Talk:Paganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pagans are all religious?

The entire article seems to be purely about religions. However the etymology refers to uncivilized people - or rather, people viewed as uncivilized by those who consider themselves civilized. The word Pagan to me also has strong connotations of hedonism, debauchery and what not. "They live like pagans" wouldnt seem to imply "they worship many gods and they attend the forum on Sunday" - as the entire article implies. Rather, one gets an impression of people who arent afraid of a beer or two, and perhaps who get a little orgiastic at times. I strongly sense a revision of the term, particularly as modern americans (prudish by historical standards) who define themselves as pagans, are slowly cleaning the image up to their standards (see remark on "heathens" below). I would like to see this entire section retitled NEOPAGANISM, as thats basically what its defining. A battle is in progress to change the world by changing the use of words, in this case. Paganism is being uncivilized - Paganus - and all that that entails. Its not a convenient umbrella term for wiccans and asatruers to unite under. Thats neopaganism. Paganism is not caring what the city dwellers think. Often, it imples nudity, revelling, orgies, drink, hedonism, and so on. Its a freeing up from the legislation required to run a functioning city. In my opinion, Paganism has more to do with the level of legislation and freedom from legislation, and norms, standards, than how many gods are worshipped. The main religions agree with this, or used to. Christians called Islamics pagans, and vice versa. Bearing in mind that the monotheistic religions comprise the majority of the worlds population, one should bear their useage into account. Their definition implies one outside the (religious) law. Not a polytheist. But the article is so heavily written from the neopagan viewpoint, I wouldnt know where to begin to revise the main article. I hope others will absorb this viewpoint though, and incorporate it at least partially into the text.

Congratulations, this is the most ill informed comment (clearly from a closet right wing fundie who wants to determine what we call ourselves)I have yet seen on WIkipedia. To me personally, the very word Christian brings up images of evil and sick fanatics, murder and the abuse of children. How about we chuck that up on the Christian page?? If you don't like the fact that the term pagan is used to denote polytheists, I doubt anyone could give a sh*t.

---Hmm, I can't agree. Paganism is religious by usage. While the term "pagan" is often used historically in a manner similar to the way the modern term "redneck" is used, "pagan" also has a religious connotation; many people refer to themselves as "pagan" in a religious manner. This is an example of a certain group of people taking a word that was origianlly an insult and turning it into something else. For example, the word "nigger," (and I apologize to any who may take offense to that word, but I must point out that the word was used solely as an example) was originally used to put down blacks. However, modern American blacks have taken the word and transformed it into a word that means nothing more that (to blacks) "another black person." Similarly, the word "pagan" has gone from meaning "country-person," or "redneck" to "another non-Christian" person. ("Christian," in this case, may be replaced with any given religious designation.)NME 09:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pythagoreans were monotheistic?

In one well-established sense, paganism is the belief in any non-monotheistic religion, which would mean that the Pythagoreans of ancient Greece would not be considered pagan in that sense, since they were monotheist, but not in the Abrahamic tradition. In an extreme sense, and like the pejorative sense below, any belief, ritual or pastime not sanctioned by a religion accepted as orthodox by those doing the describing, such as Burning Man, Halloween, or even Christmas, can be described as pagan by the person or people who object to them.

They were pagan but were they really monotheistic? They only believed that from the monad, the first unit came everything else. They don't regard it as a deity, or even a conscious being, it seems to me. --Darthanakin 06:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is Paganism a disambiguation article?

The article looks to me a lot like a dictionary entry and Im thinking a shift to Paganism (disambiguation) might be appropriate. (This would leave the current name free as one for an article about current pagan practice.) Laurel Bush 13:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Neo-paganism does deserve an article, and already has one. Distinguishing neo-paganism from paganism is relevant there, but not here, as with Nazi and Neo-Nazi etc etc etc. The reader looking for "paganism" is well served in getting this article, improved by Laurel Bush, I hope! If there is anything that needs disambiguation, Paganism (disambiguation) awaits! --Wetman 17:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A second look at Neo-paganism shows that the article quite intentionally blurs the distinctions, confusing people like Laurel Bush. Rather like saying, "We're not Neo-Nazis, we're real Nazis." Or confusing Wedgwood with Roman bas-reliefs. Readers are strongly encouraged to contribute some clarity at Neo-paganism. --Wetman 17:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Paganism needs a move to Proto paganism as the name of an artlicle which should include references to now emergent self-conscious (self-styled) paganism. Laurel Bush 16:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).

And in precisely the same way, and to satisfy just the same POV agenda, Christianity "needs a move" to Proto-PostChristian, as the "now emergent self-conscious" Post-Christianism. If Neopaganism is not enough playground area, an article Modern Paganism, with a "See also" link here, would provide plenty of space for creative self-expression. "Avoid unnecessary interference" is advice that might be well-taken by any neutral editor. Keep the Wikipedia reader in mind, please. --Wetman 21:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I write as a Wikipedia reader. Thank you. Laurel Bush 11:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). And Paganism still looks like a dictionary entry or semantic discussion. (So however does Neopaganism). Laurel Bush 14:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC).

They need your editing. Reports on what any mainstream writer has said of any of these topics, even succinct quotes, references to books that cover these topics, external links to Internet sites with illuminating content are all very welcome. And Modern paganism is a subject close to your heart that hasn't been begun; it might set an example for these other entries, under your care. --Wetman 21:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurocentric

A very Eurocentric article, to say the least. Where do Hindus, Shinto adherents, et al, fit? Or will they be utterly ignored, as usual? Dogface 18:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

European tradition Pagans don't deign to label other peoples. I know for a fact that Hindus and Zoroastrains would take grave offence at being labelled pagan.

It strikes me as not the custom to refer to Hindus, Shintoists, and so forth as "pagans," although Shinto surely qualifies, and at least popular Hinduism does as well. They were mostly unknown to Europeans when Christianity defined itself as opposed to classical paganism, and when they were studied in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was no longer the fashion to refer to the polytheistic faiths of literate people as "paganism." Smerdis of Tlön 18:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

A term defined in such an idiosyncratic and convoluted fashion has no meaning and should be deleted from a serious reference workDogface 21:11, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

"Paganism" as such is usually understood academically as the ancient classical religions of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, the Celts, the Germans, the Slavs and the other Baltic People that Christianity supplanted between 100-1500 A.D. in Europe. Modern pop revivals of any of those really should go under Neo-paganism, or be clearly delineated as modern revivals of a classical pagan religion(s). Anything else can be ascribed to polytheism and left at that. Fire Star 01:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Deleted this because I don't believe it is correct:

The terminology of paganism/neopaganism is also used to define difference in religious beliefs stemming from the use of technology and modern devices. Neopagans, as a general rule, see the use of technology as a granted right of mans evolution as long as the use of this technology is for the betterment of the Earth.

I moved the above comment to this page, and I've rewritten this article. I'm sure it still needs a lot of work, because I certainly am no expert on paganism. I would like to suggest gently to enthusiasts of various things about which it's possible to be enthused, please bear in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia for the entire world, with all the many people in it, and that means you must take a wide and long view of the subject you're writing about.

Neopaganists, for example, would do well to remember that paganism has a long history that is historically completely separate from the activities in which they engage at present. The most recent version of this article very inadequately mentioned the differences between ancient Celtic and other polytheistic and animist religion(s), on the one hand, and their modern revivalists, on the other. The rewritten article still needs a lot more information about that, actually. But this was, I think, because the person(s) who wrote some earlier draft of the article either didn't know or more likely didn't care enough about the differences to think it necessary to point them out. This results in confusion to anyone who doesn't actually know about the article, and this confusion is not due to inadequate time and space but failure to use the time and the space that was used.

Not to pick on these authors in particular, though, there have been plenty of other examples where articles suffer from a lack of intellectual worldliness, an intellectual provinciality, as though one person's, one group's, one discipline's, etc., take on the subject were the only that exists. I won't name names, but I've seen this again and again. (OK, to name one group, scientists generally and the computer scientists particularly often seem to think that their own special meanings for otherwise common terms or terms used in other fields are the only ones worth mentioning!) I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself from time to time, although I do try to keep myself alert to it. Of course, there are plenty of people who are very aware of this, but there are also quite a few people who don't seem to be.

Please don't hide behind the fact that people can correct articles and that this is a work in progress. That's very true and someone will eventually correct bad work. But with a little research and thought, nearly everyone working here can at least acknowledge that other takes on the subject exist. It's not that hard to do that much, and it's just efficient, and it makes the overall "stature" of the project higher. It also won't do to say, "Well, this is useful information--I can add it and others can add other relevant views." This is perfectly true, but it is also perfectly true that it is just much better to at least acknowledge that the other views exist--to put placeholders down. This doesn't require much more, if any more, effort than simply writing the text you want to write. --LMS

I agree wholeheartedly, Larry - the qualification of "said to be" isn't nearly enough for the pre-historic matriarchal religion of Europe. I just removed "ancient Ireland" from the list of country-folk untouched by religion NOT because they weren't pagan (though by the late 4th century they were being converted - don't get me started on St. patrick) but because they never really had cities (and the concomitant population of urban snobs) nor were they Latin speakers, so 'paganus' is anachronistic for them. Gaul, on the other hand, is an excellent example. Folks in Bordeaux and Toulouse and Arles and Marseilles and Lyon certainly sneered at pagani. --MichaelTinkler

I'm not too sure whether to agree with your edit or not -- the big question is, how to define pagan? My immediate reaction would be to say any polytheistic religion -- but then we have Hinduism, Shintoism, Indigeneous religions as pagan, which might technically be correct but isn't how the word is normally used. I think the most accurate description of what the word is generally used to describe is "those polytheistic religions in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Near East displaced by Judaism, Christianity or Islam" -- but that definition doesn't seem that natural... -- Simon J Kissane

A pointless interjection, but... I think a lot of Hindus would disagree with you that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. While there may be many "gods," they are all aspects of a universal Brahma, I believe. I'm not so informed, but I know that they are considered monotheists by certain other monotheistic groups --Alex Kennedy

Well, that section is about the etymology of 'paganus' in its Christian context rather than the phenomenon 'paganism'. There's room for both in an encyclopedia entry, though I have not objection to someone moving it around. On the other hand, I would object to someone clouding the meaning of "rustic" by including Hinduism or Ireland at that point. When early Christians talked about other 'high' religions they tended to use the word idolatria (latria = worship), "idolatry". Paganism didn't come to have a common Christian usage until the 4th or even 5th centuries. We could move this section, or delete it, but it's the etymology of the word! --MichaelTinkler

As a Neopagan myself, I tried to flesh out some of the basics of Neopaganism, but decided it really needed its own page. This page now sticks to the older usage, but links to Neopaganism. Hopefully this will keep things clear and allow the Neopagan content to be further expanded later.

-- [[User:Dmerrill]

The article's looking spiffy, but I don't much like this "paganism I" and "paganism II" stuff. If it's just a different sense, and the information is included in neopaganism, why are we repeating the information here? Anyway, if we must repeat it here, it should be under a different heading, after ---- I guess, not under a heading "paganism II." Please look to see how others have dealt with this sort of problem. It would help to look at naming conventions. --LMS

Thanks for the 'spiffy' comment, very encouraging to a new contributor. I agree the PI and PII strategy is clumsy but submitted it for two reasons.

1) The two meanings are not quite 'just a different sense' because they are diametrically opposed: one defines Pagan/ pagan as irreligious, the other as specifically religious in its own way. I think therefore both should be defined and explored on the same page. Would it be better to have a summary page with brief definition of the two, then link to two separate pages for detail? But then what to title the two pages? see next.
2) Putting all the second interpretation of (religious) Paganism under NeoPaganism makes it look as if the irreligious interpretation of Paganism is the one that matters for that term. I think that was arguably true as a very large majority view 20 even 10 years ago, but not now when the general public is surprisingly frequently aware of Paganism as a religion following considerable media exposure during the '80s & '90s, and massive conversion rates. It is all the more sensitive as most Pagans heartily dislike the label NeoPagan and keep battling external commentators to adopt the emic (internal) name they use themselves, ie 'Pagans'. Feelings by a lot of Pagans (not all) are so strong as to feel seriously insulted by the NeoPagan title.

I mean no disrespect by this for the writer above who identifies as NeoPagan, who is absolutely entitled to do so, but having worked as a Pagan national leader, spokesperson, teacher etc over 20 years and probably having encountered a few thousand enormously diverse Pagans as part of that career, this is the first time ever Ive come across someone using that title as a self identification. So here is a puzzled and courteously interested Pagan priestess, yet again acknowledging how risky it is to generalise about Pagans!

Shan Jayran hope Ive set this out OK.

Hm, that's funny. I usually call myself Pagan (or Wiccan, or a Witch, which is the kind of Neopagan I happen to be) but I don't mind calling myself a Neopagan or identifying with Neopaganism in order to be specific, and I've not met others who've evinced a specific distaste for the term Neopagan. - Montréalais

Most asatruers object to being called neopagans. On the other hand many also object to pagan and prefer "heathen". // Liftarn

It carries strong roots in Outsider discourse of superiority/ inferiority, similar to the "goyim" of the superior Jewish insider. Like other outsiders the Pagan can be seen as negative, subordinate, dangerous, erotic, colourful, sensual, disorderly, crazy, threatening, fun, noble, corrupting, doomed, etc.

What is this "Outsider discourse", curiously capitalised? I kinda get what this is supposed to be saying, but the second sentence seems to be too vague and scattershot to convey much intelligible meaning, at least to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply say something like:

"Pagan" is a pejorative term that, at least until the advent of Romanticism, was usually applied to someone else's religion other than one's own.

-- IHCOYC 19:25 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Pagan and Neopagan, are terms which confuse sometimes deliberately, as in the final definition, rests legitimacy of various interests.

Wiccans are aware that they are a majority of NeoPagans, and no doubt that there are some, who realize that by banding together certain groups (of which they approve) under the "Pagan" banner, that they stand to benefit, as a group, as a result. Minority groups and individuals who disagree with what crystallise with "accepted" Pagan beliefs end up on the outside, while among those on the inside, Wiccans have the ascendancy. For example; Most people who vociferously argue for the word "Paganism" as opposed to the neutral "Neopaganism" equally vociferously deny that Satanists can be Pagans. (Neopaganism is "neutral" because it doesnt have the same quality of rallying-around-the-flag quality as the term "Paganism").

Whats going on is essentially the redefinition of the word, for political purposes. Instead of "Pagan" meaning licentious, or rural, or evil; each of these definitions are being stringently, stridently attacked. But as mentioned, "Neopaganism" is too bland to act as a nucleus for an emergent religion. Hence the comment "most Pagans heartily dislike the label NeoPagan and keep battling external commentators to adopt the emic (internal) name they use themselves, ie 'Pagans'."

This isnt about a dictionary definition, its about ultimately whether some mythical umbrella group the "Pagans" get to develop legitimacy for themselves, and the right to exclude others, such as Hedonists, Satanists, Chaotes, and others, from being in the "in group".

Ironically, I doubt most understand this at a conscious level. I believe its no coincidence that this etymological struggle emerges at a point in time when Pagans have a stab at becoming an accepted religion. To do this; its important to Wiccans, druids, etc, to build safety in numbers, and to associate into a larger group. At the same time they need to excluse those who threaten the group, i.e. Satanists. Wiccans are almost finished with cohering their own group with ethics, standards, rules, etc, and now a push is on to consolidate further. THATS why there is this huge confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.147.129.58 (talk • contribs) . ________________________

Coming in as a classicist, I have some issues here with the melding of ancient and modern definitions of the word "pagan". It's incorrect to say that it refers only to polytheistic religions, because while traditional Roman and Greek state cult were polytheistic, religious traditions like Neoplatonism were decidedly monotheistic, while being pagan as well. I'd also like to discuss the word "Hellene", actually used by the ancient "pagans" themselves, as "pagan" is increasigly being rejected as an acceptable term for scholars.

Basically, I think this page needs to be divided up into sections that refer to the modern and ancient definitions.

--LaurenKaplow 05:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ancient paganism should certainly be dealt with in more detail.Fire Star 21:57, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About your most recent changes, I realize this is nitpicking, but I wouldn't describe civic cults as deification of the political process. I think it'd be more accurately described as using the cult of a specific deity as a form of civic pride and identity. --LaurenKaplow 00:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you get all of these ancient kings saying that they are the chosen one of so-and-so god, a god that is identified specifically with the state; Assur in Assyria, Tiamat in Babylon, Ba'al Haddad in Phoenicia, Tarhunt in Hatti, or Horus or whoever the divinity du jour was in Egypt. In all of these kingdoms and many others the kings identified themselves and their interests with the gods in question, identifying their prowess on the battlefield with the might of the god who gave them victory, when they conquered another kingdom the gods there were shown publicly subservient to the home deity. The kings told their people that the gods had chosen them, that they had divine fiat (melammu, aegis etc.) to rule over others and collect taxes and wage war. That the legitimacy of these activities was tied directly by name into the public cultus of the local gods does show some evidence that we have a deification of the political process in the ancient world. What you say is also true, that as part of the legitimacy these kings sought they instructed their priests and scribes to portray the kings' place in the local mythos as dramatically as possible, surely in hopes of swaying (or at least intimidating) public spirit in favour of the king. Fire Star 05:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's all true... for the eastern religions. Not at all for Greek and Roman religion, as they rejected the notion of a king or divine leader entirely (well, until the cult of the emperor). --LaurenKaplow 20:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm especially thinking of the Near East. This must have informed the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans at some level, though (they were in many ways dependent on Near Eastern influences, however modified). We have Homer extolling his heros' divinely granted superior ability to kill the enemy, which fits the pattern. I see you are quite correct in saying that the Iron age Greeks transferred the process to their locality moreso than to their ruling dynasties, and perhaps to their local systems of government rather than to the governors themselves. Interesting stuff, and perhaps worthy of a separate chapter, if not an entire article. Cheers, Fire Star 02:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-anthropological "subdivisions"

The recently added section of anthropology terms, while interesting and helpful, seems to be written from the assumption that "pagans" are always history's losers, and that influences run in one direction from other cultures that conquer the pagans. What is the anthropological term for a conquering culture like the Roman Empire that syncretizes the faiths of cultures it conquers? Smerdis of Tlön 18:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

These amateur "subdivisions" coined by Isaac Bonewits posted at http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html are not used by cultural historians, anthropologists or anyone else. They inspire angry graffiti. Shouldn't they be deleted? --Wetman 18:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fluffy Bunny

I removed the "Fluffy Bunny" references. I hardly think "fluffy bunny" even deserves an article. "Fluffy Bunny" references make the article feel like a joke. I don't have any good reasons other than saying it's bad taste, so if anyone reverts my removal, please just say something about why you want it there. I don't claim to be a pagan myself, but I do know that people who are take their religion just as seriously as anyone else does. "Fluffy bunny" just doesn't give this religion the reverence it deserves. --DanielCD 04:45, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have known alot of neopagans, and the jokes about them are constant. Just today, for example, my family spent a solid 10 minutes making light of neopaganism whilst watching blair witch 2. As far as the reverence the religion deserves, thats not really something were here to facilitate, NPOV and all. I'm going to move the links to neopaganism. Sam [Spade] 04:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, like I said I really didn't have any good reason for removal other than a feeling, perhaps style. I thought someone was just being silly, but after reading a bit, it does seem to be an actual concept. --DanielCD 20:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

its a silly name for a valid criticism, which is that neo paganism is a bit heavy on new age and 60's flowerchild culture, and a bit light on authentic pre-christian / secret society witchcraft and religion. Sam [Spade] 20:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's roughly equivalent to calling Christians "God-botherers" (although that may just be a British phrase which doesn't make much sense to other readers) and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, except in quotation marks to report people's usage of the term. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

God-botherers--that's funny. Oddly enough, it does describe one of the things that many of us Christians do, even though we aren't supposed to. There's an old witticism to the effect that far too often we ask for His Will to be done and then set off dictating to Him what His Will should be. Dogface 03:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God-botherers...? lol... that’s funny. I'd be fine w you creating an article on that, or inserting a mention of it into Christianity. Anyhow, this "fluff bunny" concept needs more airing, not less, altho perhaps under a more appropriate title? The fact that your average Wiccan (I've met hundreds) is about as far away from mysticism or shamanism or other more... traditional supernatural abilities as possible needs to be discussed. As an outsider, a voodoo priestess or tribal witch doctor would prob make me nervous. I have seen both on documentaries, and they gave me a "witchy" type impression. Wiccans on the other hand remind me more of renaissance fair attendees (altho more punk/hippy type fashions), or antiwar protestors, and are about as worthy of the title "witch" IMO (and I ascribe to the traditional definition of the word, scary people we used to burn, and who still are burned in Africa) as a school girl on Halloween. Sam [Spade] 05:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've made a good point. I think the term is adequately described in the article fluffy bunny, and it doesn't really belong in an article on Paganism, which is a huge and serious subject covering much much more than the slight hippy tendency of some adherents to the recent Pagan revival in the West. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, thats why I moved the links over to neopaganism. Sam [Spade] 17:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The etymology

I don't want to pull this etymology and usage of paganus all to pieces, but here's the entry on pagus from Harry Thurston Peck, Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquity for anyone who wants to work some history into this section: [1] --Wetman 09:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All to pieces? Looks like a nice improvement. -- Laurel Bush 10:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).

I thought pagan=country dweller was discredited as an etymology, in that the first usage of the word in its religious context is in Tertullian where he uses it to mean a non-christian. He was adopting a usage in Tacitus which is, I believe, well attested where paganus=civilian. The dichotomy for Tertullian being between a soldier of Christ and a non-combatant, a pagan. This usage, meaning a non-christian, is, I believe, an older one, and still used widely in some christian contexts.

This explains why "Paganism" is a late usage since "pagan" is defined as a negative, there cannot be an -ism related to it; just as one does not have non-Marxism or whatever. As far as I can see the word has been co-opted and narrowed to mean something like the definition in this article. I don't use it in that sense because it is so imprecise -- are Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sufis, Taoists and Muslims Pagan? In my view, yes (since they aren't Christian), but I'm not sure it would be so easy to be precise with any other definition.

Surely the article ought to note this alternative approach? Is Heathen really the same thing and should it be all in one article? Francis Davey 09:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow that argument at all. Atheism for instance was coined well before anyone actually self-described as an atheist. All non-Abrahamic religion may be described as paganism, but for historical reasons, the term is mostly confined to pre-Christian religions, i.e. religions that were historically replaced by Christianity. (and, recently, including post-Christian revivals, viz. Neopaganism). A Hindu is a Hindu, and would probably object to being labelled "pagan" or even "idolater", since that implies a monotheistic pov. From an "Abrahamic" outlook, Hindus still qualify both as pagans and idolaters. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The point about a term of art or usage is that, in some particular sense in which it is used, it will describe something. In describing such a term in a reference work it isn't for us to avoid meanings that are objected to, if they are real meanings. I am just pointing out that there is a usage of 'pagan' to mean 'non-christian' that is (a) the oldest usage I have seen cited; and (b) still in current use. The fact that the term may now more widely be used by those who have appropriated it to self-describe their beliefs does not invalidate it as a meaning, although it now has others. Nor does the fact that a Hindu might not wish to be described as a pagan mean very much in that context. Tertullian's usage was not meant to be insulting or derogatory by the way, it was simply a useful way of describing those not fighting in his army (as he might describe it) in his world view. The distinction he was making was that, in his theology, non-members of his religion were not the enemy (that would be the Devil etc) but civilians and/or non-combatants. That is still a useful idea in Christian theology. Francis Davey 17:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Although this article states that "Paganism" comes from "Paganus", meaning "rural", the word probably derives form "Pagani" meaning "civilian". This usage indicated how the Civilian religion of Paganism was believed to contrast with the non-civilian religion of Christianity. This information can be found in Fox, Robin "Pagans and Christians". ACEO 10:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-historical "shouldabeen" text

I removed this here: "Christianity also became a major religion in the Roman army. Here pagani has meanings of non-combatant, pacifist, with attendant derision. From the widespread popularity of Christianity among slaves, the most numerous class in the Roman Empire, by contrast pagani acquired connotations of "uppity", "religious dissident" and so on to "heretic"." The Army was the last bastion of Mithras and Isis. There were no connotations of "pacifist" in paganii. "Uppity" is not a useful category in Late Antiquity. "Heretic" and "pagan" are confused only in the modern American prayer-meeting. --Wetman 22:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page for Heathen

Should Heathen have its own page? It seems to me that the term is related but it might need a separate page.--Whiteash 15:56, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of oh my gods link

can someone explain why the article I am nearly done writing for Oh My Gods! had it's link removed from the page under the "see also" section? as a neopagan COMIC STRIP dealign with paganism, wicca and neo-paganism I would say it's 100% approperate under it's own SUBCATEGORY of comedy, where I had it

edit: I have gone ahead and added it back in, as the page is now up for the article (anonymous post from User:Shivian)

This rather aggressive user, whose edit history reveals his interest is in linking Wikipedia to this comic-strip weblog, apparently thinks B.C. (comic) would make a sensible "See also" entry in the Wikipedia article Neolithic. Perhaps the Flintstones should be linked at Cretaceous, too. I am removing this perfectly idiotic link, as any adult would.

I am glad you are being an adult and using phrases like idiotic. The Paganism page has to do with, oh, Paganism. Interestingly enough this comic strip deals with characters who pratice... lets guess here... Paganism, some are reconstructionalists, some Neopagans, etc. Interestingly enough there is a section "Modern nature religion" within the article - wow! So it's not JUST about ancient paganism (to which I could see this removal making sense) but it is about modern paganism as well. To which the article the comic strip is about DIRECTLY references.

If there were modern Cretaceous pratitioners and if Flintstones was about THEM - then YES it would make TOTAL SENSE! The strip has nothing to do with Neolithic culture or pratice either. It directly deals with what is spoken of in the "Modern nature religion" section as well as the "Pagan subdivisions coined by Isaac Bonewits" and "Neopaganism" section. I am also AMAZED that Unitarian Universalism is allowed to remain under the "see also" section (which is MODERN and NOTHING like ancient pratices) - however the comic strip in the article which has much DIRECT CONTENT and REFERENCES such ancient pratices and COMMENTS on them DIRECTLY is not.

Could you site the reasons for all this without degrading into childlike insults involving the Flintstones and OBVIOUSALLY inaccurate pointings to NEOLITHIC? Oh yes, and please sign your talks. Thanks!

--Shivian Balaris 05:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The link might be more appropriate in Wicca or Neopaganism than here. —Ashley Y 21:54, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Perhaps then you can explain why it's inapproperate when I already stated reasons to the contrary?--Shivian Balaris 22:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not relevant to paganism except inasmuch as neopaganism is relevant to paganism. You comic involves people, does it not? Should it not therefore be linked to human? —Ashley Y 23:48, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Perhaps you are missing the Point Ashley Y, this has nothing to do with "MY comic" so much as it does the ARTICLE about a PAGAN COMIC. Making it relevant within an article about PAGANISM to be in the "see also" section. Especially one as DIFFERENT as an article about an ALL PAGAN comic strip? This is RARE and should be NOTED, not therefor shunned. And as noted on other articles, this is not an "advertisement".

Just because something is rare does not make it notable or relevant. Cavalorn 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from Talk:Wicca: This is a non-argument. Wikipedia articles are not forms of self-promotion, and so internal links to them are not self-promotion either. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hence my point--Shivian Balaris 00:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

That point has already been answered and the article duly edited. Cavalorn 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth About Paganism

Basically, Paganism is a nature based religion. And some people just don't get that. I have had people tell me that it is "Devil Worship." Which is a false statement. Being Pagan myself, I know that Paganism is all about finding the beauty in all life. There are some evil souls out there, but they still have a soul. Now, from what I can gather, people who call us Pagans a "Devil Worship" cult, I believe they just don't know about the religion. Paganism is finding yourself, the beauty in life, a soul in everything, and respecting everything. And especially Mother Nature, because without her, we wouldn't be here today.

Paganism is not a nature-based religion-- in english, it's a category of religions. See the article's definition. You're probably a 'neopagan,' but the article uses standard english and therefore isn't about your system of beliefs. In english, the word means: not faithful to one of the Abrahmic religions. Devil worship and atheism are forms of paganism.

No they are not. Luckily you are not the officiado of the worlds religious terms.

funny I always thought that 'devil worship' was actually only possible from a standpoint of the abrahamic religions - in as much as that they invented the devil as the antithesis of the deity. so to be a devil worshiper you have to tacitly believe in god.

sure the ancient names such as Baal, lucifer, satan were deities in their own right prior to christianity, but they were no more 'devils' than venus was a devil (even though she presided over death). to worship any of them is not to worship a devil, except in christian eyes of course. DavidP

There are different definitions. Some definitions define all pre-Christian religions, including Judaism, as Pagan. Some have it that all pre-Christian religions, not including Judaism, were Pagan. Some have it that Polytheism itself is Paganism. Others, like the person above, would have it that anything non-Abrahamic, including Atheism somehow, is Paganism.-8/6/06

[edit] Further Reading section cut

Johnson, Nathan J. & Wallis, Robert J. Galdrbok: Practical Heathen Runecraft, Shamanism and Magic London & Winchester: The Wykeham Press, 2005. ISBN 0954960912

Does anyone agree with 193.235.128.1 (talk • contribs) that this article should have the above book as "Further reading"? Jkelly 17:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

lol, of course not. If anywhere, add it to Germanic Neopaganism. dab (ᛏ) 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "pagan vs. paganism"

this section is misleading, and rather ill-informed. The reason that paganism as opposed to pagan is only in use since the 17th century does not mean that paganism wasn't seen a unity, but simply that the -ism suffix only came in fashion in modern times. dab (ᛏ) 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] women in paganism

I don't have much academic experience in religion, but I'm checking up on Dan Brown's suggestion that in the sweeping of Christianity over Paganism, women ultimately lost their cultural standing. Obviously I'm not taking to heart everything in the Da Vinci Code but I think it's an interesting area of history if it has truth in it. Can anyone point me in the direction of more information on women in paganism? Thanks.

"Paganism" means "not Jewish, not Christian, not Muslim, not Atheist", so it encompasses really thousands of cultures. So, unless you specify which "pagan" culture you are interested in, there is no answer to your question. You may try Matriarchy for a few cultures where women had a particularly high standing. And you may try Marija Gimbutas for feminist theories about pre-Indo-European "Old Europe". One thing is certain, the Christians, or even the Jews, didn't invent patriarchy. dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this wouldn't jibe well with such syncretisms as Judeo-Paganism. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Heathenry vs. Paganism

It should be noted in this that Heathen is a term that is used exclusivly to the Asatru religion as a name for its followers, and that Heathenry, and Paganism are indeed not the same thing. Heathens are not Pagans, and Pagans are not Heathens. In fact most Heathens consider it offencive to be confused with moderen pagans and Neopagans" as their religion is set in stone and followed as it was in Iceland and northern Europe before Roman domination. Differing greatly Neo-Paganism is a hoshposh of occult observances differing greatly from person to person, and place to place.(Anonymous)

Oh pooh! To formulate the above better, and in fewer words: "Self-described members of Asatru prefer the term "heathen." The rest is gesticulation and babble. --Wetman 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's the Standard again?

If neopaganism has an article, and since it and pagan have so little in common, is it standard for there to be an extensive section on neopaganism in this article?

[edit] Limited geographic scope

(cross-posted on Talk:Neopaganism) - I am placing the {{limitedgeographicscope}} template on both this article and Neopaganism, and here is why. I've been re-tagging some articles from Category:Religion stubs as paganism stubs and also placing the WikiProject Neopaganism template on appropriate article talk pages, and I've had some difficulty determining whether to do this with some articles, especially the numerous articles related to syncretic African religions. I went to the Wikipedia articles on paganism and neopaganism for guidance as to the scope of these terms, and found very little. In particular, I have noticed that all of the religions on the "list of pagan religions" in Paganism and all of the traditions listed in Neopaganism are explicitly European. Neopaganism comments that "Polytheistic or animistic traditions that survived into modern times relatively untouched by Christianity and Islam, like Shinto or Hinduism are not considered pagan nor neopagan," but no explanation is given for why non-European, pre-Christian, polytheistic religions that haven't survived (or their revivals) are not included on these lists. I think that this is an important issue that merits serious discussion and deliberation, and judging by the comments above, I'm not the only one. So... Are paganism and neopaganism strictly European phenomena? Are these terms used to refer to non-European religions? And should religions like Voodoo and Candomblé, both of which have been called "pagan" according to their articles, be included here? - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Paganism is a poorly defined term, and I suspect the best we can do is offer some of the more common definitions of the term from the viewpoints of different groups e.g. Christians, Neopagans, etc.. I would suggest that in the case of Vodou and Candomble the term 'pagan' is next to useless, since it only really indicates that these religions are not Abrahamic. The term 'pagan' is probably only used in these cases because it carries slight connotations (for some people) of exotic and barbaric practices, magic and sacrifice, people with chicken bones through their noses, missionaries in pots, etc. ;-) Fuzzypeg 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of naming conventions

A discussion of usage and capitalization/hyphenation conventions for the terms N/neo(-)P/pagan and P/pagan is ongoing on the WikiProject talk page. Contributors to this article will likely be interested in participating. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of a Link

I removed wwpn.org from the link list. There are no sources for their "FAQ" so I fell it falls along the lines of "personal opinion."

Also, there are goods for sale on the site, and posting the link here may be a sly way of advertisement. --Toadsboon 09:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, advertising, particularly if it's prominent, is a very big negative when considering a link for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fuzzypeg 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

During my studies of Paganism, there is one thing that I have learned beyond a doubt; there is virtually no agreement on the definition of 'Paganism' from one group to another.

I've been reading the discussions on this page and the Neopaganism page, and it seems as though people are trying to have the definition written the way they view it. I'm, by no means an expert, and I'm sure there are people on here who know a lot more about the subject than me, but I thought I would try to help clear the article up.

The first paragraph of this article would definately conflict with a lot of people's views. It is also inaccurate to say that the term is used primarily by Christians, although the definitions at the beginning of this article probably are. I think the only fact that all groups (except those who seem to think it's a religion itself) would agree on is that Paganism is a category of religions.

The etymology section would be a good place explain about the definitions of 'non-Christian' and 'non-Abrahamic', or could at least lead onto a section discussing them. After that, you could have a section talking Wicca and the Pagan revival that came along with it, and how they spawned definitions such as 'earth-based religions'. The same could be done for all common definitions, whilst explaining the etymology for each and why the current definition is the one found most often in dictionaries.

This is all my long-winded way of saying, I think this article should have subsections to address each of the common definitions of 'Paganism'.--Jcvamp 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't disagree with the your ideas for subsections, I want to add that I feel is important to deal with the historical uses of the term just as prominently as the modern movements. "Heathen" redirects here and it is term that was widely and liberly used in the past, where these terms in the modern sense is rarely used outside of certain circles. Not that I think it is not important in those circle and the mordern definiton should certainly be dealt with. However I think the majority of readers coming to this page, are people who are reading and older book and are uncertain how this term is used in that context.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Heathen could be dealt with, either in this article or in a separate one. I personally, think the term shouldn't be treated as a synonym of Pagan. Heathen is used in a derogatory sense more often than Pagan, whilst also denoting Norse reconstructionism specifically in some cases. I'm not saying that both of these uses are on the same level, but I think it would be good idea to deal with them.--172.216.56.198 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point, altough I am not sure how much information would be repaeted if we split the articles. Historcally I believe thay were synonyms, perhaps pagan was a more politicaly correct term until it gained it's modern definition. I am not sure. However until it is split we need to remeber that heathen does redirect here and needs to be explained. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of ideas

Paganism is a historical category: no educated person is applying it today. The idea has a history that is partly revealed in its etymology, and better revealed in its historical usage. The career of the idea "paganism" is being discussed in this article: Neo-paganism has its distinct article; our own opinions of paganism and what it may mean in today's schoolyards are irrelevant.

There are three ways to diddle about incompetently with this article, all of them broad avenues already well-trod:

As a "dictionary definition". Any criticism of a Wikipedia article on the genesis, development and history of an idea will go wrong by equating the idea with a label and then proposing to eliminate the discussion as a dictionary definition. See "Is Paganism a disambiguation article?" above.

As of "limited geographic scope". Some here would like to see Paganism discuss Shinto and other cultural contexts where the concept doesn't apply. Others similarly complain that this European concept with a Roman background and a Christian history is "Eurocentric"! And a bumpersticker is applied.

By conflating it with Polytheism or Animism, or redirecting Heathen to Paganism without being able to distinguish among them.

A good definition of heathen would help clear fog from this discussion, it appears. Any "splitting" of articles is best done, not by cannibalizing a coherent existing article, but by creating sub-articles that expand upon specific aspects, with a Main article... heading. Anyone who doesn't understand the concept of nested articles, shouldn't be encouraged to chop about at random. --Wetman 04:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that Paganism is a historical category? The term is still being applied, and by educated people. This isn't a suggestion for this article to end up as just a dictionary definition, but dictionaries, which are written by educated people, will usually define Paganism as either, a category of non-Christian religions, religions other than the world's major religions, or atheism. I disagree with some of these definitions too, but evidently the term is used this way, and not just by uneducated people.

The real question is, who is an authority on what a term means? If this can't be answered, how else can the term be define other than to discuss how it is used by English speakers?

If that is the real question then I suggest that accept the fact that there are several meanings for the term and that you re-read the post above you by wetman - He cleverly suggests that when there are several definitions, it may be a good idea to use several headings or sub articles. pretty innovative eh!

DavidP

Firstly, I don't see why you imply that I don't accept the fact that there are many definitions. That's what I'm advocating here...

I like the idea of sub-headings (in fact, if you look up the page you'll see I've already suggested it myself), but, if you read Wetman's post carefully, you'll see that he's criticising certain definitions. To me, and I may be wrong, the main gist of the post was to say that the other definitions come from uneducated people, and therefore shouldn't be used.

I dislike a lot of the definitions too, but words change and we should discuss what the word 'Paganism' has come to mean. The article Man is about adult males (though in the disambiguation it mentions that it can refer to humans in general), but the word originally meant human. Why is Paganism any different?

If we are going to have an article with sub-headings for different definitions, we have to decide which definitions to use. My idea was to use the most common definitions.--Jcvamp 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shinto

Should Shinto be considered a pagan religion? It is, after all, polytheistic with a heavy animistic and nature-oriented tinge. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

"Pagan" is the usual translation of the Islamic term mushrik, which refers to 'one who worships something other than God'. Sorry, I dont understand this statement. Is it translating the English word Pagan into Islamic(?) language? Or, actually, don't understand anyway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Paganism.

To me, the essense of paganism is just a continuence of oral traditions which are important no matter who you are and to any religion, family etc. And which we miss so much in our shocking society. 'The world is too much with us'. [William Wordsworth]

[edit] Wicca "recently founded"

I have no real disagreement with the idea that Wicca was recently founded, although based on the best scholarship available I would place its "founding" closer to the 1920s or 1930s. My objection is to it being singled out as a "recently founded" religion, while faiths like Neo-Druidism are "reconstructions" or even "revivals". The basic fact is that all these religions are attempting to revive something from the past, and all involve a degree of reconstruction. All are based on an imperfect historical knowledge. Neo-Druidism as it is popularly practiced today has little more historical "validity" than Wicca - the Druidic revival started in the 18th century, so it may predate Wicca in that sense, but it got an overhaul in the 20th Century. Ross Nichols and Gerald Gardner were collaborating together on the development of both their religions, from all accounts.

Asatru might be more historically accurate as a "revival", since it is based largely on a set of literary works of similar antiquity (but has its reconstructed elements, just as all the rest do); Wicca is perhaps more of a "reconstruction" since it has more diverse literary sources, ranging from Greek magical papyri to supposed Italian witch beliefs recorded by Charles Leland, to the theories of Margaret Murray. The fact that the validity of some of these texts is disputed in no way makes this any less of a valid attempt at "reconstruction" — and it's certainly not in a different boat to Neo-Druidism, the founding documents of which are widely thought to be pure invention.

Perhaps the thought is that Wicca can only be a "newly founded" religion since it's attempting to revive a European witchcraft, something which "never existed". This opinion would presumably be based on Ronald Hutton's writings, which take a rather extreme position, atypical of most of his academic peers in the field. Wider academic consensus recognises the existence of folk magic mixed with pagan or non-Christian beliefs throughout Europe right up to the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (such as the Benandanti and groups identified as similar by Carlo Ginsburg). While these witchcraft-like beliefs were uncommon, they are well-known to modern historians were certainly not non-existent. In any case, if the intention is to say that Wicca is reconstructing something that never previously existed, that would be better expressed clearly and unambiguously in the article.

"Newly founded" sounds like Wicca has no interest in drawing from the past, which is quite misleading... Fuzzypeg☻ 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wicca is not a reconstruction because it is not an attempt to restore a particular ancient religion; it is a modern synthesis of a variety of beliefs and practices, from a variety of cultures. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wicca was an attempt to revive/reconstruct a particular ancient religion! Gerald Gardner when he was initiated took it to be the remnants of the ancient "witch cult" that Margaret Murray had described, and he set out to preserve, publicise and restore it. Yes, he drew from diverse sources in his attempts at reconstruction, as did the founders of neo-Druidry. Regardless of the fact that Murray's theories have been largely discredited, this was still a bona-fide attempt at reconstruction/revival. Also, Wiccan practitioners will tell you that their gods existed prior to the 20th century, and that it would be ridiculous to assume they had no worshippers in previous centuries. To single out Wicca as "newly founded" while Druidry is "reconstructed" is just misleading, and seems to indicate a strong bias. Fuzzypeg☻ 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Neo-druid groups, especially those based on the romantic "revivals", are just as eclectic as Wicca. Others are more reconstructionist, or have become more reconstructionist in recent years. Whatever Gardner believed, or told people he believed, I think is less relevant than the result: an amalgamation of very diverse sources, sometimes from traditions with radically different theologies and cosmologies. While it's clear that Wiccans call upon deities from ancient cultures, the actual religious structure in which they do this, and some of the beliefs they hold about those deities, are only some of the time based on older models. --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Fuzzy. Wicca was, indeed, "an attempt to revive/reconstruct a particular ancient religion." The problem is the "religion" that was being constructed never actually existed--at least, not before the Romatics invented it. The Druids, at least, were actually historical, and even though the Mesopagan Druid "reconstructions" were no more "ancient" than Wicca, there at least is a historical precedent, no matter how badly that precedent was misunderstood and misinterpreted. Justin Eiler 03:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kathryn. Bonewits is recent--2003. ISBN 1594055009 However, he takes the (very) minority position of an "ancient" origin for Wicca, and has caught both the expected kudoes and flack for such a position. Justin Eiler 03:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, Isaac's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think most others in the field would classify Wicca as "MesoPagan". --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'd go along with his definition of Mesopagan ... there's plenty of Christian influence in Witchcraft Today and meaning of witchcraft, even if it's "We don't like Christians because they're afraid of us," But I'd still place it in the 1940s. Justin Eiler 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely concur on the 1940's. --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of quotations?

I note we have a long series of "anti-paganism" quotations, all of which are from a loosely Christian perspective, and all of which, though prettily written, seem to be based on misconceptions of what a pagan world-view might be. C S Lewis' views are particularly horrid, seemingly founded in a puritanical self-loathing of any impulse which is not expressly aimed at God; Bigland's assumption that only the Abrahamic religions contain moral teachings is patently false; and while G K Chesterton comes the closest to expressing a valid idea with his description of taking joy in small things, he makes an unfounded assumption that pagans would fearfully avoid confronting the vast and the sublime. I don't see why the gods and the fates should be despotic or dead; these are the gods of the vast spaces that surround mankind, that we stare up to in the heavens. Pantheism, for instance, finds divinity in the largest as well as the smallest.

These quotations, it seems to me, are not so much attempting to understand paganism in a realistic manner, as to explore the authors' fears of straying from the path of Christ, since God is only "up there" and not "down here". The pagans these authors are talking about (with the possible exception of Chesterton) have bones through their noses and stew missionaries in pots. Fuzzypeg☻ 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope my sub-dividing of the quotes section will be a good solution to your unease with them. 11:35, 12 September 2006 (EST)

Unfortunately not really. We shouldn't need a great number of quotes and we shouldn't need them split into sections. It's clear which are pro- and which are anti-. What we need is better quotations. The pro- quotes aren't particularly enlightening, and still seem to be from a Christian "admiring the noble savage" point of view. If we're going to have quotes I would limit it to about four or five maximum; I would quote from major influential and sympathetic anthropologists (perhaps Joseph Campbell), folklorists (perhaps Robert Graves), etc. I don't see a problem with leaving one quote in the mix that is from a more Christian perspective, but most of the quotes here are barking up completely the wrong tree. The writer should at least have a vague idea of what the pagan world view is like. On that basis I'm going to chop out all but the Chesterton (which is as good as they've got so far). I don't suggest you try filling in the gaps in the list of quotations unless you actually know of a really good one. They're not likely to come out of a quotation dictionary... Fuzzypeg☻ 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the initial introduction of quotations was unfortunate since it was entirely given over to Christian apologists writing at a time when active hostility towards the old religions was part of Christian life. Some of Chesterton's remarks of negroes and Jews would be considered highly racist today and Lewis opinions on witch's would - effectively condoning capital punishment - would not go down well with those who practice Wicca today. There can be considerable resentment amongst pagans towards Christianity and its treatment of religions outside itself when it gained the ascendency - the "turn or burn" mentality. IMO the contributor of those quotations, whilst being well-meaning, has disturbed the balance of the article and it would be preferable that the whole of the quotations section, for and against paganism, be removed. Sept 12 2006

I don't see hostility as being a major problem. I think the people who wrote these quotes were quite far removed from any real form of pagan religion. Mostly they were considering the religions of antiquity or of the exotic south seas and the jungles of Africa, etc, things that are far enough removed that they are neither threatened by them, not need to portray them accurately. People like Lewis could imagine them in whatever form seemed the best antithesis to their true Christian calling. For Lewis it seems Paganism represented everything exotic, sensual and free, which he was both fascinated by and deeply afraid of. It seems to work that way: if you are greatly concerned with remaining chaste, then your conception of "paganism" might be marked by licentiousness and orgiastic rites, for instance. Of course this has no bearing on real paganism. This comes down to ignorance rather than hostility. If we had some decent quotes it hopefully wouldn't appear like there's such antagonism between religions... Fuzzypeg☻ 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chesterton quote that's the lone entry now is definitely a keeper. 22 September 2006

I disagree because it is only another one of G.K Chesterton's sound bites that might have an appeal to Christians, or even some pagans who live in a Merry Olde England kind of world with the Christian veneer removed. I think they are unfair, they certainly do not represent my views as a pagan, and his broad brush strokes about despotic Gods could, without any difficulty, be applied to Yahweh and his ways - especially in the O.T. His generalised comments about pagans, the afterlife, their binding to earth etc are also clearly wrong and misrepresent the many possible pagan spiritual paths. I do not warm to the idea that the criteria for quotations should rest on their literary merits only - indeed the whole idea of a quotations sections lends itself to a war of soundbites. With respect I would ask that this be reconsidered and the quotation section be dropped completely as the article loses objectivity through its presence. 24 September 2006 1.55pm

May I suggest the complete deletion of the quotation section as being innappropriate for an introductory text since they perhaps really form part of a separate (several) article(s), e.g the history of Christian/Pagan apologetics . My first approach to the article was in the expectation of finding a decent overview on paganism - not what 20th century Christian apologists, with demonstable bias and erronious opinions - thought. Any objections ?

82.40.208.36 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that logic -- the quotations section is superfluous for an introductory text on paganism. LotR 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I storngly support removing the quotations section: I don't think it adds anything useful to the article. --Scix 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I'm going to "Be Bold" and go ahead and remove it. Justin Eiler 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are Heathens and Pagans the same thing in modern usage?

It's interesting that the word heathen and Pagan are both discussed in a single article which is clearly almost exclusively on Pagan religion. While they may have been historically synonymous, they are not longer so in the modern world. More to the point, heathen has come to simply mean either not Christian or simply not monotheistic, including simply not religious:

Pagan has tradtionally been associated primarily with polytheism, and in more recent years has come to mean nature-centered or "Earth-centered" (particularly be self-proclaimed Pagans).

Heathen, on the other hand is often used to include atheists, agnostics, secularists, etc., and many atheist and secularist, as well as frankly anti-Christian, groups have come to describe themselvs as Heathens, in much the way that many such groups call themselves infidels, heretics, and similar names. Often this is done to place themselve outside Christianity, or outside theism in general, while specifically avoiding a label they associate with a specific other religion (e.g., Pagan) or philosophy (e.g., Atheism). However, many, perhaps most (unkown) self-proclaimed "Heathens" are not Pagan, nor are they religious, and have much more in common with Atheism or Secularism.

So, it is misleading to imply that "heathen" is actually synonymous with, or even related to, Paganism, at least in modern usage, despite the fact that a few Pagans also call themselves Heathen.

Well you seem to have answered your own question, but I will answer anyways. "Pagan" is a type of "heathen" in most definitions, but they are often used interchangbly. Besides a small number of people who self-indentify this way, the words are generally used by Christians to describe people and practices that are not part of Judeo-Christian tradition. I dislike the way you are discussing "modern usage". Just because a word takes on a new aspect does not neccessarily mean the older usage is completely discarded. Heathen particularly is widely found in 19th century literature and people still read that stuff.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A good number of Germanic neopagans have also taken up the term heathenry to describe their religion. So not only is paganism a type of heathenry, heathenry is a type of paganism. That's a nice linguistic mess, isn't it? - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In fastidious usage "heathen" is pejorative, implying the "folk from the heath". "Pagan" is simply descriptive, though originally it did refer to "countryfolk" too. In casual usage, where no one is likely to pay much attention, not even the speaker, it doesn't really matter. --Wetman 08:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tongan King funeral

The Tongan king was just interred - the BBC said he was buried with Pagan and Christian ceremonies. Can someone shed some light on what that means?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.209.90 (talk • contribs) .

"Pagan" is often used very generally. In this case I would imagine they meant that funeral ceromonies contained traditions that have been passed down from before the Christian missionaries arrived as well an Christian traditions. In many cases when westerners don't research the exact nature a non-Judeo-Christian tradition they just label it "pagan". Which doesn't always mean the tradition is actually religious. According to this new report[2] there were "rituals designed to ensure a safe passage for Tupou IV into Pulotu, the Polynesian underworld." But the fact the BBC labeled them as "pagan" really doesn't mean much. You could pretty much replace "pagan" in the BBC sentance with "magic", "tribal", or "traditional" and get the same (lack of) information.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggest merge with neopaganism

Please see neopaganism's talk page for discussion.

[edit] Pagan or Neopagan Religions

There's a bit of a problem with how the religions are organized in the Paganism#Pagan religions and Paganism#Neo-pagan religions lists. Are we just going on self-identification, or whether it's an ancient or modern tradition? If a modern religion comes from an unbroken, polytheistic tradition, I assume we put it in "Pagan". If it's obviously a modern religion, I assume we put it in "Neopagan".

But right now, for instance, Asatru is mentioned in both sections, and Discordianism, which is obviously modern, is under "Pagan". I am going to "be bold" and sort this out a bit, but I'm sure others on this article will have an opinion on this. However, one of the problems is that these distinctions are not always clear-cut. Some traditions, such as Asatru and Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, are polytheistic elaborations built on surviving cultural customs. They might be best described as partial reconstructions. I'm not sure how to address this grey area. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And remember that every "neo-" identifies itself as a continuation, asserting that it has "strong ties to the past", etc. All the same, we can distinguish Neo-Hittite from Hittite, and recognize the revival elements in Neo-Babylonian, or tell the difference between Classical and Neoclassical. Spokesmen for the various "neos" are intent on blurring these distinctions, needless to add. --Wetman 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While "every "neo-" identifies itself as a continuation" is a truism, that's not as much the case in certain sectors of Neopaganism. Most Neo-Druids gladly and cheerfully identify themselves as a modern construction with very loose ties to the past, and the recognition that Wicca is basically a 20th century phenomenon is gaining acceptance in the Wiccan community. Justin Eiler 21:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/g/Talk%7EPaganism_6f06.html"