By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The 850th anniversary celebration of Glasgow’s burgh status excluded Pagan and Humanist representatives due to objections from Catholic and Church of Scotland leaders. Archbishop William Nolan and Rev Jan Mathieson threatened to withdraw unless the Pagan and Humanist speakers were removed. This exclusion sparked concern from Interfaith Glasgow and the Scottish Pagan Federation, highlighting a lack of inclusivity in the event held at Glasgow Cathedral. The Humanist Society of Scotland criticized the decision, pointing to past instances where humanists participated in high-profile religious events. Consequently, the incident has raised questions about interfaith dialogue and the appropriateness of holding such events in religious spaces.
Read the original article here
Pagans being banned from speaking at a city celebration after objections from Christian leaders highlights a concerning issue: the erosion of religious freedom when it impacts minority faiths. The incident, occurring in Scotland, a nation with a significant Pagan population, underscores the hypocrisy often found when dominant religious groups wield their influence to suppress others. The fact that Paganism is the fourth largest religion in Scotland makes this exclusion particularly egregious, raising questions about the city’s commitment to inclusivity and equal representation.
The argument that this action wasn’t “very Christian-like” reflects the common sentiment that such exclusionary behavior contradicts the core tenets of many Christian teachings. Many commenters pointed out the irony of Christian leaders objecting to Pagan speakers, given the historical borrowing of numerous traditions and festivals from pagan roots – Christmas, Easter, and even New Year’s Day are cited as examples. This historical context fuels the outrage expressed online, with several commentators mocking the apparent selective amnesia regarding Christianity’s origins.
The intense rivalry between Catholics and Protestants in Glasgow, particularly the sectarianism associated with the Old Firm Derby, adds a complex layer to this conflict. Some argue that the city’s long history of religious division makes the exclusion of Pagans even more disheartening; a situation where religious tolerance is seemingly selectively applied. The hypocrisy of this situation is further compounded by the fact that many Christian practices and symbolism are directly derived from pagan traditions. The suggestion to feed some clergy to the old gods reflects a level of frustration and anger at the perceived injustice.
Many commentators question the motivations of the Christian leaders involved, suggesting a potential abuse of power and an attempt to maintain a dominant religious narrative within the community. The assertion that some believe “freedom of religion” only applies to Christians reveals a deeper issue of religious intolerance. The call to “tax all churches” represents a broader frustration with the perceived influence and privilege held by established religious institutions.
The statement from the director of Interfaith Scotland expressing a preference for the controversy to be downplayed highlights a potential problem within interfaith dialogue: a reluctance to address uncomfortable realities. While promoting peaceful relations between faiths is important, ignoring instances of discrimination undermines the effectiveness of such efforts. The lack of public acknowledgement and direct engagement with the issue suggests a failure of leadership and a prioritizing of appearances over addressing the core issue of fairness and religious freedom.
The historical context cannot be ignored. For centuries, pagan traditions were suppressed and marginalized by the rise of Christianity. To see a similar pattern repeated today, albeit in a different form, is deeply troubling. The fact that this occurred in the UK, a nation often associated with religious tolerance, is particularly striking. The pervasive belief that this is a repetition of historical patterns of religious oppression is a poignant observation.
This incident serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle for religious equality. The argument that if freedom of religion doesn’t protect minority views, it’s not truly freedom of religion highlights the fundamental flaw in the actions of the Christian leaders. While some individuals argue that this isn’t a widespread issue and that the vast majority of people are not prejudiced against other faiths, the incident itself suggests otherwise. This is about more than just one celebration; it’s about ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, feel safe, respected, and included in their community. The ongoing debate emphasizes the need for clear and consistent policies that safeguard religious freedom for all, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.