John C. Wright on Paganism and Neo-Paganism

John C. Wright on Paganism and Neo-Paganism October 3, 2013

I seem to have missed it at the time it was posted (or else I am getting senile and have forgotten it) but anyway, John offers his inimitable reflections on paganism and on the pretend game of dress-up that is silly post-Christian neo-paganism. Makes me proud to be a member of the extremely exclusive Wright/Shea Mutual Admiration Society. I’d tell you how to join, but then I’d have to kill you.

"Well. Religion is interesting. :)"

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"But you're searching and questioning …. and, in Jack's experience, people without any sense of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"I'm very sorry to hear about your illness. Of course I hope the cancer never ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"A "hard Brexit" will never happen. Britain will leave with a deal of some sort. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • HornOrSilk

    CS Lewis described the difference as between virgin and widow…

  • Rosemarie


    Actually, you did post something about this a year ago:

    • kenofken

      Yes, he did, but it’s always a great go-to piece on days when you have nothing worthwhile to say about your own religion. Wright’s piece was a sad and lazy piece of writing then, and it’s gained nothing by the passage of a year.

      • John-C-Wright

        Sad but true, perhaps. Lazy, not at all. Lazy is making a formless accusation, as you have done, calling something ‘lazy’ (which could mean anything or could mean nothing) without having the gumption or wit to voice an honest disagreement.

        • kenofken

          I engaged your writing at some length a year ago, and gave form to my accusation. I’ll give it again. Your piece on this matter was lazy. Making sweeping conclusions about an entire religious movement (very diverse religions), based entirely on one anecdotal observation of casual acquaintances sometime in 1980-something?), is lazy, at best. It ranks you as a genius among your co-religionists who were already invested in the pre-determined outcome of your “research”, but it wouldn’t get you a mid-C in a community college 101 writing class, let alone any serious scholarly circles.

          Based on your methodology, I could easily find some CINO, Moral Therapeutic Deism Catholics (I could find many millions of them, in fact), and based on that proclaim that Catholicism has no moral gravity or theological substance to offer. Theological and social criticism is easy when you take care not to do any research that might contradict or complicate your thesis.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Neo-pagans just played too much D&D and fell in. 😉

  • Barbara

    I used to be a Neopagan and I agree with John. Neopaganism is a mish mash of new age tropes and sanitized myths set on an unacknowledged base of Christian humanism. If you want to know what real pagan cults were like, read Lewis’ book Till We Have Faces…blood sacrifices, terrifying devouring gods, a holy terror of offending the divine through the material that makes superstition look like a child’s fear of a shadow…