Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

As we've grown, we've seen each other through some times where we've needed supporting. If you have suggestions for help hotlines, or specific resources that you want to share, please post them in here. Also, if there are good charities you support, please post links or a little info in here if you think others will be interested too! IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC PROBLEM, POST IT IN YAKKETY YAK, this area is for resources and social causes only...

Moderators: Ms Minx, dirtyrottenlove

Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sapphire_distortion on Sat Jan 30, 2010 3:23 pm

http://wildhunt.org/blog/2010/01/is-the ... -only.html

http://www.circlesanctuary.org/liberty/pmccollum/

During the course of the case, the CDCR, other related defendants, and the Assistant Attorneys General who represents them have argued before the court that Pagans are not deserving of equal civil rights as are provided adherents of the preferred faiths. In one of their first arguments to the court, the defendants said that certain "traditional" faiths are first tier faiths and that those faiths were meant to have equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution, but that all of the other faiths, for example, Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, Sikhs, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jains, are second tier faiths deserving of lesser rights, and therefore are not meant to have the same equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution as the first tier faiths.


I haven't seen this picked up by any major news outlet. PLEASE spread the word, and there's contact info for the reps and etc. on both pages. Even though in this case it's talking about prison chaplaincy, if the California courts decided that there really is such a thing as first and second tier religions, that sets a pretty dangerous precedent.
User avatar
sapphire_distortion
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby ComradeM on Sun Jan 31, 2010 2:42 am

Honestly, I didn't read your links, because my internet is being paaaainfully sloooow(I will come back to them), I just wanted to comment on how fucked up it is that apparently CORPORATIONS are entitled to First Amendment rights, but (as I'm assuming your links will say) some INDIVIDUALS are not based on religion.
Image
"Offer them what they secretly want and they of course immediately become panic-stricken."—Kerouac
User avatar
ComradeM
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:02 am
Location: 3oh3, CO

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby Max on Sun Jan 31, 2010 11:31 am

I don't think Pagans are in any danger. What you've got is an outspoken advocate, in the person of McCollum, trying to garner support for his cause by pointing out the terribleness of his opponent, in the person of David Barton, and his Wallbuilders.
Don't get me wrong- the Wallbuilders are wacko right wing Xtian types from texas- and they pose a danger to the school system, and to real human beings, everywhere. But, given that there's huge amounts of precedent in McCollum's favor ( including recent in-roads at the Air Force academy) I think there may be a little hysteria in the alarm.
And so you gotta be strong You've got to just speak in tongues About how you belong
In popular culture - dEUS
User avatar
Max
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:28 pm

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sapphire_distortion on Sun Jan 31, 2010 3:47 pm

Max wrote:I don't think Pagans are in any danger. What you've got is an outspoken advocate, in the person of McCollum, trying to garner support for his cause by pointing out the terribleness of his opponent, in the person of David Barton, and his Wallbuilders.
Don't get me wrong- the Wallbuilders are wacko right wing Xtian types from texas- and they pose a danger to the school system, and to real human beings, everywhere. But, given that there's huge amounts of precedent in McCollum's favor ( including recent in-roads at the Air Force academy) I think there may be a little hysteria in the alarm.


The lawyers from the CDCR have been arguing the same thing as the Wallbuilders from the beginning. Before the Wallbuilders ever got involved.

“I originally sued on behalf of myself and Pagan inmates as their chaplain, but about a year later several inmates joined the lawsuit. Together, we claimed that it is unconstitutional for the state to deny the Pagan inmates their religious rights, their religious materials, and their religious services.

During the course of the case, the CDCR, other related defendants, and the Assistant Attorneys General who represents them have argued before the court that Pagans are not deserving of equal civil rights as are provided adherents of the preferred faiths. In one of their first arguments to the court, the defendants said that certain “traditional” faiths are first tier faiths and that those faiths were meant to have equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution, but that all of the other faiths were second tier faiths, and were not meant to have the same equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution as the first tier faiths.”


No offense, but it's probably easy to call it "hysteria" when you're not one of the groups with reason to be alarmed. It took, what, five years of fighting I think? (nope, I just looked it up, my bad, TEN years!) to get the government to allow putting a pentacle on a dead veteran's grave, (which they do for crosses & stars of David, among other "mainstream" religious symbols) and that was with constant and large amounts of support from the pagan community. Quite frankly, nobody seems to give a shit about things like this except for pagans (like I said, I haven't seen this picked up or posted about ANYWHERE aside from the blog I linked to, which is a pagan news blog), so I DO think it's important to spread the word and try and get people to write. If that strikes you as hysterical, I'm sorry.

Do I think pagans are going to end up in concentration camps or something? No, but I do think that the current policy is definitely unfair and unconstitutional, and I think that if this case continues to fly under the radar and not get the press it deserves, then the courts could end up upholding the current system and maybe put some dangerous new rules or statements in place.
User avatar
sapphire_distortion
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sweetie_cupcake on Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:35 pm

This is entirely unfair. Why shouldn't Pagans be allowed to practice their religions and be allowed to have the religious materials that other religous practitioners have? I'm really pretty pissed about this Two teir crap also. Everyone that is a citizen of the US has rights no matter what they choose to believe. I'm going to do some more researching before I get too outraged but I have a feeling I will be getting to that point very soon. Thanks for posting about this. It would be a huge outrage if this were happening to Christians or Jews.
User avatar
sweetie_cupcake
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:47 pm

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby Max on Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:00 am

sapphire_distortion wrote:
No offense, but it's probably easy to call it "hysteria" when you're not one of the groups with reason to be alarmed. It took, what, five years of fighting I think? (nope, I just looked it up, my bad, TEN years!) to get the government to allow putting a pentacle on a dead veteran's grave, (which they do for crosses & stars of David, among other "mainstream" religious symbols) and that was with constant and large amounts of support from the pagan community. Quite frankly, nobody seems to give a shit about things like this except for pagans (like I said, I haven't seen this picked up or posted about ANYWHERE aside from the blog I linked to, which is a pagan news blog), so I DO think it's important to spread the word and try and get people to write. If that strikes you as hysterical, I'm sorry.

Do I think pagans are going to end up in concentration camps or something? No, but I do think that the current policy is definitely unfair and unconstitutional, and I think that if this case continues to fly under the radar and not get the press it deserves, then the courts could end up upholding the current system and maybe put some dangerous new rules or statements in place.


Sorry if my word choice was offensive- but I stand by the intent. My religious beliefs are not recognized, and yes, I do know what it's like to have relatives killed for their faith. Again, I think you're looking at ONE case, and ignoring all the other inroads made. Will Pagans be assured of the constitutional rights? They already are. We're talking about prisoners here- and quite frankly they have different rights than non-prisoners (If you wanted to talk about Prisoners' rights, in general, I think you'd find me far more sympathetic)
I think it's no contest that it is harder to be Pagan than Christian- but try being Muslim. Try keeping Kosher. There are plenty of people in "1st tier" religions that are experiencing difficulties, as well. But experiencing workplace, or in the case of prisoners- prison based second class citizenship is not unique to Pagans whatsoever. So, no, I don't think there's any danger in that. I also recognize that I'm highly unlikely to change your opinion, but I think you're equally unlikely to change mine.

In terms of "spreading the word"- ummm, I don't subscribe to any Pagan newletters, I don't hang out in a Pagan community (yes, some of my friends are Pagans, but it really doesn't affect how I get my news)- How come I knew about this, already? Because It has been reported elsewhere. (Keep in mind that several Amicus briefs were filed- and noted) Not screaming across the front page, but do you really think it belongs on the front page? If you do, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that, as well. I think the kind of persecution being doled out against Muslims, or against Tibetians or against a host of other people is of a higher priority.
Now, I don't want to give the impression that I'm uncaring- I just think this is more to help out Mr. McCollum than it is to fight a threat.
And so you gotta be strong You've got to just speak in tongues About how you belong
In popular culture - dEUS
User avatar
Max
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:28 pm

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sapphire_distortion on Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:21 pm

I guess you're right and we'll have to agree to disagree. But I did want to say first, though...

-your religious beliefs actually are recognized under this, I'm not sure if you were taking about this issue or in general
-I never said you didn't know what it was like to have relatives killed for their faith, I'm not sure where that came from
-of course I know that prisoners have different rights than non-prisoners. I'm not an idiot. The issue here is that some prisoners are "more equal" than others, based on their religion. If one prisoner gets the right to practice their religion and have spiritual counsel, ALL of them should have it. The other issue is of religious discrimination for employment. As things stand, unless a prison chaplain is one of the five faiths they WILL NOT get hired and have to work on a strictly volunteer basis, and can have their volunteer work impeded as well.
-I don't know why it was necessary to bring up, but this isn't about who is worse off. I would totally agree with you that Muslims are probably generally worse off re: discrimination than pagans, but..I never said anything to the contrary? In the town I grew up in, being Jewish wasn't any weirder than being Christian, and there were both Jews and Mormons at my school, but I was harassed more for being pagan than either of those groups were for their religions. And if we want to play the oppression olympics, it could be argued that being gay is harder than being in any of these groups, since they can't even get married. However, I think if someone posted a thread about Muslims being harassed I wouldn't come in and say "OH YEAH?! WELL TRY BEING GAY!" because...that's totally not the point.

And, of course, I also never said that this was first page material, and I think the fact that you LIVE in California probably has something to do with you hearing about it before I did. I just wanted to say these things, though, because I felt like words were being put into my mouth.
User avatar
sapphire_distortion
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby Max on Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:53 am

sapphire_distortion wrote:I guess you're right and we'll have to agree to disagree. But I did want to say first, though...

-your religious beliefs actually are recognized under this, I'm not sure if you were taking about this issue or in general
-I never said you didn't know what it was like to have relatives killed for their faith, I'm not sure where that came from
-of course I know that prisoners have different rights than non-prisoners. I'm not an idiot. The issue here is that some prisoners are "more equal" than others, based on their religion. If one prisoner gets the right to practice their religion and have spiritual counsel, ALL of them should have it. The other issue is of religious discrimination for employment. As things stand, unless a prison chaplain is one of the five faiths they WILL NOT get hired and have to work on a strictly volunteer basis, and can have their volunteer work impeded as well.
-I don't know why it was necessary to bring up, but this isn't about who is worse off. I would totally agree with you that Muslims are probably generally worse off re: discrimination than pagans, but..I never said anything to the contrary? In the town I grew up in, being Jewish wasn't any weirder than being Christian, and there were both Jews and Mormons at my school, but I was harassed more for being pagan than either of those groups were for their religions. And if we want to play the oppression olympics, it could be argued that being gay is harder than being in any of these groups, since they can't even get married. However, I think if someone posted a thread about Muslims being harassed I wouldn't come in and say "OH YEAH?! WELL TRY BEING GAY!" because...that's totally not the point.

And, of course, I also never said that this was first page material, and I think the fact that you LIVE in California probably has something to do with you hearing about it before I did. I just wanted to say these things, though, because I felt like words were being put into my mouth.

Three quick notes, and I'll leave it alone-
1. You brought up "concentration camps"- Hence me bringing up that my relatives actually did die in concentration camps.
2. If the issue is about being able to practice one's faith, the muslim is directly applicable.
3. I don't live in California. I knew about it because I both read about it in the paper, and because of my associations (remember the amicus brief I mentioned?). Honestly,this story is even on Wikipedia- believe me or not, it's out there, and people are hearing about it.
And so you gotta be strong You've got to just speak in tongues About how you belong
In popular culture - dEUS
User avatar
Max
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:28 pm

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sapphire_distortion on Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:38 pm

My bad, for some reason I was TOTALLY convinced you lived in California! Whoooooops. :oops:
User avatar
sapphire_distortion
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sweetie_cupcake on Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:07 pm

People are totally hearing about it. 4 of my Pagan friends now have talked to me about this without my prompting it. Its getting out there.
User avatar
sweetie_cupcake
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:47 pm

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby kitten228 on Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:18 pm

So....perhaps I'm just ignorant, I have a few questions, and also a couple comments. I tend to be a bit of a devils advocate, but I promise, I am not being snarky. So please don't take it that way:

Firstly, what are accreditation standards for pagan chaplaincy? Does there exist a pagan chaplaincy program that fulfills the criteria for chaplaincy standards in an institutional setting? Do the people wanting to minister in the prison meet the criteria for chaplaincy (an accredited CPE, as well as an M.Div. or Bachelors in the religion they are desiring to minister??) (Mostly, I'm asking because my husband is in a institutional chaplaincy program currently, and in order to be accepted into the program he had to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree and then he has work as a chaplain extern for 2-3 years before he gets a certification to be allowed to be a chaplain. Most places don't allow any random minister to chaplain, (s)he MUST be CPE certified)

Secondly, it seems that as a Christian chaplain, my husband's job is generally not to be any sort of spiritual adviser, but rather to assess the spiritual needs of the individual and provide spiritual care to fit those needs. So, ideally, a chaplain of any of the 5 mainstream religions listed should still be able to chaplain for people outside of those religions, and is expected to provide the spiritual care desired by the individual....yes, I know we don't live in the ideal, and I KNOW my husband would not encourage pagan faiths even if his job required it, so I understand the need for someone of the pagan faith to provide those spiritual needs.

Thirdly, my honest guess is that the reason the state will not hire a pagan chaplain has mostly to do with money. (you know the government LOVES its money....)The majority of people in the U.S. subscribe to those 5 listed religions, or a variation on those religions. If the prison has a budget for, say, 3 chaplains for ALL of the inmates (this is the case for the prison one of my friends is a chaplain at, he is Christian and his fellow chaplains are Jewish and Muslim, which are the 3 most common religions in the prison) then between them they can cover almost all of the inmates. Whereas, if there was a pagan chaplain, he would only be able to minister to a very very small few of the inmates, because most of them are Christian, Muslim, and Jewish (at this particular prison), and a larger chunk of people would not get the spiritual care they require. They are going by the numbers, and see it as spending money on a salary of someone who cannot provide spiritual care for the majority of the inmates. I am NOT saying this is right, I DEFINITELY don't think money and numbers should have ANY bearing on the spiritual care of an individual. But from a "business" standpoint, I can see how it would make sense. And the state/government is always run by money hungry individuals.

My solution to this problem is actually further separation of church and state. I think that they state should not fund religious services inside the prison system, but rather, should allow for the presence of chaplains and religious practices inside the prison system that are funded by their own religions. Pretty much the same set-up, only the state doesn't pay for it, the churches do. This way, if a religion is not represented, it is sheerly from lack of involvement and care from that individual church/religion. Also, I think this would calm a lot of moral qualms that taxpayers may have regarding being forced to pay taxes for people to minister religions that they may disagree with. This is idealistic, also, and I'm not sure it would work in practice.

I guess my final comment is that the government gives us the illusion of rights. But, as this is an example of, those rights don't actually exist. They can be argued against and then taken away. And that just sucks all around. And I have no solution.
User avatar
kitten228
DIY Demon
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:39 am
Location: M.O. for the moment

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sapphire_distortion on Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:24 pm

kitten228 wrote:So....perhaps I'm just ignorant, I have a few questions, and also a couple comments. I tend to be a bit of a devils advocate, but I promise, I am not being snarky. So please don't take it that way:

Firstly, what are accreditation standards for pagan chaplaincy? Does there exist a pagan chaplaincy program that fulfills the criteria for chaplaincy standards in an institutional setting? Do the people wanting to minister in the prison meet the criteria for chaplaincy (an accredited CPE, as well as an M.Div. or Bachelors in the religion they are desiring to minister??) (Mostly, I'm asking because my husband is in a institutional chaplaincy program currently, and in order to be accepted into the program he had to have a minimum of a bachelor's degree and then he has work as a chaplain extern for 2-3 years before he gets a certification to be allowed to be a chaplain. Most places don't allow any random minister to chaplain, (s)he MUST be CPE certified)


To be honest, I don't really know if there are accreditation standards for pagan chaplaincy since they're refusing to recognize it. Mr. McCollum has said several times that he fits all of the standards for chaplaincy except that he isn't any of the five faiths, so he won't be hired. (see quote from an interview with him below)

Secondly, it seems that as a Christian chaplain, my husband's job is generally not to be any sort of spiritual adviser, but rather to assess the spiritual needs of the individual and provide spiritual care to fit those needs. So, ideally, a chaplain of any of the 5 mainstream religions listed should still be able to chaplain for people outside of those religions, and is expected to provide the spiritual care desired by the individual....yes, I know we don't live in the ideal, and I KNOW my husband would not encourage pagan faiths even if his job required it, so I understand the need for someone of the pagan faith to provide those spiritual needs.


No offense, but I don't really understand the point of this paragraph since you even said "I KNOW my husband would not encourage pagan faiths even if his job required it". You proved your own point, not only in that but by saying "someone of the pagan faith" - paganism is not one faith. This honestly isn't even the best solution as is, since Mr. McCollum is a Wiccan, but obviously he's better equipped (more knowledgeable and more tolerant) to handle the situation than a Catholic. Or most Catholics, I guess I should say, I've never met one who was knowledgeable or tolerant towards paganism, but I suppose one could exist somewhere.

Anyways, like I said, under the umbrella term of "paganism" you have Wiccans, Hellenic pagans, there are reconstructionist groups for nearly every pantheon or culture (off the top of my head: Hellenic, Roman, Gaelo-Celtic, Anglo Saxon, Egyptian), heathens (which is kind of an umbrella term in and of itself for someone who worships the Northern/Germanic/Scandinavian gods), Voudou, some people even put faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism under the term "paganism"...do you see the problem here? There are duotheists, pantheists, monotheists, monolatrists, polytheists and people who think gods are just archetypes/metaphors for the seasons and naturally occurring events, and they're all pagans. I fully realize that trying to have a chaplain for each of these would be kind of crazy, BUT I want to say that really having one chaplain for paganism as a whole is a very imperfect solution as is and trying to have a Christian chaplain service pagans is just stupid, since there's an obvious ulterior motive (conversion).

The simple fact is that the VAST majority of Christians (or members other faiths) are not suited for the position because they don't know what they're talking about.

Thirdly, my honest guess is that the reason the state will not hire a pagan chaplain has mostly to do with money. (you know the government LOVES its money....)The majority of people in the U.S. subscribe to those 5 listed religions, or a variation on those religions. If the prison has a budget for, say, 3 chaplains for ALL of the inmates (this is the case for the prison one of my friends is a chaplain at, he is Christian and his fellow chaplains are Jewish and Muslim, which are the 3 most common religions in the prison) then between them they can cover almost all of the inmates. Whereas, if there was a pagan chaplain, he would only be able to minister to a very very small few of the inmates, because most of them are Christian, Muslim, and Jewish (at this particular prison), and a larger chunk of people would not get the spiritual care they require. They are going by the numbers, and see it as spending money on a salary of someone who cannot provide spiritual care for the majority of the inmates. I am NOT saying this is right, I DEFINITELY don't think money and numbers should have ANY bearing on the spiritual care of an individual. But from a "business" standpoint, I can see how it would make sense. And the state/government is always run by money hungry individuals.


The five faiths currently covered under the law are "Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Native American adherents". Do you really think there are more adherents to Native American religions than pagans in prisons? Again I'm not entirely sure why you said this, since you said it's not right. The issue at hand doesn't have to do with money, it has to do with the fact that they WILL NOT hire someone based on their religion, no matter how qualified (and FWIW, although it's hearsay, Mr. McCollum said that at several prisons he's been to pagans far outnumber Muslims or Jewish inmates).

My solution to this problem is actually further separation of church and state. I think that they state should not fund religious services inside the prison system, but rather, should allow for the presence of chaplains and religious practices inside the prison system that are funded by their own religions. Pretty much the same set-up, only the state doesn't pay for it, the churches do. This way, if a religion is not represented, it is sheerly from lack of involvement and care from that individual church/religion. Also, I think this would calm a lot of moral qualms that taxpayers may have regarding being forced to pay taxes for people to minister religions that they may disagree with. This is idealistic, also, and I'm not sure it would work in practice.


That's not really a good solution either, since smaller religions don't have the amount of members as, say, Catholicism, and thus not the same amount of funding. Personally I think they should either try to be as fair as possible or just have no paid chaplains at all and have them work on a volunteer basis (which I guess might be what you're saying!).

Anyways, Mr. McCollum did an interview with ACTION magazine for their Imbolc issue.

In the court case, it came out in discovery that many of the inmates grievances were in fact "lost", or otherwise misfiled by the state, removing the inmates legal right to move forward. But even worse, Pagan inmates who have filed grievances to be treated equally, have been intimidated, placed in solitary confinement, received threats, and have been transferred to other institutions, requiring them to start the grievance process all over again.

One Pagan inmate in particular, William Rouser, has been grieving a particular series of discriminatory acts against him and other Pagan prisoners for over 14 years with no relief. Some Pagan inmates have alleged and I believe it to be true, that they have been physically abused or assaulted as a result of their pushing for equal treatment of Pagans. This sort of thing shouldn't be happening in America!


Re: whether he's qualified to be a chaplain or not

Christopher: Another challenge to your right to take part in this case is you have no proof that you would be hired for this position. Isn't that a bit strange as it was they that asked you to serve as an unpaid chaplain all these years? Obviously the California prison system does not just allow anyone into all their prisons to act as chaplain.

Rev. Patrick: This is another example of the state trying to cloud the issue at hand. First, under well established legal precedent, I do not have to prove that I would have been hired for the position, I would only have to show that there is a possibility that I would have been considered for the position if there were a fair and neutral hiring policy.

I am the Director of Chaplaincy at a major Pagan seminary, and that I am the Director and Chair of the National Correctional Chaplaincy Directors Association, training prison chaplains for all faiths on how to be a correctional chaplain, and that I also train the government administrators who over see most state and federal prison chaplains, and that I am a professional member of the American Correctional Chaplains Association, and that I've been serving as the Statewide Wiccan Chaplain for thirteen years. I was selected to be the Keynote Speaker for all of the California state chaplains at the Annual California State Chaplain's Training Conference where the California Department of Corrections pays its chaplains for attending and gives them credit for continued education in chaplaincy. I think it is reasonable to assume that I would have at least been considered for the position.


This is a SUPER SUPER long quote to an already long post, but I think it's worth reading...

Christopher: Has there been any official harassment or discrimination toward you in your duties as chaplain since beginning this case?

Rev. Patrick: Wow, what a great question, and one which I've been waiting five years to publicly share the answer to. I have experienced tremendous harassment and discrimination since filing this case. And of course, as is obvious from the nature of the case, I have also experienced substantial harassment for the last 13 years to boot. First, I'd like to touch on a few of the many hundreds of things that have happened to me as a Wiccan Chaplain over the last 13 years prior to my filing the case. And these, as bad as these are, they don't even come close to equaling the kinds of discrimination that has been leveled towards the Pagan inmates.

I have been spit on by government staff, I had a Protestant government chaplain hold a religious service in a prison that was working in, tell a group of over 100 level IV Christian inmates (level IV being the highest security level inmates within the prison system, i. e. murderer's, rapists, and other violent offenders etc.) that they had a responsibility under God, to make sure that I didn't return to the prison to provide Wiccan/Pagan religious services and that the Pagan services didn't go forward.

On another occasion, I was told by a government administrator who was my direct supervisor, that it was his obligation according to the Bible, to kill me, and then while I was present in his office, he took out a Bible and read to me the passage saying: thou shall not suffer a witch to live! But, setting these and many other incidents prior to filing the case aside, I've had several significant incidents since the filing of the case.

At one institution, the Valley State Prison for Women, a correctional officer assaulted me in the control area, which is an area where incoming staff are locked between two electronic doors while your I.D and such are checked. During the incident, the officer who identified themselves as "Bathed in the Blood of Jesus', told other officers and staff who were all present during the incident, that they had personally seen videos of me killing children and the drinking their blood. They also related to onlookers that I worshiped Satan and that I was evil. Following that, officers told inmates and staff throughout the institution, that I had participated in sacrificing and killing children. You don't have to watch to many prison movies to know what happens to people in a prison environment who have abused children!

There was even more to the incident than I'm sharing, but you get the idea. The incident was so traumatic for me, that even after 12 years of working in the prisons and being threatened and experiencing all sorts of major discrimination, I had to seek professional help for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. And all of this took place in a government institution, and was initiated by government officers.

Shortly following this, I was requested by an Associate Warden at a men's maximum security prison in Corcoran, California, to come and facilitate services for a group of Pagan inmates there. I drove several hundred miles to do so and entered the prison as usual with my state identification card and an approved clearance as requested by the Warden. I met with the requesting inmates, and upon leaving the prison I was confronted by a state administrator and taken into custody, and charged with breaking into a maximum security prison without any authorization or escort, and misrepresenting who I was. The prison immediately confiscated my state I.D. during the process and after I was released. It took 8 months of an internal investigation before I was cleared of any wrongdoing, which effectively put an end to all Pagan services in the state.

It is important to note, that the state official who brought the charges which initiated my being taken into custody, committed perjury to do so, and that she, who is also an evangelical Christian, had been a key defendant in the lawsuit for four years prior to the incident. Also, it is important to note, that we had just testified in court that I had an authorized state ID which designated me as a "Wiccan chaplain", and the judge noted that this added credibility to my claims.

It is odd, that shortly following that hearing, which was only attended by the Assistant Attorney Generals and the State's attorney, that I was wrongly accused and my state ID was revoked. Once I was cleared of all wrongdoing, my new state issued ID, had the word "Wiccan" removed!

Following all else that had gone on in my case, I decided to take the State Exam to apply for a Community Partnership Manager position with the state, one which did not have a religious requirement as a condition of employment, and which as a component of its duties, oversaw the religion programs in the prison. I took the official exam, and scored on the top of the list of all candidates, and according to the government rules, I had the first right to be hired for the position. I received a notice from the State Selection Committee, informing me that I was to report to the Valley State Prison for women to interview for the job.

But the prison refused to interview me for the job, even though I was the official candidate with the highest score, and even though government regulations required them to do so. Instead, they hired a Protestant minister without ever interviewing me and again I was denied a chance to compete for a state job. And while the institution and the California Department of Corrections would not return any of my calls or comment on why they circumvented the hiring process rather than interview me, it seems clear to me, that once again, the state is violating both state and federal law because I am Wiccan.
User avatar
sapphire_distortion
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby Max on Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:35 pm

sapphire_distortion wrote:No offense, but I don't really understand the point of this paragraph since you even said "I KNOW my husband would not encourage pagan faiths even if his job required it". You proved your own point, not only in that but by saying "someone of the pagan faith" - paganism is not one faith. This honestly isn't even the best solution as is, since Mr. McCollum is a Wiccan, but obviously he's better equipped (more knowledgeable and more tolerant) to handle the situation than a Catholic. Or most Catholics, I guess I should say, I've never met one who was knowledgeable or tolerant towards paganism, but I suppose one could exist somewhere.

Anyways, like I said, under the umbrella term of "paganism" you have Wiccans, Hellenic pagans, there are reconstructionist groups for nearly every pantheon or culture (off the top of my head: Hellenic, Roman, Gaelo-Celtic, Anglo Saxon, Egyptian), heathens (which is kind of an umbrella term in and of itself for someone who worships the Northern/Germanic/Scandinavian gods), Voudou, some people even put faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, or Taoism under the term "paganism"...do you see the problem here? There are duotheists, pantheists, monotheists, monolatrists, polytheists and people who think gods are just archetypes/metaphors for the seasons and naturally occurring events, and they're all pagans.


Hey- I really am not trying to give you any stick, here, or anything, but you've got a good opportunity here-
Why don't you cover this ground for them wot might not know- For example, you could talk about why the umbrella term "pagan" is even used when, (just pulling two out of my hat) a Hindu may not exactly want to be down with a Wotanist. Likewise, perhaps you'd like to explain what kind of credentials a chaplain would need to cover both , say, Wiccans and Taoists? Along the way, you may or may not want to explain how some folks under the "pagan" rubric are kinda "problem children" (i.e. Wotanism/ Asatru and the prison outreach they've done) and how this has created difficulties for less troubled religions, like the rest of the Heathenvolk.
Again, not trying to give you any problems, it's just that you're taking some fairly defensive positions, here, and while that's understandable, it can tend to weaken your argument- so I'm suggesting that you go the "education" route to strengthen what you say....
And so you gotta be strong You've got to just speak in tongues About how you belong
In popular culture - dEUS
User avatar
Max
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:28 pm

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby estoydestroyed on Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:15 pm

sapphire_distortion wrote: Or most Catholics, I guess I should say, I've never met one who was knowledgeable or tolerant towards paganism, but I suppose one could exist somewhere.


Yes, please don't stereotype.
freedom peace and liberty.
care if you dare
estoydestroyed
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 2:11 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Is the 1st Amendment Only for Monotheists?

Postby sapphire_distortion on Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:47 pm

Max wrote:Hey- I really am not trying to give you any stick, here, or anything, but you've got a good opportunity here-
Why don't you cover this ground for them wot might not know- For example, you could talk about why the umbrella term "pagan" is even used when, (just pulling two out of my hat) a Hindu may not exactly want to be down with a Wotanist. Likewise, perhaps you'd like to explain what kind of credentials a chaplain would need to cover both , say, Wiccans and Taoists? Along the way, you may or may not want to explain how some folks under the "pagan" rubric are kinda "problem children" (i.e. Wotanism/ Asatru and the prison outreach they've done) and how this has created difficulties for less troubled religions, like the rest of the Heathenvolk.
Again, not trying to give you any problems, it's just that you're taking some fairly defensive positions, here, and while that's understandable, it can tend to weaken your argument- so I'm suggesting that you go the "education" route to strengthen what you say....


Hey, no, I love to talk about it as long as people are willing to listen! I know I get a bit defensive, but you have to understand I grew up in a really rural area in the Bible Belt; I had never met another pagan in person until I came to Austin. Most of my conversations about paganism involved defending it to people calling me a satan worshipping baby eater and stuff. (I wish I was kidding)

OKAY. So paganism covers a ton of different religions; there are some that are often lumped under the title (like Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism) who I don't think really self-ascribe that way. In general, probably the only thing you can say pagan religions have in common is that they usually involve reverence for nature and belief in nature spirits. You'll occasionally find people who just refer to themselves as pagan and don't go with any narrower label than that.

Neo-paganism is what the newer religions are referred to as. Wicca is one of the largest in this group; it was created by Gerald Gardner in (I think?) 1953, drawing off of what he knew of older British witchcraft traditions. There's a lot of contention about what counts as Wicca; some people think that the only individuals who can rightfully call themselves Wiccans are those initiated into a coven that can trace its heritage back to Gardner, some think otherwise. The most basic way it could be described is as a nature based duotheist religion, Wiccans generally view deity as a God and a Goddess through which many forms are expressed. There's something of a "fluffy bunny" phenomenon in Wicca; the term is usually used to apply to people who think everything is all about light and fluff and that causing harm at all, even in self-defense, is bad, etc. etc. The term is also used to apply to anyone in Paganism who is extremely uneducated or believes that Wicca is really 1,000+ years, things like that.

Thelema is the only other neo-pagan religion that comes to mind off the top of my head, it was founded by Aleister Crowley I believe, and I think a lot of Wicca comes from it too, but I don't know much about it other than that!

Reconstructionist religions, as the name implies, seek to recreate the religion of a particular culture as it was practiced in ancient times. Like I said, these are hugely varied and then there are degrees within the religion itself; some people are SUPER SUPER YourMotherIsListeningAndSheHatesYouForSpamming about it and will not incorporate things into their personal practice unless they come directly from the lore, some people are a little more relaxed about it. The only two that I know about in detail are Kemetic (Egyptian) reconstructionists and Heathens, but there are tons - Hellenic and Roman recons are two of the bigger groups, I think.

These are all very different, but I do think it's particularly interesting that there are some similarities across almost all recon religions. Honoring your ancestors and animism (belief that inanimate objects - usually things like trees, rivers, mountains - have spirits) come to mind immediately.

Kemetic reconstructionists are monolatrists - they believe the different Egyptian deities are expressions of Netjer (I'm not sure what the best translation is, something like divinity?). Taking care of your ancestors and having a spot for them on your altar is a must. Unlike heathenism, which was a mostly oral tradition & most of the writings we have on it were written by Christians after Europe had been mostly Christianized, there is a huge amount of lore and texts for Kemetic reconstructionists to draw on, so there isn't as much left to guesswork.

Max is right; in general Asatru/heathens are regarded as kind of the old grumpy cousin or bad boy or something of pagans. That's the stereotype & it's a bit of a disservice, I fall under this category and I've met some really nice heathens. Unfortunately it's been tarnished by racist groups (which is ALL kinds of stupidity as the Aesir and Vanir; the two groups of deities; were two different tribes or possibly even ethnic groups and the Norse/Scandinavian cultures traded with the Arabs...they obviously had no issue about mixing cultures; seidhr - the shamanic traditions - probably were taught to the original seidhr-workers by Finnish shamans. lawd it's ridiculous.). Heathen is the umbrella term which generally applies to people who worship the Scandinavian/Germanic/Northern deities, with varying degrees of specificity - Theodish heathens work within a specific Anglo-Saxon framework, same for Germanic and Scandinavian. Heathens are generally hard polytheists, it's considered really important to honor your ancestors and have a place for them on your altar, and honoring land wights (land spirits, like the aforementioned lake/river/trees) is important too.

Heathens generally run in kindreds, and traditions might vary from kindred to kindred (much as back in the day, it's not like there was a Head Heathen Church TM). Kindreds are generally either Universalist or Folkish. Folkish kindreds generally only accept people who have northern ancestry, because they think it should be an ancestral path. I think it's kind of silly to be like that - I think the gods will probably call people who have ancestral ties, and if THEY picked someone, who the hell am I to argue?

Hinduism, as far as I know, is kind of like heathenism - many different branches fall underneath it, ranging from hard polytheism to a sort of monotheism. I don't know as much as I'd like to about it, though, so I'd consider myself unqualified to educate.

Anyways. As is probably obvious, it's a really complicated...uh...subculture? and there's all kinds of intra-religion politics and crap. There are probably some people who would never be satisfied with a Wiccan chaplain, personally I think Mr. McCollum is beyond qualified. I just want to see someone who is qualified in the position, if they're going to have one pagan chaplain for all pagan faiths. Like I said, I don't personally think a Christian/Muslim/Jewish chaplain would work out because of the obvious conflict of interest. If it had to be someone of the five faiths already accepted in California, I think the Native American faiths chaplain would work the best, since there's already some things in common and I don't know of any Native spirituality that's conversion based. And as far as how to make sure someone is qualified, I'm not sure if there is a definitive way, you know? Most religious education courses don't cover all of the intricacies of paganism, as far as I know, though I'd love to be wrong. I've been a pagan for...I think I first started reading about it when I was thirteen, so eight or nine years now, and as you can see, I don't know anywhere near all there is to know. I would like to see a chaplain with extensive knowledge of Eastern traditions (Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto) and the more common reconstructionist paganisms (Heathenism, Kemetic, Hellenic, Roman, and Gaelo-Celtic), as well as Wicca.

estoydestroyed wrote:
sapphire_distortion wrote: Or most Catholics, I guess I should say, I've never met one who was knowledgeable or tolerant towards paganism, but I suppose one could exist somewhere.


Yes, please don't stereotype.


Note I said Catholics and not Christians. The reason I specified Catholics is because it's run from a central church/head figure with specific dogma. I honestly don't know how a Catholic COULD be okay with paganism, given the dogma, so I don't think it's stereotyping to say what I did. (Although then again, you have things like Santeria, so... *shrug*) I didn't say I've never met a nice Catholic, my in-laws are and they're nice enough (although they don't know I'm pagan and I'm sure it would upset them greatly if they did). Either way, given the context, I still don't think it would be appropriate in any way shape or form to try and have a Catholic chaplain-ing to pagans.
User avatar
sapphire_distortion
PRD Professor!
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Next

Return to Social Responsibility

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest