From: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Definitions (was >suggestion<)
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN

B.A. Davis-Howe wrote:
>"I will call it [my religion] Vaglanism, which is my cutsey
>way of saying "Vaguely Pagan but with no particular allegiance
>to any onepagan religion".

to which Krikket wrote:
>"This "Vaglanism" just sounds insulting though.  The version of 
>Paganism I practice, while it doesn't fall directly into a neat
>sub-catagory, is more than just vague paganism.  (Note where I 
>did and did not capitalize!)"

  Hmmm.  I agree.

  Admittedly, I am not practicing a UDSA-approved variety of
paganism.  I do not, however, think it's vague, or feel any
particular need to find a name for it other than Paganism.

  Which, in combination with Leigh Ann's wonderful post about
new groups and definitions and all, has clicked something in
the back of my head.

  Way back in college, I got into a prolonged discussion with
some friends who were "strayt Christians".

  They didn't care that I wasn't Christian, or that I was
Pagan, or that I wasn't going to become Christian.

  They did care that by being something the Bible said was
evil, and by not exhibiting evil tendancies, I was bringing
their religious beliefs into conflict with their experiences.

  Ok, that's an oversimplification, but hopefully you kinda
understand.

  If I was right, even if only for myself, then maybe they
were wrong.  The idea of an alternative viewpoint hadn't even
occured to them, and now faced with it they had no pigeon-
holes to stick me into.

  By not conforming to their belief structure, their guidelines
for experiencing the world and defining themselves, I was
threatening.

  So, I wonder how much of this arguing about definitions and
rights and liberties and Truth (with a capital T, that rhymes
with P which stands for Poo), is just reactions and counter-
reactions to perceived threats.

  For myself, I really can't say how much that's true.  I know
the original post I made to the original thread was a knee-jerk
reaction.  After that, it just seemed to take on a life of its
own.

  Someone says something that I feel I have to defend myself
against, or clarify, and then someone has to defend or clarify
against my post, and we go on and on and on.

  Worse still is when everything quites down and someone from
across the planet finally gets to respond -- and we all start
up again.

  And, in the end, all that's really been said is that I don't
worship they way others do, and they don't worship the way I
do.  We all have different perceptions of ourself and our
interface with the divine.

  And we all still belong in alt.pagan.

  But we already knew that.

  I think that as Pagans, we have to be very strong in our
convictions about ourself and our religion.  Since so much of
our society is convinced that we shouldn't be here, or are
a threat to their kids, or are just a bunch of deviants, we
have to be ready to stand on our own feet and defend ourselves
when someone says something about us that we don't agree with.

  Even if the person saying it is another Pagan.

  I been in some covens and led a council, and in each case
I noticed that what makes us strong as individuals, the ability
to stand up for ourselves, define ourselves, and defend our
beliefs, can make us weak as a community.

  As people start discussing the definitions necessary to
create FAQ.pagan and ?.?.wicca, I'm afraid that some of us,
maybe even all of us, will object to some of the definitions.

  As we've seen, objections to definitions can quickly lead
to objections to objections, and the reason for the definition
gets lost in the dust.

  Not that FAQ.pagan is going to say that anyone's faith
is false and errant, but still, I think we're in for a long,
long, long series of hurt and angry posts when this starts going.

  One last word ... the Northern Dawn council, for whom I am
not in any way a spokesmodel, used to have something like a
dozen covens in it.  Most were members of the local council and
ignored national.

  We all got along really well, had a lot of fun, and gave
great public ritual.

  Then bylaws got introduced.  People started fighting about
definitions.  National got involved and imposed some definitions
of their own (definitions which had always existed, but which
we had ignored).  Finally, just to be able to conduct normal
business, some people were told they couldn't speak and some
topics were censured during normal meetings.

  When it was done, there were 3 covens left.  The community was
split, and after four (or is it already five?) years, remains
split.  Efforts to bring people back together have, for the
most part, failed miserably.

  Admittedly, the remaining covens all agreed in their definitions
and had similar faiths and all could live with the bylaws.

  But who was served by this process?  What was gained?

  And at such a terrible price.  Se gause' (how unfortunate, how
embarassing).

  Finding names for things doesn't always give you any better
understanding, and once you say what something is, sure enough,
there it isn't.

  Hmmm ... maybe I'm just fussing again.  But still, "Vaglanism"?

  I don't think so.

  Blessed be, Ciaran.