Welcome to Gaia! ::

I was inspired, troubled, maybe downright annoyed by the responses I saw to an essay, over in another guild. Many attempts have been made to define 'pagan', much as there have been debates about who is a 'witch', who is a 'shaman', who can practice certain faiths and paths, who is 'real.' These sorts of *disagreements*, and the tone in which they are carried out do us all a great disservice, I think, and also, I feel, show just how tenuously the behavioral underpinnings of our assorted beliefs connect to our actions. A third thing, some people in the Pagan Community are unpleasant, self-important and demand a degree of inclusion that they then do not extend to other people.

For the sake of argument, for example, I happen to believe that Gerald Gardner made up most of what is Wicca rather than merely revealing a series of ancient practices to the modern world. I also believe that there really isn't a whole lot of 'mystery' to most of the so-called 'mystery' traditions out there, that it's kind of a status woo-woo thing. I believe Gerald Gardner was, quite frankly, a perve. Now, these beliefs are going to cause amusement, some nodding, and quite a bit of offense to be taken; they are things that aren't spoken even when people may think them. My point of view is that you may disagree, may offer what you feel is 'irrefutable proof' that I am wrong on all counts, complain to a mod that I'm flaming, whatever. But I'm no less a pagan because I believe these things. If I save one person the long journey to finding these things out for themselves through studying with groups, getting drawn into practices they later regret, through finding themselves on the wrong end of a vicious diatribe, hey, I've done my good deed for the day.

You are perfectly welcome to disagree with me. What you are not welcome to do is thrash me for slipping into generalization without what you feel are adequate use of 'most', 'occasionally', 'some but not all', 'with these exceptions'. I also do not pretend to have a complete working set of the self-definitions other pagans have formulated. There are some interesting folk on Gaia. For example, many of us have run into those who feel that the only true Wiccans can quote lineage from Gardner and strictly adhere to certain practices. This is like saying that the only true Christians can trace their way back to Christ's disciples and practice like those folk in the catacombs did, afraid that the Romans were going to come round them up for lion food. Then there is a group of arguments surrounding 'Druid' versus 'NeoDruid'. You may also have heard someone assert that only people from certain northern European ethnic backgrounds can practice Asatru. And then there's 'what do you mean you don't know what my path means, you ignorant noob??' Oh, it goes on and on.

Thanks for listening. I have an apple to eat.

So, what are we?
Well, I can tell you my take on the whole thing: First and foremost I do the 'paganus' thing - Nature Religion, spirit work, personal spirituality with my local area. I have several altars, worship freely, invoke every day, walk my walk. I look at religion as something I do, personally, and not necessarily as a thing concerning other people, exclusively, or meant to be a group experience. I have no clue how some paths work the 'country folk' allusion into their type of NeoPaganism but I guess that is dispensed on a 'need to know' basis.

Virtually everything that I do and that I believe, I know is the complete opposite of what some other pagans do. Some people think Paganism is a thing of study, to the extent that I have run into the belief that the only 'true' Pagans are Reconstructionists. Some paths only work in groups and require practices which have roles various individuals must undertake. Okay, I get that: energy-raising can be quite dramatic in a group. Many religious or spiritual paths have sets of prescribed beliefs, mythologies, texts, customs, commandments, codes of conduct. That's great, all laid out for you, everything but calling it an FAQ. But I have always had questions.

I have to ask, are people who self-identify as NeoPagans really finding freedom when they leave the faiths of their birth? Are those born into pagan families more free and growing up less constrained by virtue of the differences in their households? How different is our perspective? Have you merely jumped from one box labeled "religion X" into one labeled "religion Y"? I freely admit that I sometimes have to ask, "why the heck do you do things that way?"

That is what I have been asking myself for years, another pagan asked me what path I followed and I answered with.....my own path. I was then told that following your own path was not the right way. Well after being a pagan for 30 odd years I have found that my own path is exactly that, I follow what my heart, mind and conscience tells me is right.....for me. When I was very young I was in a coven, not knowing what was the right thing or not, it was not a very good experience, it was in the early 70s and knew after being initiated into the coven that it was not for me, from then I just started to follow the changing of the seasons and became a solitary, my way may not be right for anyone else but me, I taught myself things, read books worked out for myself what to do and I was and still am happy with my path. In the last year I have become more open about my path but again I have run into pagans who try to tear apart what I believe, telling me things like I can't worship a Goddess because she is part of a closed pantheon and I need to have a lineage or something, same with being interested in the celtic path and I will never again mention to certain people what I believe in or what path I follow.
I am a pagan as simple as that and I follow my own path.
Sorry about the long post and I think I have really digressed from the discussion.

I can find a place in my heart to feel sorry for those folk whose search for self-validation leads them to declare the paths of others 'wrong.' We do not all have the same needs or the same situations, the same talents or the same capacity to absorb and apply various areas of knowledge. No path can meld all of these such that the 'group' is all-inclusive. Ah, to be all things to all people....how many religions have tried and all have had their limitations.

I find it an exercise in courage to leave aside the sureties of a body of belief, take your questions and set out, not knowing where you are going.

'Thinking' is a good thing.

I plunked that idea of 'closed pantheon' down in front of me and two thoughts formed up:

1. I need to find a certain science fiction story I read long ago. It concerned the worshipping of Gods and Goddesses - they had existence as long as someone remembered to revere them.....When forgotten they faded away. They need us. Their strength comes from their adherents so why, especially now when pagans are few, the Gods and Goddesses would turn us away and not listen I don't understand.

2. Groups think of themselves as the 'chosen people.' The Jews have/had this idea. 'Dine' means 'the people', I seem to remember, in Navaho. The more folkish of the Asatruar have been deemed quite racist. Membership is a tricky thing. I think the concept of 'closed pantheon', while being, perhaps, a reaction to perceived cultural misappropriation is also a possible attempt to gain status, as most membership limitations are.

A third thing that came to me: as the Romans advanced they didn't wipe out the Gods and Goddesses they found along the way. In some cases didn't they kind of add practices and some of the characters into the mix, retaining the religions of the conquered peoples? This throwing down of 'idols' was a Jewish and Christian thing, I seem to think. I wonder....

So....What are we? I was going to start another thread, about the evolution of spiritual belief but I have landed here. I meet so many people who were brought up in a Mainstream religious organization and become Neopagans for a number of reasons:
- women looking for divinity in their own image
- people who feel a call to religious leadership who don't have a path in their birth religion (or who don't want to follow its strictures).
- people with a pull to the natural world which is so strong that they find the divine therein.
- people who "come home" to any of a number of Neopagan belief systems
- people of a strong heritage who wish to return to it

or any number and combination of these. Unfortunately, I often see the problems of mainstream religions re-created within Neopagaism: whose sexuality is the "right" way, do we follow this book to the letter (whatever that group of writings may be), do we form up into nice little hierarchies of leaders and followers, and then there's all the money changing hands. Quite frankly, the emotional intensity can be problematic in Neopaganism.

What are we? Often, we are wildly individualistic yet still trying to have group experiences.