Comments on: Nature/Religion (part 3)

By: Lady Jake

Lady Jake — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:23:54 +0000

Well said, all three installments!

By: Erynn

Erynn — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:37:22 +0000

Gary Snyder has been talking about the concept of “reinhabitation” for many years now.

By: Riverbend

Riverbend — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:44:36 +0000

Thanks for your thoughts Thorn–I particularly like your comments about being rooted in San Francisco. I feel the same way about New Orleans, though I didn’t grow up here (even as the rain continues to come down today, and the streets are once again flooding).

I ran across the concept of “reinhabiting” recently in an article about environmentalist Catholic nuns that really speaks to this idea–making a conscious decision to stay in place and do your work there no matter how damaged the area is. I’m trying to find out more about it.

By: Peg Aloi

Peg Aloi — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:02:25 +0000

A very wise assessment of the implications of the wider discussion.

It’s odd to me that all these years after Wiccans first started feeling the need to strut their heritage or legacy by creating stories of being initiated into fictional family traditions (or publishing charming but spurious dreck like WEST COUNTRY WICCA that purported to contain ’secrets’ of so-called fam-trad Wicca), that modern pagans are still trying to one-up each other with these claims of superiority. It seems to stem from a desire to assert control and authority, and to draw attention to oneself, to be witchier than thou. It’s sad.

By: Chas S. Clifton

Chas S. Clifton — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:20:48 +0000

“Indigenous” only makes sense in relationship to the “non-indigenous,” who are generally the guilty party/bad guys in that binary relationship.

Land issues are almost always at the bottom of it.

I have been musing on the same issue.

By: Freeman Presson

Freeman Presson — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:30:46 +0000

Terrific. I can stop trying to figure out how to get my ideas in order and just link to this.