Strange Gods: Neopaganism On Campus.

My parents are witches. My grandfather was a witch. My great grandfather was a witch, and his spellbook is my most precious possession. When my partner and I were looking for a Wiccan commitment ceremony, we found important spells in his book."

Mr. Beltane (as I will call him) was angry. He spoke with little gulps that sounded like a prelude to tears as he defended the integrity of his beliefs and his anger was directed mostly at me, because I had been questioning whether "neo-paganism" ought to be one of the officially recognized religions at my university.

Witches and "neo-pagans" are a fixture on many American college campuses. They are part of the florid undergrowth of the contemporary liberal university, which tolerates — or, more accurately, fosters — destructive experimentation with personal identity. Some of this experimentation unfolds in the classroom (see "Outrageous Selves,") but the frivolity sprouts up everywhere. It was in the basement of the campus chapel that day last fall when Mr. Beltane and I exchanged views.

Although I will inevitably upset some neo-pagans in saying so, I don't think these folks are particularly dangerous. Confused, deluded, and generally dim, they gathered themselves like iron filings on the magnetic pole of campus nuttiness and they are content to stay there. Self-identification of fools is probably a good thing, at least in universities.

But I do worry about the campus chaplains who see neo-paganism and witchcraft as just further expressions of humanity's quest for spiritual fulfillment. On the occasion of Mr. Beltane's outburst, several of them were quick to point out that Harvard recognizes witches as a campus religious group, and so do many other colleges and universities around Boston. Somehow that doesn't seem to me the most powerful argument for extending official recognition, but I agree that it means something.

What it means is that religious life at Harvard and many of those other colleges and universities is devoid of intellectual seriousness. (To find the students who are religiously serious, one heads off campus to congregations such as the evangelical Park Street Church.) The widespread recognition of neo-pagans and similar groups shows how far the spiritual immune system of higher education has been compromised. Little inanities that once would have been brushed aside now settle in as opportunistic infections. Many of the clergy seem completely unable to articulate any meaningful difference between the two-thousand-year tradition of Christianity and the ad hoc formulations of late adolescents who freely admit that they are making it up as they go.

I have found, for example, that many campus clergy are ready to accept the Wiccan adage, "Do what thou wilt," which was invented in 1904 by a British libertine named Aleister Crowley ("Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.") as an ethical injunction to be set beside The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Can these clergy draw a distinction between a jumble of magical formulas and invocations to miscellaneous gods and goddesses and the ethical guidance offered by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism? Is a movement that disdains the goal of intellectual coherence a worthy addition to a university community?

When I have put such questions to various priests, ministers, and rabbis, some have offered good and thoughtful answers but most find the questions unwelcome and beside the point. On campuses across the country, campus ministers often see themselves as champions of tolerance and advocates of diversity, and if some group of students proclaims themselves worshippers of Ba'al, why then, they say, we should invite Ba'al to the table for an ecumenical meal.

So I was hardly surprised when the Episcopalian chaplain took umbrage at my willingness to leave the Wiccans to their own devices without the benefit of formal university recognition. She pointed out that people (like me?) used to burn witches, and that there were crusades against Communists, too, and that I could learn a lot about the ugliness of intolerance by reading Arthur Miller's play about the Salem witchcraft trials, The Crucible.

Neither the inflammatory language nor the reference to the Leftist dramaturge, however, persuaded her colleagues. An Orthodox rabbi offered an especially lucid explanation of why the neo-pagans did not belong in the company of legitimate campus religious groups, and on a narrow vote, the witches were cast out — for the time being.

But as for the broader verdict, I am less sanguine. The ideology of diversity has, for the most part, muscled out simple piety. The stewards of important religious traditions frequently place a higher value on demonstrating their friendliness to other points of view than they place on their own teachings. As a result, religious affiliation becomes a matter not of persuasion but of preference. Religion is part of the student identity kit, rather than an inquiry into the ultimate nature of truth or a teaching about the ultimate nature of right and wrong.

Backing down from ultimate claims is, of course, convenient on campuses that welcome the adherents of dozens of religions, some with histories of mutual enmity. But religious openness doesn't require shutting away or trivializing the deepest teachings of one's own religion. The wisest councilors seem to understand this, and every major faith has its own traditions of religious toleration. The alternative to the Episcopal chaplain's vision of anything goes religious license is not witch-burning or sectarian violence. It is serious intellectual debate about the central ideas of competing traditions.

The infatuation of higher education with its smiling idol, Diversity, however, precludes most serious inter-religious debate. The idol smiles no doubt because he understands the irony. Higher education bows down to Diversity and Diversity renders all the same.

As for Mr. Beltane, I have not seen him since. Perhaps he was swallowed by his grandfather's book. The dean of the chapel who promoted the neo-pagans retired. Their faculty advisor is an eccentric English anthropologist who dabbles in the paranormal. I see him around. The neo-pagan students themselves show up in the news now and then enjoying their bit of notoriety. And higher education, such as it is, continues its wobbly descent into the cultural void.

And now, for my "serious" post.

Right Wing Christian Fundamentalists should celebrate the incursions of post-modernist kookiness onto Ivy League campuses. To paraphrase a New York expression, "Whaddya done for me lately??" Are we sending our kids to these marxist breeding grounds for the next generation of the Communist International?? I certainly hope not. Hopefully, we're sending our kids to Capitalist/Theonomist schools like Christ College (the President of which was my Poli-Sci instructor, once upon a time). So how does this kind of "eye-of-newt" foolishness harm us, on the Christian Right? Answer: it doesn't. They were stealing our tax dollars for the subsidization of socialist indoctrination; now they'll be stealing our tax dollars for socialist indoctrination and wicca festivals, fer cryin' out loud. A few more parents will (hopefully) get fed up with this kookiness and pull their tuition-paying kids right out of these Ivory Tower bastions of Liberalism. Another reduction in the economic demand for tweedy marxist professors who would otherwise have to get a real job.

When the Leftist-dominated Ivy League traipses happily down the donnybrook trail of institutional self-destruction, why should right-wing Christian Fundamentalists care? And to the extent that we do care, why should we not hoist a beer (grape juice for our Southern Baptist brethren) and celebrate another small victory??

"Cess-pool of Leftist 'higher' educational Marxism embarasses itself to all concerned parents by endorsing rank silliness for purposes of 'religious diversity'. Christians... complain??"

Nah. No complaints here. Let the Left abort half their children and teach the other half to entertain whatever fool idea pierces their MTV-fogged brains. Meanwhile, the extreme Christian right (Orthodox Presbyterians and Calvinist Baptists) will continue to turn to homsechooling in ever-increasing numbers, where children are taught the important things: how to read the Bible, how to read the Constitution, and how to field-strip a semi-automatic rifle. Fast-forward two generations and let the chips fall where they may.

Never read Robert Anton Wilson (to my knowledge). Lovecraft consumed many an hour when I was 13-14, though. The last massive fiction serial I read was David Wingrove's 7-book Chung Kuo series. Critically reviewed as "a combination of all the best parts of Dune, Taipan/Noble House, and the Foundation trilogy... yet exceeding them all. Perhaps the definitive sci-fi masterwork of all time." Highly recommended.

If I may speak for the Madman, I believe his statement would be as follows...

ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL

THEY COULDN'T SEE WHAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE SO OBVIOUS
THEY HIDE BEHIND THE LAWS THEY MAKE FOR ALL OF US.
THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH AT DEALS WITH PRETENSE
THE MINISTRY OF PEACE THAT SITS ON DEFENSE
I'M WASHING MY HANDS OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYIN' TO DO
I'M BREAKING THE RULES AND ITS FOR ME AND FOR YOU.

I'M JUST A ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL
I'LL TELL YOU NO LIES
THEY THINK I WORKSHIP THE DEVIL
THEY ONLY SEE THROUGH HIS EYES
I'M JUST A ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL.

THEY LIVE THEIR LIVES IN FEAR AND INSECURITY
AND ALL YOU DO IS PAY FOR THEIR PROSPERITY
THE MINISTRY OF FEAR THAT WON'T LET YOU LIVE
THE MINISTRY OF GRACE THAT DOESN'T FORGIVE
DO WHAT YOU WILL TO TRY AND MAKE ME CONFORM
BUT I'LL MAKE YOU WISH THAT YOU HAD NEVER BEEN BORN

CAUSE I'M A ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL
I'LL DO AS I PLEASE
I'M A ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL
I'M A FREE AS THE BREEZE
I'M A JUST ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL

THEY'LL TRY PLAYIN WITH YOUR HEART
THEY KNOW IT RULES YOUR HEAD
THEY ONLY FEEL WHAT BIGOTRY FEELS
THEY WON'T FOOL ME AGAIN

GOD ONLY KNOWS WHY THEY COULDN'T SEE THAT OBVIOUS
IS IT BECAUSE THEY MANIFEST THE INCUBUS
THE MINISTRY OF WAR THAT GOT CAUGHT IN THE DRAFT
THE MINISTRY OF JOY THAT STILL HASN'T LAUGHED
WHEN ITS ALL BOILD DOWN AND THE DAYS AT THE END
I'LL GIVE YOU NO BULLSH!T AND I'LL NEVER PRETEND

CAUSE I'M A ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL
I'LL TELL YOU NO LIES
THEY SAY I WORKSHIP THE DEVIL
WHY DON'T THEY OPEN THEIR EYES...

I'M JUST A ROCK 'N'ROLL REBEL
A ROCK 'N' ROLL REBEL...

While I'm at it, how do you other pagans have any idea whether or not you've gotten the "old formula" right, given that all you've got is some sketchy ancient sources?

I think it's true that Wiccans do a lot of research:-) I call myself pagan because others at FR have defined "pagan" as anyone not being Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. That is correct, but not the way it's most often used.

Some of the ancient sources I base my beliefs on are older than the Bible by hundreds of years, it is true, but they aren't sketchy. (anything but)

I don't understand what you mean by "old formula", since I don't practice sorcery. The closest I've been to that is reading Carlos Castaneda:-)

Religious wars are no fun, but learning about another religion can be, at least for me.

(Even Rightwing Calvinist Fundamentalists read Lovecraft as a kid... hey, what angst-ridden, working-class, somewhat literate teenager from the wrong side of the tracks hasn't?)

I musta hadda happier childhood than I thought. Angst? What me worry! Heck, I even thought Holden was doin' too much er.. hold'n. Fast girls and faster thrills -- on land, water and air was what we did. We did the Dew before it was a commercial. All to the soundtracks of LZ, Tull, and the working class lusts of Arrowsmith and BTO. No sissy stuff. Show'd the girls my poems, though.

"There's nothing on this stupid scroll, all it says is Hastur Hastur Hastur over and over again!"

Seriously, the author up above quotes Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt" but doesn't quite get it right. Crowley believed that everyone had a particular role to occupy in life and that when they found and filled it, their desires would coincide with what was moral in a greater sense, and opportunities would open up.

Of course, his purpose seems to have been to live poorly as a founder of several small cults. But hey, if you want to read about someone trying to get recognition by engaging in all sorts of obscene practices (and failing miserably), do read his diaries. His dietary interests would make Ginsberg proud!

It always fascinates me that a country that was founded on christian principle, natural rights, produces the greatest bunch of ingrates.

In what way does not being a Christian make me an 'ingrate?' I can be grateful for the traditions and history of my country without necessarily having to follow the state or majority religion.

I am an English Patriot. England comes first above all, with the UK second and Europe a very distant third. Most English Wiccans are proud of their country's traditions and history.

Not that I thought you were actually interested, but it is always good to help things along by keeping them from getting off track.

I am, as I'm sure you know, a Christian. I'm hardly looking to become a pagan; you're right if you think I want to argue against paganism, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in your information. I'd rather know what your actual position is, instead of getting everything wrong and looking stupid.

Celtic paganism: A few more sources than I thought at first, but hardly enough to say that almost nothing was lost. The main sources are the ones I already mentioned, Roman writers. Inscriptions and archeological evidence can tell you that this particular god was worshipped at a particular site, but not about what doctrines were held. If I'm not mistaken, Julius Caesar wrote that the druids kept everything memorized, not written down. If that's true, almost everything was lost.

Norse paganism: Trying to reconstruct Norse paganism from the Eddas and Pliny can be compared to trying to reconstruct Greek paganism from just Homer. You could do it, but there's a lot of other stuff. How do you know you haven't lost something important?

Of course, if you expect that proving you do have all the necessary information won't persuade me, you're right. No one would dispute that Hindu(or perhaps I should say Aryan) paganism has everything now that it ever had, and I'm not Hindu. There's still a question you would have to answer. Why should I believe that the native religion of a particular people has a claim to truth that other types of paganism and the later religions don't have?

Why should I believe that the native religion of a particular people has a claim to truth that other types of paganism and the later religions don't have?

That was one of the points I was tryin' ta make. No one group of people can lay a claim to the Absolute Truth. It is the one thing that NONE of us will know until we are dead.

Over eons, all types of information about earlier times has been lost. Who can say for certain that all of the info we have on Christianity is 100% accurate? How many times has the Bible been re-writen, sometimes by those with questionable motives? What about the Gospel of St. Thomas found near the Dead Sea that the Vatican rejects as heresy? What other bits did they leave out?

As for the Celts and the Norse, just because I only listed a couple of really quick sources, do not think that this is all there is. That'd be like saying that the only thing we know about Christ came from the Council of Nicea. Oral traditions gave way to more permanent methods of recording. Leaf Books, ogham script, and pictitorial enscriptions all have played a part in preserving quite a bit of the beliefs of those cultures. Not to mention the writings of middle eastern visitors and teh Romans.

As for what my personal faith should mean to others, nothing. I live my life as I see fit. I don't have the moral authority to tell others how to live. If my "leadership by example" makes others curious about my beliefs, I'd be happy to share my viewpoints. Forcing someone, through government interdiction or otherwise, undermines any moral stance I could have claimed.

Forcing someone to believe something I want them to negates any responsibility they may have had in making that decision. The ultimate, "The Devil made me do it" type of dodge.

Why should I believe that the native religion of a particular people has a claim to truth that other types of paganism and the later religions don't have?

That was one of the points I was tryin' ta make. No one group of people can lay a claim to the Absolute Truth.

That's not the point I was trying to make. There is such a thing as truth, and we can know it. Not claim it as if it were a possession, because it's external to us, just know what it is. You obviously think the things you believe are true, otherwise you wouldn't believe them. I was asking why you think they're true, or at least more likely to be true.

Many times. Fortunately, the vast majority of texts agree with each other, even when there's been no interaction with the holders of other texts of the same type. For some of the books, there are fragments as early as the first century.

What about the Gospel of St. Thomas found near the Dead Sea that the Vatican rejects as heresy? What other bits did they leave out?

You're implying that the book of Thomas was part of the Bible to begin with, and was taken out. It wasn't.

Forcing someone, through government interdiction or otherwise, undermines any moral stance I could have claimed.

Why would you think I have any interest in doing that?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.