Previous Next Previous Next New Reply Forward Delete Inbox Home
From: Tamara Siuda Number: 341223
To: DEMIPAGAN Date: 2/22/01 12:39 AM
Subject: RE: The Agora listing business Reference: None
Read: 2/22/01 9:11 AM Private: Yes
Conference: Private E-Mail Attachment: None
AddressBook: Add Sender Add Recipient
View Mode: Standard Text Web Headers
Em hotep, Antistoicus!
And thank you very much for writing back. I'll include commentary interspersed with yours. Since I'm not sure if your email will cut off if I put it all in one big piece, I'll keep it divided into threes as it was originally.
Looking forward to the discussion.
Tamara
> .. -----Original Message-----
> .. From: Antistoicus
> .. Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 12:48 PM
> .. To: Tamara Siuda
> .. Subject: The Agora listing business
>
>
> .. I hope you'll pardon me if this is a little disjointed. Bad little
> .. hypoglycemiac that I am, I'm writing this BEFORE lunch, and I'm a
> .. little lightheaded, but I felt this was urgent.
Not a problem
Please don't starve yourself on my account!> .. First of all, I would have to say that I disagree in the friendliest
> .. possible way with your assertion that the House of Netjer is not a
> .. legitimate Egyptian Pagan group. On the contrary, judging from your
> .. web page, it seems the most legitimately Pagan group that I've seen
> .. to date. It is the Wiccan groups that I wish wouldn't be referred to
> .. as "Pagan". As a historian, I'm sure that you can appreciate my
> .. reasons for this.
> .. The term "Pagan" was first coined to describe the traditional,
> .. non-Judeo-Christian religions of the countries within the bounds of
> .. the Roman Empire. In crafting the Agora's definition of "Paganism",
> .. which you may find at
> ........ http://chipagan.freewebsites.com/defpagan.html
> .. I tried to capture what it was that those religions, and those
> .. TRADITIONAL religions subsequently classified as being Pagan, had
> .. in common. So, I would have to say that the House was included out
> .. of a respect for history, not because we were laboring under the
> .. misguided impression that you were practicing anything akin to Wicca.
> .. I do appreciate your complaint that the term "Pagan" has come to be
> .. equated with what you term "Neo-Pagan" groups, which I take to mean
> .. New Age and occult groups ... pardon me, I just ran out of space.
It's actually not a complaint so much as an acknowledgment that despite the best efforts of those who know what the word originally meant, such as yourself, it just doesn't mean that anymore to the average individual. You will also find that people tend not to read entire websites. Your definition notwithstanding, most people who read your site would consider my religion to be "akin" to the religions of the other groups you put on your site, most of which bear about as much resemblance to my faith as does Judaism (which is to say very little and in many cases, completely opposite).
It's difficult for us to deal with people who are "sent" to us and then protest very loudly that we "aren't Pagan"; they feel they've been misled. I generally want to help people to avoid wasting their time, so we don't use the term to describe us, whether or not it might ever have been a relevant label. Another reason, of course, is that "Pagan" has been given a very distinct meaning by Holy Mother Church, and I do not believe those religions like my own that predate Rome need be defined by Her.
This being said, I also wanted to point out that while you insist you classified us as Pagan out of a respect for historical religions, you then left a whole lot of other "Pagans" out; another reason why I question our inclusion. Had you included Chicago's Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Native American churches and my fellow African traditionalists (Vodou, Santeria/Ifa, etc.) in your "Pagan" groups...I probably never would've suggested to Rev. Craig that he write you!
We do not feel a need to be
considered alternative or esoteric. We are what we are, and tend to try to
avoid being pigeonholed, particularly into labels that have wide meaning
like "pagan" does these days. (continued in next letter)Previous Next Previous Next New Reply Forward Delete Inbox Home
Previous Next Previous Next New Reply Forward Delete Inbox Home
From: Tamara Siuda Number: 341665
To: DEMIPAGAN Date: 2/22/01 1:20 AM
Subject: RE: Agora listing, ... Reference: None
Read: 2/22/01 10:29 AM Private: Yes
Conference: Private E-Mail Attachment: None
AddressBook: Add Sender Add Recipient
View Mode: Standard Text Web Headers
Continued....
> .. -----Original Message-----
> .. (Sorry, cheap e-mail account)
No problem...I never saw an email account do that before! Can you use hotmail or something to get around it? It must be really obnoxious to deal with!!
> .. As a non-wiccan Hellenic Pagan, I am painfully aware of the
> .. differences in philosophy between Reconstructionists and the New
> .. Age. The lack of reverence for both deity and the value of truth
> .. widespread through the latter is something I have written about at
> .. length, in great exasperation.
>
> .. The Agora was written by committee, and obviously not very well, if
> .. you were left with the impression that we viewed the reports we
> .. were getting as being gospel truth. On the contrary, I made it
> .. quite clear to the rest that the listing was to start with
> .. Herodotus' disclaimer. I'm sure you'll recall it. After he recalls
> .. some fantastic tale, he'll state "I don't know whether these reports
> .. are true, I merely repeat what I have heard", or something like that.
>
> .. I'll have to go back, and look at that page. Apparently, somebody
> .. didn't listen to me. If this is the case, then I am very sorry for
> .. what you had to see, and it will be corrected.
I'll have to go back and look at it too. Remember what I said about the average person not reading websites?
I found your site after someone
else found it doing a search on House of Netjer-related sites. I only read
the relevant information (that is, what pertained to the House) as I didn't
feel a need to read anything else. While I certainly didn't feel (and still
do not, really) that presenting information about any group's "reputation"
is fair or useful if you haven't actually talked to the group first, because
you did state that these things were "reputations" and "reports," nothing
was legally libelous, it was just taking on what I would personally consider
a rather unfair assumption that you didn't need to interact with us before
passing along the information as even possibly correct. (For the record, we
never had ANY intention of filing suit. I have no money (I spent it all on
grad school, and THAT was all loans! ) and I also believe that people
should be entitled to their opinions without lawyers walking all over them.)> .. For the record, the reports came to us from a group with which you
> .. may have some familiarity : the "Blessed Village Shrine", of Bob
> .. Loomis and Frank (and groups closely allied to them). Given my own
> .. experiences with that crowd, I find your story very, very easy to
> .. believe. I've had a remarkably similar experience with him, and
> .. likewise decided to wash my hands of them. Look, if the accounts
> .. have seemed one sided, it was never because we only wished to cover
> .. one side, but because we never got to meet the other side.
The Blessed Village Shrine was founded right about the time, or very soon after, my departure from the community, so I am not familiar with it directly. I do have familiarity with Frank and with Bob, as part of the work with the aforementioned PLC. I had believed that our departure from the PLC and the community as a whole was, if not completely amicable, on the ground of mutual benefit, as we were leaving a place where we were beginning to feel most unwelcome. It is apparent to me now that it must not have been, which is too bad.
And on that you "never got to meet the other side," you never asked
[Speaking of "meetings" -- in relation to this shady description on the site
of your having been "visited incognito" by Craig, which I find very
implausible (he doesn't live anywhere near Chicago and hasn't in almost a
decade), I wonder if you've *really* been duped by whomever. We do have
photographs, some of which include Rev. Schaefer, on our kemet.org website
under the "Events" area. Please let me know if that's him. I do not
tolerate illegal acts in my priesthood; at the same time, I'm sure Craig
would love to know if he really does have an evil twin out there terrorizing
complete strangers. ](continued further)
Previous Next Previous Next New Reply Forward Delete Inbox Home
Previous Next Previous Next New Reply Forward Delete Inbox Home
From: Tamara Siuda Number: 341863
To: DEMIPAGAN Date: 2/22/01 1:43 AM
Subject: RE: (Finishing the Agora note) Reference: None
Read: 2/22/01 11:25 AM Private: Yes
Conference: Private E-Mail Attachment: None
AddressBook: Add Sender Add Recipient
View Mode: Standard Text Web Headers
Continued....
>.. -----Original Message-----
> .. We had been about to request that we be allowed to visit the House,
> .. when our page over at Freewebsites was hacked. This happened within
> .. an hour of our writing to Rev. Schaefer. By an intriguing coincidence,
> .. it also happened within an hour of our writing about the whole thing
> .. to Frank, who apparently is a self-styled "Erisian". We were
> .. also told that you were filing suit against us, and all of a sudden,
> .. a personal visit didn't sound like such a good idea. As a graduate
> .. student, I know that I couldn't afford either the time or the money to
> .. fight off a suit, and it didn't seem like a good thing to risk.
If we were filing suit against you, this is the first I've heard of it
Certainly I do not wish for people to speak ill of me, nobody does. And
nobody wishes to be accused of crimes they didn't commit. But I have
neither the money nor the inclination to try and shut up people who are
entitled to their own opinions. Speaking to you, like this, is infinitely
less expensive and more profitable. I'd rather you understood me than a
lawyer forced you to be nice. > .. How naive and trusting we were, in those days. What we didn't
> .. appreciate was that our lines of communication had already been
> .. corrupted, in support of the "elders". Later, we got to see the
> .. ever-trustworthy Frank misquote and pass along false rumors in
> .. abundance. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did the hack himself,
> .. just for the sheer pleasure of the discord it caused.
I have no idea, as I haven't spoken directly to Frank in at least five years; I just don't have anything to do with those circles anymore. I do believe that I saw him in South Africa at the Parliament last year, though I wasn't sure it was him since I hadn't seen him in so long. Some of our South African members have stated that he's been back since and visited with some of the interfaith communities they are part of, but there has been no direct contact between us. You'd probably have to talk to him to find out. I can tell you that I do not believe anyone here had the ability, the talent, or really even the inclination to do such a thing. Any press is good press.
If we were so intent on shutting you up, giving you a reason to dislike us would backfire and cause you to be even louder, wouldn't it? And as I have said before, I believe you're entitled to your opinion. I wrote in the hope that you might be interested in expanding it a little before finalization, that's all.
> .. OK, I could go on with this story all day, but I'm probably putting
> .. you to sleep.
Not really. What you're doing is getting my sympathy. Parts of your story sound all too familiar, and for what it's worth, I'm sorry someone else had to go through that too.
> .. Suffice it to say, I've had similar enough experiences
> .. with the "community" to find your account very believable. I am
> .. very sorry to hear about your experiences on the Pagan leadership
> .. council, and subsequent betrayal. I know how that feels. Trying to
> .. get a new newsletter going for these same people, won me the reward
> .. of watching one of the established groups try to pull a hostile
> .. takeover of the Shrine, and then harass the new membership into
> .. departing, when they discovered that I wasn't going to "play ball",
> .. and let them turn the Shrine into another Wiccan group, with them
> .. in charge. Very annoying. The Shrine now gets to re-establish itself.
I wish you well in your re-establishment. One learns very quickly in Chicago, I can say. May your experience serve you well as you learn to balance your personal relationship with Deity to serving those around you. It's not always an easy thing to do, especially as in my case, where your final decision becomes that you have no choice but to cut your losses and go away.
> .. If I ever drop by, and see the House for myself, firsthand, I will
> .. be delighted to HONESTLY report on what I see. Until then, all that I
> .. can do is seek to report the rumors in a balanced fashion.
> ..................... Respectfully yours, Antistoicus
Couldn't you find a couple of positive ones? ::grins::
Seriously. Most of our work is now on the Internet, with online boards, chat rooms and rituals in private setup; the Chicago-area priesthood and members almost all have two jobs at the moment and sadly we get together rather infrequently in the flesh at the moment, though that is changing... If you'd like, I could ask the organizers if you could be invited to the next Chicago get-together, on March 25. While it will be primarily fellowship-oriented in function, it'd give you a good opportunity to visit with some of the locals (and some who will be coming from further away), most of the priesthood, the evil hacker Rev. Craig (grin), and myself. Generally, as I do not permit the religion to proselytize or appear to be doing so, our functions are closed to the public, but in your case I think we could make an exception.
I really, really appreciate the letters back. It's nice to know that someone is interested in our story.
Tamara
PS: in my letter which you referenced on the page (I see that you're rewriting it, and I appreciate that too), you took out my e-mail at the beginning to protect my privacy, yet left it in at the bottom
Would you
mind removing it in both places? It's a private email, actually. The
general one is [email protected]. You might also talk to Rev. Craig if
you're not afraid to (I'm grinning as I write that...our first reaction to
reading about his supposed hacking exploits was laughter at how ridiculous
it sounded, followed by the sobering reality that someone might actually
believe he'd do something like that). Craig can be reached at (address deleted).Previous Next Previous Next New Reply Forward Delete Inbox Home
Click here to return to "Meeting the Pharoah".