Ask a Pagan

[Exy]

Not all Christians claim theirs is the exclusive truth, not even all Christians claim their religion is the best for everyone. Ditto for Muslims. So if you ignore the fact that some folks claim their religion is *exclusively* right and the *only* way (because that's a different argument), then...

Normative Christian and Muslim belief certainly do. And I think any honest reading of either the Bible or the Qur'an pretty much requires the reader to acknowledge that the books at least are making that claim. "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet", "No one comes to the father except through me", etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt that there are some Christians and Muslims who don't hold to those believes but that would be a pretty heterodox belief.

Why can't they all be right? I can give you a half-dozen different sets of directions to my house from a given location. Some of them are mutually contradictory. Nonetheless, they are all "right" and will get you there, several of them are even equally efficient. Some are better for cars, others for bikes/pedestrians; some are faster, others are more pleasant; one way may be more efficient this trip due to other stops, another may be better on a different trip. Which one is the right one?

If you claimed one day that driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house, and if your wife said that driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there, one of you would by necessity have to be wrong.

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

[SmartAleq]

Y'know what dude? I've been responding to you in good faith, but you're getting right up on the tight, close border of insulting--perhaps you might want to step back a bit in order to keep this a civil discussion?

Sorry, but it's hard to come up with an interpretation of your words here which I, at least, can really take seriously. I mean, would it be better if I humored you?

If your religious beliefs are different from other people's -- which, as far as I can tell, is true of most or all neopagans -- then what are the possibilities? One is that you personally received a revelation; you are more intimately aware with the divine than other people. Obviously I would be skeptical of anyone who claimed to have experienced a divine revelation, but it's certainly conceivable. God could come to me in a dream or a burning bush or whatever and tell me I have to eat a pound of Lima beans every day, and I certainly wouldn't enjoy that.

But if you are not somehow uniquely aware of the nature and desires of God/the Gods/whatever, then why would there be any need to impose upon yourself some obligation that you don't enjoy? If you believe your Gods don't really care what exact religious obligations you undertake, why would you undertake something unpleasant? I'm not about to start eating a pound of Lima beans a day to make Vishnu happy if I have no reason to think it'll make Vishnu any happier.

What other explanation is there? As far as I can tell you don't believe you understand the Gods' will for us better than the rest of us (leaving you uniquely aware of some holy obligation that you don't enjoy). The Gods just don't really care whether or not you keep Kosher/fast on Fridays/wear a hair shirt/whatever, right? Because they're not necessarily unhappy at me for not doing it, are they? In which case, what's in it for you to do it? Or have your Gods kindly left me alone, while picking unlucky you out for some special, unpleasant mission?

You don't need to humor me, just don't be insulting is all I ask. As for gods, it's pretty clear you see gods as being outside yourself, something entirely separate from yourself. Me, not so much. I'm a part of everything, including whatever odd twists in the continuum we choose to see as gods for a time. In a very real sense, I AM my own god, and I choose sometimes to personify that godhead as something outside myself, especially if it's something I have a hard time dealing with. Sometimes I make small perverse gods of misfortune up on the spot, the better to categorize and deal with the problem they represent. Somebody else maybe doesn't do that, is maybe more comfortable with all gods being much bigger and more unknowable than themselves--if that helps them visualize and process, who am I to say they're wrong?

As for understanding the will of the gods, well, yes I guess I am more in touch with what my own gods want--much less so for your gods because they don't speak to me. Why do I do things I find unpleasant? Because they are necessary. Raising children is hard, and when they misbehave it would be easy and quite satisfying to hit them until they stop--but also quite wrong in the larger sense, more damaging to the world than taking the hard road of educating and being patient. My sense of balance and rightness leads me on difficult paths sometimes, paths I'd rather not walk down because to do so will be personally painful, but I do it anyway because I see that the good that will come from my discomfort is much greater and more worthy. An amoeba can recoil from unpleasant stimulus, but it takes a conscious, thinking being to embrace pain in order to do a greater good. Somebody has to jump on those grenades, y'know, and I don't trust most people to do it so if it comes my way, it's my task to do no matter whether I like it or not. Sure, I could duck out and please myself and be a pusillanimous little wretch like the majority of people, but to do so would be a betrayal of myself and I choose not to do so. I don't necessarily look down on the free floating amoeba people, but I don't trust them with anything important, either.

[redtail]

Normative Christian and Muslim belief certainly do. And I think any honest reading of either the Bible or the Qur'an pretty much requires the reader to acknowledge that the books at least are making that claim. "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet", "No one comes to the father except through me", etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt that there are some Christians and Muslims who don't hold to those believes but that would be a pretty heterodox belief.

The Hebrew Torah aka The Old Testament makes pretty clear that there ARE other gods, but that the Jews are not to worship them. It doesn't claim that *everyone* should be worshiping YHVH. Belief in the Torah is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and is pretty basic to normative Christianity. So which piece is correct: that there is only one god, or that there are many?

If you claimed one day that driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house, and if your wife said that driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there, one of you would by necessity have to be wrong.

True, but pagans aren't claiming such a thing. They're the ones saying that there are multiple paths, and yet you seem to have a problem with that idea. Perhaps my wife and I are mistaken in one thing we believe (that there's only one way to get to Auntie's), but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house is imaginary, does it?

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

I'd say that's the problem of those who claim their religion to be the only, exclusive, sole TRUTH, which generally doesn't apply to pagans.

Somehow you're making a jump from "some religions/believers claim exclusive truth" to "which means that any other religions are just made up" with no real intermediate steps. That's a pretty big leap and I'm not buying your logic.

[Exy]

The Hebrew Torah aka The Old Testament makes pretty clear that there ARE other gods, but that the Jews are not to worship them. It doesn't claim that *everyone* should be worshiping YHVH. Belief in the Torah is one of the fundamental tenets of Islam, and is pretty basic to normative Christianity. So which piece is correct: that there is only one god, or that there are many?

If you claimed one day that driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house, and if your wife said that driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there, one of you would by necessity have to be wrong.

True, but pagans aren't claiming such a thing. They're the ones saying that there are multiple paths, and yet you seem to have a problem with that idea.

I am not questioning the fact that neopagans frequently argue that "multiple paths" exist. I don't understand why you would claim that I denied that. That doesn't even make sense within the context of what I was saying.

The difficulty is that many of the "paths" out there are mutually incompatible. You can come up with confused excuses why they're not that might be satisfactory for you all you like. It's still the case that the Christian bible and the Qur'an (along with, of course, the beliefs of mainstream Christians and Muslims) are clearly mutually contradictory -- quite a striking fact when you consider how closely related those two religions are.

Perhaps my wife and I are mistaken in one thing we believe (that there's only one way to get to Auntie's), but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house is imaginary, does it?

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

I'd say that's the problem of those who claim their religion to be the only, exclusive, sole TRUTH, which generally doesn't apply to pagans.

Somehow you're making a jump from "some religions/believers claim exclusive truth" to "which means that any other religions are just made up" with no real intermediate steps. That's a pretty big leap and I'm not buying your logic.

I can't even follow you anymore. I think the points I was making were pretty clear; I don't know how to try to explain them again in a way you will understand.

[Guizmeaux]

I can't begin to unravel all of this, so forgive me if I'm being simplistic. But are you all bumping up against Pascal's Wager?

Smartaleq seems to be saying that their actions reflect on them regardless of a deity. Doing the Right Thing is what's most important.

Redtail seems to be saying that the world is multi-theistic and that this isn't a bad thing since their God allows for the multiple paths as long as you do the Right Thing.

Excalibur seems to be saying that there is hypocracy in theism and (s)he doesn't understand the position because the doctrines are inconsistent.

I'm not taking a position here, just wondering if I have this right. Do I?

[WhyNot]

I believe redtail is positing that the general path of Christianity (10 Commandments, faith in Jesus) may indeed be a way to spiritual enlightenment/salvation, while some of their details (don't wear cotton/poly blends, stone the adulterers, "only come to the Kingdom through Me") might be in error. And the one that you're harping on, in particular, is widely believed to be ambiguous; YHVH clearly, at one point, says that there are other gods, but his followers should not put Them before Him. I'm okay with that; since I'm not his follower, and as far as I know am not descended from Abraham, it clearly doesn't apply to me. There's the religion at the center, and then there's the stuff for social/political control that man added on to it; the one may be a valid path without everything of the later being correct. That's what I believe, anyway, whether it's what redtail believes or no.

I dig Jesus. He really is allright with me. I just don't think all of His followers took very good notes during his lectures. In particular, I don't think their Way is the only Way. (And there's some stuff about women in there I can't quite get behind, either.)

[The Logos]

I come to this discussion at a particularly apropos time, as my philosophy discussion groups have been engaging on the topics of god conceptions, humanism in theism and satanism, and the role and experience of faith, worship and spirituality in one's life. Being an atheist, there are certain aspects of spirituality and religion which are not necessarily beyond my intellectual grasp, and yet of which I seem incapable of personally experiencing. I am thinking primarily of the spiritual experience and the motivation to worship. As a pagan, do you worship? And if so, what is your personal experience of this -- how would you describe this experience in secular terms?

I have wondered if my experience of a scientific epiphany might be psychologically equivalent to a spiritual revelation. Are such revelations important to you, or even considered a component of your paganism? Off hand I'd imagine so, with the significance placed upon Nature. (At the end of the day, I will probably always go home to epistemic agnosticism, though I am perfectly willing to entertain religious and spiritual ideas, and I hold out the possibility that one day I could discover good personal reasons for having (a) faith. But for the time being I find myself thoroughly satisfied with scientific investigation and naturalism. Supernatural concepts strike me as being metaphysically dishonest.)

What exactly do you believe? Assume I know nothing at all about paganism, it's probably a safe assumption.

I believe there is a divine/spiritual aspect to existence. I believe that this aspect can express itself in many ways, sometimes with personalities.

I believe that the purpose of such personalities (i.e. deities) is to assist people in improving or understanding their relationship with the world around them, or with other people.

For me, it is much easier to feel a connection with the divine out in nature. Particularly forests.

Would it be accurate to characterize your beliefs in deities as beliefs in the ability of something universal and divine to express itself through various avatars? In this sense, I am reminded particularly of the Christain trinity.

[Exy]

I believe redtail is positing that the general path of Christianity (10 Commandments, faith in Jesus) may indeed be a way to spiritual enlightenment/salvation, while some of their details (don't wear cotton/poly blends, stone the adulterers, "only come to the Kingdom through Me") might be in error. And the one that you're harping on, in particular, is widely believed to be ambiguous; YHVH clearly, at one point, says that there are other gods, but his followers should not put Them before Him. I'm okay with that; since I'm not his follower, and as far as I know am not descended from Abraham, it clearly doesn't apply to me. There's the religion at the center, and then there's the stuff for social/political control that man added on to it; the one may be a valid path without everything of the later being correct. That's what I believe, anyway, whether it's what redtail believes or no.

I dig Jesus. He really is allright with me. I just don't think all of His followers took very good notes during his lectures. In particular, I don't think their Way is the only Way. (And there's some stuff about women in there I can't quite get behind, either.)

I'm not denying that at least parts of the Old Testament were written by henotheists and presuppose a henotheistic worldview. And there's no implication in the Jewish scripture that the religion is meant to be universal.

None of that is true of the New Testament, however.

[redtail]

Dammit, I hate when I spend forever writing a post and then y'all just pass me by. Stop that!

Clarification, I am not a pagan nor do I play one on television. I've known a few, but I don't claim to be any kind of expert. This is just intellectual for me; I happen to find religion a fascinating subject.

What I find disturbing about Excalibur's posts is twofold. First, the casual dismissal of certain religions as "made up" (and snarky opinions about those religions and the adherents thereof) while other religions are "real". That's pretty rude, IMO. Unless Excalibur is claiming his own personal divine revelation, I don't see where he's got any more "objective reality" to his beliefs than, say, Orual does. Second, Excalibur seems to accept the idea of multiple valid paths for "real" religions such as Hinduism, while making snotty comments about the very same concept in neo-pagan religions. That's quite the double standard.

For some reason, Excalibur seems to believe that because some religions (e.g., Christianity & Islam) have some adherents and/or tenets that claim exclusivity, then somehow that should cause a problem for certain other religions (e.g., neopaganism) that don't claim such a thing. It's like arguing with a Shi'a Muslim and insisting that he must believe that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph because the Pope said Jesus is Lord. It's just silly.

[redtail]

Perhaps my wife and I are mistaken in one thing we believe (that there's only one way to get to Auntie's), but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house is imaginary, does it?

Actually, I should have phrased that as "but that doesn't mean that Aunt Maggie's house, or the roads to it, are imaginary".

Let's say that I am Muslim and insist that Islam is the only path = "driving up Elm and turning left on Oak was the only possible way to get to Aunt Maggie's house". Let's say my wife is Christian and insists that Jesus is the way = 'driving down Walnut Street and cutting through the school parking lot to get to Maple Avenue was the only possible way to get there'. Let's say that our son Johnny is a Pagan = 'look at a map and see four other routes from our house to Aunt Maggie's'. Obviously, I am mistaken in one thing - that I have the secret of the one and only way to Aunt Maggie's. Ditto for my wife. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong about everything, just that one piece.

The fact that I'm mistaken in that one belief does not mean that Aunt Maggie does not exist, it does not mean that Aunt Maggie's house doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean that the six paths to Aunt Maggie's house are just made-up figments of Johnny's imagination. Similarly, the fact that certain sects believe they have The One True Way doesn't mean everyone else is wrong, nor does it mean that those sects are necessarily wrong about everything else. Johnny can smile indulgently at my insistence that I have the only way, knowing that I can still get to Aunt Maggie's when I need to.

Likewise, if I say that God is gigantic talking deer that lives in Muncie and will send anyone to hell who doesn't worship his prophet, The Fonz, and you say there is no God at all, at least one of us simply has to be wrong. Not all religions are mutually incompatible, of course, but some of them clearly are. It's just not logically possible to say that we're all equally right. It may give you a nice warm feeling to do so, but that doesn't make it accurate.

I'd say that's the problem of those who claim their religion to be the only, exclusive, sole TRUTH, which generally doesn't apply to pagans.

Somehow you're making a jump from "some religions/believers claim exclusive truth" to "which means that any other religions are just made up" with no real intermediate steps. That's a pretty big leap and I'm not buying your logic.

I can't even follow you anymore. I think the points I was making were pretty clear; I don't know how to try to explain them again in a way you will understand.

I think the problem is "we're all equally right". I can't speak for anyone else, but I know a lot of people (Pagan, Christian, Jewish) that may not believe all religions are *equally* right, but who do believe they are all at least mostly true for their adherents. Sort of like Roman Catholicism recognizing Eastern Orthodox sacraments - they don't think the EO are RIGHT right, but they're willing to make allowances.

I can believe you have a valid path to God, while not agreeing with every single little thing that you believe. If I think you're wrong about having the ONLY valid path to God, that doesn't mean I have to think you're wrong about the rest of it. It may not work in reverse - if you believe you have the only path, then you pretty much are required to think that I'm completely wrong about everything - but that's your problem, not mine.

Or, much more concisely:

No. It means that everybody's got it a little bit wrong. But everybody's got it a bit right too. The world isn't only made up of binary opposites.

[Exy]

For some reason, Excalibur seems to believe that because some religions (e.g., Christianity & Islam) have some adherents and/or tenets that claim exclusivity, then somehow that should cause a problem for certain other religions (e.g., neopaganism) that don't claim such a thing. It's like arguing with a Shi'a Muslim and insisting that he must believe that Abu Bakr was the rightful caliph because the Pope said Jesus is Lord. It's just silly.

I was strictly saying that since Christianity and Islam make contradictory claims about how one may get in touch with Big G up there, they can't both be true. Small-o orthodox Christian teaching makes it very very clear that there is no way to the Father but through Jesus. Orthodox Islamic teaching clearly contradicts this. Therefore, they can't both be true. Therefore, the (as far as I can tell, quite common) neo-pagan claim that all spiritual paths are equally valid can't actually be true -- because it's easy to find any number of religions that have contradictory requirements or make contradictory claims to exclusivity.

It's not that complicated, dude, and trying to find a few heterodox Christians out there who don't believe Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation won't change the fact that most Christians do, in fact, believe that.

Part of the claim of Christianity -- in fact, a really, really central part of it -- is that it's universal. It's meant for everyone. If all spiritual paths are equally valid, then this claim of Christianity simply must not be correct. Right? So, in fact, if you're right, most Christians must in fact be wrong. Is there some problem with that logic?

[redtail]

I was strictly saying that since Christianity and Islam make contradictory claims about how one may get in touch with Big G up there, they can't both be true. Small-o orthodox Christian teaching makes it very very clear that there is no way to the Father but through Jesus. Orthodox Islamic teaching clearly contradicts this. Therefore, they can't both be true. Therefore, the (as far as I can tell, quite common) neo-pagan claim that all spiritual paths are equally valid can't actually be true -- because it's easy to find any number of religions that have contradictory requirements or make contradictory claims to exclusivity.

It's not that complicated, dude, and trying to find a few heterodox Christians out there who don't believe Jesus is the exclusive path to salvation won't change the fact that most Christians do, in fact, believe that.

Part of the claim of Christianity -- in fact, a really, really central part of it -- is that it's universal. It's meant for everyone. If all spiritual paths are equally valid, then this claim of Christianity simply must not be correct. Right? So, in fact, if you're right, most Christians must in fact be wrong. Is there some problem with that logic?

Evidently there is, for you.

For many people, of many faiths, including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and various Neo-Pagan sects, there is not.

Many Hindus don't believe in religious conversions, because they believe that members of any religion can reach spiritual goals, as long as they practice sincerely.

Both Christianity and Islam, for instance, prescribe their faith universally (in contrast with, say, Judaism, or Hinduism, which don't place any importance on converting outsiders.)

You don't seem to have a problem with the concept in Hinduism, why is it such a problem for you in NeoPaganism?

[Exy]

Sort of like Roman Catholicism recognizing Eastern Orthodox sacraments - they don't think the EO are RIGHT right, but they're willing to make allowances.

No, this is not a correct description of Catholic theology. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church is teaching things that are (according to the RCC) doctrinally erroneous does not affect the validity of sacraments performed by Orthodox clergy. This is because the Orthodox clergy's magical powers come from the unbroken Historic Episcopate, not from having the correct beliefs -- that is, an Orthodox priest is believed to have been ordained just as legitimately as a Catholic priest. It follows that Orthodox priests should have the same ability to confer the various other sacraments as Catholic priests.

[Exy]

Many Hindus don't believe in religious conversions, because they believe that members of any religion can reach spiritual goals, as long as they practice sincerely. You don't seem to have a problem with the concept in Hinduism, why is it such a problem for you in NeoPaganism?

Actually, Hindus believe that good people will one day be lucky enough to be reincarnated Hindu, so there is no need to allow conversion.

[redtail]

Sort of like Roman Catholicism recognizing Eastern Orthodox sacraments - they don't think the EO are RIGHT right, but they're willing to make allowances.

No, this is not a correct description of Catholic theology. The fact that the Eastern Orthodox church is teaching things that are (according to the RCC) doctrinally erroneous does not affect the validity of sacraments performed by Orthodox clergy. This is because the Orthodox clergy's magical powers come from the unbroken Historic Episcopate, not from having the correct beliefs -- that is, an Orthodox priest is believed to have been ordained just as legitimately as a Catholic priest. It follows that Orthodox priests should have the same ability to confer the various other sacraments as Catholic priests.

Not according to the Orthodox priests. They don't accept RCC sacraments. So which religion is "real" and which is "made up"?

[redtail]

Actually, Hindus believe that good people will one day be lucky enough to be reincarnated Hindu, so there is no need to allow conversion.

"Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti," : "The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names" http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism2.htm

[WhyNot]

Part of the claim of Christianity -- in fact, a really, really central part of it -- is that it's universal. It's meant for everyone. If all spiritual paths are equally valid, then this claim of Christianity simply must not be correct. Right? So, in fact, if you're right, most Christians must in fact be wrong. Is there some problem with that logic?

Not at all. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that most Christians are wrong about that. I just don't think that makes Christianity false.

[SmartAleq]

All I have to say at the moment is that if you ever happen to find yourself in Portland, OR, redtail, I owe you a libation of your choice for that lovely summation, and I think you need to establish the Church of Aunt Maggie post-haste. *sincere slow clap*

[redtail]

Ah, Portland OR, yes. The city where you can't get there from here.

Thanks. Feel free to borrow at will. It was, shall I say, inspired.

I've already got the Church of Dirt to handle, I'll leave the Church of Aunt Maggie to y'all.

I think I'm out of here. I've been wanting to post over in the other neopagan thread that WhyNot started and I don't have time to do both, being slow and all.

Besides, I think Excalibur has made fairly clear that he's just here to snark. I thought he was actually trying to comprehend at first and just didn't realize how obnoxious he was being, but I do believe I was mistaken.

[Zuul]

Moderator note: Moved thread and fixed some tags.

[Zuul]

Orual, if somebody said, "Hey! I wanna be a pagan!" what would you advise them do? Any particular books they should read or questions they should ask?

[Nrblex]

Ooookay, I didn't wade through the Exy show up there so I may have missed this being answered already. Are your morals influenced by your religious beliefs or vice versa?

[Orual]

Orual, if somebody said, "Hey! I wanna be a pagan!" what would you advise them do? Any particular books they should read or questions they should ask?

The one neo-paganism related book I've read that I might recommend to others is Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon which is a relatively scholarly look at the development of pagan religions in recent years.

Beyond that, I would recommend reading a lot of things: books on history and culture as much as folklore and mythology.

Ooookay, I didn't wade through the Exy show up there so I may have missed this being answered already. Are your morals influenced by your religious beliefs or vice versa?

I did touch on this early on:

(reposting)

Would I be right in thinking it is more like an appreciation of your natural surroundings, than a code of conduct to live your life by?

It's closer to the former than the latter certainly. That doesn't mean I don't have a moral code of conduct. I think ethical behavior is a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself; which for me, boils down to being honest and trustworthy, and treating others with consideration and respect.

I do not believe that morality requires religious belief, or that religious belief guarantees morality. For me they are related, but the one doesn't arise out of the other.

[Zuul]

Cool. Thanks for the answer. I figured you wouldn't suggest Silver Ravenwolf.

[Orual]

Cool. Thanks for the answer. I figured you wouldn't suggest Silver Ravenwolf.

...


::shudder::

[Zuul]

Oh yes. While I've had an interest in pagan paths for a while now, my cousins were the "fluffy bunny" types who turned me off to it. They firmly believe 9 million Wiccans were victims of "the Burning Times" and that Gypsies aren't an actual ethnic group.

Luckily, as time has gone on I've discovered not everyone is that stupid.

[OneCentStamp]

Luckily, as time has gone on I've discovered not everyone is that stupid.

Oh, we are, we're just stupid in other ways. Vive la difference.

[Orual]

They firmly believe 9 million Wiccans were victims of "the Burning Times" and that Gypsies aren't an actual ethnic group.

Grrrarrrggh.

:Shake:

You know, there was a time when I wondered whether or not people held pagan beliefs into the Christian Era, and if they might have been killed for being witches. This is before I realized that "peasant folk traditions" cannot honestly be equated with "pagan religious beliefs", especially when said peasants would never refer to themselves as anything but Christian.

Then I studied up on European witchcraft-hysteria, and figured out that the reasons people got killed for witchcraft tended more towards "they are my jerky neighbors with nicer pasturage", "that old widow gives me the creeps", or "all the kids are down with the measles, and we can't blame it on the Jews, because we killed them all last winter".

But let's ignore all that. Let's decorate our religion with the corpses of murder victims so that we can give ourselves a nice, warm feeling of faux-martyrdom.

[Zuul]

Thanks, Orual. I knew I liked you for a reason. Yeah, the "Burning Times" myth really troubles me. It seems like a ploy to take on some sort of victim mantle rather than to honor the victims of a real and horrific chapter in history.