All Faiths Can Learn From Wiccans' Respect for Mother Earth

iconometrically bankweed corypha roadable cleavage ophiology archegoniata figuresome
http://www.steelers.com/ >Pittsburgh Steelers
http://www.home.no/jackiechan/

Just visit my site please, its my first one: http://robstersblog.blogspirit.com/ http://robstersblog.blogspirit.com/ >robster

oxyz dpjq leuo whyclxj rjmqsho xuovrspq nvtzhclyq

Dear Mr. Stevens-Arroyo:
As a devout Wiccan, and a Fordham grad!, I wanted to thank you for your article. Well written and thoughtful.

When it comes to Nature I like to tell my "Book Based" religion friends. Can I run my car in your Church? It helps put things in perspective.

Blessed Be,
becca

Hey, Anonymous, if you think there's not enough material for a PhD in all the Latino world, think of how much learning you could have vocally-ignored if you were the first one to take the screen name 'Scientist.'

:)

PhD in 'Latino Studies' and that gets you a professorship? Give me a break.

Tony says:

"When it is the earth that created you, care of the environment becomes a central religious tenet. But believers who use the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures as the basis for their concern about the environment have a bigger mountain to climb than witches."

OK, you need to go get a job, work hard for a living, get in touch with the taste of salt, the smell of human sweat, the sound of children occupying themselves, without food, the music of hope.

Your pal,

Bobby

There is NOT evidence to state that global warming is caused by humans or industrialized nations. Period.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your anti-environmentalist current in Christianity tends to be saying, 'If we mess up and exploit the world, we're obeying God, and will thus be rewarded with an un-screwed up world after we die."

Where's the logic to that?

Especially if it means gleefully proclaiming, 'Once we bring about the end of the world, everyone else will suffer!

Where's the *kindness* there? What Heaven could possibly be of solace to such a sadistic creature?

And they think *we're* kind of flaky. :)

If I can add a further comment, too, we're often considered 'morally-inferior' by Book-religious, precisely because we're seen to 'lack' these 'strict' laws (Though I'd question just how strict they can be, when they're so often honoured in the breach rather than the observance...)

It's said, 'Your religion is made up,' in like wise.

But, it's not. Maybe the forms come from a particular few people reclaiming some old senses of tradition in a relatively modern context... Our morals grew from current societies, both as positive and negative and simply-living examples.

Truth and goodness are neither copyrighted material, nor measured in terms of obedience to written words. I was raised Catholic, and heard plenty of people finding 'God' in nature, ...but too often I heard that said in terms of, 'I'm so impressed, that this must mean the world was made by a guy with very particular and vehement sexual hangups.'

I had my own quite remarkable visions, and have my own faith. It's really not Neopagan custom to go trumpeting such things, at least not enough we're comfortable with the idea.

But you don't have to kneel to someone to learn from them. Christianity did introduce some very valuable and time-tested ideas to European culture. They weren't as foreign as people like to say in the *first* place, but they're there nonetheless.

Paganism's still European culture, ...And, I like to think, a culture that did greet Christians with a certain amount of welcome, even if they returned the favor by trying to abolish all else. They (we) turned around and did the same thing to Native Americans and anybody else with lower tech and smaller armies that they encountered.

This is a pattern. And one that we'd all do well in renouncing. I think for a lot of Christians, this involves giving up a certain 'moral certitude' that in practice is rarely a certitude at all.

Attacking environmentalism as 'Pagan and in defiance of divine authority,' isn't just convenient for those who like a certain lifestyle, but also an expression of fear... that *without* these authorities, life would descend to the kind of chaos they're taught to fear existed. Someone cast 'environmentalism' as 'anti-God.'

It doesn't have to keep going down like that.

RobertB: Don't worry I don't mind, though, bear in ming, that's a pretty big question, one you'd probably get many different answers to:

One thing to bear in mind is that 'after death' isn't the big deal it is to some religions that consider this the key question: to believe in 'sin and judgement' it becomes important to fear that judgement, perhaps. (hence the need to be 'saved' from this sin, and that whole deal)

The Threefold law idea tends to be a bit more immediate: the idea is that if you do something harmful, you've not only created harm, but you're now living in a world with that much more pain in it... this also affects *you,* ...you've become the kind of person that does harm. Surely that can carry over into future lives.

More directly, say you callously pollute the environment, ...this makes you callous, this cuts you off somewhat from the life of the Mother, this makes your world dirtier, and, eventually, you're likely going to be reborn into a dirtier world. Cause and effect, though perhaps in a spiritually-infused world. Everything's alive, after all.

The idea isn't that the Gods 'judge and punish' 'sins' (some will say, 'The Gods are part of the world, and They might administer a smackdown of sorts if that's how they'd react,') but that's in context of a living world, not one where 'sin' is a 'thing' being judged from outside.

It's a common belief that between lives one might spend time in the Summerlands, ...part of the spirit world where the soul lives between lives, this at least representing being literally *part* of the spirit world and the ancestors: it can be seen as a purification, not through pain and judgement for having followed the wrong words or had sex out of 'turn,' but a reconnection of sorts.

But it's not really about 'reward or punishment' ...just a state. How you might relate to or experience that state might have much to do with the kind of person you are, so you'd certainly figure the Threefold Law would apply there, too.

This gets into a view of life (and lives) as cyclical and regenerative. It's not an idea that 'Life starts here and ends here and then this other one of two judgements happens.'

A life is like a chapter in a bigger story, one we may not remember, but one which doesn't exist in a spiritual vacuum. It's part of something bigger.

'Harmful actions' aren't, for instance, like 'sins' in terms of an idea, 'We call this action harmful, so you broke a rule, and will be punished.' It is what it is. Walking up behind someone and hitting them with a stick might be the classic 'harmful action,' though under many circumstances, it might be 'heroic,' ...this is something which anyone would find sensible, ...though the idea of 'sin' often entails *defining* things like those Christian sexual tabooes as 'inherently harmful' or 'spiritually criminal,' even if no harm is done. It's actually more about 'authority' than *effect.*

Law-based religions may say, 'Absolutely do not kill,' but it's OK if it's done in terms of a 'higher obedience.' (ie, if you kill in the name of who said 'don't kill' in the first place, that makes it 'OK.')

Pagan 'morality' is much more immediate. 'Are you willing to be someone who has killed.' To save yourself? Maybe not. To save others? Maybe. It's still you doing it. Most of us find civil laws on these matters to suffice: not because of some idea the authority behind them is necessarily divine, but because we recognize the value of these social contracts *as* social contracts.

'Do what thou wilt' doesn't result in a religion of traffic scofflaws. It's easy to see why.

Short answer is, this idea of 'threefold return' doesn't *have* to be about 'So, do you get punished in this life or the next?' Cause it's not just about punishment. Kindness and harmony return in just the same way. Time has little to do with it.

To Paganplace --

So, there is the idea that harmful actions are simply unacceptable (or at least that they should be avoided).

May tax your patience a little further with a follow-up question? If a man does harmful acts, are the "karmic" consequences something worldly or do they occur after death? If I recall correctly, both the Pythagoreans and the Hindus believe that the evil one does has an effect on him in his next reincarnation. Is that how Wiccans see it or is it something different?

Robert B:

No concept of 'sin' that you'd likely recognize, anyway: the morality is not legalistic or punitive. (saves a lot of debating, that way.) It's much closer to certain ideas of *karma,* particularly in the Wiccan mode: it's about cause and effect: the 'moral law' you hear the most about is seen as a shade of the Golden Rule, but it actually goes somewhat deeper:

"If it harms none, do what you will..." It establishes the value of both doing no harm (or as little as possible,) as well as the importance of freedom and responsibility.

There's no 'sinful behavior,' as such: Harmful actions are harmful actions. There's a belief that what you do comes back to you threefold, (I like to say 'It goes around, comes around, and stays around,' but you could express that in lots of other ways.

So, not a concept of 'sin' you'd recognize. One could run down some similarities in certain ideas, but the context is just different.

To
Ba'al:

None of the people brought before the Inquisition were suicide bombers. Where did you get that twisted idea?

Also, as proven, no Jews were brought before the Inquisition, only Catholics. So you are really off base here.

If the US soldiers weren't willing to die for a flag (atheist position as it is) there wouldn't be any invaders in Iraq and no killing of US soliders there. Having faith, is not the same as going through the motions of disguising greed and violence as if they were religion. If people practiced what they preached about universal love we wouldn't have war. 2 + 2 = 4. Not very complicated.

To PaganPlace --

In the interest of fostering the interfaith dialogue that you call for, may I ask you a serious question:

Does Wicca have a concept of "sin"? If so, how does your faith define sinful behavior? If not, why not?

Well, it's certainly good to see Christians appreciating that the world's to be cared for, even if it's in a backhanded sort of way, 'See, we're good in this way, too,' while, possibly, trivializing the Pagan beliefs they're backhandedly praising.

When it's said the Church 'completely peacefully converted Europe,' that's not entirely true. This , for one, ignores the effect of the Roman army, which not only brought Christianity, but also specifically targeted the ancient priesthood and sacred places for destruction and co-opting, a practice which a Christianized empire and later the Church took up, all while portraying the old ways as backward and barbaric (the idea of 'human sacrifice' is largely taken from the conquerors' propaganda, and there's little evidence that this was at all a common practice: if it were as important as Christians fantasize, well, where are the bodies contemporary with that culture? Where are the references to it in law and story? )

Funny coming from people making a great deal about 'martyrs' (also 'saints' wiping out scores or hundreds of infidels with the power of their new God,) and executing people in horrible ways... That history isn't quite so tidy and rosy, nor our tribal ancestors so benighted and barbaric as people like to think.

Commonly, it was a matter of co-opting the tribal leadership, and slowly working to recontextualize, co-opt, and eradicate the old beliefs.

In the process, Catholicism was changed and influenced by those cultures, for the better, I hope, but it's not so simple.

Certainly, it's not so simple as 'Our ancestors were stupid and benighted, until five minutes before they peacefully adopted the superior religion, at which point their wisdom was great.'

That said, well, I think there's parallels here where Christians who have long been a drag on environmental awareness and respect for other cultures are now turning around and appropriating us as 'noble savages' (if now modern ones) who can illustrate something about 'the true religion'

Yeah. Whatever, I want to say, on that.

Cause then someone'll come along as 'bad cop' and say, 'Oh, but these Earth-based religions are worshiping Creation and not the Creator,' ...thus trivializing our spirituality and, yes, our Gods. It's true there isn't an emphasis on a Creator external to the world, and a written text of such creation as a precedent for humanity's place in some cosmic hierarchy, but that doesn't mean we're 'cowering in fear of what we don't understand' Or worshiping *statues,* for that matter, if we happen to use those.

We're more often talked *about* than *to,* and when we're talked *about* it's not often for ourselves, but rather how we're cast as *characters* in *Christianity's* myths and stories it tells about itself.

The way we don't have a drive to go proselytizing tends to exacerbate this: you hear about the environmentalism because that's a public policy thing we find dear, but even that's not in terms of 'The Goddess says so.'

You hear about things that *you* find titillating, too, those Pagans who call themselves 'Witches,' about dissatisfied kids, etc. The magic in Wicca , for instance, is primarily about a deep-seated ethics... taking responsibility for not just what we do, but what we intend, and our awareness of the *effects.*

Often we're accused, in peoples' imaginations, of being completely out of control and lacking virtue, but I find we tend to be among the most responsible and least greedy out there. We don't *teach* ourselves that we're essentially selfish people barely hemmed in by written laws and fears of punishment. One reason for this is because this doesn't *come* from a credo of laws one can just swear to: it's a learning process, where wisdom is more important than authority.

I think more interfaith dialogue can be fruitful, but, it's hardly begun. We're not an object lesson. We're people.

Elohist has a novel take. By threatening Jews with death, it was possible to see which ones of them were sincere in their beliefs! Therefore it was a Good Thing, since in addition, the monarchs were simply removing a Fifth Element fomenting trouble (although there was no evidence); plus only the insincere ones were killed and everybody benefited by a decrease in the overall hypocrisy of the universe. Elohist's remarks lamenting the fact that martyrs are held to be fools sounds like an apology for suicide bombers to me, as Robert notes. I think Elohist is insane.

To Greg --

Well, by opposing Protestantism, the Inquisition was returning to its roots (so to speak) as the defender of orthodoxy against heresy. Of course, by that point, religion had become so intertwined with politics that it's difficult to see where one ends and another begins. The persecution of Protestants in England by Mary I, for example, was as much a display of political authority as it was of religious fervor.

It's also intersting to note that in the latter part of the Inquisition (Mel Brooks anyone?) Protestants were also victims. And how the heck did we wander from the Environment to the Inquisition? lol

To Eloist --

You're right about the disdain for martyrdom in the modern era. Still, I'm not sure which I would choose if I had to. I hope I would be strong enough to stand for my faith, but I tend to doubt it... :)

I'm not sure that a more serious attitude towards religion would lead to less violence over all. After all, the suicide bombers of the Middle East take their religion incredibly seriously (which is not surprising when you consider that it is really all they have). In the end, violence is a part of the human condition, one that we can perhaps control, but probably never eliminate.

To Ba'al --

I remember reading an article back in a high school Spanish class about how the Spanish authorities tried to catch the "secret Jews" that you spoke of by watching their dietary practices. For example, if a family consistently used olive oil instead of pork fat in their cooking, chances are they were suspected of hanging on to the Jewish faith.

Yet another reason why Church and state should be separated as much as humanly possible... :)

Wow! Ba'al said his understanding was not profound. This is the opportunity to agree with him.

To Robert B;
You're right. Also, the Spanish Inquisition never brought anyone to trial who was not baptized as a Catholic.

In those times of war and rebellion, rejection of a religion had implications of rejection of the monarch, so both Protestants and Catholics were persecuted politically.

Jews in Spain were also targets because some had converted for convenience sake and were suspect to Jews for being opportunists and to Catholics for being phonies. These were the real non-believers of their time: they said what people wanted to hear, without taking faith seriously. True believers, on the other hand, were willing to die for their faith.

It says something about our age that the former hold sway and martyrs are held up as fools. Yet, those who don't believe in religion make up their own "religions" (like Hitler) or simply slaughter people they don't like (Stalin and Pol Pot). There would be less violence in the world if religion were taken more seriously.

Israel:

"Please. Wiccans are nothing more than leftist pagans. They worship the creation over the Creator."

I believe most Christian sects separate their Creator from his creation (God over Nature), which is where you get the commandment to "subdue Nature". To Wiccans, all of creation is part of the Creator, and therefore sacred. Even you, Israel.

Thank you Robert. My understanding, admittedly not profound, is that there was also a period in Spain, I believe in the time of Isabella and Ferdinand (the so-called Catholic monarchs) when Jews were given the choice between conversion or death, although I also remember reading that mostly what happened was expulsion, hence the arrival of many Sephardic Jews into Germany and the Low Countries -- and others who remained secret Jews for hundreds of years. Further that decendents of so called "reconversos", generations later, were suspected by the Inquisition of being secret Jews and therefore faced difficulties.

To Ba'al --

I know you didn't ask me, but I'll throw my two cents in. :)

The Inquisition was originally established to combat heresy, not witchcraft (which, if I recall correctly, is more of a Renaissance/early modern craze). It was a development in reaction primarily against the Cathar heresy that was rampant in southern France in the late twelfth century. It was staffed primarily by the new Order of the Friars Preacher (aka the Dominicans) who focused on using rational argument to combat heresy by engaging heretics in debate and showing the logical contradictions of their doctrines.

Generally speaking, if a heretic recanted his heresy, he was allowed back into the Church. Imprisonment and execution were for those who stubbornly resisted.

It is interesting to note that the Church technically never put anyone to death. They condemned, then handed them over to the secular arm for punishment (another good reason for the separation of Church and state). This is, of course, pure semantics, but it's a valid point nonetheless.

As with many institutions, the Inquisition became more hard-line with time (especially in Spain, where several centuries of Reconquista had bred religious fanaticism). I believe that it still exists, albeit in a much smaller and more benign form.

If anyone has anything to add, please feel free... :)

OK Mary

Explain the Inquisition to me, since you brought it up. Did it not happen? Is it grossly exaggerated? What is your understanding of what happened?

By the way, I am willing to conceded the possibility that other Christians burned more "witches" than Catholics.

To:Norrie Hoyt

Re: European witch hunts

Your grasp of European history could be better and it bothers me that you prefer to blame the Catholic Church first & look up the historical facts second.

1) We were talking about the original European (re)conversion to Christianity dating about AD 450 (conversion of Ireland) through the conversions of the French tribes and culminating AD 597 (conversion of England).

2) Witch trials commence in Europe almost a millennium-- *1,000*--years later, eight centuries at least, and at the very end of the Middle Ages. There were no forced ‘conversions’ of women. Rather women were burned for being, well, ‘evil’ (the accusers, men AND women, got to define ‘evil’) women. There could be no 'conversions' because the accused were already Christian.

3) Your knee jerk reaction is always to blame the Roman Church. (Why do atheists do that?) In this case the reaction is erroneous. Rather than witch trials occurring in countries where the Catholic church was *strong*--like Portugal, Italy & Spain-- witch-hunting was most virulent where the Church was *weak*-- in Germany, France & Switzerland. These were also the countries BTW where the clash between the emergent Protestantism and the institutional Catholicism was strongest.

There is an organization called gendercide.org, based in Canada, that documents cases of persecution of women. It has listed up to date research on witch hunting awa a good case study:

The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750 and Witch-Hunts Today

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

It’s interesting IMO, and I would hope you would read it before making any more (false) charges, I know it’s always easier to indulge biases against an established religion, especially against the Catholic Church, but in this instance the truth about witch-hunting is much more complex. Well, at least you didn't bring up the Spanish Inquisition.

Best,
Mary Cunningham

Thanks Mr Stevens-Arroyo,
Nice response!

I hope you meet some nice atheists one day so you can show us the same kind of respect.

Israel,

Could you expand on the point you're making? I don't quite catch it, I'm afraid. Thanks.

Elohist

I never said anything about the English Protestant stance regarding vernacular translations one way or the other, so please don't put words into my mouth. To be honest, however, what you just posted is something I did not know. It is interesting. It is utterly irrelevant to every point I was making, but it is interesting nevertheless.

I agree with Robert B.

Please. Wiccans are nothing more than leftist pagans. They worship the creation over the Creator.

The mass conversions of pagans to Christianity may or may not have been peaceful.

The later, individual conversions of Wiccans to ashes at the stake, by the Roman Church, were not.

To Ba'al:

As usual, you take a Google or Wiki article and make it into your Gospel truth. The Catholic stance on vernacular translation of the Bible was more progressive that the English Protestant one. That's why the Rheims-Douay version (published in France because Protestants denied Catholics religious freedom) was issed BEFORE the King James version. you should get your facts straight before wasting intelligent peoples' time.

To Ba'al --

You are correct about the Church's early opposition to vernacular translations of Scripture. Still, when I see crazy evangelicals saying that the Bible says it's OK to "rape the earth", I kind of feel nostalgic for the times when only disciplined intellectuals had access to Scripture... :)

MC doesn't like the citations I used. Fair enough, but it's not like I was saying anything in the least bit controversial. Christian conversion of pagan Europe was not "entirely" peaceful, although it was not a blood bath, and most people were probably not coerced (as opposed to conversions to Islam somewhat later).

I agree entirely with most of what she says about the syncretistic aspects of Christianity with respect to paganism, including the evidence from tombs (and from Nordic rune stones a few hundred years later).

As far as my supposed affinities for Ian Paisley, I can only reply that I am an atheist. It ain't my fight, but he illustrates everything that I loathe about religion. And there is no doubt about the Catholic stance about vernacular translations of the Bible from prior to the 17th century.

To MC --

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the spread of Christianity was essentially peaceful and that violence associated with it was a secondary effect. In that, I do tend to agree with you, though the violence was certainly present.

And as for being off-topic, we're more on-topic than many discussions here get... :)

I would just keep focus on the ideas, not the warring between tribal leaders, since the original purpose of a tribal leader is to make war.

Also, re insults...OK, it's nice & I am happy for you that you all love Ba'al, well, he was pretty insulting to me, with all his stuff about googling & how I knew nothing about the period...after which he cited ehmm Wiki, (Wiki?, *Wiki* whose accuracy is generally about 80%?) and not any recent book--no, the Durants, & a 1971 out-of-date history & to top it off Wm. Tyndale on Catholic ignorance..That ignorance stuff could come right from the mouth of the Rev. Ian Paisley...Maybe, he's posting from Northern Ireland.

Anyway, fair enough.

And we're WAY off topic.

To the Professor:

I think your article was wonderful. Its just to bad that people WON'T let go of the past from either camp. However, I hope your willingness to see the best in humankind will be mimic regarding all trads, religion, fill in the blank. Your a refreshing breathe of air to a very old, stale, and bitter fight.

Blessings
AutumnWind

Robt', Greg,

Well, let's back up. Christianity deliberately incorporated vast amount of pagan practice. That is not in dispute. Also, in *Western* Europe (and that is what we are concerned with here, not Byzantium)Christianity was spread through the conversion of tribal leaders, hence King Engelbert and St Augustine of Canterbury. Hopefully, also, not in dispute.

What happened *after* the conversion of the tribal leaders is in dispute.
--Yes, the warriors of the leader would be baptized alongside their chief. But, knowing feudal society, if they had NOT been in agreement with their chief, their CHIEF would have been in a wee bit of trouble.
--Yes,after the conversion, the tribal leader often continued warring on another tribe, in the case of Clovis because the 'wrong' type of Christianity, in the case of the Irish kings because they rather fancied their neighbour's horses--or cattle--or just because they liked to raise hell.

But let's put it another way: if Christianity had been spread by force of arms, by smashing the temples of the pagans, by giving them a choice of Christianity or death! (knowing the Celtic tribes with that choice they would have chosen death) would it have incorporated so much of the engrained pagan lore? Look at the missive from the pope to St Augustine regarding the conversion of England: yes, they could keep their pagan temples, no, they shouldn't keep their pagan idols. (However, pagan idols could be replaced by Christian statues and everyone would be happy.)

There was a recent find in Sussex, of a burial tomb of a Saxon king. Two chambers: one with Christian icons, one with pagan...I guess he wasn't taking any chances!

So IMO the fascination part of this period is not if the initial conversion was peaceful (in the terms of the time). It was, it had to be. Uncle Joe was right, the Pope had no divisions...or at least not many. So the feudal missionaries had to rely on persuasion. For the Celts* at least, with their religion including human sacrifice, they did not need overmuch persuasion.

What *really* fascinates me is the intertwining of the pantheism of the Celts with an early Christianity basically derived from Greek philosophy and Hebrew scriptures. Benedict cited these last two as the forming of Catholicism. But to me, at least, he left out the last part of the trinity, the remnants of the Celtic paganism of the European tribes.

*Celts defined as the tribes entering the isles about 6000 BC and speaking Celtic. And Stephen Oppenheimer in his "Origins of the British" writes about the ancestry of current Britons (including Irish who do not consider themselves British):"Three-quarters of British ancestors arrived long before the first farmers...This applies to 88% of the Irish, 81% of the Welsh, 70% of Cornish, 70% of the people of Scotland and 68% of the English." ('The Origins of the British: A Genetic Detective Story' London, 2006)...So you see, Ba;al, the Saxons, arriving about AD 500, are latecomers & not very important, and any history which equals 'Anglo-Saxons' with 'British' is faulty.

To Ba'al -- It's one of the great ironies of history that the exiled Arians went and converted many of the tribes who would crush Roman civilization less than a century later.

And given the issues that Charlemagne was dealing with, his method of handling the Saxons could be considered humane in comparison with a man like Clovis, who probably would have preferred genocide...

Robert B.

For certain, Charlemagne was sorely provoked.

I am amused, however, that my critic MC seems to think that my allusion to (Arian) Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, and Lombards is obscure.

MC

DNA-based population genetic mapping says nothing at all as to whether religious conversions were forced or peaceful, it only gives an approximate but useful picture of where people moved. In any case, you misunderstood what I was trying to say, in part because I was less than clear.

You said that the process of "re-conversion" was "entirely" peaceful. These were your words, you are wrong, and obviously so -- and yet you raised the issue. Charlemagne's forced conversions of the Saxons can be found in any basic history book, it was one of the most important events of his reign, and he spent a long time trying to accomplish it. It occurred long after the fall of Rome. I cited an internet site so YOU could find it quickly -- not because that is where I had learned about it. Similarly, do you deny that there were violent attempts to convert Germanic Arian tribes to orthodox Catholicism? If so, that would be akin to forcing Galileo to recant, even if I did quote Will Durant.

As for Stenton's book, it is a classic, if a bit dated at this point, and my copy is very well thumbed -- and since you know nothing about my hobbies or my educational background, or even my real name, I wonder why you would presume to know where I get my information?

To MC --

You wrote earlier "Not much religion of the book in the above. Water & fire: much more ancient methods of worship."

Though you are certainly correct that many of the Catholic devotions stem from these earlier practices. However, there is water and fire imagery all over the Old and New Testaments. I would say that the religious devotion to these forces is virtually universal and that similar practices might have developed in Christianity regardless of the pagan rites it hijacked.

To Phaedrus --

I'll take any opportunity I can to indulge in my love of the Middle Ages, so you're welcome. :)

To MC --

My point was that after Clovis won his war, that Arian tribe (the name escapes me) was *forcibly* converted to Catholic Christianity because their new ruler was Catholic. Indeed, the Church counted on converting the upper levels of society because they knew that Germanic tradition demanded that a warrior support his chief in all things, including religious conviction. Hence why according to Gregory of Tours, over three thousand of Clovis's followers were baptized along with him. Thus, military and religious force went hand in hand and not all conversion was accomplished peaceably.

To Ba'al -- Your point on the forcible conversion of Saxony is well-taken, though I would point out that the Saxons weren't exactly innocent practitioners of Earth worship. Charlemagne had to put up with over thirty years of border raids and broken treaties before he finally marched in and forced them into submission.

MC,
Can we stick to issues and stop the personal attacks? BA'AL is always willing to have a discussion and not once has he ridiculed my faith nor have I belittled his lack thereof. One thing we both agree on is that personal attacks accomplish nothing positive in fact the opposite occurs, the side you are debating with will then dig in thier heels and resonable discussions all but cease. Let's leave the mudslinging to the professionals... lol

Oh, and the western Roman Empire fell around 476AD the Eastern Roman Empire lasted far longer... :-D

Robert, MC, and Baal:

I know that you guys have drifted off the topic a bit, but I think your back and forth on this issue is interesting and educational. Speaking for myself at least, thanks!

As an eclectic neo-pagan, this is a very nice article to read. All too often I see and hear the opinion that Christians and Environmentalists are diametrically opposed to each other. Off the top of my head, I can recall James G Watt's (Regan’s Secretary of the Interior) war on the environment throughout his career, Texe Marrs crazy ramblings or the many "ministries" that purport that environmentalism as a symptom of Satanism: Bill Schnoebelen of Contender Ministries, Mike Ramey of Didaskalos Ministries. A good overview of this attempted “link” can be read about here:

http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=cabc&c=whs&id=10050

It is good to hear that some if not most Christians and earth based religions can be on the same page with regards to at least preserving mother earth. I hope that the "Jesus Is Coming Soon So Who Cares About The Environment crowd" who uses their professed belief in Armageddon as an excuse for wanton environmentally destructive forms of capitalism is a very small marginal minority.

Blessings!
Chris

PS, I'm sorry Ba'al. I'm sure you mean well. But using just ONE history book,most likely from an amazon search, & that ONLY about Anglo-Saxons, backing THAT up with the Durants (!), & both books written over 40 years ago...well, it is just bad research.

Recent finds, awa DNA mapping, has given a very different picture of the Isles (I am including the Republic of Ireland here, which is not part of Britain). The migrations cited by Stenton only affected the eastern part of the isles. The west & the north remained very Celtic, if by Celtic we mean the tribes that entered the isles (from the western, the Atlantic bordering side of the Euroasia continent) about 6000 BC & have remained there since.

Yes, there were a lot of different (named) tribes, but the DNA profiling shows that the Celtic element was/is by far the most dominant, from 95% in Ireland to 70% in SW England to 60% in the SE..

And we;re WAY off topic.

Ba'al,

Well, that's more like it! I really disagree with that. WHAT a potted history --and all from the internet!

Just think, a google & presto, hey! all the history of the world in five easy minutes. LOVED the litany of all the European tribes, do you get extra points for that? And bringing in that font of all European history, not to say all of civilization--and *they* got to define civilization--wait for it : the Durrants!!! Close down the universities, burn all the history books and listen to Ba'al, the great one. Great stuff!

Anyway,your history is more wrong than right, but not to worry. Rome fell in AD476. Roman military power had been fading for a century previous to that. Europe was essentially re-Christianized in the 5th & 6th c.... by monks. Can *I* show how smart *I* am and quote the conversion of a Saxon king in England in 597? (King Ethelbert by St Augustine of Canterbury). I didn't google it, so does it count??

But you will have your wee anti-religious rants. Why not?

Not to worry. Anyway...keep it up.

MC writes "The re-Christianization of western Europe was entirely peaceful."

This contention is simply absurd, but not surprising. The counter-examples are too numerous too list in any detail, so I will mention only a few.

First, one can note that Charlemagne's forcible 8th century conversion of the Saxons (among the last hold-outs) was anything but peaceful. A brief description of this can be found under the heading "Saxon Wars" in Wikipedia. Most pagans converted earlier, including the vast majority of Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, and Lombards, adopted the Arian form of Christianity, whose Christology has been considered a heresy since 325 CE. Historian Will Durant argued that more Christians died at the hands of other Christians in 343 than during all of the persecutions suffered by Christians at the hands of pagan Roman authorities. Even among these earlier converts, there was resistance from the start. You might also go and look up what Saint Jerome writes about a pagan Visigothic King named Athanaric, who martyred quite a large number of Christians north of the Danube in the fourth century. I found him in about 35 seconds of Googling, could find a lot more I am sure. You might also consult Sir Frank Stenton's account of the conversion of those people in his monumental "Anglo-Saxon England" -- especially in the north it was difficult.

As for the rest of your comment, I suspect most atheists would agree with me that there is nothing in paganism that is either more or less rational than Christianity. Religions are interesting things, and the distinction between Earth and Book religions bears some thought.

As you note, the vast majority of Western European Christianity as practiced by ordinary people for the first 1500 years or so was an "Earth religion". It had to be, since most people were illiterate, and also because the Catholic Church for a long time did not want people reading scriptures. Translations of the Bible into vernaculars was actively discouraged. For example, William Tyndale, the first to print a Bible translated into English (1526), wrote that the Church authorities banned translation into the mother tongue “to keep the world still in darkness, to the intent they might sit in the consciences of the people, through vain superstition and false doctrine, to satisfy their filthy lusts, their proud ambition, and insatiable covetousness, and to exalt their own honour, above God himself.”

Re: Clovis

But surely that proves the point. Clovis was not *forced* by the arms of a stronger nation to convert from paganism to Xianity. If he used his new-found-faith as justification to wage war on one of his neighbours, well, that is what war lords did/ do (?)...*war*lords--wage *war*. Ireland converted to Christianity about AD 500, and don't think--for a minute !-- that the religion stopped the Irish kings (at one point there were about 150 of them) from going on raids against each other, stealing each other's cattle, horses, chattels &tc. (The new religion was, however, influential in the gradual demise of slavery throughout the isles.)

The Church provided the tribal ruler with a bureaucracy in the form of literate monks and his tribe with useful welfare--the monasteries & convents had a remit to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, care for the sick &tc..It was not a bad exchange for an ambitious lord...and I would say, in the longer scheme of things, incredibly successful.

But we are getting away from Prof. Stevens-Arroyo's piece. My point was that because the conversion to Christianity was peaceful, the most engrained of the old pagan practices remained. Christianity was thus overlayed on these old beliefs and the two ways of understanding the world fused. A Christ-centred cosmos intertwined with much of the old Celtic pantheism.

Anyway, that's all from me.

To MC --

You said "It could not be otherwise, because the re- Christianization of western Europe was entirely peaceful."

Ummm, not exactly. Though the evangelization of the 5th and 6th centuries was generally peaceful, the Church understood that it needed military defenders if it was to survive. Take, for example, the Frankish king Clovis, who after his baptism almost immediately after his baptism decided to use his newfound faith as a justification to declare war on a neighboring tribe that happened to follow the Christian heresy of Arius.

You are, however, absolutely right about the incorporation of pagan traditions into Christianity. This was actually part of the missionary plan, as evidenced by Pope Gregory I's letter to Mellitus in the early 600s. :)

To Ba'al,

As a rule of thumb I've found if it annoys you, it will please me! I am thus somewhat flummoxed that you approve of this piece, which, after all is merely a history, a prehistory really, of paganism (religion of the earth) & Judaism (relgion of the book). What he does not make clear is that early Christianity, especially as espoused by saints like Patrick & Benedict, fused *both*--earth & the book.

It could not be otherwise, because the re- Christianization of western Europe was entirely peaceful. The European tribes were not literate--no paper & too poor to support a class of scribes--and rural. They were close to the land & ancient pagan religions worshipped elements of the landscape...God-in-nature or what we would call today pantheism.

And holy water. You dip your hand in a font of holy water & make the sign of the cross as you enter. (The pagan Celts thought certain water was sacred.)

And candles! Candles symbolizing light, & the Light of the World. A lot of candles: on the main alter & in multiple racks before some of the smaller alters & statues of the saints that surround the nave. Catholics will light a candle 'for a special intention' or, really, just to light a candle, and meditate on the flame.

Not much religion of the book in the above. Water & fire: much more ancient methods of worship.

Sarah:

Re: "a source (a Catholic/Catholicism) which has traditionally vilified Paganism."

Well, that is pretty wrong! You are thinking of the reformed movement of Christianity which sought to return the faith to the religion of the Book, the stern patriarchal religion of the desert.

Roman Catholicism--the medieval version of Christianity with its heavy undertone of the ancient festivals & local saints-- itself was "vilified" for containing *too many* elements of paganism: its crucifixes & statues(idols, idolic paganism!), its art--reformers were especially keen to smash the incredibly beautiful stained glass windows Catholics had constructed to allow the God's light to stream into their great monasteries & cathedrals--its iconography, and most especially its love/paeon to the female, as personified in the mother of Christ. (If that last was not a direct link to the ancient Celtic notion of the Earth Mother I don't know what was.)

These elements of paganism were the first target of the 'reformers'--to wit: in an act of cultural vandalism akin to the modern Taleban (or to the ancient barbarians) the forces of Henry VIII destroyed & sacked England's monasteries, shattered their alters, melted down their typtiches & executed their Catholic clergy.

Even today, half a millenium later, a Catholic church feels palpably *different* from a reformed one--far more art, pictures of the stations of the cross, a cross containing a *body*, Latin in the prayer missals, golden tryptiches at the alter (the last not in any of the British isles, of course,they were all destroyed or confiscated centuries ago but in a traditional Catholic areas).

Thank you, Dr. Stevens-Arroyo, for admitting the validity of valuing the earth as sacred, even if your compliment to Wiccans (or Pagans, as many of us non-Wiccan followers of earth religions prefer to be called) was a bit back-handed. But the sentiment of the synthesis of environment and the sacred is entirely apt, and extremely effective. For instance, would Catholics litter in a church? Of course not. Pagans in nature are much the same way.

I must ask, of course, whether or not you believe that Catholic feast days and connectedness with the season derived from its Pagan predecessors? There is much evidence supporting this and I am curious to read what you think.

Despite the odds Pagans often have to face in monotheisms worldwide, it's very nice to read some common sense and tolerance, and best of all, respect coming from a source (a Catholic/Catholicism) which has traditionally vilified Paganism. I can only hope that others will follow your lead and realize that extremism only destroys and alienates and that respectful dialogue lets both sides learn from each other.

Professor Stevens- Arroyo,
Thank you so much for that very kind article.

It is gratifying to read such kind remarks from some one that is a leader in the Christian world. I thank you.

Wiccans do see all life as sacred. When you believe that life can not be created without a small spark of the Divine Creator being left behind, like the DNA of our parents, then that life is sacred and connected to you. It is like your siblings are connected to you because you have the same parent.

Straw-
As far as the comment about the broom. We do not ride brooms, we clean with them...Why not get rid of the old stereotypes. Learn a little of what we really believe and what our symbols really mean. You might be surprised at what you find.

Many Blessings,

A non-religious viewpoint on the same issue is that our survival as a species may well depend on careful stewardship of the environment, now more than ever. There is nothing like the perspective of geological time to make you humble and cautious. There is almost nothing that Professor Stevens-Arroyo has written in his On Faith essays that has failed to annoy me. But this one raises some interesting points.

Thank you for a post on which atheists, monotheists, and pagans can almost have complete agreement.

However, given that the exploding population of humans may be the planet's biggest threat, is it not past time for Catholics to alter their stance on birth control?

God gave us many gifts to include Mother Earth. We can protect Her by following the three R's, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.

http://www.epa.gov/msw/reduce.htm

"Reduce the amount and toxicity of trash you
discard.

Reuse containers and products; repair what is broken or give it to someone who can repair it.

Recycle as much as possible, which includes buying products with recycled content."

We can also reduce the natural causes of carbon dioxide generation, i.e. forest fires and the termites in Africa.

Using God's gift of reason: Big city office buildings require huge amounts of energy to heat and staff with fossil fuels being burned to accomplish most of this. Replace office buildings with in-home offices and corporate intranets for running businesses. e.g.'s Replace Wall Street and the NYSE as it exists today with all trading being done by computer. Maximize teleconferencing, reduce business trips

And in such a time, we shall all aboard our broom sticks and fly over it!

Thank you for the positive view of Wicca, it is a rare joy these days. It shouldn't be that hard to understand: when you see the Earth and nature as sacred, and people as sacred, it wouldn't make much sense to hurt them. This is *neo-paganism*, and the human sacrifices (which I see have got a mention already) can stay with the old sort.

I agree that Catholicism (which I was raised in) can benefit and be entirely compatible with a strong link to ecology.

"I am that living and fiery essence of the Divine substance that flows in the beauty of the fields, I shine in the water, I burn in the Sun and the Moon and the stars. Mine is the mysterious force of the invisible wind. I sustain the breath of all living. I breathe in the verdure, and in the flowers, and when the waters flow like living things, it is I."
- Said by the Holy Spirit in a vision to Saint Hildegard of Bingen.

Of course, you'll always get your Ann Coulter nutjobs.

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Ann Coulter on "Hannity & Colmes", 6/20/01

Professor Stevens-Arroyo,

A very nice essay. I'm trying to figure out how you could have written it in view of your previous alienating essays.

Anyway I agree with it.

Please remember, though, that animals radiate spirituality and reverence in their very existence. And despite your last previous essay, they do pray.

Best wishes.

PROF. STEVENS-ARROYO:

While there is much that separates me from the Wiccans, as they rightly prefer to be called, I have learned to admire their passion to find the divine life principle in Mother Earth.

Hi, Prof,

Indeed, indeed.

While your faith and mine, Catholicism, glories in it's "catholicism" -- its all-inclusiveness -- this appreciation is too often honored only in the breach. Our theologians constantly say that ours is not an either-or religion but a both-and religion, a religion of judgment and compassion, of private and public prayer, of belief and good works, of God's presence in all creation and His mysterious infinite reality beyond it.

However, too often in the history of the RCC it has appreciated the spiritual to the exclusion, even the scorn, of the material. When we are really true to our Faith we say Yes to all of God's creation and appreciate it all.

I particularly love Aquinas' notion that God is not only present in the human spirit, but in everything, even the roaches and toads and fleas, and all the uglies and unmentionables that we scorn. Yes, there is great mystery in that fact, but according to Aquinas there is at least some bit of beauty in all of it. ISTM one reason that St. Francis has been such a beloved saint (probably the most admired of all) is that he shared the love and respect for natural things that the Wiccans and Native Americans have and was aware of God's presence in it all. What a pity that the medievals didn't appreciate St. Benedict's respect for the ecological relationships that are also part of nature and which add immeasurably to its beauty.

Sadly, we humans seem to have to learn and re-learn our lessons over and over and over. Thanks to the Earth religions for preserving that lesson for us in this particularly awful point in the history of Earth. Does anybody besides me remember that TV add about 35 years ago of the Indian looking at the despoiled Earch and shedding a tear? It was waaaayyyy ahead of its time.

ISTM that one of the main reasons that many young people become cynical and violent these days is that there is little beauty in their 21st century urban lives, and the lack of such beauty there is due largely to the absence of natural beauty in the cities -- just concrete and glass, concrete and glass ad nauseam. The Earth religions have much to teach them -- to love Nature and find God there, not shoot other people and blow things up.

Also, the Zenists' appreciation of natural beauty and their insistence that we preserve it in all sorts of human circumstances is a lesson that I'm extremely very grateful to them for. When we are aware of God's presence in all things (including obnoxious other people!) we are much less likely to live violent, inhumane lives.

Ann O.

Dear Prof. Stevens-Arroyo,

Always interesting to read your columns. I like your combination of your own personal history with your faith history and the history of the faith itself.

We just finished an enlightening exchange with Starhawk about the early synthesis of Celtic paganism with Christianity; did you look in? Starhawk was just back from an ancient Celtic festival celebrating the Godess Brigid, whose feast day is celebrated with that of St Brigit, the prioress & friend of St Patrick, founder of the Cella Dare abbey in what is now known as County Kildare.

Because the conversion of the Irish Celts to Christianity was peaceful, the new religion was overlayed upon a vast amount of pagan lore. The worst of paganism--the human sacrifice--was joyfully disgarded: with a new Saviour who sacrificed Himself for *them* (rather than humans sacrificing themselves to a ferocious God or Goddess)the Celts were liberated in their worship. Likewise the shape-shifting--Celts believed humans could change into an animal and back--made for good poems but a rather unstable cosmos and went the way of human sacrifice.

But the mysticism,the feeling for landscape, the belief in the 'specialness' of certain streams, lakes, bushes, stones, the looking out upon a world made doubly beautiful by Christ--a Christ-sanctified world--all remained. It comes down through the ages in Celtic poetry, art & song.

Did you ever wonder how these Europeans from
the continent's farthest western regions, these Celts, would try to adapt what was a stern, patriarchal, desert religion?

I have. I think Christianity was infused with this more ancient Celtic reverence for the land. This is also why the Irish Celts clung so ferociously to their Catholicism in the face of the English Protestant onslaught. Celtic Catholicism contained too much of what they were--and they were still a rural people, close to the land, a land that contained their ancestors, their saints, their Christ & His Mother (and how could these people give up their love of the Virgin? Impossible!), as well as their ancient gods.

I always had a problem with the idea, popular in the faith of my childhood, that we were to be "in the world but not of it."

There is a great danger when religions create the belief that we as human beings are somehow a special case and not part of the natural order(and I think Dr. Stevens-Arroyo is right about "book" religions being worse offenders.) We cannot separate ourselves form the natural world.

Regards

A Hermit

Wow! Thank you for writing such a positive article about Wiccans and our respect for Mother Earth! It's always a delight to get good press, as opposed to the "evil Witches who are leading our children into Satanism" garbage. Muchas gracias, Dr. Stevens-Arroyo!