Panthea: All Things are Goddess

Is Goddess Religion Pagan?

Monday, July 28, 2008

According to the Pagan Pride Internation Website a Pagan is defined as:

A Pagan or NeoPagan is someone who self-identifies as a Pagan, and whose spiritual or religious practice or belief fits into one or more of the following categories:

Honoring, revering, or worshipping a Deity or Deities found in pre-Christian, classical, aboriginal, or tribal mythology; and/or
Practicing religion or spirituality based upon shamanism, shamanic, or magickal practices; and/or

Creating new religion based on past Pagan religions and/or futuristic views of society, community, and/or ecology;
Focusing religious or spiritual attention primarily on the Divine Feminine; and/or
Practicing religion that focuses on earth based spirituality.

While I realize that this definition is coming from a single source, I find that source to be one that appears representative of the population. None of the points above say anything to exclude Goddess Religion. On the contrary I think each of them is inclusive of it.

Is it possible to say "All Pagans are Goddessians but not all Goddessians are Pagans" or "All Goddessians are Pagan but not all Pagans are Goddessian"? In my opinon there doesn't appear to be a real seperation between the two (which may be because I find it near impossible to be a Goddess worshipper and/or a Pagan without revering nature), but I do feel a distinct desire for Goddessians to seperate themselves from the Pagan mainstream, even if it's in label alone. It's possible this could be because of a curve towards patriarchal influences in Modern Paganism, but I don't think that's the whole story.

From my persepective a lot of Goddessians have been moving towards religiosity. Now that's touchy, but let me try to elaborate a little. Goddessians (people who identify themselves as Goddess Worshippers) are often focused on things like worship, ritual, community/fellowship, the building of temples, structure balanced with consensus, etc. The Goddessians I know that are solitary are not so by choice but by lack of options. I have also noticed that there is a more willing acceptance of syncretic beliefs, meaning less bickering over semantics, details, etc. I think this is because those of us who have been touched by the Goddess understand that not everyone is touched in the same way, because that is the nature of how Goddess works.

I've also noticed that there are Goddessians moving away from New Age ideas and choosing instead to root their spirituality in the Earth, in the mundane, and in reality. Perhaps that may be because the Age of Aquarius has been lost on us, or we've become disenchanted by it. Or perhaps we've moved away from the "Light Worker Mentality" because we've relearned that nature is our true guide; that the Goddess shows us how the universe works through the changing of seasons, the cycles of the moon, and the overall rythyms of the Earth.

When it feels as though all of nature is speaking to you there seems no need for New Agey divining and channeled excerpts on the Star Seed Theory. Perhaps the time of Victorian seances, Theosophy, and Spiritualism is no longer appealing to some folks. Could it be that (thanks in part to the liberation of the New Age movement) we now have the freedom to choose what we believe in and something new and different is on the horizon?

New Age, or what some may even call "fluffy" concepts, are very common in Paganism and sort of come with the territory. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Everyone should be given the opportunity to experience Divinity and their spirituality freely and individually. But, I think the "fluffiness" has pulled some Goddessians to think about how we define ourselves.

I also think that Pagan is perhaps too broad a term and it doesn't really explain what we believe succinctly enough. If I say I'm Pagan it's not clear that I am a Goddess Worshipper. But Goddessian is pretty darn clear, defining exactly what my spirituality entails in one little word.

So, is Goddess Religion Pagan? I think it really is. I thinks it's also a tradition (or multiple traditions) within Paganism. Goddessian itself can be an umbrella term which includes all Goddess paths. In that case a Shaktist is Hindu and Goddessian. But are they Pagan? Wow, that's a whole other post which goes beyond the Goddessian connection to Modern Paganism specifically.

In closing, I think that it's okay to question the labels we give ourselves and realize that many might be correct in definition, but there is usually only one that fits just right.

These are my opinions based on my experiences. I am not presuming to say this is how all Pagans or all Goddessians believe, think, act, etc. If you have similar or different experiences, please take a moment to share and get some conversations started.

For more on this topic read the posts that inspired it:

Trends in Feminist Spirituality @ Medusa Coils

Is Goddess Religion Still Pagan? @ the Wild Hunt

The Goddess Movement and Definitions @ Firehawk's Nest

Picture found at GetReligion.org.

Labels: Goddess Religion, Goddessians, Modern Paganism, Op-ed, paganism

In Her Image: Manufacturing the Dark Goddess

Monday, July 21, 2008

Humanity has a tendency to create Deity in its own image. We make it what we need it to be to suit our current situation. While spirituality is an instinctively personal experience, and many times personifying Deity can be a valued way to connect, therein lies problems when we forget that nothing is ever really that cut and dry. Especially with a deity as multifaceted as the Great Goddess.

There is a trend among some individuals to use Goddess as a crutch. There are those who choose to work exclusively with personal interpretations of “dark” Goddesses as a way of justifying their harmful actions. It’s almost as though they create a Goddess they believe will carry their banner of anger and allow them to be a jerk for the simple sake of being a jerk. They believe the Goddess hates Christians, men, etc. because they need her to hate them in order to feel righteous.

It’s easy to get lost in a theology that seems to have no hard and fast rules. In Goddess Religion and most of Modern Paganism morality is a very touchy, hotly debated subject most often left up to the individual. There are no commandments, no laws save one. Do no harm.

Self responsibility is a key lesson of the Goddess in general. Everyone is going to cause some amount of harm in their lives. The ability to accept the injury we cause, deal with the consequences, and learn from our experiences is not always so effortless. It’s much easier to create a personal image of Deity that makes us feel better about the choices we’ve made.

Creating Goddess as we see fit in order to validate destructive behavior or misguided beliefs simply shrugs off personal responsibility, much like an oil slick slipping off the hull of a ship. It’s not okay to cause damage simply because we’ve manufactured an image of Goddess that would raise her fist in support of our self-righteous indulgences. She will never stand idly by while we pollute ourselves and the world around us with pain. Karma will inevitably be knocking at the proverbial front door.

Perhaps if there is such a thing as sin, it exists only in the moments when we hurt another. Of course, as was already said, nothing is ever that cut and dry. Some moral concepts are open to debate, with various shades of grey perceptions. Others still are more or less black and white.

It’s difficult to discuss morality as an idea without falling back into the concepts of “right” and “wrong”. While many of us might be trying to escape such polarities, and the polar thought processes that come along with them, it’s nearly impossible to exist in a society without identifying what is considered right and what is considered wrong. On the path of the Goddess these ideas are not determined by society, but by the natural laws of the Goddess. The oneness of the Goddess, being that she is inherently balanced, calls for everything in nature to be in balance as well. As human beings we are no more removed from nature than the tree outside our windows. Even though we may presume to be “civilized” or better than our wild animal kin, we are still of nature and subject to Her laws.

Adultery, as an example of a moral concept with various shades of grey, is not wrong because it leaves us destined to go to some make believe land of fire and torture after death. Nor is it wrong because sex is something to be ashamed of. It is wrong because promises are being broken and there is potential to cause great harm. Goddess doesn’t sneak into bedrooms at night, tip-toeing about the Berber carpet and peeking under the sheets to make sure it’s our spouse we’re sleeping with. She doesn’t care who we choose to share our bodies with so long as no one is getting burned in the wake of our passions.

Indeed our bodies belong to us alone and no one can be “owned” by another. And some people don’t believe in the trappings of marriage, but then why not just not be married? Imagining Goddess as a deity who agrees with sexual liberation and autonomy is one thing, but it is not within our rights to wound another individual without assuming there will be some consequences to deal with.

Then we have to beg the question of love. If you’re in a marriage and either you or your partner fall in love with someone else, is that wrong? Can love ever be wrong? Maybe in such a situation the best thing to do is to cause as little harm as possible while still following your heart. There may be some things that are just not up to us. In certain cases perhaps things are just meant to be. But it is helpful to remember that most matters still contain elements of choice.

Hating, as a black and white example, is wrong not because an old book tells us to love our neighbors. No matter who causes us injury and how unjust it is, hate fills the world with pain and anger like a nasty venereal virus. It’s infectious, destructive, and creates separation. No amount of deity-manufacturing will change that.

Now it’s not being proposed that we should sit around feeling bad for the harm we've caused throughout the course of our lives. It's useless to dwell in the past, wishing we could find the rewind button and make things different. We also shouldn't assume we are bad people by any stretch. Mistakes, accidents, poor choices, etc. are just a part of life. Without them what would there be to learn from? The point is to accept responsibility as opposed to using the Goddess to justify ourselves.

Things can get a bit sticky when we decide to bypass the qualities of Goddess that we merely find unpleasant or useless, be they of the light or dark variety. It's counterproductive to accept only her "light" qualities or only her "dark" qualities. She’s sort of a packaged deal and stripping her of any one of her innate qualities robs us of her full power and of our full potential as human beings.

Those who are healing from emotional wounds may logically choose to construe an image of Goddess who supports their feelings of being wronged; an image that somehow advocates the revenge brewing inside their hearts. In those cases a dark Goddess (created as a being who detests who we detest) may be a comforting shoulder to lean on and a protector in a daunting, painful world. She is created by our own ego to make us feel right without judging or questioning our motivations. She simply says “You’re righteous. You’re good. I’m here to support you and any harm you feel just in causing.” She allows us to say things like “I am mean to her because she hurt me” or “They deserve it”.

Is embracing a solely dark and vengeful image of Goddess, who picks and chooses which children to love over others, really the road to becoming a whole person? To healing on a soul level? Isn’t that image incomplete? Where is the loving Mother who teaches compassion for all life? Where is the Maiden with her lessons of personal freedom and choice? Where is the old Crone, full of experience and wisdom? Is it she who is hiding inside these personal and convoluted faces of the Dark Goddess?

Images of the Dark Goddess abound throughout time. Many of these dark portrayals are later additions to the pantheon of Female Divinity, contributed by patriarchal influences that wished to demonized the ancient Goddess and strip her of the captivating power she held over the people of the Earth. These patriarchal forces made the Goddess into a demented fear-monger who stole little children away and ate them for supper. All of the qualities that bring us closer to nature and thus to the Goddess were stripped away and turned into bogeymen and monsters.

The point was to make the Goddess something to be terrified of as opposed to something to accept and embrace. They misunderstood her powers of necessary destruction, her connection with the baseness of humanity, and the mysteries of death. They didn’t see that the darkness was a symbol for the forces in the universe that scare us; the unknown, the painful, the things we can’t control.

So why are we believing the hype? Why are we drinking the kool-aid of the patriarchal cults and grabbing a hold of the images they created as our own symbols of power, liberation, and justification? Is it purely to suit our personal agendas of being angry, wronged individuals driven by a self-righteous belief that we are owed something because life just isn’t fair? How does it help to imagine the Goddess as someone who punishes and detests those of her children who wrong the others? How does it help to think of her as a being that delights in the pain of "wrong-doers"? Isn't that the image of God we were trying to escape from in the first place when we chose to leave the war-god mentality behind in favor of the Goddess?

There is a difference between reclaiming a symbol for the purpose of liberation; taking that which was meant to frighten us or degrade us and turning it out onto the unjust systems who created it; and utilizing that symbol to enable injustice ourselves. One is an act of reclaiming personal power. The other is an act of vengeance.

The reality of the Dark Goddess is that she is at times that terrifying, ugly hag. She is not there to fuel our anger or justify the harm we cause, but to teach us of those things that are not often beautiful, that are sometimes unknowable, and that we are not always willing to embrace.

The Dark Goddess calls to us to understand the darkness of death and destruction and know that it is purposeful. She beckons us to look within ourselves, see those dark, scary shadows, and love them. She is the destroyer of egos, not a tool to be used to perpetuate our own secret darkness.

The Goddess is whole and complete, taking us by the hand in order to guide us to our own completion. Listen to all of her voices, gaze upon all of her faces. Only then can we truly know her and love her in her totality.

Picture courtesy of the BBC.

Labels: dark goddess, destruction of ego, Goddess, in her image, karma, manufacturing deity, Op-ed, personal responsibility

Love is the Whole of the Law...

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Or so I thought. Apparently love is only the whole of the law if you carry your reproductive parts on the inside.

Well it looks like I pissed someone off. Debi (a self proclaimed women's liberationist) of the Corvid Diaries has taken some offense to just about every word I have posted over the last few days. Some have been addressed in the comments of this previous post here. Another one I think deserves front page attention so I'm responding to it below.

Debi said: "I'm actually disgusted that anybody would presume to speak with the words of the goddess, and in such a patronising tone. It is utterly disrespectful both to the goddess and to all women of earth to do so."

Rhondda said: (commented on the Corvid Diaries) "Yes, I do agree with you. I really dislike making the Goddess a monotheistic entity. For me she is life in all her diversity. She is not an either/or and she is not a role to play. She is deep connection and as Mary Daly says a verb and not a noun."

See all comments from Debi's post here: Apparently Even the Goddess can be Patronizing Sometimes...

The Goddess (emphasis on THE) has a million names and faces, yet remains ONE. All life is a manifestation of her which means all life is divine. This also means both men and women are Goddess. Re: All Things Are Goddess. By presuming that no one can speak with the words of the Goddess you only succeed in making her out to be that monotheistic deity who is untouchable, not connected to her creation, etc. Sheesh, why not just call her Yahweh? She is both verb and noun and everything in between. There is no way to say she is this and not that. She is unlimited and never black and white. You make her what you want her to be and that's fine, but not when it's solely to fit into your argument and help you rationalize all of the injustice you yourself are causing.

She is not a role to play? Are you even Pagan? First of all no one needs to play at the role because we already are Goddess. Second, that's exactly what a priestess does every time she performs ritual - whether she in a group or solitary. See Drawing Down the Moon (the ritual not the book). Embodiment of the Goddess is what's supposed to happen.

I am willing to bet that if my comments weren't presumed to be anti-fem than I would've gotten "lovely post" or at the very least nothing at all. But because certain sensibilities were stepped on now it's fair game on the little Goddessian girl who believes she is divine - as Goddess teaches. How dare I? Rest assured it won't be the last time I "presume" to be Goddess. While you're blasting me about it do be sure to trample on Doreen Valiente, Starhawk, and countless others who have dared to speak the words of the Goddess. *gasp*

By the way, did you even read the first paragraph of that post? If flat out says I asked myself what would Goddess do and that's what came out. I said this is what I think she would say. When did I ever claim to be speaking for her or anyone else?

Wow, someone says something positive and this is what happens? Someone basically says "let's love each other" and this is what happens? And yet the statement "all men are rapists" (because all men are capable of rape apparently) gets applause. Well it's finally happened. I've officially slipped into a crazy cosmic bunny hole of nonsense. That's just the most ridiculous, sexist BS I've ever had the displeasure of reading. What an outlandish statement. Kudos for having brass ones, by the way. I'm ashamed to be of the same species, let alone the same gender of someone who could utter such rubbish. Why not just say all people are murderers because we're all capable of it? Anyone and everyone is "capable" of every atrocity ever committed. Wake up!

Men are not evil and woman are not just the sweet, unconditionally loving, innocent victims. I am no one's victim and I will not allow myself to follow a line of thinking that has women acting like they are rabid animals trapped in a friggin' cage. Seriously, that kind of attitude towards men is reminiscent of Hitler's attitude toward the Jews. Watch out! Here comes the gestapo! "Where are zee men? We must take zem and cut zeir nuts off!" Take your self righteous indignation and passive-aggressive sexual terrorism somewhere else.

As those of you who visit often know, I rarely get this fired up. Funny thing is, I'm not really all that mad. I'm happy and having a great day. People are smiling, life is good. I tend to think of my posts as usually pretty positive. Unless of course I'm bitching about Kirk Cameron or something. :) I try very hard to address comments and different opinions as politely as possible. Everyone deserves to have their say. This is the main reason I don't moderate comments and I allow for anonymous people to post. But, I think this is the first and last I'm going to say about this situation in an actual blog post. While there may be comments pouring in eventually I won't be taking it the front page again. Well unless I get pissed enough to do so. *wink* Yay for blogs: creative/bitching outlets.

pic: Light from the Heart Nebula from Astronomy Pic of the Day

Labels: blog response, Feminism, men are goddess, Op-ed, ramblings, sexism, the goddess means true sexual equality, the sexes

Mama Said Knock it Off

Saturday, July 12, 2008

I have noticed lately that there is a lot of man hating going on. At least that's what it seems like to me. Maybe I'm looking at things from a different angle. I am very willing to admit that, but I'm feeling some real bashing towards the boys that isn't sitting right with me. In situations such as this I look towards what some would call a bit of a cliche: What Would Goddess Do? Well I believe Mama, as I like to call her, would say something like this:

"Knock it off girls. Be angry at the patriarchy, be angry at years of female oppression and misogyny, be angry at the societies and religions who teach our men from an early age to turn their backs on me. But stop lashing out at the boys who are as much my sons as you are my daughters. They are Goddess too, penises and all. And they are as much victims of this time as any one of you. They too have been robbed of their Mother for millenia.

My law is love unto all beings and I teach the oneness of all things. Separation is not my way. Find common ground. Teach of my mysteries in tolerance and compassion. Remove words like man-hater, male-bashing, etc. from your lexicons. Neither sex should be under the thumb of the other. Strive not to replace the patriarchy with a matriarchy but with a system that embraces all people as equal and divine. Be dreamers and seek the Utopia I intended for you since the beginning of time.

Remember that as women you are the teachers and the keepers of culture. With this comes responsibility to future generations. Raise your sons in my image. Teach them equality and respect for all life. Teach them how to love selflessly and with all of their hearts. And give your daughters the same with strength, courage, and compassion to raise their children well in their time. Know that things will not improve so long as fear, hate, and intolerance are the things that fuel your passion for change."

Labels: men are goddess, oneness, Op-ed, the goddess speaks, the sexes

Battle of the Sex Hormones

Friday, July 11, 2008

I was reading Athana's blog again today and stumbled across some talk of testosterone poisoning. The context of it was mainly regarding sex offenders and how the hormone might play a role in such crimes. I kind of have a small amount of insight into this - at least when it comes to testosterone in women.

You see, I have polycystic ovary syndrome or PCOS for short. It's caused by a high level of blood sugar which then messes with egg viability and hormone balance. Consequently one of the symptoms of PCOS is an excess amount of testosterone. Now everyone has it, but I have more than the average woman. I don't have male characteristics by any stretch, but I have seen some of the effects of this hormone in my life.

I can whole heartedly agree that testosterone can lead to agression, depression, etc. There have been times in my life when I am simply pissed off for no apparent reason. Is there really anyone out there who hasn't been? Ladies, when your moon time comes around wouldn't you say you get a little on edge at times? Anyway, testosterone may well be the culprit, but I don't think it's the only thing we can point to as far as sex crimes in men go. It sort of sounds like a crutch. Instead of saying "the devil made him do it" we could say "it was too much testosterone". Sounds like an excuse to be an asshole. It also sounds like we are allowing nature to be the only deciding factor. Could I get away with smacking someone because I have PCOS? Nope. Assault charges are inevitable in that case and that's the way it should be. I am responsible for my actions. I make my own decisions.

Let's not forget testosterone is not a bad thing. It serves its purpose in both men and women. Without it there would be no more people being born. Straight girls: how would you feel if your partner didn't want you ever? Some of you might be thinking "if only!", but eventually you would start to think you were no longer attractive to him or any other man. That sucks and also robs you of your sexuality through rejection that leads to low self worth, etc.

I guess my main point here is that nothing is ever that black and white. It's just not. Men and their hormone are not the root of all evil. Too much of anything is bad. Too much estrogen can cause cancer, life effecting pms, depression, and postpartum. Shall we say that someone who is estrogen poisoned could be more likely to leave their newborn in a dumpster? Would that be an acceptable excuse? I don't think so.

In the spirit of Thou Art Goddess Thursday - which I just missed by a few minutes - tesetosterone is Goddess, estrogen is Goddess, men are Goddess, women are Goddess, all things are Goddess. Now I'm going to go take my glucophage and keep my hormones balanced.

Labels: estrogen, hormones, men and women, Op-ed, pcos, polycystic ovary syndrome, testosterone, the sexes

I Have No Broom Closet

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Or linen closet... or front hall closet for hanging coats in... or pantry. I barely have enough of a closet to hang my clothes in. Well what do you want? I live in a hundred year old house that used to be owned by crazy people. That last bit is based on the various home improvement projects I've tried to tackle over the past four years. Who stuffs a hole in the wall with paper towel then wallpapers love hearts over it? Who lays down carpet padding with a staple every friggin centimeter? Crazy-like-the-Shining people. That's who. I have nightmares about a guy with 1975 lambchop sideburns, a porn-stache, and a staple gun chanting "all work and no play..." Shudder.

This is basically a blog response to Monday's Wild Hunt post about the recent lack of figurative broom closets in the Pagan community. I don't have one and I'm not sure I ever did. Well okay, maybe there was a time in my early Pagan days where I was more worried about what people thought. As time went on I decided I didn't care a single bit. Everyone who knows me now knows that I am a Pagan priestess of the Goddess. I'm not ashamed. On the contrary, I'm proud of the fact. It's something I worked hard for so I see no need to hide it. Then again I don't go around advertising the fact either. I don't wear a shirt proclaiming my Pagan-ness nor do I just blurt it out to people I've just met.

I guess I don't really believe in the secrecy thing. How can other people learn anything if we aren't willing to be open and honest about what we do? This not only turns off other seekers but makes the mainstream folks uneducated and scared of us. And we know what happens when people get scared. Someone undoubtedly gets burned at the stake - sometimes figuratively and sometimes not so much.

With the exception of not wanting to give my kooky Southern Baptist Granny a coronary by using words that would trigger her devil-worship-radar, I am open about my beliefs. Gran knows I believe in the Goddess, that I don't believe in the Bible, and that I believe nature is sacred. That about sums things up and prevents agitating the elderly.

I take my honest and open approach pretty seriously and I refuse to play the Rumpelstiltskin game. What I mean by that is that I have known some people who keep their magic(k)al names secret because they believe someone will then have power over them. This measures a whopping 9.6 on my BS scale. (Granny passed some of her radar skills down to me I guess, but I use mine for the good.) Names are names. Go ahead and call me Fandula the Love Pig if you want. Who really gives a crap? My "magical" name is more of a priestess name to me. It's like how nuns take new names when they become... well nuns. It certainly means something but it's not an open door to my true soul or something.

As for some of the other things spoken about in Jason's post...

My altar is in my bedroom because that's where I like it to be - not because I'm trying to hide anything. I can be undisturbed there whenever I need peace. On any given day there are books strewn about my house: on top of the wood burning stove, the kitchen counter, the dining room table, the entertainment stand, and oddly enough on bookshelves. There is Goddess themed art on my walls, goddess chimes over the sink, and signs in my garden. I probably have less stuff than your average Pagan because I'm not really a buyer of those sorts of things. If I buy an altar figure it typically stays on my altar. And I make the decorative things I want instead of purchasing them. I'm not really a nick-knack sort of person.

Anyway... to sum it up I'm not in the broom closet but that's because I don't have one. I don't want one or need one. I am who I am and poo on anyone who doesn't like it. Except Granny.

Labels: blog response, broom closets, Op-ed, secrecy, the wild hunt

Stonehenge Decoded

Monday, June 02, 2008

Last night the National Geographic Channel premiered Stonehenge Decoded and presented new theories about the ancient stone circle to the world. The newest theory is all about how Stonehenge was a monument to the dead; a sacred place where people may have brought the ashes of their deceased loved ones to join their ancestors. A bunch of evidence was presented to support this theory. While archeology is often full of guess work, I think this theory makes a lot of sense from a Pagan persepective and I have some elaborations on the info I watched last night.

First, I think the theory is most likely right about Stonehenge being a temple of the dead. As the show pointed out, it's made of stone, which makes it permanent (like death). It was built to honor the sun at Midsummer, when the sun begins to die. If people brought cremains there perhaps they implored the sun to take the spirits of the dead with it as it waned in the sky over the following months.

There is a wooden henge a couple of miles from Stonehenge. As the theory goes this was most likely a temple for the living; for celebrating life. It's made of wood which is impermanent like life. At Midsummer the people would walk to Stonehenge and then walk back to the wood henge; going from a place of the dead to a place of the living. At Solstice they took the opposite root and stood to watch the Solstice sun set through the wood henge - which seems to have been built specifically for the event. Here they would know the sun was being reborn; that it would soon begin to wax again as the days grew longer. Perhaps the sun also had the power to give rebirth to the people who had died and whose ashes had been spread at Stonehenge? Maybe the ancient Britons believed that as the sun was reborn at the "Temple of Life" so too were the spirits of their ancestors.

Regardless of what actually occured at these sites it seems rather obvious that the ancient people who built them were people who lived in harmony with nature. They were agricultural and depended on nature as their way of life. They would've been interested in praying for fertility, honoring the dead, and celebrating life. Ah... those lovely ancient Pagans.

I think this is all very Goddess-y in nature though there has yet to be any evidence of a female god - or any god to the best of my knowledge. It seems the emphasis here is placed on the ancestors, though there is little to support this as well. I would say there is better evidence to support a deity of the sun. There is no way to know for certain what was worshipped at these sites, at least not until some idol is unearthed. Until then we will have to theorize.

Watch Stonehenge Decoded on June 5th at 9pm on the National Geographic Channel. Image found at the official National Geographic web site for Stonehenge Decoded. Go there for more theories and more info. Check out the Earth Mother theory too.

Labels: ancient pagans, Op-ed, stonehenge, stonehenge decoded

Religious Freedom vs. Minors Rights

Thursday, May 29, 2008

*BIG, GIANT, POSSIBLY INCOHERANT RANT ALERT*

I was watching the View today. I don't make it a habit like ever... but I just happened to be flipping through and heard Whoopi talking about the Texas polygamy issue that's been in the news recently. On the screen behind her was a picture of an (allegedly) 12 - YES TWELVE! - year old girl and her 40+ husband.

Whoopi basically played devil's advocate by saying that it would be hard for jurors to draw a line in this case because it's all about religious rights. Her words were something like "...well maybe then we would wonder should Scientologists not be allowed to do what they do as part of their religious rights?..." (not a direct quote) I wanted to slap her.

Religious rights take a backseat to the obvious endangerment of a minor. I can hear some people already. Yes, some Christians think Paganism endangers minors - but in the case of these child brides I think there is no room for debate. These girls are barely pubescent and being made to have sex with men almost triple their age. It's sick and perverted and any religion that advocates something like that is completely immoral and the creation of men with a distinct brand of sexual deviance.

I am the mother of a little girl who will be 9 next Thursday. She is a LITTLE GIRL - not a woman who would be ready for marriage and children in 3 years. Any mother who could allow her child to be taken into a situation such as this should have their children removed for being a weak willed woman who has forgotten to fight for the well being of their children. I'm not movable on this one. I don't care how you rationalize it, justify it, make sense of it... etc. It's wrong.

Do you think these people even realize the kind of damage giving birth so young can cause on the bodies of these girls? Some young women in Africa are plagued with broken bodies; bladders and bowels that leak, prolapsed wombs, and more. Those serious medical conditions were caused by giving birth too young because they were raped and impregnated as children.

Speaking of rape - why doesn't the statutory law apply in the polygamy case? I believe it's a state issue, but I can't imagine any state says it's okay for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old girl. She's barely able to make her own decisions with a 7th grade education - let alone decide who to give her body to and why.

I'm not claiming to be the most educated on the polygamy case or the practices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What I know is that it's wrong to have sex with children. I don't care what religion you are - or how it's justified. 12 year olds are children plain and simple. And if keeping these children away from their mothers allows them the peace to grow into healthy women who can make choices for sex, marriage, and children when they are ready... I'm all for it.

As Athana has said many times... what would a healthy mother do? Not give her daughters away as child brides. Not allow them to be sexual abused minors. Not believe in a god who says any of this is okay. EVER. It's not okay. It's criminal.

Goddess, Mother, wake up these women and empower them to take control of their lives and the lives of their children. Let them see the sacredness of motherhood and all that comes with it. Make them fight for their daughters. Make them fight for their sons also so they might not be raised to abuse young girls the way that their fathers have. And awaken these men to you and to the respect of the female body. Allow them to embrace the fathers within them and shun the war god who advocates any form of child abuse in the name of religion. So mote it be.

Labels: child rights, Op-ed, religious freedom, texas polygamy case, what would a healthy mother do

Jung and the Anti-bunny

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Carl Jung proposed a technique called Active Imagination which theorized that one could connect with the deeper subconscious through active daydreaming and fantasy. I believe this technique was only named by Jung. In my opinion it is exactly the same process employed by shamanic traditions throughout time and it is exactly the process being utilized by individuals who believe they have contact with mythological creatures like faeries, dragons, etc.

For many years I have carried around a certain amount of frustration when interacting with people who believe in the reality of myth and legend. I became exasperated and admittedly began to shut down every time. I realize I was placing judgment, but my brain simply couldn’t rationalize certain ideas as real and certainly not as useful. After studying a little of Jung’s ideas I have a new opinion. I’ve had an epiphany.

The main thesis of my recent epiphany is that the problem I have is not in the ideas of the mythical creatures themselves, but when people see them for reality instead of a route towards understanding their own subconscious.

The Active Imagination Technique is similar to daydreaming, but in an active way as the title suggests. This is where the dreamer takes a mindful role in the fantasy being explored in order to learn about themselves on a subconscious level. The state that the brain goes into during waking dreams is called the alpha state. This is the same state we go into when we’re driving, taking a shower, doing the dishes, or any other kind of “mindless” action. So, every time I hear the voice (referenced in the previous post) I am in alpha state which means my subconscious may be trying to tell me something. I’m not sure yet what I may be trying to tell myself, but I believe now that the voice is not outside of myself, but a part of my subconscious mind.

I think with this new understanding I can better deal with my frustrations and my own feelings of hypocrisy since I too am subject to my subconscious mind; my active imagination. I think I’ve found a way to rationalize and reconcile the abstract and the analytical halves of my personality that can not only help me better understand myself, but also others.

Hope this made some sense. What do you think about the theories presented here? Am I still robbing myself of the magic or have I found a way to embrace it without stepping past the bounds of what I know to be reality - and what I consider to be the domain of fluffy bunnies?

Labels: active imagination, alpha state, carl jung, magic, Op-ed

Robbing Myself of Magic

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Raven Grimassi once told me to be careful not to “rob myself of the magic”. He had just signed some books for me and since I had waited until later in the day to visit his booth he was free to chat for a bit. I was on the Pagan Pride committee that year (the event he and his wife were attending as guest speakers) so we had already been introduced and quickly moved to topics of deeper interest. I was expressing my disenchantment and frustration when Raven, looking for all the world like Paul McCartney's love child without his moustache, said those words. I consider Raven to be an extremely well learned man whose books are meticulously researched and void of much of the fluffiness some authors embrace. So of course I took his words to heart, but to this day I'm still not sure how to put them into action.

I have experienced certain things that I badly want to believe were real and true. As time passes I rationalize my experiences until there is nothing left of them. Consequently experiencing these things again is rather difficult.

When I was a child I used to hear a voice. It was completely incoherent and I always felt that if I listened just a little harder I might be able to make out the words. This scared the crap out of me as a kid and eventually the voice stopped. I think I might have willed it to stop.

When I hit about 19 or so the voice began to return and 11 years later there are times when I still hear it. Am I crazy? Maybe. I’ve thought about Schizophrenia, but that doesn’t usually hit someone until their early twenties. Because this has been ongoing since early childhood I have ruled that out. Could this be some inner voice? Is it my intuition? My conscience? The one constant is that the voice always comes along when I am doing something repetitive or not requiring concentration – when my brain is in an alpha state.

If I was listening to someone else tell this story I would be convinced they were crazy and I expect nothing less from anyone who is reading this right now. I am very scientifically minded. I believe in reason and I strive to understand why things are and how they work. I’m also very creatively minded. I’m an artist and creating is like instinct for me. So I suppose there is sort of an inner struggle going on. One part of me thinks there must be rational explanations for everything while the other is not opposed to more abstract ideas.

I’ve considered that perhaps I’m clairaudient but I also think mediums are most often frauds. Maybe famous psychics have ruined it for me. John Edward, Sylvia Browne, Chris Fleming, etc. have really just left a bad taste in my mouth about psychics and mediumship in general. I am certainly not going to say I have an ability that I have never been able to believe in others. I have had numerous readings and not one of them has ever been more than a cold reading or a general interpretation of cards laid out on a table. I believe everyone could potentially have psychic ability, I just haven’t proven that yet.

On the topic of channeling, I have thought that maybe if we’re all Goddess than it isn’t too crazy to think she could speak to us or through us. Why is it people who channel pick things like Arch Angels, aliens, star clusters, famous dead folks, etc? I just can’t swallow the whole concept. But I wish I could.

I want to believe. Who doesn't? Isn't that desire to believe what gives psychic charlatains their power in the first place? I’m willing to suspend all sorts of belief but I need something concrete, something that can be evaluated and then revealed to be true. Maybe I need to stop putting reigns on everything before the magic is lost to me forever.

Labels: channeling, chris fleming, john edward, magic, mediums, Op-ed, psychics, raven grimassi, sylvia browne

Could I be a Jaded Wiccan?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Warning: Tongue-and-cheeky-ness to follow. Thick skin and/or a good sense of humor required. Turn back now if you offend easily.

This post is being brought to you by the brain function that occurred after reading a post entitled Wicca on the Down Low at Lover of Strife - which I bookmarked immediately and should’ve added to my recently quasi-alphabetized links list by now. I haven’t considered myself Wiccan for at least ten years, but after reading the afore mentioned article I suddenly feel compelled to see if I’ve been lying to myself for a decade or so.

So I guess the first thing to do is define what makes someone a Wiccan. I looked around the net and really didn’t find a concrete definition – or a list of bullet points which I am obviously kind of fond of. Many Pagans share beliefs systems that are so similar that there is little to no distinction between one tradition and the other. Most of the time it comes down to pantheons, language used, ritual structure, etc. So I guess the only view I can use here is my own.

Note: I have a lot of Wiccan friends who I don’t want to offend, so I am going to trust that they all know me well enough to understand where I’m coming from if they happen upon this blog of mine. I circle with Wiccans and I respect many Wiccan individuals for their devotion and scholarship. I’m obviously generalizing and am by no means saying every Wiccan is the compilation of fluff that I may be about to type.

Wicca (Through my eyes)
- Belief in Goddess and God as two separate but equal parts seen through a myriad of other completely separate deities with their own names, faces, purposes, powers, and geographic origins.
- Very specifically Celtic.
- Adheres to the Wiccan Rede.
- Practices magic, often ceremonial and involving bunches of tools.
- Leans towards a belief in the literal interpretation of the mythical (faeries, dragons, etc.).
- Knowledge of Tarot cards and other tools of divination are considered standard for all adherents and those who don’t dig on the divination are looked down on or considered not “Witchy” enough.
- Astrology is gospel.
- Gardner and his contemporaries may as well be Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John of the Wiccan world.

I will reiterate that this is not some official list of bulleted points describing Wicca. It is only how I personally view it. Is my opinion slanted in some way? Yes, absolutely. Have I run into too many self proclaimed High Priestesses of Pomp and Circumstance who claim to channel spirits from other dimensions or have a direct line to the Goddess? Yes. Yes, I have. Maybe I am simply jaded. But could I really be a jaded Wiccan? By my own admittedly preconceived list of defining factors above I would answer no.

But it’s time for another list of bullets to catalog what my tradition might have in common with Wicca. Now I think the point here is to see if anything listed is solely the property of Wicca or if it’s sort of a non-denominational Pagan standard.

- Circle casting.
- Element calling.
- Nature viewed as sacred and revered in ritual practice.
- Belief in something like the Wiccan Rede which in my opinion is a Neo- Pagan version of the Golden Rule.

Okay, short list I guess. In my opinion everything in the list above is universally Pagan, right down to the Native American traditions. As a matter of fact I don't even find circle casting or element calling to be necessary, especially in solitary practice.

Now let’s take a look at the things I don’t think I have in common with Wicca. This list could also be called “Reasons Why I Became Disenchanted with Wicca at an Early Age”.

- No separation: Belief in one deity imagined as Goddess, completely connected (meaning not separate) from any of her other aspects be they mythically male or female in distinction.
- Magic is prayer and no props are ever really needed, but the desire to use props to touch with the unconscious is often desired. I don’t care about athames or bolines or what color their handles are.
- Witchcraft can be (but not always is) a religious practice and not a specific religion. The same goes for divination.
- Lack of belief in the mythical world(s). Don’t believe in faeries, dragons, etc. because I simply haven’t seen any of them and I don’t choose to live in a world of un-reality where I can blame my missing keys on mischievous house gnomes. Though that would be cool if I could.
- Emphasis is placed on religion – worship, prayer, connection, spiritual understanding, betterment of self, etc. as opposed to getting really good at scrying or using runes.
- Myth is never interpreted literally and its uses are unique to every individual practitioner.

None of the lists in this post are complete by any means. I could probably go on for a while, but I don’t think it’s necessary. Besides, this post is long enough already. I’m going to turn the questions to you instead. What makes a Wiccan? Am I Wiccan? Has Wicca gotten a bad rap? What is the solution if so? Am I a closed minded crazy lady? Let’s find out. Add some comments and continue the conversation.

Labels: am i wiccan, Op-ed, paganism, tongue and cheek, wicca, wiccan

The Three Keys

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Dissecting and Interpreting Mythology
and Theological Concepts of the Goddess

I imagine everyone has their own way of interpreting the Goddess. By nature, being a Goddess worshipper fills a person with a sense of empowerment that teachers him/her to trust their instincts and their personal ideas. Perhaps the Goddess inspires us all differently, coming to us in unique ways that teach every individual exactly what they need to learn.

For me it has always been a challenge to order my thoughts when it comes to understanding the Goddess. To me all Goddesses are one Goddess so learning about her different images helps me understand her as a whole. She is all things and sometimes it’s not that easy to wrap my head around her thousands of faces, symbols, etc. The method I use to better my own understanding, and create a sense of order in an otherwise jumbled mind, is what I call the Three Keys System.

First, let me make my personal framework clear. This is the core of my belief system and what I base all of my interpretations on.

• All Goddesses are one Goddess. All deity is one deity.
• The Goddess is all things and everything in nature and life can carry her lessons.
• The Goddess is triplicate; Maiden, Mother, Crone.
• The combination of those three aspects creates the forth or total aspect of Goddess; All-Goddess, Panthea, Great Goddess, etc.
• The All-Goddess aspect is the totality of all things and is the ultimate vision of the Goddess.
• Every Goddess carries the qualities of each the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone though they usually lean further in the direction of one than the others.

Now the things listed above can’t really be called facts. I’m not sure there is much within the realm of religion that can be called wholly factual. I suppose that’s why we have the concept of faith. But does this make them untrue? If perception is reality then the statements of faith above are as true as the sky being blue. Though I see a blue sky a slightly color blind person may think it seems more like a shade of purple. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Well, neither and both at the same time. Both perceptions are completely true, albeit personal truths.

So, after I choose my topic (or my Goddess) that I am going to devote study time to, I research like crazy and put everything I have gathered in one place. I read all of the information as many times as necessary and formulate ideas while specifically looking for keywords that may be ascribed to the Goddess in question. Almost right off the bat I can usually see if a Goddess falls into the Maiden, Mother, Crone, or All categories based on what I know of each.

Then I look at the way this Goddess relates to other deities, if there are other Goddesses involved that can make her triplicate aspects obvious, and examine her relationship to her mate if she has one. I ask myself questions like “what did this Goddess do?”, “what purpose does her myth serve?”, “what are her symbols”, etc.

In between all of this I usually make time to meditate for a few days on the Goddess I am studying. For me it is necessary to spend a lot of time in thought and reflection, allowing the Goddess to send some inspiration along before I come to any conclusions.

The next step is to weed through any keywords I may have come across. I usually take the three most specific or clearly illustrated keywords and elaborate on them. For example, for the Minoan Bee Goddess (Merope) I selected the keywords that jumped out at me the most then jotted down what I felt they meant.

Connection
- It is not good to always be alone.
- Seek connection with other people and with all life.
- Live in harmony with others.

Responsibility
- Live responsibly in co-existence with other people and with nature.
- Work honestly and earn your keep in life.
- Everyone has a purpose.

Humility
- Love is stronger than you.
- Love openly and without shame.
- There is no room for pride in love.

After using the Three Keys System and incorporating the Triple Goddess framework I feel that I have a pretty clear understanding of what this Goddess means to me, or what lessons I needed to gain from her. I can now incorporate this specific Goddess into my vision of the Goddess as a whole and further enrich my spiritual experience.

Your interpretations of individual Goddesses or the Goddess as a whole may be completely different from mine. I trust that the Goddess has a good understanding of us and knows which of her aspects are beneficial to every individual.

For me, the most important part of all of this is to know that the Goddess is ever-present and constant. She cannot be changed. She just is. I find this way of thinking beneficial, especially when participating in theological debates. No one should ever feel their ideas or perceptions are invalid or being threatened by others because it all comes from the Goddess anyway.

We all have different relationships with the Goddess in the way children do with their mothers. Healthy, present mothers know which of their children need to know which lessons and each child is treated as an individual. As we grow mothers teach new lessons, or impart more wisdom in regards to old lessons. It is important to be open to change and an evolution in thought because we never want to be so stubborn in our beliefs that the Goddess can’t teach us more of what we need to know.

So, your unique vision of the Goddess is just as valid as any other. So long as you are enriching your own experience of your Mother, there can be no wrong answers to your questions.

Labels: Goddess, Op-ed, pagan theology, paganism, three keys system

Way of the Master... Again

Friday, March 14, 2008

Comic © Jeffrey Rowland - Overcompensating.com
If you've been reading Panthea for a while you will know that I have this big issue with a Christian show called Way of the Master starring Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (yes, it's Mike Seaver from Growing Pains).

Perhaps I am a glutton for punishment, but I just can't seem to stop myself from watching the show and cruising the website. Why would a Goddess-centered Pagan do that, you ask? It's certainly not great for my blood pressure. Well the answer is simple. I believe the way of thinking presented on the show is dangerous to human society.

I honestly do not care what Ray and Kirk personally believe. In fact, I respect their right to practice any spirituality that suits them. My issues begin with the evangelism they spread across the globe that basically tells people how evil they are. Here in lies the conundrum. I respect Ray's and Kirk's right to practice their religion yet part of that practice includes evangelism - or spreading the word of the Bible. Yikes! I guess I'm bound to come off as not being tolerant no matter what I do.

So my purpose here is to say to anyone reading that you are not evil. You were not born bathed in sin. In fact, there is no sin and living life as the best person you can be is quite alright whether you believe in the Bible and Christianity or not. I don't think millions of Buddhists will be going to Hell at their end of their days. Can you imagine a man like the Dalai Lama belonging in Hell? How could a life of kindness and compassion sentence a person to such a place just because he didn't follow Christ? Ridicuous!

Oddly enough I don't believe Hell exists so let me make it clear that's not why the ideas of Way of the Master upset me so. I believe that people who believe they are evil will eventually begin to behave in a manner that fits that label. I believe that people can also be consumed with guilt and shame through their whole lives because of the ideas of sin and evil - allowing those emotions to become a kind of raw fear that threatens people around them and causes endless suffering. So, in an effort that may in fact be completely pointless, I confront the ideas of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron and provide a more rational and peaceful alternative.

What these two men (and many evangelicals) have yet to figure out is that conversion tactics don't work on those who don't believe in the Bible or Christian theology. The people Ray and Kirk manage to "save" have been endoctrinated by society from an early age and already have some shreads of belief in Christian ideas. Guilt, fear, shame, etc. lead them back to Christ not love, light, or truth.

Toady I am going to tackle the 10 Principles for New Christians found on the Way of the Master site because while reading them I began to see a trend of irrational thought and couldn't stop myself from commenting. I guess it's a good thing this is my blog. :)

Principle One - Daily Bible Reading
This is great. If you're a Christian be a good one a read your Bible. Anything else makes you a hypocrite. So... no arguments here save for the whole bit about how the Bible tells you to evangelize and contains a bunch of woman-hating misogony. Yeah, that stuff anyone could do without reading. Nice stories though.

Principle Two - Faith
Faith is great - wonderful even. It's what makes us all get up everyday and function. But, the way the Bible and God are proved to be truth in this section is just silly. It basically states that God can't lie so of course the Bible is fact and Christianity is the way. Please give me a break. I don't believe in the Bible any more than I believe in any other world mytholgy. What makes it different is that millions of people believe it's the word of God. Well millions believe in the Torah, the Koran, etc. And millions believe in a kind of equality among mythology - seeing value in many sacred texts. So, Ray and Kirk have proved nothing.

Principle Three - Evangelism
Oh goodness. I'm not sure I even have the energy to tackle this one right now. I think I have undertaken a very large task and finding the right words will be a challenge.

I think evangelism is sort of what's wrong with modern Christianity. I will use the Dalai Lama again as another example. He doesn't go around preaching to those who don't want to hear him nor does he tell people that they will burn in eternal fire for not believing what he says. He is kind to humanity and to those who seek the words of the Buddha he imparts wisdom and experience.

Did anyone ever stop to think that perhaps evangelism was born of the desire to convert as many people as possible to the "state religion"? It's much more convenient to gain power through the hearts of people when you control their religion. "Pay your taxes or you'll go to Hell." "Let me have your daughter or you'll go to Hell." "Farm your fingers to the bone then give the king half your food or you'll go to Hell." It makes perfect sense and history is a nice little tool we can use to see this in action. The Church was rich and fat while the people suffered and were controlled by Biblical ideas.

Okay, this post has gotten way long. I will see about the other principles next time. Blessings!

Labels: arguments against hell and sin, christianity, kirk cameron, Op-ed, ray comfort, way of the master

The Frosts and Hymens

Saturday, September 01, 2007

I wandered over to The Frost's new blog and posted a comment on their post "Frost and Sex - Intacta" Go here to see the full post. My comments are below.

Comment One:

A hymen is never "intact". In fact it shouldn't be. Of course hymens vary in thickness, size of opening, etc - but there should always be an opening.

It is commonplace for a doctor to make sure an infant female has an open hymen. If the opening does not occur a physician may be employed to fix this before school age. Young girls begin to menstruate as early as 9 years old. Blood needs to be able to pass.

So, to say that the hymen is closed before first intercourse is completely false and rather ignorant.

Let's face it. In this day and age young girls use tampons, masturbate, get pelvic exams, etc. The hymen is rather irrelevant. An empowered, modern woman would hopefully be raised aware or her anatomy and be ready for the happenings of first intercourse. I didn't bleed a bit and over half of the young female population won't either.

Times have changed. I would say it's uncommon to be given a prudish upbringing. Sex education and a new generation of parents ready to give their kids "the talk" has increased awareness and empowered young females about their bodies. There is still some work to do but surgically removing hymens is not the answer. In fact, it's down right unnatural.

Of course I speak from an American point of view. Some parts of the rest of the world have much more work to do before women can be sexually liberated.

Comment Two:

And I'm sorry - did you say "acceptable guidelines"? What does that mean exactly? Should all Pagans subscribe to the beliefs that would be in these "guidelines"?

I would have to say that I would be completely against any practice like this for my daughter. My opinion is that the only guideline Pagans need is nature. The tearing, rupturing, etc. of the hymen is part of a natural process.

Birth is a bloody process too. Should we find some way to make that more pleasurable? Some women don't lose their hymens completely until they give birth. Should we do something about that too. Come on now.

Labels: Op-ed

Why Satanists Aren’t Pagans

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Definitions for Pagan:

a person who follows a polytheistic or pre-Christian religion (not a Christian or Muslim or Jew)
wordnet.princeton.edu

A generic term for a number of pre-Christian faiths – druids, witches. Pagan faith is linked to locality and to the Earth.
www.druidnetwork.org

While I think most people who read this blog probably already know the meaning of the word Pagan I thought the above definitions illustrated my main point in this article. That point being that a Satanist can not be a Pagan because Pagans (as can be seen above) are defined as being practitioners of pre-Christian religions.

Satan is a Christian figure – or an Abrahamic figure to be more technical. How then can people who follow a Christian figure belong within an umbrella that is specifically defined as pre-Christian?

The Luciferian Factor

Lucifer is also known as the Morning Star – Venus – a Goddess. Lucifer sounds like Lugh also. God of light anyone? Why not just be Pagan? At least then you can actually break out of the Christian mold.

My Thoughts

I’m not out to make enemies of Satanists. I have met some and they all seem like pretty decent folks. To each his/her own. I do, however, want to state my opinion on Satanism as I see it.

I have read up on the subject and I believe Anton LeVey himself admitted that the Church of Satan was set up as a publicity stunt. He wanted to be famous and so he figured causing a stir among the straights would be a way to get it. Yay for him. He literally became a pop-guru in his time. Rocking the boat of the establishment is usually a good thing, but in my opinion this makes Satanism more of an elaborate joke as opposed to a religion.

The Black Mass is intended to be the opposite of a Catholic Mass. This sounds like some teenagers just trying to do exactly what Mommy and Daddy told them not to. Dad says you can’t date that boy so you sneak out down the lattice work to do it anyway. You rebel!

I don’t think Satanists should be thought of as Pagans or call themselves Pagans. I have no problem with misfits sticking with misfits – as in both Pagans and Satanists working towards religious freedom, etc – but there should be a clear distinction between the two groups.

Got some thoughts? Want to argue my points? I love a good conversation. Hit the comments links below to start one.

Labels: Aton LaVey, Church of Satan, Luciferian, Misc. Mutterings, Op-ed, Satanism, Satanists, Satanists are not Pagans

This Might Piss You Off

Friday, July 13, 2007

I was reading Deborah Lipp's blog, Property of a Lady, the other day and found a post entitled Harassment in an Elevator.

At first I totally bought this article. I was like "Yeah, those guys suck. Society is screwed..." Then I took a shower and thought about it. I mean really thought about it. The conclusions I came up with were much different than my initial reaction.

Then, in the interest of getting all the facts, I wandered over to where the post originated from and saw some pictures. Firstly, I'm not saying this woman is not attractive but she certainly does not look like a stripper. I think it's the leotard. She looks more like a dancer. Strippers typically don't shop at the same places ballet dancers do. And the gloves or wristlets she's got on say "costume" for sure.

So, after gathering my facts and giving this some serious thought I now have a well formulated opinion. Or something like it. Below is the original article and below that is what I have to say about it. You can choose to only scroll half way if you're not interested in my thoughts.

Until, going to the bathrooms on the second floor alone**, I stepped into the elevator. It was filled with men who were all taller than me, and not wearing WisCon badges. They looked surprised and pleased as I got in. And I felt uneasy and self-conscious before I had time to think of why.

“Well, hey, now,” one guy murmured. “Hey there.”

“Yeah,” another chuckled.

“Second floor, please,” I said.

“Hey!” someone else said. “What’s going on on that floor?”

“Costume party.”

“Well, can we go?”

They laughed appreciatively. I said “No.” And I got out.

And that was it. They didn’t say anything foul, they certainly didn’t touch me, and it wasn’t even close to harassment by the standards of our society. So why was I shaky and scared and angry afterwards?

Two things:

1) At the costume ball, my clothing – fishnets, black leotard, blonde wig - was coded “superhero”. In the elevator, it was coded “stripper”.

2) Everyone is conditioned to assess women primarily by how sexually attractive and/or available they appear to be. Making that assessment clear is normal. Vocalizing that assessment is normal. Blaming women for others harassing or abusing them based on how attractive they are or what they were wearing at the time is normal.

If you’re gearing up to say something like “But nothing really bad happened!” or “Well, what did you expect?” or “Come on, weren’t you looking for attention?”, or “They were just being nice!”: don’t.

I know that those men almost certainly meant me no harm; they probably thought expressing a wish to follow me to a party was a compliment. It is entirely possible that none of them have ever imagined being in an enclosed space with a group of big strangers eyeing you up and asking if they can come with you could be a frightening experience. Our culture is set up so that they’ve never had to.

This and like incidents have happened to me, like many women, time and time again: strange men telling me to “smile!”; strange men shouting “Show us your tits!” as they drive past; strange men groping my breasts and ass in crowded train carriages.

(Women also buy into the patriarchal imperative to judge women primarily by their physical appearance, and that is also extremely unpleasant. However, as it is far less likely that women will follow such assessment with rape or other violent crime, it is generally much less threatening when a woman says, “You look like a whore.”)

If a woman doesn’t want to be viewed – for some weird reason - as a sex object, her choices are limited. She can be visibly angry or ignore harassment, in which case she is a FRIGID BITCH who can’t take a COMPLIMENT from NICE GUYS. Or she can be pleasant in an attempt to show them she’s actually a human being, in which case she may be ASKING FOR further “compliments” with her MIXED SIGNALS.

Or she can stay at home.
- Karen of Girls Read Comics (And They’re Pissed)

Now for my thoughts...err rant. Stop reading now if you suspect this might piss you off and you're not in the mood. :)

"I felt uneasy and self-conscious before I had time to think of why."

If you're uneasy and self-conscious why is that someone else's fault? I have been in this situation numerous times, and while being surrounded by a bunch of strange men can be somewhat intimidating, it doesn't have to be. Why not make it an empowering situation? At that moment they were admiring the woman walking into the elevator. She made a conscious choice to feel uneasy and nervous. She could have chosen to feel powerful and even beautiful.

Let's face it folks, we're animals. Animals are driven by instinct. Our instincts tell us to be attracted to someone or not. Men are easily attracted to a woman who appears to be fun, interesting, and yes clad in tight clothes. Remember that our ancestors didn't wear clothes. The body is a big turn on. Anyway, I digress.

Men (straight men) are hard wired to be attracted to women. It's just a biological fact. And thank goodness for it or there would be no people on this planet. It is this drive to reproduce (in conjunction with the natural nurturing qualities of women) that is responsible for the thriving human race. If we expect men to honor us for being what makes us women - bleeding, birthing, nursing, emotional-izing, multi-tasking, powerful women - then why shouldn't we honor them for what makes them men? Yes they are sex driven and yes most of them have the will power to control those desires. But they can't control the every-seven-minute sexual thoughts any more than we can control the blood that pours from our wombs.

Now, before I get the whip let me clarify that I do not believe women should should be seen or used as objects. But admiring a beautiful woman in an elevator is far from objectifying her.

I've been married to the same man for almost 11 years. In that time his libido has not slowed down for a second. For a long time I would get annoyed when he told me I was hot or that he thought I looked sexy. I thought that was his feeble attempt at getting into my pants. In a way, that's true, but at the same time this is how a lot of men know how to show interest, affection, and desire for their partner. In short it's a normal working of the human brain to want to be desired and to desire someone else.

My main point here: You can choose to feel powerful instead of weak. You can choose to be a gorgeous and confident woman who can wrap a man around her finger. Or you can choose to be a frightened little girl with confidence issues. There are thousands of women who would love to be shown a little (appropriate) attention by a bunch of men.

This leads me to another point.

"Everyone is conditioned to assess women primarily by how sexually attractive and/or available they appear to be."

No kidding. And women do the same thing with men. Are you going to go up and talk to the unattractive guy at the bar who looks like he might not have showered in a week or are you going to catch the eye of the hunky 6 foot guy with nice hair? Again, this is another biological instinct. We go for the people who appear to have the better genes or jeans. Physical attraction is huge. Imagine being in a relationship with a really nice guy who couldn't turn you on. One word: Hell.

American men could use some changing. This is very true. Mostly I think they should learn to be more cultured, less interested in football, and more vocal with their emotions without having their buddies question their sexuality. And absolutely many of them could learn to appreciate and honor women instead of objectifying them. Let's just keep things in perspective and remember that they are men - human - and they can't control their hormones any more than we can.

To close I am going to clarify a few things.

- There is a big difference between admiration and harassment.
- There is a big difference between attraction and objectification.
- There is a big difference between showing someone attention and raping them.
- There is a double standard for men that shouldn't be there. Men are Goddess too.
- There is a choice in everything.

Now bring on the flogging.

Labels: Feminism, Misc. Commentary, Misc. Mutterings, Op-ed

Discordia Comes Out to Play

Thursday, July 05, 2007

Before I begin I just want to clarify that these are my opinions and you are more than welcome to disagree with them. In fact, I encourage you to voice your own discord by using the comments link at the bottom of each post.

Now, on to the meat and potatoes of it...

I’m frustrated. I feel as though Wicca and the overall idea of doing spells and magic (with a k) has gotten out of hand and become just plain silly. I don’t think Pagans will ever be taken seriously if we don’t lose some of the Dungeons and Dragons type mentality that seems to infest our communities. I’m not saying playing D&D is a bad thing. In fact, it's a great social pastime. I am only saying that I believe that type of fantasy has no place in religion.

Spells were cool and exciting when I was a teenager. Now I consider them prayer with props. Why then don’t we just call it prayer or petitioning? At some point we may have to come to terms with not being able to "take back" all the terminology we use. When people hear the word "spell" along the same vein as religion they immediately think crazy. This is especially the case when there are a ton of role playing games utilizing the idea of our prayer system as a way to do battle with enemies. Harry Potter has added fuel to that fire as well.

I’ve met people who believe in dragons, fairies, gnomes, bigfoot, etc. When I speak with them for the first time I have to fight to keep a straight face. Actually, what I want to say is "Go sell crazy to the Fundies. They're always looking for more and we have all we can handle here."

I think there is a certain amount of hypocrisy at work in the D&D minded Pagan crowd too. For example, I have heard more than one of them say that the Bible is archaic and its ideas ridiculous. They speak of how it is impossible to part the red sea or turn water to wine, etc. Okay. Then why in the world would you believe in mythological creatures?

Reality sucks sometimes. I get that and I’m totally on board with having a healthy fantasy life. But at some point in your life you have to face reality. I would prefer that my religion be firmly rooted in the real world so that I'm fully prepared when reality rears its ugly head.

Children should be able to maintain a belief in fantasy. I would never want to rob my child of the magic of Santa or the idea that there are little beings that watch over her. One day I can explain to her that these are metaphors that represent wonderful aspects of nature and the Goddess.

Look, I really want to believe unicorns are real. I still turn to look at every apple orchard I pass in the hopes that somewhere within the mists there will be a gorgeous, one-horned white horse with a mane that ripples in the wind. I want to believe. But I have yet to see a unicorn whinny at the moon and I have yet to speak with a faerie.

On the other hand I have taken in the scent of the summer breeze on my face, felt the heat of fire on my skin, held the earth in my hands, and drunk deep of the purity of water. I have witnessed the changing seasons and watched the moon wax and wane. I have felt the rhythms of the Earth within me and noticed my connection to all things. Nature is real. Nature I can touch, see, taste, smell, hear, feel, and sense.

To sum up, I am not saying we should not hold on to the hope that some of these things can exist – at least in some other realm, the astral, or whatever. I am simply saying that there should be more reality rooted in our religious practices. If one more person asks me if I can feel the trapped spirit in their (insert mundane object here) I may just have to let the giggles escape.

In my opinion, superstition and ideas originating in fantasy have not been something the human race typically deals well with. Those ideas usually come to an end with someone getting burned at the stake.

Labels: Misc. Mutterings, Op-ed, Wicca is Silly

Jesus Camp

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Jesus Camp showed up via Netflix to my doorstep yesterday. I honestly had not heard much about the movie, but I was eager to pop it into the Xbox and watch.

I was prepared to get annoyed, maybe even a little angry. I often find myself watching channels on "Jesus Row" (and I use that term affectionately). I'm not sure exactly why I do this. It could be that I have an unconscious need to torture myself. But no, I think it has something to do with staying informed and keeping myself thinking. So, I was no stranger to the normal annoyed state that evangelism usually puts me in. I was, however, not at all prepared for the sick show of emotionally abused children that populates Jesus Camp.

I literally was brought to tears at a few points in the film. Not because I was filled with joy, but because I felt so completely terrible for these children. I recall one little girl who said she was not allowed to dance for anyone but god and that she often had to stop herself from "dancing for the flesh". I couldn't believe my ears. My heart broke for her. I couldn't imagine being a child and feeling guilty for dancing barefoot with sheer innocent abandon in summer-scented grass. That, in my eyes, would be a real abomination. And that poor little girl has to live with that guilt every day.

The children in the film were repeatedly told that they were the chosen warriors of god. The pastor in charge of this child abuse, Becky Fischer, was seen screaming "This means war" at the top of her lungs. I think she needs to be put in a straight jacket and dragged far away from the children she claims to be "using". Those were her words.

After watching the film I found another Pagan blogger's comments on it. Check out Blog o' Gnosis for more, including links to the various personalities seen in the movie.

I am genuinely horrified beyond belief. You should check it out for yourself because no amount of words could justly explain the horror. You'll just have to witness it with your own eyes.

Labels: Misc. Commentary, Op-ed

Religion Taught in Schools

Sunday, March 11, 2007

In response to Newsweek's On Faith question: Should teaching about religion be mandatory in public schools? In colleges and universities?

Click the linked title of this post to read the responses of others, including Starhawk.

I have a serious problem with my child being taught religion by other people. I believe that everyone has the right to believe in and practice whatever they choose so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. In saying that, I believe I have the right to keep my child from being exposed to those religions that I don't believe in or disagree with.

I know a lot of Pagans these days who say things like: "I don't have a problem with Christianity. It's the people who push it on me that I don't like." I can echo those sentiments, but at the same time I am honestly going to come clean and say that I have a problem with the religion itself. And I'll tell you why...

What are some of the things Christianity preaches?

Original Sin: I don't even want my kid to hear of this idea until she is old enough and not quite so impressionable. Are you kidding me? This idea teaches that people are inherently bad - evil even. Take a child and tell them are evil every day. Eventually they will believe you and start living by that label. They may even decide to use it as an excuse to do harm. They believe they're evil after all. Why would they think twice about committing evil acts?

Original Sin Stems From Woman: Oh Eve. Bless her for wanting to know the truth. Eve is a prime example of what the Biblical stories do to people who pose questions and look for answers in places that "god" finds less than desirable. They demonize them and make them the originators of the sins of all humankind. Women who are surrounded by these archaic concepts are still trying to break free of them. This led to the ideas that birth, breast feeding, menstruation, and female sexuality are dirty and bad. In reality all of these are natural and sacred. This even leads to men feeling guilty for being sexually attracted to women because women and "sins of the flesh" will cause their downfall into damnation. Viola, we've now sexually repressed the entire human race into being Puritans.

God Should be Feared/The Concept of Hell/Non-believes Will Suffer Eternal Damnation: I think we can all agree that a society based on fear causes little more than an advance in consumerism and panic. No thanks.

"Man" Has Dominion Over the Earth: Uh. What? We own the Earth? What makes us so special? We can see where this has led with the effects of pollution, global warming, endangered species, the rainforest, etc, etc, etc.

So, I don't have a problem with Christians (at least the non-evangelical ones). I have a problem with the ideas that they are led to believe are truth and the consequent effects that have wrought destruction, guilt, fear, misogyny, etc. all over our world. (The ideas that make people believe they are evil for being human.) But, I still believe they have the right to believe what they choose and I admire those that keep faith within them, honoring the loving aspects of their religion and their god. The problem is, I expect the same from them and their "god" doesn't permit it.

Labels: Misc. Commentary, Op-ed, Writings

Women's Spirituality?

Monday, January 15, 2007

*Slight Rant Warning*

I was thrilled to see that there was a Goddess Temple operating in Orange County, California. I couldn't wait to head over to the website and check it out, but when I got there I was more than disappointed. Please visit the following link: http://www.goddesstempleoforangecounty.com and read through the site - specifically the beliefs page before reading my comments below.

Women's Spirituality? Where is the inclusiveness of the Goddess? The Goddess teaches connection not separation. Why is Goddess religion assumed to be for women only? The Goddess does not love her female children more than her male - or her four legged more than her two legged. Calling Goddess Religion Women's Spirituality or Feminist Spirituality is not only a misnomer, it also creates uneeded and unwanted separation.

We can not change the world by only exalting half of it. How can we create change throughout the entire human race by replacing male dominated religion with female dominated religion? The difference between Goddess Religion and those of Abrahamic descent are so vast that at some point the gender issues are no longer relevant. Just to sum up, one is based on fear and separation and the other is based on love and oneness. Huge difference!

I understand the need for women to come together and heal. I truly do. But men need that same opportunity under the Goddess. Men need to be able to find freedom from Christianity and Patriarchal institutions as well. If they don't what we'll continue to have in this country is a bunch of idiots who do nothing but grow fatter and watch football while calling each other gay for having emotions. There needs to be a new standard for the American male. The Goddess can create change for men too. Spiritual development should be more important than SuperBowl Sunday.

The Goddess is the center of the first religion of humankind. Period. Not womankind. Not mankind. Humankind. It's time we wake up.

Labels: Goddess, Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Goddess Temples in Every Town

Sunday, January 14, 2007

From the post Looking Back, Looking Forward at Medusa Coils:

"At the turn of the millennium, Abby Willowroot encouraged people to create Goddess statues and art in what she called "Goddess 2000 Project", whose aim was "A Goddess on Every Block!" Now that we are well into this millennium, I'd like to state another goal - a Goddess temple in every town!

I believe Goddess temples will bring us increased visibility and stability, lessen the perception of us as an unimportant or fringe group (or groups), and enable people to see contemporary Goddess religion(s) as a legitimate spiritual path. This, in turn, will help us reach other goals, such as having our research, scholarship, and writings published more easily, having our findings accepted in academic circles, and having Goddessian representatives included in "interfaith" programs and gatherings."

I have spoken on my desire to foster organization in Goddess Religion on a few occasions here at Panthea. It is no secret that I would build a temple in every town in a heart beat if the funds were available. But how can we meet this goal? How can we afford to build these temples if we can not yet organize ourselves? If I won the lottery the first thing I would do would be to purchase some land and build a nice neo-classic, round temple with the words "Temple of the Goddess" in bold letters on a sign out front. But, since the lotto isn't exactly a reliable source of income, where do you suppose we could come up with that kind of capital? Are there any rich philanthropist Goddessians out there? Anyone?

Labels: Goddess, Modern Paganism, Op-ed

A Triple Goddess Debate

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

The essay, The Great and Sovereign Mother Goddess by Robin Artisson, had me nodding my head on many occasions. One specific point that I agreed upon was made with the statement:

"India makes a good place to look for traditions of Goddess Worship..."

Absolutely. Here we have a surviving tradition of the Goddess. It is however not found in its original form and has still been subjected, in part, to the "savage suppression" spoken of in the later part of the statement.

Another good point from the essay:

"Despite the very politically motivated over-simplifications that have been worked into the field of Goddess studies by radical feminists..."

I couldn't agree more. The Goddess is an equal opportunity mother. She doesn't love her female children more than her male ones or vice versa. Many aspects of her mysteries can be seen through the female body, but that does not automatically exalt women over men. It is about equality and respect and nothing more. I refuse to allow my religion to be a fading movement which serves someone else's political agendas.

"I do not believe in the so-called 'triple goddess' of modern mainstream neo-paganism."

"...I do not believe in the wiccan 'triple goddess'."

Robin feels strongly enough about the above statement to say it twice. It just so happens that it is probably the one point that I had the most conflict with. Within the essay itself are the following words.

"Alongside this virginal, pure and boundless condition..."

"...She has been approached as Earth Mother... and as a Goddess of the Underworld or a Fate-Weaver."

In the above statements the Goddess is demonstrated as being triplicate as in Maiden, Mother, and Crone which Robin says is a "modern construct" despite the "great religious truth that many of the Goddesses [he] worship[s] historically appear in triple form."

"...I do believe in the Goddess of Sovereignty, and in her triple force of power."

I'm confused. So I call the Goddess Maiden, Mother, Crone, and All Goddess and Robin calls her the Goddess of Sovereignty who has a triple power. What is the difference? I think we're talking about the same thing here.

Is it possible that Robert Graves coined the terms Maiden, Mother, Crone because it was a common way of seeing the Goddess: youthful, motherly, and aging? He didn't make up the myths of the Goddess which demonstrate these triplicate aspects. He simply classified her aspects into simple English. I'm not even sure Graves can take all the credit for it actually. These ideas have been around for millennia. It seems unlikely that one man could put into words what has always been. Or perhaps for him it was a moment of intuition and remembrance of the Great Goddess of ancient times. Either way, does it really matter? It appears that we believe in the same thing, but call it two (kind of) different things.

So, this leaves the Triple Goddess as a historical manifestation seen through the eyes of the myth writers and readers - the interpreters of the worship of our Ancient Mother. The Goddess in triplicate is not a new concept, nor is it solely a Wiccan one.

I admire Robin's writing ability and thoughtful approach. I hope to be given the opportunity to have conversations and debate with him in the future.

Labels: Goddess, Misc. Commentary, Modern Paganism, Op-ed

More on Darkness

Thursday, January 04, 2007

I've been thinking more on the concept of Darkness and the Goddess. In reading the comments I exchanged with Athana I get the impression that there are some people who can not reconcile anything dark or violent with the Goddess. The more I think about it the more it seems that it is often just easier to blame all of those uglier parts of life on patriarchal society. Now, don't get me wrong. Some of it we can blame on patriarchy, but certainly not all of it.

Nature is the guide. We don't have a bible to call holy writ. Instead we have Nature and our interpretations of its lessons. Violence and brutality are part of Nature. Little animals get abused and eaten by bigger ones. Life suffers in the harsh conditions of winter and creatures starve or freeze to death. This is all a part of life.

If animals contain the possibility for brutality without societal influence, why would human beings not carry this trait inherently as well?

If Nature shows us that harsh, brutal conditions for life are not only possible but consistent, why should we believe that the Goddess herself does not carry some kind of darker attributes being that she is Nature and all things are one?

I want to specify that I believe the Goddess does not punish or act out of anger. She simply is. Life must be taken for other lives to continue or for new lives to begin. This is just the way of things. Perhaps this is the way it began - the way it was intended - and with the influx of patriarchy, things became imbalanced and murder and war is where it has lead. I don't know for sure, but I know the Goddess is light/life and dark/death because Nature demonstrates this concept. And since we are the Goddess in the theory of Oneness then we have these traits as well. I think the task is to learn how to balance them out not abolish the darkness all together.

In fact, I believe "darkness" - again, for lack of a better term - is normal and healthy. Darkness can also bring clarity, where you actually learn to see the light. Darkness is the source of all things, the mystical realm of re-birth, and the vehicle through which wisdom comes to the surface.

Wouldn't it be easier if things we just black and white? Nah.

Labels: Goddess, Op-ed

Warrior Goddess? Dark Goddess?

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Athana at Radical Goddess Thealogy brought up the topic of Warrior Goddesses the other day and I, of course, had to post some comments.

Click here to read the original post then read below to see mine and Athana's comments. As always, I would love to know what you think.

Grian said...

I agree that we are not after female dominance. The Goddess does not want to create yet more separation. What I have a hard time with is the "there are no warrior goddesses" statement.

In my tradition the Goddess is revered as a three-fold deity. The Warrior is not one of those aspects because it is believed that the Warrior as well as the Lover are ever present throughout all other stages.

I don't think Warrior has to mean "war-mongering". It can mean destructive though. I think there is some balance lost when we forget that the Goddess is not only creating but also destroying. She is loving and also harsh - not out of animosity but out of necessity.

You can not know light without first knowing darkness and vice versa.

Just my two cents. I'd love to compare beliefs.

Athana said...

Grian, Hm. I agree with you that destruction, death and misfortune are all part of human life, and have been since the beginning. And I can't tell you that I've figured out exactly how this fits in with Goddess. I think though that "bad stuff" comes in part from the Mother, who feels an overwhelming need to protect Her children. At the moment I'm reading the book Nisa, about a Kung Bushwoman in the Kalahari Desert, southern Africa. This is a hunting and gathering society - or was when Nisa was a child. Anyway, if a Kung woman has a baby too soon after her previous baby, she doesn't have enough milk to feed both babies, and one is going to have to die. So the mother usually kills the newborn immediately after its birth. In a Goddess theaology, could we explain bad things as a result of a Mother trying to protect her children?

One problem I see with the warrior as a symbol of "bad stuff" is that war is an aberration that's been with us humans for only the past 6000 years out of the 100,000 we've existed on this planet. I'm not sure we want to use it as a symbol in the healthy religion we want to have for our species.

Grian said...

Athana,

Perhaps I immediately equate the Warrior aspect with Darkness - as in the Dark aspects of the Goddess.

Yes, I do think that destruction can come from the desire to protect. I don't know if you have children, but the thought of someone causing harm to my daughter can make me contemplate violent actions.

I think the "darkness" - for lack of a better term - is not only necessary and natural, but can be a positive force if it is understood and integrated into self. This is a very common theme in many forms of spirituality - stemming directly from the earliest Shamanic Goddess societies.

Labels: Goddess, Op-ed

Should or Would Pagans Proselytize?

In the most recent issue of PanGaia Magazine (#45) the question of Pagans proselytizing was raised.

Barbara Ardinger, Ph.D. had this to say:

"Why on Earth should Pagans proselytize? Let the Witnesses who have experience do it. If you want other religions to leave us alone, we should return the favor. Let us all live in peace together."

Well Barbara, my response to that is simple. If people think that Christianity is the only option, and believe the things they are told, our society will only continue to crumble under our feet and the Earth will have no option but to swallow the entire human race whole.

Think I'm being dramatic? Consider the idea of "Original Sin" or the "All People Are Sinners in the Eyes of God" model.

If you tell a child they are evil enough times they will begin to believe it and may even begin to use it as an excuse for their actions. When they behave badly or hurt another person the response might be "What did you expect? I am inherently evil after all." Or maybe the pious person will see the "inherent evil" in another person and use that as an excuse to punish or destroy them. (Re: Original sin, Way of the Master, Tim LaHaye.)

And that's just one issue. Throw in the concepts of:

- justified war in the name of god
- women being submissive to their men
- people being better than all other living creatures
- people being seperate from divinity
- people lording over nature

All of these ideas have a way of infesting the human psyche on a damaging level and thus contributing poorly to our society as a whole.

proselytize: to attempt to convert another person to your beliefs.
www.religioustolerance.org/gl_p.htm

Okay, so we've established that proselytizing is the practice of trying to convert another to your way of thinking. Evangelical Christians do this through way of curb-side sermons and preaching about hellfire and brimstone. Is that the way Pagans would handle it? I think we need to realize that when Pagans do something they do it the Pagan way not the Christian way.

I understand that there are a lot of people out there who are concerned that Paganism is going to go the way of more mainstream beliefs - insomuch in the way that Paganism may begin to contain corruption and power struggles based on greed. That's a scary prospect, but again, we do things the Pagan way - a different way, and I dare say a better way. Our ways are based on ancient beliefs from a time of peace; a time before war was commonplace and a time when all things were realized as one.

Just because we form a church (and call it a church) does not mean that it will be a place where people feel they have to go out of fear of damnation. No one will stand on the pulpit every Sunday and tell you how evil you are. That is not the Pagan way. We must begin to re-imagine a new way of organization, of sharing what we have learned with others freely without fear.

So, if Pagans shared their beliefs with other people it wouldn't have to be hard-core evangelical proselytizing. It could simply be a sharing of beliefs - an advertising of faith without shame.

Before too many hairs stand up on the backs of reader's necks, let me specify that I do not feel there should be roving gangs of Pagans setting up shop on street corners, holding sandwich signs, and preaching about the End Times. When I say advertising I mean sharing events, classes, temples/churches on community bulletin boards, fliers, websites, etc.

Did the Buddha proselytize when he shared the intuitive lessons he had learned to those who chose to sit and listen to him? Do you even equate the concept of evangelism to Buddhism? I don't think so. So, why would Pagans - whom are intrinsically mystical like Buddhists - be any different?

Do you honestly believe Pagans would come anywhere near Christians in this area? Instead of "All sinners will burn in the fire pits of Hell" what would we yell? "Your Karma will suck if you're mean?" Seriously. There is no comparison. We're talking apples and oranges here folks.

I believe being able to share our knowledge without crossing the threshold of the "scary" brand of proselytizing is a step on the road to finding solutions to the questions of organization and standards for legal Pagan clergy. What do you think?

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

The Goddess as Cheesecake?

Monday, December 18, 2006

Ah... well hello there. As I'm sure you've all noticed I've been rather uninspired as of late and finding myself hard pressed to type a single blogworthy word. Maybe it's all those Solstice cookies bringing out the sloth in me. Mmm... frosted cutouts and peanut butter kiss cookies. Or maybe all that present wrapping is giving me carpal tunnel. Maybe I'm just feeling quiet at this special time of year. Whatever the cause I was tickled out of my Yule-tide coma this morning by a cheeky article about an equally cheeky book by the British "Authors Benrik".

While the article and the authors are having some fun, I found a bit of seriousness to ponder. From the article: "Part of the problem is that a single God is too remote. Omniscience notwithstanding, we stand little chance of catching his eye, let alone interacting with him in any useful way."

Interesting comment. I don't think having one god is the problem. The conflict lies more in the concept of being separate from that god. The business of being "too remote" and whatnot can cause that disconnected, discontented feeling that is bound to come when people suppose that god is somehow outside of themselves. I think the Goddess teaches very different lessons.

The Goddess teaches that we are Her, that we are all one, and that we can connect to Her at any time without the need of an intermediary. Hmm... imagine that. Having a single deity doesn't seem so bad after all. Add to that all the interesting and inspiring manifestations of deity to learn from and you've got yourself one beautiful monotheistic, multi-layered, super-filling cheesecake. I say pop the button on your jeans and take another bite.

Labels: Goddess, Op-ed

Killing the Infidels One Pixel at a Time

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Tim LaHaye is the author of the Left Behind series of books about the End Times. Apparently he's decided to start targeting America's youngsters with a new video game all about destroying the forces of evil - i.e anyone who isn't a fanatical, evangelical Xtian. Go here for more on this: http://www.leftbehind.com. Then you can click the title of this post to sign a petition to get this video game removed from Wal-Mart. Too bad I also saw it at Best Buy the other day.

If you feel like upping your heart rate and making your palms sweat, while trying to hold in the urge to scream at the television, you can watch Tim LaHaye featured on the Biography Channel on December 18th.

Tim Exchanges Xmas Gifts with "The Big Guy"

Tim LaHaye: Happy Birthday Jesus. I hope you like your gift. It's the Left Behind: Eternal Forces video game where people actually get killed for not believing in you. Isn't that awesome?

Jesus: Um... well Tim, I've already told you how disturbing I found the ideas in your series of books. I don't think I really want to play this game.

TL: Oh come on Jesus. It'll be fun. We can kill all the Catholics, Muslims, and Pagans. Whoever you want.

J: Yeah, you see... that's sort of the problem Tim. I tried to teach people to get along. You know, the whole "love-your-neighbor-thing".

TL: Neighbor-schmeighbor. This is more fun. Plus, I'm making a ton of money off of the American public.

J: Hmm... it's seems you've become the head thief in the den.

TL: Huh?

J: Mark 11:15.

TL: What?

J: Dude, have you even read the Bible? What you should've started this conversation with was "Happy Birthday Jesus. I hope you like crap".

Labels: Misc. News, Op-ed

Peace Signs are Bad and Don't Say Merry Christmas

Monday, November 27, 2006

Seriously, have we become so bored that the only thing we have to worry about is what kinds of symbols people put on their holiday wreaths? Is the peace sign really a bad thing? The last time I checked peace was a good concept. It's not just for hippies anymore. Wait. I want that written on a shirt. "Peace. It's Not Just For Hippies Anymore." Read the article that spawned that bit of genius here: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10399793/detail.html Thanks to Wren at Witchvox for telling us all about it and the many other articles she tirelessly notifies the Pagan public of.

My other question today is: Does hearing the words "Merry Christmas" really offend anyone? I don't care if you're an atheist because let's face it, the religion has really gone out of the Holidays in this country. At least it has in my part of it. It's all about family, Santa, and spreading cheer. Oh, and don't forget the PEACE on Earth part. Overall I think these are pretty good things to focus on. Now, if we could just get the commercialism part to slow down.

Anyway, my point is when someone says "Merry Christmas" this season just go with it. There are people starving and dying all over the planet. This little bit of life is simply irrelevant. Spend some time thinking about how you can help the world as opposed to causing more strife within it. There's a time to stand by your principles and a time to just let it go. Let this one go.

These are my thoughts. What do you think?

note: Tee-shirt is a proto-type created after the first publication of this article. I just couldn't help myself.

Labels: Misc. News, Op-ed

Atheists and Whether God/dess Exists or Thoughts that Catholic Priests and Christian Ministers Secretly Think About

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

This morning over my morning tea I found myself reading a three page spread in the web edition of the New York Times about Richard Dawkins new book, The God Delusion. What follows is a sort of mental diarrhea that will most likely make little sense and cause you a headache.

Genocidal Atheists

Dawkins takes every available opportunity to state how evil religion is. He goes so far as to say he suspects "there are very few atheists in prison." He provides no statistics or other evidence for this claim. The author also rationalizes that though Hitler and Stalin were both atheists, that their lack of religion was not a factor in driving their brutality.

Hmm... this statement seems ridiculous to me. Let me just put myself in the shoes of someone who has lost the belief in God and harbors hate towards other people.

If I wanted to destroy a lot of people the idea of there being no Creator would suit that - maybe even justify it in the mind of a delusional, insane person. Hell, it may even lead to the insanity in the first place. Without a god to see and judge your actions you may think you can take all sorts of liberty with human life. Why bother holding back your murderous impulses if no one will punish you for it? Now, I don't believe in the whole punishment thing in the traditional sense. I believe in Karma - which can be a real bitch for those folks who get off on hurting others.

Also, if I had spent my entire life believing in something, even devoting myself to it as in Stalin's case (a onetime Orthodox seminarian), I would be pretty pissed off to one day figure out that I had been lied to and had wasted my time on something fictional.

Are you there God?

I've been there, you know. I've been in that spot in the brain that causes doubt in all things not physical. I've been "Little Miss Doubty-Pants" and "The Queen of Rational Thought" before. If you asked me to explain how I got over it, I couldn't tell you. I'm not sure I ever closed the door on those thoughts, but I still believe in something greater. I don't care if it makes me a sheep in the eyes of Atheists, Secular Humanists, or Bob the grocery store clerk.

One day I thought to myself, "What if when we die we just break down into the planet and there is no consciousness?" That's the single most terrifying thought my brain has ever come up with. I can't say that I have completely reconciled this idea within myself. It still creeps in there every now and again when I least expect it, but I don't obsess over it.

One of the things I keep coming back to is the reality of cyclical transformation. Nothing is ever created or destroyed. All things simply change from one thing to another. All that exists now has always existed. This means that everything is God/dess if God/dess is the source. But, into what form do we get to be transformed? Is it as biodegradable waste or a spiritual, consciousness-having entity?

If the soul exists than it can not cease to exist. So, I guess the question is - how do we prove the human soul exists? Does it live in the brain? Does it die when the body dies? Is the brain the source of consciousness?

I believe in the Goddess and Nature. I don't know the answers, despite how many times I've tried to manifest them in my cerebral cortex. I only have faith and personal truth. That's just going to have to be enough. Will it matter if I'm wrong?

Labels: Misc. Commentary, Misc. News, Op-ed

Religion for Rent: Atheism

Monday, October 23, 2006

I've seen more than one article on the growth of Atheism lately. I've even listened to an entire series of Podcasts about a woman who was Wicca for 20 years and woke up one day to decide she was an atheist/humanist. Strangely, she says things like "The answers are within us". I had to stop myself from emailing her and asking how she had been Wiccan for 20 years without figuring that one out. I mean, has she even read the Charge of the Goddess? Besides the point, I've had similar experiences of questioning my faith and I know there are plenty of people who could echo the same.

Maybe this is evidence that the books on our shelves and the often vapid ways our communities can practice is wearing on us. It's time to go deeper into our religion(s) and find meaning that resonates without being too dogmatic.

Honestly, are any of you farmers? Sure some of us have our hobby gardens, but does your life and livelihood depend on whether or not the harvest is good? Not likely. I think farmers make up like 1% of the American population. Don't quote me on that though. My point is, what do the practices of an agricultural people have to do with modern, grocery store consumers? Has Wicca really ever made it out the 1800's? Rather, was Wicca intended to make it out of an antiquated mind-set when it was created by Gardner in the 50's?

Most of what I see from atheists is a backlash of Judeo/Christian religions - mostly people who feel the dominance of those religions in this country is detrimental. With books like The God Delusion and The End of Faith hitting the shelves, Atheism seems to be making a run for the top of the religion (or anti-religion) food chain. What could this mean for Pagans? What could this mean for religion in general in this country? Would your rather live in a world with some religion (even if it was not your own) or no religion at all?

Labels: Misc. Commentary, Misc. News, Op-ed

Pagan Kids and Public Schools

Thursday, October 19, 2006

I woke up this morning thinking about the amount of information springing up about raising Pagan children. With the exception of different religious practices in the home, I don't see a difference between raising Pagan children and children of any other denomination.

I suppose some people have an issue with public schools and the worry of other religions being pushed on their children. Perhaps that is why so many Pagan parents decide to home school. In my opinion, home schooling can lead to a lack of social abilities and an overall stigma towards mainstream society. This could lead to all sorts of prejudices and problems in adulthood as people are forced to interact and function in a society that they were raised to be separate from.

In today's secular school system I don't see a problem sending my child to a public school. I am more worried about her being injured or shot at then being converted. I understand that there may be some areas in the country that are not so liberal, (and that everywhere you go in the Bible Belt is invariably laced with Christian overtones) but are we really raising our children with such weak beliefs that we have to shelter them from the beliefs of others in fear that the may be "tainted"?

Honestly, is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance really the deciding factor in what your religion is? Would anyone even notice if your child said "Goddess" instead of "God". Will it hurt anyone if children organize prayer circles? As long as the adults are staying out of it, and no one is being forced to participate or shunned for not participating, I could care less.

If a child celebrates with a Christmas party at school will they come home a Born-Again? I don't think so – not if you've done your job of giving your child a good background in your own faith. Isn't it better to explain that Christmas is what we call Solstice and point out all of the Pagan symbols and traditions still within the holiday? Ultimately, when your child is grown they will make their own choice about religion. You may as well educate them about multiple faiths in the best you can for now so that their choices will be informed ones.

We are the minority in this country, and as such, (at this time) we have to live in a society dominated by another belief system. No amount of sheltering or separating is going to change that. I believe the Goddess teaches Oneness not separation. In my opinion it is better to learn how to co-exist with those who are different than be taught to stay away from them altogether.

I honor parents who choose to homeschool. It is a serious amount of work for anyone to undertake. It may be right for others, but not for me and my family. I felt the need to express why that is the case for us. These are my opinions only. If you have differing ones please share them in the comments.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Should Pagans Be Vegetarians?

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

I have heard some folks say that Pagans should be vegetarians since we claim to honor all life. Most of these statements have come directly from Vegetarian Pagans. Honoring life does not mean that we can't or shouldn't consume the meat of animals.

I don't believe in animal cruelty and go out of my way and above my budget to buy animal products that are more respectful to the animal in question - such as cage free eggs and free range chicken. While I respect the Vegetarian life style I do not believe that it is a necessary choice in the eyes of the Goddess.

The religion of the Goddess is one of nature. In nature there is something called the food chain. Big animals eat little ones all the time. We are just fortunate enough to have the ability to be grateful for our food and respect the animal that it came from. This is more than the other creatures in the natural world can say. On the flip side we also have the ability to feel guilty about consuming another beings life, but I personally don't think it's a necessary emotion.

Nature (the only real bible the human race possesses) tells us that we need meat. We have big molars for shredding meat, and canines (passed down by our ape ancestors who also supplement their diets with meat) which we use to tear chicken from the drumstick. Our bodies require amino acids - some of which we can only find in meat.

Now, in saying all of those things I would like to specify that I do not believe we need to eat as much meat as we do in this country. It has been proven that all we really need is a portion the size of the palm of our hand once to twice a week. Cutting down on our consumption of meat, specifically cattle, can help save acres of forest a year. If there is less of a demand for meat products then there will not be a need for so many cows or the grazing lands creating by destroying forests.

So, human beings need meat, and as a person practicing a religion based on nature I see no problem with this. I do however see a problem with disrespect for the animals and inhumane treatment.

We're natural hunters so I don't mind hunting just as long as the animal is eaten and there are no trophies kept for the purpose of ego. That just makes me ill and seems like an act of complete disregard for the respect of the animal.

Below I have written a little Goddess prayer for meal times in order to show the reverence for life and the respect for the sacrifice of the animal.

Goddess, we thank you for the sacrifice of your plant and animal children whose lives were taken to provide us with this meal. We honor their spirits and will forever carry a piece of their memory within us. In reverence of life we feed our bodies and accept your blessings. So mote it be.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Goddess Religion not Feminist Agenda

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

The sun is setting and the fires are being lit as they were in ancient times. People all over the world have gathered to celebrate. They celebrate life, love, and the divine within themselves and each other. They reach towards the sky, open their palms in praise to the Goddess, and begin the sacred chant. Men and women, young and old, lock hands and begin to dance in honor of the Great Mother of all life.

The above scenario may never get a chance to become a reality. The current statistics in Pagan communities in regards to gender is aprox. 3 women for every 1 man.

While I subscribe to many feminist ideas, and I honestly believe that being born female makes one a feminist by default, I abhor the idea that Goddess Religion is a cleverly designed ruse created to perpetuate a feminist agenda (political or otherwise). I also detest labeling the Religion of the Goddess as "feminist spirituality". In my opinion it is not a good label to give to a religion whose ideas we hope to promote to both men and women. You can not create change among an entire society by only convincing half of it.

Before I continue I want to specify that I am not looking to actively convert people. I do not believe that is the way of the Goddess. I do, however, believe that Goddess Religion can have a beneficial effect on our society as a whole. Both men and women can benefit from a more balanced concept of deity. I can already hear people asking how going from Patriarchy to Matriarchy is balanced. Simple. The Goddess does not preach original sin or convince people to feel guilty for being perfectly imperfect human beings. She is existent in men, women, animals, fish, birds, plants, all of creation. Patriarchal relgions, at least those of the Abrahamic variety, have rather opposite ideas. Now, back on topic...

I have run across more than one person's opinion regarding Goddess Religion that eludes to the fact that every woman who practices it is a lesbian and/or a femi-nazi. (I absolutely hate that slur.) I am not simply talking about the opinions spewed by fundamentalists. These are everyday people that assume I must be a militant man-hater to believe God could be anything other than male. (This is certainly not to say that all feminists and lesbians are man-haters.)

They don't care about the historical and archeological evidence that support Goddess Religion in the past. And forget the evolutionary science that supports the male as the secondary sex or the plain medical fact that every human being begins as female in their mother's womb. No, all they hear is that I am a lesbian and a radical feminist who hates men (despite the fact that I married one).

I believe it is high time Goddess Religion broke free of the feminist mold and started working its way into the mainstream full time. That will never happen until we start making it more universal. It is an all encompassing religion that does not privilege one group of people over another, regardless of their gender.

One of the main differences between Goddess Religion and Patriarchal religions is that the Goddess loves all life as a good, natural mother loves her children. She does not love her daughters more than she loves her sons. For that matter, she does not love her canine children more than her feline ones. This is a pivotal difference that can change the way the entire human race perceives divinity and life on this planet in general.

I am all for feminism I just don't think it should be the defining factor of a religion that should (and does) encompass all of creation and all genders. I am all for lesbianism because I am all for love, but I don't think specific sexuality should be a defining factor of religion either.

Honestly I could care less if some random stranger thinks that I am a lesbian. I would not be ashamed of the fact if I was. But it's not about me. It's about the hope of what the future can hold.

Topics on Goddesses and Goddess Religion can be found for study in universities across the country. This is great, but why limit these topics to the Women Studies department? Why create more seperation between the sexes when we should be realizing the oneness we all share?

Hopefully I won't get flogged for my opinions. I am always open to conversation and hope that those of you who read this will have an open mind and approach this topic with the utmost respect and maturity. Regardless of any eventual floggings, I stand by my position while remaining open to other opinions.

Labels: Goddess, Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Not Enough Indians

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

How can we retain our individual identities while compromising towards the goal of organization? For lack of another model for comparison I will use my own group as an example.

We all have a singular identity simply by being members of the same group. The group has certain things that make it cohesive and whole. There are certain aspects that we must all conform to. We share a belief in the same deity concepts and assign the Goddess as our primary deity. We identify with a singular culture and utilize the myths and traditions of this culture in our workings.

That being said each individual in the group is encouraged to explore their own spiritual identity in a solitary form. In fact, this is an integral part of our training process. It is mandatory for a pending initiate to complete a "term paper" on their personal path. It may mirror the path of the entire group, but they still have to do it. It is not only a way for the group to learn about other forms of spirituality, but it fills a need for the individual to remain individual. The pending initiate is then asked to present their path to the entire group, explaining the details and answering any questions. It's a wonderful forum for conversation and learning.

So, I am left wondering why this can't work on a larger scale.

I'm a mother. Does that mean I have to be like every other mother? I'm an artist. Does that mean I have to be like every other artist? I'm a Pagan. Does that mean I have to be like every other Pagan?

There are a million and one ways to define someone, yet there are a million and one ways to define those definitions even further. I don't think the box people are trying to fit themselves into has to be so small. You can be part of a whole and still be a unique individual.

Maybe the key word here is compromise. Paganism seems to have the "too many chiefs" syndrome. Everyone wants to be the director in a play without any actors or stage crew.

I know I'm beating this topic to death. I will try to focus on something else in my next post.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

To Organize or Not to Organize

Monday, September 18, 2006

The latest post at The Wild Hunt Blog has me thinking about organization within Paganism yet again. It seems that some UU members are having difficulties with Pagans making up a part of their congregations.

The fact that Pagans are attending UU churches to begin with is a sign that says (at least to me) that there are some Pagans out there who crave a little organization and structure. Perhaps it's even a telling sign that they are looking for some kind of standards in their teachers and leaders.

I have always been a fan of the idea of organization in Paganism but I am still at a loss as to how to accomplish it. You never can please everyone, but I think there is a genuine need and would like to brainstorm a little bit on how that need can be fulfilled.

So, what would be the first steps to organizing Paganism? Would the standards in training or the legal churches come first? If the churches come first who is to say that the people leading them are qualified to do so? Almost anyone can incorporate a church (if you have the means and the funds) but how will we know that they are qualified? How would our clergy system run? Will there be a degree system in place? Will the clergy be full-time and paid? Who will pay for the bills at the church and the living expenses for the clergy? Should dues be paid by members of the congregation?

And then there is the pressing issue of many Pagans protesting organization. The main argument I hear is something similar to:

"I left Christianity to escape churches and hypocrisy. Why would I want to create something like that within the religion that freed me from it?"

While I believe that this is a valid statement I honestly don't see how it's relevant. Let me explain. No one will be forcing Pagans to attend church. No one will be pushing organization on anyone. That kind of behavior would be considered proselytizing in my book and we Pagans just don't do that - or at least we're not supposed to. So, those individuals who would like some organization are free to create it and live in it. Those who do not are free to be solitary. I don't see the problem.

What do you think? Feel free to answer any of the questions in this article with your own opinions.

Note: the above image is something I worked on a few years ago. It's a working model of a bare bones temple for Pagans.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Pagan Clergy; Necessary or Not?

Friday, September 08, 2006

Yes, I've been caught listening to another podcast. To know what I am talking about in this post you should listen to the Eclectic Pagan Podcast episode here: Eclectic Pagan Podcast Episode 8- Pagan clergy, are they a necessity? and read Patricia Telesco's article sited in the show found here: Losing My / Your Religion.

My Comments to the Eclectic Pagan Podcasters:

Many times you say that the model proposed by Patricia Telesco is a Christian one. Where in her article does it say anything to that effect?

Quoute from Tom: "Our movement has gotten where it is without a professional clergy."

Tom, where is it? I would have to say that over the past few years the 'movement' has become stagnant. There is more separation between groups right now than I have witnessed over the past five years combined.

Christians revel in the fact that if you take six Pagans and ask them the same question they will have six different answers. In the opinion of the mainstream we are a bunch of whackos who can not make up our mind about what we believe. Instead of embracing the things that we have in common we spend hours bickering and back-biting over all of the things we do not agree about.

Another quote from Tom: "Center to the idea of Wicca is the notion that anybody who is called to can connect directly with the Lord and Lady without an intermediary."

Who is saying that with the birth of professional Pagan clergy there will be a death of the central idea that we are divine and need no other to connect with that essence? This is part of our faith and not something that can be stamped out without redefining our beliefs. This idea would certainly be integrated into a Pagan clergy framework. I think you are too hell bent on restraining any kind of clergy idea within the Christian framework. We are not Christian, therefore we would not use their model to create our clergy system.

Most of us have spent years learning how to think and see differently. This is one of those times where those skills come in handy. Reimagine the idea of clergy and leave the Christianity out of it. You'd be surprised what wonderful possibilities you can come up with.

To quote Patricia: "Organization provides the black and white outlines -- you can still bring your own crayons, and even color outside the lines."

Would it be so awful to have some sort of training standards where people must actually spend years of education learning and earning the title of clergy? Wouldn't it be wonderful to be able to present a united face to the public where people are educated in their religion and can present it well? We need accredited institutions in which to gain our spiritual education from. This may never be possible unless we form churches, incorporate, etc. so that someone can pay for it - be it the government through faith based funding (not gonna happen at our present state) or through the community at large through donations.

As for the paid clergy issue: How in the world could someone serve an entire congregation of people, manage the building, etc. full time without some sort of monetary sum? Who will pay their bills if they can not work at another job because they are full time clergy? Who will pay the electric bill for the temple? Who will foot the bill for the ritual supplies?

All in all I think we should not be too quick to throw these ideas away. Patricia is on the right track and I hope that someday those visions come to pass for our sake and our children's.

By the way, I will be sure to mention your show to her when I see her at the end of the month. Who knows, maybe she'll want to come on and comment herself.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Responsible Gardening, Values, and Podcasting

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

I was listening to an episode of Lance and Graal this morning. The topic of the show was 'Values and Virtues'. A few things left me feeling the need to opine.

One of the personalities on the show - I assume it's Lance since the voice was male - made a comment that went something like this: How can a Pagan, who claims to want to take care of the planet, have a weed filled, uncared for yard and expect to help clean up an oil spill in Alaska? That's just a summation and not a word for word quote. The basic gist of the comment had to do with responsibility and not being hypocritical. Like someone saying: "I want to save the world but I can't even care for my own roses."

What if you believe that nature can care for itself? What if you feel the so called 'weeds' have a right to flourish just a much as the cultivated plants do? Why would we assume that plants need us to care for them? Nature did just fine without being trimmed and pruned for billions of years before gardeners came along. Have you ever seen a proper English garden in the middle of the wilderness? Maybe you stumbled upon the gardens of Versailles tucked away into a clearing within a deep old forest filled with oaks? Not bloody likely.

I do not believe that just because you have a garden that doesn't capture the aesthetic norm means that you are not responsible enough or capable of caring for some other natural problem. If you can fly your ass out to Alaska to clean oil off of birds (even if your garden is overgrown) I say go for it. Make a difference, save some avian lives, and let the plants care for themselves as they have always been able to do.

This is just a silly argument and I wish that Lance (and/or Graal) would choose their words and analogies more carefully. I like pretty things and weeded gardens too, but this teeters a bit on judgmental and narrow sighted.

The Four Values as heard on Lance and Graal:

1.Get your physical space in order.
Some people enjoy living with a little disorder. They are quite happy that way and they function as healthy adults in society. I don't see how this applies to everyone. If an individual feels that they need more order in their lives (due to stress, depression, or an otherwise general malaise) then this 'value' could be a beneficial route for them to take. But not everybody needs to live in a perfectly ordered envrionment. Also, whose idea of "order" are we talking about here? Some people might be comfortable in a moderately picked up living space with a few piles of clutter on the kitchen table and a layer of dust on the furniture. Others might need their space to be, as my best friend and I say, "baseboard clean". This is far too subjective a topic to say what is 'right' or 'normal' for any one person.

2.Get your personality (your personal self) in order.
This is not a bad concept and I will say that I believe everyone could benefit from doing some shadow work and getting to know themselves completely. If nothing else this can benefit the individual in ways that could change the way they see the world and the people within it. The practice of shadow work or personal journeying can also help a person learn to love and accept themselves which in turn leads to compassion for self and thus the rest of humanity.

3.Study
Okay, I'm not even going to debate this because I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not sure it can be called a value though. I think this is referring to values for Clergy (or Priests and Priestesses) which makes a little bit more sense. I believe one should never end the learning process.

4.You've got to engage in ritual practice.
Not sure how I feel about this one. They went on to say that ritual could be a lot of things during the course of the program so I am leaning towards agreement. Repetition leads to tradition which in turn leads to influencing belief systems. This is important but the individual ways to practice ritual are vastly varied.

Overall, I am grateful for the Lance and Graal Pagan Podcast. I appreciate their opinions and the guts they demonstrate to express them, though I might not always agree with everything they say.

Endnote: After writing this post I realized that Lance and Graal are not people. I believe the title of the show is representative of the symbols of God and Goddess. Lance=spear/athame/sword Graal=grail/chalice/cup/cauldron. Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Gender Issues in Paganism

Monday, September 04, 2006

With the release of "The Wicker Man" and my subsequent disappointment in the film's portrayal of a Goddess culture I'd like to share this article from Witchvox; Dude, where are the Dudes?.

It's a well thought out essay on the way men and women function in our communities and the facts versus the fallacies of reverse discrimination in modern groups. It's well worth a read given that this seems to be a hot issue in some Pagan communities lately.

I promise to try and write up my own position on this topic in the near future.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Paganism a Nature Religion?

Sunday, September 03, 2006

A response to this post by Sojourner at A Pagan Sojourn; Is Paganism A Nature Religion?

And this comment by one of the visitors:

Deborah said...
I'm not sure that Paganism is a religion at all. It's an umbrella term for a disparate group of religions.

Many Pagan religions ARE nature-based. If you are following seasonal cycles, if your holidays are marked by natural rather than calendrical events (i.e. the sun, the moon, the crops) then that's nature-based.

Paganism is a religion to be sure. Firstly, the "ism" clarifies it as a belief system. Secondly, it is an umbrella term no different than Protestant or Christian. I'm sure we can all agree that there are many religious traditions that fall under those umbrellas but that doesn't mean the umbrellas themselves are not religions.

Web definitions of Religion

As far as Paganism being nature based. I think it must be. Specifically because, in my opinion, one of the things many Pagans tend to agree on is the idea of Oneness and Divinity within the self. If all things are truly one than all things are sacred - especially the natural world which is the one thing we can say is truly Goddess given.

You don't have to know the latin name for every plant in you local forest. You don't have to grow your own food and harvest it at the perfect time according to the sun, moon, and stars. All you have to do is observe a sunset or listen to the sound the trees make as they dance in the wind. It's really very simple. If you're concerned about being more involved in nature but feel that you live in a way that makes that difficult (i.e. the city, an apartment, etc.) try some of these things:

- Get a pet. Communing with nature doesn't specifically have to mean the plant world.

- If you have no yard to grow plants in try using containers. Houseplants are wonderful for their energy and their decorative aspects. Tomatoes grow fabulously in a big pot on a patio or balcony. I grew roses, herbs, and various annuals every year on a balcony that was three stories up.

- Use purchased dried herbs to make teas, oils, and other nature-based concoctions.

- Give thanks for all that you consume. Whether it's food, water, or air - be grateful and thankful for all that nature provides.

- Take note of your surroundings as you walk into work, school, and basically go about your day. Chances are there are all sorts of plants lining the streets of your town/city. Take a moment to take in their scent and touch their leaves or petals.

- Create your own natural world through meditation and visit it often.

- Look within. See that you are of nature and you are divine.

The more you practice some of the small daily things the more you will begin to notice that nature is not living in a forest somewhere on a mountain top full of mysterious latin named plant folk. Instead, it is everywhere and everything around you.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Burning the Wicker Man

Saturday, September 02, 2006

(warning: possible spoilers and some serious ranting)

My circle and I attended a midnight showing of 'The Wicker Man' last night. We were not impressed and I would even go so far as to say we were offended.

I'll admit that I have not seen the original, though I've heard from other Pagans that it's one of their all time favorite films with Pagan themes. I would be interested to hear what those individuals feel about this more recent version.

Let me begin with the bones of the movie itself. It is being billed as a horror film which it is not. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. If anything it was a bit humorous with Nicholas Cage's character screaming obscenities at every turn and trying to kung-fu his way out of a group of people. The script, the acting, the pace, etc. were not what I would have expected from a major motion picture featuring actors such as Nick Cage and Ellen Burstyn. This left me wondering if director, Neil LeBute, was trying to create a more B-movie feel. If so, he was successful. I have seen better acting from the no-names in the Saturday night flicks on the Sci-Fi Channel. Mansquito anyone? the wicker man

Now, for the Paganism aspect. Let's start with a quote from the director.

"I said, 'I like the idea of honey and I want to make this a matriarchy.' So it all fit with the idea of honey because of the colony and the queen bee. I just shifted the entire gender and kind of central hierarchy to be this world of women. I thought that would be a really interesting place. In the original there was this clash of religions, of basically paganism and Christianity, and then this kind of look at fanaticism. I thought, 'Well, they did it very well and that's not something I necessarily (want to do).' While I'd been interested in religions, myself, I've always been interested in this loose clash between men and women."

- Neil LaBute, director of the 2006 remake of 'The Wicker Man'

Yes, LeBute shifted the power to the females. In doing so he created a group of women who were portrayed as nothing more than crazed fanatics who use little children to help them commit murder. Their reason for murder - The Goddess needs a sacrifice.

At this point in the film I thought my head was going to explode. All I could think was "Oh great. Now we'll be seen as crazy, man-hating murderers who cut the tongues out of our men to keep them from rebelling." That's right. Not one word was uttered by a man living in the town of Summersisle during the entire film. I may have heard a random grunt, but only once.

Bees and honey are sacred to the people of the island. At one point Sister Summersilse, played by Ellen Burstyn, mentions that her Celtic ancestors settled on the island. The only Celtic Goddess I can think of associated with bees is Brigid. How do you suppose Brigantian's would feel about this warped portrayal?

ellen burstyn as sister summersilse

So, sweet Sister Summersilse is the Queen Bee in a colony full of crazy women and drone-like males. She claims that they love their men but evidently they are to be seen, sexed up, and never heard. I'm not even sure about the sexed up part since the women left the island to find mates and returned when they were pregnant. There is even a hint of infanticide cleverly injected by the writer. In one scene Sister Summersilse is asked what is done if one of the women on the island gives birth to a boy. Her reply; "That depends." In another scene we see aborted fetuses, presumably male, in jars of formaldehyde.

With all of the gender issues already flooding our Pagan communities did we really need this portrayal of Goddess women? The only reason to see this film is to be prepared when asked about its contents and to be ready to set people straight about what it means to follow the Goddess. While individual answers to that question vary, there are actually some things we can agree upon. This film, in my opinion, is a slap in the face to most (if not all) of them.

According to the earlier article I posted on this topic, Fiona Horne was an unofficial consultant to the director. If I was Fiona I would denounce the film as soon as possible as a dramatized portrayal of an ancient MYTH and its ANCIENT (as opposed to modern) practice. Hopefully it will help to simply tell folks that this is only a movie and nothing more.

Labels: Misc. News, Op-ed

The Way of the Master

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Yeah, I know I have a big Kirk monkey on my back lately, but I just can't seem to get past some of the things he talks about on his program. With the help of his partner in crime, Ray Comfort, he has created the most watched Christian show on TV. At least that's what I've heard.

The main premise of the show, The Way of the Master, is to get people to come to Christ through the use of the Ten Commandments. I am often blown away by some of the material on the program. For instance, on last week's show Ray and Kirk tried to tell us that anyone who has ever harbored hate in their heart is a murderer and is thus guilty of breaking that commandment. Wow, now that is some serious straw grasping. I have never heard a bigger bunch of BS in my entire life. And, just an FYI, if you've ever just lusted after a woman you are an adulterer. They don't say anything about women lusting after men so you all-the-way-straight girls are apparently off the hook.

It seems to me that all these two men are trying to do is convince the human race how evil it is and how we are all just a bunch of no good sinners destined for eternal suffering in a pit of brimstone. I'm so glad I don't believe in the Bible or in sin. What a terrible burden to carry. "You're bad for being a person! Damn you human being! You make mistakes and act with emotions? How dare you!"

On the topic of not believing in the Bible, let's take a look at how Kirk and Ray advise people to minister to those of us who have less than a grand opinion of "Ye Ole Good Book". According to the Way of the Master website:

"Christians can't use 'circular reasoning' by trying to prove the Bible by quoting from the Bible!"

The "circular reasoning" argument is absurd. That's like saying you can't prove that the President lives in the White House by looking into the White House. It is looking into the White House that will provide the necessary proof. The fulfilled prophecies, the amazing consistency, and the many scientific statements of the Bible prove it to be the Word of God. They provide evidence that it is supernatural in origin. See also Psalm 119:105 footnote.

Hmm... I don't understand how you can compare something solid and tangible like the President and the White House to a supposed supernatural text and the supernatural claims it contains. It is a bad analogy to say the least. It still proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that Kirk and Ray think that the bulk of humanity is retarded.

A while back I found an answer that compared the Bible to an oncoming eighteen-wheeler. The gist of that statement had something to do with believing in the Bible being as simple as believing in death by Mac Truck. I can't seem to find the exact quote on the site anymore but if I do I will be sure to post it here for you.

A plain and simple message to Kirk and Ray: I don't believe in the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or sin. Without the tiniest shred of belief you have no argument. Convert me now boys. In my opinion you are spreading untruths. What does that make you? Come on you can do it. It begins with L.

p.s. You're welcome for the free publicity.

Labels: Misc. Commentary, Op-ed

Kirk Cameron vs. the Devil

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

The most recent post by Athana at Radical Goddess Thealogy had me feeling the need to comment. Read the entire post by visiting this link.

My comments are below: (For those wondering what Kirk Cameron and Tim LaHaye have to do with each other - Kirk stars in the film adaptations of the Left Behind books by LeHaye. I would absolutely love to get stopped on the street by either him or Ray Comfort for a talk about the Ten Commandments. I've been planning my argument for a while now.)

Grian said...
I heard of LeHaye and the Left Behind series a few years back in Rolling Stone. He immediately freaked me out. I am even more disturbed since my dear sweet Granny is reading his books and being brain-washed by their ridiculous tripe.

What I have never been able to figure is why people can't see the Bible for what it is - mythology. Ask Christians if they believe Zeus really shot lightening bolts from the Heavens and they will snort and tell you that's silly mythology. How is the Rapture of Revelations and multiple headed monsters from the sea any different? Anyone who believes that crap is reality should be feared as crazy. At least that's what I think.

Grian said...
Oh, and I forgot to mention: I think Kirk Cameron might be the real anti-christ. :) For some reason I get caught up watching his show (with the equally crazed Ray Comfort) on TBN and at some point I've broken out in a cold sweat and I am screaming at the tv in crazed laughter.

Labels: Misc. Commentary, Op-ed

By Oak Ash and Thorn by DJ Conway

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

I am currently reading this title for the second time which is something I usually do with a book that has many meditations and exercises. I read it once straight through and now I am going through and reading it more in depth and doing the journeys within its pages.

I must admit that I am fascinated by the idea of Celtic Shamanism. It's not a new concept to me, but it is one that I was not aware that I knew so much about. It seems Shamanism is something that most Pagans practice on a regular basis. It involves such things as "Know Thyself" (as talked about below) and Shadow Work that all spiritual people should complete - especially if they plan to be of service to others. There is much journey work involved as well which most of us are familiar with through meditation studies.

One of the biggest lessons I have learned so far is that Shamanism is universal. It is not for any one people to practice, but all people at one time practiced it and some still do today. Calling it Celtic Shamanism is simply an effective way for those of Western European decent to connect with the practice and the pivotal aspect of working with one's ancestors.

Within the book Shamanism is said to encompass many aspects; Healing, Divination, Bardic Arts, Warrior traits, Priest/esshood... It seems most practicing Pagans are involved in some form of Shamanism - connecting with the Earth and honoring ancestors, service to others through healing and education, knowing and accepting oneself and others, ect.

As I go through the pages again I will try to post my reflections here.

Labels: Book Discussion and Review, Op-ed

Christian Da Vinci Propaganda on the Sci-Fi Channel

Friday, May 19, 2006

Last night I watched a special on the Sci-Fi Channel about the Da Vinci Code. I was expecting something like I had seen in the past; a program which would discuss the elements of the book in a non-biased way - scratching the surface of the truths and quasi-truths of the book - ultimately telling us that it was a work of fiction based on many factual elements. What I got from "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" was Christian propaganda.

I watched the almost two hour long program in utter disbelief. Every person interviewed for the special either had a book debunking the Da Vinci Code (thus furthering their own agenda and that of the Church) or was a Christian minister of some kind. The arguments were completely one sided and not at all objective. I had to double check to make sure that the program was indeed airing on the Sci-Fi Channel. I thought perhaps I had mistakenly hit the section of Christian Channels that I affectionately call "Jesus Row".

The main point of "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" seemed to be the claims of truth in the first pages of Dan Brown's book - speaking of factual and accurate representations of documents, architecture, and artwork, etc. Dan Brown himself is painted as an immoral man who delights in lying to the public as opposed to simply being the talented writer of fiction that he is.

The program goes on to say that there is no such thing as Gnostic Gospels. This is a complete lie. The parchments within the Nag Hammadi library are often referred to as the Gnostic Gospels by scholars and educated lay people alike. Complete scholarly books have been written on the subject of these lost gospels. (http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html)

At the very end of last night's presentation I, as the viewer, was told that the truth is within the Bible and that I should seek that instead of the entertainment of a fictional bestseller. Once again Christendom feels it is necessary to tell the world what to believe. Isn't this how Mary Magdalene was painted as a whore in the first place? Of course, in "Cracking Da Vinci's Code" they claim she was never known as a whore. In fact it is true that no where in the New Testament does it say that Mary Magdalene was a whore, but in 591CE Pope Gregory decided to tell the people what to believe about her and it stuck for almost 1500 years. People who know nothing of the Bible - who have never read it - still remember that Mary Magdalene is supposed to be a repentant prostitute. Yet more half truths told by the producers of the program.

To close I would like to tell the people of the Sci-Fi Channel to stick to what they are good at: UFOs, Bigfoot, and cheesy B-Flicks about Mansquitos, Chubacabra, etc. Oh, and Ghost Hunters is fabulous. Leave the Bible thumping to TLN - whose Executive Consultant for Network Development, Charles E. Sellier, happened to have produced last night's one-sided, Bible fueled TV program. Sellier has also done work for the PAX channel whose show Faith Under Fire was spearheaded by Lee Strobel. Strobel has also joined the mission against the DaVinci Code and Dan Brown. (http://www.leestrobel.com/)

For those of you not familiar with TLN (Total Living Network) their mission reads as follows:

"To direct people to Christ and to provide resources for a vibrant relationship with Him through the electronic communications media."
http://www.tln.com/mission.html

On Charles E. Sellier (CEO of Grizzly Adams Productions): http://www.tln.com/leadership_sellier_bio.html

Grizzly Adams Productions:
http://www.grizzlyadams.com/ http://www.grizzlyadams.tv/

Press Release for "Cracking Da Vinci's Code": http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/s06050073.htm

Labels: Misc. Commentary, Op-ed

Time For Change

Monday, April 10, 2006

I was thinking recently that the reason Goddess Religion/Paganism/etc. is so misconceived and under populated is that there is a lack of people telling other people about it. Many traditions feel a need for secrecy that I no longer understand. Before we get too far in this I would like to make clear that I believe there is a difference between proselytizing and educating. I do have to wonder, however, that if we had been proselytizing for the last few centuries the world might be a whole lot different.

Many of us tend to complain about the state of the world and various political issues without doing too much to make a difference. Political avenues seem to be the only ones people are willing to walk down when concerning changing the world. Spirituality is pivotal when deciding how a person thinks and acts. If we could share a better understanding of our spiritual ideas perhaps people would start to think differently and the world would actually change - maybe even evolve.

Once education had spread far enough it could lead to some government funding, organized temples, becoming a voting block, etc. Isn't it time we stop hiding who we are and bickering about our differences in the back alleys of our communities? Is there anyone else out there who feels it's time to move to the next level or is it just me? I want more. I want an organized structure without corruption and a place to raise a family under the love of the Great Goddess.

My daughter asked me the other day why she has to be different. She thinks it's "cool" to be Christian because everyone in her class is. The other kids teach her Bible songs and tell her about going to church. Where are the opportunities for Goddessian people to offer those things to their children? I want a religion with top-notch, University accedited training facilities and the ability for paid clergy who can run the organization of our temples. I want the structure and influence of the 'Church' without the money hungry totalitarian rulers behind it. I want a place where the relgion of the Goddess can flourish for generations as more than just a "passing fad for militant feminists and lesbians" (this is what I believe the world thinks about us).

The time has come for change. The first thing we need to do is break free of some of the more modern labels we've taken on, most of which are slurs that were used against our ancestors millenia ago.

Quoted From Another Source:
"The word Pagan was given to the non christians by christians as an insult. It means country dweller which at the time equated to dirty, poor, uneducated idiot, now there's a name worth keeping! ... We are "pagans" because CHRISTIANS say we are!"

Am I barking mad up the entirely wrong tree? I'm willing to admit it's possible and I'm even more willing to hear alternative solutions.

Always in Her Service,
Grian

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

What's the Point

Sunday, February 12, 2006

I was wandering around the web, new to the Goddess-blogging community, and stumbled upon At the End of Desire. In Innana's post entitled The Circle Within 2 there is this:

"Someone once asked me, "What's the point of this Wicca thing? I mean, if you're not trying to get into Heaven or find Nirvana, what are you trying to do?" I couldn't help but comment on this subject.

Grian said... On the subject of "Heaven" and/or "Nirvana" and the point of it all: Aren't we striving towards some kind of enlightenment? Most Pagans believe in reincarnation in some form, so becoming enlightened seems to go along with that concept - moving from body to body and learning as much as possible. What would the end result of this be but enlightenment? So some people call it Heaven, Nirvana, The Summerlands - but enlightenment works for me. Conciousness is a good one too. At some point it would seem a soul would have to find its way back to the source after having learned all of the things that it was created for in the first place. Oddly enough I have a section written on this already in my "little project". Here is part of that section...

After the realization of One Mother, I examined modern Paganism in its various forms; most specifically Wicca. Unfortunately, what I found was a religious system that was lacking something – something vital. That statement will probably get me in trouble and I’m the last person who wants to get somebody’s proverbial panties in a bunch, but being honest is important enough to risk it. Anyway, Wicca left me wanting more, but what did the more consist of? Inspiration came from the east. Well sort of. It all came down to asking the right questions. I wanted to know what the purpose of being spiritual, religious, etc. was. I think some people go through life just assuming they’re supposed to follow a religion. Does anyone ever stop to ask why? What’s the point? For me, the answer to this question was (drum roll) enlightenment. A big word to be sure, but what does it mean?Merriam-Webster Online defines enlighten this way: to furnish knowledge to, to give spiritual insight to.This pretty much summed it up. Why bother practicing a religion that will teach you nothing? It would be pretty pointless to look back on years of religious study to suddenly realize you had gained absolutely nothing spiritually from it. So I looked towards the Goddess and asked myself what Her lessons where – what she could teach through practice. The answers to these questions are what make up this modest volume of words.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

Choosing A Goddess

Sunday, March 20, 2005

This was in response to a question on an e-list I am on. The question invloved having to choose one Goddess to connect with as matron. The person questionning felt close to Cerridwyn and Hecate and felt she needed to choose between the two and that there would be risks if she made the wrong choice. My response follows:

***
First, please forgive the long email. I guess I had a lot to say about this.

In the way I practice my faith there is no seperation between Cerridwyn and Hecate, or any other face of the Goddess. There is only one Goddess who is multifaceted just like any human personality is. In reality (at least the way I see it) there is only one Goddess, not hundreds of individual entities which make up Goddess, though I do not think it is wrong to think of Her that way. She appears in any form She chooses and takes on attributes to suit a purpose.

I think the real question to ask right now is why has the dark aspect of the Goddess has called to you. Both Hecate and Cerridwyn are Crone Goddesses. In my tradition the Crone's main symbolism is as a keeper of wisdom and as She who tends the flames of transformation. In her darker, less understood face She causes fear as She bids you to look into the shadows of yourself and find those things within you that you may not like to see. She does this to help bring about balance within you and so you can love yourself completely. She is the gateway to the unknown, the mystery which we are afraid to uncover within ourselves. Her element is fire and I often find it helpful to use a candle flame or the fire in my wood burning stove to connect with Her when the moon wanes. Open up your third eye chakra and let yourself be open to connection.

A Crone meditation could involve going through a cave to then come through it into an open space where She is there tending Her large cauldron over a fire. Speak with Her and listen closely to what She has to tell you. She may bid you to gaze into Her cauldron. Your reflection will be Her own for Her wisdom is always present within you. What else do you see in the murky liguid? Impart with Her any gifts that you may have, embrace Her, and turn back - coming out of the cave feeling refreshed and aware of who you are.

I hope these things are helpful to you. In my tradition there is nothing to fear of the Crone once She is understood and connected with. I consider fear to be the dark aspect of the Crone Goddess.

So, I don't think you have a choice to make. The Crone has made it Her time to connect with you, to impart Her wisdom upon you at this time. I see this as a period of transformation for you. I would not be surprised to hear that the Maiden makes Herself known next, guiding you towards knowing yourself and embracing Her freedom. The Maiden will give you new insight and then the Mother may come to you, teaching you how to grow and nourish your spirit so that you may be able to love all others in true compassion. After this the Crone may again make Her presence felt and the cycle will continue all over again. I believe this to be a way towards enlightenment.

I understand your confusion. It is frustrating to be journeying alone, but that is the way it must be for all of us.

Remember this is my path and I don't claim to know that it is truth nor do I believe it is the only way of the Goddess. No one can really know the truth of such things. We can only believe. I believe the Goddess has called to you in Her Crone aspect because now is a time for you to come into your own and embrace your path completely. She will guide you through the shadows and the depths of your mind to a place of understanding. Many blessings on your journey.

Labels: Goddess, Op-ed

A Question of Faith

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

A list that I am on has been discussing the topic of faith and what place it has in Pagan spirituality considering a definition of having faith in something implies a lack of direct experience. Here is what I had to say about this:

Faith is a very important part of my life and my spiritual practice since I don't think we can really have the answers to those big Divine questions. People have been trying to come up with explanations and reasons since the beginning. And those things which I have had specific personal experience with still leave me questioning. I guess I sum up my faith in a few words from one of my favorite songs. Cheesy, I know, but bare with me here. ;o)

"What you don't have you don't need it now and what you don't know you can feel it somehow."

I can't claim to know. I only feel it.

So, I don't really know if I 'know' anything for sure and part of me likes being that way while the other 75% gets frustrated wanting all the answers. I think a lot of the way I think comes from experiencing other people who have become so attached to their beliefs that they have no room for anyone elses. I refuse to be like that. Then again, I am strongly rooted in Socrates - "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." - so who am I to talk?

No matter how many times I may have experienced something I only 'know' it from my own perspective. If there is any truth there it is purely personal. Once I break those experiences down to that personal truth faith is all I have left.

Labels: Modern Paganism, Op-ed

about this site

recent posts

posts of note

reader's comments

goddess religion

terms used

virtual temples

goddess info

blogroll

the archives

search panthea

news feeds