Category Archives: Media

One More Time!


Here's an interesting article about a great effort to get Australian Pagans to list themselves as "Pagan" on their census. That's a very worthwhile goal and I hope that Mr. Hepworth is successful.

I'd like to use the article to, once again, illustrate a few points about Pagans dealing with the media. The very first quote:
A lot of other faiths see us as the people that got too much into Harry Potter and decided to call themselves a [W]itch instead of an actual group of people who do have a serious spirituality, [Mr. Hempworth] says.

shows why I regularly beg Pagans to practice what they're going to say and consider whether and how what they say can be used against them.

Yes, "got too much into Harry Potter" is a big step up from "eat babies," but it still reinforces a negative frame about Pagans. And, it seems badly calculated to make anyone want to self-identify as a Pagan. If your objective is to get more people to say that they are "Pagan" on the census, what about starting off with a brief discussion of what's good about Paganism:
Paganism is a growing religion in Australia because it satisfies a need that many feel for a deeper connection with the Earth, for a relationship with the Divine Feminine, and for an opportunity to worship our ancestors.

If asked about misunderstandings or discrimination, you can say:
It's getting much better, but some people do still fail to understand modern Paganism. Or they smear us to further their own "conversion" efforts. However, here in Australia, Pagans are involved in [reforestation efforts, pet rescue efforts, rituals to heal our relationship with the ancient spirits of this land, collecting funds for Aboriginal People, etc.] One reason for urging people to identify as "Pagan" on the census is so that we can achieve parity with other religions in areas such as . . . .

The article makes the same mistake about "Paganism" as an "umbrella term" as do many articles. Although the author would certainly capitalize other "umbrella terms" such as "Christianity" (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc.), "Judaism" (Reform, Orthodox, Hassidic, etc.), or "Islam" (Shia, Shite, Sufi, etc.), she fails to capitalize "Paganism," although she does capitalize individual Pagan religions such as Gardnerian, Greek Reconstructionist, Druidism, Shamanism and "Lesbian Feminist Goddess Worship [because apparently only lesbians would worship the Goddess?]" This is another area where those being interviewed can help their interviewers, even if only by handing out an information sheet that uses proper capitalization.

Finally, I'll note the title: "No More Mooning About." Shoot me, but I think it's cute and not really offensive.

Pagans. Please. Know why you're talking to the press. Understand that they are not your friend. Practice ahead of time what you're going to say. Don't be afraid to say, "Let me get back to you on that" if you get a question that throws you and then be sure to get back to the media person within 2 or 3 hours.

Picture found here.

One More Time!


Here's an interesting article about a great effort to get Australian Pagans to list themselves as "Pagan" on their census. That's a very worthwhile goal and I hope that Mr. Hepworth is successful.

I'd like to use the article to, once again, illustrate a few points about Pagans dealing with the media. The very first quote:
A lot of other faiths see us as the people that got too much into Harry Potter and decided to call themselves a [W]itch instead of an actual group of people who do have a serious spirituality, [Mr. Hempworth] says.

shows why I regularly beg Pagans to practice what they're going to say and consider whether and how what they say can be used against them.

Yes, "got too much into Harry Potter" is a big step up from "eat babies," but it still reinforces a negative frame about Pagans. And, it seems badly calculated to make anyone want to self-identify as a Pagan. If your objective is to get more people to say that they are "Pagan" on the census, what about starting off with a brief discussion of what's good about Paganism:
Paganism is a growing religion in Australia because it satisfies a need that many feel for a deeper connection with the Earth, for a relationship with the Divine Feminine, and for an opportunity to worship our ancestors.

If asked about misunderstandings or discrimination, you can say:
It's getting much better, but some people do still fail to understand modern Paganism. Or they smear us to further their own "conversion" efforts. However, here in Australia, Pagans are involved in [reforestation efforts, pet rescue efforts, rituals to heal our relationship with the ancient spirits of this land, collecting funds for Aboriginal People, etc.] One reason for urging people to identify as "Pagan" on the census is so that we can achieve parity with other religions in areas such as . . . .

The article makes the same mistake about "Paganism" as an "umbrella term" as do many articles. Although the author would certainly capitalize other "umbrella terms" such as "Christianity" (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc.), "Judaism" (Reform, Orthodox, Hassidic, etc.), or "Islam" (Shia, Shite, Sufi, etc.), she fails to capitalize "Paganism," although she does capitalize individual Pagan religions such as Gardnerian, Greek Reconstructionist, Druidism, Shamanism and "Lesbian Feminist Goddess Worship [because apparently only lesbians would worship the Goddess?]" This is another area where those being interviewed can help their interviewers, even if only by handing out an information sheet that uses proper capitalization.

Finally, I'll note the title: "No More Mooning About." Shoot me, but I think it's cute and not really offensive.

Pagans. Please. Know why you're talking to the press. Understand that they are not your friend. Practice ahead of time what you're going to say. Don't be afraid to say, "Let me get back to you on that" if you get a question that throws you and then be sure to get back to the media person within 2 or 3 hours.

Picture found here.

One More Time!


Here's an interesting article about a great effort to get Australian Pagans to list themselves as "Pagan" on their census. That's a very worthwhile goal and I hope that Mr. Hepworth is successful.

I'd like to use the article to, once again, illustrate a few points about Pagans dealing with the media. The very first quote:
A lot of other faiths see us as the people that got too much into Harry Potter and decided to call themselves a [W]itch instead of an actual group of people who do have a serious spirituality, [Mr. Hempworth] says.

shows why I regularly beg Pagans to practice what they're going to say and consider whether and how what they say can be used against them.

Yes, "got too much into Harry Potter" is a big step up from "eat babies," but it still reinforces a negative frame about Pagans. And, it seems badly calculated to make anyone want to self-identify as a Pagan. If your objective is to get more people to say that they are "Pagan" on the census, what about starting off with a brief discussion of what's good about Paganism:
Paganism is a growing religion in Australia because it satisfies a need that many feel for a deeper connection with the Earth, for a relationship with the Divine Feminine, and for an opportunity to worship our ancestors.

If asked about misunderstandings or discrimination, you can say:
It's getting much better, but some people do still fail to understand modern Paganism. Or they smear us to further their own "conversion" efforts. However, here in Australia, Pagans are involved in [reforestation efforts, pet rescue efforts, rituals to heal our relationship with the ancient spirits of this land, collecting funds for Aboriginal People, etc.] One reason for urging people to identify as "Pagan" on the census is so that we can achieve parity with other religions in areas such as . . . .

The article makes the same mistake about "Paganism" as an "umbrella term" as do many articles. Although the author would certainly capitalize other "umbrella terms" such as "Christianity" (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc.), "Judaism" (Reform, Orthodox, Hassidic, etc.), or "Islam" (Shia, Shite, Sufi, etc.), she fails to capitalize "Paganism," although she does capitalize individual Pagan religions such as Gardnerian, Greek Reconstructionist, Druidism, Shamanism and "Lesbian Feminist Goddess Worship [because apparently only lesbians would worship the Goddess?]" This is another area where those being interviewed can help their interviewers, even if only by handing out an information sheet that uses proper capitalization.

Finally, I'll note the title: "No More Mooning About." Shoot me, but I think it's cute and not really offensive.

Pagans. Please. Know why you're talking to the press. Understand that they are not your friend. Practice ahead of time what you're going to say. Don't be afraid to say, "Let me get back to you on that" if you get a question that throws you and then be sure to get back to the media person within 2 or 3 hours.

Picture found here.

Gaia Needs Good Media Relations



Here's what looks like a pretty neat film.

I'd like to use it to make another in my regular series of points about dealing with the media. Observe the difference in how Francesca De Grandis and Joan Marler come across. Both women make incredibly valid points, but Marler looks directly into the camera while De Grandis is often looking off to the side or at the person holding the camera, rather than into the camera.

It's a fairly common trait to look off to the side when you're thinking of what you want to say, but people who do research on jury reactions will tell you that most people subconsciously think that you're looking away because you're prevaricating, that there's a reason why you won't "look them in the eye." My bet is that, in person, De Grandis doesn't come off this way, as she fairly often does look up and into the eyes of the person to whom she's speaking. The problem in this case is that "that person" is the one holding the camera, not the camera. And her real "audience" is inside the camera.

This isn't something that you're likely to "get" without someone showing it to you, but it is an easily mastered skill once you're aware of the issue and spend a bit of time practicing, even with a friend who has an iPhone that takes video. If you're planning to be taped, or if you're making your own videos for youtube, it's really worth spending some time practicing, critiquing yourself, and then practicing again.

Gaia can use all the help she can get.

Gaia Needs Good Media Relations



Here's what looks like a pretty neat film.

I'd like to use it to make another in my regular series of points about dealing with the media. Observe the difference in how Francesca De Grandis and Joan Marler come across. Both women make incredibly valid points, but Marler looks directly into the camera while De Grandis is often looking off to the side or at the person holding the camera, rather than into the camera.

It's a fairly common trait to look off to the side when you're thinking of what you want to say, but people who do research on jury reactions will tell you that most people subconsciously think that you're looking away because you're prevaricating, that there's a reason why you won't "look them in the eye." My bet is that, in person, De Grandis doesn't come off this way, as she fairly often does look up and into the eyes of the person to whom she's speaking. The problem in this case is that "that person" is the one holding the camera, not the camera. And her real "audience" is inside the camera.

This isn't something that you're likely to "get" without someone showing it to you, but it is an easily mastered skill once you're aware of the issue and spend a bit of time practicing, even with a friend who has an iPhone that takes video. If you're planning to be taped, or if you're making your own videos for youtube, it's really worth spending some time practicing, critiquing yourself, and then practicing again.

Gaia can use all the help she can get.

Gaia Needs Good Media Relations



Here's what looks like a pretty neat film.

I'd like to use it to make another in my regular series of points about dealing with the media. Observe the difference in how Francesca De Grandis and Joan Marler come across. Both women make incredibly valid points, but Marler looks directly into the camera while De Grandis is often looking off to the side or at the person holding the camera, rather than into the camera.

It's a fairly common trait to look off to the side when you're thinking of what you want to say, but people who do research on jury reactions will tell you that most people subconsciously think that you're looking away because you're prevaricating, that there's a reason why you won't "look them in the eye." My bet is that, in person, De Grandis doesn't come off this way, as she fairly often does look up and into the eyes of the person to whom she's speaking. The problem in this case is that "that person" is the one holding the camera, not the camera. And her real "audience" is inside the camera.

This isn't something that you're likely to "get" without someone showing it to you, but it is an easily mastered skill once you're aware of the issue and spend a bit of time practicing, even with a friend who has an iPhone that takes video. If you're planning to be taped, or if you're making your own videos for youtube, it's really worth spending some time practicing, critiquing yourself, and then practicing again.

Gaia can use all the help she can get.

Talking to the Media


I rail pretty regularly about Pagans who, IMHO, shoot themselves and the rest of us in our collective feet when they talk to the media and defensively announce, "We don't eat babies/worship Satan/dance naked around a fire (which we, you know, do)/do spells (ditto)/etc." I think it's also important to point to examples of Pagans who do a good job dealing with the media.

Here's local Pagan, Iris Firemoon, showing how it's done.

First, note Iris' picture. It matches her objective of coming across as someone you might work with, a person you might know.

Then, observe how Iris starts out with a positive definition of what Paganism is and then moves on to explain the positive things about Paganism that attracted her to this religious path. In that context, her discussion of the discrimination that she faced is perfectly logical.

It's midway into the article before Iris mentions that one of the questions people ask when they find out about her religion is whether she casts spells. That's not reinforcing a negative frame; it's answering a logical question about a religion that involves, you know, casting spells.
Yes, I am a witch and cast spells, but we have a strict code of ethics. We don’t do magic that harms people. People think magic is a big deal, but it is just the willed movement of energy. For me, it is akin to prayer, but more active. Rather than will someone or something to intervene on your behalf, with magic you seek out the action yourself. The hard thing about spells is that you can never really know if things happening can be attributed to your work, but I don’t believe in coincidences and sometimes the gods like you and may work in your favor.

There's a perhaps subtle, but hugely important, difference between defensively volunteering that Pagans don't do something that we, of course, don't do, and explaining why we do do something that we actually do. (You know, I doubt that I've been inside a bookstore in the last 25 years when I didn't check out the Pagan books. And I've seen hundreds on casting spells. I've yet to see one on how to prepare babies for dinner.)

Iris answers the question in a straightforward manner and moves on to explain that many people in DC are open to her religion.

She closes with a plug for a cause she cares about (raising funds for a Pagan community center in DC) and provides a reliable source for those who want more information. Positive, upbeat, focused. This is how it's done.

(Of course, the capitalization for this article is terrible. Iris explains elsewhere that the article was adapted for non-Pagans, although I can't see how that makes discriminatory language ok. But it's pretty clear that this problem didn't arise with Iris.)

Picture found here.

Talking to the Media


I rail pretty regularly about Pagans who, IMHO, shoot themselves and the rest of us in our collective feet when they talk to the media and defensively announce, "We don't eat babies/worship Satan/dance naked around a fire (which we, you know, do)/do spells (ditto)/etc." I think it's also important to point to examples of Pagans who do a good job dealing with the media.

Here's local Pagan, Iris Firemoon, showing how it's done.

First, note Iris' picture. It matches her objective of coming across as someone you might work with, a person you might know.

Then, observe how Iris starts out with a positive definition of what Paganism is and then moves on to explain the positive things about Paganism that attracted her to this religious path. In that context, her discussion of the discrimination that she faced is perfectly logical.

It's midway into the article before Iris mentions that one of the questions people ask when they find out about her religion is whether she casts spells. That's not reinforcing a negative frame; it's answering a logical question about a religion that involves, you know, casting spells.
Yes, I am a witch and cast spells, but we have a strict code of ethics. We don’t do magic that harms people. People think magic is a big deal, but it is just the willed movement of energy. For me, it is akin to prayer, but more active. Rather than will someone or something to intervene on your behalf, with magic you seek out the action yourself. The hard thing about spells is that you can never really know if things happening can be attributed to your work, but I don’t believe in coincidences and sometimes the gods like you and may work in your favor.

There's a perhaps subtle, but hugely important, difference between defensively volunteering that Pagans don't do something that we, of course, don't do, and explaining why we do do something that we actually do. (You know, I doubt that I've been inside a bookstore in the last 25 years when I didn't check out the Pagan books. And I've seen hundreds on casting spells. I've yet to see one on how to prepare babies for dinner.)

Iris answers the question in a straightforward manner and moves on to explain that many people in DC are open to her religion.

She closes with a plug for a cause she cares about (raising funds for a Pagan community center in DC) and provides a reliable source for those who want more information. Positive, upbeat, focused. This is how it's done.

(Of course, the capitalization for this article is terrible. Iris explains elsewhere that the article was adapted for non-Pagans, although I can't see how that makes discriminatory language ok. But it's pretty clear that this problem didn't arise with Iris.)

Picture found here.

Talking to the Media


I rail pretty regularly about Pagans who, IMHO, shoot themselves and the rest of us in our collective feet when they talk to the media and defensively announce, "We don't eat babies/worship Satan/dance naked around a fire (which we, you know, do)/do spells (ditto)/etc." I think it's also important to point to examples of Pagans who do a good job dealing with the media.

Here's local Pagan, Iris Firemoon, showing how it's done.

First, note Iris' picture. It matches her objective of coming across as someone you might work with, a person you might know.

Then, observe how Iris starts out with a positive definition of what Paganism is and then moves on to explain the positive things about Paganism that attracted her to this religious path. In that context, her discussion of the discrimination that she faced is perfectly logical.

It's midway into the article before Iris mentions that one of the questions people ask when they find out about her religion is whether she casts spells. That's not reinforcing a negative frame; it's answering a logical question about a religion that involves, you know, casting spells.
Yes, I am a witch and cast spells, but we have a strict code of ethics. We don’t do magic that harms people. People think magic is a big deal, but it is just the willed movement of energy. For me, it is akin to prayer, but more active. Rather than will someone or something to intervene on your behalf, with magic you seek out the action yourself. The hard thing about spells is that you can never really know if things happening can be attributed to your work, but I don’t believe in coincidences and sometimes the gods like you and may work in your favor.

There's a perhaps subtle, but hugely important, difference between defensively volunteering that Pagans don't do something that we, of course, don't do, and explaining why we do do something that we actually do. (You know, I doubt that I've been inside a bookstore in the last 25 years when I didn't check out the Pagan books. And I've seen hundreds on casting spells. I've yet to see one on how to prepare babies for dinner.)

Iris answers the question in a straightforward manner and moves on to explain that many people in DC are open to her religion.

She closes with a plug for a cause she cares about (raising funds for a Pagan community center in DC) and provides a reliable source for those who want more information. Positive, upbeat, focused. This is how it's done.

(Of course, the capitalization for this article is terrible. Iris explains elsewhere that the article was adapted for non-Pagans, although I can't see how that makes discriminatory language ok. But it's pretty clear that this problem didn't arise with Iris.)

Picture found here.

In My Bones, I Am a Witch

Maybe it won't be helpful at all, but on the off chance that someone who has to talk to the press ever needs to actually explain "what Witchcraft is," here's (a bit of) what it is, to me.

It's a religion that honors that part of women that is also divine, that helped me to finally heal the wound caused by Catholicism's solitary emphasis on male images and versions of divinity and priesthood. Finally, in one blinding moment, I too, was (really) created in the image and likeness of the divine. I, too, was a priest(ess). And, as the poet said, that has made all the difference. Catholicism denied me the word: Priestess. That was the word that I needed all of my life to explain to myself who I am. Witchcraft gave that word to me. It has touched me; I have grown. That one word was the most important key to unlocking for myself who I really am.

Witchcraft is a history that explained to me why female power was always shown as evil and problematic, why all that the nuns could offer me was sacrifice, why the men in the church/medical profession/government were so terrified of my raw power.

Witchcraft centers me within the Wheel of the Year, teaches me how to live in deep connection with the cycles of the Earth, Moon, constellations. It gifts me with a relationship with Hecate, Columbia, Baba Yaga, Quan Yin. It grants my own life a place at the harvest, the winter freeze, the Imbolc shift, the warming of the Spring. It centers me within a history of old women stretching all the way back to a frozen old crone in a cave in Sweden, holding off the wolves from the scent of warm afterbirth near the fire, inside the cave, between her body and her power.

It's a theology and a philosophy that honors all of life, that honors the connection between the light and the dark, between my bloody, messy, life-giving, milk-spurting, orgasming, food-tasting, flower-smelling, cancer-getting, strong, out-of-control, fantastic female body and my quick mind, my ability to produce prose, my ability to think in thea-ology, my urge to win, and my deep longing for the poetic.

It's a way of living that allows me to exist in the natural world, that provides me with lessons in how to exercise my power, that respects the deep intuition that has guided and undergirded (when I ignored the guidance) most of what I have done for most of my life.

Witchcraft has made me whole, taught me who I am, gotten me through some insurmountable odds.

Witchcraft is how I wake up in the morning, connect my dreams to the "real" world, travel to work, and connect to the plants, animals, waterways, and humans that I meet on that journey. Witchcraft is how I move myself into the Druidic dancer of the law, the Priestess who uses power with skill, the woman who can play the glass bead game to help her clients and friends.

Witchcraft is how I cast a web of protection across a street that Obama's motorcade is about to cross, how I light incense for a friend's beloved dead, how I pluck strands of the web to influence an election, to protect an activist, and to bless Elizabeth Warren or revolutionaries across the globe.

Witchcraft is how I garden on THIS bit of Earth, how I drive every morning along the Potomac River, how I knit warm sweaters for G/Son, or cowls for all the men in my family, or caps for DiL and her mom. Witchcraft is how I buy vegetables at the farmers' market, pick and dry herbs in my garden, pull the levers when I vote at my local community arts center, and deal with the guy behind the counter at the place that services my hybrid car or the guy behind the counter at the place where I buy my morning coffee.

Witchcraft is me, living and growing within a circle of women, bumping up against them, adoring them, living my own life within a circle that includes them. Witchcraft is a blue new Moon painted on my forehead, me calling a direction surrounded by my Sisters, the cone of power we raise to protect activists, the magic we do to turn retrograde Mercury against those who would harm us, the delightful ability to help a Sister achieve her own magical goals as we stand, skyclad, inside a circle of power.

Witchcraft is how I teach G/Son who the Goddess is, allow him to use my athame, do Reiki on his bones that grow so fast that he has growing pains. It was how I did the same for Son's growing pains, drew pentagrams on the door to my DiL's labor room, circled protection around their home, and how I cast Tarot to see the best solution to a legal knot.

What Witchcraft Is, is a pretty big topic. It's way too big to waste time explaining that it's not about [insert noxious practice here].

What is it about for you?

Once More, Into the Breach


It's been a while since I've done one of these posts, but apparently there's still a need to discuss framing when Pagans deal with the outside world. Here's an article about a group of Salem Witches who want to improve relations with their town and educate people about Paganism.

U R Doing It Wrong.
"We're not eating babies or drinking blood," said Teri Kalgren, W.E.L.'s vice president. "[We promote] a better understanding of what witch craft is." [And that would be??? Apparently, what Witchcraft is -- is going around assuring people that you don't eat babies. Because there's NO discussion of "what witch craft is." Just the already-hackneyed assertion that we don't eat babies.]

No, Teri, not if that's how you go about it, you're not going to promote a better understanding of what Witchcraft is. What you're doing is reinforcing a negative frame.

Think of Christine O'Donnell announcing, "I'm not a Witch." What does everyone remember about her? Her statement that she "dabbled into witchcraft."

Think of Richard Nixon telling Americans that their president "is not a crook." He's not remembered for signing the EPA into existence; he's remembered as a crook, who was forced to resign in disgrace.

Think of your guilty kid snatching his hand out of the cookie jar and telling you, before you get a word out, "I wasn't taking cookies."

What I really don't get is that not only have I never heard of any Witches who do actually eat babies or drink blood, but I can't remember an even vaguely mainstream publication saying anytime in recent years that Witches eat babies or drink blood (isn't that Vampires?). The only people who seem to be discussing those subjects are -- Witches. Stop it. Just stop it.

Yeah, I get that in Hansel and Gretel there's a (nominal) Witch who wants to eat the children. In Cinderella, there's a prince who runs around trying to put a glass slipper on women's feet. You didn't see Prince William giving interviews announcing that he doesn't have a shoe fetish, though, did you? Catholic priests demonstrably do sexually abuse little boys. You don't see Father Flannigan beginning his press release about the St. Xavier's Day Festival by announcing that he won't be sexually abusing little boys at the bingo tent or funnel cake stand, either, do you?

If you want to start a Witches Education League and ingrain yourself into your community, issue a press release and explain that the WEL will:
continue with community services such as the annual W.E.B.-founded "ask a witch, make a wand," where children are invited to make magic wands with area witches near Halloween. [Great idea, by the way. G/Son would love it. More like this.]

Say that you'll be running seminars on the proud history of Pagans, from Babylonia, to Egypt (every kid in America has to do a school report on Egypt), to Greece, to Rome, to Ireland, to America. Say that you're:
planning a number of events coming up including a [P]agan family day tentatively set for August.

But don't, for the love of the Goddess, go on and on about how Witches don't eat babies.

You do need to be prepared for the (very rare) reporter who may ask, "Well, I've read in almost every other article in recent memory that Witches always say they don't eat babies. It makes me wonder why you're so defensive. Do you now, or have you ever, eaten babies?" Practice with a friend how you'll return the interview to YOUR (positive) message. "Of course, that's a ridiculous and false accusation. In fact, Witches honor all of life and our recent program to help pets stranded during tornadoes in the American South and West shows our commitment to all forms of life. Incidentally, our Pagan family day in August will include a number of activities for children, including face painting, a petting zoo, and a story hour. Those are being coordinated by X and Y, both of whom are parents with children of their own and degrees in early childhood education and . . . ."

This isn't rocket science. I'm begging Pagans to stop shooting all of us in the foot. What if we tried for a year NOT mentioning what we don't do and focusing on what it is that we do? We could reconvene at that point and see if we're any worse off for not having reinforced negative frames.

My pipple. I worry about you. Stop doing stupid stuff.


Picture found here.

Bad Week for Pagans in DC


Jason Pitzl-Waters has an important and well-reasoned post at the Wild Hunt concerning The Washington Times' (known throughout DC as The Moonie Times) attempts to smear Pagans. If you haven't seen it, you need to go read it now. As Jason notes, just when you think the paper may be running out of bad things to say about Pagans:
they quickly turn to environmentalism, portraying it as a stalking horse for Paganism.
“Such [environmental] questions can only be raised in a politically correct military that may actually contain more Earth worshippers than imagined. Though cloaked in scientific terms, the tenets of global warming are essentially pagan. [Not going to even mention rules of capitalization.] This belief system, which cannot be questioned, [??] holds that material sacrifice – turn down your thermostat and trade in your light bulbs – will result in a change in the weather. It is the modern equivalent of a rain dance.

I have to say, that's a level of stupidity that simply boggles my mind. You don't have to be Pagan to believe that if you stop adding carbon to the atmosphere, global climate change can be ameliorated. It's as if they said:
Idiot Pagans! They think that putting seeds into the ground will make food grow! They think starting a fire will keep you warm! They think that drinking wine will alter your consciousness! Only crazy people imagine that making material changes in the material world will cause material changes in the material world [And I am a material girl. Sorry, can't help myself.] Duh, Pagans probably think putting pins in a poppet will cause someone to feel pain, too! Pagans are dumb.

And, as Jason's commenters point out, the Moonies have honestly not got much room for calling other religions weird.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post (aka The Kaplan Test Prep Rag) is busy trying to screw its Pagan employees:
The [Washington Baltimore Newspaper Guild Local 320350] also criticized a management request to ease restrictions on layoffs and reduce severance pay while eliminating a provision that allows employees to trade a traditional holiday for another recognized holiday if they choose:

Not Christian? Too bad. The Post would eliminate an employees' right to substitute a traditional paid holiday, such as Christmas, for another recognized holiday of their choice. This from a company whose editorial page often lauds the importance of diversity.

A Post spokesperson declined to comment on the raise, the proposed severance, and layoff changes or the holiday provision.

/hat tip: Atrios

I'd imagine the Post would be glad to get some folks who'd volunteer to work the Xmas shift (because they run ads publish 365 days a calendar year) in return for getting Samhein or Beltane off, but apparently not. Lally, one imagines, may take off whenever she likes.

Some days, the stupid, it burns.

Picture found here.

Why Did You Do That?


I've gone on and on and on about the need for Pagans to be prepared before they speak to the media. I'm really encouraged to see a recent
trend of Pagans engaging in some self-reflective criticism of their media appearances. That can only help the rest of the community. Rather than repeat the points that I've made many times before, let me emphasize a few maybe-more-subtle points.

First, the reporter from your local paper or tv station doesn't have a contacts list full of prominent Pagans. Really. As in, they may never have heard of Starhawk. If you were listed as the contact person for last Fall's Pagan Pride Day or if your name shows up in a Google search for, say, "D.C. Pagans," then there's a chance you may get a phone call when a local cemetery is desecrated or there's a controversy over putting a pentacle on town hall grounds along with a Christian nativity scene. So it's a good idea to decide ahead of time, aka, now how you want to respond to a phone call asking you for an interview.

Second, when making that decision, here are just a few questions you can consider. Are you a good public speaker? Are you willing to do the preparation required (often on short notice) for a media appearance? What would you wear for that interview (this will be determined by your answer to the question: Which objectives of yours will an interview meet)? Where will you insist that the interview be conducted and are you prepared to set up, for example, your altar, desk, book display wherever? Are you willing to develop a basic handout with information about yourself ("Willa Witch is a member of a Celtic Reconstructionist coven in Our Town. She is a nurse practitioner and a graduate of Our Town U, where she received her MS in Nursing. Willa lives with her family in an historic home in Our Town, originally built by her great grandfather, William Witch. She can be reached at wandawitch@internet.net.") Have you developed a short (two or three sentence) statement (for yourself) of your own objectives that you can consult when approached by the media? This can be crucial in helping you to decide whether or not to talk to this reporter on this topic. It's always OK to say, "Thank you for the request, but I'm not interested." If you can, you may always add, "Let me refer you to X, who is an expert on this topic." (This is followed up with an email to X telling hir, "I just got a call from media person Y looking for an interview on topic Z. I referred hir to you. Please let me know if you have any questions.")

Third, and this is the point I want to emphasize, it is completely OK -- and quite important -- for you to ask the reporter questions and to negotiate the terms of the interview. Really. They'll complain, but they'll respect you far more in the morning. Trust me. Most Pagans have, as have most Americans, little experience in dealing directly with members of the media. The reporter calling you, on the other hand, deals with people like you every day. The reporter knows that those people are flustered, flattered, eager to help, and already imagining themselves calling their mom to tell her to watch them on the evening news.

In other words, there's a big power differential here, something with which Witches and magic workers are, if they'll stop for a moment and think about it, familiar. We have techniques for dealing with that. In the case of dealing with the media, those techniques involve beginning to even out the disparity. Keep in mind that your ultimate power is the power to say, "No thanks," which will send the reporter back to Google and under even more time pressure. Don't imagine that if you don't talk to the reporter, no Pagan will. If they want a Pagan, they'll find one. The entire burden of representing modern Pagandom is not entirely upon your shoulders. Honest. At the very least, say you'll call back in 10 minutes. Ground and center. Consult Tarot. Find that still, quiet point within you that does not need media attention to be important. Call back acting from your power.

Ask the reporter about hir background in religion, reporting on Paganism, interest in esoteric subjects, etc. Can they send you links to other articles they've written/interviews they've done? This might, as Markarios pointed out in comments to one of my earlier posts, have been helpful to Star, when she was asked to appear before a phalanx of ultra-Christian interviewers. Most of them have done other interviews and have enough of an on-line presence to give an indication of their biases. There's no reason to walk into the arena unaware of who's asking you to go there. And there's no reason to take on insurmountable odds. (See also the excellent comments by Medusa and Teacats.)

If they're calling you because of a recent incident, get enough information about that incident to determine whether you have anything worthwhile to add. This would have been helpful to Rev. Heron, who, when she was interviewed:
was not told that the person was a Santero, or the nature of what [the police found, allegedly human remains, during a search of a home], only that there were "occult or pagan symbols" associated with an arrest, and that they were seeking someone with knowledge of the occult. The footage that you saw of me seeing the photos was my first glance at the photo evidence. I did not claim to be an expert on anything, and only agreed to be interviewed so that I could MAYBE shed some non-freakout light over the situation, whatever it was.

To emphasize, when told that she was to be interviewed about occult or Pagan symbols associated with an arrest, Rev. Heron could have said, "I'm unfamiliar with this incident. If you'll send me a few links, I'll call you back in 15 minutes and tell you whether I think I can do an interview or if I can refer you to someone who can." When she realized that the incident involved a Pagan religion with which she was unfamiliar, Rev. Heron could have said, "Sorry. Interviewing me about that would be like interviewing a Baptist about a Catholic rite. I'm not qualified to discuss that." If she had a good referral, she could have offered it. THAT'S OK. You don't have to talk to every reporter who calls you.

You can (and should) also negotiate whether you'll get a transcript of the interview, whether you'll get editing rights, etc. Even when appearing remotely, as Star was, you can negotiate over whether they'll film you in a studio or your home. And you should always say that you plan to tape the interview yourself on your own handheld tape recorder. If you don't have one, you're not ready to do the interview. If the reporter objects, you don't want to deal with hir. Say, "Sorry, I'd prefer not to do this interview. Thanks for calling me. Have a very nice day." Having your own record of the interview will, at the very least, allow you to post your own accurate version of the conversation and to demand corrections for blatant misquotes. I've never known a credible reporter to object to this negotiation point. All you're saying is you will make an recording of the interview. If the reporter is uncomfortable about that, you need to ask yourself why.

Even in the middle of the interview, it's ok to say, "I don't know enough about this topic to answer your question." You can add that you'll be happy to get back to the reporter after you've done some research or if you can locate a person who is an expert, but it's not the case that your only choice is to say, "No comment" or to try and answer a question that you're not ready to answer. Saying, "No comment," can sound defensive, but saying, "I don't know enough about this topic to answer your question," is always an option and can only make you look honest and sincere. When talking to the media, you need to be constantly aware that if you answer a question by saying, "I'm not really an expert on this subject, but my best guess is that . . . ." your disclaimer is likely to get cut off and all that you'll see on the evening news is your speculation. That's why it's important to say, "I don't know enough about this topic to answer your question," and to then shut up and wait for the next question. You can practice this over and over with a friend who has video on hir iPhone. And you should. Get comfortable with the practice of allowing even several minutes of silence to pass; if you can't do this, you shouldn't be doing interviews. Letting silence build up is a reporter's most basic tool for getting you to start blathering.

Finally, while there is a difference between lobbying and speaking to the media, I think that the points that Literata makes here concerning the need for preparation when lobbying can be applied, pretty easily, to talking to the media. Her experience is definitely worth a read.

I'm going to keep posting about this topic because it matters. (And because, apparently, my frequent posts on framing aren't getting through. Check the final paragraph of this article.)

Picture found here

Carnegie Hall


Here's a fascinating post by Star, from the Pagan "portal" at Patheos.com, concerning her recent experience being interviewed about Paganism by a certainly-less-than-friendly panel.

Let me start by saying that, as someone who frequently critiques Pagans who talk to the media, I'd give Star an unqualifed A on her performance. I think she does a pretty good job holding her own against four people who are clearly less-than-friendly to her cause. She certainly avoids the all-too-common mistake of starting off defensive and announcing, unasked, that Witches don't eat babies or kiss Satan's ass. And I think that Star does the entire Pagan community a real service by being willing to engage in some reflective self-criticism about her media performance, something that T. Thorn Coyle has also show herself v willing to do.

Star notes that perhaps she should have better understood the purpose of the interview and better considered whether or not to appear on this venue:
Having been to Jason Pitzl-Water’s talks I’m quite aware that there are times when you shouldn’t speak to the media. If you don’t have a genuine need, why risk having your words twisted? Even so, I agreed to do an interview that I feel may have been a mistake. I have a great deal of respect and love for Elizabeth Scalia, managing editor of our Catholic portal and famously known as The Anchoress. When she asked me to be on a cable show she is a frequent guest host on, I said “Of course!”

Maybe that wasn’t the wisest thing to do. I don’t know. I know the producer told me “‘Pagans, Wicca, Santeria & Voodoo’ is the topic for this half hour show.” [At that point, it would have been a good idea to ask, "And who will be on to talk about Santeria and Voodoo?" When the answer was, "Well, you," that would have been a good time to bow out.] That didn’t exactly jive with the topic I heard announced once we started recording. As the host announced the topic warning bells started to sound in my head. I had visions of a Jerry Springer Halloween special, complete with antagonistic Christians and Pagans getting in catfights and eerie warnings of the dangers of occultists. I felt they wanted an “occult expert” rather than an actual Pagan, and in those few seconds decided that wasn’t going to be how this was going down.

Again, I think that Star did a very good job of managing this experience. I especially want to commend her for her handling of the whole, "Do you call demons?" nonsense. (Honestly, could we please make 2011 the year when all Pagans agree to simply say, "Satanism, which focuses on two Christian entities, Satan and Jehovah -- in whom Pagans don't even believe -- is a branch of Christianity. Please start asking every Christian you interview whether they are Satanists"?) Star's got lots of facts and figures at hand and does a good job of discussing her own experience as a former Christian. She makes good points about the attraction of Paganism to women.

To echo a point that Star makes, I've said over and over that the first question that you need to ask yourself is how doing this interview with this segment of the media will serve your own objectives (which you, maybe not so obviously, need to be clear about before you even consider talking to the media). I'm not sure what Star's objective was, other than to be nice to Ms. Scalia, whom she perceives as her friend. If you don't have a clear answer to that question, maybe you don't need to talk to these people at all. Maybe some other Pagan should talk to them or maybe they don't deserve any Pagan participation at all. (I've been begging Democrats for years to just quit treating Fox as if it were a legitimate news organization. Just stop talking to them. (There's a reason why George W. Bush never did an interview with Bill Moyers.) I think that's what this panel, regardless of how much Star may imagine that Ms. Scalia is her friend, deserved as well.) Really, not one Pagan person on the panel? Really? Warning bells, just saying.

There's an odd notion in our society that talking to the media is cool, that it makes you important, that, of course, you should do it every chance that you get. In America, being on tv is supposed to somehow make you "real." That's what the media want you to think. But you need to approach the media with your own objectives clearly in mind. Will this interaction promote your book or event, or give you an opportunity to make your main point (e.g. Druids worship Nature, Pagans have a proud past, Pagans contribute to our community, etc.)? (Still not sure what Star's overarching point was. She seemed to be mostly reactive here.)

I think that Star's experience illustrates another point that I've made before. If you do decide that you can use an experience with the media to achieve your own goals, then you need to do a lot of practicing beforehand. Here's one example. Star gives really good, but generally nuanced and lengthy, answers to each question that she's asked. But she lets herself get interrupted over and over again. Especially for women in our society, being interrupted is a land-mine. If you talk over the interruption, you may be perceived as "too aggressive." If, as Star almost always does, you stop talking when you get interrupted, you come across as weak and you fail to control the message. (If you watch, almost every time that Star begins to score some points, one of the panelists interrupts her or the host (and, Mother, this is shallow, but who put that woman on a camera in that shirt?) calls for a "break," as if this show has a million commercial sponsors.) My firm pays a communications consultant to come in every year and work with lawyers and one of the skills that I've worked on for a number of years is being able to deal with interruptions. I'm still working on it. But it's something that you can practice for an hour or so before a media interview, even with a friend who has a iPhone with video. Just learning to say, "Let me finish," or "Please don't interrupt, I'd like to finish my point," can make you much more effective. Most Pagans aren't going to be interviewed enough times to learn on the job. Hence, you must learn during practice sessions.

Let me just list a few other points:

(1) This interview is 4 on 1. Those are ridiculous odds. I'd really hesitate before letting even a massively-prepared client face those odds. I've allowed it (ie, couldn't stop it) a time or two in group depositions, but you can't imagine how thoroughly prepped my clients were. On hearing those odds, 99.9% of all Pagans should decline the interview.

(2) Note the use of negative language in the beginning of the interview: "dabble" into Paganism (thanks Christine!) and "play" with Ouija boards. Doubt that converts to Catholicism would be described in those terms. Later there's a reference to "drifting" into Paganism. That's a perfect opportunity to bail. At that point, it's clear that this "interview" is rigged. Say, "I'm sorry; this isn't the interview I expected. I won't be participating." Take off the headphones and cut the Skype connection. The worst that will happen is that they'll show you saying and doing that and that won't hurt you.

(3) This is a subtle point, but all of the 4 interviewers are sitting around table, together, while Star is off somewhere else, on a Skype connection, wearing big headphones. Guess who looks weird and is the odd-person-out? Guess who doesn't see the signaling between the other four people? Again, find out ahead of time what the interview is going to entail and seriously consider your experience at handling that kind of situation. The situation here would challenge even a media-savvy, experienced person. Star may work in the media, but it's a whole different story when you're on the other side of the microphone. I've done depositions, but I'd demand a whole lot of preparation from my lawyer before I'd have my deposition taken (Bill Clinton, I'm looking at you.)

(4) And, this may seem artificial to you, but look at the other participants. The host is professionally made up and coiffed and wearing (what is supposed to pass for; sorry I'm a snob) a designer shirt. The other interviewers are wearing either jackets or a clerical collar -- all symbols of professionalism and authority in our society. Star, bless her heart, shows up in a do-rag, gigantic earphones, and off lighting. In the sub-verbal battle for credibility, guess who is at a disadvantage? I get that Pagans don't like this; that we believe that you should be able to wear whatever you want and that appearances shouldn't count against you. And, in a perfect world, I'd agree 100%. But imagine yourself as Mr. or Ms. Average American and ask yourself who in that interview starts off at an advantage and who starts off at a disadvantage, before anyone utters a single word. How would the interview have been different if Star had insisted on showing up at a well-lit studio, in front of a real camera and not wearing headphones, being professionally made up, and wearing a suit, even with a pentagram on a chain? What if she'd insisted on providing the pictures flashed at random during the interview or having editing authority over the crawl?

(5) As I've said before, insist on making your own recording of the interview. You can negotiate this and other points ahead of time. If they're not willing to make reasonable accommodations for you, bells should start going off and you should seriously consider not doing the interview.

Kudos to Star for being willing to criticize her own performance. I'm going to keep harping on this stuff because it matters.

Hat tip: The Wild Hunt

Picture found here.

Get a Lawyer


Here's a thoughtful, well-written article about religious discrimination against a woman, Carole Smith, due to the fact that she's a Wiccan. If you watch the included video interview with Ms. Smith, you'll see that she does a pretty good job handling the media interview. This is one of those rare cases where it, sadly, is necessary to deal, head-on, with the notion that Witches run around casting evil spells on people, as Ms. Smith was apparently fired, at least inter alia, due to a co-worker's complaint that Ms. Smith cast a spell on her car and made its heater malfunction. (I discussed another such instance here, where Katrina Messenger also did a good job managing the topic.) I think Ms. Smith does a good job and then skillfully turns the conversation around to what Wiccans do believe in a very positive way.

I don't think that I've ever said this before, in all my discussions about how Wiccans should deal with the media, but I want to make sure that I say it now, loud and clear. In any kind of legal situation (and the article explains that Ms. Smith is planning to appeal a negative ruling by an administrative law judge), for the love of the Goddess, please get legal advice early and certainly get it before you talk to the media. Until you get clearance from your lawyer, do not say one word to the media, no matter how earnest, helpful, and decent their representative may seem. As a layperson you've got no idea (no, trust me, you really don't) what innocent thing you're going to say that will hurt your case. Heck, I'm a lawyer and, because I don't practice employment law, I'm not qualified to judge what Ms. Smith may or may not have said that will hurt her case. Nor whether even doing such an interview was helpful or not. But I can guarantee you that, come Ms. Smith's appeal, the employer's attorney will go through her interview with a fine tooth comb and use it against her. To be clear, Carole Smith needed a lawyer from the minute that her boss suggested that she go into a mediation session to "explain" her religion to the complaining co-worker. The correct response would have been, "Thank you for suggesting that. I'd like to think about your suggestion for a day or two and get back to you," and to then make a mad dash for a lawyer. That would be true even if Ms. Smith, herself, were a lawyer. There's an old saying in the law about a lawyer who represents hirself. It's an old saying for a reason.

I'll also say that this case is yet another reason why I'm less than 100% enthused about "Out Yourself as Pagan Day." Ms. Smith was a new, probationary employee. She told at least one person on her job that she was Wiccan. I don't know why she told them, or in what context, but what happened to her is a good example of why many people choose to stay in the broom closet at work. I understand all the good reasons for people to come out of the broom closet, but, in today's employment market, there are real dangers to discussing your personal life, including your religion, with other people. And it's generally not necessary. Even a direct question, "What religion are you?" doesn't warrant a direct response (nor does any question that seeks personal information). A simple, "Well, I have a deep respect for nature," or, even better, "I really consider that a personal subject," works just as well. Whether, and when, to come out at work is a personal decision. People should make it carefully.

Beyond that, as sympathetic as this article is, there are the usual capitalization problems:
Judge: Let's take the witchcraft out of it. If someone complains to you, he's Jewish, and refers to a stereotype about his Judaism, go to mediation and work it out? Is that management's response to that?

To be fair, it's possible that, here, the reporter is quoting from a court transcript that screws up the capitalization and that Ms. Smith wasn't legally savvy enough to demand revisions. But, even so, the reporter should have used brackets to correct this. For example:
Judge: Let's take the [W]itchcraft out of it. If someone complains to you, he's Jewish, and refers to a stereotype about his Judaism, go to mediation and work it out? Is that management's response to that?

Since Judiasm is capitalized, Witchcraft should be capitalized, as well.

But there's also this:
Here's a situation for all you aspiring managers: If you were the boss at a U.S. government agency and one of your employees complained that she was afraid of a co-worker's religious practices, what would you do?
Would it change your decision if the religion were Wicca, and the employee feared her co-worker because she thought she might cast a spell on her?
Here's how the Transportation Security Administration handled it:
It fired the witch.

Let's substitute Jew for Witch. In that case, would the article have read:
"Here's a situation for all you aspiring managers: If you were the boss at a U.S. government agency and one of your employees complained that she was afraid of a co-worker's religious practices, what would you do?
Would it change your decision if the religion were Judiasm, and the employee feared her co-worker because she thought she might make matzo from the blood of Christian children?
Here's how the Transportation Security Administration handled it:
It fired the jew"?

Of course not, it would say, "It fired the Jew."

And, there's the failure to capitalize Voodoo:
“I was dumbfounded,” Smith said. “I told him, that's not what Wicca is. We don't cast spells. That's not witchcraft. That's black magic or voodoo or something else. To put a spell on a heater of a car, if I had that kind of power, I wouldn't be working for TSA. I would go buy lottery tickets and put a spell on the balls.”

Not to mention Ms. Smith's own apparent conflation of black magic and Voodoo.

I hope that Ms. Smith gets the legal help that she needs; her case is pretty egregious.

hat tip/ The Wild Hunt.

Picture found here.

How Do You Get to Carnegie Hall?


Here's a fascinating article about Media Matters for America doing some intense training in how to handle the media. Their particular focus is how to handle being on tv talk shows, but much of the advice is relevant for dealing with all forms of media. One of the weaknesses that MMFA identifies for lots of liberals is shared by many Witches and other Pagans:
The problem for the soldiers of the left, according to Media Matters instructors, is that they are just too smart for their own good. The traditional dependence on facts and figures, on being right, is no longer germane. Too often these wonks disappear into the policy weeds or fall through the cracks of nuance.

This is where, as I've discussed before, knowing your objectives for the interview and having your simple, short, well-thought-out statement makes a lot of difference. You can always add details and more information if asked. And a pithy, planned close is good, as well:
Shuster asked how Brenner could advocate foreign aid during a budget crisis.

“Well, David,” he replied evenly, “I understand everyone is hurting” and went on to calmly explain that foreign aid pays for medicines for children and early warning systems for tsunamis. In a second round, Shuster hammed it up as an aggressive Fox host and asked Brenner, “Why do you love the children of Africa more than the children of Alabama?”

“I want it to say ‘Made in America’ on medicines rather than bombs,” Brenner replied coolly.

“Ooooh,” the participants in the control room hummed approvingly. “Did he have that in the can?” one asked.

“He did,” nodded Kohut.

I get that, with a few exceptions, most Witches and other Pagans aren't going to spend time on national news shows, nor will they have access to the level of training described in the WaPo article. But everyone who talks to the media can spend some time practicing, and even a few sessions with a friend, videoed on an iPhone, can make a big difference.

Here's a great example of a Pagan doing it right. Note that Reverend McCollum had three clear, positive goals (none of which were "and I want people to know that we don't worship Satan or eat babies").
I had set out with three main goals to accomplish for our community which was the real focus of my trip. My first goal was to have us seen by others as a community with valuable things to contribute to the world. My second goal was to make alliances with other world spiritualities to join together to become a more formidable force for positive change in the world. And my third goal, was to include Pagan ideals into the mix as world leaders strive to construct a plan to achieve world peace and a sustainable planet.

Clear. Simple. Positive.

And, as an exercise, see if you can re-write this closing sentence in an otherwise outstanding media presentation concerning recent (and wildly successful) Pagan efforts to raise money for relief efforts in Japan: "And we are getting rid of the myth that Pagans cannot act together." (Remember Lakoff's point: When you attempt to negate a frame, you invoke it.)


Picture found here.

Talking to the Media


Kudos to KSL.com for the correct capitalization. And, the article manages to skip the "Pagans don't eat babies," trope.

However, I'd like to propose a tweak to this:
What do Pagan's believe exactly? That's hard to pin down. Gold says a lot of different philosophies and beliefs are accepted under the umbrella of Paganism, and he admits these beliefs are not always accepted by everyone.

"There is a stigma to the word ‘Pagan.' If people really understood what it meant to be Pagan, I don't think there would be such a stigma to that word," Gold said.
Well, then, help them to understand, rather than invoking negative framing.

How about:
"What do Pagan's believe exactly? That's hard to pin down. Gold says a lot of different philosophies and beliefs are accepted under the umbrella of Paganism. In general, though, Pagans believe in the sanctity of the Earth and are open to various forms of deity"?

This article illustrates a point to which I keep returning. If you're going to talk to the media, you need to be prepared. "What do Pagans believe?" is the sort of question that any reporter is likely to ask a Pagan, regardless of the specific topic of the article. You can anticipate it and be prepared with a one or two sentence answer that focuses on the positive. There's no need to discuss any stigma. By providing a simple answer, you'll help people to understand Paganism in a way that ameliorates any such stigma.

Picture found here.

Pagan Leadership & the Media



Delighted to see this use of YouTube to bring some of the panels from Pantheacon to the world at large. The other parts of the panel discussion are also available on YouTube.

Jason Pitzl-Waters' point at the end concerning deciding, first, whether you even need to talk to the media is incredibly valid.

Of course, it's true about almost everything in life, from magic to media interviews. We need to approach everything with both discernment and our own intentions clearly before us. Does this need to be done? Am I the right person to do this? Is this the right time/venue/situation?

Discernment: where the ancestors, divination, and spirit and animal allies can help us.

Clear Intention: where Air, Fire, Water, Earth and our Goddesses/Gods can help us.

May we all seek them and find them.

People Keep Doing It; I’m Going to Keep Complaining About It


Here's an article about the opening of what sounds like a lovely store and community center, Crone’s Hollow, in Salt Lake City. Clearly a lot of work has gone into its opening and it looks as if it will be a great resource for the local Pagan community.

And, yet.

The word "Pagan" goes uncapitalized throughout the article. The word "Pagan" is an umbrella term that describes a group of related religions such as Wicca, Druidism, Asatru, etc. It's precisely similar to, for example, "Christianity," which is an umbrella term for related religions such as Catholicism, Methodism, Baptists, etc. Or "Judaism," which is an umbrella term for related religions such as Hassidic, Orthodox, Reform, etc. Or "Islam," which is an umbrella term for related religions such as Suffi, Sunni, Shia, etc. We capitalize Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and we should capitalize Pagan, as well. Not to do so implies that some religions groups are "more" than others. Dear ERIN ALBERTY at The Salt Lake Tribune, please take notice.

Similarly, Paganism is not a "faith." While some religions -- Christianity, for example -- are built upon faith, Paganism is not. No Pagan religion of which I am aware requires its members to have "faith" in the Goddesses/Gods. Rather, most Pagans have what they consider to be direct experience, not faith. Paganism is, rather, a religion and should be described as such. To use the term "faith" (or, even more gag-inducing, "faith community") as a substitute for "religion" implies that all "real" religions include an element of standardized faith. That's not helpful and has, in fact, been used against Unitarians to dispute their tax-exempt status as a religion.

And, finally, there's this:
“We have a fun place, and we are hoping to encourage all denominations to come hang out with us. We are your neighbors, and we aren’t scary,” Morgan said. “It’s not about sacrificing children and animals. It’s about people coming together and finding the way in which they can, using the experience of ritual, worship in their own way.”

For the love of the Goddess, can we please quit doing this to ourselves? It's as if no Pagan can get within 20 feet of a reporter without reflexively repeating this guilty-sounding denial. I've blogged extensively about why this practice is so unhelpful. Ask yourself what you remember about Christine O'Donnell or Richard Nixon and then Do.Not.Do.This.

TIA.

Picture found here.

Bravely Out of the Broom Closet


So we're coming up on what some people have decided is to be "Out Yourself as a Pagan" Day. And, of course, this effort is motivated by good ideas.

We all know the stories about, for example, homophobes who were transformed by the discovery that their child, next-door neighbor whom they really liked, coworker, etc. was gay. It's easy to hate an abstract "Other" and more difficult to maintain your prejudices against someone you know and like.

And the more of us that there -- demonstrably -- are, the more difficult it becomes to pretend that we don't exist, that only angsty teen-age girls practice Witchcraft (as if that were a reason to de-legitamize it), that Witches are all man-hating feminists with granola stuck in their teeth, that only oddball failures become Witches, etc.

Further, there's the simple relief and authenticity that can come from not having to hide a part of who you are. I love it that my Son, DiL, and G/Son, Landscape Guy, and political friends know that I'm a Witch; it's nice that I don't have to hide an important part of my life from them. I like being able to say to Landscape Guy, "I need the stonework around the firepit large enough to accommodate a circle of women." I like being able to say to political friends, "As a Witch, I can never go along with any policy that will lead to eliminating wild spaces."

So, yes, I get the possible value of a "Coming Out" Day for Pagans, even if it's not associated with Pagan Pride Day, which generally comes in October.

However, my formative years were heavily influenced by the union movement (yes, I am that old), and I've searched in vain for any indication that the organizers of "Out Yourself as a Pagan Day" have set up the equivalent of a Strike Fund to pay the expenses of those who get fired for outing themselves or the legal fees of parents who find themselves on the downside of a custody battle. Strike Funds are what serious movements do. I think it's lovely to invite others to take risks, but I am old and cynical enough to understand that people really do lose jobs, leases, custody, etc. when they out themselves. And outing yourself to even one person, especially in today's world of Social Media and internet files that never die, is, at the least, opening the possibility that you will be outed to the entire world.

I've said before that broom closet decisions are personal decisions and that I'm not in a position to make them for even one other Witch. At its core, for me, Witchcraft demands Honor and that means that I completely and unwaveringly respect each Witch's own decisions concerning where hir broom closet begins and ends. I have friends who make their living as public Pagan leaders. I have friends who are "out" in their federal government or nonprofit jobs, but who would fall on their athames before causing their fundie families the pain that would be caused if they "came out" as Witches. And I respect every shade of grey in between. And while my family, close friends, and select neighbors know that I'm a Witch, I could become less effective at and ultimately lose my job if people in that world knew about my religion.

I'll also say that, as someone who has been on the receiving end of TMI concerning other people's (fundie xian I was next to in first-class all the way from SF back to DC, recently, I'm looking at you) religious experiences, I often think that the world would "go round a good deal faster" if casual and business acquaintances were less, rather than more, "out" about their religions. There are (a few) times when religion naturally comes up in the conversation and there are times when you're forcing the issue and requiring others to participate in your own ego needs in ways they'd likely rather not. I don't like it when people force conversations with me about their religions and I don't feel any need to do that to others.

Which is all a rather long-winded wind-up to proposing a few suggestions for those who are going to be interacting with the media during "Out Yourself as a Pagan" Day.

1. The reporter is not your friend. S/he does not want to help you get your message out. Hir job is to sell Viagra. The more sensationalistic a story s/he can turn in, the more Viagra sales. Every word that you say to the reporter needs to be informed by this decision.

2. You need to become crystal clear about your objective. Why are you talking to the press at all? Can you put the message that you want to get out into one, short, pithy sentence? If not, don't talk to the media. Let someone else. Spend as much time as it takes to get your message into one, short, pithy sentence. Lawyers sometimes spend all day writing the opening sentence for a brief or oral argument. If you don't have the time to devote to this effort, then don't talk to the media.

3. My blog is a broken record on this topic, but I'm going to remind you that if you attempt to negate a frame, you reinforce that frame. If you've read even three books on Witchcraft, you've come across the notion that you don't craft a spell to focus on what you don't want. So, for example, you don't write affirmations that say that you're banishing sloth and loneliness from your life. You write affirmations that say that you bring Fire and the ability to focus as well as the ability to attract love into your life. Think of Richard Nixon announcing, "I am not a crook," or Christine O'Donnell saying, "I'm not a witch; I'm you." Today, when people think of Nixon, they think of a crook and when they think of O'Donnell, they remember that she "dabbled into Witchcraft." If you say, "Witches are not evil old women with green skin who do spells to harm people," the next time people think of Witches, they will think of . . . .

The message here is that you MUST NOT begin your interview by telling the reporter that, "Witches don't eat babies," or that "Pagans are not Satanists," or that "We don't really do evil spells." Negating a frame reinforces it. If you give the Viagra salesperson a sound-bite about not being a Satanist or not eating babies, I guarandamntee you, those are the six seconds of your entire, 90 minute conversation, that will show up on tv/on the radio/in print, etc. Really. Trust me. And you are not smarter than the reporter. The reporter does this everyday of hir life, while you may talk to the media a dozen or so (if you're v active) times in your life. If you say it, they will use it to (1) sell Viagra and (2) make you look like an idiot. You are playing on their field. Don't give them ANYTHING that you don't want them to use.

4. "Out Yourself as a Pagan" Day has even more pitfalls, IMHO, in terms of media communication, than does Pagan Pride Day. While even fairly mainstream religions may have Pride Days (DC has a great Greek Orthodox festival, for example), the entire notion of "coming out" brings up the issue of why anyone feels the need to stay in the broom closet in the first place. Discussing prejudices against Pagans (the reason some Pagans stay in the closet) without slipping into the whole "We're coming out because some folks think we eat babies, but we don't," (which winds up on the evening news clipped to "We eat babies"), requires a level of media-savvy that I don't think many of us possess.

So if you are going to participate publicly in this event, I urge you to have one, pithy, quotable sentence about why you are are coming out. "I want the whole world to know that a [doctor, lawyer, computer technician, architect, fireman, neighborhood volunteer, librarian] can also be a Pagan." "I am proud of the ancient traditions of Paganism that brought us democracy, philosophy, science, sustainable agriculture, etc., and I want to share that with my community." "I am proud of who I am and I wanted to participate in this nationwide event to share that with my friends and neighbors."

What will you say if the reporter asks you, "But what about the people who say that Witches eat babies?" You need to not only have your answer to this question written out, you need to practice with a friend (preferably on video, if possible) how you will answer this question and all of its variations. If you don't have time to do this, you don't have time to be a public spokesperson. The objective here is NOT to give a detailed, nuanced, thorough answer to the Viagra salesperson's question. The goal here is to get away from negating a negative frame and to IMMEDIATELY GET BACK to the message you've decided that you want to get out. "Sensationalism aside, Pagans have a long and proud history of providing civilization with important institutions such as democracy and philosophy that . . . ." "What I want to focus on is how modern Pagans can be important in a post-peak-oil world, especially given all we've learned over the ages about respecting the cycles of nature. For example, next month, my group will collect seeds at Ostara to donate to a local community garden, where, last year we . . . . " "As I mentioned, this Summer, MYGROUPX will be holding seminars to teach anyone who's interested the basics of Witchcraft and you can register for these classes at www.mygroupx.com or you can . . . ."

Go spend an afternoon watching, say, Rachael Maddow or Fox "News" and see how conservatives respond to every question that comes up by ignoring the question and repeating the message that they want to get out. It's a learned skill and you can learn it. Buy and read George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant. Role play with a friend. You may not like conservatives, but they have been wildly successful at getting their message out and at framing (death tax, partial birth abortion, America is a xian nation, etc.) the issues that matter to them. If you're smarter than they are, why haven't you been more successful at getting your message out?

I'll leave to each Pagan's own conscience and decison-making process, whether, when, and how to come out. I've already made my own decisions on those issues. But I will beg each Pagan who decides to come out to the media to do it in a way that doesn't harm the rest of us. Dealing with the media is a skill and it can be learned. Or it can be royally botched. You owe it to all of us not to botch it, esp. when it's so easy to just shut up until you know what you're doing.

5. Paganism, Wicca, Faerie, etc. are religions. They are not faiths. Xianity and Islam are based, to a large extent, upon "faith." This is the notion that "believers" have "faith" in, for example, Jesus or Mohamed, and that they accept "on faith" certain precepts of the religion. Even when one's rational mind might cause one to "doubt" certain tenants of such "faiths," one is encouraged to "have faith" in one or another promises of the featured "faith." Not all religions are "faiths." Paganism is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of religions, including, for example, Wicca, Druidism, Asatru, etc. None of these are exclusively "faiths," but they are all religions. So when you talk to the Viagra salespersons, don't describe Paganism as a "faith," or as a (tickles back of throat) "faith community." Describe it as what it is: a religion. My religion has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with direct experience of divinity/nature/nature/divinity/etc. If you're going to speak for all of us, speak for all of us, including the majority of us who have zero faith and 100% experience. Why legitimize the idea that the only valid religions are those based upon faith?

May the Goddess guard those who come out. May the Goddess guard those who practice privately. May all of us show Honor to all of the rest of us. So mote it be.

Picture found here.

My New Name for a Blog: What Gus Said


Pagan blogger, Gus diZerega has a post that you REALLY need to read. Gus responds to assertions that years of violent right-wing rhetoric had nothing to do with the murders and attempted murders this weekend in Arizona. As Gus points out:
For over a decade the radical right, beginning with Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh have initiated a complete reframing of political debate into only dehumanizing attacks on their opponents as evil traitors who hate America and are any combination of Communists, Nazis, Fascists, Muslims, Gays, and Haters. Against them reference is made to times of violent resistance against oppression. Always. In public debate actual policies are rarely if ever discussed, and when they are, they are discussed in misleading terms such as "death panels." This is a pattern, a syndrome, a deliberate attempt to change a culture by dehumanizing opponents and destroying the tolerance that makes democracy possible.

. . .

When violent rhetoric is continually employed dehumanizing the other, and it is shouted from the roof-tops, and blared out hourly on a major media station, and on radios country wide, that shifts the moral center of gravity around which most people gravitate, and weakens cultural barriers on violent behavior. Those weakest in self-control and mentally least capable of acting responsibly, in other words the people most dependent on external signals for deciding what to do, those people will be the first to be affected. Jared Loughner fits that observation perfectly.

. . .

It's not as if this has not happened before. Rwanda once had Tutsis and Hutus living together amicably and intermarrying. Tensions existed, but Hutus did not suddenly puck up machetes and start hacking away at their fellow Rwandans, including moderate Hutus. But in time they did. Politicians and media figures figured prominently in undermining traditional toleration and gradually pushing culture towards civil violence, just as the radical right is today. Here is a brief account of Rwandan hate media that might be a description of Fox today, except that it has followed the logic of Fox's lies more literally. Two short discussions are on Wikipedia and in this paper by Kristen Landreville. There is also a BBC report.

The former Yugoslavia did not suddenly see Serbs and Croats and Bosnians wake up one day and begin slaughtering one another. That was the outcome of a longer period of cultural destruction pursued by politicians and media allies, principally Serbian ones, but not entirely. Chris Hedges War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning is a eye opening and beautifully written account where while it is not the main issue discussed, the alert reader easily sees the role media played in what happened. Did I say it was beautifully written? Indeed it is.

Political assassination was a feature of the dying Weimar Republic. Assassinations were rarely the work of Nazis. They were often the work of the 1930s German equivalent of Loughlin, weakly autonomous people who reacted easily to the cultural atmosphere of growing violent rhetoric. The ideologues, right or left, were rarely the assassins. Often they were lone operators. Ultimately over 350 politicians were murdered in the Republic, so we have a way to go. But one depressing aspect of the linked discussion is how the good guys lose in these killings, even when everyone denounces the killers.

After the Nazi take over the Germans were not ready for the Nazis' true bestiality, and so German culture was continually softened up before and after through right wing use of the media in a way disturbingly similar to Fox News. If you think I am exaggerating, read Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience. Then come back and discuss it. In this very important book for us today she documents a number of methods chillingly similar to those employed by the American right wing. The book is a real eye opener.

I have linked to another article depicting the striking similarities between the hate media in Germany, Rwanda, and Serbia.

(Gus's post has the mentioned links; head on over to check them out and to read the entire post.) I'll defend Gus against all cries of "Godwin!" Sometimes, the comparison is actually quite apt and, as Gus' post demonstrates, this is one of them. It's time to start being honest about what's been going on in America. I'll also note that the ever-brilliant Athenae is also correct: those who fund this sort of evil, mostly in order to keep the rubes distracted while they steal everything that's not pinned down, are every bit as much to blame as are the graspy little mouthpieces like Beck and Limbaugh and Coulter.

As Gus concludes, this issue is particularly important for Pagans, who not only get blamed for everything from 9/11 to Katrina, but who are also very likely targets of intolerant, Dominionist, right-wing violence. If you blog or twitter or post on Facebook, I urge you to link to Gus' post; I think it's that important.

Picture found here.

Update: Thanks to UNE in comments at Eschaton, here's a list of recent "incidents of insurrectionist violence (or the promotion of such violence) that have occurred since" June of 2008. In the last one-third of 2010, alone, we had the following:
September 16, 2010—Patricia Stoneking, the President of the Kansas State Rifle Association, tells Fox News, "People need to arm themselves, We have the right to put limits on our government, and that's what [the Second Amendment] does." Explaining why America's Founding Fathers drafted the amendment, she says, "They knew government could become tyrannical. We have the right to defend ourselves from a rogue government."

September 30, 2010—Kevin Terrell, a self-described "colonel" who founded a group of "freedom fighters" in Kentucky, predicts war with "the jackbooted thugs" of Washington within a year. Referring to the arrest of Hutaree militia members earlier in the year, Terrell says, "There was a lot of citizens out there in the bushes, locked and loaded. It's only due to miracles I do not understand that civil war did not break out right there."

September 30, 2010—Steve Kendley, a deputy sheriff running for sheriff in Lake County, Montana, threatens "a violent conflict" with federal agents if "they are doing something I believe is unconstitutional."

October 15, 2010—Conservative radio show host Glenn Beck lays out a hypothetical scenario on the air where the government is considering taking his children because he refused to have them receive a mandatory flu vaccine. Beck tells his audience that his response to the government would be "Meet Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson."

October 21, 2010—Pastor Stephen Broden, the Republican candidate for U.S. Representative in Texas' 30th Congressional District, tells WFAA-TV in Dallas that the violent overthrow of the government is an "option" that remains "on the table." "Our nation was founded on violence," states Broden. "I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."

October 22, 2010—Texas Department of Corrections officers searching for a missing person, Gill Clements, 69, are confronted by a neighbor while on Clements' property in Henderson County. Howard Tod Granger, 46, points an AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle at one of the officers, who recalls, "He told us to get off the property or he would kill us all." Later that afternoon, officers return to Granger's home with a search warrant and an armored vehicle filled with 13 SWAT members. Granger opens fire on the vehicle, discharging at least 30 rounds before authorities shoot and kill him. Police find guns and "many rounds of ammunition" in Granger's house. They also find the body of Clements, buried in a shallow grave on Granger's property.

November 3, 2010—James Patock, 66, of Pima County, Arizona, is arrested on the National Mall in the District of Columbia after law enforcement authorities find a .223 caliber rifle, a .243 caliber rifle barrel, a .22 caliber rifle, a .357 caliber pistol, several boxes of ammunition, and propane tanks wired to four car batteries in his truck and trailer. Patock former neighbor in Arizona reported that, "He hated the president. He hated everything. He said if he got a chance he would shoot the president." Patock tells authorities he is a member of the National Rifle Association.

November 4, 2010—On his radio show, conservative host Glenn Beck fantasizes about President Obama being decapitated during a trip to India, saying, "If anybody thinks he was a Muslim over here, well God forbid, they think he was a Muslim over there because he left his religion for Christianity, death sentence, behead him.” Beck then tells his listeners that "God forbid" this should happen, as there would be a "New World Order" overnight in the United States.

November 4, 2010—Fox News host Bill O'Reilly fantasizes about killing a Washington Post reporter while on the air, saying, "Does sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" O'Reilly also tells co-host Megyn Kelly, "I think you and I should go and beat him up."

November 9, 2010—U.S. Representative-Elect Allen West of Florida's 22nd Congressional District hires conservative radio talk show host Joyce Kaufman as his Chief of Staff. On July 3, Kaufman told a crowd of Tea Party supporters, “I am convinced that the most important thing the Founding Fathers did to ensure me my First Amendments rights was they gave me a Second Amendment. And if ballots don’t work, bullets will."

November 9, 2010—Concealed handgun permit holder George Thomas Lee, 69, of Walhalla, South Carolina, is arrested on the town's main street for disseminating and promoting obscenity by bearing signs "laden with expletives and taking aim at U.S. foreign policy, President Barack Obama, blacks in general, Jews and the nation of Israel." Officers also seize literature from Lee that details "the most expedient means of killing law enforcement officers." The November 9 arrest follows an October 19 arrest for assault after Lee kicked and swung his signs at a group of girls between the ages of 12 and 14.

November 10, 2010—Public schools in Broward County, Florida, go into lockdown after an email threat is received by WFTL 850 AM. The email is sent to conservative radio host Joyce Kaufman in response to remarks she made at a Tea Party event in July ("If ballots don't work, bullets will"). The email expresses support for her view of the Second Amendment and says that to further "their cause...something big will happen at a government building in Broward County, maybe a post office maybe even a school." A phone call is then received at the station, allegedly from the emailer's wife, warning that he is preparing to go to a Pembroke Pines school and open fire.

November 23, 2010—Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, writes an editorial in The Register Citizen in which he calls for state and county sheriffs to organize large, armed "posses" as "a check on the unconstitutional exercise of federal power."

November 29, 2010—U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, circulates a PowerPoint presentation to his colleagues in which he compares the Obama administration to the Nazi regime in Germany and likens himself to Gen. George Patton, bragging, "Put anything in my scope and I will shoot it."

December 3, 2010—At "Roe & Roeper's Miracle on Indianapolis Blvd. Holiday Extravaganza" promoting "Toys 4 Tots" in Chicago, Illinois, actor R. Lee Emery (famous for his depiction of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in "Full Metal Jacket") tells those in attendance, "The economy really sucks. Now I hate to point fingers at anybody, but the present administration probably has a lot to do with that. And the way I see it, they're not gonna quit doing it until they bring this country to its knees. So I think we should all rise up and we should stop this administration from what they're doing because they're destroying this country. They're driving us into bankruptcy so that they can impose socialism on us."

January 6, 2011—John Troy Davis, 44, is arrested after threatening to set fire to the office of Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and shoot members of his staff. The threat comes when Davis calls Bennet's office to complain about his Social Security benefits, telling a staffer that he is schizophrenic and "may go to terrorism." "I'm just going to come down there and shoot you all," he declares. Davis is charged with assault on a federal employee.

January 8, 2011—Jared Lee Loughner, 22, shoots U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and 19 others at a "Congress in Your Corner" event at a Safeway supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. He kills six, including federal judge John Roll, and wounds 14, including Giffords, who is shot in the head. Loughner has an extensive history of mental illness and substance abuse, yet is able to purchase two handguns and a high-capacity ammunition magazine legally at Sportsman's Warehouse on November 30, 2010. In a YouTube video posted in December 2010, Loughner states, "You don’t have to accept the federalist laws ... Nonetheless, read the United States of America’s Constitution to apprehend all of the current treasonous laws."

Witches, Right Here in Columbia’s District


Nice to see a local lady make good.
Katrina Messenger: Connect DC is a group that focuses on public ritual. Katrina Messenger’s work with this organization has created a sense of openness and interconnectedness within the DC Pagan community. As the founder of the Reflections Mystery School, a facility member of Cherry Hill and organizer of the Sweeping the Capital Clean event Katrina has a long history of service to the community. It is however, her focus on providing public community for all Pagans that brought her to my attention as a Pagan that “Walks the Talk”.

I stopped by Katrina's annual New Year's party this evening and had a chance to congratulate her on her great handling of the media during the Christine O'Donnell "I Am Not a Witch" debacle. Katrina managed her interview with grace and good humor, avoiding the too-familiar Pagan slip-up of becoming defensive and announcing that, "We don't worship Satan." Connect DC is about to go from 4 public rituals a year to 8.

Photo by the blogger; if you copy please link back here or to Connect D.C.

People Keep Doing It; I’m Going to Keep Complaining About It


Here's an article about a Winter Solstice celebration that manages to trip both of my switches. First of all, there's no reason why "Pagan" shouldn't be capitalized throughout this article. If the author were writing about a Catholic celebration of Christmas, for example, "Catholic" would be capitalized. Or, if the article were about various Christian Winter celebrations, "Christian" would be capitalized. So should the article capitalize "Pagan."

And, then, of course, there's the by-now-almost-de-riguer-shooting-of-ourselves-in-the-foot by the Pagans involved:
Although there are many “preconceived notions” about paganism, Cannon-Nixon and Gillingham said most of them aren’t true.
“We don’t believe in the devil,” Cannon-Nixon said.

There is absolutely NO reason for Pagans to keep doing this. Just as when Dick Nixon infamously went on national television and announced to Americans that, "Your President is not a crook," thereby convincing any remaining doubters that he was, in fact, the world's biggest crook, all that it does when Pagans run around announcing that "We don't believe in the devil," is to convince any doubters that Pagans, must, in fact, kiss the devil's ass at every full Moon.

I'm going to keep saying this until people stop doing it.

Picture found here.

People Keep Doing It; I’m Going to Keep Complaining About It


Here's a news article, admittedly written by a student (a freshman, one hopes, given the lack of organization), that manages, once again to demonstrate two of my pet peeves.

First, the author seems genuinely confused about the rules of capitalization. Take, for example:
As Shayne drifted away from Christianity, she learned more about paganism when she was in college.

or
Shane says 'paganism' is the general term for a variety of different religions, just as there are many denominations of Christianity. Paganism predates many of the monotheistic religions, including Judaism and Christianity.

Yet, at other times, we get:
Many holidays were originally Pagan-based. Halloween is called Samhain by Pagans, which represents the end of the year and is the shortest day in the year, Shayne explains.

If you're going to capitalize "Christianity," which is the name of a group of religions, then you should capitalize "Paganism," which is also the name of a group of religions. Simple.

And, then, of course, there's this:
Shane Camp, the president of the Pagan Alliance Club. He created the club because he says paganism is given a bad rap.

and
"There is a misconception that Pagans are Satan worshipers," says Lawhorne. For instance, the five points on the star, in Hollywood, represent evil and the calling of evil spirits. But Shayne says according to Pagan traditions, it is the calling of the five elements that make up life: water, air, earth, spirit and fire. It is a nature-based symbol.

As I've written many times before, this practice Pagans have of shooting themselves in the foot has got to stop. Shane, tell the reporter that you created the club so that campus Pagans could get together and discuss their religion, could organize the blood drives on campus that the article finally discusses, and could volunteer at the animal center. And there is NO reason to discuss the "misperception that Pagans are Satan worshipers." When you negate a frame, you invoke it. Besides, the main source of quotes about Pagans and Satan these days seems to me to be coming from -- Pagans.

Just stop it.

Picture found here.

People Keep Doing It; I’m Going to Keep Complaining About It


Sigh.

We were very excited to be asked to do the invocation," Childers told the Patch. "A lot of people think pagans go out and kill goats; they don't even understand what paganism really is. Although contemporary society is taught to believe it's a bad thing, we're just like everyone else."

"I don't know why the city chose to go with pagans, but we're honored," she told the Patch,

"We have also had Native American 'Medicine Men,' Islamic Imams, Buddhist Monks, Falong Gong, Rabbi's, Hindu's and a couple of religious persons that I couldn't even figure out what they were," Santee Mayor Randy Voepel told the Patch in an email. He said the city council invocations are about half-and-half Christian and non-Christian, according to the Patch.


Here's a nice story about a Pagan being asked to give the invocation to open the meeting of the Santee City, California City Council. (I'd rather see government functions not open with a prayer, but if they're going to do so, having a Pagan give the invocation is nice.) It's even nice to see the local Catholic priest be welcoming, although we'll see how happy Father Casey is once the Goddess, vs. his god, is invoked.

"I think religious values should be everywhere," Jesuit Fr. Kevin Casey, associate pastor at Guardian Angels Catholic Church in Santee, told the Patch, noting that he performed an invocation in November 2009. "I always welcome the opportunity for there to be a mention of God at the beginning of a City Council meeting."


But it's the same old problem. Don't use your 15 minutes of fame to say say that Pagans (with a capital "P" please) don't "go out and kill goats." First, by trying to negate a frame, you invoke it. Second, some Pagans do sacrifice animals. So why lie? Much better to use the real estate in the paper to say that you're honored, especially this close to a major Pagan holiday, to be asked to offer the invocation and that you'll be, for example, asking the beloved Ancestors to guide and give wisdom to the members of the City Council, as this is a time of year when Pagans give special honor to the Ancestors.

Come on, Pagans. Stop it.

One of my hopes is that, by highlighting how often this happens, we can convince people that they don't need to keep doing it. Hasn't the stereotype received enough reinforcement?

Picture found here.

Don’t Think of a Satanist


Yesterday, I posted one in a (sadly) growing series of posts begging Pagans to stop announcing to the press that their Pagan Pride Day/Samhein celebration/etc. is devoted to "dispelling common misperceptions about [P]agans and [P]aganism." I keep posting about this very common problem because I really believe that it matters. (I'm not someone who wants more people to "convert" to Paganism. While I realize those days are gone forever, I honestly liked it a lot better when people had to really search and work in order to find other Pagans and "become" a Pagan. But I do want those who are members of our religion to receive the same amount of respect that members of other religions receive. And I'm unaware of any other religion that begins interviews with the press by listing misperceptions about their religion. Look, most people I know think that any given Catholic priest is likely to abuse little boys. And that's, at least, based on some facts about Catholic priests. But I've never read an article about a Catholic holiday that began with a priest asserting that there are, in fact, a whole lot of them who have never abused an altar boy. Why do you imagine that is so?)

Here's a quote from George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant to explain my concern:

When I teach the study of framing at Berkeley, in Cognitive Science 101, the first thing I do is I give my students an exercise. The exercise is: Don't think of an elephant! Whatever you do, do not think of an elephant. I've never found a student who is able to do this. Every word, [such as] elephant, evokes a frame, which can be an image or other kinds of knowledge. Elephants are large, have floppy years and a trunk, are associated with circuses, and so on. The word is defined relative to that frame. When we negate a frame, we evoke the frame.

Richard Nixon found this out the hard way. While under pressure to resign during the Watergate scandal, Nixon addressed the nation on TV. He stood before the nation and said, "I am not a crook." And everybody thought about him as a crook.

[Think for a moment about Christine O'Donnell telling the world, "I'm not a Witch. I'm you." It led to nothing but replies further defining her in the public's mind as a Witch and, definitely, not "us."]

This gives us a basic principle of framing, for when you are arguing against the other side: Do not use their language. Their language pickes out a frame -- and it won't be the frame you want.
(emphasis added).

Lakoff goes on to explain how Bush II adopted the framing of "tax relief."

[I]t is [not just on Fox, it is] on CNN, it is on NBC, it is on every station because it is "the president's tax relief plan." And soon the Democrats are using tax relief and shooting themselves in the foot.

It is remarkable. I was asked by the Democratic senators to visit their caucus just before the president's tax plan was to come up in the Senate. They had their version of the tax plan, and it was their version of tax relief. They were accepting the conservative frame [that taxes, rather than being a patriotic duty, that one should be proud to pay, were a burden from which one needed relief]. The conservatives had set a trap. The words draw you into their world view.


We're Witches. I think we understand the concept that, "When we negate" something, we "evoke" that same thing. How many times have you read that affirmations and spells should be phrased to evoke what you want to have become manifest in the world rather than the thing that you want to see decrease and disappear?

When you get your 15 minutes of media attention and you use that time saying that Pagans are not Satanists/evil/ugly/dangerous/etc., by negating that frame about us, you actually evoke it and give it strength. The next time people hear "Pagan" or "Witch," they think, "Oh, yeah, those folks who say that they're not Satanists, just as O'Donnell said she wasn't a Witch, just as Nixon went around trying to convince us that he wasn't a crook."

I've listed my suggestions for how to deal with the press. In comments to several of my posts, Teacats, Makarios, and Literata have suggested developing a media guide for Pagans. I think it's a great idea, but I don't, given my work commitments, have the time to devote to it. However a few smart Pagans could coordinate over the internet and do so. I'd first suggest, a la Teacat's suggestion, a survey of the literature, to figure out if someone (Lady Liberty League? Cherry Hill Seminary? A presentation at a Pagan conference? Green Egg?) hasn't already put together at least a beginning guide. I'd then move on beyond Pagan sources to look at general media guides and discussions of framing. It would be fantastic if every Pagan sponsoring a Pagan Pride event or being interviewed for Samhein had a guide to refer to before meeting the press.

I'm really tired of writing the same damn post over and over.

Picture found here.

People Keep Doing It; I’m Going to Keep Complaining About It


This article is a good example of two of the points that I keep trying to make.

First, there's the failure to capitalize the word "Pagan." The author capitalizes the word "Wiccan," but not "Pagan":
[Larson, a] member of the Wiccan branch of paganism, . . .

That's like saying that "Father Murphy is a member of the Catholic branch of christianity," or "Rabbi Abrams is an Orthodox jew." Since it's commonplace to capitalize the major religious categories such as Christian (which includes, inter alia, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and Quakers), Jew (which includes, inter alia, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist), and Moslem (which includes, inter alia, Suni, Shi'a, Sufi, and Ahmaddiya), it ought to be commonplace to capitalize Pagan (which includes, inter alia, Wicca, Druid, Asatru, and Celtic Reconostruction).

Second there's the Pagan spokesperson reinforcing the Christian framing of our religion by using valuable interview "space" asserting that various stereotypes of Pagans are false. Thus, we get:
Larson said the reality is that paganism has nothing to do with Satan worship and that the pagan tent is large enough to include people who do identify as witches (although not the green-faced, wart-laden stereotypes) and people like Larson, a Chicago attorney who has a doctorate in psychology and who's on the faculty of the Chicago School of Professional Psychology.
I'm not sure how one identifies as Wiccan but differentiates oneself from Witches (nor, as a lawyer and a Witch, how those two terms are mutually exclusive), but I'm willing to accept those notions. But I'm not willing to accept having Pagans reinforce the framing of the dominant paradigm concerning our religion.

I've dealt with this issue extensively here, here, (in about a dozen other places,) and here. Just fucking stop this shit and stop it fucking now.

Picture found here.

See? This Is What I’m Talking About



"Were you a Christian before becoming a pagan?"

Kali Fuck, did no one's third grade teacher bother with the rules of punctuation?

Read the whole thing here.

See, here, also about not volunteering information such as:

What is a witch?

A wise woman or man. We're not the creatures people have made us out to be with pointy noses and green faces.

Imagine instead:

What is a witch?

A wise woman or man. Someone who is in touch with nature and who understands that everyone and everything is connected. A witch is someone who honors the ancestors and the seasons of the Earth. Witches are lawyers, doctors, computer programers, parents, neighbors, voters.

People keep doing it. I'm going to keep complaining about it.

Picture found here.