Comments on A Heathen's Day: A Heathen's Cry in the Wilderness

In an age when a contract is simply an inconvenien...

2008-07-22T14:31:00.000-04:00

In an age when a contract is simply an inconvenience it is not surprising that a sworn oath means nothing. After all, honor and loyalty are equally valueless in today's world. It's a shame, really. But you're right that it really doesn't guarantee that anyone is telling the truth. And Christians, as I've said repeatedly, feel the law does not apply to them (there is no crime for those who have Christ).

That said, I don't fear being "outed." Back in the 80s the idea bothered me because you could lose your job and home if people found out. I suppose in some places you still could, though overall I don't think things are as bad as they were. I just don't care what people think anymore, that's all. I'm a Pagan. Screw you if you don't like it. It's not my problem, it's yours. That's why I admit to being a militant Pagan - it's just the way I feel. I'm not going to be a "good boy" or be their "tame Indian" and I'm sure as shit not going to worry about offending them.

So if they trot out a gold ring, we'll have a swearing in. Otherwise, as I said, it's their problem. An oath sworn on a god who is not my own is meaningless.

Exactly. I personally don't feel I have to swear o...

2008-07-21T19:08:00.000-04:00

Exactly. I personally don't feel I have to swear on anything. Making people swear isn't going to make them tell the truth. I think it's stupid. Besides, I can't promise I'd tell the truth of something anyways. What if that meant "outing" someone as a witch for example? Nope. Sorry. Won't do that. I might acknowledge any odd activities they did if it were a legal matter but I would NEVER tie it to their personal practice as a Pagan. Some religions may have crazy beliefs but it's people who carry them out. That's my take anyways.

I would not swear on a Bible either, under any cir...

2008-07-21T07:27:00.000-04:00

I would not swear on a Bible either, under any circumstances. And if it doesn't mean anything, as that person told you, why do it? Swearing to something is meaningless? Incredible. People today have no concept of the things that were once important to people.

I would, however, sear on a gold ring, as my ancestors once did. Or I would swear upon one of my gods, but not their Bible and not their desert god.

I don't get it either, Hrafnkell. I think it's bec...

2008-07-20T19:33:00.000-04:00

I don't get it either, Hrafnkell. I think it's because non-Christian spiritual types are painted as "fringe minorities" instead of people to be taken seriously. And let's face it, we have some serious stereotypes out there. You know the kind, the ones wearing gigantic pentagrams and white face paint with bumper stickers that say, "I'm a witch, deal with it." Or the shaved heads folks with Thor's hammer up and down one massive bicep with the swastika on the other. You know?

People just don't care enough about the truth of who other people are. It's so much easier to just classify them as "the enemy" and ignore them like they don't count. Some one asked me once if I'd swear on the Bible in court. I said, "No, why should I swear on something or to someone I don't follow?" They thought I should do it "just because" and just tell myself I didn't mean anything by it. Yeah, right. Talk about needing some separation of church and state. You SHOULD NOT have to swear to the Christian god in our courts. Period.

Thank you for commenting, Indrani. I'm just sicken...

2008-07-20T07:49:00.000-04:00

Thank you for commenting, Indrani. I'm just sickened by Congress and it's performance over the past eight years. I'm sickened by the fact that any notion of impeachment gets shelved because it's inconvenient while it was never inconvenient to railroad a man who had extramarital sex. Clinton could get all the sex he wanted and from anyone he wanted (JFK did) as far as I was concerned, as long as the economy boomed, I had a job and we were at peace. None of those things obtain today and my country is run by gangsters and war profiteers who ignore the law at whim and are supported in their activities by the people who are supposed to reign them in. I'm sick to my stomach of them and I'm sick to my stomach of the cowards who won't say anything about it, who won't protest or cry out in grief or anger or shame. It just sickens me.

Granamyr, I just don't get why 75% of the people a...

2008-07-20T07:45:00.000-04:00

Granamyr, I just don't get why 75% of the people are willing to surrender to 25%. That's no form of math I understand. Why do the candidates work so hard for such a minority? Because that 25% is rich and powerful and very influential. But that's not a democracy. If there is such a thing as a mandate, and I believe there is, then it's a majority of the people - which is that 75% - not the 25%. We just have to rouse the masses to that fact. Wake up!!!

Jól, thank you :) And I try to use words the sheep...

2008-07-20T07:43:00.000-04:00

Jól, thank you :) And I try to use words the sheeple will understand.

Hrafnkell,If the president of the United States an...

2008-07-19T15:43:00.000-04:00

Hrafnkell,

If the president of the United States and any of her senators, use the interiors of their public office to thrill themselves with a lap dance or two from an attractive 'other' woman, it is truly an abuse of the office and people have the right to denounce it.

But, if political figures wish to play unfaithful in their private homes and elsewhere, outside of the office premises - it is none of anyone's business.
I have always strongly believed in this.

A line must be drawn about the extent of liberty the common people have in examining the private lives of the men and women who represent us.
It becomes an abuse of office only when the office interiors and the priviledges attached with the position of the occupant, are used to cheat on and/or to lubricate an extramarital affair. Otherwise I have never understood why an issue which is supposed to be kept sealed between the parties involved: husband/wife, the lover, the children and the Court; should invite public participation.

I think you hit the nail on the head, with your observation “”It has never ceased to amaze me, as a Heathen, that people got so upset that Bill had oral sex in the White House, a violation of a set of rules a president does not swear to obey, but don't care that Dubya uses the White House to systematically dismantle the Constitution, which a president does vow to obey.””

How is a man who hurt his family but not the nation more dangerous than another, who through his decisions not only hurt his own nation's citizens, but those of other nations as well?
There have been ancient rulers who made enormous public contributions but slept with people who they weren't married to. The polytheistic view here would be, to be oblivious of the ruler's bedmates and be appreciative of his public acts. In monotheism, it's the opposite and I'd like to quote Bertrand Russell ""Social virtue came therefore to be excluded from Christian ethics. To this day conventional Christians think an adulterer more wicked than a politician who takes bribes, although the latter probably does a thousand times more harm…I donot think there is a single saint in the whole calendar whose saintship is due to works of public utility…””
Christain saints are weighed on the balance of chastity, not public contribution.

I agree so much with you that I had to comment. I read it this morning (my time) and was waiting for the opportunity to raise my hand.

A thumbs up for your fearlessness in bringing out this issue in the open and speaking about it frankly in a blog post.

During the Gary Hart episode, I remember reading about this American woman who confronted a journalist who had come up to her (she belonged to the same city as Hart) for more 'inside' information about Donna Rice and Hart with ""We folks really don't care! It's you people, the media, who want to get inside peoples' bedrooms, to watch.""

It was published in a Bengali language magazine and I can still recollect the quote.

I agree in total. I personally think too many mode...

2008-07-19T11:27:00.000-04:00

I agree in total. I personally think too many modern Pagans have caved to an overly passive notion of, "Live and let live." Yes, I'm all for that but not when others aren't playing fair. Tolerance of others doesn't mean being a martyr or a doormat.

Well said and I stand with you. Any one else feel a new revolution coming on? I've often wondered if that's what it will take. I don't want that but nor could I sit by and watch non-Christians just wanting to live their lives be trampled on by the Christian steamroller.

Dude, nobody goes on a rampage like you do. Well ...

2008-07-18T20:08:00.000-04:00

Dude, nobody goes on a rampage like you do. Well done. Worth several readings at a sitting, and I'm barely done with the first.

It did make sense, and I agree entirely. Of course...

2008-07-18T15:17:00.000-04:00

It did make sense, and I agree entirely. Of course, Christians interpret freedom of worship to be freedom TO worship as opposed to freedom FROM worship, which is how they (typically) interpret it, speaking in absolutes and getting it all wrong in the process. And of course, in their scheme we all have to put up with their freedom to do whatever their religion tells them to do and we should all pay for it too and be damned.

I agree, when it comes to religion, it shouldn't p...

2008-07-18T14:39:00.000-04:00

I agree, when it comes to religion, it shouldn't play a part in the President's decision. This was touched on in my most recent post...America was established so that there could be freedom. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of RELIGION...and so forth. With that being said, no leader's religion should play any role in deciding what is right for our country because our country doesn't share the same views in that department and FORCING someone to "agree" with that is a violation of our law...therefore, all decisions should be neutral of any sort of religion. Don't get me wrong, there will still be disagreements but at least we can say, it was for the good of our country, not for the good of the Christian masses, or the Muslim masses, etc.

I hope that made sense.