Just another fine example of why Seattle needs to remain a two-newspaper town. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today has the 411 on Wiccan veterans of the Northwest, who are a bit cheesed off at the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
Seems D.V.A. is going all "process" on the Wiccans, to stall approval of Wiccan symbol inscriptions on vets' gravestones. Sure, catering to Wiccans can go too far, as Puyallup school officials demonstrated last year in cancelling Halloween festivities for fear "negative stereotypes" perpetuated by kiddie witches and warlocks would offend Puyallup's teeming Wiccan community.
But this is different. Most other religions are already allowed to have their symbols inscribed on veterans' graves, if so stipulated earlier, by the deceased. Given that most Wiccans around Seattle are somewhat to the left of V.I. Lenin, I think our government should do everything in its power to extend equal treatment under the bureaucracy to Wiccan veterans who put their lives on the line for national security and global liberty. And, believe me, I don't often find myself on the same side of an issue as the ACLU. BTW, Wiccans are NOT into devil worship, as some think. The single upward-facing point of their pentacle represents either "spirit" or nothing at all, depending what kind of Wiccan you talk to, and stands in contrast to the Satanist pentacle with two points facing up. Wiccans don't worship Satan, they worship The Goddess, and The Horned God, the latter being a syncretic male nature god. Religious freedom, anyone? And remember, what's inside the pentacle: a Pentagon. Talk about karma for Wiccan vets! Moreover, the P-I's story today hints that Washington Wiccans do a lot for the economy of Index, in Snohomish County, with their occasional confabs there of 700 or more folks. And believe me, lovely 'ol Index needs all the help it can get. Wiccans: good for the country, and good for the economy.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 04, 2005 05:20 PM | Email ThisDon't get to pick and choose.
Let them have their symbol.
Reverse the syllogism, start banning religions from engraving their symbol and when will the cross or Star of David be banned.
Posted by: JCM on October 4, 2005 06:36 PMPosted by: jimg on October 4, 2005 07:57 PM
I mean, they fought for our country...and it's their grave stone for goodness sake.
Posted by: megs on October 4, 2005 08:01 PMI can't tell by the PI article whether the pentacle prohibition only applies to military cemetaries or to private burials as well.
Another question to me seems to be in story lead about the symbols being carved for "free". So if the Wiccan vets pay an extra $100 or whatever, will they be allowed to have their symbol on the headstone?
Conversely, to look at the argument from the other point of view, is the pentacle the only symbol used by Wiccans? I don't think it is something like the cross is to christians or the crescent moon to muslims. I am by no means an expert on their religion so I could be wrong. But perhaps a happy medium could be reached with the Wiccans using another symbol that is equally dear to them.
Posted by: Reporterward on October 4, 2005 08:44 PM
I don't want my tax dollars going to fund tombstone logos for every new fad *religion* that becomes popular for a moment.
What's next? The church of Pokemon?
So theoretically, a veteran with religious ties to those communities could ask for a swastika on his headstone?
Oh, and for the record, I am inclined to put my vote in favor of allowing Wiccan vets the opportunity to have a pentacle on their headstones. Perhaps the symbol just needs to be smaller or placed flanking the name or someplace unobtrusive.
Yikes. Now I'm sounding wishy-washy. Posted by: Reporterward on October 4, 2005 08:52 PM
As a member of the Armed Forces and a Wiccan I believe I have some what of a say on this matter...
First of all Wicca is a spiritual belief system that pre-dates Christianity and Judaism. So as for your fad... maybe you might want to look at your WWJD bumper sticker and then let me know what you want to spend your tax dollars on.
As for the church of "Pokemon"... Ooookay... we'll just leave that one alone...
Hmm... Raise your hand if you've been to Iraq... how about this Raise your hand if you've gotten to see your friend get shot in the neck and bleed to death in your "whack job" hands.
Well I need to get to rest, tuck my 3 year old daughter in bed and get up at 0600 tomorrow to go protect all of you...
Merry meet, merry part and merry meet again Posted by: Sabrina on October 4, 2005 11:19 PM
I honor your service and wish you protection granted to you from the deity of your choice.
But at the risk of nitpicking, I also want to point out that it is inaccurate to say that Wicca, as we know it today, predates either Judaism or Christianity. Wicca, the modern branch of Neo-Paganism, is not really more than a hundred years old. The historical data prior to Margaret Murray and Gerald Gardner, contrary to what many people think, does not exist (or was fabricated, or was wishful thinking.)
Paganism itself (defined specifically as non-Christian/non-Judaic/non-Muslim religion) does predate any of the big 3 religions, but not as an organized belief structure, boiled down into merely "Wicca" (instead of, say, Jupiter worship, or Thor worship, or whatever local god existed in a certain place).
Note that I am not attacking Wicca(or Wiccans) or calling it a "false" religion, but just pointing out that it really isn't a continuous, unbroken tradition that has existed in a received, obscure body of esoteric knowledge for thousands of years.
It is, in nearly every way, a modern religion, and one that provides meaning, belief and purpose for many people who choose to follow its path.
Posted by: pseudotsuga on October 4, 2005 11:43 PM
As much as I respectfully disagree the teachings of your religion, you have a very valid point.
While I do kinda think Wicca is becoming kind of a new-age fad (not saying this about you specifically as I have no idea what your core beliefs are, but just based on the folks I've met who practice it, especially my cousin and his girlfriend) the religion itself has Celtic roots dating back before Christ, so I have a hard time just dismissing the entire religion as a "fad" based on some of it's practitioners. I dont see why you shouldn't be allowed to have whatever religious symbol you want on your tombstone. It's you religion, regardless of how old or new fad it is. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise.
Oh, and thank you for getting up at 0600 to protect us. It's appreciated... even if it means you're carrying a rifle in your "whack job" hands =P
Posted by: Mike H on October 5, 2005 12:12 AMBy that view, the words used to describe a spirit or the name or symbols used to designate it are the only “real” test of what it is. It is, after all, by that view, just like the character in a work of art: a painting or a figure in a novel or film. What you see is what you get. You can even make up your own. But true believers in any religion with power will tell you that there is an objective reality, a real supernatural world in which they have become involved.
Now, I’m sure it is far from Mr. Rosenberg’s experience, but Christianity (though not its “liberal” in-name-only bastardizations), for more than 2000 years has held that there is a single creator-God as well as lesser “fallen,” evil, former angelic “spirits” or “demons,” who thrive on deception and assume disguises. According to Christianity, a Wiccan who actually finds a relationship with a spirit, be it called “goddess” or “god” is, in fact, worshiping a devil. Of course, if this is all just an exercise in imagination it would be poor form to try to define someone else’s fantasy, but Christians maintain, not only is it real, but that it can be verified.
To assert that wiccans do not worship devils is to assert that Christianity is wrong. So I think it must be admitted, for whatever reason, Matt has taken sides. He has taken the side of political pragmatism. Absent Christianity, the assembly-line slaughter of innocent people he believes to be a matter of “choice” is much more politically “viable.”
Doug is essentially correct, but let me mitigate it a little.
From a Christian standpoint anyone who does not worship the true God is worshipping a false one. The power behind all false gods is the devil, therefore Wiccans de facto worship the devil.
On the other hand, Matt is right to point out that Wiccans aren't the stereotypical Devil Worshipers, sacrificing animals to Satan in obscure, late night rituals. I find it implausible to conclude from this that he's "taken sides" against Christianity.
You'd do well to remember your Christian charity, Mr. Parris, even when talking to someone with whom you disagree. Speak the truth in love, not in anger.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on October 5, 2005 01:31 AMTruth is Truth, my friend, and Doug has presented nothing more and nothing less. Absent the Truth, God the Creator and His Son Jesus Christ, people will fall for any deception the devil throws their way. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Matt and the rest are free, in this nation, to believe and present their beliefs in any way they choose. But choosing a way other than The Truth, Jesus Christ, leads not to God but to eternal damnation. What have YOU chosen to believe?
Posted by: Saltherring on October 5, 2005 05:37 AMMany Muslims and Buddhists with open minds and hearts have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and been granted, upon death, the free gift of entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the duty of the Christian to speak the truth to all people and leave the convincing to the Almighty.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 5, 2005 06:39 AMPolitical correctness is no substitute for common courtesy. If an individual is willing to stand to be counted, then the least we who remain can do is extend the courtesy of placing the symbol of their religion on their gravestone.
Does anyone out there realize how much Western and Northern European Paganism permeates Christianity? Isn't it funny that Christmas just happens to nearly coincide with Yule, the Pagan holy day of the Winter Solstice celebrating the re-birth of the God and the return of the sun? How about Easter, which fits conveniently with Oestara, the Pagan celebration of the Vernal Equinox.
Here's the point: the early Christians had to figure out a way to "sell" Christianity to the Pagan tribes of Western and Northern Europe if the religion was going to survive. Does anyone out there really believe that we know with certainty that Jesus was born on December 25th?
Christianity is chock-full of Pagan attributes, so a Wiccan symbol on a headstone of a veteran is perfcetly acceptable and appropriate.
Posted by: Libertarian on October 5, 2005 08:22 AMWhat makes you think I'm writing in anger? That is a false implication.
If I were to speak to a problem alcoholic and say, "one or two drinks is OK" to "meet him halfway" would that be more loving than to tell him to abstain?
"Politeness" in the face of falsehoods is not "charity." Particularly falsehoods that have been mixed with truth to make them stronger. Raising taxes a little to meet Democrats half way is not Conservatism. But half-truths and compromise are the stock in trade of the Republican Left. Their groups are liberally salted with people who are (recently) "former" Democrats, contributors to current Democrat campaigns and the populations of Democrat-controlled bureaucratic jobs with no conservative credentials at all. They are working, right now, to control the Republican Party for the left and will, as they always have, sell us down the river.
I merely meant to point out what is demonstrably true: that Matt Rosenberg's political philosophy is innately hostile to Christianity. Not nominal Christianity, to be sure, he has no quarrel with Christian labeling... as long as the package itself is empty.
Perhaps it was only due to the limitations of the written word to accurately express emotions, but your post certainly sounded angry to me, and to others I'm sure.
If that was not the case, then I apologize, but please note that it is none the less good advice and that you may find people respond better if you choose less combative words. One should always be polite, even when one is disagreeing in the strongest terms. Wise as serpents, gentle as doves, and all that.
I will say again that I find your assertion that Matt has "taken sides" unconvincing given that it is based on an equivocation over what "devil worship" means. You may or may not be correct, but your argument certainly didn't prove it.
As for your stand on political pragmatism, I'm afraid I'm going to have to part ways with you. While I'd rather get all of what I want politically, I'd cheerfully take half of what I want over none at all. If you insist on alienating moderate Republicans none at all is exactly what you'll get.
The GOP is the Big Tent Party. There are and always will be specific policy disagreements within the Party, but we're all united by a belief in individual liberty, fiscal responsibility and a limited government.
If you kick out everyone who disagrees with you, it's going to be awfully lonely under the big tent.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on October 5, 2005 02:06 PMThose willing to compromise their morals for the sake of the "big tent" have no morals to begin with. If the abortionists and those who want special rights for sodomites want to vote for socially conservative Republician candidates, they are welcome to do so. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush proved the party can win with a conservative social agenda, so why should be lower our moral standards to appeal to moderates? President Bush's social agenda and record are commendable, it's his fiscal policies that disappoint me.
Posted by: Saltherring on October 5, 2005 02:31 PMGawsh, we shouldn't waste our tax dollars on something frivolous like veterans' tombstones. There are important things to spend money on, like Salmon Planes.
Our soldiers should suck it up and learn to be more Christian.
Posted by: Daryl Herbert on October 5, 2005 11:20 PMIf you can't copy and paste a quote in it's context - then don't post here. Go get ready for school in the morning!
This is my post:
"I don't want my tax dollars going to fund tombstone logos for every new fad *religion* that becomes popular for a moment.",/i>
Notice the relevance of *new fad religion* in it's context? Why don't you honor our veterans by learning reading comprehension?
Study it! There will be a test in the morning. (fool)
Posted by: Deborah on October 5, 2005 11:35 PMIf you wish to accuse me of being impolite (in your polite way, I’m sure), please be specific.
The problem most people have with my “combative words” is that they describe what are, for them, uncomfortable facts. In this case, we’re dealing with the desire to believe Rosenberg is “on our side,” though, for conservatives there is almost no evidence of it and a great deal of evidence against it.
I did not intend to prove that “devil worship” was one thing or another, just to point out that Rosenberg’s assertion, founded as it is, on epistemological relativity, is diametrically opposed to the Christian view. The Christian view is long established and clear. I can easily prove what the belief is if you are in doubt, but I notice in your posts a slight misunderstanding of it. I did not, you should notice, claim that it says all Wiccans worship devils, only those that establish an actual relationship with a spirit. Wiccans are, I assume, as generally capable as Presbyterians at engaging in empty ritual that involves no real spiritual activity at all.
Your particular vision of the “Big Tent” is purest fiction. You say, “We’re all united by a belief in individual liberty, fiscal responsibility and a limited government.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Some of us only pay lip service to “individual liberty, fiscal responsibility and a limited government” and that’s a fact. You accuse me of alienating “moderates.” But the Republican left is not “moderate” They are going in the same direction as, but at a slightly slower pace than, the Democrats. Total federal outlays will have risen 29 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 according to the president's fiscal year 2005 budget released in February. That is before hurricanes. That is with Republicans in complete control. Real discretionary spending increases in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are three of the five biggest annual increases in the last 40 years. Those are real increases in the size of Government as a percentage of life. At that pace, how long will it be before everything you own belongs to the Federal Government? Do the math.
As for Wicca being a "fad," it has been around longer than Christianity, and Dr. K's comments about hookers and phallic symbols borders on the ridiculous.
Now, everone: SHUT UP!
Posted by: Libertarian on October 6, 2005 07:48 AMRecall that the first commandment is to worship no other gods *before* Him. The god of the old testament makes no claim that he is the only god, only that his followers worship him above all others.
Perhaps we are sinners, inadvertantly following the wrong path. But if how I live and what I believe in is something any devil can be proud of, it cannot be much of a devil. One of my primary disagreements with Christian dogma is what encourages me to follow the path that I do. I have to believe, that as a human being who tries to do good in this world, who tries to live right by other people and who follows an honorable path in this life, that any creator worth worshipping can see into my heart and understand, regardless of what prayers or practices I choose to use in worship and appreciation of all creation. If I have made a mistake and you are truly correct about how all this plays out, remember that forgivness is the hallmark of your god's message. If he is too small and petty to look past the dogma to the love and goodness of people who practice it under another name, he is not worthy of my alligence or faith anyhow.
Posted by: lunaslide on October 6, 2005 03:15 PMActually, that's not true. From Isaiah 44:6 - "I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no God beside me." It's a common theme in the Bible that there is one and only one God, and that all other gods are false.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on October 6, 2005 05:49 PM