Is Wicca overrated?

[PrincessKLS]

Wicca is the religion that is usually associated with witchcraft and is usually the "starter religion" for young pagans. But when you think about the fluffiness and watered-ness of Wicca and the books specific to them do you find that really it's over-rated and not a real path?

I've been sort of Wiccan for a while but I've always questioned it, and the older I get the more not-drawn I am to it.

In fact I sort of went back to Christianity because it lost it's appeal and reasoning to me. Sure I agree with the nature bits about it, but the three folds law and the extremist interpretations that water it down more is appealing to me less and less.

No offense but even Christians aren't that fluffy all the time that some new age Wiccans are.

I'd like to follow a path that gave me more freedom with my spells and not have me feel guilty about it.

[Lunacie]

Wicca is the religion that is usually associated with witchcraft and is usually the "starter religion" for young pagans. But when you think about the fluffiness and watered-ness of Wicca and the books specific to them do you find that really it's over-rated and not a real path?

I've been sort of Wiccan for a while but I've always questioned it, and the older I get the more not-drawn I am to it.

In fact I sort of went back to Christianity because it lost it's appeal and reasoning to me. Sure I agree with the nature bits about it, but the three folds law and the extremist interpretations that water it down more is appealing to me less and less.

No offense but even Christians aren't that fluffy all the time that some new age Wiccans are.

I'd like to follow a path that gave me more freedom with my spells and not have me feel guilty about it.

Perhaps it would help if you were able to experience Wicca the way many of us practice it, instead of the fluffy, watered-down version that has been promoted by many authors trying to sell their books.

The Wicca I practice is definately a real path, and there is nothing over-rated about following a spiritual practice that brings you into a closer relationship with the Divine as it manifests in so many different ways.

A proper Wiccan teacher doesn't try to make their students feel guilty about trying spells and other workings, they work with the students to understand the law of "action and reaction" and learn to weigh the value of the results versus the amount of possible harm that may be incurred.

[Shanti]

Its not over rated for those who desire it even if it is a fluffy version!

Every path is right and teaches.

If any path, even one that is way up there with puff the magic dragon, stirs your spirit in ways you feel good about....its a right path!

A path in nothing but a step with many more steps always lying ahead of you.
Where any path may someday lead a person can not be known till the entire path has been traveled and you are finished.

And never forget that 'right' for another may be very flaky or perhaps evil or totally made up..... in your opinion...but its still right for the person experiencing their choices.

[Lunacie]

Its not over rated for those who desire it even if it is a fluffy version!

Every path is right and teaches.

If any path, even one that is way up there with puff the magic dragon, stirs your spirit in ways you feel good about....its a right path!

A path in nothing but a step with many more steps always lying ahead of you.
Where any path may someday lead a person can not be known till the entire path has been traveled and you are finished.

And never forget that 'right' for another may be very flaky or perhaps evil or totally made up..... in your opinion...but its still right for the person experiencing their choices.

Quoted for truth. :smile:

[RainInanna]

If any path, even one that is way up there with puff the magic dragon, stirs your spirit in ways you feel good about....its a right path!

QFT.

When a path doesn't feel right there are one of two reasons - a) you aren't following it in a way that feels right or b) it isn't the right path for you. That doesn't mean it's automatically a waste of time for everyone else. It simply means either you need to investigate it in a new way, or you need to find a new path. The onus is on every individual to walk their own path, not on the path to reach up and meet you.

A religion isn't "the one right thing for everyone", it's an element people choose if their beliefs fall in line with it. If it doesn't suit you, try taking a new direction.

[Lunacie]

QFT.

When a path doesn't feel right there are one of two reasons - a) you aren't following it in a way that feels right or b) it isn't the right path for you. That doesn't mean it's automatically a waste of time for everyone else. It simply means either you need to investigate it in a new way, or you need to find a new path. The onus is on every individual to walk their own path, not on the path to reach up and meet you.

A religion isn't "the one right thing for everyone", it's an element people choose if their beliefs fall in line with it. If it doesn't suit you, try taking a new direction.

That was rather a good explanation I think. Thank you.

[Thyrsos]

Please allow me to recommend The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels.

Gnostic Christianity may hold some appeal for you, as a wonderful compliment to Wicca.

[Sequoia]

Not all religions are for all people. That's why we have more than one of them.

On top of that, a lot of fluffy pagans have given Wicca a bad name. I'm quite positive that it can be a deep, spiritual experience. It just takes a little time and some serious study.

[Philosophia]

Its not over rated for those who desire it even if it is a fluffy version!

Every path is right and teaches.

If any path, even one that is way up there with puff the magic dragon, stirs your spirit in ways you feel good about....its a right path!

A path in nothing but a step with many more steps always lying ahead of you.
Where any path may someday lead a person can not be known till the entire path has been traveled and you are finished.

And never forget that 'right' for another may be very flaky or perhaps evil or totally made up..... in your opinion...but its still right for the person experiencing their choices.

QFT

[aranarose]

Not all religions are for all people. That's why we have more than one of them.

On top of that, a lot of fluffy pagans have given Wicca a bad name. I'm quite positive that it can be a deep, spiritual experience. It just takes a little time and some serious study.

There's fluffies of all kinds. I once met a fluffy satanist *shivers*

[Simply Puzzled]

In fact I sort of went back to Christianity because it lost it's appeal and reasoning to me.

Windows wants people to run it. All kinds of people. They make a lot of money from having as many people use it as possible. Linux, on the other hand, doesn't make much money from each individual user. In fact, only a small percentage of people that run it donate money or buy a Linux product. Linux instead gains most from people that support the project by coding, debugging, designing, and, to sum it up, building it. Often times newbies to Linux will criticize it, talk about moving back to Windows, and expect someone to care. We don't. Because the person is devoting nothing to the operating system, it doesn't matter whether they use it or not. If they're going to be happier with Windows, by all means, run it. Otherwise, you're just wasting the time of people doing tech support for you (for free).

Christianity wants as many people as possible to be Christian. Wicca doesn't feel this way. If you can't be bothered to explore the deeper aspects or think that fluffies represent Wicca and want to go back to Christianity, well, good-bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Hunger]

You're not alone in your feelings. Oftentimes wicca is a starting point, as it allows the culture less a sense of 'belonging', and gives them a strong sense of rebellion, a way of proving that they are different.

To others it's an attempt to embrace 'old ways' though it does nothing of the sort. To still others it provides an element of ritual that provides 'authenticity' of the feeling of venerance, that most don't experience in mainstream religions.

Personally I've never seen the appeal of a religion that is essentially invented on the spot, ie lacks the depth of development that most others develop over time. It provides the illusion of an 'old' way but not the substance.

Myself, I never understood the appeal of it, as I come from a rather strange family that is very heritage-based. About two out of the three males born in every generation of our family hold to the strange mix of folk superstition, magic, and christianity heavily steeped in it's origins as both a death cult and its methods of incorporation of the religions it encountered.

It has the sensation of age that only comes from beliefs that have developed and evolved over time, as well as providing a lot of ritual and 'canon', as well as a strong sense of family community, hence why wicca never really appealed to me except as a metaphor.

[Infinite Grey]

Wicca is the religion that is usually associated with witchcraft and is usually the "starter religion" for young pagans. But when you think about the fluffiness and watered-ness of Wicca and the books specific to them do you find that really it's over-rated and not a real path?

I've been sort of Wiccan for a while but I've always questioned it, and the older I get the more not-drawn I am to it.

In fact I sort of went back to Christianity because it lost it's appeal and reasoning to me. Sure I agree with the nature bits about it, but the three folds law and the extremist interpretations that water it down more is appealing to me less and less.

No offense but even Christians aren't that fluffy all the time that some new age Wiccans are.

I'd like to follow a path that gave me more freedom with my spells and not have me feel guilty about it.

So you went back to Christianity??? Good move there :hehehe:

[Lunacie]

You're not alone in your feelings. Oftentimes wicca is a starting point, as it allows the culture less a sense of 'belonging', and gives them a strong sense of rebellion, a way of proving that they are different.

To others it's an attempt to embrace 'old ways' though it does nothing of the sort. To still others it provides an element of ritual that provides 'authenticity' of the feeling of venerance, that most don't experience in mainstream religions.

Personally I've never seen the appeal of a religion that is essentially invented on the spot, ie lacks the depth of development that most others develop over time. It provides the illusion of an 'old' way but not the substance.

Myself, I never understood the appeal of it, as I come from a rather strange family that is very heritage-based. About two out of the three males born in every generation of our family hold to the strange mix of folk superstition, magic, and christianity heavily steeped in it's origins as both a death cult and its methods of incorporation of the religions it encountered.

It has the sensation of age that only comes from beliefs that have developed and evolved over time, as well as providing a lot of ritual and 'canon', as well as a strong sense of family community, hence why wicca never really appealed to me except as a metaphor.


I think you would do well to scroll back up and read Shanti's post.

[Caitlin.ann]

I don't think its an over rated path. Wicca is the most promoted but thats not the fault of the religion or its practitioner. Its just the starter path for many and if others feel drawn to stick to it then great for them, if not thats fine too. I think its very difficult to say any path is over rated and there are nut jobs in every religion.

Although why you would go back to Christianity instead of sticking to Wicca is way beyond me.

[Louisvillian]

Wicca is the religion that is usually associated with witchcraft and is usually the "starter religion" for young pagans. But when you think about the fluffiness and watered-ness of Wicca and the books specific to them do you find that really it's over-rated and not a real path?
I suppose it depends on the path one is on. I'm Solitary and eclectic, but I'm serious about it, and try to avoid the more fluffy, new-agey, and watered-down aspects of the religion.
If all one encounters is new-age pseudo-Wicca, then one might get a negative interpretation of it. That's why I read more than just one author's literature and try to find as many opinions and writers as possible, so I can better form my own view of my path.

[PrincessKLS]

There's fluffies of all kinds. I once met a fluffy satanist *shivers*


Really that sounds like an oxymoron (moreso than a Christian witch).

[PrincessKLS]

So you went back to Christianity??? Good move there :hehehe:


I don't know I'm just all confused. I feel like my religions don't always answer some deep questions of mine or I see the opposite of what should be happening, happen.

[Hunger]

I think you would do well to scroll back up and read Shanti's post.


Sorry I don't buy bullshit in bulk. The whole 'Lets make up whatever thoughts I want and sprinkle a bit of generally misplaced symbolism and writing into it and call it religion' just doesn't wash for me. Fluffiness invalidates religion, unless you're a discordian, but then again they can get away with almost anything. Religion is something with depth

I'm not saying that other paths should be persecuted or anything like that, just that Wicca is just another symptom of the whitewashing of culture. People need to feel validated when they want something other than christianity, and wicca is very 'nice' and acceptable. It's streamlined, user friendly, commercialized, watered down, edited, repackaged, and sold to anyone who decides that doesn't really dig YHVH but doesn't have the balls to worship the devil, nor the grounding in their own culture to trace back and at least try for a reconstruction of those roots, or hell, even someone else's, just as long as it isn't commercial religion.

I have to make a stand somewhere, because in this case, pope Leo actually got something right.

"The equal toleration of all religions ... is the same thing as atheism." [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

I will tolerate most, including Wiccan variants that are well researched and done with some knowledge and adherence to it's claimed roots. I won't persecute any of them, though I will express my opinions blatantly but I draw the line of tolerance at fluffiness, especially that in which you pick and chose bits and pieces just because they don't make you feel good. It's not about 'feeling good' its about reverence, veneration, faith, adherence, depth and complexity inherent in a 'good' religion, which incidentally means that as a symptom it's goal won't be to 'perfectly suit you personally' or 'feel good', or in which they edit figures into whatever they want them to be without firm foundation for the adaptation.

My greatest ire is with those who can list the canon they possess concerning their deity in three pages or less.

Religion is made of the 4 C's, Canon (sacred texts), Creed (established recitations, sayings, and oral traditions), Cult (in its sociological meaning, ie sacred ideology and established rites) and Community. You have to have all four for it to be a religion, and the more you have of each the more valid it is, though most religions are weak in at least one aspect.

That's the rubric I use to gauge claims of religion by. Solitary practitioners of their own special brand with no community of believers of the same are not a religion. If it doesn't have sacred texts, oral traditions, ideology or rites, it's not a religion.

I won't throw stones at anyone, or spit on them or such things, but I will look sadly and shake my head at such things.

I'm sure this post will piss off the majority of this forum but oh well.

In a sunnier note though, the traditions of Wicca that possess the four C's in some quantity I find rather interesting. Generally though, Wicca as an 'overname' just seems to recruit fluffiness, and the Wiccans I'm familiar with in my area insist on just being referred to by their Tradition name, as generic Wicca is something that they don't really want to be associated with. Silver Ravenwolf didn't help that much, neither did Scott Cunningham.

[Terra Mater]

Wicca is the religion that is usually associated with witchcraft and is usually the "starter religion" for young pagans. But when you think about the fluffiness and watered-ness of Wicca and the books specific to them do you find that really it's over-rated and not a real path?

I've been sort of Wiccan for a while but I've always questioned it, and the older I get the more not-drawn I am to it.

In fact I sort of went back to Christianity because it lost it's appeal and reasoning to me. Sure I agree with the nature bits about it, but the three folds law and the extremist interpretations that water it down more is appealing to me less and less.

No offense but even Christians aren't that fluffy all the time that some new age Wiccans are.

I'd like to follow a path that gave me more freedom with my spells and not have me feel guilty about it.

Never been a follower of Wicca, never needed to find my religion at Barnes and Noble. So for those that dislike my opinion, especially the Wiccans, take it with a few grains of margerita salt. This is just my opinion, I do not assert that it is the right one; I accept it is a Pagan-politically incorrect one.:thumbsup:

I have always wondered about the validity of calling Wicca a path, a path takes you somewhere, while Wicca has always appeared to be more like a place you got stuck. Trying to rebel against your parents? Follow Wicca. Want a religious "excuse" to party and get laid, follow Wicca. What is a Wiccan? Anything you want a Wiccan to be. One path spawned hundreds, each as different from the others as it can be, each argueing which is the"one true Wicca" except for the ones that refuse to get into the arguement as their manner of standing out from the others. :whatgives

Anything can be connected to Wicca: Wicca has both satyrs and man hating huntresses, monodeism and polydeism, nature and the unnatural. Anyone can be Wiccan: Christo-Wicca, Fae Wicca, Theo-Wicca, Ani-Wicca, just take what you are and the Wicca label and you too can create your own Wiccan path and no one else's is more or less Wicca than yours. Not that this stops the endless arguements about what is or isn't Wicca.

Wiccans are always "practicing", but they never seem to master anything. You would think that a Wiccan who has "practiced" for decades would eventually perfect something if only in their own minds. Not so, everyone is still "finding their way along the path". Don't these paths ever get mapped? You would think that with so many former and current D&D players that are attracted to Wicca that there would be a few hundred maps by now. :abadpoker

I did a group for many years that we called "Spell Swap". Anywhere from 20-300 of us would get together, at someones pad a restaurant, camping spot, or a festival spot we rented (for the larger gathers) and we would trade spells. No money exchanged (except at the larger festivals to raise funds for an animal shelter food bank, or other favorite charity), just a bunch of witches trading what they knew. The Wiccans killed it, we quit letting the public in and advertising where we were getting together to keep them out. :seehearsp

Their preconceptions, their judgements, and their opinions were offensive to us. The ideas of what we should and should not attempt with out casting were just insulting. This wasn't a quorum on "what do you think of these spells" it was a place where people who wanted to trade the way they did a particular spell with the way another person did a particular spell. there was no standards set of what should or should not be in a spell, but the Wiccans that came always acted as if they had some spell crafting rule guide that the rest of us were required to adhere to. :fpraise:

I never "went to Wicca" but I also never "went to" Christianity. I was raised in what most Wiccans refer to as a "fam trad". All I know is the way I approach the divine was taught to me from family written tomes and tomes we carried with us for generations. We just have a larger family than many I guess. My father sired 13 children before he died by 11 different women. My siblings and I have 39 children so far, and the youngest sibling is still single and childless. She's only 21 and is not planning on having kids till her 30's. total living relatives = 1,794 spread outh through 19 states and four countries. Every last one of them has contributed to the "family library" both spiritual and secular. :ringaroun

The reason I mention the number of us is not to say my path is more valid than theirs, but to offer a ppoint of comparison. Each successive generation gets a bit farther in both our spiritual and secular lives than the generation before. Our path leads us somewhere positive. Though some Wiccans may be making progress along their own path through Wicca, the myriad of paths strikes me akin to a spider's web - its attractive, sticky, and confusing if you are small enough to get caught in it. The number of Pagan predators that have claimed to be Wiccan akin to the spider that has spun the web. :stooges:

For those lacking that kind of spiritual wealth, Wicca is probably a great comfort. I find marijuana to be a great comfort, draw your own parallels with that one._catroll_

Don't get me started on "solitairy Wicca".:bouncingb

As I stated at the start, this is just my lone opinion. I do not assert that it is the right one and if it makes you bitter, try a little margarita salt I have been told I am easier to swallow with a little margerita salt............or was that a lot of margaritas? :lol:

Edit add:
Canon (sacred texts), Creed (established recitations, sayings, and oral traditions), Cult (in its sociological meaning, ie sacred ideology and established rites) and Community.

I loved this. Its my four major issues with Wicca, there are no texts held sacred, just popular choices. There is no creed shared among all Wicca. The "cult" is all over the morality scale, with little commonality, and show me a NFP Wiccan group that has been around for two decades or more, heck show me a Wiccan social group that has been around for two decades or more. We got a lot of individuals that have been around that long but even they have had several failed groups.

[Hunger]

Nice, same point, posted nearly simultaneously in similar length.

At least I'm not alone here and if I get lynched someone's getting lynched alongside me.

Watch as someone within the next ten posts refers to our posts as 'famtrad elitism' or some other bs like that. If it doesn't happen I'll be shocked, but honestly though it isn't very PC (pagan-correct) it is the view most pagans I know personally who are serious about their faith take.

[Shanti]

I don't know I'm just all confused. I feel like my religions don't always answer some deep questions of mine or I see the opposite of what should be happening, happen.
Sounds to me like your on the right path!
Learning what doesn't work for us is just as important as learning what does.
The most important part of any path, whether its fitting for you in the present or not, is that your learning.
Learning is the right path.

Keep searching, asking, looking, learning. One day you will put your path all together and it will be perfect for you.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Let me preface this with I am not nor have I ever been a Wiccan.

That said, I think where many fail or find dis-illusion is that they do not realize or understand that our spirituality is 50 percent internal and 50 percent external. When we focus on the external at the expense of the internal I find many people, not just pagans, feel let down by their religion. If not let down then it feels play like or unreal, almost fluffy as it is just the parts that they think make them feel good.

They look to the outer world as a guage by which to determine what they should be feeling and how they should feel it. They literaly start to live the worlds expectations of what they should feel or experience. But becasue it's not thier's the sensaiton is wrong or they think it is wrong when they feel different. I personally see this as the fluffy zone for it's all external.

Yet the inverse is also true in that many may feel as if they walk alone for no other walks the same walk or understand it the same as they do. Feel free to insert the term zelot here. Their own soul becomes the mirror upon which they look at the world and their place within in, yet the mirror is false for they change the view to fit thier desire and needs.

Is it over rated as you ask, I think not if it is lived as a balanced religion and spiritual experience.

[Infinite Grey]

I don't know I'm just all confused. I feel like my religions don't always answer some deep questions of mine or I see the opposite of what should be happening, happen.

It has been my and many other's experience that in order to get answers from any religion you are forced to suspend disbelief and in many cases perform some impressive mental contortionist moves in order to make the answers fit. One of the hardest and most honest thing a human faces is accepting that as of this date there is no answer to a particular question. An interesting element to the human condition is that we desire answers, unfortunately a bad answer is better than no answer. :T This is where religion jumps up and down - crying "look at me look at me!" Similarly we tend to choose answers we like over answer that are correct, this combined with the basic need for answers produces the mind hug that is religious thought.

Why do bad things happen to good people? Well in truth, bad things happen to everyone - bad people stub their toes, loose their keys, suffer the loss of family, even financial burdens; these bad events simply leave a larger impression when they happen to people we perceive as being good. Similarly, good things happening to bad people also leave a greater impression. But this does not answer the question; why do bad things happen to good people? Well, the answer is simple, because they just do. There are many answers to that question if you work in specifics: Why did my mother's car break down? Because she forget to get a tune up (or what ever). But the overall answer to the general question is pretty unsatisfactory; this is where religion and spirituality offers a comforting set of answers - because they sinned, because of karma, because the universe is teaching us a lesson we need to learn, because invisible pink ice sorting pixies are mean if you fail to leave them treats. These are not really answers at all, but they tend to fill that void.

Naturally the above is just an example of a question that serves to confuse people, there are many others - Why am I here? What is my purpose? Am I special? Is there something out there looking out for me? What should I do? Essentially you can answer all these questions under your own steam, but it's easier to believe there is something more than yourself or the world guiding things from a position of infinite wisdom and benevolence - but that kind of falls apart when you are faced with the contradictions to which ever belief system you end up in.

Let me boil it down for you as I see it: Forget greater meaning, forget great plans, divine benevolence, purpose, life lessons - simply realize that the observable evidence suggests that you have a finite existence, a little blip in the Electroencephalography of the universe - that makes all the more special, far more valuable. Why waste time conforming to 2000+ year old speculation oppression when your purpose is what you make it, you are here because your parent reproduced, you are special in that you are finite an non-repeatable (well mostly), you essentially only need yourself to look out for you - everyone else is a welcome bonus, and you should do what will make you happy.

But in the end, choose what gives you the most comfort: provided it does not impend someone else's freedom.

[Dark_Tezcatlipoca]

Try looking into Traditional Witchcraft

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I agree with a lot of what Hunger and Terra Mater have to say, and I'm one of those damned Wiccans :P There's a really good little nugget of stuff buried under the layers and layers of shit that successive generations of crap authors have laid down. I rather disagree with the notion of popularizing Wicca, because popularization seems to inevitably lead to the attracting of droves of morons. Watering down my religion for a quick buck while slandering another that I respect (Christianity) and passing off slandering as 'exposing truth' pisses me off, because then I have to deal with those idiots who decided to become Wiccans to piss off Mommy/Daddy/Jesus whatever.

Wicca can meet the four C's. I have seen it myself, admittedly in the one tradition that I myself practice and through knowing many Alexandrians. The one that I see people having the most trouble with getting right is Community. The vast majority of Wiccans out there are doubtless solitaries, and as such they would probably get most of what they know from books and the Internet. This is all well and good, up to a point. I considered myself quite well-read when I ran into the Wiccan Church of Canada and still do; however, the human element of public classes (and private ones) with being able to ask questions of priesthood, discuss things, and learn from the personal experience of others has taught me more that books can.

A community also offers a system of checks and balances when it comes to people being idiots. You can ask your priesthood/elders for advice, be told if what you're doing is something stupid, and have any really crazy delusions rejected. It's amazing how few regulars at the circles I attend go on about these huge astral battles they fought against fifty-storey tall demons they had last night, which caused that big storm we just had (seriously, I was told this story by an acquaintance this morning). The lack of a New Age veneer is wonderful. No-one talks about programming crystals, talking to plants, or how they were Cleopatra in a past life.

I have more to say on this matter, but I need to get my thoughts in order :P

[SwordsFlameSong]

I think what is needed is a bit of clarification. There are issues with any religion - anything can be perverted.

Now say I was a tish older than I am and told y'all something like this:



is a Third Degree High Priestess
Witch Queen
Licensed Minister
Certified Hypnotherapist
Stone/Crystal Master
a Reiki Master
as well as other forms of healing
Remote Viewer
Medium and Spirit Contact Liaison
Angel/Spirit Guide Worker
Fire Walker
Atlantean Healer
Lemurian Crystal & Stone Master
Sentinel/Protector of the relics and Star Memories of Sirius
Oil Incense & Bath Salts Crafter
Spell Work & Spell Crafter
Elixir Creator
Animal Speaker
Spiritual Warrior & Light Worker
Tarot Reader and other various divination style
Certified Ghost Hunter
a recognized International Psychic

HOW many of you would call bullshit on me? Seriously. What I am reading here is not necessarily a bashing of Wicca traditions - or even solitary practioners of a path. I DO NOT agree that a person can not have a religion if they are solitary. A person works with the traditions given and all religion has to call to the person and fit the person. Sometimes that means taking the existing knowledge and adapting a tish here and there.

But the bit I quoted above is a problem with the umbrella term of Wicca. THERE ARE people who make outlandish claims and then rip off the gullible or the those that are searching. There are true con artists in this arena. THEY give all serious practioners of a pagan path a bad name.

Finally, we can toss about terms like new age, fluff bunny and playgan all we want. When it comes right down to it NONE of us can determine what truly lies in the heart and soul of another person.

Edited to add: I used to know the person who claims what I quoted and more. When I knew her she had found Wicca in college. Now she claims to have been practicing since she was a wee child. I did not list all she claims to be. So I can fully understand the seemingly harsh point of view some have expressed in this thread. I do. But I can also see the points of those that are very serious on their paths and the resentment one would feel at the whole seeming to be disparaged.

In a need to be part of a pagan group I joined her little closed coven and discovered what bullshit on this path really is. This was back in my 20's. Luckily, I got out but she still suckers people in.

[BlackMagicalCat]

Its not over rated for those who desire it even if it is a fluffy version!

Every path is right and teaches.

If any path, even one that is way up there with puff the magic dragon, stirs your spirit in ways you feel good about....its a right path!

A path in nothing but a step with many more steps always lying ahead of you.
Where any path may someday lead a person can not be known till the entire path has been traveled and you are finished.

And never forget that 'right' for another may be very flaky or perhaps evil or totally made up..... in your opinion...but its still right for the person experiencing their choices.every path is right?Was hitlers path right?For him it was,,in his own mind,,but not in mine.

If a person feels good about raping a woman,,does that make it right?Not to me it doesnt.

Can a person go astray?I think so.

If something is right,,it is right all by itself ,,not because anyone declares it to be right.Its up to each one of us to decide for ourselves if something is right,,but when we decide,,it doesnt mean we made the right choice.

Mankind doesnt have the authority nor the morality to declare what is true,,truth is set by someone higher,,and truth is set in our hearts as a moral code,,you can choose to ignore it or you can embrace it.

Mankind is full of lies and deciet,and can not be trusted to tell the truth,,nor to embrace it.

This is my opinion.

[Lunacie]

I'm not pissed off at anyone who posted here. It's more that I am saddened that so many believe Wicca has truly become watered down and that the fluffy invasion has invalidated what Wicca can really be when practiced properly.

There are a lot of people out there who either don't have access to the right kind of information, whether through a coven or classes or accurate reading material, or don't care enough to find that information... and while they may call their path "Wicca", most people who know what Wicca really is don't agree with them.


Since what they are practicing isn't actually Wicca (although it may be just fine for them), I don't believe it does anything to "water down" or "invalidate" what the rest of us are doing or what the rest of us believe.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think the reason so many see Wicca as watered down is through the rush to assimilate everything and anything one wants to make it better and more truthful for them as individuals. Each occurance removes one from the original layout of the religion and lessons its structure. As the structure falls apart the "belief" system fails and becomes nothing. Of course that is my opinion from my observations.

So while thier still are traditional covens based on Gardner, Valentine and Sanders they loose thier identity and probally importance within the religious structure. Why are they needed when all one need do is select a few items and tag it as Wicca.

That they do not fight against the usupering of thier beleifs and structure simply allows more lose of identity. Wicca becomes what the books say not what the practioners say it is.

A family trad may die due to death of the family or loose of coehesion within the family but Wicca as it originated I thnk will die from it's own lack of presence and steadfastness in maintaining its identity in the face of the "Neo" movement.

The more Ecclectic it becomes the more watered down it will appear to those outside the established covens and family groups.

[Lunacie]

I think the reason so many see Wicca as watered down is through the rush to assimilate everything and anything one wants to make it better and more truthful for them as individuals. Each occurance removes one from the original layout of the religion and lessons its structure. As the structure falls apart the "belief" system fails and becomes nothing. Of course that is my opinion from my observations.

So while thier still are traditional covens based on Gardner, Valentine and Sanders they loose thier identity and probally importance within the religious structure. Why are they needed when all one need do is select a few items and tag it as Wicca.

That they do not fight against the usupering of thier beleifs and structure simply allows more lose of identity. Wicca becomes what the books say not what the practioners say it is.

A family trad may die due to death of the family or loose of coehesion within the family but Wicca as it originated I thnk will die from it's own lack of presence and steadfastness in maintaining its identity in the face of the "Neo" movement.

The more Ecclectic it becomes the more watered down it will appear to those outside the established covens and family groups.

Well, 'traditionally' one was not supposed to reveal those things outside of one's coven or grove, eh? Fortunately there are some of us who say that the real mysteries are not something that can be reveled by discussing the history of Wicca, and the core beliefs and practices.

However, I do not think that a refusal to share the inner knowledge of Wicca with the general public is going to cause the death of Wicca as we know it. It will continue in it's secretive and clandestine ways, just as it has for quite a long time. Of course, Gardner agreed that if Wicca was not more widely publicized that it would die out, but his publicity seeking is most likely what opened the door to the plethora of trash that is being published these days under the misnomer of Wicca. With the good often comes the bad, but there is often a silver lining in the bad as well.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Well, 'traditionally' one was not supposed to reveal those things outside of one's coven or grove, eh? Fortunately there are some of us who say that the real mysteries are not something that can be reveled by discussing the history of Wicca, and the core beliefs and practices.

However, I do not think that a refusal to share the inner knowledge of Wicca with the general public is going to cause the death of Wicca as we know it. It will continue in it's secretive and clandestine ways, just as it has for quite a long time. Of course, Gardner agreed that if Wicca was not more widely publicized that it would die out, but his publicity seeking is most likely what opened the door to the plethora of trash that is being published these days under the misnomer of Wicca. With the good often comes the bad, but there is often a silver lining in the bad as well.

I totaly agree that one was not / is not supposed to reveal things outside the coven or trad, espically to outsiders. That was not only the "Occult" side of the religion but also for protection to a large degree.

While I was not initiated into a Wiccan coven but I was part of a family trad so I understand the hidden and secret parts of it. I also understand one can discuss things without really revealing "secret" items. I'll admit thier are times I wish I could give better examples of things to help explain what I'm saying but that is the cost of being part of the Trad.

I do not think the hidden or closed groups will suffer for they still remain hidden and secretive. Yet the ability to hold your own and keep your identity is what I think is at stake as the Neo-Wiccan or Psuedo-Wiccan personas become the public face and perhaps the accepted face of the religion.

I guess in someways the old order "Wiccans" might even become known as zelots since they do not greet with open arms and just accept the changes.

[Lunacie]

I totaly agree that one was not / is not supposed to reveal things outside the coven or trad, espically to outsiders. That was not only the "Occult" side of the religion but also for protection to a large degree.

While I was not initiated into a Wiccan coven but I was part of a family trad so I understand the hidden and secret parts of it. I also understand one can discuss things without really revealing "secret" items. I'll admit thier are times I wish I could give better examples of things to help explain what I'm saying but that is the cost of being part of the Trad.

I do not think the hidden or closed groups will suffer for they still remain hidden and secretive. Yet the ability to hold your own and keep your identity is what I think is at stake as the Neo-Wiccan or Psuedo-Wiccan personas become the public face and perhaps the accepted face of the religion.

I guess in someways the old order "Wiccans" might even become known as zelots since they do not greet with open arms and just accept the changes.



Yep, I was called a "cauldron thumper" in another thread here and it was suggested I should watch my "tone" when posting. My response is that I would rather have someone find me crusty and disagreeable for contradicting misinformation and conclusions that are based on less than reputable sources than to have folks think I'm a lovely person because I go along with the whole "do whatever you want and call it Wicca" load of crap.

It doesn't actually happen very often, especially here at MW, but I'm not afraid to step up and speak out, and I'm not worried about falling off my soap box. :lol:

[Louisvillian]

The more Ecclectic it becomes the more watered down it will appear to those outside the established covens and family groups.
I don't think it's eclecticism itself that causes the problem. It's particular kinds of eclecticism, mainly New-Agers which water down what Wicca actually is. Reasonable eclecticism is fine; I consider myself an somewhat-eclectic Solitary Wiccan. But, I at least sincerely try to observe the standard theology and ritual structure that Wicca has always kept. What needs to happen is Solitaries and Traditionalists alike respecting each other, and joining together to combat this wave of New-Age, fluffy-bunny, pseudo-Wicca.

This isn't to say that people shouldn't have New-Age philosophy and beliefs, if that's what they feel is right for them; just that they shouldn't mix it with some Wiccan beliefs and call it Wicca, when what they construct closer to Theosophy than anything pagan.

[SwordsFlameSong]

Yep, I was called a "cauldron thumper"

Oh I can't help it. 8O I can just picture this: Lunacie pounding on a cauldron with a lovely REAL wood wand as she tells a youngun that "No" the wand they just purchased from a mag IS NOT an exact replica of the exact wand Merlin carried. It is a Harry Potter knock off and says made in Taiwan on it. :hehehehe:


...bad SFS bad....:toofless:

[RainInanna]

What needs to happen is Solitaries and Traditionalists alike respecting each other, and joining together to combat this wave of New-Age, fluffy-bunny, pseudo-Wicca.

FWIW I think this everything-is-Wicca idea is and will naturally die out. The popularity jumped exponentially especially due to Buffy the Vampire Slayer among other things. I think largely it's a matter of those who are seriously Wiccan just waiting it out. Eventually I think if we keep calmly discussing it people will one by one realize what Wicca is and what their beliefs are. Right now we seem to be in the "I'm not Wiccan, they're all fluff heads!" phase. The serious ones will sit back and watch, trying to inform where possible, waiting for things to work out. Yes it's frustrating, but we have to keep in mind Wicca is fairly new. All we can do is keep sharing and let time pass.

[Malcolm]

Is Wicca overated? I guess that depends on what you're comparing it to and what exactly you hope to get out of it.

Personaly I have no problems with wicca. Its not for me but that doesn't invalidate it by any means.

[Lunacie]

Oh I can't help it. 8O I can just picture this: Lunacie pounding on a cauldron with a lovely REAL wood wand as she tells a youngun that "No" the wand they just purchased from a mag IS NOT an exact replica of the exact wand Merlin carried. It is a Harry Potter knock off and says made in Taiwan on it. :hehehehe:


...bad SFS bad....:toofless:

:lol:

Actually I would be more likely to wait and see whether they can DO anything with their Harry Potter knock-off wand. For me it's not the tool that matters, it's what you can do with the tool.

[Lunacie]

FWIW I think this everything-is-Wicca idea is and will naturally die out. The popularity jumped exponentially especially due to Buffy the Vampire Slayer among other things. I think largely it's a matter of those who are seriously Wiccan just waiting it out. Eventually I think if we keep calmly discussing it people will one by one realize what Wicca is and what their beliefs are. Right now we seem to be in the "I'm not Wiccan, they're all fluff heads!" phase. The serious ones will sit back and watch, trying to inform where possible, waiting for things to work out. Yes it's frustrating, but we have to keep in mind Wicca is fairly new. All we can do is keep sharing and let time pass.

Actually, Wicca isn't all that new. It's just that it wasn't publicized until Gerald Gardner wrote a couple of books and began giving interviews. Which opened the door for others to write books based on incomplete information, which then opened the door for others to copy & paste that misinformation all over the internet and in magazines and movies and tv shows and . . .

[Hunger]

I totaly agree that one was not / is not supposed to reveal things outside the coven or trad, espically to outsiders. That was not only the "Occult" side of the religion but also for protection to a large degree.

While I was not initiated into a Wiccan coven but I was part of a family trad so I understand the hidden and secret parts of it. I also understand one can discuss things without really revealing "secret" items. I'll admit thier are times I wish I could give better examples of things to help explain what I'm saying but that is the cost of being part of the Trad.

I do not think the hidden or closed groups will suffer for they still remain hidden and secretive. Yet the ability to hold your own and keep your identity is what I think is at stake as the Neo-Wiccan or Psuedo-Wiccan personas become the public face and perhaps the accepted face of the religion.

I guess in someways the old order "Wiccans" might even become known as zelots since they do not greet with open arms and just accept the changes.



I entirely agree about the secrets issue.

However, here's a point of personal experience:

History, legends, traditions, general knowledge, even most rites and rituals
don't really fall under the secrecy aspect in terms of my family. We have no problem discussing the more general things that are known to the public. However we zealously guard our real secrets, the ones that are unique to our family alone.


However, further on the subject of Wicca, I have to say I have a hard time believing in the validity of a religion whose founders were charlatans and liars, to their own people especially, and the religion they founded and claimed to have gotten from 'existing traditions' and the 'achievements' they have made, under scrutiny prove to be pure deceit.

I think that's why the 'baffle em with bullshit' approach to wicca is so strong, because it was a part of the religion from the moment Gardner wrote the Meaning of Witchcraft and Witchcraft today, and before.

He said he was taught by a coven, but then went on to say he had to incorporate elements such as copying fairly large portions of Crowley's work for things even as core as initiation rituals. You would think that a coven would at least know how to initiate their members... ya know?

Then there is Alex Sanders, who it seems was a very poor liar, as almost all of his stories don't match up, and most of it was thoroughly discredited. An honest assessment of his 'life story' and claims tends to match those of the teeny fantasy mongers who joined wicca to be 'cool and magical'.

With founders like these, who needs detractors?

Now I'm not saying a religion based on a lie, or whose founders loved to pull wool down over the eyes of other people is wrong, but I am saying that when the practitioners themselves embrace the lie, and what is truth and lie isn't carefully delineated by such founders so the initiated know what is bullshit to baffle outsiders and what is real. Hell even my family tends to lie outrageously to outsiders for the purpose of keeping them unsure about what we really know, but within the family tradition everything is clearly distinguished.

But then again there's also a difference in the way we lie about our path too, after all, our second family motto is:

"Hide your truth within lies, so that only the wise can unravel it. Lie truthfully and speak in riddles and contradictions and only those who seek will ever see beneath."

Well, that's more of a paraphrasing of the motto.

However, Gardner and Sanders lied the most to their followers and students, rather than the public, which set the standard of deceiving and deluding self and others throughout the history of established Wicca.

I'm not saying that the entire path is invalid, as there were others who did far more research, and were quite honest, at least to their followers, later on. When they made things up, they told their students why they did, and had strong reasons and support for their creations. This is what a good tradition does.

Even a tradition that 'lives legendarily' or in a state where legend and reality are treated the same way, it is acknowledged for the most part, and admitted that the tradition does not view direct literal recounting as necessary, and is sometimes a hindrance to the development and strength of the tradition, and still delineates the literal from the legendary.

Figured I should hit up some clarification here:

When I talk about lies, I don't mean legends, or tall tales, or such things that while they carry a veneer of hyperbole are riddled with truth.

It's the lies that serve no purpose that I have a problem with, such as the 'I got my methods from said ancient coven' or the three separate stories, two of which Sanders claims are true and the other which other evidence points to, concerning where he learned his craft, and the contradictory evidence concerning his personal claims.

Now if those lies were just a leg pull to outsiders it wouldn't be a problem, but the same lies are spoon fed to students of the Trads in question as well.

Now if the lies concerning its founding held some sort of mystery or underlying truth there wouldn't be a problem with them at all.

[Hunger]

doublepost

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

List of batshit-crazy stuff


How on Earth does one become a certified ghost hunter?

[RainInanna]

Actually, Wicca isn't all that new. It's just that it wasn't publicized until Gerald Gardner wrote a couple of books and began giving interviews. Which opened the door for others to write books based on incomplete information, which then opened the door for others to copy & paste that misinformation all over the internet and in magazines and movies and tv shows and . . .

YMMV, and I'm not exactly sure where you stand on how old Wicca is, although I was more or less thinking it hasn't existed as the whole, cohesive system we know for thousands of years. The religion I call Wicca, so far as I know, is not an ancient, mature religion, but one that is relatively young and has it's own growing pains. One reason many are drawn to it is *because* it is changing and growing, and is not mired in ancient dogma. That's a good thing, but it also comes with it's own pitfalls as we can see here.

[SwordsFlameSong]

How on Earth does one become a certified ghost hunter?

I am not entirely sure. I am part of a group that uses EVP etc and so on but none of claim special certification - nor do we charge. The founder of this group - I shared the woman's ghost hunting information and pics and he about laughed his arse off. Said people like that give the serious ones a bad rap.

[Lunacie]

YMMV, and I'm not exactly sure where you stand on how old Wicca is, although I was more or less thinking it hasn't existed as the whole, cohesive system we know for thousands of years. The religion I call Wicca, so far as I know, is not an ancient, mature religion, but one that is relatively young and has it's own growing pains. One reason many are drawn to it is *because* it is changing and growing, and is not mired in ancient dogma. That's a good thing, but it also comes with it's own pitfalls as we can see here.

From what I've read here and other discussion forums, that's only the attitude here in the states. In Great Britian it's considered a very old tradition with a dogma that is unique to Wicca. Or for those who don't like that word, their own system of beliefs and practices. Some of those in other countries call it Wicca and some simply call it Witchcraft, but as we've discussed, there are many forms of Witchcraft so I think it's probably better to narrow the definition a bit.

[RainInanna]

From what I've read here and other discussion forums, that's only the attitude here in the states. In Great Britian it's considered a very old tradition with a dogma that is unique to Wicca. Or for those who don't like that word, their own system of beliefs and practices. Some of those in other countries call it Wicca and some simply call it Witchcraft, but as we've discussed, there are many forms of Witchcraft so I think it's probably better to narrow the definition a bit.

Hm, interesting, I have noticed a very different feel when talking about Wicca on British forums. I have a feeling that my point still applied when we're talking about American Wicca.

Man that's a whole other discussion I'm not sure I'm capable to have ;)

[Louisvillian]

Actually, Wicca isn't all that new. It's just that it wasn't publicized until Gerald Gardner wrote a couple of books and began giving interviews.
Eeh...possibly. I think that the most reasonable date for its inception is the early 1920s, during the height of the occult fad in Western mysticism. Which makes sense, really, because that's around when Murray's thesis came out. Although it's possible that Gardner brought that aspect into it, not the other way around.

My opinion is that the pre-Gardner founders were previously members of the Golden Dawn or another kind of Hermetic occult organisation, who believed they were coming together to make a revival the witch-cult of Murray, not necessarily continue it. When Gardner came into it in 1939, he misinterpreted some of the information, and took the organisation's purpose to be a continuation of Murray's theoretical witch-cult. Inadvertently, he and the others created a revolutionary way of interpreting and worshipping the gods, and ultimately a new and different religious path, which is still evolving and changing and growing.

But, it is definitely possible that they began earlier, like the early 1900s or the late 1890s, but I don't think it can be much earlier than that, considering the visibly obvious impact that Hermeticism and late-19th century occult mysticism had on early Wicca. Religious Witchcraft, of course, existed for far longer, but usually the "religious" part of it was Christian, not pagan.


From what I've read here and other discussion forums, that's only the attitude here in the states. In Great Britian it's considered a very old tradition with a dogma that is unique to Wicca.
I think that the root of it is that here, unlike in Europe, a person's religion is a very personal issue, and is not strictly dependent on tradition or established doctrines. Lapsed Catholics and non-denominational Christians are good examples of religious individuals who break from strict dogma and organisation.

[Lunacie]

Eeh...possibly. I think that the most reasonable date for its inception is the early 1920s, during the height of the occult fad in Western mysticism. Which makes sense, really, because that's around when Murray's thesis came out. Although it's possible that Gardner brought that aspect into it, not the other way around.

My opinion is that the pre-Gardner founders were previously members of the Golden Dawn or another kind of Hermetic occult organisation, who believed they were coming together to make a revival the witch-cult of Murray, not necessarily continue it. When Gardner came into it in 1939, he misinterpreted some of the information, and took the organisation's purpose to be a continuation of Murray's theoretical witch-cult. Inadvertently, he and the others created a revolutionary way of interpreting and worshipping the gods, and ultimately a new and different religious path, which is still evolving and changing and growing.

But, it is definitely possible that they began earlier, like the early 1900s or the late 1890s, but I don't think it can be much earlier than that, considering the visibly obvious impact that Hermeticism and late-19th century occult mysticism had on early Wicca. Religious Witchcraft, of course, existed for far longer, but usually the "religious" part of it was Christian, not pagan.


I think that the root of it is that here, unlike in Europe, a person's religion is a very personal issue, and is not strictly dependent on tradition or established doctrines. Lapsed Catholics and non-denominational Christians are good examples of religious individuals who break from strict dogma and organisation.

Well, the core beliefs and practices of Gardnerian Witchcraft (or Wicca) match very closely beliefs and practices that can be traced back before the birth of Christ - so was there something written somewhere that hasn't been publicized in any way that led those folks to recreate the old religion? Or did it continue to live in small pockets here and there the way Gardner says it did?

[Hunger]

doublepost

[Hunger]

Well, the core beliefs and practices of Gardnerian Witchcraft (or Wicca) match very closely beliefs and practices that can be traced back before the birth of Christ - so was there something written somewhere that hasn't been publicized in any way that led those folks to recreate the old religion? Or did it continue to live in small pockets here and there the way Gardner says it did?

Lets see, core tenants of wicca
Three Fold Law - contrary to prechristian pagan concepts

The Wiccan Rede- yeah, not gonna comment

The God-Goddess rebirth cycles- Lot of experience in mythology, and I'm still not seeing any recorded or even referenced religion that follow the wiccan standard on this

The list goes on.

Wicca is new, not old. It isn't even a recontruction of the old, it's like the hollywood interpretation of the old, and not a very good one.

Yes there are maiden mother crone archetypes, but not much like wicca concieves it. Wicca is a new construct with bits of terminology and sometimes confused concepts taken from the old.

Edit: Wait, theres the whole Innana Damuzi thing, but that doesn't match the wiccan conceptualization either.

[Louisvillian]

Wicca is new, not old. It isn't even a recontruction of the old, it's like the hollywood interpretation of the old, and not a very good one.
Now, I'll accept and embrace the fact that Wicca is new, although it does have certain ritual elements that go back to Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance times. But it is not a cheap "Hollywood interpretation of the old". It is very much a neo-pagan religion, with a revolutionary way of looking at the divine. This does not in any way invalidate it as a religious path.

And, besides, the tenets you listed are not core tenets. Just aspects which are most well-known.

[RainInanna]

Lets see, core tenants of wicca

There's a thread stuck to the top of this subforum with a list of core tenets you may be interested to look at.

[SwordsFlameSong]

In general, what I find highly amusing is how hypocritical some in the non-Christian religions are. Here you have Christians that bash the non-Christian paths, as well as, fighting amongst themselves. No Catholics are right. Oh no they aren't. They aren't Christians the Baptists are the real Christians .........on and on ad nauseam...

Now we see the same intolerance, narrow-minded view in the non-Christian paths. The term Wicca does not automatically mean fluff bunny. If a person is Celtic that doesn't make them a fluffy either. We have the same stupid argument going on "Celtic Reconstructionism is the real paganism Wicca is just fluffy." blah blah blah. Stereotyping of any faith is just plain wrong.

And the truly lovely thing is - if any religion does not work for you a body can move on and away.

Disparaging a whole because of a few is another form of bigory imho.

[Lunacie]

Lets see, core tenants of wicca
Three Fold Law - contrary to prechristian pagan concepts

The Wiccan Rede- yeah, not gonna comment

The God-Goddess rebirth cycles- Lot of experience in mythology, and I'm still not seeing any recorded or even referenced religion that follow the wiccan standard on this

The list goes on.

Wicca is new, not old. It isn't even a recontruction of the old, it's like the hollywood interpretation of the old, and not a very good one.

Yes there are maiden mother crone archetypes, but not much like wicca concieves it. Wicca is a new construct with bits of terminology and sometimes confused concepts taken from the old.

Edit: Wait, theres the whole Innana Damuzi thing, but that doesn't match the wiccan conceptualization either.

You think that is all there is to Wicca?

Take a peek at the list and the discussion in this thread... http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=151625



Thanks to the rest of you for trying to explain. I don't think anything we say here will make a difference to those who have already made their minds up that Wicca is a jumble of hollywood-fluffy-new age-reconstructing an old belief system. But we have to challenge these claims and correct the misinformation for those who may be reading and are willing to look at Wicca with an open mind and see what it really is.

[Philosophia]

In general, what I find highly amusing is how hypocritical some in the non-Christian religions are. Here you have Christians that bash the non-Christian paths, as well as, fighting amongst themselves. No Catholics are right. Oh no they aren't. They aren't Christians the Baptists are the real Christians .........on and on ad nauseam...

Now we see the same intolerance, narrow-minded view in the non-Christian paths. The term Wicca does not automatically mean fluff bunny. If a person is Celtic that doesn't make them a fluffy either. We have the same stupid argument going on "Celtic Reconstructionism is the real paganism Wicca is just fluffy." blah blah blah. Stereotyping of any faith is just plain wrong.

And the truly lovely thing is - if any religion does not work for you a body can move on and away.

Disparaging a whole because of a few is another form of bigory imho.

QFT :thumbsup:

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

One of the problems with Wicca is that it's become something of a Universal Unitarianism among the pagan religions - it's OK to believe whatever you like, don't tell anyone else that what they believe is wrong, and we'll just quietly ignore the legions of theological conflicts and controversies we have going on here. Just call yourself a Wiccan and you're good with us, even if you don't believe in a God and just worship a Goddess, even if you think doing ritual while drunk and stoned is an awesome idea, even if, even if, even if. We'll just sweep it under the rug and ignore it.

Because of this we have retards talking about having past-life memories of being burned at the stake in England for being a Wiccan, the whole otherkin/therian abortion, people taking that ridiculous Threefold law concept and running with it (I've heard some people say that if you're trained as a witch you get it back nine times, because you're more attuned to what you're doing - if that's not moral one-upmanship, I don't know what is), people claiming to have any number of 'psychic' powers that they conveniently are never seen using (I once knew someone who claimed she could see energy at an atomic level), people who still believe that Wicca is an ancient and persecuted religion, and more - and it's just not polite to call them on their bullshit. Criticizing someone's crazy and insane belief is Not To Be Done, because it's rude and impolite.

And I've been guilty of this. I've been witness to any number of stupidities in the pagan community and for some reason, for politeness, for friendship, whatever, I haven't.

[Lunacie]

Universal Unitarism isn't the same thing as Christianity, although they embrace Christianity as a valid belief system.

What you're describing, Silverfire, isn't Wicca either. It may have started from Wiccan beliefs and practices, but it has become so different that it is a mis-nomer to call it Wicca now.

If that's what works for those folks, I'm happy for them. I just wish they would find a name that is more fitting for whatever it is that they believe and practice, and stop confusing folks by calling it something it isn't.

[Zephyrstorm]

Universal Unitarism isn't the same thing as Christianity, although they embrace Christianity as a valid belief system.

What you're describing, Silverfire, isn't Wicca either. It may have started from Wiccan beliefs and practices, but it has become so different that it is a mis-nomer to call it Wicca now.

If that's what works for those folks, I'm happy for them. I just wish they would find a name that is more fitting for whatever it is that they believe and practice, and stop confusing folks by calling it something it isn't.

QFT :thumbsup:

[Moonlight's Daughter]

One of the problems with Wicca is that it's become something of a Universal Unitarianism among the pagan religions - it's OK to believe whatever you like, don't tell anyone else that what they believe is wrong, and we'll just quietly ignore the legions of theological conflicts and controversies we have going on here. Just call yourself a Wiccan and you're good with us, even if you don't believe in a God and just worship a Goddess, even if you think doing ritual while drunk and stoned is an awesome idea, even if, even if, even if. We'll just sweep it under the rug and ignore it.

Because of this we have retards talking about having past-life memories of being burned at the stake in England for being a Wiccan, the whole otherkin/therian abortion, people taking that ridiculous Threefold law concept and running with it (I've heard some people say that if you're trained as a witch you get it back nine times, because you're more attuned to what you're doing - if that's not moral one-upmanship, I don't know what is), people claiming to have any number of 'psychic' powers that they conveniently are never seen using (I once knew someone who claimed she could see energy at an atomic level), people who still believe that Wicca is an ancient and persecuted religion, and more - and it's just not polite to call them on their bullshit. Criticizing someone's crazy and insane belief is Not To Be Done, because it's rude and impolite.

And I've been guilty of this. I've been witness to any number of stupidities in the pagan community and for some reason, for politeness, for friendship, whatever, I haven't.

QFT!

[Louisvillian]

What you're describing, Silverfire, isn't Wicca either. It may have started from Wiccan beliefs and practices, but it has become so different that it is a mis-nomer to call it Wicca now.
Precisely. It isn't Wicca. It's a pseudo-Wiccan New-Age belief system. Fits more with Unitarian Univeralism, actually, than it does with Wicca.
It's absolutely fine if they have those beliefs; they should just find a better name that doesn't disseminate false information about Wicca (the other day, a friend of mine asked if I was Wiccan, and I said "yes", and he asked what exactly is it about, and another friend of mine butted in and said, "It's like white-light witchcraft." I wanted to smack him, but instead I calmly explained that white and dark, good and evil, are ethical dichotomies alien to Wicca. I certainly hope that he learned something there...).

[RainInanna]

I don't think anything we say here will make a difference to those who have already made their minds up that Wicca is a jumble of hollywood-fluffy-new age-reconstructing an old belief system. But we have to challenge these claims and correct the misinformation for those who may be reading and are willing to look at Wicca with an open mind and see what it really is.

Here's a thought to extend the discussion a new way - do we really? Should we? Are we really doing anyone any favours? What if we don't?

I remember another conversation I had elsewhere in which the other person, a traditionalist Wiccan, basically said "that's fine, those of us are serious will just keep practicing it properly". The idea being, let's just leave the fluffies and the know-it-alls to it, and keep on doing things our way.

[SwordsFlameSong]

I remember another conversation I had elsewhere in which the other person, a traditionalist Wiccan, basically said "that's fine, those of us are serious will just keep practicing it properly". The idea being, let's just leave the fluffies and the know-it-alls to it, and keep on doing things our way.


And you know that is the right stance to take. I do. Screw people who judge me on this arena. They have the right to their opinion though I may not like it. That doesn't mean I have to accept their opinion. Nor do I feel any real need to defend myself against their opinion.

[Lunacie]

Here's a thought to extend the discussion a new way - do we really? Should we? Are we really doing anyone any favours? What if we don't?

I remember another conversation I had elsewhere in which the other person, a traditionalist Wiccan, basically said "that's fine, those of us are serious will just keep practicing it properly". The idea being, let's just leave the fluffies and the know-it-alls to it, and keep on doing things our way.

That's part of what I was saying, I'm not trying to convince anyone that they're wrong. And I doubt whether any of the stuff they are saying is going to convince me that I'm being too stuffy because I follow the old ways and understand what Wicca really is all about.

I'm just trying to correct the misinformation they are spewing so that those who are still open-minded about Wicca can compare what the fluffies are saying with what a non-fluffy neo-Wiccan has learned.

[RainInanna]

That's part of what I was saying,

Oh yes, sorry if I wasn't clear, I only quoted your thought because it sent my thought on a tangent, not because I was picking on you or dissecting your post. Not meaning to argue or anything :)


I'm just trying to correct the misinformation they are spewing so that those who are still open-minded about Wicca can compare what the fluffies are saying with what a non-fluffy neo-Wiccan has learned.

That's what I mean though, I know some people who think we should just not bother at all. That if people really *are* drawn to Wicca, they will find the teacher and the resources. That it used to be harder for students to find Wicca, and as a result, it was practiced more to it's true meaning and value, and therefore that we should just let the fluffies and know-it-alls go on with it without correcting them at all.

Personally I am rather apathetic about the whole "fluffy" thing anymore, only because I have new respect for New Age beliefs. I do understand that that sort of thing isn't and shouldn't be called Wicca, and respect the idea of spreading true information and correcting misunderstandings, however sometimes it seems to lead to a lot more conflict and problems without much benefit. I'm actually more getting tired of people attacking "fluffies" and "New Agers", perhaps only because I'm closer to a "New Ager" then a Wiccan myself. I dunno, YMMV.

[Lunacie]

Oh yes, sorry if I wasn't clear, I only quoted your thought because it sent my thought on a tangent, not because I was picking on you or dissecting your post. Not meaning to argue or anything :)



That's what I mean though, I know some people who think we should just not bother at all. That if people really *are* drawn to Wicca, they will find the teacher and the resources. That it used to be harder for students to find Wicca, and as a result, it was practiced more to it's true meaning and value, and therefore that we should just let the fluffies and know-it-alls go on with it without correcting them at all.

Personally I am rather apathetic about the whole "fluffy" thing anymore, only because I have new respect for New Age beliefs. I do understand that that sort of thing isn't and shouldn't be called Wicca, and respect the idea of spreading true information and correcting misunderstandings, however sometimes it seems to lead to a lot more conflict and problems without much benefit. I'm actually more getting tired of people attacking "fluffies" and "New Agers", perhaps only because I'm closer to a "New Ager" then a Wiccan myself. I dunno, YMMV.

As I said, I don't see any point in trying to convince the fluffies, or in attacking them either. I'm just posting another point of view for folks to consider.

I didn't think I was attacking anyone here, did it seem like I was?

[Nox_Mortus]

I fail to see how any religion can be overrated, except for Scientology or something like that, but that's different.

[RainInanna]

As I said, I don't see any point in trying to convince the fluffies, or in attacking them either. I'm just posting another point of view for folks to consider.

I didn't think I was attacking anyone here, did it seem like I was?

Oh no, you didn't at all. I wasn't thinking of you. Sorry my brain is rambling, I think I'll leave this alone for now since I'm obviously not making sense :)

[Hunger]

I think some of what I said was not said properly.

I don't mind at all, and rather respect those who follow a strong tradition.

Maybe it's an issue of terminology for me, because I can't bring myself to describe those like Alexandrians as 'wiccans' because in modern society, 'wicca' has taken on the exact stereotype we have been describing.

Sure it may be a new religion, but those of established traditions have a strong canon, well developed creed, many established elements of cult, and gather together in communities.

As long as those traits are present, then it isa valid religion as far as I'm concerned. Sure I may rip on Alexandrians and Gardnerians, and other established traditions every once in a while, it's a symptom of being an inflamatory prick, but I do respect them. Sure it may not be drawn from actual witchcraft but rather ceremonial magic given a religious bent and the trappings of 'ancient' religions, but I still respect it. I just wish they'd be more honest about their roots, and stop perpetuating falsehood.

When I talk about 'wiccans' without any tradition mentioned, it's generally entirely derisive, as non-trad wicca is a joke. (Though there are solitaries who follow the traditions who are part of online or correspondance communities, or people who work with a crossover of specific traditions, and I don't include them in this statement.) The 'Wicca' label invites derision for the most part, as the vast majority of 'practitioners' are those who typify the exact traits we have been arguing about.

Of course, the term neo-wiccan would be more applicable, a branch of neo-neo-paganism (*smirks*), to describe such practitioners. I think in the effort of reducing confusion I will refer to them as such hereafter, so I don't wind up insulting those who I don't mean to.

My apologies to those who felt slighted.

[Lunacie]

I think some of what I said was not said properly.

I don't mind at all, and rather respect those who follow a strong tradition.

Maybe it's an issue of terminology for me, because I can't bring myself to describe those like Alexandrians as 'wiccans' because in modern society, 'wicca' has taken on the exact stereotype we have been describing.

Sure it may be a new religion, but those of established traditions have a strong canon, well developed creed, many established elements of cult, and gather together in communities.

As long as those traits are present, then it isa valid religion as far as I'm concerned. Sure I may rip on Alexandrians and Gardnerians, and other established traditions every once in a while, it's a symptom of being an inflamatory prick, but I do respect them. Sure it may not be drawn from actual witchcraft but rather ceremonial magic given a religious bent and the trappings of 'ancient' religions, but I still respect it. I just wish they'd be more honest about their roots, and stop perpetuating falsehood.

When I talk about 'wiccans' without any tradition mentioned, it's generally entirely derisive, as non-trad wicca is a joke. (Though there are solitaries who follow the traditions who are part of online or correspondance communities, or people who work with a crossover of specific traditions, and I don't include them in this statement.) The 'Wicca' label invites derision for the most part, as the vast majority of 'practitioners' are those who typify the exact traits we have been arguing about.

Of course, the term neo-wiccan would be more applicable, a branch of neo-neo-paganism (*smirks*), to describe such practitioners. I think in the effort of reducing confusion I will refer to them as such hereafter, so I don't wind up insulting those who I don't mean to.

My apologies to those who felt slighted.

Thanks for explaining where you're coming from a bit more.

Here's where I'm coming from, and it's like the difference between day and night to what you believe apparently ... I think Wicca (as I learned it and as a lot of the posters on this forum practice it) has it's roots in Witchcraft as a religion, with the trappings of ceremonial magic added to it rather than the other way around.

That is not to say that those who claim Wicca is hundreds or thousands of years old and that lots of Wiccan Witches were burnt at the stake have it right. But there is definately some history that can be traced which matches what Gardner was calling the Craft of the Wise, or Wica.

I'm doing my best in forums like this one, to correct the view that Wicca means the kinds of things that have been commented on in this thread. I think there are still a lot of Wiccans who follow a more traditional practice, and I don't see us giving up the title without so much as a whimper.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I fail to see how any religion can be overrated, except for Scientology or something like that, but that's different.

Ah, but Scientology is a business, not a religion.

...of course, sometimes when I got on the Internet and/or bookstore, it seems Wicca is headed that way, too :P

[Hunger]

I propose the establishment of a new meme then.

Perhaps we should refer to traditionless wicca as 'neo-wicca' that way they have something to call themselves that won't be as insulting to people who actually follow a real wiccan path.

[Lunacie]

I propose the establishment of a new meme then.

Perhaps we should refer to traditionless wicca as 'neo-wicca' that way they have something to call themselves that won't be as insulting to people who actually follow a real wiccan path.

You think that hasn't been proposed before?

I've seen that particular proposal every now and then since I first hooked up to the internet some 7 years ago, and I don't doubt it's been around even longer than that. Amazing how insulting the people who practice fluffy neo-wicca find that suggestion to be.

And of course there are the dyed-in-the-wool traditional Wiccans who claim that Eclectic Wicca isn't a valid tradition, even though Wicca (like almost every known religion) is somewhat eclectic.

[Hunger]

Yes, but it doesn't matter if they find it offensive. It's people that worry about offending the idiots that make the occult in general be taken as a joke.

As for eclecticism, I don't have a problem with it, though it isn't a religion until a canon is established, and the rites and sayings of it are made clear. Then all that is required is to give it a name, and develop a community.

All religions are elclectic, from Christianity to Mithraism, but it doesn't become a real religion until it has been Established.

'Eclectic Wicca' as though it were a tradition in itself is not a religion at all though, but merely a term that is rather confusing, as all forms of wicca are eclectic. In terms of its actual meaning 'Eclectic Wicca' is the exact same thing as 'Wicca' in general, neither term describing an actual religion, but rather being a category in which groups of religions (traditions) with somewhat similar features are lumped.

Much like 'Christianity' isn't a religion either, but rather an umbrella term used to lump together the actual religions, such as Roman Catholocism, Southern Baptists, Latter Day Saints, Eastern Orthodox, and other religions with similar traits.

[Louisvillian]

I propose the establishment of a new meme then.

Perhaps we should refer to traditionless wicca as 'neo-wicca' that way they have something to call themselves that won't be as insulting to people who actually follow a real wiccan path.
The problem with that is not all traditionless Wiccans are neo-Wiccans.

In any case, that term does already exist, and is usually used to describe fluffy-Wiccans which are on the extreme end of the heterodoxy spectrum. It's just that Neo-Wiccans find it insulting to self-describe with that term.

[Lunacie]

Yes, but it doesn't matter if they find it offensive. It's people that worry about offending the idiots that make the occult in general be taken as a joke.

Yeah, I get that. I'm just saying that they're not going to give up the title no matter whether anyone else thinks what they're practicing is close enough to Wicca that they wouldn't get laughed out of a traditional coven.



As for eclecticism, I don't have a problem with it, though it isn't a religion until a canon is established, and the rites and sayings of it are made clear. Then all that is required is to give it a name, and develop a community.

I don't belong to the UEW (Universal Eclectic Wicca) but I understand that they do have all that stuff. I think maybe the WCC (Wiccan Church of Canada) is also eclectic and also has all that stuff. There may be others that I don't know about.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I think maybe the WCC (Wiccan Church of Canada) is also eclectic and also has all that stuff. There may be others that I don't know about.

We are not exactly an eclectic tradition. While the public rituals that happen on Saturday and Sunday nights may take a huge variety of forms, the general ritual structure (unless we're doing something quite unusual, or have guest priesthood) is the same - besom sweep, elemental purifications, wine blessing; hell, we even have a standardized set of quarter and deity calls and farewells, which we tend to use more on special occasions than anything else.

Our priesthood are all trained in the Odyssean Tradition at least; many of them have degrees in other traditions as well. What happens in private rituals I'm not entirely sure. I expect that once I get my First Degree (Gods willing, and my talents being sufficient) then I'll know more about that, but I also expect I won't be able to talk about it :P

Whether or not the Odyssean Tradition counts as BTW is a matter of debate, and I honestly don't know enough about the differences to say whether that is true or not.

[Lunacie]

>
Whether or not the Odyssean Tradition counts as BTW is a matter of debate, and I honestly don't know enough about the differences to say whether that is true or not.

Neither do I. Thanks for sharing what you do know about the WCC.

[Simply Puzzled]

Whether or not the Odyssean Tradition counts as BTW is a matter of debate, and I honestly don't know enough about the differences to say whether that is true or not.

Well, BTW's themselves are split on the issue. Some accept them, while others consider them just over the wrong side of the line. Since their is no Wiccan Pope, I don't think the issue will ever be firmly resolved one way or the other. Since the Odyssean Tradition itself doesn't seem to seek, or even want, the approval of others, the issue is kind of moot.

[LadyDancer1181]

Perhaps it would help if you were able to experience Wicca the way many of us practice it, instead of the fluffy, watered-down version that has been promoted by many authors trying to sell their books.

The Wicca I practice is definately a real path, and there is nothing over-rated about following a spiritual practice that brings you into a closer relationship with the Divine as it manifests in so many different ways.

QFT! I'm actually involved in a similar discussion on another forum about why one Wicca stereotype is that Wicca seems like a path for the immature. I believe a lot of it has to do with the dumbed-down, sanitized version of Wicca that is presented in so many of the books made available to the public. It is unfortunate how many books out there slap the "Wiccan" label on the back cover and yet contain little or none of the core tenets and practices of Wicca within the pages. It seems these days Wicca is a catch-all phrase for any system that loosely utilizes magic and discusses psychic awareness.

I think the issue is that the term "Wicca" tends to somehow be considered less offensive or worthy of hysteria and fear than "Witchcraft". People see the word "Wicca" on a book cover and pass by it without any thought other than, "eh, no harm there. We all know Wiccans are just a bunch of goofy EMO kids trying to be like Harry Potter". From an outsider's perspective (perhaps even someone vocally opposed to the practice of Witchcraft), Wicca is about as harmful as eating too much candy. Sure, they may be some immediate ill effects, but in the long run there is no substantial damage.

It is unfortunate that the Fluffy Bunny image of Wicca is the one most frequently conveyed. I believe it's largely due to the fact that Fluffies are the ones most likely to be "in your face" about their beliefs and practices, whereas your more mature and serious Wiccans tend to be more private and not as disposed to disclosing their beliefs with those outside of Wicca.

[Lunacie]

QFT! I'm actually involved in a similar discussion on another forum about why one Wicca stereotype is that Wicca seems like a path for the immature. I believe a lot of it has to do with the dumbed-down, sanitized version of Wicca that is presented in so many of the books made available to the public. It is unfortunate how many books out there slap the "Wiccan" label on the back cover and yet contain little or none of the core tenets and practices of Wicca within the pages. It seems these days Wicca is a catch-all phrase for any system that loosely utilizes magic and discusses psychic awareness.

I think the issue is that the term "Wicca" tends to somehow be considered less offensive or worthy of hysteria and fear than "Witchcraft". People see the word "Wicca" on a book cover and pass by it without any thought other than, "eh, no harm there. We all know Wiccans are just a bunch of goofy EMO kids trying to be like Harry Potter". From an outsider's perspective (perhaps even someone vocally opposed to the practice of Witchcraft), Wicca is about as harmful as eating too much candy. Sure, they may be some immediate ill effects, but in the long run there is no substantial damage.

It is unfortunate that the Fluffy Bunny image of Wicca is the one most frequently conveyed. I believe it's largely due to the fact that Fluffies are the ones most likely to be "in your face" about their beliefs and practices, whereas your more mature and serious Wiccans tend to be more private and not as disposed to disclosing their beliefs with those outside of Wicca.\



That's very insightful and I agree. Allthough even some who are quite serious are still pretty "in your face" when excited at first finding the right path for them. I was a newbie myself once upon a time. :giggle:

[Louisvillian]

I believe it's largely due to the fact that Fluffies are the ones most likely to be "in your face" about their beliefs and practices, whereas your more mature and serious Wiccans tend to be more private and not as disposed to disclosing their beliefs with those outside of Wicca.
Exactly. It's the same reason a lot of people generalize Christians based on the fundamentalists and evangelicals (and the reason the more reasonable Christians dislike evangelicals). It's not that those people are the majority, just that they are, sadly, the most vocal in public about it.

[LadyDancer1181]

Exactly. It's the same reason a lot of people generalize Christians based on the fundamentalists and evangelicals (and the reason the more reasonable Christians dislike evangelicals). It's not that those people are the majority, just that they are, sadly, the most vocal in public about it.

That is a good analogy. When examining such an example, it causes a person to ponder the question - are the "in your face" types "real Wiccans/Christians/Muslims, etc.?

I find myself in a big dilemma when I start trying to figure out who is the "real" Wiccan, mainly because I know how aggravated I become on the behalf of my Christian friends who are accused of not being "true Christians" because they vote Democrat or because they attend a more liberal church. I truly feel it would be hypocritical for me to judge whether or not anyone is a "real" anything, seeing how I don't care to be labeled as a "McWiccan" or "some sort of Witch, but not Wiccan" because I've never been properly initiated.

Granted, I believe there are some unifying themes that run throughout the Wiccan religion that most earnest practitioners agree upon and observe; however, in the debate of "will the real Wiccans please stand up" I find that oftentimes I am guilty of being just as sanctimonious as the fundamentalist Christians who start adding requisites to being a "true Christian". That's something I must work on.

Not sure what this really has to do with the OP, but your analogy got me thinking about that, Louisvillian.

[Convallaria]

Well, the core beliefs and practices of Gardnerian Witchcraft (or Wicca) match very closely beliefs and practices that can be traced back before the birth of Christ - so was there something written somewhere that hasn't been publicized in any way that led those folks to recreate the old religion? Or did it continue to live in small pockets here and there the way Gardner says it did?

I think a lot of people like to trust what books tell them instead of going out and looking it up themselves. A good many pagans and Wiccans have no idea what The Golden Dawn is/was, and don't know much about what Gardner's original practises were. They don't know the modern history of the religion and are happier to believe that what they are practicing is the same religion as the pagan folk in the British countryside were practising before the Roman invasion, and the subsequent Anglo-Saxon takeover, and Christianization.

Then again, for some, the history isn't important at all. What's important is living it every day, and feeling it out for yourself.

[Nox_Mortus]

The problem with that is not all traditionless Wiccans are neo-Wiccans.

In any case, that term does already exist, and is usually used to describe fluffy-Wiccans which are on the extreme end of the heterodoxy spectrum. It's just that Neo-Wiccans find it insulting to self-describe with that term.

I would say the majority of them are, unless they where privy to a lot of oathbound material before they became traditionless, I don't necessarily equate neo-wicca with fluffies, just non-traditional Wiccans, of course I also have a stricter definition of Wicca than most.

I think neo-Wicca is far favorable to "not wicca at all" which is what a some traditionalists would call "eclectic Wicca"

[FaeriPryncess]

Wicca is the religion that is usually associated with witchcraft and is usually the "starter religion" for young pagans. But when you think about the fluffiness and watered-ness of Wicca and the books specific to them do you find that really it's over-rated and not a real path?

I've been sort of Wiccan for a while but I've always questioned it, and the older I get the more not-drawn I am to it.

In fact I sort of went back to Christianity because it lost it's appeal and reasoning to me. Sure I agree with the nature bits about it, but the three folds law and the extremist interpretations that water it down more is appealing to me less and less.

No offense but even Christians aren't that fluffy all the time that some new age Wiccans are.

I'd like to follow a path that gave me more freedom with my spells and not have me feel guilty about it.
I am a Gardnerian, who trained in a Gardnerian Coven, and I took vows at swordpoint to the Lord and Lady that I would be their Priestess and Witch.
I spent years hating bunnies, and still don't really care for them. Here is what I noticed: the bunny people are those who are on the edge about their own belief systems and self-image, and go looking for some version of the not-what-my-parents-did thing, or else something like it. After a funny dance of I-don't-this and I-dont'-that, and a decided lack of vision of the ways of Wicca, I see these very same bunnies leave Wicca, too. Yes, people come, and people go from the Craft all the time. It's all very similar to the above post, in it's cycle.
Well, they are welcome to go, as one's Path is a personal journey that no one else can dictate. Far be it from me to dissuade anyone.
But I would suggest, in a kindly manner, to you or anyone else like the above to know that, namely, the wafflers/bunnies are not *witches*, and certainly not in the eyes of those who are avowed, trained, and knowledgable and devout about the ancient magickal ways, such as myself.
Truthfully, it's a great relief to hear the call of uncle from the bunny factor of the wider community, as the one and only stance I ever saw bunnies take was that they were 'for real', too, and oh how they wanted my property and propriety. This really makes me feel like rejoicing. I am so glad I read this thread today!

[YoungSoulRebel]

Yes, in a sense, I feel that Wicca is "overrated", but in a similar sense that I feel that The Rolling Stones are overrated (and I may not practise Wicca, but I love The Rolling Stones).

Basically, it's been promoted by not only authors, but MANY of its followers as THE Definitive Pagan Path(tm), and it's not. Because of this, a lot of people end up getting turned off by Paganism in general (sometimes for life, sometimes for only a few years, comparatively speaking), simply because Wicca does not now, nor will ever suit them -- trust me, I'm one of them. The fact that Wicca is treated as a "starter path" by many seems incredibly telling.

Now, let's take The Rolling Stones: They're hardly THE Definitive UK Rhythm & Blues group, but most people start with The Rolling Stones and move on to The Pretty Things, The Yardbirds, and other groups. Or maybe The Rolling Stones' sound in the 1980s doesn't suit the person, and they end up turned off by and eschewing all UK bands from the 1960s because of it.

OK, some analogies don't bear close examination, but my suggestion is that if one isn't happy with Wicca, well, there are definitely more options than Christianity. Maybe you're better suited for Feri? Or if "magic" doesn't appeal to you, perhaps a nice Recon path? For the right people, Wicca can be an enlightening, valid, and strong path -- but for those who it just isn't suited for, then I'm sorry, but YES, Wicca is going to come off as "overrated" for the reasons I listed.

[Nox_Mortus]

Yes, in a sense, I feel that Wicca is "overrated", but in a similar sense that I feel that The Rolling Stones are overrated (and I may not practise Wicca, but I love The Rolling Stones).

Basically, it's been promoted by not only authors, but MANY of its followers as THE Definitive Pagan Path(tm), and it's not. Because of this, a lot of people end up getting turned off by Paganism in general (sometimes for life, sometimes for only a few years, comparatively speaking), simply because Wicca does not now, nor will ever suit them -- trust me, I'm one of them. The fact that Wicca is treated as a "starter path" by many seems incredibly telling.

Now, let's take The Rolling Stones: They're hardly THE Definitive UK Rhythm & Blues group, but most people start with The Rolling Stones and move on to The Pretty Things, The Yardbirds, and other groups. Or maybe The Rolling Stones' sound in the 1980s doesn't suit the person, and they end up turned off by and eschewing all UK bands from the 1960s because of it.

OK, some analogies don't bear close examination, but my suggestion is that if one isn't happy with Wicca, well, there are definitely more options than Christianity. Maybe you're better suited for Feri? Or if "magic" doesn't appeal to you, perhaps a nice Recon path? For the right people, Wicca can be an enlightening, valid, and strong path -- but for those who it just isn't suited for, then I'm sorry, but YES, Wicca is going to come off as "overrated" for the reasons I listed.

I agree with this, partly because it makes us all look bad, and partly because it goes contrary to traditional Wiccan teachings. Of course it doesn't help that a lot of books on "Wicca" don't talk about anything that resembles actual Wicca in the traditional sense. That's actually another issue, a lot of people get turned of by Wicca because all they have been exposed to is some fluffy white lighter shit, I'm not saying Wicca is for everyone, but it really annoys me that all of that gets associated with it when it isn't reallylike that at all.

[David19]

Yes, in a sense, I feel that Wicca is "overrated", but in a similar sense that I feel that The Rolling Stones are overrated (and I may not practise Wicca, but I love The Rolling Stones).

Basically, it's been promoted by not only authors, but MANY of its followers as THE Definitive Pagan Path(tm), and it's not. Because of this, a lot of people end up getting turned off by Paganism in general (sometimes for life, sometimes for only a few years, comparatively speaking), simply because Wicca does not now, nor will ever suit them -- trust me, I'm one of them. The fact that Wicca is treated as a "starter path" by many seems incredibly telling.

Now, let's take The Rolling Stones: They're hardly THE Definitive UK Rhythm & Blues group, but most people start with The Rolling Stones and move on to The Pretty Things, The Yardbirds, and other groups. Or maybe The Rolling Stones' sound in the 1980s doesn't suit the person, and they end up turned off by and eschewing all UK bands from the 1960s because of it.

OK, some analogies don't bear close examination, but my suggestion is that if one isn't happy with Wicca, well, there are definitely more options than Christianity. Maybe you're better suited for Feri? Or if "magic" doesn't appeal to you, perhaps a nice Recon path? For the right people, Wicca can be an enlightening, valid, and strong path -- but for those who it just isn't suited for, then I'm sorry, but YES, Wicca is going to come off as "overrated" for the reasons I listed.

QFT, and good post, I agree with a lot of the points you raised :).

[YoungSoulRebel]

I agree with this, partly because it makes us all look bad, and partly because it goes contrary to traditional Wiccan teachings. Of course it doesn't help that a lot of books on "Wicca" don't talk about anything that resembles actual Wicca in the traditional sense. That's actually another issue, a lot of people get turned of by Wicca because all they have been exposed to is some fluffy white lighter shit, I'm not saying Wicca is for everyone, but it really annoys me that all of that gets associated with it when it isn't reallylike that at all.

Whether you agree with it or not, that's simply what the public face of Wicca is -- at least at this point in history. And sorry, but that's the chaff that comes with practising a mystery religion. I'm sure the original Orphics are rolling in their graves over what some Hellenic Recons are doing with the scattered Orphic writings that have surfaced. It's far from perfect, but you know, only saying "that's not what Wicca really is!!!" will only carry so much weight when what Wicca REALLY is, is a mystery religion protected by oaths.

If this offends anybody, well, then, I'm sorry, but in all honesty, it's just the truth about being in a mystery religion. While it goes without saying that there's only so much that Trad. Wiccans can say about what Wicca is REALLY like, being oath-bound and all that, it also goes without saying that the outright "fluffy" or just merely watered-down "solitary" readings are going to be all that the general public is ever going to know about Wicca.

And speaking sincerely? I have a fair idea of what Wicca is REALLY like. I've read through Gardner and other fairly knowledged people. I've had Brit Trad friends. If you think I said what I did to "make [you] all look bad", then hon, you're sorely mistaken. I have nothing but respect for Trad Wicca -- which is how I know it's not for me, never was, nor will ever be. And honestly? If "Neo Wicca" is going to truly enrich somebody's life, then good for them -- it does nobody any good to trash-talk what another person needs to enrich their lives.

But sincerely? Wicca, even and especially "Neo-Wicca", IS the face of "Paganism" in the eyes and minds of the general public. THAT is what makes it overrated. Ironically, what started as a mystery religion has been twisted into the public face of modern paganism and watered-down beyond recognition -- immensely overrated. If asked what my religion is, I can't ever just say "I'm pagan", and leave it at that -- when I try, people assume that I practise some kind of "wicca"; so I have to add all of these modifiers -- "Hellenic", "Polytheist", "John Jacob Jingleheimmer-Schmidt" -- and before I know it, I'm in a conversation about my religion. We can talk about how "Pagan" is a broad umbrella term all we like, but that won't change the fact that when the GP hears "Pagan" they think "Wicca" -- spare me your forthcoming rodomontade about how "they aren't even thinking REAL Wicca!" because, oh boy, trust me, I know it.

[Cake-eating_Moth]

If asked what my religion is, I can't ever just say "I'm pagan", and leave it at that -- when I try, people assume that I practise some kind of "wicca"; so I have to add all of these modifiers -- "Hellenic", "Polytheist", "John Jacob Jingleheimmer-Schmidt" -- and before I know it, I'm in a conversation about my religion. We can talk about how "Pagan" is a broad umbrella term all we like, but that won't change the fact that when the GP hears "Pagan" they think "Wicca" -- spare me your forthcoming rodomontade about how "they aren't even thinking REAL Wicca!" because, oh boy, trust me, I know it.

I don't have that problem. Maybe because I live in the South and most people here still don't know about Wicca. So, luckily, I get to explain a reasonable definition of "Pagan" to them without all of the media brainwash hooey.

[Nox_Mortus]

Whether you agree with it or not, that's simply what the public face of Wicca is -- at least at this point in history. And sorry, but that's the chaff that comes with practising a mystery religion. I'm sure the original Orphics are rolling in their graves over what some Hellenic Recons are doing with the scattered Orphic writings that have surfaced. It's far from perfect, but you know, only saying "that's not what Wicca really is!!!" will only carry so much weight when what Wicca REALLY is, is a mystery religion protected by oaths.

If this offends anybody, well, then, I'm sorry, but in all honesty, it's just the truth about being in a mystery religion. While it goes without saying that there's only so much that Trad. Wiccans can say about what Wicca is REALLY like, being oath-bound and all that, it also goes without saying that the outright "fluffy" or just merely watered-down "solitary" readings are going to be all that the general public is ever going to know about Wicca.

And speaking sincerely? I have a fair idea of what Wicca is REALLY like. I've read through Gardner and other fairly knowledged people. I've had Brit Trad friends. If you think I said what I did to "make [you] all look bad", then hon, you're sorely mistaken. I have nothing but respect for Trad Wicca -- which is how I know it's not for me, never was, nor will ever be. And honestly? If "Neo Wicca" is going to truly enrich somebody's life, then good for them -- it does nobody any good to trash-talk what another person needs to enrich their lives.

But sincerely? Wicca, even and especially "Neo-Wicca", IS the face of "Paganism" in the eyes and minds of the general public. THAT is what makes it overrated. Ironically, what started as a mystery religion has been twisted into the public face of modern paganism and watered-down beyond recognition -- immensely overrated. If asked what my religion is, I can't ever just say "I'm pagan", and leave it at that -- when I try, people assume that I practise some kind of "wicca"; so I have to add all of these modifiers -- "Hellenic", "Polytheist", "John Jacob Jingleheimmer-Schmidt" -- and before I know it, I'm in a conversation about my religion. We can talk about how "Pagan" is a broad umbrella term all we like, but that won't change the fact that when the GP hears "Pagan" they think "Wicca" -- spare me your forthcoming rodomontade about how "they aren't even thinking REAL Wicca!" because, oh boy, trust me, I know it.

Umm, I was agreeing with you for the most part, I think you severely misinterpreted my post, although I disagree about it being over rated, the fact that the only people the general public are aware of that openly practice "neo-Wicca" tend to be total attention whores/nutcases gets us a lot more negative attention than positive in the public eye, I would hardly call that being over rated.