Laeviss has been, in turns, amused by and
annoyed by the continued debate in certain circles regarding the acceptance or
not of Loki as a god among the Aesir, and whether or not he is a being worthy
of hailing at sumbel, or anywhere else.
First of all, Laeviss would like to point
out that it is entirely bad form to, on the one hand, state that "Snorri
is right" in painting Loki in an evil hue, and then, on the other hand,
denying that Loki is a god among the Aesir.
Really? You're telling me that you believe Snorri's view that Loki is
evil, yet deny Snorri's statement that Loki counts among the Aesir? Tsk, tsk.
Most reasonable people, when presented with
facts that disprove one's personal beliefs, can move beyond their beliefs and
form new opinions. Apparently, most people do not qualify as reasonable. Even
when presented with factual, well-researched information on how our ancestors
viewed Loki, and how Loki is presented in historic context, many Heathens cling
to their personal prejudices. And when the subject of the worship of Loki comes
up, a whole lot of Heathens respond like the Vatican when Galileo published a
book that suggested that the facts show that the Sun does not revolve around
the Earth.
It's offensive to read responses to the
discussion which amount to, "I haven't read that dang-blamed document
that's all scholarly and shit, and oh, by the way, I'm going to prove I haven't
read it by continuing to use the argument that Loki killed Balder, and he's the
enemy of the gods. I'm so invested in my own belief that I avoid anything which
might challenge it, or cause me to think and actually form an educated opinion.
So there!"
One thing that Laeviss has learned in his
many years on the Earth is how to read between the lines of a document (or
listen to the tone of voice and watch body language in a speaker) in order to
discover biases that the author (or speaker) may have. Usually, if people are
taking the time to write something, they have an agenda, a point of view that
they are trying to get across or to push on people. Textbooks do this all the
time. They emphasize certain details, and omit others entirely. (Anyone read,
"Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen? Definitely worth a
look.)
Laeviss had the opportunity to review many
different Heathen books over the years before becoming Heathen himself, or
indeed, before having read any of the lore itself. One thing he noticed
immediately was that Heathenism was rife with racism and homophobia both, which
did not do much to recommend this faith as a personal devotion to Laeviss. (In
fact, Laeviss most assuredly avoided it until Odin himself came to personally
collect him.)
One of the crafty Heathen authors that
Laeviss read was so clever that he carefully scripted his writings so as to
avoid any actual obvious reference to racism, while still subtly turning his
readers' minds in that general direction. Others were openly scathing in their
condemnation of both homosexuality and "mixing" of the races. These
were the same authors who scathingly denounced Loki, and refused to count him
among the Aesir. Laeviss can here make an educated guess, due to years of
unpleasant personal experience, just what exactly it is about Loki that
disturbs some Heathens so much.
I daresay that in their own circles, those
Asatru who are vehemently against Loki probably voice their real objections to Odin's
brother fairly clearly. But in a public setting where political correctness is
enforced, they must come up with a smoke screen that everyone will endorse as a
"good reason" to ban Loki worship. Because they can't mention their
real thoughts on the matter.
So, let's discuss some of these other
"reasons,"shall we? How about this one: "Loki is a murderer.
He's responsible for Balder's death!" One would have to be a really *bad*
lawyer indeed to base a murder case entirely on the testimony of one guy who not
only didn't witness the event but had a known reputation for elaborating on
details, and ignore the testimony of others who claimed that Loki wasn't
involved. (And, even if you *were* going to insist that Snorri's account is the
truthful one, even Snorri admits that Loki didn't actually throw the fatal
twig. Hod did.) But, based on the most factual evidence the defense has presented,
no jury is going to convict Loki of Balder's death.
So, okay...they can't cry
"Balder!" anymore. But, wait! Loki's still a murderer! He killed
Fimafeng at the feast of Aegir! Except that we are given no details at all
about Fimafeng's death, we are supposed to take the word of the author that Loki
killed Aegir's servant out of mere spite or jealousy. And, on this word, we are
supposed to brand Loki as unworthy of honor. "See, everybody," they
say. "Loki *deserves* to be banned from our worship!"
Hold on there, little buddy. This is very
selective "reasoning" on your part. You are actually saying that I'm
to ban all murderous gods from my personal devotions? Well, take off your
Thor's hammer, big guy, because Thor is a murderer, too. He murdered the giant
that built the wall of Asgard. In cold blood! All because (according to the
lore, anyway) the guy rightfully complained that the Aesir were cheating him.
"Well, that doesn't count, because
giants are evil and against the gods and humankind. So, Thor gets a free pass
on that murder!" is the usual response when I bring this up.
"Really?" I say. "The Aesir seem really keen to accept the
assistance of giants when it benefits them, and very keen again to throw them
under the wagon when their assistance is no longer useful."
So, say, we let Thor pass on that. Well, how
about dear old murderous Frey? He sent his servant off with a magic sword, and
told him to win the fair maiden for him whatever the cost. Apparently, part of
the cost was Gerd's brother's death. Now, perhaps Frey didn't wield that sword
personally, but he directed the hand who did. So anyone who has ever claimed,
"Loki killed Balder, and that's why he is unworthy of worship!" had
better be taking their down their godpoles to Frey, because he's a murderer,
too.
And how about Bragi? If we're in the habit
of taking everything in the lore as the gospel truth (no cherry picking
allowed) we simply must take Loki's word for it that, quite possibly, Bragi is
the guy he meant when he accused Idunn of sleeping with her brother's killer.
That potentially makes Bragi a murderer, too.
"Oh, well," you say. "Maybe I
won't use the murder argument against Loki anymore. But, instead of voicing my
*real* objection to Thor's Traveling Buddy, I'll make up some other, equally-politically-correct-besides-murder,
way of excluding him. Oh, yeah...he's a liar! That's the ticket!"
Laeviss
will merely say, at this point, that excluding known liars and oathbreakers from
the list of worshipful deities in the Norse pantheon would leave a very vacant
throne and both Odin and Tyr trudging off into exile, probably bickering all
the while. However, Laeviss has never known of anyone in Asatru even remotely suggesting
that Heathens stop worshiping either Odin or Tyr. So, again, this argument
against Loki is merely a smokescreen put up to disguise the real reason some
people just can't stand the Hound of Freyja.
So, what is this reason? Basically put, it
is homophobia and transphobia. The people who scream the loudest about Loki
seem to have a definite issue with acceptance of the diversity of natural human
states, such as the continuum of gender and varied sexual orientations. In
fact, anything that blurs their rigidly dogmatic lines of what they consider
proper gender or sexual orientation code is horribly suspect to them. It states
in the lore that Loki has not only become female at times, but has taken the
receptive role in sexual intercourse, and this just twists some people's
knickers into a knot. This receptive role is never overtly suggested for any
other Norse god, therefore it sets Loki apart from the others in terms of both
his nature and purpose. The god Odin does admittedly share many attributes with
Loki, not the least of which is his gender-bending ways. However, Odin is
perceived by most Heathens as a manly god who has employed the guise of a woman
*as a means to an end* (that end being the understanding of and ability to
employ the magic of seidh.) Odin *had* to walk a mile in a woman's moccasins,
so to speak, in order to add to his storehouse of wisdom. Hel, even Thor had to
wear a dress in order to reclaim his magic hammer. But, again, this is
perceived in Heathenry as a manly god using a woman's guise *as a means to an
end.* Loki's so-called "crime" is that this state of being isn't a
means to an end for him, it is simply part of his nature. And, to some people,
this is more than enough to damn him to an eternity of banishment from
"proper Heathenry."
No comments:
Post a Comment