According to Hauerwas, ethics necessarily requires a qualifier. Further, that qualifier must be grounded in history (and is religion-based), for only within the context of humans as historical beings does ethics make sense and give purpose to ethical systems. With this in mind, this paper first examines whether Paganism is a religion with an historical context or mere folly and then proceeds to examine its ethical system.
According to Bonewits, the term Pagan originally meant country dweller, villager, or hick. He points out that the early Roman Christians referred to anyone who worshipped pre-Christian deities as ‘pagan.’ Eventually, according to Bonewits, the term ‘Pagan’ evolved to take on the connotation of ‘one who follows a false religion.’ To today’s Pagans, the term is a general one meaning "polytheistic religions old and new, as well as their members." Is Paganism a "false religion," or folly? Wicca, comprised of groups of Pagans with varying beliefs yet perhaps unifying themes of a love and respect of nature and predominantly Goddess worship, is recognized and protected by the federal government of the United States as a religion. Further, it is an attempt to revive the historical customs and beliefs predating Christianity. Does this alone make it acceptable as such? No. Many Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians, still view Wicca and Paganism as "the work of the devil" despite all the educational information to which there is access today. However, not all Christians are so closed-minded or uninformed as the Christian author of the article, A Brief Examination of Paganism. Through this article, I will explore some of the precepts of Paganism and Wicca.
"Paganism often involves ‘circle magic’ whose purpose is to summon positive or negative forces. Many of the Pagan ceremonies resemble those carried out by Satanists." Pagans summon negative forces? Pagans who perform Circle Magick summon the help of the deities involved. These ceremonies do not include summoning evil forces or Satan, whom most Pagans and Wiccans alike view as a Christian concept—the personification of pure evil--not a reality. Neither Pagans nor Wiccans believe in the existence of a personification of pure evil, nor do they believe that ‘pure’ evil exists; they see more a duality (complement--more a blend than an either/or)in all forces. The statement by the author of this article is an attempt, whether made deliberately or in ignorance, to compare or equate Paganism to Satanism; although common, this is an unqualified error. As the religious tolerance organization points out, "Some people feel that all non-Christian religions and all Christian denominations other than their own are forms of Satanism. This would imply that all Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims – in fact at least 75% of the world’s population are Satanists." Simply because Paganism and Wicca is not identical to Christianity (indeed, if it were it would be called Christianity!) does not mean that either religious group follows the beliefs or the practices of Satanists. If people would take the time to research the practices and beliefs of all three groups, they would know without doubt that such a comparison is ludicrous. Further, isn’t the author’s saying that they summon negative forces implying that the deities called upon are evil? This author likens "many of [their] ceremonies" to those of Satanists, but the only way in which he describes them as being similar is that "they include a circle large enough for the entire group of worshippers for protection and a consecrated altar in the midst." In my mind, this comparison is used to evoke negative emotions and encourage fear rather than promote honest understanding. This is a tactic I commonly find among many of the community of believers in Christ, and it gives me pause to associate myself with such a community.
"Pagans make a distinction between the ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ force. Black magic is used for purposes while so-called white magic is summoned to perform good." First, magick is not summoned, it is performed. Secondly, aren’t both types of magick "used for purposes"? There is no clear distinction here, though the distinction is clear in Pagan literature—had this person bothered to check appropriate sources. According to Weinstein,
Weinstein goes on to explain, in detail, the meanings of positive (white) and negative (black) magic and what each involves so there is no misunderstanding whatever.
Circle is not always used for magical purposes; Circle (or ritual) is most often used to celebrate the Sabbats or Esbats and pay respects to the deities. Tools are often used in these ceremonies, much like the ‘tools’ used by Christians for sacred rituals such as communion, etc.. The author of A Brief Examination of Paganism notes the use of two of these tools: "The chalice used in the ceremony represents the female sexual organ; while the athame – at least 9 inches long (a razor sharp knife) – represents the male sexual organ." This author once again takes a meaning and perverts it. The chalice is used to represent the feminine aspect of the deity, NOT specifically or completely the "female sexual organ;" the athame—not necessarily razor sharp nor always "at least 9 inches long" (mine is neither, nor are others I have seen)—represents the masculine aspect of the deity, NOT specifically or completely the "male sexual organ." The purpose of these tools within ritual is a representation of male and female coming together and joining—the two aspects become One; this author takes the concept apart and perverts it by describing it within a narrow context. The same could be done with the Judeo-Christian cross: to Christians, the cross is viewed in its entirety as a symbol of salvation. Were one to take the totality of the cross apart to see only a narrow view, one might view the cross as a symbol of brutality and death. Many other tools are/can be used in ritual; thankfully, this author did not venture a guess as to what each of those means.
"They dislike the term witches, and prefer to be called Practitioners of Wicca, The Craft, or The Old Religion." Most Wiccans prefer to be called Witches; I have never heard a Wiccan request to be called anything else since I have been involved in the religion! Although the term "Witch" has very ambiguous (and most often negative) meanings for some Christians and others, among Wiccans and Pagans the term generally means doer of good, healer and helper of those in need. Why, then, would they prefer any other term?
"They claim to worship the creator but that creator is both male and female in the same image as man was created." This is a totally ambiguous, faultily structured, and confusing sentence. I cannot actually address what is said because it makes no sense to me whatever. However, I assume the author is attempting to assert Pagans’ belief in the duality of the Creator. In this respect, the author is correct. The author then goes on to note: "They claim they do not worship many gods, but rather one god and one goddess with many names." (italics added) This article offers no bibliography or resources; it would be very interesting to know from whence this author got his/her information. Pagans may "claim" many things about whom they worship; however, most DO acknowledge and agree that they are worshipping a female and male deity who represent both the feminine and masculine forces in nature and the Divine. While this male and female deity are often summoned by different names, the deity is the same regardless of the name by which it is called. This may seem confusing, so allow me to attempt clarification: I am called Dazzle on IRC, Cathy or Ms. Hammack in class, and Cath by my closest friends and loved ones. Regardless which name I am called, I remain the same entity, not three or four separate, distinct persons. "They state that they are pantheistic and believe that all things of the earth are part of the creator." Pagans tend to see the Divine in all things--which makes perfect sense to me considering that God made all things and hence we can see God in all of creation. This doesn’t say that all things ARE God. This might best be understood using the question, 'How can one create that which is not somehow a part of one’s nature or essence or knowledge?'
"A good Pagan will follow the two sets of laws they have. The first is the Wiccan Read, a set of laws from ancient times. It culminates in the following words: ‘An ye harm none, do what ye will’ meaning you can do anything you want so long as it hurts no other living thing." Besides the author’s obvious misspelling of the word Rede, (s)he has the interpretation of the Rede backwards. The ethical reflection commanded by "An it harm none" comes before the action of "do what ye will," and this IS an important distinction to Pagans and Wiccans who follow the Rede. "The second [set of laws], ‘The Charge of the Goddess’ is allegedly the word of the goddess, commanding believers to worship the goddess, respect all life on earth for she put it there, and that believers must gather on sabbats and the full moons and worship her." (italics added) The Charge of the Goddess for Wiccans is ‘allegedly’ the word of the Goddess like the Bible is ‘allegedly’ the word of God for Judeo-Christians; hence, the Esbats and Sabbats are for Pagans as the Sabbath is for Christians.
"It is required that they celebrate Samhain (October 31), a Celtic holiday honoring the ghosts of warriors who’ve died. It is believed that this is a time when the physical world is closest to the other world. It is their concept of heaven although they do not believe in rewards after death. They believe, 'when you die, you just go to the other place.'" Although this section is very poorly syntaxed and confusing, I will try to address the ideas within. It is not required that Samhain be celebrated more than any other Sabbat or Esbat. However, when it IS celebrated, modern-day Pagans celebrate it to honor all dead, not ghosts or Celtic warriors (since this author gave no definition of what (s)he means by ghost, I can only assume it doesn’t mean a spirit on another plane but rather simply some remnant of a dead person.) Samhain IS believed the time when the veil between the physical and spiritual planes (not "other" or "world") is thinnest. This spiritual plane is NOT "their concept of heaven." Summerland is a place much different—it’s more a place where a spirit can rest, relax, and reflect upon what’s been learned before moving on to another lifetime of learning. If there were an equivalent concept of heaven, I would tend to say it’s more of the place one goes when all learning—or all that can be accomplished--on earth is completed: that place is back to closeness with the Divine.
"Another part of the ‘Charge of the Goddess’ says if you want to be truly free, you shall be naked in all your rites. Despite their claims that nudity has nothing to do with sex, their literature states elsewhere that magic and spells are best performed immediately after orgasm. Of course they are quick to point out this only involves consent with individuals." The last sentence makes no sense, although I assume the author is attempting to say that sex is performed only between consenting adults. Further, while there can be a perceived sense of ‘freedom’ in nudity, this can only be accomplished if one can remove clothing and take part in a group without feeling shame or without such act being illegal. If not (as is the case in most public rituals or gatherings of ‘mixed company’—not solely private coven rituals), then robes or clothes are normally worn. This is perhaps better explained by Otter G’Zell: "Nearly all of our ancestral tribes (and especially those of us who today are reclaiming our own Pagan heritage) lack that peculiar obsessive body modesty that seems to be a hallmark of the original sin alluded to in the story of the Fall [of Adam and Eve]. We can be naked and unashamed! Why, our Goddess even tells us, "as a sign that you are truly free, you shall be naked in your rites." I personally feel more comfortable clothed as I feel my body is my own and I choose not to share it (or the view of it); however, this is my own personal belief and it has always respected and unquestioned. Thus far, I have been to no gatherings in which people have been sky clad (nude). I will not debate here whether my own discomfort is a result of ‘original sin’ or instead is a result of my sexual abuse from early childhood to late adolescence--or is simply my own personal preference. As for magic and spells being "best performed after orgasm," one has only to pay attention to realize the power that comes of the union between lovers and understand how this power can be used within a magic ritual. This is not to say that all rituals involve sex or that it is required, for it is not. During sex with a loved one is usually when one’s ‘human shields’ are lowered and the ability to ‘connect’ spiritually is strong; hence, after orgasm one is more open to spiritual works. Instead of this being a ‘dirty’ or unacceptable concept, it actually connects divinity within the act of lovemaking, in my mind.
"Nevertheless, if they feel they are being threatened, they will use their powers to turn ‘your evil (in their eyes) back on you with a very strong ‘Law of Three’.’ Of course this is to be construed as your fault and not because of anything they did." First, since when is malice or evil necessarily preceded by evil? Secondly, most Pagans wouldn't use any means within their power to retaliate. Shielding is a tool often used by Pagans to protect themselves and their families, but few use anything ‘stronger’. Finally, The Law of Three applies to people and their own actions—it is NOT something Pagans ‘throw at you’ or use because you pester them or anger them!
"They often take occult names for themselves as a cover." First, magickal names to Pagans are believed to be names (usually) given them by the God(desse)s and, as such, are very sacred. Further, many Pagans believe that their magickal names help them when they come to the circle to commune with the deities—it helps one to separate the earthly realm from the spiritual realm so more full attention can be given to devotion. Further, it wasn’t that many years ago that Witches (and those accused of Witchcraft, whether or not they were Witches) were murdered by the thousands; magickal names can offer a degree of security that surnames can’t, particularly for those in the middle of the ‘Bible Belt’ who are still scorned, or worse. Hence, magickal names are not a "cover" at all; at most, they offer a degree of protection, but they are normally used for various other reasons.
"So what is the difference between witchcraft and Satanism? Both are anti-Christ by definition. The term anti-Christ means not only opposed to, but of a necessity implies something in place of Jesus Christ. Both are forbidden in the Holy Scriptures. Satanism openly proclaims their reverse image of Christianity, while Paganism hides behind semantics by calling their use of black arts ‘only for good.’ Both are centered around self-gratification of lust." This author REALLY needs to do more research. Throughout this essay (s)he has discussed Paganism/Witchcraft (interchangeably, which is faulty, but not an issue I’ll address here because, for simplicity’s sake, I may be accused of doing the same in this paper), yet then in the very last paragraph equates it to Satanism when Satanism hasn’t been discussed! Further, Paganism isn’t anti-Christ: while Pagans resent fundamentalist Christians preaching that they’re headed straight to hell, MANY Pagans believe that Jesus was a very wise teacher who gave humanity excellent guidelines to follow. They do not view him as God, like Christians do (though Christo-Pagans are a blend of Christianity and Paganism), but they are not ‘against Jesus’ and hence ‘anti-Christ’ either.
Conventional religions are usually recognized as such by their acceptance of certain doctrines. Does Paganism and/or Wicca have any specific doctrines? According to Branch, "...the theology of Wicca varies from group to group and even from coven to coven. However, the following are a few of the doctrines that most Wiccan covens will believe and practice.
Pagans overall, though a widely diverse group, also have certain beliefs they hold in common. The Pagan 101 literature summarizes the beliefs and customs of Wicca more fully, and there are Laws Pagans hold to as well: among others, Galadreil’s New Book of the Law lays out such a system of Laws for "modern day Witches."
Do all these things make Wicca and Paganism overall a religion, or is the idea simply folly—a way to escape conventional ethics and be self-concerned? This debate will rage on for many years, I suspect—much as it has for the past few centuries. Strictly speaking from personal experience, the Pagans I have met take their worship quite seriously and reverently. True, it may not conform to ‘traditional Christian’ beliefs or concepts of worship, but there are doctrines and beliefs which they hold sacred. To insinuate Paganism is any less than a religion or dismiss it as mere folly is ludicrous for anyone who has truly investigated the subject...and the fact remains, Wicca is a religion recognized and protected by the United States federal government. This is quite an accomplishment in a country that boasts 87% of its population are Christian.
Further evidence of the lack of ‘folly’ involved in Paganism is the attention that is given to ethics and moral guidelines. I find that Pagan ethics coincide with Christian ethics to a great extent, but it may be said that ethics are perhaps regarded even moreseriously because of Pagans’ belief that ‘what goes around, comes around—usually in greater quantities’ and that serious Pagans realize, perhaps more than most, the potential harm created by negativity and ‘blackness’. However, there are some who choose to still look on "the Pantheists" as foolish and evil—or simply too subjective and unacceptable. Rittenhouse attempts to prove the subjectivity of Pagan ethics by proving that Christian ethics are absolute. I will explore Rittenhouse’s article next.
"...Is the statement ‘All truth is relative,’ true? No, it’s impossible since it is a self-refuting statement, one which contradicts itself. It is, in fact, making a statement of absolute truth when it claims, there is no absolute truth!" Let’s try to prove a point by semantics and splitting hairs, shall we? All truth may, in fact, be perceived as relative when one considers that a person’s view of truth is their own perception of such, not as ALL would view it....others might very well take issue with the perception, but that makes it no less a truth for the person making it! "Hitler murdered six million Jews and if right and wrong are relative, then he was justified on his system of beliefs." In Hitler’s mind, he WAS! Likewise, I could use Rittenhouse’s logic and state: the Catholic Church murdered between 250,000 and 1,000,000 people accused of Witchcraft, and if right and wrong are not relative, then they were justified in acting on their system of beliefs! Rittenhouse is basing an entire argument on semantics and trying to prove what is beyond empirical proof, as will become more apparent throughout his debate—I find this a SERIOUS error.
"To continue to assert the idea of moral and ethical relativism is absurd. It is an attempt to construct an imaginary world filled with chaos." Much of the world views morals and ethics as being relative and contextual, and many see the world as being somewhat chaotic; Rittenhouse takes what is and denies it exists—then he further claims it’s "an attempt to construct an imaginary world filled with chaos." Scare tactics usually do not convince me of anything but the author’s desperation to prove a point perhaps beyond proving. Rittenhouse reaches even further in desperation: "You tell them that’s it wrong to take your car. They remind you that truth is relative, and their opinion is just as valid as yours. This little scenario illustrates well the truth that, ‘There are no relativists who expect to be treated relatively.’" It actually proves the absurdity of Rittenhouse’s logic, to me. Relative or not, what the person stealing the car is trying to do breaks the law...that fact in and of itself makes it an unsmart move, not a relative one. This entire argument is just ludicrous and stretching to prove a point, but he continues on: "For example, I can choose to believe that the earth is flat, but the reality of the matter is that the earth is spherical not flat! I may still choose to believe that it's flat, but I'm still wrong! Another way of stating the claim that all truth is relative is to say, there are no absolutes! Yet, in response to this claim I must ask, "Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?" It is humorous to note that the rejection statement -- "There are no absolutes." -- is, in fact, an absolute!" These are semantic games equating "fact" with "truth". In this game, the author cites empirical data to establish the "truth" of his statement. This leads me to assume from his argument there is no truth without empirical proof? Then, let's apply the author’s reasoning to the religious arena to consider Jesus' identity:
Christianity states that Jesus is God; Islam asserts Jesus is a great prophet, but not God; and Judaism and Hinduism believe Jesus to be a great moral teacher, but nothing more. Can all these views be equally valid when they are contradictory? As Rittenhouse points out, of course not! Fact: Jesus was an historical figure who lived approximately 2000 years ago and was martyred by the Roman Empire.
Hindu and Jew: A great moral teacher; a belief possibly consistent with the above "facts."
Moslem: A great prophet and moral teacher; a belief possibly consistent with the above "facts."
Christian: Jesus is God; the above facts do not support this conclusion nor necessitate its possibility. Hearsay evidence of Immaculate Conception and divine birth is apocryphal and has been proven to be written as allegory, perhaps as much as two centuries after Jesus’ death; can this prove that Jesus is God? No because it is not proven, fact-based evidence. Hence, using Rittenhouse’s logic, the existence of Jesus as God, hence God, cannot be empirically proven. Sure, there are holes in my logic and my argument is not exhaustive, but neither are Riddenhouse's arguments...which goes to prove, at least in my mind, that no logical argument can prove or disprove the existence of God—or absolutes. The existence of God is a matter of faith. As for absolutes, Rittenhouse has yet to convince me there is such a thing as an unchanging, set-in-stone, all-time rigid guideline within ethics.
"It’s wrong to force your views on another person." If this is ‘wrong,’ and he indeed states it as such, then why does he fault Pagans for holding this same view and calls it too subjective? Further, this is exactly what Rittenhouse does throughout his entire essay! He uses the pretense of logic to try to convince the audience he is correct, that everything IS absolute. As already noted, however, there is no empirical proof to back up his logic. "1. We see that the real issue underlying this misconception is that some people falsely think it is wrong to hold one view above another; since they believe all "truth" is relative. One result of this third misconception is to falsely think that it's unacceptable to attempt to prove that any particular view in question is false. Yet, those who hold this view forcibly argue that their view should be adopted over and above another. 2. If a research chemist found the cure for AIDS, would it be acceptable for him to keep it quiet and tell no one; since he wouldn't want to force his views on anyone else? Of course not! Rather, he should communicate the truth as clearly and gently as possible and allow each person to choose whether to accept or reject the solution." Situation 2 would seem to support resolution 1—until you notice that he allows that each person be allowed to decide whether it is his/her "personal truth" by accepting or rejecting the "solution." Further, he has already directly contradicted this notion by stating it IS wrong to try to push your views on another.
"‘Truth is objective because God exists outside ourselves; it is universal because God is above all; it is constant because God is eternal.’ ...Therefore, there is only one source for objective absolute truth: God. But there are two avenues through which it has been revealed: special revelation and natural law. ...Note that these absolutes are observed by us, not determined by us." No, but they are INTERPRETED by us! Rittenhouse is trying hard to prove something based on that for which no empirical proof exists—and he never addresses the issue of "proof of God." I have already poked holes in that approach, but he didn’t even attempt it--yet this is a major crux of his argument. Further, assuming that God exists (and I personally believe there IS a God), how can humans KNOW, beyond doubt, what God sees as right and wrong??? Sure, we have the Bible, but that is multiple reinterpretations of interpretations of oral histories and accounts of ‘God’s word’! Pagans have the Charge of the Goddess. However, how can humans presume to know God’s ‘mind’ or say that something is absolute based on any ‘evidence’ which must be interpreted (through special revelation I would assume, although Rittenhouse doesn’t indicate as much in this part of his essay) by humankind? Moreover, Rittenhouse concludes that the "one source for objective absolute truth [is] God;" his whole argument of absolute is based on the logic of man, but he leaps from man’s logic to a conclusion based on something that isn’t empirically provable (nor has he attempted to prove it) or verifiable; this weakens his entire argument and nulls his conclusion. There is no doubt for me that God exists, but there is no irrefutable proof of that other than what’s in my heart, mind, and spirit. Further, God defies logic—to attempt to prove the Divine’s existence by use of logic is ludicrous: the Divine cannot fit into humankind’s scientific model, and rightly so.
According to Rittenhouse, there are "Three Tests For Ethical Evaluation: Ethics deals with what ought to be, not what is. ...First, is the means by which an action or event is carried out. ...Second, what is the motive behind the action or thought? ...Third, we are to be concerned with the manifestation or the intended ‘results’ of the action." Who decides what "ought to be"? According to Rittenhouse, God...but his argument is based on (faulty) logic to prove what God (supposedly) commands. "Observation will bring to light the moral relativism and the ethical subjectivism that is embraced by every variety of pantheism, including Hinduism, paganism, and witchcraft." Rittenhouse has not proven the absolutism of morals or ethics in his arguments here; rather, through his contradictions and desperate grasping to prove a point, he has more successfully shown just how impossible it is to prove something absolute. Hence, it may be moot to disproving his argument, but the morals and ethics of Paganism will be explored further after I fully examine this article. At this point, suffice to say that what I have found is that Pagans tend to focus on the same basic moral and ethical themes as Christians, though their approach is not based on the absolutism of Rittenhouse.
"Pagans and witches express their ethical views in more positive terms than that of Hinduism. Yet, they still reflect the moral relativism and subjective ethics that accompanies pantheism. This was reflected in a conversation with a local pagan when I asked him, ‘Is there any such thing as right and wrong in your scheme of things?’ he replied by saying, ‘Oh, yes. Only in the essence that it’s a learning thing. I don’t think there’s ultimate right and wrong. But as you progress through life there’s right and wrong hat you learn from....Morality is a subjective experience." My biggest problem with this is that Rittenhouse is taking an individual—not even an authoritative source in the Pagan religion—and using that personal viewpoint to generalize it to an entire population of Pagans. "If it is subjective, however, it can change from day to day and from circumstance to circumstance. This is reflected by witch Stewart Farrar in the book, What Witches Do. Farrar considers the question of what is good and evil in the ethics of witches and pagans and states, ‘A thing is good for me until I feel it’s not right for me....It is...man’s instinctive awareness of what is good or evil... ." Rittenhouse appears correct assuming this is far too subjective. This is one problem I personally had with Paganism before I studied it more in-depth, but I have come to understand the concept—and it is NOT one of ever-changing subjectivity but rather one that clearly recognizes that principles strongly held can be unwavering, but when using them in differing circumstances the ‘line’ blurs—there is no clear-cut black and white but rather multi shades of gray. However, this is the case with ANY ethical system, in my mind. Further, the concept of "what’s good for me" actually works well for most people who have good mental faculties and reasoning capabilities (keeping in mind it is believed what is good for one also benefits others and the community), but there are problems with those who are mentally/emotionally unstable or ill. Many Pagan groups and covens ask about mental illness before accepting a new student, and if mental illness exists, the person is declined. This is not strictly due to ethical problems or the damage that person can do to others, but it is one reason they are declined. "If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong." Again, Rittenhouse generalizes—only with this particular statement, he is in effect stating that no one who disagrees with his view of absolutism can know right from wrong. I find this kind of generalization preposterous and sad. "[Scott] Cunningham mentions two aspects [of ethics]– intention or motive, and ends or manifestation – by which to evaluate the harm or helpfulness of an action, yet the basis of evaluation in paganism is subjective opinion," as is Rittenhouse’s! Though Rittenhouse attempts to prove his evaluations are based on absolutism, he falls short. Does this discount or null the value of his entire work? Not in my mind. Although Rittenhouse appears an elitist Christian to me, he appears to make an honest effort to explain what he views as ‘right.’ However, he fails to give anyone else this recognition or see any benefit to their attempts whatever; rather, his entire argument appears to be that Paganism lacks ethics or value because their ethics are based on ‘subjective’ things such as intuition, conscience, or our ‘inner voice.’ This seems to me to doubt or even negate that the Almighty can speak to us through the "special revelation" of which Rittenhouse speaks previously. Thus the question raised here is, does this mean that God speaks only to Christians--and only then to specific individuals who are Christian? Even ministers of the Christian faith cannot agree on ethics in all circumstances, so how could this be so? Further, is Rittenhouse discounting the value of conscience? Might not individual conscience be a means of this "special revelation" which helps us to understand what God would have us do? If so, then cannot value be found within ‘subjective’ Pagan ethics—a system which also relies on that ‘inner voice’ to help when clear-cut rules do not apply? Rittenhouse goes on to explore the Wiccan Rede: "The Wiccan Rede, ‘Do what you will, so long as it harms none,’ is the ethical foundation of witches and pagans." Although many abide by the Rede, this is not the ethical foundation for ALL Pagans, as Pagan literature points out. Further, Rittenhouse states the Rede backwards which is taboo to Wiccans—there is a REASON the Rede is written as it is. The Rede states, "An’ it harm none, do what ye will," or as long as it harms no living thing, THEN do what you will: the emphasis in this context is that, whatever you do, you must first consider whether it will harm anyone. Rittenhouse’s rough translation incorrectly puts action before ethical thought.
"...one must first ask the question, ‘How does one determine whether the action, motive, or result is harmful?" Rittenhouse’s implication here is, how does a Pagan know whether it is harmful; my question is, how does ANYone determine whether an action, motive, or result is harmful? "...for us to evaluate if something is harmful or helpful, there must be an objective standard by which to determine harm; and the ethics of witchcraft has no such objective standard, since by its own admission it is subjective. Therefore, it fails to be a sufficient standard by which to determine moral rightness." Who determines what is objective? Witchcraft admits it is subjective? Does it also ‘admit’ it is unethical and/or immoral? I think not! The ‘objective’ guideline for Wiccans has been stated and restated in Rittenhouse’s article: "An` it harm NONE." Hence, whatever Witches do must follow this command before any other. Just how do Witches judge whether something is harmful? Witches use intuition, conscience ('inner voice'), empathy, and also heed their society’s cultural/moral guidelines and government laws as well as those Laws set forth by the Goddess. "Granted, the moral structure of witchcraft seeks to be positive and life-affirming; but it is still subjective, relative, and personally determined." Personally determined, perhaps--within that person’s community/coven/society’s moral and legal system, much like any other ‘moral structure.’ "[Witch’s] moral subjectivism can lead down many different paths. Without the moral anchor of absolutes, the ship on which subjective ethics sails will drift with the prevailing winds and will inevitably suffer shipwreck. This shipwreck need not be a sudden crash but rather a slow moral deterioration." Deterioration much as we see in present-day American society where the society is made up of approximately 87% Christians? My point is that the whole problem cannot justifiably be laid on Pagans'—or Witches'—ethics any more than moral deterioration can be blamed on Christianity; Pagans and Witches are not the only ones who have this problem. "Simply because something ‘feels right for you,’ does not make it morally right in the least bit. Is it right to accept all sexual orientations without regard to any objective ethical and moral evaluation? If so, could we not argue that pedophile activity, which is sexual activity with children, is acceptable?" I might have agreed with Rittenhouse’s first statement here that basically just because something "feels right" for one doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s morally right—acknowledging my prior arguments about the subject, of course—but he doesn’t stop there and tries to prove his statement by faulty logic yet again. Most Witches (specifically all those whom I have ever met or conversed with or read literature from, and this is quite vast considering I’m on several very active pagan group email lists and have a small pagan library)—and this is the group to whom he is referring—abhor pedophilia; virtually none would condone even the thought of such an act. Rittenhouse makes abstract points but then attacks and tries to prove his points based on unserving and disconnected technicalities that may shock, but they do not prove anything about the point he is trying to make! Rittenhouse falls short of making a convincing argument based on logic; rather, his arguments grasp at self-serving straws and appear more judgmental—something that goes against Christian principle, at least in my understanding (e.g. "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Matthew 7:1)
"The first view [of what happens to a person following death, in the Pagan view] is that of reincarnation, which is held by witches, pagans and the entirety of pantheism." On WHAT does Rittenhouse base this absolutely FALSE statement of ‘fact’? Many, but not ALL, Pagans believe in reincarnation. "If the idea of reincarnation is wrong, then to believe it will ultimately result in great and eternal harm for the individual. Reincarnation, in fact, would not have its name carved on the pillars of heaven, but rather on the gates of hell." So "the entirety of pantheism"...ALL Pagans according to Rittenhouse’s claims...is going to hell because they believe in the concept of reincarnation? It would have made more sense to me had he said that pantheists are condemned to hell on the basis of their worship of multiple god(desse)s than to say they’re condemned for a ‘misguided’ concept! Reincarnation is a seriously held principle to those who believe and one in which the goal is to learn all that one can each and every lifetime because there is so much to learn. To waste a lifetime is extremely distasteful and quite unacceptable to a Pagan. Reincarnation is neither an ‘escape clause’ nor a way ‘out’ to excuse rude or excessive behavior—what one fails to learn due to excessive folly is a life wasted in futility. It also is not something by which Pagans assume ‘if it doesn’t work right this lifetime, there’s always next time.’ Rather, each lifetime is a gift one should savor and use to best advantage.
Overall, Rittenhouse attempts to make some valid points in his essay. However, these points might be stronger if he stated his arguments based on his personal belief rather than the faulty logic he uses so freely throughout his article. Rittenhouse claims that Pagan ethics do not meet the guidelines for ethics because they are subjective; however, I assert that Rittenhouse never proffered an ‘acceptable’ ethical system based on objective principles. Further, I contend that Pagan ethics will stand up to scrutiny under close examination IF there is an understanding of the group and statements are not taken out of context. I suspect many Christians would be hard pressed to explain why they hold certain morals if one were to pick apart the Ten Commandments or ask how one can apply a certain commandment to a given situation and then asked how they KNOW that commandment tells them such. Ethics are quite difficult to explain or describe—Rittenhouse’s attempt did an excellent job of proving this.
From personal observation and interaction, I assert that serious Pagans are a highly ethical and moral group—they are at least as ethical as the Christians to whom I am accustomed. What exactly is the ethical code Pagans follow, and what principles do Pagans hold dear? Bonewits begins by explaining, "Neopagans believe that ethics and morality should be based upon joy, love, self-esteem, mutual respect, the avoidance of actual harm to ourselves and others – human or nonhuman – and the increase of public benefit. Most Neopagans believe in some variant or another of the principles of ‘karma,’ and many Neopagans will affirm that the results of their actions will always return to them sooner or later." This is one point of dissention for me—I ALSO believe you often have problems you neither 'ask for' nor deserve. This is something I haven’t found addressed in Pagan literature—yet. "This belief that ‘what goes around comes around’ has a major influence on the ethical choices made by most Neopagans. Thus we try to balance individual needs for personal autonomy and growth with the necessity of paying attention to the impact of our actions on the lives and welfare of others, including other living things and the environment as a whole (Gaia). This does not deter us from fighting for justice, freedom, and the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves, but it does require us to practice rigorous self-honesty before, during, and after we are engaged in such fighting."
Virtually all of the Pagan literature I researched that was designed for those seeking information on the Craft had ethical guidelines or some form of the Laws of Paganism and/or Wicca incorporated in their materials. I found the ethical guidelines pretty straightforward and equivalent. Hence, I will only explore Walker’s discussion of integrity and ethics here. Walker’s lessons to those getting started in the "Craft of the Wise" and suggestions for teachers of the Craft state the specific demand for integrity and explores guidelines for making ethical decisions. According to Walker,
Integrity means keeping your commitments:
3. You openly declare where you stand."
Walker also sets forth a guideline for making ethical choices and includes many suggestions for teachers to help their students understand these guidelines. Only the guidelines as Walker sets them forth are listed here.
After examining these ethical guidelines, are Pagan ethics subjective—as Rittenhouse asserts? Yes, they are subjective—at least as subjective as any other ethical belief system. However, they are not a self-centered, unscrupulous set of thoughts haphazardly thrown together. Rather, they appear at least as well considered as Christian ethics. So, is Paganism and/or Wicca ethical or unscrupulous? I would have to say the answer to this depends on whose judgment one is using—as pointed out in Rittenhouse’s article. However, from the above discussion by Walker on integrity and ethics as well as what I found in existing literature on Pagan ethics and my own personal experience, Pagan ethics are at least as serious in nature and as detailed as Christian ethics. Hence, I would have to say that Pagans are not unscrupulous heathens as some may believe. On the contrary, their ethics are taken quite seriously—as their ethical guidelines attest.
Being as principled as I am, I have researched Pagan ethics and continue to do so—had I found them lacking, I would not be able to associate myself with the Pagan religion openly, honestly, nor truthfully. Raised a Christian, there are many misconceptions I, too, have had to overcome and address. I have to say that I find Paganism to be a very seriously regarded religion by those who accept it as a religion and not just something cool because they’re a rebellious teenager—although there are also very serious teenagers within the Pagan religion. It is a religion in which awareness of one’s behaviors and actions is taken more gravely than in Christianity.
What drew me to explore Paganism originally was learning that my nephew was a Witch. Because I had known him all of his life and knew what type of person he was—how compassionate and mild-mannered, thoughtful and kind—this discovery did not terrify or upset me; rather it made me curious to know more. I actually did not explore the religion much further until I became involved in a serious relationship with my husband, who is a Pagan. I have yearned to learn of various religions for many years, whether this was ‘just a stage’ in my life or it came from my dissatisfaction with Christianity—I find far too many judgmental, holier-than-thou Christians here in the "Bible Belt." Though raised in the church by dedicated Christian parents, I had not attended church in many years because it seemed that every time I entered a church, I saw a tithe plate being passed. Being dirt poor, I could neither afford to tithe nor dress the way most people dress to attend church; I was made to feel that if I didn’t tithe it was an unpardonable sin, and because of my clothes I was shunned and always felt ‘dirty’ or a misfit who never quite belonged. In addition, being the analytical and questioning creature that I am, I found my questions unwelcome (particularly by Christian ministers) or unable to be answered. Further, I had this deep, ‘instinctive’ feeling that something just wasn’t ‘right’ with the way Christians worshipped in the churches to which I was accustomed (Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian)—it wasn’t right for me: worshipping Jesus just never felt 'right' to me at all. I also have always had several ‘gifts’ that I was taught (by the church) were ‘evil.’ However, I could not control premonitory dreams—so how could they be evil? Hence, due to the closed-mindedness and judgmental attitudes I found within Christianity as well as having the feeling I was missing something, I began to explore other religions. I did not make an all-out effort to study one religion in particular, I simply asked questions of anyone I knew who worshipped differently than I had.
The only religion I found where my ‘gifts’ are accepted as natural, not evil or taboo, and where I am allowed to worship God—in whatever format I choose to use to worship the Divine—is Paganism. I do not worship a Goddess although I DO recognize a ‘duality’ or complementary characteristics within the One Divine. I haven’t found one formal Path in Paganism to which I can pledge allegiance. Still, I am accepted even with the Christian beliefs I still hold that are so much a part of me. I am accepting and accept that others have differing beliefs from my own. The one major problem I dealt with in Paganism was the Christian Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." This one caused me more than a small amount of anguish—until finally I realized, I do not HAVE to worship other gods to be a Pagan or be accepted in the Pagan community. Further, while most Pagans may address various forms of the Supreme because they see the duality of God(desse)’s nature (I see that duality and worship One), they choose to worship the One by addressing the duality in the form of a Goddess and a God—this simply helps Pagans to recognize and always remember the duality in the Divine and in all creation. By Pagan definition, I am not a Neopagan, per se; I am more a Christo-Pagan, if anything. However, I am finally allowed to worship the God I know in my heart without someone telling me I’m doing it wrong or it’s not good enough. I follow Jesus’ teachings and guidelines, but I do not worship Jesus. Overall, the Pagan religion is still quite new to me, and I am still trying to find my way...but at least now, I am free to explore and learn--and perhaps find my way ‘Home’.
