Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The rise of neo-paganism (No, this one is NOT SATIRE)
National Review Online ^ | 27th September 1999 | Roger Scruton

Posted on 05/04/2002 7:45:25 PM PDT by Tomalak

America was founded by Christian Puritans, who had a deep aversion to idolatry, popery, and magic. The hardships and dangers of their predicament made them cling to their religion as the one thing that justified the perilous pilgrimage to the New World. And from time to time they would tremble before the thought that paganism lay not only around them, but within, where it was all the more dangerous because hidden from view. So began the trials of suspected witches and the vigilant denunciations of neighbors that tore the New England communities apart.

Constant immigration has diversified the religious inheritance of the United States. Nevertheless the country remained until recently predominantly Christian, with a continuing aversion to pagan cults and superstitions, and a trust in the Bible as the common inheritance of the Judeo-Christian faiths. Indeed the United States has been held together more effectively by its Bible culture than by its Constitution: for the Bible has shaped the language, the morality, and the aspirations of ordinary Americans and provided them with a common frame of reference. American patriotism is scarcely thinkable without the Judeo-Christian God as its Almighty Guardian, and it is hardly surprising to find that the outlying communities in America-many of them suspicious of the Constitution as a weapon used against them by urban liberals-cling to the Bible as their most trusted guide. Debates over school prayer, over creationism and the curriculum, over abortion and sex education, are not, in America, the halfhearted affairs they are in Europe. On the contrary, they are at the center of politics since they affect the deep-down loyalty of many Americans to the settlement under which they live.

Strange things are now happening to this religious inheritance. The Christian churches have clung to their congregations, but often at the cost of dividing and subdividing into ever more marginal sects, each striving to accommodate the eccentricities of some obstinate community of believers. Almost none of the old denominations retains any centralized authority that can control the doctrine, liturgy, or membership of its peripheral congregations, while new cults and new services spring up everywhere, as dormant religious passions ignite like forest fires. In Europe we observe the slow, steady decline in faith, and the gradual disappearance of human hopes behind a cloud of skepticism. In America, however, every loss of faith is met by a gain, as new religious practices rise in the places vacated by the old. That this should be happening now, in the age of scientific inquiry, is testimony to the strength of American society, which finds new sources of hope beneath the never-ending stream of disappointment. Nevertheless, these sources of hope make less and less reference to the Bible and the Judeo-Christian tradition and are more and more pagan in tone. That which the Pilgrim fathers found most horrendous- witchcraft-is the latest, and one of the most successful, among the pagan cults now colonizing America.

Of course the witches-devotees of "Wicca," as they like to say-strenuously argue that their faith has been traduced in the past, that it is older and deeper and more spiritual than Christianity, and that it was branded as evil only because it was seen as a threat to the "patriarchal" culture. And by way of proving the point they have cobbled together a very up-to- date and user-friendly version of goddess-worship, which answers so well to the spiritual hunger of modern Americans as to cast serious doubt on its antiquity. Their basic principle-"Harm none and do what you will"-is the gospel of liberalism dressed up as law, rather than the lack of it; their "covens" are in many cases vamped-up feminist circles, devoted to boosting the confidence of women downtrodden by men, or at any rate by their own image of men; their symbols-the pentagram, the altar, the nine- inch daggers or "athames," the long robes, and the leaping over flames-may have ancient precedents, but they come to the Wiccans from 19th-century charlatans like Eliphas Levi and Aleister Crowley, men who cannily judged the spiritual hunger of the new middle classes and thereby notched up women by the score. Indeed, as Philip G. Davis has shown (Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neo-pagan Feminist Spirituality), the Wiccan theology is derived not from the old forms of goddess-worship, but from the writings of 19th-century commentators like Johann Jacob Bachofen, who invented the notion of a lost matriarchal past in a work that is now entirely discredited.

Feeding a hunger

Still, religion will survive any amount of skeptical scholarship, and the Wiccans are no exception. They offer the commodity for which modern Americans are hungry-the conversion experience, the transition from dark to light, lost to found, outsider to insider. In comparison with this redemptive gift, other things are of no account. The covens have been spreading through the suburbs; even the military now recognizes the Wiccans as a "minority religion," with the right to hold rituals and classes for serving personnel. Weak though their doctrines may be from any intellectual or historical perspective, they are a triumph of applied anthropology. Feminism, environmentalism, and liberalism all come together in a religion that recognizes the goddess as the object of worship, the priestess as her representative, and the earth and its seasons as the source of sacred rites.

It is tempting to regard the Wiccans in the same light as the other cults that have recently sprung up in America-the Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate, the Moonies, the church of the notorious Rev. Jim Jones. There are, however, two important features that distinguish them. There is no leader or founder of the Wiccan cult; and there is no sacred text. Witchcraft is a religion without any structure of command and without any written law. True, there is an attempt to compensate in the use of antique and fustian language-"yclad," "mote," "hallowmas." But the religion recognizes no objective authority to which the worshipper must submit. On the contrary, it is a religion of "empowerment," to use the feminist word. Spells and brews, chants and talismans are all weapons in the hands of the individual Wiccan, who gains power over self and others through the manipulation of things. True, the Wiccan draws on mysterious cosmic forces; but the purpose of the spell and ritual is to join these forces to yourself-to amplify your own power and so achieve a kind of here-and-now redemption.

THE WICCAN'S POWERS

In this, at least, the Wiccans are close to the witches as they were once imagined. The witch was anathema to the Christian believer because she had arrogated to herself the powers that belong to the Almighty. Her spells were the antithesis of the sacred text-indeed, it was often thought that they consisted in reciting Biblical or liturgical texts backwards. For they were expressions of the individual will, rather than admonitions and counsels of a higher power. All the discipline of religion-which consists in obedience to the divine command and a day-to-day study of its meaning- was negated in the Puritan image of the witch, which is why witches were so greatly feared. They were the archetype of the liberated human being- the human being who had stepped free from the chains of morality and seized the world and its glories for herself.

For this very reason, however, witchcraft has a singular appeal to modern Americans, increasing numbers of whom are brought up without any knowledge of a sacred text and without the language and the concepts of the Judeo- Christian tradition. The idea that religion might be a matter of obedience and example strikes them as weird; the idea that it is a matter of the self and its empowerment connects immediately with the surrounding secular culture.

But why isn't feminism enough? Why the need for a Wiccan religion? What is added by religion that is absent from the politics of the group?

The answer is enchantment. Science has disenchanted the universe and deprived us of our place at its center. Human beings cannot live with this demoralized world. They need to see their environment as their tribal forebears saw it: as an enchanted place, which mysteriously returns our glance. The spell answers directly to this need, since it enables the witch to reanimate her universe. It gives supernatural power to a human being, and so rescues her from nature.

Rituals, spells, and incantations are deliberate defiances of reason. They place nonsense in the center of people's lives and ask them to unite in believing it. People on their own are nothing-victims of the natural world, and at the mercy of their own skepticism. People in a group, however, have a power that is more than the sum of their individual efforts. And the spell symbolizes this power. Alone you could not possibly believe in it, since alone you have only reason as your guide. Together, however, you can believe anything. In short, the Wiccans have rediscovered the phenomenon observed by the anthropologist Arnold van Gennep-the rite of passage, which purges the individual of his isolation and grants him membership in the tribe. The rite of passage works by summoning occult powers, by standing outside nature and against it, and by reassuring the individual that, absorbed into the community, he cannot be harmed.

And that is what is missing from modern life, and especially from life in the American city. The most important rite of passage in recent Western societies was marriage-the consecration before the community of a lifelong commitment. The collapse of marriage is not the result of feminism, but the cause of it. Without lasting marriages, women have no real guarantee of security, and no reason for trusting men. If men cannot be trusted, then women have to set up on their own. Feminism turns on the masculine realm and deconstructs it, representing it as a realm of lies, manipulation, and the brutal misuse of power. It thereby reassures women that they don't need men in any case. But it relies on rational arguments, sociological theories, and objective policies-so leaving the heart unconsoled. What is needed is a new form of membership, a new rite of passage, and a new lifelong commitment-hence a new form of nonsense. In other words, what is needed is witchcraft. This is surely why the Wiccans are expanding, even though they have neither a leader, nor a doctrine, nor a text.

On the other hand, a cult that spreads so quickly, and that has so little substance when it comes to answering the great metaphysical questions, is ripe for takeover by the real witches. Strong personalities like Aleister Crowley preyed on the vulnerable loners who had lost their religion but not their religious need, and who wanted to throw themselves beneath the juggernaut of some crushing ego. Modern America has seen the emergence of these leaders-Koresh and Jones being symptomatic. And it has discovered that their promise of a new life is also a death threat. For the moment, the Wiccans speak only of peace and love and finding oneself. But without a doctrine or a text to protect them, they may soon find themselves opening the door to the Devil. Those old Puritans were wrong about many things; but they were not entirely wrong about witchcraft.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-217 next last
To: Tomalak
>>Well, I agree with you. And here is the crunch. Does it 
>>make a positive impact on society to have witchcraft 
>>revered as some sort of realistic, respectable doctrine? 

I have no problem with "witchcraft" being recognized as a legitimate religious faith ... assuming the exercise of that religion does not harm an individual or society. If you can show me where it does harm, I'm all ears.

>>To have Wiccans honestly (in their mind) describe 
>>their cult as some sort of morally based ideal? I think 
>>it is in society's interest that such people be 
>>countered. Surely you agree that Christianity must be 
>>supreme above pagan, immoral superstition?

Well, since I consider all faith-based religions/institutions to be man-made, I don't agree that Christianity is supreme above anything.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

---Thomas Paine


21 posted on 05/04/2002 8:27:12 PM PDT by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Do you actually know anything about Wicca? Of course not. The highest precept of their faith is "do no harm". Not a bad start for a moral foundation I think.

"Do no harm" is the start and finish of Wiccan morality. As Roger Scruton said, this is not an ethical doctrine at all, but modern liberal ideas in their most basic form. It means that there is no right and wrong, beyond the harm you do to others, and that you have no responsibilities to God or anyone else to do what is right. Abortion and buggery are, therefore, a normal part of a pleasure-driven way of life. That is an empty and stupid doctrine if ever I heard one.

22 posted on 05/04/2002 8:30:02 PM PDT by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I'm with you. I'm an agnostic and quite amused by the bashing of all things non-Christian. Thomas Jefferson would have some serious contentions with so-called "conservatives" on FR ... who seem incapable of recognizing that people can practice a non-Christian (or no) religion without being the enemy of America.
23 posted on 05/04/2002 8:33:26 PM PDT by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
Sory bub Wicca goes a lot deeper into morality than that. And "do no harm" would be pretty kick ass all by itself. As for right and wrong well guess what, they ARE defined by your effect on those around you. Abortion does harm no good. Buggery doesn't and more importantly isn't anyones business outside the people involved. You want to talk about empty and stupid? How about filling the internet with self righteous BS that drives people away from your perfect little religion. Like I said before, instead of spending all your time decrying beliefs you're too narrow minded to understand maybe you should be figuring out why Christianity is losing believers.
24 posted on 05/04/2002 8:35:11 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: discostu
To say the nation was founded by Puritans is also ignoring places like the Colony of Virginia (which was Catholic) and a few other.

Not exactly right. VA was never Catholic, unless you mean Anglo-Catholic (Anglican). MD was indeed founded by Catholics, but was taken over later by radical Protestants who persecuted the original Catholic settlers.

I don't believe Roman Catholicism was ever the established Church of any of the colonies, except perhaps for a short period in MD.

Instead of decrying all this supposed evil these people need to be asking themselves why people are fleeing Christianity in droves.

Actually, they're not. It's just that most of them are leaving "mainline" churches and going to evangelical and conservative groups. This trend has been underway for decades. Such churches are not "respectable" in the eyes of most of the litterati. Those who join them promptly become invisible (as being beneath contempt) to the chattering classes.

25 posted on 05/04/2002 8:36:17 PM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
>>Not exactly right. VA was never Catholic, unless you 
>>mean Anglo-Catholic (Anglican). MD was indeed founded by 
>>Catholics, but was taken over later by radical 
>>Protestants who persecuted the original Catholic settlers.
Who cares? The whole point is that it shouldn't matter what religon people do or do not practice to be considered a good citizen. Whether Virginia was founded by Catholics or not is moot. More important is Jefferson's religous liberty legislation that kept the state out of religion entirely. Those of you who complain about Wiccanism have the burden of showing how it negatively impacts society ... not why you disagree with it (theologically).
26 posted on 05/04/2002 8:43:10 PM PDT by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Like I said before, instead of spending all your time decrying beliefs you're too narrow minded to understand

Sorry, but if you think Wiccans are pro-life it is you who doesn't understand them. And how any objective person of civilised faith can consider Wiccan "morality" something worth taking seriously is unimaginable.

27 posted on 05/04/2002 8:44:44 PM PDT by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBuster
I love how obsessed they are with telling people what's in their mind, it's one of the greatest proofs against parapsychology ever. If they want to know why people are leaving Christianity for Wicca instead of claiming Wicca is putting the masses under some evil spell they should look at the face Christianity presents.

The face of Christianity to those on the outside (or at the door deciding which way to go) is people like Cardinal Law, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, Pat Robertson (who is a good guy most of the time, but he only gets secular press when he sticks his foot in it, and when he sticks his foot in it he REALLY sticks that foot in the proverbial IT) and people like Chesterson casting aspersions on people they know nothing about.

They need to ask themselves, now that Chesterson has told me that I'm so stupid I'll believe in any old dorky thing put in front of me why should I believe in Christianity? If I had children why should I risk them being molested at the hands of people that will be protected by Cardinal Law? Why should I give money to people like the Bakers? Why would I align myself with someone that claimed God killed 3000+ Americans because we no longer burn sodomites? Why should I hookup with people like our poster who's obviously never read a single Wiccan text and calls it's philosphy empty and stupid? Maybe instead of joining these people I should check out this thing they fear so much, maybe I should investigate Wicca on my own, maybe they have other reasons to fear Wicca.

28 posted on 05/04/2002 8:45:54 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Your comment IS the satire, right? ...Or are you serious?

God almighty what has this forum come to...

29 posted on 05/04/2002 8:47:46 PM PDT by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
Those of you who complain about Wiccanism have the burden of showing how it negatively impacts society.

Sorry. Wicca is a cult that encourages liberalism, moral relativism, witchcraft, abortion, homosexuality, lesbianism, feminism and the idea that your daughter can screw around as much as she likes without it mattering a jot. I think some of us assumed that this was so obviously a negative impact on society that it went without saying.

30 posted on 05/04/2002 8:50:04 PM PDT by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: discostu
>>I love how obsessed they are with telling people 
>>what's in their mind, it's one of the greatest proofs 
>>against parapsychology ever.

I really don't care. Each of you should be able to practice your respective religions (or no religion) ... assuming the practice thereof does not incur damage on the person or property of others. Many people seem incapable of seperating their private theology from the public sphere.

31 posted on 05/04/2002 8:50:55 PM PDT by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
>>Sorry. Wicca is a cult that encourages liberalism, moral 
>>relativism, witchcraft, abortion, homosexuality, 
>>lesbianism, feminism and the idea that your daughter can 
>>screw around as much as she likes without it mattering a 
>>jot.

Where would you like to start proving all of this? Hint: Your mere assertions do not constitute fact/proof.

32 posted on 05/04/2002 8:52:31 PM PDT by LiberalBuster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: discostu
Virginia wasn't Catholic- you're likely thinking of Maryland. Virginia, I believe, was pretty Episcopal. The Southern colonies were largely Presbyterian, and later Baptist and Methodist, with various others thrown in, especially along the seaboard. And, I might note, the South never did like the now hated Puritans- and only part of it was slavery. New Englander's tended to have a dim view of Southern culture as a whole.
34 posted on 05/04/2002 8:54:00 PM PDT by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Thanks. It's been a while since I read that stuff (old age creeps up fast). That's why I like FR, somebody always knows better than you.

As for the meltdown of the public face of Christianity you're quite right. It's only in those older more "established" churches. On the day of the national prayer vigil for the 9-11 victims I had to drive home from work and back during the prayer vigil, on my way I drove by 3 churches: one a large church of some flavor of Protestant, two little knock offs of completely unknown variety (one is named the Church of the Cosmic Christ, I'm not making this up; the other is actually where I voted in the GOP primary on 9-11 and I first heard what was going on). The big Protestant church was almost empty maybe 5 cars in the lot; the other two were packed.

35 posted on 05/04/2002 8:55:31 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: LiberalBuster
Where would you like to start proving all of this? Hint: Your mere assertions do not constitute fact/proof.

They make no secret of any of this. It is part of Wiccan belief. Just ask anyone who knows about it.

37 posted on 05/04/2002 8:57:21 PM PDT by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
Amazing, even then New England thought they were better than everybody else. Thanks for the corrected info.
38 posted on 05/04/2002 8:58:06 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: toddhisattva
Nice to see you are your typical obnoxious self.

Stupid? You personify the definition with your bigoted, perverse, and simple little mind. You couldn't debate yourself out of a wet paper bag, but you sure know how to sling your petty insults toward Catholicsm and christianity in general. You make me sick.

39 posted on 05/04/2002 8:58:43 PM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Actually, that's incorrect. The Putritans were an offshoot of the Anglican church, and they felt the Anglican Church was becoming too liberal, and they started to have their own worship services. They wanted to remove the influence of centuries of Catholicism, ordinances, liturgy, an established priesthood and such, from regular worship. That means they wanted to PURIFY the church, that is why they are called Puritans. The state church of England licensed ministers, and these Puritans held meetings in their own, non state churches or houses, and some were imprisoned. The Pilgrims left because they wanted to practice Christianity according to their conscience, and to escape the persecution of the Anglican Church. Persecution was certainly a part of the reason they left.
40 posted on 05/04/2002 9:03:23 PM PDT by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-217 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson