Wiccans and the Military: Often Caught in the Middle
byDavid L. Oringderff, Ph.D.
©2000 all rights reserved by the Author: used by permission

Reflecting on the recent controversies over religious freedom in general and religious freedom for military members in particular, it gave me pause. Mulling over the events of the last half of the last year of the Millennium, some well-worn and familiar lyrics from an old Bob Dylan tune came to mind:

In some strange way, these lines seem to reflect what it is like to be members of an alternative faith group and serve on active duty with the Armed Forces. Spiritually stuck in the middle, often feeling like pariahs. Often rejected by civilians who share the same or similar faith; often feeling isolated due to the fact that few of their fellow service members share the same or similar faith. Often the only one they could turn to with a sympathetic ear was their supporting chaplain.

For decades, Wiccans, and practitioners of other alternative faiths, have served honorably and well in our military forces, all the while quietly and solitarily maintaining their religious customs and observances. Most were and are "solitaries," or people who practice alone or with a few others of like mind. This was more often due to choice rather than some fear of real or perceived persecution. Wicca has no evangelical mandate or no commandment to go out and save men from the world. If anything, Wiccans are usually more concerned about saving the world from men. Therefore proselytizing or recruiting converts has no part in the Wiccan religion. Human beings are, however, gregarious by nature and require greater or lesser degrees of social interaction with others. Just as Baptists, Catholics or any other faith, Wiccans sometimes want to gather in larger numbers for worship and fellowship. And they have done so inconspicuously for years, and if noticed at all, usually have formed a symbiotic relationship with their respective communities, both military and civilian.

Contrary to popular belief, the military takes great care to insure that every service member retains the same basic Constitutional rights as any other citizen of this country. Over the last few years, Wiccans and members of other minority faith groups in the military have, indeed, begun to exercise their rights of peaceable assembly and free religious expression. Again, they did so quietly and inconspicuously under the pastoral supervision of their supporting chaplains. Military chaplains have always considered it their duty to provide for the spiritual needs of all service members under their pastoral care, regardless of faith, creed or denomination.

When this practice became common knowledge, vocal minorities on both sides started taking stands and raising havoc. Again, causing service members to feel stuck in the middle---like pariahs. Having been a witness to all of this, I feel compelled to share my personal perspectives, not as an "Elder" or scholar, or theologian, but as a soldier and a Wiccan who has been personally involved in the issues for nearly three decades.

Wicca and the Military: Perspective of Two Soldiers

In the most recent round of controversy, the first assault came from the Religious Right and the politicians that it either owned outright or controlled through campaign financing. These folks are under the misguided impression that the United States is a theocracy, not a representative republic. It was not long before the political arms of the various religious organizations began attacking both Wiccans in the military, and the military itself for allowing the practice. Most of the editorial journalism could be summarily dismissed as unfounded and ludicrous. There was one article, however, that could not be ignored. The piece was written by a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, which would have appeared to give it some credibility to those not familiar with either the Army or accommodation policies of distinctive faith groups within the military services. The article was also presented as a scholarly expose and again appearing to lend credibility to it by those not familiar with the Wiccan religion or standard research methodology. I sent my response to this article, along with a personal communication, to the Executive Director of the Department of Defense Armed Forces Chaplains Board.

Dear Chaplain Gunter,

I am certain that you have seen this piece by LTC (ret) Maginnis of the Family Research Council. Frankly, I had not seen it until Reverend Selena Fox of Circle Sanctuary forwarded me a copy. As you know, I do not generally respond to such biased rhetoric. This article, however, rather disparagingly cited you and the AFCB by name, and cited me by name in a denigrating manner. Therefore I felt compelled to present a public official response. This response carries my usual disclaimers in that I speak only for myself and the Sacred Well Congregation; I do not and will not presume to speak for any other person, organization or group. The Sacred Well Congregation is a legally constituted international Wiccan Church and Fellowship chartered under the laws of the State of Texas. We are not the Wiccan church, but we are a Wiccan church. As such, we have issued Warrants to our Ordained Officers to enable them to establish Wiccan circles under their appropriate religious accommodation regulations on eight military installations world-wide from all branches of service. We are in the process of establishing three other Wiccan military circles. Consequently, this article presents direct defamation to our Church and our established Congregations around the world.

To his credit, LTC (ret) Maginnis did some fairly sound research for this article, rather than presumptuously citing the Holy Bible as a single-source reference. However, the article is replete with initial attribution errors, that is, the drawing of faulty conclusions from valid data due to the implicit or explicit personal bias or prejudice of the researcher. Additionally, many of his citations were taken completely out of the context of the source material. So while this article may appear to have the face validity of a scholarly paper, it would never stand the scrutiny of a critical peer review. An academic presentation should never be used as a gloss to veil one's personal prejudice and bigotry.

Sacred Well Congregation Response to the Family Research Council
By Major (USA, ret) David L. Oringderff, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Sacred Well Congregation

BREWING UP TROUBLE: WICCA AND THE U.S. MILITARY

by Lt. Col. Robert L. Maginnis (U.S. Army, Ret.)

Wicca received official recognition as a religion in 1996 from the Department of Defense. Today, there are at least five officially recognized military Wiccan congregations. 1.

The Pentagon should withdraw recognition of Wicca for readiness reasons. Objections to the military's recognition of Wiccans fall in two categories: One, any fringe religion will now have to be granted special benefits by DOD; two, Wicca will undermine readiness factors such as military values, adherence to norms, willingness to kill, and recruitment and retention among the majority who hold a generally theistic worldview and regard witchcraft as an abomination.

Comment: None of the groups sponsored by the Sacred Well Congregation have requested or been granted any special benefit or privilege not afforded any other minority faith group. We ask for nothing more, expect nothing less and have been treated fairly and respectfully by the military services. Every one of our groups was established under and operates in full compliance with all applicable service regulations governing accommodation of minority faith groups. There is not a trace of empirical evidence to suggest that accommodation of our groups undermine readiness or impact on recruitment and retention. While the majority may hold "a generally theistic world view," the assertion that the majority regards "witchcraft as an abomination" is purely conjecture on the part of LTC (ret) Maginnis. Indeed, there are those within and without the military who hold that any belief system other than their own rigidly defined set of dogma is a "fringe religion" and "an abomination."

The presence of minority religious views is not at issue in this controversy. Christians have served in the military in good faith with Muslims and Jews. These religions share a monotheistic and creationist consensus about the "law of nature and nature's God," as understood by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Because Wicca represents a direct challenge to this widely shared theism, it would work against military discipline, order, and readiness.

Comment: The first sentence is precisely the point: this is a Constitutional issue, not a theological issue. Wicca is an earth-based nature religion, and Wiccans are acutely cognizant of the laws of nature. Indeed, our God is immanent in nature and all created things, not apart from it. It is highly arrogant of LTC (ret) Maginnis to presume to know how this was "understood" by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Most of the founding fathers were Deists, despite historical revisionism. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "It matters not to me whether my neighbor worships one God or twenty; it neither breaks my leg nor takes money from my pocket." When I was invited to join the Army in 1968, no one asked me if I worshipped the God of Abraham. They only asked me to protect and defend the Constitution and to put my butt on the line when called upon to do so. And that is exactly what I did, and did proudly for almost three decades. Having gone from Private to Major in 22 years of active and 5 years of reserve service, I have some concept of discipline, order and readiness. Having been a Wiccan for most of that time, I never experienced irreconcilable conflicts between my religious expression and my duty.

Wicca represents a direct affront to Christian and Jewish teaching. The Bible condemns all forms of witchcraft and sorcery throughout the Old and New Testaments (Leviticus 19:26, 31 and 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; 2 Kings 17:10-17; 21:1-6; and 23:4-7, 24-25; 2 Chronicles 33:6; Acts 13:6-12 and 16:16-18; Galatians 5:19-21; and Revelation 9:20-21). U. S. Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, has asked the services to stop sanctioning the practice of witchcraft on military bases. Barr argues that allowing such celebrations sets "a dangerous precedent" that could lead to "all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of religion." 2.

Comment: I believe it was Joseph Campbell who wrote, "One man's myth is another man's God." LTC (ret) Maginnis and Congressman Barr should bear in mind that less than a third of the world's population follow Christian or Jewish teaching. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that two thirds of the world's population would consider much contained in the Judeo-Christian religions as "bizarre practices ... under the rubric of religion." Consequently, condemnation by a canon other than their own would have little significance to their own practice. Most revisionists often forget how Christianity came to Europe. Christianity was not carried north of the Alps by pious monks with scrolls of Holy Writ. Christianity was carried north of the Alps on the bloody point of a Roman sword. I am not in any way anti-Christian. I am in every way anti-bigot. Bigotry is nothing more than the zealous and assiduous adherence to an indefensible and usually irrational ideology, whether that ideology be religious, social, political or economic. Bigotry is the vilest form of tyranny. It is usually shrouded in a veil of pseudo-righteousness presented from the myopic perspective of someone's personal concept of God. I have always believed that you can measure the strength of a man's conviction by the degree to which he is able to tolerate a dissenting opinion.

Already, DOD has granted special benefits to other unconventional religious groups. Military members of the Native American church, for example, can legally use the illegal hallucinogenic drug peyote in their on-base religious ceremonies. 3.

Comment: This citation has no relevance to the topic of Wicca in the military.

Military Support of Religion and Wicca The U.S. military has always supported religion. On July 29, 1775, George Washington "established the [chaplain] corps behind the idea that chaplains brought with them morality and ethics, and that was important in dealing with the forces." 4.

Comment: Since the day General Washington established the Chaplains Corps, that is exactly what the chaplains have done: brought with them morality and ethics. They continue to fulfill that mission to this day. Military chaplains have always, it seems, been able to transcend sectarian religion and partisan politics and focus on a far more nobler calling---the spiritual welfare of their soldiers, each and every one of them. In the days before we had an all-volunteer Army, it was not all that uncommon to see local exceptions granted to soldiers of minority faiths based on the recommendation of their supporting chaplain. I am sure that LTC (ret) Maginnis recalls, as do I, seeing an occasional turban or yarmulke or beard on a draftee. Chaplains provide for the spiritual support of their soldiers-- regardless of creed. No chaplain ever asked me how I addressed my God, or the manner in which I chose to pray. The only question I was ever asked by a chaplain were: "What is your need and how can I help?"

Today, the chaplain corps seeks to meet the needs of a very diverse uniformed population. In 1998, the Defense Manpower Data Center found that most servicemembers identify with the Christian faith: 330,703 Roman Catholic; 252,855 Baptist (not including Southern Baptist); 43,056 Lutheran; 40,053 Methodist; 25,833 Southern Baptist Convention; 62,063 Protestant but with no denominational preference; and 96,259 labeling themselves Christians with no denominational preference. Twenty percent (283,836) have "no religious preference." Other religious preferences include Judaism (3,913), Muslim (4,080) and Buddhism (2,228). No Wiccans were identified. 5.

Comment: There is currently no vehicle in the automated system to facilitate identification of specific minority faith groups, so we do not know exactly how many service members claim Wicca as their religious preference. I have been informed, however, that the system is being upgraded to permit inclusion of all religions identified in the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Even when that is accomplished, many Wiccan service members will probably continue to cite "other" or "no religious preference" either for privacy or protection. It is obvious that religious bigotry is alive and well in this country. However, it is possible and a rather simple procedure to have "Wicca" listed on one's dog tags. Mine carried that designation for the last several years of my active service. And in the final analysis, the dog tag is the critical item. In an emergency or combat situation, a medic or a chaplain will not have ready access to a personnel file or personal demographic data. At least not yet.

Military regulations provide a process for religious groups without chaplains to gain access to base facilities for the purpose of conducting services. The qualification process requires that the group must be a recognized religion, military members must request the service and there must be evidence that assigned chaplains cannot meet the "specific theological/denominational requirements of [the] group." 6.

The U. S. government has recognized Wicca and has given it tax-exempt status as a religious organization. In fact, according to one website, "Wiccan priests and priestesses have been given access to penitentiaries." 7.

Comment: The military services are agencies of the US Government and therefore are required to follow policies set forth for any governmental agency. There are Wiccan inmates and there are Wiccan wardens, just as there are inmates and wardens represented by all other faith groups. Why is this fact so astounding?

In August 1997, Wicca "high priest" David Oringderff, with the Sacred Well Congregation of San Antonio, helped set up the military's first Wicca Open Circle at Fort Hood near Austin, Texas. The Wicca Open Circle at Fort Hood has perhaps 300 members, about 100 of whom attend regularly. 8.

Oringderff has helped set up congregations at four other bases as well. 9.

Comment: I acknowledge our responsibility in this. But I will reiterate that all of our groups were established under and operate in full compliance with all pertinent regulations for their specific services.

The Army defends its decision to support Wicca.

U. S. News and World Report explains, "For today's heterogeneous U.S. Army, the practice is basically business as usual. 'As far as we are concerned, they are a religious organization providing for the spiritual needs of our soldiers,'" says Lt. Col. Benjamin Santos, Fort Hood spokesman, explaining the Army's decision to sanction the practice on bases. 10.

Comment: Wicca has been recognized under law as a Constitutionally legitimate religion, as LTC (ret) Maginnis acknowledged in end note 7, above. It is the Army's mission to protect and defend the Constitution. I fail to see the conflict or necessity for the Army to defend its position. LTC Santos' comments were both erudite and succinct.

Navy Captain Russell Gunter, executive director of the Armed Forces Chaplains Board at the Pentagon, also supports Wiccans at Fort Hood. The military is obligated, said Gunter, to respect the religious needs of its members without passing judgment. 11.

Comment: What many distracters, including LTC (ret) Maginnis, apparently fail to realize is that the Department of Defense does not sanction or recognize any sectarian religion. It does, however, recognize and sanction the right of any Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine to express his or her religious practice in any lawful manner he or she may choose. Chaplain (CAPT, USN) Gunter's statement was equally erudite and succinct.

Background of Wicca

Witchcraft, also known as Wicca, the craft, or the craft of the wise, is a religion with roots in the ancient pagan religions of northern Europe. Modern witchcraft is a reconstruction of the older versions, based on writings by anthropologist Margaret Murray (1863-1963) - The Witch-Cult in Western Europe (1921) and The God of the Witches (1933) - and by British civil servant and world traveler Gerald Gardner (1884-1964) - Witchcraft Today (1954) and The Meaning of Witchcraft (1959). 12.

Llewellyn's 1999 Magickal Almanac explains,

"Wicca, as you practice the religion today, is a new religion, barely fifty years old. The techniques you use at present are not entirely what your elders practiced even thirty years ago. Of course, threads of 'what was' weave through the tapestry of 'what is now.' . [I]n no way can we replicate to perfection the precise circumstances of environment, society, culture, religion and magick a hundred years ago, or a thousand. Why would we want to? The idea is to go forward with the knowledge of the past, tempered by the tools of our own age." 13.

Comment: Contemporary Wicca is indeed a new religion based the Old Religion of our distant ancestors as described in this passage. This should not be regarded as either unusual or profound. Cultures naturally evolve; societies evolve; languages evolve. Most of us today would have difficulty carrying on a meaningful conversation with William Shakespeare. Most of us today could not carry on any conversation with Geoffrey Chaucer. It should be noted, however, that not all Wiccans append a final "k" to magic. This was a convention instated by Aleister Crowley, who was not a Wiccan, adopted by Crowley's OTO and Gnostic Church, and later by Anton LeVey and the Church of Satan and its derivatives.

"Contemporary witchcraft is so diverse and eclectic that it is extremely difficult to accurately identify and define. In fact, it is almost impossible to state that all witches believe 'this or that," writes Craig Hawkins in the Christian Research Journal. 14.

Comment: It is curious here that LTC (ret) Maginnis cites this very accurate reference, then attempts to define what "all witches believe" by generalizing some concepts held by specific traditions to the greater population. Again, flawed scholarship.

Wiccan Beliefs

Radical Feminism.

Danya Ruttenburg wrote in the April 1998 Sojourner (a feminist magazine), "[M]any feminists have certainly been attracted to paganism - the theological framework behind energy-channeling called magic or witchcraft. Women who practice paganism often describe it as a potent means of aligning their spiritual practice with their political beliefs. Though the modern practice has deep roots in a number of ancient traditions, the neo-pagan movement was initiated in England in the 1950. It took hold in America in two separate, parallel movements - both as part of the non-Western spirituality explosion of the late 1960s, and with the concurrent development of goddess consciousness, in radical separatist feminism." 15.

Comment: Not all Wiccan groups espouse radical separatist feminism. Our tradition uses the natural world as a paradigm and strives for the natural balance between the male and female, which we believe in no way denigrates the development of goddess consciousness. Radical matriarchy is as out of balance and as destructive as radical patriarchy. Radical anything is out of balance and destructive.

Russ Wise, with the Dallas-based Probe Ministries, adds, "In the world of witchcraft the goddess is the giver of life. Witchcraft holds a pantheistic view of God. God is nature. Therefore, God is in all things and all things are a part of God. However, this God is in actuality a goddess and predates the male God. The goddess is the giver of all life and is found in all of creation. This reshaping is nothing less than viewing man and his understanding of reality from a female-centered perspective which focuses on the Divine as being female. The rise of the goddess is a direct assault on the patriarchal foundation of Christianity. This new feminist spirituality affirms bisexuality, lesbianism, homosexuality, and androgyny (through the expression of transvestitism)." 16.

Comment: Again, using nature as the paradigm, there is nothing brought to birth without the female; life cannot be initiated without the male. The primal Divine archetypes in virtually all ancient cultures were seen as the Earth Mother and Sky Father. The later pantheons that developed from the archetypal representations were formed by the geography and culture in which they were located. In any creation inheres part of the creator, so a pantheistic world view, to us, makes perfect sense. The understanding of reality should not be viewed from either a male-centered or a female-centered perspective. Understanding of reality should be viewed from a harmonious, balanced perspective. We do not see our own Tradition as "new feminist spirituality" and we neither condone nor condemn the sexual preference of any individual. Again, this citation reflects faulty and biased generalization.

"The Goddess religion is a conscious attempt to reshape culture," says Starhawk, a witch who works with a Catholic priest at the Institute of Creation Spirituality. 17.

Comment: Our Tradition does not attempt to reshape culture, consciously or otherwise. Culture will reshape of its own accord following the natural process of cultural evolution. What we do may, and hopefully will, have a positive impact on that process.

Pacifist Tendencies.

A June 1999 edition of the Washington Post identifies Wiccans as pacifists. Despite the "many varieties of Wicca," Wiccans in general accept a basic rule: "An ye harm none, do what ye will." 18.

Comment: This statement was taken out of context. I was the subject of this interview, and speaking only from a personal perspective when asked the question of how I reconciled our Rede with military or police service. Basically, I explained to Ms Rosin that I reconciled this moral paradox in the same way any other soldier or police officer of conscious would, no matter what religious creed: with full personal responsibility and "with no malice in our hearts or take no pleasure in the act." The Reverend Mr. Harvey, in a local Killeen newspaper, later plagiarized the quote of "no malice in the heart" as a condition of forgiveness and justification for the summary execution of witches under the KJV biblical injunction of "suffer not a witch to live." He conspicuously left out the "take no pleasure in the act." This suggests, perhaps, that Reverend Harvey would take great pleasure in witnessing the murder of any person who identified himself or herself as a "witch" or any other person who falls outside of the narrow parameters of his own definition of Christianity.

Comment: The issue of pacifism has nothing to do with one's religion, but everything to do with one's personal interpretation of that religion and its inherent moral foundation. During a recent interview, Tama, my wife and High Priestess, commented that we were "tired of hearing all of this nonsense about pacifism." She echoed my sentiments exactly, and my military record stands on its own merit.

The Armed Forces Chaplains Board explains that many Wiccans "regard all living things as sacred" and consequently hold that the destruction of human and animal life is wrong. Others believe that "as Nature's way includes self-defense, they should participate in wars that they conscientiously consider to be just." 19.

Nonviolence, however, is the first principle of Wicca, according to a Wicca website: "The harm which is to be regarded as unethical is gratuitous harm; war, in general, is "gratuitous" harm [emphasis added], although it is ethical to defend oneself and one's liberty when threatened by real and present danger, such as defense against invasion." 20.

An article titled "Pagans in the Military" by John Machate, published by the Military Pagan Network, elaborates, "In an article by Isaac Bonewits, Archdruid of ADF (Arn DraiochtFein), he stated: 'A "soldier", [sic] on the other hand, I perceive as a hired killer, whose primary task is not the defense of his/her community, although that claim is usually made, but rather the defense of that community's political, social, religious, and economic rulers.' This statement reflects the attitude of a lot of civilian organizations. One organization doesn't even want to allow military members to belong to their organization. We as members of the armed forces have to work, not only to convince the military that we are not 'baby killers', [sic] but the civilian pagans too. Again I quote Isaac Bonewits 'He [sic] or she will kill any man, woman, or child that he/she is ordered to kill, simply because he/she was told to do so...." 21.

Comment: First let me point out that the ADF is not Wiccan, which is, after all, the topic of this article. The ADF is a pagan organization based on a loose reconstruction of Celtic Druidism. Mr. Bonewits, its founder, has been vehemently anti-military since his days as an anti-war activist in California. His position has remained virtually unchanged through the years, and has been repeatedly challenged by other Wiccan and pagan leaders. Mr. Machete, himself a veteran and the Director of MPN, would hardly be supportive of Mr. Bonewits' position. This citation was blatantly taken out of context. I might add that I attest from personal experience that there is more than one pagan organization that do not accept military personnel into their membership. I might also note the irony that at one point in time not that long ago, merely putting on a military uniform would earn one the title of "fascist pig and baby killer." Now, good and honorable soldiers who practice Wicca as a spiritual path have been labeled "baby eaters" by some extreme radical evangelical elements.

Comment: People such as Mr. Bonewits and Congressman Barr, who have no direct military experience, tend to hold very rigid and often erroneous stereotypes of what a soldier is. The American soldier is not, nor ever has been, a mindless android-- at least not in any greater proportion than the percentage of mindless androids in the general population. I have, on rare occasion, obeyed a lawful order under protest. On rarer occasion, I have refused to obey an unlawful order. An order to commit genocide, murder, or inflict intentional and unnecessary harm is both unlawful and immoral. Whether the order comes from a superior officer or from God---anybody's God---it is no justification to carry it out.

(Note: A witch holds pagan beliefs, but not all pagans are witches.) 22.

Comment: More properly, and more germane to stated subject of this article, a Wiccan is a witch, but not all witches are Wiccan. I have known a number of people who identify themselves as "Christian witches."

Ethical Relativism. The Covenant of the Goddess, one of the largest and oldest Wiccan religious organizations in North America, states that evil is subjective: "[W]hat is good for one may be evil for another and viceversa [sic]." 23.

Comment: The Covenant of the Goddess does not represent all, or even the majority of those who claim Wicca as their spiritual path. Nevertheless, "evil" can only be defined by one's own personal and subjective moral code. Numerous attempts to legislate morality have historically been dismal failures. The Constitutional Amendment that created Prohibition is a recent example. Ethical relativism is akin to the empirical relativism that spawned it. Prozac may be effective in treating clinical depression in one person; it may exacerbate suicidal or homicidal tendencies in another person.

Other examples of this relativistic view abound. Additional Wiccan websites, for instance, make the following claims: "Wiccans rely on their own judgement [sic] to create their own morals, and ideals. . We interact with our gods on a regular basis, and we take their power into ourselves during our rituals. We know and feel our Gods, so we don't believe, we know." 24.

Comment: From a purely personal perspective, the only valid morality is the one I have created for myself. And I have neither the right nor the obligation to force my concept of morality on any other person. I have no scapegoat, and no Devil to "make me do it." I have to take responsibility and bear the consequences for may own action. I cannot invoke mediation or go to a confessional to obtain absolution for my own sins. Therefore I am very careful about the way I treat all living things, animal, mineral or vegetable. If I cannot interact on a personal level with my concept of the Divine, then, to me, my religion is dead.

"Witches consider no act immoral unless it is harmful." 25.

Comment: Again, this is personal and subjective. It includes harm to self, harm to relationships, harm to others and harm to the planet.

"Witches have no specific taboos against speaking any particular words, consensual sexual acts among individuals capable of rational consent, or breaking laws they know to be unjust." 26.

Comment: This is yet another inaccurate generalization. I am a licensed Texas Peace Officer. There are many current and former police officers in the membership of the Sacred Well Congregation. As open and as public as we are, it would be patently stupid for us to engage in ritual or activities that violate the laws we are sworn to enforce.

Excerpt from a pagan pledge: "May I always be mindful that I create my own reality and that I have the power within me to create positivity in my life." 27.

Wiccan Practices and More

Magic is part of the witches' religion: "astrology, astral projection (out-of-body experiences), incantations, mediumship (channeling), necromancy, raising psychic power, (for many) sex magic, spell casting, and trance states." 28.

Magic, they claim, allows them to "change our lives by spiritual means. We back up our actions with magical intent. It is a potent combination." 29.

Comment: The very purpose of any religion is to "change our lives by spiritual means." Magic is a tool employed to this end, just as prayer is a tool employed by more traditional religions. The dynamics are essentially the same; one is more or less passive, the other is more or less active. Magic is the focusing of personal intent and will and invoking Divine assistance. Wiccans use herbs and various tools as the point of focus, just as other faiths use rosaries, shrines and icons.

According to one witch, witches worship the Mother Goddess and also the Horned God. Worship is often done in pairs, masculine and feminine, and the power, which is produced by magical ritual, is directed by the High Priestess for its desired purpose. . Covens vary in size from approximately 8 to 14 members. The High Priestess heads the coven. The High Priestess who trained her is recognized as a Queen to whom she can turn for counsel and advice. 30.

Comment: Not all traditions have the formal concept of "Witch Queen" or employ regal titles as part of their craft names.

Casting spells is "part of being a Witch," according to the Covenant of the Goddess (COG). However, COG advises that one cast spells on others "only in very limited circumstances" when "that person's . consent" has not been obtained - acknowledging the power which spells contain. 31.

Sex magic, which is practiced by some witches, is the "use of sex (e.g., intercourse - actual or symbolic) within a ritual or spell-casting session to facilitate or augment the efficacy of a given magical rite. That is, sexual activities are used to accomplish the desired goal of the occultist." 32.

Comment: The Christian Research Journal could hardly be considered an authoritative or unbiased source.

The COG website indicates that witches practice necromancy, communication with the dead. Some witches "believe that the dead join the Blessed Ancestors, who watch over, protect and advise [emphasis added] their descendants." 33.

Comment: As previously noted, and acknowledged by LTC (ret) Maginnis, there is great diversity among the groups that identify themselves as Wiccan. The CoG cannot, therefore, be regarded as the "infallible authority" on all things Wiccan. However, not only Wiccans hold reverence for or claim communication with the disenfranchised spirits of their ancestors. Shintoism is based on it. The Night of the Dead celebrations in Mexico and the All Souls Night observances in the Catholic countries of Europe suggest residual elements of this even in Christianity.

Wiccan "tools" include swords, cauldrons, wands, boleens (knives used for carving and cutting magical symbols), staffs, and thuribles (incense burners). 34.

The basic Wiccan dedication ritual states: "I will protect and guard the Old Ways from those who would desire to destroy them. I will defend the God and Goddess. I will work in harmony with the energies of the Earth, and the Kingdoms of Plant, Animal, Spirit, and Man, striving always for unity and balance. I will work in harmony with the elements, to understand them. I pledge myself as protector of this Earth and Keeper of the Sacred Mother. I will honor and respect my brothers and sisters in the Craft even when our paths do not join. I will respect and keep the Old Ways and the Wiccan Rede. So mote it be." 35.

Comment: This is by no means a universal or all-encompassing ritual used in every tradition. Nevertheless, I fail to see the moral or ethical objection. There is nothing herein contained that is illegal, immoral or unethical. Quite the contrary, as a matter of fact.

Implications for Military Readiness

Cohesive units are made of soldiers who subscribe to similar values. For the military, there are clear rights and wrongs, not maybes. Wiccans, on the other hand, are noted for their ethical relativism. Wiccans subscribe to a radical feminist worldview that supports sexually deviant behavior such as bisexuality and homosexuality, both of which are illegal in the military. A "Wiccan warrior" is an oxymoron. Wiccans tend to be pacifists, which may be all right for medics but not for infantrymen. The military has already allowed peyote smoking to accommodate Native Americans, and there are a growing number of cases of Muslim soldiers appealing decisions about headgear, dietary requirements and special holidays. Exceptions for every group will drain limited resources and distract from the military's primary mission of preparing to fight. The military should embrace corporate rather than individual interests. Today's military is overwhelmingly Christian. The Bible labels witchcraft as an abomination. Accommodating witches who engage in behaviors that are antithetical to the "law of nature and nature's God" will cause unit friction, undermine morale, and impair recruitment and retention.

Comment: It inheres in the military or in police work that a person will ultimately be placed in a situation where he (or she) is required to employ force. If a person is a Wiccan or a pagan, or a Quaker, Catholic, Baptist or any other faith, and cannot reconcile that morally within his or her own belief system, then that person has no business being in a profession of arms. This whole concept of "spiritual warrior", "Christian soldier" or "Holy War" to me is an oxymoron. Since 1965, this country has been involved in two wars and a half dozen or so live-fire exercises, and I didn't find a damned thing "spiritual" or "holy" about any of them. Perhaps it's time we find a more appropriate analogy for discussing the spiritual crises and conflicts that we all, individually and collectively, at some point encounter.

Comment: The very fabric of this country was founded on individual not corporate interests; the military has always reflected the character of its society, and has still been very successful in accomplishing its assigned missions. I can't speak for LTC (ret) Maginnis, but if I am ever recalled to active duty during a national emergency, I do not want to be led by a CEO like Ross Perot; I want to be led by a General like Colin Powell.

Comment: Soldiers are not second-class citizens, nor do they waive any Constitutional guarantees for the privilege of serving this country. There are some practical and prudent restrictions on personal liberty, but no abjuration of Constitutional rights. When I was a young soldier living in the barracks, I did not keep my privately owned weapons in my footlocker. I kept them in the unit arms room as required by regulation, and was given access to them whenever I needed for any lawful purpose. Did this violate my Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms"? Absolutely not. It was a prudent and pragmatic matter of good order and discipline, not to mention it provided some added security for some very expensive hand guns. Denying the right to "keep and bear arms" to someone whose job it was to bear arms is almost as ludicrous as denying the right of lawful free expression of religion to someone whose job it is to defend it.

Unfortunately, the modern military has embraced tolerance for virtually every bizarre practice. It's past time for Congress to exercise its constitutional obligation to stop the Pentagon's willingness to sacrifice national defense in order to accommodate political correctness. The armed forces should focus on readiness.

Comment: The military has only embraced tolerance for the religious pluralism that is reflected in the nation it serves. The Congress has the Constitutional obligation to raise an Army; the Commander-in-Chief, through the Executive Branch, has the Constitutional authority to manage it. This system has really worked quite well for over two hundred years. The armed forces do, as they have always done, focus on readiness. They could do so much more efficiently without outside interference from vested interest groups and the political organs that they control.

Colonel Maginnis directs Family Research Council's Military Readiness Project.

1. Kim Sue Lia Perkes, "Wiccans becoming more at home in military," The Dallas Morning News, May 29, 1999, p. 1G. (Wiccans have congregations at Fort Hood, Texas; Fort Wainwright, Alaska; Fort Polk, La.; Kadena Air Base in Okinawa; and Fort Barrancas in Pensacola, Fla.)

2. "No Witching Hour for Barr," News Briefs, Army Times, June 7, 1999.

3. "Military OKs Using Peyote, Indians Say," Associated Press, Dallas Morning News, June 21, 1999. (In the April 28, 1997, edition of Navy Times, Karen Jowers reports, "In 1994, Congress passed a law allowing authorized American Indians to use the drug [peyote] in religious ceremonies. Since last summer, defense officials have been writing regulations that would set out guidelines for the military.")

4. Marcia Jackson, "Chaplain Corps celebrates 221st birthday," ArmyLINK News, July 18,1996, http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Jul1996/a19960718chap.html

5.Jack Weible, "A Smorgasbord of Religions," Army Times, July 13, 1998.

6. "Distinctive Faith Group Leaders, Certification Process," U.S. Army Training Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia, http://www-tradoc.monroe.army.mil/chaplain/dsl.htm, accessed June 22, 1999.

7. "Witchcraft and Wicca," http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm accessed June 22,1999.

8. Perkes, op cit.

9. Ibid.

10. Joe Holley, "A genuine witch hunt," U.S. News & World Report, June14, 1999, p. 27.

11. Perkes, op cit.

12. Craig S. Hawkins, "The Modern World of Witchcraft," Christian Research Journal, Winter/Spring 1990, p. 8.

13. Silver RavenWolf, cited in Llewellyn's 1999 Magickal Almanac, Llewellyn Publications, 1998, http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm accessed June 22, 1999.

14. Hawkins, op. Cit

15. Danya Ruttenburg, "Witchy Woman-Paganism, Politics, and Spiritual Healing," Sojourner, April 1998, p. 25.

16. Russ Wise, "The Goddess and the Church," Probe Ministries, 1997, http://www.probe.org/docs/godd-chu.html.

17. Quoted by Wise, ibid.

18. Hanna Rosin, "An Army Controversy: Should the Witches Be Welcome?" The Washington Post, June 8, 1999.

19. The Armed Forces Chaplains Board, "Wiccan Religious Background Paper," submitted to the Chief Chaplains of the Armed Services in May 1998, http://www.milpagan.org/files/AFCB_Wicca_paper.htm

20. "Wiccan Ethics - Basic Principles of the Craft," http://home1.gte.net/buckmstr/wiccanethics.htm, accessed June 22, 1999.

21. John Machate, "Pagans in the Military," http://milpagan.org/articles/pagmilt.htm, accessed June 22, 1999.

22. "The Grove: What is a Pagan? What is a Witch?" http://www.apocalypse.org/pub/u/hilda/ddtmqa.html , accessed June 22 1999.

23. "Witchcraft: Commonly-Asked Questions, Straightforward Answers,"Covenant of the Goddess, http://www.cog.org/wicca/faq.html, accessed June 22, 1999.

24. "Calhoun's Wiccan FAQ," http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/3156/wicca.html, accessed June 22, 1999.

25. "The Grove - What is a Pagan? What is a Witch?" op. cit.

26. Ibid.

27. "Circle Sanctuary - A Pledge to Pagan Spirituality," http://www.circlesanctuary.org/contact/PSApledge.html, accessed June 22, 1999.

28. Hawkins, op. cit.

29. "Witchcraft: Commonly-Asked Questions, Straightforward Answers," op. cit.

30. Lady Rhiannon, "Gardnerian Wicca," http://160.149.101.23/chap/relpractice/other/gwicca.htm, accessed June 24, 1999.

31. "Witchcraft: Commonly-Asked Questions, Straightforward Answers," op. Cit

32. Hawkins, op. cit.

33. "Witchcraft: Commonly-Asked Questions, Straightforward Answers," op. Cit

34. "The Witches' League for Public Awareness - The Tools of Witchcraft," http://www.celticcrow.com/basics/tools.html, accessed June 22, 1999.

35. "The Witches' League for Public Awareness - Dedication Ritual," http://www.celticcrow.com/basics/dedication.html, accessed June 22, 1999.

A few additional comments before I move on to the next segment of perspectives. "Pacifism" has never been solely a function of one's religious beliefs. Quakers are generally seen as pacifists. Yet Richard Nixon was a B-24 pilot in World War II. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and Protestant Churches as well, have long histories of either raising armies or supporting armies in the advancement of their missionary or economic interests or both. As recently as World War II, Catholic priests in the Low Countries (the Netherlands and Belgium) encouraged their young parishioners to join the German Wehrmacht to fight the godless Communist hordes in the East. Multiple thousands did. When those few that were fortunate enough to return home at all did so, they were regarded as either traitors or sympathizers and treated as such. Yet, two prominent figures during the violent anti-war movement of the Ô60s were Catholic priests.

Wicca and the MilitaryÑperspective of two pagans

While many neo-pagan groups are now rallying to the support of Constitutional rights for free expression of religion in the military, such was not always the case. Indeed, many neo-pagan leaders and groups have been openly hostile to military members claiming to be Wiccan or pagan. I will never forget the expression on the face of one particular "leader" at a gathering when he learned that I was an Army officer. He was quite aghast and told me that it was absolutely impossible to be a pagan and a soldier. I pointed out that I did not believe that the ancient Celts, Vikings or Roman Legions were Christian soldiers. Nevertheless, I have caught far more grief from pagans over the years for being a soldier than I ever caught from the Army for being a Wiccan.

Often overlooked is the fact that while the neo-pagan movements were in their infancy in the United States, many neo-pagan (more properly, simply "pagan") individuals were humping M-60s, flying F-105s or manning 50 caliber machine guns on river patrol boats in Vietnam. The lines between the violent anti-war movement and the peaceful and legitimate opposition to the war were often blurred. Many of the self-anointed leaders of the various and fledgling neo-pagan movements were ardent supporters of the former category; a few belonged to the latter. Many in the first category participated in, or even instigated violent confrontations with the "establishment." A few in the second category went to jail in civil disobedience by refusing conscription. Others, not having the intestinal fortitude for either camp, went to Canada and other countries to distance themselves from the issue altogether. What most of them had in common was a negative perception of the military. Their primary concern with the military was devising ways to stay out of it. Many neo-pagan leaders remain largely anti-military to this day, either in vocal opposition or passive resistance. This is most probably a carry over from their anti-Vietnam war days. The younger generation of pagans, thankfully, does not seem to be quite so bigoted.

To illustrate this point, I offer an essay by P.E.I. Bonewits written in 1988, the 1996 revision of which was referenced by Maginnis, albeit out of context, in Family Research Council article cited above. To his credit, Bonewits makes no claim of a scholarly paper and was honest enough to own his personal opinions rather than try to attribute them to a "research" effort. Nevertheless, he is guilty of the same type of stereotypical misconceptions and initial attribution errors that permeated the Maginiss article. Bonewits issued some half-hearted disclaimers, and stated that the opinions were his own. Then he proceeded to pontificate to the group he led at the time. The original article was far more caustic than the 1996 revision. In the interest of fairness, I will treat the Bonewits article in the same manner as I did the Maginess article. I will use the 1988 original, complete with errors of spelling and syntax. Since much of the essay is prima fascia absurdity, I will address only blatantly misleading points as commentary.

*From:THE DRUIDS PROGRESS, Report #5. The DRUIDS PROGRESS is published seminannually (Gods Willing) and is sent primarily to the subscribing members of ADF. For Further information write: ADF, PO Box 1022, Nyack, NY USA 10960-1022 (include a SASE). All Items acredited to "the Archdruid" have been written by and are (C) 1988 by P.E.I. Bonewits. All items created by other parties are (C) 1988 by them. All opinions expressed, save those specifically attributed to the Board of Trustees, are the opnions of the individuals expressing them and are Not official ADF policy. Reprint Procedure: Neopagan, Druidic, Midievalist and all cultural publications may reprint any material written by P.E.I. Bonewits, but his copyright notice must appear in full. If more than 250 words are excerpeted, one cent per word should be donated to ADF.

WARRIORS AND SOLDIERS AND COPS — OH MY!

By the Archdruid

As time goes by, and A.D.F. continues to grow, we are attracting people from many different occupations - white collar, blue and pink collar, and now khaki collars as well. We have several law enforcement officers, both public and private ("rent-a-cops"), as well as several members in the U.S. military. Some of these have written to us praising the fact that ADF does not seem to be as "anti-warrior" as most Neo-Pagan groups. Some even want to set up a "military grove" to be a sort of free-floating resource for ADF members in the armed forces. One member held a workshop for Neopagans in the military at the ADF Harpers' Hall pavilion during a Neopagan Festival in 1987. Another wants to pursue the possibility of having officially recognized Druid chaplains in the armed services. Yet another has dreams of resurrecting a Mithraic cult within ADF. It's obviously gotten to be time to deal with some of the issues that most Neopagan groups have been ignoring - specifically those of violence, self-defense, and the ethics of being a cop or a soldier in modern times.

Commentary: In contrast to the ADF, most Traditional Craft Wicca (TCW) groups provide broad-based ethical guidelines, and acknowledge the responsibility of the individual for refining his or her own ethical and moral codes. Otherwise, we would be no better than mainstream religions where the ethics and morality are immutable and dictated by the clergy. Non-mainstream religions and groups should not meddle with legislating morality and ethics. As an aside, most TCW groups do not classify themselves as "neo-pagan." "Neo" means new, and we do not regard ourselves as a "new religion." We did not base our religious practices on a science fiction fantasy, or an innovation of established religious structures. We look to the scant surviving evidence of tribal European spirituality and attempt to bring it to relevance in the contemporary world. One aspect of that is personal responsibility for oneÕs own actions. Therefore the Wiccan soldier or police officer must deal with moral and ethical issues as a matter of reconciling his or her own conscience. We cannot look to a Pope, Prophet, Pastor, Swami or Archdruid to define acceptable ethical conduct.

Insofar as ADF is going to have official doctrines (note that I did NOT say "dogmas") about these issues; ones that you, as members, can take into a court of law, this essay is a first attempt at articulating the arguments upon which I have based my current opinions. Naturally, I expect some of you to disagree strongly (but I hope not violently!) with my conclusions, and you are encouraged to send in zines for future issues of D.P. This essay has not been easy to write. Our single most generous supporting member happens to be in the military and has given a great deal of thought to these issues, obviously coming to very different conclusions than I have. I hope he'll write a reply for the next issue. I'm also going to send a copy of this to the folks who publish the Pagan Military Network newsletter for their feedback. Eventually we can all work out a consensus that most of us (and the planet) can live with.

Comment: As alluded to above, it is not a consensual issue; it is an individual issue. As a practical matter, anytime a religion assumes a formal organization, dogma (which is merely a synonym for "doctrine") will, of necessity, follow. It is simply a matter of how strictly or how liberally the organizing group chooses to impose it.

Like many members of the Neopagan community, I grew up as part of the 60's counterculture. Our primary interactions with law enforcement officers and soldiers were generally of the negative sort. We saw them as the upholders of a corrupt status quo, mouthing platitudes about freedom and democracy while they beat in our heads or napalmed little children.

Comment: Indeed, throwing rocks at police officers and torching ROTC buildings would tend to cause one to have negative interactions with the police and military. The events at the World Trade Organization in Seattle tend to suggest that we still cannot differentiate between civil disobedience and civil disturbanceÑbetween exercising our own rights of free expression and denying others their rights to the same. Often the ones who scream most loudly for the arrest of pro-lifers blocking access to abortion clinics are the same ones who scream most loudly when they are arrested for blocking access to whatever their own current crusade happens to be. Whatever the cause, left, right or in the middle, there is a big difference between legitimate and constructive advocacy and violent and destructive activism.

Yet, most of us grew up thrilling to the adventures of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Robin Hood and his Merry Men, and other noble, idealistic warriors. In later years, some of us studied the martial arts, and watched television shows such as "Kung Fu", where the emphasis was on the lone warrior who is a master of him/herself first, and of others only incidentally. All of these experiences gave us conflicting ideas about the nature and role of violence in our lives. Those of our generation who suffered in Vietnam or in the ghettos are musch less idealistic than those of us who have been on the dojo floor or the medievalist tournament field.

Comment: While most of us grew up exposed to the same pop culture, obviously most of us interpreted and internalized those experiences quite differently. Conflicting ideas about the nature of anything, violence, love, war, are all part of the human condition. Also part of the human condition is the necessity to resolve the paradoxes on a meaningful and personal level.

As we create a religion for the future, we must have a coherent body of polytheological opinions about violence. These opinions must reflect our ideals, while being fully informed about historical realities, if we hope to change the world enough so that future history will not simply be a bloody repetition of the past. The awareness of this essential conflict between practical survival needs and ethical ideals is not new. Our Indo-European ancestors (like most other peoples of the past) spent a lot of time thinking about it, and preserved their wisdom in their myths, sagas, and folktales. So before I begin to express my own conclusions about the various issues involved, I'd like to quote from Jaan Puhvel's excellent book on Indo-European myth and epis [sic], Comparative Mythology (John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1987). After repeated tellings of the standard Indo-European warrior myth as it appears in the different cultures, he has this to say (in the chapter on "God and Warrior") about it:

Basic to that [standard Indo-European Warrior] myth is a profound anomic [lawlessness, social alienation] of the human and societal condition, rooted in the use and abuse of power. Order, securitry [sic], peace - positive conditions all - tend to depend for their preservation on the readiness of something that is inherently destructive, such as "security forces" or a military machine with the attendant mentality. If boosters of law enforcement like to describe their favorite agents of public order as a thin phalanx protecting civilization from anarchy, there is an even thinner line seperating [sic] champion from beserk, police action from police riot. Those trained as agents of aggresion [sic] and represion [sic] may experience difficulty functioning as normal human beings under great stress, or conversely when the pressure is off. Such abnormality also induces clannishness vis-a-vis the general society, "fraternal orders", "Protective" associations, gangsm [sic] juntas, and other forms of structured apartness [sic].

This kind of perennial tension is reflected in the ancient myths. Warlike exaltation, martial ecstasy where fury gets out of hand, is displayed by the Third Horatius, by Cuchulainn by the berserkir. The Maruts, sodalas, fiana, or einherjar constituted bands with their own inner structure and interctional [sic] dynamics, with a collective svadha or "ethos" (the two cognates meaning etymologically 'self-law, autonomy') that was only capriciously at the call of a commanding figure such as Indra, Publicola, Finn or Odin. The warlord himself could be equally self-willed individualist and from inspired and inspiring leader shade over into a lone-wolf kind of martial toiler (Indra led the Maruts, and yet he was also eka- 'one, alone, unique', acted yathavasam 'as he chose' and had a svadah of his own). The warrior thus had an ambivalant role as a single champion or part of a self-centered corps or coterie, both a society's external defender and its potential internal menace.

After discussing the myths about warrior kings and warrior gods, Puhvel devotes the rest of the chapter to the stories about mythic heroes, of the sort that many NeoPagans who perceive themselves to be warriors pattern themselves after. Here's what he has to say (with my comments in the square brackets):

A Third type was the warrior who was not divine but a saga hero manipulated by deity, not a king but merely in royal service. This is the kind most marked by a tense relationship to the environment where he operated, to his divine and human patrons and his social constituency at large. He had no agglomeration of transfunctional attributes to lose [as the warrior kings and warior [sic] gods did], but he nevertheless managed to offend (or was perceived as offending) all segments of the social order by a structured set of misdeeds. With his flawed willfullness (or perhaps his "programmed", predestined, predictable nature) he comprimised [sic] his career by nadir episodes that involved impious/unjust/sacrilegious [sic], cowardly/under handed/unwarriorlike, and covetous/venal/adulterous acts respectively [the 'three sins' against the three Indo-European social functions of legal and spiritual rulership, courasgeous [sic] defense of the community, and prosperity and fertility]... The varieties described are found in epic, saga and folklore, from the fells of Scandinavia to the jungles of India, from the Bay of Bengalk via the Gulf of Argos and the Tiber to Galaway Bay. These kinds are not extinct - they were spotted not long ago on both the Mekong and the Potomac [and in Central America, Afghanistan, Africa, Moscow, etc].

As I mentioned in D.P.#1, "one of the primary tasks of the clergy has always been to ride herd on the warriors...Since the primary threat to life on this planet now comes from out-of-control warriors, it's time we started taking that duty seriously again. "We can no longer ignore the issues involved. Here, in no particular order, are some of my thoughts:

Comment: A far more relevant question to me is: Who rides herd on the Clergy? Whenever the clergy (no matter how they address their God) assumes temporal powers (as in "riding herd on the warriors"), civil religion then assumes absolute rule, and rule of law is buried under volumes of "holy dogma." We have seen the treacherous and destructive results of such systems through out recorded history.

Despite my loose use of the former term in D.P.#1, I perceive important distinctions between "warriors" and "soldiers," with the former word having positive meanings for me and the later negative ones. In order to define my terms clearly, I will now oversimplify:

A "warrior" is a person who has been trained to use violence both effectively and selectively, but who refrains from doing so except when she/he perceives a genuine danger to her/himself or to others in the community whom she/he deems worthy of protection. She or he strives to use exactly the minimum amount of violence (if any) of whatever sort is necessary to defeat the danger, and is willing to risk her/his life in the process. A warrior prefers to see the face of his/her enemy, and takes personal responsibility for the ethics of his/her behavior. While she/he may enjoy her/his occupation and may experience and appreciate the thrill of battle, she/he does not enjoy or disregard the emotional and moral effects of killing. Warriors will compete with each other, not just to hone their combat skills, but to emphasize their individual identities. Courage, honor, integrity, and self-awareness are the ideals I associate with this image of the warrior.

A "soldier", on the other hand, I perceive as a hired killer, whose primary task is not the defense of his/her community, although that claim is usually made, but rather the defense of that community's political, social, religious, and economic rulers. A soldier enjoys being violent, especially when she/he has superior odds, and often becomes addicted to the battle frenzy (berserkirgang) experience --many to the point of receiving sexual satisfaction from the destruction they cause. He or she will kill any man, woman, or child that he/she is ordered to kill, simply because he/she was told to do so (as with the Russian airmen who shot down K.A.L. flight 007, or the American seamen who blew up that Iranian airliner). A soldier is perfectly willing to kill at a distance, without ever seeing the faces of his/her victims, and even when she/he sees them up close does not consider them to be "real" human beings (but "huns" or "Japs", or "Gooks", or "Micks", etc). A soldier considers rape and plunder to be a natural right in time of war, even if the war is against citizens of his/her own country. Perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this essay, a soldier takes NO RESPONSIBILITY for the ethics of his/her actions, since she/he is "only following orders".

Comment: Here again we have a problem with labels and quite different interpretations. Having been both, I am in a position to distinguish between "soldier" and "warrior;" Mr. Bonewits, having been neither, is not. Let me further oversimplify them by placing them in the proper context: "war" is a deliberate and purposeful organized conflict designed to perpetuate a religious, economic, political or social or criminal agendaÑit is always ugly and always deadly. It can be moral or immoral depending on perspective, but it can never be "holy" or "spiritual." A warrior goes looking for a fight; a soldier fights when he has to. To reiterate my comments to LTC (ret) Maginnis above, I have never found anything holy or spiritual about conflict of any sort. Perhaps it is indeed time to find an analogy other than "warrior" to use when discussing emotional and spiritual distress.

To transform a person from a civilian into a soldier, its generally necessary to extinguish her/his individuality and integrity, and to replace them as much as possible with group identity and unthinking, machinelike obedience. (Robert Anton Wilson has an excellent, and somewhat terrifying analysis of military basic training as a classic "brainwashing" process in 'Prometheus Rising'.) This obedience to authority, "winning", and emotional insensitivity to the impact of his/her behavior on the lives of others, are the ideals of the soldier. Of course, most generals and admirals will tell the general public (and their soldiers whenever the public happens to be listening) that the warrior ideals are the ones that soldiers do and should have, but this publically [sic] presentable official message is easily drowned out by the other messages delivered during basic training.

Comment: Discipline, duty, honor, and esprit dÕ corps are, and always have been, the intangibles necessary in the transformation from citizen to soldier. "Brainwashing" perhaps, but it does not strip one of personal dignity, nor does it turn a human being into a mindless android. Basic military training is, of sorts, an initiatory experience. Having never experienced this initiation, Mr. BonewitsÕ observations on the subject are purely conjecture. On the integrity issue, I have known a number of conscientious objectors who out of sense of duty to their country, submitted to conscription, but out of their personal beliefs and integrity, refused to bear arms. Many of them volunteered to serve as combat medics. More than a few died on battlefields trying to save the lives of wounded soldiers.

Now obviously this is a slanted, dualistic view, one that comes from growing up reading about Nazi war crimminals, seeing films of soldiers dropping napalm on small children, studying the history of the European, American and Russian Empires, going to High school near a major military base, etc. and comparing the data gained from these sources to the idealistic legends mentioned earlier.

But in order to avoid monotheistic dualism here, lets create a value spectrum with the above defined "warrior" on one end, and the "soldier" on the other. Most modern police officers, security guards, and members of the armed forces will fit somewhere along the line between the two extremes. About the only ones who will come close to being real warriors will be those individuals who have dedicated their lives to the Martial arts, and a few political and social activists.

Comment: actually, "monotheistic dualism" is a contradiction in terms. "Mono" by definition, is a unified whole of one. "Dualism" by definition, is two separate and distinct entities or quantities. Most Wiccans are, in the final analysis, "monotheistic" in that they regard the Divine as "The All" or "The One" with the Gods and Goddesses representing various aspects of the Divine Whole. The concepts of "absolute good" and "absolute evil" are relatively recent theological innovations, circa Zorathustra. What Mr. Bonewits is attempting to describe is a polarity of human behaviors in a given circumstance. While many of us would disagree with the labels that he puts on either end of his "spectrum," most of us would agree with the principle. Most Wiccans have a humanistic orientation and regard the great and almost unlimited capability of the individual. It inheres within each of us to be either a Mother Theresa or an Adolph Hitler. The choice is ours, and we make that choice individually through the way we develop our lives, and the way we interact with our concept of the Divine, nature, and other human beings.

(Since some people like to play games with the phrase "martial arts", saying that anything having to do with the Roman god Mars should be counted, including soldiering and C.I.A. assasinations, let me emphasize that when I say "martial arts", I'm refering to Tai Chi, Akido, Karate, Kung Fu, etc as well as similar practices from non-oriental sources, when followed as a philosophy and a way of life.)

Perhaps we need two more axes of polarity here, a vertical one for degree of sanity or insanity, and another going off at right angles to the first two, for ethicality and unethicality [sic] of character. Warriors going beserk or cops rioting against a group of protestors would go near the insane end of the sainty [sic]-insanity scale, while a C.I.A. Hitman [sic] or the members of a S.W.A.T. team trying to eliminate a sniper might belong near the sane end. Of course, that hit-man [sic]would probably belong on the Wrong side of the ethical-unethical spectrum (depending on his/her target?), as would a Mafia hit-man, Nazi Stormtrooper, or a Russian airman dropping napalm on children in Afghanistan. As American Neopagans, we might decide that the soldiers who fought in the American Revolutionary War were ethical to do so (our English members might disagree) or those in the U.S. Cavalry during the "Indian Wars" (unless you're part or all Native American, or have studied the history carefully, in which case those same soldiers become unethical), etc.

Many of these judgements are difficult to make, especially if you belong to a multivalued [sic], pluralistic religion such as Neopaganism. But it should be clear that, despite the conflicting ideals discussed earlier, not all warriors are ethical and sane, and not all soldiers are unethical and insane. Nonetheless, I will make the argument, for the rest of this essay, that in our time it is far more difficult for a soldier to remain both ethical and sane from a Neopagan point of view than it is for a warrior to do so (law enforcement officers wind up in the middle - as usual).

Let's get down to some ethical/spiritual nitty-gritty:

IT IS WRONG, under any and all circumstances, to drop napalm on kids, or to machine-gun women with babies, or to launch a missile towards a building full of elderly people.

IT IS WRONG to kill a total stranger, simply because his/her politicians disagree with yours as to the best way the two of you should be swindled.

IT IS WRONG, to kill, maim, and torture people simply in order to maintain the wealth and power of multinational corporations, or of the central party apparatus, or of the leader's [sic] of one's religion.

IT IS WRONG to defoliate thousands of acres of forests or jungles, or to poison rivers and wells, or to disseminate new diseases.

IT IS WRONG to help dictators to more effctively [sic] torture, rape, and enslave their own citizens (or those of neighboring countries), no matter what benefits our own political and economic masters might gain.

IT IS WRONG FOR ANY REASON THAT A HUMAN IS CAPABLE OF INVENTING, tocreate [sic], maintain or use weapons that can kill every man, woman, child, plant and animal on Earth, raping our Mother to death with nuclear fire. Our planet can survive a hundred or even a thousand years of domination by any "evil empire". It won't survive World War Three. To assist in any way, shape or form in killing the entire biosphere (at this point the only one we know exists) is the ultimate blasphemy which a worshipper of Mother Earth could commit. I could not live with myself if I did not know, on a gut-level basis, that these things are Wrong. All the metaphysical and theological and political excuses in the world cannot change these crimes into acts of virture [sic]or herosim [sic].

Yet each of them is an action that any member of most modern army, navy or air forces (especially those of the "superpowers" - what they used to call empires) can expect to be ordered to commit, sooner or later. The excuses will be grandiose, the justifications noble, and the instructions quite clear: "Do as you're told - That's an order!"

Comment: First off, Mr. Bonewits takes quite an absolutist stance on his skewed personal opinions. Secondly, the days of "Chivalrous Warfare" are long since past, if they ever existed at all beyond a romantic myth. In warfare, there will be non-combatant casualties; current US tactical doctrine attempts to minimize the risk as much as possible. These statements reflect Mr. BonewitsÕ misconceived stereotypes and lack of understanding of the US military. Again, I will point out that no US service member is obliged to obey an unlawful order. Again, the irony: Mr. Bonewits and his camp still regard the US military as "baby killers" and the radical religious right regards Wiccans in the military as "baby eaters."

Comment: Bonewits blatantly fails to acknowledge (perhaps he isnÕt even aware) that the internet, his primary tool for promoting the organization (of which he is the "emeritus"), himself, his books, and other his capitalistic ventures, was a direct result of the United States ArmyÕs research and development.

Each and every one of these actions is one that I expect a Neopagan (Or a sane, ethical warrior of any other faith) to refuse to perform, even at the risk of court-martial and execution (that's easy for me to say - all I have to worry about is execution, legally or illegally for the 'treasons' of voicing these opinions). Thus, I believe that Neopagans, whether Wiccans, Druids or members of any other variety of Neopaganism, have no place in a modern superpower's military. (The Coast Guard or a state militia might be an exception to this basic principle, except when they are performing functions unconnected to actually defending the lives of the populance [sic], but one would have to evaluate each such organization individually. I know that the National Guard in California, for example, actually spends most of its time fighting forest fires, but I remember when it was used against antiwar demonstrators back in the 60's. The kids who shot the kids at Kent State were members of the Ohio National Guard. And lately the Coast Guard has been spending most of its time busting drug smugglers which gets us into the topic of Neopagans and law enforcement, to be discussed later in this essay).

Comment: Mr. Bonewits and Congressman Barr (R, Georgia) and their lemmings are in total agreement, albeit for different reasons, on the point that Wiccans (and other pagans) have no place in the US military. Both employed flawed logic. If the touted "fundamentalist boycott" would have had the desired effect, then only pagans and other "godless sinners" would fill the ranks of the military forces, thus placing the religious right in a rather precarious position. If only "fundamentalists" were in the military, then we would have a "religious Army," which I find to be a very scary situation.

As for those Neopagans who are currently in the military, and who are sensibly unwilling to risk death by firing squad, I believe that you should attempt to get out, by any comparitively [sic] ethical means necessary, as soon as you can. If escaping really is impossible (and not just damned inconvient [sic]), you should try to get transferred to units where your activities will be only remotely connected (they can never be completely unconnected) to those of others actually committing the crimes of the sort mentioned.

Comment: Mr. Bonewits wrote this article in 1988, almost a decade and a half after the US military became a totally volunteer force. If they share Mr. BonewitsÕ views, neo-pagans (or Catholics or Protestants or Jews) should not be currently serving in the military to begin with.

The question of whether or not we should have Druid or other Neopagan chaplains for Neopagans who choose to join or remain in the military is a messy one. If, as I believe, you're not supposed to be there in the first place, what role does a chaplain have other than to betray his/her faith by telling you it's OK? Would the military allow a chaplain who went around persuading folks to quit? The suggestion that Neopagans, whether chaplains or laity, should be in the military in order to enlighten the armed forces from within is absurd - as soon as you got close to actually changing people's minds, you'd be arrested for "subversion." A discussion of Neopagan chaplains is quite moot, however. The U.S. military in 1987 commissioned it's [sic] first non-Judeo-Christian chaplain (a Buddhist!) and is in no rush to have chaplains from any other minority faiths.

Besides, military chaplains are expected to have been ordained after a period of college level training that would have prepared them for full-time, professional clergy work - and we don't have anyone like that yet and are unlikely to for several years. As for young people facing the draft, I say you should refuse to register, or emigrate elsewhere as soon as your government actually starts taking kids. If you do register, do it as a Conscientous [sic] Objector (and be prepared for a long, messy, fight).

Comment: This further demonstrates Mr. BonewitsÕ total lack of understanding of the Chaplains Corps and the mission of the military chaplain. The job of the chaplain is to provide spiritual support for every military member, regardless of faith or creed, under his or her pastoral care. By and large, military chaplains, from the highest command levels down to the unit chaplain, have been extremely supportive of religious pluralism. That is precisely why the standards and requirements are so high. Military chaplains must be able minister to all of their troops, not just to those of their own endorsing denomination. They must look beyond their own seminaries and become spiritual leaders in the truest sense of the word. In reality, we do not have "Catholic Chaplains" or "Methodist Chaplains;" more correctly, we have Chaplains who are Catholic and Chaplains who are Methodist. The "ordination" is hardly more than a footnote in the process. It is possible to secure a "legal ordination" from any number of mail-order sources; it is possible for an independent evangelical church to "legally ordain" an eleven year old boy who has "heard the calling." Neither case would qualify one for appointment as a military chaplain. Mr. Bonewits is wrong on the assumption that there are no qualified candidates serving in the armed forces; there are indeed many active duty Wiccans and pagans who do meet the professional qualifications. He is right on the assumption that it will be some time, if ever, before a Wiccan or pagan is appointed to a military chaplaincy. Chaplain billets are allocated on the basis of demonstrated need, that is, the higher percentage of a particular faith group, the higher the percentage of chaplains from that faith group. This is really just common sense. Wicca, and other forms of paganism, are "minority faith groups" in the military, just as they are in the general population. So it is indeed unlikely that we will have a Chaplain who is a Wiccan or a Chaplain who is a Druid any time soon. However, the Department of Defense has a policy on religious accommodation of minority faith groups by working with Distinctive Faith Group leaders from the minority religious group. That policy is taken very seriously. More often than not, it has not been a question of a Chaplain being willing to support a minority faith group--- is has been a question of finding a minority faith group willing to support the Chaplain.

I can hear the screams now! "How dare you tell us what to do!" "How can you make our ethical decisions for us!" "This isn't the Catholic Church, you know!" "Who made you the spokesperson for all Pagandom!"

Comment: Obviously if Mr. Bonewits heard the screams, which were numerous, he utterly disregarded them. His 1996 revision (almost under protest, it seems) is only marginally more conciliatory and certainly no less flattering toward the military and law enforcement agencies.

Well, nobody did. I'm the Archdruid of A.D.F. and that's about all. Nonetheless I have the same rights as anyone, polytheologian or not, to express my religious opinions. And as a "spiritual leader", I have an obligation to be truthful about my beliefs. Every other major religion in the world has doctrines about these issues. It's about time we started working ours out.

As for the Norse warrior types in our ranks, I can only say that the better (sane and ethical) old Norse heroes would have had nothing but contempt for modern military procedures (although I suppose some of the Vikings might have approved of the raping, looting and pillaging part of current jungle warfare). Mithraism was practiced by many of the Roman soldiers who exterminated the Druids in Gaul, and who massacred our priests and priestesses at the main Druid Seminary on the Isle of Angelsey, so I'm inclined to feel uncharitable towards the faith. Nonetheless, it's certainly possible that some modern Neopagan warriors may choose to follow the Mithraic path. I'm uncertain, even though it is Indo-European, whether or not it belongs in A.D.F. (I'm not planning on ecouraging [sic] thuggee either, no matter how authentic it might be).

"But what about national defense?" I hear some of you asking. Well, if the Chinese come swimming across the Pacific Ocean with atom bombs clenched between their teeth, or the Mexicans come charging over the border with their third-rate weaponry (we've never let them have more than they needed to keep their own people properly tyranized), attacking San Diego and El Paso, I suppose even I might concede to a necessity for some sort of National Defense. But my response ("If I were King of the Forest!") would not be to whip out weapons that can kill thousands or millions of innocent bystanders, but rather (if physical violence really were necessary) to unleash professional assasins [sic] against the individuals in the invading country's goverment [sic] who are responsible. Of course, this sort of measured response, aimed directly at the genuinely guilty parties, is simply "not done." I've had several acquaintences [sic], who used to be in military intelligence organizations, independently tell me that U.S. spies advised our goverment [sic] back in 1938 to assasinate Adolph Hitler before he got too dangerous. This plan was vetoed on the grounds that fighting a war by assasination [sic] was likely to get OUR politicians assasinated in retaliation. So to save the lives of a handful of politicans [sic] in the US and Europe, twenty million men, women and children died. A direct result of that war was the invention and use of the very weapons that threaten our planet's survival today. Frankly, I would rather have lost twenty or thirty politicians. None of this deals with the ethics of assasination [sic], of course. And so far, our goverment [sic] assasins [sic] have proven much more effective at eliminating democratically elected (but economically threatening) leaders (both foreign and domestic) than at killing genuine threats to world peace. Nonetheless, I would far rather live in a world where wars were fought personally by the people who benefited most from them (the generals, the politicians, the dictators/kings, the multi- billionaires, the commissars, etc.) than in what we have now - those folks pulling puppet strings to make the rest of us dance, and die, to their tunes.

Comment: Mr. Bonewits apparently has some interesting but highly delusive sources, and seems to assigns some credibility to their confabulations. He has also commented to a well-respected but equally na•ve European Wiccan that the CIA was "full of Satanists."

But that's a fantasy. We are stuck with what we have. The CIA, the KGB and all the other alphabet comrades take their orders from the powers-that-be in each nation/corporation, not from ordinary citizens like thee and me. This may not change in our lifetime. So even if you could convince yourself that murder is sometimes ethically justifiable, a career in these agencies is going to be no more ethical than one in the associated armed forces.

But what about the theory of the "just war"? That always comes up in these discussions. I say it's just a war if you defend yourself when the KKK attacks your farmhouse and tries to shoot your husband and kids, burn down your barn, and rape your cow. At that point you're ethically, morally and even legally (outside of New York City) entitled to defend yourself and your family from "a clear and present danger." But wen [sic] the Front for the Liberation of XYZ attacks its country's Gestapo in an effort to free prisoners who are being tortured for trying to organize labor unions, and the Russians or the Americans (or the British, the Israelis, the French, the Chinese, etc) send in tanks, bombers, napalm and experts to train the Gestapo in better torturing techniques - no, thats [sic] not a just war for the invaders - no matter what impact the results might have on the President's or the Chairman's Swiss bank accounts, and no matter what noninterference might do to the next quarter's profit margin or the current five year plan.

The overwhelming majority of wars that have been fought in America's brief history, like those of Britain, France and other Western nations, have had little to do with "preserving human freedom." Our Revolution and the War of 1812 were fought so that a bunch of wealthy men (George Washington and friends) wouldn't have to pay taxes to England, at least as much as they were for "life, liberty and the pursuit of (male, land-owning) happiness." The Civil War was an economical battle between the Second Wave industrial North and the First Wave agricultural South, with the freeing of slaves an afterthought done more for it's devastating economic impact than for any concern for human rights. The genocide campaigns against the Native Americans, the multiple invasions of Central America, The Spanish American War, etc. were all done for the purpose of gaining physical territory and/or exclusive trading "rights" ("Hi, Give us all your natural resources at dirt cheap prices or we'll kill you!"). The First World War was for the benefit of the banks and the munitions manufacturers (who also had a hand in setting up WWII).

Comment: Mr. Bonewits here, as he does throughout this article, places his own editorial and revisionist slant on history. But as any good editor or revisionist, he usually starts with a grain of truth and adds his own prejudiced spin.

Even I have to admit that Hitler needed stopping, although I've already indicated one way it could have been prevented (by all the Gods, it could have been prevented by the WWI victors simply not having been so nasty afterwards!), but the war in the Pacific was the direct result of Japanese and the American Empires disputing territory thousands of miles from either's home turf (neither of them really had any 'rights' to the Kingdom of Hawaii). Korea and Vietnam were also territorial grabs. We wanted to make sure that prime agricultural land (before defoliation, the Mekong Delta used to be called 'the Bread Basket of Southeast Asia') rubber plantations, tungsten mines, offshore oil deposits, etc., remained under our control (or that of our 'friends'), rather than let the rival Chinese or Russian Empires have them. Not to mention the wonderful locations for air, land and naval bases close to our rivals (no "Monroe Doctrine" for our competitors, no-sir-ree, just for us).

None of this should be surprising, except for those who believe their high school history books or the stories in the mass media. Every Empire in history has acted this way: The Russian Empires (both Czarist and Communist), the Chinese ones, the British, etc., going all the way back to Mesopotamia, have all grabbed as much loot as they could and have made up whatever excuses, if any, their soldiers needed to hear. In most of the modern empires, however, it has become necessary to claim that one's invading armies are not conquering turf, but are liberating toiling masses instead. China doesn't commit genocide in Tibet, it "educates people away from their superstitions." America doesn't prop up sleezy dictators who are killing their own citizens, we "help friendly governments to maintain a strong defense against communism." Russia didn't invade Afghanastan [sic] to gain access to the Middle East and create another buffer state around its national borders, it was "helping a friendly goverment [sic] to maintain a strong defense against capitalism" - oops, that one's already been used."

The bottom line of all this political discussion is that goverment [sic]s - all goverment [sic]s - habitually lie to their citizens and the rest of the world, especially when planning and executing wars. The only thing that makes ours any better is that the U.S. was founded by a bunch of agnostic, skeptical, Freemasons who didn't trust goverment [sic]s very much - including the one they were founding - and who tried to see to it that intelligent people could keep the corruption and tyranny down to a dull roar. But that's impossible if citizens naively believe whatever their goverment [sic] tells them is true, routinely obey whatever orders they are told have come down from on high, and object to messages like this one being published. I'm not the first to point out these unpleasant and "treasonous" truths - Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, and other famous/infamous people repeatedly remarked on the gullibiliity [sic] of the general public when faced with official versions of reality.

Comment: Mr. Bonewits obviously has some misconceptions about Freemasons as well. Agnosticism is incompatible with the tenets of Freemasonry. His other points, however, are well taken. They did not trust government-- any government. Hence, when they created an experimental one, they instituted a system of checks and balances. Not fool proof, by any means, and certainly no guarantee against corruption as recent history has repeatedly shown us. And most of the founders of this experiment probably would not be particularly happy with how it has evolved. It is not the perfect form of government--- but all the others are so much worse. I do not think, however, that the average American citizen is quite so na•ve as Mr. Bonewits would have us believe.

People not only tend to believe what they're told when governments are leading young men off to slaughter, they tend to actively dis- believe any evidence to the contrary. Historians now know that the Lusitania, supposedly an innocent cruise liner whose sinking by the German navy was one of the primary incidents that led the U.S. into entering WWI, was indeed carrying ammunition to the British. Evidence has accumulated that the U.S. battleship Maine was blown up by American spies in order to create an incident to goad a reluctant public into the Spanish-American War. John F. Kennedy, who was begining [sic] to de-escalate the Vietnam War, was "coincidentally" assasinated [sic], then replaced with someone who was quite willing to keep the war going as long as needed. All this has been published over and over again, in scholarly journals, in the back pages of newspapers, in obscure political magazines. But very few people read these unpopular facts, and most of those who do don't believe them, since they contradict the history books, the goverment [sic], the press, and the military. Those who do believe are so cynical that they don't think it really matters - after all, whats' [sic] done is done.

Comment: Again, Mr. Bonewits tends to underestimate and demean the intellectual faculties of the average American citizen.

In one sense they're right. We can't change the past. All we can try to do is to remember as many of its lessons as possible. Amoung [sic] those many lessons are (a) governments seldom are willing to pass up any opportunity to gain greater power, (b) governments always become more powerful in wartime, and therefore (c) there is a built-in incentive for governments to be in a constant state of war. So we not only have to watch the scoundrels in our own government, but those in all the others as well. How does all this political skepticism tie into Neopagan ethical approaches to military service? Very simply. When our government tells us, or anybody else's government tells its citizens, that a war is necessary for "national defense," the odds are a thousand to one that the government is lying. For the individual member of the armed forces, murder, rape and pillage, whether directo [sic] or by remote control, become even harder to excuse when you haven't even a shred of hard evidence that the crimes you are being ordered to commit are actually going to protect your loved ones at home from whatever theoretical threat is being waved in your face. What you can be sure your crimes will do - up to the point where someone starts WWIII - is to fatten several national leaders' Swiss bank accounts, generate enormous profits for the arms industry in all the countries involved (the same companies in Europe sold weapons to all sides in both World Wars, and are still doing it today), get rid of a lot of surplus teenage males (always a threat to the inner stability of any culture), and thoroughly mix the gene pools of the survivors.

None of these results, except the last, is one that the average Neopagan approves of, and there are plenty of ethical (and much more pleasant) ways to mix genes. So I'm forced to repeat my earlier conclusions. Despite all the traditional arguments about "just wars" and "national defense" and making the world safe for democracy/- capitalism/ communisim [sic], etc, a soldier, sailor, marine, or airfighter [sic] in a modern superpower armed forces organization is holding down a job where he/she has agreed to commit acts of a grossly unethical and immoral nature whenever he/she is ordered to commit them, for reasons that will usually be equally unethical and immoral. That makes superpower military service (and that in many smaller nations) a "wrong livelihood" for a Neopagan. Period.

What about other forms of "serving your country?" If the government decides that all citizens must spend a year or two working as firefighters, or conservation corpsmembers [sic], or hospital workers or street pavers, etc., then such service may be perfectly ethical and moral. An argument can even be made that such community service is a genuine moral obligation (nobody, except absolute Libertarians, likes parasites very much). However, if such service becomes "alternative service," meaning that you are filling a job position so that someone else can go commit crimes in your place, then you haven't escaped the ethical and moral issues, however worthy the service you are performing might be.

Comment: Here again Mr. Bonewits is attempting to usurp the individualÕs moral prerogative and responsibility. He is no less a monomaniac in this regard than the ultra-fundamentalist Christian, Muslim or Jew.

I'd like to emphasise [sic] that I am not saying that Neopagans in the military are "bad people" or "lousy excuses for Pagans." Many very good people join the military for reasons that have little to do with wanting to kill. They join to get job training (although they often get cheated in this area), to earn tuition to pay for college later, to travel around the world (..."visit exotic places, meet fascinating people, and kill them"), or because they genuinely believe that they will be helping to "defend their country" by becoming part of the military machine. If you grow up believing everything that the government and the mass media tells you, this sort of innocence is understandable. What I am saying is that Neopagans now in the military, or contemplating being there, should think long and hard about all the issues and arguments, official and unofficial, overt and covert, genuine and fraudulent, before they decide to stay or join.

Now about those Pagan cops: As I see it, the major polytheological point in evaluating the morality and ethicality of law enforcement has to do with the nature of the laws that are being enforced. A discussion in the field of criminology: "Crimes with victims" and "crimes without victims". The former are the obvious ones: murder, rape, arson, theft, fraud, most traffic laws, etc. and some subtler ones such as bribery, graft, etc. The latter are activities in which there either is no victim at all or in which the primary "victim" is the criminal: the vast majority of sex, drug, and gambling crimes fall under this classification. In essence, Judeo-Christian preachers who have been unable to convince their congregations to stop "sinning" have used their political power to get the civil governments to declare various sins to be "crimes".

It seems clear to me that no culture can survive for long if it allows crimes with victims to take place without efforts to prevent the crimes and/or punish the criminals. It seems equally clear that the legal creation of "crimes without victims" is a complete violation of the principle of seperation [sic] of church and state, but such is not unusual. A Neopagan cop who is devoting his/her career to working on a homocide [sic] squad, or investigating arson, or solving rapes etc, is behaving in a perfectly appropriate fashion for a Neopagan. Contrarywise, if she or he is arresting prostitutes, or busting gay couples for sodomy, or destroying pot fields, then she/he is not acting in keeping with Neopagan beliefs, but is instead using the force of the civil government to impose Judeo-Christian (and corporate) values on the general populance [sic]. That's not only immoral and unethical, it's unconstitutional as well. Unfortunately, in order to get promoted to a position where you can concentrate on crimes-with-victims, you usually have to spend several years enforcing victimless crimes.

Comment: Being a self-appointed "spiritual leader" does not give one the authority to declare a statute "unconstitutional;" being elected to the junior house of Congress does not give one the authority to suspend Constitutional guarantees to the military population. Interpretation of the Constitution is vested in the Judiciary, a fact that both Congressman Barr and Mr. Bonewits should recall from their high school government classes.

The other major sorts of crimes without victims are the political ones. In these "crimes", generally useful laws are reinterpeted [sic] to forbid what are supposed to be constitutionaly [sic] protected protest activities. And this is where we get into gray areas of interpretation. If a hundred thousand people are marching down a street protesting a government policy (ie, exercising their constitutional right to peacably [sic] assemble and petition the government for a redress of their grievances), it's immoral and unethical to attack them with billy clubs and police dogs, even if you think their opinions stupid or ignorant. But if someone from an ecological action group has decided to destroy bulldozers, or sink whaling ships or dump bags of red paint on members of a government commission who are neglecting their duties to protect endangered species - then we have a problem., [sic] Their activities are clearly illegal, and are indeed crimes that have victims (the developers, the whalers, the bureaucrats), yet they are being done to prevent even greater crimes, ones that many Neopagans would also oppose. Personally I cheered when I heard about the "eco-terrorists" who sank the whaling vessel in Iceland, wrecked the whalers mainframe computer and destroyed the freezing units. But when you become a law enforcement officer you swear an oath to uphold the law as written. You aren't (officially) allowed to pick and choose which laws you will enforce and which you will ignore, although every cop I've ever known did, in fact, pick and choose on a daily basis, simply as a matter of necessity in big cities (where there's too much crime going on for the police to stop all of it), and of tradition in small towns (where the local cop or sheriff is often judge, jury and punisher [sic] as well). However, as a law enforcement officer, you're supposed to enforce every law as it currently exists, no matter how unjust, stupid, immoral or ecocidal it might be. If a Neopagan takes that oath, she or he is going to be in spiritual trouble sooner or later.

Comment: Again, like all other religious extremists of whatever persuasion, Mr. Bonewits is applying a moral judgement to someone elseÕs spirituality, while reserving the exclusive right of holding a double standard.

Yet, unlike the average member of the military, a cop routinely acts in a genuinely heroic way. The highway patrol keeps the crazies from killing the rest of us on the roads. Homicide detectives try to find murderers and stop them. SWAT teams capture or kill insane people who are shooting passersby. Cops pull people from burning cars and buildings, rescue drowining [sic] children, give mouth-to-mouth and CPR to collapsed victims of heart attacks, and risk their lives every day they go out onto big city streets.

If we had a legal system that was sane, rational and upheld the seperation [sic] of church and state, and a politcial [sic] system that was not terrified of its own citizens, then the career of law enforcement might be a completely honorable one, all the time, for a Neopagan. As it is, Neopagan cops must constantly be making complex ethical and moral decisions about their own behavior as cops. If you can find a section of your law enforcement agency where you can be exclusively involved in solving and/or preventing genuine crimes with victims, then you could have a long and honorable career. But if you are a general duty officer, then sooner or later you are going to be ordered to arrest someone you think is harmless and innocent, simply because they've violated some Judeo-Christian taboo. Thus, being a cop can be a right livelihood for a Neopagan, but its a hard road to walk. Nonetheless, there are advantages to the Neopagan community as a whole, in having cops around who know that Neopagans aren't baby- killing monsters. Certainly the fundamentalist cops are working real hard to convince the rest of their collegues [sic] that Neopagans are no different from the Satanists who are committing atrocities. Having some knowledgeable members of our community be also part of the law enforcement community can only improve communications between all of us.

Having said all these negative things about soldiers and cops, just what sorts if warriors DO I approve of? Well it should be obvious from my earlier remarks that I believe that martial artists are worthy of admiration, as are spiritual warriors in the Native American style (though that phrase, like "shaman" has been badly abused by New Agers and Neopagans alike). I also approve of earth Warriors or "ecoguerillas", such as the members of Earth First! and the Sea Shephard [sic] Soceity, who are willing to risk their own lives to protect our Mother. I think that private citizens who fight for freedom and our constitutional rights, through such groups as Common Cause, People for the America Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, etc. are warriors worthy of our admiration.

What all these warriors have in common, and what I think is fully in keeping with the warrior ideals of our Paleopagan ancestors, is a belief that process is as important as results. To a martial artist a dishonorable victory is not a victory. Ecoguerillas try very hard to avoid endangering human and animal life while they are destroying machinery. The legal action groups mentioned use constitutional means to defend the constitution, even though they know that their enemies will not.

And let us not forget the herosim [sic] of many people who do not think of themselves as warriors. The woman who pulls a plow because her children are hungry and the horse died, is a hero. The man who stays awake night after night nursing a sick child, is a hero. The nonviolent activist who lays her body down in front of a bulldozer or a truck carrying toxic waste, is a hero. The antinuclear protestor who is willing to go to jail for his or her beliefs, such as Starhawk, is a hero. And they are all, in their own ways, warriors that we can be proud of.

A genuine warrior confronts her or his enemy as another human being, not as a faceless stranger or a nonhuman [sic] "thing". A genuine warrior is willing to risk his or her own life, job, reputation, family relationships, and more, to fight for what he or she believes is morally and ethically right. A genuine warrior knows that her or his greatest challenge is internal, rather than external. If any of us wish to call ourselves "Warriors for the Gods" or "Defenders of Our Mother", then we must be willing to pledge "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor" to the causes we claim to believe in. Anything less may be good on its own merits, but is not true heroism.

Comment: The only "enemy" that Mr. Bonewits has ever confronted has been uniformed police officers (or US troops) who were lawfully and legitimately engaged in maintaining public peace. If he found himself in an adversarial relationship with them, he did so by his own choice. Based on his previous comments regarding soldiers and policeman, it is doubtful that he considered them "human beings" in his confrontations. I find it blatantly hypocritical that Bonewits denigrates "George Washington and friends," then proceeds to quote "the bunch of wealthy men" who signed the Declaration of Independence. If Mr. Bonewits was an astute historian, he would know that many, if not most, of that "bunch of wealthy men" did indeed sacrifice their fortunes and lives in the cause of liberty. In the end, their sacred honor was all most of them had left. He obviously enjoys the liberties they bequeathed him, even though he is apparently ignorant of the price they paid to do so.

Thor, Indra, Athena, and Kali are not impressed by fancy costumes, expensive weapons, or self serving excuses. They are the ones who will judge whether someone is really a Neopagan warrior or a blowhard - not me, not ADF, and not the Neopagan Community. So if we are going to have warrior cults within ADF, the organizers are going to have to have their acts together. Each of them should select a cause with which most Neopagans can agree, then train themselves to fight for it effectively (not just romantically - but thats another whole essay), and begin the process of fighting. Just sitting around drinking beer and swapping war stories/myths is not going ti be enough to gain them any respect or support from the rest of us. Putting their bodies on the line for Our Mother will.

Closing thoughts from an old soldier.

In the final analysis, LTC (ret) Maginnis, Congressman Barr, and Mr. Bonewits are of the same ilk. No one religion, political party, economic cartel, or social movement has a monopoly on bigots. Fortunately, they are usually in the minority of the given population. Unfortunately, they are usually the most vocal. LTC (ret) Maginnis has no substantial understanding of Wiccans or paganism; Mr. Bonewits has no substantial understanding of the military or law enforcement. Congressman Barr has no substantial understanding of any of the above. Yet they all publicly and aggressively promote their own myopic beliefs, and taunt them as some kind of "universal truth."

The problem here is they all, consciously or unconsciously, are infringing on the rights and interfering with free religious expression in a significant cross section of the population. Both sides are trying to use the issue of Wiccans in the military to support their own vested interests and agendas. The military has done a much better job of embracing religious pluralism than society as a whole. Again to quote General Washington, "when we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen." The military acknowledges that fact; outsiders often do not.

So, as we approach the new Millennium, where does that leave the service member who chooses to be a Wiccan? Precisely in the same place he or she has always been, in the words of Bob Dylan:

Dr. Oringderff is a graduate of Dallas Baptist University, and holds an M.A. in Counseling Psychology from Bowie State University (Maryland) and a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from The Union Institute School of Professional Psychology in Cincinnati, Ohio. He is currently in private practice as a consultant and trainer in forensics, psychodiagnostics and psychotherapy. Dr. Oringderff is a veteran of over twenty-seven years in military and civilian law enforcement and intelligence work. After an initial tour of enlisted service, he returned to Texas and became a police officer. In the 1970s he worked as a Patrol Officer, Criminal Investigator, and Chief of Police in North Texas. In 1981 he was tendered a direct commission in the US Army and recalled to active duty. He retired in 1995 as a Major in the Military Intelligence Branch. Dr. Oringderff is a Subject Matter Expert consultant to the Department of Defense Armed Forces Chaplains Board on Alternative Religions, Sects and Cults. He has appeared on ABC World News Tonight, Good Morning America, NBC Dateline, VRT Television (Belgium), ZDF Television (Germany), and national and international printed media including Time Magazine, Texas Monthly der Spiegel and US News and World Report. Dr. Oringderff holds a Texas Peace Officer license with Master Certification, a Police Instructor license, a Forensic and Investigative Hypnotist license, Crisis Negotiation Certification, and serves as a Deputy Sheriff in Comal County.