Pseudo-history in religions, Wicca.

[Era]

I used to think that the newer a religion is, the less pseudo-history there will be about it, therefore, there is less pseudo-history that the followers believe in. Well, the religion of Wicca proved me wrong.
Being historically and culturally educated helps a lot in finding the virus of pseudo-history.
During my studying, I spotted quite a number of shameful statements in books about Wicca.
Nevertheless, I never rely on information written by biased religious authors, but by historians in order to save myself from false history.

Common claims about Wicca that many of its followers believe in:

1) It is the oldest religion or old religion.
There is no such thing as old religion and also if it is the oldest, then how come it was only acknowledged when Gardner started publishing the books about Wicca?
As a response, some people may say that Wicca is old because in a past there were people who worshipped gods and included some kind of magic.
Certainly, but the fact that there are similar aspects shared between a group of religions does not imply that all those religions are identical.
Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse religions, etc, are ancient pagan religions with their own sets of beliefs, not Wiccan.
As well, Wicca is not ancient paganism; ancient paganism is not neo-paganism and neo-paganism is not Wicca.

Others may say that the people murdered in the inquisition were Wiccans. Wrong.
The people killed in the inquisitions were mostly Christian and followers of non-Christian religions; the latter were referred as heretics during that time.
As well, others may defend the misconception by saying that there were hidden Wiccan cults because Gardner was trained in a traditional witchcraft coven (there is no evidence that supports this) and he claimed that there were hidden witch cults in Europe after the inquisition. False, there is no evidence that supports the existence of hidden witch cults because they have never existed.
This also brings out the misconception; Wicca is witchcraft, which will be resolved later on.




2) It is Celtic.
Celts were a group of people who spread all around Western Europe, in some measure, it is considered a culture. No person completely holds the knowledge of what the Celts practiced. Certainly, there may be a Wiccan who decides to worship the Celtic gods, but also, you may see another Wiccan who worships the Egyptian gods.
In addition, according to many historians the Celts celebrated two main holydays, which were agricultural not magical, so, why does Wicca incorporate eight holydays in totality?


3) Wicca is composed of the practices and beliefs of pre-Christian Indo-European people.
Wicca is a reconstruction or continuation of the practices of pre-christian indo-European people.
Anyone who reads history about ancient times can easily realize that the statements above are false.
Again, no person completely knows what the beliefs and practices of those people as a whole were.
Others may reply by saying that the word Wicca existed before the late 50s. Therefore, Wicca did exist before the late 50s.
The word christ, a word that has been around before the christ of the new testament supposedly existed is of Greek origin, khristos, which means to anoint. Now, does that mean that Christianity has always existed? No. Or that christ really existed? No.


4) Wicca was invented before the late 50s.
No, Gerald Gardner invented it during the late 50s. There were occult groups before the late 50s. For example, the Order of the Golden Dawn, which influenced Wicca a lot and also, Gardner was a member of it, isn’t that peculiar? Still, the Order of the Golden Dawn is not Wiccan, it existed before Wicca.


5) Wicca is witchcraft.
No, it is not. Wicca is a religion.
Witchcraft is considered a practice, any person with a religious/non-religious background can get involved in witchcraft, but not in Wicca.
The reason that this statement has been accepted so much may lie on the fact that many Wiccan authors assumed it, even Gardner said it, and also, writing that Wicca is witchcraft validates the “ancestry and antiquity� of the religion of Wicca, and as well, that of their books. Unfortunately, this false statement has made some non-Wiccans to believe that Wicca is witchcraft too.

Wicca is more likely a blend of Judeo-Christian mysticism from the Order of the Golden Dawn, ceremonial magic from the Order of the Golden Dawn, elements of freemasonry and eastern philosophy.

Many Wiccans support Wiccan pseudo-history with two books:

Witch cult in Western Europe by Margaret Murray and Aradia: Gospel of the Witches by Charles Leland. Both books are under the label of fraudulent and were rejected by most historians and anthropologists alike.
The first book claims that there were witch cults in Western Europe. By the way, this book was published before Gardner published his first books on Wicca, and there are lots of similarities between Gardner and Murray’s statements. …Very peculiar.
The second book hints at the fact that there were witch cults in Italy.

Still, I do not comprehend.
Why has this happened?
I do think that the fault lies on authors who invent false history, but can’t people be more skeptical about what they read?
And since many Wiccans are former Christians and have escaped from Christian pseudo-history and rejected it, then how do they fall again into another spectrum of pseudo-history?
Moreover, given that there are misconceptions related to the inquisition, I ask myself? Do this people pay attention to history class?


Something that occurs with most religions is the following, if a religion is connected to a sort of antiquity (whether false or true), the more valid it seems to the followers.
Wicca would not have been as well-liked as it is now, if this pseudo-history was excluded, (the same with other religions) among other things (e.g. magic).
If I invented a religion that included a series of my own thoughts and admitted that it was new, I would have very few followers.
But if I invented the religion and pulled out false evidence that implied it was practiced by a tribe in Africa 5,000 years ago, believe me, I would have quite a number of followers.

Why does Wiccan pseudo-history upsets me?

I abhor pseudo-history in religions as a whole.

I have read about the so-called cultural Wicca that includes the Norse, Greek, Yoruba, Roman religions, etc. Which is completely false, these are unique religions with their own sets of practices and beliefs.

And well, it is cultural, historical and anthropological offensive.

But after all, I am not surprised, pseudo-history is a virus in religions.
Pseudo Wicca has become very popular among their followers, who do not seem to be skeptical at all.
Perhaps the reason that Wiccan pseudo-history is so common is for the reason that the majority of Wiccans are fakes and they are the ones who rely on Wiccan pseudo-history, while Wiccans who reject this kind of pseudo-history are a minority.

Any comments will be appreciated.

Regards,

Era

[Postcard73]

Thanks for the comments Era, and welcome to the IIDB. I really don't know much about Wicca, but I think this thread would be better off in NAR&P.

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

[jon_frum]

Era--

You may be interested in this book:

"Triumph of the Moon" by Ronald Hutton.
Oxford University Press. Published 1999

TOTM is written by Ronald Hutton, a professor of history at the University of Bristol.

It is a (reasonably) objective look at the known history of neo-paganism in general and wicca in particular.

Well worth reading.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Greetings, in fact....Merry Meet!

I too think that Wicca is not altogether what it proclaims itself to be.

I think it's a bit older than the 1950's though. Gardner was never in the Golden Dawn but he was in the Ordo Templi Orientis and it was Crowley who helped him create the first "book of shadows".

[Doctor X]

Another very good book that examines the actual origins of Wiccan and other recent movements is The Goddess Unmasked. It was well-reviewed in The Skeptic methinks.

It has the "problem" that it was published by a very conservative press which caused people to judge it as "anti-women" without actually reading it. Understandable when the publisher has books by women "happy" with their "traditionals Christian roles."

This also causes one, like me, to expect the book to be a "Wicca is EVIL, Jesus is LORD!" useless. I picked it up after reading the review. It is not like that at all.

--J.D.

[NiceWookie]

Hi. I'm a Witch, not a Wiccan, but I know a few and have read alot. The ones I know (and some I have read) don't seem to be caught up in reciting alot of this psuedo-history you have listed and in some cases (like the inquition/burning times victims/figures) it is a matter of further investigation revising the facts to fit the newer evidence.

Regardless, I wonder if you have any evidence to support the assertion that the majority of Wiccans are fake?

Also, how does someone using incorrect and/or out-dated historical information make them a fake?

Would an allegedly fake Wiccan who changed their views to fit the acceptable facts of the various issues no longer be fake?

Would a Wiccan who was faithful to the worship of the God and Goddess and observed the Sabbats religiously still be fake even if they still clung to some the erroneous veiws of history?

I ask these questions because the assertion of fakeness seems to be a little subjective in my opinion and doesn't seem take into account human fallibility combined with the fact that historical information sometimes changes based on new evidence. In addition, such a subjective observation seems a bit illogical following a lenthy critique about shortcomings involving factual accuracy.

[Sunfair]

I think you're confusing pseudo-history with folklore. I seriously doubt you could find any religion, or just about any human endeavor for that matter, that doesn't involve it's own little bit of folklore. It's the nature of the beast.

And I agree with what NiceWookie said.

[nermal]

It tickles me when Wiccans talk about being the oldest of religions--by simply asserting that they are the new practicioners of Druidism. Problem is, nobody really knows what Druidism was, as there are no records. We have a kind of general idea, things like human sacrifice and such, but there is no surviving Druid "bible."
So, whoever invented Wicca just pulled a bunch of farcical stuff out their ass, fabricated a Druid ancestory, and smacked the "religious seal of approval" on it. It's beautiful really.

I've only met a few self-proclaimed Wiccans, but to a person they were all going through some kind of self-identity crisis. I think they latched on to Wicca for a few reasons:

1. It's different, and esoteric, so it must be better than the other religions. Kind of like finding a cool indie band, and consequently feeling a little, I don't know, more chic than everyone else.

2. You can dabble in it without regret. In other words, if you really don't want to put any effort into it, that's ok. You can just play at it, and put it away for a while when you're tired of it, and it will always be there when you need a religion. No damnation in hell etc. as payment for your neglect.

3. It's all natural, and we all know that's better.

4. Since it's the "oldest" religion, you can get self righteous about how christianity et. al. stole your heritage. That's always fun.

5. Uninhibited sex. Lots and lots of sex. Sex is good. Everybody likes sex.

Ed

[Jackalope]

However, we're talking about more than just folklore, if one can believe the claims made by Doreen Valiente, who was one of Gardner's High Priestesses. His second, I think. Valiente re-wrote much of Gardner's book of shadows because frankly, he was a lousy poet. She also wrote quite a bit of the later ritual, including the Charge of the Goddess. If anyone, she would have known how much was made up on the spot. The fact that Garnder continued to tell the public and even his own coven that these newly written rituals were ancient would argue for psuedohistory rather than folklore. In fact, it was Gardner's habit of conviently "finding" a manuscript that would support him during policy disagreements that finally lead to Valiente leaving and forming her own coven. The repeated pattern does not argue for honest ignorance, it certainly looks like the misinformation was intentional.

That the misinformation was repeated over and over again has more to do with most people being uncritical and unquestioning. And in academia, we had Charles Leland, Sir James Frazier (The Golden Bough), Margaret Murry, and Joseph Campbell in the "ancient pagan survivals" school. And then people like Robert Graves (The White Goddess) who just made things up out of whole cloth. With all that printed misinformation out there, one has to work harder to find reliable sources. Rather like trying to find out any actual historical information about the near east during the biblical period, yes? I know I read a lot of the bullshit before I knew any better. But I then later took the archeology classes that helped clear that mess back out of my head. Most people don't do that (hell, a lot never even get the chance).

But that was almost 20 years ago. With the internet as developed as it is now, you have more chances to get information...but even more garbage to wade through. And without someone knowledgeable to help you sift bullshit from gold, it's easy to end up with a lot of questionable information unless you're very dedicated. Then there are real libraries with real books, but even before the web was useful people often had to be almost forced to crack a book open. So intellectual laziness can also play a part. Or just plain laziness. I swear that some people don't even bother to sift through search engine hits and just take the first thing that comes up.

So the information is out there, but one has to already have the habit of doing systematic research. It's only been the last few years that there have been books published that have the information all in one spot. And even then, there's been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from certain groups of wiccans who thoroughly bought into the "oldest religion" and "burning times" indoctrination.

("And how do you know that's a goddess figure anyway? For all you know, it's a Neolithic Barbie Doll!")

[Kassiana]

I must be the only one the sane Wiccans come to. I don't know Wiccans who do any of the negative nonsense the others posting here cite. I'll tell you one thing, though. If you want to join a religion for the sex, Wicca is NOT it. I know Pagans who've been looking for sex in their religions and they can't find it. If Pagans can't find it themselves ... well, you know what the logical conclusion is.

As for the nonsense being spread, that's Llewellyn Publishing for you. They've been publishing the same book on Wicca but with different titles for years now, and they ain't gonna stop none no matter what.

[Heurismus]

I'm closer to the Eastern star than the 'Golden Temple'. Thankyou for all your comments: wasn't Blavatsky et al, just terminally weird? Excesses of irrationality require soft padded cells to my thinking, still the wonders of Humans continually amaze me!!! TTFN H who is G.

[Karalora]

You probably won't find too many serious Wiccans taking the pseudo-history at face value. Those that do tend to be recent converts from a religion where they were taught that the mythology was literally true, and they'd better believe it. Abrahamic-style religion is so widely considered to be "normal" religion that many people can't imagine a different way of believing, practicing, and worshiping. They can't wrap their minds around the idea that the validity of religion is determined by whether or not it works for the practitioners, not how long ago or by what method it came into practice.

[Era]

Postcard73

Thank you!

Jon_frum

Thanks, I shall think about buying it. It seems interesting.

Waning Moon Conrad

Well, the sources that I have looked through point out the fact that Gardner was a member of the Order of the Golden Dawn. Nevertheless, thanks for the greeting.

Doctor X

Thanks for the recommendation.

NiceWookie

I never generalized. I never wrote that all Wiccans believe in Wiccan pseudo-history, but that most of them do.
The ‘fakes’ that I wrote about is what is referred as “fluffy-bunny.�
Yes, the majority of Wiccans are fluffy-bunnies, Llewellyn press, Silver Raven Wolf and countless of other books with inaccurate information have not helped to diminish the fluffy-bunnies in the Wiccan community, but to pollute the religion and valid history.
Though, there are some web sites as “Why Wiccans Suck� and “The Ranting Witches,� which have been trying to get rid of the “fluffy-bunny� disease.
If a Wiccan celebrated the sabats and worshiped x or y gods, I would not consider him or her a “fluffy-bunny,� but if that person declared that in the olden days “wiccans� celebrated the sabats and worshiped x or y gods, I would view him or her as a “fluffy-bunny,� as a culturally/historically analphabet and an ignorant person.


Sunfair

As a reply, I would rely on Jackalope’s post.

Nermal

Funny, I thought about mentioning druidism and pseudo-druidism in the Wiccan community, but the post would get so long….
It seems that the Wiccans that you met were fakes (“fluffy-bunnies.�)
I agree with many of your points, yet, I am not sure about the 5th one.
I know that there are orgies conducted by neo-pagans, though, I am sure there are orgies run by non-neo-pagans too. Regarding Wicca, I know that there have been covens where the high priest/priestess may require some kind of sexual involvement from the members as a rite of initiation.

Perhaps, neo-pagans do not see sexual relations as a taboo and inside a conservative spectrum as others may see it. Nevertheless, I am not interested about their views on sexual relations or what they do at all.

*It tickles me too, it is almost as if a person came to you and said that the earth is flat.

Jackalope

I agree with you.

Thanks for the reviews everybody.

Regards,

Era

[NiceWookie]

With all due respect Era, I ask for proof of your assertion that a majority of Wiccans were fake. Reiterating it does not make it more true or correct.

I would assume you have some sort of statistical data to prove that a majority of Wiccans hold these erroneous historical views in order to back up such a bold assertion.

It is fine to make an opinion on a few books and a few practioners. I have met my share of so called fluffys. Some of them mature into fine dedicated practioners and others go on their way, usually leaving the craft behind for the truly dedicated and inspired.

But to expand this opinion of fakeness to the vast majority without a shred of data to back it up is simply as erroneous as some of the psuedo-history offered in your first post.


Finally, I find the description of someone who simply has some historical information incorrect as an ignorant fluff a bit of an overstatement and a generalization. Pidgeonholing these people and calling them cutesy names certainly doesn't help create a dialouge where newer and/or more accurate information can be shared.

Are you a Wiccan or even a Pagan? Do you have an ear in the community? Do you visit Wiccan or Pagan message boards, attend festivals, or participate in a coven? Have you read many books on the subject besides the ones you have listed? I am skeptical of your motives and I wonder what particular stake you have in the issue.

[Doctor X]

Jackalope:

That the misinformation was repeated over and over again has more to do with most people being uncritical and unquestioning. And in academia, we had Charles Leland, Sir James Frazier (The Golden Bough). . . .

Here is an anecdote. I talked to a mentor of mine who is very respected in the study of religions about Frazier. "Come on . . . where did he get those stories?"

Well, it seems he did his Ph.D. on The Golden Bough. He went through the evidence Frazier collected in the complete--multi-volume version and unpublished stuff.

Answer: Frazier was very well documented. He had "levels" of certainty and if he did not have enough confirmatory evidence, he would not use the example. According to my mentor, Frazier had a lot of stuff that would have supported his theories very well, but he chose not to use them because he could not prefer them.

Just an anecdote.

--J.D.

[Sunfair]

Originally posted by Jackalope
However, we're talking about more than just folklore, if one can believe the claims made by Doreen Valiente, who was one of Gardner's High Priestesses. His second, I think. Valiente re-wrote much of Gardner's book of shadows because frankly, he was a lousy poet. She also wrote quite a bit of the later ritual, including the Charge of the Goddess. If anyone, she would have known how much was made up on the spot. The fact that Garnder continued to tell the public and even his own coven that these newly written rituals were ancient would argue for psuedohistory rather than folklore. In fact, it was Gardner's habit of conviently "finding" a manuscript that would support him during policy disagreements that finally lead to Valiente leaving and forming her own coven. The repeated pattern does not argue for honest ignorance, it certainly looks like the misinformation was intentional.

The Charge of the Goddess came from Leland's book, not from Doreen herself. She may have added a line or two, but the majority of it of it is from Aradia, Gospel of the Witches. As a piece that comes from a source from the late 1800s, and which doesn't contain historical claims, I think it qualifies as a piece of Wiccan folklore. (The Charge itself, I mean, not the book.)

I would like to know your source for information on what Gardner had to say. I have found it very difficult to find anything original on the subject. His books are out of print, and theorys about the origin of his ideas are mostly swathed in obscurity and difficult to find information on, in my experience.

I would also like to know your source for what Valiente had to say about her departure from Gardner's coven. Her writings are also scarce, but one thing I have read is that she is the one who proved the exsistence of one Dorothy Clutterbuck by finding her birth certificate. Gardner had stated he was taught by Dorothy Clutterbuck, but it was doubted that the woman even exsisted. (I know her exsistence doesn't prove anything but her exsistence, but it is a step in the right direction.) With Doreen going to the trouble of trying to back up at least one of Gardner's claims about the origins of Wicca, it paints a different picture than what you are saying.

And I have never heard anything about Gardner finding manuscripts, so of course I'd like to know your source for that, too.

[side note] I have read (on a now defunct website) that the dreaded Llewellyn owns the rights to Gardner's books, but is declining to republish them because they don't bear much resemblance to the fluffy Wiccan books that sell so well today. I haven't been able to confirm that, though.

[jon_frum]

did indeed exist--Ronald Hutton goes into considerable detail about her in the chapter on Gerald Gardner.

He was lucky enough to read three of her diaries from the years 1942-3, when she was allegedly functioning as a witch priestess.

Quote--

"They are not diaries in the conventional sense, but daily poems with accompanying illustrations reflecting an incident or idea which had occured during each date. The woman they reveal is a simple, kindly and pious one. Absolutely none of them--including those at the time of the four major witch festivals--have any relevance to paganism or the occult."

He presents other evidence as well; I really would recommend that you read the book and see for yourself.


Sunfair:
Gardner had stated he was taught by Dorothy Clutterbuck, but it was doubted that the woman even exsisted.

[Sunfair]

Interesting, thank you, jon_frum. I think I ceased my studies at about the same time that Hutton's book came out. It was partly due to finding answers to questions I had about life the universe and spiritualilty, and it was partly out of frustration at the seemingly vast numbers of -how do I put this- people who weren't drawn to it for what it is, but rather for power or the mystique of "witchyness" or shock value, etc. I just didn't feel comfortable calling myself Wiccan anymore when so many asshats did too. And mass media contributes its own set of problems to it *Llewellyn, I'm looking at you*. So anyway, it sounds like my info is a bit out of date, aside from the bit about the Charge.

I really didn't mean to get drawn into this discussion, but now that I'm here I'd like to offer a viewpoint on "fakeness".

In my opinion there is no such thing as fake Wiccans. How can there be when there is no such thing as blasphemy? There is no one right way to be Wiccan, therefore anyone who claims to be Wiccan is. All the talk about history being false and therefore invalidating the religion as a source of spiritual truth is kind of irrelevant when you're talking about a religion that basically accepts making it up as go along, as long as no one gets harmed by it. (And by spiritual truth I mean how each individual comes to terms with life, ethics, etc.)

[Jackalope]

Hutton was a close friend of Valiente's, by the way. He was one of the main speakers at her funeral in fact. So when he wrote Triumph of the Moon, he actually went to Doreen and got her side of the story about her time in Gardner's coven. And her later exploits. Damn, it's late and my brain is going. She joined up with another firecracker magus after Gardner, who also had a habit of passing off newly-minted ritual as ancient. Since Valiente was basically too honest to participate in that sort of deception, she left and eventually formed her own coven. I don't have my copy of Triumph of the Moon around, and I can't for the life of me remember the title of Valiente's book right now. Maybe Jon_Frum will remember (or better yet will still have the books lying around), since we read them about the same time.

Dr X: Frazier suffered from the same disease that many of the victorian gentleman scholars did. They tended to re-write their material to match what they thought it should be like. Part of it was class prejudice. There was a notion that the lower classes couldn't possibly have any idea of what they were preserving in degenerate form and that the upper classes should help preserve and shape those traditions. You can see the same pattern with the folk song and dance collectors (I'm still not sure whether to thank or curse Cecil Sharp). You really, really have to take the victorian folk collector's writings with a block of salt. Compare Frazier's methods with someone like Henry Glassie (All Silver and no Brass) and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Sunfair]

And since I've put my foot in it already, I may as well dive in.


1) It is the oldest religion or old religion.

It is my understanding that it is considered an attempt to return to an older form of religion, as far as reverence to nature, acknowledgement of the cycle of the seasons, and acceptance of females as whole persons in their own right is concerned. These things are considered to have been lost/subdued with the major influence of Christianity on western culture in the last two thousand years.

I don't know why you say there is no such thing as old religion with such finality. What about Hinduism?

As for the rest, I am having a hard time with the phrase "others may say". Who are these others? When did they say? There is a big difference between what folks knew about the Inquisition in the 70s compared to what we know now. I think using out of date sources to support your arguements is unwise, but I don't know if you are because you haven't really given any.

False, there is no evidence that supports the existence of hidden witch cults because they have never existed.

Just off the top of my head, there was the group who tried to kill King James, and the group led by a compatriot of the late Joan of Arc. These were considered Satanic in nature, but I think they do qualify as hidden witch cults.

2) It is Celtic

Sorry, I just don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's not Celtic enough to be considered genuinely Celtic because we don't know that much about the Celts? Maybe the way the word is being used is not absolute as far as description goes. That happens a lot with language. Otherwise, genuine Celticness might involve wearing hide clothing and living in a hut with a central firepit.

why does Wicca incorporate eight holydays in totality?

Well, it's only 8 if you don't count the Esbats. Four of those eight are to acknowledge the suns orbit at the Solstices and Equinoxes. The others have come from other sources.


3) Wicca is composed of the practices and beliefs of pre-Christian Indo-European people.
Wicca is a reconstruction or continuation of the practices of pre-christian indo-European people.

I never heard this when I was studying, where did you get these statements from? I have to say if your source for this is from the 70s it's outdated.
And again with the "others may reply"- who are these others?

4) Wicca was invented before the late 50s.

See above concerning outdated sources.

5) Wicca is witchcraft.

In nearly everything I have read the idea of "A Wiccan is not necessarily a witch and a witch is not necessarily a Wiccan" has been emphatically stated.

As for what Gardner said, why do you consider him wrong in his assessment of what his practice of his religion (whether he made it up or not) was composed of? If it was witchcraft to him, then how can you say it wasn't? Just because Wicca in general isn't and has further developed away from a major emphasis on it doesn't mean that it wasn't for him.

any person with a religious/non-religious background can get involved in witchcraft, but not in Wicca.

That's not true. There's no blasphemy. People can blend all they want if that's how they want to be. Too bad if it's not pure enough for you, but there it is.

Have some curry sauce on your french fries, too. :)

[jon_frum]

The interested reader may find copious information at www.doreenvaliente.com (list of books, capsule bio, etc.)
Revel.

I think that the next 'magus' Ms. Valiente was associated with was Alex Saunders. She also worked with Robert Cochrane.

[Era]

NiceWookie

By no means I intended to use the term “fluffy-bunny� as a method of classification. I do acknowledge that the coinage of the term does not aid in the introduction of more accurate information at all. The term meant to replace fake, but for the sake of the argument, I will refer these people in particular as ignorant. I do not see that they follow Wicca at all because most of the books that they have read are full of a watered version of Wicca as most Wiccan books in this era are characterized for.
No, I am not a neo-pagan. I used to attend neo-pagan message boards and the phrase ‘I used to’ does not mean that I abandoned the message boards because of spite. I used to be member of two Wiccan message boards, one on Traditional Wicca, two on Traditional Witchcraft, two on neo-paganism and one on Reconstructionist Religions.
The books that I referred to in the post are books that have given rise of the pseudo-history, they are not “my sources or only sources.�
Moreover, I do not like pseudo-history in general. I could have written pseudo-history that exists in the Baha’i religion too.
* I am sure that you do not need statistics to realize that most republicans are conservatives. Actions and words speak for themselves.

Sunfair

I never invalidated the religion.
I referred to the pseudo-history of it.
When I wrote “old religion�, I meant “the old religion� as if it were the oldest.
The points are not arguments, but misconceptions that are still believed till this era and they are not outdated.
The phrase “others may reply,� refers to those who defend the misconceptions.


�Just off the top of my head, there was the group who tried to kill King James, and the group led by a compatriot of the late Joan of Arc. These were considered Satanic in nature, but I think they do qualify as hidden witch cults.�

Where is the historical evidence on that? Perhaps, it was considered satanic in nature by the heavily superstitious people in those times. Anyway, you wrote, “I do think,� therefore, I will assume that it is your opinion.

�Sorry, I just don't understand the point you're trying to make here. It's not Celtic enough to be considered genuinely Celtic because we don't know that much about the Celts? Maybe the way the word is being used is not absolute as far as description goes. That happens a lot with language. Otherwise, genuine Celticness might involve wearing hide clothing and living in a hut with a central firepit.�

As if, “It is a 100% celtic religion.�
The statement on the holydays goes along with the “Celtic assertion�; the Celts celebrated two holydays, not eight.

�As for what Gardner said, why do you consider him wrong in his assessment of what his practice of his religion (whether he made it up or not) was composed of? If it was witchcraft to him, then how can you say it wasn't? Just because Wicca in general isn't and has further developed away from a major emphasis on it doesn't mean that it wasn't for him.�

I never wrote that he was wrong, but there is the possibility that his reference regarding Wicca being witchcraft was deliberate. And also, I was referring to the fact that some people assert that Wicca is a synonym for witchcraft.


�That's not true. There's no blasphemy. People can blend all they want if that's how they want to be. Too bad if it's not pure enough for you, but there it is.�



Have some curry sauce on your french fries, too.

I never implied purity.
If that is your view, then, it is all right. It seems that you hold that Wicca (including any other religion) is whatever the person wants it to be or anything that the person likes it to be. (a la Cunningham.)
What about Wicca’s 161 Laws?

I think that it would be more respectful towards the religion if the people interested in it were more interested in learning about Wicca instead of transforming it into something completely different and using it as if it were the latest fashion statement.
So, if a Wiccan adds some elements from Hinduism, Yoruba and Judaism, erases the horned god or does not worship any gods or goddesses at all and also, only gets involved into Wicca because of the magic. Is he or she a Wiccan because he or she calls himself or herself one?
I think it would be more considerate if he or she referred himself or herself as a thelemite.


By the way, I have had curry sauce on French fries and they do not taste dreadful, though, in reality I do not like French fries.

Regards,

Era

[gsx1138]

I consider myself Pagan/Witch but I say I'm Wiccan. Why? Because the first two titles have been so demonized by Christianity that anything I say is automatically dismissed. I have friends who believe in the psuedo-history and I choose to not confront them about it. As for "Celtic", I believe that many of the old stories from Ireland were preserved verbally and by being folded into Catholic mythology.

I've always seen Wicca as a mix of Masonic ritual, Celtic and Norse folklore, some stuff Gardner made up, and a wish to get back to an Earth/Nature centered religion.

I do agree with the "fluffy bunny" syndrome. I know many who would fall into this category however I would never call them fake.They are just doing and believing what they feel is right. As far as religions go they'd be the last to try and take your rights away.

[lowmagnet]

Apropos (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp04242002.shtml)

Call it folklore or pseudo-history. I call it "Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The only religion that didn't rip off some other religion is Scientology, but that's only because L. Ron Hubbard was a genius writer. The man could spin a good yarn, a tale tall enough to hook thousands of people. At least his back-story is so ridiculous as to be copyrightable :P

['URL' has to be in upper-case now? stupid.]

[tangiellis]

Era & Jackalope,
Perhaps I am confused by your statements, but it seems that if a Wiccan follows a path completely of their own making, it seems wrong. Further, jack, you seem to believe that a vast majority of wiccans think this way based on the llewelyn prinicple as I call it.
Well, that's like stereotyping all atheists as immoral or all Christians as narrowminded.
Stereotypes benefit no one.
For the record, I am a Pagan solitary witch. Those three words have different meanings for me. pagan is the umbrella term for the areas of religious thought I follow. There simply is not a way to neatly label everything that I believe, so pagan it is. Solitary because I walk my path alone. I do involve myself in activities with members of all religious thought and independent thinking. I mingle with atheists, with Christians and Buddhists, I brush against other people's beliefs and debate and talk with them. But the path I walk at the end of the day is my own, not dictated by a coven or congregation. And lastly witch. I use my creative power and my intuition to help others. I give advice freely when asked. And I seek the higher path of enlightenment.
Now all this might seem like bs to you. But I and those that I know are not fluffy bunnies to be scoffed at simply because you met a few airheads who follow wicca because it is the new fad. I personally make no claims as from where wicca came. I read books that you would consider fluffy, but those are necessary to read in order to come to realize just what is crap and what is not. Trial and Error, if you will.
Many who start out on the pagan/wiccan path begin in defiance or perhaps because they are seeking solace from their inner pain or even for the "coolness" but those that continue on their journey do not all stay in the phase. In order to grow in thought, to expand the mind, we all have to start somewhere. The ones that follow the Path follow it without so much pomp and circumstance. We aren't all begging for attention, nor are we shouting from the rafters that we are different.
We simply are. As for our celebrational holidays. These are in accord with aspects of astrology, the position of the moon and planets as well as the equinoxes, eclipses, and so on. These holidays are just a way, for me personally, to be in accord with nature, to celebrate all that is life, and to seek inner peace within myself and harmony all around me.
And as for sex, Paganism is not all about sex. Each and everytime I get approached by someone this is the first idiot thing that gets said. If you want to go and have sex, my friend, you don't need an excuse to do it. You just will. Because some sects of paganism deal with sex and tantric sex, it seems that they are deemed immoral or "sluts, harlots, and rutting stags." What is so damn threatening about sex? It's a natural process. And Pagans are not the first to realize this. The Kama sutra is not a Pagan work. But if it suits you to think that all of us are this way, you are more than welcome to your opinion.
I'm not sure if this post has helped anything. perhaps you will read this and consider me to me one of the very ninnies that you are talking about, but I will say this: each and every one of us is a pathway leading back to the source from which we came. we are born and we die. But the journey, that journey is up to us as individuals how we will truly live in this moment.
If you would give your own journey meaningfulness, why should you cast such stereotypical light on those of others that harm none?
Live and let live, my friends. And may your path always, always give you the bounty and joy you seek in life.
Blessed be and merry part,
Tangie

[Jackalope]

Well, you seem to have concatenated a number of different people's posts (some of which are neither Era's nor mine) into your response. That makes it rather difficult to respond, as much of what you said appears to have been addressed to...someone else. I'm not sure whom.

I'm not actually talking about the Llewellyn Princicple, though that doesn't help things any. Gardner himself made many of the bogus claims about ancient historical practices and evidence. I've read his book. There's an awful lot of (let's be blunt) bullshit in it. As I said, even Valiente who was very sincere eventually left because of Gardner's habit of "discovering" ancient documents at convenient times. While Gardner also claimed to have had close contact with Alistair Crowley, the historical documentation does not bear out that claim either. Crowley kept rather meticulous journals of who he met with each day, and while he did have a few short meetings with Gardner, there's nothing to indicate he gave Gardner any extensive teaching (or even much time at all). Gardner appears to have had some rather good ideas about a new religion, but he apparently felt compelled to lie about its origins. And that's what Era and I were taking issue with. Especially since that misinformation has been passed on as the "real" history of Wicca until very recently.

On top of that, there are still people who believe in the myth of the "Burning Times," which stemmed from a combination of poor scholarship and plain making things up because they sounded good. I've actually read the dreadful book translated from french that was the source for the vastly inflated numbers and bizarre claims that get quoted as "truth." Plus, there's still that stupid movie out there that gets shown over and over again by various pagan groups. I believe it's just called "The Burning Times." It's a complete piece of trash, and many people don't do any further research after they watch it.

It's the extremely poor scholarship and plain lies masquerading as history that I take issue with. Wicca as a religion is no more ridiculous to me than any other. In fact, it's less ridiculous than some. It's the bogus claims of "30,000 years old" and "true remnant of the witch religion" and other BS claims about Wicca's great antiquity that I will debunk when I encounter them.

[Era]

Jackalope,

Good point.


Tangiellis,

Can you now understand the reason many academics tend to see the religion of Wicca as a silly fad or an incompetent technology?

Regards,

Era

[tangiellis]

All I'm going to say is that demonizing any view, be it a religion or otherwise based on a few of its followers does a disservice to that view. There are bad apples in every catagory and i've met more than my share of academics who know absolutely nothing but still tote the flag of intellectualism.

Those that are truely studious in their religions are usually the most open minded, from my experience. the Christians that I have met that have been nice are those that are secure in their faith while at the same time being comfortable with other people having their own.

Some Christians are ignorant.
Some Wiccans are fluff bunnies.
Some academics are idiots.
But that does not mean that the view itself without its bad apples is a total loss.

My belief doesn't make me a fluff bunny. My belief makes me human.
Just my two cents.

Tangie

edited to add: I can make assumptions and generalizations also, but it takes a real scholar to go and look at ALL the facts and then come to a conclusion. At least, that the path I try to take.

[shivalinga]

first to low magnet who said L Ron Hubblard was an original,
you might want to read some of these.


http://www.mt.net/~watcher/crowleyhubbard.html

http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html
===========================================

as for the rest it is clear to me from my cursory exam of wicca
that it was a mish mash of sorts akin to rosicrucian dogma,
as the old canard goes many had heard of the rosicrucians
but no one had met one.

But there were actual rosicrucians after all, they were syncretists of various stripes,the same with so called witchs
and therefore wicca, what we have is a mix of Kabbalistic
rituals,ancient "pagan" (mix of norse,celtic,and vedic),
and even heliopolitan and roman religio concepts as well
as gnostic and neo gnostic ideas, so when the idea of witchs
in the middle ages was put forth you were sure to find some
degree of one of these rituals or rites or whatever,alchemists
were probably wiccans and there female associates or otherwise
were probably witchs in the popular mind of the day.

so i see it as originally a syncretist concept on the par with rosicrucianism and this is why we see the same milieus overlapping with the likes of gardner et al.

we find the horned goat among the knights templar,
which possibly had some connection to Pan mixed with
other ideas from gnostic sources.

all in all to say there were no wiccans in the past
is not necessarily true,wiccans today are syncretists,
which means the similar syncretists in the past were
"wiccans" as well if they went along with the same ideas,
the names of rituals or whatever may be different,
but if it smells like a witch,tastes like a witch,
and weighs less then a feather....:notworthy

[NiceWookie]

*taps his foot* I'll wait for "many acedemics" to show up and proclaim Wicca a "silly fad" or an "incompentent technology".

Of course it's not going to happen because those are narrow, ignorant, and egotistical generalizations. Ironcially made in the guise of some sort of intellectual honesty. At least they are good was good for something.... a laugh.

[HelmetWB]

posted by Era
Can you now understand the reason many academics tend to see the religion of Wicca as a silly fad or an incompetent technology?
Regards,
Era

posted by NiceWookie
*taps his foot* I'll wait for "many acedemics" to show up and proclaim Wicca a "silly fad" or an "incompentent technology".
Of course it's not going to happen because those are narrow, ignorant, and egotistical generalizations. Ironcially made in the guise of some sort of intellectual honesty. At least they are good was good for something.... a laugh.

A good source for information on neo-paganism is Margot Adler’s ‘Drawing Down The Moon,’
which I would recommend to anyone who is at all interested in neo-paganism.

More on Ms. Adler from www.beliefnet.com:

“Beliefnet Columnist -- Margot Adler is the author of "Drawing Down Moon," the classic study of goddess spirituality and contemporary paganism, and "Heretic's Heart: A Journey Through Spirit and Revolution." She is a correspondent for National Public Radio, and her reports air on NPR's award-winning shows "All Things Considered," "Morning Edition," and "Weekend Edition." She hosts "Justice Talking," a new radio show on the subject of the U.S. Constitution, which is produced by the Annenberg Center for Public Policy of the University of Pennsylvania. She also lectures widely on paganism and earth traditions. She has been a priestess of Wicca for more than 25 years.�

Ms. Adler considers Wicca to be part of witchcraft. However, she does not proclaim Wicca to be ancient in origins. On the contrary, she writes about “The Myth of Wicca.�
Quote: “Many have observed that myths should not be taken literally. This does not mean that they are ‘false,’ only that to understand them one must separate poetry from prose, metaphorical truth from literal truth.�

My view is that Wicca is no more a “silly fad� than any other religion, especially Christianity with its god that came to Earth to be born of woman, a god who was burped and had its diapers changed. Point being that it is easy to make fun of religion -- all religion -- particularly if folks insist on looking for the ‘literal’ as opposed to the ‘metaphorical.’

[Heathen Dawn]

Era’s points are all valid, but to me they’re old hat. I’ve now known for long that Wicca is only 50 years old, that it is not Celtic, that it isn’t synonymous with witchcraft etc. And far from disturbing me, I think all these are a good thing. The newer the religion, the less likely it is to conflict with modern sensibilities. As for cultural connections, I’m much more partial to a universal religion than to such a culturally-bound religion as Celtic Reconstructionism or Hellenismos or Ásatrú. And as for being a religion and not just plain witchcraft, I say fine! Religion is just what I was looking for. So I perceive all those supposed weaknesses of Wicca as strengths. It’s a recent, nature-based, life-affirming, mystery-connecting, symbolically ritualistic and deity-worshipping religion, and I like it that way.

[jess]

wow, I come back after about a year, and familiar old faces are here---
<waves> Hi Auntie Bill and Kassiana (PBUH)!
I'm gonna lurk some... don't know when I can come back....


Wicca(tm) is, IMO, on a basic level, Christianity with sex and women in power. Christians having issues with Christianity can find refuge in Wicca(tm) for a while.

There are Wiccans who are not trademarked, however. And I agree, Llewellyn did much of the (tm).

returning to lurking...

[Heathen Dawn]

Wicca(tm) is, IMO, on a basic level, Christianity with sex and women in power.

Say what? At the most part Wicca is similar to Catholicism, what with its mass-like rituals and all. But between Wicca and fundamentalist Christianity a great gulf is fixed. And Wicca is duo- or polytheistic, unlike Christianity including Catholicism. More like Hinduism, I’d say.

Christians having issues with Christianity can find refuge in Wicca(tm) for a while.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but my issues were with atheism and Judaism, not with Christianity.

[jess]

bubble? burst?

sorry--- I was talking about Christians who become involved with Wicca temporarily to deal with the issues of women being below men and the prohibition on sex. I prolly should have said Catholics, however.

I believed I had made a diff between that type of Wiccan and the other by the (tm). I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, or if I insulted anyone.

Rusty posting...

[Heathen Dawn]

Okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[gsx1138]

Well if there are Christians looking for sex in Wicca they're in for a great disappointment. At most, they'll be able to freely discuss sexuality. Otherwise, putting sex fests and Wicca together are just a fundies wet dream.

Wicca is compatible with Christianity because of its passive nature. However, the absolutist nature of Christianity does not allow for cross belief.

[jess]

gsx: it's the freedom of sex--- not the access to it--- that I feel draws people into it.

The relief of the guilt of sex and sexual drives. One of the things that lets them go back is maturing past that and accepting it in Christianity...

HD: I made myself clear?

[gsx1138]

I guess I see what you're saying. It's been awhile since I was a Minister and while I understand the theological aspect of Christianity I've forgotten what it is like to feel guilty all the time about sexual issues.

[Kassiana]

Hi Jess. I'm rarely here, check the boards maybe once or twice a week, but if you give me a wave occasionally I'll probably say something to you.

My cockatiel is scratching her head with her foot. She looks so ridiculous doing that!

[lpetrich]

(ritual texts written on the spot...) In fact, it was Gardner's habit of conviently "finding" a manuscript that would support him during policy disagreements that finally lead to Valiente leaving and forming her own coven.
This reminds me of the incident in the Bible where King Josiah's high priest Hilkiah finds a "book of the Law" in the Temple as it is being renovated -- a book whose teachings closely parallel Deuteronomy (2 Kings 22:8, 2 Chronicles 34:14), especially in centralizing worship in Jerusalem.

(Edited to add)
Wiccans' concoction of pseudohistory has precedent in the Bible.

The earliest parts of the Old Testament / Tanakh are pure mythology, and there is a lot of controversy among Biblical scholars as to where the mythology ends and the real history begins. It's now generally agreed that the Conquest and everything before are mostly mythical; I'm not sure if one should be relieved that all those genocides are made up. And the Dual Monarchy and later are well-supported history -- it generally agrees with outside sources. So the remaining big controversy is over the likes of Kings David and Solomon. Were they rulers of a big united kingdom, or were they only rulers of some much smaller domain?

And the New Testament -- Jesus Christ's biographies are largely mythical, if not entirely mythical, some of Paul's letters were likely written by others (such inverse plagiarism was common before the printing press), and the Book of Revelation makes one wonder what sort of hallucinogenic mushrooms grow on the Greek island of Patmos.

("And how do you know that's a goddess figure anyway? For all you know, it's a Neolithic Barbie Doll!")
I think that such statuettes would be too fragile to be kids' toys.

However, seeing a Universal Mother Goddess in them would be a bit much -- I'm sure that they had a variety of meanings -- various deities, legendary ancestors, people in ritual garb, magic charms, etc. Which are not mutually exclusive.

[lpetrich]

Call it folklore or pseudo-history. I call it "Come meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The only religion that didn't rip off some other religion is Scientology, but that's only because L. Ron Hubbard was a genius writer. The man could spin a good yarn, a tale tall enough to hook thousands of people. At least his back-story is so ridiculous as to be copyrightable :P
But that bit about Xenu and the trapped souls looks like a reinvention of Gnosticism.

[Passerby]

(...)
Something that occurs with most religions is the following, if a religion is connected to a sort of antiquity (whether false or true), the more valid it seems to the followers.
Wicca would not have been as well-liked as it is now, if this pseudo-history was excluded, (the same with other religions) among other things (e.g. magic).
If I invented a religion that included a series of my own thoughts and admitted that it was new, I would have very few followers.
But if I invented the religion and pulled out false evidence that implied it was practiced by a tribe in Africa 5,000 years ago, believe me, I would have quite a number of followers.

Why does Wiccan pseudo-history upsets me?

I abhor pseudo-history in religions as a whole.

I have read about the so-called cultural Wicca that includes the Norse, Greek, Yoruba, Roman religions, etc. Which is completely false, these are unique religions with their own sets of practices and beliefs.

And well, it is cultural, historical and anthropological offensive.
(...)
Era

Era,

I have to say that I share your profound dislike of people that need to distort historical fact to fit their beliefs.
That Wicca was born in the 50s, well that's really not an issue to me. Some older religions don't make more sense, and I'm sure their might be some interesting religions which are not yet born.
However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't contribute to promote totally unsupported ideas (especially on runes and magic in the case of Norse mythology). As if ancient pagan religions, which usually have been trashed by Abrahamic religions for centuries, now needed some new-age weirdos to claim that Zeus, Taranis and Thor are one and the same... (Comparative religious studies have some very interesting point made on such issues, but at least they argument and debate in a scholarly manner.)

[brighid]

Maybe I walk in vast differnt Wiccan circles and therefore I do not have the experience Era has in some chat room or message board on the Internet. I don't know. I would strongly suggest broadening your horizons on this issue before deciding what the majority of Wiccan's believe or disbelieve.

If you are looking for a scholarly investigation into the history of neo-paganism Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler has already been recommended. I would add my voice to that recommendation.

I think all mythology contains pseudo-history and pseudo-science. Hell, I would even say our own history has a bit of pseudo-history!

Sadly, there are some who will foist this half-history and science as the sail that powers the boat of neo-paganism. That is their choice, and misinformation should be intelligently countered with information. We should not demonize others in the process as this serves to accomplish nothing except perhaps inflate ones sense of self-righteousness and intellectual superiority. If you must kick someone else in the teeth inorder to pat yourself on the back perhaps your modus operandi should be reevaluated.

The beauty of paganism is there is no dogma, no truly right or truly wrong way to follow the path. Let those who think one must prescribe to a certain path (hereditary or Gardenian for example) have their path. Let me have mine. One need not believe in Gods in order to walk the path of the pagan. Anyone can write a book and say this is the way he/she views the path, this is what he/she does in ritual and worship, but no one may dictate the way of paganism. So it is utterly useless to complain about what a majority of Wiccans believe or disbelieve. The simple fact of the matter is that there is such a wide array of beliefs that you will find but a few similiarities, and even then you will be hard pressed to find agreement. Even the Wiccan Rede of "an ye harm none" is not completely universal as some Wiccans and Witches believe that self-defense is an exclusion to this rule.

There is no religion that is more or less accurate than another. They are a compelation of half-truths, legends, pseudo-science, and bits of historical and other truths interspersed throughout to form a unique system of ritual, practice and belief/disbelief.

Live and let live, and perhaps the path to take is the one less traveled, or simply creating a path of one's own making.

Brighid

[Era]

If you are looking for a scholarly investigation into the history of neo-paganism Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler has already been recommended. I would add my voice to that recommendation.
Read the book, it was interesting.

I think all mythology contains pseudo-history and pseudo-science. Hell, I would even say our own history has a bit of pseudo-history!
Certainly.
Although, I do not comprehend what you are implying regarding the topic. Perhaps that pseudo-history is a normal occurrence and therefore, it is not worthy to complain about. Perchance, I would not criticize pseudo-history that occurred in the 17th century, an epoch when many people held ignorance and a disinterest of knowledge in a greater extent. But during the 20th century, individuals had a more advantageous stance that would enable them to differentiate facts from fallacies.


The beauty of paganism is there is no dogma, no truly right or truly wrong way to follow the path. Let those who think one must prescribe to a certain path (hereditary or Gardenian for example) have their path. Let me have mine. One need not believe in Gods in order to walk the path of the pagan. Anyone can write a book and say this is the way he/she views the path, this is what he/she does in ritual and worship, but no one may dictate the way of paganism. So it is utterly useless to complain about what a majority of Wiccans believe or disbelieve. The simple fact of the matter is that there is such a wide array of beliefs that you will find but a few similiarities, and even then you will be hard pressed to find agreement. Even the Wiccan Rede of "an ye harm none" is not completely universal as some Wiccans and Witches believe that self-defense is an exclusion to this rule.
This paragraph perked my interest for the reason that it seemed as if you were categorizing neo-paganism and Wicca as equivalent, and they are not.
Is there Garderian neo-paganism?
If you clearly analyzed the thread, you must have derived that it concerned Wicca (not neo-paganism) and that the main issue was the pseudo-history of the religion disregarding Wiccan dogma. But I must say, in my opinion, any religion deserves study and dedication from those who desire to pursue it. On the other hand, if some individuals believe that Wicca (not neo-paganism) is “whatever you want it to be� as R. Buckland asserted, then that is acceptable for them. Believing in gods or goddesses does not imply that the follower ought to deem that Joan of Arc was a Wiccan.
History does not always make religion.

Regards,

Era

[brighid]

This paragraph perked my interest for the reason that it seemed as if you were categorizing neo-paganism and Wicca as equivalent, and they are not.Is there Garderian neo-paganism? If you clearly analyzed the thread, you must have derived that it concerned Wicca (not neo-paganism) and that the main issue was the pseudo-history of the religion disregarding Wiccan dogma. But I must say, in my opinion, any religion deserves study and dedication from those who desire to pursue it. On the other hand, if some individuals believe that Wicca (not neo-paganism) is “whatever you want it to be� as R. Buckland asserted, then that is acceptable for them. Believing in gods or goddesses does not imply that the follower ought to deem that Joan of Arc was a Wiccan.
History does not always make religion.


Ummm ... how is Wicca not under the umbrella of the neo-pagan movement? Perhaps we have different understandings of this particular definition. I see neo-paganism as the umbrella defintion mentioned by Tangiellis. Just as Judeo-Christianity encompasses a large number of religious practices that have their roots in that JC history.

History certainly does not always make religion, nor does religion always make history. I am not sure if I follow your train of thought on this. Perhaps you could expound on this idea.

Is their Gardenian neo-paganism? I am not sure, but I would classify Gardenian witchcraft as a neo-pagan religious movement.

Haven't you been arguing that Wicca does not have an ancient, pagan history and all assertations that it has it's roots in the hay-day of paganism are actually false (or misguided) because we do not know most of the practices that pagans undertook in worship, etc? Therefore, it would seem that by your arguments that Wicca indeed fits within neo-paganism (neo = new).

Wicca is certainly a relatively "new" invention, borrowing from what can be known about historical pagan practices. It certainly creates it's own principles, practices, etc. As I am not sure the Wiccan Rede or the Charge of the God or Goddess have any evidentiary basis in ancient pagan ritual.

I am glad you have read Drawing Down the Moon. It has been about 5 years since I read it so the information is no longer fresh in my mind.

Brighid

[Era]

Yes, Wicca is a neo-pagan religion.
I just did not comprehend why you alternated neo-paganism and Wicca in your previous post. It left the impression that you were expressing Wicca and neo-paganism as one in the same. When you implied that neo-paganism did not necessarily require theism and mentioned its lack of orthodoxness, it seemed as if the same prerequisites were decreed in Wicca since it is a neo-pagan religion. I recognize that neo-paganism is not a centralized and dogmatic religion/way of life/spiritual, secular or religious stance, etc.

Regards,

Era

[Era]

Era,

I have to say that I share your profound dislike of people that need to distort historical fact to fit their beliefs.
That Wicca was born in the 50s, well that's really not an issue to me. Some older religions don't make more sense, and I'm sure their might be some interesting religions which are not yet born.
However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about. This wouldn't be a problem if it didn't contribute to promote totally unsupported ideas (especially on runes and magic in the case of Norse mythology). As if ancient pagan religions, which usually have been trashed by Abrahamic religions for centuries, now needed some new-age weirdos to claim that Zeus, Taranis and Thor are one and the same... (Comparative religious studies have some very interesting point made on such issues, but at least they argument and debate in a scholarly manner.)

True.
It seems to be a norm among new followers. Unfortunately, many of them end up buying the popular New-Agey Wiccan books from authors, who have the sole desire of making money and have no concern of the imprecise information provided in the books. However, there are some who choose to remain ignorant and do not have any desire to learn about Wicca or ancient pagan religions. If ‘magic’ is the sole aspect that magnetizes them, then they can pursue Thelema.

Regards,

Era

[Era]

* Brighid

Profoundly recommended book: The Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton. It is quite brilliant.

Regards,

Era

[brighid]

Yes, Wicca is a neo-pagan religion.
I just did not comprehend why you alternated neo-paganism and Wicca in your previous post. It left the impression that you were expressing Wicca and neo-paganism as one in the same. When you implied that neo-paganism did not necessarily require theism and mentioned its lack of orthodoxness, it seemed as if the same prerequisites were decreed in Wicca since it is a neo-pagan religion. I recognize that neo-paganism is not a centralized and dogmatic religion/way of life/spiritual, secular or religious stance, etc.

Regards,

Era

In the sense of dogma and the ability to freely create whatever one desires Wicca to be, it is very much like "neo-paganism." This can be confusing, but in my view Wicca and neo-paganism are very similar, or at least they are similar at their roots even if Wicca branches off into many different directions.

Now there are individual sects/groups/covens that demand a strict adherence to specific modalities of Wicca - say Gardenian for example. They require specific rituals, specific readings, etc. and they discourage exploration outside of that tradition, and in some cases the debase the practices of other traditions/movements/ecclectic practices in the same ways Protestants and Catholics attack the other for not being a "true Christian."

Wicca is dynamic, creative, free flowing ... or it should be. Although I would not begrudge a coven that adheres to a specific path exclusively as long as it did not harm it's practitioners and I think they walk a fine line when they demand exclusivity.

Wicca should be about self-exploration, the entire idea of what was does not find within one will never find without, as can be found in the Charge of the Goddess. No one can dictate how an individual should follow the Path, or how they should or should not view the Gods of the Wiccan Pantheon, etc. I think this spirit is what is at the heart of "paganism", but I am quite sure there are other pagans, secular or otherwise, who might disagree.

Thank you for the recommendation of Hutton's book. I have seen it and had planned on getting it, so perhaps I will have to explore that option sooner rather than later.

What are your thoughts and the distinction between neo-paganism and Wicca?

Brighid

[Era]

In the sense of dogma and the ability to freely create whatever one desires Wicca to be, it is very much like "neo-paganism." This can be confusing, but in my view Wicca and neo-paganism are very similar, or at least they are similar at their roots even if Wicca branches off into many different directions.

Now there are individual sects/groups/covens that demand a strict adherence to specific modalities of Wicca - say Gardenian for example. They require specific rituals, specific readings, etc. and they discourage exploration outside of that tradition, and in some cases the debase the practices of other traditions/movements/ecclectic practices in the same ways Protestants and Catholics attack the other for not being a "true Christian."

Wicca is dynamic, creative, free flowing ... or it should be. Although I would not begrudge a coven that adheres to a specific path exclusively as long as it did not harm it's practitioners and I think they walk a fine line when they demand exclusivity.

Wicca should be about self-exploration, the entire idea of what was does not find within one will never find without, as can be found in the Charge of the Goddess. No one can dictate how an individual should follow the Path, or how they should or should not view the Gods of the Wiccan Pantheon, etc. I think this spirit is what is at the heart of "paganism", but I am quite sure there are other pagans, secular or otherwise, who might disagree.

Thank you for the recommendation of Hutton's book. I have seen it and had planned on getting it, so perhaps I will have to explore that option sooner rather than later.

What are your thoughts and the distinction between neo-paganism and Wicca?

Brighid

Hence according to your post; in general, neo-paganism is very similar to Wicca. I have perceived that comments of such kind permit newcomers to depict Wicca as a synonym of neo-paganism, but also it creates the assumption that the only lot that exists in neo-paganism is Wicca. Thus, it disregards a significant fact; that there are neo-pagans who do adhere to other creeds such as those who follow a Reconstructionist religion. Ironic it is that many of them favor the scholar spectrum, however their existence is usually ignored.

Regards,

Era

[HelmetWB]

I have perceived that comments of such kind permit newcomers to depict Wicca as a synonym of neo-paganism, but also it creates the assumption that the only lot that exists in neo-paganism is Wicca. Thus, it disregards a significant fact; that there are neo-pagans who do adhere to other creeds such as those who follow a Reconstructionist religion. Ironic it is that many of them favor the scholar spectrum, however their existence is usually ignored.

Is ‘The Triumph of the Moon’ by Ronald Hutton a source for “those who follow a Reconstructionist religion�? Or do you have other sources in mind? I am strongly inclined towards a scholarly approach as a basis to examine and compare not just neo-paganism, but paganism in general, plus all other religions as well.

However, I tend not to judge pagans of whatever stripe too harshly. It has been my experience that pagans, whatever their level of academic seriousness, tend not to think that there is only one path to truth, or to the gods or goddesses or God or the Goddess. They might demand a particular ritual be followed within their own sect or group or coven but they tend not to condemn others for pursuing a separate path. However ‘silly’ one might find some of their beliefs, this ‘live and let live’ attitude is preferable to literalist Christians who condemn all pagans, Jews and even most other Christians to hell.

From an earlier post: However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about.

Although I agree with you that I would prefer folks having a ‘clue,’ I also think that cluelessness is a state of affairs that includes a rather wide swath (including academics) when it comes to the ancient world. We know, remarkably little, for instance, about the religion of the ancient Celts. Even the religion/s of the Greeks and Romans can be viewed (perhaps) correctly -- when seen from a specific angle -- in a dozen different ways. I have examples in my own library of academics who view ancient religion from one angle only, thereby missing a larger, more varied, and more interesting picture.

Thus, while I get your point, I’m not inclined towards your passion.

[brighid]

Hence according to your post; in general, neo-paganism is very similar to Wicca. I have perceived that comments of such kind permit newcomers to depict Wicca as a synonym of neo-paganism, but also it creates the assumption that the only lot that exists in neo-paganism is Wicca. Thus, it disregards a significant fact; that there are neo-pagans who do adhere to other creeds such as those who follow a Reconstructionist religion. Ironic it is that many of them favor the scholar spectrum, however their existence is usually ignored.

Regards,

Era

I would disagree. This discussion is about Wicca and it's pseudo-history, therefore I have attempted to confine my comments to the topic at hand so as not to derail the conversation into other subsets of neo-paganism. My familiarity with these other forms are also lacking in the sort of knowledge necessary to have a scholarly debate.

Wicca is simply the most popular neo-pagan religion and the one that gets the most attention, especially because of it's popularity in the media in recent times. I would say the popularity and continuity of the show, "Charmed" has something to do with, preceeded by "The Craft", etc. have something to do with it's greater acceptance and therefore we see it more.

Wicca also has a stronger appeal in those people seeking an alternative path to patriarchial religions that deny the divine feminine. So in a sense, I suppose it's ironic, but in reality I think this phenonema is rather explainable.

Wicca gets the most press and it's ranks are growing at far swifter rates than other neo-pagan movements, therefore it will dominate discussions of neo-pagan religions.

Brighid

[Era]

Is ‘The Triumph of the Moon’ by Ronald Hutton a source for “those who follow a Reconstructionist religion�? Or do you have other sources in mind? I am strongly inclined towards a scholarly approach as a basis to examine and compare not just neo-paganism, but paganism in general, plus all other religions as well.



The Triumph of the Moon is primarily about the history of Wicca. I truly recommend this web page (http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_40313.html) if you desire to learn more about other facets that exist in neo-paganism, in specific, Reconstructionist religions. I anticipate that it is helpful.

Regards,

Era

[Jackalope]

From an earlier post: [B] However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about.

Although I agree with you that I would prefer folks having a ‘clue,’ I also think that cluelessness is a state of affairs that includes a rather wide swath (including academics) when it comes to the ancient world. We know, remarkably little, for instance, about the religion of the ancient Celts. Even the religion/s of the Greeks and Romans can be viewed (perhaps) correctly -- when seen from a specific angle -- in a dozen different ways. I have examples in my own library of academics who view ancient religion from one angle only, thereby missing a larger, more varied, and more interesting picture.

Thus, while I get your point, I’m not inclined towards your passion.

On the other hand, when it's your heritage being trashed, you may find you have stronger feelings. I was booked as a performer at a workshop that I was only later told was on "celtic shamanism." Had I known what travesties the workshop leaders were going to perform on british isles traditions, I would not have agreed to perform traditional music and dance there. I began to understand the smallest inkling of what native americans must feel about new agers and "plastic shamans."

Since I've spent a good portion of my life studying irish, scottish, and english music, song, and dance, most of what was passed off as "celtic" at that workshop was just plain offensive. And I still to this day fail to see how belly dance fit into either the "celtic" or "shamanism" categories, but the the workshop leaders insisted on shoehorning that in too. There were three of us performing traditional music and dance, and if we hadn't been hired, we'd have walked out when we saw the bizarre celtic wishfulism these folk practiced. Whatever it was, it had f-all to do with any tradition we knew.

And by the way folks, I'm highly amused to return after two weeks of touring England to find that you're still gnawing on the same subject and won't let it go. If you're going to define "Wicca" as a grab-bag category, then of course you can stick just about anything in there. However, many of the actual practitioners of that name will vehemently disagree with you on that point and tell you that if you want to do eclectic grab-bag roll-yer-own, it's neopaganism, not Wicca.

[HelmetWB]

On the other hand, when it's your heritage being trashed, you may find you have stronger feelings.

My ‘heritage’ is Scottish, English, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, German, Native American, African. All of which is hardly unusual for someone (like me) from an ‘old’ American family. In my view, my heritage is being ‘trashed’ in Iraq by the current American administration.

I was booked as a performer at a workshop that I was only later told was on "celtic shamanism." Had I known what travesties the workshop leaders were going to perform on british isles traditions, I would not have agreed to perform traditional music and dance there. I began to understand the smallest inkling of what native americans must feel about new agers and "plastic shamans."

But isn’t this merely an example of crass commercialism? And since so many folks can claim a significant amount of Celtic ancestry, it is hard to see how you’re going to be able to quash this sort of thing by playing the cultural ‘purity’ card. All of which is not to say that I don’t think that your point of view is legitimate (for you). If I had attended this event, my guess is that I might have enjoyed your contribution most -- but I might also have purchased some ‘crass’ trinket as well.

And by the way folks, I'm highly amused to return after two weeks of touring England to find that you're still gnawing on the same subject and won't let it go. If you're going to define "Wicca" as a grab-bag category, then of course you can stick just about anything in there. However, many of the actual practitioners of that name will vehemently disagree with you on that point and tell you that if you want to do eclectic grab-bag roll-yer-own, it's neopaganism, not Wicca.

My view is that folks should be allowed to define themselves. If someone claims Wicca as their religion then I’m inclined to allow them this self-definition. In truth, neopaganism (and paganism), Wicca, witchcraft are words that are bandied about in different ways by different practitioners. I prefer to allow whatever is out there to speak for itself.

[Men as Gods]

yeah, right on guys aginst wicca! its so true- it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. they use it to make themselves feel accepted (as any belief goes) and to not feel guilty for sex etc. the doctrine of reincarnation makes it so u dont really have to worry about screwing your life up

lets add to this debate- heres my thread with some of my thoughts on the subject
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1849386#post1849386

[Crucifiction]

This is a great site, written by a Celtic Reconstructionist, that points out that Wicca is neither Celtic in origin nor deriviation:

http://www.celticcallings.com/resources/celtic_traditions/celtic_pagan_faq.htm

While it does contain quite a bit of what is believed to be Celtic practices, it has drawn just as much from the religion of the Romans, the OTO, and Gardner's mind. In fact, Christianity appears to have just as much IF NOT MORE influence on Wicca than paganism does.

[Shven]

yeah, right on guys aginst wicca! its so true- it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. they use it to make themselves feel accepted (as any belief goes) and to not feel guilty for sex etc. the doctrine of reincarnation makes it so u dont really have to worry about screwing your life up

lets add to this debate- heres my thread with some of my thoughts on the subject
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1849386#post1849386
Yep. all Wiccans are gothy teen girls
All atheists are dry minded rationalists with no love of life that want to destory religion
All black men who wear chains are gangsters and drug dealers
All white middle aged men are racists
All women are weaker than men...

You can put your ridiculous steretype where the sun shineth not, as it is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Shven]

My view is that folks should be allowed to define themselves. If someone claims Wicca as their religion then I’m inclined to allow them this self-definition.
How about if they wanted to claim they were a pope?

[Kassiana]

How about if they wanted to claim they were a pope?
--You've really never heard of Discordia?! Wow. http://www.fnord.org/

[Heathen Dawn]

Amazing, just amazing, the frenzy of people for bashing such a beautiful, sweet, healing and harmless religion as Wicca. So many more religions deserving of bashing, but people choose to bash the one that really doesn’t—Wicca. This bespeaks nothing but the lowliness of the people who engage in that pastime. If I were the u=1 of a board, one of the rules would be “No bashing Wicca”.

I end my participation in this thread. Prolonged exposure to such wholesale desecration of what is dearest to me can only serve to damage me.

[Shven]

How about if they wanted to claim they were a pope?
--You've really never heard of Discordia?! Wow. http://www.fnord.org/
Oh right. Forgot about them. And yes I am a proud owner of the Principia Discordia.

Replace pope with member of the Knights Templar, Catholic Priest, OTO member, Mason, etc - you get the idea.

[brighid]

yeah, right on guys aginst wicca! its so true- it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. they use it to make themselves feel accepted (as any belief goes) and to not feel guilty for sex etc. the doctrine of reincarnation makes it so u dont really have to worry about screwing your life up

lets add to this debate- heres my thread with some of my thoughts on the subject
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1849386#post1849386


I would strongly suggest you get out a bit more if this is what you honestly think. The "goth" individuals you speak of may not be Wiccan, nor do most Wiccans I know (and certainly not a single one in my coven) are teenage girls having some identity crises, who feel guilty over sex and yadda, yadda, yadda. These are simply the ones you can quickly identify at "Wiccan."

As an individual who has been in the movement for quite a while now I can assure you that these types of people do not even begin to account for the majority of individuals, both men and women, participating in the Craft.

There is not a single member of my coven under the age of 30. We are not a group of morbidly obese women, lesbians, or individuals going through any sort of identity crises. Including myself, we even have a fair portion of secular pagans aka atheists. We come from all different walks of life and socioeconomic backgrounds. Only one of our 13 is unmarried (divorced), we all have children, and are all educated and most did not come to Wicca until much later in life. There are even "conservative" witches in our bunch.

We have school teachers, a retired state trooper, a successful real estate agent, a horse trainer, a network administrator, a professional belly dancer ...

Some certainly come to Wicca because they want to remove the guilt of femininity and sexuality taught to them by Judeo-Christian culture. Many women come to Wicca because they desire a sense of empowerment and feel that the ideal image of womanhood is not the submissive, barely existent, virgin Mary placed on some fragile pedastal of worship. They want archetypes of warriors, mothers, healers, philosophers, queens and something beyond the blandness of Judeo-Christian feminine imagery.

Many want to reconnect with the creative, the intuitive, the life giving force of Nature, a force many women feel intimately connected to because of our ability to bring forth life.

They come to Wicca because they are sick of being told they are inferior, worthless, weak, subservient, and unworthy of the same rights and responsibilities as those born with a penis. They are sick of the Divine being exclusively male, especially when one can simply look to nature and see that this is simply not the case. They are sick of being slaves to a destiny they did not create and want to feel empowered by the strength they know is their femininity. They are sick of being called "bitches" for being strong,intelligent and capable, instead of docile, dumb and merely "pretty." And many certainly want to reclaim their sexuality as the beautiful, creative, life giving power that it truly is rather than succumb to the ideas implanted in our heads as little girls that "good girls" don't enjoy sex, that sex is dirty, and women aren't allowed to enjoy it.

There are few outlets for this exploration and Wicca is a modern day stepping stone for the exploration of the feminine, the Divine feminine, and the archetypes of old that demonstrate the strength of the female.

It certainly isn't "Celtic" in origin, although Celtic myth, folklore and history provide us with many great archetypes for the feminine ideal we aspire to embody. It is simply a popular and more easily accessible branch of American neo-paganism.

Wicca is a neo-pagan religion. It is not ancient, even if we look to what we can find of the ancients to develop our religious imagery, archetypes, and rituals.

Are their fluff-bunnies and those who embrace it for shock value or because it is a fad? Certainly. However, so what? These people will relinquish it as quickly as they embraced the fad of the Craft when a new fad comes along. As a practitioner I care not, nor should you. It is all part of the journey each individual must take in their exploration of what this life has to offer. Hopefully they will come away with something positive.

Brighid

[Crucifiction]

Amazing, just amazing, the frenzy of people for bashing such a beautiful, sweet, healing and harmless religion as Wicca. So many more religions deserving of bashing, but people choose to bash the one that really doesn’t—Wicca. This bespeaks nothing but the lowliness of the people who engage in that pastime. If I were the u=1 of a board, one of the rules would be “No bashing Wicca�.

I end my participation in this thread. Prolonged exposure to such wholesale desecration of what is dearest to me can only serve to damage me.

Boo hoo.

Seriously; you don't have to take everything personally. As I said before; I have nothing against Wiccans and Wicca in general, although I DO have things against the people that think it is Celtic in origin, or that their religion is valid without presenting a shred of evidence. Equally, I find the Wiccan Reede obnoxious and absurd; as I've said before, it's impossible to harm absolutely nobody.

If you weren't Wiccan, I'm sure you'd hold a much different view than you do now.

[Shven]

Boo hoo.

Seriously; you don't have to take everything personally. As I said before; I have nothing against Wiccans and Wicca in general, although I DO have things against the people that think it is Celtic in origin, or that their religion is valid without presenting a shred of evidence. Equally, I find the Wiccan Reede obnoxious and absurd; as I've said before, it's impossible to harm absolutely nobody.

If you weren't Wiccan, I'm sure you'd hold a much different view than you do now.
Define religious validity

[Crucifiction]

Define religious validity

The belief that ceretain Gods actually exist, of course. It almost never has evidence to support it; and oftentimes goes AGAINST the evidence we currently have. I don't mind someone believing their faith is true; but if they publicly CLAIM it is, then they must be prepared to back that up with evidence.

[Shven]

The belief that ceretain Gods actually exist, of course. It almost never has evidence to support it; and oftentimes goes AGAINST the evidence we currently have. I don't mind someone believing their faith is true; but if they publicly CLAIM it is, then they must be prepared to back that up with evidence.
So are you saying Wicca is less valid than any other religion?

[Kassiana]

it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis.
--I'll have to tell my fifty-plus year old friend, a Wiccan priestess, that she's just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. I'm sure she'll get a kick out of it. :) Heck, so should the male Wiccans I know. Thanks for giving such an outmoded and inaccurate stereotype, MAG! You're fodder for more amusement than any Christian I've met.

[4th Generation Atheist]

Hm. You know what this complaint sounds like?

I have a moderate Catholic friend whose frustration in philosophic life is that all the news about Catholics involves pedophile priests, Opus Dei (you can guess she has issues with The Da Vinci Code) and the conservative pro-life stance of the Vatican; she is a Catholic by family tradition and like her family attends the Masses regularly and gets a great sense of meaning about her religion, without endorsing these more visible and highly noticeable elements. For this some other Catholics call her "salad bar" (hm....sounds like another charge often leveled at Wicca.....) and non-Catholics assume she is this >< close to being a fundie.

Maybe your problem isn't that there are "so many" Goth teen girls with issues in this (and show me a teen girl without issues and I'll show you someone who isn't going through a major passage to growing up!) but that they are so visible. Since they are a market with mamma's credit cards in tow, a large portion of the products/services/literature is aimed at them, just like with athletic shoes. (One of my criticisms of Llewellyn is that they are snatching so much money that would be better off in someone's college fund). Their visibility, and the horde of marketers going after them, make it look to outsiders as if that is the prototype of the "Wiccan"; meanwhile, 50-year-old priestesses with some dignity tend to go unnoticed.

[brighid]

Hm. You know what this complaint sounds like?

I have a moderate Catholic friend whose frustration in philosophic life is that all the news about Catholics involves pedophile priests, Opus Dei (you can guess she has issues with The Da Vinci Code) and the conservative pro-life stance of the Vatican; she is a Catholic by family tradition and like her family attends the Masses regularly and gets a great sense of meaning about her religion, without endorsing these more visible and highly noticeable elements. For this some other Catholics call her "salad bar" (hm....sounds like another charge often leveled at Wicca.....) and non-Catholics assume she is this >< close to being a fundie.

Maybe your problem isn't that there are "so many" Goth teen girls with issues in this (and show me a teen girl without issues and I'll show you someone who isn't going through a major passage to growing up!) but that they are so visible. Since they are a market with mamma's credit cards in tow, a large portion of the products/services/literature is aimed at them, just like with athletic shoes. (One of my criticisms of Llewellyn is that they are snatching so much money that would be better off in someone's college fund). Their visibility, and the horde of marketers going after them, make it look to outsiders as if that is the prototype of the "Wiccan"; meanwhile, 50-year-old priestesses with some dignity tend to go unnoticed.

Yes, the typical "Wiccan" goes unnoticed because most are no different than anyone else you encounter walking down the street. One can also be "goth" and not be "Wiccan" and many "goth" individuals I know would find it either peculiar or insulting to be considered "Wiccan" simply because they dress in a particular fashion. As a matter of fact I know very few "Wiccans" who dress "goth" in any way. Even at regional gatherings one finds few (relative to the whole) of individuals with artificially pale skin, black lip stick, dyed black hair, platform heels, dog collars, et al.

This stereotypical image is largely portrayed by the media, or simply average folk mistaking "goth" kids for Wiccan. The two are no synonymous. Furthermore, the fact that people mistakenly identify Wiccans as "goth" is merely a symptom of ignorance and watching The Craft a few too many times.

The fact is one is unlikely to be able to spot a Wiccan in any diverese crowd of people, unless one is educated about the subtle imagery, symbols and language a Wiccan is likely to use to identify herself/himself in public. Another reason one is unlikely to spot a Wiccan is that it is very often dangerous for a neo-pagan to be "out" in public. Therefore they will have no outward appearance to signify their religious view points.

Therefore this notion that most (if not all Wiccans) are simply teenage girls filled with sexual angst dressed in black clothing has no other foundation than that of ignorance, and occassionally a goth teenager who also happens to be Wiccan (and not merely a goth, into Vampirism, or simply a dark haired girl with a very pale complexion who also happens to like to wear black clothing.)

Although there is no "direct" link between Celtic folk religion and the deliberate evolution of the neo-pagan Wiccan religious movement Celtic folklore, mythology and known history does play a significant role in certain Wiccan traditions and covens. Many of us can even legitimately trace our ancestory back to a distinct Celtic heritage (such as myself.) The Celtic tradition (as least as I know it) is merely an attempt to revive or live according to what is presently known about this heritage/religion from researched history, folklore, poetry, mythology and our own familial traditions. It is certainly a melding of modern and "ancient" knowledge that has become something unique and relatable to today's Wiccan practitioner.

Sometimes I think there is a lack of complete communication between the neo-pagan and the outside world, mostly due to a lack of common understanding and an ability to accurately express something that has no dogma, hierarchy, or distinct and fluid history.

Brighid

[Evoken]

yeah, right on guys aginst wicca! its so true- it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. they use it to make themselves feel accepted (as any belief goes) and to not feel guilty for sex etc. the doctrine of reincarnation makes it so u dont really have to worry about screwing your life up

lets add to this debate- heres my thread with some of my thoughts on the subject
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1849386#post1849386

This is nothing but an ignorant generalization on your part, have you actually met a Wiccan? And I don't mean those who you can see in the media. My previous girlfriend is a Wiccan and she is not a goth. I am what you would name a goth and I am not a Wiccan but I have recently been growing an interest in Wicca does that means I have an identity crisis? I don't think so, people change over time as they grow and learn new things if you just stay the same then we could say that you have a problem(ever heard of cognitive disonance?).

Sure there are their bad apples and people who first watch the craft or charmed and then decide to become all goth and wiccan to be cool and "fit in" or as a counter reaction to their parents, but that makes them as goth or as wiccan as an atheist who rejects the bible because he found a site with 100s contradictions in google.

Not all Wiccan are goth in the same sense that not all goths are wiccan, do you know that there are christian goths too? or what about atheists and agnostic goths?

I would suggest that you get your facts straight before you actually start pointing fingers, it does no harm to actually learn about something before openly attacking it.

[4th Generation Atheist]

Well as far as clothes are concerned the Wiccans I remember seemed to favor earth-toned browns and greens, and if they stuck out at all it was by dressing a little on the casual side (lots of jeans in situations where they'd be inappropriate in other communities). But that might have been just because I was in the Midwest. Also, I saw very little of the "ritual nudity" that is so famous. Clothing was optional at the festivals but many seemed to prefer to remain clothed anyway (and a sunburn in an odd location often converted people from "nude" to "clothed" preference in a hurry! :eek: ) In many cases this was likely also regional: Minnesota winters do not lend themselves to outdoor nude ritual. I don't remember much Goth make-up; most of the ladies seemed to prefer no make-up at all. The silver pentacle was indeed ubiquitous, though often hidden under a shirt. Ankhs and other such signs that we now associate so much with Goths (probably because of the character in the Sandman comic, and their appearance in "vampire" subculture) did not yet have that association and sometimes appeared as a "more creative" alternative to the pentacle. (I still have my pentacle BTW. I only ever owned one, the silver one with two circles that's made from a silver coin. I still see these for sale for seven to ten dollars. They are, if you're looking, good standard-workhorse pentacles. I keep mine mostly for sentimental value, in the sort of personal-history-junk drawer). All-black was for certain ritual occasions (usually autumn or winter ones), for costumes, or for dressing up for a night at the club, not an every day thing.

There were a lot more women of all ages than men, which looked good until you realized how many weren't interested in men anyway (it's a free country, though often a disappointing one isn't it....) Yes, the young girls tended to have issues that the older priestesses did not. Is that all that surprising?

I'd say that if one wanted to spot a Wiccan in my day, one looked for: *) a silver pentacle, worn openly or secreted down a shirt. The latter is spotted by seeing that the individual in question always has a chain with a pendant obviously on it, tho you never see the pendant. *) a preference, usually, for natural fibers in muted tones. *) a preference for no make-up, and any scent is usually the natural-oil coop type stuff. *)among the more open ones, greetings like "merry meet" and "blessed be". *)murky excuses for not showing up to mudane plans on the weekend nearest the solstice or equinox, and around February 2nd, May 30, August 2nd and Halloween. These days, the Wiccan may also manage to get the day following these dates off of work. *)most importantly, books, books, books. I never see this in anyone else's stereotypes but I have yet to meet a serious Pagan who wasn't a bookworm! More open ones might even read their Pagan books and mags in public, a dead giveaway. Less open ones will favor fantasy novels, leaving the other publications at home.

Now of course the above is fairly stereotyped, but that was the impression I had of the "average" Pagan, including oathed Wiccans, when I was active. There were plenty of exceptions, but those who were "trying" for the role usually did the above, and this seemed to be the Pagan mainstream. I'm not sure what or how much has changed.

[Desertphile]

Merry Meet.

I am Wiccan: I started the Coyote Wicca Church in California in the year +2,000 GC (Gregorian Calendar), though I have "been Wiccan" since +1,983 GC. There are currently seven members of Coyote Wicca.

I do not think, nor believe, nor teach, the claims that Wicca is ancient, nor Celtic, nor the other points and issues you raised. Coyote Wicca fully acknowledges that Wicca is a rather new Goddess- / Earth-centric cult.One of the reasons I started Coyote Wicca was to oppose the obnoxious and fraudulent claims made by the "Buffy Wiccans" (those who get their "Wicca" from television). I readily conede most of the statements you made.

There are several Wiccan atheists: I meet some at a yearly Wiccan / Pagan festival held in Colorado every year (which I have attended since the year +1,989 GC). They see Goddess and God as a Jungian archetype, and embrace Wicca as a ghestalt cognative mechanism to understand themselves psycho-dynamically---- no magic, no supernaturalism, no absurdity applies. That is the kind of Wicca Coyote Wicca teaches: the universe is natural, no part of it is "supernatural." (There is no such thing as the "supernatural.")

[Desertphile]

Merry Meet.

Boo hoo.

Seriously; you don't have to take everything personally. As I said before; I have nothing against Wiccans and Wicca in general, although I DO have things against the people that think it is Celtic in origin, or that their religion is valid without presenting a shred of evidence. Equally, I find the Wiccan Reede obnoxious and absurd; as I've said before, it's impossible to harm absolutely nobody.

If you weren't Wiccan, I'm sure you'd hold a much different view than you do now.

Er, the Wiccan Rede is an ideal, not a mandate. I do not know of any Wiccan, least of all myself, who thinks or believes she or he can somehow avoid causing harm. Life is predicated upon harm: through action or inaction, one's very existance inflicts injury to other life forms (harm).

The Rede also holds as the ideal that one enact one's own will in the world, and not the will of others (nor fail to enact one's will). Again, that is not always possible nor desirable in all cases, which Wiccans certainly concede (or sure as no hell ought to).

As for Wicca being "Celtic," there are Wiccan Trads trying to be; there are many more Wiccan Trads that do not. My church, Coyote Wicca, is 100% North American.

As for as religion being "valid," I have no idea what such a concept means. Neither do you.

[Desertphile]

it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis.
--I'll have to tell my fifty-plus year old friend, a Wiccan priestess, that she's just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. I'm sure she'll get a kick out of it. :) Heck, so should the male Wiccans I know. Thanks for giving such an outmoded and inaccurate stereotype, MAG! You're fodder for more amusement than any Christian I've met.

Well, let me just check inside my pants...

(ZZZZZIP!)

Oh, hey, I'm not a girl! You are right! Nor am I "Gothic. "MAG" seems to have goitten hold of some silly stereotype and run with it. Most Wiccans I've met (and they number around 900) and most Wiccans I know (dozens) are "dress suit and starched blouse" / "suit and tie" adults.

Very rarely, now and then, I'll meet a teenage Wiccan girl wearing black at a Wiccan or Pagan gathering. I generally complement her on how dark and angst-filled she looks (to validate her). They tend to abandon the "Gothic" look in a year or less. As for Wiccan girls stewing in sex hormones, well, yes, I've met dozens and dozens--- they behave no differently than non-Wiccans.

[Desertphile]

5. Uninhibited sex. Lots and lots of sex. Sex is good. Everybody likes sex. Ed

I've met several Wiccans who object to sex and avoid it. I've also met many Wiccans who would have sex with any and every human being in sight, plus a few farm animals who couldn't run away fast enough. In other words, when it comes to sexuality, Wiccans are in general utterly no different than the culture they come from.

In general, the Wiccan approach to seuality is vastly saner, healthier than the Christian approach.

Jimmy Swaggart liked to copulate with whores in sleezy motels (and fantasized about a nine-year-old girl), and has a fantasy about killing a homosexual man. Perhaps he could find some emotional healing by embracing Wiccan sexuality ethics and mores (though since he's a pedophile, a cure is probably impossible).

[Desertphile]

Merry Meet!

There were a lot more women of all ages than men, which looked good until you realized how many weren't interested in men anyway (it's a free country, though often a disappointing one isn't it....) Yes, the young girls tended to have issues that the older priestesses did not. Is that all that surprising?

LOL. Sorry you were so dissapointed. :D I've attended about three dozen Wiccan / Pagan festivals since the year +1,989 GC, and I've met many (hordes) of Wiccan women who were there only to find a man. Naturally a decent, good, healthy, safe man--- the Wiccan and Pagan women who go to festivals to find a man are almost without exception HIGHLY selective.

In fact, for the past six years I have facilitated the "Just Ask!" project at various Wiccan and Pagan festivals. http://www.justask.ws This is to help women and men meet men and women at Wiccan and Pagan festivals. Lots and lots of Wiccan and Pagan women participate.

Many women who go to "get laid" go home without "getting laid" because:

1) they couldn't find any man worthy enough

2) they do not have the social skills to achieve their goal

3) their mental and emotional desires conflicted

4) they did not actually want to "get laid" afterall

I'm not at all handsome, nor desirable, nor sexy, and I am always approached by Wiccan and Pagan women (and now and then a man) sexually. It is a matter of personality.

Blesse Be!

[4th Generation Atheist]

I wasn't going "to get laid". That was an aside. But I didn't find what I was looking for there either; it just didn't speak to me is probably what most of the people I remember would say. What I experienced was that I couldn't do the "belief", and at the time there were no Pagan atheists. If I voiced atheism I was generally treated as intolerant, and when I finally decided it wasn't worth it to go on being unwelcome, I left. A few friends were sad to see me go, but I still had their phone #s so they got over it. ;)