Dear All
Personally I'm happy to identify myself as a pagan - a new religion
created in the
classical world from Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian sources -
as such I think Hinduism is something else, perhaps even as a religion,
its origins are different and a little older
circa 6th century bce?
You're right that some UK pagans have problems with the term -
partly I think because of the Xtain coinage and the idea that its
_maybe_ pejorative
(Some supposed expert commentators have probably confused the community
on that . . . ).
Personally I think that some pagans are just being bloody minded when they
refuse to get on board and take advantage of a name with a long, noble
history . . . it makes it awkward when it comes to committees and
censuses etc.
We use it here in our dealings with local Council of Faiths -
(although there have been grumblings about the term "faith" -)
where pagans are definitely a local religious minority but not by any
means the smallest
(some pagans also object to term "religion").
bb/93
Mogg
> On 21 March 2010 21:52, Matthew Citrullo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> LOL - reminds me of the occasion someone asked what the largest pagan
>>> grouping in the UK was, folks were umming and ahing over neo-Celtic,
>>> Wotanist et al, until someone perceptively pointed out it was the
>>> Hindus.
>>>
>> Someone asked the Hindus what they think about that?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> or Voodoo devotees come to that, pagan isn't a universally embraced
> term. Semantics are knotty, medieval Moslems considered Christians
> polytheists - not to mention some Protestant views of Catholicism...
>
> Come to that, neo-pagan isn't exactly how I'd describe myself.
>
>
>
|