For many of you who do not know, there is a branch of Wicca called Dianic Wicca, or Feminist Wicca. With one exception that I know of, the Dianic traditions of Wicca only allow females to practice, and they more or less exclusively worship a feminine Goddess of many names, Diana their namesake being one such name.
The Feminist Wiccan movement seems to be a response to male-dominated Christianity in the west, and also more specifically a response to the witch-craze of 300 years ago, where 85% of accused witches burned at the stake were women, often singled out because of deviance from social norms or simply because of a dispute. As a feminist journalist put it, "we had a Women's Holocaust." (Paraphrased quote taken from The Burning Times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Times)
A question was raised in class after learning about Dianic traditions. Are these traditions sexist towards males, recognizing the negative connotations of the term? If so, is this sexism a justified response to patriarchal religious practices over the last two-thousand years?
Did you actually write, "Female exclusive religion: Sexist?"
Yes, if it's a female exclusive religion, then I'm pretty sure that the question of whether or not it's a religion that is biased in terms of whether or not one is female is pretty firmly established. Matter of fact I think it's pretty clear that's the entire point.
The real question is: so what? They're sexist. It's like saying, "All black fraternity: Racist?" What are you trying to point out that people don't already know?
If so, is this sexism a justified response to patriarchal religious practices over the last two-thousand years?
The more relevant question is: regardless of whether or not it's justified, would the people who are engaging in such practices actually care?
Moreover, does anyone else in the world really care about them?
In short, yes. Women aren't any more special than men; we're all meatbags with a limited time warranty.
On the point of the witch trials, men and cats were also severely tormented. There are some arguments that the black death was helped spread via a "cat holocaust" since there were fewer cats to kill off the mice and rats that spread the plague.
It's like asking why the old Batman movies gave Batman, Robin, and Batgirl nipples on their costumes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Holy crap, click on the Wikipedia link to Zsuzsanna Budapest:
She is the High Priestess and the founding mother of the Susan B. Anthony Coven #1
I have a really hard time accepting Wicca or anything Wicca-related as a serious thing meriting comparison to the 'patriarchal religious practices over the last two-thousand years'. It's like asking whether the Rent Is Too Damn High party is a valid response to the two-party system of American politics. Just putting them in the same sentence is giving way more credit than is due.
First of all, to call the witchhunting craze a "Women's Holocaust" is about as inaccurate as it is possible to be while still staying within the domain of hysteria-fueled mass killings. The death toll was much smaller, and was split between men and women with large regional variations. And women qua women were certainly not the target of the witchhunts: at the risk of stating the obvious, almost all the women in Europe were not killed, or even under suspicion. The same could not be said for Jews, Roma, blacks, gays, and the disabled in Nazi-occupied countries. I certainly don't want to excuse the killings, or the very real sexism that was endemic in the world of the Reformation Era, but I think I can avoid that and still safely call any so-called "journalist" who makes this comparison a shrill and small-minded parrot of propagandistic lies that exploit an experience if incomprehensible evil in a stomach-turningly cynical attempt to misappropriate the aura of victimhood that surrounds the Jews - and one who uses that clumsy and sanctimonious mock-archaicism "The Burning Times" a talentless hack.
As for your questions: I would be hard-pressed to formulate a general definition of "sexism" that would not cover a group that excludes men and preaches the superiority of the female over the male. Certainly the reverse situation, exemplified by the Catholic priesthood, is sexist. And if they argue that the sexism of the former is justified by the sexism of the latter, I'd argue back that the latter is the superior morality, for though it is sexist at least it preaches not to pay evil unto evil but to turn the other cheek. Now, in practice, it is my understanding that most Wiccans agree with this admonition against vengeance, and also believe that male and female are equal partners in the great spiritual enterprise. In which case, Dianic Wicca stands as opposed to the rest of Wicca as it does to the ideals of liberal society in general.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Holy crap, click on the Wikipedia link to Zsuzsanna Budapest:
I have a really hard time accepting Wicca or anything Wicca-related as a serious thing meriting comparison to the 'patriarchal religious practices over the last two-thousand years'. It's like asking whether the Rent Is Too Damn High party is a valid response to the two-party system of American politics. Just putting them in the same sentence is giving way more credit than is due.
I've met people with genuine, valid reasons for practicing Wicca beyond being Scene. So it is a real thing, even if it is only backed up by Personal Revelation.
DISCLAIMER: "Valid," is used subjectively. I was merely saying that it cannot be dismissed as a fake religion.
I've met people with genuine, valid reasons for practicing Wicca beyond being Scene. So it is a real thing, even if it is only backed up by Personal Revelation.
DISCLAIMER: "Valid," is used subjectively. I was merely saying that it cannot be dismissed as a fake religion.
Sure, I don't doubt that people genuinely believe it, but the history of Wicca makes it impossible in my mind to view it as anything other than a sham, sort of like Scientology. The fact that someone genuinely believes in it doesn't so much elevate my opinion of Wicca as much as it greatly decreases my view of that person's good sense.
First of all, to call the witchhunting craze a "Women's Holocaust" is about as inaccurate as it is possible to be while still staying within the domain of hysteria-fueled mass killings. The death toll was much smaller, and was split between men and women with large regional variations. And women qua women were certainly not the target of the witchhunts: at the risk of stating the obvious, almost all the women in Europe were not killed, or even under suspicion. The same could not be said for Jews, Roma, blacks, gays, and the disabled in Nazi-occupied countries. I certainly don't want to excuse the killings, or the very real sexism that was endemic in the world of the Reformation Era, but I think I can avoid that and still safely call any so-called "journalist" who makes this comparison a shrill and small-minded parrot of propagandistic lies that exploit an experience if incomprehensible evil in a stomach-turningly cynical attempt to misappropriate the aura of victimhood that surrounds the Jews - and one who uses that clumsy and sanctimonious mock-archaicism "The Burning Times" a talentless hack.
As for your questions: I would be hard-pressed to formulate a general definition of "sexism" that would not cover a group that excludes men and preaches the superiority of the female over the male. Certainly the reverse situation, exemplified by the Catholic priesthood, is sexist. And if they argue that the sexism of the former is justified by the sexism of the latter, I'd argue back that the latter is the superior morality, for though it is sexist at least it preaches not to pay evil unto evil but to turn the other cheek. Now, in practice, it is my understanding that most Wiccans agree with this admonition against vengeance, and also believe that male and female are equal partners in the great spiritual enterprise. In which case, Dianic Wicca stands as opposed to the rest of Wicca as it does to the ideals of liberal society in general.
I'm going to talk to my professor about The Burning Times; she prefaced it by saying that it was feminist and paints the chruch in a bad image, but I agree that some of the proportions are waaaaay out of whack. I used the example to preface the question as it was prefaced in class, to give some background.
The question of whether it is valid to call it truly sexist lies in that the Dianic tradition doesn't actually state that females are superior to males, to the best of my knowledge.
Sure, I don't doubt that people genuinely believe it, but the history of Wicca makes it impossible in my mind to view it as anything other than a sham, sort of like Scientology. The fact that someone genuinely believes in it doesn't so much elevate my opinion of Wicca as much as it greatly decreases my view of that person's good sense.
Tiax, I'm not sure you actually know the history of Wicca. It didn't just start with Gardner emulating Margaret Murray's writings, but it also has roots in Aleister Crowley's practices, and through that the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, through that to Freemasonry, through to real folk magic of the pre-victorian times. There is a link, it just isn't in an unbroken secret New Haven coven Seperate from the Crowley link, Wicca also has ties to Neo-Druidism, particularly with Gardner's past with Druidry and with his friendship with Ross Nichols, who was a major catalyst of contemporary druidry. Furthermore, most if not all of the imagery and dieties found in Wiccan practice do have historical basis. Pan wasn't just made up sixty years ago.
Compare that with Scientology, which as far as my knowledge in the subject reaches, started with a book from a science fiction author with no historical ties.
The question of whether it is valid to call it truly sexist lies in that the Dianic tradition doesn't actually state that females are superior to males, to the best of my knowledge.
A segregationist can say that he doesn't believe whites are superior to blacks, but nevertheless that assumption lies implicit in everything else he says. In a cultural context where the labels "sexism" and "racism" have such deeply negative connotations, a declaration that one is not racist or sexist means next to nothing.
Furthermore, most if not all of the imagery and dieties found in Wiccan practice do have historical basis. Pan wasn't just made up sixty years ago.
Pan in Greek mythology was a discrete entity and hedonistic rapist. The kind-and-fluffy duotheistic divine masculine of Wicca is a reimagining so profound that they might as well have just made up a new name and imagery.
Nothing wrong with making things up, anyway. It's more honest than lifting symbols from a vastly different religion to give your own ideas the appearance of a historical pedigree that wouldn't mean anything even if it were real. Bokonon knew how it was done.
The question of whether it is valid to call it truly sexist lies in that the Dianic tradition doesn't actually state that females are superior to males, to the best of my knowledge.
1. This is a group of women who accept only women as practitioners of their religion, who go out of their way to accentuate the fact that they worship a goddess who is female, who go out of their way to accentuate the fact that they exclude men, and who justify this practice by claiming that a mass killing in the past was a "Holocaust against women," which as Blinking_Spirit pointed out, was not a Holocaust in terms of scale, was not aimed against women specifically, and had male victims that this group has gone out of its way to ignore the existence of.
So no, I don't believe for an instant that this group doesn't consider women superior to men.
2. It would still be sexism even if they didn't:
Quote from Wikipedia »
Sexism
Quote from Wikipedia »
, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas. It is a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
So yes, they're sexist. If sex is the determining factor, then it's sex discrimination.
Pan in Greek mythology was a discrete entity and hedonistic rapist. The kind-and-fluffy duotheistic divine masculine of Wicca is a reimagining so profound that they might as well have just made up a new name and imagery.
Not to mention: no one is sacrificing anything. Sacrifices were a fundamental part of ancient religion.
Though that really calls into question why anyone would even WANT the claim that their religion was faithful to the practices of ancient pagan Europe to be true at all.
1. This is a group of women who accept only women as practitioners of their religion, who go out of their way to accentuate the fact that they worship a goddess who is female, who go out of their way to accentuate the fact that they exclude men, and who justify this practice by claiming that a mass killing in the past was a "Holocaust against women," which as Blinking_Spirit pointed out, was not a Holocaust in terms of scale, was not aimed against women specifically, and had male victims that this group has gone out of its way to ignore the existence of.
So no, I don't believe for an instant that this group doesn't consider women superior to men.
2. It would still be sexism even if they didn't:
So yes, they're sexist. If sex is the determining factor, then it's sex discrimination.
Not to mention: no one is sacrificing anything. Sacrifices were a fundamental part of ancient religion.
Though that really calls into question why anyone would even WANT the claim that their religion was faithful to the practices of ancient pagan Europe to be true at all.
I don't think many Wiccans are claiming that their practices are faithful to ancient european pagan tradition, more that it takes the spirit, and some of the trappings of the religions. I'd like to stress that the person who equated the witch trials to the holocaust was one feminist wiccan, and isn't necessarily representing Dianic Wicca in its entirety.
Additionally, I don't know about Wicca, but I know at least in ADF Druidry they make sacrifices, usually of art or some sort of craft that they have poured a lot of energy and time into, as a symbol of devotion. Note that animals were prized possesions back when animal sacrifice was practiced, so it would be a powerful symbol of devotion to give up your livestock in the name of your beliefs. Additionally, there are other reasons for animal sacrifice; many would have then been cooked or preserved just as the animals would have been anyways, the sacrifice and ceremonies around it could be explained by a cultural anthropologist as to help bind the community.
Pan in Greek mythology was a discrete entity and hedonistic rapist. The kind-and-fluffy duotheistic divine masculine of Wicca is a reimagining so profound that they might as well have just made up a new name and imagery.
Nothing wrong with making things up, anyway. It's more honest than lifting symbols from a vastly different religion to give your own ideas the appearance of a historical pedigree that wouldn't mean anything even if it were real. Bokonon knew how it was done.
Really, are we just going to paint Wicca as spontaneously made-up to that extent? Again, the image of Pan, or Cernunnous, or Herne, or any others weren't just made up by Gardner. They each have distinct origins in centuries past. If I remember correctly, Pan was 'revived' in British folklore from his Greek roots in the 17th or 18th century, and was carried on as a sort of folk idol. A plausible example of the continuation of the revival of Pan as an idea could be found in The Wind in the Willows, although I admit I haven't personally investigated that... it's been a while since I learned about these roots and that example stuck in my head because I've been meaning to read that book.
And I certainly remember a poem written by Aleister Crowley, in which he depicts a homosexual encounter with a darker, yet still revived Pan, though I can't cite it (nor to I particularily want to XD)
I don't think many Wiccans are claiming that their practices are faithful to ancient european pagan tradition, more that it takes the spirit, and some of the trappings of the religions.
So if I paint my face and wear feathers, am I now Native American?
I don't know what "takes the spirit" means. What you're saying is that this religion claims the ancient European pagan tradition as its ancestry in a part of its claim of legitimacy, except it seems to not be faithful or authentic at all to the actual practices performed or perceptions of deities held by ancient Europeans (and let us all be thankful this is not the case). When you say that it "takes on the trappings" it's another way of saying that this religion only is meant to appear like it is something that stretches back to ancient European practices, and does not actually do so.
What you're describing sounds like it is to pagan European religion what a Renaissance fair is to feudal Europe.
Additionally, I don't know about Wicca, but I know at least in ADF Druidry they make sacrifices, usually of art or some sort of craft that they have poured a lot of energy and time into, as a symbol of devotion.
No, I'm talking about killing something that's alive.
Note that animals were prized possesions back when animal sacrifice was practiced, so it would be a powerful symbol of devotion to give up your livestock in the name of your beliefs.
That isn't why ancients sacrificed animals or human beings. Both animals and human beings are made of meat and blood and fat and bone. That is why the ancients sacrificed animals or human beings.
Additionally, there are other reasons for animal sacrifice; many would have then been cooked or preserved just as the animals would have been anyways, the sacrifice and ceremonies around it could be explained by a cultural anthropologist as to help bind the community.
But how a cultural anthropologist would explain animal sacrifice is not how the practitioners of a religion would.
You're really, really trying to dance around the fact that the ancients killed living things and spilled blood and burned bones because this was seen as pleasing and nourishing to their gods, and it shows.
Really, are we just going to paint Wicca as spontaneously made-up to that extent?
Tiax, I'm not sure you actually know the history of Wicca. It didn't just start with Gardner emulating Margaret Murray's writings, but it also has roots in Aleister Crowley's practices, and through that the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, through that to Freemasonry, through to real folk magic of the pre-victorian times. There is a link, it just isn't in an unbroken secret New Haven coven Seperate from the Crowley link, Wicca also has ties to Neo-Druidism, particularly with Gardner's past with Druidry and with his friendship with Ross Nichols, who was a major catalyst of contemporary druidry. Furthermore, most if not all of the imagery and dieties found in Wiccan practice do have historical basis. Pan wasn't just made up sixty years ago.
Compare that with Scientology, which as far as my knowledge in the subject reaches, started with a book from a science fiction author with no historical ties.
Yes, I'm familiar with all that. Here's a fun fact - Hubbard also has similar links to Crowley. Does that give Scientology any more credibility in your eyes?
It boils down to this - the supposed 'links' to some sort of ancient pagan practice claimed by Wicca are incredibly weak and without a shred of historical evidence to back them up. By contrast, the links to known shams such as Murray and Gardner are quite clear. For anyone to understand those facts, and yet choose to believe that Wicca is in some way a valid revival of ancient practices and not a bunch of hogwash dreamed up in the early to mid 20th Century is wishful thinking in the extreme.
I'd like to stress that the person who equated the witch trials to the holocaust was one feminist wiccan, and isn't necessarily representing Dianic Wicca in its entirety.
You're right that she's not necessarily representative, but in fact there are a lot of Dianic Wiccans out there who think like her. Because, of course, like attracts like in the realm of ideas. I know I would steer clear of her if I were trying to choose a congregation.
Additionally, I don't know about Wicca, but I know at least in ADF Druidry they make sacrifices, usually of art or some sort of craft that they have poured a lot of energy and time into, as a symbol of devotion. Note that animals were prized possesions back when animal sacrifice was practiced, so it would be a powerful symbol of devotion to give up your livestock in the name of your beliefs. Additionally, there are other reasons for animal sacrifice; many would have then been cooked or preserved just as the animals would have been anyways, the sacrifice and ceremonies around it could be explained by a cultural anthropologist as to help bind the community.
One very common feature of religious practice (that, surprisingly, we don't really see too often in the mainstream religions these days) is the controlled violation of cultural taboo. It can be bloodshed, public sex, cannibalism, or even the handling of human waste, but in all cases, it's something that would never be done in everyday life; it serves to draw a sharp distinction between the secular and the sacred, and to amplify the psychological impact of the sacred through shock value.
I mention this because my personal theory is that the operative violation of neopagan religions is their mere existence. All they need to do to bind their members together this way, given the cultural context in which they exist, is to not be Christian.
Really, are we just going to paint Wicca as spontaneously made-up to that extent? Again, the image of Pan, or Cernunnous, or Herne, or any others weren't just made up by Gardner.
I never claimed that Gardner had done all the creative heavy lifting. The revivalism you cite is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a romanticization - literally - and has much more to do with the concepts and ideals of the Romantic movement than the concepts and ideals of anyone who would have been identified as a "pagan".
And I certainly remember a poem written by Aleister Crowley, in which he depicts a homosexual encounter with a darker, yet still revived Pan, though I can't cite it (nor to I particularily want to XD)
How many Wiccans do you think revere that Pan?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, I'm familiar with all that. Here's a fun fact - Hubbard also has similar links to Crowley. Does that give Scientology any more credibility in your eyes?
It boils down to this - the supposed 'links' to some sort of ancient pagan practice claimed by Wicca are incredibly weak and without a shred of historical evidence to back them up. By contrast, the links to known shams such as Murray and Gardner are quite clear. For anyone to understand those facts, and yet choose to believe that Wicca is in some way a valid revival of ancient practices and not a bunch of hogwash dreamed up in the early to mid 20th Century is wishful thinking in the extreme.
This has gotten so far off topic...
I believe the difference there is that Hubbard worked in Thelema and moved to make his own religion that is unrelated, whereas Wicca is a continuation of Crowley's magic, thus a continuation of the Order, etc.
So if I paint my face and wear feathers, am I now Native American?
I don't know what "takes the spirit" means. What you're saying is that this religion claims the ancient European pagan tradition as its ancestry in a part of its claim of legitimacy, except it seems to not be faithful or authentic at all to the actual practices performed or perceptions of deities held by ancient Europeans (and let us all be thankful this is not the case). When you say that it "takes on the trappings" it's another way of saying that this religion only is meant to appear like it is something that stretches back to ancient European practices, and does not actually do so.
I apologize for not being clear... and I'm not sure I can adequately explain the concept. I think its kind of like how Reconstructionist Druids attack Romantic Druids for taking the appearences while having modern practice that wasn't what the ancient Druids did... its a matter of spiritual lineage and inspiration. Like, Romantic Druidry isn't just trying to look like ancient Druids, they are taking the ideas and concepts that did exist and that inspire them and applying it to a modern practice. That is still woefully inadequate, but there's only so much I can express through a forum :/
You're really, really trying to dance around the fact that the ancients killed living things and spilled blood and burned bones because this was seen as pleasing and nourishing to their gods, and it shows.
Erm, I'm trying to examine things from many perspectives, not just theological. It just shows that conditions change. Not even the most hardcore of Reconstructionist Druids can replicate ancient practices perfectly. Animal and human sacrifice were a part of culture, and now they aren't. I don't see a functional difference between that and sacrifice in the Old Testament.
I really wish you'd give me the benefit of the doubt rather than interpreting me in the least favourable way, Highroller.
Granted, most Wiccans I've encountered are of the teenage-girl-rebelling-against-parents* variety, but they definitely do claim this.
*Interestingly, not always against Christian parents. If Daddy's a scientist, plunging into mysticism can be a great way to get his goat.
I know the type as well... I usually just ignore them when factoring in Wicca as they'll grow out of it in a year. I think that if you speak with those very much involved in Wiccan culture (not I) they will say that most of everyone, excluding certain very naive people like the rebellious teen, recognize that they are not replicating an ancient practice like that. They know about Gardner's story.
I mention this because my personal theory is that the operative violation of neopagan religions is their mere existence. All they need to do to bind their members together this way, given the cultural context in which they exist, is to not be Christian.
I'm not sure I understand this... neopaganism has been divorced from the non-christian religion meaning to somewhere along the lines of 'nature-based spirituality.'
I never claimed that Gardner had done all the creative heavy lifting. The revivalism you cite is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a romanticization - literally - and has much more to do with the concepts and ideals of the Romantic movement than the concepts and ideals of anyone who would have been identified as a "pagan".
I'm not really sure where to go from there... Pan was brought back because he was pastoral and represented the wild in contrast to the Industrial Revolution... his adaptations were aquired over time, but I still see the functional similarity between a hedonistic, natural Pan and a Pan used as a name to invoke male divinity in Wicca that still has that sexual aspect to him. I'm not a Wiccan, so I don't claim to understand all the nuances.
Heh heh, I know some do. The horned god in Wicca is very much sexual.
All of this is besides the point of the justification of a female-exclusive religion...
EDIT: I think I see some of the ambiguity that may be confusing. The acutal magic practices have direct lineage to folk magic through to ancient times. The theology is a synthesis of romantic subjects and their romantic adaptations, Neo-Druidic practice, and recent adaptations of ancient religions. Remember that sometimes the theological ties to gods can be as weak as invoking one of their names to get an image of male or female divinity that has the connotations of that god. For example, invoking Pan may bring imagery of male sexuality and untamed wild instinct.
I apologize for not being clear... and I'm not sure I can adequately explain the concept. I think its kind of like how Reconstructionist Druids attack Romantic Druids for taking the appearences while having modern practice that wasn't what the ancient Druids did...
Whereas the Reconstructionists are so faithful? We've got, what, like two texts that talk about the Druids in anything even resembling detail, they're both Roman, and what facts they do purport to convey are vague at best. Those, plus some inconclusive archaeology that can't definitively associate any given artifact with the Druids, are not much to base a religion on.
We know the name of one historical person who may have been a Druid, or may not have been. We have none of the oral traditions that were reportedly the core of the Druids' identity. We can't even say for certain that the Druids were religious figures.
About the only thing we do know is that Stonehenge is far too old for the Druids to have had anything to do with it.
Like, Romantic Druidry isn't just trying to look like ancient Druids, they are taking the ideas and concepts that did exist and that inspire them and applying it to a modern practice.
What ideas and concepts? If I recall correctly, the entirety of our knowledge about the Druids' spiritual beliefs is Caesar's report that they thought people underwent reincarnation.
Erm, I'm trying to examine things from many perspectives, not just theological. It just shows that conditions change. Not even the most hardcore of Reconstructionist Druids can replicate ancient practices perfectly. Animal and human sacrifice were a part of culture, and now they aren't. I don't see a functional difference between that and sacrifice in the Old Testament.
Christians would argue that Jesus represented a theological turning point; they don't have to invoke changing cultural practices and all the perils of that argument. Not sure about the Jews, though...
I'm not sure I understand this... neopaganism has been divorced from the non-christian religion meaning to somewhere along the lines of 'nature-based spirituality.'
A nature-based spirituality that stands in stark contrast to the Christianized cultural values of the surrounding society. I'm not talking about formal theory. I'm talking about the psychological effect of going from a Christian-culture everyday context into a very different neopagan religious context. To this I might also add the contrast of modernity vs. archaicism (however anachronistic or outright fictitious the archaicism actually is, it feels old, and so has this psychological effect).
I'm not really sure where to go from there... Pan was brought back because he was pastoral and represented the wild in contrast to the Industrial Revolution... his adaptations were aquired over time, but I still see the functional similarity between a hedonistic, natural Pan and a Pan used as a name to invoke male divinity in Wicca that still has that sexual aspect to him.
They might as well have called him Genghis Khan, since he was also wild, male, and a big fan of sex consensual or otherwise. And he actually existed, too, so chalk one more point up for him.
Of course, but in a positive, life-affirming, and overall sanitized-for-modern-mores way. I'm not sure it's even conceptually possible in Wicca for the divine male to have raped the divine female, since they are perceived as being in some senses the same entity. A state of affairs further from classical paganism is difficult to imagine.
Most contemporary Druids also go off of Celtic Mythology including the cycles of the Tuatha De Denann and the Mabonogion, and the songs and poetry of bards for gleaning insight into Druidic practice; I'm not entirely sure, but I think the leading theory was that the subject matter of the Welsh bards is believed to contain elements of the druidic oral tradition. Again, I'm fuzzy on that as I don't focus too much on the history of Druidry, for me personally it is a pantheistic nature-based spirituality; my concepts of gods and spirits are very convoluted.
A nature-based spirituality that stands in stark contrast to the Christianized cultural values of the surrounding society. I'm not talking about formal theory. I'm talking about the psychological effect of going from a Christian-culture everyday context into a very different neopagan religious context. To this I might also add the contrast of modernity vs. archaicism (however anachronistic or outright fictitious the archaicism actually is, it feels old, and so has this psychological effect).
Ah, okay I see what you're getting at. I think you may be playing up the Christian/Pagan dichtomy a bit too much. Of course the teenager stereotype exists, I've seen it happen. But I've also seen people who were atheist their whole lives be interested in contemporary Paganism, people who retain vestiges of their Christianity but feel that contemporary Paganism speaks to them, and people who shifted out of Chrisitianity into Atheism in manners reactionary and non-reactionary, and then gradually shift into contemporary Paganism. Many have described it as more of a 'coming home' feel than as a hostility to Christianity; I think our new sense of environmentalism combined with the latent spirituality in people who aren't affiliated with religions may help explain its existence as much as a reaction to Chrisitianity, especially now that Chrisitanity has such a loose and ever loosening influence in western society (markedly more pronounced in the UK, Canada, and parts of western Europe than the US, I believe)
I apologize for not being clear... and I'm not sure I can adequately explain the concept. I think its kind of like how Reconstructionist Druids attack Romantic Druids for taking the appearences while having modern practice that wasn't what the ancient Druids did... its a matter of spiritual lineage and inspiration. Like, Romantic Druidry isn't just trying to look like ancient Druids, they are taking the ideas and concepts that did exist and that inspire them and applying it to a modern practice. That is still woefully inadequate, but there's only so much I can express through a forum :/
And what modern ideas are those? If the gods and images worshiped don't resemble the gods and images of the past, and aren't worshiped in the same ways, and the theology is different, then how is it the same religion?
(And again, it's not like the religion being described is really something we'd want to be authentic to anyway.)
Erm, I'm trying to examine things from many perspectives, not just theological.
Except you seem to be outright ignoring the theological, which is problematic when you're trying to defend a religion.
It just shows that conditions change. Not even the most hardcore of Reconstructionist Druids can replicate ancient practices perfectly. Animal and human sacrifice were a part of culture, and now they aren't. I don't see a functional difference between that and sacrifice in the Old Testament.
The reason why animal sacrifices aren't performed in Judaism is the Temple at which they were performed was torn down and the grounds on which the Temple originally occupied now has a mosque on it. At least for Orthodox Jews, I imagine the amount of time in which sacrificing animals has not been a part of the religion, combined with the fact that most modern religions don't sacrifice animals, which would have been unheard of in ancient times, has created a major paradigm shift in Judaism.
As for Christianity, Jesus was the sacrifice for all time.
All of this is besides the point of the justification of a female-exclusive religion...
I thought we already discussed that this was a bunch of people being very silly.
...the Tuatha De Denann and the Mabonogion, and the songs and poetry of bards...
All written down by Christian monks centuries after the de-druidification of the Roman Empire. The druids share a very special distinction with the Christians in that the Roman Empire outlawed both. Ireland was never part of the Roman Empire, of course, so the Irish cycles might be thought to have somewhat more information - but since Ireland was also Christianized quite early, all we're really talking about is four or five centuries of lag instead of seven or eight.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the leading theory was that the subject matter of the Welsh bards is believed to contain elements of the druidic oral tradition.
I'd be interested in hearing the argument for making this connection. The one thing I know about druids and bards is that the Roman writers drew a sharp distinction between them as two separate classes of learned Celt. Their reliability is questionable, of course, but my reasoning is that if even outsiders noticed the distinction it was probably pretty major. (Romans are not renowned for their cultural sensitivity.)
But I've also seen people who were atheist their whole lives be interested in contemporary Paganism, people who retain vestiges of their Christianity but feel that contemporary Paganism speaks to them, and people who shifted out of Chrisitianity into Atheism in manners reactionary and non-reactionary, and then gradually shift into contemporary Paganism.
Again, I'm not talking about formal theory. Whether or not you believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, you spend most of your time in a Christianized cultural context. To flaunt the expectations produced by that context is to produce a mild form of this sacred violation.
Let's look at a simple linguistic example: the Wiccan Rede. "An it harm none, do what ye will." I submit that if Elizabethan English were still the normal everyday form of the language, this particular phrase would not have nearly the appeal that it does. It is because it is different that it acquires power - even though, analytically speaking, there's no significance to the difference at all.
Plus, of course, there's the fact that Wiccans have adopted the identity of a fictitious enemy of Christianity - wicca was an Anglo-Saxon term for a maleficent sorcerer (a masculine term, o Dianic Wiccans!) and of course was the direct ancestor of modern English witch (which it was actually pronounced like; OE <cc> = MdE <ch> = /tʃ/).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It was first said to the people who advocated segregated schools, but I think it is applicable to those who would refuse people access to their religion based on gender.
It was first said to the people who advocated segregated schools, but I think it is applicable to those who would refuse people access to their religion based on gender.
If seperate isn't equal, why do we have mens rooms and womens rooms?
I agree with your point, just posing a debating challenge. I'm perfectly fine with men and women being seperated during worship. But how is gender exclusivity, if it is a tenant of their religion, different from other religious tenants?
Edit: Is there precedent for religious organizations being allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs? Are evangelical churches required to allow homosexuals to attend services?
I believe the difference there is that Hubbard worked in Thelema and moved to make his own religion that is unrelated, whereas Wicca is a continuation of Crowley's magic, thus a continuation of the Order, etc.
The use of the term 'continuation' in this context is so absurdly generous as to defy belief.
If seperate isn't equal, why do we have mens rooms and womens rooms?
I do not know. Probably because woman would not like it. If women have objections to toilets being segregated then sure by all means let start a movement for the proliferation of co ed bathrooms.
Does not bother me, but I guess the issue of seperated bathrooms is a bit different than separated religion. They do not prejudice against people in the same way me thinks.
Saying Dianic Paganism is sexist towards men is bs. I was taught Dianic Paganism... Two of my instructors were in fact men and many other men were part of the related coven. I think it depends more on where you live. For instance in Arizona, all Pagan groups have aspects of christianity and is sexist towards women. There is not a single Dianic group in the entire state, at least I can't find one. Dianic Paganism does not just worship female deities. Deities are a personal choice that an individual should resonate with. If anything Dianic Paganism is more liberating for males and females alike more then any religion out there!
Saying Dianic Paganism is sexist towards men is bs. I was taught Dianic Paganism... Two of my instructors were in fact men and many other men were part of the related coven.
That doesn't make it not sexist.
For instance in Arizona, all Pagan groups have aspects of christianity and is sexist towards women.
In what way?
Dianic Paganism does not just worship female deities.
Elaborate on this? Because it seems that worshiping one female deity is the entire point of Dianic Paganism.
If anything Dianic Paganism is more liberating for males and females alike more then any religion out there!
For many of you who do not know, there is a branch of Wicca called Dianic Wicca, or Feminist Wicca. With one exception that I know of, the Dianic traditions of Wicca only allow females to practice, and they more or less exclusively worship a feminine Goddess of many names, Diana their namesake being one such name.
The Feminist Wiccan movement seems to be a response to male-dominated Christianity in the west, and also more specifically a response to the witch-craze of 300 years ago, where 85% of accused witches burned at the stake were women, often singled out because of deviance from social norms or simply because of a dispute. As a feminist journalist put it, "we had a Women's Holocaust." (Paraphrased quote taken from The Burning Times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Times)
A question was raised in class after learning about Dianic traditions. Are these traditions sexist towards males, recognizing the negative connotations of the term? If so, is this sexism a justified response to patriarchal religious practices over the last two-thousand years?
I ask these same questions to you.
Yes, if it's a female exclusive religion, then I'm pretty sure that the question of whether or not it's a religion that is biased in terms of whether or not one is female is pretty firmly established. Matter of fact I think it's pretty clear that's the entire point.
The real question is: so what? They're sexist. It's like saying, "All black fraternity: Racist?" What are you trying to point out that people don't already know?
The more relevant question is: regardless of whether or not it's justified, would the people who are engaging in such practices actually care?
Moreover, does anyone else in the world really care about them?
On the point of the witch trials, men and cats were also severely tormented. There are some arguments that the black death was helped spread via a "cat holocaust" since there were fewer cats to kill off the mice and rats that spread the plague.
It's like asking why the old Batman movies gave Batman, Robin, and Batgirl nipples on their costumes.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I have a really hard time accepting Wicca or anything Wicca-related as a serious thing meriting comparison to the 'patriarchal religious practices over the last two-thousand years'. It's like asking whether the Rent Is Too Damn High party is a valid response to the two-party system of American politics. Just putting them in the same sentence is giving way more credit than is due.
As for your questions: I would be hard-pressed to formulate a general definition of "sexism" that would not cover a group that excludes men and preaches the superiority of the female over the male. Certainly the reverse situation, exemplified by the Catholic priesthood, is sexist. And if they argue that the sexism of the former is justified by the sexism of the latter, I'd argue back that the latter is the superior morality, for though it is sexist at least it preaches not to pay evil unto evil but to turn the other cheek. Now, in practice, it is my understanding that most Wiccans agree with this admonition against vengeance, and also believe that male and female are equal partners in the great spiritual enterprise. In which case, Dianic Wicca stands as opposed to the rest of Wicca as it does to the ideals of liberal society in general.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I've met people with genuine, valid reasons for practicing Wicca beyond being Scene. So it is a real thing, even if it is only backed up by Personal Revelation.
DISCLAIMER: "Valid," is used subjectively. I was merely saying that it cannot be dismissed as a fake religion.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Sure, I don't doubt that people genuinely believe it, but the history of Wicca makes it impossible in my mind to view it as anything other than a sham, sort of like Scientology. The fact that someone genuinely believes in it doesn't so much elevate my opinion of Wicca as much as it greatly decreases my view of that person's good sense.
I'm going to talk to my professor about The Burning Times; she prefaced it by saying that it was feminist and paints the chruch in a bad image, but I agree that some of the proportions are waaaaay out of whack. I used the example to preface the question as it was prefaced in class, to give some background.
The question of whether it is valid to call it truly sexist lies in that the Dianic tradition doesn't actually state that females are superior to males, to the best of my knowledge.
Tiax, I'm not sure you actually know the history of Wicca. It didn't just start with Gardner emulating Margaret Murray's writings, but it also has roots in Aleister Crowley's practices, and through that the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, through that to Freemasonry, through to real folk magic of the pre-victorian times. There is a link, it just isn't in an unbroken secret New Haven coven Seperate from the Crowley link, Wicca also has ties to Neo-Druidism, particularly with Gardner's past with Druidry and with his friendship with Ross Nichols, who was a major catalyst of contemporary druidry. Furthermore, most if not all of the imagery and dieties found in Wiccan practice do have historical basis. Pan wasn't just made up sixty years ago.
Compare that with Scientology, which as far as my knowledge in the subject reaches, started with a book from a science fiction author with no historical ties.
A segregationist can say that he doesn't believe whites are superior to blacks, but nevertheless that assumption lies implicit in everything else he says. In a cultural context where the labels "sexism" and "racism" have such deeply negative connotations, a declaration that one is not racist or sexist means next to nothing.
Pan in Greek mythology was a discrete entity and hedonistic rapist. The kind-and-fluffy duotheistic divine masculine of Wicca is a reimagining so profound that they might as well have just made up a new name and imagery.
Nothing wrong with making things up, anyway. It's more honest than lifting symbols from a vastly different religion to give your own ideas the appearance of a historical pedigree that wouldn't mean anything even if it were real. Bokonon knew how it was done.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1. This is a group of women who accept only women as practitioners of their religion, who go out of their way to accentuate the fact that they worship a goddess who is female, who go out of their way to accentuate the fact that they exclude men, and who justify this practice by claiming that a mass killing in the past was a "Holocaust against women," which as Blinking_Spirit pointed out, was not a Holocaust in terms of scale, was not aimed against women specifically, and had male victims that this group has gone out of its way to ignore the existence of.
So no, I don't believe for an instant that this group doesn't consider women superior to men.
2. It would still be sexism even if they didn't:
So yes, they're sexist. If sex is the determining factor, then it's sex discrimination.
Not to mention: no one is sacrificing anything. Sacrifices were a fundamental part of ancient religion.
Though that really calls into question why anyone would even WANT the claim that their religion was faithful to the practices of ancient pagan Europe to be true at all.
I don't think many Wiccans are claiming that their practices are faithful to ancient european pagan tradition, more that it takes the spirit, and some of the trappings of the religions. I'd like to stress that the person who equated the witch trials to the holocaust was one feminist wiccan, and isn't necessarily representing Dianic Wicca in its entirety.
Additionally, I don't know about Wicca, but I know at least in ADF Druidry they make sacrifices, usually of art or some sort of craft that they have poured a lot of energy and time into, as a symbol of devotion. Note that animals were prized possesions back when animal sacrifice was practiced, so it would be a powerful symbol of devotion to give up your livestock in the name of your beliefs. Additionally, there are other reasons for animal sacrifice; many would have then been cooked or preserved just as the animals would have been anyways, the sacrifice and ceremonies around it could be explained by a cultural anthropologist as to help bind the community.
Really, are we just going to paint Wicca as spontaneously made-up to that extent? Again, the image of Pan, or Cernunnous, or Herne, or any others weren't just made up by Gardner. They each have distinct origins in centuries past. If I remember correctly, Pan was 'revived' in British folklore from his Greek roots in the 17th or 18th century, and was carried on as a sort of folk idol. A plausible example of the continuation of the revival of Pan as an idea could be found in The Wind in the Willows, although I admit I haven't personally investigated that... it's been a while since I learned about these roots and that example stuck in my head because I've been meaning to read that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_%28god%29#Revivalist_imagery
And I certainly remember a poem written by Aleister Crowley, in which he depicts a homosexual encounter with a darker, yet still revived Pan, though I can't cite it (nor to I particularily want to XD)
So if I paint my face and wear feathers, am I now Native American?
I don't know what "takes the spirit" means. What you're saying is that this religion claims the ancient European pagan tradition as its ancestry in a part of its claim of legitimacy, except it seems to not be faithful or authentic at all to the actual practices performed or perceptions of deities held by ancient Europeans (and let us all be thankful this is not the case). When you say that it "takes on the trappings" it's another way of saying that this religion only is meant to appear like it is something that stretches back to ancient European practices, and does not actually do so.
What you're describing sounds like it is to pagan European religion what a Renaissance fair is to feudal Europe.
No, I'm talking about killing something that's alive.
That isn't why ancients sacrificed animals or human beings. Both animals and human beings are made of meat and blood and fat and bone. That is why the ancients sacrificed animals or human beings.
But how a cultural anthropologist would explain animal sacrifice is not how the practitioners of a religion would.
You're really, really trying to dance around the fact that the ancients killed living things and spilled blood and burned bones because this was seen as pleasing and nourishing to their gods, and it shows.
If the shoe fits...
Yes, I'm familiar with all that. Here's a fun fact - Hubbard also has similar links to Crowley. Does that give Scientology any more credibility in your eyes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard#Occult_involvement_in_Pasadena
It boils down to this - the supposed 'links' to some sort of ancient pagan practice claimed by Wicca are incredibly weak and without a shred of historical evidence to back them up. By contrast, the links to known shams such as Murray and Gardner are quite clear. For anyone to understand those facts, and yet choose to believe that Wicca is in some way a valid revival of ancient practices and not a bunch of hogwash dreamed up in the early to mid 20th Century is wishful thinking in the extreme.
Granted, most Wiccans I've encountered are of the teenage-girl-rebelling-against-parents* variety, but they definitely do claim this.
*Interestingly, not always against Christian parents. If Daddy's a scientist, plunging into mysticism can be a great way to get his goat.
You're right that she's not necessarily representative, but in fact there are a lot of Dianic Wiccans out there who think like her. Because, of course, like attracts like in the realm of ideas. I know I would steer clear of her if I were trying to choose a congregation.
One very common feature of religious practice (that, surprisingly, we don't really see too often in the mainstream religions these days) is the controlled violation of cultural taboo. It can be bloodshed, public sex, cannibalism, or even the handling of human waste, but in all cases, it's something that would never be done in everyday life; it serves to draw a sharp distinction between the secular and the sacred, and to amplify the psychological impact of the sacred through shock value.
I mention this because my personal theory is that the operative violation of neopagan religions is their mere existence. All they need to do to bind their members together this way, given the cultural context in which they exist, is to not be Christian.
I never claimed that Gardner had done all the creative heavy lifting. The revivalism you cite is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a romanticization - literally - and has much more to do with the concepts and ideals of the Romantic movement than the concepts and ideals of anyone who would have been identified as a "pagan".
How many Wiccans do you think revere that Pan?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This has gotten so far off topic...
I believe the difference there is that Hubbard worked in Thelema and moved to make his own religion that is unrelated, whereas Wicca is a continuation of Crowley's magic, thus a continuation of the Order, etc.
I apologize for not being clear... and I'm not sure I can adequately explain the concept. I think its kind of like how Reconstructionist Druids attack Romantic Druids for taking the appearences while having modern practice that wasn't what the ancient Druids did... its a matter of spiritual lineage and inspiration. Like, Romantic Druidry isn't just trying to look like ancient Druids, they are taking the ideas and concepts that did exist and that inspire them and applying it to a modern practice. That is still woefully inadequate, but there's only so much I can express through a forum :/
Erm, I'm trying to examine things from many perspectives, not just theological. It just shows that conditions change. Not even the most hardcore of Reconstructionist Druids can replicate ancient practices perfectly. Animal and human sacrifice were a part of culture, and now they aren't. I don't see a functional difference between that and sacrifice in the Old Testament.
I really wish you'd give me the benefit of the doubt rather than interpreting me in the least favourable way, Highroller.
I know the type as well... I usually just ignore them when factoring in Wicca as they'll grow out of it in a year. I think that if you speak with those very much involved in Wiccan culture (not I) they will say that most of everyone, excluding certain very naive people like the rebellious teen, recognize that they are not replicating an ancient practice like that. They know about Gardner's story.
I'm not sure I understand this... neopaganism has been divorced from the non-christian religion meaning to somewhere along the lines of 'nature-based spirituality.'
I'm not really sure where to go from there... Pan was brought back because he was pastoral and represented the wild in contrast to the Industrial Revolution... his adaptations were aquired over time, but I still see the functional similarity between a hedonistic, natural Pan and a Pan used as a name to invoke male divinity in Wicca that still has that sexual aspect to him. I'm not a Wiccan, so I don't claim to understand all the nuances.
Heh heh, I know some do. The horned god in Wicca is very much sexual.
All of this is besides the point of the justification of a female-exclusive religion...
EDIT: I think I see some of the ambiguity that may be confusing. The acutal magic practices have direct lineage to folk magic through to ancient times. The theology is a synthesis of romantic subjects and their romantic adaptations, Neo-Druidic practice, and recent adaptations of ancient religions. Remember that sometimes the theological ties to gods can be as weak as invoking one of their names to get an image of male or female divinity that has the connotations of that god. For example, invoking Pan may bring imagery of male sexuality and untamed wild instinct.
Whereas the Reconstructionists are so faithful? We've got, what, like two texts that talk about the Druids in anything even resembling detail, they're both Roman, and what facts they do purport to convey are vague at best. Those, plus some inconclusive archaeology that can't definitively associate any given artifact with the Druids, are not much to base a religion on.
We know the name of one historical person who may have been a Druid, or may not have been. We have none of the oral traditions that were reportedly the core of the Druids' identity. We can't even say for certain that the Druids were religious figures.
About the only thing we do know is that Stonehenge is far too old for the Druids to have had anything to do with it.
What ideas and concepts? If I recall correctly, the entirety of our knowledge about the Druids' spiritual beliefs is Caesar's report that they thought people underwent reincarnation.
Christians would argue that Jesus represented a theological turning point; they don't have to invoke changing cultural practices and all the perils of that argument. Not sure about the Jews, though...
A nature-based spirituality that stands in stark contrast to the Christianized cultural values of the surrounding society. I'm not talking about formal theory. I'm talking about the psychological effect of going from a Christian-culture everyday context into a very different neopagan religious context. To this I might also add the contrast of modernity vs. archaicism (however anachronistic or outright fictitious the archaicism actually is, it feels old, and so has this psychological effect).
They might as well have called him Genghis Khan, since he was also wild, male, and a big fan of sex consensual or otherwise. And he actually existed, too, so chalk one more point up for him.
Of course, but in a positive, life-affirming, and overall sanitized-for-modern-mores way. I'm not sure it's even conceptually possible in Wicca for the divine male to have raped the divine female, since they are perceived as being in some senses the same entity. A state of affairs further from classical paganism is difficult to imagine.
To be honest, I'm not sure that there's much else to say about this, at least not until a Dianic Wiccan can show up to defend her beliefs.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ah, okay I see what you're getting at. I think you may be playing up the Christian/Pagan dichtomy a bit too much. Of course the teenager stereotype exists, I've seen it happen. But I've also seen people who were atheist their whole lives be interested in contemporary Paganism, people who retain vestiges of their Christianity but feel that contemporary Paganism speaks to them, and people who shifted out of Chrisitianity into Atheism in manners reactionary and non-reactionary, and then gradually shift into contemporary Paganism. Many have described it as more of a 'coming home' feel than as a hostility to Christianity; I think our new sense of environmentalism combined with the latent spirituality in people who aren't affiliated with religions may help explain its existence as much as a reaction to Chrisitianity, especially now that Chrisitanity has such a loose and ever loosening influence in western society (markedly more pronounced in the UK, Canada, and parts of western Europe than the US, I believe)
And what modern ideas are those? If the gods and images worshiped don't resemble the gods and images of the past, and aren't worshiped in the same ways, and the theology is different, then how is it the same religion?
(And again, it's not like the religion being described is really something we'd want to be authentic to anyway.)
Except you seem to be outright ignoring the theological, which is problematic when you're trying to defend a religion.
The reason why animal sacrifices aren't performed in Judaism is the Temple at which they were performed was torn down and the grounds on which the Temple originally occupied now has a mosque on it. At least for Orthodox Jews, I imagine the amount of time in which sacrificing animals has not been a part of the religion, combined with the fact that most modern religions don't sacrifice animals, which would have been unheard of in ancient times, has created a major paradigm shift in Judaism.
As for Christianity, Jesus was the sacrifice for all time.
I thought we already discussed that this was a bunch of people being very silly.
All written down by Christian monks centuries after the de-druidification of the Roman Empire. The druids share a very special distinction with the Christians in that the Roman Empire outlawed both. Ireland was never part of the Roman Empire, of course, so the Irish cycles might be thought to have somewhat more information - but since Ireland was also Christianized quite early, all we're really talking about is four or five centuries of lag instead of seven or eight.
I'd be interested in hearing the argument for making this connection. The one thing I know about druids and bards is that the Roman writers drew a sharp distinction between them as two separate classes of learned Celt. Their reliability is questionable, of course, but my reasoning is that if even outsiders noticed the distinction it was probably pretty major. (Romans are not renowned for their cultural sensitivity.)
Again, I'm not talking about formal theory. Whether or not you believe in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus, you spend most of your time in a Christianized cultural context. To flaunt the expectations produced by that context is to produce a mild form of this sacred violation.
Let's look at a simple linguistic example: the Wiccan Rede. "An it harm none, do what ye will." I submit that if Elizabethan English were still the normal everyday form of the language, this particular phrase would not have nearly the appeal that it does. It is because it is different that it acquires power - even though, analytically speaking, there's no significance to the difference at all.
Plus, of course, there's the fact that Wiccans have adopted the identity of a fictitious enemy of Christianity - wicca was an Anglo-Saxon term for a maleficent sorcerer (a masculine term, o Dianic Wiccans!) and of course was the direct ancestor of modern English witch (which it was actually pronounced like; OE <cc> = MdE <ch> = /tʃ/).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Separate cannot be equal
It was first said to the people who advocated segregated schools, but I think it is applicable to those who would refuse people access to their religion based on gender.
Insert witty phrase here
If seperate isn't equal, why do we have mens rooms and womens rooms?
I agree with your point, just posing a debating challenge. I'm perfectly fine with men and women being seperated during worship. But how is gender exclusivity, if it is a tenant of their religion, different from other religious tenants?
Edit: Is there precedent for religious organizations being allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs? Are evangelical churches required to allow homosexuals to attend services?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The use of the term 'continuation' in this context is so absurdly generous as to defy belief.
I do not know. Probably because woman would not like it. If women have objections to toilets being segregated then sure by all means let start a movement for the proliferation of co ed bathrooms.
Does not bother me, but I guess the issue of seperated bathrooms is a bit different than separated religion. They do not prejudice against people in the same way me thinks.
Insert witty phrase here
That doesn't make it not sexist.
In what way?
Elaborate on this? Because it seems that worshiping one female deity is the entire point of Dianic Paganism.
In what way?