Problems with "Pagans"

[tptram]

I thought that you are agreed to the definition:

Action is what defined the man.
It does not matter of what he says, what he does is who he is.

If one acts contrary to the teaching of Christ, he is not a Christian (a follower of Christ).
A “Christian in name if not in act” is not a Christian – he need to repent and obey Christ’s commands in order to be a true Christian.

I can buy a Medical Doctor license and thus be a “Doctor in name if not in act”. Does that make me a doctor? (a bad doctor? nevertheless a doctor?)

Your logic is flawed.

To say some one as evil as Hitler is a Christian and implying Christians are evil is twisting words to fit your assertion.

Tak

 

[Oneiron]

I thought that you are agreed to the definition:

If one acts contrary to the teaching of Christ, he is not a Christian (a follower of Christ).
A “Christian in name if not in act” is not a Christian – he need to repent and obey Christ’s commands in order to be a true Christian.

I can buy a Medical Doctor license and thus be a “Doctor in name if not in act”. Does that make me a doctor? (a bad doctor? nevertheless a doctor?)

Your logic is flawed.

To say some one as evil as Hitler is a Christian and implying Christians are evil is twisting words to fit your assertion.

Tak

I never said Christians were evil. That’s twisting words to suit you.

And in that case, 90 percent of Christians in the world aren’t truly Christians because they sin. They aren’t following Jesus’s teachings and so are not Christians. Sorry, but I believe it is your logic that doesn’t hold up.

Look at it this way. I believe I can play the piano. I get millions of people to believe I can play the piano as well as Mozart, if not better. When i sit down to play, i can play Chopsticks and that’s it. I can play the piano, but I play it very badly. But no matter how badly I play it, I’m a piano player nonetheless.

The point I was trying to make was that he killed millions of Jews in the name of Christianity. The fact that he wasn’t a good Christian, no one in their right minds would doubt.
yes, actions define the man,. Hitler’s actions were in the name of Christianity, what he believed god was telling him.

 

[pira114]

Millions killed by Christians: Crusades, Inquisitions, Holocaust (Hitler was a Catholic “doing god’s work” or at least that’s what he believed), kings forcing their religion on the peasants. Have they ever said all at once? I believe it is just as easy to kill a million people one death at a time. That charge is not hyperbole.

Man! If I hear this BS one more time I’ll start my own Crusade.

The Crusades were completely justified and the only people who cried about it were the muslims when they needed something to blame us for.

Hitler may have been baptised Catholic, but no one could argue that he was practicing Catholicism.

And yes, I believe completely that it’s OK to worry about pagans, or wiccans, or whatever. They are some of the idiots trying to use the court system to take our religion away from us. Being a taoist, you should agree?

 

[Mirdath]

The Crusades were completely justified and the only people who cried about it were the muslims when they needed something to blame us for.

The Crusades started as mere territorial wars between the Seljuq Turks and the Byzantines. Justified? Both sides would say so.

Hitler may have been baptised Catholic, but no one could argue that he was practicing Catholicism.

If baptized Catholic, one remains Catholic forever barring excommunication. As an ex-Catholic, I’ve had that thrown in my face quite often enough, so here it is back at you. He wasn’t living by or ruling by its precepts, but he was Catholic and claimed to be – and was never excommunicated.

And yes, I believe completely that it’s OK to worry about pagans, or wiccans, or whatever. They are some of the idiots trying to use the court system to take our religion away from us. Being a taoist, you should agree?

I worry far more about Christian idiots who already control the American government trying to use the court system to take away everybody else’s religion than I do about a few tiny minority groups wanting something like the equal-airtime act for proselytizing.

 

[KarenNC]

First, let me state that I identify myself as a Classical Hellenic Neopagan… so I “talk about” the Greeks!

Support for the concept that many millions of witches (interpreted by some to be the same as modern Wiccans) were killed by the Church in the great witch hunts (often referred to as the “burning times”) is based on outdated scholarship and popular myth. Unfortunately this is still perpetuated in much of popular Neopagan writing and in popular opinion (as a "fact’’ and as something that all Neopagans believe). I see it as primarily an attempt (consciously or unconsciously) to tap into the strength of the culture of victimization that is so prevalent today. Using bad scholarship as an argument simply makes us look ill-informed.

draeconin.com/database/witchhunt.htm is a very interesting article done by someone who obtained her master’s degree in medieval history with a minor in the Great Hunt. It represents current accepted scholarship (at least at the time the article was written in 1998) on the subject. Please do all of us a favor and pass it along to any Neopagans who hold the story as accurate history, so that we can get on to discussing something more fruitful between the two groups .

Wicca is a new religion, founded by Gerald Gardner in the early to mid 20th century. This is not to its shame–many religions were once new and have a discernable starting point in history, including Christianity. There is no historical evidence for “Wiccans” as members of the religion today known as Wicca, before this point.

If anyone would like to read an extensive thread that is currently ongoing regarding Neopagan and Catholic apologetics, I invite you to read the thread on this forum called Neopagan Apologetics.

The first post should be found at this link
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124238. I would suggest reading through all of it before posting, so that you know where the discussions have already been.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Millions killed by Christians: Crusades, Inquisitions, Holocaust (Hitler was a Catholic “doing god’s work” or at least that’s what he believed), kings forcing their religion on the peasants. Have they ever said all at once? I believe it is just as easy to kill a million people one death at a time. That charge is not hyperbole.
,Those were two different religions to begin with. Secondly, you really know nothing about pagan religions do you? Third, exactly how is this a problem you have with it?

Oneiron: from a prior thread you started, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=125264 ,
and your posts on this thread indicate certain commonalities; including BROAD generalizations, considerable exagerations and inflations, implications by labels (ex: Inquisition and crusades) and a consitent refusal to acknowledge new data and refutations of your charges. In other words, the typical pattern of a commited anti-catholic

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

The Crusades started as mere territorial wars between the Seljuq Turks and the Byzantines. Justified? Both sides would say so.

The expansion of the Seljuk Turk into Byzantine territory was driven by renewed jihad–in abeyance for a few centuries from internal dissention among the Arabs. Wth the Turks and Arabs again threatening Constantinople, the Eastern Christians cried HELP–and Urban II saw this as a good way to heal the rift of 1054, which at that time was just seen as a temporary division driven by hotheads on both sides

If baptized Catholic, one remains Catholic forever barring excommunication. As an ex-Catholic, I’ve had that thrown in my face quite often enough, so here it is back at you. He wasn’t living by or ruling by its precepts, but he was Catholic and claimed to be – and was never excommunicated.

Anyone who has commited a mortal sin, is de facto barred from receiving Communion (excommunicated) and other Sacraments (with I think, the exception of Penance & Extreme Unction–someone please correct me if I’m wrong there) There simply was NO need to publicaly excommunicate Hitler, and there is NO evidence that he saught out the Sacraments after confirmation–which scanty evidence suggests he took just to please his mother. Even prior to WW2, public ceremonial excommunication (anathema) was exceedingly rare and doing so against a public leader would have involved the Church with the old charges of interfering with secular politics. Never mind that the CC consistently condemned the errors of facism and nazism as the latest prodects of secular modernism. Never mind either that the Nazi’s themselves understood the CC has utterly oppopsed to their racial, political, and religious agenda.

I worry far more about Christian idiots who already control the American government trying to use the court system to take away everybody else’s religion than I do about a few tiny minority groups wanting something like the equal-airtime act for proselytizing.

Trying to take everyone else’s religion away? Who? Where? When? How? Nice all-encompasing and conspiracy-minded ad hominem "Christian idiots who already control the American government"

 

[Oneiron]

Millions killed by Christians: Crusades, Inquisitions, Holocaust (Hitler was a Catholic “doing god’s work” or at least that’s what he believed), kings forcing their religion on the peasants. Have they ever said all at once? I believe it is just as easy to kill a million people one death at a time. That charge is not hyperbole.

Man! If I hear this BS one more time I’ll start my own Crusade.

The Crusades were completely justified and the only people who cried about it were the muslims when they needed something to blame us for.

People still died in the name of your religion. Why they died is irrelevant for this point.

Hitler may have been baptised Catholic, but no one could argue that he was practicing Catholicism.

Sorry, but Hitler was hristian, on this point we all may just have to agree to disagree.

And yes, I believe completely that it’s OK to worry about pagans, or wiccans, or whatever. They are some of the idiots trying to use the court system to take our religion away from us. Being a taoist, you should agree?

Why should I agree? I’m all for religious tolerance. No one is trying to take your religion away from you. There are people who wish to take your religion away from themselves. I will not tell them that they cannot complain about tenets of someone else’s religion hanging around their everyday lives. I mean, how often have you heard someone complaining because they want to take the Buddhist quotes out of our money and pledge, or take Islamic practices out of school? People don’t complain about those things because Christianity has its finger in a lot of things. No other religions are really represented in this country.

 

[Mirdath]

Anyone who has commited a mortal sin, is de facto barred from receiving Communion (excommunicated) and other Sacraments (with I think, the exception of Penance & Extreme Unction–someone please correct me if I’m wrong there)

The state of mortal sin is not the same thing as excommunication. Excommunication denies one access to all sacraments. I believe you’re right about which ones you can receive while out of the state of grace.

There simply was NO need to publicaly excommunicate Hitler, and there is NO evidence that he saught out the Sacraments after confirmation–which scanty evidence suggests he took just to please his mother. Even prior to WW2, public ceremonial excommunication (anathema) was exceedingly rare and doing so against a public leader would have involved the Church with the old charges of interfering with secular politics.

Hitler told Gerhard Engel he considered himself a Catholic in 1941. He made numerous other statements regarding the importance of religion – Catholicism in particular – to himself, during his years as Chancellor and then Fuehrer. Yet again, I make no claim that he was a good or even an observant Catholic. But he was one, and without being excommunicated, he remained one.

Trying to take everyone else’s religion away? Who? Where? When? How? Nice all-encompasing and conspiracy-minded ad hominem "Christian idiots who already control the American government"

Satire is lost on you.

 

[Oneiron]

Oneiron: from a prior thread you started, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=125264 ,
and your posts on this thread indicate certain commonalities; including BROAD generalizations, considerable exagerations and inflations, implications by labels (ex: Inquisition and crusades) and a consitent refusal to acknowledge new data and refutations of your charges. In other words, the typical pattern of a commited anti-catholic

Broad generalizations? prove it.
Exagerrations? Prove it.
labels? I don’t even understand what you’re getting at, please explain.
Refusal to accept new data? No one gave me new data from a source other than themselves except one person at the very end.
refutation of my charges? because no one addressed the same issue I had in the beginning. I admitted I was angry and misspoke when I wrote it, but still people ignored it and started fights about the nature of the inquisition when that didn’t have anything to do with the topic I had presented

Commited Anti-Catholic? No, you got it all wrong actually. I may disagree with the Catholic Church on a few things, but I don’t hate it. If I had a problem with the Catholic Church, most of my family would have disowned me by now. I take offense at some of the people within the Church, but not the Church itself save to believe a few of the teachings should changed.

I don’t see how that thread has anything to do with this one either? Please enlighten me as to the relation.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

“The state of mortal sin is not the same thing as excommunication…”.

So, if I murder someone and don’t confess it and undertake penance I can receive communion? On the contrary, mortal sin occurs latae sententiae or automatic excommunication. To receive communion under such circumstances is to incur another mortal sin.

“Hitler told Gerhard Engel he considered himself a Catholic in 1941. He made numerous other statements regarding the importance of religion – Catholicism in particular – to himself, during his years as Chancellor and then Fuehrer. Yet again, I make no claim that he was a good or even an observant Catholic. But he was one, and without being excommunicated, he remained one.”

Again, Hitler’s position on religion in general, and Catholicism specifilly, is a mixed up contradictory affair–but what is clear, he did not take sacraments, especilay the Eucharist or Penenace, and committed mortal sin after mortal sin while promoting the philosphy (some would say “religion”) of rabid racist social darwinism.

“Satire is lost on you.”

Perhaps–perhaps like Hitler’s statements, I tend to take people on their consitent word

 

[Mirdath]

So, if I murder someone and don’t confess it and undertake penance I can receive communion? On the contrary, mortal sin occurs latae sententiae or automatic excommunication. To receive communion under such circumstances is to incur another mortal sin.

An excommunicate is not permitted the sacrament of penance or extreme unction. He or she does not even have the opportunity to be absolved; someone in the state of mortal sin does. That’s the critical difference – if excommunicated, a murderer must make amends with the Church through a bishop or priest empowered to remove that penalty before confessing the murder and being permitted to receive the Eucharist. A non-excommunicated murderer can walk right into the confessional and confess it, do penance, and receive.

Again, Hitler’s position on religion in general, and Catholicism specifilly, is a mixed up contradictory affair–but what is clear, he did not take sacraments, especilay the Eucharist or Penenace, and committed mortal sin after mortal sin while promoting the philosphy (some would say “religion”) of rabid racist social darwinism.

It’s true enough that his bizarre philosophies and policies were more important to him than his Catholicism – can we stop bickering over this now and agree?

 

[pira114]

I never said Hitler was no longer a Catholic, just that he was not practicing the faith. Don’t mean to belabour the point, but just wanted to clarify. I think we all agree on that evil man.

And, yes, Christianity has deep roots in this country. It’s what it was founded on! Separation of Church and State is an idea that has only spawned in the last 15 years or so as comming from our founding fathers. Indeed, most of the founding fathers have been quoted numerous times as saying that God was fundamental in our countries laws and practices. Even old Ben Franklin. His letter that used the term “separation of Chruch and State” was used to bow out of supporting something he would have had a conflict of interest in. Old history.

So, should I worry about “pagens?” Sure, if there were only Christians, do you think I would have to explain to my son’s principle that she cannot bar him from wearing a crucifix around his neck at school? It’s not just pagens, it’s any non-Christian. Their ideas are contrary to mine, so when one of them wants to pass a law or file a law suit, I need to worry.

Crusades? Totally justified. We were defending ourselves. Of course the muslims would believe to be justified as well since their faith tells them to conquer. I love when I hear the muslim community say that we are modern day Crusaders! Makes me proud!

 

[KarenNC]

**
And, yes, Christianity has deep roots in this country. It’s what it was founded on! **

Deep roots, certainly. Founded on? Incorrect. Let me refer you to the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

"The fourth document in the Department of State file, and the last to be noted, is at once the United States instrument of ratification and the proclamation, dated June 10, 1797.

In its combination of what are ordinarily two separate papers, that document is of unusual form. It is under the Great Seal and is signed by Adams and attested by Pickering as Secretary of State; but before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

This treaty was written Nov. 4, 1796 and ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. At the time it was written, George Washington was President and John Adams was Vice President. At the time it was ratified, John Adams was President and Thomas Jefferson Vice-President. Timothy Pickering was Secretary of State under both presidents. Many of the men who were intimately involved in the founding of this nation were members of Congress at that time.

It was during Washington’s presidency that the Bill of Rights was adopted (1791–only 5 years prior to this treaty). I really doubt that they "forgot’ that they had really meant to found it on Christianity.

 

[KarenNC]

**Separation of Church and State is an idea that has only spawned in the last 15 years or so as comming from our founding fathers. **

Hardly. I refer you to the following link
theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm which begins:
"Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination. "
and
" Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of separating church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of Supreme Court decisions in the 1950’s and 60s. This simply isn’t true…It should be clear, from these quotations[included in the body of the article], that the concept of separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously be argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950’s and 60’s. In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time on school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S. history. "

The entire article is well worth reading.

 

[Petergee]

**
And, yes, Christianity has deep roots in this country. It’s what it was founded on! **

Deep roots, certainly. Founded on? Incorrect. Let me refer you to the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

"The fourth document in the Department of State file, and the last to be noted, is at once the United States instrument of ratification and the proclamation, dated June 10, 1797.

In its combination of what are ordinarily two separate papers, that document is of unusual form. It is under the Great Seal and is signed by Adams and attested by Pickering as Secretary of State; but before the testimonium clause is this paragraph of ratification and proclamation:

Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

This treaty was written Nov. 4, 1796 and ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. At the time it was written, George Washington was President and John Adams was Vice President. At the time it was ratified, John Adams was President and Thomas Jefferson Vice-President. Timothy Pickering was Secretary of State under both presidents. Many of the men who were intimately involved in the founding of this nation were members of Congress at that time.

It was during Washington’s presidency that the Bill of Rights was adopted (1791–only 5 years prior to this treaty). I really doubt that they "forgot’ that they had really meant to found it on Christianity.

A very weak argument to dig up this bilateral treaty whilst ignoring the actual founding documents. The Treaty of Tripoli (to facilitate trade between the USA and the Ottoman Empire) is not in any sense “what the US was founded on”.

The US wanted to trade with the Turks, the Turks wanted trade but they saw Christendom as an enemy to be conquered (they had beseiged Vienna and threatened to completely overrun Europe just 100 years earlier, and their armies still occupied many Christian countries in Europe) and they wanted an ally AGAINST Christendom, not to give an advantage to a Christian country. So Washington and his pals told them the convenient lie that the US was not Christian. Yes, contrary to the silly myth you have apparently swallowed whole, Washington was quite willing to lie when it suited his political purposes.

 

[Petergee]

**Separation of Church and State is an idea that has only spawned in the last 15 years or so as comming from our founding fathers. **

Hardly. I refer you to the following link
theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm which begins:
"Many well-meaning Christians argue that the United States was founded by Christian men on Christian principles. Although well-intentioned, such sentiment is unfounded. The men who lead the United States in its revolution against England, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination. "
and
" Some Christians are currently arguing that the concept of separating church and state was not in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the result of Supreme Court decisions in the 1950’s and 60s. This simply isn’t true…It should be clear, from these quotations[included in the body of the article], that the concept of separating church and state is hardly of recent invention in the United States, since we see it as far back as at least 1644. It cannot seriously be argued that it sprang as a result of weird ideas in the 1950’s and 60’s. In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court at that time on school prayer are entirely consistent with the general thrust of U.S. history. "

The entire article is well worth reading.

I think what pira114 means is that it was only in the 50s and 60s that “Separation of church and state” was radically redefined to mean that the state must have no association whatsoever with religion or any religious matter, defined with breathtaking broadness, and that Christianity is to be completely privatised.

For centuries before that, “separation of church and state” had meant that the State must not favour one branch of Christianity over another. It was at the insistence of Catholics and Quakers that the concept was included in the US at its foundation; they wanted this to prevent their oppression by Puritans. (Even so, anti-Catholic laws remained in some states until the late 19th century.) There was no dispute that the US was a Christian country.

 

[Dawnpiper]

The US wanted to trade with the Turks, the Turks wanted trade but they saw Christendom as an enemy to be conquered (they had beseiged Vienna and threatened to completely overrun Europe just 100 years earlier, and their armies still occupied many Christian countries in Europe) and they wanted an ally AGAINST Christendom, not to give an advantage to a Christian country. So Washington and his pals told them the convenient lie that the US was not Christian. Yes, contrary to the silly myth you have apparently swallowed whole, Washington was quite willing to lie when it suited his political purposes.

I’m afraid that dog just won’t hunt . The only people who ever saw Article 11 were the Americans in the Barlow translation of the treaty, which had been written originally in Arabic. Article 11 does not exist in the Arabic, so it is not possible that it was included for the purposes you describe. Furthermore, evidence that this mistranslation had occurred has been readily available since 1800, but nothing has ever been done to change it or refute it.

The plain facts of the matter are that the American government, made up in large part of people who participated in the Revolution and founding of the country as well as writing its founding documents, in 1797 had absolutely no problem with ratifying a treaty which included that statement, nor was it sufficiently controversial to have been an issue. To claim otherwise is simply pointless.

yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm

"As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point

A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic. Its text was not only formally proclaimed as such but has been continuously printed and reprinted as such; and yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts;"

 

[KarenNC]

I’m afraid that dog just won’t hunt .

Sorry, that post was mine. I forgot to log out my husband’s account and log in with mine before posting. The joys of sharing a computer.

 

[KarenNC]

I think what pira114 means is that it was only in the 50s and 60s that “Separation of church and state” was radically redefined to mean that the state must have no association whatsoever with religion or any religious matter, defined with breathtaking broadness, and that Christianity is to be completely privatised.

I suppose it might be possible that is what pira114 meant, but that is not at all what was stated. Pira stated "Separation of Church and State is an idea that has only spawned in the last 15 years or so as coming from our founding fathers. "

The argument presented, therefore, was that only since approximately 1990 has anyone ever claimed that the founders of this country intended that there should be a separation of Church and State, and, further, that there is absolutely no historical basis for such a claim in the first place. This is patently false and such an argument is built on swiftly shifting sands.

I will be very blunt, in the hopes of helping show why historical accuracy is an issue with which we should both concern ourselves.

I am fully aware that many Christians believe they are divinely commanded to proselytize non-believers. The problem with using such patently false and easily refuted arguments as this and the “America was founded as a Christian nation” one in efforts to proselytize others is that they are actually worse than useless. Not only do they not encourage the person to listen to your case, they actively discourage them from accepting anything else you may say as valid.

You have not only lost all opportunity to reach that person yourself, you have tarred by association anyone else from your organization who approaches that individual, or any literature they may come across from it, and perhaps anyone who identifies as a Christian as well. Your intended audience has just lost respect for you (and by extension others who identify themselves similarly) as a source of reasonable communication (and, depending on tone, civil communication as well). Would you give much credence to such arguments or those who use them?

As Neopagans, even though we do not proselytize, we should concern ourselves with the accuracy of our arguments because we risk the same thing. We want to be taken seriously, and to have a dialogue on an equal footing with those practicing other religions. Claiming in the face of bald evidence to the contrary that Wicca is an ancient religion, for instance, or that 9 million were killed in the Burning Times does our position no good.

Both religions hopefully have enough of value to offer others without resorting to such straw arguments. Build your case on solid ground.

For Neopagans, there is no shame in being a new religion (and I include my own Neopagan religion, which is not Wicca, in that as well). There were no Christians in 25 BCE either. It is also very helpful to be able to state your beliefs in some form other than “I’m a not-Christian.” Talk about what you are for and about what you do believe!

For Christians, surely there is more to your religion than claims that it could not have existed in America without government support. Most people aren’t non-Christian because they are looking for a “government-approved” stamp for their spirituality. They are looking for something that meets their spiritual needs.