Pagan religion

[Cogan, Susan L.]

On 12/18/07 7:32 AM, "Steven Jamar" <stevenjamar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I guess the Pagans I know would disagree with this almost as much as
> they disagree about the exact doctrine of Paganism or as Christians disagree
> about various Christian doctrines.

I have noticed that conservative Christians refer to anyone "not me" as a
pagan. It can get confusing since there is a large and growing portion of
the population who consider themselves pagans complete with prayers, rituals
and religious education for the children.

> Pagan does not mean just "not me" or just "not monotheists".  The Roman and
> Greeks were described by Christians as pagans, -- but they surely had
> religious beliefs and so far as I recall did not call themselves pagans.

Modern neo-pagans are definitely religious. It's a religion. Not all
neo-pagans are Wiccan, but all Wiccans are pagans. I've never met one that
was fussy about capitalization, though the word is often capitalized.

> Pagans are not all atheists.

Almost no neo-pagans are atheists. There are a few who consider the Goddess
and God to be archetypes without an actual physical existence. They are
technically atheists.

> And I saw no one here asserting a trademark.
>
> As to capitalization -- depends on the usage, doesn't it.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2007, at 11:30 PM, Will Linden wrote:
>
>> At 06:28 PM 12/16/07 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>>    There is no religion of "Paganism". "Pagans" are defined by what they
>> are NOT. (And as a poster on Magicknet said, "I might as well call myself
>> Not Tom Mix."

that's false if you are talking about modern neo-pagan goddess worshipers.

>>    If you object to that, you can start by getting atheists to stop using
>> "pagan" and "heathen". I am sure they will be cooperative as soon as you
>> tell them they are violating your trademark.


atheists kind of like "heathen" because it alliterates so well with
"hellbound."

>>>>   Net.gossip is now giving its attention to Sharkey "the Impaler"
>>>> announcing that he is running for governor of Minnesota as the
>>>> "Vampyre's
>>>> Witches and Pagans Party". (Any pagans present go yell at him, not
>>>> me...
>>>> http://johnathonforgovernor.us), with a platform which calls for
>>>> the public
>>>> impalement of "convicted terrorists".
>>>>
>>>>     I found on reading his agenda that he proposes to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "erect the "Wall of Religious
>>>> Beliefs" in the Capital. This wall will have everything
>>>> from the Wiccan Rede to the 10 Commandments."

I say he should go for it.

>>>>   So, is this project considered sufficiently nondiscriminatory? Or
>>>> would
>>>> it be assailed as an establishment of "religion", as opposed to
>>>> irreligion?
>>>> Or does the aim of extolling religious freedom constitute an
>>>> overriding
>>>> secular purpose?

he should throw in some quotes by Bertrand Russell and H.L. Mencken and
he'll be covered. I'd vote for some of the passages where they are wickedly
funny at the expense of religionists. It would provide a humor balance
that's going to be absent in a display of religious quotes.

Susan