Is Paganism the way to go?

[Polarbear]

The situation

There seems to be a conceit among the followers of Neo-paganism and especially Wicca that their belief system is somehow better and more peaceful than the Abrahamic religions and/or monotheists in general. The Dharmic religions have a similar conceit, but let's not bring that into the picture here.

Now, Pagans don't proselytize, unless you count the numberless Wicca 101 books out there usually aimed at youth that offers them power through the included spells of course... Anyway, they seem to have a perception that the world would be a better place if everyone was Pagan, especially environmentally.

Presenting evidence A:


12. A world where everyone's Pagan? - YouTube

Ah yes! Pagans have been saving Mother Earth since the beginning of time and hadn't those Eco-friendly societies been destroyed by the terrible Abrahamic religions we wouldn't be struggling with global warming today. Note: She doesn't say it directly, but you can read it between the lines.

In addition Paganism is also claimed to be more tolerant and having a positive “embrace life” attitude. These assertions are frequently made without putting any distinction between new and old Paganism, apparently the world was a great place until all those Jews, Christians and Muslims came along. (Note: It was also a prosperous matriarchy)

Introducing evidence B:

Couldn't find an appropriate link, but really the best evidence for this is in a slightly modified version of Winston Churchill's words: A five-minute conversation with the average Pagan.

Reality

Paganism, both new and old isn't inherently tolerant and there have been many evils committed in its name. Examples of this include the crimes of Neo-pagan inspired fascist movements and the Japanese “State Shinto” as well as human sacrifices, subjugation of women, ritual scarification of children (a disgusting practice) and so on. (I could probably have made a longer and more specific list, but that would take way too much time.)

The problem

The problem is that these views (those referred to under "the situation") are completely inaccurate, generate arrogance and an unjustified “righteous anger” perhaps even hatred towards certain groups. Personally, I can't see how making “embracing the goddess” the salvation of humanity and pointing the Abrahamics out as scapegoats is anything, but a recipe for disaster. Can you?

[Riverwolf]

Considering the human/child sacrifice thing doesn't occur on any sort of widespread scale anymore, Shintoism is not technically "pagan", since the term nowadays refers primarily to native European religions or new religions based on them, and I've never heard of modern paganism subjugating women. The only case there are the myriad of dumb spell books aimed at teenage girls, but I wouldn't count that as legit paganism; those are just scams preying on paganism.

[Trey of Diamonds]

Originally Posted by Polarbear71

Reality

Paganism, both new and old isn't inherently tolerant and there have been many evils committed in its name. Examples of this include the crimes of Neo-pagan inspired fascist movements and the Japanese “State Shinto” as well as human sacrifices, subjugation of women, ritual scarification of children (a disgusting practice) and so on. (I could probably have made a longer and more specific list, but that would take way too much time.)

This is absolutely incorrect. Siting a couple extreme examples doesn't mean paganism is inherently intolerant. Paganism in general was always tolerant of other religions while the Abrahamic religion created the jealous god.

[Polarbear]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf

Considering the human/child sacrifice thing doesn't occur on any sort of widespread scale anymore,

True, but I presented human sacrifices only as an example of the evils of "old paganism" and not "Neo-paganism". You see I was aiming to make a short list of things disproving the romaticized view many pagans have of historical paganism and their own religion, though maybe I should have made clearer which "paganism" I was talking about.

Shintoism is not technically "pagan", since the term nowadays refers primarily to native European religions or new religions based on them,

I am completly unfamiliar with that definition of Paganism and that comes from somebody who was Neo-wiccan for a year... I have heard Pagans call Buddhism Pagan.

and I've never heard of modern paganism subjugating women. The only case there are the myriad of dumb spell books aimed at teenage girls, but I wouldn't count that as legit paganism; those are just scams preying on paganism.

I was talking about "old-paganism" only here too and as mentioned above I realize that should probably have distinguished between the two in some way.

[Polarbear]

Originally Posted by Trey of Diamonds

This is absolutely incorrect. Siting a couple extreme examples doesn't mean paganism is inherently intolerant. Paganism in general was always tolerant of other religions while the Abrahamic religion created the jealous god.

You want more examples? Well here you go:

The Roman empire feed Christians to the lions.

The pagans of the Arabian peninsula persecuted Mohammed and his followers before Islam was even a thing.

The Babylonians had invented "witch trials" before Judaism even existed

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Polarbear71

True, but I presented human sacrifices only as an example of the evils of "old paganism" and not "Neo-paganism". You see I was aiming to make a short list of things disproving the romaticized view many pagans have of historical paganism and their own religion, though maybe I should have made clearer which "paganism" I was talking about.

I am completly unfamiliar with that definition of Paganism and that comes from somebody who was Neo-wiccan for a year... I have heard Pagans call Buddhism Pagan.

I was talking about "old-paganism" only here too and as mentioned above I realize that should probably have distinguished between the two in some way.

Yeah, distinguishing would have been nice.

As a proud descendent of the Celts, I fully realize the Druids practiced human sacrifice, and am glad the practice no longer exists on such a widespread scale.

Paganism is a kind of vague term, but the definition I gave is the one I've seen more often than any other. The other common definition is "a non-Abrahamic religion", which I don't particularly like.

[Egyptian Phoenix]

Yep I admit Pagan religions have not always been the most benevolent in history. No religion has.

However, I think you've made a rather unfair sweeping statement about the pagan Romans. The Romans were one of the most open and tolerant societies of the ancient world prior to Justinian. I am not saying they treated other religions with the same reverence as their own, but they allowed them to exist.

The issue with the Christians is that they were rebels. You can read about their riots and mob violence in the Roman historians. One thing Rome did insist on is a well ordered society.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Polarbear71

The Dharmic religions have a similar conceit, but let's not bring that into the picture here.

You opened the door; can't unring the bell.

I wouldn't call it a conceit because the Dharmic religions do not proselytize or try to convert. There is a "live and let live" attitude. Gandhi summed it up pretty well, and it applies both ways in converting to/from any faith:

"After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that

[1] all religions are true;

[2] all religions have some error in them;

[3] all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism,

in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one's own close relatives.
My own veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith; therefore no thought of conversion is possible."

M. K. Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words.

The Dharmic religions accept all converts gladly, but they don't seek them out.

[Riverwolf]

Originally Posted by Old Paths

However, I think you've made a rather unfair sweeping statement about the pagan Romans. The Romans were one of the most open and tolerant societies of the ancient world prior to Justinian.

...not really...

From what I understand, it was the Persians who held that honor of tolerance. The Romans, from what I understand, were quite bigoted and supremacist. When in Rome, do as Romans do, after all.

They are responsible for the complete destruction of Celtic society, except in Ireland, and the history they've given us is, from what I understand, pretty much just propaganda.

[xkatz]

Originally Posted by Polarbear71

There seems to be a conceit among the followers of Neo-paganism and especially Wicca that their belief system is somehow better and more peaceful than the Abrahamic religions and/or monotheists in general. The Dharmic religions have a similar conceit, but let's not bring that into the picture here.

I see somewhat of what you're saying. Most people who make such claims are usually relatively recent converts to their respective religion and may have a naive understanding of their religion as well as other religions. Unfortunately, some people just seem to be prone to romanticism.