I've been around the web for a while, and seen my fair share of hate sites. I've looked at them from a bunch of different perspectives; as a Pagan, as a student of psychology and communications, as a webmaster, and as a person.

Some of them have been, at least, reasonable about it. They disagree with my religious philosophy, and make no qualms about it. Quoting scriptures to back them up, they believe they've got God on their side.

The ones that I dislike the most (and are, of course, correspondingly the least likely to change their tactics) are the sites that include downright lies, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Some of these sites cite several books as "proof." These normally fall into two categories. The first is normally written by evangelical ministers burning with zeal. (Given their predisposition against Paganism, I find it hard to consider them to be accurate and objective experts on the subject.) The distinguishing marks of the second category is that they are written by "ex-Witches" who have "been saved." They recount long, torrid stories of depravity and immorality, everything from bizarre sex acts to drugs to blood sacrifice.

Yes, I'll admit, not all Pagans are nice people. Sure, there are Pagans who murder, steal, etc. Then again, the same applies to all major religions. Christianity, simply due to its size, has a far from clean record.

The traditional defense of, "They aren't TRUE Christians (or Jews, or whatever)," has been cited. Okay, maybe that's true. What would your response be if we quoted the same back to you? If the arguement is valid in one direction, it should be valid in the other. After all, this is the age of equal rights, isn't it? Assuming that random extremes are the norm is a fallacy.

The topics of blood magic and sacrifice are always mentioned. Did they happen? In antiquity, certainly. Most religions had an element of blood or human sacrifice in them. Christianity is actually founded upon it. (And, if you believe in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantion, it is still an important feature to this day.) How prevalent was it? That comes into question. The Druids, for example, were painted as being particularly bloodthirsty. But when you stop and notice that all the references tend to come from Julius Caesar (who was at war with the Celts), the comments take on a different perspective. Would we believe what Hitler said about the Jews? Likewise, in many ancient cultures priests served as judges. As such, it would be their duty to dispense capital punishment to criminals.

Of course, that's an academic argument, since it is all in the past. Modern-day Paganism is as different from ancient Paganism as modern day Christianity is from its roots. We believe ourselves to have risen to a higher mentality, where we are able to make sacrifices of the spirit (fasting, vigils, etc.) instead of from the body.

But what about all the "Ritual Cult Killings"? Considering that FBI agent Kenneth Lanning debunked them, I'd say it's fairly safe to disbelieve in them. Does ritual abuse or killing happen? Yes, but in isolated incidents; stories of secret international baby-slaughtering cults are paranoid hogwash. Again, this violence is not limited to people claiming to be Pagans; I've seen reports in the news of people claiming to be from the more "mainstream" religions getting rather violent.

Of course, there's always Divine Scriptures. I've got two problems with that. Even if they were Divinely influenced (which I really don't doubt), they were written down by humans. How much was editted during the initial writing, or the time after they were written? (After all, some of them have been around for several thousand years, and some editting has been proven.) And it's easy to lose something in translation. (Didn't "Coke: Catch the Wave" get translated into "Bite the Wax Tadpole," or something like that?)

Secondly, there's a lot of book there. To quote a few lines (and out of context, normally) is an easy way to twist interpretations. Especially since there are many passages which seem to contradict each other.

"I think too many people presume to read the divine Scriptures, and fall into just such errors as this," said Patricius sternly. "Those who presume on their learning will learn, I trust, to listen to their priests for the true interpretations."

The Merlin smiled gently. "I cannot join you in your wish, brother. I am dedicated to the belief that it is God's will that all men should strive for wisdom themselves, not to look to is from some other. Babes, perhaps, must have their food chewed for them by a nurse, but men may drink and eat of wisdom for themselves."
-- Marion Zimmer Bradley, Mists of Avalon,p. 260

Return to the Sanctuary's Essays Page.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page