Question #1 part 3: The first questionnaire, posted for proofing

Aug 26, 2008 15:23

My notes to you fine folks are in bold type. :-)

Please do not answer these questions just quite yet- right now I am just interested in your input on framing this survey as a whole. Am I forgetting anything? What should I add? Remove? Clarify ( Read more... )

p book 1, paganism

Leave a comment

Comments 28

moonvoice August 26 2008, 05:40:20 UTC
You might want to define 'magick' in the poll / survey. For some people it's as simple as a prayer, and for others it's spells and ceremonial magic.

In your 'Native Americans' selection, you might want to include something like Native Americans and Indigenous peoples - especially if you plan on getting this survey answered by those who live in places like Australia - where the issue isn't 'are Native Americans pagan,' but 'are Indigenous Australians pagan.'

Community is unnecessary in paganism.

This is a confusing statement to me. As I both agree and disagree with it - does it mean that pagan communities are important? That pagans must be part of a spiritual community? That solitary practices are therefore not important? Or does it mean mundane communities? Does it mean subcultures or over-arching cultures. Community in this context is a confusing statement.

Reply

sunvenus August 26 2008, 05:56:27 UTC
Thank you!! I knew you would help me spot the boo-boos!

And quick question; if we are going to talk about "liberal" in terms of politics, does it mean the same thing here in Oz as it does in the USA? I mean, I know we have the Liberal party here which is very similar to the Republicans in the US, but if we use "liberal" in the context that I did in the statement: "All pagans are liberal in their politics" does it mean "not conservative ( ... )

Reply

moonvoice August 26 2008, 06:00:37 UTC
And quick question; if we are going to talk about "liberal" in terms of politics, does it mean the same thing here in Oz as it does in the USA?You could say liberal / left-wing, because left-wing in any western society basically indicates someone who will be more liberal in that context. I think Australians will know what you mean, particularly if you interchange it with a term like that one. I took 'liberal' to mean 'open-minded / left-wing' more than i took it to mean 'John Howard is king ( ... )

Reply

sunvenus August 26 2008, 08:41:46 UTC
Thank you form helping me clarify the liberal bit, I've added left wing as well.

I still can't find a suitable way to word the community statement, but I'll mull it over some more once I get some food in my tummy.

LOL at the duck story! They are such funy birds- I can picture exactly what you described. Birds have no sense of size; they are like chihuahuas when they face us: "I can take ya, put up your dukes, come on, come on, I'll bite ya in the kneecap!"

Reply


elfwreck August 26 2008, 05:58:29 UTC
I think "To be a pagan, all you have to do is say you are pagan" is a biased question. The people that I perceive as believing that way, don't express it that way. They say something like "Pagans can believe anything they want to; there are no doctrines they're required to follow" or "Pagans decide for themselves what makes them pagan."

And I'd rephrase "Modern paganism is one united religion whose practitioners all believe and/ or practice the exact same things." to something like "Modern paganism is a single religion with a shared set of beliefs and ethics." (Unless you want almost no "yes" answers. Most idjet-fluffhead-neowiccabunnies agree that paganism has lots and lots of different "traditions," by which I believe they mean "they use different ornaments in their Samhain rituals ( ... )

Reply

sunvenus August 26 2008, 06:53:20 UTC
Thank you!

I like the idea to reword the statement "To be a pagan, all you have to do is say you are pagan". You are right, it is biased, and the way you suggest further on is more along the lines of what I want to know. I only included it that way as it seems to be the opinion of both Dana Eilers and Pagan Australia Network (how is that for diverse); instead I may just have to point out in the book why I feel that defintion isn't correct ( ... )

Reply

tiltedsideways August 26 2008, 13:03:30 UTC
How about,

"To be a pagan, all you have to do is believe you are pagan."

Reply

sunvenus August 26 2008, 13:39:43 UTC
You know, I kind of agree with that statement personally. But I think I am using the concept of "believing" as a deliberate act of Will, as a focused choice. I may include that on the survey, as it says to me something a bit differeent than Eilers & PAN's idea that one only has to say they are pagan to be pagan.

Am I making sense or have I been sitting at this compuer for too long today? (Sheesh, it's almost midnight; I've been sitting here since 8am! Well, except wuith breaks to chase wayward ducks, take care of too many animals, prepare food & eat, and occasionally stretch my legs. I may need to put down the mouse and get to bed soon.)

Reply


ladymorgaine August 26 2008, 06:26:18 UTC
I'm going to come back to this tomorrow, because I really want to, but I just brain/emotionally dumped in my journal, and now I'm useless for intelligent thought processing. I'll even be amazed if that sentence was at all coherent.

But yeah, if you haven't gotten all the input you want by tomorrow, I'll toss my .02 in.

((hugs)) good to have you back. :P

Reply

sunvenus August 26 2008, 06:54:07 UTC
No worries- and I may still need input tomorrow. If not tomorrow, there will surely be more. Damn this silly project!

Reply


darkest_starlet August 26 2008, 11:01:52 UTC
I might be barking up the wrong tree here, my brain and rationality went boom sometime around 9am when I realised the git will be back here today, but something twatface said to me last night just struck me. He was trying to argue with me about my not being an atheist just because I don't believe in his god. Then he went off on some rant about Buddists being atheists and pagans because they don't have a god... blah blah blah.

So yeah, something about buddists.

Reply

sunvenus August 26 2008, 11:14:44 UTC
"...Then he went off on some rant about Buddists being atheists and pagans because they don't have a god..."

See- that's part of my argument. One of the dcitionary defintions of "pagan" is to be without god or religion. That is a biased and incorrect defintion. Toruble is, I can't find any short, dictionary-type statement to define "pagan" or paganism.

As for Buddhists- I don't consider them pagan, and I am fairly sure they don't consider themselves pagan, or even precisly athiest. I think some Buddhists do believe in gods, or a god... but it think varied by the type of Buddhism practiced and some other factors that I am not too clear on. (I think I may need to pay another visit to Nan Tien Temple again soon.) But I could be wrong, that happens to me a bit. ;-)

Who the heck is this guy who said that? He does indeed sound stabworthy. Good luck on not puncturing him tonight. ;-)

Reply

darkest_starlet August 26 2008, 11:19:48 UTC
See. See how he mashes my brain with the rage!

He's an arse that's who he is. He's the godfather to my beloved who seems to think it appropriate to waltz over here whenever he feels like it (he lives in spain most of the time) and make himself at home. He's a nightmare, and he turns my usually rational mother in law into a giggling school kid who encourages his juvenile and most usually offensive behaviour.

And he's here, again, being a gobshite. The red mist is soon to decend. I might go for a little walk.

Reply

sunvenus August 26 2008, 13:41:32 UTC
Okay, please try not to stab him in the eye with kitchen implements. Maybe you can slip him a few stiff vodka's hidden in whatever else he's drinking. He can go nighty night!

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

sunvenus August 26 2008, 13:43:35 UTC
Oh no, your comment wasn't blunt or bossy at all! I appreciate the input and will follow-up on your suggestions in the morning. :-)

Reply

sunvenus August 27 2008, 00:50:17 UTC
"I suggest that you shift negatives into positives wherever you can. (for example, "Satanists are not pagans" --> "Satanists are pagans" or "Satanists can be pagans")…"

Great advice. I think you know the point I am driving at; that there is a very vocal hue & cry that goes up in many “pagan” quarters when the idea of Satan pops up. The lighter, fluffier subset of pagans often insist that Satanists cannot be pagans, “ooh those icky Satanists aren’t part of our happy united paganism!”. Well, some Satanists do indeed consider themselves pagan.

(Personally I am divided on the issue. I do see some forms of Satanism as being “pagan”, and some forms of it as distinctly Christian. This is one area I am going to have to address for the book, but not today. Maybe not today. Maybe I will make it a separate post. Yeah, maybe I should toss it out there, and collect opinions.)

But you are right; I may need to frame that statement differently.

"Pagan groups or traditions should adapt to your thoughts, beliefs, and practices when you join them, ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up