America now has two Pagans in office. One transgender.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Of course, a proper Viking burial for deceased warriors is no longer so practical, because putting someone on a boat with their weapons, shoving the boat out into the lake, and setting it on fire now results in ammunition cooking off...

Send them far, far, FAR out to sea the set it alight

[Serafina]

Some of the pagan groups are VERY strong on personal responsibility and working for change here on Earth. They aren't as likely to say "it's all in God's hands" so much as to say "it's up to us to fix this mess and we hope the Gods help us - but either way, it's up to us". It's a different outlook from the Jesus-is-all approach. Me, I prefer that pagan attitude but then I am clearly biased, being one of them. Whether or not the atheists on this board would prefer that outlook over a more traditional Christian one I can't say.

I do not care about ones religion at all - all i care about is their attidute and approach to the real world.
By those term, the "pagan attitude" is way more preferable, and nearly equally good as an atheist attitude.
The only drawback i can see is that it may lead to an "we have the right course, therefore the gods may/will help us" - but thats about it.

Well, all that pagan stuff aside, i find it interesting that they merely mention that she is transgendered and talk about her being pagan WAY more than that.
Not a bad thing, really - but i am a bit surprised.

[Simon_Jester]

Since the second article comes from a dedicated pagans' site, that may not be a surprise. They're more interested in her being pagan than in her being transgender, because they're pagan. I suspect she might very well get an interview from a transgender site that did the same thing in reverse, talking at great length about her transgender experiences and hardly at all about her religious beliefs.

[hongi]

Some of the pagan groups are VERY strong on personal responsibility and working for change here on Earth. They aren't as likely to say "it's all in God's hands" so much as to say "it's up to us to fix this mess and we hope the Gods help us - but either way, it's up to us". It's a different outlook from the Jesus-is-all approach. Me, I prefer that pagan attitude but then I am clearly biased, being one of them. Whether or not the atheists on this board would prefer that outlook over a more traditional Christian one I can't say.

Some of the Christians I know are very strong on social responsibility, helping out in the homeless shelter, feeding the hungry, working with addiction support groups.

I don't want to get into a Christianity vs paganism debate, but the NT tells Christians to do some admirable things, it gives a direct mandate to help the poor and weak, whereas I'm not sure pagans have scriptures to tell them to do that.

[Samuel]

I don't want to get into a Christianity vs paganism debate, but the NT tells Christians to do some admirable things, it gives a direct mandate to help the poor and weak, whereas I'm not sure pagans have scriptures to tell them to do that.

What? I thought the Old Testament talked about responsibility to the poor while the New Testament focused more on how much the rich are screwed for their evil ways. Of course Islam gets more explicit on the whole idea of charity.

[Qwerty 42]

If this board has taught me absolutely nothing else, it has taught me that religion is never the sole marker of morality or immorality. Hitler was a Christian, so was Nelson Mandela. It's quite contrary to any of my life's experiences to assume that pagan lawmakers are less ethical solely because of their paganism.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't want to get into a Christianity vs paganism debate, but the NT tells Christians to do some admirable things, it gives a direct mandate to help the poor and weak, whereas I'm not sure pagans have scriptures to tell them to do that.

What? I thought the Old Testament talked about responsibility to the poor while the New Testament focused more on how much the rich are screwed for their evil ways. Of course Islam gets more explicit on the whole idea of charity.

This is partly because Islam as outlined in its founding documents isn't just a religion; it's a political theory. There's a religious element to the politics, yes, but there's also a political element to the religion. Many important state policies (tax rates, military tactics, charity policies) are outlined quite clearly in the Koran, and by late Iron Age standards, the Koran's policies worked pretty well.

It's one of the reasons that separation of church and state never caught on in the Muslim world except in countries that were explicitly trying to Westernize themselves, in the sense of "become more like the West," and not just "adopt cool stuff from the West." In the Islamic model of how a civilization is supposed to work, separation of church and state doesn't even make sense.

[Broomstick]

Some of the pagan groups are VERY strong on personal responsibility and working for change here on Earth. They aren't as likely to say "it's all in God's hands" so much as to say "it's up to us to fix this mess and we hope the Gods help us - but either way, it's up to us". It's a different outlook from the Jesus-is-all approach. Me, I prefer that pagan attitude but then I am clearly biased, being one of them. Whether or not the atheists on this board would prefer that outlook over a more traditional Christian one I can't say.

Some of the Christians I know are very strong on social responsibility, helping out in the homeless shelter, feeding the hungry, working with addiction support groups.

Yes, we all know that. Christians are not identical, homogeneous clones of each other. Neither are Pagans.

I don't want to get into a Christianity vs paganism debate, but the NT tells Christians to do some admirable things, it gives a direct mandate to help the poor and weak, whereas I'm not sure pagans have scriptures to tell them to do that.

Pagans, for the most part, don't have scriptures at all, at least not in the sense of something they believe is the direct word of God(s). So what? They don't believe written scriptures are required for morality or ethics.

I don't want to bog this down getting into minutiae, but as an example or two:

The Asatru (the worshippers of the Old Norse Gods) and their cousins have a notion of the community taking care of its own, much as an extended family. As their is no limit on the size of the in-group, that could encompass an entire nation.

The Wiccas (in general - although saying anything about that group is like herding cats) believe what you give is what you get, so helping others is what you need to do if you want help yourself. Being law-abiding is what you need to do if you want others to be so. Being kind/compassionate generous is what you need to be if that's what you want in return... sort of a karma-driven enlightened self-interest.

Both of the above philosophies can just as easily result in Pagans "helping out in the homeless shelter, feeding the hungry, working with addiction support groups." (Indeed, I am a Pagan who has done all of the above) as can Jesus' direct mandate to Christians to do so. The driving philosophy may be different, but the results can be much the same.

[The Yosemite Bear]

however the plastic in the M16 is a carcinagen and a contaminate....

oh can Buddists and american indians get left in a hidden place exposed to nature so that their remains will be picked clean by animals where no one can see them?

[Samuel]

Hey, the Zorocrastians still do that so I don't see why not.

[Darth Hoth]

If I remember right, the Romans were surprisingly tolerant of other religions for their time. Probably depends on the particular pantheon in question though.

If I recall correctly, the early Christians were persecuted because they refused to participate in the state-mandated pagan festivals. So, not so tolerant.

What? I thought the Old Testament talked about responsibility to the poor while the New Testament focused more on how much the rich are screwed for their evil ways. Of course Islam gets more explicit on the whole idea of charity.

Well, in the Old Testament the idea was still concurrent that one could earn Jehovah's favour through righteous conduct, which included charity to the poor ("Takest thou good care of the widow, the fatherless and the stranger that liveth among ye" and so forth - from what I recall of the Mosaic Law, that one is hammered in repeatedly). Jesus, of course, also heavily advocated charity (ruinous such - remember the parable of the man who owned much and wanted to become a disciple). However, Jesus also introduced the idea of forgiveness to the repentant (i.e., no matter how much evil you have done Christ will forgive you if you repent) and was followed by Paul, who promoted salvation through grace, not works (i.e., no matter how much good you do you are damned anyway except through Christ's forgiveness when you repent). Thus, any Christian who does not feel like being charitable has an unchallengeable cop-out.

If this board has taught me absolutely nothing else, it has taught me that religion is never the sole marker of morality or immorality. Hitler was a Christian, so was Nelson Mandela.

It is debatable if Hitler was Christian (he at the very least did not recognise the divinity of the Christ, which most Christian denominations hold as the very most fundamental principle of their belief). Of course, the point still stands.

Pagans, for the most part, don't have scriptures at all, at least not in the sense of something they believe is the direct word of God(s). So what? They don't believe written scriptures are required for morality or ethics.

Since you seem to embrace this philosophy, may I ask a question: If you have no scriptures revealing the will of your god(s?), how do you know what they want you to do? I would think that for a religion to work, you would need some kind of written creed or instruction, or else it would not remain coherent for long. Or are you relying on oral traditions?

[Norseman]

Pagans, for the most part, don't have scriptures at all, at least not in the sense of something they believe is the direct word of God(s). So what? They don't believe written scriptures are required for morality or ethics.

Since you seem to embrace this philosophy, may I ask a question: If you have no scriptures revealing the will of your god(s?), how do you know what they want you to do? I would think that for a religion to work, you would need some kind of written creed or instruction, or else it would not remain coherent for long. Or are you relying on oral traditions?

The Asatru and assorted other Norse pagans have the Eddas, archeological digs, and various third party accounts of religious practises. Among those I would think that Havamaal would be particularly important for any Norse pagan.

[Broomstick]

Pagans, for the most part, don't have scriptures at all, at least not in the sense of something they believe is the direct word of God(s). So what? They don't believe written scriptures are required for morality or ethics.

Since you seem to embrace this philosophy, may I ask a question: If you have no scriptures revealing the will of your god(s?), how do you know what they want you to do? I would think that for a religion to work, you would need some kind of written creed or instruction, or else it would not remain coherent for long. Or are you relying on oral traditions?

We argue a lot.

Obviously, through most of human history religion did not depend on written scriptures simply because writing did not exist. Even religions that do have ancient scriptures, such as Judaism, have undergone substantial changes over time. So writing is not essential to a religion, nor does writing automatically make a religion stable over time.

Now we get into a discussion of Paganism - and I need to remind that that is a very broad category, much broader than the Abrahamic religions.

One flaw in your reasoning the assumption that the Pagan Gods actually want their followers to do something. Quite often Pagan Gods are indifferent to humans for the most part. Pagans do not always hold themselves to be the pinnacle of creation and thus somehow worthy of special attention (then again, some do, but that's part of the variation) There are even Pagan Gods hostile to humans whose worship/veneration is essentially a payoff for them to leave you alone.

But you did ask how we knew what the Gods want. Well, there is room for divine revelation. Most Pagans believe a God or Gods can speak directly to them. Most also believe that people aren't very good at really understanding such revelations and what comes out is filtered by fallible humanity. There is no bar to borrowing from other faiths, so parts of other religion's scripture and traditions may be appropriated (for example, I have a copy of the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi hanging in my home. Many Pagans find it resonates with them even if it is of Catholic origin). Some of the more eclectic NeoPagans wind up as quite a patchwork.

Now, there are related groups within NeoPaganism that claim some basic principles. Wicca, for example (which, by the way, constantly mutates, it would put the flu virus to shame), has two basic principles:
1) Do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone
2) Whatever you do comes back to you three times over.
Different variants of Wicca may add additional rules to these, but those two are what unites the divergent varieties, much as the Bible unites the Abramhamic religions (and the Wiccas get along about as well as the Jews/Christians/Muslims do, that is, everything between good fellowship to warfare). Gardernerian Wicca dates back to the early 20th Century and has such rules as worship must be conducted by male/female pairs and worship must be predominantly in groups (covens). Diannic Wicca is all-female worship, with a high proportion of lesbians. Radical Fairies is the male equivalent with nearly exclusive homosexual membership. Eclectics borrow freely (hence, "eclectic"). Solitaires usually worship alone (and thus are in conflict with Gardernerians). The Discordians worship Chaos. There is a contingent that is vegan, based on the first rule (they interpret "harm none" to include their fellow animals, thus, you can eat what you want as long it doesn't harm animals). The Wicca I grew up with actually had a limited about of blood used in rituals which horrifies the contingent that is so anti-blood menstruating women aren't permitted in the worship Circle, and there is every gradation between those two. It gets very involved, very crazy, and is hard to keep track of. There is overlap and reborrowing. It's quite messy.

Now, the Norse NeoPaganism tends to be more reconstructionist, taking beliefs and practices (to varying degrees) from historical sources such as the eddas. There is also the long poem the Hávamál, or "Sayings of the High One", which is believe to be a compilation and lays out proper conduct, among other things.

The related groups of Voudoun, Santeria, and Ife aren't "modern NeoPagan" in the usual sense. Ife, the source of the three, is the tribal religion of the Yoruba of Nigeria and thus has a very, very long tradition, mostly oral. When Africa slaves were brought to the New World Ife syncretized with both European and local religions and the result was Voudoun in Haiti and Santeria in Latin America. Thus, they all look back to Ife in Africa and some Voudoun and Santerians have historically used Yoruban as a ritual language (these days, their priests and priestesses will sometimes go to Nigeria to study the language for better fluency). There are definite differences between the New World faiths and Ife, but all three groups acknowledge a connection and much in common (which in no way means they always get along). This faith triad has several divination techniques for determining the will of the Gods, as well as possession and divine revelation.

The Kemetics are reconstructionists of the religion of Ancient Egypt which, happily, left written texts. The Kemetic leader I have person acquaintance with has two Master's in Egyptology, one from the University of Chicago and one from Macquarie University in Australia and reads Egyptian hieroglyphics enabling her to research original sources. Thus, they do have "scriptures" to work from. She is also an initiated Voudoun mambo (priestess). As neither faith forbids worship of Gods outside that faith this is in no way a contradiction (I can't help but think it must keep her insanely busy)

So, there is a wide variety of ways in which Pagan faiths operate, from millennia-long traditions to historical reconstruction to attempts to create faith suited to the modern world. Some have scriptures, some don't, and some borrow from others.

[Darth Hoth]

Very interesting; I know a little Norse mythology, but basically nothing about neo-Pagan worship.

Obviously, through most of human history religion did not depend on written scriptures simply because writing did not exist. Even religions that do have ancient scriptures, such as Judaism, have undergone substantial changes over time. So writing is not essential to a religion, nor does writing automatically make a religion stable over time.

Not as such, perhaps, but I would imagine that having written records does make it that much more stable and likely to survive in recognisable form over time. Something dependent on oral tradition would appear more mutable and easily changed over time (or space, if the religion spreads far, thus producing divergent sects as worshippers in diverse parts lose contact and evolve independently).

One flaw in your reasoning the assumption that the Pagan Gods actually want their followers to do something. Quite often Pagan Gods are indifferent to humans for the most part. Pagans do not always hold themselves to be the pinnacle of creation and thus somehow worthy of special attention (then again, some do, but that's part of the variation) There are even Pagan Gods hostile to humans whose worship/veneration is essentially a payoff for them to leave you alone.

I knew that older faiths were less concerned with regulating the lives of their worshippers, whether it was about morals or elaborate rituals (this can be seen in the Bible itself - compare the God of Genesis to the one in Leviticus). Nevertheless, I imagined that for the religion to be meaningful there must be some standard of worship - general guidelines on behaviour, perhaps, or at least something on how rituals ought to be performed. The ancient Norsemen did have their holy shrines and rites of blot, for example.

But you did ask how we knew what the Gods want. Well, there is room for divine revelation. Most Pagans believe a God or Gods can speak directly to them. Most also believe that people aren't very good at really understanding such revelations and what comes out is filtered by fallible humanity. There is no bar to borrowing from other faiths, so parts of other religion's scripture and traditions may be appropriated (for example, I have a copy of the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi hanging in my home. Many Pagans find it resonates with them even if it is of Catholic origin). Some of the more eclectic NeoPagans wind up as quite a patchwork.

In terms I am more familiar with, this reminds me a little of modern Gnosticism, in the basic idea that divine truth is revealed to the individual, rather than generally through a prophet or holy writing, as each individual has the capacity to approach the divine himself. Or as such, a simultaneous rejection and inclusion of other religious traditions - none is necessarily true, but all are equal and eventually lead towards enlightenment, something like that?

[Broomstick]

Very interesting; I know a little Norse mythology, but basically nothing about neo-Pagan worship.

More and more NeoPagans, particularly in urban areas, are having festivals and events open to the public. If you are ever really curious you could probably go to a couple, although most groups have some significant differences between public and private practices. Many still practice initiation, which some things kept only among the initiated.

Something dependent on oral tradition would appear more mutable and easily changed over time (or space, if the religion spreads far, thus producing divergent sects as worshippers in diverse parts lose contact and evolve independently).

Well, in some cases geography affects practice. For example, among many Wiccas formal worship starts with "calling the quarters" with the elements assigned a cardinal direction. Usually it's North=Earth, East=Air, South=Fire, and West=Water. However, in the Chicago area there's this BIG HONKING LAKE due east of the city, so many Pagans, particularly when out of doors, will reverse the usual east-west association (the fact that most of our winds come from the west makes this even more fitting to many). Some in the Southern Hemisphere reverse the "usual" (meaning Northern Hemisphere) north-south association. So in some instances different locations would mean different practices.

One of the more interesting conversations I've had was a discussion of how Paganism could be practiced in either space or on other worlds. How does an Earth-centered religion "translate" to locations off Earth?

In other cases, members fully admit that the worship structure is based solely on human custom. "Traditional" (meaning well known and accustomed more than long history) forms do make it easier for divergent groups to come together for large public gatherings. Even so, for large public Circles (these days usually designating public worship - many groups use "coven" or "grotto" or "grove" or some other term to designate private meetings) it is not unusual for the leader(s) to stand up prior to starting and say "We'll be calling the traditional quarters and then doing X from this group and Y from that group" so there will be some understanding of how the event is going to run. There are a myriad decisions that need to be made from expected attire (which runs from "skyclad" nudity to pretty much covering everything) to how the Gods will be addressed (general or specific terms, names from one pantheon or several, etc.) and so forth. I've been to Pagan gatherings in Chicago that included Wiccans (there's a dizzying variety of those), Satanists, Norse, Voudoun, Santeria, Ife, Druids, Kemetics, Buddists, Discordians, any number of reconstructionists, some varieties of Pagans I'm not sure how to classify, and the curious general public (the Hindus are welcome but usually do not come for reasons of their own). Trying to get opening/closing prayers that includes everyone and offends no one is... a challenge.

The thing is, some traditions really do want to maintain a certain form. These usually write things down. Other folks don't care if the faith/religion/practices change over time. Some Discordians (Chaos worshippers) sort of make it a point to never to do anything the same way twice, consistency is the LAST thing they want.

I knew that older faiths were less concerned with regulating the lives of their worshippers, whether it was about morals or elaborate rituals (this can be seen in the Bible itself - compare the God of Genesis to the one in Leviticus). Nevertheless, I imagined that for the religion to be meaningful there must be some standard of worship - general guidelines on behaviour, perhaps, or at least something on how rituals ought to be performed. The ancient Norsemen did have their holy shrines and rites of blot, for example.

Yes, they did. And like I said, this is important to some groups. Other people want their faith to change over time to accommodate changes in society or civilization. Most do have behavioral guidelines, either formal or derived from basic principals.

In terms I am more familiar with, this reminds me a little of modern Gnosticism, in the basic idea that divine truth is revealed to the individual, rather than generally through a prophet or holy writing, as each individual has the capacity to approach the divine himself. Or as such, a simultaneous rejection and inclusion of other religious traditions - none is necessarily true, but all are equal and eventually lead towards enlightenment, something like that?

Yep - many paths lead to the top of the same mountain is a common way of expressing the idea. And Pagans often really do like their Gnostics.

The other interesting thing I've noted of late has been the emergence of "lay Pagans". When I first got involved in Paganism (pretty damn early - I was initiated at 12) EVERYONE was supposed to be "clergy", that is, a fully developed member was as capable as anyone else in the group of being a priest or priestess. Indeed, it was quite common for that role to rotate among the membership, although not required. Over the past 30 years or so I've noticed quite a few Pagans, in increasing numbers, who are Pagan in beliefs but never seek training as "clergy". In the past most groups required a belief in magic, even if not formally stated (this caused me considerable distress when I stopped believing in such things and redefined the concept for myself in my early 20's - I have been called a "Wiccan heretic" which is a damn hard state to achieve, let me tell you). Nowadays, no such requirement - magical studies no longer required by any but the most conservative Wiccan groups. No initiation required. No formal worship required. If you believe in the Gods you're a Pagan. This probably is closer to what existed in the ancient world, with many people having only a very causal approach to religion, focusing mainly on holiday and community celebrations and ceremonies, and a subset of really devoted nutball fanatics.

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Of course, a proper Viking burial for deceased warriors is no longer so practical, because putting someone on a boat with their weapons, shoving the boat out into the lake, and setting it on fire now results in ammunition cooking off...

Well, nobody said the weapons had to be loaded...

You'd send someone off to Vallhalla with an unloaded weapon?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

It ought to be noted that many people might raise objections to Dan Halloran based on his religion due to Asatru's connection with White Supremacism, as it is the favoured religion of Neo-Nazis.

[Duckie]

You could easily make the same biased rejection of Christian politicians based upon Christian Identity movements.

[LaCroix]

One of the more interesting conversations I've had was a discussion of how Paganism could be practiced in either space or on other worlds. How does an Earth-centered religion "translate" to locations off Earth?

I don't think that the original religion tied 'Earth' to the third planet of sol system. It meant soil, the ground all life comes from. So I think that Earth is a very easy to solve dilemma. In space, you would need a pot of soil, or even the spaceship itself would suffice, since the very hull it self is made from ore, this part of 'Earth'

On any planet, its the very ground itself.

[open_sketchbook]

I find it very strange that, generally speaking, this board considers all christians dupes and fools, but we eagerly gather around to listen to a pagan. I'm not being judgemental; my girlfriend is pagan, and I find her faith interesting, though I'm a little put out I can't sway her to athiesm. I'm just curious why we're more comfortable with a pagan than with christians.

[Duckie]

Pagans, while occasionally fluffy bunnies (particularly wiccans), haven't done anything in the past few milennias to fuck the world over in any real way, nor are Pagans the ones who are really causing problems nowadays in terms of religious bigotry and stupidity.

[Broomstick]

One of the more interesting conversations I've had was a discussion of how Paganism could be practiced in either space or on other worlds. How does an Earth-centered religion "translate" to locations off Earth?

I don't think that the original religion tied 'Earth' to the third planet of sol system. It meant soil, the ground all life comes from. So I think that Earth is a very easy to solve dilemma. In space, you would need a pot of soil, or even the spaceship itself would suffice, since the very hull it self is made from ore, this part of 'Earth'

On any planet, its the very ground itself.

The thing is, no one really practices that Old Time Religion today, even the reconstructionists. The faith(s) ARE tied very much to the planet. It's not just "dirt worship", as you imply. See my above post where I discuss how regional geography affects Wiccan worship. Your "pot of dirt" solution ignores the oceans. Some polytheistic deities are tied to location or fauna or flora. Many of the ritual calendars follow solar/lunar timetables which, on another world, would be different (or for lunar, either nonexistent or in multiples). It's not quite as simple as you imply.

All of which no doubts strikes some of those outside these religions as ridiculous, silly, or much ado about nothing, but I've been saying for years now that religion is more about emotional needs than rational thinking.

[open_sketchbook]

So pagans aren't as bad as christians, sure, but don't we dispise all religion on the grounds that religion is illogical and athiesm is the Truth? I mean, arguments along those lines are made successfully here all the time; do we stop just because the religious person is an old member of the board and the religion in question isn't christianity? I have a hard time imagining a new member with a post count under 100 trying to show off their paganism and not getting an earful about his irrationality. What's different here, familiarity? That's hardly rational.

[Darth Hoth]

Pagans, while occasionally fluffy bunnies (particularly wiccans), haven't done anything in the past few milennias to fuck the world over in any real way, nor are Pagans the ones who are really causing problems nowadays in terms of religious bigotry and stupidity.

Mostly, though, I suspect that is because they have lacked all real influence in that time. All religions tend to become oppressive when they become powerful and are made a part of government, and most are also quite harmless when separation of church and state is maintained.

As for me, I do not myself share the extremely negative perception of Christianity that most people here seem to hold. While it has certainly been used for oppression in the past, so have all major religions, and today there are much worse faiths to criticise (e.g., Islam). Looking at posts here, an alien observer could easily conclude that Christianity was a comic book evil cult, complete with ritual rape and human sacrifice and priests wearing horns.

I generally find mythology interesting, whether it is Norse, Egyptian or Judaic. If Rye showed up to discuss the theology of Ezekiel, I would read those posts with interest as well. As it was, here I was curious about neo-Pagan faith and practice, and thus asked Broomstick about it.

[Broomstick]

I find it very strange that, generally speaking, this board considers all christians dupes and fools, but we eagerly gather around to listen to a pagan. I'm not being judgemental; my girlfriend is pagan, and I find her faith interesting, though I'm a little put out I can't sway her to athiesm. I'm just curious why we're more comfortable with a pagan than with christians.

Well, for one thing, most Pagans will not tell you you're going to hell or try to persuade you to join their camp. In fact, many of their groups forbid proselytizing and do not seek converts. If you're happy being an atheist, if lack of faith works for you, I have zero problem with it. I may not agree with you, but I am not at all interested in trying to persuade you otherwise. That alone seem to make people more amenable to agreeing to disagree.

And, actually, I have been called a dupe, a fool, and other things by some of the more strident atheists on this board who feel no inhibitions to mock my religion just as they mock others. It is one of two reasons I will not normally discuss my personal faith on this board.

Another reason why people gather 'round is that Pagans are still very much a minority and quite a few of us are "in the broom closet" even today. So we're a bit of an unknown to many and when someone who is/has been curious has a Real Live Pagan(TM) pop up it becomes question time.

Pagans, while occasionally fluffy bunnies (particularly wiccans), haven't done anything in the past few milennias to fuck the world over in any real way, nor are Pagans the ones who are really causing problems nowadays in terms of religious bigotry and stupidity.

Well, there's that, too. I don't doubt that there are Pagan groups out there who could fuck the world over given enough adherents and power, but that's true of almost any sufficiently large group of people. It's just that in recent history they haven't been the aggressors of late, which makes them much less threatening.