How will pagans vote... and will their ballots make a difference?

It is foolish to believe that Pagans will vote as one homogenous block. Christians have a very wide range of political beliefs, and Pagans as well cover a very wide range of beliefs. And while Christians are more concentrated on the right, Pagans are (assumedly) more concentrated on the left.

However, to believe that Pagans are pro-choice is foolish. Being Pagan does not prohibit one from valuing life, or believing that life and human rights start at conception. Pregnancy is a very special event to a lot of Pagans, and looking back through the history of past Pagan religions, many of them placed pregnant women as being very important and even hallowed. Furthermore, Pagan religions have almost always been better than the monotheistic religions are valuing women, and many times this was due to their status as those who give birth to life.

Contary to the harmful stereotype spread around about them, Pagan religions almost always place a very high value on life. I would not be surprised if those who are genuinely Pagan (and not atheistic or satanist) are more pro-life than Christians. When one looks at Druidism and Wiccanism, one sees a respect for life similar to that of Christianity, but sees less hypocrisy among the followers.

There are followers of Pagan religions who miss the point of their religion, just as there are followers of Christianity who miss the point of Christianity, and as there are self avowed Atheists who are ignorant of the huge role of faith (just faith, not faith in God) in their lives.

Pagans, Christians, Atheists, and other faiths are all alike in that there are believers who are true to the faith, and believers who have been led astray in their faith. They are alike in that there are both Republicans and Democrats among their members. And they are alike that in when we stereotype them, we diminish our ability to truly understand them.

Well, by the most common labels, we consider the number of Pagans/Heathens, etc to be generally in the neighborhood of about a million. (There are some pretty substantial reasons for many surveys to under-count us, notably, a lot of us actually are hiding from discrimination, etc.)

And, yes, we vote. Anecdotally well above the turnout of the general population, (I actually can't think of anyone I know who *isn't* voting this election, or even claimed so online.) In these times a lot of political matters are of great concern.

As for geographic concentrations, that's an interesting question: for the most part, we're as yet pretty well spread out, apart from in a few cities generally considered 'liberal' and tolerant, which tend to be magnets. Otherwise, we're pretty spread out. In 'Red States' usually less *visible,* but there's obvious reasons for that.

In general we run to the quite liberal, (A distinct minority of conservative Pagans tends to run libertarian, particularly on social issues.)

The values of freedom and personal responsibility for 'moral issues' and the obvious environmentalism tends to cut across any conservative/liberal divides: there's a lot of nominal Greens who vote against the Republicans where necessary, and there are a lot of nominal Libertarians who are often a bit at loose ends with the party and the pro-corporate stances, etc.

I like to say in general that we like to keep our personal responsibilities personal and our social responsibilities social. :) Typically, we'll be pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-LGBT rights, anti-war, 'pro-guns' at least to an extent, typically OK with being taxed for good reasons, resentful of being taxed for bad ones, pro-separation of church and state, suspicious of big money, pro-science, pro sex-ed, ...a lot of the rest really varies.

Pagans are generally used to being our own 'moral authorities' and consider ourselves responsible for thinking such decisions through on the facts and likely effects.

In a lot of ways, we're not often a major 'swing vote,' except if we're a concentration in a rural district, and there are certain cities like San Fransisco and Minneapolis where there's certainly enough of us that a politician would do well not to throw us under the bus. We'll certainly be unlikely to vote for Fundamentalist fanatics, cause that's obviously self-destructive.

We may, however, have a disproportionate amount of persuasive influence (If anyone can really be said to have any) simply *because* our perspective's often different from the usual back-and-forth in the mainstream media.

On this, though, Gabriel:

""However, to believe that Pagans are pro-choice is foolish. Being Pagan does not prohibit one from valuing life, or believing that life and human rights start at conception. ""

While it's true that we value motherhood and pregnancy highly, we also tend to believe that the right to choose lies with the mother, not the church or state, for the very same reasons.

As for 'human life and rights beginning at conception' that's *not* a common view in terms of the 'abortion issue:' plenty of people place the sort of 'point of no return' at *quickening:* even if the pregnancy is obviously valued all along. Since Pagans don't generally believe that a soul is created *by* conception, there's no fixed dogma or view that way.

When the human experience starts is perhaps the determining factor, if I can characterize the process of it. Women report *just knowing,* and that's what that is.

I'd say Pagan women believe the choice is with women, but very rarely in fact choose so. It's a question of what's the most responsible thing.

(Maybe that's an important example, really: motherhood's sacred, but that doesn't mean we are against contraception or believe that aborted embryoes or blastulae are souls stuck in theological limbo or something: pregnancy is a serious and sacred matter and not a gift to be turned down lightly,

...but that doesn't mean that politically many Pagans agree with the 'pro life' positions of state religious control of reproductive systems or suppressing education about such, or go in for these accusations of 'morning after pills' and rape kits being 'murder' or any of the like.

Pregnancy is a process, not a 'sentence:' It's one we take very seriously, though. And that includes not imposing arbitrary decisions based on someone else's dogma.

The many of us who hold to reincarnation or other notions of transmigration of souls know that it's a weighty and wonderful matter to bring someone into the world as one's child: it's not, however, 'one chance at salvation or death, starting at conception,' which is the premise upon which that pro-life extremism is based.

When one votes for something, it's not always even about the 'moral judgment' one may believe in: one may be voting on *who gets to make the decision.* While many monotheists believe they have the right to compel others to make certain decisions, particularly around things sexual, this is not a Pagan view.

The whole, 'If it harms none, do what you will,' bit (Very American of us, if you asked me,) informs a lot of things for Pagans where others may feel obligated to make an all-or-nothing-one-way-for-all judgment, even if there's clearly a lot of controversy.

We don't much believe in shooting people, either, but tend to think that sort of decision ideally rests in a well-trained and ethical individual, not a blanket prohibition.

We may believe waste and pollution are unethical, that doesn't mean we would 'ban all SUV's' if given the chance. One might have a perfectly good reason to need one, even if they're commonly emblems of callous waste. More than that, we don't believe running around saying, 'Goddess says this is an abomination!' is a reasoned way to convince anyone of anything. If there were no environmental threats to our world, we would still honor the Earth as sacred: the fact that these threats *exist* make it a matter for science, government, and reasoned debate and action.

See?

Pretty much a non-starter as a real question.

The vast majority of Neopagans are politically liberal. Yes indeed, I know antiabortion Neopagans, Neopagans who support much of the conservative agenda, Neopagans who support our military interventions, but these are a distinct minority.

I myself tend towards the liberal end of the spectrum, but leaving that aside, Democrats (or third party candidates who are committed to individual liberties) are simply safer for Neopagans, since they are more likely to leave us alone.

Republicans carry the weight of President Bush's statement, during his first campaign, that he did not think witchcraft was really a religion. This was during the controversy Bob Barr stirred up by attacking the Army for providing chaplain resources to Wiccan soldiers stationed at Ft. Hood. Ironically, a few years later, that poisoned the well for me with the Libertarians when they made Barr their presidential candidate.

The posturing on both sides with Christine O'Donnell's tale of youthful indiscretions just underscored the issue: Republicans seem more prone to make Neopaganism a source of red meat for their base. Hard to vote for a party which regards you as a fisherman might a bucket of chum.

(This leaves aside the posturing on the Neopagan side of the issue, such as it was, about the use of the terms witch and witchcraft, which Wicca would love to trademark, but alas, cannot).

Well, Paul, the term 'Witch' has always been a problematic one: I sure don't think those who reclaimed the term had national politics in mind when they did so, but I'm sure the Religious Right would be calling us that, anyway, so it's as well to be somewhat out in front of it ...but it also tends to be a way for the media to associate Pagan religion with just such silliness as Christine O'Donnell, without, it seems, ever looking deep enough to see that her little gaffe showed her fringe-Right Fundamentalist witch-hunting mentality.

While the GOP gave her the nomination, it does seem that she was roundly-rejected for whatever combination of reasons.

There are many ways in which Pagans seem to be able to serve (not always comfortably) as the 'canaries in the coalmine') on issues of religious freedom, since we sort of stand in the way of people claiming 'Religion' means 'Christian or Jewish conservative and maybe some 'foreigners,'' (who can't get elected unless they're Evangelical converts, it seems.)

Perhaps this is part of why so many try to go 'Well, you don't count as a religion,' to anyone else: we just don't fit a lot of the social and political narratives... and have what I'm sure is an annoying tendency to not be the monsters some want to make of us.

(On Bob Barr, I've noted wryly that all that 'free market economics' the Libertarians have tended to support, and what did it get them? Bought out by a Republican who doesn't believe in personal freedom.)

The results of this election are pretty mixed: those who've been considered the most anti-Pagan for the most part didn't win, (It would have been nice to see Bachmann get the heave-ho for many reasons, among them hostility to religious minorities she's theoretically supposed to be representing) ...but the Religious Right just got a lot of people in power nonetheless.

This means it's likely we'll see more years the world can't afford of inaction or worse on important issues, like a *future,* both environmentally and in sustainable economics and social justice, ... doubtless more screwing of the poor and working classes, while of course the rich get richer... Hence more scapegoating of minorities, hence more unrest and damage to the national fabric.

And when these people talk about 'cutting the budget' it obviously won't be the military (except maybe veterans' benefits again, so much for 'support our troops,') or corporate welfare, or tax cuts for the richest, (Like those 'created jobs' all along, to begin with.)

What's cut will be things that benefit the common people, and there's always a danger there that things can get ugly for minorities.

I think the response for many Pagans will be to concentrate on the local communities, and perhaps cluster up somewhat more. We can't expect much help from a dismantled government, but we tend to be smart and resourceful, and have useful know-how.

Kind of surprised that this thread didn't attract more attention. I do wonder, though, if Mr. Niebuhr is reading. I hope we've at least sketched out the landscape somewhat.

It's an interesting thought, if perhaps an academic one, about whether politicians will ever court the Pagan vote: (Apart from a certain maniac who thought he was a vampire... Let's just say he misjudged his demographic big time...)
...the thing is that if there's, say, no strong Green candidate, the Democrats tend to consider us part of a general progressive bloc that can be mostly taken for granted, because the Republicans are so overtly hostile to so much of what's important to most of us, if not we ourselves and our very right to *be* Pagans and live free in our communities.

So, in terms of Democratic policies, and all the corporate money and identity politics, no, they probably don't see a lot of interest in courting the Pagan vote, apart from general platforms of tolerance which they may or may not deliver on. It's very parallel to how things are for the LGBT voters: as long as the Christian Right and corporate money make the Republicans scary, the Dems know that most of us would have to be crazy to not vote against the GOP as effectively as possible, even if we'd otherwise think we were voting for better economics to vote Republican. (I would dispute this, of course, but we're not a 'Greed is Good' demographic anyway. )

There's a vocal minority of conservative Pagans out there, as mentioned, but they're mostly on the other side of the same problem: it'd be crazy for Pagans to give more power to the Republicans and those they pander to who consider themselves declared enemies of our religious freedom and certain important Pagan values, which actually involve fairness, honesty, reason, social responsibility, compassion, *not exploiting the Earth the future, or other people for short term profit,* personal responsibility for our moral judgments, valuing diversity, Liberty and Justice for *all,* etc.

Given the recent track of things thanks to a corporate-dominated media and the "Citizens United" decision pretty much meaning elections are bought through media agitation, identity politics and hysteria, I think that for Pagans to find our voices, it'll be through coalitions with others who are concerned for these things.

If we *wanted* to be theocratic, there wouldn't be enough of us. (In fact, Pagan religions aren't actually relics of Bronze age *governments,* so we don't tend to think our faiths are 'rival government-type rules,' anyway. )

When it comes down to it, as a 'religious vote,' one place we might see ourselves heard down the line is where I think *interfaith organizations* are going to find themselves representing a desperately-needed *conscience* in coming days.

Our environmental and social and economic problems haven't gone away, just cause someone crashed the economy and handed the Dems the keys.

So, really, when it comes down to it, it'll have much to do with what 'courting a religious vote' never mind a Pagan one... *means.*

We don't generally respond well to 'wedge issues' usually considered religious ones.

(Back to that example where most Pagans consider motherhood as one of the most sacred things out there, but are *pro- choice, pro-sex ed, pro-contraception, and pro-supporting mothers. Also pro-reducing the toxins and stresses that harm babies' bodies before they're born.*
We'd consider it *awful* for any mother to have to have an abortion she didn't want, (most especially a back-alley one,) and equally awful for any woman to be *forced* into a pregnancy or carrying a baby to term cause some man or government or church demanded it. Terrible all around for that potential child to suffer cause some 'Pro-life' candidate also deregulated the poisons we're all exposed to and cut services to the poor and blocked living wages and health care for those families... Etc.)

Some things are simple, that way: Holding life to be sacred doesn't mean 'Enforce pregnancy on people.' Holding sexuality to be a sacred rite *certainly* doesn't mean 'The Government should penalize people if they don't obey churches, cause Christians think it's a 'sin,'

Our values of personal and community responsibilities may involve a fair bit of economic autonomy, but that *sure* doesn't mean we think it should be an unregulated free-for-all favoring the most irresponsible and short-sighted just cause they've already got the money.

We just don't believe life, never mind government, is defined by conformity to imposed absolutes, save of course those our liberty and government is *based on holding as self-evident.*

Our values are actually very often based on an axiom that couldn't be more American, in one of the best senses of that: "If you aren't hurting anyone, be free."

That freedom comes with it a constant discipline of being *aware* and *caring* and of *valuing others, both as free beings and as people we may affect.*

I think it goes beyond, in many ways, that oft-cited 'Golden Rule' and means trying to treat others as *they* may want to be treated, not just assuming they're meant to be a reflection of onesself.

For all that, we're really not so different from other Americans, at least when they aren't dealing in absolutes and books of excuses and identity-politics and fears.

The narrative's just different. And it's 'narratives' that ideology and media-politics and religious impositions-thereupon play upon.

Notably, Pagans don't tend to believe 'the ends justify the means.' We don't believe in 'ends,' not particularly, for one, and the *means and intentions are the very fabric of life we're living.*

We certainly don't believe that uncompromising ideological tugs-of-war are necessarily any more than just that: left, right, or center, it's just a lot of effort not going far from mud.