NMR ISSUE 16

All Together On This Earth
Astrological Forecast 16
Don't Save the Earth!
Editorial 16
Initiation and the Degree System
Letters 16
Metaphysical Messages of Addictions
New Virtual Economy
Rite to Reclaim the Power of the Snake
Snail
Spirit Lover
The Abyss and Beyond
The Eleventh House: Dreams or Destiny
The Oldest Magick
Three Magical Waters
Understanding Your Dreams
Why Love is the Law - A Primer
Winter Solstice

Articles
Authors
Rituals
Book Reviews
NMR Issues
NMR Covers

Letters

Editorial Casualties

New Age Casualties did not sit well with me. It reeked of repressed (if not outright) anger, lack of respect for others, and had quite a tinge of egotism.

Many religions are accused of lambasting other religions and saying, I am right, you are wrong (or less Spiritually advanced), but, other than Christianity, I have not seen it anywhere more evident than in Wicca. I know that statement will probably bother some people, but that's just my observation. I don't know if it is the anger that many Wiccans are still resolving from past religious experiences, or, due to the nature of the religion, it brings more rebels who are likely to speak out against other ideas. (One reason I like your magazine so much is—it has a much more loving attitude and less judgmental, especially concerning Christian bashing, than many others I have read.)

I also feel that people who write articles like that really don't understand the religion(s) that they are talking about. Plus, they often make sweeping (or wrong) statements about the people and teachings. In truth, people choose the religions that are best for them, no one is wrong; people just have different needs. There are `bad' and `good' people and teachings in all religions, and all religions have some basic truths. So, instead of focusing on what's wrong with them? Or look how awful they are? Let's start focusing on what's right with them, and see the Unity that we share in Spirit.

M.H.
Albuquerque, NM

First, thank you for all the nice things you had to say about NMR (which I did not quote at length because it bugs me when magazines do that). Also, I strongly support you. I am not sure about Wiccans being second to Christians in xenophobia because I don't have a broad sampling of other religions. I general, I think I would disagree. But I would not be surprised if Christian bashing were unusually common in Wicca. From my own experience, I would expect this to be a response to negative experiences growing up with politics disguised as Christianity. I don't believe that Wiccans are genuinely hostile to Christ's teachings, for instance. I consider myself a Christian (among other things) and have the greatest respect for the religion. However, I give no quarter to the negative, hostile, Good/Evil, Right/Wrong Fundie types. But I recognize that, though most of the ones I meet call themselves Christians, these types transcend any particular religion. I try not to go out of my way to bash them, but I enjoy it more than I'd like to when the opportunity arises.

I, too, flinched when I read Antero's article. Then I asked myself why. Antero's style set me on edge. His article was irreverent and challenged some things that were important to me. But on reflection, it seemed that the point of his article and his style was to shake me up. If so, it did its job. I thought about how I was living and asked myself if I was a New Age casualty. My answer was no—I feel secure that I am handling my life in the best way I can. I am not worried that I will someday think of myself as a casualty. But I am glad that I considered it, because sometimes when I ask myself such questions, the answer is different and I know it's time for a change.

The problem with a grating style is that it can turn people off. On the other hand, too gentle a style can lull the reader. I'm willing to try things that push the envelope when I expect them to serve their purpose. Evidently, this article was too abrasive to do that for you. But I hope in my editorials and responses like this one to make clear that the atmosphere of this magazine is one of openness even to ideas expressed in a hostile manner. NMR is here to share ideas, but that there is no pressure to take those ideas seriously (or even to read them). As I mentioned in The Editorial, if you see an article you don't like, you might yet be able to glean something important from it.

On the other hand, I don't like hostility. If I had interpreted Antero's style the same way you do, I would have printed it as a letter rather than an article. (I figure it's safe to give a lot more latitude in the letters section. That's why I say the things I do here.) I interpreted it as irreverent rather than hostile in the context of his other work (most of which has yet to appear in NMR). Oh well. I will try to be more circumspect in future. But I do feel that Antero's article had an important point that I have not yet seen spelled out so clearly anywhere else.