I identify strongly with my so-being as Pagan. I hold strong views about this topic and it is very important to me. But I am (currently) not a religious activist.

Since ``Paganism’’ is a notoriously confusing word, I must clarify to which notion of Paganism I am referring.  For me Paganism is exhaustively described as a negative: not a Christian, not a Jew and not a Muslim. I see no need for giving a positive definition, neither for explanatory reasons nor for the possibility to actually be a Pagan. On the contrary, Paganism is essentially the refutation of taking on a Creed. This is not in opposition to religion in general. Because I consider the notion of faith as including a confusion of epistemic and ontic notions with religion.

There must be some words on modern magic, because the currently predominant notion of Paganism in the general public is strongly related to the Wicca movement. I see no inclusion of magic into Paganism. Because I see nothing essentially religious in magic. Sure, magic is strongly related to the existence of supernatural forces and, therefore, to these supernatural forces and beings given by the predominant religious views. But so were the natural sciences prior to the fall of the platonic notion theos in natural philosophy and until the general agreement on methodological atheism. In my opinion ``magic as religion’’ is similarly to ``engineering as religion’’. This is just a confusion of categories, because magic is a way to influence, interfere with or act upon a being; a way which does not produce an effect... or let me stay polite... at least not very efficiently. Having that said, I can see and concede that magical practice is performed by many in analogy to religious practice and, therefore, becomes religion. But it is highly questionable whether such a practice is still counting as magic then. It is rather a religion rooted in magical practice.

Does this mean I am an Atheist? Or many might wonder: why am I not simply saying that I am an Atheist? Because as any undergraduate in philosophy is taught, there is a gap between theism and following a religion. It is a rather trivial insight about the ontological proof of the existence of God, that accepting the proof and, therefore, accepting the existence of God does not make one a Christian; as Anselm of Canterbury himself was well aware. This must not be understood in the weak sense, that one might be already a Jew or a Muslim. It just states the triviality that signing up to the existence of a metaphysical entity or a final cause in natural philosophy does not make one a follower of a religion. However, as a matter of fact I am an Atheist in a similar sense as Aristotle was an Atheist. (See W. Bröcker: Aristoteles. 3. Auflage, Klostermann (1964) S.221)  But me being a Pagan is logically as well as biographically prior to me being an Atheist. I doubt that I will ever change my mind about theism.
But even if I am going to, I will continue to be a Pagan as I have been all my life. There is just not enough Christianity in me. Am I therefore simply not religiose? I doubt that.  I feel very religiose. But I am theoretically not well equipped to argue for this matter at this point.

So, I am not necessarily antireligious and not a Christian. Does this mean I am just opposed to the (catholic) church as an institution? On the contrary. As a Pagan I consider the mere existence of the catholic church a sign for stability and political pragmatism. Since the days of the roman empire there was a need of such an institution to assure that Christianity is politically and legally addressable. In this sense, the catholic church is also a product of the roman government and not mere of Christianity. I can respect that; even though I am virtually opposed to any particular stance the catholic church is holding. If I am opposed to the church, then my main concerns are not their dogmatisms ore their views on homosexuality. Even though I am opposed to that (of course). I am (philosophically, politically and spiritually) in opposition to the Christian faith in its purest and most original form.

Is it possible to be a Pagan in my sense? Am I not raised and influenced by Christianity? Even though such questions are brought up frequently, they are extremely ill-formed. Because it is highly unclear on which grounds they can be asked. They cannot be asked from a Christian perspective, because being a non-believer is already enough to be dismissed as a Christian at Christian grounds. But they cannot be asked from non-Christian grounds either. Because who are non-Christians to be granted the judgment whether someone is a Christian or not?</br> However, one might grand these questions the grounds of cultural science or the history of ideas. But then the possibility to be pagan is rather easy to see from both perspectives. From a cultural science point of view, because Christianity was strongly assimilated into the culture of Latin-West-Europe and altered by its means. And from a history of ideas point of view, because the problem of paganism was highly discussed by Christian authors. See John’s book for details. From Augustine of Hippo to Leibniz Christians were struggling with what to make of Pagan philosophers. Because even though these philosophers were so very similar to their own values and thoughts, so clearly non-Christian these philosophers were. Hence, me being influenced by Latin-West-European culture, cannot be a reason to judge me a Christian. And indeed I am not.

However, there is still a final question to be answered. I was once asked: Michael, even though you performed a legal repeal of your membership in the catholic church at the earliest possible age and even though the catholic church officially attested you, that you are not a part of Christianity (I do in fact have an official certificate concerning this matter), are you not still baptised? Does baptism not affect you personally? 
I believe baptism does affect me very much. When I ask my Atheist father why I was even baptised, his answer referrers to the political and social context on the countryside of Austria. Behind this lies of course his conventionalism and my mother’s inability to stay in opposition to her own very Christian mother. Hence, I was bought to show up at certain events and stay a church-member until I was 18, e.g. new computer games, a new bike and a N64. Of course, my baptism affected me in this respect extensively; my uprising as a (spiritual) prostitute is surely the reason that I am very accepting towards people who pursue in prostitution. But of course, it does not make me a Christian.