- "Is there anything that we should be aware of, before we
come to an event of yours?"
Yes, of course. Otherwise, this web page would be a lot smaller.
Recognise that certain fundamental values are represented by
the dieties we worship. What you read on this page, and hear from
us tells you something about our own values. Given those values,
you should have some idea of what it is that we would praise, and
what would find reprehensible, and which assumptions we feel have
to be in place for a meaningful exchange to even be possible
between us. These values refer to how people should be treated by
each other, and by life. Do not come here to promote that which is
despicable, given these core values or the worship of a diety that
promotes something objectionable on these terms.
-
"Could you give a specific example of what you are referring to?"
One of these values is the sanctity of human life. Thus, to
bring Kali, the merciless aspect of the bride of Shiva, into our
presence, in any sense, would be unacceptable. Even worse, from our
point of view, is the chant I heard in one ritual years ago :
-
"Astarte Diana Demeter Isis Aphrodite Kali"
as the priestess proclaimed them all to be one! To equate our
gentle goddess with the compassionless drinker of blood whose
name ends that chant would be sacrilege, given what each
represents. This would equate her with that which is hateful to
her, and so contrary to all that she represents, that it should
never be brought into her presence. By linking her with that in
the minds of the worshippers, in part, this chant does just that.
It will not be heard in our shrine (*).
-
"So, did you talk to the people at that ritual to find out what
their thoughts were, that lead to the creation of this chant?"
Yes. I found that there didn't seem to be any. They simply compiled
a list of names out of an encyclopedia of mythology that they had
found in the public library. By their own admission, they did so
without taking the time to read so much as a single myth. They felt
that they didn't have to take the time to learn anything about the
personalities behind the names, because they "knew" that all of the
names were merely different names for their one goddess. They felt
so comfortable with this preconceived notion, which they openly
acknowledged had been in place before they ever cracked open a
single book, that they felt no need to examine it, before accepting
it. And no, to answer an obvious question, they did not grow up
hearing about these gods, or hear the stories instead of reading
them. If you can believe it, none of them have even heard of Odin,
or Zeus, or Brahma, or any of the other gods whose name they
attributed to their one god, before they started their coven.
This didn't seem to so much be Paganism, as Christianity gone
Multicultural, with the philosophical content entirely removed
and most of the cultural and spiritual aspects with it. A religion
for those who were truly at home in an era in which one was never
'supposed' to firmly believe anything, or admit that one knew
anything, because someone else might be offended. An era in which
the notion that it was "racist" to be in favor of the existence of
distinct cultures and civilisations, had taken hold so firmly in
the minds of some, that they went deeply into denial, and stopped
noticing the profound and intriguing differences that did exist.
-
"So, you're opposed to living in the present you find yourself in
or being tolerant of those different from you?"
Is it tolerance to seek to make everyone be the same, or is it the
conformism of the Anglo-American 'ideal' of assimilationism,
dishonestly repackaged? If anything, I would say that this version
is worse than the old one. Under the old one, the one who yielded
to the illegitimate demands placed on him at least ended up with a
coherent culture. Under the new one, what one ends up with is a
random grab bag of misunderstood and poorly executed details from
other cultures, wrenched out of their original contexts. One is
then to blot the appreciation of those contexts from one's mind.
Picture someone writing a new book by taking quotes at random out
of the texts in a library. Picture him going on to burn down that
library, leaving only that book of random quotes. Imagine that he
then complains about the anti-intellectualism of those who oppose
his project, saying that they obviously are unaccepting of that
which is to be found in those books which they are unfamiliar with.
That is what our assimilationist does, with the living books of
folklore that one might say that the set of customs of each of the
cultures (that he would seek to assimilate away) constitutes, when
taken together with the framework established by the continuously
evolving interconnections between those customs.
The key word here is "continuously". If we destroy the integrity
of these cultures by trying to force into them, or project onto
them that which is unnatural for them - that living framework of
interconnections, existing on a subconscious level in the lives of
those living the culture, will die from this violent disruption.
What these people don't appreciate is that true tolerance doesn't
consist of the acceptance of a reciprocal intolerance. Tolerance
isn't simply the notion that others have the same right to try to
impose their ways on one as one does on them, but the recognition
that noone should thus be imposed on at all. It is not the desire
to obliterate differences, but the willingness to joyously
celebrate them, and the eagerness to preserve them. To speak of an
attempt to make the cultures merge as an attempt to promote
brotherhood among men, is to take for granted the notion that one
will hate those different from one. It is not a rejection of
bigotry, but its firm and unacknowledged embrace.
As for living in the present - being aware of that which has
changed and agreeing with those changes are two different
matters. To proclaim that changes, once established, should be
accepted without question, is to say that the process of the
evolution of society should be divorced from that of coherent
thought. It is to allow human destiny to be guided by that blind
beast that will be the collective will of those whose thoughts
are nothing more than a reflection of a poll of those around them.
And, having thus left the fate of society to chance, or to those
who would manipulate the unthinking collective will for their own
ends, those who proclaim this "philosophy" would then have us
merely hope for the best, rather than to act to make it happen.
If the refusal to do so or to pretend to do so places one "out of
step with the times", then that is a good place to be. To find
oneself out of place in the world of the 1980s and 90s, this golden
age of cowardice and of the petty spite than inspires it, is a
reassuring sign that one does, indeed, still have a personality,
and a mind of one's own. Not everyone has been so fortunate after
two decades of experiencing this brand of "tolerance".
-
"You seem very concerned with the preservation of individual,
traditional cultures. Is that necessarily reasonable?
Remembering that this material has been copyrighted, as mentioned
in the following notice notice ...
Click here, here if you need an answer to that question, or here if you
you already know why the preservation of such well established
traditions and identities is both important, and morally proper,
if not positively obligatory. (The first link will take you to a
critique of some trendy arguments for cultural assimilationism, as
well as criticism of some aspects of assimilationism's hypocritical
younger sister, "Multicultural Political Correctness").
(*) Note regarding that chant :
Let's be clear on this : blasphemy gets one escorted out of the
sanctuary, quickly. Would one expect to be able to sing "Jesus loves
Satan" in an Orthodox Christian Church? This is no different.
bravenet.com