badstar | (no subject)

Dear Multitude of Web Forum Pagans:

For Pete's sake, stop- or at least greatly reduce your use of the phrase "drawn to". You are NOT inexplicably and mystically "drawn to" every little thing that interests you. Seriously. If nothing else, the phrase just gets used FAR TOO MUCH. I should NOT be visiting a forum and finding fifty threads with questions like "What element are you drawn to?" "What tarot card are you drawn to?" "What books are you drawn to?" "What color clothing are you drawn to?" Find some other way to express the sentiment.

Sincerely,

Fuego

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

pinkpolarity.livejournal.com

(Hiya, this is the Pagan formerly known as Confettiofstars. You're welcome to re-friend, if you'd like. :)

I use both "drawn to" and "path". If you've got a suggestion for better terms, I'm all ears. I use "drawn to" for "I'm attracted to this thing and I haven't been able to puzzle out why yet. I think there's more to it than just it seems/looks neat, because I can usually figure that one out. In fact, I'm torn between wanting to explore it and wishing the desire to explore it would leave the heck alone." I don't use "drawn to" for "shit I like", but for religious matters and gods that I'm very torn about the "draw" to, sort of "oh crap, I think I need to learn about this, but I'd really prefer not to". "Drawn to" underscores that I think it's something potentially important on my path (and there's *that* word), but leaves what the importance is ambiguous-- which is good, because expressing why I'm drawn to it prematurely boxes it in before I can figure out what it's actually doing there. In most cases of things I've been "drawn to", they've either been put on the shelf for a later date, or the reason for the draw eventually becomes clear (for values of "eventually" generally consisting of "years"). I don't know of another phrase that captures that sense of vague-but-possibly-important. Do you?

I also defend "path". I do use "religion", actually, when it's appropriate. Which it *isn't*, a goodly amount of the time. IMO, a "religion" is a set thing, a group of shared characteristics within a community of believers. Right now, I can slot neatly into one religion. Where I'm speaking of things about that religion, that's the term I use. But for all other eclectic aspects of my spiritual journey, "religion" is more-or-less inappropriate because they're not communal and not orthodox or orthopraxic. I'm still massively hand-flappy about the Pagan aspects of my path; in this case "Pagan" is about as close as I can reasonably get to "my religion is..." since there's no narrower term that applies. So, again, what better term can you suggest to comprise the totality of an eclectic practitioner's spiritual praxis, some of which containing elements classifiable as "religion" and some of which too iconoclastic to sort that way? I agree that "path" as a term is overused, but OTOH, it's overused because it's *useful*.

From:

fuego.livejournal.com

So, again, what better term can you suggest to comprise the totality of an eclectic practitioner's spiritual praxis, some of which containing elements classifiable as "religion" and some of which too iconoclastic to sort that way?

"religion" seems perfectly fine to me in all the context you speak of...

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

re·li·gion
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The definition says nothing of required community, orthodoxy or orthopraxy. A personal belief and practice, however varied, is still religion.

In my experience, a large chunk of people that use "path" do so because they have single, set view of "religion" as being a frozen, stagnated thing which requires that they do the same thing week in and week out and lacks any shred of spirituality. Alternately another misconception is that to practice religion, one must practice something that is also practiced by many other people. Religion is as active and spiritual as one makes it and considering its etymology, I would say that if one is without spirituality, then one is without religion:
From the online etymology dictionary:

c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

"To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of "scrupulous, exact" is recorded from 1599.

Yet another refusal to use "religion" comes from the people that just want to do everything they can to draw a line between themselves and monotheistic religions cause OMG They're Evul!

I don't know of another phrase that captures that sense of vague-but-possibly-important. Do you?

Quite frankly, I honestly don't know of a nice, simple phrase that can be constantly recycled over and over...actually, I like variety in language so I'd prefer that there not be one. Experiencing stuff like this myself, I use wordings similar to what you've already stated for said scenarios- I need to lean about (whatever) and I don't exactly know why. Or Lately, I seem to have an inexplicable fascination for (whatever) and I can't quite explain it.

The phrase doesn't bug me *quite* as much when speaking of some sort of attraction for which one does not know the cause...but I stand by the opinion that it is overused though I might not be so irritated with it if it didn't get so much use to describe each and every little instance of something being vaguely interesting.

what better term can you suggest to comprise the totality of an eclectic practitioner's spiritual praxis, some of which containing elements classifiable as "religion" and some of which too iconoclastic to sort that way?

Eclecticism, eclectic neopaganism or eclectic paganism are all words I've seen used for this.

From:

pinkpolarity.livejournal.com

In my experience, a large chunk of people that use "path" do so because they have single, set view of "religion" as being a frozen, stagnated thing which requires that they do the same thing week in and week out and lacks any shred of spirituality.

*I* don't use it that way. I know a lot of people have issues with the word "religion", though, and I'm not completely sure I blame them for that, or want to push them into using a very uncomfortable word. I just think that religion is a *specific* thing, that the definitions you cited from the time-periods you cited weren't quite prepared for religion becoming such an individual thing. There's also the fact that in practice, people get shirty with you if your practice deviates from the standard of $religion. People seem to get less shirty about "path", because it's commonly accepted Paganslang for "my specific personal thing, which may deviate in significant ways from the established things from which it draws". It may be telling that I use "path" in an ingroup way and "religion" more in an outgroup way. The average non-Pagan doesn't know the gradations of difference between a Wiccan and a Neo-Wiccan, an "eclectic" and a "traditional", so trying to find a way to express those gradations isn't needed; when talking to other Pagans, it is. I'm back to envying you folks with only one religion now.

The phrase doesn't bug me *quite* as much when speaking of some sort of attraction for which one does not know the cause...but I stand by the opinion that it is overused though I might not be so irritated with it if it didn't get so much use to describe each and every little instance of something being vaguely interesting.

I agree that it's overused, and think that the people in the latter half of that sentence need to discover a fannish word-- "shiny". It's just another one of these things that for some of us is the best recourse to saying "thingy". I do think, though, that using "drawn to" in place of "find really interesting/am attracted to/think is shiny" is making the concept meaningless. It's *useful* to have an expression that sums up "this is important, but I'll be damned if I know why yet", and "drawn to" used to convey that, along with also conveying "so that's why I'm joining this community/class/message board, and I am not even remotely ready to commit to anything beyond being interested in it right now" in a way that distinguished you from spiritual shoppers and armchair practitioners. I guess everything gets watered down if too many people use it too often.

Eclecticism, eclectic neopaganism or eclectic paganism are all words I've seen used for this.

That's not quite what I meant. A specific term doesn't sub in for many uses of "path". At least, putting them in place of "path" for a lot of my uses for "path" seem kind of grammatically incorrect. But trying to make sense of this through fibrofog and painkillers isn't quite working for me right now, so... thingy.

I agree with the meta, though. We do, as a larger "community", tend to get awfully hung on various bits of slanguage. I'm kind of bugged by "priest/ess" where the person really means "dedicated to", and the legitimate uses for "work with" are overshadowed by the vast number of instances where the person doesn't really mean that at all but just doesn't want to say "worship". And I still hate "magickkkkkkkk" unless you're actually a Thelemite.

From:

fuego.livejournal.com

*I* don't use it that way. I know a lot of people have issues with the word "religion", though, and I'm not completely sure I blame them for that, or want to push them into using a very uncomfortable word.

See, I don't understand the benefit of people refusing to use a perfectly good and correct word- or at the very least understanding when the word is correct if they choose to use an alternate. Hell, I've been berated repeatedly in the past for using the word religion in reference to my personal practice. I think that that really sparked my irritation with that particular issue to begin with.

I just think that religion is a *specific* thing, that the definitions you cited from the time-periods you cited weren't quite prepared for religion becoming such an individual thing.

Yes, yes it is. What you practice is a specifc thing, no? No doubt that it fluctuuates, changes and evolves over time, but it is specific in that it is your belief system and is what you do, no?

Perhaps those definitions at the time weren't prepared for what is now, but they are also the origins of the word, and its current use has evolved.

There's also the fact that in practice, people get shirty with you if your practice deviates from the standard of $religion.

'Fraid I'm not sure what you mean by "$religion"...

If it means "religion" in general, then your statement makes no sense.

If it means "some specific religion" then it only makes sense for people to even begin to get picky if you're talking within the confines of a specific religion, and then, it should be limited to that religion, not "religion" as a whole. If someone is an initiated member of the sacred order of the purple kangaroo which requires one to do weekly rituals where one casts a sacred rhombus whilst wearing kangaroo ears, wear an amulet of a turquoise koala and make a pilgrimage to the plaid temple of the purple kangaroo before their twenty-ninth birthday, and someone else comes in claiming to be one of the sacred order of the purple kangaroo, but refuses to cast the sacred rhombus in favor of a trapezoid and wears an amulet of the orange wombat, then the first is well within their rights to contest the second's claim to actually be practicing that particular religion but has no place saying that the second is not practicing *some* religion.

I'm back to envying you folks with only one religion now.

I sometimes also envy folks with one religion.

Oh wait...no I don't. I like the practicing-two-religions thing. :-)

From:

pinkpolarity.livejournal.com

See, I don't understand the benefit of people refusing to use a perfectly good and correct word- or at the very least understanding when the word is correct if they choose to use an alternate.

I do if it's a trigger that links, for them, their healthy present practice with past abuses. I don't think I quite understood it completely until I was in a cult, I know I won't go near anything that reminds me of that experience. For you, "religion" is a neutral word, but it isn't for everyone, and I don't see the purpose in pushing people to adopt terminology that is deeply upsetting for them when there are other words that aren't. Yes, I think folks who are simply put off by the word "religion" could stand to re-think why they feel that way (especially people who aren't actually triggered, but bothered by a misunderstanding of what it means), but I'm not going to assume that everyone who avoids its use *hasn't* thought about it.

Hell, I've been berated repeatedly in the past for using the word religion in reference to my personal practice.

Good grief, that's completely ridiculous!

What you practice is a specifc thing, no?

Right now? No, unfortunately, it's not. It's too undefined, still, too amorphous for me to feel that "religion" is an appropriate word for the whole thing. "Path" is much more accurate ATM, much as "in transit" is accurate if you're about 1/3 of the way to wherever it is you're going. Once I sort out all of these bits, have an active practice (as opposed to an awful lot of pondering but not much actual activity), and it begins to cohere as a whole, then yes, "personal religion" will feel like a proper term. It ain't there yet, though. The Satanism and general-Neopagan parts of my path, though, are things I can pin down, define, and feel that they fit within a given set of parameters of "this is how you define these two things", so I use "religion" in reference to them. (Although if road-metaphors make sense for my present state of spirituality, I ought to call it "my Washington, DC street system" since a path is actually going a specific place. DC can get you lost, onto completely unexpected places, and sometimes just going in circles forever. ;)

'Fraid I'm not sure what you mean by "$religion"...

It's a programming term, I think, that I picked up from

lilairen or one of her friends to mean (x) or (fill-in-the-blank-here). See, here's the problem that I've found with "religion". Pagans expect it to refer to an accepted spiritual practice accomplished by a group of people. So if I say "my religion", people say "which religion is that?", and if you answer that but your practice deviates from the majority-standard for that religion, they get very bitchy. There is, especially, no good way IME to handle "Wiccanesque eclectic Neo-Pagan" that doesn't piss somebody off. Can't use Wiccan, that pisses off the BTWs. Can't use Neo-Wiccan, that also pisses off the BTWs. In fact, the "W" word can't show up in any form, without it pissing *somebody* off. "Pagan" is too broad, I'm told, "you can't be just Pagan!" Listing off the specifics "influenced by a, b, c, and d" gets the "look at the sparkly Mary Sue who's everything, including shit that doesn't work together" kind of snark. "Spiritual practice", OTOH, seems to net a lot of "why the hell don't you just say RELIGION" snark. "Path" just reads as "personal spiritual practice", and people generally don't seem to pounce on that and derail the conversation into exactly what specifically you do. Perhaps if Pagans were a bit less rude in demanding details about the intimate spiritual beliefs of perfect strangers, we could all use "religion" without worrying that it's opening a can of worms.

Oh wait...no I don't. I like the practicing-two-religions thing

I sit corrected. :) I just mean that I'm tired of being poked with the "can't you just pick ONE?" stick, that it would be comforting to have a single defined thing or things that I can slot into and feel like I fit there. Which is largely coming from seeing people mocked on dot pagan snark et al not for being silly about the *way* they go about things, but seemingly for being multifaith or eclectic at all.