Re: Witch Stands up for Her Rights Infiniti Thu Oct 22 13:08:59 1998 : Currently Oregon, but I grew up in a small town in rural *br*: Maine. And my home town was far, far more prejudiced than *br*: you would think, gazing at the surface. We had sort of a *br*: "spider" approach to diversity: if I don't see *br*: it, I won't stomp on it. If I know it's under the couch, *br*: I'm not going to crawl under there to get it. But the first *br*: time that thing crawls out on the kitchen floor, it's a *br*: goner. There was a lesbian couple in town. People got *br*: along with them fine. As long as they never held hands. *br*: Never mentioned they were gay. Never wore gay-pride symbols *br*: and never spoke in favor of gay rights.*p*I live in a small town, and I am by and far the minority. I also have never once had a problem, and I display my religion just as much as any Christian: I have a necklace and I have a ring. I also have a lesbian lady who works for me, and she lives with her lover. They display their affections Just As Much as the local straight couples. It is not always who you are and where you live, as much as how you approach things. I have sat in on meetings here and there, both private and public, where pagan bashing goes on. I have done the same and heard gay bashing and racial slurs. The reason we are not treated in this way is because we DIDN'T try to "stomp it". We became a part of the community - needed parts of the community.*p*IMO, small towns more than anything, but anywhere really, has a problem with religious, gay and racial discriminations. These things should be considered "no wake" ares, like a marina. A racist is a human being, too, and has feelings and rights too. A more civil, intellectual, and humain approach is required to deal with these issues than I see being taken. If you "stomp" on a man, he is likely to stomp back, maybe harder - and not a thing has been accomplished. In fact, you may have, in his eyes, given more justified reasoning for his stand point, which in turn gives you the same for your stand point, and it makes the rift wider. The most common problem to a "fight" is to forget the other side is a human just like you are. It makes it harder to fight if you keep that in mind. The first causualty to a fight is also the truth.*p*: My point was, silence is not the same as tolerance. The *br*: "fact" that prejudice didn't appear until the *br*: court case doesn't mean that it was never there. I didn't *br*: know that a lot of people in my town hated the Japanese -- *br*: until a Japanese man moved into the area.*p*Point of fact, the court case was going before Mrs. Webb got to Republic. The article clearly started that, until she violated her bosses wishes and joined that court case, she had a good life.*p*We have a lot of people here that hate the Japanese too. They have it in their heads that the Japanese are stealing American jobs. They Don't Want to see that Americans are senting those jobs TO Japan. Oddly, we have a Japanese couple that live right in town, and they have never once had a problem, because they work as a part of the community. It does help that the father is a miner comuting to the nearby Virginia coal mines.*p*: When a town adopts the religious symbol of one faith, and *br*: not another, that's discrimination.*p*I disagree. I think it's just bad judgement on the part of 6,000 small town people in the boothills of Missouri. My town _had_ a religious symbol on it's seal for almost 100 years. It is being removed now. When the town was founded and the seal made, the twon onld had Christians living there. Small town, back woods people don't tend to hear about other religions than those that are directly around them. Even today, thought the news may say one thing, they don't see it, because the religious variety tends to be in the cities.*p*This happens to be OUR religious and acestoral heritage. I know as pagans most people don't like to admit that thier ancestors, and even their parents are Christian, but I can give a good guess that they are. My grand fathers on both sides of the tree were pastors, and one of those was the son of a pastor, who helped put that cross on the twon seal.*p*This is not just religion, it is also heritage.*p*: I think it's a pretty *br*: darn mild form, but one nonetheless. One religion is *br*: singled out to receive a privilege. This fight has *br*: certainly drawn other, latent discrimination to the surface *br*: (like the person screaming that the Wiccan's a witch and *br*: going to go to Hell). But that's a separate issue.*p*Have you ever called anyone a bad name? Most tend to do so, and they don't always care if it is right or not. I could bet you money that Jehana could go into this town and talk to these people wearing a pentagram, and not have a single problem, until she joined the fight to remove the seal.*p*Has anyone thought that this small town people might view this as "stomping" on thier religion? This is not just seperation of Chruch and State, it is a religious icon endeared to these small town people. If it was not, it wouldn't have been worth putting on the seal to begin with. Government has ways of dealing with government, the symbol could have been removed long ago, if these channels had been taken. The ACLU and Mrs. Webb chose a civil approach, that happens to bring with it news coverage and money. And _THAT_ makes me _SICK_! If they were really as interested in removing the seal as they say, and not doing a bit of Christian stomping, as the ACLU is want to do, I think they would have taken the correct approach to this.*br* *br*: The two circumstances aren't even similar. In one case *br*: (wearing religious jewelry) equality is possible. All *br*: people can be allowed to wear symbols of their own faith. *br*: In the other case (town seals), equality is not possible. *br*: Only a limited number of images can appear on a seal. My *br*: opinion is, if you can share, share. If you can't, don't *br*: favor one faith. As I said to Beirdd, the purpose of the *br*: separation of church and state clause is to prevent *br*: favoritism, not religion. *p*Yes, and my point is, going from the seal to the University rule is only a small step. Yes, the symbol being on the seal is wrong, and shame on those back woods farmers for doing that. better care should have been taken months ago with this, however.*p*If you can share, share. If you can't, then it is time to put away the "toys". I fear that is where Beirdd is right now, his "toys" put away because someone else didn't like crosses. It's an small and easy step to go from "stomping" on a fish symbol to banning religious icons in schools. If I recall, Beirdd is an English teacher. I wonder what he'll be teaching if someone bans books that have any religious significance of slight meantion from schools. That could kinda trash Shakespeare and "A Midsummer Night's Dream" - faeries and Celts being so close. *p*: I prefer my official and unofficial policies to match -- if *br*: you don't want to prevent something, don't ban it. Turning *br*: a blind eye is definitely better than enforcing such a *br*: noxious policy. But not having the policy in the first *br*: place would be best, IMO. The University can avoid *br*: advocating one religion without forbidding all signs of *br*: religious enthusiasm. *p*Having the official and unofficial policies is always better, and far more orderly. Yet, this case allows the University to remain out of court, and gives them a great fall back position if the ACLU or other such group turns it's attention to them. However, it does give them the oppertunity to use the official policy in their own favor, too. It has good points and bad. I'm sure a lawyer help advise them on this. <G>*p*: The situation came to a happy end because both of us were *br*: level-headed. But what if she hadn't? Would it be wrong of *br*: me to take this to the Ombudsman, or to the courts if that *br*: failed? Because we were arguing about "just" a *br*: symbol? *p*Taking a case to civil court to extract monies for something that is obviously a criminal problem, if anything, IMO, is weak and degrading to us all. And it makes me noxious.*p*: The article really doesn't make it clear whether or not this *br*: woman tried reasonable tactics *before* contacting the ACLU. *br*: We don't know what was said at the town hall meeting, how *br*: people reacted to claims that their seal favored one *br*: religion. We don't know what her editorial said (though I *br*: will point out that her editor chose to print it, even *br*: though he discouraged her from writing it). We don't know *br*: what the letters to the editor said. We don't even know *br*: much about the circumstances of her firing. Therefore it's *br*: not safe to assume that she's some glory-seeking liberal *br*: idiot.*p*As I take it, the paper wouldn't print the ACLU's story, so she did, got fired, then joined the ACLU in a civil law suit. I would say, by account of the article, she didn't. I have had the misfortune of working with and against the ACLU, and I _know_ they didn't.*p*Also, I'm not all that sure the editor cleared it. In a small town, it's not hard to slip something onto a paper and past the editor, which is how it sounds in the article. He may have cleared it, though. I am thinking about calling the Republic Monitor and having them send my that paper.*p*: I think (correct me if I'm wrong!) that you believe I see *br*: this woman as a hero. I don't, necessarily. I don't have *br*: enough information. I do think that using one religion's *br*: symbol is discrimination, albeit a very minor one. Is it *br*: discrimination worth fighting over? Not to me, but that's *br*: another issue. I won't belittle a person who chooses to *br*: persue this, because I don't know what (if any) other *br*: evidence she has that this was motivated by prejudice.*p*I don't think you hero worship this lady. I do think that, other than is suggested in the Article title and the possibility of the symbol being there at all, ther eis no mention of prejudice in this article. There is mention that 6,000 community members don't like this one women and her daughter (I guess the son is disliked too, but he is not being home schooled).*p*You know, with Halloween coming up, "witchy" stories are a good thing to report, cause it sells papers. I do wonder, however, if the AP would have cared it the ACLU was not involved. I also wonder if the ACLU or the AP are so hard on this story because of the name of the town. The boot hills of Missouri have some sorta strange names for towns - Republic, Victory... I wonder it this had happened in say, Dale Indiana, anyone would have reported it? The mre I read this article, the more it sounds like politics and the press, and two groups in the middle of nowhere with bad judgment as the pawns...*p*Michael Re: Witch Stands up for Her Rights Jenny 104 Thu Oct 22 10:58:32 1998