Definition of Neo-Paganism?
sbe...@ix.netcom.com
colleagues just what it is I am when I tell them I am a Neo-Pagan.
Therefore, for my own benefit, and to help my own thinking, I put
together a brief list of what seem to me to be the central tendencies of
Neo-Paganism, as well as some of its central current problems. Believe
me, I would be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions this group could
give me.
What is Neo-Paganism?
--Neo-Paganism is not paganism; it is a highly diverse contemporary
religious movement with multiple sources in folklore, literary theory,
history, fiction, poetry, indigenous traditions, anthropology,
archeology, and ecology.
--Neo-Paganism is radically immanentist. It is this-worldly and
distinctively Earth-centered. There is little interest in a transcendent
Creator. Therefore, too, the movement is receptive to naturalistic,
non-human-centered scientific theories such as evolution and ecology.
--Consistent with this immanentism is the central Neo-Pagan belief that
the sacred resides in this Earth, both generally and in special sacred
places and times, which constitute "pools of sacrality." Neo-Paganism
generally seeks to celebrate and experience this immanent sacredness of
the Earth.
--Similarly, Neo-Paganism accepts the idea that this Earth is home to a
variety of non-human persons, including not only animals and spirits but
also such entities as trees, rocks, clouds, and water. These non-human
persons may be helpful, harmful, callous, malicious, indifferent, or
tricky, and from time to time it may be helpful or necessary to enter
into relationships with them.
--Also consistent with its this-worldly orientation, Neo-Paganism is
accepting of the body, play, sexuality, humor, fantasy, pleasure,
intoxication, and diversity.
--A central metaphor in Neo-Paganism is cyclicity, circularity, and
recurrence, as opposed to notions of linearity and progress. Thus there
is philosophical and ritual concern for yearly cycles, life cycles,
lunar cycles, and family cycles.
--Neo-Paganism is very accepting of female powers, images, and
metaphors. Its central concerns include generativity, creativity,
pleasure, death, and regeneration -- "the force that through the green
fuse drives the flower."
--Neo-Paganism lacks social or philosophical centralization. It tends to
be radically tolerant of other religions and of its own diversity.
Current problems in Neo-Paganism
--Neo-Paganism often tends simply to put Neo-Pagan content into
culturally familiar forms -- for example, "pagan Sunday school" -- as
opposed to innovative forms such as drum circles.
--Neo-Pagans write some really, really bad poetry.
--Neo-Paganism is struggling to work out its relations with contemporary
indigenous spiritualities, and the concomitant issues of appropriation
and cultural theft.
--Neo-Paganism is conflicted over issues of historicity and innovation
("What is genuinely old in Neo-Paganism? Is antiquity the only source of
religious value? How valid are recent innovations?") and of identity and
syncretism ("Can I still call myself a Druid if I use Aboriginal
symbolism? Of what value is a gemisch of various traditions?")
I would be very interested in any thoughts or suggestions.
--Steve
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Manny Olds
"innovative forms such as drum circles."
::spit take::
Okay, this is a joke, right?
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"They're not pagans, Frank. Everyone's wearing clothes"
M*A*S*H
Dragonmama
: What is Neo-Paganism?
According to The Man I Love, an old Fam Tradder, a Neo Pagan is a person
who has hir own permission to elect hir own Gods. That does it, for me.
Realizing that I had the power to elect my own Gods told me I really was
free. And to my mind, a Neo Pagan is a free human on all levels of
being. Each of us will adhere to a chosen set of rule and mores and
ethics, but each is a bit different every other set.
Dragonmama
Steve Beyer
>In soc.religion.paganism sbe...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>"innovative forms such as drum circles."
>Okay, this is a joke, right?
I guess I was unclear. I meant innovative in contemporary Western
religious practice, as opposed, say, to Sunday school. I didn't intend
to suggest that drum circles were innovative in the sense that
Neo-Pagans invented them.
Thank you for pointing out that unclarity.
-- Steve
Rhys
>religious movement with multiple sources in folklore, literary theory,
>history, fiction, poetry, indigenous traditions, anthropology,
>archeology, and ecology.
Not to mention Star Trek and Xena, but point taken...
>
>--Neo-Paganism is radically immanentist. It is this-worldly and
>distinctively Earth-centered. There is little interest in a transcendent
>Creator. Therefore, too, the movement is receptive to naturalistic,
>non-human-centered scientific theories such as evolution and ecology.
Fair enough.
>--Consistent with this immanentism is the central Neo-Pagan belief that
>the sacred resides in this Earth, both generally and in special sacred
>places and times, which constitute "pools of sacrality." Neo-Paganism
>generally seeks to celebrate and experience this immanent sacredness of
>the Earth.
Wish the garbage mounds at various Paganfests I've attended backed
that up, but point taken. "Paganus" meant "country dweller" in
Latin... "Neo-Pagan" too often means "convenience-seeking, car-driving
pale-skinned urban asthmatic who could stand to lose a few pounds".
But hey, we're talking ideal definitions, not bitter reality, right?
>--Similarly, Neo-Paganism accepts the idea that this Earth is home to a
>variety of non-human persons, including not only animals and spirits but
>also such entities as trees, rocks, clouds, and water. These non-human
>persons may be helpful, harmful, callous, malicious, indifferent, or
>tricky, and from time to time it may be helpful or necessary to enter
>into relationships with them.
Via Usenet postings, mainly. Where's the mention of magic and ritual
and their role here?
>--Also consistent with its this-worldly orientation, Neo-Paganism is
>accepting of the body, play, sexuality, humor, fantasy, pleasure,
>intoxication, and diversity.
Not bloody enough it isn't, but let's hope we're moving in the right
direction.
>--A central metaphor in Neo-Paganism is cyclicity, circularity, and
>recurrence, as opposed to notions of linearity and progress. Thus there
>is philosophical and ritual concern for yearly cycles, life cycles,
>lunar cycles, and family cycles.
Cool.
>--Neo-Paganism is very accepting of female powers, images, and
>metaphors. Its central concerns include generativity, creativity,
>pleasure, death, and regeneration -- "the force that through the green
>fuse drives the flower."
This in spite of the "magus" orientation of early Wicca and the
generally misogynistic bent of policymakers like Crowley.
>--Neo-Paganism lacks social or philosophical centralization. It tends to
>be radically tolerant of other religions and of its own diversity.
>
"Tends" is right. When I hear some inbred cracker mistranslating the
KJV, that's one thing. When "pagans" crap on Christianity because the
pastor pulled their pud in choir practice 20 years ago, I have trouble
with the purity of their spiritual practice. Defense is fine,
constructive and research criticism is cool (and certainly not
difficult...Taiwanese appliance manuals are usually more coherent than
"people of the Book" holy texts), but gratuitous shots and insults
towards the monotheists are waaaay too common. Living well, happily
and successfully as a spiritually integrated Pagan is, by example, the
best retort to those who would clinch their sphincters in righteous
wrath.
>Current problems in Neo-Paganism
>
>--Neo-Paganism often tends simply to put Neo-Pagan content into
>culturally familiar forms -- for example, "pagan Sunday school" -- as
>opposed to innovative forms such as drum circles.
Drum circles are that innovative here in Canada...the locals have been
doing 'em since the retreat of the glaciers..but point taken. If we as
Pagans possess a different spiritual grammar than the monotheists, we
need not hijack their vocabulary. Besides, "pagan Sunday school"
rankles as badly as "Jews for Jesus" would likely do to someone with a
foreskin deficiency.
>--Neo-Pagans write some really, really bad poetry.
HA! The ghost of Aleister haunts us yet.
>--Neo-Paganism is struggling to work out its relations with contemporary
>indigenous spiritualities, and the concomitant issues of appropriation
>and cultural theft.
In this way Neopaganism's evolution parallels that of the English
language, which never met a foreign language it didn't try to
partially digest. Similarly, there's often six specialist terms in
pagan practice for the same magical concepts.
>--Neo-Paganism is conflicted over issues of historicity and innovation
>("What is genuinely old in Neo-Paganism? Is antiquity the only source of
>religious value? How valid are recent innovations?") and of identity and
>syncretism ("Can I still call myself a Druid if I use Aboriginal
>symbolism? Of what value is a gemisch of various traditions?")
Personally, it's valid if it works for you, I feel, but I know the
idea of a fifty-years-and-counting "tradition" drives some people
nuts.
Basically, I think you've got a good, if a little idealistic, working
definition. I think you should, perhaps, touch on ethics of
Neopaganism where they differ from that of the mainstream. It's
difficult to draw a map on water, but this is a good start.
Steve Beyer
Thank you for your comments. Just a few thoughts.
>Not to mention Star Trek and Xena, but point taken...
Star Trek, Xena, Conan the Barbarian,Terry Pratchett, Robert
Holdstock, Robert Heinlein, Ray Bradbury ... Some of it good, some of
it bad, some of it silly. I guess, for me, that's part of the
attraction -- at its best, a lack of solemnity, a sense of play, an
enjoyment of the imagination. At its worst, self-importance and
really, really bad poetry.
>Wish the garbage mounds at various Paganfests I've attended backed
>that up, but point taken. "Paganus" meant "country dweller" in
>Latin... "Neo-Pagan" too often means "convenience-seeking, car-driving
>pale-skinned urban asthmatic who could stand to lose a few pounds".
>But hey, we're talking ideal definitions, not bitter reality, right?
I agree, environmentally slovenly Neo-Pagans are a particular
embarassment, and it is dismaying to see people -- *any* people --
abuse the bodies we should be celebrating. But you're right -- I was
trying to list central ideals of the movement.
>Where's the mention of magic and ritual and their role here?
I agree that ritual and ceremony are central to Neo-Paganism, and that
they should feature more prominently in my list. Magic raises some
definitional issues, I think, and there could be an interesting
discussion about whether it is central to the movement as a whole or
only to specific groups within the movement.
>Living well, happily and successfully as a spiritually integrated Pagan
>is, by example, the best retort to those who would clinch their sphincters
>in righteous wrath.
I agree completely. Living well is the best retort to *anyone* :-)
>Basically, I think you've got a good, if a little idealistic, working
>definition. I think you should, perhaps, touch on ethics of
>Neopaganism where they differ from that of the mainstream. It's
>difficult to draw a map on water, but this is a good start.
This is an interesting thought. As I was writing, I felt the lack of
any section about ethics, but I couldn't think what to say. Where, do
you think, *do* the ethics of Neo-Paganism differ from the mainstream?
I am interested in your thoughts, and the thoughts of other in this
newsgroup.
Again, thanks for your comments.
-- Steve
Zhaan
> I have had occasion recently to try to explain to some friends and
> colleagues just what it is I am when I tell them I am a Neo-Pagan.
> Therefore, for my own benefit, and to help my own thinking, I put
> together a brief list of what seem to me to be the central tendencies of
> Neo-Paganism, as well as some of its central current problems. Believe
> me, I would be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions this group could
> give me.
>
> What is Neo-Paganism?
>
> --Neo-Paganism is not paganism; it is a highly diverse contemporary
> religious movement with multiple sources in folklore, literary theory,
> history, fiction, poetry, indigenous traditions, anthropology,
> archeology, and ecology.
Sounds as close as anyone can be.
>
>
> --Neo-Paganism is radically immanentist. It is this-worldly and
> distinctively Earth-centered. There is little interest in a transcendent
> Creator. Therefore, too, the movement is receptive to naturalistic,
> non-human-centered scientific theories such as evolution and ecology.
Not all of us believe that the divine is only immanent. I, for one, believe
the divine is both immanent and transcendant.
>
>
> --Consistent with this immanentism is the central Neo-Pagan belief that
> the sacred resides in this Earth, both generally and in special sacred
> places and times, which constitute "pools of sacrality." Neo-Paganism
> generally seeks to celebrate and experience this immanent sacredness of
> the Earth.
This may fit Wiccan world view better than Neo-Pagan. Personally, I think
the term Neo-Pagan is much too broad to to really pin down like this.
>
>
> --Similarly, Neo-Paganism accepts the idea that this Earth is home to a
> variety of non-human persons, including not only animals and spirits but
> also such entities as trees, rocks, clouds, and water. These non-human
> persons may be helpful, harmful, callous, malicious, indifferent, or
> tricky, and from time to time it may be helpful or necessary to enter
> into relationships with them.
Again you are assuming that all Neo-Pagans cast circles and call elements
just like Wiccans. Honestly, I'm a bit concerned by how many people confuse
Wicca and Neo-Paganism. The two are not the same nor are the terms
interchangable. Neo-Paganism is an umbrella term like Christian. If you
are Wiccan, you are a Neo-Pagan.... but if you are a Neo-Pagan that doesn't
mean you are Wiccan. Just like if you are a Baptist, you are a
Christian..... but if you're a Christian that doesn't make you a Baptist.
>
>
> --Also consistent with its this-worldly orientation, Neo-Paganism is
> accepting of the body, play, sexuality, humor, fantasy, pleasure,
> intoxication, and diversity.
I can agree with this.
>
>
> --A central metaphor in Neo-Paganism is cyclicity, circularity, and
> recurrence, as opposed to notions of linearity and progress. Thus there
> is philosophical and ritual concern for yearly cycles, life cycles,
> lunar cycles, and family cycles.
I can go along with this too.
>
>
> --Neo-Paganism is very accepting of female powers, images, and
> metaphors. Its central concerns include generativity, creativity,
> pleasure, death, and regeneration -- "the force that through the green
> fuse drives the flower."
No problem here.
>
>
> --Neo-Paganism lacks social or philosophical centralization. It tends to
> be radically tolerant of other religions and of its own diversity.
Wiccans are radically tolerant of other religions... not all Neo-Pagans.
And let's be real honest here.... many Wiccans are not that tolerant either.
>
>
> Current problems in Neo-Paganism
>
> --Neo-Paganism often tends simply to put Neo-Pagan content into
> culturally familiar forms -- for example, "pagan Sunday school" -- as
> opposed to innovative forms such as drum circles.
How do you start from scratch to create a new culture?? Can we really just
drop what we know? And, where did you get the idea that drumming circles
are something new?
>
>
> --Neo-Pagans write some really, really bad poetry.
I'm not sure why this is in a list to describe Pagan beliefs, but ok.
>
>
> --Neo-Paganism is struggling to work out its relations with contemporary
> indigenous spiritualities, and the concomitant issues of appropriation
> and cultural theft.
This is indeed true.
>
>
> --Neo-Paganism is conflicted over issues of historicity and innovation
> ("What is genuinely old in Neo-Paganism? Is antiquity the only source of
> religious value? How valid are recent innovations?") and of identity and
> syncretism ("Can I still call myself a Druid if I use Aboriginal
> symbolism? Of what value is a gemisch of various traditions?")
Many silly questions... but yes this is a major conflict.
Blessings,
Zhaan
Manny Olds
> I have had occasion recently to try to explain to some friends and
> colleagues just what it is I am when I tell them I am a Neo-Pagan.
> What is Neo-Paganism?
Perhaps you should start with "Who are the Neo-Pagans?" I think it would
be helpful to us if you could give some idea of what general strains of
Greater Pan-Paganism you have in mind when you are composing this. It
would make it easier to comment.
For example, do you intend Asatru (and the other reconstructed faiths) to
be sort-of-marginal just *inside* your description, or just *outside* your
description? What about non-minor religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism,
Shinto, and Buddhism? And so on.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"The writers against religion, whilst they oppose every system, are
wisely careful never to set up any of their own."-- Edmund Burke
sbe...@ix.netcom.com
Thank you for your comments. Here are a few thoughts on what you said.
> Not all of us believe that the divine is only immanent. I, for one,
> believe the divine is both immanent and transcendant.
I guess I could have been clearer. I think a central notion in
Neo-Paganism is a belief that the sacred is immanent, whether or not the
sacred is -- in some sense -- transcendant as well. I think it would be
hard to consider someone a Neo-Pagan who did not believe in the
immanence of the sacred, and a commitment to its implications,
*especially* in terms of the sacrality of the Earth.
> This may fit Wiccan world view better than Neo-Pagan. Personally, I
> think the term Neo-Pagan is much too broad to to really pin down like
> this.
You may well be right. After all these discussions, I may come to the
same conclusion. But in the meantime I will give it my best shot.
> Again you are assuming that all Neo-Pagans cast circles and call
> elements just like Wiccans. Honestly, I'm a bit concerned by how many
> people confuse Wicca and Neo-Paganism. The two are not the same nor
> are the terms interchangable.
I agree you point out an error, but I'm not sure I made it. Believing
that the Earth contains non-human persons refers to more than casting
circles and calling elements. Relations with non-human persons may be
formal or informal, ritualized or casual, coercive or submissive, but I
am hard pressed to think of a tradition under the umbrella of
Neo-Paganism that does *not* think that such non-human persons exist, or
that human persons do not from time to time, like it or not, enter into
relationships with thm.
> Wiccans are radically tolerant of other religions... not all
> Neo-Pagans. And let's be real honest here.... many Wiccans are not
> that tolerant either.
I understand that there has been, in the past, some racist and
anti-Semitic strands in *some* Northern European Neo-Pagan communities,
and I honestly do not know to what extent those strands might still
exist. And I know some Neo-Pagans, for various historical or personal
reasons, harbor really bad feelings about Christians. But would it be
fair to say that tolerance is at least a *value* in the
contemporary Neo-Pagan community generally? If not, it's a damn shame.
>
> And, where did you get the idea that drumming circles
> are something new?
This was apparently *really* unclear. See my post in response to Manny
Olds.
You have given me a lot to think about. Thank you.
-- Steve
Bart Lidofsky
: In soc.religion.paganism sbe...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: > I have had occasion recently to try to explain to some friends and
: > colleagues just what it is I am when I tell them I am a Neo-Pagan.
:
: > What is Neo-Paganism?
:
: be helpful to us if you could give some idea of what general strains of
: Greater Pan-Paganism you have in mind when you are composing this. It
: would make it easier to comment.
:
: For example, do you intend Asatru (and the other reconstructed faiths) to
: be sort-of-marginal just *inside* your description, or just *outside* your
: description? What about non-minor religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism,
: Shinto, and Buddhism? And so on.
Sikhism is not pagan; it is monotheistic (and definitely worth
examining). Buddhism is more of a philosophical system than a religion,
and is either monotheistic or atheistic (and certainly agnostic in the
strict definition of the word).
In any case, I would define neo-paganism as a modern attempt to
fuse the esoteric discoveries of the so-called New Age with the pagan
religions of the past (not unlike what the Liberal Catholic Church has
doen with Roman Catholicism). It is related to the esoteric branches of
many religions, such as Kabballah, Sufism, and Gnosticism, although it
comes from a different direction.
Bart Lidofsky
Steve Beyer
>For example, do you intend Asatru (and the other reconstructed faiths) to
>be sort-of-marginal just *inside* your description, or just *outside* your
>description? What about non-minor religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism,
>Shinto, and Buddhism? And so on.
This is a really interesting question. My immediate reaction is
two-fold.
* At face value, I would say, for example, that strands of
world-negation are sufficiently strong and central throughout Buddhism
and Hinduism that I would have trouble thinking of them as "pagan,"
much less Neo-Pagan. The same is true for a transcendant-theistic
tradition such as Sikhism, which has been strongly influenced by both
Hinduism and Islam. Shintoism is certainly getting closer; and Taoism
probably closest of all.
*On the other hand, I am not sure that there is a lot of value in
these kinds of line-drawing exercises. It might be better to look for
central tendencies, "core" beliefs -- sort of like the classificatory
paradigms in ethnobiology, where a culture considers something more or
less a duck, say, the more or less it resembles an "ideal duck"; or to
trace Wittgensteinian "family resemblances."
You are right that the reconstructed faiths -- that's a great
expression, by the way, and I intend to steal it -- pose probelms for
me, and I will continue to think about all of the issues you raised.
And I would be interested in your thoughts on the question of
Neo-Pagan ethics.
Thanks.
-- Steve
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> In any case, I would define neo-paganism as a modern attempt to
> fuse the esoteric discoveries of the so-called New Age with the pagan
> religions of the past....
<snip>
Except that so many of us have absolutely no use for the "so-called New
Age" (rhymes with "SewAge," as the Silverdragon would have pointed out
were he here), and consciously avoid anything that smacks of it....
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Visit me at <http://newstaffinc.com/stafford>
Manny Olds
> Manny --
>>For example, do you intend Asatru (and the other reconstructed faiths) to
>>be sort-of-marginal just *inside* your description, or just *outside* your
>>description? What about non-minor religions such as Hinduism, Sikhism,
>>Shinto, and Buddhism? And so on.
> This is a really interesting question. My immediate reaction is
> two-fold.
> * At face value, I would say, for example, that strands of
> world-negation are sufficiently strong and central throughout Buddhism
> and Hinduism that I would have trouble thinking of them as "pagan,"
> much less Neo-Pagan. The same is true for a transcendant-theistic
> tradition such as Sikhism, which has been strongly influenced by both
> Hinduism and Islam. Shintoism is certainly getting closer; and Taoism
> probably closest of all.
> *On the other hand, I am not sure that there is a lot of value in
> these kinds of line-drawing exercises. It might be better to look for
> central tendencies, "core" beliefs -- sort of like the classificatory
> paradigms in ethnobiology, where a culture considers something more or
> less a duck, say, the more or less it resembles an "ideal duck"; or to
> trace Wittgensteinian "family resemblances."
It is often useful (when you are trying to get a general idea of where the
center and boundaries of a category are) to hold up some examples that are
only "sort of" in the category, as well as some that seem like the very
template of a perfect member of the category and some that you are pretty
sure are *not* in the category.
For example, you have just been able to discover that "world embracing"
(as opposed to world negation) is one of the things that define "pagan"
for you.
> You are right that the reconstructed faiths -- that's a great
> expression, by the way, and I intend to steal it -- pose probelms for
> me, and I will continue to think about all of the issues you raised.
> And I would be interested in your thoughts on the question of
> Neo-Pagan ethics.
Ah, well, Asatru and ethics. The short answer is that we believe that
living according to a strict moral code based on things like honor,
courage, and hospitality is one of the basic defining characteristics of
the religion.
The long answer gets into the Web of Wyrd and right relationships and
Ratatosk and Ragnarok.
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
Advice to the modern Asatruer: "A gift for a gift; blot right, symbel
right; live right." "Above all: Live honorable! Create fame. It is the
only thing that will survive you - cattle die etc. Be generous -
hospitality - share your loot with your band. Enjoy midgart." "Keep
composure and self-reliance. Stop moaning, stop the water-cooler talk,
live true." -- Dirk Mahling
Bart Lidofsky
: Except that so many of us have absolutely no use for the "so-called New
: Age" (rhymes with "SewAge," as the Silverdragon would have pointed out
: were he here), and consciously avoid anything that smacks of it....
There is a major difference between the esoteric and ultimately
altruistic REAL New Age, as brought forth in late 19th and early 20th
centuries, of which Wicca is a definite example, and the postmodernistic
selfish swindle that is currently marketed as the New Age (latter rhymes
with sewage). In neo-paganism, I am referring to both, although I have a
personal preference for the former and a personal disgust for the latter.
Bart Lidofsky
Steve Beyer
>For example, you have just been able to discover that "world embracing"
>(as opposed to world negation) is one of the things that define "pagan"
>for you.
Point taken. On the other hand, "world embracing" probably follows
pretty closely from the other concepts that seem central to me.
>Ah, well, Asatru and ethics. The short answer is that we believe that
>living according to a strict moral code based on things like honor,
>courage, and hospitality is one of the basic defining characteristics of
>the religion.
I guess the question is: what guidance can we get in the *hard* cases
from any basic Neo-Pagan principles? Under what circumstances is, say,
abortion either cowardly or courageous? What is more honorable in a
death camp -- physical resistance or survival? Of course, people will
differ in their answers. Does Neo-Paganism provide distinctive
principles for weighing the options?
Thanks for your thoughts.
-- Steve
Manny Olds
>>Ah, well, Asatru and ethics. The short answer is that we believe that
>>living according to a strict moral code based on things like honor,
>>courage, and hospitality is one of the basic defining characteristics of
>>the religion.
> I guess the question is: what guidance can we get in the *hard* cases
> from any basic Neo-Pagan principles? Under what circumstances is, say,
> abortion either cowardly or courageous? What is more honorable in a
> death camp -- physical resistance or survival? Of course, people will
> differ in their answers. Does Neo-Paganism provide distinctive
> principles for weighing the options?
The Asatru answer is that generic Wiccanesque paganry is so different from
Asatru in the area of ethics that it would be better to consider them
separately. Most Asatruers don't think of themselves as "neo-pagans",
anyway.
(Please note, before y'all get agitated, that "different" does not mean
"bad"; just not the same.)
--
Manny Olds <old...@clark.net> of Riverdale Park, Maryland, USA
"Killing is indeed still killing. To fight this, we must fight the
source: those who would kill. In the political arena there are many
suggested answers; however, I suggest that we can each start in the
one place where we have total control: ourselves. We can best do this
by resolving to treat each other with kindness, dignity, and
compassion." -- Dave Barton
Tall Sword & Cliona
I am not neo, new age, neuvo, fluff bunny or trendi-pagan.
I am a Witch, I have been branded Pagan by the JCI faiths.
I bear this brand with Honor, I am proud to be who I am.
I take the negative label they have thrust on me, I claim it.
I make it mine from the grime and grit I make it shine.
It is the badge I wear to show that I am able to think for myself.
I am free to seek the Gods that I wish to see and those I wish to love.
I have broken the yoke of slavery they bind on their victims.
They spew reams of filth on sin and hell.
They restrict thought, they make sex shameful and dirty.
I say lift up you face to the sun and see the Gods you wish.
Truly find love, joy and freedom.
Make love sing and dance.
Be free, Be Pagan.
Choose, do not follow the rut set out before you.
Do not be bound to the yoke out of habit.
Be yourself, think for yourself.
May the Gods bless you may they hold you in the hollow of their hands and
may you know true love,
Tall Sword
Baird Stafford
> I am not neo, new age, neuvo, fluff bunny or trendi-pagan.
I, however, am a neoPagan. I cannot claim that my Paganism is directly
descended from Pagans of old, handed directly from father to son or
mother mother to daughter for lo! these many generations. I am, on the
contrary, rather proud of the fact that along with so many, many others
I am engaged in what I hope will prove to be a reconstruction of the
best that our ancestors had to offer.
> I am a Witch, I have been branded Pagan by the JCI faiths.
On the other hand, while I am also a Witch, I adoped the name "Pagan"
and wear it with pride that I may not be sundered from all others who
also are engaged in the living reconstruction of ancient religions.
> I bear this brand with Honor, I am proud to be who I am.
In this we are not different.
> I take the negative label they have thrust on me, I claim it.
I cannot claim this, since I adopted the label myself in a positive
spirit.
<snip>
Bart Lidofsky
: In soc.religion.paganism Steve Beyer <sbe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: The Asatru answer is that generic Wiccanesque paganry is so different from
: Asatru in the area of ethics that it would be better to consider them
: separately. Most Asatruers don't think of themselves as "neo-pagans",
: anyway.
I would personally call Asatru "neo-pagan", as it DOES contain
some modern esotericisms, but certainly the proportion of aspects of the
original religion compared to the level of modern esotericism is WAY
higher in Asatru than in others, probably because our records of the Norse
beliefs and practices are far better than those of other Northern European
pagan beliefs and practices.
Bart Lidofsky
Bart Lidofsky
: I, however, am a neoPagan. I cannot claim that my Paganism is directly
: descended from Pagans of old, handed directly from father to son or
: mother mother to daughter for lo! these many generations.
Not necessarily a problem; there is not a shred of evidence that
ANYBODY can (although there are a few interesting offshoots).
As far as putting down the "New Age", I am in favor of reclaiming
it from the charlatans, the power-hungry, and the Peter Pans who have
taken over the term in the last couple of decades.
Bart Lidofsky
Natalie Ramsey
Bart Lidofsky <ba...@escape.com> wrote:
>Baird Stafford (ba...@gate.net) wrote:
>: I, however, am a neoPagan. I cannot claim that my Paganism is directly
>: descended from Pagans of old, handed directly from father to son or
>: mother mother to daughter for lo! these many generations.
>
> Not necessarily a problem; there is not a shred of evidence that
>ANYBODY can (although there are a few interesting offshoots).
Well, hold on, now. There are plenty of us who certainly aren't
neopagans. Practicioners of Santeria, for instance, are
either mesopagans or syncretopagans, depending on your perspective.
What they *aren't* is neopagan, and that's true regardless of the
fact that they aren't practicing the original faith of the Yorubas.
Mesopagan faiths tend to be related to their ancestors via an
evolutionary path. I would suggest that neopagan faiths have
a revolutionary rather than evolutionary relationship with
paleopagan ones.
Blessings,
Natalie
--
Natalie Overstreet Ramsey --------------------------- <nat...@col.hp.com>
alternate moderator, soc.religion.paganism; please cc all responses via e-mail
All quotes of this article must include the following disclaimer:
The author of this article is not speaking for the Hewlett-Packard Company.
Bart Lidofsky
: In article <m1np3.63718$AU3.1...@news2.giganews.com>,
: Bart Lidofsky <ba...@escape.com> wrote:
: >Baird Stafford (ba...@gate.net) wrote:
: >: I, however, am a neoPagan. I cannot claim that my Paganism is directly
: >: descended from Pagans of old, handed directly from father to son or
: >: mother mother to daughter for lo! these many generations.
: >
: > Not necessarily a problem; there is not a shred of evidence that
: >ANYBODY can (although there are a few interesting offshoots).
:
: Well, hold on, now. There are plenty of us who certainly aren't
: neopagans. Practicioners of Santeria, for instance, are
: either mesopagans or syncretopagans, depending on your perspective.
: What they *aren't* is neopagan, and that's true regardless of the
: fact that they aren't practicing the original faith of the Yorubas.
You are correct; I was thinking Eurocentrically (and actually
using the term correctly). The Asian, African, and American (N&S) pagan
religions have survived intact, to this day, and several religions (such
as Santeria) are extensions of older religions that were direct rather
than indirect offshoots. Thanks for the correction.
: Mesopagan faiths tend to be related to their ancestors via an
: evolutionary path. I would suggest that neopagan faiths have
: a revolutionary rather than evolutionary relationship with
: paleopagan ones.
I would say so.
Bart Lidofsky
Steve Beyer
>Manny Olds (old...@clark.net) wrote:
>: In soc.religion.paganism Steve Beyer <sbe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: The Asatru answer is that generic Wiccanesque paganry is so different from
>: Asatru in the area of ethics that it would be better to consider them
>: separately. Most Asatruers don't think of themselves as "neo-pagans",
>: anyway.
Jumbled attribution. The quoted language was by Manny, not by me.
Not disagreeing or anything. Just keeping the thread straight. :-)
-- Steve
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> I would suggest that neopagan faiths have a revolutionary rather than
> evolutionary relationship with paleopagan ones.
I would have to disagree, as "revolutionary" seems to imply that the
neoPagan faiths have in some manner managed to overthrow the paleoPagan
order as it existed before the coming of Christianity. To the best of
my admittedly feeble powers of recollection, that isn't quite what
happened....
I am inclined to prefer the word "reconstructive" to "revolutionary" in
your statement above, Nat. To my mind, it is rather more accurate in
its summation of what we're trying to accomplish as regards the
paleoPagan faiths.
"Revolutionary" might, however, be applied _vis_a_vis_ Christianity....
Natalie Ramsey
Baird Stafford <ba...@gate.net> wrote:
>Natalie Ramsey <nat...@col.hp.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I would suggest that neopagan faiths have a revolutionary rather than
>> evolutionary relationship with paleopagan ones.
>
>I would have to disagree, as "revolutionary" seems to imply that the
>neoPagan faiths have in some manner managed to overthrow the paleoPagan
>order as it existed before the coming of Christianity. To the best of
>my admittedly feeble powers of recollection, that isn't quite what
>happened....
Heh. True enough. I think I got caught up in the rhetoric of the moment.
:-)
I do think there is some validity to the idea that neopaganism, in
the general case, has overthrown plenty of paleopagan ideas. But
describing the difference as "revolutionary" probably does go too far.
>I am inclined to prefer the word "reconstructive" to "revolutionary" in
>your statement above, Nat. To my mind, it is rather more accurate in
>its summation of what we're trying to accomplish as regards the
>paleoPagan faiths.
I think that's certainly fair. Reconstructive it is. And I think
my point still holds, namely that neopagan faiths have a different
relationship to paleopagan ones than mesopagan faiths have. Not
better or worse, but decidedly different.
>"Revolutionary" might, however, be applied _vis_a_vis_ Christianity....
Um, indeed.