not speak”, or prevents them from speaking, then their own right to speak is forfeit.

          Reminder of something I’ve mentioned before: we have people and groups here whose common tactic is to show up at other group’s events, and drown out anything anyone else says with bullhorns and other portable amplified sound equipment, or drown out questioners in their own crowds with the same. This is not freedom of speech, it’s impairment of others’ freedom of speech.

  5. Violence, that I think you and I both fear, in this current political climate is dangerous on several fronts. Any “incident” is sure to cause the powers that be to react harshly, playing into the hand of the radical right who can then claim that the government has become even more opressive. If the government does nothing, it will encourage this same fringe to become more emboldened. This is a tactic practiced by insurrectionists. Cause, by domestic terrorist acts, the government to “crack down” on civil rights, thereby pushing the populace toward the insurrectionists and away from the opressive government. The only way, as I see it, to stop the circle is immediate and harsh action against INDIVIDUAL perpetrators of violent acts. Don’t assume it’s large scale, because it is not…..yet. Don’t blame the Republicans or the Democrats or the Tea Partiers or the Libertarians. It is a very small group of radical individuals. Don’t rule out a fringe of the left trying to accomplish the same end, although I see that as unlikely.
    “The Turner Diaries” will give you insight to the mindset. I don’t read that sort of thing for entertainment. Know thy enemy as you know thyself. Knowledge is power.

    • Agreed, Duane. Thing is, these extremists give those of us who believe in the right to bear arms a bad name too. The right to carry is guaranteed, not the right to threaten.

      • I don’t make that connection. Is that something you are sensing or hearing up there? I remember the uproar over the guy with the AR-15 in Arizona where Obama was speaking, but haven’t heard the “gun nut” reaction much since then. Just threats of violence.

    • Dude, nobody reads The Turner Diaries for entertainment. :D That s— is some seriously weak writing…

      • No argument there. Insightful though, to say the least. Have you read “Unintended Consequences”? Also eye opening. We need to understand the fringe elements to know what to watch out for.