Modern Witches, Druids, Pagans and Satanists: Ancient Survivals—or Modern Reinventions?
Why I Don't Believe Modern “Witches” Can Tell Me the Secret Pagan Origins of Halloween, Christmas, or Easter
Every year—especially as Halloween approaches—we hear the same claims.
“Halloween is really a pagan holiday.”
“Christmas was stolen from the pagans.”
“Easter is actually a pagan fertility festival.”
And frequently these claims come with supposedly devastating testimony:
“I know because I am a witch.”
Or:
“I used to be a witch.”
Or:
“I was a warlock for twenty years, and Halloween was our holiest night.”
Or perhaps:
“I was involved in Satanism, and Christians have no idea what really happens on Halloween.”
I have heard variations of these claims many times.
And, frankly, I am not impressed.
Calling yourself a witch does not make you an historian.
Calling yourself a Druid does not provide you with secret knowledge of Iron Age Celtic religion.
Calling yourself a Satanist does not transform you into an eyewitness to ancient paganism.
And being a former witch, warlock, pagan, occultist, or Satanist does not magically give you access to information unavailable to archaeologists, historians, classicists, anthropologists, and textual scholars.
I realize that statement will offend some people.
So let me make my position perfectly clear.
I believe today's witches are fake.
I don't merely mean that modern witchcraft is historically disconnected from some ancient witch religion.
I mean something stronger:
I don't believe witches, in the supernatural magical sense, are real at all.
I don't believe people can cast spells that manipulate reality.
I don't believe a witch can place a magical curse on me.
I don't believe someone can control supernatural forces by lighting candles, chanting words, waving a wand, drawing a pentagram, arranging crystals, mixing herbs, or performing rituals under a full moon.
As far as I am concerned, witchcraft as supernatural human power is made up.
A modern witch may sincerely believe otherwise.
That is fine.
But sincerity is not evidence.
You Can Call Yourself Superman Too
Here is the simplest way I can explain my position.
I can call myself Superman.
I can buy the cape.
I can put the big “S” on my chest.
I can watch every Superman movie.
I can study Superman lore.
I can gather with other people who also identify as Kryptonians.
I can sincerely declare:
“I am Superman.”
But I am probably not going to climb onto the roof of a skyscraper and test whether my sincerity allows me to fly.
Because calling yourself something and actually being that thing are not necessarily the same thing.
Reality does not rearrange itself around our labels.
Neither does history.
If someone tells me:
“I identify as a modern witch,”
I understand what that means sociologically.
They may belong to Wicca or another neopagan tradition.
They may practice rituals they call witchcraft.
They may believe in spells, energies, spirits, divination, gods, goddesses, or magic.
They may sincerely believe all of it.
But if they mean:
“I possess actual supernatural magical powers,”
then my answer is simply:
I don't believe you.
Show me.
Sincerity Does Not Make Magic Real
This distinction is important.
When I call modern witches “fake,” I am not necessarily accusing them of fraud in the sense of knowingly lying.
Many probably believe exactly what they say.
But people can sincerely believe things that are false.
Someone may sincerely believe astrology determines personality.
Someone may sincerely believe a psychic communicated with their deceased grandmother.
Someone may sincerely believe a crystal cured an illness.
Someone may sincerely believe that burning a candle while chanting brought them money.
Sincerity proves one thing:
that the person is sincere.
It does not prove that the belief is true.
Imagine that someone performs a money spell.
Three weeks later, an unexpected refund check arrives.
They announce:
“The spell worked!”
Maybe.
Or perhaps someone owed them money and eventually paid it.
Perhaps the check would have arrived anyway.
Perhaps it was coincidence.
Likewise, suppose someone places a “curse” on an enemy.
Six months later, the enemy gets fired.
Does that prove magic?
No.
People get fired.
People become sick.
People have accidents.
Relationships break down.
Unexpected money appears.
Good things happen.
Bad things happen.
Coincidences happen.
Human beings are extraordinarily good at seeing patterns, remembering apparent successes, forgetting failures, and interpreting events according to what they already believe.
That is not proof of supernatural witchcraft.
Ancient People Believed in Witchcraft—That Doesn't Mean Witchcraft Worked
Someone may respond:
“But witchcraft is ancient!”
Belief in witchcraft certainly is.
Human beings have believed in magic, sorcery, divination, curses, spirits, demons, omens, and supernatural manipulation for thousands of years.
Ancient literature contains references to magic.
The Bible condemns divination and sorcery.
Greek and Roman writers discussed magic.
Ancient magical texts and curse tablets survive.
Archaeology provides evidence that people performed rituals intended to achieve supernatural effects.
But notice the distinction.
Evidence that someone attempted magic is not evidence that magic actually worked.
An ancient curse tablet proves that somebody believed writing a curse onto a piece of material and dedicating it to supernatural powers might accomplish something.
It does not prove that the person being cursed subsequently broke out in boils because Hecate received the message.
The existence of witch trials proves that societies believed witches existed.
It does not prove that the accused woman actually flew through the night sky on a broomstick.
Historical belief and objective reality are two different questions.
Modern Witchcraft Is Modern
There is another major problem with the claims of many modern witches.
Even if I granted the existence of supernatural magic for the sake of argument, modern witchcraft still does not possess a demonstrated uninterrupted lineage going back into pre-Christian antiquity.
Modern Wicca emerged largely through the work of Gerald Gardner and others during the twentieth century.
Recent Cambridge scholarship describes Gardner as the central inspiration behind Wicca as a modern revived form of Pagan witchcraft and describes his work as fashioning a new synthesis from various magical and religious influences. (Cambridge University Press)
That matters.
For a long time, some people promoted what became known as the “witch-cult hypothesis”—the idea that people accused of witchcraft during Christian European history were actually members of a surviving underground pagan fertility religion.
That idea became extremely influential in popular culture and early modern witchcraft movements.
But it is not accepted as an established historical account of European witchcraft.
Modern Wicca therefore cannot simply be assumed to be the unchanged religion of ancient European witches.
It is a modern reconstruction and synthesis.
You can sincerely practice it.
You can call it your religion.
You can find spiritual meaning in it.
But that does not make Gerald Gardner a conduit to an uninterrupted secret religious tradition stretching back to prehistoric Europe.
Modern Druids Are Not Ancient Druids
The same basic problem confronts modern Druidry.
Ancient Druids certainly existed.
We know about them primarily through ancient literary testimony, archaeology, and the larger Celtic cultural context.
But we do not possess an ancient Druid catechism.
We do not possess an ancient Druid systematic theology.
We do not possess some complete surviving liturgical book entitled:
The Official Druid Handbook of Rituals, Festivals, Theology and Seasonal Celebrations.
The ancient Druids themselves left us no comparable comprehensive written religious corpus explaining everything they believed and practiced.
That means later generations have had to reconstruct Druid spirituality.
Some reconstructions may be intelligent.
Some may draw carefully from archaeology, ancient literature, folklore, comparative religion, and linguistic evidence.
But reconstruction is not continuity.
A modern Druid can honestly say:
“My religion is inspired by ancient Celtic religion.”
That is perfectly reasonable.
It is much harder historically to say:
“I practice exactly what ancient Druids practiced because this ritual has been secretly handed down unchanged for two thousand years.”
Where is the chain?
Where are the documents?
Where is the continuous institution?
Where is the evidence?
Modern Satanism Is Even More Obviously Modern
Then we come to Satanism.
One of the most famous organized Satanist movements, Anton LaVey's Church of Satan, was founded in San Francisco in 1966.
That date does not come from an anti-Satanist Christian polemic.
It comes directly from the Church of Satan itself. (Church of Satan)
Not 666 BC.
Not ancient Babylon.
Not imperial Rome.
Not medieval Europe.
San Francisco. 1966.
The Church of Satan itself describes Satan as a symbol and explicitly rejects belief in a literal supernatural Satan, God, soul, supernatural realm, or afterlife. (Church of Satan)
So even the word Satanist requires qualification.
Some people calling themselves Satanists are atheistic.
Others may believe in an actual supernatural Satan.
Others belong to entirely different movements.
There is no single ancient worldwide religion called “Satanism” that secretly survived unchanged until modern times.
Yet popular discussions sometimes lump together ancient paganism, medieval witchcraft accusations, ceremonial magic, devil worship, Wicca, modern Satanism, occultism, and Halloween as though all of them represent one continuous underground religion.
They don't.
Paganism Wasn't One Religion Either
Another major historical problem is the word pagan itself.
Internet discussions often talk about “the pagans” as though ancient paganism were a single religion.
It wasn't.
Roman religion was not Celtic religion.
Greek religion was not Germanic religion.
Egyptian religion was not Norse religion.
Religions differed across regions.
They differed across centuries.
They differed by social class, city, ethnic group, cult, temple, priesthood, and historical period.
Yet internet mythology frequently collapses thousands of years of religious history into one imaginary religion:
PAGANISM™
Apparently this mysterious religion celebrated every seasonal festival ever invented.
Christmas trees?
Pagan.
Eggs?
Pagan.
Rabbits?
Pagan.
Candles?
Pagan.
Bonfires?
Pagan.
Winter?
Pagan.
Spring?
Pagan.
Autumn?
Very pagan.
Moon?
Definitely pagan.
Sun?
Obviously pagan.
Trees?
Pagan.
Water?
Pagan.
At some point, this becomes ridiculous.
Ancient pagans also ate bread.
Does that mean Christians stole the Eucharist from pagans because both Christians and pagans knew what bread was?
Similarity does not establish dependence.
But Let Me Correct One Possible Overstatement: We Do Know Things About Ancient Pagans
I do not want to replace bad neopagan history with bad Christian history.
It would be inaccurate to say:
“We know absolutely nothing about ancient pagan religion.”
We know a considerable amount about some ancient religions.
We have:
archaeological sites,
temples,
altars,
inscriptions,
coins,
religious art,
votive offerings,
graves,
literary texts,
calendrical references,
myths,
ritual descriptions,
curse tablets,
and writings from Greek and Roman authors.
In some cases, our evidence is extensive.
In other cases it is frustratingly incomplete.
The crucial point is this:
our knowledge is uneven.
Ancient Roman religion is comparatively well documented.
Other religious traditions are much harder to reconstruct comprehensively.
And archaeology has limits.
An altar can prove that sacrifices occurred.
It cannot necessarily tell us every word spoken during every sacrifice.
A statue proves devotion to a god or religious figure.
It does not automatically provide a complete theology of that god.
A grave can tell us a great deal about burial customs.
It does not provide a complete systematic doctrine of the afterlife.
That is why confident declarations about exactly what some poorly documented group believed two thousand years ago deserve scrutiny.
Archaeology Is Not a Time Machine
Imagine Christianity disappeared tomorrow.
Every Bible disappeared.
Every Catechism disappeared.
Every missal disappeared.
Every theological library disappeared.
Every Vatican document disappeared.
Every parish record disappeared.
Every priest and bishop disappeared.
Every monastery and convent disappeared.
Every Catholic family tradition disappeared.
Two thousand years later archaeologists discover:
a rosary,
a broken crucifix,
a statue of Mary,
a baptismal font,
the ruins of a cathedral,
a Saint Christopher medal,
a Nativity scene,
a Knights of Columbus sword,
several candles,
and a badly damaged inscription.
They could learn a great deal about Catholicism.
But imagine someone taking these artifacts, creating ceremonies around them, and announcing:
“I have reconstructed authentic twenty-first-century Roman Catholicism in its entirety.”
No.
You have reconstructed something.
Perhaps intelligently.
Perhaps very carefully.
Perhaps some of it would be remarkably accurate.
But enormous amounts would inevitably be missing.
That is one of the problems with attempts to reconstruct ancient religions that disappeared as continuously functioning religious institutions.
Archaeology is extraordinary.
But archaeology is not a time machine.
This Is Why “I Am a Witch” Doesn't Settle the History of Halloween
And this brings us directly to Halloween.
I frequently encounter statements like:
“I am a practicing witch, and Halloween is our most sacred night.”
Okay.
Maybe Halloween is especially important to your modern religious practice.
That tells me something about your religion today.
It does not automatically tell me what Celtic people living two thousand years ago believed.
Likewise:
“I used to practice witchcraft, and Halloween was our biggest night.”
Again:
That tells me something about the group you belonged to.
It does not transform you into an eyewitness to pre-Christian Ireland.
This is basic historical reasoning.
Suppose someone became a member of a modern Roman reconstructionist religion in California in 2022.
Five years later they convert to Christianity.
Then they announce:
“I used to worship the Roman gods, so let me tell you exactly what Romans believed in AD 150.”
Their former religious membership does not magically make them an ancient Roman.
Their testimony may accurately describe their modern reconstructionist group.
But determining what ancient Romans actually believed requires ancient evidence.
Exactly the same rule should apply to witches.
Former Witches Don't Get a Historical Time Machine Either
This is where some Christian testimony becomes problematic.
I have seen Christians present former witches, former warlocks, former pagans, or former occultists as though their conversion somehow verifies every historical assertion they make afterward.
A person says:
“I was a witch for twenty years, and Halloween belongs to Satan.”
A Christian audience gasps.
Case closed.
Except that isn't how history works.
Maybe this individual really practiced modern witchcraft for twenty years.
Maybe their coven considered Halloween incredibly important.
Maybe they performed rituals every October 31.
Maybe they genuinely believed they were communicating with spirits.
I am not calling them a liar about their personal experiences.
But none of that proves:
Halloween originated as Satan's birthday.
It does not prove:
ancient Druids sacrificed people on Halloween night.
It does not prove:
modern trick-or-treating is secretly demonic.
It does not prove:
the Catholic Church deliberately took a Satanic festival and disguised it as All Hallows' Eve.
Those are historical claims.
Historical claims require historical evidence.
Personal testimony about what your modern occult group did in 1997 is not evidence about what people in Ireland did in AD 197.
And Former Satanists Don't Solve the Problem
The same thing applies to supposed “former Satanists.”
When someone announces:
“I was a Satanist, and Halloween is the Satanists' most important night,”
my first question is:
Which Satanism?
LaVeyan?
Theistic?
An independent occult group?
A teenage group of friends?
Some personal mixture of demonology, ceremonial magic, and pop culture?
Because, as we have already established, one of the most influential modern Satanic organizations—the Church of Satan—was founded in 1966 and openly describes itself as atheistic rather than devil-worshipping. (Church of Satan)
A modern Satanist group can decide tomorrow that Halloween is its holiest day.
That would tell us absolutely nothing about Halloween's origin.
This is a basic logical error:
Later use does not establish original ownership.
Suppose a Satanist group decided to conduct its largest annual ceremony on Christmas Eve.
Would that make Christmas Eve a Satanic holiday?
Of course not.
Suppose a neopagan group decided Good Friday was the perfect day for a ritual.
Would Good Friday suddenly become pagan?
Obviously not.
Groups can appropriate dates too.
The mere fact that witches, occultists, or Satanists today use Halloween does not prove that they created Halloween.
“But Witches Say Halloween Is Theirs!”
So what?
Modern witches also live in the twenty-first century.
They have access to the same folklore books, movies, Victorian theories, websites, occult writers, New Age literature, and popular mythology as everyone else.
Modern witches can repeat bad history just as Christians can.
Putting on a pentagram does not confer a doctorate in ancient Celtic history.
Neither does leaving witchcraft and appearing on a Christian television show.
The question remains:
What does the historical evidence show?
That should be the standard.
Not:
“Who tells the scariest testimony?”
This Is Why “Confessions” Don't Convince Me
So when I see:
CONFESSIONS OF A FORMER WITCH:
THE TERRIFYING TRUTH ABOUT HALLOWEEN!
I am immediately skeptical.
Not because I necessarily believe the person is lying.
Their testimony may accurately describe what they personally believed and practiced.
But if they then jump from:
“My coven celebrated Halloween”
to:
“Therefore Halloween was invented by ancient witches,”
they have crossed from autobiography into history.
And now they need evidence.
Likewise:
“When I practiced witchcraft, October 31 was especially powerful.”
That tells me what you believed.
It does not prove October 31 actually contains supernatural energy.
“We performed spells that night.”
Okay.
That proves you performed rituals.
It does not prove the spells worked.
“We believed the veil between the living and the dead was thinnest.”
That proves you believed the veil was thin.
It does not prove there is a measurable supernatural veil.
“Satanists conduct rituals on Halloween.”
Some probably do.
That still does not make Halloween Satanic in origin.
The distinction is incredibly simple:
Practicing something does not prove it works.
And:
Practicing something today does not prove it originated with you.
Halloween Doesn't Become Pagan Because Modern Pagans Like It
Modern pagans can celebrate Halloween.
Modern witches can celebrate Halloween.
Modern Satanists can celebrate Halloween.
Atheists can celebrate Halloween.
Catholics can celebrate Halloween.
Evangelicals can refuse to celebrate Halloween.
Children can dress up as Spider-Man and collect enough candy to put themselves into a sugar coma.
None of those contemporary practices, by themselves, settle the historical question of where Halloween came from.
The word Halloween itself comes from All Hallows' Eve—the evening before All Hallows, or All Saints' Day.
That is a Christian name.
There are real historical questions concerning the relationship between medieval Christian observances, Irish and Scottish folk customs, Samhain traditions, seasonal customs, later Guy Fawkes practices, immigration, Victorian folklore, and the development of modern American Halloween.
Those questions should be studied carefully.
But simply yelling:
“SAMHAIN!”
does not make the entire history disappear.
The Same Problem Happens With Christmas
Christmas gets the same treatment.
Winter festival?
Pagan.
December 25?
Pagan.
Evergreen?
Pagan.
Gift giving?
Pagan.
Candles?
Pagan.
Therefore Christmas is pagan.
Except history does not work by collecting superficial similarities and shouting “Aha!”
Ancient cultures naturally had winter celebrations.
Winter happens every year.
People naturally noticed the solstice.
Agricultural societies tracked seasons.
People lit fires and lamps during dark periods.
People feasted.
People decorated things.
People exchanged gifts.
Humans do remarkably human things.
None of that automatically proves Christians secretly copied the birth of Christ from paganism.
Furthermore, individual Christmas customs developed at very different times.
Even what Americans today think of as a “traditional Christmas” was significantly shaped during comparatively recent centuries. (History Today)
So every particular claim needs to be evaluated individually.
And Easter?
Easter gets perhaps the laziest version:
Eggs = fertility.
Rabbits = fertility.
Spring = fertility.
Therefore:
PAGAN FERTILITY FESTIVAL!
This ignores the enormous elephant—or perhaps Paschal lamb—in the room:
The Christian celebration of Christ's Resurrection grew directly from the Jewish Passover context of the Passion and Resurrection narratives.
Indeed, much of Christianity still calls the feast some form of Pascha, derived from Passover.
One Germanic-language name does not magically turn the Resurrection into a pagan fertility cult.
Egg customs require their own historical investigation.
Rabbit customs require theirs.
The date calculation has its own history.
The Christian Paschal celebration has its own history.
Throwing all of those things into a blender and calling the resulting smoothie “paganism” is not scholarship.
The Genetic Fallacy Wearing a Horned Helmet
There is another logical problem behind all of this.
Even if some Christian custom had a pre-Christian predecessor, that alone would not make the Christian practice pagan.
This is essentially the genetic fallacy—assuming that something's origin automatically determines its present meaning or truth.
Pagans used candles.
Catholics use candles.
So what?
Pagans built temples.
Christians built churches.
Pagans sang hymns.
Christians sing hymns.
Pagans had priests.
Israel had priests.
Pagans prayed.
Christians pray.
Pagans ate bread.
Christians eat bread.
Human societies reuse ordinary human things.
You cannot declare every object or cultural practice permanently pagan because a pagan once touched it.
Otherwise paganism owns approximately everything except Wi-Fi.
And give it time; someone on TikTok will probably discover an ancient Celtic router.
So Yes, I Think Modern Witchcraft Is Fake
I know some readers will dislike that wording.
But I mean what I say.
I believe modern witchcraft is fake in two senses.
First:
I do not believe modern witchcraft represents an uninterrupted ancient witch religion.
Modern movements reconstructed, revived, borrowed, synthesized, and invented traditions from surviving material.
Second:
I do not believe witches possess supernatural magical powers.
I do not believe spells manipulate reality.
I do not believe crystals contain magical energies.
I do not believe a witch can curse me.
I do not believe someone can control the future through tarot cards.
I do not believe someone becomes magically powerful because she identifies herself as a witch.
Again, some practitioners may be completely sincere.
They can be sincere practitioners of something that I believe is untrue.
There is no contradiction.
But Doesn't Catholicism Believe in the Supernatural?
Yes.
And this deserves clarification.
I am a Catholic.
I believe in God.
I believe in angels.
I believe Satan and demons are real.
I believe the supernatural exists.
So I am not arguing philosophical materialism.
I am not saying:
“Nothing supernatural exists because science cannot measure it.”
That would contradict my own faith.
What I am saying is much narrower:
I do not believe a human being becomes a magically empowered witch because he or she performs witchcraft rituals.
Catholicism does not require me to believe every claimed spell succeeds.
It does not require me to believe tarot cards actually reveal the future.
It does not require me to believe every medium really speaks with the dead.
It does not require me to believe everyone calling himself a witch possesses supernatural abilities.
Quite the contrary, the Catechism explicitly refers to practices that are supposed to unveil the future and rejects superstition, divination, magic, and sorcery. (Vatican)
What the Catholic Church Actually Teaches
The Catholic Church rejects pagan worship because Christians worship one God.
The Catechism states that the First Commandment condemns polytheism and forbids honoring other gods. (Vatican)
It also specifically identifies Satanism in its discussion of idolatry. (Vatican)
The Church rejects divination.
Paragraph 2116 rejects recourse to demons, conjuring the dead, astrology, horoscopes, palm reading, mediums, clairvoyance, and related attempts to discover hidden knowledge or control the future. (Vatican)
Paragraph 2117 rejects magic and sorcery—attempts to tame supposed occult powers and place them at human service. (Vatican)
Notice something important.
The Church condemns attempting these things.
The moral problem does not depend upon proving that the magic actually works.
A fortune teller does not have to genuinely predict tomorrow before consulting fortune tellers can become superstitious.
A Ouija board does not have to produce an actual ghost before playing with supposed spirit communication can become spiritually unhealthy.
A magical ritual does not have to produce measurable supernatural effects before a Christian can recognize the worldview behind it as incompatible with faith in God.
Something can be spiritually foolish without being supernaturally effective.
Catholicism Is Not Superstition
This distinction is especially important because Christianity itself warns against superstition.
Catholic faith does not teach that religious objects work like magical charms.
A crucifix is not a magical amulet.
A rosary is not a wizard's wand.
Holy water is not a Christian potion.
Sacraments and sacramentals are not magical techniques by which we force supernatural powers to obey us.
The Catechism itself warns against treating even legitimate Christian religious practices as though their mere external performance possessed automatic magical efficacy. (Vatican)
That is superstition.
Christian faith is ultimately about relationship with and dependence upon God—not manipulating cosmic forces.
Satan Is Not the Horned God of Paganism
There is another confusion worth eliminating.
Christian Satan is not simply a pagan deity whom Christians decided to demonize.
Nor can all pre-Christian gods be flattened into Satan.
The historical development of Christian demonology is more complicated than the meme:
“Christians took pagan gods and renamed them devils.”
Likewise, modern Satanism should not simply be retrojected into ancient paganism.
Modern LaVeyan Satanism explicitly describes Satan symbolically rather than as a supernatural being. (Church of Satan)
So when somebody tells you:
“Halloween was always Satan's night,”
ask an obvious question:
Whose Satanism?
Which century?
Which country?
Which source?
Where is the evidence?
“But My Coven Told Me…”
That is not enough.
Your coven existed in 1998.
Ancient Ireland did not.
Your occult teacher may sincerely have believed she inherited an ancient tradition.
That does not prove she did.
Your Satanist group may have conducted an October 31 ritual.
That doesn't prove Satanists invented Halloween.
Your Wiccan book may call Samhain the witches' New Year.
That tells us something about modern Wiccan practice.
It does not automatically establish what every Celtic community believed before Christianity.
And your former occult identity does not change this.
Leaving a religion does not retroactively make everything you once believed historically true.
A former Mormon does not automatically become the world's greatest expert on ancient American archaeology.
A former Catholic does not automatically become an expert on first-century Christianity.
A former witch does not automatically become an expert on Iron Age Celtic religion.
Personal experience matters when discussing personal experience.
It is not a substitute for historical research.
The Burden of Proof Is on the Person Making the Claim
So when somebody tells me:
“Christians stole Halloween from the pagans,”
I have a very simple response.
Show me.
Show me the ancient text.
Show me the inscription.
Show me the archaeology.
Show me the contemporary description.
Show me the documentary chain connecting the ancient practice to the later Christian practice.
Show me when the borrowing occurred.
Show me who borrowed it.
Show me how historians know.
Likewise with Christmas.
Likewise with Easter.
I am perfectly willing to accept evidence of cultural borrowing when evidence exists.
Christianity existed inside cultures.
Of course cultures influenced one another.
That is completely unsurprising.
But:
Possible influence is not proven theft.
Similarity is not identity.
Chronological proximity is not causation.
And a modern pagan website repeating something does not transform it into an ancient primary source.
Modern Pagans Are Free to Be Modern Pagans
None of this means I want modern witches, pagans, Druids, or Satanists mistreated.
Absolutely not.
People should have religious freedom.
If someone wishes to practice Wicca, reconstruct Greek religion, worship Norse gods, call himself a Druid, or join an atheistic Satanist organization, that is between that person, his conscience, and—according to my Catholic worldview—God.
I can respect someone's human dignity without believing his religion.
I can defend your civil right to practice your religion while believing that religion is false.
I can believe you are sincere while believing you are sincerely mistaken.
Tolerance does not require pretending every claim is equally true.
Respect does not require intellectual surrender.
Fake Does Not Necessarily Mean Fraudulent
So when I use the word fake, understand exactly what I mean.
I am not necessarily saying:
“Every witch knows witchcraft is fake and is intentionally scamming people.”
Some undoubtedly scam people.
Others undoubtedly believe every word of it.
My point is different.
I believe modern witchcraft is a fake supernatural system because I do not believe its claimed magical powers actually exist.
I believe modern reconstructed pagan religions are fake ancient religions when they are presented as though they were unchanged survivals from antiquity.
And I believe that many confident modern claims about ancient religious customs go far beyond what the surviving evidence actually allows us to know.
That is what I mean by fake.
You Cannot Summon Historical Evidence With a Spell
Modern witches are free to call themselves witches.
Modern Druids are free to call themselves Druids.
Modern pagans are free to reconstruct ancient religious traditions.
Modern Satanists are free to call themselves Satanists.
Former witches are free to tell their conversion stories.
Former Satanists are free to describe their experiences.
But none of them receives a time machine with the membership card.
A modern witch does not automatically know what an ancient Celtic priest believed.
A former warlock does not automatically know how Halloween developed.
A Satanist conducting a ritual on October 31 does not make Halloween Satanic.
A former Satanist saying Halloween is Satanic does not prove it either.
A ritual performed today cannot retroactively create an ancient origin.
A belief held sincerely cannot manufacture a missing document.
A reconstructed tradition cannot summon an uninterrupted lineage into existence.
And repeating:
“This is what the pagans did!”
doesn't make the historical evidence appear.
So when someone—witch, warlock, pagan, Druid, Satanist, former occultist, evangelical preacher, Catholic apologist, TikTok creator, or anyone else—tells me that Halloween, Easter, or Christmas is “really pagan,” my response is the same:
Show me the evidence.
Not your feelings.
Not your former coven.
Not what your occult teacher told you.
Not a meme.
Not something copied from a nineteenth-century folklore book and repeated until everyone assumed it was fact.
Not:
“Trust me, I used to be a witch.”
Show me the history.
Because calling yourself a witch does not make magic real.
Calling yourself a Druid does not make you an ancient Celt.
Calling yourself a Satanist does not make Halloween yours.
And calling a Christian holiday pagan does not make it so.
History requires evidence.
And unlike witchcraft, that is something I actually believe in.
No comments:
Post a Comment