The group homepage says this:

“Merry Meet! This is a group for Bronies and Pegasisters that follow one of the Pagan faiths be it Wicca, Druidism, Asatru, Golden Dawn, Hellenismos or any other. All who follow the Old Ways are welcome here.”

I hope I don't sound too rude here. But it's my understanding that the modern Pagan movement about New Ways, not Old Ways.

I understand that historically: “Pagan” meant “indigenous religion”. But Wicca is not an indigenous religion. Christianity is more of an indigenous religion then Wicca. Because Christianity is based on, and strongly rooted within, the indigenous Jewish/Israelite religion. Wicca is New Way, and Christianity is Old Way compared to Wicca.

There are some Asatru (for example) who are part of the Pagan movement. But Asatru is, fundamentally, not a New Age Pagan thing. Because Asatru isn't strongly rooted within the indigenous Germanic religion, it is the indigenous Germanic religion! Christianity is a New Age Pagan thing, compared to Asatru.

Am I missing something here? And if I’m not: What's this group about? Is it about the New Ways, the Old Ways, or basically anything that's not Christianity or Islam?

Think of it this was. Monotheism is a very old way of seeing with the Bahai faith as its most recent expression. Paganism-which is based upon polytheism and animism-is a very old way of seeing with Wicca and NeoPaganism as its most recent expression. Ideologically, Wicca's cult of the Horned God dates back into the mists of hoary antiquity. Do Wiccans worship Him as their forefathers did? Certainly not, but Christians do not worship exactly as their forefathers did either.

7070326
I only understood half of that. But isn't Christianity far more rooted in indigenous religion and tradition, then Wicca?

7070334
Considering how much Christianity took from the old religions? Absolutely. In a way, both Wicca and Christianity are descendants of the Old Ways. Christ, the Sacrificed King to be Reborn, is the Horned God of our Paleolithic ancestors whose sacrifice fed the tribe. (This is my body, this is my blood...)

Have you ever looked into Christo-Paganism?

7070359
Have I ever looked into Christo-Paganism? Not really.

7070376
What is your interest in Paganism?

7070380
I'm strongly leaning towards following the indigenous religion of my people.

7070410
What is your people?

7070429
I’m American. So basically: New World English. The English are a Germanic people, like the Scandinavians. So that would be Asatru: Thor, Odin, etc.

Not that Britain/America is just Germanic. There’s also the Celtic and Greco-Roman elements, but I’m going to focus on the Germanic tradition for now.

7070448
Welcome to the group. The Germanic religion has a number of cultural expressions. Are there any Deities you feel connected to?

7070463
Maybe Tiw or Thor, but I really need to study the stories of the Gods more!

7070468
Norse mythology is very exciting and vivid with much wisdom.

7070326
Read that again. You (not necessarily the group, but you) are defining Paganism, much less in terms of Old Ways vs New Ways? And much more in terms of polytheism and animism, vs monotheism?

7070504
Paganism usually refers to any European form of Polytheism, Animism or Pantheism be it ancient or modern.

7070509
Why European?

7070510
It comes from the Latin "Paganus" "Country dweller." It was the term Christians gave Europeans who still worshiped the Old Gods. Other groups have their own words for their religious traditions. (Shinto or Yoruba for example.)

7070573
I know where that term comes from: The enlightened city folks don't need Gods or religion. Not like those backwards country-folks, who just clinged to their Gods and their guns. History's repeating itself: Now the Christians are the Pagans. And the Atheists are the Christians, who condemn religion and God as evil.

If you don't get what I'm saying: Traditional Christianity says that Gods, other then the God of Israel, either don't exist or are evil demons. And that's what modern Atheists say: If you watch the Atheist videos on YouTube, they're always going on about how God is evil and doesn't exist.

7070604
Interesting point.

7070509

Paganism usually refers to any European form of Polytheism, Animism or Pantheism be it ancient or modern.

Anyway: I think I get Polytheism. But could you explain Animism and Pantheism? You could explain Polytheism too, it’d be interesting to hear your prescriptive.

7070604

If you don't get what I'm saying: Traditional Christianity says that Gods, other then the God of Israel, either don't exist or are evil demons. And that's what modern Atheists say: If you watch the Atheist videos on YouTube, they're always going on about how God is evil and doesn't exist.

Atheism is the last stop, though. Can't go lower than zero gods. :)

7070651
But I don’t think Atheism will rule Western society for two thousand years, like how Christianity did. Because I don’t think an Atheist society can survive!

Christianity has the rot of Atheism inside it, but there’s still much that is just and holy. That’s why Christianity and Christian societies could stand. But pure undistilled Atheism, that will fall. The question is: Will Western civilization fall with Atheism?

7070664
Only if we let it.

7070664

But pure undistilled Atheism, that will fall.

I realize that this is a discussion that can get out of hand rapidly, but... could you explain why you think this?

7070697
I think letting Atheism take over Western civilization, the way Christianity did, would be tantamount to letting Western civilization fall.

7070715
For one thing: Have you ever seen a successful irreligious society? And I don't mean a society with a government that keeps its nose out of religion (like with the American 1st amendment), I mean an irreligious society.

7070732
I'm not sure what you would consider an "irreligious" society - I mean, every society today has members who practice religion, so in that sense, there are no irreligious societies. I can't name any historically irreligious societies either. Are you basing your case on any particular societies that you feel have failed?

7070743
The USSR was officially atheistic and went down in flames.

7070743
Christianity, and religion as a whole, has become taboo in Western society. More in the cities then the country, and more in Western Europe then in America.

Short answer: Take that, and take it a step or two further. That's what I mean by an irreligious society.

And to be clear: I'm talking about Atheism on a societal scale. On an individual scale: I think there are a number of wise intelligent Atheists, who see the importance of religion to a functional society. Just because someone doesn't personally think any God exists, doesn't necessarily mean he's opposed to religion.

7070650
Animism posits that everything is alive and has a spirit.
Pantheism believes nature is Divine.
Polytheism believes in many Gods connected to nature or concepts.

7070763
That’s the kind of short clear answer, I can’t seem to get from a formal article. Too often: The articles try to give you all the details, but they don’t explain what they’re giving you details about.

7070759

The USSR was officially atheistic and went down in flames.

And that was a tragedy. They went down in flames, because they tried to reform. Because they tried to become a freer and more just society.

Communist Russia was responsible for terrible crimes. But for the Soviet Union to fall, because she tried to reform. Because she tried to do the right thing. That was not justice!

Edit: Come to think of it, the Soviet Union was religious. Their religion was Communism. And they fell, when they stopped believing in their religion.

7070760

On an individual scale: I think there are a number of wise intelligent Atheists, who see the importance of religion to a functional society.

Why do you feel that religion is important to a functional society?

7070792
Like I said: Have you seen a successful irreligious society?

Look at modern Western society, for one thing. We have very low birthrates, and our marriage rates aren't too much better. We import massive numbers of immigrants, because we’re not having enough children to keep our society and economy going.

But that’s not sustainable: Once those immigrants (and their decedents) become the majority, and outnumber the Westerners, It’s not Western Civilization anymore!

And those immigrants are largely Muslims, religious people. Religion will triumph over irreligion, because religion can stand and irreligion can’t. Islam will become the dominant religion in Europe, and more then that, Europe will become an extension of Middle-Eastern civilization. Unless Europe turns back from the path she’s on. Unless Europe turns back from Atheism and irreligion.

7070808
Okay... I guess that answers my questions.

7070650
Animism basically is spirit worship, the belief everything has a spirit, more or less

7070463
I see you're an Ulsterman. That's basically the same Gemantic-Celtic-Greco-Roman mix as America and Britain. Although probably with more emphasis on the Celtic.

7071186
Mostly Irish with a wee bit o' Norse and Ulster Scots. But yes, it is a very similar mix.

7071186
Reading my response, it's a bit snappish. Sorry about that. I am from Ulster, but I am Irish not an Ulster Scot though some of my ancestors were...it's an, er, long story as some in Ulster don't consider themselves Irish and that caused a bit of trouble.

7071271
I'm aware that Ulstermen have had some strong disagreements, and even a quasi-civil war, over what their national/ethnic identity should be. Along with violence between religious sects that you'd expect from the middle-east, not from Ireland or Britain.

What I find ironic, is that folks who identify as “British” call the land by her traditional Irish name (“Ulster”). While some who identify as “Irish” actuality find that offensive, and prefer to use the geographically-inaccurate name the British government invented (“Northern Ireland” should refer to the northern half of Ireland, Ulster’s just the far-northeastern corner of Ireland).

7071295
Aye. It's very strange, particularly when the Ulster Scots start identifying themselves with Irish symbols like the Red Hand of the Ui Niall (O'Neal) high kings.

7071302
Didn't a lot of Ulster Scots see themselves as Irish, until the 20th century or so? With the Irish War of Independence, and all?

Speaking of national identity: I'm thinking that national identity is an important element of religion, and visa versa. And more to the point: A healthy stable religion and national identity is needed, for a healthy stable society. And on the individual level: A lot of people need a stable religion and national identity, to be healthy and stable.

What are your thoughts on that? Being an Ulsterman: You probably have an unusual perspective on national identity. I'm guessing it's something you've had to think about, rather then just something you got automatically and could take for granted?

7071607
I was born in Donegal, the Republic of Ireland-a very fierce identity we fought for with blood, sweat and (too many) tears. Many of my ancestors fought and died during the War of Independence and the Civil War (on opposite sides!) My religion is deeply tied to my national identity-I honor the Gods of my ancestors. The Land I walk on is a Goddess, the womb from whence my people sprang. I revere my ancestors who dwell within this soil and sanctified it with their blood.

I quite agree with you on this matter. Land and faith and blood are inseparable.

7071718
I'm American. And there was a time I had to question the mainstream version, of the American national identity. When I saw that it didn't work, and I had to make a version that did.

Fortunately, that was a slow process. I wasn't hit all at once with how it didn't work. While there were some bumps along the way (and one or two things I'm embarrassed to have said), there was never a time when I didn't have my American identity.

7071806
Well Americans-particularly Euro-Americans who originally built the cities and plowed the land-do have an identity and it's not right for anyone to try to take that away. Of course, the genocide against the American Indians was wrong, but many of them died due to disease. It is a tragedy that the two groups couldn't resolve their differences in a peaceful manner.

7072044
Actually, it was the European-American idea of America that I ended up rejecting. By “European”: I do not mean the British colonists. The American people were created, when Brits left the British Isles, settled the New World, and became the American people.

I mean the European immigrants, who came here en-mass in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. They and their dependents redefined America. Before them, America was a nation of colonists. Anglo-Celtic colonists. But the Europeans, and their decedents, didn't like that. The idea of America being “a nation of immigrants”: That came from Europeans, not Americans. And I reject that idea!

You'll hear about “Italian-Americans” and “Asian-Americans”. You won't hear about “British-Americans” or “English-Americans”, because the term for that is simply “American”.

7072067
An interesting thought though British are Europeans, America certainly has a very Anglo-Celtic heritage.

7072117
The “nation of immigrants”/”we’re everyone”/”America is an idea” school of thought: It denies that America has any heritage! Even a generic European heritage.

================================================

As for if British are Europeans, I think context is key there:

Birts are obviously Europeans. If they’re not European, then what are they? African, Chinese? But it’s valid to talk about “Britain vs (mainland) Europe”. Because there’s a difference between Britain, and mainland Europe.

It’s like asking if Irish are British:

The Irish are Celts, the indigenous Brits. If the Irish aren't British/Celtic, then what are they? Slavic? It’d almost make more sense to say that the English aren't British, because they were originality invaders from Denmark. But it’s still valid to talk about “Ireland vs Britain”, because there’s a difference between Ireland and Britain.

7072158
British refers solely to those Celts and other groups who settled on the island of Britain while Irish refers to those Celts and other groups who settled in Ireland though some Irish descend from the British and some British (like the Scots) descend from the Irish.

...On reading that I see the confusion.

That both groups went on conquering sprees and attempted to annex the other does not help the situation.

7072186
Ultimately: It's semantics if you call the British “European”, or the Irish “British”. Point is: The British are kin to the Spanish, Germans, Russians, etc. And the Irish are kin to the Scottish, English, Cornish, etc.

But kin or not, it does seem that Ireland was used as Britain's punching bag. Do you know how that happened? I mean, I get Britain conquering Ireland. If a European power conquered Ireland, that would be a threat to Britain! But why'd Britain use Ireland as a punching bag?

7072234
It's a long, loooong story. Ireland swore fealty to the English kings as defense against the Normans, but outside of Dublin the Irish clans were self-governing. Then everything changed when England became Protestant and Ireland remained Catholic. There was also the Jacobite Risings when Ireland, Scotland and English Catholics supported the Catholic House of Stuart against the Protestant William of Orange. There was a (genuine) concern that Ireland would aid Catholic France or Spain against England. Therefore, Irish Catholics were stripped of their property rights and the land was given to Protestant Scottish and English settlers, especially in Ulster.

It is only possible to understand this in the context of the much longer war between Protestants and Catholics with Protestant kings often seeking independence from what was seen as the Pope's meddling in national affairs. This led to the rise of nationalism. The Irish and other Celtic groups came to be seen as the "other"-a threat to British unity and our language and culture was persecuted, even outlawed. The sad truth is, Ireland remained loyal to Britain even sending countless soldiers to die against Napoleon. At the same time, there was a striving towards independence and greater self-governance. This provoked a violent reaction from the British government. Ireland was loyal to the crown, but not the parliament. The abolition of the Irish parliament and Great Famine were the nadir of British-Irish relations until the final explosion that was the War of Independence.

7072235
If the Jacobite Rebels had been won, the American Revolution might not have been necessary. Because the uprisings were, in part, an attempt to reverse the English annexation of Scotland (i.e. the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain). The Scottish Rebels, like the American Rebels in the 1770s, didn't want English Parliament imposing laws and taxes on them.

Before England annexed Scotland: Scotland and England were under the same monarch, but different governments and parliaments. If the Rebels had successfully reversed the annexation, and put English Parliament in her place: Maybe Parliament wouldn't have tried to make laws and taxes for America.

The Rebels did fail. And Parliament, emboldened by their victory in Scotland, tried to pull the same stunt in America. But America still owes the Rebels a debt, for what they tried to do. And we're not paying that debt. We're not honoring and remembering them, the way we should.