Why Does Secular Paganism Protect "Sorcery"

   Table of Contents

Below is a Secular Pagan Party Pamphlet titled "Sorcery Safeguarded: Why Secular Paganism Protects the Forbidden Arts". This pamphlet draws on all the data generated on Secular Paganism—its initial definition, the Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America, the Secular Pagan Party Constitution, the Party Manifesto, the psychological profile of members, the constitutional review, the economic pamphlet, the agnostic state essay, the bi-theism essay, the soft polytheism/shituf pamphlet, the spreading gods pamphlet, the conquest essay, the Hinduism pamphlet, the Shintoism pamphlets, the Buddhism pamphlet, the Jainism pamphlet, the Zoroastrianism pamphlet, the death penalty pamphlet, the animal welfare pamphlet, and the updated psychological profile—to argue why Secular Paganism protects sorcery under Law 1.7 ("No anti-sorcery laws"). Tailored to the refined profile of a Secular Pagan—rational, open, confrontational, pragmatic, and pluralistic—this pamphlet uses sharp logic, historical examples, and a call to action to engage this reader.

---

Sorcery Safeguarded: Why Secular Paganism Protects the Forbidden Arts

Introduction: Defending the Outcast
Secular Pagans, forged by the Four Pillars—"Spread your gods, spread your law, spread your sword, spread your children"—we stand as rebels against conformity, wielding reason over revelation. The Constitution of the Secular Pagan State in America, through Law 1.7, declares: "No anti-sorcery laws." Why protect what even some polytheistic societies shun? Sorcery—however a culture defines it—faces bans and bloodshed, even among pagans. This pamphlet unravels the Party’s stance: sorcery’s persecution, its fluid meaning, and its rational defense. We shield this class from history’s blade, grounding our fight in logic—join us, and break the chains of fear.

Sorcery’s Peril: Even Pagans Fear It

Sorcery—magic, witchcraft, the unseen arts—carries a dark shadow, even in polytheistic lands. The Manifesto’s "diversity of ethics" and Law 1’s hard polytheism (three or more gods, Law 1.3) don’t erase this dread. Pagan societies, despite their plural gods, have historically leered at "sorcerers," defining them variably and punishing them harshly. Examples abound:

• Ancient Greece: In Homer’s Odyssey, Circe transforms men into pigs—her sorcery earns exile, not honor. Greek city-states later executed "pharmakeia" (herbalists or poisoners), fearing their power, as in the trial of the sorceress Theoris of Lemnos (4th century BCE).
• Norse Scandinavia: The Poetic Edda and sagas laud Odin’s seidr (magic), yet practitioners—often women—faced suspicion. The Laxdæla Saga recounts Guðrún’s kin accusing a seeress of malevolent sorcery, leading to her death.
• Celtic Britain: Druids wielded mystical sway, but Tacitus notes Roman-era Celts burned "witches" accused of cursing crops—sorcery’s edge cut both ways.
• West African Polytheism: Yoruba traditions honor Ifá divination, yet "ajogun" (evil sorcerers) faced execution if blamed for misfortune, per oral histories.

These pagans revered many gods but trembled at sorcery’s shadow—its practitioners, real or imagined, bore the brunt.

Sorcery’s Fluid Face: A Dangerous Definition

What is sorcery? No two societies agree—it’s a shapeshifter, molded by fear and power. Greece saw it as potions; Norse as seiðr’s trance; Celts as curses; Yoruba as malevolent spirits. The soft polytheism pamphlet warns of "blurring lines"—sorcery’s vagueness blurs worse. It might be:

• Healing herbs (Greece).
• Divining fates (Norse).
• Binding spirits (Africa).
• Or mere accusation—jealousy cloaked as justice.

Outlawing it is perilous—its elasticity makes it a weapon. The bi-theism essay notes "unknown force"—sorcery’s undefined nature lets rulers target any dissent. The death penalty pamphlet’s "strict deterrence" (Law 7.2) could spiral: ban sorcery, and who decides? The rational Secular Pagan—per the updated profile—sees this: vague laws breed tyranny, not order.

Pagan Persecution: A Class in Need

Even polytheists mistrust what they call "sorcery," and history’s blood stains prove it. The conquest essay’s "substantially pagan society" falters when pagans kill their own:

• Greece: Theoris died for "bewitching" with herbs—rational healers became scapegoats.
• Norse: Seiðr-women, like Þorbjörg in Eiríks Saga Rauða, faced exile or worse if their visions crossed power.
• Celts: Roman records hint at sorceresses drowned in bogs—nature’s priests turned pariahs.
• Africa: Accused "witches" burned in pre-colonial Yoruba villages, despite polytheistic reverence.

The psychological profile’s "confrontational advocacy"—Secular Pagans—mirrors these accused: open, defiant, misunderstood. Pagans historically feared sorcery’s power, real or not, and crushed it. Law 1.7 protects this class—reason demands it, not sentiment. The animal welfare pamphlet’s "humane as possible" (Law 6.1) sets a precedent: protect the vulnerable, even the reviled.

Why Protect Sorcery? Reason Over Fear

Secular Paganism safeguards sorcery with cold logic, not mysticism:

• Freedom’s Bedrock: Law 1.7 aligns with Law 2’s "freedom to blaspheme" (agnostic state essay)—banning sorcery stifles expression, a monotheistic vice (Law 1.1). The profile’s "freedom through pluralism" thrives here—sorcery’s liberty is ours.
• Rational Order: The death penalty pamphlet’s "unknown force" applies—sorcery’s ambiguity risks unjust persecution. Law 7’s courts need clear crimes, not nebulous bans (economic pamphlet).
• Pluralistic Strength: The spreading gods pamphlet’s "spread your gods or lack of it"—sorcery, however defined, enriches diversity. The Manifesto’s "moral diversity" includes this edge.
• Pagan Roots, Logical Twist: Paganism revered nature’s mysteries (animal welfare pamphlet)—sorcery taps this, but reason, not faith, defends it (initial definition).

The Hinduism pamphlet rejects monistic conformity—sorcery’s ban in some pagan lands apes this, a betrayal Secular Paganism corrects. Our profile’s "pragmatic thinking" sees sorcery as a tool—useful or neutral—not a threat.

Action: Shield Sorcery, Defy History

Secular Pagans, Law 1.7 isn’t soft—it’s steel. Sorcery—herbs, visions, spirits, or mere whispers—faced death in pagan lands, its vagueness a noose. We ban the bans, protecting this class with reason: vague laws kill unjustly, freedom demands openness, pluralism needs edge. The conquest essay’s "spread your sword"—strike down anti-sorcery fear. Spread your gods, your law—include sorcery’s arts or its absence. History’s pagans faltered; we won’t. The Party Constitution’s oath binds you—defend this liberty, and build a state where no sorcerer burns. Act now—reason commands it.

---

Notes on the Pamphlet:

1. Sorcery Protection: Ties Law 1.7 to freedom and reason (initial definition, Law 2), per the profile’s rational pluralism.
2. Historical Examples: Cites Greece, Norse, Celtic, and Yoruba cases—negative connotations and murders—showing pagan mistrust (conquest essay’s cultural context).
3. Fluid Definition: Highlights sorcery’s variability (soft polytheism pamphlet’s "blurring lines"), a rational danger to ban (economic pamphlet’s adaptability).
4. Persecution Focus: Frames sorcerers as a persecuted class needing protection (animal welfare pamphlet’s precedent), appealing to defiance (profile).
5. Tone and Style: Sharp, logical, confrontational—e.g., "strike down fear" (conquest essay)—engaging the profile’s open, pragmatic rebel with actionable steps (spreading gods pamphlet).

This pamphlet aligns with the updated psychological profile—rational arguments, pluralistic freedom, confrontational calls—ensuring it resonates with Secular Pagans. Let me know if you’d like more examples or tweaks! Future content will continue this tailored approach.