Readers, I have been away from this blog a long time. It is partly that I have been very busy, with academic and political involvements, but is it more so because I have been too depressed and dispirited by the unending cruelty, venality and inhumanity of the Trump era. I have never felt so afraid that America might devolve into a brutal, Fascist state as I have been this year, in light of the Trump administration's disregard of law and ethics, and racist obsession with demonizing and abusing immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, not to mention various expressions of hostility toward African-Americans and Muslims. But as of Tuesday night, Nov. 6, 2018, when the results of the 2018 midterm election started to come in, and the evidence of a Blue Wave of Democratic party victory across the country began to mount, my spirits have lifted, though I was heartbroken by the defeat of the truly inspiring Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke as well as the apparent losses of two very impressive African-American candidates in southern states, namely Stacey Abrams running for governor in Georgia and Andrew Gillum for governor in Florida. It now seems that Abrams and Gillum might yet emerge victorious as the final counts and possible recounts proceed.
In my own home region in New York State, I saw a racist campaign against a highly qualified African-American House of Representatives candidate, Antonio Delgado, fail to derail Delgado's ascent to victory, and a progressive State Senate candidate, Jen Metzger, prevail over a Republican candidate who in the past would have been a shoo-in, this being a generally conservative-leaning part of the state. This kind of Democratic victory at the state level was part and parcel of a vast Democratic surge nationwide, with 350 Democrats elected to state legislatures and 7 states opting for Democratic governors, shifting the balance of governorships from 32 Republican vs. 16 Democratic to 26 Republican vs. 23 Democratic, with one of those Florida not entirely certain, and Georgia still to be decided.
Overall, the election shows a real triumph of diversity over the Trumpian preference for white male leadership and possibly also white supremacy. Consider how many barriers were broken, how many "firsts" were registered. In Colorado: the country's first openly gay governor, Jared Polis. The country's first two Native American women were elected to Congress: Debra Haaland, in New Mexico, and Sharice Davids in Kansas, who is also the first lesbian congresswoman elected in the state. The nation's first two Muslim women were also elected to Congress: Rashida Tlaib in Michigan and Ilhan Omar in Minnesota. In Massachusetts, the state's first African-American female was elected to Congress, Ayanna Pressley. In Texas, the state's first two Latina congresswomen: Veronica Escobar and Sylvia Garcia. In New York, the youngest ever congressperson was elected, Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. There was just one such "first" on the Republican side: Tennessee's first female Senator, Marsha Blackburn. Overall, the Republicans had their best showing in white-majority, economically struggling, rural areas, while the Democrats prevailed in urban and suburban areas with more diverse populations.
I believe that this nationwide embrace of racial, ethnic and religious diversity represented by these Democratic victories shows the tolerant, open dimension of the American national character coming to the fore, and demonstrating that it can stand up to and indeed face down the specter of ethno-national Fascism offered by Trump and his ilk. This may be the start of America waking up to its "better angels," in the phrase made famous by Abraham Lincoln, the American leader who chose to stand up against the slavery of African-Americans rather than acquiesce to it, which would have been the easier path, which the pundits of the time might well have assumed was the logical, pragmatic course. Lincoln stood up for the more idealistic option, choosing to embrace diversity rather than deny it, and on Nov. 6, so did America.
There is hope!
Showing posts with label Pagans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pagans. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Pagan-Jewish Parallels
I have been researching Eastern European Jewish history this summer, and this has led me to reflect on some possible Pagan-Jewish parallels. No, I am not making a claim that the ancient Pagans of this or that region of Europe were one of the legendary lost tribes of Israel that made a wrong turn in the Mediterranean and ended up in Stonehenge or Uppsala. Nothing like that! Instead, what I have been contemplating is how the complicated status of Judaism and Jewishness as both religion and ethnic identity provides an interesting mirror to the status of Ethnic Reconstructionist Paganism as both a form of religion or spirituality AND an adaptation of particular ethnic traditions of particular European regions. Let me take you through some of the areas of correspondence that I have been considering between Paganism and Judaism, and also demonstrate that some of the areas of absolute difference between Paganism and Judaism may not quite be so absolute as is often believed.
1. Both Jews and Pagans follow religious traditions rooted in a particular place or "holy land." Even when followers of these traditions find themselves very far away, the original place of their religion's development remains sacred and meaningful. All the long centuries after the Roman Empire's crushing of the original Jewish kingdom in ancient times, Jews continued to regard Palestine as their sacred homeland, up to the development of a modern Jewish state, Israel. The Pagan parallel involves Pagans living outside of Europe in such places as the United States and Australia continuing to regard the area in Europe in which their religious tradition first developed, such as Lithuania for Romuva believers, Ireland for Celtic Pagans, Scandinavia for Norse Pagans, and so on. Travel to the homeland is a powerful spiritual experience for Pagans, as is visiting Israel for Jews.
2. The corollary of the love of a spiritual homeland is the sense of exile and loss, which is again common to both Jews and Pagans.
3. The language of the original homeland is likewise valued as sacred,with Hebrew for the Jews; European languages related to particular European regions for Pagans. Both Jews outside of Israel and Pagans living outside of Europe struggle to acquire and maintain knowledge of these languages.
4. In both Jewish mysticism and some forms of European Paganism, the ancient script,indeed the very letters and symbols of the sacred language is seen as possessing magical, divinely inspired powers. Compare the Kabbalistic view of the magical powers of Hebrew letters with the significance that Norse Pagans invest in the ancient Germanic runes. Other Pagans such as Celts, Balts and Slavs also tend to regard their earliest forms of writing as possessing sacredness and possibly magical power.
5. Both Jews and Pagans have a range of views about who is qualified to claim identity as a member of these religions. All Jewish denominations see birth from Jewish parents, with priority on a Jewish mother, as a legitimate qualification for Jewish identity. Some sects see having a Jewish father as sufficient. Most Jewish sects allow conversion to Judaism by people not born Jewish, with different rules as to how conversion is to be carried out. Among European ethnic Pagans, there is an ongoing discussion about whether and to what extent a family ancestral link to the European spiritual homeland is an important qualification for membership in a Pagan community. Most forms of ethnic Paganism allow those without an ancestral link to participate in their religious activities, but there is often a preference and privileging of those with ancestral links, though this is not always explicitly stated. There are also some ethnic Pagans who insist on ancestry as a necessary factor for inclusion in the community. Just as Jews have long debated and disagreed about these issues, Pagans are likely to do the same. I myself would advocate for totally open conversion without preference to, or prejudice against, ethnic background, but I am well aware that others have quite different and even opposite opinions!
6. Jewish communities in Eastern European history were often segregated to greater or lesser extent, though this was rarely a total sealing off of Jews from contact with non-Jews. It can be argued that this segregation helped to maintain Jewish identity and foster the development of distinct Eastern European traditions such as Hasidism. Though most if not all Pagans today live in mixed, pluralistic societies, I have on a number of occasions met Pagans who would like to live in a more segregated manner, in tight-knit Pagan communities that would be distinct and separate, though not totally sealed off, from mainstream, Christian-dominant society. Some Pagans create temporary communities in the summer months, whether camping out together at festivals, or constructing an intentionally archaic, folkloric village, as the leaders of Romuva have done in Lithuania. I wonder, will we see Pagan versions of shtetls and ghettos in the future?
7. The sacredness of nature is common to both Paganism and Judaism. While this may be more obvious and central in Pagan traditions, Judaism is replete with nature symbolism. Jewish festivals such as Sukkoth and Shavuot are essentially agricultural festivals, celebrating the fertility of the earth. The Old Testament and the Kabbalah both utilize trees as sacred symbols. To take up the contrary view, one that has become rather conventional among Pagans, the argument is sometimes made that Judaism is un-natural and anti-natural insofar as it involves the desire of God that mankind will subjugate and dominate all other creatures, whereas Paganism supposedly involves a more reverent attitude of harmony with nature. I think this difference is overstated. Most Pagan traditions are grounded in an agricultural lifestyle which also involves a domination and subjugation of animals and the natural world. Even if the natural world is highly respected and honored as sacred, it is still subjugated and dominated by mankind in any form of European-derived Paganism I know of. Judaism is also sometimes criticized by Pagans as a religion of the desert, but let us not forget that the Holy, Promised Land of the Bible is the "land of milk and honey," not a wasteland but a fertile land conducive to animal breeding and agriculture, much like Old World Europe.
8. But what about the fundamental difference between Judaism as a monotheistic faith and Paganism as a polytheistic worldview? I would not deny that this is a real difference, but I would also note that there are some monotheistic tendencies in Paganism just as there are polytheistic ones in Judaism. Greek Pagan philosophy moved toward a conception of the One behind the Many, and Norse mythology describes Odin as the All-father, and speaks of some sort of One greater than the gods arising after the world-destruction of Ragnarok. Judaism contains angels, which are arguably divine beings, certainly greater-than-mortal, and the Kabbalah has multiple powers and beings that are also greater-than-human, notably the Shekhinah, a female personification of the Jewish nation that looks a lot like a Jewish goddess. There are also the rejected goddess (or demoness) figures like Lilith in the Old Testament.
I would therefore argue that there are a good many parallels between Paganism and Judaism that are well worth pondering. I believe that open-minded Jews and Pagans can find a certain amount of common ground, if they wish to.
1. Both Jews and Pagans follow religious traditions rooted in a particular place or "holy land." Even when followers of these traditions find themselves very far away, the original place of their religion's development remains sacred and meaningful. All the long centuries after the Roman Empire's crushing of the original Jewish kingdom in ancient times, Jews continued to regard Palestine as their sacred homeland, up to the development of a modern Jewish state, Israel. The Pagan parallel involves Pagans living outside of Europe in such places as the United States and Australia continuing to regard the area in Europe in which their religious tradition first developed, such as Lithuania for Romuva believers, Ireland for Celtic Pagans, Scandinavia for Norse Pagans, and so on. Travel to the homeland is a powerful spiritual experience for Pagans, as is visiting Israel for Jews.
2. The corollary of the love of a spiritual homeland is the sense of exile and loss, which is again common to both Jews and Pagans.
3. The language of the original homeland is likewise valued as sacred,with Hebrew for the Jews; European languages related to particular European regions for Pagans. Both Jews outside of Israel and Pagans living outside of Europe struggle to acquire and maintain knowledge of these languages.
4. In both Jewish mysticism and some forms of European Paganism, the ancient script,indeed the very letters and symbols of the sacred language is seen as possessing magical, divinely inspired powers. Compare the Kabbalistic view of the magical powers of Hebrew letters with the significance that Norse Pagans invest in the ancient Germanic runes. Other Pagans such as Celts, Balts and Slavs also tend to regard their earliest forms of writing as possessing sacredness and possibly magical power.
5. Both Jews and Pagans have a range of views about who is qualified to claim identity as a member of these religions. All Jewish denominations see birth from Jewish parents, with priority on a Jewish mother, as a legitimate qualification for Jewish identity. Some sects see having a Jewish father as sufficient. Most Jewish sects allow conversion to Judaism by people not born Jewish, with different rules as to how conversion is to be carried out. Among European ethnic Pagans, there is an ongoing discussion about whether and to what extent a family ancestral link to the European spiritual homeland is an important qualification for membership in a Pagan community. Most forms of ethnic Paganism allow those without an ancestral link to participate in their religious activities, but there is often a preference and privileging of those with ancestral links, though this is not always explicitly stated. There are also some ethnic Pagans who insist on ancestry as a necessary factor for inclusion in the community. Just as Jews have long debated and disagreed about these issues, Pagans are likely to do the same. I myself would advocate for totally open conversion without preference to, or prejudice against, ethnic background, but I am well aware that others have quite different and even opposite opinions!
6. Jewish communities in Eastern European history were often segregated to greater or lesser extent, though this was rarely a total sealing off of Jews from contact with non-Jews. It can be argued that this segregation helped to maintain Jewish identity and foster the development of distinct Eastern European traditions such as Hasidism. Though most if not all Pagans today live in mixed, pluralistic societies, I have on a number of occasions met Pagans who would like to live in a more segregated manner, in tight-knit Pagan communities that would be distinct and separate, though not totally sealed off, from mainstream, Christian-dominant society. Some Pagans create temporary communities in the summer months, whether camping out together at festivals, or constructing an intentionally archaic, folkloric village, as the leaders of Romuva have done in Lithuania. I wonder, will we see Pagan versions of shtetls and ghettos in the future?
7. The sacredness of nature is common to both Paganism and Judaism. While this may be more obvious and central in Pagan traditions, Judaism is replete with nature symbolism. Jewish festivals such as Sukkoth and Shavuot are essentially agricultural festivals, celebrating the fertility of the earth. The Old Testament and the Kabbalah both utilize trees as sacred symbols. To take up the contrary view, one that has become rather conventional among Pagans, the argument is sometimes made that Judaism is un-natural and anti-natural insofar as it involves the desire of God that mankind will subjugate and dominate all other creatures, whereas Paganism supposedly involves a more reverent attitude of harmony with nature. I think this difference is overstated. Most Pagan traditions are grounded in an agricultural lifestyle which also involves a domination and subjugation of animals and the natural world. Even if the natural world is highly respected and honored as sacred, it is still subjugated and dominated by mankind in any form of European-derived Paganism I know of. Judaism is also sometimes criticized by Pagans as a religion of the desert, but let us not forget that the Holy, Promised Land of the Bible is the "land of milk and honey," not a wasteland but a fertile land conducive to animal breeding and agriculture, much like Old World Europe.
8. But what about the fundamental difference between Judaism as a monotheistic faith and Paganism as a polytheistic worldview? I would not deny that this is a real difference, but I would also note that there are some monotheistic tendencies in Paganism just as there are polytheistic ones in Judaism. Greek Pagan philosophy moved toward a conception of the One behind the Many, and Norse mythology describes Odin as the All-father, and speaks of some sort of One greater than the gods arising after the world-destruction of Ragnarok. Judaism contains angels, which are arguably divine beings, certainly greater-than-mortal, and the Kabbalah has multiple powers and beings that are also greater-than-human, notably the Shekhinah, a female personification of the Jewish nation that looks a lot like a Jewish goddess. There are also the rejected goddess (or demoness) figures like Lilith in the Old Testament.
I would therefore argue that there are a good many parallels between Paganism and Judaism that are well worth pondering. I believe that open-minded Jews and Pagans can find a certain amount of common ground, if they wish to.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Political Predictions
After being barraged by coverage of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary for the last week or two, like most Americans who have been within range of a television or a radio or opened a newspaper or seen a news website in recent times, and also because I am a political junkie even in non-election years, I thought I would try my hand at a bit of political prognostication about the ongoing Presidential contest in the USA, and add a little Pagan commentary as well.
My predictions for 2012 and beyond:
Most likely Republican Party ticket: Mitt Romney for President, Rick Santorum for Vice President. I don't think these two even like each other, let alone share the same philosophy, with Romney being a pro-business but socially moderate kind of Republican, kind of an old-style "Rockefeller Republican," and Santorum a hard-core social conservative who loves guns and bibles and hates gays and abortions. Romney needs someone with him to keep the Christian conservatives happy, and Santorum might be the best choice, with his near-victory Iowa demonstrating his appeal to that segment of the population.
Less likely, but possible alternative Republican ticket: Mitt Romney for President, Rand Paul for VP. That's right, no misspelling there. Rand, not Ron Paul for Veep. Romney may decide that he can't win by catering to social conservatives, so he will seek the anti-government, anti-tax, budget-cutting, Tea Party vote by bringing in the son of Ron Paul to charge up the libertarians.
Democratic Party ticket: Barack Obama for President, Joe Biden for Vice President, a standard bid for re-election of the existing Prez and Veep as you would normally expect. However, I also can envision another possibility.
Alternative Democratic Ticket: If Obama gets nervous about lukewarm support from Democrats disappointed with certain aspects of his record, from what many, including this writer, see as an over-willingness to cater to conservative Republicans and insufficient attention to issues like protecting the environment and cutting back our military empire, and wants to do something to add excitement to his ticket, he might choose to replace Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton. I did not come up with this idea, but was persuaded that this was a feasible option by a recent Robert Reich blog posting. I myself don't see Hillary as being very different from Biden let alone Obama on any given issue, but I can see that her presence on the ticket would create a lot of enthusiasm among many Democrats and also independent voters, particularly but not only women, who supported Hillary in her 2008 bid. This strategy might not only help Obama win re-election, but would also pave the way for a continuation of his administration and policies under a Hillary Clinton for President campaign in 2016.
Who will win? Obama, if he has the good sense to use Hillary as his #2. If Biden, could be a toss-up. Whether or not we go to war with Iran could be a factor. If tensions with Iran continue to increase, the hawks and neocons within the Pentagon, the Republican Party, and even some in the Democratic Party, will pressure Obama to take some kind of limited miltary action against Iran. If he doesn't do it, he will be criticized as weak. If he takes the bait, the ensuing quagmire and oil price crisis will be a gift to the Republicans, who might even shamelessly accuse Obama of recklessness and warmongering, despite how hard they worked to bring about this war.
I hope Obama will have the wisdom to avoid armed conflict with Iran. Nothing good will come from it. We have to learn to live with Iran. We are not the masters of the universe; we cannot force every nation on earth to do what we want. DEAL WITH IT, AMERICA!
Predictions for 2016:
On the Republican side, a slugfest between Jon Huntsman and Chris Christie. Some people think Huntsman has been wasting his time in the current campaign as he seems unable to catch up with Mitt Romney. I think that Huntsman has been doing just fine, only for a different electoral cycle, that of 2016. He is laying the groundwork, making the rounds, building up a network of supporters, introducing himself as a somewhat more moderate Republican than most others. If the extreme right-wing, let's kill-the-government types continue to dominate the Republican party, Republicans will probably have more defeats than victories for the next few years, as American continue to sour on the anger without answers politics of the Tea Party. Should the Republicans be looking for a non-Tea Party, non-extreme, more moderate and kindly candidate for 2016, Huntsman might find himself to be the right man at the right time. However, if Republicans continue to crave anger and brutality, Chris Christie will be their boy. This also helps explain why Christie has been out stumping for Romney. He is not campaigning for Romney in 2012 so much as for Christie in 2016.
Let me now add some thoughts on what the current election might mean for Pagans and issues that Pagans care about. In terms of basic tolerance for Pagans and other such minority religions and protection of their rights, I don't think there is a huge difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, but there may be some advantage in going with Obama. True, Obama is as eager to pass himself off as a pious Christian as any of the Republicans save Santorum, but I expect that Obama, and especially his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and also any Supreme Court justices that Obama might appoint would be more neutral on religious issues, more keen on respecting religious rights for all under a secular government, while a Republican administration would be under huge pressure from its Christian conservative base to do more to promote a Christian identity for the government and the country, and this could also mean suppression or persecution of minority religions from Islam to Paganism. One might think that Romney, as a Mormon subjected to a great deal of prejudice from conservative Christians,would be sensitive to the plight of minority religions, but there is another way this could play out. He might feel the need to prove his Christian credentials by beating up on Pagans and other members of minority religions.
I would also call attention to another issue. Paganism is generally seen as an earth-centered form of religion or spirituality that venerates the sacredness of nature above all other things. What does this mean for our choices in the election? Well, Obama has not been completely heroic when it comes to protecting the environment, as his weak-kneed response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and his procrastination about the Keystone Pipeline decision demonstrate, but he is a hell of a lot better than the Republicans, who seem to have concluded that America will not be a free country anymore unless every inch of territory is drilled and devastated to extract every possible iota of oil, gas and coal. They also seem to feel that the sun is the veritable eye of Satan, so fierce is their opposition to government support to help develop a solar power industry. I shudder to think of how much environmental damage might be done by a Republican administration supported by a Republican majority in one or the other houses of Congress.
From a Pagan, earth-centered, nature-sacral viewpoint, the choice is clear: Vote Democrat, regardless of any reservations. To support the Republicans in light of their literally poisonous environmental agenda is to betray the single most cherished value of most varieties of Paganism.
Therefore, Obama for Druid! Or Druids for Obama! You heard it here first.
My predictions for 2012 and beyond:
Most likely Republican Party ticket: Mitt Romney for President, Rick Santorum for Vice President. I don't think these two even like each other, let alone share the same philosophy, with Romney being a pro-business but socially moderate kind of Republican, kind of an old-style "Rockefeller Republican," and Santorum a hard-core social conservative who loves guns and bibles and hates gays and abortions. Romney needs someone with him to keep the Christian conservatives happy, and Santorum might be the best choice, with his near-victory Iowa demonstrating his appeal to that segment of the population.
Less likely, but possible alternative Republican ticket: Mitt Romney for President, Rand Paul for VP. That's right, no misspelling there. Rand, not Ron Paul for Veep. Romney may decide that he can't win by catering to social conservatives, so he will seek the anti-government, anti-tax, budget-cutting, Tea Party vote by bringing in the son of Ron Paul to charge up the libertarians.
Democratic Party ticket: Barack Obama for President, Joe Biden for Vice President, a standard bid for re-election of the existing Prez and Veep as you would normally expect. However, I also can envision another possibility.
Alternative Democratic Ticket: If Obama gets nervous about lukewarm support from Democrats disappointed with certain aspects of his record, from what many, including this writer, see as an over-willingness to cater to conservative Republicans and insufficient attention to issues like protecting the environment and cutting back our military empire, and wants to do something to add excitement to his ticket, he might choose to replace Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton. I did not come up with this idea, but was persuaded that this was a feasible option by a recent Robert Reich blog posting. I myself don't see Hillary as being very different from Biden let alone Obama on any given issue, but I can see that her presence on the ticket would create a lot of enthusiasm among many Democrats and also independent voters, particularly but not only women, who supported Hillary in her 2008 bid. This strategy might not only help Obama win re-election, but would also pave the way for a continuation of his administration and policies under a Hillary Clinton for President campaign in 2016.
Who will win? Obama, if he has the good sense to use Hillary as his #2. If Biden, could be a toss-up. Whether or not we go to war with Iran could be a factor. If tensions with Iran continue to increase, the hawks and neocons within the Pentagon, the Republican Party, and even some in the Democratic Party, will pressure Obama to take some kind of limited miltary action against Iran. If he doesn't do it, he will be criticized as weak. If he takes the bait, the ensuing quagmire and oil price crisis will be a gift to the Republicans, who might even shamelessly accuse Obama of recklessness and warmongering, despite how hard they worked to bring about this war.
I hope Obama will have the wisdom to avoid armed conflict with Iran. Nothing good will come from it. We have to learn to live with Iran. We are not the masters of the universe; we cannot force every nation on earth to do what we want. DEAL WITH IT, AMERICA!
Predictions for 2016:
On the Republican side, a slugfest between Jon Huntsman and Chris Christie. Some people think Huntsman has been wasting his time in the current campaign as he seems unable to catch up with Mitt Romney. I think that Huntsman has been doing just fine, only for a different electoral cycle, that of 2016. He is laying the groundwork, making the rounds, building up a network of supporters, introducing himself as a somewhat more moderate Republican than most others. If the extreme right-wing, let's kill-the-government types continue to dominate the Republican party, Republicans will probably have more defeats than victories for the next few years, as American continue to sour on the anger without answers politics of the Tea Party. Should the Republicans be looking for a non-Tea Party, non-extreme, more moderate and kindly candidate for 2016, Huntsman might find himself to be the right man at the right time. However, if Republicans continue to crave anger and brutality, Chris Christie will be their boy. This also helps explain why Christie has been out stumping for Romney. He is not campaigning for Romney in 2012 so much as for Christie in 2016.
Let me now add some thoughts on what the current election might mean for Pagans and issues that Pagans care about. In terms of basic tolerance for Pagans and other such minority religions and protection of their rights, I don't think there is a huge difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, but there may be some advantage in going with Obama. True, Obama is as eager to pass himself off as a pious Christian as any of the Republicans save Santorum, but I expect that Obama, and especially his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and also any Supreme Court justices that Obama might appoint would be more neutral on religious issues, more keen on respecting religious rights for all under a secular government, while a Republican administration would be under huge pressure from its Christian conservative base to do more to promote a Christian identity for the government and the country, and this could also mean suppression or persecution of minority religions from Islam to Paganism. One might think that Romney, as a Mormon subjected to a great deal of prejudice from conservative Christians,would be sensitive to the plight of minority religions, but there is another way this could play out. He might feel the need to prove his Christian credentials by beating up on Pagans and other members of minority religions.
I would also call attention to another issue. Paganism is generally seen as an earth-centered form of religion or spirituality that venerates the sacredness of nature above all other things. What does this mean for our choices in the election? Well, Obama has not been completely heroic when it comes to protecting the environment, as his weak-kneed response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and his procrastination about the Keystone Pipeline decision demonstrate, but he is a hell of a lot better than the Republicans, who seem to have concluded that America will not be a free country anymore unless every inch of territory is drilled and devastated to extract every possible iota of oil, gas and coal. They also seem to feel that the sun is the veritable eye of Satan, so fierce is their opposition to government support to help develop a solar power industry. I shudder to think of how much environmental damage might be done by a Republican administration supported by a Republican majority in one or the other houses of Congress.
From a Pagan, earth-centered, nature-sacral viewpoint, the choice is clear: Vote Democrat, regardless of any reservations. To support the Republicans in light of their literally poisonous environmental agenda is to betray the single most cherished value of most varieties of Paganism.
Therefore, Obama for Druid! Or Druids for Obama! You heard it here first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
