If there is a moderator around, perhaps this discussion can be split into another thread? I fear we've gone off course here, and I am not sure that I trust myself to start a new thread that fairly recaps/titles this derailment.
I'll split it if PNB thinks its an uninteresting or out of place digression.
"Pagan" is the best English word (currently in widespread use) to describe a category of world views. This generally includes people who place their spirituality (here defined as the feeling of connection to something outside oneself) in understanding our place in the biological, seasonal, physical, geological, astrological, etc. patterns and rhythms of the world we live in. The word "pagan" may have been assigned to (rather than created by) people whose spirituality falls into this category, but it is hardly reactionary.
It's defining yourself by what you are not, which you have a problem with when it comes to one word but not the other. Anyway, a minor issue I wouldn't want to spend an inordinate amount of time discussing.
Further, Pagan philosophies do not necessarily include or deny Liberalism. Even if we were to accept the assumption that they do, the rejection of monarchy in favor if democratic rule and the idea that all people have a natural right to certain liberties are not exclusively Christian.
I just don't see enough evidence to lead anyone to accept the premise that all philosophies that do not reject liberalism are a degenerated form of Christianity. It seems a little absurd, (he he!) really. Perhaps I just need convincing.
It is well and good to imply that pagan beliefs are just "The Church's" newest transformation (though it sounds a bit Doctor Who-ish), but it is a grasping statement. One that is rejected by the predominant writings and teachings of "The Church" as it stands.
I'm not talking about the particular philosophies, I am talking about the assumptions that underlie the very intellectual space in which the debate takes place. I don't think "paganism" is dumb, I think the very act of
choosing to
identify as one thing over another in some sort of public sphere is dumb. Only degenerate Christianity AKA liberal Enlightenment values allow for this choice, or at least this illusion of choice to take place. It's like choose-your-own-adventure Protestantism without the dead guy on the tree.
Anyway, it's amusing because even though the experience gives this impression that one can *choose* to be anything, the options are always very formulaic, as if they're all filling out the same form in order to be considered socially coherent or legible.
The guy being quoted in the article I linked to, a self-professed "pagan" is the one who is making this point. It isn't like I came up with this on my own:
The very fact that I frame this identity as a “choice” is itself proof of decadence — a vibrant metaphysics simply is and has nothing to do with a rational actor listing pros and cons. Ironically, those who profess the Old Gods are weakened because what they profess is so obviously new and a product of innovation and modernity. Few would even call it a real faith that actually expresses literal belief in personalized divinities. […] The new pagan cults that preach fanaticism and virility owe too much to reason and deconstruction.
Also I thought I made it clear already but I do not mean liberalism = democracy and rejecting it doesn't make you a monarchist. That's an even more laughable position to try and take seriously.
