Should Pagans Be Peaceniks?

As more Pagans serve in the military will the Pagan community evolve beyond its hippie roots?

In the spring of 1999, Georgia congressman Bob Barr sent shockwaves throughout the Pagan community when he repeatedly attacked the presence of Witchcraft on U.S. military bases. Upset by the existence of a visible and apparently successful Pagan organization at Fort Hood in Texas, Barr introduced legislation to prohibit the practice of Wicca or any other form of Witchcraft at Defense Department facilities. Barr's motion went nowhere in Congress--and it resulted primarily in galvanizing Pagans to become more aware of our precarious status as a minority religion.

But the Barr fiasco also served to highlight the quiet revolution that has been occurring in Paganism, as more and more Pagans enter the armed forces (and increasing numbers of military personnel embrace the old religions).

I'll admit it: I didn't always think "military" and "Pagan" went together. As someone whose first encounter with Paganism was through reading Starhawk's 1979 ecofeminist manifesto The Spiral Dance, for me being a Pagan has always seemed to mean something similar to being a pacifist, or at least a fire-breathing liberal. After all, the Goddess seems so, well, nonviolent, particularly in her Aphrodisian make-love-not-war guise. But in the wake of the Barr controversy, I, and many other granola Pagans, developed a new appreciation for the fact that our spiritual path has also been embraced by thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of U.S. service men and women.

Warrior spirituality recognizes that it is a limitation to see the Goddess as some sort of romantic peacenik. Try convincing mythical Goddesses like the Hindu Kali Ma, the Irish Morrigu, or the Greek Athena that Pagan spirituality is all about peace and love. Each of these figures are ferocious, take-no-prisoner warrior queens, far more concerned with security and self-defense than with playing nice in the multi-cultural sandbox.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/138/story_13856_1.html


WCTV: This was only a matter of time. I predict 25 years until the full glory of ancient Roman Paganism is fully restored, and established in the USA. Read a potentially offensive essay entitled "Some Post-Christian Realities" by a Dutch author from 1999

Technically, anyone who isn't a Christian is a Pagan.

A more apropo headline:

As more Wiccans serve in the military will the polytheistic community evolve beyond its hippie roots?

One entry found for pagan.


Main Entry: pa·gan
Pronunciation: 'pA-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix -- more at PACT
Date: 14th century
1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
- pagan adjective
- pa·gan·ish /-g&-nish/ adjective

On the basis of the language in the article alone, the Amish can be considered Pagans by a large majority in the US.

They're honest, don't believe in the same things as the right-wing does and go well out of their way to adapt modern conventions with available technology in accordance with their beliefs.

THAT takes imagination and a strict code of ethics; something that's seriously lacking in Wall Street and in the Rethuglican/DINO attitude right now.

Pagan is an old Roman term, exactly equivalent to the Germanic derivative "heathen." Both literally mean a person who lives in the country. By today's standards, a hick, a redneck, etc.

When Christianity was no longer banned in Rome, it became trendy, then urban, to the point were eventually anyone who was anyone converted to Christianity (there were a lot political as well as spiritual reasons behind this), and anyone who did not was considered behind the times, and somewhat less urbane. Since worship of the old Roman dieties continued in the countrysides amongst the agrarians, the derisive term "pagan" began to imply a person who followed the old religions, who was uneducated and backwards-- again, exactly like the term redneck now implies.

It never applied to just any old non-Christian. For instance, it didn't apply to Jews.

Over time, though, during the Middle Ages, where the majority of people were agrarian, and basically rednecks, but were still Christian, it began to refer to someone who worshipped the old European gods, or to any practice or object that reflected the old polytheistic culture. During this time, it began to be applied backwards to historical polytheistic cultures, and began to mean a polytheist, not a redneck. Again, it didn't mean non-Christians. Jews and Muslims weren't considered pagans-- well, not usually.

So it came to mean anyone who was a polytheist. In western culture, that also came to mean any foreign culture that did not worship the One True God in one of it's three religions-- Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Of course, now it is used by "polytheists" (not the best word, but it'll do) to refer to themselves, in the way that insults are often adopted by those who they are directed at to take away some of the power of the word. It is not equivalent to Wicca, which is one aspect of today's pagan belief system, but hardly it's entirety, as the original post rather eloquently demonstrates.

For the record, I'm an athiest, neither a pagan nor a Christian, though in a metaphorical way I have a lot of sympathy with pagans. My way-too-long post is based on my background in medieval history. Just to give full disclosure.

Paganism has a meaning in contemporary American culture. Perhaps Neo-Pagan would be more acceptable?

That's what I get for going on so long. Second to last paragraph.

I wasn't commenting on modern paganism, just the mistaken definition given above.

Pagans are publically perceived as pacifistic, probably because the platitudinous popular press portrays them as peaceniks, and possibly because of the peculiar potential for pacificism in paganism and pantheism. Political pundits may pooh-pooh pagans, but the Pentagon's policies are anyone's guess.∫

"I'll admit it: I didn't always think "military" and "Pagan" went together. As someone whose first encounter with Paganism was through reading Starhawk\'s 1979 ecofeminist manifesto The Spiral Dance, for me being a Pagan has always seemed to mean something similar to being a pacifist, or at least a fire-breathing liberal."


Riiiiiiight, like the Celtic Druids who burned living human sacrifices in wicker baskets on Samhain to their horn-headed god.

It took the Roman invasion to put a stop to the practice!

Masada anyone...anyone?

"not so noble" title - forced circumsicions and suicides attackers, plus xenophobia that would make Pat Buchana blush. I'd prefer to NOT return to the ancient ideologies of the past, myself :bounce:

"suicides attackers, plus xenophobia that would make Pat Buchana blush."

Care to elaborate?

The ancient Jews murdered any foreigner who went into the temple. The Masada fighters killed themselves, and suicide attacks - where the warriors did not expect to live - were common. Gentiles caught discussing Torah were forcibly circumcized - sometimes by Sicarii hiding in toilets, according to one story. Homosexuality was of couse stricly forbidden and harshly punished, at least officially, while the Romans and Greeks were very tolerant. Josephus is full of this stuff.

The ancient Jews were sort of the Roman Empire eqivalent of today's fundamentalist Christians - seen as backwards and old fashioned and intolerant, compared to the culture of the Romans and Greeks.

In the end, no one could compare with the brutality of the Roman Empire though.

where the warriors did not expect to live

What do you mean by that?

A suicide attack of ancient times would have meant an ambush against a greatly superior force. Bomb-making technology wasn't around back then.

A single Jew walking into a barracks and yelling "BOOM" doesn't have the same effect as a guy carrying nitroglycerin with a fuse.

I didn't say anything about suicide bombers, or bombs of any kind. As far as I know, there were no explosives in the ancient Mediterranean culture ... ?

As it stands, this is an extremely ignorant post. First, I don't know what you mean by "ancient" Jews. What are the dates? What are your sources? What are the primary historical records for your sources' claims? If you're citing the Bible, then are you reading it literally, as history? Or are you going to rely on the rabbis and their exegesis?

Yes, the Jews were so much more backward and brutal than the benevolent Greeks. Like Antiochus Epiphanes IV: you know, that kind Seleucid ruler installed by the Greeks who in 164 BCE destroyed portions of the Temple, rededicated it to Zeus, and forced all Jews to make sacrifices to it under the punishment of torture then death if they refused.

I'm not arguing for or against the kindness of any religion or cult; I'm simply arguing against your vast historicizing generalizations about the Jews. And I don't mean to call you anti-ANYTHING; I'm not calling you stupid; I'm not even saying you have any sort of intentions; I'm simply saying that your above generalization of the "ancient" Jews is ignorant.

It's a simple fact. Most all of them practiced human sacrifice at some point. This finger-wagging, "My religion is more peaceful than yours" crap is just divisive horseshit.

They only intervened in Britain to stop the inhumane sacrifices. Crucifixion is much more civilized & becoming a gladiator was a way for slaves to better themselves (generally, it was a quicker end than being worked to death in the mines). Our only evidence of the "Wicker Man" comes from J Caesar, who was hardly an unbiased observer of Celtic culture. Your version appears to be influenced by the scholarly work of J Chick.

There is archeological evidence of human sacrifice by the Celts but that evidence exists for most peoples. The warrior aspect of various ancient deities might well be meaningful to modern warriors--male & female.

Lindow Man was found in a peat bog in 1984, near Manchester.

(he was poisoned and stabbed, not burned)

There have been other bog bodies of sacrifice victims, but I can't remember their names at the moment.

There wouldn't be much evidence left of someone burned to bits.

Keep in mind though, that the word "bonfire" originates from the Middle English "bon fir," literally bone fire.

I didn't say anywhere that the Romans were any more progressive than the Celts, so your condescendingly sarcastic reply to the red herring your constructed "They only intervened in Britain to stop the inhumane sacrifices." was pretty uncalled for.

In any event, there's lots of evidence of Celtic Pagan human sacrifice, including actual bodies. It belies the claims of paganism as being inherently more "peaceful" than any other religion.

Of course I'm not stupid enough to think that MODERN pagans have anything to do with human sacrifice, but that's because today's neo-pagans have tenuous little if any link to historic paganism. Just don't try telling a neo-pagan that. ;)

And just like W, Rome was going to bring peace and sophistication to those backwards illiterates. Peace and civility through world depopulation-- the true religion of a military society.

"They make a desolation, and call it peace." Applies as well now as it did then.

Tell me more!

Or are you just being coy?

ethical relativism and all.

But it won't be a joke in the near future. (See "Post Christian Realities" above).

Remember the case of the German cannibal, who found a volutary victim? Yes, we had people on DU seriously pointing out that it was done voluntarily, therefore "okay".

and I think it is very appropriate for the left to take the libertarian side of death/religion/suicide issues.

"I think it is very appropriate for the left to take the libertarian side of death/religion/suicide issues".

When they take the free market approach too, and allow rich people to pay poor people for bloodsport, my worst predictions will have come true.

Sarcastic.

The history of Druidic human sacrifice is unclear at best. Unless a significant discovery has been made recently, the leading school of thought is that sacrifice was limited to criminals and prisoners of war. Something along the lines of Bunnypants' favorite pastime except that it was a religious service rather than a state function.

You write with absolute conviction about a subject that is much debated.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

They don't exactly have a Pope to enforce any kind of orthodoxy. I think Wiccans are fairly pacifistic, at least the ones I've known, but there are many other kinds of Pagans out there -- including some like Voodoo, Santeria, and Spiritualism that sort of blur the line between Pagan and Christian beliefs. I suppose, in the end, it's really up to the individual what his/her thoughts are about war, since many religions often contradict themselves about their own teachings on the subject.

Pagans are kicked off government property, why aren't Christians, Jews and Moslems?

I have a friend in the military whose dog tags list his religion as "Shamanism".

What I meant was that if Pagans are targetted, so should other faiths to be fair and equal.

Paganism covers all aspects of existence, including war, and death, and things we might consider "evil" in other religions. For a person in the military or some other less pretty field, paganism can be a way to a better understanding of their life, too. That's why pagan religions have always had war gods, gods of death, etc. Not as fun as gods and goddesses of wine and fertility, not as nurturing as a mother goddess, but still a part of existence. It is a big failing of Christianity that it can't clearly explain nor come to grips with death and war, as the tons of pages of theological debates on "evil" prove.

"It is a big failing of Christianity that it can't clearly explain nor come to grips with death and war"

Paganism is the answer, then? :eyes:

I didn't say either was the answer. I was following a line of thought introduced in your original post about the roles of pacifism and war in paganism. To see them as contradictory, to my view, is a less complete understanding of paganism, and you yourself seemed to reach the same conclusion in your post.

I'd really like to know what specifically I said that has set you off like this, in two posts of mine, when frankly it seemed to me we were on the same page.

As pagan, who worships Mars--the god of war--I think the pagan/peace association is invalid :)

There is nothing inheirently peaceful about paganism, and while the modern Garner neo-pagan/wicca movement came out of the cultural revolution of the 1960s, it's not staying there.

I just think your comparison of Christianity and Paganism and the
problem of evil was a little to hard on Christianity and a little to easy on Paganism.

I'm saying that Christianity does not know how to explain evil. Theologians have described it in a myriad of ways, from the absence of good, to a force of its own that is inferior to good, to a force that is equal to good (all three of which infer a weaker good god), to a force that acts within the material creation because of the impermanent nature of the material world but does not touch God outside of creation. None of these explanations have stuck because they are all incomplete, and define evil as a corruption of good, because evil ultimately contradicts its basic premise of a benign all powerful creator.

Paganism generally considers death and war as a side of existence that is its own explanation, not as a force that contradicts its basic premise. It works better, theologically. It allows a soldier to understand his role in the world, rather than to have to trick himself into believing he is killing for a loving god, or that he is allowed to kill by this loving god even though everything he has heard from this loving god forbids it. Paganism works better than Christianity, in that regard.

"It allows a soldier to understand his role in the world, rather than to have to trick himself into believing he is killing for a loving god, or that he is allowed to kill by this loving god even though everything he has heard from this loving god forbids it. Paganism works better than Christianity, in that regard."

It took Constatine to undermine Christianity's insistence on pacifism - no Christian could be a soldier until then. Paganism never had any discomfort with war and killing, so you're right - paganism does work better than Christianity at justifying war.

I'd say that the gnostics had a handle on evil, but the Catholics pretty muched wiped them out, so ...

But I'm sleepy, and don't want to go into the difference.

place "evil" squarely on the shoulders of human action. In fact, some theologians, John Chrysostom for example, go so far as to say that using the devil as one's excuse for moral failings only propagates the devil's existence; it allows one to blame something else for one's moral and ethical failings rather than blaming oneself.

Basil the Great posited that those who were going into war, even an easily defined "just war" (saving their own populace from invaders), are committing an act of evil. Saving one's own life by taking the life of others, for many theologians (especially the desert monastics), was an act of evil. War is seen as a mechanism of the devil; therefore, to participate in such a thing, or even to attempt to excuse oneself because "the devil made me do it," is moral blindness, a real failure that helps to participate in the "evil" in the world. Their main thesis: evil is human made and can only be stopped by hummans.

But your overall point is well taken. I just thought I'd give another line of thinking from the early Church.

Thinking about Bush* and the religious right and their position that they have the "moral authoity" to wage war (as if it is granted to them by God) coming to grips with pagans in the military who worship the God of War is sort of amusing.

But would they really care? I wouldn't think so. Maybe it would just be harder for them to package and sell it.
(I don't presume to know - but I don't presume to assume that Bush* is sincerely religious).

I personally beleive everybody should be a pacifist. At least a self defense pacifist. If anything CHRISTIANS and BUDDHISTS should be totally non-violent according to what thier beleifs are suppose do be.

But it's not up to me, now is it? So I make decisions for myself and do the best i can and try to stop any agregiouse harm. Every person, especiually PAGANS, has to decide for themselves how to live thier lives and what the rede means to them. Obvioulsy it's impossible to actually Harm absolutly none and in some cases, it isn't even desirable...

Short answr..depends on the pagan.

IMO Barr is just a dumbass to be dispariging the religious beliefs of the men and women who defend his freedom.

Fuck cmon the US is "The Great Satan," we should have more Pagans fighting for us.

J/K I know all Pagans arent Satanists.

here is a letter she wrote to the military pagan network:

www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/military-pagans.html

To the Military Pagan Network:

You wrote me some weeks ago, shortly after 9-11, and I've been pondering how to answer you. At first, I decided not to. It's possible your post announcing your willingness to support Bush's war efforts was not directly addressed to me. And when a person is about to go off to war, the last thing he or she needs, it would seem to me, is a rant in writing from someone who is not going about why that war is a mistake. With that warning, you might want to skip the middle portion of this message.

But as the possibility of a ground war approaches, I decided to write, primarily because as your sister in the Craft, I want to support you, and I want you to know that you have my magical support and daily prayers for your safety and health and lives. I have friends in the military for whom I care deeply. I think of the photo that appeared in so many papers during the Texas controversy a few years ago: of a beautiful young man leaping over a bonfire. My profound hope is for him and all of his comrades to remain safe, alive and vital in intact bodies.

I can support you as individuals, and I have added prayers for your safety to my daily practice. But I cannot support the war you have been asked to fight.

I oppose the war not because I believe that fighting is never right. I'm not a strict pacifist. As a Jew by birth, my sympathies lie with the defenders of the Warsaw ghetto and the Resistance, and I cannot see how pacifism alone could have defeated the Nazis. If I could have stopped the destruction of the World Trade Towers by killing the hijackers, I wouldn't have hesitated. Like everyone else, I have been deeply shocked by the attacks, and in a state of incredible grief at the destruction and the loss of life. And because of the scale and magnitude of the violence, I do understand why the word 'war' leaps to our tongues.
...more..

www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/military-pagans.html
-----------------------------

I'm not sure this cartoon has anything to do with the subject at hand, but I thought it was funny. Enjoy.



You can catch this guys work at www.sinfest.net. I visit this guys site once a day. He's a great cartoonist.

How many people are so effed up that they're willing to go down the plughole themselves as long as they can wreck a few other people first?

Found this on the web, thought it was appropriate. :)

How to tell if you're a Military Pagan:

1. When you use a flame-thrower to light the altar candles.

2. When your athame has a bayonet attachment to fit on your M-16.

3. When your robe is made of camouflage material.

4. When your cakes & wine come from MRE's.

5. When your book of shadows contains plans on defusing bombs, poison antidotes and basic survival techniques.

6. When your circle is marked by barb-wire.

7. When you have to ride an ATV or HumVee to get to the Covenstead.

8. When you use an artillery shell casing for your God symbol.

9. When you take down a tent to move the Covenstead.

10. When your familiar is either a Doberman, Rotweiller or German Shepherd.

11. When you use a hubcap for a scrying dish.

12. When you use teargas to smudge when doing banishings.

13. When your goddess symbol is Tank Girl.

14. When 1st degree training includes Ninjisu or other forms of martial arts.

15. When your circle name is Spike, Slash, Ripcord, Hawkeye, Bubba, or anything that ends with 'ster'.

16. When you use machine gun fire to cast your circle.

17. Instead of using an acorn or pine cone, you use a hand grenade for a God symbol (if there isn't an artillery shell available).

18. When you use a compass for a divination tool.

19. When you use a bullet on a string for a pendulum.

20. When you call your High Priest "Commander", and your High Priestess as "General" or "Bitch Queen".

On a serious note: Pagan is an extremely general term, it is more constructive to speak about the specific religions rather than something so general. Its like having a headline: Should Monotheists be Peaceniks?

There is 'anti-war' and then there is 'peacenik' (whatever the hell that is...pacifism?)

There are things that are worth fighting for and some wars are either unavoidable due to belligerence or moral.

Pacifism to me has always been a form of ethical fraud on the part of people living in 'civil society'--what is pacifism in a society where it is illegal to usurp the state's monopoly on violence? Being law-abiding!!

Hardly a moral position to be a law-abiding citizen or even to give responsible counsel to legally change a system witin the 'rules'.

Even Ghandi was uneven on this point of 'practicality'. He suggested that true pacifism could only be practised by enlightened Brahmins and since this ideal was unattainable, then mortal men and their nations must use pragmatism. Moreover he suggested that acts of 'civil disobedience' were entirely different from 'pacifism'; in the west especially, civil disobedience is done NOT from a moral position, but from simple political expedience.

It is fun to pretend what we do is part of some 'great' human path (ideology/religion), but simple situational realism is in most cases the best path and one taken throughout human history.


There He Is...in his Martian hidey-hole

sizes, political ideologies and colors. I noticed when i first gotinvolved with metaphysical , pagan and occult groups in the Atlanta area, that there seemed to be a disproportionate number of present or former military persons. I will let you in on a secret. One of the most highly placed, respected and talented persona in the craft in Atlanta, was an unreconstructed southerner and played a decisive part in making Lester Maddox Governor of this state. Now, the secret is out. how is that for diversity?

so diversified as to constitute a syncretic fabricated 'movement' where religious/ideological 'themes' are de-contextualized from any historical meaning and re-invented as commdified lifestyle choices.

Sorta like Mormons, Eckankar or Baha'i--a nebulous grab-bag of empty 'terms' and 'labels' that can only be understood in terms the participant's own personal needs for social legitmacy in the marketplace of 'spiritualism'

Not that that is bad; but it does become ridiculous during the last outbreak of wiccanism/pagan among Progressives when otherwise sane women would pour their menstral blood into their household plants...these are the actions of people seized out of ideology and fear, not spiritualism.

It is also particularly annoying when some of these Progressives show up to activist meetings and challenge 'practical' considerations with accusations of 'negative energy flows' from the Chair simply because they have nothing of substance to aid to 'community' other than requirement and networking...

Besides I don't know if I think it is a good idea to encourage occultism and metaphysics in the military? Seems to have been a popular 'fit' with Roman centurians, Japanese warlords and Nazi officers...

Doubtful it will result in a 'pacifist' military


Funny looking Druids

And a long list of interesting responses.

I have considered myself a "pagan" most of my life, long before I had any idea that there were people practicing various religions under that banner. I certainly don't fit within those groups. It's not a "religion" to me. It's not gods and goddesses, per se, but a way of being. I have studied many of the groups that might be considered "pagan." I've interacted with them in my local community on a regular basis. Or, at least, I used to. I don't any more. That came apart a year ago. When war broke out.

I live in a very conservative republican area. The pagans here, wiccans in particular, are in no way "peaceniks." They are just as warmongerish as the rest of the republicans. They aren't any different from the general neocons around here; they just aren't christians. That's the only real difference. They even approach their faith like the fundies; I guess you could call them fundie pagans.

A year ago, I got tired of swallowing my response to one man who loved to hijack community gatherings to give political lectures based on Rush and Hannity, his two avowed heroes. I answered back. He has never been able to tolerate my presence since then. He is so obviously uncomfortable; he so obviously needs to do political battle, and I didn't do so. I also didn't back down. I finally quit showing up to community things, because I was obviously the pea underneath their feather beds.

I am a peacenik in comparison to most people. People are always assuming that I am a pacifist. Not so. By nature, I am a warrior. I've been there and done that. One of the lessons of my life is to learn to live peacefully. So I work at it. But I'm not a pacifist. I'm a lover of peace learning how to walk a peaceful path; how to turn away wrath; and how to defend without destroying.