When Newt Gingrich says “pagan” he simply means someone that doesn’t agree with him. He is not talking about the Neo-pagan/earth-based religion. It is a version of the old nativism movement – demonize the people who came to this country after “us”; they’re the cause of all our problems. This was just a throwaway speech. Tell the people attending what they want to hear, collect a check and move on. Newt has a new book out co-authored by his daughter and is just trying to move some copies and make some money.

MODERN PAGANS
Paganism is any local culture’s religion of nature spirituality or folk-magic. Pagans believe that the natural world is an echo of the spiritual realm. We believe that all living things are imbued with spirit and deserve acknowledgement. Animist Pagans further believe that features of the landscape, such as streams and mountains, also have Spirit.
Wisdom may be found by observing and responding to Nature’s unending cycle of life, growth, death and decay. This leads naturally to the concept of reincarnation and respect for the Land, and for the Spirits of the Ancestors. Humans are not seen as Lords of the Earth but part of the food chain. One should take only what one needs from Nature, return what one can, and value every living thing that died for one’s survival.
This cycle of life, sometimes called the Web of Wyrd or the Wheel of Fate, shows us that all things influence all things, “I resonate with the universe and it resonates with me”. From this comes the principle of magic.
Magic is “The art of causing auspicious coincidences to happen”. By focussing one’s will through meditation, physical discipline, honourable behaviour and symbolic ritual, one can develop intuitive skills to positively influence one’s fate. However, it does not substitute for personal accomplishment. Psychologically it is seen as self-programming of one’s subconscious will.
Every act has unseen consequences. One creature’s gain is always another’s loss. The ethical implication of this is taken seriously. It is dishonourable to negatively influence the will of others through magic. Even healing-magic should only be at the request of the patient.
Pagans believe in a plurality of deities. Each governs a different aspect of Life. Our Gods and Goddesses have equal standing, for Nature shows us that though different, male and female are equally necessary.
Pagans who believe these deities are actual individuals are specifically called Polytheistic.
Gnostic Pagans believe that the Deities are knowable manifestations of an unknowable Universal Mind. This is not an almighty being that controls from beyond the cosmos it created, but is inseparable from the cosmos. Cosmos and Universal Mind arise eternally from each other. The way one’s own mind and body are co-dependent for existence echoes this.
Other Pagans see the Deities as archetypes; symbols of fundamental concerns that rise from the subconscious.
Some see the Deities as myths handed down to reveal timeless wisdom.
Most Pagans believe there is truth in all these but that no absolute definition is relevant. One’s personal experience and intuition is all one can truly know.
The festivals and practices of Pagans have their roots in ancient folk customs. Our celebrations follow the rhythms of the agricultural year and the stations of the sun and moon. They remind us of the necessary cycles of Life and Death. We worship mostly on the land.
We have no proscribed scripture, no fixed liturgy, no formal doctrine and no authoritarian hierarchy. Our priests and priestesses arise, according to fittedness, from within our communities.
Western Pagans have four historic roots. The earliest was Stone Age Shamanism; mankind’s oldest religion. It was assimilated into later spiritual cultures: the Druidry of the Celts, Classical myths, and the Heathenry of the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. Later these coalesced in the medieval witchcraft that was much misunderstood by the Christian church. Drawing from ancient mystery cults of the Mediterranean and Middle East, ceremonial magic lodges also developed in that period.
In modern times those ancient forms have re-emerged. They are not archaeological reconstructions of dead superstitions, but living interpretations of the Old Ways. A profound respect for the Earth runs through them all.
Pagans, Witches and Satanists are still popularly confused. To clarify:
The word Witch comes from Anglo-Saxon ‘wicce’. It means Cunning Folk, in the sense of ‘knowing’. Cunning Folk were the spiritual intercessors of rural communities. Traditional Witchcraft is then: the knowledge and practice of folk magic. Witches, like anyone, can be male, female, good or bad. A witch is not necessarily a Pagan.
The word Pagan comes originally from Roman Latin meaning ‘yokel’. It is appropriate for the definition stated above, “any local culture’s religion of nature spirituality or folk-magic”. Not all Pagans practice witchcraft.
The word Satan is from Biblical Hebrew. It means Adversary-Accuser. Satanism is a cult in opposition to the morality of the Bible’s god, Jehovah and his commandments. Pagans do not accept the Bible as scripture and thus do not believe in Satan or Jehovah. Thus we have no Tempter to blame for our own faults.
Paganism is a path that encourages personal accountability and individual spiritual growth through effort. What the Monotheists experience as Evil is, to us, neither the act of an Adversary spirit nor the “consequence of sin”. It is a normal part of the process of impartial Nature. When bad things happen it is not punishment, one just gets in the way of Chaos as it balances with Order.
Pagans seek to live within that balance; of the spiritual and physical forces within and around us, and with the needs of the living world. This is the world view our ancestors held from the time that they first held views at all. It is the time-honoured, earthy response to Life. Its very nature is inclusive and many Pagan cultures have continued uninterrupted to this day.

I think Newt is confusing or conflating paganism with liberalism. Perhaps he should have called his political enemies secularists instead, would have made more sense. He also mentions that God has a special relationship only with the United States, so too bad for everyone else. He even has the nerve to mention the founders of our country who were deists. As a Catholic, Newt would have to conclude that Jefferson was in deed a pagan according to the precepts of his new religion.

“I think Newt is confusing or conflating paganism with liberalism.”
Probably an intentional conflation because paganism was group of religions that were competition with the monotheist religions so his base would be happy to buy it. I find it fascinating that the Roman Catholic Church would want Newt or that a Southern politician of such an interesting history would want the RCC, but I won’t assume that Newt is just being a hypocrite to make his wife happy.

Following is a letter I wrote to a friend who asked point blank: “Are you an atheist?” It’s not a definition of ‘pagan,’ but perhaps it might make a modest contribution.
Greetings, David,
Haven’t heard from you for a time. I hope all is going well.
I keep thinking about our theological exchange – actually I had been thinking about it for years.
Yes, I am an atheist, at least in the sense that I understand the term. There is no “supreme being” beyond the forces of nature.
Now, about something called “spirituality.” Years ago, a statement in an old Norwegian version of a German story struck me; paraphrased it goes like this: “As long as men tell tales in the North Country, Sigurd will live on.” In the medieval German version, when Siegfried is told by his wife that his end is neigh (Germanic women seem to have known these things), his reply is something like (again paraphrased): “Well, I’ve accomplished a lot,” meaning that he will live on in stories, which seems to have meant as much to him as living on on this orb.
This isn’t unique to the Germanics: when Achilles’ mother tells him that his choices are to remain at home, raise a family, and be forgotten in a generation, or to go off to war, be killed, and inspire stories for eons, of course he goes.
In this sense then, the original King Arthur, perhaps a late fifth century local Celtic warlord, lives on, since stories about him are not only still being told, but invented. Shakespeare’s plays and Beethoven’s symphonies are not only being performed after two, respectively four centuries, but are changing. Each body of work has something new for each generation.
How does this apply to you and me, nor a Beethoven nor a Shakespeare (speaking for myself of course)?
I adhere to that group that holds that everything is connected. The old saw goes something like “when a butterfly flutters in Asia, it influences the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.” In human terms that would mean that the actions of each individual would have a bearing, however slight, on the xxxx of everyone else, present and future. Thus my xxxx is somehow influenced by all of the greater and lesser forebears, including that person whose picture was found in Aunt Hermione’s knick-knack drawer and no one could identify.
Not being an Achilles or a Mozart, my name will not live on. I do, however, hope that I can make the claim that the world is better, however slightly, for my having inhabited it for a time, than it would have been otherwise. It should be easy for a teacher to make that claim, although I’ve known several who shouldn’t make it. Of the several thousand students who have been in my classes, there must be a few who were uniquely inspired, and whose inspiration will be passed on to their posterity. I have had a few who, some of them years later, have said as much. In this way I will have contributed to this human xxxx.
Spirituality? There is something larger than each of us. Until I find or invent a word (I’d welcome suggestions), I will call it xxxx, which we all share and to which we all contribute.
If I am wrong, and there is a place where those who are “saved” go, not because of their deeds, but because of ceremonies and rituals they have participated in, I wish them well. If I am relegated to the other place, then that is where I likely belong. I will be in good company.

paganism – a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; the system of religion and philosophy taught by the Druids and their rites and ceremonies
If by Paganism, you mean follks who use and abuse the name of God/Jesus for political and $$$$ gain, condemning other for failing to live the standards they’ve arbitrarily established up why failing to live the life they espouse, then Newt Gingrich knows what he is talking about.

Personal Note: I believe Newt really is NOT talking about certain faith that many, like myself, define as Paganism. I have read numerous Pagan blogs with many really taking this to heart (rightfully so!). However, Newt is ignorant and we all know this. He is speaking about anyone who does not share his religious belief (anti-gay marriage, anti-individual choice and the likes). He is using the term as an umbrella term for those who are Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Wicca, Druid, New Age Movement, and the likes. This includes Christians who believe in non-violence, support of same sex marriage, and individual personal choices. Of course, those types of people have deep issues to call those Christians (who behave more Christ like) a Christian. Maybe a bit of Judaism (even though our country can be viewed as a Judo-Christian majority). Yet, to attack the “Pagan” tradition as a whole—not really. He also misspoke…We are not Surrounding America solely—We ARE IN IT! Lol. So what is your point?

Looks like the Republicans haven’t learned anything from their defeat in 2008. Newt pandering to the Religious Right is an example of that.

Neo-paganism is a label which encompasses many variations, and reflects a post-modern view. Practioners are often loosely affiliated and may construct a personal religion, borrowing from many traditions. Many are very environmentally conscious, and include shamanic elements in their practices. The experience of powerful states of unity and other mystical states are often important components of these forms of religious expression. They tend to not focus on doctrine, and do focus upon living in harmony at peace with themselves and their world. These forms do not lend themselves well to large organizational structures, and many are extremely suspicious of these due to the abuses within that type of structure in the past.
Paganism would from my perspective refer to any of the many indigenous religions which may have similar archetypes but are formally and historically distinct, (or nearly so).

Speaker Gingrich may not be a fool, and may indeed be clever. However as a three times married, adulterous, self professed Catholic, he is at the least a hypocrite…which is to say perfectly suited for his role in American politics.

And Newt would be an expert on ANYTHING? He has no clue about Pagans, or IMO, any other religion, or for that matter, about the founders of this country. He is currently a Catholic…but who knows if that will last?

No, guys, you don’t understand. Divorce is not a marker for Religious Right hypocrisy. It’s a marker for Religious Right devotion. If the Pope were a Republican, divorce would be the 8th sacrament. Serial wife-dumpers like Newt and Rush are not the exceptions, they are the shining examples.

Is this what now qualifies as a southern, white Judeo-Christian, good ol’ boy keeping it real?

Speaking as both a practicing Pagan of 20 years and a registered Republican (yes, there are a few of us out there), I think this is being blown out of proportion. Gingrich was clearly not referring to neo-paganism as it is found in the United States today. Given the context in which he was speaking, he was using the term “paganism” in the Old Testament sense of the term, analogous to the Israelites who found themselves surrounded by (and ultimately “corrupted”– in the view of the authors of the OT– by) the pagan cultures of the Canaanites and etc. In that context, “paganism” stands for anything that is thought to be contrary to the will of their God, and conservatives certainly don’t have a monopoly on claiming that particular high ground (“liberation theology” anyone?). Now, one could make an argument that to use the term “paganism” in such a generically perjorative sense is not only rude and insensitive, but factually inaccurate. In an academic setting that would certainly be the case. But given where Gingrich was speaking (and to whom), it could be argued that “paganism” was a term that his audience would understand, given the context. And yeah, it was a bit of red meat to the crowd; once again, conservatives don’t have a lock on *that*, either.

I believe Newt’s reference included neo-pagans (I am one), but it was also intended as a catch-all phrase for all of the “undesirables.” conservatives have a need to hate. That group includes pagans (they hate our environmentalism), gays, uppity minorities, atheists, liberal Christians. All of the people they suppose are involved in the conspiracy to deny cleancut Christian white men a fair shake in this world. (The hideous injustice of only getting their way 85 percent of the time.) They also mean Jews, but they have to be careful how they say that these days. The usual code is “Hollywood producers” or “media elite.”

Newt used the word paganism to refer to what he believed to be contemporary idolatry. I myself had a classic concept of paganism (sacrificing to Zues/Thor, Diana, fertility gods and goddesses, etc) until I learned a little about Neo-Paganism which seems to be the predominant form of modern day paganism. I agree he could be a little more politically correct. Ironically enough, though, according to these mental midgits HE recently converted to Paganism:
http://www.escapefrompaganism.com/

Websters defines Pagan:
–noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
–adjective 4. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
6. irreligious or hedonistic.
How did we get from being polytheistic to irreligious? I can see why Newt might be a little bit confused.
My ancestors came over on the Mayflower, but I’m a “them?” Sorry folks, but the white man wasn’t here first.
I’d say pagans are folks who don’t necessarily fear their Gods and Goddesses. We work WITH them and know they have many sides and personalities. Not just the always right, do what I say or else kind of Higher Being that most Christians worship. Also, I’d have to say that Pagans are far more knowledgeable about who we worship and don’t take one source of information absolute fact.

Newt Gingrich has always been something of a rabble rouser and he knows that if you can control what people hate or fear or get angry about then you can control the people themselves.
The excuse to attack another group or harass then has always been somehow they are a danger to us. The same technique is finically successful for many media ministries. Claim their is a danger and then ask that people send you money so you can fight it.
I guess that is where we Pagans are lucky, in that we are not so easily manipulated. Our religions don’t put us under some religious leader and we can and do disagree about a great many things without the threat of being sent to some burning lake of fire.
As a Wiccan of some 25 years, I feel sorry for people that allow con men like Newt to run them emotionally ragged for his own benefit and power.
Meanwhile I don’t have to follow someone else’s idea about my deities as I can ask them myself for personal and guidance.

Tom, now *THAT* is comedy.

I have to agree with other comments that Gingrich was not referring solely or even primarily to the Pagan/Neo-Pagan/Wicca/etc. movements in the United States and around the world. Rather, his comment reminded me of a screed-like letter written by my grandmother’s pastor in regards to my denominations consideration of blessing gay marriages. In it, he said that were we to recognize gay unions, the rest of the Christian world would regard us as pagans – “pagans with shrinks, but pagans nonetheless,” to quote the memorable final line. Pagan just means “anyone who doesn’t conform to my narrow understanding of what true religion is.” You can faithfully attend church and believe all the traditional Christian doctrines on the trinity and the divinity of Christ, but if you support gay rights or keeping abortion legal, or if you oppose teaching bad science in schools and waging an unjust war, you’re a “pagan.”

Etymology of the modern word “pagan”: from the :Latin, “pagani”, which basically means “dweller in the country”, “citizen of a rural area” or “rustic person”. Well….
I am a “rustic person” at heart (yeah, I’m educated, but I prefer a simpler life-style) and I live in what is known in the U.S. as “the country” (it is very much rural). I guess that makes me a pagan.
What ol’ Newt and his bed-fellows do not seem to understand is that they, too are required to obey every single Commandment given in their Bible. I cannot help but wonder, given the fact that ol’ Newt et al are already guilty of hypocrisy, how many of the 12 (minimum) Commandments in the New testament alone they have broken. Commandments such as to pray in secret — not in public; to not end a marriage (divorce); to not make any oaths at all — especially in “God’s name”. Newt Gingrich and all of his bed-fellows need to re-acquaint themselves with the Commandments their precious Jesus Christ gave them to obey. Those Commandments are to be found in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, in the Book of Matthew, Chapters 5-7 inclusive.
Until Newt and his bed-fellows obey ALL of those Commandments without having to be “reminded”, I will continue to worship as I choose. I will NOT be told by such crass HYPOCRITES how I should believe.

Think you’re giving the Newtinator too much credit. It was less a theological dig than a casting of rhetorical red meat at the same reactionary masses.

Dear Brad, it would be difficult to define Paganism(s) in a single blog comment, but one thing that the vast majority of Pagans have in common is the belief that the Divine is immanent in the world, and that the world is a theophany, a manifestation of the Divine. If you are interested in Pagan theology, may I recommend http://pagantheologies.pbworks.com (upon which I would be delighted to hear your comments).
As other commenters have remarked, I suspect Gingrich was using the term paganism as a catch-all pejorative term for people who don’t agree with him – but I’m glad you used it as an opportunity to discuss “idolatry”.
As you made clear in your discussion of the issue, Pagans do not think that images are the totality of the Divine or deities, merely a doorway to the divine reality to aid in focusing on it.

You could say Paganism is any religion of non-Abrahamic beliefs.
Which is exactly what Newt means…He’s in with the “in” crowd and Pagans are the “out” crowd.
I took care of this sweet sweet elderly man and every night before he went to bed he prayed to God on his little wobbley knees. His prayer?
“God punish those Pagans for killing Christ”.
Then I tucked him into bed, went out to the kitchen to my work station and prayed on bended knee that God forgive him.

You could say Paganism is any religion of non-Abrahamic origins*
Pardon the mistake, it’s early

Any guy who could be so abysmally low as to ask his wife for a divorce while she was recovering from cancer surgery should keep his big mouth shut. Newt Gingrich is such a guy and when you can’t keep your personal life in order, how the heck do you expect to tell anyone else what to do.

Newt Gingrich may be an intelligent man, but he uses his skill with words to take political advantage of ill-informed people. He does this by catering to their lowest base instincts of defense. Paganism is a codeword for anything that scares the paranoid mob.

The matter is easily dismissed with a simple phrase, “Newt’s nuts!”

By “paganism” Gingrich- the adulterous former Speaker of the House
who informed his first wife that he was divorcing her while she was in the hospital suffering from cancer, so clearly he is in no position to criticize anyone else’s behavior – probably refers to the “cult of personality” attending such figures as the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rush Limbaugh and ZOA president Mort Klein, all of whom are invested with infallibility by their slavish followers.

I was born into a Jewish home, and practiced Judaism for a long time. I now am a practicing pagan, but I will always have Jewish ancestry.
I’ve found that when a person makes prejudicial remarks about any one particular race or religion, that person is generally prejudiced across the board. If someone tells jokes about African American people, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that person would tell Jewish jokes at the drop of a hat.
The Rabbi is correct. Gingrich picked on a spiritual group that has little or no collective voice. What Gingrich really meant by “pagans” was anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their savior. In other words, anyone who believes differently than Newt. That is the tactic employed by religious fundamentalists.

Just to piggyback on comments already made, I believe as well that the good Rabbi is correct in his assertion that Mr. Gingrich is taking the opportunity to attack people who have little public representation. He’s most likely referring to the growing popularity of what’s more properly referred to a Neopaganism, a religious movement that has brought many rich traditions of spirituality back into the light. What’s really ironic about this is that, in my own experience over the last 25 years of being a Neopagan myself, I’ve found that the most unifying principle between all the traditions within the movement is that of toleration for all faiths, including those which castigate them. In short, he’s preaching to his own very narrow choir here, and as such really merits no direct response at all. Sensible people will not likely be swayed by this rhetoric.

Gee, this same man left his wife when she was dying in the hospital of breast cancer. He also refused to pay child support to his two young daughters when his ex- wife was dying. If he can do that to his own children, he has no business being a public speaker concerning America’s children.

Hello Rabbi, thank you for the invite. I will try to keep my response short so please note that I’m leaving a lot out. Also note that I am not Wiccan, although I share many Wiccan beliefs.
I am a Witch and have been since 1972 when I was 13. My beliefs are based upon a foundation of love for Nature and for the Gods. I believe that the creative energy of the Gods – the “Divine Spark” as some call it, is the life force within all living creatures and the creative energies in Nature. The Gods also have destructive energies and they exist within us and within Nature as well.
As children of the Gods, we are encouraged to responsibly use this energy. I manipulate the energy to effect the changes I want to occur. For me this is the meaning of working Magick, to direct and focus energy toward a specific goal. An attempt to change or guide something, as in coax sickness to health, drought to normal rainfall, give protection, etc. Or sometimes the goal is just saying thank-you in celebration of a time marked by the turning of the Wheel. The energy raised during these times is empowering and humbling all at once.
Every Pagan will have a slightly different story, as none of us have the exact same energies within us. This is the strength of Paganism, and also what causes the most confusion for those unfamiliar with it. It’s not right for everyone, but I would walk no other path.

Mr. Gingrich, I didn’t know that the Pagan community was so big or so powerful.
Ok, if that be the case, may I suggest the first order of business should be that we outlaw proselytizing, after all, if you have to sell your religion, can it really be that good? Shouldn’t actions speak louder than words…oh well.
I always loved that thought, it really gets the conservative Christians up in arms .

Paganism is the “natural” religion of humanity. It has an infinite variety of expressions- and each of those expressions are themselves constantly in flux.
“It is not by teaching but by nature that humanity possesses its knowledge of the Divine, as can be shown by the common yearning for the Divine that exists in everyone everywhere — individuals, communities, nations. Without having it taught us, all of us have come to believe in some sort of Divinity, even though it is difficult for all to know what Divinity truly is and far from easy for those who do know to explain it to the rest.”
Emperor Julian, “Against the Galileans”

I believe Paganism is living contrary to the will of God. America is definitely acting contrary to God’s laws, commandments and statutes. When one serves the God(s) of this world instead of the God of Abraham you can’t get more pagan than that. I’m not sure what Newt meant, but paganism reigns in America, but the spirit of the One God Yahweh reigns supreme above all there is, always have been, always will be the Great I AM.

I have no doubt that Gingrich’s use of the word ‘paganism’ was simply a way to give the crowd a buzzword; but I think the use of that particular word once again points out how far the Neo-Pagan communtity still has to go to be treated with the same respect as the big 3 monotheistic traditions. If any other “ism” had been substituted in that speech any other group would be fit to be tied. Quite frankly, the context of how the word was used is offensive to those of us who are Pagan.
Personally, my Paganism grew out of an inability to reconcile the Christian God of my childhood with objectivist atheism. I am unwilling to dismiss the possibility of the existence of a higher being/force because too many things in the history of mankind have been dismissed simply because we had yet to be technologically advanced enough to discover them. However, I cannot accept the idea that humankind is given such enormous potential and expected to grovel, self-sacrifice, and underachieve for the favor of a higher being. I believe in living for oneself, to one’s fullest potential without shame or guilt for displaying pride in one’s individual talents and abilities.

Thank you, Rabbi, for giving us Pagans a chance to speak some of our own definitions of Paganism.
As you are probably beginning to realize, the variety of Pagan beliefs is wide, and we are in no wise ignorant of deep theology. I have been reading the definitions presented with interest, enjoying the different viewpoints.
I am not at all sure it is possible to make an inclusionary definition which covers all of Paganism. Outside the documented doctrines of the Organized Religions the number of different belief-sets practiced and transmitted by enough people to call them religious traditions (as opposed to simple Freethinking) is impossible to count or document, as many of those religions must remain occult to survive. (Where Theocracies rule, Pagans often must hide.)
But every country on this planet contains remnants of old or ancient indigenous belief-systems, and it would be foolish to think that all of their practitioners discarded them because of oppression or the import of other belief-systems. Add the newly created or the re-created traditions of Neopaganism, and “Paganism is…” becomes too many different ways of thinking and being to count, much less define.
I would like to add a couple of concepts from my own Pagan tradition.
I am in no way saying these conceps/beliefs are common in all Pagan traditions, only that they are part of the core beliefs in my own tradition. They have not been clearly stated here yet, so I thought to try and add them to the list of “Paganism is…”
The first is in response to your concern about idolatry. I keep a brass image of a golden calf on my altar…not to worship, but to humourously remind myself to avoid worshipping symbols.
In my tradition we also have a law about idolatry, it’s called “The Law of Shadows”. It is stated roughly like this; “All books, all images, all idols, all chants, all words, all callings, are shadows. The shadows point to the darkness, the shadows point to the light. Look beyond the shadows.”
We have no proscription against *using* idols, but we are taught to remember that they are idols, and refriain from being distracted by them from percieving what they indicate. I find this to be a common belief-set in many other Pagan traditions. Some traditions call their books of rituals and teachings a “Book of Shadows”.
The second is the concept of Celebratory, interactive worship. This involves the idea that the Gods and Goddesses are not only around us, they are also *in* us, that we all are part of the Great Dance, in which They Dance the Universe into being. This is derived from the belief that the Gods and Goddesses are the fundamental Powers which underlie the Universe, that Creation involves many Powers acting together in harmony rather than one Power acting in domination.
So truly honoring and worshpping The Gods and Goddesses involves living our lives as a dance of celebration. (“Honor the gift of Life by taking pleasure into it”). In deeper practice, this involves treating both our bodies and the Earth as Temples, and treating religious rites as celebrations in which we seek to open ourselves to being aware of Them and Their Dance. Spiritually, it involves learning to see and feel what They are doing and feeling, so that we can ourselves dance in step and harmony with Their Dance.
In ritual, this is sometimes expressed as “We Dance in You, You Dance in us”, or “We are the Dancers, We are the Dancing, and We are the Dance.”, with “We” meaning both the God/esses and the Celebrants. In long-term practice, for me and others of my tradition, this opens an ongoing dialogue with what we worship which goes far beyond what words or other symbols can possibly communicate. This is one way, in practice, to “look beyond the shadows.”
Our major holidays are centered around the cycles of the seasons, as they are regarded as part of the pattern of the Great Dance.
If you wanted to use modern terms to describe my tradition, it would be something like “Celebratory Polytheistic Animism.”
Thermal

Your Name
June 10, 2009 11:25 AM
your comment…i’m so…underwhelmed. I still don’t understand why conservative christians try to co opt the “God of Abraham” as what the Jews believe in God and what Christians believe is God is two different things. To bad they never took the time to learn that.

Dear Mr. Hirschfield,
As a pagan, I was a bit concerned about Newt Gingrich’s statement, at least initially. I feel that the word was intentionally misused, and was designed to evoke the most powerful emotions for the least amount of meaning. Did he define paganism after he used the word? I don’t read or hear that he did, though the video feed is blocked by my internet access here at work. I think he used the word because it creates an image in people’s minds, an image that can be custom-tailored to suit the needs and desires of the listener. An image that might mean any or all of the various suggestions already posted by other commenters.
Defining paganism is not easy, as anyone who has read Margot Adler’s “Drawing Down the Moon” can attest. Pagans are currently more of a subculture than a religious body, a subculture nonetheless tied by certain similar ideas which are religious in nature and address religion as a subject matter. These ideas themselves, however, can differ wildly, even within certain branches of paganism such as Ar nDraiocht Fein (ADF).
Since it is difficult to define what pagans in general believe, allow me to define how I view my religious experience and practice. Take it as one pagan’s view.
I define my own practice as Celto-Norse polytheism following the ritual language and practices of ADF, a Neopagan druidic and scholarly organization. I am pan-polytheistic by belief; that is, I believe that all pantheons that have existed, do exist, coexisting within this world, such that it is not inconceivable that the Celtic pantheon can exist on the same planet as the Christian pantheon of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or the Wiccan pantheon of God and Goddess, or the Hindu pantheon, or any other that might have been discovered or discussed. I believe that these pantheons do not describe archetypes of one being, or even a group of beings, but are rather whole and sentient beings in their own right, having their own personalities, biases, cultural viewpoints, desires, and morality, and that one’s experience of these beings are their own and belong to no other. There may be similarities or differences in experiences, the same as someone experiencing any human being on the planet (for example, two people meet with Billy Bob Thornton and come away with unique experiences that may be similar because Thornton is one man, but can still have differences based on the opinions, cultural viewpoints, and outlook of the individuals meeting with him).
I acknowledge the existences of Gods, Goddesses, spirits of the land and nature, spirits of the dead, and creatures outside our realm of existence. I acknowledge the immortality of the soul, and consider as most likely the theory of reincarnation, with the following process: Souls may be born either here or in other worlds, as either human or non-human entities (including animals), following a complicated mix of the desire of the soul, chance, and the will of spiritual entities such as the Gods. I generally follow the Norse model of nine worlds, using the analogy of the World Tree Yggdrasil, but I can also agree with descriptions by other views of the elemental world that consider both a vertical and horizontal axis of spiritual reality, with an axis mundi of some sort, usually a tree or mountain. I accept that not everything in reality conforms to my fairly ordered view of the multiverse, and that some aspects of reality might well be called chaotic or even entropic. However, I feel there is a certain amount of balance to it, whether humanity notices or not.
I recognize the inherent spiritual nature of all things. I consider the Divine to be both immanent and transcendant, that is, both in the world and apart from it. I recognize the holy nature of the Earth, the goodness of life, and reject notions that this life might somehow be wrong or evil. Personally, I consider the spiritual to be more important to me than the physical, but this is not a description of how the world should work, nor a commentary on any inherent corruption that the world might possess.
I believe morality to be primarily a human construction based on the concept of the social contract, in that we choose what is socially acceptable or unacceptable based on what we would have done to us versus what is done to others. I subscribe to a personal ethic that stresses nine virtues: Wisdom, Hospitality, Courage, Moderation, Piety, Vision, Fertility (creative and otherwise), Integrity, and Perseverance. I also feel that it should be considered wrong to assume that my set of virtues should be universally accepted by humanity. I do not believe that most things considered “sins” are actually wrong, but as they violate social contract and cause friction, strife, and discord, I do not find that they support the virtues I desire to possess in all things, and therefore am against them (this list includes murder, theft, and lying).
I recognize the soul as a sum of parts, much like a body is, or a group is, or a nation is. I accept as possible multiple souls living in one body, multiple bodies having one soul, non-human souls (both animal and mythical) inhabiting human bodies, good men, and other strange and difficult concepts. I also recognize that socially, most of this stuff doesn’t mean a darn thing.
I feel that people with wildly-differing belief systems can come together to worship and fellowship, as long as they can have some sort of ritual lingua franca among them and as long as they approach such worship with an open mind and heart. One can celebrate with pagans without being a pagan, or celebrate with Christians without following Christ. I believe that one’s experiences with divinity should not be overlooked or marginalized when compared to the lore of their culture, but neither should the lore be overlooked or marginalized when it conflicts with unsubstantiated personal gnosis (UPG). I also do not feel that because something is not correct according to lore or tradition, that it is wrong. Many groups have come together with “what works” based on erroneous information, including many Meso-pagan organizations. If it’s stupid but works, it isn’t stupid.
My personal belief is that most Neopagans, but not all, will subscribe to the ideas of polytheism; virtue; sanctity and holiness of the self, of sex, and of the earth; responsibility to self, community, and the planet; disdain for authoritarian rule; willingness to use representations such as works of art to represent the Divine (I personally do not agree with this one); ritual as a proper means to worship; magic as a natural part of the workings of the world; science and religion having the eventual capability to coexist peacefully; and the existence of things not currently explained by science or mythology.
There. It’s not a complete list, but it’s all I really can think of off the top of my head.
-Gaarik Daruth

Rabbi Hirschfield,
Your kind words have presented the issue with such respect and understanding that I am moved to respond. In the case of some of us, I suppose Newt Gingrich would appear to be correct. Certainly we can be seen as idolatrous in the most literal interpretation of the term. We pagans -do- create images. That being said; we do not by any means confuse the image with the sacred reality that it represents metaphorically and symbolically. Images are merely another way to communicate – no better and no worse than the written word.
You are wise beyond words. And I am grateful for your generosity. It may seem quixotic to present the definition of pagan after Newt Gingrich has vilified the word, but I find it ironic that the word he chose is “pagan”. You see pagan for all that the neo-pagan movement wants it to mean “earth centered spirituality” and for all that Gingrich wants it to mean “anti-American liberalist”, The word really has a simple meaning. As you know it comes from latin ‘paganus’ which meant a person of the countryside, and over the years it was used as a somewhat derogatory term (much like calling someone “peasant” or “backwoods hick” or “country bumpkin” or “red-neck” nowadays). But here is the irony, it really means “countryman” and was originally used that way to mean “a fellow countryman”.
It is typical that in true Orwellian double-speak Newt Gingrich makes the old word for countryman into his word for people who disagree with him…
Oseh shalom bimromav. Hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu.

Paganism is remembering and honouring our roots and our forefathers. It’s remembering our cultural beginnings as Peoples.