A terrible beauty is born...

Not being a Christian, a Heathen, or having children of my own, Easter doesn't really count for much around my household. Family tradition generally holds that we have some sort of dinner, and more than likely I'll be going to my fiances grandmothers tomorrow. So, without much to say about it, here is a lovely poem by W. B. Yates:

Easter 1916

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

That woman's days were spent
In ignorant good-will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When, young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse;
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vainglorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road.
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute they change;
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim,
And a horse plashes within it;
The long-legged moor-hens dive,
And hens to moor-cocks call;
Minute by minute they live:
The stone's in the midst of all.

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse -
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible brauty is born.

Have a Happy Easter!

I went for a walk today or everyday Animism

[I had originally begun this post on February 23, but did not get around to finishing it until now]

On my way home from work late yesterday afternoon, I decided that instead of waiting to cram myself onto an over loaded bus, that I would walk the six or so blocks home. While I did manage to get to "my stop" before the bus I would have been on, I was also reminded of how much I love walking as an activity. I hadn't actually gone for a 'good walk" in almost three years; which is about as long as I have had my car. I mean I used to walk a lot, and for no other reason than I enjoyed doing it and becoming familiar with my surroundings. Even when I was at university, on the day I had a five hour spare, I would simply pick a direction and start walking. There are just so many fascinating details that you miss when you're speeding along, and haven't got the ability or the time to notice them. So, since today was my first day off in a little over a week, I decided that I should go for one of those "good walks".

There are two major rivers in my city, and one which is very near my house, the Humber. Now I do devotional offerings to the Humber, and maybe one day I'll write about all the nifty little concurrences which lead me to do this, but suffice to say "she" is important to me. So, while I have visited the head waters, and the bay into which the Humber empties, and explored a few choice locations, I've never actually made much use of the system of parks which runs along side her. With a quick google earth + conservatory inquiry, I had my itinerary, and my route. The route was somewhere around 20 km, and followed a meandering system of trails, bridges, street connections and some "rougher" terrain. I managed to walk it in five hours, not bad considering that I made a good number of stops to look around and appreciate the scenery, and that I haven't walked this sort of distance in at least three years.

Where I entered, at Finch Ave. and Islington Ave., I decided to look for a stone from the river, which I would carry with me to deposit at the mouth, and found one in short order. Then something odd happened, I was just about to cross the bridge when I heard a splash, and saw a woman come rather quickly towards me, turn up the path and onto the street; I did notice that she had an empty black canvas bag. When I began crossing the bridge, I looked down and floating down the river where four daikon radishes and a turnip. I'm not sure if this was simply a case of someone dumping refuse (which makes little sense, since organic waste pickup is tomorrow) or something else, it was just odd to have (what appeared to be) perfectly good root vegetables thrown into a river.

Just across the bridge, there was a single large stone, which I joking dubbed Grainne's recliner; I did lay on it though, and it was surprisingly comfortable. Well if infertility is ever an issue, I know where to go. I made my way along the path and in short order came upon another foot bridge, and decided to feed some ducks who were swimming about just below it. Continuing on I encountered a number of fellow "travellers along the way" and did my best to greet all of them as we crossed paths. At this point, most were elderly and a few were walking their dogs. I continued on, came across a woodpecker, and then the sun decided to peek out from behind the clouds for a little while, so naturally I sang the Hymn to the Sun (CG 316):

Hail to thee, thou son of the season, as thou traverst the skies aloft
Thy steps are strong on the wing of the heavens, Thou art the glorious mother of the stars
Thou liest down in the destructive ocean, without impairment and without fear
Thou risest up on the peaceful wave crest, like a queenly maiden in bloom.

I continued on, taking in the warmness the sun now provided; enjoying the unseasonably warm February day and musing on the approaching spring. Already the signs were everywhere; the chlorophyll was returning to the grass, trees were already beginning to bud neihert surprising considering how mild the winter had been, and how noticibly absent snow was. I travelled south, crossing through several different parks and passing by an area where I maintained a sort of make shift shrine, dedicated to the Humber herself. Unfortunately, visiting it would have taken me off my current path, and as I had been there the previous week, felt no need to stop by. I was, after all spending the day with the river. Actually, now that I reflect on it the trail can roughly be split into three different segments, the first and third tended to follow the course of the Humber more closely, the middle ended up meandering away from it for significant chunks.

As I travelled further I noticed a few interesting things. At one point, as the trail skirted around an impressive golf club, I noticed some interesting grafitti which had been scrawled onto the ground near a cement drainage way, "This, the great divide". Perhaps it seemed more poignant at the time, for now it seems nonsensical. Further on I came across a Great Blue Heron, simply standing as they tend to, on one leg, letting everything around them take in how terribly majestic they look; though to be honest the nearby ducks didn't seem to be having any of it.

I made my way, noted that the trail was populated in spurts, with folks more frequently clustered around the parks proper, or between catwalks leading from various neighbourhoods. I am happy to note that everyone returned my greetings, and the creeping smiles were difficult to miss; amazing how much of an effect even the simplest of courtisies can have on someones disposition. Along the trail, especially the second and third sections, the city of Toronto has these small informational stands set up. They are usually shaped in small circles, refered to as "story circles" made of hewn stone and paved with white limestone; they contain infographics and texts explaining the significance of this particular area, or mention the tribe of first nations which had settlements where we now stood. At one such location, I met an elderly couple who were also enjoying the weather, but who lamented that the present stands were dirty, covered in a thin layer of dirt or mud, which obscured the information. Having a bottle of water handy, I did my best to clean them off, while the older gentleman did his part and wiped them dry with leaves. They seemed to be very glad that another person would care as much as they did, and I always love to see civic duty in action. We bid each other a good day, and I continued on my way.

I have to say that the most bizzare, and the most surreal moments of my journey happend very close to one another. The bizzare was that as I walked through one of the more intricate paths, which had been built up with logs and board walks, as opposed to the typical asphalt; I noticed a single log with the website infowars.com written in thick, black permanent marker. It wasn't as if this was some sign post or permanent fixture, it was just a random log lying at the side of the trail, and someone had taken the time to advertise for the ridiculous conspiracy-theorist website, in the middle of an urban wilderness. The more surreal experience occured shortly after, when I can across a single mound, topped with a tree, which was covered by thick, emerald ivy. The contrast with the surrounding areas was stark, to say the least, as everything else was a muted brown. That a sunbeam managed to pierce through the cloud cover, and illuminate the mound just so, was simply too much to take seriouisly; it was the kind of beautiful image which would be overlain with some sappy quote or mind numbingly insipid poem.

There were other interesting things to make note of, which few of the other people who passed them by seemed to give much heed. There were all manner of memorial benches, stones and especially trees scattered across the numerous parks which made up a good chunk of the trail. Benches dedicated to members of local community groups who had helped in revitalization projects; a monument to a man who had "died while vainly attempting to save two boys from drowning"; a tree which was decorated with christmas ornaments, with a plaque which explained the planting was in memorium of a now deceased boy scout, still maintained by some degree, by his family or troop. There were, in fact, many small decorations or personal touches which accompanied the small plaques, mounted on cross cut cement cylinders, explaining who the tree was dedicated to. Living memorials, physical embodiments of grief and loss; growing in proxy of young lives cut short, or long lives now spent.

I eventually reached my goal, the Humber bay, after walking aong the trail as it crossed through two unique, "remnant" ecological areas. To the left of me was the Humber Marshes and to the right a Black Oak Savanna. The bay, as can be expected of most green areas of the lake shore, was fairly busy. I made my way to the shore of lake Ontario, and sat on the large rocks which had been deposited to prevent the erposion of the shore, and relaxed for a bit in the late afternoon sun. One of the very nifty things about this small parkette are the collection of standing stones which sit on top of a small hill, known as the "Sheldon Lookout" or the "Stones of Sheldon". One of these stones contain two plaques which will align with the summer and winter solstices at dawn on their respective days. I wonder if any of the local Pagans make use of them, and it may bare looking into.

I crossed the large Humber bay bridge, stopping in the middle to say a final prayer and dropping the stone I had been carrying with me all day, into the river. Both of our journiey's complete, I crossed the bridge and began to make my way back home. My souvenirs included a small blister on my right foot, and terrible back pain for the next day, but the experience was more than worth it. Being out in the tame nature we in this great metropolis have maintained, exploring the different environments through which the Humber flows, and really coming to appreciate just how significant this one river is to the city. I may be one of the only people around who would admit to leaving offerings to the River, but if my journey taught me anything, I am far from the only person in this city who still worships her.

-Gorm.

 PS. I linked above to a website which seems to be a labour of love, the Toronto Historical Plaques site. This is maintained by Alan L. Brown and for anyone in the GTA or who may be interested in the multitude of plaques placed around the city, there really is no better resource.

Never surrender

When I usually post about religions with which I disagree with basic tenants or core principals, my usual topic is monotheism, and more specifically Christianity. It is only natural, of course, that the dominant religion in my country and western culture should bare more critique from a minority perspective than the dominant religion in other countries or cultures; that is after all how hegemony works. There does arise, however, from time to time notions from other religions which are held to be wondrous pearls of wisdom or highly thought provoking, paradigm shifting realizations which are then foisted by proponents as universally applicable, and how much better would your life be if you only understood this. In this case, I'm going to talk about that darling of "open minded" or "spiritual" people, Buddhism.

Or perhaps, not Buddhism per se, but those bits and pieces which are lifted from it and held to be wonderful, different and oh so enlightened. I realize that such drips and drabs may not be reflective of Buddhism as a whole, but they still reflect some of its core principals, albeit in a watered down way.

The particular drip which made me want to voice an opinion, was a small column in one of the morning daily's, by Natasha Dern, whom I know as the host of a now defunct radio show called "Buddha Lounge". The short piece was about the value of surrender as a virtue. Now she did take the time to elaborate and explain that surrender was not about "giving up", but actually took more strength than continuing to struggle against, well whatever the universe was telling you to stop struggling against. In most cases the thing one is supposed to be surrendering is the assertion of control. Or at the very least the worry which can come with trying to control things one can not possibly control. A good summary of this philosophy, and practical examples of it can be found here: Let Go Of Control. The gist of the philosophy is that by "letting go" of the idea (or more often illusion) of control, you will have to accept reality and what Buddhists refer to as "what is". The concept of "what is" is supposed to be the reality of a given situation, without the blocks of "fear" or "desire" getting in the way. What is stressed in these little lessons is the idea that by giving up the illusion of agency, one is supposed to gain peace and tranquility; "trust that everything will work out and it will".

Poppycock, and paradoxical poppycock at that.

I'll admit that I find many of the Zen koans interesting, and paradox can be thought provoking, but this doesn't fall into that category. This is simply giving up and hoping everything will work out on its own. You will note how much everyone who talks about the strength required in surrendering, states that it is not about inaction or "giving up". It is of course, absolutely, but they'd like to spin it another way. They stress how much strength and character it takes to realize the futility of an action, and that the stronger person will overcome their selfish ego, and trust in... well that's just it, they tend to not identify what is supposed to take over; other than "the universe". I've seen this type of thinking before, and while I've tried my best to not drag Christianity into this post, I can not help but notice this is the precise idea which is found in "Jesus take the wheel" theology. Give up, let go, things will work out.

How is this not a shinning endorsement of inaction? How is relinquishing control anything but giving up the idea that you have agency to effect your life? I understand that this is not supposed to be a rejection of agency in every situation, only in those where you haven't got any. Oh wait, is that circular logic rearing its curvy head? How is one supposed to determine if one has agency in a given situation in the first place? If you try enacting change and things get tough, stress you out, or become difficult, those are the signs to surrender? The second link above uses the idea of paddling against the current in a canoe. The proper response is to relinquish your paddles, and go with the flow, so to speak: "You can do things the hard way, or the easy way."

Well then, by the gods, I'm doing it the hard way.

Now I don't want to get off topic and explore the nature of fate in the tales; I've already had that discussion. There is, however, a definite will on behalf of gods and heroes both to resist, struggle and overcome any and all obstacles which stand in their way; or you know, die trying. Why do this, why struggle so hard when simply surrendering to their present reality would be so much easier? Because to do otherwise would bring dishonour, shame and ruin. Change is not something which occurs because things will work themselves out, change is something that happens through concerted effort and struggle. The Tuatha De Danann could have simply accepted their subjugation under Bres and his Fomorian allies, but they knew that would only bring ruin because dishonour brings dishonour. They knew the effort and the cost of throwing off the shackles of oppression, but they had to move forward because while the cost of action was high, the cost of inaction was unbearable. The Milesians confronted and did battle with the gods themselves, and won their share of the land. Yes, later on they realized the necessity of mutual respect and reciprocity was far more beneficial to all involved, but if they had just sailed away for easier settlements, they would have never gained the respect of the gods in the first place.

I'm not going to fault people for taking the easy way out, but I reject the notion that the easy way is in reality the "harder way". No, the hard way is not the path of least resistance, the hard way can be fraught with difficulty, with peril, with loss and with grief. But confronting and overcoming such difficulties is our duty, is one of the bases of the heroic virtues we strive to embody. Courage is measure against risk. Strength is measured against difficulty. Duty is measured against obligation. We are asked to be courageous, to be strong and to fulfill our duty, no matter the personal cost. It is through such effort that we are called to serve our community, and reject the importance of "the self".

Now, I've relied upon the mythic accounts to exemplify the value of struggle or of caring about outcomes; whereas the articles seek out more mundane and run of the mill experiences. They coalesce their sentiment into 'not sweating the details" which is a reasonable statement. But even in this accepting mediocrity is encouraged. If you've asked someone to do something a million times, and you have built plans around them fulfilling the task, and they fail to do so; don't sweat it, let it go and move on. Except that this establishes that people can make promises, fail to come through on them, and then not be held accountable. Certainly it would be easier to simply not have standards and expectations, but that doesn't make it the better choice. If someone tells you they are going to do something, they have an obligation to uphold it. If they fail to do so, you have an obligation to hold them accountable, and they have an obligation to make restitution. To do otherwise is to invite mediocrity and ultimately dishonour. Certainly stressing out over things which you have no control over is futile. The problem is that the philosophy above supports this, but adds that if things are difficult than you ought to relinquish any control you do have, and essentially hope for the best.

I say make it happen, and never surrender.

Owning Up: The best way forward

It comes up time and time again: in news articles, in interviews, in TV spots, in blog posts, in forum messages, even in tweets. A reasonable enough approach when confronted with depictions or portrayals which reflect negatively on a wider community, is to point out that "so and so's" actions are not supported by the group, and that there is nothing which condones such actions, from within the group. Wait, let me back up a little.

I'm talking about responsibility, or rather about the lack of it in a number of given incidents, typically involving some dishonourable action on part of a member of a given group, and the communities reaction to wider scrutiny as a result. As I said above, the most common tactic is to isolate the dishonourable member as an individual who does not reflect the wider membership, nor any of the teachings, philosophies, or messages of that group. They are labeled as "lone nuts", "fringe", "extremists" or "people who do not really understand X group". The goal, in any case, is to show how the individual(s) acted alone, and that the group does not condone their actions, and is therefore free from any blame or responsibility. The more glib version of this sort of argument, is known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. This fallacy establishes that to belong to a given group, one must abstain from doing X, as no one who does X could be considered a member of said group. The logical extension of this sort of reasoning is that groups can isolate their own membership for actions they deem as being dishonorable, sinful, criminal, etc., and by doing so shift any and all responsibility away from their group. The problem is then two fold:

1.  1.The group effectively narrows who can be considered members by disqualifying any who may make them look bad, thus providing an illusory ideal which does not reflect reality.
2. As a result of 1, the group will not examine itself and see if there is something internal which could have had causal influence on the actions of those (now) ex-members.

This isn't necessarily about any one group, and can happen with any group at all. I do have a couple of examples in mind though, to illustrate my point.

One of the most common examples of this sort of argument is found among a certain proselytizing type of Christian. When the history of Christianity is being discussed, for example, and is shown in a negative way this sort of Christian will explain away the wrong doing by explaining that "those were not REAL Christians, because no REAL Christian would do something like that." What this is trying to do is to disqualify those Christians who may reflect badly on the religion, even in a historic context, and in doing so show the moral superiority inherent in the religion. An attempt to show fallibility in such a way, will not only result in such evasive rhetoric, but will ultimately cause a deeper commitment to the illusory ideal the individual has for their religion. Any contemplation on possible sources for such negative actions/accounts within their own tradition will simply not occur.

Similar distancing and pretending occur among western Muslims who consider themselves moderates or liberal, when confronted with the reality of religious violence being carried out in the name of their religion. The most common refutation of culpability tends towards mentioning the dangers of Islamophobia, racism, "western" bias, etc. The second is to explain that "these people are extremists, and Islam does not condone X", attempting to remove any culpability on part of Islam as an organized religion. While I have no doubt whatsoever that xenophobia (be it Islamophobia, racism, etc.) can be a motivation for "speaking out against Islam", and trying to represent every adherent as a slavering, suicide bomber is disingenuous (and factually wrong), this does not mean that all criticisms can be explained away as such. The problems arise when reasonable criticism is deflected as being those above, even when it clearly is not. There exists a desire, on part of "moderate Muslims" to simply not address some fundamental issues within the religion: about the content of their religious scripture as justifying certain actions or beliefs, about some Imam's having very anti-western sentiments and encouraging such views among their members, about the crime of apostasy meriting brutal punishments, etc. What this willful ignorance does is engender a victimized mentality, while at the same time preventing any exploration or discussion of serious issues that need to be addressed. Again, by distancing themselves from the negative elements within their own communities, responsibility is shunned.

A slightly more complex issues arises in the case of Paganism, and the Pagan "community". Every now and then a news article will come along involving some heinous crime allegedly committed by a Pagan. Very often these articles will smack of poor writing, media bias, lack of research, sensationalism, etc. Often there will be protestations emanating from the online Pagan "community", and again the argument of "no Pagan would...", or "Wicca teaches that ..." is almost sure to follow. As Pagans tend to be highly self conscious, especially in regard to media portrayals, representatives from larger Pagan organizations may be approached, or will provide commentary on such issues if they can. While I do appreciate the desire to provide accurate portrayals of minority religions in the media as necessary, and that combating the idea of criminal activity being portrayed as normative with the teachings of a given religion, I worry that the same distancing which occurs in large religions, is happening as well.

The issue of complexity I mentioned above, however, is relevant to discussions about portrayal v. ideal v. reality among the Pagan "community". This seems as good a time as any, in case you were wondering, to point out that I've been putting community in brackets when it follows Pagan for a reason. The extent to which one can actually speak about something as wide and varied as Paganism being a community is very limited. If I were talking about a specific tradition, because even specific religion can be too broad a category, I would use the term community. As I am not, the idea of what constitutes a community when it comes to Paganism is nigh impossible to define. There simply is no consensus as to what does and does not qualify someone as a "Pagan", and so the idea of statements like "Pagan's don't..." or "Paganism teaches..." having any merit is at best foolish. This is where the idea of having people speaking for, or on behalf of Paganism becomes difficult; no one could possibly speak for everyone who self identifies as a Pagan, as Wiccan, as Druid, etc. At issue here is an utter lack of standard belief or shared values which is necessary for any sort of community to label itself as such.

Now, I am most certainly not trying to argue for the development of pan-Pagan values or beliefs, that boat sailed before I was even born. Or even within narrower, but still amorphous religions, like Wicca (or more properly neo-Wicca/Wiccanesque). No, what I am addressing is the difficulty in making statements like "Wiccans do not...", or "There is nothing in Wicca which...", and then believing such "facts" have any weight behind them. For such statements to have merit, they would require some means of internal regulation and consensus among those who identify as, in this case, Wiccan. The simple fact is that such internal regulation and consensus does not exist; even recent attempts to establish it have met with wide spread derision and claims of illegitimacy (i.e. "What give you the authority to establish such guidelines or principles?"). I'm not saying that such things need to be done, or that they would necessarily be positive; only that without some sort of authority or community consensus/regulation, discounting or trying to exclude individuals (or even groups) from being considered members of such "communities" is an impossibility. Mind, such attempts at separation within religions which do have centralized or common beliefs is still fallacious; in the case of Paganism (as much as we can speak about it) it is simply nonsensical. So when a representative of some Pagan group speaks to the media, how much authority do they have to even make such claims? If they are speaking for their own membership, of course they have such authority. If, however, they are speaking about Paganism as a whole, their authority is limited to their own definition and the inherent limitations of such a group.

So what does this have to do with anything?

As I said before responsibility and to be more specific, community responsibility. I'm not going to argue that lone nuts or fringe groups are imaginary, they do after all exist and are by their definition not indicative of a larger whole. What I do think is necessary, however, is that where an individual who is a member of a group does something dishonorable, rather than ignore the communities culpability in that individuals actions to first and foremost own it. Accept that someone who is a member of your community has acted in such a manner, rather than try to reverse engineer their membership into non-existence prior to their actions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with explaining that such dishonorable action is not condoned by the community, or that the member by doing so has even disqualified themselves from their existing membership or will be made to restore their honour before being trusted again (if at all possible). What this does is to allow a community to act with integrity and avoid self deception, and portray itself as honorable in spite of the actions of individual members. It also allows for members to review existing positions, rules, etc. and see if they had any causal influence on the member in questions actions. Of course, for something like this to happen, there actually needs to be a community who has the ability to self regulate. In the case of communities which exist through little more than self identification, more care is needed when qualifying statements about any who fall outside the representative making the claims, authority.

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.

Leprechaun Vomit... or why I hate St. Patty's.

I used to lament that the most irritating aspect of St. Patrick's day was the well meaning, but historically ignorant, neo-pagans who decided that the day should be one not of celebration, but of mourning. Why, they would ask, would any polytheist willingly celebrate the coming of Christianity and the eradication of the "old" religion? After all, isn't one of the most famous episodes of St. Patrick's hagiography the fact that he drove all the snakes out of Ireland; and of course, "we" all know those snakes were really the Druids. Yeah, so this was (and remains) a very irritating meme which seems to pop up every year around this time in March. Long story short: no, the episode was lifted from another Saints legend and was (among other things) used to explain why there are no snakes; but it was about actual snakes, not symbolic ones who were secretly referencing Druids. Two, the reason I celebrate the day, despite not being of Catholic stock, is because I recognize the historic and cultural significance the day represents; doubly so here in the diaspora. If you want to know a little more, and understand the origins and significance of the bevy of Parades which occur, just do a little research and you'll come to see why the day is far more about the Irish cultural identity, and less so about the Saint it was named after. The proviso to this being that this really only holds in the diaspora, and it is more of a religious observance (which btw is muted, seeing as it is Lent) in Ireland itself.

Alright, so clearly I actually celebrate the day, why then do I make a post insisting that I hate it. Well if you haven't figured it out yet, you will shortly. I mention above that the real significance of the day is about recognizing and celebrating Irish culture. This is not, however, what tends to actually happen. No, instead we basically throw a Mardi Gras party, except instead of everything being purple, yellow and gold, everything is shiny, vomit inducing green. St.. Patrick's day is a day when everyone, all over the world, can come together and get absolutely shit faced. This is what St. Patrick's day has become, this is the single thing that is worth celebrating about Irish culture; they drink. A LOT. Not that American's, Canadian's, the English or any other culture drink themselves stupid, no of course not. Not that people of all cultures and backgrounds simply use the day as an excuse to get snookered. No it's because they're being Irish for a day, and that means they need to be inebriated, JUST LIKE THE IRISH ARE EVERYDAY!

Just stop and think about this for a minute, because maybe you don't quite understand why this is so very upsetting. After all, the Irish DO like the drink; they self depricate all the time about it, and it's all in good fun, right? Yeah, remember where I mentioned above about a little research going a long way, providing some historic context and explaining the significance of certain outward expressions of ones identity? I do wish more people actually took the time to do so, because then you'd be aware of just how old this "Irish= Drunk" stereotype is, and how it has been used throughout history to legitimize any number of agressive domestic and foerign policies. The most famous of these cartoon images could be found in Victorian publications like Punch and Puck, with their ape like Irishman doing something loud, violent and inebriated, you know like asking for fair wages, or to not get the shit kicked out of them for the crime of being Irish. Honestly, the audacity some ethnicities had.

But that's all in the past now, right? It isn't as if the Irish, or the Diaspora are still portrayed as loud, violent drunks, right? Of course not.

Now, I think I should also make a couple of things perfectly clear so as to not detract from the actual source of my ire. I do not think that these idiotic shirts, hats, beads, and other leprechaun vomit products are proof of this nonsensical notion that "the only acceptable racism is that directed towards white Christians". I've come across this opinion in message boards, blog posts and commentary in response to these products, and the stereotypes they propogate. The Irish-Americans, Irish-Canadians, and other members of the Diaspora are not some persecuted minority, forced to endure systematic racism, resulting in a decreased quality of life. This may have been the case several centuries ago, but it isn't anymore. It certainly is not the same thing as groups which are actually systematically stigmatized and repressed, who are deneied the same oportunities as others because of their genetic or ethnic background. So the "it's okay to be racists to white people" meme ammounts to little more than the mewling of people who want to be unabashadely racist, but want to try and play the "...but I'm

persecuted too card". It is the same sort of hollow sympathy seeking from those Evangelical Christians who believe they are also a persecuted minority. So yeah, this isn't about trying to drum up this idea of the poor persecuted Irish.

Yes, these products and the sentiments they espouse are stupid, and do propogate the worst of stereotypes. It is precisely this, that irritates me so. Understanding the history of the Diaspora and how important St. Patrick's Day (and the parade associated with it) was as an outlet to express and celebrate ones culture (which did include their religion), in the face of oppression and that systematic stigma I mentioned eariler, is an important aspect of how the Diaspora did (and did not) hold onto their culture. That it was a day for celebrating Irishness, for keeping those connections to the "old country" alive while asserting their own right to exist in their new country. This is still, for the most part, the main purpose of the numerous Parades which do occur across North America. Almost all of them are organized by local Irish groups, who still maintain that they do so in celebration of their cultural identity.

So when a day is supposed to be about celebrating a culture, about celebrating an identity, and that identity is then popularly portrayed as being the worst stereotype of that culture, the meaning and significance is completely lost in a sea of four leaved shamrocks, leprechauns and an alcoholic haze. It isn't an appropriation of Irish culture, because you would need some actual Irish culture to be appropriting. No, its bizzarely just a sophmoric misrepresentation, which is then celebrated as being authentically Irish; cultural misappropriation, perhaps?

I know, already some of the other responses to such lamentations: "...but come on pal, the Irish have a sense of humour about these sorts of things", or (and my personal favourite) "I'm Irish (by which they mean of Irish descent), and I think its funny, what's the harm?" The harm, of course, is completely lost on such folks because their closest contact with actual Irish culture or tradition is the bowl of Lucky Charms they had for breakfast. It is an argument from ignorance because they do not understand the significance, and so are indifferent to the point of arguing that people who do get upset or irritated by such portryals, "just need to lighten up." So when taverns across the land offer "black and tans", to the point where Nike actually developed a shoe which is also named, as a way of "celebrating Irish culture" for St. Patrick's day; isn't a case of stupidity and lack of research, the fault lies with the PC police who can't take a joke.

Okay, here is a compromise then: I'll stop "getting my panties into a bunch" when they stop wearing this crap, treating the day like its some sort of bachanal, and actually crack open a book and learn something about Irish history or culture.

P.S.

Things to do, to actually learn about or experience some actual elements of Irish culture, if but a few suggestions:

• Go out to an Irish Pub. Yes, while I will certainly decry at every turn the image of the Irish as nothing more than violent, drunk buffoons, pubs are a decent enough place to actually experience some elements of Irish culture. Though do be a little critical, there are many an "Irish pub" which is about as Irish as the four leaved shamrocks they hang on the walls. There ought to be any number of menu items, which while pub fare, are still Irish dishes; I'm partial to boxty with masala myself, not traditional of course, but rather reflecting the diversity of modern Irish society. There are also actual ales, lagers and stouts which will be imports from Ireland, and will most certainly not be dyed green. Further most decent pubs or taverns will have live music, and on St. Patrick's Day this is almost a sure thing.
• Cook. I really do enjoy cooking, even to the point of considering it a devotional activity. There are many traditional Irish dishes which are simple enough to make, and finding recipies as simple as typing the dish into a search engine; most recipie sites will actually have a "St. Patrick's Day" menu. Try some colcannon, champ, boxty or lamb stew, make some brambrac, or soda bread.
• Expose yourself to Irish media, in Gaelic if you can. There are many decent films which have recently come out of Ireland. I've mentioned it on this blog before, but Mongol films "The Secret of Kells" is a wonderful film with gorgeous traditional animation, excellent voice acting and showcasing the unique blend of Irish myth between pre and post Christianization.
• If you're not the pub going sort, and want to avoid the rowdy crowds, then try and find other locations where you may get a chance to see a live band play. Irish music is considerably diverse and so there are genres which should tickle anyone's fancy.
• Meet with friends and read the tales outloud; they're meant to be. Sure, finding a Senachie is no easy feat, and probably nigh impossible on this side of the pond, but don't let that stop you from giving it a go yourself. Even if you don't feel comfortable reading out loud, or lack anyone but yourself who's interested, I think its still a good idea to hear them orated. So for those who can not do so on their own, why not check out online versions of the tales: the Celtic Myth Podshow has been providing oral versions of the tales for years now, and you could do a lot worse.
• Read. I know it doesn't scream excitement, and is generally an individual pursuit but if you like to keep things on the more relaxing side, then find a good book on Irish history, brew yourself a cuppa, and unwind by exploring the past. Who knows, you might accidently learn something.

An addendum, for those who haven't already figured the little joke out yet. Have a gander here.

'Bad Habbits" or everyday virtue is for the birds.

One of the most common tasks I perform at work is standing at the main entrance, to greet and direct guests to the appropriate chapels, and to wish people who are leaving a good evening. One of the other, slightly less enjoyable tasks is refered to as "butts", which involves going outside and cleaning the various receptacles of their accumulated cigarette butts. What does this have to do with anything, you may ask, well quite a bit actually. You see, during the course of a visitation, any number of people will step outside for "a quick smoke", but it is the manner in which these smokers will refer to their own necessity for a ciggarette which piqued my interest and lead to this post.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that smoking as a past time, particularly of ciggarettes, is unhealthy. In Canada, in fact, every single package of ciggarettes is sold with some warning label about the ill effects of smoking the packages contents, which is also accompanied by a "shocking" image (which is legislated to consist of at least 50% of the package).


So, alright, other than some interesting imagery and government regulations being considerably heavy handed, what's it all about? Well I am establishing the fact that the ill effects of smoking are established in the collective conciousness of society in general; smoking is bad. This is not, however, something which is only understood (or believed) by non-smokers and Health Canada officials; smokers are just as cognizant of these ill effects, they just don't care. I understand perfectly that there is also the issue of chemical dependence and thus addiction to combat, which is by no means an easy thing to overcome, but it can be done. The reason that I say smokers don't care, and so do nothing about it, is actually one example of a wider phenomenon.

I'm not writing this as a screed against smoking, or smokers themselves. Only that this particular group is the most common group I encounter in my going on, and exmeplify the problematic nature of rejecting what I will call "everyday virtue". I mentioned eariler that smokers are aware of how problematic smoking is, this I base primarily on annecdotal evidence; on simple logic too but for the sake of this post, annecdotes will suffice. The sarcastic/ironic/self deprecating euphamisms they themselves use range from "my bad habbit", to "cancer sticks", to "off to shave a few minutes off my life". They know it is not only percieved as bad, but that they also accept that it is bad factually. As I said before, somkers simply do not care; they want their ciggarette and by the gods, they're going to have them.

So then to move away from picking on smokers, to the actual point, what transpires is a rejection of "everyday virtue". I use this term, because (again based on my experience) I have come to understand that a significant number of people really only consider questions of morality or ethics when it comes to "big" decisions or problems. Pick any "hot-buton" topic out of a hat: murder, capital punishment, war, torture, abortion, etc., and people tend to have polarized, often absolutist posistions on the morality of any, if not all of such topics. Ask someone what they think of speeding and they'll probally stare blankly at you and mutter something about it not mattering, or "it being alright if you don't gett caught". Well that may not be the best example because I do not want to reduce ethics to the standpoint of deontology when I mean to be speaking about virtue ethics, nor do I want to reduce ethics to whether one does or does not adhere to any given law or statute; it simply isn't that simple. I use the example of speeding, only to illustrate that when it comes to the more mundane aspects of what people consider ethical or moral, ambivalence is the general attitude.

People, again speaking in very general terms, have certain concepts of what constitutes a moral decision or what qualifies as an ethical quandry, and for the most part rarely consider how it applies to their everyday behaviour. Individuals do not reflect long enough on their behaviour or action to even consider the sense in acknolwedging that something is wrong, but then persist in doing it none the less. The smoker who persists in smoking, who understands how bad it is, who jokes about this fact, is one of a thousand such hypocricies.

I had actually written about a related topic some time ago, because there is a similar mentality or attitude inherent in those who acknowledge they are doing something "bad", and those who say "you can't judge me". The common thread is a lack of virtue, or perhaps it would be better to say an ignorance of it. I believe this ignorance stems, in no insignificant part, from the attitude toward morality and ethics fostered by the Christian doctrine of sin. That sin is an inescapable facet of life; the essence of human nature in fact. No matter how good one is, they will never be "good enough", and so that actually trying to be good is at best impossble without divine intervention, or at worst an exercise in futility. This has bled even into the secular sphere, where the idea of "nobody's perfect" has become a catch-all for dismissing unethical behaviour, and a veritible blank cheque for vice. So ingrained is this attitude that phrases which are religious in nature, "self-righteous" and "holier than thou" are bandied about in secular parlance along side "get off your high horse" and "...your shit don't stink". The value of actually being virtuous, and daring to even mention oneself in such a light, is remarked upon as itself immoral; this being dread "pride". 

This is regretable, not only because using such terms detracts from their legitimate use (the first two anyway), but actually villifies those who have the moral fortitude to dare to flourish. Coupled with this then is the idea that morality doesn't really count, except for the "big things", and we get this ignorance, if not outrght disdain, of virtue.

Virtue can be concerned with those larger issues, but attitudes towards more complex ethical issues are derived from smaller ones. Virtue is not somthing that is visited upon only during times of trial, because it is supposed to permeate every thought, every action, and thus is better understood as something to be cultivated, not harvested. Virtue is not an end in and of itself, but the means to an end; human flourishing or "the good life". This does not mean that adopting virtues will make one "perfect". I find the very notion of perfection as an ideal ludicrous, because it is by definition unobtainable. The problem is that somewhere along the way this became the standard; the whole notion of morality was subsumed by the fact that no one could ever be "good" (on their own at least), and so all are equal in their failure. 

Fortunately, such retrograde thinking is not the only model available. Despite the protestations, it really is not that difficult to be ethical. One simple tip is to avoid bahaviours or actions which you understand do not contribute to human flourishing. If you recognize that something is immoral, then do not do it. If you understand that a habbit is "bad", then do all in your power to avoid or end it. Viture ethics are very much about finding balance, or the "golden mean", afterall virtue abides between deficency and excess. If more folks recognized that morality is a mundane, everyday thing, I think a lot more folks could be flourishing instead of wallowing in their "bad habbits".