I want you guys to be aware that I am no longer responding because I have already talked at length about this elsewhere (and not because you have raised points I haven't considered or which make me worry you might be right....). :) No hard feelings, but I'm not going to continue the conversation in a comment thread, as I've pointed out before. You know where you can find me if you're so inclined.

Thanks for your thoughts, but please see my "I'm not going into a rebuttal here" comment above. Pacifism is an incredibly complex philosophy, and if you're interested, I'd be willing to talk about it elsewhere. But I think it does that philosophy a disservice to think I can debunk misconceptions in a comment thread. Needless to say, I strongly disagree with such "moral realism" as you suggest and would refer you to statements by, for instance, the "Founding Fathers" who themselves point out that freedom is inalienable and cannot be taken away nor won by force of arms. For a longer response, please see above for links to my own writing, or feel free to contact me via email.

Like I said, Robin, this isn't the time or place for rebuttal. I fear that your opinions of my ideas are being influenced by the fact that I am a pleasant, attractive young female who has come to terms with her own personal baggage. But my pacifism is not at all clean or nicely packaged for Yuppie Consumption, so please stop making such assumptions. If you're truly interested, I write fairly often about my ideas of what pacifism is in my own blog (most recently here and here, for instance) and you can engage me there.

I didn't say you were evil. I just think you have issues with Christians. Seriously--have you looked in the mirror recently? You practically have "I have issues with Christians" tattooed on your forehead, dear. ;) And that's okay, but next time, get the tattoo backwards so that you can read it and it's not as obvious to everyone else.

So... you brought up Christo-Pagans not because it was relevant, but because you can't resist any opportunity to complain about Christians?

Okay, moving on: your view of pacifism is a really excellent example of the "misunderstanding and misrepresentation" that I mentioned in my previous reply. But I don't want to bog down Jason's comments with a rebuttal, especially since there are lots and lots of resources out there that give very cogent explanations if you're even the least bit inclined to do the necessary research. :) (You know, I look forward to the day when I can say, "Or, you can read my book on the topic..." ;))

Meanwhile, I'm mostly curious/confused about how one expects anti-government anarchists to maintain a large-scale state-sponsored military organization like an army. Seems kind of contradictory, doesn't it? I suppose, according to your view, this automatically reduces all forms of anarchism to a "mere hobby"... But then, since I do not need an army to love my family, support my local community or devote myself to a job I love every single day of the week, I suppose in your view that makes these things just "hobbies" as well?

I guess I'm just not the kind of person who views the world in terms of "-isms." As long as anarchism and pacifism are viewed only in terms of Theories To Be Imposed On Others, rather than values for which one faces the daily grind with joy and optimism, I suppose there will always be folks who think you need violence to accomplish your goals. I'm glad I'm not carrying that burden around with me, is really all I'm saying. :)

Are you implying there's some inherent contradiction? ;) Certainly not! In fact, I think it's sad that when most people think of "anarchist," they imagine angry young men dressed in black going around destroying property.

Really, anarchism is all about personal responsibility and direct community engagement... and since pacifism shares some of the same basic premises (e.g. personal responsibility in acting nonviolently and with loving-kindness; community engagement as essential to the process of creative peace-making), they have far more overlap and mutually supportive values than most people would first assume. Still, if you wanted to pick two political views that were the most misunderstood and misrepresented among the general population, you really couldn't do better than anarchy and pacifism. :)

Awesome! And just so you know, Jason, if you ever need a voice to represent the pacifistic anarchist contingent, I'm your girl. ;)

I have to agree with Jake here, Bellamy - it seems a bit unfair to blame Corban-Arthen alone for the divisiveness and controversy over community- and self-identity among Pagans when this has been a defining characteristic of the Pagan community for quite a while. I distinctly remember, ten years ago when first exploring nature-based spirituality, being confused by people's use of terms. None of the Wiccans I knew in person self-identified as "Pagan," (but often preferred the word Witch) while Pagans I knew often held a disdain for Wiccans that seemed unjustified considering often what they practiced seemed, frankly, very similar.

To their credit, the various incarnations of and communities within Paganism seem on the whole to be quite comfortable admitting to their relative newness, having gotten over the days of fabricating lineage and constantly referencing the Burning Times as a way of seeking religious authenticity and legitimacy. Obviously the topic still pushes buttons for some; plus, I suspect it will eventually just be inconvenient to keep referring to religious movements as "new" once they've been around in the public eye for several generations (then I suppose we'll have to add "post-NRM" to vocabulary that already includes postmodern and post-9/11). But to me, the issues of newness and legitimacy should take a backseat to the issue of what counts as "indigenous" and exactly how we continue to identify with particular local cultures (such as pre-Christian European cultures) in a world that is increasingly organized on a global scale. I'm not sure I even disagree that Paganism should or at least usually does refer to European-specific traditions... but I think the implications of such a definition warrant examination.

On the one hand, I've never been one to feel the pressing need to include absolutely everyone under one umbrella term. So what if some people don't end up counting as "Pagan"? On the other hand, I think what should take primary importance is people's right to "choose their own name," so to speak, and self-identify with whatever religious term they think best suits. In order for people to do this in a way that is helpful and illuminating for others as well as for themselves, however, we have to keep having these kinds of conversations. I don't think we should expect such controversies to die down any time soon.

Hmm... coolness.

Trying to decide if I like this or not...

This is a test....