FIGHTING BACK: INDIGENOUS RELIGIONS TAKE A STAND AGAINST DC40
“The New Apostolic Reformations’s DC40 Campaign is anti-American and anti-human.”
The Turtle Island 42 Initiative (TI42) has been created out of the work of contemporary Pagans and Heathens, polytheists, and indigenous elders in response to the New Apostolic Reformation movement’s upcoming onslaught against religious liberty, titled DC40. TI42 is being facilitated by Rev. Galina Krasskova, a teacher and priest within contemporary Heathenry (Norse polytheism) and an initiated Dagara Elder and by media professor Ukumbwa Sauti, M.Ed. Both are deeply committed to restoring their own ancestral traditions and to helping others to reconnect with their own indigenous ancestral traditions across the globe.
Named after a common Native American name for this continent, the TI42 initiative is a peaceful, non-violent protest designed to raise political and social awareness and to counter the ideological attack on freedom, liberty, and religious pluralism embodied in the NAR’s DC40 campaign. DC40 is set to begin on October 2, 2011 and run through November 12, 2011. “We cannot allow the narrative of this nation today to be written by religious fascists. TI42 rejects the disrespect inherent in the Doctrine of Discovery, monotheistic imperialism and organized and predatory missionary work. TI42 stands with the indigenous people of Turtle Island and beyond and all those who struggle to carry forward their Ancestral indigenous traditions from all corners of this world.”
From www.dc40.net: “RELEASING THE LIGHT AND SOUND OF ETERNAL WORSHIP OVER THE DISTRICT OF CHRIST” (what they propose the nation’s capital should be called). TI42 rejects the narrow cultural, political and spiritual intention of DC40’s neo-manifest destiny program.
The main TI42 thrust is the website: http://ti42.weebly.com/. Each day throughout the project, updates will be posted, designed to help participants better engage with their world, with Turtle Island, its people, and with the threat to progress and pluralism that groups like the NAR represent. Above all else, this program is designed to put people in touch with their own indigenous roots as everyone, everywhere, if you look back far enough, came from indigenous Ancestors. TI42 is a call to explore that indigenous human legacy, as an antidote to the religious imperialistic madness of the NAR and its supporters.
–
Rev. Krasskova contacted me and asked me to share their press release. If you would like to share it with other groups or organizations, feel free to download a copy of it and do so.
Evangelical leader urges followers to vote for Christians – not Mormons
Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical pastor, today endorsed Rick Perry and said that his fellow Christians should vote for Perry over Mitt Romney because Romney is a Mormon. Jeffress described Mormonism as “not Christian” and “a cult.”
The Values Voter Summit, a gathering of conservatives and evangelicals banding together for political purposes, began today, and no one has made more noise than Jeffress – except perhaps Mitt Romney’s deafening silence in the face of repeated attacks on his religion. Jeffress introduced Rick Perry and said that evangelical Christians “have a choice to make” between someone who is “a good, moral person” – like Romney – and someone who is “a born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ” – like Perry. He later clarified and expanded his remarks in an interview with CNN:
And that’s not some fanatical comment. That’s been the historic position of evangelical Christianity. The Southern Baptist Convention, which is the largest Protestant denomination in the world, has officially labeled Mormonism as a cult.
I think Mitt Romney’s a good, moral man, but I think those of us who are born-again followers of Christ should always prefer a competent Christian to a competent – to a competent non-Christian like Mitt Romney.
So that’s why I’m enthusiastic about Perry.
Jeffress was about to discuss his interpretation of Article Six of the Constitution, which forbids a religious test for holding office, but sadly he was cut off by the CNN reporter pointing out that Mormons identify themselves as Christian, which didn’t budge Jeffress’ attitude. After further questions, Jeffress allowed that he would “hold his nose” and vote for Romney in a general election if Romney captured the nomination, because Romney “at least supports biblical principles” and Jeffress thinks Obama does not. He also graciously observed that in the case of staunch conservative like Rep. Eric Cantor, being Jewish should not be “held against him.”
Jeffress also spoke with Bryan Fischer, a radio host who has opined that the First Amendment only protects the free exercise of Christianity – which, he agrees, does not include Mormonism. Fischer is scheduled to speak immediately before Romney today.
Shorter version of Peter Wagner: We honor you so much we want to convert you.
C. Peter Wagner, a founder of the New Apostolic Reformation, was interviewed on NPR’s Fresh Air yesterday. Since Rachel Tabachnik had just been on Fresh Air and did a great job of explaining what the NAR is and why she and others are concerned about its intentions, I expected this to be an attempt at damage control. It was not a very successful one. Wagner tried to “spin” some of the conversation by shifting his vocabulary to the newer, less-inflammatory terms the NAR is trying to use now that they’re under increased scrutiny: saying “afflicted” instead of “possessed” by demons, and describing adherents as “kingdom-minded believers” rather than “dominion-havers,” as Lou Engle, another prominent Dominionist, put it.
On demons, Wagner confirmed that he and his followers believe in demons who are directly affecting individual people:
“We don’t like to use the word possessed because that means they don’t have any power of their own. We like to use the word afflicted or, technical term, demonized. But there are people who — yes, who are — who are directly affected by demons, not only in politics, but also in the arts, in the media and religion in the Christian church.”
As for “spiritual mapping” and the efforts to cast demons out of specific places, like Washington, DC, Wagner emphasized the necessary steps to take before demons can be completely cast out:
“So sometimes there has to be repentance, sometimes there has to be — there has been bloodshed in that city that needs to be repented of, there has been idolatry in the city that has ruined the land. There’s been immorality that needs to be repented of, and there are several social things that people really need to acknowledge that they’re bad and repent of them and ask forgiveness.”
Personally, I have zero doubt that “idolatry” includes any form of my religion, Wicca, and probably all religions other than Wagner’s approved types, just as “immorality” includes all forms of sex other than that between cis, hetero, married people.
While Wagner has a knack for sounding reasonable, and has certainly worked to master the less-frightening vocabulary, I’d like to remind readers of how one of Wagner’s associates, Kimberly Daniels, described “witches” (sic) as praying over Halloween candy in order to create demonic possession, having sex with demons, engaging in bestiality, and committing rape and murder, including infanticide. Daniels specifically links these activities with the trappings of contemporary Wicca, such as the celebration of the fall equinox as Mabon, the colors of the harvest season, and the figure of the Harvest Lord or Corn King. She also asserted “I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon.”
Daniels has earned a reputation as a “demonbuster” and has written quite a bit about her work with “possessed” individuals. This is what Wagner is talking about when he tells NPR that some of the people in the NAR have “professional expertise” in dealing with demons. Those statements were made by Daniels in 2009. Earlier this year, she was still part of the International Coalition of Apostles, an NAR organization. Unless she has been expelled from that organization or her comments and attitudes have been repudiated by Wagner and other NAR members since then, I believe that Wagner’s new vocabulary is nothing more than a smokescreen. This article goes on to give a short list of ways Daniels’ fellow ICA members were involved with potential nominees in the last presidential election. We have already seen the involvement of the NAR in the preliminary stages of this election cycle, and it’s a significant increase since last time.
Again, I am not trying to raise fear about this group. I’m trying to raise awareness. Their increasing reach and influence, and especially political activism, mean that it is important for those who disagree with them to be alert and be prepared to participate in the political process to protect the American values the NAR wants to do away with.
On the topic of other religions, Wagner says:
“I wouldn’t want to give the impression that the NAR denies the plurality of religion. We honor each religion in a society like our American society. However, we feel that — believe in Jesus, and Jesus has told us to go and preach the kingdom of God, and part of that is the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. And people who do not believe in Jesus Christ are not candidates for the kingdom of heaven. So our desire is that everybody be a candidate. So therefore, we would like Muslims to become Christians, but in the meantime, if they’re here in America, we don’t — we don’t oppose them.” (emphasis mine)
Wagner evidently thinks that “honor” is the same as “not opposing” another religion, although he flat-out states that their goal is complete conversion to Christianity. But notice the other qualifiers there – “in a society like our American society.” Wagner and his associates want to revolutionize American society into a completely different form.
“What we strive to do and our goal is to have people in the arts and entertainment mountain who are committed to the kingdom of God, so therefore, we use the adjective there — kingdom-minded believers — and our goal is to try to have as many kingdom-minded believers in positions of influence in the arts and entertainment mountain as possible. And the reason for that is, to help bring the blessings of heaven to all those in the arts and entertainment mountain.”
This is his soft-pedaling of Dominionism, where he uses the language of political participation to camouflage the fact that to “bring the blessings of heaven,” it will be necessary for people to repent for the things he has defined as “idolatry” and “immorality.” Getting influence in a particular “mountain” is a step along the way towards the goal of changing society to make that happen.
“We believe in working with any — with whatever political system there is. In America, it’s democracy and working with the administrative, judicial and legislative branches of the government, the way they are, but to have as many kingdom-minded people in influence in each one of these branches of government as possible so that the blessings of the kingdom will come.”
In Uganda, when the NAR worked with the political system in order to bring “the blessings of the kingdom,” one result was a bill banning homosexuality and instituting the death penalty as punishment for some gay acts. Lou Engle, previously mentioned, made a statement saying that he did not support the harsh penalties in the bill, but when he spoke in Uganda, he praised the “courage” and “righteousness” behind the bill.
Engle also said, “Today, America is losing its religious freedom.” So when Peter Wagner says:
“Well, we respect all religions, but we also respect the freedom of exercising our religion. And part of our religion is called evangelization. It’s called presenting Jesus Christ to others and persuading them to become followers of Jesus Christ and walk into the kingdom of God. So we’d like to maintain our right in religious pluralism of exercising our privilege of winning other people to Christianity.”
I take him at his word: he believes that anything that prevents him from “winning other people to Christianity” is an infringement of his rights, and he will fight to protect his rights. That means using any and all means necessary, including gaining political influence to support challenges to current interpretations of Constitutional rights for people like me.
Wagner also said that he supports the work of Cindy Jacobs and John Benefiel, important organizers of the ongoing DC 40 initiative. He thinks that a cross on top of the Capitol building would be going too far, though, since “that would be a sign of a theocracy.” But apparently electing Christians who follow his beliefs and encouraging them to legislate his narrow interpretation of Christian morality into place isn’t theocracy. See what a new vocabulary can do?
Materials: an image of Columbia, such as a printout of some of the images on this site, one white candle, and one black candle
Light the white candle and place it to the right of the image of Columbia. Reflect on and give thanks for the freedom of religion we enjoy.
Hail Columbia, patron goddess of your district and of our government! You represent our highest ideals of freedom and liberty. Help us to strive towards the fullest expression of those values.
Light the black candle from the white one and place it to the left of Columbia’s image. Visualize Columbia on top of a solid wall, or a dome of protection that surrounds the Capitol and even all of DC. Visualize that this protection harmlessly neutralizes all forces that attack it.
Columbia, stand firm to defend the wall of separation between church and state that protects our precious religious liberty, so that we may continue to honor you. As we do, help us resist oppression and ensure justice. Hail Columbia!
You may have noticed the statement about “pulpit endorsements” in the example letter to elected officials from Hail Columbia. There is an effort among some conservative Christians to encourage churches to explicitly endorse specific political candidates. Churches and other non-profit organizations are not allowed to campaign for or endorse candidates, and they risk losing their non-profit tax exemption by doing so. The Alliance Defense Fund, a right-wing legal group, has announced that today is “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” when like-minded clergy are supposed to flout tax law by preaching about candidates.
The blog for Americans United for Separation of Church and State has more analysis of the whole situation. This is yet another example of how some conservative Christians are trying to harness religion to drive political change. This Sunday was not chosen by accident; when it rolls around next year, the country will be just days away from electing a new President and members of Congress. What kind of effect would it have if people are told that it is their religious duty to vote for a particular candidate?
It’s certainly possible for people to spread that message anyway – and many do. But the venue matters. By speaking from the pulpit, in an official capacity, clergy members capitalize on all the financial support their organizations receive. People who donated to the church have now, perhaps unwittingly, funded a political campaign, one they may or may not agree with. And all of that money was exempted from taxes; donations to political campaigns are not tax-deductible, and by making the church into a campaign grounds, clergy put their tax-exempt status at risk. If they wish to do that, I support their freedom of speech, but they should not be able to use the added incentive of a tax break to encourage people to donate to an organization that is no longer working primarily for religious, educational, or charitable ends.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. Educate your community about this issue to help counter right-wing propaganda and support fair and equitable application of tax law to all religions.
Tell your elected officials to support freedom of religion
Take action! Send a copy of this letter to any and all of your elected representatives – the President, members of Congress, governors, state representatives, and even candidates.
You can find email addresses and other contact information for elected officials at usa.gov.
Please feel free to personalize this message.
Dear Elected Official,
As your constituent, I urge you to protect freedom of religion by not allying yourself with religious groups openly seeking to undermine the Constitutional separation of church and state.
Some conservative Christian groups are explicitly dedicated to gaining political power and influence. They seek to institute public policy based on their own, narrowly sectarian interpretation of Christian doctrine. Their goals are explicitly religious, with no secular rationale or justification.
Sadly, many candidates or elected officials accept or even seek support from these groups. Doing so amounts to an endorsement of attitudes that blatantly contradict the values in our Constitution.
The separation of church and state is vital to protecting freedom of religion for all religions. When the government supports a single religious perspective or tradition, the result is inevitable conflict over sectarian issues within that religion. Definitions of “acceptable” religion become ever narrower, and free exercise of religion becomes nonexistent.
As a voter, I urge you to:
Thoroughly investigate the ideology and platforms of groups that offer you their support.
Recognize that so-called “non-partisan” religious events are still religious events that privilege one religion over others.
Refuse to include “prayer rallies” or other religious events in your campaign.
Acknowledge that endorsements from tax-exempt organizations like churches (so-called ‘pulpit endorsements’) are illegal, refuse to accept them, and support IRS investigations of groups that provide them.
Reject any association with groups that seek to undermine our First Amendment freedom of religion.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Sherrian Lea Gildemeister, a Christian friend of mine, collaborated with me on writing this letter. We designed it to be a statement that people from any religious tradition or none could support. If you agree with the message of this letter, please share it with others and encourage them to contact their elected representatives too.
DC 40 has released the second and third parts of the prayer guide meant to coordinate the prayers of the national effort. It includes suggested prayers against pluralism and tolerance, with specific days about Freemasonry, Islam, “Baal worship,” public schools, and the environmental movement. Several themes from the first part show up here again as well, with the overall result being promotion of a culture and society that are permeated by extremely conservative Christian attitudes and requirements.
Day 13 is set aside for prayer against “Thinking that All Belief Systems are Equal,” which manifests itself in “the growth of syncretism and pluralism in our society.” Worshippers are warned against studying “false religions,” even for non-doctrinal kinds of wisdom.
On day 15, followers are directed to pray against “political correctness,” and the document is full of exhortations to believers to speak and act without being limited by concerns about “offending” others – often put in scare quotes like that. Such offense or pain is considered nothing compared to the “love” that is shown to others by preaching this message.
Readers are urged to take this attitude into every part of their lives and to shun venues that promote tolerance, especially public schools. Days 19 and 41 have specific directives for parents not to allow their children to be taught otherwise by public schools, which are described as “Anti-God and Anti-Constitution.” There is both some encouragement to reform schools and a subtle but distinct emphasis on home schooling, which has become more and more important among the Christian Patriarchy movement.
Three specific external forces are identified as problems: Freemasonry, Islam, and “Baal worship.” NAR leaders teach that Freemasonry is literally a form of swearing allegiance to the devil which creates “generational curses” that cause “barrenness” and birth defects. Day 26 is devoted to praying that Masons be excluded from the church and from society, and ultimately that lodges close and Freemasonry disappears, along with all other “secret societies.”
Day 32 is entitled “Culture has a Religious Basis (No Neutrality),” with the proposed solution of “realizing that every law that has ever been written has a religious foundation.” There is the by-now familiar claim that shari’a law is encroaching on the US, along with supposedly secular laws based in “Secular Humanism.” Believers are warned against “thinking that the Bible’s principles don’t apply to the unsaved,” and against “accepting the language of consensus (with the senses).” The only possible conclusion I can draw is that believers are supposed to push for all laws to be grounded in Christianity.
This attitude is much more concerning to me than all the rhetoric about “Baal-worship” and “the occult.” This prayer guide is full of outright enmity to tolerance, to pluralism, and to consensus. Combined with the frightening assertions that rights come from God, not the government, and that the US is “a Republic and not a Democracy,” (mentioned on day 20) whatever that might mean, it will lead those who follow it to refuse to participate in the kind of government that protects the rights of minorities and non-Christians and will support the kind of absolutism in both politics and religion that characterized Europe during the Thirty Years’ War, when different Christian groups decimated each other, each in the name of righteousness.
This kind of rhetoric is absolutely inimical to participation in a democracy, to accepting that sometimes political outcomes don’t match exactly what you want, and that you have to accept that in order to continue working within a government of, by, and for the people. Make no mistake: this prayer guide is a political document with specific targets in mind. People working towards those ends will strive to radically change the character not just of the US but of its fundamental institutions and processes.
The obsession with legalisms continues with day 48 being about “paying tribute to Islam,” which is at least in part a reference to the Treaty of Tripoli. The authors argue that any kind of submission, such as negotiated payments included in the treaty, gives Islam a hold over the United States. The usual scaremongering about shari’a law ensues. The proposed solution includes a statement that:
When there is an understanding that, since Christianity is voluntary, the legal structure which fosters an open relationship with Christ is one that allows everyone to have as much free choice as possible. (!is is why the United States doesn’t have civil laws forcing people to attend church.)
No explanation is given about whether other forms of worship would be prohibited. But it’s clear that the authors of this guide do not only want to reform the nation, they want to reform their own churches. In addition to many statements and concerns about purifying the church, the guide warns against “cultural acceptance of the occult that is so pervasive that it is even in the churches” as part of “Rampant Lawlessness and Rebellion” on day 18. A few more general statements about “the occult” are included, but none very illuminating.
Finally, as part of eliminating “Baal Worship in our Churches,” on day 24, the guide instructs people to repent for:
Mixing the holy celebration of Jesus’ resurrection with the pagan Easter holiday named after the Babylonian Baal named Ishtar; for mixing the holiness of the resurrection with the Easter bunny and Easter eggs, which glorify Ishtar’s attribute as the goddess of fertility and malign both Jesus’ godhead and the work of the cross.
They would probably be a little confused by the Venerable Bede’s description of Easter as derived from the name of the Germanic goddess Ostara. Regardless, they want to remove not only “the occult” but also what they see as its incorporations within Christianity, which should give mainstream Christians pause before they willingly collaborate with the NAR.
The environmental movement is also derided as a false religion, with cap and trade as its proposed “tithe.” Believers are exhorted to listen to scientists who deny climate change, whether or not they are validated by the vast majority of their scientific colleagues. This kind of rigid epistemological closure is another significant barrier to having followers participate as informed citizens in a functioning democracy.
This document concerns me as both a Witch and an American. Yes, there is a distinct animosity against my religious practices throughout this prayer guide, and people will be praying that I no longer have the freedoms that I hold dear. But more importantly, this guide is a way of teaching networks of people nationwide that they should not participate and cooperate – even grudgingly – in a democracy that allows and enforces such freedoms. That should concern us all – Pagan, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, Jew, and all. Awareness of and resistance to the NAR’s goal of dominion is crucial for us to continue to live in peace together. The Hail Columbia project will continue to lead the way with ideas and suggestions for how people can participate in ensuring that future.
Hail Columbia!
Fred Clark: Establishment and Free Exercise mutually supportive
Fred Clark, a Christian blogger famous for his deconstructions of the Left Behind series, has written some insightful posts over the years on the topic of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. He argues from a historically Baptist position why strict separation of church and state benefits – and is in fact necessary for – religion.
In Establishment, Fred explains why some religious people see a tension between the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, when actually the two clauses are both necessary and mutually supportive:
For many Americans, however, the First Amendment is complicated.
For those who subscribe to what my old friend Dwight Ozard called “hegemonic religion,” the First Amendment seems incoherent and contradictory. The core belief of hegemonic religion is that religion cannot be freely exercised unless it is also established in law. Those who subscribe to a form of hegemonic religion therefore view the First Amendment as presenting a conflict or, they like to say, a “tension” between its two religious clauses.
Those of us from other, non-hegemonic religious traditions do not see this supposed conflict. Here is what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says about religion:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”
Sometimes a comma is just a comma and not a vast chasm separating two competing and incompatible ideas. The two clauses there do not conflict. At all. They are logically necessary counterparts of one another. Congress may not make any law establishing religion and Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Congress may not make any law establishing religion because to do so would be to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Hegemonic believers don’t seem to appreciate this point. They can grasp that the establishment of one, official state religion might inhibit the freedom of those not belonging to the One True Official Sect, but they don’t perceive how such an establishment also fundamentally alters the relationship of members of that official sect to their own church — requiring lockstep assent to its official doctrines and practices as set forth thereafter by its official and legal enforcers.
The establishment of any sect casts suspicion on all members of that sect. Coerced belief is belief that cannot be trusted. Coerced belief, therefore, will never be trusted — it will be dis-trusted, inspected, codified, measured and forced to demonstrate its loyalty and legitimacy time and again.
This is no less true when the coercion is softer, the result of a set of privileges, incentives and disincentives. All such privileges and incentives incentivize disingenuous claims of religious belonging. To privilege any one set of believers, therefore, requires the implementation of mechanisms to challenge and sort out the genuine believers from the mere pretenders claiming allegiance only in order to gain access to those privileges that accompany membership in the established sect. Such sorting mechanisms are never perfect — allowing many hypocritical posers to slip past while unjustly condemning many sincere and genuine believers. And such sorting mechanisms are never pretty. This is where inquisitions come from.
There’s only one way to have an established religion without having an inquisition and that is to go without any such tests to distinguish genuine from disingenuous allegiance to official doctrine. That results in a different kind of disaster for the official, established sect. It means that nominal, indistinct, content-less faith becomes the norm. It turns the established sect into something toothless and vague — the C&E faith of the C of E (Christmas, Easter, Church, England).
These are the unavoidable options for any sect that becomes official and established. It can become monstrous or it can become mundane, but either way it cannot continue to be exercised as freely. Establishment restricts the religious freedom of those belonging to the official sect just as surely as it restricts the freedom of the religious minorities it disenfranchises.
All of which is why here in America support for a secular state (a redundant phrase) comes not just from Baptists and Anabaptists, Pagans and freethinkers and other sects with a history as dissenting, persecuted minorities, but also from adherents of sects that are or have been legally established, official religions — from Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Hindus, Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, Anglicans, etc. The free exercise of those traditions is freer in a country with a secular state than it is in a country in which any one of them is legally enforced and officially privileged.
In Michael Medved hates Catholics, Fred explains how displaying the Ten Commandments restricts the free exercise of religion for Christians by means of government influence in sectarian disagreements:
Michael Medved, writing at TownHall.com, says that “liberals … hate the Ten Commandments.”
He reaches this conclusion because civil libertarian groups like the ACLU and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty believe that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
These groups oppose the establishment of any official state religion. Medved seizes on a particular instance of this opposition and pretends that it is based on the particular content of the religious establishment, rather than on the general constitutional principle.
We civil libertarians and Baptists view both the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment as necessary for the protection of religious liberty. We view these clauses as complementary. We believe that the establishment of a state-sponsored, official, privileged religion would disastrously, and unconstitutionally, prohibit the free exercise of religion.
People like Medved, however, see these two clauses as contradictory. They believe that the only way to guarantee the free exercise of their religion is to grant it official state sanction — to create an establishment of religion. Thus they view the Establishment clause as a limitation, a negation, of the Free Exercise clause. Some of Medved’s allies, people like disrobed judge Roy Moore, unabashedly call for the elimination of the Establishment clause. Others take a subtler, more gradual approach, arguing as Medved does that certain broad privileges — like the posting of the Ten Commandments — should be granted to certain popular religions as a way of making the Establishment clause more elastic and less of a perceived threat to Free Exercise.
Medved goes on to list the Ten Commandments – the Protestant version. He acknowledges diversity of opinions on how to number the Commandments, and then he takes sides.
Medved claims he is presenting an “innocuous and generally uncontroversial … summary of universal moral precepts,” but what he is actually stating is this: where Catholics differ from Protestants, he sides with the Protestants. And not with all the Protestants, since he chooses the Stone Edition rather than the King James Version preferred by KJV-only fundamentalists. Medved relegates those fundamentalists, like the Catholics, to the fringes. Their religion is secondary, inferior, wrong, false, illegitimate, unprivileged and unprotected.
Michael Medved hates Catholics. He believes that their free exercise of religion is legitimate only within limits.
Perhaps you think this is an overstatement. After all, column space is limited, so Medved had to choose one enumeration and one translation over the others. But that choice was a matter of preference, and that preference elevates one sectarian perspective over the others. And just like Medved, any courthouse wishing to display a monument to the Ten Commandments would be forced to choose: Protestant or Catholic? Mainline or fundamentalist? And to choose is to prefer, to elevate and to subjugate, to establish and to limit the free exercise of religion.
Thanks to Fred Clark for kind permission to mirror parts of these posts.
Hecate describes the final Tarot card she drew to describe Columbia and synthesizes the whole reading, saying that Columbia wants her devotees to stop acting from fear, accept her blessings, and step up to protect her principles.
This post is the final in a series begun in July, concerning my conversation with the Goddess Columbia. Here are Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.
My final question to Columbia was: “What do you want from your devotees?” Using the Wildwood Tarot, I pulled the Eight of Vessels: Rebirth.*
The Wildwood Tarot book says:
Meaning: By looking at the past, acknowledging our mistakes and learning from them, we grow and attain new wisdom. The future waits to be unfolded by our positive action as we become “The Eighth Vessel” and receive powerful rejuvinating energies of rebirth.
Reading Points: Rejoice! A time of renewal and potential is here. The cycle of rebirth and healing brings inner peace and confidence. Once you accept that all the blessings and gifts of life can be your or, indeed, already belong to you, the fear of asking is gone. It is time to shed the skin of the past and accept and utilize the overflowing potential of the present that is freely available to you. Do not be afraid to make mistakes. Do not be afraid to ask: “Why not me?” See potential where others see barriers. See challenge as others see impossible odds. Apply all that you have learned through experience and toil to any problem and you will not fail. You have striven to survive and absorb insight; you have endured loss to retain your integrity. All of these trials have made you stronger, wiser, and more effective. Drink of this new fountain of opportunity and renew your life objectives. You have endured the past; its gifts were hard won. [N]ow the challenge of the future unfolds. Grasp it and shape it in your hands as you would have it manifest in your life.
Which is a lot to consider.
What I hear Columbia saying through the five Tarot cards that I pulled is this:
She’s the American manifestation of an ancient and significant Goddess, now the genius locii of my city and this nation. She’s more deeply connected to the green, wilderness parts of my city and of this nation than many suspect. She “the goddess of the land, sometimes expressed as Sovereignty” and validates the leadership of legitimate government, bringing them their land’s version of the sacred sword and the Hallows of Britain. She’s a symbol of the “power and protection of the land.”
On the other hand, She’s still young, still ecstatic in her dance upon This Place, still performing her initiation ritual, still overwhelmed with bounty and connection. In spite of Her connection to older Goddesses, Columbia’s “freedom of spirit marks [her] out as an original and unique personality,” one with a tendency to invasiveness in territories not her own.
What Columbia wants from her devotees, it seems to me, is a period of renewal and rebirth in which, using the wisdom that we’ve gained from prior generations, we accept her blessings and stop acting from fear. She wants her devotees to step up, to be unafraid of asking, “Why not me?” especially when Columbia’s principles (liberty, freedom, democracy, justice) are threatened. Columbia wants us to grasp the future “and shape it in your hands as you would have it manifest in your life.”
Makes sense.
I plan to do future trance workings to get to know Columbia even better. I feel the need to do them around significant American holidays, and I won’t be using Columbus Day, for, maybe, obvious reasons. Hopefully, the Thanksgiving Holiday (which I do consider an almost uniquely American holiday) will allow me some more time. In the meanwhile, your interpretations of the cards, in comments, are always welcome.
*This Wildwood Tarot card is a significant departure from the traditional Rider-Waite-based Eight of Cups, which shows an incomplete set of cups stacked beside flowing water and a person setting off in search of something more. I think it can be significant when, in a Tarot reading, the card selected varies from the traditional card. Here, there is a sense of more being avaliable, but it’s not based upon an incomplete or lacking past; it’s more abundant and optimistic than that. Of course, the card reminds me immediately of the Potomac River, which flows through Washington, D.C. and which I very much associate with Columbia.
Isaac Bonewits had a deep commitment to the principles of pluralism, democracy, freedom, and liberty, as evidenced by his many efforts and writings on these topics. I’ve collected links to some of those resources available online which people involved in the Hail Columbia efforts might wish to use.
When the statue of Freedom that stands on top of the Capitol was temporarily brought to ground level for cleaning and restoration, Bonewits led a group that consecrated it to the purpose of promoting the ideals which it personifies. This is the same statue that Hecate and I have been referring to as Columbia, since we see the American ideals of freedom and liberty as aspects of the same goddess, patron of the district named after her. In the same spirit, Bonewits encouraged Pagans to observe July 4th as a holiday honoring her in her many forms and has an entire page of Liberty Rite Materials for that purpose, including the following suggested re-dedication of the statue to be used on Independence Day or “times of democratic danger:”
In the Name of the Earth Mother, the ever changing All Mother; and in the Names of all those deities who have ever been worshipped in this land, ancient or modern; and in the Name of our most holy Goddess and the Mother of our Land, Liberty:
We once again charge and consecrate the sacred statue of Her that stands high in the air over our nation’s Capitol. Let it be a constant influence on that ceremonial center of our country. Let it cause all our public servants to make, enforce, and judge the laws and policies of this nation in accordance with Liberty’s highest ideals of freedom and justice for all. Let it encourage generosity of spirit and action towards the poor and oppressed at home and around the world, and prevent our would-be rulers from supporting tyranny and injustice at home or in other lands.
Let this statue, our nation, and our holy Goddess Liberty Herself, be ever defended from the forces of evil and oppression, both foreign and domestic. Through it may She protect the people of this land from all those who would destroy or enslave us in Her name. Let the fires of freedom burn bright, revealing all that evil ones might wish to hide, and lighting the way for Liberty’s children.
Bonewits also suggested several varieties of political spells for democracy, which he summarized as “Casting spells now so we can cast votes later!”
For further reading, Bonewits also issued a Call to Arms asking people of good will “to start consciously fighting back against deliberate ignorance, religious bigotry, and sanctified violence — that is to say, against Fundamentalism.” Readers may not agree with all of his conclusions, but the arguments are thought-provoking, especially in light of the present increase in fundamentalist Christian activity.
