Note : as the reader can see, Miss Siuda has not been
quoted out of context in our response.
Viewing message <[email protected]>
From: Tamara L. Siuda ([email protected])
Subject: Re: The Cat and Tom Show, Here on Alt.Pagan
Newsgroups: alt.pagan, alt.magick, soc.culture.haiti
Date: 2002-05-17 14:53:42 PST
Em hotep, Joseph:
To reiterate, as I have also posted in an "Open Letter to Joseph":
1. Rev. Craig Schaefer had nothing to do with yesterday's letter. He
doesn't even know this is going on yet, as I haven't spoken with him
since yesterday.
2. The original discussion was about whether or not we considered
Vodou Pagan (we don't). How did this then become your critique of
whether or not Kemetic Orthodoxy is Pagan, and whether or not our
opinion, which is that it isn't, is correct?
(snipped)
> In a previous post, I responded to Tamara Siuda's spokeperson (who would
> be Craig Schaefer, the seal bearer for the House) who wrote :
Rev. Craig is one of many spokespeople for the Kemetic Orthodox House
of Netjer. He was not the writer of the post you are taking apart;
that was dictated by me to an assistant and is representative of my
own words and opinions only.
(snipped)
> Now, how do you know I'm telling the truth about what Tammy Siuda said ?
> You don't even know me. Well, here's one way to resolve the mystery. Let's
> go visit their homepage. Oh, and look : here's a post by none other than
> Craig Schaefer himself, the 'man' whose job it is to be the spokesman
> for the House of Netjer. You can find it for yourself by visiting
> the House of Netjer webboard archives at
>
> http://www.netjer.org/forums/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=qanda&Number
=5134
>
> Don't take my word for it, look for yourselves.
>
>
> : RevCSchaefer Administrator
> : (Kai-Imakhu)
> : 02/28/01 09:46 PM
> : 24.131.164.220
> : Re: Kemetic Orthodoxy Neo-Paganism Question [re: Mafdet]
> : > Does Kemetic Orthodoxy consider itself a part of the greater
> : > Neo-Paganism (ie Druidry, Asatru, Wicca) movement? Does it
> : > consider itself New Age or perhaps one of the Eastern Traditions
> : > (ie Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto)?
> : > I'm pretty sure it's not considered part of the mainstream
> : > religions. It falls under the definition for Alternative Religion
> : > (catchall term for Neo-Paganism, New Age and Eastern Traditions;
> : > pretty much anything that's not mainstream), but do its
> : > practitioners consider it part of it at all.
> : We do not call ourselves neo-pagans, pagans, or an 'alternative'
---------------------------------------------------------------
> : religion, as all three labels are essentially loaded judgments from
----------------------------------------------------------------
> : an external perspective; nor do we consider ourselves in solidarity
----------------------------------------------------------------
> : with other faiths who do accept those labels. The only "movement"
--------------------------------------------
> : we are a part of is the Kemetic Orthodox movement. Insofar as being
> : mainstream... Why not? Last I checked, Kemetic Orthodoxy is made up
> : of blue-collar folks and millionaires, moms and dads, children and
> : elderly...
> : That looks pretty mainstream to me. If you really want a category,
-----------------------------
> : this is an African religion (or, if you want a broader grouping, an -
---------------------------------------------------------------
> : Eastern religion). Anything beyond that just muddies the waters and
----------------------------------------------------------------
> : implies connections which may not exist.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> : Ankh Udja Seneb,
> : Rev. Craig A. Schaefer, Hem Bast
> : Sedjauty, House of Netjer
>
>
> The ellipses are his, the underlining is mine. What you are seeing here,
> is the entire post.
This is indeed the correct post, and I agree with what Rev. Craig
wrote.
(snipped)
> Now, you're telling me that despite the fact that you've just insisted, in
> this passage, that the House IS practicing an African religion, and that
> in the previous one, in effect, that the House wasn't practicing a Pagan
> one, that the position that Traditional African religions are Pagan is
> logically compatible with the House's positions ? Uh, huh.
>
> I trust that you know what a syllogism is. I'm about to set one up, using
> some of your own working assumptions, and this new assumption which you
> say is compatible with those of the House :
>
> All who are Kemetic Orthodox, practice an African
> Traditionalist religion.
>
> All who practice an African Traditionalist religion, are Pagan
>
> Thus : All who are Kemetic Orthodox, are Pagan
>
> But : You have already made clear that Kemetic Orthodoxy, the
> religion of the House of Netjer, isn't a Pagan religion.
>
> Therefore : introducing this new assumption, that African
> Traditionalists are Pagan, creates a logical inconsistency;
> the new assumption is not logically compatible with the ones
> which the House had previously expressed.
>
> Craig, you knew that I was a Mathematician. Did you think that I wasn't
> going to pick up on this ? Boxing the opposition into a logical corner,
> is a fundamental part of my job. For God's sake, man, this is Basic
> Logic 100. Do you enjoy looking foolish ?
I (not Craig, he had nothing to do with this) don't enjoy looking
foolish any more than you do, but I don't think I look foolish here,
only misunderstood from your perspective. Your syllogism would work
fine, except that I (and I set the teaching of the Kemetic Orthodox
movement as its founder and Nisut) do NOT believe African Traditional
Religions are pagan, either, nor do I believe I have ever said so.
A person who does believe ATRs are pagan, would indeed be likely to
follow and define Kemetic Orthodoxy as pagan. They are entitled to do
so, and in fact some of our membership do prefer to consider
themselves part of the Pagan spectrum. That's their choice. I myself
do not believe ATRs to be part of the Pagan spectrum, and fully admit
my definition of "pagan" is different from yours. As to who is
"right", I don't believe that question only has one answer. I think
that all religious movements should be permitted to define themselves
as religion is a personal matter even when organized groups are
involved.
(snip)
< clearly implying that I was lying.
Nope. Clearly implying that if you put words into someone else's
mouth, you should expect them to come and correct you if you are
incorrect. It's possible to be in error without lying. I wanted to
correct what I perceived to be an error, and I did not attribute any
malicious intent to the mistake. Should I have? Your subsequent
behavior is making me wonder.
(snip intro to my own words on a kemet.org FAQ):
> " The concept of Netjer bears some similarity to that of another
> indigenous African religion: the "Orisha" of Nigeria's Ifa religion,
> and to the concept of "Lwa" in the Afro-Caribbean syncretic religion
> of Vodou. ...
> Because Kemetic society predates the "Western" mode of thought that
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> is the basis of most modern religions, it is difficult to explain
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Kemetic religion within a Western framework. Kemetic Orthodoxy falls
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> neatly between a number of dichotomies Westerners commonly draw in
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> discussing religion. It recognizes that the human intellect is
> -------------------
(snip)
> Again, this passage is hardly ambiguous. Let's take a look at that
> underlined section :
> " Because Kemetic society predates the "Western" mode of thought "
>
> ie. the Western world view
>
> " that is the basis of most modern religions, it is difficult to
> explain Kemetic religion within a Western framework. Kemetic
> Orthodoxy falls neatly between a number of dichotomies Westerners
> commonly draw in discussing religion. "
>
> Craig, it's a little hard to argue that Tammy isn't calling Kemetic
> Orthodoxy a non-Western religion.
Where was that argued? It is a non-Western religion, it's always been
stated as such. The discussion you started this flamewar over was
about Vodou -- not Kemetic Orthodoxy. Or did I miss a post? And why
are you continuing to call me "Tammy?" If it's designed to annoy me
or to give me disrespect, that takes away from the strength of your
arguments. It's not my name.
(snipped)
> Let's squeeze that one down : "Paganism", by Siuda's own words, is a
> Western Category, which Kemetic Orthodoxy would fit very poorly into.
> Tammy Siuda, your nisut, the very person on whose spiritual authority your
> church and your own individual clerical status rests, has objected to the
> use of the word "Pagan" to describe Kemetic Orthodoxy. Not New Age, not
> Neopagan, the specific word she objected to when she wrote to me was
> "Pagan", at a time when the Neopagan and Traditional Pagan listings in the
> Agora had already been seperated, and the House being listed along with
> Neopagan groups would not have even been an issue. And, as I'm sure that
> you've already guessed, I held onto copies of most of the mail she sent
> me, and they'll be going up, too.
> Let it never be said that I'm not thorough.
I have absolutely no arguments with these statements. They are true.
I do not believe Kemetic Orthodoxy is pagan, and I never have, though
I am aware that some people do believe it is so. However, again, this
is drawing away from the original post, which was supposedly about my
statement on Vodou, not on Kemetic Orthodoxy.
> In my correspondence with her, I did raise the issue of original meaning,
> "Pagan" initially referring to Non-Judeo-Christian religions found within
> the Roman Empire, of which Egypt was a part. If I did not know you, I
> would be astounded at the breakdown in communications which must have
> occurred in the House, for you to be denying what your own nisut had said,
> when speaking behalf of your own group. Tammy Siuda quite rightly pointed
> out why my initial approach, in defining "Paganism", was a wrongheaded one
> - it was a category invented by a post-pharaonic people, who didn't
> necessarily understand, or even want to understand, Kemetic Orthodoxy
> when placing it in this category.
This is my position, yes (that "pagan" is a word that is newer than
Kemet and therefore not a useful one in my mind). The letter written
yesterday did not deny any of this in the least. It was speaking about
your attributing a comment to me about Vodou, not Kemetic Orthodoxy,
two very separate religious traditions.
> When I am actually wrong, I do appreciate being corrected, so long as the
> correction is honest and sensible, two things that Siuda's initial
> responses were. What I don't appreciate, is this online game of "Red
> Rover", in which you and Tammy write to me, succeed in winning me over to
> your point of view on a subject, and then use my online support of that
> position as a pretext for attacking my credibility in public. I even less
> appreciate the nakedly dirty politics that I'm seeing, when you pull a
> stunt like this in order to defuse criticism that you've already been
> given fair warning is coming.
Joseph, who attacked your credibility? I corrected your mistake, that
Cat was a teacher of mine -- and then pointed out that my assertion
that Vodou is not Pagan is a personal belief, and that those who are
offended by it might need to understand that I define pagan
differently -- the way I define it most people call "Neo-pagan."
There is no dirty politics, no stunts. There WAS a correction of a
mistake you made, which I would've asked to be done no matter who said
it -- and in fact, until I read the post I didn't even know it was you
who had made the mistake, so this was not a case of "let's go get
Joseph." You are seeing knives in the hands of people who have none.
Neither I nor anyone associated with me bears you any ill will, though
from the tone of these letters, it sounds like you certainly bear us
some.
> Craig, that stinks. But, then again, in general, so do your ethics, as
> we get to see at
Ad hominem, and nothing to do with the discussion of my letter.
Doubly so because Craig had nothing to do with any of this, though he
certainly seems to be a target of your ire.
(snipped)
> Your cowardly willingness (as well as that of Stephanie Cass), to roll
> over on somebody, merely for having come under attack, and to let the
> loudest trolls on your board define reality, could not better be
> illustrated, than it is by the absurd incident chronicled at the above
> urls. Far from being worthy to claim clerical credentials, you aren't
> even worthy to call yourself a man.
Does screaming on the Usenet "define reality"? Does the Usenet make
people whose opinions differ from the moderators go away? The House
of Netjer boards are just that -- public. We permit anyone to come
and say whatever they please so long as it remains within our posting
policies, which are openly presented at the opening of the boards.
Our policies revolve around respectful behavior, not "only letting the
people who are right post." You came to our boards and dredged up old
arguments that had been dead for over a year (had you looked at the
dates of those posts you might've noticed they were quite dead). You
got into an argument with another member of the board with whom you
had a personal disagreement. The board moderator, Rev. Stephanie,
asked BOTH of you to cease and desist. You left the boards.
This is the history. I agree, the whole thing was (and your continued
distress about it long after the fact is) absurd; both of you only
needed a deep breath to step back from the argument; after being asked
to post productively rather than continue personally attacking another
person, you could've continued to be a welcome addition to our boards.
You're still allowed to sign in as well -- we did not ban you, we
simply asked you to remember our posting policy. (We also asked the
other person to do the same). We do not censor people on those boards
for other than obscenity; they are places for people to talk in a free
manner. People are entitled to their own opinions.
(snipped)
> Your 'nisut', Tammy Siuda, claims a status which some would refer to as
> being that of a prophet. She claims to carry within her the "kingly ka",
> that of Heru, which would sort of make her the embodiment of courage and
> justice itself. Justice is one thing that I've never even seen attempted
> on those boards, and as for courage - please ! I've never claimed to be
> especially brave, much less the embodiment of kingly courage, but even I
> can handle my own e-mail. Judging from what I saw in that incident, Siuda
> can't, feeling the need to hide between you and Stephanie Cass, the
> quivering twin towers of jello, in the 'city of God' that is the House.
Last time I checked, real debate didn't continually sink to ad hominem
levels, and I will not sink to it with you. I don't think you realize
just how large this organization is. My "quivering twin towers of
jello" do work that I do not have the time to do myself, as I am
rather busy with the spiritual work of this temple. They do so with
my blessing and with much experience. I don't understand what sort of
"justice" you wanted on our boards that you didn't get, other than
that you decided that some person was too crazy to be on our boards,
and we didn't immediately throw him offline at your request. When you
run your own message boards, you will be welcome to let in and throw
out whomever you like. My boards are open to anybody who can speak
civilly to anyone else; whether or not they're "right" is secondary.
The boards in which you were having those discussions are not official
teaching boards and therefore we do not "police" them for
Joseph-acceptable opinions.
> If a man such as you can be the 'king's' defender, what does that say
> about the courage of the king ?
Joseph, if you have a problem with me, take it up with me. You have
met Rev. Craig once as well, and this man does NOT have anything to do
with the post that happened yesterday, nor to my knowledge has he ever
done anything unkind towards you (unless I consider his asking you and
another person trolling our boards to stop arguing unkind), yet you
seem obsessed with attacking him.
> If the spirit of a being like Heru had
> come anywhere near Tammy Siuda, she would be more like him than the common
> man, not less. As is the usual fate of a mathematician, as I box the
> opposition into a logical corner, I find that I am myself boxed into a
> conclusion, whether I like it or not. In this case, I definitely don't
> like it, but the facts allow me no escape. Tamara Siuda is no prophet, and
> if she truly believes she is one, then she is deluded.
> "Her holiness", indeed. She's no holier than our paper boy.
Holiness is relative, and we've all got it. :) I don't consider
myself any holier than a paper boy. A paper boy performs a valuable
service to his fellow people, and that's something I also try to do.
Perhaps you might also benefit from trying to be more open to
accepting others, rather than ascribing to them hatred and disdain and
conspiratorial motives.
Joseph, I am heartfully sorry that you have taken what was meant to be
a routine "hey guys, be nice to each other" action on our web-boards
as a personal affront. I am additionally sorry that you have decided
we must all therefore be evil and nasty and whatever else you seem to
be attributing to us. I'm sorry that you took that away from your
interaction with us, as I had hoped it would be different. As I said
in my other letter, I was impressed with you when I met you, and am
very surprised things have gone this way. Perhaps it is the faceless
nature of Internet that makes enemies of strangers; perhaps this is
why my church spends less and less time in it as time goes by, and why
I will be removing myself from the Usenet now that I've said my piece.
I wish all of you well in your spiritual endeavors and apologize for
wasting bandwidth if you care not to read this.
-Tamara
Click here to return to the previous page (with commentary).