HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Celtic Xianity <was: Re: Lithuania>
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:06:35 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <wbBor*xg1@bkhouse.cts.com> nkraft@bkhouse.cts.com (Norman Kraft) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.180049.27391@burrhus.harvard.edu>, Carl E. Anderson writes:
>
>> 	BTW, this may seem a strange request to many on alt.pagan, but I'm
>> looking for more sources on Celtic Christianity and figure some people on
>> here might know something about it.  I've found a couple of reputable books
>> on the subject, but am sure there must be more.  Any help would be
>> appreciated!
>
>This really isn't a strange request, when you think about it. One of the
>hallmarks of Celtic Christianity was/is its earthy, nature-centered feel. 
>Celtic Christianity grew from the very earthy pagan Celtic religions as 
>early Christianity was assimilated into local culture. It remains the 
>(IMHO) the single most beautiful form of Christianity that made it into 
>the big time.

	That's always been my feeling.  I think too many neo-pagans are
ready to slam Christianity just because it's Christianity.  I picked up two
buttons at an SF con once - one has a very nice Celtic cross on it, and the
other simply says Druid.  I like to wear them both at once, and am always
amazed by the number of people who get confused by this.

	I make no claim to be either a Druid or a Celtic Christian, as
there are others far more qualified than me to be either.

Regards,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: FAQ list?
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:33:08 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz) writes:



>amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik) writes:
>> However.  I've volunteered my services before; if the sentiment
>> changes I'd be willing to help create one [FAQ], but not alone.

>I think we *should* have one.  It doesn't have to give definitive
>answers to all the questions, but instead, it can give a range of
>answers or just say that we can't decide.

>Susan, would you like to work with me to put one together, and
>run it past everyone for concensus?  (-:  Oh, great!  Edited
>by Kaczmarczik and Radzykewycz.  :-)

I would like to be part of this as well--I have been saving some things I think
might be useful in this process.  Make that Kaczmarczik, Radzykewycz, and 
Davis-Howe--well, it's still a long last name! :)

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

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Subject: Re: More Crone Images (was re: stereotypes)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:41:44 GMT

egnr76@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Kashko) writes:

>In article <y9sooB1w164w@ailanth.UUCP > ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:
> >yup, i don't know how i missed that.  kali is NOT a crone.  she is 
> >usually shown as being either grotesquely ugly or young and beautiful.  
> >but grotesquely ugly does not equal croneliness.  kali is not a celtic, 
> >or really even an indo-european goddess.  she isn't part of the 
> >maiden-mother-crone trilogy...

>	Interesting. So where did kali come from, if not indo-european?
>Suggests to me Kali may be an outsider figure, or maybe related to
>a trickster. Now to go away and think about this.

Kali is thought to be Dravidian in origin.  The Dravidian people were the 
indigenous people in India when the Aryan invaders came in.  I don't see any
connection to tRicksteR.  She is just from another culture.

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

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
From: liam@brewich.uucp (Liam)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: female bodies
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:07:55 GMT
Organization: The Brewer's Witch BBS, HouTx, +1 713 272 7350


       In response to the previous posts regarding the female figure, all 
I can say is beauty is not a physical thing. It is more a spiritual one, 
the human body(male or female) is a work of art and therefore should be 
admired and appreciated.  Being male, I offer my own insights into this 
issue there are many "good looking" people who are so ugly on the inside 
that they turn me off just being in the same room with them, therefore 
give me an "ugly" person with a beautiful soul any day.  On the matter of 
the "traditional" mother goddess figure (ie: large breasts and hips), It 
seems to me that ALL women are the image of the Goddess regardless of 
thier figure, just as all men are the image of the God. It strikes me as 
being a sad state of affairs that we should have to force ourselves to 
meet some "social ideal" therefore I say again the human body is one of 
the most beautiful things to behold regardless of the measurements.
                                        Blessed Be,
                                                Liam

------------------
lobster.hou.tx.us!brewich!liam (Liam)
The Brewer's Witch BBS -- +1 713 272 7350
From: sallyb@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Sally Bowley)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who cares
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:51:00 GMT
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <12448@inews.intel.com> pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.112747.26037@linus.mitre.org> 
>heimberg@pacific.mitre.org (Jeff Heimberger) writes:

stuff deleted for bandwidth about not going out a night etc..

>woman versus the average man. So probably the only solution is to forget the
>gun and instead always watch your back, like a gangstar or criminal and play 
>your cards right and hope someone doesn't call your bluff. And hope you're 
>always wearing the right colors and got the right signs. And always watch the 
>eyes, but don't make eye contact. And watch out for those invisible boundaries 
>you're not supposed to cross, check out the real estate.

well put - this *is* what it's like from a woman's point of view. and
even sadder, it's not only at night that you have to consider stuff
like this. i love to hike - there's several trails here in ory-gun
that i'd love to walk by myself - to meditate, draw, do some ritual
work - i wouldn't, because i'd be too afraid. i get so angry at myself
too, when situations like this arise. recently i was at a medicine
wheel gathering - about 200 people were there. i'd put my name down
for a sweat lodge at 11pm. it was situated about 10 minutes down a
trail and i'd forgotten my flashlight and was a bit late too. the
trail was pitch black, but i could have madeit along okay without
breaking anything - however i didn't go because i was too scared of
being attacked. my sensible head told me that the people here were
good people etc etc - my even sensibler head told me to listen to me
mum and not go out after dark ;-). i was angry at myself for not
having the courage to go anyway and more angry at "society" for
putting me in this position.
sally
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: cc647@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Cornick)
Subject: FAQ list?
Reply-To: cc647@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Cornick)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 05:14:47 GMT


Just a question... has anyone done an FAQ list for alt.pagan?

And now back to the regularly scheduled alt.paganism.
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Subject: Re: alt.wicca, anyone?
Reply-To: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 22:16:02 GMT

>"Wait, wait!  I've got it!  Let's leave alt.pagan just as is, but add
>"alt.rant.misogyny" or maybe "alt.rant.bigotry" or perhaps even
>"alt.rant.social.injustice", and those who really want to rant about
>those things can do it there, and let us get on with talking about
>religion.  Tho' I suppose the next splinter after that would have to be
>"alt.rant.who's.really.pagan".  Sheesh, there wouldn't be anybody left
>after that but the "Gosh, what's Wicca?" crowd.
>[...]
>Leigh Ann"

  Hear, hear!

  I cast my vote for "alt.rant.pagan.terms.flames" !!

  To be fair, shouldn't we also have an; "alt.waste.bandwidth.accusations", and
an "alt.waste.bandwidth.defenses" (moderated, of course)

  And don't forget; "alt.rant.yes.it.is" and "alt.rant.no.it.isn't" !

  And my personal favorite; "alt.rant.I.didn't.mean.it.that.way!"

  Good shot, Leigh Ann (ouch, a touch, I confess it; a palpable touch! ;)  )

  Blessed be, Ciaran.


Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: sallyb@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Sally Bowley)
Subject: Re: Men are Scum etc.
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 04:24:29 GMT

In article <memo.531723@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>kumagic@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes..
>
>Male domination is a phrase used by feminists. Also others. It has
>some degree of usefulness in investigating sexual stereotypes and
>role playing. It is also used by many people as a weak excuse for
>feeling fucked over.

hmm, i wonder if the 9 million women murdered during the 13th-17th  
centuries by men wishing to dominate, would see it as a weak excuse 
for being fucked over....

>Ask a couple of questions. Why do men have sexual fantasies?
>                           Why didn't women refuse to put up with
>                           'male domination' back in Biblical times?

i would think it had something to do with the factthat by that time,
women were already *very* opressed and were of little or no
consequence in society. opression of women didn't just happen with the
advent of christianity - it began about 15000-12000 bc with migrating
northern hunting tribes moving south and conquering the goddess
matriarchies and destroying them. women in biblical times did not own
land or hold positions of leadership/power - they were very much
forced to depend upon the men. for a woman to speak out against the 
system would have had very grave consequences - homelessness, abject
poverty, banishment.
>
sally


Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: heimberg@pacific.mitre.org (Jeff Heimberger)
Subject: Re: Women, men, scum, and wicca . . .
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:02:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.085408.41802@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> kumagic@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.193315.15180@linus.mitre.org>, heimberg@pacific.mitre.org (Jeff Heimberger) writes:
>> 
>> I beg to differ.  What if there was a white man's congressional caucus,
>> as there are for women and blacks?  What if there was a National
>> Association for the Advancement of White People?  What if there was a
>> Hetero Rights Organization?  All of these would be labeled harmful and
>> reactionary out-of-hand, regardless of what they actually did.
>
>Usually by default, every organization not specifically devoted to
>minority issues is a kind of Association for the Advancement of White
>People.  Well, White Hetero Men actually.

I don't know... I think it a bit far-fetched to view the homeowner's
association in my development as an Association for the Advancement of
White Hetero Men.

>Those organizations that
>have formed with names like these, tend to be Klan or Neo-Nazi
>groups.   Which have been somewhat harmful and reactionary. 

I agree that the KKK and neo-nazi groups are harmful and reactionary.

>Many men's groups are forming these days without being automatically
>labelled as such.  Although Bly's group got a rather harsh review in
>Ms. magazine a couple months ago.  Not completely undeservingly.  I
>think Bly is a bit twisted myself.  My men's group met with some
>skeptacism when it was first formed.  But I think that has mostly died
>down. 

OK.  I'm not familiar with the hub-bub surrounding Bly.

>> I disagree.  There is more than enough to share... it seems to me,
>> however, that we're not talking about sharing.  It seems the various
>> protest organizations are interested in the pendulum swinging the other
>> way, rather than having it come to rest in the center.  Why?
>
>I am not sure this is true.  Although I do remember an early slogan of
>the women's movement that went something like, "If you are aiming for
>equality, you are aiming too low."  But I haven't seen too much of
>this.  I am kind of a female supremicist myself, but I don't think
>that is the norm.  I don't think you are a selfish kid, but I do think
>you are highlighting extreme positions to discount what these groups
>are saying, or more importantly, what people here are saying. 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  All special interest
groups have an a self-interest to highlight absolutely the worst things
about whatever they're railing against.  It's human nature.

Regards,

Jeff H...
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: >suggestion<
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:38:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.000645.11539@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson) writes:
>: 
>:   But to whomever it was that said that Paganism is not a religion, I think you're
>: cutting the line too fine.  Paganism is a form of worship which is empowering many
>: people today, and is being accepted in all of its diversity as a rational and sacred
>: alternative to the majority religions of the day.  There are many organized religions
>
>As I have posted before. There are many Pagans who are atheists or agnostics.
>Since they have no religion, it is hard to say that Paganism is a religion.

You are assuming that religion is synonymous (in part) with belief in a
personalized deity.  Is this to say that Buddhism is not a religion?
When you try to define hazy terms like this, you invariably end up
eating your tail.  I wish I still had that long post about "spirituality
doesn't depend on the name you use for yourself."  Oh, well.  

>: which also fall under the header "Pagan", but each one of them speaks for
>: themselves, and is no more and no less right for its adherents than my nameless
>: Paganism is for me.  Not everyone who is a Pagan is comfortable with the
>: definitions or structures of the recognised Pagan faiths.  Still, we have a right to
>: call ourselves "Pagan", and to have our form of worship respected.
>
>Certainly - no one is denying that.

We have the right to call ourselves whatever the hell we want and be
respected; the respect due to every being shouldn't depend on the name
we use.  We have the right to be respected, period.

>:   I'm pleased to see that the intensity in this thread is continuing, and that everyone
>: is trying to respect each other's feelings and beliefs.  I don't think I've said anything
>: intollerant, but if it seems I have, please ask for a clarification -- I may have just
>: mispoke or mistyped.
>
>No, I don't think you have shown any intolerance. I just think that you do not
>fully understand what we are trying to say. This may be our fault, as much as
>anything.

What "we" is this?

>Bill
>

Blessings,
Janis
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Overthrow "THE MAN" symbolically, was (Who cares)
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:17:26 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <12541@inews.intel.com>, pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
writes:
>In article <krikket.5333@meltdown.chi.il.us> 
>krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick) writes:

>>I do not apologize for being male, nor do I feel that I need to reject my
>>being male.  I am happy with who I am.
>>But I will not "overthrow 'THE MAN'" in myself.  For I am happy being male.

>YO YO YO! I fear that what we have here is a failure to communicate, gosh
>darn it. Allow me to elucidate. Do you see the word symbolically in the
>Subject line above? That word is word! Please notice that I capitolized
>"THE MAN", as well as put quotes around it. Why? I was not advocating
>castration or male denial. If you don't know, "THE MAN" is the symbol of
>all oppression. Not to long ago, it was of course the slave master. 

<Deleted to save bandwitdth>

Whooops.  I did see the subject line stuff, and still managed to misinterprate
your meaning.  My apologies.  I will agree, that all people do have a touch
of "The Overlord" in them...  I'm fortunate enough to see "The Overlord"
making appearances in my life less and less often...

Krikket               ! krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us ! USnail:3 Danada Square E.
a.k.a Doug Krick      ! Team Star Charter Member   !        Suite 246
Data ph# 708/665-9732 ! #include<std.disclaimers>  !        Wheaton, Il 60187

 'If you are what you eat, then I'm Dead Meat'  -- Timbuk 3 "Grand 'ol Party"
From: ba@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (B.A. Davis-Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: >suggestion<
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:51:41 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

ailsa%ailanth.uucp@wang.com (Ailsa N.T. Murphy) writes:

>holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

>> In article <1992Jul16.141715.15844@ddsw1.mcs.com>, eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com 
>> (Eshin-Fun) writes:
>> > I believe that Ciaran understands this. But her point is that then if we ar
>> > to capitilize Christian, why not Pagan?
>> 
>> Because there are those who self-identify as Christian, and not as a member o
>> any of the sub-groups that are collectively Christianity.  Further, any two
>> Christians can be said to be practising the same religion, but this is not tr
>> of any two pagans.  The term Christian is more analogous to Wiccan or Santero
>> rather than to Pagan.
>> 
>well then capitolizing Pagan and considering it a religion is valid.  by 
>this criterion anyway.  there are people who identify as Pagan, but not 
>with any of the subsets.  me, for instance.

Here is my suggestion to solve a least one layer of this mess:

"catholic" means universal
"Catholic" means a member of the Roman Catholic Church

"witch" means a practitioner of folk-magic
"Witch" means a member of Wicca or another religion which calls itself
Witchcraft.

"pagan" means anyone who is of any of the various pagan religions and
philosophies
can "Pagan" mean a person who identifies hir religion or philosophy with
neopaganism, but who does not identify with any specific pagan religion?

Would this help the situation?

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

Queer, Peculiar, and Wyrd! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: radzy@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (Tim Radzykewycz)
Subject: Re: Who cares
Organization: International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:32:11 GMT

elton@sybase.com (Elton Wildermuth) writes:
> Just responding to one thing near the end of the referenced article ...
> 
> Janis responds to Leo by saying:
> >I do sympathize, but I've seen so many people who just knee-jerk
> >whenever a minority says something about what they've been through.
> 
> Speaking of jerking knees ... Janis, you have fallen into the trap of
> accepting the definitions that others have given you, and repeating what
> you're told without subjecting it to any thought.
> 
> Think carefully about having called women a "minority"....  it does not
> describe women, who comprise almost 51% of the American population.

Elton

You're wrong.  Women *ARE* a minority.

It *is* true that there are more women than men in the US, but that
is not really relevant.

In the situation where a group of 25 weaponless people is accosted
on the street by a gang of 20 gangmembers with pipes, chains, and
other assorted gadgets, who's the minority?  It certainly isn't the
gang!

Let's go one step further, shall we?  How about a schoolbus loaded
with 35 elementary school students and one madman with an uzi?  *I*'d
say that the children were outnumbered (no, not literally.  If you
take up on that, you simply have no brains.)

So the fact that there are more women in the US does NOT mean that
they are a majority.  Let's look at some facts:

How many women are in congress?

How many women have been president or vice president?

How many women have EVER TRIED RUNNING?  Why so few?

> The entire concept of "minority" has been cheapened by overbroadening
> the definition.  It does not now and never has meant "one who is not a
> straight white male of northwestern European descent".

No, it doesn't mean that, and (as far as I know) it never has.  Instead,
it means a group of people who are in a position of lack-of-power.
Women, as a group (much as I hate forming groups like this), do NOT
have the power to function as equal members of our society.

That needs to change.

Elton, it seems like you are trying to preserve the status-quo, and 
keep women in a position of powerlessness.  Knock it off!

Even if you decide not to work *TOWARD* increasing the power women
have, at least try not to keep women in positions of powerlessness,
like you are doing.


Blessings!  May your sight eventually improve!

------------------------------------------------------------
					|  An it harm none,
	-- radzy			|  do as ye will.
					|
	Tim Omelan Radzykewycz     	|  "Just pray for a
	The Incredible Radical Cabbage	|  tough hide and a
					|  tender heart."
	radzy@icsi.berkeley.edu	        |    -- Ruth Graham
					|
------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: Re: Who cares
Organization: Traveller
	<12381@inews.intel.com> <1992Jul22.114742.12106@linus.mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:11:22 GMT

I'm not at all caught up on alt.pagan, so maybe I'm gonna regret
making this post when I do catch up.  But...

I've just read a whole bunch of posts about oppression, reverse
oppression, and double reverse oppression, reverse oppression with
body english, and oppression with spam.  And, if there's one thing I
see in common with these threads it's people confusing responsibility
and guilt arguing against people who do not recognize that confusion.

I figure that, by now, someone's posted about this several times and
you've all gone one to better things.  But then again...  before the
group boils over not tackling this issue, I thought I should go out on
a limb a bit and post without full knowledge.

Responsibility is a very misunderstood subject.  If you know about
something [e.g. oppression] you _are_ responsible for it.  Not you
"should be" responsible.  You are.  If you do something [e.g. about
oppression] you are, again, responsible for it.  Again, not "you
should be responsible", you are responsible.  And, of course, if you
go into this further these aspects will build upon themselves and you
are more and more responsible.

But, responsibility should not be confused with blame.  They are
opposites, like love and hate.  If you're blamed for something, it's
because "you ought to be ashamed", or something along that line.
People can, and do, regret things that where never theirs to regret in
the first place.  And that is irresponsible.

Irresponsibility is not something to regret, by the way.
Irresponsibility is something to be aware of.  Because as soon as you
know it was there you are being responsible.

I could chase this circle around a few more iterations, but I think
that most of you should understand the idea.  If not, read some of the
recent posts about oppression, patriarchy and sexuality.  You'll see
people expressing knowledge, other people confusing that with blame,
and a variety of variants on that theme.  With, of course, a little
moralizing from both directions.

So, now you know.

-- 
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>