The Age of the Pigeonhole

I am a Trekkie.

I do not need to be psychic to see the images and concepts flashing through your minds:  an overweight, possibly unwashed, geek with pointed ears or Klingon ridges and a zillion t-shirts, out of touch with reality, watching reruns in Mom's basement, buried in 20-year-old fanzines that feature bizarre and unlikely relationship pairings.

Anyone who actually knows me will tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.  Just go look at the picture of me on my first post.  For starters, I am out of doors, and  everyone knows that Trekkies never, ever go outside unless it's to attend a convention, right?

Behold the power of the label.

Humans love to classify things; classification begs labels; and labels are dicey business.  On the one hand they help us to describe with great specificity what we want; on the other hand they encourage the very human tendency to try and "pigeonhole" everything--and everyone.  These days the"pigeonholes" have become more like those really cool plastic tackle boxes with bunches of dividers you insert into slots to create sections of whatever size we want.  Each box has its main classification, say, "Apples", and then upon opening the box you can view all the different sorts of apples, from Macintosh to Red Delicious, each in its own section.  This system is great, because then I can tell my husband to pick up not only Golden Delicious apples for a pie but also several Fujis and Braeburns, because using a variety of apples makes for a better tasting pie; it enables me to say exactly what kind of fabric I need or whether I want oil paints or watercolors or gouache.

Unfortunately, humans don't just classify things:  pretty much since the beginning of civilization we have been classifying ourselves and each other, often with disastrous results.  Man, woman, hunter, farmer, warrior, husband, wife, priest, foreigner, have, have-not, friend, enemy:  these labels--and their subsets--have served as the basis for every conflict in history, and the more specific our classifications have become, the worse the ensuing conflicts.

But after all that, these days the trend seems to be that people have begun to return to the "pigeonhole" mentality.  The people in my circles often bandy about terms like "Republican", "Democrat", "conservative", "liberal", "Christian", and "Pagan",  without even qualifiers like "some Republicans" or "some Christians".

Let me present you with the "Christian" tackle box.  It's one of those HUGE ones, with multiple levels and drawers you can pull out.  The two main drawers would be (despite the Great Schism) Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Catholic, and Protestant.  From these simple divisions would rise the myriad sections (though the Roman Catholics remain largely undivided):  Baptists, Anabaptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc.--each with their own set of beliefs and practices.  I am also fairly certain that a number of these groups would object strenuously to being in the same tackle box as some of the others--and I won't get into groups like the Mormons, Scientologists, or Jehovah's Witnesses.

In my community, whose varied groups and people embrace Earth Spirituality, I have friends who toss the entire "Christian" tackle box onto the table, point at it and declare, "They hate us and they want to kill us!"

Uh, no.

I agree there are whacked-out Christians, like the Westboro Baptist Church group, who picket the funerals of soldiers killed in combat not because the soldiers themselves were gay, but because the military allows (in a twisted and ass-backwards fashion) gays into their ranks.  There are whacked-out Earth Spirituality people too:  no group, and no one, is perfect.

By definition, real Christians follow the word of Jesus:  Jesus was a wise and kind individual whose ideas were far ahead of his time (and, it appears, far ahead of ours).  From time to time he had a heck of a temper, but by all accounts it only surfaced when it was needed.  Real Christians walk the walk, following Jesus'  example of tolerance and kindness towards those less fortunate.  Real Christians don't want to kill anyone.

The Real World doesn't always allow for strict adherence to these tenets, especially the latter one.  I am not talking about the killings that would have Jesus deploying his temper in spades like the Crusades or witch burnings or the Spanish Inquisition:  I am talking about wars like WWII, where evil threatened the core of civilization.  And each of the events mentioned was brought about by labels:  Christians killing Moslems; Christians torturing and killing people they perceived to be witches; Christians torturing and killing Jews and Moslems and others because they wanted to be "sure" that they had given up their old religions; Nazis killing people who didn't meet their idea of ethnic perfection .  (Looking back at my examples it appears to me that the Christians have an awful track record...that's because my education was largely focused on Western Civilization:  one only has to look to Russian history to read about Uncle Joe Stalin's non-Christian pogroms.  No worries:  Christians haven't cornered the market by a long shot.)

I don't want to digress into the reasons that people find it important to self-identify as a member of any religion.  In my previous blog I discussed the escalating numbers of "Jesus fish" I see on vehicles and business cards. and pentacles the size of dinner plates hanging from the necks of Pagans.  Back in the day, before crosses and crucifixes became fashion accessories, these were almost always blessed by a Catholic priest and worn by the faithful.  In fact, even today, most crosses and crucifixes (and Stars of David) are small and tasteful, because most members of traditional religions--like Presbyterians, Jews, Catholics and Greek Orthodox Catholics--don't feel a need to throw their spirituality in anyone's face.  The "Jesus fish" however, is symbolic of evangelical Christians, and I believe that it is in response to this burgeoning presence and their sometimes extreme views (i.e.,  "YOU ARE A PAGAN--THAT MEANS YOU ARE A SATAN WORSHIPPER!" ) that Pagans find it necessary to wear jewelry that screams "I AM A PAGAN, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!"

Gah.

If we don't want to be labeled by others, why do we label ourselves?

Here's my label:

I am a person.

Find a tackle box big enough for that.


















 

Religious Freedom, Redefined

Here's a bill I'd vote for:  ban all political ads.  GAH!

I'll admit it:  I am a conservative.  I am not a Republican:  I believe Republicans in Washington have tainted the party's ideals, and do not deserve re-election.  I wish to see our Constitution returned to its original purpose; I wish to see powers returned to the states; I want less government and less governmental control in my life, and I crave fiscal responsibility.

This is not something my friends always understand.  Most of them are of much more liberal leanings, and that's okay, it doesn't make them evil or any less my friends, and NO, I don't think they are deluded.  Given that the Democratic party has in the past gone to some lengths to be the "party of inclusion", there are many people who feel more comfortable identifying with this political group.

Who can blame them?  After all, the Republican party and its spinoff, the Tea Party, often seem to be very much the party of "religious freedom means 30 different kinds of Christians."  If you're anything other than a Christian or maybe a Jew, you are nothing and no one--or worse, you are seen as downright evil.

Republicans' horrified reactions to this week's "revelation" that Delaware Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell "dabbled in witchcraft" as a teenager have just been one facepalm after another for me (the real horror in that 1990s interview was not what she said, but her HAIR, OMG that was, like, Mall Chick Hair...)

Let's get some things straight:  O'Donnell is correct in saying that teenagers do rebellious, stupid things like "dabbling in witchcraft".  I disagree with her that it was a less destructive rebellion than, say, alcohol or drug abuse, but the effects of alcohol or drug abuse are often more obvious than those of "dabbling in witchcraft".   The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "dabbling" thusly: to work or involve oneself superficially or intermittently especially in a secondary activity or interest <dabbles in art>  I think that in this circumstance "dabbling" might be further defined as "messing around without intent". 

The popular imagination, fueled by Harry Potter and other similar publications (did you know there were others?) envisions witches casting spells, riding brooms, and making potions.  The books one finds in the Occult/New Age section of your local bookstore (many of which are bogus) focus on spell-casting --which I feel is NOT something that should be tried by amateurs, rather like driving on the Schuylkill Expressway when you only have your learner's permit.  

The part about the satanic altar (this was a triple facepalm moment)...well, that was just plain stupid and the whole community practicing Earth-Based Religion could have done without that association.  I have already had to call the middle school principal and "explain" to him that witchcraft does not equal satanic worship.  Geez, even the Harry Potter books define the battle between good and evil pretty plainly!

Some facts:

1.  Most people who are "witches" (i.e., self-identify as Pagan, Wiccan, Shamanic, or as a practitioner of Earth-Based religion) do not practice spellcraft.   They are cautious about such work:  like many things it should be left to the Professionals.

2.  Witchcraft is NOT Satanism.  Satanic worshippers occupy a very specific group.  

3.  Witches do NOT sacrifice animals or babies or anything living.  In fact, some of them are pretty wildly against such practices. 

I know in my heart (and from what I've read on Facebook) that my friends are already up in arms at the Republican party's reaction to O'Donnell's admission.  It looks like it's going to be "damage control" for her instead of the golden opportunity for a statement about religious freedom.  

Unfortunately, I don't see the Democrats stepping up in defense of witchcraft.  

Since this is an Equal Opportunity Blog (EOB) I will now turn to the rumor that the President's mother-in-law practices Santeria, and that the President is beside himself with fury.  

Some facts:

1.  Santeria is the Real Deal.  Even the Supreme Court said so.  Santeria makes everything you see in those books in the Occult/New Age section of your local bookstore look like Dick and Jane.  This is Serious Shit and people often turn to it when there is dire illness in their families. 

2.  Santeria is an Afro-Caribbean religion:  it is based on traditions brought over from East Africa by slaves and then blended with the Christianity that was imposed on these slaves by their masters.  This means that as an African-American it's part of President Obama's heritage.  

.  

3.  Just as is the case in most religions (I would say "all" but I'm not a fan of absolutes) most practitioners of Santeria are Really Good People who provide sound advice to those seeking it, and who use their connections to the spirit world to do good.  

4.  Santeria IS a blood religion.  This means that goats, roosters and other small animals get sacrificed.  Before you object, they are probably killed more humanely than that chicken you had for dinner last night.  Yes, I have seen it, though I am not a practitioner.  

According to the news media, we should be horrified by both of these stories--and I am, except not the way that that writers and spin doctors (gods, I love that title) want me to be.  I am horrified that this has become NEWS.  After all, when was the last time that you saw a headline like "OMG, NEWT GINGRICH DABBLED IN BEING A CATHOLIC!" Those of you who are Protestants will chuckle.  

A person's religion should be a VERY private matter--and it should not affect one's opinion of another.  These days we see more and more escalation of in-your-face religious expression:  business cards with the "Jesus fish" on them; people wearing pentacles the size of dinner plates.  Actually, of all of them, the practitioners of Afro-Caribbean religions are the least conspicuous:  lacking fish, pentacles, burkas, yarmulkes, or other traditional dress, they blend into society, often so smoothly that their neighbors have no idea what they believe or don't believe.  

The bottom line is that religion needs to be removed from politics in every way, shape and form.  If people have to have a reason to vote for candidates, it should not be because of their religious preference (because we all know how THAT  has worked out in the past because religion does not equal morality): it should be because of issues like governmental reform and taxes.  I want to be free to practice the religion of my choice, without suffering the judgment of my peers.  And it would be really nice if the candidates didn't have to worry about their past "dabblings" to the point where they have to apologize or explain how "misguided" they were, because in doing so they are offending far more people than they realize.  When was the last time someone apologized for being a Baptist?