Are you a true Wiccan if you are a Solitary Practioner [Archive] - Page 2 - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

Salanthos

January 24th, 2006, 11:36 PM

just poking my nose in...

to be Wiccan, I beleive, the only initiation required is the Gods. covans can help people reach that, but people can also do this alone with the Gods. I sincerely doubt anyone can say the Gods don't know who is truly Wiccan.

to be part of a specific tradition requires initiation by the trad involved.

in my experience, as far as I could tell, of those who lable themselves Wiccans, about three-quarters of solitaries and one half of initiory traditions have had initiation by the Gods. the rest are usually either fairly new and reaching that stage, or fluffbunnies who wouldn't know the Gods if they stood before them (and many fluffbunnies do have real initiations, too).

part of the diffrence in numbers is that fluffbunnies more often drag their friends in to form fluffcovens rather than remain solitary, but there is also the fact that some (not many) people in initiory traditions beleive the trad's initiation is sufficient and never seek the deeper one.

I was, at one point, a solitary Wiccan. once my personal beliefs accrued enough changes that Wiccan no longer fit, I changed my lable. many who find their path is too far from the core beliefs of Wiccan do the same, and there's nobody like the Gods for letting people know what names best fit their chosen paths, or when that name is not Wicca.

ok, I apologize if someone is upset by my veiws, I don't mean to offend, its just how I see the world.

Little Billy

January 24th, 2006, 11:40 PM

I'm not a wiccan but..
I really don't see the problem of someone calling themselves "wiccan".
Especially if that is what they feel they are.

It's not like calling yourself "High Lord Priest of Ye Fluffy Bunny Bunny Coven and Elitist Wiccan Country Club" if you are not even a member of that coven.

So what if Miss "Most Holy Highpriestess Lady Rhianna bana bo bana banana bana bo bana fe fi fo fana" doesn't like it if people who are not in her little snobby clique call themselves 'Wiccans'.
Tell her to remove that broomstick from out ye olde buttocks and get over it.
Of course,thats just my opinion.I'm just a discordian,what do I know.

Every time I see the phrase "True Wiccan", I keep wanting to put a trademark after it...True Wiccan(tm).

Æon Flux

January 25th, 2006, 07:46 AM

This topic is way too interesting for me to refrain from posting even more!
(Adding more things and clarifying a few from my last post)

1. To be a solitary Wiccan who's been initiated by the Lord and the Lady/God and Goddess/Universe/Spirit is complealty possible in my eyes. To claim to be of a specific TRADITION in Wicca without having been initiated isn't possible from my point of view. There's a big difference. None of the solitary and un-initiated Wiccans I've met have claimed a cirtan tradition.

2. I have a very big respect for those who have been initiated into coves and have been initated Wiccans for a while. I also recognize the fact that there is no way I could claim the title of High Priestess if I don't belong to a specific tradition or coven and have gone through the proper education. I have respect for those who know more then me, I have respect for high priestesses and high priests, I have respect for all of your opinions... but I don't always have to agree with them.

3.I do feel that I don't need to lable myself, and I frankly don't care if someone who has been initiated in some Wiccan tradition don't view me as a Wiccan. The only lable I put on myself publically is Pagan and Witch, unless I'm trying to explain my believes more in depth to close friends. Then I mention Wicca so that they have some sort of reference if they'd like to research it on their own.
Ultimately what matters is what I feel comfortable with in my own heart. I don't think anyone can claim that I cannot call myself a Wiccan when I'm communicating with the Gods or when I'm preforming a ritual in my own home if that is what I feel most comfortable with during that time.

We'll always have different opinions on what makes a Wiccan and what doesn't. What really bugs me is the fact that some people seem to have such a hard time saying.
"I disagree with you, but you ARE intiteled to your own opinion. If you are wise and have knowledge and can call yourself a Wiccan with a pure heart and you feel that you have had some kind of acceptance from the Gods in this matter, go about your path as you wish. Even though I won't see you as a Wiccan."

So many people are so obsessed with being right, I'm not specifically talking about people on MW, but people everywhere. It's so hard to accept that someone won't agree with you. I have a hard time hearing that people won't see some outstanding, wise and cunning people as Wiccan due to the fact that they have not been initiated by a High Priest/Priestess into a traditional coven. But I try hard to maintain the view that he/she is entiteled to their own opinion, and even though I don't see it that way, they have the right to do so.

That's my input for now. :)

Elderbush

January 25th, 2006, 10:14 AM

Snip....Even though I won't see you as a Wiccan."

That is where I see a problem. The constant need to say to others "well, I don't see you as a Wiccan." That is where the need to be right comes in. It is totally uneccessary to share your opinion about the religion in which they claim membership unless you want to convince them that they are wrong and you are right.

The only thing that anyone is excluded from, by the way, is attending a tradition"s private ceremonies but this goes for any tradition.

Dawa Lhamo

January 25th, 2006, 10:47 AM

That is where I see a problem. The constant need to say to others "well, I don't see you as a Wiccan." That is where the need to be right comes in. It is totally uneccessary to share your opinion about the religion in which they claim membership unless you want to convince them that they are wrong and you are right.I don't see that that follows at all. So what you're saying is, that if we aren't going to include everyone and anyone, we'd better shut up? What about sharing our own views about things? If our opinion contradicts someone else's then we'd best not share it? If I say that I believe it is an initiatory tradition, that's not saying that YOU must believe me, or even that I want to convince you, I'm merely sharing what I believe. Religion is an open marketplace (at least in this country).

If you know you're Wiccan then it doesn't matter what I think, and it doesn't matter what I say. Because you know yourself. If you DON'T know yourself, that's when you might give my words a bit more weight. But that's not MY fault. I can't predict how secure each person's religion is and tailor my words to avoid shaking their faith.

Is religious dialogue unneccessary, then?

How the heck do you expect anyone to grow?

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

Ben Gruagach

January 25th, 2006, 11:04 AM

I don't see that that follows at all. So what you're saying is, that if we aren't going to include everyone and anyone, we'd better shut up? What about sharing our own views about things? If our opinion contradicts someone else's then we'd best not share it? If I say that I believe it is an initiatory tradition, that's not saying that YOU must believe me, or even that I want to convince you, I'm merely sharing what I believe. Religion is an open marketplace (at least in this country).

There is a difference between sharing your own way of doing things and telling others that they are wrong. Telling others that they are not "true Wicca" means that person has set themselves up as some sort of authority who can judge others.

In a religion like Wicca that does not have a central authority structure, not even a central scripture which we are all expected to follow, it's to be expected that anyone who puts themselves in the position of dictating to others might not have their authority blindly accepted.

Lunacie

January 25th, 2006, 11:12 AM

That's exactly my point. It doesn't matter if everyone accepts one definition. But that means, by it's very nature, that it's OK for some people to have more narrow definitions of their own. Most of the traditionalists who have commented haven't said that they think that no one else CAN call themselves Wiccans, they've said that they reserve the right to believe that others are not really Wiccan, according to their own definition.

I suppose I really should read back through the whole thread before responding to this... but what the heck, I'm going to go with what I remember reading. There were several posters who said that no one should/can call themselves Wiccan unless they've been coven initiated.

I fully agree that we all are entitled to use our own discretion in who we honor as fellow Wiccans, and we all have different criteria for making that judgment. My criteria are not quite as stringent as most who follow a BTW tradition, but I don't feel Wicca is a catch-all either.

Elderbush

January 25th, 2006, 11:19 AM

Dialog is good. Growing is good, hence we've had 26 pages of it. Obviously free speach means that a person can say whatever they wish that falls within the laws of the land and this board.

I question the motivations. It is a control issue. You can certainly say that the other person cannot share in the benefits of belonging to your tradition if they do not follow all of its rules. Saying "You are not Gardnerian!" is valid but how can a person kick another out of the religion? A Catholic cannot kick a Babtist out of Christianity. A Gardnerian cannot kick a Georgian out of Wicca. All this "you are not Wiccan!" is bullhockey.

I quite agree that no one else's opinion matters but my own. I am talking about newbies, really, who meet this early on and have not so thick a skin to deal with it.

Ben Gruagach

January 25th, 2006, 11:52 AM

Darn, I wanted to give some good karma but I have to spread it around more first!

Good posts everyone -- this is definitely a thread I wish more people could read through.

Kestrel Firesong

January 25th, 2006, 01:32 PM

Meadhbh

January 25th, 2006, 03:58 PM

Dawa Lhamo

January 25th, 2006, 04:18 PM

Good pint, kestrel. It really depends on the tradition. I'm not Wiccan so I could be wrong, but I believe some paths allow a person to claim that tradition if they are a solitary and some state you have to have been initated and belong to a coven. I guess it all depends on your claim.Right. In the Tree, Ray Buckland says that a self-initiated Seax Wiccan would be welcomed by other Seax Wiccans as part of the same tradition. Some traditions have this kind of provision. But pretty much the BTW do not. So it does depend. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

Ben Gruagach

January 25th, 2006, 04:32 PM

Right. In the Tree, Ray Buckland says that a self-initiated Seax Wiccan would be welcomed by other Seax Wiccans as part of the same tradition. Some traditions have this kind of provision. But pretty much the BTW do not. So it does depend. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

Does anyone know of other Wiccan denominations that permit self-initiation into that specific group? Buckland's Seax-Wica is the only one I've heard of.

The other self-initiations I know of (like the one Doreen Valiente provided in one of her books) were not meant to be a way into a specific denomination. More like a self-dedication to Wicca than granting membership into a denomination.

Just curious.

Dawa Lhamo

January 25th, 2006, 05:32 PM

I agree with the middle ground here, the ones that say that you cannot claim a tradition unless you've been iniitiated into it, if it is an initatory tradition, such as Gardnerian, but, no, a BTW member does not have the authority to tell anyone they are not Wiccan, and that is exactly what I've seen some BTWs do.Authority is something that must be given. ^_^ So while I respect the work that BTW's do, I don't give them the authority to determine if I am Wiccan or not.

It is certainly true that some people claim to have authority over Wicca. It's unfortunate, but true. I call these people deluded. Not necessarily crazy, but... misguided at least.

But, I think we are confusing right with authority. A person has the right to speak his mind (just as others have the right to speak right back, or ignore him), and thus the right to say that he doesn't think that so and so is really a Wiccan. However, his words don't necessarily carry any more authority than anyone else. At least not outside his tradition.

CAN and SHOULD are very different words. If I say that a person can not say that he is Wiccan, that is saying that I have power over the words that they choose to speak. In other words, that I can control that person. If I say a person should not say that he is Wiccan, it automatically implies that I have an opinion. It's still making a judgement, of course, but it's conditional. Saying "people should recycle" implies that "if it were my ideal world, people would recycle"... "should" and "ought to" speak about how we would like the world to operate. What we think is the best way. However, using "can" or "may" implies that we already have power over the way the world is.

Morgandria:
The only problem I have with that approach is when the Wiccan puzzle has too many holes in it. When you're missing so many pieces that you're making up a lot of new ones, or stealing pieces from other puzzles to cram into the gaps...well, it a) doesn't even resemble a coherent picture, and b)you can't really call it a Wiccan puzzle anymore. When the percentage of original material gets too low, but people still call it "Wicca"...that's where I have issues.

...

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.

...

I expected this reaction, to be honest. I am a member of a BTW coven, Alexandrian, and we do believe Wicca to be an mystery, initiatory faith. Self-initiation is not possible...which is not to say that one can't self-dedicate and practice a Wiccan-inspired path. But by the definition of the word "initiate", self-initiation isn't possible.

Being on your own can be wonderful; you can learn many things, practice many things, have wonderful experiences. I was a solitary practicioner for a long time, and I didn't call myself Wiccan. I still technically am not, because I am not an initiate of my tradition. But I will be, in time. I believe in keeping some standards, and some clear definitions - "Do whatever feels right" doesn't work for me, and I don't like the lack of clarity certain things are devolving into.

If you really have to have a word to describe your path or practices, make up your own - don't subvert a word to fit any number of things until it's meaningless. People can get upset if they like, but that's my opinion.

ancestral lee:

my personal view here is that wicca gives you an outlook, a set of techniques and ways to connect with the divine, it isnt the only way to connect with herself and himself or themselves. so whe somebody says you dont need to be in a coven to be accepted by the goddess and god they are right, thats fine - theyve done it in thier own way on thier own terms.
they arent using the wiccan way or are only using part of it so therefore it coudl be said they arent opperating as a Wiccan, more a wiccan inspried.

...

if you havent joined a wiccan coven and are following a wiccan inspired path then you are singing from a different songsheet or playing without a full set.... so strictly speaking you arent a Wiccan, more a wiccan inspried witch.

...

you have right to call yourself Wiccan just as i have the right to point out you are wrong.

...

i dont recall mentioing i want to control anything, merely point out the errors you are making.

...

i.

am.

not.

out.

to.

control.

anyone.

...

the issue i have is that anybody who reads a single book on the subject can call themself wiccan if they want to, but thats it, theyve read a single book, and from what you are saying youd give them equal standing with those people who have gained admittance to a coven and worked to get where they are.

...

i dont mnd people calling themselves wicca if they are solitary, cant find a coven or have simply read a book on it, but i think that addressing the distinction between initiates and not is important.

...

wicca is an initatory religion, like it or not, thats how it is. From what I've seen, neither has said that a solitary CANNOT call himself a Wiccan, but that they have issues/problems with those who do, and that they think that a solitary IS not a Wiccan (regardless of what he does or does not call himself). They have been arguing less about the right to call oneself anything and more about the legitimacy of others' claims as they see it. Perhaps others in other threads have said that solitaries can't call themselves Wiccans, but in this thread it's been argued only that they don't think solitaries actually *are* Wiccans.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

---now I'm off home, probably won't be on 'til very late or tomorrow... gots Candlemas plannin' to do. ^_^

Kestrel Firesong

January 25th, 2006, 07:13 PM

Dawa, I've seen this on another group of forums, not here, but yes, I have seen people tell others that they CANNOT call themselves Wiccan because they are not Gardnerian or Alexandrian. However, they can call themselves wiccan, but it doesn't hold the same definition.

Lunacie

January 25th, 2006, 07:14 PM

the only way to be a solitary wiccan is to be initiated inot a coven then leave.

wicca is an initatory religion, like it or not, thats how it is.

I certainly agree that what others write on this subject only has the power we give it, but the point of the thread in the beginning was that folks who have had little experience in general and no experience with covens beyond the internet may be getting the idea from posters like Ancestral Lee that what she believes is the only truth in this matter. They lack the power to make an experienced judgment and may simply accept an answer like hers because it sounds so self-assured.

Elderbush

January 25th, 2006, 10:05 PM

I think that the problem would be solved if newcomers could be informed early on that no one and no tradition has the authority to dictate to anyone outside their tradition either how the word Wicca is defined or who is Wiccan. It could be suggested that they simply say if they run into it "I do not recognize your authority."

Possibly those who have been around longer could model that behavior? I think that some people bully newcomers simply because they are allowed to get away with it.

Lunacie

January 25th, 2006, 11:13 PM

Well, I do what I can to get the word out on this forum and on the "other" forum where I post, but of course someone always has to argue with me. :lol:

Little Billy

January 25th, 2006, 11:21 PM

It could be suggested that they simply say if they run into it "I do not recognize your authority."

If more people said this about damn near EVERYTHING, the world would be a better place.

MGD

January 26th, 2006, 03:44 AM

Police: PUT THE GUN DOWN!

Bobby: I don't recognize your authority.

Police: Fair enough, lets get out of here guys.

juliaki

January 26th, 2006, 07:45 AM

Elderbush

January 26th, 2006, 08:11 AM

I believe that you have read Lunacie's posts? She is a solitary Wiccan. Now you have "met" a solitary Wiccan that does not fall into your 3 insulting catagories. Would you care to add another catagory?

juliaki

January 26th, 2006, 08:41 AM

I'll be the first to agree that those are insulting categories, which is *why* I don't see those people as Wiccans. Those are the reasons that they provide for why they call themselves Wiccan, however.

As far as "meeting" someone on a message board, I'm a bit old-fashioned in that as well... in a message board, people have time to think up answers, revise answers, and come up with "the perfect answer". I'm only referring to the people that I've talked with in "real time". Those are the answers that they have provided. I don't think those answers are valid ones for me to consider a person a Wiccan. I have a feeling, based on your reply, that you also agree with that...

Lunacie

January 26th, 2006, 10:05 AM

To date, I've never met a self-professed solitary Wiccan who can provide a well-thought-out answer to one very simple question:

Why are you Wiccan? (as opposed to Pagan, witch, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever)

Every time I ask that question, I get one of three responses.

1. I'm a Wiccan because I do spells.
2. I'm a Wiccan because I believe in a goddess. (sometimes with the "and Christianity is mean and icky" add-on)
3. I'm a Wiccan because I read part of a book or a web site and it sounds really cool.

Maybe it's hidebound of me, but for those people, I'll gladly tell them that they can say whatever they want, but that I do not consider them Wiccan and will gladly tell that to anyone who asks me.

Of course none of them have actually realized that if they *were* Wiccan then it wouldn't matter what my view of them was....after all, I'm not Wiccan either. ;)

I've never met an Asutruar (except online).
I’ve never met a Buddhist (except online).
I've never met a Discordian (except online).
I’ve never met a Druid (except online).
I’ve never met a Hellenic (except online).

And guess what? Because I don't follow any of those paths I don't feel qualified to pass judgment on who does and who doesn't qualify to use those titles.

I don't remember seeing any posts here where anyone said they advocated accepting that everyone who calls themselves Wiccan has actually done anything to earn that title. We know there are plenty of people who are just looking for something cool or who change their minds on a whim. I said earlier in this thread that I don't consider them to be a huge problem because they don't usually hang onto the title for very long before they are off to discover something new and even cooler.

Then there are some who start off with the $ilverRavenWolf books and have about half a clue, but do some questioning and studying and become serious Wiccans in time. I do have a problem with "hidebound" people who tell them that they can't be Wiccan and stiffle any interest they have in pursuing the Wiccan path. I know some people say that if that's all it takes to disuade them then who needs them in the Wiccan population, but I say we've all had our less-than-serious times in our lives and with encouragement we've hopefully found our way. Wicca may not be the best fit for those who are easily discouraged, but they may just need some time and some guidance to find that it does indeed fit them. I chose to give people the benefit of the doubt until they show me that it's not deserved.

Cassie

January 26th, 2006, 10:20 AM

Dawa Lhamo

January 26th, 2006, 10:26 AM

Why are you Wiccan?
My first response, rapid-fire answer to that would be:

*blink, blink* "Because that's what I am." *smile*
*Wondering what else she wants from me...*

Meh. That's just me.

I said in my first post to this thread that both sides were using straw-men. And they're still using them. The people that juliaki (and others) refer to are actually out there, though they're not present on this thread. Kestrel Firesong (and others) have noted that there are strict (controlling) BTWs out there, but again, they're not present in this thread. So, if we're going to accept that juliaki's examples are off-base because there's no one here like that, then we need to accept that the solitaries' examples are off-base because there's no one here like that. The limits we apply to one must apply to all to keep this a fair conversation. If we're going to talk about people who aren't here and now, then we need to be honest about that. (Though I think it's important to remember that the extremes are NOT necessarily representative of the "sides" they're on.)

----
At my own initiation, something was said to the effect that I was already Wiccan and part of the coven (part of the family), but it was officially official. (Granted, my "year and a day" was the 22 years from my birth until then, so it might not be representative of newer Wiccans.) Before then, I had considered myself Wiccan (a Witch, really) and I'd felt that they were my family (heck they all helped raise me), but I still wanted to take that step and make it official. And I'm really glad I did.
----

Personally, I think it's like marriage. You can have a common law marriage for years without ever "tying the knot", and it doesn't mean that you're not absolutely devoted to each other, or that you aren't, in truth, husband and wife. However, the marriage license is a recognition of the relationship. One can instantly tell that these two people are married if they have that license. However, teenage sweethearts don't have a marriage-kind of relationship, and *often* are not as connected as they (and their hormones) have led themselves to believe.

And just like with Wicca, there are people who have the license, but aren't married in truth, and there are people who claim to have a common law marriage, when they really aren't married in truth, either. Bringing up fundamentalists who want to ban certain marriages, or Britney Spears, or teenagers who are "SO in LOVE", doesn't do much to describe what marriage really is.

Official initiation is really an easy determinant of the veracity of the claim of being Wiccan. Because those who've gone through a standard initiation have naturally had a certain standard of training. But that doesn't mean that there aren't "common-law" Wiccans (at least in my mind). You just have to dig deeper to see who they are to determine whether or not their claim is justified.

And I'm always in favor of digging deeper. It's healthy. So long as we don't rip each other apart. ^_^ That last part is particularly important. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

Lunacie

January 26th, 2006, 10:36 AM

Perhaps you live in a particularly fluffy neighborhood. I don't think any of the people who have identified in part or in whole with the religion of Wicca in this thread have answered in the way you suggest. In fact there have been some very thoughtful and thought provoking responses.

I tried to touch your karma but it's been too soon since last time I guess. So :fpoke: thank you.

juliaki

January 26th, 2006, 10:48 AM

My first response, rapid-fire answer to that would be:

*blink, blink* "Because that's what I am." *smile*
*Wondering what else she wants from me...*

Meh. That's just me.

To put it in context, the topic usuallly comes up when someone sees me reading something Pagan-based or out in public wearing my pentacle and says "It's so nice to see another Wiccan around here". I let them know that I'm not a Wiccan, and the conversation goes from there. (Including being told once that I *have* to be a Wiccan because I'm wearing a pentacle.) Also is a personal pet peeve when they grab it for a closer look. Grr.

Personally, I think it's like marriage. You can have a common law marriage for years without ever "tying the knot", and it doesn't mean that you're not absolutely devoted to each other, or that you aren't, in truth, husband and wife. However, the marriage license is a recognition of the relationship. One can instantly tell that these two people are married if they have that license.

That's an awesome analogy... I may have to "borrow" it, fi you don't mind. ;)

The way I look at it, if they have that "licence" (re: initiation) to be Wiccan, then that is acceptable proof for me to take them at their word that they are Wiccan (although if something doesn't seem quite right, I'm not above checking up on their lineage...and I've found some interesting individuals out there who claim to be initiated by so-and-so and yet so-and-so has never heard of them before). If they *don't* have that, then the person in question would need to have something else aside from "because I said I'm a Wiccan" for me to see them as Wiccan.

But why should it matter what I think anyhow? Presumably any solitary practitioner that I run into has opted to be solitary as a matter of choice (I've lived in PA, VA, FL, and MD/DC-metro in the past decade and change, and in all of those areas I've never been unable to find people of Craft persuasion, Craft stores, open rituals and events, and covens.) I'm just one of the masses of Craft folk out there, no more and no less. Why does any solitary practitioner care what anyone thinks about their spiritual pursuits? Isn't part of the point of being solitary that you don't have to care what anyone else thinks about what you believe or do?

Lunacie

January 26th, 2006, 10:54 AM

Lunacie

January 26th, 2006, 11:00 AM

But why should it matter what I think anyhow? Presumably any solitary practitioner that I run into has opted to be solitary as a matter of choice (I've lived in PA, VA, FL, and MD/DC-metro in the past decade and change, and in all of those areas I've never been unable to find people of Craft persuasion, Craft stores, open rituals and events, and covens.) I'm just one of the masses of Craft folk out there, no more and no less. Why does any solitary practitioner care what anyone thinks about their spiritual pursuits? Isn't part of the point of being solitary that you don't have to care what anyone else thinks about what you believe or do?

I've never lived in a place where access to Wicca was not hidden, until just the last five years, and even now not everyone who asks is able to join a tradition or a coven or even an eclectic group or circle.

There are many reasons a person may be solitary: they can't find a group nearby, or the groups in their area are not taking new members, or they don't mesh well with the groups that are open to new members, or they don't feel comfortable joining a traditional group, or many other reasons including but not limited to wanting to be solitary.

Why do we care what others think about us? Social conditioning? Human nature? Hmmm.....

Ben Gruagach

January 26th, 2006, 11:04 AM

And still more interesting parts turn up in this conversation! I'm impressed.

I hope no one seriously believes the only way to know if someone else is Wiccan (or whatever) is to meet them in person. I know you said something to that effect, juliaki, but I don't think you've thought it through. If meeting a person in the flesh were required, then how could any of us say the following:

Yes, the Pope is Catholic.

Yes, Gerald Gardner was Wiccan.

Yes, Alex Sanders was Wiccan.

How many of us have been able to meet the Pope, Gerald Gardner, or Alex Sanders in person let alone grill them to determine if they were True Practitioners of whatever religions they claim they follow?

By the way, I'm another one like Lunacie. I've long used the label "solitary eclectic Wiccan" to refer to my spiritual path. It's been over twenty years for me now and I've done a lot of reading, have talked with a lot of people (Wiccans from specific denominations such as Gardnerian, as well as people who weren't, as well as other Pagan paths, and people who aren't Pagan at all.)

Wicca is a religion, a spiritual path, with lots of different denominations and ways it can be practiced. I don't pretend to be a Gardnerian or an Alexandrian because I'm not initiated into those denominations. But they don't have the authority to dictate to me whether I am a Wiccan or not. And like it or not, they can't dictate to some twelve year old who watched "Charmed" once and decides to call themselves a Wiccan either.

I'm also gay, and in a legal same-sex marriage with my longterm partner. (We're Canadian -- same-sex marriage is legal in Canada.) This whole debate reminds me a lot of the debate over whether same-sex couples should be "allowed" to use the term marriage. Those who argue against it say that allowing others who are different to use the term somehow debases the marriages of opposite-sex couples. How my being legally married to my same-sex partner could possibly change the quality, benefits, responsibilities, or legal standing of any opposite-sex marriage just escapes me. Similarly, the fact that there are Wiccans out there who do things differently, who might not be as serious as you or might have different motivations than you, does not in any way affect your relationship with the Divine, does it? Are those other Wiccans getting in the way between you and the Divine? Are they barging in on your denominations' rituals and messing things up?

Gardnerian covens can and do have differences and even disagreements with other Gardnerian covens -- yet they seem to have learned to get along and "allow" those others to call themselves Gardnerian Wiccans too. Gardnerians and Alexandrians used to feud over which sect were the REAL Wiccans (the other being obvious fakes, of course.) They learned to get over that and now work their separate systems in peace. And despite the fact that there have been solitary Wiccans around for at least twenty years (like me for example) in a religion that is only fifty or sixty years old itself, we haven't learned the pattern yet and still distract ourselves from practicing our own religions in order to tell others that they aren't REAL practitioners.

Diversity is OK. In fact, I think diversity is one of the things that Wicca has been teaching since the early days (although we fallible humans seem to forget it awfully quickly.) After all, in the Charge of the Goddess the Lady tells us, "All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." And in the closest thing we have to a common Wiccan guideline, the Wiccan Rede, it says "An it harm none, do what you will."

Are we going against some of the oldest Wiccan teachings in our zeal to turn Wicca into a dogmatic religion where only approved people are allowed to call themselves Wiccans?

juliaki

January 26th, 2006, 11:14 AM

I hope no one seriously believes the only way to know if someone else is Wiccan (or whatever) is to meet them in person. I know you said something to that effect, juliaki, but I don't think you've thought it through.

I think it is difficult at best to actually know someone if you haven't met them, thus blindly accepting what someone says can be a slippery slope.

I can tell you that I'm a thirtysomething female. Can anyone be really sure that I'm in my 30s or female, however?

That's the point I was trying to make. Someone can tell me that they're Wiccan (or an alien or in their 40s or anything else), but without any corroborating evidence, there's no real way to know for sure, especially in a format where there's a time delay in posting.

Make a bit more sense? :)

Ben Gruagach

January 26th, 2006, 11:25 AM

I think it is difficult at best to actually know someone if you haven't met them, thus blindly accepting what someone says can be a slippery slope.

I can tell you that I'm a thirtysomething female. Can anyone be really sure that I'm in my 30s or female, however?

That's the point I was trying to make. Someone can tell me that they're Wiccan (or an alien or in their 40s or anything else), but without any corroborating evidence, there's no real way to know for sure, especially in a format where there's a time delay in posting.

Make a bit more sense? :)

It comes down to this: Does it matter?

How does it really matter to your practice as a Wiccan whether your neighbor calls themselves a Wiccan, whether they practice the same way you do, whether their training meets your approval?

Which is more important: turning Wicca into a dogmatic hierarchical authoritarian religion so that all "those types" can be denied the right to use the label Wicca, or practicing your own spiritual path?

I ask these questions because they seem to be what's behind the debate.

juliaki

January 26th, 2006, 11:39 AM

It comes down to this: Does it matter?

Unfortunately there are times it does.

1. If a person is engaging in illegal or unethical acts, but saying that they are justified in those actions because they are Wiccan and it is "what Wiccans do", then it reflects poorly on most neopagan paths in a society that doesn't understand the nuances of different paths. This ends up reflecting poorly on me, so I feel moved to speak out against it.

2. If a person is trying to take advantage of newcomers to the Craft by claiming qualifications, education, and experience that they don't have, then I feel moved to speak out against it. (For instance, someone claiming to be a Wiccan teacher when their "qualifications" to teach Wicca is that they've read a book or two.) I feel doubly moved to speak out against it if they're charging fees for their "training" or "initiation".

3. If a person says that I *must* accept their statement of what religion they follow, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. They can call themselves whatever they want in their own minds...but the minute they tell me that I have to accept what they call themselves as "the truth", I take issue with that.

What people do, say, or call themselves in the privacy of their own practices is their own business. When they bring it out into the court of public opinion, I think it is unreasonable to expect that everyone will agree with their assertions. Peoples is peoples. :)

Ben Gruagach

January 26th, 2006, 12:01 PM

It's good to see there is open discussion. We will never grow if we don't confront the hard questions. (Not that the hard questions will ever be finally answered of course...)

;)

Unfortunately there are times it does.

1. If a person is engaging in illegal or unethical acts, but saying that they are justified in those actions because they are Wiccan and it is "what Wiccans do", then it reflects poorly on most neopagan paths in a society that doesn't understand the nuances of different paths. This ends up reflecting poorly on me, so I feel moved to speak out against it.

Christians commit crimes all the time -- but does that mean they are not Christians? (Probably not GOOD Christians, but they are still Christians.)

Being a good spokesperson involves taking the daring step of coming forward publicly and presenting a role model. In my opinion trying to claim exclusive ownership of a term without the authority to do so, especially in a religion set up where there is no central authority structure, is tilting at windmills.

2. If a person is trying to take advantage of newcomers to the Craft by claiming qualifications, education, and experience that they don't have, then I feel moved to speak out against it. (For instance, someone claiming to be a Wiccan teacher when their "qualifications" to teach Wicca is that they've read a book or two.) I feel doubly moved to speak out against it if they're charging fees for their "training" or "initiation".
Qualifications to teach has little or nothing to do with whether one has the right to say they practice a particular religion.

I can think of an interesting historical example of a person who did set themselves up as a teacher and a leader with very questionable qualifications: Alex Sanders.

Sanders got his start in Wicca by approaching Gerald Gardner about joining up. Gardner and his various high priestesses didn't like Sanders so they turned him down. Sanders, meanwhile, befriended a young woman who was a Gardnerian initiate and got her to do the initiation ceremony for him. He "borrowed" the Gardnerian Book of Shadows and then disappeared for a short time.

Within about a year after this he popped up in the media and started telling everyone he was a Wiccan third degree high priest who had been initiated by his granny back when he was about nine years old. (Or was it seven?) He even had a Book of Shadows to prove his authority. Alex initiated Maxine (who he married a few years later) and had made her his third degree high priestess by the time she was all of eighteen or nineteen years old. (Alex was in his thirties.) They took in anyone who was interested, initiated them all, and the rest is history.

Does this invalidate the whole Alexandrian denomination? Was Alex not a "real Wiccan"? (I hardly think their validity as Wiccans is in doubt today.)

3. If a person says that I *must* accept their statement of what religion they follow, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. They can call themselves whatever they want in their own minds...but the minute they tell me that I have to accept what they call themselves as "the truth", I take issue with that.

What people do, say, or call themselves in the privacy of their own practices is their own business. When they bring it out into the court of public opinion, I think it is unreasonable to expect that everyone will agree with their assertions. Peoples is peoples. :)

And just like you don't have to accept anything anyone else tells you, in person or in writing, whether it's true or not, no one else has to accept your own opinion regarding who counts as Wiccan as valid either.

So it seems to me we might as well just focus on what our personal spiritual paths ARE about and stop wasting our energy on worrying about what our neighbors are doing. If the Lord and Lady don't like it I'm sure They are perfectly capable of handling it Themselves.

By the way, I strongly encourage people to read Sarah M. Pike's book "Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community" as it explores this whole topic with a lot of depth. It also compares what the modern Pagan community is experiencing with what other religious (and non-religious) communities have gone through in the past. We're not the first community to confront these sorts of questions!

[Edited to correct some grammar mistakes.]

juliaki

January 26th, 2006, 12:24 PM

Christians commit crimes all the time -- but does that mean they are not Christians? (Probably not GOOD Christians, but they are still Christians.)

Part of the difference comes about from the minority religion status that neopagan faiths (including Wicca) are in. When a Christian does something unethical or illegal, for instance drowning their kids because Jesus told them to, there are Christians who come out and say that no one who does something like that can actually be a Christian. Society at large also does not accept that the individual in question can do something like that and be Christian. On the other hand, when someone says they are a Wiccan and then commits some rather nasty acts (the case of two "Wiccans" who descrated a church not that long ago comes to mind) that they justify by saying that it is their "Wiccan duty" to perform, society is more inclined to believe that their actions *do* represent what Wiccans do.

Another example that comes to mind is the tragic incident of two teens who committed suicide by standing on a railroad track. According to the writings they left behind, suicide is an acceptable part of Wicca because Wiccans believe in reincarnation. Now I doubt there would be many Wiccans out there who would agree that suicide is a "Wiccan act", but society doesn't have personal experience and education to draw from and would be more likely to believe this.

Qualifications to teach has little or nothing to do with whether one has the right to say they practice a particular religion.

I think it ends up being tied into the same essential issue, however. Where are lines drawn? There was a "Wiccan teacher" out there a handful of years ago who would only initiate virgin minor females (and they had to make sure to take an oath of secrecy about it all). If it is a gray area between who is a Wiccan and who isn't a Wiccan and between who can be a teacher and who can't be a teacher, then how do we keep from falling into the trap that there are no minimum standards?

And just like you don't have to accept anything anyone else tells you, in person or in writing, whether it's true or not, no one else has to accept your own opinion regarding who counts as Wiccan as valid either.

Absolutely. For some reason, it doesn't stop people from craving my approval for what they call themselves, even though it shouldn't matter. As long as they're craving my approval, I'm going to say what I feel...whether that is in agreement with their self-assessment or not. They have the option at any time to say "Eh, she's a nutcase...I'm not going to bother with her."

So it seems to me we might as well just focus on what our personal spiritual paths ARE about and stop wasting our energy on worrying about what our neighbors are doing.

As long as they're not harming the "property values" (to use the neighbor analogy), I don't care what they do behind closed doors (with the exception of the first condition that I listed).

By the way, I strongly encourage people to read Sarah M. Pike's book "Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community" as it explores this whole topic with a lot of depth. It also compares what the modern Pagan community is experiencing with what other religious (and non-religious) communities have gone through in the past. We're not the first community to confront these sorts of questions!

Sounds like a good read...I'll go looking for it.

Elderbush

January 26th, 2006, 12:50 PM

I think it is time for Wiccans to admit that we have bad actors in our religion just like everyone else. It is the truth. Trying to deny it is rather like lying isn't it? If a Wiccan does bad things they do reflect on the rest of us - Just like those people reflect badly upon the Christian community. You remembered didn't you?

There are bad teachers in every religion too that take advantage of innoscents. Yes, it would be a very good thing if Wiccans took those things to the police if necessary to stop it. Breaking the laws of the land, not to mention ethical ones is not good and people who are good citizens report it.

As for you telling someone they are Wiccan, you should tell them that you have no authority and aren't Wiccan - how would you know?

Dawa Lhamo

January 26th, 2006, 01:52 PM

Dawa Lhamo, excellent comparison to common law marriage. But to take the example one step further, not everyone who goes to the trouble of getting married is truly in love or willing to walk that path. Of course! I thought I included that thought in there. Hmmm... anyway, yeah, there are those who wish to accumulate titles or for whatever reason is not really Wiccan at heart, though they've been initiated. I'd like to think, though, that it's a good bit rarer than those who officially marry yet aren't married heart and soul. (Divorce rates being over 50%, I should hope that initiation failure rates aren't that high!!!) For one, it generally takes a good bit more effort and time to get an initiation than a marriage license. ^_^ lol. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

Ben Gruagach

January 26th, 2006, 04:23 PM

Of course! I thought I included that thought in there. Hmmm... anyway, yeah, there are those who wish to accumulate titles or for whatever reason is not really Wiccan at heart, though they've been initiated. I'd like to think, though, that it's a good bit rarer than those who officially marry yet aren't married heart and soul. (Divorce rates being over 50%, I should hope that initiation failure rates aren't that high!!!) For one, it generally takes a good bit more effort and time to get an initiation than a marriage license. ^_^ lol. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

It might be the case with today's Gardnerian and Alexandrian covens that initiation is something that is only bestowed after lots of hard work. However, in the not-too-distant past we know that Alex Sanders, founder of the Alexandrian denomination, would happily initiate anyone and everyone who would allow him to do it. Janet and Stewart Farrar have joked that he would have initiated the mailman if he stood still long enough!

Things certainly change. Now initiation is usually reserved for those who have done at least a year-and-a-day of training, who show determination and dedication, and who prove to be "proper persons" in the eyes of the denomination's elders. It used to be that you had to be initiated BEFORE you got that first bit of training.

Elderbush

January 26th, 2006, 06:19 PM

Lunacie

January 26th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Wow, I missed some really great stuff while I was out running errands and spending time with my grandchild today.

I know that Christians can do things that are wrong, or sinful, or against Christian dogma, and they can still be forgiven and retain their Christian status. Surely Wiccans can make mistakes without loosing any right to claim the title.

I think there are Wiccans who are a sterling example and there are Wiccans who give us a bad name, but I think most of us are just struggling to live a good and spiritual life. I think we learn our best lessons from our mistakes and from the gods giving us a whack with a clue-by-four. Maybe other Wiccans are ashamed of us because we did something stupid, and it's okay to share that we think it was a really dumb thing to do, but it shouldn't revoke our Wiccanity (sorry for the wordage ;) ).

ancestral_lee

January 26th, 2006, 07:03 PM

from posters like Ancestral Lee that what she believes is the only truth in this matter.

just found this thread again and been having a browse.

Lunacie - for the second time - ancestral lee is male/a guy/ a bloke/man, i have testicles and a penis.

i am a 'he'

Elderbush

January 26th, 2006, 07:08 PM

:)

Hi Lee! It was me you had to tell the first time that you were a man. On another thread I had someone call me a man. Possibly I was posting in a deep voice.

Lunacie

January 26th, 2006, 07:24 PM

just found this thread again and been having a browse.

Lunacie - for the second time - ancestral lee is male/a guy/ a bloke/man, i have testicles and a penis.

i am a 'he'

Oops, sorry about that. I do makes mistakes now and then, but when they're pointed out I do try not to make the same ones.

Or... I could blame it on Elderbush for mixing me up. :lol:

AlleyCat

January 27th, 2006, 02:21 AM

Well for one we all have to accept the fact that DEFINITIONS CHANGE e.g Shakespeares time "for want of serpent tounge" doesn't mean they wanted it, did it? NO its a lack of, but the DEFINITION HAS CHANGED WITH TIME..

Thus it appears the definition of what is required to be classified "Wiccan" has changed too, its up to the individual whether to hold onto the "traditional" meanings of the word as was in the 1960's or to come to terms with the 2000's...

Personally though as I said in my previous posts I do hold a bit to the older definition in my personal value but that's just me...let people call themselves what they want to, they want the title Wiccan go ahead, but Im not going to use it lol :D

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 09:09 AM

I heard that a high number of people drop out of or change traditions or covens. I wish I could remember where I read it but it was just someone who canvased friends in different groups rather than a formal study. It was something like 75-80%, maybe not that high, leave? Anyone have any figures?

Don't have figures, but I would hazard to say that the drop-out rate would vary depending on the standards for initiation. The more selective the initiation process, the less likely an individual will drop out or change traditions (although they may get cross-trained in other traditions as well). In the tradition that I've petitioned to, there were about 25-30 people who started at the introductory level around the time when I did. By the time our first year of classes had ended, we were down to 6. By the time the second year of classes had ended, we were down to 4 (all of whom have petitioned for initiation). Certainly any initiate who asks for release would be granted it... but it is a rare occurrence from what I've heard. (For the couple cases that I've heard, the people who asked for release were dealing with life issues and opted to go with "no spiritual path" while they sort things out.) Even people who have geographically moved out of the area still more often than not retain their membership (and, whenever possible, travel back home to participate in some form of rite).

I'd love to see a formal study comparing the length of time within the Craft for solitary practitioners to coven initiates. My guess would be that the initial "drop out" rate for people training with a coven would be higher than the "drop out" rate for solitary practitioners, but then within the 3-5 year range those numbers would reverse. After 5 years, the numbers probably even out to some extent (percentage-wise). My theory on that would be that in the first couple years of solitary practice, there's not as strong of an indication of how much work that this path would be, whereas most coven training puts that pretty strong in the forefront. By the time someone has been actively studying and honoring their Craft for a few years, they have a better idea that the Craft isn't an hour a week spiritual path.

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 09:15 AM

Maybe other Wiccans are ashamed of us because we did something stupid, and it's okay to share that we think it was a really dumb thing to do, but it shouldn't revoke our Wiccanity (sorry for the wordage ;) ).

Doing "stupid things" is a part of life's lessons for us. I certainly wouldn't want a case of stupidity to be a meterstick for revoking one's "Wiccanity". On the other hand, outright habitual malice would be something that I'd love to kick someone to the curb for. Likewise habitual stupidity (without any evidence of a person trying to learn) would be something I'd love to have removed from "Wiccandom". ;)

Within a coven setting, both of those can be addressed through certain channels. Is divine intervention the only channel to address habitual malice or habitual stupidity for a solitary practitioner?

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 09:19 AM

It might be the case with today's Gardnerian and Alexandrian covens that initiation is something that is only bestowed after lots of hard work. However, in the not-too-distant past we know that Alex Sanders, founder of the Alexandrian denomination, would happily initiate anyone and everyone who would allow him to do it.

I think that ends up being true of most religions when they're getting started. Probably the example most people are familiar with is Christianity...the idea of grabbing any ol' person to be a disciple of that new prophet. The idea is that you grab as many people as you can to form a large base for your religion. Eventually time will weed out the people who aren't cut out for it, and then standards can be raised and selectivity increased. Perhaps that's what's going on right now? Instead of just letting any ol' person slap on a label and become an insta-Wiccan, now there's a desire to have some form of standard. The bigger question becomes what standards should apply and within what circumstances?

Things are getting a bit better, I think. I've only run into one atheist Wiccan this month.

Lunacie

January 27th, 2006, 11:23 AM

Thus it appears the definition of what is required to be classified "Wiccan" has changed too, its up to the individual whether to hold onto the "traditional" meanings of the word as was in the 1960's or to come to terms with the 2000's...
:D

Hmmm, going on what BenG has shared in his vast amount of reading (and unlike me he seems to retain what he reads ;) ), it seems that some traditionalists have gotten rather more strict than Gardner was rather than less strict. However, you have a good point and it's one I've made myself in discussion on another board on this same topic. The world changes and it's only natural that religions change as well.

Lunacie

January 27th, 2006, 11:32 AM

Juliaki, I think that sounds about right for the balance between those who follow a Wiccan tradition dropping out sooner and those who follow a solitary or more eclectic Wicca dropping out later.

Doing "stupid things" is a part of life's lessons for us. I certainly wouldn't want a case of stupidity to be a meterstick for revoking one's "Wiccanity". On the other hand, outright habitual malice would be something that I'd love to kick someone to the curb for. Likewise habitual stupidity (without any evidence of a person trying to learn) would be something I'd love to have removed from "Wiccandom". ;)

Within a coven setting, both of those can be addressed through certain channels. Is divine intervention the only channel to address habitual malice or habitual stupidity for a solitary practitioner?

I'm not sure what I think about this, I may have to let it percolate for a bit.

I keep getting mental cross-references to the serial killer here in Kansas who was caught a few months ago following a 30+ year reign of terror. The man was definately psychotic and amazing in his ability to balance the good part of his spirit with the evil side of it. He did some very good work with the boy scouts, was greatly appreciated in his home church and was even put in a position of responsibility and authority there. His pastor has continued to counsel him through the trial and visits him in prison now.

He committed horrible, unspeakable acts of violence, yet he was still a Christian. Okay, I know most people aren't that schitzophrenic, but we all have different sides to our personalities, so I still have trouble saying someone isn't Wiccan because they do something I personally find reprehensible. Without a concensus in agreement about what exactly is and what exactly isn't Wicca, it's up to our personal perspective to make that discernment.

However, I have no problem saying someone like Kevin Carlyon is a "Silly Wiccan." :hehehehe:

As far as "habitual stupidity" I was very much like that for far too many years, refusing to see the gods honest truth about something because I was so damn stubborn. But one day someone said something to me that just clicked and it all started to change around. Yeah, habitual stupidity is quite frustrating and nothing says a coven has to accept a member like that, but booting someone to the curb might sour them on ever listening to that little voice that says "Aha ! So that's what they meant!"

Elderbush

January 27th, 2006, 12:24 PM

So, Juliaki, the drop out rate in your tradition was even higher than 80%. I hadn't believed the figures mainly because in my tradition it is considerably less than that.

As for the solitaries, a lot of them become solitaries because they drop out of a tradition and others "drop-out" of being a solitary by joining a tradition. Frankly I think some time spent as a solitary give one a different and valuable perspective on Wicca as a whole.

I'd like to comment on the controlling factor of a tradition or coven. They can kick people out of the tradition for bad behavior but they can't kick them out of Wicca. They don't have that authority. Wicca is unfortunately stuck with our bad Wiccans just like all the other religions are.

Elderbush

January 27th, 2006, 12:35 PM

Lunacie

January 27th, 2006, 01:09 PM

A bit of background... I was initiated into a coven, but the coven did not follow a specific tradition. The person who taught us and initiated us didn't want to be the leader of a coven. And it didn't start that way. We were just a group of students looking for a teacher. He asked the local coven if they would take us in, but they had just accepted two new members and didn't want to take any more just then. So he stepped up to the plate.

The teacher was my then-husband and there was one other couple with us in the beginning. My ex didn't want to form a coven, he wanted to keep things more informal, but the other couple really wanted the whole experience. And so we ended up doing the whole initiation business. It wasn't something I particularly craved and when my ex told me he thought I was ready for initiation I was pretty surprised. I told him that I needed to spend some time in meditation before deciding whether or not to do that.

So I went off by myself and called on the wisdom of the Old Ones and the God and Goddess and listened for their responses. I was still so new that I delighted in hearing the different ways they each had of speaking to me, but they all gave me the same message, that I had already recieved my spiritual initiation from the goddess and this was a good step for me to take, I would learn much from it. Well, not all lessons are easy, eh?

The other woman really wanted to become a high priestess, as quickly as possible, and she is the one who pushed for more initiations and for things to be done in a rigid, inflexible manner. That's just who she was. We bumped heads a lot. She was also pushing to be intimate with my husband and we bumped heads about that, but as men will be, he was flattered and they ended up having an affair that went on much too long. Her husband divorced her and eventually I kicked my husband out of our house and told him to go and live with her. The coven was no more.

I was a solitary Wiccan for the next 6 years. I got to know a new coven that was forming, but it really wasn't a good fit. They wanted to do everything "by the book" so they would have legal status. Now I think legal status is a good thing and I admire the people who are willing to stand up for our rights as a real religion, but I don't do well in that kind of structured environment. So I kept looking. I was getting kind of desperate by the time I found the circle I work with now, but we all have so much in common that it's a really good fit. We're pretty eclectic and we have fun together and laugh at our mistakes during ritual, and giggle about the things that happen being signs from the gods or the Old Ones.

We had about 8 in the group when we first formed up some three years ago, and only two of us original members are left, along with four who joined about 2 years ago, and two who just joined before Yule. I believe members of traditional covens feel like they are part of a family and they stick with each other, even if one moves away they are still part of the family. But this works just fine for me, I meet new people and learn something from each of them and they are getting experience that will help them decide whether to join a traditional coven, or decide if they would be happier working solitary, or if they are happy to stay with our informal circle of Wiccans.

Not sure what my point was here, or even if I had one. Just thought I'd share what has and what hasn't worked for me in the 16 years since I started following the Wiccan path and became a Wiccan myself.

Ben Gruagach

January 27th, 2006, 01:09 PM

Personally I think Wicca as a religion has room for lots of diversity. There is room for those who are interested in what is essentially a very demanding religious order -- they are the types who find their way into the strict denominations which have rigorous screening processes in place. But those religious orders are just one part of the larger religion. Just like not every Christian is expected to become a monk or nun or priest, I'm not sure that Wicca needs to expect every member to belong to a strict coven, or even work with a coven at all.

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 01:18 PM

So, Juliaki, the drop out rate in your tradition was even higher than 80%. I hadn't believed the figures mainly because in my tradition it is considerably less than that.

No, the dropout rate in the tradition I've petitioned to is probably less than 5%. The people I mentioned were fellow students...not part of the tradition whatsoever.

I'd like to comment on the controlling factor of a tradition or coven. They can kick people out of the tradition for bad behavior but they can't kick them out of Wicca. They don't have that authority. Wicca is unfortunately stuck with our bad Wiccans just like all the other religions are.

Without going too far on the mystical side of things, I'd wager that within Trad Wicca there are ways to remove someone from that spiritual alignment such that they are no longer Wiccan (and probably would run screaming away from anyone who even suggests that they are). I would hope that there aren't too many people in the short history of Wicca who have done enough such that they would get that to happen to them, however. (shudder)

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 01:20 PM

Just like not every Christian is expected to become a monk or nun or priest, I'm not sure that Wicca needs to expect every member to belong to a strict coven, or even work with a coven at all.

Just to make things more interesting, do you agree with the statement that every Wiccan is a priest or priestess? Or does the whole "solitary Wiccan" aspect simply equate to Wiccan laity?

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 01:35 PM

I have a question but possibly it is better on a different thread. If many peole drop out of a tradition is that a good thing? Instead of being an example of how exclusive it is, could it not be a sign that the tradition cannot serve the religious needs of very many people, that it is inflexible?

Ed. to add - I think perhaps that the initial screening process in the tradition I am in is more difficult which cuts down on the rates but it still has a big dropout rate, not that I think mine serves the public better. That's in case anyone misunderstands where I'm coming from.

I think the reasons why people drop out should be assessed. If people are leaving over one paticular bit of dogma or because of personality clashes with members, that might be something to look at as a less-than-positive issue within a tradition. If people are leaving because life, the gods, and circumstance are directing them elsewhere, that would not be as bad, IMO. On the other hand, if a particular tradition has a lot of members that, due to life issues, are no longer physically in the area but still maintain the close traditional ties, that's a beautiful statement to the strength of the tradition, at least from my perspective.

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 01:59 PM

Ben Gruagach

January 27th, 2006, 02:08 PM

Just to make things more interesting, do you agree with the statement that every Wiccan is a priest or priestess? Or does the whole "solitary Wiccan" aspect simply equate to Wiccan laity?

I expected that to come up.

There are two things (probably more) that are going on with this label of "priest/ess" in a Wiccan context.

1. One of the Wiccan precepts is that ours is religion without the middle-man. We Wiccans do not require the intercession of a clergy in order to have a relationship with the Divine. That's what it means to me when they say that "every Wiccan is a priest/ess."

2. The mainstream definition of priest/ess is a person who is clergy, who acts as a leader of a spiritual community and does things such as lead ritual, provide counselling, etc. for a congregation or for the community at large. In my opinion, being Wiccan does not automatically mean we are all clergy. In a Wiccan context I think that the clergy role (except as being an intercessor to the Divine) is what we have with the high priest/ess. Not all Wiccans can, will, or should be expected to take on the role of high priest/ess.

So I guess I'm saying that yes, all Wiccans are indeed priest/ess but only high priest/ess are clergy. And all Wiccans are priest/ess because our system does not require a middleman, a clergy, in order for us to have a relationship with the Divine.

Ben Gruagach

January 27th, 2006, 02:23 PM

For those who are interested, there are some other MysticWickers discussing similar things over in this thread (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=2352230).

They are perennial topics after all!

Vincent Verthaine

January 27th, 2006, 02:37 PM

From the eyes of an outside observer,(I'm a discordian,dontchaknow) and it seems to me it really breaks down to being only really two types of wicca.
Institutionalized and Independent.

and both sides always seem to be at each others throats.

The debate "Are you a true Wiccan if you are a Solitary Practioner" has been
raging for what,50 years?

If a group of wiccans prefer a structured belief system,with a structured hierarchy,with structured rules,thats fine.
Thats what covens are for.
They can decide who is or who isn't a member of a said coven,but I still don't understand what gives them the right to say who is or who isn't a wiccan?

A lot of established covens refused to even recognize discordians as "pagan" when we came out in the early 60's.

It's all about control.
It is my experiance that certian coven leaders seem to have a big problem with anyone calling themselves "wiccan" they can't control.
They lay down the rules,and enjoy the benefits of having power over those "below them".
Anything independent "wiccan"threatens the status quo,and thus threatens their power over their group.
If coven members see someone "doing their own thing",a wiccan who doesn't subscribe to their reality tunnel,those in charge are afraid that their members will start to want to do things on their own also,thus taking away their power,and "high status'.
Next thing you know,coven members are going to start thinking for themselves.They are going to start to wonder why they need to take orders from "the High Priest/ess.
They are going to want to have more say in what goes on in the coven.
And we can't have that,can we? They are a fraid of wiccans doing this :ringaroun
instead of wiccans doing this :hailmol:

Happens in the business world all the time.It's called the "Peter Principle".

Eclectic and solitary wiccans are important to wicca because they are the scouts that charter unknown territories that established covens may be to hidebound to seek.

We discordians went through the same treatment when we came out in the 60's,and the Chaosmages got the same treatment from the Ceremonialists in the 80's.

It is just a fact of life.
Certian people hate anything new,independent,or different.
And when it is people with influence or power,they transfer their prejudices to those below them.

But hey,if the institutionalized wiccans don't want the solitary wiccans,we discordians have no problem taking them in.
We don't care what they call themselves.We don't even require them to worship Eris.
In discordianism,everyone is his/her own high priest.

juliaki

January 27th, 2006, 02:52 PM

There are two things (probably more) that are going on with this label of "priest/ess" in a Wiccan context.

I can certainly understand where you're coming from regarding those two definitions. I also think that any coven member who requires an intercessory to the divine is missing something... even in a coven setting, I'd feel very nervous about a required "spiritual middleman".

One issue that I've seen come up fairly frequently (and yes, largely in the under 18 set, but not exclusively there) is the idea that #1 is equivalent in every way to #2. I remember one time when a 15-year-old girl told me that because she had started a coven (re: a group of friends who got together for sleepovers with a ouija board), that she was in fact a high priestess and I must refer to her as such. And, because I am studying with a tradition that does use honorific titles for our clergy and elders, I should bestow that honorific title upon her as well.

I also think that every person has the *potential* to be a priest or priestess (either in this life or in future lives), but that not everyone will ever actualize that potential. Just stating that one follows a Wiccan-inspired path doesn't automatically bestow priestliness or priestessness upon an individual. (Case in point, someone an individual I met who had attended some classes I taught who in one breath told me he was a priest of Wicca and in the next breath asked me if it was possible for Wiccans to pray, because he never really bothered with that whole "god/ess thing" and thought it might be worthwhile to "try it out someday." I told him something to the effect of that he might want to rethink bandying around the title of priest because the gods might take him seriously and act accordingly.)

Ben Gruagach

January 27th, 2006, 03:03 PM

There are jerks in every community. The danger though is in treating whole classes of people as though the few jerks represent them.

Being a teen ager and ambitious does not mean they aren't "real" Wiccans or even not a "real" high priest/ess. Case in point: Alex Sanders gave Maxine her third degree initiation by the time she was all of eighteen years old. She seems to have filled that role pretty well (as have others I'm sure.) Perhaps she was the rare exception. Just like those jerks who clearly didn't know their stuff who were calling themselves "high priest/ess" might be rare exceptions.

Vincent Verthaine's excellent post reminded me of the phrase "high priest/ess disease." Vivienne West's entertaining poem (http://paganrealm.tripod.com/poems/hps-disease.html) explains the terrible affliction.

Elderbush

January 27th, 2006, 06:05 PM

Elderbush

January 27th, 2006, 06:16 PM

Our group is wrestling with this topic. We think that there should be a place within our tradition for Wiccans who have different amounts of time (and interest!) to spend, who want a close knit coven or who want to be solitary practitioners but have a community to interact with. We also think that it is ok to stay at one level, to not go all the way and we're trying to work that out. It is important to us to keep those who leave for whatever reason still within our community.

In addressing the high priestess thing: we have clergy who fill those roles. They have the education and experience and the desire others may lack.

Ben Gruagach

January 27th, 2006, 07:30 PM

Lunacie

January 27th, 2006, 07:35 PM

Thanks for sharing your story. It's good to hear where other people are coming from. At the risk of opening another can of worms, another issue that I see coming up regarding defining aspects of the Craft is what does or does not constitute a coven. My personal belief is that not every group that gets together to study and/or perform rituals is a coven. There's something "more" to it... a deeper connection that you can clearly see but can't likely explain to anyone else.

A long time ago, someone said to me that anyone who wants to become a high priest or high priestess is the last person in the world who should become one.

I don't mean to pry, so feel free to tell me to buzz off, but why if you were a solitary practitioner did you feel the desperate need to find others to circle with?

From my experience, that "family feeling" is so strong, it's amazing...it's something that can't be put into words. Just got back from FL, and while I was down there, I got to meet up with one of the HPSs who just moved down there. She's still part of the family and in everyone's heart. Connections like that don't just disappear, no matter how many miles are between everyone (and sometimes, like when one ends up going to Iraq, it's a lot of miles).

You're not prying when I was the one who opened the subject, eh? And the reason I really wanted to work with another circle was pretty much what you've written in this post. Although in the first circle I belong to not everyone agreed about everything, there was still a very strong connection. I'm still very good friends with the other fellow (and with his second wife too). And I really missed having others to work with, and talk things over with, and celebrate with, and just feel connected to - in part because we had gone through initiation with each other and worked magic together and I had been 'rescued' by them when I was dumb enough to let down my shield at the wrong time.

And I agree, anyone who wants to be a High Priest/ess is hardly the best person for the role - which is one reason I thought my ex made a pretty good (albeit reluctant) teacher and leader. I think the same thing is true of the job of president of the U.S.. As I understand it, George Washington didn't want the job. :hahugh:

<->-<->-<->-<->-<->-<->

And what Ben G. wrote in response to the question about every Wiccan being a priest/ess, but not all are high priests and high priestesses which means able to lead a group and teach and do community work and a host of other things. Clergy is a good title for that I guess.

Lunacie

January 27th, 2006, 07:43 PM

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 10:47 AM

Juliaki, if you start with 25-30 students, you have to count them. Those were all possible initiates but they left for one reason or another, leaving less to continue, with more dropping during each circle and only a few making it to the final one. That is how I was counting it. All those people went on to another tradition, became solitaries or left the religion. If you start talking to other traditions that is a very common pattern for Wicca.

Given the way the training is set up, none of the people who take the first year's worth of classes are potential initiates. As such, none of them were members, and therefore cannot be counted among the membership.

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 10:48 AM

Given the way the training is set up, none of the people who take the first year's worth of classes are potential initiates. As such, none of them were members, and therefore cannot be counted among the membership.

Jebus...what a racket.

LB,
Is in the wrong business.

Elderbush

January 29th, 2006, 11:19 AM

Yep. Well, Juliaki, whatever.:)

Lunacie

January 29th, 2006, 11:33 AM

Gotta agree to disagree on that one.

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:03 PM

Why is it hard to believe that people can take introductory (non-outer court) classes and not be considered members (inner court/initiates) and/or not be on the path to go towards initiation?

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:07 PM

Why is it hard to believe that people can take introductory (non-outer court) classes and not be considered members (inner court/initiates) and/or not be on the path to go towards initiation?

It's not hard to believe. It is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money, after all.

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:08 PM

And just a point of clarification, there are people who have gone through the intro class, the second year of classes, gone through the various aspects of dedication, the dedication rite, petitioned for initiation, gone through various aspects of the initiation process and not initiated or been taken through initiation. Some have been going through the process for more than a decade. Some people make it to the edge of the circle and are turned away. Initiation is something that isn't a guaranteed given, but if it is worth it to an individual then it doesn't matter how long it takes.... this lifetime or another.

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:08 PM

It's not hard to believe. It is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money, after all.

Umm...what money?

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:09 PM

Umm...what money?

The classes are free?

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:10 PM

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:10 PM

The classes are free?

Yup.

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:15 PM

Meh. Screw that. Who the hell needs an elitist religion?

I'm of the opinion that all religions are elitist to one level or another, because the gods figure out who stays in what religion....can't get more selective than that. ;)

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:16 PM

I'm of the opinion that all religions are elitist to one level or another, because the gods figure out who stays in what religion....can't get more selective than that. ;)

And, of course, the coven elders interpret the word of the gods.

Neat.

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:17 PM

Yup.

You just made "Bob" cry. ---> :wah:

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:18 PM

And, of course, the coven elders interpret the word of the gods.

Neat.

Every person is responsible for interpreting the words of the gods... personally I've found that coven elders are more useful to go to when help is needed interpreting the words of other people. :)

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:21 PM

Every person is responsible for interpreting the words of the gods... personally I've found that coven elders are more useful to go to when help is needed interpreting the words of other people. :)

Bottom line: Who translates the God's words, when the God's say they don't want someone in a coven?

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:27 PM

Bottom line: Who translates the God's words, when the God's say they don't want someone in a coven?

As I hear it, "life stuff" seems to happen that takes an individual down a different path. Sometimes that's challenges that a person has to face and overcome. Sometimes that's blessings that take them into a different spot in life. Sometimes that means a person takes time away to gather themselves together. Sometimes that means a person ends up going on a totally different path for the rest of this life. However it happens, it's acknowledged for the blessing that it is.... and acknowledged as just as much of a blessing as someone continuing to initiation, because it all comes down to "know thyself".

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:29 PM

As I hear it, "life stuff" seems to happen that takes an individual down a different path. Sometimes that's challenges that a person has to face and overcome. Sometimes that's blessings that take them into a different spot in life. Sometimes that means a person takes time away to gather themselves together. Sometimes that means a person ends up going on a totally different path for the rest of this life. However it happens, it's acknowledged for the blessing that it is.... and acknowledged as just as much of a blessing as someone continuing to initiation, because it all comes down to "know thyself".

So...blessings happen? :lol:

But you said, IIRC, that some were "turned away".

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:34 PM

So...blessings happen? :lol:

Of course. At least I believe that there are blessings in the world.

But you said, IIRC, that some were "turned away".

Yep. That doesn't mean it was elders or initiates doing the turning, however.

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 09:44 PM

Of course. At least I believe that there are blessings in the world.

Yep. That doesn't mean it was elders or initiates doing the turning, however.

1. So do I. Some days "Bob" showers them down on you. Some days, he even takes them out of the big heavy can, first.

2. Okay. That isn't how that post looked, so please pardon me.

juliaki

January 29th, 2006, 09:48 PM

1. So do I. Some days "Bob" showers them down on you. Some days, he even takes them out of the big heavy can, first.

That sounds perfectly right to me.

2. Okay. That isn't how that post looked, so please pardon me.

No worries... I'm trying to edit some rather dull standardized tests while I get caught up with online stuff from this weekend (all while trying to get my bearings from everything I did this weekend out there in the "real worl"), so I'm lucky to be able to string together two words into a sentence. Sorry if it didn't come across quite right. :awilly:

Ben Gruagach

January 29th, 2006, 10:13 PM

Perhaps juliaki's particular coven has never turned away a person but the dropouts have all left of their own accord. There are plenty of covens that do actively turn away people that they feel are not up to their standards.

There are all sorts of reasons for this. Personally though I think it just means the candidate was not right for that particular group -- and in any case it's not up to the particular group to say whether the candidate is Wiccan or not.

Little Billy

January 29th, 2006, 10:38 PM

Vincent Verthaine

January 30th, 2006, 05:22 AM

How individual covens view things shouldn't necessarily indicate how every coven should view things.Or every practicioner for that matter.

I still don't understand how covens and their leadership should have the right to dictate who is or who isn't a true wiccan.I can understand the right to accept or deny members from their respective covens.But who has the right to say a solitary practictioner isn't a "true wiccan"
Isn't what this thread is about?
After 50 years and this debate is still raging?
But of course,I'm just a discordian,what do I know?

Elderbush

January 30th, 2006, 07:43 AM

Wanting to dictate to others and actually having the power to do it are two different things. Unfortunately, some people have rather exagerated ideas of their (super)powers.:)

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 09:17 AM

Vincent, you may be "just a discordian" but you know plenty. That was very well written. Thank you.

Amythest

January 30th, 2006, 09:38 AM

Dawa Lhamo

January 30th, 2006, 09:55 AM

So, if we're going to accept that juliaki's examples are off-base because there's no one here like that, then we need to accept that the solitaries' examples are off-base because there's no one here like that. The limits we apply to one must apply to all to keep this a fair conversation. If we're going to talk about people who aren't here and now, then we need to be honest about that. (Though I think it's important to remember that the extremes are NOT necessarily representative of the "sides" they're on.) I guess that means you've made your decision; we are going to include arguments involving those who are not present on this board. And that's fine; I just wish we were honest about that from the beginning.

It seems like it's already been agreed that no one really has the power or authority to prohibit others from calling themselves Wiccan. Mostly, I've seen BTWs argue that they should be able to believe and express that belief that so and so isn't Wiccan. I'll grant that there are the power-hungry out there, but this seems to be the only position you all are arguing against. I suppose that's easier than arguing against someone who tries to use rational thought.

Should I have to accept in my mind that all people who claim the name Wiccan are actually Wiccans? No. Unless you want to restrain me and make me watch crazy movies to Beethoven music (ZOMG), there's really no way to enforce it. I can accept that people call themselves Wiccan even when they don't appear, to me, to be Wiccan. Because they can call themselves the Easter Bunny for all I can do about it.

Freedom of thought means that Person A can believe that they're Wiccan and Person B can believe that Person A is deluded, Freedom of speech means that they can express their beliefs. So long as they're not trying to control the other, WHAT, exactly is the problem? I will agree that those who try to control others are wrong. But you all seem to be lumping Person B in with those who would seek to control others and condemning them altogether.

But of course, I'm just a power-hungry tightwad, what do I know?

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

PS: I really don't know why I'm drawn into this conversation, it's like a train wreck or something...:awilly: Heck, personally, I'm fine with believing that 5-minute Wiccan over here might really be Wiccan... but I'm not going to condemn those who believe otherwise, and I'm not going to claim that, just because their belief contradicts mine, that they're seeking to control me or others. I believe in equality, but I don't think everyone's the same.

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 09:57 AM

The Thirteen Principles was a good effort to come up with something that all Wiccans could agree on as a core for the religion. But it didn't work. I've posted in another thread here on MW what another group of us has put together as Core Beliefs and Practices, but not everyone agrees with those either. This is what I love about the religion of Wicca - the lack of endless dogma - but it's also frustrating and causes endless arguments because I think something is important and you say "not so much." And vice versa.

Some Wiccans feel the Wiccan Rede is very important, some not so important, some think it's rubbish. Then there's how important working skyclad is, how important the Great Rite is, and on and on and on. Since there is no set dogma other than Gardner's BOS which was only intended to record what his group thought was important, not to be a rule book for Wicca as a whole... since there is no heirarchy to interpret that original BOS or give messages from the gods...

stops to laugh because there are so many gods and so many messages and most of them are much too personal to share with all Wiccans everywhere as the one and only truth :lol:

Ah well, I've lost my train of thought. Maybe I'll get back on at the next station. ;)

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 10:03 AM

I guess that means you've made your decision; we are going to include arguments involving those who are not present on this board. And that's fine; I just wish we were honest about that from the beginning.

I'm sorry you're not enjoying this discussion as much as I have been. I think it has stayed way more civil than most discussions on this topic generally manage to do, and we've discussed our personal philosophies as well as other philosophies we have encountered. We're talking about the really big picture here. And I don't think any of us have blamed another poster for something that someone else who isn't posting here may have said somewhere else. If anything, we're asking "Do agree with this philosophy, and if so, why? Because this is why I don't agree with it." I think it's been a great discussion.

Dawa Lhamo

January 30th, 2006, 10:22 AM

I'm sorry you're not enjoying this discussion as much as I have been. I think it has stayed way more civil than most discussions on this topic generally manage to do, and we've discussed our personal philosophies as well as other philosophies we have encountered. We're talking about the really big picture here. And I don't think any of us have blamed another poster for something that someone else who isn't posting here may have said somewhere else. If anything, we're asking "Do agree with this philosophy, and if so, why? Because this is why I don't agree with it." I think it's been a great discussion.No, it's been civil. Amazingly so. However it still seems to me that people are lumping together the idea of believing something or even expressing something and dictating something. We all seem agreed that controlling others and trying to dictate them is wrong, so my question is then why aren't we moving on to something else, some new points to debate over? I dunno, maybe it's just me... ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

Greybird

January 30th, 2006, 10:27 AM

Not having the energy to catch up on 30+ pages, lemme just say that you may not be able to be a XXXXXX-ian Wiccan, but you can certainly be a Wiccan. Unless, of course, the XXXXXX-ian Wiccans speak for all of us, or claim exclusive rights to the word 'Wiccan'.

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 10:40 AM

I'm of the opinion that all religions are elitist to one level or another, because the gods figure out who stays in what religion....can't get more selective than that. ;)

I've talked with someone else online who really does think the gods care about what rituals we use to worship them, and what names we call ourselves. Me, not so much. I'm sure it's important to them that we honor them with rituals, and they care about the personal relationships we have with them... but I think it's not as important exactly what rituals we perform as that we are performing some kind of rituals to honor them. They probably don't care if we call ourselves Wiccan or neo-Wiccan or Holy High Fluffies. If the gods had any preference they'd probably want us to call ourselves "Cerridwenites" or something with their names in it, eh?

The gods do figure out who is connecting with them and who is honoring them, but do they really care who is in which particular religion? :huh:

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 10:48 AM

Dawa, there are a lot of nuances to this, and we are not really dwelling on just one of them. If you don't like this discussion, no one is making you read this thread. The rest of us are interested in this, okay?

lednevir

January 30th, 2006, 12:55 PM

this is funny because Murfreesboro TN has a free entertainment newspaper with a section 'the witches courner' in the last issue someone wrote that you are not a witch unless you are solitary because you are following someone else and a witch is about being yourself. Just one persons opinion not mine but I thought it was a interesting one
bb

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 03:41 PM

That may be because Witches and Wiccans are not the same thing. Many Wiccans practice witchcraft. Witches, however, may follow many different religions, or none at all.

Ben Gruagach

January 30th, 2006, 05:04 PM

However it still seems to me that people are lumping together the idea of believing something or even expressing something and dictating something. We all seem agreed that controlling others and trying to dictate them is wrong, so my question is then why aren't we moving on to something else, some new points to debate over?

This is the core of the problem for many people but we have discussed quite a bit more in this thread than just that issue.

There are a lot of people who clearly don't understand the distinction between believing something versus knowing something based on objective and verifiable fact, who don't know how to express their opinion without dictating it as the One True Way. To me, the fact that there are people who gnash their teeth over "fluffy bunnies" still indicates the distinctions have not been made clear.

If this part of the discussion is too uncomfortable there are lots of other ideas that have been expressed in this thread that might draw your interest. And there's nothing wrong with leaving this thread altogether. Trust me -- the topics in this thread will come up again in other threads too!

Dawa Lhamo

January 30th, 2006, 07:21 PM

Wow, I must have really misrepresented myself. The problem isn't that I'm bored or disinterested, but rather the opposite: I've become too interested, too impassioned, beyond the point of reason or rationality. That was what I meant to express with my post script:
PS: I really don't know why I'm drawn into this conversation, it's like a train wreck or something...:awilly: Heck, personally, I'm fine with believing that 5-minute Wiccan over here might really be Wiccan... but I'm not going to condemn those who believe otherwise, and I'm not going to claim that, just because their belief contradicts mine, that they're seeking to control me or others. I believe in equality, but I don't think everyone's the same. It makes no sense that I'd be so concerned with this issue, since I personally don't have much to invest in it. Yet I've been taking it personally. That's why I don't know why I'm still in this conversation. Because rationally, I should have not been much a part of it in the first place. I don't know why I'm so interested in it. (I wouldn't use the crazy "awilly" smily if I weren't interested... ^_^ )

I guess that means you've made your decision; we are going to include arguments involving those who are not present on this board. And that's fine; I just wish we were honest about that from the beginning. The reason I quoted my own self here was to avoid getting too personal. There were a few recent posts that this was specifically addressing, and I wanted to respond to the ideas therein, but I felt that if I directly addressed them, then it would seem as if I were attacking them. So, I decided that I'd turn my frustration around back on myself. I didn't mean to imply that this whole thread didn't have merit. However, the particular part of my own post that I had quoted before had never been answered. I had wanted to know if we were going to confine ourselves to the people on the thread or if we were going to use examples from off-thread. And the particular posts that "set me off" were about off-thread examples. Thus, my question was answered.

It seems like it's already been agreed that no one really has the power or authority to prohibit others from calling themselves Wiccan. Mostly, I've seen BTWs argue that they should be able to believe and express that belief that so and so isn't Wiccan. I'll grant that there are the power-hungry out there, but this seems to be the only position you all are arguing against. I suppose that's easier than arguing against someone who tries to use rational thought.

Should I have to accept in my mind that all people who claim the name Wiccan are actually Wiccans? No. Unless you want to restrain me and make me watch crazy movies to Beethoven music (ZOMG), there's really no way to enforce it. I can accept that people call themselves Wiccan even when they don't appear, to me, to be Wiccan. Because they can call themselves the Easter Bunny for all I can do about it.

Freedom of thought means that Person A can believe that they're Wiccan and Person B can believe that Person A is deluded, Freedom of speech means that they can express their beliefs. So long as they're not trying to control the other, WHAT, exactly is the problem? I will agree that those who try to control others are wrong. But you all seem to be lumping Person B in with those who would seek to control others and condemning them altogether. This was written directly in response to the following posts:
Vincent Verthaine wrote: How individual covens view things shouldn't necessarily indicate how every coven should view things.Or every practicioner for that matter.

I still don't understand how covens and their leadership should have the right to dictate who is or who isn't a true wiccan.I can understand the right to accept or deny members from their respective covens.But who has the right to say a solitary practictioner isn't a "true wiccan"
Isn't what this thread is about?
After 50 years and this debate is still raging?
But of course,I'm just a discordian,what do I know?
Elderbush wrote: Wanting to dictate to others and actually having the power to do it are two different things. Unfortunately, some people have rather exagerated ideas of their (super)powers.I was taking issue with the word "dictate" here. And the idea that it is all about ego. And I appreciate that there are those who wish to dictate and those who stroke their own egos. Those who claim authority and try to manipulate others. I'm just countering with the fact that believing and saying something doesn't necessarily equate to dictatorship and that there are plenty of people out there who do not wish to control.

We all seem to agree that controlling others is bad. So what I'm really saying is that just because a person doesn't think that one Wiccan is really Wiccan, it doesn't make them a bad person, and it doesn't mean that they seek to control. Sure there are those who do, but I'm trying to impress that such is not representative of all. Really, that's all.
But of course, I'm just a power-hungry tightwad, what do I know?This, in particular was a direct reflection of Vincent Verthaine's self-deprecatory:
But of course,I'm just a discordian,what do I know? I brought it up specifically because the argument seems to be who's allowed to come up with their own definition of Wicca. In fact, I meant it sarcastically, because I interpreted Vincent's statement as very sarcastic, though others appeared to take it as genuine self-effacement. I notice that no one rushed up and said that of course I have an opinion that matters. ^_^ I didn't really figure anyone would, but I figured I might as well try. ^_^ (I was being facetious, and probably viciously so... I was upset and probably out of line...)

Anyway, it's not the whole thread that I take issue with. And of course other issues and facets have been raised. I find these interesting, but I haven't felt that there's been anything I could add. The part with Little Billy and juliaki discussing membership was very interesting, but really, what do I have to add to that? Besides interjecting with a "ooh, interesting", there isn't much. ^_^

But speaking of One-True-Way-ism, how do we combat it besides condemning it? I suggested earlier that BTW's would be better off focusing more on *showing* why they are a paragon of Wiccanness, rather than telling others that they're not. But besides being open-minded oneself, how does one effectively combat that trend in Wicca? (As a matter of fact, I encounter OneTrueWayism among solitaries and new Wiccans often enough as well...)

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 07:32 PM

Sorry, all we have to go on is the written word and it's hard to tell when someone is being facetious.

Ben Gruagach

January 30th, 2006, 08:01 PM

But speaking of One-True-Way-ism, how do we combat it besides condemning it? I suggested earlier that BTW's would be better off focusing more on *showing* why they are a paragon of Wiccanness, rather than telling others that they're not. But besides being open-minded oneself, how does one effectively combat that trend in Wicca? (As a matter of fact, I encounter OneTrueWayism among solitaries and new Wiccans often enough as well...)

It's easy to complain about things but really hard to actually do something to make a difference. That's why those who not just put themselves forward to be public role models, but who are GOOD role models, deserve more of our visible support than we often provide. Being open minded about things helps. Speaking up publicly about things helps. Being wise enough to know how to present our opinions so that it's clear we are presenting our own opinions and are not trying to dictate is something we need to try and cultivate in ourselves and in our role models too.

We're all fallible humans who make mistakes and, if we're lucky, learn from those mistakes and grow to be better people. Opinions that we hold today might be opinions that we discard tomorrow (hey, it happens!)

I've always said that the only bad question is the one we think but never ask. Perhaps the only bad opinion is the one we keep to ourselves and never challenge by bringing it out in the open.

Our community is still very young compared to other religious communities. Even those that have hundreds and hundreds of years of unbroken history confront the questions we're dealing with here. Some of those communities have found ways to give the questions an "official answer" and disagreement with that authority structure results in the questioner getting kicked out of the community. Others have set up other ways of dealing with the questions, such as by embracing uncertainty, creating an assumption that it's OK for the "answers" to change as more is uncovered, or perhaps by embracing diversity and allowing multiple "answers."

So there's hope for the modern Pagan community too. These conflicts and growing pains don't need to be fatal unless we let them overwhelm us.

Little Billy

January 30th, 2006, 08:34 PM

What are the 13 principles?

Elderbush

January 30th, 2006, 08:53 PM

This was written directly in response to the following posts: I was taking issue with the word "dictate" here. And the idea that it is all about ego. And I appreciate that there are those who wish to dictate and those who stroke their own egos. Those who claim authority and try to manipulate others. I'm just countering with the fact that believing and saying something doesn't necessarily equate to dictatorship and that there are plenty of people out there who do not wish to control.

We all seem to agree that controlling others is bad. So what I'm really saying is that just because a person doesn't think that one Wiccan is really Wiccan, it doesn't make them a bad person, and it doesn't mean that they seek to control. Sure there are those who do, but I'm trying to impress that such is not representative of all. Really, that's all.

I think that all of us have opinions and we have a right to voice them if we wish. We can tell someone that we don't think that they are Wiccan. They have the equal right to tell the speaker that they do not consider them to be Wiccan either. Both could be right and probably think they are right, since they probably have a different frame of reference.

Outside of one's own tradition and circle of friends, one's opinion is just so much hot air unless one manages to earn the respect of the person who is being addressed.

Elderbush

January 30th, 2006, 08:55 PM

The 13 Principles of Wiccan Belief:

1. We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the phases of the Moon and the seasonal Quarters and Cross Quarters.

2. We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment. We seek to live in harmony with nature in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept.

3. We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than that apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary it is sometimes called ‘supernatural’, but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all.

4. We conceive of the Creative Power in the universe as manifesting through polarity – as masculine and feminine – and that this same Creative Power lies in all people and functions through the interaction of the masculine and the feminine. We value neither above the other knowing each to be supportive of the other. We value sex as pleasure as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energy used in magical practice and religious worship.

5. We recognize both outer worlds and inner, or psychological worlds sometimes known as the Spiritual World, the Collective Unconsciousness, the Inner Planes etc – and we see in the interaction of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal phenomena and magical exercises. We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment.

6. We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honor those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageously given of themselves in leadership.

7. We see religion, magick and wisdom in living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it – a world view and philosophy of life which we identify as Witchcraft – the Wiccan Way.

8. Calling oneself ‘Witch’ does not make a Witch – but neither does heredity itself, nor the collecting of titles, degrees and initiations. A Witch seek to control the forces within her/himself that make life possible in order to live wisely and without harm to others and in harmony with nature.

9. We believe in the affirmation and fulfillment of life in a continuation of evolution and development of consciousness giving meaning to the Universe we know and our personal role within it.

10.Our only animosity towards Christianity, or towards any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be ‘the only way’ and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief.

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present and our future.

12.We do not accept the concept of absolute evil, nor do we worship any entity known as ‘Satan’ or ‘the Devil’ as defined by Christian tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor accept that personal benefit can be derived only by denial to another.

13.We believe that we should seek within Nature that which is contributory to our health and well-being.

Ben Gruagach

January 30th, 2006, 09:10 PM

The 13 Principles of Wiccan Belief

Here's a bit of historical background on the Principles of Wiccan Belief.

Back in 1974 a group that called itself the Council of American Witches convened to draft a set of principles which all the members of the group felt identified the core of Wicca. This Council was composed of representatives from a number of different established groups as well as some solitary practitioners. They met at a witchcraft conference called "Witchmeet" that was held in Minneapolis MN that spring, put together the Principles, and the Council disbanded shortly after.

There is an intro that is often included with the Principles but that Elderbush didn't include above. Here it is:

In seeking to be inclusive, we do not wish to open ourselves to the destruction of our group by those on self-serving power trips, or to philosophies and practices contradictory to those principles. In seeking to exclude those whose ways are contradictory to ours, we do not want to deny participation with us to any who are sincerely interested in our knowledge and beliefs, regardless of race, color, sex, age, national or cultural origins, or sexual preference.

Another thing to keep in mind about the Principles is that they were drafted back before the distinction was made between Wiccan and Witch. Back then the two terms were used interchangeable. Today, of course, we know that there are lots of Witches who are not Wiccans. Wicca is just one of many different religions, philosophies, or magickal systems that incorporate witchcraft.

I also find it quite interesting to note that the Principles do not mention the Wiccan Rede at all. The Rede was entrenched in some Wiccan denominations by that point in history, but it was clearly not considered central enough (or universal among Wiccans) to require its inclusion in the Principles.

The Principles and the basic history I've given here is also available elsewhere on the internet, such as at the ReligiousTolerance.org website (http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_stat1.htm).

The Principles are hardly a legally binding document or some sort of Holy Writ. But they do provide a workable statement of core principles that many Wiccans, myself included, use to guide our spiritual path. They are not perfect but they do help give a straightforward definition of what it is to be Wiccan -- at least for some of us.

MorningDove030202

January 30th, 2006, 09:19 PM

If I may post my $0.02 here....

I think the debate here is DIYS (do it your self) Wicca, vs Organized Tradition Based Wicca.

There are many Christians who don't go to Church or belong to a Chruch so, why wouldn't DIYS Wicca be valid? As long as you arn't falsly claiming membership to a tradition that you realy don't belong to, it's cool. If you have read alot on this or that group but haven't had personal training you can say "Gardnerian Influenced DIYS Wiccan" to be more specific. On further reflection, I supose it would be reasonable to ask people new to Wicca to give it a year and a day self-study before calling one'self Wiccan. That much seams fair. During that time of study, one can say, I'm studying Wicca, in responce to religious questions....

I do however drawl this line, for better or for worse. If you are going to call yourself clergy, then I feel you aught to be trained and ordained, with some form of Initation, in an Organised Tradition Based form of Wicca.

I hope that was a sane, and moderate responce to the topic....

Dove

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 09:48 PM

This isn't quite DIY Wicca versus BTW Wicca. Several of us posting here are don't fit either of those categories, yet the DIY Wiccans accuse us of being too rigid and authoritarian, while the BTW crowd says we're too fluffy and don't deserve to call ourselves Wiccan. And of course we say that both of them are too extreme on either end of it. ;)

Otherwise I completely agree with what you wrote.

Little Billy

January 30th, 2006, 09:54 PM

Thanks for posting the 13 principles. A bit to chew on, there.

MorningDove030202

January 30th, 2006, 09:55 PM

So does the spectrum look like this?

DIYS Wicca
|
Organized Eclectic Wicca
|
Anti-Eclectic Wicca

Or what would you call it, the middle moderate type?

Dove

Lunacie

January 30th, 2006, 10:01 PM

I beleive that even a solitary is considered a wiccan. Just because we as solitaries don't practice in a Coven setting does not make us less of a Wiccan. By holding true to the 13 Principles and living by the Rede and the Law of 3, even a person that practices as a Solitary is still a Wiccan. It is a frame of mind and a lifestyle which dictates who and what we are. By living a life in the Wiccan way, one becomes a Wiccan.

I was so distracted when I read this earlier that I skimmed over that last line. By living a life in the Wiccan way, one becomes a Wiccan. That puts it right out there on the line... which is more important, being initiated and belonging to a traditional coven - or living your life in accord with the Wiccan principles?

Thank you. :uhhuhuh:

juliaki

January 31st, 2006, 09:24 AM

When you get down to brass tacks, there is no way that I know of that the world cannot have "One-True-Wayism" at its core. For those people who lay down the edict that there is "no one true way", that becomes a statement of "One-True-Wayism" that attempts to be forced on those people who believe that they are in possession of the OTW and refuse to accept other interpretations.

As such, every individual (ideally) ends up being responsible for there viewpoints and their criteria to judge every aspect of their life.

I have certain types of music that I think is "good music" and certain types of music that I think is "horrible noise". Those definitions may not agree with person B's definitions. I have certain foods that I think are delicious and certain types of food that I think are outright nasty. Those definitions may not agree with person B's definitions. I have met certain types of people that I think are Wiccan and certain types of people who I think are not. Again, the criteria that I use may not be the same as person B's criteria.

But here's where the kicker comes in... a lot of times person B doesn't care whether I don't like a particular type of music or have a desire to eat a certain type of food. They can accept my criteria of deciding what is "good" or "tasty" as being valid for me. When it comes to the religiospiritual aspect, all of a sudden it becomes a more contoversial issue that I do not accept other people's beliefs for my own. That's the part that still confuses me...why is my opinion so much in demand that someone's spiritual path will be completely shaken or fall apart simply because I say "I don't agree."?

We all have different criteria for what does or does not make one a Wiccan. For some, it is based on the initiation experiences. For others, it is a requirement that they follow the Rede. For others, anyone can be Wiccan as long as that is what they call themselves. What I think we might be able to agree on is that a person isn't Wiccan just because someone (who may not even know them) calls them Wiccan. So if that isn't one way that someone can "become Wiccan", then why does it end up being important enough to come up over and over again? Is it insecurity from the person who feels the need to be called Wiccan by total strangers? Is it some sort of larger issue on a community-wide scale?

juliaki

January 31st, 2006, 09:25 AM

(quoting a statement Originally Posted by Amythest)
By living a life in the Wiccan way, one becomes a Wiccan. That puts it right out there on the line... which is more important, being initiated and belonging to a traditional coven - or living your life in accord with the Wiccan principles?

I would love to see "the Wiccan way" and "Wiccan principles" defined.... ;)

If it is simply based on the 13 statements mentioned here, I know a lot of non-Wiccans who are Wiccan (even though they'd be highly offended by being told they are Wiccan).

Lunacie

January 31st, 2006, 09:29 AM

I don't see a lot of problems happening when someone says, "I don't agree" and hopefully goes on to explain why. The problems generally crop up when someone says, "You're wrong."

There's a difference between making personal judgments and coming off as being judgmental.

juliaki

January 31st, 2006, 09:32 AM

There's a difference between making personal judgments and coming off as being judgmental.

It's a very fine line, and more often I've found that the receiver of the comments is the one who determines which side of the fence it falls on rather than the person doing the original statement.

A bit of amusement, I got told by a gal a few years back that Wiccans were forbidden from judging people because they adhered to the belief of "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Lunacie

January 31st, 2006, 10:14 AM

I would love to see "the Wiccan way" and "Wiccan principles" defined.... ;)

If it is simply based on the 13 statements mentioned here, I know a lot of non-Wiccans who are Wiccan (even though they'd be highly offended by being told they are Wiccan).

I do think most Wiccans agree on a few core beliefs and principles.
I don't think we need some kind of "Wiccan Bible" to codify them for every Wiccan everywhere.

I mentioned (dunno if was in this thread or another one) that there isn't much difference between Wicca and many other forms of Paganism. Wicca just puts the pieces together in a uniquely Wiccan way while other Pagan religions use a different combination.

Lunacie

January 31st, 2006, 10:16 AM

It's a very fine line, and more often I've found that the receiver of the comments is the one who determines which side of the fence it falls on rather than the person doing the original statement.

A bit of amusement, I got told by a gal a few years back that Wiccans were forbidden from judging people because they adhered to the belief of "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Mwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... uh oh.

Trouble is, she may have told that to people who were just learning about Wicca, and they may have accepted that. How did you answer her?

juliaki

January 31st, 2006, 11:15 AM

I do think most Wiccans agree on a few core beliefs and principles.

Over the past decade and change, a lot of the things that the Wiccans I knew counted as "core beliefs and principles" have changed greatly. Today, it is not uncommon to find Wiccans who do not believe in the Rede (or conversely believe the Rede means that you can't cause any harm to anything anywhere in life). It is not uncommon to find Wiccans who believe that the Lord and Lady are made-up deities and don't actually exist. Even finding Wiccans who accept that Wicca isn't millions of years old, that Wiccans weren't burned at the stake during the "burning times", and that there were no Wiccans at Salem during the Salem witch trials is getting more difficult. I'm all for beliefs adapting over time, but I'm having a rough time pinpointing what any Wiccans can agree on, hence my desire to have my criteria that I work with.

I mentioned (dunno if was in this thread or another one) that there isn't much difference between Wicca and many other forms of Paganism. Wicca just puts the pieces together in a uniquely Wiccan way while other Pagan religions use a different combination.

That I can agree with.... but finding what people consider "uniquely Wiccan" has proved to be one heckuva challenge.

juliaki

January 31st, 2006, 11:21 AM

Mwha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... uh oh.

Trouble is, she may have told that to people who were just learning about Wicca, and they may have accepted that. How did you answer her?

She was one of the "ancient" hereditary Wiccans. She was one of the "seven clans" in which Wicca had been in her family for at least eleven generations. (Hence the judgemental attitudes she was running into... she only had a small group of people who believed her.) I asked her for her source of that comment, and she said it had been in her family BOS for at least eight generations (the older versions of the BOS had been destroyed in the burning times). I showed her the same quote from the bible, and she said that it was "obvious" that the Christians had it from Wicca, and that was the proof she needed to prove that Wicca was older than Christianity. Last I heard she had taken on some students and formed a "true Wiccan coven".

Lunacie

January 31st, 2006, 11:40 AM

Over the past decade and change, a lot of the things that the Wiccans I knew counted as "core beliefs and principles" have changed greatly. Today, it is not uncommon to find Wiccans who do not believe in the Rede (or conversely believe the Rede means that you can't cause any harm to anything anywhere in life). It is not uncommon to find Wiccans who believe that the Lord and Lady are made-up deities and don't actually exist. Even finding Wiccans who accept that Wicca isn't millions of years old, that Wiccans weren't burned at the stake during the "burning times", and that there were no Wiccans at Salem during the Salem witch trials is getting more difficult. I'm all for beliefs adapting over time, but I'm having a rough time pinpointing what any Wiccans can agree on, hence my desire to have my criteria that I work with.

That I can agree with.... but finding what people consider "uniquely Wiccan" has proved to be one heckuva challenge.

Okay, as far as the Rede, I don't think it's necessary to accept it as Wiccan dogma. It was advice that was shared by someone who started out as Wiccan but left the religion later (correct me if that's wrong BenG?). As I've said several times lately, it's worded in a way that makes it very difficult to understand, it was done that way deliberately of course. But all the new-modern-peace-and-light Wiccans think it means that we should try our very best to never hurt anyone or anthing else, which is a ridiculous impossibility.

Discounting the Wiccans who believe the nonsense being written today by people who haven't read anything about the history of Wicca or learned from someone who learned it "the old way", in my experience most Wiccans do agree on several core beliefs and practices. Sure they argue about whether some things belong on that "core" list (such as initiation or going skyclad or doing magic), but they do agree, from what I've read and heard, on a core list of about 7 things.

Which is actually a longer list than the various Christian traditions seem to be able to agree on. Just sayin'. :lol:

Lunacie

January 31st, 2006, 11:43 AM

She was one of the "ancient" hereditary Wiccans. She was one of the "seven clans" in which Wicca had been in her family for at least eleven generations. (Hence the judgemental attitudes she was running into... she only had a small group of people who believed her.) I asked her for her source of that comment, and she said it had been in her family BOS for at least eight generations (the older versions of the BOS had been destroyed in the burning times). I showed her the same quote from the bible, and she said that it was "obvious" that the Christians had it from Wicca, and that was the proof she needed to prove that Wicca was older than Christianity. Last I heard she had taken on some students and formed a "true Wiccan coven".

Eewwwwww!

Some people still don't understand the difference between Witchcraft and Wicca, the first has been around a whole lot longer than the second. BUT - it wasn't always called Witchcraft and there have been other changes in that over the years. It's really so sad that some people think that a religion has to be old to be valid.

Ben Gruagach

January 31st, 2006, 12:41 PM

Okay, as far as the Rede, I don't think it's necessary to accept it as Wiccan dogma. It was advice that was shared by someone who started out as Wiccan but left the religion later (correct me if that's wrong BenG?). As I've said several times lately, it's worded in a way that makes it very difficult to understand, it was done that way deliberately of course. But all the new-modern-peace-and-light Wiccans think it means that we should try our very best to never hurt anyone or anthing else, which is a ridiculous impossibility.

The ideas that make up the Wiccan Rede, "harm none" and also "do what you will" both existed in Wicca back in Gardner's writing. Doreen Valiente, who was one of Gardner's first and in my opinion most influential high priestesses, is the one who put the two ideas together in the lovely phrasing that catalyzed them into a much more important thing. Doreen is the one who first said:
"Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil: An it harm none, do what you will."

It is true that Doreen stopped working with Gardner in the late 1950s after Gardner attempted to oust Doreen as high priestess (Gardner wanted a younger, nubile woman to take Doreen's place.) I don't think it's fair to say that Doreen stopped being a Wiccan though just because she left Gardner's coven. As far as I'm concerned, Doreen was Wiccan through and through until her last breath on Earth and is still Wiccan in the Great Beyond.

Doreen's speech where she gave the eight words phrasing happened in 1964.

Two excellent websites that explore the meaning and history of the Wiccan Rede, and also Lady Gwen Thompson's poem "The Rede of the Wiccae" which includes the Wiccan Rede at the end, are The Wiccan Rede: A Historical Journey (http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede.shtml) and The Wiccan Rede Project (http://www.wiccanrede.dreamhost.com/).

And by the way, I personally do believe that the Rede's advice to "harm none" means we should try to cause as little harm as possible on all levels of existence: physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, etc. It's a goal that is impossible to achieve, but it is one ethical standard we can use to guide our decisions. Am I one of those despicable "new-modern-peace-and-light Wiccans" then? (I'm sure I am by some people's standards... but that's their mistake!)

Elderbush

January 31st, 2006, 01:34 PM

And I believe that the Rede means if it doesn't harm anything do what you will, if it does then do what you should.

I don't think it is necessary to nail down exactly what a Wiccan believes, etc., because Wicca is changing even as we speak. New ideas come into Wicca and other ideas mutate and change, all the time. What Gardner first practiced as Witchcraft in 1954 is long gone and his acceptance of different ways to do things missing from some practices today as well. What I consider goofy stuff will come and go. It is the nature of the beast.

There is very stringent criteria for who belongs to a tradition, otherwise it is a lot more fluid.

Lunacie

January 31st, 2006, 03:26 PM

Ben Gruagach

January 31st, 2006, 04:38 PM

Thanks for the info, Ben, I knew you would know about that. :)

And thanks for the links, I don't know why I didn't think to add those myself.

I'm going to agree with Elderbush here on what I think the Rede is trying to tell us, if what you're going to do doesn't harm anyone then go for it. But if it will harm someone, then do what you should after serious consideration, knowing that the Law of Returns has not been revoked. ;)

I agree with the interpretation you and Elderbush have given. The only thing I'd add is that everything we do, whether we choose to act or refrain from acting, will cause "harm" in some way somewhere. It's unavoidable.

So I can't think of a single example where an action doesn't cause harm. Knowing that, the Rede suggests to me that we have to be responsible and willing to accept the consequences of our decisions even though we don't always understand what those consequences might be.

In other words, "Be Responsible!"

Lunacie

January 31st, 2006, 10:07 PM

Yeah, that's what I think it's saying, in mystical poetic language... Be Responsible! :)

Beowulf

June 21st, 2006, 11:48 PM

What about the Saxon tradition that states one can be self-initiated? How does that work in? Becuase that's the path I have chosen and I defy anyone who looks down on me for not being coven-initiated.

~Beowulf

MorningDove030202

June 27th, 2006, 11:11 PM

If you claimed to be Saxon Trad Clergy and you never had any in person training and thus never given the athority to use such a title, I would be suspicious of you. Would I look down on you? No.

Dove

What about the Saxon tradition that states one can be self-initiated? How does that work in? Becuase that's the path I have chosen and I defy anyone who looks down on me for not being coven-initiated.

~Beowulf

Lunacie

June 27th, 2006, 11:22 PM

I don't know anything about the Saxon trad. Not all trads consider one to be 'clergy' just because one has been initiated. In the trads that do use the term 'clergy' it is usually a recongnition of many years of study and practice and service, eh?

Cynyr

June 28th, 2006, 12:06 AM

Amythyst

June 28th, 2006, 08:47 AM

I guess I'm not that concerned with labels. I am what I am and I do what I do.

kiwimac

June 28th, 2006, 09:05 AM

And perhaps (if a non-wiccan can be allowed a comment) that's all that it should be. We define ourselves in everything we believe and think and do and if folk choose (and that there is the important part) to define themselves as 'Wiccan' then surely they are?

Kiwimac

Ben Gruagach

June 28th, 2006, 10:20 AM

The Saxon Tradition of Witchcraft permits self-initiation. There was a time when they did not. Raymond Buckland figured he could sell a great deal of his book, "The Tree: The Complete Book Of Saxon Witchcraft" if he permitted this rite of self-initiation. This book of his has been republished and re-titled: "Buckland's Book Of Saxon Witchcraft". I have a copy. These rites explained in this book, according to the preface, used to be top secret. Buckland is a wealthy man - he sold out.

Interesting opinions but I have to say I laughed out loud when I read this.

The only authors who became wealthy as a result of their writing are as rare as hen's teeth -- JK Rowling is one, and Stephen King is the other. There are other authors who are able to make a living at writing but few of those could really be considered to be wealthy.

I don't think there is any Pagan author on record, including Ray Buckland, who could be said to have become wealthy from their writing. Most Pagan authors hold down other jobs in order to pay the bills and do the writing out of love rather than any fantasy that it will make them rich.

Ray Buckland created Seax-Wicca from the very start as a completely public denomination without any secrets. He is on the record saying that he did this because he was disappointed in how the Gardnerian Wiccan denomination had become elitist at least in his area in North America and many genuine seekers were being left with no guidance. He created Seax-Wicca as a new denomination so that he couldn't be accused of breaking oaths as he could have just revealed Gardnerian material (Ray was one of if not the first Gardnerian to come to the United States.)

There is a good entry explaining the history of Seax-Wica (or Seax-Wicca) in "The Encylopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism" by Shelley Rabinovitch and James Lewis.

[Edited to add: Here's a good article about the Seax-Wica tradition at Witchvox.com (http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=ustn&c=trads&id=3276). And here's another interesting article (http://www.coven-of-cythrawl.com/Seax.htm) about Buckland and Seax-Wica's history.]

Xirian

June 28th, 2006, 12:45 PM

Well, I've certainly learned a lot from this thread. At least more about the Wiccan religion than I ever knew or cared to know. However, it makes me happy to think that I don't have to deal with issues like this on my path. To me, it is a spiritual path and if I choose to call myself Blahdiblah, it's not really important to me what others think about it.

I think that whether a solitary calls themselves a Wiccan or not is only important to Wiccans and I don't really think it should be. I don't believe that anyone else really cares one way or the other.

Saying that someone can't call themselves Wiccan because they have not been initiated into a Wiccan coven, does sound rather elitist. But maybe that's really what Wicca is all about. Well, at least from the standpoint of someone who isn't Wiccan, like me, that is how it appears. When I first started going to pagan forums, I thought I might be interested in learning about Wicca (not really with the intention to join, but just to learn some basic information), but was rather put off by the attitude and really didn't want any part of a religion who members behaved that way. (Of course, there were other things that made me decide to look elsewhere, but these types of discussions didn't help any.)

So, I have some questions for all coven-initiated Wiccans out there who are so terribly concerned with your status and whether someone whom you don't deem to have done the work to become a Wiccan, who calls themselves such, to your irritation, do you realize how many people who are interested in learning about Wicca are actually put off by attitudes such as this? Do you realize what you are doing to the important issues within your religion, by bickering over this?

I can't go to one pagan forum online, aside from my own, where an initiated Wiccan isn't telling some self-professed solitary wiccan that they can't call themselves that and it's an afront to them and the hard work they've done. Sounds very snobbish and selfish, from many non-pagan onlookers. And if it isn't what Wicca is all about (as it appears to me), then maybe Wiccans who make the above claim should rethink this and start concerning themselves with more important things concerning the spiritual aspects of their religion, than whether someone who isn't a part of their coven calls themselves a wiccan or not.

Rantette over.

Lunacie

June 28th, 2006, 01:09 PM

Ben Gruagach

June 28th, 2006, 02:03 PM

Adding to the 'rantette' :)

I don't understand the mindset that says that because someone calling themselves 'Wiccan' even though they haven't been initiated and spent years working and learning - would in any way devalue the use of the title 'Wiccan' by someone who has been initiated and put in a lot of time and effort.

No more than I think someone adopting a 12-year old child and calling herself 'mommy' devalues my claim on that title by having given birth and raised a child. I am what I am, and I did what I did. And what someone else does or says doesn't change that in any way.

...my part of the rantette is over too...

Good points. (I wanted to give you some karma but of course I can't because I have to spread it around to others some more first -- so I thought I'd just post a reply.)

Just to add to the parallel examples I know there are people who are offended that I call my relationship with my same-sex partner a marriage (even though in Canada where we are from it is indeed a fully legal marriage just like any heterosexual one.) And I'm sure there are people who would be offended by the fact that I consider myself to be a father, a dad, even though the kids we are raising are adopted and are not genetically my offspring.

I never did understand how my using the labels "married" or "dad" damages other people's marriages or status as parents. And so long as I'm not claiming to be clergy in established denominations without authority to do so, I'm not sure why some feel so uptight about whether others use a more generic term such as "Wiccan" which believe it or not covers a lot of different denominations.

Xirian

June 28th, 2006, 02:13 PM

Adding to the 'rantette' :)

I don't understand the mindset that says that because someone calling themselves 'Wiccan' even though they haven't been initiated and spent years working and learning - would in any way devalue the use of the title 'Wiccan' by someone who has been initiated and put in a lot of time and effort.

No more than I think someone adopting a 12-year old child and calling herself 'mommy' devalues my claim on that title by having given birth and raised a child. I am what I am, and I did what I did. And what someone else does or says doesn't change that in any way.

...my part of the rantette is over too...
Your above thoughts mirror mine. Yes, there are many different types of mothers as there are many different types of wiccans. And there are those mothers who do become incensed when a woman who adopts a child calls herself a mother. Because she didn't actually give birth to that child or go through the pain of giving birth. But many people would call the mother who is pissed about the other mother, crazy. The same can be said for people who get upset and territorial about a solitary calling themselves a wiccan. It sounds crazy. Isn't it supposed to be about the issues and spiritual connections that you feel and you're learning about through your religious vehicle (Wicca), and not the titles?

Lunacie makes an exceptionally good point here.

Lunacie

June 28th, 2006, 04:23 PM

Ben, Xirian, thank you both very much. Once in awhile I pull something like this out of my... er, um, hat... even when I haven't been taking my meds like a good little ADDer. ;)

And I get frustrated when I can't karmacize someone because I haven't karmacized enough other people yet. Especially when the person really deserves to be karmacized again. arrggghhhhhhhhhhh

Piney Boy

June 28th, 2006, 05:43 PM

While I am new to this forum I have studied comparative relegions throughout college, grad school, and beyond. While groups and classes can provide great teaching and learning tools they in no way can say whats in your heart or how you feel about something spritually. If a group works for you, than great, if not, look for knowledge on your own path and feel good about it. You control your own destiny and karma.

David19

June 28th, 2006, 06:39 PM

Some people that i've talked with seem to make a distinction between Wicca (as in Gardnerian and Alexandrian and Moshian(sp)) and 'Neo-Wicca' (eclectic wicca and others).

I've seen some good arguements for both sides, i think that solitary practicioners can be spiritually fufilled by Wicca, but also being in a coven (especially a Gardnerian/Alexandrian/Moshian(sp) one) does have a lot of benefits (e.g. you'll be learning the same stuff Gardner knew if the coven is actually lineaged(sp), you'll learn some secrets, you'll probably have a lot of great magical training, etc).

Some arguements i've seen against solitary Wiccan's is that Wicca is a mystery religion and that you have to be in a coven and trained to experience the mysteries, it's not something that you can learn from a book.

I guess it really depends how you feel though.

For me, i'm learning some things about Cochrane witchcraft (which i think you have to be in a coven to actually practice as that's the only way you find out the name of a goddess), but i'm also interested in Feri witchcraft (Victor and Cori Anderson).

I'm not sure if i'll ever be initated into on of those covens, right now, i'm figuring out what my path is (i'm also interested in Sumerian reconstructionism, Kemetism, Hellenic reconstructionism, Hebrew 'paganism', Vodou, etc).

Xirian

June 29th, 2006, 07:35 AM

Some arguements i've seen against solitary Wiccan's is that Wicca is a mystery religion and that you have to be in a coven and trained to experience the mysteries, it's not something that you can learn from a book.
I agree with this. I don't believe they are something you can learn from a book or learn from another person. I feel the "mysteries" are the realizations that most pagans receive when they are constantly growing with and on their path, mixed with other practices that are secretive. Covens can't teach them, they are simply there to guide the student and be like a support group in that student's learning process. I believe that each "mystery" is different for each person, but the main theme is that learning and the realizations in correlation with guidance, study, and practice, is what makes these "mysteries" mysteries. They can't be talked about, because they happen differently for everyone and come to each individual differently.

These are of course only my opinions and I may be waaaayyyyy off on this one.

At first I was curious about the "mysteries". I know that many of the posts (or realizations I've come to on my path that I've posted), I've made on another forum have been commented on by BTWs. They have simply stated that you're starting to understand the "mysteries", even though I'm not Wiccan. I'm really not interested at all in understanding what a Wiccan thinks the "mysteries" are, because I have my own.

My path is one that will be passed on to my son (if he so desires), and as in many Italian families who practice witchcraft have, we will have our own family secrets that are different from other pagan families who practice similar to us.

9-2-2

July 4th, 2006, 01:01 PM

Well, this thread has been a fairly entertaining read. Myself, I am fairly independent spiritually. I've seen lots of judgementalism, where solitary non-trad non-initiated grand poobah Wiccans are not TRUE Wiccans, they *must* be floozies who "become" HP/HPS's after one book.

But what about the rest of us, who are not floozies? Who are they to judge my spiritual path?

I have studied the breadth and depth of the occult for six years (not all of it, but quite a bit). I have seen the best and the worst of humanity... indeed, I have *been* the best and the worst of humanity at some points. And I must agree with Xirian when he says that the elitist, ego-driven club-mongers drive away true seekers. It seems that who's in and who's not is more important than spiritual seeking and enlightenment.

This kind of petty, SLEEPER attitude drives away not only the floozies, but also people with REAL experience. There are plenty of occultists out there who have practiced for 3 years +, who would be excellent and helpful additions to many covens... but I think have realized they have better things to do with their spiritual evolution than join the "Yer-not-a-TRUE-Wiccan-because-of-xyz" fanboy club. Aren't they glad they just lost a customer? At least the lines are kept "pure", or whatever new bullhockey is spewed these days.

I think it's funny when another human dictates what someone else is or isn't. This kind of attitude is born only from a control-driven ego. I'm a mage because of my actions and knowledge, not because some other mage says I am. :lol:

CelticMoon11

July 4th, 2006, 07:04 PM

I expected this reaction, to be honest. I am a member of a BTW coven, Alexandrian, and we do believe Wicca to be an mystery, initiatory faith. Self-initiation is not possible...which is not to say that one can't self-dedicate and practice a Wiccan-inspired path. But by the definition of the word "initiate", self-initiation isn't possible.

Being on your own can be wonderful; you can learn many things, practice many things, have wonderful experiences. I was a solitary practicioner for a long time, and I didn't call myself Wiccan. I still technically am not, because I am not an initiate of my tradition. But I will be, in time. I believe in keeping some standards, and some clear definitions - "Do whatever feels right" doesn't work for me, and I don't like the lack of clarity certain things are devolving into.

If you really have to have a word to describe your path or practices, make up your own - don't subvert a word to fit any number of things until it's meaningless. People can get upset if they like, but that's my opinion.

I agree with your POV. Wicca was established as an initiatory religion, I have read and been told parts of the Gardnerian BOS by an initiate and I think a lot of self proclaimed "Wiccans" would be very VERY suprised.

It's like calling yourself Christian but ignoring a massive proportion of the religion. Standing in a garage staring at a car makes me as much of a mechanic as barely knowing a thing about the Gardnerian path from not being initiated makes me a wiccan.

There will always be backlash from having this POV, and many hissy fits, but it doesn't change the fact people DO believe this. I agree to disagree and I hope others who disagree will extend the same curtesy

Xirian

July 4th, 2006, 08:55 PM

It's like calling yourself Christian but ignoring a massive proportion of the religion. Standing in a garage staring at a car makes me as much of a mechanic as barely knowing a thing about the Gardnerian path from not being initiated makes me a wiccan.
With these general examples of being a christian and being a mechanic, you appear to be making the assumption that the Gardenarian path is the only valid Wiccan path and I believe that many people here would disagree with that. (However, I'm not saying that's what you're doing, it's just how it appears.) You appear to be assuming that even though Gardner made up this particular religion, based on historical information (I'm assuming), a little over 50 years ago, that other's can't do the same. And if they do, then they are not Wiccan and shouldn't call themselves Wiccan. Which I think is a load. Wasn't it Gardner who took the name Wicca from some "ancient" word that supposedly meant witch? If Gardner can use the name an base a religion off if it, why can't others? It wasn't his word to begin with, right? I don't happen to believe that a solitary Wiccan should call themselves Gardenarian or British Traditional Wiccan, but calling themselves a solitary wiccan shouldn't be of any concern or problem to BTW, IMHO.

Now, if the information above is wrong, then my mind might be changed.

I find that an American calling themselves a British Traditional Wiccan has fault to it. How can that actually be if you were born and raised in America?

I study and practice modern Italian witchcraft and call myself a strega, but I would never consider myself a Traditional Italian Witch, simply because it's not true. Strega is the general italian word for a female witch. But no matter how much I want it, I'll never be a traditional strega. And if you read many of the posts around here, you will hear Wiccans saying that wiccans have been around for thousands of years, so if Gardner can snatch the word wicca up and use it, then I can't see why solitaries can't. You tell people they can't call themselves something, yet you call yourselves something that appears to be invalid on it's face.

I could be wrong and certainly have been before, but these are my thoughts on the issue.

Lunacie

July 4th, 2006, 10:41 PM

There will always be backlash from having this POV, and many hissy fits, but it doesn't change the fact people DO believe this. I agree to disagree and I hope others who disagree will extend the same curtesy

Courtesy begets courtesy. Yes, some people do believe that Gardnerian Wicca is the only valid path of Wicca. Those who disagree with that POV are not necessarily having a "hissy fit".

I believe there are quite a few perfectly valid Wiccan traditions who follow the basic practices set out by Gardner but tend to vary some of the less basic practices somewhat. And I believe there are even some solitaries who follow the core practices closely enough to call themselves "Wiccan".

I think saying that a person cannot self-initiate themselves is elitist hair-splitting, but I'm sure there will always be some backlash from having that POV.

Ninjakitten

July 5th, 2006, 01:08 AM

I forget if I already asked this or if someone else already did, but what did Gardener, the creator if the Wiccan religon, have to say that might relate to this? I'd like to hear quotes if possible. Did he specify what it takes to be a part of his tradition that he created (and therefore other types of Wicca can merely be considered "Wiccan influenced" or offshoots of Wicca), or that there was enough flexibility and the things he said were generalized enough to where we can really have Dianic Wiccans, Feri Wiccans, etc? I ask this as a person that likes scholarly and/or scientific research, so I don't mean to sound like I'm putting anyone down by this, I just kind of want to know. Also, if anyone can tell me any good books on and/or by Gardener, I'd like to hear them so I can do my own research as well. My witchcraft is Wiccan influenced (though a far shot from being Wiccan by any stretch of the imagination).

CelticMoon11

July 5th, 2006, 02:19 AM

Courtesy begets courtesy. Yes, some people do believe that Gardnerian Wicca is the only valid path of Wicca. Those who disagree with that POV are not necessarily having a "hissy fit".

I did not say all were hissy fits, I said there would be a lot of disagreement AND hissy fits, not that they were one in the same, please don't put words in my mouth.

I believe there are quite a few perfectly valid Wiccan traditions who follow the basic practices set out by Gardner but tend to vary some of the less basic practices somewhat. And I believe there are even some solitaries who follow the core practices closely enough to call themselves "Wiccan".

I think saying that a person cannot self-initiate themselves is elitist hair-splitting, but I'm sure there will always be some backlash from having that POV.

Agree to disagree, believe what you want and I'll do the same. By your definition I'm an elitist hair-splitter, thanks, although I don't see why this thread has to reduce to name calling...

CelticMoon11

July 5th, 2006, 02:24 AM

With these general examples of being a christian and being a mechanic, you appear to be making the assumption that the Gardenarian path is the only valid Wiccan path and I believe that many people here would disagree with that. (However, I'm not saying that's what you're doing, it's just how it appears.) You appear to be assuming that even though Gardner made up this particular religion, based on historical information (I'm assuming), a little over 50 years ago, that other's can't do the same. And if they do, then they are not Wiccan and shouldn't call themselves Wiccan. Which I think is a load. Wasn't it Gardner who took the name Wicca from some "ancient" word that supposedly meant witch? If Gardner can use the name an base a religion off if it, why can't others? It wasn't his word to begin with, right? I don't happen to believe that a solitary Wiccan should call themselves Gardenarian or British Traditional Wiccan, but calling themselves a solitary wiccan shouldn't be of any concern or problem to BTW, IMHO.

Now, if the information above is wrong, then my mind might be changed.

I find that an American calling themselves a British Traditional Wiccan has fault to it. How can that actually be if you were born and raised in America?

I study and practice modern Italian witchcraft and call myself a strega, but I would never consider myself a Traditional Italian Witch, simply because it's not true. Strega is the general italian word for a female witch. But no matter how much I want it, I'll never be a traditional strega. And if you read many of the posts around here, you will hear Wiccans saying that wiccans have been around for thousands of years, so if Gardner can snatch the word wicca up and use it, then I can't see why solitaries can't. You tell people they can't call themselves something, yet you call yourselves something that appears to be invalid on it's face.

I could be wrong and certainly have been before, but these are my thoughts on the issue.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, it's ok to be Wiccan if you aren't an initiate but it's not ok to follow a British Wiccan tradition in another country?

I can't speak for Gerald Gardner I was under the impression he did not coin the term "wicca" that came later as did the wiccan rede (1970's I believe?). How is a derivative of a old term thieving when others have taken the term directly aka "wicca" and used it for their own purposes, how is that the same?

I didn't say Gardnerian Wicca was the one true form of Wicca, I acknowledge that you said you had assumed that and I thank you for stating as such, I'm saying Wicca is a initiatory religion.

I've had one of THE most stressful days today so I won't say anything more because my brain is mush I'm sure theres a lot I've left out I'll revist when I'm not so frazzled

Xirian

July 5th, 2006, 03:28 AM

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, it's ok to be Wiccan if you aren't an initiate but it's not ok to follow a British Wiccan tradition in another country?
I did not say it wasn't okay to "follow" BTW, I am making the argument that I find fault with the concept. If you feel you are a BTW, then fine. Does being initiated into that tradition actually make you a British Wiccan? It seems to me that it would make you an American Wiccan following a British Wiccan path, IMO. I could be wrong.

I can't speak for Gerald Gardner I was under the impression he did not coin the term "wicca" that came later as did the wiccan rede (1970's I believe?). How is a derivative of a old term thieving when others have taken the term directly aka "wicca" and used it for their own purposes, how is that the same?
What I'm saying is that if he can use it, then it should be perfectly fine for others to use it, i.e. solitary wiccans.

I didn't say Gardnerian Wicca was the one true form of Wicca, I acknowledge that you said you had assumed that and I thank you for stating as such, I'm saying Wicca is a initiatory religion.
I don't doubt that.

CelticMoon11

July 5th, 2006, 04:10 AM

I did not say it wasn't okay to "follow" BTW, I am making the argument that I find fault with the concept. If you feel you are a BTW, then fine. Does being initiated into that tradition actually make you a British Wiccan? It seems to me that it would make you an American Wiccan following a British Wiccan path, IMO. I could be wrong.

I'm not wiccan I haven't been initiated into any wiccan tradition and don't follow their beliefs I'm a witch :) thats just incase you were suggesting I was BTW, incase I came across as I was. I'm just saying why is it ok to call yourself a Wiccan if you aren't initiated at all but it's not ok to be a BTW in America? To me the same principle applies to initiation, can you see where I'm comin from?

What I'm saying is that if he can use it, then it should be perfectly fine for others to use it, i.e. solitary wiccans.

He didn't use it, he used a derivative of a word like most of the english language is derived from latin words. How is that the same as taken the exact same word to label a person path because someone thinks it accurately describes their beliefs when half (HALF NOT ALL) the time they don't even know who Gardner was or what he believed.

Lunacie

July 5th, 2006, 09:18 AM

I did not say all were hissy fits, I said there would be a lot of disagreement AND hissy fits, not that they were one in the same, please don't put words in my mouth.
And I did not make a blanket statement either, I said "some" and "those". I'm sorry you felt that I was putting words in your mouth, such was certainly not my intention.

Agree to disagree, believe what you want and I'll do the same. By your definition I'm an elitist hair-splitter, thanks, although I don't see why this thread has to reduce to name calling...
By your definition I am prone to "hissy fits", thanks. But I didn't take that as a personal attack and I certainly didn't mean my response as a personal attack either.

Xirian

July 5th, 2006, 09:32 AM

I'm not wiccan I haven't been initiated into any wiccan tradition and don't follow their beliefs I'm a witch :) thats just incase you were suggesting I was BTW, incase I came across as I was. I'm just saying why is it ok to call yourself a Wiccan if you aren't initiated at all but it's not ok to be a BTW in America? To me the same principle applies to initiation, can you see where I'm comin from?
Who said things weren't okay? I believe you're putting words into my mouth.

I believe it's fine to call yourself whatever you want. I just think there is a fault to the basic argument that a British Traditional Wiccan can be from somewhere other than Britain. And then they are actually able to find fault with a solitary calling themselves a Wiccan? I think you can study BTW, but I don't believe that makes you British. It's not really a limiting factor and I don’t find fault with BTWs, except when they try to split hairs about titles, when their own title is questionable. We live in a time where we can study all sorts of traditions. However, the study of a tradition and the initiation doesn't necessarily make you what your title implies.

If you call yourself British, you should probably be from Britain, IMO, especially if you're going to be picky about someone else’s title. You can study traditional shaman practices, but that doesn't make you a Traditional Native American Indian Shaman. A Traditional Native American shaman can start a group if they want and initiate people into that group and call the title of the group the Traditional Native American Indian Shamans. However, that doesn't make anyone else in that group a Native American Indian, just because they were initiated into a group and that's what they choose to call themselves and choose to study, if they aren't actually Native American indians. You see what I'm saying? I think the Native Americans might get a bit peeved about this if you tried, but it simply makes you an American that studies shamanism that's been initiated into a group.

The same as BTWs. You can call yourselves what ever you want, but that doesn't make it so. And then BTWs get pissed at people who call themselves Wiccans, if they aren't initiated or in a coven. You will never be British, just by studying BTW, if you want to split hairs about titles, which is all this argument is about, "titles", not information, not anything spiritually driven, but titles. And that's a very elitist attitude, IMO.

He didn't use it, he used a derivative of a word like most of the english language is derived from latin words. How is that the same as taken the exact same word to label a person path because someone thinks it accurately describes their beliefs when half (HALF NOT ALL) the time they don't even know who Gardner was or what he believed.
It seems that you have some specific people in mind here. I'm saying that Wiccan is a general term derived from an older word. The fact that Gardner can take the word and use it as he chooses and other people can't, seems silly to me.

It appears the person who started the thread wants to call herself a solitary wiccan, not a Gardenarian, or whatever other group of wiccans there are. What is so wrong with that? She is not claiming the title of a specific group of wiccans, just using the general term, the same as Gardner, to describe what she studies. Sounds like that's what the title BTW stands for too. Something to describe what people study, not actually who they are, as many people might lead you to believe with their flimsy arguments.

Personally, I can't see why a solitary would want to call themselves a wiccan, especially after reading a thread like this. I certainly wouldn't want to be somewhere I wasn't wanted. I don't even want to be associated with the Wiccan religion, just as I no longer want to be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses for similar reasons. I don't feel there is anything wrong with others practicing wicca or being a JW, to each their own, but this is my personal feeling. When a new pagan calls me a Wiccan, I am extremely quick to correct them. It appears to me that there is more concern placed on hierarchies and titles, than on the actual meat of what is being studied. The main reasons I am a solitary practitioner, among other reasons.

Morgandria

July 5th, 2006, 10:40 AM

Your argument is sort of like saying "Don't call yourself Roman Catholic if you're not Roman". "British Traditional Wicca" is meant to designate the origin of the belief structure, not the origin of the person practicing it.

Really...if you're going to be indignant, then you should also be indignant about the many other religious denominations of many faiths who have a nameplace in front of them. And even if you are adamant that such people as "Greek Orthodox" shoudl only be Greek, I will happily disagree with you.

For future reference:

I practiced Wicca as a solitary. I did not call myself Wiccan, out of personal preference. I still do not believe you can self-initiate, but self-dedication works in its' place. In either case you open yourself, show yourself to the Gods, and they either accept you or they don't.

You can be a solitary and practice Wicca. If you feel that makes you a Wiccan, that's fine. If you don't, that's fine too. However, until you can actually see how Wicca is practiced in the traditions that started everything, it's very hard to know or understand how far removed your particular practice of Wicca is from the original, and whether or not it still is Wicca in actuality.

But we'll all disagree about that, too. S'ok. ;)

Even my BTW high priestess accepts that (and yes, she is british, so nyah. :p)

My coven accepts people at face value until they prove that they don't actually know how or what to do that they said they did. We will respect people's claims until they prove themselves otherwise. If people come to us from another group, and say they're a 1st degree, then they're a 1st degree until, say, we ask them to cast a circle or perform the wine blessing, and they stare blankly at us and say they've never done it, or don't know how. Then we know that they'll need to train with us from the beginning to learn our ways. I find this much more polite than just telling everyone they have to start over again, and their degrees mean nothing; from what I hear our approach is somewhat unusual for BTW covens.

Not all of us BTW are a bunch of snotty twits with our besoms firmly lodged up our buttholes. If you wouldn't want all solitary eclectic Wiccans painted with the same brush, please don't then go and colour all BTW the same shade of villain-hat black.

Xirian

July 5th, 2006, 11:09 AM

Your argument is sort of like saying "Don't call yourself Roman Catholic if you're not Roman". "British Traditional Wicca" is meant to designate the origin of the belief structure, not the origin of the person practicing it.
Oh, okay, well if that's the case, if the designation is applied that loosely, that's fine. Then I don't see why there is an issue with the word Wiccan being used for solitaries since it's a general term. The posts here were very technical and in trying to establish a framework for discussion I took the title British Traditional Wiccan at face value. Nittpickiness seemed to be the ground rules, that I did not start. Personally, I don't like that idea of the term wiccan being used so rigidly, but there you go.

But then I don't think you can get upset about people wanting to call themselves Wiccan and be solitary if you're going to use the title British Traditional Wiccan in as loose term as you described it. Therefore, making Roman Catholic as I always thought of it, as anyone of any cultural background can join. However, it still does not make you Roman.

Really...if you're going to be indignant, then you should also be indignant about the many other religious denominations of many faiths who have a nameplace in front of them. And even if you are adamant that such people as "Greek Orthodox" shoudl only be Greek, I will happily disagree with you.

If you are going with the argument that I've seen in this thread already, then yes, I am indignant about other religious denominations as well. But if you're going with the argument that is in your above post, then I can be flexible and apply the titles loosely. What's good for the BTW is good for the solitary Wiccan too, right?

Morgandria

July 5th, 2006, 11:27 AM

How on earth did you ever assume British Traditional Wicca was only for Britons? That honestly confuses me. It's a fairly specific term, for what it is, but it's not exclusionary - it's merely descriptive.

Dawa Lhamo

July 5th, 2006, 11:36 AM

lol Yeah, the BTW's I know, on either side of the pond, don't worry if you're born in Britain or not. That's not what makes you proper. I think Morgandria's right with the Greek Orthodox/Roman Catholic analogy. BTW comes from Britain. In order to have the lineage, it has to be traceable to GBG, who was British. ^_^ It doesn't mean that you yourself have to be British. I don't think that's "loosely applied", I think the British BTW's would find it accurate. ^_^

Xirian

July 5th, 2006, 11:48 AM

I happen to agree with you both. It's just that same sort of strictness you're trying to impose on others that I was imposing on the the title of BTWs or was I not clear enough? Pardon me if I wasn't. You don't enjoy your titles or the titles of your colleagues being picked apart, so why should you pick a part other's?

I believe if you were talking to someone who had no idea what British Traditional Wiccan meant to wiccans, then I believe it would appear to be loosely applied, in regards to this thread. Because you are part of the pagan community, you and I both see it the way it should be seen. However, my bf reading this thread, simply did not see how it is applied from a pagan point of view. When I said in another post that you don't realize how many people are driven away by elitist attitudes and title nitpicking, I was being serious.

Yes, I was over-exaggerating to get my point across. I could actually care less what culture you are from when you practice and study religion, or what title you give yourself. But the latter certainly seems to matter to some, when it's really the spiritual aspect that should be most important, which many of you seem to avoid talking about, even though I've mentioned it several times.

Why should you care if someone can't do a ritual like you do it and call themselves a wiccan? What they are practicing still may be considered similar to what the majority of wiccans practice, right?

if you want to split hairs about titles, which is all this argument is about, "titles", not information, not anything spiritually driven, but titles. And that's a very elitist attitude, IMO.

It appears to me that there is more concern placed on hierarchies and titles, than on the actual meat of what is being studied.

If this is how you wish to be viewed, then more power to you, who am I to judge how you wished to be viewed?

And with that, I believe my point has been made and I will move on to something that has a little more meat to it than who is called what, when, where, why and how.

You're a towel. No you're a towel. *rolls eyes*

Morgandria

July 5th, 2006, 12:04 PM

I am mostly confused by this last post. I don't know whom you are adressing with it, but it seems not to be me. I find it circular and drifting off into another conversation or point I was not part of.

Ah well.

CelticMoon11

July 5th, 2006, 08:09 PM

Xirian, you obviously aren't listening to a word I am saying and are just regurgitating the same old thoughts that don't address the questions I've asked, and are ignoring points I am bringing up in rebuttal, so I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

Lady Valkyrie

July 5th, 2006, 08:23 PM

gerald gardner did.

the only way to be a solitary wiccan is to be initiated inot a coven then leave.

i could go around reading medical books and learn all about it, but you wouldnt come to me with appendicitis.

wicca is an initatory religion, like it or not, thats how it is.

lee

Well isn't that just funny as all get out... considering that Gardnerian Wicca is a blending of many ancient practices that Gardner himself learned about and then consolidated under the umbrella of "Wicca." So basically I guess anyone can create their own religion (even if it's based upon many different ancient beliefs and practices), as Gardner did, and then only allow those who you wish to join be initiated in. The same could be said for those of us who wish to also make a religion based upon another religion such as Wicca, and then allow anyone to join without being initiated. We are not calling ourselves Gardnerian Wiccans... but rather Solitary Wiccans or even Solitary Eclectic Wiccans... but we never claim to be Gardnerian Wiccans.

Lady Valkyrie

July 5th, 2006, 08:33 PM

All of this leads back to definitions of Wicca. Different people define who is Wiccan and what is necessary to be Wiccan in different ways. The thing is everyone has a right to define it any way they want, and everyone else has a right to not accept that definition.

If you are going to be Wiccan you have to grow a thick skin. There are the extremists at one end of the pole who very narrowly define who is Wiccan and the extremists on the other end say everyone is Wiccan who says they are. The moderates fall in the middle.

If someone tells you you aren't Wiccan because you don't meet their personal or trad definition, listen politely, and if you don't agree say piffle and move on. Acceptance by them is not necessary for you to be Wiccan.

I believe that solitaries can be Wiccan. I'm one of the moderates.

This is so very true. Personally I don't believe there is such a thing as a "true" Wiccan religion just as I do not believe there is such as thing as a "true" Christian religion. Gerald Gardner was the first to formalize and make public a consolidation of ancient beliefs and practices and call it Wicca what we now call Gardnerian Wicca. Others have branched off of that one sect keeping some fundamental basics that Garnder set in place and then added to them. It's no different that what the Christian church has done when they broke from the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Reformation came to be. From then on Protestants have further broke down into their own little sects (denominations.) Now if one wants to call a religion a "true" religion based upon "who done it first" then I guess the Roman Catholic Church is the only one true Christian Church and all others are posers and fluff bunnies. Personally I don't believe that for a minute. But if one is going to accuse all those who claim to be Wiccan as posers and fluffbunnies purely based upon them not being of the original Gardenarian Wiccan Tradition and/or whether or not they are initiated then logic says that the same would be true for the Christian Church. Then I guess there are a lot of "fake" Christians out there. LOL

Lady Valkyrie

July 5th, 2006, 08:40 PM

Comparing apples and oranges only proves that they are different articles. Medical training and religion are not the same thing. I agree with Qumran that you must be initiated into a Coven to be a Coven-member, but you don't have to be initiated into the religion in order to be Wiccan (i.e. have the beliefs and do the practices). I have never been initiated into a traditional coven so I probably don't know as much as some who have been, but I may know more than others who were. Depends on the coven in question, doesn't it?

Well, I believe that is common sense. If you wish to be a Gardnerian Wiccan then it would seem that you would practically need to be initiated into a Gardnerian Wiccan Coven in order to reap the full benefits of learning the rich knowledge within that Tradition of Wicca. The same can be said of the other Traditions that have branched off from the Gardnerian Tradition since. However, There are many so called covens out there who are not affiliated with any official Wiccan Tradition and have basically made up their own beliefs, practices, and even Tradition name, but they still hold to the fundamental basics that all Wiccan Traditions hold to. So what of them? Are they "real Wiccans?" Personally... I believe they are.

Lady Valkyrie

July 5th, 2006, 08:50 PM

I expected this reaction, to be honest. I am a member of a BTW coven, Alexandrian, and we do believe Wicca to be an mystery, initiatory faith. Self-initiation is not possible...which is not to say that one can't self-dedicate and practice a Wiccan-inspired path. But by the definition of the word "initiate", self-initiation isn't possible.

Being on your own can be wonderful; you can learn many things, practice many things, have wonderful experiences. I was a solitary practicioner for a long time, and I didn't call myself Wiccan. I still technically am not, because I am not an initiate of my tradition. But I will be, in time. I believe in keeping some standards, and some clear definitions - "Do whatever feels right" doesn't work for me, and I don't like the lack of clarity certain things are devolving into.

If you really have to have a word to describe your path or practices, make up your own - don't subvert a word to fit any number of things until it's meaningless. People can get upset if they like, but that's my opinion.

From the Merrium-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry:ini·tiate
Function: noun
1 : a person who is undergoing or has undergone an initiation
2 : a person who is instructed or adept in some special field

Main Entry: ini·ti·a·tion
Function: noun
1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status
2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of activity : KNOWLEDGEABLENESS

With these definitions in mind and keeping in mind that we live in a world today that is far more advanded than that of when Gardner first brought Wicca into the public view. Keeping all this in mind... couldn't one actually initiate oneself into their desired Wiccan Tradition so long as they had the information about that Tradition's beliefs, practices, rites, ceremonies, etc.? We live in an information age ya know. One can actually get a degree on practically anything over the internet. Heck one can even become an ordained minister online. Why not teach oneself through the initiatory process of a Wiccan Tradition?

Xirian

July 5th, 2006, 10:25 PM

I'm just saying why is it ok to call yourself a Wiccan if you aren't initiated at all but it's not ok to be a BTW in America?
I don't believe that it is or isn't okay. I feel that you can be a BTW in America.

To me the same principle applies to initiation, can you see where I'm comin from?
Yes, I do see where you are coming from.

I'm not sure I understand you correctly, it's ok to be Wiccan if you aren't an initiate but it's not ok to follow a British Wiccan tradition in another country?
For the third time, I didn't say that it was okay or wasn't. I think that you can follow BTW in another country.

If you read later on, since it's obvious You aren't listening to a word that I'm saying, I was over-exaggerating to get a point across about BTWs putting expectations on others that they may have not thought that others might be putting on them. Which other people do put on them. "Judge not, lest you be judged."

Xirian, you obviously aren't listening to a word I am saying and are just regurgitating the same old thoughts that don't address the questions I've asked, and are ignoring points I am bringing up in rebuttal, so I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

If we are dealing strictly with titles, your argument that one can't call themselves a solitary wiccan is faulty. Simply because the title BTW insinuates that you are a British Traditional Wiccan. The title is inaccurate if you are an American. Personally, I don't agree with this argument, but if you don't agree with the above argument, then you have lost the right to be strict with the titles of others, in my personal opinion. If you can't separate the title from the religion, for just one moment, to see that other people may view things differently from you, I am sorry for you.

I read your question and I answered your question more than once. You obviously didn't feel it was a good enough answer. Maybe you can go back and read through my posts, which I'm starting to doubt you read in the first place, and you will see that I answered your questions, the same as I did here.

And now my work is done here. I have disturbed the peace and must take my leave.

The High Queen of Faerie

July 5th, 2006, 11:10 PM

Without a doubt.

What a silly question.

CelticMoon11

July 6th, 2006, 12:15 AM

How have I lost any right at all? I can say and believe what I like without losing any "rights" thank you very much.

I'm not saying that there isn't fault with the BTW in somewhere other than Britian, what I am saying is how can you fault that distinction, but not the distinction that an INITIATORY RELIGION has gone to flop with people claiming to be wicca left, right and center regardless of their beliefs. Seems you can be a hindu or christian but still call urself wicca without any of the beliefs..

Oh by the gods sakes saying "I've done my bit so ner I'm running away now" is hardly a mature take. I have read your responses and you have just regurgitated the same answers to different arguements without supplying anything new. Unless you can supply new arguements to what already been refuted then it appears YOU are the one that needs to get things straight before playing the blame game

Take your leave by all means it doesn't effect me in one bit it just shows not only maturity but lack of knowledge as well. The only reason I'm here is to stir a little contraversy MW can get rather dull at times and looks like I did a good job at ruffling your feathers. Hope you enjoyed playing buh-bye now.

Lady Valkyrie

July 6th, 2006, 12:34 AM

The only reason I'm here is to stir a little contraversy MW can get rather dull at times and looks like I did a good job at ruffling your feathers. Hope you enjoyed playing buh-bye now.

:fofftopic :rant:
Like that's really mature and intelligent. Sounds to me you are a troll. What is an internet troll? A troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion. For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."

Dawa Lhamo

July 6th, 2006, 01:14 AM

lol, no one's lost any rights to anything. ^_^ One can have a certain degree of strictness in their definitions but choose not go to extremes with it... why not? What's fundamentally wrong with being somewhere in the middle? I dare say that most of us are *somewhere* between the extremes...

In any case, let's not argue about who's more mature than whom... Honestly, if a person is being immature, it shows in their posts... there's no need to point it out. ;)

I'm more interested in the topic and how people feel about it, rather than how people feel about each other. ^_^

Just sayin'...

SquareC

July 6th, 2006, 02:36 AM

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.

I was initiated in the 2nd degree in an Alexandrian coven, and then struck out on my own. I have been Solitary many, many years more than I was a member of a coven. I have learned more on my own than I ever did as a member of the coven. I was free to follow the path that called me most earnestly, which involves aspects of my Native American heritage, but I am what is generally considered to be a fairly conventional Wiccan. I pray to the Lady and the Lord, I hold the Solstices and Equinoxes in all respects as well as a few other holidays, such as Samhain. I do not consider myself less a Wiccan because I follow my own path rather than one dictated for me, rather I consider myself more so because I listen to what the Lady and Lord tell me and follow what they show me, rather than what a High Priest or Priestess dictates to be the correct way. I suppose I rather fall between, since I was initiated, but I have learned and grown so much more in my years as a Solitary that I cannot but consider it to be equal or even superior to the requirement of initiation.

richardgoldfinch064

July 6th, 2006, 04:37 AM

:rant: i have never belong to a coven and im third degree initiated and this so called debate whether you are true wiccan or not is hog wash:viking: :boing: :awilly:

CelticMoon11

July 6th, 2006, 05:37 AM

:fofftopic :rant:
Like that's really mature and intelligent. Sounds to me you are a troll. What is an internet troll? A troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion. For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."

That is the most halarious thing I have ever heard!!! LMAOROF :lol: 8O :yayah: :hehehehe: Oh dear I'm crying now, oh look I got red karma aswell LOL awwtoo funny, so by your definition no one can have an opinion that is contrary to your own *breaths, whipes tears away* that's for that you made my day :yayah:

Xirian

July 6th, 2006, 08:50 AM

Ah, CelticMoon11, you've lured me back with your "intellectual" rantings. Actually, it was your personal attacks and fiesty comments about my immaturity that was the actual lure. :D I'm a glutton for punishment.

lol, no one's lost any rights to anything. ^_^ One can have a certain degree of strictness in their definitions but choose not go to extremes with it... why not? What's fundamentally wrong with being somewhere in the middle? I dare say that most of us are *somewhere* between the extremes...
I agree with you and don't feel that anyone has lost the rights to anything either. I was stating my personal opinion. I am very often in the middle ground. Maybe not on this particular topic though. But generally, I am.

How have I lost any right at all? I can say and believe what I like without losing any "rights" thank you very much.
Maybe you should start quoting others so you actually get their comments right. Here is what I said, just in case.

Personally, I don't agree with this argument, but if you don't agree with the above argument, then you have lost the right to be strict with the titles of others, in my personal opinion.
If I have the right to voice my opinion, I don't see why you shouldn't have that right either. And I certainly didn't tell you that you didn't. I said, personally, that means for me and in my opinion, that one has lost the right to be strict with the titles of others if they aren't strict with there own.

I'm not saying that there isn't fault with the BTW in somewhere other than Britian, what I am saying is how can you fault that distinction, but not the distinction that an INITIATORY RELIGION has gone to flop with people claiming to be wicca left, right and center regardless of their beliefs. Seems you can be a hindu or christian but still call urself wicca without any of the beliefs..
I can fault the distinction because I am only talking about titles and titles only when faulting the argument. Does that make sense to you?

Oh by the gods sakes saying "I've done my bit so ner I'm running away now" is hardly a mature take.

And should I care what you think is mature and what isn't? I personally, (there's that word again) don't think so.

I have read your responses and you have just regurgitated the same answers to different arguements without supplying anything new.
Did you happen to think that was because you were asking the exact same question over again. I am answering the question and saying the same thing--oops sorry, I'll use your word--regurgitating the same thing, because you are asking the same question over and over and over again. Am I supposed to change my mind? Most people find that illogical, to answer the same question in different ways each time, it's something that I see our President doing all the time. I don't feel debates should actually be that way. Do you?

If you're not getting the answer you'd like, maybe, you might want to try asking some new questions or maybe you should try talking to someone you can manipulate the answer, you want, out of. That's not going to work with me. The answer stays the same. There is no new information I will spew, just for the simple fact of spewing an answer.

Call it regurgitation, call it whatever. Until you come up with a new question, my answer will be the same.

Unless you can supply new arguements to what already been refuted then it appears YOU are the one that needs to get things straight before playing the blame game
You haven't refuted any part of my argument. You have just been asking questions that I have already answered and complaining about me not answering your questions. I have seen no refution on your part. However, I will take back what I just said if you show me something that you have specifically refuted in regards to this argument on titles.

Take your leave by all means it doesn't effect me in one bit it just shows not only maturity but lack of knowledge as well. The only reason I'm here is to stir a little contraversy MW can get rather dull at times and looks like I did a good job at ruffling your feathers. Hope you enjoyed playing buh-bye now.

Now if it didn't affect you, why are you even wasting your time commenting on my posts? Huh?

so I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.
Which you are still continuing to do, even though it's a waste of your time. It must be worth something to you.

For me, it's the thrill of the argument, the possible tongue lashing from CelticMoon11, which may be a bit painful, but I like it that way, oh, and the possibility of learning something new. *twiddles thumbs and waits eagerly for tongue lashing*

Xentor

July 6th, 2006, 09:57 AM

Admin mode

For crying out loud, why do you people insist on slinging mud? Whatever happened to the respect rule? It's a very simple rule to follow: discuss the topic, not the poster; disagree but don't put down; different but valid anyway. Don't tell me that's too difficult.

(Because if anyone does, they'll be on time-out for the next 3 days.)

richardgoldfinch064

July 9th, 2006, 02:01 PM

Dawa Lhamo

July 9th, 2006, 02:57 PM

:rant: this what put me off christanity this whether some one is or not true or not we need to stop and think whether we we want to go the same way as orginise religions and find our selfs in the same boat as they are fighting amounst them selves i feel that some people ok like to debate things and throw things out to see what reaction they get ,but i find it very offensive to myself and many of my friends who are solo and hedge witch's and wiccans to try and say just because we dont belong to covens we are not true wiccans :rant: :flamer: :grrrrr: _witchballMy question, then, is why do you listen to them? You know what you are, presumably... so why should their words mean anything to you? They have no authority over you. There *is* no person of authority for Wicca. Why should it matter if they don't think you're a true Wiccan?

Why get offended that they don't accept you? That they don't take your word for it? What need do you have for their acceptance? If you know what you are, then the only person who needs to accept and believe it is you.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm Wiccan. Sure, my coven doesn't have verifiable lineage. If someone wants to think I'm not Wiccan, well, I could care less. I don't answer to them, I answer to my Gods and to my conscience. If they want to *say* I'm not a true Wiccan, well then I'll probably roll my eyes or smile and shrug. Because, honestly, it doesn't matter to me. I know what I am.

They're free to think and say whatever they want, just as I'm free to think and say whatever I want. That's the beauty of having no centralized authority. Their thoughts and words only matter to me if I *choose* for them to matter to me.

Arie

July 9th, 2006, 05:40 PM

Ok....just had to jump in here....WOW I can't believe this thread is still going.

Dawa Lhamo

July 9th, 2006, 06:06 PM

Ok....just had to jump in here....WOW I can't believe this thread is still going.nah, it's only six months old. There are threads that are still active after five years. ^_^ And don't get me started on Polls. ^_^

It is funny to see your own threads get away from you, though... especially when the discussion sours. ^_^ Interesting. ^_^

Liguana

July 9th, 2006, 06:56 PM

IMO Wicca is about form. It is a created religion and Gerald Gardner was not one of the ancients either, so the religion of Wicca is fairly new. Prior to Gardner, prior to Crowley, did witch people have "The Rede" to keep them in line and on the same path? No, of course not. If you work alone and you are a witch, good for you. If you follow a Wiccan format and consider Wiccan ethics in all that you do, good for you again. You should have the right to call yourself a Wiccan.

I went through a year and a day training and went up through the ranks of my coven and a Celtic Eclectic tradition. People might say I was entitled tio call myself Wiccan as I followed all the appropriate and previously proscribed steps. What if I don't want to call the directions or the elements because I think those energies recognize me and a connection is assumed without the verbage? What if I see the Rede as a good ethical guideline but I do not base all magic I do around that concept? What if I prefer to work alone and I never recite the Charge of the Goddess? Am I still third degree Wiccan or have I given up the right to the title? I don't know. It is good that I am okay with it either way so the opinions of others don't make my spiritual life difficult for me. I say, decide what you are and be that. If you practice Wiccan magic, you are Wiccan.

9-2-2

July 11th, 2006, 12:07 AM

A tongue-in-cheek method of making a point. :-)

Xirian

July 11th, 2006, 08:03 AM

A tongue-in-cheek method of making a point. :-)
http://www.mysticwicks.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=67011&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1152590810

Heheheheheh That's pretty good. LOL

Phoenix Blue

July 11th, 2006, 08:59 AM

... The distinction that an INITIATORY RELIGION has gone to flop with people claiming to be wicca left, right and center regardless of their beliefs. Seems you can be a hindu or christian but still call urself wicca without any of the beliefs..
A lot of people call themselves Christian but don't follow the doctrine set down by the Church in Rome. A lot of people call themselves Hindu but may not necessarily abide by all the tenets of that religion. Wicca is no different--any religion touched by humans is an imperfect one.

There are a few good arguments, IMO, for allowing people into the faith without initiation.

First: Who initiated Gardner? And who initiated her? And the person before her? There had to be a first. It becomes a chicken-and-egg paradox.

Second: Cunningham, the author of the "Solitary Practitioner" books, was himself a Gardnerian. Further, if I recall correctly, he had the approval of his coven before he went to a publisher with the book. I will venture the guess that he saw no reason to continue keeping Wicca a secret and felt the religion would die out if it were kept that way.

Religions evolve--either with the help of their leaders or in spite of them. Wicca might be even more distorted in the public view than some have distorted it now if Cunningham had never published his books, because people would have done what they wanted and called it Wicca anyway. Putting the real information out there at least gives people who are interested in the faith a place to start.

Lunacie

July 11th, 2006, 10:49 AM

Hi PB ! :waves:

I've been using that "chicken or the egg" argument ever since I got my first connection to the internet - about six years ago. I have rethought some things and changed my mind about some things, and hopefully evolved, during that six years. But I still say the gods initiate us into a relationship with them (commonly referred to as a religion). People initiate us into a relationship with groups of people (commonly called traditions or denominations). Some people can't seem to grasp that fine a distinction.

moonthatsheloves

July 11th, 2006, 11:30 AM

Lunacie, that is similar to how I feel. I'm new here, I am not sure I should step into this debate. But I'll just ramble out my thoughts, not that they are anything more than just my thoughts.... ;)

I feel like an initiation is for someone to belong to a certain group. But no one other than yourself can call you onto your path. That is between you and God/Goddess/The All/Universe/Source/etc. And if a Wiccan Priest can initiate you into their coven, surely God/Goddess can initiate you into Their "group" if you are wanting a formal ceremony (with others, or private all by yourself and the Gods).

But if you are "solitary" and have any quibbles with this "initiation" into Wicca thing, who says you even need to be Wiccan? You could be Pagan, Neopagan, Spiritual, a Witch, etc. I don't consider myself Wiccan. I just don't get into all their stuff - calling the quarters, the rede, (initiation arguments), etc. I think it's fine if you click with that, but not all pagans do. "Pagan" is such a huge umbrella - if you look around and study and practice and research, you usually find your niche, which is often a little combination of a few things. If you find a coven or circle or group you like, that's cool too. But who needs to argue over initiation? Laurie Cabot says in her books - "how do you know if you are a witch? Well, how do you know you are not one already?" (I am paraphrasing). A rose is a rose is a rose, so to speak. No one is going to take away who I am over arguments of initiation.

On one forum a few years back there were some men who all belonged to a coven. They got really mad that a few "newbies" had usernames on the forum like Lady Ivy, or Lady Sabrina, etc. They insisted that the word Lady was a title and had to be earned by inititaion and then earning so many degrees. They were rude and mean and got really crazed about this. But this forum was not a forum their coven made, and was not a forum to be used by their coven members only. It was a general pagan forum. So I (and many others) felt anyone could use the word Lady however they wanted in this forum. Especially over something like a user name. I am sure people with a user name like Kat is not really a cat. Or a username like "Wizard of All" is not even necessarily a wizard (or if so, not of "all" - lol). The word "lady" can have more than one meaning or use. But these few men were so angry about it and kept insisting it not be used by others. How nuts is that? Inside their coven, then fine, it should be respected and kept to mean what their coven says for its meaning. But outside their coven, the word lady is up for grabs and free for all to take, use, or say.

Initiation is the same with me. You can be initiatied by a group to belong to that group. Or you can set up your own initiation to do yourself, or call it a dedication - whatever works for you. Wicca covens do not own the word "initiation."

If anyone feels uncertain about it, then you don't even have to call yourself Wiccan. You can call yourself Pagan, or a Spiritual Warrior, or Child of the Gods, etc..... whatever you feel connected to.

I also think comparing being Wiccan to being a doctor is so not on the same lines (those Wiccan men used that comparison too with the word Lady, and it failed). Same as being a policeman, etc. There is not one institution for people to go to in order to become a Wiccan or High Priest or Priestess. Like, becoming a Catholic priest - you have to go through the proper training which is all organized and falls under one - The Pope and the Vatican. Wiccans do not have anything like that. There is no "official hierarchy" and so you just can't compare these apples to oranges because they are so different. Same with becoming a doctor of medicine. You have to study things and pass things that are unified under one System. It is organized and all under One. You know what I mean? You don't have someone learning to be a doctor by someone who finds an ad in the back of a pagan (or health) newsletter. They need to go to the official places to learn. But Wiccans don't have that kind of official place. If someone does become initiated, there is no where to document it for all the world to see as being official, like a doctor or policeman. You have all these different covens who are not even offiliated with one another most often. A doctor can't study from another doctor, and then that other doctor gives them a diploma and they can start practicing medicine.

But - I am rambling.

La Fortuna

July 11th, 2006, 12:44 PM

Hi all!:wave:
Well, this is very interesting. . .

I am NOT Wiccan, I am Kemetic and new to the forums.

Looking from the outside in, it appears that in our society we are too hung up on titles and status.

Personally I believe titles have to be earned. I believe they can be earned in a solitary fashion. I think most of us believe that a title carries more weight when given to us by the"guru". Maybe the reason for that is that they usually have more experience and know more about the practice.

As a Kemetic, there is no recent provenance and therefore, everything has to be reconstructed. Fortunately, there are copious amounts of text on the issue of Egyptian religion. Thus, it is easier to have a somewhat solitary practice.

Provenance has something to do with validity of practice but not everything.
If a group can trace its provenance and carry on the tradition of the group, all the better for them.

As a solitary practitioner, the only gauge one has to know if one is practicing correctly is the manifestation of actual physical proof.

If there is no proof, then one may want to seek the guidance of the coven or person qualified to guide the person to success.

It is my opinion that some people get just to possessive of their title and position, they get on a power trip. The person wants to be followed because they think they are exclusively right. Some Wiccans I have met are not interested in a democracy they are quite happy to exist in their ivory tower and command. Others I have known are extremely democratic and without losing the essence and tradition of the group.

I think the things one must be most concerned about are these:
Are people diluting the Wiccan practice? How are they diluting it? What steps should one take to avoid a diluted practice? What is the provenance of the practice? And, How can I stay true to the provenance as a solitary practitioner? Does it really matter what others think about what I believe?

Just my POV. I hope that the Wiccan community finds unity. There are enough "enemies" of Wicca without all this fighting from within. This is how practices are destroyed. . . from within.

Again, just my POV, I wish all of you the best of luck and happiness.

La F:heartthrortuna

Lovehound

July 18th, 2006, 05:49 AM

This is the sort of elitist thinking that I thought Christians were only guilty of. Interesting

Hrm. I suppose I can see that, since one could make a case for the idea of one not being a true Christian until one has been baptized; it's their "initiation" as it were.

But on the other hand, the concept of initiation is a very old and venerable one, and is there for a purpose - to BE elitist. To separate the wheat from the chaff. To figure out who has what it takes to be part of a certain group (in this case, Wicca) and who doesn't.

If one has worked hard to earn a place and proven oneself, one has a right to be elitist. The person shouldn't have to go around apologizing for his or her excellence. That's BS.

Phoenix Blue

July 18th, 2006, 06:06 AM

If one has worked hard to earn a place and proven oneself, one has a right to be elitist. The person shouldn't have to go around apologizing for his or her excellence.
However, let's also make a clear distinction between what you call elitism and arrogance. One is quiet about itself and need not be mentioned in conversation; the other is more than happy to tell you all about itself.

I still remember a conversation on BeliefNet about six years ago that involved someone who tried to back up his arguments with the fact that he was such-and-such degree from this or that tradition and knew all these important people. I told him, I don't care--your pedigree doesn't automatically make your arguments valid.

Lovehound

July 18th, 2006, 04:27 PM

Well, here's my question...

A LOT of people in the pagan world have this fascination with all things Celtic.

The Gaels were a VERY vainglorious people, given to LOUD BOASTING and huge proclamations of such things as how much loot they'd made off with in the last raid, how fine their cattle were, how fearless they were in battle, how strong they were, or whatever. Bards sang the praises of warriors and kings, and no generous gesture went unsung. They were inclined to a level of self-esteem that would scare the living dog snot out of most people in the modern world. And they expected it out of everyone around them; to be meek and mild was considered an oddity.

SO....

If people wish to emulate the Celts and be "Celtic Wiccans" for example, then do like the Celts and boast your arse off. Have some backbone.

Here's the catch:

You must have done something to EARN the right to boast. You must have something to boast about. It makes one look at oneself and ask, "So, what have I done in the past six months to a year to look back with pride on?"

This business of pride being sinful or wrong or whatever is a Judeo-Christian idea; if people want to be pagans, then be rid of that idea.

I am going to assume most people here have seen "The Incredibles." That movie makes a point about excellence. It is not wrong to be excellent, it is not wrong to boast about being excellent, it is not wrong to encourage excellence. Competition, whether in the form of sports (team or solo) or tests (as in initiation), shows the person just what level of excellence they are at. As I understand it, the Olympic Games were held in honor of the Gods because these people wanted to show off to the Gods. They wanted the Gods to see them at their BEST, as a means of honoring Them.

This is another "hot button" for me. People going around trying not to offend each other or be offensive and apologizing for doing something well. Please.

The very idea is contemptible.

For example, I sing like a lark. I travel to various UU churches with my pagan group and I sing the solos and chants and postludes. If I had money, I'd hook up with a local pagan recording studio and create my own CD of pagan songs and chants, but he's not cheap ($40/hour). And I work full time and don't have a lot of time to devote to being in the studio.

But I can outsing most people I know. Should I not boast about this? No. I have this skill, it is something that just seems to run in my family, so I use it.

Same idea.