The (Christian) sky is falling?!

Both the Christian and secular media worlds are ablaze as Jon Meacham’s article The End of Christian America makes its rounds.

From the blogosphere this morning:

Well, I thought of the wrath God must feel for those arrogant blasphemers who reject His law and I also thought about how righteous His judgement will be.

—Shotgun Smith on his response to “some woman in Australia who thought that the death of Christianity was undoubtedly a good thing.”

Easy there, turbo. I’m guessing you didn’t read the entire article, as I suspect many of your Christian brethren won’t. To say the article is about the “death of Christianity” is incorrect and a bit pessimistic.

From page 36: “Let’s be clear: while the percentage of Christians may be shrinking, rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly exaggerated.”

The article actually discusses the decline of Christianity in our country and theorizes that this has occurred due to the lack of distinction between church and state.

While arguing that the influence of either too much secularism or too much religion creates imbalance in the political system, Meacham reminds the reader that “As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America’s unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom – not least freedom of conscience.” In simpler terms, our Founding Fathers neither envisioned nor intended to create America as a strictly Christian Nation, but rather as one in which each citizen had freedom and liberty.

I infer from this that the author sees a correlation between Christianity’s decline and how religious conservatives have long used politics to force their morals and values on the public. It’s easy to see why secular society, resenting attempts by Christian political leaders to forcibly remove Constitutional liberties (a woman’s right to choose, the right of same-sex couples to wed, the need for stem cell research funding, etc.) would want to distance itself from Christianity.

I also speculate that though they may never realize it, the Christ-Con’s sole saving grace is their failure to accomplish their over-arching aim: to rebuild the bulwark of 1950’s Christian America. Had they succeeded in stamping out all beliefs and practices that don’t coincide with their own, it wouldn’t be long before another group rose to power and did the same to them. And schadenfreude aside, that would be a bad for us all.

 

Oppression of anyone is oppression of everyone.
–Stevie Wonder

Read Full Post »

The Threefold Law: the Patriarchy’s gift to Wicca?

Most Wiccans recognize two related moral codes – the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law.

The Rede states “As it harms none, do what you will.” In simple terms this means “do what you like as long as no one gets hurt, including yourself.”

The Threefold Law states that whatever energy one puts forth (in words, thoughts, and/or actions) will be returned after being multiplied by three.

The concept behind the Rede is not unique to Wicca. In fact, every other major religion teaches a similar ethic of reciprocity.

There are two reasons the Rede feels like truth to me. First, it guides one toward living a sacred life. If we view ourselves and all we encounter as sacred, we’re more likely to use the reverence that results as a basis for the decisions we make (decisions that would likely involve “harming none.”). Second, it’s based on the universal law of cause and effect (simply put, we reap what we sow). We can see evidence of this law all around us.

The Threefold Law does not resound as truth however. First, I see it as an unnecessary over-elaboration of the Rede. Second, in the words of attorney, activist, and well-known Wiccan Phyllis Curott,

“[The Threefold Law is] not ethics, [it]’s expediency. [It’s a] remnant of Biblical patriarchal thinking. It’s a rule based on punishment and fear. What it says is, if I do something wrong, I will be punished, and therefore I will behave. Expediency, self-interest, and this is the weak cousin of an ethical norm. It’s bad morality and it’s not the basis upon which we should conduct ourselves and our lives and our spiritual practices.”

(Expediency means basing current action strictly on a future desired outcome.)

I understand and accept that how I experience life is a direct reflection of the choices I make – I don’t need the Threefold Law hovering over my head to remind me. Also, when I do good I endeavor to do so based on genuine desire -not because I expect to receive a triple bonus of good in return.

It’s important for adherents of all religions to use discernment and to constantly ask questions. Digesting everything one reads or is told without first passing it through these filters is inconsistent with the value we as Wiccans place on personal responsibility.

Read Full Post »

The Wiccan Rede, Part II: Meaning

In part two of this three part post, I’ll examine the meaning of the maxim many Wiccans strive to live by: As it harms none, do what you will. 

From attorney, activist, and Wiccan author Phyllis Curott in her interview with Guy Spiro of The Monthly Aspectarian:

We are indicted in the rest of the religious community for that. They look at that and they think we’re hedonists and amoral. [It’s] an extension of the concept of living in the sacred universe. [If] we behave in a reverential and sacred manner because [we understand and experience the world as sacred], then we are free to do what we think best as long as nothing is harmed. You have a tremendous freedom, but with it comes responsibility that you are not engaging in behavior that does harm to the sacred.                  

I would add a layer to this by saying that because Wiccans believe everything is interconnected, we accept that harming one part also harms the whole.

This philosophy isn’t just more new-age fluff. Isaac Newton taught us that “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Clear-cutting 50 acres of forestland results in soil erosion (tree roots keep the earth from washing away), greater pollution (trees clean the air), and disruption of animal habitat which in turn imbalances the local food chain (and on and on).

As Phyllis alluded, some outside Wicca believe the Rede is too ambiguous to offer clear moral direction. Would it surprise you to learn that some Wiccans feel the same way?

When I first came to the Wiccan path I saw the Rede as the sum of the religion’s moral code – something that when applied would ensure moral and ethical victory no matter the situation. But as time went by I realized for the Rede to work in all situations, all possible actions (including lack of action) must be easily classified as either helpful or harmful. When I started to realize this wasn’t possible, I began to see how the Rede can break down in some situations. For example, it’s easy to determine that physically hurting someone violates the Rede. But what if this is necessary to defend myself or my family from someone with malicious intent?

Randall Sapphire further illustrates this dilemma in his editorial Problems with the Wiccan Rede:  

For example, if a Rede-literalist came across a person unconscious and dying of heart failure at the side of the road, they’d have to walk on by rather than give CPR, because they are unable to get the person’s permission to help them — and for all they know the person might want to die (or so they often claim to excuse their inaction).

Now, rather than viewing the Rede as an all-encompassing moral directive, I view it as a starting point and recognize that it isn’t a cure-all for every possible moral and ethical woe.

The fallacy that all things can be quickly sorted into conveniently labeled bins – right or wrong, good or bad – is a hold-over from patriarchal religion that discourages critical thinking and personal responsibility. Though at first glance it may not seem so, Wiccans who defy common sense to uphold the literal meaning of the Rede have endorsed this fallacy – one incompatible with the value we place on individual accountability.

Read Full Post »

The Wiccan Rede, Part I: Corresponding Forms

If there’s one thing most religions can agree on, it’s the Ethic of Reciprocity (commonly known as “The Golden Rule”). In Wicca, it’s called the Wiccan Rede:  As it harms none, do what you will.

This is the first of three posts discussing the forms, meaning, and history of the Wiccan Rede.

Inspired by mention of the Golden Rule Society in Edain McCoy‘s book Making Magick: What it is and how it works, I decided to collect each major religion’s equivalent to the Rede and display it here. My research led me to ReligiousTolerance.org, where I found someone had already done this exact thing. I’ll provide a condensed version below, and will refer those interested in the expanded passages and source documentation to the link above. I’ll endeavor to provide links to each religion listed below (listed alphabetically) for those curious.

Bahá’í Faith: “Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.”

Brahmanism: “Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”

Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

Christianity: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.”

Hinduism: “Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.”

Islam: “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

Jainism: “In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.”

Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.”

Native American: “Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself.” (Pima proverb)

Roman Paganism: “The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves.”

Shinto: “The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form.”

Sikhism: “Don’t create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone.”

Sufism: “The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven’t the will to gladden someone’s heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone’s heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this.”

Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Also, “recompense injury with kindness.”

Unitarianism: “We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.”

Wicca: “As it harms none, do what you will.”

Yoruba (Nigeria): “One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.”

Read Full Post »

Review: The Witch’s Familiar by Raven Grimassi

The Witch’s Familiar: Spiritual Partnerships For Successful Magic

by Raven Grimassi, 2003

Level: Intermediate to Advanced 

Grades:

Offers practical information that can be used now: A 

Approachable & Easy to Understand: B- 

In this informative book the author does a great job of answering the question, “What is a Familiar and how can it help me?” He also cautions the reader about the risks involved in working with Familiar and gives clear and concise directions about how to “reign in” troublesome Familiar spirits.

The book opens with a fascinating story of Grimassi’s personal experience with a pet Familiar. This set a tone of seriousness for the rest of the book, brought to a point by the following quote: 

Summoning familiars is not a party game or something “witchy” to do on a Saturday night. Working with Familiars is a serious business and you can fully expect to encounter occult phenomena along the way.

The author continues with a history of the Familiar – what it is, how it was viewed by the Church and the Royal Court during the Middle Ages, and how it’s viewed by Witches today. I found this chapter very interesting – Grimassi’s extensive knowledge on the topic shines through and makes for an engaging read.

In chapter two, Grimassi instructs the reader on the different types of Familiars (physical and non-physical) and how to choose one. It’s here he also introduces his series of 11 magickal Seals for use in controlling Familiars. These seals are based on Pagan symbology, and have practical uses that extend beyond simply working with Familiars. This chapter alone makes the book a worthy addition to any Witch’s library.

In chapters three and four, information is given on possible uses of the Familiar including aiding in healing, magic, and in serving as guardian of your home.

The final chapter details parting with your Familiar – the circumstances under which this can or should occur and the responsibilities of the Witch when it does.

All in all, this was a great book I’ll refer to time and again. Throughout its pages I found several great exercises which uses extend beyond working with Familiars. One of these was a Wiccan adaptation of the Posture of the Pentagram (which to the best of my knowledge is more commonly used in Ceremonial Magick).

I gave it a B- in the “Approachable & Easy to Understand” category because some sections dealt with magickal concepts I haven’t yet encountered, and these took awhile to assimilate. It’s also for this reason I don’t recommend it to those who are very new to the Craft. There are basic elements of Wicca and general metaphysical principles one needs a firm grasp of before trekking merrily off into the astral plane in search of a Familiar – most notably how to protect yourself from unsavory entities. Like the author indicated, this isn’t something to do simply because it sounds interesting and you’re feeling a little “witchy.” It’s serious stuff.

Read Full Post »