Your star in a circle ain't welcome on your memorial

[ebonlock]

via The RudePundit:

Another scrotum bludgeoning is courtesy of the Department of Veteran's Affairs, which, in case you didn't know, has a list of approved religious markers for headstones for dead soldiers for its cemeteries and memorials. Christian, Muslim, Serbian Orthodox, Tenrikyo, you die for your country, and the symbol of your faith can be displayed for all eternity on your grave. Fuck, if you're an atheist, they got a symbol for that - looks like a nuclear atom, but, what the hell, you know. Except if you're a Wiccan.

Yep, if you're a nature-worshippin' pagan, motherfucker, doesn't matter if you left half your internal organs festering on the hillsides of Afghanistan. Your star in a circle ain't welcome on your memorial. So when Wiccan soldier Patrick Stewart of Nevada died when his Chinook helicopter was shot down by an RPG, his family wanted to emblazon his plaque on the memorial wall for Nevada vets with the Wiccan pentacle. Turns out, though, for Veterans Affairs, freedom of religion means the agency decides how you're free to worship. They were told, "Nope. Not on the approved list. Go fuck a tree."

Sure, sure, this'll all be solved soon when the right forms go through the right offices and the right stamps are placed on the right documents, but, still, and all, is this censorship really something the government oughta be involved in at any level?

Comments

[forkmonkey.livejournal.com]

Okay, yeah, I can see some frustration that the Army doesn't already have the Wiccan pentagram on its list. But they do have a process to get it added, and they have not yet refused the request (that I can tell).

It's perfectly reasonable to have a process to get a symbol approved, if for no other reasons than to get an accurate master copy in a format they can use, and to ensure that they don't get a bunch of headstones with Calvin peeing on an American flag.

Yelling "discrimination" at this point strikes me as alarmist.

-F

-F

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

Er, you did read the last sentence in the post where he comments that he's sure it's an oversight and that after the correct forms have been filled out this'll be straightened out...right? But perhaps you saw something more "alarmist" in this post than I did? I certainly don't recall him "yelling 'discrimination'", but I suppose I could've missed that too.

Pointing out that a religion that is recognized by the military isn't yet allowed to put their religious symbol on the markers of soldiers who die in the service, is something that should strike most of us as inane, even assinine. We're not talking about Calvin pissing on a flag, we're talking about a pentacle, a recognized religious symbol. Maybe the RudePundit put it a bit strongly, but he is the RudePundit, it's what he does.

[elenderel.livejournal.com]

I picked up on the inconsistency of the military recognizing Wicca as a religion, yet the pentacle is not allowed on gravestones ... *shakeshead* Let's hope there's enough hue and cry over this that the process begins to rectify this situation. And that the military follows through in a timely manner. (All of which are essentially pie-in-the-sky hopes but hey, it gets me through the day.)

[forkmonkey.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read that sentence and it made me wonder why the hell he's fussing over it. Up to that point he makes it sound like a deliberate attempt to discriminate against Wiccans, which is pretty alarmist in my book.

And yeah, it's the grieving family who actually used the phrase "discrimination", but I can extend all manner of slack to them for lashing out insensibly. I don't give Rude as much slack.

There's no discrimination here, just bureaucracy.

-F

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

That's your take on it and you're certainly entitled to it, but I think Rude's just as entitled to his, and the family to theirs. You make discrimination sound like it's a 1/0 situation, either it is or it isn't and anyone who disagrees with your take on it is "alarmist". Which is shorthand for "their opinion doesn't count", it's a dismissive way to end a conversation but I can't say that it adds much beyond that.

[forkmonkey.livejournal.com]

It's not that at all, and I don't mean to be dismissive. Discrimination is very serious. In fact, when I first looked, I was alarmed, outraged, and ready to act. The armed forces telling adherents of a religion I respect deeply to "fuck a tree"? That's very alarming.

When I read more deeply, checking his source links, and learned that there was no discrimination that I could discern, beyond a little paperwork lethargy, my alarm changed to incredulity. I felt teased, and I felt that a false-start had been made.

I don't think it's unreasonable to use the word "alarmist" in this case, and I don't think it is dismissive to do so. It's not shorthand for "their opinion doesn't count." I wouldn't have been alarmed if their opinion didn't count. Their opinion *did* count. They got me alarmed. Falsely alarmed, in my most terribly humble opinion.

[ebonlock.livejournal.com]

And now I get where you're coming from on this, but if you go back to your first comment I think you'll see my point. It *was* dismissive and meant to end the conversation right there. Can you see how I'd read that into your previous remarks and draw that conclusion? I am glad, though, that you stuck with it and actually explained your thinking here because it helped me see in the end that you didn't mean to come off that way at all, you were just annoyed at what you saw as a bit of a "swerve", so to speak.

[forkmonkey.livejournal.com]

"Can you see how I'd read that into your previous remarks and draw that conclusion?"

In retrospect, certainly. And likewise, thanks for the follow-through. :-)

-F