Anti-Creedance Front

It might be just me, but don't you have to be in a Celtic bloodline to be a Celt? I'm kind of insulted seeing "neo-pagans" interchange cultural gods. The thing that's beautiful about heritage is that you can't fake it, you either are or you aren't, and you should have pride in your own.

emotional

To be a Celt, yes. To practice Celtic Paganism, no. Anyone can worship anyone else's gods.

See also the Celtic Pagan FAQ.



What's wrong about that? As long as the gods are worshipped as they were supposed to be, there's nothing wrong with god-mixing. Though it helps to be focussed on one pantheon.

Actually even on my point "as they were supposed to be" there is disagreement.

Heritage is a chance factor, beyond one's control. What if you don't like the gods of your heritage? What if you're a Swede who likes the Celtic pantheon rather than the Norse gods? There shouldn't be any taboo against worshipping a different pantheon.

Aquila ka Hecate

Quote:

The thing that's beautiful about heritage is that you can't fake it, you either are or you aren't, and you should have pride in your own.

Ya, this is going to be difficult for me, then.

My mother was Welsh and German and my Dad was a Scot.

You should understand the possible list of contraditory names and functions inherent in my heritage!

But it's a relevant point nonetheless-which heritage?

andy_d

So that would be pretty much everybody who can trace their ancestry back to Europe then.

The supposed "Celts" were peoples who lived thousands of years ago. Their blood would have diffused to the point that the idea of a "celtic bloodline" is meaningless. Trying to eqaute it to modern nationality would be even more so, since the nations of Europe are arbitrary political constructions.

Waning Moon Conrad

It could be that the popularity of Celtic deities in Neopaganism is an artifact of Wicca.

There was some stuff written by a Margaret Murray called "The Witch Cult in Western Europe" which alleged that witches burnt in the "burning times" were worshipping the horned god Cernunnos and that they were really practicing a genuine and unbroken Druidic/Celtic lineage.

Gerald Gardner got hold of the idea and took it to Aleister Crowley and suggested that he (Gardner) was going to start up a "witchcraft" movement.

Crowley thought that the idea of nice simple paganism for nice simple people - whose brains would be overtaxed by the philosophical complexities of Kabbalah, NeoPlatonism and Hermeticism - would be good, would diminish Christianity's power base.

Naturally anyone with talent would be provided with the chance to join a "genuine" order and practice "high magick".

Naturally enough, the forty or so pounds sterling that Gardner offered him to write the first Book of Shadows did not enter into the equation in any way at all.

So he did, Gardner started his movement, Sanders jumped on the bandwagon and styled himself "King of the Witches".

It readily became apparent that anyone can get a Book of Shadows (or write one), make it up as you go along, recruit some wannabes, indulge in histrionics and impress yourself with yourself.

It becomes popular and romanticized because people are already doing it, it's quick and easy, it's a very big bandwagon with comfy seats and there's no one to really test you.

You get to be an instant high priest/ess and you get to give yourself a grandiose title such as "Lord Ravenfox" or "Lady Supreme Finkelstein" and no one has the guts to confront you about your hollow and puerile pomposity because if they do, you can confront them about theirs.

I'm absolutely positive that in many cases my theory here is correct but I sincerely hope that it doesn't apply to absolutely everyone who has a liking for Celtic deities and I'm sure there are some decent, down to earth and unpretentious practitioners/worshippers in the movement.

triplew00t

Very good summery Conrad. I am impressed. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more on the history of Crowley and Gardner? I have heard the basic stories before, but I never knew that it was started with Crowley's blessing for 'simple people'.

Nero

emotional

Hey Waning Moon Conrad,

Is it Wicca as a whole you don't like, or just the Fluffbunny Wiccans? Or is this question incoherent, because you think Wicca = Inherently Fluffbunny Religion?

stryder2112

Conrad's historical summary was a little bit exaggerated to be a bit satirical in my opinion. For a really good overview of the history of Wicca, the background of Gardner et al., and how Crowley fits into all of this see Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft .

Hutton is an outsider to Wicca and Neopaganism in general. You've probably seen his face before if you ever watch any documentaries from the BBC on the history of Great Britain (many are replayed on the Discovery Channel, TLC, etc.). Dr. Hutton is a Professor of History at the University of Bristol and they always seem to throw him in front of the camera for comment in every BBC produced documentary on the history of Great Britain.

Stryder

Waning Moon Conrad

It's been ages since I read up on this stuff. I'm pretty sure Crowley doesn't mention it in his "Confessions".

"Ritual Magic in England" by Frances Yates might contain references to it.

Colin Wilson, "The Occult" might be worth a look.

I can remember reading bits here and bits there in books that seemed to be the product of serious research but unfortunately I cannot remember which ones in particular.

I promise that if I do remember titles and references I'll share them with you.

Waning Moon Conrad

Correct. It's accurate according to my knowledge but I simply cannot keep a sardonic streak of humour out of things like this.