A Cabot Witch* (The Rev. Rapid Cabot Freeman) is claiming religious discrimination in Connecticut after his local library canceled a planned Samhain ritual/presentation in their public community room.

“Freeman, who said he reserved the room four months ago with librarian Barbaranne Warner, and who has been advertising the party on his public access television show – “The Witching Hour” – for the past six weeks, said he believes it is a matter of religious discrimination. He said he’d been planning the appearance since he spoke at the library about witchcraft last year and members of the audience asked him to give a demonstration. While the town has allowed everything there from Christmas parties to christenings, he said, they are banning him because he’s a pagan.”

The event, while approved by the president of the Friends of Sprague Public Library, was nixed by the library’s First Selectman, Catherine Osten (after complaints by board of trustees members), on the grounds that Freeman didn’t follow proper procedure to reserve the space.

“…Osten said, because the event was to be held not in the library proper but in the town community room upstairs, those planning it had to get a permit from her office to use the room. Since no one had sought a permit, or paid the $50 rental fee and the $50 cleaning deposit, she said, there would be no witchcraft there on Halloween. ‘This is about someone that doesn’t want to follow process,” Osten said. “They’ve refused to apply for the room, and they want me to say OK. Have we denied it? No, because it hasn’t been presented to us to deny.’”

This situation has since led to a bitter falling out between Osten and Linda Puetz, president of the Friends of Sprague Public Library. It also led to Freeman losing the rhetorical upper hand by describing Catherin Osten’s decision as “Hitleresque”. Was Osten being discriminatory? Most likely, but she was able to hide behind the rules and regulations due to Freeman and Puetz not following proper procedure. At this point, their only recourse seems to be the court of public opinion. It is possible that Osten will back down under the threat of negative publicity due to this article, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. This whole controversy seems to be a perfect storm of discrimination, poor communication within the library, and poor planning.

* There seems to be some confusion as to whether Freeman is still within the Cabot tradition or not. On his MySpace page he claims that he has left the Cabot tradition and started his own path (called “First Blood”). But that may be old information, and things could be patched up between them for all I know. For more about Freeman, and his public access TV show, head over to this page (warning: eye-straining MySpace page).

The New York Times profiles Debra and Addie Avery, a mother and daughter who made the news recently for their quest to have Connecticut exonerate the men and women convicted of witchcraft during the 17th century. The article tells how the Averys, who are descended from convicted witch Mary Sanford, were met with an usual amount of hostility over what seemed to be a simple matter.

What passed for due process back then.

A syndicated column by Warner Todd Houston (with the oh-so-clever title of “Take Your Apology And…”) seems to encapsulate the kind of “harsh comments” received by the Averys.

“We have a busy body mother and wife who is wasting the time of everyone around her over her faux outrage about something that happened in a long lost age … This is the same sort of faux outrage we see from black Americans who want “apologies” or even reparations for slavery … There ain’t any witches being persecuted by the state in 2008 … You should apologize for wasting our time and the tax money used to fund the government that wasted its time on your silly resolution. And you should apologize for forcing us all for taking time away from important matters.”

Despite the idealogical resistance to exonerating innocent people, a watered-down resolution, which merely calls the judgments “shocking”, and that no stigma should be attached to their descendants was introduced. It failed to win passage. An outcome that shouldn’t be very surprising, since lawmakers never took this resolution seriously, as evidenced by transcripts from the resolution hearings on the matter.

“REP. LAWLOR: You know … this morning, I remembered this great scene from Monty Python, where they grabbed the witch. And if you Google it, if you Google “Monty Python witch trial,” you get to see that scene. There’s–

REP. LAWLOR: But as funny as it is, it gives you a sense of, you know, looking back, how outrageous it really was because, it’s something.”

I’d state that this may be the first time Monty Python has been referenced in a resolution hearing, but I’m sure I would be wrong.

Is it important to exonerate people accused of witchcraft 300 years ago? While the Averys aren’t Pagan (that I know of), the issue has become a somewhat contentious one within the modern Pagan community. Some modern Witches feel a sort of spiritual kinship with those persecuted as “witches” hundreds of years ago (a sentiment that has also been attached to modern “witch-trial” victims), others assert that since these men and women weren’t practicing any sort of faith that we would now call Paganism, we should feel no special connection to these “witches” (other than sympathy for the lack of real justice given to them).

No matter where one comes down on the issue, it is strange how much hostility and scorn can be released over a resolution that would ultimately cost taxpayers little, and in no way negatively affect anyone’s current lifestyle. Is it the idea of an apology? That it involves “witchcraft”? Whatever the reason, perhaps with real-live witch-killings and persecutions happening right now in places like Africa, India, and Saudi Arabia it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to definitively exclaim that what we did then was barbaric and wrong. That these trials were the mistakes of a fearful and superstitious populace, and the men and women convicted were innocent of the supernatural crimes they were accused of.

If we cling to their convictions in this enlightened age, what sort of message does that send to governments and communities who are repeating our mistakes?