From: grimoire@byron.u.washington.edu (John Greer)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Faith and violence (was: Wasting Time (was: Hitler (was: Numbers)))
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:16:52 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Well, like New Year's resolutions, my return to lurking mode didn't last
too well...

Thank you, Ciaran, though I'm not sure my post deserved all that praise.
I was not expecting the flamage from Scott -- foolish of me, probably --
and floundered through a reply over my lunch break.  As it was, I left
out an issue I really should have answered (the whole "personal lord etc."
business); I'll try to run through it *very* briefly at the end of this.

As far as the Republican anti-P/pagan platform, I'm not up on the fine
print at this point -- it's been a couple of months, and the details blur.
Basically, though, the situation as I understand it is this.  In the
aftermath of Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential campaign, when his squads
took over the Republican caucuses here in Washington (state, not DC), the
Christian conservatives have moved into control of the state party.  They're
particularly hostile toward P/paganism just now, because of the furore over
that series of reading textbooks -- I've forgotten the title -- which
include some fantasy pieces, including one in which there's a little girl
who's a witch.  (Not, for those of you who might have missed the fuss,
a P/pagan; a witch of the pointy hat and broom type.  I think the main
objection to the story was that she did magic, and wasn't portrayed as
evil.  Sheesh.)  So when the state convention, which was more or less a
fundamentalist camp meeting, got around to listing off The People We Hate
in the platform, P/pagans were included prominently.

Friends of mine in Oregon, though, tell me that the local Christian-fascist
movement -- I am not using this term lightly -- unveiled a five-point list
of goals at about the same time, which reads word for word like the 
Republican platform here; ergo, there may be some coordination involved
behind the scenes.  (The Oregon group calls itself the Oregon Citizens'
Alliance; it failed in its attempt to seize the local Republican party,
and has begun organizing a new party of its own.)

I think the specific platform language claimed that the US is a "Christian
society," mandated vocal Christian prayer in the public schools, and
demanded that anything and anyone associated with "witchcraft" be kept
away from impressionable children, or something like that.  I'll try to
look it up soon.

So, yes, it's more of the same ol' s**t.

Janis, thank you also.  You've made the point I was hoping to make,
rather more clearly and with considerably more force. What is it about
Christianity that makes it so attractive, and (may I add) useful, to
bigots?  I think you're right (at least in part) that it's a function
of the idea that you've got to surrender your strength to somebody else;
but I think there's possibly another factor as well...
    
Tentatively:  a lot of traditional faiths see the realm of the Powers,
the world of spirits and deities and so on, as distinct from the world
of ordinary life -- interpenetrating it, close as a heartbeat, but
distinct.  Think of the Aboriginal concept of the Dreamtime, or the
elusive, omnipresent Otherworld of the Celts...there's no separation,
but there _is_ a difference.  Even more tentatively:  this seems to
correspond more closely to my own experiences in magical and spiritual
practice than the model that claims it's all one world.  (Highly
subjective, I know, but in this work there isn't a lot else to go on.)

One of the last major figures in Classical P/paganism -- I think it
might have been Synesius -- defined myths as "things which never
happened, but always are."  Plato talked about the same thing in terms
of Being and Becoming...well, I'm getting long-winded.

The point is that Christianity collapses the distinction.  To a devout
Christian, this illegitimate Jewish peasant who lived at a particular
time in history _is_ the Power which creates and sustains all things.
(I still remember how floored I was the first time I realized that this
was what the Christians I met were actually claiming; I didn't know
whether to laugh or be sick.)  Especially since the Reformation, when
most traces of the Christian Otherworld-beliefs were tossed out in an
attempt to rid the faith of its remaining pagan legacy, Christianity has
defined its faith as a matter of history, in the same sense that the
election of Ronald Reagan is history.  (Implied comparison?  Naaah.)

(Parenthetical note: some proselytizers try to claim this very claim as
evidence of Christianity's uniqueness.  Not so; plenty of monarchs in
Jesus' time and before claimed personal godhood.  The one innovation Paul
of Tarsus introduced was identifying a human being with the Dying God,
rather than, say, the Sun God.)

Take a look at those religions, and those subsets of religions, which have
been responsible for atrocities.  My unsystematic survey shows that the    
same pattern appears.  As for why...less sure.  Any suggestions?

There's also the not minor point that this kind of collapsing of distinctions
is not unknown in the P/pagan and magic(k)al community at present.  I hope
I'm not risking too much flame by suggesting that some of the more extreme
"ancient matriarchy" claims fall into this category...

Well, anyhow.  One more comment:  Paul, there are no witch burnings going
on in this country just now, because the Christians don't (yet!) have a
grip on political power.  Do you really think the fundamentalists wouldn't
start stacking the firewood if they could get away with it?  Take a look at
the recent (and incredibly mendacious) "Satanic abuse" scare, which was
largely of fundamentalist manufacture, and compare it to the scare-stories
circulated during the witch-hunts.  (Carlo Ginzburg's new book _Ecstasies_
is one good source for these.)

Oh, yes, the "lord and savior" business.  That's exclusively a Protestant
thing.  To Catholic and Orthodox Christians, a Christian is someone who has
become part of the "body of Christ" through a validly performed
sacrament of baptism.  It is entirely possible to be a Christian, and
remain a profoundly evil person, if (to speak theologese for a moment)
the baptized person resists the supernatural grace imparted at baptism,
through the exercise of free will. The Catholic friend with whom I checked
this point reminded me that, after all, Dante came across plenty of
Christians in Hell...

(Scott, if you're bothering to read this, please don't launch into an
argument about which definition of Christian is correct; that belongs in
alt.christian.theological.nitpicking, not here.  The point I'm trying to
make is that your definition, both historically and at present, is very
much a minority view.)

Well, enough of this.  I'm going to try to resume lurking again for a
while...

-- John Michael Greer


have been misused in similar ways