Are Solitary Wiccans real wiccans?

[David19]

This is something that came up on another 'pagan' forum that i'm a member of, it's a UK one, basically one of the posts said that wicca was not a solitary religion, and that you can be a solitary witch or other magical practicioner, you can't be a solitary wiccan, i was just wondering, does anyone agree with this, would you think covens (specifically Gardnerian and Alexandrian covens) are the only 'correct' form of wicca or do you think being a solitary is ok.

Are there any Gardnerian's (or Alexandrian's) here, what are your thoughts?, do you think solitary wicca is a 'correct' form.

If you are in a coven, what do you think of his wicca: a guide for the solitary practicioner, since i think i read somewhere that it started the Solitary movement, also, does anyone know if Scott Cunningham was in a coven, as i read on a site that he was initated into a traditional wiccan coven (i'm not sure if it was Gardnerian or Alexandrian or what).

BTW, i'm not attacking solitary wiccans, i'm just curious what everyone else thinks.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?.

[Lunacie]

This has been covered extensively, and recently, in several threads around here. Mebbe you could read one or two of them and then share your own thoughts with us?

[amakaliani]

wow, its like you posted this thread just for me!! Ha! Anyway. I have struggled with the whole Wicca vs. Pagan thing for a long time now. As I have found in my studies..... this is my opinion.

If you are a Wiccan - by the true definittion of a Wiccan.. then I seriously doubt anyone would be considered a wiccan if they did not follow the paths tradition, however, i also feel that at some point everyone might have referred to themselves as Wiccan have done so becuase they had either not chosen a path yet, -OR- did not KNOW enough to choose a path and become knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

I myself am considered Wiccan by Law - I am an ordaiened Minister. However, the law is the only entity that sees me as such. I am an eclectic pagan and have just now chosen the Path of Kitchen Witch.

(Wicca did not come to this country till the mid 50's or so... so they wind up being the most obvious path choice. This comes from an uneducated public across the board. And this is why, now that I have gotten a little further in my training and age, try my best to educate people should they desire the information. Wicca is also the only path accepted by the US government. Therefore, wiccan or not, I am wiccan.)

revhpskaliani of Cyber Moon Coven


BTW- thanks for the thread. It helped to order some of my thoughts.....

[Incendia]

Yes!

[Elderbush]

No!

Seriously look at the threads first? It's been done half to death recently. :)

[Lunacie]

Yes!

I agree. :T




No!

Seriously look at the threads first? It's been done half to death recently. :)


Yeah, that's what I said.

[amakaliani]

well i saw this one, and thought I would reply........

[Ben Gruagach]

Here's a link to one of the other threads on this topic (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=97585).

[MysticWitch]

U dont have to be initiated to be of any religion. The entire blessing/baptismal stuff is great for a person's personal choice but you can be ever so devoted to a path and follow it.

[shuvanilu]

Thanks for the link to the pre-existing thread. Interesting read. And just for my quick answer, I just pinched my own butt, and let me assure you: I am real. ---shuvanilu

[Erincelt]

If you are in a coven, what do you think of his wicca: a guide for the solitary practicioner, since i think i read somewhere that it started the Solitary movement
While I think this thread is covered, I just had to respond to this isolated statement. While Cunningham gets (deserved) credit for targeting Solitaries, note that such already existed when his books were published. The earliest promotion of Solitary forms of practice I have personally encountered and can recall, is in the writings of the Farrars ("The Witches' Way", 1984 -- also reprinted in "A Witches' Bible"). It is also worth noting, again, that in said book they acknowledge the existance, already, of Solitary practicioners. They are not so much promoting a new idea, but rather suggesting good practices and resources for such individuals. It appears that the phenomenon of the Solitary was its own creatrix.

[David19]

While I think this thread is covered, I just had to respond to this isolated statement. While Cunningham gets (deserved) credit for targeting Solitaries, note that such already existed when his books were published. The earliest promotion of Solitary forms of practice I have personally encountered and can recall, is in the writings of the Farrars ("The Witches' Way", 1984 -- also reprinted in "A Witches' Bible"). It is also worth noting, again, that in said book they acknowledge the existance, already, of Solitary practicioners. They are not so much promoting a new idea, but rather suggesting good practices and resources for such individuals. It appears that the phenomenon of the Solitary was its own creatrix.

Sorry i didn't know there were other threads on it. About the Cunningham thing, i thought that he was the first to 'publicise' the solitary wiccan movement, i didn't know there was one (well, i thought there were solitary wiccans who had left a coven, like Doreen Vialiente, but i didn't know there were wiccans that had never joined a coven pre-Cunningham), i think the only reason i mentioned him was because so many 'traditional' wiccans have a go at him (like the site Keep Wicca Traditional and various others).

Anyway, thanks for correcting me on it, and again sorry to repeat a thread :).

[Kudzu]

No!

Seriously look at the threads first? It's been done half to death recently. :)

I agree!

I agree!

[Dustypuppy]

of course, if one is sincere in following ones path,to true oneself and respecting of others then they,may if they so wish call themselves 'Wiccan'. I think concentrating on inititiations and 'only a witch can make a witch' alienates many, reminding people of various mainstream religions that insist on say ' baptism' in order to be fully recognised. To me this appears to be the case in certain traditional Wiccan groups, in the end who makes up the ideal definition of what a Wiccan is or should be, there are certainly similar beliefs common to many Wiccans, yet not all adhere strictly to these, if one does not follow the herd then does this make one any less a person in this respect. The divine is immanent, within all of us, we are all sacred, and therefore have the right to contact and acess the divine through solitary Wiccan work as well as that of covens.x

[MoonDragn]

I personally think it is all just a label. Call yourself whatever you want to. It really only matters to yourself. Your spiritual path is your own. How you reach enlightenment is up to you. Slapping a label on it should not matter either way.

[Erincelt]

There is a truth to this, and then there is an unreachable idealism. The problem is that labels are an application of language, and language is, by definition (recursive irony!), a utensil used to communicate/transfer information between two or more people. If a label is not used consistantly then it becomes a virus in the organism of human communication. The meaning once symbolized by the label, is then dead, and a precious element of collective knowledge gets a sledgehammer to the face.

So yes, choose whatever labels you wish to for yourself, or even avoid labels altogether. Yes, only accept those labels which you choose for yourself, and be highly skeptical of any labels sent at you from others.

However, never, ever, ever, abuse or misuse a label. Never ever call something what it isn't (this is a two-way effect!), or else you poison language, thereby poison our ability as humans to exchange knowledge.

Or maybe I'm getting a little too deep about it. ;)

[ancestral_lee]

check out the other threads, there was one that got huge and REALLY did cover it all.

i dont want to go over it all again.

:(

[Lunacie]

There is a truth to this, and then there is an unreachable idealism. The problem is that labels are an application of language, and language is, by definition (recursive irony!), a utensil used to communicate/transfer information between two or more people. If a label is not used consistantly then it becomes a virus in the organism of human communication. The meaning once symbolized by the label, is then dead, and a precious element of collective knowledge gets a sledgehammer to the face.

So yes, choose whatever labels you wish to for yourself, or even avoid labels altogether. Yes, only accept those labels which you choose for yourself, and be highly skeptical of any labels sent at you from others.

However, never, ever, ever, abuse or misuse a label. Never ever call something what it isn't (this is a two-way effect!), or else you poison language, thereby poison our ability as humans to exchange knowledge.

Or maybe I'm getting a little too deep about it. ;)

I think is a very good point about language. Say what you mean and mean what you say, eh?

[Ben Gruagach]

However, never, ever, ever, abuse or misuse a label. Never ever call something what it isn't (this is a two-way effect!), or else you poison language, thereby poison our ability as humans to exchange knowledge.

Language changes and evolves whether we like it or not. I'm not sure that considering changes to be misuse, poisoning, etc. can do much to stop inevitable change.

In any case, it is true that the main points of this thread have all been covered in a huge amount of depth in other discussions (often over and over again) as these are perennial debates. I'm not sure that there will ever be a final decision made on most of these things as it's pretty much impossible in a community like ours with no central authority structure (no single holy scripture, no single pope or whatever) so getting a diverse group like all Wiccans, all Witches, or all Pagans to agree to a single thing is immensely hard to do.

[Erincelt]

Sure changes happen. Language evolves like anything else does. But there is a difference between natural evolution of a language and a random assertion. The latter just fuels confusion, while the former reflects legitimate (whether good or bad) change in the society that uses that language. Would it be meaningful for me to gather a few friends and start to assert that one can be Buddhist without believing in the Three Jewels? No, no it sure wouldn't. The Jewels define Buddhism, and so any usage that rejects them is meaningless. The same can be said here, and that's my only point. If you are going to call what you do Wicca, then make sure it fits the bill.

I understand what you are saying about it being impossible to get a unanimous agreement out of Wiccans-at-large... I mean hell, aren't we exemplifying that right now? ;) I don't expect anyone to pull that off (although I've been pondering ways... that's for another discussion) but it is possible to do a little research and get a good feel for the generally embraced foundation. All Wiccans utilize a certain sort of ritual formula, yes? All Wiccans believe in the polarity of the divine, and the immanence of the divine, yes? All Wiccans believe in the reality of the art and science of magic, yes? All Wiccans embrace concurrent Freedom and Responsibility, yes?

See, that wasn't so hard. :) And if I'm not 100% dead on with any of those statements, I'm bound to at least describe a notable majority -- the deviants are just examples of where evolution may well be occuring.

[Amythyst]

Why not?

I myself am a solitary eclectic witch and a half-hearted Wiccan. I don't like anything that gets too organized. It loses the spontaneity and creativity that made it appealing in the first place. And then you always get a hierarchial system going...those that are suppose to follow and those that like to tell the followers what to do-- that sounds an awful lot like main stream religions to me.

A couple years ago my sister attended the Witches' Ball in Denver. She said most of the evening was pretty fun, but then it came to the formal ritual. She told me that it was actually boring, a lot like sitting through a Christian church service. (Ughh! I remember those from childhood.)

The beauty of Paganism is that everyone can do their own thing...:rant:

[SquareC]

I spent my first two years of Wicca in an Alexandrian Coven, 2nd degree initiate by the end of that. The last 18 years of my life I have been Solitary. I still consider myself just as Wiccan now as I did then, although my path has followed a long and winding course.

[coeur]

Most people believe that solitary Wiccans are also Wiccans. However, some covens believe otherwise. It's a personal preference of belief.

[PhoenixfireLune]

The funny thing is, most people usually confuse the "solitaries aren't Wiccan" thing. Traditionals never actually state that Wiccans can't be solitary, because it perfectly plausable to be trained, initiated and then leave the coven setting to practice on one's own. So solitaries are just as valid as long as they are initiated first. ^^

[Elderbush]

Actually, that is wrong. I've run into two Gardnerians now who do not consider anyone Wiccan who has left the coven setting and are practicing as a solitary, even if they were Gardnerian. So I'd change that to "some" traditionalists believe it's ok, after initiation. :)

[PhoenixfireLune]

I guess that would be the case then :) I've only ever met two initiated Wiccans in the past (one Gardnerian, one BTW), so generalisations would be a bad thing lol. I suppose it's one of those "what do you think" things :lol:

[AkashaW]

I've been a Gardnerian HPS for 13 years, and I'd have to say that yes, Solitary practioners are Wiccan. If they are validly initiated into any particular Tradition, they're also of that Tradition (barring, in the case of Gardnerians, certain oathbound conditions), whether or not they are currently practicing it. IMO, "Wiccan" is a broad term which describes anyone who honors the Old Gods. Personally, when I describe myself I usually call myself a Witch, and use the term "Wiccan" as an adjective rather than a noun.

[PhoenixfireLune]

I have to say this board is a breath of fresh air. Akasha, your view is similar to the one I'm used to with regards to solitaries... though I know an ex 1st degree Gardnerian who would argue tooth and nail against such comments as "IMO, "Wiccan" is a broad term which describes anyone who honors the Old Gods." :lol:
It's nice to see others who are of different opinions :D And a Gardnerian HPS no less! ^^

[IsauraStrider]

I think it's kind of unfair to say that solitary wiccans aren't true Wiccans. I personally would love to be in a coven but my situation and the situation of my city prevents this. First I was far too young to be excepted into any coven when I first found Wicca because my parents didn't aprove of my beliefs. When I finally was old enough I joined a Pagan Unitarian Universalist coven but that coven fell apart within a year. Now the situation of the city isn't helping. I live in New Orleans and as you all know Katrina did a number on the whole Gulf Coast. Many people have moved away. The local Occult store I loved going to is burned down and the other occult store in the French Quarter is only open like 3 or 4 days out of the week. Covens looking for members here are few if any. So it's a bit unfair to say that just because I can't find a coven where I live means I'm not a real Wiccan.

[Maitane]

From my experience, there are very few that believe that you can't be true Wiccan if you are solitary,even among the Gardnerians that I have met. If you follow a Wiccan path then you are Wiccan and few have an issue with that. The problem comes in when people following many different paths or simply something completely different call it Wiccan instead of Pagan or whatever name the tradition might have. There are a few friends of mine on different paths that are quite insulted when people call them Wiccan as a catch all.

It does come down to language evolving as mentioned earlier and traditional Wiccans seem to be fighting a losing battle with generalization. Here in the south you have people who call any brown carbonated beverage coke whether it is pepsi, coca cola or RC, or something else. A q-tip is now a common name instead of cotton swab despite it being only a particular brand. Its the same sort of thing, many people call every pagan Wiccan no matter what path they follow.

[Meabh23]

The idea of being a "true" Wiccan is sort of immature.


As to the whole solitary thing. If you believe and agree with a certain religion or path, then so be it. You don't have to be in a group to accept a certain path or belief system.

[tybaby718]

Define "real" wiccan. To me (being a solitary myself) saying that a solitary wiccan cannot be a real wiccan is like saying a Christian who does not go to church is not a real Christian.

In my opinion spirituality is a very personal thing and if you follow the beliefs of a religion, if you find comfort in it ect. then thats all that matters and that makes you "real".

[tybaby718]

The funny thing is, most people usually confuse the "solitaries aren't Wiccan" thing. Traditionals never actually state that Wiccans can't be solitary, because it perfectly plausable to be trained, initiated and then leave the coven setting to practice on one's own. So solitaries are just as valid as long as they are initiated first. ^^

In the case of eclectic wicca though (which is what I practice/follow) there isnt the same sort of need to be initiated so does that then mean that they are not real wiccans?

I'm just as knowledgeable/trained/whatever you'd like to call it as if I would be were I to be initiated but I havent been. Given the area that I live in is fairly Christian, I have yet to find a coven close to my area so I decided to practice as a solitary.

As I said in my above comment, I belive spirituality is a personal thing and as long as you have conviction in your faith then I dont feel its right for you to not be considered a real wiccan but thats just MHO.

[Meabh23]

I agree.

Initiation doesn't necessarily make one into a Wiccan anymore than getting baptized would make one a Christian. It is simply a community oriented declaration and ritual experience that confers recognition by others. What you have going on in your mind may be another matter.

On the other side, I won't knock the initiation experience because it is potent under auspicious conditions and I was very lucky to have entered the religion formally in that way. But I was already a Wiccan before that experience. It was just a confirmation. Much like a wedding confirms a commitment to loving someone.

I stay away from the whole "who is really Wiccan" debate because it is childish and I think Wiccans have better things to do with our time. If you believe in it, you want to share our rituals, worship with us, or at least practice some of what we do on your own, that's your right to do so. Not all Wiccans make it to coven gatherings. Not all even start going.

Not all Christians go to church. Many of them don't even bother going.

Based on this, you can tell I am all for solitaries calling themselves Wiccan.

[tybaby718]

I agree.

Initiation doesn't necessarily make one into a Wiccan anymore than getting baptized would make one a Christian. It is simply a community oriented declaration and ritual experience that confers recognition by others. What you have going on in your mind may be another matter.

On the other side, I won't knock the initiation experience because it is potent under auspicious conditions and I was very lucky to have entered the religion formally in that way. But I was already a Wiccan before that experience. It was just a confirmation. Much like a wedding confirms a commitment to loving someone.

I stay away from the whole "who is really Wiccan" debate because it is childish and I think Wiccans have better things to do with our time. If you believe in it, you want to share our rituals, worship with us, or at least practice some of what we do on your own, that's your right to do so. Not all Wiccans make it to coven gatherings. Not all even start going.

Not all Christians go to church. Many of them don't even bother going.

Based on this, you can tell I am all for solitaries calling themselves Wiccan.

I would never knock the initiation experiance :)

At a certain point I would have very much liked to go through it myself, I probably would have sold my first born to be a part of a coven. Now after so many years of being a solitary though, I've shifted to being perfectly happy to practice on my own just becuase like I said, spirituality is very personal for me and I prefer to keep it that way :)

I agree that its a somewhat childish debate.

[Magus]

You can be a wiccan and never be part of a coven. you know, you can be a christian and never go to church neither. What im trying to said is wicca is a path not a social club. If you want you can join a coven or study alone and at your own pace, thats my case.

[Jadewynd~]

Well, I really thought more that twice to answer this thread. Just because I have my own opinion and I am not here to knock anyone elses opinion. But, I am also a solitary wiccan. From the readings I have read of Scott Cunningham and Kerr Cuhulain. Wicca can be whatever you want to make it, there is so set rule or guideline that says you have to practice a wicca certain way. In fact the wiccan that changes their form of practice does not get locked into conformity. Wicca is not about conformity. Yes, there are certain Wiccan laws that as Wiccan you should heed. But, you do not have to be initiated by another coven member to practice Wicca. If wish to be in a coven that is your choice and in order to enter you must be initiated into the coven by a priest or priestess of that coven. But, being in a coven does not make your magic more true or what ever deties you work with listen to you any more closely. It based on intention and a gradual attunment with natural world around you. According to Scott Cunnigham "When the old ways have become a part of your life and your relationship with the Goddess and God is strong, when you have gathered your tools and performed the rites and magic out of joy, you are truly of the spirit and rightly call yourself "Wiccan". I do think that is a little limiting that statement but, it does have some truth. That is the attunment to nature the male and female force, the chaotic and non-chaotic force of nature. But also, there are many people who practice Wicca in various ways with other influences, as I am one of them.

Kerr Cuhulain would say that collecting the tools for the craft is only part of it . People get caught up that in order to give birth to magic you must have all the neccessary tools. That wrong, it's you giving birth to the magic not your athame. Those tools are only there to assist. And, just as there isn't one right religion there isn't one correct way to do magick and to practice Wicca; its what works for you. Because, we are all different.

My own opinion is in the mind set of Kerr Cuhulain and Scott Cunningham. I may seem like a text book Wiccan but, what wiccan isn't learning from books, research, forums, nature etc to expand themselves. Above all, I don't like labels and if I don't qualify by others as a Wiccan because I am a solitary wiccan then so be it. I ve found my own calling and I will not label myself as a Wiccan or Solitary wiccan, whatever. I have my own spiritual path as, everyone has found the one that fits there's.

[Meabh23]

...Wicca can be whatever you want to make it, there is so set rule or guideline that says you have to practice a wicca certain way...

While I agree with solitaries being Wiccan and I think there is a certain amount of flexibility in Wicca, I cann't agree with this statement. I don't see Wicca as anything anyone wants to make it out to be. Otherwise, why call yourself Wiccan or anything else for that matter? To me, Wicca has a set of core beliefs, approaches, and ritual structures and from those bases individual variation and creativity comes into play. But it can't just be "anything you want it to be." There is a need for at least some common beliefs and practices. Or why even bother with the label?

Otherwise you can have someone who worships rabbits and believes that Elder Gods are coming one day to eat all humanity call themselves Wiccan. Such a person's beliefs might be interesting, and they certainly have a right to hold them, but calling such "Wiccan" would only muddle things up.

[Jadewynd~]

While I agree with solitaries being Wiccan and I think there is a certain amount of flexibility in Wicca, I cann't agree with this statement. I don't see Wicca as anything anyone wants to make it out to be. Otherwise, why call yourself Wiccan or anything else for that matter? To me, Wicca has a set of core beliefs, approaches, and ritual structures and from those bases individual variation and creativity comes into play. But it can't just be "anything you want it to be." There is a need for at least some common beliefs and practices. Or why even bother with the label?

Otherwise you can have someone who worships rabbits and believes that Elder Gods are coming one day to eat all humanity call themselves Wiccan. Such a person's beliefs might be interesting, and they certainly have a right to hold them, but calling such "Wiccan" would only muddle things up.


Yes, that is true that why in my pervious statement I said "Yes, there are certain Wiccan laws that as Wiccan you should heed." That applies also to wiccan rituals and other wiccan guidelines. But, how you choose to approach those rituals will vary from each person. Take 2 wiccans that are practicing rituals on the Sabbats or ritual moon phases monthly. They will not follow the same step by step ritual. But they are celebrating the important Wiccan days and what they represent but, in there own fashion. The meaning is there regardless of how you choose to celebrate.

Even if they do believe one day the Elder Gods are coming to eat all of humanity and worship rabbits. If they are still practicing along certain Wiccan traditions then they can still be called a Wiccan. Upholding Wicca goals, laws, sabbats, calling the corners performing the rituals etc. I only think people who aren't open minded enough are the ones that muddle things up by creating a problem where one does not exist. If it works for that individual and they can think out side of the box then good, they are growing. If not then Wicca is becoming like every other religion, you believe in x well you are outcasted. Chistianity is the prime example, how many people have left that religion in recent years. Believe in something that is not Christian like your are outcasted. People get caught up in the rituals, the label and forget the purpose is spiritual development. Adding new thoughts and practices to old practices avoids stagnation without taking away the core foundation of Wicca.

[ladymousewitch]

I'm adding my own personal opinion to the main question... with a question answer of my own... If to "be a true wiccan" means you have to be in a coven... does that mean we as wiccans have to convert people or drive miles out of town if no one in our town/city/village is wiccan? NO I think not... I for one do not believe in "converting" as many people in other religons and even people who don't have a religon put it... so to answer your question with a yes or no answer... I'd say no you don't have to be in a coven to be a "true wiccan"

[Meabh23]

Yes, that is true that why in my pervious statement I said "Yes, there are certain Wiccan laws that as Wiccan you should heed." That applies also to wiccan rituals and other wiccan guidelines. But, how you choose to approach those rituals will vary from each person. Take 2 wiccans that are practicing rituals on the Sabbats or ritual moon phases monthly. They will not follow the same step by step ritual. But they are celebrating the important Wiccan days and what they represent but, in there own fashion. The meaning is there regardless of how you choose to celebrate.

Even if they do believe one day the Elder Gods are coming to eat all of humanity and worship rabbits. If they are still practicing along certain Wiccan traditions then they can still be called a Wiccan. Upholding Wicca goals, laws, sabbats, calling the corners performing the rituals etc. I only think people who aren't open minded enough are the ones that muddle things up by creating a problem where one does not exist. If it works for that individual and they can think out side of the box then good, they are growing. If not then Wicca is becoming like every other religion, you believe in x well you are outcasted. Chistianity is the prime example, how many people have left that religion in recent years. Believe in something that is not Christian like your are outcasted. People get caught up in the rituals, the label and forget the purpose is spiritual development. Adding new thoughts and practices to old practices avoids stagnation without taking away the core foundation of Wicca.

I can accept this and agree with it...but with the caveat that there is no religion that is really stagnating. "Every other religion" is also growing and changing with creativity and time. There are in each religious group, those who want to dogmatize and those who want to keep it open. Please don't assume that Wicca is any more creative or open to growth than the rest. I know it is flattering to think that way and it is flattering to here that about our religion, but others are just as vibrant and valid for their followers too. Loving Wicca, doesn't mean looking down upon or misunderstanding other religions. Those people may misunderstand you and Wicca, but you don't have to misunderstand them.

Anyway, back to my point. I accept that there is a basic framework which allows for a lot of individual variance. That works for me.

[Jadewynd~]

For me wicca is more of a way than a religion. Live and let live. What works for me doesn't work for everyone else and the reverse. I have never looked down any other religion in fact I take certain morals and laws from other religions. Again, that is what works for me.

[David19]

I know some Gardnerian, Alexandrian Wiccan's, etc who would say that while people can find a fufilment being solitary, they can't experience the mysteries of Wicca 'cause for that there has to be an initation, from what i've read, it seems like there's a lot more to initation than meets the eye.

Some would say that solitary Wiccan's wouldn't be practicing the same religion as Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Moshian(sp?), etc Wiccan's, and some seem to make a distinction between Wiccan's (initiated Wiccan's with liniege(sp?)), and wiccan's (small w, solitary, etc).

I'm not sure how many might agree with that, though.

[Elderbush]

No, a person who is a solitary isn't practicing the Wiccan religion in the same way as a member of a coven. (In one case the person is alone and the other, with people.) No, an Alexandrian is not practicing the religion in the same way as a Gardnerian or a Georgian. (Different traditions have different practices.)

But then neither are Presbyterians and Catholics practicing Christianity in the same way and yet they still fall under that handy Christian umbrella just like lots of different traditions and solitaries fall under the Wiccan umbrella. Just because everyone does not practice Wicca in the same way as X tradition or X solitary, it does not mean that they are not allowed under the Wiccan umbrella. Having "some" people say that other people are not Wiccan because others don't do it their way, doesn't take away their Wiccaness either.

The bottom line is David, it doesn't matter what "some" people say.

[WiccanGoddess]

*goes to speak, but reads Elderbush's post, sighing*

What Elderbush said.

[Lunacie]

I know some Gardnerian, Alexandrian Wiccan's, etc who would say that while people can find a fufilment being solitary, they can't experience the mysteries of Wicca 'cause for that there has to be an initation, from what i've read, it seems like there's a lot more to initation than meets the eye.

Some would say that solitary Wiccan's wouldn't be practicing the same religion as Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Moshian(sp?), etc Wiccan's, and some seem to make a distinction between Wiccan's (initiated Wiccan's with liniege(sp?)), and wiccan's (small w, solitary, etc).

I'm not sure how many might agree with that, though.

Some Wiccans can speak for some Wiccan traditions, but they cannot speak for Wicca as a whole.

I agree that there are some who say they are Wiccan but do not really follow the core beliefs and practices that make Wicca a real and distinct religion separate from any other religions, but initiation is only one of the practices and for me it's not a deal-breaker.

[WiccanGoddess]

Some Wiccans can speak for some Wiccan traditions, but they cannot speak for Wicca as a whole.


Can anyone truly speak on any religion as a whole?


I agree that there are some who say they are Wiccan but do not really follow the core beliefs and practices that make Wicca a real and distinct religion separate from any other religions, but initiation is only one of the practices and for me it's not a deal-breaker.

For me, the 'deal breaker' is how one handles themselves in situations.

[Njorun Alma]

A true Wiccan... What is a true Wiccan anyway? If you asked 10 different Wiccans you'd get 10 different answers. And who's to say that if a solitary Wiccan today were to start up their own coven and modify what they have learned and read into their own tradition and start to initiate people into it that, a few decades from now, said tradition could have outgrown the other traditions when it comes to members?

Yes, an initiation is a good way to know if a person pursuing a Wiccan path is devoted, serious and willing to learn more then just reading a few books and then trying to jump on the wagon. But there are a lot of solitary Wiccans out there who might not be able to be initated due to lack of covens in their area and who does not have the oppertunity to move closer to one.

It almost becomes a matter of "if you're lucky enough to find a coven within a 300 miles radius from you and have the means to transport your butt to where they are, AND is lucky enough to be worthy in the eyes of the coven and works well with them you can be initated and call yourself Wiccan".
Fortunately the view on solitary practicioners is becoming more and more open, so...


"Eight words the wiccan rede fullfill; an' it harm none, do what ye will. And ever mind the rule of three; what ye sends out comes back to thee. Follow this with mind and heart, and merry ye meet, and merry ye part"

[Ben Gruagach]

Can anyone truly speak on any religion as a whole?

Some religions are set up with a specific authority structure in place to act as the final judge on matters of faith, practice, and ritual. In the Roman Catholic religion for instance this role is filled by the Pope.

In Christianity as a whole you could say the final authority is the Bible. (Of course there are different versions of the Bible which complicates things, and different ways the Bible can be interpreted...)

There are lots of other religions that have developed which have that central authority structure. And in those cases the top dog in the hierarchy does speak with the ultimate authority for that religion.

[WiccanGoddess]

Yes, but how, in truth, could even the hierarchy speak for a religion, when religion is not authorized by the hierarchy, but by the diety? And how can any mortal ever say what the Diety wants or doesn't want?

And how can a book, a man written book such as the Bible, be final authority? Can I make my "Buffy" books final authority for the "Buffy" 'religion'??

[Ben Gruagach]

Yes, but how, in truth, could even the hierarchy speak for a religion, when religion is not authorized by the hierarchy, but by the diety? And how can any mortal ever say what the Diety wants or doesn't want?

And how can a book, a man written book such as the Bible, be final authority? Can I make my "Buffy" books final authority for the "Buffy" 'religion'??

If you are the founder of the religion you can set whatever rules you want. That's one of the perogatives of a founder.

Is any religion really representative of what ANY deity wants? Religions are all human creations based on what humans think the Divine wants. Because they are all human creations they are all fallible. That includes both religions that have hierarchies and central authority structures as well as non-hierarchical ones that don't have central authorities.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

OK, now this is how I see it. A real Wiccan is anyone who is practicing Wicca. There we go, that's the general statement. Now, different traditions on Wicca may have different restrictions on calling oneself a such-and-such Wiccan.
For example, I recently had my Dedication into the Wiccan Church of Canada, which operates in the Odyssean tradition. The High Priest who did his part of the ritual has his thirds as a Gardnerian and Alexandrian. Does that make me a Gardnerian or Alexandrian? While to a certain extent I wish it did (entirely because then I could go around with a severe magical case of 'my dick is bigger than yours' and, honestly, for NO other reason :P it's entirely the coolness factor. Wait, scratch that, actual Gardnerian Book of Shadows acces. Kay, that's it) , it does not. That merely means I am an Odyssean Wiccan, or, more specifically, an Odyssean-flavoured Wiccan, as I don't do quite what everyone else at church does, at least while they're at church.
As I have not been Initiated in a Circle by a Gardnerian Priestess, properly prepared, I can't go around calling myself a Gardnerian.
Incidentally, all those ornery hard-Gards one hears about should bloody well get off their high horses and stop saying that one can't be a Wiccan unless the above conditions are true. That's sort of like closing the stable doors after the horses have run out, now isn't it?
Really, one is a Real Wiccan (TM) if one loves the Gods. All that Rede crap and Law of Three garbage are meaningless. It's all about the Gods, baby.

[WiccanGoddess]

If you are the founder of the religion you can set whatever rules you want. That's one of the perogatives of a founder.

Is any religion really representative of what ANY deity wants? Religions are all human creations based on what humans think the Divine wants. Because they are all human creations they are all fallible. That includes both religions that have hierarchies and central authority structures as well as non-hierarchical ones that don't have central authorities.

Alas, there is no leader alive to this day that founded a religion. A heirarchy is not a founder.

[Drisel]

I don't believe that you read the same statement as everyone else. It was never said that the heirarchy is a founder. And for that it does not matter if the founder is alive and well or well past on. If those that follow the religion that she/he founded, then they are following the heirarchy of said religion.

[WiccanGoddess]

I read it as the heirarchy has the ability and knowledge to speak for a religion.

Yet, later you said that those who created religion had the knowledge and ability to speak for it. I agree, but if that were the case, why would the heirarchy be able to speak for? They didn't create the religion.

[Drisel]

To whom are you addressing your question?

[WiccanGoddess]

Well, whomever said that the hierarchy has the right to speak for a religion, first off.

And to anyone who cares to answer.

[Eran]

Well, whomever said that the hierarchy has the right to speak for a religion, first off.

You bring up a really good point. Let me expand on it. I have questions, not answers; I have no idea what the solution to the following puzzle is.

It gets back to the definition of what a given religion actually consists of, and who gets to define it.

Is a religion a collection of beliefs and images and myths and gods and rites? Or is it a group of people who use those particular beliefs and images and myths and gods and rites?

Is it the rites, or the beliefs, or the gods, or all these? It is the initial realization and insight that lead to the creation of that particular sect or religion, or is it the way the religion and its rites and beliefs evolves over time?

Are the limits of those beliefs and images and myths and gods and rites defined by the people who founded the religion? Or by the heirarchy of the religion? Or by the mass of members of the religion? Or maybe by the religion's mystics and deepest thinkers and theologians?

And should these things be defined in a practical sense - something like, "A religion is what it is, regardless of what anyone thinks it should be." - Or should they be defined by some theoretical ideal - "This religion strives to accomplish X, and the things which advance that are a part of the religion, the things which are counter to that are not, regardless of what anyone actually does."

And if any of the above-listed groups "gets to" define some aspect of the religion, who gets to decide who is and isn't a member of these various groups? Where do the standards come from?

I have no answer to these questions, and I suspect the "proper" answer (if there is one) changes depending on the circumstances and the specific question being asked. I also suspect that different people have different approaches to these questions, and often get into arguments simplybecause they haven't agreed on where such lines should be drawn, or who should draw them - or even realized that other people have different, but perfectly reasonable, ways of looking at these issues.

[Eran]

Incidentally, all those ornery hard-Gards one hears about should bloody well get off their high horses and stop saying that one can't be a Wiccan unless the above conditions are true. That's sort of like closing the stable doors after the horses have run out, now isn't it?
Really, one is a Real Wiccan (TM) if one loves the Gods. All that Rede crap and Law of Three garbage are meaningless. It's all about the Gods, baby.

As one of those "ornery hard-Gards" myself, please allow me to provide a correction for a very common false impression. I have never, ever, not once heard a Gardnerian ("hard-Gard" or otherwise) claim that unless one meets the criteria you mentioned one is not a Wiccan. No; unless one meets the proper criteria, one is not a Gardnerian.

Yes, we are often accused of the attitude you describe. No, we do not actually believe that.

If you do sometime read a Gardnerian saying the things you describe, please bring it to my attention (i.e., provide an actual attributed quote) so I can help laugh at that person's foolishness.

If, however, you read other people accusing "ornery hard-Gards" of having this attitude, please help to set them straight.

Thanks for you assistence, and for providing the opportunity to correct this stunningly false impression! Your post was every valuable.

(By the way, your reference to "crap" and to "garbage" may be taken by some to be an impolite and rather disrespectful description of someone's dearly-held beliefs. I assume you would not appreciate having your own beliefs referred to in such a fashion. I'm sure your apology would be accepted.)

[XsimpleXsimonX]

If solitary wiccans arent wiccans then who made the first wiccans? I cant see how something like that can be bestowed on someone like its an official thing. Its what you are and what you beleive right?

[Lunacie]

I've read some posts by Wanna-Be-Gardinerians who said such things as "You can't be Wiccan unless you're initiated," etc, etc. But I don't believe I've read where any actual Gardnerians said such things. I've read an awful lot of rhetoric about how anyone who isn't initiated by a proper tradition should not call themselves Wiccan, but should use words like "NeoWicca" and "NeoPagan" and "Wiccanesque" and "Wanna-Be-Wiccans" and "Wicca Lites", but I can't say whether any of those posters were actually Gardnerians.

[mystic_zoe]

i suppose it is up to the individual to believe that or not. to be honest, personally i think if people want to believe that you have to be initiated then fine, go ahead, because im still going to call myself an eclectic wiccan whether they like it or not, because i dont believe that you have to be initiated to be able to call yourself a Wiccan.
(dont know if that sounds harsh, but just trying to get my point across)
xx

[KeaErisdottir]

I've read an awful lot of rhetoric about how anyone who isn't initiated by a proper tradition should not call themselves Wiccan, but should use words like "NeoWicca" and "NeoPagan" and "Wiccanesque" and "Wanna-Be-Wiccans" and "Wicca Lites", but I can't say whether any of those posters were actually Gardnerians.
Well, on the face of it, if you cannot definitively identify what you practice as Wicca, and practice something that is based on Wicca, new, invented, or syncretized, that has little other than a handful of buzzwords and some ritual similarities to Wicca, then it stands to reason that "NeoWicca" or "NeoPagan" are more appropriate terms to use. Further, Bonewits, in an essay that was entirely too turgid, basically said we're all Neopagans anyway--we're not basing our practices on the assumption that we live in the ancient world and very few Wiccans are living their lives on the assumptions put forward by Gardner.

The suffix 'esque' is understood to mean that something bears a resemblance or flavoring of, so in cases where about the only thing that makes it 'wiccan' is a vague following of a Circle casting procedure, or lip service to the existence of the God and Goddess, then "Wiccanesque" is perfectly apt.

And to that end, there have always been wannabes and lightweights seeking to squeak by and use names and titles that inflate their self-esteem at the expense of those around them. Sorry, but a teenage girl basing her practice of Wicca on "Charmed" or "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is both a wannabe and a lightweight. Anyone operating on the basis of near-total ignorance, claiming to be something, expecting acceptance is going to pretty much meet with resistance, and I have no problem with that.

[Lunacie]

Oh I understand that there really are people who use the label of Wiccan when they only have a vague understanding of the religion. I was just saying that I don't feel that initiation is the main criteria for claiming the label of Wiccan.

If the label Pagan was only to apply to those who are following previous, and possibly ancient, Pagan traditions, then sure we'd all be Neo-Pagans. But I think Pagan is a perfectly good label for many of the non-Abrahamic traditions that have evolved and are being practiced today.

Wicca is new enough as a religion/tradition that it seems a little odd to call any of the off-shoots "neo" at this time. They either are close enough to the core beliefs and practices to be called Wicca, or they are not enough like Wicca to honestly claim that label.

[KeaErisdottir]

Oh I understand that there really are people who use the label of Wiccan when they only have a vague understanding of the religion. I was just saying that I don't feel that initiation is the main criteria for claiming the label of Wiccan.

Excellent. Then you would also have to agree that it is appropriate to label their beliefs and religious practices accordingly. There are many small Wiccan-flavored belief systems that certainly do not meet a core beliefs tst for being Wiccan, and therefore, no matter how loud the adherents yell about it, should not be classed as a legitimate form of Wicca.

If the label Pagan was only to apply to those who are following previous, and possibly ancient, Pagan traditions, then sure we'd all be Neo-Pagans. But I think Pagan is a perfectly good label for many of the non-Abrahamic traditions that have evolved and are being practiced today.

I would not call a religion Pagan simply because it was non-Abrahamic. The world is much more complex and diverse than that. However, on the question of the Bonewits essay, there are divisions of paleo-, meso-, and neo- paganisms. Almost ALL modern pagan religions fall into the neo- category, with only a very few that make the cut to be considered meso-. Bonewits recognizes no groups who would be considered paleopagan.

Wicca is new enough as a religion/tradition that it seems a little odd to call any of the off-shoots "neo" at this time. They either are close enough to the core beliefs and practices to be called Wicca, or they are not enough like Wicca to honestly claim that label.

While I agree that it would be better for those not truly practising a legitimate form of Wicca to not call themselves Wiccan, that is not the world we live in. Consumer Commodity Wicca is a product that is bought and sold, where the piece you buy is 'yours', which is another in the long list of problems with the selling of teachings in general.

But why would you consider it odd, when there are plenty of people calling themselves 'reformed', 'orthodox', or 'fundamentalist'(in the sense of adhering to fundamental principles, NOT in the sense of the popular conception of religious fundamentalism.) There has to be a point at which differentiation occurs, and since there are legitimate trads with distinctive names of their own, subclassing the myriad belief systems spawned by too-close proximity to woefully incomplete or inadequate information, or simply spawned by some level of syncretism as a 'neo' is not unreasonable.

[Lunacie]

Excellent. Then you would also have to agree that it is appropriate to label their beliefs and religious practices accordingly. There are many small Wiccan-flavored belief systems that certainly do not meet a core beliefs tst for being Wiccan, and therefore, no matter how loud the adherents yell about it, should not be classed as a legitimate form of Wicca.

Well, I thought that was what I actually said.

I would not call a religion Pagan simply because it was non-Abrahamic. The world is much more complex and diverse than that. However, on the question of the Bonewits essay, there are divisions of paleo-, meso-, and neo- paganisms. Almost ALL modern pagan religions fall into the neo- category, with only a very few that make the cut to be considered meso-. Bonewits recognizes no groups who would be considered paleopagan.

I didn't say I would call a religion "Pagan" just because it was non-Abrahamic. I said that "many of the non-Abrahamic traditions" could be called Pagan.

I'd admit, it's been awhile since I've read the word "turgid" to describe what someone has written and I checked the dictionary. But it seems rather apt in the Bonewit's essay you refer to if he says it's necessary to make all those distinctions in the history and lineage of Pagan religions. It's something I find unnecessary and tedious.


While I agree that it would be better for those not truly practising a legitimate form of Wicca to not call themselves Wiccan, that is not the world we live in. Consumer Commodity Wicca is a product that is bought and sold, where the piece you buy is 'yours', which is another in the long list of problems with the selling of teachings in general.

What are you proposing to stop them doing this?

But why would you consider it odd, when there are plenty of people calling themselves 'reformed', 'orthodox', or 'fundamentalist'(in the sense of adhering to fundamental principles, NOT in the sense of the popular conception of religious fundamentalism.) There has to be a point at which differentiation occurs, and since there are legitimate trads with distinctive names of their own, subclassing the myriad belief systems spawned by too-close proximity to woefully incomplete or inadequate information, or simply spawned by some level of syncretism as a 'neo' is not unreasonable.

I don't need all those levels of differentiation. For myself, either it's a duck or it's not a duck at this point. YMMV

[KeaErisdottir]

Well, I thought that was what I actually said.



I didn't say I would call a religion "Pagan" just because it was non-Abrahamic. I said that "many of the non-Abrahamic traditions" could be called Pagan.
What you actually said was "But I think Pagan is a perfectly good label for many of the non-Abrahamic traditions that have evolved and are being practiced today."

To me, this would logically lead to calling Taoists, Buddhists, and Hindus 'pagan', which is not a label that they would apply to themselves, and would be fairly presumptuous to apply to world religions.

What are you proposing to stop them doing this?
Correct labeling.

I don't need all those levels of differentiation. For myself, either it's a duck or it's not a duck at this point. YMMV
This works fine, until it is duck season and you have to be able to identify what kind of duck it is.

[Lunacie]

So, saying that "Pagan is a perfectly good label for many of the non-Abrahamic traditions" isn't the same thing as saying that "many of the non-Abrahamic traditions could be called Pagan"? http://home.mindspring.com/~kevin_elder/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wacko.gif

[David19]

So, saying that "Pagan is a perfectly good label for many of the non-Abrahamic traditions" isn't the same thing as saying that "many of the non-Abrahamic traditions could be called Pagan"? http://home.mindspring.com/~kevin_elder/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wacko.gif

I've just got to say i don't like the word 'pagan' when it's applied to other religions (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, indigineous African religions, Malaysian religions, etc 'cause it would be an insult to those practicioners and the religions involved).

To me, i'd call myself 'pagan' if i was asked about some of my beliefs, just 'cause i agree with some 'Neo-pagan' beliefs (like polytheism (although many seem to be duotheistic), etc), but my beliefs are a lot more complex than just saying 'pagan' (e.g. i don't agree with every Wiccan belief, or Asatru belief, etc)).

Not sure if that makes any sense :).

[Elderbush]

I don't think that you have to agree with every belief of each religion that falls under the Pagan umbrella term to use it, David. Otherwise I doubt that any of us could call ourselves Pagan. Is that what you meant or something else? :wave:

[KeaErisdottir]

I've just got to say i don't like the word 'pagan' when it's applied to other religions (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Sikhism, indigineous African religions, Malaysian religions, etc 'cause it would be an insult to those practicioners and the religions involved).

Indeed, the semantic problem is that one statement assigns pagan beliefs to groups for whom it would be inappropriate to do so, where the other simply assigns pagan beliefs to the groups or individuals espousing them.

[Lunacie]

Sorry, to me they both still say the same thing. Perhaps you could specify which statement you think is inappropriate and which is an appropriate statement?

[Ben Gruagach]

It seems to me that people who dislike being called "pagan" are working under the assumption that it is a derogatory term.

I've seen some members of at least a few of the religions mentioned who had no problem being considered "pagan" -- but I don't doubt there are some who think it is an insult.

It's the same with many other words including "witch." There are people thoughout history who were emphatic they were not witches when the things they practiced and believed were exactly the same as things self-declared witches practiced and believed. It all depends if you think the term is positive or negative.

[Xirian]

I think I see what David is saying and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. But there are some cultures, I remember seeing about one in Africa, where they banish those (men and women) who are considered witches to a camp far away from theirs for life. They have to start from scratch, building their homes and can never return to see their families.

Some people are banished because a family member may have died in their tent or some small incident that may not have been the person in question's fault. They are tried, by having a dead chicken thrown up in the air and however it lands is how they determine who is a witch or not.

The lady they were following was a younger woman who had a child. They let her take her child, but I believe after it is a certain age, they take the child away and she can never see it again.

I think calling someone from this culture a pagan or witch, would be a serious insult to them, even though it appears that they practice a non-Abrahamic religion. I say this because of the way they determine who should be banished or not, and there were some other events in the show that made me believe this as well. To some they may be considered pagan, but to them I'm sure they would be seriously offended. And this may hold true for some of the other cultures David mentioned as well.

[Xentor]

Posted by lita:

I just started learning about wicca. don't really have anyone to talk to about it, so I feel that I am solitary because no one I know really understands it. I found that wicca seems to have many beliefs and ways to live your life that fit me.

[Lunacie]

Indeed, the semantic problem is that one statement assigns pagan beliefs to groups for whom it would be inappropriate to do so, where the other simply assigns pagan beliefs to the groups or individuals espousing them.

Hmm, looks like Kea isn't going to come back and I'll never get my questions answered. Drop in, make a pronouncement, and then leave... your work here is done, eh?

[Erincelt]

Warning: Personal Gnosis Ahead.

It actually seems to me that the difference between the two statements is entirely syntactic and not at all semantic. Semantics describe meaning, and the meaning of the two statements is the same. What is different, is the syntactic (in the case of natural language, grammatic) choices. The diction is identical, the idea is identical: word order is all that changes.

So its a moot point that shouldn't have even come up in serious discussion.

[Lunacie]

Yep. When I asked for clarification I said that, to me, they both say the same thing. Thanks.

[KeaErisdottir]

Warning: Personal Gnosis Ahead.

It actually seems to me that the difference between the two statements is entirely syntactic and not at all semantic. Semantics describe meaning, and the meaning of the two statements is the same. What is different, is the syntactic (in the case of natural language, grammatic) choices. The diction is identical, the idea is identical: word order is all that changes.

So its a moot point that shouldn't have even come up in serious discussion.

I'd like to say that it is unecessary to bring up obvious points like this, because it is in fact the assumption of fact, on the basis of syntax that leads to semantic confusion.

That being said, I find the quaint American Pagan custom of claiming solidarity with non-Abrahamic faiths, by calling them 'pagan', for no other reason than they are non-Abrahamic to be wrong on principle. It is a "we're all the same"-ism that isn't terribly productive. I would think that you'd agree that with the questions of semantics raised in other threads, that simply lumping Wiccans in with Hindus, Animists, and Ancestor Worship from other parts of the world is a challenging proposition.

I will admit completely to being totally anti-collectivist when it comes to paganisms. Every one is unique, different, and not really all that much the same. We do have a certain obligation to figure out why the word 'pagan' is being applied, in the same way we'd apply words like "Gardnerian". ;)

[Kaylara]

Possibly because we can't actually come to any consensus about what exactly 'Pagan' means. We know we're pagan, but damned if we have any idea what that means. ;) I don't think it's just an American Pagan thing, I've seen people from all over the world do the same. Perhaps it would be more productive to expound on what you are discussing in particular in regards to paganism when you mention it?

[Lunacie]

What you actually said was "But I think Pagan is a perfectly good label for many of the non-Abrahamic traditions that have evolved and are being practiced today."

To me, this would logically lead to calling Taoists, Buddhists, and Hindus 'pagan', which is not a label that they would apply to themselves, and would be fairly presumptuous to apply to world religions.


Correct labeling.


This works fine, until it is duck season and you have to be able to identify what kind of duck it is.

Didn't think you were coming back.

I used the word "many" and don't understand how that would "logically" lead anyone to believe it should be used to describe all non-Abrahamic religions as Pagan.

When we're talking in generalities, then Pagan is a perfectly good label. When it's actually necessary to make a more specific identification, then ask the poster exactly what they mean, eh. By calling it "duck season" does that mean you're going to taking pot shots at any specific religion?

[Kaylara]

Rabbit Season!

[Lunacie]

Rabbit Season!

Be more specific please. We need to come to a concensus on how to recognize rabbits before we declare open season. Are they the same as hares? The same as bunnies? Is it only white rabbits or can we also go after brown ones? Are we going to herd them into a pen first? Or is this an individual quest?

http://mysticwicks.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[KeaErisdottir]

I used the word "many" and don't understand how that would "logically" lead anyone to believe it should be used to describe all non-Abrahamic religions as Pagan.

Sorry, but that is really not my issue.

What I have seen in American Paganism, is a disturbing trend to claim several billion Hindus, Animists, and other such faiths with no ties whatsoever to the American Pagan scene, as somehow connected to it. I also remember some particular discussions a few years ago that tried to claim Islam was a Pagan religion, ostensibly because is was not specifically Judeo-Christian.

And as I said, I am totally an unashamed anti-collectivist.

By calling it "duck season" does that mean you're going to taking pot shots at any specific religion?

This quote actually demonstrates the point I am making perfectly. Frame of reference is everything. When I spoke of 'duck season', I also spoke of differentiation as part of the exercise of hunting ducks. The rules of duck hunting require differentiation, because there are limits on what kinds of ducks, and how many of each you are allowed to shoot in a given period of time. Mallards are more numerous and plentiful than Wood Ducks, and both are more common in Ohio than, say, the Gadwall. Loons are certainly 'waterfowl', but are not ducks. The same is true of geese, and swans. You can be jailed for shooting a swan, even accidentally.

So, if you want to talk about broad generalities, it is somewhat important to understand the dividing lines within. My point, and I'm done wasting time on this.

[Elderbush]

I think her point is that you weren't reading her mind, Lunacie, and she was reading things into your words that wasn't there. And we wonder how come countries can't come to agreement. :)

[Lunacie]

Sorry, but that is really not my issue.

Then why did you make it an issue?

What I have seen in American Paganism, is a disturbing trend to claim several billion Hindus, Animists, and other such faiths with no ties whatsoever to the American Pagan scene, as somehow connected to it. I also remember some particular discussions a few years ago that tried to claim Islam was a Pagan religion, ostensibly because is was not specifically Judeo-Christian.

And as I said, I am totally an unashamed anti-collectivist.

Are you implying that I am a collectivist? If so you have misread my post and completely ignored my clarification.


This quote actually demonstrates the point I am making perfectly. Frame of reference is everything. When I spoke of 'duck season', I also spoke of differentiation as part of the exercise of hunting ducks. The rules of duck hunting require differentiation, because there are limits on what kinds of ducks, and how many of each you are allowed to shoot in a given period of time. Mallards are more numerous and plentiful than Wood Ducks, and both are more common in Ohio than, say, the Gadwall. Loons are certainly 'waterfowl', but are not ducks. The same is true of geese, and swans. You can be jailed for shooting a swan, even accidentally.

So, if you want to talk about broad generalities, it is somewhat important to understand the dividing lines within. My point, and I'm done wasting time on this.

It still sounds like you're gunning for some of these religions and want to be sure you target the right one. I don't think the allegory fits the topic in any way.

[KeaErisdottir]

Are you implying that I am a collectivist? If so you have misread my post and completely ignored my clarification.

I believe, simply because you think that I implied that you were collectivist, that there has been some reading-into going on here that has nothing to do with me.

All that was said is that I am very anti-collectivist, and that I find labelling people things that they would not label themselves is inappropriate.

It still sounds like you're gunning for some of these religions and want to be sure you target the right one. I don't think the allegory fits the topic in any way.
Again, I believe more is being read into it than is there. An explanation of the term 'duck hunting' shouldn't elicit this level of hyperbole. In fact, I would say that in making any accusation that I am 'gunning' for other religions, on the basis of any statement made here, is purely a mischaracterization.

[Kaylara]

Ok, so back on topic...

Solitary Wiccans, by the old definition of a Wiccan no. But really we haven't used that one for over a decade have we? Right now there are more Solitary Wiccans than there are Traditionals. Not only that, but there are more traditions, because any Solitary can do whatever they want and call it a tradition. (Humor them and forget for a moment that a tradition should have more than one person and be passed on to new generations.) Part of the thing that even makes this an issue is that when you are a solitary with no coven or no training, you have no responsibility to the group energy mind flow thingie. As a person who has training, you can learn things that you can't learn on your own, you also key into that flow of energy that runs through the traditions connecting them all. And Wicca is supposed to be a MYSTERY religion after all. How can most people learn the Mysteries when they're teaching themselves?

Perhaps traditional or not, we need to come up with some kind of standards that unite the various forms of Wicca? (But even if we do this, people are still going to be running around telling each other they're invalid for this reason or that reason, because frankly, people suck.)

[Stormcat]

Ok, so back on topic...

Perhaps traditional or not, we need to come up with some kind of standards that unite the various forms of Wicca? (But even if we do this, people are still going to be running around telling each other they're invalid for this reason or that reason, because frankly, people suck.)

Why would we need to come up with new standards? And unite them in what way? Most Wiccans, including those whom coven-based, have a personal, solitary practice.

[KeaErisdottir]

Ok, so back on topic...

Solitary Wiccans, by the old definition of a Wiccan no. But really we haven't used that one for over a decade have we? Right now there are more Solitary Wiccans than there are Traditionals.

Why does the definition of Wicca have to change in this case? The presence of self-identified Wiccans in supposedly larger numbers than traditionals doesn't justify Tyranny by the Majority.

Not only that, but there are more traditions, because any Solitary can do whatever they want and call it a tradition. (Humor them and forget for a moment that a tradition should have more than one person and be passed on to new generations.)
Again, why should the definition of 'tradition' change because of misuse? I encounter people all the time who cannot differentiate between religion and spirituality.

Part of the thing that even makes this an issue is that when you are a solitary with no coven or no training, you have no responsibility to the group energy mind flow thingie. As a person who has training, you can learn things that you can't learn on your own, you also key into that flow of energy that runs through the traditions connecting them all. And Wicca is supposed to be a MYSTERY religion after all. How can most people learn the Mysteries when they're teaching themselves?

As someone who was largely self-taught, and who has studied extensively for the last 18 years, the responsibility I have to to myself and my Gods. There is no sense of entitlement and no expectation other than what you expect of yourself. There are no handouts when you choose to be solitary--and if you didn't choose it, then that is another issue. If I am isolated because of that, it is my choice, and my responsibility to change it if I am unhappy with that. It would be grossly unfair for me to then approach a group, have a couple email exchanges, and then call them elitist or rude because I was not taken in their sacred settings.

It's also essential to acknowledge that Mystery, as it applies to Wicca, is a narrow subset of the Mysteries that make up life. I don't find it a healthy outlook to dive after Mysteries labeled "Wicca", and discount a lot of the Mysteries that govern personal practices that solitaries should be very comfortable in.

Can you belong to a group, or join a group, without the acknowledgement that you surrender a certain part of your autonomy to do so? Is it not ironic that there are so many calls for 'unity' and 'conformity' in a religion that very often holds up the individual as the logical unit.

Perhaps traditional or not, we need to come up with some kind of standards that unite the various forms of Wicca? (But even if we do this, people are still going to be running around telling each other they're invalid for this reason or that reason, because frankly, people suck.)
Standards accomplish what?

It won't stop the fighting, because the fighting is not about religion. It possessiveness, and ego, and fear, and hostility, and avarice. The two great truths of human interaction are that humans beings most crave acceptance and most fear rejection. A BTW I know noted that many cannot process simple tolerance, acceptance, and indifference as anything other than rejection.

Arguments about 'validity' are usually based in hurt feelings about not feeling some combination of welcome and acceptance. Thus, imo, standards are changed and people want unity so that they can -force- those desired responses. This is also an irony that is so strongly based around the individual.

[Kaylara]

Why does the definition of Wicca have to change in this case? The presence of self-identified Wiccans in supposedly larger numbers than traditionals doesn't justify Tyranny by the Majority.
I totally agree. I don't think that one should enter into a religion and expect the rest of the religion to bow down to them. I didn't say it was right; but it's my observation on how the term has changed.


Again, why should the definition of 'tradition' change because of misuse? I encounter people all the time who cannot differentiate between religion and spirituality.
It shouldn't, but don't tell that to them. Again, people expect that everything should change to accomedate them.


As someone who was largely self-taught, and who has studied extensively for the last 18 years, the responsibility I have to to myself and my Gods. There is no sense of entitlement and no expectation other than what you expect of yourself. There are no handouts when you choose to be solitary--and if you didn't choose it, then that is another issue. If I am isolated because of that, it is my choice, and my responsibility to change it if I am unhappy with that. It would be grossly unfair for me to then approach a group, have a couple email exchanges, and then call them elitist or rude because I was not taken in their sacred settings. Again, I totally agree.


It's also essential to acknowledge that Mystery, as it applies to Wicca, is a narrow subset of the Mysteries that make up life. I don't find it a healthy outlook to dive after Mysteries labeled "Wicca", and discount a lot of the Mysteries that govern personal practices that solitaries should be very comfortable in.
My point was that (narrow subset though they may be) most people will have a very hard time in learning the Mysteries of Wicca without a coven or group to work with. And the Mysteries are an important part of the religion.


Can you belong to a group, or join a group, without the acknowledgement that you surrender a certain part of your autonomy to do so? Is it not ironic that there are so many calls for 'unity' and 'conformity' in a religion that very often holds up the individual as the logical unit.
The individual is the most important unit. But very few of us live in a bubble. I don't want conformity but we should have at least a base thing that unites us Wiccans. Otherwise the term itself is meaningless.


Standards accomplish what?

It won't stop the fighting, because the fighting is not about religion. It possessiveness, and ego, and fear, and hostility, and avarice. The two great truths of human interaction are that humans beings most crave acceptance and most fear rejection. A BTW I know noted that many cannot process simple tolerance, acceptance, and indifference as anything other than rejection. True enough. But how can we say that anything falls outside the realm of Wicca when we have no standards saying what that means?


Arguments about 'validity' are usually based in hurt feelings about not feeling some combination of welcome and acceptance. Thus, imo, standards are changed and people want unity so that they can -force- those desired responses. This is also an irony that is so strongly based around the individual.

I think that the changes have come regardless and because of the lack of standards in Wicca. There are plenty of people out there who call themselves Wiccan and really have no clue what it means. That's not a good position for any religion to be in.

[Stormcat]

Wicca does have standards, if by standards, you mean basic means by which we can recognize a practice as Wiccan . It has a certain set of core tenents that any practice calling itself Wiccan should have. This is why I ask: Why do we need different ones?

[Kaylara]

What core tenents are those?

[Stormcat]

Oh my....

To start with:

The Sacred Marriage
The Rede
The Law of Returns
The Wheel of the Year
Recognition of Duality in Deity - Male and Female
That Wicca is an experiential Mystery religion

And so on...

[Lunacie]

Good start, although from what I've seen not everyone agrees that the Rede is a core tenet.

Unless Kaylara was actually asking about renting property from Wiccans? :lol:

[Kaylara]

Oh my....

To start with:

The Sacred Marriage
The Rede
The Law of Returns
The Wheel of the Year
Recognition of Duality in Deity - Male and Female
That Wicca is an experiential Mystery religion

And so on...

Sacred Marriage - For me, yes, for some other Wiccans, no.
Rede -Hell no, it's barely a footnote. Not all Wiccans follow this.
The Law of Returns - Again, no. Not all Wiccans follow this.
The Wheel of the Year - Which one? Different Trads have different interpretations.
Duality in Deity - Again, not all Wiccans believe in this although Polarity is a common(though not core) theme. But then not just in Deity, in everything.
Wicca being an Experimental Mystery religion - I wouldn't agree with that either. I agree it's a Mystery religion, but I don't think it's very experimental.

This is a pretty small list to base your religion and religious practices on. But I think that the list of common tenents is probably even smaller.

And, no... Not talking about renting from Wiccans. ;)

[jetpiston]

Experiential, not experimental.

[Lunacie]

Hmmm, I thought nearly all Wiccans held to the tenet of the Law of Returns, although some call it the Law of Three or the Law of Ten.

The Wheel of the Year - yes I think nearly all Wiccans hold this tenet as well, although there are surely differences on what they call the different positions on the wheel and when they celebrate them.
(and how many of them there are)

I wonder if you're both meaning the same thing by "duality of diety" and "polarity in diety and all else."

And yeah, experienced rather than revealed by some prophet. ;)

[Little Billy]

If I was gonna be a Wiccan, I'd be a Wiccan, solitary or otherwise.

Anyone who didn't like the method or type I chose could go poomp in their hat.

I do find it interesting, though, that there are as many schisms in Paganism (perhaps more) than there is in the Abrahamic religions.

LB,
Knows that the group dynamic of domesticated primates is the same, no matter what or who they worship.

[Stormcat]

Mmm... tenent, tenet... sue me for misspellings. ;)

Yes, duality=polarity.

The Rede is a footnote, true, but fairly common today from everything I hear. The Law of Returns aka The Law of Three...

The and so on meant that the list was not complete, so any implication that that is all I base my religion on is wasted. ;) The Great Marriage has been at the heart of Wicca since the beginning. I wonder where, why and who along the way decided they somehow didn't need it?

[Ben Gruagach]

The topic of what the core tenets of Wicca might be is another of those that Wiccans (even Gardnerians and Alexandrians) can't agree on.

The best anyone can do is say what Wicca is for them and respect others who differ if they want their own opinions to be respected.

[Little Billy]

SO, what happens to a Wiccan in Christianville, Georgia?

"Sorry, there's only one of you. You can't be in our religion."

Jebus. Sounds like Calvinism.

[Twinkle]

I've been on a personal quest to define Wicca. I've asked numerous people what Wicca is...looked it up online...and get conflicting information everytime.

Wicca is dualistic or monotheistic, Wicca is polytheistic...Wicca is the oldest religion in the world...Wicca was started by Gardner in the 1950's....

Wicca is a Mystery Religion, Wicca is an earth based religion.....

I have no idea who's Wiccan or what it is....I get a different version every time. Not all Wiccans follow the Wiccan Rede...and the Threefold Law seems to be up to interpretation...some take it literally, some do not.

What makes a Wiccan, Wiccan? You got me....

I'm starting to think that Wicca is whatever you want it to be....


No one has ownership of the word....so I guess if you want to call yourself Wiccan that's cool...there's really nothing that defines it, anyway.

JMHO.

[KeaErisdottir]

I totally agree. I don't think that one should enter into a religion and expect the rest of the religion to bow down to them. I didn't say it was right; but it's my observation on how the term has changed.

Well, a Tyrrany of the Majority isn't necessarily about being bowed down to in this case. Though, I admit that the 5000 people who read the book that said Wicca is anything they want it to be, and that people who try to tell them otherwise are trying to hold them back spiritually is a definite contributor to the problem. The other really huge problem is the belief that personal practice and sprituality is the same as religion and group practice.

My point was that (narrow subset though they may be) most people will have a very hard time in learning the Mysteries of Wicca without a coven or group to work with. And the Mysteries are an important part of the religion.

Mystery exists on several levels. In fact, until you have sought some of the fundamental personal ones, you don't have much business getting deeply involved in seeking the ones labeled "Wicca". Personal development is so utterly essential to really achieve the aim, and there are entirely too many people seeking shortcuts because a lot of them aren't all that glamorous. Some of them just piss you off. Others are truths about yourself that are very hard to face.

It's hard to accomplish by yourself, unless you are very honest about who and what you are. It's damned near impossible without enough self-starting to keep at it until you can learn no more by those methods.

The individual is the most important unit. But very few of us live in a bubble. I don't want conformity but we should have at least a base thing that unites us Wiccans. Otherwise the term itself is meaningless.

Unites us to what end? If two people are there claiming to be Wiccans, and one says that the GR and an athame are essential to practice of the religion, while the other says that the union of masculine and feminine Divinityis unnecessary and athames are oppressive males symbols that are associated with power and male dominance, you've got not grounds for unity whatsoever. I've actually seen wider breaches.

True enough. But how can we say that anything falls outside the realm of Wicca when we have no standards saying what that means?

The intervening disagreement about core concepts and beliefs illustrates the problem with wanting a unifying princple for all of Wicca. A level of theological understanding and agreement is important.

I think that the changes have come regardless and because of the lack of standards in Wicca. There are plenty of people out there who call themselves Wiccan and really have no clue what it means. That's not a good position for any religion to be in.

Again, I think that this is a Tyranny of the Majority, who have no direction. Is this directionless majority who is self-identifying as Wiccan, really part of the religion or not? I will not usually concede that the self-identified are Wiccans unless they demonstrate an understanding of certain fundamentals, and are to some level committed to the Gods.

[Carla O'Harris]

The topic of what the core tenets of Wicca might be is another of those that Wiccans (even Gardnerians and Alexandrians) can't agree on.

The best anyone can do is say what Wicca is for them and respect others who differ if they want their own opinions to be respected.


This seems an absurd position to me. It's one thing to differ on inessentials. It's another thing altogether to not have any kind of agreement about core tenets. Imagine if the word "doctor" were so vague that anyone could call themselves that no matter what they practiced, and there wasn't even any consensus that what a doctor does has anything to do with healing.

And it becomes a real P.R. problem when you have people calling themselves "Wiccans" who will not agree to the "harm none" doctrine and make that very clear publicly, completely undoing all the important work that has been done to negate the negative stereotypes about witchcraft, and essentially confirming witches as nasty cursers whom one had better not cross. I realize that in itself is another debate, but the issue of people going around claiming to be something without any attention to core principles makes the name meaningless.

[Kaylara]

Yet, I agree with Ben-G. It is an absurd position, but even the two closest traditions cannot agree on some basic points of the religion. What makes us think anyone else is going to agree?

The "Harm None doctrine" is crap. It came out relatively late in the religion and is ridiculous fluffy crap that we tell people who don't know any better so that they can understand on a very base level that we don't go out of our way to hurt people. There's a big difference between harming no one and nothing because of a stupid piece of poetry and deciding not to do anymore damage than you have to. The Wiccan Rede is not, and has never been a core doctrine to the religion. This following the Wiccan Rede thing to the exclusion of all other things is relatively new. So you can't blame people for not following something that is not a core belief of the religion.

[Lunacie]

I've been on a personal quest to define Wicca. I've asked numerous people what Wicca is...looked it up online...and get conflicting information everytime.

Wicca is dualistic or monotheistic, Wicca is polytheistic...Wicca is the oldest religion in the world...Wicca was started by Gardner in the 1950's....

Wicca is a Mystery Religion, Wicca is an earth based religion.....

I have no idea who's Wiccan or what it is....I get a different version every time. Not all Wiccans follow the Wiccan Rede...and the Threefold Law seems to be up to interpretation...some take it literally, some do not.

What makes a Wiccan, Wiccan? You got me....

I'm starting to think that Wicca is whatever you want it to be....


No one has ownership of the word....so I guess if you want to call yourself Wiccan that's cool...there's really nothing that defines it, anyway.

JMHO.

There have been a lot of books written and websites put up by people who only studied with a group for a few months and then decided they were qualified to tell everyone what they think Wicca is, or should be. Which leads to the great confusion and the belief that Wicca is whatever you want it to be.

However, even the better authors don't agree about everything, and there are so many different traditions that can't agree on which tenets are the most basic and important, so that adds to the confusion.

Unless there are some core tenets, then what you've got is basically Paganism and not a specific religion called Wicca. But the further we travel away in time from the ones who started the Craft of the Wise the less chance there seems to be that there can ever be any group concensus as to what those core tenets are. Seems to have happened to all the religions over time though.

[David19]

Yet, I agree with Ben-G. It is an absurd position, but even the two closest traditions cannot agree on some basic points of the religion. What makes us think anyone else is going to agree?

The "Harm None doctrine" is crap. It came out relatively late in the religion and is ridiculous fluffy crap that we tell people who don't know any better so that they can understand on a very base level that we don't go out of our way to hurt people. There's a big difference between harming no one and nothing because of a stupid piece of poetry and deciding not to do anymore damage than you have to. The Wiccan Rede is not, and has never been a core doctrine to the religion. This following the Wiccan Rede thing to the exclusion of all other things is relatively new. So you can't blame people for not following something that is not a core belief of the religion.

I agree with you, while i'm not Wiccan, i've heard the 3-fold 'law' and the harm none bit was added later, and isn't a 'tenet' of Wiccan belief.

[Lunacie]

I think the Law of Returns has always been one of the tenets, but some have decided it made more sense to them to call it the Law of Threefold Returns - because they feel that what we do returns to us in three ways, physically, mentally, and spiritually. So it's really a new way of describing an older concept if I understand it right.

[Ben Gruagach]

For a real eye-opener on what Wicca was like back in Gardner's coven in the 1950s and 1960s, I strongly recommend Fred Lamond's book "Fifty Years of Wicca" as well as Doreen Valiente's books and Patricia Crowther's books.

It's really quite interesting to see what the pre-1960s Wiccans like Lamond and Valiente have to say about what the religion is about, what was practiced, what the attitudes were and then compare that with post-1960s Wiccans like Crowther, and then compare that with post 1970s Wiccans like the Farrars and the explosion of authors since then.

Wicca since Gardner's time has always been a religion without a central authority -- a high priest and high priestess only rule their own coven(s) after all, and we don't have a single unchanging Holy Scripture. It's not surprising that without a central authority it's hard to even get a set of core principles drawn up that everyone (even just the Gardnerians and Alexandrians!) will agree on.

[Ben Gruagach]

There have been a lot of books written and websites put up by people who only studied with a group for a few months and then decided they were qualified to tell everyone what they think Wicca is, or should be. Which leads to the great confusion and the belief that Wicca is whatever you want it to be.

And not to offend anyone*, but this isn't new to Wicca. That's pretty much how the Alexandrian Wiccan denomination began.

(* - I think the Alexandrian Wiccan denomination is perfectly valid, meaningful, and worthwhile despite whatever flakiness might have happened in how it was founded, and in some of the things its founder did back in the 1960s.)

[Kaylara]

As far as I understand it, it's a bastardization of Indian Karmic Philosophy.

The 'Harm none' thing is a relatively recent addition, and no, not a basic tenet. I'm surprised that so many people consider it one actually. If you want to harm none, you can be a Buddhist. As far as I understand it, this too is a bastardization of Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" thing. The idea behind that being that your true will probably isn't running around hurting people.

It's a nice over-simplified idea today, shoved down everyone's throats by a few people who've read a few book and now think they're a Witch Queen. But harming none isn't the point even of the Rede or the Threefold Law of Return. Understanding your actions, accepting the consequences of those actions ahead of time, and acting accordingly is. As a Wiccan, I think it's assinine to have people quoting the Rede like it's some kind of Scripture. It has nothing to do with the actual religion, it's a stance on ethical action and reaction.

[Lunacie]

Yep, I listed books first (before websites) because this has always been what happens. The internet just makes it easier to find incomplete information or innacurate information.

[Kaylara]

For a real eye-opener on what Wicca was like back in Gardner's coven in the 1950s and 1960s, I strongly recommend Fred Lamond's book "Fifty Years of Wicca" as well as Doreen Valiente's books and Patricia Crowther's books.

It's really quite interesting to see what the pre-1960s Wiccans like Lamond and Valiente have to say about what the religion is about, what was practiced, what the attitudes were and then compare that with post-1960s Wiccans like Crowther, and then compare that with post 1970s Wiccans like the Farrars and the explosion of authors since then.

Wicca since Gardner's time has always been a religion without a central authority -- a high priest and high priestess only rule their own coven(s) after all, and we don't have a single unchanging Holy Scripture. It's not surprising that without a central authority it's hard to even get a set of core principles drawn up that everyone (even just the Gardnerians and Alexandrians!) will agree on.

Exactly. The first thing I did before posting that (because while I thought I was correct, I could always be wrong.) is go and research it in books by Gardner and Valiente. I just find it infuriating to have people chant the Rede at me and say it's the basis of the religion or even a core belief.



And not to offend anyone*, but this isn't new to Wicca. That's pretty much how the Alexandrian Wiccan denomination began.

(* - I think the Alexandrian Wiccan denomination is perfectly valid, meaningful, and worthwhile despite whatever flakiness might have happened in how it was founded, and in some of the things its founder did back in the 1960s.)

Of course it's not new. The difference is that before the traditionals had gone through the process and learned and then decided that something did or didn't work for them. At least they tried. Now, you don't have that. A lot of people think something is hard, or doesn't have a quick enough turn around time for results and don't bother doing it in the first place before declaring that it's wrong. They have no actual basis for their assumption because they haven't tried. They look at traditionals and get all huffy because the traditions won't change their stances for them, and decide that since they're not allowed to play in the sandbox, they're going to go build a swingset, and call it a sandbox.

[Ben Gruagach]

As far as I understand it, it's a bastardization of Indian Karmic Philosophy.

The 'Harm none' thing is a relatively recent addition, and no, not a basic tenet. I'm surprised that so many people consider it one actually. If you want to harm none, you can be a Buddhist. As far as I understand it, this too is a bastardization of Crowley's "Do what thou wilt" thing. The idea behind that being that your true will probably isn't running around hurting people.

It's a nice over-simplified idea today, shoved down everyone's throats by a few people who've read a few book and now think they're a Witch Queen. But harming none isn't the point even of the Rede or the Threefold Law of Return. Understanding your actions, accepting the consequences of those actions ahead of time, and acting accordingly is. As a Wiccan, I think it's assinine to have people quoting the Rede like it's some kind of Scripture. It has nothing to do with the actual religion, it's a stance on ethical action and reaction.

The idea of "harm none" isn't really a recent addition since Gardner did talk about it in "The Meaning of Witchcraft." However it doesn't seem to have been considered very important until after Doreen Valiente put the idea in the Wiccan Rede phrasing, "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil: An it harm none, do what you will" in a speech she gave in 1964 which was widely reported in the occult and Pagan community.

It is very true though that it's hard to consider an idea as core to Wicca when pre-1964 Wiccans (and some of their subsequent students) usually didn't consider it to be important.

There's an excellent explanation of the Wiccan Rede and Law of Returns ideas within Wicca at http://www.wiccanrede.dreamhost.com/ and at http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede.shtml

[Lunacie]

There's a big difference between harming no one and nothing because of a stupid piece of poetry and deciding not to do anymore damage than you have to. The Wiccan Rede is not, and has never been a core doctrine to the religion.

This following the Wiccan Rede thing to the exclusion of all other things is relatively new. So you can't blame people for not following something that is not a core belief of the religion.


TROOF !

[Kaylara]

Yep, I listed books first (before websites) because this has always been what happens. The internet just makes it easier to find incomplete information or innacurate information.

There was a class on Wicca here where the person did not do any of the work themselves. Everything was taken from someone else, and after a little research on those sources, I found out that those were directly plagerized from someone else entirely! The information may not have even been from a reputable source, it was just swallowed whole and regurgitated repeatedly all over the web.

And people seem to think that just because someone else writes a book, that it's the be all end all truth. Writing a book doesn't make you an authority on a subject, it just makes you a writer. There are a few Wiccans I know who I stand completely in awe of. (Ben G here is one of them.) Not because they wrote a book, but because they know their shit. Because they carry themselves and explain themselves in such a way that you can have a very intelligent conversation with them on nuances of being Wiccan (or whatever) that you can't have with other people because other people swallow whole what's told to them and never bother to think for themselves about the subject. And if you try to they just continue to repeat the crap.

This is where I make a slight distinction. To me, if you know your shit even if you're a solitary as far as I'm concerned you're a real Wiccan. If you have your head up SRW's butt, and not only cannot discuss, but refuse to do anything but repeat crap, and are solitary (or even a traditional, although I have yet to meet a traditional that does this.) then you're not a real Wiccan. Because you have no idea what it means to be Wiccan.

It's one of those things that I'm sure some people will understand me saying. When you look at them, or what they're writing, you just know. You feel it. And it's hard to categorize that feeling one way or another. Some you may feel have potential, others knock your socks off, while still others turn you off immediately. Although this just might be an observation of someone who's had to work through a sea of people here own age who infuriate her. ;)

[Kaylara]

The idea of "harm none" isn't really a recent addition since Gardner did talk about it in "The Meaning of Witchcraft." However it doesn't seem to have been considered very important until after Doreen Valiente put the idea in the Wiccan Rede phrasing, "Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil: An it harm none, do what you will" in a speech she gave in 1964 which was widely reported in the occult and Pagan community.

It is very true though that it's hard to consider an idea as core to Wicca when pre-1964 Wiccans (and some of their subsequent students) usually didn't consider it to be important.

There's an excellent explanation of the Wiccan Rede and Law of Returns ideas within Wicca at http://www.wiccanrede.dreamhost.com/ and at http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede.shtml

Going to grab my copy of 'Meaning of Witchcraft' to find out what is said on the subject. I'll cite it here when I'm done. :)

Edited to ask: Ben, any idea where in the book it's mentioned, because I skimmed it and I'm not seeing anything similar.

Also, on a side note, I saw something in there about the origins of the "So mote it be" line found in a lot of Wiccan verse, and I had a brain storm. In Dutch the word for Must is Moet. (pronounced Moot.) Perhaps them mote is a bastardization of the Dutch word, since I find myself hard pressed to find the word in use outside of Wiccan writings.

[Ben Gruagach]

Regarding people declaring themselves "experts" and teaching others or even starting new traditions afte little to no actual training...

Of course it's not new. The difference is that before the traditionals had gone through the process and learned and then decided that something did or didn't work for them. At least they tried. Now, you don't have that. A lot of people think something is hard, or doesn't have a quick enough turn around time for results and don't bother doing it in the first place before declaring that it's wrong. They have no actual basis for their assumption because they haven't tried. They look at traditionals and get all huffy because the traditions won't change their stances for them, and decide that since they're not allowed to play in the sandbox, they're going to go build a swingset, and call it a sandbox.

I'm curious what criteria distinguishes a "traditional" person from someone who's not? For instance, Alex Sanders was rejected by Gardner and a number of his high priestesses back in 1962 when he wanted to get involved in Wicca. He managed to find an initiated Gardnerian (who I understand was Pat Kopanski) who gave Alex a quick (and probably completely unauthorized) first degree initiation and access to her Book of Shadows. (Was Alex's initiator herself either a second or third degree Gardnerian? I was under the impression from something I read that she was only a first-degree herself at that time.)

It was not long after that, still in 1962, when Alex started presenting himself as a high priest of a supposedly long established Wiccan tradition that was not Gardnerian (he claimed his grandmother had initiated him back before he was even ten years old!) In 1962 Alex met and then initiated Maxine.

In 1965 Alex gave Maxine (who was all of eighteen or nineteen by this time) her third degree initiation, and in a press article on him he claimed he had 1623 initiates and 100 covens under his direct influence.

It was in 1969 when Alex and Maxine starred in a documentary called "Legend of the Witches" with members of their coven performing such rites as a black mass and a very psychedelic 60s skrying ritual, as well as a cursing ritual. ("Legend of the Witches" is available on DVD, at least in the UK. I got a copy of it over the internet and have to say it was interesting to watch... and clearly not "traditional"!)

Today of course Alexandrians have come a long way and many consider them to be one of the grand old traditional denominations, with Gardnerian Wicca being the other original sect. My point is that during Alex's life he was definitely one of the "colourful characters" who today would have been roundly condemned by many because of his methods and attitudes. If Alex had started his denomination in 1999 instead of 1962 I really wonder if people would consider it to be "traditional."

[Ben Gruagach]

Going to grab my copy of 'Meaning of Witchcraft' to find out what is said on the subject. I'll cite it here when I'm done. :)

The passage from "The Meaning of Witchcraft" is as follows:

"[Witches] are inclined to the morality of the legendary Good King Pausol, "Do what you like so long as you harm no one".

I grabbed that from http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede4.shtml but unfortunately don't have the specific page number to refer you to. [Edited to add: it's on page 127 of my copy.]

It's also in Gardner's Book of Shadows in the Old Laws. It's in section D.1:
"And for long we have obeyed this law, 'Harm none'"

The idea was there but it doesn't seem to have been considered central (even though it was called a law in the Old Laws) by any means.

(Since Gardner didn't introduce the