Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion.all-worlds,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Satanist/NeoPagan War Date: 26 Jun 1996 22:18:59 -0700 Organization: Portal Communications (shell) Lines: 152 Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com Message-ID: <4qt5k3$sv9@jobe.shell.portal.com> References: Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer) NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:164309 alt.satanism:46009 alt.magick.tyagi:8980 alt.religion.all-worlds:8131 talk.religion.misc:226697 kaliyuga 49960626 AA1 Werner Arend : |(1) Is there a real commitment to spiritual growth, or is that person | calling him/herself "Satanist", "Witch", "Magus" or whatever because | it's "cool", or is it a way for that person for personal aggrandizement? unless I desire to differentiate between someone who will be allowed to participate within my own social group (coven), then it is entirely none of my business whether or not they have a 'real commitment to spiritual growth'. it is this type of evaluation which perpetuates the condemnation and name-calling. some who go by the labels we find valuable will no doubt pursue them for different ends. this has always been the case and no amount of attempt to identify 'the charlatons' will assist. it will only turn into another Inquisition. |(2) Does that person attempt to live what he/she believes? I don't require | the 100%-correct-lifestyle (I'm not dogmatic), but there should be some | evidence. I would question the commitment of a person who, for example, | has a habit of throwing cigarette butts to the ground, or | frequently doesn't clean up after a picnic in the forest. again, from a standpoint of personal association this type of evaluation is great. as a means of determining WHO SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT USE THE IDENTIFICATION MONIKER, it is an error as I see it. 'Neopagan' is a classification category describing a variety of religious persuasions, some of which may well not be consistent with one another in terms of practical format or doctrinal preference. what appears to correlate amongst Neopagans (not as a defining quality to determine who shall be ABLE to be considered members, but that which seems to be rather consistent amongst the throng) are these three things: 1) a valuation of freedom of religion 2) a tendency toward eclectic and at times polytheist syncretism 3) a focus on ecology and "nature-worship" a few other popular items include a fondness for the Northern European heritage and gods, the usage of arguably recent rite-forms which derive from Rosicrucian and other masonic ceremonialists, a predominance of feminists and goddess-worshippers, a fascination with science and hedonism, and a vivid imagination. |...for example, a single public statement made by a member of a |German pagan organization that even remotely reeks of Nazism ... I think it is fascinating that both the "Satanist" and "Neopagan" cultures both integrate aspects of National Socialism (especially Hitlerian or alternative 'Nazism') and that these are controversial within each community (or the whole, if you see them as somehow co-resident). not only is the fact that there are those who would find Nazism attractive common to both (which I maintain is evidence for the assertion that both Neopagans and Satanists are manifesta- tations of the Great Martyrdom Cult), but other members of the communities of which they are part exclaim against them! |would inflict political damage that organization would take years to |recover from. compare this with the argument that 'Satanists should not be allowed to associate with Neopagans because their largely anti-Christian practices and antagonistic ways would ruin the developing religious reputation of Neopaganism, from which it may take years to recover'. both are based on fallacies and generalizations which may or may not be difficult to disprove. I'm not sure why there should be any sort of 'political or economic litmus test' amongst Neopagans, be that Capitalist, Communist, Green, Republican, Neonazi or Pacifist. it seems to me that the ACTIONS of the individuals taken within the community are more importantly focussed-upon than whatever their private political, economic OR RELIGIOUS LABELS might include (i.e. whether Satanist, Christian, or Neofractional-Bobist). |people feeding public prejudice in the name of an organization whose |majority does not agree. Alright, you can expel that person, but |at that point the damage has been done. what damage? that you allow (oo, skahwee myoosik pleez) 'Satanists' into your midst?! why do I hear the Church Lady in the background? |...I do not like it if people claim a kinship to me that I don't feel. I really respect this and suggest that you utilize your imagination to think up a Label for yourself which will not be misundestood or applied to people in awkward or ambiguous or uncontrolled ways. the Asatruar occasionally do this, based on tribal and ancestral lines. the Freemasons occasionally do this, based on biological gender. various other groups such as the KKK likely do this also based on political views and melanin quotient. there is nothing wrong with defining who is a member of your clutch, but if you want that clutch to be 'Neopagan', then I'm afraid that generalized term (along with 'Pagan') has been used too often and by too many to really ferret out your desired subgroup. |...that person could get angry and express his opinion that because we're |kin, we *must* feel positive about each other.... then it becomes not hir association but hir ACTIONS which are objectionable. |...that's what I feel the Satanists are doing. there are Satanists who are coming to your door (rite/coven/whatever) and asking you to accept them and their ways (based on what they actually show to you) and if you don't they get mad at you and tell you you MUST accept them for who they are?? I'd tell them to get the fuck out of the house/rite/whatever and don't come back. Neopagan or no Neopagan, there comes a time when rudeness such as this should be put down. identification and self-labelling has absolutely nothing to do with it. |...I can be friends with the Satanists as long as they don't insist that |I have to believe there is no difference. control of your beliefs is a violation of your sanctity as a person. if you are saying something about THEM as people then perhaps they truly do have a point in objecting to your generalizations and conceptions (you may well be mistaken as to what their ways include), but requiring that you change your mind is simply silly. they can demonstrate this to you themselves over time if they think your ideas are incorrect. |I have my perception and they have theirs. Let the difference stand! with this I agree completely! hail to the differences of opinion! only when you begin impacting others through the practical results of your opinion would I raise objection, and this in public spaces or within shared community. i.e. if you started making special rules for self- identified 'Satanists' rather than merely identifying your values and what you want to have at your gatherings, then I think you may go too far in your 'perceptions' and take it into bigotry. tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com nocTifer -- Ensure my response - CC public replies to email http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html (emailed replies may be posted) check: http://www.paranoia.com/coe/