Category Archives: General Hellenismos

Being “Out” Is Not a Privilege

Posted on by
5

So, there was this interesting post on the Patheos Pagan Portal asking people to ponder some things, and generally pointing out that there are still relatively a lot of pagans and polytheists who aren’t “out” about their religion to friends and family. That post sparked another post by an on-line friend, and of course, people had to comment. And I commented too, and I’ll basically say a lot of the same stuff here, but in part so that I can have a handy reference point for later — cos I’m anal like that.

First off, I want to make it quite clear that I don’t ultimately fault people who aren’t “out” about their paganness (or queerness, but that’s not what I’m discussing here) because of situations where one may be at a very great risk of losing their job, their home, custody of their children, or a healthy relationship with family members they still want to maintain a healthy, active, and generally friendly relationship with, for whatever reason — no, I don’t blame the pagans/polytheists in those situations because it’s not the pagans who created the very real situations they face. Those situations were created by the society that ultimately favours Christianity, by zealous Christians who’ve made those people’s situations so precarious, and by a judicial system that has a history of only paying lip-service to “separation of church and state” while ultimately favouring Christianity by a very wide margin. I do not blame the many pagans and polytheists who face those situations and are thus reluctant to “come out” — I may not completely understand, and some of those reasons why I will explain in a mo’, but I don’t blame (BIG difference).

That said, there are still many pagans and polytheists who are “out” as such, and doing pretty OK in spite of that. Still, I’d say only maybe a handful of these “out” pagans and polytheists, at best, are rendered “safe” due to relative pre-existing socio-political privilege — most who are “out” about their religions are living below an annual household income of US$35K, many are in poverty, and many are queer. The least-represented out pagans and polytheists in pagan media are non-white, but this does not stop many such pagans from being active in the pagan community on-line and off. Furthermore, in a society that favours people with high-paying jobs, families (including children of one’s own), and lots of friends, ANY pagan or polytheist who “comes out”, just like any GBLT person who does so, even in 2011, is putting themself at risk of losing all of that in addition to facing other discriminations one is not necessarily protected from, in spite of the United $tates and other countries protecting “freedom of religion”.

Outing oneself is not an act of privilege — it is an act of defiance. The primary reason to remain closeted is to protect what relative amount of privilege one may have by doing so: One will save their job, retain custody of children, preserve ties to a family whose love is apparently only conditional, and one absolutely will not put themselves, their family, or their property at risk of death threats, violence, or destruction.

…and yet there are still at least a handful of pagans and polytheists who will kvetsch and whinge about us “privileged” people who have some great luxury by being “out” about our religion. They poo-poo the out and proud and in-your-face about how love for one’s family is about sacrifice and doing things outside of one’s ordinary routine — and apparently they’re the only members of their own family who believe this, because they’re the only ones hiding, sometimes even lying “for love”. In a society that clearly favours those with families, remaining closeted is clearly an act of maintaining the airs of privilege to protect status. If the love of one’s family is so conditional as to be withheld over a difference of religion, I have to admit that while I don’t fault some-one for caving in to the charade, I don’t see the appeal.

In my own life, I’ve always had this aura of “weird kid” that everybody could see. Even when I spend a year and some absolutely going out of my way to look “normal”, I was never treated that way, and eventually just gave up and went back to what I’d been doing before — it’s not only familiar, but it felt true (the fact that it gave everybody else a more obviously weird kid to point at was merely a side-effect). My family was dirt-poor working class, I’m effete and gay, of TS history, five feet tall in a society that favours tall men, fat in a society that favours thin people, an artist of my own design, completely cut off from my family (and not completely by choice, but ultimately for personal survival), I have both visible and invisible disabilities as defined for the purposes of collecting allowance, and (the least of my worries) am possessing of a fashion sense that has been variously described as “vintage”, “art rock”, “gothic”, “classic glam”, “vaguely punk”, and so on. At some point, it just made more sense to be “out” about having an “alternative religion”, as well, cos really now, when I’ve already got that much against me, what’s one more thing? It’s not like suddenly the crazy Jesus-freaks at the bus stop will be all “but at least you’re Christian, right?” Not likely; not likely at all. I’m already far enough down on most people’s ladders that maintaining airs of “possibly at least Christian, for whatever that’s worth” really won’t amount to a hill of beans. A literal hill of beans might actually have a higher socio-political status than I do.

“Privilege” is playing no part in my decision to be “out” as a polytheist — no, more my lack of privilege. I figure the only way I could have less privilege is to be a Native American trans woman and asexual lesbian (or at least be Black or Latino1).

In the grand scheme of things, there are very few pagans and polytheists who can actually make significant money off of writing, even popular pagan authors often struggle to make a regular income off of writing, and writing alone is seldom their only source of income. Most pagan bloggers I’ve come across are pretty open about struggling to make ends meet, and a disproportionately high number of pagan bloggers (when compared to general statistics) also are openly GBLT. Just looking at these facts alone, I’m already seeing a reduction in relative privilege, so how being out about being part of a disfavoured religion is somehow “a privilege” just boggles my mind.

In the GBLT communities, “coming out” has never been an act of privilege; it has always been an act of defiance. While many people have always maintained many reasons, but founded and unfounded, for remaining closeted, and those with integrity fault the society that makes closeting oneself favourable to living out, the act of coming out itself is not a privilege.

With living out, there are always risks. Those risks are kind of proof that this is not a privileged act, for if it was so, there WOULDN’T be any risk, and everybody would be out! While it’s argueably a “privilege” to live in a city with considerably lesser apparent risk than a tiny, closed-minded town, there is still a risk, still the potential that one’s safety will be endangered simply for living their life openly and honestly, and the fact that that risk exists at all should put to rest any assumptions that coming out is a “privilege”. Hell, simply by being out, certain doors become instantly closed, and will stay that way, without a struggle.

My heart goes out to those who’ve weighed their situations against coming out, and chose the security of a closet; hopefully, we’ll see a reduction in this in our lifetimes, and you wonderful people won’t have to live in fear forever. I put the blame for your situation on the bigots who created it — which is where it belongs.

1: As an aside, when I lived in Los Angeles, I used to get asked pretty often if I was Latino cos of my naturally dark hair for being as pale as I am and in spite of possessing the surname “McElroy”. This is where I came into familiarity with the reclaimed slur of “green bean”, which amuses me — in part cos I first heard it from one-one who’s father was second-generation Mexicano and mother was from Cork (and who she fluent in Mexican dialect Spanish, and with her Irish accent intact). Also, it just now occurred to me that I never had a good come-back then, but I do now. So, to the question of “Are you / is your family Latin?” which is usually how it was phrased, I now say “Not since Boudicca burned Londinium.”

Boeotian Theoi: Hekate

Posted on by
1

[Please note: I want to apologise for skipping over Demeter and Kore at the time I had allotted for Them. Sometimes I think I'll feel up for doing something, and then allergies or carpal tunnel syndrome, or whatever else goes wrong. I also must confess that I'm not the best at managing the time I have, in part cos I'm just too easily distracted.]

Hesiod, Theogony 404 ff (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C8th or C7th B.C.) :
“Hekate whom Zeus the son of Kronos honoured above all. He gave her splendid gifts, to have a share of the earth and the unfruitful sea. She received honour also in starry heaven, and is honoured exceedingly by the deathless gods . . . For as many as were born of Gaia (Earth) and Ouranos (Heaven) [the Titanes] amongst all these she has her due portion. The son of Kronos [Zeus] did her no wrong nor took anything away of all that was her portion among the former Titan gods: but she holds, as the division was at the first from the beginning, privilege both in earth, and in heaven, and in sea. Also, because she is an only child, the goddess receives not less honour, but much more still, for Zeus honours her.”

I’ve found little about Hekate’s shrines specific to Boeotian traditions, but Hesiod apparently considered Her of great importance, and there is evidence that She was a widespread household goddess, with a a shrine at household gates, and at crossroads. At the deipnon (dark moon), the ancients left Her a meal, outdoors, as an offering. In Popular Wicca, She’s often cast as the “crone” aspect of the uniquely modern archetype on the “triple goddess”, while Demetre and Persephone occupy the “Mother” and “Maiden” faces. Indeed, in Hellenic art, Hekate is consistently maiden, young woman, and Hekate Trimorphis is simply all Hekate. According to Pausanius, Hekate Trimorphis was first depicted in art as triple-headed or triple-bodied by the Attic artist Alkamenes, and came much later than the Triplicate imagery of Hekate that’s incredibly popular with Pop Wicca. I don’t reject Hekate Trimorphis images because they are “newer” and thus somehow not “proper recon”1. Indeed, if the only “correct” way to see Hekate is the oldest way, then She should be an invisible Goddess, appearing only as a glimpse of light from the corner of one’s eye, rather than the single-bodied maiden bearing torches. I don’t reject any image of Hekate, and though I see a more spiritual meaning of the epithet, I can see the value in portraying it literally.

She also had an important role in the cult of the Elusinian mysteries. She assisted Demetre in Her search for Persephone after Persephone was taken away to the kingdom of Hades. I’ve never had much interest in the Elusinian mysteries, so unless this changes, I’m going to leave any discussion of them to people who know more about it and have a better understanding of it than I do.

One of the proposed etymologies of Her name is either giving origin to or coming from an obscure Lesbian epithet of Apollon, Hekatos, meaning “one that removes or drives off” or “far-darting one”. The most common offerings to Hekate in ancient times were to ward off evil spirits, as Hekate is the goddess of magic, witches, ghosts, and necromancy; She also is given messages to deceased loved ones. The pharmakis, or witch, Gale, was cursed by Hekate for moral incontinence and became the polecat, which some Hellenes kept as housepets for their vermin-catching abilities. There really needs to be more imagery of Hekate with a lion and / or ferret.

The most common animal associated with Her is dogs, but I’ve always thought of lions when envisioning Hekate, and Theoi Project maintains a very brief sourced passage that one of Her forms is that of a lion, so I assume this personal association as Confirmed Gnosis, though probably not without help of cultural influences, including the English and U$ custom of statues of lions at the gates and doorways of important buildings and stately homes (or even just homes and estates that aspire toward stateliness).

1: …and for the record, it’s been AGES since I’ve seen some-one actually make such a ridiculous claim for rejecting a certain image or aspect or even deity, I even forget the name of the person who did it, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if other people continue to say it, and I just haven’t noticed.

I don’t understand monotheism

Posted on by
5

There’s just something about monotheism I never understood.

A friend recently linked me to an essay, that comes around to the old tired polytheism/monotheism comparison to organisms, and suggesting that not all birds with wide bills and webbed feet are ducks — some are swans, and some are geese, and so just because an entity is Divine doesn’t make it a god. This unfortunate metaphor, though, ignores that in the Family if Anatidae, there are many subfamilies, genii, and species that include hundreds of species of ducks, geese, and swans. The fairer comparison would be that monotheism takes, say, Mallards, and declares their species The One True Duck, and all other ducks are False Ducks. (If we’re talking Zoroastrian-style monotheism, all other species of duck are variant faces of The One True Duck, and their existence as separate is an illusion. In this sense, Zoroastrians are argueably not “true” monotheists, but simply taking “soft polytheism” or perhaps Platonic philosophy’s “One” to its logical extreme. Some schools of Hindu belief also subscribe to this sort of Extreme Soft Polytheism, but I digress.)

While I can be tolerant of the monotheist who can only see his Mallards, my tolerance only really goes as far as my own religion being tolerated and respected. Furthermore, over the years, I’ve been witness to many in pagan and polytheist communities adopting an approach of “all religions must be tolerated, therefore all religions are right”, which, if such phraseology is taken at face value, seems to be a thought that simply cannot be held by one who is truly polytheistic, at least not with added thoughts to reconcile this conflict and inconsistent logic.

While there is certainly wisdom in bowing out of an argument before it descends into a free-for-all flame-war, there’s also a point before it gets there where debate can remain respectful and tolerant, even if both sides will ultimately agree to disagree. Basically: Just because I can respect you as a person and be tolerant of what I see as an illogical religious belief does not mean I’m going to tell you that you are right and your beliefs are correct.

This does not mean I am proselytising, either. If the Theoi have it written that one will come Their way for worship, then it will happen just as surely as the next total solar eclipse will be on 13 November 2012 (visible from northern Australia) — until then, I may debate theology and the nature of divinity with a monotheist, but I am under no illusions that any such debate will lend toward converting one’s beliefs — so one shouldn’t maintain such illusions oneself, either. In this sense, I can respect Mormons, cos their structure makes active proselytising very clear to others, and rarely are they pushy (though they undoubtedly would welcome any “accidental” converts) — unlike Evangelists, who will take any opportunity to “witness” and can turn an ordinary outing to the grocery store into another pathetic attempt to “win souls”, as if whomever converts X-amount of people or more will get upgraded to Platinum Status in Heaven. (Really illustrates the whys of my recent penchant for referring to Christianity as a death cult, eh? And yes, I really was once a victim of a “witnessing” at a grocery store by a complete stranger — and no less than two bus rides, a trip to K-Mart, a visit to the pool at my old apartment, and who knows how many times at my old high school….) The difference, plainly, is debate is invited by both parties and maintains the assumtion that nobody’s mind is going to be changed so much as each person will be heard and respected as an intelligent human being.

I’ve never had a good debate with the overwhelming majority of monotheists I’ve encountered, and the only exception was Jewish — and some sects of Judaism seem to encourage spirited debate on the nature of the divine. Ultimately, we all just end up talking past each-other, and no-one ends up truly being heard on account of either one party using faulty logic and poor analogies to make his points, and the other party possessing of the intellectual capacity to actually make some sense out of his analogies and use internally consistent logic. Sometimes I think it might be nice to eventually encounter some-one who can challenge me to think about my beliefs in a debate, but then on occasion, I wonder if those occasions mightn’t be me wishing to ruin a good thing.

Even when I encounter concepts like “One”, its definition reeks too much to “trinity” and generally comes across as something for people who “want something that’s like Christianity, but isn’t”. If Khaos was so perfect as One, then what made Her fracture into Many? If the goal of spirituality is to reunite as One, then why does Physis drive Her charge of Nature into Many? It seems an inconsistent idea of what “perfect” is, and not to mention a presumptuous idea of what the Theoi has planned. While Big Bang theory of the scientific origin of the universe certainly seems compatible with Hesiod’s Khaos origin in Theogony, there is also loads of evidence to support it — indeed, the universe is still expanding, little by little, with each passing century; there’s simply no evidence to support the notion of an eventual Big Crunch (not just a plot-point in an episode of Red Dwarf), and the whole hypothesis rests on the notion that the universe is of finite dimension — though it certainly is not the only one compatible with a finite universe. Even cosmologically, the idea of One simply doesn’t hold much water, even ignoring the fact that I find it philosophically uncomfortable a fit to the nature of the divine as I’ve known it. In short, I don’t even understand the appeal of “monotheism, but not”, as it seems to fly in the face of basic knowledge, in spite of its insistences to the contrary.