While I have, out of attempts at finding community, associated with certain members of the "alternative spiritual community," their ways are not mine. So vast are the misunderstandings that I have encountered among members of this community that I feel it necessary to compile a list of what I am not. As in any other community, these spiritual communities use terms and concepts that are commonplace to them in order to describe various traits of a person's spiritual practice. While this is a normal feature of any community of people, I have only found time and again that these terms and concepts often don't apply to me, causing stunned looks in many. As a result of these assumptions, I unfortunately feel that in effectively defining to others what I do believe in and what I am, I must also clearly define what I am not.

Pagan: In all truth I do not like the word Pagan. I find it a mostly offensive term placed on various people throughout history who were simply following their own religions. It's original Roman meaning of "country dweller" has no meaning whatsoever to me, particularly considering that Mesoamerican cultures were very urban even in ancient times. It's traditional meaning as appropriated by Christians is, essentially, "Everyone who's not Abrahamic." While I like the inclusiveness of this, I do not like the idea behind it, because it divides the world between Judeo-Christian-Islamics and "Everyone Else," a very biased conclusion. To me, there are only religions of great variety throughout the world, and while attempts to categorize different religious groups does not bother me, the type of categorization this view implies does. That said, I am a "Pagan" in the literal sense of the word, and by that I mean in accordance with some of the dictionary definitions (i.e. Polytheistic, non-Judeo Christian). However, I do not consider myself "Pagan" in accordance with many of the definitions and assumptions modern Neo-Pagans often make about what "Pagan" really means. Many of these definitions and assumptions are the very reasons why I have made this list, and also the reasons why I find it difficult to associate comfortably with many members of the "Pagan" community.

Earth-Worshipping: The Aztecs have various Earth-related deities, most primary among them being the goddess Coatlicue. However, while I pay respects to Coatlicue as I would any other Aztec deity, Tezcatlipoca is my patron and my worship is directed at Him. Just what an Earth goddess is to the Aztecs is often a much different thing than it is for many modern Neo-Pagans. Far from being a kindly mother, Coatlicue is often fearsome and loves hearts and blood.

Nature-Based: By my own views I am not nature based. Others could assert that I am nature based because there are several Aztec deities who govern natural phenomenon, such as wind, rain, and corn. However, the gist of Aztec religion is not about honoring nature itself, and while nature is a fine thing, I love the city and proudly consider myself an urban creature.

Duotheistic: I have seen that it's a relatively widespread phenomenon for many modern Pagans to believe that all gods are really one god, all goddesses one goddess, merely with different names, etc. etc. I do not believe that in the least. I am thoroughly polytheistic and proud of it.

Eclectic: I am not eclectic. I do not mix Neo-Pagan, New Age, Witchcraft, or any other such beliefs with my religion, nor do I have a desire to. I also do not mix other cultures' ways with my Mesoamerican practices.

Reconstructionist: There was a time when it occurred to me that perhaps I could call myself an Aztec Reconstructionist as an easy label to help the Pagan community to understand my path. In the Pagan community, a "Reconstructionist" is someone who is following an ancient religion as close as possible in accordance with its original beliefs and methods of worship (i.e. Worshipping Isis in ancient Egyptian style instead of "Wiccan" style). While there will obviously have to be a few changes due to changes in resources, laws, and populations, Reconstructionism seeks to remain as faithful to the original as possible. Reconstructionists believe that ancient methods of worship are valid in their own rights. While all these things could be used to describe my practices, and in fact I will still use this term to describe myself, I sometimes find this label to be a troublesome one. For one, some (but not all) Reconstructionists consider the term to simply apply to ancient religions of Europe and Africa. Also, and most influentially, there seems to be a great deal of negativity between more typical Neo-Pagans and Reconstructionists, and using the term to help describe my own beliefs often gets me a great deal of negativity and stereotyping from Wiccans and Eclectic Pagans.

Satanic: Maybe you're expecting me to display a typical Pagan behavior here: bashing Satanists in an attempt to make myself look so much better than them, more appealing to the masses. It's not happening. Pagans who bash Satanists are usually ignorant, and behaving no better than the Christians they hate so much for stereotyping them. That said, I do need to clarify a few things. There are so many different definitions of Satanism. Needless to say, despite the Spaniards' belief that the Aztecs had been duped into worshipping demons, I don't see it that way. In that respect, I am certainly not Satanic. I have met a few Satanists who asserted that anyone worshipping a dark deity was really worshipping Satan, no matter what culture the deity came from, what the deity was like, or how they were worshipped. This seems to stem from the belief that there is but one Dark Prince, and it is Satan with various other cultural expressions. Naturally, I don't buy this anymore than I buy the Wiccan belief that all gods are aspects of one supreme deity. Furthermore, I do not like the attitude of some atheistic Satanists; that is, the attitude that they are so much more intelligent and evolved than anyone who actually believes in or worships something other than themselves. However, I do respect Satanism in and of itself, and am more than willing to accept Satanists as long as they see fit to respect me as well, something lacking in the general Pagan community.

Dark: "Darkness" as a term used in the alternative spiritual community seems to mean any number of things. I am fully immersed in darkness in accordance with Aztec beliefs on darkness and my own personal opinions. In addition, my path also qualifies as a dark one in accordance with many definitions in outside communities of what darkness entails. However, as time goes on I see more and more people believing that, for a path to be dark, it inherently follows many of the same beliefs that atheistic Satanism does (namely the idea that being an internal path excludes the idea of worshipping a god). I think that is unfortunately constricting, for while Satanism is undoubtedly a dark path, not all dark paths hold the same philosophies.

Left-Handed: My god is left-handed and so am I. Left Hand Paths are generally considered to be the "dark" religions as opposed to the "light" Right Hand Paths. Unfortunately, the term "Left Hand Path" has become the nexus of the dark beliefs = atheistic Satanist philosophy trend. Some even consider "Left Handed" to be synonymous with "Satanic," which they further assume to imply atheism. The fact is that I do worship a god, and do not consider myself to be a god at the moment. Also, I do not believe that "worship" is an inherently mindless or sheep-like activity; I believe it depends on the approach to worship, the reason behind it, and the beliefs of the individual. There's a difference between "choosing your master wisely" and blindly going to church every Sunday because that's what you were raised on. Although I am theistic, I don't believe that whether or not a path qualifies as "left-handed" should accurately be based on whether or not you believe in external gods. However, I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether my religion is left hand path or not.

New Age: I'll be blatant here: I can hardly stomach New Age philosophy. If I see one more New Age book claiming to possess the secret knowledge of the Toltecs, or that the Mayan civilization didn't truly fall but disappeared because they became enlightened and "vibrated to a higher level" (pure idiocy considering that the Maya still exist), I may well vomit. Furthermore, it is troubling to me that many in the Pagan and other communities simply "assume" that certain New Age beliefs (usually Americanizations of Eastern philosophies or white-washed occult concepts) are held by everyone. In fact, this seems to be so common that many people no longer even recognize that such beliefs come from the New Age movement, but believe they have been in place in Paganism since time immemorial.

Stagnated: Here is perhaps one of the biggest thorns in my side. People who do not follow an older spiritual path, or who blend old and new, seem to feel threatened by the knowledge held by those who can grasp ancient concepts without the need to blend them with newer ones. I have come to this conclusion because I have been criticized several times by people who know little or nothing about me or my spiritual path, as being "stagnated" or "afraid of change" or "invalid" in my beliefs (this is also the common criticism raised against any Reconstructionists in general). Their basis for these claims is that spiritualities of various kinds are only valid within a certain time and place; if you see value in something your elders believed, it can only be so if you take their wisdom and change it this way and that. This kind of thinking seems to be the product of a culture and era where people disrespect their elders, hate history, and believe themselves to be the epitome of "the cutting edge," whether it be in reference to culture, spirituality, or what have you. While people might want to add the word "ancient" to their practices to add validity, in the end they often have no real concern or respect for ancient ways. They can't believe that a person can find deep and genuine spiritual fulfillment from traditional practices in and of themselves, that a person can resonate truly with ancient wisdom. They don't understand that respect for tradition does not equal fear of change; being unafraid does not mean that alteration is automatically needed. I am not afraid of the color blue. That doesn't mean that my car, which has been red since I've owned it, should be repainted blue when I enjoy the red nicely.