steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (11/10/89)
aem@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >I object to the use pagan, because while that may be a term that druids, >wiccans, and the like use for themselves, it does not imply >mystic/nature religions but all religions not clearly christian islamic >or jewish. I.e. it is, I feel, inappropriate. A newsgroup for such >groups would be fine, just under another name. It is, I believe, simply common courtesy to address an individual or group as they themselves prefer to be called. (This often gets carried to extreme lengths; as in addressing a dictator as "president for life"). Refusing to call a group by their own name often seems to me to reflect more on the biases of the refusing group than on the nature of the named group (for example, anti-abortion people often call those who disagree with them "pro-abortion"; though "pro-choice" is the term prefered by the other group). I also believe the term "pagan" to be anthropologically accurate; though the scientific definition may differ from that found in simple dictionaries.* It is, perhaps, unfortunate that dictionaries are in the business of documenting current usage, rather than accurate usage. I would imagine that the word "pagan" is commonly used, to a large extent, by people of a somewhat "fundamental" religious persuasion -- and then unflatteringly. Thus it enters the dictionary as such. Pity. ----- Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu * Would someone be so kind as to post the "pagan" entry found in, say, the unabridged Oxford dictionary -- or an anthropology textbook?