Print Story On Pagans
Diary
By Merekat (Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:12:28 AM EST) (all tags)
Specifically, media depictions thereof.


I watched a little of Stephen Fry's America programme last night, before falling asleep on the sofa. He went to Salem and went to a pagan thingy. This kind of thing makes me wonder if there are pagans somewhere who look at this kind of (earnest, intense, authentic and genuinely held) image and want to bang their heads off a table? Are there pagans who detest black, purple and red velvet and who know that when they dye their frizzy hair ebony or scarlet they look unattractively consumptive (it is possible to look attractively consumptive but those who can are not a majority) and vaguely as if they have been electrocuted? Are there pagans who really cannot be bothered to strap their immense busoms into bustiers and corsets in order to look the part?

That's a nice feature of atheism - apart from a mild tendency towards sensible footwear, from what I can tell there is no dress code to either adopt or despair of in media depictions.
< Le Weekend | Sunday bike ride >
On Pagans | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
I know a Wiccan by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #1 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:46:09 AM EST
Who is quite chavvy really. She keeps it quiet (I'm quite happy with this, I don't want to end up arguing with her about it).

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!


Most Wiccans I've known are all ex goths by Dr H0ffm4n (4.00 / 1) #2 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:49:55 AM EST


[ Parent ]

22 years old by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:33:17 AM EST
Big gold hoop earrings, the works. She's probably pretty unusual.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!
[ Parent ]

and the ones that aren't... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #12 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM EST
...are still goths.

[ Parent ]

A lot of people... by Metatone (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:59:49 AM EST
like having a uniform. It's not something I can quite understand, but it appears to be the case.




Primates are like that. by Tonatiuh (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 08:02:24 AM EST
They enjoy the comfort of belonging to a crowd.


[ Parent ]

A fair point by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 08:07:49 AM EST
But does the uniform of the crowd have to be quite so uncomfortable and attract static electricity?


[ Parent ]

Atheist by priestess (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:08:20 AM EST
You mean you're not wearing your regimented Athist teeshirt? Shocking!

Out Campaign

Pre..................

---------
Chat to the virtual me...


a scarlet letter? by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:14:17 AM EST
Oh ffs!


[ Parent ]

ADULTERY!!! by theboz (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:18:24 AM EST
It is a rather unfortunate scarlet letter to have on a shirt.

- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

It has to be intentional by garlic (2.00 / 0) #28 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM EST
Or the designer's a moron.

[ Parent ]

I'm assuming the latter part by theboz (2.00 / 0) #29 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 05:05:27 PM EST
There are lots of idiots out there.

- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

$the_kid (coworker) by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 08:19:23 PM EST
(previously known as $deaf_guy) today would not admit to knowing Hamlet, Macbeth or Shakespear. I'd be looking for another job, but this seems to be likely to be one of the last standing in the US.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

I'd go for both by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #36 Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:40:43 AM EST
The designer is trying to make a clever point, so the A is intentional, however the reference requires a certain amount of knowledge to get and therefore as a concept to be anything other than smug, it is stupid.

I have a vaguely atheistic t-shirt based on a Divine Comedy song lyric. Front says ' I Believe', rear, 'in the certainty of chance'.


[ Parent ]

You didn't get the memo? by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:48:04 AM EST
You're supposed to buy a t-shirt died in the blood of Christian babies de-consecrated by Dawkins himself.
----
ウセーバラケダ


Blood's a crappy dye. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #26 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST
You're not implying that Dawkins is bigger on rituals than (e.g.) the Church of England, are you now?

[ Parent ]

Execrated by dark nowhere (4.00 / 1) #27 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:17:33 PM EST
nicer term

I am not your dupe account.
[ Parent ]

Wiccans by theboz (2.00 / 0) #11 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST
I know one who is a grandmother, whose family had been "pagan" for many generations.  She is like anyone else, no wearing of black and purple or anything.

- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n


pagans by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #13 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
The only low key pagans I know of are of Lithuanian descent and again, have been pagans for generations. But they're not Wiccan.


[ Parent ]

Wicca is too new by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #15 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:43:47 AM EST
No one can have been one for too many generations.

There are Wiccans that I take seriously, but not many. Damn near every fluffy bunny I know self-identifies as Wiccan, and there are some aspects of the central Wiccan belief structure that I find wishy-washy. Pagans are a broader group. I'm not Wiccan; I'm pagan. Specifically, I'm a witch. The differences are enormous from my perspective but likely small to you.


[ Parent ]

They are indeed by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #17 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:55:26 AM EST
As an atheist, I am frequently intrigued by people who reject the faith they were born and raised in, only to choose another one. So from that perspective, the differences are small. However, they're clearly important to people and I do try to work out why.


[ Parent ]

what are the differences? <nt> by aphrael (2.00 / 0) #35 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:17:55 PM EST
Between Wiccan and Witch, or Pagan? by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #37 Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
Pagan is the overall grouping, Wiccans and witches and druids and shamans and... are all parts of that group, but individually distinct in significant or not so significant ways.

Between Wiccan and witch, there are many minor differences but there are three fundamental differences. Keep in mind also that this is based on my own experiences and that there are many, many variations on both Wicca and especially Witches; to be Wiccan is to be a member of a specific religion that has variant branches, while being a Witch means that you've identified yourself as such and other witches generally don't contradict you. Too much. (Pagans in general tend to be opinionated, outspoken, and not dependent on long tradition to guide them - aside from certain family traditions that mostly keep their mouths shut on the details, anyway - so disagreements are common. Generally, however, good-natured and remaining at the level of discussion and agreements to disagree.)

The first is more of a semantic or organizational difference than anything else. Wiccans are members of organized traditions or groves descended from the tradition created by William Gardner around the turn of the 20th century in England. Both Wiccans and Witches practice "magick" through ritual, spellwork, and various other means; magick, at its core, is simply the direct effect of your will on the world. The "power of prayer" is magick. Positive visualization and the techniques associated with it are magick. Wiccans and witches also both believe that most other groups and religions practice magick, whether they call it that or not; a Catholic mass can raise as much energy and be as powerful a ritual as anything I've seen done by any circle. The important point here is that "witchcraft" is practiced by both groups and, within those groups, there's a fairly general belief that most other people do, too. However, Wiccans follow a specific set of religious beliefs based on Gardner's original religion; he based his on his understanding of past practices, and claimed it was based on at least one old family tradition, but it doesn't quite match any of the known family traditions and I personally - without any facts to back it up, mind - believe he was just a smooth talker who wove some basics into a good outline and liked dancing in the woods with naked women. (Gardner's original adherents all practiced skyclad; today it's a mix, some Wiccans and witches do, some don't, some do sometimes.) Witches are self-identified as intentionally practicing magick through ritual, and I'd say better than 90% follow a polytheistic religion that shares a family resemblance to Wicca, but is not in and of itself Wicca. *DISCLAIMER*: I am not Wiccan and my knowledge of the Wiccan religion is based on casual research and much conversation with Wiccans; I may have some of my facts wrong. For example, Wicca states that there are two primary deities, the Goddess and the God, who are known by many names. These gods are omniscient but not omnipotent; they created us but not necessarily the universe, and while they can and do intervene in our lives they generally do so by giving us the power and ability to do those things ourselves. Other witches (and other non-"Witch" pagans, for that matter) may believe in a pantheon or in many small gods, gods of places for example. (Pele, volcano goddess of the Hawaiian islands, is a common example of a place god; she is associate with the Big Island and Kīlauea in particular.) I've known self-identified witches who also identify as Christian; they break with Christianity on the prohibition against witchcraft, arguing that prayer and magick are the same, but worship the same Trinity and so on. There are even a few witches who are atheists, who believe that there is an energy state we access through prayer and magick but that it's simply part of the physical universe; no gods required.

The second is the concept of the threefold law. Both Wiccans and witches follow a sort of "golden rule", known in its most popular form as "the Wiccan Rede". "And it harm none, do as ye will." Both groups generally believe that this rule essentially means that anything you have the power and ability and will to do, you can and should - but only if by doing so you will not bring harm to yourself or anyone else. There are differing levels and limits on that; some are so strict they could be compared to members of the Hindu Jain, who cover their mouths lest they accidently swallow an insect and commit murder, while others believe intention is all that matters and so long as your intent is positive, anything is permitted. For Wiccans, there's a direct measure applied; the threefold law states that anything you send out into the universe energetically (that is, any spell or magick or intent, from ritual to spell work to good or ill wishes for another person) will return to you threefold. Positive or negative. Witches, generally speaking, don't follow that and find it overly simplistic; it implies that you could do something negative but just do three times as many positive things, and hey, you're back in balance. My own belief, which I generally find to be consistent with other witches, is that each act has to be judged on its own for positive or negative effects. That it's impossible to know all the possible ramifications of an action and for that very reason action should be taken carefully and with deliberate intent, deliberate in this case meaning both "with deliberation" and the more common usage. Both wiccans and witches believe life is a cycle, that we live and die and are reborn after some amount of time in another place (commonly called the Summerlands); witches believe that our lives are judged and balanced in a form similar to the Buddhist concept of karma. Positive or negative acts will affect my next life, the effects on this one will come from the direct results of my actions rather than from the gods. Wiccans, with their threefold law, believe that the results of our actions happen in this lifetime, not necessarily immediately but generally in such a way that it's possible to make the connection between cause and effect.

Third is the concept of balance and control. This one's a bit more nebulous. Wiccans believe the natural state of humanity is to be in balance and harmony with nature; harm none applies to all life; and that magick and energy are good or bad in and of themselves. That there can be "bad energy" or "good energy". And that there are actions and tools that are likewise inherently bad or good. Witches, on the other hand, believe that balance is something that will be achieved one way or another, and it's in our best interest to make sure that balance is one that has plenty of room for us in it. Energy is neither good nor evil; it's energy, like electricity, and can be used for any purpose; the use you put it to and your intent determine its value. Tools and actions are also valueless in and of themselves; the purpose you put them to is what determines how positive or negative they are.

A few examples that I've used before to illustrate this difference; both Wiccans and Witches are "green"; both believe the environment is in need of repair, both believe large and small actions are required to achieve it. A Wiccan believes we should do this because that's the natural state of humanity and it's the goal we should all work for; they're likely to act personally by being Vegan, growing their own food, composting and recycling fanatically, etc. A witch believes we should do this because we're all fucked if we don't. They're likely to act by having their own garden, but less likely to be Vegan or vegetarian, although strongly likely to insist on organic and humane products. Composting and recycling, certainly, but only if it makes sense to do so; they're not likely to spend significant resources recycling where it's not worthwhile. Second, there's a tool used in ritual called the Boline, and another called the Athame. An athame is a tool for directing energy. Most witches use a knife, and it's a real, no-shit knife, usually a hand-forged steel blade and a leather or wood (or both) handle, anywhere from a few inches long to a sword. Wiccans are a little more likely to use a wand of wood, or a knife made of wood or stone or some other natural material, and no matter what the knife is made from, it will be dulled and made as safe as possible; it's meant to be a symbol, and only a symbol, and will never be used *as a knife* even if it's the same knife as my athame - an 8" double-edged dagger intentionally kept razor sharp and ready for use. The boline is a utility knife used for any cutting tasks required during ritual, and a Wiccan's ideal boline is a half-circle of metal, sharp on the curved edge and padded on the straight, perfect for cutting or chopping or slicing but clumsy and useless for anything else. A tool for cutting that is as little like a weapon as possible. A witch is less likely to even have a boline at all, using their athame when a blade is required for ritual, and if not (swords are rather awkward for cutting herbs, for example) then using another knife for the purpose.




[ Parent ]

Many. by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #14 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:28:36 AM EST
I'd say 85% of the pagans I know look like anyone else, dress normally, have hair styles and colors in the "normal" range... the only things about them that would mark them out as "different", in the main, are jewelry and tattoos. Jewelry runs toward pentagrams and Green Man symbols, tattoos towards totems and other symbols in unobtrusive places. For most it's not something really noticeable; I wear a Green Man pendant and my wedding ring has a pentagram on it, but most people don't pick up on the symbolism in either one.

Most of the other 15% are visibly outside the norm but you wouldn't think "pagan", you'd think "hippy".

The ones you're seeing and remarking on make up perhaps 5% of the community that I see. Granted, that's my experience, not a poll. but I don't think it's an atypical experience.

Now, there's a difference between daily appearance and ritual theater. Some traditions and circles deliberately put on elaborate displays with costumes and robes and props for their rituals. It's partly to put on a show, even just for themselves, and partly to help themselves mark out and identify ritual as being a special time. Those that I have observed or participated in are generally of two types; open and closed. Open are the ones you'll see in the media or advertised on coffee shop bulletin boards and really are mostly theater; the ritual will follow the "correct" forms and the people carrying out the ritual are pagan, but there's very little real energy work and the real purpose is what they'll typically call "outreach" - showing people there's nothing to be frightened of, dispel myths about satanic worship or sacrifice, etc. It's a show. Therefore a higher proportion of the participants will be the more extreme crowd (in terms of appearance and public behavior.)  Closed rituals are not open to the public and require explicit invitation, which means a much lower level of participation by those people for two reasons - one, there's no one to impress with your costume, and two, I'd say the great majority of that crowd are also "fluffy bunnies". Fluffy bunnies are to paganism as undergraduates are to lesbianism; they're more interested in proving their independence from Mom and Dad and maybe shocking the neighbors by bringing home a pagan and/or same-sex lover than in actually living and being what they're proclaiming themselves to be.





People Against Goodness and Normalcy? by Imperial Mince (4.00 / 1) #16 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:46:03 AM EST


--
This space reserved for whining like a little bitch and being sanctimonious.


RATE PARENT 4 by sasquatchan (2.00 / 0) #31 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:10:36 PM EST
if you don't get it, go back to the 80s and re-learn your lessons!


[ Parent ]

What it means to be pagan varies by lm (2.00 / 0) #18 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:32:36 PM EST
In the US, `pagan' is generally used in the sense of `neopaganism' which is a good word to describe the dog and pony show you're describing. There are pagans in a more traditional sense but they're mostly either descended from one of the indigenous peoples of the Americas or immigrants from one of the relatively few places on earth where none of the big monotheistic faiths were ever dominant. For the most part, paganism is considered to be a derogatory term. And it does have its roots as an insult. Polytheism and Pantheism and the like are usually used.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic


Maybe in an academic paper. by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #19 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:41:49 PM EST
I don't know many - correction, I don't think I know any - who don't refer to themselves as pagans. Usually with some sort of qualifying "of-this-subset" statement following it.


[ Parent ]

That's not how i read what he wrote by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #20 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:28:40 PM EST
What I understood is that generally, if someone describes themselves as pagan, they're probably what would be recogniseable as a neopagan. Not that they use this term themselves.


[ Parent ]

No, I mean in every day life by lm (2.00 / 0) #25 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:22:43 PM EST
The people I've met that, for example, believe in some of the traditional Native American religions would never describe themselves as pagan. They'd say they believe in the traditions of X. Or if you meet someone that came over from India. They won't describe themselves as pagan but as polytheistic, well, at least the ones that don't like the word `Hindu' as catch-all for `neither Sikh, nor Buddhist, nor Muslim.'

Self-described pagans usually come out of one of the modern reinterpretations of this or that ancient belief. At least that's the way it is down in this neck of the woods. It could very well be different in other areas.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Well by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #32 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST
It's not entirely accurate to lump "Hindu" with the pagan beliefs of our European forefathers.  IIRC, Hindus believe that all gods are incarnations of one god, and are thus someplace between true polytheism and monotheism.
----
ウセーバラケダ
[ Parent ]

It is true that some Hindus believe that by lm (2.00 / 0) #33 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:17:37 PM EST
Not all. Hinduism spans a large spectrum of belief as its an artificial label used to categorize all the groups in colonial era India that weren't Sikh, Buddhist or Muslim.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Stephen Fry programme by Herring (2.00 / 0) #21 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:32:50 PM EST
I was a bit disappointed - it was all very rushed. Although I don't know what I expected with 50 states in 6 episodes. He could've interviewed ana and toxicfur while he was in the area though.

You can't outlaw rabbits! They'll just go underground - Milton Jones


Agreed by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #22 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
And the London taxi thing is all a bit pointless.


[ Parent ]

Salem, Massachuetts? by ad hoc (2.00 / 0) #23 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
Your antennae should have gone off at that. Salem is a strange, strange place. It's sort of what I imagine Haight-Ashbury was at some point. If you wanted to turn on and drop out, that's the place you went. Those who did ran the gamut of True Believers® to Poseurs. Same for Salem. If you want to be seen as anit-religious or counter-culture in some way, that's the place to go. It doesn't really help that Laurie Cabot has turned the whole thing into a sort of cottage industry. The number of posuers in Salem is quite high because all the petulant teenagers can get there by public transit.

--
The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle.


Oh by Merekat (2.00 / 0) #24 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:02:17 PM EST
She was interviewed, looking quite a bit rougher than her pics. "Oh, we don't call it Halloween, we call it Samhain". At which point my brain goes, "What, November? But it is in October." (Should be Oiche Shamhna - pronounced something like Eee-huh How-nah - in Irish).



[ Parent ]

According to the tradition I follow by notafurry (2.00 / 0) #30 Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 06:20:45 PM EST
It's Samhain because it's the first day of November (counting days as dusk to dusk or noon to noon rather than midnight to midnight.) Not that I think she knows or cares about the difference. And the holiday term itself has assumed its own definition in most traditions; I know witches in Australia and New Zealand who celebrate Samhain in April and hang the problems with terminology and translation. Right part of the turning of the wheel, wrong terminology.


[ Parent ]

On Pagans | 37 comments (37 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback