The barbarian invasions -- from Britain

Your obligatory pagan statement concerning Wicca and Buffy:

Paganism in general, let alone the mention of specific belief systems such as Wicca or Druidism, bear about as much relationship to what you can see on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed or Practical Magic as Christianity bears to the Spanish Inquisition skit on Monty Python's Flying Circus.

No sarcasm. No caveats. Citing popular fiction as definitive of a religion or spiritual traditions is so offensive that it crosses over into the ridiculous. As a balance, we should all make Dan Brown the official spokesman for Roman Catholicism. Gah.

About female empowerment: If women are leaving congregations in droves, and observers have accurately determined that it is primarily for gender discrimination issues (a measurement I'd like to see held up to rigorous, social science scrutiny), then I humbly and gently suggest that those congregations have chosen to blame their problems on a scapegoat rather than face reality. Wicca has been around for a long time (Gardner, 1950s), and there is no such thing as a sudden increase in popularity of something. Build ups and trends are less easy to see, let alone measure, but the evidence is there for the gathering.

BTW, still no sarcasm.

Uh, yeah. The problem is Buffy. Not a church that can't find a way to be relevant, not men who eagerly participate in these blow job contests on the beach.

This is a real stretch, Rod.

Rod, this is weak at best. "Post hoc ergo proctor hoc" arguments seldom hold water.

Perhaps a better connection could be made to the environment in which these younger people were raised, which might put some of the blame back on the conservatives and Margaret Thatcher.

My impression of the Wiccans are that they are a bit batty, like most earth-worshippers these days, but they can hardly be held responsible for the decline in British manners. At best, you can say the two phenomena are twin results of the same general breakdown.

The good news is the coming regime will clear all this up when it imposes Sharia nationwide.

Whatever Britain's many problems, *Buffy the Vampire Slayer* is among the least of them. The character of Willow is hardly indicative of real-world Wicca let alone Paganism more generally, and while Joss Wheedon *is* a fairly doctrine and unreflective "new" atheist (read: "same-old-same-old" atheist), one of the great ironies of a show that I myself -- a Christian -- quite enjoyed was the way it was suffused with Christian resonance inherent in the vampire mythology that Wheedon chose to treat. There was an excellent essay on just this subject in the Mars HIll Graduate School's *The Other Journal,* in an issue on Christianity and popular culture. The essay was less admiring of *Buffy* overall than I am (with certain caveats), but it does a good job of showing what a Christian reading of the show that runs counter to Wheedon's intentions could look like. And to be fair to Wheedon, there was at least one uncloseted Christian on the show's writing staff, so I don't think the show itself -- taken as a whole -- really meant to be all that anti-Christian, though it is in particular cases -- cases which clash in an incoherent way with the Christian ideas on which the series is based, from which it draws for its vampire mythology. The whole run of *The Other Journal* is available on-line and might be of interest to many who frequent this site -- perhaps especially to atheists still burdened by the misperception that Christians aren't just as "bright" as they.

While dealing with the carousings of the distinctly American (and therefore, likely raised religious) college students who just returned to town for 'move in day' (In a town of about 20k, over 300 arrests for underaged drunkenness in ONE NIGHT, and there have been three so far, had someone pee on a baby blanket that a baby had dropped in the yard, and several who decided our playset looked like fun when you're drunk, over 18 (barely) and its three in the morning... ).. having a hard time being so shocked over Brits behaving badly on vacation.

As someone who lived and traveled widely in Europe on business for a five year period (2002-2007) British tourists are far worse than any other group. The reasons for this are a different matter, of course.
As a reasonably young man, whenever I would check into hotels, the staff would be visibly relieved once I produced an American passport- it meant I didn't have a bunch of drunken stag party Brits in tow! And I have to say I don't think Americans have that bad a reputation any more- thanks to the Brits! Allens (10:22) comments are very redolent of the 1980s- times have changed- and for the worse, as the British are far worse than the Americans ever were!

I think Derek and Rufus (whose 10:21 post is especially good--I, too, am a Christian and a Joss Whedon fan!) have got it about right.

Franklin: Paganism in general...bear[s] about as much relationship to what you can see on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Charmed or Practical Magic as Christianity bears to the Spanish Inquisition skit on Monty Python's Flying Circus.

But then again, Wicca and most other neopagan religions bear about as much relationship to real pre-Christian pagan religions (what Isaac Bonewits would call "paleopaganism") as Christianity bears to the Spanish Inquisition skit on Monty Python's Flying Circus, if that much. In fairness, Franklin does date Wicca to Gardner, so I assume he does not buy into the Wicca-as-underground-survival-of-the-pre-Christian-traditions theory, which even most neopagans no longer try to claim as true.

I might also point out that in real pagan societies the moral codes were often harsher than in modern societies, Christian or otherwise. Revellers of the types mentioned in the article might be whipped or even executed in many ancient societies.

I have noticed that pretty much every piece of neopagan literature I've ever read makes a point of taking swipes at "repressive, Judeo-Christian sexual morality". I don't think this means that Wiccans or other neopagans are necessarily less moral than anyone else, but it does betray a certain mindset. On the other hand, I know plenty of nominal (or even practicing) Christians who, in their teens or twenties went down to Daytona on spring break and were just as bad as the Brits. Whatever the behavioral breakdowns are caused by, it obviously isn't religion per se.

Heather: Fewer people want to do the mental gymnastics necessary to convince themselves they believe in virgin births, literal resurections, ect.

No, they just put the gymnastics to other uses. Look at surveys about the number of people who believe in alien abductions, the Loch Ness Monster, or astrology, e.g. From the point of view of a strict rationalist, non-Christians believe in as much goofy stuff as Christians. There are few strict rationalists around, though. It's just a matter of whose ox is getting gored.

Whatever the behavioral breakdowns are caused by, it obviously isn't religion per se.

Thanks, Turmarion. That is the point I was aiming for.

...Wicca and most other neopagan religions bear about as much relationship to real pre-Christian pagan religions (what Isaac Bonewits would call "paleopaganism") as Christianity bears to the Spanish Inquisition skit on Monty Python's Flying Circus, if that much.

This is a fair statement, following onto the connotations of my original statement. However, it fails as an analogy because the apples that should inhabit the comparison are the religions being compared, not the "religions" found in a pop-culture rendition.

The objective case -- and this does not need to be a tangent on this thread -- is that Wicca's belief in a God and Goddess is no more (or less!) silly than Christianity's belief in the entire human race being descended from only two people.

In fairness, Franklin does date Wicca to Gardner, so I assume he does not buy into the Wicca-as-underground-survival-of-the-pre-Christian-traditions theory, which even most neopagans no longer try to claim as true.

Gardner himself started the ball rolling with (now widely considered spurious) claims to longstanding, existing (and secret) traditions he allegedly was initiated into at some point. The one thing I ask is that the rational reader make a distinction between neo-pagan constructions based on paleo-paganisms and deliberate reconstructions of paleo-pagan beliefs. Wicca is not worthy of the latter claim. Modern debate gives that practice the term reconstructionism. There is a strong distinction between a Wiccan invoking a Greco-Roman or Egyptian deity, and a Hellenismos or Kemetic practicing a modern version of those ancient beliefs.

Perhaps it will be better if all Britons became Wiccan, to keep the orgies in church where they belong;+)

The cheap alchohol certainly outweighs the cheap airfares. We can see the same drunkenness on our streets on a Saturday night. The level of it shocks our American visiting students.

It seems to me Rod was quoting someone, if favorably, and the Buffy thing was only part of that quote.

Good grief, but some of you read way too much into my comments. For the record, I don't think that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" turns people into lager louts. Nor do I think Wiccans are necessarily lager louts -- I was at least a nominal Christian during all those lager-lout binges I happily engaged in while an LSU student -- but like one of the commenters above, much of the advocacy for Wiccan belief that makes it into the popular culture advertises its superiority to supposedly sex-denying Christianity.

The only point I was trying to make in correlatiing the two stories is is this: as traditional Christianity, and the social and behavioral codes that came with it, recedes to almost nothing in the UK, we shouldn't be surprised at this kind of behavior.

We're seeing the same thing in the US.

When people from the UK were bombing each other because they were Catholic or Protestant in the 1970s and 1980s, was that because of Paganism?

I don't see the connection between barbaric British hooligans and neo-paganism either (not terribly likely that the folks debauched in Crete are covens of Wiccans or spiritual "seekers" of any other flavor).

By the same token, Daniel, the Northern Ireland conflict hardly involves Christianity, despite the regular use of the terms "Catholics" and "Protestants" by the US media. The "Catholic" side, for example, is avowedly secular and socialist, rejects any religious basis for its cause, and calls itself Nationalist or Irish. The "Protestant" (Loyalist, Ulstermen or Unionist) side has been a bit more inclined to invoke religion, but only in the context of anti-Catholicism (a united Ireland would mean rule by the Pope, etc). Churches on both sides (except for Ian Paisley's self-created Free Presbyterian Church) condemn the violence and involvement in terrorist or paramilitary groups.

Northern Ireland is a tribal conflict in which religious beliefs don't play the motivating role. It's becoming a treasured soundbite of the Left that Northern Ireland is some sort of a Christian analog to Islamism, but that is a disservice to truth.

Hmmm. Sounds like the soccer hooliganism I remember the Brits being accused of in the 1980s, has turned into vacation hooliganism in the 2000s. Plus ca change?

Also, I don't see why a focus on female empowerment necessarily correlates to a moral decline. Some of us would say it augurs moral improvement.

I would hope that few empowered women care to remain in churches that insist that they cannot be priests or bishops, though Joan Chittister is a shining counter-example. But I'd also argue that women servicing men sexually in public aren't particularly empowered, either.

Did most of you even bother to read the post before jumping on Rod? The Wicca and Buffy references were in an article written by someone else.

Rod wrote "to highlight the POSSIBLE link between the loss of traditional faith and the rise in barbaric behavior among many British." No wonder he wanted to quit blogging. Geez.

Aside: Don't put Canadian flags on your backpack. You aren't fooling anyone and it makes you look every bit the tool as your fellow American tourist wearing the bright orange fanny pack.

Also, I don't see why a focus on female empowerment necessarily correlates to a moral decline. Some of us would say it augurs moral improvement.

You have to remember this is the same meme that Rod's role-model Pat Robertson used. Robertson blamed empowered women and Wiccans for 9/11, Rod blames them for the Brits getting overserved in sunny climes instead of going out and killing non-Christians and dark people and stealing their land as God intends them to.

Perhaps the British tourists behaving badly have seen one too many shows about American college students on Spring Break.

I agree that the behavior Rod describes is appalling, but I also agree that there is no connection between this behavior and female empowerment - these women and girls flashing, drinking, and so forth, at Spring Break are the opposite of empowered.

"Buffy" is one of my all-time-favorite shows.

You have to remember this is the same meme that Rod's role-model Pat Robertson used. Robertson blamed empowered women and Wiccans for 9/11, Rod blames them for the Brits getting overserved in sunny climes instead of going out and killing non-Christians and dark people and stealing their land as God intends them to.

Yes, because this blog is and always has been so pro-Pat Robertson. Sheesh, what an asinine thing to say.

And by the way, one way to get booted, even if only temporarily, from this blog is to call your blog host (and each other) nasty names. Attack the ideas, call the ideas names, but keep the personal attacks out of it. I'm talking about you, Allen.

Agreed, English Voice, US spring break is akin to this kind of thing. I do see the demise in Christian faith and the social conventions that came out of it as being a big part of this decadence here as well. This blog is not the place to visit if you want to read happy-clappy boosterism about how much more moral the US is than other places.

Added to my above post, I'd like to see someone say to these fellas that you're a wiccan who believes in female empowerment. You'd probably end up with a black eye.

But Rod, America is so much more incredibly religious than my country and you have the same problems? To my mind the people who do this kind of thing will not be atheists or christians or liberals or conservatives. Most of them are unthinking louts who have never considered the big questions of how society or the universe is ordered. I can't imagine these people reading either Dawkins or the Bible. I doubt that even in a more christian society these people would take the moral messages to heart that come from the pulpit.

I think the introduction of Caleb toward the end of *Buffy's* run was a frantic and rather desperate effort to disavow the crypto-Christianity the show fairly oozed, even if only in accidently, through the metaphors it used. So, the ultimate evil is a Baptist from Tennessee?

Caleb was actually an ex-Catholic. Or at least he was wearing one of their collars.

Actually, Caleb was always more a misogynist enemy than a religious one, as the theme of the last season was taking female empowerment from the star of show and giving it, metaphorically, to all women, and thus what the show needed as a villain that season was a sexist human male who was noticeably more powerful than the Slayer.

I'm not sure an ex-priest who has switched sides and is working with someone who is, what was for all intents and purposes, Satan itself, is really a condemnation of Christianity, per se.

In fact, in many was, Caleb is sorta a traditional Satanist. He at times implied he thought the First Evil was really God, as opposed to the guy he'd been serving before, which is a specific sort of Satanism I can't think of the name of.

Anyway, yeah, there was lot of 'crypto-Christianity' in the show, simply because you can't have western mythology without it. And Buffy, particularly, had about three layers of symbolism on everything.

DavidTC,

I see what you mean about the collar. I guess I'd revise my interpretation to say that Caleb is a conflation of things that Wheedon seems to view as closely aligned at least with ultimate evil -- masculinity, Christianity, and Southernness as a stand-in for Middle-Americanness.

The one caveat I would add to that is that Wheedon (or someone) did at least atone for Caleb later on, on *Angel,* by having Fred be from Texas and her parents *not* turn out to be monsters -- and in this case, they would have been *literal* ones. I watched that whole sub-plot cringing that things were going to turn all "left-wingy" and "didacticy" and I was pleasantly surprised when they did not. Perhaps I was having flashbacks of Tara's parents from *Buffy.*

I see what you mean about the collar. I guess I'd revise my interpretation to say that Caleb is a conflation of things that Wheedon seems to view as closely aligned at least with ultimate evil -- masculinity, Christianity, and Southernness as a stand-in for Middle-Americanness.

I think you're reading too much into Tara's parents. Riley was firmly from Middle America. So was Lindsey. (Okay, he was mostly evil, but not because of where he was from.)

And Joss doesn't have any issue with Christianity. It's rarely mentioned at all, except for Caleb. Even Tara's family didn't condemn her because magic was 'unchristian', they condemned her because she was 'part demon'.

I don't know about 'masculinity' on Buffy, but men got the short stick there. Because Buffy was about women. (Once it stopped being about high school.) The only men allowed on there were the non-threatening joker and the older father figure, and occasionally a boyfriend. The reason for that is that it was a story about women becoming adults. If you wanted a story about men becoming adults, that was over on Angel. :)

OTOH, it was often pointed out that Buffy was, in a way, fairly 'masculine', in that she attempted to solve every problem with violence, and it took other people to bring her around to actually coming up with other plans. Once they did, she could actually plan fairly well, but she'd actually have to fail at violence, or someone convince her beforehand, to bother with planning in the first place.

So, in a way, Buffy subverted masculinity in that she really was playing the role of the traditional very powerful male superhero. Almost Wolverine or something, she'd just charge in, fists swinging, instead of traditional female superheroes who outwit or out-dexterity or outplan a villain. Which she could actually do if she wanted to.

But I'm not seeing anything where Joss thinks it's evil, although you can make a case for it WRT to Faith.

The one caveat I would add to that is that Wheedon (or someone) did at least atone for Caleb later on, on *Angel,* by having Fred be from Texas and her parents *not* turn out to be monsters -- and in this case, they would have been *literal* ones. I watched that whole sub-plot cringing that things were going to turn all "left-wingy" and "didacticy" and I was pleasantly surprised when they did not. Perhaps I was having flashbacks of Tara's parents from *Buffy.*

Ah, it wasn't cause Tara was from the south. Joss has some sort of parental issues, as every single major character except Fred's parents and Buffy's mother are incompetent, evil, or at least absent. And Buffy's mother is eventually absent, of course. (Well, Riley's parents were presumably normal, but his stand-in mother was indeed evil.)

The twist with Fred's parents not being evil was sorta cheap, as the only reason we expected they were evil is because Joss had trained us so well.

DavidTC,

I think you're letting Joss off the hook a little too easily. What's striking about the regional accent to characterizations like Tara's parents and Caleb is that they are so unusual in the history of the show. Yes, there were Giles and Spike from England and Angel from Ireland originally, but when it came to Americans, everyone was from a sort of generic TV-California "mainstream," but, then, from time to time, there would be figures whose main motivation was that they were bigoted (Tara's parents) or misogynistic (Caleb), and they would pointedly be given Southern accents to hammer home that point, as if one had missed it, since "of course" *we* "enlightened" *Buffy* fans all know that Southerners are terrible people, unlike us, people who hate women, homosexuals, et al, and who worship "sky-bullies" instead of the magic that's inside all our hearts if we'd only just believe in ourselves (or Barack Obama).

Now it's a measure of how good *Buffy* was that I like the show a lot, even given its periodic lapses into kitsch like this. And I'm especially willing to cut some slack toward the end of Season Seven, since the would-be "rousing finale" that Joss and the writers had to improvise after Sara Michelle Gellar opted not to come back for a Season Eight was of necessity a half-assed mess -- in TV terms, sort of like an all-nighter popping diet-pills to get a term-paper done.

As someone born in Britain (my user name refers to my parentage, not my citizenship), the only thing that I find surprising in this article is Rod's lack of comment on the Greek minister saying that "the government ought to do something" - words I thought were anathema to a crunchy (or any other sort of) con.

Hello to you too, Alicia. I agree that Rod had not idea what a can of worms he was inadvertently opening here. I would love to know that he would think of *Buffy* and *Angel.* It's even odds if he would love or hate them -- which is what makes Rod interesting to read. I agree with you that Season 3 was great, especially the Mayor, though my favorite character of all will always be Giles, hands down. My views on *Buffy* overall are probably in line with the consensus in that I find the first three seasons to be near-genius, Season 4 to be a dud (though not without its moments), Season 5 to be a strong return to form and possibly the peak of the show, Season 6 to be an endlessly fascinating train-wreck in a *White Album* kind of way, and Season 7 to be another dud, one that rivals Season 4 as the worst stretch of an otherwise excellent run.

Franklin, you've put me on a blue-pink cloud 9 all day. Even reveries on my favorite new phrase, Richard Bottoms' "my muscular buttocks!" can't distract me from your kind post.
You and your wife are more than welcome at my house, anytime. My bearded, home-brewing husband will break out the good stuff, and we'll drown our immodesty in ribald discussions of... education policy.
No kidding, as that's my personal fave subject of your posts. All other cows, sacred and otherwise, would be welcome too.

Thank you, friend. I'm not nearly as God-reflecting as I should be, but you surely made my day.