Polytheism’s Tradition of Moderation
Anyone who knows me is familiar with my belief that the middle way is best. Extremes are not only unappealing, they’re unhealthy. Extremes are for fanatics and ideologues who cannot see any other way than their own. For those on the extreme, the “Other” is a reality – those who are outside the pale and who are, in many cases, not even really human. We saw this in the recent presidential campaign where we learned (to our surprise) that there are “real” Americans who render the rest of us the “Other”. We stand outside of what America stands for. We stand outside of the Christian god. Extremes create a situation in which you’re either with them or against them. There is no middle ground. It is no surprise at all that George Lucas, in his Star Wars films, gave the Sith this attitude. “If you’re not with me,” Anakin tells Obi Wan, “then you’re my enemy.”
The idea of a middle way is enshrined in many cultures. It is entirely foreign, however, to the Abrahamic tradition. I like a line out of Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, where Sibylla tells Balian, when discussing the Muslims, “Their prophet says ‘submit’; Jesus says ‘decide’.” There isn’t much to choose between the two positions, because if you give the wrong answer to the God question, as George Carlin said, you can join the millions of dead who made the choice you made. You’ll have lots of company. For the polytheist there is no need to submit, and there is no need to decide when all gods exist.
Ideological and religious extremism is not part of polytheism (there are certainly other kinds of extremism that plague all people – greed for example). Polytheism, as Jan Assmann points out, is a means of translation between cultures. There is no dogma, no doctrine, nothing to fight about in a religious sense. If you felt your god marched before you, as the Hittites and others said, it did not mean that the foreign god was false. In the Middle East, ancient cultures might take the god back with them as plunder, but it did not make the god cease to exist; it did not require people stop worshiping the god. There were no holy wars because when all gods exist, the question forced conversion does not exist. As Turville-Petre says, “From such records as we possess, it does not appear that the polytheistic pagans of Scandinavia and Germany were so dogmatic or fanatical in their religious beliefs that they would be likely to go to war for the worship of one tribe of gods or another.”[1]
We want to be careful about letting extremism enter into modern Paganism. It can easily creep in, from any number of directions. Ecology leaves room for fanatics. There are people who will kill or maim people to protect a tree. Unless this was a sacred grove of some kind, this is not a position any ancient polytheist would have taken. Trees could be cut down. Deforestation was a real problem in the ancient world. Feminism also has its extremist elements. The suggestion of an “Eco-Feminism” on another blog raised more than a few eyebrows, I noticed. And for good reason. Feminism does not require the feminine to be placed above the masculine. It only requires that they be equal. Those who take it to the extreme are, from where I stand, as suspect as those who stand at the other extreme and wish to reduce women to chattel.
The famous Athenian lawmaker Solon (6th century BCE) said “Nothing in excess.” “Moderation in all things” is another way of putting it. Solon is credited with laying the foundations for the later Athenian democracy. You will notice that extremists don’t give rise to democracies. You have only to look at the Hebrew Bible to see where extremism takes you: monarchy, a theocracy. There was nothing participatory about the ancient Jewish government. It was a submit-or-die political system. You can argue that the Romans had an empire, but even in the empire towns governed themselves and the Imperial apparatus did not concern itself with micromanagement of local affairs, let alone adherence to doctrine. In Israel, if you stepped outside of the very narrow lines of what was acceptable, you got stoned. You didn’t choose your leaders; YHWH did. Modern Conservative Christians in the United States seem to have similar ideas about who chooses our presidents. Given their belief that the United States has superseded Rome as a vehicle used by their god to spread his message I suppose such an attitude is not surprising. But it has no bearing on reality. And that’s really the key here: extremist thinking cannot coexist with an evidence-based world. And the evidence-based world always loses out.
Jesse Byock refers to the role of moderation in medieval Iceland, called hóf:
An individual who observed this standard was called a hófmaðr, a person of justice and temperance. The opposite of hóf was óhóf, a failure to observe restraint denoting excess or intemperance. Adherence to óhóf alarmed both friend and foe and called forth the exercise of peer pressure against it. Rarely did not leader succeed in imposing his will on other leaders for very long. The practice of óhóf was known as ójafnaðr, meaning unevenness, unfairness, or injustice in dealings with others. Ójafnaðr disturbed the consensual nature of decision making and set in motion a series of coercive responses; for example, when an individual’s greed or ambition threatended the balance of power, other leaders banded together in an effort to counter his immoderate behavior. Action against an unruly man (ójafnaðarmaðr), instead of causing an upheaval in governmental authority, led to small adjustments in the balance of local power, as recounted in saga feuds. Without slipping into the realm of ójafnaðr, leaders sought to reap profit, status, and perhaps social good from their activities as advocates.[2]
Moderation is regulated by society. In Norse cultures, immoderate behavior could get you outlawed. And as Jesse Byock notes, in the Norse sagas “The relative merits of moderation (hóf) are weighted against lack of restraint (ójafnaðr).”[3] Moderation is extolled. It is an object to aim for. Excess and immoderate behavior are to be avoided; they bring only ruin. The Havamal too argues for moderate behavior. This is the message we Heathens get from our ancestors and it is no different than the message given by other polytheistic cultures to their descendents.
Unfortunately, extremism can also be regulated by society. Among a group of extremists, it is not good to be seen as not being extreme enough. We see this in the Hebrew Bible, we see in throughout all of Christian history, and we see it today among the so-called Religious Right. Extremism rules the Republican Party today. Witness Rush Limbaugh’s invitation to moderate Republican Colin Powell to just go ahead and become a Democrat.[4] Notice that in extremist groups, if you’re not extreme enough you are automatically the “Other”. There is no gradation. It’s either/or. It’s very simple: If you’re not Christian enough, you’re not Christian at all; if you’re not Republican enough, you’re not a Republican at all. But this kind of intolerance is not simply a product of religion and politics; we find it in environmentalism, feminism, and in other places as well.
We want to be careful then, I would argue, of a paradigm that states that if you are not an eco-feminist (or some other “ist”) you are not a Pagan at all. I don’t think that’s a dialogue we need to even engage in. According to monotheism, everything not of itself is Pagan; according to Pierre Chuvin, Paganism is ethnic religion. I much prefer that latter definition; it’s not only broader, but inclusive rather than exclusive.
I would argue that it is the extremist who is not exhibiting praise-worthy or moderate behavior. Since polytheism is by its very nature diverse (MacMullen’s “spongy mass of tolerance and tradition” or Pierre Chuvin’s “mosaic of established traditions”)[5] anything that attacks that diversity is immoderate. We should be more interested in sustaining our diversity, which breeds tolerance and moderation, than destroying it. Extremism, after all, breeds tyranny and intolerance. Is that what we, as modern-day polytheists want our legacy to be? The very minute you approach an extreme you’ve hit a slippery slope: you start excluding people rather than including them, and you can’t be more self-defeating or unhealthy than that.
Notes:
[1] E.O.G. Turville-Petre, Myth and Religion of the North (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964), 160.
[2] Jesse Byock, Medieval Iceland. Society, Sagas, and Power (University of California Press, 1990), 128.
[3] Ibid, 204.
[4] Politico, May 6, 2009. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22203.html
[5] Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997),, 2. Pierre Chuvin, A Chronicle of the Last Pagans, B.A. Archer trans. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion and writes for PoliticusUSA (www.politicususa.com) 
Well said, Hrafnkell! With extremism, there can be no constructive dialogue, only the din of shouted monologues.
And at the end of the day, I believe that all extremism does is create imagined enemies everywhere. As we have seen, there are many groups – Christian extremists are a good example – that feel the need to create imagined enemies everywhere in order to attain social cohesion in their group. We don't need enemies and "The Other" to define ourselves. It's a destructive line of thinking.
Thanks for another great post.
Hrafenkell — in general I agree, but I think we have to be very careful in these waters. What exactly is meant by "extremist"? If it means "someone who is far in the minority of opinion," then all pagans are extremists. If it means "someone who thinks most other people are wrong," well, that includes most pagans as well.
. I am all for diversity; but if the majority of people are wrong about something important, and that wrongness is leading them to act in destructive ways, I consider it essential to try and fight that. If that means resisting those who want to force their religion on others, I will resist. If that means defending vegetarianism, because we shouldn't be devoting 80% of our farmland to meat production, I will defend it. I cannot accept insanity in the name of diversity.
Thank you, Selkie. As you say, extremism creates enemies as much as identifies them. Paranoia is less a symptom for those taking the middle road.
I agree with Jeff Lilly. He posted exactly what I wanted to say. (:
I think you raise a good point, Jeff. Any definition is fraught with danger. Simply agreeing on meanings is difficult enough. But I don't think it really applies here.
My Oxford American Dictionary defines an extremist as someone who holds extreme political or religious views, not as a person who in in the minority opinion on these matters. And my own working definition agrees with Oxford.
I think obviously anyone who is trying to force their religion on others is taking an extreme religious stance, and clearly that is to be defended against. Equally, I would argue that anyone who attempts to force dietary restrictions on others is taking an extreme position. It is not, however, an extreme position to make that choice for yourself. It is the act of forcing it on others that makes it extreme. I don't care of a radical feminist thinks women who have sex with men are collaborators. But if they try to legislate against women having sex with men – well, that's an extreme position, as is denying contraceptives even to married couples, as is possibly the case in Virginia in the near future.
I don't see any need for you to defend vegetarianism. I don't really see people attacking it. Most of what I see is radical vegetarians criticizing my right to eat meat. I don't see many criticizing the choice of vegetarians to not eat meat. You may have had other experiences, but I can only speak to my own.
As for the charge of insanity, I think use of that term creates problems that don't have to exist. I honestly don't see where insanity comes into play. The charge of insanity is often a value judgment, as in calling something "foolish" or "irrational" rather than clinical mental illness, and nothing in what I've said really requires going there.
After all, I'm not saying people are wrong or evil for wanting everyone to convert to their religion, or that somebody might want everyone else to eat nothing but vegetables, as they do. That's their right. Wanting that doesn't hurt anybody or impinge on anybody's rights.
But it's a basic assumption of individual human liberties that one person not force their views on another – your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa. It's even enshrined in the Declaration of Independence as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I agree with Epicurus that we should not be gluttons, and I think Epicurus would agree that the middle way is the way of wisdom, but Epicurus held his beliefs forth as a maxim, and not a rule to force others to his views, even if by living according to Stoic wisdom the lot of humanity might have been drastically improved.
So on this one, I think, we'll have to remain in disagreement, though I respect your views.
And I am not at all surprised, Gran. And as I said to Jeff, I have to disagree, though I respect your right to think the way you do.
But we have constantly legislated against things that as a society we come to see as immoral or unethical. For example: It was considered extreme what the slavery abolitionists stood for because there were those calling for what could be termed "humane slavery".
And just because others don't like your message or don't want to change their behavior in accord with scientifically proven facts and moral arguments…then like the slave owners who didn't want to give up their slaves, they'll have their slaves forcefully removed from them and laws enacted to punish those who for personal reasons violate the new way of things.
This is the purpose of dialogue and information exchange. Sometimes one party really is right and others wrong. And yes, sometimes that means changing the face of things when you get enough people behind you to do it. This is a strong point of democracy but can also be a weak point. We need open discussion of these issues, not agree to disagree.
Rights change. You used to have the right to own and beat your slaves. Now you don't. And let's face it, there are *still* those here in America that think that's unjust and even un-American.
And on a personal note, you don't like veg people telling you about meat eating? Well, I don't like bloody pictures of cow flesh on billboards, I don't like cartons of white cow secretions in my public schools, I don't like ads with fried eggs and bacon on nearly every road side. But I have to deal with it and find a way to constructively work against it or at least get the vegan message out in an equally effective way.
You complain about the occasional veg person bothering you when we have to see the end result of animal torture and abuse every single day all around us. To be blunt, buck up. Millions are suffering for your "personal choices" right now. *That* is worth getting upset about.
Granamyr, with all due respect, you are still talking like a Christian, like a conservative Catholic, and you don't see it – can't see it.
You stand there from a position of supposed moral superiority, even daring to compare eating meat to enslaving human beings. Can't you see how absurd that is?
You talk about "scientifically proven facts and moral arguments" but you have no moral high ground. Science shows humans are ominvores. You may not like that, but it doesn't change the facts. I've yet to see anyone offer persuasive proof that eating veggies over meat is a morally or ethically superior position.
And you are not interested in dialog. It's a monologue, Granamyr. You want to impose your views on others. You want to demonstrate some sort of imagined moral superiority over everyone else that doesn't exist in fact. Eat veggies. Nobody cares. I eat meat. What you choose to eat is your business, what I choose to eat is my business. And if you're going to compare eating meat to human slavery then I don't even know how to talk to you anymore.
And you dare tell me to "buck" up? Granamyr, I don't mind dialogue, but I do mind being preached at. I hereby invite you to insult somebody else, somewhere else, and not me on my own bloody blog. You are in every sense violating the rules of hospitality. You do not attack your host. You have, unfortunately, done so repeatedly. I'm done with it.
You like to dish out criticism don't you? But you sure can't take any. Yes, buck up and for once consider other people besides yourself and your personal little world you like to call that of "your ancestors".
You spend pages/hours trashing others and their arguments. Yet you hypocritically use the very same ones yourself. You rail Christians for bringing religion in moral discussions, yet you do it. You wax poetic about equality and freedom, yet you vehemently oppose any opposition to your views on this blog.
You think it's the worst thing in the world to be called a Christian but I don't so thus you hurl what you dread to be called at me. It's called projection.
Farewell. Read something outside of your comfort zone and already accepted ideas for once. It's called intellectual honesty.
Gran, I didn't think insanity could enter into this conversation, but you proved me wrong. Congratulations. You were actually right about something, but abysmally wrong about everything else.
An interesting post, here… Though I think I'm confused about a few things.
Firstly, I'm not sure in what way you're using the term "eco-feminism" and exactly why this is automatically "eye-brow raising." Eco-feminismm "a philosophy and movement born from the union of feminist and ecological thinking, believes that the social mentality that leads to the domination and oppression of women is directly connected to the social mentality that leads to the environmental abuse of Earth." I don't see why this is any more extremist than the usual feminism (i.e. that men and women are equal and that sex/gender does not determine individual worth). Indeed, it seems more like the natural synthesis of various concerns that probably hold some very common ground–for instance, the fact that the degradation of women has almost always been worst in cultures that also reject or denigrate the earth. Sure, there are probably extreme views within eco-feminism, but I'm not sure why you imply that eco-feminism itself is extremist (and I don't remember anyone, anywhere, suggesting that women were better than men).
Also, in one of your comments, you said you have a problem with someone "criticizing your right to eat meat." To me, criticism is a far cry from any form of oppression. Simply because I don't get criticized for riding my bike, does that mean I have to remain silent about the environmental damage that SUVs and other gas-guzzlers cause? Certainly my choice to ride a bike instead of drive is founded not just on personal taste, but on my belief that this choice affects others in a positive way, and I should have the right to share my reasons (and yes, criticize those whom I think may be making irresponsible choices) in hopes that others will listen and perhaps make better choices, too.
I do agree that intolerance needs to be avoided and that the middle way provides a flexibility and breadth that is often spiritually as well as socially fruitful. But I also think we need to be very careful in our definitions of "balance" and "justice" and not mistake these for "tit for tat." When we find ourselves mistaking criticism for oppression, and disagreement for intolerance, we are ourselves walking the quick road towards extremism.
P.S. I should probably read more carefully before I post links.
The link to ecofeminism in my comment above goes more in-depth than the initial modest definition I quoted, and comes to certain conclusions that I personally don't agree with. So I wanted to state for the record that I'm not advocating that version of ecofeminism, merely because I cited their definition. To me, feminism is, as I said before, the view that sex/gender does not determine individual worth. What it means to apply this idea to ecology is, to me, that species/sentience do not determine worth, either, and that the earth has inherent value in itself, not as a means to an end, just as a woman has value as an individual and not merely as a baby-machine, etc. (This also means that men have worth as more than just sperm-factories, of course.) If we stick to that view of eco-feminism, I think we're well clear of extremism.
On the other hand…. it brings up another interesting point. We shouldn't mistake "difficult" for "extreme," either. The ecofeminist article advocates, for instance, living in smaller communities. This would be incredibly difficult to transition to, and so some people might react to the idea without giving it any thought, saying merely that it's just "too extreme." But then, what about biking or vegetarianism? Are these "extreme" just because they take more effort and may ask us to break difficult habits?
It seems to me that the word "extreme" gets thrown around a whole lot, and with definitions like "extremist means someone who holds extreme views," it doesn't seem like the dictionary is going to help us much, either, other than giving us a run-around. All the more reason to have these sorts of discussions, openly, and without too many angry words exchanged.
You're reading quite a bit into what I wrote, Ali. First of all, I used "eco-feminism" as an example because it came up in the post "Toward a New Paganism." It was an example some of my readers would find familiar. I did point out that this was only an example and that I was not making a point of attacking "eco-feminism" solely or particularly.
I also pointed out that the environment and feminism are both areas that bring out extreme views, on both ends of the spectrum, making them an excellent example to illustrate my point, which is that the middle course, the moderate course, is both sensible and praiseworthy, as my Norse ancestors believed, and as the Greeks also believed, or most ancient polytheistic cultures I'm familiar with.
And no, I didn't say I feel oppressed by somebody criticizing my right to eat meat. Nowhere did I suggest that to be the case, so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. But here is the key: I don't criticize people eating vegetables to the exclusion of eating meat. I particularly do not go to other peoples blogs and criticize their choices, adopt a morally superior position and then act like I'm being attacked when the other person defends their point of view.
Simple rules of hospitality apply here: you (and I don't mean you personally) do not go to your hosts house, virtual or otherwise, and preach. It's one thing to say "I think eating meat is wrong." Fine. You made your point. But then to claim that you are in some way morally superior to me because you don't eat meat is not a defensible position. It's impolite. It's rude. It's an egregious breach of conduct. Preach all you want on your own time and on your own blog, but not on somebody else's blog. I am writing about polytheism, not about diet, as I've made repeatedly clear.
People have a right to their views; what they do not have is the right to force their views on me. None of that equates with any sort of oppression.
I also fail to see where "tit for tat" comes in. Intolerance is the property of extremism. Extreme views give rise to intolerance. You do not see intolerance from the middle path. And this last sentence makes no sense to me whatsoever:
"When we find ourselves mistaking criticism for oppression, and disagreement for intolerance, we are ourselves walking the quick road towards extremism."
Especially since nowhere is oppression mentioned in any of my comments or in the original post.
Ali, I will try to answer your comments point by point:
P.S. I should probably read more carefully before I post links.
The link to ecofeminism in my comment above goes more in-depth than the initial modest definition I quoted, and comes to certain conclusions that I personally don't agree with. So I wanted to state for the record that I'm not advocating that version of ecofeminism, merely because I cited their definition. To me, feminism is, as I said before, the view that sex/gender does not determine individual worth. What it means to apply this idea to ecology is, to me, that species/sentience do not determine worth, either, and that the earth has inherent value in itself, not as a means to an end, just as a woman has value as an individual and not merely as a baby-machine, etc. (This also means that men have worth as more than just sperm-factories, of course.) If we stick to that view of eco-feminism, I think we're well clear of extremism.
I agree completely.
On the other hand…. it brings up another interesting point. We shouldn't mistake "difficult" for "extreme," either.
I don't believe I did.
The ecofeminist article advocates, for instance, living in smaller communities. This would be incredibly difficult to transition to, and so some people might react to the idea without giving it any thought, saying merely that it's just "too extreme."
I fail to see personally where living in small, sustainable communities would be extreme. I can't imagine why anybody would think that.
But then, what about biking or vegetarianism? Are these "extreme" just because they take more effort and may ask us to break difficult habits?
I fail to see your point here. How is biking extreme? Why would anyone say it is? It's a natural form of exercise. I rode a bike to and from work for more than two years, more than five miles a day. People do it all the time, in Europe and here in the States.
Vegetarianism isn't extreme either. Not even the vegan lifestyle is extreme. From my perspective, people have a right to eat whatever they want to eat. All meat, all vegetables, I don't care. None of my business.
What IS extreme is taking anything to the point where a person believes they have a right, an unassailable moral right, to force those views on others. As I tried to make clear, this is a sin of monotheism. It should not be the province of polytheism. It has not been historically; it should not be now. Subjects like ecology and feminism or anything else should not be made rigid requirements for being a polytheist or a Pagan or whichever term you prefer. To say, "you're not a Pagan because you're not enough of an environmentalist or you're not a vegetarian" is beyond absurd.
It seems to me that the word "extreme" gets thrown around a whole lot, and with definitions like "extremist means someone who holds extreme views," it doesn't seem like the dictionary is going to help us much, either, other than giving us a run-around. All the more reason to have these sorts of discussions, openly, and without too many angry words exchanged.
Before you can judge the exchange which I purposely left up for all to see, you'd have to go back a few weeks and read every post and every comment. I'm not about hiding anything. I've nothing to hide. I have not in the four years I've blogged deleted so much as a comment until this past week or so, and then only one, on the grounds that despite repeated warnings the other person persisted in attacking me on my own blog. I won't stand for that in my house, and I won't stand for that here. I'm a Heathen; I don't turn the other cheek. I will not be told by anybody that I am morally inferior to them, for any reason, at any time, under any circumstances. There are plenty of places for holier than thou attitudes. My blog is most definitely not one of them.
I'm not concerned about defending eco-feminism in particular, but it's unfair of you to portray your use of this idea merely as an example. You made it quite clear that it was an example of extremism that deservedly "raised eyebrows." This was what brought up questions for me.
Your use of the word "radical" to describe vegetarians who "criticize" your meat-eating is what led me to associate it with the other problems you discussed regarding extremism. What you go on to say illustrates very well what I mean by "tit for tat": "But here is the key: I don't criticize people eating vegetables to the exclusion of eating meat." Is your argument, then, that we are only allowed to criticize people who have criticized us first? That is what I mean by a"tit for tat" concept of balance, one that does not take into account the actual substance of the ideas being discussed, but determines what is fair according to a simplistic, almost quantitative model.
Your point about social etiquette is well taken, but has very little to do with extremism as I understand it. It sounds like you're upset that someone behaved rudely, and because of this you want to accuse their ideas as being "extremist." But I'm not comfortable calling anything "extreme" merely because the way it was communicated was less than ideal. It is rather rude to go around acting "morally superior," yes–but someone acting this way doesn't force me to do anything, unless I'm the kind of person who feels compelled to prove that I am in fact the morally superior one.
Having read through these comments, it seems that the real issue at stake is that you do not agree that vegetarianism is something that Pagans should take seriously as an important issue in "earth-centered" spirituality. I would be much more interested in reading a well-reasoned argument in support of your particular view, than a broad statement about rudeness and "extremism" that beats around the bush.
Ah! I think I understand! (Sorry for posting again before seeing your reply.)
Your definition of extremism considers not only forcing behaviors, but ideas on others. Is this an accurate assessment?
If so… I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm of the opinion that no one can force me to think or believe anything without my consent, and that everyone should have the right to freely and openly express what their views are and why they hold them, even if doing so comes across as rude or aggravating at times to others. Furthermore, I personally believe that some things actually do matter and I'm not content with the idea that "people can do whatever they want, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me." Some things are important enough to speak out against. Personally, I think vegetarianism and feminism are too very important things worthy of discussion and if I read someone disparaging them, I'm likely to speak my mind. Is this any different from you speaking out against monotheism in favor of polytheism? If so, I don't see how…
As I see it, the thought mechanism of extremists (such as it is) is more or less along these lines:
1. I have discovered what is, in its domain, the one, only, definitive truth.
2. Its truth value can be demonstrated by showing how it excludes all possible alternatives.
3. If you do not accept my truth, once it has been demonstrated to you, then you are either stupid or perverse (or possibly both) and to not deserve to be treated as a normal human being.
While we often associate this sort of logic with religious fanaticism, it can appear in any number of domains. For example: as a historian, you will remember having read about T.D. Lysenko in the bad old days of Stalin, the fact that dissent from his rather loopy theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was officially outlawed in 1948, and that some scientists were sent to Siberia for trying to uphold Mendelian genetics.
Your point about social etiquette is well taken, but has very little to do with extremism as I understand it. It sounds like you're upset that someone behaved rudely, and because of this you want to accuse their ideas as being "extremist."
Ali, I don't know if you're just not understanding anything I've said or if you simply refuse to understand. These are two separate issues, which should most certainly be clear to you if you re-read my post. My post was not about rudeness. It was about moderation versus extremism. Rudeness only came into the conversation when somebody was rude. I really don't know how to make this clear to you if you can't already see it.
Further, I don't think the use of the example "eco-feminism" was unfair at all. It is an example, and a potent one, but it's hardly the only possible extremist influence that can and has entered modern Pagan discourse. Extremism can come from any number of angles, as I made clear. Ecology and Feminism are pertinent because they had already come up in discussion. There is no need to focus on these two to the absence of all others.
Having read through these comments, it seems that the real issue at stake is that you do not agree that vegetarianism is something that Pagans should take seriously as an important issue in "earth-centered" spirituality. I would be much more interested in reading a well-reasoned argument in support of your particular view, than a broad statement about rudeness and "extremism" that beats around the bush.
With all due respect, your contentious approach to the issue is not really helpful, Ali. You are yourself either misunderstanding or misstating my words in order to make an argument. There has been no beating around the bush on my part. I have from the outset been quite clear about what I am saying. And to answer your specific question, no, vegetarianism should not be considered part of the Pagan experience. What does being a vegetarian have to do with honoring the gods? Where is the historical precedent? Where is the pre-requisite?
It makes no sense to start putting in place artificial barriers to calling oneself a Pagan. Don't you see that to start down that road takes you to the same place monotheism has arrived at? If people wish to be vegetarians that's their right. They've no right, as I've said, to force those views on others, particularly where its been made repeatedly clear that such preaching is not welcome.
As I see it, introducing anything beyond a devotion to the gods as a pre-requisite for being a Pagan is an absurdity. Are we going to say, "You can't possibly be a Pagan! You're not concerned enough with the environment!" or "You don't ride your bike to work! You're a bad Pagan!"
Makarios, I agree entirely. In this case, though you have not said so, and I have no desire to speak on your behalf, from my perspective some people have decided that the "truth" is a radical vegetarianism that excludes completely the consumption of any meat or animal products, including, presumably, milk and cheese. It is not enough for some of these people to change their own lifestyles. Now being in possession of the truth, they feel they have a moral responsibility to force change on our own behavior. How they can think this differs in any way from Christian belief or tactics, I can't imagine.
And of course, under #3 in your model, we must also recognize that those who refuse to accept the truth are morally and/or ethically inferior, since I have been told that repeatedly.
And I agree entirely that this sort of behavior is not the sole domain of religion and politics. I think I did state that in my original post, though I did not go into examples in the interest of keeping the post on the shorter side.
For Hrafnkell
Hrafnkell, I want to thank you for starting this discussion, because I think it's one that's essential for the pagan community and one that we as a group have to find the right answers for. In particular, we have to figure out how paganism should be practiced in the modern world.
I think we all can agree that our ancestors lived closer to the ideal way of life than most people do today, so when we're figuring out what counts as a "pagan" way of life, we shouldn't deviate from the old ways without careful thought and soul searching. But oftentimes we should indeed deviate. No one today thinks, I trust, that the human sacrifices of the Druids or the slaveholding ways of many ancient pagans should be revived, nor the ancient Roman practice of numbering their daughters rather than naming them.
So when we're discovering what modern paganism should mean, we have at least two principles we should try to follow; and these principles sometimes conflict:
1). Live as our ancestors lived.
2). Live according to the values our ancestors held dear (tolerance, reverence for nature and the gods, etc.).
Even within (2), in the modern world, the principles our ancestors held dear can come into conflict with each other, as I think this discussion has shown. Some of us think tolerance of others' beliefs is most important, therefore everyone should be able to eat what they feel is right, no further discussion necessary. Some of us feel that a proper reverence for nature and the gods is most important — especially in the case of vegetarianism, since meat-eating on a large scale is causing so much environmental devastation. While I don't think anyone here is advocating forcing anyone by law or at gunpoint to become vegetarian, the issue is understandably felt to be important enough that discussion and even criticism is warranted.
And for me, at least, cordially agreeing to disagree, and ending the debate, would be a shame, because the issue strikes right to the heart of what it means to be a modern pagan. Reconciling ancient principles to the modern world may not be possible, but it is, I think, the greatest and perhaps worthiest challenge ahead for all of us.
It seems rather strange and ironic to me how a post extolling moderation can spark such controversy.
I'm not a vegetarian or a vegan and never will be, but I think it's an admirable life choice, and I respect the sentiments behind it. However, I don't feel that the issue is black and white – good vegan, bad meat eater (nor am I, for the sake of clarification, accusing anybody here of saying that either). There are many, many other areas that we can work in to try to limit damage to the environment, and I take them all very seriously.
Speaking of extremism, I think a huge problem we have in modern paganism is that elements of paganism is sometimes usurped by the white pride movement. That is to say, I have yet to meet a pagan who also identified as a neo-nazi or the like, but I've often seen neo-nazis brandishing pagan symbols, such as the runes and the hammer of Thor etc. They have a right to do so, I'm sure, but it sickens me and it reflects poorly upon the pagan movement because these guys are so visible and we are often not. In my own home country, Denmark, there are more than a few people who equate wearing copies of Viking jewelry with neo-nazism or with the bad old days of Hitler and his bizarre "Norse occultism" buzz.
I have also met groups of heathens who feel that you have to have proven Scandinavian ancestry to be a 'proper' heathen. Their motivations are probably entirely innocent and harmless, and of course I am not equating folkish groups with neo-nazis. But I have to admit that any notion of 'racial purity' and 'pure Norse blood' sends a shiver down my spine.
Makarios — I think your definition of extremism places too much emphasis on certainty itself. When such things are applied to matters like religion and philosophy and certain behavioral mores (sexual orientation, the proper role for women, what's the best diety to honor), we've got trouble. But there's a lot of things that are definite (Canada is North of the US, Hitler was a bad man), and are definitely the right opinion to hold (children should not be in sexual relationships with adults, don't murder people) and we're not extremists for believing them. What if the matter is something like "I believe the Earth revolves around the Sun"?
1) Yes, this is the empirical truth.
2) The other option, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, is not true.
3) Anyone who doesn't believe the Earth revolves around the Sun in this day and age IS stupid.
Though I won't go so far as to say they don't deserve to be treated like human beings, and maybe that's where the real difference lies.
Here's the thing, though. Right now our culture has such a perverse view of centrism that extremism is entertained as a valid viewpoint. This has allowed such horrifying topics as "Is it okay to torture a prisoner?" to enter the public circle masquerading as legitimate debate, and really it requires certainty along your proposed model to say "No, it is not right at any time in any way."
I think in many cases, certainty is definitely good. And there are a lot of areas where its valid to come to a bad conclusion about the person who won't accept your argument. The definition of extremism has to be mainly in how people with differing opinions are treated.
Since I've shaken off lurking for this conversation, let me throw my agreement behind NV Anderson. I'm over in Germany right now where it's illegal to display many of our ancestral symbols because they were usurped by racists. I have to put covers over my books if I read them in public or risk offending the locals. (I'm not sure how the law itself applies to book covers, but I know buildings and signs can't have certain runes on them.)
I thought your article was well written and I find the comments interesting. I think that some of them point out how polarized we have become as a society. We feel compelled to take a stand and defend it to the death or to find a single phrase in an article that might be interpreted in more than one way and pounce on it like a hungry cat with a mouse. Victory!
Personally, I agree with your views, I do not look for a detail to nitpick about and I feel that falling into the "us vs. them" way of thinking is just begging for someone to lead you around by the nose.
Directed at Gran;
About Slavery: Humans and animal slaves are very different from each-other. Humans are capable of complex thoughts and emotions, while animals are not. Keeping a human in bondage would hurt him deeply in a psychological way, something that doesn't happen to animals. Further, we don't hear of serial killers who were animals. No animal is capable of killing its master and his family, just because the master killed the animal's parents. But a child who sees tortures inflicted on his slave parents by the master, may want to inflict those same tortures on the perpetrator, and the perpetrator’s family. It's no use comparing human and animal slaves, because the results of victimising the two would be different, it would bring forth serious reactions from the former, and none from the latter.
About Veganism: Gran, have you ever considered that you kill plants too? What makes you think, plants donot have the right to life? Since you are so hellbent on the "sentient life" factor, on the basis of which you want meat eating and abortion outlawed, shouldn't you also see the presence of sentient life in plants? Plants and trees feel physical discomfort and pain, in the same way that animals and humans do. What about this?
Let me expand some more, for the benefit of the vegans here. There are certain plants that are carnivorous. They attract animals like butterflies and moths and other insects, and then the minute the insect is sitting on the flower, the flower closes itself, kills the insect and digests its proteins. “Nepenthes Mirabilis” is one such carnivore of a plant. How does the plant know that the insect is now sitting on its flower? After all, it has no eyes. Well, it feels the presence of the insect on the flower and closes its petals over it. When researchers began to investigate this phenomenon, they made a remarkable discovery. They found out that all plants have a rudimentary nerve structure that makes them able to “feel”. Plants are fully capable of experiencing pain and torture. This discovery was made by Michigan State University’s senior research botanist: David Blackford.
(contd)
(contd)
At least, in the case of most animals meant for slaughter, the animal is killed painlessly, in a single stroke. But in the case of plants, we tear out their leaves, their flowers and their fruits; it's like having your limbs torn away from your body, while your brain in still alive and functioning, and can feel the pain. How is it that this point is never brought up by vegans?
You say you are offended by photos of beef, pork, meat and chicken displayed on billboards and cartons. I say, I am offended by the sight of butchered plants, killed in the billions, just to provide us with food. I am offended by advertisements which show someone holding a packet of peas and telling you it is good food, because it has come from a murdered plant. You may think it is alright to kill something that doesn’t bleed and doesn’t contain body fat, but the truth is, you DO kill for your food too.
If I confront you with the question "Why do you hurt plants and sometimes kill them completely, so as to be able to eat them?", do you know what your answer will be? It will be "Now come on, plants don't have eyes, or ears, or the same senses that animals and humans do. Plus they don't scream when they are in pain. Thus they are different from us and the animal world". Riiiiight!! That means, you will be basing the premise of your argument, on the same self-centred logic that I have used, for comparing between human slaves and animal salves. For me, I think humans have a more evolved and complex psychology, emotions and behavioral patterns as compared to animals, which is why I think that human slavery and animal slavery shouldn't be compared…and YOU will give me the SAME reason of animals being more "evolved" and "complex" than plants, to defend yourself as a vegan.
What the hell are we arguing about then? If I’m guilty of killing for my food, so are you! If we are to TRULY follow a completely non-violent diet, we may as well sustain ourselves on pebbles, sand and dust. What gives you the right to kill for food and STILL consider yourself morally superior to someone, who kills something ELSE for food?? It smacks of thorough self-righteousness.
(contd)
(contd)
Gran, on your blog, you have a widget that gives us the number of animals being killed for food every second. Good. Now suppose, I were to have a similar application on my blog, which informed us of just how many plants were being tortured and murdered every single second? Do you know what the count would be? It would be in the trillions!! I think I must begin a blog called “The Sacredness of Plant Life: Dedicated to the mute family of plants, creepers, herbs and trees” and write post after post about how these living creatures, by virtue of their different anatomy from the animal world, have been victimised over the centuries for human food.
You know what really bothers me? In the ancient world, there were meat-eaters galore, and there were also sages like Pythagoras and Orpheus, who were staunch vegetarians. But the presence of both vegetarians and meat-eaters in the same society, never gave rise to confrontations within that society, between these two groups. However, at "A Heathen's Day", the issue of vegan or not, has created a deep wedge between polytheist and polytheist, and I find it disturbing.
Besides, during my own vegetarian phase, I was very accomodating of family and friends who eat meat. Right now I am still very close to so many members of my Hellenic community who are practising vegetarians. They have expressed mild consternation at my return to being a meat-eater, but that's it. We haven't fought, the way you do here on this blog.
You have called Hrafnkell a hypocrite many times. Whereas YOU, display open hypocrisy – and are not even AWARE of it – when you say you're an environmentalist, and then don't give it a second thought to go and slaughter plants to have them as food. THIS particular type of killing, has no place in your value system. You call yourself a feminist, and then vocally – and unashamedly, I must say – go ahead and declare that you want to deny ALL women the right to kill an unborn child!!! Wow, some feminism that!! Inspite of the fact, that you are not yourself a mother and have never faced rape, you feel free to tell those women who have, what to do with THEIR bodies, and THEIR unborn babies!!! More "WOW"…and a thunderous clap!!
I am a meat-eater and a supporter of abortion. I always will be.
I don’t think our eating habits define us as being “good” or “bad”. Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover, and he was also one of the most psychotic, terrifying personalities of the 20th century. President Kennedy was a meat-eater, and he is remembered today as one of the greatest statesmen of the United States.
And since you are so fond of Mahatma Gandhi, let me tell you, that even though Gandhi was a vegetarian, he never made it a rule that meat-eaters couldn’t enter his movement, or be his supporters. I come from a country that has been a polytheistic nation throughout history, and I can tell you that there are Indians who are vegetarians and there are those who are not. We have accepted both as part of our society and are not distressed with each-others’ presence.
You have told Hraf to go and broaden his horizons, meaning read more books, to inform himself about Veganism.
Now I suggest to you, that you do some serious reading to inform yourself about the truth of the plant world, and about how they are affected by torture and killing.
Makarios,
Trofim Lysenko, yes, I know all about him. I call his theory: the lies of Lysenko. LOL!
Did you know that Sergei Vavilov, the geneticist who opposed Lysenko, was thrown into prison, and he ultimately died there?
Lysenko was a quack, he was a rural doctor, with almost no knowledge of agricultural science. The Commies recruited him, because they didn't want to have a "bourgeoisie" geneticist (read "genuine" geneticist), who would tell them that plants have inherited characteristics, just as animals do.
Lysenko and the Soviet Politburo, worked in tandem to falsely state, that plants only acquired characteristics from the environment. This theory was later used to prop up the party's pet theory, about the proletariat.
Hraf,
It's a little late in the day for saying so, but thank you for yet another insightful post.
I want to thank everyone who contributed to the discussion today. I'm very sorry I haven't been near the computer to continue it myself. I will weigh in further tomorrow, but suffice it to say for now that I've nearly completed a post on extremism and will hopefully post that tomorrow. Just a couple things tonight:
Indrani, Selkie, Celestite, thank you for your words of encouragement. I appreciate your feedback and I'll try to address what you say in greater depth tomorrow.
Ragnell, I do think certainty plays a great role in extremism and that research backs this up.
Jeff, thank you for your rational response to the subject matter. I enjoy a good debate and I look forward to continuing the discussion.
Finally, I want to make this clear right now: I did not invite Granamyr to cease posting on my blog because she disagreed with me. Anyone who is familiar with me or my blog knows this is not the case. My problem was with being insulted and attacked. It's as simple as that.
See you all tomorrow.
Selkie, I agree about the threat of the white supremacists. These people are misidentified as Heathens, just as were/are the Nazis, and it does not help that some Heathen groups still speak of race. If we want a contentious term to discuss, it should probably be "folk." Tainted by Nazism, it's very misunderstood and very much ill-used.
Jeff,
A long while back I considered myself a reconstructionist. Introduction to some very strong reconstructionist attitudes – for example, that modern Heathenism be direct out of scholarly analysis and include no more and no less of what it written there – started me thinking that a strict reconstruction of the past was neither practical nor desirable. I've gone into all my reasons for that before but suffice it to say here, in the interest of brevity, that I consider myself a "revivalist" in the sense that our customs and our religion must be relevant to the world we live in. I agree (and have said so here) that not everything our ancestors did should be done by us (your example of human sacrifice being a prime example).
You stated that "Some of us feel that a proper reverence for nature and the gods is most important"
I agree entirely with this and though as I've argued I don't feel about ancestors were "green" in the modern sense, they were far closer to nature than most modern thinking allows. I don't agree that that it necessarily follows that vegetarianism is a heightened form of reverence for nature, if that is what you are arguing.
As I've stated here, and you would probably disagree with this from what you've said, as being thinking from our ancestors' time that should not be carried forward, I will thank an animal for giving its life for me to live, and I will apologize to a tree for cutting it down, but I will kill the animal and I will cut down the tree. There is reverence for nature in that mode of thought. There is evidence for it in European Paganism and most certainly in Native American religion.
Then too there is the religious element. If you believe in the efficacy of blood sacrifice, as our ancestors did, that it is not by any means the only or even the most common form of sacrifice but the most powerful, then stripping meat eating away would be like banning circumcision (even for Jews) because it is seen as a "human rights violation" (and argument I've seen raised). In other woods, I think there are good and sound religious arguments in favor of meat consumption.
I will probably have to open a new discussion to encompass everything that needs to be said in this regard, but I wanted to mention here the view of Vaclav Smil, "Eating Meat: Evolution, Patterns, and Consequences," Population and Development Review 28 (2002), 599-639 who observes that "strict human vegetarianism is not a natural choice but a cultural induced adaptation."
That said, I do agree with Smil, at least in part, when he continues by saying, "there is also no doubt that current rates of meat eating in affluent societies are excessive when judged from both environmental and health perspectives."
For me, again, this all comes down to my original post, which was about moderation vs. excess and the efficacy of the middle path, and the avoidance of extremes. In my own case, it's only fair to say, I don't like many vegetables. The taste, and the smell, are offensive to me, probably in the same way the smell and taste of meat offends some vegetarians. That said, I do not over indulge in meat consumptions either. I DO eat vegetables, and I also eat meat, but moderate amounts of both. I try to maintain a recommended intake of proteins and carbohydrates, sugars, etc. in my diet.
And in the end, Smil concludes that current meat consumption levels are indefensible "moderation has no known downsides" (p. 630) he also points out that "There is no scientifically defensible reason for strict vegetarianism. Ours is an omnivorous species, and meat eating is part of our evolutionary heritage." His conclusion is that there are "practical exceptions" to plant food consumption – ruminants can be fed on "appropriately managed pastures and on cellulosic crop – and food processing waste", which he calls "a perfect meat-producing strategy."
This, to me, is the middle approach I argue for.
Indrani, I have saved you for last because I wanted to try to respond to some of the things you said, and some of the examples you used. I want to thank you for taking the time to respond in such depth. It is appreciated, and I am gratified that you found my post insightful.
“About Slavery: Humans and animal slaves are very different from each-other. “
I agree, Indrani. I really don’t see how animals and humans can be compared. Our ancestors revered nature but they understood that there was nothing wrong with keeping animals, either to drink their milk or to eat their meat or to use them to plow their fields. Though there are ancient authors who argued against the abuses of slavery, no one ever argued that you should not hitch a bull to a plow. You could make the argument that using an ox to pull your plow is better for the environment than using an internal combustion engine. There are groups in Upstate New York who do use these old farming methods. I’ve seen them. I don’t know if they were just trying to recreate the past or if they had environmental or other reasons in mind. I think the point is that it’s all too easy to over-simplify a problem and to render it in black and white terms. As I will argue in my post to come, “black and white” thinking is one of the elements of extremist thought.
“What makes you think, plants do not have the right to life?”
This is an excellent point, Indrani. And this speaks to what my long-ago philosophy professor argued, that if you take an argument to its extreme and it no longer makes sense, then the argument is unsound. In the end, what we end up with is humans unable to eat anything because in order for humans to live we have to kill something. We have to disturb nature. Now we can argue all we want about reducing our imprint on the environment but there is no way in the world a person can raise an argument in favor of self-extinction in order to save all plant and animal life that is not extremist – or even rational. Because guess what? When we’re gone, animals will kill plants. Animals will kill each other. Throughout our planets history species have gone extinct without any help from humankind. Personally, if these people wish to “extinct” themselves, I invite them to do so. It’s their choice. It’s also an extreme response to our planets very real problems. Pardon the expression, but it’s a type of “overkill”.
“You say you are offended by photos of beef, pork, meat and chicken displayed on billboards and cartons. I say, I am offended by the sight of butchered plants, killed in the billions, just to provide us with food.”
Excellent point, Indrani. Here is where we reach a slippery slope. We can all agree that we are daily exposed to things we find disgusting or objectionable. We can also all agree that it’s a rather extreme position to advocate elimination of everything we find objectionable. It’s a practical impossibility. Too, it impacts the rights of others. I find billboards with overt Christian messages, sometimes hateful and intolerant in content, to be objectionable. But where do we draw the line? Where does hate speech begin? And when does speech become a form of violence? Not easy questions to answer. The easiest solution is to not look at something that offends you. I’ve always used this argument on Christians. Georg Carlin famously used it on Donald Wildmon. Simply being offended by something does not bestow the right to eliminate what gives you offense. If you use that as an argument you are giving your okay to the Nazi extermination of the Jews. A classic case of testing an argument by taking it to its extremes.
(response to Indrani – continued)
“What the hell are we arguing about then? If I’m guilty of killing for my food, so are you! If we are to TRULY follow a completely non-violent diet, we may as well sustain ourselves on pebbles, sand and dust. What gives you the right to kill for food and STILL consider yourself morally superior to someone, who kills something ELSE for food?? It smacks of thorough self-righteousness.”
Yes, precisely. As I said above, we are all killing our food. Unless we decide to spontaneously cease to exist, this will not change. And in a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Vaclav Smil argues that “milk and dairy products” are “energetically the most efficient of all animal foods.”
“I don’t think our eating habits define us as being “good” or “bad”. Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover, and he was also one of the most psychotic, terrifying personalities of the 20th century.”
Again, black and white and either/or thinking is a mark of extremist thought. The nuances, the many shades between black and white are lost and unaccounted for. I think your example of Hitler is classic. Are we going to argue that Hitler, because he did not eat meat, was morally elevated, or that it some way mitigates against his manifest failures as a human being?
Plato argued that justice was everyone doing his fair share. Plato argued that his Republic was the way to achieve that justice – legislated “fair shares” for all. I don’t think any of us seriously want to live in Plato’s Republic. I don’t’ think you can prove that even for Plato it was anything more than a “point of departure” or that he seriously contended we live in such a place. In the end we have to be careful what we wish for, because the vast majority of us, in such an instance, will end up having to live a life that is completely objectionable to us. When we moralize it is one thing; when we start talking about legislating morality – that is something completely different.
It may seem from the recent comments, that there aren't any meat-meaters here, but that's not true. "A Heathen's Day" has its equal share of meat-eaters, and probably more in number. They're just too hesitant to come out and tell the vegetarians and vegans the truth: namely, that vegetable and fruit subsistence ALSO, very much, requires the killing of life forms.
I wish meat-eaters here, would be vocal about the issue. Only one person: N.V. Anderson could state boldly that she will never be a vegetarian or a vegan. And that too, she followed it up by saying that she felt vegetarianism was a nobler choice. There seems to be an air of apology as far as meat-eating is concerned. As if we are committing some special sin by consuming animal flesh.
The "vegetarianism-is-a-better-choice-of-diet" idea has been doing the rounds for too long, flaunting itself with an air of superiority, as if by killing helpless plants and herbs, they were somehow morally vindicated!!! Someone HAD to speak out and point out the obvious. Not just on this blog, but in many other places, I've seen meat-eaters cowering before the plant-eaters, and I was honestly tired with this attitude.
You need to tell the vegetarians and vegans squarely, something they conveniently miss noticing: that their choice of food also requires the torture, mutilation – yes MUTILATION – and outright killing of plant life; of creatures that are capable of feeling.
Meat-eaters have nothing to feel guilty about.
Why didn't the other meat-eaters here speak up, except for N.V. Anderson, you Hraf, and myself?? What are they ashamed about, or afraid of???
I wish I could answer that question, Indrani. I personally see nothing superior or morally preferable about vegetarianism and as an omnivore, or "meat eater" if you prefer, I feel I have nothing to apologize for. I might as well apologize for being human, because humans are omnivores. And I'm not about to make an absurd assertion such as that. We are what we are, and as I argued in my original post, moderate behavior is praiseworthy and to be admired and emulated, and extremes to be avoided. In the article I cited in my response to Jeff, the author offered a moderate approach to the topic. There are more sustainable ways to maintain herds for consumption. Eliminating meat eating altogether is an extreme approach.
Cheeks — Well, I'm a lifelong omnivore and I don't feel particularly threatened being judged by vegetarians, nor do I find anything wrong with being a vegetarian or vegan so I saw no need to delurk over it.
I was watching the comments here for the other disagreement, but I don't really see a point in further argument there.
Cheeks, I agree. The entire 'to be or not to be a vegan' certainly seems laced with moral judgement where many "meat-eaters" probably end up feeling that they should defend or apologize for their dietary choices.
Just one thing: I said I respect the sentiments behind veganism, and think they are admirable, but not *more* admirable than eating meat. I was not trying to apologize for eating meat.
The way I understand it, veganism is an attempt to eradicate animal suffering as far as possible. It's based on good intentions, so I respect that. Good intentions is a great place to start. However, as you very rightly and succinctly point out, not many people seem to care about plant suffering. This is the first time I've even seen it enter the debate.
What bothers me the most is the feeling that has been expressed elsewhere on this comment thread, that for some pagans, being a "good" or "proper" or "real" pagan is only possible for vegans, pacifists and eco-feminists. Each to his own. It's astoundingly arrogant for any one group or individual to presume to define "the rules" of paganism like that.
N.V.,
I wanted to add the point of vegetarianism not being intrinsic to being a pagan, but my reply was already too long, so I didn't include this point.
Good you've raised this issue, and I thank Hraf for touching on it too, in his comments.
The beauty of polytheism is that it is not obsessed with belief, but instead concerns itself with deeds. This means we have to make a staggering realization; that polytheism gives us enough room to not even believe in the gods, and still gives us the opportunity to be called a "good" person. Polytheism isn't concerned with whether you believe in the gods or not, or even whether you believe in one god or many gods. You may well be an agnostic, an atheist or even a monotheist. But as long as you are paying your taxes and living as an exemplary citizen, you are thought of to be good, and of value to your society.
So when polytheism doesn't place undue importance in what you believe in, and even goes to the extent of giving you the freedom of not believing in the gods; who is anyone to tell us, that we don't fit the category of "proper" pagan, unless we are vegetarians, or out-an-out pacifists?
You're right, when people suggested the above, I was shocked and bewildered. "This type of thinking, was never a part of polytheism" I thought.
Thank you for appreciating my points!!
On a completely unrelated note: I want to mention, that today is "Dushera", also called "Bijoy Doshumi".
It is the last day of the yearly, 10 day festival Hindus call "Durga Puja". We believe that during this time, the mother goddess; known as "Durga" in Hinduism, comes home to her maternal family; her maternal family being among the people of India, and then on the 10th day, she leaves us to return to her husbamd, the god known as "Shiva", who lives in the Himalayas.
This is a time for plenty of food, new clothes, firecrackers, lights, traditional music and dancing, for us Hindus. Large clay images of the mother goddess and her children are constructed and set up on road sides and in residential areas.
I missed being home to celebrate the festival with my family, this year.
May the mother goddess: Durga, bless all of you, and bring you all that you deserve and desire.
Here's some food for thought for all, speaking of eco-feminism:
Ecological Feminism, by Karen Warren, Barbara Wells-Howe (Routledge 1994)
I found this on Google Books here: Ecological Feminism
The authors speak of the "liberation of nature" – certainly not any kind of concept ever considered by the ancient polytheists but perhaps this is not an unreasonable assumption in light of twenty centuries of monotheism, which could be viewed as the "totalizing and tendencies of dominant cultures" as the authors put it. I haven't had time to read the whole tract, but I thought I'd pass it along here for others to consider if they're interested. I might be misreading the entire thing since I'm picking up the book on page 166.
The problem I have at a glance is the idea that liberating nature and liberating women are somehow related issues. I'm not sure how the two became connected in thought – perhaps somebody can enlighten me. I freely admit to being turned off as much by radical feminist discourse as by Marxist theory, so I'm not likely to view the matter completely objectively.
I wanted to ask this question, but was hesitating to:
There may be many men who treat the women in their family with great respect, giving them the freedom to pursue their own careers and have their own identity, at the same time these men maybe fully unaware of environmental issues and not be bothered with them.
Then there might be many more men who are environmental activists, yet they maybe treating the women in their family with a patriarchal grip, and may be throttling the rights of these women.
How then can we say for sure, that ALL men, or even the majority of men, fall into the black and white categories of "feminists + environmentalists" or "patriarchal + nature abusers"? I mean, to make an analysis of how many men find environmentalism linked with feminism can only be determined, if a large section of men from all walks of life and from all cultures are interviewed and asked questions pertaining to how they treat women and the environment.
So my question is: Is the conclusion that all men who abuse women are NECESSARILY abusers of the environment as well, and all men who treat women with respect, are ALSO concerned about environmental issues, scientifically correct?
The theory of eco-feminism states that those who look down upon women also look down upon nature. Is this merely an idealistic concept, or has it been established after a thorough sociological study made from all the cultures and after interviewing hundreds and thousand of modern men?
Wow! I haven't had time to read the comments here until now. I'm rather amazed at the hornet's nest that got stirred up. Time for me to jump in.
I eat meat. I have some friends who are vegetarians and I have actually used that killing plants argument on a few of them that tried to make me feel bad about being an omnivore. There was a humorous book I read once (it has to be at least 10 years old since it was called "In the Year 2000") that had a joke about that. "Vegetarians the world over will be horrified when all the worlds plants simultaniously learn to scream."
And what exactly is wrong with milk, or as Gran put it "white cow secretions"? This is just baffling to me. It doesn't harm a cow, or any of the other mammals people sometimes get milk from, to produce milk. It's something that is produced naturally, specifically [i]for[/i] consumption. Your mother made milk too. Is there something wrong with breastfeeding?
As to the ecofeminism thing, I think it's kind of nonsense myself. I'd like to reiterate all of the questions Cheeks brought up about it.
"So my question is: Is the conclusion that all men who abuse women are NECESSARILY abusers of the environment as well, and all men who treat women with respect, are ALSO concerned about environmental issues, scientifically correct?"
This is a very good question, Indrani.
"The theory of eco-feminism states that those who look down upon women also look down upon nature. Is this merely an idealistic concept, or has it been established after a thorough sociological study made from all the cultures and after interviewing hundreds and thousand of modern men?"
It seems to be assumed. But making all history operate around a single force, be it "oppression of women and nature" or "class struggle" is an unsupportable position and to apply these causes to all history is to grossly misrepresent the historical record.
Ulfrun, welcome to the discussion. Better late than never, as they say. We may not come to any consensus (and I would argue that no consensus is necessary) but that does not make the effort any less worthy. Modern Paganism is still defining itself and such discussions are bound to be part of the process.
Cheeks, again I couldn't agree more! Thank you for bringing up these valid points.
It seems to me that the notion "misogynism = abuse of nature" and likewise, "respect for women = care for nature" has sprung from the basic assumption that women are somehow more connected to nature than men. How is this fair? What is it based on? Could it be – and I might speak rashly now – that such an assumption itself springs from the old Christian notion that women are more instinctual, less "intellectual" than men, that we are associated with birth and death and "natural" things, whereas men are associated with the faculties of reason and the intellect?
"We may not come to any consensus (and I would argue that no consensus is necessary)."
Well said, Hrafnkell.
I agree that we may never come to a concensus, and that non is needed, but I do believe the debate is worthwile. Or, in some cases, the argument. It helps us all to learn more about ourselves and our opponents and sometimes effect positive changes. Life would be so boring if everone agreed on everthing.
Hey Indrani, I´m a meat-eater with very little vegetable consumption. I haven´t spoken out before ´cos I´m quite tired of arguing with vegetarians. In my experience they´re just too irrational to bother discussing. What they don´t see (besides your point of plant killing) is that in order to produce great quantities of vegetable food you need to kill millions of animals (insects, roedants, birds, worms, etc) when plowing, using insecticides, and so on. Nature teaches us only one thing: you need to kill in order to live. I didn´t set the rules, don´t ask me if it´s fair; we just can´t avoid it.
Science shows that we´re omnivores, and mostly leaning towards carnivores (we lack the extremely long intestine of other apes like orangutans, and even they eat animal food like worms, eggs and insects mixed with the leaves). I´ve seen vegetarians´ health go down year after year, still they claim that they feel "better than ever". I´ll never be one, and I´ll make an effort my children don´t adopt that un-healthy belief. But still, I respect everyone´s right to ruin their health, so I give thumbs up to vegetarians… more meat for me. BTW, I need to check my beef shanks, ox tail and ribs stew. Bye
@Selkie: I used to give a coworker, a vegetarian, a ride home some nights after work. I was in college at the time and between a long day at school and my shift at the nursing home, I didn't get supper, so I would stop at McDonalds or Burger King on the way home sometimes. I would always apologize to her for the smell of the meat because I knew it might make her feel unwell. For her part, she was never judgmental or critical of my diet. Of course, my apology was not for my eating meat, but out of simple consideration for another human being's feelings. I think of radical vegetarians/vegans would show the same consideration to us meat-eaters, all would be well. It's a matter of personal choice – much like religion itself is, and not something to be "exported" to others.
@Ulfrun, obviously I agree the debate is worthwhile. As you say, its how we learn, not only about others but ourselves. It is not harmful to have dearly cherished beliefs challenged. For my part, it has caused me to research the issue to an extent I had previously felt no need to.
@ Everyone
I wonder sometimes if Vegans go to the dentist. And no, I don't mean all Vegans, simply the ones who argue that humans are not omnivores. I see articles proposing to prove they are not linked to various Vegan sites. But any dentist (or any scientist) will tell you humans are omnivores. In my case, I went to the dentist yesterday to have a crown put on and we talked about the whole vegetarian/omnivore thing; they thought the idea was funny, that humans were not. The hygienist was telling me about her son trying to eat a mouthful of green beans and being unable to chew them because the teeth meant for chewing vegetable matter had not come in yet. She said it took him a long time to accomplish the task…I mean really, I didn't know what to say after that.
@Gabriel: Thanks for commenting. I do notice that vegetarians get quite thing – some positively unhealthy looking. As I said, for me it is as Solon suggested: "Nothing in excess." I would no more suggest a diet of 100% meat than I would of 100% vegetables. In the state of nature, without scientifically enhanced crops, people can't live on vegetables anyway. I don't want to start vegetarian-bashing here to make up for the bashing we've all taken from vegetarians from time to time but I do appreciate your point of view (obviously having been there myself). It's never an enjoyable experience to be preached at or denounced.
That humans are suited primarily to a vegetarian diet is something I read here for the first time!! I learnt in Biology class at school, that our dental structure and digestive system both, are suited to an omnivorous lifestyle.
I think it's wrong to believe what you WANT to believe, just because your own ideas fly in the face of the facts.
I must say something else here. I have an African-American Hellene friend from California, by the name of Mavikan. She suffers from a congenital health problem due to which she has to eat meat very often, as it contains the special proteins required to keep the spreading of her childhood disease in check. So what do we do in cases such as hers? And what do we do with animals and even PLANTS, who are themselves carnivores or omnivores? Do we force feed them with murdered plant life?
And you're right, omnivores and meat-eaters here, have been bashed from time to time by the VeggieNazis, and there is a limit to our patience.
The case of your friend reminds me of the case of mothers who would be denied abortions in order to save their lives. That's the problem with black and white thinking. No allowances and no exceptions can be made, and I think examples like this expose the absurdity of extremist views. There are always exceptions but extremist thought does not allow for them.
Cheeks: I can assure you from personal experience dealing with environmentalists that respect for nature does not automatically equal respect for women.
Some of the most notoriously sexist campaigns on the Left come from the animal rights group PETA.
Cheeks, you want a head count of meat eaters? I eat meat.
I refuse to get into arguments about what I eat or don't eat. Discussions about the pros and cons of different diets are one thing, tossing insults around about your choice of food is another.
Personally, I think this whole animals vs plants as food thing derailed the original topic, except to show how many people want to grab the moral high ground and lecture others.
OTOH, maybe that was the topic.
Celestite, this whole vegetarian discussion did derail my original topic but I think it has also proved my original point, that moderation is to be preferred over extremism. One could argue that those who take the path of moderation (Solon, for example) take the moral high ground but in general, it is not the moderates seeking conformity, in particular, forced or coerced conformity; nor do they demonize those who disagree as the "Other" – that category is the product of extremism.
Hi Hrafnkell,
Going back to the spirit of your post: yes, I see no point in demonizing someone for his ideas. For example, I happen to be one of those who don´t believe in antropogenic global warming. I know you defend it, and I respect that. Obviously there´re good points in both sides of the discussion. We need to be sure that we don´t hurt the environment AND we don´t hurt our human population (specially those in the poorest countries). I don´t have problems if someone wants to reduce their CO2 emissions, as long as that doesn´t impair the health and possibilities of families in the poorest areas by increasing energy prices or producing even more pollution than the original energy sources. We need to find a middle point somewhere in all issues. Whenever we consider an issue, we have to think that we MIGHT be wrong. Great post, BTW.
Not to start another discussion altogether, Gabriel, but I was not always myself a proponent of anthropogenic global warming. My originally attitude was that the climate is changing, it seems to be warming up and whether its a natural cycle or man-made, we need to respond to it (likewise if it was cooling off). And I didn't think either point of view eliminated the very real need we have as humans to care for our planet and the environment. As you say, there is always a middle course and it is usually to be preferred to any extreme solution. I would not, for example advocate the elimination of automobiles but I would urge the construction of mass transit systems, better fuel economy, alternative fuel sources, etc.
Yes, and I respect your attitude towards environment care. What I find hard to digest is the other bloggers´ position of "radical environmentalist". I´ve seen too much of it. These people seem to be willing for some natural disaster to wipe the human race off the earth as if we were a virus. And unluckily I see much of it in pagan circles ("mother Gaia is taking revenge" kind of thing) I actually see those destructing forces as jotunnish more than godly. I believe our gods are pro-civilization, not against it.
"Cheeks, you want a head count of meat eaters?"
LOL! Sorry, but it's not as if I'm wandering about the internet, asking people if they were meat-eaters or not, just so I could feel my self-confidence restored.
Celestite, the omnivores and meat-eaters here have had the graciousness to make statments like:
"I said I respect the sentiments behind veganism, and think they are admirable,…" – N.V. Anderson
"I would no more suggest a diet of 100% meat than I would of 100% vegetables." – Hrafnkell
"nor do I find anything wrong with being a vegetarian or vegan…" – Ragnell
"Personally, I think this whole animals vs plants as food thing derailed the original topic, except to show how many people want to grab the moral high ground and lecture others." – you yourself, Celestite
"I come from a country that has been a polytheistic nation throughout history, and I can tell you that there are Indians who are vegetarians and there are those who are not. We have accepted both as part of our society and are not distressed with each-others’ presence." – by yours truly.
All of the above statements go to show, that omnivores and meat-eaters are not repelled by plant killers and plant-eaters.
Now, show me ONE post by any of the vegetarians or vegans here, where they have shown the same graciousness towards us. Where they have accepted the ills of their own dietary choice, and said that they are comfortable with omnivores and meat-eaters.
Look, this discussion began taking the shape it currently has ONLY after some vegetarians and vegans began hitting on the topic of diet, displaying what I think I should call "Vegetarian Evangelism"; began stating that "My dad is BIGGER than YOUR dad", and veered the conversation into the territory of who should eat what. Mind you, not "Food consists of what" , but "What we SHOULD BE eating". How Christian!! It was evident that the other side needed to speak up too. After all, this is not the first time that the omnivores and meat-eaters have been sermonized to, about how wrong they are on the matter of food.
And about your point that the conversation has gone off topic – no, it hasn't. The original post by Hrafnkell clearly talks about "Moderation vs. Extremism". This extremism could be about anything; food included. Unlike you, I think it was worthwhile having this thread.
Others may agree. For example:
"I agree that we may never come to a concensus, and that non is needed, but I do believe the debate is worthwile. Or, in some cases, the argument." – Ulfrun
and
"@Ulfrun, obviously I agree the debate is worthwhile. As you say, its how we learn, not only about others but ourselves. It is not harmful to have dearly cherished beliefs challenged." – Hrafnkell
And if you've not noticed…the topic of eco-feminism which was mentioned in the original post, has ALSO been discussed in depth, in these comments.
"Yes, and I respect your attitude towards environment care. What I find hard to digest is the other bloggers´ position of "radical environmentalist". I´ve seen too much of it. These people seem to be willing for some natural disaster to wipe the human race off the earth as if we were a virus. And unluckily I see much of it in pagan circles ("mother Gaia is taking revenge" kind of thing) I actually see those destructing forces as jotunnish more than godly. I believe our gods are pro-civilization, not against it."
Gabriel, I am in absolute agreement with you.
Indrani, I think I will put you in charge of making regular updates and summaries of the arguments and points raised in this discussion! Remembering where we've been helps us to keep in mind where we're going. Thank you.
Hraf, thank you very much. I'll do my best!
This particular topic has focused on a plethora of subjects related to extremism. I have been more than happy, to have participated and been able to make some contributions to the discussion.
We're at 65 comments (a record I know for this blog) and I think we have exposed the limitations of blogger's comments architecture. Normally I might have diverted the conversation onto a new post but I disliked breaking up the flow of the dialogue we had already established here. Besides, I have two new posts I'm trying to finish that relate to the subject matter being discussed.
I
eat
meat!
And I love it! Of course I like to vary my diet by eating veg and stuff. I tried vegetarianism for about 2 years and…LO(!)…it made me ill. So I went back to an omnivorous diet and…LO(!)…got better.
The way I see it in this modern day and age is that most animals (cows, sheep, pigs, etc.) are bred specifically for human consumption. They are generally fed well and looked after during their life and when their time comes to enter the NATURAL food chain, they are killed in a humane way. Usually by a bolt of electricity to the brain..this has been proven to be quick and painless (relatively), causing the least sufferance to the animal.
In this instance, I think that people against this slaughter (let's face it…that's what it is) attribute HUMAN feeling to the creature…like "omg that must be painful"…"oh my, the poor creature"…"Look, it's still shaking" (natural reaction of the nervous system…after death – you'll find it happens to humans too…AFTER death by hanging or electric chair, etc.)
My step-mother works on a farm that rears chickens and turkeys specifically for human consumption. They work in a humane and healthy way. They have 'spot-check' visits by DEFRA (The UK government department responsible for policy and regulations on the environment, food and rural affairs.)
If they ever failed to satisfy them, the farm would be closed down immediately and the owner and staff never allowed to work with animals again.
I whole-heartedly agree about plants being killed for food too…and that they have spirit and feelings too….they hurt when we cut then, rip them from the ground or chop em down!….Don't they?…Isn't that why we ask the tree/plant spirit if we can take?…Or apologise for just doing so?…Or do we?…Sometimes I don't (nor give it a second thought…especially when mowing the lawn(!)…isn't that another example of extreme?)
I've enjoyed reading this post and especially the comments…it's amazing how it got from the original subject to omnivorism/carnivorism VS vegitarianism/veganism.
I look forward to the next post!
BTW…..I work in the electrical trade if anyone was wondering if I wanted to clarify my "bolt of electricity" statement.
But not in an abortoire..
and no….I'm not going to clarify…
Stu, thanks for putting your shoulder to the shield wall, as it were. I have to admit I don't eat veal after learning how animals are kept packed and unable to move in order to keep the muscle soft, but I am not about to put an animal's life above my own and cease to exist to make the animal happy, if that were even possible. Let's face it: animals eat animals. They're not about to stop and feel sorry for the victim. Even if human stop eating animals, other animals won't. And a good thing too because if we stop killing them, they tend to overpopulate and then they die a bit more painfully than they would if they were simply shot.
I have to admit that I don't agree with mistreatment of animals (but it won't stop me eating them)…nor do I agree with supermarkets ordering farmers to 'pump chicken breasts with water' to increase the weight but reduce the meat content (if that still happens)…but it won't make me join a so called 'animal rights group'!
Can you imagine a government directive to stop eating beef and having your country and mine over-ridden with cows farting out the ozone layer (apparently!)…LOL!
At the end of the day the WHOLE food chain cycle keeps the world in balance…..to a degree….doesn't it?
A whole lotta methane, Stu
I don't agree with the mistreatment of animals either. I won't mistreat an animal myself. That doesn't mean I won't eat one.
And in this country we do have hunting seasons for deer designed to trim the herd, so to speak, so they don't overpopulate and starve.
There are always moderate solutions.
I was just about to bring up deer Hraf. In my area of Michigan, we actually have semi-regular issues with deer overpopulation. Often it gets so bad that the hunting season is extended in both directions because they're causing traffic accidents in the middle of town. This is a dangerouse situation for both humans and deer.
I personally live on 16 acres of woods and we let a friend hunt our property in exchange for a protion of what he catches. Most years, the venison we get from this provides the majority of the meat my family eats. It's also how he provides himself and his daughter with meat for the year, (we also have wild turkey) since his income is quite low. Not a trophy hunter he. He needs what he hunts.
Now I'm off to read your new post.
Gabriel,
I second your opinions on the issue of diet!!
Stu,
"Can you imagine a government directive to stop eating beef and having your country and mine over-ridden with cows farting out the ozone layer…"
LOL!! That I guess, would be a unique case of environmental damage, induced by animals!! And it can very well happen, if the bovine population multiplies unchecked.
I am kind to animals, and don't believe in killing them unnecessarily. Many a times I find insects climbing over me, who seem to have lost their direction, so I carry them in my palm and place them back on the wall. I have relocated many insects, which were confused or had lost their homes to either other creatures or to a natural disaster. When I was in 7th grade, I had a Preying Mantis as a pet, and when I was in 12th grade, there was a garden snail I used to keep in my room.
All in all, I love animals and I'd advise parents to teach their children from a young age how to be kind and considerate to them, just as my mother and maternal uncles taught me through examples.
Parents should begin with teaching their little ones, not to pull off the wings or legs of insects, something I have found many kids doing.
I have signed up as a member with quite a few animal rights groups on Facebook, but if these groups were to set vegetarianism or veganism as the mandatory food habit for all their members, then I'll leave. It would irk me.
Just as you Hraf, are sensitive to the way calves are treated and so avoid eating veal, so do I not purchase "kosher" or "halal" meat.
What muslims call "halal", the jews call "kosher". It is a most horrible way of ending the life of an animal; the throat is slit open and the butcher waits for the animal to slowly die through bleeding and asphyxiation.
In Judaism and Islam it is stated, that the almighty god, will accept only "kosher/halal" animals as sacrifice.
Just another point which proves the mercilessness of the monotheistic god.
Cheeks:
"Just another point which proves the mercilessness of the monotheistic god."
I agree…..if you want more proof of the mercilessness of the monotheistic god, I recommend that you find the following 2 part series by an athiest Professor Richard Dawkins:
1. The God Delusion
2. The Virus of Faith
it ran as a 2 part series on an British TV channel called "Channel 4" (I caught up with it on 4od – not sure you can watch it outside the UK but here's the link anyway: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-root-of-all-evil )
Attacking somebody as a "bad" pagan for eating meat is like attacking somebody as a "bad" pagan for being a Republican.
Acid Queen,
Thank you for putting it so simply and so well.
Well said, Acid Queen.
Cheeks, since you asked for a non judgmental comment by a vegetarian, here we go:
I am a vegetarian. No, I don't care if you eat meat, since my self-imposed dietary restrictions are personal choice. As an anthropology major, I know definitively I'm going against the human biological imperative of being an omnivore. The only feature that makes humans an apex predator is our mind. We have no fangs or claws to speak of. Nor any of the usual mammalian protections, such as thick hide. (Though, on the point about our intestines, longer intestines are a sign of a diet rich in plant material. Apes have longer intestines due to the size of their torsos, relative to ours. We stand upright, have longer legs, and a lighter torso, therefore our intestines are not quite as long. Compared to an obligate carnivore, such as the large cats, our digestive system is very different.) My dietary choice is bit for ethical reasons, true. A lot of it is because I don't like giving money to corporations I don't like.
I have no problem with subsistence hunting. In fact, I find it much more admirable than the disconnect most people have when it comes to food. (Trophy hunting is something else entirely.)
I admire folks who can, and do, grow their own food, including the raising of livestock. It takes a lot of time and energy. I especially like the farmers who give their animals access to land. It makes for healthier animals, which makes for healthier food. If I had the means I would do this myself. Chemicals, hormones, and antibiotics used in industrial farming are a whole different business, and not something I look too kindly on.
Unfortunately, as with zealots of any stripe, the loudest and most vocal adherents are the ones who get the most attention and give the rest a bad name. This happens all the time. Which brings me back to the topic of the original post.
Moderation in all things. I wish more people held to this principle. I agree that in many historical cases polytheism was a bastion of moderation. Especially when it came to religious beliefs. Even when the Romans conquered other peoples, they did not force the worship of their pantheon on those defeated. Tribute, oftentimes, yes. (Which is what the early Christians got into some trouble over.) The exchange of deities is what happened the most. The cults of Isis and Mithras are prime examples. Even more often they saw the native gods as extensions, or just different names for their own dieties, such as in Gaul. That said, there have been times when polytheism was not so tolerant. It can be argued, though, that that was in retaliation to a form of monotheism, more than anything else.
If I have missed anything, or made any mistakes, you're welcome to point them out.
Elizabeth,
You've been the first vegetarian in the comments section here, to have spoken with consideration for the other side (omnivores and meat-eaters). I enjoyed reading your comment especially the correct dietary facts, and wish there were more vegetarians who thought like you.
Thank you for posting your response.
I second Indrani's comments, Elizabeth. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us!
No problem. I was taught as a child that everyone should get their chance to politely express their viewpoint. Respect is never gained by militancy or yelling, so why waste the energy? (Sarcasm and wit, on the other hand are entertaining.) That rudeness abounds on the internet is disquieting. You might think you're anonymous, but if you act like that to people you don't know, how do you act in face to face conversation? I shudder to think.
Thanks for your kind words! I'll be lurking about in the future, I'm sure.
I realize this is a bit of an old post, but Hrafnkell's invitation that vegetarians write on their own blogs about their reasons led me to write a recent essay on the matter: "Seven Pillars of Vegetarianism." The piece explores biological, historical, environmental, political, ethical, psychological and spiritual reasons in support of vegetarianism (with a great deal of elaboration and response to critique in the comments that followed). I just wanted to invite him, and any other folks interested, to stop on by and join in the conversation.
It's been amazingly interesting and polite (well, except for the one guy who said he might decide to start eating humans… 
.
Actually, Ali, I was perfectly willing to have a polite discussion here, but that was not happening. What was happening was preaching and condemnation of those who eat meat, and it is that preaching I suggested be taken elsewhere. But I appreciate you linking your post to this for those who are interested in following up.
There has been a similar, marathon-like discussion occurring in the online Hellenic polytheist community on extremism as well. Unfortunately, the reality is that religious extremism is found in ALL religions, including paganism. The problem with ethnic religions, is that you see extremism taking the form of ethnic nationalism and often times racism. This is the case in Norse and even Greek religion, particularly in Greece at the moment due to the lack of separation of church and state.
However, I believe that polytheism, philosophically speaking, cannot and should never support extremism of fundamentalist thinking. In Hellenic religion, we talk about POLYMORPHIA, or "multiple forms" as being an inherent part of the KOSMOS. This means that Nature, which everything in the KOSMOS is a part of, takes multiple forms of expression. Its the spiritual equivalent of biodiversity. We can see this principle in the different species of trees, animals, ideas, governments, languages, etc…..Religion is also part of that continuum and has to follow the same rules by default. So, while people can believe that their religion is the "only true religion", its patently false because reality demonstrates the existence of diversity. An individual would have to deny or make up some ridiculous explanation to validate that view, and that's exactly what people do. However, its indefensible philosophically and objectively.
In any case, I'm glad to see that other people are talking about this issue, because I think its becoming more and more pronounced in the world with everything thats been going on. Ever since this BS notion of the "Clash of Civilizations" was established during the Bush administration, we're seeing more and more of it being pumped out into civil society and its becoming "normal". Extremism, in the religious fundamentalist sense, WAS NEVER NORMAL. Solon had it right, "μηδέν άγαν" – Nothing in Excess.
Evritos, thanks for commenting. Religious extremism is unnatural in polytheism, as we both agree, and I would argue that it is any weakness or failing inherent in polytheism that is to blame but our imperfect modern co-religionists who must struggle with modern concepts (and the weight of 20 centuries of history) as they revive their ancient customs and traditions.
Polytheism should translate across cultural and ethnic borders. All gods exist. We can see our gods in the gods of others. We are united by our diversity. In the ancient world, polytheism did not translate into racism or nationalism. It transcended and overcame those barriers instead.
This is why we must all be aware of the dangers of extremism and we must speak up and make clear to others (and especially to our children) that the struggle to re-establish ourselves is far from over. I feel, at times, that it's rather like the Roman struggle to absorb the "barbarians" – assimilation into new modes of thinking, into new thought modes, excising old baggage, is not easy. But then again, that is why I am here personally, and it is what drives me. And Solon's words would, as I believe I said before, be embraced by all polytheistic cultures of the ancient world.