The cult of "fandom" and its pagan similarities

[Standing Wolf]

Wicca's founders were anti-homosexuality. Modern "wicca" is really more akin to LARPing than anything else.

I'm going to assume that modern incarnations of it have become infested with "social justice identity politics", seeing as cults with a "counter-culture, social outcast" chic tend to attract disturbed or confused individuals who view themselves as perpetual victims and receive validation from it.

Gerald was homophobic. He had a deep hatred and detestation of homosexuality, which he regarded as a disgusting perversion and a flagrant transgression of natural law.... 'There are no homosexual witches, and it is not possible to be a homosexual and a witch' Gerald almost shouted. No one argued with him.^[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca_and_LGBT_people

Cherry-picking hogwash.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Cherry-picking hogwash.

It's not cherry-picking when one of the primary founders of the cult was militantly-anti gay. The founders of Wicca were militant homophones, likewise Ghenghis Khan, one of history's most notorious mass murderers was an animist.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

No - whether something is a "waste of time" for a particular individual is not a matter of objective fact; it's just your opinion.

Some opinions are closer to objective reality than others.

And to pretend that all opinions are created equal would be... stating that not as an opinion, but an objective fact

But if there are just opinions, then there's nothing stopping me from taking the opinion that my opinions are objectively right not just for me, but for everyone else as well. He he

My opinion is that some opinions are objectively better the others, and that 'equality' only exists in mathematics - who's to say my opinion is "objectively" wrong?

Sports-related violence is a problem, certainly - and it is greatly exacerbated by alcohol consumption, which unfortunately has become a traditional, almost compulsory accompaniment to watching sports in the popular mind, thanks to Anheuser-Busch, Guinness, et al. And while you might have a point that "psychologically speaking" there is a similarity there with religious or political violence, in practical terms there is no comparing even something as brutal and deadly as a soccer riot with the sort of crusades, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, etc., that religious or political fanaticism engenders. (In your last paragraph, you have also, I note, moved your focus from pop culture generally to sports specifically. The fact remains that, as before stated, the great majority of popular culture fans - even sports fans - are not violent, nor do the stories, characters and real life personalities to which they devote time inspire them to be violent.)

That's likely more just consequential, given the fact that fans of movies tend to interact so much online compared to in-person.

But were the interpersonal reaction equal, given the amount of verbal violence online, the physical violence would likely be just the same as that of Crusaders or Jihadis.

[Standing Wolf]

But were the interpersonal reaction equal, given the amount of verbal violence online, the physical violence would likely be just the same as that of Crusaders or Jihadis.

Really. When was the last time you heard about Star Wars fans and Trekkers squaring off at ComiCon? I attended a small convention a couple of weeks ago for fans of Doc Savage, and there was very little if any talk about kicking ass on those Walking Dead p*ssies. And last month I was in an auditorium filled with Bruce Campbell fans, and somehow, despite all the enthusiasm, everybody managed to maintain their essential groovyness.

Again, your idea about popular entertainment and sports icons fulfilling some of the human needs associated in other times and places with religion is well-taken, and I absolutely concur. However, the notion that there exists in such a scenario the potential - let alone the likelihood - for the sort of violence pretty routinely engendered by religious or political fanaticism is just wrong.

[IMPress Polly]

Devil's Advocate wrote:
It's not cherry-picking when one of the primary founders of the cult was militantly-anti gay. The founders of Wicca were militant homophones, likewise Ghenghis Khan, one of history's most notorious mass murderers was an animist.

Look, what you're saying is like pointing out that Jesus was a heterosexist. Duh. That fact hasn't stopped most of the self-described Christians in this country from polling in favor of the legality of same-sex marriage in recent years, has it?

The fact of the matter is that religions often do make some adaptations to the cultures in which they find themselves situated or else they tend to die out. The same can be said of Wicca. You point out beliefs commonly held among Wiccans long ago, but the fact of the matter is that more than 95% of current Wiccans became Wiccans within the last 30 years, and most of the Wiccan rites and theology that has been developed in that last 30 years fully embraces gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

[Ethereal]

Today there are many similarities between modern "fandom" cults, centering around movies, video games, TV, comic books, etc, and their similarities with pagan religious, such as the gods worshiped by ancient Greece.

It seems that people who lack purpose in life attempt to instead live 'vicariously' through their favorite TV, movie, video game characters, celebrities, etc, and develop rabid 'cult followings' around them, to the point that they're no longer just a pasttime, but a way of life.

In a way this bears resemblance to the nature of ancient pagan religions, in which there were many 'gods' but none necessarily requiring exclusivity, and the 'gods' were merely akin to 'powerful mortals' with the same vices of men (as distinct from religions such as Buddhism, which acknowledge one universal standard of all morality and truth, and did not acknowledge mythical pantheons).

I find modern obsessive fandom an example of human's lesser nature repeating itself, with the pagan deities once worshiped by masses merely surrogated with quasi-"worship" of fictional characters on TV or other media.

There are some parallels between the two, but I think it cheapens the oldest religions in the world by trying to equate them.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Look, what you're saying is like pointing out that Jesus was a heterosexist. Duh. That fact hasn't stopped most of the self-described Christians in this country from polling in favor of the legality of same-sex marriage in recent years, has it?

Hetero-sexist isn't in the dictionary.

The fact of the matter is that religions often do make some adaptations to the cultures in which they find themselves situated or else they tend to die out. The same can be said of Wicca. You point out beliefs commonly held among Wiccans long ago, but the fact of the matter is that more than 95% of current Wiccans became Wiccans within the last 30 years, and most of the Wiccan rites and theology that has been developed in that last 30 years fully embraces gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

If a person claimed to be a Neo-Nazi and contradictorily supported same-sex marriage, that wouldn't in anyway lessen Hitler and the NSDAP's views on homosexuality.

The founders of Wicca were militantly anti-homosexuality, and for what it's worth, I'm not aware of Jesus himself ever mentioning homosexuality by name.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Really. When was the last time you heard about Star Wars fans and Trekkers squaring off at ComiCon? I attended a small convention a couple of weeks ago for fans of Doc Savage, and there was very little if any talk about kicking ass on those Walking Dead p*ssies. And last month I was in an auditorium filled with Bruce Campbell fans, and somehow, despite all the enthusiasm, everybody managed to maintain their essential groovyness.

Again, your idea about popular entertainment and sports icons fulfilling some of the human needs associated in other times and places with religion is well-taken, and I absolutely concur. However, the notion that there exists in such a scenario the potential - let alone the likelihood - for the sort of violence pretty routinely engendered by religious or political fanaticism is just wrong.

Too many variables to make a clear judgment, regardless if your argument is that there's some quasi-divine "mandate" that all "choices" are somehow equal regardless of their intents, outcomes, etc - I say this is false, and nothing more than faux-politeness and 'coddling'.

I would say most would agree that a person who obsessively follows any "fandom" or ideology (political or otherwise) is merely trying to fill a void in their life, and there is no objective mandate that people insincerely "approve" of such things even when they clearly go against the beneficial self-interests of individuals and society.