Starhawk: Climate Change: A Moral Imperative to Act

Could we stop with the chicken little syndrome. Not all scientists agree. A certain specialist scientific community mostly agree. That does not make it a fact. Quite frankly no one really knows what is going on. 30 years ago it was believed we were in Global cooling. Now it's global warming. Who knows, maybe we are getting out of the ice age, maybe it's the suns rays. Nothing has been made clear yet and it's time to stop running around, screaming and shouting and otherwise panicking.

It's time to get our collective head out of our collective arses and stop being a bunch of intolerant boobs to those we don't agree with. It's time to stop blaming the evil corporations and finding REALISTIC ways of working with them. It's time to stop wishing for a utopian reality and start working on a pragmatic solution. THat means we listen to those uber corporate neo con and conservative republican boobs that many of yall so hate and implement what they have to say if it makes sense. It means we dont' just listen to greenpeace, we listen to the nuclear energy people to.

Tim is right. Starhawk does not speak for all of us. Pagan doesnt neccesarilly mean your a earth worshipping, passive, neo hippy. That may be a case for the majority that are out of the closet, but some of us, aren't. Speak for yourselves and only yourselves.

For the love of the Gods, try practising some of that tolerance and acceptance you toss around. For instance, your way isn't the only way and you dont' get to make all the rules. Sometimes those evil republicans may just be right and know what is good too.

Frustrated moderate independant.

July 6, 2007 3:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on July 6, 2007 15:01

Jonglly:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

May 19, 2007 9:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 19, 2007 21:47

Jonglly:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

May 4, 2007 11:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 4, 2007 23:29

Jonglly:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about generic viagra and share with you.

May 2, 2007 9:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on May 2, 2007 21:37

Paganplace:

Hi, Tim.

I think enough's said on the previous topic: I've said I have my own concerns about Starhawk's presentation, I just don't think it's productive to go on the *attack* about em, particularly here. Partly cause I simply weary of the endless 'definitions' debates.

As for stereotypes, well, I think it's fair to say Pagans lean heavily toward the quite 'liberal,' but your implied characterizations of that are really pretty biased of themselves.

Personally, I'd say, if you think I'm vegetarian, come over for dinner, sometime. :) I'm not anti-gun, (I'm actually quite a good shot, myself,) ...but I despise the gun lobby. I think abortion is something that I'd never do, but don't believe the state has any right whatsoever to decide for women, particularly when mothers aren't exactly treated well in this country. So I'm pro *choice.* I've supported Pagan mothers (Motherhood's sacred, remember?) both in ending pregnancies and, more often, actually, carrying them through.

The hunt's a sacred activity, too, (I've limited that to stalking in the past, as my archery isn't quite that confident to do it cleanly, but hey. ) I've lived on a Pagan homestead (full of *very* 'liberal' folks, where we killed our own dinner...

I'm anti-death penalty because *it doesn't work,* ...it's an expensive, unfairly-applied way to get cops killed cause it makes criminals feel they have nothing to *lose* once they've done a capital crime, practiced sword-work with liberal Pagans in Texas, and live (in town) in one of the most rural areas there *are,* where I help my neighbors and hope no one raises a lynch mob or anything. :)

And, well, generally think the 'right wing' is out of its mind, doubly so if they support the current administration that insists we 'don't count' when it comes to religious freedoms.

But, hey. Point there was really that this is the *Pagan* community, ...and we don't have to polarize like that.

And if someone believes we're all in lockstep with Starhawk, then, that's a much better place to start than when people believe the defamation.

Peace.

March 1, 2007 12:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on March 1, 2007 12:36

Tim:

PaganPlace,

To your concerns about insisting individuals "make all statements conditional", or "insist on treating people as though they aren't allowed to do otherwise, and that if they don't, they're oppressing a couple right wing sects somewhere", I've address those but let me reiterate.

This all comes down to levels of expectations. Starhawk is not a high school dropout working at Walmart as a janitor and fancies herself a Druid. She is well educated, has been within the community roughly 30 years, has written a fair number of books, is an active and vocal political activist, and a public speaker. We simply can not approach Starhawk's work with the same level of expectation one would reading essays by John or Jane Doe Pagan.

This is also not a message board hosted by a free forum website put together by a few buddies wanting to connect with "like minds" and debate color correspondences. This is an online interfaith journal created by Newsweek & The Washington Post. There is an expectation that Starhawk is speaking authoritatively about Pagans when she is speaking about Pagans. That when she is speaking about Pagans that she does not mean just Reclaiming, or just Goddess Traditions, or just Wicca. You may assume that she is because of the tolerances you have built up dealing with Pagans in general, but Mr. & Mrs. Christian or Mr. & Mrs. Muslim does not have that experience and will not make that assumption.

Regarding the "a couple right wing sects somewhere" comment, I would not be too quick to assume that conservative Pagans are few and far between. It has been my experience that generally Pagans are divided into the "blue" and "red" states as much as the rest of the country. Move outside the urban areas and it is more typical then not to find Pagans who are pro-gun owner rights, pro-life, pro-death penalty, pro-military. I have found many that were not only meat eaters, but also hunters and those that even raise and butcher their own food. For those that want to classify Pagans as "country dwellers", these are them.

Yours in the Gods.

February 28, 2007 10:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 28, 2007 10:05

Paganplace:

To wit, if you don't want to accept someone's *outside* definition of us as 'Irreligious hedonists,'

(Which, frankly, I see a lot of cultural reconstructionists do: some of whom aren't even Pagan themselves. They absent themselves from the community dialogue except to maybe invade Internet Pagan forums and try to 'prove' how anyone's Paganism that may happen to have different standards and priorities is a) Incorrect (irreligious?) and b) Empty hedonism... then whine about 'Those people won't accept my definition of all of them! It's cause they're fluffy and ignorant and mean and oppressive!')

I have a lot of respect for that work, but it doesn't entitle them, ( or *me* ) to go ascribing bad motives to people in order to mark territory.

Yeah, I weary of that sniping. I do see it in terms of priorities and perspective. Just about everyone, in one way or another is trying to bring the ancient into the modern, and I think the real issue being worked out has much to do with antiquity vs modernity, and a lot of the furballs don't get much informing done, either way.

I'm not saying your way of doing stuff is *wrong,* just that I think you're being unfair about this discussion.

Peace. Gotta go do something.

February 27, 2007 7:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 27, 2007 19:25

Paganplace:

""Paganism is not a minority religion; it is a group of minority religions. Having one person represent "us" make that person responsible for expressing the diversity.""

I don't really much disagree there, that's a real concern, but sometimes I weary of the idea that any Pagan should:

A) Make all statements conditional,
or

B) Insist on treating treating people as though they aren't allowed to do otherwise, and that if they don't, they're oppressing a couple right wing sects somewhere.

I'm all for more voices, and I try not to generalize without *saying* I'm generalizing. I just think the acrimony is missing the point.

If we don't have dogmatic authorities, stop treating people like they actually are (or are trying to be) one. Stop seeing anyone trying to be "A Pagan voice" as necessarily trying to be "*The* Pagan voice."

That goes both ways.

By all means, add your voice. I'm just saying there's no need to seem *paranoid* about it. People who have the idea they must *discredit* anyone they can construe as too authoritarian might wanna remember that. As you will.

February 27, 2007 6:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 27, 2007 18:49

Tim:

PaganPlace,

Your statement, "I think it's precisely *because* this is an interfaith forum that maybe we should resist the temptation to 'split hairs' about some of the ongoing debates in the community" is where we are disagreeing. Paganism is not a minority religion; it is a group of minority religions. Having one person represent "us" make that person responsible for expressing the diversity. Can that person get every little detail about every religion correct? No, but they can choose to not speak in absolutes, provide some diversity of thinking, and possibly hock something other then just her books when giving additional source material for the readers.

There may not be a 'perfect, all-inclusive *definition*' of Pagan but the dictionary does do a pretty good job:

1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person

Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

We also have to realize that there are those that DO NOT want an all-inclusive definition, and that is part of my ranting here. Just as there are those within some "established religions" (one comes to mind) that will state that if one does not share their particular view then they are not a real *whatever*, so to do we have those people. Pagans 'extremists' just tend to use a lot of disclaimer words mixed in with the "what Pagans believe" rhetoric, but point out specific traditions that contradict their 'opinion' and you'll see their true nature appear.

Regarding Reclaiming and the "finer points of what constitutes Wicca" let me just say that I'm taking Starhawk's bio stating "prominent voice in modern Wiccan spirituality" into consideration and the fact that her books are used by many who do classify themselves as Wiccan. No one can deny she is part of the "community at large".

I believe the whole issue of some people believing "Pagans don't do charitable/good works" is a different and completely separate issue. You'll get no argument with me about that one. Pagans generally do not proselytize, (I say generally because I have encounter some that advocate this as a reaction to other religions) so you most likely not see a "Pagan" soup kitchen but you will find "Pagans" volunteering in a soup kitchen.

The differences between Pagans who are politically active and Reclaiming is the differences between a Christian who is politically active and the Christian Coalition. We (the generally we) can't scream about the separation of Church & State and then get upset that there are those pushing for laws based on their religion, and then advocate or condone a Pagan group that does the very same thing (we can but then we'd be hypocrites).

Yours in the Gods.

February 27, 2007 10:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 27, 2007 10:20

Paganplace:

As for Starhawk's activism, and Reclaiming's, (let's not get into the finer points of what constitutes 'Wicca,') well, *sure,* that's controversial. It *should* be discussed, just, I think, not disowned or vilified. No denying she's part of the tapestry, just as are most Reconstrustionist types.

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say the 'typical Pagan' doesn't play Starhawk's way, (I can think of a particular gaffe that much was made of some time ago,) but the Reclaiming folks I've met are, by the by, not as you seem to portray them. Pretty awesome people, in general.

In some ways, I'm reminded of the common Christian perception that 'Pagans don't do charitable/good works.'

Of *course* we do. We just don't generally *advertise* it. Partly because we have no agenda to convert people, so what's the point of *that* when someone's in need. The point is they're in need.

I don't know how many times I've heard, 'Angels sent you,' ...what are you going to do, risk freaking someone out when they're obviously having a bad day?

At the same time, Pagan groups can have a hard time finding a food bank that will *take* donations from a holiday festival's food drive. (Guess no one's hungry enough to eat something from a can a Pagan touched, some places, eh? ...or is it that some people are more attached to the idea Pagans don't do these things than they are in actually feeding the hungry?)

Plenty of Pagans are politically-active, though, and not cause anyone's saying, 'The Goddess demands this.'

Cause of what's there to be done.

Sure, there's a little discomfort if anyone's too vocal in mentioning they aren't with a church or something.

But, sure, you can say the Goddess weeps. She wept a f'n river.

More than one, I'm given to understand.

February 26, 2007 3:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 26, 2007 15:14

Paganplace:

Fair enough. I just think that there's a difference between *generalizing* about the 'community at large' and being 'exclusionary and dogmatic,' or being too sensitive to a prominent Pagan we don't happen to agree with on some points as though it mustneeds be some kind of tyrranical dogmatism when someone speaks from conviction.

I think it's *because* Pagans tend to "kind of take anything anyone writes with a grain of salt, and will simply take from it what they see as useful, discarding the rest." that we don't have to appear *threatened* by something like what Starhawk's doing and saying here.

For the most part, I was pointing out that you seem to be interpreting what's said in the worst possible way, at times. Certainly, there's other points of view out there, and if anyone's read this far down the thread, they probably won't mind hearing about em, but implying people are dishonest or uneducated, or even ripping into isn't going to 'represent the community' well, or even educate anyone who's 'angry at men' right now. (I mostly stayed out of that, cause I'd guess Adv was too busy defending herself personally to really hear anything, anyway.)

I think it's precisely *because* this is an interfaith forum that maybe we should resist the temptation to 'split hairs' about some of the ongoing debates in the community: it's possible here's where we're actually disagreeing:

To put it simply, I don't think the most important thing about 'representing the community' right now is for *each and every* speaker to 'get it completely right' to every Pagan's satisfaction. I would much rather educate someone who thinks we're all all about Starhawk than deal with someone who gets the message 'They're all confused, and at each others' throats, so maybe the defamation is true' out of stuff like this.

The Internet, by the nature of the medium, tends to be a lot better for debating than communicating the things which *do* connect us, and *do* make us a rich and vibrant and valid religious family.

I don't think we *can* control things such as to have this 'perfect, all-inclusive *definition*' of Pagan beliefs, and then expect everyone who speaks to represent that perfectly: that'd be futile. I think the most that can be done is to try and describe the community at large, maybe build up some pictures of 'Yer typical Pagan,' ...some that are at least *recognizeable* to us.

This is a dangerous time for us. Right now the mass media seems to think it's a valid debate whether or not we're part of some conspiracy to recruit kids to 'evil' via Harry Potter. The best speaker in the world will tend to get cut down to the same old soundbytes in articles about us. We don't have the *luxury* of 'getting it perfect.'

So I think acrimony over some of our ongoing internal discourse is counterproductive.
See what I'm saying? I think we agree on the situation, ...this is a matter of priorities, I suppose.

*Yours* in the Gods. :)

February 26, 2007 2:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 26, 2007 14:03

Tim:

PaganPlace,

I think you may have taken some of the comments which were in response to people like Terra, Adjuvant, and yourself as comments also directed a Starhawk. Some where, but I think I was being pretty clear on what I was attributing to her and what I was directing to those I was responding to.

In speaking about values, if you had stated that the values of many Pagans aren't written down, I probably would not have pointed it out. Since we are discussing representing the beliefs of the "community at large" your statement was just another example of a person making a definitive statement that is ultimately untrue.

Now when we talk about Starhawk and overreaching trying to define everyone, I think I've also been very clear. This all comes down to levels of expectation. Some of the people here defending Starhawk's work seem to be approaching it with the same level of expectation one would reading these essays on a Pagan website or publication. Most Pagans will kind of take anything anyone writes with a grain of salt, and will simply take from it what they see as useful, discarding the rest.

The level of expectation here is completely different. The target audience is different. For many of the people reading these essays, they are either completely ignorant of Pagan religions, have fallen into stereotypical ideas about Pagans, or have been fed complete lies. There is a need to educate the public and that can not be done if everything is written from a personal perspective. But even if she did continue to write from a personal perspective, it's as easy as stating clearly what is being written comes from her Tradition to not mislead those that do not know. I know what it's like to forget how small a community we really are and think that people just know what "we" are talking about. America is something like 80% Christian, and most of them don't know. Responsibility to the community is paramount. If Starhawk does not want that responsibility, I believe she should limit her comments exclusively to Wicca, or Goddess Traditions, or Reclaiming, or herself and state it as such.

As far as the 'evangelical' comment, it was a crossover from another thread, so it may have seemed out of context. I have to say though, while the comment wasn't directed at Starhark, I would probably classify her that way. Really now, a core principle of the Tradition she helped found is political activism. It's blatant. It's one thing to use religion as a moral compass that guides your decisions, but wrapping political activism (no matter which side of a cause) in religious dogma creates self-righteous indignation and the intolerance of different views. Just look at some of the language Starhawk uses in the essays here. In my opinion there is little difference in saying "our Goddess weeps at our wars" and "Jesus weeps for the bloodshed of the innocent unborn."

Yours in the Gods.

February 26, 2007 1:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 26, 2007 01:28

Paganplace:

Ah, sorry if I messed up some attributions. It does seem we're talking past each other on a few points, and this may be why. :)

No, I don't 'believe in' Starhawk, the way you seem to be implying, ...but I don't think she's necessarily overreaching in speaking as a Pagan in the way that seems to bother some people: as in, I don't think it's necessarily trying to define everyone in or connected to 'the community' just to try and describe it and speak from it. (Or to it, for that matter.)

Neither is it 'speaking in absolutes' to say 'these above-described commonly-held values aren't written down.' I was describing how many, yet palpable *unwritten* values we have. Sure, you can *write* some things down, but don't expect 'Pagans' to react to it like holy writ or something. You yourself certainly wouldn't, but I think that is often projection to say others might.

As to ascribing certain 'motivations and agendas' to people, well, for my part, I think you might be motivated in some way to ascribe these things to others.

As for mine? Well, I don't know. I think we're rightfully leery of religious 'authority' and any 'cults of personality' that might develop, ...to a fault, never mind inadequately, but sometimes I think 'we' tend to jump at shadows of it and maybe not understand 'each other.'

And I resent being mischaracterized by people who are doing so. The way you've just spoken to me seems to speak volumes of your own assumptions and biases. I do get tired of the sniping. And you have no *idea* what I've 'taken the time to study,' as you so flippantly say. There's a bias right there. It colors how you *read* things. And what I see as misunderstandings *show.*

As for what the concluding statement means, well. I think there's a lot of folks out there who on one hand want to say, 'We're different from this Pagan thing,' and at the same time define the whole religious movement to fit their particular part of the diversity... or snipe at anyone who tries to describe us as a community. (or speak for themselves, for that matter.)

If I were actually seeing 'evangelical Goddess monotheism' here, as you seemingly-scornfully term it, I'd be debating a few points about that, myself. But just cause someone says, 'The Goddess' doesn't mean they're only accepting of a single Deity. But if that's all they want to worship or talk about, well, that's for them, too.

I suppose if you want *my* motivations, sometimes I feel caught between some people who've all but *given up* on scholarship, and some that think everything *stopped* with St. Patrick or the Norse equivalent or whatever. If you want to say someone's 'doing it wrong,' when they honor their ancestral Gods, or whoever, well, sometimes there's valid points, and sometimes I just want to say, 'Well, where were *you?*'

In other words, sometimes I think many Pagans internally-segregate ourselves based on opinions in ways that the community doesn't require. (no one said anyone *had* to be part of 'the community,' however you define that, either.)

Some of the sniping about 'definitions' pains me. It's always hard to define, when you're in the middle of something like this, I think. There are pretty exciting things that have been developing in this *hard-to-strictly-define Pagan community.* Some of the theology that comes out, certainly. Also things we share when we think we're at odds.

Heh. It's like a family, in a lot of ways. The 'Pagan thing' has a lot of inputs from a lot of lineages, ...and a lot of 'kids' keeping it honest and sometimes maybe asserting their independence more than exercising it.

I think the family get-togethers are pretty darn cool, though.

Just cause I think someone's earned some respect and consideration doesn't mean it's unreserved, or that I or anyone else is 'sheep.' I don't, either characterize what she's saying here as 'harsh and extremist.'

And I wonder why you seem to think so. I've said as much in Starhawk's case, just above.

Sorry this one's long-winded, too. Just trying to 'expose my motivations' for you.

February 25, 2007 9:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 25, 2007 21:59

Tim:

PaganPlace,

1. I never said I felt marginalized by the Pagan by the Pagan community. I said that there are those within the Pagan community that seek to marginalize and disenfranchise fellow Pagans who do not share the same beliefs as they do, and that Starhawk's writing in absolutes and placing personal agenda before the community was a perfect example of that.

2. It was your buddy Terra who brought up the Old Laws, you are addressing the wrong person. I stated that I did not believe either Starhark or Reclaiming adopted the Ardane. So, you'll get no disagreement from me regarding the Old Laws and who they supposedly apply to.

3. Saying Pagan ethics are not "written down" is another one of those 'talking in absolutes' again. It's amazing how the people who accuse me are the ones actually doing that. If you were to take the time to study some of the "more specific sorts of paths" you would know that.

4. I never accused Starhark of being "prophet inventing source material" or attempting to become the feminist messiah. I simply made some observations and asked some questions based on the bio she provides to the public. You can place your faith in whoever you choose, but there is only one religion I know of that defines itself in terms sheep and a shepherd.

5. Your conclusion seems to agree with what I have been writing this whole time, so I fail to see the ultimate point of your very long winded post. Honestly though, I was confused with Adjuvant accusations of close-mindedness until the true colors were eventual shown, and my closed-mindedness was slanguage for not accepting the true-truth of Goddess worship and abandoning male ways. Maybe you'll eventually expose your true motivation as well.

Yours in the Gods.

February 25, 2007 6:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 25, 2007 18:46

Paganplace:

Well, Tim, I'm sorry if you feel at all 'marginalized' in the Pagan community. I don't think it's terribly unfair to characterize Starhawk as somewhere in the American Pagan mainstream in many ways. Too often, there's a lot of sensitivity about this, really on both sides of the internal debates that come from our internal diversity. It can't really be escaped that that mainstream is highly influenced by modern Wicca, (quoting bits of someone's Ardanes won't help here: most of the Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wiccans aren't the scary, unreasonable would-be authority figures that many others like to portray them as: actually, the ones I've met usually know the place of their oathbound materials, and don't think their founders were some kind of prophets. )

There's a lot of verbal scuffles between 'eclectics' and people of more specific sorts of paths, shall we say, (Personally, I don't consider myself 'eclectic:' ...I just have a lot of different ancestors. :) ....and there's a lot of people who get upset that the community at large may be represented by beliefs they don't hold.

But at the same time, the outer world is always insisting 'None of you have any values!' Sure we do, they're just not imposed or written down (Or, for that matter, agreed upon in any authoritative way.) But, they're there. Maybe organically, but they're there. You're using a few to decry what you see as people being authoritarian. :)

Stuff like the Ardanes doesn't serve as any such that you can really pick a bit of and say, 'This is what you believe, (not even of most 'Traditional Wiccans.') ...at least not in the broader community and subculture that by and large doesn't have or seek access to them. (I sometimes joke that 'Witch Wars' are the kids honouring a time-honoured tradition of learning things the hard way, though I haven't seen one in many years. :) ) g

You've got to be careful of assuming that this is bout some prophet inventing source material: especially when sort of set loose, Wicca grew into something else: (And, heck, not only survived, but thrived when the common ideas of the time from Margaret Murray got basically discredited: that's part of the growth process.)

We need to give each other a bit of credit: the *world* is our teacher. I figure, 'Enlightenment' is *inevitable.* Sooner or later. Some think Starhawk kind of grandstands a lot. She's also a very real and influential member of the community, not an exemplar of perfection. I certainly don't agree with everything she says or does. But I don't mind calling her an 'Elder,' though. Not at all.

And I've met a *lot* more elders, both quiet ones and activist ones.

That doesn't mean there is or needs to be 'authority' in the way of the new religions. Ancient Pagans didn't like come up to each other and go, 'Hello, fellow Pagan, isn't it good that we're the same kind of religion?'

People just didn't think that way.

If *we* find ourselves doing so, is that cause we *need* to, or is it just an old habit from the religious cultures we live among?

February 25, 2007 1:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 25, 2007 13:26

Tim:

Adjuvant,

I did keep asking myself why you were accusing me of being closed-minded when what I have repeatedly advocated was tolerance, acceptance, inclusively, and recognition of all Pagan paths, then I read your angry response to Victoria under the "To Be A True Friend of the Jewish People" essay. I have no issue with those who wish to embrace Goddess monotheism, but the evangelical nature of some within the female spirituality movement is as harsh and intolerant of others beliefs as any other extremist from any of the "established religions". I can clearly see now why you did not want me and others to point out that other Pagans and Pagan beliefs exist. The idea that many Wiccans embrace the God aspect or that there are Pagans that worship pantheons of mixed gender must twist you to no end.

My heart goes out to you. Enlightenment comes with knowing that there are many paths to the top of the mountain. I hope you one day realize that.

Yours in the Gods.

February 24, 2007 10:28 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 24, 2007 10:28

Adjuvant:

Tim

When someone has their mind made up and has chosen to close it off then no new information can enter. Too bad. For and open mind has a chance for enlightenment and wisdom. I choose not to waist my time debating with you anymore. There are people of real need I can spend my precious time serving. Enjoy your hollow victories and self chosen ignorance and closed heart. May you find peace in your little world.

February 23, 2007 7:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 23, 2007 19:41

Tim:

Adjuvant,

I agree with your statement, "the endless fight to be the one on top, the only one, the only truth, the ultimate truth, the only way it can be done, the only way to follow, the only way is to do it my way or some other person who lived long ago and a lot of people quote them so they must be right's way," but I think you address the wrong person.

My whole issue has been that there is not only one, not only one truth, no ultimate truth, not one and only way it can be done, not just one and only way to follow, and not only way to do things. My point has been that in a venue like this, where Starhawk is the only Pagan panelists in an online journal hosted by the world's best known news sources (Newsweek & The Washington Post), the Pagan community in all its forms and all its diversity should be placed before personal agenda. I provided verifiable facts that refute Starhark talking in absolutes about Pagans, and you want to make it an issue about credentials. Member size changes nothing in the playground, and it changes nothing here.

Pagans fight to be recognized and not be marginalized and disenfranchised by the general population, it is a shame that there are those that need to fight to be recognized and not be marginalized and disenfranchised from within our own community.

We are all Pagan: Asatru, Celtic Reconstruction, Discordian, Druidry, Eclectic Wicca, Kemetic, Etruscan, Finnish Paganism, Hellenic Polythiest, Mesopotamian, Mithraism, Numinism, Religio Romana, Romuva, Stregheria, Traditional Wicca, and many others.

There are those that present "information" as if there is "only one, the only truth, the ultimate truth, the only way it can be done", but it was not me or those others that refuted the generalization and presumptions made in this article that acted that narrow-minded.

Yours in the Gods.

February 23, 2007 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 23, 2007 13:48

Adjuvant:

Tim and others of like mind,

This is why humans have such a difficult time getting along with each other. The endless fight to be the one on top, the only one, the only truth, the ultimate truth, the only way it can be done, the only way to follow, the only way is to do it my way or some other person who lived long ago and a lot of people quote them so they must be right's way.

We spend or should I say waist all this time on empty words, when if we would just put egos aside and humble ourselves to the fact that we do not have all the answers and neither does the other person, no matter how long ago they lived or how important someone thinks they were. Who cares who came first or who said what or when and instead use all this information, shared by wise women and men, productively and towards the simple goal of sharing this wonderful island in the universe called Mother Earth and showing selfless kindness and to each other. This is the only truth that will make a difference.

Spiritual is a very personal thing. Some might share a similar way yet ultimately each is uniquely different. Living together in harmony should be our goal. Harmony with each other and all life around and in us. Believe what you will, share what you believe, live your spirituality by example and action and in doing so let others to the same.

Critizism is not constructive nor helpful. Sharing information and ideas as well as listening to the information and ideas of another with an open mind and heart. No one person nor many people have the one right way of doing or knowing everything. We are all learning as we go and benefiting from those who have shared and learned before us.

February 23, 2007 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 23, 2007 12:57

Tim:

Adjuvant,

You have asked what have I done do show that somehow I have the best knowledge about Pagans. I have provided here information (not opinion) and sources to verify it. My personal credentials are irrelevant in the face of verifiable information.

What history did cite? What I did was quote Aristotle, who stated basically that a statement of fact is either true or false regardless of one's personal opinion. So again, we have the verifiable facts that I have stated verses Starhark's opinion presented as absolutes about Pagans. This is not "blindly spued or accepted opinions of history"; this is the present day Pagan community.

I don't need to assume or presume that anyone reading Starhawk's words will some how be misled. It is here on these pages. From her initial post "Some Basic Definitions" which were very wicca-centric, to the posts of Pagan diversity which excluded commentary on any specific religions outside of Wicca, to her "Goddess Weeps" essay, and all the associated comments. Look even within this one:

Greg wrote, "Pardon my total ignorance but how many branches of Wiccan/Pagan faith are there? What are the differences between Wicca and Pagan faiths?"

Jahadist wrote, "Never knew there are sects, schisms, "churches" or school of thoughts within the pagan community."

And let's not forget I was not the only dissenter:

TEA wrote, "...it is both god and goddess that renders imperative validity, and not singleness of goddess" and then was immediately rebuked by PaganPlace and Terra Gazelle for not accepting Starhark in absolutes about Pagans.

Mandi wrote, "The pagan community, as Starhawk so easily conglomerates, (rather than addressing groups of individuals with very diverse beliefs- and some, gasp, don't include bio-feminism in their practices)..." She continues by stating, "Sounds a bit like the proselytizing that pagans complain about actually."

Mandi also writes, "Placing earth worship in the center of the issue is a nice way to keep people divided into spiritual hierarchy", and then asks, "is Starhawk a politician, or a religious leader?"

Now if we want to hold to the idea of credentials though, does anyone know what prior Pagan experience Starhawk had before founding Reclaiming in the late 70's? I've read several bios on her (including those on her personal site and on Reclaiming's) and none seem to provide her with any credentials prior to founding the Reclaiming tradition except a vague reference from the Reclaiming website which states, "The Reclaiming Collective was a group of women and men in the San Francisco Bay Area which formed in 1978-80, originally an outgrowth of classes in magic taught by Starhawk and Diane Baker." There seems to be only tidbits of her life made available prior to founding Reclaiming and nothing that seems to connect her to any form of Paganism including Wicca. It almost seems as though Reclaiming was a "feminist religion" custom created specifically as a way to reaffirm her own ecofeminist opinions and not as a branching off of a previous Pagan experience.

How or why she was picked over other prominent Pagans is anyone's guess. Maybe that's a question best addressed to Newsweek and The Washington Post. Maybe she was just the one "they" knew of best because of her feminist, environmental, and anti-war activism. Who know? There are definitely Pagans with much more substantial credentials and histories.

Yours in the Gods.

February 22, 2007 9:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 22, 2007 21:26

Adjuvant:

Tim

So...where are your credentials and what have you done do show that somehow you have the best knowledge about Pagans? Why are you not then a panelist on this forum? It is easy to criticize from the side lines no matter how much history you quote. A knowledgable person is aware that history is written by people to serve a self-serving purpose. Just look at the history books here in the USA. Most of it is fiction, manipulated facts to create them in the best light. Real history and truth must be looked for, not blindly spued or accepted.
And to assume or presume that anyone reading Starhawk's words will some how be misled. What form of ultimate knowing have you to say this? No matter what is said or quoted there will be people who choose only what they want to hear and latch on it.Then there are those who continue to search for their personal truths and will not be swayed by anyone's vision, but will make their own.

February 22, 2007 6:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on February 22, 2007 18:14

Tim:

Adjuvant,

Any reasonably intelligent person can see by what I have written that I have not been dismissive of Starhawk's beliefs or the beliefs of her tradition, but I have been critical of her talking in absolutes about Pagans.

"For if any one thinks truly that a person is sitting, yet, when that person has risen, this same opinion, if still held, will be false." - Aristotle, Categories

If you believe that I am writing here to change the hearts and minds of those Pagans that believe in, support, or defend the kind of statements that Starhark makes then you are mistaken. I am here so that the non-Pagan readers know that Starhawk and Reclaiming are not typical, that all Pagans do not have a leftist socialist "ecofeminists" agenda, and that Pagan does not equal wicca-ish. Would Jihadist been presented with a fairly representative list of Pagan religions if I was not here? I don't think so. Starhawk wrote two essays on "diversity" yet did not take that opportunity to show the truly diverse nature of Pagan religions.

As I said previously... In this situation, where Starhawk in the only Pagan panelists in an online journal hosted by the world's best known news sources (Newsweek & The Washington Post), she needs, in my opinon, to be held responsible fo

Starhawk

Co-founder, Reclaiming

Starhawk

Co-founder, Reclaiming

Climate Change: A Moral Imperative to Act

All Comments (130)