Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler Read Free Book Online

toward authoritarian cults.
    Ellwood sees polytheism in the United States as the “polytheism of the lonely poet” rather than that of the temple priest. It is epitomized by the lonely shaman, withdrawn from common feelings and goals. Such images are already staked out, Ellwood says; they can be seen in the personages of Ged in Ursula Le Guin’s Earthsea trilogy, Gandalf in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Don Juan in the series of books by Carlos Castaneda. These are all persons who form no lasting groups, have no lasting friends; they share an intuitive knowledge and wisdom, but ultimately remain alone and sad. 17
    For Ellwood, polytheism can never provide social cohesion, nor can it increase multiple options except in private ways. He implies that it is fundamentally antipolitical and antisocial.
    Practicing Pagans might say to Ellwood that their religion is not at odds with the experience of wholeness. And while there are always groups that end, and new ones that begin, the Pagan community is much more cohesive today than when Ellwood was writing. Since the 1990s, modern Pagans have begun to form lasting communities—not only legally recognized religious organizations, a trend that has been occurring for thirty years, but seminaries, nature sanctuaries, and organizations and gatherings with a twenty-five year track record.
    Most Neo-Pagans would agree with Ellwood that “only monotheistic or monistic religions ‘convert’ nations. We are not likely to see a temple to Hera, Heracles or Hephaestus on the lawn of the Pentagon.” Most would also regard this as a great strength of polytheism—that it does not lend itself to holy wars. Even David Hume’s fierce condemnation of polytheism as idolatry and superstition was mitigated by his acknowledgment of polytheists’ tolerance of almost any religious practice, in contrast to the intolerance shown by almost all monotheistic religions.
    In practice, Neo-Pagans give a variety of reasons for their polytheism. 18 “A polytheistic world view,” wrote one, “makes self-delusion harder. Pagans seem to relate to deities on a more symbolic and complex level. Personally I think all intellectualizing about deities is self-delusion.” Others told me that polytheism was more likely to encourage reverence for nature. A woman wrote to me: “Polytheism and particularly animism demand the cherishing of a much wider range of things. If you are a monotheist and your particular god is not life-oriented, it is easy to destroy the biosphere you depend on for sustenance—witness where we are right now.”
    A third reason given to me is the one most emphasized by Miller: diversity and freedom. Alkemene, a Craft priestess in New York, wrote to me:
    A monotheistic religion seems analogous to the “one disease—one treatment” system still prevalent in modern medicine. When worshippers view deity in a single way this tends to feed back a homogenous image. The worshippers begin (1) to see homogeneity as good and (2) to become homogenous themselves. Eccentricity becomes “evil” and “wrong.” Decentralization is seen as a wrong since what is wrong for “A” cannot possibly be right for “B.” A polytheistic world view allows a wider range of choices. A person can identify with different deities at different times. Differences become acceptable, even “respectable.”
    The old pagan religions did not have much trouble seeing that many different names were “at heart” the same. Of course, their cultures and politics clashed, but they had relatively few holy wars. All of our wars seem to be holy wars of one kind or another.
    This idea of diversity and tolerance was also stressed by Isaac Bonewits, who told me, “The Pagans were tolerant for the simple reason that many believed their gods and goddesses to be connected with the people or the place. If you go