In my last column, I commented on the popular mindset within the Pagan Community that exercising good judgment is often seen as a bad thing, and I've been known to rant about the people who think they're entitled to get their way. Recently, a prime example of this was dropped in my lap.

In August, The Seeker Journal received a piece for submission on the subject of "Dark Ethics." The piece was not considered for publication because it isn't in keeping with the "Editorial Voice" of the magazine; the author's guidelines specifically state that they aren't interested in "material glorifying the 'left hand path'".

Last week, another person who identified himself as a "dark pagan" wrote that he was "slightly concerned" that the original article had been rejected. He launched into a short description of what "dark paganism" was, apparently in the hopes that it would change the editors' minds, and ended by suggesting there might be a "nasty and highly public lawsuit" if the original piece wasn't published.

It would be entertaining if it weren't for the fact that there are a lot of Pagans who would actually say that the editors of TSJ were wrong in rejecting the piece. The implication is that, in refusing to publish the article, the editors are oppressing those who hold that viewpoint. Only in the Pagan Community does this kind of logic get any serious consideration! Can you imagine someone telling The 700 Club that they were required to give equal airtime to every Christian sect and denomination?

Now, I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about "dark paganism", and (like most terms in the Pagan Community) there seem to be as many definitions of "dark paganism" and "Left Hand Path" as there are people who use the terms. However, the author of the e-mail's description of his particular path did not make me feel like running out and defending him. Allow me to quote a few points:

• "That which makes us LHP [Left Hand Path] is that we will do what needs to be done, without stopping to consider nonsense like 'karmic retribution' or anything like that."
• "Most of us have had our trust completely destroyed by 'light pagans' lying to us and using us. We don't do 'perfect love and perfect trust' unless someone proves to us over and over that they earn it."
• "We don't even particularily (sic) care about others, except in certain circumstances."
• "...we are still pagans, and we expect and demand the respect given to light pagans."

I don't claim that I have the right to tell someone else what kind of path that they can follow, but I do have the right to say that I want nothing to do with this kind of person. He dismisses a central part of my faith ("karmic retribution") as "nonsense", implies that "light pagans" are liars and users, and yet expects and demands respect from us. Even if I were to ignore such puerile behavior, I'm also highly uncomfortable with the "morality" he professes.

One of the things that brought me to Paganism is the belief that everyone is responsible for their own choices and actions, be they religious or secular. The notion that someone else can come along and tell me that you must embrace and support all Pagans and all Pagan Paths, regardless of your personal feelings about that person or that path, contradicts that basic belief.

In case you're wondering, Misti (TSJ's Managing Editor) didn't compromise her standards. TSJ will maintain its editorial voice, TSJ's readers will continue to have a magazine that reflects the values that drew them there in the first place, and the "dark pagan" who wrote the e-mail will be able to go off in his little corner and feel righteously oppressed because he wasn't allowed to force his opinion on others.

(Author's Note: For the record, while I am the webmaster of The Seeker Journal, as well as a regular contributing author, I don't make editorial policy and I am speaking for myself and not the magazine.)

(Afternote: About a year after this column was written, TSJ was contacted by another Dark Pagan who calmly and reasonably pointed out that the author's guidelines, through an accident of phrasing, unwitting made implcations about Dark Pagans that were, at the very least, unfair. The author's guidelines have been altered, and in the process, it was decided that intelligent and original articles on Dark Paganism (as opposed to shock-jock-style pieces) might be of interest after all. The guidelines no longer make any reference to Dark Paganism at all.)

© 2002 by Cather "Catalyst" Steincamp