On Faith: Faith in 2010

Jason Pitzl-Waters —  December 29, 2010 — 17 Comments

My latest response at the Washington Post’s On Faith site is now up.

Here’s this week’s panel question:

“As voted by the Religion Newswriters Association’s members, among the year’s most consequential religion newsmakers were Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Pope Benedict XVI, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and the U.S. bishops. How would you have ranked them? Has their influence been harmful or constructive? What issue or person do you expect to have the biggest impact in the year to come?”

Here’s an excerpt from my response:

“Many of the noted figures making the biggest waves in the world of religion journalism in 2010 have a troubled, sometimes hostile, relationship to religious minorities in general, and modern Paganism in particular. Their prominence and influence are a constant reminder that our freedoms are sustained by secular ideals of a separation between church and state, a concept under constant attack by those who would prefer a “Christian America,” or at least one that gave special dispensation to their majorities. This tension is often characterized as a mere difference of opinion, but this is a fundamental disconnect that allows outlandish statements and associations to be ignored by mainstream media outlets.”

I hope you’ll head over to the site and read my full response, and the other panelist responses, and share your thoughts.

In Paganism, Religion , , ,
permalink

Jason Pitzl-Waters

Posts

  • http://erynn999.livejournal.com Erynn

    Your statement of the issue was excellent, Jason, and I do hope that some of those readers will follow your suggestion and come here to look at these events from our perspectives. There is entirely too much groveling to majority religions in the US, particularly to Christianity; it erupts everywhere in our politics, in our military, and in our civic life. No matter what anyone claims, there is a religious litmus test for office in this country and it is long past time to acknowledge it and change our direction.

  • Peter Dybing

    You continue to be a voice of reason in the bedlam that has infected religious discourse in this country, Well Done

    • Baruch Dreamstalker

      Your detailed summary of how several of those Faith Big Names had exhibited hostility to Paganism, was an excellent rejoinder to the frothy Religious Journalism Lite question. I'm looking forward to your countdown of top religious stories to Pagans.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=667952307 Jennifer Parsons

    Of course McCollum, et al. v. CDCR wasn't in that list. The only nods to religions that weren't Christianity or Islam (cited once, with the Park 51 issue) were "I am not a witch" and, "Oh hey! Hindiuism's gone mainstream with trendy book and movie 'Eat, Pray, Love'!" Even Judaism didn't get a mention.

    Why do Pagans and other religious minorities feel that we're marginalized? Because we freaking are.

  • Tea

    Great article Jason. I really enjoyed it. I am a little confused, though, about the sentence that includes "…New Apostolic Reformation, a movement that exhibits true ANIMUS towards modern Pagans.". Did you mean animosity?

    On a related note, I was totally disturbed the other day to discover David Barton's "documentary" America's Godly Heritage in the historical documentaries section on Netflix. I'm scared to live in a nation where ideas like his are taken seriously.

    • http://erynn999.livejournal.com Erynn

      Animus is also a word that means "hostility or ill feeling." Jason was using it appropriately.

      • Tea

        Thanks Erynn :) !!

  • Robin Artisson

    You wrote:

    "This tension is often characterized as a mere difference of opinion, but this is a fundamental disconnect that allows outlandish statements and associations to be ignored by mainstream media outlets.”

    A superb and truthful line. And this very mechanism is at work everywhere. It is the very linchpin of political correctness. When we bring up the dangers of Islamic ideology here- and talk about it being a threat to the culture of secular liberty in the west, and to religious diversity, we (me and my anti-islamic ideology droogs) are accused of being hateful and everything else… as though what Islam expresses was just another difference of "opinion" somehow, no different, really, from the religious opinions of pagans or anyone else. But it isn't. It is a very different animal, totally different, with different implications for this world and all of our lives. There is a PC "disconnect" there which gives people- especially the people who should be concerned the most, that is, members of minority religions that only exist openly because of secular liberty- a reason to ignore the danger we are facing.

  • http://www.hecatedemetersdatter.blogspot.com Hecate

    Jason,

    What you have to say is v important and I'm glad that Paganism has such a good advocate at the WaPo. Thanks, especially, for using the word "religion," rather than "faith," and for capitalizing "Paganism." My religion is not a "faith tradition"; rather it is based upon direct experience, and I find that the use of the the term "faith" gives undue importance to the Big Three Monotheisms, at least two of which do appear to be based upon faith. Similarly, I think it's important to capitalize "Paganism," since we normally capitalize, for example, "Christianity," "Judiasm," and "Islam."

    • Robin Artisson

      My debate opponents are always giving me a hard time about capitalizing "Paganism" and "Gods", but I do it anyway, and will continue to do it.

      I was just fighting with one such debate opponent today about how "faith" is not universal, and how Pagan religions, past and present, are not leaned on "faith" as Christians understand the term- and this is a very, very important point. I am not a man of faith; I am a man who believes as he does because of what he experiences. This is an extremely fundamental distinction.

    • Rombald

      I'm never sure what the rule is for capitalisation.

      One capitalises "Marxist" and "Darwinist", being from personal names, so it makes sense to capitalise "Christian" and "Buddhist". One also capitalises single institutions, as proper names, like "Roman Catholicism". I suppose one could argue that "Judaism" and "Hinduism" should be capitalised, being derived from Judaea and Hind.

      However, no-one capitalises "atheism", so I don't really see why "Islam" is capitalised. However, as long as "Islam" is capitalised, "Paganism" should be too.

    • Rombaldf

      Also, I'm putting on my helmet here, but I think "God" in a monotheist sense should be capitalised, as a name, as should "Apollo". I don't think "gods" should be capitalised, and I don't think "god" should be capitalised in a sentence should as "I wonder whether there is a god". One capitalises "king" in "the King of Denmark", or "King Henry VIII", but not in "I hate kings" or "all the kings of Europe".

      • http://xkcd.com/285 Eran Rathan

        "God" isn't a name, its a job description. If the Christians and Jews want to capitalize their god's name, it's Yesu and YHWH, respectively.

  • chuck_cosimano

    Weighting majority religions and their spokesfolk makes perfectly good sense as they are the ones who actually carry weight. Can you really find a Pagan leader that anyone takes seriously outside of Pagan circles?

  • http://witchesandscientists.blogspot.com Gene

    Good job. Very well done. One thing about a number of these people, the fact they are people "of Faith" gives them an excuse to say stupid and hateful things. It's as if "faith" acts like some sort of shield that the press will not violate..

  • Alex Pendragon

    "When they came for the Voudouns, I did, and said nothing, for it was not my problem." Is this not a familiar refrain? Of course not, because I doubt very seriously that anyone who lined up to get their copy of Palin's books logged more than an hour at most of the History channel, or remember anything that occured while they slept thru history class (IF that particular school gave any passing mention of the holocaust, that is). Palin and Beck's crowd intend, in their darkest fantasies, to bring this fear and loathing of the minority to our shores, and soon enough those of us who have the gall to admit proudly to our alergy of the monotheistic will be hunted down and dealt with, just as every other scapegoat in history has, and if you think I'm blowing these possibilities all out of proportion, then my fondest wish is to witness the look on YOUR face when they come for YOU. History WILL repeat itself if you LET IT. Underground is only so deep.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stenobauer Cathryn Bauer

    Thank you, Alex. I support gay marriage very loudly and forbid ethnic slurs and homophobic talk in our home for exactly those reasons. Less gracefully put, if it can be done to them, it creates an atmosphere of permission for it to be done to me; and how would I like it? And this in turn supports the next steps to and more mistreatment and oppression of those who do not compute to Palin, Beck, and their ilk.

    During the Reagan/Bush years, a popular theme was "I don't want to do that, so no one else should be able to." My own choices tend to be conservative, but the operative word there is "choice." I want to have one — a lot of them, actually, in how I run my life. I think it could be even worse now given what I read and hear from today's conservatives. A Palin/Beck-themed country would cut down our personal autonomy far more than anything an Obama-style Democrat could think up. I occasionally work in a setting where there are several Palin devotees, and a popular theme among theme is that the Democrats want to take our hard-earned money and our guns away and won't let us do what we want. Since it's a work setting, I bite my tongue most of the time, but I find their assumptions about Palin-style "freedom" to be downright delusional.

    Well, this turned into a bit of a rant. Hope it actually related to your post >wg<. Anyway, I agree with you, and we need to remember this.