Last week, a Washington Times editorial, "Air Force witchcraft," tried denigrating adherents of earth-centered religions by referencing a timely quote from Julius Caesar.
The religions of the barbaric tribes of Europe faded away as the Roman conquest brought civilization to the region. ... "They have likenesses of immense size, the limbs of which are composed of wicker, that they fill with living men," wrote Julius Caesar, describing a Druid ceremony. "After these are set on fire, the men inside perish in the flames."
This appeal to ancient authority prompts me to rhetorically ask whether adherents of Christianity ever committed atrocities -- perhaps inquisitions, or religious wars, or genocide of civilizations new-to-Europeans? (I suppose Jewish atrocities are the ones in the Tanakh/Old Testament in which the Israelites wiped out neighboring tribes) Some might say, "Those things happened long ago. They don't happen now." Children in Nigeria disagree.
Another inaccuracy in the Times editorial is the statement:
All of the actual Wiccans and Druids died out hundreds of years ago.
The thrown-together thinking behind the "actual" sentence is shown by the anachronistic mixing of Druids and Wiccans. Druids were iron-age Celts; Wicca is a modern development; witches in the popular conception -- since the word is one synonym for Wiccan -- are, to my mind, mythological along with sorceresses and wizards. In the here and now, some people do call themselves Druids, but as these neo-Druids are building websites and sending out home study courses, they've hardly died out.
Another indicator of sloppy thinking by the article's writer is by referring to "actual Wiccans and Druids." What is an "actual" Wiccan, or an "actual" Druid? Would an "actual" Druid's physical existence be biologically equivalent to the body of a believer of a mainstream religion, or is there a difference between "actual" people and those who merely believe? To me, the labeling of Wiccans and Druids as "actual" indicates the writer thinks that genetic Harry Potteresque wizards exist(ed), which brings up a pretty theological question: Since most religions gain members by thoughtful teaching/conversion, do "actual" members of a religious group have their religion in their DNA? If that were true, wouldn't an identifiable DNA marker for a specific religion lend more legitimacy to the status of "actual" believers? (possibly? [see final paragraph])
Metaphysics aside, how are secular authorities supposed to treat religion? Should only the adherents of large-group religions be respected? If that is how things should be, should secular authorities ignore minority-religions, or perhaps ban them? What is an appropriate secular treatment of group members with religious beliefs?
Again from the Times article:
This is a space cadets can use to perform rituals if they happen to be witches, warlocks and tree-worshipers. ...
The Air Force is not alone in pandering.
I'll overlook the Freudian "space cadets," although it gave me a laugh, but "pandering" is impossible to misconstrue. One definition of pander is to receive special treatment. In a modern, tolerant country is it "pandering" to allow people to worship as they choose?
The Times writer continues with the special treatment theme:
These neo-Pagan worshippers now have a federally supplied space they can call their own in the hills of Colorado Springs, Colo.
Why not? The famous Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel is also "federally supplied," so why can't the minority-belief worshippers have a space in the hills? Who is injured by either facility?
In the United States, practicing your religion is not a privilege, it's a right. Which brings me to USAF Academy grad, Mikey Weinstein:
Religious Civil Rights: Why Have the Washington Times and the Air Force Academy Savaged Them?, 9 May 2011, Truthout
Shame, shame, shame on the Times for failing to recognize that, while the First Commandment might indeed say that "you cannot have any other Gods but Me," the First Amendment's clarion call is quite simply, "Oh yes you can!"
The "clarion call" is echoed in the booklet, "Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups" published by the U.S. Army. (link to text: here)
The United States is not a theocracy. The Constitution (the one the cadets will swear to uphold when they become Air Force officers) says so. What Julius Caesar thought, is of no civic consequence.
Comments