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

Me again! I think I've put my finger on what bothers me about this entry. There's a feeling of enjoyment from being part of a group of outcasts, of people who are identified as being *different*, perhaps even taboo?

"Paganism is not defined by a lack of beliefs as the dictionaries would lead us to believe but for embracing a belief that is outside of the established Orthodoxy."

Part of this says to me "We're different, different enough to worry *you*, and we like that."

"In my opinion, Paganism will always be a minority religion. If a specific path grows to where it becomes integrated into the dominant culture, it is no longer that which is "outside the city walls" but another established orthodoxy and no longer a Pagan path."

This really hammers the message home. Am I right to understand that you would distance yourself from your current views, simply because another two billion people came to think as you do?

My son wears black, ripped T-shirts, like *all* his friends, and pours contempt on the sheep who wear uniforms. Would you say it is an important part of Pagan beliefs that they are followed only by a few? Doesn't *what* you believe matter a whole lot more than who agrees with you?

I'm sure I've got this all wrong; I look forward to your straightening me out! Until then,

Pattern-Chaser

Yes, there is enjoyment in being a non-conformist. I know exactly what youare talking about with your son. There was a saying with my 'punk-rock' (we used the term punk-rock different than most, but I digress) when we would make fun of the cookie-cutter model of "rebels" be they Gothic, Punks, or whatever. "I am unique and different, just like all my friends!" True non-conformity has to do with doing exactly what you want to do. NOT doing something because it is popular is just another kind of conformity.

When I say Pagan paths are by necsisty minority religions, I do this as much as from a etymological standpoint as I do from a perceptual standpoint. One could argue that Christianity started out as a Pagan path using my definition. In 33 AD (or CE for those who don't like using 'the year of our lord') The followers of Jesus were definatly a minority, and their beliefs went against the grain of the established religions of its day. As we well know that small group of followers spread, and now Christianity is a major componant of Western culture, and no one would consider it Pagan now. This is also why I think that Hinduism is not neccisarily a Pagan religion. It has been called "the world's largest pagan religion" but that is using the defintion of 'not being Christian, Jew, or Muslim'. Hinduism is so integrated into the cultures where it is present that in those reigions it is the status quo. Part of the establishment. (Perhaps Hinduism practiced where it is a minority religion could be considered Pagan however. Tough call.)

Now, as to your erroneous judgement of my character. You said:

"This really hammers the message home. Am I right to understand that you would distance yourself from your current views, simply because another two billion people came to think as you do?"

The answer is no, I would not. My views are correct for me no matter how many people share them. In all honsety, if 2 Billion people shared MY beliefs, I would be thrilled (and perhaps a Spiritual Leader to many?). This is not the case, nor am I interested in this being a goal. My beliefs have been described as "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism" quite a mouthful. Recently there has been a push to transistion from this term to "Senistrognata" which is an Old-Celtic (the obsolete 'mother tounge of the Gaelic and Cymirc languages)word meaning "Ancestral Beliefs". Much the same way that those who practice a Norse-Reconstructionist path are called "Asatru". If Senistrognata got the respect and recognition of a major religion, where the beliefs became integrated into the popular culture, it would not change the way I feel towards my beliefs. BUT Senistrognata in this hypothetical and unlikly situation would have "graduated" from Paganism and become an Established Religion.

So when I said that a Path would cease being considered Pagan (and it is only my opinion, not a rule of any kind) when it was accepted doesn't say anything to the quality of that path. It just says that it would not be considered Pagan. People would just recognize the name of the hypothetical successful new religion as another religion and not part of another movement (Paganism). It would stand on its own. People would not call it "that Pagan religion, 'X'" it would simply be 'X'.

ZenMondo wrote "Now, as to your erroneous judgement of my character..."

Public apology: if what I wrote looks like character assassination, it wasn't meant to. I apologise for expressing myself badly.

General comment: Thanks for addressing my comments, Zen. It's still a thoroughly worthwhile Guide Entry, IMO.

I wonder if - setting aside the unintended tone of my comments - your entry could be rephrased, just a little, so that no-one else will mistakenly gather the wrong impression, as I did? Do any other researchers out there think this would be worthwhile?

Pattern-chaser

It wasn't character assination, it was just a misunderstanding. When you said, "Am I right to understand that you would distance yourself from your current views, simply because another two billion people came to think as you do?" You were implying a behaivior that I, personally would adopt. I guess I came across that way to you when you read the Entry, so its all good. I just used this forum to explain myself further, there is no harm in that. If anyone else comes to the same conclusion, this forum is very handy to get to and they can read on if they care about such stuff. I think this Entry has been put to bed and is pretty set in its final form.

One thing that also may not be clear is that I tried very hard to stay nuetral on the issue of whether Paganism is "good", "bad", "better", or "worse". No judgements about Paganism or other religions should have made their way into the entry. It is not meant to be anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, or anti-Muslim, and only slightly pro-Pagan. The unstated (but present) criticism in the entry is not to any belief, but to intolerance.

Zen.
Great piece! Having just read through the various conversations in relation to the article ( and bearing in mind your comment about it having been 'put to bed') I wonder if some of your reply to patternchaser (post two in this forum) might not be included in the body of the piece - also bearing in mind the 'guidelines' on the H in relation to using the 'I' word? I think it might help to fend of undue criticism and aid inclusion!
I really enjoyed reading it though!
TheOkapi

nicely explained. i just wrote an entry on Wicca, and i was glad to see that someone else thought that pagans and other misunderstood religions should be fairly represented in the Guide.

One of the things I like about the guide is using the forums to bring up stuff that is not in the actual entry. I thinks its a beautiful and elegant way to explore any topic without muddling up a nice guide entry. I might just be having a slow day but what are the "H" and "I" words you are referring to?

"One could argue that Christianity started out as a Pagan path using my definition. In 33 AD (or CE for those who don't like using 'the year of our lord') The followers of Jesus were definatly a minority, and their beliefs went against the grain of the established religions of its day. As we well know that small group of followers spread, and now Christianity is a major componant of Western culture, and no one would consider it Pagan now."

Uh... this seems to conflict with the origin of the word pagan as "outside the cities," and your description of the country bumpkins still practicing the old religion when the new one had caught on in the cities. Doesn't this imply that pagan religions tend to have deep agrarian roots? Like the Celtic stuff you were talking about. I think of paganism as more directly connected to/derived from nature or at least primary experience than the scholastic religions like Judaism and Christianity that come from Universities, as far as anyone can tell. I dunno. I tend to think of pagan religions as those that were displaced by Christianity, and the modern revivals of the same.

Just my 2 bits.

Apologies for my shorthand - I sometimes forget I'm using it!
The H = h2g2...simple shorthand! The 'I' word? Means avoid the use of the 1st person when your submitting an article; whilst not exactly 'frowned' upon, it gives your piece a better chance of being included/not being edited to hell and back, if you stick to the rule.
Any chance your editing the piece yourself? It really does deserve to be in the Guide.
Theapi

One of the ideas I was trying to get across when I wrote this Entry is that the word Pagan has transcended its original meaning. It is a word going through metamorphisis. The major definitions now have been 1. A Country Dweller 2. Someone who is not Christian, Muslim, or a Jew, and 3. the one in my entry.

What you are saying GTBacchus, is not untrue. Today's pagan religions do indeed tend to be nature-based, but deep agrarian roots are not an absolte requirement to be a Pagan path under the definition I give.

The Okapi said, "Any chance your editing the piece yourself? It really does deserve to be in the Guide."

I may work on it a little more. Its been rejected once already for being to broad and general.

I'm thinking of changing the final definition from being outside the etasblished orthodoxy and perhaps change it to something along the lines of "Pagan n. One who has a spiritual belief outside that of established religions". The idea is that the word no longer just describes those who are not Jewish, Christian or Muslim.