From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: paganism a religion.. <rant warning>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:49:54 GMT

donal@brewich.hou.tx.us (Donal) writes:

>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>> donal@brewich.hou.tx.us (Donal) writes:
>> : 
>> : Thanks, Bill. I was not aware that I was defining pagan, or Pagan. As 
>> : you are apparently struggling through some very old feed, I will ignore 
>> : the fact that I have answered Sherrianne's post before. Let me set 
>> 
>> Yep - it appears that it was an old feed.

>'sallright! Happoens to the best of us Net B(W)itches... :)

>> : some things straight, and do some defining. To me, Paganism refers to 
>> : a number of specific, usually matri-focal, Earth Goddess religions of 
>> : pre-christian Europe. Some would expand this to include all 
>> : pre-christian religions such as the AmerIndian "Sacred Path", but I 
>> : call that Shamanism. Note here that Shamanism and Paganism have many 
>> : similarities and overlap, but then so do Islam and Christianity. Noone 
>> : has tried to say that they are the same thing. Shamanism is more of a 
>> : tribal wisdom thing (again, this is IMHO). To me Shamanism is closer 
>> : to mainstream religions, in that it is 'interpreted' through a 'holy 
>> : man' who speaks to the Gods for us. This does not mean that 
>> : individuals cannot, just that they have other things to do.

Your statements have very little to do with historical facts.  1. Shamanism
is not a religion, or even a collection of religions.  It is a set of practices.
2. Shamans tend to live in cultures where *everyone* is expected to have hir own
spiritual life.  They certainly do not have it "'interpreted' through a 'holy
man'" in any of the Native American cultrures I have seen that use Shamanism.
3. What do you mean by "the AmerIndian 'Sacred Path'"?  There are hundreds of 
Native American cultures, and they all have their own religions.  Some of these
cultures have shamans, and some don't.  Some of them have organised priesthoods,
others don't. 4. The traditional "pagan" religions (Greek, Roman, Egyptian,
Celtic, Babylonian, Norse) all had organised priesthoods.  Much more than most
of the Native Americans.  5. None of these religions was particularly matri-
focal, at least in their historical periods.

>> : 
>> : Now, Neo-Paganism, on the other hand, is to me a broad set of 
>> : Earth concious philosophies including what Sherrianne professes. I 
>> : would call her a Neo-Pagan, or New Ager, but not Pagan. Now, these are 
>> : my own definitions, and of course have absolutely no hold or even 
>> : meaning to her, she will make her own definitions (we all do) but this 
>> : is the general understanding I have been working with. Neo-Paganism is 
>> : a world-view and a lifestyle, Paganism a group of pre-christian 
>> : religions, and Shamanism a tribal-based religion.
>> 
>> This is the main difference between your definition and the one I hold.
>> I group all these under Paganism. As such, I do not consider the word to
>> directly apply to any religion - or group of religions.
>> 
>> Seeing as I know a number of Pagans who's religions have nothing to do
>> with "pre-Christian" religions, or any religion, I have trouble accepting
>> your definition - since it does not agree with my experiences.

>What people want to call themselves has never had anything to do with the
>reality of a definition. People will go on calling themselves whatever
>feels good. That don't make it so. If all a person is 'into' is some feel-
>good crystal new-age recovery-based self-help, then lets call them New Agers
>and leave it at that. If their center is Goddess oriented, or rather lets say
>polytheistic perhaps, then they have graduated to the one true religion of the
>people, Paganism (read extreme sarcasm on that last statement, <g>) Seriously,
>I think that too much laxness has been used for too long in the 
>definitions people are using for thier practices. Perhaps the P/pagan
>argument is the way to define it, but I will go on using me working 
>definitions. To each his (or her) definitions. We all make our own, 
>anyway!

Most traditional pagan religions are not Goddess oriented, at least not in the
sense of neo-pagan Goddess orientation.  Many traditional pagan religions are
not polytheistic--many of the Native American traditions don't seem to have any
'gods' other than the Great Spirit (sounds pretty monotheistic to me).  I wonder
how those shamans are "speaking to the gods" in cultures which don't even have
gods?  What the hell right do you have to decide that most of the people who
have ever participated in pagan religions shouldn't be called pagan?  I doubt
VERY MUCH that your religion has anything to do with any sort of paganism but
neo-paganism!  (Neither does mine, but I'm not arrogant enough to attempt to
arrogate the word "pagan" only to those who think like me.)  Neo-pagans are
the last pagans in the world to have the right to define who is and isn't
pagan.

Do some real reading--then reconfigure your definitions.

              Merry meet, merry part, merry meet again,
                               Br'anArthur

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan