Druidism (rituals, Earth, tradition, experience, theist)

[Luke Wolf]

So really, to me, someone reading a book or a website and then calling themself a Druid is a slap in the face of a major religious culture, no matter how old it was. I'm rather insulted by these revivalists groups that allow anyone to join and/or buy their way into the title.

Sadly, this does frequently happen. I have seen many a "Druid" who knows very little about actual Druid laws, traditions, and rituals.

I think tree huggers are neo-Druids.

Why is this? Druids where not tree huggers. Too Druids, the OAK TREE was sacred, and a symbol of the divine. Other trees where held in a high regard, but it was only the oak that had a special place in their culture.

[TaraMoon]

It's correct to say that there are two distinct modern types of druidry/druidism. The Reconstructionists (ADF and Henge of Keltria being examples) practice a polytheistic religion(s) reconstructed from historical sources. Because historical sources are scant, the reconstructed religions are, at least in some regards, approximations. ADF is not strictly Celtic, as someone mentioned, but Henge of Keltria is. ADF performs public rituals and Henge of Keltria does not. Reconstructionist Druids do believe that all gods are manifestations of one god (or goddess). I can not speak for ADF, but the Celtic Reconstructionists do not work with directions in the sense that Wiccans do. Instead, they work with three levels: the air (the realm of the gods), the sea (the realm of the ancestors), and the land (our world). As far as I know, ADF is the largest Reconstructionist Druid group. I'll leave it to the ADF member to explain the process of becoming a member and moving up through the ranks to becoming a full Druid.

The Revivalist Druid groups,of which Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD) is, by far, the largest (it's the largest Druid order of any type), arose from the British Druid revival groups of the 1800s. OBOD is a philosophical, as compared to religious, order. Although most members probably are pagans, paganism is not a requirement for membership.There is a strong focus on nature and spirtuality. Rituals are strongly influenced by Masonic ritual form, as are the rituals of Wicca, the Golden Dawn, OTO,and other groups. Directions, rather than levels are used.

[TaraMoon]

(sorry, my screen froze up and I couldn't continue typing, so I had to add a second post)
OBOD has a lengthy course of study that is required to move up the ranks from Bard to Ovate to Druid. It takes a minimum of about three years of study to reach the level of Druid and few make it in that period of time. OBOD uses Welsh gods in its rituals, although they may be thought of as real deities, metaphors, or archetypes according to the preference of the member. I wouldn't say that OBOD is anti-scholarly because Druidry, in general, attracts people who are more scholastically inclined that does Wicca, but OBOD is more concerned with philosophy than history.

It would be fair to say, although still a generalization, that Wiccans would be inclined to dance around a bonfire while Druids would be inclined to sit around the bonfire discussing the history of dancing around a bonfire.

[TaraMoon]

OOPS, major typo. Glad I reread my post. Reconstructionist Druids do NOT believe that all gods are manifestations of one god (or goddess), nor are they duotheists.

[TaraMoon]

Originally Posted by Blindinglight

I'm not sure if there is an official suffix, but I have seen most use the "ism."

The are different from other pagans like any other branch.
Mainly, the modern Druid is HIGHLY reconstructed, as it is against there law to write anything that partains to there sacred teachings down, to avoid anyone that is not a Druid reading it, mis interpreting it, tainting it, or doing anything negative to it. Druids teach by word of mouth to other Druids. Allthough today, it is hard to find a Druid, and books are usually the only method of learning.
There are three primary denominations of Druids, Celtic, Britonic, and I do not remember the third. Traditionally, one must study for a minimum of seven years before the title of Druid is bestowed upon them. The lower ranks are Bard, Apprentice, and then Druid. Another tradition, only males can be Druid, and there is another seperate sect for females, allthough that name also eludes me at this time. One Druid I know refuses to acknowledge any female as a Druid because of this tradition. It's not that he is sexist, it's just the tradition.
Druids are also shamanistic, and focus heavily on earth worship, especially trees, with the Oak being the most sacred tree, as well as the mistletoe being sacred since the Oak produces that plant.
They have there own set of ritual tools, and individualism is a virtue, as it is expected that you make your ritual tools, and robe decorations, to reflect you. Doing something just because someone else did it, and conformity can be considered a sin, as they anger the Gods.
Animal masks and furs are also commonly worn during rituals, to invoke and evoke particular animal spirits.
From there, it splits of heavily from modern day Druids, and the Druids of old. Obviously, you can't be killed today for having an exposed/unsheathed weapon in the prescense of a Druid. Nor can Druids today sacrifice humans, allthough those sacrificed were usually criminals, and others that are less desirable in society.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. There are quite a few Druid orders and books are not the only method of learning about Druidry/Druidism and some of the books that do exist are pure balderdash.

Traditionally, one must study for seven years to earn the title of Druid? Where did you get that? Traditionally, one had to study for more than 20 years.

None of the major Druid orders deny women membership. There is historical evidence that women were Druids.

Some individual Druids may be shamanistic, but I know of no Druid order that is shamanistic.

Sin isn't a Druid concept.

I know of no Druid order that uses animal masks and furs.

I know of no historical documentation of people being killed for unsheathing a weapon in the presence of Druid.

There is also no real evidence that Druids ever sacrificed anyone (they may have, but we simply do not know). A single account exists of Druids (or a Druid) being present at a sacrifice and that was written by someone who had never seen a Druid.

Can you cite your sources for this balderdash?

[TaraMoon]

Originally Posted by Victor

So one movement is more modern, while the other is less revisionist?

I'm assuming the practices are somewhat similiar?

What would be a good analogy of these two different movements that I could understand?

Is it like "traditional catholics" vs. "progressive catholics?

How dogmatic is Druidism?

One movement is reconstructionist and the other is revivalist philosophical.
Both overlap, but the reconstructionists try not to do anything they can't document historically, whereas the revivalist philosophical movement isn't hung up about this. The problem the reconstructionists encounter is that there is scant historical evidence from which to work. Therefore, ADF, at least (and the ADF member can correct me if I'm wrong), has adopted a pan-European historical approach and operates on the assumption that if there's no evidence for how something was done in one ancient European country, evidence for how it was done in another will suffice. I would say that it would be fair, in a very limited sense, to compare the reconstructionists to traditional Catholics and the revivalists to Unitarian Universalists. It depends on what you mean by dogmatic. The reconstructionists are insistent on historical sources for practices and the revivalists are not. Both movements have their advantages and disadvantages and some people are members of both reconstructionist and revivalist orders.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by CelticRavenwolf

It's always been a pet peeve of mine how prevalent "druidism" is in pagan circles. Mostly because the majority of people who label themselves 'druid' wouldn't know one if one came up and whacked 'em in the *** with a boat paddle.

Essentially, a pagan calling themself a Druid is comparable to someone deciding that they like Christianity and so calls themself a Priest. They were spiritual teachers, judges, administrators, doctors... basically they controlled all elite knowledge. Numbers vary, but suffice to say we're talking between 10 and 20 years of study, being taught and having arcane knowledge passed down to them by their elders, before they were considered worthy of the title.

So really, to me, someone reading a book or a website and then calling themself a Druid is a slap in the face of a major religious culture, no matter how old it was. I'm rather insulted by these revivalists groups that allow anyone to join and/or buy their way into the title.

I've been studying Celtic lore of the better part of six years now, I have yet to meet a real Druid, not online, and certainly not in person!

Be kind of hard to come by Ravenwolf, meeting a real Druid that is. I explored this some years ago. Purchased what I thought was a how to book on the subject and soon found out there was more to it than learning from a book. This is Ancient Religion that requires more than just book learning.....

[Kcnorwood]

Like I just said in another post I've been a Pagan for 10 years but for the past 6 months I've been studying Druidism. Like others have said on here I too have never met another Druid not to my knowledge at least. Most Pagans here I have met here in the biblebelt are Wiccans. I am finding it very hard to sepreate fact from fiction. Some books I have read on the subject are considered fluff, & it's only after I am done reading it that someome tells me that the book is full of BS. I have not joined any groups as of yet money is tight & I have been laid off so until I get back to work I can't. I can not say that I see any major differences in Druidism VS other Pagan paths other then Druids have ALOT to learn & it takes time to sink in. I think it's like most Pagan belifes your trying to get to the same place just a different way of getting there. With all this said it is VERY hard to tell what to & what not to study because Druidism had more oral teachings then written.

My two cents anyways..

[Tau]

Druids do not exist anymore, wiped out by the Christians by the 5th century.

Those whom claim to be druids are 99.999% probability not druids, not in the empirical sense.

I am prepared to accept however that some teachings, have been transcribed, druids did not write down their teachings as an actual rule, their lore in the main died with them.

Still the spiritual essence that lent people to druidism in the distant past may yet resurface, and neo druids may appear, a neo druid I am willing to accept.