The Wild Hunt » America

Witch Hunts Are Now An International Epidemic

Jason Pitzl-Waters — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:29:40 +0000

Yesterday a coalition of U.N. officials, NGOs, and representatives from affected countries addressed the United Nations asking for governments to face the full extent of witch hunts across the world. Far from being a localized phenomenon in “primitive” or isolated villages, witch hunts and witch killings are now global in nature and spreading.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEI6qeOk0pY

(Trigger Warning!) An Indian “witch” being beaten and paraded through her village.

“Murder and persecution of women and children accused of being witches is spreading around the world and destroying the lives of millions of people, experts said Wednesday … “This is becoming an international problem — it is a form of persecution and violence that is spreading around the globe,” Jeff Crisp of the U.N.’s refugee agency UNHCR told a seminar organized by human rights officials of the world body.”

According to some U.N. experts tracking the issue “at least” tens of thousands have died due to witch hunts, while millions have been beaten, abused, isolated, and turned into refugees. While economic hardship is given as a reason for the recent escalation in witch-related violence, experts at the UNHCR also claim that the rise can also be attributed to”religious practitioners” who exploit local fears and superstitions.

“Some religious practitioners make a living from exorcising alleged witches and charging exorbitant fees to those who request the ritual. In Foxcroft’s experience, the most vulnerable members of society – children and the elderly – are often the victims of these accusations.”

Who, exactly, are these “religious practitioners”? The IHEU is far more specific.

“Witchcraft is still widely practiced in many countries in Africa by witchdoctors who often use human body parts in their spells. Some witchdoctors employ gangs of young men to attack and kill victims, often young children, for their body parts, which are frequently removed while the victim is still alive. An estimated 300 people are killed each year in South Africa alone as a result of this practice. But horrific though this practice is, it is only part of the problem. In Nigeria, in both the Muslim North and the Christian South, witch hunts are not uncommon and this has led to a second form of abuse. Some unscrupulous pastors, many linked to Pentecostal churches, have a lucrative trade in making unfounded accusations of witchcraft against young children. [The pastors then agree to “cure” the witches for a substantial fee. Many children are being ostracized and abandoned by their parents as a result of these accusations.]“

These Christian pastors aren’t isolated to Africa, they tour churches in America bragging about their battles with the occult, and have established ministries in Ireland and the UK. Commingling with an increasing anti-occult fervor among some Western Christian groups. Meanwhile, actual modern Pagan communities in places like India and South Africa are facing the possible ramifications of intensifying witch-hunts and witch persecutions.

If this trend isn’t seriously addressed soon, we may find this madness turning its eye towards “safe” occultists and Pagans in places like America, the UK, Australia, Brazil, and Canada. Don’t think it could happen? All it takes is a pseudo-militant occult-fighting Christian movement cross-pollinating with a reviving “Satanic Ritual Abuse” movement, stir in some anti-government populist anger and frustration, and you have all the makings for an American witch-lynching.

“When Bill Sparkman told retired trooper Gilbert Acciardo that he was going door-to-door collecting census data in rural Kentucky, the former cop drew on years of experience for a warning: “Be careful.” The 51-year-old Sparkman was found this month hanged from a tree near a Kentucky cemetery with the word “fed” scrawled on his chest, a law enforcement official said Wednesday, and the FBI is investigating whether he was a victim of anti-government sentiment.”

The anger and hardship that cries out for a scapegoat is right here in our backyard. Right now “socialism” or “the government” may be the popular/populist nightmare, but that can change. A global epidemic of witch-hunts is our issue, not because we share some theological bond with a “witch” killed in Nigeria, or imprisoned in Saudi Arabia, but because we don’t live in an enlightened vacuum, free from the troubles of the “third world”. Nor will outraged Internet petitions stem the tide, what we need is a concerted international campaign of education, aid, and better policing in the “hot” spots like Nepal, Kenya, India, and Nigeria. Those who have grown powerful on witch-hunting rhetoric won’t go quietly, and only the surety of secular law can ensure some semblance of safety. Meanwhile, those of us who are “safe” need to realize that what happens to “witches” in India and Papua New Guinea is no longer a string of isolated incidents that will always stay “over there”. A “global” problem means it could indeed happen here, and perhaps sooner than any of us would want to admit.

Can Barna Unite the Tribes in time to save America?

Jason Pitzl-Waters — Mon, 04 May 2009 15:18:23 +0000

As regular readers of my blog know, I like to keep track of what George Barna and his conservative Christian marketing and polling firm The Barna Group get up to. While I often suspect some ideological bias in their data collection, Barna has provided some interesting food for thought concerning interactions between Pagan faiths and Christianity over the years. Now George Barna has authored a new book entitled “The Seven Faith Tribes” that claims to hold the key to restoring America’s strength and stability in these trying times.

Citing his research, Barna indicated that the United States has seven dominant faith tribes that hold the key to the restoration of the nation. “We must recover the values that made this nation great and that must be firmly in place for order, reason, freedom and unity to prevail,” the researcher explained. “Our faith tribes are central to the development and application of people’s worldviews, which in turn produce the values on which we base our daily decisions. It is on the basis of such values that a nation rises to greatness or plummets to oblivion. The choice is ours. And it is up to our faith tribes to demonstrate the courageous leadership necessary to facilitate a national restoration of the mind, heart and soul. Without a nationwide commitment to this process, we are destined to become a country of historical significance and present-day insignificance.”

So what are the seven “faith tribes” that Barna describes?

“Casual Christians – 66% of the adult population, Captive Christians – 16% of the adult population, Jews – 2% of the adult population, Mormons – 2% of the adult population, Pantheists – 2% of the adult population, Muslims – one-half of 1% of the adult population, Skeptics – 11% of the adult population”

If you guessed that Pagans are probably filed under “Pantheists” (along with, I’m assuming, Buddhists, New Agers, and “Spiritual But Not Religious” types) you’re probably correct. But how can tribes with such extreme differences of opinion and theology as these renew America together? Barna has identified twenty values that all the “tribes” share, which they can use to form a new moral leadership that will help America thrive.

“In The Seven Faith Tribes, I examined interviews we have conducted with more than 30,000 Americans to better understand our worldviews, moral perspectives, spiritual foundations, lifestyle expectations, family behaviors and core values. The result is an understanding that the United States is home to seven dominant faith tribes, each of which has a divergent worldview – but all of which embrace twenty shared values that help to define their heart, mind and soul and have historically permitted the U.S. to thrive. It is my belief that if we were to refocus on the central values that made America great – and on which a formidable culture can truly be based – then our country can get back on the path of unity and progress. If we continue to focus on the attitudes, expectations and customs that divide us, then we are doomed to self-destruct, leaving behind a legacy as perhaps the most intriguing, longest-running experiments in democracy in world history.”

If I didn’t know better, I would almost think that Barna is proposing an end to the culture wars, a “cease-fire” agreement between faith groups so that an interfaith coalition can re-ground the country for the common good. It sounds, almost, well, progressive in tone. I’m almost tempted to get a copy and read this tribal manifesto, could a prominent conservative Christian be calling for a new attitude in Christian-Pagan relations?

The Ramifications of a Post-Christian Society

Jason Pitzl-Waters — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:33:00 +0000

Reverberations from the Pew Forum’s groundbreaking U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, the first independent survey to place modern Paganism over the one million mark, are still being felt. Recently The Chronicle Review, a publication of The Chronicle of Higher Education, explored some of the ramifications of these findings.

“…findings in the study shed new light on issues around which there has been no scholarly consensus … it is becoming increasingly obvious that the term “Judeo-Christian” no longer makes sense, given how many Americans are neither. But the favorite terms to replace it – “Judeo-Christian-Islamic” or “Abrahamic” – seem equally inappropriate. It is not just that Buddhists, who do not trace their roots to Abraham, may outnumber Muslims, who do. It is that the combined percentage of those who identify themselves as either Hindu (0.4 percent) or from “other world religions” (0.3 percent) does so as well. We are not one nation divided into three monotheistic faiths. We are a nation characterized by many faiths, as well as by none.”

If America is no longer a “Judeo-Christian” (or “Abrahamic”) country, what does that mean? Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life, claims that the era of a common Christian morality is coming to a close.

“The fact that we now have so many religions in this country suggests either that no common morality is possible, or that, if it is, religion cannot be its most important source. The ways in which religious diversity either increases or detracts from speaking about the common good ought to be a subject stimulated by Pew’s conclusions.”

Which means that we could see a day when divisive “culture war” and other “social issues” will cease to be a tug-of-war between liberal secularists on one side, and conservative Christians on the other. Instead, there will be a variety of viewpoints and moralities involved in the discussion, changing the entire dynamic of debate.

Some will wonder if this is simply a statistical “blip” before some new Great Awakening re-asserts Christian moral dominance in America, but Wolfe says that data points to Christian denominations having retention problems across the board, including the “conservative” and “evangelical” denominations.

“Protestant denominations … were all losers … Pew has found that the strictest of all churches, at least in the sheer amount of proselytizing time and energy it requires, has the lowest overall retention rate … whatever the case in the past, there is no strong evidence of strict churches attracting a disproportionate share of members now … If the religious world of adults in the United States is diverse and in constant flux, the religious affiliations of young Americans, who will be tomorrow’s voters and citizens, are even more so. Three times as many Americans under 30 as those over 70 are not religiously affiliated.”

These problems haven’t escaped the notice of conservative and evangelical churches, but their attempts to fix what they define as an “image problem” may be too little and too late.

“Christians are supposed to represent Christ to the world. But according to the latest report card, something has gone terribly wrong. Using descriptions like “hypocritical,” “insensitive,” and “judgmental,” young Americans share an impression of Christians that’s nothing short of … unChristian.”

Of course, this doesn’t mean that we’ll be living in some sort of multi-religious utopia any time soon. Those in power rarely let go easily, and we may see battles over issues of religious morality and political influence get a lot worse before they attain a new balance. America may have woken up into a new “post-Christian” society, but the hangover from two hundred years of Christian dominance will most likely give us headaches for many years to come.

(More) Religion and Politics

Jason Pitzl-Waters — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:04:00 +0000

According to a Reuters blog posting, a group of Catholic, evangelical and mainline Protestant leaders have released a statement urging presidential candidates to stop using religion to further partisan goals. Co-sponsored by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Faith in Public Life, the statement decries the “troubling” ways that faith has intruded into political competition.

“In this year’s presidential campaign, we are troubled to see candidates pressed to pronounce the nature of their religious beliefs, asked if they believe every word of the Bible … and faced with prejudicial analyses of their denominational doctrines”

The statement lays out three guiding principles that candidates should follow:

1. That religious differences should not be used to marginalize or disparage candidates.

2. That candidates should acknowledge “that no faith can lay exclusive claim to the moral values that enrich our public life.”

3. “While it is appropriate for candidates to connect their faith to their policy positions, their positions on policy must respect all citizens regardless of religious belief.”

While these principles were written by a coalition of Christian believers, they are written in such a way that just about any religious believer (including this Pagan) could endorse them. The question is if anyone will pay attention to these social justice organizations. Their call for a cease-fire in the Christmas Wars went largely unheeded, and certain politicians seem ever-more eager to use religion in order to further their political careers.

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” – Mike Huckabee, January 14, 2008

Looks like someone has already thrown principles one and two right out the window. This, along with other recent developments, seem to point to a presidential season that refuses to stop using religion as a weapon. If this trend continues, what will happen when a true religious outsider (other than a Mormon) makes a serious run for political office? Having seen brief glimmers of that future, I can tell you that it won’t be pretty. Let’s hope the principles set forth by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, and Faith in Public Life, take root in future elections, because it seems unlikely they will this year.

Religious History, Religious Freedom, Religious Outsiders

Jason Pitzl-Waters — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:21:00 +0000

One thing that those in the religious (in America’s case Christian) majority don’t often understand is that the term “religious freedom” can mean very different things to those not enjoying the fruits of political (or statistical) power. When Presidential candidates like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee sing the praises of religious tolerance, while simultaneously drawing boundaries on that tolerance (for Secularists and Mormons respectively) it sends a clear message. Religious freedom and tolerance are for me, and not necessarily for thee (and if for thee, then grudgingly).

Indeed, for some Christian activists “religious freedom” means freedom to pass laws privileging their faith, freedom to exclude non-Christian displays of faith, and ultimately, the freedom to harass us. In many cases, when faced with the real, messy, kind of religious freedom, Christian activists back off as quickly as possible. So it is through this lens that I greet two new developments in the name of religious freedom. The first comes from President Bush, who has declared January 16th, the anniversary of Virginia’s passage in 1796 of the Statute for Religious Freedom, as Religious Freedom Day.

“In an era during which an unprecedented number of nations have embraced individual freedom, we have also witnessed the stubborn endurance of religious repression. Religious freedom belongs not to any one nation, but to the world, and my Administration continues to support freedom of worship at home and abroad. On Religious Freedom Day and throughout the year, we recognize the importance of religious freedom and the vital role it plays in spreading liberty and ensuring human dignity.”

Bush has done this every year during his Presidency, and a site has popped up to help parents and children celebrate this day. Their takeaway message? Public schools shouldn’t hinder your (Christian) faith!

“In too many instances, public school teachers tell students they cannot include their faith in their homework assignments or classroom discussions … schools need not be “religion-free zones.” It is often the case that parents who complain to school officials about what they think are violations of the “separation of church and state” do not understand the appropriate and lawful place religious expression can have at school. Religious Freedom Day is not ‘celebrate-our-diversity day.’”

In fact, some journalists have criticized these “freedom days” as “Christian freedom days”.

“The roots of the annual proclamation may have been different when begun 13 years ago (celebrating Jefferson’s stand that there should be no state-supported religion and no discrimination based on faith), but today there’s a chance that those who spread the proclamation around – possibly even Bush himself when he invokes “the Almighty” – have a particular brand of Christianity in mind when they talk about religious freedom.”

The second instance is House Resolution 888 (still under consideration) which purports to designate a week every year to honor the nation’s “rich spiritual, and religious history.” But again, while it sounds good at first, reading the resolution makes it clear that this is meant to honor a very restrictive (and revisionist) reading of American history.

“House Resolution 888, sponsored by Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Virginia), is currently before a House committee and has 31 co-sponsors. It purports to be free from singling out a specific religion, yet contains dozens of proclamations with clear fundamentalist Christian overtones. Five pages of footnotes cite specific Bible passages, the Gospels, churches, and include Biblical references taken from historical monuments such as the Lincoln Memorial … Forbes, who in 2005 founded the Congressional Prayer Caucus in an effort to ensure Christianity’s place in politics, told the Virginian Pilot he introduced his resolution to combat a “well-orchestrated movement” by “radicals” to keep Christianity and religion in general separate from government.”

In fact, the resolution contains several misreadings and omissions in order to give the impression that America was not simply Christian in character, but a “Christian Nation”. It leaves out the real religious legacy of America, the one that stems from the Constitution not enforcing an official religion. The one made up by Deists, Freemasons, and Enlightenment values. The nation where President John Adams and the Congress unanimously approved the following statement.

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”

Real American religious history is a history of Native Americans fighting forced assimilation, a history of Quakers being jailed as traitors for resisting war, Transcendentalists opening up to Buddhist and Hindu thought, “Joss houses” of the immigrant Chinese, and eventually, the feminist thealogians and “new pagans” (both home-grown and imported) who helped revive the worship of gods and goddesses long thought to be extinct. The real legacy of religious freedom in America isn’t simply the ongoing twists and turns of the Christian majority, but a legacy of outsiders and free-thinkers who fight for (and sometimes achieve) the full inclusion promised by the First Amendment.

Until these resolutions, proclamations, and laws truly embrace the whole religious diversity of America, instead of simply trying to find clever ways to privilege the majority, these measures won’t be about religious freedom or “honoring” our history. They should be seen for what they are, attempts to slowly batter down the separation of Church and State. This kind of “freedom” and “honor” I will gladly do without.

Religious Outsiders and the Presidential Race

Jason Pitzl-Waters — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:36:00 +0000

God-talk in the Presidential race, especially for the Republicans, is heating up. Everyone is trying to prove just how Christian and Jesus-loving they are to the nation. Recently, Mitt Romney’s “don’t be scared of my Mormonism” speech, and the sudden rise of Southern Baptist (and former governor) Mike Huckabee (the new evangelical fave sucking votes from Romney) have intensified talk about God and the executive branch even further. They, along with John “we are founded on Christian principles” McCain, seem to be reinforcing the notion that only a man of (Christian) faith can properly lead America.

“Romney delivered an address that simultaneously pleaded for religious tolerance and urged intolerance of what he termed the “religion of secularism.” The former Massachusetts governor at once declined to discuss the specific dogmas of his own faith while seeking to convince the bigots in his political party that, like them, he accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and his Savior … Whatever bland assurances they may offer to the contrary, both Romney and Huckabee have implicitly endorsed religious tests for a presidential candidacy. Both suggest that only leaders who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are qualified to lead. Huckabee says that we should choose a president who speaks “the language of Zion,” meaning a fundamentalist Christian like himself. Romney says that among the questions that may appropriately be asked of aspiring presidential candidates is what they believe about Jesus Christ…”

The values of secularism, the values that protect religious minorities, atheists, and agnostics from being isolated and discriminated against are called “anti-religion” by Romney, while the other candidates (with the exception of Giuliani) all try to prove their anti-abortion bona-fides by gaining endorsements from groups like the National Right to Life Committee. It comes down to the fact that there is an “unofficial” religious test for President, be sufficiently Christian, or don’t bother running.

The scary thing is, this is just the beginning. Once the Presidential primaries actually start, expect things to get vicious on the religion issue. With both Democrats and Republicans struggling to prove they are sufficiently monotheistic and Bible-believing to head an (in theory) secular office. Obama wants to build “a Kingdom right here on Earth”, Clinton is a member of a scary underground Christian organization called The Fellowship which seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill, and all the Democratic front-runners have a hard time granting equality to homosexuals (while Republicans have no trouble denying an equal role for gays at all).

“Democrats are tiptoeing around gay issues, probably because they believe the gay vote is theirs regardless. Republicans are poised to make gay marriage a major, divisive issue again in 2008, since they know it will mobilize so many single-issue voters to go out to the polls and vote Republican … And no one wants to talk about the fact that marriage, at least in the legal, government sense, is a “civil union” with all the rights that go along with that, and has nothing whatsoever to do with God, the Bible, or religion…”

So where does all this religious fervor leave modern Pagans, agnostics, atheists, and adherents to minority faiths? Out in the cold. Second-class citizens in the race to build a “Kingdom” based around a single religious outlook. In a race where everyone is trying to prove their fidelity to Jesus (instead of sticking to issues of running this country), anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus as their role-model or savior is removed from the conversation.

Hate Crimes Towards "Other"

Jason Pitzl-Waters — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:04:00 +0000

The FBI has released its data on hate crimes for the year 2006. Reported incidents of hate crimes have risen since 2005, from 7163 incidents to 7722 incidents. That number may be much larger since only a small fraction of law enforcement agencies even bother to report to the FBI (they aren’t required to by law), for instance, the incidents involving nooses in Jena were not reported to this study. Of particular interest to readers of this blog is the breakdown of religiously motivated hate crimes in 2006.

“Of the 1,750 victims of an anti-religion hate crime:

* 65.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
* 11.9 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
* 4.9 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
* 3.7 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
* 0.5 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
* 8.4 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).
* 5.3 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).”

A couple things become immediately clear, one, that Christians (both Protestant and Catholic) experienced the fewest religiously-motivated hate crimes of any faith grouping (despite claims of widespread anti-Christian activity by some conservative Christians), and two, that a large number of religious hate crimes (coming in third behind Muslims and Jews) are towards faiths that check the “other” box in surveys. In fact, the number of incidents against “other religions” have risen since 2005, with 41 more victims of a religious-motivated hate crime in 2006.

The problem with this data is we have no idea who the “others” are. Buddhists? Hindus? Pagans? All of the above? There is no break-down within the category. While we can’t say that “x” number of Pagans (or Hindus, etc) were the victims of a hate crime, we can assume that faiths on the fringes of the mainstream, non-Christian faiths, and new religious movements have seen an increase in hate crime activity since 2005. It may also be true that the crimes against “other” are much higher since the chances that rural law enforcement districts are going to report to the FBI when a Wiccan gets harassed are most likely slim to none.

On the other hand, this data shouldn’t be used to hypothesize some sort of neo-”Burning Times” against adherents of Pagan faiths. Certainly incidents against “other” adherents are dwarfed by a still-huge number of anti-Jewish/Semitic attacks (over 1000 victims as opposed to 147). What we can say is that incidents of hate crimes against faiths outside the norm are potentially on the rise, and it is something we should pay attention to when 2007′s numbers are released. These numbers should spark renewed conversation about how welcoming we are as a society to faiths outside the Christian comfort-zone, and why attacks on minority religions are growing.