I commented on your comments in the comments field where others have uploaded their definitions of paganism:
http://hermeticmagick.com/blog/2010/01/09/patrick-mccollums-take-on-the-pwr-and-the-definition-of-paganism/

I’m just trying to keep everything together.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Tony

“Pagans themselves sometimes try to locate their traditions within a wider group of ‘native’ religions. Thus, Paganism is ‘native European religion,’ in a family with ‘native American religion,’ ‘native African religion,’ and so forth. This does have the merit of coming close to the original meaning of the word paganism itself, in Chuvin’s sense of the pagus, the local unit, and convays the qualities of rootedness and immemorial ancestry associated with the ancient European religions.”

You can read more on page 414 of Hutton’s book.

Page 415 has a paragraph which says, “…as Vivianne Crowley has pointed out, that pagan witchcraft has only identified itself closely with the natural world since the 1970s; before that it was not a nature religion but (in part) a fertility religion, which is not the same thing.”

I understand what Mr. Hutton is saying and I agree with him. The problem is that we still need a name which unifies us. Herding cats, you say? Yes, well…. Be that as it may, in this modern world, a group of people will only be heard (no pun intended) if the rest of the world is able to file them under a catagory.

I can see ‘neo=pagan’ as a path within ‘pagan,’ Tony. For me, when I think neo, I think of the people who use things like crystals and wands as part of their ritual tools. There is no evidence that the ancients used these types of tools, so they belong in the ‘neo’ catagory. I consider Wicca to be neo-pagan, especially since it was created in the 19th century. Bits and pieces of it may be older, but the rites themselves are new.

I hardly ever do a full rite. I am of the ‘in service to the gods’ catagory. It would never occur to me to say to the gods, “ok this is what I’m doing for you, what are you going to do for me?” For me, ritual is about the gods, and the gods alone. It isn’t a place to ask favors or to do magic. Magic is a personal thing for personal gain, it isn’t to honor the gods. Magic doesn’t belong in a temple rite.

The ancient rituals that are actually written, and most are NOT, all revolve around praising the gods. There are no magic rites in them.

For me, people who practice their spirituality in this manner, in the way the ancients did, are pagan, not neo-pagan.

See the difference?

We are in total agreement about the need to group together for the sake of numbers. It would be wonderful if all pagans had the same recognition and rights that the wiccans enjoy.

Graham Cunningham’s definition of the term pagan is exactly the same as mine. I’m less convinced about the term neopagan, although the Wikipedia article about it attempts to apply it as an umbrella term for us all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopaganism

The advantage that the term pagan has is that it’s been around for almost two millennia, and while not everyone likes it, everyone is at least familiar with it. Yes, the term is loaded with baggage, but historically, minorities have embraced terms of derision as a way of taking their power back – consider African Americans and gays. There is much that we can learn from their example.

Blessings,

Tony

We do need an ‘umbrella’ term for our collective group; people may not like labels, but it’s how the modern world understands and ‘files’ groups. It would be detrimental to everyone who practices and worships as we do to each take a separate path when it concerns a name for the umbrella. We do need the numbers.

Out of curiosity, I sent an email to Graham Cunningham, author and co-author of many scholarly books on the ancient middle east, and asked him if there was another word that people like us should be using. His response was,

“Um, never really thought about this. To some degree a word can mean what a group of people use it to mean. Presumably, though, different groups use the term pagan in different ways. My instincts are that it refers to religions outside what are termed the world religions. Either way, though, if you’re neo-pagans you presumably have to use the term pagan in parallel with neo-pagan.”

Thanks for the link to the Temple of Aten site. I hadn’t come across it before.

I agree with you totally that labels are unnecessary. What is important is that we’re all pagans trying to forge links with our deities of choice using the practices which intuitively feel most appropriate.

I have run a number of workshops where, in order to illustrate the differences between Hellenismos and Graeco-Egyptian magick, will perform invocations to the same deity using the two different techniques. Thus, during the workshops I alternate between European indigenous paganism (which fits the PWR pagan definition) to non-European indigenous paganism (which falls outside the PWR pagan definition). If, during the workshop, I’m supposed to alternate between a warm fuzzy feeling of belonging and one of rejection, then it’s just not happening for me. The definition clearly makes no sense in my case. Thanks for sharing the thoughts of your fellow Kemetic Temple member, they’re a further illustration of the PWR definition just not working.

Further to your statements about the ancient Egyptians, I’d like to point out that the ancient Greeks also had no word for religion, as it was something part and parcel of their lives. There was no sense of separation between the sacred and the profane as we have now.

T Thorn Coyle’s comments about the perceive superiority of different forms of spirituality are very important. All too often I hear of people claiming that their practices are superior to those of others. I believe that no practice is superior to another in an absolute sense. It’s up to all of us to find the practice that works best for us. Leave the proselytizing for the Christians.

I can think of no better quote than from Crowley’s Book of the Law, Book 1 Verse 3:

“Every man and every woman is a star.”

It means that each one of us has a right to our own path (as the stars do). We should respect the paths of others and in turn have our own path respected by others. The world would be a much better place if everyone lived by this credo.

Tony

I would hate to think that any pagan elders would knowingly exclude people because their practices weren’t indigenous European in origin. I’m inclined to agree that the full ramifications of the PWR definitions just weren’t thought through. Perhaps we can look forward to futher retractions or qualifications?

I like to see the pagan net cast out as wide as possible so as to include as many as who want to be included. As pagans we’re still very much a minority religious group and should all support each other.

Tony

It seems to already be happening : http://www.templeofaten.org/

I liked what T. Thorn Coyle had to say in her blog about this. One excerpt that really caught my attention was : « In these conversations about which Pagans are “indigenous” and which are “neo-Pagans” how long is it before indigenous comes to equal authentic and authentic comes to equal pure and pure comes to equal superior? »

A member of my Kemetic Temple made the following comment :

« On my Gardnerian side this sounds great and wonderful, but on my Kemetic side (which is gaining ground rapidly) I wonder what box would I fit into. In one sense, yes, I am Pagan because of my faith and my roots. Where does that leave my Kemetic side ? ….. What label does [Kemetic reconstructionism] go under, Earth-Based Spirituality ? No, not quite right, because so much is also based on Astronomical events. Perhaps we are outside the box, they mention “For many self-described Pagans, this is a different lens to view themselves with, and offers a chance to reexamine their faith as Pagans, Earth Spiritualists, New Religious Movements, or something else yet to come.” Are we the yet to come… Or the New Religious Movement, that does seem right either. So I ask, what box do we fit into? Or are we our own thing ? Are reconstructionists left out in the cold by these labels ? »

My thought is this :

I wonder why such labels are needed and debated at all. Can we not simply practice whatever spiritual path we do without it having to fit in, in some way, to a broader umbrella term that will likely work or make sense for some, yet cause consternation for others ?

I don’t worry about what my practice might be labelled as. It simply is my practice. And, similarly, I don’t worry about whether what we do as a Kemetic temple is this, that or the other. It is simply my and our service to the gods. Personally, I don’t need to worry about whether what I do means that I am « left out in the cold » because it doesn’t fit under this or that label. I simply shrug my shoulders and go on about the business of my practice, service and worship of the gods. The ancient Egyptians seemed to understand this as they seemingly had no word for « religion, » therefore not seeming to feel the need to label and compartmentalise and limit what they did. They simply did. And, as a Kemetic, once again I am reminded why I refer back to them for wisdom and guidance, for even in this matter, they seemed to grasp a larger understanding of what is and isn’t needed without forgetting the truth inherent in the actual act of practice and service rather than the pointless emptiness of debate and worry over what to call it.

And are we not all human beings, born of and living on this planet, therefore we are all indigenous to this planet.

Anyway, there’s my rambling… ;)