Paganism is a racist and offensive word

If you examine the history of the usage of the word, Paganism, you will find that it is a rather racist and offensive term. I am not talking, of course, about the word as it has been taken over by pagans themselves, referring to themselves, which is comparable to African-Americans using the n-word acceptably amongst themselves.

No, I am talking about the way it is used by Christians, and Jews.

One might argue that it refers to a the old European beliefs, particularly those of witches, warlocks and the like. But it has also been used in a derogatory manner against the old beliefs around the Middle East and Africa, and then Asia and the Americas, basically all non-Judeo-Christian belief systems, and even against Jews and Catholics.

Some people might say that it cannot be racist because it is used in reference to belief not race. But its usage does have a history where it was tied specifically to race, so yes, it has been used in a racist manner. Consider the term heathens. If I were to speak of a heathen people, what race of people would come to mind? Probably not white, at least not unless the context of term heathen was that it was said by an Muslim. It is also a concept that is fundamental to coloinalism. This too makes it a racist concept.

I practice indigenous spirituality. I have been labelled pagan, my beliefs have been labelled pagan, and so forth. It is towards me matter of factly as if there is no reason to be offended by it. But the implication is always that it is evil wrong and inferior to Christianity.

 

Maybe the question should be, who are these Christians, and how do we identify them? What do they do?

To answer that, I will turn to the writings of Minucius Felix who wrote in 200 AD, saying that Christians are, "a people skulking and shunning the light, silent in public but garrulous in corners. They despise the temples as dead-houses, they reject gods, they laugh at sacred things." he also said they worship the genitals of their priests and the head of an ass, and he described incestuous orgies and ritual murder. "...An infant covered with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites, this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds, Thirstily--O horror! They lick up its blood, eagerly they divide its limbs."

Now someone like Tishomingo might come along and say, 'Wait a minute! You are taking that out of context! Minucius Felix was a Christian and he was writing about what pagans were saying about Christians!

Well, to that I say, who are you going to believe? Some Christian writing in 200 AD (and he was probably skulking and shunning the light and eagerly licking up an infant's blood and dividing its limbs!) or the word of the pagans who were actually observing these Christians? It seems obvious to me whose word we should believe!


Ok, just a bit of satire. But the way non-Christians in 200 AD were describing Christians, is exactly how the Christians described pagans.

And besides, who knows really what goes on in those churches. I mean, you see them all over the place...

 

Ignorant people will often boost their ego by focusing on the difference in others.
This can be anything from race, to the colour of the shirt you are wearing.
At the end of the day, it just shows their insecurity.

 

Let's not forget the infidels and farangs who are discrimated against and often murdered because they look or think differently....

It amazes me how various religions desperately need to demonize other belief systems so their followers don't stray.

 

Even Oxford professors have been reduced to making up their own nonsense words, then denying it. White Man Speak With Forked Tongue! Blame their teachers. A quarter of their students still claim the sun revolves around the earth, and their teachers blame the rest of us.

 

Yes that is true, and it is a vehicle in their own ego-denial. These people often have subconscious doubts about their own beliefs. So they always talk about god and Jesus and thanking god, for example, as a way of affirming their beliefs as true to compensate for their doubts, which, being of the subconscious, they are not even aware of. This would include people that may not be ignorant but, for whatever reason, feel that they must believe strongly in god, and their ego works overtime to keep their illusion of belief alive.

The problem is that religion readily provides this vehicle.

My stepson (who is Filipino) and his wife, who is Jewish---but the sect that believes in Jesus) have this book that tells about all the pagan things that exist in society today and in the Christian faith. She has hinted that my wife's catholicism has idol worship, and recently told her to read a scripture that potentially says that reading the rosary is wrong. (My wife is not really very Catholic, because she is a healer in the old Philippine ways, but there are aspects of the faith, which she grew up with, that are very important to her and have always brought meaning to her, such as praying with the rosary, and so forth.)

They don't eat pork, which is too bad for my stepson as Philippine food has plenty of pork in it. But it means things like, that, for a family gathering, my wife has to make extra lumpia with beef, or other dishes just for them that exclude pork.

But one time they showed this book to me, and I went through it briefly and then pointed out numerous things that it didn't mention, which are important to them, especially his wife----like the fact that there are 7 or 9 candles in the menorah, for example. It's always a pick and choose. Take the Torah, for example, which is the Old Testament, and speaks against idol worship. Yet just like Christians, the Torah is basically a form of an idol. Whenever they come over, they are sure to pick out all the pagan things that we do, but if I point out the pagan things that are part of their beliefs, that is, somehow different, or doesn't matter.

 

I have to disagree. It has long since been reclaimed by neo pagans of many stripes, and I find it a beautiful word for a group of beautiful, enriching and mysterious faiths.

I remember the first time I stumbled on that word on the then infant internet, while also continuing to stumble on figuring out how to worship the Gods from much cooler myths and I said to myself, That's what I am! That's what I'm doing.

I have also long ago been corrected that Indigenous spiritualities, Hindu, Voodoo, Santeria, and Shinto are there own separate things entirely.

 

Yeah, I'd say that if we look at the origin of the term, it had nothing to do with race. And today, most practicing pagans in this country and in Europe are white. My immediate word association with "pagan" is Roman. Muslims use the term mushrik (مشرك, 'idolater'), but the meaning is the same. Pagan, from the Latin pāgānus ( "rural",or "rustic" was originally a reference to country bumpkins. Fourth century Christians, who tended to be city folk, looked down their noses at the polytheists who were more rural. But the polytheists were still a majority of the population, and of the same race as most of the Christians. The Christian objection to pagans wasn't that they were non-white but rather that they were worshiping demons--i.e., any supernatural being who wasn't God or His angels. As Christianity gained ground, and virtually everyone in Europe became Christian except for underground pockets of people still worshiping the old gods, that association declined. During the heyday of the European slave trade and colonialism, there may have been racist connotations to the term. Today, Christians tend to think of paganism as a bad thing, and associate it with countercultural, mostly white folks who gather in the woods to practice their wicked rites.

Interesting you should bring this up. My Sunday school lately has been watching a documentary video produced by Focus on the Family which details the spread of Christianity to various urban centers in the Mediterranean. For a Focus on the Family production, it's relatively tame and objective, but there are underlying themes of : pagan=bad; Christians and pagans living together and getting along=terrible; and today secularism=pagan. Nothing particularly racist though. In light of my objections, the class won't be showing that one again!

 

Forget Minucius Felix. Waddabout Celsus, a Platonist of the second century who, in The True Word, attacked Christianity as a menace to society. How, he asks, could any religion be taken seriously when the practitioners were mostly women, slaves and artisans. Bigotry seems to know no boundaries.

 

I recently took issue with the term "snowflake". Interestingly, Hewlett Packard is selling laptops in a color called "Snowflake White". I didn't recognize immediately that it may be a vague reference to the derogatory label for liberal pundits!

 

Or you know, because snowflakes are white.

 

Yes, when people who consider themselves pagan use it, they take ownership of the word and the implications are very different. In this thread I am referring to the way it is used by people that are dogmatically members of organized religions----or more correctly, of Abrahmic organized religions.