In many places in the U.S. and across the globe, Pride is being celebrated now, or over this weekend we’re about to have. The actual date of the riots at Stonewall was June 27, 1969 (though I’ve seen some recent news articles and such say that it is the 28th…?!?), but that is a side-issue for the moment…what I want to focus on here is why and how this particular historical event, tied to the “official” and “recognized” emergence of the LGBTQQIA+ liberation movements and organizing toward ensuring legal equality is recognized on a religious calendar like the one I maintain on this website. There was no specifically “spiritual” significance to the date, and (to my knowledge–please correct me if I’m wrong!) no noted presence of polytheists, invocation of polytheistic Deities, or anything else on that date. Therefore, in a religious practice, why attach any significance to such a date?
The reasons for this in the specific case of my own practices are varied, but I’ll try to summarize them here as simply as possible.
Partially, this is something that has been on my liturgical calendar since my earliest time as an Antinoan. As a specifically queer practice, the date of the Stonewall riots is an important one in the overall development of the modern queer consciousness and queer visibility. Without Stonewall, what I am doing here, and have been doing with this since 2002 (and within academic work for several years before that), would not have been possible.
So, in a certain sense, it’s something I’ve been marking for so long that to no longer do so–even if my practice might have shifted in other ways since–seems needlessly exclusionary at best, and potentially harmful at worst. I have not been given any indication by Antinous that this part of my practice “needs to go” (and He is not remotely afraid to indicate clearly when such things need to happen in my own devotional relationship with Him!), and thus it is still here, and quite happily.
But, I think that this reflects something else which I think is “a good thing” overall, despite many people likely disagreeing with me on this. Namely, I think it is positive for one’s religious sensibilities to extend outside of the “specifically religious” dimensions of one’s life, and to infuse as much of life as possible with the beneficial things that result from it. I try not to draw too strict lines between what is “merely personal” (as religion is often understood, and in fact which the wider American culture seems to prefer, especially if one’s religion is not from the dominant hegemonic monotheisms!) and what is “political,” not only in the sense of “politics” around governance, laws, civil rights and liberties and such, but also anything and everything involved in more-than-one human getting along with and interacting amongst other humans. My religious sensibilities infuse how I do my paid-work job, what places I choose to shop, how I dress and act in public, and much else besides.
No, I don’t always say that I’m doing any of those things for religious reasons (especially if no one asks!), and I certainly don’t bring my religion up frequently with others (especially if no one asks!), and I am also quite averse to sectarianism and isolationism based on my own religious practice and affiliations (which means I am associates with, and even friends with, those whose religions differ a great deal from my own, or of those who have ideas outside of specifically religious matters that don’t agree with my own even if their religious practices might share some similarities, etc.). But, that doesn’t mean that my religion isn’t there when I interact with these people, working in its own ways through me to direct my behavior, encourage me toward things that are positive rather than negative, and much else.
If I am in any way taken as someone who is a representative of particular Deities, then it is incumbent upon me to try and represent Them in ways that are to Their credit, because people can and do and will judge me based on my actions, and may then think poorly of my Deities because of my own actions. I get that, and even though I think it should be understood that people can act well or poorly entirely independent of their Deities and we shouldn’t hold Deities responsible for the bad behavior of Their devotees (and I include Islam, Christianity, and other religions in that estimation as well, which I know a lot of pagans and polytheists don’t), nonetheless I know it is something that people do. Unfortunate, but there we are.
Antinous has taken up the cause of queer liberation–for ALL queer people, not just one particular gender or sexual orientation or subculture or demographic–very obviously and prominently in the modern practice of His devotion as I have become familiar with it, and therefore it behooves me to do likewise whenever and wherever possible. That doesn’t mean that anyone in these communities gets a “pass” on their own bad behavior, as there is much to critique–including the frequent phenomena of misogyny amongst gay men, problems with sexual assault and harassment, discrimination against bisexuals by monosexual queer people, the problems of assimilation versus authenticity in movements toward liberation, racism, ableism, classism, ageism, look-ism, cisgendered queer transphobia, the fact that the “LGBTQQIA+ community” as a singular and united entity is largely an illusion (which is why adding letters to the acronym is necessary and good, despite appearing to fragment the appearance of unity in the eyes of those whose understandings are less nuanced), and a hundred other problems–but in terms of the general movement toward legal and social equality for all of these different types of people, that is something I will (and have!) always stood for and worked to advance.
If acknowledging the spiritual significance of Stonewall and Pride is a part of all of this, if for no other reason than that many of the founding activists of the movement are now Ancestors standing with us who are carrying this work forward, then I say it should be for as long as those Ancestors are acknowledged and honored, and that is as good a reason as any…not to mention a reason that is sufficient unto itself.
I could go on much more, but I think that essentially answers the question for the moment. Any “strictly secular” event or phenomenon can take on a greater spiritual significance under the right circumstances; some seem to do it better than others, depending on the spiritual system involved, but I think the principle is worth highlighting even if all of its exercises aren’t as skillful or as meaningful for some people as others might be.
P. SUFENAS VIRIUS LUPUS 
In a polytheistic context, is anything truly secular? Or are we just not acknowledging the sacral influences?
LikeLike
That’s an excellent question, and I’m glad you asked it! 😉
So, I think there’s (at least) two ways one might approach that question, and I’ll take the more obvious one first, which your extended question deals with: namely, the non-acknowledgement of the sacred being the bigger problem than the “strictly secular.” Indeed, I think that a great deal about everyday life is, or at least can be, approached in a sacred manner or treated in a sacred fashion. This is why the Roman pantheon, for example, was so loaded with Deities that seem to be for “minor” things, like the various steps that children take away from their parents, the various parts of a door, and so forth. If there is a Deity behind it or dedicated to it, then it is significant, one would assume. If someone even took half the list of Roman Deities that we know of that fall into those more “minor” and often single-function areas, and then acknowledged all of them in one’s daily existence, it would make for a very interesting and Deities-filled day, even at half power, so to speak! So, there is that side of it.
Then, there’s the more literal side of things, which can go down (at least) two roads. There is the Latin word “saecula,” which means “age,” and thus “secular” is a later Christian Latin usage that essentially means “anything which passes,” i.e. the things of this world that are subject to change and are non-eternal, which thus excludes all of the “spiritual” things that are “set apart” (“sacra” in Latin) like the soul, divine beings, and so forth. As polytheists, we don’t have to denigrate all of those things which are passing, so there’s that. There’s also the idea of “the sacred and the profane,” and while often “profane” gets used as if it means something is defiled or impure, it literally means “in front of the shrine,” i.e. “pro fanum,” so anything outside of the specifically sacred area dedicated to a Deity (thus, anything outside of the temenos in Greek terms). But again, as things outside of the specifically sacred area are necessary to support that sacred area on a material level (if nothing else!), then I don’t think we can easily dismiss all of it, and it isn’t as if all of the religious activities of ancient Romans (or any other polytheistic culture) only took place in temples and shrines.
So, that’s kind of two different ways of saying the same thing, and affirming what your question implies, that anything that we think of as “merely secular” or even “profane” is just a missed opportunity. I can understand being overwhelmed with constant divine presences and perhaps wanting to take a break from them for a while, but I also don’t know anyone (myself included) who ever sets foot outside of their own dwelling these days and absolutely honors all of the possible divinities and spirits that one can. So…lots to be done, certainly! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person