![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The last few articles about Catholic anti-Paganism on the Wildhunt, have gotten me thinking about some of the most oft criticized aspects of modern Paganism. Extremely simplified, one can be paraphrased as this:
This is right up there with the Burning Times stories when it gets blasted as revisionist history and fluffy Paganism. I have to say, though, how many religions or religious movements have a literal and historically supported mythology? Neo-Wiccan/animist/neo-Paganism is a movement is trying to find an identity.
Traditional Wicca has its own mythologies, as does every cultural Pagan faith. Animist neo-Paganism does not. The stories about the Great Mother Goddess and peaceful matriarchal societies sounds very much like many hero myths to me. A lot of things are exaggerated and smoothed out to sound as fantastical as possible.
I wonder if it is really necessary to try and take that away. To my mind, there is no harm in letting Animist/Goddess worshipping neo-Paganism create their own mythology. There may not be a lot that is based in fact, but hero tales never really are (unless you find it terribly likely that Achilles really did die from a single arrow to the heal).
I have some more thinking to do on this. It may make my first article of the year.
--Phae
"The notion behind [neo-Paganism] is that there was once a magical far-off time when humans dwelt in harmony with Mother Earth ... and all was well as we worshipped the 'gods' and 'goddesses' who both expressed the beauty of Nature and got us in touch with our inmost selves."
This is right up there with the Burning Times stories when it gets blasted as revisionist history and fluffy Paganism. I have to say, though, how many religions or religious movements have a literal and historically supported mythology? Neo-Wiccan/animist/neo-Paganism is a movement is trying to find an identity.
Traditional Wicca has its own mythologies, as does every cultural Pagan faith. Animist neo-Paganism does not. The stories about the Great Mother Goddess and peaceful matriarchal societies sounds very much like many hero myths to me. A lot of things are exaggerated and smoothed out to sound as fantastical as possible.
I wonder if it is really necessary to try and take that away. To my mind, there is no harm in letting Animist/Goddess worshipping neo-Paganism create their own mythology. There may not be a lot that is based in fact, but hero tales never really are (unless you find it terribly likely that Achilles really did die from a single arrow to the heal).
I have some more thinking to do on this. It may make my first article of the year.
--Phae
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-23 06:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-02-23 10:12 pm (UTC)--Phae
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-03 03:47 am (UTC)I think mythology is fine, but I wish it were a bit more grounded in some fact. Maybe it is, but I don't think there was ever a Garden of Eden, either for Abrahamic religious followers, or for pagans.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-03 05:43 am (UTC)I'm not so sure that the factual nature of the story is what gives it value. If the site of the 'Garden of Eden' or the remains of 'Noah's Ark' were found, would it make those stories more valuable to Christianity/Judaism than they are now? Should it?
I can see the 'Eden' of the Goddess' people as part of a lovely creation myth. It's kind of like Graves' White Goddess, it doesn't need to be fact to have value.
I dunno. I think that it is a 'don't piss off the Recons' sort of attitude that the Craft must also be historically accurate in order to be valid. Witchcraft and Wicca have never been about history, and I think that is important to remember.
No one cares if Wicca is ancient or modern (well, no one should care). It is a growing and evolving path that is remade with each Witch who writes hir next ritual.
I gots more contemplating to do. Maybe I'll make another post later this week.
--Phae
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-04 06:00 pm (UTC)I'm not so sure that the factual nature of the story is what gives it value. If the site of the 'Garden of Eden' or the remains of 'Noah's Ark' were found, would it make those stories more valuable to Christianity/Judaism than they are now? Should it?
There are a couple of thoughts that spring to mind here. First, I think that when many of the original stories associated with religion were created, they were believed to be true. Or, that is, as true as one can imagine. Creation myths in particular are probably the result of shamanic UPG. Some people would have believed them to be true. Others, given time and thought and progress, would have seen them as allegories. But I think that most such myths were originally thought to be true.
The fact that myths go from truth to allegory may or may not affect religious belief. You can see this in modern Christianity. Some strands of Christianity seem more comfortable with the idea of stories in the Bible as being allegories. Others, however, principally the evangelical movements, expend great amounts of energy trying to prove and assert that all of the words in the Bible are completely true. This gives validation to their god, and his supposed word, as being Truth.
The same split in thought appears in pagan groups, but it isn't as obvious. I've seen recons do it, and neo-pagans. Reading Ann Moura's book, for example, is an exercise in someone warping facts to try and 'prove' her theories to be correct. This appears to be a Very Important Thing in order to use this as a basis for the religious thought and theory she advocates, as it confers legitimacy.
Some recons try to be 'pure' as well (particularly Asatru it would seem, but there are others). They confer far more weight and legitimacy on certain writings than is probably appropriate, again I think to confer legitimacy.
I can see the 'Eden' of the Goddess' people as part of a lovely creation myth. It's kind of like Graves' White Goddess, it doesn't need to be fact to have value.
I agree, it can have value. But in addition to my statements above, these myths should never be considered to be true. Unlike more ancient myths, we have enough science and study now to know when some of these claims just don't measure up. Creating such things, as Moura does, in the face of fact, cheapens their value considerably.
I dunno. I think that it is a 'don't piss off the Recons' sort of attitude that the Craft must also be historically accurate in order to be valid. Witchcraft and Wicca have never been about history, and I think that is important to remember.
Really? I've seen a lot of folks expend a lot of energy to try and validate the historical origins of Wicca and Witchcraft. I don't think this is just a recon conceit.
No one cares if Wicca is ancient or modern (well, no one should care).
ding ding ding ding ding!!!! You've hit on it. But some DO care!
It is a growing and evolving path that is remade with each Witch who writes hir next ritual.
Yes, up to a point. But there's also a lot of discussion about tradition. Some of it is starting new traditions, but often people try to root these in older traditions. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not accurate, IMO, to say that Wicca and Witchcraft make now attempts to look back beyond the last century.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-03-04 07:36 pm (UTC)I'm confused as to what you mean by this. Is there a typo in this sentance or have I just not had enough coffee?
The same split in thought appears in pagan groups, but it isn't as obvious. I've seen recons do it, and neo-pagans. Reading Ann Moura's book, for example, is an exercise in someone warping facts to try and 'prove' her theories to be correct. This appears to be a Very Important Thing in order to use this as a basis for the religious thought and theory she advocates, as it confers legitimacy.
Some recons try to be 'pure' as well (particularly Asatru it would seem, but there are others). They confer far more weight and legitimacy on certain writings than is probably appropriate, again I think to confer legitimacy.
I agree with you here. And I would like to think that eventually people will look on this practise the same way that moderate Christians look on Evangelicals. They may mean well, but their practises range from excentricies that are usually ignored to dangerous prosletutes that need to keep their zealotry to themselves.
All in all, I still don't think that it hurts anyone for some to use those stories as a basis for a neo-Pagan mythology. If they start to push it like gospel, well, then they can be dealt with the same way that folks deal with anyone else who does that.
What I don't think needs to happen is for neo-Pagans/wiccans to be fair game to have parts of their faith torn apart by people who may not subscribe to the same beliefs - even if they do identify under the same label.
--Phae
Typos *sigh*
Date: 2008-03-04 08:14 pm (UTC)Meaning, you get a lot of neo-pagans and neo-Wiccans, and Wiccans, trying to look back beyond Gardner and find some historical 'justification' for their practices. Not all, but some. I've heard one person say that neo-Wiccan practices are a recon religion in and of itself. I don't think that's accurate. It's kind of like saying that modern neo-paganism is Hellenic. Well, yes, there's the use of the pentagram, as the Pythagoreans first indicated it, and modified by othes later, but that would hardly make neo-pagans de facto Hellenics. Still, people need to identify with something quite often, using something else to lend an air of legitimacy to their work.
Funny, but if I wanted a good god/goddess story as the basis for neo-pagan practices, I'd be a lot more at ease borrowing the mythology laid down by Hesiod and just adopting Ouranos and Gaia (which, in fact, is what I've done) instead of trying to create a utopian existence in some misty past (as Moura tries to do) that has no basis in fact. Adapting an existing mythological system might be better than trying to create something that just didn't ever exist.
I agree with you to some extent about not being torn apart. But if you have neo-pagans insisting that their faiths are based on some result of 'the burning times' or somesuch other silliness, is it okay to just sit there and not say anything? I guess there's a fine line between religious practices based on their factual origins.
Re: Typos *sigh*
Date: 2008-03-05 01:34 am (UTC)Funny, but if I wanted a good god/goddess story as the basis for neo-pagan practices, I'd be a lot more at ease borrowing the mythology laid down by Hesiod and just adopting Ouranos and Gaia (which, in fact, is what I've done) instead of trying to create a utopian existence in some misty past (as Moura tries to do) that has no basis in fact.
Fair enough. But not everyone is willing to do that anymore since many Recons have laid claim to their deities. I hear all the time about how "fluffies" are disrespecting ancient gods by not worshipping them in the manner they once were.
A good example is how the Asatru deal with other people who are not heathen working with or worshipping the Norse gods.
I agree with you to some extent about not being torn apart. But if you have neo-pagans insisting that their faiths are based on some result of 'the burning times' or somesuch other silliness, is it okay to just sit there and not say anything?
Yes. Just like it is perfectly fine to sit by and roll your eyes when someone wants to claim that their gods are anime characters or are from outer space.
What other people believe doesn't need to impact you or me at all, providing it doesn't pose a threat (and I don't believe that making other Pagans/Wiccans/Witches silly can be considered a threat).
JMO, of course. YMMV
--Phae
More thoughts
Date: 2008-03-05 07:22 pm (UTC)You're right, as long as someone isn't posing a threat, no need to challenge them. But it can sometimes be tough to spot threats. Someone who says things sweetly and otherwise does nothing can, in fact, be building up an irrational hatred of some sort that might manifest itself later.
But, we can't interrupt or try to change folks if they're not causing trouble.
It's interesting to me, thinking about things, how the pagan movement has moved in the U.S. and Canada. Basically, the recons fall into very specific pantheons for the most part:
Celtic
Germanic
Roman
Greek
Egyptian
Hindu
Obviously this isn't everyone. I've read of some who follow Slavic deities (as best as they can), and there are others out there. But, for the vast majority of folks that are recons, these are the major pantheons.
All but the Egyptians are Indo-European peoples. If you subscribe (as I do) to the idea that I-E peoples share some common religious ideals and traits even centuries after the divisions into different linguistic groups, then the divisions that people create are somewhat artificial. Not to say that recons don't do it. I have an article (which is linked at home, I'll have to get it there) where someone wrote up a bit piece on the Wheel of the Year and how the 8 High Holidays aren't really pan-Celtic. Well, okay, but almost all of them were from some Celtic speakers. For those that were not, you can find something in Germanic cultures, or I-E stuff near the Mediterranian.
Additionally, the pentagram as a symbol adopted by many neo-pagans today has it's roots in the Pythagorean thinking, which is of course Hellenic in nature. Gnostic philosophy also has roots in neo-Platonic thinking. Does this make Wicca a weird form of Hellenismos? No, but it does say that many of the traits used by the newer religions have roots in much older traditions (whether known or not).
And, to me, this is important. When both sides (recons and neo-pagans/Wiccans) realize what they share, it might lead to less antagonistic discussions. This may be a forelorn hope of course. I read a message board recently where someone said that only those who were of UK descent could call themselves 'witches' as this is an English word, and those not of English descent had no right to use the word. Waaaaay too many people are obsessed with 'us v. them' arguments methinks.
Re: More thoughts
Date: 2008-03-06 03:20 am (UTC)The feeling of the whole world truly being all one people gives me hope.
Waaaaay too many people are obsessed with 'us v. them' arguments methinks.
I very much agree.
--Phae
Re: More thoughts
Date: 2008-03-06 03:53 am (UTC)http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/essays/wheel.html