I keep thinking that this has been done to death in various fora, and yet I am continually coming up against this assertion that paganism is a religion. I happen to think that there is already a good page that goes some way to explaining the difference. I am in complete harmony with the frustration of the author. The colour scheme is hardly stylish and perhaps there is courtesy lacking, but it has been done. So why do it again?
Sadly, it appears necessary.
To all those people who disagree, who have insisted that paganism is a religion, who have even taken offense when I have refused to bow down and accept this as the "truth" that it obviously is, to them I say "You are pagan, yes. You are religious, yes. Your religion is pagan, fine. But your religion is not paganism." I would point out that not one of those people have ever said "my religion is paganism". Many view such a statement as meaningless. Plenty of people, when asked "What is your religion?" will answer "I am pagan." This is a reasonable and presumably accurate statement. So, however, are the answers "I am agnostic," and, of course "I am Christian."
While the latter of these refers without doubt to religion, it would be a philosophical judgement on someone's part to say that the former does. Religion is "belief in and worship of a supernatural power or God." An agnostic is "one who believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists," although many refer to themselves as agnostic because they themselves do not know. An agnostic could then believe in and worship something other than God or Gods, and believe it is impossible to know if God, the divine creator, exists. Such a person would be religious. Some pantheists may fall into this category. The term "agnostic" is not a precise and complete statement describing a person's religious beliefs. There is room for interpretation, and while one of the interpretations makes a positive religious statement, the other does not.
The little dictionary I have here gives what is in my opinion a rather good definition of pagan as "one who does not belong to one of the world's main religions" (generally taken to mean the "Big Three" of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Seeing at least two categories of interpretations for this is unavoidable. One who is pagan does not belong to any of the world's main religions, but could belong to any of the others. Or to none at all.
"Paganism" is not given in this little dictionary, nor does it appear in my rather larger thesaurus. It is a word used by pagans and their detractors alike, and has very different connotations in the two camps. It is not equivalent in precision to such terms as Bhuddism and Christianity. While some pagans may be heard to utter "Christianity" with an air of contempt, the feeling behind the utterance cannot and does not seek to question a Christian's defining belief; that Jesus Christ was the son of God and died for the benefit of Mankind. When a Christian fundamentalist uses "paganism" in a negative way, he makes a judgement about the belief system, determining it to be ungodly, even Satanic. When a pagan uses the term it is generally to refer to some visualised community or movement, and generally a different set of assumptions are made about the belief systems of those included.
Here is the key point, the crux of the issue. There is NO central, defining tenet that all pagans share. One cannot say; you are pagan therefore you must believe the following. That is not what pagan means. For every fundamental belief that has been suggested as being common to all pagans, it is possible to argue that there are honest-to-goodness, real live pagans out there who do not share it. For a religion to be a religion, there must be a fundamental religious belief.
This is just a miniscule selection and we have not tackled the subject of worship yet. Religion, by the definition, includes worship. Here, unfortunately, my little dictionary (I left my faithful Chambers at home and Frood does not possess a decent dictionary) lets me down by giving me a circular definition. "Religious devotion" doesn't really help*. To have religion, one must worship, to worship, one must have religion.
Rather than getting bogged down in a semantical discussion of what it might mean to worship, when really this aspect of the definition is not necessary for the argument and this is not an adversarial court, we will discount it. This offers no greater advantage nor disadvantage to either position.
Unfortunately, it does lead to a slight quandary when one considers the question "Is paganism religion?" Note the lack of the indefinite article (the definite article would certainly be inappropriate). This is far more subjective and philosophical. It is not equivalent to "Am I a religious pagan?". That questions the religious nature of a person's beliefs. The question "Is paganism religion?" actually addresses the fundamental nature of religion.
This question has but two answers; yes or no. The very essence of the question demands one or the other. There is no convenient "In certain cases," for paganism is, above all, an umbrella term used to refer to that which concerns every person who considers himself pagan. If there is but one exception, then the answer is no.
In order for the answer to be yes, then one has to come to the judgement that any belief system, philosophy, spiritual mindset or lack thereof can be called religion. If a person believes in nothing, has no goal but self-service, has no sense of connection to anything external, then that person is not a follower of one of the major religions. He is pagan. Is he, however, religious? Does he have a religion? There is no belief in a supernatural power or God. One would have to say, on balance, probably not.
Paganism is not religion. There are many religious pagans, and all those who actively call themselves pagan can usually be found to have made a conscious choice regarding religion. Not all who can reasonably be described as pagan by the word's definition will actively call themselves pagan, or even know what the word means. Indeed, many who do describe themselves as pagan do not seem to know what the word means.
Paganism as a term, perhaps, can only accurately be used as an umbrella term to describe the spiritual choices of those who have made a decision not to follow one of the major religions. Even then, however, one is forced to contemplate those raised in pagan families, for whom it is not a conscious decision at all. Cases such as this must surely still be rare, in this world where most are not pagan. Peer pressure on children is sufficient for them to be exposed to the major religions and the pervasive, although not ubiquitous application of tolerance by pagans is sufficient that a child would generally not be sheltered from that exposure.
In conclusion then, paganism is not a religion. Paganism is not religion. When one answers "I am pagan", one is making a qualitatively and quantitatively ambiguous statement. When one answers "I am pagan", one is allowing the witness to make an accurate judgement only as to what one is not. The witness can ony say with certainty that the one in question has found the major religions lacking and found an alternative viewpoint. There are myriad possibilities for what that viewpoint might be. Not all of them constitute religion.
To those who say "I know many who call themselves pagan, but I would not call them such," I add this: Who are you to decide what is and what is not a pagan viewpoint? Who are you to define what pagan is? Who are you to determine who ca and cannot call himself pagan? Who are you to state that a decision to follow a course not aligned with the major religions is not a pagan one, no matter what that course is? Nowhere does it state that a pagan is a nice person who adheres to an ethical system you find acceptable. By definition there can be no pagan dogma, although certain "factoids", perhaps we should call them "memes", are in danger of becoming just that. It frightens and horrifies me to find myself faced with accusations of intolerance and worse if I question the objective reality of the "Burning Times" meme. It dismays me to see a growing adherence to the "tolerance equals unquestioning acceptance and courtesy excessive to the point of self-abasement" meme. It makes me weep with both humour and despair to see the "respect for life and this Earth requires vegetarianism" meme. At the moment this is largely confined to the US Wiccan Internet users, and I fervently hope that this is where it remains, but I am pessimistic.
Disagreement without exclusion is possible. This is the basis of tolerance. The question of whether or not one is pagan is wholly and entirely separate from the question of whether or not one has an acceptable set of mores. One is a statement of personal choice, the other a matter for judgement based on individual comparison with the social norm or with another individual. I may not tolerate those who damage prehistoric sites, but I would not say that this behaviour means they are not pagan. I would say that this behaviour makes them selfish, arrogant, thoughtless and in need of a good thrashing. I disagree with their sense of morals, but that does not change their individual religious choices, which might well be pagan, for all I know. Fuckwits can be pagan too.
I respect and uphold your right to follow a pagan religion, whatsoe'er that religion may be. I may not respect and uphold your right to underake actions based on that religion that affect the lives of others without their voluntary co-operation, but your choice of spiritual perspective is entirely up to you. I do not, however, accept any attempt by anyone to tell me what my religious choice constitutes. That is for me, and me alone to determine, just as it is up to every pagan individual to determine.
* I had to come back to Silsoe sometime, or else this wouldn't have made it onto the web, so I took the opportunity to look up a couple of these tricky words in my large and faithful Chambers. Just for the record, the dictionary lying open in front of me is "The Chambers Dictionary", 1993 edition, the second 1994 reprint, ISBN 0-550-10255-8 (standard), published by Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd. It is entirely copyrighted, but I am allowed up to 200 words in fair use (as we were obliged to find out just recently as a result of a legal threat). Worship is defined as "adoration paid to a deity, etc; religious service; profound admiration and affection; glorificaton, exaltation, idolisation; the act of revering or adoring". Religion is defined as "belief in, recognition of or an awakened sense of a higher unseen controlling power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected with such; rites or worship; any system of such belief or worship". Finally, pagan is defined as " a person following any (esp polytheistic) pre-Christian religion; a person who is not a Christian, Jew or Muslim, regarded as uncultured or unenlightened, a heathen; more recently, someone who has no religion; a person who sets a high value on sensual pleasures."
I will leave it up to the noble reader to determine whether this set of definitions causes my argument to fail in any way. You know where to find me if you wish to debate the issue.