Brendan Eich and the Petition of Shame

     I have been actively involved in Queer Nation. I am a bisexual, currently in a monogamous opposite gender relationship hopefully until death do us part. I believe that the government should get out of the marriage business. If two people are married by a clergy-- marriage. If two people are partnered by a justice of the peace-- domestic partnership, with all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. [No religious body ought to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that it is opposed to].

     I don't have enough words to adequately describe my disgust at you people who signed the petition which "asked" Brendan Eich to resign from his C.E.O. position because he dared to give a thousand bucks to Proposition 8. We do not all agree on every political issue. Big whop. We do not have to. In a work-site, we really can work at something without agreeing on stuff. My outside politics or political activity should not interfere with my relationship with my co-workers or my ability to perform my job duties. Brendan Eich donating money to whatever cause he wants to ought to have been a non-issue. Oh, but I forgot. Corporations are now people. Obviously, you signers of the petition of shame picked up on the faux-fended butt-hurt feelings of Mozilla. How freaking brilliant. Not.

     The oppressed have truly become the oppressors. I am ashamed of my community. I am ashamed that I share the description of "human being" with everyone who signed that petition-- regardless of their sexual orientation. This is the goose-step of political correctness forcing people into boxes and those boxes have to be the same. Screw political correctness. Screw your petition. You FAIL.

     This is a small potato blog in a social media-sphere of giants. I don't imagine that Brendan Eich, Andrew Sullivan, or Steven Colbert will ever read any part of this blog. I want you to know that I stand with Brendan Eich. And I don't give a damn if he is "for or against" gay marriage or any other pet project of the politically correct folks who are not in favor of freedom of speech for all who agree with them.

radical sapphoq says: here are a few links if you want them:

http://brendaneich.com/

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/

THOUGHTS ON BASHING FLUFFY BUNNIES by Ben Gruagach 2/15/07

The Internet Book of Shadows at sacred-texts.com

---

Thoughts on Bashing Fluffy Bunnies

by Ben Gruagach
http://www.witchgrotto.com/
This article may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes, providing that this original copyright notice stays in place at all times.

One unfortunate trend which has become prominent within the online Pagan community is known as "bashing fluffy bunnies." No, it doesn't involve harming animals -- but it does involve verbally attacking those who are perceived to have less scholarly opinions on modern Paganism than the attacker. Personally I think this trend is shameful and disrespectful, unworthy of anyone who claims to be a polytheist or Pagan. To try and draw attention to the issue I present my Thoughts On Bashing Fluffy Bunnies.

The modern Pagan community is diverse and growing. Decades ago, there were a few distinct majority segments: Wiccans, Druids, and Asatruers. At the start of the 21st century there is an ever-growing number of non-Wiccan Witches, assorted Pagan groups, and Reconstructionist Pagans who are working to revive ancient Pagan religions.

With growth comes friction between factions, sometimes escalating into conflict. Minority groups sometimes feel offended when they are lumped in with other groups. Individuals are annoyed when others assume that some idea or philosophy might be common among the majority of Pagan groups.

Instead of strengthening one's group identity by clarifying core ideas, it is common for a group to instead spend a lot of energy saying what it's not about. Sarah M. Pike explored this in some depth in her book "Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community." Wiccan groups have worked hard to insist that they are not Satanists. Non-Wiccan Witches insist that they are not at all like Wiccans. Reconstructionist Pagans insist that they are not Wiccans or Satanists, and often insist they are not following "Earth-based" religions as Wiccans do. Within the Wiccan community, there is an insistence by many that they are not "fluffy bunny" Wiccans which they clearly consider to be a perversion of their religion.

It is becoming quite common, at least on the internet, for these attempts to differentiate the "not-me" through what can only be described as bashing. Instead of discussing the issues and sharing different points of view and theories, those who hold whatever idea is not politically correct for the majority in the discussion become the target for personal insult and antagonistic behavior. In other forums, when a participant purposefully misinterprets another's postings and writes to antagonize, the behaviour would be labeled "trolling" and would be dealt with appropriately. Within many Pagan forums, however, "trolling" appears to be encouraged providing you are politically correct about it and agree with the majority philosophy.

It has become politically correct in many Pagan forums to bash those they label "fluffy bunnies." The term itself is intended to be insulting -- it implies that some people are air-headed idiots more at home in a Walt Disney cartoon than in the Pagan community. Often the label is applied to any group one happens to disagree with. The implication is usually that the "fluffy bunny" hasn't thought through their religious philosophy, that they are really just concerned about shock value or fashion rather than living a religious philosophy. It is also usually assumed that a "fluffy bunny" has little idea about the historical past and physical reality and accepts any claim that is made at face value.

Some groups, such as Reconstructionist Pagans, strive to match their religions as closely as possible to a specific chosen historical model. They feel that they are therefore immune to being labeled "fluffy," because they hold scholarly rigor in such high esteem. It also happens sometimes within Reconstructionist discussions that other groups such as Wiccans are labeled automatically as "fluffy" because of specific discredited historical theories. The problem with these blanket labels is that they are not always accurate. Within the Wiccan community, for instance, there is a surge of scholarly historical research which has thrown new light on the origins of the religion. Many resisted this change at the start, but it is quickly changing so that now it is quite common to find Wiccans who freely incorporate the new ideas about the past into their philosophies. To insist that Wicca is "fluffy" is to ignore many scholarly Wiccans.

Similarly, while there is certainly encouragement within the Reconstructionist community towards scholarly rigor, it does happen that blanket statements are made and assumptions proven false. Like any pet theory, it is often hard to give up even when the evidence starts to mount that it might not be correct. The claim that Reconstructionists are "more scholarly" than other Pagans has lead to a growing arrogance by Reconstructionists towards other Pagans. And as so often happens, with arrogance frequently comes sloppy and uncritical thinking, essentially "resting on one's laurels" from past accomplishments as a substitute for continuing critical work.

It seems rather hypocritical that a community made up of self-professed polytheists (whether "hard polytheists" or not) should be so intolerant of others who have different ideas. It's not just acknowledging that others have different ideas, or accepting that the historical landscape is evolving. The problem is that some are being disrespectful of others and are actively antagonistic in forums where the stated goal is purportedly to share information and debate ideas in a civilized fashion. Bashing is not debating. Debating involves sharing ideas and evidence and discussing the merits of the different points of view. Debating allows disagreements, but does not allow disrespect. When a discussion transforms into personal insults against select participants, or "bashing fluffy bunnies" as some gleefully call it, it is no longer debate but shameful ego assaults.

Perhaps the conflict is a carry-over from the dominant Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, where it is common for religions to work under the assumption that there is a "One True Way" that is correct while all others are inherently wrong. When there is a "One True Way," individual religions are in jeopardy whenever alternatives are present. If an alternative proves to be reasonable, it implies that others must be inherently incorrect. When there is "One True Way," there can truly be only one. All others must be discredited and eliminated.

Polytheists purportedly accept the idea that there are multiple deities. "Hard polytheists" believe that the deities are all distinct, that the Greek Hermes is most definitely not the same thing as the Egyptian Thoth. Today there are many Pagans, commonly Wiccans, who are not "hard polytheists" but instead accept multiple deities as being aspects or faces of a larger deity and often as one ultimate deity. This point of view is often expressed as "all gods are one God, all goddesses are one Goddess." Dion Fortune popularized this idea in her works in the first half of the twentieth century. Many early Wiccans, who admired Fortune's work, adopted this idea into their Wiccan philosophy.

It is rather odd, then, that with the vast majority of Pagans claiming some version of polytheism as the basis of their religious philosophy, that they would also hold onto the idea that there is such a thing as "One True Way." Some polytheists insist that they do not believe there is "One True Way," yet when they start talking about other groups or philosophies within the Pagan community they act as if they are all pretenders while their own philosophy is the only "correct" one. The most obvious and frequent example of this is the so-called "fluffy bunny bashing" that occurs. Behavior in this case belies the denials.

Debate is healthy and to be encouraged. Discussion that involves personal attack and antagonism should be discouraged. There is a difference between debates of historical theory or the usefulness of different ideas, and discussion that becomes a reinforcement of disrespect. The Pagan community is varied and changing. No one group has exclusive ownership over the labels "Pagan," "Witch," or even "Wiccan." Arguments over who has the right to those labels within our community are just like the arguments within the Christian community over who is a "real Christian." The arguments are divisive and destructive. As a self-proclaimed polytheist community, we should be above these sorts of petty concerns.

Let's resist the shameful bashing that we are committing against each other. Let's encourage and participate in respectful, honest debate and discussion where we allow our evidence and theories to speak for themselves without allowing over-inflated egos to taint the forums. Let's act like real polytheists, respecting others' choices of deities and philosophies. Let's leave the "One True Way" attitudes and behaviour out of our discussions. Those who are "bashing fluffy bunnies" are not winning the hearts, minds, and souls of the Pagan community -- they are defeating the very ideals of polytheism that allow for a multitude of philosophies, deities, and unique paths within our community.

It's time we grew past pointless infighting and arguments over who is "witchier than thou." We need to retire the phrase "fluffy bunny" and other terms meant to demean others in our communities. Issues should be raised, discussed, and debated -- but without insults and trolling. Scholarly criticism should be encouraged if we are to truly grow. Instead of focusing on what we aren't, let's focus on what we are, and respect the diversity that exists within our own community.

[This article was written in 2002. I am re-posting it here under his copyright terms. Thanks, sapphoq. ]

DO I OFFEND? ONE EXPERIENCE WITH ONE MONOTHEIST 12/20/06

sapphoq wishes to thank the fine folks at Religious Tolerance of Ontario for the succinct wisdom contained in their article:
WHY RELIGIONS SOMETIMES PROMOTE HATRED, VIOLENCE, AND GENOCIDE .

I was in attendance at a somewhat public meeting this weekend where it came to pass that some of the folks in attendance were speaking about their monotheistic male christian god in rather lofty and glowing terms, additionally claiming that they "knew" or were seeking to know said god's will for their individual lives. When it came my turn to speak, I advised that I was "sitting in a room of mystics." I asked who this god was and how do we know his will? I went on briefly to mention that people are killing each other in the Middle East right now believing that it is their god's will for them to do so [a mild simplification and thus an under-truth I know]. I also brought up the idea that here in our own country some of us g.l.b.t.i.q. folks are being denied the same basic civil rights that other American citizens take for granted. The denial of our basic civil rights is based partly on what some folks perceive is their god's will for all of us. Thus, I have a problem with this whole mystic experience thing. I shut-up then and the get-together ran its course. My friends are a varied bunch of folks and I love them. My good-natured questioning is nothing new to their ears. The event ended on a rather difficult note. One woman in attendance [an acquaintance rather than a friend] made last second comments about someone violating our cohesiveness as an organization which mystified me.

This evening I had occasion to run into the woman who grandstanded the gathering over the weekend. I asked her to explain what she was talking about. She said, "I was talking about you." I suggested that it might be better for us to sit down and communicate directly with each other about this. She said she thought that the group needed to know. I told her that grandstanding does nothing to improve communication between us but sitting down and talking about our differences might. She had forgotten the word I had called them [mystics] and didn't know what grandstanding was. I told her, adding that I also had my own experience with grandstanding and that is why I recognize it. She bristled then. I tried to explain the difference between unity and uniformity-- I was guessing that her real objection to my opinion lay more in that area. She informed me that I "shouldn't share" my personal struggle. I asked her where that was in the by-laws of said club. She stuttered a bit and finally said, "You make some people feel insulted" or something along those lines indicating that her feelings were my responsibility somehow. At last, the crux of the matter. I told her that is the risk we all take in communication. [I chose not to address the idea that I could make anyone feel anything.] She turned away then, and I left as I had other matters to attend to before sleeping.

I am aware that monotheists certainly do not have the monopoly on intolerance. We Pagans, Witches, Heathens, Druids can also lay vigorous claim to that turf. Anyone who has been involved in a Witch War knows this. And yes, some of us refer to Christians as x-tians. And a few of us boycott certain businesses run by Christians just as some Christians boycott pagan-friendly or glbtiq-friendly businesses. Everyone is guilty of intolerance. No one escapes with innocence in this life.

It is mental masturbation to presume that I know the whys and wherefores of any other human being's actions. I do not totally understand how it is that what I say can provoke such a strong reaction in one individual. I do not have to know.

What I do know is that in a casual circle of human beings, I have as much of a right to put forth my doubts about what others are talking about as much as everyone else there has to speak about their monotheistic male christian god in rather lofty and glowing terms. I endeavor to accord basic human respect to the human beings that I come into contact with in my daily life. In the course of average human relations with other adults, I expect the same basic human respect. I don't care if people respect my spiritual path. And I certainly am not asking for anyone's approval. What I want is to exercise my freedom of self-expression. And I want others to exercise their freedom of self-expression too. A difference of opinion is not something that violates any principle of an honest healthy relationship between two or more human beings.