Are you a true Wiccan if you are a Solitary Practioner

[Arie]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.

[Lunacie]

I think that's elitist bull-hockey.

[Lady RedHawk]

I think that's elitist bull-hockey.

Ditto...

If you follow the Wiccan beliefs and ethics, then you are Wiccan if you so choose to call yourself - solitary or not. Them saying that tells me they are not comfortable in their own beliefs.

[Morgandria]

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.

[Lunacie]

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.

Which always raises the question... who initiated the very first Wiccan?

[ancestral_lee]

gerald gardner did.

the only way to be a solitary wiccan is to be initiated inot a coven then leave.

i could go around reading medical books and learn all about it, but you wouldnt come to me with appendicitis.

wicca is an initatory religion, like it or not, thats how it is.


lee

[Cassiopeia]

Personally, I feel that if you are not an initiate of Wicca - ie. you have not been initiated by someone else - you are not a Wiccan. Naturally, that makes some people angry.
This is the sort of elitist thinking that I thought Christians were only guilty of. Interesting

[Amryn]

Which always raises the question... who initiated the very first Wiccan?

Exactly. :hehehehe:

[Elderbush]

All of this leads back to definitions of Wicca. Different people define who is Wiccan and what is necessary to be Wiccan in different ways. The thing is everyone has a right to define it any way they want, and everyone else has a right to not accept that definition.

If you are going to be Wiccan you have to grow a thick skin. There are the extremists at one end of the pole who very narrowly define who is Wiccan and the extremists on the other end say everyone is Wiccan who says they are. The moderates fall in the middle.

If someone tells you you aren't Wiccan because you don't meet their personal or trad definition, listen politely, and if you don't agree say piffle and move on. Acceptance by them is not necessary for you to be Wiccan.

I believe that solitaries can be Wiccan. I'm one of the moderates.

[Qumran]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.

IMO, anyone can practice Wicca solitary.

One reason some people claim Wiccans cannot be solitaries is that some traditions require members to be initiated into a coven. Some (but far from all) work it like a closed membership club that you have to be invited into. While it is true that Wicca is a "mystery" religion and DOES require initiation, some traditions view self-initiation as perfectly valid.

In my view, since Wicca is a religion and adoration of the God and Goddess is the biggest part of it, the RELATIONSHIP between the deities and the individual Wiccan is more important than being 'in the club.'

What happens if the member becomes separted from the coven, or moves away? - do they have to stop being Wiccan?... I DON'T THINK SO!

[Autumn Sidhe]

In my view, since Wicca is a religion and adoration of the God and Goddess is the biggest part of it, the RELATIONSHIP between the deities and the individual Wiccan is more important than being 'in the club.'


THIS is by far the best answer i've ever seen regarding this topic. There is no way I could have put it into words like Qumran has. BRILLIANT!

I couldn't agree more!:idea:

[Qumran]

....If someone tells you you aren't Wiccan because you don't meet their personal or trad definition, listen politely, and if you don't agree say piffle and move on. Acceptance by them is not necessary for you to be Wiccan.

I believe that solitaries can be Wiccan. I'm one of the moderates.

Thank God/dess for the moderates!! All these extremists are making things scary out here!!!

:yikess:

[Lunacie]

Comparing apples and oranges only proves that they are different articles. Medical training and religion are not the same thing. I agree with Qumran that you must be initiated into a Coven to be a Coven-member, but you don't have to be initiated into the religion in order to be Wiccan (i.e. have the beliefs and do the practices). I have never been initiated into a traditional coven so I probably don't know as much as some who have been, but I may know more than others who were. Depends on the coven in question, doesn't it?

[MGD]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.

When you get down to it who the hell cares as long as whatever you're doing works for you?

If you have to feel like you're part of a group for it to work then go for it, if not then do your own thing.

People seem to worry more than they should about labels and titles.

[Little Billy]

I have been reading some pretty heated discusions about this and i was hoping to get your input.

I have been told in no uncertain terms that if you dont belong to a coven you have no business even thinking about being a Wiccan. What do you guys and gals think.


So who the hell are they to dictate this sort of thing?

What is this? Catholicism? :lol:

[Thunder]

So who the hell are they to dictate this sort of thing?

What is this? Catholicism? :lol:

Is the Pope a wiccan?

[Little Billy]

Is the Pope a wiccan?

Last I checked, he was Emperor Palpatine.

No, really. Look at him.

[Morgandria]

I expected this reaction, to be honest. I am a member of a BTW coven, Alexandrian, and we do believe Wicca to be an mystery, initiatory faith. Self-initiation is not possible...which is not to say that one can't self-dedicate and practice a Wiccan-inspired path. But by the definition of the word "initiate", self-initiation isn't possible.

Being on your own can be wonderful; you can learn many things, practice many things, have wonderful experiences. I was a solitary practicioner for a long time, and I didn't call myself Wiccan. I still technically am not, because I am not an initiate of my tradition. But I will be, in time. I believe in keeping some standards, and some clear definitions - "Do whatever feels right" doesn't work for me, and I don't like the lack of clarity certain things are devolving into.

If you really have to have a word to describe your path or practices, make up your own - don't subvert a word to fit any number of things until it's meaningless. People can get upset if they like, but that's my opinion.

[Ninjakitten]

This all kind of begs the question of what Gardner said about what makes someone a Wiccan, and in what ways it is acceptable for change and evolution to occur in the religion he created. If he left room for new types of initiation to be created by solitaries or non-initiates by the things he said, I'd say that you don't necessarily have to be initiated to be a Wiccan. Personally, I consider myself a witch that has been influenced (loosely) by Wicca, and wouldn't call myself a Wiccan unless I met Gardner's criteria for being a member of his created faith (whatever that might be since I haven't read a lot of what he himself has written).

[Jolantru]

Well, it seems to be that there will be fundamentalists in any faith or belief-system out there in our nice little planet. The trick is to be firm and strong and say "I am solitary" without being afraid of judgement, because there will always be people who will go "No, you can't do this." And Wicca has grown quite big with its own branches and traditions.

Stick to your own beliefs. You can be a solitary and a Wiccan.


Cheers,
Jolantru

[ancestral_lee]

extremists? that will ne most pagans in britain. i see a common trend that pagans over here in the uk know and accept that wicca is initiatory and whilst you can certainly follow the wiccan path using published literature, you need to be initiated to get the full icture - after all not everytihg is published.

i notice it seems to be in the US that that wicca has become a free for all where any 14 year old can read a book and suddenly decalre himself a high priest - thats an insult to all those HP and HPS out there who have spent the time to study, work thier arses off and run a coven.

lee




If you are going to be Wiccan you have to grow a thick skin. There are the extremists at one end of the pole who very narrowly define who is Wiccan and the extremists on the other end say everyone is Wiccan who says they are. The moderates fall in the middle.

.

[Elderbush]

And those are the two extremist's viewpoints in a nutshell. Thank you!

Many years ago (30 or thereabout), some Wiccans, members of covens and not, in the US adopted some guidelines about Wicca and having to be initiated wasn't one of them. I expect there are a few people out there who have read or been taught those guidelines.

I think the moderates will win the field in the long run.

[Valnorran]

gerald gardner did.
So who initiated Gardner?

[Valnorran]

I think the moderates will win the field in the long run.
I hope you'r right. With the hard core traditionalists on one side and the fluffy bunnies on the other, I've been seriously considering deep sixing it and just considering myself a solitary ecclectic pagan.

[Arie]

i
notice it seems to be in the US that that wicca has become a free for all where any 14 year old can read a book and suddenly decalre himself a high priest - thats an insult to all those HP and HPS out there who have spent the time to study, work thier arses off and run a coven.

Ok i agree with ancetral Lee on the above.....I am on myspace and there are a bunch of pagan groups etc. A majority of the people on there are in their 20's. Now me being an old fart and all I am open to other peoples views and opinions. Hey if i want to learn i need to be BUT when someone tells me that I cant even consider myself Wiccan at all becuase i dont want to join a coven...i have issues with large groups....then i get a bit miffed. Solitary Witches have been around LONG before there were covens. I am NOT bending to anyone's elitist attitude that stuff just blows.

I have to applaud all of you:abanana: :abanana: in the three pages so far of this discussion NO ONE has gotten snippy....on myspace....one post later and they are swearing and tearing people apart for their individual beliefs.

Brightest blessings

[Lunacie]

So who initiated Gardner?

Gerald Gardner was certainly initiated, but he was not initiated into 'Wicca'. The people that he initiated were not initiated into 'Wicca' either. Wicca today has it's roots in the Craft that Uncle Gerry was initiated into, but a lot has changed and the original changes came from Uncle Gerry himself. That set the stage for more changes along the line. He was the first to publish books and do interviews and make his "mystery" "initiatory" religion open to the masses.

Yes, there are some who call themselves Wiccan who have very little in common with traditional Wiccans, but acting elitist and fundamentalist and very superior isn't the way to encourage them to search out the roots of Wicca and learn and grow and develop personal responsibility, it will only make them defensive, eh?

There are a lot of people who find Wicca fits the beliefs they already hold, and they try to find reliable teachers to help them become "proper people", but the demand greatly outstrips the supply. Rather than trash talk those who are doing their best to be solitary Wiccans in spite of this lack, those who criticize them should be finding a way to fill that need. Put up or shut up.

[Elderbush]

I think that Wicca has matured and grown to the point that we have extremes. It is big enough that some extremists feel comfortable trying to oust the Wiccans who don't agree with them from not just a tradition within Wicca, but the religion itself. They want the power to define Wicca for the rest of us. It is nothing new to other religions - the Evangelicals are currently trying to force their interpretation of their religion on other Christians. The extremists do not have the power to define Wicca anymore than extremists have the power to control or define Christianity. It is too big for that.

We need the extremists who fall on both ends of the pole because they help define Wicca. They provide traditions that suit some people. They help the moderates in the middle define and re-evaluate what they believe about Wicca and who is Wiccan. They keep things interesting.

[juliaki]

Speaking as a non-Wiccan... ;)

I think that NeoWicca is the only religion out there in which a person can toss on the label and assume they are part of a specific spiritual path. Certainly during my time attending synagogue with my ex-husband, if I had opted to call myself Jewish, no one there would have accepted it. Likewise within Christianity, there are many people who attend church or practice Christianity (because they feel they have to) who don't consider themselves Christian and are not considered Christian by others.

One can practice the techniques and some of the spiritual aspects of Wicca, but that doesn't automatically make them Wiccan. I know how to do an emergency tracheotomy. That doesn't make me a doctor.

Likewise, I have a real problem with the idea of "self-initiation". Initiation refers to a person gaining membership into some form of group. How can a person join a group that doesn't exist and will only have one member once "created"?

As far as who initiated Gerald Gardner, I defer to the Wiccan experts out there, but wouldn't that be Dorothy Clutterbuck? No, she didn't initiate him into Wicca/Wica. But from where Gardner started, he created an initiatory religion. The example I like to use is that Jesus was never a Christian, nor a pope. Jesus initiated Peter into that role and others into that religion. Yet no person would really say that Christianity could exist without Jesus.

Again, I defer to those who have knowledge of what goes on in TradWicca, but I believe that Wiccans have specific names for the Lord and Lady that are not given out to non-initiates. Therefore, Wiccans don't just honor any ol' L&L, but very specific ones. If you don't know who those are, then how can you properly address an honor them? If you're honoring some other manifestation of deity, are you really following that religion?

[Sage WindMoon]

gerald gardner did.

Ah, so Gardner was not a Wiccan then.



wicca is an initatory religion, like it or not, thats how it is.


lee

I guess this just goes to show that every religion has its fundamentalists.

[Elderbush]

Mmm...interesting Abrahamic view. My counter would be that Wicca is not an Abrahamic religion therefore does not have to follow the Abrahamic structure.

You did hit the nail on the head when you pointed out that within the Jewish and Christian religions their are members who are quick to tell other people that they aren't Christian or Jewish. Wiccans do that to each other too. They people who are told they aren't Jewish or Christian or Wiccan probably don't agree.:)

[Lunacie]

Speaking as a non-Wiccan... ;)

<snip>

One can practice the techniques and some of the spiritual aspects of Wicca, but that doesn't automatically make them Wiccan. I know how to do an emergency tracheotomy. That doesn't make me a doctor.

Likewise, I have a real problem with the idea of "self-initiation". Initiation refers to a person gaining membership into some form of group. How can a person join a group that doesn't exist and will only have one member once "created"?

As far as who initiated Gerald Gardner, I defer to the Wiccan experts out there, but wouldn't that be Dorothy Clutterbuck? No, she didn't initiate him into Wicca/Wica. But from where Gardner started, he created an initiatory religion. The example I like to use is that Jesus was never a Christian, nor a pope. Jesus initiated Peter into that role and others into that religion. Yet no person would really say that Christianity could exist without Jesus.

Again, I defer to those who have knowledge of what goes on in TradWicca, but I believe that Wiccans have specific names for the Lord and Lady that are not given out to non-initiates. Therefore, Wiccans don't just honor any ol' L&L, but very specific ones. If you don't know who those are, then how can you properly address an honor them? If you're honoring some other manifestation of deity, are you really following that religion?


Again, comparing Medicine and Religion is comparing Apples and Tangelos, it's not really revelant.

I agree that in the strict definition of the word, initiation is done by others in order to become part of a group. However, I'm sure there have been groups that started out with one member. Is a tradition with only one member any less valid than a tradition with 13 members? Can you give me the exact number that it takes for a tradition to become valid? And cite sources please. ;)

Actually the religion that people claim to follow honoring Jesus as it's founder has little to do with what he actually intended and hoped it would be. He was a Jew and I don't believe he was trying to start a brand new religion that would be subject to the same problems his hereditary religion was prone to, he was trying to make his hereditary religion better as I understand the history.

Did Gerald Gardner intend for his new religion to be initiatory? History certainly suggests that is true. And again I say, the demand outstrips the supply. So people do the best they can with the resources that are available to them. Either provide more teachers or better resources, that would certainly be more helpful than deriding those who are trying to follow the path that is hidden.

I am not part of a Traditional Coven, and if I'm wrong I hope someone will correct me here, but I believe that Gardner's coven used specific names for the Lord and Lady as part of their secret rites, kind of like a secret handshake. Individuals in the coven were free to follow and worship any god or goddess in their own lives and personal worship. Other covens were free to honor any Lord and Lady they chose to have as their patron and matron.

[juliaki]

I agree that in the strict definition of the word, initiation is done by others in order to become part of a group. However, I'm sure there have been groups that started out with one member.


I can agree with that. The question is, are those "groups" that started with one person initiatory? Or does it only become an initiatory group when one person brings another person into that group by the edicts laid down by that group's founder?



Can you give me the exact number that it takes for a tradition to become valid? And cite sources please. ;)

When one person does something over and over again, it is a habit. To be a tradition, it has to be something that is replicated by additional people over time. IMO, the time aspect is key to whether something is a tradition or not.


Either provide more teachers or better resources, that would certainly be more helpful than deriding those who are trying to follow the path that is hidden.

Likewise there are teachers out there who are often dismayed by the lack of students willing to utilize the resources that are already out there. I know of quite a few covens, stores, and public service groups locally that offer teachings for any person who is interested. You'd be surprised how few people take up the offer or start out but don't have the stick-to-it-ness to continue, even if it is training in something that does not lead towards initiation or is coven-specific. There's always excuses that come up.

[Elderbush]

Lunacie, as you know and I wanted to mention, new traditions have begun for more reasons than simply a lack of teachers. New traditions and solitaries often became that way because they disagreed with certain teachings in a tradition or a group of traditions. The mythical history of Wicca is one reason that leaps to mind.

Saying "initiation is necessary" to become a Wiccan may come off as a silly statement unless the poster explains what constitutes an initiation to them and defines how they are using it. Initiation by whom? If High Princess Pink Fairy Elf initiates her 13 year old friends during a Saturday night sleepover are they true Wiccans while the solitaries who have studied for years are not?

Ed. again to add: Bah! I didn't mean to muddy the waters by adding solitaries into that last sentence.

If High Princess Pink Fairy Elf initiates her 13 year old friends during a Saturday night sleepover are they true Wiccans?

Just leave it at that, please.

[Platinum Dove]

I've been having the same problem. Hearing that I'm wiccan, but not Wiccan because I wasn't initiated into a traditional coven. As I said to those people, in the past 9 years I've lived in three different countries (the US, Canada, and Germany), four different states within the US (FL, MS, LA and TX), and have lived in 4 different cities within LA (New Orleans, La Place, Kenner, and Thibodaux).
I haven't been able to stay in one place long enough for me to go the required year and a day within any group that I joined, and I've been with three different ones where I was living at the time.

So, does this make me any less "valid" as a Wiccan because life hasn't allowed me to stay in one place?

[Elderbush]

What it makes you is not a member of any of the traditions that you started training with. That is (to me) a completely different thing that whether you are a Wiccan or not.

[ancestral_lee]

this has been done to death here before so i will paste my reply then:


that said there is the llewelyization of wicca whereby you slap wicca after any random semi-mystical word such as celtic, faery, dragon or altaneandolphindruidry, and you can call yourself wiccan too. its these fluffy watered down crappy 'paths' that are referred to as the bastardised cousins of wicca.

gardner intended it to be an initiatory tradition, the living members of the original covens still think it should be an initiatory and lineaged tradition. you can self initiate as much as you want but you are still not Wiccan. yep, you can call yourself a witch and practice and follow a wiccan path using published material - you dont have all of the information as there is alenty that hasnt been published - but you arent a 'true' Wiccan.

self initiation into wicca is like trying to lose your virginity with a sex toy, and the only way to be a solitary wiccan is to join a coven and then leave it.



initiation is required if you want to be jewish, catholic, part of the mithras cults and a whole host of other reliogous groups. its how it is.

if you want to go down a wicca insprired path - good on you, but at least have the respect for those people who have gone through initation, who have studied and who work thier arses off for YEARS to get where they are.

i dont mnd people calling themselves wicca if they are solitary, cant find a coven or have simply read a book on it, but i think that addressing the distinction between initiates and not is important. to get to HPS in a coven is damn hard work and that should stand head and shoulders that fluffy pink fairy and her 13 year old slumber party initiation who come out after 1 might as 'high priestesses'

lee

[Arie]

I have no desire to be a HPS and i am well beyond 13. I do not want to be part of a Coven becuase I DO NOT do crowds of people well at all. I get very agitated...its just not a good thing. That and the fact there are people who say "You HAVE to join a Coven...."
I have access to numerous Covens in and around my area but again....NOT my thing.

[Lunacie]

I think that's elitist bull-hockey.

I should have left it at this. :lol:

[Spirited]

When it comes down to it, no one has to follow my path but me. So I don't really see why I should be judged as a fluffy-non-Wiccan-14-year-old-uber-elf when I'm the only one who has to deal with the consequences of it. Hell, even if I did want to be a fluffy-non-Wiccan-14-year-old-uber-elf it shouldn't matter to anyone else. It's my life, my own mind, no one else has to do it as well. Unless I'm using my "title" to hurt people, to ruin the public face of the religion, no one else should give a damn.

Personally I don't see what the problem is either with believing in love and light and faeries and unicorns. None of those beliefs hurt anyone. I once asked a fundamental Christian if they would mind if the Age of Aquarius actually caused positive change. The answer was a kind of stumped, "Uh, no, I guess not but if it means...[scripture here]."

More on topic, I can't join a coven. I'd have my parent's permission to, but I doubt that any of the two covens with a 100 mile radius would accept me because of my age (or lack of it, whichever.) I could look further, but I somehow doubt my family would be willing to give up their Weekends to drive me jeebers-knows-where. Also, I wouldn't know whether I'd even want to join one. One of the main reasons I connected so well with Wicca, and Paganism in general, was that it meant I didn't need a Priest/Rabbi etc to interpret the deities for me. I could have a connection with them every day without needing someone to point me to the right Holy text.

Um...yes, I think I meant there to a point in there somewhere, but meh...

[Aidron]

You must be initiated into a tradition to make a claim to that specific Wiccan tradition. Simple matter of the fact, the people in that tradition decree it to be so. Don't like it? Don't bother with that tradition.

Wicca, in my mind, is not a mystery tradition. There is not one thing mysterious about a literary assault on the market. Very few things I've learned from so-called 'mystery initiates' are nothing I did not already know or did not later come to find in public literature. I don't consider it a mystery tradition as such.

Therefore, you can be a solitary Wiccan. You can't claim to be a solitary Wiccan of a specific tradition that requires initiation by a current member into their tradition. I don't care who first initiated the very first Gardenerian Wiccan or Alexandrian Wiccan or whatever else, it's not meant to be logical, it's their religion, their rules.

Wicca implies a lot of things, most of which its adherents do not all adhere to in unison, so Wicca as it would stand seems to be defined in a blurry light. In the end though, I think that all of the "Do what you want" eclectic stuff isn't Wicca. It's an entirely new faith with Wiccan basics and fundamentals having been incorporated, but people want to cling to titles. Titles make life simpler for the most part.

[Elderbush]

Well, yes, Lunacie, I thought that summed it up rather well.:)

[ancestral_lee]

there is a fair bit that hant been published - i can think of some of the top of my head right now - so in that sense the blanket bombing of the market hasnt hit all targets so to speak.

other than that i agree with you totally.






Wicca, in my mind, is not a mystery tradition. There is not one thing mysterious about a literary assault on the market. Very few things I've learned from so-called 'mystery initiates' are nothing I did not already know or did not later come to find in public literature. I don't consider it a mystery tradition as such.

[Lunacie]

Well, yes, Lunacie, I thought that summed it up rather well.:)

Thanks. I do have a tendency to overtalk something at times.

One last thing, I don't think you have to be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to be Wiccan.

[ancestral_lee]

One last thing, I don't think you have to be initiated into a traditional coven in order to be Wiccan.

shouldnt that be a Wiccan coven to be Wiccan? traditional witchcraft is different to Wicca

do you think that you can self baptise into catholicism or self-admit yourself into the freemasons?

[ancestral_lee]

of course the other advantage to inititaed and lineaged wicca is that what some tw*t starts causing problems, it can all be traced and the person who initiated them can be blamed <ewg>

[Elderbush]

Lunacie, Good on you. Your opinion is worth just as much as an extremist's view and is just as valid.

Sorry! This is in answer to Lunacie.

[Aidron]

there is a fair bit that hant been published - i can think of some of the top of my head right now - so in that sense the blanket bombing of the market hasnt hit all targets so to speak.

other than that i agree with you totally.

Not the mainstream market, perhaps, but published nonetheless. I'm not speaking of things like correspondences among individual correspondences and more importantly the why behind them. That's of no consequence, anyone can come up with their own correspondences and the logic behind them.

The real bread and butter of Wicca, however, I cannot say I know all there is to know, but I haven't had much trouble finding supposedly secret information of Wicca, particularly with the internet. Mystery traditions imply a certain amount of mystery and there isn't a great deal left with Wicca for the most part.

[Elderbush]

shouldnt that be a Wiccan coven to be Wiccan? traditional witchcraft is different to Wicca

do you think that you can self baptise into catholicism or self-admit yourself into the freemasons?


For one thing Wicca isn't Abrahamic based. For another the Catholics, in case you hadn't noticed, are a denomination of Christianity - sort of like Gardnerian is a tradition of Wicca. Freemasons are a club and in my opinion Wicca is a religion.

I would quite expect that the Gardnerians set the rules for who is a Gardnerian. But they do not set the rules for who is Wiccan, just like the Catholics do not set the rules for Christianity.

[Lunacie]

shouldnt that be a Wiccan coven to be Wiccan? traditional witchcraft is different to Wicca

do you think that you can self baptise into catholicism or self-admit yourself into the freemasons?

Of course that's what I meant. Post edited to be entirely specific.

[Lunacie]

For one thing Wicca isn't Abrahamic based. For another the Catholics, in case you hadn't noticed, are a denomination of Christianity - sort of like Gardnerian is a tradition of Wicca. Freemasons are a club and in my opinion Wicca is a religion.

I would quite expect that the Gardnerians set the rules for who is a Gardnerian. But they do not set the rules for who is Wiccan, just like the Catholics do not set the rules for Christianity.

Yup, that's how I see it. :thumbsup:

[ancestral_lee]

For one thing Wicca isn't Abrahamic based. For another the Catholics, in case you hadn't noticed, are a denomination of Christianity - sort of like Gardnerian is a tradition of Wicca. Freemasons are a club and in my opinion Wicca is a religion.

I would quite expect that the Gardnerians set the rules for who is a Gardnerian. But they do not set the rules for who is Wiccan, just like the Catholics do not set the rules for Christianity.

no it isnt abrahamic, but the point still stands. if it makes it easier for you, replace catholic with mithraist.

Gardenarian IS Wicca. the distinction only needed to come about after Alex sanders split off to form his brand of wicca which derived from geralds work.

[Lunacie]

no it isnt abrahamic, but the point still stands. if it makes it easier for you, replace catholic with mithraist.

Gardenarian IS Wicca. the distinction only needed to come about after Alex sanders split off to form his brand of wicca which derived from geralds work.

Yes, Gardenarian is Wicca.
So is Alexandrian.
So are a whole host of other traditions.

Yes, you have to be initiated to become a member of one of those Wiccan traditions.

You don't have to be initiated to become a Wiccan, solitary or other. Nothing I've read here has changed my way of thinking on this.

[Elderbush]

no it isnt abrahamic, but the point still stands. if it makes it easier for you, replace catholic with mithraist.

Gardenarian IS Wicca. the distinction only needed to come about after Alex sanders split off to form his brand of wicca which derived from geralds work.


Of course Gardnerians are Wiccans - just like the Catholics are Christians. They are not the only Christians, nor are Gardnerians the only Wiccans. I understand your point although you are missing mine, I think. I will try again.

My point is one denomination of a religion doesn't set the rules for all of the other traditions in the religion although they may want to do it.

The Gardnerians (or Alexandrians or Georgians) can only decide what it takes to be in their tradition and who is a member of that tradition. They cannot dictate the the rest of the religion. They can, and sometimes do, state that everyone who isn't doing things their way is not Wiccan but everyone is free to ignor them because they have no power over anyone except those who are in their tradition.

I hope that is clearer.

[Morgandria]

When Lee is saying "Gardnerian IS Wicca", he means they're the first. They started the whole shebang. So...really, they wrote the rules. From that perspective...when is something too far removed from its' source to be considered still the same as that source?

I want to know - without an initiation, how do you become a Wiccan?

[Lala]

Kudos to you all on a really intelligent discussion...

As someone put earlier in the conversation, congrats on having a mature discussion on a potentially hot issue.

That's it from me :o

[Elderbush]

The Catholic church "wrote the rules" originally, and then a whole lot of people disagreed with them, splitting off to form their own traditions. Sort of what has been happening in Wicca from the beginning.

The Catholic church lost control of Christianity. The Gardnerians lost control of Wicca. It is a good thing in my opinion. I personally do not ask a BTW if they think I'm a Wiccan. I KNOW I'm a Wiccan.

As for how far is too far from the original sect, ask again in 2,000 years. I wonder what Wicca will be like then.

I think that the solitaries become a Wiccan by saying "I'm a Wiccan" but that is probably an individual thing.

[Lunacie]

When Lee is saying "Gardnerian IS Wicca", he means they're the first. They started the whole shebang. So...really, they wrote the rules. From that perspective...when is something too far removed from its' source to be considered still the same as that source?

I want to know - without an initiation, how do you become a Wiccan?

Something can certainly become to far removed from it's source to be considered the same thing any longer. However, initiation into a coven is only one of the original practices of the religion Gardner cobbled together from many sources. If you add one or two things that make sense in the greater context it can still be considered Wiccan. If there are one or two things that are not included for good reasons, it can still be considered Wiccan. Does anyone here insist that only those who practice skyclad are true Wiccans? Or only those who use flagellation are true Wiccans? Why is there this big sticking point over initiation except to be elitist?

[Qumran]

THIS is by far the best answer i've ever seen regarding this topic. There is no way I could have put it into words like Qumran has. BRILLIANT!

I couldn't agree more!:idea:

Thank you, Autumn Sidhe. :)

[ancestral_lee]

ok, well this isnt going anywhere.

the issue i have is that anybody who reads a single book on the subject can call themself wiccan if they want to, but thats it, theyve read a single book, and from what you are saying youd give them equal standing with those people who have gained admittance to a coven and worked to get where they are.

the doctor analogy works, it applies - i can read a medical book if i want but it doesnt make me a doctor.

[ancestral_lee]

Something can certainly become to far removed from it's source to be considered the same thing any longer. However, initiation into a coven is only one of the original practices of the religion Gardner cobbled together from many sources. If you add one or two things that make sense in the greater context it can still be considered Wiccan.

gardner intended for nothing to be taken away from what he created, certainly things can be added but nothing could be taken away. those who have not gained initiation do not have all the info, are not playing with a full deck and it could therefore be argued that they are not practicing Wicca.


Why is there this big sticking point over initiation except to be elitist?


because with all the sh*te out there peddled as ye olde genuine wicca of the atlanteandolphins of crystalmermaid wicca, perhaps its becasue they dont want to be associated with the comercial, watered down crap?

societies, clubs and groups dont usually want and old fool or loon to be amongst thier ranks. if you feel thier discretion or right to choose is elitist well tough tittie.

[Lunacie]

ok, well this isnt going anywhere.

the issue i have is that anybody who reads a single book on the subject can call themself wiccan if they want to, but thats it, theyve read a single book, and from what you are saying youd give them equal standing with those people who have gained admittance to a coven and worked to get where they are.

the doctor analogy works, it applies - i can read a medical book if i want but it doesnt make me a doctor.

Are we reading the same thread?

No one here has said that reading a single book on the subject makes anyone Wiccan. No one is giving them equal standing with those who have studied and worked, whether within a coven or as a solitary. Work is still work and should be recognized whether it's done alone or with a specific group.

I have seen people make those ridiculous claims about anything and everything being Wiccan. But they haven't been doing that here.

We're simply saying that comparing becoming your own priest/ess by initiation to becoming a doctor by graduating from medical school isn't the same thing. Yes, it's ridiculous to claim to be a HIGH priest/ess when you've only been studying for two months and you either don't have a coven or your coven is your two best friends who started studying last week. But, unlike Catholics who must go through their priests and be told what to believe and how to practice their religion, we are free to talk to the gods directly, without an initiation.

[ancestral_lee]

thats what being said here, anyone could pick up a book, read it, self initiate and as far as you are concerned they have the right to call themself a Wiccan. whereas to gain initiation into a coven you have to work for it, therefore by calling youself Wiccan it shows you have already proven yourself to the HP and Hps. its almost like a qualification. not everyone who begins thier training to get initiated gets it.

by calling youself wiccan it implies you have already studied for a year and a day, after that your degree informs how much extra work you have done.

the alternative other people on here agree with is that in theory i could pick up a book - find the self initiation page, do it and BINGO - im Wiccan in 5 minutes.



No one here has said that reading a single book on the subject makes anyone Wiccan. No one is giving them equal standing with those who have studied and worked, whether within a coven or as a solitary. Work is still work and should be recognized whether it's done alone or with a specific group.

[Lunacie]

gardner intended for nothing to be taken away from what he created, certainly things can be added but nothing could be taken away. those who have not gained initiation do not have all the info, are not playing with a full deck and it could therefore be argued that they are not practicing Wicca.

Hell, there were all kinds of changes taking place right up till the day Gardner died. Some he agreed to, some he didn't. But ya know what, he wasn't a god. I see no problem with adding to or taking away from what he created, it's a work in progress. Yeah, it can become so different that it's not really Wicca anymore, but we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether initiation is a make it or break it point.



because with all the sh*te out there peddled as ye olde genuine wicca of the atlanteandolphins of crystalmermaid wicca, perhaps its becasue they dont want to be associated with the comercial, watered down crap?

societies, clubs and groups dont usually want and old fool or loon to be amongst thier ranks. if you feel thier discretion or right to choose is elitist well tough tittie.

Yeah? So what are you going to do, whine about it? People can claim any title they want in this country, it's called free speech. You can get your knickers into a twist because they're giving YOU a bad name, but the only discretion you have is to not let them join your tradition or coven.

[Elderbush]

ancestral_lee, I'm not trying to be combative and I am enjoying this discussion. I hope you take it in that way.

You said "from what you are saying youd give them equal standing with those people who have gained admittance to a coven and worked to get where they are."

Equal standing where? No one who isn't part of my tradition is invited to the private meetings. I don't know of any traditions that let the general public come to their meetings.

As for a public forum, people who belong to a tradition can be smart or stupid just like people who do not belong to a tradition.

Where is it you are afraid that people who do not belong to a tradition will have equal standing?

[Lunacie]

thats what being said here, anyone could pick up a book, read it, self initiate and as far as you are concerned they have the right to call themself a Wiccan. whereas to gain initiation into a coven you have to work for it, therefore by calling youself Wiccan it shows you have already proven yourself to the HP and Hps. its almost like a qualification. not everyone who begins thier training to get initiated gets it.

by calling youself wiccan it implies you have already studied for a year and a day, after that your degree informs how much extra work you have done.

the alternative other people on here agree with is that in theory i could pick up a book - find the self initiation page, do it and BINGO - im Wiccan in 5 minutes.

Apparently we aren't reading the same post. :eyebrow:

I haven't seen anyone here say that it's that easy or simple to become a Wiccan. All I've been saying is that working and learning and following the Wiccan path should be recognized as being qualified to be a Wiccan whether the work was done within a traditional coven or not.

I could go back through every post in the thread to look for someone who said picking up a book, reading the page on self-initiation, and following the instructions makes anyone a Wiccan - but I don't remember seeing any post like that so I'm not going to bother.

By the way, not every tradition uses a degree system.

I'm sorry you feel it somehow devalues your spirituality and connection to your matron/patron god/ess and your coven by having other people make spurious claims. I hope your coven mates don't feel that way about you. I know the gods could care less.

[ancestral_lee]

Yeah? So what are you going to do, whine about it?........ it's called free speech..

damn right im gonna complain about it. after all the same free speach rules that let them call themselves wiccan, also allow me to say that they are talking shite.

lee

[Morgandria]

*sighs* I've suddenly lost interest in the conversation.

[Elderbush]

We were doing so well, too.

[ancestral_lee]

self initiation as a solitary can be done 5 minutes after picking up a book or it can be done after 5 years of hard work and study. how do you differentiate 5 minute from 5 year wiccans...

with initiated wiccans you know theyve done thier homework.


ok, well this has been fun and challenging, but we will have to agree to disagree.... on that note im bowing out because im already beginning to repeat myself.

thanks everyone, its been a joy :)





I haven't seen anyone here say that it's that easy or simple to become a Wiccan. All I've been saying is that working and learning and following the Wiccan path should be recognized as being qualified to be a Wiccan whether the work was done within a traditional coven or not.

.

[Qumran]

I expected this reaction, to be honest....

I have suffered through many a long and torturous debates with PASSIONATE arguments on both sides. It is an important question and I hope you take no offense when people, like myself, simply don't accept YOUR take on it, Morgandria. But before I comment further, allow me to say; many bright blessings to you on your path! :)


... we do believe Wicca to be an mystery, initiatory faith. Self-initiation is not possible...

... in YOUR tradition... according to the "we" you refer to...


...But by the definition of the word "initiate", self-initiation isn't possible...

...Not to split hairs, Morgandria, but, IMO, self-initiation does not make one less of an initiate unless you take a very narrow interpretation of the word.

According to "the American Heritage Dictionary," "initiate" is defined this way:

1- To cause to begin.
2- To introduce (a person) into a new field, interest, skill of activity.
3- To admit into membership, as with ceremonies or rituals.

At least, in this definition, it seems like there is enough latitude to include someone who introduces or initiates themselves - but you read it as you choose.

Having said that, I spent MANY years as part of a fundamentalist Christian religion and they DID NOT consider anyone to be "Christian" until they were baptized into that particular sect - no matter HOW much they believed in Jesus and did Christian works. Christians can't initiate themselves either. I suspect this may be comparable to your view on being Wiccan - people just can't claim to be Wiccan or adopt it by themselves.


...If you really have to have a word to describe your path or practices, make up your own - don't subvert a word to fit any number of things until it's meaningless....

This, Morgandria, is where the problem arises.

IMO, the very DEFINITION of Wicca is EVOLVING. Wicca will mean something different as time goes on. People will keep on calling themselves Wiccan, despite their ignorance of what Wicca actually meant in Gardner's time.

Of course, you and your coven can stick to traditional ways and definitions (someone SHOULD!) but change WILL happen - like it or not.

[Lunacie]

self initiation as a solitary can be done 5 minutes after picking up a book or it can be done after 5 years of hard work and study. how do you differentiate 5 minute from 5 year wiccans...

with initiated wiccans you know theyve done thier homework.


ok, well this has been fun and challenging, but we will have to agree to disagree.... on that note im bowing out because im already beginning to repeat myself.

thanks everyone, its been a joy :)

You like the doctor analogy, so lets go with that. There are a lot of folks out there who have "earned" their medical degree and can hang out a shingle and practice medicine. I'm not going to assume that they are all smart enough to use that degree well. I will use my judgment to decide which doctor I prefer to have treating me.

Hopefully we would also use our judgment to determine whether someone had more than a smidgen of an idea of what Wicca is really all about. There are plenty of people who haven't been initiated who have studied just as long and hard as the majority* of initiated Wiccans. IMO initiation should not be the sole criteria for the worthiness of a person to claim the title Wiccan.

Repeating something that no value to my mind isn't going to change it.

* there are bad apples in every barrel, even in traditional Wiccan covens

[juliaki]

To summarize the two sides of the spectrum:


Side 1 says that to be a Wiccan, a person must go through specific training, specific rites, have a connection to the divine that is fostered through the training, rites, and experiences that lead up to initiation, where the individual is guided through the process and then receives a transfer of that which binds the tradition together to include them within the great mystery of that faith.



Side 2 says that you can say "I'm a Wiccan" and blammo, you're a Wiccan. No knowledge, training, or experience required.


That pretty much sum up the viewpoints?

[Lunacie]

Side 2 in your summation has not been posting on this thread.

[Elderbush]

To summarize the two sides of the spectrum:


Side 1 says that to be a Wiccan, a person must go through specific training, specific rites, have a connection to the divine that is fostered through the training, rites, and experiences that lead up to initiation, where the individual is guided through the process and then receives a transfer of that which binds the tradition together to include them within the great mystery of that faith.



Side 2 says that you can say "I'm a Wiccan" and blammo, you're a Wiccan. No knowledge, training, or experience required.


That pretty much sum up the viewpoints?

LOL!! Extremes again.

I wonder what it is that people are so afraid of that they have to demonize everyone who isn't like them.

[Lunacie]

So, the kids are gone off for the weekend with their daddy and all is quiet, so I took a few minutes to look back through this thread for those troubling posts that said "anyone can do anything and call it Wicca", and they can "self-initiate and call themselves Wiccan" And you know what? The only ones who even brought it up were the people who claim you can't be Wiccan unless you've studied for years and been initiated into a traditional coven.

Piffle.

That's creating a straw-man argument, and it doesn't prove anything in a proper discussion or debate.

[ancestral_lee]

Lady redhawk
If you follow the Wiccan beliefs and ethics, then you are Wiccan if you so choose to call yourself - solitary or not.

i.e you dont need initiation to be wiccan, ergo. anyone can do it whenever they want be that 5 minutes or 5 years

Lunacie post 13
but you don't have to be initiated into the religion in order to be Wiccan

i.e you dont need initiation to be wiccan, ergo anyone can call themself wiccan with 5 minutes of 5 years of training

Lunacie post 43
I don't think you have to be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to be Wiccan.

i.e you dont need initiation to be wiccan, ergo anyone can call themself wiccan with 5 minutes of 5 years of training

seeing a pattern here? the gist is that you dont need initiation, you can call yourself wiccan whenever you want.


<sigh>

[Elderbush]

Yes, anyone call call themselves Wiccan. And your point is?

[Lunacie]

Lady Redhawk and I still did not say that we think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to read one page in a book and call themselves Wiccan. Of course they CAN do that. In fact I made a post about using judgment to discern whether they actually deserve to claim the title.

You are certainly free to interpret what you read, but that doesn't change what the poster actually wrote.

[ancestral_lee]

Yes, anyone call call themselves Wiccan. And your point is?


if only there was a smilie for banging your head against a wall

[Lunacie]

if only there was a smilie for banging your head against a wall

You mean this one... :bangyourh

:lol:

I'm sorry you feel bad because you can't convince us that you're right and we're wrong.

[juliaki]

Lady Redhawk and I still did not say that we think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to read one page in a book and call themselves Wiccan. Of course they CAN do that. In fact I made a post about using judgment to discern whether they actually deserve to claim the title.

You are certainly free to interpret what you read, but that doesn't change what the poster actually wrote.


So what qualifications do you feel are required for someone to be Wiccan?

[Lunacie]

I know I've posted them on another thread around here, let me see if I can remember where that was...

Okay, found that post:


To begin with – I feel initiation is important for belonging to a tradition or a coven, but I believe that one can experience being initiated by the gods and connecting with that energy without belonging to a coven or a tradition. I myself experienced both, and feel that for me the inward initiation had to come before the outward initiation into the coven (not a traditional coven).

A Wiccan believes that the divine is represented by a male and a female presence, a god and a goddess that balance each other and complete each other, each fulfilling a certain role in the cosmos; embodied by a multitude of individual gods and goddesses.

I call on the quarters/elements for many things, including doing ritual. For me this one is core. For many the use of tools to represent the elements is core. Unless I’m doing a ritual I don’t use any tools except for the tool of my mind and my connection with the elements.

The Reed I do not feel is core, especially when it is misquoted as “Harm None”, which is virtually impossible. The Law of Return or Balance I do believe is core.

The Sabbats I feel are core, and also the Esbats.

Casting a circle is also core, but I will admit that I only do this when performing a group ritual; otherwise I depend on my house wards and personal shielding.

For me, Witchcraft is also core (magic and more).

I understand that for most, the Great Rite is core.

Responsibility for our actions is core in my opinion.

Also personal growth or improvement is core.

And I wish you all a merry esbat (full moon and it's a beauty tonight).


Arrghhhh, I don't seem to be able to edit that all into one quote the way it started out.

[morningstar2651]

I have no desire to be a HPS and i am well beyond 13. I do not want to be part of a Coven becuase I DO NOT do crowds of people well at all. I get very agitated...its just not a good thing. That and the fact there are people who say "You HAVE to join a Coven...."
I have access to numerous Covens in and around my area but again....NOT my thing.
Who says you have to join a coven? Who even says you have to be Wiccan? Who says you have to be a theist? Who really cares what you believe?

[morningstar2651]

So what qualifications do you feel are required for someone to be Wiccan?
Dedication. If you're a dedicant, then you have dedicated yourself to the religion. You can't initiate yourself into an already-existing tradition.

[ancestral_lee]

You mean this one... :bangyourh

:lol:

I'm sorry you feel bad because you can't convince us that you're right and we're wrong.

no need to feel sorry for me love, im just narked that after making my point over and over some people still understand... hence i feel like im banging my head against a wall. im not trying to convince you im right and you are wrong, im trying to get you to understand what im saying in the first place, which is proving surprisingly difficult for some people.

[Elderbush]

no need to feel sorry for me love, im just narked that after making my point over and over some people still understand... hence i feel like im banging my head against a wall. im not trying to convince you im right and you are wrong, im trying to get you to understand what im saying in the first place, which is proving surprisingly difficult for some people.

:)

Yes, anyone can say that they are Wiccan, at least in the US. (or say that they are Christian or Buddhist or Discordian, etc.)

It is part of free speach.

I understand that you want to be able to control the word Wiccan and force everyone to accept your definition for it.

How do you plan to do that?

[Lunacie]

I believe I actually do get your point - that you believe a person absolutely must be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to legimately call oneself a Wiccan.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't have to agree with you.

If that's not the point you're making, please feel free to explain further. I am listening.

[Elderbush]

Oh you put it better than I did!

[Lunacie]

You asked a really good question!

[ancestral_lee]

I believe I actually do get your point - that you believe a person absolutely must be initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven in order to legimately call oneself a Wiccan.

What you don't seem to understand is that I don't have to agree with you.

If that's not the point you're making, please feel free to explain further. I am listening.

its ok, i wasnt referring to you lunacie.

its fairly clear you dont agree, hey ho.

[ancestral_lee]

:)

Yes, anyone can say that they are Wiccan, at least in the US. (or say that they are Christian or Buddhist or Discordian, etc.)

It is part of free speach.

I understand that you want to be able to control the word Wiccan and force everyone to accept your definition for it.

How do you plan to do that?

you can call yourself a plum if you want, it doesnt make it true though.

you have right to call yourself Wiccan just as i have the right to point out you are wrong.

i dont recall mentioing i want to control anything, merely point out the errors you are making.

lee

[Lunacie]

you can call yourself a plum if you want, it doesnt make it true though.

you have right to call yourself Wiccan just as i have the right to point out you are wrong.

i dont recall mentioing i want to control anything, merely point out the errors you are making.

lee

Wanting to "merely point out the errors" someone else is making rarely involves banging your head against the wall. After you point something out once and then repeat yourself to make sure you've been understood, anything further certainly appears to be trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, or that you're trying to force others to accept your definition. :(

[juliaki]

I know I've posted them on another thread around here, let me see if I can remember where that was...

Okay, found that post:
(snip)




Ironically, what you define as a Wiccan would pretty much make every Wiccan I know (whether they claim to be Wiccan as a solitary practitioner or are Wiccan based on coven initiation) not Wiccan?

Also, I don't see any difference between what you've said makes someone a Wiccan and what could make someone a Pagan or make someone a witch. Is there a way you differentiate between different Pagan paths, based on the requirements that you've listed?

And yes, it was beautiful outside tonight... a little cold, so I was thankful for the cauldron, but simply lovely.

[Lunacie]

Ironically, what you define as a Wiccan would pretty much make every Wiccan I know (whether they claim to be Wiccan as a solitary practitioner or are Wiccan based on coven initiation) not Wiccan?

Also, I don't see any difference between what you've said makes someone a Wiccan and what could make someone a Pagan or make someone a witch. Is there a way you differentiate between different Pagan paths, based on the requirements that you've listed?

And yes, it was beautiful outside tonight... a little cold, so I was thankful for the cauldron, but simply lovely.

Would you want to go into a little detail as to what you think is incorrect about my list of core beliefs? In talking to quite a number of other Wiccans (whether coven initiated or in an eclectic tradition or solitary) there has been agreement on this particular list - which by the way did not originate with me but with a BTW. It was agreed that some traditions insist on initiation, some insist on being skyclad, and a few other things that mostly vary by tradition.

[ancestral_lee]

Wanting to "merely point out the errors" someone else is making rarely involves banging your head against the wall. After you point something out once and then repeat yourself to make sure you've been understood, anything further certainly appears to be trying to convince others that you are right and they are wrong, or that you're trying to force others to accept your definition. :(

i have a habit of repeating what im trying to get across until it sinks in, in some cases one message will do, in others it takes a while.

can you guess how it went in this thread? :weirdsmil

[Lunacie]

:eyebrow:
Which pretty much confirms that Elderbush and I were right about what you've been trying to do.
:goodgrief

[Elderbush]

It has sunk in, really it has. Has it sunk in that others do not agree with your definition of Wicca and that you cannot control what other people call themselves or how they define Wicca?

You can tell them you do not think they are Wiccan and they can reply with a polite or impolite version of "I don't agree with you."

An easier place to have control is on the tradition level. Have you thought about that?

[ancestral_lee]

:eyebrow:
Which pretty much confirms that Elderbush and I were right about what you've been trying to do.
:goodgrief

you seem to be confusing ramming something down someones throat with the written equivalent of speaking slowly and clearly to somebody who cant grasp what you are saying.

[ancestral_lee]

glad to see it has sunk in.

oh im sure its far more polite to sinly post " i agree with you" or "i disagree with you", but it doent lead to very interesting discussion, hence this has become more in depth.

i will explain this clearly and simply for you seeing as its the second time im having to say it.

i.

am.

not.

out.

to.

control.

anyone.



It has sunk in, really it has. Has it sunk in that others do not agree with your definition of Wicca and that you cannot control what other people call themselves or how they define Wicca?

You can tell them you do not think they are Wiccan and they can reply with a polite or impolite version of "I don't agree with you."

An easier place to have control is on the tradition level. Have you thought about that?

[Elderbush]

Yes you are.

You are trying to control who is called or calls themselves Wiccan by defining the word your way.

[Lunacie]

you seem to be confusing ramming something down someones throat with the written equivalent of speaking slowly and clearly to somebody who cant grasp what you are saying.

I believe you are the one who is confused here. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they can't grasp what you're saying. It simply means that they disagree.

You have been told that initiation is necessary for someone to claim that they are Wiccan, and you have believed that. I have thought long and hard about the issue of initiation, I have talked to many Wiccans (initiated and not initiated), and I have reached the conclusion that it is not necessary. Speaking slowly and clearly and repeating yourself endlessly is not likely to convince me that you are right and I am wrong. You have not told us of any reason beyond "it's tradition" and "that's how Gardner set it up" for initiation to be necessary. That's simply not enough to convince me.

[juliaki]

Sure....keeping in mind that I'm not Wiccan, so I'm just going by the beliefs expressed to me by those who are:

embodied by a multitude of individual gods and goddesses.

Not all Wiccans see the divine as manifested in individual gods and goddesses, but rather that all aspects of gods and goddesses are part of the larger whole of male and female divinity... some go so far as to say that individual gods and goddesses don't exist, except in the context that we have aspected them. On the other hand, there's a lot of religions out there that have the view of multiple individual gods and goddesses.

I call on the quarters/elements for many things, including doing ritual. For me this one is core.

Not all Wiccans call quarters for all rites. Also, there may be a huge difference in how each quarter and element align, but that's not something that you expressly covered.

For many the use of tools to represent the elements is core. Unless I’m doing a ritual I don’t use any tools except for the tool of my mind and my connection with the elements.

Do to some issues that come up regarding what exactly the tools are, the suggestion of using the tools to represent elements wouldn't quite fit....and the lack of tools in ritual would bring about some interesting differences of intent.

The Reed I do not feel is core, especially when it is misquoted as “Harm None”, which is virtually impossible. The Law of Return or Balance I do believe is core.

AAAACK! Pet peeve time. The editor in me cringes when I see mention of the "Reed". ;)

For me, one of the things that defines Wicca is the Rede. It is something that sets Wicca different from other religions, even if they share similar core values. I personally hate the whole "harm none" nonsense...but then again, I only hear that from folks who have tossed on the term "Wiccan" without having much knowledge behind them.

The Sabbats I feel are core, and also the Esbats.

They tend to be core in a lot of Pagan paths.... so how do you differentiate between a Wiccan sabbat and a non-Wiccan Pagan sabbat?

Casting a circle is also core, but I will admit that I only do this when performing a group ritual; otherwise I depend on my house wards and personal shielding.

That statement seems a bit contradictory. Either it is core or it is optional...and since it isn't something you do every time, it sounds optional. (And I'm with you on that...there's a lot of times when I don't cast a circle because it isn't needed for what I'm doing.)

For me, Witchcraft is also core (magic and more).

I'm going to reserve comment on that to see what the "and more" bit is....

I understand that for most, the Great Rite is core.

And that's something I wonder about a solitary practitioner trying to do on their own...aspecting both male and female divinity at the same time. I suppose that there would be some hermaphrodite Wiccans out there that could do it...I've never met one, however.

Responsibility for our actions is core in my opinion.

Some folks who are strict believers in the "old laws" of Wicca would say that responsibility has its place, but there's also times *not* to take responsibility for one's actions.

Also personal growth or improvement is core.

If we include all self-proclaimed solitary Wiccans under this statement, I've seen a *lot* who don't give two licks about personal growth or improvement. They're in it for the power trip. They'll admit it readily. They want to shoot fireballs from their fingers and vanquish demons, so Wicca is a "convenient" way to try and figure out how to do it but still sound like they're following a religious aspect.

The biggest issue I have with that list is that it doesn't seem to specify anything that is specific to Wicca and Wicca alone.... I know lots of Pagans that would qualify under that list. So what is it that you see about Wicca as you define it that makes it different from any ol' Pagan belief system?

[Ben Gruagach]

This is one of the never-ending debates in our community. And as others have pointed out, it's also a never-ending debate in other religious communities too -- there are lots of Christian sects which feel they are the only "true" Christians, and all the others don't deserve to use the label.

There are some historical details though which might add something to the discussion.

1. When Gerald Gardner did his promoting of Wicca, he presented it as just plain old witchcraft. He actually didn't use the word "Wica" (Wicca) except in a few rare instances. The way he presented things was just the way he claimed he was taught to do things, and the way he thought they should be done. When he did use the word Wica (Wicca) it was really just a synonym for witch rather than an attempt to specify a specific type of witch. This left Wicca open for pretty much anyone else to come forward and start promoting their own versions of witchcraft or Wicca. If Gardner had been clear that he was starting something unique, and that it was called Wicca to distinguish it from everything else, then we might not be having this debate at all.

2. Initiation, when you study what it is and what it means in a religious sense, is really two distinct things: 1) a recognition of status in a specific group by authorized members of that group, or 2) a personal spiritual experience where you have direct contact with the Divine. A lot of religious groups claim that they are bestowing both things on their members, but in reality humans can only ever bestow the first type -- the second type is up to the Divine to grant. And writers such as Dion Fortune (in her book "The Training and Work of the Initiate" for instance) make it very clear that a person can get all the type 1 initiations in the world and never have a type 2 experience. And similarly, many people have had type 2 initiations without ever having type 1.

The interesting historical note about initiation is that in the early days of Wicca people didn't start their training until AFTER they had their first degree initiation. Making people work for that first initiation was a later development. In fact, some famous Wiccan figures (Alex Sanders for example) were known to initiate pretty much anyone without any real determination of the candidate's dedication or seriousness. Janet and Stewart Farrar used to say that Alex would have initiated the mailman if he stood still long enough.

3. Fred Lamond, the oldest living Wiccan to have worked with Gerald Gardner (he was initiated into Gardner's coven back when Doreen Valiente was Gardner's high priestess) has said in his book "Fifty Years of Wicca" that Gardner told them the Book of Shadows was intended to be the witch's personal workbook and not a holy bible -- that each witch should feel free to add or toss out whatever they felt made sense. Perhaps Gardner changed his mind later on, or some of the later Gardnerian high priests and high priestesses changed their mind about this, but Gardner didn't consider his system to be unchangeable by any means at the start. (More proof of this: he told Doreen Valiente to go ahead and rewrite the Book of Shadows he was using to run the coven -- and she did! You can read all about it in her book "The Rebirth of Witchcraft.")

4. Some of the early and very influential Wiccans started the ball rolling on this whole self-initiation thing. Doreen Valiente (you remember her -- one of Gardner's first and most influential high priestesses) provided a self-initiation ritual in one of her published books. Ray Buckland, the man credited with bringing Gardnerian Wicca to the United States, also provided a self-initiation ritual in his book for the Seax-Wica denomination he invented as an alternative for those who wanted to become involved in Wicca but who couldn't find a Gardnerian coven to initiate them. I'm sure others have included self-initiation or self-dedication rituals as well but it does say something when such key figures as Valiente and Buckland do it.

5. Some of the oldest Wiccan denominations got their start under what people today dismiss as "uber-fluffy." Alex Sanders was turned down by Gardner and various Gardnerian elders because they didn't like him, but Alex convinced a female Gardnerian initiate to do the deed and give him a first degree initiation. He then got his hands on the Gardnerian Book of Shadows through that initiate, copied it out, and then disappeared for a while. Not long after he popped up with his own (slightly different) Book of Shadows, declared he was initiated by his grandmother when he was nine years old, and within a very short time had legions of his own initiates and had declared himself the King of the Witches. His own high priestess, Maxine (who I have enormous respect for) was given her third degree initiation by the time she was eighteen years old (Alex was in his thirties.)

Alex's story sounds an awful lot like the "fluffy not-real-Wiccans" that so many people sneer at. Yet look at the Alexandrian tradition today! Was Alex not a "real Wiccan" when he started his denomination? Who is to say then that any of the current "fluffy" crowd are less worthy?

Others have pointed out that no one denomination has the right to dictate to everyone else who is and isn't a Wiccan. Let's keep that in mind. Certainly the authorities of each denomination have authority over their own groups. Outside their groups their authority means very little. Wicca as a whole does not have a central authority to dictate to us what we must believe, whether we must belong to covens or not, how we must practice. In my opinion that is one of our community's greatest STRENGTHS. If I'd wanted to be part of an authoritarian, hierarchical religion I would have joined one. There are plenty of Christian, Jewish, and other types of religions that are all about the hierarchy and the authority structures. Wicca though, even within many of the established denominations like Gardnerian, are structured around smaller groups with explicitly recognized autonomy.

The closest thing that some (but not all) Wiccans recognize as a "Wiccan Law" (but is really only advice) is the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do what you will." That leaves a lot of room for diversity. And coupled with another popular Wiccan teaching, the Charge of the Goddess, we have the Goddess Herself telling us, "All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." It seems to me that Wicca encourages us to celebrate our diversity rather than try to force everyone to conform to some arbitrary dogma.

Just some things to think about...

[Little Billy]

Um, another thing...what qualifies someone as a "TRUE" Wiccan?

[Elderbush]

Groan - not going there!

Ben, your post was really inspired and informative. Wicca has changed a lot over the years and it is good to remember the beginnings. Thank you.

About Lunacie's list, if you don't mind me participating, I would have added a belief that everything is a part of the divine, seasonal celebrations rather than sabbats, a willingness to borrow from other religions what works, the goal of growing ever closer and further developing a relationship with the gods/divine, and accepting that there are consequences for ones actions. Circles and visualizations are a central to the practices but I don't think a circle has to be cast every time one interacts with one's gods.

[Lunacie]

Sure....keeping in mind that I'm not Wiccan, so I'm just going by the beliefs expressed to me by those who are:

So, why do you care then?


Not all Wiccans see the divine as manifested in individual gods and goddesses, but rather that all aspects of gods and goddesses are part of the larger whole of male and female divinity... some go so far as to say that individual gods and goddesses don't exist, except in the context that we have aspected them. On the other hand, there's a lot of religions out there that have the view of multiple individual gods and goddesses.

Sorry, but in my talking to other Wiccans and reading and studying, I'd say that belief in a multitude of gods and goddesses is core, although I understand that a few do indeed see the divine as an uber god with individual aspects. And I never said it was a unique Wiccan belief. Very few Wiccan beliefs are unique to Wicca.


Not all Wiccans call quarters for all rites. Also, there may be a huge difference in how each quarter and element align, but that's not something that you expressly covered.

Now that's just quibbling. No, not all Wiccans call the quarters for all rituals and I didn't say that was the case. Why would it have been necessary for me to specify that not all Wiccans associate Air with the East, etc.? The core part of the belief is that the majority of Wiccans do call the Quarters/Elements when they cast a circle and do ritual. If I'm doing solo energy work (or a spell) I may only call on one element or perhaps only divine energy, but for casting a circle in a ritual setting it is pretty standard to call the Quarters/Elements.


Do to some issues that come up regarding what exactly the tools are, the suggestion of using the tools to represent elements wouldn't quite fit....and the lack of tools in ritual would bring about some interesting differences of intent.

I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear that the first part of that statement had to do with group work and the second part had to do with my working alone. When one is working with a group it is necessary for that group to agree as much as possible on things like which tool represents which element. When working solitary there is no confusion at all.


AAAACK! Pet peeve time. The editor in me cringes when I see mention of the "Reed". ;)

What? You're fussing because I made a typo? People do that from time to time. Deal with it. You used the wrong spelling of "due" in your remark about using tools. AAAACK! ;)


For me, one of the things that defines Wicca is the Rede. It is something that sets Wicca different from other religions, even if they share similar core values. I personally hate the whole "harm none" nonsense...but then again, I only hear that from folks who have tossed on the term "Wiccan" without having much knowledge behind them.

The Wiccan Rede is a relatively new addition to Wicca, not part of the original set of beliefs. For you, it defines Wicca. That's fine. There are a great number of Wiccans who don't accept it as defiining Wicca, especially since it is usually misquoted and misunderstood.


They tend to be core in a lot of Pagan paths.... so how do you differentiate between a Wiccan sabbat and a non-Wiccan Pagan sabbat?

A lot of religions share some similar beliefs and practices. I think it's pretty hard to find a belief in any religion that isn't shared by some other religion. That doesn't make a particular belief or practice core to that religion. I'm not really that familiar with other Pagan celebrations of the sabbats to make any comparison.


That statement seems a bit contradictory. Either it is core or it is optional...and since it isn't something you do every time, it sounds optional. (And I'm with you on that...there's a lot of times when I don't cast a circle because it isn't needed for what I'm doing.)

Why is it hard to understand that some things are necessary when working in a group and not so necessary or covered by something else when working alone? If you're not Wiccan, what difference does it make whether you cast a circle, it may not be core for your religion or path.


I'm going to reserve comment on that to see what the "and more" bit is....

Most folks think what sets Witchcraft apart is an emphasis on magic, but there is much "more" to the Craft than using magic.


And that's something I wonder about a solitary practitioner trying to do on their own...aspecting both male and female divinity at the same time. I suppose that there would be some hermaphrodite Wiccans out there that could do it...I've never met one, however.

Since I don't believe the Great Rite is necessarily core, there's no point in me debating this one.


Some folks who are strict believers in the "old laws" of Wicca would say that responsibility has its place, but there's also times *not* to take responsibility for one's actions.

How about taking responsibility for knowing which time is which?


If we include all self-proclaimed solitary Wiccans under this statement, I've seen a *lot* who don't give two licks about personal growth or improvement. They're in it for the power trip. They'll admit it readily. They want to shoot fireballs from their fingers and vanquish demons, so Wicca is a "convenient" way to try and figure out how to do it but still sound like they're following a religious aspect.

Yeah? I never said that everyone who claimed to be a Wiccan meets the core criteria, or even MY criteria.


The biggest issue I have with that list is that it doesn't seem to specify anything that is specific to Wicca and Wicca alone.... I know lots of Pagans that would qualify under that list. So what is it that you see about Wicca as you define it that makes it different from any ol' Pagan belief system?

Maybe those Pagans are really Wiccans and they haven't discovered it or admitted it to themselves yet?

[Lunacie]

Ben, thanks for pointing out the two kinds of initiation. I had forgotten all about that lovely discussion. (I hate having A.D.D.)

Elderbush, my list wasn't all-inclusive. Thanks for adding some things, although I don't agree that all of your additions are core. ;) Of course my list of core beliefs is only what it seems the majority of Wiccans do manage to agree on, not something that is necessary to claim the title of Wiccan.

[Little Billy]

i notice it seems to be in the US that that wicca has become a free for all where any 14 year old can read a book and suddenly decalre himself a high priest - thats an insult to all those HP and HPS out there who have spent the time to study, work thier arses off and run a coven.

lee

Why would that bother you? Hell, I heard a 12 year old say he was a ninja once, and I didn't see any pissed off ninjas.

Of course, being ninjas, I wouldn't have seen them ANYWAY, but you know what I mean.

[Lunacie]

Why would that bother you? Hell, I heard a 12 year old say he was a ninja once, and I didn't see any pissed off ninjas.

Of course, being ninjas, I wouldn't have seen them ANYWAY, but you know what I mean.


Little Billy has a point. I wanted to say something about how someone saying they are a Wiccan when I don't agree doesn't mean all Wiccans should feel insulted, but I couldn't figure out how to word it.

[juliaki]

Getting ready to head out to Disney and have a veve to do tonight, so I need to keep this fairly brief. ;)


So, why do you care then?

Mostly I'm just enjoying the fun of debate. On the other hand, some underlying issues about the vast majority of people who call themselves "Wiccan" do affect me, even though I'm not Wiccan (largely because cowans tend to paint all Craft traditions with the same paintbrush). Last year, there were a couple of "Wiccans" who desecrated a church. They said in their statements to the police that it was their "Wiccan right" to destroy Christianity. Now, do I believe they are Wiccan? Nope...but they met the criteria that you had laid out...so I guess that by your definition, they were. Those are not the kind of people that I want to be associated with in the public eye, however.



Sorry, but in my talking to other Wiccans and reading and studying, I'd say that belief in a multitude of gods and goddesses is core, although I understand that a few do indeed see the divine as an uber god with individual aspects. And I never said it was a unique Wiccan belief. Very few Wiccan beliefs are unique to Wicca.

Which again begs the question, what makes Wicca as Wicca instead of something else? It also lays the groundwork for "Wicca is whatever you want it to be", including the people mentioned above.



What? You're fussing because I made a typo? People do that from time to time. Deal with it. You used the wrong spelling of "due" in your remark about using tools. AAAACK! ;)

That's assuming that it was a typo and not an attempt to malign a spiritual text you do not agree with. I'll take your word it was the former, however.



A lot of religions share some similar beliefs and practices. I think it's pretty hard to find a belief in any religion that isn't shared by some other religion. That doesn't make a particular belief or practice core to that religion. I'm not really that familiar with other Pagan celebrations of the sabbats to make any comparison.

There are many common similarities because we all do touch the same divine. Yet, if we are to say that religion A is different from religion B, there must be something that A has which B does not and that B has which A does not.

For instance, I find that Eclectic NeoWicca is a very distinctly unique religion. It is the only religion out there that says that anything can be combined in any combination and still work the same as any other combination, for it is intent that drives everything. I haven't run into any other religion that embraces that belief.


Most folks think what sets Witchcraft apart is an emphasis on magic, but there is much "more" to the Craft than using magic.

Even though I'll likely not get a chance to respond to this because it will be buried in the thread by the time I get back, I'm curious what specific aspects you see that are the "more than magic" bit. (I'm not disagreeing with you that they're there...I'm just curious what you see that may or may not be how I see it.)


How about taking responsibility for knowing which time is which?

Not always a requirement, no.


Yeah? I never said that everyone who claimed to be a Wiccan meets the core criteria, or even MY criteria.

What good is having "the" core criteria if it is not necessary for anyone to meet it?


Maybe those Pagans are really Wiccans and they haven't discovered it or admitted it to themselves yet?

Could be, although my guess is that the reverse is more often true....that Wicca is the place where some people say "close enough" instead of trying to pursue "know thyself." I'll admit that there's likely some of the former, however. There are also Pagans who would be highly insulted at the idea that someone was telling them that they were Wiccans when they know from experience, training, knowledge, and study that they are not.

[Arie]

Wow. Next time i wont kick the hornets nest.

Soitaries have been around longer then Covens. It took a Solitary to start the first Coven. So why is it a "bad" thing to be a Solitary?

I was Baptized TWICE. Once as a Christian and the second time as an Armenian Orthodox. One believes in God the other in Allah.....so where do I belong????????? In my eyes I belong where I say I belong NOT where others do. That includes my "choice" to NOT join a Coven. Does that mean I am NOT a Wiccan????? NO!! In someone elses eyes maybe but NOT in mine. Personally I dont give a flying bats butt what others think of my "choice".

Yes there are people who says its "The Coven way or the highway". I'm sorry but that is closed minded thinking. What if a person leaves their Coven because they move out of state? Are they NOT a Wiccan anymore because they are no longer in a Coven?

Yes I started this debate or whatever and i am beginning to regret it.

[Elderbush]

Don't regret it! It was fun. There are in our religion both extremists and moderates, just like in every other religion. You are going to find out that we all have different opinions and that's a good thing. Debates help everyone decide what they personally believe and expose us to new or recycled thoughts. There are always those people who post very good information that teach everyone who reads the thread, as well.

[jcldragon]

In the exoteric religions, it is the external baptism or formal Initiation that is significant. In the esoteric Traditions, it is the inner realization of the the individual that is significant.

I believe that Compassion, Wisdom, & Knowledge are more significant than any piece of paper.

[Lunacie]

I agree with Elderbush, this has been a good debate/discussion. There wasn't any flaming or personal attacks, we've been trying to figure out whether there are some issues that are "make it or break it" as far as Wicca is concerned. Not suprisingly, there is little concensus. Being free to make these choices is a key component of Wicca. We like being free from having a heirarchy tell us what the laws are that we must follow in order to belong.

I applaud you for knowing where you belong spiritually and not caring so much whether others agree with you or not. Isn't that a wonderfully freeing feeling?


Yes there are people who says its "The Coven way or the highway". I'm sorry but that is closed minded thinking. What if a person leaves their Coven because they move out of state? Are they NOT a Wiccan anymore because they are no longer in a Coven?

The people who say you must be initiated and study with a coven would say that even if you move away, you have spent the time in study and that was acknowledged by your initiation.

I appreciate Ben G pointing out how initiation as a recognition by others that you have studied and been privy to the mysteries isn't the way it was set up, so why this insistence on having to do it that way these days in order to be a "proper Wiccan" in someone else's eyes? Piffle. Elitist bullhockey.

[Ben Gruagach]

I appreciate Ben G pointing out how initiation as a recognition by others that you have studied and been privy to the mysteries isn't the way it was set up, so why this insistence on having to do it that way these days in order to be a "proper Wiccan" in someone else's eyes? Piffle. Elitist bullhockey.

Just want to add something to that... I do think that it's important for groups (denominations, sects, whatever) to have systems and standards to determine who is authorized to be considered a High Priest and High Priestess in that specific denomination. Having minimal standards to meet help ensure the titles actually mean something.

But those titles only mean something within those specific denominations. And specific denominations definitely do not have the authority to tell everyone else who can use the label Wiccan. Wicca is bigger than any specific denomination. The Gardnerians don't own the term, neither do the Alexandrians, nor does any other denomination we can list off. So none of them can dictate to the rest of us who can call themselves Wiccan (no matter how much they dislike that.)

But they do get to set the rules about who can call themselves a member of their specific denomination, and who within that denomination can call themselves a High Priest or High Priestess.

[Arie]

I appreciate Ben G pointing out how initiation as a recognition by others that you have studied and been privy to the mysteries isn't the way it was set up, so why this insistence on having to do it that way these days in order to be a "proper Wiccan" in someone else's eyes? Piffle. Elitist bullhockey.

Thank you also to Ben G .....i couldnt remember who had said it. Elitist bullhockey....LOL

[ancestral_lee]

What if a person leaves their Coven because they move out of state? Are they NOT a Wiccan anymore because they are no longer in a Coven?

you remain Wiccan, you effectively take your initiation and degree with you. if you want to join another coven then you can do so and because your lineage and therefore initiator can be checked up - then can contact them to see if you are who you say you are.


perhaps solitary witches existed before gardner, but no Solitary Wiccans, after all gardner started it all. the increase in solitary wiccans has only come about in the past couple fo decades since the flood of books on the subject that say you can self initiate.

[Platinum Dove]

Arie, thank you for starting this thread, seriously! I was questioning the same thing after being told that after 9 years of learning on my own and within group structure, that I was not "Wiccan" because I was not (what later came out in conversation) Gardnerian or Alexandrian.

I agree with whoever said...elitist bullhockey!

[Lunacie]

Ancestral Lee, did you even read Ben G's post #103? I know that Ben has done a great deal of research and study on the history of Wicca and the people that were involved in the beginning, and I trust what he has to say about it. Check out the part where he writes about how the people who were actually initiated by Gardner wrote books describing self-initiation, and how Gardner himself told them to make whatever changes they thought were appropriate. Kiddo, it's giving me a headache to see you keep banging your head against the same wall over and over. There are a lot of Wiccans who don't think we need a wall at all.

Edited to correct a typo... oopsie.

[ancestral_lee]

yes i read bens post, but this was a reply to Arie's post on this page not Ben.

ive just double checked Aunty Doreen's Wicthcraft for tomorrow to find the 'self-initiation rite' and there it is on page 159. the thing is, its self initiation as witch, not a wiccan. in fact the word wiccan only appears half a dozen time thoughout the book, and and its a ref. to the rede and a periodical out there called The Wiccan. as i dont have pat or freds books to hand i cant check whether its a wiccan initiation or a witch initiation... perhaps somebody with them could check?

the initiation she gives is not the same as the initiation i went through, and that was unchanged going back to one HPS Gardner himself initiated.

the latest i have heard is that its perfectly fine for people to follow a wican inspired path but its just that, wicca inspired and not Wicca.

re. the wall.. i think you might be misunderstanding my metaphor. i mean something akin to pissing into the wind, flogging a dead horse, in other words what im saying isnt getting through or being understood.


Ancestral Lee, did you even read Ben G's post #103? I know that Ben has done a great deal of research and study on the history of Wicca and the people that were involved in the beginning, and I trust what he has to say about it. Check out the part where he writes about how the people who were actually initiated by Gardner wrote books describing self-initiation, and how Gardner himself told them to make whatever changes they thought were appropriate. Kiddo, it's giving me a headache to see you keep banging your head against the same wall over and over. There are a lot of Wiccans who don't think we need a wall at all.

Edited to correct a typo... oopsie.

[Elderbush]

To correct al little bit of misinformation, transferring your training and degrees only works within a tradition and only if the coven that you go to agrees. There can be differences within covens that are within a trad or so has been my experience.

Some traditions may take initiates from other traditions on a provisional status, or require extra training or they may not grant the circle/degree status that the person had in another tradition. They may refuse to acknowledge their degrees and make them start over.

Think of it like transferring to a new college. You may lose a lot of credits - if they will take you at all.

[ancestral_lee]

indeed, apologies if i didnt make that clear or mention it.

lee




To correct al little bit of misinformation, transferring your training and degrees only works within a tradition and only if the coven that you go to agrees. There can be differences within covens that are within a trad or so has been my experience.

Some traditions may take initiates from other traditions on a provisional status, or require extra training or they may not grant the circle/degree status that the person had in another tradition. They may refuse to acknowledge their degrees and make them start over.

Think of it like transferring to a new college. You may lose a lot of credits - if they will take you at all.

[Elderbush]

yes i read bens post, but this was a reply to Arie's post on this page not Ben.

ive just double checked Aunty Doreen's Wicthcraft for tomorrow to find the 'self-initiation rite' and there it is on page 159. the thing is, its self initiation as witch, not a wiccan. in fact the word wiccan only appears half a dozen time thoughout the book, and and its a ref. to the rede and a periodical out there called The Wiccan. as i dont have pat or freds books to hand i cant check whether its a wiccan initiation or a witch initiation... perhaps somebody with them could check?

the initiation she gives is not the same as the initiation i went through, and that was unchanged going back to one HPS Gardner himself initiated.

the latest i have heard is that its perfectly fine for people to follow a wican inspired path but its just that, wicca inspired and not Wicca.

re. the wall.. i think you might be misunderstanding my metaphor. i mean something akin to pissing into the wind, flogging a dead horse, in other words what im saying isnt getting through or being understood.


Um, they didn't call Wicca "Wicca" in those days. They called it "Witchcraft." If you read Ben's post you would have learned that Wicca is a later addition.

[Platinum Dove]

perhaps solitary witches existed before gardner, but no Solitary Wiccans, after all gardner started it all. the increase in solitary wiccans has only come about in the past couple fo decades since the flood of books on the subject that say you can self initiate.

Question...if Gardner can start his own tradition, what makes it any less valid if someone starts their own tradition? Heck, if Alex took Garner's BOS, changed a few things and came up with his own trad, since Garner and Alex's BOS are both on public domain, what prevents anyone else from doing the same thing?

[Lunacie]

<snip>
re. the wall.. i think you might be misunderstanding my metaphor. i mean something akin to pissing into the wind, flogging a dead horse, in other words what im saying isnt getting through or being understood.

Elderbush already dealt with the rest of the post and quite well too.

I believe banging your head against a wall, pissing into the wind and flogging a dead horse all mean pretty much the same thing. I certainly do "get it" that you don't feel understood. Please don't feel like what you're saying isn't getting through or that you're not being understood just because we don't agree with you. Allthough I suppose you may also be feeling that if only we really understood you we would agree with you. Sorry, but that isn't necessarily true. We have tried explaining why we don't agree and it has nothing to do with whether or not we understand you. We do understand you, we simply don't agree with you.

[Lunacie]

Question...if Gardner can start his own tradition, what makes it any less valid if someone starts their own tradition? Heck, if Alex took Garner's BOS, changed a few things and came up with his own trad, since Garner and Alex's BOS are both on public domain, what prevents anyone else from doing the same thing?

The elitists are saying that it is perfectly valid to start your own tradition, just as Gardner did, but unless your new tradition does things exactly the same way they do them and for exactly the same reasons then you need to come up with a different name because they were using Wicca first. It doesn't seem to matter to them that they may not be doing things exactly the same way Gardner did, or that Gardner himself didn't give a fig whether you copied him or not.

[Elderbush]

Probably if Gardner came back today, he would get himself kicked out of the Gardnerians for heresy, ever thought of that?:)

[ancestral_lee]

Probably if Gardner came back today, he would get himself kicked out of the Gardnerians for heresy, ever thought of that?:)

without going into too much detail... he does and he is welcomed.

[Arie]

This may be my own view but a Coven is much like a Cliche in High School. If you werent in one your werent cool.

If you're not in a Coven you arent one of the cool kids and cant play.

[RainInanna]

*sighs* I've suddenly lost interest in the conversation.

I wonder why people even ask the question "are you Wiccan if you aren't in a coven". Invariably 90% of folks will say yes, and 10% will say no, and people become offended and rip eachother apart.

If you're in the 90% who say yes, great, be secure in your opinion and continue your very personal, meaningful, wonderful spirituality. Does it really matter if 10% say no? Why are you so concerned about their opinion? To them there are aspects of Wicca that can only be taught verbally by people in a coven. Since you're not part of a coven, it stands to reason you do not have access to this material. You cannot know if they are right or wrong unless you are in a coven.

I just don't see why it should matter a whit to anyone whether I call them Wiccan. There are lots of wonderful, valid, personal spiritualities other than Wicca. This question seems to lead to argument and ridicule rather than mutual understanding and respect.

[Arie]

I didnt ask this to start an argument. What bothers me is when people say that because i choose not to be in a coven that I dont count. Not in those exact words but it is implied that if you are not in a Coven for what ever reason that you do not matter....you are insignificant. Sort of like the red-headed step child.

[Lunacie]

RainInanna, a very insightful post. But may I ask where you get those percentages?

[Lunacie]

I didnt ask this to start an argument. What bothers me is when people say that because i choose not to be in a coven that I dont count. Not in those exact words but it is implied that if you are not in a Coven for what ever reason that you do not matter....you are insignificant. Sort of like the red-headed step child.

I'm sorry the debate has made you uncomfortable. Even though it seems like we're all going around and around and not getting anywhere, someone who, like you, is questioning this coven/initiation business has been getting an education in the reasons for both sets of beliefs. Whether anyone has been convinced one way or the other, there is a lot in this thread to think about.

[Elderbush]

Rain, That sounds like a repeat of Ancestral_Lee - If you aren't in a coven (and somehow I think BTW rather than any number of other covens and traditions that exist) you just aren't Wiccan, ho-hum.

If I've misunderstood you, please explain.

I don't see anyone here who has asked for permission to use the term Wicca from members of any coven. We've just firmly rejected the idea that any one person or tradition or group of traditions can dictate to the rest of the Wiccans or define the term.

[ancestral_lee]

This may be my own view but a Coven is much like a Cliche in High School. If you werent in one your werent cool.

If you're not in a Coven you arent one of the cool kids and cant play.

its nothing like a cliche. its more like a sports team, anybody willing to put in the effort to work at it can join when room is available.

elitism occurs when somebody is not admitted for an arbitrary reason they cannot change such as race, age, weight, height or the size of thier feet. selectivity is what is exercised is admitting new initiates.

[Lunacie]

I hate to leave at this point, but I have other commitments. I'll be back this evening to see if this is still a good debate, or whether it has died, or even if it's been closed by the site god. Carry on, my friends, carry on.

[Arie]

I'm sorry the debate has made you uncomfortable. Even though it seems like we're all going around and around and not getting anywhere, someone who, like you, is questioning this coven/initiation business has been getting an education in the reasons for both sets of beliefs. Whether anyone has been convinced one way or the other, there is a lot in this thread to think about.

It doesnt make me uncomfortable. If i sounded.....ummm bitchy i apoligize. My whole thing is that people in Covens...not all but some....are like you are nothing becuase you dont belong. Join us and THEN you are somebody....you cant do it without us. THAT is what gets me.
__________________

[ancestral_lee]

I didnt ask this to start an argument. What bothers me is when people say that because i choose not to be in a coven that I dont count. Not in those exact words but it is implied that if you are not in a Coven for what ever reason that you do not matter....you are insignificant. Sort of like the red-headed step child.

nobody has said you dont count, that you are insignificant - however it has been put. dont take it so personally or someone might read something into.

if you havent joined a wiccan coven and are following a wiccan inspired path then you are singing from a different songsheet or playing without a full set.... so strictly speaking you arent a Wiccan, more a wiccan inspried witch.

[Elderbush]

I didnt ask this to start an argument. What bothers me is when people say that because i choose not to be in a coven that I dont count. Not in those exact words but it is implied that if you are not in a Coven for what ever reason that you do not matter....you are insignificant. Sort of like the red-headed step child.

You aren't alone. People find Wicca, they get excited about it and they come on line or go to public pagan meeting and discover suddenly that there people who pull the elitest act on them. Some unfortunates go immediately into a coven and...well, they become mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed bulls&*t about Wicca.:) Then they turn around and try to pass it on.

This thread is important. It teaches people who have been told there is only one way to be Wiccan that other Wiccans don't agree and won't roll over about it. It lets the moderates see that there are other moderates. As for youserlf, stand proud, talk loud, and don't let anyone intimidate you. We need good people in Wicca.

[Elderbush]

nobody has said you dont count, that you are insignificant - however it has been put. dont take it so personally or someone might read something into.

if you havent joined a wiccan coven and are following a wiccan inspired path then you are singing from a different songsheet or playing without a full set.... so strictly speaking you arent a Wiccan, more a wiccan inspried witch.

Do you see how you are putting her down and belittling her as a Wiccan?

You may think that you can define Wicca. You are wrong.

[RainInanna]

if you havent joined a wiccan coven and are following a wiccan inspired path then you are singing from a different songsheet or playing without a full set.... so strictly speaking you arent a Wiccan, more a wiccan inspried witch.

And it doesn't mean you "don't count" when you use a different songsheet. It just means you are using a different songsheet.

I say this as a "Wiccan inspired witch" who has never been part of a coven.


If I've misunderstood you, please explain.

Wow, you certainly did miss my point. I must not have made myself clear. I see a lot of people getting offended in this thread because a small percentage of the posts come from people who use a different spiritual classification system. My point is that everyone here is wonderful and their spirituality is meaningful, and that they should focus on that beauty and magic rather than worrying about what others think.

[RainInanna]

Do you see how you are putting her down and belittling her as a Wiccan?

Is "Wiccan inspired witch" an insult to you?

I consider myself one, and would not feel put down to be called one, so I am confused?


You may think that you can define Wicca. You are wrong.

We all can define Wicca for ourselves. That's why we have freedom of opinion and the wonderful opportunity to share it here.

[ancestral_lee]

Do you see how you are putting her down and belittling her as a Wiccan?

what part of "if you havent joined a wiccan coven and are following a wiccan inspired path then you are singing from a different songsheet or playing without a full set" is factually incorrect?



You may think that you can define Wicca. You are wrong.

the same can be applied to yourself also dont forget. im not using my definition. im passing what is generally accepted to be the way thing are... or at least how they are seen in the UK.

[RainInanna]

RainInanna, a very insightful post. But may I ask where you get those percentages?

Thank you. I must be honest, I estimated based on my experiences. At this forum, and per my experiences in the Pagan community, I would guess at least 90% of Pagans consider solitary Wiccans as Wiccan. At least I would suggest the majority do.

[Morgandria]

My experience with Wicca has never been elitist. I was a guest with the coven I am now a member of off and on for four years. We have a couple big open Sabbats, mostly in the summer, and we welcome guests. If you're cool, enjoy hanging out AND helping out, you can come back as much as you like, and worship with us. We do not treat our guests badly, in the least - we follow the Laws of Hospitality, and as long as they reciprocate we have no problems. We enjoy having company.

It also gives us a screening process...because sometimes people are just not the type you want to have around, or they don't get on with the people in the group well. You want to know that beforehand, really. If keeping out the weirdos and the flakes and the people who want a free ride is elitist, well, so be it.

Obviously you do want to have closed sabbats, sometimes. Obviously our guests do not know the things our initiates and coven members do for our rites - BUT - by being there, helping to get things ready, and joining us in the circle they are participating as much as any of us do. :) Most of us started out exactly where they are.

As I said, I started out a solitary, following a path I could only call Wiccan-inspired, since I hadn't seen or experienced what Wiccans actually did. Books are only so helpful. It wasn't a better or worse experience than being in a coven - it was simply a different one. Some people enjoy groups, others do not. What working with a coven will give you is a different perspective, and definetely a learning experience - there is so much to understand that you'd never think of on your own.

[ancestral_lee]

Thank you. I must be honest, I estimated based on my experiences. At this forum, and per my experiences in the Pagan community, I would guess at least 90% of Pagans consider solitary Wiccans as Wiccan. At least I would suggest the majority do.

i should think that over here in the UK that 9:1 ratio is more like
3:7.


in my experience that is.

[RainInanna]

i should think that over here in the UK that 9:1 ratio is more like
3:7.

Hm, really? I had read somewhere that in the UK it is quite different than over here, but I wasn't sure as I haven't spoken with a lot of UK Pagans. I believe much of the population here is American. I'm from Canada of course. Interesting how it colours things, no?

I wonder how the same question would go on a forum largely populated by UK folk?

[Qumran]

When it comes down to it, no one has to follow my path but me. So I don't really see why I should be judged as a fluffy-non-Wiccan-14-year-old-uber-elf when I'm the only one who has to deal with the consequences of it. Hell, even if I did want to be a fluffy-non-Wiccan-14-year-old-uber-elf it shouldn't matter to anyone else. It's my life, my own mind, no one else has to do it as well. Unless I'm using my "title" to hurt people, to ruin the public face of the religion, no one else should give a damn.

Personally I don't see what the problem is either with believing in love and light and faeries and unicorns. None of those beliefs hurt anyone....


WOAhh! Wise words for one so young :) (Are you sure you're only 14??... go ahead, you can tell us! lol)

Your post will sooth some of us and infuriate others.... to me, it sounds like it is unlikely you are the type who will ever burn a fellow human being alive for having the "wrong" faith - that's gotta count for something!! :ballonsmi


Although most traditionalist will probably chuck you into the "fluffy bunny" bin, I can tell you from personal experience, its not such a bad place to be!


IMO, This world could do with more TOLERANCE- People are DYING for lack of it.

Sadly, most strict traditionalist or fundamentalist (in ANY religion) are not satisfied with following their own tradition strictly - they insist on telling other people all about what is the "right" and "wrong" way to worship...

Speaking from a FORMER fundamentalist Christian background - once you are out of the rigid mindset they perpetuate, you begin to see how unbalanced and extreme a "cult" mentality is.

By the way...did the God or Goddess (by whatever secret name they are called) tell us precisely what they desire in our worship to them and how we must perform specific rituals? - If not, all of this talk about well established trads is little more than "it is so because we SAY it is."


The only authority these trads can claim is CONSENSUS.

Although my words will offend some, that is NOT my intent. But if some of you strict traditionalist are angered by my "extreme" liberal views, you will better understand how we 'fluffy bunnies' feel when btw trad members try to tell us what we are and are not.

[RainInanna]

I love your post, Qumran. :) I agree wholeheartedly with you about all of it, especially that the world could do with more tolerance from everyone.

I just wish people would stop getting angry at eachother for different views. Everyone here is wonderful and should be respected for their very valid, personal, spiritual beliefs, regardless of whether they work with others or not. We have to remember to separate conversation about language and consensus from judging others.

[ancestral_lee]

I wonder how the same question would go on a forum largely populated by UK folk?

the same pretty much, but 'traditionalists' are in the majority.

you could try www.pentaclemagazine.org for a more recent one, check the wicca and witchcraft forum

[Qumran]

before someone mentions it, I have heard many people say somehting like: "Well Wicca is not a fit-all word- it means something specific"

I grant you this. It is true. BUT - much fault lies with large publishers who are generating VAST quantities of misinformation. The result is that the original (Gardernarian) meaning of the word has been clouded or distorted altogether.

So now, what are we to do? There are far more people who believe Wicca is something OTHER than what btw trads say it is......

So does the worldwide consensus definition of "Wicca" prevail...??

Are strict traditionalists doomed to always be correcting and educating the ignorant masses??

Here's a thought... why not live and let live? :)

[Qumran]

I love your post, Qumran. :) I agree wholeheartedly with you about all of it, especially that the world could do with more tolerance from everyone.

I just wish people would stop getting angry at eachother for different views. Everyone here is wonderful and should be respected for their very valid, personal, spiritual beliefs, regardless of whether they work with others or not. We have to remember to separate conversation about language and consensus from judging others.

Thank you, RainInnana. :)

[ancestral_lee]

concensus can of course be wrong.





So now, what are we to do? There are far more people who believe Wicca is something OTHER than what btw trads say it is......

So does the worldwide consensus definition of "Wicca" prevail...??

[RainInanna]

Thank you, ancestral_lee, I will definitely check it out. Come to think of it, I can't remember which forum I was on, but I did once see the discussion go totally different - in that case the staff of the forum were traditionalists I think. One of them said "let's not have this argument again, Wiccans must be part of a coven, if they aren't they're witches" and that was pretty much that. Lucky that here we can disagree with eachother, even if we're disagreeing with site staff! :)


I grant you this. It is true. BUT - much fault lies with large publishers who are generating VAST quantities of misinformation. The result is that the original (Gardernarian) meaning of the word has been clouded or distorted altogether.

Yep! The meaning of Wicca has changed for many. It just doesn't necessarily mean "religion practiced within a coven" to everyone anymore. In fact in some places it doesn't mean that to the majority. We just can't make it mean one thing or the other, partially because of all the conflicting info out there. We can certainly discuss what it means to us but we can't force that meaning on everyone. At some point we just gotta agree to disagree :)

[Elderbush]

Rain, had to go away, back and have to go away again but I'll try to clear this up first.

"Wiccan inspired witch" an insult to you?"

Well, it is because I'm a Wiccan. To call someone something they don't call themselves is usually insulting and very often meant as an insult. It wouldn't be an insult to someone who calls themselves a Wiccan inspired witch, however.

I sorry I did misunderstand you. I really have enjoyed your good sense and wisdom in your posts.:)

[omar]

8O I did not want to be a Wiccan any way.( sour grapes). I will just be a solitary. Poor little solitary. Boohoo

[Ben Gruagach]

This whole debate is just another witchwar really -- thankfully the posters here are keeping level heads about things but the underlying conflicts are the same.

I find it funny that these same vigorous debates went on not very long ago about whether Alexandrians were "real" Wiccans at all -- because they weren't Gardnerians, there was no way they could possibly be real Wiccans!

And at the same time there was that Robert Cochrane guy who insisted that neither the Gardnerians nor the Alexandrians (or any of the offshoots of them) deserved to consider themselves witches because they weren't doing it the way Cochrane taught.

Somehow the Gardnerians and Alexandrians managed to overcome their differences and now they're the ones ganging up on those who dare to be different (but really aren't that different if you look at what they're doing and what they believe) and make up almost-insults like "NeoWiccans" "Llewellyn-Wiccans" and outright insults like "fluffy bunnies."

It's just all sort of funny. It makes me wonder what the community will look like in ten years, twenty years.

There is hope though. In the gay community we used to have these same sorts of arguments between those who wanted everyone to conform to an "acceptable" stereotype (basically one that blended in with heterosexual society) versus those who felt that diversity was a worthy thing and something we shouldn't be trying to sacrifice in order to "fit in" with the outside world. I came out back in the 1980s in Ontario, Canada when this was at its height in the gay community there. Thankfully the community as a whole matured and grew past the petty debate. And guess what? They discovered that "blending" wouldn't make a bit of difference because the people who hate us will hate us if we blend or if we don't. And the community learned that diversity is good and is actually one of our greatest strengths. Now I'm proud to say the gay community embraces its diversity rather than fussing over trying to make everyone into some sort of soulless clone.

I suspect the Pagan community, and the Wiccan community in particular, will eventually move past this phase too. I just hope we can do so smoothly and without causing ourselves harm.

Diversity is GOOD. Wicca is NOT diminished by diversity but is strengthened.

[Platinum Dove]

I didnt ask this to start an argument. What bothers me is when people say that because i choose not to be in a coven that I dont count. Not in those exact words but it is implied that if you are not in a Coven for what ever reason that you do not matter....you are insignificant. Sort of like the red-headed step child.

Arie, I feel the exact same way, that if you're not in a coven (specifically a Gardnerian or Alexandrian one) that you are less than they are, that however much work, and study you've put into your life is worth nil.

[serenarian]

Personally I don't conform to the belief that only a Wiccan can make a Wiccan. I believe the God and Goddess are much better qualified to make a person a Wiccan than anyone else, and if you feel their presence, have the beliefs and do the teachings, and you get something special out of your ritual and spellworking, then you're a Wiccan.

No offence to anyone else, by the way. This is just my opinion. I know others will have the opposite opinion and I respect them for that. :)

[LadyCelt]

I don't think one has to be in a group or coven to be a "real" member of this faith. I don't think being in a coven makes one any more real or legite than someone who does it solo.

[ancestral_lee]

you will have to forgive my writing for the rest of this evening, ive been drinking the rest of a bottle of rum seeing as it is saturday night and the bottle is clogging up my fridge <ewg>

my personal view here is that wicca gives you an outlook, a set of techniques and ways to connect with the divine, it isnt the only way to connect with herself and himself or themselves. so whe somebody says you dont need to be in a coven to be accepted by the goddess and god they are right, thats fine - theyve done it in thier own way on thier own terms.

they arent using the wiccan way or are only using part of it so therefore it coudl be said they arent opperating as a Wiccan, more a wiccan inspried.

i need a refill.

lee



Personally I don't conform to the belief that only a Wiccan can make a Wiccan. I believe the God and Goddess are much better qualified to make a person a Wiccan than anyone else, and if you feel their presence, have the beliefs and do the teachings, and you get something special out of your ritual and spellworking, then you're a Wiccan.

No offence to anyone else, by the way. This is just my opinion. I know others will have the opposite opinion and I respect them for that. :)

[Platinum Dove]

Alright, I had to put the baby down for this one....

So, far, this is what I've interpretted from this discussion as well as others I've been in:

Witchcraft does not equal Wicca. If you're not a part of a family trad of Witches, then you're Wiccan. HOWEVER....
If you're not part of a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven and initiated into such, then you're not Wiccan, you're wiccan.

So, if someone is talking to you, and they say they're Wiccan/wiccan...how do you distinguish between the two? Does the word Wiccan sound differently than the word wiccan?

I hate to say this, but its really starting to sound kinda silly to me. "You're not Wiccan, you're wiccan!" And this isn't an elitist comment? *tries not to roll her eyes*

Oh, and lee.....you're idea inspired me! Time to break out the old bottle of Bailey's in the fridge that's taking up space!

[Platinum Dove]

oh yes, more questions as the Bailey's comes into effect...

Since Gardner was the first to be Wiccan, and his trad makes one "Wiccan", then is Alexandrian not really Wicca but a "Wicca-inspired trad"? And if so, would that make Seax Wicca the same?

[ancestral_lee]

think of the baileys as breast milk for adults (though my mind boggles at what sort of breast it comes from)

your observations are almost spot on bar one:

family trads arent Wiccan, if they are genuine i.e pre-gardner, then they will say so and refer to themselves as witches, family trad or traditional witches - VERY few of these groups are 'real' in that they do actually pre-date gardner, most say they do but are telling porky pies. either way, none of them will refer to themselves as wiccan - quite often they look donw on Wicans - noticing a trend here?

all Wiccans are witches, but not all witches are Wiccans.

as for the capital 'W', i use it to distinguish bewteeen initiated and non. people may say im elitist for that but hey, then im elitist. working my arse off and gaining the trust and respect of my coven and the pagan commmunity here has earned me that little capital 'W', if you like its my badge of office as long as there are 14 year old wiccan high priestesses out ther. maybe in 10 years the trendiness of wicca will have settled down and we can all get on with things, then i will review the 'W' situation.

:)

i need another refill <hic>


Alright, I had to put the baby down for this one....

So, far, this is what I've interpretted from this discussion as well as others I've been in:

Witchcraft does not equal Wicca. If you're not a part of a family trad of Witches, then you're Wiccan. HOWEVER....
If you're not part of a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven and initiated into such, then you're not Wiccan, you're wiccan.

So, if someone is talking to you, and they say they're Wiccan/wiccan...how do you distinguish between the two? Does the word Wiccan sound differently than the word wiccan?

I hate to say this, but its really starting to sound kinda silly to me. "You're not Wiccan, you're wiccan!" And this isn't an elitist comment? *tries not to roll her eyes*

Oh, and lee.....you're idea inspired me! Time to break out the old bottle of Bailey's in the fridge that's taking up space!

[ancestral_lee]

Alex was an initiated gardenarian - so i guess it makes him an offshoot with an Alex Sanders twist. really, its modified gardenarianism - just before i was brought inot my coven officially (id be working with them for 4 years previously anyway but they offered formality) they met an Alexandrian coven and after discussion foung they had an AWFUl lot in common.

you know, i dont know about ray Buckland... i cant recall hearing who he was initiated by, its only recently that i found out my Hp has copies of correspondance between Alex and Gerald that show he was initiate.


oh yes, more questions as the Bailey's comes into effect...

Since Gardner was the first to be Wiccan, and his trad makes one "Wiccan", then is Alexandrian not really Wicca but a "Wicca-inspired trad"? And if so, would that make Seax Wicca the same?

[Platinum Dove]

From http://www.controverscial.com/Raymond%20Buckland.htm:


In 1963 Buckland and Gardner came together for their first and only physical meeting. They met at the home of Monique Wilson (Gardner’s - High Priestess) in Perth, Scotland. The occasion was for Buckland’s initiation which was performed by Monique. Rosemary was initiated separately sometime later. Shortly after the meeting Gardner left to vacation the winter in the Lebanon. While returning aboard ship on the 14th February 1964, Gardner suffered a heart attack. He was buried on shore the following day in Tunis.

[Platinum Dove]

How would you define witchcraft from a pre-Gardnerian position? After all, it wouldn't take very many generations to consider one to have a family trad. My grandmother was born in 1903, my father in 1936. If what they practiced would be considered "witchcraft", then I would be a traditional "witch".

[ancestral_lee]

ok, well here comes another very major bone of contention :)

pre-gardener there were groups of people into 'health and fitness' - nudists. it was people like this that GG was mingling with and whom he probably created wicca with. Philip hesselton has written on this quite a bit, having spoken with him he certainly knows his stuff.

pre-gerry, witches were nothing like what we think of them as today. what you may have had are the cunning men who generally got thier info from mail order books of the 18/19th C and whose main job was to counter bewitchment. thats why so many charms, talismans etc are against witchcraft. witches were like a boogie man to be blamed whilst the cunning men were the cure so to speak. from these cunning men and somtimes famil groups opf them you sometimes get more modern witchcraft groups saying they are trad-witches. its from these that pre gardner, witchcraft families stem.

for ease of definition and clarity - someone whose family has been practicing witchcraft (NOT granny read tea leaves or occasionaly left milk for the fairies - superstition on occasion does not a witch make) for a couple of generations, could really be called hereditary wicthes. its now that really we will see the grandchildren of the first gernation of witches being born and finding thier way into the craft - these people could i suppose genuinesly call themselves hereditary.

traditional witchcraft here in the UK is generally reserved as a label for pre-gardner or robert cochrane witches (mainly the latter of the two as pre-G are VERY rare and dont tend to publicise)



How would you define witchcraft from a pre-Gardnerian position? After all, it wouldn't take very many generations to consider one to have a family trad. My grandmother was born in 1903, my father in 1936. If what they practiced would be considered "witchcraft", then I would be a traditional "witch".

[Platinum Dove]

Again, how would you define "witchcraft"? Or, rather, what is the accepted definition of witchcraft?

[ancestral_lee]

Again, how would you define "witchcraft"? Or, rather, what is the accepted definition of witchcraft?

sorcery. plain and simple. all this crystals, animal guides is a new age add-on. by sorcery i mean spellcraft for good or ill, also a bit of good old trance work.

im hoping to be inspired for a spell to stop me needing a wee all the time - but then 4 pints of rum and coke will do that :p

[Platinum Dove]

sorcery. plain and simple. all this crystals, animal guides is a new age add-on. by sorcery i mean spellcraft for good or ill, also a bit of good old trance work.


Interesting....now go pee :P

[Elderbush]

Of course there is hope, Ben, but it will take time and possible years of maturation both for the religion and for those in the religion. I think the extremists are noisiest but the moderates are a much bigger group.

Don't you think that the people who are jackasses about who is a "real" Wiccan would be the same kind of jackass in another religion, too? I've often thought that they are the Wiccan version of Christianity's "one true wayers." Their attitude probably drives more people away from their tradition than intimidates into joining up.

Viva le difference!

[Platinum Dove]

Just a thought, but could this extremist stuff be a British thing? With monarchy and titles in Britain, its all about lineage, right? Whereas in the US, we've always been a melting pot, take what works, and get rid of what doesn't. I certainly don't want this to be a flame war about Brits vs. Americans. I'm just asking.

[ancestral_lee]

Of course there is hope, Ben, but it will take time and possible years of maturation both for the religion and for those in the religion. I think the extremists are noisiest but the moderates are a much bigger group.

everyone is an extremeist in this argument - there is no spectrum upon which you sit, its a black and white, yes or no situation. you hold one view or the other. either side is extremist or not.


I've often thought that they are the Wiccan version of Christianity's "one true wayers." Their attitude probably drives more people away from their tradition than intimidates into joining up.



both sides are intimidating - 'my' side for holding frrm and true to the values which they learned and hold dear and 'your' side for the complete free for all.

[ancestral_lee]

Just a thought, but could this extremist stuff be a British thing? With monarchy and titles in Britain, its all about lineage, right? Whereas in the US, we've always been a melting pot, take what works, and get rid of what doesn't. I certainly don't want this to be a flame war about Brits vs. Americans. I'm just asking.

:gagged:

i dont think thats quite it, i will admit, here in the Uk we are more traditionalists and more conservative than in the US.

perhaps there is also an element of protectiveness too seeing as it was from these isles that Wicca went out inot the world.

[Elderbush]

Just a thought, but could this extremist stuff be a British thing? With monarchy and titles in Britain, its all about lineage, right? Whereas in the US, we've always been a melting pot, take what works, and get rid of what doesn't. I certainly don't want this to be a flame war about Brits vs. Americans. I'm just asking.

That was one of the major splits with the Brit Wiccans way back when. They ran their covens more on the lines of a monarchy while the American Wiccan wanted more democracy within covens and trads. Extremists exists among American BTW too but I don't know if it more here or in the UK or about the same.

[Elderbush]

everyone is an extremeist in this argument - there is no spectrum upon which you sit, its a black and white, yes or no situation. you hold one view or the other. either side is extremist or not.




both sides are intimidating - 'my' side for holding frrm and true to the values which they learned and hold dear and 'your' side for the complete free for all.

I wish so much you would stop with the demonizing of the other side.

[ancestral_lee]

I wish so much you would stop with the demonizing of the other side.

... says one side who has been demonizing the "extremist" other side all along.

we are the opposite sides of the argument. small islands in a lake - the only two islands there are in that lake (with regards to the initiation issue)

[Elderbush]

Actually we are not. You haven't been paying attention.:)

There is the extremist who only believes that his or her tradition is REAL Wicca (I'll include BTW) and everyone else needs to join his or her tradition and stop calling themselves Wiccans. they are the one true wayers. I think you fall into this group?

The large group of moderates, in which I fall, who believe that yes, there is a rather fuzzy core set of beliefs and practices that make up the religion of Wicca and that one can be a solitary or in a tradition and be Wiccan.

Then there are the other extremists who do say that Wicca is whatever they want it to be.

I will throw in another group that I will call The Realists. They realize that there are no Wiccan Police and it is a waste of time and energy to attack 14 year olds who think they are Wiccans. All it does is make the 14 year olds enemies of Wicca and Wiccans for life.

You demonize me whenever you say that everyone else besides those in your traditions are 5 minute wiccans (small w). That does not describe me. It demonizes me.

[ancestral_lee]

demonize???

demonizing would be to say non-initiated wiccans are baby eating christian killers.

voiving my opinions as to what you are not, is not demonizing.


Actually we are not. You haven't been paying attention.:)

There is the extremist who only believes that his or her tradition is REAL Wicca (I'll include BTW) and everyone else needs to join his or her tradition and stop calling themselves Wiccans. they are the one true wayers. I think you fall into this group?

The large group of moderates, in which I fall, who believe that yes, there is a rather fuzzy core set of beliefs and practices that make up the religion of Wicca and that one can be a solitary or in a tradition and be Wiccan.

Then there are the other extremists who do say that Wicca is whatever they want it to be.

I will throw in another group that I will call The Realists. They realize that there are no Wiccan Police and it is a waste of time and energy to attack 14 year olds who think they are Wiccans. All it does is make the 14 year olds enemies of Wicca and Wiccans for life.

You demonize me whenever you say that everyone else besides those in your traditions are 5 minute wiccans (small w). That does not describe me. It demonizes me.

[mrsroper]

I think that is why I choose to call my self simply Pagan. It is not so important to lable any further. Alot of the debate seems to be man made to divide people. I doubt any God or Goddess cares what label you accept.:dancy:

[Lunacie]

Thank you. I must be honest, I estimated based on my experiences. At this forum, and per my experiences in the Pagan community, I would guess at least 90% of Pagans consider solitary Wiccans as Wiccan. At least I would suggest the majority do.

Thanks. In my experience it may go as high as 75% say "yeah you're Wiccan" and 25% say "no you're not Wiccan", but we seem to have had the same kind of experience. I was sorta hoping there was something I could quote from. *shrug*

[Elderbush]

To demonize something is to assign to it some name you would not like to be called yourself and more, one that is palatably untrue of the whole. Would you like to have your tradition's members all described as 5 minute Wiccans?

[Platinum Dove]

I have to agree with Elderbush here, but "demonise" is a strong word....trivialize would be a more appropriate word I believe. After all, there is a BIG difference in the 13 yr olds who have a sleepover, and proclaim themselves to be High Priestess Fairy Glitterwings of the Coven of the Purple Fairy Unicorn, and those of us who have been studying Wicca (yes, I say Wicca damnit! with a capital W!) in whatever way we can for years, either solitary or with others and have not been initiated for whatever reason.

[Elderbush]

Demonize is what it feels like. If she can describe everyone who isn't in her tradition as "5 minute wiccans" then she can hurt those awful little creatures at will. After all, she isn't harming real people.

[ancestral_lee]

oh i know its childish to do this but im drunk so cant held responsible:

demonize:

1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.




To demonize something is to assign to it some name you would not like to be called yourself and more, one that is palatably untrue of the whole. Would you like to have your tradition's members all described as 5 minute Wiccans?

[ancestral_lee]

she is a He, thank you.



Demonize is what it feels like. If she can describe everyone who isn't in her tradition as "5 minute wiccans" then she can hurt those awful little creatures at will. After all, she isn't harming real people.

[Elderbush]

Ah, didn't check.

Yes, that is what you are doing to the Wiccans who are not in your tradition. No. 3. ___ tradition propaganda demonizes their enemy

Ed. to add what a lousy sentence! I'll blame the wine.

[Lunacie]

everyone is an extremeist in this argument - there is no spectrum upon which you sit, its a black and white, yes or no situation. you hold one view or the other. either side is extremist or not.


both sides are intimidating - 'my' side for holding frrm and true to the values which they learned and hold dear and 'your' side for the complete free for all.

It would be true that this is two extremes disagreeing, except that no one here has promoted the idea of a "complete free for all." Again you create a straw man argument that has no validity.

I wish it was just the rum talking. Sheesh.

[ancestral_lee]

except that no one here has promoted the idea of a "complete free for all." Again you create a straw man argument that has no validity.


the side being argued by elderbush is that ANYBODY can call themself wiccan and has the right to do so - that to my mind is a free for all.

[ancestral_lee]

gods were all slaughtered tonight eh?

can you tell me where im demoizing them, and by that i mean saying them are evil, debased or just plain horrid. so far my main 'insult' or 'demonizing' word is "wrong".




Yes, that is what you are doing to the Wiccans who are not in your tradition. No. 3. ___ tradition propaganda demonizes their enemy

Ed. to add what a lousy sentence! I'll blame the wine.

[Arie]

If you are in a Coven super. I think that is great. I am not saying being in a Coven is bad or wrong. For starters I dont even know where i would fit in....Alexandrian, Gardnerian etc. I love Ireland and Scotland. I LOVE those countries...always have. So maybe even the Celtic path is for me. I have yet to learn enuff to find a comfortable place to say "Yes this is where i belong" Being such a newb and hearing people say that if I am not in a Coven then i will NEVER belong anywhere is enuff for me to tell them ALL to shove off and never join a Coven. I am not saying I will but you get my meaning....i hope.

[Lunacie]

the side being argued by elderbush is that ANYBODY can call themself wiccan and has the right to do so - that to my mind is a free for all.


Yes, Elderbush may be saying that anybody can call themselves Wiccan.


However, she has NOT said that EVERYBODY who calls themselves Wiccan actually is Wiccan.


That is Free Speech, not a free-for-all. Discernment comes from the one who is evaluating whether the person is actually what they say they are, but they do have the right to say it.

[ancestral_lee]

how do you distinguish?

p.s big :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: to everyone, this has to be the most contentious and fast paced discussion in ages :)


Yes, Elderbush may be saying that anybody can call themselves Wiccan.


However, she has NOT said that EVERYBODY who calls themselves Wiccan actually is Wiccan.


.

[Lunacie]

how do you distinguish?

p.s big :cheers: :cheers: to everyone, this has to be the most contentious and fast paced discussion in ages :)


I have my criteria, just as you have yours, some of which I have already listed.

I think we have both been rather frustrated at times in this discussion, but I agree a toast is in order because this hasn't turned into a thread full of personal insults.
:cheers:

[Elderbush]

Hello, again, cudos to all of us. We've been good.:)

Yes, Lunacie was right. I meant anyone can call themselves Wiccan but not everyone who calls themselves Wiccan is Wiccan, in my opinion.

[Ben Gruagach]

Hello, again, cudos to all of us. We've been good.:)

Yes, Lunacie was right. I meant anyone can call themselves Wiccan but not everyone who calls themselves Wiccan is Wiccan, in my opinion.

Exactly.

Since there is no central authority that dictates to all Wiccans regardless of denomination, no Wiccan Pope who rules over all Gardnerians and Alexandrians and Correllians and Mohsians and every other denomination out there (thank the Gods!) there's no way for anyone to force standardization on all Wiccans.

One-True-Wayism is a monotheistic obsession and it baffles me that people who claim to be polytheists would carry that particular frailty into their spiritual path. I'm so glad that there are plenty of monotheists who are secure in their own spirituality that they don't fall for the One-True-Way disease, and I'm saddened by those that do fall for it. But One-True-Way thinking just doesn't make sense in a polytheistic framework.

[Platinum Dove]

Getting back to the original question: if a self-initiation ritual was provided by Valiente and Buckland into the Gardnerian and Seax traditions respectively, wouldn't that mean that a solitary could vry well be a Wiccan if they self-initiated into one of those two traditions?

Note: I am assuming of course that Seax Wicca is considered a "valid" tradition by the "true" Wiccans due to the fact that Buckland was initiated into Gardnerian Wicca and then created his own tradition, much as Alex Sanders did with the Alexandrian trad.

[Elderbush]

Ah, to be a Gardnerian you have to follow their rules so you could not self-initiate into their tradition. You could self-initiate as a Wiccan with no tradition or a Gardnerian type practice.

There are those who say that you can only initiate into a tradition and that what a solitary Wiccan should do instead is to have a dedication ceremony, where they dedicate themselves to their gods and religion. This is one of the areas where there will be a lot of different opinions and you must do what feels right to you.

[Qumran]

concensus can of course be wrong.

Agreed. In my experience consensus is USUALLY wrong. (ie. "Common wisdom" is neither)

But that doesn't change the fact that people who wrongly call themselves Wiccan (I say "wrongly" in deference to your POV) vastly outnumber those who understand what Wicca was ORIGINALLY.

At the risk of sounding as though I am contradicting myself, allow me to make one thing clear: Just because a zillion people believe a lie doesn't make that lie truth-

As it relates to Wicca, there IS definitely a specific meaning associated with Wicca. People who throw on a robe and worship the God & Goddess around a flaming cauldron are not all Wiccan just because they say so!


BUT...but ...but... IMO, the crux of the issue is this:

Wicca is less than a 100 year old religion ... as religions go, its not even potty trained yet! The good news is that (like most babies) it is growing by leaps and bounds - the "bad news" (as btw trads might see it) is that in the process it is growing right out of its original "clothes."

I don,t think there is any way to stop this religious "evolution" - I don't think it SHOULD be stopped. Every religion that lasts for centuries morphs, given enough time. IMO, it is HEALTHY for Wicca to change to embrace large numbers of new people.

Look at Jesus and Christianity. If Jesus was here today he wouldn't even recognize the religion supposedly named after him!!!

[Platinum Dove]

Look at Jesus and Christianity. If Jesus was here today he wouldn't even recognize the religion supposedly named after him!!!

I definitely agree. I think he might even be surprised that a religion was named after him.

All things evolve, they have to or they stagnate, and this includes religions. Part of me understands where the Gardnerians are coming from. I abhor the idea of someone being called a medical lab technologist if they haven't gone to school and just gotten OJT. I went to school for it, I paid my dues, I sweated blood and tears to get through that registry exam. However, there are schools out there everywhere to become an MLT/MT that advertise, with tuition assistance. Heck, I didn't even have to pay for my education because of federal grants. The problem I see with trying to find a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven is that they're not a dime a dozen, they don't advertise, and when you do find one, they usually charge an arm and a leg for their "lessons".

Yes, I found one at one time, they were charging $20 a week for their classes for a year, then $500 for initiation, then another $200 a year for "membership". Do you honestly think anyone could afford that?!

[ancestral_lee]

charging is very naughty. most covens i know will ask you to pay your way for meeting or ritual... so initiation might cost a few quid/dollars in food and alcohol, plus other things you are expeted to have.

after that you will be expected to bring a bottle or something to eat. hundreds of dollaras like that is awful... unless of course its for something specific i.e its used to buy you all your ritual gear.



The problem I see with trying to find a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven is that they're not a dime a dozen, they don't advertise, and when you do find one, they usually charge an arm and a leg for their "lessons".

Yes, I found one at one time, they were charging $20 a week for their classes for a year, then $500 for initiation, then another $200 a year for "membership". Do you honestly think anyone could afford that?!

[Crimson Mage]

Well, if Gardner can create his own Trad, and Alex can do the same here in the US, I dont see anything thats says I cant start my own as well. From here on I'm the one and only member of the CM Wiccan Tradition, solitary and happy, and more than willing to walk along the path with others as theirs cross mine, and unworried and secure in my faith when I must walk alone.

[Arie]

solitary and happy, and more than willing to walk along the path with others as theirs cross mine, and unworried and secure in my faith when I must walk alone.

Very nicely put.

[ancestral_lee]

devils advocate here again....

....solitary and happy....unworried and secure in my faith....

then why the need to use the name of an existing initiatory mystery tradition? why not make up a whole new name for your new trad?


lee




Well, if Gardner can create his own Trad, and Alex can do the same here in the US, I dont see anything thats says I cant start my own as well. From here on I'm the one and only member of the CM Wiccan Tradition, solitary and happy, and more than willing to walk along the path with others as theirs cross mine, and unworried and secure in my faith when I must walk alone.

[Elderbush]

Lee, is your complaint about the Wiccan part of the name?

[Arie]

this is Lee pushing away people who dare say they are Wiccan and not in a Coven. :fpoke:

You just cant let it alone can you. You just cant understand that people can be happy without being in a group. In the UK it obvioulsy is done differently. You say you wont get the "whole" experience if you arent in a Coven. Yourdefinition and other peoples definition of the "whole" experience are totally different.

[Ben Gruagach]

Getting back to the original question: if a self-initiation ritual was provided by Valiente and Buckland into the Gardnerian and Seax traditions respectively, wouldn't that mean that a solitary could vry well be a Wiccan if they self-initiated into one of those two traditions?

The self-initiation ritual that Doreen Valiente provided was not an initiation into Gardnerian Wicca -- but into Wicca (or Witchcraft, which is what they all called it at the time) and not a specific lineage.

Buckland's Seax-Wica self initiation rite though was explicitly created to allow anyone who wanted to the ability to declare themselves an official member of the Seax-Wica denomination.

However -- this still doesn't really address the point that there are some Gardnerians and Alexandrians (and other denominations I'm sure) who think that their particular denominations have exclusive ownership over the term Wiccan. They don't. All they can dictate is who is or isn't a member of their specific denomination -- Gardnerian, Alexandrian, whatever.

[Elderbush]

Gardner encouraged the formation of new covens and changes in tradition.

I see nothing to stop anyone from founding their own coven or tradition and if it has enough of the core beliefs of Wicca, it will be acknowledged among the Wiccan moderates as a Wiccan tradition. The extremists are a different matter.:)

I would hope that anyone founding a new tradition would be well versed in the history and religion of Wicca and know how the new tradition differs from other Wiccan traditions and where it shares common ground.

[ancestral_lee]

not a complaint, more curious as to why the need to include 'wicca' in a new tradition when it is only partly based upon the bits of wicca that have been published.

it goes back to the me wondering why people seem to latch onto th name Wicca all of the time when the amount of actual wicca included is highly variable. is it because it has become cool ?


Lee, is your complaint about the Wiccan part of the name?

[Ben Gruagach]

devils advocate here again....

....solitary and happy....unworried and secure in my faith....

then why the need to use the name of an existing initiatory mystery tradition? why not make up a whole new name for your new trad?


lee

Because we do have perfectly good names already.

Gardnerian Wicca refers to a specific Wiccan denomination. Alexandrian Wicca refers to another denomination. Mohsian is another. But none of these denominations have the right to dictate to ALL WICCANS. A denomination only has authority over those within their own denomination. (Go ahead -- just try to have an Alexandrian dictate to a Gardnerian how things must be done! I'll call 911 for you...)

Wicca encompasses much more than merely Gardnerians or Alexandrians or any specific denomination. Remember, Gardner called it "witchcraft" as did the vast majority until relatively recently -- and they always explained that what they were doing was witchcraft and not necessarily the one-and-only-way of doing witchcraft. Gardner's witchcraft was never intended to be the one-and-only-true-witchcraft-all-else-are-pretenders.

Isn't pushing the One True Way idea just a carry over from fundamentalism in the monotheistic faiths? Is it appropriate in a purportedly polytheistic religion?

[Elderbush]

Now, now, that's you assuming that the person who is solitary doesn't know anything about Wicca, the religion, Lee. A person who starts a new tradition could just as easily be a former member of a tradition that has a background in Wicca or a solitary who has studied for years.

There are many different reasons for starting a new tradition. One is that there are major disagreements with the other traditions and the way they do things, or theological disagreements. Believe it or not a lot of Wiccan disagree with the Gardnerians about a number of things. A lot of traditions spring from that.

Of course, there is nothing to stop a person who is clueless about Wicca to start their own tradition and then it will only be the extremists on the other end of the pole who think that it is actually Wiccan.

[Ben Gruagach]

Now, now, that's you assuming that the person who is solitary doesn't know anything about Wicca, the religion, Lee. A person who starts a new tradition could just as easily be a former member of a tradition that has a background in Wicca or a solitary who has studied for years.

There are many different reasons for starting a new tradition. One is that there are major disagreements with the other traditions and the way they do things, or theological disagreements. Believe it or not a lot of Wiccan disagree with the Gardnerians about a number of things. A lot of traditions spring from that.

Of course, there is nothing to stop a person who is clueless about Wicca to start their own tradition and then it will only be the extremists on the other end of the pole who think that it is actually Wiccan.

There are items in the Laws that Gardner introduced into his coven back in the day which clearly state that initiates are allowed to split off if they have disagreements and form their own covens. I'm sure that this is how lots of the denominational variations get started.

(For those who are interested, there is a public-domain copy of Gardner's Book of Shadows on the web at http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm -- the Laws is listed there as "The Old Laws" near the bottom.)

[Lunacie]

Dang, I woke up too late and you guys beat me to the answers I would have posted, although you may have worded them even better than I might. ;)

Yeah, Wicca is still a new religion. Christianity has been around for hundreds of years. By now, everyone understand that if someone says they are Lutheran, or Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Baptist... and that's the denomination but they're really saying they follow the same basic beliefs as all Christians, so they're saying they're Christian. If we follow this logic, in time people will say they are Gardnerian, or Alexandrian, or Seax, or Eclectic... and it will be understood that they're really saying they're Wiccan.

And yeah, some people who start new trads have come from previous trad experience. They may want some things changed from the old trad to the new trad. Maybe they moved and there are no covens so they start one. But it's true that some have never had coven experience, and some of them have read the kind of books Ben has mentioned here... although some have only read $ilverRavenWolf and her ilk. It's incorrect to lump them all in together.

As far as the "amount" of Wicca varying between old trads and new ones, or between old trads and solitary work (old being a relative term, eh?), I think that's a moot point because there is bound to be some differences even between different covens within the same trad, and of course a larger "amount" of differences between one trad and another. Again it comes down to discernment in what we call "true" Wicca, and that will vary depending on the experiences and values of the person who is making that call. Even within the same coven there is often disagreement between members on whether to accept a new member depending on whether s/he has the proper "amount" of Wiccan aptitude.

[Platinum Dove]

Again it comes down to discernment in what we call "true" Wicca, and that will vary depending on the experiences and values of the person who is making that call.

"True" Wicca versus what? Dear Goddess, that just smacks of the "one true way" fundementalism that I would hope we're trying to get away from with the monotheistic religions. What's next? Proselityzing? Oh wait...isn't that what Gardnerians and Alexandrians are doing by saying that their Wicca is the "only" Wicca? After all, you certainly can't do that horrible thing and call yourself "Wiccan" unless you're BTW.

And yes, on another forum, I've even seen it said that a coven cannot call itself a "coven" unless it is BTW. *rolls eyes* Have they taken that word as well?

[Morgandria]

I just think of it like a puzzle. The Gards have all the pieces of the puzzle that Gardner created. If you're not an initiate - you might see some of those pieces, and know where they fit, but you'll be missing others. The Alexandrians? Same puzzle...they've just repainted some of the pieces different colours. That is the original Wiccan puzzle.

Those non-initiates I mentioned might come along and make other puzzle pieces - they build more on around the edges, or try to fill the gaps in with new ones, to replace the pieces they're missing - it might work for them, but it's not the same as the original puzzle. I wouldn't call it the original puzzle, either, but it's still whole and functional. It's just not a purely Wiccan puzzle, persay.

The only problem I have with that approach is when the Wiccan puzzle has too many holes in it. When you're missing so many pieces that you're making up a lot of new ones, or stealing pieces from other puzzles to cram into the gaps...well, it a) doesn't even resemble a coherent picture, and b)you can't really call it a Wiccan puzzle anymore. When the percentage of original material gets too low, but people still call it "Wicca"...that's where I have issues.

[Elderbush]

What's "pure" Wicca to you? The one Gardner started in 1954? The people who left to do it their way? The place where Valiente added? Where exactly was it pure Witchcraft (remember they didn't call it Wicca for quite a while).

I'd like to point out that not every initiate of Gardnerian Wicca left to create a Gardnerian coven. A number of them left to create new traditions. They had all those pieces you are talking about and disagreed with some of them.

You have an opinion of what makes a Wiccan and a Wiccan tradition? Welcome to the club. I think we all do.:)

[Siqoni]

I think that if they are a solitary wiccan they are wiccan. You don't need to be innictiated to be a wicca, because then it would be more like some kind of a club instead of a religion. As long as you believe in the God and Goddess, and all the other good stuff wicca believes in then you are a wiccan.

[Ben Gruagach]

Some people (Robert Cochrane for instance) argued that the Gardnerians and Alexandrians didn't have a complete witchcraft puzzle and were mere pretenders to the title. Knowing that, it's actually quite funny to hear people say that Gardnerians and Alexandrians have some sort of exclusivity on Wicca/Witchcraft.

[Qumran]

I appreciate your comments, Ben Gruagach.


....Wicca encompasses much more than merely Gardnerians or Alexandrians or any specific denomination. Remember, Gardner called it "witchcraft" as did the vast majority until relatively recently -- and they always explained that what they were doing was witchcraft and not necessarily the one-and-only-way of doing witchcraft. Gardner's witchcraft was never intended to be the one-and-only-true-witchcraft-all-else-are-pretenders.

Isn't pushing the One True Way idea just a carry over from fundamentalism in the monotheistic faiths? Is it appropriate in a purportedly polytheistic religion?

And let us not forget that even the definition of "witchcraft" is far from a settled issue. As you pointed out, what we call Wicca today, Gardner originally called witchcraft. There are countless witches out there (myself included) who do not define the word that way. Are all our viewpoints wrong because his is different? You strict traditionalist out there can worship at Gardner's feet if you want to, but why dictate what other people call themselves or look down your noses at those who view Gardner's version of Wicca as only one of MANY possible versions?

Why should his definitions, beliefs or methods be viewed as 'holy gospel?' Did he believe his opinions were sacrosanct? Did he ever claim divine revelation? (maybe he did, I don't know) Granted, he may have founded the religion but why should ANYONE treat his beliefs as if they were Wiccan perfection? I mean no disrespect to Strict Wiccans here but it sounds like religious hardening of the arteries to me.

This entire debate might have been unnecessary if the btw trads weren't crying bloody murder everytime one of the so-called "ignorant fluff bunnies" called themselves Wiccan. The whole contraversy might just fade away.


Isn't it enough that strict traditionalists follow what THEY believe to be "true" Wicca? Why the need to show that everyone else is NOT?

[Little Billy]

Demonize is what it feels like. If she can describe everyone who isn't in her tradition as "5 minute wiccans" then she can hurt those awful little creatures at will. After all, she isn't harming real people.

What's wrong with 5 minute Wiccans?

If you can't understand the basic concepts of a religion in 5 minutes, your religion is already hidebound.

[Elderbush]

I think it depends on how you spend those 5 minutes and what happens next.

There can be 5 minute Wiccans who immediately grasp the concepts of Wicca, not to mention the ones who have a life altering moment where they meet their gods or find what they have been looking for. And then there can be the 5 minute Wiccans who were handed a bad definition of Wicca and ignorantly jumped into a religion that isn't what they think it is.

Actually, I am a 5 minute Wiccan. The very first time I read something about Wicca and that was purely by accident (I rather think not!), it was like I'd found what I didn't even know I was looking for. A life altering moment, indeed.

[Lunacie]

"True" Wicca versus what? Dear Goddess, that just smacks of the "one true way" fundementalism that I would hope we're trying to get away from with the monotheistic religions. What's next? Proselityzing? Oh wait...isn't that what Gardnerians and Alexandrians are doing by saying that their Wicca is the "only" Wicca? After all, you certainly can't do that horrible thing and call yourself "Wiccan" unless you're BTW.

And yes, on another forum, I've even seen it said that a coven cannot call itself a "coven" unless it is BTW. *rolls eyes* Have they taken that word as well?

I put the "true" in quotes because I don't agree that there is any "one true Wicca". That's why I've said so many times that "one true Wicca" is elitist bullhockey. I wish I could say that most Gardnerians are not elitist, but I don't remember meeting any that weren't.

[Lunacie]

I appreciate your comments, Ben Gruagach.

Me too. :)

<snip>






Isn't it enough that strict traditionalists follow what THEY believe to be "true" Wicca? Why the need to show that everyone else is NOT?





That's a good question. :uhhuhuh:

[Ben Gruagach]

I put the "true" in quotes because I don't agree that there is any "one true Wicca". That's why I've said so many times that "one true Wicca" is elitist bullhockey. I wish I could say that most Gardnerians are not elitist, but I don't remember meeting any that weren't.

I've met some who are not elitist. Unfortunately, I've also met some who are.

[Elderbush]

I just don't understand the attitude. Instead of "I'm glad you've found a relationship with the gods and a religion that resonates with you" its "You're not doing it my way - get out my religion!"

I can understand the attitude better if a person was claiming to be a member of a particular tradition. Yes, members of that tradition (although even so it varies from coven to coven) are expected to follow the party line and they have a set training schedule (which also can vary).

But Gardnerians haven't been the only tradition around for nearly 50 years. Surely they've gotten used to not being the only Wiccan tradition in that time. Solitaries have been around for 50 years too, I believe. Looking at it that way non-Gardnerian trads and Solitaries have historically as much right to exist and call themselves Wiccan as Gardnerians do.

[Arie]

I just don't understand the attitude. Instead of "I'm glad you've found a relationship with the gods and a religion that resonates with you" its "You're not doing it my way - get out my religion!"

I can understand the attitude better if a person was claiming to be a member of a particular tradition. Yes, members of that tradition (although even so it varies from coven to coven) are expected to follow the party line and they have a set training schedule (which also can vary).

But Gardnerians haven't been the only tradition around for nearly 50 years. Surely they've gotten used to not being the only Wiccan tradition in that time. Solitaries have been around for 50 years too, I believe. Looking at it that way non-Gardnerian trads and Solitaries have historically as much right to exist and call themselves Wiccan as Gardnerians do.


thank you

[Acid09]

Well I'm not wiccan but I do have an opinoin :rolleyes:
I think being a wican is one who follows the wiccan rede and celabrates wiccan teachings. However that is a solitary wiccan. A traditional wiccan is one who does enter the religion through the initiation practices of a cover that can trace its ancestory to one of the orignal Gardnerian/Alexsandrian covens.

Regardless of my own accuracy I think there is a difference between a "solitary wiccan" and a "traditional wiccan". However both are still wiccan because both adhear to the same core teachings. Niether is better than the other. And anybody with a holier than thou attitude on either end of the spectrum is wrong in my mind.

[mystic_peacock]

I'll just jump in here and give my thoughts. I have dial up and these pages load really slow so I didn't have time to load all 23 pages of this thread, but I got the gist of it in the first 3 and last 1 :) Let's hope I'm not repeating anyone.


I just don't understand the attitude. Instead of "I'm glad you've found a relationship with the gods and a religion that resonates with you" its "You're not doing it my way - get out my religion!"

In my experience it's not that the fundamentalist Wiccans are giving the message to get out of "their" religion... I just think that if someone went through training and initiation and busted their butts to get to a certain degree, it must be frustrating to see a kid pick up a book and proclaim themselves solitary Wiccans.

It also seems to me that without the structure of a coven, Wicca is a very buffet-style religion. A coven seems to keep most on track within a certain tradition, gives a structure of specific beliefs... whereas solitaries are able to mix and match (unless they set a structure for themselves). When that happens, what makes buffet-Wicca true Wicca? I live in the US and I know that Americans have a tendency to severely water things down. I've been out of high school for a few years but while I was there, I knew many girls taking things from different traditions, claiming to have magical powers, calling themselves Wiccans, and picking fights with Christains.

I'm not Wiccan (actually I don't know what I am at the moment, so I'm just one of those general Pagans :) ) but out of respect for Wicca, whose tenets I don't necessarily follow, I would just say that the mix-and-match must be frustrating. The access to knowledge just by reading a Dummies book must sting... when a lot of coven-bound Wiccans really have to work.

And I'm not saying that solitaries DON'T work. I'm just saying that there are a lot of fakers out there (fluff bunnies is the term I believe?) that make up a HUGE amount of the very-vocal Wiccans in the USA.

Just my thoughts, take 'em or leave 'em :)

Love to you all,
Serra

ps: in re-reading it... I don't think this has much to do with the topic at hand. Sorry about that. It's late, I'm tired, and I felt like rambling. It seemed to the point when I was writing it!

[Kestrel Firesong]

In my experience it's not that the fundamentalist Wiccans are giving the message to get out of "their" religion... I just think that if someone went through training and initiation and busted their butts to get to a certain degree, it must be frustrating to see a kid pick up a book and proclaim themselves solitary Wiccans.

It also seems to me that without the structure of a coven, Wicca is a very buffet-style religion. A coven seems to keep most on track within a certain tradition, gives a structure of specific beliefs... whereas solitaries are able to mix and match (unless they set a structure for themselves). When that happens, what makes buffet-Wicca true Wicca? I live in the US and I know that Americans have a tendency to severely water things down. I've been out of high school for a few years but while I was there, I knew many girls taking things from different traditions, claiming to have magical powers, calling themselves Wiccans, and picking fights with Christains.


Kids that pick up a book and proclaim themselves solitary Wiccans without truly understanding Wicca...yes, I agree, I wouldn't consider them Wiccans either. I would rather consider them dabblers. And teenagers who do it just to be "cool", or "bad", or do it out of a sense of rebellion definitely have no right to be called Wiccans, they give us a bad name. They're usually the pseudi-goths who run around in black, wearing a pentacle and saying that they have special powers, cursing people left and right, and casting love spells to get so-and-so to fall in love with them.

BUT....

I see a huge difference between the above described "Wiccans" and the adults who have spent years on their own path reading books, teaching themselves, and have come to the conclusion after much thought and consideration that they can finally call themselves Wiccan.

I see it similar to geophysics...you can go out, buy all the books on geophysics, read up, memorize facts, and eventually (probably after a long amount of time) say that you've got a working knowledge of geophysics (and you probably do). Or, you can go take a college course on geophysics, and get the same amount of knowledge in a smaller time frame because the class is more structured.

America is a melting pot. Our very genetics have taken parts of different cultures and melded them together into something unique. It doesn't surprise me that Americans will do the same to their religion.

[Lunacie]

Ah, Mystic Peacock and Kestrel Firesong, excellent posts.

First a tip for MP, click on "User CP" and scroll down to "Options",
you can change your settings to have more posts on one page,
then you only have to wait for a page to load once. Also you can
change your settings so that you don't see all the smileys and
blinkies and banners and that should save a lot of load time.

Now, I'm trying to think of a comparison besides Doctors to Wiccans, we've already done that. So I'll go with what's important in my life. I had a baby once, it took having sex and spending 9 months growing and changing and learning what to do as a mother, and then going through labor and childbirth, and then........ ah then I spent the rest of my life being a mother.

But I don't get upset when someone else adopts a baby and calls herself a mother even though she didn't go through the same steps that I did. She is still being a mother even though she didn't get there the same way I did.

Can you see the similarities between that and spending a year and a day preparing to become a Wiccan, or just jumping in and learning as you go? I don't even care if someone claims the title of "mother" when her "children" are fur-babies. It doesn't take anything away from my "Mother-ness" that I can see.

Sure, there are folks out there (not just kids) who follow trends and think Wicca must be cool especially if its got all this cool stuff like casting spells and doing yoga and having sweat lodges - no, they're not "true Wiccans". But it doesn't change my own "Wiccan-ness" for them to claim the name.

[Spirited]

WOAhh! Wise words for one so young (Are you sure you're only 14??... go ahead, you can tell us! lol)

Your post will sooth some of us and infuriate others.... to me, it sounds like it is unlikely you are the type who will ever burn a fellow human being alive for having the "wrong" faith - that's gotta count for something!!


Although most traditionalist will probably chuck you into the "fluffy bunny" bin, I can tell you from personal experience, its not such a bad place to be!

*blush* Well, I'm 15 in less than a month :) Thanks for being so nice and humouring me and everything.

Also, I thought about this some more. And...well, I've come to a conclusion. Maybe, in time, I will stop calling myself Wiccan, because it obviously bothers some people a lot and I hate being a bother. But I won't mind that I don't have the word to show in public anymore, because I'll still have my beliefs. No one can take my thoughts, beliefs and views away from me. No one can sever my connection with the Lord and Lady. I'd love to see someone who could try.

And in my mind, I'll still be Wiccan. Only the Goddess can tell me I'm not, and She hasn't said anything along those lines yet. So...meh. I don't really mind either way anymore. I'd rather I wasn't treated as inferior by some because of my age or my lack of Coven and formal Initiation, but it doesn't really change any of the important things in my life so I'm not going to mind too much.


/end self-righteous semi-rant *rolls eyes* Lol, it took me a while to find this thread again.

[Æon Flux]

I didn't have the time, nor the energy, to read all 20-something pages before I posted, but I would like to put my thoughts into this discussion.

This year I will turn 20, I've been studying witchcraft and paganism seriously since I was 15. (I've read little bits here and there from the age of 11 before starting my in-depth research.)
I've focused especially much on Wiccanism, because I agree with the ethics and the believes of this religion.
There's not a day that goes by that I haven't read from a book, or a site about Wicca. I have had to seperate the fluffy-harry-potter-wannabe things from the more useful information, and all by myself.

Around my home town there is one other witch. That's it. Now Wiccans, no covens, nothing like that.

According to a lot of people I have not been worthy to call myself a "true" Wiccan because I don't want to move away from my friends and people who I am close to in order for me to be initiated into a coven. To have been working my butt off to learn, to understand, and to seperate good information from abracadabralala stuff isn't good enough. That I am a believer of the faith isn't good enough. That I have a good head on my shoulders and have a good deal of solid information for my age isn't good enough.

No, I don't HAVE to call myself a Wiccan. I can call myself an ecclectic Pagan. The problem is that the more I read about Wicca, the more I identify with it. My only problem is that I do not feel like uprooting myself compleatly, moving away from people I love to a place where I have no-one, just so that maybe, maybe I'll find a coven I work well with.
All so that someone won't write me off as a fluffy-wannabe-charmed-girly-15-years-old, and so I can be ALLOWED to call myself Wiccan by their standards.

I have seen a lot of people who don't know a single thing about Wiccanism calling themselves Wiccan. I don't like it either. I've seen 12 year olds reading one spell from the Charmed show and claiming to be witches and Wiccans.
Then again there are those who say "I'm studying Wicca to see if this is my right path." and who do spend a lot of time studying, meditating, and separating the bad information from the good.

I don't call myself a solitary Wiccan in public. I call myself a solitary ecclectic Pagan, just because I normally don't like the whole drama that can come with claiming the title that "Wiccan" has become.
But in my heart, "Wiccan" sounds most true to me. That's all, so no matter what I call myself out loud, I'll always be a solitary Wiccan in my heart.

:hahugh:

[Lunacie]

I just wanna say HI to all my fellow Wiccans who have shared their thoughts and opinions on this thread... yes, all of you. It's good to hear all sides of a debate and then see if our opinion has changed. Once again, good debate here, and my opinion has still not changed a bit. :)

[Cassie]

I don't call myself a solitary Wiccan in public. I call myself a solitary ecclectic Pagan, just because I normally don't like the whole drama that can come with claiming the title that "Wiccan" has become.
But in my heart, "Wiccan" sounds most true to me. That's all, so no matter what I call myself out loud, I'll always be a solitary Wiccan in my heart.

:hahugh:

In your heart is where it matters most.
I used to call myself a solitary ecclectic wiccan, but it was too much of a mouthful and just got worse and worse as time went by; "solitary ecclectic kemetic toaist neo-wiccan" etc etc.

I was trained in a Gardnarian covern by a HPS who is still a very good friend, but I did not continue to initiation for all sorts of reasons.. I still meet informally with members of that covern and another group, but my path just lead me in another direction. I am still very Wiccan in my way of doing things but I accept that from a strict Gardnarian point of view I shouldn't call myself that because I am not initiated.
My feeling is that lables don't matter much. The only one I cling to is that of "Witch". I have good friends from many pagan traditions who accept me as that.

However I do think that solitary wiccans have the right to call themselves "real" wiccans. With all respect to the many Covern Wiccans here, I think the term Wicca and Wiccan has developed over the years and (particularly thanks to Cunningham) ecclectic wiccans are a reality and a large and important part of the pagan community. Actually I think those who teach themselves and really do manage to sort the substance from the fluff (as Njoran Alma described above) go through as valuable a learning process as those who study mostly within a covern. They emerge with wiccan skills and values, and can be equally effective in their use of the craft.

[Vincent Verthaine]

I didn't have the time, nor the energy, to read all 20-something pages before I posted, but I would like to put my thoughts into this discussion.

This year I will turn 20, I've been studying witchcraft and paganism seriously since I was 15. (I've read little bits here and there from the age of 11 before starting my in-depth research.)
I've focused especially much on Wiccanism, because I agree with the ethics and the believes of this religion.
There's not a day that goes by that I haven't read from a book, or a site about Wicca. I have had to seperate the fluffy-harry-potter-wannabe things from the more useful information, and all by myself.

Around my home town there is one other witch. That's it. Now Wiccans, no covens, nothing like that.

According to a lot of people I have not been worthy to call myself a "true" Wiccan because I don't want to move away from my friends and people who I am close to in order for me to be initiated into a coven. To have been working my butt off to learn, to understand, and to seperate good information from abracadabralala stuff isn't good enough. That I am a believer of the faith isn't good enough. That I have a good head on my shoulders and have a good deal of solid information for my age isn't good enough.

No, I don't HAVE to call myself a Wiccan. I can call myself an ecclectic Pagan. The problem is that the more I read about Wicca, the more I identify with it. My only problem is that I do not feel like uprooting myself compleatly, moving away from people I love to a place where I have no-one, just so that maybe, maybe I'll find a coven I work well with.
All so that someone won't write me off as a fluffy-wannabe-charmed-girly-15-years-old, and so I can be ALLOWED to call myself Wiccan by their standards.

I have seen a lot of people who don't know a single thing about Wiccanism calling themselves Wiccan. I don't like it either. I've seen 12 year olds reading one spell from the Charmed show and claiming to be witches and Wiccans.
Then again there are those who say "I'm studying Wicca to see if this is my right path." and who do spend a lot of time studying, meditating, and separating the bad information from the good.

I don't call myself a solitary Wiccan in public. I call myself a solitary ecclectic Pagan, just because I normally don't like the whole drama that can come with claiming the title that "Wiccan" has become.
But in my heart, "Wiccan" sounds most true to me. That's all, so no matter what I call myself out loud, I'll always be a solitary Wiccan in my heart.

:hahugh:
I'm not a wiccan but..
I really don't see the problem of someone calling themselves "wiccan".
Especially if that is what they feel they are.

It's not like calling yourself "High Lord Priest of Ye Fluffy Bunny Bunny Coven and Elitist Wiccan Country Club" if you are not even a member of that coven.

So what if Miss "Most Holy Highpriestess Lady Rhianna bana bo bana banana bana bo bana fe fi fo fana" doesn't like it if people who are not in her little snobby clique call themselves 'Wiccans'.
Tell her to remove that broomstick from out ye olde buttocks and get over it.
Of course,thats just my opinion.I'm just a discordian,what do I know.

[Lunacie]

Scott Cunningham (RIP) wasn't exactly a Wiccan himself and his books are not great study books for learning about Wicca. They do open the door to an awful lot of people who are searching and I hope those people will go beyond what they read in his books to learn more about Wicca.

[Cassie]

Scott Cunningham (RIP) wasn't exactly a Wiccan himself ...

Just curious exactly what you mean there?
However I do agree that his most famous introductory books are no more than "introductions" to Wicca.

[Lunacie]

In the reading I've done and the discussions I've seen about Scott Cunningham and the value of his books, it seems that he never claimed to be Wiccan in particular. He simply said he was Pagan. His books have some discrepancies in the core beliefs and practices of Wicca, according to most Wiccans who have done much study. I'll see if I can unearth any of those discussions or information.

[AlleyCat]

It depends really, I mean Ive spoken in depth with a very close wiccan initiate who has revealed some things to me and I doubt that anyone who hasnt been initiated would know some of the things shim (he/she) has told me if they were trying to follow the religion to a T as outlined by Alex Saunders or Gardner...

As for people calling themselves Wiccan if they arent in a coven go ahead, no one can stop you, just dont give the rest of them a bad name for your own perposes if theres one thing I cant stand is absolute BLEEPING idiots that, well dont get my started or I wont stop...

I myself am a witch, not a wiccan, and personally would not call myself wiccan unless i was initiated but thats just my own standards for myself

Alley Cat

[Lunacie]

http://www.hermetic.com/webster/whisper-review.html
From a review of the biography of Scott Cunningham "Whispers of the Moon".
By 1981 he had recieved all three degrees of the Reorganized Traditional Gwythonic Order of the Wiccan and the Ancient Pictish Gaelic Way a family tradition and served as a coven high priest. He also worked with the Myjestic line of Wicca.
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=342&discussionID=409924 (http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=342&discussionID=409924)
An excellent discussion (once the personal flaming was removed) where folks talk about not being able to find any public accounts of the order Scott was supposedly initiated into outside of the book "Whispers of the Moon".



I think the general concensus was that none of us who didn't know Scott Personally are able to say with any certainty whether he was or was not Wiccan. My memory, as usual, wasn't exactly "spot on".

[Ben Gruagach]

Hey everyone, glad to see that new stuff is coming up instead of just rehashing this neverending thread.

Just a few tidbits:

The religion is called Wicca, and the most common term for a person who follows the path is Wiccan. (The word Wicca originally meant male witch, but Gardner and those after him revived the word to mean a specific religion based on Pagan ideas and witchcraft.)

Please let's drop using odd words such as "Wiccanism" or "Wiccianity" or whatever. The religion is called Wicca. No extra letters needed! ;)

The guy who started up an offshoot/rival to Gardnerian Wicca was Alex Sanders (not Saunders) and Sanders' denomination is called Alexandrian Wicca. When you go to look up info on the founder of the Alexandrian Wiccan denomination it helps to have the correct spelling of his name.

The Myjestic denomination is documented in the old Beaufort House Wiccan Tradition List (http://beaufort.bravepages.com/) (which was put together as a sort of "Wiccan family tree") as existing possibly as far back as 1968. It's hardly some flash in the pan upstart Wicca-wanna-be denomination. And keep in mind that the published research on the history of Wicca is still very much in its infancy -- there is a lot that isn't documented about the history of the Gardnerian and Alexandrian denominations let alone the vast majority of offshoots of those.

One other thing about Scott Cunningham and whether he was a "true" Wiccan (whatever THAT means) is we can ask people who actually knew the man. I know Raven Grimassi knew Scott, and I believe so did Deb Lipp. Both of them participate here on MysticWicks so all it would take is to ask them.

[Edited to put in that link for the Beaufort house document -- I had the link and forgot to paste it in!]

[Dawa Lhamo]

Wow, that was a long read. I have two points.

One, I feel that the traditionalist side of this has been rather maligned. The comments about traditionalists as "it's the coven way or the highway" or as a "high school clique" and such is just about as accurate in this thread as "5-minute Wiccans"... BOTH are straw-men, and to accuse the traditionalists of using straw-men while using your own isn't the strongest position to have. I believe that it is possible to be in a coven, to be exclusive, even, and not be snobbish or fundamentalist. I think "fundamentalism" is being thrown around here without any respect. I'm frankly disappointed.

Now, point two. Personally, I'm more along the lines with Ben G. here. The question is so difficult because it's like asking if you replaced all your body parts with mechanical parts, would you still be you? I think if a person honestly has a "Type 2" initiation, then they're Wiccan. A Religion isn't really a title or an achievement, but a process. All that calling yourself "wiccan" really means is that you're involved in the process of Wicca. But by no means would I call a "paperback pagan" a real Wiccan. If they choose to call themselves that, that's fine for them, I'll just believe differently.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Lunacie]

The Myjestic denomination is documented in the old Beaufort House Wiccan Tradition List (which was put together as a sort of "Wiccan family tree") as existing possibly as far back as 1968. It's hardly some flash in the pan upstart Wicca-wanna-be denomination. And keep in mind that the published research on the history of Wicca is still very much in its infancy -- there is a lot that isn't documented about the history of the Gardnerian and Alexandrian denominations let alone the vast majority of offshoots of those.

One other thing about Scott Cunningham and whether he was a "true" Wiccan (whatever THAT means) is we can ask people who actually knew the man. I know Raven Grimassi knew Scott, and I believe so did Deb Lipp. Both of them participate here on MysticWicks so all it would take is to ask them.

Yep, that's true that there isn't a lot of documentation on the early years of Wicca - pre-internet, eh?

And that's what I was saying, if you didn't personally know Scott Cunningham then you're only guessing. I didn't realize that Raven and Deb both knew Scott personally, but I'm not suprised. Anybody want to send either or both of them a PM?

[Ben Gruagach]

I think if a person honestly has a "Type 2" initiation, then they're Wiccan. A Religion isn't really a title or an achievement, but a process. All that calling yourself "wiccan" really means is that you're involved in the process of Wicca. But by no means would I call a "paperback pagan" a real Wiccan. If they choose to call themselves that, that's fine for them, I'll just believe differently.

Just to clarify, by "type 2 initiation" do you mean an initiation that is a direct experience of the Divine? Or do you mean an initiation as a formal recognition of standing in a group performed by an authorized person from that group?

Personally I have no problem with anyone calling themselves a Wiccan after reading even a single paperback. As far as I'm concerned, they can call themselves a Wiccan after visiting a single website! Now what they can't do is call themselves a Gardnerian Wiccan, or an Alexandrian Wiccan, unless they have been formally admitted to those groups following the process those groups have already put in place. It's the same as people who want to be called Roman Catholic priests requiring authorization from the Vatican.

It doesn't make logical sense to claim that so-and-so isn't a "true" Wiccan just because we don't like them, we disagree with them, or we don't like their motives or whatever. Just because a person is part of our community does not mean that we have to agree with them, like them, or embrace them. There are criminals and plenty of people who I'm sure I would not like personally who happen to live in Minnesota (where I live now) but it would be ridiculous for me to say they aren't "true Minnesotans" just because I don't like or approve of them.

[Dawa Lhamo]

Just to clarify, by "type 2 initiation" do you mean an initiation that is a direct experience of the Divine? Or do you mean an initiation as a formal recognition of standing in a group performed by an authorized person from that group? I meant the Divine experience one. ^_^ I meant that I don't feel I can personally say that a person is not a Wiccan if they have experienced a Divine initiation. And since it's virtually impossible for me to say if such and such person has or hasn't, that makes it difficult to say either way. I think if a person is honest and sincere, and if they're willing to learn, then how can I really determine?
Personally I have no problem with anyone calling themselves a Wiccan after reading even a single paperback. As far as I'm concerned, they can call themselves a Wiccan after visiting a single website! Now what they can't do is call themselves a Gardnerian Wiccan, or an Alexandrian Wiccan, unless they have been formally admitted to those groups following the process those groups have already put in place. It's the same as people who want to be called Roman Catholic priests requiring authorization from the Vatican.I actually think a more apt comparison is like being 'saved'. If someone experiences a divine conversion experience, if they "find Jesus" or whatever, then just because they haven't been baptized doesn't mean they aren't Christian. However, there are all kinds of people who call themselves Christian without reading about it, without practicing it, without either a divine experience or a formal baptism. They can call themselves Christian, I don't care, but I wouldn't consider them Christian in my mind. Wiccans the same way. Anyone can call themselves Wiccans, but I don't have to believe in my mind that they're really Wiccans. However, I do think that the best way to differentiate "True Wicca" is simply to set up a clear and true example, not to tell others that they're not Wiccan. Actions speak louder than words, especially if those words just promote defensiveness.

Honestly, I don't care if they've only read one book. If they are willing to learn more, if they are sincere, then more likely than not, I'll accept that they're Wiccan. But they shouldn't need my acceptance either way. What I think in my mind about their religion shouldn't matter. Heck, what I say out loud shouldn't *really* matter. Because short of brainwashing, there is no way for me to get in their head and make them believe something about themselves.

I've never said that they can't consider themselves anything. I just reserve the right to have opinions. Because if I didn't have any opinions, if I couldn't discern things for myself, then I wouldn't get very far. And if someone is holding out for everyone else to agree with them, then I'd say it's a lacking on their part.

Not everyone will agree that I'm Wiccan, and truly, I'm glad. Because it wouldn't be nearly so interesting. But I know that I am, and that's what matters most. I will take what someone else says and compare it to what I know about the world, and perhaps use it to learn more, but in the end, I know that that person doesn't KNOW me, and so their opinion ultimately begins and ends with them.
It doesn't make logical sense to claim that so-and-so isn't a "true" Wiccan just because we don't like them, we disagree with them, or we don't like their motives or whatever. Just because a person is part of our community does not mean that we have to agree with them, like them, or embrace them. There are criminals and plenty of people who I'm sure I would not like personally who happen to live in Minnesota (where I live now) but it would be ridiculous for me to say they aren't "true Minnesotans" just because I don't like or approve of them.If only it were that easy. ^_^ Minnesotans have lived in Minnesota and that's a clear distinction. We've got state boundaries that are officially determined as to what Minnesota is.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Elderbush]

But on the other hand, does it really matter if there is a clear distinction about Wicca that everyone accepts? As you have pointed out, there will be people in every religion who believe or say that they are members or followers of that religion without understanding it or meeting minimum criteria. There is a hiarchy in religions. The first is made up of this pool - those who want to belong or think they do belong but do not know much about the religion itself.

In my experience there are many Wiccans who attack this group like sharks in a feeding frenzy. This is the group of people that supplies the members of the next rank, too, the ones who make up the backbone of Wicca. Many Wiccans seem all too ready to eat their young so to speak and I find that troubling.

[Dawa Lhamo]

But on the other hand, does it really matter if there is a clear distinction about Wicca that everyone accepts?
That's exactly my point. It doesn't matter if everyone accepts one definition. But that means, by it's very nature, that it's OK for some people to have more narrow definitions of their own. Most of the traditionalists who have commented haven't said that they think that no one else CAN call themselves Wiccans, they've said that they reserve the right to believe that others are not really Wiccan, according to their own definition.
In my experience there are many Wiccans who attack this group like sharks in a feeding frenzy. This is the group of people that supplies the members of the next rank, too, the ones who make up the backbone of Wicca. Many Wiccans seem all too ready to eat their young so to speak and I find that troubling.I share that experience. I also share the experience that there are many Wiccans who will cannibalize their parents, so to speak. Who call those who practice the way they've practiced for decades liars and manipulators, or at best "stuck in a dark cave like mushrooms". There are Wiccans who are so afraid of being anything like a Christian, that they will lash out at anyone who talks about tradition or structure or rules or even a male deity.

I personally think we would suffer stagnation and death if we all became moderates. It is healthy to have a tension between inward force and outward force. Just like the human body. We've got air pressure directing inward, and internal pressure directing outward, and without either, we would explode or implode. It's the dynamic that makes it possible to live. I think we need "sticks-in-the-mud" to keep us centered and "fluffs" to keep us growing...

What I DON'T get is the fact that I haven't attacked solitaries, I've only said that I would like the same fairness shown to both sides, yet the responses have been as if I were firmly traditionalist. Actually, my real position is fairly moderate. Compared to many traditionalists, I'm horrifically eclectic, and compared to many solitaries, I'm disturbingly traditional. I've just reserved the right to believe about myself and about other people what I believe, and I've said that other people deserve those same rights. ^_^

Honestly, that's all. Perhaps my use of "paperback pagan" threw you all off, but I've actually got a specific definition of that too, and it was intended to refer to the very extremes of the expansive force within Wicca. I was trying to show that my personal definition of Wicca has some limits. I hope that clears things up. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Ben Gruagach]

I appreciate your posts, Dawa Lhamo. Unfortunately there are people on both sides who are quite happy in insisting that their own definition is the only "true" definition and raise a big stink if people don't just go along with them on it.

Heck, there are even webrings devoted to telling others that they aren't "true" Wiccans!

[Dawa Lhamo]

I appreciate your posts, Dawa Lhamo. Unfortunately there are people on both sides who are quite happy in insisting that their own definition is the only "true" definition and raise a big stink if people don't just go along with them on it.That's true. Luckily for me, almost all of my online pagan experience has been through MW. ^_^ Thanks for the appreciation, I appreciate your posts too; always well thought-out and researched. ^_^
Heck, there are even webrings devoted to telling others that they aren't "true" Wiccans!Wow, really? I haven't come across those. :spaceman: wow.

yeah, that's all I have. wow. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo