Defining "Pagan"

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Defining Paganism

I guess that depends on your view of opinion vs. "well-considered intellectual position." When I posted, I meant only to bring a historical perspective to the table. In the context of the modern usage of the word "Pagan" by Pagans nowadays, you are well justified in calling yourself Pagan. My point is that the term originated from the Christian Church to refer to locals who weren't Christian yet, and since the Christian Church dealt mostly with native faiths whose followers it sought to convert, "Pagan" is most appropriate in an English-language historical context to refer to someone to adheres to such a native faith, such as Kemeticism, Asatru, Native American religion etc. So in a historical context the overreaching use of the word is "inappropriate," in my view, but in a modern view as the word has been commandeered by "us" and made into our own label, it is appropriate for, I suppose, anyone who wants it.

-Valhalla

I would call that a well considered intellectual position.

The reason I ask is that, in order to understand where our difference in thinking comes from, I needed to understand why certain traits don't fit into your understanding of what "pagan" means.

As you can see, the difference comes from the fact that we are using two different definitions - yours is, as you say, historic, based on the word origin.

I'm using the popular understanding of the word as it is generally used by people who use it to refer to themselves (and don't ask me for a clear definition - it is, as we all know, a fuzzy term ).

Neither one of us is right or wrong - it's two different ways of looking at the term. Now I understand you better... Thanks!

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Defining Paganism

Yes, eclecticism is in the western tradition, but not all eclectics are. My bs is no more or less bs than your bs. At least we're both dedicated to our own.

You do have a point there. However, you did completely ignore the following paragraph where I say that "there should be something discernibly 'Pagan' in their practice".

A Taoist quasi-Hindu, with leanings toward the Church of Satan? If they worship following Hindu and Taoist methods, what's Pagan about that? If they cast a circle like a Wiccan, etc, we would have more of a case to argue over within my personal definition.

[Luke_Ironside]

Re: Defining Paganism

There are other umbrella nouns to which there are exceptions, so 'Pagan' having no concrete definition just isn't an issue to me at all. The only time this really bothers me, is when people define the beliefs of others with the intention of simply excluding them from their own perceived in-group; 'we consider .... to be/not to be ... because ....'. If someone finds a definition for themselves that works, even if it doesn't fit what I thought that definition meant, I don't feel it is my business to challenge them on it.

Agreed, that is my viewpoint also. I've come across a lot of that in the pagan community to be honest - for one to claim "you are not a pagan because you don't meet my requirements" is, in my opinion, both extremely rude and arrogant.

[thalassa]

Re: Defining Paganism

Until you can hammer down Paganism to not include (even if it is friendly towards) Otherkin, LARPing, Goth Emo and music subcultures in general, and a whole host of other things, then there isn't much of a way to take it seriously. No one else here has indicated that they would stop me from saying "I'm Pagan because I'm a Vampire!" Or "I'm Goth, so that makes me Pagan".

Actually...I would ask you what about being a Vampire makes you think you are Pagan. Or what about being Goth makes you think you are Pagan... One of the most "Goth" (and I don't mean that in the Hot Topic way) people I know is a devout Catholic...and I seem to remember watching one of those awful midnight cable "documentaries" on people that believe themselves to be Vampires, and one of them was Episcopalian or something.

I think it is perfectly possible to hammer down a polythetic checklist definition of Pagainsm that *doesn't* include Otherkin, LARPing (most LARPers I know are some brand or Christian anyhow), etc. While those things can be incorporated into one's religious outlook--and even be central to it, they aren't anymore a religion in and of themselves than witchcraft is. And I think its perfectly acceptable to hold people to that criteria. I'm might not tell someone that thinks they are Pagan because they are a Vampire"YOU ARE WRONG!" any more than I'd tell that to a person that thought they were Christian but didn't believe in god (and yes, I've met such a person)...but I don't have a problem voicing my disagreement.

The problem is more that definitions are either too narrow (as I think yours is) or too wide, or just ambiguous (or unnecessarily flippant/sarcastic as the example you quoted was). Plus, what you or I as individuals *think* really doesn't do diddly-squat unless we get other people to pass the word, or get organizations with recognition and clout to carry banner forth, or to get official recognition of some sort (for example, atheism, for legal purposes is considered a religion and therefor atheists are supposed to be granted the same legal protections on the basis of their religious belief--the lack of it...whether or not atheism is really a religion then is sort of irrelevent). ...actually, on that basis...we already have official reconition, at least from the DoD...as Wiccans...personally, as someone that has had regular contact with chaplains, it would be nice to have that section of their book fixed up a bit.

The other problem is that people would need to come to the table ready to share, discuss and compromise their personal and institutional ideas of what it means to be Pagan with an open mind in a way that allows the most leeway for people to include themselves under the umbrella if they wish, while still retaining some "standards" (thats not really the word I'm looking for, but I haven't had my caffeine yet) of what type of beliefs and practices are included (and which are excluded, and maybe part of a person's practice, but aren't particularly "Pagan")...and to do it in a halfway organized fashion in a public forum with maximum participation from multiple traditions and perspectives...and with minimal ego.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Defining Paganism

The quoted definition was intended to be more than a little flippant. I was in a pretty flippant mood when I tossed it up. I don't actually expect most people who identify as Pagan to try and defend it. Using my definition (especially in my exact words) isn't a good way to accomplish anything so most sane people would at least change the wording up.

[thalassa]

Re: Defining Paganism

The quoted definition was intended to be more than a little flippant. I was in a pretty flippant mood when I tossed it up. I don't actually expect most people who identify as Pagan to try and defend it. Using my definition (especially in my exact words) isn't a good way to accomplish anything so most sane people would at least change the wording up.

Lol, I figured as much, considering the source!

[MaskedOne]

Re: Defining Paganism

Bah, I'm never flippant. I'm the most somber person that I've ever met and completely incapable of flippancy....

No, I did not type the above with a straight face.

[Jembru]

Re: Defining Paganism

Agreed, that is my viewpoint also. I've come across a lot of that in the pagan community to be honest - for one to claim "you are not a pagan because you don't meet my requirements" is, in my opinion, both extremely rude and arrogant.

It is rude and arrogant, but it comes over more as immaturity to me. It isn't just a pagan thing either, I see it in other fields from hobbies (language learners seem to get very competitive, for example), to 'scenes', such as goth, punk or whatever. It is something that seems to happen whenever someone has a talent or interest with which they define themselves. Often, they seem to consider it the only thing that makes them special. Meeting another person who shares this unique quality or interest makes them feel less special and so they have to find a way to belittle the other and establish themselves as the 'better' person. It's just like a little kid not wanting to share their toys. Unless it affects me directly, in which case it can make me extremely angry and likely to snap, I try to just laugh it off.

The problem in the case of paganism, is people can be very cruel with this behaviour. I've heard stories of real bullying in the community to the point that an individual will consider quitting their pursuit or changing their path to one that others will approve of. Anyone who has frequented forums other than this one, will probably have witnessed this kind of thing. How this is ever even allowed to happen by so-called adults is beyond my comprehension.

There was a guy that joined a moot my coven used to run, who introduced himself as a solitary Gardnerian (he'd never been initiated or spent time with a coven at this time). Yes, I admit it raised my eyebrow, but I never said anything to him and just accepted him into the moot as I would any other new member. 2 years later, he was my working partner. He was a very good witch too, one of the best in the coven in fact and his clairvoyance was some of the most impressive I've witnessed to date. Imagine if I'd written him off simply for defining himself in a way that disagrees with my definition of 'Gardnerian'.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Defining Paganism

I think it is perfectly possible to hammer down a polythetic checklist definition of Pagainsm that *doesn't* include Otherkin, LARPing (most LARPers I know are some brand or Christian anyhow), etc. While those things can be incorporated into one's religious outlook--and even be central to it, they aren't anymore a religion in and of themselves than witchcraft is. And I think its perfectly acceptable to hold people to that criteria. I'm might not tell someone that thinks they are Pagan because they are a Vampire"YOU ARE WRONG!" any more than I'd tell that to a person that thought they were Christian but didn't believe in god (and yes, I've met such a person)...but I don't have a problem voicing my disagreement.

Here's my deal - yes, people who practice using such unorthodox tools do consider that to be central to their personal practice. However, that does not mean that we can allow people to project such ideas onto the whole of the Neopagan Movement, as many of us have seen time and again.

And on the topic of disagreeing without saying "You're WRONG!" - Call me cynical, but if they're lacking in maturity enough to claim that these things are central the the whole of Paganism, they're likely just going to to hear "You're Wrong!" regardless of how you phrase your disagreement. At best, they'll fall back to these same "umbrella term" ideas to claim that they are entitled.

Organizations? Gasp, that's not in the free-form, anything-goes spirit of the Paganism(TM) that I've been told about.

Here's my thing about those "standards" - without deference to the work that others have done before us, for their own rather than for us, this little movement becomes nothing more than a plagiarist Fad. Like that "Law of Attraction". To do otherwise leaves too much trust in each individual to not plagiarize something less-than-widely-known, simply to call it "Pagan". I see quite a bit of this already.

I'm out.

[Ramses II]

Re: Defining Paganism

I was wondering whether there are others here who agree with that definition? Would you agree that self-identification is all that is required to be a pagan?

I've always have viewed things of this nature, namely things dealing with identitarianist queries, to be odd in that I don't really see the need towards indentification however with this being said, no, not really. I would say a Pagan would be one whom follows the ancestral beliefs of various cultures and civilizations or the modern offshoots based from them. I think this (more or less) sums up all of the various sects, groups, paths, etc.

[Moody Thursday]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I believe that "Pagan" is anyone who isn't Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist. What they categorize themselves as after that (Eclectic Pagan, Wiccan, Heathen, etc) is entirely up to them. I like simplicity.

[Jembru]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I believe that "Pagan" is anyone who isn't Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddhist. What they categorize themselves as after that (Eclectic Pagan, Wiccan, Heathen, etc) is entirely up to them. I like simplicity.

I like that, although I'd have to add 'atheist' to my list of exceptions. It also of course, means we have the Scientologists amongst us. Oh and the Sikhs, Hindus and Shintoushinja (Shintos, Shintoists, Shinto followy people.. whatever..@.@).. but they share a lot with other pagan paths so it kind fits. Well, not sure I include Sikh in that..

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I like that, although I'd have to add 'atheist' to my list of exceptions. It also of course, means we have the Scientologists amongst us. Oh and the Sikhs, Hindus and Shintoushinja (Shintos, Shintoists, Shinto followy people.. whatever..@.@).. but they share a lot with other pagan paths so it kind fits. Well, not sure I include Sikh in that..

See I always considered anyone who wasn't of an abrahamic faith to be a pagan, it's just how I was raised to view the term. Heathen was just about the same thing, but my lovely, sweet, never rascist *cough cough*(choking on my lies) grandfather made it seem more interchangeable with the word savage too... I have since changed my personal opinions on the subject...

[MaskedOne]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I'd rather not toss hordes of people (starting with nearly a billion Hindus) who don't necessarily have any use for the term into the Pagan umbrella without asking permission. Past that I do not currently accept and have no intention of accepting the label Pagan as a descriptor. You can apply it anyway, people often do that with labels, just expect me to correct you repeatedly until one of us gets bored.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I'd rather not toss hordes of people (starting with nearly a billion Hindus) who don't necessarily have any use for the term into the Pagan umbrella without asking permission. Past that I do not currently accept and have no intention of accepting the label Pagan as a descriptor. You can apply it anyway, people often do that with labels, just expect me to correct you repeatedly until one of us gets bored.

Noted and filed, prolly to be forgotten until reminded. But pagan is really the only descriptive label I do not currently mind using for myself, I'll just keep calling you maskedone, cause its your "name" and that's polite.... As far as I know....