06 Jul 2007
Paganism May Not Pass Religious Muster

Oh, Chuck! Perhaps if I were a a convicted Federal criminal who'd been "born again", I'd understand, but this is just so wrong, and so offensive, I'm going to take it apart a piece at a time.

It is debatable whether paganism is a religion, per say. It is generally defined as a pre-Christian state, but it takes a wide variety of forms—all the way from relatively benign New Age-style nature worship, to pantheism, to witchcraft, and even human sacrifice.

Well, OK, so maybe we're not a religion in your sense of the term. We have no organized priesthood, and few organizations of any scope. We don't go around attempting to convert others, nor do we collect scads of cash from other pagans for any purpose. And yes, there are many currents in the river called "paganism".

But human sacrifice? As exclusively "pagan"! C'mon, Chucky - no doubt our spiritual ancestors "sacrificed" the occasional convicted criminal, but, uh, so did yours! Or have you forgotten the Inquisition? If that wasn't human sacrifice, what was it? And what a marvelous rhetorical trick, working in a scary, repulsive theme in your very first paragraph.

Those who publicly identify themselves as pagans are at best a marginal number and are basically no different from dozens of other cults.

OK, there's not that many of us. But the newspaper that published this column also said "Membership in Wiccan, Deity, Druid and Pagan sects has been skyrocketing -- up from an unregistered blip in 1990 to more than 350,000 as of 2001." I think that's probably about 10% of the actual number, due to census difficulties with minority religions, but even so, 3 million pagans would still be less than 1% of the population. But does size matter?

I see no reason why Wiccans or pagans generally should have the services of taxpayer-paid chaplains. It is perfectly appropriate, if a group meets court tests for religion, that outside priest/ministers be allowed to come into federal facilities and minister. But historically, with standards that have been spelled out carefully by the courts, chaplains are appointed to represent mainline religions.

You know, I really wasn't aware of any court tests in this country for the validity of a religion. In fact, I was under the impression that we have freedom of religion here. But perhaps I'm just indulging in wishful thinking. And of course, none of us pagans are taxpayers, right? Oh, we are? Well, we should just pay for Christian chaplains, then, and quit bitching about it, because we're not "mainline", whatever that is.

Chaplains are commissioned officers in the military services, dedicated to serving the spiritual needs of all members of the armed forces, not just the members who belong to their creed. Pagans, being polytheists, are uniquely suited to this, since we don't have the concept on "One God, One Way", and we don't proselytize. But never mind - it's pretty obvious you're just trying to hold onto a monopoly over a captive audience.

The more difficult question is whether I would vote for a pagan for public office. The answer is that on one hand I fully respect the fact that there should be no religious test for public office; on the other hand, I would have great difficulty supporting an explicit Wiccan or pagan for high public office. There are tenets of their belief that, I think, are incompatible with the requirements of American democratic governance.

Which tenets would those be? Later in this piece you claim not to be familiar with paganism, yet you still make a statement like this? Perhaps you should review some of the tenets of your own system, first. Here's a good place to start. And by the way, can I ask a personal question? Is your suit of mixed fabrics?

The next three paragraphs are only a short rehash of the whole bogus "Christian nation" meme that's being foisted on us by the Religious Right. I'm not going to take up the space or waste the time to fisk them here - it's been done quite nicely in many other places.

Not being as familiar with paganism in its various forms, I do not wish to condemn it unfairly. But from what I know of it, I do not think it can provide the “indispensable supports” Washington wrote about.

So I would not appoint pagan chaplains, nor would I, as a personal decision but influenced greatly by the founders, vote for a pagan.

For somebody who's not familiar with paganism in it's various forms, you sure do have a strong opinion! And I would offer to return the favor of not voting for a Christian candidate, but I can't as I don't vote anymore at all for political reasons which really have nothing to do with religion. And I couldn't vote for you in any event, because you can't run for office. That's one of the things you lose with a felony conviction.

(link) [Washington Post]

06:19 /Asatru | 2 comments | permanent link