Another autumn, another horrible storm bearing down on the USA, and just a week away from our 2012 presidential election. We are experiencing these destructive mega-storms with ever-increasing frequency. Just last year on almost the same date, a hurricane that came after many weeks of heavy rain did massive damage, including turning a street near by me into a river when the underground sewer exploded from an excess of water pounding through the pipes. The weather event unfolding today and expected to continue to howl and rage all this week, is truly a monster, called "Frankenstorm" by some, as it combines a hurricane with a couple of other weather fronts to create a huge storm system nearly 1000 miles wide, which means it will move very slowly through the region before it finally dissipates, and subject most of the US East Coast as well as areas well inland to a sustained beating by rain and wind that is sure to cause many people to lose electricity, if not their lives, and many homes, buildings, road and other structures to be severely damaged or even destroyed. Low-lying parts of New York City are already being evacuated, and if the water surge around coastal areas is as expected, major damage could be done to the NYC train and subway system, which could soon be sitting underwater.
This kind of extreme weather is exactly what all the scientific research about global warming has been predicting: more killer storms, ever more frequent, ever more immense, and ever more destructive. The storm bearing down on us today is much larger than the horrendous Katrina storm of 2005, which shows, I suppose, some kind of progress on the climate change issue, but progress in the wrong direction, in that we have succeeded in paving the way for even more destructive weather.
If the storm is half as devastating as some are predicting, one would hope--and pray--that this would be the wake-up call that America has been needing to begin taking serious measures to change our patterns of energy usage and production, in order to at least slow down our descent into a future of hellishly calamitous weather, if not begin to reverse it, but I am not confident that my country has the wisdom, judgment, collective will or long-term vision to step up to the task.
Looking at our ongoing presidential election campaign, I see little cause for confidence. Both candidates are refusing to raise the difficult questions that need to be raised about carbon-based fuels and our need to make a rapid transition to other forms of energy. How fast can we make a transition to cleaner energy sources? How much will it cost? What new structures will have to be created? Instead of speaking to any such concerns, both President Obama and his challenger, Governor Romney, are peddling the same moronic pablum about the need to pursue an "all of the above" energy strategy, meaning continuing to drill for oil and gas, including expanding the controversial, environmentally dubious practice of hydrofracture gas drilling which has been previously addressed on this blog; continuing to extract coal by all means possible, including blowing up mountaintops for coal, ruining the surrounding rivers and streams and kissing goodbye to some of our most cherished landscapes; continuing to press for new nuclear power plants, even after the hard lessons of the Fukushima meltdown of a year and a half ago, not to mention Chernobyl 1996; and also, last and perhaps least in the two candidates' schemes of things, continuing to develop newer, more sustainable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal.
The main area of contention between the two has been over who is more supportive of the coal industry. That's right, COAL: the dirtiest, most polluting carbon-based fuel of all. To listen to Obama and Romney go at each other on this issue, each pointing out how the other has in the past taken measures to limit or turn away from coal production, you might think that the two men were running for King of Coal, not President of the United States. Both keep going on about "clean coal," which does not exist outside of coal industry propaganda. Coal is a dirty, polluting fuel, period, and its extraction wreaks havoc on the environment wherever it is done. The sooner we are done with coal, the better.
Obama is better than Romney on the environmental front, but not by much. Obama's administration did provide funding for weatherization, solar power and other "Green Energy" type businesses, as part of the 2009-10 "Stimulus" program, but has not done much in this area since, caving in to vociferous opposition by conservative Republicans who mock the very concepts of climate change and green energy. He has however advanced higher fuel economy standards for cars and put in place other environmental regulations. Rommey has followed his party in attacking Obama for supporting some green energy businesses that went under, such as the Solyndra, solar power panel company, but continues to claim that he is pro-green, arguing that what was wrong with Solyndra was putting public, taxpayer money at risk when all such new investment should be left to private investment companies.
A major problem with the Romney private investment approach is that it leaves our long-term energy and environmental future to the whims of short-term oriented capitalists and investment brokers, who are not concerned with the fate of the planet in 2100 and 3100, but only the profits to be made in the next few months or years. Romney also talks of rolling back environmental legislation that he characterizes, in official Republican party-line jargon, as "job-killing," painting the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, as a kind of demonic, cannibalistic force that must be stopped. Ironically, it was President Richard M. Nixon, a Republican, who created the EPA in the first place. That was back when Republicans were still capable of caring about the environment and did not yet view environmentalism as an anti-American conspiracy that they could profit from denouncing.
Sadly, both candidates were in the past far more environmentally aware and far more supportive of government action to combat climate change and global warming than they are today. While governor of Massachusetts, Romney made an appearance in front of a coal-burning power plant and stated the forthright position that he was in favor of shutting down the plant because "it kills" by virtue of the negative health effects of burning coal. Romney now completely rejects this stance. In a similarly breathtaking display of political expediency and environmental hypocrisy, the same Barack Obama who once spoke eloquently about the need to combat climate change and turn toward cleaner forms of energy now hardly ever mentions the word climate change, but has a lot of kind words for coal and hydrofracking.
Obama's betrayal is especially grievous because he was in a position, coming into office after the carbon-fuel based Bush-Cheney administration, to really chart a different energy and environmental course. He has, as noted, put in place regulations that will help create a cleaner environment over time, but Obama has displayed his characteristic timidity and political cowardice in failing to make a strong, loud, public case in favor of clean energy and a greener future. He has been too worried about reelection and so failed to use the presidency as a teaching-tool to educate the population and shape public opinion for the long-term struggles ahead. He took the coward's way out, and now fewer Americans believe that global warming is a real and pressing issue than did when Obama took office. By pursuing a kind of "stealth strategy" on environmental issues, quietly pushing regulations behind closed doors while for the most part keeping silent on the public stage, Obama has ceded ground to the anti-environmental, pro-carbon fuel forces that have swamped the media universe with pro-coal, pro-fracking propaganda, and cast doubt on the need for rapid and decisive action on energy and environmental issues.
So who's a liberal, environmentalist American Pagan to vote for, given this choice between two candidates who have each proven so craven and hypocritical on environmental issues? Well, taking into account other issues like women's health care, abortion rights, ending tax policy that favors the rich, reducing the size of our obese and bloated military, the future composition of the Supreme Court, and preservation of social programs that help the underprivileged, Obama is definitely the better choice, and is still marginally better than Romney on the environmental front, as he has, as stated, supported regulations that will be helpful in the long run. But either way, we will not yet have a President who clearly, boldly, publicly and forthrightly supports a new direction in energy policy for the USA, who is capable of turning away decisively from carbon-based fuels to aggressively promote less polluting energy forms like solar, wind and geothermal in order to preserve the health and well-being of the natural world for the sake of future generations. Voting day this year will be a sad day for environmentalists, regardless of who wins.
There is however another choice: the Green Party candidate Jill Stein for President. She has no chance of actually winning the election, but if the Greens make a stronger showing this year than in years past, it will put pressure on the other political parties to be more pro-environmental, and will also help the Green Party obtain government funding for future election campaigns. I therefore advise liberal, environmentalist Pagans to consider voting for Jill Stein as an alternative to President Obama. However, as the worst result by far would be for Romney to become President, as he is clearly beholden to the extreme right wing of his party, I would advise voters who share my concerns to look at the situation in the following manner.
If you are in a state where Obama is sure to win, such as New York, Massachusetts or California, then consider voting for Jill Stein. Obama will still win the state, but your vote will help promote the only political party currently offering a boldly pro-environmental direction. However, if you are in a state where the election is very close, such as Ohio, Florida or Nevada, I would suggest supporting Obama, not with great enthusiasm, but simply as the necessary expedient to prevent a total right-wing takeover of our system of government. Romney's foreign policy statements and advisers suggest he might well drag us into another Middle Eastern War, and this must absolutely be avoided.
So, if you are a liberal, a Pagan and concerned about the environment, I urge you to consider, depending on where you are, either voting Green or Democrat.
Beyond the election, I hope to see Pagans getting more involved in political causes, especially as regards the environment. As far as I know, reverence for the environment and the sacredness of nature is one of the unifying themes of ALL Paganism from Asatru to Romuva to Wicca. Hopefully we can all make more effort to protect this earth that we all love and value.
Showing posts with label Romuva. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romuva. Show all posts
Monday, October 29, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Pagan-Jewish Parallels
I have been researching Eastern European Jewish history this summer, and this has led me to reflect on some possible Pagan-Jewish parallels. No, I am not making a claim that the ancient Pagans of this or that region of Europe were one of the legendary lost tribes of Israel that made a wrong turn in the Mediterranean and ended up in Stonehenge or Uppsala. Nothing like that! Instead, what I have been contemplating is how the complicated status of Judaism and Jewishness as both religion and ethnic identity provides an interesting mirror to the status of Ethnic Reconstructionist Paganism as both a form of religion or spirituality AND an adaptation of particular ethnic traditions of particular European regions. Let me take you through some of the areas of correspondence that I have been considering between Paganism and Judaism, and also demonstrate that some of the areas of absolute difference between Paganism and Judaism may not quite be so absolute as is often believed.
1. Both Jews and Pagans follow religious traditions rooted in a particular place or "holy land." Even when followers of these traditions find themselves very far away, the original place of their religion's development remains sacred and meaningful. All the long centuries after the Roman Empire's crushing of the original Jewish kingdom in ancient times, Jews continued to regard Palestine as their sacred homeland, up to the development of a modern Jewish state, Israel. The Pagan parallel involves Pagans living outside of Europe in such places as the United States and Australia continuing to regard the area in Europe in which their religious tradition first developed, such as Lithuania for Romuva believers, Ireland for Celtic Pagans, Scandinavia for Norse Pagans, and so on. Travel to the homeland is a powerful spiritual experience for Pagans, as is visiting Israel for Jews.
2. The corollary of the love of a spiritual homeland is the sense of exile and loss, which is again common to both Jews and Pagans.
3. The language of the original homeland is likewise valued as sacred,with Hebrew for the Jews; European languages related to particular European regions for Pagans. Both Jews outside of Israel and Pagans living outside of Europe struggle to acquire and maintain knowledge of these languages.
4. In both Jewish mysticism and some forms of European Paganism, the ancient script,indeed the very letters and symbols of the sacred language is seen as possessing magical, divinely inspired powers. Compare the Kabbalistic view of the magical powers of Hebrew letters with the significance that Norse Pagans invest in the ancient Germanic runes. Other Pagans such as Celts, Balts and Slavs also tend to regard their earliest forms of writing as possessing sacredness and possibly magical power.
5. Both Jews and Pagans have a range of views about who is qualified to claim identity as a member of these religions. All Jewish denominations see birth from Jewish parents, with priority on a Jewish mother, as a legitimate qualification for Jewish identity. Some sects see having a Jewish father as sufficient. Most Jewish sects allow conversion to Judaism by people not born Jewish, with different rules as to how conversion is to be carried out. Among European ethnic Pagans, there is an ongoing discussion about whether and to what extent a family ancestral link to the European spiritual homeland is an important qualification for membership in a Pagan community. Most forms of ethnic Paganism allow those without an ancestral link to participate in their religious activities, but there is often a preference and privileging of those with ancestral links, though this is not always explicitly stated. There are also some ethnic Pagans who insist on ancestry as a necessary factor for inclusion in the community. Just as Jews have long debated and disagreed about these issues, Pagans are likely to do the same. I myself would advocate for totally open conversion without preference to, or prejudice against, ethnic background, but I am well aware that others have quite different and even opposite opinions!
6. Jewish communities in Eastern European history were often segregated to greater or lesser extent, though this was rarely a total sealing off of Jews from contact with non-Jews. It can be argued that this segregation helped to maintain Jewish identity and foster the development of distinct Eastern European traditions such as Hasidism. Though most if not all Pagans today live in mixed, pluralistic societies, I have on a number of occasions met Pagans who would like to live in a more segregated manner, in tight-knit Pagan communities that would be distinct and separate, though not totally sealed off, from mainstream, Christian-dominant society. Some Pagans create temporary communities in the summer months, whether camping out together at festivals, or constructing an intentionally archaic, folkloric village, as the leaders of Romuva have done in Lithuania. I wonder, will we see Pagan versions of shtetls and ghettos in the future?
7. The sacredness of nature is common to both Paganism and Judaism. While this may be more obvious and central in Pagan traditions, Judaism is replete with nature symbolism. Jewish festivals such as Sukkoth and Shavuot are essentially agricultural festivals, celebrating the fertility of the earth. The Old Testament and the Kabbalah both utilize trees as sacred symbols. To take up the contrary view, one that has become rather conventional among Pagans, the argument is sometimes made that Judaism is un-natural and anti-natural insofar as it involves the desire of God that mankind will subjugate and dominate all other creatures, whereas Paganism supposedly involves a more reverent attitude of harmony with nature. I think this difference is overstated. Most Pagan traditions are grounded in an agricultural lifestyle which also involves a domination and subjugation of animals and the natural world. Even if the natural world is highly respected and honored as sacred, it is still subjugated and dominated by mankind in any form of European-derived Paganism I know of. Judaism is also sometimes criticized by Pagans as a religion of the desert, but let us not forget that the Holy, Promised Land of the Bible is the "land of milk and honey," not a wasteland but a fertile land conducive to animal breeding and agriculture, much like Old World Europe.
8. But what about the fundamental difference between Judaism as a monotheistic faith and Paganism as a polytheistic worldview? I would not deny that this is a real difference, but I would also note that there are some monotheistic tendencies in Paganism just as there are polytheistic ones in Judaism. Greek Pagan philosophy moved toward a conception of the One behind the Many, and Norse mythology describes Odin as the All-father, and speaks of some sort of One greater than the gods arising after the world-destruction of Ragnarok. Judaism contains angels, which are arguably divine beings, certainly greater-than-mortal, and the Kabbalah has multiple powers and beings that are also greater-than-human, notably the Shekhinah, a female personification of the Jewish nation that looks a lot like a Jewish goddess. There are also the rejected goddess (or demoness) figures like Lilith in the Old Testament.
I would therefore argue that there are a good many parallels between Paganism and Judaism that are well worth pondering. I believe that open-minded Jews and Pagans can find a certain amount of common ground, if they wish to.
1. Both Jews and Pagans follow religious traditions rooted in a particular place or "holy land." Even when followers of these traditions find themselves very far away, the original place of their religion's development remains sacred and meaningful. All the long centuries after the Roman Empire's crushing of the original Jewish kingdom in ancient times, Jews continued to regard Palestine as their sacred homeland, up to the development of a modern Jewish state, Israel. The Pagan parallel involves Pagans living outside of Europe in such places as the United States and Australia continuing to regard the area in Europe in which their religious tradition first developed, such as Lithuania for Romuva believers, Ireland for Celtic Pagans, Scandinavia for Norse Pagans, and so on. Travel to the homeland is a powerful spiritual experience for Pagans, as is visiting Israel for Jews.
2. The corollary of the love of a spiritual homeland is the sense of exile and loss, which is again common to both Jews and Pagans.
3. The language of the original homeland is likewise valued as sacred,with Hebrew for the Jews; European languages related to particular European regions for Pagans. Both Jews outside of Israel and Pagans living outside of Europe struggle to acquire and maintain knowledge of these languages.
4. In both Jewish mysticism and some forms of European Paganism, the ancient script,indeed the very letters and symbols of the sacred language is seen as possessing magical, divinely inspired powers. Compare the Kabbalistic view of the magical powers of Hebrew letters with the significance that Norse Pagans invest in the ancient Germanic runes. Other Pagans such as Celts, Balts and Slavs also tend to regard their earliest forms of writing as possessing sacredness and possibly magical power.
5. Both Jews and Pagans have a range of views about who is qualified to claim identity as a member of these religions. All Jewish denominations see birth from Jewish parents, with priority on a Jewish mother, as a legitimate qualification for Jewish identity. Some sects see having a Jewish father as sufficient. Most Jewish sects allow conversion to Judaism by people not born Jewish, with different rules as to how conversion is to be carried out. Among European ethnic Pagans, there is an ongoing discussion about whether and to what extent a family ancestral link to the European spiritual homeland is an important qualification for membership in a Pagan community. Most forms of ethnic Paganism allow those without an ancestral link to participate in their religious activities, but there is often a preference and privileging of those with ancestral links, though this is not always explicitly stated. There are also some ethnic Pagans who insist on ancestry as a necessary factor for inclusion in the community. Just as Jews have long debated and disagreed about these issues, Pagans are likely to do the same. I myself would advocate for totally open conversion without preference to, or prejudice against, ethnic background, but I am well aware that others have quite different and even opposite opinions!
6. Jewish communities in Eastern European history were often segregated to greater or lesser extent, though this was rarely a total sealing off of Jews from contact with non-Jews. It can be argued that this segregation helped to maintain Jewish identity and foster the development of distinct Eastern European traditions such as Hasidism. Though most if not all Pagans today live in mixed, pluralistic societies, I have on a number of occasions met Pagans who would like to live in a more segregated manner, in tight-knit Pagan communities that would be distinct and separate, though not totally sealed off, from mainstream, Christian-dominant society. Some Pagans create temporary communities in the summer months, whether camping out together at festivals, or constructing an intentionally archaic, folkloric village, as the leaders of Romuva have done in Lithuania. I wonder, will we see Pagan versions of shtetls and ghettos in the future?
7. The sacredness of nature is common to both Paganism and Judaism. While this may be more obvious and central in Pagan traditions, Judaism is replete with nature symbolism. Jewish festivals such as Sukkoth and Shavuot are essentially agricultural festivals, celebrating the fertility of the earth. The Old Testament and the Kabbalah both utilize trees as sacred symbols. To take up the contrary view, one that has become rather conventional among Pagans, the argument is sometimes made that Judaism is un-natural and anti-natural insofar as it involves the desire of God that mankind will subjugate and dominate all other creatures, whereas Paganism supposedly involves a more reverent attitude of harmony with nature. I think this difference is overstated. Most Pagan traditions are grounded in an agricultural lifestyle which also involves a domination and subjugation of animals and the natural world. Even if the natural world is highly respected and honored as sacred, it is still subjugated and dominated by mankind in any form of European-derived Paganism I know of. Judaism is also sometimes criticized by Pagans as a religion of the desert, but let us not forget that the Holy, Promised Land of the Bible is the "land of milk and honey," not a wasteland but a fertile land conducive to animal breeding and agriculture, much like Old World Europe.
8. But what about the fundamental difference between Judaism as a monotheistic faith and Paganism as a polytheistic worldview? I would not deny that this is a real difference, but I would also note that there are some monotheistic tendencies in Paganism just as there are polytheistic ones in Judaism. Greek Pagan philosophy moved toward a conception of the One behind the Many, and Norse mythology describes Odin as the All-father, and speaks of some sort of One greater than the gods arising after the world-destruction of Ragnarok. Judaism contains angels, which are arguably divine beings, certainly greater-than-mortal, and the Kabbalah has multiple powers and beings that are also greater-than-human, notably the Shekhinah, a female personification of the Jewish nation that looks a lot like a Jewish goddess. There are also the rejected goddess (or demoness) figures like Lilith in the Old Testament.
I would therefore argue that there are a good many parallels between Paganism and Judaism that are well worth pondering. I believe that open-minded Jews and Pagans can find a certain amount of common ground, if they wish to.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Spiritual Indecision...Or Do You Call It Pluralism?
A fair number of comments to this blog have raised provocative questions and heartfelt concerns about the linkage between ethnicity, including the problematic concept of "race," and Pagan spiritual traditions in much of modern-day Paganism or neo-Paganism. This is something I have also struggled with, and I am not yet sure who or what has won the struggle!
I have divided loyalties between two different European Pagan traditions, the Norse or Nordic Paganism of Iceland and Scandinavia, and the Baltic Paganism of Lithuania and Latvia. I have Czech and Lithuanian ancestry, but was exposed to Norse mythology at an early age--I am not ashamed to admit it was through the comic book "The Mighty Thor!!"--but always felt a great curiosity about Lithuania, from dribs and drabs that my mother would relate to us, based on her mother's recollections of her childhood in Lithuania in the early 20th century. In undergraduate college, I did a research paper on Nazi appropriations of Norse mythology--highly ironic as I am now working on a somewhat higher level research paper on the same topic that I hope to publish in a scholarly journal like "Nova Religio" or "The Pomegranate." When I started graduate school in the mid-1980s, I made Norse Mythology one of my areas of study. This carried on with study of the Old Norse language at the University of Wisconsin at the end of that decade, and led me to obtain a Fulbright Fellowship at the University of Iceland in the mid-1990s, which led to participation in Asatru Fellowship activities in the Reykjavik area, and continuing connections with Iceland and Asatru.
However, the same year that I went to Iceland, I also went to Lithuania, where I came to know Jonas and Inija Trinkunas, the husband and wife leaders of the Lithuanian Pagan group Romuva. This led to further visits in 1998 and 2002. A bit later, after teaching in Japan several years, I scored a second Fulbright Fellowship to teach at Siauliai University in Lithuania from fall of 2004 to spring of 2005, and was once more highly impressed by Lithuanian spirituality, but also frustrated at my inability to learn the Lithuanian language, which was really necessary for me to fully participate in Romuva.
I came back to the USA in 2005 with a pragmatic sense that I would henceforth concentrate on forging links with people involved in Nordic Paganism, largely because it was more accessible with most of the materials being translated into English, with several generations of Asatru in America having developed a workable American version of Nordic Paganism. However, I still feel connected to Lithuania and Romuva, and do not by any means renounce my ties to them. (Hey, what's the point of being polytheistic if you can't be pluralistic?) I see the traditions as kindred branches of the Indo-European spiritual tree, anyway, with Perkunas being the Lithuanian version of Thor, and Velnias being the Lithuanian version of Odin, and the Lithuanian World Tree being no less of a vivid symbol of interconnectedness between mankind and nature than Yggdrasil in Norse mythology. In many ways, I see myself as an Indo-Europeanist, which also allows me to feel at home in other related spiritual traditions like Hinduism.
However, I am such a shameless spiritual slut, or religious eclectic, anyway, that I cannot really accept being walled off from other traditions that appeal and make sense to me. Having lived in Japan from 1999-2004, I am very appreciative of Shinto, which of all religions I have known, is the one whose closeness to nature has most impressed me. When I pray to my various gods, spirits and ancestors, I often bow and clap my hands twice, Shinto-style, and I do not imagine that Odin or whoever else I am addressing feels slighted by this elegant and respectful gesture. Furthermore, my analytical mind tells me that all names and forms of the "divine" (or whatever you want to call It) are just provisional place markers to help the human psyche reach out to something beyond yet deep within itself; however, I find certain god-images and personalities emotionally moving. And, at the risk of sounding ridiculous--and I can assure you I am not saying this in a flippant way--I like the fact that in religion, we can return to the child in us who enjoys playing with dolls and toy figures. I think that play is actually highly significant.
An acquaintance of mine in Sweden made a very pertinent point about this kind of eclecticism. He told me that he likes to worship the Scandinavian goddess Freyja, and has also taught his daughter to do the same, but that if she were to decide to instead worship the Greek goddess Diana, he would not have a problem with it, as he sees them as ultimately meaning very much the same thing. However, he would PREFER that she worship Freyja, as this would be more in keeping with their particular cultural and ethnic context, but he would not insist on it. I think that is a lovely attitude, and I am grateful to him for sharing that.
I have divided loyalties between two different European Pagan traditions, the Norse or Nordic Paganism of Iceland and Scandinavia, and the Baltic Paganism of Lithuania and Latvia. I have Czech and Lithuanian ancestry, but was exposed to Norse mythology at an early age--I am not ashamed to admit it was through the comic book "The Mighty Thor!!"--but always felt a great curiosity about Lithuania, from dribs and drabs that my mother would relate to us, based on her mother's recollections of her childhood in Lithuania in the early 20th century. In undergraduate college, I did a research paper on Nazi appropriations of Norse mythology--highly ironic as I am now working on a somewhat higher level research paper on the same topic that I hope to publish in a scholarly journal like "Nova Religio" or "The Pomegranate." When I started graduate school in the mid-1980s, I made Norse Mythology one of my areas of study. This carried on with study of the Old Norse language at the University of Wisconsin at the end of that decade, and led me to obtain a Fulbright Fellowship at the University of Iceland in the mid-1990s, which led to participation in Asatru Fellowship activities in the Reykjavik area, and continuing connections with Iceland and Asatru.
However, the same year that I went to Iceland, I also went to Lithuania, where I came to know Jonas and Inija Trinkunas, the husband and wife leaders of the Lithuanian Pagan group Romuva. This led to further visits in 1998 and 2002. A bit later, after teaching in Japan several years, I scored a second Fulbright Fellowship to teach at Siauliai University in Lithuania from fall of 2004 to spring of 2005, and was once more highly impressed by Lithuanian spirituality, but also frustrated at my inability to learn the Lithuanian language, which was really necessary for me to fully participate in Romuva.
I came back to the USA in 2005 with a pragmatic sense that I would henceforth concentrate on forging links with people involved in Nordic Paganism, largely because it was more accessible with most of the materials being translated into English, with several generations of Asatru in America having developed a workable American version of Nordic Paganism. However, I still feel connected to Lithuania and Romuva, and do not by any means renounce my ties to them. (Hey, what's the point of being polytheistic if you can't be pluralistic?) I see the traditions as kindred branches of the Indo-European spiritual tree, anyway, with Perkunas being the Lithuanian version of Thor, and Velnias being the Lithuanian version of Odin, and the Lithuanian World Tree being no less of a vivid symbol of interconnectedness between mankind and nature than Yggdrasil in Norse mythology. In many ways, I see myself as an Indo-Europeanist, which also allows me to feel at home in other related spiritual traditions like Hinduism.
However, I am such a shameless spiritual slut, or religious eclectic, anyway, that I cannot really accept being walled off from other traditions that appeal and make sense to me. Having lived in Japan from 1999-2004, I am very appreciative of Shinto, which of all religions I have known, is the one whose closeness to nature has most impressed me. When I pray to my various gods, spirits and ancestors, I often bow and clap my hands twice, Shinto-style, and I do not imagine that Odin or whoever else I am addressing feels slighted by this elegant and respectful gesture. Furthermore, my analytical mind tells me that all names and forms of the "divine" (or whatever you want to call It) are just provisional place markers to help the human psyche reach out to something beyond yet deep within itself; however, I find certain god-images and personalities emotionally moving. And, at the risk of sounding ridiculous--and I can assure you I am not saying this in a flippant way--I like the fact that in religion, we can return to the child in us who enjoys playing with dolls and toy figures. I think that play is actually highly significant.
An acquaintance of mine in Sweden made a very pertinent point about this kind of eclecticism. He told me that he likes to worship the Scandinavian goddess Freyja, and has also taught his daughter to do the same, but that if she were to decide to instead worship the Greek goddess Diana, he would not have a problem with it, as he sees them as ultimately meaning very much the same thing. However, he would PREFER that she worship Freyja, as this would be more in keeping with their particular cultural and ethnic context, but he would not insist on it. I think that is a lovely attitude, and I am grateful to him for sharing that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
