I would like to share a summary of a conversation I recently had with a friend, and fellow Hellenist. He is finding himself out of favor within certain circles of Hellenics, Religio Romana, and “progressive” Kemetics. These circles would prefer practicing an open-ended, complex mixture of beliefs, rather than a reconstruction of the culturally specific religions they claim to adhere.

This is nothing less than an attempt to undefine Reconstructionist religions. They promote an idea anyone should be able to call anything by any name without judgments held against them for being intellectually dishonest, impious, or hubris. They adamantly reject the suggestion that the Gods will abandon religions that are not sacred. They seem shocked that someone would not accept certain religions or syncretisms as true. These individuals cannot get it in their heads that if the Gods reject your religion then your religion will die. If your religion becomes totally unlike the Gods then the Gods will not accept it. They seem unwilling to take the warnings from the ancient works. They are blind to the validation of this from the end of the Pagan era, when religious practices became such a mishmash that Christianity overtook the Roman Empire, and examples such as the Oracle declaring the God would no longer speak at Delphi.

It was the chaotic mixture of practices, during the time when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of Rome that caused the polytheist religions to fall. In contrast, those in the rural areas, who piously kept true to tradition, held strong and had to be forced to convert. The beliefs and practices of the urban (so-called) intellectual centers became too confusing and too splintered to operate as a cohesive religion, and devotion to the Gods began to crumble. Christianity did not overtake Paganism because it was more powerful, more enlightened, or more correct, but rather the polytheistic religions degenerated to the point the Gods abandoned them. They were no longer sacred.

With this being the case, what would cause these modern polytheists to get disgruntled with the opinions and beliefs of another?

I believe it comes from either a lack of understanding or an unwillingness to accept piety. Each of the cultures discussed enforced piety in their own way, but for the same basic reason: to keep the favor of the Gods. Piety just seems to be “too Christian” for many western polytheists. Yet, piety is the foundation of all polytheistic religions, from the surviving practices in the East to the ancient pre-Christian Greek, Egyptian, Vedic, Roman and Norse traditions. These people who reject the idea of religious obligation are fundamentally throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Try to discuss piety and watch some people become twisted. Very large segments of polytheists in the west do not want any link between religion and obligation. Tell them that, as an orthopraxy, tradition dictates this or that (and they do not want to do this or that) and you will see steam spew from their ears and heads will roll. You will get a similar reaction if you discuss hubris or vice. Westerners want their polytheism nonjudgmental at all levels.

While selectively condemning religious obligation and moral enthusiasm as too Christian, many western Polytheists and Neopagans seem to become polytheists and Neopagans not because they have issues with Christian beliefs, but because they have an issue with Christian morality. They do not want to be judged. This is why you will find many of them having no issues with the God of Abraham, the Bible, or the many specific (anti-polytheist) beliefs of Christianity, and may even embrace some of these beliefs themselves. What they in fact accept as true is that Christian leaders, throughout history, distorted the “true” message of Christianity and Jesus. This is where you will get comments like, “don’t blame Jesus for what his followers have done.”

Additionally, most of these people are anti-establishment, anti-authority, and anti-society. In the west, it would seem, most who are attracted to the minority religions are on the fringe of society (regardless of social class), and embrace what they perceive as the fringe in an attempt to perpetuate a certain image. They believe polytheistic religions are everything they are, and it becomes a shock when they find out that moral enthusiasm, religious obligation, and maintaining social order is a mandate.

We can probably thank the Christian tenet “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” that has been generationally engrained into our thinking, for this idea. Some people take this thought, that no one has the right to judge the actions of another, to such an extreme they paint those who make moral stands as close-minded, bigoted, and intolerant. This has become an exceedingly pervasive idea with western Polytheists and Neopagans. While sometimes talking a good game regarding religious principles, some self-identified Hellenics fundamentally reject tradition, ethics, society, and even the family as core essential aspects of Hellenismos.

Why? …because it would mean that morality and obligation would become fundamental to practice. They would be accountable for their actions within their chosen religion. It would mean that they would have to think beyond themselves and to the greater good. Their vice would no longer be a personal choice, but an identifiable moral wrong. This is why I constantly push not to buy what the snake-oil salesman is selling. Beware the self-anointed spiritual leaders.

The rejection of tradition, ethics, the family, and society is fundamentally unHellenic. Even the famous atheists of ancient times did not reject these tenets, seeing them as fundamentally Hellenic and an essential aspect to an evolved civilization. Maybe this is more a symptom of our modern western society, but many people believe that they can choose to behave anyway they want and still not be judged for it. The irony is that in all the ancient religions (such as Hellenismos, Asatru, Kemeticism, Religio Romana, Canaanite, and Celtic) there was an emphasis on tradition and religious obligations, living a right life in accord to that which is moral, and bringing benefit not only to oneself, but also to one’s family and society.

This is why I believe we have an obligation to challenge whether what some people are promoting is Hellenismos or not. I have found it to be typical that the same people who reject ethics, family, and society as a foundation for Hellenismos, also reject its orthopraxy. They use the innovative flexibility of Hellenic orthopraxy to validate fundamental changes in practice, just as they use the idea of no rigid theology to incorporate “foolish beliefs” (as Sallustius would say). If a person has taken the time to research the ancient Greeks, and knows the practices, thought, and ethics, it makes one wonder why they would hold to a label that does not truly fit them. There is a hubris in their attitude thinking they know better, or that they have been granted some special insight or understanding. Challenging them will have them crying foul, and will make you unpopular with them. You just have to ask yourself, “Whose favor are you trying to gain?”

Tags: Asatru, Celtic, Christian, Ethics, family, Hellenismos, impiety, judgment, Kemeticism, morality, Neopagans, orthopraxy, piety, Polytheists, Reconstructionism, Religio Romana, religious obligation, society, tradition, vice