#to be more inclusive; balanced 2 m/m and 2 f/f options. | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

witch-priestess · 5 years ago

Text

Wicca and Expanding Worship Beyond The Heteronormative: Queer Gods and How to Incorporate them Into Ritual

In my last post I proposed a new way to view Wicca, not as a heteronormative fertlity religion which can be exlusive to queer identities, but as a Nature religion which encompasses the All, and fertility as a facet of that. Humans are a wonderfully diverse group in our natures, including our gender, sex, and sexualities. We are a reflection of the multifarious Universe and a part of an enormous spectrum; it is only natural that the deities we worship and venerate in our rituals should be a reflection of that. Expanding and changing traditions can be daunting; the ideas presented here are from experimentation with the concept of venerating the Non-binary and Queer forms of the gods. I invite you to use these ideas and play with them in a way that works for you and your groups.

Last year I was working on writing the Beltane ritual for the group I lead as Priestess. One of the things I do when I write rituals is to look for ideas and inspiration from the internet and books at my disposal. From these resources I find a specific theme of a Sabbat that I want to emphasize as part of that year’s working. The theme for Beltane 2019 was Sacred Sensuality. As I explored the concept, jotting things down, bookmarking articles, and filing thoughts in my head I came across an article that really grabbed me, it was about inviting the Non-Binary Deities into your Beltane Circle, and included a call to do that. The group has members who are non-binary and LGBTQ+, including myself and co-leading priest, and this presented an affirming and inclusive way for us to connect with sacred sensuality. The words of the call and the poetry that Beachy used were palpable and captured the feelings and energy that fit the theme for the experience I wanted to create. When I told my Priest I wanted to use this non-binary call for our Beltane ritual, they were all for it, and I copied the words down. When we invoked the non-binary gods for our ritual their presence truly completed the circle. Wholeness enveloped me, the circle and worship was balanced, all things were present. I felt like I was represented in my worship in a way I had not been before. I knew in my bones that the non-binary beings needed to be present and venerated because of that visceral and immediate connection.

After that Beltane ritual, I kept the idea of the non-binary gods at the forefront of my mind. I was brainstorming ways to incorporate them into our rituals and worship, because I really wanted my group to experience wholeness and joy from the presence of deities that represented them. So, I presented options to my group on how we could incorporate them into our future rituals. Any changes to practices that are based in inclusivity need to have input and involvement from the people you want to include.

Before getting into the options to incorporate the deities in circle here are the terms I am using and their definitions to provide some clarity.

Deity-spiritual form that can be masculine, feminine, or non-binary. The gender of the dieties will be notated as M-masculine, F-feminine, NB-nonbinary.

Naming-invoking a deity and all they encompass by name. Ex: specifically calling Apollo, or Diana.

Aspecting- invoking attributes, function, and/or gender associated with the particular energy desired that could apply to several deities that claim those domains. Ex: Sun Lord, or Ruler of the Underworld, or Healing Moon Goddess.

Naming and Aspecting are not mutually exclusive. When Naming, usually, there is some aspecting, because there may be a specific attribute wanted in the circle, and some deities have several associations. In Aspecting there is occasionally naming because many deities can be connected to the facet invoked. The difference between Naming and Aspecting is the specificity of the invocation.

Invoking- calling upon a deific or elemental presence to be a part of your ritual or working.

Option 1) Invoke all three forms of deities (M/F/NB)-

Pros: both cis and non-binary folx are represented, there is a spectrum present, acknowledges the presence of these deities through a formalized invocation, it can be a simple addition.

Cons: for traditional or formalized invocations someone will need to be designated for this role, writing a new invocation, less flexibility in this format, and will not represent people attracted to the same-sex as well.

When invoking three forms, Naming deities is simpler than Aspecting. Aspecting can be done; however, which associations and attributes belong to each deific form invoked will need to be decided. Another thing to note about this option is placement in ritual which will vary based on personal comfort and tradition, invoking the N/B before the M/F or after are equally valid options.

Option 2) Invoke any pair of deities regardless of gender (F/F, M/M, F/M, NB/NB, M/NB, F/NB). Pros: this is flexible to Aspecting or Naming, the variety of combinations allows for representation for people with same-sex attraction, represents the spectrum of cis and NB, and lends itself to the traditional roles of priest and priestess, no additional pieces to the ritual, opportunity for creative pairings.

Cons: a circle could feel incomplete or out of balance.

The flexibility of invoking any pairing could make it harder to incorporate in a structured tradition.There is still an issue of placement. Invoking a same sex pair via Naming may make it difficult to decide which deity should be called first.This issue can be alleviated in an Aspecting invocation because it is more abstract. Which deity is invoked first will vary in each ritual and tradition; choose based on what makes sense to the group and what feels the most comfortable.

The Conclave of the Craft in public rituals has chosen Option 1, and they invoke the “All”, and the person designated for this invocation has changed, either as a specific caller or the person invoking the Ancestors also invokes the All before the M/F deities. I presented the options to my group with Naming and Aspecting as a separate choice under each type. The members chose Option 2, because they felt that deities are non-binary and genderless so we should call any pairing that makes sense to the energy of the circle, and Aspecting or Naming tailored to each ritual as needed. Having been in both types of rituals, I prefer the second option for flexibility, and as I run a small group, it is convenient that I do not have to assign another person to the invocation when building the circle for ritual.

One of the more interesting ways our group played with the latter option was at Samhain. My Priest and I called on the Psychopomp and Death for a mystery where the participants went to the underworld to speak to Death and honor their Ancestors. When we called on these energies we didn’t use gendered words.The Priest called on the Psychopomp as the “Reaper”, “Guide of Souls”, “Guardian of the Gates to the Underworld”. As Priestess I called upon Death, as the “Ruler of The Underworld”, “Keeper of the Dead”, the “Inevitable Fate for All”. We chose genderless Aspecting, because across the world there are psychopomps and death deities of all genders; Valkyrie and Mercury for example are both psychopomps, Ereshkegal of the Assyrian Myth and Hades of Hellenic Myth are equivalents, this allowed all participants to interact with the energies in a way that was most comfortable to them. We called the Psychopomp first because that is the first being you meet on the road to the underworld. Death existed before Psychopomps, circles are built to reflect the order of creation, and building to the being that existed first made sense. The Psychopomp, like the Masculine God in traditional circles and the role of the priest, acts as a protective barrier. Our decision was supported by our liturgy. Later, privately, for this ritual as part of the Mystery we evoked Destiny and Death in the form of Neil Gaiman’s Endless by using gendered language, and we released the evocation before returning to the rest of the ritual. Evoking is bringing a deity into yourself, so using Naming and specific aspects is important, because it is best to channel one presence at a time. We did the evoking privately so that the participants were still engaging with the non-gendered energies.

When it comes to incorporating new ideas and aspects into your rituals be sure to listen to the people you are wanting to include in your group, try several ways that make sense to your group and liturgy and develop a tradition that works for you. Ask for honest feedback on your rituals from the participants, and do some self feedback too. Often the “best” solution comes from trial and error and using “adequate” solutions first. Incorporating these changes does not have to be elaborate, when learning and trying new things, it is best to keep it simple at first and build from there. If you are looking for LGTBQ+ deities to incorporate into your practice feel free to explore the links below. These links talk about deities from multiple pantheons and are well researched. Most of all worship should be a connecting experience for everyone participating, including the leaders of the ritual, and being represented in the beings that are venerated allows everyone to find that. Blessed Be.

https://paleothea.blogspot.com/2008/03/transgender-myths-to-know.html

https://www.pride.com/entertainment/2017/9/11/52-queer-gods-who-ruled-ancient-history?fbclid=IwAR1KH1W4SahlP0tuLj0zehGwKmQYm9S0hUen-wBnWTvxZG3LWkzEwz6e14s

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dirtheartwitch/2019/04/invoke-queer-gods-beltane/

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/betweentheshadows/2014/11/queer-wicca/

5 notes · View notes

legit-scam-review · 6 years ago

Text

G20 Crypto Regulations Could Unleash Real Blockchain Change

Jonathan M. Padilla is a Schwarzman Scholar at Tsinghua University where he wrote the dissertation “New Regulations for the New Economy: A Proposal for the G20 on the Regulation of Cryptocurrency,” from which this article was adapted.

He has advised major e-commerce and natural resource companies on blockchain integration and has a background in government and politics.

In March of this year, G20 central bankers and finance ministers met in Buenos Aires to discuss everything from international trade to investment in global infrastructure. Among the topics covered was the regulation of cryptocurrency, which has attracted the growing attention of government regulators and political actors as blockchain adoption becomes more widespread and cryptocurrency markets gain a broader following.

Since then, the G20 has begun to intensely study ways to de-risk cryptocurrency markets and craft regulation that will not stifle the innovative potential of blockchain. While many entrepreneurs and investors in this space fear that compliance with government will hinder future growth, the reality is that engaged cooperation offers the best possible path toward a potential tipping point that accelerates adoption of blockchain technology by major enterprise-grade users and brings in far greater institutional investors.

With central bankers and finance ministers slated to discuss cryptocurrency this summer in Argentina and with the full G20 to meet in late November, action or inaction here will impact cryptocurrency markets. How the blockchain community chooses to engage between now and then has the potential to set the tone of how governments and entrepreneurs develop a long-term relationship.

As Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England and Chair of the G20’s Financial Stability Board, noted in March of 2018, blockchain has “the potential to improve efficiency and inclusiveness of both the financial system and the economy,” but unleashing this potential will require substantial work.

An ideal forum

The G20 was originally formed as a forum for finance ministers and central bank governors after the Asian debt crisis of 1997. It’s since become a body for cooperation among heads of state to address challenging economic issues of the time.

In the wake of the Great Recession, the G20 created the Financial Stability Board to better coordinate prevention of and coherent responses to financial instability. Since its inception, the FSB has been critical to enhancing banking regulations through the Basel Accords, an opt-in transnational framework designed to strengthen the resiliency of global financial systems, and to promoting good economic governance policies.

The G20, along with the FSB, provides the best opportunity for a global regulatory framework as they 1) convene the most relevant stakeholders and decision makers, 2) can craft a framework that is transnational in scope, and 3) are already studying cryptocurrencies and their impacts to a number of different fields.

Any regulatory framework will require cooperation from heads of government who possess the political power to move legislation and balance domestic considerations, from finance and economic ministers who have the technical ability to craft good policy and execute laws, and from central bankers who have a huge impact on the regulation of commercial banking within their respective states.

Additionally, the G20 can ensure whatever framework does take shape is transnational in nature as issues such as tax evasion, money laundering, and investor protection transcend borders. Such a framework would also minimize the risk posed by regulatory arbitrage to nations where firms can exploit loopholes in order to gain advantages based on geography.

Lastly, with G20 member states and FSB staff already working on these issues, there is attention, focus, and a desire to craft policy that will not stifle innovation.

The agenda

Different nations have taken different approaches to the regulation of cryptocurrencies and related fields. While a comprehensive framework is likely years away, there are a few key points that stand out in crafting a regulatory setup.

The simplest issue that the G20 and FSB can mediate is deciding on a working definition of cryptocurrency. Several nations such as Switzerland through FINMA and Israel through the Israeli Securities Agency have taken steps to do this in a way that classifies cryptocurrency into payment tokens, utility tokens, and security tokens.

Clarity on this front will not be easy but defining cryptocurrency will allow entrepreneurs and investors much firmer ground on which to build projects and governments more guidance on how to regulate.

Accepting that all the information required to regulate does not yet exist is another important point. This thought lends support to the creation of sandboxes like what the U.K.’s Financial Conduct Authority is doing on fintech that will provide both flexibility and capacity to evolve to meet the demands of the industry as it matures.

On exchanges, the leadership shown by Japan, with the Financial Services Agency requiring licenses and working with self-regulating organizations (SROs) to help police the space and mainstream cryptocurrency should be lauded.

Exchanges will be critical to figuring out how banks interact with cryptocurrency and how taxes will eventually be collected. As the value of the cryptocurrency market increases more and more attention to know-your-customer (KYC) and anti-money-laundering (AML) compliance will follow.

Industry impact

Collectively, some of the issues above could be woven together to mirror efforts that G20 has taken on banking regulation. A Zug or Valletta Accords, comparable to Basel, could create an opt-in framework where nations agree on basic tenets for regulating cryptocurrency with active input from the industry.

Increased regulation, however, will not mean that blockchain and cryptocurrency projects die. On the contrary, increased regulation, as long as it is done with the cooperation of industry stakeholders and with the aim of de-risking the broader market, will hasten blockchain adoption by large enterprise users and reassure institutional investors.

Numerous large firms have already begun to explore blockchain applications and potential use cases to streamline costs and gain a competitive advantage with their peers. With a regulatory framework in place, the internal and external compliance requirements of publicly traded companies can be met and the true growth stage of the traditional S-curve can begin.

Working with regulators, industry stakeholders can help craft rules where both entrepreneurs and governments win. Such a framework by the G20 could be just the action required to help unleash the long-term creative potential and promise of blockchain.

G20 flag image via Shutterstock.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','//connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');

fbq('init', '472218139648482'); fbq('track', "PageView"); This news post is collected from CoinDesk