Wednesday, July 18, 2018 04:45

Wiccan Imbalance (We Make Stupak Look Good)

– Sebastian Page
V Sebastian Page

Let’s face it, I’m an a**hole. Back in the day when I was a “sold-out, the whole route”, Bible-bangin’, both barrels blazin’, born again Christian, I had a real love for eschatology. But more importantly, I absolutely loved apologetics. For those not in the know, this is essentially the field of study that seeks to rationally and historically support the validity and truth claims of the Bible, and to a degree, the Christian perspective as a whole. Yeah, I was an ardent self-styled defender of the faith. Even now, although the religion and views may have changed, I remain very much the same.

But I have always had a knack of being especially critical of the group I belonged to first and foremost. It has always occurred to me that in terms of truth and ethics, we must always strive to hold ourselves to the highest standards if we are to be worthy of claiming our religious system, and more importantly, if we are to be ambassadors of it. In short, I’ve simply always felt that we must be not only able but eager to call BS in our own house, particularly before we consider any others. This is likely one of many reasons why I prefer to navigate the outer perimeter of the Wiccan community, because most within it tend to have strong reflexive reactions to any critical assessment of what we really are, rather than what we tell others and ourselves we are.

Wiccans have a lot of self-descriptors, most of them cribbed from a stack of neo-pagan books by modern day hippies and pseudo-intellectuals who seem to have opted out in getting a clue throughout life. Favorites tend to shift from time to time, with the currents of fashion occasionally sweeping us into new levels of understanding and communal “self-awareness.” You know, all that clap-trap. But as an example of how we fancy ourselves, let’s consider a few of these. Let’s see…we Wiccans are: nature-reverencing, goddess-worshiping, life-affirming, ecologically aware, tolerance-promoting, non-judgmental, and balanced. For any who’ve ever known a Wiccan or neo-pagan, you’ll agree that the last thing we are is balanced. We might hold it as an ideal, meaning a goal for which we strive (and we should), but in all honesty, we don’t really take it all that seriously (which is sad). But aside of the balance issue, another item from that list is the notion of being a “life-affirming” religion. I’ve always found that this is a somewhat preposterous description for this group claiming it, for one glaring and simple reason: Wiccans are almost exclusively sold out to the radical political left, and absorb without question virtually each and every one if its dogmas, including an absolute endorsement of the pro-abortion agenda.

Before I proceed, let’s clear up this “agenda” thing. Whenever you use it, liberals go nuts, as if you are a conspiracy flake or something. But let’s get a couple of historical facts straight. The largest provider and champion of now-legalized abortions has long been Planned Parenthood (now there’s a typically deceptive liberal name). What few know, however, is that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, a eugenicist with typical liberal socialist sympathies and allegiances. Since then, Planned Parenthood (formerly the American Birth Control League) has expanded dramatically, its primary service having little to do with actually planning for parenthood, but avoiding it through abortion on demand. Any investigation into this business must conclude that it is first and foremost exactly that; an industry. Like all industries, it seeks to maximize profit by aggressive marketing of its product, which in this case is abortions. So when we use the term “abortion agenda”, there is no reasonable dispute that one exists. Sanger had hers, and “Planned Parenthood” as an industry most certainly has its.

Moving on back to the point however, this abortion issue becomes a very curious position for Wiccans as a whole. You see, as in all things, many Wiccans tend to take the whole “life-affirming” things to extremes on occasion. A common Wiccan view is that “life” is not limited to concerning the species of homo sapiens, but that our reverence of it extends to the animal and mineral worlds as well. As a result, many refuse to eat meat or wear fur, and several strains of radical environmentalism find their origin in some form of gaian theory with regard to the sanctity of life (in this case, that of “Mother Earth”).

So if we can be so fantastically broad in our definition of life that it extends to even the rocks and trees, how is it that we can reason the life of a child in the womb as dispensable? I mean, we make much of women, wombs, birth, motherhood, and all of that, right? But at the same time we seem to accept and almost even embrace the abortion rights of passage philosophy that feminists espouse. How do we square these two contradictory things?

Here’s where I see the problem. We have a religious viewpoint that easily leads to imbalanced self-indulgence and narcissism. The most restraining ethical maxim we have (the Wiccan Rede) is both minimally restraining and abysmally non-instructive. Frankly, it is something of a joke in terms of supplying an ethical structure at all. A watered down and somewhat more pleasant version of Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law“, our version (“An’ it harm none, do what thou wilt“) does little to sort out the application of other moral philosophies implied in the Craft.

Now certainly it is a step up, or so most of us seem to think. And we do love to parse the words of that phrase, struggling to apply meaning to each and every syllable in an effort to make it more profound than is obvious. On the one hand we distance ourselves from Crowley, even with regards to the Rede, and then we pillage his notions of “will” to construct an apparently elaborate and somewhat hidden meaning. But as much as we banter back and forth about the “real” meanings of the Rede, the truth is that, by and large, the vast majority of Wiccans understand and apply it exactly as it is written…do your own thing, just don’t hurt anyone. Inevitably this is the moral standard by which our community is defined. It also leaves the door wide open in terms of developing personal morality, and often this takes some form of a hedonistic wide berth for personal and communal standards.

So we have the latter half of the Rede, “do what thou wilt“, which is applied as endorsement of anything and everything as long is it does not violate the first half, “An’ it harm none…”. But that first half supports and affirms the “life affirming” ethic by which, at least in part, we define ourselves and our religious path. These two, with regard to the practice of abortion, are completely at odds. If we are going to be generous in our interpretation of life, as we tend to do, we cannot reconcile doing what we wilt (having an abortion) with harming none.

We like to consider ourselves an educated bunch, perhaps even as intellectuals, or better yet, as “enlightened”. Hell, we’re hip on Starhawk’s teachings, and we even flip on the discovery channel from time to time. Certainly we’re a lot smarter than Joe Bible-banger, right? Actually, in my not so humble opinion, we tend to be superficially educated, and often gravitate towards empty philosophies that we’ve developed to sound smart. We also like to buy into them with little genuine reflection.

A choice needs be made here, if we are to have any integrity. We cannot simply ignore or ride the fence on this issue. And I speak specifically to those “save the whales”, “save the trees”, and “save the Earth” types when I say that you are devoid of credibility when you say nothing about “saving the unborn.” Most of you folks have never even seen a whale (or whatever your pet animal cause is). And yet, because you cannot see a child in the womb, it bothers you not one bit to “terminate” him or her, having appeased your conscience by trivializing that life in referring to it with inhuman terms such as zygote, fetus, or as merely a mass of tissue. In this way you have cheapened life to avoid the truth of your own black-heartedness.

So what will it be? Are we guided by the self-indulgence of doing what we wilt, or are we serious about harming none and affirming life? To be honest, I could care less about the whales or the trees. They seem to be doing fine without me, despite all the hysteria. But I am concerned about the increasing antipathy we have towards the most dependant and helpless of all, the unborn. I am also, as stated earlier, very concerned with our intellectual integrity as Wiccans. Unless we are willing to define life as only pertaining to that which we can see (which would say even more about us), then we really need to examine our contradictory views.

How is it that one woman can bond with another, sharing in the news that she has recently become pregnant, fawning over the preciousness of that child and his or her impending arrival, yet should the latter select abortion, the former becomes completely numb in her spirit and supports the termination of “the fetus?” How can this contradictory, if not schizophrenic rationale be anything but emblematic of a complete disregard for the reality of life, the destruction of maternal beauty in women, and the deadening of spirit?

The answer is clear. If we are to be taken seriously, any cries for “tolerance” in this matter need be understood for what they are; thoughtlessly disingenuous appeals for continued antipathy and the maintenance of a hypocritical ethical standard. We have a great many contradictory things to reconcile if we are to advance as a respectable religion in this modern age. We need to stop listening to the aging hippies and the bitter feminists, and really start to evaluate our belief system, with some measure of integrity and critical analysis. We can start with this issue, because its a no-brainer. Either we are pro-life, or we are neither “life-affirming” nor harming none. Otherwise, we are nothing but dishonest hypocrites, trapped in our delusions of being good people because we follow a hollow set of ethics.

But then again, what do I know? Maybe the feminists, in all of their bitter ugliness, are right after all.

Nah.

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Wiccan Imbalance (We Make Stupak Look Good)”

  1. Welcome to RSW, Sebastian. I was out of town/ swamped with scouts stuff, so I am late in my congratulatory remarks 🙂

    I am very pleased to read this take on your religion. It has been my rather limited experience that Wiccans tend to lean left, but weirdly, the ones I know lean very right, even the democrat one! Full disclosure: I’m a Franciscan Catholic, so I know where you are coming from. I tend to criticize my church at every turn 😀

    • Wiccapundit says:

      Aggie, I was educated in a Catholic prep school, and I can still say all the Catholic prayers in Latin. I have always enjoyed seeing the Tridentine Mass in Latin, when you can find it. Amazingly, I do not burst into flames when I cross the threshold of the cathedral. Perhaps God is more considerate than some of our more fundamentalist brethren (Wicca included) would believe.

    • Sebastian Page says:

      Thanks for your words, and I hope you dont mind that I copied your article about Canada. No worries about the Franciscan thing, Ive always admired some elements of the traditional Catholic Church. To my mind, we may select different paths, but in the end we are all brothers in the journey.

      • Wiccapundit says:

        Well spoken, Sebastian. Oddly, we received a comment here from a former Catholic bishop who is now a “multi-denominational” priest.

        There are elements of the Catholic liturgy that I find very beautiful. I do have a problem with Catholic incense; man, does that stuff stink.

      • No worries on the article, Sebastian. I tend to be rather sarcastic when I write, as well as use profanity a bit. Ok, a lot. I VENT!!

        😀

  2. Redhawk says:

    Sebastian;

    Bravo. May your words help others to reeavalute the way they view Wiccan/Pagan values.

Leave a Reply