Recently in Society Category

It's been far too long since I blogged.  This has mainly been because I've been busy with work, family stuff, coven stuff, and illness.  However, I hope to get back to things soon.  For right now, I just wanted to share and comment on a recent French McDonald's ad that has been receiving some attention lately.



Personally, I think it's sweet, classy, and absolutely perfect.  I know some detractors have asked what it has to do with eating at McDonald's.  Well, to be honest, I don't think it has much to do with eating at McDonald's other than it's a way of saying that everyone from all walks of lives are welcome, which is the point of the greater "come as you are" campaign of which this ad is a part.  But even if we don't accept that argument, let's be honest here.  So much of the grist for so many of today's advertising campaigns have so little to do with the product or service being promoted, it's hardly reasonable to single this one ad out.  People never bothered asking what a talking gecko driving a sports car really had to do with car insurance, just to point out one example.  (And don't get me wrong, I adore that little green guy!)

And personally, I think the gay theme is done so tastefully and almost understated, that people like Bill O'Reilly just look all that much more stupid for making a fuss over it.

Tonight while doing laundry and packing for my trip to Erie, I spent some time listening to Episode 22 of the Inciting A Riot podcast.  Fire Lyte is an intelligent, funny, and charming podcaster and I highly recommend you check out both his podcast and his blog.  For my own post, however, I want to focus on the segment of Episode 22 where Fire Lyte talks about work and the closet.

Fire Lyte makes the sound observation that different jobs allow for different levels of being open about one's spirituality and sexuality.  I know that as  software engineer, I'm in a position of great comfort.  An old coworker once summed up the engineers' situations when he commented that he once overheard a conversation between two managers discussing the engineering department on a previous job.  The older manager told his junior, "They're a weird lot.  But they get the job done, so leave them alone."  My own experience has verified the truth of that mentality, that most people in charge of engineers are willing to overlook just about any "personality quirk" as long as the person in question proves themselves an invaluable resource.  As such, I can be relatively open about both my sexuality and my spirituality without worrying about my job.  Someone who is in a teaching position or -- to go back to Fire Lyte's example -- who is working for children in a governmental capacity may not be so lucky.  To them, an alternate spirituality or sexuality could be a liability to them.

Fire Lyte's advice on the matter is to be conscious of this, both when making decisions about how out to be in their current job or in deciding what job opportunities to pursue.  This is certainly sound advice from an individual perspective, and I support the idea that an individual's first concern should be his or her own well-being.  Principles don't matter as much when you can't afford to buy food.

However, the down-side to that advice is that it does tend to reinforce the status quo rather than challenge it.  And as an idealist, this is one area where I certainly would like to see the status quo challenged and eventually broken.  To accomplish that, someone somewhere -- quite probably a lot of soemones in a lot of different somewheres -- are going to have to push their luck and take risks.

Part of the problem, as Fire Lyte noted, is that people have all these strange ideas about Pagans (and gay people), and that if you happen to be the only person that your employer or others know that is Pagan (or gay), then you have an uphill battle to fight, and one that your employer or others in power may not be willing to let you fight.

The problem is, there's ultimately only one permanent solution to that scenario:  Pagans (and gay people) need to become more visible.  As long as we stay hidden because it's easier, then people will remain unconfronted with and uninformed about us.  As I said, we only reinforce the status quo.

This doesn't mean that I think everyone should run out and tell their boss, their neighbors, or anyone else that they are Pagan (or gay).  I don't think everyone should slap a pentacle or pride flag on their desk at work, their car, or their living room window (my landlord made me take mine down due to a lease violation).  I may be an idealist, but I'm not a moron.  But there are those of us who can take risks -- and there are different levels of risk that different people can take -- that would go a long way.

There are those of us in jobs where we are secure, either due to the nature of the job or the fact that we are invaluable to our employer.  And I'd encourage those who have been at their job for five years or more (yes, such loyal employees still do exist, though they're rare) to think about how they might have the job security to push the boundaries a little.  Because the only way we can gain more visibility and more understanding is to be more visible.

I'll also note that the advantage of having been at a job for a long time before coming out is that you're an established person.  Rather than being an unknown individual who is a "weird Pagan," you become a known hard worker who happens to be a "weird Pagan."  And ultimately, I think that's what we need.  We need to be seen as full individuals.

As I said, there are different levels of risk.  This most directly translates into different levels of being "out."  "Coming out" at work can be something as simple as telling a couple of trusted coworkers (or even a trusted manager) in confidence.  The whole office doesn't necessarily need to know, and even the increased awareness of one or two people can have positive and radical results in the long term.  I'm reminded of the job I had in Ithaca.  During the four years I was there, I kept a picture of my boyfriend on my desk.  The only two people who commented on it the entire time I was there originally assumed it was a picture of my brother.  I politely informed them each that the handsome man was my boyfriend.  The one said nothing more, while the other became a better friend.  I'm not sure what anyone else in the office made of the picture.  For all I know, the others still assumed he was my brother, and I was content to let them assume that.

In the end, each person must make their own choices when it comes to the closet(s) and how "out" they want to be at work, in their community, or in other aspect of their lives.  Each person must decide what level of risk he or she is willing to take, and I would not dream of dictating such important choices to others.  Bu I would encourage everyone to consider again what level of risk they might be willing to live with if it means a long-term improvement for all Pagans (and/or gay people).

The Campus Chatter blog over at ABC news reports that Syracuse University has appointed Mary Hudson as Pagan chaplain for the campus.  This is a somewhat historic event, as the blogger explains:

That makes Hudson, 50, the second pagan chaplain appointed at a U.S. college. The only other known school to have a pagan chaplain is the University of Southern Maine.  Internationally there are a few in Canada, Australia, and the UK.

I find this good news and take some comfort and pride that this appointment took place not only in my state of residence, but at a university a mere hour from me.  And it sounds like Hudson is ready to hit the ground running.

Hudson said education is her primary goal.  "This involves both education of non-pagans as well as helping student pagans find their spiritual path," she added.  "That can mean something different to each student."

Both community education and helping students who are already on a Pagan path or are considering one are both noble goals.  I wish Ms. Hudson the best as she pursues both goals.

In addition, I'd like to applaud the Campus Chatter blogger for writing a thoroughly positive article, without falling into the trap of looking for "balanced" input from highly critical spokespeople from conservative Christians circles, a practice that Jason Pitzl-Waters has often noted is common among some journalists.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pagan for Chaplain at Syracuse U. (blogs.abcnews.com)

Fictional story:

The other morning, there was a knock on my door.  A couple in their late twenties stood there with a clipboard, and asked to talk to me about domestic violence.  They showed me some frightening statistics about the number of men and women who are abused and beaten by their spouses.  They had both statistics for the nation and our own county.  They then asked me to help put an end to domestic violence, showing me a petition in support of new legislation that would call for stricter sentencing for those convicted of domestic violence, budget for the creation of programs to better train police officers to respond to and investigate claims of domestic violence, and other measures.

I decided not to sign the petition.  Instead, I decided to hand them a card, that says the following:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

I strongly believe that domestic violence is wrong and I would never hurt another person, even my own spouse.  So I'm offering my pledge to the golden rule in response to the issue of domestic violence.

The point:

I suspect that many of my readers are having a rather predictable reaction to the above story.  I can just hear people like Eileen (assuming she still reads me) getting ready to type a lengthy comment about how serious domestic violence and simply promising to treat others well in accordance with the Golden Rule isn't nearly enough.  And I'm in total agreement with her.

I've had the exact same reaction the last two years when Dr. Warren Throckmorton began to propose the Golden Rule Pledge as an appropriate response to The Day Of Silence, an annual event meant to raise awareness of anti-gay bullying and other mistreatment of gay people (or people who are merely perceived as gay) that takes place all over this country and to advocate for such bullying to stop.

Now, in Dr. Throckmorton's defense, I will note that his response to The Day of Silence is far superior to other responses proposed by other conservative Christian groups.  The Golden Rule Pledge is far better than The Day of Truth or merely proposing that all Christians avoid school during The Day of Silence.  And I give him credit for not trying to paint a day dedicated to the idea that it's wrong to bully and mistreat gay people as some horrible, immoral idea.

But in the end, I find it a weak response at best.  It's great that Dr. Throckmorton and those with him are willing to promise to treat others well.  However, I also want to know what they're going to do about the bullying and mistreatment being propagated by others who don't share their commitment to the Golden Rule.  Saying you won't mistreat gay people while still standing by while others do so just doesn't cut it in my book.  In my mind, justice demands that right-minded people stand up to the bullies and say, "What you are doing is wrong and you must stop."  Confronting the injustice head-on is absolutely essential.  And in that respect, I feel the Golden Rule Pledge fails miserably, just as such a pledge in response to domestic violence fails miserably.

I've been thinking about doing videos on YouTube for a couple years now.  Thanks to Tracie, I found sufficient inspiration to do my first one.



Sorry the sound is bad.  I need to learn to adjust the volume better.

Tonight, I logged into Tagged to find the following message waiting for me:

Romans 6:23 "...the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"... Do you know Him?

The person who sent it to me is not on my friends list, so I can only assume that he's sending this message to random people on Tagged.  This makes him the online equivalent of door-to-door evangelists.  In my mind, it also makes him the online equivalent of a telemarketer calling me to sell something I'm not looking to buy, a Mormon missionary knocking on my door, or a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman (do they even have those anymore?).  In other words, like all those others, he's a minor annoyance.

I simply don't understand why people feel it is necessary or good to walk up to someone at random (or contact them online at random) and try to "sell" that person a particular religion.  To be frank, religion is far more important to me, and it's something I'm only interested in discussing with someone I have an established, fairly well-rounded relationship with.  Anything else is just someone looking to make their next "sale" and gets treated like every other salesperson that decides to peddle their wares to me unbidden.

Of course, I do pride myself on politeness.  I don't get nasty with telemarketers (unless they continue to press the matter after the polite "I'm not interested").  I don't get nasty with Mormon missionaries.  And I didn't get nasty with this guy.  In fact, I sent what I felt was a rather polite reply:

I'm sorry, but I have a policy against getting into evangelistic conversations with random strangers.  Please accept my best wishes and a blessing for a full life, however.

Bye. 

And with any luck, that'll be end of the whole thing.

Update:  As I was making this post, I received the following reply:

Is anyone besides me creeped out by the fact that the latest Barbie commercials are using Aqua's Barbie Girl song for the jingle?  I mean, if you listen closely to the lyrics, there's a rather creepy and critical undertone to the song.  I just find it weird that Mattel would want encourage people to associate their toy with the song.

While guest-blogging at The Wild Hunt, John Morehead proposed using science fiction movies as a basis for interfaith dialogue. His idea and the post itself are fascinating, and I strongly encourage my readers to check it out.  It's certainly a concept I want to think over and explore more closely.  In the meantime, though, I'd like to turn my attention to one of the responses that John's post generated.  Hadiah Starlight commented a bit on the poor representation of Wiccans and other Pagans in cinema in general:

I agree that cinema is a reflection of what is going on socially in our world, but as a Pagan I find it very sad, and disheartening that we are still not presented in a more "positive light", and that people's idea of witchcraft is the Harry Potter films, or The Craft. We are briefly presented in a more positive light, in the Lord of the Rings series, but until we are presented as anything other than "Science Fiction" we will never be taken seriously.

Leaving aside the question of whether or portrayal in cinema really affects how seriously we're taken (I'm personally inclined to think that if any causation between the two points exists, it's more likely to run in the opposite direction), this comment caused me to wonder how Christianity and religion in general fairs in cinema.  So I walked over to my media cabinet, combed through the 300+ DVD's I currently owned, and started pulling out any DVD I felt had some sort of religious portrayal in it.  I ended up with about 25 DVD's (a smattering of them are represented in the picture attached to this post).  Furthermore, I felt my choice to include some of the titles might have been a bit generous.

While I don't claim that my personal DVD collection is a representative sample of all cinema out there, I do think that the relatively low percentage of titles I pulled that I felt had some religious content is quite telling.  It would seem that a great number of movies simply don't have much to say about religion at all.

I began to comb through the titles that I had pulled out and started considering the similarity between how religion was incorporated into the movie.  I began to notice that the titles seemed to fit a few different categories.  The first and most obvious category were those movies that were intended to offer editorial commentary on religion or certain aspects of some religious subcultures.  Two such examples are Saved! and Dogma.  As these kinds of movies tend to be heavy in satire and highly critical, I'm not sure we as Pagans sould be in a hurry to see these kinds of movies about our own faith traditions.  They may be helpful in the future as our traditions become more established and could benefit from such criticism.  But for right now, I think we're better off being grateful that our religions aren't being represented by these kinds of movies.

Unsurprisingly, a considerable number of movies in this category were science fiction movies.  In these movies, religion became framework for understanding the classic battle between good and evil that drive these movies.  The Exorcist, Ghost Rider, Constantine, and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe are all good examples of this category of movie.  Indeed, the abundance of these kinds of movies suggests that it's not just Pagan religions that are most easily explored, represented and expressed through science fiction.  So that's a limitation we may simply need to accept for now.

I will note, however, that Christian-themed science fiction does appear to be of a theologically superior quality than Pagan-themed science fiction most of the time.  Each of the movies I listed above spend a great deal of time exploring a cosmology and theology that explains the world where these fantastic and even supernatural stories take place.  The nature of heaven and hell as well as their relationship to the "natural world" is explored in Constantine in fascinating detail that suggests a worldview far more complex than anything seen in The Craft.

But when one considers the amount of Christian theology and cosmology that is readily accessible to the average screenwriter, this shouldn't come as a surprise.  Many of them probably grew up learning about it.  Almost all of them have spent their lives surrounded by it.  And then there are simply libraries full of books that they can learn about it from.  And some of the best religiously-themed science fiction -- such as the Chronicles of Narnia -- have been written by Christian theologians themselves.

Compared to this, Pagan theology and cosmology (in its numerous forms and variations, no less) isn't as easily accessibe.  There's not nearly as much written about it.  Most people have not learned it first hand, nor do they come into contact with it regularly.  Is it any wonder that Pagan theology is less well developed in the movies then?

The final general category of movie I found was those movies in which religion somehow influenced the plot and created.  The best examples of this in my collection include Latter Days and Rock Haven, which are movies about young men who find themselves facing romantic and sexual feelings that their religious says are sinful and must be changed or repressed.  These movies then center around that conflict, the effects it has on the characters, and the eventual resolution.  Similar movies exist that deal with other faith struggles, such as understanding and coming to terms with tragedy and loss.

Personally, I would love to see similar movies from a Pagan perspective.  I would love to see movies where a Pagan character tries to reconcile his faith with life issues or find comfort and guidance through tragedy and difficulty from his faith.  The problem is, writing such a movie again requires a deep understanding of Pagan theology and philosophy, as well as how the affect the rest of an adherent's life.  This is not the kind understanding that the average screenwriter is going to possess.  In short, Hollywood isn't going to make this kind of movie simply because it's ill-equipped to do so.

If we as Pagans really want to see positive portrayals in cinema, I think we're going to have to find those in our community who are ready to be the story-tellers and the screenwriters who will do it.  After all, we are the only ones who can portray our lives because we are the only ones living our lives.

So as much as I'd love to see better portrayals of my faith on the big screen, I won't hold my breath until I or another fellow Pagan is prepared to write them and try selling them to a movie studio.

 

Now that it's past, I thought it would be good to do a review of yesterday's synchroblog event.  It was an excellent experience and overall, I felt it went quite well.  Wendy and her sponsors did a fantastic job putting it all together and the participants wrote some wonderful posts, some of which I will highlight in a moment.

The one thing I was somewhat disappointed in was the fact that despite the efforts of a couple of us (including Wendy), the event seemed primarily geared towards Christians.  As far as I know, Christine Bakke, YewTree, and I were the only three non-Christians who participated.  This is probably due to a number of reasons.  For one, those who sponsored this event were Christian and therefore had the most Christian contacts.  Then there's also the fact that it's much harder to convince a non-Christian to participate in an event to encourage Christians and gay people to talk to one another.  On the whole, we non-Christians probably don't see as big a need for such conversation.

More troubling, however, is that I did feel there was a certain undercurrent even among many of the participating bloggers that this was about gay and straight Christians talking with each other.  I saw more than one post in which the sentiment seemed to be that the foundation for such conversation was the fact that those involved were all "brothers and sisters in Christ."  While this is a fine sentiment and I'm glad that some people were able to find that common ground, that doesn't extend the conversation to the rest of the gay community -- those of us who don't consider ourselves "brothers and sisters in Christ."  So perhaps it may be a while longer before the entire gay community will find a welcome in the greater community.

Having said that, I wish to be clear that I don't mean to be too critical because of this.  I think that this synchroblog was a great next step in the overall dialogue process.  And I have confidence that even my concerns can be addressed as that dialogue continues.  I think we all just need to keep plugging away with patience, compassion, and a bit of understanding.

One of my favorite posts was over at Focused Conversations, which demonstrated a deep and practical understanding of the Golden Rule.  Sandy tells of her own wedding and the people who supported her and helped her with her wedding, despite the fact that they felt she was making a bad choice.  In retelling that story, she comes to a conclusion which she applies to same sex marriages:

I understand the desire to declare your commitment to your loved one in a formal ceremony. Whether or not I think it is the right thing doesn't take away from that. As a Christian I live with that tension.

It sometimes takes a special person to realize how her own situation at one time mirrored that of another person's and to place herself in that person's shoes.  Sandy's willingness to be such a person spoke a lot to me.

Over at Based on a True Story, Nathan takes a similar approach and draws parallels between his own relationship with his wife and same-sex relationships:

My relationship with my wife runs very deep and there are plenty of factors that play into it. If my relationship was all about sex, it would not be much of a relationship. We know though, that a part of marriage and relationships runs a lot deeper than just what happens with our bodies. One of the more beautiful parts of a marriage is the commitment and covenant to each other no matter what life brings. We should be affirming and blessing mutual covenants of love between any person and not denying them of a basic human need. We need to focus on what we affirm rather than what we want to get rid of. Why are we so bent on taking away all the good in a relationship? Is it just to prove our theology? Is it just to satisfy our own desires for holiness to be met around us?

In doing so, Nathan actually attacks one of the most damaging stereotypes about gay people:  The idea that our relationships are just about sex.  Nathan's willingness to challenge that stereotype and then ask very hard questions about the implication of opposing relationships that clearly have a lot of good in them is superb.

Of course, not everything was perfect.  Despite some great posts, there was the occasional argument in some comments.  Some people wanted to argue over what constituted compromise or capitulation, while others wanted to discuss who (usually the other side) needed to do what in order for their to be dialogue.  Some even questioned if dialogue is possible in the end.  But that's okay.  This conversation is long overdue and it's the kind of conversation that is never going to go perfectly smoothly.  And that's okay.  The important thing is that people are still talking.  Hopefully, that will remain the case.

And hopefully, people will continue to listen.

For the past month or two, I've been following the Bridging the Gap blog.  I've also been publicly commenting there and privately conversing with Wendy Gritter, the woman primarily behind the blog.  Wendy is a wonderful woman and I've been blessed with her friendship.

A while back, Wendy told me about a synchroblog that New Direction and the BTG Project are sponsoring on June 24.  The press release for the event describes the event as follows:

New Direction has been seeking to foster safe and generous space for authentic conversation about faith and sexuality. We have committed ourselves to building bridges. But we cannot do it alone. We need other Christ-followers: gay and straight and everything in between, to speak up and join the conversation, to share the heart of the gospel in the midst of this conflict. We need those beyond the walls of the church: gay and straight and everything in between, to speak up and join the conversation, to share their thoughts on how the church can reach across the divide and build bridges.

In light of her desire to get people of all walks of life to join in the conversation, Wendy has asked me to participate in this synchroblog.  As a friend and someone who believes that this dialogue is an important one, I have graciously (at least I hope I've been gracious about it) accepted her invitation.  I would like to invite any of my other readers -- regardless of sexual orientation or religious persuasion -- to also participate in this event.  It's only through the addition of a multitude of voices that a real dialogue -- or rather a harmony of related dialogues -- can emerge.

Some may wonder why I would choose to participate in such a dialogue or encourage others to do so.  After all, they reason, it's clear why Christians would wish to engage in this dialogue in order to gain converts -- though I personally do not believe that's the only reason Christians choose to enter into this dialogue.  But what possible reason could a non-Christian -- especially one who has been hurt by Christians in the past -- have for entering into such a dialogue?  What do I hope to gain from it?

Surprisingly, the question contains its own answer.  I choose to participate in this conversation because I've been hurt by Christians in the past.  To me, reconciliation is an important part of the healing process.  Conversing with Christians -- even Christians who theology and sexual ethics differ greatly for my own -- gives me another opportunity to make peace with my past.  It gives me the chance to realize that while I've been hurt in the past, other Christians really are decent and loving.  It also allows me to regain the love and dignity that was stolen from me by those past experiences.

Participating in such a dialogue also gives me the opportunity to tell my story and serve as a representative for all those others who still might be hurt by some Christians.  It enables me to raise some Christians' awareness of just how little it takes to create great pain for young people struggling with a sexual orientation that their friends, family, and church says is bad.  If offering my story will help one Christian better reach out to and support another gay person when they desperately need it, then my participation in this dialogue is well worth it.

I also wish to participate in such a dialogue because that gay person sitting in the pew may need to hear my voice and know my story.  Sadly, far too many Christians have a very stereotypical understanding of gay people.  Too often, being gay is equated with having multiple sexual partners, abusing drugs and alcohol, and engaging in several other destructive behaviors.  And while I do not deny that some gay people do engage in these and other behaviors, it is not as universal as some Christians might believe or pretend that it is.  As a well-adjusted -- in my opinion at least -- gay man with relatively healthy sexual ethics, my participation in dialogue with Christians serves as an opportunity to demonstrate first-hand that gay men like me exist.  Coming to the table provided by folks like Wendy provides me with an opportunity to demonstrate to conflicted gay Christians with evidence that they have more choices than the dismal options that others have painted for them.  (And I admit that I admire the integrity, confidence, and grace of people like Wendy who are willing to give me that opportunity despite their own desire to see people make a different choice than the one I have in regards to sexuality.)

Finally, I choose to participate in such a dialogue because in the end, it is in my best interests to do so.  To be honest, there are many Christians -- including Christians who believe that people should not get involved in same-sex romantic relationships -- that are in my life.  These people are my friends, my coworkers, and my family members.  They are not going to change their beliefs any time soon, nor are they going to disappear from my life anytime soon.  So I can either choose to live a life where we are distant from one another and suspicious of each other.  Or I can choose to enter into dialogue in an attempt to find mutual understanding and a better sense of peace despite our differences.

To me, the choice is obvious.

(The images in this post were provided by Wendy Gritter and used with her express permission.)

Jeremy over at Good As You blogged about a fictitious student spec ad that recently ran in CMYK magazine. The ad, which can be seen in this post, plays off on the stereotype that a man who does ballet is somehow less masculine than a man who plays football or some other sport. (Of course, I wonder what the guys who do ballet and play football would say to that.) Of course, on another level, some people are taking this as a homophobic ad, concerned about the stereotype that a man who does ballet is most likely gay.

As a gay man who is taking dance (though not ballet at this time) classes, I'm not too bothered by this ad. I have heard people suggest that dance in general and ballet in particular are not masculine activities, and I personally think their point of view is baseless and ignorant. My usual response to such a claim is to either roll my eyes and move the conversation along or to politely challenge the speaker to join me for one dance class before we discuss their opinion. I have yet to have any guy accept that challenge.

Personally, I'm not bothered by the ad because as a dancer, I know the lie behind it. And I know who I am and what I like, and I'm not willing to let the opinion of an ignorant person get to me. It's really that simple.

However, one of Jeremy's commenters, Lorion, does raise a good point. There are those people who are hurt by this kind of mentality. Some men -- especially younger guys who are still trying to find themselves -- are more deeply affected by this. It's hard to be that seemingly rare teenage boy who's interested in dance, singing, or theater. Friends who think men should follow more so-called masculine pursuits tend to tease, and that can be hard to handle. In fact, it could exert enough pressure to get a young man to reconsider pursuing such an interest. This is even worse if similar pressure comes from parents. And that is a problem that needs to be addressed.

It seems to me, however, that the proper way to address this problem is on an individual basis. After all, a student spec ad merely expresses an unfortunately common sentiment. That sentiment would have permeated some sectors of our society regardless of whether the ad was published. In some ways, I think it's good that the ad was published, as it provides and opportunity to address the underlying mentality, its prevalence, and its effect on some people. It also gives us the opportunity to consider how to counteract and otherwise mitigate its effects.

I think that the first and most important step in helping a young man who finds himself ridiculed for having in interest in dance (or anything else) is simply to encourage him. I think it's important to let him know that while others might not approve of his interests or seem them as worthy of respect and honor, we do. And we need to help him find others who share his interest. (After all, even though I'm secure in my own masculinity, I fully admit that it's always a pleasant discovery when I find another guy is going to be in a particular class with me.) These things will stop the sense of isolation that such ridicule is usually intended to create and what ultimately empowers it to be hurtful.

I also think that it's important to encourage sympathy for those who would choose to ridicule another. In my experience, it seems that the most common reason for such ridicule is that its a way for the ridiculer to mask his (I can't think of a single woman who has ever made a negative comment about my interest in dance) own insecurities. Having your own masculinity challenged is much less painful when you realize that the challenger feels like his own is in jeopardy. (Indeed, it's quite sad to continue that another man's masculinity is so fragile as to face potential damage and even destruction simply because of how I choose to spend my free time.) Understanding this also opens up the possibility of compassion and even an opportunity for healing for the person who feels threatened and needs to lash out.

Today is where I finally give in to another "cosmic conspiracy." For those who may not be familiar with such things, a "cosmic conspiracy" is where a topic or train of thought keeps coming up in my daily life to the degree that I begin to suspect that the very universe is conspiring against me to force me to face and grapple with that particular topic or train of thought. Today's "cosmic conspiracy" (I use the quotes because I refuse to accept the idea that the universe really conspires against people) has to do with the topics of interfaith relations and interfaith dialogue. Actually, I'm just going to use the word interfaith relationships because I believe that dialogue is just a natural part of relationships, so it makes sense to roll the latter into the former.

A lot of people are talking about interfaith relationships right now. And I think that's a great thing. I'm all for interfaith relationships, myself. It's a good thing, too, because there are a lot of them in my life.

For this post, I'd like to try and focus on what interfaith relationships are really all about and why they're important. Obviously, any answers I give will be my personal answers. Other people may see things differently and therefore may disagree with me in part or entirely. But as someone who engages in interfaith relationships regularly and seeks to increase my involvement in them, I think it's important to explore my answers to these questions.

First, I would like to point out that faith traditions do not have relationships. Faith traditions are abstract concepts. Abstract concepts do not have relationships. Relationships require actors with personality. So people have relationships. Those people's faith traditions just come along for the ride. Certainly, those faith traditions may influence and otherwise become reflected in the relationships, but in the end, the relationships are really about the people. No relationship -- interfaith or not -- works out unless those involved really grasp the truth of that statement. Because anything that isn't about the people involved isn't a relationship at all.

People surround us every day of our lives. Some of those people are going to be of different faith traditions. When we come into contact with those people, we have to make a choice. We can ignore them and pretend they're not there. While such a choice may make sense in isolated cases, the effort of ignoring someone we see regularly can be inconvenient and even quite difficult. This is especially true of this person is a coworker, a friend's significant other, or otherwise has any sort connection to us that would make avoiding any relationship altogether nearly impossible.

We can treat a person with hostility, keeping them at arms length. Again, this is rarely an effective strategy. In addition to being problematic if the person is someone we might be forced to have some sort of relationship with for other reasons, it takes a lot of energy to maintain and live in a state of hostility. That sort of thing tends to take its toll on us.

Our final option is to engage the person and establish a relationship. That relationship can be casual or intimate, depending on numerous factors. But in the long run, this choice is usually the healthiest and most convenient one.

I will also admit that on personal level, I enjoy building relationships. I love people and I love interacting with them. So I'm certainly biased in favor of this last option anyway. However, I will note that my bias does not necessarily negate the accuracy of my analysis of the other options.

Once we've accepted that engaging people in relationships is the best option, we are faced with another choice. We must decide whether we will allow our individual faith traditions to come into the picture. There's certainly no rule that states that we must discuss our faith traditions into every relationship we have. In some cases, avoiding the subject makes perfect sense. For example, it's not relevant in my relationship with my coworkers, so I generally don't bring it up.

However, our faith traditions are usually important to us as people. As such, not discussing them with the people we relate to creates and maintains a certain amount of distance in our relationships. After all, it creates a part of us that is "off limits" and closed off to the other person. While this is acceptable in casual relationships where other factors are more important, it will not work with close friendships and other intimate relationships.

Similarly, the other person's faith tradition is important to them. If we refuse to discuss and engage with their faith tradition, we have created an impediment for close relationship. I might as well change the subject abruptly every time a close friend brings up the topic of his children. I have no doubt that the net result would be similar.

There are other reasons why I find interfaith relationships both necessary and important, and I hope to share them in a future post. I also hope to discuss some of the pitfalls common in interfaith relationships. But for now, I would like to close by reiterating that like any relationship, interfaith relationships are about people. They are important because people are important. At least that's the understanding I choose to live by.

This post has been submitted to the October 2008 Interfaith Dialogue synchroblog. The following is a list of other participants in the synchroblog.

• J. R. Miller (Christian) of More Than Cake on A Christian Approach to Interfaith Dialogue"
• Liz Dyer (Christian) of Grace Rules on Interreligious Dialogue: Risky Business
• Matt Stone (Christian) of Glocal Christianity on Is Interfaith Interfaith enough?
• Steve Hayes (Christian Orthodox) of Notes from underground on Interreligious dialogue
• K.W. Leslie (Christian / Pentecostal / Assemblies of God) of The Evening of Kent on Gathering with the pagans.
• Phil Wyman (Christian) of Square No More on A Christian Presenter at Pagan Pride!?
• Beth Patterson (Liberal Christian w/ Celtic undertones) of Virtual Tea House on Same Stove, Different Teapots
• Yvonne Aburrow (Wiccan Unitarian) of the dance of the elements on Only connect
• Andii Bowsher (Christian) of nouslife on More Tea Wicca?

Be sure to check out my fellow synchrobloggers!

This weekend, I received a strange and unexpected mass email from one Mike Hein. This email (which contains the entire text of the first post in public message board thread) basically informed me of the latest activities of Rita Moran, a Maine Pagan attending the Democratic National Convention as an official delegate for her home state.

Now, if the names Rita Moran and Mike Hein sound familiar to you, there's a reason for it. Mike Hein wrote an article for the Christian Civic League of Maine's online newsletter back in June 2007 which outted Ms. Moran as a Pagan. At the time, Hein was trying (at least that's what it looked like to this and several other bloggers) to drum up fear that the Democratic Party in Maine was being secretly taken over by Pagans. I wrote my own post about this situation back then, and covered some of the other unethical tactics (most involving an attempt to intimidate or harass anyone who disagreed with them) the CCL of Maine chose to engage in around the time of this story.

As a result of this outting and subsequent harassment, Rita Moran decided to become more outspoken about her faith and became something of a Pagan spokesperson in the Democratic party. This is part of what took her to the DNC this year. So in many ways, I think we Pagans might want to thank Mr. Hein. What he did back in 2007 was deplorable, but it turned out quite well for many of us.

For whatever reason, Mr. Hein can't seem to leave Rita Moran alone though. Almost a year later, he's once again reporting on her doings. Though this time, it's even less clear what he's hoping to attempt with his mass mailing. I suppose in his mind he's hoping to drum up the fear of the scary Pagan that's a visible part of the Democratic party. And I suppose most of his audience might see the reason for that fear, but not me.

Though I will say that it's nice to know what's going on with Ms. Moran, and the mass mailing provided me with a link to Rita Moran's and Ed Lachowicz's blog for the convention. So thanks again, Mr. Hein!

Today, the following email was forwarded to me:

Merry Meet,

The National Day of Prayer is this Thursday May 1st. Our Coven has been watching and listening to the media on this and we decided to organize a group prayer meet to create positive change in our country though our Pagan perspective. This is also to enhance the day of prayer as Pagans and to show our faith and religious morals since many right wing groups want to make this a Christian day of prayer only.

If anyone would like to join us our group and others from our area will be at the Ontario County Court House, (27 North Main Street, Canandaigua, New York 14424) May 1st, ironically Beltane, at 7PM. Please bring a friend and a self contained candle to light as we silently pray for our country and for positive change. Signs are welcome so long as they are relevant to the topics of the day and are not vulgar or inflammatory to other religious groups.

Parking in the back of the court house is free and plentiful.

We look forward to coming together as a community and be counted as part of the solution.

Blessed be,

Shelly O'Brien and Heidi Gleber
High Priestesses- Coven of the Sacred Pentacle
Local Coordinators Fingerlakes Pagan Pride

First, let me say that for those who are close enough to the Canandaigua area to participate and are inclined to do so, I would highly encourage you. I suspect that this could be a great experience for many people.

I have to admit, however, that a National Day of Prayer makes little sense to me. To be honest, I tend to think of prayer -- even corporate prayer -- as a deeply personal thing. The idea of setting aside a "special" day to honor it and practice this spiritual discipline in a highly visible manner seems a bit odd and foreign to me. (I also tend to wonder how Christians in particular reconcile the National Day of Prayer
with Christ's exhortations against "public religiosity," which even address prayer specifically.) Personally, I don't think I would feel comfortable participating in such an event because of how I see prayer, though I support everyone who feels differently and honor their right and choice to participate.

I also wonder if we might want to be careful about setting up religiously segregated prayer groups for the National Day of Prayer, as well. If we are to take a day to celebrate prayer as a nation, it seems that we should do so as a nation rather than as separate groups within the nation.

Now, I realize that not every Christian, Jew, or Muslim would be willing to pray alongside Pagans. (Heck, some of them are quite unwilling to pray alongside certain members of their own faith!) But some of them are, and it seems like it would be wise to use this opportunity to build such bridges. I think a group of people from radically different faith groups praying together would be a far better statement -- not to mention a powerful act -- than splintered groups of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and other faiths doing their own thing.

Who knows? Maybe that'll be part of next year's National Day of Prayer events. To the folks gathering to pray in Canandaigua, I wish you the best with your gathering this weekend.

Due to online conversations I've had over the past week, I was reminded of an entry I wrote on another diary site. I decided to find it and repost it to this blog. As I recall, the topic created quite a stir back in 2004, though most people seemed to applaud my outlook on the matter. And even those who didn't applaud it tended to have mixed feelings than being completely against my point.

Searching through the Stand To Reason website, (don't ask why I was there) I found a recommended letter for one to send to gay people who might be visiting your home. I've posted the letter below:

Dear ,

I need to let you know that although we love you and look forward to seeing you, we don't want you to bring your friend with you. We have nothing against him personally. If he were visiting as an individual under other circumstances, that would be another matter. I don't believe in ostracizing others whose behavior I disagree with.

This situation is different, though. In so far as the two of you are in the relationship you're in, welcoming you both as a couple would be treating as good and normal a relationship which is neither.

Our concerns may cause you to cancel your visit. I hope not. We'd like to see you. However, in good conscience we must insist on this principle in our home.
Sincerely,

I wish I could say that I'm shocked that anyone would even suggest such a letter. Unfortunately, I'm not even mildly surprised. Unfortunately, the extremely conservative Christian elements have a history of these sorts of things. But rather than ranting about it, I decided to simply post my suggested response. It's the basic response that I would send if anyone was ever foolish enough to send me such a letter.

Dear ,

I am writing to inform you that, as you suspected, i will be canceling my visit to your home. My boyfriend and I are working hard to build a life together, and it is our policy to refuse all invitations where we are not welcome as a couple. This is a principal of our relationship, and we are unwilling to compromise it.

We do not require that people approve of our relationship. We do not require that people like our relationship. However, we do require that people come to terms with our relationship and treat it as an important part of our lives. Your request that I leave my boyfriend at home when I come to visit you makes it clear that you would rather ignore an important part of my life, and I will not accept that. As such, I also wish to inform you that at this time, I find it appropriate to end our friendship.

I'm sure that this decision will shock you, and suspect that you will even think it's an overreaction to your request. However, I would ask that you consider what you are asking of me and try to put yourself in my shoes. There are many people who disapprove of various relationships for various reasons. Some disapprove of divorcees who remarry. Some disapprove of relationships between people who feel they "married too young" or "got together for the wrong reasons." The list of reasons that people disapprove of others' relationships is virtually endless. Now, suppose that someone disapproved of your own marriage for one reason or another. How would you react if that person informed you that you were not welcome in their home as a couple?

You have chosen to put me in that very position. I will not abide by that. As such, I feel it is best to wish you the best in life and part ways.

Regards,
Jarred.