Modernization

[Labrys]

No, Arx (good to see you here, btw!), I haven't read Hines.
I can't even get my tea strainer brain to cough up why his name sounds familiar to me.  (Perhaps I am achieving that age where EVERYthing simply sounds familiar??)

I do think the silly re-write of history with Luddite additions is not conducive to much besides the "let's all be vampyres" symposiums one runs across online (and at pagan gathers, alas), and a misiniformation cycle the old Soviets would envy. 

What is beginning to bother me is the sneaking suspicion that it isn't all fluffy book ignorance; some of it now seems a willful dive into fantasy that is guided by psychological denial.  I think it could be carrying the 'fake it till you make it' technique to unintended extremes.
Psychological denial comes from fear---from flight from  reality.  Healthy people do not necessarily make "flight" their first choice, so I wonder what societal forces are really operative in the more idiotic of pagan....and non-pagan trends.

The millenialism and Rapture-ready sort of thinking you see in some strands of Christianity strike me as the same sort of escapism.  Neopagans appear to want to mentally time-machine it back to a non-existent past bliss; monotheistic fundies want to go out in a blaze of glory and watch their  many enemies suffer in the afterlife.  But both ends of the spectrum seem to share a desire to run away from the real.

There are days when it makes even me wish for a comfortable hiding hole, because if there is something THAT scary "out there" in my world, how do I know that I am ready to face it?  Of course, then I remind myself that nobody is ever ready enough for every variety of real; so just brace up and go for it.

[Arx]

The millenialism and Rapture-ready sort of thinking you see in some strands of Christianity strike me as the same sort of escapism.  Neopagans appear to want to mentally time-machine it back to a non-existent past bliss; monotheistic fundies want to go out in a blaze of glory and watch their  many enemies suffer in the afterlife.  But both ends of the spectrum seem to share a desire to run away from the real.

I've noticed the similarities myself. It's really not that surprising when one considers the fact that many Wiccans, Pagans etc were brought up in fundamentalist Christian societies. Leaving the mentality takes a two-fold leap though - a leap which many only make the first part of. The first step is the obvious movement away from Christianity. The oft forgotten second step is the movement away from fundamentalism. Thus we find ourselves faced with an increasing number of Pagans who may have changed their clothing (religion) but retain the same core beneath - that of fundamentalism and willful ignorance of reality.
Consider also that such individuals are brought up in a religion where they are encouraged to blindly believe in something without the need for requisite proofs as well as the evils of the modern world and one starts to see the influences behind the behaviour and attitudes of many Pagans.

The more I ponder the situation, the more I feel convinced that the larger part of the problem is the base cultural learnings. I'd hedge a pretty big bet that the mature Ex-Christian Pagans one meets would have originally been mature Christians. Thus it is the base intrinsic attitudes of the individual that influences their outlook regardless of religion. And it just so happens that be base attitudes of many pagans out there were shaped by fundamentalist upbringings. Those base attitudes tend to be:

- Favouring instant acceptance over skeptisism (as evident in blind acceptance of books or taught information).
- Belief in the corruptness and wrongness of the modern world and thus a distrust of its creations.
- As an extension of the above, a belief in a return to a supposed ideal golden age that once existed but due to modern corruption no longer exists.
- Instilled distrust of science as an explaining force for much of reality.
- In-group elitism and alternating sympathy or contempt for those outside the group. Contempt is generally based on their lack of awareness of one's truths. Sympathy is usually seen as a desire to help them "understand" or to "save" them from their misguided behaviours.
- A belief in an overwhelming antagonistic force counter to the faith one belongs to.

Funnily enough, many pagans apply such attitudes to their former religion - replacing "devious" science or secular beliefs with the malicious "Church" as the causer of all problems. Wicca may not include an "antagonistic force" but a quick glance reveals that many Wiccans and Pagans 'demonise' the Church - thus the Church and its servants become the replacement for Satan and his demonic minions.

It's almost as if the structure has stayed the same and all that's changed has been the contents of each room.

Just some more random thoughts.
-Arx-

[Labrys]

 I'd hedge a pretty big bet that the mature Ex-Christian Pagans one meets would have originally been mature Christians.

I think I could take that bet.  Psychology tells us that ideally, people take what they have learned by rote as children, at some point, and individualize it---analyze and examine it to "own" it fully.  This is what creates maturity...in any area of life, be it religion, politics, or doing your chores instead of being a slob.  I was brought up in a household of such disparate ideas that I had to closely examine both and come up with my own at an early age. 

And it just so happens that be base attitudes of many pagans out there were shaped by fundamentalist upbringings. Those base attitudes tend to be:

- Favouring instant acceptance over skeptisism (as evident in blind acceptance of books or taught information).

I think a part of this is also not so much what is taught, but what is easy---that ever popular logical error called "appeal to authority"...whether the sated authority knows jack about the subject at hand.

- Belief in the corruptness and wrongness of the modern world and thus a distrust of its creations.
- As an extension of the above, a belief in a return to a supposed ideal golden age that once existed but due to modern corruption no longer exists.
- Instilled distrust of science as an explaining force for much of reality.

This last one particularly appeals to the would-be escapists.  Can't have the fantasy upset by anything real.

- In-group elitism and alternating sympathy or contempt for those outside the group. Contempt is generally based on their lack of awareness of one's truths. Sympathy is usually seen as a desire to help them "understand" or to "save" them from their misguided behaviours.

I can be pretty contemptuous myself, willful idiocy pisses me off past words!  I don't think the sympathy part of this little equation is often the real thing---I think it is a straight out will-to-power that old Friedrich would have no trouble recognizing.  Also, this has some interesting variations in the pagan community.  Anyone insisting on some critical thinking gets called an "elitist" as if it is a dirty word indeed.  And then, those of us so accused usually respond by calling the other side "sheeple" or something similarly dismissive.  I may be a nasty elitist, lol, but I am almost more concerned with WHY someone takes a stand when they do it than WHAT that stand is---too much Kant?  But having said all that, this is not a mea culpa; I do not consider valid considered judgment an error, but a necessity.

- A belief in an overwhelming antagonistic force counter to the faith one belongs to.

I ran across this idea in an interesting place this week...in one of the books on Comanche history.  The writer was discussing Christianity, and stated that it had been on shaky ground from the start because it "always needed an external enemy"...I was thunder-struck to see it so opening in a basically non-religious concept.  But yes, this has its pagan components as well.  All the ones screaming "Never the burning times, again!" make me wonder how they would cope with a post-Christian age where nobody gave a hoot how you worshiped?

We redecorate our rooms, and our minds.  Sometimes with a similar lack of careful thought and planning.  A favorite old sci-fi book took this to task; a genetically engineered race disappointed its human designers and were confined to a "reservation" to have their own culture.  And these new people carefully chose what they would and would not have, they particularly examined the differences between mere change and real progress!

[Morgaine]

Greetings,

I agree that a spiritual path that cannot meet the needs of the present is nothing more than a museum piece... however, I think too often the call to modernize happens at the first difficult challenge, and is more often a means of avoiding hard work than it is a real necessity.

I don't know anything about "Recon" groups first hand, but my own experience is filled with people who object to traditional ways before they've really learned and tried them. Traditional ways are of value in two ways: (1) as tools for effecting positive personal and collective growth, spiritual connection, and self-transformation, and (2) as windows into the basic worldview and history upon which our path is based.

You cannot improve what you do not understand.

When one has done the work and explored the possibilities with an open mind, then one is prepared to make positive changes and will know when changes are actually needed. This is all too rare.

Of course, some people resent change because they feel a loss of control when confronted with it. It is these people whom I find most frustrating... As for using archaic language... if it is eloquent, effective, and honest I don't much care whether it's modern or archaic. In my view what's important is that it works for the person using it.

So that's my two cents!

[Labrys]

I don't know about modernization as a way of avoiding hard work.  I don't work with groups and am thus deprived that particular issue.  All my work is hard---I am the only one to do all of it.

I simply think archaic forms for their own sake are worse than merely "quaint" or "tourist cute" because language is a kind of "shaping" so far as my own practice goes.  I do not think in archaic language, it would make as much sense as trying to shop using my out-of-practice German in a German shop where their English is better than my Deutsch!  So, for my practice, I need to use language that ignites all the right neurons, not the ones that ignite the "WTF was the old word for that??" ones!

But, as I have thought more on this in the months since my posting, two things have come to me.  I think the reason for old language is not totally invalid---it is a way for our very "unhallowed" world of hard and fast rules of logic and science to re-sacralize in our heads.  In other words, if we talk as they did when the world WAS still a magical, sacred place, it will be thus again.  Or so I assume the goal to be...at least partially.

But for me, the world never stopped being that way; thus I need no special terminology to feel steeped in the mystical, the magical, the powerful.  What I feel a modern need for, instead, is for more of the world to recognize that it NEEDS to recognize that magical component of life.  It has been surgically cut away over the last few centuries, and not all that was excised was the spiritual/mental cancer that was the operative idea back in the Enlightenment. Setting up "science" as a new godling, a new faith, did not solve all the issues that sent people to their knees in church or to the groves in the woods to dance 'round fires at midnight.

I am one of those who feels ANY tool that works on a problem is a good one.  But first, know truly what the problem is, or NO tool is remedy. 

[RedRonin]

What I feel a modern need for, instead, is for more of the world to recognize that it NEEDS to recognize that magical component of life.

BINGO!!!!!

Historically, the old gets pushed out of the way to make room for the "new and improved" gods.  Cripes, just look at the way cell phones have taken over.  Wanna bring society to it's knees?  Just pop an EMP and watch the masses try to just talk to each other.

I am one of those who feels ANY tool that works on a problem is a good one.  But first, know truly what the problem is, or NO tool is remedy.

Alas........  so many looking for the answers when they don't really have a clue as to what the real questions are.  Lots of time lost that way....

[Labrys]

  Cripes, just look at the way cell phones have taken over.  Wanna bring society to it's knees?  Just pop an EMP and watch the masses try to just talk to each other.

Playing on that card...a bit of time in traffic with a half dozen idiots glued to their cellphones makes you wish EMP was invokable!

Alas........  so many looking for the answers when they don't really have a clue as to what the real questions are.  Lots of time lost that way....

Ah, yes.  And sadly, many simply decide since they don't know what they want, they must therefore 'have it all'...whatever that means.

[blackhawk53]

while I don't claim to have a shamanistic back ground I will admit to a small ritual that I often do in the early morning before deer hunting in Ohio and Pennsylvania, does that count?

[Labrys]

while I don't claim to have a shamanistic back ground I will admit to a small ritual that I often do in the early morning before deer hunting in Ohio and Pennsylvania, does that count?

Well, it certainly could trace its roots to a shamanic connection.  Much of ancient shamanism had to do with making peace with the necessarily hunted animals that a people could depend upon.

[An Daghdha]

while I don't claim to have a shamanistic back ground I will admit to a small ritual that I often do in the early morning before deer hunting in Ohio and Pennsylvania, does that count?

THANK YOU! And no.

[An Daghdha]

But this is the issue: neopaganism seems to have a fair share of folks claiming a shamanic tradition.  But then they start to blather on about "finding game, helping the hunters feed the tribe" and other such nonsensical (to me!) tripe that sounds like it is out of a fantasy novel instead of real life.  Sure, historically, shamans of many traditions round the world DID that....and healed, and acted as a psychopomp.

LoL well firstly, I think they should get their terminology straight, unless you're living within a tribe within the Tungus region of Siberia, you're not a Shaman and you're not Shamanic. It's just that simple, you can be Shamanistic, if you wanna stretch the term, though personally I prefer "This religion is ecstatic", over calling it something which is culturally inaccurate, many I know especially the Lokata, call this "Cultural rape", and I don't see how anyone who understands what Shamanism actually is, could disagree and call the Lakota holy men or what have you, Shamans. One of the biggest kicks I ever got at the Civic Center here in Rapid City S.D. was when a white dude walked up to one of the holy men and called him a "Shaman", and asked how he could be a Shaman too...Haha! I honestly thought there was gonna be a fight.

But NOW, any "shaman" who can legitimately claim they help "the tribe to find game" is almost surely not living in urban or suburban America or Europe....nor likely to be conversing online.  Unless that "game" is which stock tip to follow, or what produce sale to run to, that is!

No - Probably not, nor would I expect a Shaman in Siberia to refer to what he does for his people as 'giving them game'. Haha, that's good, I once had a new comer to Druidism ask me if I had earned my Lv. 7 staff of destruction. 

Why is it any tradition that has even one foot in a reconstructionist camp or the slightest revival of the past cannot get over the past?  Is there no modern language for it now that we find our culture possibly contemplating a post-Christian era---what does a modern day shaman do?  Myself, I can only say the thing generally labeled "psychopomp" seems to be the whole gig; and being alone and initiate only of my own dreams and study, I can't even be sure I get that "right" all the time.  Now and then, yes, it seems I must have succeeded, but certainty is never mine.

LoL, it's not that we (Being both a Celtic recon. and an Irish traditionalist) "can't get over the past". To me, a strong knowledge of the history of any path is the foundation of a strong education of said path, be that path a reconstructionist path, Wiccan, Hindu, Shinto, or what ever the case may be. Now, I don't foresee any Post Christian era happening anytime soon, but I will say that any Reconstructionist community, be it Celtic, Heathen, Greek, Roman, Kemetic, or what have you, have ways of finding new knowledge, which is generally what is found through a scholarly study of the culture. With the statement above, made as such, I can't help but wonder if you are completely aware of what Reconstruction actually is?

Is this why others who claim to have shared my sort of experience cling to prettified language of centuries past?  Is it a comfort?  Is it bull***t?  And it isn't only shamanism that seems to have this difficulty; I see it too often in reconstructionist fields with almost the same level of mind-numbing irrelevancy.  If you cannot modernize a religion that once required slaughter of 20 oxen to speak to the requisite God, for instance, exactly what is being accomplished except reification of the past without any modern recourse or remedy?  How is pagan orthodoxy on this level any better than monotheistic orthodoxy that is perhaps beginning to choke relevancy out of some of the Big Five Faiths?

Wow - OK once again I have to ask if you understand what Reconstruction actually is. I am an avid practitioner of ritual sacrifice on the fire festivals, I find the practice to be far more humane than those of the local slaughter house. The point of reconstruction is to create a practice as closely related to those of the ancestors as we possibly can. Now my question would be, who ever claimed any Pagan religion was supposed to be any "better" than monotheism? That is quite simply your own gnosis and not rooted in anything any more deep than your own preconceived notions of how things should be, reminiscent somewhat of the rest of your post.

On languages, it is simply a part of the path, especially that of traditionalists. On a practical note, it is much easier to read a manuscript once in Gaelic than to read 15 different translations in English to get that deeper feel of what the author was trying to portray. The study of the language is only irrelevant for the lazy.

Can't neo-pagans move forward instead of backwards?  

When asked if my path is ancient or modern, I have to say - that it is both and it is neither, it is rooted in that of my ancestors, the Irish, though it is commonly centered around my modern life. This isn't living in the past, this is using the past to identify with the future. It cracks me up to see people dismiss that truth.

While we're asking questions, why is learning history, tradition, and language threatening to anyone or anything? If it's not for you, keep away from it, seems fairly simple to me.

[An Daghdha]

while I don't claim to have a shamanistic back ground I will admit to a small ritual that I often do in the early morning before deer hunting in Ohio and Pennsylvania, does that count?

Well, it certainly could trace its roots to a shamanic connection.  Much of ancient shamanism had to do with making peace with the necessarily hunted animals that a people could depend upon.

Where could I read more on the practices of 'Ancient Shamanism'?

[Labrys]

LoL well firstly, I think they should get their terminology straight, unless you're living within a tribe within the Tungus region of Siberia, you're not a Shaman and you're not Shamanic. It's just that simple, you can be Shamanistic, if you wanna stretch the term, though personally I prefer "This religion is ecstatic", over calling it something which is culturally inaccurate, many I know especially the Lokata, call this "Cultural rape", and I don't see how anyone who understands what Shamanism actually is, could disagree and call the Lakota holy men or what have you, Shamans. One of the biggest kicks I ever got at the Civic Center here in Rapid City S.D. was when a white dude walked up to one of the holy men and called him a "Shaman", and asked how he could be a Shaman too...Haha! I honestly thought there was gonna be a fight.

Well, I am of two minds on the semantics of the situation.  Indians do not call their tribal holy men and women shamans, of course.  But the term  HAS been used, and everyone knows what it means....that does count for something.  And even Indian writers use it for ease of meaning to not have to waste pages and pages writing out all the varied terms used by the actual tribes of America---among others, Paula Gunn Allen used the term for ease of discussion.

LoL, it's not that we (Being both a Celtic recon. and an Irish traditionalist) "can't get over the past". To me, a strong knowledge of the history of any path is the foundation of a strong education of said path, be that path a reconstructionist path, Wiccan, Hindu, Shinto, or what ever the case may be. Now, I don't foresee any Post Christian era happening anytime soon, but I will say that any Reconstructionist community, be it Celtic, Heathen, Greek, Roman, Kemetic, or what have you, have ways of finding new knowledge, which is generally what is found through a scholarly study of the culture. With the statement above, made as such, I can't help but wonder if you are completely aware of what Reconstruction actually is?

Perhaps it is not that I am unaware of what Reconstruction is so much as one's experience of it depends on which Recons one meets.  I am a huge advocate of knowing history...being an amateur historian in many fields is a hobby of mine.  But to be engaged in trying to LIVE the past rather than simply knowing it?  That kind of Recon who wants to re-create the past in a modern world has been my unfortunate experience.

Wow - OK once again I have to ask if you understand what Reconstruction actually is. I am an avid practitioner of ritual sacrifice on the fire festivals, I find the practice to be far more humane than those of the local slaughter house. The point of reconstruction is to create a practice as closely related to those of the ancestors as we possibly can. Now my question would be, who ever claimed any Pagan religion was supposed to be any "better" than monotheism? That is quite simply your own gnosis and not rooted in anything any more deep than your own preconceived notions of how things should be, reminiscent somewhat of the rest of your post.

See above.  I have met many re-cons of various paths..from Nordic to Greek.  I find it sad, for instance, that some of the Greeks do not actually practice at all, because "We can't do it as it was then, so there is no point in doing it at all."  Now THAT is just a case of paralysis because of the perception of a "proper" way to resurrect a religion.
My point is that preconceived notions are what gets  in the WAY of actual reconstruction practices in at least 50% of the groups I have encountered.  I entered paganism in very solitary fashion, not even knowing at the time that a neo-pagan community existed.  I had no preconceptions of how to do it, I simply began and moved forward with old beliefs in a new context.

While we're asking questions, why is learning history, tradition, and language threatening to anyone or anything? If it's not for you, keep away from it, seems fairly simple to me.

I really don't know where you got that I found any of those things "threatening"....talk about some pre-conceptions!  What I find annoying is that many recons I have met never move beyond that, they make that the entire gist of their practice.  If the Catholic Church gets dinged (and it does) for not being "current" in direction and practice, why should not a pagan question whether studying the past and simply reifying it instead of updating?  To be told that one is "threatened" by the study of the past when asking valid questions about relevance is pretty insulting, it is like telling a doctor that using modern anesthesia instead of ether means he doesn't respect the medical history of his art.

[Labrys]

Where could I read more on the practices of 'Ancient Shamanism'?

I don't know what you mean by "ancient" in the statement, precisely.  Shamanism is in league with animism and other very old practices and it varies continent to continent and tribe to tribe, but has commonalities regardless of the title given to the practicianer.

A partial list of where my own grasp of shamanic practice is possible, unfortunately, some of my books have gone "borrowed-missing" including two by South African practicianers, and my copy of Mircea Eliade's book on the topic. 

"Shamans, Siberian Spirituality & the Western Imagination" by Ronald Hutton did a very thorough and succinct job of correcting some of the generalizations present in Eliade's book.

"How the Shaman Stole the Moon" by Wm. Calvin provided a refreshing look into the "science" of shamanic practice.

Margot Adler's "Drawing Down the Moon" adequately discusses the shamanic aspects of several pagan traditions.

"Greek Folk Religion" by Martin Nilsson is not about the hopped up city/polis practices of places like Athens, but about the simple country practices that share more with shamanic beginnings.

"Five Stages of Greek Religion" by Gilbert Murray further solidified my image of the bare beginnings of Greek polytheism as beginning in a more pantheistic-shamanic tradition. (tho' I may be mixing in some of Walter Burkert in memory here)

"Pagans & Christians" by Gus DiZerega likewise discusses the concepts of shamanic relations to modern neo-pagan faiths.
"Entering the Circle" by Olga Kharitidi discusses especially relevant Siberian shamanism in the 20th century, as she witnessed its current practice.
"The Kalavala"..the national Finnish epic speaks to me not only as literature, but as history of the practices of ancient times and it can be lyrical as well as literal about practices preserved in such works.

Also, "The Sacred Hoop" by Paula Gunn Allen speaks of many practices lost in the conquest and colonization of the Americas...tho' it is a bit tangential in  approach.

Numerous other books have small mention or refer to it, not only books on religion, but historical books as well.  But since I have a garden pathway to dig up and re-set, I don't intend to spend all day here typing.  This most immediate memory-list will have to do.

(In addition, I am hampered by the fact that several publications I had on shamanism are no longer mine because I mailed them off to pagan groups of troops in Iraq, when they appealed for relevant printed material that they had no access to while in the war zone. Most of what I sent them was modern publications on re-creating shamanic practice in day to day life)

[An Daghdha]

Well, I am of two minds on the semantics of the situation.  Indians do not call their tribal holy men and women shamans, of course.  But the term  HAS been used, and everyone knows what it means....that does count for something.  And even Indian writers use it for ease of meaning to not have to waste pages and pages writing out all the varied terms used by the actual tribes of America---among others, Paula Gunn Allen used the term for ease of discussion.

There are no Semantics here, only simple statements of fact. Yes I am aware that there are some 'Lakota' writers who claim to be giving the secret oral teachings of Lakota 'Shamans' away to the public in writing, though the actual Nations call these people 'Plastic Shamans', seeing as how they don't do that. After Allen published the work called the 'Sacred Hoop' she was opened up to as much criticism as any one of the others. If you want to know how the Lakota feel about these things, you should read the Lakota declaration of war.

The term has been used yes - by anthropologists, but that argument carries you only so far. Firstly, anthropologists are not following the practice it's self, they're not converting to what they call 'Shamanism'. It is a scientific study. Secondly, anthropology doesn't make the claim that the Lakota (to use the same example) were/are Shamans, they say Native Americans were a 'Shamanic' (bleh) people. Tell a Native American that hes a Shaman, then explain what a Shaman actually is, and does, 9 times out of ten his response will be, 'I don't do that', or why am I being grouped with these people? Every culture has their own word(s) for their Priests, I can only think of one that ever called them 'Shamans'.

Perhaps it is not that I am unaware of what Reconstruction is so much as one's experience of it depends on which Recons one meets.  I am a huge advocate of knowing history...being an amateur historian in many fields is a hobby of mine.  But to be engaged in trying to LIVE the past rather than simply knowing it?  That kind of Recon who wants to re-create the past in a modern world has been my unfortunate experience.

Well, there is always that, though I myself have met several Hellenists that bugged me to know end, I have met many Wiccans who irritated me so bad I could just reach through the computer and strangle them, yet I blame the actions of the individual, not the religion.

Is there not something to be said for 'living' the path? I get to watch the kids around here relive the 1st and 2nd battles of Moytura every Samhain, I live the past every time I recite the two classes of poetry, or hear it from a skilled Fili. Again it is the path we take, what better way to understand the past than by living it? As long as you can live the present and future as well.

See above.  I have met many re-cons of various paths..from Nordic to Greek.  I find it sad, for instance, that some of the Greeks do not actually practice at all, because "We can't do it as it was then, so there is no point in doing it at all."  Now THAT is just a case of paralysis because of the perception of a "proper" way to resurrect a religion.
My point is that preconceived notions are what gets  in the WAY of actual reconstruction practices in at least 50% of the groups I have encountered.  I entered paganism in very solitary fashion, not even knowing at the time that a neo-pagan community existed.  I had no preconceptions of how to do it, I simply began and moved forward with old beliefs in a new context.

We all have our preconceived notions, the trick however is to not grip them to tightly. I suppose it is something like holding on to a lost lover, in the end, it only gives you pain. I haven't actually seen that argument (the Greeks I mean) but yes, it is a sad sounding scenario (say that fast three times). I would argue however, that my own preconceived notion, is that there is a 'proper' way to resurrect a religion, the paralysis you highlighted certainly isn't it. Reconstruction, is a way of resurrecting (for want of a more accurate term) a horribly burnt past from the embers of what remains. Nothing in any reality to my mind could be more horrifying that loosing one's past.

I really don't know where you got that I found any of those things "threatening"....talk about some pre-conceptions!  What I find annoying is that many recons I have met never move beyond that, they make that the entire gist of their practice.  If the Catholic Church gets dinged (and it does) for not being "current" in direction and practice, why should not a pagan question whether studying the past and simply reifying it instead of updating?  To be told that one is "threatened" by the study of the past when asking valid questions about relevance is pretty insulting, it is like telling a doctor that using modern anesthesia instead of ether means he doesn't respect the medical history of his art.

A legitimate question generally is not insulting to those who can answer it, it generally does not come in the form of a rant against an entire community. If you want to want to be seen as simply asking a question about the practices of others, then by all means do so, but if you mean to come across like we're all fluffs and out to get all of you "sensible" folk, then be ready for the backlash. On the "threatened" thing, I simply go by what you wrote, that's really all I have to go on, I take things at face value, and exactly as they are written. As I said before, I like everyone else do have my preconceived notions, my interpretation of your post wasn't one of them.