Druidism

[Quiddity]

Not sure if the ism is even something used...:cover:

But...

I'm curious how you guys differ if any from other pagan faiths. What's unique to you guys?

 

[Blindinglight]

I'm not sure if there is an official suffix, but I have seen most use the "ism."

The are different from other pagans like any other branch.
Mainly, the modern Druid is HIGHLY reconstructed, as it is against there law to write anything that partains to there sacred teachings down, to avoid anyone that is not a Druid reading it, mis interpreting it, tainting it, or doing anything negative to it. Druids teach by word of mouth to other Druids. Allthough today, it is hard to find a Druid, and books are usually the only method of learning.
There are three primary denominations of Druids, Celtic, Britonic, and I do not remember the third. Traditionally, one must study for a minimum of seven years before the title of Druid is bestowed upon them. The lower ranks are Bard, Apprentice, and then Druid. Another tradition, only males can be Druid, and there is another seperate sect for females, allthough that name also eludes me at this time. One Druid I know refuses to acknowledge any female as a Druid because of this tradition. It's not that he is sexist, it's just the tradition.
Druids are also shamanistic, and focus heavily on earth worship, especially trees, with the Oak being the most sacred tree, as well as the mistletoe being sacred since the Oak produces that plant.
They have there own set of ritual tools, and individualism is a virtue, as it is expected that you make your ritual tools, and robe decorations, to reflect you. Doing something just because someone else did it, and conformity can be considered a sin, as they anger the Gods.
Animal masks and furs are also commonly worn during rituals, to invoke and evoke particular animal spirits.
From there, it splits of heavily from modern day Druids, and the Druids of old. Obviously, you can't be killed today for having an exposed/unsheathed weapon in the prescense of a Druid. Nor can Druids today sacrifice humans, allthough those sacrificed were usually criminals, and others that are less desirable in society.

 

[MaddLlama]

Sorry Vic, I didn't see this one until now =)

First, as it usually is with all forms of Paganism, it depends on what you mean by "Druid". From my experience, there seems to be two or three different meanings:

First, many modern Druids are Recons (as in, seeking to reconstruct an ancient, indigenous faith to the best of their ability), and even with that there are some issues. There are Druid groups that put a heavy focus on scholarship and learning about a particular culture, such as the ADF, but they particularly are a Pan-European group, meaning that they are not specifically focused on Celtic cultures, where the term "Druid" comes from. The Celtic Reconstructionalist groups tend to shy away from the term "Druid" when labeling themselves, since in Celtic cultures the term has some pretty heavy connotations not many can truly live up to.

Second, there are some Druids and some groups that draw heavily from the Druid revival of the 1800's. That was not exclusively a Pagan group, or set of groups, but rather a "revival" of a practice that could be combined with any religion, and at the time was closely related to "secret societies" like the Masons. Unfortunately the Druid Revival was not concerned with scholarship much, so modern Druids today who draw on the writings from these groups are following a very modern faith and not really reconstructing anything. The largest group like this I know of is the AODA.

That being said, I guess it's time I actually answer your question Sorry, I'm long winded, I can't help it.
Druidry/Druidism and Celtic Reconstructionalism are all technically part of the Pagan umbrella, but the non-revivalist groups bear little resemblance to modern Neo-Paganism and Wicca. While revivalist-inspired Druid groups draw on Neo-Pagan ideas and practices, they're also not very closely related to Wicca. Druid groups tend to be polytheistic in nature (and also tend not to be part of the "all gods are one god" camp of "soft polytheism"), and is usually focused on a particular culture, where as Wicca and many modern neo-Pagans tend to be eclectic in that regard.
It's actually somewhat difficult to pin down, since it's harder to get a definition for Neo-Pagan and Wiccan than it is for Druid.

I hope that helps though. And, since I seem to be the only CR/ADF Druid around here, I'd be happy to answer any other questions you've got.

 

[Quiddity]

So one movement is more modern, while the other is less revisionist?

I'm assuming the practices are somewhat similiar?

What would be a good analogy of these two different movements that I could understand?

Is it like "traditional catholics" vs. "progressive catholics?

How dogmatic is Druidism?

 

[Quiddity]

Oh yeah and:

Is Druidism specifically Celtic (culturally speaking)?

Is there any Latin Druids?

 

[MaddLlama]

So one movement is more modern, while the other is less revisionist?

I would say that's a fair assessment.

I'm assuming the practices are somewhat similiar?

Once again, it depends. I'm not really too familiar with the AODA or the OBOD (which is another revivalist group), but I have an AODA book so I'll check it out for you. =)

What would be a good analogy of these two different movements that I could understand?

Is it like "traditional catholics" vs. "progressive catholics?

The difference is actually much larger. My first thought is to say that CR's are more like Messanic Jews, and the Revivalist groups are more like the RCC. However, I'm not entiely sure my characterization of Messanic Judaism is correct. =/

How dogmatic is Druidism?

It depends on how much emphasis the group places on scholarship and the accurate representation of a culture.

Oh yeah and:

Is Druidism specifically Celtic (culturally speaking)?

Is there any Latin Druids?

Historically speaking, the Druids were Gaelic (as in Irish and Scottish). I don't believe that the Gauls and Bretons used the term "Druid" but I could be wrong. But, historically they weren't found anywhere outside Celtic culture.

The revivalist tradition paints a much different picture, and the ADF specifically defines "Druid" in a much looser way, and people in the ADF follow Gods of Greek, Roman, Norse, Celtic, Slavic and Vedic origin. I don't personally agree with this approach, but generally accept syncreticisms like this as long as nobody is claiming that this is historical.

 

[Blindinglight]

So one movement is more modern, while the other is less revisionist?

I'm assuming the practices are somewhat similiar?

What would be a good analogy of these two different movements that I could understand?

Is it like "traditional catholics" vs. "progressive catholics?

How dogmatic is Druidism?

For the first part, yes. Really, the only reason we know anything of the Druids come from what was wrote of them from outsiders, and from studying there relics (anthropology?). It was a crime against the Gods to write down anything that pertained to there religion.

Yes, they are somewhat similar. While the exact details "down to a t" are different, the overall idea remains the same. Also, many Druid's laws are simply un-enforceable today. One such law is putting anyone to death that has an un-sheathed weapon in a Druid's presence.

An odd analogy, would be the group that recreates Medieval living. I forget the exact name, but they live in an as close to a Medieval setting as possible to learn what it would have been like. While to exact details differ (such as they have running water and plumbing in there buildings, and a few other modern technologies), as much of it as possible remains the same. While the Medieval days have long passed (as has the days of the Druids), we have books and things left behind from those days that tell us what it was like.

Depending on your definition of dogma, Druids could be highly dogmatic or not. They did have many strict laws to follow, such as apprentices had to eat only vegetables and fruits, and a lot of laws that were broken were punishable by death. But, free thinking and individualism was encouraged. Especially when making religious tools, robes, amulets, etc., making your own personalized item was actually a requirement, as making it the way someone else did just to have things the same was a sin.

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

It's always been a pet peeve of mine how prevalent "druidism" is in pagan circles. Mostly because the majority of people who label themselves 'druid' wouldn't know one if one came up and whacked 'em in the *** with a boat paddle.

Essentially, a pagan calling themself a Druid is comparable to someone deciding that they like Christianity and so calls themself a Priest. They were spiritual teachers, judges, administrators, doctors... basically they controlled all elite knowledge. Numbers vary, but suffice to say we're talking between 10 and 20 years of study, being taught and having arcane knowledge passed down to them by their elders, before they were considered worthy of the title.

So really, to me, someone reading a book or a website and then calling themself a Druid is a slap in the face of a major religious culture, no matter how old it was. I'm rather insulted by these revivalists groups that allow anyone to join and/or buy their way into the title.

I've been studying Celtic lore of the better part of six years now, I have yet to meet a real Druid, not online, and certainly not in person!

 

[Francine]

I've been studying Celtic lore of the better part of six years now, I have yet to meet a real Druid, not online, and certainly not in person!

I think tree huggers are neo-Druids.

 

[CelticRavenwolf]

How so? Because they care about the environment? That's great, but it certainly doesn't qualify them for the title.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So really, to me, someone reading a book or a website and then calling themself a Druid is a slap in the face of a major religious culture, no matter how old it was. I'm rather insulted by these revivalists groups that allow anyone to join and/or buy their way into the title.

Sadly, this does frequently happen. I have seen many a "Druid" who knows very little about actual Druid laws, traditions, and rituals.

I think tree huggers are neo-Druids.

Why is this? Druids where not tree huggers. Too Druids, the OAK TREE was sacred, and a symbol of the divine. Other trees where held in a high regard, but it was only the oak that had a special place in their culture.

 

[TaraMoon]

It's correct to say that there are two distinct modern types of druidry/druidism. The Reconstructionists (ADF and Henge of Keltria being examples) practice a polytheistic religion(s) reconstructed from historical sources. Because historical sources are scant, the reconstructed religions are, at least in some regards, approximations. ADF is not strictly Celtic, as someone mentioned, but Henge of Keltria is. ADF performs public rituals and Henge of Keltria does not. Reconstructionist Druids do believe that all gods are manifestations of one god (or goddess). I can not speak for ADF, but the Celtic Reconstructionists do not work with directions in the sense that Wiccans do. Instead, they work with three levels: the air (the realm of the gods), the sea (the realm of the ancestors), and the land (our world). As far as I know, ADF is the largest Reconstructionist Druid group. I'll leave it to the ADF member to explain the process of becoming a member and moving up through the ranks to becoming a full Druid.

The Revivalist Druid groups,of which Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (OBOD) is, by far, the largest (it's the largest Druid order of any type), arose from the British Druid revival groups of the 1800s. OBOD is a philosophical, as compared to religious, order. Although most members probably are pagans, paganism is not a requirement for membership.There is a strong focus on nature and spirtuality. Rituals are strongly influenced by Masonic ritual form, as are the rituals of Wicca, the Golden Dawn, OTO,and other groups. Directions, rather than levels are used.

 

[TaraMoon]

(sorry, my screen froze up and I couldn't continue typing, so I had to add a second post)
OBOD has a lengthy course of study that is required to move up the ranks from Bard to Ovate to Druid. It takes a minimum of about three years of study to reach the level of Druid and few make it in that period of time. OBOD uses Welsh gods in its rituals, although they may be thought of as real deities, metaphors, or archetypes according to the preference of the member. I wouldn't say that OBOD is anti-scholarly because Druidry, in general, attracts people who are more scholastically inclined that does Wicca, but OBOD is more concerned with philosophy than history.

It would be fair to say, although still a generalization, that Wiccans would be inclined to dance around a bonfire while Druids would be inclined to sit around the bonfire discussing the history of dancing around a bonfire.

 

[TaraMoon]

OOPS, major typo. Glad I reread my post. Reconstructionist Druids do NOT believe that all gods are manifestations of one god (or goddess), nor are they duotheists.

 

[TaraMoon]

I'm not sure if there is an official suffix, but I have seen most use the "ism."

The are different from other pagans like any other branch.
Mainly, the modern Druid is HIGHLY reconstructed, as it is against there law to write anything that partains to there sacred teachings down, to avoid anyone that is not a Druid reading it, mis interpreting it, tainting it, or doing anything negative to it. Druids teach by word of mouth to other Druids. Allthough today, it is hard to find a Druid, and books are usually the only method of learning.
There are three primary denominations of Druids, Celtic, Britonic, and I do not remember the third. Traditionally, one must study for a minimum of seven years before the title of Druid is bestowed upon them. The lower ranks are Bard, Apprentice, and then Druid. Another tradition, only males can be Druid, and there is another seperate sect for females, allthough that name also eludes me at this time. One Druid I know refuses to acknowledge any female as a Druid because of this tradition. It's not that he is sexist, it's just the tradition.
Druids are also shamanistic, and focus heavily on earth worship, especially trees, with the Oak being the most sacred tree, as well as the mistletoe being sacred since the Oak produces that plant.
They have there own set of ritual tools, and individualism is a virtue, as it is expected that you make your ritual tools, and robe decorations, to reflect you. Doing something just because someone else did it, and conformity can be considered a sin, as they anger the Gods.
Animal masks and furs are also commonly worn during rituals, to invoke and evoke particular animal spirits.
From there, it splits of heavily from modern day Druids, and the Druids of old. Obviously, you can't be killed today for having an exposed/unsheathed weapon in the prescense of a Druid. Nor can Druids today sacrifice humans, allthough those sacrificed were usually criminals, and others that are less desirable in society.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information. There are quite a few Druid orders and books are not the only method of learning about Druidry/Druidism and some of the books that do exist are pure balderdash.

Traditionally, one must study for seven years to earn the title of Druid? Where did you get that? Traditionally, one had to study for more than 20 years.

None of the major Druid orders deny women membership. There is historical evidence that women were Druids.

Some individual Druids may be shamanistic, but I know of no Druid order that is shamanistic.

Sin isn't a Druid concept.

I know of no Druid order that uses animal masks and furs.

I know of no historical documentation of people being killed for unsheathing a weapon in the presence of Druid.

There is also no real evidence that Druids ever sacrificed anyone (they may have, but we simply do not know). A single account exists of Druids (or a Druid) being present at a sacrifice and that was written by someone who had never seen a Druid.

Can you cite your sources for this balderdash?

 

[TaraMoon]

So one movement is more modern, while the other is less revisionist?

I'm assuming the practices are somewhat similiar?

What would be a good analogy of these two different movements that I could understand?

Is it like "traditional catholics" vs. "progressive catholics?

How dogmatic is Druidism?

One movement is reconstructionist and the other is revivalist philosophical.
Both overlap, but the reconstructionists try not to do anything they can't document historically, whereas the revivalist philosophical movement isn't hung up about this. The problem the reconstructionists encounter is that there is scant historical evidence from which to work. Therefore, ADF, at least (and the ADF member can correct me if I'm wrong), has adopted a pan-European historical approach and operates on the assumption that if there's no evidence for how something was done in one ancient European country, evidence for how it was done in another will suffice. I would say that it would be fair, in a very limited sense, to compare the reconstructionists to traditional Catholics and the revivalists to Unitarian Universalists. It depends on what you mean by dogmatic. The reconstructionists are insistent on historical sources for practices and the revivalists are not. Both movements have their advantages and disadvantages and some people are members of both reconstructionist and revivalist orders.

 

[Yoda]

It's always been a pet peeve of mine how prevalent "druidism" is in pagan circles. Mostly because the majority of people who label themselves 'druid' wouldn't know one if one came up and whacked 'em in the *** with a boat paddle.

Essentially, a pagan calling themself a Druid is comparable to someone deciding that they like Christianity and so calls themself a Priest. They were spiritual teachers, judges, administrators, doctors... basically they controlled all elite knowledge. Numbers vary, but suffice to say we're talking between 10 and 20 years of study, being taught and having arcane knowledge passed down to them by their elders, before they were considered worthy of the title.

So really, to me, someone reading a book or a website and then calling themself a Druid is a slap in the face of a major religious culture, no matter how old it was. I'm rather insulted by these revivalists groups that allow anyone to join and/or buy their way into the title.

I've been studying Celtic lore of the better part of six years now, I have yet to meet a real Druid, not online, and certainly not in person!

Be kind of hard to come by Ravenwolf, meeting a real Druid that is. I explored this some years ago. Purchased what I thought was a how to book on the subject and soon found out there was more to it than learning from a book. This is Ancient Religion that requires more than just book learning.....

 

[Kcnorwood]

Like I just said in another post I've been a Pagan for 10 years but for the past 6 months I've been studying Druidism. Like others have said on here I too have never met another Druid not to my knowledge at least. Most Pagans here I have met here in the biblebelt are Wiccans. I am finding it very hard to sepreate fact from fiction. Some books I have read on the subject are considered fluff, & it's only after I am done reading it that someome tells me that the book is full of BS. I have not joined any groups as of yet money is tight & I have been laid off so until I get back to work I can't. I can not say that I see any major differences in Druidism VS other Pagan paths other then Druids have ALOT to learn & it takes time to sink in. I think it's like most Pagan belifes your trying to get to the same place just a different way of getting there. With all this said it is VERY hard to tell what to & what not to study because Druidism had more oral teachings then written.

My two cents anyways.. :thud:

 

[Tau]

Druids do not exist anymore, wiped out by the Christians by the 5th century.

Those whom claim to be druids are 99.999% probability not druids, not in the empirical sense.

I am prepared to accept however that some teachings, have been transcribed, druids did not write down their teachings as an actual rule, their lore in the main died with them.

Still the spiritual essence that lent people to druidism in the distant past may yet resurface, and neo druids may appear, a neo druid I am willing to accept.

 

[Kcnorwood]

Druids do not exist anymore, wiped out by the Christians by the 5th century.

Those whom claim to be druids are 99.999% probability not druids, not in the empirical sense.

I am prepared to accept however that some teachings, have been transcribed, druids did not write down their teachings as an actual rule, their lore in the main died with them.

Still the spiritual essence that lent people to druidism in the distant past may yet resurface, and neo druids may appear, a neo druid I am willing to accept.

Same could be said for any religion even christianty whos to say that the translations were right or that the ones who found the original text were not tained?