Three Shouts on a Hilltop

Bad Omens

2012-01-22T21:47:00.000-08:00

So just under two weeks ago [now well over a month] I had just finished cleaning my offering bowl when it slipped from my hands and broke upon the floor. This wouldn't have been terribly surprising, a dropped ceramic or glass dish is bound to shatter when it hits a ceramic floor; the thing is that my bowl is (was) made of wood. It wasn't even a clean break, it did not split along the grain of the wood; rather, a large chunk of it simply came away in one jagged piece. I had had this particular bowl for over three years, and here it was, useless. Suddenly a wave of foreboding swept over me, and the day which followed was, indeed, a terrible one. Nothing seemed to go right from that point on, and while I did prevail in whatever tasks were required, the effort was far greater than it should have been, and the results less than stellar.

This got me to thinking about the nature of omens, particularly of the negative variety. Now, before I go any further, perhaps a bit of a side note about the nature of omens, "believing in them", and psychosomaticism. While I tend to be rather skeptical of many forms of divination, I at least acknowledge that in the given world view I have adopted, "reading the signs" is well attested to in various sources, especially when it comes to methods like augury. With that said, I do tend to pay closer attention to specific instances of avian activity which seem rather odd or happenstance. Or, in the case above, when something I am doing in a ritual format results in something out of the ordinary (like dropping and ruining a vessel used for offerings). These sorts of things tend to make me step back and consider whether or not these are omens, or just random events. Though I suppose it bears mentioning that meaning is something one imparts onto an experience and so if a given event is understood to have a given significance, then it does so, at least on a personal level. I do believe that people can "psych" themselves out, unconsciously sabotaging themselves or reading too much into something and then seeing the results of the bad omen everywhere they look. There is, I believe, a line between self inflicted grief and external grief, the avoidance of which is not in a given individuals powers to have agency over.

I suppose that despite my ingrained skepticism, I have been making an effort to be more "open" to such experiences, and not just brushing them off as coincidence or happenstance. It would seem that I am not alone about being cautious and not jumping to conclusions, but also to be discerning and not merely dismissive, when it comes to interpreting such things.

As always, I do like going back to the sources, especially the tales, as they can provide some much needed perspective. Clearly omens and the reading of signs was considerably important, and for a very significant part of the litterature, the narrative will actuall revolve around some kind of prophecy, omen reading, or reaction to. This raises a good number of other questions and concerns, which are beyond the scope of this post anyway, but clearly the importance of correctly understanding the "signs" was something which was stressed.

So what to make of it all, there is the distinct possibility that my bowl just broke because it was dropped, and reading anymore into it is silly. The subsequent rotten day would have been so, regardless of wether or not I had dropped and broken my bowl in the first place. Of course, it would then merit pointing out that the later events were not actually caused by the breaking of the bowl, only that it foreshadowed what was to come. This, I think, is an important distinction to make because omens are not, necessarily, prophecy and "reading the signs" is not, necessarily, divining the future. The latter implies a chain of events or single event which will ultimaely lead to something. The former foreshadows that something may occur, and based on understanding what the omen means, wether it bodes ill or good. I suppose in either case there is a certain lack of agency, which can be disquieting, but then again sometimes, and despite your best efforts, things do not always go as you want them to.

But it helps to have a little warning.

-Gorm.

PS: Since we are on the subject of coincidence, I had actually written a good chunk of this post almost a month ago, but then got fussy about where to go with it. Then Seren goes and publishes a related, but slightly different post only a day or so ago which provided some perspective, and got me thinking about this whole business again.

Is that weird, or what?

The subtext of "funny" prayer in school demotivationals/editorial cartoons

2012-01-22T21:18:00.000-08:00

Two images, one a little older and one more recent, have been making the rounds in the never ending "prayer in schools" debate (primarily in the context of the US, but there are some here in Canada who would make the same sort of arguments). The first is a "demotivational", which started making the rounds a few years ago:


Oddly enough, the image is for a Halloween costume

The second is a little more recent, based on the comments of one of the current nominees for the Republican party:


This is funny, right?

So each of these is supposed to be humourous because they involve juxtaposition or the "left turn", both are elements of comedy. Neither image is what a "normal" person would picture as being representative of what they imagine reinstating school led prayer, would look like. Further, it illustrates the tacit special privilege that is present in the debate, that the kind of prayer would be that of those seeking to reintroduce it; Evangelical Christians. Thus, additional humour is to be found at the idea of poetic justice towards those who seek so strongly to reinstate school mandated prayer. I think both of these visual commentaries are effective in invoking such thoughts, but at the same time I understand the subtext which is present in both of these (and similar visual commentaries) which results in ridiculing the outlier.

The juxtaposition of both images is supposed to be in stark contrast to what one would normally associate prayer in schools to look like, namely:


This could be a scene from "Pleasantville".

The issue I have comes with the inherent "otherness" that is invoked to show how ridiculous (or dangerous even) the idea of school mandated prayer is supposed to be in so diverse a society. By what basis is a teacher, a school principal or school board supposed to decide what form the prayer is supposed to take? How could one possibly accommodate the myriad religions out there? Well one of those "clever" editorial cartoons posits:

Couldn't add even one "Celtic" deity, eh?

Again, it invokes the sheer complexity, and thus functional absurdity, of school mandated prayer. Except that this and the above commentaries are funny precisely because they denigrate other forms of prayer, or that they recognize that there are folks who do not belong to the overt object of fun, Christianity. In essence it is using a number of significant aspects of non-mainstream religions, or theistic perspectives to ridicule the idea of prayer in schools. Of course, it then tacitly ridicules these outlying forms of religious expression. Dancing in a circle as a form of worship? Positing polytheism as a functional religious perspective? Utter absurdity! And there in lies the tacit fear mongering, invoking the "other". Look Christians who want state mandated prayer (but who are usually adamant about the state staying out of everything else), you want to put prayer back in schools. This is fine, but then your kid could be offering a prayer to Odin, as not every child is a Christian and therefore other religious perspectives (regardless of their merit) will be reflected. The best way to hammer this point home? Drag out the freaks and weirdo's to scare the panicky members of the RR into seeing the unintentional consequences of their desires. So it becomes a binary issue: either allow all forms of prayer in schools, or let none and maintain the default secular nature of the school system.

Of course, these commentaries also operate on the basis that the sort of folks who want prayer reinstated, who are overtly campaigning for the privilege to be given exclusively to Christians (and as always, to a lesser extent members of the Jewish religion; but not, of course, Muslims), are then going to allow pluralism. It is precisely pluralism that they are railing against, so they would never accept this as a legitimate reason not to pursue state mandated prayer, because only the Christians will be given the special privilege to do so. As such, the intedned object of ridicule, the religious right, are actually outside of the picture; they know what they mean, what kind of prayer they want, and what deity they're praying to. Which leaves us with the problematic depiction of the outlier, and the bitter irony that those who try to pass themselves of as "progressives", do so in a way which betrays their own prejudice.

What strikes me as the most baffling of all is the use of such imagery, by the very outlying religious minorities which they tacitly ridicule. So many seem to think that the "joke" is on the RR, but fail to see that they too, or more specifically their non-mainstream religious practices/perspectives, are the real objects of ridicule and derision.

-Gorm.

Happy Holidays

2011-12-19T20:30:00.000-08:00

Merry... Celtmas?

I suppose it just gets to be that time of year, and once again the Pagan blogosphere is rife with opinions, essays and critiques of all things Christmas. Star Foster has written a wonderful rebuttal to the Christmas time triumphalism espoused by another contributor on Patheos. Helio Pires, of the Golden Trail blog, responds to the same article with, you know, those pesky "facts". As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time inside Catholic Churches, I must admit that I do get a little pleasure (albeit, perhaps a bit perverse), that around this time of year boughs of evergreens, or advent wreaths, are featured prominently, usually in very close proximity to the altar...

Seren, on the other-hand, has made a post about the significance of Christmas in her past, present and (hopefully) future. I had posted some similar thoughts (if perhaps a tad more saccharine, last year) about the significance of Christmas within my own family. Of course, my post did not feature a thought provoking examination of the (often times problematic) nature of ancestor worship.

I highly recommend having a gander at all three blogs; I think, however, that I'm going to stay out of the "War on Solstice" this year. After all I did my part for the "War on Halloween". I'll let other people who actually care about the religious significance of the day, fight the good fight; I shall be cheering from the sidelines.

Lately I find myself to have less and less of that innocuous "Christmas spirit"; which in earlier years was in abundance. It may have been the years spent working in retail; terrible, horrible, soul destroying retail. It may be that for the first time in my life I will not actually be seeing my family on the 25th. Perhaps the teenaged "jadedness" which has lain dormant for the past decade or so has finally decided to end its hibernation and in its ravenous hunger, devoured my defenseless nostalgic sentiments. It could also be that, as significant the day is for me as a holiday to celebrate family, more significant days, actual holy days, have become more important. I find myself less and less excited about Christmas, but when it comes to days like Lá Fhéile Bríde or Oíche Shamhna, my youthful exuberance seems to be in ready supply. I suppose it is possible that I've undergone some sort of "Christmas spirit transference"; and so now the days I get really excited for are ones which actually have religious significance. I admit, now I've gotten myself all curious to see if anyone else has had similar experiences.

An now, insipid Paganizations of beloved Christmas carols:

"Gods Rest Ye Merry Pagan Folk"

"Dancin'In A Wiccan Wonderland"

"Sun God Rise"

-Gorm

Anatomy of a "Gospel Tract"

2011-11-24T21:16:00.000-08:00

I will admit it, one of my hobbies is collecting religious propaganda. Whether it be Christian, Muslim, New-Age, etc. I find them to be both troubling and hilarious, and whats more they provide a very useful window into the worldview of those who publish and distribute them. I'm not even talking about something as infamous as the "Chick Tract", nope the disturbing/hilarious dichotomy is just as present in your everyday tract left on a bus seat or on a pay phone.

I'm going to be using one I recently found entitled, "IS JESUS CHRIST YOUR SAVIOUR?", published by the Fellowship Tract League out of Lebanon, Ohio; it was distributed by the Pentacost International Worship Centre, a local Pentacostal congregation. The front is red, with an image of a cross set before a cave with a rock that has been moved from the entrance. It also features a quote from John 1:12, "But as many as recieved him, to them gave he power to become sons of God, even to them that believeth on his name." So lets begin with an examination of the front. Typically the tracts are tricolour, black white and red. The red is either an accent or features prominently on the cover. Since the most common means of distributing the tracts is leaving them where people can pick them up, it makes sense that an eye grabbing colour like red would be used. The title of the tract, again speaking in broad terms, is either a question or some kind of "offer". In this case, the question is fairly obvious. From the title, it is relatively easy to discern the message within; in this case the emphasis will be on the necessity of Jesus as a saviour figure. The image, as described above, is not as important in this instance, but will resonate with anyone who has even a little knowledge about Christian myth. Likewise, the scripture quoted relates to the question, and introduces the idea of just how "great" an offer is being made. This same theme, that of an "offer" is a recurring theme, usually around the winter holidays tracts adorned with red gift boxes tend to appear.

The inside of the tract is significantly less flashy than the cover, as the curious reader will have already been drawn in. To guide the reader, there are headings which are all in caps and a bold text. In this case there are four headings (three inside: "THE ONE SAVIOUR", "THE ONE SINNER", "THE ONE SOLUTION", and one on the back, "THE ONE SIN"). Each provides a topic which will be addressed in the subsequent paragraphs, but generally there is a common theme even in these titles. In this case, if it is not already clear, the concept of a singular "way" is being emphasized, highlighting the bifurcated worldview inherent in Pentecostal Christianity.

The first title, "The One Saviour", begins by asking a question: "My friend, are you saved?". Again, a common, "folksy" method of written communication is utilized through the inclusion of some imagined witness speaking to the reader. The first paragraph explains that this imagined, but seasoned Christian, knows that most people do not know what "salvation" means in a "Biblical context". The second paragraph explains what is necessary to be "saved": a belief in the Christian god as the only god, that said deity has agency to effect change in the readers life, and that the Bible is this deity's one and only means of communicating his desire for humanity. Then a scriptural excerpt is used to "prove" the above assertion, in this case Acts 4:12. The third paragraph explains that "salvation" is not an intellectual activity, but one from the "heart". It reinforces this idea by asking if the reader loves their spouse with their "head or their heart". The final paragraph is an interesting one, in which the witness throws out some famous "thinkers": Plato, Aristotle and Einstein, and shows how they "came up short", and that the only real source of knowledge is the Bible. Again, the anti-intellectual tone of this tract is in keeping with the literalist Pentecostal worldview.

The second title, "The One Saviour", explains what a "sin" is to the reader. The first paragraph again opens with our folksy witness asking the reader a question,"Have you ever sinned?". Seeing a pattern emerging? The question-answer provided on the readers behalf format is the standard one for Christian religious tracts. The first paragraph explains that "sin" is universal, and posits the "original sin" as infecting the rest of humanity. The second paragraph explains what it means to be "saved", and explains the necessity of being "saved" from "damnation". It then turns back to the witness asking a number of questions, and implying that anyone would "give up", but wait, you're not doomed yet!

The third title, "The One Solution", is what this whole tract has been building towards. It explains why the figure of the Christian messiah, Jesus, is so special, and explains how he was/is able to absolve the reader of their "sins". The symbolism used is that of blood and purity, and the dichotomy between the "first sinner", the progenitor of humanity in Abrahamaic myth, Adam, and that of the figure of Jesus, is made abundantly clear. It ends, once again, by asking the question of if the reader wishes to be "saved". Again, snippets of scripture are liberally sprinkled throughout, providing a "Biblical" basis for the points being made.

The fourth, and final title, "The One Sin", offers a final bit of explanation. The witness lays out why people go to "hell", which it turns out is because they reject the offer being made in this tract; namely "salvation through Jesus". It ends with the line, "It's your decision."

The final bit of text on the back is separated into two sections; the "prayer" and the "mailing address". The prayer is provided for those who have read through the tract, found it convincing, and have decided to "accept Jesus into their hearts". This is followed by a small note, asking that if you have been "saved", to write to the ministry which provided the tract. This is usually left blank by the publisher, and stamped with the name and address of the aforementioned church. Subsequently at the very bottom is the publishers information and some disclaimers about how the tracts are not to be sold.

So there it is, a quick overview of a four page Christian tract with a little bit of analysis as well. To continue on with that; I've mentioned it a couple of times, but this format is the "gold standard". A question is presented, it is then elaborated on and some evidence in the way of scriptural references are used to support a foregone conclusion. The context is then personalized by explaining why the reader ought to be concerned with the question, which is again backed up with scriptural references. The answer to the question is then provided, and the answer (regardless of the question) is conversion to Christianity, or at least which ever version of Christianity is providing the tract. Finally the personalization is reinforced and the choice is left to the reader. For those who have been convinced, a prayer and contact information is then provided. I can not think of a tract that doesn't follow this pattern, even Chick Tracts, wacky as they are, follow this basic format.

So now the fun part; because nothing says fun like a disembodied stranger explaining how awful you are and why they know better than you. I mentioned it before, but despite their simplicity, a lot can be gleaned about the worldview of the author (and generally the church distributing them). So from this tract I've picked out a couple of aspects I touched on in the summary: the logical fallacy of bifurcation, appeal to sola scriptura/ Biblical literalism and anti-intellectualism.

Fallicious bifurcation:

The reader is presented with a choice, but the choice is bifurcated: on/off, black/white, "saved"/"unsaved". In this case either you "accept Jesus as your personal saviour" or you are "doomed to hell". As complex as an entire worldview can be, it turns out many people seem to have a very simplistic perspective, and this is exemplified by this (and other) Christian tracts. Of course, what the publishers and distributors have going for them is western culture in general. The assumption is that whoever picks up the tract will have some degree of familiarity with Christianity or the figure of Jesus. With that "hook", the entire discussion is couched in terms which take for granted the model of the cosmos where you are either "saved" or "unsaved". Any other perspectives are soundly ignored, never entering into the equation. Those other perspectives, or more accurately, strawman depictions of them, are fodder for other tracts.

Sola Scriptura/Biblical Literalism:

The tract takes every opportunity to try and support the points it makes, or ground its explanation in Biblical scripture. As such, all arguments made are followed by some citation of a verse from the Christian Bible. Once again, the assumption made by the author, is that this will have some weight behind it. Which is not as odd as it may appear at first blush. Remember these tracts are written for an audience that is inundated, even infused with a cultural view which is coloured by the prominence that Christianity has had historically. Most readers of the English language will know what a "Bible" is, and so too its status as A, if not THE, most important book on religious matters. The author, however, takes it a step further, and here is where an observation can be made about the special place of privilege the Bible inhabits in the authors world view. The arguments do not rely on logic, or rhetoric, or even established facts; they rest on the trustworthiness of the Bible. Actually this needs to be taken a step further, the inerrancy of the Bible is the basis for all arguments. To quote, "God knew we needed something to go by, so He put everything there is to know in His Bible." This simply screams sola scriptura, that is in religious (and I suppose in every matter actually), the Christian Bible (and I think it is safe to say that it can be specified to whichever interpretation of whichever version of the Christian Bible the author accepts) is the final arbiter. It is the basis upon which their world view is constructed, and so is obviously going to be the standard upon which the writer bases their arguments. Regardless of how nonsensical or facetious the claim may be; after all there is nothing written about making ink, making paper, printing presses, computers, bus seats or telephones within the pages. This does tie into the final aspect of the world view.

Anti-Intellectualism:

This is the bit that got me hooked into collecting tracts in the first place, the sheer asininity of the arguments or statements contained within the tracts. Long before I realized they were small windows into the minds of their authors, statements like "Saved is a Bible word, not a term thought up by man.", "Plato, Aristotle, or Einstein could only think as far as their finite minds were able. They could not even solve the problems of this life, such as sickness, disease, pain, hunger, and death, let alone know anything about eternity." Though I think it is summed up perfectly in this quote, "Believing must come from the heart, not the head." So lets unpack these statements. The first one is a good example of cognitive dissonance; to claim that the Bible is not the product of human hands, human minds, human writers and editors, that the concept of "salvation" simply appeared ex nihlo, betrays a very basic ignorance of history and reality. The middle quote is as anti-intellectual as this particular tracts gets, and makes use of three very well known thinkers. Completely unaware of the fact that the writings of two ancient philosophers not only predate the Christian Bible, but are still in print and have been hugely influential in western thought, they are trotted out and shown to be lacking because they did not solve any of those problems. But hold on, if Jesus solved those problems, why are they still around? Is 2000+ years not enough time then? This is a very good example of "special pleading"; that these points disqualify these people, but not this other person. Why? Because I said so. That's really all there is to offer as a rebuttal, and advocates will fall back on a combination of jargon/rhetoric (Biblical ages, physical v. spiritual death, Biblical innerency, etc.) while offering nothing else as a basis to support their perspectives. The last quote is pretty clear in its intent, and while probably not a literal belief that "belief" comes from ones heart; the sentiment that feelings matter more than reason is implied. Of course, that goes by the wayside the minute ones "heart" finds itself at odds with "scriptural knowledge".

Well that about wraps it up, I hope this has been enlightening, or at least entertaining. Perhaps the next time you find yourself on a bus or walking past a phone booth and you spy one of these little pamphlets, you just might spend the two or so minutes it takes to read them. If not for the laudable goal of understanding someone else's perspective, then do it for the lols.

Won't (or the English language is insane)

2011-11-06T16:08:00.000-08:00

I was sitting on a bus today, reading the various advertisements and came across one in particular which made use of the word, "won't". I paused and thought about the word; obviously it was a contraction in the same vein as "can't" or "don't". But wait, I thought, "can't" is a contraction of "can not", "don't" is a contraction of "do not" and "won't" is the contraction of "will not".

So wait a minute, how does one get "won't" from "will not"?

The "ill" is dropped completely, the "n" and "o" flip positions and we add an apostrophe to stand in for, well nothing, clearly the "o" is still there. This makes no sense.

Etymologically, he root terms are wo'n't, wonnot or willn't, and all are archaic and generally obsolete. Somehow it seems that this bizarre contraction has managed to survive, where its slightly more sensible precursors have not.

I can think of a similar example, albeit few actually use the word outside of a mocking tone with some sort of highfalutin accent attached. The word, "shan't" which is a similar contraction of "shall" and "not". Even then the contraction is not quite as terrible as "won't".

English, as I have long believed, is a ridiculous language.

"Untitled Moon"

2011-11-05T07:54:00.000-07:00

The long night stretches out before me

Winter's chill shivers my bones

Yet warm is my soul

Piercing the very heart of the night

The bright beauteous moon

A pearl of purest silver

Shadows retreat at the sight of her

Mounted in the sky by the gods

A shimmering jewel

Through the dark and chill night

A lovely lamp to guide me

On my way home

A Rabbit's Prayer (or the art of Elegy)

2011-10-26T21:03:00.000-07:00

"My heart has joined the thousand, for my friend stopped running today" - Richard Adams

Simple yet profound, and probably my favourite "prayer" from any work of fiction; I also don't seem to be alone, a quick Google returns around 173 million hits. For those unfamiliar with the novel the quote comes from, Watership Down, which contains some marvelous mythology and folklore, some explanation may be required. I believe the prayer is straightforward, with the exception of "the thousand". The progenitor of all rabbits, according to their own folklore, is named El-ahrairah, whose name translates to "Prince with a thousand enemies". He garnered this name by ignoring his god's (Frith) warning that his children were multiplying too fast, devastating the land and the other creatures. El-ahrirah ignored Frith, and so as punishment, Frith endowed the other creatures with a ravenous hunger for the children of El-ahrirah. "The thousand" then, refers to all of the creatures in the world who seek to do harm to the rabbits. In the context of the prayer, then, the rabbits essentially "die" a little bit at the loss of their friend; the rabbits are heart broken. The simple eloquence of equating death with the image of a still lying rabbit (the antithesis of what a rabbit ought to do, according to their own folklore), is very powerful, even profound. The very palpable loss is expressed in terms even a child could understand, but is in no way talking down to the reader, or diminishing the grief felt by the characters.

El-hrairah, Prince of the Rabbits

Structurally, the prayer is very personal, "My Heart... My Friend", yet can be spoken by a larger group; again, as rabbits are by their nature, social animals. The established folklore surrounding "the thousand" is understood, but there is no mention of any sort of "persistence of personality" found within the prayer. What remains is a strong sense of loss, very appropriate for a lamentation or elegy. Perhaps it is this, that the sense of loss is so central to the prayer that it does remind me of many examples of "Celtic" elegiac poetry, and "Celtic" death narratives (or generally oitte). These texts are, again generally, not happy affairs (very much at odds with the frivolity associated with the tradition of wakes). There is no joy or happiness in them, jut the ever present companionship of grief. Consider the following poem "The Unquiet Grave":

"I am stretched on your grave, and you'll find me there always; if I had the bounty of your arms I should never leave you. Little apple, my beloved, it is time for me to lie with you; there is the cold smell of the clay on me, the tan of the sun and the wind.

There's a lock on my heart, which is filled with love for you, and melancholy beneath it as black as the sloes. If anything happens to me, and death overthrows me, I shall become a fairy wind-gust down on the meadows before you

When my family thinks I am in my bed, it is on your grave I am stretched from night till morning, telling my distress and lamenting bitterly for my quiet lovely girl who was betrothed to me as a child.

Do you remember the night when you and I were under the blackthorn tree, and the night freezing? A hundred praises to Jesus hat we did nothing harmful, and that your crown of maidenhood is a tree of light before you!

The priests and the monks every day are angry with me for being in love with you, young girl, when you are dead. I would be a shelter from the wind for you and protection from the rain for you; and oh, keen sorrow to my heart that you are under the earth!" - Traditional Irish folk-song. 260-1

This is downright depressing; the grief and despair leaps off the page. There are countless examples, but some from the myths. Brigid, upon learning that her son Rudhan had been killed, screams. A primal, visceral reaction to her loss (especially that of her child), the consequence of which was the establishment of the caoineadh or keening, as a practice which would be continued in Ireland until the early 20th century*. Personal experience, leads me to believe that while not keening per se, that screaming (especially from females) is still rather common when confronted with the loss of a loved one, across a considerably diverse swath of cultures. There is a very moving text in which Emer laments for Cúchulain upon learning of his death:

"... Then Cenn Berraide arose and brought the head to Dún Delgan, and gave into Eimher's hand; and she had it washed and put on its own body, and Eimher took it to her, and she clutched it to her breast and her bosom after that, and began to bewail and lament over him, and began to kiss his lips and drink his blood, and she put a silken shroud about him.

Cú Chulainn.'

And she took his hand in her hand, and began to tell forth his fame and renown, and she said: 'Sad is this,' said Eimher, 'many of the kings and princes and champions of the world were sent to death and dreadful doom by the swift blows of this hand, and many of the birds and witless creatures of the earth fell by you, and much of the riches and wealth of the earth was scattered and given away by this hand to the poets and sages of the world.'...

Again we read of the grief at loss and the retelling of what was great and good about the deceased, which unfortunately makes the gravity of the loss all the heavier to bare. There is another text, which also recounts Emer's reaction to learn of Cú's death. Essentially, once Lugaid returns with the recently liberated head of Cúchulain, to be reunited with his body, Emer dies of a broken heart on the spot. It is both a tragic, but terribly romantic sentiment, and something I have always loved about Gaelic literature. People are sometime so overcome with emotion, so overwhelmed with their grief, that their hearts literally break. There is just something I find so genuine and touching in this sentiment; however impractical or romantic. This idea relates to an earlier post I wrote: Men can cry too..., albeit in a slightly different light.

Even in cases where the loss is not one of love (or is perhaps agape as opposed to eros), but of ones friends or comrades, the loss is no less severe. Cáilte mac Rónáin, in the narrative of Acallam na Senórach, spends just as much time retelling of the deeds and adventures of Fionn and the Fianna, as he does quietly weeping. This ties back to something I mentioned above, that the weight of the death is often equated with the worth of the individual. In Cáilte's case, he laments for his friends and family, to be sure, but he also laments that such a generation will never again be seen on this side of the veil. This motif is something which echoes across the centuries, and can be found in what is my favourite of all of the works of W.B. Yates, "The Municipal Gallery Revisited", a poem about Yates solemnly touring the aforementioned gallery, and recounting the luminaries he had the honour of calling comrades, I think the spirit is best summed up in the closing stanza.

Think where man's glory most begins and ends, and say my glory was I had such friends.

Grief, at least in the Gaelic tradition, is personal, but also has a very social or communal element to it. This best expressed in the tradition of "Waking the dead", which I could go on about for quite a while (but that is another matter). Suffice to say that the juxtaposition found in Elagic literature and poetry is also found in the wake. The blending of the joy at a life well lived and the significance of the loss, the frantic frivolity of the guests and the manic wailing of the bereaved combine to provide a catharsis of sorts. The notion that one would be hard pressed to find a more ripping party than an Irish funeral, is of course a bit hyperbolic. While we have innumerable examples of wake games, dancing, drinking and some even less savory activities (and they say folklorists never get to have any fun), it should be noted that the immediate family would seldom participate in the merriment, if at all. In fact, there is a telling line in a traditional song from Newfoundland entitled, "The Night that Paddy Murphy Died", which states this rather emphatically; "As Mrs. Murphy sat in the corner, pouring out her grief...". The song is, itself, considerably ribald, but maintains that the guests in all their raucousness are honouring the deceased in the appropriate way.

It was expected that family members would be despondent, but the wake provided a way to release not only their own grief, but the communities as a whole, and what better way than surrounded by friends and family. The frivolity was understood to be, in no way, an act to diminish the family (or the guests) own grief, but that letting it go was easier during the frenzy of a party. Here again, I suspect the centrality of liminal states comes back. The period between a death and burial, the point between the grief of loss, and the joy of a well lived life, and the very mixed emotions which can build to an explosive, unexpected result. Some have commented on the fact that a lot of Gaelic literature can be terribly depressing, but so to is it equally compelling and joyful. Perhaps that is the point (or a point, at least), that grief and joy are both our constant companions and seldom far apart from one another.

Loss and separation are sad events, and it is perfectly natural, not to mention reasonable, to be saddened by a death. What is important though, is that we recognize the loss and acknowledge it; be it the complex process of a wake, or a simple rabbits prayer.

* A relatively recent, albeit fictionalized, example of a keening can be seen early on during the appropriately depressing film, "The Wind That Shakes the Barley".

War on Halloween 2011 edition: News from the Underground

2011-10-19T06:34:00.000-07:00

Another innocent victim of the War on Halloween

"Halloween: Everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask"

Local daily. Check.
Cringe inducing title. Check.
Proximity to Halloween: Close enough. (you'll get the joke later)
Outdated encyclopedic references. Check.
Samhain, Lord of the Dead. Check.
Token Pagan spokespeople. Actually, the author appears to have actually done some research on this one.
Hyperbolic Christian explaining the "real" origins. Double check, and in fine form.

Yes, its Halloween origin article season, and this particular article comes courtesy of the Cleveland Daily Banner. Now I found this article, because I got a hit for "Celtic Reconstructionist" in my Google news search, so right away it scored some points for even mentioning CR. That, unfortunately, is about the only positive thing about this article.

For starters, the article is written by William Wright, author of "The Little White Book Of Light", which according to its Amazon plug: "This is at last an inspiring piece of work with solid Scriptural and practical advice from some of the greatest minds of the past." Red Flag. Upon perusing more of his columns on the Daily's site, we get reassuring titles like: "That Old Black magic", "What is Heaven Like?", and "Planet of the Apes". Alarm bells, at this point, started going off. But he actually quoted Druid authors, I say to myself, maybe I'm jumping the gun?

The article starts off in a typical fashion, some people are interviewed and they mention how fun Halloween is, and how much their grandchildren enjoy dressing up. Seems like harmless fun, right? Nope, the very next paragraph we are told how macabre and eerie Halloween is. Insert just quoted grandparent providing typical, "we know there was some evil in there, but we just want our grand kids to have fun". Yup, next comes the many people are very concerned with the true origins of Halloween bit, and this outdated encyclopedic entry from the 1970's will surely not fail to provide.

The Encyclopedia Americana says, “Elements of the customs connected with Halloween can be traced to a Druid ceremony in pre-Christian times. The Celts had festivals for two major gods — a sun god (called Lug) and a god of the dead, called Samhain, whose festival was held on Nov. 1, the beginning of the Celtic New Year.”

An artists depiction of Samhain, Celtic Spirit of Death

Alright, so he uncritically accepts an outdated encyclopedia article, but then he quotes some books by real life Druids, so it can't be all bad, right? Wright quotes from Carr-Gomm's, "Elements of the Druids in England":

“Time was abolished for the three days of this festival and people did crazy things, men dressed as women and women as men ... children would knock on neighbors’ doors for food and treats in a way that we still find today, in a watered down way, in the custom of trick-or-treating on Halloween.”

He added, “With the coming of Christianity, this festival turned into Halloween, Oct. 31, All Hallows (All Saints Day), Nov. 1 and All Souls Day, Nov. 2. Here we can see most clearly the way in which Christianity built on pagan foundations it found rooted in these (British) isles. Not only does the purpose of the festival match the earlier one, but even the unusual length of the festival is the same.”

And from Issac Bonewit's, "Bonewit’s Essential Guide to Witchcraft and Wicca", (Alright so he quotes a Druid from a book said Druid wrote about Neowicca, so yes I should edit my list and throw in the Wiccan reference too).

Bonewits said, “Halloween is a time to lift the veil between many material and spiritual worlds in divination, so as to gain spiritual insight about our past and futures ... to deepen our connection to the gods and goddesses we worship.”

Such fine examples of backhanded references are rare, but to elaborate just a tad: The uneasiness which permeates the article, and the implied horror that one ought to be feeling are well served from these quotes. The funny thing is, the quotes do imply an actual aspect of the significance of Halloween (or Samhain), that it is a marked period of liminality. Unfortunately, Wright then spins this concept to come across as weird, even sinister. For starters he was sure to mention the aspect of cross dressing, guaranteed to cause a twist in the britches of his readership. The other aspect is the assertion of survival of those scary pagan elements into the modern day activities associated with Halloween. Yup, the Iron age Celts would celebrate their dark lord of the dead by going door to door and tick or treating, nothing modern at all to see here, move along.

Here we see the "trick" of arson being played when the inhabitants failed to provide an appropriate treat

Wright then goes into serious investigative journalist mode by quoting a book by Colonel J. Garnier, "The Worship of the Dead", or (and Wright fails to mention the alternative title) "The Origin And Nature Of Pagan Idolatry And Its Bearing Upon The Early History Of Egypt And Babylonia". In it, you wil learn all about the fact that ancient celebrations of the dead can all be traced back to after the Biblical deluge, and this is shown by the proximity for these festivals to happen around the same time.

This festival, moreover, held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the deluge took place, the seventeenth day of the second month — the month nearly corresponding with our November.

Clearly "nearly corresponding" is close enough that a bafflingly stupid argument designed to try and make actual history fit in with the mythic narrative offered by Genesis, has convinced some that this actually makes sense, because apparently this is the reason many people feel uncomfortable with celebrating Halloween. Wrights penultimate paragraph provides some very confused conclusions to boot.

Whether it is viewed as harmless fun, a longstanding tradition, sacred rites or something to avoid, Halloween no longer has any skeletons in its closet. Even unmasked, it is as scary as ever

That's right, longstanding traditions and sacred rites are really, really scary. The fact that some people are not Christian, and may even worship other deities is truly horrifying. If you're interested in either a good laugh/ repeatedly smashing your head against your desk, I would also recommend Wright's "Roots of Halloween", which expands Garnier's ridiculous thesis, posits the universality of global flood myths, the ever popular Nephilim = ancient gods, and that the reason that folks celebrate the lives and memory of their ancestors is because they were all killed, at once; no mention is made of how the tradition survived this global purge. Still, my favourite bit of "look at the incontrovertible evidence, duh" moment is when he says, "But don’t forget the fact that all of this water on planet earth came from somewhere. It wasn’t always here."

I never thought I would find an article that would top Kimberly Daniels "The Dangers of Celebrating Halloween", but her article is so over the top that it almost borders on parody. Wright's article(s) try in a very backhanded way to appear educational and objective, all the while denouncing the perceived evils of Halloween. This to me makes his articles all the more problematic, because your average reader (and mind I've no idea of the demographic who reads his articles, let alone the Cleveland Daily) would glance at this, find its arguments reasonable, and accept it as fact With this in mind, Wright's article is the new gold standard by which all other "War on Halloween" articles will be judged. Not only does it denounce Halloween, it goes the extra mile of revealing the horrors of other religions.

Polytheism is on the fringes. Really, Apparently we don't actually exist...

2011-09-21T12:49:00.000-07:00

Ah the convenience (and fun) of "Google news searches". The things you learn from it can be, if nothing else, rather amusing. Like the folks who seem to talk about "polytheism" more than anyone else are Muslims. Or that there is a baseball player named "Angel Pagan"? Sometimes though, you get some decent hits back, and this is one example.

"Texas faith Blog: "Do you think monotheism a superior form of religious belief? If so, why? If not, why not?""

It was preceded by the following blurb:

"The three Abrahamic faiths are known for being monotheistic religions. They worship one Deity, even though they may leave room for several concepts of the Divine. For example, Christians believe in the Trinity.

But other faiths aren't monotheistic. They allow for more than one god. As Texas Faith panelist Amy Martin wrote in an email:
"If you ask a Hindu if they are monotheistic, they will acknowledge the all-encompassing nature of the Brahma and say that all theisr gods and goddesses are simply aspects of that godhead. Even pagans say the same thing. The spiritual-not-religious, like Buddhists, posit an all-is-one divine energy, but do not define it as God."

Over time, these concepts have shaped traditions, cultures and even nations. So, for this week I'd like to hear your answer to this question"

The question posted above was asked by William Mackenzie for the religion blog on the Dallas Morning News web site, to a large number of priests, religious scholars, writers and representatives from around Texas. I say large number, because calling them assorted would be untrue. The respondents are overwhelmingly Christian, then monotheist, then pantheist, then monist. Even the token alt-spirituality panelist is at best a pantheist. Was it so difficult to find an actual polytheist? Are we so few in number that we can not be reached for comment? Well, there may be something to that last question actually. However, I'll touch on that a bit later.

The responses are precisely what I expected they would be. "Yes, monotheism is superior, though we don't like the word "superior", how about this, monotheism is true. Period. Oh, okay, here is every rehashed apologetic argument for the existence of a single, all powerful deity..." I'm not surprised, just disappointed really.

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here, lamenting the fact that polytheism in theological discussions never gets a fair shake, is marginalized and when spoken about is relegated to a passing curiosity of some primitive people.But when it happens over, and over and over again, and when one's focus is on polytheistic issues, this si what I've got to work with.

So, the arguments. They range from the typical, "revealed through scriptures", "revealed through reason", "the unity in nature" to the really odd: "I'm not a theist... but there is a supreme... energy", "polytheists were monotheists in practical engagement" and my personal favourite, "Paganism, Shintoism, Native Americans and other indigenous faiths, and many more paths often described as polytheistic, have at their core an acknowledgement of the one God." I'll address each in measure.

"Revealed through scripture": This is probably the most common argument I've come across when discussing theological matters with monotheists of all stripes. The simple fact of the matter is that different sources say different things, and the only significance of any given source is whether you afford it a special position in comparison to other texts. For those who do not afford a given text that special place, it is just another book. This isn't going to convince someone who doesn't already agree with you. It also depends largely on the hermeneutics one applies to the understanding of a given text. The reconciliation between the OT and NT, for example, is one which is still not really resolved. Instead, it relies largely on what amounts to a Christian retcon (that is, for those not familiar with the geek aphorism, retroactive continuity), where established aspects of a given narrative are displaced, reinterpreted, or removed in order to fit in with a new continuity.

"Revealed through reason": This is a little more theological and philosophical in its scope, and arguments have raged for the reason based belief in a single omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (and very often omnibenevolent) deity, for centuries. Of course, this flies in the face of theological issues which have yet to be adequately addressed, the problem of evil chief among them. There are other problematic aspects of this as well, which ties into the "unified whole" that would be impossible under the behest of competing forces. Which flies in the face of human history when one thinks about it. Humans have been in conflict for as long as there have been humans (and perhaps even longer), yet the world none the less exists, human civilizations rise, flourish and fall, and yet different interests continue to exist, humanity continues to exist despite this "chaos", and so to does the universe continue to run along, despite the fact that there are any number of different "forces" at work. Such issues, and others are adequately addressed in Greer's "World Full of gods" which argues rather convincingly that such arguments are based less on reason than worldview. I could rehash those arguments here, but for now I'd rather not.

"Polytheists were monotheists in practice": This was at first an odd, and then ridiculous claim. It is far more telling of the ignorance of the commenter on the nature of polytheism, than it is about the superiority of monotheism. The essential argument is that even, so called, polytheists were in fact really monotheists. Has this guy ever read anything about the ancient religions of most of the world? His point about "practical monotheism" states that when a given polytheist would invoke a deity, they chose one based on the area of influence. In such a case, the polytheists were invoking only a single god or goddess, which meant that in practice, one dealt with gods on an one to one basis, practical monotheism. It is baffling, to say the least and hilarious when one thinks of the logical end of such a view. So polyamorists are really monogamous, because they have sex with one person at a time, regardless of the fact that they have multiple partners? I'd chock it up to simple ignorance of what the differences between polytheism and monotheism are. Aside from the contradiction in terms, there is also the issue of invoking "the gods", or invoking multiple deities simultaneously.

I'll be spending a little more time on the last comment, because it really gets my dander up. I can not comment on whether or not Martin is a self identified Pagan. Her website is in essence a new age/ pluralistic one, but specific aspects of theology are lacking, at least without access to the news archives. Though she is guilty of the "Paganism" states X fallacy which so many fall into when speaking to non-Pagans about Pagan beliefs. Judging from her statements, though, I would wager she falls into the pantheistic/monist camp. To be fair, there are a vocal (if not large) number of self described Pagans who do believe in the concept of a unified godhead, or the "one diamond, many facets" theology. Unfortunately, not all who identify as Pagan do. You'd never know that though, which is why the aforementioned statement falls into the aforementioned fallacy. A little tweaking could have placed the comment in context, instead of a sweeping proclamation of belief. However, this strikes me of someone who isn't just generalizing, but wholly glosses over the very idea that there are actually polytheists out there. Towards the beginning of the article, there is a quote from Martin:

"Paganism, Shintoism, Native Americans and other indigenous faiths, and many more paths often described as polytheistic, have at their core an acknowledgement of the one God. Hinduism, the most polytheistic of faith paths with phantasmagorical gods and goddesses, exalts Brahmin, the one God who is vast and beyond capability of the human mind to understand.
In these allegedly poly paths, the myriad aspects of the one God are articulated in the forms of gods and goddesses, who are like us but not like us. Giving these aspects of God unique identities, with songs and stories and temples attached, enables people to have personal relationship with the divine."

What the quote does is reinforce the idea that even those kooky Pagans (who since Martin is the only one who mentions them, becomes the representative of) don't actually believe in polytheism. So the real question ought to have been "How many monotheists does it take to tear down a straw-man?" There isn't a single argument for polytheism in the whole bunch, where polytheism is mentioned it is either treated as a throwback to primitive superstition or something which doesn't actually exist among theists today. So even those Pagans, the folks who identify themselves by a term derived from a pejorative label for those who continued to practice pre-Christian, POLYTHEISTIC beliefs, even they have moved on from that silly polytheism. I can not remember the last time I felt such rage at being marginalized, and I'm an outspoken polytheist who works for a Catholic funeral home.

Sigh.

So then, this whole exercise begs the question, where are all the polytheists at? Are we so numerically insignificant, or so illusive, that we cannot even be found for a comment for which we may actually have something to say? Are there just no polytheists in the Dallas/Austin area? Perhaps there are no established groups of polytheists who were available for comment? Maybe local polytheists don't read the Dallas Morning News religious blog?

I mentioned it before, but this whole exercise begs the question, why was this question actually asked in the first place? If there were no polytheists for comment, it makes sense that a polytheist wasn't there to ask the question to begin with. So what would be the motivation for Mackenzie to even ask such a question? The knowledge that some people said that other people may worship more than a single god, even if that god is actually a facet of the "One True God"?

What this does illustrate, however, is why I get so excited when I find books like "God Against the Gods". Not only do such works actually look at polytheism, they place it as a legitimate way to understand divinity; at least as reasonable as other such theological perspectives as the more familiar monotheism, atheism and pantheism. It also illustrates that just because polytheism may actually be discussed in an article, it doesn't mean that anyone who participates knows diddly squat about it.

Book Review: God against the gods

2011-09-20T18:04:00.000-07:00

I picked this book up about two weeks ago and just finished it last night. It is not a terribly long book, I just happen to read when I have a moment as opposed to slogging through a book in one go. Interestingly enough, I had previously been going through an old text book of mine, Early Medieval Europe 300-1000, and had just gotten past the end of Julians reign when I stumbled upon this particular text. It is written by Jonathan Kirsch, and as I own a copy of an earlier work of his, "The history of the end of the world", I knew at the very least it would be a good read. It was.

The book covers in very broad, sweeping terms the development of monotheism as a religious idea tracing the concept from an Egyptian Pharaoh, to an assumed historic Moses, to Josiah and then to Christianity as it was between the first and fourth centuries. Parallel to this, Kirsch does a decent job of providing a glimpse into the polytheism which pervaded the ancient world, especially the variety of Roman polytheism around the third and fourth centuries CE. He also examines two influential historic figures, the emperors Constantine and Julian, as well as the culture, society and politics both developed in. The bulk of the last half of the book actually focuses on each Emperor and how they in essence, shaped the course of Western religious history. His basic theory of the development of monotheism traces the political aspirations of a given monarch and then parallels that with a desire to institute the worship of the "One True God"; in essence if there is a single all powerful deity, than there ought to be a single all powerful ruler. Another strain of thought running throughout the book, and perhaps its actual thesis, is that contrasting the inherent tolerance of polytheism, with the inherent intolerance of monotheism.

He also does a decent job of putting the so called Christian persecutions, in their historic and cultural context. While he does not downplay the significance or immorality of the mass murder of people who held different beliefs, he does explain the reasoning behind them. On top of that he is also critical (as are most modern historians) of many of the accounts of Christian martyrs, and examines the hyperbole in a number of martyrologies. Further, he also points out that the number of Christians killed by the Pagan Romans over the "10 persecutions" pales in comparison to the number of Christians killed by the Christian Romans in the subsequent centuries. Mind you, any decent text of the period ultimately does the same, historic facts and all that. Though I could understand why many more literalist Christians may find offense with the text, and probably argue that Kirsch is trying to downplay the persecutions. As I said, the facts speak for themselves.

Now for the criticisms. This is by no means a perfect work, and I hinted at its tendencies to gloss over a lot of the details and probably oversimplify any number of issues. My own knowledge of the period and culture is significantly less than my expertise in other areas, so I can not comment greatly on the portrayal of the Religio Romana, and I do question his assertion that traditional polytheistic religion was being replaced with so called "Pagan monotheism", this tends to be a problematic perspective a good number of religious historians suffers from. Though I do think his assertion that mystery cults were gaining in popularity and mass appeal has significantly more merit. My biggest criticism is his portrayal (albeit brief) of the Celts. He mentions them, almost in passing, as an example of the more "barbarous" forms of polytheism:

"...or the Celts of Britain, who enclosed their human offerings in wicker baskets fashioned in the image of a god and then lowered the basket into a bonfire. Such pagan luminaries as Pliny and Cicero condemned these practices, and the Roman generals who conquered the barbarians and occupied their tribal lands expended much effort in suppressing the practice of human sacrifice"

It is unfortunate in that a well researched and adequately footnoted book, such an ignorant and uncritical statement is used to shore up the image of Roman polytheism. I understand that his focus was on the Roman sources, but considering how critically he tends to read the sources, especially when they mention other religions or cultures in a negative light, I was caught off guard by this paragraph. It really was, for me, a blight on an otherwise well reasoned text.

He also tends, unfortunately, to rely on a number of antiquated and outdated texts when examining interpretations of many of the myths and commonalities of the myriad polytheistic religions. He seems to enjoy works by Campbell and Graves a little too much, and a little too uncritically.

Overall I would recommend this text to anyone who is interested in the subject matter. I will also admit that there are better books on the relationship between polytheism and Christianity within the context of the Roman Empire. I will admit, however, that what I enjoyed most about this text is Kirsch's willingness, and perhaps even earnestness, in showing polytheism in such a positive light. Books on polytheism in general are few and far between, and books which show the merits of a polytheistic world view are even fewer. I mentioned before, but even those well written and argued historic texts which examine in greater detail the religion of the Romans (or other polytheists) treat it as something which was inevitably doomed to fail, in the face of the "One True God". Kirsch, at least, illustrates how history could have so easily gone another direction.

The problem of Tethra

2011-09-04T22:30:00.000-07:00

The wikipedia article on Tethra reads as follows:

In Irish mythology, Tethra of the Fomorians ruled Mag Mell after dying in the Second Battle of Mag Tuiredh.

There is a second section on a possible etymology of the name, which is actually longer than the entry above. Alright, aside from this wiki stub needing a citation and an expansion, what is the point? Well that is sort of the gist of it, and perhaps a wider issue in researching and perhaps understanding Irish myth; so much of what we have is just stubs. Extensive lists of Names mentioned here and there but no narratives really dealing with those characters. Of course there are many examples of just the opposite, characters who have grand, sweeping narrative who play central roles in the mythology, who wouldn't you know it tend to have the larger modern cults. I can't really fault people for being able to relate to characters we can know something about, as opposed to those who we know little, but it makes me realize just how much we do not have.

I titled this post "the problem of Tethra" because I believe he encapsulates many of the questions which, I believe, can seriously inform or impact how one understands pre-Christian Irish myth and the theology derived from it. The first place I ever came across the name Tethra, was in the LGE where Amergin makes mention of his name:

"Who calleth the cattle from the House of Tethys?
On whom do the cattle of Tethys smile?"

Every interpretation I have read about this line of poetry (which in most versions has "Tethys" as "Tethra") explains that the "cattle of Tethra" refer to fish, which I find difficult to disagree with. So the logical conclusion drawn from this is that Tethra has some connection with the sea, or at least some environ where fish would live. One could postulate a river, but tradition represents rivers as distinctly feminine, and this in turn tends towards a gender division being observed; the ocean/sea is the realm of gods (Tethra, Lir, Manannan) and rivers that of goddesses (Boand, Sinann, etc.). So the idea that Tethra was (is) some sort of god who is associated with the Sea is a common one. There are other references to Tethra which mentions his "cattle". In "The wooing of Emer", when Cuchulain first speaks to Emer, she asks him where he has slept, to which he replies, "‘We slept,’ he said, ‘in the house of the man who tends the cattle of the plain of Tethra.’" A few lines down, he also makes mention of "Tethra, king of the Fomori." This second association is the one in which we actually learn that Tethra is not only a member of the Fomorians, but also a king.

So, next up are the references we've got to Tethra where he is identified as a Fomorian and a king, which come during the narrative of CMT. While the author expounds on the harsh conditions the TDD were forced to endure under the rule of Bres, we learn who among the Fomorians the tribute is being given:

"Now when Bres had assumed the kingship, Fomorians, even Indech son of De Domnann and Elatha son of Delbaeth, and Tethra, three Fomorian kings, bound their tribute upon Ireland, so that there was not a smoke from a roof in Ireland that was not under tribute to them." (Source, pg. 63-65)

Other than this Tethra is one of the Fomorian combatants who goes up against the TDD. Even in this, though, we get very little information about him.

"In that fight, then, Ogma the champion found Orna the sword of Tethra, a king of the Fomorians. Ogma unsheathed the sword and cleansed it. Then the sword related whatsoever had been done by it; for it was the custom of swords at that time, when unsheathed, to set forth the deeds that had been done by them."

So there is nothing else mentioned about Tethra in CMT, in fact his name only comes up twice in the entire narrative. He is a Fomorian king, and he has a magical sword named Orna. His fate in the battle is never mentioned; the only sure thing is that he looses his sword, Orna. Ogma ends up finding and claiming the sword Orna, which when unsheathed tells him of the deeds it has done, as was the style at the time. Outside of this, there isn't anything which speaks to his fate or his character. On the other hand, Tethra is invoked in some very conspicuous places. Both Amergain and CuChulain make mention of his name, as it pertains to his "cattle". However, in both cycles, the Fomorians had long been subdued by the TDD, and one would assume that deities associated with the TDD, such as Lir or Manannan would be the prime candidates for such invocations. The question then is why was that not the case?

Again, we dive right into speculation, though some a little more grounded than some idea's I made mention of above. I do think that the notion that some of the names of the Fomorians, and their respective functions are holdovers from older cults, which would be later replaced with "newer" figures has some merit. What other explanation could be offered for the term "Tethra's cattle" or "the plain of Tethra", when much more robust and influential divine figures have more overt associations with the sea? Now, I would not go as far as say the Ree's brothers, and postulate that the Fomorians are representative of indigenous (or pre-Celtic) peoples, or even culture. I would say, however, that I do tend towards a view that the Fomorians are reflexes of more primordial deities, in the same vein as the Jotun or Titans, if not so overtly. I would ague that Tethra is a very good example of a mythic holdover, and while his practical functions were overshadowed or subsumed by Manannan (as we know as little, if not less, about Lir), the poetic or fictive functions survived into the literary tradition. Interestingly enough, the wiki article mentions that Tethra became the ruler of Mag Mell after being killed in CMT (of which there is no actual account). According to MacKillop (pg. 293), however, the three rulers of Mag Mell are: Labraid Luathlam ar Claideb, Goll mac Doilb and Boadach (who it turns out is Manannan in disguise). Again we observe the overlap of association, however tenuous, between Tethra and Manannan as deities associated with the sea. I also find it difficult to believe that a figure like Tethra is solely an invention of the literary tradition, for the same reasons.

Well, it is difficult to be certain about such interpretations. The difficulty lies with trying to determine how best to interpret CMT. Outside the pre-Christian v. post-Christian content (which arguably, is a significant obstacle), there are some strains of thought: does the narrative represent the forces of order (or beneficent deities) overcoming the forces of chaos (or malefic deities), a reflex of a common Indo-European trope? There are some threads within the text which seem to indicate that the Fomorians may have knowledge or influence about or over certain natural phenomena, which the TDD do not. Towards the end of the tale, Lugh corners Bres and asks him while he should not take his life. Bres replies: " 'The cows of Ireland will always be in milk' said Bres, ‘if I am spared.’" Lugh, then takes this information to Máeltne Mórbrethach and asks him what to make of it. Máeltne replies that "He has no power over their age or their calving, even if he controls their milk as long as they are alive." and such a guarantee isn't worth his life. Lugh returns to Bres and basically says "no dice", so Bres replies with another offer, and this is repeated three times before Bres finally tells Lugh how and when to plow. Satisfied, Lugh spares him (although in other narratives Lugh does eventually kill Bres, with a poisoned cow no less). We see then, that the Fomorians have ties to natural cycles or phenomena and that with proper bargaining, the knowledge can be gleaned from them. Thus is later reflected in the LGE, when the Milesians are forced to develop a reciprocal, as opposed to the original antagonistic, relationship with the TDD to properly grow crops and survive in Ireland. The argument could be made in the former tale, of the IE reflex of more beneficent deities overcoming the malefic ones, to the benefit of humans; then again this could be reading into things too much. But what does this have to do with Tethra? A lot, incidentally.

The "problem of Tethra", then, is really a problem indicative of the wider body of myth. Just how much of what we know is actually applicable to pre-Christian myth and belief? Most folks have decided one way or another how to understand the TDD, but the Fomorians are still a large source of mystery and even confusion. Some have opted to see them as near, if not outright, demonic; others have chosen to fall back to comparative myth and understand them as a Celtic (or at least Irish) version of the Titans or Jotun. As I mentioned before and for the reasons stated above, I tend to agree with the latter, though recognize that such comparisons can only go so far in offering an explanation of how they ought to be understood. However, there are clearly ritualized or poetic functions associated with some of the Fomorians, and so trying our best to understand their place within the broader context of Irish myth will help us in developing a more robust approach to mythic figures outside the purview of the figures who are generally accepted as deities.

The ethical limits of "love the sinner, hate the sin"

2011-08-23T20:51:00.000-07:00

A bit of a rambling account follows, and I will endeavor to have more overtly polytheistic content in the future, but I write about whatever piques my interest and today this happens to be it.

I'm sure many folks have been confronted with the Christian catch-all "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to ethics. It implies that while Christians should be discerning of what they view as unethical behaviour, they should never loose sight of the fact the sinner is still a person and so ought to be forgiven for their transgression. This has been an especially visible tack of the Catholic Church, when it comes to dealing with issues which are accepted by society (to some degree or another) but at loggerheads with Church doctrine.

In my case, there is a particular issue which is going on in the parish halls and school board meeting rooms, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. I believe this issue highlights the very real limitations of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy and creates an eye opening example of the tricky nature of religion and the public sphere. The issue is "gay positive" clubs in Catholic schools.

Now, not to digress too much, but a little history may be necessary for those who were born outside of Ontario. Ontario has, for the majority of its existence, had two separate public school systems; one Protestant and one Catholic. Over the course of the last half of the 20th century, the Protestant school system was gradually secularized, simply becoming "public schools". The Catholic system, however, did not secularize and continues to be publicly funded. As a result of its, unique status, the various Catholic School Boards have had to walk a fine line between government guidelines and Church doctrine. Earlier this year this tension came to a head when the Halton Catholic Schools declined to allow the formation of student run "gay-straight" clubs. The issue was sensationalized (a little) when the Chair of the Board made an idiotic comment which compared such clubs with "Nazi groups". At issue was the necessity of all Ontario school boards to have an "equity and inclusive education policy" in place to stem the rise in homophobic bullying. Eventually the board dropped its ban on such groups and they have been allowed to form. In fact this sparked a much wider debate among other Catholic boards, with the same result in almost all jurisdictions; "gay-straight clubs" have been given permission to form. But, the story doesn't end there.

A recent article in the Toronto Star picked up this topic, with less than three weeks to go before school resumes, to see how it has developed. Not so well it would seem. Despite the fact that the issue of allowing such groups to be formed was agreed upon months ago, the issue at present is what to call them:

“It’s been a struggle; we want to have groups to help these students so they don’t feel suicide is the only option — suicide rates among homosexual young people are higher — but some people get caught up worrying that we’re going to forget about our Gospel teachings, and cause panic, so it’s taking longer than expected,” said association president Nancy Kirby

And there in lies the rub, and my point. The Catholic boards want to help reduce an atmosphere of intolerance and fear for sexual minority groups, and help prevent kids from falling into despair. At the same time, they have a rather clear doctrinal position to uphold as members of the Catholic faith; Homosexuality is not accepted:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

However, there is a distinction made between "homosexual persons" and "homosexual acts", one is to be loved, respected and supported, the other is to be abhorred and opposed; love the sinner, hate the sin. According to Catholic teachings, those who find themselves attracted to members of the same sex/gender/ etc. are called to practice chastity, as these attractions are a trial to be overcome. If this is starting to sound a little like conversion therapy, that the moral duty of homosexuals is to suppress (or better yet, overcome) their problematic attraction to members of the same sex, it's because it is. The problem for the boards now is that they have no idea what to call these clubs. Many have banned the use of "gay-straight", "rainbow", or any other names which may give the impression that homosexuality is in anyway being approved of.

I understand, rather well, the complex nature of ethics and their applicability. I understand that ethics are not simple and require a great deal of thought and reflection. I understand the desire of the Catholic school boards to adopt the provincial guidelines, and their honest desire to help students as best they can. I also understand that this issue is as close as one can get to cognitive dissonance without spiraling into outright contradiction. At the end of the day, regardless of how much these school boards try to foster an atmosphere of tolerance or respect towards GLBT students, it is empty. It is empty because these people are seen to have an affliction, one which they must overcome to be inline with catholic teaching. These students are wrong to be attracted to people of the same sex/gender/ etc., and the Catholic boards will simply not move on such doctrinal issues.

At the end of the day the message to students is as confusing as it is infuriating: "You are welcome here, you are safe here; just be aware that you are wrong to feel this way. Understand that there is something wrong with you, and that the negative atmosphere which pervades same-sex sexual identity is caused, first and foremost, because homosexuality is wrong. People shouldn't be persecuted for sinning, but people shouldn't seek to sin in the first place. We love you, we just hate what you are." Think about kids, especially teens, who are dealing with a lot of emotional stress an the pain associated with developing a sense of self and identity. These kids are then told that they have a moral responsibility to love their fellow students, but are also morally compelled to oppose the feelings their gay classmates may have. It is simply cynical, and wholly self serving, and I'm not sure how else it could come across.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to disparage the Catholic school system. I do not doubt that the vast majority of educators, trustees, council members, clergy and others who work for the system want to ensure that students feel safe and are free from bullying. I just recognize that the efforts to do so are contradictory when it comes to GLBT students. I think it is reasonable to posit that the basis of homophobic bullying is the position that homosexuality is wrong.When the institution designed to protect the safety of a given student, is also a root cause of the negative atmosphere that student needs protection from; how can the effort comes across as anything else but hollow?

The notion that one can effectively separate an individual from their actions, is at the root of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" aphorism. Yet actions, better than anything else, define who were are. Belief or thought without action is little more than imagination. I believe the issue described above highlights why such an approach to ethics is at best misguided, and at worst meaningless.

Men can cry too...

2011-07-10T19:52:00.000-07:00

Grief is a funny thing, you expect that you will act the way you always do, in any given situation and then suddenly you find yourself in an unthinkable position; it is in these places where grief lives. More often than not, grief manifests itself most powerfully when someone close to you dies. This is something I have come to observe during my work in funeral services. People will often expect that they will react to a loss in a stoic manner, and will be able to suppress their emotions; this does occur, but it is remarkably rare. No, grief will hit you when you least expect it, even those who "society" deems ought to repress their emotions, men. A man is "supposed" to be stoic in such situations, sure he will be sad (or else a heartless monster), but he mustn't show such emotions outwardly, that is the "place" of women. Men, are supposed to grin and bare it, right? Not hardly.

I'm not sure where this notion developed, and while it may be an interesting bit of the history of gender roles, in my experience such stoicism is thrown right out. Men grieve; they weep, cry, sob, yell and scream. Men find themselves acting in a way they did not expect, with their emotions pouring forth, with such fury and violence, that their shock is replaced by shame. They become very self conscious of what they are doing, and try their best to bottle the torrent which has weld up inside them, not an easy feat by any standard. Unfortunately being in such a self conscious state, the fear of being perceived as vulnerable, or weak, will often make those individuals react rather gruffly, even harshly, towards those trying to aid them (like a staff member at a funeral home offering a much needed tissue). Are men, especially young men, correct to feel this way? Should their show of grief become a source of shame? Is their emotional vulnerability a sign of weakness? My answer would be a resounding no, but this is not merely my position as someone in funeral service; no this is also my position as a Gaelic polytheist.

It is during these times, I am reminded of Caílte mac Rónáin as depicted in the Acallam na Senórach. Here we see a mighty warrior (though less mighty than he once was) who is still more than a match for any of the obstacles still left in Ireland. Here is a man who has lived for hundreds of years, has seen all those he loved killed or fall before his eyes, but who still has a story to tell. It is between the many adventures and telling, in those quiet times of reflection, that we see just how burdened with grief Caílte truly is. He bears not only his own past, but the past of all those who has gone before him, and he weeps, openly and unashamedly at their loss. At no point does anyone in the text sneer at how pitiable it is to see such a man reduced to weeping. Upon hearing the tragedies which have occurred, his audience will often be moved to tears right along side him.

Such is the burden of all those who survive, of the old warrior at once proud of his past yet also haunted by it. The burden of carrying on in a world where one you loved is no longer, seems to be well understood by our ancestors. There is no scoffing, no mocking of emotional outpourings; rather there is understanding and empathy, and the hope that we should all bear such a loss with dignity and strength. For while grief can be crushing and seemingly endless, it is something which as time goes by, inevitably becomes a constant companion. There, and never far out of mind, but bearable as we go on living.

-Gorm

Personal agency and the problem of fate

2011-06-30T08:10:00.000-07:00

The ability to act; to be cognizant of the decision one makes, for me is one of the central reasons morality is something which can exist. The ability to make a choice is, likewise, a necessary component of any sort of system of ethics. As such, I am simply unable to get my head around the concept of morality in a fatalistic universe. If ethics are to have any meaning, individual volition necessarily follows. If one could only ever act in a single fashion, could only ever choose A (and necessarily must choose A), then there is no personal involvement in the decision. Rather, there is no decision at all and the selection of A, is simply an involuntary reaction to the circumstance an individual finds themselves in. Aside from utterly neutering any meaning in ethics, I do believe it is demonstrably false. People make decisions all the time, and will often change their minds a dozen times, depending on the circumstance. The fatalist would argue that, regardless of the deliberation, the final action was necessary, and could never have been altered; the so called "illusion of free choice". Where does that leave us then?

Two mythic perspectives to consider through a truncated comparison of eschatologies: Revelations v. Ragnarok. The importance of the, to borrow a term "alpha and omega", from a mythological perspective is that the cosmogenic and eschatological narratives of a given culture or religion tend to bring into focus what is really important. All myth does this to some degree, but these two specific types of myth crystallize the essence of how a given culture/religion understands the way the cosmos function, and how to properly interact with it. The current running through both the Book of Revelations, and Ragnarok, is that of the inevitability of the events depicted; these events will transpire, regardless of any action to the contrary. Both stories involve the end of the cosmos (as it currently exists), untold horror and suffering, and the death of the vast majority of humanity. The response each group is to have, to all the destruction and horror, could not be more different, and from this we catch a glimpse of how each see's the role of personal volition in the face of the inevitable.

Before I get into a more direct comparison, a note regarding "The Book of Revelations". I understand this particular text, first and foremost, through the context in which it was written and the audience it was written for. It was written at a time of heightened persecution, and reads largely as a revenge fantasy; though Christians would have to endure for now, in the not too distant future they would emerge victorious against their persecutors. The intention of the text was to provide solace for the faithful, and to assure them their suffering was not in vain. It was not, I am convinced, meant to depict events centuries later. For anyone who is interested in understanding the historic context, I would highly recommend Jonathan Kirsch's, A History of the End of the World. With that proviso out of the way, the vast majority of Christians do not seem to understand said book in its historic context, or if they do also, see it as a book of prophecy and a genuine eschatology. The vast majority of Biblical literalists, at least, understand it to be nothing short of the future history of the end of the world, and whats more eagerly await the events; if not outright doing all they can to speed up the process (but more on this later). So, my comparison will be the world view espoused by said literalists, as opposed to the historic context of the text.

Throughout the BoR, the Apostle John witnesses the destruction of the earth, the (rather horrific) death of the vast majority of humanity at the hands of angels, the baseness and cruelty of those unrepentant humans, the salvation of the faithful, a pitched battle between the forces of the "lamb" and those of "the devil", the rise and fall of the anti-Christ, and he final destruction of the earth and final judgement of every human. What becomes painfully obvious is the utter lack of agency available to humanity. The vast majority are little more than insects to be trampled upon by the two "divine" forces, before being thrown into an everlasting furnace to be burned for all eternity. Those who are judged fit to not be tortured, equally play no role within the narrative, and are just as powerless as those judged "wicked". The closest thing that mimics agency is the notion that those who repent will be saved from so terrible a fate. This of course is one of many theological battles within the wide umbrella of Christendom, and different religions within have different views on how much personal choice plays a role in salvation, and how much is simply at the "grace of God". It has been my experience that literalists lean towards the idea of grace trumping personal volition, so even in that, humans have no say in their fate.

Salvation is something that is external, is enabled by the grace of the Christian god, and is absolutely necessary to avoid suffering eternal torment (among other things). This perspective necessarily reinforces its own existence (as would any world view), and instills in those who ascribe to it the very real need for the figure of a saviour. No matter what an individual does in their life, it will never be enough to merit them a place in their paradisaical afterlife. Through this we also see the importance of the idea of submissions and subservience as being key religious virtues.

Contrast this with the events depicted in Ragnarok (which again are too varied and detailed to go into specifics), which chronicles the final battle between the forces of the Aesir vs. those of the Jotun. The text is again one of prophecy (though rarely interpreted as literally or historically as Revelation is), speaking about the history of a future event. In fact many of the tales in the Eddas set up a number of key players and events which directly lead to the twilight of the gods; the inevitability is palpable. Like Revelation, there is horror and death, and the sundering of the very cosmos to its core; there is also the belief that hope springs eternal and some future state of existence will arise from the destruction. That's about as far as the similarities go, and the core message is considerably different. So to is the role that humanity plays in the last battle; humans have agency and are able to effect change. Those warriors who have lived in Odin's halls since they day of their deaths, and those who yet live stand shoulder to shoulder with the Aesir against the Jotun. God and human fight and die alongside one another, each hoping to win a future for their respective kindred. Of course the cosmos are eventually consumed by ice and fire, but there are survivors, both human and god. It is these who inherit the will of those past and strive for tomorrow.

In a more cosmic way of looking at the events, interpretations tend to fall on the notion of being cyclical (if entropic) as opposed to lateral. In such a view then, the allegoric nature of the present generations striving to do all they can to win a future for those yet to come, supports the idea that individual humans can and do shape the course of their own lives, if within the context of fate. Death is assured, but to despair in the face of this certainty is to miss the significance of what one can accomplish. Further, there is no indication of the gods coming to save humanity from some foe; humans have as much responsibility to keep destruction at bay as the gods themselves. Thus we see the idea of Valor and Strength as being important virtues.

Two different eschatologies, two different mythological perspectives, two different world views, two different course of action in similar circumstances. The inevitability of death confronted, and two different responses to it. One where personal agency is dubious at best (and absent at worst), where humanity is simply swept away, insignificant and powerless to influence the unfolding of history. The other, where personal agency is never questioned, where humanity is expected to stand for itself, active in shaping its own destiny. I must admit that from my own perspective, the response of the later would be my choice; things are going to happen which you may not be able to do anything to change, but who you are is determined by your response to circumstance and fate.

I finish with a quote from the film Mononoke Hime:

You can not alter your fate, my prince. However you can rise to meet it, if you choose.

Marcus Aurelius and source checking

2011-06-14T19:06:00.000-07:00

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius

I really do love this quote, and agree with the sentiment it espouses. Virtue for the sake of virtue is something anyone can aspire towards, and is one of the central principals of virtue ethics. That one can attain immortality of sorts through memory of ones descendants is something I do agree with. There is a problem however; there is no indication that Marcus Aurelius ever said anything of the sort. Rather, there are at least two dead giveaways within the quote which betray that he would not have written it.

I'll start with the first one, Marcus Aurelius was a devout polytheist and there is no indication in his thoughts about doubting the existence of the gods, (II.11, trans. Martin Hammond). A great deal of his thoughts were centered on the role the gods played in the affairs of men. So it would be difficult to believe, that despite his very apparent devotion and certitude which is presented throughout the entirety of "The Meditations", he would have qualms about the existence of gods.

Secondly and perhaps the more obvious of the two "tells", is that the quote implies that living on in the memories of your loved ones is something to aspire to, through leading a virtuous life. He dismisses this notion outright, to quote but a few:

"Everything material rapidly disappears in the universal substance; every cause is rapidly taken up into the universal reason; and the memory of everything is rapidly buried in eternity." (VII.10, trans. Martin Hammond)

"Soon you will have forgotten all things: soon all things will have forgotten you." (VII.21, trans. Martin Hammond)

"Turn it inside out and see what it is like, what it becomes in age, sickness and death. Life is short both for praiser and praised, for the remembering and the remembered. And this, moreover, in just a cranny of one continent: even here not all are attuned to each other, or even an individual to himself. And the whole earth is a mere point in space." (VIII.21, trans. Martin Hammond)

The notion that memories (or fame) as a basis for action is something he rejects quite unequivocally.

And herein is the problem with not cross checking your sources to see if the person you are quoting, actually said what you're attributing to them. Even a quick Google search will turn up the fact that the quote is uncertain in origin, and only mistakenly attributed to Marcus Aurelius.

A little due diligence goes a long way.

May-Time

2011-05-01T20:50:00.000-07:00

May-time, fair season, perfect is its aspect then; blackbirds sing a full song, if there be a scanty beam of day.

The hardy, busy cuckoo calls, welcome noble summer!It calms the bitterness of bad weather, the branching wood is a prickly hedge.

Summer brings low the little stream, the swift herd makes for the water, the long hair of the heather spreads out, the weak white cotton-grass flourishes.

...The smooth sea flows, season when the ocean falls asleep; flowers cover the world.

Bees, whose strength is small, carry with their feet a load reaped from the flowers; the mountain allures the cattle. the ant makes a rich meal.

The harp of the wood plays melody, its music brings perfect peace; colour has settled on every hill, haze on the lake of full water.

The corncrake clacks, a strenuous bard; the high pure waterfall sings a greeting to the warm pool; rustling of rushes has come.

Light swallows dark on high, brisk music encircles the hill, tender rich fruits bud...

...The hardy cuckoo sings, the speckled fish leaps, mighty is the swift warrior.

The vigor of men flourishes, the glory of great hills is unspoiled; every wood is fair from crest to ground, fair each great goodly field.

Delightful is the season's splendour, winter's rough wind has gone; bright is every fertile wood, a joyful peace is summer.

A flock of birds settles...; the green field re-echoes, where there is a brisk bright stream.

A mad ardour upon you to race horses, where the serried host is ranged around; very splendid is the bounty of the cattle-pond, the iris is gold because of it.

A timid persistant frail creature sings at the top of his voice, the lark chants a clear tale - excellent May-time of calm aspect!

Irish; author unknown; ninth-tenth century.
From "A Celtic Miscellany" ed/trans. Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson.

The Hard Choice

2011-04-20T19:20:00.000-07:00

It would be wrong to say that I am a fan of eschatology, but it does fascinate me to some extent. I think that the way a culture believes the end of time will occur says as much about it as its cosmogenic narratives do. Unfortunately, for those of use with a proclivity for Celtic cultures, we lack both; or what we have are tiny fragments with tantalizing hints of a much broader set of complimentary myths. Of all the eschatological narratives our there, being discussed and bandied about, my personal favourite is that of Ragnarok, or the twilight of the Aesir. It has everything that makes a story both memorable and enjoyable: prophecies fulfilled, old scores being settled, single combats to the death and the last, great stand of those who would defend the cosmos from oblivion; those willing to sacrifice all they are to purchase a future for those who may come next. I used to balk at the fatalistic tendencies inherent in the tales of the Aesir, and ponder why none of the gods would reject a future that had been written, but not yet come to pass. I questioned the tales and the perception of impotent gods, unable to do anything to change their fate. It took me a while, and some deep discussions with some very wise and eloquent Asatruars to realize that in my dedication of the rejection of fatalism, I missed the point. Perhaps the best example to illustrate this would be to use one of the very episodes in question, a precursor to the main event, so to speak. It is a story involving Tyr, and how he came to lose his hand.

Tyr, a member of the Aesir, god of single combat (among other things) along with the other gods, had grown concerned of the growth of the wolf Fenrir, one of the three children of Loki and Angrboða, and so resolved to chain the great beast, for they had foreknowledge of the doom which would occur as a result of him. They tried three times to bound the wolf, and three times he broke the fetters they laid about him. Finally, Odin resolved to have the dwarves forge a special ribbon, Gleipnir, which would finally restrain Fenrir. The wolf, sensing that some trick was being performed upon him, would only allow himself to be retrained if one of the gods laced their hand in his mouth. Were he unable to break free, he would bite off the hand of the god. The Aesir balked at this, except Tyr, who placed his hand in the gaping maw of the wolf, who was then bound. Unable to break free of Gleipnir, and having realized the cunning of the Aesir, bit down and severed Tyr's hand from his arm. The wolf was thus bound but at a high price.

Looking at it from a fatalistic standpoint, there was no prophecy that Fenrir would devour Tyr's hand, but there were prophecies of the ill which would befall the world, because of Fenrir. Tyr had the ability to say no, to balk as the other Gods did, knowing full well what would happen once the wolf became wise to the Aesir's deceit. But had he balked, he would have not been Tyr, the embodiment of the warrior, god of single combat and heroic glory. Tyr understood exactly what would happen, knew the outcome, yet willingly bought the entrapment of Fenrir with his own hand. This speaks to one of the most important themes running through the Icelandic sagas, the hard choice.

The hard choice is never pleasant and only marginally better than the alternative, but that sliver of distinction is how honour abides. It is easy to have lofty ideals when it is convenient, but true virtue is tested when things go wrong. If you suddenly find yourself staring at the hard choice, and your resolve fails, what then of morality? What then of honour? Lofty ideals to be abandoned when they become a burden, will forever remain just that; esoteric and highfalutin sound bites. Those willing to make the hard choice, willing to embody the ideals they espouse, can justify their virtue and be held as honorable. This is one of the morals of the story of Tyr that I think has immense value, and it is a lesson that is sorely needed.

Polytheistic family fun!

2011-04-10T15:34:00.000-07:00

I've been piecing this post little by little for a couple of months now, though it was originally inspired by Galina Krasskova's "Top 10 Pagan/Heathen Movies". I've complied a list of films, books and television series which I find provide excellent stories and useful lessons for kids. While quite modern, and not necessarily Gaelic, still have some value as widely available media to instill virtues and concepts which are pertinent to GRP's (and perhaps polytheism in general).

A quick side note: Krasskova's overviews of both "Princess Mononoke" (Mononoke Hime) and "The Lion King" are excellent and I need not repeat them here. They are, however, some of my favourite animated films and can not recommend them highly enough.

I will however, mention Hayo Miyazaki's "Spirited Away" (Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi). The story is simple enough, that children will thoroughly enjoy it, but the issues are complex enough that adults will find much to contemplate. The premise is the synthesis of modernity coming to terms with the past/ environment which is a hallmark of Miyasaki's style. In this instance, the main character, Chihiro, finds herself having to survive in an other world inhabited by the Kami of Shinto lore, with nothing but her will and the support of a few sympathetic Kami who aid her. It has very clear environmentalist overtones, but it is also tries to impart the importance of folk tradition in a world where so many are utterly disconnected from it. There is actually an excellent essay, "Forest Spirits, Giant Insects and World Trees: the Nature Vision of Hiyao Miyazaki” by Lucy Wright, which I came across (thanks to Finnchuill's Mast) which explores the way Miyazaki utilizes elements of Shinto in his films.

A novel series I discovered last year, is the Warrior's series of books. The books follow several clans of anthropomorphic cats, and chronicles the political and social turmoil between the clans. The great thing about these books are the various virtues they impart, in a way that children can understand and, perhaps, emulate: honour, courage, loyalty, living in harmony with local geography and reverence of ones ancestors. The warrior aspect is very apparent (it is after all the title of the series), but the inclusion of ancestor worship, as well as the "mystic experience" was something which is absent in a lot of similar series. The ancestors are referred to as "Starclan", and this is the closest thing to a religion which exists in the Warriors world. While not Celtic or Gaelic by any stretch of the imagination, it none the less is a way for children to develop a sense of the significance of ancestor reverence and virtues like honour and courage, while being accessible and enjoyable.

A cartoon series I would heartily recommend is "Avatar: The Last Air Bender" (and not the insipid live action film version). I will try to keep the fan boy gushing aside, but this is simply one of the best animated series I have watched. Period. There are some aspects to the show I do not like as much as others; the heavily pantheist leanings chief among them, and the emphasis on detachment from the world. There is, however, much which can be taken from the show. The interaction with the "spirit world" and local land spirits is a decent representation of more traditional forms of animism, fairly reminiscent of Shinto. While often side stories to the main plot, "trips to the spirit world" are always of benefit to the progression of the plot and the character development of Aang, the aforementioned Avatar. The way the spirits are portrayed cover a broad spectrum; some are beneficial, some are indifferent (unless crossed) and others are malicious. I like this aspect because it is more reflective of the way GRP's understand interactions with the fair folk or spirits of place, and avoids the sunshine and sprinkles approach which is fairly prevalent.

There are some other aspects of the series I also think admirable. The way that issues of morality are explored are multifaceted and complex enough to avoid the sort of dichotomous kinds of morality so often found in works of fiction. A good example of the later is found in the Redwall series, which I love dearly, but it operates on a very simple moral framework. There are competing perspectives in the Avatar world, and it seems like the writers went out of their way to not, necessarily, have one tack superior to another. Aang, the chief protagonist was raised by Monks and so has a considerably different approach to morality than another character, Katara. The best example I can think of has to do with the idea of forgiveness. There are some spoilers ahead, so if you haven't yet seen the series or are in the process, skip ahead.

[Spoiler warning]

In the episode, Katara learns that Zuko (a former enemy turned ally, who she is currently having some trust issue with) can help her find the man who murdered her mother. As they prepare to set off, Aang tries to talk her out of it, extolling the virtues of forgiveness and how seeking vengeance will only hurt Katara in the long run. She ignores him and long story short, confronts the man who murdered her mother. Seeing how pitiable his life is, she can not bring herself to kill him, and returns. Aang, overjoyed that Katara has forgiven the man, is corrected by Katara and is informed that she will never forgive him, but can forgive Zuko.

[Spoiler warning ends]

The approach to the issue of forgiveness is one I can really appreciate, because the idea of automatic forgiveness is something I strongly disagree with. Restitution needs to be earned by those who have transgressed, and it is unreasonable (bordering on unethical) to expect someone who has been seriously wronged, to forgive those who have wronged them automatically. I understand the general cultural significance of forgiveness, and its basis is a different religious perspective, but that doesn't mean I need to agree with it. And therein lies the beauty of the series approach to morality, characters can be ethical without believing the same things or having the same foundational basis for moral action. Whats more it manages to deal with issues like morality and ethics without being pedantic or clumsy, which is something which can not be said about a lot of other children's shows.

I'll probably post some more suggestions at a later date as I either remember them or actually add new ones to the list.

Gorm.

Reconstructionism, again...

2011-04-09T21:22:00.000-07:00

This has been going on for a little while now, but once again it is sort of at the fore of some discussions on the methodology behind Reconstructionism; specifically how it relates to UPG. For myself it was sparked by a discussion on one of the forums I frequent, and linked to a blog by another Reconstructionist. I'll not hash out the whole thing here, but the crux was that some of the recons who frequented this forum disagreed with the use of Reconstructionist as it was defined by the blog. There was an interesting discussion which resulted, and in the end, I guess we agreed to disagree.

Recently, however, this issue, the role of UPG in Recon, has come up again. My only issue at this point is the way that the discussion is being couched, and the canard which is being bandied about, namely "lore is law". I can only speak from my own experiences with the Recons I know, but I've yet to meet any that would agree that the lore is all one goes by, and UPG or mystic experiences have no place in Reconstructionism. The issue that I have then, is that there is a vast difference between scholarly diligence and placing what is known (or probable based on inference) ahead of personal gnosis, than simply quoting the lore as some infallible text, as is wont in monotheistic circles. The problem is that the later is precisely how those who favour scholarship over UPG are being represented, as if they were some sort of mythic literalist's. I'd like to believe that people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and that any Reconstructionist worth their salt would be aware of the limitations of the mythic texts, doubly so for those which are known to have been recorded/written by Christian scribes. But this isn't happening, no apparently there is a vociferous contingent of Recons who think that, for example, the LGE is holy writ and wholly pre-Christian (despite it starting with a short summary of the events of Genesis) and that any who diverge from the myths as laid down are heretical and need be cast out! That isn't even the real issue here, what is the issue is the, I believe deliberate, attempt to equate a reliance on scholarship with a literalistic approach to the lore. The lore is but one, ONE, part of a much larger whole comprising a body of knowledge pertaining to a cultural group, upon which one builds the foundation for reconstruction. My experience is limited, and certainly I've not met anyone who would use the Recon label, but I've never come across any of these literalists, because frankly we know better.

I've come to expect this sort of argument, that Recons are all stodgy academics who study their religion, rather than live it, from some Pagan circles, but from within the Recon community itself? I'll repeat it here for the umpteenth time, UPG matters. UPG is crucial. UPG is an intrinsic component of Reconstructionism. UPG has a role, as does study. I believe that UPG is informed by, and understood through the study of whatever culture it is one is reconstructing from. UPG can be used to fill in gaps where we have no information, or through inference and probability where we do have some idea. If you've gotten the notion that Ogma receives offerings of oatmeal cookies favourably, I've got no issue with that. Despite there not being any references to oatmeal cookies in the lore (or other texts) it seems like the offering of baked goods was probable, so go for it. If you've had a powerful dream where an amorphous goddess tells you all deities are one, well that's not reflected at all in any of the info we've got, and if you choose to base your perspective from that point, you've stopped reconstructing. I realize these are two fairly cut and dried examples, but I'm firmly in the camp that mystic experiences need be understood through whatever cultural framework one is working from, and that this is the basis of Reconstructionism as a methodology. If it comes down to a personal experience vs scholarship, I favour scholarship. Would a conflict between UPG and scholarship necessarily manifest in such a dichotomous manner, not likely. Was there any indication of the dismissal of the importance of mystic experiences in that? Hmm.... nope.

It can be pointed out that scholarship itself has room for improvement: it is by no means monolithic, nor static and there are many perspectives and approaches to the material to consider. There is definitely a great deal of "wiggle room" when it comes to trying to understand an ancient culture, its mythic framework, and then adapting it to be something which is still relevant in a modern context. This is especially true when the sources we have are fragmentary and glossed over with a differing religious perspective, and approaching them with a critical eye is simply a necessity, because in those cases we just haven't got fully preserved pre-Christian myths. This is one of the reasons I balk at the idea that anyone who would call themselves a Recon would not be cognizant of the limitations of the mythic texts (at least in the CR camp), and why the suggestion of mythic literalism as an active force in Reconstructionism seems very unlikely. Though I could see how in the cases where more complete myths exist it being a possibility, I also think that the contemporary texts which explore the relationships between the myths and the deities they represent would be crucial reading for Recons.

Thoughts?

Gorm.

A "Warriors path" and not being on one...

2011-03-26T21:10:00.000-07:00

Let me begin by saying that I have nothing but respect, even admiration for those who have dedicated themselves to the betterment of self, and the protection of others, through the use of combat and martial means. For those who serve their communities by being the thin line between those communities and those who would seek their ruin, for those who serve their country by traveling to distant lands thousands of miles from home, I salute you with as much gusto as I can muster. I realize these sort of intro's will often transition into a critique or diatribe about some aspect of the police or military, but that isn't where I am going with this.

I am a fighter, I always have been. I know how to fight, how to defend myself and those I care about, and have done my best to help those who can't; but I am not, nor have I ever considered myself, a warrior. I suppose it comes down to how I understand the concept, and my feelings are divided. On the one hand, I understand the historicity of the word, the issue of caste/class and profession and the philosophy behind many different cultural understandings of the term. On the other, from my own religious perspective, there are deities who are overtly associated with war and combat. Further we have (to some greater or lesser degree) a conception of "paths" or perhaps even "modes". The two most common "paths", at least from my own experience in CR, tends towards either the Warrior (laoch/ gaiscíoch) or the Poet (filid). I should mention at this point that another, fairly common "path" is also out there, though with less fanfare or flourish, that of the Homesteader/Hearth focused (baile/ tinteán) which is where I find myself. Of course, many choose not to carve up their practices or delineate so cleanly. However, many will have specific patrons to whom they are pledged or clientele of, and often (but not always) their patronage is predicated upon their profession. It can often be a chicken/egg dilemma when it comes to deciding what came first. Was this particular deity always pulling you towards them, or were you pulled because of some predisposed affinity? I suppose these are the sorts of mysteries we must contend with.

I have mentioned it before, but I have become certain that I have a calling, and that it is inextricably linked with my profession. As such, I have a patron god to whom I am pledged, who I believe has had some influence over my path, as it were. There is some evidence to support the notion that among the "Celts" ones patron deities were, when not household or familial, based upon profession or craft. Most of the Irish texts dealing with the Tuatha de Danann, suggest that most of them were associated with some skill, craft, art or profession; and it seems likely that if they are in some regards reflective of pre-Christian beliefs, the probability of different professions making sacrifices to specific deities is reasonably high. If profession is too specific, perhaps function is a better way of approaching these relationship; especially when one seeks (to some extent) map professions which simply did not exist to deities which may have associations with specific aspects of life.

I've wandered a bit, but it provides some necessary perspective on my part. I have no qualms, or regrets about my chosen career, and frankly I can not remember when I was ever so excited to get out of the classroom and into the workplace. There remains a lingering sense of something, which I am not able to put my finger on. I read the tales, and anyone familiar with them will be aware of how the great majority of the narratives focus on warriors and their deeds, and feel a connection with those individuals and my own aspirations and values. I understand that many of the "Celtic" values which are discussed, have their basis in what was a warrior-elite culture (or tradition of literature), and yet not being a warrior myself, can still see their value and worth as values and virtues to embody. I read fiction, watch films or listen to songs which will stir emotions in me, get my blood up and have me aching for a chance to scrap. This is one of the reasons I consider myself a fighter, as opposed to a warrior. Not that a warrior would have a different visceral response, but that how one responds to something is not (necessarily) what makes one a warrior.

I mentioned profession and its relation to function, and I think that if one calls themselves a warrior, they ought to be involved in some aspect of warring (or at the very least, fulfilling a function in which they employ martial means). The two most obvious being police and military (or inactive/ex members thereof), but there are others; security guards, full time martial artists/instructors, bouncers, etc., are all in some way making a living via their proclivity to function in a martial manner. I will admit that my definition is a bit different than others I have come across, a bit grittier than some of the more romantic ideas. I do balk a little at some of the more modern approaches where someone who practices martial arts in their spare time, and has read the hagakure or Book of Five Rings, considers themselves a warrior. I think one needs be engaged in combat or martial employment to be considered a warrior. As I am not in such a profession, I am not nor do I consider myself a warrior. I have an idea of what I would consider as being a warrior, and thus on a warriors path, but far be it from me to tell someone what they can and can't be. This is simply how I understand it.

I would love some feedback, especially from anyone who considers themselves a warrior or on a warrior path.

Gorm.

Polytheism and Catastrophe

2011-03-12T20:44:00.000-08:00

There is a popular bit of Japanese history, pertaining to the 13th century CE, involving the attempt of the Mongol army to invade the country. On both occasions the fleets were repelled and then subsequently destroyed by Typhoons. The term which was developed for this phenomenon would later be used by the Japanese during the Second World War, Kamikaze (wind of the gods). Ignoring the more recent appropriation of the term, the basis of the concept is essentially that the Kami (in this case, most often identified as Fūjin and Raijin) protected the Japanese islands (and subsequently the Japanese themselves) from invasion; in other words divine intervention. In this particular instance, divine intervention through a type of storm most commonly associated with "natural disasters". I have read, though for the moment have forgotten the source, that this resulted in a resurgence in the (then) waning belief in the tenants of Shinto, few could doubt the existence or influence of the Kami after such an obvious display of their power, and the benefit of cultivating the proper relationship with them.

This got me to thinking, well this and what occurred in Japan this week, about a polytheistic view of natural disasters, and what role (if any) deities play in them. I could go on and on about the sort of Christian triumphalist commentary I have seen regarding this (and past) disasters, and how the disaster correlated with some slight against the god of the Christians, but this has always been one of the issues under the wider scope of theodicy, so I'll leave the monotheists to worry about it. No, my thoughts fall on the relationship between deities who have overt or tacit associations with natural phenomena or features, and so called disasters.

In Irish sources, we can observe some examples, albeit it on a much smaller scale. In one tale, we learn that the arrival of the Tuatha De Dannan caused a three day solar eclipse. In another An Dagda is able to keep the sun in the sky for a full year, making it appear that only a single day has elapsed. During the mustering of the forces of the Tuatha De Dannan, we are told that the Cup Bearers will bring a great thirst upon the host of the Formoii, the Druids will rain down fire, and two "witches" will cause the trees, stones and sods to fight on the side of the TDD. In later tales, we learn that the mortal men of Ireland must cultivate a proper relationship with the gods in order to ensure good crops and herds. In other tales, we see that a Rí weds a tutelary goddess of sovereignty in order to foster plenty in his kingdom, and that want and even famine is a reflection of the state of the king and their fitness to rule. In the mythic, and some historic texts, we see then that there is a strong correlation between the gods and the natural environment. When we get to relationships between humans and deities, that link seems to be even stronger.

So then, what of natural disasters? Do we (as polytheists) simply accept that tectonic and seismic events resulted in a shift, leading to a massive earth quake and subsequent tsunami, or is there more to it? Is this an issue best explored through a combination of scientific knowledge and mythic thinking? Could a natural disaster ever be the result of pissing off a deity? Alternatively, could some environmental event which is beneficial be divine in origin? Is either of these perspectives too literal minded? I have a number of opinions myself, but I am curious what others think. If animistic and polytheistic deities are connected to (or have influence over) natural features and phenomena (which they often do), what role to they play in events which negatively or positively impact on the welfare of human societies?

Excerpt from Polybius

2011-02-04T21:32:00.000-08:00

*Warning Trigger*

I recently acquired my very own copy of "The Celtic Heroic Age" and have been pouring over the continental material as they are the sources I am least familiar with. There are a number of interesting sources, but for some reason I found this particular excerpt stood out more than many of the others. It could be the aspect of justice entailed, it could be the presentation of the juxtaposed gender role of a woman protecting her own "virtue", or it could be what I would consider an almost "Celtic" humour. Such sardonic humour is found in many of the medieval Irish texts, and it is interesting that it pops up in a Greek "historic" source from the 2nd century BCE as well. The excerpt if from Histories: 21.38.1-6:

By chance, one of the prisoners captured when the Romans defeated the Asian Galatae at Olympus was Chiomara, wife of Ortiagon. The centurion in charge of her took advantage of his soldierly opportunity and raped her. He was indeed a slave to both lust and money, but eventually his love of money won out. With a large amount of gold being agreed on, he led her away to be ransomed. There was a river between the two camps, and the Galatae crossed it, paid the ransom, and received the woman. When this was accomplished, she ordered one of them to with a nod to kill the Roman as he was making a polite and affectionate farewell. The man obeyed and cut off the centurion's head. She picked it up and rode off with it wrapped in the folds of her dress. When she reached her husband, she threw it at his feet. He was astonished and said, 'Wife, faithfulness is a good thing.' 'Yes,' she said, 'but it is better that only one man alive would have lain with me.'

Liminality

2011-01-28T18:38:00.000-08:00

Liminality; it is a term which many are unfamiliar with, to the extent that most spell checkers do not recognize it. For others, however, it is a concept which is of central importance. It has been my experience that anyone versed in the study of mythology is familiar, if not well versed, in discussions of liminality. My profession (well potential profession anyway) finds many of our activities occupying a very liminal period of time. From a GRP perspective, liminality is a central component of marking time and periods of significance.

Liminal, literally means threshold, the area between one area and another; the space in-between. A few people may be scratching their heads; a threshold? There is nothing significant about that, what amounts to little more than a few inches of space between where you are and where you are going. I'd argue though, that it is precisely because it is, quite literally "neither here, nor there" that it has occupied the imaginations of the folks who stop to think about just how powerful such a state really is. Borders have always been powerful, and much of how we understand, order and define space is based on the idea of what markers separate "here" from "there". Liminality; however, is not a way to create or define borders, because it is decidedly messier.

The ability to differing between two states can range from the simple to the complex. A dichotomy like inside and outside is far easier to define and understand, than say between life and death. Still, almost every culture has at some point defined what "life" and "death" mean. Since each of these aspects are so central to the human condition, the concept of liminality is of considerable importance when it comes to issues of death and dying. I mentioned earlier that my (eventual) profession is occupied with a liminal period, and that is between death and disposition. There is some sense, even among those who may not be religious, that the time between somatic death and final disposition (be it burial, entombment or cremation) is none the less an almost literal state of transition. I will have a lot more to say on this particular subject at a later date, but as I do not want to go off on a tangent; let me simply say that there is no other period in a persons life where I believe liminality is so apparent, than around a death.

In the lore, we encounter liminality all the time, for these are often where the important actions or events occur. In the Táin Bó Cúailnge, the majority of Cúchulain's combats occur at fords, areas of higher elevation creating shallow portions of a river or stream, which allow crossings. As rivers form natural barriers, the ford is a place in-between; a liminal area. The reason for the use of a ford as a battle ground is not simply for practical purposes, but because of the symbolism inherent in it as a liminal place. Similarly, the shore is also imbued with liminality, being the place between land and sea. The sea shore is often the place where the denizens of the otherworld interact with humans. In Immram Brain, we have Bran setting off for the otherworld in a coracle, and returning to this world and meeting folks on the shore. Of course as time flows differently, he appears to the inhabitants to be an otherwordly being himself and has become removed from the natural flow of time. Likewise the area's between land and sky, hilltops or mountains, also display the importance of liminality. While the strategic nature of building structures on higher elevations is quite clear, if one examines the tales, we find yet again the same sorts of symbolism associated. In one version of the arrival of the Tuatha De Danann, they arrive on clouds, causing a solar eclipse (more liminal symbolism) and "land" on a mountain top, before setting out to conquer Ireland.

Folklore too, is replete with activities which attest to the significance of liminal spaces or times. How often are door frames the place where charms are kept and windowsills where offerings are left?

Of all the holidays, Oíche Shamhna is the best example of a day which is in essence, dedicated to liminality. The day covers (or has been argued to be) the time between the new and old year. Further, the "veil" between this world and the otherworld, our realm and that of the gods, is thinnest. This had survived in folk beliefs through the belief that the veil between the living and the dead was also transversed with ease, and so one finds any number of divination customs in the texts. The idea that the ancestral spirits may also come to call, encouraged the setting of an extra place at a table, or leaving out of offerings for those wandering spirits. Conversely, as Lá Bealtaine in our world corresponds with Oíche Shamhna in the otherworld, the same symbolism (though to a lesser extent) is also observable in folks activities around that time as well.

"Civic Religion"

2011-01-18T19:43:00.000-08:00

This is a bit of an odd post, but was the best way I could think of discussing the subject. A bit of background first. Last week Police sergeant Ryan Russell, was struck and killed by a (deranged) man who had stolen a snow plow. The public outpouring of grief from my city; from politician to plebeian, radio host to new anchor, journalist to blogger. There was a two day visitation, during which hundreds of people lined up outside the funeral home to offer their condolences. Today was the funeral, a procession of around 8000 police officers from Toronto, around the GTA and even from the US marched down a major thoroughfare, itself lined with somber faced civilians, to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. The funeral service was held in the MTCC, and by the time the service began, some 14 000 people had come out. Many dignitaries associated with the Police, a former Chief turned MP (who had sworn the fallen officer into the service), Current Chief Bill Blair, among them, gave eulogies and sympathies for the family, both personal and professional. The service was long, punctuated with music and speeches, but the solemnity of the day was not lost on anyone. The final farewell for a hero, who had, as his wife so eloquently spoke, “Ryan put others before himself. On Jan. 12, this cost him his life.”

Such an event is very rare, this being the first fatality involving an on duty Police officer in almost a decade. Very public, and generally widely supported. Of course there are a few voices of dissent, that the entire thing was "over the top", or a "PR campaign to boost the image of Metro Cops", who admittedly have been under a good deal of public scrutiny surrounding the events during the G20 conference in June 2010. Despite this sort of cynicism, however, I believe that this is a striking example of what I would call "civic religion".

One may observe "civic religion" in many of the events which seem to permeate a give community, though more often than not, it is at its finest when giving reverence for the dead. There is a sacredness associated with those who have died in the service of community, of province and of country. In the case of the war dead, it has been formalized for almost a century. Even now, a significant portion of the main artery of southern Ontario, the 401, has been dedicated as the "highway of heroes" and all of the men and women who have been killed in Afghanistan, have made their way down this stretch of highway. People still line up on over-passes waving flags or saluting, motorists will pull over to the side of the road to allow the motorcades transporting the fallen, to pass.

The word "hero" is almost always used by those who wish to honour the life and sacrifice of those who are willing to, and have, given their lives in service to others. Yet this cynicism remains, "the only reason he's a 'hero' is because he was killed" or similar sentiments may accompany discussion, some times in hushed tones, sometimes in screaming derision. The very word "hero", itself derived from the Greek hērōs, itself (likely) derived from the Proto-Indo-European *ser (to watch over, protect) entails those who are charged, by community and state with protecting those who can not. In the tales, we see this time and time again, the function of a hero above all else, is the defense of his kith and kin. I think the people who see things so cynically, have a very deep misunderstanding of what "heroic" means, of the value of a life in general, and more so for the life of a person who was willing to live in service to others. It is because of the way they lived their lives, and not simply the manner of their death, that makes someone a hero, and thus worthy of respect, if not reverence.

My heart goes out to the family of Sgt. Russell, and may he be warmly welcomed in the halls of his ancestors.

Appeasing hostility

2011-01-05T16:53:00.000-08:00

This pertains to one of the stronger instances of UPG I have had, which involves a very negative experience. This happened a few years ago, and was the singular instance where I have experienced a distinct urge to run and not look back. A bit of background info then. I have always been fairly comfortable around the dead, be it at a funeral or in a cemetery; one of the reasons I have chosen the career I am in us because of my level of comfort. I rather enjoy cemeteries actually, and there are quite a few nice ones scattered around the city I live in. Often times my fiance and I will drive to one and walk around, especially the ones who have older monuments. The long and short of it is that I have never been uncomfortable in a cemetery; never found it weird or creepy.

Now, a few years back I was visiting a mausoleum with my fiance, her uncle had a vault in it, and I was doing perfectly well before we entered. Upon entering the structure however, I became increasingly apprehensive. We climbed the stairs to get to the second floor and I became very uncomfortable. The longer I remained in the building, the more I felt unwelcome, as if some oppressive force was really annoyed with my presence and wanted me to get out. At this point, my fiance had noticed my colour was a little drained and inquired what was wrong. "I need to leave, right now" I replied . "Why?" she asked, "You've never had a problem before". "Something really, really doesn't want me here." I responded, and the feeling was only getting worse. It was at this point that I remembered an article I had read, which was written by a couple of Celtic Recons, appropriately titled: "KILLYOUANDEATYOU: or a well intentioned Celt's guide to non-Celtic bio-regions". At this point, it certainly felt like something wanted to do just that, and I walked as calmly as I could out of the building, and did not stop until he feeling had subsided. Fortunately it did so almost as soon as I was past the threshold. I have not been back to that building since. It was a markedly odd event, but one which makes no sense to me except through the lens of UPG.

And now, my dilemma. This particular mausoleum is fairly new and frequented by an almost exclusively Catholic clientele. The funeral home I will be working for, is fairly close to it, and is also almost exclusively Catholic's who often favour entombment. Therefore it is exceedingly likely that in the near future I will have to go back to this mausoleum. I am then in need of some method of appeasing or reaching some sort of understanding with the spirit(s) of place, and I am at a loss as to how to go about doing this. It is publicly accessible, so I could fairly easily get in and try to leave an offering, though I am then at a loss with regards to what I should leave. It would be rather helpful if anyone had some suggestions or sources they could direct me to. I've gone through the article I mentioned above, but unfortunately I am (likely) not going to be in a position where leaving "well enough alone" is a possibility open to me.

Gorm.

PS: I wonder if perhaps posting this on the GN mailing list may also elicit some suggestions from those who do not read my blog?

Etiquette in another's house of worship

2011-01-01T23:43:00.000-08:00

This is an issue I often have some difficulty with, because what my own gods expect from me is quite different than what other people's deities expect from them; though my understanding is that most of the cultural polytheistic world views are similar to my own. So the appropriate response for me when interacting with folks who are doing a ritual with deities I do not worship (a dirty word for some, but I take the word at face value) is often to simply not participate in those rituals; and generally no one bats an eye.

There is, however, a bit of a dilemma when I am expected to perform specific actions in the context of my (current/future) profession, especially in a Christian, and specifically Catholic context. There is a remarkably high likelihood that I will very soon be working for a funeral home which caters to an overwhelmingly Catholic clientele. As far as I know, the fact that I am not a Catholic is perfectly fine, this may change, I will know more at a later date, but I do not expect it to. No my issue is with a specific action pertaining to my duties as an FDA/FD, and that involves the practice of genuflection. My experience working Catholic funerals has involved some sort of genuflection, unless specified by the funeral home to not do so, in all cases.

I fear I may simply be over thinking the entire thing, after all a genuflection is not a sign of obeisance so much as it is one of respect. Given that I am in the house of worship of another deity, I suppose a little respect is not a lot to ask for, even if I do not particularly care for said deity. I suppose so long as I am able to separate the notion of genuflecting from prostrating, I haven't really anything to worry about. Plus, I suppose it would be the hospitable thing to do as well, showing respect to the "master of a house" is proper etiquette after all, and I would most certainly be a guest in said "house".

I would love to have some feedback on this one.

Gorm.

Christmas, etc.

2010-12-23T20:45:00.000-08:00

I have to admit that this post is in large part due to the conversations abounding in the polytheistic blogosphere; let it never be said that I will not jump on a band wagon when it is playing a tune I like!

So Christmas, Yuletide, the Holiday Season. Christian v Pagan, Religious v Secular, and all that hullabaloo. It`s been done, and likely better than I could surmise here. So I will take a different tack, and simply talk about why Christmas is important to me.

I suppose it bears a brief discussion of the religious aspects ( I know, I know, I said I wouldn't but what kind of polytheist blog woudl this be without a little religious content?). Christmas, for me, has never really been a religious holiday. My parents would probably both label themselves some kind of Christian, though I was raised in a rather agnostic household. Christmas in my home was not about creches, wise-men or infant demigods, but rather evergreens, decorations and family. Oddly enough, any sort of religious context would have been gleaned from the Christmas carols we sung at school, in the Christmas pageant, or in conversations I did not quite understand at the time, with school mates. No, Christmas has always been secular for me, and perhaps I am better able to continue the celebration of it, despite not adhering to the religious significance most others associate it with.

From the other aspect, as a Gaelic polytheist, the solstice is not something which tends to be marked. I understand this may strike some people as odd, as the vast majority of Pagans mark the solstices and equinoxes in some way or another. Heck, even a lot of Druids will mark the solar markers are important, and point to structures like New Grange and some other passage tombs, which do seem to have some correlation with the solar events, as proof that the pre-Christian Gaels did acknowledge them. My argument, would simply be that while the neolithic structures do (likely) correspond, they are neolithic, not Iron age. As such, there is nothing in any of the extant texts which show that the pre-Christian Gaels had any kind of celebrations or festivals pertaining to the solstices and equinoxes. This is often a major point of contention between a lot of modern Druids, Celtic polytheists and Reconstructionists, and gets back to the debate about whether or not sun worship or solar deities were a part of pre-Christian Celtic religion. Other than a few epithets, pertaining to shinning ones (which have a number of interpretations) and the earnest, but now highly doubted, Celticists of the late 19th century, there simply are no reliable sources which support the idea that the Celts were sun worshipers. Further, there is nothing in the existing folklore or festivals which bear any mention of celebrations of the solstices and equinoxes. The consensus is that the pre-Christian Gaelic calendar probably revolved around the cycle of the harvest and livestock, and this is reflected in the texts and folklore, via the so called "cross quarter days". As such, there is little religious content from my current beliefs either, and so I will wish people a Blessesed or Joyous Yuletide, but do not celebrate Yule either, though I can appreciate that what I have always associated Christmas with, is decidedly pre-Christian in origin.

But I digress. Christmas to me, has always been about decorations, music, feasting and family. However task of decorating our Christmas tree has always stood out in my mind as the quintessential Christmas memory. For almost all the years until I was in my late teens, we would harvest our own tree. This would involve getting up early, dressing myself and my two younger brothers in full snow regalia, piling into my father's pickup, and driving to a smallish town north of Toronto. We would arrive, pile out, and traipse through the parking lot, past the pre-cut trees lined up near a barn, and line up to hitch a ride on the wagon. Now the wagon was pulled either by two rather large Clydesdale's, or less enchantingly, a tractor. Needless to say we preferred getting the horses. We would then ride out, along with other families, through the tree farm, until we reached the section we wanted. Most of the time we would get spruce, the needles were fairly sharp, but they were a lot more manageable than pine, and held ornaments better than fir. We would systematically walk up and down the rows, seeking out that particular tree. Generally it was my father and mother doing the searching; my brothers and I would be running around, trying to pelt each other with snowballs. Eventually one tree would be chosen, and cut down using a bow-saw (my father owned a remarkably large assortment of tools). We would then carry it out to the wagon trail and await an empty cart. I should mention that b this point, what was pulling the wagon was secondary to what would get us back to the entrance, which had a bonfire, hot chocolate and a Santa walking around handing out candy canes. The tree would be wrapped, and we would truck it out to the pickup. The drive back was more subdued, due to the fact that we had spent the afternoon running about in foot deep snow. We would carry the tree in through the sliding glass doors we had, and stand it up in a large bucket, filled with sand. My father had worked out long ago that a sand filled bucket was far better than a plastic or metal tree stand; our tree would remain green well into the new year. The tree would then be untied, and left to stand over night.

Some time the following day, my mother would haul out the box of decorations and we would begin trimming the tree. We would pop one of several Christmas cassettes into the player, which would belt out standards; to this day, as much as some people revile the song, "simply having a wonderful Christmas time" complete with synthesized chorus, is still my favourite Christmas song. We had a variety of ornaments, many of which we still have today, tucked away in boxes somewhere. The lights would be the first to go on, and we had a couple of different styles of strings; some which were flower shaped, with small foil petals which would reflect the light, others of a more traditional variety where if one bulb failed, they all would. One year we bought a little timer, which would allow the lights to come on in patterns, and the that was very cool. Our tree topper was always a star, and when I think of it now, the thing was awfully gaudy. Five individual lights, with small reflective foil, and ornamented with blue tinsel fringes, but it was OUR star, and I have yet to see another like it. Our ornaments ranged from the traditional glass balls, or various sizes and colours, a growing number of ornaments made by myself or my brothers, those which commemorated each of our first Christmases, these sort of ridiculous stuffed men who had hockey jerseys on, and my mothers favourites, small glass birds which had fiber-optic wings and attached to the tree on these little clips. They were ancient, and very fragile and we couldn't touch them, but there were something to behold. We would then add either strings of metallic garland, or metallic beads. Finally a liberal draping of tinsel "icicles" would complete the trimming. We would then spend the rest of the day decorating the rest of the house.

To me, that was (and is) what Christmas was about; spending time with my family, expending hours of time in an effort to deck our home in Christmas cheer. I may be overly sentimental, and frankly there is little that I am really sentimental about, but at the end of the day it wasn't about the gifts, or the food, or the jingles or spirituality, it was about spending time together as a family. And really, that is why I continue to celebrate the holiday, and hope to pass on my family's traditions.

Oh those Victorian sources...

2010-12-21T20:33:00.000-08:00

Alas, it is still a work in progress, though I now find myself with a good deal of free time as I am free of classes for three weeks. I have started thoroughly reading through a good number of texts, and am finding a lot of very useful information.

However, I am also continually reminded of the hindrance that comes from relying on sources from the late 19th century. I can easily look past the sun worship references, that is very easy. It is all the other little Victorian biases which are so glaring as to make me have to really dig for useful info. A "Fijian" tribe of aborigines practiced cannibalism, as apparently all other barbaric savages, and so it is to be expected that the early Irish, being only slightly removed from such status would have done likewise. Oh, and tying the Fomorii, Fir Bolg and Tuatha De Danann to the extent that remains found MUST relate to this or that story we happen to have, are amusing at first, but soon become very irritating.

At least the bits pertaining to what was then contemporary folk practices is a lot more useful once you get used to the unabashed "anti-Irish racism" (you'd think someone would have come up with a better term for this by now?) and general superior attitude so common among Anglo commentators. Still, with little recourse, and a very critical eye, and an inordinate amount of cross checking with more modern sources, I am learning quite a lot which will be of great use overall.

"Jesus loves you"... Really?

2010-12-06T11:55:00.000-08:00

I stopped into a grocery store this afternoon, on my way home form school. It was all rather mundane, until a chipper girl with a sing-song voice came up from behind me and told me that "Jesus loves you". She preceded to literally skip away, repeating this message to other shoppers. I was at an utter loss for words. I simply had no idea how to respond without: seeming like a jerk or being unnecessarily glib. Off the top of my head I could think of several theological reasons why such a statement would be untrue, but I did not want to get into a discussion about theology while I was shopping.

Upon reflection, I am not sure why I did not want to engage. I will engage in conversations with people who happen to be discussing theological issues, people handing out tracts, manic street preachers, and even those folks who deliver themselves right to you door. What was it then that kept my tongue behind my teeth in this instance? If it is anything it would probably be civility; I could not think of an appropriate response which would have instigated a conversation without seeming overly hostile. Civility is a very good thing, and I do wish it was practiced in a more general way. In this case though, did I let someone make a statement with a good deal of inferred meaning, say so without response, simply because I was worried I would be looked upon as a jerk? I believe this is the case, and it is only upon reflection that I realize I have done a great disservice to myself.

I will preclude this next bit by saying that I may very well in fact be over-analyzing the whole scenario. What is entailed in the statement "Jesus loves you"? There are the obvious elements of omnibenevolence ascribed to Jesus, and the Christian god; "their infinite love for you is only a conversion away, and they want you to know they are concerned about you, well actually they are concerned for your immortal soul. For while they love you dearly, they will not tolerate disobedience. So if you reject their love, well eternal torment is the least you deserve for refusing such a divine gift." That sums up my position on the implied meaning, or logical conclusion of the initial statement. It also touches on the "alright, well why should I care?" angle, as their is an implied value to this "love" in so much as one should care becuase "it is only through the love of Christ Jesus that you can be saved". I am curious what the response would have been to: "Well my gods are fairly indifferent to you, but wish you no particular ill will?" I suppose not having "soundbites" makes for a more awkward delivery.Likewise for not revering deities who seek universal worship.

As always, I question whether this proselytization effort was intended to develop into a discussion, or simply a "drive by" proclamation? Was the girl cognizant of the implied message behind her words, or was she simply trying to spread a little good will? Does intent matter more than meaning? Does ignorance of the problematic nature of a given message excuse an unintentionally condescending comment? Or am I simply reading far too much into this?

Gorm.

Rememberance Day

2010-11-11T08:40:00.000-08:00

On the eleventh hour, of the eleventh month of the year 1918, the sounds of artillery and gunfire were silenced across Europe. The Great War had ended. On this day, at this hour, we remember those who gave their lives fighting for the ideals that our country were founded upon. We remember all the men and women, who gave all that they were, and all they ever would be, who paid with their blood, that we may continue, and our nation endure. War goes on, our soldiers continue to fight and die, we continue to remember. I am heartened, that despite it all, people continue to honour our ancestors and our heroes, and Canadians do so in grand style, with somber reflection. In a culture full of endless white noise, it is remarkable that people, even the very young, will for but a moment in time stop and listen to the silence, and with due gravitas reflect on the sacrifices of all those who came before us, and all those who continue to serve us.

I thank the gods I live in such a nation.

Polytheism and "everyone else"

2010-11-03T04:07:00.000-07:00

We are alone, and we have only each other to rely on, because outside our small circle of fellow polytheists, the world for the most part, has no idea we even exist. It used to be that we could point to Hinduism as a beacon of polytheism stretching back for thousands of years, and in some ways this is still true. However, the more I converse with western Hindu's, and the more one actually researches the religion, the clearer it becomes that Hinduism in a broad sense, is pantheistic at its core, and polytheistic at the periphery.

"Ekam Sataha Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti," which may be translated: "The truth is One, but different Sages call it by Different Names"

This concept is also reflective of many inclusive forms of monotheism, especially that found among Unitarian Universalists. "Everyone is free to worship as they please, because at the end of the day, we're all worshiping the same force or divine spark." As someone who participates on a number of interfaith forums, I have lost count of the number of times these kind of condescending platitudes have been trucked out, in the name of inclusiveness. I find myself repeating, ad nauseum, that this just doesn't encompass my beliefs at all, that it is a simplistic dismissal of an outlying position, and that most folks simply do not care to contemplate the idea any further.

Often, people will admit that I may be worshiping actual, potent beings, but not gods; or at least not "top of the heap", "proper" gods. Those same people will then point to the only sort of polytheism they know, and wax about how chaotic the universe would be if the forces behind it behaved as the Olympians or Roman deities. Little more than squabbling gods who are seen as selfish, petty and tyrannical (yes, these attributes are found only among polytheistic deities, a monotheistic deity could never be any of these things...) Of course, such folks often have little critical understanding of those deities or the myths we have of them.

That last bit is really my point in all this, people have no clue that my gods are not their god(s). Why is this so horrendously difficult for people to wrap their heads around? I have listed a few ideas but there are any number of others.

Do not get me wrong, I'm used to being an outlier; being that (often) solitary voice in discussions on theology who throws a wrench into the monistic language. I'm just mildly agitated with this insipid notion of inclusiveness based on some unified godhead which I am unknowingly worshiping, and only if I truly understood, would the truth become known to me. Because, all those different conceptions of deity couldn't point to their being, you know, different deities?

I am not blindly groping an elephant, and I'm on a totally different mountain!

Gorm.

Elegy for the ancestors

2010-11-01T10:32:00.000-07:00

The twilight of age gives way to death, and loss becomes the center of our lives in the spaces between. It is important to remember though, that grief in its time will also pass away. Those who have gone on before us may have abandoned their bodies, but their memory remains. They remain with those of us who knew them, who loved them, and whose lives they touched.

For what is remembered, lives.

The road ahead is long, and those who walk along it are no strangers to pain. Loss and separation are antithetical to us as social animals, yet death itself is no more abhorrent than being born or growing old. For in the end it is not death, but rather, the seeming finality of that "last separation", which is at the center of our grief. I think back to the ancients and their perspective; and for all our "advancements", those who came before us in all their "superstition", did not treat death as an aberration, but understood it as part of the process of living, if the final act therein.

I am not certain what comes next, though I do have my opinions on the matter.

I honour the dead this day,
I give thanks and praise
to those who came before me:
It was they who fought
but who also had peace
It was they who suffered
but who also had joy
It was they who sacrificed
but who also prospered
It was they who died
but who also lived

If I am able to live as they did
with honour and courage
with wisdom and justice
with hospitality and truth
when on the last day
I am to stand before them
in their hallowed halls
and be asked what did you do
I can answer with pride
that I lived as they lived

Gorm.

Giving Thanks

2010-10-09T22:56:00.000-07:00

This weekend marks the Canadian celebration of Thanksgiving, and this evening my fiance and I had the pleasure of hosting our very first Thanksgiving dinner. It was not a lavish affair, and her mother prepared the Turkey, though we did make some ham, maple glazed carrots, mashed potatoes and home made cranberry sauce. The conversation was muted as people seemed to be enjoying their fare, which is always an excellent method of telling if they liked your cooking or not ;).

I do see this time as a period of reflection, and seems fitting that it leads up to Oíche Shamhna and the beginning of the dark half of the year. I am beginning to make a habit of including civil holidays into my practices, and understanding them through a GP context. I do usually cook a nice meal on Oíche Shamhna, fitting as it is the traditional end of the harvest in Gaelic communities.Thanksgiving has been a staple celebration in my family, where feasting is mandatory, for as long as I can remember. It is also a decidedly family oriented event, about sharing the bounty of the harvest and the blessing we have received, and hope to receive in the following year.

I find it is an excellent time to begin intensifying the inclusion of worship of the honoured dead, culminating on Oíche Shamhna, and extending into November for Remembrance Day, when we honour those who fell in defense of our nation. Of course for those who are not Canadian, Thanksgiving occurs later in the calendar year. There being no Rememberence day, Veterans Day is celebrated at the same time, and Memorial Day occurring in May, its applicability is perhaps less so. Nonetheless, I do find myself very mindful of the ancestors around this time of the year, but then again liminality will do that.

So what am I thankful for? I am thankful for my fiance, for my hound and for my family. I am thankful for being on the road to what I am supposed to be doing with my life. I am thankful for the guidance of the gods, the sacrifices of the ancestors and the beneficence of the land spirits.

Gorm.

Theism and popular culture

2010-10-05T18:42:00.000-07:00

So I just finished watching an episode of Glee, which I watch with my fiance, but I also enjoy; sarcastic humour has always appealed to me, and I am a sucker for show tunes. However tonight's episode focused on "spirituality." What I (and the shows writers) mean by spirituality, is monotheism.

I'd be naive to say I did not see this coming, in fact I "called it" soon after I read the program description. No, I was not surprised, but still, a slight disappointment did creep out as I watched the episode. For a show that is considerably tolerant with its treatment of minorities and acutely culturally aware (if in a tongue and cheek manner), their treatment of "spirituality" was decidedly homogeneous. The prevailing message of the episode was that "everyone believes in something"; do you hear that atheists, apparently even you believe in "something". Just in case you were wondering, that "something"? Turns out it is the god of monotheism.

The writers were very careful to limit their use of "religion", and so instead they peppered the episode with "spirituality". They were not so careful with the object of spirituality, God. Of course they come at the topic from different religious perspectives: Judaism, Catholicism and Protestantism. "Three different religions, so someones prayers had to reach God." Yes, lets all marvel at the lovely interfaith work of people who, while members of different religions, all still manage to worship God. Hooray for inclusiveness! "Spirituality" then, is simply how people learn to express their love and devotion to the god of monotheism, with or without a religious filter. So you're not Jewish, or you're not a Protestant, well you can still believe in God; how lucky you are! It was never stated in the episode itself, but the idea that, "You don't believe in God? Well, He believes in you!" was certainly there in spirit.

So when I constantly talk about the overt cultural dominance of monotheism in every facet of discussion on the subject of religion? When I sigh and wish there was a little more diversity in the discussion of theism? That I get excited when someone who isn't a polytheist, includes polytheism in a discussion of theology? This illustrates why.

Gorm.

Religion and Reason

2010-10-04T20:33:00.000-07:00

There exists a climate these days, nothing new mind you, in which people will often call into question the religious beliefs of another.I have no problem with critically exploring religious beliefs, but more often than not the kind of attitude I am speaking about is based on little more than a knee jerk reaction. Often this reaction is built upon a very shallow understanding of some aspect of that religion. If this sounds familiar, wait until I've finished the rest of my intro; because this is not an attitude which is found only among the "usual suspects." No in this case those who often criticize the fundamentalist's intolerance, are found in their company when confronted with a religion that is too "out there". Religious tolerance it seems is a fickle thing, even among those who claim to defend it.

My favourite "whipping boy" in this case is Scientology. You will notice that I did not use a $ sign to replace the S, but it happens more often than not. I am, of course, not a Scientologist; nor do I ascribe to any of their beliefs even in the slightest. I am also critical of the structure of their religious organization, the Church of Scientology. Though unknown to most people, there are many Scientologists who are not members of the Church; so called "Free Zone" Scientologists. I can accept, and in fact share, most of the criticisms of the CoS, however I may differ from most in not finding anything particularly odd about their beliefs.

I mean really think about it, how odd are their beliefs compared to any number of world religions? Judaism; why they pray to an invisible sky man, who revealed his universal wisdom by turning into a burning bush, seen by one guy. Christianity; well they worship the same sky man, but also his zombie son; many of them do this through ritualistic cannibalism. Islam; same sky man, but this time revealed to a guy in a cave who ended up having a lot of wives. Hinduism; a million gods who are all the same god, but then you're not even you, but we. Buddhism: try to emulate a Indian prince who decided poverty was awesome, and owning things is the root of all evil; they seek enlightenment by thinking about weird things.

Part of my point is that anything can be made to sound ridiculous or terrible if you word it the right way, and focus on some detail, taken out of context. Many people would dismiss my points as shallow, erroneous and mischaracterizations of their religious traditions, and they would be right because they are. However there remains a kernel of truth in each statement, skewed as they may be. So people are also willing to ignore, or explain away the odd things which may exist in their traditions, but are not willing to extend that to others, especially minority religions.

Aside from this is a notion of efficacy, or reasonableness. I will provide a short comparison, between one of the oldest forms of religion, animism, and the default in the West, Christianity. From the Christian perspective, worshiping rocks, trees, rivers and mountains is the height of primitiveness; ignorant, superstitious and backwards. Why worship some dirt and pebbles, when you can pray to the supreme creator of the universe, and his son who died to give you the gift of immortality in the life to come? Well from an objective standpoint, it is the Christian, and not the animist, who hasn't got a leg to stand on. While one can not prove that rocks, trees, rivers and mountains have spirits, it can be proven that they exist. The Christian god on the other hand can not.

The practical effects of the objects of worship for the animist are tangible and far more influential than those of the Christian. A tree for example, can provide shelter from the elements, protection from predators, fuel for a fire, sticks to make tools, fruit to sustain you. The Christian god can not provide shelter, protection, fuel, tools or food, except in abstract or symbolic ways. Is it not eminently more sensible, since there are objective material benefits, to give praise and thanks to the objects which allow you to survive, rather than some disembodied sky man? Why then is animism held to be primitive or superstitious, when it is so much more practical than many so called modern religions? Little more than special pleading, or appeal to authority.

Gorm.

The extent of "Paganism"

2010-09-27T20:07:00.000-07:00

This blog was inspired by a recent discussion I have been having on an interfaith forum.

The discussion focused around the need for a spokesperson to speak for Paganism. My position on the idea was that it was at best misguided and at worst, terrible. The crux of my opposition is that Paganism is so disparate, so varied that the idea of a spokesperson trying to speak for all, would result in a huge swath of those who find themselves under the umbrella ignored. The problem of course is that Paganism is an almost useless term when it comes to describing a belief system; because in its modern conception it means whatever one wants it to. The fact is that there are always outliers who throw a wrench into any kind of consensus among those who use the term.

Think about it, I mean really think about it; what do so called Pagan religions actually have in common? Nature worship; a vague concept in and of itself, but there are those who would not call their practices nature worship, I'm one of them. Polytheism; yes a lot of those religions under the umbrella are polytheistic, but some are monotheistic (admittedly rare), duotheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, agnostic and even atheistic. Okay, no Pagans worship the Abrahamaic god right? Nope, there are both Christo-Pagans and Judeo-Pagans. Belief in or practice of magick; again many "Pagan" religions do not. Holy days which are based on the natural rhythms of the earth? Certainly more often than not, but again not every day is linked to seasonal patterns, they may in fact be based on a particular deity. Worship or belief in "the Goddess", certainly not, but indicative of the popular imagination and relative influence of eclectic neoWicca and "Paganism 101" books. A shared developmental history? True in some cases but not others, Asatru for example developed independently from "Paganism" and only later was placed under the umbrella. Of course not all Asatruars were happy with their inclusion, and so the use of the term Heathen came to prominence, as a way to differentiate between them and other Pagans. There is a similar push among many in the reconstructionist camp to do something similar.

The other consideration is that even if many "Pagan" religions share some of the above, they are also not the only ones who do so. Concern for the environment, different conceptions of deity, use of magic(k), seasonal holy days, etc. are found among many religions which do not fall under the umbrella. Yoruba and Santeria, for example may have many parallels to some of the "Pagan" religions, but are decidedly not classed as such.

What then is the use of "Paganism" as an umbrella term, when it does not really describe anything? We could certainly go back to more classical definitions; all those religions and beliefs outside the JCI model, but again that does little to impart meaning other than they aren't worshiping the god of Abraham (and then what about those poor Christo/Judeo-Pagans?) A friend of mine pointed out that even the old "getting Pagans to agree on anything is like herding cats" is not apt; cats at least are all the same creature. It is, she contends, more like herding cats, dogs and ferrets.

What then do "Pagan" religions really have in common with each other than they do not have in common with other religions? What do "Pagans" get from grouping themselves together, that other interfaith networking would not achieve?

Personally I think the existing structures and communities (web forums, mailing lists, conventions, PPD, etc.) more than anything prevent many from understanding how disparate "we" really are. Not that I am opposed to groups like the Pagan Pride Project, or interfaith online forums, I'm not. I am aware that differences exist, and are not mere quibbles or hair splitting; they are core beliefs which are not readily glossed over. I have participated in my local PPD for almost as long as I have been a polytheist, but I have not participated in their group ritual, because it is little more than a Wiccanesque framework with a variety of different deities called upon depending on the officiants that year. I do not blame them, but it is a ritual framework which is as foreign to me as a Catholic liturgy, and so I abstain from participation.

It has taken me some time to understand just why so many in the CR community are distancing themselves from "Paganism" as a label which describes their beliefs, but it has become fairly apparent.
Thoughts?

Gorm.

P.S.: I would also like to point to an essay by Devyn Gillette and Lewis Stead, The Pentagram and the Hammer, which explores the differences between Asatru and Wicca.

Polytheism and you

2010-09-23T19:19:00.000-07:00

I'm used to the typical discussions about religion where they happen; after all religion and politics are the two things not to be discussed in polite company. In most cases some people may be sitting around a table and drift onto some "out there topic" which gets tied into religion and peoples opinions on God. That is usually it, monotheism by default. "Are you religious ?" is code for "what church do you belong to?". So unless you are a visible minority (in which case Jew, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist), the default assumption is some denomination of Christian. Even in the off chance that one extends the discussion to include non-believers, the discussion is couched in terms of monotheism. "Oh, you're not a Christian, so why don't you believe in God?" is something I have been asked on several occasions.

The either/or dichotomy, and the defacto monotheistic perspective are facts of life for those living in western cultures, I understand that. I get that a lot of people do not spend absorbent amounts of time contemplating the divine, and if they do, it is a contemplation of the nature of the Abrahamaic god. Understanding this however, does little to soothe my ire at having any discussion, be they layman or scholarly, couched in terms of a monotheistic conception of deity. There are other options, and for someone who is a dyed in the wool polytheist, it gets old. So most of the interfaith discussions I wind up contributing to are among pagans or other polytheists.

However, something amazing occurred today. I was in my ethics class, and the instructor was lecturing about how to make a strong argument, and got to talking about making an argument without facts. Someone asked what sort of arguments one could make without facts, and she replied, "well, arguing for the existence of a god...." My ears perked up, had I heard right? Maybe I had, for the remainder of the class I had that statement gnawing at the back of my mind. After class I approached the instructor and asked her why she worded her statement that way. She looked at me with a kind of flustered look, unsure of what to say, then simply said "some people believe in more than one god." Elation! I found out shortly after, that she had been concerned that she had somehow offended me by stating her phrase just so.

Why does this matter at all? Well that little "a" makes all the difference. For all of the times I have ever discussed religion, or the nature of deity, unless I was speaking to another polytheist I was always the one mentioning that there were perspectives other than monotheism. That someone who is not a polytheist (as far as I know) casually stated her argument to the class as "a god" and not just "God", makes all the difference. It means, in some small way, that people (who are not polytheists) are actually accepting that polytheism is a valid way of understanding deity.

Thoughts?

Gorm.

Judging others...

2010-09-17T20:20:00.000-07:00

I ought to start by saying that I may in fact be a dick.

Having gotten that out of the way, I often come across the sentiment that "judging others" is bad, and I have a hypothesis as to why many feel such an opinion has merit, but I find it decidedly hypocritical. People judge others all the time, what seems to throw people off is the context. I have found (this is anecdotal of course, ymmv) that few people have difficulty judging criminals, or people who cut them off while driving, or people who are rude to them. However were someone to turn the judging eye upon such folks, they are often the first to say, "You can't judge me!" or call you a condescending "bleep". Why is it fine for some people to be judged, but not others? Hypocrisy more often than not is the reason. What remains to be answered, though, is why the idea of judging itself is held to be problematic.

I can think of a number of reasons, and the two which come to the fore are relativism (and its stepchild, individualism) and the influence of Christian ethics. To explore the first in its entirety could (and has) fill several volumes of texts, but I will discuss it in short. The individualist perspective, that ones opinion is as valid as the next is not necessarily a bad thing, and forms the basis for many constitutions and charters. However it is also often untrue, the opinion of an expert in any given situation is stronger than the opinion of Joe Everyman on the same subject. Why do people seek out specialized professions for their needs (be it education, auto-repair, law, medical aid, IT, etc.) if everyone's opinions or knowledge base is equal? It could be argued that knowledge or skill is a separate category from opinion, but opinion is simply how one expresses their perspective, itself informed by their knowledge or skill set. The fact is that people who are more knowledgeable are recognized as being the people to ask for advice or services, and so their opinions are given more weight than others. Clearly then, not all opinions are equal.

Standards then, are the other part of the individualist dilemma. What is good or bad, what is proper or sloppy, what is noble or craven? It depends entirely on the context, and the values of a given society, culture or group. What each means does vary from individual to individual, and so the idea of judging someone else becomes problematic because one can not possibly know what paradigm they are coming from, right? Well no actually. Most of us live in nation states, with laws which provide a basic guide for acceptable behaviour. I do differentiate between law and ethics/morality, because law is a bare bones approach to develop a standard, while ethics/morality are often exemplary models for behaviour; doubly so because I do ascribe to the idea of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics are an interesting thing, because they differ from the more common deontological ethics, that being ethics as adherence to rules (often held to be universal). One is virtuous because they embody certain virtues, rather than following rules; one is focused on the individual, the other on what everyone should be doing. The great irony is that many people would find their conception of ethics are deontological, yet the same folks often do not believe in "judging others."

Why would people who believe that good behaviour is based on adherence to laws or rules, find judging others a problem? Doesn't the fact that there are guidelines make judging easier? It does, but you will note that I said many people would conceive deontological ethics as ethical system they follow, but this is more to do with how they conceive what constitutes ethics, as opposed to what they believe is actual ethical behaviour. This in itself stems from a hybrid holdover of a predominantly Christian world view. YHWH established a set of laws for humanity, and humanity utterly failed to live up to those standards. YHWH had to send his son to absolve people of this fact, people who accept this sacrifice are absolved of their "sins", people are then free to try their best again, but understand they will never be good enough on their own. This entire belief is alien, and belittling to me, but I'm not a Christian.

One would think that in a religion where there are innumerable laws and commandments from their deity, that they'd be willing to jump at the chance to judge others. In reality, this is actually often how it plays out, though again we come to the problem of standards; I consider myself an ethical person, but from the perspective of a Christian, I would be wholly unethical. The verse most often quoted is Matthew 7:1-6, itself depending on the interpretation of the Christian. More liberal Christians (again ymmv) would claim it is a condemnation of judging altogether, conservative Christians on the other hand, would claim it is a statement about avoiding hypocrisy. In this case, I tend to agree with the later, in its context it speaks about ensuring you are not condemning something you yourself have done. Likewise, John 8:7, states that he who is without sin, may cast the first stone, a slightly better example of what I am getting at. Since everyone is guilty of sin, humans (alone) are not able to judge others because they themselves are naturally awful. If we extricate the religious aspects, we find a common belief when it comes to ethics in the modern West, nobody's perfect.

Since nobody is perfect, how can people then turn around and judge others? "What gives you the right to judge me, you're no better than me!" I would make the argument, not being beholden to holdovers from a religious perspective I have never accepted, that this is a sentiment which accompanies someones actions who refuses to admit their mistake or take responsibility. If I have never stolen from someone, based on general cultural standards, I am in fact better (that is in terms of ethical behaviour) than a thief. If this was not the case, why is thief a pejorative and not neutral or an honorific term? If I am able to live by the ethical standards I believe in, this by default makes me an ethical person. It also means that I am more ethical than someone who has ethical standards, but does not adhere to them, regardless of my belief in a plural of ethical standards and situational ethics. Thus it provides a reasonable basis for judging others.

Why should I be held to be condescending if I live an ethical life, by someone who claims to believe in ethics, but not live by them? I accept that people fail; I have failed at any number of things. When someone has pointed out that I have failed, I do not consider them condescending for pointing out my failings, they are simply being honest. While "brutally honest" is often a euphemism for "I'm a dick"; I appreciate a tactless, but honest opinion over sugar coated platitudes. Don't get me wrong, tact is useful and it is far better to be eloquent than brash, but even this can be interpreted as being a dick.

Busy, busy, busy

2010-09-15T17:02:00.000-07:00

I've been lax these past weeks in my blog, due primarily to getting back into the swing of school, but I've got my bearings now and hope to get back to some kind of regular schedule.

Having said that, one of the greatest aspects of being enrolled in a college program is access to their library, and while the physical library is decent enough, the access to online journals is what I am most excited about.

JSTOR, how I have missed thee!

Now, the down side is that because of the limited practical value of the area's I am interested in to a non-research oriented college; so I haven't got full access to all those wonderful folkloric and cultural studies journals. However what I do have access to is still vastly more than I had as an individual. In the future I may just purchase an alumni library card for the UofT's system, but until then I will be happy with what I can access.

Needless to say I found a huge number of articles (both recent and archaic) while flipping through the electronic periodicals, so I hope to have somethings to blog about in the near future.

Gorm.

Reconstructionism...

2010-09-05T15:52:00.000-07:00

So I find from time to time a moderate degree of anti-Reconstructionist sentiment among the wider Pagan community, and paradoxically sometimes from those who claim to be Reconstructionist's themselves. There are a number of reasons why people dislike Recons:

1. Reconstructionists are elitists.
2. Reconstructionists do not care about practicing a living religion.
3. Reconstructionism is no more authentic than any other form of Paganism
4. Reconstructionism is a waste of time because ancient religion has no value in the 21st century.

I shall address each reason below, but they all feed into one another to some degree, perhaps why they continually crop up among those who are opposed to the idea of Reconstructionism.

1. Reconstructionists are elitists: This is more of a sentiment, than an argument, but it permeates most of the arguments and really amounts to no more than an ad hominim attack, but a common one. Reconstructionists are elitist because they dismiss the opinions of other people and think their opinions are better then everyone else. This is a bit of a misnomer, because there is a difference between the weight of say a scholars opinion on a subject they have researched thoroughly vs. someone who has read a book on the subject but little else. I have no problem believing that someone who has spent the time researching something has a more informed opinion than one who has not. As such, because Recon's tend to be better read and eminently knowledgeable on the cultures they are reconstructing from, this can come across as being "elitist" because they know what they are talking about, and do not simply accept the claims made by someone who has not done the research.

2. Reconstructionists do not care about practicing a living religion: This criticism has to do with the "presence" of Recons, and the kind of discussions they tend to be involved in. Often involving academic topics of considerably specificity and minutia, often on understanding of cosmology, framework and mythology. As such topics like the practice of the rituals or an application of the understanding of cosmology is left for more private or personal conversations, and so the perception is that Recon's are only concerned with the scholarship, and not the application of religion.

3. Reconstructionism is no more authentic than any other form of Paganism: This is a bit trickier, as it needs to be clarified as to what "authentic" means. I would certainly say Reconstructionism is closer to the beliefs of [pre-Christian culture], than other forms of Paganism. The entire basis of Reconstructionism is the study of archeology, folk belief, literature and history in order to try and as accurately as possible reconstruct the earlier beliefs of a given culture; many forms of Paganism have no such focus. When it is pointed out that "we [Recon's] can't really know anything for sure" or "you [Recon's] are just stating an opinion, and it is no better than mine", what is really being said is that the one making such accusations give no heed to scholarship, yet we should be treating their opinion as equal to that of someone who has spent a concerted amount of effort studying. I think this is preposterous. I have no problem with Pagans who have made the decision to not try and incorporate historic elements into their practices; or have even developed a religion based on more modern discourse (such as many of the forms of neo-Druidism, largely derived from Victorian and early 20th century scholarship). The problem arises when one then argues that such a belief is (despite its modernity) the same as it was in [pre-Christian culture], when it is clearly not the case. Not everyone who denounces Reconstructionism necessarily does this, but it is disconcerting how frequently this particular claim is made especially in the guise of "The [pre-Christian culture] made it up as they went along, so why can't I?", the answer of course is that you'd first have to prove that "they were just making it up", which is simply not the case when one has actually studied [pre-Christian culture]

4. Reconstructionism is a waste of time because an ancient religion has no value in the 21st century. This is becoming a more frequent claim, as many sensible Pagans realize the fallacious nature of argument 3. Unfortunately this criticism has its own problematic issues. The chief concern I have is if ancient religion (and the deities they worshiped) have no value, or no applicability to the modern Pagan, why bother with the worship of those deities at all? I have yet to see a compelling response to this question. I believe that if one is going to worship a pre-Christian deity, then they ought to learn as much about the culture that knowledge of said deity was developed in. This gets back to fundamental issues of cosmology, and how one see's and understands the cosmos; as in any scholarly, effort context is of vital importance. Understanding the cultural context in which worship of a deity occurred historically, provides the best means of trying to understand said deity within the larger cultural framework in which it was originally understood. This is doubly important for GRP's because the mythic texts we have are all Christianized to some extent; understanding what is [supportably] pre-Christian then is dependent on one's knowledge of the pre-Christian culture of the Gaels and corresponding cultures which share cultural and linguistic roots. Without this knowledge, one is going to come away from the myths with a very different picture of pre-Christian deity, which will unfortunately be wrong.
There is certainly room for innovation, there are certainly aspects of pre-Christian culture which is so wholly divorced from the modern, that recreating it would be difficult, to say nothing of he wisdom of doing so. This often comes with accusations of "selective arguing"; based primarily on an "all or nothing" gambit. Why is it okay for you [Recon] to pick and choose what elements to recreate, but not okay for me [eclectic] to do the same? I would argue that this is decidedly a wrongheaded approach. As far as I have experienced Reconstructionism, the central component is found in recreating and adopting the world view of [pre-Christian culture], everything else follows from this. So for example, many have commented that [pre-Christian culture] performed human or animal sacrifices, had slaves, engaged in blood feuds, had trial by ordeal, and so on. The argument then becomes for Recon's to have any meaningful claim to authenticity, they need to do these things as well, or the whole effort is moot. However, with an understanding of the why behind such beliefs as the necessity of sacrifices, or the context in which blood feuds arose, provides a good reason as to why these elements need not be recreated (or could be adapted) to suit modern sensibilities.

Thoughts?

Gorm.

The Joy of Work

2010-09-04T21:28:00.000-07:00

I began my new part time job as an FDA on Thursday, but I had my first full day today. It was certainly a busy day, and I did more cleaning than anything else (two vans, a lead car, fully detailed) and about 14 caskets, polished to a high sheen. I realized during my 40 hour observation, that a great deal of an FDA's (and FD's) time is spent cleaning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining; I relished every moment (even when I cut my finger open when cleaning a hubcap).

I consider myself extremely lucky, because not only do I already know what to expect, and have no problem with starting at the bottom, but I am working in the field of my career path. It certainly helps when you understand this is what you're supposed to be doing, and I am truly blessed to be firmly on my path.

Gorm

The "illumination" of Fír?

2010-08-30T21:02:00.000-07:00

Fír is one of the central concepts of the Fálachus tradition, approximately it relates to way in which one best lives their life according to the natural order of the cosmos. It is derived from the fír flaithemon, that is "rulers truth", as mentioned in the wisdom text, Audacht Morainn. It is a concept which posits that a king needs to behave in such a way, that upholds the function of his position, and by doing so maintains the proper ordering of the cosmos, enabling him to rule justly. The fír of an individual then is going to differ from person to person. I have read, and participated in, conversations where fír has been compared to possible cognates of other cultures; I have seen it compared to dharma, wyrd/ørlǫg, and fate. The modern Irish word for fate/destiny is cinniúint, but I have not come across much on the subject of cinniúint among GRP's (if anyone would care to enlighten me...) There is however a tendency to try and "square peg" culturally specific ideas into general molds, and while there may be benefit to cross cultural comparison, trying to understand the concept from within is better.

How then does one come to know their own fír? For myself it has become evident through a number of recent decisions as to where my life was going vs the direction I expected it to go in. The strangest, and definitely most UPG based, aspect of this has been akin to a literal emotion occurring before/during/after choices were made. It has often happened spontaneously, a thought comes into my head accompanied by a specific feeling (to try and describe it, semi euphoric and warm) and an intense urge to act on that thought; the resulting action results in a change, which upon further reflection or speaking with others, was oddly (almost frighteningly) a seeming inevitability.

I'll give you an example which occurred to me today actually: I am returning to school in a weeks time, to pursue a career in Funeral Directing, but needing to pay off my current debt, decided to leave my job as a clerk in a book store and landscape for the summer, as the pay is much better (though the work much harder). I had originally planned to work until the 3rd of September, but then a few things came up which I needed to sort out before I went back to school on the 7th, so I informed my boss that September 1st would be my last day; I did this last week. Today, however I suddenly "got it in my head" that today should be my last day on the job; I was not sure why exactly, only that the urge to no longer work for the company (which was a good company, and a decent enough job) was overwhelming. I made up my mind, called my boss and informed him of my choice. We had an amicable exchange and he sort of chuckled. I asked why he was laughing, to which he replied, "Well it's weird, I was actually going to call you this evening and ask if this could have been your last day." This threw me for a bit of a loop, not that I couldn't understand why he would have asked that (aside from myself, another fellow returning to school next week was also working, though he was working until the 3rd, and my boss had recently hired two new employees, so it did not make a lot of sense to pay an extra guy to work for two more days when he was notl really needed), but that it so perfectly coincided with my inexplicable (and sudden) urge to quit.

Recently, these "sudden urges" have been occurring more frequently, and with similar coincides, to the point where I have begun to suspect that they are no longer mere coincidence. I find it a very odd state of affairs, as I have been a considerably skeptical person all my life, and have brushed off other people's experiences as coincidence or "selective seeing"; but then again I also used to be an atheist, and until I experienced the presence of a deity for the first time, such a notion was laughable to my mind. Once again however, I find myself faced with an experience my skeptical mind is unable to simply explain away. I have looked over a number of terms and concepts, and so far, fír seems to be the best choice. If anyone else has had similar experiences or can think of a better concept to understand my upg, I would be most grateful to learn of it.

Gorm.

A Short History of Myth by Karen Armstrong

2010-08-27T20:02:00.000-07:00

I picked this up some time last year, while I still worked at the book store, it was a bargain book and I got my discount so it worked out to three dollars or thereabouts. After having read it, I must say I'm glad I paid so little for it.

I'm familiar with some of Armstrong's other works: "A History of God" and "The Great Transformation". I also realize she writes for a general audience so I was not expecting the discussion to be particularly scholarly, but I was expecting more than I got.

Now, it may bear mentioning that prior to Armstrong's turn to religious books, she was a Catholic Nun. I bring this up because her interpretation of everything which follows is clearly coloured by a tendency among western authors of religion to speak of religion in monotheistic terms. I've come to terms with the fact that YHWH gets top billing in such discussions, but when one considered the scope of the book, it becomes rather disappointing and problematic to her overall narrative. She almost entirely skips polytheism (arguably it could be counted among her discussion of neolithic animism, and in a brief discussion of different Canaanite deities), to the point of when speaking about the religions of ancient Greece, she mentions the proto-monotheism of Plato and Aristotle and little else. Considering the profound significance of polytheism in ancient religion, it is a huge gap to cross, and presents a major flaw in her work.

Secondly her idea of what a myth is, "...myth is make believe; it is a game that transfigures our fragmented, tragic world, and helps us to glimpse new possibilities by asking 'what if?' is not only terribly unhelpful, but I think considerably pejorative. When I think of myth, I think of a narrative structure, a framework for understanding the world, and giving it meaning; but I also think of it as true, if not always in an objective sense and here I find myself at variance with Armstrong, in the first two chapters she continually posits that "myth is make believe", that early humans knew that there really were no gods, but liked to pretend there were, to comfort themselves about their "terrible lot". Here again we see the Catholic worldview coming out in her observations; the world is a really awful, terrible place and humans will do anything they can to escape it, even concoct invisible friends to provide catharsis to the harsh realities of this wretched planet. Life is tough, life is a constant struggle, but for all that I think the world is a decent place and I have no desire to escape it. In a book whose central thesis rests on the merit and worth that myth offers to human cultures, Armstrong does as much to point out myth is nothing more than fantasy, but because it helps people, is still worth holding onto. I don't know, perhaps I'm just a theist set in my ways, but I happen to believe that the gods have an objective existence and are as real as you or I. Again, my bias I suppose.

Her framework for interpreting myth falls square into the Jungian/Campbell mold; all depiction of deity or hero is allegorical, and meant to be understood only in an allegorical sense. She establishes early on a dichotomy between allegory and literalism when it comes to understanding myths, and it is clear she believes it to be an either-or question. I prefer a more nuanced perspective (of course since I disagree with her definition of myth, I would); myth is not literal, because it is not history; myth is a narrative from which we impart meaning into the world and our actions within it, but this does not mean that all myth is allegorical either, because the myths are not necessarily describing anything other than themselves. Armstrong is also under the impression that myth is "dead" for all intents and purposes, and that it does not inform the modern, secular world view at all. This has more to do with how she defines myth (yet again showing her definition to be problematic), but the idea that myth is not still a way modern people in developed countries understand the world is at best naive and at worst symptomatic of Armstrong's own bias towards rationalism. One does not need to look far to see myth at work in any number of given subjects. J.M. Greer in his seminal "A World Full of Gods", provides an excellent example of this fallacy by speaking about the "myth of progress". One can see all sorts of other examples; the myth of America (aka manifest destiny) or the myth of linear time (as opposed to circular), each is a way in which people understand their world, but both are also mythic.

My other major problem with the book is that she seems to make a lot of conjecture and passes it off as fact. Most of the sources she cites in her chapters on the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods are considerably dated, and she makes rather sweeping generalizations. She also largely focuses on middle eastern cultures (with a few references to Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism and some Greek), and wholly ignores any sort of Indo-European or P-I-E mention; to the point that when she speaks of early Greek myth, her interpretive framework comes from a middle eastern view point, which is simply untenable, knowing what we do of P-I-E mythology and how it informed the development of Hellenic religion and myth. To ignore such an important (especially to the western world) aspect of the developmental history of myth, in a book on the subject, shows the sort of tunnel vision Armstrong has.

Well those are the bad bits, how about some of the good? I do appreciate that Armstrong thinks myth has value, and is something which can have a positive impact on peoples lives. She adamantly refutes the idea of scriptural literalism and does a fair job of arguing some of the pitfalls of rationalism. I can certainly relate to her notion that myth can be used a a means of conveying important truths, especially when it comes to behaviour and ethics:

"The myth of the hero was not intended to provide us with icons to admire, but was designed to tap into the vein of heroism within ourselves. Myth must lead to imitation or participation, not passive contemplation."

Overall I'd say that the book isn't worth a read, for the small bits of useful or insightful information there is a lot of other opinion which provides little useful insight into the development of myth. Frankly there are far better books on the subject out there.

A man [and woman] can stand up

2010-08-24T17:36:00.000-07:00

"If you approach the Celtic gods with the attitude of 'I'm not worthy', they're going to respond, 'Well come back when you are.'"

I came across this a few days ago on one of the pagan forums I frequent. The context of the thread was a discussion of "Worshiping without shame, and some members who had come from a Christian theological perspective who were not used to idea of doing anything but grovelling to a god. This notion is actually a core belief of many of the Christians I know, especially those of an Evangelical Protestant persuasion. I do on occasion listen to the local Christian radio station (perhaps more on that in a future post) and the message that humans are not deserving of salvation, and are by their very nature horrible is something which is repeated ad nauseum. I simply can not fathom why anyone with even a shred of self respect would buy into such a nonsensical message.

Comparing this approach to worship with that of Gaelic Polytheism shows just how different GP's act towards their deities. I'm of the view that the basis for that relationship is one of patron-client; deity and worshiper. There is of course an implied hierarchy, and this is fine because after all we are not gods, and they are bastions of knowledge and power we simply do not have. That the gods are greater than we are does not, however, mean that we are to prostrate ourselves before them, it means that we are the "junior partners" in the relationship. The texts are replete with examples of humans in conflict with the déithe, however this more often than not leads to disharmony and suffering. There are even examples of mortals overpowering otherworldly figures, Cúchulain's quarrel with An Morrigan, Fionn's defeat of Aillen, and the victory of the Mileseans over the Tuatha Dé Danaan (A Christian gloss, but an example none the less). What this shows is that in some rare cases humans are capable of even overcoming the gods themselves, though the last time I checked, there wasn't one equal to Cúchulain or Fionn nowadays (plus each had semi-divine parentage to boot.) What is clear however is that even after the Milesans gained the favour of the goddess of sovereignty of Ireland, they then suffered at the hands of the gods, because without their blessing, their crops would not grow, their cows would not produce milk, and things were in a really sorry state. As such, efforts were made to placate the déithe , and the crops flourished, milk flowed freely and things began to look up. The long and short of it then, is that it is far better to be in harmony with the gods, than not.

Our relationships with the gods then, are based on our willingness to provide hospitality (among other things) to them, and they to provide wisdom (among other things) to us. However, nowhere in this relationship is there a call for groveling, cow-towing, or thinking ourselves less than worthy. The gods do not crave our worship (the way some other deities seem to), they do not want clients who think themselves worthless, after all what use would we be to them? It is not a difficult concept to grasp; considering the importance that honour and courage were afforded in early Irish society, one can not grovel and maintain their honour, one can not be courageous when they are bowing and scraping. This is not to say that we ought to be rude or think ourselves equal to the gods, because the first violates hospitality and the second is hubris. Rather we are to stand before our gods and we are to act with honour and courage both before our gods and in our day to day lives. We can do this, not because the gods allow us to, but because they know that we are worthy of being their clients.

Our gods do not expect us to bow, they expect us to stand.

Gorm reads the Gospels I

2010-08-21T21:15:00.000-07:00

The Gospel according to St. Matthew

Overview: There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Deities: Coming as I do from a Polytheistic perspective, I'm listing the major deities as depicted in the texts.

Jesus: aka. Emmanuel, son of David, son of Man, Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. A child of prophecy who has come to decry the corruption and hypocrisy he has seen in the established synagogues of the Pharisees and scribes. He spends a lot of time admonishing "this generation" and predicting his own death and resurrection (which he does a lot). Miracles performed: raising of the dead, healing the sick, casting out demons, making the blind see, letting the dumb speak, feeding multitudes of people with little food, walking on water, letting Peter walk on water, calming a storm, prophecy, the mere touch of his clothing also has miraculous powers. He is also capable of summoning "twelve legions of angels", but he does not. Following his "death", an earthquake occurs and the dead (saints) rise and walk the earth. Christ also resurrects himself.

YHWH: aka.God, the father. He shows up twice in the account, the first time after Christ's baptism (to Christ alone) and claims him as his son. The second occurs on a hill top to Christ and three of the Apostles (Peter, James and John), and once again YHWH claims Jesus as his son (though as a "voice from the clouds". Other than these instances he communicates through dreams, Angels and Jesus. Christ speaks of "the father" most of the time when he is referencing YHWH, and depicts him through parables concerned with the lord-servant roles (though these often allude to Christ himself as well.) Jesus states one of the major attributes recognized by most monotheists, that being omniscience in Matthew 6:8.

Satan: aka. The Devil, Mammon. He shows up early on, and tempts Christ three times while he wanders the dessert. Interestingly enough, in Matthew 4:10, Christ tells Satan that he works for "the father". I find this worthy of mention because it reflects the Judaic depiction of Satan as an accuser of men before YHWH, but acting on orders from YHWH. In most of the other depictions he is referenced as "the Devil".

Other divine agents:

Angels: Coming primarily in the form of dreams, but in some instances as visible beings (such as at the sepulcher of Christ).

Devils/demons: Christ and many of the disciples spend much of their missionary work "casting out demons". The Pharisees constantly accuse Christ of using demonic influence to perform his miracles.

Otherworldly Locals:

Heaven: Spoken of in rather abstract terms, usually as "life everlasting" or "the next life", the reward of the faithful for their suffering, to the extent of being rewarded "hundredfold (Matthew 19:20).

Hell: Again mostly in absract, there is an interesting allusion to the "burning of wheat", and `the casting off into a lake of fire" in Mathew 13:33-43; hell then is equated with burning in a fire.

Review:

Seeing as this is the main source of verses used in proselytizing, and most often quoted in most of the interfaith debates I've participated in they bear mention. The first thing I noticed was how often Jesus repeats himself, he does this, a lot. He will be quoted in one chapter, and in another will repeat the exact same thing he said. At first I figured this was because he was traveling a great deal and speaking to new "multitudes", however in almost all cases he is speaking to the Apostles, so yes according to Matthew, Jesus repeated himself. Secondly he was under the distinct impression that even the Apostles were "faithless", he says "ye of little faith" at least a dozen times, and explains that their unbelief is stopping them from performing the caliber of miracles he does. Jesus says many things which seem to contradict other statements he has made; in Matthew 13 he claims he " has not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." This to me implies that there are people who are righteous and therefore do not need to repent, yet he also says to a rich man (who is not a sinner) that he needs to follow him (and give up all his possessions), and when the man decides to not do that, he is condemned.

Minutia: Jesus claims that unless a woman has divorced her husband for adultery, she and any man she marries is guilty of adultery. (Matthew 19:9)

Chapters 23, 27 and 28 are pretty good example of the kind of scripture which would create (and propagate) much of the antisemitism which has plagued the Jews for centuries.

Chapter 24-25 is Christ's foretelling of the end of the world, and an excellent example of Christian eschatology.

Closing thoughts:

In terms of the virtues I personally see Jesus embody in this text, his compassion and willingness to heal the sick, as well as his determination are admirable qualities. I find his pettiness in some cases (the episode with the fig tree) problematic, and the "do as I say not as I do attitude, since he is exempt from the Laws (Matthew 12:1-9). Again because of the seemingly contradictory views he expresses, his "teachings" are not as clear as they could be. Also the issue of his willingness to be a sacrifice to save all of mankind is not expressed overtly here, rather he goes to his death (and does not resist) to ensure prophecy is fulfilled. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess that this aspect which is so central to Christian belief is going to be emphasized in the other Gospels.

Join me next Saturday for part two of "Gorm reads the Gospels."

Gorm.

Sacred Saturdays

2010-08-20T15:55:00.000-07:00

Over the next little while it is my goal to survey a number of the sacred texts of various religions and cultures and give my opinion on them from a polytheistic perspective. After a randomized selection process (utilizing a d20) the first installment is going to be the Christian New Testament (monotheism keeps cropping up here, but we'll get to a polytheistic topic soon enough ;p). A bit of background then; I wasn't raised in a religious home so most of my experience with Christian scriptures have been on the receiving end of proselytizers, religious tracts, advertisements, attending religious services of friends (and my fiances family) and through general exposure to Western culture. So I've never done anything more than look up a specific verse, and have never actually read the NT through, the one exception being Revelations (but that`ll be covered in the blog on that book.) I have decided to use the King James Version, because while I understand that as far as translations go it is riddled with errors, it is one of the more literary versions and arguably a classic of the English language. It may also bear mentioning that I will not be reviewing the Christian OT, preferring to use English translations of the Jewish texts (a personal choice on my part).

So this week begins "Gorm reads the Gospels."

Park51/Cordoba House

2010-08-19T20:10:00.000-07:00

You may find it odd, even ironic that the first topic I've ever blogged about on a blog with a subtitle like "polytheism without apologies" involves the controversy surrounding the building of an Islamic cultural center. But stay with me, it all ties in.

It has been little over three weeks since the issue of the construction of Cordoba House in lower Manhattan became national (and in my case international) news. A firestorm of opposition has erupted across the American political and religious landscape, ranging from questioning the "wisdom" of building so close to Ground Zero to claiming the construction (and its supporters) were "spitting in the face of Americans". A central theme which has permeated the entire discussion is the questions of religious freedom, or rather it should have. Frankly the kind of rhetoric which is being bandied about by those in opposition to the construction seems to be little more than xenophobia, disguised as "concern" for the victims. The usual suspects of course have voiced their concerns, conservative luminaries like the ACLJ, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and John McCain. All have couched their opposition to the planned construction as being "sensitive to victims and their families". Claiming that building a mosque so close to Ground Zero is akin to constructing a "Japaneses cultural center at Pearl Harbor" or "a Museum to Bach outside Auschwitz".

There is however a problem with such analogies, they are patently false. I'll be the first to admit that I did not lose anyone in 9/11, nor even knew anyone who was killed. Not being an American, I've been considerably removed from the emotional impact of the entire situation. It is wholly reasonable that people emotions still run high, and the pain and anger continues to linger almost a decade after. However it is far from reasonable, disgusting in fact, that politicians have managed to turn a non-event into something so divisive. Lets look at the essential facts.

1. The property is privately owned. This by itself ought to be enough to show the hypocrisy coming from commentators on the right. In any other case they would be out trumpeting the private property rights of an individual and decrying any attempt by the "government" to curtail these rights. It is endlessly amusing to see such a stark about face, with many attempting to use the vary governmental apparatuses they have unequivocally campaigned against.

2. People have a right to freely exercise their religion. Enshrined in the American Constitution (and in just about every other constitution or charter in democratically elected nations) is the freedom of religious expression. Muslims have every right to construct their mosques, on their own property, if they want to. This gets to the crux of the issue, because if this were a group planning to build a Church, Synagogue or Buddhist Temple, no one would have batted an eye. No One. Zero. Zilch. Nada. However because the group is Muslim, and because the terrorists who brought down the towers were also Muslim, it is supposed to be very clear that this is a case of Muslims being insensitive or even "rubbing it" in victims faces.

To expand on the last bit of the second point, many opponents claim that this is not an issue of either private property rights or religious freedom, and that it is about sensitivity to victims families. I think this is bull pocky and a clear example of cognitive dissonance. Of course this is about property rights and freedom of religious expression, because if this were a Christian church being built in Wisconsin, no one would care. However because the proposed building is two blocks from Ground Zero, and is going to be an Islamic cultural center, it suddenly becomes a huge problem. The center has so far fought off any legal attempts to prevent its construction, but it has stirred up really problematic sentiments across the US, Islamophobic sentiments.

I suppose this is as good a place as any other to say something about my personal feelings about Islam. Being a polytheist, I'm about as enamoured with Islam as I am with Christianity, which is to say not much. I disagree with several of the core principles of the religion and especially those regarding Shirk (polytheism) and how to treat those who have committed Shirk. Having said that, I believe in the freedom of religion and people are entitled to worship a Middle Eastern deity as readily as a Gaelic one.

Freedom of religion means freedom of religion all the time, not only when it is convenient or the majority favours it. Frankly this debate has me considerably questioning how dedicated the average American is to protecting the religious freedom of those outside their own religion; and since Christianity is the closet thing to a majority religion, it becomes a Christian vs. Other issue. An article I read after I began writing this blog is rather telling; most New Yorkers do not support the building of the center, but recognize that the builders are protected by the constitution, which is why all attempts to stop the construction have failed thus far. However the issue seems to have been blown up enough to become an election issue in November. We will get to see firsthand the impact of xenophobia in what is supposed to be one of the "home states of liberalism" in the US. My guess is that the sort of people who would oppose the center were already voting for a right leaning candidate anyway, but time as always will tell.

I see this entire episode as nothing more than an excuse to erode the rights of religious minorities, or failing that, remind people that religious minority A hates America. The end result is that just a little more fear and a smidge more of mistrust seeps into the mind of the average American when it comes to the dread other, and the lunatic on Youtube or CNN screeching about the Islamization of America or Terror babies moves that much closer to becoming normalized as reasonable viewpoints, instead of the madness which they are.

Gorm.