My Neopagan Pen Pal

I thought that interfaith dialogue had its limits—until I started talking with a Wiccan.

For many, paganism generally and Wicca in particular are synonymous with the occult, even Satanism. The presence of Wiccans at the groundbreaking for an interfaith chapel at a Disciples of Christ-related university brought streams of protests and a flurry of questions from the faithful. People asked/demanded: Why were they present?

This was the same sort of worry that led some Christians to raise concerns about the Harry Potter books and movies. They denounced the series because they feared that exposing children to magic—as if Disney movies hadn’t already done that a generation earlier—might lead them into witchcraft. The concern was that Harry made witchcraft look too good.

While Neopaganism and Wicca have exploded onto the religious scene in recent years—bookstores have shelves of books on these new-old religions—their popularity seems to derive not from an embrace of evil but from their noninstitutionalized character. They’re also popular for an emphasis on communing with nature, in a time when we face the prospects of global warming, overpopulation, urban sprawl and pollution. (Critics of environmentalism have thus equated that movement with the occult.)

I had never seriously considered engaging in conversation with a Neopagan or Wiccan until I wrote about Harry Potter in the local paper and received e-mails from Wiccans and Neopagans who thanked me for offering kind words about Harry Potter. My article was posted on Wiccan sites, where respondents expressed surprise that a Christian pastor could have an open mind and compassionate spirit toward Wiccans. Many said they've experienced persecution and discrimination from Christians. They feel that their religion has been mischaracterized.

In series of e-mails with a Neopagan, I got to know a man who is married, has adult children, a job and endeavors to live in peace with his neighbors. I think he’s fairly representative—although he admitted that, like anything else, Neopaganism has its oddballs.

One e-mail from my pen pal raised the issue of the Veteran’s Administration’s refusal to allow Wiccans to use the pentacle on VA-sponsored memorials. (The VA doesn’t recognize Wicca as a religion.) I don't understand why we would allow someone to die serving his country but not recognize his or her religious affiliation.

Of course, people of other religions experience similar discrimination. In Tennessee the candidate for lieutenant governor has suggested that Muslims don’t deserve to be covered by the constitutional provisions of religious freedom, because in his mind, Islam isn’t a religion.

Those of us who are members of the religious majority have a responsibility to speak up for those whose religious identities are mischaracterized and smeared. If we had a few more conversations with those who are different from us, life would be better for all of us.

Reposted from Theolog, the Christian Century blog, for which I am a frequent contributor

The March toward Marriage Equality

When Proposition 8, the amendment to the California Constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman, passed, it did so by a rather narrow margin -- 52% to 48%.  Opponents to same sex marriage received tremendous financial support from religious groups, especially the Mormon Church.  This amendment served as a response to an earlier California Supreme Court ruling that overturned bans on same gender marriage because they were inherently discriminatory and akin to bans on interracial marriage, which had been overturned in California by the Courts.  What is interesting about California is that it's easier to amend the constitution than pass a budget, and so needing only a simple majority, the voters reversed the court ruling.  That effort led to efforts to overturn the California law by taking it to federal court and arguing that this ban stands contrary to the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Leading the challengers to the law was an interesting pair of attorneys -- two men who faced off against each other in 2000 before the Supreme Court.  The issue then was the 2000 Presidential Election, a case in which the Supreme Court stepped in and ended Florida recounts and handing the election to George W. Bush, even though Al Gore had won the popular vote.  Maybe you remember that.  Anyway, Theodore Olson, Bush's lead attorney in that case, would go on to be Solicitor General -- the position that Elena Kagan held until receiving confirmation yesterday as our next Supreme Court Justice.  Olson is a conservative, a republican, and an advocate for gay marriage!  Sometime back he wrote an important op-ed piece in which he argued for a "conservative case for same sex marriage."   In that piece he wrote:

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

So, earlier this week, arguing for the opponents to Prop. 8, his position was vindicated by the Court, when Federal Judge Vaughn Walker argued in his ruling that that tradition alone, including the presupposition that marriage fosters procreation,  is not sufficient to deny rights to one segment of society that is not accorded to another.  

I know that there will be much outcry about activist courts that overrule the will of the people.  Remember, however, that it was the "will of the people" that banned interracial marriage.  It wasn't the legislatures that overturned that discriminatory practice, but the Courts.   It was the will of the people that segregated buses, lunch counters, and schools.  It wasn't legislation that overturned these discriminatory practices, it was the Courts (only afterwards did the Civil Rights legislation get passed to affirm what the courts had already deemed appropriate). 

More important than the initial effects of this ruling are the longer term ones.  Remember that in that earlier election, the vote was rather close -- just a 4 point margin.   While California is considered more liberal than most states, there large swaths of the state that are fairly conservative.  In addition, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church have significant presences and they both actively backed Prop 8.  In addition, while Latinos and African Americans tend to vote Democratic, they also tend to be social conservatives.  Finally, while the trend in 2008 led to the amendment, recent polls suggest that the wind is at the back of those who support same gender marriage.  So, what's next?

Obviously this will be appealed, and expect it to go all the way to the Supreme Court.  My sense is that the Appeals Court will sustain the District Court judges ruling.  What will be interesting is whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case.  It may not choose to do so.  If it does choose to rule, then the question is -- where will Anthony Kennedy take his stand?  If it goes all the way and the Supreme Court rules in favor of the opponents of Prop 8, then we have a perfect storm.  If Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional then so is every other marriage ban across the nation -- including federal ones.  I think that's what scares religious conservatives (and even many moderates and liberals -- remember that the President has expressed his own discomfort with gay marriage).     

The cultural wind is at the backs of those who support same sex marriage.  Society has become more and more accepting of gays.  In addition, it is becoming increasingly clear that homosexuality is not a chosen "persuasion," but a genetically defined orientation.  The judge in this case accepted as foundational the premise that this is not something that is either "chosen" or "changeable."  My sense is that among those under 40, the majority is not only accepting of gays, but supportive of gay marriage.  The idea that marriage is primarily designed to support procreation is no longer foundational.  We marry for love and companionship, with children as a secondary element.  Besides, with adoption and artificial insemination  there are other avenues for creating families. 

If society is moving in this direction, the religious community seems to be somewhere behind the curve.  It will be a long time coming in Roman Catholic Churches, whose teaching reinforces the principle that marriage, sex, and procreation all go together (my uniformed assumption is that the Orthodox churches would be somewhere in the mix here -- at least regarding the importance of tradition).  Most evangelical churches will stand back from it because they believe it is contrary to their reading of scripture.  Thus, that leaves more moderate to liberal Mainline Protestant churches.  We are, to this point, a mixed bag.  The United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church have taken the most progressive positions.  Disciples of Christ have left these issues to congregations -- with discussion at the "level" of the General Church essentially staying out of the conversation.  What is important to note in all of this is that no church will be "forced" to marry anyone they don't wish to marry.  Although clergy fill a societal role in officiating at weddings (we sign off on the licenses), we are not required to act contrary to theology or beliefs.  

So, where will this lead?  Only time will tell!