epic depicted a Russian Golden Age inrnthe pre-Christian era, complete with fabricatedrnheroes Skoten and Igor the Elder.rnThe Russians, according to the paganrnpriests who allegedly authored Vlas, werernthe first Indo-Aryan people, and hadrnspread Aryan culture to Europe. Theirrnenemies the non-Aryans, especially thernJews, had contrived to subjugate therntorchbearers of Aryanism, the Russians,rnsince time immemorial. The subtext ofrnSkurlatov’s interpretation of ancientrnSlavdom’s history was clear enough: onlyrna revival of the pagan culture of thernGolden Age could harden the nationalrnfiber for the continuing struggle with thernforces of darkness.rnLittle is actually known about pre-rnGhristian paganism in Russia. The heathenrnSlavs deified the forces of naturern(Rerun, the god of thunder and lightning,rnheaded up the pagan pantheon),rnand animism and ancestor worship appearrnto have played a part in their hodgepodgernof ritual and myth. In any event,rnonlv cursory attention is paid by Russia’srnneopagans to the old gods; one can hndrnplenty of speculation about the mysticalrnpower of crystals and pyramids, the predictionsrnof Nostradamus, or the energyrnfields that allegedly surround the AryanrnRussians in the writings of the neopagans,rnbut little concerning the realrnmythology of the ancient Slavs. Paganismrnper se is not the point. Those Russiansrnwho dress up as ersatz Slavic warriors,rnsword in hand, and claim tornrecreate ancient Slavic rituals are not ofrnthe same ilk as the New Age channelersrnor bogus Druids in the West. Russia’s farrnright ideologues’ real aim in propagatingrnpseudo-paganism is the same as that ofrnthe communists’ antireligious propaganda:rnto eradicate real spiritual faith, particularlyrnChristianity, as the first steprntoward the revolution they plan. “Thernbaton of proletarian internationalism hasrnbeen picked up by Christian internationalism,”rnopined one neopagan propagandist.rnThe “total Christianization” ofrnRussian society that he and his ilk fear asrna real possibility in the wake of communism’srncollapse would impede the purificationrnof the race via the exterminationrnof “the wretched and deformed . . . thernalcoholic and the drug addict,” as well asrn”cretins, degenerates” and others characterizedrnas “genetic baggage,” by weakeningrnthe resolve of the people throughrnChristianity’s “false humanism.” Stalinrnonce offered a critique of the repressivernpractices of his favorite Czar, Ivan thernTerrible, by referring to the anti-Christianrnpolicies of the Bolshevik regime.rnGod, according to Stalin, “got in Ivan’srnway,” preventing him from exterminatingrnall “objective” enemies of his rule.rnThe Christian God would not stand inrnStalin’s way, and the neopagans’ anti-.rnChristianism recognizes the danger torntheir political program that a true spiritualrnrevival would represent. Neopaganism’srnpromoters remain an influentialrncomponent of the far right in Russiarntoday.rnHilaire Belloc observed that a post-rnChristian world would be a darker, morernbrutish place than the pagan wodd of antiquity.rnIndeed, for the most part, antiquity’srnGreek, Roman, Celtic, and Germanicrnpagans come off as innocentrnbarbarians at worst, or civilized philosophersrnat best, in comparison to the assortedrnNazis, fascists, communists, andrnideological fanatics of all stripes that ourrnown decaying civilization has to offer.rnAntiquity’s pagans may well have beenrnthe tall-tale tellers described by Chesterton,rnspinning myths as a poetic expressionrnof the mystery that was behind thernveil of the material world, spawning folkrnepics to transmit to future generationsrnthe story of their people, and leaving thernhard search for eternal truths to thernphilosophers while they themselvesrnwent about the business of living by thernnatural law all men have known. Theyrnsensed, as Chesterton put it, “somethingrnhigher than the gods.” Their mythologyrnof gods and heroes, nymphs and fairiesrnwas truly noble and humane, if inconclusive.rnBy dignifying modern fanatics’ secularrnpolitical ideologies disguised asrnmythology with the appellation “pagan,”rnwe only insult the gods of the hearth andrnwood and the men who created them.rnWayne Allensworth writes fromrnPurcellville, Virginia.rnColleges AgainstrnChristrnby San ford PinskerrnMary Beth Edelson’s 1977 posterrn”Some Living American WomenrnArtists/Last Supper” not only means tornspread the word that there are, in fact,rndozens of American women artists whornhave not yet become household names.rnbut also to appropriate the sacred imagesrnof Da Vinci’s “The Last Supper” by givingrnthat point an in-your-face punch.rnFor Edelson, the Catholic Church isrnlargely responsible for the numerical disparityrnbetween male and female artists;rnand as such, Christ and His disciples arernsimply getting the rough treatment theyrnso richly deserve. Thus, her paintingrnsubstitutes the head of Georgia O’Keefernfor that of Christ (one wonders if Ms.rnO’Keefe would have been flattered or appalled),rnsculptor Louise Nevelson for St.rnAndrew, and makes Judas conspicuousrnby his/her absence. “Organized religion’srnpenchant for cutting women outrnof positions of authority,” Ms. Edelsonrnargues, implies that “women do not haverndirect access to the sacred,” and by extensionrnto artistic representations of thernDivine. Her poster is a willfully provocativerneffort to change this situation.rnEdelson’s work is, in short, political tornits teeth. But should that work be exhibitedrnat our campus gallery, I would bernamong the first to defend the right of arnlegitimate sponsor to give her art widerrnexposure. I would, of course, also insistrnthat those who choose to view the exhibitrnmight well have a wide range of responsesrn—everything from wild approvalrnto a sense that Edelson is longer on feministrnideology than she is on aesthetics.rnBut what if her send-up of “The LastrnSupper” were permanently mounted tornthe wall of a college’s Women’s Center,rnas it was at my school, Franklin and MarshallrnCollege? Would the same dynamicrnapply, or would a healthy regard for thernfeelings of others in the community takernquite another turn? Put another way:rnCan one group’s path toward rightfulrncelebration proceed over the back, and atrnthe expense, of another?rnThe question, then, is a simple one:rnDo Christian sensitivities on collegerncampuses count? Apparentlv thev dornnot—at least at Franklin and Marshall,rnwhere I teach. Repeated efforts to explainrnwhy it is that Mary Beth Edelson’srnrendition of “The Last Supper” is an affrontrnto believing Christians met withrnpolite, but persistent, stonewalling. Atrnfirst, the center’s executive board made itrnclear that this was “their space” and theyrnwere simply not going to take marchingrnorders from a man—even (or perhapsrnespecially) if he is an Orthodox priest.rnBesides, this was a matter of FirstrnAmendment privilege, and anybody whornthought otherwise was guilty of, well,rncensorship. Efforts to suggest that every-rn46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn