PDA

View Full Version : Analysis of "Wicca: For The Rest of Us" Website



Ben Trismegistus
October 20th, 2003, 02:40 PM
In reading the analysis of the "Why Wiccans Suck" website, it occurred to me that we would be better served by analyzing a website without the added baggage of WWS's hostile tone, which tends to get in the way of the message (whether you agree with the message or not).

I believe that the site Wicca: For The Rest of Us (http://wicca.timerift.net) is a valuable resource for new and experienced Wiccans alike. I certainly learned a lot from reading it.

So I'd like to open the floor for a discussion of this fascinating website. Perhaps one of the mods would be kind enough to stick the thread next to the WWS thread?

http://wicca.timerift.net

Toad
October 20th, 2003, 03:27 PM
Well since you asked...I will go on record.

I find this site offensive for several different reasons.

First I find that the sites argument that magick using the 'k' is a grammatical error laughable. There were and are reasons WHY Crowely used this spelling, and it is explained in numerous texts. Hell originally the author couldnt be bothered to spell Aleister Crowleys name correctly until I pointed it out (several months back mind you). I did however find her mispelling in this particular section very amusing.

I find the stance of 'hunting fluffy bunnies' as offensive in the extreme. The presumption, the gall to assume that ones path is superior to anothers and that it is the authors right, quest, whatever to 'do away with fluffy bunnies everywhere' is not only hurtful, but I personally find it that this stance is HIGHLY judgemental. I find it offensive that there are those who presume to judge others beliefs as 'fluffy'. For one I would like to know where these judgemental types get the balls to claim to know how the universe works. Where do they get the knowledge of a god?

I find that overall the messages here are...well I cant pick too many holes in them. I am not wiccan, have never been wiccan so I think that perhaps I am seeing this with a bit of an outsiders PoV. I dont take these 'offenses' as personally a 'non-fluffy wiccan' would. However its the tone of this that I find so highly offensive. I think that the author and proponents of this site may be well served by a lesson from the bible (yes...this pagan just referenced the bible).

Judge not lest ye be judged - Mathew 7:1

Plain and simple. Believe what you want....practice what you want. Ask me what I think and I will tell you. Tell me what you think without invitation I am liable to tell you to stick it up your...err...um.

Ben Trismegistus
October 20th, 2003, 04:52 PM
Well since you asked...I will go on record.
You da man.


First I find that the sites argument that magick using the 'k' is a grammatical error laughable. There were and are reasons WHY Crowely used this spelling, and it is explained in numerous texts. Hell originally the author couldnt be bothered to spell Aleister Crowleys name correctly until I pointed it out (several months back mind you). I did however find her mispelling in this particular section very amusing.
I also find myself rather apathetic about this point. I really don't care how you spell the word "magic", and I don't really think it's a fluffy bunny thing to do.


I find the stance of 'hunting fluffy bunnies' as offensive in the extreme. The presumption, the gall to assume that ones path is superior to anothers and that it is the authors right, quest, whatever to 'do away with fluffy bunnies everywhere' is not only hurtful, but I personally find it that this stance is HIGHLY judgemental. I find it offensive that there are those who presume to judge others beliefs as 'fluffy'. For one I would like to know where these judgemental types get the balls to claim to know how the universe works. Where do they get the knowledge of a god?
I see nothing in her site to indicate that she believes her path is superior to another. In fact, being a fluffy bunny has nothing at all to do with one's path. It has a lot more to do with how you go about practicing your beliefs than what you actually believe. If you (general you, not specific you) go around telling people that Wicca is older than Christianity, you're simply wrong, and I have no problem with judging you and telling you that you're wrong.

Nowhere on this site does she profess to know how the universe works. What she *does* profess to know is what constitutes the Wiccan religion and what doesn't. And most of the time, I agree with her.


Judge not lest ye be judged - Mathew 7:1
A very valuable lesson. I judge everyone I meet, on a variety of different criteria. And I fully expect that everyone I meet will judge me, on wholly different criteria.

Note that the quote from Matthew is not simply, "Judge not."


Plain and simple. Believe what you want....practice what you want. Ask me what I think and I will tell you. Tell me what you think without invitation I am liable to tell you to stick it up your...err...um.
I fully agree that you should believe and practice what you want. But I don't think you should call it what it's not.

Toad
October 20th, 2003, 05:19 PM
I see nothing in her site to indicate that she believes her path is superior to another. In fact, being a fluffy bunny has nothing at all to do with one's path. It has a lot more to do with how you go about practicing your beliefs than what you actually believe. If you (general you, not specific you) go around telling people that Wicca is older than Christianity, you're simply wrong, and I have no problem with judging you and telling you that you're wrong.

I am probably bluring the line between her website and her posts on this message board.



A very valuable lesson. I judge everyone I meet, on a variety of different criteria. And I fully expect that everyone I meet will judge me, on wholly different criteria.

Note that the quote from Matthew is not simply, "Judge not."

A very valid point Ben...coming from you I have no doubt that you fully expect to be judged by others. However, at the same time, I do hope you see that you are very much in the minority on this. I will wager that a good portion of people from all religious backgrounds are overly judgemental in that they judge then condem almost without thought. I think of it as a 'auto-conditioned response'.

While I realize that to judge is a natural human trait...I personally feel it is a trait that we, as spiritual beings, should work to overcome. I do apologize if I have come off overly hostile on this particular point here and in the past. I personally hold the non-judgemental view very closely to heart.



I fully agree that you should believe and practice what you want. But I don't think you should call it what it's not.

A very astute observation. Perhaps if this website said this more, I would not have as much of a problem with its tone.

Ben Gruagach
October 20th, 2003, 05:44 PM
I'm more in agreement with Toad in my own opinion on the "Wicca: For the Rest of Us" website than I am with Ben T. And I consider myself a Wiccan (where Toad doesn't.)

Just as an example, on the main page the site author makes it very clear that they oppose "fluffy bunnies." A contrast is set up immediately between "fluffy bunnies" and "serious Wiccans," with the "serious Wiccans" described as being in the minority.

That sounds to me an awful lot like setting up one particular interpretation as being superior to the vast majority out there.

The website author then lists off a bunch of points which are presented very much as "these are NOT Wiccan." It's all fine and dandy to make these sorts of statements if it is also made very clear that these are representative opinions of an identified tradition or even group of traditions within Wicca, but that they are not necessarily authoritative for all Wiccans everywhere. We Wiccans don't have a central authority, a pope, a grand high witch, or even a central written text to determine what is and isn't officially considered Wiccan. So people must be very careful to publicly acknowledge that their opinions, however common or supported or valid, are not necessarily authoritative in any way except within their own tradition and traditions which have chosen to adopt these particular opinions.

Not all that the website author states are things I'd personally disagree with. I don't for instance, believe that Wicca as a religious system goes any farther back than Gerald Gardner. Assuming that something must be completely correct or completely incorrect is a logical trap as deceptive as any other.

However, I do disagree with statements like claims that Wicca does not include deity concepts that differ from the site author's, that Wicca has nothing to do with feminism, or the oblique criticism of mixing pantheons and eclecticism. The site author's Wiccan tradition might believe these particular things, but there is certainly room within Wicca for the opposing viewpoints, and just because there is diversity it doesn't mean that one stance is the "true" Wiccan and the other is a "false" Wiccan.

It happens far too often in Wiccan books that an author will present their information, their assumptions, and their opinions as being some sort of ideal Wicca or true Wicca or this-is-the-way-Wicca-is. Gardnerians are most certainly Wiccan, but then so are Alexandrians, and Georgians, and Seax-Wica, and Universal Eclectic Wicca, and many other traditions, and many others who work in groups and as solitaries who profess no specific formal traditions. No one tradition or group has exclusive claim over the label Wicca, so whether we like it or not others have the right to the label as well.

If it's wrong for authors to claim in print that their particular version of Wicca is somehow the official version of Wicca, then it is also wrong for people to make these sorts of claims on the web and in other places. And maybe it's just me, but when a website is set up specifically claiming to debunk the myths, to clarify the facts, then I think they should have a better handle on what Wicca really is than to claim their own tradition is somehow the be-all and end-all of Wicca and all others are mere pretenders.

I would much rather see people who want to clear up misconceptions present their stance clearly identified as their stance and let the audience members decide for themselves if it makes sense or not. Playing "witchier than thou" arrogance games does not encourage our community to grow into a healthier, more scholarly, more informed group. Educate and share information, yes, but don't bash and don't presume that one particular way is authoritative in a larger community which is largely founded on autonomy of individuals and individual groups within it.

Toad
October 20th, 2003, 06:20 PM
Beautifully stated Ben!

Ben Trismegistus
October 21st, 2003, 11:45 AM
A very valid point Ben...coming from you I have no doubt that you fully expect to be judged by others. However, at the same time, I do hope you see that you are very much in the minority on this. I will wager that a good portion of people from all religious backgrounds are overly judgemental in that they judge then condem almost without thought. I think of it as a 'auto-conditioned response'.
Well, unfortunately I can't be responsible for other people's actions. If they choose to condemn without thought, there's not a lot I can do about that. But in that case, those people are at fault for their reactions, not the act of "judging".


While I realize that to judge is a natural human trait...I personally feel it is a trait that we, as spiritual beings, should work to overcome. I do apologize if I have come off overly hostile on this particular point here and in the past. I personally hold the non-judgemental view very closely to heart.
I still disagree. :) (I know we've been through this before, but it's a point I love to argue.) I believe that the aspiration to be non-judgmental is both unrealistic and unnecessary. To me, it sounds like, "Can't we all just get along?"

But there's a difference between judging and condemning. I judge everything I see, good or bad. I read your posts and I judge that you're an intelligent guy with a lot of good things to say. That's a judgment. I read your paragraph quoted above and I judge that we have differing viewpoints. However, I do not choose to condemn your viewpoint. Instead, I see it as an opportunity for intellectual debate. And here we are.

The problem is that the word "judge" has so many negative connotations attached to it. In reality, it's a logical extension of the word "observe". I observe the world around me, and I make judgments based on those observations. Then I make actions based on those judgments.

As a response to both you and Ben G -- I believe that it's important for us to begin to codify Wicca. There's so little organization and so much disagreement from person to person about what Wicca entails that I think we will never be taken seriously as a religion until we sit down and decide what we believe and what we don't believe.

Now this gives us plenty of room for diversity. It's possible to say things like "Wiccans believe this OR this OR this, but not this." But we've always been afraid to do that, for fear that someone will feel disenfranchised. But everyone should feel free to believe whatever they wish to believe -- if those beliefs don't really fit the codified beliefs of Wicca (and there's always wiggle room), maybe they should call themselves something else.

But I think there are definitely some things we can say for sure. For instance, "Wiccans believe in a God and Goddess." Pretty simple. Even the Dianics believe in a God, even if they focus on the Goddess more.

Sorry, I'm rambling - it's early. :) More discussion later.

Oh and Ben G - what does Wicca have to do with feminism? One is a religion, the other a political movement.

Ben Gruagach
October 21st, 2003, 12:44 PM
As a response to both you and Ben G -- I believe that it's important for us to begin to codify Wicca. There's so little organization and so much disagreement from person to person about what Wicca entails that I think we will never be taken seriously as a religion until we sit down and decide what we believe and what we don't believe.

Now this gives us plenty of room for diversity. It's possible to say things like "Wiccans believe this OR this OR this, but not this." But we've always been afraid to do that, for fear that someone will feel disenfranchised. But everyone should feel free to believe whatever they wish to believe -- if those beliefs don't really fit the codified beliefs of Wicca (and there's always wiggle room), maybe they should call themselves something else.

But I think there are definitely some things we can say for sure. For instance, "Wiccans believe in a God and Goddess." Pretty simple. Even the Dianics believe in a God, even if they focus on the Goddess more.

There have been all sorts of attempts to outline what Wicca is all about... Gerald Gardner was certainly doing it when he published his books back in the 1950s. Doreen Valiente was doing it. I think it's probably fair to say that almost every author who's been published on the topic of Wicca has tried to identify what the religion is about.

The summary of what Wicca is that I personally prefer is the Principles of Wiccan Belief (at http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_stat1.htm for instance) in conjunction with the eight-words Wiccan Rede. I think that these sum up what I see as the core of the religion while also recognizing the diversity and autonomy of individuals and groups within the Wiccan community. But even these few principles, this general summary, is debated by some Wiccans so I don't claim it is in any way authoritative for all Wiccans.

There isn't such a thing as a current summary which truly applies to all Wiccans, which the vast majority approve of, at least from what I've seen.

It seems to me that the key concern you've expressed with codifying Wicca is to make our religion presentable to outsiders, so that Wiccans can earn more respect from the general public. While I understand the need for our community to integrate in some fashion with the rest of society, and the need for good public relations with outsiders, I'm not convinced this is a good enough reason to sacrifice the autonomy, the non-authoritarian nature of our community.

To codify Wicca in this way we must establish a Wiccan authority. That means either setting up an official Wiccan scripture, a Bible, or establishing an official ruling body like a Wiccan Council or Grand High Witch, a pope who will decide for us all what the rules will be which all must follow. I don't think that will ever happen, and as a Wiccan I don't think we should be encouraging it to happen. The individual responsibility and freedom we have as Wiccans, where each tradition, coven, and individual is ultimately responsible for themselves and not bound by outside rules of belief, would have to be sacrificed in order to codify the religion. I don't think we can have the autonomy and also have the codified religion... one by definition excludes the other.

If I had wanted to be a member of a codified, authoritarian religion I could have joined any of the many mainstream religions which do work this way. The Catholic church has a lot of magickal elements to it and it is definitely codified and authoritarian. Any sect of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam would have been appropriate for me as each of these have their central authoritative scriptures to keep things tidy and in line.

I didn't want a religion where things were handed down to me as already decided by some authority. I didn't want a religion that handed me a book and said this is the way things must be done. That's why Wicca is so appealing to me and to many others. That diversity, that autonomy, is one of our community's greatest strengths and one which I am not willing to sacrifice for some illusion of fitting in with the rest of the religious crowd.


Oh and Ben G - what does Wicca have to do with feminism? One is a religion, the other a political movement.

My point with the example of the "Wicca for the Rest of Us" statement that "Our purpose is not to promote feminism..." was to point out that while it certainly might not be part of the site author's variant of Wicca, it is very much a part of the Wicca that others practice. It goes along with my statement that there is room within Wicca for more than just one tradition, one particular philosophy of deity, etc. By saying that only one particular deity model is Wiccan while all others are not, the site author is presenting their own Wiccan tradition as being the one-true-and-only-Wiccan-way. By saying that Wicca doesn't include a feminist slant, they are presenting their particular Wiccan tradition as being the "true Wicca" while others that differ are "false Wicca."

It's just as wrong as the claim that to be Wiccan you have to have a specific political outlook on life.

To give the feminism in Wicca argument a bit of historical context, keep in mind what England was like back when Gerald Gardner first started promoting our religion. There he was, telling people that this religion had not only a priest in each group, but a priestess as well, and the priestess might actually be considered the dominant one! This was in the very vanguard of feminist thought and was quite shocking to a lot of people.

Charles G. Leland's book "Aradia: The Gospel of the Witches" published at the end of the 1800s, while not necessarily authoritative for Wiccans, was certainly an inspiration. I find it very easy to see an upstart Goddess who refuses to bow to authority, who actively teaches rebellion and standing up for one's self, as being very much a feminist especially when you look at the time and place where this book was published.

Things do change, of course, and over time what was once considered scandalous and overt feminism is now considered mainstream and nothing to make a fuss over. But I don't think this means that the feminist elements in Wicca aren't there, that Wicca doesn't have an identifiable and very strong link with feminism, regardless whether specific traditions choose to up-play or down-play it in their own philosophy and practice. Specific traditions can choose to be feminist or not, to make it a central element of their philosophy or not. But Wicca as a whole does indeed include a feminist element which I think is deceptive to try and reject as part of the larger Wiccan community.

No one is saying that you must make feminism a major part of your Wiccan practice, but it's also wrong to say that Wicca does not ever include feminism as a major component.

mol
October 21st, 2003, 12:54 PM
I believe that the aspiration to be non-judgmental is both unrealistic and unnecessary. To me, it sounds like, "Can't we all just get along?"
To me, it sounds like, "Keep your nose out of my business."

:)

Rain Gnosis
October 21st, 2003, 02:38 PM
To me, it sounds like, "Keep your nose out of my business."

Well, if people didn't judge your posts as interesting, they wouldn't respond to them. If they didn't read what you have to say and form an opinion about what you've posted, (thus getting "in your business") they wouldn't post. If people didn't judge any given subject for themself and decide how they feel about it, they wouldn't post. If people didn't judge a book they read, what would be the point of a Books forum? If people didn't judge the poetry in the poetry forum, would people post there anymore?

Part of communication is judgment - I listen, I judge what I've heard, I respond. Listen, think, speak. If we don't judge, how are we to respond to people asking for advice, or looking for book recommendations, or asking where to start?

Ben Trismegistus
October 21st, 2003, 02:40 PM
Ben - I can't address your response in full, because eventually I'm going to have to do some actual work here at my desk (*sigh*).

I just wanted to say that I understand and agree with your concerns about any codification of Wiccan beliefs. However, I just want to point out that my intention in bringing it up is not to *force* anyone to espouse beliefs they wouldn't otherwise espouse. I would like to see a codification simply so that someone can look at their own beliefs, looks at what Wiccans believe, and either say, "Hey, that's what I believe!" or "Oh, that's not what I believe - maybe I should keep looking for a pagan religion whose beliefs match mine." And I believe this can be done while still retaining all the diversity of theological opinions.

I realize that it's a long shot. :)

As for the feminism argument, I see what you're saying. But whereas I recognize that many Wiccans are also feminists, I believe that the two are entirely separate.

Ben Gruagach
October 21st, 2003, 03:48 PM
I just wanted to say that I understand and agree with your concerns about any codification of Wiccan beliefs. However, I just want to point out that my intention in bringing it up is not to *force* anyone to espouse beliefs they wouldn't otherwise espouse. I would like to see a codification simply so that someone can look at their own beliefs, looks at what Wiccans believe, and either say, "Hey, that's what I believe!" or "Oh, that's not what I believe - maybe I should keep looking for a pagan religion whose beliefs match mine." And I believe this can be done while still retaining all the diversity of theological opinions.

I realize that it's a long shot. :)

I'm not sure how what you're describing as "codified explanation of Wicca" is any different from the situation we already have where multiple traditions and factions are presenting their outlooks. To me, talking about codifying Wicca means setting up that central authority, and if it's to be a central authority that means people have to abide by its decision whether we like it or not.

And while your intentions might be very honourable we have to make sure to carefully consider the consequences.

As I've said, I do think there is a real ongoing problem with people presenting their particular version of Wicca as being some sort of "true Wicca" with the obvious contrast where everything that doesn't agree is "false Wicca." But getting people to be more honest about saying "this is how I practice Wicca" doesn't mean codifying Wicca for everyone, or establishing any central authorities. We should encourage people to share their outlooks, seek to identify what is common to us all in our Wiccan practice, but I think we should be very reluctant to presume that any one of us have the One True Wicca. Shouldn't we polytheists (or at least as people who acknowledge there might be more than one deity) be past these sorts of One True Way thinking?


As for the feminism argument, I see what you're saying. But whereas I recognize that many Wiccans are also feminists, I believe that the two are entirely separate.

I don't recall saying that Wicca must include a feminist component to be Wicca. I do recall saying that there are some Wiccans who do include feminism as central to their particular spiritual philosophy and practice, and other Wiccans who don't. My point was that there is room for both (and more!) within Wicca, that both can most definitely be Wiccan. The site author for "Wicca for the Rest of Us" clearly didn't think there was room in Wicca for both.

Ben Trismegistus
October 21st, 2003, 04:06 PM
I'm not sure how what you're describing as "codified explanation of Wicca" is any different from the situation we already have where multiple traditions and factions are presenting their outlooks.
The difference is that instead of each tradition and faction having their own outlook, there could be a single outlook which incorporates *everyone's* beliefs.


To me, talking about codifying Wicca means setting up that central authority, and if it's to be a central authority that means people have to abide by its decision whether we like it or not.
I'm not talking about a central authority at all, or any kind of authority, for that matter. I'm talking about a council, or a task force, or a committee, whatever you want to call it, that meets to examine what beliefs we all have IN COMMON (surely there must be something), and then publishing those findings in the form of a common theological background that all Wiccans share. At that point, the committee would be disbanded, so that it would be unable to exercise any sort of authority over anyone.


We should encourage people to share their outlooks, seek to identify what is common to us all in our Wiccan practice, but I think we should be very reluctant to presume that any one of us have the One True Wicca. Shouldn't we polytheists (or at least as people who acknowledge there might be more than one deity) be past these sorts of One True Way thinking?
There is no One True Wicca, obviously. But there are common threads. Would it be oppressive to say, "Wiccans believe in the Divine"? There are plenty of theological beliefs that Christians disagree on, but they all believe that Jesus was the Son of God. That's an easy one. I'm only talking about a framework, not an oppressive dogma.


I don't recall saying that Wicca must include a feminist component to be Wicca. I do recall saying that there are some Wiccans who do include feminism as central to their particular spiritual philosophy and practice, and other Wiccans who don't. My point was that there is room for both (and more!) within Wicca, that both can most definitely be Wiccan. The site author for "Wicca for the Rest of Us" clearly didn't think there was room in Wicca for both.
She is certainly not saying that there's no room in Wicca for feminism. What she's saying is that feminism is not a theological belief, and therefore should not be considered "part of Wicca". That's not to say that Wiccans can't be feminist, or can't encorporate their feminist political views into their spiritual practice. But they're still separate. Therefore, there IS room for both -- there's Wiccans who are feminist, and Wiccans who are not feminist. Simple. But Wicca is not "about" feminism.

Rain Gnosis
October 21st, 2003, 04:58 PM
I'm talking about a council, or a task force, or a committee, whatever you want to call it, that meets to examine what beliefs we all have IN COMMON (surely there must be something), and then publishing those findings in the form of a common theological background that all Wiccans share. At that point, the committee would be disbanded, so that it would be unable to exercise any sort of authority over anyone.

Was that why the American Council of Witches was disbanded? That seems to be exactly what they did -and though there principles are not "rules", they are general guidelines that many Wiccans can identify with.


But Wicca is not "about" feminism.

I think that was largely a matter of wording - Wicca is about feminism for some Wiccans. As much as you insist it's not, for some people a core part of their beliefs is the idea of the Divine feminine and the need to focus on Her. I could see how someone reading that might think she means that Wicca cannot be feminist. Instead she could've said "Wicca is not usually feminist, though many feminists are Wiccan" - as in "Wicca isn't feminism, but it can be worked by feminists and be Goddess focused".

I mean, I knew what the author meant by that line (that Wicca isn't feminism) but perhaps it isn't clear to others.

Ben Trismegistus
October 21st, 2003, 05:15 PM
Was that why the American Council of Witches was disbanded? That seems to be exactly what they did -and though there principles are not "rules", they are general guidelines that many Wiccans can identify with.
I don't know if that's why the American Council of Witches was disbanded, but that's where I got the idea. That's basically exactly what I have in mind -- guidelines that are more applicable to 21st-century Wiccans (as the theology has evolved a lot in the last 30 years - when the ACW met, "Wicca" and "Witchcraft" were basically synonymous).


I think that was largely a matter of wording - Wicca is about feminism for some Wiccans. As much as you insist it's not, for some people a core part of their beliefs is the idea of the Divine feminine and the need to focus on Her. I could see how someone reading that might think she means that Wicca cannot be feminist. Instead she could've said "Wicca is not usually feminist, though many feminists are Wiccan" - as in "Wicca isn't feminism, but it can be worked by feminists and be Goddess focused".
It looks to me like that's exactly what she did say:

"Feminism is a political view. Wicca is a religion. You can certainly be both a Wiccan and a feminist, but you can just as easily be only one or the other or neither."

Seems clear to me.

And I think it's a matter of definitions. Feminism is a political movement concerned with bringing about equal treatment of the sexes under the law. "The idea of the Divine feminine and the need to focus on Her" is something entirely different. Feminine-centric theology perhaps. It's a theology and can definitely be encorporated into Wiccan beliefs. But Wicca isn't by any definition "feminist" any more than it's "pro-gay-rights" or "pro-choice" or "conservative" or "liberal". Many of its practitioners are, but that's separate from the theology itself.

Ben Gruagach
October 21st, 2003, 05:18 PM
Was that why the American Council of Witches was disbanded? That seems to be exactly what they did -and though there principles are not "rules", they are general guidelines that many Wiccans can identify with.

You beat me to it, Rain. When Ben T. said that a group, say a council, should be formed to write up a document about what they thought were the core commonalities of Wicca regardless of traditions, I immediately thought of the Council of American Witches, who produced the Principles of Wiccan Belief back in the 1970s. And the Principles document was pretty much the only thing this group produced... they did disband later that year.

I do think the Principles document comes the closest of all the writeups I've seen over the years to identifying "what is Wicca" by looking at common features. It's the one document I always recommend to newcomers as an excellent place to start. And I find it interesting that even though I think the Principles document is pretty good, there are some Wiccans who disagree strongly with it. It's the closest thing we have (that I've seen anyways) to that common ground in Wicca but still it's something that each Wiccan group or individual can adopt or reject as they see fit.

I'll repeat the link to it for those who haven't seen it yet: http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_stat1.htm is one of the places on the web that has it. It's all over the place though if you do a Google search. Personally, I think it should be in every Wicca 101 book if only to allow the author to point out where they personally agree or disagree with it.


I think that was largely a matter of wording - Wicca is about feminism for some Wiccans. As much as you insist it's not, for some people a core part of their beliefs is the idea of the Divine feminine and the need to focus on Her. I could see how someone reading that might think she means that Wicca cannot be feminist. Instead she could've said "Wicca is not usually feminist, though many feminists are Wiccan" - as in "Wicca isn't feminism, but it can be worked by feminists and be Goddess focused".

I mean, I knew what the author meant by that line (that Wicca isn't feminism) but perhaps it isn't clear to others.

The problem I have is that people like you and I who understand the distinction about Wicca and feminism are not the primary audience of the "Wicca for the Rest of Us" website. People who are new to Wicca, or who have only just started see sites like this and don't know how to make a distinction between what is the author's opinion and what isn't. To me, that's just as bad as the worst Wicca 101 book that repeats all the old myths and unsupported claims about our history and philosophy.

Rain Gnosis
October 21st, 2003, 05:28 PM
It looks to me like that's exactly what she did say:
...
Seems clear to me.

Ah, well, you'll have to excuse me. I read the quote from the thread and didn't bother going to the site.

Rain Gnosis
October 21st, 2003, 05:30 PM
Oh, and,


I don't know if that's why the American Council of Witches was disbanded, but that's where I got the idea. That's basically exactly what I have in mind -- guidelines that are more applicable to 21st-century Wiccans (as the theology has evolved a lot in the last 30 years - when the ACW met, "Wicca" and "Witchcraft" were basically synonymous).

Would it be ok to say "here are the 13 principles, however please note that nowadays all witches aren't Wiccan and these principles really apply to Wiccans rather then all witches". Or, what changes do you propose?

Ben Trismegistus
October 21st, 2003, 05:32 PM
You beat me to it, Rain. When Ben T. said that a group, say a council, should be formed to write up a document about what they thought were the core commonalities of Wicca regardless of traditions, I immediately thought of the Council of American Witches, who produced the Principles of Wiccan Belief back in the 1970s. And the Principles document was pretty much the only thing this group produced... they did disband later that year.
I hate to say it, Ben, but you're agreeing with me.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. The only reason why I don't think we should just accept the Principles of Wiccan Belief as they stand is that a lot has changed in Wiccan theology since 1974. For instance:

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

It's pretty commonly accepted (although there is still some dispute) that Witchcraft and Wicca are two separate and disparate things. That was not the case in 1974.

So, all I'm suggesting is an update. A Version 2.0.


it's something that each Wiccan group or individual can adopt or reject as they see fit.
Well, I think that's very important. Obviously anyone can choose to adopt or reject any such document. And someone may look at the document and say, "You know, this really isn't me. I'm not going to call myself a Wiccan anymore."

Ben Trismegistus
October 21st, 2003, 05:34 PM
Would it be ok to say "here are the 13 principles, however please note that nowadays all witches aren't Wiccan and these principles really apply to Wiccans rather then all witches". Or, what changes do you propose?
I'm heading out now. But yes, I think that would be fine. I'll let you know tomorrow.

CelestiaSynth
October 24th, 2003, 01:04 AM
I went to this website a while ago on recommendation by others.
I'll have a pretty "neutral" attitude about the site, as opposed to postive or negative.
This is because while I'm all for the idea of educating others on some of confusion and general mispresentations that Wiccans obviously are faced with, within and without the community, I found the condescending tone and blantant assumptions were annoying and most importantly, unnecessary. I distinctly remember being turned off from the site after awhile, because it began sounding elitist. I don't like the idea of trying to seperate the Craft community into factions of whose deserving and not deserving of the title "Wiccan", just because of the spelling of words and petty things that shouldn't be granted half the attention it gets. I appreciated the purpose that the site seemed to have, but it could have been written with a little more warmth and alot less presupposition.

Nymph
October 24th, 2003, 01:54 AM
Personally, I love the site.

I don't find it rude or elitist at all...just putting things bluntly.

DebLipp
October 26th, 2003, 07:55 PM
There are a lot of things that can be quibbled with, or seriously argued with.

But I admire the author's attempt to present her frustation, and even her anger, in an organized and intelligent way. I admire her calling a spade a f*cking shovel. I admire her saying there are things that are just incorrect dammit! I have great frustration with the whole "everything is as good as everything else" approach to Wicca. It is nice to see someone presenting her conviction, her discrimination, and her own research.

I haven't read everything on the site. It may be there are points on the site I disagree strongly with. But I am glad the site is there. It offers an entertaining alternative to a lot of the stuff on Wicca that gets widely disseminated.

Ben Trismegistus
October 28th, 2003, 01:11 PM
I totally agree with you, Deb. I read a great quote in a book over the weekend - "If all opinions are equal, then all opinions are equally worthless."

By the way, I haven't read your book yet, but I understand that it totally kicks ass. Can't wait. Welcome aboard!

Kalika
November 2nd, 2003, 09:01 PM
In reviewing the website...

I can understand many of the points presented here.

There is a lot that I don't agree with on the site, particularly the spelling of "magick" as being a fluffy bunny tactic. I spell it that way, and I am definitely not a "fluffy bunny". There are several other examples as well, but I am not going to pick through page by page. :)

The website seems to have taken somewhat of a hostile point of view, but I do admire the time and effort that this person took in putting together this page, and making their thoughts and view known.

And although it is a good website to review, I don't know that I would necessarily recommend it to new pagans, because I would not want them to get the "wrong" idea. I do however, think that it would be a good website for the more experienced Wiccan or Witch to explore, and see how their opinions vary or concurr, and as a discussion piece.

My humble opinion. :)

Blessed Be.

Searcher
November 21st, 2003, 02:19 PM
As long as this thread is still active, I'll add my $.02.

As a pretty new noob, I'm still researching the different traditions, so the details on the site don't resonate quite as much for me as for you 'old folks'. :)

What I did note is that everything said was with absolute authority, while the author's opinions seemed somewhat contradictory as far as the media/entertainment industry's representation of Wicca and witches. This vitriolic response is pretty common on some of the websites/posts I've read in the last few months - this and the "Fluffy Bunny outrage" seems so misplaced to me.

The "industry" is about drama, entertainment, and making $$ for the network & sponsors. There's very little altruism, and not really any reason to think that ANY television show is going to portray a religion realistically - even "reality tv" isn't reality. So take it with a grain of salt?

As far as FB's go - yeah, there are a lot of kids out there - even 40-year-old ones. If it's public opinion the author is worried about...I think people tend to be dismissive of behaviors they see as "acting out" anyway. There are over-age children in every culture, in every religion. Again, I say, a grain of salt and remember, lead/teach by example (when you can - we all have those days!).

All in all, the site was informative, but off-putting. C'est La Vie! :) :) :)

Ben Trismegistus
November 21st, 2003, 02:21 PM
The "industry" is about drama, entertainment, and making $$ for the network & sponsors. There's very little altruism, and not really any reason to think that ANY television show is going to portray a religion realistically - even "reality tv" isn't reality. So take it with a grain of salt?
Yes, but I think that there are plenty of people out there who look at representations of Wicca and Witchcraft on TV and *DO* think the representations are accurate.

MystIc_WolF
November 21st, 2003, 03:08 PM
Which is really quite unfortunate, since it shows an inability to distinquish between fantasy and reality, which can be quite dangerous later in life.

mol
December 6th, 2003, 10:27 PM
Moved to the new subforum.

Autumn
December 12th, 2003, 10:54 PM
I kind of like this site, for a while after I read Triumph of the Moon I was wondering just exactly what I was...This site and Kaatryn MacMorgan's work made me feel comfortable calling myself Wiccan.

I am no where near as acid in my approach as these two are...And I am a feminist...:lol: I just find myself agreeing with the content if not the tone!

Koehnae
December 14th, 2003, 03:28 AM
I don't agree with the thrashing of "fluffy bunnies" on the site. Hey, we all have to start somewhere. But, I do think there is a lot of valuable information on the site.

Lucius
December 14th, 2003, 04:12 AM
Well since you asked...I will go on record.

I find this site offensive for several different reasons.

First I find that the sites argument that magick using the 'k' is a grammatical error laughable. There were and are reasons WHY Crowely used this spelling, and it is explained in numerous texts. Hell originally the author couldnt be bothered to spell Aleister Crowleys name correctly until I pointed it out (several months back mind you). I did however find her mispelling in this particular section very amusing.

I find the stance of 'hunting fluffy bunnies' as offensive in the extreme. The presumption, the gall to assume that ones path is superior to anothers and that it is the authors right, quest, whatever to 'do away with fluffy bunnies everywhere' is not only hurtful, but I personally find it that this stance is HIGHLY judgemental. I find it offensive that there are those who presume to judge others beliefs as 'fluffy'. For one I would like to know where these judgemental types get the balls to claim to know how the universe works. Where do they get the knowledge of a god?

I find that overall the messages here are...well I cant pick too many holes in them. I am not wiccan, have never been wiccan so I think that perhaps I am seeing this with a bit of an outsiders PoV. I dont take these 'offenses' as personally a 'non-fluffy wiccan' would. However its the tone of this that I find so highly offensive. I think that the author and proponents of this site may be well served by a lesson from the bible (yes...this pagan just referenced the bible).

Judge not lest ye be judged - Mathew 7:1

Plain and simple. Believe what you want....practice what you want. Ask me what I think and I will tell you. Tell me what you think without invitation I am liable to tell you to stick it up your...err...um.

I agree with you. I've been a practicing Wiccan since the age of 11 and I'm now 20. It is a part of my everyday life. I love my religion and I love the Lord and Lady and I see nothing wrong in how we do things. I also found that site to be highly offensive. But, you summed it up pretty well...took the thoughts right out of my head. Thanks, and you are awesome...hehe. :floating:

Eowyn
December 14th, 2003, 04:56 AM
I havent read so much on that site really but sometimes I go there to check on things but not often... The little I have seen on the site I think it's a OK site.

Erincelt
December 14th, 2003, 04:55 PM
As the one probably most responsible for introducing this site to MW, I thought I'd chime in...

First off, in regard to the matter of where the 'k' in magick came from, I don't recall the site ever regarding it as solely a grammatical error, and I do believe she states quite simply where it originates from.
http://wicca.timerift.net/magic.html

As to the supposedly elitist attitude and the "thrashing" of Fluffies... lets discuss the definition of Fluffy being used here. It is not, "newbie", nor is it, "uneducated", or even "fantasy loving". The definition of a Fluffy in this case is one who lacks sincerity (in the sense of honesty, etc), and one who refuses to learn. If someone actually thinks Charmed presents Wicca, they might get interested... and be very fru-fru for a time, but as they research the real religion they may come to discover that it does resonate with them and become very strong followers. This is not a Fluffy. Some will think Charmed is valid, and then stop right there. They will base their entire "Wiccan" practice on Charmed, its fan-companion books, and the occasional "How to turn your boyfriend into a toad" type book, and absolutely gawk at anyone who tries to correct their misunderstanding. That last detail makes a Fluffy.

As to the angry attitude displayed on some of the site, that is quite simply because at the time of the site's birth, the author was, in fact, rather angry. And I was too. Miss Noble (the author) is currently not updating the site, as she has other concerns taking up her time, but I may be submitting some new material to it myself. Also I may be editing out some of the genuinely offensive wording and the ambiguities.

But nowhere at all does this site claim to represent all Wiccans. Its an educative course on some of the misconceptions and the problems, with a brief primer on some basic ideas, and an examination of what is considered the "traditional" core of the Religion. I think, for instance, we can all agree that Wicca focuses -- at the core, mind you!! -- on the duality of the divine. I think, for instance, we can all agree that the Rede and the Law of Return are our central ethics. Where we choose to go from there will indeed often be quite different.

And, on a side note, if there is no need for similarity between Wiccan followings, why do we almost all use the very same ritual structure? Because we identify with each other as a solid, stable faith, and so we act in unison. At least that's my take on it.

Finally, let me directly quote the site's disclaimer, verbatim, with no editing, the entirety of the second paragraph.

There are many differences of belief within Wicca, and many writers feel compelled to start every statement with "many Wiccans believe that.." or "according to my beliefs...". Not only does this become awkward reading, but it makes for awkward believing. The statements made here are my own beliefs. They will represent the belief of some, but generally not all, Wiccans.

aefentid
December 15th, 2003, 03:50 AM
I like the site I find it to be fair and balanced. Compared to some sites and some Wiccans the author comes across as having a lenient definition of Wicca. Sure she might seem a little angry but compared to alot of the fluffy bashing I've seen elsewhere, her arguements against fluffiness are rational and even gentle.

On a more personal note, the site has impacted me personally. I'm currently looking around for a religion that actually fits me, and for a variety of reasons including the site's common sense approach, I'm giving Wicca a serious look.

LittleRhiannon
December 15th, 2003, 02:20 PM
well, this was the first site I *ever* read about paganism, and even though I've decided that wicca isn't right for me, I think got me off to a good start. It has a lot of good information, and a good links section, it's how I found this site. It is harsh on "fluffies", but I think it has a good framework for beginners. IMO, they good outweighs the bad.

just my two cents :)

Autumn
December 17th, 2003, 04:10 PM
Fluffy bunnies and new Wiccans are not the same thing...

Fluffy bunnies can be identified by a general unwillingness to learn things that don't suit them and they tend to cling too tightly to the great ancient matriarchy and the persecution thing and the idea that Wicca is thousands of years old...Really though the hallmark is clinging to a superficial interpretation of Wicca.

Erincelt
December 18th, 2003, 01:36 AM
Fluffy bunnies and new Wiccans are not the same thing...

Fluffy bunnies can be identified by a general unwillingness to learn things that don't suit them and they tend to cling too tightly to the great ancient matriarchy and the persecution thing and the idea that Wicca is thousands of years old...Really though the hallmark is clinging to a superficial interpretation of Wicca.
Exactly! :fpipesmok

There can be Fluffies in any group. A fluffy Zennist thinks its all about riddles and trying to sound profound, and can't be bothered with sitting zazen. A fluffy Kemetic keeps asking for information about "the great mother goddess Isis". Wicca doesn't get exclusive rights to fluffydom. Most religions try -- at least a little -- to weed out the fluffies, so why shouldn't Wicca? Although I will admit that Buddhists aren't too concerned with it... but then again, that's just the nature of Buddhism. ;) Om.

Nightwind2
January 6th, 2004, 06:23 AM
*sigh* My site comes up for discussion just as Real Life (i.e. grad school) dragged me away from MV!

My complaints about "magick" are easily the most often attacked section of the site. The whole part explaining Crowley's logic seems to go unnoticed. The site is about Wicca. Crowley's logic (numerology, etc) has little place in Wicca, but more importantly, that logic is NOT why most Wiccans spell "magick" with the "k". They spell it that way because it looks cool (or perhaps "kewl"), and that is absurd. Can you imagine elementary school spelling tests in which erroneous spellings were allowable so long as it looked cool? Poor spelling looks juvenile - which is why when I spelled Crowley's name wrong in one place and it was pointed out to me I fixed it. It's like trying to give a business presentation in jive.

As far as it being a poor site for "newbies" - The site was never meant for them. No book or site can cater to everyone. WFTROU was intended for people already familiar with Wicca. The Wicca 101 section was added later on request. And, quite frankly, if a single website scares someone away from Wicca, IMHO it is terribly unlikely that Wicca was really for them anyway, which is fine. I wish them the best of luck in finding a path that suits them.

The accusation that the site declares my Tradition as superior to other ones is quite curious. I'd be interested to know what Tradition you think I even belong to.

Hurrah! Someone found the disclaimer page. I was beginning to wonder if anyone ever read it. (this problem has gotten filed next to the one regarding that people don't scroll down to the bottom of the page looking for a name before they accuse me of being an oppressive man. I've yet to meet a man named Catherine.)

I would like to know about any "genuine offensive wording". The site is not meant to be offensive. It is, however, supposed to make people think. There are serious, serious misconceptions within Wicca, and it's not enough to just say "Wicca is 50 years old." I think it very much needs to be coupled with "Wicca is not 25,000 years old, and here is why". Otherwise people end up trying to mash every idea they've ever come across together into an incoherent blob (I have seen one site that states both that Wicca is the world's oldest religion and that it was invented by Gerald Gardner.)

I don't expect anyone to agree with everything I say. The best emails I get read "I really like your site, although there are a few things I disagree with". It means people are at least thinking instead of blindly believing whatever they read.

Someone mentioned I wrote the site when angry. Absolutely. I'm not as angry as I was then, but I'm still angry. There are authors out there still writing about Wicca the 25,000 year old religion and publishers that are still allowing it even though the theory that's based on was demolished before I was born. It's gone way beyond ignorance, nearing the realms of claiming that the earth is flat.

When I saw that a thread had started about my site I was hoping to see criticisms of particular issues, and this has happened in small part: mostly on the spelling of "magick" and issues on feminism. But the biggest complaint I'm seeing here is that people don't like that I'm actually criticising anyone else, and that is exactly the mentality I'm trying to fight. There is flat out wrong information out there, and some people are looking the other way in order to avoid confrontation. Well, problems do not get solved by being ignored. Usually, in fact, they get worse.

(Thanks to those who came to my defense through this thread. This is my first time here in months. School has been a killer. I haven't been deliberately ignoring this thread. In fact, I didn't even know this thread existed until today.)

Ben Trismegistus
January 6th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Represent!

(Good luck in grad school!)

moonmorgan
January 19th, 2004, 04:31 PM
I really enjoyed the site, especially the essay/rant on Silver RavenWolf. That ruled mightily.

I don't have time for a full reply but I wanted to say that I agree with you. I have read many a rant about SRW but this was the first one that gave good examples and opened my eyes to a few things. There are things I like and dislike about SRW and her writings but I loved the essay by Catherine.

Galaxia
January 20th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Ω

Alexandra Asinine
February 5th, 2004, 01:16 AM
I have no doubt that you fully expect to be judged by others. However, at the same time, I do hope you see that you are very much in the minority on this.

Actually, I find that most traditionalist and self-proclaimed "Non Fluffies" expect and desire to be asked to verify any claims that they make about themselves or their religion. Today, it is standard practice to put forth references of one's lineage before being accepted as a British Traditional Wiccan.

Alexandra Asinine
February 5th, 2004, 01:23 AM
Gardnerians are most certainly Wiccan, but then so are Alexandrians, and Georgians, and Seax-Wica, and Universal Eclectic Wicca, and many other traditions, and many others who work in groups and as solitaries who profess no specific formal traditions.

And there are also people who have seen an episode of a television program on TV, and are now calling themselves Wiccan. Are they equally valid? And, if so, is it any wonder why the traditional Wiccans are irked that these things, that bear no resemblence to any Wicca that has existed before, still carry the same name as their own beloved religion?

Alexandra Asinine
February 5th, 2004, 01:29 AM
I really enjoyed the site, especially the essay/rant on Silver RavenWolf. That ruled mightily.

Agreed! :thumbsup:

BlueFlame
February 7th, 2004, 11:09 PM
I love W:FTROU, let me count the ways...

If you actualy care about Wicca surviving for another 50 years you've got to be anti-fluffy. The moderate Wiccans have to wake up and see what fluffies are doing to Wicca. It is a huge problem that has to be tackled head on. We're never going to be accepted if people think all Wiccans are 14-year old gothic Charmed fans.

I am anti-fluff, but I'm also not a traditionalist. I'm an Eclectic Solitary. This is the first site I've ever seen that wasn't afraid to decry fluff-ism, but also wasn't telling me I not Wiccan because I'm not iniated. Night Wind also writes with a great style that is direct and to the point, but is also humerous.

I also love that she actualy puts REFRENCES in every article. Theres no way you can trust a website with out refrences. So many people are willing to accept what ever some Joe Blow Wiccan says is absolute truth, only because he can rub two braincells together and put up a website. This is also part of the problem.

Also, if I see another Wiccan website with a black background and a purple spinning pentacle... Goddess help me. :deviltail

SilentDreams
April 6th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Well I got this site off a post made in the "fluffy" thread. The author of this site has some very interesting views(could easily be describe as "intellectual rants"). She often gives very good explinations of why they feel a very well known thing is wrong. Its of course not to be used as a "end`all`be`all`quide" to wicca but I found it very informing. Also its good for people who arent to afraid to have some of there favorite wiccans disagreed with. Really I think its good for anyone wanting information on wicca, its not some site with two/three sentence explinations most things are explained in several paragraphs and all of its very good(well researched) ideals and information. I highly reccomend this site to any pagan/wiccan or anyone who is really interested in pagan/wicca. But plz to anyone going there dont assume since its got so much detail that you just read that one site and your ready to or know all about being or becoming a wiccan. Its easy to disagree and dont get me wrong i did once or twice(although i havetn read the entire site so i might disagree more later on)but its nice to see wicca from someone elses views. Cause to me wicca (since there is no "perfect" explination) is just bits and pieces from authors and other wiccans mixed with what you believe.

poetic
May 15th, 2004, 11:21 PM
Just thought I'd metion, I found this site from there :fpompoms.

Nightwind2
May 17th, 2004, 01:42 AM
But plz to anyone going there dont assume since its got so much detail that you just read that one site and your ready to or know all about being or becoming a wiccan. Its easy to disagree and dont get me wrong i did once or twice(although i havetn read the entire site so i might disagree more later on)but its nice to see wicca from someone elses views.

As the author of WTFROU, I totally agree. One-site Wiccans are just as bad as one-book Wiccans. Lots of one-book Wiccans are based on a book I actually respect (Wicca for the Solitary Practitioner by Cunningham) but they can still be hugely problematic (not to mention irritating as all getout). The Christians have taken 2000 years trying to sort out the mysteries of the universe, do any of us think we can do it 50 years, much less in one website? Not to mention there are plenty of issues that aren't simply "right" or "wrong".

I expect people to disagree me at least a couple times on the site. The point isn't to make everyone think like me. It's to get people thinking. On many issues there are many alternate views with intelligent reasoning behind them. But "because Silver Rantingwolf told me so" isn't one of them. And that's the mentality I'm against. I'd much rather have someone intelligently disagree than blindly follow.

And I just might add the "No actual fluffies were harmed in the making of this site." now that the idea's been put into my head :halohead:

fay
June 25th, 2004, 07:06 AM
heya!
i got directed to the site while reading the why wiccans suck thread, which was also interesting. i liked this site as it was less agressive. i enjoyed the lil rant on SRW but havent read any of her books so ill have to take your word for it (which can be a dangerous business these days :tongueout )
i was glad to find, when reading your page about fluffy bunnies, that i dont qualify!!! yay! :nyah: i keep being afraid that im one of those people that everyone seems to want to get rid of, but i love my religion! (although i do think rabbits are cute! :nyah: )
one thing about charmed. i am an avid watcher of this show (yes im sad :tongueout ). the reason that there are no real references to actual wicca other than the word is that the shows creators/writers/producers etc knew that whatever they said they would offend somebody, so they tried to avoid that by sidestepping the issue altogether which has annoyed some people anyways. i guess you cant win them all. i agree that people who think that things can happen like this need a reality check, especially if they think that becoming wiccan can give you magickal powers. (yes i spell magick with a k, im sorry, its habit now and its what im used to and what i associate the past few years of my life with )
anyways must go, am in college and late for a lesson :foopsies:
blessed be

The High Queen of Faerie
July 19th, 2004, 06:27 PM
Well since you asked...I will go on record.

I find this site offensive for several different reasons.

First I find that the sites argument that magick using the 'k' is a grammatical error laughable. There were and are reasons WHY Crowely used this spelling, and it is explained in numerous texts. Hell originally the author couldnt be bothered to spell Aleister Crowleys name correctly until I pointed it out (several months back mind you). I did however find her mispelling in this particular section very amusing.

I find the stance of 'hunting fluffy bunnies' as offensive in the extreme. The presumption, the gall to assume that ones path is superior to anothers and that it is the authors right, quest, whatever to 'do away with fluffy bunnies everywhere' is not only hurtful, but I personally find it that this stance is HIGHLY judgemental. I find it offensive that there are those who presume to judge others beliefs as 'fluffy'. For one I would like to know where these judgemental types get the balls to claim to know how the universe works. Where do they get the knowledge of a god?

I find that overall the messages here are...well I cant pick too many holes in them. I am not wiccan, have never been wiccan so I think that perhaps I am seeing this with a bit of an outsiders PoV. I dont take these 'offenses' as personally a 'non-fluffy wiccan' would. However its the tone of this that I find so highly offensive. I think that the author and proponents of this site may be well served by a lesson from the bible (yes...this pagan just referenced the bible).

Judge not lest ye be judged - Mathew 7:1

Plain and simple. Believe what you want....practice what you want. Ask me what I think and I will tell you. Tell me what you think without invitation I am liable to tell you to stick it up your...err...um.



i thoroughly agree.

i really, really hated this website. though some of the information is good, the webmistress has a 'witchier than thou' elitist attitude which i find incredibly aggrivating and offensive. i don't believe so much time should be spent on 'fluffies' and likewise hogwash... judging people by how they choose to spell words and their outside appearence is very juvenile. it's like a high school name-calling session. embarrassing to the witchy community, imo.

Erincelt
July 21st, 2004, 10:48 AM
"Nothing more rampant: a swarm of locusts, a misunderstanding." -- proverb

Reformist does not equal Elitist. Do we hunt the bunnies? Darn skippy we do. Why? Because it isn't a matter of "my path is superior to yours" -- far from it. Its a matter of "I'm sorry, but what you just claimed is simply flat false" or more often still, "I'm sorry, but what you just claimed is simply not Wiccan". And yes, it is our belief that there are basic common Wiccan tenets (though they may well be vague) and certain things which are simply... well... not Wiccan. Does this always prohibit a Wiccan from these practices? Well, no. Tarot isn't Wiccan, yet many of us practice it (self included). The "witchier than thou" attitude, does not exist. As example, re-read this thread and the dozens of people who found this site after certain others, and enjoyed because it was, and I quote, "less agressive". Truth hurts, sometimes. Honesty is a virtue; one that can burn.

The High Queen of Faerie
July 21st, 2004, 03:54 PM
"Nothing more rampant: a swarm of locusts, a misunderstanding." -- proverb

Reformist does not equal Elitist. Do we hunt the bunnies? Darn skippy we do. Why? Because it isn't a matter of "my path is superior to yours" -- far from it. Its a matter of "I'm sorry, but what you just claimed is simply flat false" or more often still, "I'm sorry, but what you just claimed is simply not Wiccan". And yes, it is our belief that there are basic common Wiccan tenets (though they may well be vague) and certain things which are simply... well... not Wiccan. Does this always prohibit a Wiccan from these practices? Well, no. Tarot isn't Wiccan, yet many of us practice it (self included). The "witchier than thou" attitude, does not exist. As example, re-read this thread and the dozens of people who found this site after certain others, and enjoyed because it was, and I quote, "less agressive". Truth hurts, sometimes. Honesty is a virtue; one that can burn.


i don't really understand how you can say she's not elitist when she bases 'fluffy bunnies' on how they spell the word 'magic(k)'. she states, "Believe the God and/or Goddess are an embodiment of love and want nothing but what's best for us." what's wrong with optimism? she lists this as a trait of a 'fluffy bunny.'

Ron
July 21st, 2004, 07:43 PM
I'm in love with this website... taking about shining some enlightenment on fluffy lol :p

I understand that the author seems to have been under the influence of PMT/PMS or some other kind of stressfull and aggrevating syndrome, because most of it is bitching, in a softer manner. I mean in my own words "BALENCE IS KEY", right? and there's enough bitching for the entire pagan community on that website :uhhuhuh: lol jk it would be nice to see some positive articles too.

Anyway, I mean who thought up using the word "MagicK" who even though up the use of the word "magic" -- I mean really all we are doing is, including, but not limited to: calling to, invoking, sending out, pleading with and honouring energy and forces of energy. It's not really "magic" as is something that a magican does on stage that just cannot be explained. Hey and if a Catholic and a Protestant and practise Reiki, they can be pagan.

love.

Blondie
July 21st, 2004, 08:02 PM
I don't like this website one bit.

I'm completly for the right the webmaster has to speak their mind, but I'm against a high-horsed approach to religion and spirituality. Instead of passing judgement, maybe the webmaster should spend their time re-evaluating her own life.

The High Queen of Faerie
July 21st, 2004, 08:23 PM
I don't like this website one bit.

I'm completly for the right the webmaster has to speak their mind, but I'm against a high-horsed approach to religion and spirituality. Instead of passing judgement, maybe the webmaster should spend their time re-evaluating her own life.


THANK YOU. <3

i agree with you 100%

Erincelt
July 22nd, 2004, 01:21 AM
She's not against the use of the +K spelling, she's against using it for no apparent reason, and actually, that's one tiny minor point from the site and I'm done explaining it over and over again (especially since there's a thorough explanation on the site).

As to the issue about optimism... actually, optimism isn't the point. The Wiccan Lord & Lady are supposed to embody all things natural and universal, right? So, this Lord & Lady who "only want what's best for us" also embody disease, hunter-prey relationships, aging, decay, and misfortune? Think about it. Don't read more into it than there is.

Blondie
July 22nd, 2004, 02:44 AM
I think it's quite juvenile to write articles bashing Wiccans and deeming them fluff-bunnies because they use a K on the word magic. Give me a break.

She might as well blast us Canadians for spelling 'colour' with a 'u.'

The High Queen of Faerie
July 22nd, 2004, 03:58 PM
I think it's quite juvenile to write articles bashing Wiccans and deeming them fluff-bunnies because they use a K on the word magic. Give me a break.

She might as well blast us Canadians for spelling 'colour' with a 'u.'


agreed. :cheers:

Erincelt
July 23rd, 2004, 11:40 PM
(Did I not just say the +K issue is minor? Have you guys even read the site?)

Actually I tend to fuss at Americans for not spelling colour with a U. And I am an American. I also fuss at people for pronouncing whale like wail. (The 'wh' is meant to be pronounced with a vocalized H, not a silent one. It sounds more like 'hw' than 'wh' actually.)

That isn't the point. A fluffy isn't someone who spells magic like magick. A fluffy is someone who refuses to learn or grow. Frankly, I'm tired of repeating that. I give up. Here's your thread back, do with it as you may, I have more important things to spend my time on. Like reading my manga.

unartfuldodger
August 6th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Though I did not agree with every word spoken on this site, I did throughly enjoy it.
I was most impressed by the logical arguments and use of acutal documented sourses! This is such a rarity on the web that when one finds it, it should not be taken for granted.

I am rather new to Paganism (I've been exploring multiple paths, Wicca included amoungst them.) and this site provided a nice contrast to the "black background / purple pentacle" Hey-this-paragraph-sure-looks-famillar websites that can be found all over. (This is not to say that those are the only sites out there, or that all sites with black backgrounds are bad and repetitive. This is simply a sterotype that I think portrays what I'm trying to say.)


As to the issue about optimism... actually, optimism isn't the point. The Wiccan Lord & Lady are supposed to embody all things natural and universal, right? So, this Lord & Lady who "only want what's best for us" also embody disease, hunter-prey relationships, aging, decay, and misfortune? Think about it. Don't read more into it than there is.
I'd also like to say that I quite agree with you there, Erin. :)