But, others will differ. Some, for example, don't feel that religion is about service at all, viewing the gods as thought forms that serve as recepticles for the power generated by their worshippers. In this case, some would argue, charging for the teaching of religion becomes no different than charging for the teaching of engineering.

Such a viewpoint seems, to us, to come through in the Temple's second letter to us. In it, Kassady starts with a denial:

"Whoops! Time out! Guess what? We do not teach religion. We do not teach service to the gods. Our path is based in magick... not mythology."

Which would, strictly speaking, mean that these people have been misrepresenting themselves by calling themselves Pagan. But, let us read very carefully, as she turns this position around over the next few paragraphs. First, she says ...

"The class that costs $500 (or $400 if you pay it all upfront) is a class in MAGICK. We teach the foundations of magick, the elements of magick, ... "

But she then goes on to say that ...

"Of course, after being thoroughly trained in Magick, you then know all the basics necessary for practicing our religion."

So, in other words, learning "magick" is part of the basic training needed to practice her religion. In fact, she will go on to say that

"A student can choose to be initiated into the Temple of the Many Directions tradition or not at the end of the 5 months of the class.

clearly implying that taking the four to five hundred dollar class is a prerequisite for initiation. Further, she has already stated that "magick" is the foundation of her religion, so how does the Temple manage to teach "magick" without teaching religion? This, to us, seems to be a contradiction. One that she embraces wholeheartedly, reasserting that

"But, nobody is charging anybody for teaching religion."

Could have fooled us! Now, how do they manage to work this one out? Grab some popcorn and pull up a chair. Kassandra claims that

"You might be surprised to know that we have had a significant percentage of people take the class who are not Wiccan and never intend to become Wiccan."

Really? In a Wiccan Magick class? Please pardon our skepticism, but why would they want to be there?

"They want the knowledge and the training... but not the path because they are forging their own path and the Class in Magick gives them the methods and techniques for doing so successfully."

Taken in their entirety?

But, we've already seen her say that given a knowledge of magic, one knows the fundamentals needed to practice her religion. If one buys the premises and accepts the methodology, how does one avoid the conclusion? Or does she mean that they are free to agree and disagree with what they've hear, on a point-by-point basis, and will pick and choose when they're done? This, of course, is what is expected of the student, regardless of the subject taught, and so is an irrelevant observation when discussing whether or not one is teaching religion. Yet, it is offered all the same ...

"That is fine with us. You get what you pay for. A student can choose to be initiated into the Temple of the Many Directions tradition or not at the end of the 5 months of the class."

Meaning what? That those who study religion are forced to convert at the end of the class? She also points out that

"The Priestess teaching the class also has the right to refuse to initiate a student for cause."

Name a religion where the clergy isn't free to turn someone away with cause. She will go on to defend the Temple against criticism leveled against it for practice of charging for classes by noting that

"Our teachers (who are all priestesses, by the way) spend many unpaid hours ..."

So, let us see if we have this straight. They aren't teaching religion, yet they only have priestesses teaching their classes. Uh huh.

Let's continue ...