Polyamory and Satanism

If you go to your local Pagan Pride festival, the odds are twenty to one that you’re not going to see a booth or table about Satanism, nor find books about it displayed above the table. If you inquire, and the person you asked was Wiccan, you’re likely to get a lecture about Satan being a Christian deity, and how Satanism was invented by Christians as an excuse to persecute witches during the burning times. Even if the person you asked was a veteran Pagan who has been around the Tarot deck a few times, it’s still even odds they’ll go all fluffy bunny and answer in vague generalities that say nothing and invite a change of subject... despite their knowing full well that both types of Satanism- those who worship themselves, and those who actually do worship the Prince of Darkness- are thriving here in America.



Why is this? Most Reconstructionist Pagans and virtually all NeoPagans hold religious tolerance as one of their core beliefs, giving “full faith and credence”; there is no rational or logical reason for refusing Satanists fellowship. The answer is simple: they’re an embarrassment. Whenever there’s a bad headline- really bad, as opposed to goofy- it’s bound to involve a self described Satanist. No church- with the possible exception of the Church of the SubGenius- is more controversial. (Although I find the honest narcissism of the Satanist much less obnoxious than the vicious “humor” of the SubGenius) The existence of Satanists is the confirmation of every fundamentalists’ sermon on the slippery slope of Paganism; they’re a living Jack Chick tract.


The rest of the Pagan community knows that if they publicly befriended and defended Satanists, they would lose much of the good will they have slowly built up in mainstream society. Many Christian churches and publications supported the Wiccan lawsuit demanding that the V.A. permit the Wiccan Pentacle on veterans’ headstones... but not one of them would have been onboard had the Pentacle been inverted. Therefore, many NeoPagans are willing to compromise one of their core beliefs- acceptance of their neighbors’ faith- in their pursuit of mainstream recognition.


It seems to me that we have exactly the same phenomenon going on with the UUA and Polyamory. As Philocrites points out, “When conservatives charge that polyamory is next on the slippery slope, how is it helpful to have liberals urging us to start slipping? . . .” We are already the Berkeley of churches; if there’s any bizarre or ludicrous new trend in religion, we tried it first. But we do have limits; the UUA does not want to become the poster boy for The Decline Of Morals In America. We do not want other liberal churches shunning us for fear of guilt by association... and so it seems we must pretend the Polyamorists do not exist.


But how can we do so without compromising our principles? Does “marriage equality” mean adopting the Christian Fundamentalists’ definition of marriage, with one slight alteration- “Marriage shall consist of one person and one other person”? Shall we demonstrate our acceptance of all faiths by telling fundamental Mormons and Muslims that their multiple marriages are immoral? Shall we send missionaries to Africa to tell them how unstable and dangerous for their children group marriages are? That might be problematical in Senegal, where 47% of all marriages are polygamous... And would we refuse fellowship to immigrants involved in such marriages?


Does it really make sense for us to take it to the streets over whether Heather can have two mommies, and then denounce Heather having two mommies and a daddy? With the epidemic of children being raised outside of marriage- and that being the best predictor of future drug use and jail time- does it really make sense to rule out yet another form of marriage? Do you truly, objectively believe one can make a case against Polyamory without sounding exactly like a fundamentalist arguing against gay marriage?

Dark laughter

This post was inspired by the comments to this blog entry of CC‘s: The ChaliceBlog: Another argument I had with theCSO yesterday

There are many kinds of laughter. There is the spontaneous laughter of joy, when you’re just so happy it bubbles naturally from within, no excuse needed. There is the easy laughter of people having fun, where the slightest lame joke or weak witticism has coffee shooting out of one’s nose. Laughter of this sort is the sound of souls bonding, of spirits lifting.

There is the laughter produced by jokes, a deliberate attempt to rally spirits when they have been deadened by the rat race, the kind of laughter you might hear at a comedy club. Closely related is stress humor, designed to deflect spirit killers... is the Mercury Capsule claustrophobically cramped? Mount a plaque inside that says “No Handball Allowed” This sort of laughter strengthens the spirit, clearing the mind and the heart at the same time.

Laughter is so important to the survival of the species that a sense of humor is seen by both sexes as one of the most attractive features a potential mate can have. The lack of a sense of humor is very nearly, in this modern world of situational ethics and moral relativism, the only thing of which a person is truly ashamed.

Some people learn at a early age that laughter can be more than a survival mechanism, or a bonding moment... it is the armor that deflects all criticism, that turns their nasty personality flaws into an asset. If a dull fellow always lets people pay for him, he’s a cheapskate; if he can make it a joke about how they got scored on, he’s a wit. Truly awful acts of cowardice, vanity, or betrayal- if they can be told with good timing and lots of mugging- make one more popular, not less. Those hearing the stories know they shouldn’t laugh, and indeed may not even want to at first- but they quickly realize that to fail to laugh marks them as “uncool”, “judgmental”, “puritanical”, or (heaven forefend) “intolerant”. It deadens the spirit; it’s operational conditioning against sensitivity.

But then there are those who realize that laughter can be wielded as a weapon. Just as cheapness or infidelity can be forgiven in the example above, they quickly learn that astonishingly vicious acts of hatred can be excused as “practical jokes”, or “parody”. It quickly becomes their favorite, as they learn that it is the easiest sort of thing to do of all. One must actually be clever to make a joke; but anyone can talk as if virtue, or decency, or a particular class of people were funny. If their feelings get hurt, you just say “F&*K em if they can’t take a joke” and suddenly the aggressor becomes the victim, and the victim “intolerant”. This kind of laughter deadens the intellect, blinds the eyes to the pain of their fellow man. Even when it results in the shootings at Columbine, the mocker never gets it- it wasn’t his daily assaults on the inherent worth and dignity of his fellow man that caused the tragedy; it was his victim’s lack of a sense of humor.

How much has the hate filled, empty headed belittler cost mankind over the years? How many tears, how much violence? How many decent people have failed to speak up over social injustice not for fear of the guns of government, but for fear of public ridicule? I don’t know... but personally, I rank the mean-spirited mocker with the mosquito; irritating vermin who may not “intend” harm, but cause thousands of deaths just by existing.