War Goddess.net - A Wiccan's View of Freedom, by Karl Lembke

A Wiccan's View of Freedom, by Karl Lembke

There are two aspects to religious freedom, one of which is peculiar to the United States and one which is more universal. In the US, our ideas of religious freedom derive from the First Amendment to the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In more universal terms, the issue hinges on what we mean by freedom in the first place.

The modern concept of freedom from religion seems to be lacking in the writings of the Founding Fathers. It was expected that the states of the union, and the Federal Government would encourage the Christian religion. The establishment clause in the First Amendment was intended to prevent the creation of a state religion or Church of America.

But just as if the government were a person in its own right, it was allowed to observe a religion of its own, as long as it did not unduly interfere with private conscience and the freedom of religious worship. ₁ In essence, "The federal government was forbidden to interfere with the people's religious life. It was not required to abandon its own." ₂

Thus, we see that the First Amendment was intended to prevent the development of a National Church, and in particular, one which became a branch of government in its own right. It was not intended to create a religion vacuum in the government sector. If such a vacuum had been part of your standard for gauging religious freedom, I invite you to reconsider it.

In Wiccan terms, freedom is beautifully expressed in the Rede. If it harms none, then you are free to do what you will. If what you intend to do has the chance of causing harm to someone, even to yourself, then you must weigh the consequences and be prepared to take responsibility for your actions. Freedom and responsibility are irretrievably linked in a polar relationship.

This leads to my favorite definition of freedom: you own your life. You are the sole owner of your life, and you are the sole owner of your actions. By extension, you own everything you trade parts of your life for. If you spend time and energy hunting for herbs in the forest, you own those herbs because you traded part of your life for them. If you spend an hour working for someone in exchange for money, you own that money for the same reason. You own everything that comes to you as a result of your own efforts-- whether you like it or not.

In this definition of freedom, it's obvious that no person has the right to take away another's life by force. You may not kill or injure another person. Nor may take away any part of another's life by force. You take away any of the things another person may have worked for. Nor, for that matter, may you interfere with the way any other person chooses to spend his or her life, so long as that other person causes no harm.

This definition of freedom also leads directly to responsibility. Since you own all the actions you undertake, you own all the consequences of these actions. If you cause harm to another, you are the one who must accept the responsibility. You are the one who is obligated to repair that harm if possible. When you do something and it bounces back in your face, you can't blame society, or your parents, or the Gods or the universe as a whole. It's yours.

The theme of the Wiccan Rede has echoes in other religions as well. Jesus told his followers to "do as you would be done by". Hillel, challenged to teach the whole law while standing on one foot, said "what is hateful to you, do not do to another." Hillel then said, "the rest is commentary, go and study it". Somewhere, there is some zerox ₃ art which contains a list of similar laws in many different religions. If anyone finds it, I'd like a copy.

Next, Hillel said something very important. "The rest is commentary, go and study it." Even in his day, there were arguments over just what was meant by "hateful", or as we in the Craft would see it, "harmful". The first five books of the Jewish (and Christian) bible are chock full of laws based on someone's notion of what constitutes harmful action. Some of these are obvious (do not murder, Ex 20:13), others less so (you shall not wear a garment ... of linen and wool together, Deut 22:11). In modern society, being killed is considered a major infringement on freedom; being in the presence of someone wearing a fabric blend is not worthy of comment. (I suspect blending fabrics was one thing the Jews were forbidden to do because their non-Jew neighbors did it.)

Now we return to religious freedom. Religion is a very complex subject, and one which manifests on many levels. When we think of religion, we tend to think of beliefs. Do we worship a god or a goddess? Or both? One supreme being, or many deities? What are their stories? What legends do we believe? What festivals do we celebrate? But with any set of beliefs comes a set of actions. Certain things are good, thus encouraged or commanded. Other things are bad, thus discouraged or forbidden. And some people differ on how widely their religious rules apply. Some believe their rules apply only to members of their faith; others may hold that their god's laws apply to all people everywhere. Some faiths manage both. Judaism holds that the laws of the Bible apply only to Jews, and that only the seven laws handed down to Moses ₄ apply to all humans. Thus, for example, Jews must keep kosher, the rest of humanity is not required to.

What does the Rede say about freedom of religion? As long as your practice of your religion doesn't harm anyone, you are free to engage in it. Since you own your life, surely you must own your thoughts -- and your soul. Your beliefs may be influenced by others, but what you accept, and what you reject, is entirely up to you. Ultimately, you choose the path you will follow, for good or ill, and so does everyone else. No one has the right to force you away from your chosen path. So says the Rede.

At the time that I'm writing this article, there has been considerable commotion raised over the Southern Baptists' adoption of a statement that wives must submit to their husbands. Many people are outraged that Southern Baptists would subjugate their women in that way; others defend the statement as the basis for a beautiful relationship between a man and a woman. My position, guided by the Rede, is that these people are free to adopt any position that they wish to, and can persuade others to follow as well. If women prefer not to be subject to the Southern Baptists' rules, they are free to move to another religion. Their choices range from Anglican Episcopalian to Dianic Wiccan.

As long as any person's membership in any religion is free and uncoerced, then we must allow this person the freedom to believe as she wishes, no matter how stupid we consider her belief to be. In allowing others the ownership of their own beliefs and paths, we have the obligation to allow them to follow the paths they have chosen for themselves as long as they are not causing harm to others.

And we may not interfere in another person's life in order to keep him from harming himself. We would not welcome kidnap and forcible conversion from Christians determined to save us from their Hell; we should grant others the same freedom. If a Southern Baptist woman asks me for advice, I will give it. I will certainly question her about her reasons for choosing the path she has, but I will not attempt to force her from it, or berate her for following it.

Not only do I feel I have to respect her choice of a path, but I've found that trying to fix a problem for a person doesn't work, if that person doesn't recognize that there's a problem. Even if we correctly perceive that someone is a victim, the victim has to want to be rescued, or she won't stay rescued.

The way I interpret the Rede, I may interfere with another's free will only if that person's actions are causing harm to others, or if they're presenting a convincing threat of harm. The Rede permits taking action against a cult which practices human sacrifice. Some religions disapprove of medical treatment. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, forbid blood transfusions. Many Fundamentalist Christians believe that all healing comes from God, and that visiting a doctor for any reason is usurping God's domain. These people are welcome to forego medical treatment themselves, but I will do whatever I need to in order to keep them from outlawing medical treatment for people who do want it.

Perhaps the best way to deal with the issue of harm is to reflect on how we would treat analogous behavior if it were not religiously motivated. A man stands on the corner screaming about how his religion is the only True Faith. A different man stands on another corner screaming that his brand of vacuum cleaner is the only True Cleaner. If one is legal, the other should be as well. If one is illegal, then so is the other. A woman who kills her child as an offering to the Great God Zool is just as much an outlaw as is the woman who kills her child as a way of getting some peace and quiet for a change.

People are going to have different ideas about what's right, proper and true. And this is especially true in religion. Freedom of religion means that different people are going to have different religions, and some of these people will believe things that you and I find disgusting. If we would claim to honor diversity, then we must accept that it exists, and that some of this diversity will show up in ways we find distasteful. (After all, if we agreed with everything everyone else thought, there'd be no such thing as diversity.) Our duty to our fellow human being is to take a leaf from Voltaire and be prepared to say, "I detest what you believe, but I'll defend to the death your right to believe it."

Notes:

1. Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, p.316
2. George Goldberg, Church, State and the Constitution, p.12
3. Unlike some photocopier brand names, "zerox" isn't a registered trademark.
4. Establish courts of justice, prohibition of blasphemy, prohibition of idolatry, prohibition of incest, prohibition of bloodshed (of humans by humans), prohibition of robbery, prohibition of eating flesh that has been cut from a living animal. (p. 33, "Pentateuch and Haftorahs", Dr. J. H. Hertz, ed. 1960, Soncino Press, New York, NY.)