The Voltage Gate

Our sex columnist seems to be an oblivious expert at the technique. She wrote a cute piece on the choice places on campus for students to have sex, none of them in a bed. She always expects the normal flack; last year a student called her a whore in an e-mail response.

This time around, her detractors have chosen faith sensitivity as their choice point of attack, blowing this sentence way out of proportion:

Supposedly there is a circle of rocks back there too. And my friend says if you're into that kind of "witchcraft stuff" then you ought to try it out.

She's talking about a mediocre piece of environmental art that was arranged in our arboretum as part of a student's senior art show.

The reaction was immediate:

You know, "that witchcraft stuff" is a serious religion. If there's sex going on in the woods, it's probably not being performed by people who regard such places as sacred.

Same day:

What's witchcraft got to do with it unless either A) You are suggesting people like to have sex there and in which case you should have made that more clear OR B) You just felt like looking down your nose at the campus Pagans because we're strange to you.

Fine. These students are overreacting a bit, but they have every right to; plus, I'm used very to it at this point.

The issue seemed to die until two weeks later, when we received a letter from a another student, the sword-wielding, trenchcoat-wearing leader of the FSU Pagan Association and the artist responsible for the circle of rocks/shrine in the arboretum. He is a non-traditional student like myself, but unlike me, seems to have been in and out of FSU for the past 12 years.

He rehashes the same argument:

The remark about "that witchcraft stuff" is insulting and uneducated, for it relays no respect or understanding for the spiritual beliefs and practices of Nature Animism, Wicca and other Earth/Nature-based belief systems, as well as assumes "that witchcraft stuff" directly relates to the site.

Claims the work as his own:

I can state with certainty that a stone circle and spiral exists in the Arboretum, because I created that site as a location for meditation and reflection. In Spring 2004 I received permission by the Fine Arts and Biology departments to utilize that site for my Senior art installation. The location has been maintained for these reasons ever since.

And says that the site has been vandalized, the central stone is removed and another has pen marks on it. A deplorable act, surely, but who should take the blame?

Before the publication of your article, incidents such as this had not occurred at the stone circle and spiral.

Of course! Amanda should take the blame.

Others seemed to agree:

People like Ms. Baldwin here feel justified in mocking and belittling people who practice faiths they themselves may not understand; it seems to me that Ms. Baldwin should apologize for her commentary and work to instead foster greater tolerance and more understanding towards the beliefs and cultures of her fellow students.

Nice assumption.

...it seems a little strange to think that the school newspaper can casually make fun of a minority faith and encourage people to pollute the campus with their bodily fluids. My wife Sue is simply aghast by all this; we expected better from such a prestigious University. I should hope that the author at least has the forethought to apologize.

Ooh, polluting the campus with sex...

Words have consequences - in Amanda's case, her words came off as disrespectful and can be seen as having the effect of getting an otherwise undisturbed area robbed and vandalized. Is this her fault? No - but a certain degree of accountability is required.

And the philosophy of accountability. That seems to be a popular term lately.

There were other students who were much more reasonable about the issue, question why exactly the pagans were getting so mad, and why Amanda should have to shoulder the blame for a random act of vandalism.

My fiance, an art major herself, took a crippling shot at the pagan leader's artistic arrogance and intention, a point to which he had no reply:

Did you create environmental art, or a sacred spiritual meditation site? I'm sure you will argue that there need be no distinction... If it is art and meant, as you stated, to be viewed as part of your senior show, then the work is temporal and the time of its relevance has passed. If the site is sacred, then it's meaning is not being conveyed in a way that people will understand.

The nature of environmental art is such that once it is placed, the artist relinquishes control over what might happen to their creation. Tide, wind, graffiti, lewd bodily functions would all become part of the life of the work. Right? If it is meant to be a permanent work of sculptural art then it needs to be designated as such. You can't invite unsupervised tactile interaction with your creation, and then assume that every person who visits it will behave exactly as you want them to.

If what you've created is meant to be a sacred space, a designation is again in order. How about educating us on the nature of this space? Most places of worship have some sort of sign indicating that the space is sacred. Maybe the problem inherent in your creation is that there is no spiritual link within the average viewers brain. Rock spirals do not inspire thoughts of worship in the average American. It's more like, OOH... Hilde did that on Trading Spaces. It's landscaping.

What I think is happening is that you're pissed because you feel you've created a wonderful work of art, and the "painstaking efforts of its elaborate construction" make it, in your eyes, worthy of preservation for all eternity. Does it bother you that not everybody views your creation as you do? To some it's neither art nor sacred.

So are you really spiritually offended, or is your giant artistic ego feeling bruised and slighted?

Ask any art philosopher/historian. Religious art, until it is stripped of it's its symbolism and relevance, is not art at all. It doesn't mean that students should go around vandalizing student work, but keep your feet on the ground for Thor's sake.

Amanda's detractors were committing the same sin they accused her of: Conjuring up an image of her - a straw woman image, if you will - as an intolerant ignoramus who hates pagans.

The article was about how desperate and gross students can be when nature calls them to task. Amanda was satirically addressing an important gender issue in college - have a little respect for your partner and the public, or as she says, "Be new. Do it in a bed."

I also think it is interesting that all of her critics were male. One of the older commenters was displeased that such "trash" was written in a student newspaper and funded by a major university. Is he academically displeased with the content of her article or prudishly displeased with her personal freedom - as a woman - to publicly address sexuality?

Our paper has been critical of religion for the past two years, and the funny thing is, it wasn't really by design; every columnist we hired has taken up the issue - our sports columnist discussed prayer before games, Amanda has talked about sex and religion a number of times, and we even have a student who writes a column called "Interviews with God." Guess what that's about.

Why is it so surprising that pagans are not exempt? Stronger things have been said by our other columnists about the mainstream religions (which, by the way, many pagans will gleefully make fun of), why should the harmless offhanded statement of her friend cause a cascade of finger pointing and distrust?

Because the publication is an easy target for their frustrations, not only in this situation, but with their own place in society.

At the beginning of this week, the pagan leader sent us another letter, dodging his critics and saying that the perp called him and the stone had been returned as a result of the conversation. I suspect it was not such an insidious abduction at all, but a practical joke among friends. He didn't go into detail at all, and seemed quite mild this time around.

I'm getting tired of the exaggerated religiocentrism in this country. You want to be a pagan? Fine. Do it. But like anything that is made public, expect criticism from people who do not agree with you and hold the same things sacred. When you take a philosophical stance, prepare to defend it (or just bypass discourse with "I believe it because I want to or because it makes me feel right", easy enough). Don't try to pull the intolerance card; it's not working as well anymore. You have the personal freedom to practice what you wish, but others have the personal freedom to challenge those beliefs, and I'm tired of the people backing down from progressive (and potentially useful) dialogues about the state of our culture and the place of the great domains of knowledge. Call Dawkins and Myers what you wish; at least they are willing to talk.

Amanda did not apologize and did not respond directly; instead, she wrote about Wiccan sex rites this week, in all their Skyclad glory.