Talk:Paganism/Archive 1

Unsorted early text[edit]

Deleted this because I don't believe it is correct:

The terminology of paganism/neopaganism is also used to define difference in religious beliefs stemming from the use of technology and modern devices. Neopagans, as a general rule, see the use of technology as a granted right of mans evolution as long as the use of this technology is for the betterment of the Earth.

I moved the above comment to this page, and I've rewritten this article. I'm sure it still needs a lot of work, because I certainly am no expert on paganism. I would like to suggest gently to enthusiasts of various things about which it's possible to be enthused, please bear in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia for the entire world, with all the many people in it, and that means you must take a wide and long view of the subject you're writing about.

Neopaganists, for example, would do well to remember that paganism has a long history that is historically completely separate from the activities in which they engage at present. The most recent version of this article very inadequately mentioned the differences between ancient Celtic and other polytheistic and animist religion(s), on the one hand, and their modern revivalists, on the other. The rewritten article still needs a lot more information about that, actually. But this was, I think, because the person(s) who wrote some earlier draft of the article either didn't know or more likely didn't care enough about the differences to think it necessary to point them out. This results in confusion to anyone who doesn't actually know about the article, and this confusion is not due to inadequate time and space but failure to use the time and the space that was used.

Not to pick on these authors in particular, though, there have been plenty of other examples where articles suffer from a lack of intellectual worldliness, an intellectual provinciality, as though one person's, one group's, one discipline's, etc., take on the subject were the only that exists. I won't name names, but I've seen this again and again. (OK, to name one group, scientists generally and the computer scientists particularly often seem to think that their own special meanings for otherwise common terms or terms used in other fields are the only ones worth mentioning!) I'm sure I've been guilty of this myself from time to time, although I do try to keep myself alert to it. Of course, there are plenty of people who are very aware of this, but there are also quite a few people who don't seem to be.

Please don't hide behind the fact that people can correct articles and that this is a work in progress. That's very true and someone will eventually correct bad work. But with a little research and thought, nearly everyone working here can at least acknowledge that other takes on the subject exist. It's not that hard to do that much, and it's just efficient, and it makes the overall "stature" of the project higher. It also won't do to say, "Well, this is useful information--I can add it and others can add other relevant views." This is perfectly true, but it is also perfectly true that it is just much better to at least acknowledge that the other views exist--to put placeholders down. This doesn't require much more, if any more, effort than simply writing the text you want to write. --LMS

I agree wholeheartedly, Larry - the qualification of "said to be" isn't nearly enough for the pre-historic matriarchal religion of Europe. I just removed "ancient Ireland" from the list of country-folk untouched by religion NOT because they weren't pagan (though by the late 4th century they were being converted - don't get me started on St. patrick) but because they never really had cities (and the concomitant population of urban snobs) nor were they Latin speakers, so 'paganus' is anachronistic for them. Gaul, on the other hand, is an excellent example. Folks in Bordeaux and Toulouse and Arles and Marseilles and Lyon certainly sneered at pagani. --MichaelTinkler

I'm not too sure whether to agree with your edit or not -- the big question is, how to define pagan? My immediate reaction would be to say any polytheistic religion -- but then we have Hinduism, Shintoism, Indigeneous religions as pagan, which might technically be correct but isn't how the word is normally used. I think the most accurate description of what the word is generally used to describe is "those polytheistic religions in Europe, the Mediterranean and the Near East displaced by Judaism, Christianity or Islam" -- but that definition doesn't seem that natural... -- Simon J Kissane

A pointless interjection, but... I think a lot of Hindus would disagree with you that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. While there may be many "gods," they are all aspects of a universal Brahma, I believe. I'm not so informed, but I know that they are considered monotheists by certain other monotheistic groups --Alex Kennedy

Well, that section is about the etymology of 'paganus' in its Christian context rather than the phenomenon 'paganism'. There's room for both in an encyclopedia entry, though I have not objection to someone moving it around. On the other hand, I would object to someone clouding the meaning of "rustic" by including Hinduism or Ireland at that point. When early Christians talked about other 'high' religions they tended to use the word idolatria (latria = worship), "idolatry". Paganism didn't come to have a common Christian usage until the 4th or even 5th centuries. We could move this section, or delete it, but it's the etymology of the word! --MichaelTinkler

As a Neopagan myself, I tried to flesh out some of the basics of Neopaganism, but decided it really needed its own page. This page now sticks to the older usage, but links to Neopaganism. Hopefully this will keep things clear and allow the Neopagan content to be further expanded later.

-- [[User:Dmerrill]

The article's looking spiffy, but I don't much like this "paganism I" and "paganism II" stuff. If it's just a different sense, and the information is included in neopaganism, why are we repeating the information here? Anyway, if we must repeat it here, it should be under a different heading, after ---- I guess, not under a heading "paganism II." Please look to see how others have dealt with this sort of problem. It would help to look at naming conventions. --LMS

Thanks for the 'spiffy' comment, very encouraging to a new contributor. I agree the PI and PII strategy is clumsy but submitted it for two reasons.

1) The two meanings are not quite 'just a different sense' because they are diametrically opposed: one defines Pagan/ pagan as irreligious, the other as specifically religious in its own way. I think therefore both should be defined and explored on the same page. Would it be better to have a summary page with brief definition of the two, then link to two separate pages for detail? But then what to title the two pages? see next.
2) Putting all the second interpretation of (religious) Paganism under NeoPaganism makes it look as if the irreligious interpretation of Paganism is the one that matters for that term. I think that was arguably true as a very large majority view 20 even 10 years ago, but not now when the general public is surprisingly frequently aware of Paganism as a religion following considerable media exposure during the '80s & '90s, and massive conversion rates. It is all the more sensitive as most Pagans heartily dislike the label NeoPagan and keep battling external commentators to adopt the emic (internal) name they use themselves, ie 'Pagans'. Feelings by a lot of Pagans (not all) are so strong as to feel seriously insulted by the NeoPagan title.

I mean no disrespect by this for the writer above who identifies as NeoPagan, who is absolutely entitled to do so, but having worked as a Pagan national leader, spokesperson, teacher etc over 20 years and probably having encountered a few thousand enormously diverse Pagans as part of that career, this is the first time ever Ive come across someone using that title as a self identification. So here is a puzzled and courteously interested Pagan priestess, yet again acknowledging how risky it is to generalise about Pagans!

Shan Jayran hope Ive set this out OK.

Hm, that's funny. I usually call myself Pagan (or Wiccan, or a Witch, which is the kind of Neopagan I happen to be) but I don't mind calling myself a Neopagan or identifying with Neopaganism in order to be specific, and I've not met others who've evinced a specific distaste for the term Neopagan. - Montréalais

Most asatruers object to being called neopagans. On the other hand many also object to pagan and prefer "heathen". // Liftarn

It carries strong roots in Outsider discourse of superiority/ inferiority, similar to the "goyim" of the superior Jewish insider. Like other outsiders the Pagan can be seen as negative, subordinate, dangerous, erotic, colourful, sensual, disorderly, crazy, threatening, fun, noble, corrupting, doomed, etc.

What is this "Outsider discourse", curiously capitalised? I kinda get what this is supposed to be saying, but the second sentence seems to be too vague and scattershot to convey much intelligible meaning, at least to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply say something like:

"Pagan" is a pejorative term that, at least until the advent of Romanticism, was usually applied to someone else's religion other than one's own.

-- IHCOYC 19:25 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Pagan and Neopagan, are terms which confuse sometimes deliberately, as in the final definition, rests legitimacy of various interests.

Wiccans are aware that they are a majority of NeoPagans, and no doubt that there are some, who realize that by banding together certain groups (of which they approve) under the "Pagan" banner, that they stand to benefit, as a group, as a result. Minority groups and individuals who disagree with what crystallise with "accepted" Pagan beliefs end up on the outside, while among those on the inside, Wiccans have the ascendancy. For example; Most people who vociferously argue for the word "Paganism" as opposed to the neutral "Neopaganism" equally vociferously deny that Satanists can be Pagans. (Neopaganism is "neutral" because it doesnt have the same quality of rallying-around-the-flag quality as the term "Paganism").

Whats going on is essentially the redefinition of the word, for political purposes. Instead of "Pagan" meaning licentious, or rural, or evil; each of these definitions are being stringently, stridently attacked. But as mentioned, "Neopaganism" is too bland to act as a nucleus for an emergent religion. Hence the comment "most Pagans heartily dislike the label NeoPagan and keep battling external commentators to adopt the emic (internal) name they use themselves, ie 'Pagans'."

This isnt about a dictionary definition, its about ultimately whether some mythical umbrella group the "Pagans" get to develop legitimacy for themselves, and the right to exclude others, such as Hedonists, Satanists, Chaotes, and others, from being in the "in group".

Ironically, I doubt most understand this at a conscious level. I believe its no coincidence that this etymological struggle emerges at a point in time when Pagans have a stab at becoming an accepted religion. To do this; its important to Wiccans, druids, etc, to build safety in numbers, and to associate into a larger group. At the same time they need to excluse those who threaten the group, i.e. Satanists. Wiccans are almost finished with cohering their own group with ethics, standards, rules, etc, and now a push is on to consolidate further. THATS why there is this huge confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.147.129.58 (talk • contribs) . ________________________

Coming in as a classicist, I have some issues here with the melding of ancient and modern definitions of the word "pagan". It's incorrect to say that it refers only to polytheistic religions, because while traditional Roman and Greek state cult were polytheistic, religious traditions like Neoplatonism were decidedly monotheistic, while being pagan as well. I'd also like to discuss the word "Hellene", actually used by the ancient "pagans" themselves, as "pagan" is increasigly being rejected as an acceptable term for scholars.

Basically, I think this page needs to be divided up into sections that refer to the modern and ancient definitions.

--LaurenKaplow 05:55, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ancient paganism should certainly be dealt with in more detail.Fire Star 21:57, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About your most recent changes, I realize this is nitpicking, but I wouldn't describe civic cults as deification of the political process. I think it'd be more accurately described as using the cult of a specific deity as a form of civic pride and identity. --LaurenKaplow 00:33, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, you get all of these ancient kings saying that they are the chosen one of so-and-so god, a god that is identified specifically with the state; Assur in Assyria, Tiamat in Babylon, Ba'al Haddad in Phoenicia, Tarhunt in Hatti, or Horus or whoever the divinity du jour was in Egypt. In all of these kingdoms and many others the kings identified themselves and their interests with the gods in question, identifying their prowess on the battlefield with the might of the god who gave them victory, when they conquered another kingdom the gods there were shown publicly subservient to the home deity. The kings told their people that the gods had chosen them, that they had divine fiat (melammu, aegis etc.) to rule over others and collect taxes and wage war. That the legitimacy of these activities was tied directly by name into the public cultus of the local gods does show some evidence that we have a deification of the political process in the ancient world. What you say is also true, that as part of the legitimacy these kings sought they instructed their priests and scribes to portray the kings' place in the local mythos as dramatically as possible, surely in hopes of swaying (or at least intimidating) public spirit in favour of the king. Fire Star 05:06, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's all true... for the eastern religions. Not at all for Greek and Roman religion, as they rejected the notion of a king or divine leader entirely (well, until the cult of the emperor). --LaurenKaplow 20:18, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm especially thinking of the Near East. This must have informed the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans at some level, though (they were in many ways dependent on Near Eastern influences, however modified). We have Homer extolling his heros' divinely granted superior ability to kill the enemy, which fits the pattern. I see you are quite correct in saying that the Iron age Greeks transferred the process to their locality moreso than to their ruling dynasties, and perhaps to their local systems of government rather than to the governors themselves. Interesting stuff, and perhaps worthy of a separate chapter, if not an entire article. Cheers, Fire Star 02:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pagans are Heathens?[edit]

It might just be me, but I think it's a little offensive to have _Heathen_ redirect to Paganism, for it suggests that all Pagans are evil when that is hardly the case. I can't say that the redirection was done in a neutural respect.

Trolling tonight? Trying to start a edit war between the Pagans and the Heathens? Maybe you just don't know better, but by not signing your comment I suspect you know exactly what you did, and THIS little Pagan is not taking your bait. *plonk*! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some Pagans class themselves as Heathens (followers of Asatru, for instance). By some definitions, all Pagans are Heathens, which isn't correct, but it's still a popular definition. Either way, it would be better to have a separate article that can explain the different uses of the term.--Jcvamp 22:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the modern term for heathen in relation to paganism insulting, but heathen actually means hearth-dweller, which isn't insulting. I haven't read the article properly yet, so I don't know if this is in there, just wanted to make that point. Monkeymox 13:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you find it insulting. Anyway, it's worth mentioning in the article as some people do use the term.--Jcvamp 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Pagan and proud of it.

Pagan, Heathen, why worry, as Pagans we know exactly what we are and should be above petty sniping. Spyke59

The link "Cultic" is redirected to "Ritual". The two are not the same. 76.170.117.217 19:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC) 2007-06-16T12:52Z-7[reply]

Well, maybe it can be redirected to Heathen (disambiguation), as it gives a much better explanation of what the word actually means. Karonaway 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen and Pagan can both mean non-Christian, and as a synonym for sinner. That is probably why the unsigned commenter thinks heathen means evil person, because both those words have been essentially been used to mean that. This is not about pagan pride, it is about meaning of a word. Similar to how Witch is used to refer to an mean woman who doesn't practice magic, or a woman who may or may not be mean who does practice magic.Rds865 (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the context of the word pagan[edit]

I want to know the opinion of members on my last edit on paganism. I think it is important to mention all that in the introduction, because it is a peculiar case.

This is because TODAY pagan means idol-worshipper, nature-worshipper etc., it is no longer restricted to European cults only, and is hardly derogatory . But its past derogatory reference to only a group of Europeans is still discussed often today. IAF

The Dharmic religions have also been classed as pagans by Christians in the past, i.e its not so black and white as suggested. I prefer the existing text for this reason. 82.40.71.124 13:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the definition of Pagans as 'idol-worshippers' derogatory.--Jcvamp 18:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section (i) here needs pruning badly - the latter half is highly POV and also appallingly written.--OliverHarris —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Pagans are all religious?[edit]

The entire article seems to be purely about religions. However the etymology refers to uncivilized people - or rather, people viewed as uncivilized by those who consider themselves civilized. The word Pagan to me also has strong connotations of hedonism, debauchery and what not. "They live like pagans" wouldnt seem to imply "they worship many gods and they attend the forum on Sunday" - as the entire article implies. Rather, one gets an impression of people who arent afraid of a beer or two, and perhaps who get a little orgiastic at times. I strongly sense a revision of the term, particularly as modern americans (prudish by historical standards) who define themselves as pagans, are slowly cleaning the image up to their standards (see remark on "heathens" below). I would like to see this entire section retitled NEOPAGANISM, as thats basically what its defining. A battle is in progress to change the world by changing the use of words, in this case. Paganism is being uncivilized - Paganus - and all that that entails. Its not a convenient umbrella term for wiccans and asatruers to unite under. Thats neopaganism. Paganism is not caring what the city dwellers think. Often, it imples nudity, revelling, orgies, drink, hedonism, and so on. Its a freeing up from the legislation required to run a functioning city. In my opinion, Paganism has more to do with the level of legislation and freedom from legislation, and norms, standards, than how many gods are worshipped. The main religions agree with this, or used to. Christians called Islamics pagans, and vice versa. Bearing in mind that the monotheistic religions comprise the majority of the worlds population, one should bear their useage into account. Their definition implies one outside the (religious) law. Not a polytheist. But the article is so heavily written from the neopagan viewpoint, I wouldnt know where to begin to revise the main article. I hope others will absorb this viewpoint though, and incorporate it at least partially into the text.

Congratulations, this is the most ill informed comment (clearly from a closet right wing fundie who wants to determine what we call ourselves)I have yet seen on WIkipedia. To me personally, the very word Christian brings up images of evil and sick fanatics, murder and the abuse of children. How about we chuck that up on the Christian page?? If you don't like the fact that the term pagan is used to denote polytheists, I doubt anyone could give a sh*t.

---Hmm, I can't agree. Paganism is religious by usage. While the term "pagan" is often used historically in a manner similar to the way the modern term "redneck" is used, "pagan" also has a religious connotation; many people refer to themselves as "pagan" in a religious manner. This is an example of a certain group of people taking a word that was origianlly an insult and turning it into something else. For example, the word "nigger," (and I apologize to any who may take offense to that word, but I must point out that the word was used solely as an example) was originally used to put down blacks. However, modern American blacks have taken the word and transformed it into a word that means nothing more that (to blacks) "another black person." Similarly, the word "pagan" has gone from meaning "country-person," or "redneck" to "another non-Christian" person. ("Christian," in this case, may be replaced with any given religious designation.)NME 09:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism is hardly uncivilised. I don't want to get into a religious debate, but may I point out that Paganism existed before the christian church and was a set of religious practices that idolised and respected nature, and promoted respect for both sexes. Only recently has sex equality been re-established, and the modern day world is hardly respectful of nature. Paganism today promotes free thought, and practitioners choose their own path of belief, something most major religions do not allow. I would say, therefore, that Paganism is very civilised in the grand scheme of things Monkeymox 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't really assume that Pagans believe this or that as it is used as an umbrella term sure alot do respect nature but you could probable find a couple that don't if you look hard enough. Joeking16 12:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pythagoreans were monotheistic?[edit]

In one well-established sense, paganism is the belief in any non-monotheistic religion, which would mean that the Pythagoreans of ancient Greece would not be considered pagan in that sense, since they were monotheist, but not in the Abrahamic tradition. In an extreme sense, and like the pejorative sense below, any belief, ritual or pastime not sanctioned by a religion accepted as orthodox by those doing the describing, such as Burning Man, Halloween, or even Christmas, can be described as pagan by the person or people who object to them.

They were pagan but were they really monotheistic? They only believed that from the monad, the first unit came everything else. They don't regard it as a deity, or even a conscious being, it seems to me. --Darthanakin 06:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Paganism a disambiguation article?[edit]

The article looks to me a lot like a dictionary entry and Im thinking a shift to Paganism (disambiguation) might be appropriate. (This would leave the current name free as one for an article about current pagan practice.) Laurel Bush 13:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Neo-paganism does deserve an article, and already has one. Distinguishing neo-paganism from paganism is relevant there, but not here, as with Nazi and Neo-Nazi etc etc etc. The reader looking for "paganism" is well served in getting this article, improved by Laurel Bush, I hope! If there is anything that needs disambiguation, Paganism (disambiguation) awaits! --Wetman 17:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A second look at Neo-paganism shows that the article quite intentionally blurs the distinctions, confusing people like Laurel Bush. Rather like saying, "We're not Neo-Nazis, we're real Nazis." Or confusing Wedgwood with Roman bas-reliefs. Readers are strongly encouraged to contribute some clarity at Neo-paganism. --Wetman 17:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why in the world are you comparing Pagans to Nazis? - a guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.164.192 (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Paganism needs a move to Proto paganism as the name of an artlicle which should include references to now emergent self-conscious (self-styled) paganism. Laurel Bush 16:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC).

And in precisely the same way, and to satisfy just the same POV agenda, Christianity "needs a move" to Proto-PostChristian, as the "now emergent self-conscious" Post-Christianism. If Neopaganism is not enough playground area, an article Modern Paganism, with a "See also" link here, would provide plenty of space for creative self-expression. "Avoid unnecessary interference" is advice that might be well-taken by any neutral editor. Keep the Wikipedia reader in mind, please. --Wetman 21:05, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I write as a Wikipedia reader. Thank you. Laurel Bush 11:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC). And Paganism still looks like a dictionary entry or semantic discussion. (So however does Neopaganism). Laurel Bush 14:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC).

They need your editing. Reports on what any mainstream writer has said of any of these topics, even succinct quotes, references to books that cover these topics, external links to Internet sites with illuminating content are all very welcome. And Modern paganism is a subject close to your heart that hasn't been begun; it might set an example for these other entries, under your care. --Wetman 21:09, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eurocentric[edit]

A very Eurocentric article, to say the least. Where do Hindus, Shinto adherents, et al, fit? Or will they be utterly ignored, as usual? Dogface 18:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

European tradition Pagans don't deign to label other peoples. I know for a fact that Hindus and Zoroastrains would take grave offence at being labelled pagan.

It strikes me as not the custom to refer to Hindus, Shintoists, and so forth as "pagans," although Shinto surely qualifies, and at least popular Hinduism does as well. They were mostly unknown to Europeans when Christianity defined itself as opposed to classical paganism, and when they were studied in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was no longer the fashion to refer to the polytheistic faiths of literate people as "paganism." Smerdis of Tlön 18:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

A term defined in such an idiosyncratic and convoluted fashion has no meaning and should be deleted from a serious reference workDogface 21:11, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"Paganism" as such is usually understood academically as the ancient classical religions of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, the Celts, the Germans, the Slavs and the other Baltic People that Christianity supplanted between 100-1500 A.D. in Europe. Modern pop revivals of any of those really should go under Neo-paganism, or be clearly delineated as modern revivals of a classical pagan religion(s). Anything else can be ascribed to polytheism and left at that. Fire Star 01:39, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-anthropological "subdivisions"[edit]

The recently added section of anthropology terms, while interesting and helpful, seems to be written from the assumption that "pagans" are always history's losers, and that influences run in one direction from other cultures that conquer the pagans. What is the anthropological term for a conquering culture like the Roman Empire that syncretizes the faiths of cultures it conquers? Smerdis of Tlön 18:35, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

These amateur "subdivisions" coined by Isaac Bonewits posted at http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html are not used by cultural historians, anthropologists or anyone else. They inspire angry graffiti. Shouldn't they be deleted? --Wetman 18:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy Bunny[edit]

I removed the "Fluffy Bunny" references. I hardly think "fluffy bunny" even deserves an article. "Fluffy Bunny" references make the article feel like a joke. I don't have any good reasons other than saying it's bad taste, so if anyone reverts my removal, please just say something about why you want it there. I don't claim to be a pagan myself, but I do know that people who are take their religion just as seriously as anyone else does. "Fluffy bunny" just doesn't give this religion the reverence it deserves. --DanielCD 04:45, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have known alot of neopagans, and the jokes about them are constant. Just today, for example, my family spent a solid 10 minutes making light of neopaganism whilst watching blair witch 2. As far as the reverence the religion deserves, thats not really something were here to facilitate, NPOV and all. I'm going to move the links to neopaganism. Sam [Spade] 04:54, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, like I said I really didn't have any good reason for removal other than a feeling, perhaps style. I thought someone was just being silly, but after reading a bit, it does seem to be an actual concept. --DanielCD 20:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

its a silly name for a valid criticism, which is that neo paganism is a bit heavy on new age and 60's flowerchild culture, and a bit light on authentic pre-christian / secret society witchcraft and religion. Sam [Spade] 20:58, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's roughly equivalent to calling Christians "God-botherers" (although that may just be a British phrase which doesn't make much sense to other readers) and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, except in quotation marks to report people's usage of the term. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

God-botherers--that's funny. Oddly enough, it does describe one of the things that many of us Christians do, even though we aren't supposed to. There's an old witticism to the effect that far too often we ask for His Will to be done and then set off dictating to Him what His Will should be. Dogface 03:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

God-botherers...? lol... that’s funny. I'd be fine w you creating an article on that, or inserting a mention of it into Christianity. Anyhow, this "fluff bunny" concept needs more airing, not less, altho perhaps under a more appropriate title? The fact that your average Wiccan (I've met hundreds) is about as far away from mysticism or shamanism or other more... traditional supernatural abilities as possible needs to be discussed. As an outsider, a voodoo priestess or tribal witch doctor would prob make me nervous. I have seen both on documentaries, and they gave me a "witchy" type impression. Wiccans on the other hand remind me more of renaissance fair attendees (altho more punk/hippy type fashions), or antiwar protestors, and are about as worthy of the title "witch" IMO (and I ascribe to the traditional definition of the word, scary people we used to burn, and who still are burned in Africa) as a school girl on Halloween. Sam [Spade] 05:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've made a good point. I think the term is adequately described in the article fluffy bunny, and it doesn't really belong in an article on Paganism, which is a huge and serious subject covering much much more than the slight hippy tendency of some adherents to the recent Pagan revival in the West. — Trilobite (Talk) 14:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, thats why I moved the links over to neopaganism. Sam [Spade] 17:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

fluffy bunny[edit]

i think it should have a link to what a fluffy bunny is in pagan terms as they do exist and theres even covens of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.214.152 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critism of paganism[edit]

Firstly, apologies for the "load of bollocks" comment - I was watching a very bad BBC program called The Heaven and Earth Show, where on a weekly basis, a Christian, a Muslim, and a pundit from a "minority faith" are deposited on a sofa to discuss tome-derived morality within the realm of current affairs. This week, I was shouting at the TV at a pagan (and the other two). Fact is, there isn't a "criticism of paganism" section, whereas all the establishment religions have heavily documented articles of both the misdemeanors carried out in the name of the faith, and also arguments against the fundamental principals on it. It's only fair that an article on paganism has an opposing viewpoint, so I'm going to start researching such a thing. As a basis, I've got the following lines of research:

The "load of bollocks" comment - or, in a more wikipedia-friendly sense, the fact that much of the beliefs of paganism have no plurality with scientific discovery, and are somewhat eccentric

Misdemeanors - not heavily documented (I can't name any at this point), but I once spotted a book in a bookshop froms a line of childrens history books in the UK called "'orrible history", complete with "'orrible romans", "'orrible english", and "'orrible pagans". Evidently, some pagans weren't very nice. Obviously, the "yes, but they were different times" counter-arguments will arise, and I will make sure to document them, but bizarre and inhumane acts in the name of paganism are surely relevant in the article.

Lack of definition - every year, a large number of people from religions which fall under the umbrella of paganism - wiccans, druids, etc - arrive at stonehenge and have an argument over how to celebrate dawn on mid-summer night.

Pettyness and politicisation - some people, fed up with the established religions (and quite vocally so) turn to paganism as a spiritual protest. I know this, because I worked with two, who were ready to bite on the slightest suggestion that their religion wasn't listed in a glowing light, and one who seriously chastised me when I pointed out that I had put "jedi" on my census (which, in itself, was a protest at religion anyway).

Wastefulness of faith in disprovable concepts. Applies to all faiths, so should be brief. Faith, by definition, is the self-inflicted belief in something which is hard to verify.

Spellcasting - some branches of paganism involve the casting of spells, which have never scientifically been observed to work. This includes projection, circles of protection, binding, sexual rituals, etc.

Islamic (and other Abrahamic faiths) opposition - when Mohammed invaded Medina, he was mostly attacking pagans, whom he deemed to be kafir. This should probably be a link to a more in-depth article of the events, rather than a brief article.

The etymology[edit]

I don't want to pull this etymology and usage of paganus all to pieces, but here's the entry on pagus from Harry Thurston Peck, Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquity for anyone who wants to work some history into this section: [1] --Wetman 09:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All to pieces? Looks like a nice improvement. -- Laurel Bush 10:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC).

I thought pagan=country dweller was discredited as an etymology, in that the first usage of the word in its religious context is in Tertullian where he uses it to mean a non-christian. He was adopting a usage in Tacitus which is, I believe, well attested where paganus=civilian. The dichotomy for Tertullian being between a soldier of Christ and a non-combatant, a pagan. This usage, meaning a non-christian, is, I believe, an older one, and still used widely in some christian contexts.

This explains why "Paganism" is a late usage since "pagan" is defined as a negative, there cannot be an -ism related to it; just as one does not have non-Marxism or whatever. As far as I can see the word has been co-opted and narrowed to mean something like the definition in this article. I don't use it in that sense because it is so imprecise -- are Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sufis, Taoists and Muslims Pagan? In my view, yes (since they aren't Christian), but I'm not sure it would be so easy to be precise with any other definition.

Surely the article ought to note this alternative approach? Is Heathen really the same thing and should it be all in one article? Francis Davey 09:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow that argument at all. Atheism for instance was coined well before anyone actually self-described as an atheist. All non-Abrahamic religion may be described as paganism, but for historical reasons, the term is mostly confined to pre-Christian religions, i.e. religions that were historically replaced by Christianity. (and, recently, including post-Christian revivals, viz. Neopaganism). A Hindu is a Hindu, and would probably object to being labelled "pagan" or even "idolater", since that implies a monotheistic pov. From an "Abrahamic" outlook, Hindus still qualify both as pagans and idolaters. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point about a term of art or usage is that, in some particular sense in which it is used, it will describe something. In describing such a term in a reference work it isn't for us to avoid meanings that are objected to, if they are real meanings. I am just pointing out that there is a usage of 'pagan' to mean 'non-christian' that is (a) the oldest usage I have seen cited; and (b) still in current use. The fact that the term may now more widely be used by those who have appropriated it to self-describe their beliefs does not invalidate it as a meaning, although it now has others. Nor does the fact that a Hindu might not wish to be described as a pagan mean very much in that context. Tertullian's usage was not meant to be insulting or derogatory by the way, it was simply a useful way of describing those not fighting in his army (as he might describe it) in his world view. The distinction he was making was that, in his theology, non-members of his religion were not the enemy (that would be the Devil etc) but civilians and/or non-combatants. That is still a useful idea in Christian theology. Francis Davey 17:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article states that "Paganism" comes from "Paganus", meaning "rural", the word probably derives form "Pagani" meaning "civilian". This usage indicated how the Civilian religion of Paganism was believed to contrast with the non-civilian religion of Christianity. This information can be found in Fox, Robin "Pagans and Christians". ACEO 10:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Common word usage (Protestants regarding catholics, etc.) There's quite a bit missing here about "graven images" and the derogatory term "papists" which was used interchangeably with "pagans" for some time in Protestant thinking.

RE: Common word usage (Protestants.... oppressing adherents to European earth-based spiritual traditions) There's quite a big gap in information about the suppression of earth-based spirituality in the celtic/druid/gaullic groups. For example, the burning/hanging/drowning of witches, etc. Since this oppression is the root of my own objection to use of the term 'pagan', perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why its been left out of this wiki/post? Thanks, beachgum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.100.218 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-historical "shouldabeen" text[edit]

I removed this here: "Christianity also became a major religion in the Roman army. Here pagani has meanings of non-combatant, pacifist, with attendant derision. From the widespread popularity of Christianity among slaves, the most numerous class in the Roman Empire, by contrast pagani acquired connotations of "uppity", "religious dissident" and so on to "heretic"." The Army was the last bastion of Mithras and Isis. There were no connotations of "pacifist" in paganii. "Uppity" is not a useful category in Late Antiquity. "Heretic" and "pagan" are confused only in the modern American prayer-meeting. --Wetman 22:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page for Heathen[edit]

Should Heathen have its own page? It seems to me that the term is related but it might need a separate page.--Whiteash 15:56, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it should. I have taken a mild offense to the fact that the word redirects to paganism or anything Pagan in general. It is this writer's opinion that "heathen" was a word developed by organized/mainstream religious types (ie., Christians) as a derogatory term for anybody believing differently than they do. Now, this may just be personal opinion but the term is rarely used in any Pagan references and may even be an obsolete word in modern times. I would have to say on this subject as well that the terms "Pagan" and "Paganism" are, if only slightly, two different topics altogether. While "Pagan" can be used to describe an individual following a non-mainstream religion, "Paganism" would be used to describe the non-mainstream religions themselves. The difference between a Druid and Druidism, for example, one is a person and the other is what that individual practices. As for outside faiths, Islam, Taoism and so on do not necessarily need a name to 'umbrella' them. They already have names that work just fine, to try to categorize religions that appear to be too different to accurately group would likely be a waste of time. Ultimately (this is a thought that just occurred to me) While trying to group those religions it may be deemed necessary to develop many different 'umbrellas' to group those religions in and in the process of that, you may find yourself grouping some religions together under many different 'umbrellas'. Pagans on the other hand are such a broad category that trying to figure out what one is and another is not would take too much time and usually confuse the common speaker. To call one or oneself Pagan is more like a generalized term used to 'umbrella' the many different religions that fall under its category, thusly making discussion a bit easier to handle. For instance, it would be easier to call myself pagan rather than take the time to define Wicca to somebody who was raised Christian/Jewish/other. At any rate, having the word 'heathen' to describe a Pagan just seems wrong to me and a bit dated. When looking at 'The New Catholic Dictionary', their use of the word 'heathen' sounds so derogatory, like they think Pagans and the like are nothing more than filthy animals. Comments and/or ideas on this subject welcome for discussion in depth at | Zeifer's Place. Zeifertstc 04:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the etymology and linguistic history of any of these terms? "Heathen" is no more offensive than "Pagan", and there are actually groups who still self-identify themselves as "Heathen" and view the word "Pagan" as derogatory. I am perfectly comfortable with the word "Heathen" as a descriptor, just as much as I prefer to use the more accurate "cult" rather than "spiritual path". Research the histories of these words and their usage before you jump to conclusions. - WeniWidiWiki 04:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of oh my gods link[edit]

can someone explain why the article I am nearly done writing for Oh My Gods! had it's link removed from the page under the "see also" section? as a neopagan COMIC STRIP dealign with paganism, wicca and neo-paganism I would say it's 100% approperate under it's own SUBCATEGORY of comedy, where I had it

edit: I have gone ahead and added it back in, as the page is now up for the article (anonymous post from User:Shivian)

This rather aggressive user, whose edit history reveals his interest is in linking Wikipedia to this comic-strip weblog, apparently thinks B.C. (comic) would make a sensible "See also" entry in the Wikipedia article Neolithic. Perhaps the Flintstones should be linked at Cretaceous, too. I am removing this perfectly idiotic link, as any adult would.

I am glad you are being an adult and using phrases like idiotic. The Paganism page has to do with, oh, Paganism. Interestingly enough this comic strip deals with characters who pratice... lets guess here... Paganism, some are reconstructionalists, some Neopagans, etc. Interestingly enough there is a section "Modern nature religion" within the article - wow! So it's not JUST about ancient paganism (to which I could see this removal making sense) but it is about modern paganism as well. To which the article the comic strip is about DIRECTLY references.

If there were modern Cretaceous pratitioners and if Flintstones was about THEM - then YES it would make TOTAL SENSE! The strip has nothing to do with Neolithic culture or pratice either. It directly deals with what is spoken of in the "Modern nature religion" section as well as the "Pagan subdivisions coined by Isaac Bonewits" and "Neopaganism" section. I am also AMAZED that Unitarian Universalism is allowed to remain under the "see also" section (which is MODERN and NOTHING like ancient pratices) - however the comic strip in the article which has much DIRECT CONTENT and REFERENCES such ancient pratices and COMMENTS on them DIRECTLY is not.

Could you site the reasons for all this without degrading into childlike insults involving the Flintstones and OBVIOUSALLY inaccurate pointings to NEOLITHIC? Oh yes, and please sign your talks. Thanks!

--Shivian Balaris 05:18, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The link might be more appropriate in Wicca or Neopaganism than here. —Ashley Y 21:54, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Perhaps then you can explain why it's inapproperate when I already stated reasons to the contrary?--Shivian Balaris 22:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's not relevant to paganism except inasmuch as neopaganism is relevant to paganism. You comic involves people, does it not? Should it not therefore be linked to human? —Ashley Y 23:48, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Perhaps you are missing the Point Ashley Y, this has nothing to do with "MY comic" so much as it does the ARTICLE about a PAGAN COMIC. Making it relevant within an article about PAGANISM to be in the "see also" section. Especially one as DIFFERENT as an article about an ALL PAGAN comic strip? This is RARE and should be NOTED, not therefor shunned. And as noted on other articles, this is not an "advertisement".

Just because something is rare does not make it notable or relevant. Cavalorn 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

from Talk:Wicca: This is a non-argument. Wikipedia articles are not forms of self-promotion, and so internal links to them are not self-promotion either. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hence my point--Shivian Balaris 00:22, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

That point has already been answered and the article duly edited. Cavalorn 00:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Truth About Paganism[edit]

Basically, Paganism is a nature based religion. And some people just don't get that. I have had people tell me that it is "Devil Worship." Which is a false statement. Being Pagan myself, I know that Paganism is all about finding the beauty in all life. There are some evil souls out there, but they still have a soul. Now, from what I can gather, people who call us Pagans a "Devil Worship" cult, I believe they just don't know about the religion. Paganism is finding yourself, the beauty in life, a soul in everything, and respecting everything. And especially Mother Nature, because without her, we wouldn't be here today.

Paganism is not a nature-based religion-- in english, it's a category of religions. See the article's definition. You're probably a 'neopagan,' but the article uses standard english and therefore isn't about your system of beliefs. In english, the word means: not faithful to one of the Abrahmic religions. Devil worship and atheism are forms of paganism.

No they are not. Luckily you are not the officiado of the worlds religious terms.

funny I always thought that 'devil worship' was actually only possible from a standpoint of the abrahamic religions - in as much as that they invented the devil as the antithesis of the deity. so to be a devil worshiper you have to tacitly believe in god.

sure the ancient names such as Baal, lucifer, satan were deities in their own right prior to christianity, but they were no more 'devils' than venus was a devil (even though she presided over death). to worship any of them is not to worship a devil, except in christian eyes of course. DavidP

There are different definitions. Some definitions define all pre-Christian religions, including Judaism, as Pagan. Some have it that all pre-Christian religions, not including Judaism, were Pagan. Some have it that Polytheism itself is Paganism. Others, like the person above, would have it that anything non-Abrahamic, including Atheism somehow, is Paganism.-8/6/06

Correction, Satan was not a diety in it's own right prior to Christianity. Rather, it is a verb meaning "to be hostile" or "to accuse" (to be adversarial). Simply put, it is both a verb and a title in Hebrew. ~Vito J.

Devil Worship and Atheism are NOT in any way related to the Pagan religions. The Pagan religions are a seperate sect of religious beliefs, and devil worship falls closer to christianity than it does paganism, seeing as how many pagans I know (including myself), do not believe in any single entity known as the devil. I say that devil worship falls closer to christian beliefs than pagan because the christian church expresses the ideas of satan, and devil worshippers take these ideas and worship the devil. therefore, many people (and I mean absolutely NO OFFENSE by this) could consider devil worship a branch of christianity, as it deals with the same deities and figures. Atheism is of course a complete lack of religion, and therefore not in any religious catagory of its own. -Brandon Richey

"pagan vs. paganism"[edit]

this section is misleading, and rather ill-informed. The reason that paganism as opposed to pagan is only in use since the 17th century does not mean that paganism wasn't seen a unity, but simply that the -ism suffix only came in fashion in modern times. dab (ᛏ) 20:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

women in paganism[edit]

I don't have much academic experience in religion, but I'm checking up on Dan Brown's suggestion that in the sweeping of Christianity over Paganism, women ultimately lost their cultural standing. Obviously I'm not taking to heart everything in the Da Vinci Code but I think it's an interesting area of history if it has truth in it. Can anyone point me in the direction of more information on women in paganism? Thanks.

"Paganism" means "not Jewish, not Christian, not Muslim, not Atheist", so it encompasses really thousands of cultures. So, unless you specify which "pagan" culture you are interested in, there is no answer to your question. You may try Matriarchy for a few cultures where women had a particularly high standing. And you may try Marija Gimbutas for feminist theories about pre-Indo-European "Old Europe". One thing is certain, the Christians, or even the Jews, didn't invent patriarchy. dab (ᛏ) 09:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this wouldn't jibe well with such syncretisms as Judeo-Paganism. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think paganism has a formal definition, except that given by neo pagans. While Dan Brown is certainly wrong, I believe there are some valid sources are theories of the role of religion in matriarchy vs. patriarchy preceding the introduction of Christianity. Rds865 (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Heathenry vs. Paganism[edit]

It should be noted in this that Heathen is a term that is used exclusivly to the Asatru religion as a name for its followers, and that Heathenry, and Paganism are indeed not the same thing. Heathens are not Pagans, and Pagans are not Heathens. In fact most Heathens consider it offencive to be confused with moderen pagans and Neopagans" as their religion is set in stone and followed as it was in Iceland and northern Europe before Roman domination. Differing greatly Neo-Paganism is a hoshposh of occult observances differing greatly from person to person, and place to place.(Anonymous)

Oh pooh! To formulate the above better, and in fewer words: "Self-described members of Asatru prefer the term "heathen." The rest is gesticulation and babble. --Wetman 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Standard again?[edit]

If neopaganism has an article, and since it and pagan have so little in common, is it standard for there to be an extensive section on neopaganism in this article?

Limited geographic scope[edit]

(cross-posted on Talk:Neopaganism) - I am placing the {{limitedgeographicscope}} template on both this article and Neopaganism, and here is why. I've been re-tagging some articles from Category:Religion stubs as paganism stubs and also placing the WikiProject Neopaganism template on appropriate article talk pages, and I've had some difficulty determining whether to do this with some articles, especially the numerous articles related to syncretic African religions. I went to the Wikipedia articles on paganism and neopaganism for guidance as to the scope of these terms, and found very little. In particular, I have noticed that all of the religions on the "list of pagan religions" in Paganism and all of the traditions listed in Neopaganism are explicitly European. Neopaganism comments that "Polytheistic or animistic traditions that survived into modern times relatively untouched by Christianity and Islam, like Shinto or Hinduism are not considered pagan nor neopagan," but no explanation is given for why non-European, pre-Christian, polytheistic religions that haven't survived (or their revivals) are not included on these lists. I think that this is an important issue that merits serious discussion and deliberation, and judging by the comments above, I'm not the only one. So... Are paganism and neopaganism strictly European phenomena? Are these terms used to refer to non-European religions? And should religions like Voodoo and Candomblé, both of which have been called "pagan" according to their articles, be included here? - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 06:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism is a poorly defined term, and I suspect the best we can do is offer some of the more common definitions of the term from the viewpoints of different groups e.g. Christians, Neopagans, etc.. I would suggest that in the case of Vodou and Candomble the term 'pagan' is next to useless, since it only really indicates that these religions are not Abrahamic. The term 'pagan' is probably only used in these cases because it carries slight connotations (for some people) of exotic and barbaric practices, magic and sacrifice, people with chicken bones through their noses, missionaries in pots, etc. ;-) Fuzzypeg 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of naming conventions[edit]

A discussion of usage and capitalization/hyphenation conventions for the terms N/neo(-)P/pagan and P/pagan is ongoing on the WikiProject talk page. Contributors to this article will likely be interested in participating. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a Link[edit]

I removed wwpn.org from the link list. There are no sources for their "FAQ" so I fell it falls along the lines of "personal opinion."

Also, there are goods for sale on the site, and posting the link here may be a sly way of advertisement. --Toadsboon 09:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, advertising, particularly if it's prominent, is a very big negative when considering a link for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fuzzypeg 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

During my studies of Paganism, there is one thing that I have learned beyond a doubt; there is virtually no agreement on the definition of 'Paganism' from one group to another.

I've been reading the discussions on this page and the Neopaganism page, and it seems as though people are trying to have the definition written the way they view it. I'm, by no means an expert, and I'm sure there are people on here who know a lot more about the subject than me, but I thought I would try to help clear the article up.

The first paragraph of this article would definately conflict with a lot of people's views. It is also inaccurate to say that the term is used primarily by Christians, although the definitions at the beginning of this article probably are. I think the only fact that all groups (except those who seem to think it's a religion itself) would agree on is that Paganism is a category of religions.

The etymology section would be a good place explain about the definitions of 'non-Christian' and 'non-Abrahamic', or could at least lead onto a section discussing them. After that, you could have a section talking Wicca and the Pagan revival that came along with it, and how they spawned definitions such as 'earth-based religions'. The same could be done for all common definitions, whilst explaining the etymology for each and why the current definition is the one found most often in dictionaries.

This is all my long-winded way of saying, I think this article should have subsections to address each of the common definitions of 'Paganism'.--Jcvamp 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't disagree with the your ideas for subsections, I want to add that I feel is important to deal with the historical uses of the term just as prominently as the modern movements. "Heathen" redirects here and it is term that was widely and liberly used in the past, where these terms in the modern sense is rarely used outside of certain circles. Not that I think it is not important in those circle and the mordern definiton should certainly be dealt with. However I think the majority of readers coming to this page, are people who are reading and older book and are uncertain how this term is used in that context.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen could be dealt with, either in this article or in a separate one. I personally, think the term shouldn't be treated as a synonym of Pagan. Heathen is used in a derogatory sense more often than Pagan, whilst also denoting Norse reconstructionism specifically in some cases. I'm not saying that both of these uses are on the same level, but I think it would be good idea to deal with them.--172.216.56.198 22:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, altough I am not sure how much information would be repaeted if we split the articles. Historcally I believe thay were synonyms, perhaps pagan was a more politicaly correct term until it gained it's modern definition. I am not sure. However until it is split we need to remeber that heathen does redirect here and needs to be explained. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of ideas[edit]

Paganism is a historical category: no educated person is applying it today. The idea has a history that is partly revealed in its etymology, and better revealed in its historical usage. The career of the idea "paganism" is being discussed in this article: Neo-paganism has its distinct article; our own opinions of paganism and what it may mean in today's schoolyards are irrelevant.

There are three ways to diddle about incompetently with this article, all of them broad avenues already well-trod:

As a "dictionary definition". Any criticism of a Wikipedia article on the genesis, development and history of an idea will go wrong by equating the idea with a label and then proposing to eliminate the discussion as a dictionary definition. See "Is Paganism a disambiguation article?" above.

As of "limited geographic scope". Some here would like to see Paganism discuss Shinto and other cultural contexts where the concept doesn't apply. Others similarly complain that this European concept with a Roman background and a Christian history is "Eurocentric"! And a bumpersticker is applied.

By conflating it with Polytheism or Animism, or redirecting Heathen to Paganism without being able to distinguish among them.

A good definition of heathen would help clear fog from this discussion, it appears. Any "splitting" of articles is best done, not by cannibalizing a coherent existing article, but by creating sub-articles that expand upon specific aspects, with a Main article... heading. Anyone who doesn't understand the concept of nested articles, shouldn't be encouraged to chop about at random. --Wetman 04:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that Paganism is a historical category? The term is still being applied, and by educated people. This isn't a suggestion for this article to end up as just a dictionary definition, but dictionaries, which are written by educated people, will usually define Paganism as either, a category of non-Christian religions, religions other than the world's major religions, or atheism. I disagree with some of these definitions too, but evidently the term is used this way, and not just by uneducated people.

The real question is, who is an authority on what a term means? If this can't be answered, how else can the term be define other than to discuss how it is used by English speakers?

If that is the real question then I suggest that accept the fact that there are several meanings for the term and that you re-read the post above you by wetman - He cleverly suggests that when there are several definitions, it may be a good idea to use several headings or sub articles. pretty innovative eh!

DavidP

Firstly, I don't see why you imply that I don't accept the fact that there are many definitions. That's what I'm advocating here...

I like the idea of sub-headings (in fact, if you look up the page you'll see I've already suggested it myself), but, if you read Wetman's post carefully, you'll see that he's criticising certain definitions. To me, and I may be wrong, the main gist of the post was to say that the other definitions come from uneducated people, and therefore shouldn't be used.

I dislike a lot of the definitions too, but words change and we should discuss what the word 'Paganism' has come to mean. The article Man is about adult males (though in the disambiguation it mentions that it can refer to humans in general), but the word originally meant human. Why is Paganism any different?

If we are going to have an article with sub-headings for different definitions, we have to decide which definitions to use. My idea was to use the most common definitions.--Jcvamp 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shinto[edit]

Should Shinto be considered a pagan religion? It is, after all, polytheistic with a heavy animistic and nature-oriented tinge. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

"Pagan" is the usual translation of the Islamic term mushrik, which refers to 'one who worships something other than God'. Sorry, I dont understand this statement. Is it translating the English word Pagan into Islamic(?) language? Or, actually, don't understand anyway.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anupamsr (talk • contribs) .

Paganism.[edit]

To me, the essense of paganism is just a continuence of oral traditions which are important no matter who you are and to any religion, family etc. And which we miss so much in our shocking society. 'The world is too much with us'. [William Wordsworth]

Wicca "recently founded"[edit]

I have no real disagreement with the idea that Wicca was recently founded, although based on the best scholarship available I would place its "founding" closer to the 1920s or 1930s. My objection is to it being singled out as a "recently founded" religion, while faiths like Neo-Druidism are "reconstructions" or even "revivals". The basic fact is that all these religions are attempting to revive something from the past, and all involve a degree of reconstruction. All are based on an imperfect historical knowledge. Neo-Druidism as it is popularly practiced today has little more historical "validity" than Wicca - the Druidic revival started in the 18th century, so it may predate Wicca in that sense, but it got an overhaul in the 20th Century. Ross Nichols and Gerald Gardner were collaborating together on the development of both their religions, from all accounts.

Asatru might be more historically accurate as a "revival", since it is based largely on a set of literary works of similar antiquity (but has its reconstructed elements, just as all the rest do); Wicca is perhaps more of a "reconstruction" since it has more diverse literary sources, ranging from Greek magical papyri to supposed Italian witch beliefs recorded by Charles Leland, to the theories of Margaret Murray. The fact that the validity of some of these texts is disputed in no way makes this any less of a valid attempt at "reconstruction" — and it's certainly not in a different boat to Neo-Druidism, the founding documents of which are widely thought to be pure invention.

Perhaps the thought is that Wicca can only be a "newly founded" religion since it's attempting to revive a European witchcraft, something which "never existed". This opinion would presumably be based on Ronald Hutton's writings, which take a rather extreme position, atypical of most of his academic peers in the field. Wider academic consensus recognises the existence of folk magic mixed with pagan or non-Christian beliefs throughout Europe right up to the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (such as the Benandanti and groups identified as similar by Carlo Ginsburg). While these witchcraft-like beliefs were uncommon, they are well-known to modern historians were certainly not non-existent. In any case, if the intention is to say that Wicca is reconstructing something that never previously existed, that would be better expressed clearly and unambiguously in the article.

"Newly founded" sounds like Wicca has no interest in drawing from the past, which is quite misleading... Fuzzypeg ☻ 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca is not a reconstruction because it is not an attempt to restore a particular ancient religion; it is a modern synthesis of a variety of beliefs and practices, from a variety of cultures. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca was an attempt to revive/reconstruct a particular ancient religion! Gerald Gardner when he was initiated took it to be the remnants of the ancient "witch cult" that Margaret Murray had described, and he set out to preserve, publicise and restore it. Yes, he drew from diverse sources in his attempts at reconstruction, as did the founders of neo-Druidry. Regardless of the fact that Murray's theories have been largely discredited, this was still a bona-fide attempt at reconstruction/revival. Also, Wiccan practitioners will tell you that their gods existed prior to the 20th century, and that it would be ridiculous to assume they had no worshippers in previous centuries. To single out Wicca as "newly founded" while Druidry is "reconstructed" is just misleading, and seems to indicate a strong bias. Fuzzypeg ☻ 01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Neo-druid groups, especially those based on the romantic "revivals", are just as eclectic as Wicca. Others are more reconstructionist, or have become more reconstructionist in recent years. Whatever Gardner believed, or told people he believed, I think is less relevant than the result: an amalgamation of very diverse sources, sometimes from traditions with radically different theologies and cosmologies. While it's clear that Wiccans call upon deities from ancient cultures, the actual religious structure in which they do this, and some of the beliefs they hold about those deities, are only some of the time based on older models. --Kathryn NicDhàna 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fuzzy. Wicca was, indeed, "an attempt to revive/reconstruct a particular ancient religion." The problem is the "religion" that was being constructed never actually existed--at least, not before the Romatics invented it. The Druids, at least, were actually historical, and even though the Mesopagan Druid "reconstructions" were no more "ancient" than Wicca, there at least is a historical precedent, no matter how badly that precedent was misunderstood and misinterpreted. Justin Eiler 03:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kathryn. Bonewits is recent--2003. ISBN 1594055009 However, he takes the (very) minority position of an "ancient" origin for Wicca, and has caught both the expected kudoes and flack for such a position. Justin Eiler 03:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, Isaac's entitled to his opinion, but I don't think most others in the field would classify Wicca as "MesoPagan". --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'd go along with his definition of Mesopagan ... there's plenty of Christian influence in Witchcraft Today and meaning of witchcraft, even if it's "We don't like Christians because they're afraid of us," But I'd still place it in the 1940s. Justin Eiler 03:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely concur on the 1940's. --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of quotations?[edit]

I note we have a long series of "anti-paganism" quotations, all of which are from a loosely Christian perspective, and all of which, though prettily written, seem to be based on misconceptions of what a pagan world-view might be. C S Lewis' views are particularly horrid, seemingly founded in a puritanical self-loathing of any impulse which is not expressly aimed at God; Bigland's assumption that only the Abrahamic religions contain moral teachings is patently false; and while G K Chesterton comes the closest to expressing a valid idea with his description of taking joy in small things, he makes an unfounded assumption that pagans would fearfully avoid confronting the vast and the sublime. I don't see why the gods and the fates should be despotic or dead; these are the gods of the vast spaces that surround mankind, that we stare up to in the heavens. Pantheism, for instance, finds divinity in the largest as well as the smallest.

These quotations, it seems to me, are not so much attempting to understand paganism in a realistic manner, as to explore the authors' fears of straying from the path of Christ, since God is only "up there" and not "down here". The pagans these authors are talking about (with the possible exception of Chesterton) have bones through their noses and stew missionaries in pots. Fuzzypeg ☻ 02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my sub-dividing of the quotes section will be a good solution to your unease with them. 11:35, 12 September 2006 (EST)

Unfortunately not really. We shouldn't need a great number of quotes and we shouldn't need them split into sections. It's clear which are pro- and which are anti-. What we need is better quotations. The pro- quotes aren't particularly enlightening, and still seem to be from a Christian "admiring the noble savage" point of view. If we're going to have quotes I would limit it to about four or five maximum; I would quote from major influential and sympathetic anthropologists (perhaps Joseph Campbell), folklorists (perhaps Robert Graves), etc. I don't see a problem with leaving one quote in the mix that is from a more Christian perspective, but most of the quotes here are barking up completely the wrong tree. The writer should at least have a vague idea of what the pagan world view is like. On that basis I'm going to chop out all but the Chesterton (which is as good as they've got so far). I don't suggest you try filling in the gaps in the list of quotations unless you actually know of a really good one. They're not likely to come out of a quotation dictionary... Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the initial introduction of quotations was unfortunate since it was entirely given over to Christian apologists writing at a time when active hostility towards the old religions was part of Christian life. Some of Chesterton's remarks of negroes and Jews would be considered highly racist today and Lewis opinions on witch's would - effectively condoning capital punishment - would not go down well with those who practice Wicca today. There can be considerable resentment amongst pagans towards Christianity and its treatment of religions outside itself when it gained the ascendency - the "turn or burn" mentality. IMO the contributor of those quotations, whilst being well-meaning, has disturbed the balance of the article and it would be preferable that the whole of the quotations section, for and against paganism, be removed. Sept 12 2006

I don't see hostility as being a major problem. I think the people who wrote these quotes were quite far removed from any real form of pagan religion. Mostly they were considering the religions of antiquity or of the exotic south seas and the jungles of Africa, etc, things that are far enough removed that they are neither threatened by them, not need to portray them accurately. People like Lewis could imagine them in whatever form seemed the best antithesis to their true Christian calling. For Lewis it seems Paganism represented everything exotic, sensual and free, which he was both fascinated by and deeply afraid of. It seems to work that way: if you are greatly concerned with remaining chaste, then your conception of "paganism" might be marked by licentiousness and orgiastic rites, for instance. Of course this has no bearing on real paganism. This comes down to ignorance rather than hostility. If we had some decent quotes it hopefully wouldn't appear like there's such antagonism between religions... Fuzzypeg ☻ 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chesterton quote that's the lone entry now is definitely a keeper. 22 September 2006

I disagree because it is only another one of G.K Chesterton's sound bites that might have an appeal to Christians, or even some pagans who live in a Merry Olde England kind of world with the Christian veneer removed. I think they are unfair, they certainly do not represent my views as a pagan, and his broad brush strokes about despotic Gods could, without any difficulty, be applied to Yahweh and his ways - especially in the O.T. His generalised comments about pagans, the afterlife, their binding to earth etc are also clearly wrong and misrepresent the many possible pagan spiritual paths. I do not warm to the idea that the criteria for quotations should rest on their literary merits only - indeed the whole idea of a quotations sections lends itself to a war of soundbites. With respect I would ask that this be reconsidered and the quotation section be dropped completely as the article loses objectivity through its presence. 24 September 2006 1.55pm

May I suggest the complete deletion of the quotation section as being innappropriate for an introductory text since they perhaps really form part of a separate (several) article(s), e.g the history of Christian/Pagan apologetics . My first approach to the article was in the expectation of finding a decent overview on paganism - not what 20th century Christian apologists, with demonstable bias and erronious opinions - thought. Any objections ?

82.40.208.36 13:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that logic -- the quotations section is superfluous for an introductory text on paganism. LotR 14:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I storngly support removing the quotations section: I don't think it adds anything useful to the article. --Scix 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I'm going to "Be Bold" and go ahead and remove it. Justin Eiler 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Heathens and Pagans the same thing in modern usage?[edit]

It's interesting that the word heathen and Pagan are both discussed in a single article which is clearly almost exclusively on Pagan religion. While they may have been historically synonymous, they are not longer so in the modern world. More to the point, heathen has come to simply mean either not Christian or simply not monotheistic, including simply not religious:

Pagan has tradtionally been associated primarily with polytheism, and in more recent years has come to mean nature-centered or "Earth-centered" (particularly be self-proclaimed Pagans).

Heathen, on the other hand is often used to include atheists, agnostics, secularists, etc., and many atheist and secularist, as well as frankly anti-Christian, groups have come to describe themselvs as Heathens, in much the way that many such groups call themselves infidels, heretics, and similar names. Often this is done to place themselve outside Christianity, or outside theism in general, while specifically avoiding a label they associate with a specific other religion (e.g., Pagan) or philosophy (e.g., Atheism). However, many, perhaps most (unkown) self-proclaimed "Heathens" are not Pagan, nor are they religious, and have much more in common with Atheism or Secularism.

So, it is misleading to imply that "heathen" is actually synonymous with, or even related to, Paganism, at least in modern usage, despite the fact that a few Pagans also call themselves Heathen.

Well you seem to have answered your own question, but I will answer anyways. "Pagan" is a type of "heathen" in most definitions, but they are often used interchangbly. Besides a small number of people who self-indentify this way, the words are generally used by Christians to describe people and practices that are not part of Judeo-Christian tradition. I dislike the way you are discussing "modern usage". Just because a word takes on a new aspect does not neccessarily mean the older usage is completely discarded. Heathen particularly is widely found in 19th century literature and people still read that stuff.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good number of Germanic neopagans have also taken up the term heathenry to describe their religion. So not only is paganism a type of heathenry, heathenry is a type of paganism. That's a nice linguistic mess, isn't it? - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fastidious usage "heathen" is pejorative, implying the "folk from the heath". "Pagan" is simply descriptive, though originally it did refer to "countryfolk" too. In casual usage, where no one is likely to pay much attention, not even the speaker, it doesn't really matter. --Wetman 08:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tongan King funeral[edit]

The Tongan king was just interred - the BBC said he was buried with Pagan and Christian ceremonies. Can someone shed some light on what that means?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.209.90 (talk • contribs)

"Pagan" is often used very generally. In this case I would imagine they meant that funeral ceromonies contained traditions that have been passed down from before the Christian missionaries arrived as well an Christian traditions. In many cases when westerners don't research the exact nature a non-Judeo-Christian tradition they just label it "pagan". Which doesn't always mean the tradition is actually religious. According to this new report[2] there were "rituals designed to ensure a safe passage for Tupou IV into Pulotu, the Polynesian underworld." But the fact the BBC labeled them as "pagan" really doesn't mean much. You could pretty much replace "pagan" in the BBC sentance with "magic", "tribal", or "traditional" and get the same (lack of) information.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

suggest merge with neopaganism[edit]

Please see neopaganism's talk page for discussion.

old suggestion, been done before, and always defeated. Paganism refers, in the majority, to paleo-paganism and varieties thereof. Neopaganism is focused on the modern revival of paganism. They are very different subjects with some crossover. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan or Neopagan Religions[edit]

There's a bit of a problem with how the religions are organized in the Paganism#Pagan religions and Paganism#Neo-pagan religions lists. Are we just going on self-identification, or whether it's an ancient or modern tradition? If a modern religion comes from an unbroken, polytheistic tradition, I assume we put it in "Pagan". If it's obviously a modern religion, I assume we put it in "Neopagan".

But right now, for instance, Asatru is mentioned in both sections, and Discordianism, which is obviously modern, is under "Pagan". I am going to "be bold" and sort this out a bit, but I'm sure others on this article will have an opinion on this. However, one of the problems is that these distinctions are not always clear-cut. Some traditions, such as Asatru and Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, are polytheistic elaborations built on surviving cultural customs. They might be best described as partial reconstructions. I'm not sure how to address this grey area. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And remember that every "neo-" identifies itself as a continuation, asserting that it has "strong ties to the past", etc. All the same, we can distinguish Neo-Hittite from Hittite, and recognize the revival elements in Neo-Babylonian, or tell the difference between Classical and Neoclassical. Spokesmen for the various "neos" are intent on blurring these distinctions, needless to add. --Wetman 21:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While "every "neo-" identifies itself as a continuation" is a truism, that's not as much the case in certain sectors of Neopaganism. Most Neo-Druids gladly and cheerfully identify themselves as a modern construction with very loose ties to the past, and the recognition that Wicca is basically a 20th century phenomenon is gaining acceptance in the Wiccan community. Justin Eiler 21:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am very tired of this diccusion, pagans and neo-pagans are one and the same, they are only seprated by the time that they existed. in other words a neo-pagan is the same as a pagan they just are the new genration. now, can we pleese get off this subject because it enrsges me that the infedels cant tell that pagans and neo-pagans are the same so no matter what you say you are you are the other too. --Stone-giant the wise (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so you think it is "the same" to live in the 5th century as it is to live in the 21st. That's a bit like saying Origen and George W. Bush are "the same" just because both are "Christians". dab (𒁳) 05:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idolatry[edit]

On the surface, I would tend to restore the word "idolatry", as this was specifically referenced and, if I understand the faiths involved, essentially accurate. If anyone knows a less emotionally charged word for the same thing, please use it. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 14:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Idol worship" would be a good compromise, but even then it's not a feature of Buddhism (I can't speak for the pther dharmic religions though). BTW, Idol worship rediects to idolatry, which is POV on a stick! Totnesmartin 15:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idol worship should be sufficient. Nature-worship is present in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism. Idolatory is in Hinduism, Jainism and to a extent in Buddhism as well (there are Buddha temples where he is worshipped as a god by one of the Buddhist sects). Hinduism is polytheistic, besides Sikhs and Jains also accept Hindu Gods. Female deities are worshipped in Hinduism. So I think overall, the Dharmic faiths are pagan by definition, and not termed so historically by those who gave birth to the idea. IAF

Buddha-worship and idolatry are to Buddhism like Mary/saint-worship and idolatry are to Catholics. Yes, it happens in practice, but neither are exactly widely condoned as far as I know. Nature-worship may be present among some Buddhists, but there are a lot of traditions that Buddhists follow that are not particularily Buddhist but part of a longer cultural tradition. It is not what I would consider a significant feature. The female deities thing gets icky too since there are not so much Buddhist deities as there are deities that are worshipped by some Buddhists. Also, while there are female deities among them, I would not say that they play such prominent roles as the goddesses of religions such as Wicca.AliaGemma 11:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult image is the normal term, except among Victorian bishops and their heirs. "Idolatry" is pretty quaint-sounding in the great wide world. --Wetman 08:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, idolatry and idol-worship are both very offensive to many pagans and followers of Dharmic religions (especially seeing as the act is generally more veneration than worship when and where it occurs). Cult image might be better, but then we get into the problems with the term "cult". Maybe "veneration of religious symbols"? I hate to sound too P.C., but so many terms in this area come pre-loaded. AliaGemma 11:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of caption on Rhumsiki crab sorceror[edit]

Perhaps the caption on this picture should not read "During the expansion of the Sokoto Caliphate in West Africa, Islamic Fulbe (Fula) labelled their non-Muslim neighbours, such as this Kapsiki, it is still unknown what the fuck this retard is staring at... diviner, Kirdi, or "pagans"."

Specifically "it is still unknown what the fuck this retard is staring at..." should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.100.255 (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Your wish is granted, as I believe it has been removed. Thanks for playing! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the spread of Paganism prior to Christianity[edit]

An anonymous user (85.146.24.65) removed this map. I have restored it, without bias, and ask that it's removal or retention be discussed here. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading image used in Pagan article[edit]

The picture of a man looking Islamic-Muslim-Mideastern-like seems inappropriate and misleading to the entire article - which focuses on the term "pagan" as latin and refers often to "Christianity". A translation of the term into other languages or cultures can be included here , but this image does not seem to represent any pagan majority or have genuine significance.

This insert appears to be inserting an image that is more misleading than informative or representative of what is herein described as Paganism, in all it's varieties. A more relevant image would be helpful. The current image should be replaced with an informative one, not misrepresenting the beliefs of pagan peoples.

If a picture is worth 100000 words, this image is not telling a truth.

The included sentence - "Historically, the term "pagan" has usually had pejorative connotations among westerners, comparable to heathen, infidel, and mushrik and kafir (كافر) in Islam." - is not a translation of the word "pagan". Tho "comparable", this additional sentence seems to be misplaced.

And as many of us do not think of "islam" as a category compared to "westeners" nor is "Islam" a language. As a culture or religion Islam is also found in the places from where "westeners' live. This is all a poor mixing of comparisons and seems to be an insertion intended for more than elucidation of the pagan story. Activistrep

Some Arguable Assumptions, and Concepts..[edit]

With the history of the word being so distant, one would have to wonder what all possible meanings of this world there could be.. likewise, this word postdates Judaic religions,It has been debated that it's meaning meant the same thing at the time it was made.. IE Pagan = anything that is not in following with the Roman religion "due to roman religion being the key influence". I believe the biggest argument is that this word is a complete antonym to it's original meaning. Before the Romans allowed the criminal christians into the walls of Rome they were just "Pagans", and the Pagans could be arrested for being such.. IE the Myth of Jesus Christ.. A pagan that is widely known for his crimes against the Roman Empire and his Execution.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.60.32.94 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

your meaning is not clear. Are you calling Christians pagans? Does "Roman religion" mean "Roman catholic Church" or the Classical Mystery religion? Explain, please. Totnesmartin 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed paragrph to here for discussion[edit]

24.13.244.169 added the following to the Notes and Reference section. I felt it had SOME info but needed to be discussed here first.

*1 The word pagan or rather "pohan" is similar to "pohon" as in Czech language or "połon" in Belarus, which describe people taken to settle from defeated country. Also pozo/pogo/poho/pagan-iać has the same meaning "sped up" as a command during column movement. The term pogan was used in and is related to pre-Christ era, as most Christian knows Jesus was not the first baptized Christian.

--Bill W. Smith, Jr. 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[sic] pagan in Africa[edit]

This section seems to be empty, save for a picture. Just thought I'd point it out. 24.91.39.160 16:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idol-worship[edit]

The recent addition of "Idol-worship" to the Paganism article is a bit problematic. Because the term is unfortunately negatively weighted by the Judeo-Christian Bible interpretation in Western society, I don't really think it's appropriate or accurately descriptive. I believe this is a translation problem. I would recommend using the more accurate murti worship or perhaps "icon-worship" or "deity-worship" which I believe would be more representative of the meaning being sought after here. I certainly think using the word murti somewhere in the article would be a good idea. Thoughts? --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 18:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult image is the commonplace term current in educated discourse. Those "idols" are in our museums. --Wetman 21:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer icon-veneration, since the images are not worshipped per se but are used as stand-ins for higher beings. I don't know of anyone who thinks that some piece of wood or stone is really a god. I acknowledge that cult image is the current term among some circles, however I don't think it is the most appropriate term considering the many types and backgrounds of people reading who are not part of those circles. I believe that its connotations outweigh its usefulness. AliaGemma 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AliaGemma: I think icon-veneration would probably cover it appropriately. As I said, I was mostly concerned that there is a distinct pejorative/negative connotation to the phrase idol-worship in English, and I'm sure that's not the meaning intended in this article. I mentioned "deity-worship" because I believe that's a term used in the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKON) for treatment of their images/icons/idols. It seemed like a relatively neutral phrase to me; I wasn't trying to push an ISKON agenda. I agree that while "cult image" might be the current descriptive phrase in academic circles, the popular, modern Western use of the word "cult" is negative as well. Again, I don't believe that's accurate.

I'm not trying to take issue with you, Wetman, but while some of the "idols" might be in museums, this does not mean their religious/spiritual traditions are dead and forgotten and without modern worshipers. I find museums often give a sense of preserved and isolated exoticism rather than the reality of historical and living continuity represented by their exhibits. This is a flaw in the static presentation of traditional museums: a disconnection from living traditions. Few people look at a statue of Apollo and realize some people in Greece still make offerings to the deity today. (getting off high horse) Sorry, you don't deserve that. It's just a pet peeve of mine. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 23:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin quote[edit]

Can the person who put the Latin quote into the text ("Apud hunc [sc. Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis") please translate it? It seems awfully pretentious to quote like that, assuming everybody will understand it. 201.81.190.154 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a quote from Edward Gibbon, and it wasn't translated in the original.

Apud hunc [Christum] tam miles est paganus fidelis quam paganus est miles infidelis

~~"In (Christ) the faithful pagan is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a pagan"~~

Actually, after looking at it again, I think the intent is more like:

"In Christ even a soldier is a faithful citizen just as a citizen is an unfaithful soldier"

My translation could be totally off, because I don't know his intent. I think he is making a metaphor about citizen-soldiers. It is difficult to tell what sense he is using the word because his usage of paganus is most definitely not in the modern religious context. Replace paganus with "villager", "citizen", "civilian", "rustic" - whatever usage you prefer. This is original research, though. Someone with a more definitive translation or a better grasp of Latin will need to translate it. - WeniWidiWiki 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrifice and Paganism[edit]

I have cut from the article the following passage: "Sacrifice does not play a part in modern paganism today, as Paganism is a very peaceful religion, focusing on a principle to respect all beings." Apart from NPOV issues, some modern pagans do make offerings to the Gods. The idea of sacrifice doesn't automatically suggest harm to any other creature. GoldenMeadows 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what you should have done, then, is rather than cut the passage, maybe you should have edited it to say that "Human Sacrifice does not play a part in modern paganism today..." --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only other contribution by this edit address was "sucks my dick!!!!".[3]. To feed or not to feed..... Dbachmanns original text read: "Sacrifice plays a central part in pagan and non-pagan religion alike." OTY for edit. GoldenMeadows 09:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, took me a second to realize you were not talking about ME! :) OK, I understand now, although now that I think about it, some form of rewording to make clear that Sacrifice != Human Sacrifice may be in order. The casual reader may not realize the difference. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the fact that it calls Paganism a religion alone, should be reason enough to remove it. Also, based on the definition of Paganism provided by the article, most religions are Pagan, and it's impossible to speak for all of them in terms of beliefs.--Jcvamp 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I reverted the article from changes made by 70.182.28.222. Im not sure what action to take beyond reverting the article, but do any more experienced Wikipedians want to do anything about it? Like blocking the address? Thanks Monkeymox 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, all that can be done is a reversion. I've heard of people being blocked, but I don't know how that's handled.--Jcvamp 21:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are procedures for warning vandals and getting them blocked. You can read them at WP:VAND. Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activism[edit]

Charred Feathers restored a See Also link to Pagan activism under Neopaganism, and asked in his edit summary why it was removed? I gotta ask, why was it restored? Pagan activism is just a redirect to Reclaiming (neopaganism). A number of the See also links I just gotta scratch my head over. Virtuous paganism??? Idolatry??? Both Christian concepts, or at least totally Christian-centric articles. I gotta laugh to keep from crying. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

think of it this way, at least there is discussion....Charred Feathers 06:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links to Shirk(idolatory) and virtuous Pagans seem a tactless addition to the article and tend to reinforce stereotypical behaviour in extremists, especially so when "balancing" links have been deleted. At least you seek to discuss and that's a good example for people like me who have no fixed views on religions. GoldenMeadows 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, since "paganism" itself is a Christian (recte, Abrahamic) concept, I don't understand why you are surprised to find that "virtuous paganism"" is one, too. dab (𒁳) 16:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a certain point, but as we live in a society dominated by Christianity, it is difficult not to use their labels when discussing our faiths, especially with outsiders. Besides, remember Stead's Law: "The amount of time it takes for a discussion thread among pagans to turn to the topic of Christianity is inversely proportional to the number of posts in the thread." --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Continuing on the above, this article needs cleanup. I'll try to do some today, but my time on WP right now is sort of limited. While I realize it's not always clear-cut whether the best designation for a religion/tradition is "Pagan" or "Neopagan", it does seem that we need to be more consistent throughout this article, and have a clearer policy for the links. For instance, when an obviously Neopagan group calls themselves simply "Pagan", I still think they need to be categorized as Neopagan; therefore, they'd be more appropriate to link to from the Neopaganism article than this one. On most of the Neopagan articles, and as discussed at Wikiproject Neopaganism, we've generally been following the guideline of capitalizing Pagan when it refers to religious Paganism, and only using lowercase when discussiong the "irreligious" definition. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paganism in the USA[edit]

I'm moving the following passage over here until someone can clean it up.

The American Religious Identity Survey 2001,^[1] calculated that paganism formed the fifth largest^[2] religion in the United States however if the broad definition of paganism is used, then paganism is the second largest group behind Christianity.

The largest percentage quantifiable growth is Wicca which has shown a near 17 fold increase in practising members over an 11 year period.^[3] Paganism is Canada's fastest-growing religion, according to Statistics Canada. ^[4].

The first sentence about paganism being the fifth largest religion in the US is plain wrong, and the reference doesn't even support this. The second reference points to a dead link.
"The broad definition of paganism" is very vague, and the sentence is completely unsubstantiated.
"The largest percentage quantifiable growth..." is clumsy. I suggest something like, "According to one survey, the number of Americans identifying as Wiccan jumped from X to X between 199x and 200x."
The claim that paganism is Canada's fastest growing religion appears to check out, but why are we discussing Canada in a section entitled "USA."

--Toscaesque 05:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence should just go. It's just plain wrong.

And what does "fastest growing" mean? Is it in terms of percentage or in terms of actual numbers? That makes quite a difference, and should be noted. Just think, if I start a new religion tomorrow with myself as the only adherent, then in terms of numbers the growth is 1, but in terms of percentage it's infinite! If anyone feels like tracking this down we might put it in, but otherwise it's a fairly ambiguous, and thus not very useful, statement. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence was rather clearly cited... have you looked at the reference? The fact is that when you look at the number of pagans today vs 10 years ago, or 20, the growth rate makes neo/paganism the fastest growing religious movement in the US. By comparison, Christianity's numbers are fairly static, varying by the birth and death rates. Most conversion is from one sect of Christianity to another. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, According to the Wikipedia page cited, Wicca had a growth rate of 1675%. THAT is a hard fact, making the growth of Wicca all by itself the single fastest growing segment, without counting ANY other neo/pagans, by a considerable factor! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 06:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a garbled version of Neopaganism in the United States. Also at Neopaganism#North_America. The fact of the matter is that Paganism is the sixth largest non-Christian religion in the US, after Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Unitarian Universalism. The "second largest" claim is based on bogus numbers of "5 million witches". To beat even Hinduism, there would need to be more than a million "Pagans" in the US. Even the neopagan sponsored http://www.cog.org/ poll of 1999 doesn't claim that many, finding 768,400 neopagans in the US and Canada taken together. Of course, you are free to define "paganism" as "non-Abrahamic", which would mean that there are only four religions, viz. Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Paganism. Then, of course, Paganism would be the largest non-Christian religion in the US. But such a definition is nonsensical, and no census would do such a thing. A reasonable number of US neopagans is around 300,000. If you want to count everyone sympathetic, you may argue for 500,000. To beat even Unitarian Universalism, you'd need to claim 900,000. --dab (𒁳) 06:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, yes, the first sentence is clearly cited, and yes I've looked at the references. As Toscaesqe stated above, the first citation in that sentence does not support paganism being the "fifth largest religion"; the second citation is a broken link to... who knows what? The fact that the first reference was so badly misrepresented doesn't fill me with confidence about the second, whatever it was supposed to link to.

And as far as percentage growth goes, I reckon the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion has had a much higher growth rate. Do the maths: I reckon there are probably between 20 and 6000 people in the US who would now identify as "Pastafarians" since the parody religion was cooked up by Bobby Henderson in 2005. It's got quite a cult following. So if you take the conservative estimate of 20, that's still a 2000% growth rate over the last two years. If you take a slightly less conservative estimate of, say 400 adherents, you've got a growth rate of 40000%. As you see, the smaller the religion, the easier it is for its rates of growth or decline to be very large. Especially when you get down to religions with, say, less than ten adherents. Wicca may be faster-growing in terms of percentage than Christianity, but there are a hundred other religions that will be much faster-growing in terms of percentage than Wicca, and many of these "fast-growing" religions will be so small as to be insignificant. And of course the fastest-growing religions (in terms of percentage), hands down, are those with only a single member, as I explained in my earlier comment.

Statistics isn't terribly tricky but it's still used to mislead people on a daily basis. There was a famous book written about this, How to Lie with Statistics. Think twice about these figures and consider what they actually mean. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following words were uttered by DBachmann, "The fact of the matter is that Paganism is the sixth largest non-Christian religion in the US, after Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Unitarian Universalism. To beat even Hinduism, there would need to be more than a million "Pagans" in the US." WOW ! What next ? I think that human beings are lesser in number than males in the U.S. I also think that aircraft in the US are lesser in number than commercial airlines and helicopters.

Seriously, Paganism is a CLASS of religions and not one particular religion !! The Dharmic faiths are technically Pagan in nature. And for god's sake there are no more religions that can be invented out of thin air. Those are called cults. So, Pastafarians, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are CULT groups just like Osho and ISKCON. Indian_Air_Force(IAF) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 06:42, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

is there any kind of point to this comment? I was pointing out that in order to be the fifth-largest non-Christian religion in the US, Paganism would have to be claimed to have more adherents than Hinduism in the US. There are about 1 million Hindus in the US, so that the claim would entail more than 1 million Pagans. I then pointed out that not even the cog.org poll claims more than a million Pagans in USA+Canada taken together. From this, it follows, that the "fifth-largest" claim is bogus. I didn't mention Hinduism for any other reason than that it happens to be the fifth-largest non-Christian religion in the US, per ARIS. So please, if you must follow me around, try to pay attention just a little bit. dab (𒁳) 08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a clarification! Anyway, don't bother bringing American Paganism anymore, will you ? And the fact that I have not yet acquired sufficient skills to make sense of your garbled comments is proof that not just me, but nobody else 'follows you around'. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) 10:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what vitriolic idiocy (or should I say, idiotic vitriol). If you are not interested in the topic, go away. If you are interested, make an effort to read what the discussion is even about. dab (𒁳) 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

I think that the section on etymology needs editing. It should refer to Robin Fox "Pagans and Christians" which says the word derives from "Pagani" meaning civilian, rather than perpetuate the popular view that this word derived from "Paganus" meaning rural. ACEOREVIVED 19:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, paganus *does* mean "rural". The secondary "civilian" meaning and possible derivation from there is also duly mentioned. Whatever the connotation of the original coinage, the "rural" interpretation must have had the upper hand early on, otherwise we wouldn't get a loan-translation of heathen. dab (𒁳) 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I look at that etymology section and I just glaze over. I'm a word geek, who loves studying languages. If that's my response, how is the average reader reacting to that? WP is for the readers, not the writers. (I forget where to source that to.) My suggestion is not only to trim the section but move it further down. It's just not a good opening. In general, I think this is what needs to be done in articles where the etymology is detailed and dense, and this is no exception. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, Kathryn, an "Etymology" section at "Paganism" is supposed to discuss the etymology of paganus, and it should be addressing readers who want to know that etymology. Sections can be skipped, and anyone not interested in the etymology can just not read it. In this sense, while Wikipedia should certainly be written "for the readers", it should be written for readers who want to know, not for the hypothetical "average" reader, who mostly appears to be slightly simple and not really interested. The section's content should be treated like that of any other section, subject to branching out if over-long: we do have such branched out specialized etymology articles, e.g. at god (word) or witch (etymology). dab (𒁳) 09:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

If the Indian religions are included, then 50 percent of the world's religions would be considered pagan.

The above sentence needs to be counter checked since it seems a bit dodgy (refs [4] including the info in wikipedia [5]). I am not an expert in this and so may I request one of the editors to look into this. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 13:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this needs to be rephrased. "50 percent of the world's religions" is meaningless. It would be correct to state "more than 30% of world population" (assuming the "Dharmic 19.7%, Far Eastern 6.5%, tribal 4.0%" listed at world religion). The upshot is: 30% pagans in the "wide" definition, 4% pagans in the "narrow" one, or any number in between for definitions between the two. --dab (𒁳) 15:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add External Link www.Neopagan.com[edit]

I would like to suggest that we add to our list of external links the up and coming website www.neopagan.com. As a comparison to www.PaganNetwork.com, Neopagan.com offers much more information, more beautiful visuals, more purposeful content, a 3D game "Pagania Island", a Neopagan community and a different approach to providing information via philosophical (Plotinus, Plato, etc) references. The www.neopagan.com site seems to be unique by asking to embrace all who may call themselves Pagan or Neopagan, Atheist, or of the 'revealed religions'. Neopagan.com is a Neopagan network embracing the worldwide Neopagan or Pagan community and containing educational information as well as magickal tools. The main goal of this site, besides being an informative home for the entire Neopagan community, is to give everyone the possibility to experience the magickal essence of Gaia and the Universe using online tools and concepts that are especially tuned to achieve material, spiritual guidance and success.

RebeccaAnkh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca2008 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reasons given on your talk page for not including it, as well as thinking that it may fall under the following reasons on "links normally to be avoided": 2, 4, 11. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand where to find the "links normally to be avoided" information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebecca2008 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here: WP:EL Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

The article doesn't explain why the word for a "hillbilly" was used to describe non-Christians. This was because Christianity spread in cities and the rural europeans were the last to convert. Rds865 (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paynimry[edit]

What's paynimry, and does it deserve such prominence? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives it as a synonym for 'paganry', and says it is archaic and historical. I'm not sure why it really needs to be listed. I would suggest putting it in a footnote, because while not important enough to be listed, arcane synonyms do interest some of us. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it to the etymology section then (btw lexic.us explains it as (heathendom" (that part of the world which is heathen)). Totnesmartin (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it does mean paganism. There is a 1908 example where it is unambiguously used for 'paganism', and a 1977 example where it could have either the paganism or heathendom meaning. And are you moving it to the etymology section, cause so far you've only removed it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't reference the OED, I don't have a copy and the online version is only accessible by paid subscription. Perhaps you could do the honours? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd be happy to. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OED has:

Now arch. and hist. = PAGANRY n.

PAYNIM n. + -RY suffix. Perhaps compare Middle French payennerie (15th cent.; French païennerie, rare).

c1384 Bible (Wycliffite, E.V.), 1447 O. BOKENHAM Lives of Saints, ?c1475 Catholicon Anglicum (BL Add. 15562) f. 91v, a1500 in T. Wright & J. O. Halliwell Reliquae Antiquae (1845)

1835 A. FLEMING in Harp Renfrewshire (1873) 2nd Ser. 184, 1851 U.S. Democratic Rev. Nov. 421, 1908 F. MARZIALS tr. J. de Joinville Mem. Crusades 212 There is an evil custom in the land of paynimry. 1977 ‘E. CRISPIN’ Glimpses of Moon vi. 83 Its [sc. a tent's] use of arc-lines in the roof and the flap..made it vaguely reminiscent of paynimry at the time of the Crusades.

The lemma paynim has:

Now arch. and hist.

< Anglo-Norman paenisme, painisme, paienime, painnim, peinime, paenime, etc., and Old French paienime, paienisme heathen lands (c1150-74), heathen religion (1160) < post-classical Latin paganismus (see PAGANISM n.), probably influenced by Old French paien (see PAYEN n.). Compare Old Occitan paganesme (12th cent.), Catalan paganisme (13th cent.), Spanish paganismo (first half of the 13th cent. or earlier), Italian paganesimo (a1311 as paganismo). The sense ‘heathen religion’ of the French word is liable to shade over into ‘heathens collectively’ (compare sense A. 2); in that sense the word was used attributively or adjectivally from an early date in French (c1100; compare sense B.). The forms painen, paynen are perhaps influenced by PAYEN n. In Older Scots a form panian is also recorded in an isolated attestation.]

A. n. 1. The domain of pagans; lands, countries, etc., under non-Christian jurisdiction or rule. Obs. (extinct before 1500)

2. A non-Christian, a pagan; (in early use also) a non-Jew, a gentile (obs.). Also fig. ... 1930 Economist 30 Aug. 397/2 Herr Hugenberg's paynim was the Reparations Settlement. He ran full tilt against it, and was brought up short by President Hindenberg and by the facts. 1987 J. A. MCARDLE Sin Embargo 408 Christians are right, paynims are in the wrong!

B. adj. Non-Christian; pagan. ... 1988 J. STURROCK French Pyrenees (BNC) 39 The rear guard of the army of the Christian King Charlemagne, on its way back into France from Spain and from warring with the paynim hordes of Islam, was set upon and routed.

--dab (𒁳) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the sudden picture changes?[edit]

Recently, the main pictures were changed, from two which depicted real pagans actually practicing, to three woodcuts and etchings of pagans which are all historically dubious in their portayel. I think we should revert the images. What do others think? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I figured that this isn't the ethnic religion article, nor the Neopaganism article, but the Paganism article. Its topic is thus the perception of ethnic religion from the point of view of Christendom. As such, the historical depictions of "pagans" are direct illustrations of the topic, while snapshots of ethnic religiosity or neopaganism are {{summary in}} tangents with their own articles. --dab (𒁳) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But does Paganism just denote the subject from the point of Christendom? I don't think it does. It certainly used to, but now scholarly works also make use of the term to describe all nature-based, polythiestic faiths, with certain characteristics, in the same way that Abrahamic religions or Dharmic religions are used. For instance, A Pagan History of Europe by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick, and The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles by Ronald Hutton are both scholarly, well regarded historical works, and not Neopagan books that use "paganism". In the modern sense of the word, "paganism" doesn't just denote non-Christian faiths, but nature-based, polythiestic faiths, and I think that this page, and the pictures in it, should illustrate this fact. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Pagan" means "pre-Christian", not "polytheistic" in general. Much less "nature-based". I am not sure why "nature-based" is always brought into this, I have no idea what is supposed to be "nature based" about historical polytheism (or what this even means outside the New Age context). Greco-Roman paganism was perfectly urban. If you look at the article, you'll note that it doesn't support the "fact" you suggest. If paganism just meant "polytheism", we would need to merge this with polytheism immediately. --dab (𒁳) 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no modern scholarly work that equates "pagan" with simply being "pre-Christian". Yes, in the past, some used that usage, but nowadays it is not used within scholarly works from the English-speaking world (after all, this is the English language Wikipedia, and it should use the modern English terminology). The usage of the word "nature-based" does not at all mean simply rural, it means that the polytheistic deities of the certain religion are personifications of aspects of nature, i.e. a god and/or goddess of the sun, of the moon, of the sea, which are, of course, aspects of nature. This catagorisation, which is used in both scholarly and common English usage, helps to show what is pagan: Historical polytheistic faiths such as Anglo-Saxon paganism were both polytheistic and nature-based, as are folk religions like Odinani and Neopagan religions like Wicca. This is what makes them all pagan, and this must be illustrated in this page if it is to give a true representation of the English language usage. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

so characterisation of "pagan" as "pre-Christian" isn't scholarly, but characterisation as "nature-based" is? nature-based? Would you say that our society is "nature-based" because it generates its power from natural resources such as fossil oil and nuclear fission? I am sorry, but you seem to be just twisting words here. The term "nature-based" is used for New Age and Neopagan "Deep Ecology", not for historical paganism. Since you seem to claim otherwise (used in both scholarly and common English usage) feel free to prove me wrong by presenting your references. Feel free, for example, to substantiate your claim that Anglo-Saxon paganism has ever been described as nature-based (outside of Neopagan or New Age sources, of course). I see you have seen fit to remove the historic images again and replace them with random snapshots of folk religion and neopagan ritual. I suggest these do not belong here, or at least not in the lead. "Paganism" is clearly a Western-centric designation. It originally referred to all pre-Christian religions, and later, by extension, to all non-Christian traditions that resembled European pre-Christian ones in terms of being polytheistic or animistic. It is impossible to define "pagan" as independent from Western or Christian culture, since "pagan" would just end up being synonymous with "religious". --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your premise that "pagan" has a western and Christian basis, because, obviously, it has, but this article cannot clearly rest solely on the usage of the word as it was used centuries ago. You seem insistent that the term "nature based" should be removed because it is "Neopagan" and "New Age". Fair enough, it is largely used by members of those groups, who you appear to have some contempt for, despite the fact that they are the ones who are most influential in the usage of terminology in the English speaking world. Basically, the terms they use are the terms that become largely set in the English language! The term "nature based" is not a good term, and I agree with you entirely there, it seems a little too New Agey, but it is essentially used to describe a holistic, sometimes verging on pantheistic, world view that is seen as alive with animism. Saying "nature-based" is a lot easier to say. And why are you so against Neopagan and New Age sources anyway, many contain well researched, accurate, historical information, and I hope that in future you leave your bias out of your edits. I think that further discussion is needed to find a good picture for the lead, the ones both you and I have suggested each have their problems. Anyway, let's hope that we don't end up clashing again, as we so often seem to do. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oh and the scholarly historical work A History of Pagan Europe by Jones and Pennick and published by Barnes and Noble in 1995 does indeed use the term "nature venerating religion", stating that one of the defining aspects of pagan religions is that they "view nature as a theophany, a manifestation of divinity, not as a 'fallen' creation of the latter". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Without intending to complicate matters, I would interject that "pagan" was not just historically used from a Christian perspective: it was, if I recall correctly, used in pre-Christian Rome to refer to the religions of the countryside, which tended to differ from the state-supported city cults. It seems to have been a derisive term, somewhat like calling someone a country-bumpkin.

Also, I don't quite agree with Midnightblueowl's assessment that paganism is typified by aspects of nature being personified. This is the view promulgated by a number of modern neopagan publications, and is largely based on the highly simplified mythologies of urban Rome and Greece, but if you look at the wider cult activity and mythology surrounding these deities, they gain vastly in complexity and cease to seem like personifications of simple natural forces or objects. Take Dionysus, who has been called the personification of the vine, drinking and intoxication. If you start to look at the wider sources throughout his vast areas of cult worship, he takes on just about every role a god could possibly fill! Or take a deity who's survived in folklore to the current day: Holda is a divinity of spinning, weaving, cows, childbirth, winter, the dead, witchcraft, fertility, wild weather, pools and fountains, caves, woods, and so on and so on. It's very hard to simplify her down to just one "aspect" of nature. I would suggest that these gods are in many cases not "personifications" of the sun, rain, war, or whatever, but that instead the sun, rain and war are "symbols" of the god, or come under their jurisdiction.

Some mythologists take a fairly reductionist approach, but you should find that many don't. Fuzzypeg ★ 05:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the idea that all myths ultimately had their origin in natural phenomena (seasons etc.) was a 19th century fad. Yes, polytheism also has room for personifications of natural phenomena, but that's by no means its defining feature. The proposition that paganism simply translates to nature worship is (a) either fluffy neopagan Romanticism, or (b) monotheist chauvinism with the implication that paganism is a "primitive" and now superseded stage in the history of religion. Motives (a) and (b) come from opposite sides of the ideological spectrum even though they support the same idea, and both are equally biased, and equally misguided. --dab (𒁳) 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Discrimination[edit]

Is calling pagan a popular way of European discrimination against non-Abrahmic religions? The term as used in many books seems to denote somekind of insult based on religion similar to "cxxx" . Contribtutions to the article on these lines are appreciated. Be Bold and edit WP. Brothers in Arms (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why "racial"? The article is perfectly clear that this was a derogatory term in origin. Race has nothing to do with it. --dab (𒁳) 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking "race" on the basis of religion one belongs to. In this case all non Abrahmic religions who traditionally believe in many Gods, Nauture forms and other things.Brothers in Arms (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"race" on the basis of religion one belongs to? I think you would do well to read our race article. You are trying to say "religious discrimination". "Pagan" is indeed a term of historical religious discrimination if you like. Today, it is also a self-designation. --dab (𒁳) 11:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pomerium[edit]

cut from article:

Although in a general sense, 'pagus' refers to countryside and all of the above are true, there is a more specific Roman usage. The Roman city had not only physical walls and boundaries, but a spiritual boundary called the pomerium. This term is very ancient and derives from post (beyond) and murem (the wall). The wall in question is not a physical wall, but an imaginary sacred boundary denoted by stone cippi, or stakes marked as such. The pomerium began as a furrow plowed by Romulus on the Palatine Hill, and gradually expanded in fits and leaps as Rome itself expanded. However, not all real estate owned by the people and the state of Rome was within the pomerium or sacred city. For example, the Aventine Hill remained outside the pomerium for centuries, and contained the famous Temple of Diana, dedicated to the worship of deities not native to Rome but belonging to the Latin and Italian merchants who passed through the increasingly important commercial center that was Rome. Land belonging to the city of Rome, but not within the pomerium, was referred to as pagus.

that's all very interesting, and maybe worth discussing at the pomerium article, but it remains unclear what this is supposed to have to do with anything here. --dab (𒁳) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] .f Aris Findings

[2] ttp://wvvw.tiu.edu:8002/sfc/pdfs/Neopaganism%20Cooper.pdf.pdf

[3] Aris Poll - Key findings

[4] .f Statistics Canada

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Unsorted early text[edit]

Pagans are Heathens?[edit]

History of the context of the word pagan[edit]

Pagans are all religious?[edit]

Pythagoreans were monotheistic?[edit]

Is Paganism a disambiguation article?[edit]

Eurocentric[edit]

Pseudo-anthropological "subdivisions"[edit]

Fluffy Bunny[edit]

fluffy bunny[edit]

Critism of paganism[edit]

The etymology[edit]

Non-historical "shouldabeen" text[edit]

Page for Heathen[edit]

deletion of oh my gods link[edit]

The Truth About Paganism[edit]

Further Reading section cut[edit]

"pagan vs. paganism"[edit]

women in paganism[edit]

About Heathenry vs. Paganism[edit]

What's the Standard again?[edit]

Limited geographic scope[edit]

Discussion of naming conventions[edit]

Removal of a Link[edit]

A suggestion[edit]

History of ideas[edit]

Shinto[edit]

Translation[edit]

Paganism.[edit]

Wicca "recently founded"[edit]

Purpose of quotations?[edit]

Are Heathens and Pagans the same thing in modern usage?[edit]

Tongan King funeral[edit]

suggest merge with neopaganism[edit]

Pagan or Neopagan Religions[edit]

Idolatry[edit]

Use of caption on Rhumsiki crab sorceror[edit]

Map of the spread of Paganism prior to Christianity[edit]

Misleading image used in Pagan article[edit]

Some Arguable Assumptions, and Concepts..[edit]

removed paragrph to here for discussion[edit]

[sic] pagan in Africa[edit]

Idol-worship[edit]

Latin quote[edit]

Sacrifice and Paganism[edit]

Vandalism[edit]

Activism[edit]

Cleanup[edit]

Paganism in the USA[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Demographics[edit]

Add External Link www.Neopagan.com[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Paynimry[edit]

Why the sudden picture changes?[edit]

Racial Discrimination[edit]

pomerium[edit]