In response, we'd have to say, "Guys, own up to it. You are teaching religion and you are being paid for it." Which brings us to the question of whether or not that is an appropriate thing for the clergy of a deity to do. After all, the money is going into their pockets, not those of the deity, in any sense (say, as into temple funds, used in the service of the deity), as is made clear in this passage.

"Our teachers (who are all priestesses, by the way) spend many unpaid hours organizing, ... shopping for festivals ... etc. etc. Most of us also have 40 hr/wk full-time jobs, families and the need for some quiet time ...

It is not too much to expect to be paid for teaching classes.

So, no doubt about it, this money is for them, not for those they worship. So, how do they choose to answer the above criticism?

"We do not collectively worship one patheon (sic) or devote any public worship whatsoever to "The Lord & The Lady". That is not part of our tradition.

which they term "Wiccan", nevertheless. But, in a little bit, they will go on to say that

"I suppose if you had to catagorize the Temple's brand of Wicca, you could call us Earth-centered Ceremonial Magicians. Our public worship is directed to the 4 Elements and to Spirit."

If you worship it, it is a deity. So, yes, they do worship a common set of deities as a group, ie. a pantheon, it merely isn't an anthropomorphic or an all-encompassing listing for the individual members, necessarily. (They may add divinities of their own, in their private devotions). And yes, by their own account, they are as the servant, mentioned in the analogy above.

So, what of their defense, that they already do so much on behalf of the Temple, that a little payment is their due? Our response is, that if that is really the issue, then this would seem to be an undesirable way of addressing it. This policy redistributes the cost for compensation for services from the current membership (who enjoy the full benefit of said services), to prospective members (who are finding out along their very expensive way what the tradition actually is, whether or not it is right for them, and who might be judged unsuitable enroute), the latter including people who might never become members and might never enjoy many of those services themselves. To an extent, such a system is going to be a religiously oriented Ponzi scheme, and the more selective the group becomes, the more unjust this aspect of the process will be.

So, if you're going to pay the clergy, a more honest way to do so is to have the congregation pay them a stipend, just as so many churches and synagogues (all of whom are legally "not for profit" as well) have, for centuries. But how much better to have the membership share in the work (like running errands to Kinkos, to borrow an example), so that the clergy won't be so overburdened in the first place - allowing all to serve those worshipped and their own congregation, as well.

Having to bear the burdens created by the satisfaction of their desires also will do a lot to keep the desires of the membership reasonable. Allowing those burdens to be shifted makes it practical for the congregation to ask for unreasonably much (like, say, the hiring of professional musicians), often, in effect, by preying on the desperation and occasional naivite of the alienated young person or social outsider, seeking for a sense of belonging and answers that the established churches have grown too rigid and too timid to provide. This is exploitive, it is not what religion is about, and it gives Paganism a bad name.

It may be convenient to shift one's burdens onto the shoulders of another, but it is not honorable and it makes for bad policy.

Worst of all, it corrupts the faith. One can make good money by teaching people what they want to hear, instead of what they need to know. We have said that teaching religion is not like teaching engineering. We'll say it again. It's different, because religion teaches us about how to live and is a source of the basic principles that motivate us as we teach, and do, all else. Religion is different, because of the emotions it creates and the resistance those emotions often inspire in those who hold them, to any thought running contrary to their desired expectations.

To corrupt it is to corrupt everything the believer touches. Remove the money from the equation, and you've removed most of the temptation, both conscious and subconscious, to teach anything but that which one honestly believes. But if you leave it in, you're left with the fact that in religion, honesty may cost you a lot in the short term, without ever winning it back. "Magick" or "prayer" are unlike technology, in that when the latter works, there is no doubt. So, an engineering professor who rubber stamps his student's ignorance, enjoys popularity but briefly - until the machines his misguided pupils create fail to work. But an ill chosen spiritual path takes longer to work its harm and the damage is not as easily seen. Those who pander, in matters of faith, may stay in business for decades.

Even if one should consciously choose to stay honest ... it is so much easier to say that which people want to hear, that one's guard may easily drop as bad arguments and poor judgments slip past. In matters so subjective and instinct driven as this, far better to put temptation out of one's way. Far better, not to reinforce the customs that allow those less honest than one to flourish and gain influence, merely by being able to afford to be so obtrusively visible.

But, what of the question of the disrespect shown to deity, and the possible defense that plenty is being done for deity for free, as they've suggested? We'd be inclined to ask those offering such a defense, if they really believe in their faiths. If the god is sitting there, inert and unresponsive, or isn't even there at all while we try reach up to him in spirit, so he can hear our praise, perhaps one has a point. But, if we believe in what we are doing, then we believe that the gods repay our efforts in their own ways, as they work in our hearts, and in our lives. How ungrateful of us to ask them to turn a profit for us in the bargain, as well.

We wonder about the sincerity of those who would. Much as we have to wonder about the sincerity of someone who would offer the threefold law as an argument for spending money at her place (claiming that the universe will reimburse one three-fold). As if spending money on her temple was what defined goodness itself! Our point of view - if you spend your $400 (or more) here, you've made an unwise investment. Real spiritual leaders do not ask you to pay them for their leadership. They know better.

We guess that one could say that reading that argument resulted in a sea change in how we viewed the Temple. Before we seeing it, we thought in terms of someone perhaps meaning well and seeking nothing more than fair play, but having not thought out the implications of what she was saying. Maybe being a little misguided. That would be OK. Everyone is occasionally misguided. That's why friends share advice. But when we see someone write something along the lines of "give us your $400, and the universe will help you get back $1200", we are left with grave doubts about the integrity of the person making such a claim.

Some will look at this review and think that we're being kind of mean here, especially to someone who was being so friendly in the second letter. Well, let us begin by noting that out of the dozens of groups here, this is the only of the few to get a completely negative evaluation. For that matter, there are only three that we have expressed serious reservations about, in total. So, we're not exactly swinging the axe wildly. Let us note that our conception of what their outlook is, is taken directly from the words of their own contact person, as listed in PaganDoorway at the time of our initial writing (January 21, 2000), and was not rooted in any sort of speculation.

As for kindness - we have a pretty good idea of when friendliness is sincere, and when someone is trying to trying to get us to "go along to get along", and this effort was not subtle. It is not our job to be liked, anyway. Just to be honest. We expect the same from you in return.

Click here to return to The Prima Nocturne Incident.