I found an entry on Wikipedia for something called “integrational polytheism” (or “eclectic” polytheism) that I thought had some interesting elements in it. The basic concept is that it is a form of polytheism “in which one believes in the existence of not several, but of all the gods ever described.”
That seems like an interesting approach to take, for the most part. It actually reminds me a lot of what Universism is all about, except without the bone-headed insistence on rationality. And while I like the underlying premise here a little better, there are still parts of this that I would question. I’ll explain what I mean by way of this portion of Wikipedia’s entry:
Because Integrational Polytheists believe in all gods, their philosophy requires respect for other beliefs, unless those beliefs stifle or repress another belief. For example, an Integrational Polytheist doesn’t need to respect a homophobe’s beliefs as those are oppressive towards homosexual people. This is basically the concept of “live and let live”. Integrational Polytheists could be said to believe that each religion has equal importance as all others.
I get what they are trying to say here, but here’s what I see as the problem. They use the example of religions which restrict certain types of sexual practice as being oppressive, because it limits people’s rights. Or whatever. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but by not respecting somebody else’s beliefs because you find them oppressive, aren’t you yourself opressing them? How is you not respecting them any different from them not respecting gays? Then, if I were to stand by these beliefs, I could say that I don’t respect you, because you don’t respect people who don’t respect gays. It just perpetuates and sublimates a chain of oppression, rather than freeing anyone from it.
The statement from their official website is I think worded a little better:
To be an Integrational Polytheist, you have to agree that all religious and spiritual beliefs are in some way true (this requires a fairly open idea of what “truth” is), and you must also believe actively in people’s right to say, think and do whatever they want, so long as it harms no other.
While it sounds very simple in that context, what constitutes “harm” to another is an extremely thorny topic, beyond even just not respecting somebody’s beliefs, as described above. To me, it seems like a lot of these New Religious Movements insistence on “harming none” is well-intentioned, but ultimately not an adequate standard for human action. I’ve never seen any of these groups delve really deeply into the intricacies of this topic, or give much more guidelines or advice than simply avoiding harm. Real life consists of a million shades of grey around such things.
Another tangent: in classical polytheistic systems, gods and their cults have different beliefs and different practices which often very much conflict with one another. Just look at all the stories of gods fighting and tricking each other. That conflict is part of what makes polytheism a dynamic and creative cultural and spiritual foundation. It seems to me like if you try to gloss over those types of conflicts, then what you’re left with ultimately is a heavily sanitized version of something which is supposed to be deep and symbolic and messy.
Anyway, I don’t want to trash this integrational polytheism stuff too hard though, as I think the basic spirit of it is in the right direction. While you’re pondering these subjects, I also recommend delving into such related topics as: henotheism, kathenotheism, & monolatrism. They are all variations on this same theme. And if you’re interested, the Integrational Polytheists also have a forum on their website where you can explore these and other questions in greater detail with a community of like-minded individuals.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Philosophical Paganism
- Possible pagan discussion topic for “Jugglers”
- Argh!
- Notes: I Adore Eating Words
- I wonder…
16 Comments
I believe that all God’s ever described exist.. In one way or another. I just have to say that I don’t believe in the “respect only if their beliefs harm none.” I can respect someone that hates someone based on religion, color, etc as long as they can keep their opinions to themselves. Once their beliefs goes into the realm of causing physcial or mental harm to another person, then I will cease to respect that person, and also stand up for the person under attack.
I hope that made sense…
Absolutely. And the only spiritually honest approach is to admit that there are a million shades of grey.
I used to believe that anything was OK “so long as it harms no other”. But it is possible to cause harm indirectly by participating in a collective activity that is, in the long run, harmful. For example, driving a gas guzzling SUV seems like it really isn’t harming anybody, and in a direct sense it isn’t. However, SUV’s make the road less safe for smaller cars. More importantly, they use up more gasoline, therefore depleting oil more quickly, leading to greater dependence on foreign oil supplies (therefore leading to war). This isn’t to pick on SUV drivers — somebody could issue the same criticism about my ridiculously long showers — I’m just trying to point out that behaviors have harmful consequences that we don’t always consider.
On the issue of homosexuality, there is something that bothers me about it that I have never heard directly addressed. And, in full disclosure here, I’m gay. The fact is that widescale acceptance of homosexuality cannot exist except in imperial civilizations. The reason is that, when human beings are struggling for survival, “alternative” family structures are a luxury and run counter to the collective project of survival. Only when survival is taken for granted (usually at the expense of others far away) can alternatives be supported. I’m painting with a broad brushstroke here, I am fully aware that there are some tribal cultures (not very many) that have accepted homosexuality. It’s not that homosexuality is wrong in-and-of-itself. But it is perhaps a symptom of empire, which I think some of your readers would view as ultimately destructive. If biblical stories are to be believed and trusted, the problem with Sodom (and with the corrupt Roman culture that Paul rails against) has more to do with empire, a symptom of which is homosexuality.
My personal view is that there can be a place for gay people, but our roles need to be understood in terms of our benefit to the survival of our communities, the unique gifts that we bring to the table. I don’t think it makes sense to argue that we have an intrinsic right to exist, because really (in absence of a beneficial role) that right is contingent upon a whole host of other factors, many of which are negative.
I’d have to agree that all pantheons that exist and are still known about have power; Neil Gaiman’s American Gods is a great fictional exploration of this.
Zara:
So what you’re saying is that you can respect anyone as long as they keep quiet? Aren’t you really causing “mental harm” yourself by advocating that people not express themselves?
PS. Slomo, there are all kinds of really good topics for discussion there. It might be interesting to branch these issues of homosexuality out into a discussion all on its own. Toward that end, here’s a link for people who want to discuss that topic on it’s own.
Tim: That’s not what I meant at all… I didn’t think I was saying what I felt properly. Also I don’t feel that if I ask someone not to share with me their opinion that all gay people are evil and deserve horrible things, that that is causing them mental harm.
I would say more but I have a lot of difficulty putting my thoughts into words, when I think of how to say it, I will comment again.
Yeah, I don’t think you can say that you respect all other philosophies and then start making exceptions.
I prefer to respect all people and realize that, if they have a stupid belief, there’s probably a good reason for it (childhood trauma, poor perspective, etc.).
Or how about this: I respect all beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I won’t ridicule some, detest others, and argue against a few with fiery rhetoric.
Integrational Polytheism? I had no idea there was a whole movement espousing my religious views. On the harm none, thing, I am coming to the conclusion that it is about that karmic energy boomerang effect — use your power for harm and you create a backlash of harmful energy onto your own stream. Best to use it for benefit, general or specific. In that regard I have been working through my negative memories/emotions/hang-ups; not denying or putting them down, but just looking at them with compassion and letting them be what they are.
Well, how do you decide though whether or not something harms someone, Libramoon? What if something harms people or the environment in ways that you will never see or no about? What if something that helps a loved one hurts a casual acquaintance (or 100)? What if there’s a situation where everyone is harmed in some way? How do people who apply the “harm none” edict to their lives figure out complex realities of harm and benefit?
Though I don’t totally agree with it, I think it’s interesting that Scientology is one of the few alternative religions which addresses this directly and sets up a hierarchy to judge action by:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/06/08/the-8-dynamics-of-scientology/
I don’t know the full implications of any of my actions, but if my intention is pure in my co-creation activities I believe the greater repercussions are the responsibility of the god(desse)s — so I build my works on an underlying assumption of sincerity/compassion/being open to accepting without being tied to the particularity of an outcome that might involve problematic generation. I am still working this out, so thanks for the opportunity to improve my understanding through the process of trying to explain it.
What’s that old saying, something about the road to hell being paved with good intentions? I don’t mean to knock you - I’m just trying to point out how despite having good intentions, bad things can happen, and I don’t personally feel like I can just say “Well, god/ess/es wanted it that way!”
Nor am I saying that at all. I am talking about a spiritual discipline involving meditation, visualization, sending out of intention from a place of centered power. Then, it is up to the co-creating deity to move that energy into the stream so that it gets brought back in manifestation. Or I could call the local pizza place and order a pie delivered. It’s then up to the delivery guy not to hit a pedestrian on the way.
I think this is a good point. But I also think the whole point of spiritual awareness is to develop a very wide and long view of the consequences of our actions.
A good leader (or policymaker) should be able to assess the collective good and write policy/laws that reflect that wisdom. Such laws may at times contradict the liberal approach that allows anything with “good intentions”. Of course, there are plenty of poor leaders, or worse, selfish evil ones. Consequently there is often no resolution as to whether a particular controversial act is “good” or “evil”.
This is a very messy endeavor. There are no easy answers
And there’s also the question of how do you know the intention was good in the first place…
I think that’s a fine point as well. It’s perfectly easy to convince yourself that you have nothing but good intentions when you’re secretly operating from a place that is utterly self-centered. You may not even realize it until much later or until someone else points it out to you.
i remember reading that sexual practices not appropriate for procreating are more likely to be adopted in the ‘higher’ social classes, less preoccupied with survival. from the stance of species survival, homosexuality is to be viewed as a luxury. the bit about its higher acceptance in imperial societies could be true. empires exist by looting, so they will always have more than needed for mere existence, thus existence and survival are not great issues, thus homosexuality has a higher probability of being socially accepted.
homosexuality probably has something to offer to imperial societies for their perpetuation. but i question the desirability of imperial societies at large.
The thing with integrational polytheism is that it’s a misnomer. A polytheist is a person who believes in many gods. That’s different from believing that all religions are in some way true. So whilst the guy’s philosophical position is interesting, it isn’t technically polytheism.
One Trackback
[...] mmenter in a previous post. Rather than try to re-hash it myself, here is what this person wrote: On the issue of homosexuality, there is something that both [...]