The Amorality of Christian Extremism

I've thought long and hard about whether to express what I'm about to say.  I try to respect all religions and all human beings.  I know that many, many of us are honestly trying to do what we think is right and that that probably includes most Christian extremists as well.  However...

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, envinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty... to provide new guards for their future. -- Declaration of Independence

I've realized that it's time to take a stand.

I also realize that Christian extremism and conservative Christianity are both very broad categories with a lot of diversity within them.  This post is a reaction to a what I see as the middle of that bell curve, based on what I hear via the media from Christian extremist preachers, ministers, and leaders, the proseltytizers who come to my door to preach to me, and what friends of mine who were raised in some form of Christian extremism have told me.  I apologize if I've unfairly offended anyone, however I have come to realize that I feel morally called to take a stand and that offense of the type of Christian extremists I'm talking about in the post is inevitable and of their own doing.

Christian extremists are at this moment trying to legislate their religious beliefs, trying to beat society into submission to their beliefs, and telling non-Christians that we're all going to "burn in Hell" if we don't share their beliefs.*

Here is my response to Christian extremism...

Faith is Amoral

I once had a young woman I had gotten to know ask me out to Church.  She invited me to an event on a Saturday that claimed to be a talk on psychology.  The speaker concluded by saying that "only Jesus" can "help" us with our emotions.  Although this was an ambush, since the talk was not on psychology but on Christianity, I did not initially hold this against the young woman, since I realized that she might not have realized where the talk would lead.  

She invited me to go out to lunch with her friends afterwards, and her friends tried to convert me over lunch.  Another ambush!  When they asked me why I wouldn't convert, I told them that no one had ever convinced me that Christianity was true.  When they asked me why, I pointed out logical flaws I saw in Christian doctrine.  Then, one woman at the table exclaimed, "but you have to have faith!"  A man, who was currently enrolled in a theological seminary, replied to her, "he's not ready for faith.  He needs logic first."  The man proceeded to attempt to use sophistry to trick me into agreeing with him.  I countered all of his arguments.

Wait a second, I thought, something's wrong here.  To me, faith is something we have based on intuition, which, in turn, is based on facts.  For example, I might have faith that a friend can be trusted based on the fact that the friend has proven trustworthy in the past.  That is, although I can't prove that the friend is always trustworthy, I can make an intuitive leap that they're likely to be and decide to trust them.

However, faith, as these Christians evidently defined it, is a complete disposal and abandonment of reason!  Conferring with friends of mine who were raised in some form of Christian extremism (and even many who were raised conservative or even moderate Christian), I've been able to confirm that such Christians are explicitly taught to ignore reason and replace it, wholesale, with what they call "faith".  Moreover, they were taught that, unless they had faith, they'd go to Hell.  It's this definition of faith that I address herein.

So what Christian extremists (and many other Christians as well) mean by faith is really superstition.    Faith to them means (1) believing in the Bible without any reason, (2) believing in God without any reason, and (3) assuming a set of rules based on 1 and 2.

To summarize...

faith = superstition = a lack of reason

"thou shalt not" = taboo

But morality depends on reason.  If I proposed that eating kumquats was evil, you'd demand to know why I thought that, wouldn't you?  I hope you would.  To defend such a claim, I'd need to show you some evidence or produce some logic that made the eating of kumquats is something we can evaluate morally.  For example, you might, very reasonably, expect me to say tell you how it would harm anybody if kumquats got eaten, since whether or not something is harmful is one way that we evaluate morality.

However, if I were to tell you only that I have faith that they are, that God said so, and that you're going to burn in Hell if you eat kumquats, you'd not only think me crazy, you'd be outraged, and rightly so.  I'd be accusing you of immorality without any reasonable basis whatsoever!  And yet, this is exactly what the Christian extremists do (though not about kumquats).  

Take for example homosexuality.  Their argument for it being "immoral" is simply that it says it is in their mythology book.  They make no argument based on any sort of reason or explaining how it harms anyone.**  Accusing another of immorality is a terrible thing.  If we're to do it, we'd better have a very good case for it.

Anything that someone says is "wrong" based on faith in mythology and not on reason is not only superstition, but taboo.  Such rules, when not put to any rational moral evaluation, have no moral value.

Faith is superstition and superstition is amoral.

Fundamentalism is Amoral

Fundamentalist Christians are particularly amoral on these grounds.  They claim that the Bible is "inerrant".[1]  That is, they claim that the Bible is absolutely true.  This is logically disprovable a few thousand times over through internal contradiction.  Perhaps the most glaring example of this is that the gospel attributed to Matthew and the gospel attributed to Luke each have genealogies of Joseph, both of which attempt to show that Jesus is the Messiah.  

The idea in both Gospels is to show that Joseph was directly descended from King David.  However, the genealogies are as different as can be!  They differ not only in the names themselves, but in the number of generations between David and Joseph, in whether or not Joseph was also descended from Solomon, and even the father, grandfather and great grandfather of Joseph differ.[2]  I am at a loss to find ways in which they're are even remotely similar!

Now, some Christian Extremists go so far as falsely stating that one of these genealogies is actually the genealogy of Mary.  Neither is!  Anyone who bothers to read these Gospels will find they're both genealogies of Joseph.  Now, there are only two possibilities as to why these Christians would do this.  (1) They bear false witness against the Gospels, in violation of their Ten Commandments, which they claim to hallow.   (2) They are ignorant of their own scripture, which they themselves hold as the Word of God.  Is it not their duty to know this scripture?  In either case, they show themselves to be immoral by their own reckoning.  In either case, why should we give any credence whatsoever to anything they say about their religion?

Unless we descend into superstition, there are only three logical conclusions here:

1. The gospel attributed to Matthew is right and the gospel attributed to Luke is wrong.
2. The gospel attributed to Luke is right and the gospel attributed to Matthew is wrong.
3. Both are wrong.

Who could possibly think that the authors of both books were actually there?  Surely, even if they got a few things wrong, they'd at least have gotten Joseph's father, grandfather and great grandfather right, simply by asking Joseph.  Then again, maybe the these gospels were written by authors who weren't the apostles and never witnessed any of the things they wrote about.

Yet Fundamentalism claims that both gospels are absolutely true.  Therefore, Fundamentalism is wrong.  Fundamentalism is superstitious and, as we've seen, non-logical propositions about how people should act have no moral basis.

Fundamentalism = superstition = amoral

Christian Extremists Lack a Moral Compass

Christian extremism, particularly Fundamentalism, is non-logical.  Rather than having morals, it has amoral superstitions based on blind faith, which, as I've shown, fail to support their proposals for "right" and "wrong" with any logical or rational basis.

Superstition, as opposed to reason-based morality, cannot point us toward good.  Reason can tell us which way's good.  Superstition cannot!

How I Now Respond

I've come to the conclusion that it's time that I took a stand against all of this.  I used to feel like I didn't want to offend anyone, but, I can no longer keep silent just to keep Christian extremists safe from offense.  I've realized that it's inevitable that they will take offense, because they're offended by anyone who disagrees with them, on the basis of such people refusing to share their superstitions, and they insist on foisting their superstitions on the public. 

There is some shit I will not eat. -- E.E. Cummings

I'm happy to let anyone have their superstitions who will leave me alone.  In fact, I'll confess to having some of my own, but I refuse to allow my superstitions to be the sole basis for my morals and I refuse to allow other people to foist their superstitions on me on a spurious moralistic claim.  When people insist on forcing their superstitions on others, whether legally or socially, I draw the line and it becomes impossible for people like me, that is people of good conscience, to avoid offending the superstitious pseudo-moralists.

Moreover, after thinking long and hard about this, I've come to the conclusion that it's high time we called them on their pseudo-moralism.  They think they're morally superior to the rest of us.  In fact, as I've just shown, they're morally inferior.  I refuse to let them treat me or any of us as moral inferiors any longer.  I can respect them by leaving them alone as much as they leave me alone, but I cannot be a doormat to their socio-political attacks.  If such amoral people insist on telling me that I'm immoral, I feel that I must speak my side.  I feel like I'm disrespecting them, but our side is so rarely heard, because so many of us try so, so hard to respect everyone.  By attacking my moral standing, they put me in a position in which I find it impossible to respect them and in which my silence can be taken as assent.  I believe that they've force all of our hands and that we must speak up.  I will attempt to be as respectful, diplomatic, polite, and good as I can, but I will be silent no longer.

• When Christians try to convert me, and ask why I won't convert, I plan to tell them that I think a literal interpretation of the Bible is superstitious and amoral, but that they have a right to their beliefs.  
• If they're offended by this, I'll point out that they asked.
• If they tell me I'm going to go to Hell (or the equivalent), I'll tell them I think that's a superstition too and that their belief in it further convinces me of their lack of morals, but affirm their rights to their beliefs.
• I'll affirm that I know that they're doing what they think is right, but I'll also point out that I am too.
• When Christian extremists try to steamroll over our sacred freedom of religion, try to tear down our sacred wall of separation of church and state***, try to put social pressure on others to capitulate to their superstitious demands, tell us that we're going to "burn in Hell" (or equivalent words), I intend to respond just as I would if they were at my door.

I'm slowly realizing just how huge of a threat Christian extremists are to America.  If they get their way, America will be ruled by Christian Sharia laws.  I, for one, feel a moral duty to stop them.

--- Footnotes:

* Even if Christians say something like, "you're not going to go to Heaven unless you convert," or, "I'm worried about your soul," we all know what they mean as surely as black people know what it means when people dressed in white sheets and pillowcases burn crosses on their lawns.  We know that these phrases really mean, "you're going to burn in Hell if you disagree with us." 

** At least that I've ever heard.

*** Many Christian extremists have pointed out that the words "separation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution.  In fact, the First Amendment says much the same thing in different words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."  The terms "separation of Church and State" comes from Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists", in which he characterized that clause as "a wall of separation of church and state".  Separation of Church and State is critical to freedom of religion.  You can't have the second without the first.  It's also a foundational national value of America and a sacred relic of the Enlightenment.

[1] See for instances:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#Terminology

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Christian-Fundamentalism

[2] Matthew 1:2-16, Luke 3:23

The Amorality of Christian Extremism

I've thought long and hard about whether to express what I'm about to say.  I try to respect all religions and all human beings.  I know that many, many of us are honestly trying to do what we think is right and that that probably includes most Christian extremists as well.  However...

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, envinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty... to provide new guards for their future. -- Declaration of Independence

I've realized that it's time to take a stand.

I also realize that Christian extremism and conservative Christianity are both very broad categories with a lot of diversity within them.  This post is a reaction to a what I see as the middle of that bell curve, based on what I hear via the media from Christian extremist preachers, ministers, and leaders, the proseltytizers who come to my door to preach to me, and what friends of mine who were raised in some form of Christian extremism have told me.  I apologize if I've unfairly offended anyone, however I have come to realize that I feel morally called to take a stand and that offense of the type of Christian extremists I'm talking about in the post is inevitable and of their own doing.

Christian extremists are at this moment trying to legislate their religious beliefs, trying to beat society into submission to their beliefs, and telling non-Christians that we're all going to "burn in Hell" if we don't share their beliefs.*

Here is my response to Christian extremism...

Faith is Amoral

I once had a young woman I had gotten to know ask me out to Church.  She invited me to an event on a Saturday that claimed to be a talk on psychology.  The speaker concluded by saying that "only Jesus" can "help" us with our emotions.  Although this was an ambush, since the talk was not on psychology but on Christianity, I did not initially hold this against the young woman, since I realized that she might not have realized where the talk would lead.  

She invited me to go out to lunch with her friends afterwards, and her friends tried to convert me over lunch.  Another ambush!  When they asked me why I wouldn't convert, I told them that no one had ever convinced me that Christianity was true.  When they asked me why, I pointed out logical flaws I saw in Christian doctrine.  Then, one woman at the table exclaimed, "but you have to have faith!"  A man, who was currently enrolled in a theological seminary, replied to her, "he's not ready for faith.  He needs logic first."  The man proceeded to attempt to use sophistry to trick me into agreeing with him.  I countered all of his arguments.

Wait a second, I thought, something's wrong here.  To me, faith is something we have based on intuition, which, in turn, is based on facts.  For example, I might have faith that a friend can be trusted based on the fact that the friend has proven trustworthy in the past.  That is, although I can't prove that the friend is always trustworthy, I can make an intuitive leap that they're likely to be and decide to trust them.

However, faith, as these Christians evidently defined it, is a complete disposal and abandonment of reason!  Conferring with friends of mine who were raised in some form of Christian extremism (and even many who were raised conservative or even moderate Christian), I've been able to confirm that such Christians are explicitly taught to ignore reason and replace it, wholesale, with what they call "faith".  Moreover, they were taught that, unless they had faith, they'd go to Hell.  It's this definition of faith that I address herein.

So what Christian extremists (and many other Christians as well) mean by faith is really superstition.    Faith to them means (1) believing in the Bible without any reason, (2) believing in God without any reason, and (3) assuming a set of rules based on 1 and 2.

To summarize...

faith = superstition = a lack of reason

"thou shalt not" = taboo

But morality depends on reason.  If I proposed that eating kumquats was evil, you'd demand to know why I thought that, wouldn't you?  I hope you would.  To defend such a claim, I'd need to show you some evidence or produce some logic that made the eating of kumquats is something we can evaluate morally.  For example, you might, very reasonably, expect me to say tell you how it would harm anybody if kumquats got eaten, since whether or not something is harmful is one way that we evaluate morality.

However, if I were to tell you only that I have faith that they are, that God said so, and that you're going to burn in Hell if you eat kumquats, you'd not only think me crazy, you'd be outraged, and rightly so.  I'd be accusing you of immorality without any reasonable basis whatsoever!  And yet, this is exactly what the Christian extremists do (though not about kumquats).  

Take for example homosexuality.  Their argument for it being "immoral" is simply that it says it is in their mythology book.  They make no argument based on any sort of reason or explaining how it harms anyone.**  Accusing another of immorality is a terrible thing.  If we're to do it, we'd better have a very good case for it.

Anything that someone says is "wrong" based on faith in mythology and not on reason is not only superstition, but taboo.  Such rules, when not put to any rational moral evaluation, have no moral value.

Faith is superstition and superstition is amoral.

Fundamentalism is Amoral

Fundamentalist Christians are particularly amoral on these grounds.  They claim that the Bible is "inerrant".[1]  That is, they claim that the Bible is absolutely true.  This is logically disprovable a few thousand times over through internal contradiction.  Perhaps the most glaring example of this is that the gospel attributed to Matthew and the gospel attributed to Luke each have genealogies of Joseph, both of which attempt to show that Jesus is the Messiah.  

The idea in both Gospels is to show that Joseph was directly descended from King David.  However, the genealogies are as different as can be!  They differ not only in the names themselves, but in the number of generations between David and Joseph, in whether or not Joseph was also descended from Solomon, and even the father, grandfather and great grandfather of Joseph differ.[2]  I am at a loss to find ways in which they're are even remotely similar!

Now, some Christian Extremists go so far as falsely stating that one of these genealogies is actually the genealogy of Mary.  Neither is!  Anyone who bothers to read these Gospels will find they're both genealogies of Joseph.  Now, there are only two possibilities as to why these Christians would do this.  (1) They bear false witness against the Gospels, in violation of their Ten Commandments, which they claim to hallow.   (2) They are ignorant of their own scripture, which they themselves hold as the Word of God.  Is it not their duty to know this scripture?  In either case, they show themselves to be immoral by their own reckoning.  In either case, why should we give any credence whatsoever to anything they say about their religion?

Unless we descend into superstition, there are only three logical conclusions here:

1. The gospel attributed to Matthew is right and the gospel attributed to Luke is wrong.
2. The gospel attributed to Luke is right and the gospel attributed to Matthew is wrong.
3. Both are wrong.

Who could possibly think that the authors of both books were actually there?  Surely, even if they got a few things wrong, they'd at least have gotten Joseph's father, grandfather and great grandfather right, simply by asking Joseph.  Then again, maybe the these gospels were written by authors who weren't the apostles and never witnessed any of the things they wrote about.

Yet Fundamentalism claims that both gospels are absolutely true.  Therefore, Fundamentalism is wrong.  Fundamentalism is superstitious and, as we've seen, non-logical propositions about how people should act have no moral basis.

Fundamentalism = superstition = amoral

Christian Extremists Lack a Moral Compass

Christian extremism, particularly Fundamentalism, is non-logical.  Rather than having morals, it has amoral superstitions based on blind faith, which, as I've shown, fail to support their proposals for "right" and "wrong" with any logical or rational basis.

Superstition, as opposed to reason-based morality, cannot point us toward good.  Reason can tell us which way's good.  Superstition cannot!

How I Now Respond

I've come to the conclusion that it's time that I took a stand against all of this.  I used to feel like I didn't want to offend anyone, but, I can no longer keep silent just to keep Christian extremists safe from offense.  I've realized that it's inevitable that they will take offense, because they're offended by anyone who disagrees with them, on the basis of such people refusing to share their superstitions, and they insist on foisting their superstitions on the public. 

There is some shit I will not eat. -- E.E. Cummings

I'm happy to let anyone have their superstitions who will leave me alone.  In fact, I'll confess to having some of my own, but I refuse to allow my superstitions to be the sole basis for my morals and I refuse to allow other people to foist their superstitions on me on a spurious moralistic claim.  When people insist on forcing their superstitions on others, whether legally or socially, I draw the line and it becomes impossible for people like me, that is people of good conscience, to avoid offending the superstitious pseudo-moralists.

Moreover, after thinking long and hard about this, I've come to the conclusion that it's high time we called them on their pseudo-moralism.  They think they're morally superior to the rest of us.  In fact, as I've just shown, they're morally inferior.  I refuse to let them treat me or any of us as moral inferiors any longer.  I can respect them by leaving them alone as much as they leave me alone, but I cannot be a doormat to their socio-political attacks.  If such amoral people insist on telling me that I'm immoral, I feel that I must speak my side.  I feel like I'm disrespecting them, but our side is so rarely heard, because so many of us try so, so hard to respect everyone.  By attacking my moral standing, they put me in a position in which I find it impossible to respect them and in which my silence can be taken as assent.  I believe that they've force all of our hands and that we must speak up.  I will attempt to be as respectful, diplomatic, polite, and good as I can, but I will be silent no longer.

• When Christians try to convert me, and ask why I won't convert, I plan to tell them that I think a literal interpretation of the Bible is superstitious and amoral, but that they have a right to their beliefs.  
• If they're offended by this, I'll point out that they asked.
• If they tell me I'm going to go to Hell (or the equivalent), I'll tell them I think that's a superstition too and that their belief in it further convinces me of their lack of morals, but affirm their rights to their beliefs.
• I'll affirm that I know that they're doing what they think is right, but I'll also point out that I am too.
• When Christian extremists try to steamroll over our sacred freedom of religion, try to tear down our sacred wall of separation of church and state***, try to put social pressure on others to capitulate to their superstitious demands, tell us that we're going to "burn in Hell" (or equivalent words), I intend to respond just as I would if they were at my door.

I'm slowly realizing just how huge of a threat Christian extremists are to America.  If they get their way, America will be ruled by Christian Sharia laws.  I, for one, feel a moral duty to stop them.

--- Footnotes:

* Even if Christians say something like, "you're not going to go to Heaven unless you convert," or, "I'm worried about your soul," we all know what they mean as surely as black people know what it means when people dressed in white sheets and pillowcases burn crosses on their lawns.  We know that these phrases really mean, "you're going to burn in Hell if you disagree with us." 

** At least that I've ever heard.

*** Many Christian extremists have pointed out that the words "separation of Church and State" are not in the Constitution.  In fact, the First Amendment says much the same thing in different words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."  The terms "separation of Church and State" comes from Thomas Jefferson's "Letter to the Danbury Baptists", in which he characterized that clause as "a wall of separation of church and state".  Separation of Church and State is critical to freedom of religion.  You can't have the second without the first.  It's also a foundational national value of America and a sacred relic of the Enlightenment.

[1] See for instances:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#Terminology

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Christian-Fundamentalism

[2] Matthew 1:2-16, Luke 3:23

Some Questions about Cultural Appropriation

Two Pantheacons ago, I went to a panel that purported to be on cultural appropriation vs racial purity lead by T. Thorn Coyle.  On the panel with her were Shuranya, a white woman who studied traditional Kali worship in India, an African American Santero (whose name escapes me), and Crystal Blanton. 

During the panel, Thorn asked us to sit with the questions and thoughts raised by the panel.  I have for over a year now and I find that I'm left primarily with questions more than answers.  That can be a good thing.  Ofttimes, I find that people are too quick to answer and too slow to question.  So, after a year and half, I'm finally writing a blog about my questions about this issue.

---

Several questions were already answered to my satisfaction by the panel.  For example, the Shyranya pointed out that, so long as people outside of an ethnic group have really learned the ways of that ethnic group, as she has, follow those ways, and are respectful of that cultural, it's not cultural appropriation.  Similarly, Crystal Blanton pointed out that genealogy does not automatically give one a license to practice culture.  For example, just because she's African American does not automatically give her the keys to African Diasporic religions.

While still affirming that cultural appropriation is wrong, they underscored some blind spots in the anti-cultural appropriation movement.  For example, Asatru practitioners who require racial purity in order to worship with them, clearly underscore a problem with putting more weight on anti cultural appropriation than on anti racial purity.  I think most of us shutter when we find out that non-white people are being barred from religious worship. 

After sitting with this for a year and a half, I still have far more questions than the panel answered.  I'm generally supportive of the idea that real cultural appropriation is wrong, but the issue raises many questions for me and, until I resolve them, it's not clear to me what really constitutes cultural appropriation.  

Although I'm white, I was raised Zen Buddhist.  That's a very formative part of who I am.  I can understand the perspective of feeling that one's culture is being appropriated.  For example, some years ago, a night club opened up in downtown Mountain View called Buddha lounge.  They later changed their name to Zen.  I find both offensive.  Buddhism and Zen are sacred and profound.  They're not just idle terms to be thrown around to create a sort of Disneyland for big kids, which is exactly how I feel that club uses those terms.

Still, as a religious progressive, I've always felt a very strong call to unite the world rather than divide it.  Ideas such as that there might be wisdom to learn from all cultures or that Deity may have manifested Itself to all of humanity in a myriad ways have always appealed to me.  These ideas are intended to bring the world together and heal the wounds amongst its myriad ethnic groups and were never intended to take anything away from anyone.

Here are my questions...

What about Multiculturalism?

For decades, I've been an advocate of multiculturalism.  True multiculturalism, as I understand it, is world-positive and humanity-positive.  It seeks to dissolve cultural boundaries that divide us to help us all be more human and worldly rather than merely white, black, Asian, Latino, etc.  To fill one's home with the artwork of many cultures, to dress with clothing of different ethnic groups, to listen to world music, to eat food of multiple cuisines, and so forth can all say something positive about one's personality: that one is attempting to dissolve the evils of racial purity with which we've been indoctrinated and re-identify ourselves in a more all-embracing and humanist way. 

Spirituality is no exception.  By embracing religions from around the world, we can dissolve the idea that the religious way of our culture is the one, right, true and only way and affirm that the spirituality and religiosity of all human cultures are equally valid.

Take, for example, the Goddess movement.  While, as a man, I haven't actually been a part of it, I can well imagine that worshipping the Divine Feminine as She has appeared to people all over the world could have profound significance to women of all races trying to get in touch with the femine Supernature that many cultures in contrast to the male conception of Divinity so prevalent in the West.  To that end, spiritual practice that incorporates, say, the Virgin of Guatalupe, the Japanese Great Goddess Amaterasu, the Hindu Goddess Durga and the Native American Goddess Spider Woman might be very meaningful.

On the other hand, I've also seen disrespectful actions carried out in the name of multiculturalism.  When white people lead New Age retreats that purport to be Native American, but are not actually the ways of any indigenous American tribes, that, to me, seems disrespectful of all Native Americans.  For another example, when potheads decorate their home with things sacred to Lord Shiva and then claim that their pot smoking alone is worship because ganja is sacred to Shiva, that seems to me to be disrespectful of all the people in India who sincerely worship Shiva.  Rather than tending to sympathize with the pothead, their so-called "worship" looks to me like just an excuse to smoke pot.

So, is being multicultural in one's spirituality in and of itself cultural appropriation or can multiculturalism and anti cultural appropriation coexist?

Who owns the Gods?

If we actually believe in the Gods, do we believe that human cultures own them?  I certainly don't.  If the Gods exist, surely they can be worshipped by anybody. I can see making exceptions for Deities Who are specific to particular peoples or places, such as tribal totems.  A Deity who is primary to a particular people is not owned by those people, but someone who is not a member of that group should think twice before worshipping that Deity.  A Deity of a specific place may fall into a similar category.  If you're not living in that place, why worship the Deity?

However, the vast majority of Divinities I see being worshiped in the Pagan community are more general than that.  And, what about a Deity Who is explicitly universal?  What's more, some Deities are explicitly thought of as being cosmic and transcending culture.

Shuranya (and others) will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Kali is such a Deity, as are Vishnu, Shiva and several other Deities common to Hinduism.  These Deities, as I understand, are not thought of as being specific to a people or place, but being cosmic, universal and, as such, accessible, by Their own design and will, to all of humanity regardless of culture.

Note, while we've touched on the subject, that Hinduism is not one religion but a cluster of Indian religiosity and the label actually comes from the Muslims.  Nor are the Indian people one people but many peoples who share a large region of the earth.  So, the Indian civilization is by its very nature cosmopolitan.  I can see understanding one local Deity therein as being a Being that the rest of us should think twice before worshipping, but such cosmic and universal Deities as Vishnu, Shiva or Kali are already shared amongst many peoples in India.

I would contrast such universal Deities with my understanding of the Yoruba Orishas, however.  From what I understand, the Orishas of Yoruba (and many of the African diasporic religions) are both ancient, heroic ancestors and semi-Divinities.  What this means, if I understand correctly, is that the Orishas are to some extent Yoruba Themselves.  If someone worshipped my grandmother, I'd find it a little weird and I can certainly understand how someone a Yoruba (or a real practitioner of one of the Yoruba-derived religions) would, thus, be uncomfortable with outsiders worshipping their semi-Divine ancient ancestors.

Getting back to my subject of who owns the Gods, all this begs the question what is a Deity's will.  I think it is certainly believable that the way a particular culture or cultures to which that Deity has most commonly addressed Him or Herself worships that Deity would likely reflect how that Deity wishes to be worshipped.  So, while I think it would be blasphemous to call the worship of a Deity traditionally worshiped by culture X by someone who is not a member of culture X "cultural appropriation" (since the Deity is not owned by the culture), it would seem advisable to learn the ways culture X worships said Deity if one is to become a devotee.

On the other hand, cultural aspects that are integral more to the culture than to the Deity, may well be something someone from a different culture should leave alone without a good reason to take up.  For example, if Native American Divinity really is calling to a white person toward worship, does that give that white person the right to, say, do whatever they want with dream catchers?

A further question is: what if a Deity calls to you?  If a Deity has reached out to you which is more important, reserving the worship of that Deity for the people who have traditionally worshipped it or trying to sincerely hear the guidance that that Deity has for you?  Now, it may be the two can join by the devotee learning traditional forms of worship, but need this be the case?  How do we know that a particular Deity isn't fine with the ways of new worshipers or even actively encouraging a new form of worship among a new population?

Still, I can see the frustrations of people in a particular culture seeing outsiders doing something that is traditional to their culture.   At the same time, I can also see the perspective of people who, although not part of the indigenous culture or cultures that traditionally worship a particular Deity, nevertheless are sincere in their devotion.  

If we side with the sincere spiritual path of a non-ethnical worshiper do we risk siding against a culture's traditional ways?  If we side with the ethnic group, do we side against someone's spiritual growth?

What if All Deities are One?

There's a widespread concept in many Pagan traditions, most principally in Wicca, but also in Feri and other forms of Pagan Witchcraft, that all Goddesses are One Goddess and all Gods are One God, or else (e.g. in Feri) that all Deities are One.

This is not a new idea.  As I understand, it is quite common in Hindu belief.  This is not limited to Indian Divinities (Divinities often worshiped in India).  For example, many Vishnu worshippers worship Jesus Christ as an incarnation of Vishnu and, thus, place crosses on their Vishnu altars.

The ancient Roman Isis cult also claimed that Isis is all Deities (male, female, or otherwise).  There is also a concept in ancient Neoplatonism that all Gods derive from the same Source (the One).  

What does cultural appropriation mean within this belief system? For example, let's say an eclectic Wiccan group sets about worshipping the Great Goddess as all Goddesses and the Great Horned God as all Gods, is it more important for that group to only pick European Deities to represent Goddess and God on the grounds that they're predominantly white and want to avoid cultural appropriation or to represent Goddess and God in the ways they see as that these Great Divinities appeared to people from cultures around the world?  

One black woman made a fascinating point during the discussion period of the PCon panel, which is that, as a Wiccan, it was important to her that there be black representations of the Lord and Lady. 

There is One Universal Set of Deities

A related concept that was fairly common in the ancient Mediterranean culture, as well as others, is that there is one set of Deities and that They have appeared to different people in different ways.  The ancient Greek historian Herodotus, for example, identified the Isis as Demeter and Osiris as Dionysos due to the fact that it was normal in his culture to think that there's only one set of Deities known to different people under different names.  Similarly, the Romans assumed that various Greek Deities were the same as their own and, thus, understood Zeus to be Jupiter, Aphrodite to be Venus, Hera to be Juno, Mars to be Ares, to name just a few.  Hermeticism, which comes to modern times all the way from antiquity has, at its basis, the concept of a supreme Divinity named Hermes Trismegistos, Who was thought, by the ancient Greco-Egyptians to be both Thoth and Hermes.

This type of theology makes a certain amount of sense.  For example, how can there be more than one sun God?  Do we really think that Ra, Helios, Sunna and Amaterasu are separate Beings?  If we do, doesn't that imply that only one of Them (or possibly some other Sun Divinity) is the one, right, true and only sun Deity?  If we don't think that one culture's Deity is right and the rest are wrong, doesn't it make sense to conclude that all of them are right?  Thus, it seems perfectly cogent to me to say that Ra, Helios, Sunna, Amaterasu and all other sun Deities, whether God, Goddess, Hermaphrodite, etc. is the same Deity.

How do we evaluate cultural appropriation within this framework?  Is it cultural appropriation for a Sun worshiper to include Helios, Ra and Amaterasu on the same altar?  What if they worship all three according to their understanding of ancient Greek, ancient Egyptian and modern Japanese Shinto ways?  Is that cultural appropriation or would branding it as such interfere with legitimate religiosity?

---

In both cases, All Deities are One, and There is One Set of Deities across all cultures, providing such answers is not easy.  Some cases are clear cut, but I can also understand the indignation of, say Santeros or Voodoun Priests when people try to, say, incorporate an Orisha or Loa among their representations of the Lord or Lady or of a particular universal Deity, such as the Sun God or Love Goddess.  Orishas, as I've mentioned, are somewhat ancestral.  Loas, as I understand, are also regarded as more like spirits than Deities by Voodoun practitioners and so, therefore, may be argued to be more specific to Haitian culture on the grounds that they're less universal beings.

Still and all, a Neoplatonist, for example, might very well understand an Orisha or Loa within a Neoplatonic framework in which such a Being is a part of a more universal whole.  A Wiccan or other Pagan Witch might understand such a Being within their own theology.  Who has a right to what theology?  How do we resolve such issues?

What about Reincarnation?

Many people sincerely believe in reincarnation and have strong convictions that they remember former lives.  These convictions can be very important parts of people's lives and spirituality.  Yet, it's a very tricky subject when it comes to cultural appropriation.

If somebody feels that they remember how things "were done" back in a former life, does that give them the right to do things that way now?  What if that way that they feel they remember is in contrast to the modern customs of the ethnic group they seem to remember being a part of in a former life?  What if it's in contrast to what we know even of older practices of that ethnic group?

One tricky part about this is that there are two values (at least) in collision here.  One is the right of the supposedly reincarnated person to worship as they wish.  The second is the right of traditional people to ignore such a person and doubt the validity of their claims.

I can see incorporating elements of apparent former lives into one's spirituality, but I'd draw the line at making any claims about the cultural validity of modern members of the ethnic group one claims to have once belonged to.  That is, if you were reincarnated, I think it's fine if you practice what you remember on your own, but I'd draw the line at you telling modern ethnic people what to do or insisting that they accept you as one of their own.

Also, it would seem to me that, given that past life memories may very well be hazy and may be filtered through our own flawed brains, learning as much as possible about the culture in question through mundane means would be highly advisable. 

How Does Religion Interact with Politics?

The issue of cultural appropriation is a socio-political issue.  However, religion and spirituality is often transcendent of socio-political issues.  That is, spirituality may well inform one's socio-political views, but is above and beyond a particular political stance.  Moreover, spirituality is intensely personal and invaluable to the practitioner. 

At what point do we sacrifice spirituality and religion for politics?  At what point is our spirituality so personal and invaluable to us that it can't be sacrificed for any reason?  These are serious questions to which I don't always have a good answer.

Conclusions and Further Questioning

To some extent, I don't really have answers to these questions.  Real cultural appropriation is very serious and we should all pay attention to this issue.  We cannot lightly throw it aside or ignore it.  At the same time, I still cannot answer the questions above.  True multiculturalism, when it's done for the right reasons and in the right ways is also very important as we grow from many ethnic groups to one humanity.  Honoring Divinity is impossible, as it seems to me, if we must sacrifice our theology or fail to respond to a call from a Patron Deity critical to our spiritual development.

Here is what I think is most truly important to remember.

Respect

So very much can be done if we're respectful.  I think that respect means that, if we're going to use anything traditional to another people that we use it with the utmost respect.  For example, if a Deity traditional to a non-white culture calls a white person, I think that person owes it to that Deity Who has so many worshippers in that non-white culture to be as respectful as possible to those people, while still worshipping the Deity.

Be Sure of Your Justifications

I think that if people have a very clear justification for what they're doing, particularly when it comes to the Gods or to their own sincere spirituality, they're fine.  However, we should all be very clear about those justifications and be careful to avoid overstepping our bounds.  For example, if you want to include concepts of Divinity from all over the world as an expression of multiculturalism and universal humanism, I think that's great and that the world needs that, but I also think one should be very up front about what one is doing.  For example, incorporating real traditions from one or more Native American tribe would be fine, I think, but performing a pseudo-Native American ceremony (or even many real ones) without really knowing what you're doing doesn't really help the multicultural cause and is fairly clearly cultural appropriation in my mind.

Be Authentic When Feasible

If you're going to do something that's not from your culture, I think that knowing what you're doing and being authentic would be best, unless you have a good, clear reason not to.  To use the Native American example, Native Americans aren't one culture.  There are many Native American cultures.  It's therefore impossible to do a generic Native American anything.  If you're going to do something Native American, particularly if it's beyond merely being inclusive of many cultures, it seems to me that it would be best to really know what you're doing.  Ditto for other cultures.  That is, it should really be authentic.  Otherwise, it's not truly multicultural.

I think certain exceptions present themselves.  I mean, I think that if some Deity traditional to another culture is really talking to you, you don't necessarily have to follow traditional ways if, in your sincere relationship, you sincerely believe that Deity is really fine with it.  For another example, if you're using a particular culture's depiction of Deity under the theology that all Deities are One, it's probably fine to do things according to your own tradition, such as a Wiccan circle, rather than the ways traditional to that culture, as long as your only purpose in incorporating that depiction of Divinity is to have multiple examples from multiple cultures.

However, unless there's some reason not be authentic to the culture that informs your spirituality, I think it's best to be authentic and to really do the work to find out what that authenticity means in that case.

Be Anti-Racism and Anti-Colonization

If you're going to be influenced by other cultures, and this goes double if you're white, and your justification is something like multiculturalism or all Deities are one, it seems to me that you owe it to humanity to be actively anti-racist and anti-colonization.  That stance would seem to me to go hand in hand with any concept of multiculturalism.

Think Before You Practice

Above all, one big takeaway for me with all these thoughts is to think before we practice spirituality.  As you should see clearly now, I think this issue is very nuanced.  That's all the more reason to think carefully about what you're doing before practicing something spiritual. 

Ultimately, my real conclusion is to keep asking questions rather than settling on any one answer too easily.  If we're too casual about being influenced by other cultures, we run the risk of cultural appropriation.  If we never allow any other culture other than the one were raised with to enter our being, we run the risks of becoming racial purists (or at least cultural ones) and also of having our spirituality stagnate and missing opportunities to make spiritual progress.

I feel strongly that a growing appreciation of humanity as a whole is a critical component of all spirituality to anyone who has gone deep enough.  On the one hand, that means opening ourselves up to influences from other cultures.  On the other hand, that means deeply respecting those cultures, including their boundaries.

Trump: Monster More Than Man

Donald Trump is a braggard and a bully who seems to lack any empathy or compassion for anyone.  Morality is based on ethics and compassion.  The only way we can have a moral compass is if we start by having compassion for the suffering of others.  Trump is a racist and a bigot.  I saw in the news how he stood by an did nothing while his supporters physically assaulted Black Lives Matter protestors.

Irregardless of where we stand on Black Lives Matter, none of us has the right to beat some up just because we don't like what they say, and standing by and letting it happen is almost as bad.  Instead of doing what we all know is the right thing, I read him saying, "maybe they should have been roughed up" or words to that affect.  I hear him admiring tyrants like Russian dictator Vladamir Putin and particularly likes how Putin oppresses his people's rights.

He is an Islamaphobe who, as I understand, has proposed banning all Muslims from immigrating to America, when we know that the vast majority of Muslims are as opposed to terrorism as the rest of us are (I learned this from a professor at Georgetown at Parliament of the Worlds' Religions).  I hear him go way beyond being anti-illegal immigrant to being racist against Mexicans.  This article sums all this up pretty well:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/29/5-reasons-every-american-should-oppose-donald-trump/#.VtaWh7BOKbE.facebook

Trump is a Fascist and he's looking an awful lot like a Nazi. Remember that the Nazis started small and pulled the noose around Germany slowly.  I can easily imagine a Trump presidency turning into Nazism in America, concentration camps and all.

Trump is a bad man.  When I was initiated into the Thiasos Olympikos Men's Mysteries, I learned several things about what it truly means to be a man.

1. Macho is a caricature of masculine.  Real men just do it.
2. Courage is nothing more than being scared and doing something anyway.
3. Strength is nothing more than having something be hard and doing it anyway.
4. It takes courage and strength to be a compassionate person who cares about others and to allow that compassion to guide our moral compass and go where that compass points.

Trump is a caricature of masculine, full of bragging and bluster.  However, it only takes cowardice and weakness of character to be a hateful bigot like him.  It takes strength and courage to hold and speak the conviction that all of us are equal, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, whether or not we're disabled, religion and so forth.  It only takes weakness and cowardice to attack people for their differences.  It takes strength and courage to say that all of our sisters and brothers of all colors, sexual orientations, religions and of all different types and qualities are beautiful human beings worthy of respect and dignity.

What really shocked me about him was watching the video of the Black Lives Matter protesters being beaten up at his rally and then learning that he just acted like beating them up was normal.  It takes true character to see your political opponents getting physically assaulted and to stand up to the assaulters and stop it.  It only takes weakness of character to stand by and allow it to happen because it's politically expedient.

The only way to deal with bullies is to face them and confront them with their own nastiness and with the terror they insight.  Trump is a monster and he needs to be called on it.  He puffs himself up like he's strong and courageous but in reality he lacks the moral fortitude to be compassionate instead of hateful.  I'm personally very frightened that he's doing so well in the primaries and that so many of my fellow Americans support him.  It shows a weakness of character on the part of many of my fellow citizens to support such a monster.  I fear what such a monster would do as President and Commander In Chief and I appeal to my fellow Americans who support such a bigot and would-be tyrant to find the strength and courage within themselves to stop supporting him and instead affirm the compassionate and nurturant heart that I know they have and denounce his hatred, bigotry and bluster.