Honestly, this one response justifies Ben's presence on TWH. This was terrific, Bookhousegal! If you have a blog, please post it there, so it doesn't simply get lost in the sea of comments at TWH. *grin*

"...We're not *really* about what they didn't destroy. We're about what they *couldn't.* "

Right! Too damn right!

The proper noun for the religion is Wicca, not Wiccanism. Your opinions will be taken more seriously when you learn the basic vocabulary. Thanks.

The best way to remove Wicca from the forefront of the Pagan movement? Eclipse it. Go thou, and build community and services for that community. And when you have done so, your work will be covered by the Wild Hunt and other sources of Pagan journalism, and you will have brought some honor to your tradition, whatever it may be.

No one is stopping you--in fact, we'll all (Wiccans included) cheer you on. But quit boasting in the feating hall if you can't make good your brag out in the world... if you wish to be taken seriously.

Op. cit. *grin*

It may be worth pointing out that the two biggest factors for targeting someone for bullying or hate crimes are still 1) race, and 2) sexual orientation.

And this is one reason that I never disrespect a Pagan writer who chooses to publish, online or elsewhere, under an assumed name. It's one thing for a practice to be against the law, and another for it to be impossible.

Eventually, I hope we will have enough Pagan lawyers for us to have some muscle in fighting this kind of discrimination fight in courtrooms. We're not there yet...

I believe that syncretism is a human tendency around religion, and that ideas affect one another. Some of those effects are intriguing; some are frightening.

I believe that the majority of Christian missionaries are pretty oblivious to , if not tacitly approving of, the ways their preaching interacts badly with other beliefs, because those beliefs are seen as wrong and therefore irrelevant; and I believe this is both irresponsible and wrong.

However, not only am I aware of exceptions to this rule around missionizing, I was taught by my mama that two wrongs don't make a right, and making contemptuous dismissals of other folks' religion is a wrong that doesn't become right when it's done by Pagans on the grounds of, "He dissed me first."

I will now step aside from this discussion, in order not to bore the audience at TWH with further exchanges between us on a worn-out topic, Ap. If you wish to continue it further with me, you can find my email addy via my website.

Ah, logic. That won't get you far in life, you know. *crooked grin*

Right. It's predictable; Jason posts a thoughtful and measured critique of one part of the Christian community, and Apuleius (or Robin Artisson--he'll be along in 15 minutes, I suspect) has to use that as an excuse to smear an entire diverse religious community as "poison."

If anyone did that around the Pagan community, based on the actions of any of our constituent groups, the same people who see Christianity as fair game for this kind of treatment would set up a howling that could be heard from Mars. But it's Christianity, so any attack, however bigoted, is considered reasonable. (In fairness, Islam, too, comes in for this treatment.)

It's gotten so that I dread Jason's reasonable, careful coverage of these issues, because attempting to have any kind of meaningful discussion of the very real failures of Christian extremists becomes as impossible as a discussion of the fate of Israel in the company of anti-Semites; it simply becomes impossible to hear the reasonable voices over the fury, or to see clearly amid the forest of pointing fingers.

Its like being caught in an endless leaflet war; the Pagan equivalent of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." It's wearying.

And yes, yes, it's predictable also that I will post an objection to this kind of rank stupidity. Which will garner me the usual accusations of being a secret Christian, about to become a Christian, or (because this is Apuleius I am responding to specifically) a similar attack on Quakers (all Quakers, whether Christian or not, whether Pagan or not, throughout all 350 years of our existence, because of the same series of examples--culled from Quaker discussions--of mistreatment of Native Americans).

Let's consider that conversation, with the mutual acrimony and accusation, to have already taken place, all right? You've made your usual sweeping generalization of an entire religious movement throughout history; I've made my usual objection, and maybe, just maybe, somebody out there will be allowed to discuss... oh, I don't know--perhaps African religious traditions, animism, syncretism for better and for worse in the world of religion?

Just a thought.

Cartweel, while no unified Pagan religion exists, there are a few people out there whose services to the diverse and sometimes curmudgeonly community of Pagans is so extraordinary that they are recognized almost universally as leaders among us. Patrick is one of these; his work on behalf of your freedom is what has earned him the respect of so many of his co-religionists that, yes, it is reasonable for him to speak on our behalf.

While we are not limited to the vision of any single elder, leader, writer, or priest among us, wise Pagans are grateful for the generosity and efforts of men and women like Patrick. It's simply churlish to term his work "parading himself." You have the right to be churlish, if you wish, but it will not bring you the respect McCollum and other Pagan leaders have earned from our community.