Rememberance Day

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

I thank the gods I live in such a nation.

Polytheism and "everyone else"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gorm.

Elegy for the ancestors

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

For what is remembered, lives.

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

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

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

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

Gorm.

Giving Thanks

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

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

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

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

Gorm.

Theism and popular culture

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

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

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

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

Gorm.

Religion and Reason

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gorm.

The extent of "Paganism"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gorm.

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