"Reformist" Wicca?

[Erincelt]

I wonder, what are all your thoughts on the so-called Reformist movement within Wicca and paganism in general?

Do you think it really exists?

If so, do you think its needed?

Are the "fluffies" and white-lighters really a problem, or is this all about ego?

Is it vital to retain tradition in order to preserve Wicca's "core"?

Is it possible to maintain an "orthodox" form of Wicca without final central authority, and without detracting from the personal experiance?

Thoughts?

[Haruka2077]

Assuming that the web site at the end of your post is representative of a "reformist" movement, I think it has its points. I would like to see more rational, serious pagans with at least some kind of well-reasoned moral code. And a little more logic would be a refreshing change! On the other hand, one of the strengths of Wicca is the freedom to explore new ways of thinking, interacting, and worshiping outside of social norms. Taking that away might put us in danger of stagnation. There are detrimental extremes either way.

[Erincelt]

I understand and second your thoughts on it.. but what I've seen/heard in most of the "reformist" activity I've come across is not really about losing the flexability of Wicca but rather about establishing what makes Wicca... well.. Wicca, in a way that is undeniable, that is to say, one which it could be said "must apply" to anyone using the label Wiccan.

That and on looking back to the earliest (ie, Gardnerian) form, how it was/is followed, and what it stands for, and bringing that back. No, we aren't going to go back to believing Murray's theories about a Great Goddess cult, or to only practicing in the buff, or the Great Rite being... well, more than symbolic... or at least not en masse. The idea is making it clear how it evolved and what it means to us now.

Gah.. that ended up long winded.. I didn't mean for it to. :)

[Djiril]

Originally posted by Haruka2077

Assuming that the web site at the end of your post is representative of a "reformist" movement, I think it has its points.
I just got a picture when I clicked on that link. What did you get?

[Valnorran]

That's all I got, too.

I've been wondering lately; does the fact that I have no compunctions about blasting a furry woodland creature out of existence so I can eat its body and wear its skin disqualify me from Wicca? I love and am in awe of nature, yet I sometimes feel like the only Wiccan on the planet who realizes Walt Disney's theories about the natural world are warped, to put it politely, and that as much as I love nature, nature doesn't particularly love me. Nor does it care if I suffer or experience pain and misery, and nature has seen to it that I will eventually die. I find predators far more interesting than prey animals, and while I never go looking to start trouble I will be more than happy to stop it should it come looking for me. I find weapons and their various uses endlessly fascinating and would happily apply that knowledge to anyone who tried to harm my family. While the main goddess of my pantheon is Danu, I've always had a fascination (infatuation?) with the Morrigan. Ah, the Morrigan... THAT'S my girl!

Maybe I could start a new tradition, Realistic Wicca. I'd also have to find a new title, since fluffy bunny obviously doesn't apply to me. I've thought of several possibilities, but the one I like best is the Wiccanator. As a believer in reincarnation, my epitaph could be "Ah'll be bahck".

[Erincelt]

Hmm.. that's odd that the link isn't working for you guys.. lemme try posting it: Wicca For the Rest of Us (http://www.geocities.com/anatharxes/wicca/index.html)

Maybe I could start a new tradition, Realistic Wicca.

That's what its all about, man. :) CUEW... Museic... and to a lesser extent Dragon Tradition... (listed form oldest to newest) these are some attempts at doing just that. And you've got the right idea.. nature is neither good nor evil, it just IS, and that means sometimes one creature dies so another may live. So it has been from the beginning, so it shall continue unended.

[Uriel17]

I thin what you're saying is basically right. My problem is, I never considered the fluffy bunnies Wiccans. :lol:

Wicca is really amorphous. Now I understand wanting to stay away from Orthodoxy, but if Wicca is going to survive there has to be a rational element of the religion. I don't know how to best going about doing that...

Reason shouldn't be OVER emphasized, but it is certainly an integral part of any religion.

Maybe the fluffie bunniesa are a backlash against a society that over emphasizes reason. Who knows?

Tim.

[Lunacie]

Well, there's a center, see, and then there are people further out at each end. Extremists if you will. There always have been and there always will be a center and extremes at each end. The real problem is that those who are the furtherst from each other don't admit that they are at the extreme edge. They always assume that where they are is the center, and anyone who is different is the extremist, eh?

There will always be those who are militant about preserving the core of Wicca and those who seek freedom to do it their own way. Fortunately there is more access to reliable information via internet and out-of-the-closet teachers every day. Unfortunately there is also more UNreliable information being handed out and defended as perfectly good. What is the solution? Danged if I know. But animosity isn't the answer and I see so much of that from both extremes. :(

[Kaylara]

This woman had the cohones to email me and preach to me. :shakes head: She didn't even ask me any questions. She saw my half finished website, and automatically assumed I am new to wicca and didn't know anything. I think that if it weren't for her assumption that *EVERYONE* but her is an idiot who doesn't know what it means to be a wiccan, I may agree with her more. But she's shown to me by her obnoxious email that she is more conceited than actaully concerned.

(copies of email available upon request.)

Kaylara

[Lunacie]

Originally posted by Kaylara

(copies of email available upon request.)

Kaylara


No. Thanks anyway. I've already read enough of that condescending, conceited crap for the next couple of lifetimes. :lol:

[Erincelt]

Originally posted by Kaylara
(copies of email available upon request.)

I for one would like to see.

And I don't deny the "extremists" but to be honest.. fundamentalism isn't very becoming of Wicca either. That's the paradox and irony of it. Its about honesty. If someone comes up to a "Reformist" and asks where Gardner came up with it all: "He made it up. But he adapted it from source such as...."' and so forth. I think you get the idea.. don't know if I'm expressing myself right.. I slept in really late this morning and didn't get up till just now.. *sheepish grin*

[SagaDraco]

I'm not a Wiccan, but I would start taking Wicca seriously if you all "trimmed" the hordes of fluffy types from your ranks. I like this website-if I were a Wiccan I'd take the authors words very seriously.

"Being tolerant of other religions does not mean they're all your religion. Blind absorption of other religions' traditions and pantheons is not only silly but insulting."

Couldn't agree more.

"Nature is comprised of more than love and goodness"

Damned straight.

"We will not be taken seriously until the "Dungeons and Dragons," crunchy-granola, white-light-fuzzy-bunny, weirdo thing is dropped by those who are already out! We will all be victimized until pagans stop conducting themselves in public in ways that may be considered odd or anti-social. ... There were enough NON-pagans martyred for social and political reasons during the burning times that we need ZERO pagan martyrs today. Today we need strength."

HEAR HEAR!

I speak as an outsider of course, but I would like and respect Wiccans significantly more if they listened to this person.

[Lunacie]

But ~ I was playing Dungeons & Dragons and I was a "weirdo" long before I became Pagan/Wiccan. I even like granola and use white light energy for healing work. :D

But I get your drift. In order to be taken seriously we have to ... what? Fit into the existing social structure? Try not to look or act different?

Sorry, I take my faith seriously. I don't take myself seriously. Life's too short not to laugh at ourselves. It's too short to give up on being who we really are in order to fit in. There really are extremes. I can see them both from the center where I'm at. :p

[Erincelt]

I love D&D! *holds up his half-elf Bard/Druid, named "Porthos Siannodel"*

As for taking faith serious and not ourselves... I'd shout amen but then someone'd take it wrong. :) I couldn't agree more, and have felt that very way from the beginning. It just needs to be established that Wicca isn't just a catch-all for anybody who just wants a label or wants an excuse to decorate everything with unicorns -- don't get me wrong, I love unicorns. And yes I know about the original unicorn myths.. let's just not even bo there.. *cackles insanely for a while*

And there's nothing wrong with white-light energy. But we have to acknowledge that it isn't the only, and that plenty of people work with other "kinds". Nature isn't all love and joy after all... otherwise we wouldn't have things like the bubonic plague.. *shiver*

And no one's saying we have to fit in... gods look at me.. a techno-grungy. :bug: But... yeah.. I think you're getting the drift, and I just realized how insanely long this post is getting... so why am I still typing?? Maybe I should stop... yeah I think I'll do that now. *slaps hands*

[RubyRose]

I think tradition is good, particularly with these types of religions, though change is also good, but we don't want to go changing everything ... I think that religions should change to suit the needs of the induvidual ... such as wiccan and paganism does ...

[Lunacie]

I think you just nailed it RubyRose. Some people don't think there should be any change at all, as if change would somehow be sacreligious. And some think they should be able to change any part that doesn't quite suit them just because they found something kewler.

I think that the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes of thinking, that if there isn't any change a religion or faith path may become stagnant yet there are certain basics which should be a firm foundation.

[Ben Gruagach]

I have a few problems with the "reformist" (a.k.a. fluffy-bunny-bashing) crowd.

A lot of the fuss seems to come back to one particular thing: judging a book by its cover. As Kaylara pointed out from her personal experience, some people are very quick to judge someone else on partial information, and don't bother asking the person being judged anything to see if there is perhaps a lot more behind the first impression appearance.

I'm gay, and have been "out" since the mid 1980s. I lived in southern Ontario Canada (Kingston, Hamilton, Toronto) until recently. I saw this same sort of bashing within our own community during the late 80s and in the 90s - it was a form of Political Correctness. The "acceptable appearance" in the gay community seemed to be that of a Yuppie -- you didn't stand out in a crowd, held a "respectable" job, and more or less wouldn't be picked out as gay or lesbian. The reasoning was always about the importance of getting the community accepted by outsiders.

Sound familiar?

The thing I find funny about the complaints about "fuzzy bunnies" is that if the criteria were applied against people like Gerald Gardner and Alex Sanders, they'd be as "fuzzy" and "bunny-like" as they come. They happily dressed up rather odd for the media cameras, went on and on about Wicca being an unbroken tradition handed to them through initiation in a line going back to the stone age. And they also quite happily borrowed bits and pieces from other religions and cultures (one might say "blindly") and incorporated them into their own systems. Those are the very things that the anti-fluffy-bunny types are complaining the loudest about.

We should try and identify what the "core" of Wicca is, as it isn't just anything someone wants to slap the label on. But once that core is identified, I think we should use it to determine who is really Wiccan and not some arbitrary things like how someone dresses, or whether they talk mostly about "light" rather than ask them specific things about whether they really know or practice the core things.

My own opinion is that the core of Wiccan practice is based on the Wiccan Rede (An it harm none, do what you will) and the concepts described in the Principles of Wiccan Belief, which are on the web at places like http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_stat1.htm

Issues need to be raised and discussed, but calling someone a "fluffy bunny"and then proceeding to bash them is not a very mature way to do it, in my opinion. The gay community has gotten largely past that Politically Correct yuppy phase and has learned to embrace and celebrate its diversity. The Wiccan and larger Pagan community perhaps needs to do the same.

[Edited to correct a dumb typo. - Ben]

[Erincelt]

Ben, thanks. Seriously. That was the sort of respones I was hoping for... now on to the reply. :)

While I don't like the idea of running around "bashing" people for having partially -- or entirely -- false ideas about Wicca, I also understand why some people react that way. For some people who are very serious about their religion, it can be frustrating to see people running around spreading the "frou-frou" ideas, and watching book after book be published that caters to this crowd, or at least diludes things.

The Principles was a great idea, and is a very good starting point, but even that needs to be looked over again. As has been said in earlier posts, change is neccesary. "Reformism" in Wicca is not about denying change, its about keeping tabs on that change. As you said, we must define a "core" and keep to it. That's all we're after. We don't care how you dress and act, or who you share your bed with. But we do care about what your image of the Divine is, what your ethics are, and how you conduct your rites. Maybe not down to every detail, but the framework.

And yes I did just admit I'm the lone "Reformist" up there on the poll. :) I think some people misunderstand me to mean that we want to build a sort of "Wiccan Government" and that's not it at all. As I've said before, its about honesty. And that includes being able to tell someone when they just aren't quite right. Sorry, Miss Jane Doe, but women aren't superior. Sorry, Mister John Doe, but we aren't having any wild orgies. Sorry, whoever, this isn't a magical lodge. But then we have to be able to state what it is. Without that, we're just a bunch of people with bad attitudes. :D

[Armitage]

Tradition can be ok, it also has the potential to drag things down in red tape. Freedom can be ok, but that has the potential to become sloppiness. People need to learn personal discipline and moderation, IMO.
Brief goofy thought, not meant to offend. I wonder what the really hardcore eclectics, the ones that change pantheons like they do underpants, would think of the notion that they're essentially chaotes. :eyebrow:

[Ben Gruagach]

Originally posted by Armitage

Tradition can be ok, it also has the potential to drag things down in red tape. Freedom can be ok, but that has the potential to become sloppiness. People need to learn personal discipline and moderation, IMO.
Brief goofy thought, not meant to offend. I wonder what the really hardcore eclectics, the ones that change pantheons like they do underpants, would think of the notion that they're essentially chaotes. :eyebrow:

Well, I'm one of those "hardcore eclectics" who quite freely chooses elements from different cultures as I see fit in my magickal and spiritual work. If it works, I feel free to use it. If it doesn't work, then I don't bother with it. And what works for me won't necessarily work for anyone else so I don't get worried as much about how other people want to practice unless they try to insist that their way is somehow the "One True Way" of Wicca or whatever.

It wouldn't bother me if I were to be considered a chaote. Or a Thelemite. Probably not a Satanist though - that philosophy (the various incarnations I've read about) doesn't appeal to me. But because I do, at the core of my practice, base everything on the Wiccan Rede and the Principles of Wiccan Belief, because I cast circles and work with elemental symbolism and an overall Goddess and God who I see expressed as different deities (different aspects of the greater whole) I do consider myself a Wiccan.

Gerald Gardner was an eclectic, because the bits he learned from his initiators were apparently rather fragmentary. He seemed to feel quite free to borrow from all sorts of cultures, whether they were Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Celtic, or whatever in putting together what he later on presented as Wicca. He encouraged Doreen Valiente to rewrite some of his material, and even create some of it brand-spanking-new which people now consider "traditional." (I understand that Doreen wrote the Winter Solstice ritual the day they first performed it, and that Gardner later presented it as if it was a time-honoured sabbat ritual from who knows when. I can look up the reference and details of that story if anyone wants to track it down and read it for themselves.)

And as a Wiccan, if it was good enough for Gerald and Doreen, then I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be good enough for me.

People who have specific traditions which are passed down without change are free to continue to do so. I'm not part of their specific traditions so it doesn't really have much to do with me. But as a part of the larger Wiccan community -- including many specific traditions and many like me who are eclectics -- we have to be careful to respect each other's right to decide for themselves exactly to what extent and how to explore and express our Wiccan spirituality.

Whether a person follows a core set of principles (like the Principles of Wiccan Belief and the Wiccan Rede) is the important thing -- it doesn't matter to me if they also go on about "goodness and light" or live 24/7 as a goth, or if they even prefer to devote themselves primarily to a specific God or Goddess (and regardless whether they spell a word magick or majik or magic.) Do they have the core there? The rest is the wonderful diversity which we don't have to like but which we should learn to live with. Personally, I would prefer if we'd learn to celebrate that diversity rather than engage in "witchier-than-thou" wars over irrelevant details.

Just my opinion, of course. My apologies if anyone is offended.

[Kaylara]

I found your website today while looking for a copy of
the Legend of the Descent of the Goddess. It's
beautifully laid out and I can tell you put a lot of
time and love into its creation, and I hope to see it
further develop. You even give credit to authors of
various pieces like the Descent, which is VERY
applaudable. Although the "Witches Chant", also know
as the Witches Rune, I believe was authored by Doreen
Valiente, not Lady Sheba.

However, I am imploring you to study your sources.
The Burning Times is a myth. Wicca is not an ancient
religion. It is influenced by bits and pieces of
ancient religions, but paganism as a religion did not
survive the Christian period. The "witches" the
Church were executing were largely wrongly-accused
Christians.

Don't just take my word for it. Look around on the
internet. Searching for "myth" and "burning times"
together on Google or other search engine is a good
place to start. Margaret Murray, who first suggested
the theory, was discredited several decades ago
because she just didn't have any evidence to back up
her claims.

I wouldn't bother writing this if you didn't appear
serious. I hope that you find this to be of use.

*Name removed out of respect for the author*
Wicca: For the Rest of Us
http://www.geocities.com/anatharxes/wicca/


-------------

Just to let you guys understand how assinine this email is... My "Burning Times" section has absolutely nothing in it yet.


Kaylara

[Valnorran]

Just a few observations...

Hard core traditionalists arguing with hard core ecclectics; peculiar activity for those who are supposed to find balance in all things.

Someone denouncing some Wiccans' attitude towards Christians when they have the very same attitude towards the fluffy bunnies. I'll agree that Wiccans weren't vicitmized by the church during the Burning Times, but some of us are damn sure victimized by it today. It happens often enough to teach a lesson of caution (not hate). I'm pretty sure the authors of these sites don't live in the rural/small town South. If they did, they'd know just how tenacious some denominations found down here can be.

The ecclectic approach is apparently not valid because it doesn't have the history behind it some traditions do. Well, there was a time when those traditions didn't have any history behind them, either. They had to have a starting point somewhere in time, didn't they? They probably got started because they filled the worshipers' needs, just like the practices that current ecclectics choose.

Like Ben, I mainly use the Rede and the Laws as my guide. I'm a solitary ecclectic and would never have it any other way. I have Celtic leanings because I am of Celtic descent and am most comfortable with that. I remain firmly within the Celtic pantheon. I like to keep things simple, with just a few ceremonial touches for atmosphere. I work with three or four dieties because that's all I feel the need for. Being a solitary ecclectic, I can change things as and when I see fit. What I do works for me. I need no other reason for it.

"Crom's devils, let men worship what gods they will!"
-- Conan (the Barbarian, not O'Brian).

[Erincelt]

Okay.. I'm noticing something here. For some reason people are assuming that "reformist" means anti-newbie, or that it means "hard core traditionalist"... just take a look at things I've said about my Tradition and you'll see that isn't the case... I mean, come on, three heavens? That even sounds weird to me, and I believe in it! :)

We want Wicca to evolve. Through its evolution and diversity it proves that it can (and I say will) survive. We just want it to evolve in organic ways. In other words.. as I keep saying over and over again, honesty. If you make up your own way of doing things... fine, that's great! But it still is something you made up for yourself. If you happen to come into contact with people later on who agree with you, great, you just formed a new tradition! Woohoo! There's nothing wrong with that. But it should still maintain the core of Wicca (Rede, Law of Return, etc) and without trying to dilude or completely exchange these principles. In other words, sorry Cunningham, but it doesn't just mean "harm none". Don't get me wrong, I love Cunningham. If Wicca had saints, I'd call him one. In some ways I do anyway. But that was one thing that -- while his reasons were honorable -- I wish he hadn't done, because people don't always realize later on that isn't the entire meaning... or even a perfect meaning (it doesn't say not to harm.. it says what doesn't harm is good... its a subtle but important difference, as it allows us to use judgement).

Okay.. I'm starting to rant now, so I'll shut up and let you guys go back to your individual debates. :) Wheeeee. this thread is getting fun.

[Lunacie]

Ummm, maybe some people aren't quite sure what "Reformist Wicca" really is, or what it's all about. I think posters have been responding to your asking about 'fluffies and white-lighters' being a problem and then about whether it's 'vital to retain tradition'. I don't really have any idea what the Reformists themselves think about either of these examples. *shrug*

[Erincelt]

You're right, and I know you are, but that's why I started this thread. I don't want to just state "Reformism in Wicca means this, this, and this" because that wouldn't really serve my purpose.. I wanted (want) to know how neccesary people feel such a movement is. Some people think the "fluffies" are making us look like a joke to those who know little or nothing. Others don't think they're a problem at all, or that most people know better than to think of any individual as representing the whole.

I don't expect everyone to know what I'm calling "Reformist" which is part of the reason I constantly put it in quotes.. :) The Council of American Witches might be thought of as "Reformist" in a way, and that was the 70's. At the same time, the Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca (aka, Silver Chalice Wicca) might be called "Reformist" and that's an ongoing adventure.

[Valnorran]

Sorry, Erin. None of my comments were directed at you. Let me do what I should have done and specify.

I have no problem with reform as long as it meets an obvious need. I am against reform simply for the sake of reform. I looked at Wicca For The Rest of Us and Why Wiccans Suck. Now I find I can't remember which site said what, but I remember one of them (the latter, I think) that seemed to object to ecclectics, hence my little rant. Both sites had valid points, but I think it's pretty foolish to think we are ever going to be rid of fluffies. Every religion has members who others find undesirable. That's just the nature of humans and group dynamics. Fluffies tend to get on my nerves, as well as hard core feminists and those with an obssessive hatred for Christians (the get-evenists). For some reason it is these types who always manage to find their way onto t.v. and into articles and such and consequently give the impression that we're all like them. I wish just once they would interview a Wiccan or Pagan who, to coin the mainstream phrase, "doesn't look like a Wiccan/Pagan" or "gee, you look so normal". Still, as much as these people sometimes irritate me, I don't think I'd ever tell them they can't practice their religion just because it doesn't suit me.

To sum up: I felt both sites had valid points, but I also take issue with some of the things they say, which is what I was trying to articulate in my last post. Reform is fine as long as it solves a definate problem, but I think changing something just to change it is often a bad idea.

[Lunacie]

Originally posted by Valnorran

Reform is fine as long as it solves a definate problem, but I think changing something just to change it is often a bad idea.

Well said, Valnorran. I couldn't agree more.

[Ben Gruagach]

There are a few comments I'd like to make about things that I hope will encourage more critical thought on these issues.

Fluffies: what are they? The most common working definition I can see is that they are "someone I don't like." I'm not convinced it's something that can be identified in an objective way. To some Gardnerians, Alexandrians are "fluffy" because they're not Gardnerians. (BTW - Robert Cochrane, who presented himself as a hereditary initiate of a pre-Gardnerian Wiccan tradition, coined the word "Gardnerian" originally as an insult. It was his way of saying "fluffy" back in the 1960s. Funny how it caught on and lost its connotations as an insult.)

Core Wicca: if we're going to determine that someone is "fluffy" because they're not following the core Wiccan ideas then we need to be clear what those core ideas are. And then we should actually be judging based on those ideas, not other things that have nothing to do with the core ideas (like how someone dresses, how they spell specific words, whether they find inspiration in ancient mythology or modern fiction, etc.)

And getting a statement hammered out about what those core ideas are is difficult in itself, and will likely be highly debated.

One of the big dangers I see in the "reformist" movement in Wicca is that it's essentially a movement to establish central authority and limit diversity. One of those core ideas (in my opinion anyway) is that Wicca doesn't have a central authority, either a single scripture or a person (like a Pope) to be the ultimate authority. It's evident in the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what you will." Hey, we don't even have just one God or Goddess name or myth system that all Wiccans are required to use. So to me, trying to establish that central authority will always be difficult (if not impossible) as it goes against what Wicca as a whole is based on.

There's nothing wrong with starting up a specific tradition within Wicca to have central authorities and "accepted scriptures" for that tradition, or even to establish a collection of traditions with those qualities. But they will always be just a part of Wicca as a whole and will never be the "authoritative" version of Wicca. I would suggest those traditions with authoritative leanings would be wise to learn how to at least accept, if not embrace, the diversity and autonomy that is present in the larger Wiccan community (and which set the stage for the individual traditions to exist in the first place) instead of putting so much energy into trying to discredit and diminish that diversity.

Let's discuss the differences between traditions and philosophies within Wicca and the larger Pagan community, by all means, and even work to try and establish what really are the core ideas that make Wicca what it is. Our community could certainly use better scholarly material in print and more critical examinations of practices, philosophies, and ideas. But let's be very careful to not abandon some of those core ideas which make Wicca what it is merely because we are uncomfortable with diversity.

As I've mentioned before, let's look to the examples of these very conflicts in other communities and see how we can learn from them. The gay and lesbian community has gone through these types of conflicts in the attempts to be accepted by the mainstream. I'm very glad that they learned, more or less, to accept and even celebrate the diversity in the gay and lesbian community rather than ostracise those who were considered "stereotypical" or "not politically correct" (or "fluffy").

[Erincelt]

Case in study, the "Affirmation of Acknowledgement", an oath that is taken by all students of the CUEW tradition.
I: I acknowledge the presence of other faiths* on my planet, indeed, right here in my city/town/village. I acknowledge that the followers of these faiths feel as strongly, maybe more so, than I do about mine.
II: I forgive the other faiths and wipe clean the slate between us. I cannot hold a person responsible for the acts of their faith, I cannot hold a faith at fault for individual practitioners. It is not my place to convert, or otherwise alter a person's religion. I invite discussion of beliefs without judgment of those holding them.

III: I acknowledge that I may be wrong, and I have found comfort in the fact that I may be right.

Its not about saying, "You must call the God and Goddess by these names or you aren't a Wiccan." But it is about saying, "You must believe in the God and Goddess.. where you go from there is up to you."

And a more "Reformist" definition of Fluffie might be: "One who is unlearned and unwilling to be educated. One who becomes defensive and irate when reasonably contradicted. One who doesn't have at least a basic understanding of why they do what they do, and are unwilling to seek that understanding."

Make sense yet? We're concerned with the ones who really aren't following Wicca and using the label entirely for "shock" or because its "cool", and we're concerned with the ones who have no interest in learning. Yes many of us have been there, I humbly admit I was once such an extreme fluffy.... we just aren't even going to get into how bad I once was. But I was -- and am -- willing to learn. Isn't the desire to learn a valuable Wiccan ethic? Over time I have been contradicted, repeatedly, sometimes in very abrupt ways... but its only an ego that stops us from seeing truth in others. Sure at first I thought my initial sources must be the way, but I grew out of it. Some people need a push. "Intolerance" of "fluffies" isn't about kicking them to the curb.. its about that push. Its about saying, "Mm.. okay.. you're getting there, but there's just a few things worth clarifying." Its beed said before in this thread that these people just need educating. I couldn't agree more. I, nor any other "Reformist" I'm in contact with, want to start telling people they're not Wiccan. We might tell some people they seem to still be Seekers. We might tell some people they don't appear to be very "good" Wiccans, even. What's a "good" Wiccan? One who lives their life by the Rede and the Law of Return. That's about as far as we can go... but yes, there are some people, who do believe in the Wiccan God and Goddess, and so forth, who aren't so good at keeping up to the Rede, and who obviously underestimate the LoR. They may well be Wiccan -- I can't see into their heart as someone put it -- but they aren't "good" at it just now. Sometimes we have to call these people out. In private though... respect is vital.

And another thing I'd like to point out is that I or any other given "Reformist" don't neccesarily agree with everything on a site such as "Why Wiccans Suck" or "Wicca for the Rest of Us" -- although the latter is very well done. Sometimes people get bad attitudes... well, that's people. It shouldn't be the attitude that matters but the idea they're trying to express. Sometimes bad attitude is just a form of passion.

And because I'm thinking a couple of people might have thought so, I don't take anything posted here personally. :) If I didn't want your deepest thoughts and opinions I wouldn't have posted! These kind of intelligent debates are precisely why I love MW. Well... okay, that and the Just Silly perpetual quiz collection. :D

[Erincelt]

On another note, we've got nothing against Eclecticism (is that even a word?). The eclectic style is one of Wicca's strongest points, and -- as I think someone else mentioned -- alludes to its beginnings.

Eclectic faith is not cheap and easy... it can easily be said that eclectics actually have to do more study and searching than a traditionalist. Taking from many different sources means having to study many different sources. Learning within a specific Tradition means studying its texts and recitations. Quite often I find that eclectics are more "learned" than many traditionalists.

For goodness sakes, I am a sort of eclectic! :) I say sort because yes, I do follow a specific Tradition, and yes we do have specific teachings... but anything it doesn't cover, we're free -- required even, if we want to get it at all -- to seek it elsewhere. Its an "incomplete tradition". It has some ideas of its own, and a few particulars, and then you're free to run with it as you please. And besides, I spent most of my Wiccan "career" as purely eclectic, and almost always Solitary. I've only ever worked with two groups before my current one.. and only one that can be called a "coven". The first we didn't really call anything. It was just a gathering, nothing more.

So see, we aren't "anti-eclectics" -- although the guy who write Why Wiccans Suck obviously was. In fact, each and every "Reformist" I know, is either truly eclectic, or of a Tradition like mine -- ie, partially eclectic. And I apologize immensely if anyone has felt otherwise and become offended. I try to make it clear that I never, ever intend to offend. (Hey that rhymed.)

And "Reformism" sure as pluto doesn't mean you can't keep your sense of humor! On the contrary. :) You have to have that. Wicca is a celebratory religion. What's a celebration without humor? Very tasteless, that's what.

[Ben Gruagach]

Originally posted by Erincelt
And a more "Reformist" definition of Fluffie might be: "One who is unlearned and unwilling to be educated. One who becomes defensive and irate when reasonably contradicted. One who doesn't have at least a basic understanding of why they do what they do, and are unwilling to seek that understanding."

In my own experience, some of the people who fit the above definition best were the ones who complained the loudest and longest about "those darn Fluffies." (No one here, of course... although I'm sure if each of us searched our own souls long enough, we'd find instances where we were all guilty, myself included.)

And that, along with the fact the label "fluffy bunny" is clearly meant as a derogatory term (i.e. it certainly doesn't make you think the person is serious or rational!) is why I personally try to encourage people to get over labels like that and address the real issues like what the core of Wicca is, or whether we are being critical and rational in our publications, or whether our scholarly attempts would measure up to the standards of scholarly work in other religious communities.

[Erincelt]

I agree absolutely.

[st0rm]

never used the term "fluff bunny", never will

[Nightwind2]

Originally posted by st0rm

never used the term "fluff bunny", never will

How about Llewitch? McWiccan? One Moon Pagan? Instawitch?

Thre are two things that I personally think of when I think of reform. One is clearing out the bad history - the 9 million dead Wiccans, the ancient lineage, yada yada. I don't blame blame the early Wiccans for believing these things, people like Margaret Murray were taken seriously back then.

But she's not now, and hasn't been for 30 years. And yes, some people continue to believe in this stuff because they keep reading it. That's where education comes in. You say "OK, this is what Starhawk says, but this is what historian X, Y and Z say." And some people then stick to those old stories just out of stubborness. It's better to be a victim - you get more attention that way.

That's where fluffies come in. People who are in it because its cool, who are just making it up as they go along without any rhyme or reason for doing so. People can disagree. I respect that. But you have to have a reason. That's why the gods gave us brains.

There are things I disagree Gardner about. That doesn't make him a Bunny. That doesn't even make him wrong (except for the historical stuff). He never claimed to have a Unicorn Totem. He never called himself PrancingGriffonLaughsWithMermaids. I doubt he'd think that [i]Charmed[\i] was a good Wiccan instruction manual. He was never a part of the ButterflyStarSparklePeaceandLove Coven. And he certainly thought Wicca was about more than feeling good about yourself, being cool, and casting spells. And he refrained from churning out 30 books on Wicca that all say the same thing just for a couple bucks.

But you know something, I think the term "reform" becomes a bit of a misnomer when applied to confronting bunnies. The Bunnies took Wicca and ran with it. We're trying to take it BACK. Wicca has become so inundated with Bunnies in the last 10 or 20 years that Wiccans are no longer calling themselves Wiccans because it takes too damn long to explain that they don't follow Bunny Wicca. I think that's a sad state for a religion. Its more like a counter-reformation.

IS "Bunny" subjective? Hell yeah. As an eclectic I'm sure there are Traditionalists who would call me a Bunny (or something along those lines). That's fine. It's their choice. The point is not to tattoo "bunny" on people's foreheads. The point is to put out good, solid information so people can educate themselves. Sometimes that information will conflict, and, like I said, that doesn't always mean that some of that info is wrong. But for heaven's sake, these people have got to start thinking for themselves and not just blindly accept whatever book or (yes) website they read, including mine.

OK, rant over. ;)

Catherine Noble
Wicca: for the Rest of Us

[st0rm]

Originally posted by Nightwind2

How about Llewitch? McWiccan? One Moon Pagan? Instawitch?



no , no, no and no... and no similar term either

[Phoenix_Blue]

But you know something, I think the term "reform" becomes a bit of a misnomer when applied to confronting bunnies. The Bunnies took Wicca and ran with it. We're trying to take it BACK. Wicca has become so inundated with Bunnies in the last 10 or 20 years that Wiccans are no longer calling themselves Wiccans because it takes too damn long to explain that they don't follow Bunny Wicca. I think that's a sad state for a religion. Its more like a counter-reformation.
Do you know Kat MacMorgan, Nightwind2? ;) If not, consider looking her up; and also, "Universal Eclectic Wicca." In any event, welcome aboard!

I'm uncomfortable with calling something non-Wiccan for a couple reasons. First, I'm not Wiccan - which makes it difficult for me to come across as an arbiter of what's Wiccan and what isn't, though obviously I can spot the blatant cases. Second, it's a slippery slope which very much resembles the "what's unAmerican" diatribe that went on in the 50s and that is going on again today. Third, you have to be very careful not to paint someone as unWiccan simply because you don't agree with their tradition; and most people, in general, are incapable of objective disagreement--that is, disagreeing on practices but still agreeing on the facets of the faith they have in common. Finally, by painting someone as a "bunny," you immediately cut off any chance for communication with that other individual or group.

Yes, you have the right to think of someone as a bunny. But if you look down your nose at them, is it going to improve anything? Personally, I think a better idea would be to approach such individuals or groups and offer your insight as someone who's had more experience working with the Craft and who could offer valuable perspectives on what you've learned and what's really important to a tradition within the Wiccan religion.

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Kaylara

This woman had the cohones to email me and preach to me. :shakes head: She didn't even ask me any questions. She saw my half finished website, and automatically assumed I am new to wicca and didn't know anything. I think that if it weren't for her assumption that *EVERYONE* but her is an idiot who doesn't know what it means to be a wiccan, I may agree with her more. But she's shown to me by her obnoxious email that she is more conceited than actaully concerned.

(copies of email available upon request.)

Kaylara

Post it! Post it!

After they hit the "Send" button it becomes your property! Post! Or send it to me.

[Skyye]

All I see when I look at those pages is elitism and judgment. A desire to pin down what Wicca is and to alienate those who don't fit within the boundries. A general attempt to disabuse the myths about wicca would be beneficial and very useful. This--this is snobbery. There are some valid points....but in general. No.

For me what makes wicca desirable is it's --fluidity. It accepts that not all people will take the same thing from a religon, or need the same things from it. Take that away and we're catholic. Hey! lets excommunicate people who break the rules.

Even within judeo-christian community, and in fact within any religon there are posers. Come to think of it within any community period. People who are involved for shock affect, or cool-ness, or to have a nice refrence on their resume or college application.

You're not going to change that. It's human nature.

What right have *I* got to say someone isn't really wiccan because they're goth and play D*D? I don't. Spirituality and the validity of any person's spiritual standing is something left between them and their god/dess. It is not my place to judge. If someone wants to be educated, I will help. If they don't want to be....That is their decision to make.

[Phoenix_Blue]

Skyye, remember the part I said about "objective disagreement" earlier? :) I might not agree with someone (and you'll know if I don't!), but that doesn't mean I don't respect them as an individual. And a hearty "welcome aboard" to you as well. ;)

I think you absolutely have to make a distinction at some point, or else the Wiccan religion loses any shred of credibility. If someone who plays D&D and wears Gothy stuff wants to be a Wiccan, I wouldn't see a problem. But someone who thinks Wicca will let them become something out of a fantasy setting in D&D has issues. Not only is the latter individual's practice un-Wiccan, it's unhealthy. Pagans deal with personal reality, some of which is subjective to us alone; but we should not deal in fantasy or escapism.

[Phoenix_Blue]

Incidentally, Kaylara. . . are you sure the e-mail was meant to be asinine? When I read it, it looks like the author is simply trying to impart an ounce of prevention.

[Skyye]

I agree to an extent that escapism and fantasy should not be particularily encouraged. I even agree the wicca has become the haven of alot of individuals who manage to discredit the validity OF wicca (Trust me. My town's crawling with 14 year old goth kids who wear pentacles and think wicca is the same thing as satanism which is the same thing as devil worship). I know it's got negative side affects.

I don't think that brings up a need for reform. Education certainly, but lets face it. We all have kooks. Smile, nod, educate those who want to be educated and be happy with YOURSELF

[Phoenix_Blue]

**Nods** But education is reform, wouldn't you say? :)

You're not looking to reform the system, because the system isn't broken; but you're looking to polish the rough edges of the system that can erode the inner workings if you let them slide.

And if you can't educate the kooks, then you have to educate everyone else that, hey, those people are kooks. Maybe that's what this Reformist Wicca is all about. . . but they still need to be very careful not to call anyone a kook until they have evidence to back the claim.

And really, the standards for what is and isn't Wiccan are in place: the Rede, recognition of the Lord and Lady or similar male/female Deistic duality, the holidays, and a fundamental set of rites and rituals which are observed in similar, if not identical, fashions among various traditions.

In my opinion, someone who works within that framework is Wiccan, whether the traditionalists like it or not; and someone who does not work within that framework is not Wiccan, no matter how much s/he may protest otherwise.

[Ben Gruagach]

Originally posted by Phoenix_Blue
And really, the standards for what is and isn't Wiccan are in place: the Rede, recognition of the Lord and Lady or similar male/female Deistic duality, the holidays, and a fundamental set of rites and rituals which are observed in similar, if not identical, fashions among various traditions.

In my opinion, someone who works within that framework is Wiccan, whether the traditionalists like it or not; and someone who does not work within that framework is not Wiccan, no matter how much s/he may protest otherwise.
I always say that for me, the core of Wicca is essentially the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm none, do what you will") and the items listed in the Principles of Wiccan Belief. The Principles covers the recognition of Lord and Lady and the sabbats from your list.

The part I'm curious about is the "fundamental set of rites and rituals which are observed in similar, if not identical, fashions among various traditions." What would those rituals be?

Initiations? (What about self-initiations, or as some prefer to call them, self-dedications?)
Drawing down the moon or sun?
The Charge of the Goddess?

I'm curious what those core rites and rituals are supposed to be. I've been active at this Wicca thing now for just over twenty years, and I'm not sure there are a core set of rituals that all Wiccans perform. I suspect this list of rituals would be the hardest thing to hash out as even long-established traditions will likely disagree on which ones count as the core for all Wiccans.

When we get down to it, I tend to personally think that the issue of what rites and rituals are Wiccan is handled pretty clearly in the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do what you will." That leaves a huge opening for lots of variety. In the Charge of the Goddess there's also the empowering phrase, "all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." It's a pretty open invitation to those who wish to make up whatever rituals they like, regardless whether they appear quite preposterous to some.

Wicca for many people is a path of personal responsibility, where we make up our own minds about things instead of accepting someone else's predigested dogma to memorize and recite. There isn't a central authority, no pope or Bible to tell us how things must be done. And that means that we are also largely not required to perform rituals that don't seem significant to us. So those who don't like Buffy or Charmed or Lord of the Rings or whatever aren't required to perform those types of rituals, and those who do find those stories inspiring might use that imagery in their rituals if they like. If they find it meaningful, then all the more power to them. But I'm not sure there is a specific prohibition in Wiccan philosophy (in all its varied forms) that contradicts the freedom expressed in the Wiccan Rede and the Charge of the Goddess.

I personally tend to admire creativity (which I see as a living, breathing, fiery watery earthy airy manifestation of the Divine) over obedience to dogma. But that's just me -- others are free to express themselves in their own ways, and should make up their own minds about how the core of Wicca (whatever that is) should be expressed and lived.

[Skyye]

Wicca for many people is a path of personal responsibility, where we make up our own minds about things instead of accepting someone else's predigested dogma to memorize and recite. There isn't a central authority, no pope or Bible to tell us how things must be done. And that means that we are also largely not required to perform rituals that don't seem significant to us. So those who don't like Buffy or Charmed or Lord of the Rings or whatever aren't required to perform those types of rituals, and those who do find those stories inspiring might use that imagery in their rituals if they like. If they find it meaningful, then all the more power to them. But I'm not sure there is a specific prohibition in Wiccan philosophy (in all its varied forms) that contradicts the freedom expressed in the Wiccan Rede and the Charge of the Goddess.


YES YES YES YES!

[Rainx]

Ok, here's my concern. You say "these are what I feel are the requirements of Wicca, but people shouldn't judge others". Haven't you just done that same thing by pointing out what YOUR requirements are? Maybe yours are more lax then mine, maybe mine are different then yours, but as human beings with brains we have both drawn the line.

I'm not arguing your requirements - if you say "people who can identify with __ and __ are Wiccan" all the power to you - but in the same breath to tell me I can't then think "people who can identify with __ and __ are Wiccan" because that's judgmental and not constructive?? Each person has chosen their own guidelines.

I really don't understand the idea that "I can have boundaries and guidelines for what I think is Wiccan, but if you do that's wrong! Just leave people alone, don't judge them!".

Incidentally, I choose my own labels and my own definitions - I decide what I feel is Wiccan and it's not. Do I feel largely it's a waste of time to tell people I think they're "fluffy"? Definitely. This is why I visit forums where there are newbies or people who need help - I used to be that fluffy who thought I was Wiccan because I read a book. Now I know differently. People who are uneducated about something, and are sincerely seeking, will learn at their own pace. Each of us is at a level where we are meant to be. That doesn't mean I think Sally who picked up SRW's book yesterday is a Wiccan, but it also doesn't mean I write her off as an idiot - it means I choose to help her learn more. That's one thing I agree with here - you can be constructive when you see fluffbunnies, or you can not be. Thinking someone is uneducated, misinformed, or not Wiccan, does not necessitate thinking they're an idiot or their beliefs are invalid.

And for what it's worth - that's what I see as the objective of the "Wicca for the rest of us" site - to educate. Having your misconceptions shattered hurts, some say it's the pain your soul or mind expresses when old beliefs are forced out to be replaced by new. It's also a nicely laid out site I might add.

If someone comes along and tells me they were Isis in Ancient Egypt, I'm not going to go "ok then, makes sense!". If someone tells me they're Wiccan because they did that spell on the Craft, I'm not going to agree with them. If someone is more obsessed with fitting some cool LotR imagery into a ritual to the exclusion of the imagery of the Divine as manifested in nature, at a Sabbat...? If someone thinks Buffy is the manual for Wiccan life..? Sorry. I'm not going to smile and say "ok!". If the person is looking for help I'll offer them some resources and answer questions.

[Ben Gruagach]

Originally posted by Rainx
If someone comes along and tells me they were Isis in Ancient Egypt, I'm not going to go "ok then, makes sense!". If someone tells me they're Wiccan because they did that spell on the Craft, I'm not going to agree with them. If someone is more obsessed with fitting some cool LotR imagery into a ritual to the exclusion of the imagery of the Divine as manifested in nature, at a Sabbat...? If someone thinks Buffy is the manual for Wiccan life..? Sorry. I'm not going to smile and say "ok!". If the person is looking for help I'll offer them some resources and answer questions.
Personally I try to encourage people to challenge statements and ask "why" whenever possible -- that's part of what it means to me that Wicca has a large basis in thinking for one's self. If someone makes a statement and I wonder about it, I don't hesitate to ask questions, to challenge, to request clarification.

But I also cringe every time I hear derogatory labels used to describe "them" (whoever "they/them" are at the time.) It's a cop-out in my opinion because it means the issues that are supposedly the basis for the conflict aren't being addressed. It's always easier to just call the person on the other side of an argument a clever putdown name, but it doesn't (in my eyes) answer any of the questions or make one side more correct than the other.

I would much rather people would put their energy into explaining what the core of Wicca is to them rather than bash someone else for being a "fluffy bunny" or whatever. Instead of defining one's religion by focussing on what it's not, tell me what it is about. People can make up their minds for themselves which side makes more sense and sound more mature and thought through.

If someone came up to me today and told me they now consider themselves to be a Christian because yesterday (literally) they felt they had "come home" to their faith, I wouldn't doubt their right to consider themselves part of the Christian community. If someone came to me and told me that they "came out of the closet" yesterday and now consider themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender I wouldn't doubt them -- I'd say, "welcome to the community!"

I'm not sure why we should be so eager to reject those who are new to the Wiccan or larger Pagan community because they haven't read enough (or read the "right" books), because their reasons for coming to the community aren't the same as mine personally, or because they've picked up some rather unusual ideas about what the community tends to be about. I'd prefer to say, "Welcome!" and then launch into a discussion about what my own experience is, what I've heard from others, and point them in the direction of what I consider to be some of the better books and resources to learn from. And if that newcomer stays and grows in the community all the better. And if they move on to something else, then that is probably what is best for them.

Let's talk more about what our religions are for us, what we perceive the core ideas or values to be. And let's stop bashing others in our own community. It's tough enough being part of a minority without squabbling amongst ourselves about who is witchier or more Wiccan or whatever than who.

Oh, one last thing. I really do encourage people interested in these particular issues to look for Sarah M. Pike's book "Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community." It covers a lot of this ground in a scholarly and readable way.

[Skyye]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ben Gruagach
) It's a cop-out in my opinion because it means the issues that are supposedly the basis for the conflict aren't being addressed. It's always easier to just call the person on the other side of an argument a clever putdown name, but it doesn't (in my eyes) answer any of the questions or make one side more correct than the other.

I would much rather people would put their energy into explaining what the core of Wicca is to them rather than bash someone else for being a "fluffy bunny" or whatever. Instead of defining one's religion by focussing on what it's not, tell me what it is about. People can make up their minds for themselves which side makes more sense and sound more mature and thought through.


If you pin down Wicca, and then define it strictly, bashing people who don't follow the rules...it isn't wicca anymore. At least not to me.

You want to discuss the core of wicca? I think it can be summed up in the famouse "And harm ye none do as ye will" and my own personal "To each their own"

If I wanted a structured, strict, defined religon....Well I wouldn't be wiccan! It's just ludicrous, IMO, to take what is essentially a very fluid, forgiving, accepting religon and turn it into something else. Change is good. Evolve or die and all that. But really-- To tell someone they're not REALLY wiccan because they dont' agree?

Now I will grant that I get frustrated. I'm annoyed at the number of people who have no idea that there is a wicca behind the witchcraft. Ie: No spirituality involved at all. BUT IT ISN"T MY PLACE to tell them they AREN"T 'real'. Goddess, how presumptous is that?

Spirituality is best left between the one person and their god or gods.

Wicca is what it is, and try to make it something else and you diminish it.

[Phoenix_Blue]

Wuoth Ben Grugach:
Initiations? (What about self-initiations, or as some prefer to call them, self-dedications?)
Drawing down the moon or sun?
The Charge of the Goddess?
I was actually thinking something even more rudimentary, like casting a circle. But then, don't drawing down the moon/sun, and many traditions' initiations, carry a lot of similarities among one-another? I'm not saying they should be identical. . . and again, remember that I'm not actually Wiccan, so your mileage may vary. :)

But it does make me rethink my own position, which, amended, is: there are common rites and rituals which are as much a part of Wicca as communion and baptism are part of Protestant Christianity; and while a religion is still a religion without the associated rites, the religious experience is usually not complete without them. :) I hope that makes a bit more sense.

Quoth Rainx:
I'm not arguing your requirements - if you say "people who can identify with __ and __ are Wiccan" all the power to you - but in the same breath to tell me I can't then think "people who can identify with __ and __ are Wiccan" because that's judgmental and not constructive?? Each person has chosen their own guidelines.
Ack, I hope that's not how I came across! :o I have to admit, though: I've been Pagan for about seven years and was only Wiccan for a brief span of that time. When it comes to "what's Wiccan and what isn't and how do you determine the difference," I'm still trying to form something that I find is 100% workable.

I guess my chief concern is that people not use the "Bunny" label just because someone else's beliefs are more eclectic, or more New Agey--even while still fitting within the Wiccan framework--just because it disagrees with the viewpoint of someone who's been Wiccan longer, or (worse) because it disagrees with the viewpoint of someone who takes themselves too seriously period. But at the same time, Wicca is distinct from Paganism--so there must be criteria to distinguish where the difference lay. In other words, it's not as much of a problem to believe something un-Wiccan as it is to beat someone over the head with the "un-Wiccan" label. Does that make sense?

[Erincelt]

I've seen something come up now and then, and wanted to make a statement regarding it.

The word "Why" has a lot to do with what is a "valid" practice and what is not. If you want to go rolling down a hillside, whooping and hollering, and call it a religious practice -- great! Go for it! But have a reason why you do it. (And in case you are wondering, yes that very thing is in my list of past practices. Why? To empower and bring out the inner child, through childlike play. The rolling was just one of many things we did.)

If you use ritual tools, and position them in certain ways upon your altar or wherever, then know why you do this. This isn't a brand new idea by any means.

The very reason I started this poll/thread was to get debate started. I wanted to see how different people would define "Reformist", how different people would react to those definitions, and see where different people do think work is needed, if at all.

And out of all this mess -- believe it or not -- I've managed to reach a number of conclusions. Now first off, not I -- nor anyone else -- will stand up one day and say, "Alrighty guys, here's some literature, you all have to adapt your views and practices to this right here, or else you can't call yourself a Wiccan anymore." That would never ever work, nor is it constructive or positive, nor is it even the point. You can cast circle with a baseball cap for all I care. :) But tell me why if I ask. And the reason better not be "because its cool." That's the idea. Wanting good answers to the question "why". Why? Because having a good answer means you're well informed about what you are doing, that you are willing to do something for a reason other than "that's how it says in chart X in book X by author X." Now sure.. sometimes peoples reasons might still be from a book. That happens. That's fine. So long as they have a "good" reason.

So what makes a "good" reason? If its not for shock value. If its not for "coolness." If its not "because X says so." Can it be "because that's how I saw it in a dream"... yep! Can it be "because that's how X Tradition does it"...yep! Can it be "because it feels comfortable"...yep! Can it be "because I feel that represents X clearly"...yep! Can it be "because I like the symmetry of it"...yep! It doesn't have to be something terribly deep and intro-/extro-spective. For goodness sakes people, I used to have my own way of attributing the elements to the pentagram... my reason? "Because I like to have them aligned to the body that way." Simple enough.

Do please continue this debate... its been fun to watch, and very much enlightening. :) But remember.. its really all about Why. And its really all about defining what does make one Wiccan. And I'm sorry.. but its not a catch-all. If you want that, be a Pagan or NeoPagan. What does define Wicca, then? Well I've read all sorts of ideas regarding that here.. and they all seem to have certain things in common... so why don't you just continue to tell me.

[Rainx]

Nope, PB, you didn't. What it all comes down to, for me, is that there is no central authority, so we must all for ourselves come to our own conclusions. Everyone is going to make these decisions for themselves, and as long as they aren't forcing those ways (as is impossible, at least here on a forum, IMHO), and people can be respectful, I think that's a good thing.

If anything it encourages us, as Erincelt suggests, to think about why - why do we have these criteria, what are they based on, why does our religion include this or that, why do our practices include this or that - are these things valid and useful? At the same time we don't want to be given the label "fluffybunny", some of us hold desperately to the label of Wicca, even if it doesn't fit. Labels are supposed to be shorthand, they aren't meant to be all encompassing, and they should be used with careful forethought and consideration - whether the label is fluffbunny or Wicca.

It is my place to decide what I feel is Wiccan and what isn't - by the same principles and laws that others have the right to believe as they want, I have the right to believe what I want.

[Erincelt]

Rainx reminds me of something I should have stated quite some time ago, but I do try to leave this thread to you guys. :)

I used the term "fluffy" or "fluffbunny" -- or however you want to say it -- in the original post. But you'll notice I didn't give any criteria for what makes a fluffy until asked. Point is, I used the term entirely for the purpose of sparking the debate. I knew someone out there would be offended by it, and voila.. :) Sneaky yes, but you can see that it worked..

Now, I personally think that respect is a necessary part of any healthy relationship between two people. Respect is absolutely necessary for Wiccans to maintain fellowship with each other. But, the thing is, so is honesty. There's the other key.. So what's that bring us to now..

1. Why?
2. Respect
3. Honesty

See.. you guys are defining "Reformist" slowly but surely. I'm not doing a blasted thing but keep you on topic. :D And occasionally pop in to let you know what you've defined thus far. ;)

[Rainx]

Interesting you did that too - over on Delphi forums there was a discussion on fluffbunnies awhile ago wherein we realized no one had really defined the word. Some thought they were;

a) new agey crystal huggers
b) white love and light always positive people
c) uneducated, or new people
d) intentionally uneducated/misinformed/ignorant people - ie. they knew they didn't know what they're talking about, but didn't care

Immediately someone wants to jump up and get offended, "I'm not a fluffbunny!!"

In my case, I realize I was uneducated for the first several years of being Wiccan. I had no idea what it was really about and I was practicing it! I mean, on the surface I knew it was about the God/dess - and digging out the Farrar's Bible Compleat and Buckland's Big Blue gave me a new outlook on Wicca (what? Wicca isn't just about doing some spells and knowing the right circle castings and ordains?). I think it hit me when I read Amber Laine Fisher's Philosophy of Wicca - what Wicca really is to me.

Even so, I'm not (nor do I intend to be most likely) part of a trad, so to many people I'm still a "fluffbunny", and not "really" Wiccan. That's ok, I don't mind. I'm not even sure I'm Wiccan, really. *shrugs* I just don't see why being labelled, often by someone who doesn't know you anyway, really offends some people.

[Erincelt]

Bingo. :) And thank you for reemerging the topic of Traditions.. I'm sure as heck not trying to say everyone should belong to a Tradition if they don't want to. For most of my Wiccan "career"... most of my life for that matter... my Tradition, if it must have a name, would have been the Me Myself & I Tradition. :D

Plenty of people start out not knowing much... I mean, duh! A person can't be expected to just wake up one day, think, "Hmm.. y'know.. I think I should be Wiccan," and then suddenly -- in less time than it takes to drink a cup of Starbucks decaf House Blend -- know everything there is to know about Wicca, BTW, and all related topics. Wow, now that's some coffee!

What gets to me -- and to others I've talked to about it -- are the ones who refuse to be taught. They read one or two books, or do a little searching of their own... then stop, decide that's good enough, and absolutely refuse to hear it when told or shown otherwise, even to the point of becoming offended! Last I checked, the ethic of "always learning" was a part of Wicca, and that certainly doesn't sound like "always learning" to me. They don't have to change necessarily. But they should be willing to learn, even if that means getting contradicted. By choosing to be part of a highly diverse and eclectic religion, they are accepting -- by default -- that they can be, and will be, contradicted, potentially often.

Okay.. I'm ranting now. :) I'll stop it.

[Nightwind2]

Originally posted by Phoenix_Blue

Do you know Kat MacMorgan, Nightwind2? ;) If not, consider looking her up; and also, "Universal Eclectic Wicca." In any event, welcome aboard!

I'm uncomfortable with calling something non-Wiccan for a couple reasons. First, I'm not Wiccan - which makes it difficult for me to come across as an arbiter of what's Wiccan and what isn't, though obviously I can spot the blatant cases. Second, it's a slippery slope which very much resembles the "what's unAmerican" diatribe that went on in the 50s and that is going on again today. Third, you have to be very careful not to paint someone as unWiccan simply because you don't agree with their tradition; and most people, in general, are incapable of objective disagreement

Yeah, I know Kat online. Why do you ask?

I do agree about the slippery slope, but in my experience, that hasn't been a problem. I haven't dealt with tradition-centric people. People's definitions of Wicca have always been in very general terms. Things like "duality of God and Goddess". If you worship a single god and call him Satan (or Jehovah, or George for that matter), that's not Wicca. I would never say "you don't call the four quarters, so you're not wiccan".

I understand the unAmerican compasrison, but there is a significant difference. "UnAmerican" is an insult. "Not Wiccan" isn't. There is nothing wrong in not being Wiccan.

Reformists also try breaking up what is Wiccan and what is just something a lot of Wiccans do. It's not an attempt to label anyone, just educate the public. For instance, Wicca is not "about" healing crystals. There's nothing wrong in believing in them, and lots of Wiccans do, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the religion of Wicca. There are lots of Christians that believe in crystals too, but that doesn't make them a part of Christianity either. If I was into crystals, and John Smith thought that makes me a flake, so be it. But John Smith shouldn't think all Wiccans are flakes.

[Phoenix_Blue]

Quoth Nightwind2:

Yeah, I know Kat online. Why do you ask?
Intuition, I guess. Your style of debate actually reminds me somewhat of hers. . . although not quite as intense. ;)

I understand the unAmerican compasrison, but there is a significant difference. "UnAmerican" is an insult. "Not Wiccan" isn't. There is nothing wrong in not being Wiccan.
**Smiles** In both cases, I think it depends on the usage. For instance, a French national obviously is not American, so calling a Frenchman unAmerican shouldn't be an insult at all - just a statement of fact. "UnAmerican" becomes an insult when used against an American citizen; and along the same line, "non-Wiccan" becomes an insult when used against someone who is, in fact, Wiccan.

Reformists also try breaking up what is Wiccan and what is just something a lot of Wiccans do. It's not an attempt to label anyone, just educate the public. For instance, Wicca is not "about" healing crystals. There's nothing wrong in believing in them, and lots of Wiccans do, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the religion of Wicca. There are lots of Christians that believe in crystals too, but that doesn't make them a part of Christianity either. If I was into crystals, and John Smith thought that makes me a flake, so be it. But John Smith shouldn't think all Wiccans are flakes.
**Nods** I agree, on all counts. Obviously both the education and the definition of what Wicca actually is has to take place. A religion without definition is meaningless (or else it's Taoism ;)).

[Nightwind2]

Originally posted by Phoenix_Blue

Intuition, I guess. Your style of debate actually reminds me somewhat of hers. . . although not quite as intense. ;)

I think that's mostly coincidence. I've only known her a couple of months. And I'll take being a little less intense than Kat as a compliment. ;) We get along and occasionally agree to disagree, but she's even blunter than I am. I think it's why we get along.


**Smiles** In both cases, I think it depends on the usage. For instance, a French national obviously is not American, so calling a Frenchman unAmerican shouldn't be an insult at all - just a statement of fact. "UnAmerican" becomes an insult when used against an American citizen; and along the same line, "non-Wiccan" becomes an insult when used against someone who is, in fact, Wiccan.

That wasn't the example I was envisioning from your previous post. You mentioned the 50s, when the term was being used against Americans, and in a demeaning way. And you don't call a Frenchman "unAmerican" simply to say he's not from America - at least, I can't envision the phrase being used as such.


**Nods** I agree, on all counts. Obviously both the education and the definition of what Wicca actually is has to take place. A religion without definition is meaningless (or else it's Taoism ;)).

Or, as I like to put it, "Wicca" becomes nothing more than five letters located in close proximity to each other. ;) Words have meanings. And I much prefer someone who I simply disagree with over the meaning of "Wicca" over those people who say "It means something different to everyone." What's the point of the word then? It'd be like saying "dog" means something different to every person. You might think poodle while I'm thinking Great Dane, but no one should be thinking lamppost.

[Rainx]

Personally, I would see "unAmerican" as used to indicate an insult - someone who doesn't have "American values", whereas I can't see how "unWiccan" is offensive. The former is used not to indicate the lack of a religion, but likely the lack of patriotism and fundamental values - - the latter just means you don't follow Wiccan beliefs.

If I tell you I'm a Buddhist monk and you say, having evaluated my actions and beliefs, I'm unBuddhist.... so? How is that insulting? It just means you don't think my beliefs are Buddhist.

I just don't see how disagreeing with something automatically necessitates insulting them.

[Rainx]

Originally posted by Nightwind2
You might think poodle while I'm thinking Great Dane, but no one should be thinking lamppost.

Or at least, if someone *is* thinking lamppost, and refuses to see that a dog may not be a lamppost, there's no point having a discussion at all.

[Erincelt]

Western Zen Story:

The studen came to the Master in a summer afternoon and asked of him a deep question of central belief and fundamental philosophy. Upon hearing this question, the Master burst into spontaneous laughter. The student, offended, demanded to know what was funny about himself. The Master, unperturbed and still giggling, replied, "Only what your ego demands."

Okay okay, so its not a real Zen story, but I think you get the idea just the same... :)

[AradiaSupernova]

*shrugs*

Personally the most infuriating set of words I've ever heard have been "affirmative action" and "fluff bunny".

I'll put up the front I always do. Paganism is a broad path. They tell us we're supposed to go where our hearts lead us...YET...when we do...we get called names for it. Beautiful :)

Just my opinion, but I think anyone who calls someone that needs slapped upside the head.

[Rainx]

heh sorry that just struck me as funny for a moment, from a certain point of view - I saw my mom going "ok, so it's *bad* to call people a name, but *good* to slap them around?!".

Meh I just have a weird sense of humour today, n'mind me :)

[Erincelt]

I absolutely agree, Paganisn is a broad path, one including true eclectics alongside Asatruar, (neo)Druids, and Wiccans, among others.

But this discussion is on Reformist Wicca specifically, therefore within a particular context, in which some expectations are made. If a person calls themselves Pagan and wants to believe in 'X', then all power to them! If a person calls themselves Wiccan and wants to believe in 'X', then that's fine too -- so long as 'X' has a place in Wicca. So what does and doesn't have a place in Wicca?

Pretend I'm ignorant. Tell me. :) But don't think I'll accept an answer like, "Everything has a place in Wicca!" because that just isn't true. Does a belief in Samael (Satan, Lucifer, whatever) belong in Wicca? I'm not going to make a statement one way or the other, but I think you see what I'm getting at. There simply are some things which absolutely are and absolutely are not Wiccan, or else the word has no meaning. So what are they?

PS - Please don't take this a personal "attack" or any such thing.. you just happened to inspire my latest challenge, is all. :) But you have answered another question, rather finally even. The question of whether or not there is or could be a real Reformist movement in Paganism as a whole. The answer? As it stands: Nope, not really. In Wicca specifically? Well, we're still debating. :)

[Grey]

hmm... as for the animals I gotta agree, one of my biggest problems with some of the "enviromentalists" around here is they dont seem to realize death is a part of nature... most of the pagans around here tend to be a little more practical... most.

Again, the only "fluff bunnies" Ive ever met have either been REAL new or theyve been online.

STill as for this centralization thing... its got its good points. I mean first off its harder to ignore, 2nd thing its not like it has to be all powerful like the catholic church is amungst catholics, more of a coalition thing, maybe with reps from differrant areas around the country, kind of like a parliment or something. and 3rd, if we pool some resources its easier to spread the word around, Im diffenately against going around converting people, a pasture I once talked to around her refered it to fishing, and going where they were biting etc, but its wuold be a good idea to get a comprehensive set of things listed out for the layman ya know?

But then again, what would it do? I mean defining is all good and everything but who decides? do you go by consensus or do you go by majority rule? A large part of the personal touch of this religion is the lack of official texts, which can be annoying at first but is deeply important for many practitioners.

And if the wiccan faith "organinzation" were to officially support magic, would they be recognized as a religion by the government? or would the decide its just a cult? Truely the differrance between a cult and a religion is just age, all religions are cults but not all cult are religions, but its gotten a dirogatory meaning these days.

Thanks though, I wasnt sure what this movement was being called. Best of luck.

[AradiaSupernova]

lol Rainx. Ok. Remind me to find new forms of expression :D


I was having a bad day last post,so maybe I can cool it off a few notches here.


Reformist wicca just doesn't sound like something that I'd want to exist. True, I've seen some people who need directed to another....less hard path. But I don't think we have any right to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't believe in. Some stuff doesn't go into the wicca category, yes. Very true. But if someone is serious about it and incorporates things into their personal path that do go with wicca, no matter who gripes about it, can we all honestly say we have a right to say something about it? *shrugs* I guess my thing is....lets not make a whole "fix this" deal, but direct those we can on an individual basis.

[Danustouch]

I think the willingness to say "I'm wiccan because I believe in X, Y, Z, and do X, Y, Z traditional things" and then saying.."However, since Wicca has such an open mind toward other paths and traditions, in my OWN rituals I will incorporate X, Y, and Z from THIS path" Is a huge step in a good direction.

I think that's where the problem comes in for me. When I ask someone "Are you Wiccan?" and they say "Yes" and I say "Oh...how do you practice" and they go on telling me a lot of stuff about how they read tarot cards, practice Reiki, hear Ghosts, Perform Magick, etc, and yet don't really talk at all about the Wiccan Faith specifically....that's what I find frustrating. However, if someone says.."I worship on sabbats and esbats, even if one month it's just quiet meditations, And I follow the Rede, and ...." and go on to list a lot of the "foundational" themes of Wicca, and then tell me, "But, in my own personal rituals, I may also incorporate a prayer to Quan Yin, and I also have a Mandala on my altar, or A statue of Mary, and rosary beads" well..to me, that makes all the difference. Stating that you practice Wicca, however, are open minded and for your own personal rituals, choose to incorporate other traditions, and clarify that these things are not specifically Wiccan, simply things that make sense to you, personally, on a spiritual level, well..I see nothing wrong with this. That way, you're not trying to change the definition of Wicca. You're merely saying that while you ARE Wiccan, you continue to explore other spiritual paths, and ideas.

[Nightwind2]

Totally agree with the above. Defining Wicca is more about what it is, not what it isn't. If you follow some basic Wiccan concepts, I can't immeidately think of anything you could add to that that I would find objectionable. BUT, for example, if you don't believe in gods, no, you're not Wiccan. If you believe the gods are just Jungian archtypes inside your own head, you're not Wiccan. Wicca is a religion. It requires a belief in divinity. I personally find some views of divinity more or less appropriate for Wicca. For example, I think you're treading a thin if you follow Hindu gods. If you're called to Hindu gods, wouldn't you be better off as a Hindu? But that's a personal view. I wouldn't ever say someone wasn't Wiccan because her Goddess was Kali. I wouldn't even say they were a bad Wiccan.

[Rainx]

Incidentally, this thread is apropos - http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11834

Greenman started it and it's a discussion of Wicca and eclecticism - what makes Wicca what it is, and so on.

(I was posting as Myst then)

[Danustouch]

BUT, for example, if you don't believe in gods, no, you're not Wiccan. If you believe the gods are just Jungian archtypes inside your own head, you're not Wiccan

Now, see, here too, I think we get into murky waters. What if you think that there really is a God and Goddess, however, you realize that whichever God and Goddess you particulary feel drawn to, is due to your own Archetypes?

For instance, I worship Danu. Being that she is a uh..rather debated Goddess, the overriding theme of Danu, is just an overwhelming "earth mother" type image. So...I do believe she exists. I hear her in my soul, I talk to her, I interact with her. However, I realize that the reason I was drawn to her, instead of say, to the Morrigan, or Rhiannon, or any other Goddess, is that to me, I needed that representation of an all loving, all nurturing Earth Mother. She's my matron. That's not to say that I don't believe in other Gods or Goddesses, or that I may call upon them for various things, however, Danu became my Matron, because she fit in with my Archetypes of what a Devine being, as a Matron, should be, for myself. Does that make sense?

In other words, I don't think that believing in Archetypes makes you less a Wiccan, i think it's all in HOW you picture those archetypes fitting in with the plan. To me, I know that there are Devine beings. A god, and a Goddess. Why I specifically felt drawn to use Danu as the Matron Goddess figure who I relate to, is due to those archetypes which she represents. I don't try to mentally picture Danu draped in some ethereal gauzy flowing dress, floating up on a cloud, or as a tangible physical entity. I simply try to feel the Energy which springs to mind when I feel her presence. That archetypical energy. Do I believe it exists? Yes. I believe SHE exists. As to what form SHE takes..physically, i've no clue. I don't try to picture her in a Sidhe mound in Eire, I don't try to mentally picture her at all. To me, she is energy...a tangible energy in that she can be felt, and evidenced through all nurturing, and the earth itsself, but not visually tangible...am I making sense here?

[Nightwind2]

Originally posted by Erincelt
If a person calls themselves Wiccan and wants to believe in 'X', then that's fine too -- so long as 'X' has a place in Wicca. So what does and doesn't have a place in Wicca?

Pretend I'm ignorant. Tell me. :) But don't think I'll accept an answer like, "Everything has a place in Wicca!" because that just isn't true. Does a belief in Samael (Satan, Lucifer, whatever) belong in Wicca? I'm not going to make a statement one way or the other, but I think you see what I'm getting at. There simply are some things which absolutely are and absolutely are not Wiccan, or else the word has no meaning. So what are they?


Things you need:

1. Belief in some form of divinity - Wicca is a religion.
2. Divinity as a duality. This is the facet that I find defines Wicca. If you don't view them in this general term, you are some other form of pagan. This doesn't mean you are limited to only two gods, but there must be at least two, male and female, and they must be equal. I do believe it acceptable to FOCUS on the Goddess and her mysteries as Dianic Wiccans do, but they have to acknowledge that an equal God is out there.
3. The Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do what you will", NOT the sappy poetry from Gewn Thompson.
4. Some form of the Law of Return

Common, but not nessessary elements:
1. Tools (athame, pentacle, chalice, etc)
2. Circle casting
3. Sabbats
4. Some concept of the Triple Goddess

My view on power crystals, tarot, etc: These are neither Wiccan nor anti-Wiccan. If you like these things, fine. If you view them with religious associations, fine. But I don't see them as being a part of Wicca - they're just things Wiccans tend to do. I eat hamburgers, but that doesn't mean hamburgers are a part of Wicca either.

Satan as Christians define him doesn't fit Wicca - the paradigm doesn't encompass deities of absolute good or evil. If you view Satan as a serious Satanist does, I don't know that I'd say it's NOT Wicca, but I don't know why you'd want to be a Wiccan over a Satanist in that case.

I find Jehovah and Allah to be completely inappropriate for Wicca. They demand their followers accept only a single deity. Wicca requires at least two, equal deities. Worshipping Jehovah alone is not Wiccan, and worshipping Jehovah along side Diana is extraordinarily insulting.

As stated in my previous post, I have a lot of person qualms about hindu gods. I have even more qualms about Amerindian spirits. Wiccan riutals have a certain context. They can be modified according to deity, but the entire framework is so very alien to native american beliefs, I just don't find it fits well.

Kaathryn MacMorgan as an interesting approach to defining Wicca, I don't totally agree with it, but I love the general gist: A Wiccan is someone who follows Gardner's original core theology or who can give logical reason for deviating from that theology. I personally can't think of fitting in native american beliefs, but if have real reasons for doing so ("they're cool" does not count), fair enough.

I don't agree with it because that still leaves the question of what is a logical reason. "I worship only the Goddess because the Christians have taken over the Gods" is not an acceptable reason in my book.

[Nightwind2]

Originally posted by Danustouch

Now, see, here too, I think we get into murky waters. What if you think that there really is a God and Goddess, however, you realize that whichever God and Goddess you particulary feel drawn to, is due to your own Archetypes?

For instance, I worship Danu. Being that she is a uh..rather debated Goddess, the overriding theme of Danu, is just an overwhelming "earth mother" type image. So...I do believe she exists. I hear her in my soul, I talk to her, I interact with her. However, I realize that the reason I was drawn to her, instead of say, to the Morrigan, or Rhiannon, or any other Goddess, is that to me, I needed that representation of an all loving, all nurturing Earth Mother. She's my matron. That's not to say that I don't believe in other Gods or Goddesses, or that I may call upon them for various things, however, Danu became my Matron, because she fit in with my Archetypes of what a Devine being, as a Matron, should be, for myself. Does that make sense?

In other words, I don't think that believing in Archetypes makes you less a Wiccan

That's not what I said. I said you're not Wiccan if you think the gods are ONLY Archtypes, that they in no form actually exist outside your own head. And there are Wiccans who will say this. Personally, I think the gods are in some form that we can't concisely comprehend. Are they one big mass with many faces? Are they individuals? Are they somewhere in between? That's for each person to come to grips with. If Archtypes bring you closer to comprehending, more power to you!

[Rainx]

IMHO Wicca includes

- acknowledgement of a masculine and feminine deity as expressions of the divine

- immanent divine (which is to say, that the divine is not just some unreachable dude in the sky - which isn't to say transcendant and archetypal deities don't also have their places, but that immanence is IMHO most important)

- celebration of the divine as expressed in nature - in terms of solar and lunar workings that recognize the turning of seasons

- adherence to the Wiccan Rede, ie. an it harm none, and some understanding of return (ie. threefold law)

I do believe Wicca requires some sort of participatory work - not just reading a book but involving oneself in achieving Will, and evolving spiritually and mentally. Although I do agree that everyone goes through "slow" periods in terms of spirituality I do feel on the whole, someone who calls themself a Wiccan but has never done any form of prayer, devotion, ritual, etc. is not Wiccan.

In other words, it's not having the right tools, casting the circle just the right way, memorizing words from a book, doing spells, reading tarot, etc. - while those can all be parts of it, to me the core of Wicca is to connect with the immanent divine. It's a *religion*, it should be focused on communication with God. All the other frills are secondary to fostering that relationship.

[Erincelt]

*wipes his eye* You people are just beautiful, you know that? :D Tell me Nightwind, you think a thread like this one would ever have managed to stay on topic this long over at you-know-where.com? Hah! You, me, Kat, Swede, we might've managed it.. but you know what kind of crowd that place draws..

Now on to my latest challenge... Aren't I evil? ;)

A few of you now have brought up the topic of dualistic divinity -- duotheism. Here's a thought for you to respond to: If the God and Goddess are inter-dependant, and representing of a single ultimate creative force, could they not be the two extremes of one divine being? Or in other words, could they be a Polar Divine rather than dual?

Now run with it!

[Ben Gruagach]

Originally posted by Nightwind2

As stated in my previous post, I have a lot of person qualms about hindu gods. I have even more qualms about Amerindian spirits. Wiccan riutals have a certain context. They can be modified according to deity, but the entire framework is so very alien to native american beliefs, I just don't find it fits well.

Janet Farrar and Gavin Bone have some interesting observations (and a funny story in the last paragraph) regarding Wicca and Hinduism. Check it out at http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/eastmeetswest.htm

They have some other interesting things to say related to the "what is Wicca" question, and the question about tradition v. eclecticism in their article "Current Views and Topics" on their website at http://www.wicca.utvinternet.com/ too.

A lot of people have read the Farrar's "Witches Bible" -- but how many of us have read their web postings? Lots of things to think about.

[Sabrina]

Greetings:

I've just stumbled upon this article that I think makes for a rather interesting read.

Warning: It is not for the faint of heart when reading critical opinons regarding Gardner and Wicca
and
it's not a short read either...rather lengthy

but sill some interesting viewpoints in here:
http://www.hecatescauldron.org/Gardner%20Unveiled.htm

Please note*** I do not consider this woman as a scholar. If you only gleen data from so-called scholars then you won't find her opinions the least bit interesting LOL..
I, on the other hand, have a zero opinion of so-called scholars that debate our current Pagan or religious issues.
Scholars to me have done valid research perhaps...but still taint and condem our Pagan authors with their diatribe until the actual "meaning" in Pagan authors words cease to be enjoyable. So scholars to me are bunk.
the reason I like this article is that I see this woman as a Non scholar and therefore it is based soley upon her own personal research.

hope some of you find this interesting. Many of the things she points out regarding Gardner and his intensions Are quite possible in My head...
emphasis is on the word "possible"...
again...
I take practically Nothing as fact
LOL

[amberlaine]

could they not be the two extremes of one divine being? Or in other words, could they be a Polar Divine rather than dual?


Yes. I believe that God and Goddess are nothing more than creative expressions of a greater, ineffable force.

[Rainx]

Originally posted by amberlaine

Yes. I believe that God and Goddess are nothing more than creative expressions of a greater, ineffable force.

What she said. I see All and then individual deities as part of All, both unique unto themselves and part of All (that's the way Netjer are seen in Kemetic belief).

Much like you and I are individual people with individual personalities while at the same time being part of MysticWicks society, or society as a whole, or the Universe, etc.

[Phoenix_Blue]

I, on the other hand, have a zero opinion of so-called scholars that debate our current Pagan or religious issues.
Scholars to me have done valid research perhaps...but still taint and condem our Pagan authors with their diatribe until the actual "meaning" in Pagan authors words cease to be enjoyable. So scholars to me are bunk.
I guess this is similar to the distinction between amateur and professional astronomy. The professional version entails a great deal of Calculus and other high-level mathematics which is daunting to someone who doesn't know or doesn't like the math. :) But scholarly research into Paganism does have an important place in Pagan society, because while it may not be enjoyable, it provides both meaning and perspective to what Pagans today practice.

[Nightwind2]

Originally posted by Erincelt

If the God and Goddess are inter-dependant, and representing of a single ultimate creative force, could they not be the two extremes of one divine being? Or in other words, could they be a Polar Divine rather than dual?

That comes down to an issue of viewpoints, like the issue of many gods versus one god with many faces. I think its acceptable, but I would think that for the majority of people, it wouldn't be as helpful an image. I find that most (but not all) people who go with the "all gods are one god" theory end up with the bland concept of a being without any personality. It's often used as an escape to actually do research into any specific gods or even put any thought into one's one view of the gods.

Gardnerian Wicca recognises the Dryghton, which I think Cunningham calls the One, from which the God and Goddess come. But both of them still split this being out into God and Goddess.

[Nightwind2]

Originally posted by Sabrina


Please note*** I do not consider this woman as a scholar. If you only gleen data from so-called scholars then you won't find her opinions the least bit interesting LOL..
I, on the other hand, have a zero opinion of so-called scholars that debate our current Pagan or religious issues.
Scholars to me have done valid research perhaps...but still taint and condem our Pagan authors with their diatribe until the actual "meaning" in Pagan authors words cease to be enjoyable. So scholars to me are bunk.
the reason I like this article is that I see this woman as a Non scholar and therefore it is based soley upon her own personal research.

Are you saying you only like the more biased views then?

[Sabrina]

Originally posted by Nightwind2

Are you saying you only like the more biased views then?

Greetings Nightwind2:

that's pretty narrow....
LOL

you'll have to define what you mean by "more biased views" in order for me to properly answer this question.

thanks

[Phoenix_Blue]

Quoth Nightwind2:

That comes down to an issue of viewpoints, like the issue of many gods versus one god with many faces. I think its acceptable, but I would think that for the majority of people, it wouldn't be as helpful an image. I find that most (but not all) people who go with the "all gods are one god" theory end up with the bland concept of a being without any personality.
I actually think the no-personality thing makes sense. After all, to a blood cell within my body, do I have a personality? :) Of course, I do, but is it something that a blood cell would be able to discern or understand?

[Rainx]

I know this seems obtuse (my apologies), but a blood cell doesn't understand *anything*. A blood cell isn't a conscious, thinking being.

Of course, you might think we aren't thinking either.. :D

But seriously, I feel abstractly transcendant deity has no definable personality. The Divine just *is*. Much like society as a whole or the Universe - you can't say everyone at MW has a specific unified personality. But each person, each avatar, each unique individual part of MW can have one.

But I do agree with Nightwind that that sort of thinking gets used as an excuse - after all, thinking like that, Aphrodite and Freyja are both just parts of God who have something to do with love and lust, right? So why not use them interchangeably? Why not mix pantheons willy nilly? Why not call on deity by any name, after all, they're all the same right? It's not like there's anyone there to offend, right? Call on Sekhmet for protection, I mean come on she's just part of the Divine.

Or at least that's what some people get to doing.

[Phoenix_Blue]

**Nods** And compared to a god's level of understanding, do we necessarily think? :) That's kinda my point. No need to apologize on the obtuseness, I actually appreciate it.

And you'll find my agreement, as well, that willy-nilly interchanging of deities is mentally lazy behaviour. And maybe dangerous. Yeah, go ahead, ask Sekhmet to protect something for you! Or Kali, maybe!

[Rainx]

Yes, I think so. As far as I know a blood cell doesn't worry about survival, procreation, and so on. A blood cell doesn't care what body it exists in, or what deity exists.

It's easy to imagine our consciousness being relatively limited in comparison to deity, but I don't think one could say our consciousness is so limited as to be considered nonexistent.

[Phoenix_Blue]

:) Thing is, deities are omniscient by definition. If you divide a non-zero number (our capacity for knowledge) by infinity (divine capacity for knowledge), you still end up with zero.

Of course, mathematics and philosophy probably aren't meant to mix this way anyway. :p

[Athena-Nadine]

Sure they are, Phoenix. That's how we got Physics. *...giggles...*

[Rainx]

Why would deity and the universe can be defined by something created by humans (ie. math)? Especially when you're already assuming divine consciousness is that much greater then human?

In other words, if your hypothesis is that divine intelligence is that much greater then our own, then how can you prove that with things created by human intelligence?

[CopyrightPolice]

Hmmm, i like to think mathematics is one of the ways in which deity speaks to us. one of their many languages :)

[Rainx]

Hm I like to think Divine speaks to us in a lot of languages we recognize, but I don't think the languages we recognize should be thought of as able to define the Divine either.

Much less so if we're as brainless as blood cells :D

[Erincelt]

Think about it this way... that blood cell wouldn't go anywhere without that plasma. That plasma is just murky water with no purpose without that blood cell. They are entirely seperate from each other. They each server their own purpose, in their own way.

But, if they did not both exist, neither of them would get anything done. They have their own purposes, but they have the same reason for it: to keep you alive.

So who's to say the Divine isn't the same? The Lord and Lady can be entirely distinct and still entirely intradependant. To me, it gives them still more personality, as it gives me a way to picture them dealing with emotions more like our own, rather than purely on the abstract. And also, to me, it makes them more real. What could exist that doesn't have some sort of need, on any scale, of something else? If nature really is Their reflection, then those things which are Natural must be found in them.

But that's just my thought of the moment.

[amberlaine]

Originally posted by Rainx

Hm I like to think Divine speaks to us in a lot of languages we recognize, but I don't think the languages we recognize should be thought of as able to define the Divine either.

Much less so if we're as brainless as blood cells :D

Dammit, I hate it when I answer a post as CP. ARgh.

I know what you're saying. I missed the "definied by" part of your post. I don't think Deity can be definied by human constructs either. But, I also dont' think mathematics is necessarily all human construct. I think the pattern is *in* nature; we just saw the pattern, but we didn't put it there.

[Erincelt]

Thank you amberlaine, I was waiting for someone else to make that point. Patterns are everywhere and important. This universe of ours -- and most likely all others -- exist as an ordered chaos. If you don't believe me, just ask anyone who has studied even highschool level physics and had to do entropy calculations.

Mathematics is based on counting things. That's what got the whole mess started. Then it went on to invent a lovely thing called measurement. Measurement is simply dividing something up into an agreed upon unit... and then counting them. All of math comes down to counting. The trouble is that nowadays some of the things being measured are nearly on the abstract... but again, we didn't put them there, we just came up with the units to describe them with. All the properties exploited by math -- and other sciences -- exist whether or not the science does. They just wouldn't have a human label.

Just the same, I think its important to say that while the Natural laws/cycles/processes may be heavily influenced by the Divine, they are not complete mirrors.

[Pesha]

Ok ummmm now reform judism I know about but reform wicca....can someone please edumacte me please??

BB
DS.

[CelestiaSynth]

Every movement of culture, whether it be political, social, religious or whatever, has its
extremes and middle-ground. Trying to completely halt the existance of any of these types of extremes first of all, is very unlikely whether it be a fundie or fluffy. I say this because I this is not just a type of people, this is a way of thinking. Wicca has a way of attracting people who are in search of a type of spritiual freedom that has been lacking to them in their lives. But Wicca also easily attracts people desperate for shock value, defiance, association with an sub-culture and therefore, what's hip, etc. For different reasons, people want to label of Wiccan upon them. With some it's for divine exploration and fulfillment, and for others, its for quick love spells and getting back at Dad. The problems with wanting to get rid of fluffies although is to me a lost cause because you have to understand that it is Wicca's appeal that draws many of them to it. And that appeal on many levels is a gloss of misunderstanding from people who want to fall in love with the myths of being a a powerful, yet persecuted who's glamourous, mysterious and interesting.
But in order f