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

Entry: A Basic Intro to Paganism - A959330
Author: WebWitch - U212115

This is an attempt at a very basic intro to Paganism, which is far too large a subject for one short entry. Any and all constructive comments and suggestions are deeply appreciated

Very interesting. I was not aware that Pagans did not evangelise. The article is fairly well-balanced, so there shouldn't be a problem. Hopefully it will remove some of the ignorance of the subject.

Thank you Having read it over and again, I'm afraid I'm not quite capable of reading it neutrally at the moment, so suggestions from non-Pagans as to how it reads and if it's helpful, and from Pagans as to how they feel they're being represented are very much appreciated.

I've done a little polishing and added a piece about altars.

As a non-pagan, i found it very informative, and I really liked it

I'm just trying to see if my archery club would be classed as a cult, scarily it gets that way once we're on archery trips. (I made them all get up at 5.30 yesterday morning so I could go to a ball last night )

Nothing seems to be missing, but then I don't know much about the subject, I had no questions when reading it, if that helps.

Here is an already edited article on paganism
A563834 A Practical Definition of Pagan
But yours covers more stuff and the emphasis is completely different, so I don't think you need to worry about there being an article already about the subject. But I'd check up on it as sometimes they can be too similar to both be in the guide.

Good luck with getting it in the guide, I think it should be there

SallyM

Thank you

I checked out the other article a while ago, and it does, indeed, seem to have a very different emphasis. The author agreed that he was getting bogged down by trying to describe in detail the religious practices of Pagans, though I thought he had the basis for a really excellent article.

The definition of "cult" is truly fascinating - actually, in all seriousness, I have seen social clubs and sports clubs that became to my mind cult-like and somewhat fascist (small elite under a highly authoritarian leader, etc.); but you always have to balance a respect for peoples' freedoms with the practicalities of running any organisation, whether it's an archery club or a coven! Bonewits's Cult Danger Evaluation technique is, I think, a much more practical and workable method of evaluating the genuine dangers of cults - though I think most people would be surprised at how "cultish" mainstream religion (i.e. central authority, rules about sexuality and marriage, tithing, etc.) *can* be!

Thanks again - it's heartening to get responses

That's a well written and informative article Web, as a solitary Wicca who favours archetypes and a non-magical approach to the whole shindig I was neither offended nor supurred on to ask for any changes.

With all the individual aspects and takes on paganism any article on the subject will read as/and/or/maybe/in some cases/perhaps/either, but I like it and think that it should go into the guide nice and quick.

Thank you

I wanted to cover the very basics, not exclude anyone (there is a tendency for many articles to assume that all Pagans are Wiccans, but while Wicca's the dominant sect, it's by no means the only one), and express the diversity of belief in the Pagan community. All in a very, very basic way. I'm hoping that it is a decent base-level description.

My only problem with it, as a pagan myself, is that it makes the same mistakes of generalisation that everyone always makes, and it would be really, really nice to see an introduction that doesn't make those mistakes.

Pagans don't all revere nature. They don't. It's just that everyone likes to think they do.

There is nothing common to all pagans other than that they are not Christian, Jewish or Moslem. There is no common cause that unites all of them.

Any article that says "pagans do (or don't)..." is going to be mistaken. Because some might, and that doesn't make them not pagan.

This is why I won't sign up to the Pagan Federation.

I accept that it's full of generalisations; it's impossible to make a general, basic introduction without doing that, I'm afraid

"There is nothing common to all pagans other than that they are not Christian, Jewish or Moslem. There is no common cause that unites all of them."

With respect, I would take issue with this Buddhists, Hindus, Santeros, Vodouisants, and Shintoists of my aquaintance are all very clear that they are not Pagans.

To be truthful, in 15 years in the Pagan community, I've never known a Pagan who doesn't revere the Earth in some way or another.

I'd be really interested in knowing more about your Paganism - the more information I have, the better the article can become

I have no real issue with your generalisations, except that some of them are rather too sweeping and leave a misleading lasting impression on those who have no previous knowledge.

The problem is that the word "pagan" has come to mean in people's minds exactly what you are describing - and in that sense, there are plenty of people who would definitely not describe themselves as pagan because all they know are the descriptions like the one you are giving here. If I were to take your description, I wouldn't be pagan either. But delve more deeply and look at the way the langauge has evolved and we find that really, Hutton's acceptance of modern NeoPagan parlance aside, there is no inclusive definition of pagan, only exclusive.

Early Norse cultures did not revere the Earth in the same way as modern Wiccans. It was more of an ancestor culture. Setians don't revere the Earth - unless it suits them for their particular purpose.

At the end of the day, there is no such thing as "paganism" - the phrase was really used as a term of disrespect by Christians, and modern pagans who want to think of it as the new religious movement in which we bring the magic back and become a more spiritual and Earth-loving race have re-claimed it.

I have written an essay describing why "paganism" is not a religion, here http://www.ravenfamily.org/sam/pag/religion.html , which covers some of these points - I don't want to hijack this topic. Paganism is a short cut for all sorts of things, but it's not a discrete religious movement. Unfortunately, articles such as this one, while well-meant, do tend to disenfranchise those of us who do not conform to the commonly accepted norms, and who do not lay claim to any "tradition" but are happy just being ourselves.

But don't take it personally - I ruffled a few feathers when I sat on a panel at the Pagan Federation National Conference a couple of years ago and told them exactly the same thing

Oh, I'm not taking offence

I read your article some months back, and got a lot out of it; I didn't agree with it completely, as you can see by my take on the topic, but it was really absorbing.

"I have no real issue with your generalisations, except that some of them are rather too sweeping and leave a misleading lasting impression on those who have no previous knowledge."

ANY basic introduction to any religious or philosophical belief system that isn't a whole book with footnotes is going to end up relying on sweeping generalisations The point of Peer Review is, as I understand it, to provide constructive input so that the articles can be made as informative and accurate as possible, which is what we're doing here. If you'd like to point out which of the generalisations are too sweeping, I'd be very open to reconsidering them.

E"arly Norse cultures did not revere the Earth in the same way as modern Wiccans. It was more of an ancestor culture. Setians don't revere the Earth - unless it suits them for their particular purpose."

Of course the early Norse didn't revere the Earth in the same way as modern Wiccans. For a start, when we think of "the Earth", we think of the planet, of those famous pictures from space; we have a different perspective than they did. They did revere the Earth in the form of Nerthus, the Earth embodied, carrying her covered image in a cart to be revered by the populace before taking it back to its island temple. They did have a strong connection to the Earth in the form of landwights, disir and alfar, presenting them with regular offerings and prayer, and with the annual disirblot and alfarblot. In fact, at a recent disirblot I attended, the point was made that we are seeing a movement away from "god-centred" Pagan religion to daily observances and culture as our community (by which I mean Asatrurar) matures - our ancestors didn't think of religion in the same terms as we do because it was their lifestyle, embedded in their culture and language; Christianity has managed to do it too, but of late it has become less a national culture than a conscious religion. If that makes sense - I'm afraid I don't have an education in semantics and philosophy, so I'm just doing my best here, however badly! Your essay speaks about the necessity of "religion" for worship - the Shintoists tend not to agree; many tribal cultures don't have a "religion", but a way of life; and that's the way it seems our pre-Christian ancestors viewed the world. We're not in the same boat - we've been brought up in a culture that seperates religion and lifestyle and culture and worship, and so we have a different take, a different experience to bring to bear on this whole thing (she said, coherently).

The couple of Setians I have met went out of their way to tell me that they did not consider themselves Pagan, but that they considered themselves to be non-Christians. They would not use the term "Pagan", but did accept the term "initiatory magical philosophy". Beyond that, they didn't want to talk to someone they had decided was a flaky Wiccan without knowing me. I'm afraid I've not had the opportunity to ask questions of a Real Live Setian, only read their online resources. My understanding of them, then, has been that they do not call themselves Pagans. Am I much mistaken?

"At the end of the day, there is no such thing as "paganism" - the phrase was really used as a term of disrespect by Christians, and modern pagans who want to think of it as the new religious movement in which we bring the magic back and become a more spiritual and Earth-loving race have re-claimed it."

That early Christians used "Pagan" as a term of disrespect for those who were not "soldiers for Christ" is not in dispute. Mind you, "queer" was originally used as a derogatory term for non-heterosexuals (and still is by many), but we are reclaiming and redefining the word. Words change meaning - "silly" once meant "innocent" - and we use them to consciously and unconsciously define and redefine our world. The vast majority of non-Christians/Moslems/Jews do NOT define themselves as Pagans - Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, and others use their own religious monikers. Some Christians may consider anyone who is not a Christian to be a "pagan"; some would consider anyone who is not a member of their Christian sect a "pagan". The term "Pagan" was around before Christianity, and it now has an independent meaning. So I personally don't accept that the only definition can be "not Christian".

I'm not sure I'm being at all coherent here - I'm absolutely bushwacked, but I wanted to make a response as soon as I saw your post for courtesy's sake, and also because it seems that I have an opportunity to stretch my little brain

See how tired I am - I left out something important.

I don't see "reverence" and "worship" as necessarily being the same thing and I took care to say that not all Pagans worship the Earth.

I also don't believe that it it necessary to believe in a "higher" power to be Pagan, and I made it clear that there are many attitudes to that in the article.

Any help in clearing things like that up much appreciated.

I'm genuinely interested in why someone who feels that the only definition of Pagan is "not a member of the world religions" and that it does not have a religious connotation refers to themselves as Pagan and feels deeply about it. I'm hoping that by learning more about this aspect of Paganism, I can not only add to my own experience, but make the article better.

I'm actually working on it, just wanted to give a more in-depth response that wasn't just off the top of my head while I'm being harassed at work. I'm not ignoring you

And that's not the definition I use at all. The definition I use is 'one who is not a Christian, Jew or Moslem'. It's more of an adjective than a noun. There are plenty of pagan religions, but paganism is not a religion, and one need not be religious to be pagan.

Religion implies faith and belief. I have neither. I don't believe in a higher unseen controlling power or powers. There is no big finger up in the sky keeping tabs on what I am doing. There's my Dad, but he's not 'higher', just different, and my dad. I don't believe in him, either, any more than I believe in the postman or my genetic dad.

I'm still pagan. My worldview is still eccentric by consensus standards, and I have a lot of weird experiences. Perhaps I shoud give up my claim to the word pagan and stick with Discordian Pyrrhonic Methodist, but frankly I don't see why I should just because the Romantic New Age thinks pagan means 'Earth-worshipping, matriarchal happy clappy'.

If someone self-identifies as pagan and is not Christian, Jewish or Moslem, then that person is pagan. There are no "must and must nots" other than that simple criterion. It gets quite irritating when non-pagans assume I'm Wiccan, or Heathen, or some sort of Ceremonial Magician, and that I'm an Earth-worshipping, tree-hugging, Mother Goddess-loving, velvet and silver wearing muppet who believes in fairies, goblins and the Law of Threefold Return because everyone who ever writes a basic introduction to paganism makes out that this is what it means to be pagan.

So, if you wouldn't mind giving me a day or so, I shall come back with a full response rather than just ranting at you

I'd be much obliged - always good to get more info

By the by, I'd thought that the page and your writing style looked familiar, Ravenbait - I'd spent quite some time reading your pages a few months ago, and forwarded the URL to several people

I'm looking forward to the chance for a conversation

The word 'Pagan' actually comes from the Latin word 'Pagani', which was a group of farmers in the Roman Empire who held out longest before becoming Christian. Thus, the origin is 'non-Christian', but, like you said, it has changed. Still, I think this is a gret entry. It might be good if the Guide was eventually to include several entries on the various Pagan Traditions, pracrices, etc. That'd be cool.

Have you seen this article?

A563834

It's very good.

Ravenbait:

Yes, I did - I got in on the discussion, though only one post. It really highlighted lots of the problems in trying to create a definition of Paganism. Actually, re-reading it, someone had pointed out that attempting a definition is silly - the best thing to do is provide USAGES. I had been kicking this around, but given that there seem to be people who call themselves Pagan who tell me that they don't fit my understanding of Paganism (but then often won't explain what they do believe/practice/live - usually, they seem to get their kicks out of talking down to me as an assumed "fluffy Wiccan" rather than sticking around and actually discussing the point with me), and that some of the people who are defining themselves as Pagan have co-religionists/practitioners who absolutely deny any connection with Paganism, it's a tad on the difficult side. What I need to create a "Usages of the word Pagan" article is a better grasp of what Pagans who don't fit my definition actually are. Another idea was to make it an article on "Neopaganism", but this seems to rather duck the issue.

Basically, I don't approach this as "This is my cool article, what is totally right, and if you don't agree with me you're not Pagan" - it's "Here's what I've got - comments? Constructive criticism? Help me?" Which is, I hope, just what's happening

Oh, by the by, your essay on being a "raven brat" was of real help to an aquaintance of mine. I passed it on to her after a conversation about her spiritual life, and she was very enthusiastic. So thanks

Hussassan:

There's also the Roman army usage of pagani originating in "country dweller" to mean any civilian, which was taken up by Christians to denote anyone who wasn't a "soldier of Christ". Which I think is interesting - let's take a word, muck around with it, and see which usage wins out and for how long

I'm currently reading David Starkey's 'The Rise of Christianity', which is really interesting in that it turns some ideas about who converted to Christianity when on their heads. I really enjoy seeing that happen, because then you get a much more interesting array of ideas on an event or series of events than just the "official party line"