I am a Heathen (I prefer that term to Ásatrú, mainly because of the many ways American Heathens can unintentionally – and with the best of intentions – do violence to Old Icelandic, the language of my ancestors). I am also a progressive liberal.
Like any definition, these are problematic (please keep this proviso in mind as I tread out onto thin ice). What, exactly, do we mean by “Heathen” and what does “liberal” mean? What is a “progressive”? It should be obvious that we will not find 100% agreement across the spectrum of religion or politics on any of these terms.
So what is a Heathen? Interesting question. And one I get asked a lot. I follow the customs and traditions of my pre-Christian Norse ancestors. That’s the easiest way to say it. I therefore honor the gods of my ancestors and the spirits of hearth and nature. I am, therefore, a polytheist. My gods are not archetypes or forces of nature, but individuals.
Heathens tend to be a surly, serious bunch. We spend a lot of time worrying over how we’re going to go about bringing our religion back to life, asking “which approach is best?” In this, we’re probably no different than a lot of modern Pagan religions.
In my opinion strict reconstructionism has its problems. Religion is alive, dynamic, and changing. But if you bring Heathenism back, from when and where do you bring it? The Migration Era? The Viking Age? Some other period? From Denmark, Norway, Gemany, Sweden? From Anglo-Saxon England?
You can’t take a slice of the American West and say, “this is what life was like for the Native Americans” because it won’t be true. The result of such a sampling would be the same for any Pagan peoples in the ancient world. What gets transplanted into the present then is a static thing, an artificial representation of what Paganism used to be, at one specific time and place.
So my approach is one of revival, of bringing back ancient customs and traditions but making them relevant to the modern world. It’s not the seventh century anymore; it is the twenty-first. Some things just aren’t relevant to the modern world.
We cannot depend entirely upon scholarship for our efforts because scholarship is constantly changing our view of the past and its practices. If we depend entirely upon scholarship we’ll have a new religion every time a new discovery is made.
And I can’t go the way of embracing UPGs with wild abandon because then I feel as though I’m not reviving an ancient religion but inventing a new one. That’s not to say UPGs must be dismissed entirely, in my viewpoint. So much has been lost, so much we will never know (particularly for us Heathens), that if we did not proceed through trial and error, finding new ways to do old things, we would have a very incomplete religion.
And I recognize that syncretism is, and has always been, present. In every religion. Always. We must be careful in our reconstructions and revivals to avoid, in our haste to find some form of “purity” for our respective traditions, that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The key for me is that what is new must make sense in light of what is old. They must mesh. I look for some continuity; it must be something that at least could have been true. In other words, as just one example, I won’t mix modern occult practices with my religion. I cannot imagine such a thing as a Gardnerian Heathen.
So that’s my approach to religion.
As for politics, I grew up in a very conservative household. My father yearned for the “good old days” (by that he meant the Victorian Era, when everything was kept in the closet) while my mother was, while conservative politically, a little more moderate religiously. I grew up unquestioning; I did not challenge the assumptions my parents fed me. Though I was born in 1957 and was 12 at the height of Hippie-dom, the Counter-Culture did not reach into my home, a bastion of the status-quo.
It was only as I grew into my teens and came into growing awareness of the wider world that I began to question these assumptions. The result was that in 1979, questioning the validity of the one vs. many model of religion, I became a polytheist. I also became more liberal in my views as many of the Judeo-Christian-based assumptions fell away. My parents would not recognize me now: I work for change, for social justice, for winning equal rights for all, and conservatism is, and has always been, about the status quo.
The irony in all this is that ancient Pagans were conservative folk. We’re speaking after all of the “traditional cults” as they were termed in the Roman world. The approach was no different in Heathen cultures. Tradition. Mos Maiorum: the customs and traditions of my ancestors. The ancients appealed to tradition, but they were well aware that customs and traditions evolved. The reality of tradition then fell somewhat short of the ideal. But no one was championing a revolution in thought; it was a slow evolution.
As a progressive liberal I favor a more moderate approach. I am not and can never be a member of the extreme left (though I recognize that perception plays a role and that conservatives might see things differently). But when I say moderate I mean a moderate within the confines (if that term can be used) of progressivism.
I do not like extremism, whether from the left or the right; I am not comfortable with it. Fanatics of any sort do not appeal to me. I can admire their passion on an intellectual level but I cannot share in them because zealotry means limiting your viewpoint: closing off most of reality to your consideration. I can’t do that.
There is room in Paganism for different approaches. There should be. Paganism is diverse. It always has been and I suppose (and hope) it always will be. Egyptologist Jan Assmann speaks of polytheism as a means of translation between cultures, breaking down and transcending barriers, rather than erecting them. Different groups of Pagans could always identify with each other’s gods and goddesses. Historian Ramsay MacMullen calls ancient Paganism a ““spongy mass of tolerance and tradition,” and this applies as much today as it did 2000+ years ago.
It is something we should be proud of, just as we should be proud of Paganism’s ability to host differing political views. We’re different, but we’re not opposed, and we’re all in this together, because Paganism is all about diversity and tolerance. Each ethnic group in the ancient world had its own gods and goddesses, and their religion was true religion – true for them because it worked for them. When we all have true religions, there is no need to fight over them.
Paganism is a beautiful thing. I love my gods, and I love my religion. And I love my fellow Pagans even when I disagree with them.
I look forward to exchanging and sharing viewpoints of hot button political issues with my fellow bloggers, and thankful for the opportunity to make people stop and think, to challenge their assumptions, and to have a few of my own challenged as well.
You bring up some of the same things that confuse me about a lot of modern Reconstructionists, particularly the whole “Which specific period are we reconstructing?” argument. This of course, gets very tricky when you consider the amount of syncreticism and what-not going on in Late Antiquity. I mean, according to the definitions used by many Recons that I’ve encountered, most residents of the Roman Empire were “Eclectic Neopagans” [GASP!].
Another question that I still have (unanswered) for the Volkisch Recon types is whether Barack Obama, being that his mother is of English Norman ancestry, is eligible to be a “Volkisch Asatruar?” (I know…I’m such a sh-t stirrer…)
Byron, I’ve seen photos of Heathen groups with African-American members. No problem. I’ve also met African-Americans with names like McQueen at the Scottish Games.
Bryon, I’m just a surly old son of Odin myself and a bit of an iconoclast so I’ve been viewed as stirring up a sh-t a time or two as well. The line from Monty Python comes to mind, “I am not one to court popularity…”
I think we all have to be willing to be offended from time to time. Nobody likes having their beliefs or assumptions challenged. I’ve learned quite a bit over the past six or seven years from Heathens I’ve met online, especially a good friend from Iceland, who gave me some (occasionally hard) shoves towards common sense (not to mention awareness of the crimes we commit against Old Icelandic in Vinland!).
I guess it’s obvious given my progressive stance, but I’ll say it anyway: I’m not at all “Folkish” in my outlook. If history demonstrates anything it is that my Norse ancestors were very flexible in their outlook and that they had no trouble assimilating with native cultures.
I brought up recently (somewhere else, can’t remember) the fact that in the Norse myths, the gods and goddesses often had relations/marriages with the Jotun, who are described variously as monsters, giants, trolls, etc. Considering that, the idea of any kind of Norse racial “purity” or vokischness certainly seems “sketchy,” in my opinion…
Exactly. And look too at how two tribes, the Aesir and the Vanir, came together to collectively be the gods of the Norse.
When I try and form an impression of exactly what my religion is supposed to “BE”, I think I can best discribe it as an “as close an approximation of what the FLAVOR of the belief system in question as can be realistically “reconstructed”, while attempting to adapt those beliefs to the sensibilities of our modern age”. I don’t live in a pastoral, pre-industrial village, and I am not faced with the task of defending my tribe from raiders of different stripe than mine, so I can’t be expected to worship the exact same way. But since the dawn of time, before the patriarchy co-opted religion as a tool of political control, my belief system celebrated the duality of the sacred and did not remove us from the world we live in as the monotheists have done, resulting in the mess we find ourselves in now. My religion is not an accurate photocopy of exactly how it might have been practiced over 5000 years ago, but I find no need for it to be. If it so happens my practice of spirituality is in error, or any actual or metaphorical “God” is offended, then those entities are more than welcome to speak to me and show me the error of my ways. I know the Christian god has so far not seen fit to do it, nor do I expect any communication from that fantasy any time soon. The world has been speaking to me since the day I was born to it, and I am so glad I freed myself from dogma and allowed myself to hear her.
I like to point to the TV shows Battlestar Galactica (the new one) and Caprica. In both of those shows, polytheist religion (mostly based on the Greco-Roman models) flourishes in a futuristic society that is not _so_ different from ours. The statues and depictions of the gods and goddesses are often copies of historical examples, but you don’t see anyone dressing like they’re going to a Renaissance Faire or anything. Their religion has adapted to their society.
And so should ours.
Byron, I agree. I am not opposed to somebody putting on an Old Norse-style shirt when acting in the capacity of a priest but I do not think it is necessary.The dress our ancestors wore was customary at the time. Time has changed; customs of dress have changed. Not wearing a Viking shirt does not make me less of a Heathen.
Yeah, the garb queens are annoying too- I see that mostly as a left-over vestige of Neo-Paganism. However, for the purpose of Blots, and sometimes Symbels, the persons in charge of leading those use a previous-age style of dress, as a way of honoring the old rites. Others can dress differently if they want, but never (in my Kindred) for any reason other than to honor the old folk. Most of our Blots and Symbels are attended by people wearing clean, ordinary modern clothes.
BTW, I wasn’t saying that we should never have any kind of ritual clothing. Far from it. I’m saying that ritual clothing is not something that should be tied to a specific time, when our religions are time-less…
Example: Jews do not dress up like the Jews of the 5th century BCE…or the 1st century CE…or whatever. Rabbis have certain priestly garments, and individual Jews wear yarmulkes. The respect for tradition is there, without anyone having to get into a costume from a bygone era.
And hey…I love historical re-enacting. I used to do it for a living. (That’s how I learned blacksmithing!) But my _religion_ is not a historical re-enactment. It’s a living, breathing thing, and should be respected as such, without the need for “play time.”
I generally use the term “reviving” rather than “reconstructing”.
We are reviving the religion using historical precedent (reconstruction) paired with personal inspiration (UPG).
Cara, I certainly can’t say that’s not a legitimate way to go about it, but as I said, definitions are tricky. There are those very strict reconstructionists (the people I was thinking about when I wrote) who want to transplant ancient culture and religion wholesale into the present (or close to it) and I just don’t see this as practical or desirable. I use historical precedent as well; I base my own understanding on the historical accounts and pay very close attention to them.
You and I might well be going about things the same way but using different terms.
It sounds like it to me.
Oh, Cara- you’re trying to bring my heart’s pumping to a ceasing! You did not use the dreaded term “UPG”! I led a crusade a while back to end the use of that term, upholding, as I believe it does, the “new orthodoxy queens” in their bids for power and control over modern Reconstructionist Pagans. This goes back to the definitions of orthodoxy and orthopraxy which you and I have talked at length about at The Wild Hunt, and which a person such as yourself is already very conversant with.
UPG is a term of scorn directed at anyone who doesn’t fit into the new molds cast by a few individuals out there. I know what it technically means, and I know that it has technical uses that would be considered perfectly non-offensive, but In all my years being Asatruar, and in all my years hanging around the online groups of our Hellenic cousins, never have I seen it used as anything but an insult, a brand of shame, a mark of cain for (usually) the more new-agey members of the crowd.
And as much as I don’t like new-agey anything, those were still honest, good people who wanted to actualize the vision of reconstructionism in their lives. They just wanted to have (needed to have?) their own beliefs about certain things- and, belonging to an orthopraxic NOT orthodoxic religious culture, they should have that right.
Instead, they were “UPG’d” into absurdity, and no one took them seriously after that. And the best part is, as my old crusade attempted to show, the UPG-code enforcers- the Recon Lords whose great knowledge was beyond question, accepted things themselves that, by their own definition, would be considered UPG on the parts of the scholars they got it from- the idea of the “Valknot being Odin’s special symbol”, for example. There’s no evidence for that at all, but it’s accepted just about everywhere.
Good to see you here, Cara. And Hrafnkell, I love your blogs. I hope we can get to know each other better. I’m Ule-Alfarrin, the blot-godhi of the Idavoll Kindred (the blogs “Cauldron Born” and “Sunna’s Fields of Gold” are mine, you’ve probably run across me.) Everything you say here sounds very sane. We love Sane Heathenry.
Robin, thank you, that’s gratifying to hear. I like to think of myself as sane. It may be a conceit but I think some good old Scandinavian common-sense goes a long way.
You mention the Valknot – and there are so many other things having to do with Heathenry that we know so little about or can only guess at that we have to show a little flexibility in our approach. It was early on when I realized the paucity of our source material that I realized a strictly scholarly approach was impossible. I don’t want the cliff notes version of Heathenism – I want the whole thing, even if I have to use my own inspiration – I liken it to the use of amphibian DNA to complete the sequences for the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park – but with happier results.
Heathens don’t eat the tourists!
Hmmm…we don’t see it as a term of shame. I’ve only heard it as interchangeable with “individual insight.” Is UPG = something shitty just a Heathen thing?
No, it’s a Robin thing, and a few other people I’ve met. I don’t know how widespread the hatred for the term is- or should I say, the hatred for how some abuse the term. It’s funny, considering I myself am pretty “conservative” regarding daily practice, belief, and lore- more in the scholastic school than not. You’d think I’d be lovin’ on the UPG Nazism, but I think it interrupts one of the most valuable aspect of Heathenry, or any reconstructed Indo European belief system- freedom from orthodoxy.
That’s what I picked up when I was an even newer baby Heathen. It is kind of an inelegant term, but not a derogatory one.
Those are some of the points I’ve myself raised, Alex. We don’t live in the same circumstances as our ancestors. We’re not on farms (most of us) or isolated villages out of touch for months of the year with other communities, and we’re not at a subsistence level of existence at the mercy of the weather and the vagaries of the herds.
I also think your point about “removing us from the world we live in” is a good one. I expressed this to some missionaries who came to my door recently, that my gods are gods of this world, not some far away place or other world, and that I want gods of this world as my gods. They are gods I can relate to.
If you believe that the gods can speak to us (and I think they can) then assuming that they will make their will known should they see fit is a reasonable one. Our ancestors believed that the gods could act upon history and I believe they can as well. But one thing we are absolutely freed from is the belief that though given free will, we will be punished for exercising that free will (I am speaking here of ideas of heresy – “choice” – as opposed to some dogmatic understanding of precisely what we should be believing about them or the minutiae of how we should be honoring them).
So what did the missionaries tell you when you told them that?
They surprised me by saying they actually understood the logic with that, as they did when I told them that given choice between an all powerful god who chooses to do nothing to alleviate suffering on earth and gods who are not all powerful who do what they can, I’d take the latter. It was the most surprising missionary encounter of my life, I’m kinda looking forward to them to come back so we can continue our discussions.
I would have been surprised by those responses, too- but then I’d think “they were taught at missionary school not to alienate people who mount a good defense or response, but to project understanding, leave, and come back later after they’ve been counseled by their superiors on better ways to respond.” These people may say they understand, but they don’t understand anything except how right they are, and how right you need to become by accepting what they believe and teach. You’ll see them again. And good luck!
They gave me a little book to read. I’ve been through it and jotted down some notes and I’ll have a little reading for them as well when they return. I even thought about a copy of Bart Ehrman’s “Jesus Interrupted” (2009), since their big thing was continuity in the Bible.
Hrafnkell, I appreciate your religious and political points of view, and your expressions and articulations of them, thank you for your offerings on this blog. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
I wanted to ask you about this portion of this post:
“We don’t live in the same circumstances as our ancestors. We’re not on farms (most of us) or isolated villages out of touch for months of the year with other communities, and we’re not at a subsistence level of existence at the mercy of the weather and the vagaries of the herds.”
What I question is the value of this current reality.
It seems to me that the cultures of our ancestors were supported by three prominent expressions: Worldview, Orthopraxy, and Lifeways. Our revivalist religions speak directly to worldview, our religious practices and extant literature speak to orthopraxy, and history, anthropology, archeology, as well as cultural literature speak to lifeways. If we are seeking to revive a cultural tradition, along with its sacred traditions, in a holistic way, ought we seek to include and value ancestral lifeways as well? And, if we do not, are we creating for ourselves an incomplete way of life, or denying the holism of our ancestral lifeways? Perhaps seeking ways in which to engage in more agrarian-based lifeways would enrich our lived traditions and our connections with our gods and also inform our politics as well, in ways more aligned with the worldviews of our ancestors. Perhaps there is more danger in the present market-based economy over which we have no personal control as opposed to a subsistence-based economy and lifestyle over which we would assert more control over the quality and quantity of our food sources by gardening, raising personal livestock, or sourcing such foodstuffs locally and sustainably, thereby supporting traditional agrarian lifeways even if not engaged with them directly. In leaving off an inclusion of the cultural, ancestral lifeways of our traditions, are we doing ourselves a disservice? I wonder what your thoughts might be along these lines.
Those are some good questions, and I’ve given them some thought over the years as well but I don’t know if I can provide a real answer.
Every fall I am struck by the differences in my circumstances compared to those of my ancestors. When I see a deer in the backyard, I can stop and admire it. The first thought my ancestors no doubt had was not one of aesthetics, but the more practical consideration of food. But I can even let it eat from the garden, if it leaps the fence, without fear of starving. Likewise, firewood. I have a fireplace. I like it. I use it. But I don’t need it. I can live quite comfortably without collecting, chopping, or burning wood. I don’t have to worry about my survival over the winter due to lack of either food or warmth. I can go to the store when I need food and I can turn up the thermostat when I need heat. I don’t have to trek down to the river or well for water, and on top of that, I avoid all the possibilities of injury that went along with those pursuits. And lo, if I do get hurt, I have modern medicine to see me through. I’m not likely to die of a simple accident that barely inconveniences us today.
But am I less Heathen than my ancestors?
If religion is “the varied, symbolic expressions of, and appropriate responses to the deities and powers that groups or communities deliberately affirmed as being of unrestricted value to them within their world view” (Z. Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches 2001:15), or, as the Romans put it, “proper and reasonable awe” of the gods, then no, I am not less of a Heathen.
Some extreme Evangelicals believe that if you are not suffering, you are not a good Christian. It is not enough to suffer a little; you have to suffer a lot. You have to give up everything. I know of people who are suffering horribly who still feel they are not Christians because they are not in enough pain. Does a higher level of suffering make somebody a better Christian? I think an affirmative answer is ridiculous. What is supposed to be of importance to these people, according to their own scriptures, is not suffering but faith in Jesus as savior.
For an ancient polytheist, religion was not about faith but about cultic acts – the various ways in which people expressed devotion to their gods – through sacrifice, dance, hymns, theater, oratory, processions, even gladiatorial contests. What would make you less of a Pagan then would be to forego these various means of showing that “proper and reasonable awe.” So I would argue that wherever you are, however you live, whatever your circumstances viz the natural world, if you carry out the proper acts of devotion to your gods, you are a good Pagan.
Would life be better as you describe it, closer to nature? I think so. There are those Heathens uncomfortable with the cloak of “nature-based” on their shoulders but the Heathen connection to nature cannot be denied. Nature enriches our lives. It’s enriched mine. I like being able to leave an offering for the landwights. I look forward to completing my horgr so that I have a special place to leave them. I like being able to touch my trees, to feel their life force, to listen to the leaves rustle in the wind, to feel the earth in my fingers when I garden or landscape. I would not claim to be a superior Heathen because I have access to these things but it does enhance my appreciation of the natural world.
Hrafnkell, thank you for your thoughtful response. Just to clarify my perspective, I do not really feel that our lifestyle choices, especially since the status-quo of the societies in which we find ourselves do not easily allow for it as it isn’t the dominant economical or social model, make us ‘better’ or ‘worse’ polytheists, or that certain chosen lifestyles make us more ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in our polytheist practices. Conveying this sort of judgment or superiority was certainly not my intention.
As to what you posit in your quote with regards to religion, I would agree, with respect to religion in and of itself. I also sense though that, as our ancestors experienced their religion as part of a larger culture in which their worldviews and ethics were expressed in both sacred and secular ways, so that often they didn’t even have a separate word for or concept of religion, that we loose a certain something when we practice our religions outside of their cultural constructs. This loss concerns me, and is what I am speaking to. Sure, you’d look at that deer differently, but you’d likely only need to take one to keep for winter meat, and you could admire the rest. It isn’t only an esoteric or aesthetic relationship that our ancestors had with their landscapes, but was one of dependence which cultivated an attitude of conservation and colored the nature of their religious worldviews and practices (those cultic acts). I can’t do as much as I’d like to be, and don’t know if I’ll ever get to the level to which I aspire. But I do think these ideas are worth our examination, and our efforts are worth our time and energy.
Èirinn, I agree absolutely with regards to how our ancestors experienced religion. We moderns have a divide between sacred and secular that did not exist for them. And in the Mediterranean, politics and religion were linked, as well as culture and religion. I think that’s one of the reasons I think of myself (much as I hate appealing to labels) as a revivalist. I feel the need to weld my religion onto our culture rather than creating a culture (like the Amish).
Geography also impacts religion and Paganism is, after all, religion of the place – places we no longer live and places that are no longer as they were. For us “expatriates” we have to come to grips not only with changed culture but changed geography. But it can be done. The Norse did it in Iceland. And yes, they adapted themselves to the new land; Iceland developed on an independent path despite its close ties with Norway and the rest of the “Viking” world. The fact that it was not identical shows not only how flexible our ancestors were but it shows that something that is different can also be legitimate. It provides a model for us to follow for Heathens in Vinland to follow.
And America is so vast that there is room for Heathenism to develop different in different places. The same is true for other forms of Paganism. Again, religion is not static. Neither is culture. We’ve lost a lot of the things that propped up our religion in ancient days but we can still be Pagans; we just have to adapt ourselves to the circumstances.
I’d like to have a closer relationship with nature and the natural world. I do know that since most people in the ancient world did not live in cities (just as most people here did not in the 19th century) they had a different experience than I do, and I lament that the situation is reversed today (at least in the US). Getting back to nature to deepen our experiences is becoming more and more problematic. I know back when I lived in South Minneapolis, or when I lived in apartments anywhere, I did not feel very close to nature at all.
Getting back to a living inter-relationship with the land where I live is always something I strive for, as well as bringing back into direct relationship the secular with the sacred in my daily life, so in that regard I too would be a revivalist I suppose. Urban densities certainly affect the scope of one’s ability to have such a relationship. I also appreciate how our ancestral cultures and religions could transport with them, with regards to Scandinavian culture to Iceland, and Gaelic culture from Ireland to Scotland, whose ancestral tales have always spoken of tribes incoming from somewhere else, seemingly in perpetual diaspora. I am intrigued with how we all express our cultural religions in the places where we live, and how they differ from each other by being colored by our various locations. Can you speak at all on how your local region colors your religio-cultural expression? I find reading such examples to be very instructive and inspirational.
Èirinn, I live in a very Evangelical area (one gentleman who moved here from Colorado Springs says that we’re every bit as bad as his home town) so a lot of the time I think my local region colors my religion by making me aware that Pagans are thin on the ground here!
I live in what realtors call a “hidden neighborhood” – it’s off the Interstate but you don’t really notice its there because it’s hidden mostly by businesses. My yard is deep and until this year had forest on one side (my neighbor bot that lot and plowed the trees under with a bulldozer, which caused me nearly physical pain). But it still gives the sense of remoteness (I’ve posted photos on my blog now and then).
I’m not in the country but I feel like I am. I have a contact with the earth in a way I had not enjoyed in years. But geographically speaking, where I live now has not affected me like growing up in Minnesota did, to the extent that it shaped who I am.
What it does allow me to do has more to do with the form taken by cultic acts – I can leave out offerings to the land wights and because I can have small fires I can honor the gods out of doors, like many of our ancestors did. That is something I could not do in Minnesota with the outdoor burning ban in the area I lived. I’m guessing it is something that would be denied me if I lived in California as well.
I suppose in the end we all have to try to find ways to express ourselves and we don’t all have the same opportunities. I’ve run the gamut over the years and I cannot think of a better place on the one hand, and a worse on the other. I’ve gotten hate mail, I’ve been locally infamous for a newspaper column I wrote in answer to a couple of priests arguing about the souls of the unsaved.
Stopping change is like trying to stop waves on the ocean. I’ve likened the difference between liberalism and conservatism to debating the rate of change.
As a fiscal conservative, I would say that I would disagree with massive changing in increased spending. As a social liberal, I would say I agree with immediate change in the recognition of minority rights.
Social conservatives would disagree with me, usually not because they want to discriminate, but because they think the rapid change will rock too many boats.
We see it now with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the US military. Few voices say it should never go away, except for extremists. The real centrist debate is how quickly it should go, not if it should go.
I think this carries over to religiouns and religious fear. I know many Christians fear that those of us who don’t not believe in a sin penal code system will work to make illegal their preaching messages. I myself feared this when I was a preacher.
However, as a more liberal Wiccan, I consider the situation with other groupsan and believe it is neither necessary nor wise to outlaw any other groups non-violent view points.
I compare it to the KKK. By increasing freedom, encouraging people to engage them in the public forum in a civilized manner, they have become marginalized without any need to make their message unlawful.
I don’t want to outlaw fringe Christians from calling us devil worshippers. They would be outraged at the curtailing of what they deem religious freedom. Rather, I want to increase our own freedom and encourage them in the public forum. It will not just marginalize the message that we are “evil people”, but change their minds as well.
I would call that taking a conservative approach, but for me, I share the liberal view without sharing the method. And on that basis, great areas of political agreement can be found.
“I compare it to the KKK. By increasing freedom, encouraging people to engage them in the public forum in a civilized manner, they have become marginalized without any need to make their message unlawful.
I don’t want to outlaw fringe Christians from calling us devil worshippers. They would be outraged at the curtailing of what they deem religious freedom. Rather, I want to increase our own freedom and encourage them in the public forum. It will not just marginalize the message that we are “evil people”, but change their minds as well.”
Hear hear! Silence someone by force, and you make him a martyr. Make him look stupid, and everyone else will silence him for you.
I don’t want to see a bunch of laws restricting freedom of speech though they will call themselves martyrs even if we do nothing. They will call themselves persecuted even while burning our books (and us) on bonfires. It’s just the mindset and we won’t be able to affect change on the extremists.
I think they will remain a minority element, however, and I think our way is clear: educating and influencing the mass of those who find themselves in the center and amenable to reason and an appeal to common sense. As time goes by, we will ourselves be less marginalized as people come to realize we’re just people to, like them, who have a different idea about the divine (and a few other things).
So true. We must show the world, by words and deeds, that we are an honest people. As they say, talk is cheap.
They’re just following an age-old Christian custom — the early members of this cult couldn’t wait to make martyrs of themselves, and did so in droves at the drop of a hat, just so they could obtain a short-cut to Jesus, without all that waiting for the end of the world to come first.
From things I’ve read, some of their groups actually made a major nuisance of themselves locally, martyring themselves right and left.
Very true. One of my favorite lines comes out of this lemming-like quality of the early Christians. Even if the story is untrue, the attitude of the Roman proconsul of Asia, C. Arrius Antoninus, described in Tertullian is no doubt correct: “You wretches, if you want to die, you have cliffs to leap from and ropes to hang by” (ad Scap. 5). Even today, perhaps particularly today, almost twenty centuries later, one has to sympathize with him.
DeWayne, some excellent points again. And I am more liberal in some areas than others. Many Republicans are social liberals (one of the reasons, as I understand it, that Obama won).
The claim being made that anti-hate crimes legislation is aimed at marginalizing or persecuting Christianity bears out your words about religious fear. Unfortunately, what comes across from these people is not a hope for “religious freedom” (as they often phrase it) but the privileging of the Christian message at the expense of all others. And this is no surprise given what we hear from both the Pope and from Evangelical leaders.
One problem with the whole hate-speech issue is that speech itself can be a form of violence. I especially recommend Michael Gaddis’ “There Is No Crime For Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire” (2005). It’s a tricky issue and there is no easy solution.Where does Person A’s right to say what he wants end when it comes into conflict with Person B’s right not to be the victim of violence?
Like you, I would prefer to see a natural process of marginalization of hate speech but I’m not sure my views would be shared by those who have been victims of hate speech as violence of violence inspired by hate speech.
“Many Republicans are social liberals …”
From what I’ve been reading on various news websites around the country, and places like Right Wing Watch, the current leadership of the Republican party are calling such people “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) and there are influential right-wing groups which are calling for a purge of such from the party membership.
Yeah, I’m sure they’re out there (Socially Liberal Republicans), but they are certainly not dictating policy at the national level…which seems dominated by people with Social Conservative (Read: Christian Supremacist) “morals.”
I agree, Byron. They’re laying low or leaving town.
I’ve seen that too, Ananta…part of the Republican Party’s “Project Purity.” I did a post about that recently on Heathen’s Day. http://aheathensday.com/2010/02/being-vomited-forth.html
It’s pretty said that there is no room for flexibility within a political party. Making your tent smaller is not the best way to get a majority of the vote!
I wanted to clarify my own use of terms. I did not include this list because my post was already getting too long but I’ll post it here as a comment:
Bil Linzie, starting with a model created by Garman Lord, offers a list of the various types of modern-day heathen based on a “classification of intent”:
reconstructionist – one who looks seriously at reconstructing the ancient way worldview not to understand history better but often to investigate the applicability of such a worldview in the 21st century. These often remain strictly focused on one of the ancient Germanic language stocks.
revivalist – one who worships the Æsir and Vanir and often the demigods of the ancient Germanic peoples, such as elves. The focus is generally on reviving the religion of Ásatrú the 21st century and regenerate it as a distinctly modern religion. This group of adherents is much less likely to stay within a single language stock, but rather tends to mix traditions from the entire Germanic realm.
neo-heathen – this is a large group but the membership is often transitory. Often these come to the heathen community through a new age religion such as Wicca or through a spiritual persuasion such as neo-shamanism and are less likely to engage in Reconstructionist research. Their research is usually focused on how Ásatrú and Germanic folk tradition can benefit the new age community at large.
As Bil Linzie points out, these are not hard and fast categories but only extremes of position with people falling between and traveling through the various categories.
Another way of viewing heathens is by their view of ethnicity or their attitudes towards race:
universalist practice a cultural and moral relativism to the point of syncretism
folkish insist on the necessity of Northern European heritage for the adherents of Ásatrú.
tribalist take the middle approach between these two perspectives, and emphasizes the cultural identity and history of (reconstructed) Germanic traditions without an emphasis on heritage or ethnicity.
Jeffrey Kaplan, in his study Radical Religion in America (1997), identifies only two types of heathen, the Ásatrúar and the Odinist. He finds that these correspond rather neatly with what he calls “modernist” and “geneticist”:
Modernist
(I)t is clear that the overwhelming majority of Ásatrúars fit into this category. The modernist approach to the reconstruction of the tradition corresponds to the generally accepting meaning of the term “neopagan,” in that the primary task of the religious community is to bring to life the soul of the pre-Christian tradition…within the constraints of the modern world…the goal is not a return to the life of the eleventh century, when the conversion in Iceland took place. Rather, to this group reconstruction means that the recovered heathen spirituality must be fully cognizant of the exigencies of living as a minority religious community in contemporary America.
Geneticist
For the adherents of Odinism and for the more racialist adherents of Ásatrú, there is little doubt that the transmission of the tradition and the sole criterion for membership is through genetic inheritance (i.e., race). The question of the transmission of tradition was just as pertinent to Stephen McNallen in the earliest days of the Viking Brotherhood or to later Ásatrú leaders such as Edred Thorsson and Mike Murray as it is to these racialist adherents. While some Ásatrúars assert that the genesis of the reawakening of the tradition was a direct revelation from the gods, for other Ásatrúars the question of origin is not so straightforward. It is for this reason all the more pressing. The primary theory which has evolved from the movement to explain these imponderables is metagenetics.
My version of Wicca does not allow for people with two left feet to join our covens. Nor do we allow any left-handed males named Ralph to become high priests. Exclusion for some assinine reason or another is a very important component of human spirituality, for how else are we to know who to discriminate against? If we were to embrace diversity and difference, our eventual descent into utter boredom would be brought to light and we’d have to go looking for something else all new-agey to keep us entertained while waiting for the Christians to rapture. They ARE going to rapture, right? I have my eye on a real nice 3 bedroom/two bath with a hummer parked in front……..
Alex, I’ve told a few that nobody is more anxious for rapture to come than I am. As you allude to, real estate deals are going to be just fabulous…
This is something else we agree on- I’m very eager for the rapture to happen. Even though it is completely spurious and made-up, and believed by less than one percent of one percent of the Kristjan horde, the idea itself is blissful- one day, the “real christians” are all going to just vanish. I wish Muslims had an equivalent belief. Even though these beliefs bear no relationship to reality, they certainly fulfill a warm fantasy in my mind and heart, and in the minds and hearts of people like me.
I once saw a slight tweaking of the idea called “the Rupture.” The RTC’s and televangelists will be brought up into the heavens by Jesus–and by “the heavens,” the blogger meant “outer space.”
With absolutely no protection against the freezing temperatures, rapid decompression, and lack of air to breathe.
I found the idea quite interesting, to say the least.
That gave me goose bumps, The L. Are people lining up, do you think?
You know what’s interesting about all this to me is the progression of ideas about “after-life” in Judeo-Christian thought:
1. Everybody goes to Sheol, righteous and unrighteous alike
2. In Jewish and early Christian apocalypticism, the kingdom of God would be on earth and Jesus promised it would come in their lifetimes (or so they thought)
3. John in his Gospel changes the story yet again. This time the Kingdom of God will be in heaven and not on earth, which will apparently remain a hell-hole ruled by Satan (per the apocalypticist worldview).
4. Now the views seem conflated. There is a kingdom of God in heaven but he’s still going to come down here and kick some butt and beam up the faithful?
It’s all very confusing and as I explained to the missionaries recently, it’s very difficult to see any sort of continuity or planning in this schema of events.
So, is the “Rapture” supposed to take ALL the Christians, or just the real ones? I suspect that it’s probably going to be just the real ones, and subtracting 144,000 people from the planet’s 6-billion plus won’t make much different.
I’ll never forget how my mother once asked one of their missionaries that since they already have their 144,000, why they were bothering her.
A friend of mine (a Catholic) once joked, “The Rapture already happened, its just that no-one noticed the half a dozen people who went missing.”
Well this thing wouldn’t let me put my comment where it belongs but I like the joke, Eran!
Oh, it did put it where I wanted it lol. My bad.
Hrafnkell – I like how you describe your approach to heathenism and the need to breathe new life into the old religions! There are a lot of problems with reconstruction, and if a religion can’t adapt to modern times it becomes incapable of surviving.
Laura, thank you. My feeling is that all religions are true – they are true for those who practice them and they true because they work – and they only work if they are relevant, in other words, meet our needs.
I have been greatly influenced by the writings of archaeologist William G. Dever, author of “Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel” (2005) and his discussions of what religion is and what needs religion fulfills.
It made me think of things in different ways. Dever isn’t about what we are – doesn’t recommend reviving the cult of Asherah, but I think he does an excellent job of getting into the heads of those poor hill folk and what they needed out of their religion – and into what religion was for women in particular.
But I’d be into reviving the Cult of Asherah, if I were the descendants of those hill-folk, or living on their land! If Asherah was ever a real Goddess- and I think she was- she’s still just as real and alive today, and can still answer the needs of people, especially women. Human spiritual needs have not changed, either, at the core level, I don’t think. Cultural formations around us have changed, but in response largely to politics and socio-economics, not some dramatic spiritual current that suddenly turned itself off in human beings.
Robin, I agree. And there is a revival of Asherah worship here in the states. Natib Qadish: In their own words, “Natib Qadish is a modern polytheistic religion that venerates the ancient deities of Canaan and strives to understand the ancient cultural context and religious practices in which these deities were honored.” You can find them here: http://canaanitepath.com/
Laura, in my experience, a lot of people assume that Reconstructionists are trying to foist an ancient system upon a modern world, and are unwilling to “adapt”. It’s a common misconception. I’ve never, in 14 years (soon to be 15) met a team of recons of any culture that didn’t integrate with the modern world in very essential ways. Never have I met a group that defended as useful in the modern day, or tried to put back in place, the ancient practice of slavery, or of scalp-hunting, to make two examples. Reconstructionism has really only one problem- some people, a selective few, have taken their own talent at scholarship and their knowledge and used it to try and bash other people into submission regarding what they should be believing or doing. It’s another form of the will to power, an intellectually bullying which finds a dramatic new grounds for justification in the Recon world. And it’s not everywhere you go, just in a few places. Trust me, if that’s the main problem, you know you’re onto something good- I’ve yet to meet Recon teams that have any tolerance for sexual predators, who have “witch wars”, or who lean out so far into political correctness that they allow foreign and incompatible religious ideology to invade the Ancestral spirit. It’s refreshing.
I _have_ run into some Hellenic Recons on message boards who claimed things like, “Creating any kind of symbol for Hellenismos is NEOPAGAN and horrible! Because the ancient Hellenes never did that!” or “All Hellenes must vote for McCain/Palin! Because only they are the truuuuue Hellenic candidates!” Yadda-Yadda-Yadda…
It’s that kind of crap, and their absolute hatred of the term “Neopagan,” that has made me embrace the term completely. If “Neopagan” is the opposite of _them_(*), then I am certainly proud to be a Neopagan.
In the words of Randall from Clerks II: “I’m takin’ it back…”
________________________________________________________________________
(*) “Them” being the specific types of Recons I specified, not all Hellenic Recons in general. Just to clarify. They know who they are.
Few things tick me off worse than the “this candidate is the only true choice for recons” talk. Everyone that I hate hanging around, it seems, has an annoying habit of reading whatever it is they love most about the Ancestors into modern politics.
And the trouble there is that modern political candidates are fakes, liars, and deception artists. They really are all things to as many people as they can personally manage to be. McCain is the rugged warrior individualist? Bullshite! He’s a politician, he wears business suits, not buckskin and chainmail, and just because he was a fighter/bomber jock when he was in his 20′s doesn’t mean that he still runs on those cylinders or thinks that way now. He’s now basically a corporate spokesperson, an investment for many, and an ideologue for a party that espouses radical forms of protestant Americanism. I’ve heard Heathens saying how he’s the only “proper” candidate for Heathens. It’s nonsense.
And I’m not just cracking on McCain- I don’t think democratic candidates, or any candidates, are really any better. No one gets “up high” in our political system without selling out a lot of the core values that recon Pagans would really hold dear. There is no “good versus evil” in our system of government- democrats are not automatically “good” verses republican “evil”.
While I’m not sure I agree with your view that all high up politicians have to sell out, I completely agree with the no good versus evil. Life doesn’t exist in black and white (how much easier that would be!).
I think with politics, where we wind up frequently is choosing the better of two things we don’t completely like. We weigh all the pros and cons understanding that we’re not going to completely agree with every detail, and choose the one we think will be a better influence. The arguments arise over what the better influence is.
I’d just like to point out, also, that we haven’t actually gotten past our introductory posts yet, and we’re still seeing some fantastic discussion going on. Thank you, everybody, for being so awesome so far!
I’m thinking about setting up a website kinda like the ones where they decide which candidates are more Liberal and Conservative than one another. Only mine will only focus on issues that directly affect modern Pagans. That way, we will have a nice way to figure out whether Candidate X has said anything negative about us, or supports Christian Dominionism, or is against Pagan Rights, or is funded by The Family…Et cetera…
I’ve got a lot of things to do over the next week or so, and then hopefully, I’ll get something up.
Please at least be careful to not just give your own opinion, based on someone else’s opinion. Something like what you are suggesting would be great, but only if it has credibility.
Byron, I’d be very interested to read such a site. I am also interested in the idea of a sire or organisation which also exists to mobilize pagans on a political level to encourage them to contact their local politicians on matters pagan-relevant in a concerted way which lets the elected officials know that we polytheists are paying attention and voting, and that we in our various polytheist traditions are a voting sector to take seriously.
Byron, I’d be interested is seeing a creation of such a website as you propose. I am also lately interested in the idea of a site or organisation which exists to inform, notify and mobilize polytheists in a concerted manner on political issues relevant to polytheism and our rights, to let our elected officials know that polytheists are a relevant portion of their electorate to take seriously, as we pay attention and vote. Perhaps someday such a site will be manifested by those with the time and energy to create and facilitate such a one.
I have run into a few folks who refuse to do something on the basis that the original culture wouldn’t have done it. I think it’s silly, personally, just like I think it’s silly to keep traditions or beliefs simply because the original culture did do it.
That said, most recons I meet are great at taking their religion into the modern world and I think it’s absolutely fantastic when we do that. You’re completely right when you say that a selective few are the problem, but as we see with every religion, it’s the stupid minority that wreaks havoc for everybody else.
You should ask those folk how they rationalize the fact that their own ancestors changed how they did things over time, as they met new cultures and either learned new technologies and things, or developed their own.
@Robin/Laura: I think the everything being seen in black and white is more a product of monotheistic thinking than Pagan. Most Pagans I’ve known (or known of) don’t live in a dualistic world; there is no agent of ultimate evil (Satan) to link to those with whom you disagree.
The polarization of the GOP is due in large part to the influence of the Religious Right. There can be no compromise because compromise admits another legitimate position exists. For these people, if you turn away from what they insist in true, you turn away from God. Lots of pressure there on voters and candidates.
@Byron: I think that would be great. I appeal a great deal to the League of Conservation Voters as well as to FactCheck.org and Politifact.org when checking out candidates. I won’t vote for Liar Liar Pants on Fire types, no matter which party they belong to.
I miss the days when I really could feel that I could vote across party lines. For most of my adult life I did not identify myself as either Republican or Democrat. I prided myself on a willingness to vote for whoever I thought was best for the job. The polarization of the GOP changed all that. I’m not one of God’s Own Party. It’s become the party of the 10 Commandments.
Hrafnkell, huzzah! Agreed on all points. Thanks too for those websites, I will look into those when I have some time for that.
Laura and Robin, what I think is more salient in the study of ancestral and cultural traditions, which might be missed by some hard-line recons, is that merely including or not including an historically- or not historically documented practice misses the reality that the practices of the culture’s orthopraxy were shaped by the physical realities of the people and their worldview, and that changes within traditions did occur all the time, as people’s current experiences were grafted on to their tome of ancestral knowledge, and most importantly, that this was done within the continuity of the cultural milieu which could determine through its own integrity what to bring into its tradition, and how to value it, so that the tradition would naturally continue to grow and develop, but on its own cultural terms with an eye to maintaining cultural integrity as this growth occurred. Which would indicate by extrapolation that, as long as we are mindful of a sacred tradition’s worldview and respectful to maintain its basic cultural integrity, modern developments might continue to occur to maintain relevancy in the lives of its religious adherents.
I think there should be more of a reason than simply “because that’s how we’ve always done it” which is what your point above amounts to, Laura. Does it make sense now? Were things done that way 2000 years ago because there was no better way to do it?
Bil Linzie has discussed some of these problems in his essay Uncovering the Effects of Cultural Background on the Reconstruction of Ancient Worldviews http://www.angelfire.com/nm/seidhman/cultural_bkgd.pdf.
For example, he notes that there is a tendency to pick and choose. What is unpalatable is left out. This may or may not be a good thing, but leaving important details out certainly argues against claiming that you are practicing a genuine tradition. In fact, it may well be a bastardized or corrupted facsimile.
“The overall remedial technique for self-delusion and other impediments is, of course, a willingness to honestly examine every part of one’s belief system. Honesty, like the color ‘gray,’ comes in numerous shades and also like ‘gray’ it varies even more when one takes into account environmental conditions. Honesty is easy to come by when one is examining shoe size or cooking techniques, for example, but when one is asked to question moral or ethical rights and wrongs, the issue becomes sticking points. For example, the concept of ‘free men (and women) is fairly easy to examine, but what about the fact that there was a strict set of social classes in the period of time we are studying? What about slavery? What about the ‘no-mix policy’ of classes in social relationships such as marriage? What about arranged marriages? In general, for the modern heathen these are simply thrown to the side with excuses such as ‘Well, these don’t really apply to the modern heathen,’ but then ancient ‘correctness’ of these outdated attitudes must be carefully examined if one is to truly understand the worldview, and in the course of examination, one may actually discover ‘incorrectness’ in the modern worldview.”
There was a time when such a simple thing as stirrups hanging from a saddle was a military secret, and a huge technological advantage. Those who couldn’t be bothered to adapt usually ended up conquered and often assimilated into the conqueror’s culture.
LOL You’d think it would be obvious, wouldn’t you?
Obvious is often the best place to hide things from Certain-Minded people.
So true!
As a practitioner of An Rian Sinnsreachd, a pre-Christian Gaelic revivalist, tribalist tradition, I appreciate the contributions here of a fellow revivalist practitioner. Thanks to the blog for such a wide representation of polytheist traditions here! I look forward to joining in the conversations on this thread.
Good to meet you, Èirinn. I’m happy that we can speak these days without chasing each other around with swords
Ha!
Gotta love progress!
btw, to correct my spelling error, that is ‘an Rian Sinnsearach.’
I’m intrigued by the portrayal of the polytheistic religion on the Battlestar Galactica series and the prequel series Caprica. It is a good example of what a polytheistic or pagan European religion would have looked like if it had not been interrupted and/or erased. And, in my opinion, it is likely that if not interrupted or erase, such religions would look just as “vanilla” as a religion such as Christianity.
I don’t know that I would categorize Christianity as vanilla. As Ehrman, Koester and others have pointed out, ancient Christianity was quite varied and it has remained so. The only thing they all seem to have in common is some role for Jesus – interpretations vary quite a bit. And polytheism was so varied I have a hard time imagining it turning into something that could be termed vanilla.
My use of vanilla was a tongue-in-cheek way to say institutionalized, boring and stagnant. Which I also mean in a tongue-and-cheek way. What I’m really meaning to say is an interrupted, modern pagan religion would probably have many adherents that go to the “service” just out of habit, aren’t paying attention, can’t wait to get home to watch the game. Or teenagers dreading doing their ritual work. And so on. Another way to say it is aside from the beliefs and symbols, I bet a modern, uninterrupted, mainstream pagan ceremony and space would probably look just like a Protestant one.
Sorry to have misunderstood you, Bill. It is possible you are right. But polytheism was so drastically different from monotheism, so much a part of community life and “place” – and polytheism was so diverse, that I don’t know if I can see that happening, personally. There simply wouldn’t have been much room for a “monolithic” Paganism.
I agree. And I think a good example of that dynamic is the religions in India. Definitely not monolithic.
Ooops. I posted to quickly. I had another thought.
Could you imagine an America where an uninterrupted religion like Ásatrú was the most popular religion? You might have had all these right-wing Ásatrúans (sorry, I don’t know the word that means many of the Ásatrú religion), claiming that America was an Ásatrúan country and Ásatrúan morality should be the standard American laws should be made. Could you imagine an Ásatrúan version of Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, or Glen Beck?
It is fun to speculate, and of course, there is no way we will ever know. As for Heathenism, if Iceland is any example, a narrowly moralistic religion akin to the Religious Right would not have developed. I would extrapolate from the experience there that any Vinland colony would have been similar, with sexually aggressive, outspoken women and flexible gender roles.
Considering the amount of crying that Glenn Beck does on any given day, I doubt that these alternate reality Heathens would have much respect for him!
“Could you imagine an Ásatrúan version of Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, or Glen Beck?”
I met one once, but her Theod kicked her out for trying to outcast everyone but herself.
I’m wondering if that’s anyone I’ve heard of.
Tag me off list if you want; I’m not Theodish or heathen, and I’m not hanging someone else’s laundry out on here beyond a tongue-in-cheek poke at a ridiculous scenario.
http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/
I honestly think anyone who behaves like Palin and the others hasn’t quite gotten the hang of being a Pagan yet.
. . . much less, a decent human being.
Right
Just my 2 Cents:
I’m a Libertarian Heathen, and I would say that my religious and political outlook developed at the same time. Growing up, I was always taught to be self-reliant, a hard worker and to value freedom above all. To me, Heathonism is the embodyment of these three things.
Needless to say my political outlooks often comes into conflict with the viewpoints of others in the Heathen community. However, as stated in the original post, the strength of our community is in our diversity and sence of individuality.
I am not a reconstructionist nor am I a “volkish” supporter. I do turn to the eddas and sagas for inspiration, but I forge my relationships with the gods based on life experiance. To give an example: my relationship with Thor changed dramatically after I thru-hiked the Appalachian Trail and all the trials and tribulations that accompanied that.
I hope that this blog will be long lived and bring many in “The Community” together!
Paul, for awhile I thought all Heathens were Libertarians. I still remember surprise when I met a conservative Heathen for the first time. I always felt a little “odd man out” being a progressive liberal.
I don’t see anything wrong with your approach, and I think there is some of that in my own. In fact, I suspect many people have had personal experiences in nature or natural settings that affected them profoundly. I know I have. It brings me back to what Èirinn said here yesterday, and that’s why I had such a hard time formulating an answer.
Our community is varied and diverse, a spongy mass of tolerance and tradition, and I do feel that is our real strength. I do not think in the end our political points of view need to get in the way of the fact that we are all honoring the gods, our ancestors, spirits, the earth itself, and embracing the ideal of tolerance in religion – something that has been missing from Midguard for many centuries.
I agree, our political viewpoints should never cloud the fact that we all honor the gods. I also suspect that many of us have the same “vision” of society, our politics are mearly vehicles to that end. Progressive Liberals, such as yourself, often remind us that some people are just down on their luck and need assistance. Libertarians, such as myself, remind us that sometimes people need to be taught how to fish instead of just given a fish at meal time. A society that is void of diverse ideas is one doomed to failure, weither it be libertairan or progressive liberal.
Exactly. The important thing for us to remember is that we are not limited in our choices – we do not run afoul of the either/or dichotomy because we recognize shades of gray – an important distinction between monotheism and polytheism.
Now, if only all our elected representitives in power could reach the same harmonious conclusion….
yet the man will over fish and then someone will invent the state to regulate fishing, collect fishing fees, create hatcheries, restock the river, etc.
. . . not if a group of his fellows go tell him if he doesn’t start acting with consideration and mindfulness, they’ll tip his blasted boat and let him swim back.
“You can’t take a slice of the American West and say, “this is what life was like for the Native Americans” because it won’t be true. The result of such a sampling would be the same for any Pagan peoples in the ancient world. What gets transplanted into the present then is a static thing, an artificial representation of what Paganism used to be, at one specific time and place.”
(applause!!)
I find it unreasonable to accord older cultures, some which evolved out of others over thousands of years, with cookie-cutter uniformity; I blame American TV and Hollywood somewhat for that. Not only in their depictions of various people and events, historical or fictional, but in the way people have come to relate to TV and film as honestly representational of real life. Social norms and mores may vary; human nature and the need to survive does not.
I don’t see a problem with anyone picking a particular period and geographical area to focus on; I do see a problem with not being willing to adapt it to modern day life. That’s where UPGs can be functional. If the cultural environment you grow up in seems wrong for you, and things that should be alien to your sphere seem familiar and right, that’s a clue to study them and possibly incorporate them into your life, or at least find out why you relate to them more than your given elements. Instances of UPG are valid enough, but I think they need to be jumping off points rather than standing alone. I feel more at home in reconstructions of Bronze/Iron age roundhouses than any other building I’ve spent time in, and had “memories” of being in such structures decades before I ever set foot in one. But when I get a spot to build one for myself, I’ll make some practical modifications that the original users never had as options, without ditching the overall design.
Snoozepossum, I do think American TV and Hollywood are not helping matters any. Neither, in my opinion, are a lot of the nonsense we find online (which abounds with instant experts) and by some Pagan authors/publishers. A lot of what I see fathers short of an honest appraisal of ancient religion. I’d rather see modern Pagans pick up a good scholarly work on the subject (Jenny Jochens, for example, when wondering about women and Heathenism and the cultural milieu). Hard to find some of them unfortunately, but I’ve gone to libraries and taken notes before, and made lists of books I want to find, and Amazon.com is a big help in the Age of the Internet (something we didn’t have in 1979 when I became a polytheist).
Like you, I feel a need to adapt ancient practice to modern conditions. I’d love nothing better than a good Norse longhouse but like you also,I’d adapt it to the modern day. A smoky house is bad for the lungs and a dirt floor full of bugs would fall far short of the health code as well. I’d keep the idea of the hearth as the center of the home without letting the hearth kill me or my family. We know a lot more about hygiene than our ancestors, and what keeps us healthy and we have to make adjustments for things like that as well.
What drives me crazy is how some forget that our heathen forebears adapted too, both in daily life and in belief and social structure. The religion of the Norse peoples was adaptable enough to work in the monarchy of Norway and the non-monarchy of Iceland. The beliefs were recognizable enough to the “Christianized” Anglo-Saxons that no small number of them “fell back” into heathenry when the Northmen came. It changed, it adapted, but many of the ideas and ideals were carried across culture. And in daily life, the Germanic peoples utilized what was best from other cultures, whether those things or ideas were gained through trade or raiding or other means. As a friend of mind has said to me, 11th-crntury heathens saw no need to put on the clothing of 2nd-century heathens in order to worship.
Many outsiders and many new heathens see us as Odin-obsessed Valhalla-obsessed rune-chanting heavy-metal-only weapon-toting closet-Vikings, and many newcomers take this to the point of “needing” to have a “warrior” persona, needing to obsess about Valhalla, focusing on the runes, runes, always runes, obsessing with weapons, and needing to dedicate themselves to Ooooooodiiiiin!!!! Sadly, this is as far as some of them get.
I’ve seen a lot of what I’d consider “out there” ideas by Heathens. I’ve heard from those who say they are berserks who “fight” other berserks with some sort of referree for the match. But if you’re a berserk for real, no referee would get near and you’d not listen to him anyway.
I’ve also heard from those who say they are reincarnated einherjar. This is something completely unsupported in the literature. It’s also a little bizarre in that it seems to defeat Odin’s purpose in choosing people for Valhalla.
Then there are those self-proclaimed gothi and even jarls – some of them 19-year-old kids who’ve never lived on their own and who are more than anything else role-playing the part – the religious aspect is just part of the role.
It’s hard to know what to say to some of these claims. But I suspect that its things like this – and also the extreme folkish elements in Heathenry, that invite most of the criticisms leveled at us.
As for the warrior thing, people forget most of our ancestors were farmers and fishermen – the good old sturdy bondi who doubled as a warrior when need arose. All of Norse history is not contained within the Viking Age!
And I’m with you with regard to the runes. For our ancestors, runes were for the specialist. Egil reveals to us some of the dangers for meddlers. But everyone thinks Heathens should do just that – meddle. What happened to the idea of specialists? Same with seidh working!
Hrafnkell, I completely agree as to the ‘gothi and jarls’ comment. It is one of the things that bothers me the most about Wicca in particular, and most Paganism in general – I am not a priest, gothi, rabbi, etc. I have no particular religious training, I am not a counselor, I am uncomfortable in a position of religious authority. I tend to be extremely skeptical of those who claim to be such, until I’ve had a chance to look over their credentials, experience, etc. I’m a big fan of the rule, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”, especially as it applies to religion.
And as to the warrior comment, I apply the same reasoning: I am skeptical until someone proves it.
Eran, I’ve always felt that leaders don’t choose themselves. You earn leadership. Once upon a time, people could also inherit it. But people followed you because they wanted to follow you and nobody would follow somebody just because they said “Okay, I’m the boss here; let’s get my agenda done.” There are far too many power-hungry people in modern Paganism for my peace of mind. Petty politics, empire building, etc.
As I will argue in an upcoming post here, our ancestors saw male and female as flexible categories and manhood (including being a warrior) was something you earned and had to continue to earn by proving yourself over and over again. Having a pair of testicles and a sword doesn’t make you a warrior.