Politics

Pagan Republican Wins in Queens, Thanks Odin.

|

don't laugh. your religion has silly costumes, too

Republican Dan Halloran (that's him at right) won the race New York City Council in Queens yesterday, despite a bunch of last minute articles focused on the fact that he practices Theodism, which involves Norse gods like Odin and Freyr. Says Halloran:

It is our hope to reconstruct the pre-Christian religion of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European peoples, within a cultural framework and community environment.

Score one for tolerance. Sure, it's just the city council. And sure, it's New York. But this guy is a full-on Pagan, for Odin's sake, and he just got elected to a pretty important public office. As a Republican.

Sadly, even the blood-sacrificing privacy-loving Queens councilman can't quite stomach the dirty little atheists of the world:

I don't think any of this is really relevant to the City Council race. It's like talking about what church you pray at. That you understand the divine is the most important part.

NEXT: Harry Reid Promises There Really is a Health-Care Bill at the End of the Rainbow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Heh Even the pegans hate atheists.

    “It is our hope to reconstruct the pre-Christian religion of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European peoples, within a cultural framework and community environment.”

    Wasn’t that one of the things the Nazis tried to do? Didn’t Hitler have a huge hard on for Wagner and the Ring Cycle and all of that?

    1. Jesus, why does some idiot have to bring up Wagner and Hitler, as if Wagner was in the Nazi Party. If Pol Pot was a huge fan of The Beatles, should I burn all their albums?

      1. Wagner was an anti-semetic asshole

        “Under a pseudonym in the Neue Zeitschrift f?r Musik, Wagner published “Das Judenthum in der Musik” in 1850 (originally translated as “Judaism in Music”, by which name it is still known, but better rendered as “Jewishness in Music.”) The essay attacks Jewish contemporaries (and rivals) Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer, and accused “Jews” of being a harmful and alien element in German culture. Wagner stated the German people were repelled by Jews’ alien appearance and behavior: “with all our speaking and writing in favour of the Jews’ emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” He argued that because “Jews” had no connection to the German spirit, Jewish musicians were only capable of producing shallow and artificial music. They therefore composed music to achieve popularity and, thereby, financial success, as opposed to creating genuine works of art.

        The initial publication of the article attracted little attention, but Wagner wrote a self-justifying letter about it to Franz Liszt in 1851, claiming that his “long-suppressed resentment against this Jewish business” was “as necessary to me as gall is to the blood”.[16] Wagner republished the pamphlet under his own name in 1869, with an extended introduction, leading to several public protests at the first performances of Die Meistersinger von N?rnberg. Wagner repeated similar views in later articles, such as “What is German?” (1878, but based on a draft written in the 1860s), and Cosima Wagner’s diaries often recorded his comments about “Jews”. Although many have argued that his aim was to promote the integration of Jews into society by suppressing their Jewishness, others have interpreted the final words of the 1850 pamphlet (suggesting the solution of an Untergang for the Jews, an ambiguous word, literally ‘decline’ or ‘downfall’ but which can also mean ‘sinking’ or ‘going to a doom'[17]) as meaning that Wagner wished the Jewish people to be destroyed.[18]”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R…..nd_Judaism

        If the Beatles had preached going back to year zero and that it was okay to kill everyone with an education, then yeah we should burn all their albums.

        1. Wagner was an anti-semitic asshole, wholly unlike the 1800 years of Christendom behind him. *snort*

        2. we should burn all their albums.

          That’ll show the Nazis!

        3. Sounds like he believed it more in theory than in practice. From the same Wikipedia article you quoted:
          Despite his very public views on Jews, throughout his life Wagner had Jewish friends, colleagues and supporters. In his autobiography, Mein Leben, Wagner refers to many friendships with Jews, referring to that with Samuel Lehrs in Paris as “one of the most beautiful friendships of my life.

          I seem to recall from one of the Wagner CDs I own that he choose a Jewish conductor to conduct many of his works. There are also some people who believe Wagner was half-Jewish himself, as there is suspicion that his mother may have had an affair.

          So yeah, he was a strange guy with some antisemitic views, but it was an odd sort of antisemitism that didn’t cause him to treat people badly simply because they were Jewish. It sounds like he was into the nationalist craze at the time, wanting everything in Germany to be fully German, and had more of a beef with elements of Jewish culture being brought into German music and art than a hatred of Jewish people, per se.

          I’m not trying to defend his views, but to me it doesn’t make sense that he wanted the Jewish people to be destroyed (which the wikipedia article states to be a questionable interpretation), as this doesn’t jive with his friendly nature towards Jewish individuals and his willingness to let them conduct his own operas.

        4. If the Beatles had preached going back to year zero and that it was okay to kill everyone with an education, then yeah we should burn all their albums.

          Maybe I’m lacking in ideological fervor, but I’d just listen to their albums and say, “Hey, this is pretty good music for a bunch of nuts.”

      2. If you read some of the things Wagner wrote it’s pretty easy to speculate that he would have joined the Nazi party had he been alive to do so.

        On the other hand it is a well known fact that Hitler was a huge fan of Wagner and was close friends with members of the Wagner family.

        And yes, Norse paganism was favored by many Nazis including Hitler and much of the Nazi imagery is based on it.

        1. It’s one thing to say those things, but if anyone could point to an example of pure music that is racist, I’d like to know what it is.

          1. I am not saying don’t listen to his music. I am just saying that the whole “bring back the real aryan religion” thing is a bit tainted. Also, there was no “one aryan religion”. There really wasn’t one form of peganism. These clowns, be they Aryans or Wiccans don’t practice any sort of authentic ancient religion. They just practice a modern invented religion. And that is fine with me, but they souldn’t pretend that they are following some ancient religious tradition.

            1. “”””These clowns, be they Aryans or Wiccans don’t practice any sort of authentic ancient religion. “”””

              You can say the same thing about any religion. The Jews for example don’t follow their ancient religion, where are the burnt offering to Yahwah, where are the Priests, where are the Judges? Supposedly the most religious of the Jews dress up like 19th century middle Europeans and speak Yiddish.

          2. I’m loathe to put this up because I fucking hate racists, but here is racist music. As for the story, great the conservatives are now following an even dopier god… sigh… I hate the Christian right as well. I also hate pidgeons. Okay “Hate-filled” rant of the day; check.

            http://www.livevideo.com/video
            /C90FF3B6FB434FC5A5A67460DC3FA3DA/prussian-blue-skinhead-boy.aspx

      3. If it helps any, the connection crossed my mind almost immediately. I just happened to decide not to be Godwin’s bitch today. Yes John, that means we think alike. (I gotta go bathe now)

      4. There are plenty of reasons to burn Beatles albums without bringing Pol Pot into it.

    2. That’s exactly what I thought when I read this. It doesn’t sound like a benign little Wicca-type religion, it sounds like the Occult-based crap the nazis, lead by Himmler and the SS, used to justify their theory of Aryan racial superiority.

      I think “pre-Christian religion of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European peoples” is a codeword for “Aryan” as in Nazis, Hitler, Himmler, blood purity, racial superiority, etc. I could be wrong, but the guy IS a Republican.

      1. Well…since some of those in his group are clearly African-American – I don’t think racial superiority is on the menu.

      2. Yeah he must be racist, thats why his group had African-American members

        http://blogs.villagevoice.com/…..amp;page=2

        you should actually do research before you make assumptions.

      3. The Nazis also believed they were Christians. I don’t think you can condemn a religion reconstruction that pre-dates the Nazis, just because the Nazis liked the symbolism.

        That being said, a lot of Aryan/Nazi wannabes are attracted to the Norse ways.

        And Klan members say they are christians.

    3. Obama is an anti-Semite and a Nazi.

      1. What the hell does Obama have to do with this?

    4. No it was not. Ancient pre-Christian Germanic culture was pretty much the opposite of everything National Socialism stood for. Germanic culture held as its foundation the extended family and loyalties to the local community leaders. The Nazi party felt those interpersonal connections were superseded by the individual’s duties to the state and the state was the most important institution of the society. The use of Germanic cultural heros and symbolism were for propaganda purposes.

      “We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us”
      Hitler, Nuremburg 1938

    5. Where do you get the idea that Pagans hate atheists from this article? Generalizations like this aren’t very logical you know. Just because one Heathen doesn’t care for atheists, we’re all going to be tagged with that? lol

      The Nazi’s used certain religious symbols, yes… But that hardly means he was trying to actually revive the old religion itself. And Wagner, as history has shown, had jewish friends. I’ve seen people say things about Christians, yet have Christian friends. Geez, do you just pick at what you want to throw? Or do you actually do any study into these things? It’s amazing to see people try to come across as logical yet do ignorant things such as this.

  2. Goddammit, John, why would you Godwin this? On only the second comment? May Odin send his ravens to pluck out your eyes.

    1. Look man, 13 million deaths will tend to take some of the luster off restoring our aryan heritage.

    2. We can never mention the Nazis? Ever? That seems to me to be a bit intolerant.
      You know who else was intolerant?

    3. Sometimes Nazis are actually relevant to a topic, rather than just being a nasty word to call someone in the course of an online debate.

      And anyway, Godwin’s Law is a truism. As an online discussion progresses, the probability of ANY WORD (Nazis, elephants, syphilis, fava beans, iPods, eye drops, lip gloss, Rolex Watches… anything) being mentioned approaches one. In other words, Godwin’s Law is as true for “the Nazis” as it is for any other noun. It’s pretty clear to me that this guy is talking about the mystical, mythical Aryans. As such, Nazism is extremely relevant.

  3. We’ll take anyone, even a unitarian.

  4. Another religious extremist in the party of Hate.

    1. But he’s not a Democrat! Please READ the article before you comment!

  5. “I don’t think any of this is really relevant to the City Council race. It’s like talking about what church you pray at. That you understand the divine is the most important part.”

    Holy shit, this thread went more than five minutes without an atheist asserting how fucking brilliant and morally superior he is because he doesn’t believe in a God like the overwhelming majority of the idiotic superstitious peasants in this country.

    1. thanks for standing in for me

  6. I only pray he will con Thompson into throwing some mistletoe through Bloomberg’s heart.

    1. Maybe he can get into a blood feud with Bloomberg and put an axe in his brain.

      1. And then run for mayor, hopefully.

  7. I’d like to see a few more New York pols get the blood eagle.

  8. Sadly, even the blood-sacrificing privacy-loving Queens councilman can’t quite stomach the dirty little atheists of the world:

    I don’t think any of this is really relevant to the City Council race. It’s like talking about what church you pray at. That you understand the divine is the most important part.

    understand the divine =/= hate Teh Atheists, KMW

    unless you’ve got a link you’re holding back on us, I think you’re reading a bit more into this than is strictly warranted by the observable facts

    1. understand the divine =/= hate Teh Atheists, KMW

      Sure it is.

      If I said, “When running for office it shouldn’t matter what kind of Christian you are, as long as you aren’t a Jew,” it would be Jew-hating.

      If I said, “When running for office it shouldn’t matter whether you’re Italian or Irish or German or English, as long as you’re white,” would you consider that an intolerant and hateful statement?

      1. Look at the entire quote in context:

        I don’t think any of this is really relevant to the City Council race. It’s like talking about what church you pray at. That you understand the divine is the most important part.

        He’s defending his First Amendment right to freedom of religion, and saying one’s religion is irrelevant to picking a politician, and saying that WHEN you’re discussing which church you pray at, in that particular context here is what should be relevant to that conversation.

        He might be a religious bigot who hates atheists (and he might not), but making that deduction from the particular statement at hand seems like a stretch. KMW is trying, for the sake of provoking a discussion, to read something into the statement that the guy didn’t actually say.

        1. It’s a stretch to miss the anti atheist sentiment in that statement. An accurate rephrasing of the statement is “It’s not relevant to the City Council race how he worships god. It’s just important that he does.”

        2. Prolefeed, since you took issue with my post, one of two things has to be true:

          1. You don’t think that the sample statements I provided would be bigoted.

          2. You don’t think that this guy’s statement is analogous to this guy’s statement.

          Can you tell me which one it is, please? Because either way I want to argue with you, but I only want to argue the appropriate one.

        3. no, it would not be intolerant if he did NOT say “that you understand the divine is the important part” Because what about people who don’t have an understanding of “the divine”, well that’s an automatic disqualification in his eyes.

          maybe that’s not “hate” in your eyes, which you can argue about, but you can’t argue he’s not saying athiests don’t belong in office

  9. That you understand the divine is the most important part.

    No one can understand the Divine.

  10. So because the “the divine is the most important part.” for this guy he is immediately intolerant of atheists? I don’t see how this guy can’t stomach atheism.

    Regards,
    TDL

  11. If there is anything all believers can agree on, it is damn the atheists; can’t have anyone around who refuses to drink the Koolaid.

    1. Maybe, but this guy is drinking a flavor of Kool-Aid many people have never even heard of.

    2. Right. The blood is much tastier.

  12. I think the problem believers have is that the implications of unbelief seem so terrifying, and that rubs off on unbelievers.

    At least if you believe in *something* then generally there is something that happens after death. If you’re a total atheist, there is nothing. Terrifying. Some people can’t deal with it, and don’t want to be around anyone that makes them confront it.

    1. No. The problem is that few people can really accept existential dread. They think they can but they really can’t. So, once they leave conventional religion they start believing all sorts of other nonsense. Sometimes it is benign nonsense like moderate ghia worshiping. Other times it is really dangerous nonsense like Marxism and other utopian ideas.

      1. The problem is that few people can really accept existential dread.

        Praise Cthulhu!

        http://www.cultofcthulhu.net/

      2. 1. Conventional religion has shown itself to be dangerous nonsense throughout history.

        2. Benign and/or dangerous nonsense outside of religion doesn’t address the existential dread. Marxism has no answer for the meaning of life or the fate of the soul. Gaia worship doesn’t promise any solution to the fear of death.

      3. Sometimes it is benign nonsense like moderate ghia worshiping.

        The Italian automobile design company? That’s a pretty weird substitute for religion.

    2. I’ve seen a little of what you suggest, maybe. However I think that it’s more along the lines of any closely held belief. If someone believes something that is pretty much the opposite, it’s offensive and intimidating. I really doubt that for any significant portion, it’s about some more esoteric idea about the terror of nothing.

      For me personally, ending life, with nothing following holds no terror at all. I might be convinced to say that I’m a little worried about being wrong, and ending up someplace exceedingly unpleasant, like liberal utopia, for an extended period of time.

      1. “For me personally, ending life, with nothing following holds no terror at all.”

        If more people thought as you do, I’d be out of a job.

      2. I agree, and I absolutely don’t understand what’s so appealing about spending an infinite amount of time anywhere. It starts to sink in just how long it is when you express it in terms of trillions of trillions of years multiplied by trillions of years times infinity.

  13. “We believe in and honor the Gods and Goddesses of the North, spirits of the land, and the memories of our ancestors,” he wrote.

    An ethnic nationalist, yay!

  14. I thought that Hitler didn’t really think much of Himmlers neopaganism? He thought it embarrasing that the germanic people would living in huts in the forest when the Romans had built a great empire.

    There seems to be a pretty big crossover between neo-nazis and people into the old nordic religion.

  15. If you’re a total atheist, there is nothing. Terrifying.

    In the ravenous abyss of eternal destruction, no one can hear the Clash.

    Worth it.

  16. “I don’t think any of this is really relevant to the City Council race. It’s like talking about what church you pray at. That you understand the divine is the most important part.”

    I’m a philosophical agnostic and a functional atheist but I rather like the idea that politicians believe they will face some kind of divine punishment if go to far. I would note that the Christian Tsar might have been an authoritarian idiot but he could never have been as bloody and ruthless as Stalin because he believed he would inevitably answered to God for his actions. Stalin by contrast was limited only by what he thought he could physically get away with.

    The great advantage of religion is that it can in principle control the actions of true sociopath i.e. someone with no empathy or concern for others. A religious sociopath still has to take into account that he cannot escape divine consequences of his actions. It’s not a perfect safeguard but its better than nothing.

    An atheistic sociopath by contrast has no safeguards. If he believes he gain advantage by hurting people he has no reason not to do so. As long as he believes he can escape the material consequences of his actions he is free to seek his own advantage regardless of the effects on other people.

    Given how many sociopath gravitate to politics, forcing them to at least pay lip service to the idea of the divine might be a good idea. At the very least, it would force them to constrain themselves to a code of behavior external to themselves.

    1. Nothing about atheism implies or insures a lack of ethics. I can be constrained by the principles of self-ownership with invoking a divine being as the basis of that constraint.

      The problem is not religion, it’s actually following through on the beliefs you profess to or expect others to hold. An externally religious person with no solid ethics is not a better human than an atheist with strong ethical conviction.

      1. However an atheist has nothing higher than themselves to appeal to for their moral standards. Additionally, he didn’t state, or imply that atheists, necessarily have a lack of ethics. Only that they don’t have something higher than they to constrain them to a non-arbitrary code. Not that that necessarily means a religious person is necessarily incapable of the same atrocities, there is simply reason to argue that there is less likelihood.

        1. The fear of the divine evaporates if you can convince yourself that the divine approves of your actions.

          The capacity for self-serving rationalization exists in equal proportions in everyone, religious or not.

          1. That is true, but one can lie to oneself only so much before one begins to corrupt one’s own mind. It’s one thing to bullshit others – it’s quite another to bullshit oneself.

          2. Sociopaths do not worry about rationalizing their actions to themselves because they have no empathy to rationalize around. They don’t have to convince themselves they’re helping others or caring out the greater good because they don’t care for either.

            At best, they might care for their own vainglory or their legacy.

          3. Exactly. All this stuff about having to fear some higher authority making someone less dangerous is a steaming crock of shit as has been demonstrated throughout history time and time again. No despot, or anyone else for that matter, has ever wanted for a cheap rationalization that they were doing “God’s will”.

      2. Nothing about atheism implies or insures a lack of ethics.

        No, but sociopaths will show up in any population. If they show up in a religious population and they believe in the religion’s cosmology, they will be more likely to moderate their behavior out of fear of divine punishment. Atheism simply has no mechanism to control and individual who does not care if he hurts others and believes he will suffer no material consequence.

        It’s probably no accident that polities with atheistic cosmologies end up controlled by sociopaths. The sociopaths simply percolate up the system by their willingness to be more ruthless than their more empathetic competitors.

        1. You contention Shannon: “If they show up in a religious population and they believe in the religion’s cosmology, they will be more likely to moderate their behavior out of fear of divine punishment.”, is unthinking tripe.

          If in fact the ethical response of a true believer is to detonate themselves in order to create as much carnage among the infidel as possible, with the expectation of divine reward, how is that an ethical system that “moderates” the believer’s behavior?

          1. Except the vast majority of religions do not condone killing and 2/3+ of humanity belong to religions to that hold up pacifism as the ideal. The entire evolutionary purpose of religion is to foster cooperation and religions that cannot do so don’t last long. Just because religions don’t provide perfect control in the real world doesn’t mean that they are useless at moderating behavior.

            As an empirical matter, atheism has only been major religious perspective for the last two hundred years. In that time, all the people murdered by religious fanatics would not account for more than a rounding error in the body count racked up by atheist.

            Atheists have nothing to brag about.

            1. And if you pick the coldest of the last 100 years, global warming trends create a dangerous hockey stick.

              Atheist has always been around, they just couldn’t come out of the closet due to… wait for it… violent persecution at the hands of religious people.

            2. In that time, all the people murdered by religious fanatics would not account for more than a rounding error in the body count racked up by atheist.

              Yet those murdered by atheists were not killed in the “name of atheism” per se but because of a political philosophy. One can not say that about those killed by believers in the name of some god.

              1. Point is, they were killed by atheist. What the atheist were saying at the time is irrelevant.

                1. As is their atheism.

        2. “they will be more likely to moderate their behavior out of fear of divine punishment”

          no they won’t, that’s why they are sociopaths.

    2. An atheistic sociopath by contrast has no safeguards. If he believes he gain advantage by hurting people he has no reason not to do so. As long as he believes he can escape the material consequences of his actions he is free to seek his own advantage regardless of the effects on other people.

      Works for me.

      1. Stalin claimed to be a atheist as all good bolsheviks should. But more then one person claims to have heard Stalin talk about God in a way that lead them to believe that Stalin believed in God.

        1. I don’t think Stalin’s purported atheism or belief in God lead him to murder.

          Maybe Stalin was just an asshole.

    3. As long as he believes he can escape the material consequences of his actions he is free to seek his own advantage regardless of the effects on other people.

      And what of the psychological consequences and their effects on his own psyche?

      1. A sociopath by definition suffers nor psychological consequences from hurting other people. Sociopath lack the empathic mirror neurons that cause the rest of use to experience a shadow of the pain we see other’s experience. In normal people, this creates a built-in safeguard against utterly selfish actions because hurting other people hurts us. Empathic mirror neurons are the basis of all human cooperation.

        Sociopathy is a genetic cheat that evolved to exploit our otherwise cooperative nature. Roughly 5% of the male population exhibit a measurable degree of sociopathy. About 1% of the male population (0.5% of the female) are complete sociopaths devoid of any empathy for any other living thing. They are motivated purely by naked, Darwinian self interest.

        1. So roughly 4.5 million Americans are sociopaths? Seems a bit high.

          1. According to my liberal friends, libertarians are all sociopaths so the number might be about right.

            1. Nope. Still sounds too high.

              1. Wouldn’t a sociopath want us to think there are less of them around than really is?

                1. or “are”

                  It’s been a long few days.

        2. By definition a sociopath is someone who is already messed up. Empathy is learned behavior and whether a sociopath’s failure to learn it is due to genetics or to some other cause is not something on which I feel qualified to offer an opinion; but even if they do not feel psychic pain from hurting others, I can’t believe they are incapable of feeling any psychic pain of any kind from whatever causes – if that were true, they would not be able to feel psychic pleasure either, in which case why would such a person choose to go on living? I suppose there are those who are incapable of feeling much emotion at all about anything, but I have always read that it was due to severe repression. In that case it can lead to serious physiological consequences, but I think emotions are neither purely psychic nor purely physiological manifestations – they can be both, just as physical illness will often have a psychological effect.

          1. Or put it this way: Even though a sociopath feels no empathetic pain from hurting others, were he (or she) to be caught and punished for his transgressions he would feel the psychic pain of failure or frustration and anger; those are psychological consequences; it can’t be pleasant to feel that one is a failure as a human being either.

        3. naked darwinian self interest in a normal person leads them to the exact same ethics that most religions have. I won’t kill my neighbor or cheat him because I know what goes around comes around, not because of some mystical karma, but because I will be found out and my neighbors will refuse to do business with me or I’ll lose friends.

          Thus, my self interest leads me to act in a completely ethical manner.

        4. also her book was a pile of crap

        5. What the hell does Darwin have to do with naked self-interest? That is such a lazy cheap-shot that I doubt we have to take anything else you say seriously. Darwin’s natural selection is just as responsible for those “empathetic mirror neurons” as for any “naked self interest”.

  17. The post has a Wikipedia link showing that the Theodists have had internal dissent and schisms over the issue of whether to be white supremacists. It appears the non-supremacists won out, at least according to Wikipedia, in the sense that believers aren’t supposed to support a legally-superior position for Nordic peoples.

    So it could be that these guys are simply some people of Germanic descent who are into their alleged pagan roots. If that’s all it is, it’s just the white-guy equivalent of a bunch of chicks forming a Wicca circle, casting some spells, and reminiscing about the Burning Times.

    To see why Germanic paganism has tended to appeal to the wrong king of people, check here.

    1. Whether or not practicing a “racial” religion has never been an issue in Theodism. Theodism is a religion that was developed as a movement separate from Asatru and Odinism and have never excluded anyone on the basis of their ethnicity. We do exclude people for lack of character or lack of serious devotion to our purposes; which are to worship the gods in a way that is consistent with what we know about how the ancient Germanic people worshiped their gods. Nor do we think there is some sort of inherent superiority in the so called “white” race. What would we have to feel so superior about?

      Race has been an issue in Asatru. It is something that has been discussed within Asatru for the past three decades. This discussion produced groups like “Heathens against Hate” and “The Troth” which allows members of all ethnic backgrounds.

      What Theodism is not, is “a bunch of chicks” (rather misogynous statement there) “reminiscing about the Burning Times.” What Theodsmen do is reconstruct ancient Germanic cultural practices utilizing primary source material, archeological findings, linguistics, literature and comparative religious studies. Our study is rigorous and based on what the current professional scholarship on these subjects are, as it relates to our religious practice. There are a number of Theodsmen with graduate degrees in philosophy, history, linguistics and medieval literature. This isn’t just some group of romantics.

    1. Well, Lonewacko wouldn’t have voted for him.

  18. Given how many sociopath gravitate to politics, forcing them to at least pay lip service to the idea of the divine might be a good idea. At the very least, it would force them to constrain themselves to a code of behavior external to themselves”

    This is not logical. If we can constrain their behavior (ie force them to do things or prevent them form doing things) them we should force them to do good or prevent them from doing evil. If we cant control them, then we cant make them pretend to be religious. No?

  19. Let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that a majority of voters in a given jurisdiction are atheists. They believe all religion is a delusion attributable to the machinations of corrupt priests, the political cynical capitalists protecting their property against socialism, or some genetic mutation. Then a candidate comes along who professes belief in God. Would the atheist voters be entitled to take the candidate’s belief into account when deciding whether to elect that candidate?

    I presume that, if a voter thinks that belief in God is a capitalist trick to postpone the glorious socialist milennium, or if he believes that religious believers are inherently irrational and stupid, he will consult those views in deciding how to cast a vote.

    Likewise, a Christian who believes in the existence of an objective moral order will be skeptical of an atheist candidate who sneers at the very existence of such a moral order, or whose pagan worldview teaches adherence to blood and soil at the expense of reason and the Christian God.

    1. I would say absolutely. Why should what a person chooses to believe be off limits as an influence to ones decision to vote for them or not? I don’t consider all religions to be equal, and will readily admit that a politicians beliefs can and will influence my decision to support them.

    2. That’s true, Max, and I would not dispute any of that.

      But that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not some fucking clown who dresses up in a cape and says he worships Odin, and demands tolerance for that, is being a douchebag if he in turn does not tolerate atheists.

      It’s at least possible to be an atheist without being an eccentric public spectacle and a loon. It’s not possible to be an Odin worshipper and say the same. So if this guy wants toleration from me for his idiocy and lunacy, he better not in the same fucking sentence expose his lack of toleration for atheism.

      1. “It’s at least possible to be an atheist without being an eccentric public spectacle and a loon.”

        Unfortunately, not nearly enough atheists avail themselves of this possibility.

  20. the political schemes of cynical capitalists

  21. or a pagan candidate whose pagan worldview

  22. “””I don’t think any of this is really relevant to the City Council race. It’s like talking about what church you pray at. That you understand the divine is the most important part.”””

    Where does the Dan Halloran say that he “can’t quite stomach” atheists? I went to the links and it does not say that. All its says is that understanding the divine is the most important, if you understanding of the divine is that it’s a fraud then you agree with him. So both religious and atheists and anyone else should have no problem with that statement.

    1. I have met plenty of atheists who understand the divine as well as Halloran does.

      Is this a compliment? Not necessarily.

  23. And where the fuck is Warty with the Tyr and Amon Amarth links, anyway?

    1. It’s the harvest moon, time for Warty to eat three times his body weight in pecans and raw beef in preparation for The Feast of Regurgitation.

      1. Impossible. By Epi’s count, that would be 942 lbs. But if he tries, I expect him to fail and then get a web redemption on Tosh.0.

  24. This guy hasn’t shown himself intolerant of anyone but the so-called ‘free-thinkers’ here immediately try to smear his faith as Nazism.

    BTW, both Wagner and the Beatles despite their political flaws which can largely be attributed to their times were great at what they did.

  25. For your impatience, BP, you get Manowar. Think about what you’ve done.

  26. If Pol Pot was a huge fan of The Beatles, should I burn all their albums?

    You should do it anyways.

  27. Actually, I can’t resist the chance to post Tyr. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5zNK–DUDg

    Enjoy some Finntroll while I’m at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1vumjWdqYQ

  28. Saxon violence!

  29. We’ll take anyone, even a unitarian.

    It is mutual, of course, but risky.

    Very risky: they’ll brew vast quantities of bad (but Fair Trade ™!) coffee, start a mailing list and form a bunch of committees.

    Trust me.

    1. That’s mostly true.
      Except the coffee might be good.

      But Unitarians (UU is the proper nomenclature) aren’t necessarily believers in a deity, so I’m not sure that we’ll really be wanted.

  30. For your impatience, BP, you get Manowar.

    Ah, Manowar, the Krokus of viking metal.

    1. I saw Krokus and Iron Maiden in Jackson Mississippi in 82′. They were the opening acts for .38 special. I never figured that one out. All three were damn good that night.

  31. It’s great that this guy can be out and waving a flag about his non-mainstream religion and still get elected. But using his office to further his religious movement just rubs me the wrong way.

    1. “But using his office to further his religious movement”

      How, exactly, is he doing this?

  32. UU is the proper nomenclature

    Yes. The poor Universalists don’t get quite the respect they deserve. They always were better at charity and community outreach, but were in the minority at the merge.

    But if you know of a UU congregation that serves even adequate coffee you must say where. I won’t believe it until I’ve tried it.

    As for the UU pagans, they come in so many flavors that I’ve long since given up trying to keep track. The big advantage of having them around in more fire in the rituals, and the pyromaniac in me likes that.

  33. Hey I live in this guy’s district, and I voted for him mostly because the guy opposing him was backed by the Working Families Party, which is pretty much the political arm of ACORN. I was a little uncomfortable with his religious beliefs. I definitely would have been more comfortable with an atheist than a Theodist(sic?).

  34. You might want to search on Twitter for your name. I called you the IDIOT that you are.

  35. Stupid mystic.

  36. I can imagine that the NY Press will have a field day with such an exotic creature on the City Council .

    And by exotic I mean a non-Democrat.

  37. “It is our hope to reconstruct the pre-Christian religion of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European peoples, within a cultural framework and community environment.”

    Hope all you want. It’s impossible to reconstruct such a religion. And even if it were possible, it’s a stupid idea. It’s not feasible or desirable to reintroduce such a culture into modern day society. For all of the positive sides to such a society, there are a lot of dark sides that no reasonable human being should want to subject their community to.

    And why Germanic? He’s American. As if his ancestry is exclusively Germanic and that’s why he feels the Germanic branch of the Indo-European peoples appeals to him or applies to him?

    I must admit it vexes me terribly that every single time the term Germanic is used, people scream Nazi. I am from a Germanic country, my ancestors were actually Germanic. That does not mean I feel better than (or in fact superior to) people with a different acestry. It does mean that it makes sense to me and it feels right to incorporate some of the old beliefs and customs that have survived (though fragmentary and highly tainted by Christianity) into my pagan practises. I don’t understand why he feels that way. And it is too bad that “Germanic” and especially “Nordic” inspired neo-paganism is apparently a magnet for very ignorant people.

    1. The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes who conquered the English Isles. The tribes in the Rhineland whipped the Roman army. As a result we speak a Germanic language, not a Romantic one, and the Anglo-American people ARE a Germanic people.

      The real shame here is that even those capable of otherwise intelligent discourse cannot shake themselves of the white guilt laid on them by the cult of liberal socialism. One guy wears a dashiki and says, “I’m black and I’m proud!” and everybody claps him on the back with congratulations. Another guy takes up the mantle and religious practices of his ancestors and says, “I’m white and I’m proud!” and everybody wants to tear him apart.

  38. Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer! I will bookmark your blog and have my friends also check up here often. Thumbs up!

  39. I don’t think any of this is really relevant to the City Council race. It’s like talking about what church you pray at. That you understand the divine is the most important part.

  40. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  41. if I were a voter in the 19th district, I would certainly vote for Kevin Kim, whose politics are clearly more progressive than Halloran’s warmed-over right-wing Bush Republicanism. Kim is my atheling of choice. sexy underwear

  42. It must chap Joshua Goldberg’s ass that the PAGAN Republican won his City Council race and Josh didn’t. Hee.

  43. Chelsea won the champions league dramatically, behind the title there are too many unknown inside. In the dressing room after the game, didier drogba to gucci shoes sneakers delivers a impassioned speech, including some of the holy grail of champions league “attack”. Didier drogba reveal the truth from the team of the onlookers. monster beats headphones.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.