Unequal Rites

The Arlington County Court refused to grant me the right to perform marriages in Virginia, apparently on the grounds that my "congregation" does not own a building.

I presented my certificate of ordination and documentation of the 501c3 status of the Order of the White Moon, which ordained me. Since my Order is incorporated in California, the secretary asked me if I had a congregation in Virginia; I said yes. She asked me to list the address of the congregation, and I said that we don't have a building. She asked, "So, what, you just meet in each other's homes?" I said yes, we meet in each other's homes, or out of doors (Wicca is, after all, an earth-based religion, but I thought that mentioning that would only be prejudicial to my situation).

The secretary left and came back with the Clerk of Court who said that they were not going to approve me. I asked if it was because we don't have a building. He said, "Yes, you don't have a building, and there were a few other things." I asked him if he would give me a written list of the reasons I was being denied. He refused; he offered to show me the relevant section (Sec 20-23) of the Virginia Code. I assured him that I had read the Code, and asked again if he would give me more specific reasons I was being denied. He said that approving these applications was at his "discretion" and that he didn't "feel" I met the qualifications, but he wouldn't tell me how. He told me that I could apply to another court in another county but that he thought they would probably give me the same answer.

Has property ownership now become the measure of what constitutes a "real" religion in Virginia, or at least in Arlington County? Or is this another example of anti-Pagan discrimination at work?

Patchwork enforcement and a history of discrimination

Virginia is one of the few states in the US that requires clergy members to register with a circuit court in order to be able to perform valid marriages. The requirements in Sec 20-23 of the Code state that the minister must present proof of ordination and "of his being in regular communion" with the organization that ordained him.

These requirements are apparently interpreted in widely varying ways across various circuits in Virginia, as different courts' websites list different types of documentation - or none - that may be required.^[1] For courts that openly state they require more than just proof of ordination, the way they ask for information gives tremendous privilege to traditionally-organized, i.e., Christian, groups. Although these forms sometimes refer vaguely to a "person of authority" all of the named roles (deacons, elders, pastors, trustees or church clerks) are associated with mainline Protestant churches and church organizations. Other forms ask for copies of charters, bylaws and outlines of organizational structures. And if granting these applications really is up to the "discretion" of the Clerk of Court, there is wide scope for potential discrimination against minority religions with or without the fig leaf of requiring a "location" and other organizational trappings potentially beyond the reach of minority religious organizations.

This problem goes back more than a decade; in 1999, the American Civil Liberties Union helped another Wiccan priestess get her application in this situation approved.

I think it's not unreasonable that I am concerned about what kind of documentation will satisfy the court. I serve multiple groups, one of which meets in a designated location, but since it is an open circle, the people who attend are mostly not members of my ordaining organization. If I provide documentation of this group meeting in a specific location, will the court then ask how many people attend, and how often we meet? What will they require to conclude that I am "really" a High Priestess in a "real" religion?

Why this matters

This is about more than performing weddings. This decision has a chilling effect on me trying to function as clergy in other ways; if the Court will not recognize me as legitimate clergy in this situation, will my right to confidentiality be protected? How can I assure people who come to me for counseling that their communications with me are protected by clergy privilege?

And since this is one of the two major forms of government approval used by a wide range of institutions and organizations to determine whether someone is a "real" clergy member, it can impact my ability to reach out to those who have particular needs: people in hospitals, the military, and prisons all need clergy services, but those institutions are much more likely to deny me the ability to minister to the people involved if I can't say that I'm approved by the State of Virginia to perform marriages.

And although I might have my application granted if I tried another court, that does nothing to resolve the doubt cast on my status by the court with jurisdiction over where I live and do most of my ministry. If another court approved me, it would only serve to highlight the irregular and potentially biased variations in granting recognition across jurisdictions.

What you can do

I currently plan to gather additional supporting documentation and reapply, and if I am denied again, to ask whether I can appeal to a judge of the court. I am also currently seeking advice from the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Lady Liberty League. Here's what you can do to help:

First, get the word out. The more Pagans and followers of "non traditional" religions pull together, the better our chances of being recognized as "legitimate" in these kinds of situations.

Second, If you are a Pagan clergyperson (or a celebrant of a non-traditional Christian religion) in Virginia and you have applied to perform marriages, please email me. If you were approved, I'd like to know when you were approved, in what court, with what paperwork, and what questions they asked, both written and verbal. People who have been declined, please tell me that too. The more information I have for comparison the better.

Third, I would also like to be able to present letters of support from other Pagan and "non traditional" clergy or officiants and potentially from Pagan and non-mainstream Christian organizations that ordain people, especially ones that ordain people all over the country. If you're interested, please contact me. And if you have other ideas about how to help, please speak up!

Fourth, please provide spiritual and magical support. Pray and send energy that I am able to gather the evidence I need and make a convincing argument, that the court will grant my new application swiftly, and that I may stay positive and be patient throughout this whole process.

Fifth, keep an eye on "Things you can do" section of "This week in The Slacktiverse" for further information about things that can be done.

I sincerely hope that together we can ensure this is the last time a Pagan in Virginia has her credentials questioned and her status as clergy denied.

--Literata

---

^[1] For example, see the documentation required and/or questions to be asked for Prince William County, Arlington County, the Country of Fauquier and Fairfax County. ↩

---

NOTE: This piece is adapted from an post published at the same time at Literata's blog. TBAT waived the normal time lag for crossposted material due to the pressing and important nature of the subject of the post.

---

 

The Slacktiverse is a community blog. Content reflects the individual opinions of the contributors. We welcome disagreement in the comment threads, and invite anyone who wishes to present an alternative interpretation of a situation to write and submit a post.

Comments

[Slow Learner]

Can't really help from this side of the pond - but I wish you swift and satisfactory results in being recognised.

[Froborr]

This is disgusting. Utterly, utterly disgusting... and thus entirely in keeping with my experience of living in Virginia for 20 years.

I want to help, but obviously can't do items one through four; I'll definitely keep an eye on Things You Can Do, though! Good luck and please let me know if there's anything I can do as a semi-local--if you want someone to come to Arlington on a weekend or holiday and wave a sign angrily in front of the courthouse or something, I'm there.

[Kit Whitfield]

There's a candle burning for you in London. Anyone whose wedding you presided at would be lucky indeed.

[Mmy]

In addition to providing as much support as possible to Literata we should all check how “non traditional” religions/churches/officiants are treated in our own communities. My suspicion is that Pagans/Wicca are discriminated against in many other jurisdictions as well as Virginia.

[Literata]

Thank you, Kit.

Froborr, I'll definitely keep you and everybody appraised. I hope it doesn't come to signs in front of the courthouse, but it means the world to me to know there are people who care that much if it does happen.

[Izzy]

Alas, I don't think any of the people I know have actually officiated legally. But I'll definitely get the word out, and my thoughts are with you!

[Amaryllis]

Well, that's unfair. But it does sound like Virginia.

I'll be sending hopeful thoughts your way.

The "non-traditional" weddings I've been to in Maryland probably wouldn't be of much help to you, as we have much laxer requirements for officiants. I don't know how Pagan clergy are treated here as far as the confidentiality issue, but I'll let you know if I find out anything useful.

[KestrelHill]

Are there any Amish communities in Virginia? IIRC, they hold services in congregants' homes. Would their form of worship be forbidden under this statute?

[Will Wildman]

Would their form of worship be forbidden under this statute?

If I understand the situation, nothing is being forbidden here, but people are being denied civil responisibilities for which they are otherwise fully qualified. So the question might be whether the government is declaring all Amish weddings unofficial.

I'm curious what the situation is in my area - I've had some cause lately to be interested in what one has to do in order to be allowed to officiate, and this is a rather more important version of the same question. I'd like to think we're pretty good about this type of thing, but I don't actually know at all. (I'm recalling my sincerely wonderful grandmother referring to my cousin's wedding as, I think, the first 'non-religious' ceremony she had been to, a designation that she apparently settled upon because the definitely-Christian priest was not wearing robes and the ceremony occurred outside.)

[Mmy]

Would their form of worship be forbidden under this statute?

It seems more likely to fall under the rubric of excessive entanglement using the Lemon Test (which arose out of the 1971 Supreme Court Ruling in Lemon v Kurtzman) combined with a implied (and limited) definition of what a religion actually is. There have been a number of SCOTUS cases that spoke directly to that issue -- mostly around who "counts" as a conscientious objector.

[hapax]

Literata, would it help to get letters of support from mainline clergy?

My priest has been quite vocal in local cases involving institutional oppression of minority religions, using the Bonhoeffer argument ("First they came for...")

I doubt clergy from another state would do you much good, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that there would be local Unitarian, Quaker, possibly Episcopal clergy who would be supportive.

[storiteller]

This is super-dodgy. It also reinforces the fact that our decision to live in Maryland and not Virginia was a good one. I knew I didn't want to live in Virginia when the main argument from the real estate guy was that they had lower taxes.

traditionally-organized, i.e., Christian, groups.

What's ironic is that the property-owning and organizational requirements you describe also excludes a lot of Christian groups as well. The church I went to in college didn't have a building - we met in a movie theater and a community center at various times. We also weren't very traditionally organized, as a bunch of college students doesn't make for the most stable leadership group. Yet I doubt they would have excluded my pastor...

As someone else points out above, it also excludes secular ceremonies, which I suspect to be the real reason for the law. I recently attended an absolutely beautiful secular ceremony done by a very good friend of the bride and groom that had one of the most moving messages that I've ever heard in a wedding. It would be a shame for her to not have been able to have the ability to perform that service for her friend.

[cjmr, on her son's netbook]

"Are there any Amish communities in Virginia? IIRC, they hold services in congregants' homes. Would their form of worship be forbidden under this statute?"

Since there have been Amish communities in the US (and probably Virginia) since well before that portion of the legal code was written, they are most likely grand-fathered in.

I wonder what kind of treatment the pastors of 'non-denominational house churches' who have bothered to go through a seminary for ordination receive in Virginia.* That would be the closest Christian equivalent IMO to your situation, Literata.

Also, you may need to get the court to deny your petition IN WRITING for it to be properly actionable.

-----
*Many pastors of 'house churches' are self-ordained or ordained by acclamation of the families in the house church, so I'd assume they shouldn't qualify at all.

[Froborr]

Also, you may need to get the court to deny your petition IN WRITING for it to be properly actionable.

Which is almost certainly why they refused to do so. This is Virginia, they have a long history of sneaking their bigotry around the law.

[cjmr, on her son's netbook]

Another thought--Is it actually the Clerk of the Court (not some higher official) who has the final authority to deny your petition?

[cjmr, on her son's netbook]

...pressed post instead of preview...

The code says: "clerk of court, OR judge"

Can you request judicial review?

[Mmy]

@cjmr: Can you request judicial review?

In the past the ACLU (in another case) threatened to do so and got some movement.

At present there seems to be far, far too much individual "discretion" and luck of the draw as to what will happen.

[mathbard]

I don't qualify for #1-3, but I'll definitely pray for you. Since I am local to you, I'm also more than willing to come support or sign a petition if you need that. You can e-mail me at my username at gmail if you so desire.

[Literata]

Thank you so much, everyone!

A couple of clarifications: there are ways for someone who is not clergy to get to perform a wedding in VA, but I'm specifically interested in making sure that I have the legal privileges of clergy, which is more than weddings.

I'm definitely going to find out how they treat house churches and other kinds of non-building-owning groups around here. There's going to be more developments with this, so I'll keep the 'verse updated.

[Froborr]

Chabad Lubavitch of Northern Virginia was non-building-owning in the early 1990s, if you need an example of a non-building-owning non-Christian religious group that performed weddings. However, I have no idea what their status is now, and at least back then they were pretty insular and hostile to gentiles, so I'm not sure whether they'd be helpful. On the other hand, they might be willing to help on the Bonhoeffer principle or the religious-minorities-need-to-band-together principle; it's sort of luck of the draw.

[Mmy]

First, if you have to venue shop (something people have been suggesting to Lit on various boards) then what you have is not a right it is a privilege handed out at the discretion of others.

Second, being recognized as a clergy person carries with it many, many other powers/rights/privileges -- protection of confidentiality with respect to confessions/counselling, the ability to visit inmates in prison, to attend people in hospitals and to assist military personnel.

In denying someone such as Literata the right to considered "clergy" the official is also denying many people the right to be counselled and assisted in their time of physical, emotional and religious need.

[Literata]

The other thing is that a lot of people will need clergy for these kinds of functions - including weddings, counseling, etc - even if that person isn't normally an active part of a particular "congregation" or gathering, so I'm rather irritated at the implication that I have to prove that I'm already ministering to a big, established bunch of people. Plus, they're essentially saying I have to show I'm a priestess (have a "congregation") in order to be recognized as a priestess...circular much?

[An anonymous American who supports freedom of religion]

Not a minister, not a pagan, not a Virginian, not a lawyer, but - the law you referenced only says the court "may make an order authorizing such minister to celebrate the rites of matrimony." I certainly hope this's generally understood to mean they must give out the license, but do you know whether they generally do give it to anyone who comes with the proper paperwork and everything? Has anyone besides pagans been declined?

[Dan Audy]

While looking for others who may have encountered this issue or not (because they are pagan) you might consider contacting the Baha'i Local Spiritual Assembly of Arlington. Many Baha'i communities meet in the houses of their memberships (at least until they grow to the point that is no longer viable) and as such they may have some knowledge or experience that can help you. As well they are typically very supportive of a diversity of faiths and opposed to any religious discrimination, they would likely at least offer their voice in support of you if you asked them.

http://www.arlingtonbahai.org/contact/ was the Googled result I found.

[Dan Audy]

Gah, gotta proof-read better. That should read "because they ARE NOT pagan".

[Anonymous]

That's a good thought, Dan. I had a look at the blog on their website, and the locations for religious activites were "DC Bahá'í centre" and "the apartment of an Arlington Bahá'í" so it does look like lacking a Bahá'í centre of their own, they could run into the same problems Literata is having. (Bahá'ís don't have clergy, but they do perform weddings)

[Dan Audy]

Yes, thanks Anonymous, I should have mentioned the no clergy thing too. Though while the Baha'i's believe that communion with God does not require clergy (as literacy has rendered their value minimal) they do still have a 9 member elected Local Spiritual Assembly which serves to handle community matters though their duties are largely organizational and paperwork (one might even say they are 'clerical'). Typically a community will get one or more members certified to perform marriages (locally my Baha'i community has 4 members who can do so - 3 current and 1 former members of the LSA, including my mother [boy was it fun telling her she didn't get to do my wedding]).

[Literata]

Well, finding out who they have approved in the past is certainly something I'm going to pursue. Thanks for pointing me to the Baha'i - I'll definitely get in touch with them.

[cjmr]

I'm currently hoping that Literata, Froborr, storiteller, Laiima, and any other Slacktivites in the area affected by last night's storm are doing okay and either have power back or will soon.

I've been seeing pictures from my old neighborhood on FB all day and it looks like quite a mess there!

[The Board Administration Team]

We have heard from storiteller this morning. We have emailed those you mentioned (and who regularly exchange emails with TBAT) an "are you okay" message.

Also are concerned about members of the community who are (or who have friends/family who are) in the wildfire zone.

[Literata]

OK here, have power but no Internet. Working through a cell data connection instead which is why I'm so slow.

[Laiima]

Spouse and I had decided not to visit the Folklife Festival in DC this weekend because of the record heat expected - apparently it hit 100 here Friday. We've had monsoon-like rain and thunderstorms for 2 nights, but we've not lost power. Heat is intense, trying to remember to drink enough fluids. We are fine here - thanks for the concern.

[Froborr]

Sorry if I worried anyone, I spent the day running errands. We're fine here; the storm seems to have hit on every side of us but left SW DC almost untouched. We went out for a sunrise walk before it got hot and the only evidence that there had been a storm was a damp patch of sidewalk about five feet across and an unusually large amount of trash floating in the river.

To be honest, I didn't realize it was anything other than a typical summer-night thunderstorm until I read about it here... *sheepish*

Glad to hear Literata, Laiima, and storiteller are all okay! Hope anyone else in this area is well, too!

[Froborr]

@Laiima: We have had a surprising amount of success cooling the place down with an electric fan, a soup tureen full of store-bought ice, and a folding chair.* We change the ice every six to eight hours, and have gone through about 8 pounds a day. However, we have a small and very well-insulated studio apartment; I imagine the size and shape of your home would greatly alter how effective this is.

*I think it has to be store-bought. Stupid thermodynamics.

[storiteller]

Thanks for the concern! I had a bit of a wild ride home last night after going to a friend's party in DC - dodging trees and downed port-a-potties on the highway, but we got home fine. There's a bunch of huge downed branches in the cemetary next store, but nothing on our property. Considering our history so far in this house, we shockingly didn't lose power.

Froborr, you must live in a nearly soundproof apartment. I was in Capital Hill for the worst of it and it was nearly as close to a hurricane that I've seen.

[Froborr]

Well, I was playing video games and my headphones are noise-canceling...

[Mike Timonin]

Glad to hear the DC slactivists are alive and well. Seems Mother Nature is getting into the spirit of the bicentennial of 1812: http://www.weatherbook.com/1814.htm

Happy Canada Day to my fellow Canadians. Don't let any American visitors burn down Toronto.

[Brin]

Don't let any American visitors burn down Toronto.

Wouldn't that be more Ottawa than Toronto?

[chris the cynic]

According to the movie Canadian Bacon, Americans think that Toronto is the capital and will assume they're being played for fools if someone tells them it is Ottawa.

[Froborr]

I rather suspect most Americans would say Toronto or Montreal, because those are the only two cities in Canada they know of.

It's nothing against Canada. I suspect most Americans would say L.A. or San Francisco is the capital of California for the same reason.

[Brin]

I suspect most Americans would say L.A. or San Francisco is the capital of California for the same reason.

The word "Sacramento" popped into my head. Hmm.
...
Ha! Apparently knowledge of the capital of California is in fact buried deep within my mind. Now I know that I know.

[cjmr, on her son's netbook]

"I suspect most Americans would say L.A. or San Francisco is the capital of California for the same reason."

Or Detroit is the capital of Michigan. Or Chicago is the capital of Illinois. Or NYC is the capital of NY.

(Apparently my fingers think capital is spelled c-a-p-t-i-a-backspace-backspace-backspace-i-t-a-l, because that is how I typed it every time.)

So is the capital of the province of Quebec, Quebec City or Montreal?

[Mmy]

@cjmr: So is the capital of the province of Quebec, Quebec City or Montreal

Québec City.

[Mmy]

ou en français Ville de Québec

[Ross]

Or that the capital of Oregon is Portland, or the capital of Washington is Washington, DC.

[Anonymous]

The capital of the US is NYC. The capital of the Australia is Sydney. The capital of Germany is Luxembourg.

;)

[Amaryllis]

Belatedly, okay here in Baltimore. We've even got power. (We had our turn with the simple life last fall, with Irene; that was enough, thank you.)

It's just been an interesting weekend.

Daughter was supposed to be spending Friday night at a friend's house, near DC. I'm in bed, trying to sleep through what sounds like a hurricane. Midnight, the phone rings: "Mom? Have you got power? Because it's out here, so I'm driving home."

Me: "Are you sure that's wise? There's a bad bad storm!"

Her: "See you soon."

Me: *eep*

Twenty minutes later, phone rings again. "Mom? I'm bringing two other girls home with me. But don't worry, go back to sleep."

Me: "Yeah, right."

Storm subsides, I doze off. An hour later, the car doors slam and the front door opens. I guess I wasn't really asleep after all.

7AM, the phone rings. "This is County Department of Emergency Services..."

Me: Eep. No wait, everyone's home...

Phone: "...We are asking residents to limit water usage while repairs are made to a treatment plant..."

Me: Oh jeez.

That was Daughter's last night under the parental roof (at least for now). We psent the rest of the weekend helping her move out to her rented house.

Empty nest is us.
*sniff*
*smile*

[Mmy]

Good to hear from you Amaryllis

[hapax]

@Amaryllis -- I would go through the whole house scattering papers on the counters and dropping socks on the floor, just so I could say, "That's *MY* clutter! *I'M* the one who made that mess!"

Of course, that would give me nobody else to yell at to clean it up.

[Brin]

Why are the comments on the Canada Day post closed?

[cjmr, on her son's netbook]

My son's favorite is:

The capital of Michigan is 'M'!

[The Board Administration Team]

@Brin: Why are the comments on the Canada Day post closed?

Cause I made a mistake in coding :)

Should be open now.

[Steve Morrison]

As a kid, I thought the capital of the world really was Miami Beach! (Apparently, it's only the "fun and sun capital of the world".)

[Mike Timonin]

During the War of 1812, American troops burned the city of York, now Toronto. Later, during the invasion of Washington, DC, there was a huge storm which drove the British out (or, perhaps, they were already leaving, having burned and looted everything of value in the city already)

[Amaryllis]

hapax: I would go through the whole house scattering papers on the counters and dropping socks on the floor, just so I could say, "That's *MY* clutter! *I'M* the one who made that mess!"

Yes, well, in addition to moving our daughter, we've also been helping a friend to move out of his old house. And getting rid of a bunch of stuff of our own that, no, we never will need that ever again. So right now there are already piles of stuff sitting around, destined for the daughter, the thrift store, the recycling center, and the landfill.

Someday, this house will be NEAT, dammit! But that day is not this day.

Meanwhile, I'm about ready to go back to work for a good rest.

[Sixwing]

Checking in from the wildfire zone. Not the big one, thank goodness, but we do have three fires big enough to have their own names in the area. My house is not in danger, but the smoke is pretty awful.

I'm glad to hear that the East Coast folks are hanging in there, what a mess. :(

[sarah]

We didn't get storms up here in Philly, but we did have sweltering heat yesterday. Amaryllis, glad to hear all is well!

[miss ed]

"I sincerely hope that together we can ensure this is the last time a Pagan in Virginia has her credentials questioned and her status as clergy denied."

(rot13 for dismissive and rude response to Paganism in general and a Pagan's call for equal rights in particular)

Tbbq urniraf, jurer qbrf vg fgbc? Nyybjvat Cnfgnsnevnaf gb cresbez jrqqvat prerzbavrf?

V zrna, vgf svar sbe crbcyr gb oryvrir jungrire gurl jnag, ohg "zneevntr" vf n yrtny vafgvghgvba naq vg qbrf pbasre pregnva orarsvgf fb gur tbireazrag qbrf unir na vagrerfg va abg erqhpvat gur prerzbal gb fbzr fbeg bs n wbxr.

[MercuryBlue]

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, miss ed, and I can't imagine that you'd be so rude as to suggest that Literata does not or should not have as much religious freedom as Father Patrick at the local Catholic church. Is the concept of a religious leader performing a legally binding wedding somehow absurd enough to be amusing?

[miss ed]

Mercury Blue -

There is a difference between "religious freedom" and having the power to perform wedding ceremonies which confer specific legal rights.

(rot13 for dismissive and rude response to Paganism in general and a Pagan's call for equal rights in particular)

Vs fbzrbar pna trg n pregvsvpngr bs beqvangvba sebz "Beqre bs gur Juvgr Zbba", gura jul abg sebz gur Beqre bs gur Sylvat Fcnturggv Zbafgre be fbzr bgure fhpu bhgsvg?

Naq vs lbh'er nafjre vf gung zrzoref bs nyy "eryvtvbaf", ab znggre ubj nofheq fubhyq or nyybjrq gb cresbez jrqqvat prerzbavrf, gura jung vf gur ernfba sbe erfgevpgvat gung gb crbcyr jub pynvz gb or eryvtvbhf ng nyy?

[Laiima]

@miss ed, this Pagan says, "screw off!"

[MercuryBlue]

Frankly I'd rather legally binding wedding ceremonies be performed either by duly appointed representatives of the government, justices of the peace and the like, and nobody else, or by anybody nominated by the happy couple. (If that means people in Father Patrick's parish would mostly nominate Father Patrick and people in Literata's circle would mostly nominate Literata, okay, fine, but it would allow my atheist ass to nominate another atheist to perform my wedding ceremony.) Until such time as one of those two scenarios becomes the default, religious leaders perform legally binding wedding ceremonies as part of their duties as a religious leader, and religious leaders must be allowed to perform their duties as a religious leader including that of performing legally binding wedding ceremonies. Literata is a religious leader. Therefore Literata must be permitted to perform legally binding wedding ceremonies. There should be the same outcry over preventing Literata from performing legally binding wedding ceremonies that there would be over preventing Father Patrick from performing legally binding wedding ceremonies.

[miss ed]

MB -

I agree with you that ceremonies should be performed by some sort of government official or by anybody nominated by the couple.

(ROT13'd by TBAT )

Ohg vs aba-znvafgernz "eryvtvbhf yrnqref" ner crezvggrq gb cresbez gur prerzbal, vg frrzf gb zr gung vg fubhyq or bcra gb nalbar jub pnyyf gurzfryirf n "eryvtvbhf yrnqre" fvapr jr qba'g unir gur evtug gb qvfpevzvangr orgjrra Pngubyvpf, Cntnaf, naq Cnfgnsnevnaf, be jungrire.

[The Board Administration Team]

@miss ed: in case you haven't noticed your posts are being regularly ROT13'd by TBAT. If you keep likening religious groups who have been recognized as religions by some American states and the American military to a movement/group that acknowledges/proclaims itself as a parody of religion--then TBAT will simply delete such comments.

[MercuryBlue]

Define 'religious leader'. Have fun doing it without once referencing 'religion', because I assure you, Paganism is a religion. Not so sure about Scientology, but there are plenty of Scientologists who tell me it's a religion, and I do not have the right to say otherwise.

[lonespark]

So...you're taking a stand against...something? by spewing bigoted trash at all of us?

If you are actually in some way concerned that marriage might be treated as a joke, surely better targets for your ire would be things like Vegas wedding chapels, serial adulterers, etc.

[lonespark]

Also, thanks, TBAT.

[The Board Administration Team]

@miss ed: Don't argue or attempt to split hairs. Discuss the OP in a way that makes it clear that you understand and respect the issues--or don't discuss it at all.

[flashover]

"Don't argue or attempt to split hairs. Discuss the OP in a way that makes it clear that you understand and respect the issues--or don't discuss it at all."

That sounds a lot like, if you don't agree with me then shut up.

And that's fine - you control the forum and all - but if you try to silence people with whom you disagree, you are doing yourself and your readers a disservice.

[The Board Administration Team]

@flashover: but if you try to silence people with whom you disagree, you are doing yourself and your readers a disservice.

no, we try to silence people who are thoughtless and disrespectful to members of our community.

[Joe Orton]

"no, we try to silence people who are thoughtless and disrespectful to members of our community."

Is one allowed to post one's views that religions are silly?

That a specific set of religious beliefs are silly?

Just trying to get a sense of your ground rules.

[The Board Administration Team]

Just trying to get a sense of your ground rules.

Then I suggest you lurk for several days/weeks and get a sense of the place.

[MercuryBlue]

Does anyone else smell troll invasion?

Sorry, TBAT, Literata, et al.

[Froborr]

@flashover: This is not a space that welcomes all ideas. We welcome most--but not bigotry or intolerance. If you do not agree that all people are people (in this case, that Pagans are people as much as any Christian group), there are plenty of other places where you can state that view freely. This is not one of them.

[flashover]

Froborr

I agree that all people are people.

I agree that Pagans are as much people as any Christian group.

I also believe that Pastifarians are people, too.

[The Board Administration Team]

@flashover: And I believe that you are attempting to derail this discussion.

[Froborr]

@flashover: Clearly you haven't made statements to the effect that some people are not people; if you had, you would have been rot13'd.

@Joe Orton: No, you may not. Saying "This thing you care deeply about is silly," is declaring yourself the sole arbiter of what is or is not important, and dehumanizes others, since it strips them of the right to decide for themselves what they consider important.

@MB: Probably, but I am extending the benefit of the doubt to the people who haven't said anything horrible. Based on past experience, this will probably turn out to be futile, but there is always hope.

[MercuryBlue]

Froborr: Not the reasoning I'd use. Think of someone who, say, can name and provide statistics for all the New York Yankees going back decades. Obviously baseball is something very important to this person, but to me it seems incredibly silly. My square dancing probably seems equally silly to them. (Especially if, as is likely of too many people these days, all they know of square dancing is what was on the episode of Good Luck Charlie that my sister was watching the other night. It involved lifts. Square dancing does not have lifts. It looked absolutely ridiculous, and if that's what the average US kid knows of square dancing, no wonder we're not getting any recruits. </tangent>) And provided we take care not to insult each other, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to insult each other's hobbies to our heart's content.

Baseball and square dancing aren't religion, and your reasoning applies perfectly well to religion. (Atheism and agnosticism are under the 'religion' umbrella for the duration of this comment.) We've got a Venn diagram going here. Three circles. Left, religion. Right, things it's okay to criticize for being silly. Center, things that are important to people. Left and right circles both overlap with center circle but not with each other.

No idea where Scientology fits on that diagram--didn't L. Ron say that if he wanted to make a lot of money he'd start a religion? if so, I think it is entirely justified to put it in the right circle, not the left--but Paganism is firmly in the left circle.

[Froborr]

I disagree MB; if somebody cares about baseball as much as many religious people care about their religion--to the point that it is *impossible* to insult baseball without also insulting the person--then for purposes of conversation with that person, baseball falls into the realm of things it's not okay to say are silly.

[MercuryBlue]

Fair. I'm inclined to doubt any such person exists, but I won't say it's impossible.

[Froborr]

I've met people in the SF and fantasy worlds whose fandom reaches that level.

[cjmr]

My sort-of brother-in-law fits that description WRT baseball.

[Ross]

It seems like if someone is having a conversation on the theme, "My religion is not being treated equally under the law," and you waltz in and say "Yeah, but your religion is not worthy of respect so the first amendment protections don't apply to it," and then look around and ask what you did wrong, you must be either pretty fucking stupid, or you know darned right well what you did wrong and are trolling.

[lonespark]

Yeah, what Ross said.

[lonespark]

And, as often the case, I mostly agree with Froborr.

Religion, like many human endeavors is often silly, and yet more often appears silly, or disturbing, etc., to people who don't share the premises of the practitioner/believer.

I object to treating "things that are important to people but not religion" differently, because it tends to quickly get into deciding that some religions aren't "real" and some vital religiocultural things can't be religion just because...

[Nick Kiddle]

//If you are actually in some way concerned that marriage might be treated as a joke, surely better targets for your ire would be things like *Vegas wedding chapels*, serial adulterers, etc.//

Slightly off-topic, but I remember reading somewhere that Vegas wedding chapels do a large chunk of business in deployment weddings, ie one half of the couple is about to be sent overseas and they take that opportunity to put their relationship on a legal footing just in case the worst happens. That doesn't seem like making a joke of marriage at all - I actually think it's rather sweet. I would consider a Vegas wedding myself, except that the state of Nevada thinks my fiancee and I are both male.

On mocking things that are silly: I've elevated football (soccer) to almost-religious status in my personal life, and anyone who mocks that isn't someone I want to have much to do with. I try not to mock things just because they seem silly to me, but refuse to take things seriously if they're being used to justify behaviour that causes harm to others.

[lonespark]

Yeah, I kinda said that wrong. I have don't really have a problem with people being able to get married quickly and easily, and being able to get married cheaply with minimal fuss is a useful privilege...but if I were particularly concerned about the gravitas of the institution I might think differently...

[Literata]

Okay, I have been offline with a lack of internet due to storms and then a computer problem, and trying to catch up with a lot of emails and comments occasioned by this issue in other fora, so I missed most of this. I'm not going to un-rot-13 the offensive statements and I sincerely thank TBAT for sparing me that crap.

The question of what makes something a "real" religion (rather than, say, a love of baseball, or a parody, or a political party, or a philosophical movement) is a deep one with a long history of serious intellectual debate. I would be glad to engage in that especially with respect to how Paganism challenges American and Western assumptions about religion that are modeled on monotheism, Christianity, and particularly mainline Protestantism. People who want to tell me that my religion is not real - or, more precisely - good enough for them - can go jump in the lake.

As I've pointed out in another post on my blog, I have mixed feelings about the fact that religious leaders are invested with power by the state (that is, government, not just the state of Virginia) in order to do weddings. I would prefer that there was a quick civil filing of papers - not even a judge "marrying" the couple, simply the couple declaring themselves to be married - but since American law isn't going to go that direction anytime soon, and most people seem to be okay with it the way it is, I want to have that ability, and just as importantly, it's a critical instance of being "recognized" by the government that opens the way to functioning as clergy in a lot of other important instances.

[Mmy]

waves hi! to Lit.

The question of what makes something a "real" religion (rather than, say, a love of baseball, or a parody, or a political party, or a philosophical movement) is a deep one with a long history of serious intellectual debate

Even if one is only interested in the comparatively recent (and American) debate on that subject one can look to SCOTUS rulings.

Per Barron & Dienes (First Amendment Law Thomson West, 1993) pp. 446-447:

A problem common to both religion clauses of the First Amendment is the dilemma of defining religion....Not surprisingly, then, the Court rejected limiting religion to theistic religions. Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) invalidated a provision of the Maryland constitution which required appointees to public office to declare a belief in the existence of God. Justice Black, for the Court in Torcaso, concluded that the Everson command of neutrality prohibited government favoritism of traditional religions.....This principle extended protection not only to the secular humanist who challenged the Maryland law but also to the adherents of other nontheistic religious beliefs such as Buddhism, Taoism, and Ethical Culture.

One of the best places to look for court discussions as to what exactly religion is (in an American jurisprudential context) is to look at cases involving contentious objectors such as United States v. Seeger (1965). Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Emp. Sec. (1989) is also of interest in this context.

[Literata]

Those are great examples. Frazee has some similarity to a recent court ruling that I can't find right now (argh, google-fu fail!). As I remember it, the ruling was about prayer before local government meetings, and the locality in question claimed that its policy was inclusive because the prayer-givers were chosen as a representative sampling of local religious institutions. The judge ruled that people have religion(s) individually, not solely as members of institutions.

If anyone could find that, I'd really appreciate it; I'm sorry, I'm still working through my email backlog.

[Nick Kiddle]

//I have don't really have a problem with people being able to get married quickly and easily, and being able to get married cheaply with minimal fuss is a useful privilege...but if I were particularly concerned about the gravitas of the institution I might think differently...//

Ah, I follow, and I agree. But gravitas, when it comes to marriage, is overrated. We've agreed that our wedding is going to be fun and goofy (and yes, "silly" by other people's standards, but who cares about them anyway).

[Mmy]

@Literata: Frazee has some similarity to a recent court ruling that I can't find right now (argh, google-fu fail!). As I remember it, the ruling was about prayer before local government meetings, and the locality in question claimed that its policy was inclusive because the prayer-givers were chosen as a representative sampling of local religious institutions. The judge ruled that people have religion(s) individually, not solely as members of institutions.

You might be thinking about the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 2nd Circuit of SUSAN GALLOWAY and LINDA STEPHENS against the Town of Greece. (I have linked to the entire ruling)

There is a nice write up on that ruling by Hemant Mehta We Win! Federal Court Says Town Board’s Prayers Endorsed Christianity at The Friendly Atheist

[Literata]

Yes, that's it precisely. The bit I was thinking of:

The town fails to recognize that its residents may hold religious beliefs that are not represented by a place of worship within the town.

Now, it's not precisely analogous to my situation because I'm specifically applying as clergy, that is, as someone in a position of leadership within a group, but I think it does support the point that religion and religious groups are not equatable with place.

[Kirala]

The question of what makes something a "real" religion (rather than, say, a love of baseball, or a parody, or a political party, or a philosophical movement) is a deep one with a long history of serious intellectual debate. I would be glad to engage in that especially with respect to how Paganism challenges American and Western assumptions about religion that are modeled on monotheism, Christianity, and particularly mainline Protestantism. People who want to tell me that my religion is not real - or, more precisely - good enough for them - can go jump in the lake.

The debate about what constitutes a religion can be complicated indeed, but it seems fairly simple to exclude "love of baseball" if all practitioners and observers agree that it isn't one. I hate it when people take a complicated issue and try to complicate it further with basically irrelevant examples.

Then there are my students, a group of whom who invented a religion that prohibits homework, classwork, or failing grades, under the sanctity of Based God. (For those who want to see the crude meme on which their "religion" was based, see link.) It's very hard for me to find the words to describe the difference between discovering one's own religious principles and creating a "religion" for one's own convenience, and I found myself getting very angry on behalf of the less-recognized religious folk whose struggles these lazy children were appropriating.

[MercuryBlue]

That link's broke.

Thanks--fixed it.

[Froborr]

@Kirala: Oh, absolutely. I hope I didn't come across as trying to argue that baseball is a religion; I was just saying that Times It's Not Okay to Call Something Silly has nothing to do with what the thing in question is, and everything to do with how the people present feel about that thing. It falls under the general principle of avoiding harm and maximizing care.

[Kirala]

I was just saying that Times It's Not Okay to Call Something Silly has nothing to do with what the thing in question is, and everything to do with how the people present feel about that thing.

True enough.

[hapax]

The debate about what constitutes a religion can be complicated indeed, but it seems fairly simple to exclude "love of baseball" if all practitioners and observers agree that it isn't one.

At my mother's (religious) funeral, all of her children insisted that "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" be played as the commital.

Several people began to cry at that point, and told me later that this was the point they most strongly felt my mother's presence -- and her absence.

[Kirala]

At my mother's (religious) funeral, all of her children insisted that "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" be played as the commital.

If you consider that part of your mother's religion, I wouldn't argue otherwise.

[l.the.drifter]

"I was just saying that Times It's Not Okay to Call Something Silly has nothing to do with what the thing in question is, and everything to do with how the people present feel about that thing."

Is that not the opposite of rational inquiry?

This is a point so obvious that I can't believe it is necessary to make it.

If you give a group of people the right or the power to place their beliefs beyond criticism or even ridicule, you are treading down a very dangerous path.

This book, these words, this flag, this belief or whatever is so pure and true and *special* to me that you may not even call it silly is the way that despots, fanatics, and idiots think.

Note - I tried to post this before but the post didn't go up for some reason.