Homes for Sale | Mortgage Calculator | Loan | Credit Cards | Home Insurance

What's wrong with Secularism? [Archive] - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

PDA

View Full Version : What's wrong with Secularism?


David19
August 13th, 2008, 07:05 PM
I'm putting this here, 'cause, I've just been reading a Pagan article, and this guy seems to think secularism is "evil", and one of the "evil" offsprings of Christianity.

The article is here (http://www.egregores.org/tolerance.html), the main page is here (http://www.egregores.org/).

Basically, the site is:

devoted to investigating the ancient roots of modern Paganism.

On one page (http://www.egregores.org/101.html), it says:

A long time ago there were people who worshiped the Gods. Some of these people lived in cities - others lived in the countryside. Some of the them could read and write - others were illiterate. Some of the them were rich and powerful, some of them were poor and some of them were slaves. But they all worshiped the Gods. Then along came some mean people who told them to stop. "You are Pagans - stop it!!!" The mean people had big clubs and swords (and later on guns) but the other people didn't want to stop worshiping their Gods, so they said "you can't make us!" This was just what the mean people were hoping they would say.

Now, I'm not sure, if this guy is joking around with this paragraph, but, that's a very simplistic view of history, and he, basically, seems to want people to believe Christians are "evil", Pagans were/are "purely good and innocent", and there was no religious intolerance (let's just forget the Jews, the Druids, Dionysus, worshippers of Cybele, etc, I know, some say it was political, but, it was also religious persecution too).

Anyway, before I get side tracked again, I'll go back to the article that made me start this thread.

He, basically, states that you should be allowed to criticise other religions, and, for him, that means Christianity, and, yes, he's right, but, I don't agree with some of the statements he makes.

There can be no Pagan scholarship without a thoroughgoing critique of Christianity and it's evil offspring: Secularism and Colonialism
Historically there was never a bright line separating spiritual, religious, philosophical and metaphysical investigations from other areas of scholarship in the classical world. To the contrary, Pagan virtue and piety were considered essential both to the education of the young, and to the intellectual pursuits of adults. One need only look at Plutarch to see how inseparable Pagan spirituality was from Pagan intellectual culture as a whole.

The academic institutions of the modern world are descended directly from Medieval institutions that were tightly controlled by the Catholic Church. As a direct result of this, modern intellectual culture blindly accepts a false dichotomy between Christianity and Secularism. This dichotomy offers only a spiritual and intellectual blind alley to Pagan scholars - or to anyone in search of Truth.

Any Pagan scholarship of today that is worthy of that name must begin with a clean break with both Christendom and Secularism. Instead, we are all to likely to find Pagan scholars who are fearful to even clearly identify themselves publicly as Pagans - much less to voice a robust analysis of the 1700 year campaign by Christianity against all other religions. Some of today's so-called Pagan scholars satisfy themselves with "debunking" what little has been done previously to set the record straight

I'll say colonialism is an "evil", but, how in the hell is secularism "evil", I'm glad we live in secular countries, I think, it gives us more freedom - religious, political, sexual, gender, etc. I, personally, don't want to live in a world, where any religion dominates, be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, whatever, etc. How is secularism a "blind alley" to Pagan scholars, and what does he mean by "anyone in search of the Truth", is his definition of "Truth", "that Christians are all "evil""?. Personally, I think you can be a Pagan scholar in a secular society. I mean, there are many great Pagan scholars, from the people who write for The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies (http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/pom) (the only criticism I have of them is, now, you have to pay, I think, to read the articles, which is a shame, although, fortunely, you can still read some of the articles on the Way Back When Machine version here (http://web.archive.org/web/20070203205906/chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/index.html)), and, you have many others, from some of those at ADF (http://www.adf.org/core/), even some people here at MW, Sabina Magliocco (http://www.csun.edu/~sm32646/) (I think she's a Pagan now, if I remember correctly, I think I read, that she's a Gardnerian Wiccan?), etc. I don't see why this guy has such a big problem with secularism.

Many modern Pagan scholars seem to be obsessed with attacking the work of pioneering scholars like Margaret Murray, Jane Harrison, Robert Graves, Marija Gimbutas, Frances Yates and Mircea Eliade. Some of them have also been busily revising history to downplay the atrocities committed by Inquisitors and witch-hunters and other persecutors of Pagans and heretics down through the centuries. Are these scholars only interested in making sure that they appear harmless and tame to non-Pagans, so that they will be accepted? But even that is only part of the problem. The other part is that most of these scholars lack any real understanding the society that they live in. They passively accept the social, political and economic status quo - without ever suspecting that the "new world order" of the 21st century is, in fact, simply an obvious continuation of European Christendom's conquest of the world. Perhaps they partly realize the radical implications of that reality, and therefore choose to look the other way.

I don't know who Jane Harrison is (anyone want to tell me?), but, all the others, apart from Mircea Eliade seem to have had their work torn apart. Now, personally, I do think some Pagans are too obsessed with tearing apart Robert Graves work, especially since, and correct me if I'm wrong, he never said it was history, he specifically said, it was poetry, it's not his fault that some Pagans misunderstand his work, anymore than it's Muhammad's fault for Al Qaeda, or Jesus's fault for the KKK, or America's fault for Bush, etc. Also, while some scholars, like Carlos Ginzburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Ginzburg) (& here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Carlos+Ginzburg&meta=)), and others, have said, there may have been a kernel of truth in Margaret Murray's work, and, maybe, they're right about that, they don't accept her thesis, and theories, as completely true, so, how is criticising her work, and the others, a "bad" thing, unless, you just want to use their "evidence" to prove how "persecuted and oppressed" Pagans are, or were, and how the Christians (or Jews, or Muslims, etc) are "evil" and the "big bad".

Also, when he says this:

Some of them have also been busily revising history to downplay the atrocities committed by Inquisitors and witch-hunters and other persecutors of Pagans and heretics down through the centuries

I don't know anyone who "downplays" those events, but, most Pagans realise we aren't living in the Middle Ages, and, you can't blame Christians for those events, anymore than we can blame modern Americans for wiping out, massacring, persecuting, oppressing, etc the Native Americans, etc. I also love it how he seems to think Pagans have been the only group(s) to be persecuted in history, he doesn't seem to want to admit the persecution that ancient "pagans" did to others, like the early Christians (but, then that doesn't count, does it?, I mean, damn, those Christians, they were "evil", "unaccepting", and "intolerant", etc for not worshipping the Gods, or the Roman Emperor, but, yet, if Christians asked us to worship the Christian God, why that would make them "evil" too, and it would be persecution and oppression, wouldn't it?!), the Jews ("but, they "killed" "The Goddess""), worshippers of Dionysus, worshippers of Cybele, the Druids, Atheists, etc. It's funny that he seems to pick and choose the persecutions, oppressions, murders, etc that make Christians (or other groups) look bad, but, not the ones that make ancient, and/or modern Pagans look bad.

Then the final thing of that article:

The other part is that most of these scholars lack any real understanding the society that they live in. They passively accept the social, political and economic status quo - without ever suspecting that the "new world order" of the 21st century is, in fact, simply an obvious continuation of European Christendom's conquest of the world. Perhaps they partly realize the radical implications of that reality, and therefore choose to look the other way.

So, now, Christianity and Secularism are responsible for the world we live in, I can only guess, that he refers to the modern problems we have (terrorism, Bush's "War on Terror", modern-day slavery (which does take place, it's just not as direct as it used to be), torture, etc). How are Christians and Secularism "responsible" for that?, how are Pagans, who don't bash Christians, and Christianity, or go on about the "evils" of Secularism, "making the world a worse place", how are they "ignoring the problems of the world", etc?. Personally, I think, if you're that concerned about the problems the world faces, you shouldn't blame it all on one, or more, group(s), 'cause, really, that's just BS, you should work with others to help fight them, and, there are many Christians, Atheists, other fighters, and defenders, of Secularism, etc that are working to fight the problems in this world.

Personally, I just don't see the problem with Secularism, or Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, etc, and, yes, I know they have their fundamentalists, I'm not ignoring them, I'm just speaking in general, and, every group, tradition, religion, etc has their fundamentalists). Personally, I'm glad there are Atheist groups, who'll fight for secular things and ideals, and other defenders of Secularism (not all of who are Atheist, some believe in a God, or Gods, etc). I'm glad that the U.S. has the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/), I'm glad the ADL (http://www.adl.org/) exist, I'm glad other defenders of religious freedoms exist, 'cause, IMO, that's what happens in a secular society - we have that freedom, in other societies, dominated by whatever religion, whether it is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Pagan religions, etc, if you were a different religion, or worshipped a different God, or Gods, etc, you weren't as respected, or accepted. In ancient Rome, most groups had to honour the Roman Gods, and the Emperor, you couldn't be an Atheist there, at least not openly (don't get me wrong, I do like learning about the Roman religion, the Roman Gods, beliefs, etc, and they are very interesting and very cool), etc, I, personally, think secularism creates more freedom for different groups, and I don't see it as an "evil".

Anyway, sorry about the long post, but, I just needed to get this off my chest, and I'd really like to hear your opinions, do you think secularism is "evil", if not, why not, if so, why?, etc. Do you agree with the site (I do recommend reading it, there's some good things on there)?, etc.

Thanks

I don't know who Jane Harrison is (anyone want to tell me?), but, all the others, apart from Mircea Eliade seem to have had their work torn apart. Now, personally, I do think some Pagans are too obsessed with tearing apart Robert Graves work, especially since, and correct me if I'm wrong, he never said it was history, he specifically said, it was poetry, it's not his fault that some Pagans misunderstand his work, anymore than it's Muhammad's fault for Al Qaeda, or Jesus's fault for the KKK, or America's fault for Bush, etc. Also, while some scholars, like Carlos Ginzburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Ginzburg) (& here (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Carlos+Ginzburg&meta=)), and others, have said, there may have been a kernel of truth in Margaret Murray's work, and, maybe, they're right about that, they don't accept her thesis, and theories, as completely true, so, how is criticising her work, and the others, a "bad" thing, unless, you just want to use their "evidence" to prove how "persecuted and oppressed" Pagans are, or were, and how the Christians (or Jews, or Muslims, etc) are "evil" and the "big bad".

childofbast
August 14th, 2008, 12:34 AM
I totally agree with you 100%. I was having a conversation with another Pagan friend the other day and we were discussing Pagans who just constantly bash Christianity. I may not agree with it 100%, but there is a difference between scholarly or philosophical debate and hate speech. While classifying this person's rhetoric as hateful may be a bit strong, I do think he's quite off. I want us Pagans to have more rights - or rather, the ability to publicly claim those rights without fear of discrimination. But to go so far as to even hint at the possibility that I should gain rights through another group's loss of rights? I don't buy that.

~Melanie

Louisvillian
August 14th, 2008, 12:36 AM
Agreed. I don't understand their beef...secularism is the path of progress. It is what made pagans today able to practise their religion openly, same as any other. Secularism and religious freedom are some of the key foundations of the United States, and many other free republics. Without secularism, we'd still be in the middle ages. Furthermore, their bashing of Christianity is childish at best, and is based on an vague definition of "pagan" meaning simply "not Christian" and playing with that implied antagonism, which only fuels negative stereotypes of modern pagans.

Oh, and I disagree about colonialism. Without colonial imperatives, many areas of the world would be without modern amenities or civilization- the US wouldn't exist at all for example. The negative impact of poorly conducted colonialism does not negate the positives of well-conducted colonialism.

Sage Rainsong
August 14th, 2008, 09:04 AM
Geez. What a poor excuse for an academic paper. It is completely ridiculous to think that there weren't any atheists in the ancient Pagan world. The only problem that I see with secularism is when someone tries to ram it down my throat. Then again that pretty much goes for any ideology.

Rilasciato
August 14th, 2008, 09:09 AM
Sounds to me like someone's got an awefully HUGE chip on their shoulder. You know, I've got my problems with the Fundy crowd and sometimes I am prone to throw an insult or two out there, but this dude seems to have an OCD about it. Secularism is just another path to understanding the human condition and how to live in the world amongs the rest of humanity.

Infinite Grey
August 14th, 2008, 10:10 AM
Oh noes! the ebil secularists are commin'!


PHEER MOI! :boing:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/2762085823_0c6f94ca6c.jpg?v=0

David19
August 14th, 2008, 04:00 PM
I totally agree with you 100%. I was having a conversation with another Pagan friend the other day and we were discussing Pagans who just constantly bash Christianity. I may not agree with it 100%, but there is a difference between scholarly or philosophical debate and hate speech. While classifying this person's rhetoric as hateful may be a bit strong, I do think he's quite off. I want us Pagans to have more rights - or rather, the ability to publicly claim those rights without fear of discrimination. But to go so far as to even hint at the possibility that I should gain rights through another group's loss of rights? I don't buy that.

~Melanie

Agreed. I don't understand their beef...secularism is the path of progress. It is what made pagans today able to practise their religion openly, same as any other. Secularism and religious freedom are some of the key foundations of the United States, and many other free republics. Without secularism, we'd still be in the middle ages. Furthermore, their bashing of Christianity is childish at best, and is based on an vague definition of "pagan" meaning simply "not Christian" and playing with that implied antagonism, which only fuels negative stereotypes of modern pagans.

Oh, and I disagree about colonialism. Without colonial imperatives, many areas of the world would be without modern amenities or civilization- the US wouldn't exist at all for example. The negative impact of poorly conducted colonialism does not negate the positives of well-conducted colonialism.

Geez. What a poor excuse for an academic paper. It is completely ridiculous to think that there weren't any atheists in the ancient Pagan world. The only problem that I see with secularism is when someone tries to ram it down my throat. Then again that pretty much goes for any ideology.

Sounds to me like someone's got an awefully HUGE chip on their shoulder. You know, I've got my problems with the Fundy crowd and sometimes I am prone to throw an insult or two out there, but this dude seems to have an OCD about it. Secularism is just another path to understanding the human condition and how to live in the world amongs the rest of humanity.

I'm glad everyone agrees, and I agree with all your points, the guy has a huge chip on his shoulder, I also agree with you on Secularism (as you can tell from my OP).

That said, there's another article, which, IMO, is worse than this one (by a different author):

The System and Psychology of Conversion by "Robin Artisson" (real name, Anthony/Tony Palazzo) (http://www.robinartisson.com/conversion.html), who, according to someone I really respect (and you can tell from some of his writings too), is thought of as a loon amongst many people, including people he recommends (he recommends, or used too, Nigel Jackson's works, Paul Huson's works, R.J. Stewart's works, etc, and, from what I hear, the former 2 have dismissed him as a loon).

You can see his site here (http://www.robinartisson.com/), and read more of his articles here (http://www.robinartisson.com/artissonindex.htm)

The article I linked to above, about conversion, guess what, apparantly, according to "Robin"/Tony, "you're not a real Pagan", if you date non-Pagans, and, "it's likely you'll go back to Christianity, or your former religon, etc"!.




Oh noes! the ebil secularists are commin'!


PHEER MOI! :boing:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3139/2762085823_0c6f94ca6c.jpg?v=0

I know, you damn evil Atheists, imposing your "Christian" Secular ideology on us, damn, those freedoms you "impose" on us, like religious, sexual, etc. Our society "should be" dominated by religion! :giggle: :hehehehe:.

BTW, you should also check out one of "Robin's"/Tony's articles:

An Excerpt from "Robin Artisson's Guide to Ism's" (http://www.robinartisson.com/isms.html) , it's, basically, his attempt to say how Paganism (or, his version of Paganism), is "better" than every other religion, tradition, belief, non-belief, political, economic, etc system. Here's what he says about Atheism:

ATHEISM:

THE STANCE OF THE MEANINGLESS UNIVERSE

Type: General Philosophy

Popularity: Moderate

Theme Song: "Imagine" by John Lennon (for the intellectuals) and "Chaos AD" by Sepultura (for the rest)

Quote: "God is Santa Claus for Adults."

Strengths: No 'Ism' pisses off Monotheists more than Atheism.

Atheism, lacking any theistic backdrop or metaphysical basis for ultimate meaning in the universe, offers its members all the "mental room" they need to justify any behavior or mindset they like.

Atheism is intensely popular among young people who thrill to the idea of a consequence free universe, iconoclastic (and rather arrogant) intellectuals who are thrilled by the ability to ignore and disregard the philosophical thinking of 3000 years of human history, people burned by religious philosophies at any age, or people who just don't care about anything. In the post-modern world, nobody parties quite like an Atheist.

Atheism, for intellectuals and social movers, offers a no-strings-attached way of divorcing themselves from conventional morality, and magnifying any humanitarian or charitable effort that they engage in; after all, no one can accuse them of being a good person for an ulterior motive such as "god" or to "get into heaven". Ironically, this offers the Atheist a fine route to looking like even better human beings than the Monotheists.

Weakness: Atheists are vulnerable to despair, especially after they age a bit, experience actual love and meaningful connection with another person, have children who are grown, and who face old age and death. Atheists tend to lapse into Monotheism during bouts of despair, or tend to stay atheists with mild to severe depression. In the post-modern world, nobody ends up being as lackluster as an Atheist.

Atheists who use the "no ulterior motive" clause when they engage in charity and good deeds end up on pedestals that are as high as any Monotheist. In reality, a pedestal is a pedestal, whether religious beliefs and good deeds put it there, or lack of religious beliefs and good deeds did.

Atheism is largely dependant on the Materialist school of philosophy to explain how everything comes about, and Materialism has almost as many flaws as the Spiritualist/dualistic philosophies that atheists tend to despise.

I didn't realise you had your own theme song!, and, of course, all Atheists "have never experienced actual love and meaningful connection with another person", and, when they do, they'll come to Paganism, "where the good stuff is"!.

And, of course, your system of finding out how things came to be is "flawed", I mean, who needs all that gathering of evidence, looking at the natural world, research, etc, I mean, the "true" answers come, by saying "Fate did it, or Providence (see another of his articles here (Providence)), etc", or saying, "there's more to life than the material", or, saying, "Myths and science are compatible" (I mean, the Greek Myth of the universe coming out of an egg is "clearly" about the Big Bang!), etc.

And, of course, all Atheists go running back to religions, etc, when they get old, why I just don't know any old Atheists :rolleyes: :giggle:.

SOCIALISM:

THE STANCE OF SHARING TO DEATH

Type: Social Philosophy

Popularity: Extremely Popular

Theme Song: "Solidarity Forever" by Ralph Chaplin

Quote: "All for one, and one for All! Kick it over, Capitalist Pigs! Get Civilized!"

Strengths: People who live in socialist nations have no medical bills! They also tend to live in cleaner cities, cities with lower crime, and tend to have good teeth. Socialists can rightly look down their noses at capitalists, and as a further benefit, have less vicious forms of Monotheism to put up with, as most of the nastiest Monotheists gather in large numbers in Capitalist nations. Socialists practically never go hungry.

Weaknesses: People who live in socialist nations sometimes die waiting to see the free doctor. They also tend to live in smaller apartments or houses, and have to pay 50-60% taxes. Even with high taxes, some socialist nations seem to have a nightmarish time with their national budgets. Of course, if you are well fed, you can overlook a lot...

'Cause Socialism and Capitalism just "aren't compatible", and, yes, all of us in socialist nations just give all our money to the government, and we're dying before we can see a doctor (I wonder if some of the people in PP helped write this article! :giggle:).


SECULAR HUMANISM:

THE STANCE OF AUTHORITY QUESTIONED, AND SNOOTY INTELLECTUAL NONSENSE

Type: Social Philosophy

Popularity: Small

Theme Song: "We Are the World" by all those Artists who sang for Live Aid

Quote: "When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom." (Robert Ingersoll)

Strengths: Fewer people are hungry when Humanists are around. Fewer homeless people have to sleep in doors or alleys, and there are more secondhand clothes on the market when humanists have influence. Really cool Humanists get to live in Blue states. Secular Humanists could even kill God with kindness and their belief in fairness and open inquiry. Secular Humanism offers a strong dose of revolutionary thinking and social activity to people who aren't ready to give up their wealth or their condos just yet.

Weaknesses: Humanism, on final analysis, is actually a misspelling of "Atheism", and conforms to most Atheist strengths and weaknesses with one exception- Secular Humanist parties are decidedly NOT fun, overflowing with both overprivileged white people AND serious talk about starvation in Africa, protesting, the ACLU, canvasing and passing out pamphlets and registering Voters.

Yes, Social Humanists "are not fun", and, definitely, "not as fun as Pagans"!.

PAGANISM:

THE STANCE OF LIBERATION, BALANCE, AND CONSTANT DRAMA

Type: Religious Philosophy

Popularity: Small but growing in spurts

Theme Song: "Tubthumper" by Chumbawamba

Quote: "There's a full moon out! Let's make a circle! And KEEP YOUR PATRIARCHAL nonsense far away from the Daughters of the Goddess..."

Strengths: Paganism is probably the single religious movement on earth that can claim the most variety. From Wicca, to the various forms of Reconstructionist paganism, to the remains of native faiths and Afro-Caribean syncretisms, Paganism is literally a menu of options that has no end.

Within paganism, there are polytheists, dualists, duotheists, trinotheists, Henothests, Monists, and many other philosophies and paths that haven't even been named yet. If you are looking for a personal, original religious expression, look no further- but more than that, if you are looking for a HINT of what religion was like before Monotheism brought along mass mind-control and called it 'spirituality', this is the place to be.

If you feel a desire to be more in line with pre-Christian ancestry, ancestral customs, or thinking, Paganism is for you, no matter who or where you are. When paganism goes bad (as we shall see below) it REALLY goes bad. But when it is good, it is as good as you can get. If you can ignore the non-stop boyfriend/girlfriend/gay boy/lesbian girl drama that infects 90% of pagan groups and get-togethers, Pagan parties are the easily the best, hands down, for good music, good drinks, other possibly illegal entertainments, getting laid, and bad attempts to act Celtic.

Paganism of almost any form accepts that feminine spirituality and feminine divine forces are as essential as masculine ones, offering women an almost unequaled chance to have full and balanced religious participation, as well as offering men a chance to temper their overgrown masculinity with a dose of badly-needed internal, intuitive spirituality.

Weaknesses: The entire pagan movement is filled to the brim with exactly the kind of people you wouldn't want in the pagan movement. Every sexually repressed or immature man, and power-hungry, man-hating woman in the world that is on the outs with their family or church will end up in some pagan group.

For some reason, the most petty and absurd members of the world's gay and lesbian population are drawn to paganism like flies to shit, turning most pagan groups from a serious religious focus into a non-stop bitch fight. They are aided fabulously in this by every straight "open relationship" and "polyamory" person/couple/orgy group in the world, and they will bring their own nonstop trauma drama to the front lines, complete with "sexual initiations" and many broken marriages. MOST Pagan groups tend to be the domain of the middle-aged and the sexually or religiously bored, and the over-compensating ego of the housewife witch queen.

On top of this, the neo-tribalists and every other flake that hasn't been named will also show up, with a mail-order sword and a fake Gaelic name, to worship the "Great Goddess" with you. Be warned that most of these people will end up being in some position of authority over a group, so be prepared to meet your "High Priestess", who, if you are lucky, actually began life as a woman.

Egos run hot and high in paganism, and half the people who go for paganism want to be powerful witches and wizards, to compensate for their lack of a social life, or for the fact that they were picked on in high school. Most forms of modern paganism lack good scholarship, so you are as likely to find a group of pagans using reputable scholarship to base their beliefs on, as you are to find a group using "The Mists of Avalon" as their guide.

Any social misfit will usually (at least once) try to worm their way into a pagan group; be on the lookout for child molesters, geeks, goths, fetishists, ex-hippies, and any and all people who suffer from psychological conditions.

Hallelujah!, Paganism just has "the most strengths", and, yes, the "main weaknesses" are clearly the LGBT people in it. All of us our bitches, and "want to turn Pagan groups into non-stop bitch fights"!. Yes, maybe, all Pagan groups should be like "Robin"/Tony, I mean, that way, we can troll loads of other Pagan forums, be a Hellenic Pagan one day, a Buddhist the next, a Heathen the next day, a Traditional Witch the day after that, a Satanist on another day, a Gnostic Christian the other day, and, maybe, a mixture on the final day (seriously, he has been all of those, at the same time), and, then, we can surround ourselves with trolls, and people who'll just kiss our ass, and spam any board that dares say anything negative about us, etc.

We can also be incredibly anti-Christian (damn, those "evil" Christians), blame all the evils of the world on Monotheism (you stepped shit one day?, it's Monotheism's "fault" that a dog shit there in the first place!), be anti-Israel (afterall, those Jews should have just been wiped out in Nazi Germany), be incredibly sentimental that families are breaking up now, or aren't as close (I mean, so what, if your husband beats you, stick with it, like in the ancient world), and, let's live like ancient people, women, pop out a dozen, or more kids, and let's do back-breaking work, believe that rain comes from a God (and, not the actual water that evaporates and forms a cloud), die at a very young age, etc.

BTW, check out another of his articles:

Robin Artisson's Cultural and Religio-Spiritual Degeneracy Scale (http://www.robinartisson.com/degen.html)

According to him, Monotheism = worst evil that can happen, actually, it's tied with Atheism (the horror that no one believes in Gods).

Paganism is "better" for the world, Paganism "should be imposed" on the world, afterall, everyone "really wants to worship" the Gods, and, if they don't, let's just kill them, like they did in the ancient world.


White: The many Gods are known, accepted, and worshipped worldwide; the notion of monotheism does not exist. Each culture has embraced its own unique historical, organic, and modern vision of the diversity of the divine world, aligned itself and resolved itself with its own history, and placed spiritual pluralism and human diversity in high respect and priority. Organized religion has vanished; globalism does not exist; industry is heavily controlled and regulated, and the environment is strong and healthy. Warfare is rare, and only ever a matter of legitimate defense or extreme survival for a people. Radical traditionalism dominates the thinking of most men and women; love of family and reciprocal bonds within society are foremost in people's thinking- this includes the duty to protect the stability of society and selflessly sacrifice for the good of family and friends when needed. A sense of belonging and fair reciprocal exchange between people characterizes the common experience of human beings. True spirituality is felt and experienced everyday.

Now, the question becomes which Gods? (oh no, wait, apparantly, "Robin"/Tony believes all the Gods are the same, despite all the differences, why Zeus is just Thor, with a different nose and a Hammer, and, they are all Archetypal, I mean, there's the "Storm" God, a "Love" God, etc, the Gods aren't complex characters, they can all be divined into those, and, as for YHWH, why "he doesn't exist", everyone knows, "nothing Jewish, or Middle Eastern, can be real", or, if he does, "he's not a jealous God, that's just a Jewish, and/or Middle Eastern, Arab, etc lie"!). Yes, Pagans will never fight, those Romans, they were "peaceful loving Hippies"!, and the Norse, Vikings, etc?, why they didn't commit raids at all, all Pagans were "big fluffy teddy
bears, and full of love for everyone".

The environment is, of course, healthy now, 'cause of Paganism!, "we're the heroes, nature "needs" us"!, you "can't possibly be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, etc and love nature, and respect, and treat it right".

Let's all go back to living in "tribes", who needs that global stuff, I mean, no one wants to travel abroad to places, and experience new things, learn new languages, meet other people, learn about other religions, traditions, cultures, etc.

Of course, Pagans are the only ones who care about "families" and friends, we'll all be 1 male, 1 female, and loads of kids running about the place (afterall, if we want to be Pagan, we should be like the ancient Pagans, and make sure we have some insurances for our old age, should some of the kids die!). Those LGBT people, they can keep it to themselves, but, they "must" have an partner of the opposite sex, and have kids. Paganism is, "of course", "true spirituality", and "is just the only hope for the world", it's "so better than Monotheism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Secularism, Secular Humanism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc", why Paganisn "provides everything anyone needs".

Ok, I got a bit OT there, but, I needed to get this out, I just found that article today.

David19
August 14th, 2008, 04:07 PM
Oh, and I disagree about colonialism. Without colonial imperatives, many areas of the world would be without modern amenities or civilization- the US wouldn't exist at all for example. The negative impact of poorly conducted colonialism does not negate the positives of well-conducted colonialism.

Just wanted to say, I understand where you're coming from and agree with you :) :thumbsup:.

Infinite Grey
August 14th, 2008, 05:33 PM
I suspect (or at least hope) "Robin"/Tony is trying to be funny - I laughed anyway.

I am amazed at how many people, atheists included; can not seem to grasp what Atheism means.

Here it is. A lack of belief in a supernatural deity. HOLY SHIT THAT WAS HARD!

Being an atheist tells you nothing about an individuals beliefs and ideologies beyond them not believing in an invisible sky daddy or mummy. Beliefs are not born from a non-belief, that is categorically stupid.

Basically "Robin"/Tony got it backwards, they might as well crammed their definition of atheist into Secularist Humanist, not the other way around.

:hehehehe:

Russ
August 14th, 2008, 11:40 PM
I have always felt that what Robin meant are those in the LGBT community that only get involved in Paganism because it is open to gays and no other reason.

I've meet many goths, punks, emos and LGBTers that are only Pagan for that reason. To me this is the wrong reason to get involved in Paganism if it is your one and ONLY reason.

David19
August 15th, 2008, 09:50 AM
I suspect (or at least hope) "Robin"/Tony is trying to be funny - I laughed anyway.

I am amazed at how many people, atheists included; can not seem to grasp what Atheism means.

Here it is. A lack of belief in a supernatural deity. HOLY SHIT THAT WAS HARD!

Being an atheist tells you nothing about an individuals beliefs and ideologies beyond them not believing in an invisible sky daddy or mummy. Beliefs are not born from a non-belief, that is categorically stupid.

Basically "Robin"/Tony got it backwards, they might as well crammed their definition of atheist into Secularist Humanist, not the other way around.

:hehehehe:

QFT, although, I have no idea if he was trying to be funny (I laughed, I've no idea if he were serious, or not, though).

David19
August 15th, 2008, 09:51 AM
I have always felt that what Robin meant are those in the LGBT community that only get involved in Paganism because it is open to gays and no other reason.

I've meet many goths, punks, emos and LGBTers that are only Pagan for that reason. To me this is the wrong reason to get involved in Paganism if it is your one and ONLY reason.

That's true, but, it's hardly the only reason LGBT people become Pagan, and, it's hardly only LGBT people doing that.

Russ
August 15th, 2008, 02:59 PM
That's true, but, it's hardly the only reason LGBT people become Pagan, and, it's hardly only LGBT people doing that.

I wondered how many would assume I meant only LGBT people did this (even though I mentioned other groups) and assumed I felt it was all LGBT people even though I did not say that either.

David19
August 15th, 2008, 07:03 PM
I wondered how many would assume I meant only LGBT people did this (even though I mentioned other groups) and assumed I felt it was all LGBT people even though I did not say that either.

I didn't say you meant that, sorry if you took it that way, I meant, "Robin"/Tony.