From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: >suggestion< (an apology)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:02:09 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin

[My apologies to the group for the length; I cut out as much as I
could and still retain context.  But since other topics seem to be
generating long replies, I won't lose too much sleep over it... :) ]

Ciaran Benson writes:
>Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik writes:
>>[re: excluding Judeo-Christian sources from alt.pagan]
> I have not intentionally argued for the exclusion of any religion
>from this or any other board, and I am sorry that my argument was
>misinterpreted as that.  Being that so many people have responded so
>strongly in the belief that this is what I was arguing for, I humbly
>apologise and will endeavor to be more careful in the future.

One of the trickiest aspects of this type of communication is the
context in which people may take you, especially since you are not
present to temper your words or otherwise explain them if need be.
This bites everyone in the ass occasionally.  I'm glad that you have
clarified your thoughts.  This kind of dialogue with people really
makes you choose your words carefully, doesn't it?  That challenge is
one of the reasons I like it so much.

>  I believed that Eshin-Fun was continuing a discussion which has been
>very popular in the TwinCities for some time.  That is, the need to 
>refrain from using Biblical quotes when explaining Paganism to
>Christians.  Doing so ignores the great wealth of pagan history.

Perhaps, but sometimes you have to start in the other person's
context.  And since I think the original Christianity was a lot more
pagan than it is now, it's not *completely* ignoring pagan history.

>  It was my belief that we were talking about the focus of this group,
>rather than trying to set any exclusionary guidelines.

Back when this group was formed, in January 1990, this was a big
argument.  And the lack of focus was one of the things that everyone
decided was most important -- in other words, the lack of restriction.
This is why it's an alt group and not something else.

>>Once again, I suspect a bias that is not entirely based upon logic and
>>reason.
>
> I was talking about ways of defining things, not saying how I define
>things, or saying that this is the only way I think.  Please remember
>the context in which I was saying this -- the conversation was about
>ways to define Paganism without using other-than-pagan resources.
>Please remember too that I quite obviously have a very different idea
>about what that means than the majority here, and did realize that
>yet.

Okay, but many people here have widely disparate views on what these
words mean.  Don't expect *any* large agreement on terms you've seen
around the pagan community -- that includes words like Witch,
Wicca(n), pagan, Celtic, Dianic, Satanism/Satanist -- I could go on
for quite a long time.

In my opinion and experience, it's better to risk being superfluous
and qualify what you say.  Especially in this newsgroup.  :)

>>[re: shouldn't this be on the Christian board, etc.]
> Sorry I said this.  Really.  This has been more quoted back at me
>than anything I have ever said on any board anywhere.

And as you've gathered, I'm sure, it's a sore spot with lots of people
here.  

> Why has this question been interpreted as intolerant by so many
>people?  I can only assume that it must, in fact, be intolerant.

Well, it sounded that way to me, anyway.  But I'm certainly willing to
take your word that it wasn't meant to be.

>Considering the layout of Internet, it seemed reasonable to me that
>someone who primarily follows Christ, although with a Pagan bent,
>would mainly discuss Christ on a Christian board.  It's perfectly
>reasonable that that person would also post on alt.pagan, since
>that's a part of their life.  It seems to be rather limiting for that
>Christian/Pagan person to post exclusively to one or the other.
>Apparently, this is a bias which I'll have to work on.  My sincere
>apologies to everyone who was taken slight at this.  I did not intend
>to suggest that Rick should leave.  I was, in the process of trying to
>defend the suggest that Eshin-Fun had made, trying to understand why
>Rick felt that this was the appropriate place to discuss Christianity,
>and I was unintentionally, and apparently, quite rude.

There's nothing, in my opinion, wrong with discussing Christianity as
it relates to us or to pagan contexts in this newsgroup.  My reaction
was based on the periodic "We shouldn't have any type of Christian
anything around here" debate that surfaces in this group.  That's what
I thought you were saying, and apparently you were not.  My apologies.

>>>Pagan and REALLY PROUD of it ... Ciaran. 
>
>>Oh, bully for you.  This is all very interesting, but has it ever
>>occurred to you that you should probably be investigating these paths
>>in the contexts in which they were conceived, as opposed to your
>>special viewpoint?  How do you expect to even have an intelligent view
>>of anything if you immediately take it and make it yours without doing
>>it the honor of understanding it in its own right?
>
>>Oh, I know.  You're being open-minded and not defining things with a
>>rigid Christian (or other Mithras-based religion) viewpoint.  How
>>proud a pagan you must be.
>
>  Excuse me, Susan, but that was unnecessarily harsh.   

Yeah, it was a bit waspish, wasn't it?  The sentiment behind the words
I do not apologize for, but the vitriol with which it was expressed
was unfortunate, and I am sorry.  Chalk it up to being two weeks
post-partum with itchy stitches, and the fact that I believed you were
espousing something I find odious.  

Also, I believe that one can certainly be "really" proud of being
pagan without capitalizing the word.  

>  [...]
>  I thought, and still think, that if you want to discuss Buddhism or
>whatever then you should at least give the appropriate board a try.  

But what's appropriate?  What's the topic or aspect of the discussion?
Some might be really appropriate and some might not.  And who gets to
decide?

The best way to do it, I think, is let someone introduce a subject,
and if no one answers, then obviously it's not of interest.  For
instance, someone might have thought Janis' Cool World post might not
be relevant or appropriate, but by the enormous amount of bandwidth it
has generated, it seems to be an issue that people here want and need
to discuss.  And for those who don't want to, there's always the /kill
file.

> I am astonished at how poorly I presented myself, because I believed
>that I was arguing (eloquently, I thought) against the kind of
>insipid, blind, grabbing of other religion's traditions which you are
>accusing me of doing.

Hm.  Did I out-and-out accuse you, or just nastily suggest it?  :)

It really is interesting how we think we're saying one thing, and
someone else is convinced we are saying another altogether.  Once
again, I'm willing to take your word that you meant what you're saying
now, and attribute the confusion to net communication.

Doesn't this just make you *think* about *every* word?  I love this...

>>[re: "Paganism is not a religion, etc."]
> Following the writings of Scott Cunningham, Issac Bonewits, Margot
>Adler, Starhawk, Raymond Buckland, and Selena Fox of Circle Sanctuary,
>I believe that there is a religion called "Paganism".
>
> Words such as "Wicca" have undergone very long fights to gain
>recognition, legally and publicly, and have gained much acceptance.
>Wicca is a religion, and is registered as such with the government and
>has 501c and all of that stuff.
>
> Efforts to reclaim words such as "Witch" and "Witchcraft" are still
>going on.  To follow convention, men should use "warlock" instead of
>"witch", and "witch" and "witchcraft" should never be capitalized and
>are not legally recognised religions.  Even Buckland and Bonewits did
>not capitalize these words, although they did capitalize Pagan and
>referred to each as a religion.

Whose convention are we following, pray?  Warlock comes from Scots
Gaelic, and its original meaning was "oathbreaker." That term was used
by the Church before it was ever used by any actual practitioners.
For our purposes, it was bogus from the start.  Witch and Witchcraft,
on the other hand meant one thing before they were twisted into
another.  And for that matter, so did pagan.  

To me, Witch is a proper noun, and pagan is not.  The fact that pagan
is often misinterpreted and needs to be reclaimed, just like Witch,
does not mean that it should be capitalized.  In fact, none of this
reclaiming argument (one which I believe is most important) justifies
to me the capitalization of the words pagan and paganism.  I might
just as well capitalize monotheist, pantheist, animist... the list
goes on and on.

And as for following the writings of these particular people (my
opinions of whom range from the respectful to the rude), who says they
get to unilaterally say what these words mean either?

Also, is Wicca granted 501c status, meaning that ay group that calls
itself Wiccan is covered, or have individual groups applied for and
received 501c status by presenting themselves as Wiccan?  See the
differ?

>Then I read some of the above-mentioned works and did some stuff with
>Circle, and learned that I'm a "Pagan", and that my religion is
>"Paganism".

Um.  Okay, here we are back to the same semantic thing.  I agree with
you that you're pagan; I just wouldn't call your *religion* paganism,
even though it incorporates paganism into it.  To me that's like
saying a Christian's religion is monotheism.

> Since these people thought that it was right to capitalize Pagan,
>and that Paganism is a religion, then I thought I would mention that
>here.  Sorry it caused such a furor.  At the time, it seemed like a
>perfectly reasonable request.  I understand now that my perception of
>Paganism is extraordinarily different from the people who use this
>board, and that my comments have been interpreted as abrasive flames.
>
> As the Goddess is my witness, I swear that this was not my intent,
>and I say most sincerely that I was amazed and stunned at the response
>that my comments earned.  It has taken me a couple of days to grasp
>that the "it is a religion", "it isn't a religion" argument was
>striking so deeply into people's beliefs.

The "paganism is/isn't a religion" argument is one that we have here
quite often.  That in part is why the response to your remarks was as
swift and as intense as it was.

> Innocently, (or, if you must, stupidly), I assumed that "all of you
>Pagans" believed the same way that "all of us Pagans" do.

How about naively?  One of the reasons so many of us get so angry when
people try and limit any of these terms is because there is no one way
that we all believe.  If you hadn't known that before, I'll wager you
have a pretty good idea of it now... :)

> I hope that my continued faith in a religion called "Paganism" and
>my continued assertion that I am, indeed, a "Pagan", will not cause
>any more stress for people.

Your faith does not cause me stress, as you put it.  Your continued
asserion that you are a pagan does not do so either.  If you want to
call your religion paganism (or rather Paganism), that's jim dandy.
Just don't expect me or anyone else to have precisely the same
understanding and/or definition of that word.

This confusion is one of the prices we pay (worth it, to my mind) of
not having any kind of central authority doling out official
terminology.  But it does make a jolly mess sometimes.

>  Thank you for hearing me out.  Ciaran Benson.

Certainly.  As I said, I'm glad that you clarified your thoughts.  And
as for hearing people out, that ostensibily is the reason we have this
forum.

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
Newsgroups: alt.pagan