h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.h2g2.com/A347708

I wrote this entry to adress the modern common usage of the word Pagan. The word Pagan is often a misunderstood one. The meaning of this word is dependent on many factors. Namely, who is saying the word, and to whom the word is being applied. The goal of this entry is to cover the myriad ways in which this word is used, and come up with a practical definition that can work for everyone.

Overall I think this is a good and well thought out entry. And I think it would fit in the Edited Guide (That is the new term isn't it?). My only problems were with some of the more opinion based statements but most of them were labeled as opinions so they didn't bother me too much. I like the beginning especially because it is very much to the point and informative.

The Neo-Pagans seem to be represented as a unified group, but I suspect this was not your intention. I think you've defined the word "pagan" very well; maybe you could list some current practicing groups of pagans.

This should be a part of the Edited Guide. I've said this elsewhere, but I think the official types should know.

Good entry (speaking as a practicing pseudo-Pagan [Discordian]). One TINY thing I noticed: In #2 under problems with the dictionary definition, it should read "Too" not "To." Damn my background as a typesetter.

Thank you everyone!

Siguy: Yes, this entry is bit opinionated. But I hope in the text I justify these opinions.

Lenitilla: I intentionaly refrained from naming any paticular Pagan paths in this article. Its the old "there are so many worth mentioning, I may forget some and offend so better not to mention any" argument at work there. I hoped that I had made it clear that beliefs vary WIDELY in the Neo-Pagan community. As to specific beliefs, I think each path would make a great entry in and of itself. So instead of giving brief references to various Pagan paths, perhaps full-fledged entries should be written. I think somewhere there is a "religion" section somewhere in the "Life, The Universe and Everything" guide to the guide. Each path as entries become part of the edited guide can get linked there. Or perhaps some brave soul will make a "launch page" with links to the different entires on the many flavors of Paganism.

Hexar: thanks for the catch on the spelling snafu! (Hail Eris, by the way)

Good point... I concur.

Somebody (somebody besides me!) needs to write a guide entry that lists all the current religions... all religions with an actual group of worshippers over two hundred, perhaps. With cute little links that go to more in-depth articles on each.

Reason I asked - I was curious, because I couldn't remember more than a few groups of pagans. Wiccans and Druids, of course, and they're closely related. There's the Satanists, and they're rebelling against Christian religion. Then there's all those weird little religions in California that don't amount to anything except for a few rich people overdosing on tranquilizers; and then there's those awful cults in Africa that were responsible for killing all those people.

But you're absolutely right in not trying to name them all - you're trying to create a general guide entry that defines paganism, rather than an encyclopedic entry on everything there is to know about the subject.

Lentilla

All religions? That's ambitious! Should one list every Christian sect of over 200 adherents? That would be enough of a task itself. Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? How about $cientology? How about Discordianism... that's a disorganized irreligion. Voodoun?

As far as other types of pagans go, I know the Old Norse religion is coming back. My father-in-law is in with a group in Utah that follows Tyr, IIRC. The distinct difference being that Wiccans follow their aspect of the Goddess, most of the Norse types I've heard of follow the warrior Gods. Vastly different mindset.

No, Christianity should have its own, long, tedious entry. I want to know more about Voudoun/Voodoo, the Elronners, Mary Baker Eddy, Mormons, the group of Old Norse guys in Utah (sounds interesting!)... You know, the off-the-beaten-path religions. And for that matter, this entry should include the weirder versions of Christianity, like Mormons, the snake-handlers, or the holy rollers.

Buddhism, like Christianity, started out as a philosphy, but became a religion. It's very difficult for a group of people to follow an idea. But give them a beatifically smiling, limpid-eyed prophet/philosopher and they'll follow in droves. You've gotta have a hook. Once you get a neophyte into the fold, then you can tell them the truth.

Like most religions, the more you know about it, the less believable it becomes. Mormonism starts out with some normal-sounding ideas. But when you get to the part where every male owns his own planet, populated with lots of women, and when you hear that Joseph Smith got the straight s**t from a burning salamander in the desert, then you have to wonder.

I dunno. Maybe I should try to write it, but I don't have the background to write something like that, and I don't have the resources to do the research. Any takers?

Lentilla

I really wrote this Entry because I had come across difficulty with the term in conversations here (mostly in the Freedom From Faith Foundation Forums http://www.h2g2.com/A254314 ) and in the real world.

It is my opinion that any Entry on Religions or Philosophies, or anything else that is at all schismatic, should be written of in the general, saving the distictive schisms (or denominations, or sects, etc.) for entries on thier own. SO, if I were in charge the entry on Christianity would only touch upon the things that ALL Christians have in common, with brief mentions of popular but not universal beliefs. Then each Christian Denomination could have its own seperate entry telling about it in detail.

Let these things develop organicly. The guide works best as something decentralized.

Yeah, I think it was well written too. But I quibble over the bottom line:

Pagan: n. One who adheres to a belief system outside that of established Orthodoxy.

I think you'd best replace "Orthodoxy" with "national or international religions". I've never heard "Orthodoxy" used as a term embracing multiple religions. Besides, Pagans are getting well enough established to have their own orthodox belief system.

Lentilla - there's a guide entry on Satanism - at http://www.h2g2.com/A230211 , and you'll find that's while it's originator was someone who rejected christianity, the religion itself is completely seperate - the only thing it takes from christianity is it's name.

On the entry itself, I think it's worth pointing out that pagan is like "queer", "witch", and a bunch of other words - it can be insulting when used by a non-member of the group, but isn't insulting when used by a member. (I believe the term is "reclaimed").

Nice entry - all we need now is the same thing again for "Heathen"...

Ask any Satanist and he'll/she'll tell you they're not Christian. What I find amusing is that Satanism uses the Christian mythos of angels and demons - which makes it a sect of christianity to me... hmmm... maybe I ought to read that article!

Okay, just read the article - interesting. The only thing that bothers me is that if Satanism is the worship of self as god, then why is it called Satanism? Why not call it (pardon me) Scientology, or Dianetics, or Unitarianism? The inclusion of Satan as a symbol seems a little needless and counter-productive. Of course, Le Vey was rebelling against Christianity and the excesses he saw committed by members of the church.

Non sequitur: Satanism is not the only religion that declares man-as-god. Maybe Heinlein thought of it first (Stranger in a Strange Land) but it's a major tenet in a lot of new-age christian sects.

Oh, one small suggestion... as you say in an attached forum: "All Wiccans are Pagan, but all Pagans are not Wiccan"

Since Wiccan/Pagan is a common mixup, would a quick comment to straighten out this misconception not be a good idea?

Well thats what I thought the attached forums were *for*. I don't think every single detail needs to be spelled out in the entry. Apperantly some people do however. This article has been officially rejected:

"There are many interesting elements in this Entry, which is quite well
written. Unfortunately, the generalities are rather too sweeping. A little more
research providing extra factual content would really transform what's already
written, which is good so far."

-- Mark Moxon

I think they miss the point that for the definition to work it needs to be broad.

Any chances of you making the changes Mark asked for Zen? Or should this entry be moved to the writing workshop?

I've taken a L O N G break from h2g2 and just returned tonight. Mayhaps I will look at updating and resubmitting the entry, I dunno. We'll see.

Hi Zen, nice to see you back after so long. I have a suggestion to make about this article, which I think is good to read but perhaps a little too much of a personal interpretation to stand on its own in the edited guide. Maybe it would benefit from a broader variety of perspectives, seeing as there are so many different views of paganism and - I think - probably quite a few people on h2g2 with Pagan-type leanings. Why not throw it open to the community at large - either at the writing workshop, as Lucinda suggests, or some other relevant forum - and turn it into a genuinely collaborative effort? Or maybe there are some other relevant articles that this one could be combined with? It might make it a lot richer - also, it might save you the bother of doing rewrites.

Just an idea. See ya, Lear.

The Writing Workshop might be a definate direction to go. I'll have to get over my own ego to share what I think is a really dandy entry. Where is the writing workshop at? I remember seeing it many moons ago... I'm a bit rusty navigating the guide. (BTW I miss the "Don't Panic" Button .. when was it replaced by "help"?)