Even though the American Family Association stumbled from the gate in the kick-off to this year’s skirmishes over religious language and iconography during the Winter holidays (aka “The War on Christmas”), that doesn’t mean other groups haven’t been cowed. Instead it looks like were going to be seeing a rather holy protest at the steps of the United States Supreme Court as Faith and Action and the Christian Defense Coalition stage a live Nativity scene.

“Rev. Rob Schenck, President of Faith and Action, states, “The traditional creche, portraying Mary, Joseph and the Christ Child, along with the angels, shepherds and Wise Men, remind us all of what Christmas is all about. “We like to refer to this effort as keeping Christ Mass in the nation’s Capitol.” Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, adds, “Sadly, we are seeing an erosion and hostility toward public expressions of faith in the public square.   This is especially true during the Christmas Season. “The Nativity Project and Operation Nativity are reminders that our Constitution provides freedom ‘of’ religion not freedom ‘from’ religion…”

Ah, the old “freedom of” not “freedom from” argument, too bad that commitment to freedom is a mile wide and only an inch deep. As the Green Bay Wisconsin Nativity battle proved, once people actually start demanding real “freedom of”, which means the inclusion of all religions and philosophical points of view on public lands, things start to go a bit haywire for those crusaders for “religious freedom”.

So while the  “you aren’t saying Christmas” boycotts have lost their sizzle, the battle over Christmas religious displays in the public square is still heating up. There are already a couple cases that look like they’re headed for the courts, and it seems like only a matter of time before a Wiccan or atheist decides they want a Winter display next to a Nativity on public land somewhere. Then we’ll get to really test the “religious freedom” resolve of the groups currently dressing up like Joseph and Mary on the Supreme Court’s steps.

“North Texas taxpayers could be on the hook for a $400,000 legal bill, all because their city lost its fight, against animal sacrifice in religious ceremonies. The bill could go higher.  In July, the court ruled in Merced’s favor and ruled the City of Euless must pay his appellate attorneys’ fees. One of his attorneys, Eric Rassbach, estimates the total legal bill at around $400,000. “Quite frankly, they should be upset with their elected officials who signed off on this lawsuit,” Rassbach said.”

Rassbach is from The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and no doubt the lawyers working to achieve a “small victory for religious freedom in this country” didn’t come cheaply. Naturally, Euless’s attourney Mick McKamie is vowing to fight having to pay Mr. Merced’s legal bills, and may still be considering if they can bring this matter to the Supreme Court. It is looking like it would have been much cheaper if Euless had simply revised their animal slaughter laws to safely regulate such matters instead of banning them outright. But that horse is out of the barn, and now local law enforcement are barred from enforcing the current law.

“A federal judge has barred a North Texas suburb from enforcing a rule to prevent a Santeria priest from sacrificing animals in his home. In a final judgment this month, U.S. District Judge John McBryde of Fort Worth also ordered Euless to pay for the costs incurred by Santeria priest Jose Merced. His attorney, Eric Rassbach, said Tuesday the ruling means Merced can resume priest ordination ceremonies involving animal sacrifice.”

As Santeria, and other Afro-carribbean diasporic faiths, continue to grow in North America you can expect to see more conflicts like this in the future. Most animal slaughter laws were designed for a different time and context, and can be discriminatory when used to regulate religiously-motivated animal sacrifices. Eventually, this matter will have to come to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling, since the previous Santeria-related SCOTUS case, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, dealt only with laws that specifically targeted the religion. Until that happens, animal sacrifices will often happen under the legal radar, allowing for the sorts of speculation that leads to racial and religious profiling every time a dead animal turns up.

“The Municipal Police authorities of Rome have today [Thursday] withdrawn permission, granted three weeks ago, to celebrate Durga Puja in Rome. The cancellation came a few hours before the Ambassador of India was scheduled to inaugurate the Puja at 8 pm local time. No acceptable explanation has been given. This has caused the local Indian community the loss of thousands of Euros spent in preparatory arrangements. The same thing was done in the same manner in 2008 also.”

Arif Shahid Khan, the Indian ambassador to Italy, was able to eventually get permission restored, though their festivities are now 48 hours behind schedule (imagine if Christians were forced to wait until Tuesday to celebrate Easter). While some believe these 11th-hour cancellations are Catholic retribution for the mistreatment of Christians in India (because the best way to make a point about mistreatment is to engage in it), Kanchan Gupta sees a deeper motivation.

“There could be another reason, apart from its “deep concern” about the welfare of Christians in India, for Italy’s callous disregard of the sentiments of Hindus in that country. Although the Italian Constitution guarantees religious freedom, under the Lateran Treaty with the Vatican, Italy recognises only the three religions of Semitic origin — Christianity, Judaism and Islam. All other religions are no more than paganism and are to be shamed and shunned. The Vatican would not countenance any open breach of the Lateran Treaty; Italy would not want to be seen as recognising Hinduism. “It’s only natural that Italy should have a surfeit of churches. But it’s the rejection of any other faith than Christianity, Judaism and Islam that explains why there are so many mosques but virtually no temples in Italy although this country has a large Hindu expatriate population,” my friend told me while regretting the attitude of the Government and the local authorities. According to him, there are only three temples in Italy: One in a garage in Venice; another at Frescolo and the third at Reggio Emilia. These survive at the mercy of local zoning officials.”

Catholic-dominated Italy, like Orthodox-controlled Greece, doesn’t tolerate manifestations of faith that fall too far outside the accepted Christian “norm”. In Italy you can still be prosectuted for insulting the Pope, and any whiff of modern Pagan religion gets you counted as a “Satanist” who needs an exorcism (despite all that, there is a thriving Pagan underground in Italy). These actions make Italian authorities look like vengeful thugs rather than prophetic Christians, as Gupta says in the close of his article: “if Christians can celebrate Christmas in New Delhi, Hindus have the right to celebrate Durga Puja in Rome. This is non-negotiable.” Maybe these authorities need to stop worrying so much about the Christians in India, and instead start worrying about the Consitution of Italy that guarantees equal treatment under the law.

“Meet Adrian Williams, the only pentacle-wearing witch in parliament. But the card-carrying ANC and South African Communist Party member, 43, from Mpumalanga has renounced the terms “witch” and “witchcraft” because he maintains the issue needs to be treated with sensitivity in South Africa. Williams practises “magick”, but calls himself a pagan or eclectic wiccan.”

The article brings up the complex issue of labels and identity in a country where “witchcraft” and “witches” are beings to feared, and if possible, hunted and killed. The Times piece seems to illuminate a split in opinion among South African Pagans and Witches, while some want to be accepted and named as Witches, and are fighting against anti-witchcraft laws for fear it will affect them as well, Williams (and I’m assuming others like him) takes a more pragmatic approach to the issue.

“I don’t call myself a witch. I distance myself from those terms because they are highly offensive to the vast majority of people in this country … Pagan rights groups have asked the South African Law Reform Commission to consider repealing the Witchcraft Suppression Act of 1957. It prohibits knowledge or the practice of witchcraft, criminalises the accusation of others as witches — as well as the practising of divination … But Williams said the rights groups were being “arrogant”. He said self-defined witches should be sensitive to the majority of South Africans and their beliefs. “Go to Limpopo and declare that you’re a witch and see how long you survive,” he said.  Asked to comment on the Witchcraft Suppression Act, he said: “It does not undermine any right except the right to define yourself.” “I just think it’s very arrogant of white pagans in South Africa to push for rights they know will be detrimental to the majority. It would be ideal if we could change the perception of what witchcraft is.”

Williams seems to be a proponent of a slow and gradual “liberation” of the terminology by Pagans, and is against Pagans in South Africa making what he sees as culturally insensitive (and dangerous) demands. It seems that issues like these will only become more pronounced as Wicca and other forms of modern Paganism increasingly become “world” religions. It does seem a shame that some sort of middle ground can’t be found between an out Pagan MP in South Africa and the South African Pagan Rights Alliance. It would be interesting to have some input on these issues from any of my South African Pagan readers.

“The United States, which has an all-volunteer military, has not had a draft since 1973. But the Selective Service System collects information from men ages 18 to 25 in case Congress reinstates conscription into the armed forces. [Tobin] Jacobrown, of Indianola, Wash., said he has not filled out his Selective Service forms, as required by law, because they do not have a space for him to indicate his status as a conscientious objector. As a Quaker, he said, he cannot sign the forms without such a provision. Although Quakers do not have a specific creed, pacifism is a long-standing belief.”

The ACLU points out that adding a line to state a desired CO status would be “easy as pie”, and that Selective Service forms up till 1980 provided a way to record conscientious objector claims. It is currently against the law for any male to refuse to participate in the Selective Service process (and those who do are denied government benefits). It should be interesting to see how this plays out, suing the government into doing anything, no matter how easy it may be for them to accomplish, is a slow and difficult process. As for Tobin Jacobrown, he is already well-positioned to avoid military service in the event of a draft. The Quakers (aka the Religious Society of Friends), with their Peace Testimony and long history of active resistance to military service, are usually given CO status when brought before their local Selective Service board. The contentious issue here, and why I think the government will fight making this “easy” change, is how adding this line might assist members of other religious groups who embrace some form of pacifism, like certain Catholics or various Pagan individuals.

Currently, if you want to get CO status for ethical or religious reasons (CO status isn’t granted for political reasons) you have to appear at a Selective Service board hearing, and you are expected to prove a long-standing commitment to non-participation or resistance to war in all forms. Many religious groups, in anticipation of a new draft, have instructions and forms to prepare in the event that a draft is called and you must prove your CO status. Gathering the proper documentation can be difficult, and division over the issue within religious communities have been used against aspiring objectors. Recent court cases have moved things further into the direction of individual (rather than institutional) matters of conscience that don’t require proof of “rigorous study”, but that doesn’t mean the process is a cake-walk. Allowing teens to indicate a CO claim on the Selective Service form would establish a definable paper-trail of anti-militaristic intent, and could bolster CO cases if a new draft should ever be called. At this time, would-be COs who write objector statements on their Selective Service forms create no paper-trail as the forms are destroyed after the information is recorded.

“Other Quakers, he said, write that they are conscientious objectors on the forms, even though the information is not collected by the government and the documents are discarded. The objectors keep copies of the forms to prove that they raised the issue when they registered.”

For modern Paganism, which encompasses many different religions and traditions, and many different attitudes towards military service, being able to make the government record your individual beliefs regarding service is important. Otherwise a pacifist Pagan could be confronted with the fact that many Pagans serve in the military and that our communities have been very active in having Pagan soldiers acknowledged and honored. As we move away from top-down hierarchical religious institutions, getting to acknowledge that a single religion (or interconnected group of religions) can encompass both pacifists and warriors (and various shades in-between) is an important step, a step that may be taken by Mr. Jacobrown and the ACLU.

“A federal appeals court reversed a lower court’s ruling on Friday that barred a Santeria priest from sacrificing goats in his Texas home, saying a city’s decision to prohibit the ritual violated the man’s religious rights … “It’s a great day for religious freedom in Texas,” said Eric Rassbach, Merced’s lawyer, in response to the three-judge panel’s ruling. Merced said by practicing his faith in the privacy of his own home, he didn’t harm anyone. “Now Santeros can practice their religion at home without being afraid of being fined, arrested or taken to court,” Merced said.”

Merced, who lost his initial challenge to the law, was backed in his appeal by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.  In a press release, Eric Rassbach, National Litigation Director of The Becket Fund, had this to say about the decision.

“Religious freedom doesn’t mean much if you can’t peacefully worship in your own way in your own home. The Fifth Circuit got that right today … The Becket Fund took on this case not just to vindicate the rights of Mr. Merced, but also to protect the ability of every believer to worship in his own home as his conscience dictates, without undue government interference … Turns out that there will be religious freedom in Euless, Texas after all.”

The city of Euless is planning to file for a rehearing on the matter, but it might not get far since the Fifth Circuit remarked in their decision that claims of Santeria endangering public health were “like the report of Mark Twain’s death, greatly exaggerated”. You can read the full decision, here. It is somewhat gratifying to note that the panel of judges also noticed the hypocrisy of allowing the legal home slaughter of deer, chickens, and turkeys, but not the legal slaughter of goats. Expect this decision to get appealed to the Supreme Court, and (in my opinion) for SCOTUS to decline hearing it (they generally don’t like to revisit issues).

If this decision is ultimately allowed to stand, Merced v. City of Euless could be the case that takes the precedent initially established in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah nationwide, clearing the way for legal animal sacrifice in religious ceremonies. Could legal sanction be the answer to ongoing freak-outs by various law enforcement and city officials over clandestine animal sacrifices in public parks? Expect to hear a lot more about this issue in the coming months.

“The bill could serve as a tool to proselytize the majority religious view, Christianity, in Texas schools. The United States is a nation made up of people of many faiths. Children are required to attend school and should be permitted to do so without someone else’s religion being imposed on them … A school should be a religion-free zone – leaving religion for homes, places of worship, and individual hearts.”

As if confirming this “tyranny of the majority” suspicion, the Arizona law was backed by the conservative Christian political group Center for Arizona Policy (an organization with links to Focus on the Family), and opposed by local Jewish groups. It was CAP who used the instance of a 7th grader being told to keep her evangelizing crucified Jesus notebook at home to inflame the passions of Rep. Rich Crandall into sponsoring the bill.

“Does Crandall want to protect any religious speech, no matter how offensive it may be to members of other groups? I doubt it — if it offends Christians, that is. What he and the folks at the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group, want is to allow Christian expression to flourish, probably with the right kind of prayer thrown into the mix. As for members of other religions? Something tells me a notebook that says, “Christ died for nothing, the idiot!” with an offensive cartoon of Jesus wouldn’t go over so well with Crandall and his friends.”

Now we’ll just have to see if this new law will bring about a new golden age of religious freedom, or simply allow local Christians to throw their weight around with impunity. Somehow I don’t think a Wiccan student wearing a pentacle, sporting a Goddess-themed notebook, and meeting for circle chants during lunch, will get the same considerations and protections as Christian students. Any brave Arizona students and parents want to put this new law to the test? After all, this new law is supposed to be for all religions, right?

“…it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely naturalistic sense…”

To be fair, he also criticizes the idea of nature as mere “raw material”, and promotes an end to “reckless exploitation”. In fact, if this were the extent of Bendict’s swipes at modern Paganism I might have left it alone, but he returns to the subject again later on in the work.

“There are certain religious cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour this kind of syncretism by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting themselves, and authentic development is impeded. For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal.”

Catholicism is the best! Paganism is the worst! Rah! Rah! Rah! Some religions are more equal than others, right Benedict? I love the scare quotes around religion when describing syncretic, magical, and occult belief systems, it really drives home that the current leader of the Catholic Church doesn’t see us as even practicing a valid faith (even if in error). I suppose I should be flattered that the Pope considers us enough of a going concern that we’re mentioned in an encyclical, but I doubt it’s a first step towards understanding or tolerance. After all, if we aren’t “equal” to Catholicism (and other faiths that the Catholic Church deems “real” religions), maybe we don’t deserve the same religious freedoms and protections.

I always expect a bit of triumphalism and rhetoric when a religious tradition talks to itself, after all, if they didn’t think they were the best faith ever why bother? However, some of the conclusions made by Benedict here could have some chilling repercussions for modern Pagans around the world. We are already seeing a rise in Catholic exorcists who see adherence to “New Age” or Pagan religions as a form of demonic possession, isolated instances of growing radicalism among Catholic youth, and a crack-down on practices like Reiki for being “corrupting” to your spiritual health, what actions could result from this latest encyclical where a hierarchy of religious freedom is subtly endorsed?

“The best festival I’ve ever participated in, I heard about through word of mouth fifteen years ago. Festival has many different meanings depending on the person. The Hippie might be thinking about Rothbury this year, with it’s heavy Deadhead lineup. The Artist might think of Burning Man where contributory art is everywhere and fires abound. Somewhere in that intersection is Starwood.  Billed as the largest Pagan festival in North America, it is that and so much more … Starwood is a festival unlike any other. It is quite literally what you make it. Some people live for the drumming, while others are intent on attending as many workshops as they can. For some it is a hedonistic party while for others it is a deeply spiritual and transformative experience (and in fact is often both at the same time.) Though not exclusively a music festival, between the concerts, the radio station, and the night’s drumming, the music never stops.”

Dare I wonder if Starwood is becoming, well, hip? Will people start talking about Starwood they way they talk about Burning Man? Maybe, but the musical lineup is still heavily weighted towards the folky-pagan and old hippie, with touches of world music, so I think they have awhile before they’re completely inundated with outsiders.

The wonderful Goddess spirituality blog Medusa Coils points to a recent essay by Starhawk at Alive Mind & Spirit that explores the ever-shrinking mainstream market for “women’s spirituality” book titles, and what that has done to their movement.

“…although you may or may not have noticed, major publishers are no longer terribly interested in books on women’s spirituality.  Why?  Back in the ‘eighties, HarperSanFrancisco published not just me but a whole lot of great books—Carol Christ, Marija Gimbutas, Z. Budapest, Luisah Teish, Vicki Noble if I’m remembering it all right.  They were the books we read, discussed, got excited about and inspired by. Then sometime in the nineties they dropped just about everyone except me—not because the books weren’t selling, but because they weren’t selling enough.  They lost interest in publishing for a strong, steady niche, and only really wanted to publish blockbusters for the mass market … it had a debilitating effect on the movement.  Without the books to inspire women, without new books to continue the discussions and debate, we lost ground, especially with younger women.”

Starhawk also seems to partially blame the Internet and blogging on this shift, though she hasn’t been shy in utilizing the web to fuel her own activist concerns and capitalist endeavours (one wonders how many new readers she gets from her lofty perch at the Newsweek/Washington Post-backed On Faith blog). It is true that book publishers are increasingly focused on “blockbusters”, but it’s also true that there has been a slow shift in the “New Age” book market away from Pagan/occult material and towards the Oprah-style self-empowerment/improvement genre(s). The industry is in flux, and the Pagan and Goddess-focused authors and small publishers will have to think of new ways to reach their audiences (just as the book Starhawk mentions, “Women of Wisdom”, seems to be doing).

In a final note, the First Amendment Center reminds Christians who complain about minority-faith accommodation that they are the one’s who wrote the rules that exclusively benefited them, and who now must deal with the changes that come from a truly religiously pluralistic (and free) society.

“When people complain about the growing list of requests for accommodation in public schools from students and parents from minority faiths, I like to remind them that the majority faith wrote the rules. Founded as Protestant-dominated institutions in the 19th century, public schools never open on Sunday, close for Christmas, and in other ways institutionalize accommodations for the majority faith … Students in the majority faith rarely need religious accommodation in public schools because the majority wrote the rules in the first place – and in many places still writes the rules. For students like Adriel whose faith is unfamiliar to many school officials, it’s often difficult to get a fair hearing. For some school officials, rules are rules – no exceptions. But religious liberty, or freedom of conscience, is our nation’s first freedom. Rather than complaining about all those requests for accommodation, we should be celebrating the genius of the First Amendment, which recognizes religious liberty as an inalienable right for people of all faiths and none. It takes work – and accommodation isn’t always possible. But taking claims of conscience seriously should be at the heart of what it means to be an American.”

Religious freedom means freedom for all religions. The Protestants who wrote the rules may never have envisioned a day when Pagan, or Buddhist, or even Muslim students would one day be a part of their societal fabric, but thanks to our (Enlightenment and Deist-influenced) Constitution we have the ability to thrive in that changed world.

That’s all I have for now, have a great day!

“I think I really need to confirm something here. When I called to book the venue which had been recommended and which I had used many times I new it as The Flint Street Social Club, I never knew it was run or attached to the Catholic church and when the Gentleman, who was very nice by the way, answered with Our Lady’s I then told him who I was, what we wanted and who were were, totally up front and said that I did not want to compromise them in any way. he assured me that this was a totally separate Buisness venture and that anyone could book the room and then ‘do what we want in it’ . I would not have continued with the booking had he said any different. I required a room large enough to take in excess of 150 people plus a stage where the nights entertainment Abba Fusion an Abba Tribute Duo could perform in complete safety with all there stage equipment … The man who had to also tell me that we couldnt have the room was very apologetic and said embarrased at having to tell me they wouldnt let us have the venue.  However, we have now got somewhere else larger and should have a really great time. I never imagined it would cause this much fuss.”

Depending on the legal classification of the venue, this could cause some significant legal problems for Our Lady’s Social Club. Then again, the representative could have been mistaken in assuming there would be no problem with the Diocese of Shrewsbury in renting out the space, and in presenting the parish center as “a totally separate Buisness venture”. Employees aren’t infallible. At any rate, I still think that Catholic parish centers (if Our Lady’s is indeed classified as a parish center) should have the right to veto events that are theologically incompatible with their values, I also think Ms. Davis is being somewhat disingenuous when she says that she “never imagined it would cause this much fuss”. When you contact the press and tell them the Catholic Church is discriminating against you, and invoke the witch trials of Early Modern Europe, you should expect sensationalistic coverage.