[Our Fall Funding Drive is still going on. We have 9 days left! Your support is what make our work possible. If you like columns like the one below and our daily coverage of news, please consider donating today. Your donations will help us grow and expand our coverage. Donate here. Thank You.]
In our era of deep individualism which produces such horrors as the 1% oligarchy that rules our nation, we have a society that places individual benefit, greed, and self-centeredness at the acme of life. In ancient Athenian society, a person who behaved in this way was called an idiot.
!["O Partenon de Atenas" by Steve Swayne [Lic. CC Wikimedia]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/640px-O_Partenon_de_Atenas-500x351.jpg)
“O Partenon de Atenas” by Steve Swayne [Lic. CC Wikimedia]
Even the defensive assertion of being a ‘small-group religion’ is another aspect of this individualism. In this case, it is slightly extended to the local crew. While I am a fan of the small group, individualism has a centrifugal force that isolates and disempowers us in our solitude and small circles. It makes it hard for Pagans to join in a coordinated action in response to opportunity or oppression.
One of the most important tasks of religious leadership is to critique, challenge, and deconstruct the religion or a spirituality’s beliefs, perspectives, and practices.Today you are invited to contemplate Pagan solidarity, or civitas, and what the ancient Athenians called the idiot. Reclaiming the word ‘idiot’ and contemplating the criticism it embodies is hereby commended to you for discussion. The ancient world provides us with insight.
In ancient Athens those who gave no thought to the public life, the needs of the Polis, the community, were called ‘idiots’ and considered deficient in honor. This was contrasted to ‘citizenship,’ or civitas in the Roman. This is a life which is dedicated to community and which had to be inculcated by education.
![[Public Domain; Pixabay]](https://wildhunt.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/greek-37518_640-438x500.png)
[Public Domain; Pixabay]
With so much to lose, the Athenians, like many other people in the world, banded together to defend and strengthen themselves against oppression, and for mutual prosperity. Those who did not participate, seeking only their own benefit, were called idiots. Citizenship was considered a virtue and accrued honor to those who gave up some personal benefit for the sake of the community. The respect of one’s fellows was considered ample compensation.
So, at times we should ask ourselves, are we a bunch of idiots? Do we Pagans see things that benefit our community as a whole and beyond our immediate circles (regional, state, national) as something worth our effort?
Admittedly we are in an era of speciation, spawning off new religious practices and traditions like Reconstructionism, [Hard/Soft-] Polytheism, Humanist Paganism, Heathenism and other culturally focused forms, and many more. We are in a centrifugal mode. Diversity is good for us overall; diverse ecologies are healthy and robust. This also pulls us apart into our many factions or sects, too often painfully at odds with each other. A necessary phase of development, but solidarity need not be ignored.
So, what of our civitas, our awareness of being a community? There are none like us in this world. We are a new, rising, vigorous, religious movement, only a few hundred years old. Contemporary Paganism is twined with the origins of modern science and liberal governance (freedom of speech, press, rule of law, etc.), but also with a revival of ancient forms of religiosity with their insights and Deities. Altogether a more wholesome form of religion, better suited to today, I warrant, than any other. But we are not a very powerful or effective one; the poster child for disorganized religion.
The Maetreum of Cybele is struggling to get tax relief for their monastery. The Seekers Temple in Beebe AR is being attacked for trying to operate its Pagan church by a Christian church across the road). And I’m sure there are more such oppressions in the U.S. and abroad. Our ability to come together to support each of these members of our community, or failure to, constitutes a measure of our civitas, our citizenship as Pagans.
Two positive examples of civitas are the Lady Liberty Headstone Project, which lobbied the Veterans Administration so that deceased Pagan Military could be buried with headstones marked with Pagan religious symbols, and the recent fundraiser for The Wild Hunt. This vital Pagan news outlet was able to reach its basic funding goal with two weeks to spare. We can, as a community, put it together at times.
But is it a virtue to us? Is civitas a value in our sub-culture? How do we embody our solidarity in action? Pitching in and helping out is especially necessary when we don’t have institutions and paid leadership to take on the skut work. It’s not glorious, but it is necessary. Will we honor and respect, and support, those who labor on behalf of our community? What of those who set up our spaces and clean them afterwards? What of those who handle the accounting and book the sites — those not out front and visible leading ritual? Civitas is that special unity that comes from finding ways of joining together to achieve our hopes and dreams. In it, there is honor, respect, and support, for those who shoulder the burden. The alternative is sheer idiocy.
The Wild Hunt is not responsible for links to external content.
To join a conversation on this post:
Visit our The Wild Hunt subreddit! Point your favorite browser to https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Wild_Hunt_News/, then click “JOIN”. Make sure to click the bell, too, to be notified of new articles posted to our subreddit.
I respectfully disagree that the trend toward solitary paganism is somehow a sign of our “idiocy” which as far as I can remember was more a term for someone who refused to get involved in politics. Also I guess it also comes down to what one considers a community. I consider all of those who I work with at my job, my relatives, and my hometown to be my community whether they are pagan or not (the vast majority are not) Just because you are pagan does not mean I am going to help you out if I don’t know you or what you are about.
Secondly I tire of seeing these kinds of posts on pagan blogs (The kind that seem to try and goad and guilt Pagans into coming together as one big happy family) I do think we should be respectful toward one another but I see no reason why a Kemetic Reconstructionist should give one wit about the doings and troubles of a Celtic reconstructionist unless of course these people know each other and do in fact want to help eachother out. Yes we are all pagans here but isn’t that kinda where the similarity ends? Wicca and Heathenry both technically fall under the same umbrella of Paganism and yet I wouldn’t want to be in the room when the two came together to try and work things out. Personally, I like that we are so damned disorganized. I like that being a Pagan doesn’t at all mean I am beholden to any group on a religious level. I like that we are different. Does this make me an idiot?
“…I see no reason why a Kemetic Reconstructionist should give one wit about the doings and troubles of a Celtic reconstructionist…”
This.
I think sometimes solidarity might be called for across differences, if – despite the differences that one surely should not brush over – common goals are there or common threats are to be faced. And of course, if at least for a single issue, a (somewhat) common course of action can be found.
E.g. real and equitable religious freedom (vs. freedom only for the privileged religion) will surely be an issue for Kemetics, Celtics, Heathens, Wiccans/Witches, as well as many other minority religions (not all in the “pagan umbrella”).
It’s all interfaith, though – working with people of other religions for shared interests, including religious equality for all.
I’d rather do Interfaith with a Kemetic reconstructionist than with a christian minister.
Even if, in practice, we have many things that pull us apart, we basically all come from the same place, culturally speaking and we have everything to gain teaming up in the face of Billions of abrahamist that would rather see us disappear than anything else.
Maybe I’m a bit of an emotional person, but were I to meet a Kemetic reconstructionsit (something that never happened for me so far), I would still feel that there’s some kind of a bond between us. Something that I would not feel with f.e. with a christian or a muslim.
I see no more of a bond between a Heathen and a Kemetic than between a Heathen and a Christian.
Other than having a minority status, concerning religion.
I find that odd. IMO there is something intrinsically different between a follower of an exclusive monotheistic revealed religion and someone who follows or attempt to follow a traditional polytheistic faith.
Again, that’s just me and I would myself feel definitely a stronger bond between me and, let’s say, a Druid or a Slavonic Pagan than with a Kemetic, but I would still take the Kemetic over a christian.
What would be your stance on this then? Would you see any Pagan that doesn’t follow your faith (Heathenry? Ænglisc- Heathenry?) in the same light as christians ?
There are the dual concepts, in Heathenry, of Innangeard and Ūtangeard.
The Innangeard are those of your immediate community, traditionally the family-and-friends tribal unit.
The Ūtangeard is everyone else.
As such, from a certain angle, I see the vast majority of people, including most Heathens as “other”.
To more properly answer your question, I don’t see Heathenry as part of the Pagan umbrella, so I very much do see any Pagan in the same light as I see Christians.
I know very well about the two sides of the Garðr, but thank you to describe what you think belongs to the inside and what belongs to the outside. Being not strictly Heathen myself, I don’t really feel the same was as you, but again, it’s up to each and every individual/community to set up their own borders.
Last question though, would you think that your point of view is shared by most in the Heathen “Community” ? I’ve only ever really discussed with one single heathen, and he basically had the exact same idea as you, I just want to know if such a view is widespread.
It seems pretty much the standard, at least within the more reconstructionist forms of Heathenry.
Thanks for confirming that.
I’ve come around to share this completely. Just because someone is Pagan doesn’t make them part of my yard. Or, to use a less Heathen expression, not my circus, not my monkeys. For some things it’s worth allying with other Pagans; for other things, I’d rather ally with a Christian of similar worldview than a Pagan of an opposing one. At this point I’m happy I’ve come around to this viewpoint because reading Pagan Community(tm) thinking during the Kenny Klein debacle I lost any respect I may have ever had for the oft-repeated claim to be Better Than The Christians(tm).
That’s interesting, I would like to ask you, just like I’ve asked Diomedes, in which ways do some christian share the same worldview as yourself and which Pagans don’t.
It’s a no brainer. People who do not support the common good are advancing the cause of idiocy in their midst.
I see the point about this post but it also brings some disturbing facts to mind. First and foremost the idea that all kinds of solitary practice are individualistic, secondly the fact that most of us are not solitary because we want to. The times and civilitas of the ancient greeks, let alone Athens, the most sophisticated society in history, is a far cry from the technocracy of today, a world where we who think for ourselves must literally hide from a growing culture of haters and trolls who are psychopatic and who are group-minded and group-organized. Sure we need to embrace a more wholesome stance. But trying to pin all kinds of individualism within the same narrow circle is kinda… Well let’s leave adjectives alone. My point is, the pagan world, as diverse as it is, echoing the beautiful revolution of dissent inherited from the beats and the hippies and the punks, must also learn how to feast its life on the rest of time we have in this here plague infested planet, so that we can be together in harmony and beauty one more time before we have to go. Then, organization will come naturally. Or not. But we’re ones for beauty. We’re the ones for art and science and poetry. Alone or in groups, and although there are idiots amongst us, we’re not the idiots.
I don’t think that what the article’s writer said was was solitary = no civitas. I just think that he meant that considering that most people are solitary, it is naturally harder to work as a community. Pagan sprouts in all sorts of environments, and there’s no “city” or even center of the contemporary Pagan world.
Interestingly enough, I think this is in parts due to the fact that most Pagans are city-folk and that, it’s quite ironic, it’s in nowadays cities that there is the least civitas: Ina town, one can be anonymous, mind his or her business without the need to think at all about the community at large or its future. Of course we can’t all live in experimental eco-villages, but we should probably question this modern Western Urban culture we are evolving in.
“I joined this religion to get away from religious authority!”
I must say, that sentiment has always grated with me and has echoes of negative definition – people are far to busy trying to define Paganism (and, it often seems. Heathenry) by what it isn’t.
Couple that with the cult of the radical individual and you have a group that cannot really be described collectively with any sense of accuracy.
How many people among Pagans are those who merely wanted to get away from christianity? Are they more numerous than those who want their new religion to be more like their old one? I wonder…
Hard to say, in all honesty.
Personally, I find it more useful to refer to the various religions that get counted within the “Pagan Umbrella” as distinct.
As others have said, What, really, do a Kemetic reconstructionist, a Heathen and a Dianic Wiccan have in common, beyond the superficial “not Christian” definition of (small p) paganism?
Worship of female deities?
That’s hardly exclusive to pagan faiths, and, in fact, not even true of some Christians.
Leoht didn’t ask what they have in common which is exclusive to pagans. He asked what they have in common besides not being Christian.
Jews do not worship goddesses. Muslims do not worship goddesses. Bah’ai and Zoroastrians do not worship goddesses. Kemetics, Dianics and Heathens all do worship goddesses. Goddess worship is a characteristic that they have in common and which distinguishes them from a number of religions other than Christianity.
Not only is it a distinguishing common characteristic, it probably is the most important distinguishing common characteristic.
Why is it important, as a distinguishing common characteristic? All the religions you listed have an Abrahamic base, with the exception of Zoroastrianism, but that is because Abrahamic theology has a Zoroastrian base.
There are plenty of other religions that have goddess worship within them, most notably Hindu Shatkism, but we can also see goddess worship in most non-Abrahamic, polytheistic cultures.
So, to clarify, what, really, do a Kemetic reconstructionist, a Heathen and a Dianic
Wiccan have in common, beyond the superficial “not Christian” definition
of (small p) paganism, in order for them to be counted under a single religious umbrella?
They are religious movements that arose in the last century, primarily in Europe and North America, that draw (at least partly) from pre-Christian religions of Europe and the Mediterranean.
This!
Not much to come together on, is it?
Why is that significant?
Let’s be honest, in most Pagan circles, Goddess-worship and feminine-spirituality is very significant, in part due to the blending of feminist and Pagan ideologies in the sixities.
IMO, the modern Pagan movement is, I think, first and foremost the revival of European traditional faiths by European and people of European ancestry. Please note that I don’t make a stand for anything folkish here (it’s another debate) but it appears to me that the great majority of those engaged in the contemporary Pagan Movement are either European or of European descent, not all sure, but probably its majority and its core.
When it comes to the various strands of faiths and reconstructionisms, most of those are still mostly based upon European beliefs and practices. Sure, there’s Kemitism in the lot, but IMO it’s mostly because of the late “Greecification/Romanisation” of the old Egyptian Religion. Already in Roman times there were temples to hundreds, if not thousands of Gods and Goddesses in all the Empire, stretching from Gallo-Roman shrines, Germanic Matronaes statues, Semitic deities and whatnot…
I think the modern Pagan Movement is very much indebted to this period in History where various strands of Polytheistic faiths were allowed to interact and blend, but mostly under the dominion of a larger, more established European (mostly classical in practices) Religious system. A Religious system that was unfortunately destroyed by the rise of abrahamic faiths, hence the non/anti-christian common denominator of all those faiths.
My grain of salt.
I feel like I’m not assuming too much when I say that worshipping Goddesses is not nearly as radical for most recons as you’re making it out to be. Our ancestors worshipped Goddesses all the time, and yet they could hardly be described as radically feminist. Personally, I do identify as a feminist as do other recons, but for me at least it is not a part of my religion in the slightest. I don’t see worshipping Hera and Artemis as being some huge rejection of monotheistic misogyny, nor do I see it as an important connection between Hellenismos and non-Hellenic traditions.
Our ancestors worshiped Goddesses all the time, and yet they could hardly be described as radically feminist.
Wisdom.
I had already left Christianity/Catholicism, at 15. I found that the idea that not only was Deity everywhere, but everything WAS Deity, made sense. I hadn’t read Stranger in a Strange Land (may not have been published yet), even, but when my parents were in the middle of three years of divorce (with no real assets to speak of), I had a Voice in my head answer a question I hadn’t spoken out loud yet. I never thought it was Mary–and it was a female voice. I’ve heard that voice maybe three times since.
I’d read Sybil Leek’s Diary of a Witch–my mother was interested in the occult and paranormal, it was she who bought it–and I certainly knew of the Salem “Witch” trials, but I thought surely there must be something like Sybil’s sort in the US today (starting around the time I finished reading her book). In college, I met Wiccans, and felt an instant affinity. When Drawing Down the Moon came out, several lightbulbs lit over my head.
I wasn’t terribly invested in Catholic ritual, but a well-done Pagan ritual can move me profoundly.
So, no, I got away from Christianity long before I knew there were real, living Witches, much less met some.
I’m not sure of the answer(s) to your question however, I personally have dropped the Pagan label. Right now Pagan has come to mean anyone who does anything and calls themselves Pagan is one. Which makes is meaningless. At the very least it used to mean non-Christian, now you can’t even say that. For myself, I would say a person should not join a faith or walk a path *only* to “get away from” something else. That’s a terrible, uninformed way to be in the world. And I would say that there are way too many Pagan folks who want their old way back, and that’s why they bring it to the community. What I see these days are a whole bunch of Christians worshiping Jesus and Co. but dressed up in different outfits, or as I heard on Peter Paddon’s podcast, in drag. And since even mentioning these issues marks me as a bigot (I’ll be waiting for the reply to this post proving me right, though maybe not from you Dantes) I choose to just not count myself among that community. I still learn from various Pagan sources and occasionally find something in common but mostly not.
I agree that the community has rather vague outer borders which I don’t really like. Especially as, you say, when it means letting christians, pseudo-pagans or christo-pagans in. While it isn’t great to join group B solely in order to leave group A, Identity as a whole is in large parts defined by means of opposition to some kind of “other”. IMO, abrahamic faiths constitute the perfect Other and there’s maybe too much Fluff around to make that clear enough. But I have to admit that I don’t really know that much about such issues because of my general lack of knowledge of the Contemporary Pagan movement.
A problem I think is that, as you said, lots of people that get into Paganism are ex-christians. While lots are certainly sincere about their beliefs like miss Fournier up here, this christian background is bound to affect the way they will live their new Religion, and there will most likely be a “tainting” of the receiving faith as a result. For that matter, I am really happy to have been born and raised in Europe in a completely non-religious household, it gives me a different perspective than numerous American Pagans that once were christians. Maybe this will change as the West is turning more and more “Post-christian”, as long as Paganism as a thing can stay afloat.
It’s only inevitable that ex-Christians bring their old ways into the new if the old isn’t *replaced* with new values, pratices and beliefs. And I have found that there are a huge number of Pagan folks who do not take the time to self-reflect on their views, values, beliefs and the why’s for them, let alone take the time to learn about pre-Christian beliefs, cultures etc… The vast majority of Pagan folk I’ve spoken to espouse Christian values, beliefs and adherence to the classical monotheist belief structure. They just dress it up in pre-Christian imagery.
One thing I’ve learned in my training as a trance-worker is that the human mind, like Nature, cannot abide a vacuum. In other words, a person cannot simply reject something without replacing it. And when nothing is put in to replace but shallow changes of the “drapes” as it were, a person will revert back to old systems of belief and practice. Because that’s just how the human mind works. And I see this going on in the modern movement. Lots of rejection of old beliefs but no replacing them with anything else.
Maybe it’s because the Pagan movement as a whole is “too much” welcoming? Like, anything goes, regardless of how queer you or you beliefs are, there will be someone in there that will accept you… Of course, considering that the whole movement isn’t hierarchic in any significant ways, it’s bound to be a bit muddy regarding the “admission”. Maybe if there was a stronger demand that “New” Pagans should study, research, and as you said, self reflect on their desired new Religion, it wouldn’t be like that.
May I suggest swapping out the word “queer” for something else? “Odd”, perhaps.
“Queer” has gender implications, these days, and using it in the context you have could produce misunderstanding.
You’re right, I guess that, because I’m not used talking about Queerness in a gender context, I might use slightly differently than most native English speakers…
Still, The Pagan Movement as a whole is also very much welcoming for the “Gender-Queer” folk, so I’m not completely wrong about it either.
I generally agree with Sam’s points. I was brought up in a community-minded family and have applied those values to my involvement with neopaganism.
However, wanting to go your own way in matters of religion is not limited to pagans. The United States has more religious affiliation than other advanced industrial nations but it also has a history of church-avoidance. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, a minority of whites were members of a Christian congregation. Abraham Lincoln is a good example. He sincerely believed in God and the passages in Lincoln’s speeches about the intentions and wishes of the Almighty were not rhetorical flourishes or pandering to the crowd. Lincoln also sincerely despised most ministers and never was a churchgoer. That was not at all an unusual attitude in Lincoln’s time and didn’t get him into political trouble.
Being affiliated with a congregation or religious community was pretty optional in most regions of the US until the 1950s, when it became identified with Communist sympathies and lack of patriotism.
The classical world did not have the plethora of non-religious civic, social and charitable organizations that modern democracies contain, and some people prefer those organizations as vehicles for social engagement, as Jefftos points out.
Then again, sociologists have found that participation in all kinds of communal organizations has been declining steeply in the US for several decades. The classic study is Bowling Alone. Declining prosperity might revive participation in groups as people find it more difficult to go it alone. On the whole, I think the low level of participation by contemporary pagans in any kind of religious organization is mostly due to its being a movement that arose in a tide of disaffiliation and alienation in the wider culture.
NB centripetal = moving towards the centre,
centrifugal = moving away from the centre.
Eeek! an editing fail on my part.
Yes, I meant centrifugal. Thanks!
Considering how the Athenians actually ended up, seems that they got their words mixed up.
I think Pagans and other folks like us in the New Age, New Thought, and diverse occult communities absolutely can pull it together, but it needs be said that we’re such a broad, deep group that everybody isn’t going to agree with everybody all of the time. Some of us won’t even agree with some of us some of the time.
If the goal is to push for a visible Pagan presence that asserts itself and counters Christian hegemony, I don’t know how much success we’ll have since even among Pagans you’ll find elements of Christo-paganism, and Christian elements are fairly common among the New Thought and to an extent even the New Age communities. So no, I don’t personally think the Pagan umbrella will ever be big enough to cover everybody, and likewise, I don’t think everybody wants to get under the Pagan umbrella.
But I think a lot of us could get behind campaigns to fight for civil rights, social justice, religious liberty, and other issues that aren’t necessarily dependent on religion or identifying as Pagan. A lot of us in all our different paths come from oath-bound, initiatory, or other closed traditions, so opening up to world can, in its way, be as problematic as staying closed.
I think we can definitely come together, but I don’t know that we’ll come together behind religion as opposed to civil rights and social justice issues.
Agreeing with you, especially your first paragraph. To very loosely paraphrase a point from “Rules For Radicals”, “the only person who will agree with your reasons is you, everyone else will join for their own reasons and they won’t be anything like yours.”.
Our general focus on praxis rather than ideological agreement I think creates more common ground rather than less.
To a newcomer it may seem that folks engage in ideological rhetoric with nearly every discussion. It certainly seemed so to me at first. Over time I came to understand that these discussions were more about presenting context for an expressed viewpoint in order to facilitate understanding.
This brings me to a point where I think the article is slightly pessimistic. Having put ideological differences slightly in the background we as a group need only agree on two areas in order to move forward; a general direction of movement and an outline of mechanisms for effecting that movement.
This should give us a tremendous efficiency advantage over groups who must spend effort insuring the ideological purity of their supporters.
So rather than seeing the large number of solitary practitioners as an obstacle I see them as a definitive strength. Leveraging this strength requires a different approach to organization and communication perhaps. Rather than expecting linear growth in participation and change we should plan for sudden exponential (and largely unorganized) changes, like a precipitate forming suddenly out of a super saturated solution at the introduction of a catalyst.
I don’t think we need to come together under a single religious umbrella in order to work together.
At the moment, the “big tent” Pagan movement feels very much like a civil rights/social justice movement than a religious one.
At the moment, the “big tent” Pagan movement feels very much like a civil rights/social justice movement than a religious one.
You are sadly right. People are still bickering over small things and don’t really want to really cooperate.Sure our practices are different, but I don’t think the Religion is really that different.
And there we differ. Many different religions, not one.
What “religion” are you speaking of here?
I don’t want to deny specific branches of Paganism/Heathenry/Wicca the title of “Religion” but I still tend to view all of the above basically as Paganism. Some might feel offended by that but there is so much cross-fertilization, shared history, mythological and practical counterparts in most of these religious strands that I tend to see them all as belonging to a same “Religion”.
Hmm no I disagree. Having similar content does not, in my mind, mean a person(s) shares the same religion. Remember there is no such thing as historical “paganism”. There were unique cultures and groups that sure maybe had some things in common, but to lump them all together under one banner? Hmm no, I don’t agree. Nay I might even say that could be offensive. For example, the same thing often gets done to Native Americans. Native peoples had/have a huge variety of beliefs, values, customs, cultures etc… But so often all we see are the stereotypes, the buckskin wearing warrior clad in feathers with token braids. When we brush historical people with one brush, I think we do them and ourselves discredit. Now, there is a thing called modern Paganism but it too is widely diverse and not all one “thing” So…yeah no I disagree.
True true true, but we could even go as far as saying that there was not, for example, anything like a unified Old Norse Religion as recent research has proven that people worshiped very different gods through very different rituals over a huge geographical periods, through numerous language over a whole continent. Still, most people like to think of it as “The Old Norse Religion”. Why couldn’t we think about modern Paganism in such inclusive terms?
Exactly. And I wouldn’t and don’t use that term for that very reason. As for your other point, I would say that unlike the ancients of the North who maybe had some things in common, I don’t see the same level of commonality among modern folk. I mean heck just hang around a Pagan forum and you’ll see. hehe
Because there are no meaningful, universal commonalities that bind “Paganism” together.
One of the first things to be learned, in studying Heathenry is that it was a very tribalistic collection of cultural beliefs and practices. The notion of a “unified Old Norse Religion” is something that needs debunking.
If the term should indeed be debunked, would the “glue” that (somewhat) ties Heathens with each other fall apart? I mean, I can understand that A Heathen would not want to have anything to do with Zeus or something, but deep down, Donar, isn’t anyone else but Þórr, and Wodan is good’ol Óðinn. If the practices and beliefs certainly did differ, are we still talking about one (acknowledgedly decentralized, tribal and plural) Religion? I would want to know about what some of you guys would think about that.
There isn’t really any “glue”. It’s more that “Heathenry” is the overarching umbrella religion, but there are clear denominations within it, and sects beyond that, not to mention cults devoted to specific beings, as well.
The “eclectic” Heathens dislike the Recons; the Recons scorn the Lokeans, everyone hates the Volkisch…
I generalise and use hyperbole, but the fact remains that there is not one “unified” Heathenry, any more than there is one unified Christianity or Hinduism.
That said, people can come together and discuss things. For myself, I tend to discuss historical forms of Heathen cultural worldviews and belief with the Reconstructionists, as I see that as the core from which all other forms of Heathenry grow.
Reminds me of an old Kingston Trio song called A Merry Minuet.
“The whole world is festering
With unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans,
The Germans hate the Poles;
Italians hate Yugoslavs,
South Africans hate the Dutch,
And I don’t like anybody very much!”
So if I understood correctly, you’d still call “Heathenry” a Religion in its own right?
Hum……………………………………………………………………………………………………. I don’t really like all this “New Age” stuff but you are right that there is definitely some overlapping between the Pagan Movement and New Age, and this since the beginnings.
I still think that the non/anti-christian nature of Paganism should be stressed more. Not so much to expel people, but in order to build clearer boundaries and define ourselves a little bit better.
And to cast the christo-pagans out as well…
Total agreement with this. And you’re the first person I’ve ever seen mention this besides myself. Well said.
Well thank you very much!
I’m of a mixed opinion on this article. I do agree with the idea that a certain level of social cohesion is extremely important within a religious tradition. The thing is, Paganism isn’t a religious tradition; it’s a movement which several religious traditions belong to, so this doesn’t really apply here. As things go on, I am becoming more and more convinced that Big-P Paganism is getting less and less important as it becomes clear that the differences in our traditions are impossible to ignore or reconcile (see the recent controversy over animal sacrifice and the rampant hostility towards those who are in favor of the practice). I’m pretty much at the point where, if there’s a public controversy involving Pagans out of my tradition, I don’t really care beyond being a concerned citizen on my country who is in favor of religious liberty. We don’t need Pan-Pagan institutions that will not serve anyone effectively due to having to try and make everyone happy. For evidence, look to Pagan Pride Days which have long been criticized for excluding or erasing the views and practices of non-Wiccanate Pagans. In short, Hellenic/Kemetic/Wiccan/Heathen civitas is great, but Pagan civitas really doesn’t make sense as an idea.
I’ve missed the rampant hostility toward animal sacrifice. Where have you found that? From somebody who has read one book? If you are doing reconstructionist Hellenism or Religio Romana or Canaanite or Celtic religion, I would expect animal sacrifice to be part of the deal. If you are Kemetic, not so much.
Most Wiccan traditions forbid blood sacrifice. In general, the restrictions that initiatory Wiccan traditions impose are not intended to be binding on anybody except initiated Wiccans. Different gods make different demands on their followers. I have heard that the national board of the Covenant of the Goddess got on (what I regard as) the wrong side of this issue in a court case decades ago, but I don’t think that would happen now. The number of witches who also practice some kind of Afro-Diasporic religion, with or without animal sacrifices, is not small.
If there wasn’t a whacking great mosque on the site of Herod’s Temple, Cohens and Levites would be performing sacrifices there every week. Blood sacrifice isn’t a dividing line between pagans and Abrahamics.
Stifling conformity is often a feature of small town and tribal life. City life has room for differences. Communal solidarity depends on recognizing what’s most important and agreeing to support that, not agreeing on everything.
I bring up blood sacrifice merely because it seems to be shaping up to be the next big contention point in the PaganDramaSphere. During the debate, I’ve seen reconstructionists and others who advocate for animal sacrifice described as backwards, ignorant, arrogant, out-of-touch, or that we’re only doing it to be “edgy”. I can understand having a ban on blood sacrifice within your own tradition, but I’m personally getting tired of all the identity policing within Paganism and people telling me what I do and don’t believe in, and I cannot imagine that I am the only one.
My question is, what do we gain by being under this umbrella? If reconstructionists and other non-Wiccanate branches of Paganism officially broke off from the movement and were just their own things, what would we really be losing out on. I’m not particularly sold one way or the other, but I think that we do need to think about the fact that the Pagan movement is not “designed” (again, for lack of a better term) to last forever. Ideally, there will come a day when there is no need for Big-P “Paganism” and Heathens can just be Heathens, Kemetics can be Kemetics, Wiccans can be Wiccans, and so on and so forth.
I strongly favour the notion of each religion to be identified individually by what it is, than by the artificial “big Tent” Paganism that simply seems to be a numbers game.
After all, You find that some of those others are umbrella terms, too.
Agreed, but it’s often not that easy. Even within this big tent, there’s still often aren’t clearly defined borders or dividing lines, see for example the Heathens that are for everything but name, practicing Wicca.
That’s down to a lack of clear definitions and a worrying level of syncretism and eclecticism, not to mention many people have a bizarre fondness of polyreligionism.
I think that’s the problem right there, though. The fact that all of these different religions have been forced under the label of Paganism for so long leads many Pagans think they’re all mostly the same, or variations of a single religion and so feel entitled to just put whatever label on doing anything while mixing everything under the sun, usually without any understanding of the things they’re taking in their native context.
By every religion going its own way, I think this would be less of an issue. Each religion could more solidly establish its own identity and boundaries. As I’ve said many times before, I see big tent Paganism as stifling diversity and not encouraging it. I compare it to forces like globalization which leads to less local diversity and seeks to subsume the whole world into a boring, global monoculture.
I see what you mean, and you have a valid point. However, I doubt it is even possible to present cross-fertilization. There’s always gonna be Wiccan that will attempt to be Ásatru, Dianic priestesses worshiping Sumerian goddesses or even Heathen building rituals out of Snorri…
The idea of a global monoculture is as repugnant to me as it is for you but in a Pagan context I don’t think it’s that damaging. Ultimately, people will do what they want, and if they want to create a tradition worshiping Þórr and Nana they’ll do it.
Despite the fact that I highly value academic research in the context of contemporary Paganism, I don’t wanna be that guy who ends up screaming “You’re doing it wrong!!!” every time someone does something slightly unorthodox.
Sure, having all these different Pagans under this big wide tent will, ultimately lead to stuff getting mixed-up, native traditions to be twisted and entwined with others and so on and so on… Even if I myself might be a little bit more partial to a variety of distinct traditions, I don’t feel like people who are blending stuff together are doing much harm. In my eyes, they’ll still be Pagans, at least as long as they don’t start getting into abrahamic stuff…
I see real problem with the eclectic Pagans doing their own thing, so long as they are honest about their sources, and don’t try claiming a historicity. I just see them as distinct from their sources.
You see or don’t see?
Oops, typo (I blame children)!
I shall correct and clarify.
Ok, that’s what I thought. Live and let live is a pretty decent political line if any. I doubt anyone (least me) would disagree with you on that one.
I agree, lots.
This whole Animal-Sacrifice thing is just sooooooooooooooooooo dumb. It shouldn’t be controversial. If every Pagan had lived in the countryside this would be a non-issue…
I agree with what you say about the Cohens and the Levites. That sort of “animal sacrifice” showed up in a lot of cultures of that time, certainly around the Mediterranean.
Whether Rowan Fairgrove considered killing her chickens a sacrifice to Deity, before she came to California to live, I cannot say. I shall have to ask her, but I expect they were just for dinner.
I did try to give my quarterly blood sacrifice today, but my iron was too low. I’ll try again next time the Stanford Blood Center is just off my path. Alas, the last two blood drives at PCon, I also failed the iron test. Today, don’t know what happened. Hmph.
“Different gods make different demands on their followers.”
Considering the eclectic nature of many modern Pagans, it seems
very much that the same gods make different demands of their followers.
Which is why I find the claims of orthopraxy (rather than orthodoxy) to be amusing, in many cases.
I’ve missed the rampant hostility toward animal sacrifice. Where have you found that?
In the comments to http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2014/10/sacrifice-and-the-fear-of-real-gods.html
and
https://thracianexodus.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/let-us-find-a-better-way/
I’m pretty much at the point where, if there’s a public controversy involving Pagans out of my tradition, I don’t really care beyond being a concerned citizen on my country who is in favor of religious liberty.
I am kinda saddened to hear that. Sure, there’s lots of things that divide us but IMO it’s mostly cosmetic. I really do think that we share, at large, a common worldview and values and we should focus on that rather than playing witch-wars.
Also, if you see christianity for example, despite the fact that numerous denominations have very little in common, they still rise up as one when they feel that their values or religious privileges are threatened (Gay marriage, separation of church and state). It would be best if we managed to reach a similar level of cohesion, while still retaining our individualities!
Lots if different, often conflicting world views prevent any significant level of cohesion.
I might just have still relatively little experience of the Pagan Community as a whole but I would still think that we can achieve some level of cohesion, but well, maybe it’s just me seeing the glass half-full…
Why? Why would Heathens want any more cohesion with Wiccans or Druids than with Hindus or Shintoists? What meaningful purpose would it achieve?
“Resistance” (note the “”) towards hegemonic, all powerful exclusive monotheistic religions? To quote you I see no real problem with the eclectic Pagans doing their own thing , you seem to be relatively tolerant towards other Pagan faiths that you’d otherwise not care about. I doubt most serious abrahamists would have such a positive view on just about every Pagans out there.
Do I need to share a religious label with a person to share that ideal?
That is what interfaith is about, isn’t it? People from different religions working together for common purpose.
I could work with a Buddhist or a Hindu just as easily as with a Gardnerian Wiccan or an Ásatrúar, for that particular goal.
Indeed, I’d probably argue less with the former than the latter.
That’s just because most Heathen will never find another Heathen that share similar enough worldview that they’d not end up arguing with each other 😉 .
Also, I agree that one doesn’t need to share this “Religious Label” to work with someone, but in the example I used, I still believe that most “Pagan” faith have more things in common with each other than with Non-European Polytheistic/Non-Monotheistic Religions, namely the vulnerability stemming from a lack of long-established clerical structures and stately support.
Still, I totally agree that one could definitely work with either Buddhists or Hindu. I’d rather do that myself than engaging in Interfaith with an abrahamist.
The thing is, I have more in common with some Christian denominations than I do with a Wiccan. I don’t fit into the traditional “Pagan” ideology at all; I don’t worship or even particularly like nature, I have absolutely zero interest in calling myself a wizard or witch or doing magic, and I’m not even vaguely monistic (which seems to be the dominant theology in Big-P Paganism). What common worldview do I share with the greater Pagan community? An arguement could be made that my religion has superficial similarities, but scratch the surface and you find two completely different animals.
That’s interesting, could you please elaborate about what makes you closer to some christian denominations than other Pagan ones?
Well, at least from my perspective, there’s a hierarchical model of the universe, a heavy emphasis on piety and obedience to the God(s), morality as defined by the justice of the God(s), Savior Gods capable of rescuing mankind from the ills of this world and the next (Dionysus and Jesus), there are some clear analogues between the concepts of Sin and Misama (though they don’t map perfectly to each other), and there are also some analogues in afterlife beliefs (again, not perfect, but you can see the similarities). Mystical Christianity is the legacy for a great deal of the practices of the Greco-Roman Mystery Cult Tradition.
I didn’t thought about the Esoteric fringe of Graeco-Roman Paganism. Now I see better what you mean. Thanks!
What common worldview do I share with the greater Pagan community?Perhaps you could answer your own question. What motivated you to post a comment on The Wild Hunt?
Well, as I said, I am a concerned citizen actively fighting for the rights of religious minorities and this is a good place to learn about said issues. The occasional philosophical aside into polytheology is just an added bonus.
You’re right, this is a good place to learn about that. It’s one of the reasons I keep coming back.
Same here!
What you say about Christianity is not true. The Christians do not rise up as one. They have serious internal disagreements about what laws and social policies are good. If you paid closer attention you would know that.
There are decades-old splits between mainline to liberal Protestants vs. Evangelicals and the RC hierarchy on issues of sexual morals such as contraception and anything to do with gay marriage. The worldwide Anglican communion is very close to schism on the question of whether homosexuality is normal or sinful, with the US (Episcopalian) and European branches being for gay equality and the UK. African and Asian churches holding fast to traditional Christian morality.
Mainstream media give extensive coverage to Christian attacks on separation, but no coverage to the many mainstream and liberal Protestant denominations that are ideologically committed to separation of church and state and sometimes take actions to defend it. Defending the separation is, in their minds, defending their values and their privileges, since freedom of conscience is a fundamental Protestant belief. The alternative is state control of religion which winds up being bad for almost everybody.
When it comes to participating in interfaith organizations that contain pagans, the Roman Catholic Church and mainline and liberal Protestant denominations do, while the Orthodox churches and most evangelicals don’t.
Thanks for clarification. I guess that from a European perspective, christianity in the US might look like a somewhat unified block. Thanks to explaining that it isn’t the case.
I didn’t take into account that you are living in Europe. Here’s some more sociological detail about American Christianity.
Mainline and liberal white Protestant denominations dominated American political discourse fifty years ago. (e.g. Episcopalians, Lutherans, Unitarian Universalists). These used to be the middle and upper class churches. Their numbers and influence have declined steeply over the past few decades, but they have legacy class power. Upper and upper middle class Americans these days tend to be moderate to liberal on sexual morality, religiously tolerant, and not very active in churches.
Evangelical churches have grown in membership, and the Catholics and historically black churches are holding their own. The RC and black churches tend to be socially conservative and liberal on economic issues. Evangelical churches are socially conservative and swing back and forth on economic issues in generational cycles–they were at the conservative peak a few years ago and are now beginning to go in a direction of having more concern for the poor. Evangelical ministers and their congregations tend to have similar views, perhaps because congregations hire, fire and pay their ministers. In contrast, there are deep differences on many subjects, especially sexual morals, between the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy and the laity.
Marriage rates are falling and out of wedlock birth rates are rising among blacks and working class whites, because working class men have a tough time supporting themselves, and women these days won’t marry a man if they think they will wind up supporting him. Traditional Christian marriage is on the decline for economic reasons regardless of how people think they ought to behave.
Journalism covers conflict, which means the angriest people and groups get the most press.
Journalism covers conflict, which means the angriest people and groups get the most press.
You’re right, I have to admit that I rarely hear about moderate American christianity. In any cases, thanks for the upðate.
It seems that most “big tent paganism” approaches come from the top down, while I think leadership from the bottom up is more effective.
Once we move into politics, there are a handful of topics where if I merely mention that I disagree it will start shouting matches. Frankly I can do without the drama.
If I choose to give, that’s charity. If I’m forced to give, that’s extortion.
For many of us who call ourself “Pagan” or “NeoPagan,” being a true
Individual was a way of surviving our upbringing in a way that held
integrity to our spirit and soul. Many of us have been failed by our
family and early teachers…but have transcended that authoritarian
forced learning by being true to our inner knowing and connection with
the Natural energies of life. For me, I never stopped believing in
Majick.
There is a such a thing as a “Sacred Idiot,” someone who
exists on the borderlines, on the outlying areas of so-called
Civilization. We need to respect these individuals and understand their
worth to our world, too. And love them.
NeoPaganism has grown
naturally and organically through our true connections. We cannot (and
shall not) “manufacture” connection.
We shall “know ourselves”
and then, naturally, join with true allies and friends to create and
grow our culture. We shall have BOTH Individualism AND Community. It
shall not be “forced.” It shall be completely voluntary and real.
Groups will form organically, coming together for need and practicality. They will also dissolve organically, when the need is no more.
What
you call “Skut Work” does not exist. Each action taken in concert with
others, with true love for others, is sacred work.
Let’s ally
with each other with open hearts and open minds….being inclusive and
celebrating our variety and creativity. Those who fulfill a need will
be compensated for their effort. No one need feel “forced” to perform.
We simply need to help each other “be themselves.”
I agree. Despite the fact that I would welcome more inclusion in the Pagan community as a whole, it would be fruitless to force anything. With time, we will probably realize that we have more in common with each other than we think.
I’m wondering if there is an implication here or if it’s just me misunderstanding. The implication I’m seeing and wondering about is this, are you saying that those people who *don’t* get involved with broader community work are idiots?
I think the title and the wording used in the article are a bit tongue-in-cheek. If I understood correctly, the author points out the fact that in Pagan societies, it wasn’t highly regarded not too engage in the community at large.
Sam, this is an excellent essay on the power and importance of social responsibilty and citizenship. The value of the common good has long been waning in American society, but I maintain that no value is more crucial to any society than the common good. Religion (any religion) has the power to reinforce the notion of the common good or to tear it down. You effectively ask Pagans to ask which we are doing.
As nice as it is to be able to go back to the ancient roots of a word, when it has much more recent meanings that are still hurting people, you can’t reclaim it without hurting them more. Especially not when you want to “reclaim” it as another insult that still, for modern minds, references the slur it is on them. Idiot is, modernly, an ableist slur, and was within living memory a medical term for developmentally disabled people. Don’t use it. It breaks community, too.
You mean like the popular pejorative, “pagan”?
People are reclaiming pagan as something positive about themselves. No one should apply it to anyone who objects to being identified by it, no. But you can’t reclaim something that’s been used negatively about other people to apply negatively to other, different people without harming people. Using an old insult as a new insult is very different from using an old insult as a new, positive identity for oneself. Can you possibly think outside your own tiny little box for a moment to see this?
I would personally tend to think about the word “Idiot” as the most neutral and tame word to describe someone lacking intelligence or behaving foolishly. I would personally not associate it with anything medical at all, but again, it’s just me the non native english speaker.
“An idiot, dolt, or dullard is an intellectually disabled person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.”
From Wikipedia. It was, absolutely, used as a medical diagnosis, in a time when disabled people were widely and routinely tortured as the standard of care. (Actually, it’s still pretty common for many types of disability.) There are still people alive who were diagnosed as idiots, who will straight up tell you how much that word hurts them. It is not neutral
I don’t disagree with you saying that the word was indeed used, once upon a time, as a pejorative diagnosis, which is very very wrong. However, i am yet to meet anyone who has been offended by the use of this specific word. But thanks to this thread, I know that it is possibility.
I thought the same, until I met people who said it hurt them personally. Now I let other people know that they exist.