Wandering
around the net, I have had the "pleasure" of talking with
all kinds of people who claim that their belief path is of their
"soul". When discussing what their "path" is, I
am amazed at what the Pagan Path and those of the Craft have started
to include in our basic beliefs.
Its
no wonder people outside of our religion laugh at us, call us kooks,
and turn away in disgust and disbelief.
Talking
to one person, I find he has read a book on Merlin, now thinks
Merlin is a Druid priest and is following in the Path of Merlin.
Another
speaks of the ancient religion of Necromancy. When asked what the
word meant, he said it was from the ancient texts of the Necromancer.
No mention of speaking with the dead to fortell the future. I
wondered if he knew up to that point what the word really meant, or
if he had read Lovecraft.
Still
another talked of casting spells on persons to make them bend to his
will. A young lady spoke about her love of the forest and the Goddess
Marian, the maiden.
Can
you see where I'm going with this? People are adapting fictional
characters or material and quoting it, whether in ignorance or in
earnest, as part of the pagan belief systems.
At
first, I was seeing books as the source of the problem. But,
Lovecraft was writing fiction when he wrote about the necronomicon.
He never had the idea that someone would take him as fact.
Robin
Hood is an old story, and though I have read many versions of this
great adventure tale, I never heard of Marian referred to as Goddess.
And
the Wiccan Rede is plastered in almost every Wiccan book on the
market. So where does someone think its OK to cast spells on people
to hurt them.
I
think the answer is in the type of people coming onto the Paths, and
the severe lack of proper teachers and common sence. The
individual is allowed to establish his path as he sees
fit. If he or she wants to declare the English Muffin as
the proper instrument of the God or Goddess, there are people who are
accepting it. Too many people reading books and accepting all
as 'gospel truth'. No one thinking for themselves.
Another
source of confusion is our acceptance of such nonsence. We
refuse to draw the line at where spirituality ends and fantasy land
begins. We cloak this with the term 'tolerance'. This is
not a question of tolerance. This is a matter of
validation. We can tolerate just about anything, but what we
should not do is validate their fantasy experience based on an
unsubstantiated spirituality. If we are unsure, we should not
valitate but rather we should question. It is our
responsibility to question.
This
is a religion based on personal responsibility. It is their
responsibility not to mix fantasy with spirituality and it is our
responsibility not to validate it.
The
census in 2001 in England had a fill-in space for religion.
Yes, there is now a good population of 'Jedi Knights' in
England. I can see some putting it in as a goof, but 390,000?
Something
is missing here. The basics, I think, are missing. Not to say that
the lessons learned from the story of Camelot and the Knights of
Arthur are not worthy lessons. But let us not make a God of Arthur.
There has to be a cut between fantasy, and reality, and religion.
Honor the thought, don't immortalize the cartoon character.
