PDA

View Full Version : Keep Wicca Traditional



Convallaria
June 17th, 2004, 05:17 PM
I've stumbled across the site: "Keep Wicca Traditional" http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/7290/ (http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/7290/)

I'm interested to know what all of you think. Should Wicca be restricted to those of us who have been innitiated by a Traditional coven? If one is not a Traditional Wiccan of the Sacred Priesthood should they have the right to call themselves wiccan at all?:whatgives

samiaminsane
June 17th, 2004, 05:35 PM
I believe that Solitary and Eclectic are excellent words to tack in front of Wicca/n.... Say someone lives in rural *pick a state* and there are no other Wiccans in a 300 mile radius or there's only one coven in the area who are a bunch of fluffy bunnies. Should a person deny their religious beliefs just because there isn't a convenient coven around the corner? Absolutely not.

Nighthawk
June 17th, 2004, 05:39 PM
How very...umm, %$#@&* of them..name a big church and fill in the blank..."YOU ARE NOT SANTCTIFIED UNLESS YOU TURN AROUND FIVE TIMES WHILE SPITTING AND DRINKING ORANGE POP..THEN REPEAT AFTER ME.." How cute...

Boogins
June 17th, 2004, 05:42 PM
How very...umm, %$#@&* of them..name a big church and fill in the blank..."YOU ARE NOT SANTCTIFIED UNLESS YOU TURN AROUND FIVE TIMES WHILE SPITTING AND DRINKING ORANGE POP..THEN REPEAT AFTER ME.." How cute...
Agreed. Their attitude is exclusionist and hostile. I've always looked at Wicca as open and accepting. I have some choice words for these people, but one doesn't used them in mixed company.

sincerebliss
June 17th, 2004, 05:42 PM
well..in a book I have read.. the authur questioned..who initiated the first witch? Not a coven.. if no one else existed??? I think self initiation is a little more reasonable for our society..

Convallaria
June 17th, 2004, 05:43 PM
Heres what the site says:


Why Keep Wicca Traditional?

What is Traditional Wicca?
Well, if you claim to be Wiccan and you don't know what Traditional Wicca is, then you're part of the problem.

Wicca has gone from a definable set of practices, a secret society and a sacred Priesthood to a fluffy bunny, sugar and flowers hodge-podge of Pagan practices. Wicca has gone from a discipline to a feel-good opiate for people who skim over a book they get from Barnes and Noble and then declare themselves the heirs to a heritage they have taken no time to learn.
Bring back the discipline to Wicca
Bring back the honor of the Priesthood
Bring back the "seeking" to the Seeker
Bring back the weight of the OathBring back the Mysteries

do you agree or disagree?

Lunacie
June 17th, 2004, 05:43 PM
Well, they have lots of signs that read "Keep Wicca Traditional", but then they say this:

You do not have to be an intitiated Trad Wiccan to value the Traditions of Wicca.
I'm puzzled as to what their actual intention is with this page.

samiaminsane
June 17th, 2004, 05:47 PM
I don't agree with them saying that you are a fluffy bunny if you do not agree with their nasty bile-tasting way of putting things.

Lilith79
June 17th, 2004, 05:52 PM
I don't think anyone has any more right stating that if you don't belong to a coven you aren't Wiccan than anyone has a right to say if you aren't a member of a church you're not a christian.

Phoenix Blue
June 17th, 2004, 06:06 PM
Agreed. Their attitude is exclusionist and hostile. I've always looked at Wicca as open and accepting. I have some choice words for these people, but one doesn't used them in mixed company.
Truly, Fundies are in every religion.

Cappy
June 17th, 2004, 06:12 PM
:razz: Please.
The great thing about this religion is that there are no rules or set guidelines. You do what is right for you. In the end that's what matters, that you don't do anything against your concience and that you worship with love.
All this, is a petty ploy to control the whole religion. But look at what happened with (for example) Christianity. You have (in certain circumstances) people who abuse their power in order to get what they want.
If you want to be a "traditional" wiccan, by all means go for it. But you can't tell me how I worship or what I choose to believe.

Convallaria
June 17th, 2004, 07:01 PM
Interesting that no one agrees.

I would love to meet a person who agreed just to hear their point of view.

Goddess Rhiannon
June 17th, 2004, 07:10 PM
Those close minded opinions is one of the reasons why I started my own Wiccan Church. I feel that as long as you follow the wiccan rede, it does not matter if you belong to a coven or you are a solitary. The person you are within....is all that truly matters. :ringaroun

Regulus
June 17th, 2004, 07:13 PM
The whole, "my way or the high way" thing is kinda why I became a pagan in the first place. Not really into bringing that back.

Convallaria
June 17th, 2004, 07:18 PM
I'm glad most people dont support this. It's upsetting to see the "Traditional Wicca" vs. Neo Wicca thing happening all over the place. Can't we all just get along?

Aidron
June 17th, 2004, 07:22 PM
I see nothing but words of hostile fundamentalists and a waste of time. You will never get people to submit to such a campaign, so why start it? To voice your opinion? What for, most people don't give a crap about other people's opinions. To change the world? Won't happen, get over it.

However, on the other hand, I am rather sick of everyone and their guinea pig proclaiming to be Wiccan with little to no knowledge of what it entails. This reminiscent hippie-style people who profess to be Wiccans personally make me want to puke, but that is really more of a personal opinion since I find all people who preach "Love and light" to be nauseating.

Jenett
June 17th, 2004, 07:55 PM
Thought I'd offer a little bit of the other side of things.

Christianity *is* a very open religion. However, to be a member of a specific denomination, there's usually things you need to do. In some denominations, it's pretty simple - agree that you want to be Christian, be baptised, maybe. In other religions, there's often a *lot* more education that goes on.

(The standard process for adults who want to become Catholic usually takes between 8 months and 2 years or so, depending on someone's background before that - it takes less time if you come in having been Christian/familiar with the Bible in general/etc. before)

One really important thing to remember is that in traditional Wicca, you're not just talking about joining a religious community, but about becoming *clergy*. At least for yourself. Being able to stand before the Gods on your own feet, knowing a fair bit of stuff about how to make that work well.

It makes sense that that is going to take time to learn, and that you may not be the best judge of how much of it you've really learned. (some stuff it's just plain hard to judge by yourself, though obviously, how you feel about what you've learned and can do is also important.)

Think if it like learning to cook: if you can cook 5 dishes you really like, you may feel pretty good about your cooking skills. You'll be able to feed yourself food *you* like, and that's important.

But that doesn't mean you'd be able to be a chef in a restaurant, or be considered a great and skilled cook by other people necessarily - they might reasonably say "Well, yeah, you cook those 5 things well, but maybe you need to learn a few more techniques before you consider yourself a generally competent/good cook."

As far as 'who initiated the first witch' - this is really sort of the wrong question. *Part* of initation (besides the religious mystery part) is adoption into a family (namely the tradition in question)

Say you and 3 friends start a club. You guys don't need to be initiated into it: you were there when it started. But if you want to bring someone else new into it, maybe you do something special to welcome them. Maybe you give them a key to the space you use when you meet. Maybe you let them in on the little in-jokes, catchphrases, and things like that.

That's all part of an initiate in traditional Wicca: but it's something that partly grows organically, both within a specific coven, and within the tradition as a whole.

One definition/explanation of Wicca I really like is at http://wcc.on.ca/faq/faq1.html - it describes a bunch of different approaches and practices, and points out that the fewer of those that are a part of what you do, the more another, different word, might maybe apply better.

There isn't necessarily a fixed solid line (especially these days!) but there's definitely stuff that is on one side of the spectrum (traditional Wicca) and stuff that's clearly moved pretty far away from it.

It's not a matter of the stuff on the other end from trad. Wicca being *bad* - it's that it's different, and for a lot of people, using different words for things that are sufficiently different makes a lot of sense. (Especially people who feel that words shape your perceptions of the universe or have power, as many witches, Pagans, and Wiccans among other groups do).

Unfortunately, that discussion often gets bogged down in "You're being mean!" on one side, and frustration because spreading the word 'Wicca' that thinly makes it hard to talk about the subject on the other. Which doesn't really solve anything.

Lunacie
June 17th, 2004, 07:56 PM
The Wiccan Rede is not part of the original Wicca, it was added later as a guide, not as a "law". I agree that what is within is more important than any label, but why chose a particular label unless you value it?

I do think there is a middle ground between "do whatever and call it Wicca" and "you're not really Wicca unless you (fill in blank)".

MerrisHawk
June 17th, 2004, 08:11 PM
The site seems to be more about personal venting than anything I'd want to read for more than 2 minutes.
I choose my own path, do things my own way and learn what I want at my own pace. Nobody can tell me my choice is any less valid because I don't belong to a traditional group.

Where is R.A. Salvatore when you need him?

Theres
June 17th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Wicca has gone from a discipline to a feel-good opiate for people who skim over a book they get from Barnes and Noble and then declare themselves the heirs to a heritage they have taken no time to learn.

i agree 1000% with their definition of the problem. but i certainly can't agree with the solution they are proposing.
the last time i checked, arrogance was not a traditional Wiccan tenet.

Lunacie
June 17th, 2004, 08:31 PM
Again, all choices and all paths are valid. But I think the reason some people get so upset is that they feel it devalues their path and their beliefs when someone calls something unrelated by the same name. Really, why put a certain label on yourself unless you value that label? Saying you hold to the Rede isn't enough to qualify you for the label of Wicca, there is a lot more to it than that. There's more to it than saying you worship both a god and a goddess, although that's a big chunk of it. And before you start flaming, yes, you can call yourself Wiccan when you're starting out on the path and don't know a lot. But don't assume that reading one book taught you everything there is to know.

CajunLady
June 17th, 2004, 08:50 PM
I believe that Solitary and Eclectic are excellent words to tack in front of Wicca/n.... Say someone lives in rural *pick a state* and there are no other Wiccans in a 300 mile radius or there's only one coven in the area who are a bunch of fluffy bunnies. Should a person deny their religious beliefs just because there isn't a convenient coven around the corner? Absolutely not.

I totally agree with this aradwynn....maybe it's even someone like me...someone who prefers to go at it alone, to not ahve a specific "code" to follow.

Thalias_Smile
June 17th, 2004, 09:08 PM
First of all, somebody needs to tell these people that most of their so-called "links" are non-existent. Secondly, the person or persons who created that site need to stick their heads in a bucket of ice water. The fact that they state specific authors which they have a problem against, not to mention, not really being specific about what they feel is "fluffy" about some forms of Wicca. Granted there are some people who are foolish enough to think that Charmed, The Craft, and Practical Magic show a complete an honest view of Witchcraft. While each one did get SOME things right, they were created predominantly for entertainment. I say to the purists: "Get over it. Once these "fluffs", as you call them, realize just how much work goes into it, they will start moving away from it. If they post to message boards, asking seemingly ridiculous questions, I must remind you that some of us (myself included) came from either devoutly Christian or non-religious households, and had little, if any, guidance in that department. Love IS the Law, and I have to wonder about the so-called Wiccans who would disagree w/that statement.

Lunacie
June 18th, 2004, 12:30 PM
Paperback Priestess, by Jason Kelly
Sang to the tune of Paperback Writer by the Beatles.

Dear Lord or Lady, I just read this book,
it took me hours to read, and now I'm hooked!
Performed a ritual by a witch named Z.
I wanted it fast, so I get to be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
I've heard some stories 'bout a dirty man,
and many more things that I don't understand.
Those Trads have to work at it all the time,
it's too hard a job so I choose to be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
Paperback priestess...
It's just twelve words, give or take a few,
I'll be something else in a week or two.
I can make it easier since it's all 'bout me,
I will change it 'round so I get to be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
If thou really wilt you can do the rite,
Now there's near a million of us overnight.
If you want to learn Craft, it can't be done here,
but just want the name?; then you too can be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
Paperback priestess...

Copyright 2001, Jason Kelly, inspired by Rowan.
May be distributed, as long as this copyright stays intact

Ben Gruagach
June 18th, 2004, 12:50 PM
Paperback Priestess, by Jason Kelly
Sang to the tune of Paperback Writer by the Beatles.


I find this all rather amusing. Why? Because things really haven't changed much when you look back at the history of Wicca.

Alex Sanders (you know him... the guy that started Alexandrian Wicca, one of the "traditional" sects by most people's reckoning) gave Janet and Stewart Farrar their initial training in Wicca when they joined his coven and were initiated. In her latest book, "Progressive Witchcraft," Janet talks about how Alex was in the habit of initiating anyone who would let him do it. They joked that Alex would have initiated the postman if he stood still long enough while dropping off the mail. Back in those days it was common for the first degree initiation to be the START of a person's training in Wicca. And there is a lot of evidence (such as in Doreen Valiente's "The Rebirth of Witchcraft" and Patricia Crowther's "High Priestess: The Life and Times of Patricia Crowther," and also in Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon" as well as other places) that Alex himself got his Wiccan info through a dubious Gardnerian initiation and an absconded copy of the Gardnerian BOS.

But you know what? Even though Alex and perhaps a few of his wham-bam-thank-you-Alex initiations qualify as rather dubious, the Alexandrian tradition is a very honorable and valid tradition today. Reading the material presented by Ronald Hutton and even Philip Heselton about Gerald Gardner also makes me wonder about him. Yet I don't for a second doubt that the Gardnerian tradition is an important Wiccan tradition, spiritually significant, and undoubtedly meaningful and effective for those who follow it.

The Gardnerian and Alexandrian traditions have come a long way since they got started in the 1950s and 1960s respectively. That's not very long ago! It sounds like some are trying to make those few extra years of difference in the ages of traditions into something that they're not. And it's interesting to see how quickly people forget (or perhaps didn't know in the first place) that the way people get started now is really not that different from how Gardner, or Sanders, or any number of others also got their start.

What is traditional anyways? As others have pointed out, even the Wiccan Rede is not really traditional as it didn't really come into any real importance in Wicca until the middle to late 1960s.

Convallaria
June 18th, 2004, 11:52 PM
Paperback Priestess, by Jason Kelly
Sang to the tune of Paperback Writer by the Beatles.

Dear Lord or Lady, I just read this book,
it took me hours to read, and now I'm hooked!
Performed a ritual by a witch named Z.
I wanted it fast, so I get to be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
I've heard some stories 'bout a dirty man,
and many more things that I don't understand.
Those Trads have to work at it all the time,
it's too hard a job so I choose to be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
Paperback priestess...
It's just twelve words, give or take a few,
I'll be something else in a week or two.
I can make it easier since it's all 'bout me,
I will change it 'round so I get to be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
If thou really wilt you can do the rite,
Now there's near a million of us overnight.
If you want to learn Craft, it can't be done here,
but just want the name?; then you too can be a paperback priestess,
paperback priestess.
Paperback priestess...

Copyright 2001, Jason Kelly, inspired by Rowan.
May be distributed, as long as this copyright stays intact
..I love it! Though, I've yet to find a teacher outside of Barnes and Noble (an dof course the lovely people on MW), though I've been searching for 5 years for one accessable and willing..

Aidron
June 19th, 2004, 06:44 AM
:razz: Please.
The great thing about this religion is that there are no rules or set guidelines. You do what is right for you. In the end that's what matters, that you don't do anything against your concience and that you worship with love.
All this, is a petty ploy to control the whole religion. But look at what happened with (for example) Christianity. You have (in certain circumstances) people who abuse their power in order to get what they want.
If you want to be a "traditional" wiccan, by all means go for it. But you can't tell me how I worship or what I choose to believe.


Then it's not a religion. However, Wicca clearly is, and by definition religions are traditional and do have guidelines set forth. You cannot simply refer to yourself as Wiccan and be taken seriously at all if you do not adhere to some of the basic principles present within most, if not all Wiccan traditions. The whole "I can do whatever I want and I'm Wiccan!" idea is not Wiccan, it's reminiscent of the hippie era, which is what I think most Wiccans today are, flakey, flower power obsessed hippies.

It is true that your best bet in defining your own spiritual life is to do what you feel is right for you, but you cannot simply refer to yourself by a religious title and do whatever you wish. That would be the same as referring to myself as Christian or Wiccan, when my beliefs are nothing like either. It not only makes me look foolish, but it means I am hiding behind a label, most likely for social reasons. Every tradition of Wicca, and just like Christianity the strictness of each will vary. One one hand you have the Methodists, who in my opinion are some of the most open-minded Christians, and on the other Catholics, rooted deep in ritual and strict guidelines. Wicca is no different, so don't kid yourselves.

I do disagree with the website as a whole. I find their tone, choice of words, and overall ideal flawed and idiotic. Just as I already said that you cannot claim Wicca to have one strict set of guidelines, so too their plan is doomed to failure. They must accept that not everyone will practice the same way, having influences from one tradition and perhaps none from another. They were perhaps on the right track in the beginning, but went to far and now are just saturated in stupidity. Wicca is a religion, there are guidelines, and if you should adhere to some of the basic guidelines even if none of the specific traditions appeal to you if you truly want to have the right to claim the title of Wiccan.

RubyRose
June 19th, 2004, 07:46 AM
I think that while there are those that wish to be initiated into a coven, I do believe that to be Wiccan you don't have to undergo such treatment. I'm sure (and don't quote me) there are people out there, Christians or Catholics that remain unbaptised or christianed. Yet if by the definition that this site lays down, can they in all honesty call themselves Catholics or Christians? I think not. So I say, let the Wiccans and fellow pagans practice as they will.

Lunacie
June 19th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Well, to play Devil's Advocate, one can surely have a Christian spirit, but if one has not been baptised and reborn one isn't considered a member of the Christian Church. So a person can have a Pagan spirit, and indeed follow the beliefs and principles of Wicca, but unless one has undergone initiation, or whatever might be considered necessary, one wouldn't be considered a member of the Church of Wicca.

And as I have been saying all along, there are certain beliefs and practices that I feel are part of being a Wiccan, and if someone does not honor those beliefs and practices then they are not Wiccan. Other belief paths are certainly valid, but they are not Wicca, and saying they are only makes you look silly and fluffy.

aluokaloo
June 19th, 2004, 12:22 PM
Agreed. Their attitude is exclusionist and hostile. I've always looked at Wicca as open and accepting. I have some choice words for these people, but one doesn't used them in mixed company.
You could if you want, I won't tell! :bubbles:

aluokaloo
June 19th, 2004, 12:36 PM
I'm not a wiccan, but this seems to me to be a little how shall I say it cliquish? For lack of a better word, true just because people skim over books and decides to preach love and light and proclaim themselves wiccan can be a little annoying, but I'm willing to bet there are a few people here who have done the same thing before really understanding what it was all about before and just don't want to admit it, or maybe they do. Why? Because for those who truely wish to learn they have to stumble and make mistakes that other people have made before them. Plus they want to be accepted but most people will really come to understand in their own way and will go from there and I'm willing to admit I like the books at Barnes n Noble. I think its a good thing. Besides their a little cheaper. I don't agree with what these people say otherwise, its kinda screwed up and sort of childish. But people are people and there are fundies in every faith. Doesn't matter whether your family oriented, solitary and mostly self taught a trad, or in a coven, if its in your heart then thats all that matters.
:stooges:

The High Queen of Faerie
June 19th, 2004, 04:30 PM
no way.

what i really like about my religion, wicca, is that it gives you the freedom essentially to do whatever it is you want and to tailor your practises to you yourself as an individual, so long as you harm none. that's one of the main things that drew me to this religion - the belief system fit with what i believed already, and there are no restrictions, especially for one such as myself who even hates being told what to do out of a book.

Ben Gruagach
June 19th, 2004, 05:30 PM
aluokaloo83 and cerise, I think you both hit on very important points. I do agree that a lot of the fuss over "drawing a line" comes across as cliquishness, elitism, or just plain snobbery. I call it "witchier than thou." And no matter what it's called, it does not make anyone look mature or inspire confidence. I personally think it's behaviour unfit for someone who would like to be considered an elder or a teacher.

When talking about the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what you will" a lot of people focus on their interpretations or problems with the harm part, and seem to ignore completely the "do what you will" part. Sure, it can be interpreted in terms of one's higher good or higher self, what people like Crowley called one's True Will. But however you interpret it there's still that main point that Wicca is largely about individual independence and making up one's own mind, and being responsible for the consequences of our own decisions. It's not a religion of dogma. If it was supposed to be a religion of dogma, it would have been established with a Holy Perfect Unchangeable And Always To Be Obeyed scripture, or at least a central authority figure like a Pope. But it wasn't, and in fact people were encouraged to explore what works for them and use what fits, and toss out the rest!

I read a very interesting comment by Fred Lamond, who worked in Gerald Gardner's coven (I believe he was part of the coven back when Doreen Valiente was high priestess, which was in the 1950s). Lamond was quoted by Philip Heselton in his book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" on page 275. The quote is:
Gerald was always at pains to tell us: "The Book of Shadows is not a Bible or Koran, but a personal cookbook of spells that the individual witch has found to work. I (Gerald) am giving you my book to copy to get you started: it contains the spells and rituals that worked for me. As you gain in experience, add the successful spells that you have made up, and discard those that didn't work for you."

I think that illustrates quite well the nature of Wicca as Gardner taught and practiced. Interesting, no?

Ben Gruagach
June 19th, 2004, 05:34 PM
Well, to play Devil's Advocate, one can surely have a Christian spirit, but if one has not been baptised and reborn one isn't considered a member of the Christian Church. So a person can have a Pagan spirit, and indeed follow the beliefs and principles of Wicca, but unless one has undergone initiation, or whatever might be considered necessary, one wouldn't be considered a member of the Church of Wicca.

And as I have been saying all along, there are certain beliefs and practices that I feel are part of being a Wiccan, and if someone does not honor those beliefs and practices then they are not Wiccan. Other belief paths are certainly valid, but they are not Wicca, and saying they are only makes you look silly and fluffy.

The description of Christianity you've given is one that I'm sure the born-again Christians use. I really wonder though if other groups, like the Roman Catholic church for instance, would count as Christian by that definition.

People also are frequently quick to say that Wiccans must be following a set of "core Wiccan beliefs and practices" but then neglect to identify what those core beliefs are. And when they are spelled out, it's rare in my experience for even the majority of Gardnerians and Alexandrians to agree with them!

The High Queen of Faerie
June 19th, 2004, 05:45 PM
aluokaloo83 and cerise, I think you both hit on very important points. I do agree that a lot of the fuss over "drawing a line" comes across as cliquishness, elitism, or just plain snobbery. I call it "witchier than thou." And no matter what it's called, it does not make anyone look mature or inspire confidence. I personally think it's behaviour unfit for someone who would like to be considered an elder or a teacher.

When talking about the Wiccan Rede, "An it harm none, do what you will" a lot of people focus on their interpretations or problems with the harm part, and seem to ignore completely the "do what you will" part. Sure, it can be interpreted in terms of one's higher good or higher self, what people like Crowley called one's True Will. But however you interpret it there's still that main point that Wicca is largely about individual independence and making up one's own mind, and being responsible for the consequences of our own decisions. It's not a religion of dogma. If it was supposed to be a religion of dogma, it would have been established with a Holy Perfect Unchangeable And Always To Be Obeyed scripture, or at least a central authority figure like a Pope. But it wasn't, and in fact people were encouraged to explore what works for them and use what fits, and toss out the rest!

I read a very interesting comment by Fred Lamond, who worked in Gerald Gardner's coven (I believe he was part of the coven back when Doreen Valiente was high priestess, which was in the 1950s). Lamond was quoted by Philip Heselton in his book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" on page 275. The quote is:
Gerald was always at pains to tell us: "The Book of Shadows is not a Bible or Koran, but a personal cookbook of spells that the individual witch has found to work. I (Gerald) am giving you my book to copy to get you started: it contains the spells and rituals that worked for me. As you gain in experience, add the successful spells that you have made up, and discard those that didn't work for you."

I think that illustrates quite well the nature of Wicca as Gardner taught and practiced. Interesting, no?


that is interesting.

i myself am not incredibly familiar with the ways of the gardenarian tradition, but i agree with that last quote. from my knowledge, one of the main points of wicca is that it is not supposed to stifle one in any way.

imo if it became... 'traditionalised', whatever the term was in the first post, this organised wicca would not be very different from any other organised religion such as christianity. of course we have covens - but even then, the priests/priestesses are not looked up at as 'pope' figures, simply teachers. it's more laid back, i guess, more open to exploration.

BlueFlame
June 19th, 2004, 11:10 PM
I don't agree with that website's "My way or the Highway" attitude. It sounded like a bunch of whining that their fun little secret isn't so secret anymore, but they had some good points too.

I really disagree with some Wiccan's "I can do whatever I want as long as I harm none" attitude. Thats not what the Rede is about.

No I'm sorry, you cannot believe that an alien named Bob who lives under you sink is God, and rightfully call yourself a Wiccan. Wicca is Wicca, no matter what you believe. If you don't believe as Wiccans believe, then don't call yourself a Wiccan.

Wicca does have a core of belief* that is pretty much universal. Of course there is variation around this core, and I think this is good and healthy within reason of course. I personaly am an "eclectic", though that's a rather dirty word to some Wiccans because there are a lot of silly people with this "Do whatever I want" attitude.

You also can't pick up a book or two and become a Wiccan. Wicca is more than what can be taught, it does have to be experienced.

I fully beleive that the God and Goddess will reveal the mysteries to you if you seek them on your own or in a coven. (or for that matter, even if you've never heard of Wicca) What does a traditional iniation do to change your relationship with the Gods? Do they put in a good word for you? The important thing is that you are seeking the answers.


*I've defined this core on these boards before, (remember Ben?), so I won't do it here, but this website (http://wicca.timerift.net) has an excellent definition too.

The High Queen of Faerie
June 19th, 2004, 11:31 PM
I really disagree with some Wiccan's "I can do whatever I want as long as I harm none" attitude. Thats not what the Rede is about.

No I'm sorry, you cannot believe that an alien named Bob who lives under you sink is God, and rightfully call yourself a Wiccan. Wicca is Wicca, no matter what you believe. If you don't believe as Wiccans believe, then don't call yourself a Wiccan.

Wicca does have a core of belief* that is pretty much universal. Of course there is variation around this core, and I think this is good and healthy within reason of course. I personaly am an "eclectic", though that's a rather dirty word to some Wiccans because there are a lot of silly people with this "Do whatever I want" attitude.

about the alien - well, no, certainly not. but i would like to communicate that actual wiccans do believe in the typical wiccan belief system (obviously, which would shove them into the category of wiccans).

the 'do whatever i want' attitude is, from my experiences, primarily derived from the whole magick thing. a lot of people see magick as a source of power and a way to gain power over others, as well as a way to manipulate them.

my personal perception of the rede is to be considerate of how what one does effects one's surroundings and all of the life inhabiting it, rather than simply wreaking havoc on everything and everyone so long as you don't hurt their feelings.

of course wicca has a basic belief system and code of ethics. if one ignores that fact, there's not much to the title of 'wiccan' if one bestows it upon oneself.


(btw... wiccan's=wiccans'. sorry, i'm an english major. yes i am too lazy to capitalize my posts.)

Lunacie
June 20th, 2004, 01:42 AM
While I don't agree with everything On "Wicca for the Rest of Us", or maybe I don't agree with the way she puts things :T, I do agree with this:

"A religion is a set of common beliefs. Without definition, the term "Wicca" becomes meaningless."

Sure you can do whatever you like, whatever helps you to connect with the gods and goddesses and be a better person and call yourself Wiccan, but if what you believe and practice isn't very much like what most of us call Wicca then don't be suprised if we call you silly and fluffy.

CaitrionaMorgaine
June 20th, 2004, 02:01 AM
In her book "Deepening Witchcraft" the author Grey Cat says that the Keep Wicca Traditional website is actually a joke. It was put up to poke fun at the traditionalists who are such die hards about that sort of thing.

Don't know if there's any truth to that statement, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Avalon's Blessings, ~Rhiannon

Phoenix Blue
June 20th, 2004, 11:01 AM
While I don't agree with everything On "Wicca for the Rest of Us", or maybe I don't agree with the way she puts things :T, I do agree with this:

"A religion is a set of common beliefs. Without definition, the term "Wicca" becomes meaningless."

Sure you can do whatever you like, whatever helps you to connect with the gods and goddesses and be a better person and call yourself Wiccan, but if what you believe and practice isn't very much like what most of us call Wicca then don't be suprised if we call you silly and fluffy.
How about if you just call them "not Wiccan" instead? :)

Phoenix Blue
June 20th, 2004, 11:03 AM
Don't know if there's any truth to that statement, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
If it is true, that's a damn good parody. It had me suckered! :p

Lunacie
June 20th, 2004, 12:14 PM
If it was a spoof it would explain why the links on the page didn't work, eh?





How about if you just call them "not Wiccan" instead? :)
Where's the fun in that? :T I was trying to make the point that most Wiccans won't take their choosing to call themselves Wiccan very seriously if what they believe and practice doesn't have much in common with the majority of Wiccans. I'm not sure that everyone in the circle I work with is actually Wiccan or claims to be, and that's fine with me. Unless I can see that they don't agree with what the rest of us believe and practice and are just trying to be part of the "club" that is.

Rain Gnosis
June 20th, 2004, 12:41 PM
Well whether you call them "not Wiccan", they'll probably continue to call themselves Wiccan.

To me, there are constructive ways and not so constructive ways to handle it. Some call that type "fluffy bunnies", some pull the "more Wiccan than thou" stuff, and some just stop calling *themselves* Wiccan because they feel the word no longer has meaning. Personally I tend to go with the last group simply because it seems the terms Wicca and Pagan, IMHO, don't have meaning to most people using them. I'd say a great percentage of people use the terms Wiccan and Pagan interchangeably even still, and consider Wicca to be "anything you want it to be".

It's gotten to the point where no one can even give a solid list everyone agrees with that describes Wicca. I'm sure even from the beginning the term was pretty flexible and there was leeway in using it, but now it seems to have become more and more flexible to the point of being without any real meaning. When most people who use the term don't even know what it means to them, I'd say the term has lost meaning.

But as I said, there are constructive and not so constructive ways to handle it. One can encourage people to consider what the term means and what their religion is, and one can educate others about what the term used to mean. I wouldn't agree with "keeping Wicca traditional", but I *do* agree with encouraging people to realize Wicca isn't just "anything you want it to be", and I *do* agree with doing so in a way that is going to make people really think and grow, not just offend people.

ravynbynorthwynd
July 1st, 2004, 01:36 AM
"I've got news for you - the "secret" priesthoods of the past have more than just a few to no members. Since some of us are still in "secret", you really don't know how many of us there are, do you? And claiming that a religion that has lasted in one form or another for thousands of years would die out if it's not practiced the way you think it should be practiced is awfully arrogant, don't you think? We're not claiming that Wicca will die out if everyone doesn't practice Trad Wicca. We'll keep it going, we oathed to it. But good luck finding us in all the white light muck."

Wicca was started in the '50's by Gardener. Witchcraft IS NOT a
religion, Nor is Wicca solely witchcraft. Witchcraft can be practiced by
people who are not wiccans, and not all wiccans practice witchcraft. They need to sort themselves out.

Romani Vixen
July 1st, 2004, 03:04 AM
The description of Christianity you've given is one that I'm sure the born-again Christians use. I really wonder though if other groups, like the Roman Catholic church for instance, would count as Christian by that definition.
Um... no. Well, their numbers would be waaay lower. A recent article in the Oregonian talked about around 70% of Catholics disagree with the Church's policy on abortion. I believe that more disagreed with the policy on birth control. (I might be able to find the article if anyone is interested. These aren't precise numbers.)

Romani Vixen
July 1st, 2004, 03:19 AM
Let me say that this is an excelent thread.... good brain juice.... lol

I don't agree with the majority of the site. I *do* agree that just skimming a book and going no furthur then .... spouting about it is bad.

Some of my Pagan friends and I have a classification system for Pagan books: 1. Recipie Books 2. Informative and 3. Reference.

An example of a Recipie Book would be the Solitary Practioner books by Cunningham. Excelent books. My first Pagan book purchase in fact. I still reference beginners to it as a *starting point*. Good base knowledge and functional instructions. But it's still only a starting point.

Informative would be We Borrow the Earth, by Patrick Lee. A new favorite. Stories describing life being raised to become a Romani Shaman/Healer. Fundementals. No directions whatsoever. A great secondary step.

Reference... ah... anyone in college knows about reference books. Dry. Borring. An article in an anthropology journal describing some of the archeological data recovered at some site. Everyone should know how to find this. And use these types of sources. This is how we keep the ancient roots of Paganism. Know... even if you don't use.

Whatever the individual practitioner utilizes from these different types of books, and of course each book, will vary greatly, but at least you have now eliminated it as something that applies to you.

Almost everyone starts with just one book. Not everyone... but a lot. Some people may get too excited after that one book, and get caught up with everything to continue looking. Longer practitioning people should help to guide these people. Point them at a good book. Encourage them to go to a discussion group. Mentor them.

Don't harrass them.

A last thought... I wonder if the spell magic with a 'k'? Not traditional.

Ceffyl
July 10th, 2004, 06:09 AM
Site appears to be down. Can anyone access it?