my great-great grandpa on my mom’s side is the only member of her family that isnt buried in a church cemetary because he was a Freemason because he fought in the war of independence against Spain and had really strong anti-clerical politics and after the war he became a provincial governor and tried to break the Church stranglehold on education and pay the tuition for kids to attend secular private schools
“De Ortv Et Origine Monachorvm” (On the Source and Origin of Monks), 1545, from the workshop of Lucas Cranach.
Anti-clerical flyer made during the Protestant Reformation.
What you’re looking at is the Devil or an arch-Demon shitting out monks, supposedly depicting the “origins” of the Catholic church and the satanic nature of the Vatican. And who ever said that contemporary public discourse has degenerated into mere partisan politics?
The creation of the Kingdom of Italy was the result of concerted efforts of Italian nationalists and monarchists loyal to the House of Savoy to establish a united kingdom encompassing the entire Italian Peninsula. After the Revolutions of 1848, the apparent leader of the Italian unification movement was Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi. He was popular amongst southern Italians and in the world was renowned for his extremely loyal followers. Garibaldi led the Italian republican drive for unification in southern Italy, but the northern Italian monarchy of the House of Savoy in the Kingdom of Sardinia, a de facto Piedmontese state, whose government was led by Camillo Benso, conte di Cavour, also had ambitions of establishing a united Italian state. Though the kingdom had no physical connection to Rome (seen by all as the natural capital of Italy, but still capital of the Papal States), the kingdom had successfully challenged Austria in the Second Italian War of Independence, liberating Lombardy-Venetia from Austrian rule. The kingdom also had established important alliances which helped it improve the possibility of Italian unification, such as Britain and the Second French Empire in the Crimean War. Sardinia was dependent on France being willing to protect it and in 1860, Sardinia was forced to cede territory to France to maintain relations, including Garibaldi’s birthplace Nice. Cavour moved to challenge republican unification efforts by Garibaldi by organizing popular revolts in the Papal States. He used these revolts as a pretext to invade the country, even though the invasion angered the Catholics, whom he told that the invasion was an effort to protect the Roman Catholic Church from the anti-clerical secularist nationalist republicans of Garibaldi. Only a small portion of the Papal States around Rome remained in the control of Pope Pius IX. Despite their differences, Cavour agreed to include Garibaldi’s Southern Italy allowing it to join the union with Piedmont-Sardinia in 1860. Subsequently the Parliament declared the creation of the Kingdom of Italy on February 18, 1861 (officially proclaiming it on March 17, 1861) composed of both Northern Italy and Southern Italy. King Victor Emmanuel II of Piedmont-Sardinia from the House of Savoy was then declared King of Italy, though he did not renumber himself with the assumption of the new title. [x]
I love Les Mis. I have not read the book. I have listened to the Focus on the Family audio drama version, but that was some time ago. I listened to the Broadway recording repeatedly in high school, saw it on stage twice, I think, and loved the recent movie version. The cinematography bugged me slightly but I got over it. I have also seen the Liam Neeson film version, which I remember as being pretty unremarkable, and just this year saw a 1978 film version which I quite enjoyed.
I believe that the book was on the Index Prohibitorum back in the day, for expressing pro-revolutionary and anti-clerical sentiment but don’t know much more about it than that.
On the 14th of July 1789, in the midst of the French Revolution (also
refered to by the same name in French, even though we had quite a few
of those), rioters attacked the Bastille prison and freed the (7)
prisoners that were inside. That prison was a relique of the Ancient
Regime, that ended officially thee years later with the 1st Republic
(September 21th 1792).
Basically, the French Revolution was a very
complex period, in which many many things happened, not that historians
really agree on what happened exactly (each carrying their own political views and agenda, including me).
In France, this period marks the
beginning of the contemporary period (after antiquity, middle-age &
modern times) in history, it was a rich period in terms of political,
economical, cultural, scientific, social progress.
What we call
“La prise de la Bastille” (the Storming of the Bastille) became a
symbol, but the event in itself isn’t the most significant, by far.
For example, women
walked on Versailles demanding bread, but really, riots broke out everywhere, we had
lots of beheading (including Louis the 16th’s who was the king back then), let’s not forget the Reign of Terror, that was fun.
The most significant event in my opinion was probably the Abolition of the Privileges
(August 4th 1789).
A year after the Storming of the Bastille, on July 14th 1790, there was a celebration, called la Fête de la Fédération, meant to emphasize the importance of citizenship, of civil value, now that royalty & religion were no longer there for the people to put their faith and trust in (more or less).
In 1880, the 14th of July was officially adopted as the annual national holiday, meant as a military event. To this day, people still argue over which day our National Holiday is supposed to be referring to.
Bottom line, it’s supposed to be a symbol of citizenship & freedom and a reminder of the past. Our 19th century was full of revolutions and we had many uprisings before that (les Révoltes paysannes AKA Jacqueries).
One of those revolutions was used to plant the scene to Victor Hugo’s Misérables (June 1832).
To this day, we are known as the country of strikes, social rights (& laziness apparently?) and our history is filled with riots, uprising, demonstrations, protests, strikes.
This history is kept alive, partly with songs, only one of which can be found in Les Misérables… and was cut in the movie. It’s called la Faute à Voltaire, sung by Gavroche.
Here is a list of proeminent revolutionnary songs, with links to good audio versions with lyrics on youtube:
La carmagnole (1792) : The part everyone knows is about Marie-Antoinette: “Madam’ Veto (Marie-Antoinette) promessed to slaughter all Paris, but she missed her shot, thanks to our gunners. Let’s dance the carmagnole, hail the sound of gun barrel”.
Ah ! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira (1790) : A very famous song sung during the revolution, the lyrics literally say “We will hang the aristocrats”.
Le chant des cerises (1867) : A beautiful song strongly associated with the Paris Commune (1871). It’s still sung by new artists or during demos to this day.
La semaine sanglante (1871) : At the end of the Paris Commune, over 30 000 people were slaughtered in a week (the story goes they killed everyone they came across in the street that had gunpower on them, so basically everyone), over a thousand people were sent to trial, many of which ended up in forced labor in Cayenne often to die there. The song has seven verse, one for each day of the week of the massacre, describing life after the Commune. Still sung in the face of police violence during protests.
La chanson du Père Duschène (1892) : An anti-clerical anarchist song, sung by Ravachol as he went to his execution. The song advises “if you want to be happy, in the name of god, hang your landlord”.
Les enfants de Cayenne (1900-ish) : The most emblamatic song against the police & prison. It was dug up by punks musicians about 30 years ago, so I don’t have a nice version to share. The lyrics go “Death to prison guards, death to cops”. But not as nicely.
La chanson de Craonne (1917) : A beautiful song sung by the mutineers of le Chemin des Dames during WWI, they were sent to slaughter, at some point they refused to go on. It’s heart-breaking, the lyrics go : “Good-bye life, good-bye love, good-bye to all women, it’s over, over forever, this atrocious war”.
La Butte Rouge (1925) : Another song against war (in general, but it highly refers to WWI). It’s about a place (a hill) where soldiers where killed, but time passed, people forgot what happened there and moved on, while the singer will never forget.
Le Chant des partisans (1941) : The hymn of the French Resistance during WWII, literally the rallying song. Everyone knows it, it’s sung at memorials every year, also sometimes during demonstrations, kids learn it at school : “We are the one who break the bars of our brother’s prisons”.
Le Chant des Marais (1933) : Originally sung in German, wrote & sung by prisoners in concentration camps. It’s also one of the most well-known songs about WWII, sung at every memorials, many learn it at school. It’s sad and beautiful. There is also an English version, though the lyrics aren’t exactly the same (x).
I might do a follow-up with more songs, either old or more recent, if anyone is interested.
All those “social justice” oriented people on tumblr saying “the LGBT community aren’t blaming religion™ for the Pulse shooting!”
And this pisses me off, because not only do we all know that this argument would not be used quite as much if it was any other religion but Islam involved, but also, who’s the “LGBT community”? We aren’t a hive-mind, and let me tell you something: I’m a bi woman currently in a same sex relationship, and I absolutely and wholeheartedly DO blame all Abrahamic teachings for their homophobic scriptures, scriptures which ARE breeding the sort of hatred that leads people to the kind of violence such as the one we have witnessed ten days ago - and especially since the shooter himself invoked this reason. I absolutely am holding it accountable for teaching people that same sex love is a sin that should be punished by death, and I do believe that, as people are not born in a vacuum, the question on how religion (any religion, none of them should get a free pass) and homophobia are intertwined does deserve to be asked and a serious and honest discussion on it needs to be opened.
So, kindly go away with your “LGBT people aren’t blaming religion” blanket statement. I’m not some bullet argument you can use in order to shut down a conversation that you find uncomfortable as soon as Islam is involved, and you are not speaking for me, nor are you speaking for all the sexual minorities who suffer every day under islamic theocratic rule, stop acting like you are.
Child soldier photographed with his Spanish Mauser during the Cristero War of 1926-29. This conflict stemmed from many Mexican states’ rejection of the secularist and anti-Catholic government, specifically the anti-clerical laws laid down in the Mexican Constitution of 1917.
According to the Bible, Eve was the first to heed Satan’s advice to eat of the forbidden fruit. The notion of woman as the Devil’s accomplice is prominent throughout the history of Christianity. During the nineteenth century, rebellious females performed counter-readings of this misogynist tradition. Hereby, Lucifer was reconceptualised as a feminist liberator of womankind, and Eve became a heroine. In these reimaginings, Satan is an ally in the struggle against a patriarchy supported by God the Father and his male priests.
This study delineates how such Satanic feminism is expressed in a number of nineteenth-century esoteric works, literary texts, autobiographies, pamphlets and journals, newspaper articles, paintings, sculptures and even artefacts of consumer culture such as jewellery. We encounter figures like the suffragette Elizabeth Cady Stanton, gender-bending Theosophist H. P. Blavatsky, author and diplomat wife Aino Kallas, actress Sarah Bernhardt, anti-clerical witch enthusiast Matilda Joslyn Gage, decadent marchioness Luisa Casati, and the Luciferian lesbian poetess Renée Vivien.
Many people are saying that Charlie Hebdo was a left wing anti-racist, ‘anti-clerical’ publication that was an equal opportunities offender to all religions.
My sense right now is that it is better characterised as a self proclaimed 'radical’ or 'progressive’ European left publication that had not decolonised itself, was rampantly racist and biogted in its so called 'atheism’ and perpetuated a largely bourgeois, self-satisfied, egotistic, faux-intellectual, orientalist, white saviour mentality that made it, intended or otherwise, an enabler or apologist of imperialism even as it claimed to stand against the War on Terror economy etc
It went out of its way to continually provoke and antagonise a specific group of people in the name of defending freedom of speech all the whilst seemingly blithely unaware of how it was acting in the deepest hypocrisy and fueling Islamophobia in the process.
Furthermore, the media’s slavish hagiography of the slain staff fails to provide a wider context in which Islam has been consistently and systematically demonised all whilst European nations have been explicitly complicit in imperialist projects that have been directed at largely muslim countries.
When these projects are shown to cause the deaths of innocent people, whether at the hands of drone strikes or other fundamentalists (e.g. Pakistan) the West shrugs, barely apologises if at all, claims colateral damage, provides next to no compensation, and moves on. Torture, rape, murder, extra-judicial assassination, bombings - do we really expect the families and relatives of the victims not to be radicalised by over a hundred years of prejudicial stereotyping (Reel Bad Arabs), divide and rule funding and arming of despotic ruling juntas, cliques, & sects as part of a geopolitical 'grand chess board strategy’, coup d'etats that unseat legitimately elected leaders, support for violent occupation of Palestine, and now twenty six years of almost continual war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Many Europeans have long been 'radicalised’ against Jews and Roma people and yet we’ve not even been under attack from these groups. Their mere existence was seen as a threat. Now Muslims have been added to the list.
And when some fight back and say enough is enough, we fall into collective amnesia, our 'analysis’ refuses to incorporate a wider political and historical context (for that would be regarded as apologising for terrorism’ and 'weakness’) and we wring our hands about freedom of speech and democracy - all the while as yet more innocent people are killed by drone strikes that miss their targets or simply don’t mind how many innocent people get killed for every suspected 'terrorist’.
We wage war and assume a moral superiority that says 'they deserve to die but we have the right to live in peace’. And then we are shocked when that war comes home.
It won’t take an end to bombing to stop this war and its vicious and horrible repercussions, it will take a collective re-examination of our colonial, racist, misogynist, white supremacist mentality and culture. We need to decolonise our minds, our media, our schools, and our States, and stop manipulating and militarily coercing other countries for our own profit. Then, maybe, we won’t create the backlash we find so intolerable.
The Charlie Hebdo staff were victims of prejudice and extremism, but those forces didn’t grow out of a vacuum. They have specific, varied, and complex roots and unless we have an honest discussion about those roots, we can only expect this War Economy to produce nothing except body bags.
On this day in 1947 the nation of Pakistan was founded upon its independence from Britain. In colonial India, a divide arose between the Hindu majority and the Muslim minority, the latter who felt their interests were not being represented by the Indian National Congress. Thus in 1906 the Muslim League was founded to protect Muslim rights and, eventually, call for independence and an independent Muslim nation state. The 1933 pamphlet ‘Now or Never’ urging Muslim nationalism coined a name for the new nation based on the Muslim Northern provinces that would form the country - P (Punjab) A (Afghania) K (Kashmir) S (Sindh) TAN (Balochistan). 'Pakstan’, which in Urdu and Persian means 'Pure Land’, soon became 'Pakistan’. The Pakistan Movement continued to gain ground throughout World War Two, and despite resistance from Hindu leaders in the Congress, the two-state solution proved popular among the Indian Muslim electorate. Finally, after years of campaigning, the 1947 Independence of India Act passed the Congress, which provided for the two states of Pakistan and India to become independent from Britain on the 14th and 15th August respectively. The birth of Pakistan, largely due to League President Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s efforts to unite disparate Indian Muslisms, has been hailed as one of the major political achievements of modern Muslim history. However the division prompted widespread religious violence which killed thousands, and led to a massive population exchange, with the violence between the two new nations even descending into open warfare. In 1971 Pakistan further divided when Bangladesh seceded. August 14th is celebrated as Independence Day in Pakistan, but this year it coincides with a major protest against the current government. Opposition leader Imran Khan and anti-government cleric Tahir ul Qadri called for the march to protest the corruption of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government; around 100,000 people are expected to attend.
I don't understand why so many people on here don't understand that France is a SECULAR country.
Hi, another long post incoming, sorry…
Thing about tumblr is that not only do they not understand that France is secular, and which brand of secularism it has, but they also don’t understand what secularism is to start with.
There is that weird trend in some leftist circle to hate secularism in favour of supporting religious theocrats if they perceive this religion as a “minority” one. But religion is religion, it doesn’t matter how it’s dressed up this time around, and supporting the freedom of a religion to impose its laws on people over the freedom of those people to express themselves on an idea (which is what religion is) one is free to believe or not, is something that is about as anti-left as it gets. Theocrats have never been friends of the left, they’ll never be friends of the left, so I don’t understand this absurd insistence some leftists have to defend people who think that the god they believe exist should have a bigger say on how a society is run and on what rights people should have (including what they have a right to say or indeed draw) than the actual men and women living in that society (I have already made a post about that here)
It’s like those people have forgotten what enlightenment was about. The promotion of reason, secular thinking, humanism, rights of men …etc… This is why I call myself “pro-enlightenment” in my blog description because during the whole Charlie Hebdo debacle I have learned the hard way that it isn’t as much of a given as I thought; seeing that a large number of people positioned themselves against free speech and the questioning of ideas in favour of pandering to religious sensibilities, pretty much promoting obscurantism in their misguided desire to offend no one.
But anyway, I digress, to go back to secularism… the problem is that too many people fail to understand that secularism isn’t about repressing freedom of religion, it isn’t about trying to take away rights, it is precisely the reverse. Secularism is what insure that everyone has a right to worship or not what they like. Secularism is what allows every religions to coexist peacefully with each other and with non-religious people. Which is why, again, I think that the part of the left defending theocrats are being very misguided, because theocrats do not care about the freedom of any religion aside from their own, we see that every day still in theocracies that are still existing today (see Raif Badawi for example). For religious freedom to truly exist, religion NEED to be separated from the state, for most secularists (including myself) this is non-negotiable, this is why secularism is needed and is one of the most important value I will continue to defend.
Now… France brand of secularism (or laïcité) is a bit more hardcore than most because it promote total and hard separation of church and state; meaning that in theory the church (any church) can not insert itself anywhere in our public sphere. So no religion in public schools, institutions, civil servant jobs, laws…etc… because if you represent the state then you can not promote a religion. In France, we believe that if religion becomes public, it becomes dangerous and while we believe that freedom of religion is important, we believe that freedom FROM religion is an even more important thing to protect because it is also what insure that you are free to not believe at all or not believe in religions that aren’t your own, it doesn’t mean you don’t have a right to wear religious signs in the street (for example the hijab is NOT banned in France, my god!), or worship what you like in your personal sphere, but it HAS to stay personal. This comes from a long history of struggle with the Catholic church who used to hold (and abuse of) an enormous amount of power. Before the French revolution the catholic church used to be the first estate, above the nobility, its influence was everywhere and during the revolution France tried to get rid of it. We are a bunch of “bouffeurs de curés” (priests eaters) to put it bluntly, our distrust of religion come from there and we don’t want it anywhere near our public sphere. I said that once here already: it might be paranoid, but this paranoia has deep historical roots.
Point of this is, plenty of people here seem to be under the misguided impression that France’s sometime quite anti-clerical stance (to be honest) started when islam became an important minority religion here and that therefore every laws on hard separation of church and state was made with an anti-muslim stance in mind. But it wasn’t, thoselaws existed way before that. Now, I’m not saying that sometimes laïcité isn’t used here as an excuse to promote muslim hatred, but to say it is all of what our laws on laïcité are about is ignoring a huge part of the picture and historical context when it comes to looking at France’s complicated relationship with religion and how it deals with it.
I personally don’t pretend to say that France’s version of secularism is better than the anglo-saxon model, I make no such judgement, but I wish people would look at the big picture before they try to talk and judge how we handle religion.
Regardless of which brand you pick through, I can not envision a free society without secularism, so I’ll keep defending it to the end.
Quick edit on something I forgot to say: You can be religious and secular those two things are not mutually exclusive.
I just saw one of those cute memes going around about how Christian and Muslim radicals bomb abortion clinics and embassies, but the worst thing that atheist radicals will do is get really drunk and watch TV. As a historian, this sort of thing ruffles my feathers a bit.
Now, I’m not going to try and argue about whether or not people have committed horrible crimes in the name of atheism, because I suppose there is a reasonable argument to be made that atheism is the absence ofbelief and can’t be used to justify anything. However, I suspect that people who make and like these sorts of memes don’t just not believe in G-d, do they? In fact, I would posit that in order to find that sort of thing funny, you have to think that religion is a stupid, childish, superstition, in which case, you’re not just an atheist, you’re also an anti-theist, and anti-theism has been used to justify waves of anti-clerical violence for hundreds of years.
The anti-Catholic genocide in the Vendee, the Stalinist purges in the USSR, the Red Terror in Republican Spain, and the Cultural Revolution in China where all acts of exceptionally brutal anti-theist, anti-clerical bloodletting. Radical atheists may be harmless, but radical anti-theists are not, and, just like most religious people, anyone who holds the belief that “all the religions are poison” holds a belief that has been used to justify violence.
I suppose you could argue that anti-theism doesn’t logically lead to violence, the way Islam, Christianity, and Judaism do, but that would betray a lack of understanding of these religions. Christianity is explicitly the religion of a pacifist. Islam and Judaism are not, but they are also supposed to contain the law codes of pre-modern states, who are endowed with the power of the sword.
They justify violence the way the US constitution does, and since neither the Kingdom of Israel nor the First Caliphate is still around, many of the most serious scholars of these religions tend to argue that the passages of their sacred texts that allow for violence are rendered null-and-void. Other people obviously disagree, but what we’re left with is a debate. I will concede that holding religious beliefs leads to you getting into debates about them. I would, however, posit that this also holds true for atheists.
Do I think that the existence of violent extremists makes a belief invalid or evil. No, I do not. But I would like it if people would stop posting so many smug, ahistorical memes.
My French copatriots on Twitter and Facebook are, like me, shell-shocked and distraught, and posting there has proven a good way to enter into arguments with good friends and create further tension. I got to bed angry last night and woke up to the news of another two cops being shot at in my city, and the shooter escaping in the subway. As I write this, one of the cops is dead.
There’s also reports of a couple of mosques being shot at and an explosion near another one. Marine Le Pen, leader of the French far right, as will be received by the president in his office. She asks that capital punishment be reinstated.
So I thought I’d use this space to vent. Here I don’t write French and the few people who follow me are less likely to be aggrieved by what I’m about to write. I’ve been meaning to turn this Tumblr into a more personal blog for awhile anyway.
Inside and outside of France, I’ve seen Charlie Hebdo’s staff characterized both as left wing free speech heroes and right wing racist assholes. Both are probably true but tell an incomplete story.
Among the dead cartoonists were Cabu, a 77 veteran of French caricature with 60’s leftist values, mostly known for lambasting the racist, ignorant and vulgar French everyman. Wolinski was a dirty minded 81 year old anarchist. Charb was a younger, angrier, sometimes brilliant editor in chief that nevertheless let Charlie Hebdo become more and more racist under his watch.
They’ve always been very anti-clericalists, but before reprinting the Jyllands-Posten caricatures, their bile was mostly directed at the French Catholic establishment. We have a long history of anti-clericalism in France, dating back to the enlightenment. In 1789 the revolution made all churches and clerical goods the property of the state. In 1905 when a law on the separation of church and state was voted, it was not to protect religious freedom but to protect our republic from religious power. Just last year, a lot of us felt validated in their anti-clericalism when a mostly traditionalist Catholic crowd took to the streets to protest a marriage equality bill in seriously homophobic, misogynistic and racist ways.
I myself was raised in the idea that religion was something both stupid and dangerous. I can’t say it ever really shocked anyone around me. I had to figure out through exposure to other cultures and other people that religious people are not all the same, and that anti-clericalism can be a pretext to the ugliest racism.
In the past ten years, Charlie Hebdo got caught in a vicious circle. First there was a trial that they easily won. Then their offices burned down. Now this. Each time they doubled down on the anti-Islamic drawings, each time getting a little closer to outright racism.
When Charlie Hebdo published those caricatures, right wing republican president Chirac called for moderation and caution. Not-yet-president Sarkozy, with his new brand of French right politics, jumped in and offered his support to Charlie in the honor of freedom of expression against “communautarism” (in his mouth, the tendency of certain people to affirm their identities against the great unifying, welcoming values of the Republic).
Charb and his team may have sensed a trap there but still walked right into it : the more they attacked islam, the more they validated both Islamists and right wing politicians.
When a Molotov cocktail was thrown in Charlie’s offices in 2011, they responded with this cover by Luz (one of the lucky survivors of yesterday). It’s both a great, non Islamophobic response (for once) and a terrible illustration of the vicious circle they were caught into:
“Love is stronger than hate”. It may be, but the way each side’s provocation fed each other and ended up playing to the hand of Sarkozy and Le Pen mostly proves that sometimes love and hate work in the same ways.
This week’s news before the incident were dominated by the promotional campaign of Michel Houellebecq’s new book “Soumission”, in which France elects a Muslim president in 2022. I haven’t read it, and from what I’ve gathered it’s a far less polemical book than the pitch may suggest, but in interviews Houellebecq seems to have fallen in the same trap as a lot of France’s intellectual elites : failing to account for how their supposedly well intentioned anti-clericalism is supporting a racist tidal wave. In this sense, they certainly can all claim “Je Suis Charlie”.
All of this rambling is just me trying to answer this question : am I Charlie? The best I can say is I try not to be, by rejecting the false dichotomies between freedom of speech and “political correctness”, by refusing to amalgam terrorists and an oppressed community. But when I hear a probably unrelated police siren in the street, I am reminded that I feel attacked and in a sense, I, too, am Charlie.
Pierre Vial has written that paganism is not anti-Christian, but a-Christian and post-Christian. ‘To be pagan is to refuse the inversion of values that Nietzsche denounced in Christianity. It is to take the hero, not the martyr, as the model. Christian suffering has always repulsed me. To celebrate the redemptive value of suffering seems like a form of masochism’. (Today modern European Christians practice their ethnomasochism and culpability on the immigrant colonisers; in every domain they practice the 'duty to repent’.) Vial continues, 'To exalt wretchedness, suffering, and sickness is unhealthy and I much prefer the Greek Ideal of transcendence or the Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius. Paganism ought not, though, to be confused with anti-clericalism of atheism. Another point: a purely intellectual definition of paganism…won’t suffice. It’s perhaps necessary, but it doesn’t go far enough. For paganism to exist, it must be lived. Not simply in gestures, but in life’s most ordinary expressions. Paganism is defined primarily in reference to the sacred…It affirms the immanence of the sacred’.
Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance