2009
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)
@ 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.