MacRaven - Dave Haxton's Weblog

Tue, 25 Jul 2006

Olive posted a comment this morning to the post over at the Wildhunt Weblog on the latest pagan brouhaha in the prison system. At the end of her insightful discussion, she asked "How many Asatrus are willing to stand up and say these men are not Asatru because of what they've done or believe? Do other Asatru consider these men to be Asatru?"

I think I've got enough gravitas as a Heathen to say it, and to speak for most of the heathens I know. These boneheads were not True to the Aesir. They showed little, if any, conception of the concept of a holy frithstead, for one thing, and furthermore, murder is not exactly one of our Nine Noble Virtues.

Additionally, the killer who's slated to die for this heinous crime is simpering and whimpering an appeal - the first principle of Heathenry is that an individual is responsible for their own actions, and that one should accept the consequences of those actions. If this jerk were a heathen, and he believed what he did was right, he'd take Virginia's option for electrocution and have his death dedicated to Asa-Thor. Doing so would've at least shown he'd gained some understanding since his crime.

Now, all that being said, I also believe that this is an example of a failure on the part of mainstream Asatrurar to take prison ministry seriously. And, frankly, I'll extend this to all pagan and neo-pagan paths. We need more folks to volunteer to go into the system and teach the inmates about our pagan pathways, and not just depend on sending pamphlets and books. And the prison system needs to allow this ...

With the increasing drift towards Christianity becoming our (literally) State religion, many prisons are loathe to assist pagan inmates in finding their ground again. That's gotta change. Otherwise we end up with, well, we've seen what we end up with.

Too much is going on in my life personally to be able to do it now, but some years back I became a prison chaplain for my gods and my faith. I went into the Indiana State Prison at Greencastle once a month over a period of two years aiding in kindred formation and getting the guys started out on the right foot. It's frustrating as Hel: of all the folks I worked with there were only a couple who really "got it". The rest seemed to be just looking for an excuse to get out of chores. But one of those men actually turned down a parole offer because he felt he'd not paid enough back to society for his misdeeds.

That's what being a Heathen means.

Potentially we have a lot to offer inmates: we're not a "religion of instant redemption", and we can't sprinkle anyone with magic fairy dust and eliminate their crimes in the eyes of the Holy Powers. But we can show them how they can do so for themselves. That's the power and virtue of the heathen path.

/Asatru | 9 writebacks | permanent link

On 7/25/2006 15:52:18
Thud wrote

Absolutely right, Dave. All of the Religions of the Book struggle with racist factions and people who's incomplete or warped understanding threaten to destroy what that religion stands for. But neo-paganisms are even more succeptable to this than more established and populated faiths, in large part (I think) because our faiths are so often demonized by others. People on the fringe who percieve themselves as evil then become attracted to this "demonized" vision of the faith. I'm thinking here of a teenager who conducts spooky quasi-satanic rites lifted from H P Lovecraft books and calls himself "wiccan." But another contributor to this "paganism is evil" image is that, too often, we don't stand up for ourselves or against those who represent us poorly. The more outreach and education we can do, the better off we'll be. And hopefully by being visible (and sane!) in our own communities, the whack-jobs will have a more difficult time defining us.

On 7/25/2006 23:28:49
Stephen Williamson wrote

Previously I've taken the stance that prison outreach programs were a waste of time. I still think that this is true, but only when they're used as a way to gain converts. "Ministering" (is that the right term?) to inmates who are already heathen, though, strikes me as being very worthwhile. I've always gotten the impression, though, that these outreach programs were about gaining converts, not about maintaining support for brothers and sisters behind bars. Am I mistaken?

On 7/25/2006 23:39:48
Dave H wrote

Converts?

Hailsa Stephen! I will admit that to some extent this depends on how you define "already heathen". Does reading a book and being interested enough to follow up with a contact count? Typically one goes into a prison because one is invited by the administration to serve those prisoners who've requested it. If there's any converting being done it, it's by the inmates talking to other inmates: as an outsider, you only meet with those who've requested your services. It's not like you're holding an "old fashioned tent revival" behind the walls... I will have to admit to have a certain fantasy about "Evangelical Asatru", and "Odin Hung on the World Tree for YOUR Runes!", a la Steve Martin in "Leap of Faith". By all accounts I'd be pretty good at it, too. Scary, eh? Thanks for the comment and Be well, Dave H.

On 7/25/2006 23:55:39
Dave H wrote

Standing Up

Hiya Thud! Well, I try to stand up as much as I can. I've always been pretty public about my beliefs - I wear my Hammer proudly and openly - and this whole "if you value your ancestors you're a racist" thing really gets me, especially since, as you point out, many explicitly non-ancestral faiths have strong strains of racism hiding behind their skirts as well. And I've never been shy about letting folks know how I feel ... The other thing that really annoyed me about this was the utter lack of any research on our actual theology: when I criticize a theology (and as a regular reader here I'm sure you've noticed that I do that on occasion) I try to look at what the lore in question actually says, or at least how it's interpreted by recognized leaders of that faith. The sociology professor from the University of Dayton had about as much business holding forth on our beliefs as I would have conducting a seminar in criminal sociology. If you're going to hold forth on a subject as an expert, one would expect that you'd at least be conversant with the basics - "Asatruist", indeed! Thanks for the comment and Be well, Dave H.

On 7/26/2006 03:31:26
Bjorngrímnir wrote

Warning : Long Rant

About taking a public stand against murder, racism, hate and other evils of humanity, I don't see why Heathens, Asatruar, or Odinists should be constantly told 'if you would only stand publicly against these things...'. We do that already, by following our gods, following the virtues and qualities exemplified by the heroes and good people in our lore, and living in as much peace as our world will allow. We do that by being good Heathens. When we are personally confronted with anything that smacks of hatred, we resist it - some of us go beyond resisting and go on an all-out offensive. The problem isn't that we aren't making anti-hate banners and marching behind them in parades. The problem is that many people have a tendency to generalize, based on the actions of a few - and the media happily exploits this tendency. If someone hacked up 20 people and ate some of them for lunch, because 'God' told him to do so, the media spin would be about the man's lunacy (probably with heavy emphasis on the socio-economical and familial factors that led to his lunacy) - but certainly not the Christian faith itself. No one would suggest to Christians that they should take a public stand against cannibalism, so that the rest of the world would be more at ease. I think that we have the same rights to living our lives as anyone else, regardless of our relative minority and recent establishment - that means without the expectation that whenever some bonehead steps out of line, that all followers of this faith will stop and explain ourselves. Doing it that way is the same as having to stop and empty our pockets on demand, just because we fit a certain kind of profile. It's absurd. And, just like anyone else, we have the right to decent media coverage. I already expressed my woes about sloppy journalism in my last comment on this subject, so I won't go into it here. I will say, though, that if we are going to make banners and take a public stand against anything, it should be sloppy journalism and sensationalist media.

On 7/28/2006 08:14:51
Olive wrote

Circle of Joy and Sorrow

Interesting that you managed to get from what I said (that in the midst of all the harping on the coverage, so few of the heathens who had an opinion were sharing their opinions on the actual murderers) to marching in parades and unconstitutional searches and seizures. Puzzeling but interesting; sloppy but interesting. Turn your arguement on its head. Why should pagans and wiccans and goddess worshippers be constantly told 'how dare you publically equate Asatru/Odinism/Heathenism with white hate? If you would only do the research....' If getting dressed up and marching in a parade would put you out, hours and hours in the library stacks and searching throughout the Internet surely would take away from my right to live in as much peace as this world allows. If A/O/Hs are really under no obligation to the big picture, how can they really turn around an express displeasure at sloppy journalism (although it didn't actually occur in this case)? If you are under no obligation, how can you make demands of anyone else? As for Christians and the denouncement of their extremists.... we'll just through out canabalism for being a poison well. I'm a volunteer at the USHMM and it hardly minces words about the history of anti-semitism in the world and Christianity's responsibility. Certainly there are other instances where the roles of Christian ideology and its institutions have come under fire for perpetuating mass horrors. That Christianity has managed to escape a whole sale condimnation may prove to be a good example for Pagans who want their own faiths to be more favorably covered by the media. Media coverage does not make itself. Christianity has taken a very progressive track towards engaging the public representation of itself. Who can deny that it seems to work pretty well?

On 7/28/2006 13:33:53
Bjorngrímnir wrote

Difference of Opinion

Sorry that you took my comment so personally, Olive. My issue was not with you, or even your intentions, I'm sure they were well-meant. My issue was with the fact that whenever some nutball runs amok and pulls the religion card, the religion itself comes under fire...with primarily one religion being excepted...and other adherents of that religion come under a biased public scrutiny. I don't think that's right or fair, and I think I'm entitled to express that opinion. Since you put forth some well-constructed points in your comment, I will try to provide a hopefully more meticulous response.... I think it's likely that the reason "...so few of the Heathens who had an opinion were sharing their opinions on the actual murders" is because most of us take it for granted that our opinion about murder will be the same as any other sane and civil individual. Quite frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. So let's turn my argument on its head, as you suggested. Why should Pagans and Wiccans and Goddess worshippers be constantly told to do some research before publicly equating Heathenry with white hate? Because, in such cases, people are making generalized statements about a group of people, publicly, that don't hold water. That's just common sense. And it is this reason, except on a professional and journalistically-ethical level, that I criticize journalists who fail to deliver a non-sensationalized, unbiased, and thoroughly researched report to the public. I read the original article, and I see several places where the author failed the code of ethics set forth by the SPJ. I understand that this is a matter of opinion, and I understand that the code of ethics is a voluntary code. I also read the chopped versions, one of which even has a link to other "sensational news stories" at the bottom of the article. Neither the author nor the original source of the story are cited or credited. You suggest that sloppy journalism didn't occur in this case, I suggest that we simply have different standards. Getting dressed up and marching in a parade doesn't put me out - when I was in the Boy Scouts, I did this kind of thing quite often. What puts me out, as I said before, is having to do this just because some murderer or white pride fruit-loop said he reveres the same gods I do. This doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to defend my beliefs, which is how I suspect you interpreted it. There is a difference between defending beliefs and being expected to justify them. I think I can safely criticize sloppy journalism and even public tendencies without first having to justify my personal beliefs. You missed my point about the murdering cannibal and Christianity - I was talking about a single person going nuts and blaming his actions on his god, or in the case of Lenz, gods. I wasn't talking about entire societies going nuts. This guy committed murder - and brutally so - and his actions were his own. No god commanded that he do what he did, he had an urge to kill and used religion as his justification for that urge. Who knows, he might have even believed his own justification. Either way, regardless of what the people involved in this crime claim about their religion, this is a murder case and should be treated as such. If Lenz said that he had done this because Jesus told him to, Christians would not be expected to go out and re-explain their beliefs. The reason for this is because people would understand that religion wasn't the source of the murder, it was the justification. I think I have the right to expect the same level of understanding for Heathenry. And, for the record, I actually did put forth my opinion about murder and, to some extent, even went through the very same kind of justification that I'm opposed to - I did this in my own blog a day after I made my last comment in here (yesterday). Does that clear up some of your puzzlement?

On 7/29/2006 18:34:45
Olive wrote

Pagans in the Public Eye

I don't take that you disagree with me personally, I just wince when people make sloppy arguments when they could have made much better ones. Going from what is spoken of in public debate to tacking on requirements to march in public and submit to illegal searches and seizures is a sloppy argument. Nothing I said, and the arguement I put forth, would reasonably demand such actions, and yet you presented it as leading to such. Modus tollens is sloppy work. Bringing up canibalism is "poisoning the well" by using a loaded term that sways the reader by emotion to agree with the debator before they have heard the entire position. Saying it was the defense of someone who shot up a women's clinic or burned down a series of black churches would be more relevant. But cannabalism is ..... sensationalism. Onward. Surely you don't think I meant something so simplistic as the sane view of murder when I spoke of people's opinions on the murderers? MacRaven made a very good response after reading my point right, so I'm not sure how you got off on that tangent. People harped on the media, yet few in the discussion were talking about how the prisoners came to wrongly interpret Asatru, what could have been done, what could be done in the future. Yes, it goes unsaid that no one should have to explain that they are against murder. However, it's a hard political reality in America that your [insert organization] has to be on record about an act attributed to it before antagonistic sources make a note that there has been no official condemnation. Or semi or whatever. Crazy Asatru does "x" and 48 hours later some Christian news service will run a (journalistically unethical) story about how Asatru gives the guy the nod and wink. And Asatru denials will come too late. The earliest source always reaches the largest market and is almost always believed even in the face of mass detractors. It's politics, and media coverage doesn't make itself. Onto public comments made by other pagans about Asatru. Actually, it's "begging the question" to state that it's a given we should be motivated to getting our facts straight. What makes it common sense? You seriously don't think that the Conservative Christian political machine has gained the power in the United States by a commitment to fact, do you? You should read some of their campaign fliers!! It isn't a given that the truth is perferable to useful PR. After all, you can be the "bad pagans" and we can be the "good pagans." There's no common sense for choosing defense. A half-way decent pundit would point out that other pagans might benefit more by "secluding" the charge of white hate in a publically labeled group, so that we can always say "they are over there, those ones, not us." You could play the evil liberals to our moral conservative, and we could make a lot of political hay. I will answer my own retorical question at this point. Why should other pagans care what's being said about Asatru? Because we consider ourselves to be in the same community and society as you, and that bestows rights and extracts obligations. If you want other pagans to speak up and be correct about you, then you should be willing to speak up for yourselves. You have misattributed to me the opinion that the tabloid chopping of the original AP article was ethical. I spoke only of the two sources that posted the original AP story and specifically pointed out that I hadn't found and read any of the chopped up versions. I remain puzzeled on how you became so confused. As to the original article, I found nothing in it unethical. The publishing of opinions of people who don't like Asatru or don't trust that white hate is not more pervasive than it's defenders claim, is not itself unethical. They also have a right to their opinions, and the article published more opinions than just theirs. I mean, Lenz stabbed an unarmed man to death in front of an altar at an "Asatru" gathering. You would have to completely not report any of the facts of the crime to avoid the raising of public eyebrows. Given how badly the AP dispatch on Santorium's WMD press release were chopped by the online tabloids in June, I can imagine that it got bad with this. A tabloid is a tabloid. The few google blog searches I've done seem to indicated that the conservative blogs haven't really picked this up as an issue of concern. I found two very minor blogs when I checked last night, and both contained only a few sentence blurbs "laughing at" the situation. As for Christians having to justify their faith.... every time there was a slaying of a women's clinic worker or doctor, Christianty was out there having to defend itself. The death of Mathew Shepard comes to mind. If you don't take charge of your public reputation, your enemies will only be too happy to do it for you. For the record, my post referenced by MacRaven was made on the 25th, before your blog entry on the 27th. Like I said upwards in this post, in the battle for public opinion, you snooze you loose. Although I am glad you made your post and I really liked it, and it is something close to what I meant. In closing, this exchange between us was part of what I'd hoped for when I posted to the Wild Hunt. Debates in public, even if we disagree, about how we should handle events like this seems to me more productive than doing the worn-out American Conservative tactic of blaming the media. I think that people should take the time to talk about your opinions because I think it will matter more in the long run for all of us, heathens to wiccans all. Cheers!!

On 7/30/2006 06:41:39
Bjorngrímnir wrote

By 'taking it personally', I refer to your continued insistence that I was directly criticizing your comment; which as I have already explained, I was not. But, since you now say that you were spoiling for debate to begin with - even before I posited that people should not have to justify their religion - I can see that my explanations only matter to you as a means to further the debate you were looking for. Odd, at first I felt like we were just a couple of people trying to clarify a difference of opinions. Rather than add further fuel to your fire, I think my opinions have been satisfactorily clarified. The only thing I will respond to is your statement in a previous comment that the Christian handling of the media might be a good example for other religions. In the last comment of yours, you state: "You seriously don't think that the Conservative Christian political machine has gained the power in the United States by a commitment to fact, do you?" A commitment to truth is something that defines the Heathen religion, in my opinion. "Spin," "good PR," "media gloss" - this is where the core of truth starts to become fuzzy and maleable, and I think that Heathenry is better than this. Like I said before, this isn't a debate to me. You can call it whatever you wish - I still think it's just a matter of different opinions and standards, and I think I've said about all I need to say.

:: Categories ::

agriculture
asatru
copywrongs
humor
musings
politics
technology
index
haxton.org

:: Search ::

:: Blogroll ::

A Mindful Life
The Accidental Smallholder
Austro-Athenian Empire
Cauldron Born
Center for a Stateless Society
Dances with Ewes
Dispatches
egregores
Hardscrabble Creek
Honk & Helen
In Siberia
Laudator Temporis Acti
Lorrie's Livejournal
Masson's Blog
MyAppleMenu
NoNAIS
Notes on Religion
Numenous Thoughts
OrangeGuru
Overlawyered
Prophet or Madman
rogueclassicism
Sugar Mountain Farm
Thud Factor
Universe of Discourse
Wildhunt Blog
within the crainium

:: Archives ::

←July →
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

:: Site ::

Contact Me

MacRaven
Dave Haxton's Weblog
Musings, Reflections, Rants and Comments from a Hoosier Heathen husband, father, grandfather, farmer and software engineer. There's really only one of me ...

lunar phases

Unless otherwise noted, all original
work on this site is licensed under a

comment...


Notes: If you put a <mailto:> link in the URL field your address will not be mangled: this could be a bad idea as your email address could be easily harvested by bots designed for SPAM. The comments field should now format correctly for line feeds and carriage returns: when you hit the 'Enter' or 'Return' keys in your comment it should break to a new line. The text should wrap cleanly. Please let me know if it doesn't. No HTML tags will pass through - entering links seems to be the main cause of comment SPAM. Also, please be sure that Javascript is enabled in your browser before attempting to post a writeback. Sorry for any inconvenience, but this really helps cut down on the amount of comment SPAM I have to deal with.

Name:
URL:	(optional)
Title:	(optional)
Comments:
Save my Name and URL/Email for next time