6. "So, how does this relate to religion?"
   
   
   
   
   

   Is religion not an aspect of culture? Does it not lie at the root of its customs and find expression in its arts?
   
   Much as some have sought to browbeat or guilt others into discarding their own cultures, replacing them with the shallow rooted "mall culture" (whose construction has been described above) in the name of "brotherhood", others have attempted to create a "traditional" religion of all the people, that never was. An imaginary pagan faith that is supposed to have covered a variety of places, seperated almost hermetically as a matter of historical reality, either by oceans, great distances or hostile, heavily militarised borders, that only the suicidal would have attempted to cross.
   
   Those who would reconstruct Greco-Roman paganism are counseled (if not pressured outright) to ignore Catholicism, which actually did arise in the cultural milieu of the ancient Roman world. Yet, we are strongly encouraged, in the spirit of pagan solidarity, to reconstruct our religion on a framework of Anglo-American conception, formed by an indiscriminate patching together of elements of Irish folklore, English witchcraft, and Germanic paganism. The latter two coming from cultures that either didn't exist yet at the time (the cultures of the English and the Vikings falling into this category), or had little contact with Rome, as did Ireland, in this era.
   
   The excuse offered for this, sometimes is that all were derivative from a common root Indo-European belief system. This conveniently overlooks the fact that the Indo-Europeans were rarely more than a tiny ruling minority in the midst of the conquered masses. DNA typing recently, and other genetic markers such as blood typing, many years in the past, have made this much clear, popular 'wisdom' to the contrary notwithstanding. Aside from imposing their languages on them, they had so little impact on the conquered cultures, that until the last century, their very existence as a people had been forgotten. To this day, noone has any idea of what they called themselves, or could name even one of their leaders.
   
   In fact, the very conquest itself is purely conjectural, and its very existence has been disputed. Some suggest that the first Indo-European languages were brought into Europe by people who peacefully migrated into the area, achieving social dominance through the wealth obtained as a result of their knowledge of superior farming techniques originating in the Near East. (Anatolia, the Turkish mainland, has been suggested as a point of origin for the original Indo-Europeans, which would have made them relatively close neighbors of the Mesopotamians). The violent destruction of the Harappan civilisation in Northern India by the distant relatives of these settlers might be offered as evidence that the same happened elsewhere. But this would be a non sequitir. Even within a small tribe, there may be a radical divergence of viewpoints as to what would constitute proper conduct, and these tribes had long since parted ways.
   
   If the knowledge of even so basic a bit of history as this, is lost to us, just how much of the original traditional culture does one expect to see remaining, after over 4,000 years? Just how in touch are you with your alleged proto-Hittite roots? On a personal level, how deep an impact have the triumphs of Suppuliliumas the First had on your life? If you said "huh?", you got the point.
   
   While one can occasionally see resemblances between some of the different religions of those alleged descendants (for example, between those of Greece and India), much of this is easily explained by later commerce between the cultures, possibly with a number of other cultures serving as intermediaries. (For example, Indian culture reaching Greece via Persia in late classical times, and influencing religious practice there during the Hellenistic and Roman periods). One can easily find cases where the pre-Christian folklore of a pair of "Indo-European" cultures has been well preserved, without the traditions resembling each other especially closely (eg. Ireland and Russia).
   
   One can't, therefore, place great stock in the notion that much was passed down from the religion of those forgotten conquerors, to those who carried but the faintest trace of their blood in the far closer antiquity of the Roman period. When one remembers the deep impact of the decidedly non-Indo-European cultures of Egypt, and Mesopotamia on Greece, and Rome via Greece (as well as directly), one sees that neither can be expected to be a reflection of that Indo-European culture (known only in our speculations). Older cultures, one might add, that had no awareness of the very existence of what was to become Germany. As late as the time of Herodotus, it was believed that the land north of the Danube was wholly uninhabitable due to the presence of ferocious bees! (see the Histories). Commerce between Germany and the societies of the ancient Near East would have been limited, indeed.
   
   Given this, we can see that there is no historical justification whatsoever for using Norse paganism as a source for reconstructing Greco-Roman paganism. If anything, even Judaism would be a better guide for that.
   
   But, some don't want to hear the facts, and will get extremely angry if one should dare to bring them up.
   
   Much as some would mash cultures together, some would mash ancient religions together, discarding that which does not seem agreeable to all, and being left with very little in the process. (I say "some" and not "others", because often, they are the same people). They seek to promote a religion which they claim to be the common heritage of all westerners, at least, which all can join together in. Some go further, and attempt to merge the eastern faiths in as well (seeing nothing incongruous in using the I Ching or Joss sticks to try to contact Hecate), as well as the Native American, and whatever else they've noticed this week. Like the broader cultural assimilationists, these religious assimilationists can never seem to understand that one can be together with others in one's heart, without being with them in one's practices. Different faiths can have meaningful ties between their memberships, without needing to attempt to merge to make this possible.
   
   Our group has a very definite Mediterranean identity. We don't apologise for it, we treasure it. We do not, in the process, belittle those who treasure their own very different identities. However, we continue to encounter those who, either through conscious effort, or the desire to be allowed to unthinkingly stumble into our affairs, seek to make our religious identity a more Nordic one, seeking to justify this intrusion by making theirs more Latin - at least, their idea of what Latin is. In seeking to have us reject the influence of that which legitimately can claim a Mediterranean origin (Catholicism), and replace it with that which grew out of a completely alien culture (A variation on the mixture of sources that Wicca draws from, of Anglo-American origin), the former is attempted. In parroting the names of Greco-Roman dieties, some would attempt the latter.
   
   We reject this effort, and wish to hear no more about it. Some will criticise the narrow mindedness of this choice, and will, as they wished, expose a severe case of intolerance. Alas, it will be their own, as they display an inability to understand the notion of mutual support, between differing groups who respect and treasure each others distinctness, seeing variety as a good thing.
   
   "Oh, what a wonderful world it would be, if everyone could be like me", some would seem to think. And, presumably, if we could all nonconform together. To someone like that, I'd say, sorry, Bif, it just isn't going to happen. Get over it.







7. "But aren't you getting into a bit of eclecticism yourself, if you decide to borrow elements of ritual and theology from a sect of Christianity?"
   
   
   
   
   

   Not at all. The question presupposes that the Christianisation of Rome represented a radical break with the past. Hardly. The philosophers whose works informed the early church fathers - Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Plato, and the rest - were the pagan philosophers of antiquity. The early model for the church buildings - the basilica - was modeled on the Roman meeting halls. The church holidays were often barely toned down variations of old Pagan festivals. If we look at the modern descendent of the Lupercalia, Mardis Gras, the celebration of sexuality is still very much present, if in a far less coarse and ugly form. I understand that one will occasionally see the figures of Castor and Pollux on either side of that of Christ himself in early Christian funerary monuments.
   
   Even aspects of the old theology survived. Monotheism being adopted? Not in a Rabbinically Judaic sense. There was, and still is, to this day, a cult of the saints, who one may pray to for intercession, those saints in effect serving as secondary dieties. This is a concept not entirely alien to Greco-Roman Paganism, in which the other Olympians, and the Cthonic dieties are subject to Zeus, who in turn was subject to the three fates. And now, take a look, we have an array of saints, with shrines dedicated to them, who are subject to the rule of a trinity.







8. "So you're saying that Christianity copied aspects of Roman Paganism to make itself more palatable to the masses?"
   
   
   
   
   

   So cynical we've become! Is it a given that the early Church fathers would have assumed that God was a racist? Rome was reached by the Church within the lifetime of the apostles, St. Peter himself being martyred in Rome. Very early on, many of those fathers were of European origin themselves. Is it so great a reach to suppose that, in believing in a god who always existed, they would believe that His inspiration had penetrated into all lands, including their own, even before the Apostles reached them? Or that the old faith would not be completely devoid of truth?
   
   Of course, we can't absolutely rule out such a possibility. We merely can't legitimately argue that the above constitutes firm evidence for the existence of the alleged opportunism, on the part of the leaders of the early Roman church.
   
   It would not be without precedent. View Paul's argument in favor of the abolition of the enforcement of the mosaic law on non-Judaic Christian converts. However, one needn't even postulate any sort of derivation, to explain the theological simularities, unless one takes the position that the faiths in question are devoid of truth to be unquestionable dogma. If each seeks the truth, and two come close, one should not be surprised if they begin to repeat each other, to a degree. It is the cultural carryovers, such as the appearance of Castor and Pollux, which are not essential to the structure of the theology, that prove the most informative. (The traditional representations of these dieties, presumably, are human inventions).
   
   If divinity reaches out to the peoples of all lands, then each will attain an approximation of the truth, and some degree of truth will be found in almost all belief systems, even if total truth is to be found in none of them.
   
   

Let's continue ...