Analysis of "Why Wiccans Suck" Website [Archive] - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

BlueFlame

August 11th, 2003, 02:00 AM

This has all the content of wws http://www.wiccaweb.com/suck_immaturity.php I don't know if its what you were refering to before though.

I remember seeing the old thread, but it was way too long so I didn't even bother to read it, but now that we're starting all over I can add my two bits in! yay!

I think WWS does suck, but it's so so true in so many places. I don't think it sucks for the reason you might expect, I think it sucks because it offers no solution for combating fluffies, it has no hope for the future of Wicca. I quite agree that Wicca is over run by immature and sometimes dilusional fluffies, who think Wicca is the cool new thing and "Charmed" is a documentary. All WWS does is piss them off. It gives the message that Wicca isn't about wearing a pentacle or doing an SRW love spell, and this is a great message to send, but it dosn't say what Wicca really is.

That and the website graphics are mucho crappy.

Partly Cloudy

August 11th, 2003, 08:13 AM

Oh my... this topic has been going soooooo long.....

When I replied in the old thread, I said something along the lines of:

Dividing people into different groups only serves to break the religion up more, and though I agree with what the author of WWS is saying, I believe that people should work more on teaching everyone all they know because the fluffies will probably drop away anyway (or become unfluffyerised, if that's a word, which it isn't). I know a few people who were completely fluffy when they started out along this path (me included) who read more and more and got over their fluffyness and became dedicated seekers.

Yes... I was very fluffy when I first discovered Wicca. I'm not proud of it, either. But hopefully now I'm on the right path, and if I start being fluffy, someone slap me please.

~Partly Cloudy

Oh, btw, although I actually quite like WWS, I hate that page in the links called 'keep wicca traditional'- has anyone else read that?
Eugh. I hated the bit that said "you're a seeker. Try seeking" They guy/girl who wrote it wants to save traditional wicca but won't share their knowledge about it? I just find that arrogant. But whatever.

Ben Trismegistus

August 11th, 2003, 10:41 AM

As an alternative to "Why Wiccans Suck", allow me to recommend "Wicca: For the Rest of Us", located at http://wicca.timerift.net and created by MW's own Nightwind2.

Rather than focusing on bashing and condemning the "fluffy bunnies", "Wicca: For the Rest of Us" sets out to educate and inform. At the same time, WFTROU dispels a great many myths about Wicca believed both inside and outside of the community, included some I myself believed until reading the site. All sources are cited, and the site is very easy to read.

In particular, the section on "Myth and History" is fascinating, and references everything from Margaret Murray's inaccuracies to the myth of the Burning Times.

This is an excellent read for beginners and experienced Wiccans alike. I highly recommend it, and I think it might make a more interesting topic for discussion than the ruder "Why Wiccans Suck".

Nightwind2

August 11th, 2003, 11:01 AM

Oh, btw, although I actually quite like WWS, I hate that page in the links called 'keep wicca traditional'- has anyone else read that?
Eugh. I hated the bit that said "you're a seeker. Try seeking" They guy/girl who wrote it wants to save traditional wicca but won't share their knowledge about it? I just find that arrogant. But whatever.

I also hate that site, for a number of reasons.

1) I can't quite figure out their point. They complain that people are being fluffy, and want them to stop it, but don't say what being fluffy is. They want people to embrace Traditional Wiccan values, but don't state what they are.

2) Eclectics allowed? They now say "You do not have to be an initiated Trad Wiccan to do this. You do not have to be an initiated Trad Wiccan to value the Traditions of Wicca." However, if memory serves, this is a more recent addition to their site. I think originally they argued you had to be a Trad Wiccan, and I personally think that's crap (so do most Trads that I know)

3) The writers are anonymous. If you're not willing to put your name to your words, maybe you shouldn't be talking. That's a part of being responsible for your own actions. The email address that they offer (at least last I checked) didn't work, nor did their guestbook (which I checked today).

4) "you're a seeker. Try seeking" This line pisses me off more than any other on this site. Isn't asking questions part of seeking? Someone asked a question, and the site's writer told him or her to screw off. What they really said was "Try seeking, just not here, because we can't be bothered with you."

5) The links don't work. They apparently have something to say about Scott Cunningham, but you can't get to it. If you want people to bother reading your site, you should bother to make sure it works.

6) Theban script. Ok, maybe that's just a pet peeve, but it bugs me regardless. Seeing people use theban script on a web page generally looks to me like "I'm special because I know a secret mystical alphabet" (for whatever reason, the use of Theban at waningmoon.com does NOT bother me. I guess I see the use there as more decorative)

The worst part is that I MIGHT actually agree with these people. But their presentation is so bad that I don't even know for sure what they're trying to say, and the way they say it is just awful.

Rain Gnosis

August 11th, 2003, 11:02 AM

I think it might make a more interesting topic for discussion than the ruder "Why Wiccans Suck".

;) yeah but the only discussion for it is "it's great, go see it, and visit the forums to provide more feedback". :)

Ben Trismegistus

August 11th, 2003, 11:11 AM

;) yeah but the only discussion for it is "it's great, go see it, and visit the forums to provide more feedback". :)

Well, that's because you and I happen to agree with everthing Nightwind2 says on the site. Not everyone here might. :)

By the way, Nightwind, you might want to add something to the site about the debunking of Carlos Castaneda. I know many Wiccans who still believe that his "modern shamanism" is based on real experiments, even though Castaneda himself admitted that he made them all up.

Here's a link to the Straight Dope article on Castaneda:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020621.html

Toad

August 11th, 2003, 11:40 AM

;) yeah but the only discussion for it is "it's great, go see it, and visit the forums to provide more feedback". :)

As Ben said you assume that everyone agrees completely...let me assure you this is NOT the case.

Rain Gnosis

August 11th, 2003, 11:43 AM

As Ben said you assume that everyone agrees completely...let me assure you this is NOT the case.

Well, Toad, feel free to explain then.

Toad

August 11th, 2003, 11:45 AM

Naw...think I will pass Rain...I dont want to piss off the board today. ;-)

Nightwind2

August 11th, 2003, 12:52 PM

By the way, Nightwind, you might want to add something to the site about the debunking of Carlos Castaneda. I know many Wiccans who still believe that his "modern shamanism" is based on real experiments, even though Castaneda himself admitted that he made them all up.

Here's a link to the Straight Dope article on Castaneda:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020621.html
Hmm, can't get your link to work. Honestly, I've never heard of him, but I'll put a mention in my notes. It may be some time before I do much to the site. (busy with moving, and returning to college, and little things like that, not to mention trying my hand at getting published)

Phoenix_Blue

August 11th, 2003, 01:01 PM

He's the guy who wrote all the Don Juan stuff. . . **nods** I'm not surprised, his stuff never quite made it past my BS detector.

Ben Trismegistus

August 11th, 2003, 01:48 PM

Hmm, can't get your link to work. Honestly, I've never heard of him, but I'll put a mention in my notes. It may be some time before I do much to the site. (busy with moving, and returning to college, and little things like that, not to mention trying my hand at getting published)

Castaneda wrote several books that were purportedly wisdom he had gained from conversations with "Don Juan", a Yaqui sorcerer, plus journeys he had taken while under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs, etc.

He admitted later that he made all of it up, but many people still hold that "his ideas are valid" even if they're based on utter nonsense.

Vuthiel

August 12th, 2003, 05:34 PM

As Ben said you assume that everyone agrees completely...let me assure you this is NOT the case.

Heh. From what I've read of it so far (which isn't much, to be honest) the only thing I noticed that I don't necessarily agree with (though, I don't really disagree with it either, per se) is the spelling of "magic". Yes, it's spelled on the site as it would be found in the dictionary, but they make no mention of why it was at one point spelled with a k. I haven't read much Crowley, but from what I understand, he added the k to change the numerology of the word. At the moment, what the new numerology is after the addition of the k escapes me, unfortunately. Anyway, I've always spelled "magic" with a k. More because of my own quirks than anything. I find "magick" more pleasing visually, and when I see the word "magic" I think Houdini, and that's not something I like to associate with what I practice.

Just my two cents. :)

BlueFlame

August 13th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Rain Gnosis

August 13th, 2003, 09:39 AM

Yes, it's spelled on the site as it would be found in the dictionary, but they make no mention of why it was at one point spelled with a k.

If you click the "more" link on this section on the front page

The word "magic" has 5 letters in it. There's no "k" at the end, "j" in the middle or any other letter that some feel compelled to throw into the word. [More]

you go directly to this link on the website (http://wicca.timerift.net/magic.html) which explains the "k" bit for the second half of the page.

Nightwind2

August 13th, 2003, 09:56 AM

Anyway, I've always spelled "magic" with a k. More because of my own quirks than anything. I find "magick" more pleasing visually, and when I see the word "magic" I think Houdini, and that's not something I like to associate with what I practice.

That's easily the section that gets the most complaints.

At least you admit it, but you're an axample of exactly my pet peeve - spelling something wrong becasue of your own "quirks". Can u imagin whayt et woud bee lik if wee al started spelin acordin too are oon quircs?

The English language is full of words that have totally different meanings. Like "bow". As in bow tie, bow and arrow, bow of a ship, bow to a lady... Yet we manage. So I see no reason why what Houdini did and what we do shouldn't be represented with the same word. I've yet to see confusion ever erupt over the similarity in terms.

Vuthiel

August 13th, 2003, 12:49 PM

That's easily the section that gets the most complaints.

At least you admit it, but you're an axample of exactly my pet peeve - spelling something wrong becasue of your own "quirks". Can u imagin whayt et woud bee lik if wee al started spelin acordin too are oon quircs?

The English language is full of words that have totally different meanings. Like "bow". As in bow tie, bow and arrow, bow of a ship, bow to a lady... Yet we manage. So I see no reason why what Houdini did and what we do shouldn't be represented with the same word. I've yet to see confusion ever erupt over the similarity in terms.

While I see your point, I think the fact that I add one letter to one word makes little difference to everyone else. People still know what I'm talking about. The change in spelling is one that is widely accepted, as though it has become another word entirely, now if we were to go along with that, what harm would be done, since it's generally widely understood? Besides... how many people go around using the incorrect version of their (there, their, they're) all the time? Yet, people still know what they're talking about, which, in my opinion, is what's important. The way I see it, as long as people still understand what you're trying to say, why should it matter how you put it across?

Nightwind2

August 13th, 2003, 01:18 PM

Vuthiel

August 13th, 2003, 02:01 PM

So bad grammer is ok as long as everyone can still comprehend what you're saying?

Sorry, doesn't fly with me.

And "magick" is not widely understood. Or more to the point, most people think people who use "magick" are just trying to be special and "kewl", which is to a large extent true, and it's a stereotype I wish we'd stop encouraging.

I'm not saying bad grammar is okay, I'm saying it's a common thing. Yet, people still understand what is being said. I have to say that at this point, you're being a bit disrespectful about all of this. It would seem (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you've lumped me in with a crowd of unintelligent, poser-ish people simply because I prefer to spell a word differently than you do. We all have our personal preferences. Spelling "magic" with a k is one of mine. Regardless of whether or not you like it, or think it's right, I will continue to do so. I can understand your perspective, and I've given it thought, but at this point I would just have to say that I disagree, and leave it at that. You're entitled to your preferences, just as I am entitled to mine. Any further debate on the subject would probably be pointless.

Phoenix_Blue

August 13th, 2003, 02:08 PM

So bad grammer is ok as long as everyone can still comprehend what you're saying?

Sorry, doesn't fly with me.
If grammar is an issue, then what about spelling?

By the by, I've spelled "majick" as such for most of the time I've been Pagan - not because I think it's "kewl," but because that helps differentiate it in my mind between David Copperfield and my Art; and also because I like spelling it that way. You're basing your reaction on your perception, which is fine - but I don't see where most people, or even a few people, question the spelling of "majick." In fact, I haven't previously encountered anyone who took issue with it. Who are the "most people" to whom you refer?

Edited to add: After all, there is something special about what we do, isn't there? Why not choose a different spelling of the word to symbolize that? e.e.cummings might have a word or two about such strict conformity. :)

Rain Gnosis

August 13th, 2003, 02:27 PM

In fact, I haven't previously encountered anyone who took issue with it. Who are the "most people" to whom you refer?

Oh I've seen a lot of people who think it's pretentious too. Not so much here, but on other forums for example.

Edited to add: After all, there is something special about what we do, isn't there?

There we disagree. Doing a spell isn't anymore special then a sunrise, a baby's birth, a rainbow, etc. Life is special, what we do is try to live normally within it. Being in harmony with life and working in tune with nature shouldn't be considered special.

Phoenix_Blue

August 13th, 2003, 05:22 PM

Oh I've seen a lot of people who think it's pretentious too. Not so much here, but on other forums for example.
Who does this, exactly? And do they pick on this issue because they're trying to dispel the "kewl" mindset, or do they pick on it as one more way to look down their noses at Wiccans in general?

There we disagree. Doing a spell isn't anymore special then a sunrise, a baby's birth, a rainbow, etc. Life is special, what we do is try to live normally within it. Being in harmony with life and working in tune with nature shouldn't be considered special.
:) I think we're actually in agreement on this - except for your last sentence. As you said, life itself is special; in that case, isn't anything we do in our lives, especially anything dedicated to the Divine, special by definition?

Rain Gnosis

August 13th, 2003, 05:42 PM

And do they pick on this issue because they're trying to dispel the "kewl" mindset, or do they pick on it as one more way to look down their noses at Wiccans in general?

They do it because they think it's pretentious. No ulterior motive, no need to look down on people, no dispelling anything. It's kind of like how I can think someone's opinion is wrong without looking down on them.

As you said, life itself is special; in that case, isn't anything we do in our lives, especially anything dedicated to the Divine, special by definition?

Depends what you take special to mean. I take it to mean unique, not "normal", notable, remarkable, etc.

Athena-Nadine

August 13th, 2003, 05:55 PM

Slightly OT:

I have a HUGE pet peeve with spelling, grammar, and proper use of words in context. Sure we all make typos, but there are way too many people out there who can't spell for anything and rely on their spell checks way too much.

I don't care if others can understand what someone is trying to say. I have a really difficult time understanding, because my brain reads the words as they are meant to be read, and not as someone else may mean them. Some spelling is so bad that I can't figure out what someone is trying to say, because the word barely resembles what it's supposed to be.

In my mind, not taking the time to learn how to spell properly, or to write with proper grammar, is pure laziness, and disrespectful to the language and the people you are trying to reach (yes, I realize there are people with legitimate learning disabilities that this is difficult for, but that can be overcome). If you will take a little extra time to make yourself look nice in order to make a good impression upon someone, why wouldn't you expend the same effort into making sure your message is clear?

This is the number one reason so many resumes get tossed without consideration. You can have the most experience, and be the best person for the job, but if you don't have enough respect for your own personal appearance to use proper diction (when your written words are all one has to go on as far as who you are), no one else is going to have respect for what you're trying to say.

Ben Gruagach

August 13th, 2003, 06:42 PM

There is a bit of history about the word "magick" (spelled with the "k") that might be of interest.

It was largely popularized by Aleister Crowley, as has been pointed out already. One of his most influential books, "Magick in Theory and Practice" has used the distinct spelling in the title all the way back to when it was first published in 1929.

Gerald Gardner claimed to have been initiated as a Witch in the 1930s, well after Crowley's "Magick in Theory and Practice" was published. It is also well documented that Gardner was familiar with Crowley's work, and even met Crowley and obtained (purchased) a charter to start up a branch of Crowley's magickal order. (Gardner didn't really go anywhere with keeping Crowley's group going, though. He got caught up in promoting Witchcraft instead.)

Today it is commonly accepted that Gardner is responsible for starting what we now call Wicca.

My point? Wiccans didn't invent the spelling of "magick." Modern Wiccans didn't invent this spelling to "be cool." Spelling the word this way goes back before Gardner even started promoting Wicca, before anyone had heard of a religion called Wicca.

While Crowley's magickal order was certainly just one of many at the time, he had a very strong influence on the English-speaking occult community in many ways. I've no doubt that the word "magick" has been and still is used by all sorts of ceremonial practitioners, occultists, and students of psychic phenomena who have never been members of Crowley's group. The fact that Wiccans sometimes use this spelling just indicates to me that Crowley's influence is still there, likely in more than just the terms people are using.

The term "magick" is just as authentic and entrenched in the English-speaking occult community as the word "Wicca" is now. (And hey, "magick" has been around for longer than "Wicca" in its modern incarnation!)

Vuthiel

August 13th, 2003, 06:52 PM

In my mind, not taking the time to learn how to spell properly, or to write with proper grammar, is pure laziness, and disrespectful to the language and the people you are trying to reach (yes, I realize there are people with legitimate learning disabilities that this is difficult for, but that can be overcome).

Well, I have to ask... have you had a learning disability? My reason for asking is this: until you've experienced something first hand, I don't think it's respectful to write it off as easy to overcome. There are some folks with learning disabilities who spend their whole lives trying to overcome those problems, and may still not be able to comply with what another person might expect (like what you said your expectations were). I think it's a little disrespectful to those people who do have learning disabilities and have spent their lives trying to overcome them when you suggest that it's something easily taken care of with a little effort. It's also, in my opinion, disrespectful to assume that just because someone's grammar is poor that they are just lazy. There has been a rapid decline in the past decade in the quality of education in the United States. Schools don't put as much emphasis on learning proper grammar as they once did. So, I think to assume that because someone's grammar isn't perfect that they're lazy is a little rude. Granted, it's something the person can learn later, but I don't think it's fair to call someone lazy just because they haven't learned something. It's ignorance, not laziness. I don't see why someone would not respect someone else just because their grammar isn't perfect. That seems like a shallow reason not to respect someone, to me. I respect people for their ideas and values. Not whether or not they can use the correct "to/too" or "there/their/they're".

Just my two cents worth. :)

Vuthiel

August 13th, 2003, 09:16 PM

The term "magick" is just as authentic and entrenched in the English-speaking occult community as the word "Wicca" is now. (And hey, "magick" has been around for longer than "Wicca" in its modern incarnation!)

Thanks for sharing that, Ben. :)
I wasn't familiar with all of that, though some I already knew. Anyway, thanks for sharing the info. :)

Rain Gnosis

August 13th, 2003, 09:54 PM

Well, I have to ask... have you had a learning disability?

Uh yes, people who have disabilities may need special consideration. If people are being lazy or disrespectful, I agree wholeheartedly with Nallia. Ben T and I usually joke about being grammar nazis. Is anyone here spelling magic with a "k" because of a learning disability?

As to the spelling of "magick" being around so long - similarly old was once spelled with an "e", shop was once spelled "shoppe", etc. That doesn't change whether you look pretentious or not when you use it. We were also known as "Wica" and "Wiccae" instead of Wiccans in the past, but you'll find most people look at you strangely if you revert to those terms. The irony in that is how many people use magic with a "k" and yet are fearful of/hate Crowley, without realizing he used the spelling or even knowing why it's used. The "it's not Houdini" bit always gets me - why are you discussing magic with anyone who doesn't automatically recognize the type of magic you mean, much less with a letter that is silent and thus not noticeable unless you're writing anyway?

Personally it doesn't matter to me whether anyone uses it, though I can see more reasons not to then to use it.

Aine of the Fae

August 13th, 2003, 10:03 PM

I finally went through and read the WWS site. And, while some of the points were valid, for the most part it seemed a petty rant. I will agree that if you don't follow a Gardnerian/Alexandrian/Seax or other recognizably Wiccan path, you shouldn't call yourself Wiccan (I'm not Wiccan, I'm a Witch and proud of it, I don't need a softened down word to describe me...) to rant and rave and call anyone who falls into the other categories a Fluffbunny is condescending and rude. Most of those who are drawn to Pagan religions claim to come to Paganism because they want a religion that is all-encompassing and accepting of them for WHO THEY ARE. This whole 'anti-fluffbunny' movement is hypocritical in the extreme.

Theres

August 13th, 2003, 11:20 PM

I will agree that if you don't follow a Gardnerian/Alexandrian/Seax or other recognizably Wiccan path, you shouldn't call yourself Wiccan

excuse me?

there are those who would eliminate Alexandrian and Seax from that statement, but it would be equally invalid.
i am none of the above, but i am most definitely Wiccan, and i assure you that i am not a fluff bunny.
it is the principles involved that determine ones path, NOT the ritual design or the 'secret handshake'.

i will agree that many who proclaim themselves Wiccan may not fully understand what that implies. but merely adding the 'Gardnerian' qualifier (legitimate or otherwise) does not immediately instill a credibility that would not otherwise be there.

Vuthiel

August 14th, 2003, 12:04 AM

Uh yes, people who have disabilities may need special consideration. If people are being lazy or disrespectful, I agree wholeheartedly with Nallia. Ben T and I usually joke about being grammar nazis. Is anyone here spelling magic with a "k" because of a learning disability?

I was not referring specifically to the spelling of magick, but spelling and grammar in general, which is what the post I quoted from was about.

As to the spelling of "magick" being around so long - similarly old was once spelled with an "e", shop was once spelled "shoppe", etc. That doesn't change whether you look pretentious or not when you use it. We were also known as "Wica" and "Wiccae" instead of Wiccans in the past, but you'll find most people look at you strangely if you revert to those terms. The irony in that is how many people use magic with a "k" and yet are fearful of/hate Crowley, without realizing he used the spelling or even knowing why it's used. The "it's not Houdini" bit always gets me - why are you discussing magic with anyone who doesn't automatically recognize the type of magic you mean, much less with a letter that is silent and thus not noticeable unless you're writing anyway?

I have not once used the argument that the "magick" spelling has been around a long time, and do not intend to do so. As I said before, I spell it based on a personal preference. If people think that's because I'm pretentious, they're entitled to that opinion, but chances are they wouldn't know me well enough to know for sure one way or the other. As for Crowley, I find his writing quite interesting, actually, from what I've read so far, and I hope to read more about him. And the "it's not Houdini bit" well... that's just to differentiate in my own mind. Not for the benefit of others. The way I see it, I differentiate between the two in my own mind because I see the "Houdini bit" as a show put on for the benefit of others. What I practice is for my own benefit. That's why I choose to differentiate between the two. I find that to be a nice reminder for myself that it's not what works for other people, but for me, etc.

I'm not asking that people agree with me. As I've said right along, people are entitled to their own opinions, just as I'm entitled to mine. What I am trying to do is explain why I do the things I do, because otherwise it seems that people would get a wrong impression. It seems to me that some would pass their own judgement on me based on how I spell a word, which seems a bit odd, I guess. Of course, I could be wrong there. I just don't think it's fair to think that someone's lazy, stupid, pretentious, unworthy of respect, etc. based solely on how they spell a word. I spell magic with a k because that suits how I practice my craft. Whether or not people choose to agree, disagree, do the same, or do something else has little impact on how I do things, just as the reverse is also true. Basically I'm just looking for a little understanding here, regardless of whether or not others agree. =/

Theres

August 14th, 2003, 12:57 AM

some people choose to spell Hekate with a 'c', i prefer it with a 'k'.
so tell me, which one is wrong?

much ado about nothing! :rolleyes:

Phoenix_Blue

August 14th, 2003, 06:57 AM

. . .until you've experienced something first hand, I don't think it's respectful to write it off as easy to overcome.
I think maybe you're being a bit oversensitive here, honestly. First, you don't know someone else's personal experiences; and second, there's nothing inherently disrespectful about expressing one's personal opinion.

Phoenix_Blue

August 14th, 2003, 06:59 AM

there are those who would eliminate Alexandrian and Seax from that statement, but it would be equally invalid.
i am none of the above, but i am most definitely Wiccan, and i assure you that i am not a fluff bunny.
Obviously I can't speak for Velvetmirage, but it sounded to me like "recognizably Wiccan" would have covered the Eclectic paths. :)

Athena-Nadine

August 14th, 2003, 11:15 AM

some people choose to spell Hekate with a 'c', i prefer it with a 'k'.
so tell me, which one is wrong?

much ado about nothing! :rolleyes:
If we're going to be really nitpicky about it, the proper spelling of any Greek god/dess, demigod, hero, etc, should use a 'k' and not a 'c'. There was no 'c' in the Greek language when these names came about. :)

As for people with learning disabilities--first, I never said they didn't deserve special consideration for their difficulties. Second, I never said those difficulties could be easily overcome, so please do not assume something I did not say. I said "they can be overcome." Period. End of story. Of course it's more difficult for some than others, but, in most cases, people with learning disabilities can learn to read, write and spell properly.

And I never said a person deserves no respect from me for not spelling properly. I said that it shows a lack of respect for their audience and themselves. Harsh it may sound, but if a person cannot take the time to spell properly, and use proper grammar and diction, it seems to me that they don't care all that much about their own message being all that coherant.

If you didn't notice, I said that when I have to read things like that, I have a really hard time understanding them--so do a lot of other people I know. Sorry, but I refuse to waste my time translating someone else's sloppy, lazy writing, when they don't seem to have enough respect for the language to use it properly. I don't have the time, and I no longer have the inclination. I can't tell you how many times I've stopped reading someone's post because it would have taken me twice the time to decifer what they were trying to say, as it would for them to type it.

And while it may not matter much to you, try telling that to an employer when your resume gets tossed for sloppy use of language. They're not going to want to hear it either because they look at it the same way I do. But you'd make sure the spelling and grammar were correct on a resume, or on something similarly important, wouldn't you? Then why not have enough respect for everyone else, to take the same consideration for them?

And the whole school thing isn't much of an excuse, either, in my mind. Saying that it's the school system's fault because they didn't teach it, when people are perfectly capable of going to a library or a book store and learning these things on their own, is a cop out. If someone wants to learn something, there is ample information available in order to do so. To make the choice to not do so, just shows me that it's either not all that important to them, or they're too lazy to make the effort. I went through the same school system most of the people here did. I managed.

I'm not talking about learning how to coordinate colors of clothes, here. I'm talking about language--the biggest means people communicate with each other. I just think people should have enough respect for that means, for themselves, and for each other, to learn how to communicate properly.

As far as the spelling of magic goes, I really could care less how anyone spells it. My post wasn't about one particular word. It was about people's sloppy use of an entire language.

I'm sorry if it offends you, but I can't stand it.

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 12:58 PM

I'm not saying bad grammar is okay, I'm saying it's a common thing. Yet, people still understand what is being said. I have to say that at this point, you're being a bit disrespectful about all of this. It would seem (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you've lumped me in with a crowd of unintelligent, poser-ish people simply because I prefer to spell a word differently than you do. .

I'm sorry, that's not my intention. Commenting on the issue at hand (the spelling of magic), nothing more. Sorry if I gave an impression of disrepect.

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 01:16 PM

You're basing your reaction on your perception, which is fine - but I don't see where most people, or even a few people, question the spelling of "majick." In fact, I haven't previously encountered anyone who took issue with it. Who are the "most people" to whom you refer?

The general population that we are all members of and interact with on a day to day basis.

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 01:21 PM

Who does this, exactly? And do they pick on this issue because they're trying to dispel the "kewl" mindset, or do they pick on it as one more way to look down their noses at Wiccans in general?

They don't need to look for reasons to look down at us! When we make up words like "majick" all we're doing to displaying an inability to spell.

Magic is defined at www.m-w.com as

1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell
3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

What we're talking about easily falls under definitions 1 and 2. We don't need a new word. What we're talking about is magic. We just keep spelling it wrong.

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 01:31 PM

My point? Wiccans didn't invent the spelling of "magick." Modern Wiccans didn't invent this spelling to "be cool." Spelling the word this way goes back before Gardner even started promoting Wicca, before anyone had heard of a religion called Wicca.

So because someone famous started spelling it wrong that makes is OK?

Crowley had reasons for his spelling. There are reasons of numberology behind his choice of spelling, and if that is your reason for speaking of "magick" then I have no complaint (and say as much on my site). But Numerology, while incredibly important in Ceremonial Magic, does not play a large role in most people's versions of Wicca and Witchcraft. Most people who speak of "magick" don't even know about Crowley's reasons. They just found a cool looking word. And Crowley certainly didn't use "majick", "majic", "magik", "magique", "majik" or "magickian".

And for the record, Gardner always spelt it "magic".

Phoenix_Blue

August 14th, 2003, 01:39 PM

So because someone famous started spelling it wrong that makes is OK?
Likewise, just because you don't like it makes it wrong? Really, how important is this?

Someone who's going to use a particular spelling for a word is going to use it regardless of what you think. Arguing over which spelling of "magick" is correct makes as much sense as arguing over the spelling of "or/our" words (labour, colour, etc.; of course, everyone agrees that the correct spelling includes the "u," and that anyone who doesn't spell it that way is just ignorant and wants a "kewl" way to spell their words).

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 01:40 PM

Most of those who are drawn to Pagan religions claim to come to Paganism because they want a religion that is all-encompassing and accepting of them for WHO THEY ARE. This whole 'anti-fluffbunny' movement is hypocritical in the extreme.

Um, it's only hypocritical if the anti-fluffies are also wanting a religion that is all-encompassing. Guess what? We don't. I think everyone should be allowed to worship how they see fit. However, I do not see all those methods of worship as falling under the term "Wicca". More importantly, I do not believe that we should accept bad history and anti-Christian propaganda in the name of "acceptance". That is what makes a Bunny.

You want to worship the Triple Goddess? Go for it! But don't tell me she's ancient and Celtic.

You want to only worship gods of love and happiness? Go for it! Just stop claiming that no Wiccan deals with anything dark just because you don't.

You want to tell me 9 million Wiccans were killed in the Burning Times because the mean ol' Christians were jealous? Read a freaking book. Or prepare to actually defend your claims in an academic manner instead of whining "You're mean! You're just saying that because you're part of the Patriarchy!"

Phoenix_Blue

August 14th, 2003, 01:42 PM

You want to worship the Triple Goddess? Go for it! But don't tell me she's ancient and Celtic.

You want to only worship gods of love and happiness? Go for it! Just stop claiming that no Wiccan deals with anything dark just because you don't.

You want to tell me 9 million Wiccans were killed in the Burning Times because the mean ol' Christians were jealous? Read a freaking book. Or prepare to actually defend your claims in an academic manner instead of whining "You're mean! You're just saying that because you're part of the Patriarchy!"
See, these are issues that I agree with in terms of their relative importance. When we get these myths and misconceptions buried, then let's worry about spelling the "M" word. :)

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 01:46 PM

Likewise, just because you don't like it makes it wrong? Really, how important is this?

It has NOTHING to do with my opinion that makes it wrong. It's the English language that says it's wrong. Elementary school would have certainly been much easier for me if we had been allowed to spell things any damn way we pleased.

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 01:49 PM

See, these are issues that I agree with in terms of their relative importance. When we get these myths and misconceptions buried, then let's worry about spelling the "M" word. :)

The "M" word is certainly not at the top of my list either. I didn't bring it up here. Someone else did, however, and I'm defending my position. That's all. I think I even called it a pet peeve at one point.

Phoenix_Blue

August 14th, 2003, 02:01 PM

It has NOTHING to do with my opinion that makes it wrong. It's the English language that says it's wrong. Elementary school would have certainly been much easier for me if we had been allowed to spell things any damn way we pleased.
Which English language? British or American? :) I know the spelling for the one word we're talking about is the same in both languages, but do you see my point? Heck, even within American English there're so many dialects it's not funny - you won't find "cah" (car) in Alabama, and you won't hear "ya'll" (you all) in Maine. In Atlanta, every soda is "coke," while it's called "pop" out west and "soda" over in the east (not counting the state of Georgia).

Anyway, my point is, the English language is hardly set in stone--which is definitely a good thing, since we'd be at a loss to describe high-energy physics with the Bard's English. And even if English were set in stone, knowledge of the language gives one license to break it, just as e.e. cummings did.

Nightwind2

August 14th, 2003, 02:16 PM

And I, as an American, would not say that "colour" is an improper spelling. I would, however, say that "colir" was wrong.

Valnorran

August 14th, 2003, 02:23 PM

See, these are issues that I agree with in terms of their relative importance. When we get these myths and misconceptions buried, then let's worry about spelling the "M" word. :)

Allow me to offer up a heart felt THANK-YOU!!!!!!!!!

WandererInGray

August 14th, 2003, 03:27 PM

Anyway, my point is, the English language is hardly set in stone--which is definitely a good thing, since we'd be at a loss to describe high-energy physics with the Bard's English. And even if English were set in stone, knowledge of the language gives one license to break it, just as e.e. cummings did.

As evidenced by the introduction of "new" words or meanings into the language.
Language...like people, is an evolutionary thing. (dispite all French attempts to the contrary :D)

But anyway it's pretty easy to get bogged down in something as silly as how a word is spelled and ignore the real issues, as Phoenix pointed out.

Ben Gruagach

August 14th, 2003, 04:08 PM

Um, it's only hypocritical if the anti-fluffies are also wanting a religion that is all-encompassing. Guess what? We don't. I think everyone should be allowed to worship how they see fit. However, I do not see all those methods of worship as falling under the term "Wicca". More importantly, I do not believe that we should accept bad history and anti-Christian propaganda in the name of "acceptance". That is what makes a Bunny.

I have a major concern about the "anti-fluffy-bunny" movement.

There is a difference between being disrespectful and condescending of others, and debunking, debating, and discussing issues.

People who set out to debunk claims, correct misinformation, or clear up misconceptions are putting themselves in the position of supposedly having a better understanding of things than those they are debunking or correcting. As presumably wiser individuals, especially in a religious community, I think it is vitally important that they keep foremost in their minds that they are role models to those they would presume to instruct or correct. What type of spiritual behaviour are you going to demonstrate? What kind of respect are you going to model to those who are clearly not well informed?

I admire people like the Dalai Lama because they really do practice what they preach. By watching them, by listening to how they speak (regardless what they say) you can see an example of what that type of spiritual path, that type of religious discipline, can produce.

Sites like "Why Wiccans Suck" and "anti-fluffy-bunny" rants to me do just as much, if not more, harm than the so-called fluffy bunnies. If I were new to this Wiccan path and didn't know any better, I might be inclined to think that this particular spiritual path was one that promoted arrogance, condescension, and intolerance based on the role models provided by those who set out to act as leaders/teachers/dogma police. Luckily, I do know better. My Wiccan path is about promoting things like beauty and strength, power and compassion, honour and humility, mirth and reverence in ourselves and hopefully in others too. It's definitely important to be honest and accurate and scholarly, and we should definitely encourage rational thought and a healthy skepticism, too. There are much better role models for this, like the work of Ronald Hutton (not a Pagan from what I've read, but a scholar who has provided exceptional material for our community), Isaac Bonewits (check his "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide" for instance), and others.

People learn different lessons than we intend when the overt and covert messages in our presentation aren't coherent. If we want to teach that Wicca or any Pagan path is a respectable, scholarly, honest, and worthy path we need to make sure that in our discussions (including in our debates and disagreements) we must carefully model respect, scholarly rigour, honesty, and worthiness. It's not just what we say, but how we say it that is important.

As a Wiccan, as a Witch, as one who does magick (yes, with a k), I want to be as effective as possible. That means trying to really understand all the things that influence and affect outcomes in what I do, and acting accordingly to achieve the results I desire.

Lunacie

August 14th, 2003, 05:14 PM

I too have encountered people who think that because someone spells magic with a 'k' that they are pretentious and and are trying to make their practices seem more 'special'. But I have also seen people who do spell it with a 'k' seeming to sneer at those who don't, as if they aren't as serious about their practices somehow.

What's the prize for being the most "Wiccan" Wiccan anyway? I probably won't win, but I'm just curious. :lol:

Vuthiel

August 14th, 2003, 08:27 PM

As for people with learning disabilities--first, I never said they didn't deserve special consideration for their difficulties. Second, I never said those difficulties could be easily overcome, so please do not assume something I did not say. I said "they can be overcome." Period. End of story. Of course it's more difficult for some than others, but, in most cases, people with learning disabilities can learn to read, write and spell properly.

That's not how it seemed to me when I read your post. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.

And I never said a person deserves no respect from me for not spelling properly. I said that it shows a lack of respect for their audience and themselves. Harsh it may sound, but if a person cannot take the time to spell properly, and use proper grammar and diction, it seems to me that they don't care all that much about their own message being all that coherant.

If you didn't notice, I said that when I have to read things like that, I have a really hard time understanding them--so do a lot of other people I know. Sorry, but I refuse to waste my time translating someone else's sloppy, lazy writing, when they don't seem to have enough respect for the language to use it properly. I don't have the time, and I no longer have the inclination. I can't tell you how many times I've stopped reading someone's post because it would have taken me twice the time to decifer what they were trying to say, as it would for them to type it.

And while it may not matter much to you, try telling that to an employer when your resume gets tossed for sloppy use of language. They're not going to want to hear it either because they look at it the same way I do. But you'd make sure the spelling and grammar were correct on a resume, or on something similarly important, wouldn't you? Then why not have enough respect for everyone else, to take the same consideration for them?

And the whole school thing isn't much of an excuse, either, in my mind. Saying that it's the school system's fault because they didn't teach it, when people are perfectly capable of going to a library or a book store and learning these things on their own, is a cop out. If someone wants to learn something, there is ample information available in order to do so. To make the choice to not do so, just shows me that it's either not all that important to them, or they're too lazy to make the effort. I went through the same school system most of the people here did. I managed.

I could be misunderstanding you here, but the way I understand it, you're making it sound like it's my grammar that needs improvement. I would disagree. I paid special attention to those particular lessons in school because I enjoyed them, and I don't think I've used improper grammar more than a couple of times, and then more likely because of typos. I'm slightly offended that you would assume I have a low amount of respect for myself simply because I spell one word in a way that you don't like.

I'm not talking about learning how to coordinate colors of clothes, here. I'm talking about language--the biggest means people communicate with each other. I just think people should have enough respect for that means, for themselves, and for each other, to learn how to communicate properly.

As far as the spelling of magic goes, I really could care less how anyone spells it. My post wasn't about one particular word. It was about people's sloppy use of an entire language.

I'm sorry if it offends you, but I can't stand it.

The only reason I'm offended because it seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you're directing some things specifically at me because I initially posted my disagreement. All I've said about others using improper grammar are not excuses I make for myself, because I do use proper grammar. The possible excuses I suggested were ones that might apply to others. The things I suggested for myself (the things I said about why I spell "magic" the way I do) are reasons I stand by. I guess I was unclear as to which I had meant applied to me personally, and things that applied to others, but I had assumed that you would recognize the difference, since my grammar is not that terrible (or at least, that's what I like to think).

BlueFlame

August 15th, 2003, 12:05 AM

I don't really think it's an issue of if a person spells it with a k or not, it's *why* they do. Is it because their Mc Wiccan book said to do so? Is it because they want to be cool? Is it because they believe in the numerology behind it?

Well sit down, it's story time. This story is a true story about two of my friends; X and Z. X read in her teen witch day planner that she shouldn't do any magic durring mercury retrograde. Z, after studying magic and astrology for a while has also come to the same conclusion, no magic durring mercury retrograde. This put me in quite a quandary. And so I thought, and thought, and thought about it.* I personaly only vaguely understand mercury retrograde, but if they were right, my friend X is probably right for the wrong reasons, and my friend Z is probably right for the right reasons even if he is, infact wrong. The moral of the story is that the same answer can be both right and wrong it's how you come to that conclusion, and that life isn't the destination, it's the journey. And the moral of Snow White is don't eat apples, and the moral of World War One is don't assasinate Archduke Ferdinand.** The End.

*50 literary points if you can name the reference
**200 lit points if you can name this reference

Phoenix_Blue

August 15th, 2003, 06:55 AM

I could be misunderstanding you here, but the way I understand it, you're making it sound like it's my grammar that needs improvement. I would disagree. I paid special attention to those particular lessons in school because I enjoyed them, and I don't think I've used improper grammar more than a couple of times, and then more likely because of typos. I'm slightly offended that you would assume I have a low amount of respect for myself simply because I spell one word in a way that you don't like.
I think you're taking Nallia's words far too personally, Vuthiel. Take a deep breath and remember that most posts in a thread are directed at the entire forum. :)

Aine of the Fae

August 15th, 2003, 07:29 AM

Vuthiel

August 15th, 2003, 09:10 AM

I think you're taking Nallia's words far too personally, Vuthiel. Take a deep breath and remember that most posts in a thread are directed at the entire forum. :)

I assumed they were directed at me (or at least partly directed at me) because my posts were quoted in her reply. If that's not what she intended, then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Rain Gnosis

August 15th, 2003, 10:21 AM

The moral of the story is that the same answer can be both right and wrong it's how you come to that conclusion, and that life isn't the destination, it's the journey.

I think that's the most important sentence in the thread :)

Rain Gnosis

August 15th, 2003, 10:23 AM

Someone else did, however, and I'm defending my position. That's all. I think I even called it a pet peeve at one point.

Yeah, ditto. I don't particularly care one way or another, and obviously can't force anyone to spell anything one way or another. But since someone brought the discussion up I thought I'd bring in points that were relevant to me.

Rain Gnosis

August 15th, 2003, 10:30 AM

I have not once used the argument that the "magick" spelling has been around a long time, and do not intend to do so.

Yep, well, if it's not clear to you - if you didn't use the argument I wasn't referring to your argument :) Someone else did.

As I said before, I spell it based on a personal preference. If people think that's because I'm pretentious, they're entitled to that opinion, but chances are they wouldn't know me well enough to know for sure one way or the other.

*shrugs* Then who cares whether someone thinks you're pretentious? Or for that matter, who cares what anyone you don't know thinks?

I'm bizarre - if someone assumes something about me or says something about me personally I tend to shrug and move on. If you're not pretentious, and you know it, and the people you care about know it, who gives a rat's butt what I think? :)

The way I see it, I differentiate between the two in my own mind because I see the "Houdini bit" as a show put on for the benefit of others. What I practice is for my own benefit.

What about healing spells or spells you do for others, or rituals with the Gods? They're not just for your own benefit, yes? Just my mind wandering..

I just don't think it's fair to think that someone's lazy, stupid, pretentious, unworthy of respect, etc. based solely on how they spell a word.

*shrugs* And others don't think it's fair to spell words incorrectly because you feel like it. I would certainly expect people to get an impression if I talked in thug slang or 733t here, etc. I choose my words very carefully to try to convey thought clearly and honestly with as little offense as possible, but that's just me. I do find it matters how you come across - may be unfair but that's life.

And anyway, I think people have long understood you spell magic with a "k" for personal reasons. I think it just comes down to agreeing to disagree at some point :)

Athena-Nadine

August 15th, 2003, 11:15 AM

Vuthiel, your post was quoted in my reply because you took one phrase, out of an entire post, and ran away with it. When I read your reply and saw how easily what I said could be misinterpreted, I decided to try to clarify.

At no time did I ever say, "You have bad grammar, and it drives me crazy," or, "Your spelling is really sloppy, and I can't read it." Not only that, but I do believe that I stated at the end of my last post that my issue isn't with how someone spells one word, that it drives me crazy to see someone mangle the entire language.

What I took exception with was the opinion that you stated, saying that it doesn't matter how one spells or how their grammar is, because everyone will understand them anyway. My point was that it does matter--not only to me, but to many others as well, and to treat the written word so carelessly is disrespectful (which I have already stated many times). I didn't say that you do that, specifically. I was disagreeing with your thought that is doesn't matter if someone does.

My post on the whole spelling/grammar/syntax/diction issue was a general statement--it was not directed at anyone in particular. It's just something that I have a serious pet peeve about.

Though I have to admit that I've never understood why the word "magic" isn't good enough for people, when its definition quite clearly covers what people insist they need the word "magick" for.

Brenners

August 17th, 2003, 08:01 PM

Hmm, well when I started to read info on Pagan religions, and I saw magic spelled with a k, I just assumed that's how those of the Pagan persuasion spelled it to differentiate it from the Houdini type of magic.

I took advanced placement, honors english courses in high school, won scholarships because of my writing, and several other accolades attributed to my written work. You would think that such a mispelling would bother someone like me, who at one point seriously considered becoming a published author, but in the grand scheme of my spirituality, I could care less.

I care more about what is in someones heart and soul, then how they spell a word. I know what they mean when they say magic, magick, majik, or majic; I'm not going to make a judgement call on who they are spiritually based on their spelling habits. I may as well look at what they're wearing and make a whole bunch of assumptions about them due to their taste in clothing, because that's about how ridiculous I think it is to allow someones way of spelling one word, paint the picture of how you perceive them.

Is it a correct spelling? No it isn't, just like cool isn't really spelled 'kewl' either. Does it change the meaning? Yes, depending on the reader. Does it make the person who spells it this way a fluffy bunny buffoon? No, I think the message is more important than how it's delivered.

Just my two cents.

;)

Brenners

August 17th, 2003, 08:09 PM

Oh and as far as the whole fluffy bunny issue, I don't think it's my right to generalize any certain person and try to box them into a convenient little definition of what they represent and who they are, just because I perceive them to be ignorant. We were all ignorant at one point in our lives, and we all still have much to learn regardless of how far we think we've come. I think it's unfair to put other people down based on what we think they're missing or don't know.

Everyone learns at their own pace and in their own way, about Deity, about their path. If I get the chance to correct someone, I do so in a loving manner, because I want that person to spread their wings as far as they can during their journey. Would I ever thumb my nose at someone 'fluffy'? No I wouldn't, and I don't let them bother me either. Yes some are misinformed, yes some don't really 'get' the deeper meaning, but I don't have it in me to act highly irritated and superior at the stage these brothers and sisters of mine are in.

I want them to be open to helpful information, sabatoging them with condesencion or frustration, only creates an unpenetrable wall that leads to more ignorance.

Nightwind2

August 18th, 2003, 10:06 AM

Ignorance has nothing to do with it. Bunnies are not the people who have yet to learn. Bunnies are those people who refuse to learn.

Rain Gnosis

August 18th, 2003, 10:15 AM

Suppose I tell you a 4 legged mammal with an udder is a cow. Are you going to get offended because I'm judging a cow? Are you going to tell me I have no right to consider milking the cow just because I see it has an udder and 4 legs? Are you going to have a hissy because a mammal with 4 legs and an udder might actually be a goat, even though it's reasonable to think the animal was a cow before?

If I see a self-proclaimed Wiccan who isn't in a coven, is someone going to get all upset that I assume the person's eclectic? If someone is telling me all about Ancient Egyptian culture, is it "judgmental" of me to think they might be a recon?

You know, I agree that it's a bad idea to condemn people based on barely knowing them. However, I'm sick and tired of people harping about how you shouldn't "judge" people. If someone celebrates the sabbats and follows the rede I'm going to assume they're Wiccan - yes it's judgmental, yes they might not be Wiccan, yes they have the opportunity to show me so. If someone tells me about how they were Isis in Ancient Egypt in a past life, you're damn right I'm going to think they're full of it - that doesn't mean I'm going to burn them at the stake, outright call them an idiot, etc. It does mean I will take the information that has been shown to me and make a decision about who I think they are. Just like when you go to a job interview wearing a nice outfit with your hair done neatly and shined shoes and the interviewer is going to think you seem to have your act together, unlike the guy who showed up in cutoff jeans and broken sandals.

As I've probably said before - I agree with the point of the site, I think the author had every right to choose their own method to get information across, and I wouldn't do the same kind of site myself. Not because I don't believe people should ever be offended, or because people shouldn't be judged, but because people who read this site and don't know better feel condemned. Too many of them get upset or just turned away. But then, who's to say the purpose of this site is to help people get into Wicca? Who's to say the author didn't intend to turn people away who would so easily turn from Wicca by a website? She's not here so I couldn't tell you. From what I'm told by someone who knows her, she took the website down before (it's an old website) and moved on, and was asked by many to keep it up. She's already moved on from the site and the attitude it conveys, and the irony is how much attention the site is still drumming up ;)

Ben Trismegistus

August 18th, 2003, 01:57 PM

Wow, I'm offline for 5 days and all hell breaks loose. ;)

I agree that we should drop the "magic(k)" discussion, or at least transfer it to its own thread. Of all of my pet peeves about some Wiccans, that's very low on the list.

Secondly, in response to Ben G's eloquent post, I would like to propose, Ben, that you're merely against disrespectful jerks. Yes, there are certain portions of the "anti-fluffy-bunny" movement that are disrespectful and condescending towards the fluffy bunnies, but that is certainly not representative of the community at large. The vast majority (including everyone I know on this site) is much more concerned with educating an assisting what we perceive to be a misguided and misinformed section of the community.

In my opinion, the most important aspect of the anti-fluffy-bunny movement (which is performed very successfully by "Wicca: For the Rest of Us" and less successfully by "Why Wiccans Suck") is dispelling the myths and misinformation that has become accepted as gospel by certain portions of the community. As I've said on other threads, I'm very concerned with how Wicca as a religion is viewed by the outside world (I know many people aren't, but that's neither here not there), and I think that Wiccans who spout obvious mistruths represent the community as a whole in a poor light.

Additionally, I think it's important for us "bunny hunters" to emphasize what Wicca is. For example, I think it's vital to emphasize that Wicca is first and foremost a religion, concerned with our connection to the Divine, in whatever form we might view them. By doing this, perhaps we can show those who are interested only in spellcraft that perhaps secular Witchcraft is a better path for them.

Rain Gnosis

August 18th, 2003, 02:30 PM

I'm glad we have this thread to discuss both sides of it - to try to balance mercy and severity (a task I think is hard for everyone), to respect those who know less and help educate, and to respect those who know more and understand how hard it can be, to remind people to be patient and to remind ourselves that the elder/teacher/friend who shares may have been patient the first 9x they talked to someone about 9 million Wiccans burned at the stake and maybe, just maybe, it's hard sometimes to be patient.

Lunacie

August 18th, 2003, 02:54 PM

Brenners

August 18th, 2003, 03:01 PM

it's hard sometimes to be patient.

...and isn't that the whole point? I too am aghast when I pick up books at Barnes & Nobles that say something like "Wicca: An Ancient Way of Life" or some such hogwash. I practically tripped over myself when I saw a title similar to that in the mall. The amount of misinformation and the people following that misinformation is very scarey, and indeed a problem.

However, I'm pretty sick of the elitism of some people. It's one thing to truly want to educate someone and help them, out of the kindness of your heart, out of the concern for your faith and the other person, and it's another to heave, ho, and sigh, get angry, and be rude to someone because of what they don't know.

I have no qualms with a web site like "Wicca: For the Rest of Us" which seeks to inform the uninformed, in an educated way, with sited sources. I have however, run into many a web site, not out to help the fluffies, but to bash them, to be judgemental and plain hateful.

So there are some fluffies out there who refuse to accept the truth, so what? I don't even consider those people Wiccan! I take one look and say, that's too bad, get on with my life, and hope these lost people find the truth someday. End of story.

I just don't understand why some people feel the need to dedicate whole web sites that lack the tact it takes to truly inform someone to just get their jollies from letting off steam at the expense of some poor clueless kid in high school. It makes me mad because in my opinion, stuff like this makes the fluffy bunny problem worse!

People aren't very receptive to change when they're on defense mode, that's just reality.

I think people have a righ to their opinions, if you want to judge someone, make assumptions, that's your prerogative, I'm just saying that maybe we should take the time, the patience, to get to know some of these people individually. That's when you know if someone is truly interested in Wicca, or if they're just trying to piss off their parents and be 'kewl'.

:)

Rain Gnosis

August 18th, 2003, 03:03 PM

Sure it's human to lose our patience with the same-old same-old. But when we go off on someone - not because they asked the same-old question but because they were the 10th person in a row to ask - then they probably deserve an apology because we took it out on them when they were only a fraction of the provocation, eh?

Quite probably. I wouldn't know since I haven't "gone off" on someone for it. :) I suppose it's as much someone's right to decide when to apologize and when not to as it is someone's right to have their own beliefs about God and what is appropriate as a Wiccan.

I think that's part of what gets me confused here - everyone's angry about people calling them a fluffybunny etc. and no one here at MW has called anyone that. There's a whole lot of conflict when no one here has called anyone a fluffybunny, "gone off" on people, etc. There's a whole lot of anger and pointed fingers thanks to a website by an author who isn't here and who, from what I understand, doesn't even feel the same way anymore. We worry and accuse people of being too harsh and judgmental when no one here is being so, and the author of the website itself doesn't even seem to be anymore.

Brenners

August 18th, 2003, 03:12 PM

I think that's part of what gets me confused here - everyone's angry about people calling them a fluffybunny etc. and no one here at MW has called anyone that. There's a whole lot of conflict when no one here has called anyone a fluffybunny, "gone off" on people, etc. There's a whole lot of anger and pointed fingers thanks to a website by an author who isn't here and who, from what I understand, doesn't even feel the same way anymore. We worry and accuse people of being too harsh and judgmental when no one here is being so, and the author of the website itself doesn't even seem to be anymore.

Ahhh, well I'm not even talking about MW! I thought we were discussing the whole FB phenomenom on the internet, not just limited to said links and this forum. No, no, that's why I like MW, because I've seen a lot of respect around here. I can't say this about every place I've been to though, I'm talking about those other places, you know, where they have a few hundered lines of texts outlining what a good versus stupid question is. I don't think any question is a stupid question, unless of course you're asking me if McDonald's can make you fat.

:lol: :p

ETA...and then suing me over the McDonald's thing.

:sadeyes:

Ben Trismegistus

August 18th, 2003, 03:20 PM

So there are some fluffies out there who refuse to accept the truth, so what? I don't even consider those people Wiccan! I take one look and say, that's too bad, get on with my life, and hope these lost people find the truth someday. End of story.

Well, I can only answer for myself, as I know that many on this forum disagree with me.

In answer to your question "so what?" - for me, it's a matter of PR. I love my religion, and I want for the general public to respect it and see it for what it IS, rather than for what a minority of misinformed fluffies think it is. I know that the obvious answer is, "Why do you care what people think?", but my response is simply that I do. I feel that I've worked too hard in my life to be taken seriously as an intelligent and respectful person to allow people to make judgments about me based on their viewpoint of Wicca as represented by silly people who miss the point.

I have friends who can't understand why I'm Wiccan, because I'm "capable of rational thought". I constantly have to remind them that not all of us believe that Wicca was the ancient religion practiced by so-called "matriarchal societies", that not all of us chose Wicca simply to get back at our parents, that not all of us are interested solely in love spells and curses, or fairies and unicorns.

THAT is why I continue to educate people who I perceive to be misinformed. I figure it's the least I can do.

Brenners

August 18th, 2003, 03:29 PM

THAT is why I continue to educate people who I perceive to be misinformed. I figure it's the least I can do.

As you should Ben! What I'm saying is, what do you do when someone refuses to accept what you tell them? When they start plugging their ears and saying LA LA LA LA really loud, you've done all you could, that's all I'm getting at.

I try to be informed as much as possible so that I can in turn, inform others as much as possible. Trust me, I've run into some people who've gotten mad at me. "What?! Wicca isn't about finding a balance, it's all good, all loving, and all woman!" Yikes, sorry I said anything!

:eyebro:

All I'm saying is, once we've done what we can, I think it's better not to internalize all the BS some of these people seem to stir. You're a better representitive of your faith when you can talk to the people who really want to take you seriously, if there's someone out there that doesn't, it's their loss.

I think we have to remember how young Wicca is, with time, with patience, with education, exposure, Wicca will come around into it's own. You'll see!

;)

Or perhaps I'm too much of an optimist.

Ben Trismegistus

August 18th, 2003, 03:38 PM

As you should Ben! What I'm saying is, what do you do when someone refuses to accept what you tell them? When they start plugging their ears and saying LA LA LA LA really loud, you've done all you could, that's all I'm getting at.

Well, yeah. There comes a point when you just have to throw up your hands and walk away. In my opinion, there's nothing worse than stubborn ignorance.

I try to be informed as much as possible so that I can in turn, inform others as much as possible. Trust me, I've run into some people who've gotten mad at me. "What?! Wicca isn't about finding a balance, it's all good, all loving, and all woman!" Yikes, sorry I said anything!

Good lord. I have to resist a temptation to smack people like that.

Brenners

August 18th, 2003, 03:46 PM

Good lord. I have to resist a temptation to smack people like that.

Eh, I just go like this. :razz:

Lunacie

August 18th, 2003, 04:03 PM

I'm sorry RG, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you specifically had "gone off" on someone. I didn't quote anything you said, just responded in a general way, eh? And I'm not telling anyone that they must apologise or when they should, but I do think it's appropriate to apologize when we take our aggravations out on someone and they are only the latest in a long line of aggravations.

Rain Gnosis

August 18th, 2003, 04:15 PM

I'm sorry RG, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you specifically had "gone off" on someone.

Sorry, Lunacie, I think for a moment I did take the comment personally and shouldn't have. I just said in a recent post that I see a lot of people getting upset and pointing fingers even though no one at MW is calling people names, but I should add I'm realizing I have been letting out some animousity because I have been frustrated at people who offend me because I share info, am not always patient, etc. I think in a discussion like this it can be easy to accidentally take things personally or get a little heated because it's such a volatile subject, and that just doesn't help the discussion sometimes.

turtlerain46

August 27th, 2003, 02:33 PM

Vuthiel

August 27th, 2003, 04:03 PM

Well I can definitly say that I can agree with alot of what the article was saying. I became interested in the craft when I was 14, but never let anyone know except those close friends I knew I could trust. I did however know a few girls who did behave in such a way, but here's my question. What do you do when it's a younger sister acting in such a way? Not that I don't believe she doesn't have her whole heart into it, but I think she has some major growing up to do. It doesn't help telling her that she shouldn't go about telling everyone she's a witch or thinking everyone is out to get her because "she's different". I mean she is only sixteen and isn't going to listen to anyone, so I guess (I hope) she'll grow out of it. Maybe I'm a little biased because I never approved of those who acted in such a manner and I felt and still feel that your religion is between you and the spirits. So if any of you have suggestions for helping her understand how it would be better she didn't I would highly appreciate any and all suggestions thank you.

If her interest is genuine, I think this phase will pass. We all get excited when we discover something new and interesting, and we sometimes like to share our excitement with others. If she's interested in a pagan path for the sake of spiritual development, she'll get over this phase and buckle down to some serious (but not completely serious! :p ) study. If her interest is not genuine, then her occupation with paganism will fade when she comes across something else that catches her eye. Best thing you can do at this point is wait and see. :)

Rain Gnosis

August 27th, 2003, 05:01 PM

If she's interested in a pagan path for the sake of spiritual development, she'll get over this phase and buckle down to some serious (but not completely serious! :p ) study. If her interest is not genuine, then her occupation with paganism will fade when she comes across something else that catches her eye.

I've said this myself before but, recently I've realized it's not necessarily so. The reason that this WWS website exists, and why some "elders" become frustrated with some people, is that there continues to be people who "aren't serious", even if they've been at it awhile. Even if they do become serious over time, I don't think it's entirely wrong to help someone *get* more serious and help them find info in the now. After all, that's how I "got serious" :)

(so to speak ;).. and then again, some people never *want* to be serious. YMMV :D)

Sparrow

August 27th, 2003, 07:52 PM

I agree with most of what they say, but I think they're just about as immature as the people they complain about. BORING.

(I'm not Wiccan anymore though, so it's not as personal to me).

Vuthiel

August 28th, 2003, 08:54 AM

I've said this myself before but, recently I've realized it's not necessarily so. The reason that this WWS website exists, and why some "elders" become frustrated with some people, is that there continues to be people who "aren't serious", even if they've been at it awhile. Even if they do become serious over time, I don't think it's entirely wrong to help someone *get* more serious and help them find info in the now. After all, that's how I "got serious" :)

(so to speak ;).. and then again, some people never *want* to be serious. YMMV :D)

Well... I was keeping in mind that the sister in question was 16. Granted, some 16-year-olds are quite mature. But on the other hand, some are not. 16 is an interesting age, that way.

minx

August 31st, 2003, 02:35 PM

I have nothing constructive to add to this thread, except to point out that it is actually even funnier than usual, when run through the shizzolator (http://www.asksnoop.com/) :D (n'sh!t)

Proserpina

September 5th, 2003, 04:15 PM

thats really hilarious!:lol::lol::lol:

Citana

September 15th, 2003, 10:46 PM

I can see where they are coming from, but at the same time, why would you quit your calling because there are those that don't really know what it is they are doing? yes the fluffies are quite annoying, but most of the time they are young teens or people who are just starting to learn about it, and haven't gotten far enough into their own knowledge to know that they are doing anything wrong. Usually, kids tend to take things too far, especially when it comes to political or religious debates.
Yet again, as others here have said, why bitch when you aren't going to do anything to stop it? And there are some things in the site that are just annoying in his own point of views. If yo uare going to be so upset about something like that, instead of giving up, why not try to stop it? even though you can't help everyone, he ( i assume) could write a book on the truths of Wicca, and on the false giving of some beginners authors. Give talks, or try to teach those you come in contact with who you notice don't know that much, and show them what it is really all about, or at least what they are wrong about.

You DON'T JUST TELL PEOPLE THEY SUCK BECAUSE THEY ARE MISINFORMED.

which sadlly is usually (not always) the case.

Rain Gnosis

September 15th, 2003, 11:19 PM

Just noting that it's interesting everyone assumes a man wrote the website and refers to the person as "he". The person who wrote the website is a woman, I believe one of the nicks she goes by on some Yahoo! groups etc. is 4nongoths.

Merlin Awenydd

September 19th, 2003, 08:12 AM

Wow, Nightwind I think you and I might be leading paralell online lives! Woo!

So I've yet to see any real debate here. I'm feeling ripped off. Anyone love WWS? Anyone hate it? Or are we all in the "Eh, it's got a few good points, but mainly sucks" category?

There are a whole lot in the "Keep Wicca Traditional" bunch that are just as ignorant of history as the fluffies they want to kill. It's actualy kinda funny if you ever have the chance to see them go at it. It's something along the lines of "We have the one true preserved religion of the Ancient Great Goddess! (and some God guy too.... on occasion)" "No we have the one of the true preserved religion of the Ancient Great Goddess! SRW says so!"

Which makes me really want to say "I've got your Ancient Goddess religion right here!" :rant:

Well I liked the site overall, but I wasn't offended by it which made it easier to grasp all the stuff they were debunking. Having said that it is a rude site, but thats on purpose to make you keep reading and think, or send you on your fluffy way.
I guess I was lucky, because when I first saw the site every link I clicked was working.
What I like most is the point of view of what the people represented by the burning times myth must be thinking now. They were never witches, and would be horrified to know they are being thought of as such. The whole site is full of useful info debunking most of the fluff bunny wicca being practiced. One thought though. Hereditary witches may be the only ones who really have any idea about whats real or not. Unfortunately they may also not want to share directly instead, I think they are adding in a little of the truth as passed down to them from family member to family member. And to be honest, traditional wicca was prpbably completely made up by Gardiner.......which leaves us all seeking to find the truth as best we can.
my 2 cents worth your milage may vary :D

MystIc_WolF

September 19th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Vuthiel

September 25th, 2003, 04:18 PM

The site showed me how much of a fluff bunny I really was back when I first started on this path. Now I've gone back to it and found some really interesting stuff through the "links" page. I don't necessarily agree with some of it, but most of it is quite interesting.

I think that's what the site was meant to do... make us step back and take an objective look at how we're acting. Granted, some may not agree with the method the site's author used, but it's been fairly successful in getting it's message across, so that's something in it's favor. I think sometimes people take themselves too seriously, and take the site too seriously as well. Granted, there are some pretty harsh insults on the page, but if you put those aside and focus on the message of the site, there's a lot to be gleaned from the experience. It's just a matter of opening up to the site's different method of getting it's point across. Once people disreguard the site's harsh tone, and pay more attention to what it's trying to say, I think that's when a lot can be learned from it. :)

MystIc_WolF

September 26th, 2003, 11:26 AM

I guess the only problem I really have with the site is the fact that she seems to insult everyone, even the people that share her viewpoint.

Hawk Shadowsoul

September 30th, 2003, 09:09 PM

Only touching on Wicca myself, there are some valid points made. It could have been written in a more educational way, but to each their own. To me, life is a journey of learning, and you can learn something from everyone. As for fluffy bunnies, everyone has to begin somewhere. Most who start on the path eventually grow according to their own abilities. Instead of bashing back, take what meat you can from this site and learn all it has to offer. Most pagans on this site seem to be fairly tolerant. Practice tolerance for the path others are on. Concentrate instead on the path you yourself are on, lest you get lost in your own wilderness.

windandflame

October 7th, 2003, 02:40 PM

The site is written so it slaps you in the face, stirs your emotions and makes you think. It means to be blunt and unforgiving, that way maybe the reader will learn something. Some people are so pathetically thin-skinned that they confuse being tough with being mean (I see that sooo much in the military, and its really quite frustrating). I'm actually motivated by this site to delve deeper and truly study, and it has some great links and resources.

RogueEcho

October 19th, 2003, 06:25 PM

Heh. From what I've read of it so far (which isn't much, to be honest) the only thing I noticed that I don't necessarily agree with (though, I don't really disagree with it either, per se) is the spelling of "magic". Yes, it's spelled on the site as it would be found in the dictionary, but they make no mention of why it was at one point spelled with a k. I haven't read much Crowley, but from what I understand, he added the k to change the numerology of the word. At the moment, what the new numerology is after the addition of the k escapes me, unfortunately. Anyway, I've always spelled "magic" with a k. More because of my own quirks than anything. I find "magick" more pleasing visually, and when I see the word "magic" I think Houdini, and that's not something I like to associate with what I practice.

Just my two cents. :)

Not the only one with the "magick" thing. I'm admittedly new to this, but to be perfectly honest, it IS a way to differentiate between stage magic and other types. On top of that, I've seen plenty of fantasy books that use that same spelling as a distinction between the forms. I use it myself in my work (oh the crap that it is).

I think it's just a personal thing -- I'd not attribute it to the so-called "fuzzy bunnies."

Come to think of it, that's a totally derogatory term. Terribly, horribly so. Shouldn't we be more interested in teaching people what Wicca really is rather than telling them they're dumb or insulting them because they've gotten the wrong picture?

Ben Trismegistus

October 20th, 2003, 11:35 AM

Not the only one with the "magick" thing. I'm admittedly new to this, but to be perfectly honest, it IS a way to differentiate between stage magic and other types. On top of that, I've seen plenty of fantasy books that use that same spelling as a distinction between the forms. I use it myself in my work (oh the crap that it is).
I don't really have a problem with people putting the K on the end of the word "magic", but I think it's silly to try to justify it with that reason. There's no way on earth that anyone with half a brain could confuse what we do with what David Copperfield does. Should we add a K onto the end of the word "music" so that people won't confuse Mozart with, say, Eminem?

Frankly, the only viable reason for using the spelling "magick" (unless you subscribe to Crowley's "numerological" explanation, which I don't understand) is that you think it looks cool. And there's NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. If you dig that spelling, use it! And rather than try to justify it with a silly reason, just tell anyone who challenges you to stick it!

Come to think of it, that's a totally derogatory term. Terribly, horribly so. Shouldn't we be more interested in teaching people what Wicca really is rather than telling them they're dumb or insulting them because they've gotten the wrong picture?
A fuzzy bunny isn't someone who's just gotten the wrong picture. A fuzzy bunny is someone who's gotten the wrong picture, and then absolutely REFUSES to listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter. A fuzzy bunny is not someone who's just ignorant, but someone who is STUBBORNLY ignorant. The difference is between someone who doesn't know and someone who doesn't want to know.

Obviously, our first choice is to teach people about Wicca. But if they simply refuse to listen to you, what then?

Ben Gruagach

October 20th, 2003, 01:13 PM

A fuzzy bunny isn't someone who's just gotten the wrong picture. A fuzzy bunny is someone who's gotten the wrong picture, and then absolutely REFUSES to listen to anyone else's opinion on the matter. A fuzzy bunny is not someone who's just ignorant, but someone who is STUBBORNLY ignorant. The difference is between someone who doesn't know and someone who doesn't want to know.

Obviously, our first choice is to teach people about Wicca. But if they simply refuse to listen to you, what then?

Things aren't always a simple as that, Ben T. What one person considers to be wrong another person with just as valid reasoning might consider to be correct.

People can listen to other opinions and not agree with them. There is a danger in assuming that because someone doesn't agree with your opinion they are being "wilfully ignorant."

The field of occultism in particular is full of contradictory theories, histories, and philosophies. Even within Wicca, which is a smaller subset of the larger Pagan and occult communities, there is a lot of diversity. We should certainly encourage rigorous scholarship, and should encourage people to question statements and assumptions. But when we start acting as if there is a "one true way" on things I think we are starting to tread into the realm of ego-fluffing and arrogant posturing rather than keeping an open yet skeptical mind.

Ben Trismegistus

October 20th, 2003, 01:20 PM

The field of occultism in particular is full of contradictory theories, histories, and philosophies. Even within Wicca, which is a smaller subset of the larger Pagan and occult communities, there is a lot of diversity. We should certainly encourage rigorous scholarship, and should encourage people to question statements and assumptions. But when we start acting as if there is a "one true way" on things I think we are starting to tread into the realm of ego-fluffing and arrogant posturing rather than keeping an open yet skeptical mind.
Ben G,

Rest assured that I know the difference between a glaring inaccuracy and a theological disagreement. When referring to the "willfully ignorant", I'm referring to the types who insist that magic cannot be used for personal gain because it says so on "Charmed", and refuses to consider any alternatives. (That's just one example.)

There is certainly no "one true way", but there are certain cases where there is simply accurate and inaccurate.

Lamoondove

October 21st, 2003, 07:10 PM

As an alternative to "Why Wiccans Suck", allow me to recommend "Wicca: For the Rest of Us", located at http://wicca.timerift.net (http://wicca.timerift.net/) and created by MW's own Nightwind2.

Rather than focusing on bashing and condemning the "fluffy bunnies", "Wicca: For the Rest of Us" sets out to educate and inform. At the same time, WFTROU dispels a great many myths about Wicca believed both inside and outside of the community, included some I myself believed until reading the site. All sources are cited, and the site is very easy to read.

In particular, the section on "Myth and History" is fascinating, and references everything from Margaret Murray's inaccuracies to the myth of the Burning Times.

This is an excellent read for beginners and experienced Wiccans alike. I highly recommend it, and I think it might make a more interesting topic for discussion than the ruder "Why Wiccans Suck".
Thanx ......I been into the craft not real long myself ...Would find it so hard to learn & enjoy as i learned if i was condemed for being new ... I think your idea about helping better educate us is awsome !!!!!!! Thanx again .....Blessed Be........

Biinasu

October 29th, 2003, 12:39 PM

I don't really have a problem with people putting the K on the end of the word "magic", but I think it's silly to try to justify it with that reason. There's no way on earth that anyone with half a brain could confuse what we do with what David Copperfield does. Should we add a K onto the end of the word "music" so that people won't confuse Mozart with, say, Eminem?

Well, to start with - you'd be surprised how many people there are that have half a brain. You'd be really, really surprised. Also, I think that Mozart and Eminem are both valid musical art forms with different approaches, where as "David Copperfield" magic and other magic(k) (see the k comes in handy this time!) are two -entirely- different things in my mind.

As for the website, I didn't like the moment my friend showed it to me. I took offense to it, even though I fell under none of their descriptions, but because I was offended, I was apparently one of the people they were talking about. The page was inspired by Why Christians (or is it Christianity?) Sucks, and that's part of how it got its name. However, the other site targets -all- of the religion and the people who practice it, and WWS does not - well, not officially anyway.

When it comes down to it, whether they throw a line or two in about how "You really don't suck if you don't do this stuff" it still comes down to the fact that I *am* Wiccan and that still says Why *Wiccans* Suck, and, the way I take it is, whether or not they mean it, is like the WCS page said very well, "You suck -less-"

I don't think you can really call any newbie to something fluffy, if they're still trying to learn correct information though, because in my mind, that goes against the very definition of a fluff bunny (on a random note, I have 'furry' friends that object to the use of 'bunny' as a derogatory term. E:3), so starting out that way is fine, as long as you don't go spreading the word and don't bother to learn anything new. I started out with a book of spells because my mother figured I was just in a phase (well, she still thinks that) and didn't think I was actually interested in the religion. I read the book, and it actually had a lot of information mixed in it, but I didn't do a spell until after I'd read fifty actual books (having to use my own better judgement to sort out the conflicting things and stuff that just didn't make sense - I'd say I did pretty well for a nine-year-old :P) and talked to a few of the people I knew that I trusted around school - who were actually good choices on my part - and even then I was really paranoid. It wasn't until I got online and started talking with other people that I felt comfortable (I was maybe 12 at this time?) and I think we all learn new things every day though, right?

Just a small example, but I see a lot of Wiccans talking about the difference between Wicca and Satanism, and having taken it upon myself to go out and learn about it, I was actually shocked that I was one of those people that told OTHER people about the "difference". And that I felt ashamed of, because in that instance, I didn't actually -try- and learn, because I just listened to what other people told me - not even remembering what people had told *me* about Wicca and Witchcraft. So, to this day, I make it a point to go out and learn at least -one- thing about something before I open my mouth about it. That's a pretty good rule, I think. ^^;

But yeah..getting a little :fofftopic, isn't it? *rather likes that icon*

Kalika

November 2nd, 2003, 07:49 PM

I find this site very interesting... and yet another rather hostile take on things.

In reading the 161 Laws (which I had never before seen or heard of), I had some questions.

If they were not allowed to speak of Wicca, or their coven, how did the covens form in the first place?

#35.35. And if any break these laws, even under torture, THE CURSE OF THE GODDESS SHALL BE UPON THEM, so they may never be reborn on earth and may remain where they belong, in the hell of the Christians.

I thought Wiccans did not believe in Hell??

#57 57. And our oppressors know well "Ye may not be a witch alone".

I am a witch alone. No coven.

62. If the torture be too great to bear, say, "I will confess. I cant bear this torture. What do you want me to say?"

63. If they try to make you speak of the Brotherhood, do not.

64. But if they try to make you speak of impossibilities such as flying through the air, consorting with a Christian devil or sacrificing children, or eating men's flesh.

65. To obtain relief from torture say, "I had an evil dream I was beside myself, I was crazed."

What the heck?

79. Never boast, never threaten, never say you would wish ill of anyone.

Now that I agree with.

81. For this reason, the Christians have their spies everywhere. These speak as if they were well affected to us, as if they wouldn't come into our meetings, saying, "My mother used to worship the Old Ones. I would I could go myself."
102. But as our gods need our aid to make fertility for man and crops, so is the god of the Christians ever in need of man's help to search out and destroy us. Their priests ever tell them that any who get our help are damned to this hell forever, so men be mad with the terror of it.

Sounds to me like this hatred of Christianity is coming from somewhere.

I found most of these laws odd... and am wondering where they came from, as the link provided at WWS did not work. Does anyone know?

As for the rest of the site... there are things I agree with... and things I don't.

Personally, I don't consider myself a Wiccan, but I found this very interesting reading. I choose my own path, I don't flaunt it, to Christians or Pagans, and I believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of choice.

I can understand the rant that the author of this page gave, because I get frustrated by many of the same things. But I have found a lot of very informative Wiccan books, websites, and the like. Very few on witchcraft itself that are not related to the dark arts, which is why I have studied many Wiccan traditions, though I feel like there is something much more ancient behind the universe than Wicca, or the practice of.
You just have to learn to weed out the bad, the untrue, or the just plan crazy. Right?

Blessed Be.

Jenett

November 3rd, 2003, 06:08 AM

Kalika:

The 'laws' come out of Gardnerian practice and are a part of some other traditions. However, there's at least some evidence that *some* of them, at the very least, were made up on the spot by Gardner in the 1950s or so (in response to a disagreement he had with Doreen Valiente). (Basically, the story goes that he says "Oh, there're ancient laws that deal with this" but didn't produce them until enough time had passed for them to be written - and no one had heard even about the existence of such things until he said that...)

The way I view them (and a number of other people I know view them) is that there are some bits in there which are actually quite good advice about group dynamics and some other related issues. And there are other things included in that which just really don't apply these days, or which are utter BS.

It's a not-uncommon assignment these days in some groups or traditions to have students go through the laws and analyse them and think about them, and whether they're good advice, not applicable, or have some interesting seeds, but are flawed, or whatever.

LeftToWonder

November 3rd, 2003, 07:49 AM

Sites like "Why Wiccans Suck" and "anti-fluffy-bunny" rants to me do just as much, if not more, harm than the so-called fluffy bunnies. If I were new to this Wiccan path and didn't know any better, I might be inclined to think that this particular spiritual path was one that promoted arrogance, condescension, and intolerance based on the role models provided by those who set out to act as leaders/teachers/dogma police. Luckily, I do know better. My Wiccan path is about promoting things like beauty and strength, power and compassion, honour and humility, mirth and reverence in ourselves and hopefully in others too.

Thank you Ben.
I felt exactly that way while I was reading this post, I even walked away angry. But I dont give up that easily.:)

suninmymouth

November 8th, 2003, 04:34 PM

i found this site about a year ago and i still think there are very valid points there...i'm not a fan of the way the message is put across because i think there are better ways to inform people and make a difference than telling them they suck, but hey, freedom of speach right? the things this woman talks about here are all the reasons why i have never felt a big connection with the wiccan communtiy, because going onto the internet trying to find people and wandring through chat rooms and stuff like that there are so many of those people out there...and it's very discouraging. but on the other hand, this is just a product of misinformation and if you constantly ignore these people or put them down instead of helping them, the misinformation will continue to spread like wildfire. i also don't think that the only "real" wiccans are traditional or gardenerian wiccans like this person seems to be saying (someone was wondering earlier where the 161 rules came from...they're from the gardenerian tradition, you can find them in lady sheba's grimoire and book of shadows....i think she was the first to publish them as far as i know). it's true some of these "fluffs" shouldn't be claiming to be wiccans (or witches for that matter: and i do believe there is a difference) because i have met many that talk all the talk but don't practice at all, but we have to put the real information out there and not just tear people down; i know i will not be the one to complain and whine but never do anything about it. just my opinion...
:erin