Deborah Lipp

The “On Faith” blog used the July 4th Pagan rally as a jumping off point to invite essays for and against the issue of allowing Pagan chaplaincy (Pagans have been blocked repeatedly from military chaplaincy, as Wild Hunt has been documenting).

So here’s the wacky contribution by Chuck Colson (because I always take my religious advice from Watergate co-conspirators). Now, normally I wouldn’t take this seriously. And in fact, I don’t. But it’s really so loopy that I can’t resist fisking the thing.

It is debatable whether paganism is a religion, per say.

Always an excellent move to have a spelling error in your first sentence. Lends credibility.

Chucky, Paganism is not “a” religion, it is a group of religions. In fact, Chuck seems to know this when he says “Wiccans or pagans generally” in his very next paragraph, implying that he understands that Wicca, a specific religion, is a subset of Paganism (which he refuses to capitalize), which is more of an umbrella term. “Christianity” is also not “a” religion, it is an umbrella comprising such widely diverse groups as the Greek Orthodox Church and the Shakers.

It is generally defined as a pre-Christian state

By whom? This definition isn’t used by The Free Dictionary, or by Merriam-Webster, or by Webster’s/Dictionary.com, or by American Heritage. In fact, I think Chucky made it up.

It takes a wide variety of forms—all the way from relatively benign New Age-style nature worship, to pantheism, to witchcraft, and even human sacrifice.

Can I just say, holy shit?

I mean, holy shit.

I know these people like to hide the lurid behind their benign words. They like to say that Paganism is just a “cult” (which Chucky says) or is silly, or is not truly moral and upright (which, you guessed it, Chucky says), but meanwhile, they’re kind of dog-whistling the notion that there’s evil Satanic orgies of sex and death afoot. But usually just that. Just the dog whistle. This fucking asshole actually has the balls to say it out loud. Well, good for him. If you have no brains, balls are a nice consolation prize.

What an asshole.

Those who publicly identify themselves as pagans are at best a marginal number and are basically no different from dozens of other cults.

That “marginal number” is estimated at about three-quarters of a million in the U.S. That’s more than, oh, say Mennonites, or Quakers, or Sikhs. Of course, “publicly identify” is a little rough, since we’re going to be accused of human sacrifice by people like Chuck if we stick our necks out.

But the best part here is the “dozens of other cults.” Because it means absolutely nothing. “Cult” is the word big, moneyed religions use to belittle small religions without political clout.

I see no reason why Wiccans or pagans generally should have the services of taxpayer-paid chaplains.

Now, this is a dog whistle. Taxpayer-paid is meant to shock and offend. But let’s not forget he’s talking about paying the salaries of members of the Armed Forces. You know, the Armed Forces where Wiccans serve, and die. Those Armed Forces.

It is perfectly appropriate, if a group meets court tests for religion

Have I used up my holy shits for the day?

Because seriously, court tests for religion? What are those exactly? Chucky says they’re “spelled out carefully” on his planet made of green cheese, but for the rest of us, not so much. At least not in the U.S. I’m sure the court tests for religion are clear as daylight in Saudi Arabia.

The more difficult question is whether I would vote for a pagan for public office. The answer is that on one hand I fully respect the fact that there should be no religious test for public office; on the other hand, I would have great difficulty supporting an explicit Wiccan or pagan for high public office. There are tenets of their belief that, I think, are incompatible with the requirements of American democratic governance.

Oh, fun.

Later in the essay, Chucky confesses he doesn’t actually know what Pagans believe. But he’s fuck-all sure it isn’t American.

Now, after this, he’s going to talk about Founding Fathers and intention and moral rectitude and whatever the hell. But none of it is going to talk about the “requirements” of governance. In all of his noise and fuss and harumphing, he will drop entirely this notion of requirements, because indeed, he can’t come up with any that have anything to do with a religious test for office. Pagans can be as honest (or dishonest) as any other politician. We can swear oaths of office (just like Muslims). We can work more days than observant Christians or Jews, and we can faithfully protect and defend the Constitution. So, what other requirements?

Lest this sound discriminatory, I think it is very clear from reading the writings of our founding fathers that a sound adherence to the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition—or at the very least, deism—was essential as a basis of the moral law that would sustain a free society.

Oy vey. I’m going to skip all the quotes he provides from Adams and Washington about how government and faith go hand in hand. I can counter every one of those religious quotes from the Founding Fathers with five irreligious ones, and he’s counting on people’s ignorance. Counting in oh-so-many ways, since he wants you to believe there is such a thing as “the Judeo-Christian tradition”—there is not—or that deism is somehow its equivalent.

American Heritage says:

Deism:The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

I gotta tell you, as a Pagan, I’m way more religious than that.

Finally, lest I be accused of being “anti-Christian” (an accusation flung at any Pagan who dares to object to a Christian attempting to deny us our rights), let me heap praises on Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA, who said, in the same blog-a-thon,

When I am faced with choosing a candidate for public office there are many criteria I use. At the top of my list is a candidate’s demonstrated ability to serve the common good. Strength of character, commitment to justice, protection of the planet and leadership to eliminate poverty, racism, and sexism, are all attributes I look for in a candidate for public office.

The religion or belief system of a candidate becomes relevant as a criterion for public office only if the candidate has a record of trying to impose that belief system on others.

Now, that’s the kind of Christian I can love!

Oh, and after writing all this, I find that Philip Barron did it shorter and better.