Pentagram: Pagans shed light on their dark reputation

[Sophia C]

I'm an ADF member in the UK! Let me know if I can help with anything .

It is pretty tough here. I don't actually know any other pagans in RL but the limited investigating that I've done does suggest a very strong neo-Wicca focus.

 
Mah sistah! I will PM you!

[yewberry]

Who is this 'we' of which you speak?

I must have missed my invitation.  I was probably busy not giving a shit.

Brina

[Melamphoros]

I must have missed my invitation.  I was probably busy not giving a shit.

 
Since I was with you in NotGivingAShitVill, I haven't had the chance to check my mail for the invitation.

[dionysiandame]

Question time: has anyone ever contacted / made a petition to / etc. any of the larger Neo-Wiccan groups like this one and asked them not to pretend to be speaking for all pagans?  And if so, how did they respond?

 
The last time I tried to "gently" remind a local pagan group that their version of Neo-Wicca was not the definition of paganism I was kicked out of said group, called a troule maker, and had my name trashed without me present.

[Fausta]

I seem to recall the "Pagan Unity" crowd being very annoyed that people who didn't consider themselves earth-based dared to call themselves pagan, and expressed the opinion that people holding such fringe opinions should shut the fuck up because they were Interfering With The Goal Of Doing This Stuff In A Spirit Of Togetherness With Their Deviant Ways.  It was, however, rather a while ago that I was paying attention to this stuff, so I may be interpolating multiple things there.

They WERE very annoyed and hugely annoying. They were going on how they didn't want to define Paganism, BUT also said that  "Paganism may be loosely defined as any of a group of positive, life-affirming, earth-honoring faiths usually based in ancient beliefs." No Satanists! No atheistic Pagans! No non-earth based thingy, what do you mean our definition fits a number of faiths that don't self-identify as Pagan and how dare you oppose us anyway? We're FOR THE UNITY!

Loads of Cauldronites sported "death-affirming Pagan" banners back in the days of those debates.

[yewberry]

Loads of Cauldronites sported "death-affirming Pagan" banners back in the days of those debates.

No t-shirts?!

Brina

[Fausta]

No t-shirts?!

 
If there were any, I didn't get one!

[Oíche]

Speak for yourself. Give me a good enough reason, and I certainly will hurt someone. I won't even feel bad about it. If that makes me evil, so be it.

 

Speak for yourself.  If provoked, I'm fulling willing to hurt people.  Depending on the person, I'll probably enjoy it too.

 
Gotta agree with both these comments.
While I personally would strongly prefer my practice to be peaceful towards others and myself, if something was to strongly provoke me and I personally felt the need I would have no qualms about hurting someone if I needed to protect myself. I even performed a particularly potent binding not two months ago that I felt needed to be done.
I believe life is many shades of grey so I think cursing does occasionally be the solution to some serious issues.
I've never found that I could stick to the Wiccan Rede, even when I was an eclectic Wiccan myself, it's just doesn't work for me.
And I think most people who know me would say I'm a nice and good person even after they discover that I'm pagan

[RandallS]

I seem to recall the "Pagan Unity" crowd being very annoyed that people who didn't consider themselves earth-based dared to call themselves pagan, and expressed the opinion that people holding such fringe opinions should shut the fuck up because they were Interfering With The Goal Of Doing This Stuff In A Spirit Of Togetherness With Their Deviant Ways.  It was, however, rather a while ago that I was paying attention to this stuff, so I may be interpolating multiple things there.

That's pretty much how it went. They also did not want any group calling itself Pagan unless they met their lobbying-friendly "sweetness & light" definition of "Pagan". Satanists couldn't be Pagan because they would ruin their lobbying efforts. :confused:

[dionysiandame]

That's pretty much how it went. They also did not want any group calling itself Pagan unless they met their lobbying-friendly "sweetness & light" definition of "Pagan". Satanists couldn't be Pagan because they would ruin their lobbying efforts. :confused:

 
And this ticks me off because it's hypocritical. You can't say Christians should keep their religion out of the state when you're trying to shoehorn yours in. Either make it a human rights issue (which anyone can get behind) or keep your dry ass missionary style widdershins ass out of the political spot light.

Ugh.

Jesus take the wheel. Take it from THEIR hands.

[Snowdrop]

And this ticks me off because it's hypocritical. You can't say Christians should keep their religion out of the state when you're trying to shoehorn yours in. Either make it a human rights issue (which anyone can get behind) or keep your dry ass missionary style widdershins ass out of the political spot light.

 
I don't know exactly what a missionary style widdershins ass is, but I like where this thread is going.

In all seriousness: I think part of the problem is that we as a society tend to be too dogmatic when we address whose religion should or shouldn't be respected.  Even people who are completely non-Christian are, I think, to some degree still functioning off of an idea of religious validity that owes a lot to Christian heresy debates.  It's not a matter of someone saying, "I suspect Satanists of doing bad things therefore I don't want them here," it's a matter of someone saying, "I think Satanists believe bad things."  If it were the former, the allegations of bad things could be investigated.  But there's absolutely nothing to be done if it's the latter.  And that's a horrible way to try to address any kind of interfaith issue.

[veggiewolf]

...
Loads of Cauldronites sported "death-affirming Pagan" banners back in the days of those debates.

 
I want one!

[Sarah]

They WERE very annoyed and hugely annoying. They were going on how they didn't want to define Paganism, BUT also said that  "Paganism may be loosely defined as any of a group of positive, life-affirming, earth-honoring faiths usually based in ancient beliefs." No Satanists! No atheistic Pagans! No non-earth based thingy, what do you mean our definition fits a number of faiths that don't self-identify as Pagan and how dare you oppose us anyway? We're FOR THE UNITY!

Loads of Cauldronites sported "death-affirming Pagan" banners back in the days of those debates.

Wouldn't  actual earth honoring include "death affirming" anyway because death is a thing, that happens. and is all part of the cycle etc

[yewberry]

Wouldn't  actual earth honoring include "death affirming" anyway because death is a thing, that happens. and is all part of the cycle etc

This.  And, to expand, this.

Brina

[Melamphoros]

Wouldn't  actual earth honoring include "death affirming" anyway because death is a thing, that happens. and is all part of the cycle etc

 
And this is why the literal "harm none" interpretation of the Rede makes absolutely zero sense.  Something must die for something else to live so it's pretty damn difficult to actually survive without harming something in some way (I would also bring up how the immune system constantly kills living organisms, but that's not exactly pertinent at the moment).