Queer I Stand
My Religion Is Reasonable; Yours Is Insane
An incident from "Real Time with Bill Maher" from 2006 sticks out in my mind as an interesting case-in-point for one of the difficulties of discussing religion generally, but in particular in understanding the difference between creedal religions (like Christianity and Islam) and practical/experiential ones (like modern Paganism and polytheism). In that particular episode, Bill was joined by Sandy Rios, Reza Aslan, and Bradley Whitford, and they were discussing points related to the recent (at that time) documentary Jesus Camp and "religious fanaticism." You can see a clip of this section of the show here.
While there's a great deal that would be worth discussing (and correcting) in this particular segment, a comment by Bradley Whitford that starts at about 7:30 on this clip has stuck with me as a fundamental misunderstanding about religion. Bill Maher is arguing (just before this) that "people talk to God," but that there is no "God" to talk back to people, and so there's a gap which is then filled with human ideas, including ideas about killing people of other religions. Bradley Whitford (who identifies as a liberal Episcopalian) then said that "belief" bridges that gap, so that someone who says they "believe" that Jesus is the "Son of God" (like him!) is somehow reasonable (because, it is implied, of the uncertainty inherent in the notion of belief), whereas someone who says that they "know" Jesus is the Son of God is "schizophrenic." Thunderous applause and approval by Bill Maher follows this statement.
A great deal could be said at this stage about the atheist/agnostic context of these comments (as Maher is an atheist/agnostic), and a great deal more could be said about the differences between "orthodox" Christianity as it has come to be known over the last nearly-two-millennia and gnosis, as understood in other forms of early Christianity. But, gnosis and direct experience of the reality of different deities—or, to put it slightly differently and yet equivalently, of the reality of particular theologies—is at the very heart of polytheism, animism, and the religious sensibilities of many different traditions, including Hinduism, Shinto, all ancient forms of polytheism, and modern Paganism, amongst many others.
And yet, some of these very same types of debate are occurring right now in a variety of modern Pagan and polytheist groups. There is often an active disdain, perhaps masking a fear, of people who are mystics and who have direct experiences of various deities and other divine beings. It sometimes seems as though a sensibly ironic, distanced, philosophical, and overly-logical approach to religion is preferred in some of modern Paganism of various stripes, rather than the actual admission that yes, indeed, there are deities that exist and to which we are drawn.
I've also heard the statement from some that they are animists or polytheists, but they don't "worship" the gods or the spirits, as if worshipping or reverencing something greater than oneself is inherently wrong or demeaning. Again, I find this at great variance with many worldwide religious traditions that have no qualms about stating plainly and blatantly, with neither apology nor excuse, that divine entities deserve our worship. (The nuances and origins of the word "worship" would be instructive to investigate, but I will leave that aside for the present.)
P. Sufenas Virius Lupus is a metagender and a founding member of the Ekklesía Antínoou (a queer, Graeco-Roman-Egyptian syncretist reconstructionist polytheist religious group dedicated to Antinous, the deified lover of the Roman Emperor Hadrian and other related gods and divine figures). E is a contributing member of Neos Alexandria and a Celtic Reconstructionist pagan in the filidecht and gentlidecht traditions. Follow Lupus' work on the Aedicula Antinoi blog.