Why the resurrection doesn't matter to this polytheist

I'm not a Christian.

"Our" Values (GRP Focused): The gods and "knowing our place"

I have in the past, distant though it may be, discussed issues relating to the concept of agency; how much freedom do we have to enact our will upon the cosmos? Today, I would like to come at the idea of agency from a different angle, and explore how our agency affects and is affected by that of the tri na naomah. How much control do we have when we interact with the gods, ancestors and spirits of place? How much control do the gods, ancestors and spirits of place have upon us? When we have this figured out, or as much as we can figure it out, what do we do with this information, and where do we go from here?

Many polytheist bloggers, tumblrs, and assorted others, have put forward the idea that humans are at the mercy of the gods, in all things. Concepts like morality are relegated solely to human affairs, for the gods have no time for puny human "feels"; so expecting or advocating for things like "consent" are right out. The gods make you dance as their divine marionettes. and maybe if you're lucky, you'll learn something from the experience. Oh, and if this isn't your experience, you're probably doing it wrong; best run back to "safe", empty religions, lest the "reality of the gods" destroy your fragile mind.

This is, by the way, bullshit. At least when it comes to all the evidence we have about how the Gaels coexisted and worshiped their gods. So if you're more interested in being a divine whipping boy, maybe you should just ignore the rest of what I have to say; Go read other folks who have deemed thralldom as their raison d'etre, who have abandoned their own wills, to be subsumed by what they (earnestly believe) is the will of the god(s) they serve. Frankly when one goes down that path, the reading becomes really creepy and moves off into self flagellating delusion more at home with groups like the Stylites than  pre-Christians, but seek at your own peril. Honestly, it goes from fan squeeing to cult vibe at breakneck speed. Tl:dr, google "god slave" and "god spouse", though you'll probably regret it. I sure did!

No, our ancestors had a rather different approach when it came to establishing how we "dealt" with the gods, we fought them. We fought them long and we fought them hard, for every inch of land we came to occupy. We entreated with other gods, powerful goddesses the gods themselves were also beholden to. We took the power of the gods and made it our own, turned it to our own devices and used it to win our place in the world. We had to fight the gods themselves to legitimize our own existence, and we won. If that isn't a crystal clear precedent for the concept of human agency when it comes to the gods, then nothing is.

Now, with that said, we ought to take some other things into consideration, and primarily I want to discuss the issue of enhumeraziation. Enhumerization is a literary trope where something that is great and powerful, is reduced in greatness and power. In the case of the medieval (and later) Irish literature, this is most obviously observed when we examine the Mythic, Ulster and Fenian Cycles, but is present too when we examine folktale and tradition that relates to the aes sidhe. The argument being that the gods which the pre-Christian's worshiped, were not actually gods (because those didn't actually exist, being monotheists and all) and were instead a successive series of semi-divine races who sought for the rulership of Ireland, culminating with the ascent and victory of mortal man. This is important to keep in mind, because the point can be made (and laboured) that the preceding paragraph about "our" ancestors is far more reflective of a Christianized world view, and actually has very little to do with a pre-Christian perspective.

Such is the perilous nature of trying to reverse engineer mythic texts compiled by Christian scribes to get a peek at earlier views, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and defend this particular bit. The reason it is not so far fetched to understand humans as being able to go toe to toe with the gods, mythically speaking, is because of patterns. Throughout the Mythological Cycle, Ireland is settled in a series of "waves" or "invasions", hence why one of the greatest collections of this cycle is referred to as "The Book of Invasions". Things don't really get interesting until (IMO) until the Tuatha De Dannan show up, and we see the first real example of divine inversion occur. I don't want to get too deep into the text, but one of the key elements of the TDD strategy for the overthrow of the Fomorians during the "Second Battle of Moytura" is to seek out the aid of sovereignty goddesses as well as subsuming the very power and fury of the Fomorians themselves (as Lugh is able to do). Through these means are the TDD able to secure victory and win the rulership of Ireland.

The subsequent "Invasion" of the Mileseans, while not a mirror image of the previous epoch, involves very similar concepts. The favour of the goddess of sovereignty are secured, the land itself is invoked, and there is even the utilization of a poem with likely cosmogenic overtones, all to secure a toehold and then victory over the Tuatha De Dannan. Of course, it doesn't go exactly as the Mileseans want, and they eventually have to entreat with the gods to once again secure the fecundity of the land itself with them. So does this mean that the ancestors of the Gaels saw themselves as equal to or even more powerful than the gods they worshipped? Unlikely, but I suppose a literal reading of the myths could produce such a conclusion.

Here then is where parsing out which bits are enhumerized and which are not becomes very important to our understanding and ability to draw conclusions about pre-Christian world view. I do not, for example, hold to the idea that the gods can be killed (or that the ancients believed other than their gods were remarkably powerful and immortal), at least not in any sort of meaningful way. Understanding the purpose of a given mythic narrative and the lessons contained within are crucial, but taking them as being reflective of the real nature of the gods (at least in relation to mortality) is to buy into the enhumerization of the mythic pre-Gaelic peoples as being semi-divine or simply magically gifted mortals. Likewise, to hold that not only could the gods be killed, but that humans were capable of doing so, would surely undercut the potency of any such beings being held as, well gods, in any meaningful way. We need to examine what the purpose of a given story is, and not just what the story in and of itself is narrating.

When, for example, I read about Lugh being killed by Mac Cuill, Mac Cecht and Mac Gréine, I do not take it to then mean that the worship of Lugh is pointless because he is dead. Nor do I take it to mean that the story where he dies is pointless and without purpose. Nor do I take this as an example of apotheosis, where a historic personage named Lugh was freed from his mortal body and became deified by a later historic cultus. I accept, first and foremost that this is a story told from a specific narrative tradition, serving a purpose intend by the author for their audience. I accept that this also explains why Lugh doesn't show up during the Milesian invasion to stand against the Gaelic invaders. I accept that this does not explain how Lugh later goes on to father Cuchulain. I accept that Lugh is still very much "alive" in whatever manner it is that gods exist. I accept all of this because I understand that Myth is not History and that a literal reading of the mythic texts is incredibly stupid. 

The myths teach us, they instruct us, they inspire us and intrigue us. They are the best window we have into an earlier time, and while they are not opaque they are more translucent than clear. The light comes trough, but it is muddied, distorted and befuddled by layers of filtering installed by those standing between then and now. We ourselves necessarily come with our own perceptual filters and so we need to recognize our own biases as readily as we do of the sources we glean information from. Which brings me back to the point of this rambling post, Our present conceptions of how the past, how older and more ancient worldviews worked are necessarily affected by our perception of modern world views. Something is not good or valuable simple because it is held to be ancient; conversely something is not bad or worthless simply because it is held to be modern. There are many, many things that are worth our while to restore and revive as best we can; but there are many, many things which have been relegated to the rubbish pit of history, and there it ought to stay. 

This conversation is happening, and we who find ourselves doing our best as reconstructionists, as polytheists (devotional, ritual, or otherwise) need to decide which elements belong where. Not everything is worth saving or reviving, and this is certainly something which consciously needs to be addressed. It is sometimes said (and always critically), of reconstructionists, that we are slightly more academic members of groups like the SCA, that we seek to return society and culture to a pre-Christian ideal (and this implied idealism is also held as a critique) reminiscent of the Iron Age. Which is of course nonsense. No GRP I know of is actively seeking to abandon technology or modernity; considering how central the internet has been to its growth this seems remarkably hypocritical, and so it would be. If anyone were calling for it, that is. What I am getting at is that GRP (and like minded reconstructionist methodologies and lifeways) are fully aware that we are moderns, that we do not live in the Iron Age and what is more, we do not want to live in the Iron Age. We seek the gods of our ancestral forebearers, we seek to honour and worship them in culturally appropriate ways and we see the mythological tradition we have as one of the more accessible, if deceptively so, means of coming to such an understanding. This does not mean that the misogyny, the brutality or the utter disregard for life (to name but a few highly problematic elements) present in the texts are something we ought to be embodying or transposing in our lives today, simply because they are there and so are more "raw and real" than some idyllic, sanitized and modern version.

Which, again, is not to say that we ignore or do not address these problematic aspects; studying the period tends to rip away any illusions of some bygone golden age we are so desperately trying to restore. It means that we recognize what has come before, and that it wasn't all love and light, but this too can be taken to unhealthy extremes. By advocating for the return of something because the advocate perceives it at being "anti-modern" or "an affront to modernity", does not mean that such advocacy is right. If something was practiced in the ancient world, but is "an affront to modern sensibilities", then we ought to consider its centrality in the ancient world, how relevant it was and how necessary its restoration would be to aid in modern reconstructionist efforts. Not everything needs to be rejected or accepted out of hand, such a dichotomy would be patently false, yet some things ought to be left behind because they are so at odds with "modern sensibilities" that they are justifiably treated thus.

This categorical "refuse heap" is not limited to outdated social, political or economic practices, but to theological and spiritual concepts too. What is more, and to the point of this piece, what may seem like a rejection based on "modern or sanitized" sensibilities is actually a projection of some imagined "way it was, and way it should still be" onto the past. 

The gods are beyond us in so many ways; their power, wisdom and grasp of reality exponentially greater than ours. Yet despite all of this, anecdotally speaking, they appear to seek us out as often as we seek them. The gods want our worship and devotion. The gods want our client-ship for their patronage. The gods have judged us, have and continue to challenge us. and they have found us worthy. If the myths speak to one theme, one melody of theological and philosophical import, throughout, it is that humans can stand up..

We have stared out into the harshness of our world, in all its ugliness and horror, stared into the faces of the gods themselves, full of wrath and ruin, and we have stood firm.

We have struggled bitterly and savagely fought for our place in the world, for our right to exist. We have done so without the gods, in the face of the gods, with the gods throwing everything they had at us, and we are still here. This was when things were done the hard way, when we failed to see the value of cooperation and hospitality, forsook harmony and sough out out enmity with our divine predecessors. We struggled, and earned our place, but it was tangential, ephemeral and fragile; we lived, but we did not flourish. It was through mutual understanding, cooperation and respect that we came to worship the gods, as was their due. The wise realized that while we had the resolve to stand firm, that there was as yet something greater to be had. By accepting the reality of firenne, how to properly and respectfully come to know and honour the gods, were our lives made better. At times these bonds were tried and tested, bent yet never broken (at least not until the coming of the men of the bells, but this is another story and another matter for another time).

We are not, nor were we ever, slaves to our gods and we would bring unimaginable dishonour and shame upon ourselves, to say nothing of the ancestors, to relinquish the very agency that allowed us to earn the respect and favour of the gods we worship and devote our lives to. In closing, I leave you with one of my most repeated, yet all time favourite quotes:

"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."

-Gorm.

 

"Our" Values: Subversion, Paradigms and the need to change them

My lover's got humour
She's the giggle at a funeral
Knows everybody's disapproval
I should've worshiped her sooner

If the heavens ever did speak
She's the last true mouthpiece
Every Sunday's getting more bleak
A fresh poison each week

'We were born sick,' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes.
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—

I was born sick,
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

If I'm a pagan of the good times
My lover's the sunlight
To keep the Goddess on my side
She demands a sacrifice

Drain the whole sea
Get something shiny
Something meaty for the main course
That's a fine looking high horse
What you got in the stable?
We've a lot of starving faithful

That looks tasty
That looks plenty
This is hungry work

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife
Offer me my deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

No Masters or Kings
When the Ritual begins
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene
Only then I am Human
Only then I am Clean
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

Above are the lyrics to the song "Take me to church" by the artist Hozier. Presently, in my city anyway, it is getting a lot of radio play; to its credit it is a rather catchy song and Hozier is a skilled lyricist and vocalist...

So what does this have to do with anything?

Recently some folks who either read this blog, my tumblr , and a host of other related blogs and tumblrs, have been talking about developing resources to help those who are now polytheists identify and address theological baggage from their days as monotheists. The goal being to help them more fully adopt a polytheistic world view. I intend to help as much as I can.

So in this effort I thought it would be useful to examine a [currently] popular song which is steeped in religious imagery, and to illustrate just how ingrained and pervasive certain theological concepts are in our culture. First, though, a little background on the artist and the song.

Hozier

Andrew Hozier-Byrne (aka Hozier) is an Irish musician from Bray in Co. Wicklow, and "Take me to Church" is his debut single from his first album. The song itself, according to Hozier:

“If I was to speak candidly about it,” he said, of how a relationship influenced his writing, “I found the experience of falling in love or being in love was death – a death of everything. You kind of watch yourself die in a wonderful way and you experience for the briefest moment – if you do believe somebody and you see for a moment yourself though their eyes – everything you believed about yourself is gone.”(1)

What is missing from this particular statement about the song "Take me to Church", is why he chose to use blatantly [Christian] religious language and imagery in describing these sentiments and emotions. The most obvious would be the often used "sex as a religious experience" trope, which is clearly utilized in the song, but within there is also a very visible degree of subversion and inversion. The themes and common phrases which in a [Christian] religious context would have well defined and understood meanings are turned to double entendre.

In an interview about the music video which was made to promote the song, Hozier had this to say (emphasis my own):

... the video “references the recent increase of organised attacks and torturing of homosexuals in Russia, which is subsequent to a long, hateful, and oppressive political campaign against the LGBT community. The song was always about humanity at its most natural, and how that is undermined ceaselessly by religious organisations and those who would have us believe they act in its interests. What has been seen growing in Russia is no less than nightmarish, I proposed bringing these themes into the story and Brendan liked the idea.”(2)

So a song that was written by a straight man, about his own experiences in heterosexual love/relationships, had lyrical content which when paired with a visual narrative about a homosexual couple facing oppression, blended seamlessly. That's pretty nifty in an of itself, but the sentiment expressed in the visualized version of the song also provides some clarity about why the subversion was so important to the song writer. Hozeir has a rather dim view of organized religion, and the institutions which symbiotically thrive because of it. Returning to the earlier article (again, emphasis mine):

In March of this year, an interviewer in New York Magazine probed whether there was a personal reason that Hozier was outspoken against homophobia, “No, and I don’t think there needs to be,” he answered, “To me, it’s not even a gay issue or a civil rights issue, it’s a human rights issue, and it should offend us all. It’s just simple. Either somebody has equal rights, or they don’t. and certainly in the Irish constitution, marriage is genderless. There’s no mention of a man and a woman. I didn’t even have that many close LGBT friends or anything like that, but I suppose it was growing up and becoming aware of how you are in a cultural landscape that is blatantly homophobic… you turn around and say ‘why did I grow up in a homophobic place? Why did I grow up in a misogynistic place?’ You grow up and recognise that in an educated secular society, there’s no excuse for ignorance. you have to recognise in yourself, and challenge yourself, that if you see racism or homophobia or misogyny in a secular society, as a member of that society, you should challenge it. You owe it to the betterment of society.” (3)

Hozier understood that the social and cultural context within which he grew up prioritized a specific set of values, which were homophobic and misogynistic. One of the chief cultural architects of this perspective, in Hozier's opinion, is the Church (and in this context the Roman Catholic Church). Yet, there is no indication that Hozier himself was particularly devout, so such sentiments and observations are coming from within a society that Hozier understands as being secular, but is nonetheless beholden to cultural and social values which are religious in origin and nature. So the secular constitution, which makes no distinction of who can be legally married, which as Hozier himself says is "genderless", remains beholden to cultural values which originate with the distinctly religious nature of the society in which they developed, and so same sex marriage remains prohibited despite the secular values which are supposed to be guaranteed by such a document.

In protest then, through the recognition of the impact that distinctly religious institutions have upon his own culture, Hozier crafted a song which utilizes the very language of "religion", and subverts it to his own purposes, advocating for the values he feels ought to be argued for: "...you have to recognize in yourself, and challenge yourself, that if you see racism or homophobia or misogyny in a secular society, as a member of that society, you should challenge it."(4) As many musicians before him, subversion of established meaning, was his "weapon of choice". Yet, and here is where my real point begins to emerge, subversion in and of itself necessarily reinforces the existing cultural power structure. That subversion via pop song can happen necessitates that a wide enough segment of the listening population will understand. Subversion needs a hegemony to counter; so while it can act as a critique of the culture it is subverting, it nonetheless reinforces the structural and cultural language it seeks to subvert.

Lyrical Analysis

I'm not going to delve too deeply into analyzing the lyrics of the whole song, nor of explaining how they are visually represented in the music video. I do, however, want to explore some of the lyrical devices which are utilized and their subversive meaning. I begin with the chorus:

Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death
Good God, let me give you my life

So the first line, and the title of the song, really underscores my point in all of this. "It is well understood what "church" is, what "going to church" entails in our culture. The term "church" refers specifically to Christian religious structures, and "going to church" refers of course to attending a service (which elsewhere in the song is Sunday, again relevant to Christian tradition) at such a structure. In the context of the song, however, "take me to church" is used as a double entendre for sexual congress. Worshiping like a dog, denotes a subservient - dominant power dynamic, which could entail whimpering, begging, etc.. The second half is a bit more difficult to interpret with any certainty. There is no indication in the song itself what, precisely, "shrine of your lies" is supposed to represent. On a purely speculative basis, I have no idea. The third line refers to the admission of sin and the expected punitive measures associated with confession/ absolution, again reinforcing the power dynamic already established, with the woman he is singing about acting as the "priestess". The sharpening of the knife likely also corresponds to the following two lines (and some later parts of the song), and the idea of love being a "deathless death", which nonetheless requires a death to occur. Now the final line does refer to "God", except the phrase is used as an exclamation to emphasize the desire of the singer to "give you my life", which again is either about letting him love her, or having sexual congress, as opposed to speaking to the Christian God.

'We were born sick,' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes.
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—

I was born sick,
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

 These lines precede the first two repetitions of the chorus, but contain a lot of subversion of established concepts and theological principles. "We were born sick, you heard them say it", refers to the theological concept of "original sin" and that man's nature is fallen. The proclamation that his church, "offers no absolutes" is a critical reference to the typical orthodoxy found in Christian churches, and a rejection of that precept. Later on the line "I was born sick, but I love it", again subverts the concept of "being born into sin", to refer to being "love sick".

No Masters or Kings
When the Ritual begins
There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

In the madness and soil of that sad earthly scene
Only then I am Human
Only then I am Clean
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

The juxtaposition of "no sweeter innocence" to "our gentle sin" is of course deliberate, yet retains some sense of the "gentle sin", being sexual congress, as having some degree of depravity. The closing lines are very interesting as they essentially make the case that it is only through these "sins" and associated "rituals" that the singer is in fact absolved of said sin and made fully human, or complete.

Cultural influences



I have no idea of Hozier's education, how much knowledge he has of matters of theology, mythology or cultural studies. From my own analysis, however, there are at least two very interesting parallels that can be made with reference to the song in and of itself, as well as the theme of the song (or one of the themes.)

The idea of sex as a sacred, ritualized and humanizing act is something which is reinforced throughout the song, but particularly towards the end. This concept is rather ancient, and one of the best mythic examples is contained within the narrative of "the Epic of Gilgamesh", where the titular hero's friend, Enkidu, is originally a "wild man", and it is only after he is brought to Shamhat, who engages with him in sexual congress for seven days, that he is finally "civilized", and made fully human. (5) Again, I have no idea if this had any bearing whatsoever on Hozier's writing of the lyrics, but it was too similar to pass up.

In a broader sense, which again ties into the religious themes of the song, the way in which the singer is speaking about his lover is very reminiscent of the "Song of Songs" as found in the Old Testament and Tanakh. The "song of songs" at its core is about a singing dialogue between two lovers, albeit later allegorical interpretations have the content being about God's love for either Israel, or Christ's love for the Church. It would be fitting then for Hozier to have seemingly returned the "Song of Songs" (or a new version of it) to its original meaning. Again, purely speculative on my part, but since this particular bit of Abrahamic scripture would be known  (and much more so than Gilgamesh) to someone who grew up in "the Church", and given the use of subversion, it is not unlikely.

How Subversion reinforces cultural hegemony

Subversion as a means of offering or altering the established cultural or social narrative, seeks to undermine the established meaning of words and symbols through the introduction of alternative meanings of those words or symbols.This can be a very useful and effective tool when it comes to cultural criticism and examination, because it has the ability to be understood within the very cultural context it is in turn critiquing. None the less, its effectiveness to enact change is limited precisely because it relies on the existing structural framework of the culture to make sense and still reach a wide enough audience to have any sort of impact. Let me give an example of what I mean:

There is no sweeter innocence than our gentle sin

This particular element, I would go as far to call it a trope or cliche, is found throughout the lyrics of the song, and it involves the inversion of the concept of "sin". A sin in Christian theology is some action (or thought) that occurs in ignorance, indifference or defiance of the Christian god. In the song the idea of the "sin" or "sickness" being sung about is love and/or sexual congress, which in many Christian doctrines is in and of itself something which can only occur within specific, sanctified, contexts and remains problematic to a large degree. The inherent "dirtiness" of "sex" is something which is very easily observed in a larger Western cultural context. Within the song, however, sexual congress is made into a purifying and holy act, enabling the singer to become "fully human". In this way is the concept of sin subverted. 

The limitation of course is that it necessarily acknowledges the existence of something called "sin", and so is beholden to the worldview where it developed and is promulgated. Which is fine, really, when one seeks to retain that cultural perspective, but perhaps becoming more aware of it. Removing or subverting the cloying prejudices engendered by the structural cultural institutions (like organized religion) to speak to the possibility of a better state of affairs. However, for those who seek to foster and promulgate a different cultural world view, this is not enough.

Change

I would certainly make the case that for polytheism to be presented as a meaningful theological perspective, it necessarily has to be done so from a position which acts as if it is a meaningful perspective. Polytheism cannot be properly understood or defended if the position one comes from is one which (again necessarily) holds polytheism to be impossible, i.e. monotheism. Polytheism has to be understood from within a worldview where the gods are many, otherwise what will be described is some bastardization which will present the gods as something other than gods. They will be reduced (angels, giants, demons), excused (delusions) or ignored (being substituted for money, power, etc.) because they can not logically be existent in a monotheistic context and still be gods. Which is not to say that a monotheist cannot write about polytheism and its gods, because we'd be pretty bankrupt scholastically if this were the case. Rather, you will find that most books of mythology, and the best ones, speak about the gods from the perspective of those who worshiped them, and not the author themselves (albeit this too happens often enough, particularly when issues of folklore and tradition are recorded via more "civilized" [read Victorian] folklorists.)

So, what has to occur is that we need to begin to understand theological concepts through the eyes of a polytheist, and if they can not be, then we need to develop (or restore) additional concepts. We also need to be able to identify those theological "holdovers" which remain from previous perspectives, which again is not to say that everything from the older perspective needs to be discarded. Only those elements which have no place within the new context, and these can range from considerably large theological conceptions: original sin, man's fallen nature (which again may depend on cultural context), Salvation, God/Satan (or other such dichotomies), heaven/hell (also dependent on cultural context), ethical frameworks, etc., to more subtle things: The gestures you use to accompany prayer, which "cuss" words, or "punctuated exclamations" you utilize, cosmological reorientation (if, for example if the realms of the dead are cthonic and not celestial), and other linguistic and symbolic adjustments which no longer make sense.

The goal, ultimately, should be the internalization of the polytheistic worldview, even to the point that if you were to smash your thumb with a hammer, you would automatically shout something other than "God damn it!". It seems rather "small" to focus on something so, well small but it is a necessary development to fully embrace a new world view and leave the old one behind. Which is not to say that you need to then vociferously and zealously reject other peoples own views. I can fully appreciate the pathos and emotion which is conveyed in a song like "take me to church", I can understand what it is the singer is singing about; I simply do not share the same conceptual/theological framework that he does, but what is more I understand why.

When you begin to understand something from your own perspective, then you can begin to appreciate how necessary such a change is.

____________________________________________________________________________

1. "Hozier: An Interview", Irish Times.  http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/poplife/2014/09 /20/hozier/ (accessed 11/23/2014)

2. "Video Premiere: Hozier - Take Me To Church", State. http://state.ie/features/video-premiere-hozier-take-me-to-church (accessed 11/23/2014)

3. see 1.

4. ibid..

"Our" Values Series

In conjunction with some recent discussion on tumblr, I have taken it upon myself to write a series of blogs which will speak to and about many theological and ethical issues, with a polytheistic outlook in mind.

For anyone who has read this blog, or its companion tumblr, you will be very much aware of the fact that I am a Gaelic Reconstructionist Polytheist. My rationalization and understanding of things like ethics and theology are then, necessarily informed by the cultural filters engendered by being a GRP. Keeping this in mind, I have sometimes out of necessity, but more often out of curiosity, researched quite a bit into other polytheistic worldviews: Hellenic, Roman and Heathen in particular. I intend to write as broadly as possible about polytheism as a distinct "system", and while I will have to rely on preexisting theological concepts and terms, I will do my best to speak in general and not cultural terms.

As this will be broad, there will almost certainly be gross generalizations and broad, sweeping claims. I fully acknowledge that there will be a lot of exceptions, be they individual or cultural, to such statements. Yet I do believe that there is enough of a theological framework common among polytheism as a theological position, that such generalizations can be made and still be true, most of the time.

Again, if I do speak to something which seems strange or incorrect based on your own understanding, by all means let me know so it can be addressed.

With that said, I really do think that speaking about "Our" values can be something that is useful, especially as polytheism slowly creeps its way back into the world. Very often the criticism labeled against many in the modern polytheistic (and Pagan) community is that we spend all of our time speaking about what is absent from our religions, rather than what is entailed. Unfortunately, this is something which HAS to happen, because the very language that has developed to discuss theology, has been geared towards monotheism as the default (and in a binary way, default is on, off is atheism).

Many of the following blogs will be discussing precisely these issues, theological concepts, which are part of the discussion of religion and religious identity. These will be addressed, discussed and then shown how they may apply, or are inapplicable, to discussions of polytheism. Showing how much a concept does not fit is as important as showing what concepts do, because it then provides a means to discuss "Our" perspective with those who do not share it. It also allows us to examine and define our own approaches and perspectives.

Wish me luck!

Gorm.

A good life is the best defence

A friend of mine, well maybe that's too strong a word at this time, how about an associate of mine, a nice guy I knew in high school who ran in the same social group, is a Christian. Always has been, always will be. So, he is still grouped among "friends" on my Facebook, and often enough he would post typically Christian things: scriptural passages from the Bible, how a particular passage was reflected in his own experience that day, praise and thanks to his god, extolling how great his god is, and every now and then links to blogs or articles by like minded Christian bloggers. Which is how I happened upon a testimonial, a story, by a Preacher, called "Will God Protect My Children?"  ( I won't link to it, I have standards after all, but you can find it easily enough).

The tale is prefaced by briefly recounting a misspent youth of a somewhat debauched nature (or enough so that our stalwart preacher was wallowing, if not participating), with his then atheist comrade. Being a good Christian, his duty to convert his chum was ever present, but was relatively unsuccessful, and flash forward some years. The atheist friend is at a similar point in his life, but something is missing: family, friends, gainful employment and material security are not enough. No, there is a hole in this mans being, and our Preacher knows that it is Christ shaped. Everything is primed for the conversion, to score that big W for Jesus.

Next come the feeble, halfhearted attempts to explain away why this atheist friend dislikes Christianity: Christians are legalistic moralizers. Bang "Grace theology" slays that one. Next, Christians are naive and can't really hold up to intellectual scrutiny (just what sort of atheist is this guy, anyway?). Poof, drop some books which repeat the ontological argument. Finally, the man is ready to relent; the I need something deeper atheist has relented and he's coming down, ready to make Jesus his personal lord and savior. Suddenly and without warning, he is confronted with the grim reality of death. Not death, in and of itself, but loss, grief; our Preacher's sister had died unexpectedly. The tragedy reverberated through the family, touching everyone in the way that only grief can. The liminal Christian is now overcome with doubt with fear; for if the Christian god could take away the sister of such a devout family, what hope was there for his own children? The preacher then goes on to talk of three "typical" Christian responses, but himself makes the case that "His will be done" and you hope for the best. You become a Christian because it is true, not because you get stuff (like divine protection, prosperity or security). Which is a refreshing answer, if rehashed and simply fallen from favour. We never do find out if the liminal Christian took the plunge, though I would suspect he did.

So why do I care?

I care because, despite the message of "I don't know what [the Christian] god's will is", at the end of the day the take away message from this whole piece is still "don't doubt, trust Jesus". Despite the admission of not having all the answers, "Jesus is still THE answer". I accept that this story, and the figures in it are real enough, but they could just as easily sprung from the pen or keystrokes of a preacher. The necessary tropes, the framework for conversion narrative is all here, you can almost feel the thin, neon pink paper of the tract between your fingers. Let's do a quick run through of the conversion narrative flags our "atheist" has activated:

1. Previous life of (youthful) debauchery. Check
2. Seemingly happy life beset by absence. Check
3. Current worldview no longer enough. Check
4. Life altering event (like having children). Check
5. Faithful friend who is among the faithful. Check
6. Religion [our convert it converting too] so much more than he thought it was. Check
7. Conversion. Check

The most significant difference from your typical conversion narrative is that it is not the conversion, in and of itself, which changed the man's life. No, his life from appearance seemed to be pretty good. He was happily married, with children, stable employment and martial security; true our "atheist" is presented as having had a youth of excess, but that seems to be just that, in his past. His life is not in danger and he is not suffering through any sort of physical or financial crisis. No his crisis is existential, one of seeking for some way out of his ennui; seeking the profound with no idea where to begin on his own, but he has this one Christian friend who is also a preacher...

Proselytization, the promotion of ones religion with the goal of winning converts, is and remains an act of disrespect, hostility and depredation. Even a cursory examination of conversion narratives, like the one I outline above, would support this assertion. It is an act of well intentioned arrogance which seeks to find and exploit weakness. Whether it is a weakness of physicality (i.e. substance abuse or addiction), a weakness of character (i.e. criminality) and even a weakness of mind (i.e. existential questioning), it does not change the fact that it is exploitative and opportunistic. As the Preacher stated in his blog:

"He’s thinking about bigger, more profound things. I’m teaching about bigger, more profound things."

Which is not to say that seeking out meaning, asking those questions of profundity, are necessarily bad or necessarily make you vulnerable to people hocking (easy) answers; only that they can leave you vulnerable. If something is missing and you have been culturally conditioned to recognize the spiritual or philosophical authority of a given group of people, and they are also "friends" with you, and they have been making subtle suggestions about what questions to ask, and where to find answers, well if you happen to find yourself being swayed by such arguments, it isn't exactly shocking. Coupled with that the fear, the gnawing fear about the future and what may be, and then won't somebody please think of the children!

Truly, parenthood has produced far more cowards than war ever could.

I do not wish to speak down to, nor minimize the very real anxiety that parents necessarily feel about their children. I hope to be a parent myself one of these days, and expect much fear and anxiety to come. Except that I hope, I believe, that my courage will be sufficient to allay my fears. That my sincerity in my ethics will outweigh my hypocrisy, that I will not abandon everything I believe in because they will be "MY KIDS!!!".

I do wish, however, to bring this discussion full circle and at long last bring in the title of this post. We can observe that the "atheist" (an this seems as good a time as any, but I sincerely doubt just how much of an atheist this fellow could have been, if his mind was so easily swayed by reading a couple of apologetic monographs coupled with gentle pastoral cajoling) appears to have a nice enough life, all things considered. Yet, it is always worth the time to remind ourselves that enjoyment of life is not the same thing as "the good life", because clearly this man believed his life, his worldview was insufficient. There was something missing, and in this case it was profundity and meaning; a spiritual and philosophical void that needed to be filled, and how lucky to have a "friend" who could help him with that.

I propose then, that in the case of missionizing and proselytizing, the single best defense is to already have a good life. Yeah, you will say, and the best defense against poverty is to already be wealthy, and against sickness to be healthy. Thank you Capt. Obvious! You would be right to point out such obvious truisms, but hear me out. What I mean in this idea, is that proselytizers prey upon the perception of weakness, of deficiency. Seeking out any and all means of penetrating their target's defenses and attacking their self. They need to find that hole in your "being", and then they need to convince you to fill it with Jesus.

Proselytizing is the only real tool that such folks have at their disposal in this day and age to gain converts, and they have a formula and the means to carry out their missionizing efforts. The keystone to the whole scheme, however, is that there needs to be a "chink in the armour" which they can exploit. Without it, well they have nothing. How are you going to sell someone on the necessity of Christ who already has a fully developed worldview that does not involve him? How can a weakness be exploited if there isn't one? Enter fear, malaise and doubt.

I've linked above to a much older post of mine where I examine some examples of "Ex-Pagan" conversion narratives and the one thread which links them all together is that in the mind of the converted, their current worldview was lacking in some respect. It failed to deliver, was revealed to be empty or could not offer what the ex-member expected it to. The fault was not in the ex-member, of course, but in the religion (gods, ritual, lack of community, etc.). It could not fill the Jesus shaped hole because... well because what they were trying to fill it with was not Jesus shaped. This is where the juggernaut of cultural force comes into play, and here in North America, Christianity remains the default setting for "religion". Most of the folks who are "ex-Pagans" had previously been Christians or had some manner of Christian up bringing, and so their expectation of how other religions, other gods ought to work, was skewed from the beginning.If the filters and biases of the previous worldview are not replaced by something else, by an internal adoption of the new world view, then the malaise and creeping pessimism will fester until they crawl, walk or run back into the arms of where they used to be.

Superficiality, it turns out, is what the key exploit is in cases of "ex-Pagan" conversion narratives. Even among those who have been immersed in, promoted by, and made a name for themselves as "BNP's", none of this will produce immunity from something which, by its very nature, is insidious. If you have a Jesus shaped hole in your being, ain't nothing other than Jesus gonna fill it. No matter how sure you are in your outward convictions, no matter how often you lie to yourself and state otherwise, if you fail to internalize a non-Christian world view, you will fail at being a non-Christian. I'm not saying that it is an easy thing to do, only that it is necessary.

It is necessary because for those who have no part of the Christian perspective on divinity, afterlife and ethics, no matter how compelling the argument for, there is nothing a proselytizer can offer (except, perhaps, a personal relationship with Jesus). What I am getting at is that if there is no weakness in your worldview to exploit, the arguments and tactics will fail because they are not enough on their own; the proselytizer needs that "in". If you have a meaningful relationship with the gods, if you live a life of honour and morality, if you are aware of your faults and have a means to address and improve upon them, then what could the proselytizer "sell" you that you do not already have? You will be offered theological arguments that are designed to appeal to the default setting, but so what? You reject the most basic of assumptions that will be offered (monotheism, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, ethics, etc), so there is no intellectual, spiritual or emotional argument to compel you when your perspective is held to be sufficient.

Which is not to say, then, that polytheists are necessarily without flaws or weaknesses. The gods know I have many, and I am certain that you all may as well. This isn't about some self aggrandized, self perfection that only we special snowflakes can obtain. This is about having an intrinsic perspective which informs our thoughts and beliefs, and allows us to understand why we believe what we do, and further, how this can then relate to other peoples perspectives. It may be easier for me than it has (or will be) for others because I've never had that Jesus shaped hole. I was never a Christian, nor were my parents, or immediate family (until well after I had begun forming my own opinions about things), and so those creeping doubts and longings never occurred, and in this respect I am lucky.

What we need then is to instill in ourselves, in our communities, a sense that our worldview is worthy of existing, of being maintained and then passed onto our descendents. But saying it, shouting it at the top of our lungs will amount to nothing, if we do not believe it and if we do not act upon it. We need to instill that our gods have a place in our lives, that our ancestors are worthy of reverence and our interactions with the spirits of place are necessary. That such views inform and instruct our actions, that our lives are lived and lived well. For when it comes to standing firm against proselytizers, those who would knowingly exploit the vulnerable, a good life is the best defense.

-Gorm.

Tinker Bell Theology... or if you just believe.

I've not come across any sort of formal use of the term, though most folks seem to understand what I'm nattering on about when I make use of the expression. The "Tinker Bell Doctrine" or "Tinker Bell Theology" or "Tinkerbell effect" is a term I utilize when I encounter a peculiar, if pervasive, perspective when it comes to the nature of the gods. The origin of the term denotes the character Tinkerbell, originating in the works of J.M Barrie and most popularly, the 1953 Disney animated film, "Peter Pan", and in particular that the more an individual (or group) believes in something, the more potent it becomes. This is a concept which, while not necessarily a major strain in theological thought, is none the less pervasive, especially in fictionalized representations of mythic beings.

There are a number of fictional works where this approach to deities can be observed, ranging from stories by Douglas Adams, to Neil Gaiman, to the show "Supernatural". Jason, at the Wildhunt blog, has already explored some of the problematic aspects of the practical application to gods some of us actually still worship (in the case of the later); it is one reason why I dislike the show and despite the protestations of my wife and others, will not "give a chance". I'll touch on this in a little more detail later on.

I wanted to touch on and explore in a little more depth the approach Gaiman in particular takes. I really, really like the fiction of Neil Gaiman. I am at a loss to name any other recent author who so thoroughly "gets" what many refer to as "mythical thinking". The love the man has for mythology, in and of itself, permeates all of his works. Coupled with the understanding that myth is a framework, a lens through which to understand our experiences, to provide meaning to those experiences, is a thoroughly refreshing approach, normally only found haunting academic approaches to the subject itself.

Having gotten my fanboy gushing out of the way, Gaiman does make substantial use of "Tinker Bell Theology", smatteringly throughout his "Sandman" graphic novel series, but centrally in his novel "American Gods". In particular, his framing of the origins and extent of deities in particular (sometimes conflated with genius loci, sometimes not) fully adopts this perspective. The basic framework outlining the "life" of a god or goddess is as follows.

1. Humans have something they begin to believe in strongly.
2. This belief manifests itself in a physical form.
3. This form will follow the humans who believe in it, or another localized form will do the same.
4. The level of offerings/sacrifices/ influence directly correlates to the potency of the god/ goddess.
5. As the level of devotion wanes, so too does the god.

In conclusion, the mitigating factor in the existence of a deity is the extent in which Humans actively/inactively believe in them. The more people who believe, the stronger the deity is.

While this creates an interesting framing of the origins and nature of gods, and certainly works as a plot device in a number of fictional universes, it is at its core, incompatible with a truly polytheistic approach to theology. Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Monistic, even perhaps so called "soft polytheism", but not polytheism in and of itself.

I personally think such a theological approach to the gods is an almost textbook definition of self-importance and solipsism. That we create the gods, that they are beholden to us, that they need our worship to sustain them speaks far more to the ascendency and dominance of monotheistic thinking, than to the actual nature of the gods, from a polytheistic world view.

If the gods are little more than thought projections, delusions of a fevered mind or mass imagining, then what value do they have, really? How can these mere mental (and later physical) constructs, or idols, hope to compete with the supreme being, with the "author of creation"? In a word, they can not; they are literally straw(god)men, built up specifically so they can be torn down by the obvious truth which can only be found through the worship of the "One true God". Monotheists, while trying to explain away the historic context of the struggle monotheistic systems had in dealing with contemporary polytheism, will argue that references to "gods" do not refer to deities aside from their own, but the metaphorical idols of the human condition: money, greed, power, lust, etc. In the same breath, the gods of our ancestors are explained away as at best base superstition and at worst demon worship. The gods of polytheism necessarily have to be imaginary friends or hallucinatory monsters, because they do not fit anywhere else.

While I can appreciate the more sympathetic approaches in some of the other theistic frameworks I listed above, they all tend to have one thing in common; they reduce the existence, the nature of the gods, as being sourced to the human mind. The gods become archetypes of human endeavour, they become names of power, they become explanations of natural phenomena to a primitive people, they are relegated to a bygone era, they are shelved in storybooks, and they are proclaimed to be dead (especially when compared to the "living" god of monotheism). Is it any wonder, then, that people will often look askance at those of us who mention that we not only "believe" in these gods, but that we actively worship them?

This turns back to one of my major criticisms with the show "Supernatural", and also why I balk at it, but give Gaiman a pass. The narrative framing of the series is from a monotheistic theological perspective; gods when they do show up, are little more than glorified monsters and readily dispatched by the recurring heroes/villains. Living in a culture steeped and saturated with the superiority of monotheism, I'd rather spend my time in fictional universes more sympathetic to my own view of theology. While Gaiman does us similar framing, and is just as guilty of utilizing 'Tinker Bell theology", he applies it equally across the board. For those of you who like me have the 10th anniversary edition of "American Gods" and have read the Apocrypha, you'll understand what I'm getting at. For those who have not, suffice to say that Jesus is "stretched", just a little bit, not unlike an aged Bilbo Baggins. Gaiman gets a pass for having a good grasp of the myths his characters are sourced from, and not just using them as magical (and recognizable) names, to be disposed of at will for plot convenience. In addition, his sympathies lie with mythic thinking, and not mythic name dropping.

I am firmly of the perspective that the gods are both real and external to us. They do not require our worship, nor do they require our belief in order to exist. At least not anymore than I require your belief to exist. Subjectivity is fine and good, and context is always relevant, but one needs to have a grounding in what is, so as to not fall into the trap of solipsism. Why then worship the gods, if they do not need our worship to sustain themselves?

Because it is better to live in harmony with the gods than to be in opposition to them.
Because they enrich our lives and provide us with models and guidance to follow.
Because they offer to us a connection to something far greater than ourselves.
Because their worship establishes a connection with those who came before us.
Because they, and their stories, provide us with meaning and purpose.

I believe in the gods, because they believe in me.

Thoughts?

-Gorm

(Not) Alone in the dark

I've written before about the sort of ennui which can accompany belonging to a minority religion or theistic perspective in the face of a dominant religious/cultural paradigm. This sense seems to have followed me to within the sanctum of our small little community as well, because I have never come across another devotee to Donn. Ever.

It is not at all surprising, given the relatively little mythology and folklore which has been written about him. Given the lack of grand narrative. Given the functional, and lets face it understandably depressing, role of lord of the dead. Even the allusions to him are scarce and you have to be looking out for them to really notice at all. Yet, for all of that, there is an almost universal (as small a universe as it may be) consensus of Donn being a definitive example of a pre-Christian god, and not just a literary invention.

Having said that, it ought to be mentioned that the scant amount is scant only when compared to more luminary mythic figures, especially those who are generally counted among the Tuatha De Dannan. To have information, and a fairly concrete mythology to boot, however, is in itself a rare thing when it comes to the mythic texts. Donn is unique in that he is not counted among the TDD, yet is none the less recognized as a deity. The exemplar of a deified ancestor, albeit there is nothing said about his own line (whether he had sons or daughters), but the line of his brothers did indeed continue. With folklore holding his residence as the destination of all the Gaels after death, it is certainly reasonable to view it as such. The interesting thing about this, is that the ancestral nature is not used to justify anything in the present (contemporary) accounts; no one gave Donn as their ancestor to legitimize their rule, the same way that say Nuada has been utilized.

I suppose that, given all this, Donn still lacks the star power of An Morrigan, Lugh, Brigid or An Dagda; then again Cthonic deities are seldom seen in the light, let alone the limelight.

On the other hand, if the gods are in the habit of reaching out to us (and personal and anecdotal evidence certainly support this conclusion), then perhaps Donn is simply a very selective god? Wow, that must make me really special and unique...

The Dark Lord Favours Me!!!
 

...or, more reasonably, perhaps the relationship between function and worship overlaps in such a way that few (and this is based on anecdotal, Internet sourced research. Who knows, maybe there is a full blown cult of Donn out there somewhere, and they just shy away from the Internet?), if any other GRP's find themselves in a similar place as myself. Then again, a lot of people (swarms, it seems at times) have written about their experiences with deities like An Morrigan (and Babd, Macha, Nemain, Annu, etc.), and seem to lack functional associations one would normally expect with a goddess known primarily for slaughter. On the other hand, I'm not a devotee of An Morrigan, so can only speculate. Perhaps the functional aspect is not something which many others find particularly compelling or the basis of their association with a god or goddess.

It makes sense that from "our" end, the deities with more interesting or compelling stories are the ones people seek out, and inversely are the same who seek "us" out. It is an interesting theological line of inquiry, that there is an observable correlation between the popularity of a deity, and the size of its devotee's/worshippers. Well, actually that isn't interesting, as much as its blatantly obvious. No, the interesting aspect is that because the relationship is (supposed to be) a two way street, that the more popular deities are also the more extroverted ones. So judging from the litany of UPG and SPG detailing these personal or shared experiences, and taking them at face value, the gods are reaching out to us in a very real, arguably observable way.

I expect this to be somewhat disconcerting because lets face it, GRP's (and CR's in general) are a rational lot and (my own biases definitely showing) the idea that we are actually being sought after by deities can be, well overwhelming to say the least. I posted the image above in jest, because it is all too easy to fall into delusions of grandeur and self importance. Yet there is something very comforting in the realization that the gods want us to seek them out, and they seek us out in return. We are not just praying, singing or screaming into the void. We are rebuilding something precious, something sacred, and it is difficult to articulate the significance of this in words alone...

The night may be long, and full or terrors, but we are not alone.

Left out in the cold

Last night, my wife and I watched the interfaith memorial service for the victims of the massacre in Newtown. It was good to see so many religions, representative (I assume) of the population of Newtown, get together and try to begin healing their shattered community. As nations (well I am from Canada after all) watched, and most likely owing to the fact that the POTUS was a planned speaker, it was nice to see all of the Abrahamaic faiths come together and offer their own prayers, words of lamentation, words of comfort, words of trying to make some sense out of tragedy. Christian(s), the Muslim pair, the Jewish fellow, and that Baha'i guy, speaking in front of millions of people a message of hope. All very nice indeed.

But utterly meaningless.

Utterly.

A caveat, lest you think me some sort of monster. That presentation, that wasn't for me; it was for the vast majority of people who belong to the demographically superior religions. That presentation wasn't intending to exclude, but was doing its best to include. They had a Baha'i speaker. Think about that for a moment. Let it sink in. And good on them for their effort and for there deserved success. The goal, after all, was for a local interfaith council to speak, first and foremost, to members of their community; and to a lesser extent their nation. To offer comfort and perhaps some guidance in the wake of unimaginable horror. As I am not a member of their community, nor even counted among their countrymen, I begrudge them not; nor do I harbor any ill will or resentment. Pleasing a single polytheistic blogger was the furthest thing from their collective minds, and that is perfectly fine.

The truth, though, remains the truth. The inclusivity presented was the sort of inclusivity which can happen. Which is possible. Which is the basis of ecumenical outreach and compromise. It is possible because all of the involved parties share a common belief, and that is the belief in the undisputed correctness of monotheism. They, each of them had their own lens through which to view their god. Their own scriptures to offer solace. Their own theologies with which to understand. But they were all of them united by their adherence to monotheism, and in that their prayers have no meaning or significance to me.

Or rather, they have no religious significance. No spiritual dimension. Not even any great wisdom to confer upon me. They have significance at a human level, as genuine outpourings of grief expressed and couched in their own symbolic languages. There is no issue with understanding; the issue is with meaning.

The most I took away from that aspect of the event, was that the Abrahamaic faiths could put aside their differences and, through common symbolic and metaphoric language, express their unified belief in the ultimate goodness of their god. To remind themselves and their coreligionists that there are more than just the powers of darkness at work in the world. To stand beside one another, putting aside their religious divisions, and be united as children of the same god. That is where the real significance of the interfaith prayers lay.

Such language, though, has no meaning to me. For a monotheist and polytheist to have any sort of interfaith prayers or event such as this, would require that theism be removed altogether. Or of course, never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance, and just pretend you're speaking the same language. Certainly on a cultural, human level, such events can have meaning. On a theological level the incompatibility screams so loud that anything theisticly specific, would be lost. Abandoned would be the gods; lost in a congealing mass of monism or pantheism. Gone would be the supremacy of YHVH, counted one god among many. True there may be a shared desire for healing, for pulling strength from a diverse body of religious or sacred texts, but the commonalities belie an insurmountable gap. There would necessarily have to be a softening of positions one way or another, rendering the whole thing moot.

Interfaith can work, can only work, if all parties involved are capable and allowed to maintain their individual positions, while at the same time finding a compromise that is not at once fatal to those positions. Monotheists can do it, because they can generally all agree on the fact that they are all worshipping the same deity (or at least trying to do so). Polytheists can do it, because they are polytheists; it is after all logically incongruent to deny the divinity of Donn, while advocating for the divinity of Pluto. Common ground is found in the case of the later, in the recognition of the godhood of those beings worshipped, even if not worshipped by the other party. Neither position or the compromise arrived at are fatal to the theological underpinnings of those beliefs. Yet when placed together, the result is at best ignorant worship of a single deity, or henotheism in denial. The best case scenario results in a total breakdown one way or the other, and this is precisely the problem. There is a simple, necessary, opposition in the two belief systems, and this can not be overcome through the best attempts of interfaith or ecumenicism. Theologically, they are incompatible. Common ground, such as it exists, is found outside theology; in morality, in ethics, in compassion and shared cultural signifiers. But then why bother with interfaith at all, if the religious component is set to the back burner, or removed altogether?

To reuse a methaphor I dismissed in a post long ago: Standing atop another mountain, one can appreciate the perspective and views of one (or more) atop another. Yet one none the less remains atop their mountain, and sometimes it gets cold.

-Gorm

The gods abide

Today I want to write about the gods. Today I want to express the things which are difficult to articulate: the awe and the grandeur, the "wooshy-ness" (to use a phrase coined by Dreyfus and Kelly), the totality of the ineffable reality that is the dé ochus andé. I want to scream from the bottom of my being, to the apex of the tallest hilltop. I want to do all of this, but I withdraw. I repress. I remain at a loss for words.

For someone who is so accustomed to scholarship and discourse, who has a carefully sculpted demeanor of being calm and measured, of having an outwardly limited range of expression; the notion is not paralyzing, but only just.

How can I even begin to explain just how good the gods are? Just how magnificent the shining ones appear? How much unabashed joy I experience simply by reading of their exploits? How complete and full my life is because they are a part of it? Why I look forward to every new moon, if only to share with others who may just feel the same way, if at a distance?

It is why I leap at every and any chance I get to have a conversation with whoever will listen, about the topic of religion, or myth, or even culture. It is why I type my meandering thoughts out, for others to see. It is why I am probably the only person at my place of buisness who, aside from my employer, understands that our job has a component of the sacred in it. It is why my book shelves groan under the weight of books few would find interesting, but are none the less a source of pride and fascinaion.

All this and more, so much more I wish to express; but here I type, befuddled.

If I know anything, I know the gods abide.

And that is enough.

-Gorm


P.S. So I have a review of "Brave" in the works, look for it soon.

Easter Movie Madness! A friendly reminder of why monotheism > polytheism

I'm not sure how it is in the US, though I imagine given the demographics, it would be similar or even slightly more pronounced than it is in Canada; which ever weekend happens to contain the Easter holidays (Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter Sunday) will feature television channels jam packed with "The Ten Commandments", and just about every film produced in the middle of the decade that has anything to do with Jesus. It is a fixture of the season, as sure as fake green grass, brightly coloured stuffed animals, and sickeningly sweet confections consisting of chocolate or marshmallow. The most striking thing about them is how utterly similar they are; in cinematography, in costume, in direction, in score and especially in message. Or at least one message: The god of Abraham is the best, any other deity can suck it.

Alright, so this ought to be patently obvious, this is how monotheism works after all. Our god is the best and only god, other people are idiots for worshipping anyone/thing that isn't our god. Alright, and so it makes sense also that the costumes are going to be similar, after all they all take place around the same time... Except for "Ten Commandments", which is supposed to be taking place during the events depicted in Exodus. So they substitute golden helmets for ones with ridiculous plumes, but other than any given actor in TC could walk by a shot in, say "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Barabbas", and you'd never know they were from a time period several thousand years prior. This may seem a little nit picky, but it conveys a sort of unconscious understanding of the continuum which Christians believe exists between Exodus and their own Gospels. A separate issue in and of itself, so lets just focus on the other glaring similarity (and purpose) I mentioned earlier.

So, and again fairly obviously, these films are supposed to provide entertaining reenactments of various Gospel (or OT) narratives. As such they are going to have the bias inherent in the world view of the source material, and of course this would necessitate that the religious or theological perspective come along with it. These stories are familiar, these stories are known, these stories can probably be recited by a not insignificant percentage of the population. However, these films lack the full breadth of someone to both interpret and understand them (i.e. a religious officiant) for the audience, and so must be able to convey their message in as obvious and self evident manner as possible. Also they need to be entertaining, have self contained narratives and be able to fit into an allotted time slot. What this translates to is that they haven't got the entirety of the NT to flesh out perspectives on things, and so tend to be really "on the nose" with portrayals of certain things: Roman religion, Roman society, Roman culture, Romans, Christians, etc.

Which brings me to my first point that is irritating coming from a polytheistic perspective: Whenever a Christian character begins to speak about "their Lord" to non-Christians, everyone becomes utterly transfixed by their words and by their desecration of all other deities. There is usually some sort of half-hearted defense made, which generally amounts to, "what makes your god so great?", which is followed by the Christian answering the question, dashing to pieces said defense. When this is interrupted, it is usually by some Roman official of power/influence who, not offering a theological argument, mentions that Christianity is outlawed and so the Christian has to be punished, usually by capital punishment. The pertinent points which come across in these scenes, and the overall films are as follows:

1. Pagans were monsters.
2. Pagans had no theology.
3. Pagan deities do not exist.
4. Roman religion can be explained as little more than "Worship of the Emperor".

Pagans were  monsters

In these films there are generally four types of Pagan: the master, the plebeian, the slave, and the convert.

The master is fairly self explanatory, they are the characters who have some degree of control over the Christian characters, as well as the plebes and converts. They are the face of the "Roman machine", the one mentioned above who will end the witnessing of the Christian, not through theological points but by the use of their power, generally through force. If they are shown to be religious at all, it is only for personal gain or politics; often secretly shunning the superstitions of the plebeians. As such they are power hungry, amoral and oppressive.

The plebeian is your average Roman citizen whose only interaction, or point in the film, is to stand in a crowd and encourage violence. That's it. If these films were all we had to represent our knowledge of Roman culture, we would think that all Roman citizens did was watch gladiatorial combats and give the "thumbs down" for every single contestant who lost a duel. Where the master will use violence to gain power or maintain order, the plebeian loves violence for entertainments sake. Blood thirsty and ignorant masses.

The slave is any character who is not a master or plebeian, nor Christian (nor Jewish), who will not be converting to Christianity by the end of the picture. They are usually the only voice trying to raise a defence of Paganism, and the same who are utterly silenced the moment the Christian character speaks. Slaves, but on the "wrong side".

The convert is a slave (and very rarely a plebeian) who was a Pagan, but will convert to Christianity at some point. Usually any Pagan character who has any sense of morality, or who may try to help the Christian, will inevitably convert, recognizing the inherent emptiness of the Pagan position. Slaves who see the light.

To synthesize these rough categories into understanding the way the Roman world is portrayed, Pagans were terrible, violent, oppressive and superstitious. Any "good" Pagan will ultimately convert to Christianity, thereby robbing Paganism of any redeeming figures.

Pagans had no theology

At no point, in any film, is Roman religion ever actually discussed (other than point 4). No attempts are made to explain, or explore the deep theology and mythology which underpinned Roman religion. Instead we are treated to a glancing mention of the civic nature of Roman religion, that it was little more than an apparatus of the state to ensure control of the ignorant masses, and the the idea of freedom of religion was unheard of. This theological vacuum is, of course, why everyone on screen (regardless of role) is at least temporarily transfixed when a Christian talks about his deity. Paganism was hollow and so anyone within ear shot will have to listen to the wisdom and truth spoken... until Christian is maimed/murdered.

Pagan deities do not exist

Not that any of the perspectives here come as a surprise, but this is necessarily self evident in the world view being put forward. Monotheism simply does not allow for the possibility of the existence of any deity except the one the adherents worship. Within the films we are almost certainly guaranteed at least one example of some character, usually the master, slave or convert, seeking the aid of a Pagan deity (because again, in a monotheistic context, and Paganisms theological vacuum, the only sort of prayer which exists is petitionary). This is usually in the context of either trying to show up the Christian (whose prayers are always answered) or saving themselves; in every event, and at every attempt, failure is the only result. Of course it is, because those other gods don't exist.

Roman Religion = Emperor is God

What is important here is noting that the idea of the civic virtue of making an offering to the genuis of the emperor is not what is being portrayed. What is portrayed is that the Emperors (who ever they may be) are portrayed as believing themselves to be gods, or are seen by the masters, plebeians and slaves as being a god. It is an allegorical tool, emphasizing the difference between the true, disembodied, Christian god and the crass, all too human, Emperor. Again, not terribly surprising considering how much the symbolic Rome is utilized by the authors of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles and Revelation as being the exemplar of everything which is wrong with "this world" and so in these films, the Emperor becomes the living embodiment of everything which is wrong with Rome, and by proxy Pagans.

That is pretty much my summary of how Pagans are portrayed in such films. I'm not going to be providing a step by step explanation of why every one of the characteristics is either completely wrong, or at the very least an egregious distortion of actual history. If you're interested in rebuttals and the like, and aren't already aware of them, just do a quick goolge search for "roman religion". Or you know watch Gladiator (not a great film, but decent enough in its snippets of ritual, and certainly its ability to portray Pagans as moral) or Agora (although the problem with this is the tit for tat portrayal, which needed to be grossly exagerated to provide "balance").

-Gorm.

Polytheism.net

I know that prior to my recent investigation, I had actually found my way to "polytheism.net", and was both unsurprised, and underwhelmed by its contents. It was not until a few days ago, however, that I found my way back and actually began going through a good chunk of the content provided by the site. As it turns out this site has managed to inspire me, because it is probably one of the more duplitious sites out there. It provides just enough actual information, that anyone not familair with either the historic/modern cultures discussed or with polytheism in general, would actually mistake it as a legitimate source of information. It isn't, of course, being what amounts to a thinly veiled, web based Christian tract. The "articles" are loaded with imbeded links to webpages produced by the same company, all under the auspices of "All About Philosophy", which in turn is owned and maintained by "AllaboutGod.com", of "All About God Ministries".

There are many "tells" on the front page which betray its true nature, but a lot of folks wouldn't be aware of these and so the insidious nature of the site, and the misinformation it provides, is all the more troubling. So why bother talking about it at all? Two reasons:

1. The first is that I think pointing out just how dishonest the information is, merits some commentary, if for no other reason than to provide some content fellow polytheists may get a chukle out of, or shake their heads at.

2. The second, and probably more useful, is that the site is replete with just about every agument that has been made against polytheism, from archaic to obscufitating, to down right lying. I think that while the information is bogus and with a juvenile analysis, it does represent a given world view: that of a certain type of monotheist's understanding of polytheism, and if nothing else provides clear points of argument, to which rebuttals ought to be made.

The front page consists of a basic explanation of what polytheism is, drops some of the polytheisic cultures which everyone would be familiar with, mentions how primitive it is, how it is in stark contrast to the Abrahamic monotheisms and how most modern polytheists are either those "exotic" others from the "east" or new agers. My guess would be that pagans and reconstructionists would be lumped in with the new age in such an aproximation. As I mentioned the information is innocous enough, but it is towards the bottom of the page that the tone shifts from condescendingly curious to two central commentaries which show the lacking elements of polytheism (or to be fair, any non-absolutist, monotheistic worldview).

• The lack in a supreme, all powerful deity, who is the embodiment of morality, necessarily makes these religions/cultures 'moral relativists'.
• Ultimately, these people are unhappy because they, necessarily, lack the direction and purpose presented by the monothesitic god. 

The bottom of the last paragraph spells it out, "Monotheistic faiths such as Christianity teach that absolute truth is reality, mankind is on earth for a purpose, and eternal salvation is possible for those seeking a reconciled relationship with the one true God." This of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with monotheism at all, but consdiering the authors, is typical. So, lets "Explore More Now!!!"

This link, unfortunately for the purposes of this post, redirects to a page comparing the "meaning of life" between those who think "this life is all their is", and those who "know there is more". I'll not go into great detail here, but one of the "points" raised on this page reveals the highly immoral nature of the very world view they espouse as being "moral." The argument boils down to the need for an ultimate reward to provide meaning to any aspect of human culture or history, because without this reward, everything is meaningless. It really doesn't provide anymore detail than that, and is a perfect example of circular logic. The real life example they posit is that without an ultimate reward, there is no difference between living a life like "Billy Graham" or living a life like "Osama Bin Laden". I'll just play along with their simplistic good/evil bifurcation; they completely fail to see that living a life of morality for the sake of morality is a worthwhile endevour. Are they so morally callous to just ignore the suffering, however temporal, that an "evil" person inflicts, or the joy that a "good" person provides? For people who are making judgements from a position of "absolute" morality, they lack even the basic ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong".

Which brings me back to the first assertion about polytheism listed above; that polytheists are "moral relativists", and this ultimately means that here is no morality at all. Proving this assertion is again the work of another website (well two actually, one on "cultural-relavitism" and the other on "moral relavitism". Neither of which have anything at all do (directly) with polytheism. Ultimately, however, this is one of the most important arguments for the monotheistic outlook, especially when it comes to issuse of ethics and morality. It is also a canard. The entire argument hinges on the belief that monotheism provides a single source of morality, and that without this all other methods of determing "right" from "wrong" are incorrect, or impossible.It also relies on the assertion that the source for understanding morality, their holy book, is infalliable. Anyone who isn't blinded by their unwavering, unfalsifiable faith is such baseless assertions, can readily see the problem with relying on such a source as THE source of ethics. Considering that such individuals are unable to see the intrinsic value in living a good life vs. living a life of vice, you'll forgive my skepticism of their ability to make sound moral choices.

In normative ethics, the kind of ethical model espoused by these people, is a sort of bigoted deontological ethical system; something is moral because it has been established by some authority (in this case a very crude "divine command theory"), and so what is moral amounts to adhering to these rules. Funnily enough, the same site redirects to an article on deontological ethics and tries its best to show how flawed even their own approach is! What is so twisted with this particualr view, however, is the assertion that it is actually impossible to do so. Morality is actually impossible without the direct intervention of the "supreme law giver", which in turn establishes a need for such intervention made possible through the religion being promoted. This assertion is of course, non-sense, as not only do other ethical systems exist, but even a simple application of my personal preference, virtue ethics, shows both that moral agency is possible without divine intervention, and that the idea of "moral relavitism" being the only option outside of absolutist bifurcation, is simply wrong.

One of the foundationa principles of vitrue ethics is the idea of the "golden mean". The "golden mean" is what qualifies as a virtue, and exists between deficeny of the virtue, and excess of the virtue. For example, "bravery" is considered a virtue, where as deficeny of "bravery" is "cowardice" and excess is "foolhardiness". The deficency results in the inability to act at all, and the excess in reckless acts. Bravery, then, is held to be a virtue because it allows one to act in a given situation while preventing one from reacting in an unthinking manner. A tad simplistic, but serviciable to the point where it becomes fairly easy to establish an objective basis that is not based on "cultural relativity" or "moral relavitism". Of course, there is a considerable difference between an objective basis and an absolutist one; in the former, context is taken into account whereas in the latter it necessarily needs to be true in every context. In essence it can be shown that the virtue is a virtue objectively, and not simply based on culture/relativism, while understanding that the context of the situation can impact the applicability. In such a case then, it is simple to see why the life of the "good Billy Graham" is superior to the life of the "evil Osama Bin Laden", without the need to posit a scheme of reward/punishment to give it significance.

There is a side bar on the main page which has a number of links which redirect to related subject matter and so I will next turn my attention to them. The top link is titled "Gods and Goddesses" and redirects to a series of pages which discuss (in chronological order) Egyptian, Greek and Roman polyteism. Again terribly simplistic, but there is a recurring theme throughout all of the pages: the nature of the (ancient) gods and goddesses, and their worship, was arbitrary and ever changing. The assertion that the various gods of polytheism were "created by man", is present in every summary and so posits that none of these deities have actual existence external to the myths of the specific cultures. What the mileage of these myths do reflect, is a sincere desire of all human cultures to explore and understand their origins and purpose, but the instability of such belief systems ultimately leaves no certainty, and ultmately no real answers at all. When the author moves on to discussing Greek deities, who were also fictional, emotional (... such as jealousy or wrath?) and interfered in human afairs (... like destroying all but a handful of life?). The next culture was that of the Romans, split into earlier and later developments. A brief mention of the genius/luna and household deities, with the inclusion of how silly having a deity for an absurd amount of specificity is. The later development comments on the inclusion of broader mythology and the syncretic tendencies of Rome to adopt deities from other cultures, again playing on the transience of such worship.

The second page concludes with the same "Explore More Now" link which redirects to the same "meaning of life" page discussed above. Except where the eariler page then provides some related content to the link, these pages do not merit any further discussion. The argument is actually very tacit in these examples; a belief in polytheistic deities is from a bygone era, where people did not know any better, but reflect or anticipate the desire for the "absolute truth" presented by this particular monotheism. Such assertions, however tacit, ultimately betray a sincere lack of understanding of the development of their own mythology, and of course the bias inherent in rejecting out of hand all mythologies (and deities) except ones own, because they believe the assertios their holy book/religion provide. Special pleading at its finest, but again very typical. Relating back to the second overall theme of the web page, this discontent or aimlessness which is present in those who do not belong to this particular monotheism, is symptomatic of the void which must exist in those outside this particular world view. Those outside must be unhappy, because if they were happy, content and fulfilled, then this would mean that such things were not the exclusive purview of their religion and the deity they represent, and so their claims of exclusivity would fall flat. No mention is made, of course, of modern polytheists, because we are not even an afterthought.

All in all the page doesn't present any information which is not readily available, and in better quality, through even a quick goolgle search or glancing at a wikipedia article. The information which is provided is not done in an objective fashion, and instead is presented in a very condescending tone. What then is the purpose of this web site; well to steer those rare people who may be genuine "spiritual seekers", maybe who've heard of this so called polytheism and are curious, back to the "winning team". How? Through misinformation and deception, two tried and true methods in the arsenal of this particular monotheism. How much of an impact would this site have on individals looking for information? Well its the second site listed in a google search of "polytheism", being nudged out of the top spot by he wiki article on polytheism. So while anyone who is already cognizant of polytheism as a legitimate way of understanding deity wouldn't waste their time after the first paragraph, those who are not aware, but may be contemplating or exploring other theistic perspctives are vulnerable to such tactics.

There is still a lingerng question though, why go through all this trouble; why all the effort and deception to discredit an apparently "defunct" religious perspective? I would suggest that the very existence of this website and its associated content pages, proves not only that polytheism is being seen as a contemporary religious view by the authors, but that it is actually providing a competing perspective popular enough to merit such a response. So that while the website is indeed a testament to strawman polytheism, that it exists means that perhaps we do, infact, merit not only an afterthought, but serious contemplation.

-Gorm.

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

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.