Exploring the crossroads of religion, culture, and science through a Pagan lens

1 Comment

Newt Scamander, Politics, and the Value of Caring

In “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” J.K. Rowling presents the familiar wizarding world she originated with Harry Potter, but turns it on its head.  Instead of Britain, the film takes place in the United States.  Different laws apply to the witches and wizards of America, a fact which becomes a source of both humor and tension.  Our main characters are not children, but adults.  Instead of spending multiple installments worldbuilding and introducing a magical system, the new series is able to jump us right into a fully fleshed out world where we all know the rules, allowing more focus on storytelling.

But more importantly, our new hero is very different.  Newt Scamander is nothing like the Boy Who Lived.  Where Harry knows from the day he enters Hogwarts that he is marked out as the savior of the wizarding world, Scamander is really nothing more than a dedicated animal lover who seeks only to rescue and preserve the world’s most misunderstood creatures.  He’s a conservationist, not a warrior.

This brilliant article explains it much better than I can.  While Harry was a swashbuckling Gryffindor, focused on courage and great deeds, Newt is a Hufflepuff – a member of the most underappreciated house at Hogwarts.  If the houses are elemental, Harry is a fire and Newt is an Earth.  Harry must focus on strength and justice and the will to fight.  Newt’s goal is to save the earth’s magical creatures, care for them, and educate others about their importance.  He’s much happier digging in the dirt to feed his beloved “beasts” than fighting wand-to-wand with dark wizards.  Hufflepuff’s key word is Loyalty, and Newt is unfailingly loyal to the animals that depend on him (and he’s happy to fight and dark wizards who might happen to threaten them).

Harry exemplifies the classic Hero’s Journey.  Newt’s largest concern is ensuring that his thunderbird gets fed.

Harry Potter. [Source:]

Harry Potter. [Source:]

Newt Scamander [Source: Warner Brothers]

Newt Scamander [Source: Warner Brothers]

The two heroes couldn’t be more different from each other, but in truth they complement each other.  They represent two different ethical ideas from psychological research: The ethic of justice and the ethic of caring.

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg was studied the moral development in children.  His method was to give children a problem, known as the Heinz Dilemma, and ask them their reasoning.  In short the Heinz Dilemma is as follows:

In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer.  One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered.  The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug had cost him to make.  The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about half of what it should cost.  He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later.  But the druggist said no.  The husband got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.  Should the husband have done that?  Why?

Kohlberg would collect the children’s answers and categorize their reasoning.  In his research, he identified a three-level system of moral development with two sub-stages per level.  The first level focuses on following rules and avoiding punishment.  The second is more about social approval and maintaining order.  The final stage is when a person guides their reasoning based on higher, philosophical ethical principles.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Source: Wikimedia Commons


It all sounded fine until Carol Gilligan, one of Kohlberg’s students, noticed a trend.  Young girls and women tended to score on the lower levels of the scale more often than boys and men.  Males were more likely to be scored in the upper categories of moral reasoning.  

This did not sit well with Gilligan.  What she realized was that Kohlberg was bringing a masculine bias – a concept referred to in the linked article as “Toxic Masculinity” – to rate his respondents.  Gilligan theorized that men tend to reason through an ethic of justice, while women tend to utilize an ethic of caring.  She developed the Dilemma of the Porcupine and the Moles to test this theory:

It was growing cold, and a porcupine was looking for a home. He found a most desirable cave but saw it was occupied by a family of moles.

“Would you mind if I shared your home for the winter?” the porcupine asked the moles.

The generous moles consented and the porcupine moved in. But the cave was small and every time the moles moved around they were scratched by the porcupine’s sharp quills. The moles endured this discomfort for as long as they could. Then at last they gathered courage to approach their visitor.

“Pray leave,” they said, “and let us have our cave to ourselves once again.”

“Oh no!” said the porcupine. “This place suits me very well.  If you’re not happy, then you should leave!”

As with the Heinz Dilemma, what is important is not the answer, but the reasoning.  Gilligan developed a model of morality that placed self preservation at the bottom, self-sacrifice in the middle, and the principle of nonviolence at the top.  She found that female participants scored higher overall than they did in Kohlberg’s model.


I don’t believe that the two ethical approaches are as clear cut across binary gender lines as it may seem.  Indeed, two men – Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi – famously exemplified Gilligan’s highest principle of nonviolence.  However, I do see both ethical models as valid.  And, rather than pitting them against each other, I think we should see them as partners.

The world needs its Harry Potters: the young (or young-at-heart) people willing to risk life and limb for justice. Especially now, we need our activists on the front line protesting DAPL, taking to the streets to advocate for equal rights, and taking to social media to light the fire under under everyone else’s collective asses.

We also need our Newt Scamanders.  We need those who stay calm, assess the situation, and select their battles out of concern for those they care for.  We need our Hufflepuffs who are willing to help those in physical and emotional pain, see to the physical needs of our more vocal activists, and to tame the wild spirit of rage that can sometimes get diffused. We need those who process calmly but get the job done.  As Newt Scamander placidly states while he approaches a dangerous capture: “My philosophy is that worrying means you suffer twice.”  

We are entering into a dark time, both in the Wheel of the Year and in American politics.  Dark times are painful, but they can lead to growth.  Dr. King intentionally led his followers into painful situations to stimulate change.  The discomfort of dark times can stimulate growth and manifest will, but it takes the Hufflepuffs caring for the wounded and as much as the Gryffindors on the front line.

It was Albus Dumbledore, the wisest Harry Potter character of all, who said that Love was the most powerful force in the world.  Love inspires frontline activism as much as nurturing of those who fight and those who fall.  In dark times, each person needs to choose where to focus their love.  Justice is vital, but so is Caring. When the future looked bleak, all of Hogwarts, even the Hufflepuffs, had to come together to defeat Voldemort’s fascist coup.



Scientology, Mormons, Witches, and Zombies: The Why

Over the last week I’ve had the chance to watch two different takes on alternative religions.  The first was Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, Alex Gibney’s brutal documentary that eviscerates Scientology. The second was The Book of Mormon, the hit Broadway musicals co-written by the names behind TV’s South Park and Disney’s box office blockbuster, Frozen.

Book of Mormon

As much as I enjoyed both of them, I have to admit I have a little tinge of guilt when I see mainstream treatments of alternative religions.  As a Witch and a Pagan, I am myself a practitioner – and I would say beneficiary of – alternate spiritual practice.  I was blessed to be raised with no religious baggage (I was “unchurched,” as they say), but with an interest in the spiritual.  This gave me the ability to make my own choice,  and I chose the path that fed my intellect and inspired my heart.  I admire anyone who does the same, whatever faith they practice.


So, despite my chuckling at Going Clear’s picture of Galactic Overlord Xenu imprisoning his unwanted souls on Earth and seeding them into volcanoes, I was forced to look at the how odd my own spirituality may look to an outsider – any outsider.  Despite reveling in the audience’s reaction to one of Book of Mormon’s most hummable tunes:

I believe

That the Lord God created the universe

And I believe

That he sent his only son to die for my sins

And I believe

That ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America!


Or the quick little jab at Mormonism’s relative youth:


I’m gonna take you back to Biblical times: 1823!

I have to admit that my own religious practice, rooted as it may be in ancient history and timeless techniques, is a new expression that would look pretty silly to those who don’t have the context to understand it.  Joseph Smith was a mystic.  L. Ron Hubbard was, at least for a while, an occultist.  He hung out with Jack Parsons, one of the sharpest minds of his generation who was also noted Thelemite.  Granted, Hubbard stole Parsons’ wife, but the two were tightly involved in Crowley style occultism for quite a while.  As a Witch, mystical and occult practices are an everyday part of my life.  I can’t just laugh off the work of either man.


That becomes doubly true when you really look at the documentary and the musical.  The first 45 minutes or so of Going Clear present Scientology’s pseudo-scientific practice of auditing, which ostensibly helps people “clear” their life’s traumas and operate as their own individual and authentic selves.  Sounds like a pretty good goal to me.


Despite the rampant satire, Book of Mormon makes constant mention of the polite and friendly aura that seems to surround Mormons:

Liberation!  Equality! Let’s be really fucking polite to everyone!


I don’t agree with many of Mormonism’s social policies, but I can say that almost every Mormon I’ve met has been intelligent, kind, and really F-ing polite.  I can’t get into their heads, but they seem to be truly at peace.  Good for them.


So then I think, what if one of these writers decided to target Paganism, Wicca, or Witchcraft?  Am I laughing at someone else while silently dodging my own bullet?  Is that bullet coming for me at some point?  Would I have the class that the Church of Latter Day Saints has shown (or the money) to buy three full page color adds in the program for the musical about how crazy and nudist Gerald Gardner was?  Can you imagine a South Park inspired musical on him?

Gerald Gardner

Anything out of context looks silly.  The Great Rite?  Communion?  As a practitioner of a minority spirituality, should I be supporting these other non-mainstream faiths?


I think the answer, at least in the case of Scientology, comes later in the documentary.  Over and over, we see people abused for questioning doctrine.  We see those who leave the religion mercilessly harassed in their own homes by “Squirrel Busters” and other pro-church organizations.  We see members of the Sea Org, Scientology’s most elite organization, mercilessly tortured on the accusation of being apostates.  We see websites sponsored and organized by the faith specifically intended to discredit any “SP” (Suppressive Person) who speaks out against them.

Scientology Squirrel Busters

Witchcraft and Paganism, with their focus on seeking your own connection with the Divine, is the antithesis of that kind of cult mindset.  While “leaders” like that crop up at times, a symptom of our decentralized and Aquarian structure, they are often discredited and removed in the long run.  There is no one supreme leader to answer to, and after watching Going Clear, I’m pretty thankful for that.


I’ve been to Temple Square.   I’ve sat inside the famous Mormon Tabernacle and listened to its phenomenal acoustics.  I respect an alternate spirituality such as Mormonism.  But the problem comes when they see the need to enforce doctrine by excommunicating women who speak up for their own rights.  The problem comes when they fund laws like Prop 8 in my state, which sought to overturn the law and prevent marriage equality.  For those of us who try to live by the ethic of Harm None, it’s difficult to lend our full support to a spirituality that tends to enforce doctrine over kindness, oppression over love.


The most viewed post on my blog is a strange little pop culture piece I wrote comparing The Walking Dead to religion’s tendency toward science denial.  In that post, which still gets constant views even when I’m not writing, I compared Rick’s three questions:


How many walkers have you killed?

How many people have you killed?



…to the religious denial of reality.  I asked how your religion helps you, how much it forces you to deny reality, and why?  That post is viewed by new people every day.  I don’t know why, but it has something to do with Google Analytics.  I’ve called it my Zombie Post for many reasons.  It just keeps coming back.  It’s annoying.


Yet it expresses a truth about those of us who practice any spiritual path, especially an alternative one.


What are we willing to believe?  My practice is one of experience, not belief, so I really don’t care what someone believes. What are we willing to deny and oppress?  When any religion moves into this realm, they risk harming others.  There better be a damn good reason…


Why?  If it’s for power, money, or prestige, then it’s not really spiritual.  There’s nothing wrong with any of those things, but if you’re harming others in the name of faith in order to control them, then you’ve been corrupted.  If you believe “God lives on a planet called Kolob,” that’s fine.  If you believe Overlord Xenu inseminated you into a volcano, that’s cool too.  If you use either of those beliefs to harm those who don’t believe or have stopped believing, then you’ve become a zombie.  You’re mindless.  You’re living off of the living.  It’s always the Why that matters, not the What.






1 Comment

Painful Truths: The Fear of Discussion

I just wrote a whole post on Ferguson, white privilege, and racism. It was all about overt and institutionalized racism and the difficulty of seeing your own privilege. It recognized my own privilege as a white man and asked people of color to have patience with those of us who have a melanin deficiency as we try to figure out how to handle these successive rounds of evidence of systemic racism in society. Then I threw it out.

It was way too “Great White Father.” I was speaking to the white community, not the African-American community, but it still smacked of power and privilege. I can afford to sit down and think about these things because they don’t affect me. That’s privilege.

Yet I still want to get beyond the immediate injustices because they are symptoms of a much larger problem. We are afraid to talk to each other. People of color fear having their very real problems marginalized (again). Their white allies fear to say the wrong thing, knowing they can never fully understand the Black American experience, so they censor themselves. Plus, people of color need white allies to be vocally on their side. And that is a huge problem in all of this: we need to communicate, both to each other and within our communities.

In my presentation at the Pagan Activism Conference, I proposed this elemental model of activism:

elemental model

Fire represents that immediate, get out on the streets and march element of seeking social justice. That is a vital element, but there is so much more to it. At some point, the different combatants in a dispute need to talk to each other. They need to understand each other’s problems. Otherwise one side sees only the angry picketers and burning buildings that the media shows them on TV and the other side sees only privileged, smug silent observers sipping their Cabernet as others fight for their basic legal rights. If no discussion happens, the sides don’t understand each other. The problem escalates.

We need that lesson of Air. Communication includes both speaking and listening. Argument is good, but screaming over each other as if we are guests on Fox News is not. Going forward in this fight for justice, I hope people of all opinions can quench their fire enough understand that there are real people suffering. Listen to their concerns without becoming defensive and without belittling their true experience. Speak your beliefs in a way that helps the other side truly understand your point of view.

There is so much pain in all of this. Listening to the voice that has hurt you will not be easy. But successful movements must convey their message to the other side in a way that helps them understand it. Protests bring attention to an issue, but it is negotiation and clearly framed messaging that changes hearts and minds, especially the way our media covers these events.


Crystal Blanton

Crystal Blanton

We who live with privilege can no longer ignore it. This constant denial of the basic rights of safety from harm that our brothers and sisters of color suffer cannot continue. It’s not one instance; it’s the pattern.  The Wild Hunt’s Crystal Blanton, a stalwart advocate for real equality puts it so poignantly:

The fear that I carry as a mother of Black children is not different than the fear of mothers from any historically oppressed population. On Monday night, as my son walked out of the door, I stopped him to tell him not to wear his hoodie on his head and to put his dreads back in a ponytail. The fear that he may be mistaken for a thug because people will see him as a Black man first is a sad reality for many parents.


That’s not OK. Experiences like Crystal’s need to be communicated to those of us who are free to wear hoodies with impunity.  We need to see and hear and understand these little bricks of privilege. The problem is clear, but let’s begin to focus on communication and healing for the long term.

Sometimes that may include that may include uncomfortable choices like writing a blog post you’re afraid to post or keeping a racist friend on Facebook so that you can scrape away at them with messages like Crystal’s. But then, if that’s the most uncomfortable decision you make in all of this, you’re ahead of a lot of other folks who are afraid to go to the corner store in a hoodie.

Leave a comment

The Theory of Everything: Trapped body and liberated mind

Imagine a doctor breaking this news to you: “Your brain isn’t affected. Your thoughts will remain the same, it’s just that eventually no one will know what they are.”

Devastating. You will still be you, but very soon, you will be unable to communicate anything you are thinking to another person. You will be trapped inside your head.

Now imagine that your “unaffected brain” is one of the most intelligent brains in human history. You are way off the charts of statistical outliers. You are, potentially, the smartest person alive today; your name is routinely mentioned alongside names like Einstein and Newton. And within two years all of that amazing thinking ability will be locked up in a body that has no ability to communicate its thoughts.

This is the painful realization that lies at the heart of The Theory of Everything. The film is a biography of world renown theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking from the point of view of his first wife, Jane Hawking, but really it goes deeper. It asks us to contemplate the universe within as well as the one without. The universe is silent with its secrets, and the most qualified human to interpret those secrets for us battles daily with the ability to speak.

Stephen Hawking

Professor Stephen Hawking

Yes, the film is a biography, but more than that it is about being trapped.  Hawking’s groundbreaking ideas are trapped within his ALS-ravaged body. He hits terrible lows on his journey, but is always lifted up when some new ability liberates him. His wife, Jane, is trapped by her love for him. She commits early on to be his full partner, and that commitment becomes more and more difficult on her. The secrets of the universe are trapped somewhere inside mathematical equations that only a mind like Hawking’s can comprehend, and yet the physicist himself is trapped by the tyranny of his disease.

Eddie Redmayne is spectacular in the role of Professor Hawking. Redmayne helps us really feel the progression of Hawking’s life and his disease. Early on, he helps us see that glimmering and active young man Hawking was at the age of 21, overly brash in his mental superiority yet not in the condescending way we so often see in movies about geniuses. This portion is vital, because as his physical abilities deteriorate we can still see the young man and his brilliance become ever more trapped inside his ailing body. Less and less able to emote or even speak, Redmayne counts on our love for him early on. It works.

Redmayne young Stephen Hawking

Eddie Redmayne as a young Stephen Hawking

Felicity Jones is Jane, his vital link to the outside world. She plays the role with a quiet, determined strength that nevertheless allows us glimpses into the prison into which she trapped herself. Jane has her own dreams, and her dedication to her husband – albeit willing – presents its own trap as she tries to live her own life. Even as the tension rises, Jane’s gushing love for her husband always shines through.

Felicity Jones Jane Hawking Theory of Everything

Felicity Jones as Jane Hawking

This love story is told against the backdrop of something most theatergoers would see as decidedly dull – physics. Equations, graphs, and discussions of spacetime are a constant feature, but just as Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time seeks to explain complicated astrophysics to the layman, all these discussions of theoretical black holes and the mathematical nature of time provide a moving and exciting canvas for the love story to unfold.

Another theme that permeates the film is the tension between science and spirituality. Yet, just as Stephen the atheist and Jane the Christian find a way to make their partnership work, we are left feeling that maybe the grand unified theory can unify both of these two seemingly paradoxical pillars of cosmology. Hawking describes the study of cosmology as “a religion for atheists,” and each little thread of the film seems to tie the two fields closer together. Or maybe, paradoxically, those ties liberate both science and spirituality from their prison of exclusivity. Why be trapped studying one or the other? Much like the two pillars of physics, we should unify both.

Every situation we find ourselves in had an origin. As we live through our lives, we rarely notice just how profound each moment can be, but our life is a sum of each and every decision we have made. If Professor Hawking had never met Jane, it is quite possible that his illness would have prevented the world from the gifts his intellect has to offer. We have those moments too.

The Theory of Everything asks us to take a step back and examine what brought us to that point where we are today. Where are we trapped? And, since time has no beginning or end, it challenges us to escape our traps like radiation escaping a black hole. Even black holes can’t trap everything. We can swirl around in our own defeats, or we can burst through that which seeks to trap us and make Everything we can out of this Brief Time we are given.

Leave a comment

No Service

“No service.”

That’s the terrifying and baffling message that so many iPhone users saw at the top of their smartphone last week.  Many people who updated their phone’s operating system to the new and highly publicized iOS 8 as soon as it came out found that the new software, great as it may be, had one rather significant bug: it disabled their phone service. It prevented your device from connecting to your cellular service. It made your phone no longer a phone.

To be clear, I’m not one of those Apple haters. I love my iPhone (which I haven’t updated yet). I love my iPad (tried to update it, but got an error message). I don’t care what kind of phone anyone out there uses, but I’m fascinated by the idea that the company that essentially invented the smartphone created an operating system that negated such a basic function.

I have a theory as to how this happened. I can’t prove this theory. I have no evidence for this theory whatsoever. Those who actually know anything about the tech industry or computer code would probably laugh me out of the room. This is just a guess. I think that Apple’s software developers were so focused on the sexy new features they were working on, so pressured to get their new system out to meet deadlines and get in front of the competitors that they completely forgot about the bare bones basics, the lowest part of the Maslow phone pyramid: making phone calls.

It’s not a rare thing. We do this often in our lives. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in competition for goods, having the nicest stuff, or proving how good we are that we forget some of the very basic things about living an effective life.

  • We do it when we get so wrapped up in work and our to-do list that we neglect to put effort into our most important relationships.
  • We do it when we neglect our body’s basic needs because we’re always hurrying from one commitment to another. We neglect to eat right, take care of health problems our bodies scream at us about, or get enough sleep.
  • We do it when we assume that, as spiritual people, it is somehow wrong to be financially secure. The truth is, when your finances allow you to meet all your needs without worry, you are in a much better place to work on your spiritual needs.
  • We do it when we become so convinced about the “rightness” of our spiritual path that we look down on or are openly hostile to others. This happens both underneath the Pagan umbrella and outside its bounds. Some people within the Pagan community are just as likely to make fun of a Wiccan as they are a Christian. Both serve no purpose in your own spiritual growth. Plus they make you look like an asshole.
  • We do it when we think of ourselves as so advanced in our path that we neglect its essentials like meditation, ritual, daily practice, and reading.

It’s so easy to seek out attractive extras in life. They make us feel good. Sometimes they are even convenient excuses to ignore some of the basic functions in life. How convenient it is to say, “I don’t have time to meditate,” when really you just want to sleep a little longer, or use “I’m too busy to make dinner, I’ll just go to [fill in name of your favorite fast food joint here]” as an excuse to indulge your unhealthy craving.  Every choice like this brings short term pleasure but slowly wears away at your physical, mental, or spiritual health. They eat at your personal operating system.

Maybe you can think of some things you do that aren’t on this list, but qualify. What are your sexy but destructive behaviors and ideas? As we approach Samhain, maybe it’s time to put those fun but harmful habits into their graves. We all have them. Me included. To pretend otherwise would be just another self-destructive deception. This is a good time to recognize them and start working on a new system that may be less attractive but transforms us into happier, healthier people. As we move toward the Witch’s new year, maybe it’s a good time to ensure that, when the Wheel turns, you don’t get that dreaded message:

“No service.”

Leave a comment

A response to Mohler’s “moral crisis”

On June 27, R. Albery Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, posted this article to CNN’s Belief Blog. In it, he laments last year’s Supreme Court decision that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and, in effect, made marriage equality legal. He also praises Justice Antonin Scalia, calling him a “prophet,” while also expressing his commitment that the marriage of two gay people is a “moral impossibility.”

I have to hand it to Mohler, his tone is remarkably even-keeled. There is no histrionic whining or the type of vile anti-gay language that those who take his position are noted for. Of course, it has to be that way. He loses easily otherwise, for our country has lost its taste for bigoted catch phrases like Westboro Baptist Church’s “God Hates Fags.” He has to make his position appear logical so that he doesn’t risk being identified with WBC’s inane extremism.

Nor does Mohler couch his argument in scriptural citations. This is an obvious attempt at credibility. Mohler knows that the First Amendment both gives him the right to express his views, but it also prohibits the U.S. government from favoring any one particular religion. Therefore, any Biblical arguments would fall either on the ears of the choir, or on entirely deaf ears. To sway public opinion, he must appear logical outside of scripture, at he makes a good stab at this.

The trouble is, if you look behind Mohler’s slick words you find that his actual arguments depend upon the slippery sands of terrible assumptions, vague definitions, and a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be married. What at first appears to be a reasonable person’s defense of denying fellow Americans essential rights (as if there really could be such a thing) turns out to have about as much substance as damp cotton candy.


Christian ≠ Anti-Gay

The essential question Mohler asks is, “Where does that leave committed Christians?” In starting his argument this way, he walks a tightrope of assuming that all “committed Christians” dislike both homosexuality and marriage equality. This is simply not true.

Just this month, the Presbyterian Church of the United States changed its definition of marriage to include “two people” rather than a man and a woman. Their change allowed Presbyterian ministers to perform gay marriages in states where those marriages are legal if they choose to.

The post just below Mohler’s discusses the Catholic Church “softening its tone” toward the gay community.   While the Church remains doctrinally opposed to homosexuality, they are shifting toward a loving agreement to disagree rather than the vile antagonism it, for example, advocated here in California during the Proposition 8 campaign.

Many other Christian sects are decidedly pro-gay. They focus on Christ’s message of love and forgiveness rather than the Old Testament’s litany of laws against everything from homosexuality to eating shrimp. I know a number of “committed Christians” who are perfectly fine with gay people, advocate for equality, and believe in equal rights for all Americans. I know gay Christians. They are just as “committed” as any other Christian, even those who choose to try to impose their beliefs on everyone else. It is presumptive and just plain incorrect to assume that all “committed Christians” are bigoted against the gay community.


Marriage ≠ Sex

Mohler makes two statements that reveal a profound misunderstanding of what marriage is. While speculating about government forcing churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies, he worries about our country crushing his religious liberty in the name of “erotic freedom.” Later, he wrings his hands about how his fellow anti-gay folks can possibly be good people when they see the rest of society hurting “human flourishing in the name of sexual liberty.

In this section, Mohler takes a giant step backward in time. We are not arguing about sodomy laws and other unjust statutes that ban homosexual sex acts. That argument ended long ago, a fact he acknowledges early in the article. Today’s arguments, and the argument he had been discussin up to this point was about same sex marriage, yet he clouds his point by discussing “erotic freedom.” Based on his own words, I can only conclude that Mohler is equating marriage with sex.

Marriage is about a lot more than sex. Marriage is a lifetime partnership. Marriage is about companionship, mutual love and support, and commitment. Marriage is about being by a person’s side through thick and thin, in the words of the traditional vow, “for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health.” Married people lend a shoulder to cry on, a party for happy times, a loving ear in troubled times, and financial support when money is running thin. Marriage, any marriage, is not simply about “erotic freedom” to have sex with your partner.

Besides, people are having sex whether they are married or not. Heterosexuals are not all waiting to put a ring on it before sleeping together. The gay community is exactly the same, except that, if Mohler were to have his way, there would be no marriage to “legitimize” their sexual behavior. That wouldn’t stop gay sex. It’s not like same sex couples suddenly started having sex as marriage became legal. Marriage equality only allows those couples a legal opportunity to commit to each other and enjoy the many other benefits of marriage that we heterosexuals enjoy. Plus, when a couple chooses a monogamous marriage, they’re actually limiting, not expanding their “sexual freedom.”


What exactly is “Human Flourishing”?

 Central to Mohler’s article is his argument that “human flourishing” requires the “honoring of marriage exclusively as the union of a man and a woman” and any other definition of marriage is “a grave threat to human society and human happiness.” He never defines this term “flourishing,” nor does he explain how allowing other people to marry will somehow magically harm humanity, yet he continues to base his views upon this nebulous concept.


The idea of “human flourishing” is a weasler, a concept with no definition that can get the author out of jams in logic. As long as he never specifically define it, he can go on to alter his definition and his argument to fit any situation. You can’t challenge his premises if he never nails down a specific definition of his primary point. Mohler continues the slipperiness when he goes on to say that he does not believe that any damage to society inflicted by two guys loving each other will not be “immediately apparent.” He must have been relieved when he though up that one! Now, when he is asked to point out the awful damage gay marriage has done to the country in the last year, he has a quick and easy way out – “Some random flourishing is not occurring, and I never said we’d actually be able to see the damage,”

So what might he mean by this chimeric idea of “human flourishing”? Certainly he isn’t referring to reproduction. There is no lack of humanity in this world. Our earth is overpopulated and already struggles to provide enough resources to support everyone who depends upon it. More couples in happy relationships who are fulfilled in life but unable to reproduce could actually be exactly what our planet and humanity in general need to “flourish.” We don’t need to multiply and consume more resources to be happy. We aren’t viruses.

As a married heterosexual who has no children, I take offense at the suggestion that happiness depends upon reproduction. But there’s another note in Mohler’s article that is even worse. When he says that our his undefined concept of “flourishing” depends upon outlawing same sex marriages, what seems to be suggesting is that our human happiness relies on discriminating against our fellow human beings. According to Mohler, we can’t be happy as a species unless we can maintain a class system in which those who love others of the same sex are systematically and constitutionally denied the same rights we heterosexuals enjoy.

No. My marriage and my happiness absolutely do not depend upon denying others rights. No, our ability as a species to “flourish” is not dependent on keeping our heels grinding into the backs of the gay community. Quite the opposite, my happiness is enhanced when I know other people are happy. It makes me unhappy to see others in pain. It certainly does not make me “flourish.”


It must be hard to be on the wrong side of history. It must be difficult to have beliefs that pin your “flourishing” to keeping other people oppressed. It must be hard to see the rest of your country move toward justice and equality all around you. I’m sure those who fought to stop interracial marriage felt the same way at one time, and they used scripture to support their arguments as well.

Justice is justice. Religious beliefs do not play into it. That was the guarantee made by the Bill of Rights when our country began, and as we continue to work toward achieving that goal there will always be those who stand alone against the tides of reality. As we learn to treat each other equally, there will always be stalwarts against “equality and justice for all.” Fortunately, they are becoming ever more isolated and their arguments begin to sound ever more desperate.




Pagan men speak out on patriarchy and misogyny

Men live in a world of incredible privilege.  Unfortunately, we’re like the prisoners in Plato’s cave, often unable to see a world any different from our own.  Women may bare their souls trying to show us the advantages we enjoy as men, but – never having seen the world any differently – some men find it impossible to imagine life from a woman’s point of view.

The shootings at UC Santa Barbara picked the scab off this societal wound.  Suddenly, deep and festering examples of everything from slight male privilege to disgusting and cancerous misogyny were exposed.  “Men’s rights” groups, unable to see that they already enjoy easy access to “rights,” have turned to social media to defend themselves.

The hashtag #notallmen screamed that “not all men” were sexists or rapists and demanded recognition.  Women countered with a trend that had already been around, #yesallwomen, detailing the experiences of fear, pain, and marginalization that all women have to sustain, but men never give a second thought to.  “Yes all women” feel fear every time they have to go out at night to pick up a carton of milk or jog alone in the park.  They have to.  You never know which man is the dangerous one.

Modern pagans are in a unique place in this debate.  The most visible strands of the movement love and worship the Goddess.  Many of us came to paganism to flee from the oppression of a one male god patriarchy.  Even men’s groups tend to dislike patriarchy and make an attempt to listen and understand their sisters.  Pagan men are at the forefront, necessary allies in the fight against patriarchy.

I asked pagan men from various traditions to give their perspectives in this very important topic.  Their answers are thoughtful and hopeful, showing just how far ahead of the gender relations curve many of us are.

Storm Faerywolf

Storm Faerywolf

“Patriarchy is not about men. It’s about *boys*. It’s about those who are stunted and who cling to a wicked lie that some people are more equal than others. Real men do not need to demonize women… or different types of men, for that matter, in order to gain respect. Real men gain respect by giving it.

The Sacred Masculine treats all women and all types of men as equals. Recognizing the inherent equality in others does not diminish us in any way. Only with the goal of real equality for everyone can we work together to change our culture.

And to change we need to share our stories. And we need to listen to the stories of others who are different than us. *Especially* when they are hard for us to hear.

I have been harmed and shamed by men. I have been harmed and shamed by women. I choose to take that pain and turn it into compassion for all people, in all walks of life. Women are the victims of a systematic problem that results in their physical harm and even death. If women are angry at “all men” for this, well… I can’t exactly blame them. I used to be angry at all men, too, because I grew up in fear of them.

One answer is for men to get together to ask ourselves tough questions… and to mirror for each other what it means to be a healthy, respectful, strong male. We need not own the anger of those who have been hurt by others and then make it all about us. If we *do* make it all about us then that shows where *our* wounds are, too.

Let us all heal our wounds! For there are far too many.”

– Storm Faerywolf

Faery Teacher,

Erick DuPree

Erick DuPree

“I believe it starts with asking “how I can help” and ‘what I can do?” By being active listeners and participants, engaging by making the choice to flip the script. Instead of “fighting for…” choose “I am fighting in the stopping of oppression, power, and privilege.” For men specifically, it is also realizing that every man is “that man” because by default society places us, trains us, and lifts us up to be misogynists. We are born seeing misogyny. The default setting, especially in the US is patriarchy. It may not be our choice, but we must accept that unlearning centuries of cognitive dissonance is the path we choose. Women know we will stumble, but by trying, and coming to the table with an open heart, mind, and spirit, making about the problems and not the person, believe true change will manifest.”

-Erick DuPree



“I can never fully understand the day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute lived experiences that most of the women in my life have had to endure. And to be

Gwion Raven

Gwion Raven

clear, I and many other men I know have lived through some of the same horrible experiences, but those experiences are often singular acts rather than the daily, non-stop, relentless, often invisible systemic silencing.

So I have chosen to stay silent. I’ve made this choice consciously. I’m staying silent because my voice is not yet needed in this conversation and, frankly, it might never be needed, wanted or welcomed.

Some uncomfortable facts I’ve come to face to face with recently

  • Most women I know have experienced being silenced by men
  • Most women I know have experienced being marginalised by men
  • Most women I know have experienced being objectified by men
  • Most women I know have experienced some form of abuse by men

So the paradoxical question becomes how can I show my support to the women in my life and women in general without saying anything?

My support looks like staying out of online conversations, no matter how badly I want to say “me too” or “I know what you mean”. My support shows up as listening when the subject is brought up and rarely commenting. It looks like paying attention and making eye contact. My support says “Please tell me if I ever cross a line” and then actually being present and willing to hear that feedback. My support might mean that I have to own what I’ve done and even own what others have done, even if I never would do that thing. My support will speak up when I see misogyny in action in the large and obvious ways and in the hundreds of micro-aggressions that happen each day.”

– Gwion Raven

Writer at To be a Witch

Dean Jones OBOD

Dean Jones

“One thing I see with everyone that addresses this issue from a Male perspective is that it can be dealt with by just saying something trite. When I read essays by women that kind of throw me for a curve, I don’t know how the issues surrounding the relations between Men and Women around the globe can be treated in such a cursory manner.

 I’m not sure where I stand completely because it’s a very large issue and will take considerable time to change so I just don’t care much for the notion of a sound bite answer or dismissal. When a Man dismisses the ideas with a “notallmen” shrug I know everything about him at that moment. I’ve seen it on Facebook when women address their feelings and the facts, it’s a dismissal plain and simple that men are perpetrating.

 Dealing with this in a humorous fashion with a joke also does not do the subject matter justice and it’s also a defensive move that gets none of us anywhere, and also tells me that the man in questions just does not want to address it.

 For me, I have no answers, so I plan on listening and learning and pulling my head out of the Sand. I don’t know what I’m going to do, but I know that no matter what I do, it will start with listening and communicating and not running from the truths that it may tell me about myself. We all have the power to stop bad behavior, and change the world. Women have been facing adversity for generations across the world. Young women are facing horrible brutality just to attend school. Women face harassment, Rape, and other horrors on a day to day basis. We men can take a page and be brave ourselves and face these things and the fear that we ourselves are contributing and causing these things and change ourselves. It’s not pretty, it’s not fun, but if we are to grow and change it’s essential.

 One thing that we can do, is pray to the goddess for help in listening to what she’s been telling us for years that we have not heard. We can ask that the blinders that we have on be removed and we see our Mothers and Wives, and Sisters and daughters for the first time. We can pray for inspiration in knowing how to talk and discuss these things with subtlety and intelligence. We can ask for forgiveness and direction. We can do so much that the list is endless, but it’s time that we come together to make a better tomorrow for everyone. One way to help facilitate listening does not just begin with shutting the hell up. It involves creating an environment of trust where we can talk with women and they can trust us to know that they will be heard. That won’t be easy for us, or them and could take a considerable amount of time. But I believe it’s possible. It’s time. Now.”

-Dean Jones

Bard of OBOD

Chris Orapello Down at the Crossroads

Chris Orapello

“As a Wiccan, the divine feminine and the divine masculine are extremely important to me as they denote balance and equality. The Goddess is the bearer and deliverer of life and life is sacred. As living beings we are a part of that divine gift, contained by and brought forth by our own mother. Without my mother, I would not have manifested into this world; she is divine and she is sacred. All women, whether by birth or by self-identification, embody sacredness; they embody divinity itself. I find them amazing.

 So- when I hear about inequality against women, I grow impatient because equality should be a standard available to all people. When I hear of abuse committed against women, I get angry because no one should be abused. When I hear of women being raped, I get enraged because no one should have their bodily autonomy taken from them. The women of the world are our mothers, sisters, partners, lovers, daughters, and friends. They deserve our love, companionship, friendship, and respect. As men, we owe so much to the women in our lives. We owe them our lives. To deny them the same rights as men hold is shameful and to cause them harm in any way is completely blasphemous.”

– Chris Orapello

Host of Down at the Crossroads podcast

It’s strange.  While collecting the quotes for this post, I had the chance to interact with some extraordinary pagan men.  Yet, in the middle of it I realized that I’m not used to so much interaction with men.  I’ve never been particularly comfortable around other men.  I’ve always tended to see other men as rather brutish and unapproachable.  What I found in collecting  this information is that there is a wider spectrum to the male community, especially the male pagan community, than I have ever understood.

There are men who want to be allies.  There are even some who understand that they will never understand the everyday lives of their sisters.  But that’s OK.  It’s the first step to what may be the real answer to this problem, because it leads to the good man dialing down the defensiveness and instead of blathering on about “not all men,” listening with an open heart and responding with perhaps the most powerful question any man could ask a woman: “How can I help?”