Patrons: who chooses whom?

[havenne17]

I have been categorizing ADF as a 'recon' or quasi-recon because of their religious approach. I realize that someone else's idea of what constitutes true 'reconstructionism' may vary from my rough categorization.
If they don't have this requirement in their program anymore they should update their website but, honestly, I don't really care. They are what they are and I only took a trip over to their site to check on my old information.

As you can probably tell I am not a reconstructionist. My opinions of a group are often colored by my assessment of how belief is put into practice and I just end up being totally puzzled by the sheer amount of structure erected - but that's probably a thread all its own. We will probably have some interesting discussions.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

ADF doesn't make the claim to be recon. Recon is far, far away. They can't see recon with a strong telescope on a clear day. You can tell, because they call themselves "druids". Even when they worship Hellenic deities. It's just nutty.

Thinking that study is good is in no way indicative of recon. I mean... srsly. EVERYONE should value study. Even if you're a pantheistic eclectic kitchen witch, you should still value study. You should still be able to say "citation pl0x" if someone tells you something odd, and be able to tell whether a particular source is decent or not.

My beef with ADF is that they actually SAY "omg, we're so much more scholarly than all those other Pagan groups, kthx" and then make massive generalizations that my first-year uni lecturers would have scribbled all over with the Red Pen of Doom, saying things like "Which cultures? How? Examples? Citations?" and so on. It's hypocritical. It's infuriating.

Anyway. Not recon. At all. In any way. Recons are people who attempt to reconstruct ancient practices, drawing from lore, etc etc. ADF does not even attempt to reconstruct ancient practices, nor do they make much of a claim to doing so. ADF is an orthopraxic organization, with a particular ritual style with no particular similarity to any pre-Christian ritual style of which I am aware. It has particular beliefs and meditations associated with it also, and while not many, they are still not a reconstruction of anything at all by any stretch of the imagination. I know this, because their "two powers" stuff was justified by suggesting it was involved, in some way, with "many indo-european cultures". No examples were given, AT ALL. No specific cultures were named, let alone citations given.

And yeah, I hold a grudge. They claimed to be a scholarly organization that valued research. They LIED to me. I was livid. I actually marked their ******** introductory booklet! I underlined s**t and crossed stuff out and demanded citations! And when I emailed them in annoyance I received no reply.

Wankers.

Anyway, they're not recon. Or quasi-recon. Their religious approach is "follow this ritual core. Also, study is good". Study is in no way, shape, or form specific to recon religions. And nor should it be.  

[havenne17]

Words are slippery things and definitions, well, how many forums have we seen go down in flames over who is a 'witch'? I think, back a bit in the thread, what we really had was a difference in what various posters considered 'patronage'. I don't think I ever actually got into my own relationship to deity but I'm sure it will come up at some point.

I can't speak to ADF's practices or their 'authenticity' or whether they are 'druids'. I have read someplace recently that 'cultural misappropriation' is being brought up in connection with some 'druid' groups; that was an interesting thought. I was also surprised to see, recently, that the founder of ADF has now co-authored a book on Asatru. I can only shake my head and not support any of them financially; he's also involved in CUUPs so I have to wonder... I'm sorry you had issues with a group - it seems to be a common experience in paganism.

Let me slide into metaphor to illustrate my POV on study:
If you interview to join my department (I work in a chem lab), sure, I look over your college work. But then I ask if you can fix something, like a bicycle or a sewing machine or a car. I want to know if you know which end of the screwdriver to use since there is a certain amount of fixing our own instrumentation we need to do. You can't really read about using tools in a book and don't get me started on whether maintenance can actually be done from a manual, lol. Just as you need some theory and nomenclature you also need practical skills and you need working methodology. Additionally, as technology moves on, you need the capacity to adapt, to change and to consider new things.

I am a firm believer in needing a balance between reading the books and putting into practice. If all you do is study are you living your Faith? Since leaving organized paganism I have found no need to have to produce citations to defend anything; Faith does not need footnotes and Life does not come with an autobiography. I'm not trying to make light of anyone's studies but it is only one aspect of being pagan or a witch or whatever label you accept as describing you.  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

havenne17

Words are slippery things and definitions, well, how many forums have we seen go down in flames over who is a 'witch'?

Rarely if ever. It's usually about who is a Wiccan.

Quote:

I think, back a bit in the thread, what we really had was a difference in what various posters considered 'patronage'.

Not so much a "difference" as an interesting exploration of implicit implications of particular words.

Quote:

I can't speak to ADF's practices or their 'authenticity' or whether they are 'druids'.

Of course their practices are authentic - they are authentically ADF practices. I doubt anyone has a problem with those practices. They're not reconstructed practices, but ADF has never made the claim that they were.

They're clearly not druids as all the druids are dead and gone, their teachings lost, and - most importantly - their place in society no longer relevant.

Quote:

I have read someplace recently that 'cultural misappropriation' is being brought up in connection with some 'druid' groups; that was an interesting thought.

The Celtic peoples get understandably upset when people bastardize their cultures and ancestors. *shrug* People have been ******** the Celtic peoples over for a long time, and they're getting rather put out with it.

Quote:

I was also surprised to see, recently, that the founder of ADF has now co-authored a book on Asatru. I can only shake my head and not support any of them financially; he's also involved in CUUPs so I have to wonder...

There's no reason one can't be a member of many different groups. Being a member of a UU group doesn't necessarily imply soft polytheism, and practising ADF ritual doesn't mean you can't also be a practising member of a different religion. Orthopraxies are great like that.

Quote:

I am a firm believer in needing a balance between reading the books and putting into practice. If all you do is study are you living your Faith?

We never said that you can read and that is the be-all and end-all of a religion. Valuing study doesn't mean you don't live your faith. Valuing study doesn't, and NEVER has, meant that ALL you do is study.

And I'm not sure what your experiences are, but many people have spiritual experiences through study. There's nothing like reading something that chimes in your soul or discovering a UPG is supported by Lore.

I dislike your implication that people who value study do not practise actively, do not live their faith, do not have spiritual skills, and do not have UPG.

Quote:

Since leaving organized paganism I have found no need to have to produce citations to defend anything; Faith does not need footnotes

Faith doesn't. Claims do. You can have faith that Wicca is 1000 years old, but you'd be dead wrong, so if you make a claim like that you have to back it up. You can claim that Odinn doesn't accept non-whites as worshippers, but you had better back that up. You can believe what you want; it's when you try to tell other people this stuff as if it was true that you have to provide some sort of basis for your claim.  

[too2sweet]

havenne17

Since leaving organized paganism I have found no need to have to produce citations to defend anything

Whenever people have in-depth discussions on a subject, it's always good to be able to let others know where you are coming from. Some sources are better than others, and while it's ok to have a personal opinion (we all have them), if some of that is based on misinformation, then being able to know what someone's sources are for something, can help to clear up any misunderstandings fairly quickly (on both sides).

There are a good many of us who love to pick up new resources as well, so knowing what someone's sources are give us a new "grab bag" of information to absorb. This doesn't mean that we don't have active practices as well, it just means that we like to do research into the how's, why's and/or the history of things. I've always been an avid reader, for as long as I can remember. I have books stacked all over my house. sweatdrop  

[Violet Song jat Shariff]

havenne17

I'm sorry you had issues with a group - it seems to be a common experience in paganism.

Which doesn't mean all groups associated with Paganism are bad.

Quote:

I am a firm believer in needing a balance between reading the books and putting into practice. If all you do is study are you living your Faith?

Depends.
Does your god (be it a patron or just a deity you are striving to please at the moment) encourage learning and studying? If yes, then I would say that studying to further one's faith is certainly practicing.
Sanguina has already pointed out the fact that for some, studying is a spiritual experience. I love the light, happy feeling, kind of like a release I get when something I'm reading really hits home and/or gives me new insight.

Quote:

Since leaving organized paganism I have found no need to have to produce citations to defend anything; Faith does not need footnotes and Life does not come with an autobiography.

And as too2sweet already pointed out, if you want to believe something all by yourself, whatever. If you want to make a claim based on those beliefs, you'd do best to have something to back it up with. Also, I'm not entirely sure how I'd feel about having faith in which all I had to do was say "I believe what I want to believe without reason or justification." That could turn dangerous very quickly.  

[havenne17]

Wow, tag team, here.
As to where I'm coming from, let's get back to basics: I haven't been a member of a religion with a 'book.' Period. Ever. Think about what that means. I probably harbor just as many books as everyone else and studied just as much but I'm not inclined to wave papers at you. Do you want me to? It would be scary. Where we differ is mainly in values and bear in mind that I have already said that magic word: 'balance.' You all are freely ignoring that.

The central element of your arguments, all of you, is that I'm 'implying' that study isn't important which means, in turn, that you are taking one piece of what I have to say and ignoring everything else. You're deliberately choosing a part of the target to help your aim and have descended to the fuzzy realm of 'implications' to bolster your point of view. I have done my best to seem respectful and expect, in turn, for assumptions not to be made and a certain amount of respect to be returned. I am not inclined to share in the face of assertions made with the caps on or made with text-speak.

As to defending my beliefs, someone, somewhere, had an original thought. Perhaps they read and went to discussions and listened and worked but then they synthesized....something new arose. It is a work in progress. When people get to that point I very much want to hear it. Until then, it's just argument and thus kind of worthless to me. If you wish to indulge in self-promotion and the maintenance of a status quo, thanks for warning me and please let me leave first. I, myself, sort of defy categorization and intend to remain that way. I feel like I'm getting potshots which really should be made towards a group or groups which have upset you.

In all of this, I, for one, realized from the beginning that I was in a group with people of differing opinions. My intention was not to change anyone's point of view but to share my own. 'Rightness' and 'wrongness' should not be an issue but they have reared their ugly heads. [sigh]

Allow me to suggest that the ugliness stop because this has descended to the level of counterproductive.  

[too2sweet]

I think that we're having one of those "tone of voice doesn't show well in text" moments. sweatdrop No one is taking potshots at you, or being ugly or rude or mean. We're having a in-depth discussion on a particular topic.

No one was asking you to wave papers at us, you were asked to clarify a couple of points. As I pointed out earlier, this is mainly done so that the people involved in the discussion can get an idea of where each other is coming from.

example being: if I know what your sources are, I have a better idea of how/why you have the beliefs that you do, then I can offer up some of my own (if they differ) and we both may learn something new in the process. It's completely possible that once I understand where you are coming from, that I will agree with you. If I don't, it may be for a good reason as well, which then furthers the discussion.

The whole point of this guild and others it to learn from each other. If every one equates discussion with personal attack, then none of us are ever going to grow. Putting one's thoughts and beliefs out on the table is a painful process (very horribly painful - been there, done that, not looking to ever experience that again), but it can be well worth it in the end - especially if we have based our beliefs on erroneous information (and there is a lot of crap material out there). My beliefs are wonderful things, but I want them to be built on a strong foundation. This means examining them from time to time against facts that exist. Sometimes it means I have to do some major shifting in my thought processes, and other times it is just simple reaffirmation that I'm on the right path.

We all have unique experiences and knowledge and we are all here to share that with each other. Just because I have read a lot of things, doesn't mean that I haven't taken that information, internalized it, and put my own spin on it, based on my personal experiences. Just because I have read a lot of things, doesn't necessarily mean that all of them were great resources (I've read my share of crap too), so it has been great for me to be able to get with others who have better resources, which they've been good enough to share. If everyone we ever spoke to agreed with us 100% of the time, we'd never learn anything new and we'd never grow.

biggrin  

[Violet Song jat Shariff]

Havenne: Seriously. No one is attacking you or taking cheap shots at you. If you would like it though, I'm sure it can be done. I agree with too2sweet in that it is most likely a case of tone not translating through the context of the interwebs. Take a deep breath.

I don't want you to show us "papers." I imagine that would be quite hard considering in the previous breath you said you've never followed a religion with a book.

How are we ignoring the word "balance"? Would you care to point out instances so that it may be properly and clearly addressed? Also, can you please point out where assertions have been made in caps locks and/or with text speak? I clearly remember for myself, anyways, posting and replying respectfully.

The only counter-productivity I can see is valid points not being addressed. Perhaps we can start doing that now, hmm?