Yes, there are certain points of view that we expect those who would take part in our group to accept. We are a religious group, and certain basic principles, regarding how we are to treat ourselves and others, are a matter of doctine. So, does this make us hypocrites, when we speak of freedom of thought?

No. Because we do not attempt, directly or indirectly, to prevent others from setting up groups, teaching contrary principles. We merely seek to establish a small place of our own, where such principles are honored, and the only means of conversion we intend to use, is the example of a well lived life. The crucial point, is that if somebody invites someone to one of his gatherings, who does not embrace these principles, that fact is not allowed to have an impact on whether or not he is invited to one of ours. In our view, it is simply none of our business. Nor are we willing to allow somebody's compliance with another group's statement of principle, to influence his welcome here, no matter how much we do or don't like that group, and no matter how much someone else may want us to. Individualism is the key to freedom here, as alway. If others can't accept that, we simply turn our backs on them.

Further, it is this very limited list of accepted principles that is the doctrine, and not any corollaries to those principles. One can, for example, agree that the problem that a given policy is intended to address, is a real one, without agreeing with the proposed solution. Keeping this in mind, we know better than to try to dictate political positions to our membership, as some groups will, both religious and nonreligious.

For example, some will argue that welfare reform will lead to the creation of more jobs, and thus help the poor. We may raise an eyebrow or two at this argument, openly questioning how realistic its assumptions are. But we've not going to exclude someone for making it. However, if someone says that he sees nothing wrong with people being left to starve to death, then he will be asked to leave. Most significantly, that request will be a private matter between us and him, never to be disclosed outside of the group, unless we are compelled to do so. Say, for example, if he raises the issue himself, and we are put in the position of being called upon to defend our own reputations. But it will not be our choice to initiate political hostilities.




The point, when we refuse an invitation to somebody, based on his attitude, is never to "teach him a lesson", but to spare us the visit of an obnoxious individual, who, given a hint of a chance, will create a hostile environment that will drive the more pleasant individuals away.

Further, whenever people gather, there will always be a degree of conflict. People want different things, and wouldn't life become dull if they didn't? But, given this, we must have a way to resolve disputes, and come to some sort of reasonable compromise. Without some commonly agreed upon principles, there really is no effective way to do that. Some will say, that we can work out a compromise between clashing sets of principles themselves, by "cutting the difference down the middle" as the saying goes. That is, haggling out a compromise position, that seems, in some sense, equally close to what each of the parties to the dispute wants. But this practice rewards selfish aggression, and punishes the attempt to be fair to others, and so escalates the conflicts that arise, instead of moderating them.



Consider the situation that this approach metaphorically refers to. Suppose that the two of us wish to divide a cake between us, that has been given to us as a gift. Let's say, that you wish to be fair to me, and ask that we divide the cake equally. But, suppose that I have no wish to be fair to you, and ask for the whole cake. Under the principle of limited egalitarianism (which we'll discuss), I would be told to be reasonable, and the cake would be divided evenly. But, note, there would be no element of a compromise in that solution. It would be your position, in its entirety.

Now, for the sake of contrast, suppose we resolve this dispute using the haggling approach described above. I want 100 % of the cake to be given to me, you want that figure to be 50 %, so the resolution would be to give me 75% of the cake, because that figure is midway between the two requested. Leaving you with 25% of the cake. How likely is it, that this resolution is going to leave you feeling that justice has been done? If you come to expect this manner of resolution, will you not find yourself being pushed, toward adopting as agressive as stance as I have, in the future?

Such is the nature of conflict resolution, under a purely adversarial approach, with no principles taken as granted. The more unbending and unreasonable a party is, the more it is rewarded. It is only the difficulty in quantifying the goods sought, that makes the situation here seem, at first glance, more obscure than the simple case decribed above. But, unlike that simple case, most issues can't be resolved at a stroke, because there is more to be said, than the simple offering of a single number. Each camp, as it is driven to go on the attack, will have to maintain its aggressive stance over a period of time, and that which is practiced long enough, becomes habitual.

The very characters of the parties involved, are being changed by this exercise, as a matter of simple psychology, aggressive posturing eventually becoming sincere rage, that becomes a matter of reflex. The very willingness to talk things over, and think about the other person's point of view, will fade. Given the lack of common principle, it would have been harder for one side to understand the terms in which the other side was explaining its position than it might have been, and now it will be less willing to make the effort, placing a peaceful resolution doubly far removed from likelihood. All that remains, is a mutually embittering tug of war, and a groups of people who expect selfish mistreatment from each other, and expect it of them.

True, people may willfully blind themselves to the pain that such a system creates. If aggression is so well rewarded, as a matter of conditioned response, it will come to be treasured. By implication, those who express pain, and thus, a desire to deal with others on less agressive terms, will come to be scorned, if it is sensed. A timid ally, is not a useful one, in a warlike atmosphere. Thus, each will be gradually conditioned to suppress the awareness of his pain. But it remains real.

All that changes, is the nature of the internal state that the one so affected, consciously defines to be happiness. More and more, on an instinctual level, our psychological warrior will come to value the company of those around him, less and less. Let us never forget, that words and gestures are but labels for internal states that we can not directly observe in each other, or precisely define within ourselves. It is, thus, perfectly possible for one to think of himself as being happier, than he actually is, as he gradually forgets what the experiences of what he used to term happiness and sorrow, once felt like, much as a latrine digger, in time, gradually will stop noticing the smell. But our combative individual is living a lie, and his subconscious, with its embedded instinct for self-protection, will notice this, no matter how far into denial, the conscious mind may wander. Alienation will follow, as suppressed instinct tells our brave soul to leave. But until he faces the reality of his pain, and the nature of its origin, he will bring his war, and that alienation, with him, no matter where he goes.

Is it any wonder that the groups that have adopted this adversarial lack of principle, have broken apart into mutually hostile camps, so quickly, and so often? Is it any wonder if a community decides that no principles are to be taken as givens, that discussions begins from, and rests on, that the atmosphere in that community will never be a peaceful one, and the ties formed in it will never be lasting ones? But Man is a social creature, who needs those lasting ties, and a sense of belonging, if life is to have any color, and any meaning for him. The community that fails to provide him with a real opportunity to make those ties, is doing nothing for him, and, by implication, its individual members are doing nothing for him, typically. As we are nobody but ourselves, and those acting upon the community, within it, are also those acted upon, we may expect that typically, our member will be doing as little for those around him, as they are doing for him. And, as we've said, that which is long practiced, becomes habitual. Lacking a sense of connection to the community, he will drift away from it, and not regret doing so.

But if he is to have a life, he must find a place to be. As we have seen, the reality is, that if that place is to be a stable one, that can offer him a real sense of being part of a community, it must be one guided by some conception of what right conduct, and fair play, must be.

Such is the sad truth, as our communities fade. For all of the blame we in the Pagan community wish to shift, we're doing it to ourselves. But, we do have the freedom to change, both ourselves, and our destiny as a community. If we refuse to do so, and thus disperse those who have gathered to honor the gods, by what right do we then ask them to show us any more consideration, than we have been willing to show them? If they continue to hear our prayers, and thus allow us to continue down this path, how well would this choice serve either us or them? So, let us set aside our false pride, and renew our search for that sense of Honor, from which true pride can arise.





Not so very long ago, it would have been completely unnecessary to even write this article. How to live in freedom, and relative peace, was something that people knew from life, as a matter of habit and custom, and they didn't need to have it explained to them. The rules were so instinctually understood, that nobody would have dreamed of terming them an "ideology". But decades of revisionism, by those all too willing to distort society for their own purposes, have lead people to forget. Thus, that which was once simply a matter of common sense, must now be explained. Having lost common decency, and much of our socialisation, we must settle for Philosophy as a substitute.

But, let us be careful, as we reject one extreme, that we do not fly toward the sadly equivalent opposite extreme of allowing no variance in matters of principle, among those we associate with. Because doing so, becomes the end of real discussion, as those who would question the group will, begin to fear that doing so will leave them outcasts. That, ironically, sets the stage for the very adversarial system that we have described, and the gradual loss of every principle, save "support your own side". (Much like "support our troops", from back during the Gulf war, isn't it? Such is the danger of an entirely mutable "tradition" - it is swept along by every fad that comes its way, and fads are often manufactured for less than honorable reasons).

What we should do here, is not to seek to codify every moral decision that might be made, to make sure that everyone has made the right moral choice, in all cases. To do so, is to fail to take one's own fallibility into account. What is called for, is for us to determine that minimal amount of common ground needed, for moral discussions to be able to make progress, and be resolved through reason and understanding, not through a test of wills. It is, as we've said, not a thing that we'll try to persuade people to impose sanctions on others, for 'failing' to endorse. Instead, it provides a suggestion for a criterion for determining who it is, that we should invite, and who it is, that we would not have a constructive relationship with.

If this latter group of people can make another group, and make it truly work, under a contrasting set of principles, wonderful. We do doubt this is possible, though, given certain arguments that indicate the, owing to human nature, all of the values called for in this code, are really contained in one, that is equivalent to that egalitarian sense whose absence we have already argued, dooms a community to dissolution. The principles we describe, are not uniquely Hellenic, or Mediterranean, but are common to a wide variety of cultures that have endured down through the millenia, and most significantly, to all of those that we know of, that have managed to do so, without becoming authoritarian, or the victim of authoritarianism imposed from without. In other words, those societies that held together spontaneously, instead of being shored up by force.

Some will dispute this, pointing to the existence of the concept of the elder, or noble, in some very old and stable societies. But what this criticism fails to take into account, is the sense of responsibility that balances the privileges. The elder gives as much as he takes, and the respect he enjoys, needs to be earned through worthy behavior, and worthier decisions. He does not expect to given it for free, just because he has browbeaten the youth into submission. There are no Confucian yuppies.

We should also point out, that as people become more well educated, even this nobler sort of inequality of power, has become a source of resentment. We are not surprised. The community elders of old, provided insight to people who needed to think things out, more than they had. On those terms, there was nothing inequitable about putting them in charge. As society changes, and people read more, and hear of and see more, as they gain in sophistication more quickly than their predecessors could, they no longer need quite as much guidance. The elder, if we are so fortunate to find a true one, as opposed to someone who is merely bossy and old, is still a vital presence for the community, as traditional societies stretching from Lisbon to Krung Thep will agree. But, as always, he discusses, instead of dictating, to those he knows will understand, and stands back a little more, knowing that he can. And so, these societies do change, merely by being true to themselves.

Let it be said, that we are a well educated, and mature group, however eccentric we may be, quite ready to make our own decisions, and our concept of ettiquette here will reflect that. The older person who comes here, expecting deference merely because he has seen the earth travel around the sun a few more times, would encounter real and justified hostility because of this, even if the larger society we find ourselves in, did not have a recent and sordid history of its "elders" giving orders for selfish, or even malicious reasons, justifying what we hope will be a distrust of the old by the young, that does NOT become traditional. It is not a symptom of good health, for a society, and it is something that we keep in mind, so that some day we may be worthy of the title of "elder", as so many today are not. If we rebel, it is against the travesty that is the horde of wrinkled adolescents we have to confront, not against those traditions they discarded in the name of "doing their own thing".

Let's examine this basic statement of principle, now, and understand what it is. It is not a guide to what one should do, but instead, is a way of finding things that one ought not to do, and which we will find unacceptable, in our own membership.

Here it is ...