Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Cut that out. RITE NAO.

(from http://www.hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/)

Talking with the guy who hates everything


guy ranting

The guy who hates everything can turn any conversation into a one-sided rant. Were you talking about puppies? The guy hates people who give their dogs people names. Were you talking about Gatorade? The guy hates electrolytes. Sometimes he doesn't even bother with a logical transition and your nice chat about the migratory behavior of birds gets derailed by a diatribe on why no one should ever buy non-organic bananas because people who eat food that isn't organic shouldn't be allowed to be alive. This sends you into a tailspin of anxiety over whether this person can tell that you ate microwave fish sticks for lunch or if you've ever mentioned your weakness for Slim Jims around him.

-----

At first, I LOLed. Then I felt kinda bad. And kinda mad.

My sister, M, is part of our wedding party. She's on my side, obviously, and is 11 months younger than I am. She looks older than me and acts light years younger than her actual age. For instance, she likes to make Everything About Her. No matter what the conversation is about, it has to focus on her in some way, and if it doesn't, she gets pissy. It's been incredibly difficult to talk to her about any wedding stuff, so aside from anything that actively involves her, I just don't talk about anything with her.

One thing that does involve her is her dress, which we obviously have to shop for. Since FH and I were in Florida this past weekend, we decided to reserve a bit of time for bridesmaid dress shopping. My idea is to go with M, pick out a dress (or, at the very least, a color), and have her get a dress of her choice in that color, then giving that same color and length requirement (around knee length) to the other girls. They live in Minnesota and Virginia, and they each have a DB near them, so I thought that'd be the easiest way to do it. The requirements I gave are the only things I care about; I'd rather them each get something that suits them personally and that they'd wear again.

Anyway, so we went to DB that afternoon, after some other appointments, and a saleslady pulled some dresses for M to try. Only one was in the color we're considering (we're between Marine and Blue Velvet, and the one she tried was in Marine), but we wanted an idea of cut and style, too. She ended up looking really nice in all of them, so I know that whatever she chooses would work well.

However, from the drive there all the way to when I finally snapped, she complained. And complained. And COMPLAINED. Saying that she hates wearing dresses, that she doesn't like to shop, that she doesn't want to wear anything too girly, that she'd rather be in a suit (which I almost considered to get her to STFU, but decided against), and generally being a pain in my ass. Every time Mom (who was with us) or I said anything encouraging, she just kept up the negativity.

I eventually reached my breaking point. She had turned down her nose at almost every dress the poor saleslady, who was getting a bit irritated with her comments as well, had chosen for her -- how she managed to get five dresses for her to try, I'll never know -- and was making these really snarky remarks all the way to the dressing rooms. Mom was getting really annoyed, too, and she had just about had it, but she didn't say anything.

So I did.

As we went from the racks to the dressing rooms, I hissed to her, "Cut that out right now." She pointedly looked at me and said, "What?" and I simply responded with a look. "Just try them on and quit talking so negatively."

She actually stopped! And didn't have an attitude! Seriously, just turned around and kept walking, not stalking, to the dressing rooms. Mom glanced over and smiled her approval. She knew it was bothering me and that I was making the best of it, but M really did need to STFU and get over it, and instead, be happy that she's getting a dress to stand with her sister on her wedding day. Not that I'm all Bridezilla and "It's MY DAY" or anything, but I'd think it was an honor to stand with my own sister, and would wear any damn dress she wanted me to wear.

Anyway, so she continued on with the rest of our time there with little complaint. She actually felt comfortable and confident in some of the dresses, which was great; I'll have to post a couple of my favorites. She ended up not buying one as she had her eye on one from their website (a web exclusive, go figure), but her attitude did improve as we went along, and she actually seemed a bit happier about it as we went along.

I mean, I know I can't force her to be happy about it all. That'd just be too much to ask. But I can at least expect a little less bitching, right? Just a little.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Vegetarian reasonings.

Vegetarianism came up three times today. I really should be getting used to this by now -- after all, it's been 12 years! -- but it surprises me each time.

I posted to LiveJournal not too long ago about a coworker of mine who was kind of... grotesque in the way she described eating meat after she learned I was vegetarian. I was kind of surprised by our exchange, then, as I was walking by her desk to go prepare my lunch (Healthy Choice spinach ravioli florentine, if you must know, lol):

"Oh hey, so, I'll have to get some procedures from you!"

"Wait, what do you mean, procedures?"

"I mean, whoops, some recipes. Vegetarian recipes, if you want to share any."

"Oh, sure! I can send you some!"

"Great! I'll let you know how they are."

Very interesting, considering our first exchange! I haven't e-mailed any to her yet; I'm thinking about maybe sending my roasted honey-glazed root vegetable recipe (which I'll post here as well), though I don't want to intimidate her with rutabaga and parsnips quite yet, lol. Maybe something similar. I'll have to check my recipe book.

The second conversation came kind of randomly. I was throwing out some grapes in the copy room, and another coworker passed by, asking, "What are you doing?" I explained that the grapes had gone bad (they had a weird taste to them -- serve me right for freezing then thawing them), and he said he'd never tasted a bad grape before. (LOL)

As I was passing by his office to get to my cube, I asked about the grape thing, and he said he has adopted a "frat boy" diet. Basically, if it's not unnaturally green or moldy, he'll eat it. Even if it tastes funny. Save for milk, of course, which is just gross to think about, lol. So I said I should have saved the grapes for him!

Remembering that he had brought in a vegetarian hoagie/sub/whateveryouwannacallit the other day to share with the office, I then asked if he was vegetarian. His answer surprised me (just getting surprised all over the place, ain't I?): That he wasn't, but he really wanted to be. We chatted about that for a bit, and I learned that he was against animal cruelty, but as his wife cooks and he doesn't have much say in it*, he doesn't really eat vegetarian at home. However, when out and about, doing his own thing and ordering whatever he wants, he typically goes vegetarian.

*I think Matt would have a cow (ugh, punny me, you know it) if I didn't give him a say in what we were eating. LOL

I told him about myself and Matt, as a vegetarian and omnivore, and said that it could work, but that the other person has to be willing to do the same. Apparently, his wife is not. ;) Matt's pretty open to vegetarian dishes and so forth, and has even done it willingly. Don't get me wrong, he'll still order pepperoni on his half of the pizza most of the time, but as we have to adapt recipes to fit my dietary choices, so has he adapted to eating mostly-veg at home.

Anyway. That conversation got me thinking about why I'm vegetarian. I mean, there's the obvious "I don't like meat," and I really don't. It's no exaggeration. There was a bit of chicken on my slice of the aforementioned pizza (when Matt gets meat toppings, he goes ALL OUT -- he had pepperoni and chicken on his half!), and I ate it before realizing. It tasted... awful. Just awful.

Then there's the question about animal cruelty and the slaughtering industry. I admit, I never was the kind of person to ostracize an omni for choosing to eat meat; so long as they don't care what I put in my mouth, I don't care what goes in theirs. (I guess this could apply sexually, too, so long as you all were thinking that. Pfft.) I never think about it as perpetuating cruelty and murder.

But, I don't know. Matt and I were on the subway on our way home last weekend, and on the way, I grabbed a copy of each The Onion and the veg*n pamphlet that PETA puts out. Matt ended up reading The Onion, and I started in on the PETA thing. I didn't realize it was PETA, actually, until it got to the images of animals and their treatment in slaughterhouses and cramped in their cages. I always skip over that part, not wanting to see it at all.

I didn't think that was a part of my vegetarianism, as I constantly avoided it, anyway. But I just figured, if I'm avoiding it, there must be reason, right? It makes me uncomfortable; I hate looking at those kinds of images. Compare it to the feeling one gets when viewing images of the Holocaust or other human genocide or maltreatment. I don't look at those images because they make me feel terrible, and for that reason (as well as simply being a humanitarian overall), I'm very much against treating humans with anything less than utmost respect.

Unless they cut me off in traffic. Then they're at risk of me unleashing a barrage of swear words. ;)

Well, if something like that makes me uncomfortable to the point that I do, in fact, strive to treat others as equals, wouldn't the same logic apply to my diet and why I choose not to eat animals? Not that I'm much of an animal person -- hell, I'm not a people person most times, lol -- but I see life as being equal, whether that life be a fellow human being or the lowest of animals. The thought of another creature dying so I might enjoy a steak or chicken breast makes me sick; I'd never want to inflict that kind of pain on another creature.

I once told someone that I refuse to eat anything that I can't harvest (whatever that might mean) myself. Well, I can grow and pick a mean tomato or strawberry, but I can't fathom raising and slaughtering an animal. Therefore, I don't eat it.

I guess I'm more of an animal rights activist than I often let on, or even than I care to admit. After all, who wants to be lumped into the same group of crazies that comprise PETA. I'll tell you, no one! Well, no one in their right mind, at least, lol. Upon deeper introspection, though, when it comes down to it, I'd want each living creature to be treated the same way I'd want to be treated.

And if that means, please don't kill me for your dinner, I extend to them the same respect. :)

-----

Honey-Roasted Root Vegetables

Yield: 8 servings (serving size: 1/2 cup)

Ingredients
2  cups  coarsely chopped peeled sweet potato (about 1 large)
1 1/2  cups  coarsely chopped peeled rutabaga  (about 2 medium)
1 1/2  cups  coarsely chopped parsnip (about 2 medium)
1 1/2  cups  coarsely chopped carrot (about 2 medium)
1/4  cup  tupelo honey
2  tablespoons  olive oil
1/2  teaspoon  salt
5  shallots, halved
Cooking spray

Preparation
Preheat oven to 450°.

Combine all ingredients except the cooking spray in a large bowl; toss to coat. Place vegetable mixture on a jelly-roll pan coated with cooking spray. Bake at 450° for 35 minutes or until vegetables are tender and begin to brown, stirring every 15 minutes.

Monday, May 03, 2010

Panic! on the Airplane...

(Having a hard time typing this, as my hands are still shaking. Here's to hoping they're done by the time I'm done...)

I'm watching PsychWeek on Discovery Health (I have a few episodes recorded), and this episode is "Anxiety." I'm not as bad as the first woman -- I can leave the house and function as a pretty normal human being at work, around new people, and so forth. Well, as normal as I can get, anyway. ;)

The second guy, though, had a fear with which I can relate. He was getting prepared to get on a tram (one that takes you up a mountain), and he nearly had a panic attack on the way to the tram itself. When he got on, he had a white-knuckled grip on the bar and was getting cold sweats, but he ended up doing fine as they got to the top. I know that, in itself, is a feat!

The episode really got to me for a specific reason. See, Matt's currently in Florida, as I said, and I'm supposed to fly down on Friday afternoon. I, uh, fear airplanes. Like, really fear them. I'm currently having a panic attack just thinking about driving to the airport and knowing that I'll be forcing myself through the terminal, through the tube, and onto the plane. It's going to take every ounce of willpower to not freak out before the plane takes off.

After graduating from FSU, Matt and I took a trip from FL to Mexico. It was my first out-of-country trip, and I was excited... except everything but the plane flight. Despite there being a full plane on its way to Mexico, I still had a massive panic attack before we took off, crying and clawing Matt (fortunately, my nails were trimmed), saying, "Get me off, I want to get off, I don't want to go!" It didn't matter that there was a complete stranger sitting next to me, strangers in front of me, strangers behind. I felt like I was going to die.

This is exactly how I feel right now. I'm shaking, my heart is pounding, my head is rushing, I have tunnel vision, my hands are sweating... and I'm not going to be even close to flying for another 3+ days. It's going to be like this until I land in Florida. No, even beyond that... until we land back in Maryland.

I'm freaking out here. I mean, I have a plan to take a Valium or drink some wine before the trip (still deciding which one), but that's not going to help the rest of the week. I can't keep taking the Valium; first off, I don't have enough, and second off, I don't want to be drugged all week. I can't drink every night, and even if I could, what would I do during the day? I can't drink at work. :P So... I'm stuck.

I'm trying my exercises, really. But they're just not working. I want to be in Florida, on solid ground, having had one plane flight behind me.

I want... to stop panicking. :|

(Hands aren't done shaking, BTW.)

Monday, February 08, 2010

I've been tossing around the idea of writing a book on Panentheist Witchcraft. Don't know if there's a huge market for it, but it'd at least be interesting to do.

This, of course, reminds me of the fact that I still have Rising of the Samhain Moon on hold and not even halfway through, and ideas for a few Pagan childrens' books still in my writing to-do list. It's funny that, during college, I could use the excuse that night classes prevented me from having the time to write, but now that I have my evenings free (and am even snowed in on some days!), I find other excuses not to write. :P

Well, anyway. So yes, I think it'd be an interesting topic. I'm starting to see more and more witches identifying as panentheist, pantheist, and even agnostic, witches who are shying away from Wicca in an attempt to find a witchcraft that is less dogmatic and more individualized, and who see Spirit as the world, the universe, or sometimes even a force they doubt even exist.

This is going to make writing a book on this subject very difficult, but I think it'd be fun, too. :)

Any motivation, advice, tips, things you'd like to read?

Friday, October 16, 2009

Since I was very young, I always wanted to write and illustrate children's books. I would create my own and "publish" them at my elementary school's publishing center -- they would take pages with a sentence or two at the bottom of each page, bind them together with plastic comb bindings, and create a cover that we got to pick out. The blank parts of the pages would be where our illustrations would go. I probably made 10 of these while in elementary school, and I think I have three or four still with me. My teachers would often rave about them, saying that I should become a writer/illustrator for children's books.

As I got older, that dream kind of faded away. I lost a lot of confidence, started concentrating on other things (namely my music), and eventually led myself to believe that I couldn't do it. So I let it be. It was one of those childhood fantasies, and I honestly still think I can't do it anymore. Even when I was in college and did my degree in Creative Writing, I still thought that my talents were very, very far from what it takes to be published.

This idea is further perpetuated by how many Pagan children's books have been coming out recently! Raine Hill is a relatively new one, but she's just one in a long line of current Pagan authors who write their stuff specifically for children. And I thought I was being original when I thought of this 10 years ago! Now I feel like I have some great competition ahead of me, which just makes me feel like I'm just not good enough.

BUT. This NaNoWriMo, I'm going to attempt it again. My thoughts are to take Pagan lore from different areas around the world and adapt them for children, then create illustrations to go with them (or have someone more talented do that once it's done, since I'm not a great artist, lol). I'm hoping that pumping out a few children's books will create at least one or two that are worthy of publication!

So, what think y'all? Good idea? Suggestions on what bits of lore to work with? Or am I completely nuts? :P

Friday, August 07, 2009

The First Amendment and the U.S. Military: Discrimination Against Wiccan Military Chaplains [non-fiction] [article]

Don Larsen’s military chaplaincy served several thousand military servicemen and servicewomen throughout his career, allowing him to reach them through his Pentecostal faith and the endorsement of the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, a Dallas-based association of Pentecostal churches . He was praised by Chaplain Kevin L. McGhee, the head of his chaplaincy and Larsen’s supervisor, who called him the best chaplain amongst the twenty-six chaplains serving at Camp Anaconda in Iraq. McGhee continued to rain praise upon him, saying “I could go on and on about how well he preached, the care he gave.”

The purpose of military chaplains, as stated by the Air Force Chaplain Corps and echoed among the other branches of the U.S. Military, is to “offer a broadly based ministry aimed at meeting the diverse pastoral needs of the pluralistic military community.”  They are told to abide by the First Amendment by supporting the free exercise of religion, both directly and indirectly, for all members of the Military Services, their dependents, and other authorized persons.

The 22 February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, which collapsed the dome of a 1,200-year-old holy site and triggered attacks between Shiite and Sunni militants, prompted Larsen to make a decision – and a change of heart – regarding his own personal faith.

Larsen describes the transformation in him as when “I realized so many innocent people are dying in the name of God. When you think back over the Catholic-Protestant conflict, how the Jews have suffered, how some Christians justified slavery, the Crusades, and the fighting between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, I just decided I’m done.” He decided to convert from Protestant to Wicca, stating, “I will not be part of any church that unleashes its clergy to preach that particular individuals or faith groups are damned.”

There are many definitions as to what Wicca is, as the religion caters to a person’s specific beliefs and practices, but it is typically agreed upon that Wicca is a nature-based religion that recognizes a dual nature of deity. Followers believe in a God and a Goddess and believe that the feminine is at least as important as the masculine aspect of deity. It is a nationally recognized religion in the United States, and is currently experience a rapid growth in the U.S., Canada, and Europe, with statistics doubling the number of adherents around every 18 months.

While Larsen’s ideas on faith had changed, the military believed that this particular individual was damned due to his conversion. After applying to become the military’s first Wiccan chaplain, the Pentagon responded by stripping Larsen of his chaplaincy and yanked the proverbial rug under him, pulling him back to the United States and officially discharging him from his military services.

A man who was once the most highly revered chaplain of his platoon was nothing more than a civilian, stripped of his ranks and his position of service to thousands of military personnel, over a religious calling.
Though somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 Pagans serve in the United States Armed Forces today, there is not a single chaplain to represent them and the diverse faiths that fall under the Pagan umbrella.

Comparatively, there are approximately twenty Jewish chaplains to accommodate its 4,000 adherents, and about a dozen Imam chaplains for approximately 3,500 Muslim servicemen and women. On a smaller scale, some faiths with smaller numbers do have chaplains, including six teachers for around 650 Christian Scientists, forty-one Mormon chaplains for the 17,500 Mormons in uniform, and one Buddhist chaplain for around 4,500 Buddhists.

A main requirement for a chaplain to be recognized is the endorsement from an established religious group. The Army, the section of the military of which Larsen was a part, also lists the following as requirements to become a chaplain in the military :

1.    You must obtain an ecclesiastical endorsement from your faith group. This endorsement should certify that you are:
a.    A clergy person in your denomination or faith group.
b.    Qualified spiritually, morally, intellectually and emotionally to serve as a Chaplain in the Army.
c.    Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians who work for the Army.
2.    Educationally, you must:
a.    Possess a baccalaureate degree of not less than 120 semester hours.
b.    Possess a master's degree in divinity or a graduate degree in theological studies, which includes at least 72 hours.
3.    Be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
4.    Be able to receive a favorable background check.
5.    Pass a physical exam.

As mentioned previously, Larsen had attained the endorsement of the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches while serving as a Protestant chaplain, which calls for chaplains who “[proclaim] the gospel of Jesus Christ in spiritually dark areas”  across its front page. Agencies must be approved through the U.S. Military and the Pentagon, and go through what is typically a short process: an application to become an endorser.

On 31 July 1997, Sacred Well Congregation , a Texas-based Wiccan congregation that started in the early 1990s, put in its own application to become Larsen’s new endorser. Upon its initial review, the Army cited a minor bureaucratic obstacle: It could not find a copy of his previous endorsement from the Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, which would have shown that he satisfied the five requirements to become a chaplain.
While following up on the request for his form, there were communications between Full Gospel and Larsen who, when asked if it was true that he desired to convert to Wicca, pleaded with the Chaplaincy to not rescind its endorsement until he could complete the switch. However, upon learning that Larsen’s application for a religious switch was true, they immediately severed ties with him. Stuck in chaplaincy limbo, with his original endorser no longer supporting him and the Sacred Well Congregation not yet able to attain proper status, Larsen was ordered to cease functioning as a chaplain, effective immediately, and was pulled form Iraq.

In response to the pull and accusations that bringing Larsen back to the United States was religious discrimination, Lt. Col. Randall Dolinger, the Army Chief of Chaplains spokesperson, denied any such accusations: “What you’re really dealing with is more of a personal drama, what one person has been through and the choices he’s made. Plus, the fact that the military does have Catch-22s.”

In addition, the endorsing entity must be able to meet certain criteria, which Dolinger has said the Sacred Well Congregation has met – all but one, to present a “viable candidate.” The group’s previous nominee was turned away, as his eyesight was not 20/20. Sacred Well was confident in Larsen’s candidacy, considering his physical fitness, his Master’s degree from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and his ten years as an officer for the National Guard, where he finished nearly the top of his class in chaplain’s training and was already serving as a chaplain in Iraq.

But David L. Oringderff, a retired Army intelligence officer and an elder of the Sacred Well Congregation, said that his group underestimated the institutional resistance. Once they had Larsen as a viable candidate, the Chaplaincy changed the rules. They apparently have done this “[e]ach time we advance to a scoring position[.]”

There have been other attempts at Wiccans attempting to become chaplains in the military, but all have failed. One notable attempt was by Marci Drewry, who enlisted in the United States Army on 19 October 1981. She served for a 23-year career, and retired on 1 November 2004 as a Chief Warrant Officer 4, the equivalent of a senior Major or junior Lieutenant Colonel. She is also a Wiccan Priestess.

While Drewry was unable to accomplish the task of becoming a chaplain, due to her lack of experience and education but despite the Sacred Well Congregation’s want to back her in her endeavors, she did become a Distinctive Faith Group Leader (DFGL). These people, in addition to their regular military duties, act as voluntary liaisons between their particular faith groups and the local chaplain. She became a DFGL while serving in Korea under the aegis of the Sacred Well Congregation, and continued her services throughout her military career.

Though she was in the military at a time when gender discrimination was dwindling away, religious discrimination was still an obstacle Drewry had to overcome. As a DFGL, she was put on a list with her name, phone number, and religious affiliation, and she was investigated and harassed for having done so. She says later, “I chose not to fight this, just gave the chaplain my personal cell phone number instead.”

Drewry never pursued her ambitions to become a chaplain, instead being content in her place as a Distinctive Faith Group Leader. In fact, she was able to have Wiccans and other neo-Pagans recognized on a larger scale than the military imagined; while based in Iraq, she approached her area’s chaplains and identified herself as a DFGL, saying that she would like to show some semblance of support for the Wiccan population in the military. She posted her intentions on WitchVox , a community created for Witches, Wiccans, and neo-Pagans that provides information and articles related to neo-Pagan interests, and on Sacred Well’s mailing group in order to attract others who were interested in holding on-base rituals.

Today, Marci Drewry serves as the Director of Military Affairs for the Sacred Well Congregation.

Larsen exhibits the same military strictness as Drewry, following his commanding officers’ orders and bowing out of the military while blaming only himself for the stripping of his chaplaincy. He said he was naïve to think that he could switch from Pentecostalism to Wicca in the same way other military chaplains routinely change from one Christian denomination to another.

Others, however, beg to differ, such as Oringderff, who says that “Institutionalized bigotry and discrimination actions […] have crossed the line this time.”

Does the denial of Larsen’s transfer then his ultimate discharge from the United States Army constitute religious discrimination, thereby violating the First Amendment? According to the First Amendment Center, which focuses on identifying and revealing acts of basic human rights violations, religious discrimination is the only explanation for Larsen’s discharge:
The military’s stubborn refusal to recognize Wicca may have something to do with the firestorm of criticism that greeted news stories of Wiccan meetings on a Texas military base [in 1999]. Then-Gov. George W. Bush wanted the military to bar Wiccan ceremonies, saying, “I don’t think witchcraft is a religion.” Some outraged Christian conservative leaders called on Christians not to enlist or re-enlist as long as Wiccans were permitted to worship on U.S. bases.
[…]
For First Amendment purposes, however, it doesn’t matter what military officers or school principals or other government officials think about Wicca: It is their constitutional duty to protect the religious freedom of all Americans, including witches.

Charles C. Haynes, “Witch trials and tribulations in the land of the free”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//commentary.aspx?id=18355&SearchString =don_larsen
This would also not be the first example of First Amendment violations made by the United States military. An almost ten-year long battle, often nicknamed the “Pentacle Quest” and headed by the Reverend Selena Fox of Circle Sanctuary with the help of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, resulted in the pentacle finally becoming an approved emblem of belief that can be included on government-issued markers, headstones, and plaques to honor deceased veterans.

The pentacle, a common symbol for Wicca and other neo-Pagan faiths, is an encircled upright five-pointed star. It represents the elements of Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Spirit, and is used in many neo-Pagan faiths as the most familiar of the many emblems of their belief system.

While the Quest began in the late 1990s, it became national news when Roberta Stewart, wife of her late husband Sgt. Patrick Stewart, who was killed in action in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom on 25 September 2005, joined the fight in February 2006. Both she and her husband are Wiccan, and while his friend, Chief Warrant Officer John Flynn, was honored with a cross for his Christian faith on his headstone for the same heroic duty during the Operation, Sgt. Stewart’s remained unmarked.

The case was delayed for several reasons, most of which involved bureaucratic paperwork and runarounds, including several rejections and requests for additions to be made to their applications. Many phone calls and requests for additional information also went unanswered.

Litigation began with the assistance of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State on 1 August 2006, when Roberta Stewart and Selena Fox signed legal agreements with AU attorneys in preparation for taking the case to court. To expedite the process and put more pressure on the VA, they also crafted a piece of federal legislation and pushed that through simultaneously.

Lawsuits were filed on 13 November 2006 for Circle Sanctuary v. Nicholson, W.D. Wisconsin No. 06-C-0660-S, and Circle Sanctuary v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Fed. Cir. No. 2007-7050, by the AU. These were additions to a suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Egbert v. Nicholson, on 29 September 2006.

In response to these lawsuits, the VA was made to turn over more than 30,000 documents to the AU attorneys, including additional internal e-mails, memos, and other documents they had failed to release through the Freedom of Information Act requests they had made. Through these documents, AU attorneys were able to discern that the VA officials had blocked Pentacle approval for the headstones because of their prejudice against the Wiccan religion.

AU attorneys drafted an amended complaint that they had planned to file in the Federal District Court of Western Wisconsin using the interoffice information garnered, but upon the U.S. Department of Justice’s review of the amended complaint, they quickly began negotiating a settlement of the lawsuit. After two weeks of intense negotiations, both sides reach an agreement and signed the settlement papers, which were official at the judge’s signing the same day.

Within one business day, as agreed to by the AU and VA, the Pentacle was added to the emblems of belief list. Shortly following, Rev. Selena Fox accompanied Roberta Stewart as the pentacle was added to her late husband’s tombstone, the first ever pentacle to be emblazoned upon a VA marker.

The battle that was fought for that one simple freedom is an example of why our First Amendment is so vital to the equal recognition and acceptance of all religions. While the victory for Wiccans around the United States should very well be celebrated as a win for human rights, there is still a lot of progress to be made, especially when government agencies are involved. Though it is fairly certain that Larsen will not be an active proponent of any discrimination lawsuit that may arise from the lack of Wiccan representation in the military, he has said that he would do anything possible to help out with future causes in order to grant the same rights that other majority faiths have to those of his own.

Pagans have faced, and continue to face, systemic discrimination in their quest for religious representation. It is urged that the Armed Forces Chaplains Board accept the Sacred Well Congregation as a religious endorsing body so that the chaplain corps can better serve the needs of everyone in uniform, and to recognize that Wicca and all other faiths are best served when the United States adheres to the First Amendment as it would to all other faiths.

Larsen is currently serving for the National Guard in his home state of Texas.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Contemplating "Contact" at some ungodly hour.

I'm sure that, for everyone reading here, you all have been asked why you believe in what you believe. This applies to whether or not you actually believe in anything, spiritually and/or religiously speaking. ("Why don't you believe?" is just as valid a question as "What do you believe?") I watched Contact tonight for the first time in ages -- which is why I'm up at 1am and will sorely regret this in the morning -- and having not seen it after several years, then to come to it when I'm older and more mature, spiritually and otherwise, led to some pretty interesting ways of re-seeing this movie, if you know what I mean.

My initial question was not at all hypothetical, by the way. I'm very curious to know what you believe in and why. :)

Anyway, my opinion of the secondary protagonist has changed, from seeing him as an antagonist, like I see a couple other characters, into what I see today. I've always thought of him as hostile and demanding with his pushes towards Christianity (or, admittedly, a general belief in a higher power), which probably says a lot about what I personally believe and how far I've come from seeing it the last time, over five years ago! My opinion changed not because Matthew McConaughey has become nicer to look at, but because... there's a sense of maturity that comes with his mindset, in a way. What I saw as oppressive before suddenly became thoughtful and provoking.

I'm a lot like Jodie Foster's character in many ways. My Pagan/Witches Meetup group recently described me as "cranial;" not at all as an insult, but which proved the point that everything has to have a reason for me. Even down to the simplest element, "I am... it is... we are," and so forth, everything has to have a meaning in some way. It's the drive that forces me to delve deeper into history, practice, and ultimately theory of anything in which I am interested. I often have a difficult time accepting that some things just are.

I also have been described as a skeptic, which holds me back from believing in the first place, and is the protagonist's main "problem" throughout the movie. When she has (and thereby, I have) an experience that she can't quite describe, though, but is as real to her as anything else that she can touch, see, or feel, we see that she goes through a metamorphosis: Not only is she able to relate to McConaughey on a level which she has never experienced before, but it opens the door to possibly believing in something not other than, but alongside science.

And when you think about it, science -- and, dare I say, every one of an individual's personal convictions -- may be real and tangible to one, but how to describe one's personal affinity for or belief in one way of thinking is damn near impossible with someone who simply isn't wired the same way. For example...
  • I believe there is life on other planets.
  • I believe women should have the ability to choose what happens to their bodies.
  • I believe in S/spirit, but have a difficult time with the soul.
  • I believe that one does not need religion to have morals.
  • I believe that there are, indeed, unicorns.
Okay, so the last one is just me being waggish. ;) But if you were to ask me why I believe in each of these -- and especially if your viewpoint differed even slightly from my own -- it would be difficult to convey. It would be just as hard to explain, in no uncertain terms, why I believe in life in other planets and do not believe in religion. We would have a very hard time seeing eye to eye.
Foster's issue is that her skepticism is challenged by her own belief that she was able to travel through wormholes and experience aliens through her father and the white sands of Mexico's beaches. (Have you ever been to Mexico? You MUST... it's beautiful.) It's but her own experience that defines why she believes in something, and it is the conviction and the knowing, her own personal truth, that gives McConaughey the opportunity to believe the same. So if this were to be applied to my previous example, my personal reasons would be: 
  • Like in the movie, it would be quite a "waste of space." Plus, to think we're the only intelligent beings is simply egotistic.
  • I would like to have the rights afforded to me that I would want anyone else to have, from breast implants to abortion. This also stems from an incident 7 years ago -- I can't imagine not having a choice then.
  • My breath tells me that I am Spirit or otherwise possess a spirit. My doubt of the afterlife and my fear of death prevents me from believing 100% in a soul.
  • I have met many people who are not religious and possess morals -- and unlike some religious people, actually follow them.
  • Well... we all know I was being sarcastic here. ;)
But to others who have not experienced what I have experienced, my reasons would be hogwash. At that point, it would be in all our best interests to say that we will agree to disagree, and let it go, as people are more easily led by impressions and feelings than by facts and logic (and, arguably, one may say that facts and logic are easily swayed by impressions and feelings, anyway). However, my overall point is this. There may or may not be a God. There may or may not be unexplainable scientific experiences. But one thing is for certain: We are all one, and we will one day know.
Or not. And that's just fine by me.