PDA

View Full Version : Conservatism vs. Liberalism



Twinkle
August 9th, 2009, 10:56 AM
I'd be interested in receiving input from the Reconstructionists of Mystic Wicks:

Do our personal political leanings have anything to do with the Reconstruction of the religion of the Ancients?

BryonMorrigan
August 9th, 2009, 02:10 PM
I'd be interested in receiving input from the Reconstructionists of Mystic Wicks:

Do our personal political leanings have anything to do with the Reconstruction of the religion of the Ancients?

This will end badly...

Twinkle
August 9th, 2009, 03:04 PM
I was hoping it wouldn't - I was just interested in the perspectives out there.

I didn't think there would be very much to argue - it's not a question of who is right or wrong, really.

Nicholas
August 9th, 2009, 03:54 PM
This will end badly...


I'll ready my mob...

let the bidding commence!

Twinkle
August 9th, 2009, 04:48 PM
LOL. Recon mobs. I never thought of it like that.

BryonMorrigan
August 9th, 2009, 05:42 PM
I was hoping it wouldn't - I was just interested in the perspectives out there.

I didn't think there would be very much to argue - it's not a question of who is right or wrong, really.

Last time I saw this topic come up (elsewhere) someone got all "butthurt" and threw me off the thread because he didn't like the illogical nature of his argument being pointed out.

Just like with Christianity, anyone can pick and choose which ancient beliefs they want to corroborate to modern ones. Trying to pick out which candidate is more "Hellenic" or "Roman" or whatever is an entirely subjective argument.

One of the first things you learn when you study history from an academic perspective, is that applying modern mores to the past is irrelevant and counterproductive. It's like saying, "I'm a Communist, because the Spartans were Communists!"

Now, of course, the Spartans were hardly Communists, as Communism had yet to be defined as a political system, and modern Communism would have very little similarity to the Spartan system, apart from superficial similarities. Moreover, it would be just as silly to say, "Well, Socrates was a Conservative, just like me!" or "Nero hated Christians, so hating Christians is good!" or "The Delphic Maxims say this or that, so candidate X is a good Hellene, and Y is not"....especially when both X and Y are Christians.

Sure, if one were a rabidly racist fascist, then one might "Reconstruct" a religion, keeping the social mores of the time that applied to his or her racist fantasy. (i.e., "Aristotle was racist against Persians, ergo I believe it is okay to be racist against non-Hellenes!" or "Women were second-class citizens in Rome, so I'll beat my wimmins and make 'em do housework, har har har!")

IMNSHO, the only time that religion and politics should mix, is where religion and politics actually _mix_. For example, if a candidate openly _opposed_ the rights of people who practice Polytheist or Pagan religions, or openly _supported_ the rights of those religions.

Everything else is entirely subjective to the individual...just as it was in ancient times.

zombi
August 9th, 2009, 06:06 PM
IMNSHO, the only time that religion and politics should mix, is where religion and politics actually _mix_. For example, if a candidate openly _opposed_ the rights of people who practice Polytheist or Pagan religions, or openly _supported_ the rights of those religions.

Everything else is entirely subjective to the individual...just as it was in ancient times.
QFT.

... I don't have anything ground-shaking to add to that.

But I do not tend to mix my politics with my religion, and if that's not very reconstructionist of me, well, that's fine. I can live with that.

Caitlin.ann
August 9th, 2009, 06:20 PM
QFT.

... I don't have anything ground-shaking to add to that.

But I do not tend to mix my politics with my religion, and if that's not very reconstructionist of me, well, that's fine. I can live with that.

Wow! Wow wow wow wow wow. Where did anyone say being of a particular political party made you less or more reconstructionist. Back against the wall much?

zombi
August 9th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Wow! Wow wow wow wow wow. Where did anyone say being of a particular political party made you less or more reconstructionist. Back against the wall much?
Why are you jumping on a simple comment?

I didn't say it made me more or less reconstructionist. I said if -- meaning "should this view come up".

Caitlin.ann
August 9th, 2009, 06:48 PM
I'm not jumping at all, just shocked. Additionally you misunderstood what I said, go figure.

BryonMorrigan
August 9th, 2009, 08:30 PM
Where did anyone say being of a particular political party made you less or more reconstructionist.

Oh, just wait. It'll happen soon. Trust me.

_Banbha_
August 9th, 2009, 08:51 PM
I'd be interested in receiving input from the Reconstructionists of Mystic Wicks:

Do our personal political leanings have anything to do with the Reconstruction of the religion of the Ancients?

No, and imo they shouldn't.

I lean far towards what's considered a more conservative branch of CR. And that has nothing to do modern politics but the form of Reconstructionism I adhere to naturally.

There are those whose writings and opinions I value and respect both in the CR community and in academia who have politically more conservative views (in the modern sense!) than I do. Modern politics has never once come into conflict in these dialogs or in my appreciation their work. The study of history, languages, culture, law, myths and lore has nothing to do with suiting modern sensibilities in itself, either way, or with the goal of making claims that I'm doing things the same way the ancients did. The latter would be rather insulting to the ancestors from my spiritual perspective.



Last time I saw this topic come up (elsewhere) someone got all "butthurt" and threw me off the thread because he didn't like the illogical nature of his argument being pointed out.

Just like with Christianity, anyone can pick and choose which ancient beliefs they want to corroborate to modern ones. Trying to pick out which candidate is more "Hellenic" or "Roman" or whatever is an entirely subjective argument.

One of the first things you learn when you study history from an academic perspective, is that applying modern mores to the past is irrelevant and counterproductive. It's like saying, "I'm a Communist, because the Spartans were Communists!"

Now, of course, the Spartans were hardly Communists, as Communism had yet to be defined as a political system, and modern Communism would have very little similarity to the Spartan system, apart from superficial similarities. Moreover, it would be just as silly to say, "Well, Socrates was a Conservative, just like me!" or "Nero hated Christians, so hating Christians is good!" or "The Delphic Maxims say this or that, so candidate X is a good Hellene, and Y is not"....especially when both X and Y are Christians.

Sure, if one were a rabidly racist fascist, then one might "Reconstruct" a religion, keeping the social mores of the time that applied to his or her racist fantasy. (i.e., "Aristotle was racist against Persians, ergo I believe it is okay to be racist against non-Hellenes!" or "Women were second-class citizens in Rome, so I'll beat my wimmins and make 'em do housework, har har har!")

IMNSHO, the only time that religion and politics should mix, is where religion and politics actually _mix_. For example, if a candidate openly _opposed_ the rights of people who practice Polytheist or Pagan religions, or openly _supported_ the rights of those religions.

Everything else is entirely subjective to the individual...just as it was in ancient times.

Hahaha on the first bit; and well said to the last. :)

Erebos
April 24th, 2010, 11:38 PM
I'd be interested in receiving input from the Reconstructionists of Mystic Wicks:

Do our personal political leanings have anything to do with the Reconstruction of the religion of the Ancients?

No, I don't see what modern politics have to do with ancient religion. I guess many recons consider themselves more conservative when it comes to religion and some try to fully incorporate themselves into the "conservative" label, but American political conservatism is basically Evangelical Christianity gone political, so I don't think it has much to do with paganism of any kind.

Although, now that I think about it, political conservatism does have certain things in common with Hellenic culture specifically, but not the more positive aspects. I'm talking about the nationalism, xenophobia, emphasis on the military and unnecessary violence, and I would even go so far as to say misogyny. All things I personally could do without. Sure, the Republicans spew this crap about "traditional family values", but that comes from a Christian perspective (which I'm not saying is bad, but it is a problem for non-Christians, and for countries that are supposed to have secular government). I think mainstream conservatism is far too Christian to be of much use to pagans of any variety.

Personally, I'm one of those crazy libs who values separation between church and state, and who would appreciate it if the values of one religion didn't inform the laws for the rest of us.

C. Iulia Regilia
May 17th, 2010, 07:56 PM
I think it depends -- personally I see Khumrabi's Code as a sort of spiritual guideline (it's not possible to make it law of the land, but as a guide of how the Ilaahin want us to behave, it works). But the Code doesn't line up directly to modern politics. Some things would be very liberal, others would be conservative. You can't take spiritual things and put them onto a left/right line. Actually you can't put PEOPLE on a single line either.

Tiberias
May 17th, 2010, 10:48 PM
Of course personal politics affects Reconstruction. I don't think it's really possible to argue that they don't.

Since none of us is, so far as I'm aware, currently living in 5th century Britain, Bronze Age Iran, or Imperial Rome, we're all getting our information about those cultures, including religion, from primary and secondary sources other than our own memories. So...which sources do we pick? Which ones do we give more credence and importance?

Primary sources are clearly going to be biased by the beliefs of the author - that's History 101. And anyone who's taken History 102 should be familiar with the same problem affecting secondary sources. A Marxist historian, for instance focuses on certain aspects of the past, and interprets them with certain frameworks, because of personal politics. Processual archaeologists might look at other aspects of the past and interpret them with very different frameworks because of personal politics. And of course the reader decides what books they like and which ones they don't because they either jive or don't with their own politics. Does the author spend too much time on all that boring economics crud? Is he unfairly portraying the noble savages? Is he being too harsh on the topic of public execution/ritual deposition of people? And so on and so on.

Anyone who claims that personal politics has no effect on their Reconstruction is kidding themselves, hasn't really thought about it that long, or is lying to you.