When Do We Draw The Line?

[CaitrionaMorgaine]

There is a great deal of freedom within Paganism to make your path your own, but where do we draw the line? Let's say you consider yourself Wiccan. If you take out coven initiation, ritual scourging and change the elemental correspondence directions....are you really Wiccan anymore? Wicca is a tradition bound path. At what point are we changing too much? Where does Eclectic Wicca stop being Wicca?

Blessings, ~Rhiannon

[LadyTrinity]

I don't think there will ever be a line. People believe in what suits them. I guess it tends to turn into a whole other perspective of things. I don't think there is anything wrong with extending your beliefs of wicca as long as no one goes crazy like scrafices babies or some dumb sh!t thing like that.
Maybe some day there will be a line drawn? Until then I have no idea :hrmm:

[Æon Flux]

In my opinion eclectic Wicca stops being Wicca when you do not believe in and follow the Wiccan Rede anymore.
Wiccanism as I am familiar with it isn't something strict.
Most Wiccans I know practice Wicca the same way I do.
We read about a lot of different traditions and paths, we choose or pantheons as we please and see fit, and we adopt a lot of ritual work from other paths.
But we're still Wiccans.
We still abide within the Wiccan "law" and we still believe in it.

That's my opinion.

[Taliesyn]

Wicca. I hear that word and I think of the wind. I see the moon through the branches of a tree late at night. I hear laughter.
When I was 18, I met my first "traditionalist" Wiccan. he was an Alexandrian who went on to tell me he would give me a "real" inniation, even though I had already been trained and inniated in the Druidic tradition of Wicca. He was into the High Magic, and the dark gods, and all that stuff. We became friends, but he never stopped offering, to "help me out".
When I look at Wicca of the past 10 years or so, I see a trend away from dogma and restriction. I don't see this as bad. I remember being told to folow your heart was the most important thing about Wicca, and that a personal relationship with the Gods was all that mattered.

This is what I see as the defining points of our religion:
The Rede.
The Sabbats, but I have a thought about them I am not quite ready to share.
an abiding love of the earth
A connection to the Goddess and God.

the best Pagan rituals I have ever been to were at Festivals- where folks of all paths come together to worship in a spirit of community and peace.

sorry if that seems like a rant- it isn't meant to.

[nomadicdragon]

There is a great deal of freedom within Paganism to make your path your own, but where do we draw the line? Let's say you consider yourself Wiccan. If you take out coven initiation, ritual scourging and change the elemental correspondence directions....are you really Wiccan anymore? Wicca is a tradition bound path. At what point are we changing too much? Where does Eclectic Wicca stop being Wicca?

Blessings, ~Rhiannon


I think there's a difference between paganism and Wicca..

Wicca is an "organized religion" of sorts that requires you follow tradition.. where's paganism has many paths that you are not necessarily required to adhere to completely.. Paganism is a very large umbrella covering many religions..

[Morgandria]

I think there's a difference between paganism and Wicca..

Wicca is an "organized religion" of sorts that requires you follow tradition.. where's paganism has many paths that you are not necessarily required to adhere to completely.. Paganism is a very large umbrella covering many religions..

That's exactly the point being made, tho. When does Wicca stop being Wicca, and simply become Paganism? I, for example, like Wicca. I do many things similar to what Wiccans do. But I am not initiated into any tradition, so I do not claim to be a Wiccan. I am instead an Irish pagan with leanings towards Wicca.

Not everyone does this. There are many people who are practicing what they call Wicca, and yet by the original definition it isn't Wicca at all. The "line", as it were - the edge and limit of that definition - is being picked up and stretched around by many ecclectics who want the definition of Wicca to become "Do what feels right to you".
Personally, I find this dissatisfying.

A Mystery religion doen't mean make up your own path, so it's a mystery to everyone else what you're doing. I am being rather tongue-in-cheek there, but it's something I feel deeply about.

If you want to be ecclectic, that's fine! Just don't call it Wicca. It's Ecclectic Paganism.
-M.

[Branwyn]

A Mystery religion doen't mean make up your own path, so it's a mystery to everyone else what you're doing. I am being rather tongue-in-cheek there, but it's something I feel deeply about.

If you want to be ecclectic, that's fine! Just don't call it Wicca. It's Ecclectic Paganism.
-M.

I think the 'problem' lies in the fact that there are many books out there professing to teach "Wicca". A lot of people read these books and therefore think they are practicing "Wicca" when they aren't. (No offense to anybody who has done this, honest!)

They don't realize that the religion of Wicca is an oathbound, initiatory tradition, and if one hasn't gone through the initiations (not dedications, they are two different things), they cannot be Wiccan, by the definition of the ones who started the religion and made the rules in the first place. (Underlined text for emphasis only.)

I think there is also a trend that sees words such as "Ecclectic Pagan" as somehow 'less desirable than' "Wiccan", and (IME) there seems to be a general disdain for people who choose to call themselves "Ecclectic Pagan". Again, IME, it seems that if one describes oneself as "Ecclectic Pagan", the attitude is "What? You can't pick a Path and settle down?" As if it's anybody else's business WHAT one is or is not, or does or does not do.

I have a serious question for people. First, please understand that I'm not flaming, or attempting to flame anybody. I know that this is a sore spot, and have seen heated debates come from discussions like this (ie, what's is Wicca).

The question is: Why do you think you are Wiccan? Why not Asaratu? Why not Siberean Shaman? Why not Strega? There are books on the market that define/describe/teach all of those religions too. Why is it ok to say "I'm Wiccan because I've read 20 books" (or however many, and I'm NOT getting down on anybody for reading books, it's how most of the people I know came to be pagan), but not ok to say, "I'm a Strega Witch because I've read books on Strega Witchcraft"?


Branwyn,
throwing her 2 cents into the hat

[Phae Talon]

That's exactly the point being made, tho. When does Wicca stop being Wicca, and simply become Paganism? I, for example, like Wicca. I do many things similar to what Wiccans do. But I am not initiated into any tradition, so I do not claim to be a Wiccan. I am instead an Irish pagan with leanings towards Wicca.

Not everyone does this. There are many people who are practicing what they call Wicca, and yet by the original definition it isn't Wicca at all. The "line", as it were - the edge and limit of that definition - is being picked up and stretched around by many ecclectics who want the definition of Wicca to become "Do what feels right to you".
Personally, I find this dissatisfying.

A Mystery religion doen't mean make up your own path, so it's a mystery to everyone else what you're doing. I am being rather tongue-in-cheek there, but it's something I feel deeply about.

If you want to be ecclectic, that's fine! Just don't call it Wicca. It's Ecclectic Paganism.
-M.

A lot of the Wiccans that I know only will say that Eclectic Wicca IS a tradition with specific guidelines just like any other trad. They don't see the 'do whatever feels right' crowd as Wiccan at all.

Not being Wiccan, myself, I couldn't tell you where the line is or should be ... but I definitely think that a lot of people clinging to the label Wiccan even though their practice only very slightly resembles Wicca, do so out of fear. Wiccan is a safe label for a lot of people. You don't have to go about explaining yourself too thoroughly because many people know the basics of Wicca ... and just like it is hard to step away from Christianity because it doesn't fit, it can also be hard to step away from the safety of Wicca into uncharted territory where there will be no one but yourself and your gods defining your path.

That is my take on it, anyway.

--Phae

[nighstar]

I think there is also a trend that sees words such as "Ecclectic Pagan" as somehow 'less desirable than' "Wiccan", and (IME) there seems to be a general disdain for people who choose to call themselves "Ecclectic Pagan". Again, IME, it seems that if one describes oneself as "Ecclectic Pagan", the attitude is "What? You can't pick a Path and settle down?" As if it's anybody else's business WHAT one is or is not, or does or does not do.

*nods fervently* i agree :ack:

*just had to say that and will now wonder off in silence but will continue following the thread*

[Peri]

I agree with you! When I was young and new to Paganism, I called myself Wiccan for a while, basically by default. Most of the readily-available reading material was about Wicca, and Wicca was the most widespread/easily accessible branch of Paganism that I could see, so that's what I aligned myself with even though I subconsciously knew I was not very Wiccan.
And I have a feeling that's common for a lot of young/new Pagans.

Now that I'm further along on my path, I think of myself as a Unitarian Universalist Pagan and am being trained in Green Witchcraft (magical and medicinal herbalism, natural healing, plant spirit communication, etc.)

[Desdemona]

From all the books I have read, classes I have taken, and "offically recognized" covens I have studied with, this is the conclusion I have come to.

If you follow the Wiccan Rede, observe the Sabbats and the Esbats, believe in a Lord and a Lady, the sanctity of Mother Earth and the Sacred Elements, then you can safely call yourself a Wiccan. To say that you can't be Wiccan unless someone with a fancy robe and a degree initiates you sounds a lot like dogma to me.

Gardner himself saw that the coven he was initiated into was dying out. That is why he wrote books about it--to spread the word. Now you are going to tell me that the only way to be Wiccan is to seek out these esoteric groups and be initiated? With a fundamentalist, exclusionary, dogmatic attitude like that, perhaps "real" Wicca should do what it did before Gardner got a hold of it. Die out. I KNOW the initiary trads are p*ssed about Wicca not being exclusive. I'm thinking, maybe that's just too bad and they should get over it already. If you want to belong to something exclusive that makes you feel better about yourself by keeping others out, join a yacht or country club. If you have a great religion and want to keep it great, share it. It worked for Hinduism and Christianity.

Now, when you get people who don't follow the Rede, don't believe in a God and a Goddess (like Fiona on Mad Mad House--she is an atheist!) don't believe in the Sabbats or don't give a flying toot about the earth, think they can do ANY old thing the want and call it Wicca, then that is where I, me personally, draw the line.

[Taliesyn]

what she said!

[Arinya]

If you follow the Wiccan Rede, observe the Sabbats and the Esbats, believe in a Lord and a Lady, the sanctity of Mother Earth and the Sacred Elements, then you can safely call yourself a Wiccan.

I am not Wiccan, although when I was first starting out I proclaimed myself a Wiccan because I thought reading a few books, buying some incense, and lighting some pretty candles, would make me Wiccan. Thinking back, I didn't think I was Wiccan. I wasn't practicing any of what I read. I claimed it because I wanted to be a part of something! I wanted to have what I saw Christians that went to church had (community wise), Hindu's had, the Buddhists had, all these religions had something that I had never had. A community, a connection to like minded individuals. Something to call myself that others would nod and recognize and take me by the hand and welcome me into their lives.

I now recognize that as a common want, and I feel that is why many people claim to be Wiccan early on. To call yourself an Eccletic Pagan doesn't really connect you to anyone (although it does I now know) in the way that claiming to be a Wiccan does.

So, to end this, I agree with Desdemona. If you believe in the esstentials of Wicca she listed, then you have the right to call yourself Wiccan. I would however like to add that as a Wiccan you should probably have some desire to be initiated into a coven eventually, or properly trained when the time comes.

[Kaylara]

Being mostly Gardnerian Wiccan myself, I figured I should put my two cents in here. There is presently a trend I see where people do whatever feels right. That's fine, but it's not Wicca. I think that you have to reach a certain level of knowledge on the subject before you can go around doing what feels right. Otherwise, you will not know why something feels right, nor the consequences and reprocussions of your actions and changes.

Yes, traditionals limit who joins their little "clubs". And with good reason. Every new person who joins a particular group changes the group dynamics. (read, group mind, energy flow, etc.) Also, the traditions require that you work for your religion, there are no free rides, you work your ass off. Also, traditional Wiccans put a lot of time and energy into training the people who they've initiated. They don't want to waste their time on someone who will not take it seriously, or quit when it gets too hard. So yeah, I totally agree with that. If you're not willing to do the work, then don't bother applying. It's that simple.

As for all Wiccans being defined as someone who follows "The Wiccan Rede". I'm sorry, but no. The Rede is a guideline, not a rule. It's nice poetry, and a nice thought, but you can't go through life with out harming anything. That's an impossible standard to try to live up to. You can minimize the impact you have, but still you will be harming something or someone else. Magickally, I'll defend as much as possible, but if someone or something screws with me, you can bet your sweet bippy that I will fight back. Does that make me less of a Wiccan? I think not.

I don't buy this watered down Wicca crap. Sorry, but if it's that watered down, it can hardly be called Wicca anymore. If you want to start your own little club, feel free. No one is stopping you. But don't call it Wicca. Some of us have worked our butts off to get where we are, and it's not right for people to just label themselves Wiccan without having to have any knowledge on the subject. If you're interested and willing to work for what knowledge you will gain, then I applaud you. I respect people who don't expect everything to be given to them on a silver platter. Wicca doesn't equal easy. If you think it is, you're deluding yourself. There is a ton of hard work that goes into being Wiccan, and to call anything that comes along or feels right Wicca, is not practicing the religion.

I'm sorry if this comes off as callous or snotty, but I think if you are going to practice a religion and call yourself a follower of a particular named path, that you should have some knowledge of it. Doing otherwise means that you are not practicing that named path.

[Morr]

Kay, dont take the bunny fluff type people who do the Wicca thing just cause its "cool" and cause its the closest thing that comes to "Charmed", personally.
Those people arent like you - they dont stay within the religion for long.

Seeing as I'm personally shifting AWAY from Wicca. All I can say is that its been a great starting point. It taught me a lot. I've been an Eclectic Wiccan for 5 years now. And I too worked my butt off to understand & learn what I need to learn. I resent the fact that others here say that being an Eclectic Wiccan ISNT a real Wiccan. Why should I limit myself to any specific tradition if I can mix both (or more) point of views, yet keep the basis they all keep - Which make them all Wiccan Traditions?

And oh my god, yesterday was the FIRST time i heard of that scrouge thing... i never used that, and whoever thinks that makes me LESS of a Wiccan, can go to the local S&M club (sorry if anyone uses it, i dont mean to offend anyone).

anyways... off to work & school...

[CaitrionaMorgaine]

I started this mess, I suppose I ought to share what I think. Much of this is taken from the essay "In Defense of Eclecticism" on my webpage, which should be linked in my profile.

Generally speaking, most consider the sects of British/English Traditional Wicca the traditional ones: Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Kingstone, Majestic, Georgian, ect. Many consider the following to fall under the traditional title as well: Welsh, Celtic, Norse, and Santeria. When I think of traditional Wicca, it is the British sects that come to mind.

The eclectic branches include Feminists, Wiccan Shamanism, Kitchen Witches, Radical Faeries, and many solitary practitioners.

Original or Traditional Wicca adhered to the following: One God and One Goddess (Aradia and Cernunnos), All ritual was to be done skyclad, the circle is to be cast 3 times, scourging and binding was a part of initiation and ritual. There were many other tenets and practices that defined traditional Wicca, but those are a few.

I was a bit surprised the you had never heard of scourging, Morr. However, in retrospect, most of the books on the market today have a tendency to gloss over the "not so nice" aspects of traditionalism in favor of reaching more people. It amazes me how little of the history of Wicca people seem to know these days.

Traditional Wicca generally also adheres to the following tenets, setting it apart from Eclecticism.

Wicca is Traditional: So saying, there are certain ways of doing things. These teachings are to be passed down from teacher to student - after they are initiated into the tradition.

Wicca is Initiatory: In Traditional Wicca you must be initiated into the practice and through the various degrees by someone who is deemed a priest or priestess and was initiated into the tradition by persons of a traceable linage back through the history of the tradition. Originally, one could not initiate oneself into Wicca. Part of the purpose of this initiation is to aid in the continuation of the tradition unchanged, as well as the binding of the person and their energy to that particular tradition.

However, the true purpose of any religious initiation is to bring about a spiritual awakening within the initiate, no matter if that initiation is into a tradition or a self initiation.

Wicca is Oathbound: When you are initiated into a tradition, you take oaths or swear allegiance to uphold the secrets, teachings, and responsibilities of that tradition and group. These oaths that one takes binds them forever to that group and tradition.

Wicca is Mystery Based: Wiccan Mysteries are revelations that manifest during the course of ones life. These mysteries are not specific nor are they the same for everyone. Usually, mysteries are revealed to a person as a benefit of becoming a member of a tradition.

Wicca has Priesthood: In Wicca there is a structure for the group. There is a hierarchy in the priesthood. The High Priest and Priestess run the group and ritual. There are lesser Priests and Priestesses who conduct circle business and act as mentors, and then there are dedicants - those new to the group. Obtaining the title of Priest/Priestess was something that took time, years of study, and the proof of knowledge.

(There is a rant on my site about Titles as well, if you're interested in my ranting)

These are the things that make Wicca—they define the practice. When Gardner established these guidelines, if one were to call themselves Wiccan or were to practice Wicca, they had to follow these guidelines. Anything else was not Wicca. Period.

Eclecticism, on the other hand, doesn’t usually have such set guidelines. An eclectic uses and combines rituals and techniques from a variety of traditions, sources and cultures.

The path of the Eclectic encourages and allows freedom to pick and choose, to tailor the path to the individual that tradition bound persons may not have (or at least not to the same extent). Being Eclectic requires that you remain open to new experiences and ideas, be tolerant of other ways, and develop a feel for what works and what doesn’t. The greatest challenge facing an Eclectic is to learn the basics of what works for them and then create from what seems chaotic because of all the options, a way or doing things that fulfills their spiritual needs.

Although I am now a member of a tradition, I was Eclectic for many years. I find that it is one of the hardest paths to follow, and today it is one of the most popular. Within my tradition, I have certain requirements of knowledge expected/gained for each degree. There is no such expectation of an Eclectic, since the degree system is all but absent.

Above I stated that most Eclectics are not concerned with the degree system; however there are some eclectic covens that operate in a system very similar. However, there are those that don’t use a system of degrees, and other who have made their own.

I think it is important to note that the tradition based path is not for everyone, and in no way should anyone feel it is the “one right way.” There is no one universal truth when it comes to a path. Each person is different, and such is each path.

I personally find that there is much to be learned in both paths, but they are not the same. They demand different things of those walking them. Neither is without sacrifice of some kind. I think that in general, to consider yourself Wiccan you need to adhere to the guidelines I've listed above. If you can't/won't do that...then call yourself an Eclectic Pagan. There is nothing wrong with that.

As stated before, there are reasons traditions don't just allow everyone in who wants to join. I have learned that in my role as Members Advisor for my trad. Even reading through the introduction lessons I can see some who probably have no idea what they're getting into...some who will meld well with the group mind, and others who have things to overcome before they are ready.

I would be very bothered to hear someone going around and suddenly saying they were a member of my trad, after being self initiated and not undergoing a course of study as outlined. Because I've dedicated hours of my life and my soul to this path. Even though my path is not that of Wicca, we share many ideals.

I applaud you Kaylara. I stand with you on this one, and it is nice to see I am not the only one.

As for my thoughts on the Rede, I've got an essay on that too.

Blessings, ~Rhiannon

[Æon Flux]

I have read through all the posts since mine and I respect them, but at the same time I am torn.
I call myself an eclectic Wiccan.
Reason: among the paths I have sougth and the books I've read, the online esseys and the free-online lessons I've taken, Wiccanism appealed to me the most.

I identify with the word Wicca and it's suppoused meaning: to bend and/or shape.
I follow the Wiccan rede, I celebrate Sabbats and Esbats, believe in the Lord and the Lady, the sanctity of Mother Earth and the Sacred Elements.
The eclectic part is the fact that I am still not 100% about which pantheons that suits me the best and that I have a number of maybe 3-5 witches in the area of whom I know 2 and none of them are Wiccan, and as far as I know, there are no Wiccan covens in the province at all.
Which basically means that, according to some people, I cannot be a Wiccan because I live in the wrong place.
In order to follow a path I feel is right and to use a word I can fully identify with, I have to move away from my town and my home woud have to be where a good coven is.
And that just doesn't sound right to me.

Blessings,

[Morr]

I have read through all the posts since mine and I respect them, but at the same time I am torn.
I call myself an eclectic Wiccan.
Reason: among the paths I have sougth and the books I've read, the online esseys and the free-online lessons I've taken, Wiccanism appealed to me the most.

I identify with the word Wicca and it's suppoused meaning: to bend and/or shape.
I follow the Wiccan rede, I celebrate Sabbats and Esbats, believe in the Lord and the Lady, the sanctity of Mother Earth and the Sacred Elements.
The eclectic part is the fact that I am still not 100% about which pantheons that suits me the best and that I have a number of maybe 3-5 witches in the area of whom I know 2 and none of them are Wiccan, and as far as I know, there are no Wiccan covens in the province at all.
Which basically means that, according to some people, I cannot be a Wiccan because I live in the wrong place.
In order to follow a path I feel is right and to use a word I can fully identify with, I have to move away from my town and my home woud have to be where a good coven is.
And that just doesn't sound right to me.

Blessings,


i can totally relate to you.
I too resent the fact that some Wiccans only view you as a "true wiccan" if you are initiated into a Wiccan coven... These people who have the privilage of having covens in their areas, and who have other Wiccans of the same path to study with, simply take that for granted. They dont understand that in other countries & regions, there arent such covens, and if there should be any - they are not always the covens of the tradition youre most drawn to.

Here in Israel, there are 2 "serious" covens (ie. not teeny boppy "charmed" wannabe ones). But they are mostly composed of older people then me (I'm 22), who often either dont accept young people/Wiccans (no matter how much experience you have). These 2 covens are also not of the path I was interested in.
So just because im NOT fortunate enough to have just the right coven, in my area, athat will accept me & initiate me into their tradition - Then I'm not considered a Wiccan?

People who think that are down right rude & snobbish and themselves arent aware of what Wicca truely is.

[Desdemona]

I appreciate the imput and the rich history that the initiatory trad people have taken time to contribute. And I will try and respect it, as my earlier comments were a bit snotty, and bound to get snottier still, so I apologize in advance. (Does Starhawk know she's eclectic?)

But I don't worship human beings, and I don't worship pristesses. I honor the Lord and Lady. And, they didn't tell me I needed you people. They did tell me I need a teacher. So I got one.

You are right about one thing I perhaps didn't make clear. Wicca is hard work. It is VERY hard work, and it is the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. That is what makes it rewarding.

You are right about something else. It isn't for everybody. Not even Gardner's followers, they couldn't "hack it" either, apparently.


...The final revolt happened when he declared that the High Priestess should retire when he considered her too old. In 1957, Doreen Valiente and others members having had enough of the gospel according to Gardner, left and went their separate ways. source: http://www.controverscial.com/Gerald%20Brosseau%20Gardner.htm (http://)

He started a great thing, but he is not the thing.


We need more harmony among solitary, group, traditional, and eclectic branches of Wicca. None is any better than any other. In the end, we are all revering the same Powers That Be. How can we expect to get along with other groups if we allow fractures among ourselves?

Where did this sudden craze to have actual physical structures for worship begin? When I was training, I understood that the universe was my temple and that I needed no buildings to find deity. Now I hear so many High Priest/esses talking about actual temples and campuses and other physical places. What happened to "Let the stars be your canopy?"

Technically, I've worked my way through a traditional degree system, from Dedicant to Third Degree to Elder. Again, I must have been learning the wrong thing. So far as I know, titles are ephemera. We are all equals in the eyes of deity, so why create a hierarchy which might make some people feel somehow less than equal?source: http://www.witchvox.com/words/words_2004/e_aware04.html (http://)

It got bigger than him. It got bigger than the trads. I know that comes with a price. I know you don't think you should have to pay it. I know it would please you better if I called myself an electic pagan. I'm sorry, but I won't. We shall agree to disagree.

[Eowyn]

There is a great deal of freedom within Paganism to make your path your own, but where do we draw the line? Let's say you consider yourself Wiccan. If you take out coven initiation, ritual scourging and change the elemental correspondence directions....are you really Wiccan anymore? Wicca is a tradition bound path. At what point are we changing too much? Where does Eclectic Wicca stop being Wicca?

Blessings, ~Rhiannon

For me it's that anyone can be a wiccan as long as they remember and follow the basic "rules" such as the Rede, when they forget about that, I wouldnt call them Wiccans

[Desdemona]

Being mostly Gardnerian Wiccan myself, How can you mostly be? Are you inititiated or aren't you?


I figured I should put my two cents in here. There is presently a trend I see where people do whatever feels right. That's fine, but it's not Wicca. I think that you have to reach a certain level of knowledge on the subject before you can go around doing what feels right. Otherwise, you will not know why something feels right, nor the consequences and reprocussions of your actions and changes. I was taught that as well.


Yes, traditionals limit who joins their little "clubs". And with good reason. Every new person who joins a particular group changes the group dynamics. (read, group mind, energy flow, etc.) Also, the traditions require that you work for your religion, there are no free rides, you work your ass off. Also, traditional Wiccans put a lot of time and energy into training the people who they've initiated. They don't want to waste their time on someone who will not take it seriously, or quit when it gets too hard. So yeah, I totally agree with that. If you're not willing to do the work, then don't bother applying. It's that simple.I agree with you here. It is hard work and anyone looking for a free ride needs to go elsewhere. And if you want a good group, it has to mesh well and flow. I agree also. But what if you don't want/need/can't find a group?


As for all Wiccans being defined as someone who follows "The Wiccan Rede". I'm sorry, but no. The Rede is a guideline, not a rule.It was written by your Man's HP and approved by him! How can you accept part of his teachings and not others? Is that what you mean by being "mostly Gardnerian?" And yes, Kaylara, we know it's a guidline. You need to bring the level of the audience in your mind up a little. I don't think anyone here is a fluffy bunny.

It's nice poetry, and a nice thought, but you can't go through life with out harming anything. That's an impossible standard to try to live up to. You can minimize the impact you have, but still you will be harming something or someone else. Magickally, I'll defend as much as possible, but if someone or something screws with me, you can bet your sweet bippy that I will fight back. Does that make me less of a Wiccan? I think not.Actually it does. When you use magic to harm, you tear up your "Wicca card." You can still call yourself a witch, though.


I don't buy this watered down Wicca crap. Sorry, but if it's that watered down, it can hardly be called Wicca anymore. If you want to start your own little club, feel free. No one is stopping you. But don't call it Wicca. Some of us have worked our butts off to get where we are, and it's not right for people to just label themselves Wiccan without having to have any knowledge on the subject.I'm sorry, but this whole passage here just smacks of insecure elitism. Again, I ask you to bring the level of your argument up a notch, you are talking down. Most of the people you are talking to have studied extensively, even if it is on their own.

If you're interested and willing to work for what knowledge you will gain, then I applaud you.As long as it is in an approved coven?

I respect people who don't expect everything to be given to them on a silver platter. Wicca doesn't equal easy.Especially eclectic Wicca.

If you think it is, you're deluding yourself. There is a ton of hard work that goes into being Wiccan, and to call anything that comes along or feels right Wicca, is not practicing the religion. I'm sorry if this comes off as callous or snotty, but I think if you are going to practice a religion and call yourself a follower of a particular named path, that you should have some knowledge of it. Doing otherwise means that you are not practicing that named path.I agree, people shouldn't run around calling themselves Gardnerians. As for snotty, well, everyone gets snotty when people start protecting their own little turf. I wish we could all agree that our turf comes from the same place.

[Desdemona]

Kaylara, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Wicca is the Worship of the God and Goddess, nature, the universe, and all of the energy and beings in it. People who are wiccan try to attune themselves with nature and the cycles held therein, and live by the Wiccan Rede "an it harm none do what thou whilt." They practice magick, do spells and rituals to exact changes in their lives. This is a large branch of paganism, and the fastest growing religion in the world today.source: your webpage
http://whichwitchiswhich.tripod.com/id75.htm

[Phae Talon]

(Does Starhawk know she's eclectic?)

Actually, from what I understand, Starhawk is Feri (among other things, I'm sure).

--Phae

[Morgandria]

Starhawk has said herself she is not Wiccan, and the Reclaiming Tradition itself is not Wiccan either.

I wish I could say I was Wiccan. I want very badly to be a dedicant to an Alexandrian coven. It may or may not work out, and I might find that I am indeed not meant to be Wiccan. But I won't know until I try. My Alexandrian mentor, whom I am very fond of, pronounces ecclectic as one would cough up a hairball.

-M.

[Kaylara]

Kaylara, I couldn't have said it better myself.
source: your webpage
http://whichwitchiswhich.tripod.com/id75.htm
Heh... That was written several years ago. My views since then have changed a bit as my understanding has. (The only reason it's still up there is because I forgot my password for that account :P)

[Desdemona]

Starhawk has said herself she is not Wiccan, and the Reclaiming Tradition itself is not Wiccan either. Where? Do you have a link?
This is what I found.

"At that time in the late '60s, there wasn't much discussion of nature in Judaism, which is what I was raised on," Starhawk continues. "When someone started talking to me about the study of Wicca, where sexuality and nature are sacred, I thought 'Wow, this is it for me.' "

Starhawk learned the age-old beliefs and rituals of paganism; later, when the group she was studying with disintegrated, she pushed her beliefs on to the activist front.

A move to the Bay Area in 1975 furthered her growth.

"When I moved to the Bay Area, I found a thriving Wiccan community (and) I found people who thought feminist spirituality was political and who could teach me further about its involvement with politics," she says.
source:http://www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/Halloween_Passage_Into_Paganism.htm



I wish I could say I was Wiccan. I want very badly to be a dedicant to an Alexandrian coven. Why Alexandrian?
It may or may not work out, and I might find that I am indeed not meant to be Wiccan. You are what you believe.

But I won't know until I try. My Alexandrian mentor, whom I am very fond of, pronounces ecclectic as one would cough up a hairball. Is that meant to impress us? Closed-minded, egotistical people don't impress me.

[Phae Talon]

Starhawk has said herself she is not Wiccan, and the Reclaiming Tradition itself is not Wiccan either.

-M.

Yeah, that sounds right to me ... I don't think that Feris consider themselves Wiccan either (Wicca is a fertility path, whereas Feri is an ecstatic path)

--Phae

[Desdemona]

Heh... That was written several years ago. My views since then have changed a bit as my understanding has. (The only reason it's still up there is because I forgot my password for that account :P)Haha, now THAT is funny!

Sorry to get on your case, Kay, it's just that one of the ways you can tell someone is a real Gardnerian is, well... they don't run around, proclaiming they are.

I think they are one of the old, pioneering traditions, and they have a lot of valid points. And, I don't think they are in any danger of being diluted. But I also don't think they, or the Alexandrians have a copyright to the word "Wicca," or, the truth, for that matter. I know that makes me unpopular, but I can live with that. Or can I? Do Wiccans follow the Rede, or don't they? :eyebrow:

[Ben Trismegistus]

Sorry to get on your case, Kay, it's just that one of the ways you can tell someone is a real Gardnerian is, well... they don't tell you they are. I know that doesn't make much sense, but it's true.
Desdemona, that's a load of crap, plain and simple.

Look, I can see that you've got a lot of anger regarding certain elements in the pagan community. But by making generalizations that anyone who belongs to an initiatory tradition is by definition closed-minded and exclusionary, you're sinking to the level of those you deride.

You are correct that closed-mindedness and elitism have no place in the Wiccan community. So why can't we just leave it at that, rather than pronounce that one tradition is open-minded and another is not? There are Gardnerians who believe that all eclectics are fluffy bunnies, and there are those that don't. There are Eclectics who believe that all Gardnerians are stuffy and elitist, and there are those that don't. You can't tar an entire tradition by the actions of a few of its members.

Now, to the question at hand. Bear with me.

Wicca has evolved a great deal since its inception. Wicca of the 1940s is rather different from Wicca of the 1950s (after the contributions of Doreen Valiente), and Wicca has continued to change and adapt since then. At that time, Wicca and Witchcraft were assumed to mean the same thing. In the past 15 years or so, the two terms have evolved separate definitions. Wicca as a religion really began to explode in the early 1980s as the Solitary Tradition became more and more defined.

So what is REAL Wicca?

There is no cut-and-dry answer to that question. These arguments always occur when people inevitably try to place a definition on something that is amorphous. The truth is that it's really a continuum. You can say for sure (within reason) what Traditional Gardnerian Wicca is, and you can say for sure what is NOT WICCA (for instance, Christianity). And everything in between you have to take at face value and decide whether it fits or not.

Personally, I agree with Morgandria & Rhiannon on this one, that if your religion falls TOO far away from what can be clearly defined as Wicca, then you're better off simply calling it something else. NOT because us "real" Wiccans don't want to be associated with you, but because it will alleviate confusion as to what you really do believe and practice. If a large group of people are calling themselves Wiccans, while their beliefs and practices have virtually nothing to do with one another's, the word itself ceases to have any meaning at all.

So here are MY opinions of what makes someone a Wiccan:

Polarity - Belief in the balance of the universe: God/Goddess, light/dark, as above/so below, etc.

Elemental Quarters - Four of them, earth, air, fire, water. There's some disagreement about what goes where, but the standard Wiccan setup is Air/East, Fire/South, Water/West, and Earth/North. You honor them during ritual, etc.

Ritual Elements - You cast a circle, at least sometimes. You use an athame, or something to represent an athame. You have an altar, with representations of the four elements and the God & Goddess of your choice. Etc.

Wheel of the Year - I don't know of any way you could be a Wiccan and not follow *some* version of the 8 sabbats. 2 Solstices, 2 Equinoxes, plus Imbolc (Brigid), Beltane, Lammas (Lughnassa), and Samhain.

And here are some things that are OPTIONAL but not NECESSARY:

Initiatory Rites - Yeah, it's a great thing if you go through Degree Initiations. Not because you become part of a secret club or something, but because they (like any large-scale rituals) deepen your understanding of the religion itself and of your own self. More Traditional traditions focus around Degree Rituals for a number of reasons - they help you mark your progress, and they help to clearly deliniate the line of when you know enough to call yourself a High Priestess and run your own coven. This, in my opinion, is especially important in a day and age when anyone can declare themselves a High Priestess and start a coven, regardless of their knowledge base. That said, you can be a Wiccan and never undergo an initiation. As Desdemona pointed out, if you were to restrict Wicca to only those who had undergone initiation rites, it would be a very small religion indeed. [NOTE: Do not confuse "initiation", a ceremony performed on you by a group, with "dedication", a ceremony performed on you by yourself, in order to dedicate yourself to a religion or deity.]

Wiccan Rede - I know this is a sticking point, but I don't care. The Wiccan Rede is not meant as a binding law, and it's not meant to be taken entirely literally. Yes, we should all try to live good lives and not cause harm if at all possible. But I put this in the OPTIONAL section as a response to those on this thread who have said that the ONLY requirement to being Wiccan is belief in the Wiccan Rede. In my opinion, that's a vast oversimplification of what is a very rich religion. It's like saying that the only thing you need to follow to be a Christian is "turn the other cheek".

Magical Work - There's some disagreement about this too. Personally, I think that if you're a Wiccan and you DON'T do some sort of magical work, you're missing out on a very rewarding part of the practice. But I don't see any reason why it's necessary to calling yourself a Wiccan, since that's primarily about the theology and the ritual practices.

So, those are MY guidelines. If you want to know my personal biases, I'm a member of an Eclectic Gardnerian Tradition -- NorthStar, an off-shoot of the Minoan Tradition, which is itself an off-shoot of British Traditionalism. My beliefs and practices lie on the traditional side, although we have worked in beliefs and practices from eclectic sources, such as Native American Shamanism and Eastern religions. I have been through two degree initiations (or, rather, one initiation and one elevation), and, by certain Gardnerian guidelines, could call myself a High Priest, although I'm uncomfortable doing that until I make it all the way through third degree and feel comfortable running my own coven.

Clear? Thoughts? Insults?

[Phae Talon]

Ben -

I think that is a very apt description. While I don't agree with ALL of the points, I think that most of them apply ... and very well. Glad to have a Trad Wiccan weigh in on this one.

--Phae

[CaitrionaMorgaine]

(Does Starhawk know she's eclectic?)

Wicca itself, by definition, is eclectic. A definition of eclectic, from the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - Fourth Edition:

1. Selecting or employing individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles
2. Made up of or combining elements from a variety of sources

But that could be said for any spirituality, any religion. My tradition has undergone some changes with each person who contributes their experiences and thoughts. That's not a bad thing. I would much rather grow than stand still.


It got bigger than him. It got bigger than the trads. I know that comes with a price. I know you don't think you should have to pay it. I know it would please you better if I called myself an electic pagan. I'm sorry, but I won't. We shall agree to disagree.

It doesn't matter what pleases me. It matters what pleases you. But I think that we need to be aware of the thoughts of both sides. If we ignore everything but our own thoughts, then we have become no better than those who we consider "close minded." If I couldn't agree to disagree, then I would have never progressed spiritually. Actually, I really wouldn't have gotten far in life at all. *grin*

One thing I have noticed over the years is that there seems to be some hostility between Traditionalists and Eclectics over the two different approaches to spirituality. There are most definitely differences, but I think that there must be some common ground, and that neither is better than the other. What I think is missing for the two is the link that brings them together.

Perhaps it is the overlapping of ritual set up, or the fact that in its beginnings, Wicca was eclectic. Gardner borrowed from many sources, including the Golden Dawn and the Key of Solomon. Perhaps it is simply a respect for the wisdom that can be found in all paths.

I started this thread to see what people thought, perhaps to challenge them to figure it out for themselves. This was never meant to be a kind of trads vs eclectics thing. I apologize if I have upset anyone with this thread.

Blessings, ~Rhiannon

[Morgandria]

Why Alexandrian?


I'm very drawn to BTW. There is only one BTW coven in my area, which happens to be Alexandrian. I met my mentor many years ago online, got to know her IRL, and met her coven - it just happens to the one available to me locally. I'm also interested in Gardnerian and Blue Star tradition, but they aren't available here.


You are what you believe.

I find that statement to be untrue - else there would be a great number of Elvii, long-lost priests of Atlantis, and any number of otherplanar demi-gods and deities running around - there are lots of people who believe they are these things. I'm so glad we don't live in the Buffy universe.



Is that meant to impress us? Closed-minded, egotistical people don't impress me.

No, actually, I just find iit amusing. She has little respect for ecclecticism because she has seen the worst of it - people who cut and paste cultures together with no concept of what they are doing, those who have no respect for the practices they steal from. Not all ecclectics are that way, I'm sure, but the ones I've encountered in real life always seem to be in that vein.

You have already expressed to me with your tone and manner of posting that you have a strong dislike of people who hold an opinion that is contrary to your own. Why would I waste my time trying to impress someone like that? I'm sure you are a great person...I just don't agree with your views on Wicca. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I'm sorry you find the opinions of BTW to be close-minded and egotistical. The witches I know of these traditions are bright, beautiful people who work hard and are deeply dedicated to their Craft - not egotistical, and not close-minded. It just bothers them to see people taking the Mysteries they have worked very hard to earn the rights to be initiated into and telling the world they're not important because as long as you do "X" you can be a Wiccan.

-M.

[Branwyn]

I don't want to quote any one person, due to the touchy nature of this topic, however, a comment was made about how those that think Wicca is an oathbound initiatory tradition are just elitist (or words to that effect).

Let me ask you a question, as a way of compairing this.

Say you graduated from High School, went on to University, worked your behind off, got your Bachelors degree, then went on to get your Master's degree. Lets say you were really ambitious, and went all the way to get a PhD. Now, you've worked for 8 to 15 years, studying, working a job to take care of the bills you were accrueing (just by living), racking up debt you will be paying off for the next 20 years in government guarenteed school loans, having no time for friends/family/life because you were REALLY focused on your goal.

Now, how would you like it if somebody wrote some books talking about your field of expertise. (For the sake of arguement, lets make your doctorate in Physics, and the book "I'm not really here" by Tim Allen, and other physics simplified for the common man type books.)

How would you like it if I started reading all these books, and decided that because I could quote chapter and verse of "I'm not really here" and "Physics for Dummies", I now have a doctorate in Physics, and go around telling people that. How much would you like it if I even went so far as to tell you (who've not stopped learning about the subject since you graduated head of your class) that you have no idea what you are talking about in the field of physics, because I read 20 books and know everything there is to know about physics? Wouldn't you feel upset that I was sitting here, trying to pass myself off as a Doctor in Physics, even calling myself that, yet I only have a High School Diploma? Wouldn't you be even more upset if I called you "exclusionary" or "elitist" if you told me that I had to get my Master's degree in Physics before you'd consider to take me seriously when I talk about physics?

In the above example, the word 'you' is general 'you' not meant at any one person in particular.

It was said by somebody that if people wanted to get scourged, they should just go play BDSM games. (Now, this is going to sound eletist, and I'm sorry, but there's no way not to sound that way.) If you didn't know about the binding and scourging being part of certain Traditional Wiccan rituals, it's because the "wiccan" books don't/can't tell everything that goes on in a coven. The rituals are oathbound. At best, what a person reads in the books on the market are 'outer court' material. Things that, if a coven held an open circle, would be common knowledge at the open circle. The books do not go into the full rituals, the 'inner court' teachings. Those things are for people who have been initiated, and who have reached a certain level of compentancy/degree. At worst, the writers are just making it up as they write, and are calling it Wicca. (And understand, I have NO problem with people 'making up' anything. If it works, go for it. It's just NOT Wicca.)

I really don't know why people seem to get so bent out of shape about this. If there are rules (made by the people who created the religion) put in place to say who's a member and who's not (let's take this out of the realm of paganism... the Roman Catholic Church says that in order to be RC, you MUST have been baptised in an RC church), no amount of claiming to be a member of the religion is going to do anything unless you actually did what was necessary to do to be part of that religion. I could say I'm a Baptist all I wanted to, that don't make it so.

Oh, just an FYI... I'm not Wiccan, I've never been initiated into a Wiccan coven. I *do* know a couple of initiated Wiccans, and have watched a tv documentary about witchraft and 'Wicca' (that showed a very little bit about the binding and scourging and what it's role was in the initiation). I have no personal ax to grind. And if I'm considered to be "elitist and close-minded" due to my saying a Rose is a Rose is a Rose and NOT a Carnation, then so be it.

Branwyn,
who's been called worse things then "elitist and closeminded" in her life

[Athena-Nadine]

I started this thread to see what people thought, perhaps to challenge them to figure it out for themselves. This was never meant to be a kind of trads vs eclectics thing. I apologize if I have upset anyone with this thread.

Blessings, ~Rhiannon
You have nothing to apologize for. I read through the thread and found it quite interesting, though I don't have much of an opinion on the Wiccan/Not Wiccan argument, since I am a Recon and quite obviously not Wiccan. :)

Offended or not, you've made many people think, and that's never a bad thing.

Speaking of lines, you've made me think of something. This current argument is very similar to the one about the gods Themselves. While I can only speak of the Olympians, I am certain it is the same for all of the Others as well. There is so much blatant misinformation out there about Them, and it seems that a lot of people will pick up a book, read a single paragraph (or even a sibgle sentence!) about a specific god and immediately change that god's attributes. These people will add attributes as they see fit, they will take others away, or even both. Then they will name their god by the name of an existing god. Yet by the time they are done, the god they insist is Artemis/Athene/Aphrodite/Appollon/Etc. is unrecognizable from Who S/He is and has always been. All of the thousands of years of the god's history is ignored; all of the god's culture is ignored, treated as if it is all inconsequential to Who the gods is, when it is that very culture and history that teaches us how the god relates with mortals, what the god stands for, how to properly show respect for the god, and on what terms the god will help a mortal and when. *...shakes head...*

If you have found a goddess of schoolwork, great. But don't run around calling Her Athene ignoring everything else that makes Her Who She is. Wisdom and knowledge are not even close to the same thing. She is also the goddess of crafts such as weaving, knitting, and needlework. Athene is also the goddess of war and strategy. And She is the Protector of Cities. Courage and fortitude in the face of adversity are valued by her above all things, as is honesty to oneself. She is not a gentle goddess. To ignore Her darker aspects is to turn Her into Something else entirely; it is to call another goddess by Her name.

So when is the line drawn? Why must people add or subtract things from Who the gods are? Why must people change Them to the point that They become unrecognizable? *...sighs...*

I apologize for the off topic response.

[Lunacie]

Brawnwyn, I can appreciate your analogy, but I don't think you can or should compare religion and university degrees. There may be some people who are very intelligent and know almost as much about Physics, but can't claim the title of Doctor because they haven't been taught by a professor and graduated from a college or university.

But what would you call someone who has read quite a bit about Wicca, and decided to dedicate themselves to that path? Are they Wiccan? Or do they only earn the right to call themselves Wiccan when they undergo an initiation? Should they only be called a "student of Wicca" until they have "graduated" to the level of being a High Priest/ess? Which again brings up the question of people who can't find a coven or teacher in their neighborhood.

[Phae Talon]

Brawnwyn, I can appreciate your analogy, but I don't think you can or should compare religion and university degrees. There may be some people who are very intelligent and know almost as much about Physics, but can't claim the title of Doctor because they haven't been taught by a professor and graduated from a college or university.

I don't know about that ... there have been a great many people who have passed themselves off as doctors because they read all the textbooks, practiced on what materials they could get their hands on, and never been to college or taught by a professor. Perhaps they are a very experienced and gifted healer ... are they a doctor? Are they worth less than a university trained doctor? I know a lot of people in the Pagan community trust midwives and herbalists more than conventional doctors (though, I am not talking physics here).

Just because some people don't believe that solitary eclectics are really Wiccan, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. I think that there are some base things that make a Wiccan, and I think that Wicca will continue to change over the years ... and I think much like Christianity has become, we will end up with a great many different denominations.

What I see in Branwyn's analogy is perhaps a bit more respect is needed in this issue. Newbies and Eclectics need to realize that there is more to becoming Wiccan than reading a handful of books, and Trads need to understand that solitaries are not worth less because they have to learn on their own.

And I think that a lot of people need to stop looking to everyone else for a value judgement of their path. If it is fufilling for you ... what does it matter if someone says it isn't 'real' because it differs from theirs ... we don't worry about it when Christians say it ...

I am sure that that is far more than two cents ... but there it is ;)

--Phae

[Bec_W]

Yeah, that sounds right to me ... I don't think that Feris consider themselves Wiccan either (Wicca is a fertility path, whereas Feri is an ecstatic path)

--Phae

(hopefully this hasn't already been replied to) No, Feri's don't concider themselves to be Wiccan, it seems to be more traditional witchcraft then anything.

[Phae Talon]

(hopefully this hasn't already been replied to) No, Feri's don't concider themselves to be Wiccan, it seems to be more traditional witchcraft then anything.

I admit that I don't know a lot about Feri, but I don't really see how they are similar to traditional witchcraft ... I am interested to talk about this some more, but I don't want to completely derail this thread ... perhaps we could move it to the Traditional Witchcraft thread in 'Paths'?

--Phae

[Bec_W]

I admit that I don't know a lot about Feri, but I don't really see how they are similar to traditional witchcraft ... I am interested to talk about this some more, but I don't want to completely derail this thread ... perhaps we could move it to the Traditional Witchcraft thread in 'Paths'?

--Phae

Now I've done it :lol: I'm not Feri, a good friend of mine is and having discussed it with her that's the impression I got. But of course I might have gotten the short end of the stick :twitch:

[Phae Talon]

Now I've done it :lol: I'm not Feri, a good friend of mine is and having discussed it with her that's the impression I got. But of course I might have gotten the short end of the stick :twitch:

I'm not Feri, or Wiccan either, and a friend of mine (a Discordian and Feri) tends to think on Feri as a Satanic or Left-hand path ... apparently Starhawk was initiated into Feri by a self-avowed devil worshipper. :ahhhh: So, I guess everyone has different veiws :whatgives ... most of what I know of them is from their trad description over on Witchvox.

--Phae

[Kadynas]

While I don't think the "do whatever you want" crowd has any claim to the title of "Wicca", as the same time I do think that there are certain "sub-groups", for lack of a better term, within Wicca that are valid... For example, I call myself (when I'm forced to label myself :lol: ) a Hellenic Wiccan... With the exception that I do not belong to a coven, I follow all the essential tenets of Wicca. However I follow only the Greek pantheon and try to stay as true to their ways as I can in this modern world. (ie: I don't sacrifice bulls to Zeus, neither will I worship Aphrodite as a "three-fold" goddess...) It's a very fine line, I guess...

There does seem to be a stigma against the term "eclectic pagan" but there really shouldn't be... to me that term means you're using what works for you, what gives you a genuine spiritual experience... It's not a /bad/ thing; it only becomes so when you try to take another path's name for your own.

[The High Queen of Faerie]

wicca, imo, is a religion, it's beliefs. it's not actions, it's not magick. true, magick is what makes me a witch, but it doesn't really have an impact on what i myself believe.

[MoonlightShadow]

First off, I'm not Wiccan. For a while I claimed myself to be an Eclectic Wiccan because I felt like I had to tag myself with a specific label. I'm quite content with "Pagan" or "Eclectic Pagan" nowadays.

From what I've seen, and I'm no scholar on the issue, but what I see is that Wicca is a religion with it's varying traditions, much like Christianity has its different forms. Just because you agree with a couple parts of the religion doesn't make you "Wiccan." I suppose that's like saying "I don't really believe in God, but I believe in a few of the commandments, so I'm Christian!"

On the other hand I think it's pretty tough to tell someone they must be initiated by another Wiccan to be Wiccan. If that's how it is, your religion is impossible because who initiated the first Wiccan? Did your Gods initiate the first Wiccan? If that is so, then why can't another person be initiated by them? If someone has their own view on this, feel free to share them with me.

This makes me think of a bit on the Daily Show. The joke is that someone says (basically) "If you don't believe in every aspect of the Catholic church, you should get out" ... "And therefore the role America's Catholics was reduced from 60 million..to three." (You'll have to excuse how rough that is..it's been a few days since I saw it :uhhuhuh: )

All in all, there seem to be gray areas. It's difficult to actually draw a line because this. Can any one of us actually make a clear-cut decision on what is and what is not Wicca? I think not. Neither way is really "right" and the in-between will simply be disputed.

[Desdemona]

I would just like to apologize to the group posting on this thread for calling them or anyone they know elitest and closed-minded. Ben is right. I should be assigning these characteristics to the subject, not the people. I get carried away, sometimes.


Desdemona, that's a load of crap, plain and simple.

Look, I can see that you've got a lot of anger regarding certain elements in the pagan community. But by making generalizations that anyone who belongs to an initiatory tradition is by definition closed-minded and exclusionary, you're sinking to the level of those you deride.
You are right. I am very angry. I'm on freaking fire. How many members does this website have now? Ten thousand?

A lot of these people coming here for answers, and wisdom. And one or two people on this board are going to tell them, "Tough. You don't live near a proper british coven, you're s.o.l., kid." What kind of message is that to be spreading with the reach this site has? That, to me, is a load of crap. Plain and simple.

All the articles I have read on the problems the Wiccan community has, have really glossed over them. I can see that now. And for the record, I do not call myself Wiccan. Yet. I've been studying with a Dianic Coven and the Federation of Circles and Solitaries over a period of two years. Now that I have interacted with "real" Wiccans on this thread, I question my own desire to belong to such a community. By encouraging me to just be Eclectic Pagan, they were offering me a way out of the bickering, the politics, the witchier-than-thou syndrome, and the deep division within this community. I'm sure I will be thanking all of you later. Keep up the good work. You're doing great.

[Æon Flux]

*brings out Ben's checklist*

Polarity - Belief in the balance of the universe: God/Goddess, light/dark, as above/so below, etc. Yes... that's a part of my believes.

Elemental Quarters - yes, I do honour the Elemental quarters in my rituals, and meditations as well.

Ritual Elements - I have an altar, (right now it's not set up, my mother doesn't approve of my choice of religion) I cast a circle, I don't have an athame, but I use my index finger on my right hand instead. (I don't have the money to buy an athame right now, and again... my mother. An athame would be hard to explain for her) I have symbols for the four elements and the God and Goddess on my altar(when it's set). A feather of a crow and incence for air, a red candle for fire, a dish of salt and a clear quarts for earth and a beautiful, big seashell that was givven to me by my aunt after a trip to represent water.
And beautiful pictures of women and men to represent the lord and lady, plus a few other symbols.

Wheel of the Year - Samhain, Yule, Imbolc, Ostara, Beltane, Litha, Lammas and Mabon. Oh... and I celebrate the Esbats too... sometimes only by a cirtan meditation, but it depends on how much time I have.

OPTIONAL but not NECESSARY:

Initiatory Rites - No... I don't have any connection to a coven or larger group of Wiccans here.
There are quite a few new age dudes around, but I seriously doubt they can give me an Initiatory Rite.
Besides, I considter a specific event in my life as an Initiation by the Goddess herself.
Yell at me about it if you want to.

Wiccan Rede - I follow this with mind and heart. I try to all the time, although we all know it's impossible to walk through life without hurting anyone.

Magical Work - Yes... magickal work.
Not that much right now, because of a very long cold and some stress related illness which have prevented me from doing that much Magickal Work.

I read something about Wiccanism everyday.
Be it books, esseys, online information or posts in forums like these.
I spend more time on learning about Wiccanism and magick then I do studying my schoolwork.
Do not think that just because I am eclectic that I do not study hard, have my share of punches or that I am not true to the Wiccan religion.
I work just as hard as any initated Wiccan, except I don't have anyone to guide me, which i would love to have.
Don't think I'm not a member of a circle or coven because I have chosen to ignore that aspect of Wiccanism.
I just happen to live in a place where there are no other Wiccans except for one who is younger then me.
And I do not feel like quitting school and moving away to seek out a coven as of yet.

So... do I have the right to call myself Wiccan or do i have to move away from my home and seek out a coven to initiate me in order to be able to call myself Wiccan?

Edited to add:

Furthermore I agree with Desdemona, I don't think I want to be called Wiccan if Wiccans actually prove to be unable to see past their noses.

I realize now that all the Wiccans I have learned by, all the Wiccans I've met online who have taught me about dedication to the craft are eclectic , and guess what?
If all solitare Wiccans were unable to call themselves Wiccans, Wiccanism would be back in the sect stage and the amount of Wiccans would probably not even be half of what they are now.
And to remove the eclectic Wiccans of the equation as well... Wiccanims wouldn't be one of the fastest growing new religions.
Actually... I don't even think it would be a religion if we didn't have all these different branches.

Wnough ranting from me, have a nice day. :needcoffe

[Branwyn]

I am completely bemused and befuddled by the defensiveness and anger I see when discussing this topic. Not only here, but every where, every time this topic comes up.

I will post here a couple things, then I will no longer add to the negativity that surrounds and abounds in this topic.

1) A question I asked earlier never was answered by anybody, but it's relavent (yes, I know that nobody has to answer a question just because I ask it, but I think it's interesting that nobody wanted to take it on). There are books out there about Siberean Shamanism. And Strega Witchraft. And the OTO. Books that tell some parts of that Paths teachings and rituals. From what books are out there, one could cobble together a very nice Path that works for them, and call it "Strega" or "Siberean Shamanism" or "OTO" and yet they don't. Why not? Why is it only Wicca that everybody is trying to claim as their religion?

2) It has been stated in numerous conversations I've seen "Who initiated Gerald Gardner?" It doesn't matter who initiated Gerald Gardner. He made up the rules of the religion, including that it be passed down from member to member, that it be initiatory, that it include coven work, etc. It's apples and oranges. (BTW, from what I know of my Wicca history, Gerald Gardner had been initiated by Crowley in a Golden Dawn sect, but I could be VERY mistaken on this. DON'T quote me.)

The fact of the matter is that Gardner is the one who made the religion, made the rules, and got to set what they were. Now, does that mean that those rules still are valid 50-70 years later? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not a follower of that Path, so it's not up to me to tell Wiccans that they need to change their rules to be more inclusionary. It would be WAY arrogant of me to do so.

3) The university example was made PRECISELY because of the people who have been able to read/learn and could get the degrees. When a person *WHO HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE REQUISITE SCHOOL AND TAKEN THE REQUISITE COMPITANCY TESTS* has been found passing themselves off as a doctor (we'll say of medicine here), they are charged with criminal FRAUD and endangering lives and a whole slew of other crimes and get thrown into jail for a LONG time. (caps for emphasis only) We could make the case that the MD community is 'exclusionary' or 'elitist' or 'snobbish'. Is it that they are elitist or snobbish, or that they don't want people to get the wrong idea about them when some person who's had no training makes a major mistake and kills somebody?

4) Why is it that people see "eclectic paganism" as somehow less than any other label? What's WRONG with "eclectic paganism"? Or "Pagan"? Or any other name one wants to call oneselve? Why does it have to be "Wicca" or nothing? I know a good many "Eclectic Pagans" who are great people and who declare themselves proudly. They have built a Path that works wonderfully for themselves, and they aren't ashamed to say, "Yanno, I looked into Wicca and Strega and Asaratu and Celtic Reconstructionism and none of those had exactly what I was looking for. But I took elements from each, and made something that my dieties and I are happy with."

Does it matter what anybody else in the world thinks? Does it matter if some Gardnerian says the word "Eclectic" as if he's clearing out his throat? Heck, does it really matter to any of you what *I* think? After all, you don't know me IRL, I have no influence on you other than being a person behind a computer expressing her thoughts. If you don't like my thoughts, you don't have to let my words, my thoughts, and my views affect your worldview.

It's that easy.

Now, I'm exiting this thread. Have fun, y'all!

Branwyn

[Desdemona]

I am completely bemused and befuddled by the defensiveness and anger I see when discussing this topic. Not only here, but every where, every time this topic comes up.

I will post here a couple things, then I will no longer add to the negativity that surrounds and abounds in this topic.

1) A question I asked earlier never was answered by anybody, but it's relavent (yes, I know that nobody has to answer a question just because I ask it, but I think it's interesting that nobody wanted to take it on). There are books out there about Siberean Shamanism. And Strega Witchraft. And the OTO. Books that tell some parts of that Paths teachings and rituals. From what books are out there, one could cobble together a very nice Path that works for them, and call it "Strega" or "Siberean Shamanism" or "OTO" and yet they don't. Why not? Why is it only Wicca that everybody is trying to claim as their religion?See Ben's list. If you get baptized, believe in Christ as the Son, his father as the Amighty, the Holy Ghost, go to confession and communion, keep the commandents, but have to do all this in a tent, and get told you aren't Catholic because you don't go to a church, you would be mad too. No one is trying to change the rules, just the setting where they take place, often out of necessity. The scenario you describe is the "fluffy syndrome," which, if I hear one more time, I will scream. NO one is fighting for that scenario.

The fact of the matter is that Gardner is the one who made the religion, made the rules, and got to set what they were. Now, does that mean that those rules still are valid 50-70 years later? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not a follower of that Path, so it's not up to me to tell Wiccans that they need to change their rules to be more inclusionary. It would be WAY arrogant of me to do so If you are not a follower of the path, then why do YOU care so much?

3) The university example was made PRECISELY because of the people who have been able to read/learn and could get the degrees. When a person *WHO HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE REQUISITE SCHOOL AND TAKEN THE REQUISITE COMPITANCY TESTS* has been found passing themselves off as a doctor (we'll say of medicine here), they are charged with criminal FRAUD and endangering lives and a whole slew of other crimes and get thrown into jail for a LONG time. (caps for emphasis only) We could make the case that the MD community is 'exclusionary' or 'elitist' or 'snobbish'. Is it that they are elitist or snobbish, or that they don't want people to get the wrong idea about them when some person who's had no training makes a major mistake and kills somebody?That is the most disingenuous argument I have heard yet. You said it best. Apples and oranges.


4) Why is it that people see "eclectic paganism" as somehow less than any other label? What's WRONG with "eclectic paganism"? Or "Pagan"? Or any other name one wants to call oneselve? Why does it have to be "Wicca" or nothing? I know a good many "Eclectic Pagans" who are great people and who declare themselves proudly. They have built a Path that works wonderfully for themselves, and they aren't ashamed to say, "Yanno, I looked into Wicca and Strega and Asaratu and Celtic Reconstructionism and none of those had exactly what I was looking for. But I took elements from each, and made something that my dieties and I are happy with."If that worked for you, great!


Does it matter what anybody else in the world thinks? Does it matter if some Gardnerian says the word "Eclectic" as if he's clearing out his throat? Heck, does it really matter to any of you what *I* think? After all, you don't know me IRL, I have no influence on you other than being a person behind a computer expressing her thoughts. If you don't like my thoughts, you don't have to let my words, my thoughts, and my views affect your worldview.As I mentioned in my earlier post, you have a lot of people coming to this forum who are looking for guidance and community, usually because of where they live.


It's that easy.That doesn't really fix it, does it.

[Phae Talon]

That doesn't really fix it, does it.

Can I ask what you would like seen done to 'fix' it?

--Phae

[DebLipp]

You are right. I am very angry. I'm on freaking fire. How many members does this website have now? Ten thousand?

A lot of these people coming here for answers, and wisdom. And one or two people on this board are going to tell them, "Tough. You don't live near a proper british coven, you're s.o.l., kid." What kind of message is that to be spreading with the reach this site has? That, to me, is a load of crap. Plain and simple.

Desdemona, you make a good point. Fire is a powerful thing, and you can certainly use it to good effect.

OTOH, there are what? Ten thousand people here? And they come here asking questions, and half the time the answer they get is "whatever."

What should I do?
Whatever you feel.

What's the best way to work magic?
Whatever you feel is best.

How do I most effectively perform ritual?
However you want.

Is that helpful? Is it supportive? Is it the best we can provide to ten thousand seekers? When eclecticism is a conscious choice it can be a beautiful thing. When it's a dumbing down, I have to ask why people are assumed to be so f**king dumb.

Eclectic Wicca is certainly Wicca. Traditional Wicca is also certainly Wicca. What Traditionalism can contribute to even the most eclectic of Eclectics is the understanding that study is A Good Thing.™ Yes, choices about how ritual and magic are done are up to the individual, but they should be informed choices. Structure, such as in Traditionalism, provides information, it gives us a means by which we develop knowledge and (hopefully) wisdom. Structure is not the only possible means of learning this, but most people find it supportive.

It has been 30 years since the community as a whole has said you're SOL if you don't have a local traditionalist coven. It has been a long time since all but the most conservative Gardnerians or Alexandrians have believed that. Most Traditionalists go to festivals and/or otherwise participate in the community. Most of us are happy to learn from Eclectics, and exchange information freely (except oathbound information, obviously). Most of us celebrate the wisdom that many Eclectics bring to their work. On the other hand, lots of so-called Eclectics not only know nothing, but CELEBRATE their lack of knowledge (I say so-called because I don't see how you can be "eclectic"—which means to choose from many sources—if you don't understand your sources). They not only make it up as they go along, they don't care that finding out more might contribute to the quality of their rites, and they don't believe that improving their rites matters.

Wow! Wicca has scourging? Must be BDSM!

Isn't a statement like that sourced in assuming that the very minute you hear something for the first time, you are qualified to judge it?

Traditionalism asks people to slow down, to get the lay of the land, to learn about a thing before rejecting it. Lots of Eclectics work that way too, and find it empowers them.

[samiaminsane]

I just sat here reading this whole thread... which has now confused me even further. I have never quite known what to call myself. When I was younger, I was Wiccan. I was in the middle of joining a coven when that red blinking light in my mind went off. (you know, as in what are you doing? this doesn't fit you right why are you still here?) Traditional Wicca is not my thing, but I'm not saying it's wrong. That religion works perfectly for other individuals, it just didn't fit me right. I've never been good at following directions in their correct order, maybe that's the best explanation. I could go on forever about other reasons why, but I won't bore all of you with that nonsense. So now I call myself a variety of things, depending on who I'm talking to, because I've never quite figured out what to label myself. And why should I have to? I'm rambling aren't I? It just seems that people have different opinions on what each religion is, and I'm stuck somewhere in-between all of them. I haven't found the perfect pantheon to follow, nor have I stumbled across the right path. To most people, I do define myself as Wiccan. It's easier to say one word than to give an entire speech on my specific beliefs, especially to those who follow mainstream religions and wouldn't know what I was talking about anyways. (That's not in reference to anyone here at MW, but to my family, people I work with, friends, etc.) I guess you can call me an Eclectic Wiccan or is it Ecclectic? I see it spelled both ways everywhere, but I like Eclectic better, even if it is spelled wrong.

[Desdemona]

Desdemona, you make a good point. Fire is a powerful thing, and you can certainly use it to good effect.

OTOH, there are what? Ten thousand people here? And they come here asking questions, and half the time the answer they get is "whatever."

What should I do?
Whatever you feel.

What's the best way to work magic?
Whatever you feel is best.

How do I most effectively perform ritual?
However you want.

Is that helpful? Is it supportive? Is it the best we can provide to ten thousand seekers? When eclecticism is a conscious choice it can be a beautiful thing. When it's a dumbing down, I have to ask why people are assumed to be so f**king dumb.

Eclectic Wicca is certainly Wicca. Traditional Wicca is also certainly Wicca. What Traditionalism can contribute to even the most eclectic of Eclectics is the understanding that study is A Good Thing.™ Yes, choices about how ritual and magic are done are up to the individual, but they should be informed choices. Structure, such as in Traditionalism, provides information, it gives us a means by which we develop knowledge and (hopefully) wisdom. Structure is not the only possible means of learning this, but most people find it supportive.

It has been 30 years since the community as a whole has said you're SOL if you don't have a local traditionalist coven. It has been a long time since all but the most conservative Gardnerians or Alexandrians have believed that. Most Traditionalists go to festivals and/or otherwise participate in the community. Most of us are happy to learn from Eclectics, and exchange information freely (except oathbound information, obviously). Most of us celebrate the wisdom that many Eclectics bring to their work. On the other hand, lots of so-called Eclectics not only know nothing, but CELEBRATE their lack of knowledge (I say so-called because I don't see how you can be "eclectic"—which means to choose from many sources—if you don't understand your sources). They not only make it up as they go along, they don't care that finding out more might contribute to the quality of their rites, and they don't believe that improving their rites matters.

Wow! Wicca has scourging? Must be BDSM!

Isn't a statement like that sourced in assuming that the very minute you hear something for the first time, you are qualified to judge it?

Traditionalism asks people to slow down, to get the lay of the land, to learn about a thing before rejecting it. Lots of Eclectics work that way too, and find it empowers them.
Phae Talon, this fixes it. This is why I respect this Lady so much. I agree with everything she says in her post. It is, and has been what I have been taught. I agree that we can't tell people "whatever," and that gets said on this forum a lot, and I'm sure that is what started this thread in the first place. She has made sense out of this so eloquently for both sides, it would be superfluous to comment further, so I will happily bow out.

[DebLipp]

If you have studied your history, then you would know that Gardner's own coven couldn't stand his rules. They broke up and went their separate ways. So there was no one to hand rules down to. I guess the whole thing shouldn't have survived at all, we wouldn't be having this problem.

Not quite. In fact, Gardner's original coven is still intact and circling on a regular basis. The book Persuasions of the Witch's Craft, which is in anthropological study of Wicca, was based mostly on experience within that coven.

What actually happened was, in 1957, following a dispute between Doreen and Gerald, Doreen took about half the coven with her and started her own thing. That doesn't mean the original coven disbanded, it just got smaller. Gardner continued to thrive and had several covens going, performing initiations almost until the day he died.

BTW, the whole argument about university degrees vs. DIY doesn't really apply to Wicca per se, but to sub-sets. Not "am I Wiccan" but "am I a High Priest" or whatever. The argument really comes down to people who refer to themselves by titles, or who use the magic phrase "just as good as."

"My self-initiation is just as good as a Gardnerian initiation."

I've heard that sort of thing a lot, and the only answer to it is, what does "just as good as" mean? Does it mean, "as spiritually fulfilling?" If so, that can certainly be true. Traditional Wicca has never, and will never, claimed exclusive access to spiritual fulfillment. Does it mean "just as empowering"? Again, very likely. Does it mean, "I now know as much as a Gardnerian" (and often people imply or state outright that this is EXACTLY what it means)? If so, my only polite answer is "horsefeathers." A self-initiation is NOT a replacement for years of study and training.

The self-taught healer may indeed be better able to cure you than the doctor with the degree from Harvard. But the patient going for treatment has a right to know which is which.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Is that helpful? Is it supportive? Is it the best we can provide to ten thousand seekers? When eclecticism is a conscious choice it can be a beautiful thing. When it's a dumbing down, I have to ask why people are assumed to be so f**king dumb.

Eclectic Wicca is certainly Wicca. Traditional Wicca is also certainly Wicca. What Traditionalism can contribute to even the most eclectic of Eclectics is the understanding that study is A Good Thing.™ Yes, choices about how ritual and magic are done are up to the individual, but they should be informed choices. Structure, such as in Traditionalism, provides information, it gives us a means by which we develop knowledge and (hopefully) wisdom. Structure is not the only possible means of learning this, but most people find it supportive.
Brilliant, Deb. You really should write a book or something. ;)


It has been 30 years since the community as a whole has said you're SOL if you don't have a local traditionalist coven. It has been a long time since all but the most conservative Gardnerians or Alexandrians have believed that. Most Traditionalists go to festivals and/or otherwise participate in the community. Most of us are happy to learn from Eclectics, and exchange information freely (except oathbound information, obviously). Most of us celebrate the wisdom that many Eclectics bring to their work. On the other hand, lots of so-called Eclectics not only know nothing, but CELEBRATE their lack of knowledge (I say so-called because I don't see how you can be "eclectic"—which means to choose from many sources—if you don't understand your sources). They not only make it up as they go along, they don't care that finding out more might contribute to the quality of their rites, and they don't believe that improving their rites matters.
I want to add onto this a bit, since several people have responded positively to my previous post, and then gone on in the same breath to continue to rail against how Gardnerians are stuffy elitists.

Let me make this as clear as possible:

Any Traditionalist who tells you that you need to be initiated into a Traditional Coven to be a "Real" Wiccan is a jerk who is simply not worth wasting your emotional energy on.

Clear? Think of it this way -- there is a small but vocal minority of the Christian religion who believes that you need to be "born again" to achieve the Kingdom of Heaven. By their reasoning, anyone who is not born again is not a "real" Christian. But the vast majority of Christians think that those people are nuts. So why should it be any different for our community?

Here's another bold-faced pronouncement:

There are two large dangers threatening our community: Closed-mindedness and Ignorance.

Closed-mindedness: I'm not just talking about traditionalists who insists that it's their way or the highway. I'm talking about any pagan who is unwilling to learn from any other pagan. Anyone in our community who is not willing to at least hear out another person's viewpoint, regardless of what that viewpoint is. By setting themselves up in an us-against-them dichotomy, they become insular and bitter. No religion can grow without constant exposure to outside sources and challenges.

Ignorance: Call it fluffy bunny syndrome if you like, or just call it ignorance. Either way, this is about people acting as if they know what they're talking about, when in reality, they don't have a f***ing clue. Take a look at Deb Lipp's recommended reading list (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=38189) in her forum in the Author's Circle. It's ok if you haven't read everything on this list - I certainly haven't - but you can't be an authority on Wicca and Witchcraft if you haven't read most of them. It's not enough to read a couple websites and pronounce yourself a High Priestess -- and yet, many people do. As dangerous as closed-mindedness can be to our community, the mass-market dumbing-down of our religion is getting to be a very serious problem. When people are still throwing around the phrase "Nine million Wiccans died during the Burning Times", it's a sign that there are a lot of pagans out there who simply don't know the basics of their own religion.

So, coming back to the original question (again), that's where I draw the line. If you're not ignorant, and you're not closed-minded, you're ok in my book.

[Lunacie]

3) The university example was made PRECISELY because of the people who have been able to read/learn and could get the degrees. When a person *WHO HAS NOT GONE THROUGH THE REQUISITE SCHOOL AND TAKEN THE REQUISITE COMPITANCY TESTS* has been found passing themselves off as a doctor (we'll say of medicine here), they are charged with criminal FRAUD and endangering lives and a whole slew of other crimes and get thrown into jail for a LONG time. (caps for emphasis only) We could make the case that the MD community is 'exclusionary' or 'elitist' or 'snobbish'. Is it that they are elitist or snobbish, or that they don't want people to get the wrong idea about them when some person who's had no training makes a major mistake and kills somebody?

Branwyn
Branwyn dear, I know you said you were exiting this thread, but I wonder if you would mind going back and rereading my other response to this comparison of a doctorate degree and following a religious path. I said I could see your point, but then I explained how I thought it was completely irrelevant. In essence I said I see a vast difference between someone passing themselves off as having gone through years of training to gain a doctorate degree (or having gone through years of training to become a Wiccan High Priest/ess) -- and simply dedicating themselves to a religious path and calling themselves a Wiccan. Someone without the proper training who calls themselves High Priestess can certainly do a lot of damage to a person emotionally and spiritually, but calling oneself a Wiccan does not mean they are claiming all that training and experience.

The difference is between being a medical student or follower of Wicca and being a medical doctor or a Wiccan High Priest/ess. Comparing a person following the Wiccan path with someone who falsely claims to be doctor is comparing apples to birdhouses. Just because they both hang in trees doesn't make them similar in any other way.

[Bec_W]

1) A question I asked earlier never was answered by anybody, but it's relavent (yes, I know that nobody has to answer a question just because I ask it, but I think it's interesting that nobody wanted to take it on). There are books out there about Siberean Shamanism. And Strega Witchraft. And the OTO. Books that tell some parts of that Paths teachings and rituals. From what books are out there, one could cobble together a very nice Path that works for them, and call it "Strega" or "Siberean Shamanism" or "OTO" and yet they don't. Why not? Why is it only Wicca that everybody is trying to claim as their religion?


Keep in mind this is only my opinion and is not meant to offend anyone.

It's at the core of human nature to want to belong, even people who don't belong to the mainstream want to belong to something. I think Wicca provides that home to a lot of people, it's easy to find information on and there are a lot of practitioners, therefore there's a community of sorts. I don't think there's that sense of community for solitaries within other pagan religions. So maybe the sense of community, the ease of access (to information) makes wicca more susepable (sp?) to change.

[Kadynas]

A self-initiation is NOT a replacement for years of study and training.

I agree with everything else you've said, but I would add to this particular part that just because someone is "self-initiated" doesn't mean that they /haven't/ put in years of study and training themselves... :)

[DebLipp]

I agree with everything else you've said, but I would add to this particular part that just because someone is "self-initiated" doesn't mean that they /haven't/ put in years of study and training themselves... :)

You're absolutely right. I should have cast that sentence in a way to include that possibility. But I did say the thing about the self-taught healer maybe being better qualified than the doctor. ;)

[Crystal_Raye]

I don't think there will ever be a line. People believe in what suits them. I guess it tends to turn into a whole other perspective of things. I don't think there is anything wrong with extending your beliefs of wicca as long as no one goes crazy like scrafices babies or some dumb sh!t thing like that.
Maybe some day there will be a line drawn? Until then I have no idea :hrmm:

My thoughts exactly.

[Karmendi]

I know if I open my big yap I'll get in trouble but I will say this, there are some ecletic wiccans who work just as hard as trad. Some do not have access to a coven and can't get intiation so we do it our selves, in my eyes there is nothing wrong with that.

[Lunacie]

I know if I open my big yap I'll get in trouble but I will say this, there are some ecletic wiccans who work just as hard as trad. Some do not have access to a coven and can't get intiation so we do it our selves, in my eyes there is nothing wrong with that.
I agree that there are some (probably many) Eclectic Wiccans who work just as hard as those who join a Trad and are taught and initiated. They are not the same, of course, but I do not think one is any more or less Wiccan than the other.

[frigga]

I know if I open my big yap I'll get in trouble but I will say this, there are some ecletic wiccans who work just as hard as trad. Some do not have access to a coven and can't get intiation so we do it our selves, in my eyes there is nothing wrong with that.
Couldn't agree more! I myself am isolated as far as our religion goes, slim pickins even if i was interested in a trad. And as far as Eclectic goes, I just think perhaps some are equally drawn to numerous trads or ethnicities, nothing wrong with that! But one does leave Wicca territory and enter Paganism when Core values, such as the Rede, and diety views are lost to the individual.

[Karmendi]

Couldn't agree more! I myself am isolated as far as our religion goes, slim pickins even if i was interested in a trad. And as far as Eclectic goes, I just think perhaps some are equally drawn to numerous trads or ethnicities, nothing wrong with that! But one does leave Wicca territory and enter Paganism when Core values, such as the Rede, and diety views are lost to the individual.

I agree Frigga. There is that line but in my eyes being in a trad isn't it. After you move away from core believes would be again in my eyes the line.

[savannahrose44]

Speaking as a non wiccan....Everything in this world grows and changes with time. Why should Wicca be excluded. Who says that in order for wicca to be wicca it has to be unchanging? It is in the nature of humans and all living things to grow and as many peole see Wicca as a living religon, why not let it grow too? Just my two cents. :)

[frigga]

Speaking as a non wiccan....Everything in this world grows and changes with time. Why should Wicca be excluded. Who says that in order for wicca to be wicca it has to be unchanging? It is in the nature of humans and all living things to grow and as many peole see Wicca as a living religon, why not let it grow too? Just my two cents. :)
Oh my yes! Things are always things changing and religion is one of those things. However, the things that define a religion should not. For instance, we'll take Christianity, that has changed through out the years but the core beliefs such as Love your neighbor, thou shalt not kill, Mine is the one true god....Etc. have not changed. Things grow with time, but like the blowing of the wind, the heart remains unchanged.

[Lunacie]

Oh my yes! Things are always things changing and religion is one of those things. However, the things that define a religion should not. For instance, we'll take Christianity, that has changed through out the years but the core beliefs such as Love your neighbor, thou shalt not kill, Mine is the one true god....Etc. have not changed. Things grow with time, but like the blowing of the wind, the heart remains unchanged.
Uh huh, pretty much what I was thinking.

[savannahrose44]

Oh my yes! Things are always things changing and religion is one of those things. However, the things that define a religion should not. For instance, we'll take Christianity, that has changed through out the years but the core beliefs such as Love your neighbor, thou shalt not kill, Mine is the one true god....Etc. have not changed. Things grow with time, but like the blowing of the wind, the heart remains unchanged.

I see what you're saying, and I agree to a point. Depending on what sect of christianity you are looking at things have changed. For example the Mormons used to not allow blacks in their church. They believed that they were the seed of Cain and a cursed people who came from the root of evil. That has since changed. They welcome them. Also there are many things that have changed in other christian churches. Sacrament. The bread and wine...wine is no longer used in many churches although the bible that they base their religous beliefs on states wine is to be used. There are other things, but that is beside the point. Yes the fundemental structure has not changed that much...but it has changed. Is change a bad thing? Not always. If there is something in a religon that doesn't sit well with an individual...goes against their core convictions...even though they agree with everything else...can they really be expected to practice it as it is? I don't think so it is this kind of attitude that turns me off to religous structure. Choosing not to participate or include certian aspects of Wicca, or adapting them to something you can live with doesn't change the core belief structure of Wicca.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I see what you're saying, and I agree to a point. Depending on what sect of christianity you are looking at things have changed. For example the Mormons used to not allow blacks in their church. They believed that they were the seed of Cain and a cursed people who came from the root of evil. That has since changed. They welcome them.Yes, but excluding blacks was hardly a defining point of the Mormon Church. So if there was a line to draw, that wasn't part of it. But you couldn't, for instance, declare yourself a polytheist and still call yourself Mormon.


Yes the fundemental structure has not changed that much...but it has changed.The fundamental structure? No, not really. The basis of the religion is still the same - it's the trappings that have changed.


I don't think so it is this kind of attitude that turns me off to religous structure. Choosing not to participate or include certian aspects of Wicca, or adapting them to something you can live with doesn't change the core belief structure of Wicca.Um, that's exactly what we've been saying. It's the CORE BELIEF STRUCTURE of Wicca that can't change and still be Wicca. Do what you like with the rest. If you want to call Water in the East and Air in the West, be my guest. If you want to cast circle with a toothbrush instead of an athame (provided you've got a good reason), more power to you. But there IS a line. And if you want to cross the line, fine - just don't call it Wicca.

That way, no one's choice is restricted at all.

[savannahrose44]

Yes, but excluding blacks was hardly a defining point of the Mormon Church. So if there was a line to draw, that wasn't part of it. But you couldn't, for instance, declare yourself a polytheist and still call yourself Mormon.

Actually it was a core peice to their religion. They believed that only the whites were chosen children of god and they were the only ones who were allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven as blacks could not worship in their temple. You see in order to make it to the mormon heaven you have to be married in their temple.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Actually it was a core peice to their religion. They believed that only the whites were chosen children of god and they were the only ones who were allowed to enter the kingdom of heaven as blacks could not worship in their temple. You see in order to make it to the mormon heaven you have to be married in their temple.
I still wouldn't call that a core belief. It's just racism. Nothing fundamentally changed in their religion when they started to allow blacks in.

[savannahrose44]

I still wouldn't call that a core belief. It's just racism. Nothing fundamentally changed in their religion when they started to allow blacks in.

If that's the way you see it so be it....I disagree as an ex-mormon.

[Ben Trismegistus]

If that's the way you see it so be it....I disagree as an ex-mormon.
OK, allow me to take another tack.

When the Mormons made this change, they did so as a unit. It was decided on a high level and passed down through all the congregations (or so I imagine).

That's very different from individuals changing the core beliefs of Wicca to suit themselves. If you had wanted to marry a black man as a Mormon, before they changed those rules, you would've been kicked out, right? You could've remained as some sort of Christian, but not as a Mormon.

[Empress Stillnight]

This is essentially a debate of orthodox (traditional, initiated Wicca) versus liberal (self-initiated, ecclectic Wicca) faith.

orthodox-Conforming to established doctrine,especially in religion.

liberal-one who is openminded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.

I guess it would depend on which position you feel comfortable with, what your opinion will be about the definition of Wicca. I am not Wiccan in any sense, so I will not enter the debate. I HAVE exited a high control, authoritarian religion, though, and the only thing I caution is for orthodox thinkers and liberal thinkers alike to guard against that.

authoritarian- of , relating to, or favoirng blind submission to authority 2. of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

[savannahrose44]

OK, allow me to take another tack.

When the Mormons made this change, they did so as a unit. It was decided on a high level and passed down through all the congregations (or so I imagine).

That's very different from individuals changing the core beliefs of Wicca to suit themselves. If you had wanted to marry a black man as a Mormon, before they changed those rules, you would've been kicked out, right? You could've remained as some sort of Christian, but not as a Mormon.

No I could have married him, but he would never be allowed to join.

[savannahrose44]

This is essentially a debate of orthodox (traditional, initiated Wicca) versus liberal (self-initiated, ecclectic Wicca) faith.

orthodox-Conforming to established doctrine,especially in religion.

liberal-one who is openminded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways.

I guess it would depend on which position you feel comfortable with, what your opinion will be about the definition of Wicca. I am not Wiccan in any sense, so I will not enter the debate. I HAVE exited a high control, authoritarian religion, though, and the only thing I caution is for orthodox thinkers and liberal thinkers alike to guard against that.

authoritarian- of , relating to, or favoirng blind submission to authority 2. of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.

I agree with you which is why I do not subscribe to said authoritarian beliefs. :kooky:

[Ben Trismegistus]

This is essentially a debate of orthodox (traditional, initiated Wicca) versus liberal (self-initiated, ecclectic Wicca) faith.
No that's not what this debate is about at all. We're discussing what does and does not qualify as Wicca, and how far one's beliefs can get from the core beliefs of Wicca before those beliefs can no longer be considered Wiccan. I think we've all established that there's no difference in legitimacy between Traditional, coven-centric Wicca and solitary eclectic Wicca.


authoritarian- of , relating to, or favoirng blind submission to authority 2. of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.
Thankfully, I don't believe there's any definition of Wicca which includes authoritarian.

[Semele]

It is in the nature of humans and all living things to grow and as many peole see Wicca as a living religon, why not let it grow too? Just my two cents. :)
But at some point it becomes something altogether different and has little or no resemblance to the original religion. The same thing has happened many times before...so they branch off and rename it so as to leave the original unscathed. It is not a bad thing to want your religion to be firm and unwavering. It is the rock some rely on when everything else is uncertain.

[savannahrose44]

But at some point it becomes something altogether different and has little or no resemblance to the original religion. The same thing has happened many times before...so they branch off and rename it so as to leave the original unscathed. It is not a bad thing to want your religion to be firm and unwavering. It is the rock some rely on when everything else is uncertain.

Is that not the purpose of calling oneself an eclectic wiccan?

[Ben Trismegistus]

Is that not the purpose of calling oneself an eclectic wiccan?
No, an Eclectic Wiccan is one who borrows elements from a number of different Wiccan traditions, as well as other outside Pagan beliefs like Eastern philosophies or African pantheons. But the result is still Wiccan. The core beliefs haven't changed, but some of the beliefs and practices have been altered and/or added to.

If, however, one was to call oneself an Eclectic Pagan, that's an entirely different story. Since Paganism is a nearly indefinable term, basically any set of non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim beliefs can conceivably fall under that header.

[savannahrose44]

No, an Eclectic Wiccan is one who borrows elements from a number of different Wiccan traditions, as well as other outside Pagan beliefs like Eastern philosophies or African pantheons. But the result is still Wiccan. The core beliefs haven't changed, but some of the beliefs and practices have been altered and/or added to.

If, however, one was to call oneself an Eclectic Pagan, that's an entirely different story. Since Paganism is a nearly indefinable term, basically any set of non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim beliefs can conceivably fall under that header.

*shruggs* I guess if they are that picky about it....

[Ben Trismegistus]

*shruggs* I guess if they are that picky about it....
That's picky? Yeah, I guess we're picky about it. I want for my religion to actually mean something, not simply be a word that can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. But then, that's me.

[Semele]

That's picky? Yeah, I guess we're picky about it. I want for my religion to actually mean something, not simply be a word that can mean whatever the hell you want it to mean. But then, that's me.
But Ben, my awesome friend, her definition of the word can never change what it means to you. If I call a comb a dog, you will still know it is a comb...why not let me call it a dog and take it for a walk? ;)

[Ben Trismegistus]

But Ben, my awesome friend, her definition of the word can never change what it means to you. If I call a comb a dog, you will still know it is a comb...why not let me call it a dog and take it for a walk? ;)
It becomes more dangerous, of course, if you reverse them, and try to use Fido to style your hair.

As I've said on countless threads, words have meaning for a reason. At that reason is so we can communicate with one another in a way that makes sense. If you ask me my religion, and I say Wiccan, and you know people who call themselves Wiccan who actually worship balloon animals and conduct rituals in Swedish, then you're going to get an incorrect picture in your head of what I mean when I say I'm Wiccan.

That doesn't mean, of course, that everyone's definition of Wicca has to be *exactly* correct, but it does mean that there are certain things that must be in there.

[savannahrose44]

It becomes more dangerous, of course, if you reverse them, and try to use Fido to style your hair.

As I've said on countless threads, words have meaning for a reason. At that reason is so we can communicate with one another in a way that makes sense. If you ask me my religion, and I say Wiccan, and you know people who call themselves Wiccan who actually worship balloon animals and conduct rituals in Swedish, then you're going to get an incorrect picture in your head of what I mean when I say I'm Wiccan.

That doesn't mean, of course, that everyone's definition of Wicca has to be *exactly* correct, but it does mean that there are certain things that must be in there.

Ah yes, but who makes those decisions..YOU?

[Semele]

It becomes more dangerous, of course, if you reverse them, and try to use Fido to style your hair.
Hey, I know my hair is wild but it isn't harmful to Fido!


If you ask me my religion, and I say Wiccan, and you know people who call themselves Wiccan who actually worship balloon animals and conduct rituals in Swedish, then you're going to get an incorrect picture in your head of what I mean when I say I'm Wiccan.

Ben, if I have the preconcieved notion that all opera singers are loud, fat obnoxious jerks, I can only learn otherwise by meeting and hearing from one who proves the opposite to me through communication. You may either be angry that someone was perpetuating this stereotype or you may attempt to educate me as to the other types of opera singers. If I listen and learn, good for both of us becuase I can then go share that with another person should the topic arise.

However if I refuse to believe you and just say "oh shut up opera jerk, I know your kind"...well that's my loss and certainly not yours. Why would you want to waste your time and energy telling me off for being narrow minded? What does that do for either of us in the end?

Granted I rather enjoy the way you get heated up and passionate about things dear to you, but um, what was I saying? Oh heck I forgot, so uh...carry on where you left off. I need a nap now. :hugz:

[Semele]

Ah yes, but who makes those decisions..YOU?
Well he has just as much right to make those decisions as you or anyone else does to try to twist the word Wicca into whatever they want it to mean. I mean, afterall he is a practitioner of the faith and has spent some time learning what it means and the history behind it..have you?

[savannahrose44]

Well he has just as much right to make those decisions as you or anyone else does to try to twist the word Wicca into whatever they want it to mean. I mean, afterall he is a practitioner of the faith and has spent some time learning what it means and the history behind it..have you?

Yes I have as a matter of fact and that is exactly why I don't call myself a Wiccan.

[Semele]

Yes I have as a matter of fact and that is exactly why I don't call myself a Wiccan.
Then wouldn't you two be making the same point and thereby eliminating the need to spar with words?:stooges:

[savannahrose44]

Then wouldn't you two be making the same point and thereby eliminating the need to spar with words?:stooges:

Who said anything about sparing?! :whatmewor

[Koyote Song]

Interesting read. By Ben's definition I would fall under the Label of Wiccan. I called myself that at one time...many years ago...I was even a fluffy at one time. Since then, I have had formal teaching with the Church of All Worlds; I have taken college courses that allowed me to study many cultures and theologies as well as many living and dead religions. I have furthered my studies by doing personal research in areas that interested me. I am by no means an expert, priest or any other cool name other than a student of life. There is just too much to learn and many views of subjects to think about before making an opinion.

I stopped calling myself Wiccan because of the Line that people say was being crossed and my lack of adherence to any particular tradition. If someone does ask me to label myself...I say Pagan and then wait for their response. They will either take the label and make it what they want or they will ask and I can elaborate further on who I am...for make no mistake, My path is who I am and I am unlike any other.

Do I really need to belong to a category for other people to feel better or worse about me? Can one word describe who I am? Does it really matter? At one time it did...not anymore.

I do have a few opinions. There is no Book with all the answers. There is no perfect philosophy. The world is based on someone else’s perception. I am an opinionated a$$ h@le.

Blessed Be.

[savannahrose44]

I do have a few opinions. There is no Book with all the answers. There is no perfect philosophy. The world is based on someone else’s perception. I am an opinionated a$$ h@le.

Blessed Be.
:yourock: Just thought you'd like to know!

[Ben Trismegistus]

Ah yes, but who makes those decisions..YOU?
Nope - the decisions are made by the people who have been the driving force behind the Wiccan religion for the past 50 years -- Gerald Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Raymond Buckland, Janet & Stewart Farrar, Scott Cunningham, and many others. These are the people who have defined Wicca since its creation - I'm only passing the information along.


Ben, if I have the preconcieved notion that all opera singers are loud, fat obnoxious jerks, I can only learn otherwise by meeting and hearing from one who proves the opposite to me through communication. You may either be angry that someone was perpetuating this stereotype or you may attempt to educate me as to the other types of opera singers.
Can't I do both? Can't I express indignation at the way that my way of life has been maligned, while also educating others?


However if I refuse to believe you and just say "oh shut up opera jerk, I know your kind"...well that's my loss and certainly not yours. Why would you want to waste your time and energy telling me off for being narrow minded? What does that do for either of us in the end?
Because if I can convince just one person to reconsider their misconceptions, that'll be one less person holding those misconceptions, and one more person willing to go out and correct the misconceptions of others.


Yes I have as a matter of fact and that is exactly why I don't call myself a Wiccan.
I think you've proven my point.

[DebLipp]

Without quoting anyone...

This conversation has moved into a discussion of how language is limited. In a real way, this is what the original question was about; drawing a definitional line is, after all, a language question. When did "terrible" stop meaning "that which causes terror" and start meaning "really, really bad"? Linguists argue this sort of thing all the time. Obviously, usage has impact, language does change. There are linguists who will sit there RIGHT NOW and tell you that everyone who uses "terrible" to mean "bad" are WRONG WRONG WRONG. But most language mavens will agree that those particularl linguists have their heads up their assets; the horse is out of the barn, closing the door just makes a loud noise.

OTOH, defending the accuracy of language is, in general, A Good Thing.™ Language has to mean something, otherwise we just grunt.

If, in linguistics, no one can agree exactly where the line is drawn, how much harder is it in religion, which is by definition fairly amorphous. And how much harder than that in a non-authoritarian religion like Wicca?

Hell, this argument about line drawing isn't unique to Wicca! Ask a Jew! The Orthodox and Conservatives and Reformed and Reconstructionists disagree passionately about who is and isn't a "real" Jew. Not long ago, the Israeli rabbinate decided that Jews for Jesus were not "real Jews," and therefore did not have the Right of Return. But Jews for Jesus call themselves Jews. You can see how this gets sticky.

Similar arguments exists within Christianity. My dear friend who is a Mormon believes she is a Christian, but plenty of mainline Christians insist that Mormons are NOT Christians because they use additional holy books. Just so, my friend insists that the radical Mormon polygamists are not Mormon, although they insist they are. They say they are following original Church doctrine. But, says my friend, part of being a Mormon is obeying Church authority, which they are not doing.

It is clearly helpful to have a religion that has some definite boundaries, for linguistic reasons (we don't have that Right of Return issue to worry about). But you'll never get anyone to agree on a firm line; the best we can do is agree on a spot where the gray area more or less starts, and on approximately how far it extends.

In general, we can agree that Wiccans cast circles, call quarters, worship the Lord and the Lady, or some god and some goddess, both represented and balanced on the altar (although the goddess may be somewhat or very primary), perform a ceremony of cakes and wine (or cookies and milk) and use a set of ritual tools that usually includes an athame, cup, pentacle, and wand. We can agree that Pagans who reject ALL of the above are not really Wiccan. We can also agree that Pagans who do some or most of the above, AND who WANT to be known as Wiccan, are probably Wiccan. Beyond that, it is simply unclear.

[savannahrose44]

Nope - the decisions are made by the people who have been the driving force behind the Wiccan religion for the past 50 years -- Gerald Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Raymond Buckland, Janet & Stewart Farrar, Scott Cunningham, and many others. These are the people who have defined Wicca since its creation - I'm only passing the information along.



I'm glad you think that everyone should blindly close their eyes and follow every little thing they read in a dead authors book. I for one do not take everything I read to heart. :D

[Semele]

I'm glad you think that everyone should blindly close their eyes and follow every little thing they read in a dead authors book. I for one do not take everything I read to heart. :D
Whether following blindly or stubbornly refusing to follow or believe anything not seen with your own eyes or somewhere in between we are all the same. Now Ben can try to change your opinion all he wants, but I am done. Actually I don't even know what your opinion is since you flip back and forth so much but I respect your right to hold that opinion whatever it may be. Enjoy.

[savannahrose44]

My opinion is thus.....No one has the right to tell others what they can and cannot do in regards to their spiritual beliefs....Whether it be Wicca, Judeaism, Christianity, hindu the list goes on. Whether or not you think what they are doing follows the structure of Wicca closely enough is irrelevant. It is their choice and theirs alone.....whether or not you think it right or wrong they are going to do it and call it what they will. And no amount of huffing and puffing about lines being drawn or authors being quoted is going to change that. Religon is subject to the individual...they do what they feel they need to do and if it is wrong in your eyes so be it. They are the ones who will have the consequences in the end whether you believe in heaven, hell or karma....

[Semele]

My opinion is thus.....No one has the right to tell others what they can and cannot do in regards to their spiritual beliefs.....
True, however this is a forum where opinions are welcome and discussions of opinions takes place frequently. We do not all agree, otherwise what would there be to discuss.

Also, the way I see it noone is telling you how to practice or what to believe, rather they are defending the title and defintions of their religion. You can believe whatever you want but calling it by a name it doesn't fit will get attention. Trust me on this one.

[savannahrose44]

True, however this is a forum where opinions are welcome and discussions of opinions takes place frequently. We do not all agree, otherwise what would there be to discuss.

Also, the way I see it noone is telling you how to practice or what to believe, rather they are defending the title and defintions of their religion. You can believe whatever you want but calling it by a name it doesn't fit will get attention. Trust me on this one.

You're right we don't all agree. The world would be a pretty boring place if we did.

Attention or not I care not. I simply don't understand why people get so worked up over what they think should or should not be included in religous practice. Yes one person had to start it all, yes they had fundemental principals that their religon was built upon, but others did come behind them and add bits and peices here and there. And others still interpeted it differently and made a decision whether or not they agree with it and whether or not to include it in their pratice. Does it mean that they no longer believe the religon they are practicing...no...just that they do not agree with everything in the practice....You are intitled to your opinion I am intitled to mine. Let's just leave it at that.

[Semele]

Let's just leave it at that.
You can do that if you wish, but do not expect others to drop it when they feel very adament about this subject.

[savannahrose44]

You can do that if you wish, but do not expect others to drop it when they feel very adament about this subject.

That is their choice. I'm done with religous Zealots. :toofless:

[Ben Trismegistus]

My opinion is thus.....No one has the right to tell others what they can and cannot do in regards to their spiritual beliefs....Whether it be Wicca, Judeaism, Christianity, hindu the list goes on. Whether or not you think what they are doing follows the structure of Wicca closely enough is irrelevant. It is their choice and theirs alone.....whether or not you think it right or wrong they are going to do it and call it what they will. And no amount of huffing and puffing about lines being drawn or authors being quoted is going to change that. Religon is subject to the individual...they do what they feel they need to do and if it is wrong in your eyes so be it. They are the ones who will have the consequences in the end whether you believe in heaven, hell or karma....
Show me where I ever said that anyone's beliefs should be circumscribed in any way. Point out to me where I said that anyone is not free to believe what he or she chooses to believe. Seriously, show me.

But this is the reality -- not my beliefs, not my opinions, but the reality -- there are words which are used to describe certain collections of religious beliefs and practices, and the definitions of those words have been decided over many years by people in the know (and yes, some "dead authors"). Those definitions have adapted over time, but their main ideas remain the same.

Because of these words, we have the option of picking whichever word best fits our religious beliefs and practices. Note that I did NOT say that we pick a religion and then manipulate our religious beliefs to fit that name (although if that's what you want to do, it's none of my business). The purpose of naming religions is to create commonality. If I hold the beliefs that fall under the name Wicca, and choose to call myself Wiccan, and Bob calls himself Wiccan, and Sally calls herself Wiccan, than we automatically know that we share some religious beliefs in common, and POOF - instant community. We're not sheep who are conforming our religious beliefs to one another -- we are people who have recognized our shared beliefs by the use of an agreed-upon label.

But if I call myself Wiccan, and Bob calls himself Wiccan, and Sally calls herself Wiccan, and our religious beliefs bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other's, then we've accomplished nothing except turning the word "Wiccan" in utter nonsense. We have no community, because we have nothing in common except a misused name, which serves no purpose.

You yourself have said that you don't call yourself a Wiccan because you don't fit the definition. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Because your beliefs and practices don't fit the beliefs and practices that make up Wicca, calling yourself a Wiccan would be wrong. Not just wrong in my eyes, but simply wrong. And you obviously recognize that, or else you would continue calling yourself a Wiccan. Right?

And it's not enough to say "well people are going to do it whether you like it or not". This is not about what I like - this is about what is right and wrong. And if I can convince just one person that religious nomenclature serves an important purpose and must therefore be respected, then I've accomplished something. I don't think that I'm advocating anything too dogmatic or authoritarian. I'm just asking people to call something what it is, and not call it what it's not.

[savannahrose44]

Show me where I ever said that anyone's beliefs should be circumscribed in any way. Point out to me where I said that anyone is not free to believe what he or she chooses to believe. Seriously, show me.

But this is the reality -- not my beliefs, not my opinions, but the reality -- there are words which are used to describe certain collections of religious beliefs and practices, and the definitions of those words have been decided over many years by people in the know (and yes, some "dead authors"). Those definitions have adapted over time, but their main ideas remain the same.

Because of these words, we have the option of picking whichever word best fits our religious beliefs and practices. Note that I did NOT say that we pick a religion and then manipulate our religious beliefs to fit that name (although if that's what you want to do, it's none of my business). The purpose of naming religions is to create commonality. If I hold the beliefs that fall under the name Wicca, and choose to call myself Wiccan, and Bob calls himself Wiccan, and Sally calls herself Wiccan, than we automatically know that we share some religious beliefs in common, and POOF - instant community. We're not sheep who are conforming our religious beliefs to one another -- we are people who have recognized our shared beliefs by the use of an agreed-upon label.

But if I call myself Wiccan, and Bob calls himself Wiccan, and Sally calls herself Wiccan, and our religious beliefs bear no resemblance whatsoever to each other's, then we've accomplished nothing except turning the word "Wiccan" in utter nonsense. We have no community, because we have nothing in common except a misused name, which serves no purpose.

You yourself have said that you don't call yourself a Wiccan because you don't fit the definition. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Because your beliefs and practices don't fit the beliefs and practices that make up Wicca, calling yourself a Wiccan would be wrong. Not just wrong in my eyes, but simply wrong. And you obviously recognize that, or else you would continue calling yourself a Wiccan. Right?

And it's not enough to say "well people are going to do it whether you like it or not". This is not about what I like - this is about what is right and wrong. And if I can convince just one person that religious nomenclature serves an important purpose and must therefore be respected, then I've accomplished something. I don't think that I'm advocating anything too dogmatic or authoritarian. I'm just asking people to call something what it is, and not call it what it's not.

You are intitled you your opinion.

[DebLipp]

I'm glad you think that everyone should blindly close their eyes and follow every little thing they read in a dead authors book. I for one do not take everything I read to heart. :D

Raymond Buckland and Janet Farrar are both very much alive.

[savannahrose44]

Raymond Buckland and Janet Farrar are both very much alive.

That's nice to know. :)

[DebLipp]

You're right we don't all agree. The world would be a pretty boring place if we did.

Attention or not I care not. I simply don't understand why people get so worked up over what they think should or should not be included in religous practice. Yes one person had to start it all, yes they had fundemental principals that their religon was built upon, but others did come behind them and add bits and peices here and there. And others still interpeted it differently and made a decision whether or not they agree with it and whether or not to include it in their pratice. Does it mean that they no longer believe the religon they are practicing...no...just that they do not agree with everything in the practice....You are intitled to your opinion I am intitled to mine. Let's just leave it at that.

I don't think that anyone's point, at any point in this discussion, has been to try to control what others believe or practice. The only disagreement is where to draw the line about what to call a belief or practice.

Jews for Jesus call themselves Jews, and no one can stop them from calling themselves that. But calling themselves that is (a) an affront to the Jewish people, and (b) a misnomer—the correct word for people who are "for Jesus" is "Christians."

It is not just a matter of being entitled to one's opinion. Discussing what we call ourselves is part of how we define ourselves, and how we as a community allow acceptable definitions to emerge. If we didn't have conversations like this, we would never know the range f practices that exist. Hell, the only reason that anyone started making distinctions between "eclectic Wicca" and "traditionalist Wicca" or between "Wiccan witchcraft" and "witchcraft that isn't Wicca" is precisely because of conversations like this.

[Ben Trismegistus]

You are intitled you your opinion.
Actually, I'm entitled to my opinion.

And if you're not even going to bother to read it and consider any little bit of it, then it was obviously a complete waste of my time. Have fun.

[savannahrose44]

I don't think that anyone's point, at any point in this discussion, has been to try to control what others believe or practice. The only disagreement is where to draw the line about what to call a belief or practice.

Jews for Jesus call themselves Jews, and no one can stop them from calling themselves that. But calling themselves that is (a) an affront to the Jewish people, and (b) a misnomer—the correct word for people who are "for Jesus" is "Christians."

It is not just a matter of being entitled to one's opinion. Discussing what we call ourselves is part of how we define ourselves, and how we as a community allow acceptable definitions to emerge. If we didn't have conversations like this, we would never know the range f practices that exist. Hell, the only reason that anyone started making distinctions between "eclectic Wicca" and "traditionalist Wicca" or between "Wiccan witchcraft" and "witchcraft that isn't Wicca" is precisely because of conversations like this.

That's fine if having a label makes you feel better. What gives you the right to dictate what can or cannot be called a belief or practice? Yes you are a member of this religous practice, but really now do you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot say or do? Drawing lines is doing just that, but you are intitled to your opinion.

[savannahrose44]

Actually, I'm entitled to my opinion.

And if you're not even going to bother to read it and consider any little bit of it, then it was obviously a complete waste of my time. Have fun.

I did read it. I did concider it....I don't agree with it. There is a difference.

[DebLipp]

That's fine if having a label makes you feel better. What gives you the right to dictate what can or cannot be called a belief or practice? Yes you are a member of this religous practice, but really now do you have the right to tell people what they can and cannot say or do? Drawing lines is doing just that, but you are intitled to your opinion.

I fail to see why you're so angry, or if you're not angry, why you're presenting your case so aggressively. I talk about "having a conversation" and you come back with "what gives you the right?" What gives me the right? I'm a human being, giving me the right to think and to have discourse about my thoughts. Why is that a problem for you?

Wicca is an invented religion. Only by having conversations about what it is can greater understanding emerge. Slamming the door on conversation by saying "What gives you the right" empowers no one and drives us apart.

[savannahrose44]

I fail to see why you're so angry, or if you're not angry, why you're presenting your case so aggressively. I talk about "having a conversation" and you come back with "what gives you the right?" What gives me the right? I'm a human being, giving me the right to think and to have discourse about my thoughts. Why is that a problem for you?

Wicca is an invented religion. Only by having conversations about what it is can greater understanding emerge. Slamming the door on conversation by saying "What gives you the right" empowers no one and drives us apart.

I am not angry. I'm sorry if you took it that way. I have presented my case agressively because I feel like I stated my opinion fairly in the first place and was met with agression.

Wicca is an invented religon...so what is so wrong with people taking what they find to be true and good and leaving the rest. Does it make it any less a Wiccan belief system. No. Just as christians do not subscribe to every little thing they are told niether should the rest of the world. I would think people who are secure in their beliefs would allow others the freedom to choose for themselves. Is it not a part of Wicca also to learn and grow through your endeavors? Why then should Wicca not learn and grow too? Times change people change things change...granted not always for the good...but not always for the bad either.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Wicca is an invented religon...so what is so wrong with people taking what they find to be true and good and leaving the rest. Does it make it any less a Wiccan belief system. No. Just as christians do not subscribe to every little thing they are told niether should the rest of the world. I would think people who are secure in their beliefs would allow others the freedom to choose for themselves. Is it not a part of Wicca also to learn and grow through your endeavors? Why then should Wicca not learn and grow too? Times change people change things change...granted not always for the good...but not always for the bad either.

A Christian is not a Christian if they don't believe that Christ is the son of G-d and died for their sins. They are not a Christian if they do not accept that the Bible is the Word of G-d(whether they accept that it comes directly from him or that it was shaped by man is another matter). A Christian is not a Christian if they do not hold that the 10 Commandments as a code of ethics. Those are core beliefs of the religion. If one does not believe these things, then they are not a Christian. To say, well I believe in the 10 Commandments, but I don't believe Jesus is the son of G-d or that the Bible is the Word of G-d, means that you are denying the core beliefs of the religion, and thus are not one. If you continue to call yourself one without those beliefs, it is disrespectful not only to the religion, but to yourself and its adherents.

It is the same thing with Wicca. If you cannot subscribe to and adhere to the core beliefs of the religion, why bother calling yourself Wiccan at all. In the same way that doing such a thing is disrespectful to Christianity, it is disrespectful of Wicca. That doesn't mean you have to agree on every little thing everyone else does, only that all Wiccans need to hold the same core beliefs true for it to be Wicca. It also doesn't mean it can't adapt. It has, obviously, else Eclectic Wiccans wouldn't have been accepted into the religion. But those Eclectics do hold the same core beliefs as the Trads. Without those shared practices and beliefs they are not Wiccan.

[savannahrose44]

And it goes on and on and on......Look I'm not saying that you are wrong. I'm just saying that niether are those who choose to practice differently than you. That said...I will gracefully bow out of your discussion and leave you all to it.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Most people here practice differently than me. I'm not a Wiccan.

But to say that a person can hold whatever beliefs they want and still call themselves Wiccan or Christian or Muslim is completely misinformed at best. Religions must share common beliefs to be a religion, and the adherents must follow those common beliefs to be of that relgion. If there is not a common "meeting place" for what makes one a Wiccan than the word looses all meaning and Wicca ceases to exist as a religion.

[savannahrose44]

If there is not a common "meeting place" for what makes one a Wiccan than the word looses all meaning and Wicca ceases to exist as a religion.

In my eyes it doesn't cease to exhist...just takes on a new life.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

What is that existance? What makes one a Wiccan if there is nothing to define Wicca?

[Lunacie]

My opinion is thus.....No one has the right to tell others what they can and cannot do in regards to their spiritual beliefs....Whether it be Wicca, Judeaism, Christianity, hindu the list goes on. Whether or not you think what they are doing follows the structure of Wicca closely enough is irrelevant. It is their choice and theirs alone.....whether or not you think it right or wrong they are going to do it and call it what they will. And no amount of huffing and puffing about lines being drawn or authors being quoted is going to change that. Religon is subject to the individual...they do what they feel they need to do and if it is wrong in your eyes so be it. They are the ones who will have the consequences in the end whether you believe in heaven, hell or karma....
I agree that no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do in regards to their spiritual beliefs. Everyone is free in this country to believe and to practice their spirituality as they choose (as long as they aren't breaking any laws. :fprisoner ) However, when those beliefs and practices veer too far from the core beliefs of the majority of those who follow Wicca, then they shouldn't be too suprised that the majority dismiss their claim to be Wiccan as invalid. Their beliefs and practices are not invalid, only the claim that those beliefs and practices are Wiccan.

If what you (generic you) believe and practice isn't the same as what the majority of Wiccans believe and practice, then it really isn't Wicca. One or two changes may indeed presage a new direction or growth for Wiccan, but when very little of what you (generic again) believe and practice is the same as what the majority consider to be the core values and practices, then it just isn't Wicca. And the same would be true of any religion or belief system.

[CaitrionaMorgaine]

I agree that no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do in regards to their spiritual beliefs. Everyone is free in this country to believe and to practice their spirituality as they choose (as long as they aren't breaking any laws. :fprisoner ) However, when those beliefs and practices veer too far from the core beliefs of the majority of those who follow Wicca, then they shouldn't be too suprised that the majority dismiss their claim to be Wiccan as invalid. Their beliefs and practices are not invalid, only the claim that those beliefs and practices are Wiccan.

If what you (generic you) believe and practice isn't the same as what the majority of Wiccans believe and practice, then it really isn't Wicca. One or two changes may indeed presage a new direction or growth for Wiccan, but when very little of what you (generic again) believe and practice is the same as what the majority consider to be the core values and practices, then it just isn't Wicca. And the same would be true of any religion or belief system.

Well said. Thank you very much for stating what I have been struggling to find words for since I started this thread.

Blessings, ~Rhiannon

[Koyote Song]

I see references to 'Core Beliefs of Wicca'. I'm not Wicca. But i am curious as to know what the Core Beleifs are. Opinioins are great, but, i would like references as well to understand what the basis is for these Core Beleifs.

[Lunacie]

Well said. Thank you very much for stating what I have been struggling to find words for since I started this thread.

Blessings, ~Rhiannon
**smiling** Ironic, I think. Your original post seemed to imply that if Eclectic Wicca doesn't include Coven Initiation and Ritual Scourging then it has changed too much to be considered Wicca. I think those particular things only apply to British Trad Wicca. I hope you weren't saying that BTW is the only valid Wicca? After all, there is a large group who feels that Eclectic Wicca is a different Tradition, newer but still Wicca.

[Lunacie]

I see references to 'Core Beliefs of Wicca'. I'm not Wicca. But i am curious as to know what the Core Beleifs are. Opinioins are great, but, i would like references as well to understand what the basis is for these Core Beleifs.
Quoting here from a thread on Beliefnet.com, which the Wiccan population there agreed on in general (with some question on actual definitions and practices, mostly relation to Trad usages).

Core Beliefs:

The Rede
Law of Balance, or Return

Law of Return
Three-fold Law
Any similar concept of action/reaction

Belief in at least one of the following:

Polytheism

More than one divine form

Pantheism

Divinity in all things

Animism

All things have ‘life’ energy


Sabbats, or ritual recognition of the seasons – Wheel of the Year

Esbats

Belief in Deity – generally both God and Goddess – masculine and feminine energies
Witchcraft

Belief in the existence of magic/witchcraft, whether practiced or not

Realization that Wicca is not taught – it is experienced
The Sacred Marriage

Great Rite
Creative energies

Individual connection with divinity
Taking responsibility for your actions
Constant improvement - study - practice

[Koyote Song]

So, to answer the threads original question, "When do we draw the Line?" or "When is Wicca no longer considered Wicca?", If i veer away from what was posted...which from personal studies and teachings, rings true for what i understand Wicca could represent...I would no longer be honest with myself in calling myself a Wiccan.

Granted, I understand that being core values one could add to but not take away. For academic purposes, this sounds exceptable as a Label for what Wicca could be defined, as well as a line to be drawn for not crossing if one wishes to honestly stay a Wiccan. Otherwise, one could call oneself a wiccan and follow the tenents based on the Satanic Bible or the Church of Set...or am i missunderstanding these two groups and they are Wiccan?

Any disagreements?

[Lunacie]

So, to answer the threads original question, "When do we draw the Line?" or "When is Wicca no longer considered Wicca?", If i veer away from what was posted...which from personal studies and teachings, rings true for what i understand Wicca could represent...I would no longer be honest with myself in calling myself a Wiccan.

Granted, I understand that being core values one could add to but not take away. For academic purposes, this sounds exceptable as a Label for what Wicca could be defined, as well as a line to be drawn for not crossing if one wishes to honestly stay a Wiccan. Otherwise, one could call oneself a wiccan and follow the tenents based on the Satanic Bible or the Church of Set...or am i missunderstanding these two groups and they are Wiccan?

Any disagreements?
ll, Rhiannon, who asked the original question here, hasn't weighed in yet on whether she agrees that those are the core beliefs of Wicca. :) But I believe I agree with you.

[DebLipp]

I'm quoting myself from an earlier post, regarding core beliefs and practices:


In general, we can agree that Wiccans cast circles, call quarters, worship the Lord and the Lady, or some god and some goddess, both represented and balanced on the altar (although the goddess may be somewhat or very primary), perform a ceremony of cakes and wine (or cookies and milk) and use a set of ritual tools that usually includes an athame, cup, pentacle, and wand.

On reflection I'd add a belief in polarity or the use of polar energy, an acknowledgement of the importance of the full moon and the 8 sabbats and a preference for marking them ritually, an acknowledgement (if not use) of magic.

[DebLipp]

Quoting here from a thread on Beliefnet.com, which the Wiccan population there agreed on in general (with some question on actual definitions and practices, mostly relation to Trad usages).

The beliefnet list is nice, but I have a hard time with the Rede being #1. The oldest trads, including Gardnerianism, pre-date the Rede. I cannot see something being used as a defining feature that is, itself, an innovation, albeit a fairly early one.

[Lunacie]

The beliefnet list is nice, but I have a hard time with the Rede being #1. The oldest trads, including Gardnerianism, pre-date the Rede. I cannot see something being used as a defining feature that is, itself, an innovation, albeit a fairly early one.

I don't know that they were listed in that order for any particular reason other than that's how they came to mind. The Rede is hardly number one on my list, especially the way some people interpret it. The use of ritual tools is not nearly as important to me as it was when I was newer on this path, but I understand that for most Wiccans that is an important part of performing a ritual. Taking a cleansing bath before performing a ritual is important to some Wiccans but probably not a core belief.

[Koyote Song]

About the Rede...I see it as an exercise taught a student to allow introspection into one's personal motive, a way of teaching a form or ethics as well as allowing one to learn about themselves. Magic works best if you are honest about your intent...my personal thoughts only.

As for the tools and bath...and again, I’m not Wicca...it seems to be to be a part of ritual. I have noticed that it's the topic of personal ritual where the discussion starts to degrade into 'no your not; yes I am' (not trying to flame or anything). I use few tools with personal rituals and use the Lakota Sacred Wheel for my Circle. I do take cleansing baths or take time to meditate (clearing the mind and focusing on intent) then smudging oneself. These personal deviations are, I think, what folks argue as to a valid Wiccan.

Is there some kind of generalized and acceptable description to allow for this?

[Ben Trismegistus]

And I'm quoting myself from earlier in this thread as to my criteria:



So here are MY opinions of what makes someone a Wiccan:

Polarity - Belief in the balance of the universe: God/Goddess, light/dark, as above/so below, etc.

Elemental Quarters - Four of them, earth, air, fire, water. There's some disagreement about what goes where, but the standard Wiccan setup is Air/East, Fire/South, Water/West, and Earth/North. You honor them during ritual, etc.

Ritual Elements - You cast a circle, at least sometimes. You use an athame, or something to represent an athame. You have an altar, with representations of the four elements and the God & Goddess of your choice. Etc.

Wheel of the Year - I don't know of any way you could be a Wiccan and not follow *some* version of the 8 sabbats. 2 Solstices, 2 Equinoxes, plus Imbolc (Brigid), Beltane, Lammas (Lughnassa), and Samhain.

And here are some things that are OPTIONAL but not NECESSARY:

Initiatory Rites - Yeah, it's a great thing if you go through Degree Initiations. Not because you become part of a secret club or something, but because they (like any large-scale rituals) deepen your understanding of the religion itself and of your own self. More Traditional traditions focus around Degree Rituals for a number of reasons - they help you mark your progress, and they help to clearly deliniate the line of when you know enough to call yourself a High Priestess and run your own coven. This, in my opinion, is especially important in a day and age when anyone can declare themselves a High Priestess and start a coven, regardless of their knowledge base. That said, you can be a Wiccan and never undergo an initiation. As Desdemona pointed out, if you were to restrict Wicca to only those who had undergone initiation rites, it would be a very small religion indeed. [NOTE: Do not confuse "initiation", a ceremony performed on you by a group, with "dedication", a ceremony performed on you by yourself, in order to dedicate yourself to a religion or deity.]

Wiccan Rede - I know this is a sticking point, but I don't care. The Wiccan Rede is not meant as a binding law, and it's not meant to be taken entirely literally. Yes, we should all try to live good lives and not cause harm if at all possible. But I put this in the OPTIONAL section as a response to those on this thread who have said that the ONLY requirement to being Wiccan is belief in the Wiccan Rede. In my opinion, that's a vast oversimplification of what is a very rich religion. It's like saying that the only thing you need to follow to be a Christian is "turn the other cheek".

Magical Work - There's some disagreement about this too. Personally, I think that if you're a Wiccan and you DON'T do some sort of magical work, you're missing out on a very rewarding part of the practice. But I don't see any reason why it's necessary to calling yourself a Wiccan, since that's primarily about the theology and the ritual practices.

[Lunacie]

Ah Ben, you mention the gods and goddesses in connection with some things on your list, but do not list Belief in Diety as being a core belief; is that an oversight or meant to be assumed in connection with the other things?

[Ben Trismegistus]

Ah Ben, you mention the gods and goddesses in connection with some things on your list, but do not list Belief in Diety as being a core belief; is that an oversight or meant to be assumed in connection with the other things?


That's included in "Polarity" -- Wiccans don't just believe in gods, but in a balanced polarity between gods, in the form of a God and Goddess.

If that was unclear, I apologize :)

[DebLipp]

Two things:

Probably as many Wiccans use 5 elements (incl. spirit) as 4. (I use 4.)

I would not include belief in Deity as necessary. Wiccans can be hard polytheists, soft polytheists, or can be using deity entirely as metaphor. I do not think that there is such a thing as a test of faith in Wicca. Maybe it's because of my Jewish upbringing, but I see Wicca and Judaism as having that in common; it is not what you believe in the privacy of your heart that makes you Wiccan, it's what you do and how you act. You can believe that the Lord and Lady are nothing more than descriptions of Yin and Yang, or you can believe that they are specific individuals, it's not belief that makes you Wiccan.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Probably as many Wiccans use 5 elements (incl. spirit) as 4. (I use 4.)
Good point - I use 5, but spirit is like the "and sometimes y" element.


I would not include belief in Deity as necessary. Wiccans can be hard polytheists, soft polytheists, or can be using deity entirely as metaphor. I do not think that there is such a thing as a test of faith in Wicca. Maybe it's because of my Jewish upbringing, but I see Wicca and Judaism as having that in common; it is not what you believe in the privacy of your heart that makes you Wiccan, it's what you do and how you act. You can believe that the Lord and Lady are nothing more than descriptions of Yin and Yang, or you can believe that they are specific individuals, it's not belief that makes you Wiccan.
I would say that believing in deity entirely as metaphor still counts as a belief in deity. I don't see how one could be a Wiccan without professing a belief in a Higher Power of some kind - whether that's an unconscious energy force represented through archetype and metaphor as "gods", or Zeus and his buddies sitting atop Mount Olympus, or anything in between.

My personal theory of deity centers around the Jungian collective unconscious -- the gods are an agreed-upon archetypal metaphor formed out of the synthesis of human energy and knowledge. Not exactly the standard belief system, but still a belief in deity.

And from my own Jewish upbringing, I saw plenty of Jews who didn't believe in God, and their presence in the synagogue struck me as a waste of time - going through the motions on the off-chance that they were wrong.

*grin* These kinds of discussions sometimes make me yearn for dogma ;)

[DebLipp]

And from my own Jewish upbringing, I saw plenty of Jews who didn't believe in God, and their presence in the synagogue struck me as a waste of time - going through the motions on the off-chance that they were wrong.


But the whole point is that Judaism is not about what you believe. I honestly think that Christianity has had such an influence on us in the US that it has distorted how we view non-Christian religions. Believe me, I work for an Israeli company, in Israel they don't question whether or not you can be a Jew and not believe. In Israel, Judaism is defined by a Jewish culture, not isolated in an enclave; the enclave alters the conversation.

The point is, belief in God is not inherent to Judaism. The Ten Commandments never say "believe." It's Jesus who came alone and said to believe. Judaism is about living ethically, giving charity, atoning for your wrongdoings, and being a participant in your community. If you can do that and be an atheist, you're still a good Jew. Synagogue for the non-believing Jew isn't going through the motions, it's participating in the community, being a MOT. Which matters.

[Ben Trismegistus]

But the whole point is that Judaism is not about what you believe. I honestly think that Christianity has had such an influence on us in the US that it has distorted how we view non-Christian religions. Believe me, I work for an Israeli company, in Israel they don't question whether or not you can be a Jew and not believe. In Israel, Judaism is defined by a Jewish culture, not isolated in an enclave; the enclave alters the conversation.

The point is, belief in God is not inherent to Judaism. The Ten Commandments never say "believe." It's Jesus who came alone and said to believe. Judaism is about living ethically, giving charity, atoning for your wrongdoings, and being a participant in your community. If you can do that and be an atheist, you're still a good Jew. Synagogue for the non-believing Jew isn't going through the motions, it's participating in the community, being a MOT. Which matters.
The different with Judaism is that Secular Judaism is defined by your ethnicity and cultural background. My mother is fond of telling me that I can never stop being a Jew, regardless of what I believe. That's true, but there's a marked difference between religious Judaism and cultural Judaism. I will always be Jewish because I come from a Jewish heritage. The history of the Jewish people is in my blood.

But I don't follow any of the religious beliefs of Judaism. My parents are basically spiritual agnostics, but they believe that showing up to synagogue once a year makes them Jews. And by many definitions, they're right.

But Wicca is not defined by a cultural identity or an ethnic history. It's a mishmosh religion, a community of mutts. The only thing that defines a Wiccan is his beliefs and practices. And if it's just about living an ethical life and being a part of a community, then why bother with the hullabaloo of all the rituals and stuff? I was living an ethical life before I ever became a Wiccan. Take the spiritual aspect away from Wicca and you've got, well, Freemasonry with knives. :)

And besides, the first Commandment is "You shall have no other gods before Me." Seems like a pretty good indication that he wants the Jews to believe in him.

[DebLipp]

The different with Judaism is that Secular Judaism is defined by your ethnicity and cultural background. My mother is fond of telling me that I can never stop being a Jew, regardless of what I believe. That's true, but there's a marked difference between religious Judaism and cultural Judaism. I will always be Jewish because I come from a Jewish heritage. The history of the Jewish people is in my blood.

But I don't follow any of the religious beliefs of Judaism. My parents are basically spiritual agnostics, but they believe that showing up to synagogue once a year makes them Jews. And by many definitions, they're right.My mom is the same. But she's still a Jew. My boss (an Israeli) asked me if I was Jewish, and I hedged and said "I was raised Jewish. I don't practice Judaism." He said, "What does that mean?" I said "Well, I don't fast on Yom Kippur." He said, "Oh, so you're Israeli!" So fine, I agreed. :D


But Wicca is not defined by a cultural identity or an ethnic history. It's a mishmosh religion, a community of mutts. The only thing that defines a Wiccan is his beliefs and practices.

No, because belief is internal. Practice is external. We are defined by our practices and we don't test faith. Ritual, holidays, tools, structure. Not faith. Now, I believe, in fact, I've been called a true believer, and I wasn't sure it was a compliment! But the person who said it was also a Wiccan—in fact, was my initiate—and his doubts didn't make him less Wiccan.


And besides, the first Commandment is "You shall have no other gods before Me." Seems like a pretty good indication that he wants the Jews to believe in him.
Oh come now, you know better. That's a political and social proscription—a Jew is not allowed to worship other tribal Gods. That isn't faith. Belief in God—faith—is internal and subjective. This is a proscription against a practice, which is external and objective. If you worship, you must worship the God of the Jews. What's going on in your head and heart while you do so is another matter entirely.

[Ben Trismegistus]

No, because belief is internal. Practice is external. We are defined by our practices and we don't test faith. Ritual, holidays, tools, structure. Not faith. Now, I believe, in fact, I've been called a true believer, and I wasn't sure it was a compliment! But the person who said it was also a Wiccan—in fact, was my initiate—and his doubts didn't make him less Wiccan.
You may be reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm not referring to absolute, incontrovertible belief in deity -- doubts are perfectly welcome as far as I'm concerned. I am by no means a true believer -- I believe what I believe because it makes sense to me from a rational point of view, and because I like to believe it, but I always have a voice in the back of my head that I could be wrong. I may not have absolute FAITH, but I have belief.

And again I ask, what good are rituals, holidays, tools, and structure without a belief in some sort of deity? Otherwise it's like throwing a birthday party for no one.


Oh come now, you know better. That's a political and social proscription—a Jew is not allowed to worship other tribal Gods. That isn't faith. Belief in God—faith—is internal and subjective. This is a proscription against a practice, which is external and objective. If you worship, you must worship the God of the Jews. What's going on in your head and heart while you do so is another matter entirely.
I don't know - that sounds like justification after the fact to me. Nowhere in my Jewish upbringing was I told that what God *really* meant was, "You're welcome to believe whatever you like, just so long as you dedicate your rituals to me and no one else." Although I have heard, "You're welcome to believe whatever you like, just so long as you marry a nice Jewish girl and raise your children Jewish to keep our numbers up." :rolleyes:

[DebLipp]

You may be reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm not referring to absolute, incontrovertible belief in deity -- doubts are perfectly welcome as far as I'm concerned. I am by no means a true believer -- I believe what I believe because it makes sense to me from a rational point of view, and because I like to believe it, but I always have a voice in the back of my head that I could be wrong. I may not have absolute FAITH, but I have belief.

And again I ask, what good are rituals, holidays, tools, and structure without a belief in some sort of deity? Otherwise it's like throwing a birthday party for no one.


I don't know - that sounds like justification after the fact to me. Nowhere in my Jewish upbringing was I told that what God *really* meant was, "You're welcome to believe whatever you like, just so long as you dedicate your rituals to me and no one else." Although I have heard, "You're welcome to believe whatever you like, just so long as you marry a nice Jewish girl and raise your children Jewish to keep our numbers up." :rolleyes:

I'm just trying to contrast both Judaism and Wicca to Christianity, which is faith-based. Christianity says "accept Jesus in your heart": that's the bottom line. Jesus in your heart is more important than practice. In Judaism and, I'm arguing, in Wicca, the opposite is true.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I'm just trying to contrast both Judaism and Wicca to Christianity, which is faith-based. Christianity says "accept Jesus in your heart": that's the bottom line. Jesus in your heart is more important than practice. In Judaism and, I'm arguing, in Wicca, the opposite is true.
And I'm trying to say that one thing Judaism, Christianity, and Wicca have in common is that they all grow out of a desire to believe in the existence of some power greater than humanity -- call it God, call it deity, call it angels, spirit, whatever. As you say, in Christianity, absolute faith is the central tenet. But I still believe that without a belief in a Divine of some kind, Judaism and Wicca lose relevance. They're more than simply ethical systems - they're ethical systems rooted in a particular spiritual view of the universe.

[Equinox]

I'm just trying to contrast both Judaism and Wicca to Christianity, which is faith-based. Christianity says "accept Jesus in your heart": that's the bottom line. Jesus in your heart is more important than practice.

I have to agree with Deblipp here-

One of the major innovations of the Christian religion from almost it’s beginning (going back to Paul, not to Jesus) was the focus on correct belief instead of correct action. This innovation is described in Paul’s letters. The other religions from 2,000 years ago didn’t much care what you believed, as long as you did the things to keep the gods happy (like sacrifices, worship, etc.). It was important to do these things because it was thought that it was the whim of the gods that prevented droughts, floods, etc. at a time when life was hard – the average age was in the 20s (there was a lot of infant mortality). Judaism did have some unique features (such as caring whether or not you worshipped other gods too), but a focus on belief doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Even today, no religion focuses on belief as much as Christianity. Even Islam (which came about 500 years after Christianity) has more focus on what you do.

It can be interesting to compare the books of the Bible that focus on what you do vs those that focus on what you believe. Roughly, it goes something like this: What you do: the OT, the synoptic gospels of Mk, Mt, Letters of James, Revelation. Vs. What you believe: Gospel of John, Pauline corpus (including the deutero Pauline and even the forged Pauline letters of Tim & Titus). Christianity today, both Catholic and protestant, see the latter group as correct, and interpret the former group in light of that assumption.

Focusing on what you believe actually appears to control people more strongly – controlling the mind is stronger than controlling the actions. This could be part of the reason that (proto orthodox) Christianity could dominate it’s rivals in the 4th century.

I agree with Ben’s latest post that belief in the divine is important in all three religions– it certainly is. But in ancient times, belief in the divine was mostly taken for granted – what kind of fool could actually think there weren’t gods?? It’s just that in Christianity, the important thing is to believe in their god and not the others. That’s why Christianity destroyed other religions, instead of just adding anther god to one's personal pantheon like the pagan religions did. That’s also why early Christians were sometimes called “Atheists”.

-Equinox

[HorseCrow]

Where does Eclectic Wicca stop being Wicca?

To me, an eclectic wiccan, is a wiccan who incorporates elements of different wiccan paths, to create her/his own path within wicca.
Once she/he incorporates elements from non-wiccan faiths, be it Buddhism or Islam, then she/he is no longer eclectic wiccan, but only eclectic (perhaps eclectic witch).

[Ben Trismegistus]

One of the major innovations of the Christian religion from almost it’s beginning (going back to Paul, not to Jesus) was the focus on correct belief instead of correct action. This innovation is described in Paul’s letters. The other religions from 2,000 years ago didn’t much care what you believed, as long as you did the things to keep the gods happy (like sacrifices, worship, etc.). It was important to do these things because it was thought that it was the whim of the gods that prevented droughts, floods, etc. at a time when life was hard – the average age was in the 20s (there was a lot of infant mortality). Judaism did have some unique features (such as caring whether or not you worshipped other gods too), but a focus on belief doesn’t appear to be one of them.
That's true, but the point at issue is not whether Judaism and Wicca hold a belief in deity as the central focus - I concede that they don't. The issue in this thread is whether belief in deity is a *prerequisite* to being Wiccan (or Jewish). I believe that it is.

[Equinox]

whether Judaism and Wicca hold a belief in deity as the central focus - I concede that they don't. The issue in this thread is whether belief in deity is a *prerequisite* to being Wiccan (or Jewish). I believe that it is.


Ohhh. Um, I concede the point then. Or more accurately – I’ll go with what you say – you’ve got a lot more Wiccan (and Jewish!) experience than I do. :broomride (and where is that little yarmulke smiley?)

-Equinox

[Lunacie]

I also believe that a belief in diety is a prerequisite to being Wicca. This is probably due in large part to having had personal interaction with the goddess and the god. It's pretty hard to deny them once you've been spoken to by them or had a glimpse of them. I can't say that I find either belief in diety or the practice of my faith to be more important than the other. At this time they are both important to me.



To me, an eclectic wiccan, is a wiccan who incorporates elements of different wiccan paths, to create her/his own path within wicca.
Once she/he incorporates elements from non-wiccan faiths, be it Buddhism or Islam, then she/he is no longer eclectic wiccan, but only eclectic (perhaps eclectic witch).
Wicca itself began as an eclectic practice of many different paths. If a person still holds to those original elements then how does adding something from another path make one any less Wiccan than Gerald Gardner was?

[Kaylara]

In order to hold to those original elements, one has to have a good basis of knowledge on the subject. I have no problem with someone adding things to their base of beliefs once they know what those core elements are, and have identified them as being Wiccan. My main issue is that a lot of people do whatever feels right, without any basis of knowledge on the particular subject their working with (or very little knowledge on it.) and still call themselves Wiccan. If you don't know anything about Wicca, how can you claim to be a Wiccan? I honestly think that a pre-requisite for saying you are a member of any religion, should be at the very least, a basic idea of what that religion is about.

[Aidron]

In order to hold to those original elements, one has to have a good basis of knowledge on the subject. I have no problem with someone adding things to their base of beliefs once they know what those core elements are, and have identified them as being Wiccan. My main issue is that a lot of people do whatever feels right, without any basis of knowledge on the particular subject their working with (or very little knowledge on it.) and still call themselves Wiccan. If you don't know anything about Wicca, how can you claim to be a Wiccan? I honestly think that a pre-requisite for saying you are a member of any religion, should be at the very least, a basic idea of what that religion is about.


I agree, but good luck finding that. People most often do not adorn a religious or spiritual label because it reflects them spiritually, but because it reflects them socially.

Sad isn't, that no matter what people are still clinging to the need to be validated and/or accepted by others.

[Koyote Song]

Good point - I use 5, but spirit is like the "and sometimes y" element.


I would say that believing in deity entirely as metaphor still counts as a belief in deity. I don't see how one could be a Wiccan without professing a belief in a Higher Power of some kind - whether that's an unconscious energy force represented through archetype and metaphor as "gods", or Zeus and his buddies sitting atop Mount Olympus, or anything in between.

This was one of the issues as to why i stopped calling myself Wicca. I follow a more Animistic view of Deity and was told by many message boards that because of this and a few other things...i was not Wicca. For the sake of argument...I stopped calling myself such to put them at ease. :halohead:

[Koyote Song]

To me, an eclectic wiccan, is a wiccan who incorporates elements of different wiccan paths, to create her/his own path within wicca.
Once she/he incorporates elements from non-wiccan faiths, be it Buddhism or Islam, then she/he is no longer eclectic wiccan, but only eclectic (perhaps eclectic witch).


This makes sense and is very simply put. By this statement, I wouldn't be considered Wicca. If i had been told this much earlier, it would have been more helpful at the time.

Would the rest of you aggree with this statement?

[LittlePerson]

Wow, this is a huge thread.:jawdrop: I'll just add some things. As a former christian and working away from uu working on the path of kitchen witch now, I feel I can understand some of what irks people about this topic. In every religion, you have the traditionalst/fundimentalist/conservative people and on the other end there are the liberal/reformed people. This comes down to what people believe is necessary to retain the label of their religion and if the relgion includes belief in deity, then how much faith one is percieved to have in the deity from the perspective of another of the same religion. So, in when many people come from other religions to wicca they may have pagan beliefs but not all the beliefs of wicca and find that wicca is a good place to go to because of need to label oneself and fit in. Also, as it's been said, saying one is wiccan is a way to meet other like minded people in the pagan community.

For instance, I believe in the lord and lady and in the sabbats too. But I don't feel it's necessary to have an altar to call upon them, or to do ritual. I believe that prayer is fine or cooking, singing, or any other offering is significant as long as the intention is to honor them. I've been told that a belief in the lord and lady is wiccan and not another form of paganism. But although I don't do wiccan rituals as fundamentalist wiccans do, does that mean I'm not wiccan. I say I'm a kitchen witch, but I can't call myself a traditional witch either, because they don't have a belief in deity, but in their own power and the power of nature. Also, I am not polythiestic, but pantheistic, and always felt that in order to be wiccan one must be polythiestic.
What is most important here about drawing a line is, does the person make the religion look bad? Are they hurting others? Do they make people think that they are wiccan but talk bad about the religion? Or do they take the religion seriously? I think that what matters the most is coming to your own conclusion about what you personally believe. Even though I believe basically everything about wicca, I don't claim to be wiccan because I don't believe in g-d as anything other than the lord and lady and I don't feel the need for formal ritual. It's really all up to the person doing the labeling that matters. If someone else thinks you are something other than what you are it's the person who's doing the labeling that has a problem, not the labelee. For instance I was describing my spirituality to someone and because, although I have a belief in G-d, because it's not a belief in the Christian I god I was labeled by that person as an athiest. Yeah I had a problem with it at first, because athiesm means no belief in G-d, but I have one and I know what I believe and that's all that matters.

[Lunacie]

This makes sense and is very simply put. By this statement, I wouldn't be considered Wicca. If i had been told this much earlier, it would have been more helpful at the time.

Would the rest of you aggree with this statement?
I already posted my response in post 141.

Tell me please, how did there come to be different Wiccan paths? Where did the elements come from that made them different from Gardner's original Wica/Witchcraft?

[Koyote Song]

I agree, but good luck finding that. People most often do not adorn a religious or spiritual label because it reflects them spiritually, but because it reflects them socially.


I'm not sure i would agree with this statement...how would one define trying to learn and follow a spiritual path...an initiate. But then an opposing argument could be why would a person call themselves by a spiritual path if they haven't learned what it really is. again...we come to base or core difinitions or the original question placed by the thread with an additional question...when can one start calling oneself Wicca and when does one stop calling oneself Wicca?

[Koyote Song]

I already posted my response in post 141.

Tell me please, how did there come to be different Wiccan paths? Where did the elements come from that made them different from Gardner's original Wica/Witchcraft?


My guese would be that they became to big to not be accepted. With the influx of Wicca books, the info on the net, and the growing amount of untrained/uninitiated Solitaires creating there own Covens/Circles, the first traditions either had to accept or look silly. It is a subject that credits looking into. Just a guese from a non Wicca.

[Lunacie]

For instance, I believe in the lord and lady and in the sabbats too. But I don't feel it's necessary to have an altar to call upon them, or to do ritual. I believe that prayer is fine or cooking, singing, or any other offering is significant as long as the intention is to honor them. I've been told that a belief in the lord and lady is wiccan and not another form of paganism. But although I don't do wiccan rituals as fundamentalist wiccans do, does that mean I'm not wiccan. I say I'm a kitchen witch, but I can't call myself a traditional witch either, because they don't have a belief in deity, but in their own power and the power of nature. Also, I am not polythiestic, but pantheistic, and always felt that in order to be wiccan one must be polythiestic.

What is most important here about drawing a line is, does the person make the religion look bad? Are they hurting others? Do they make people think that they are wiccan but talk bad about the religion? Or do they take the religion seriously? I think that what matters the most is coming to your own conclusion about what you personally believe. Even though I believe basically everything about wicca, I don't claim to be wiccan because I don't believe in g-d as anything other than the lord and lady and I don't feel the need for formal ritual.
The list I shared earlier included Polytheism (more than one divine form), Pantheism (divinity in all things), and Animism (all things have 'life' energy) as basic beliefs in diety for Wiccans. I agree with the person who wrotethat list that all of these are valid ways of seeing and connecting with divine energy or diety. I don't think Wicca is limited only to those who believe in many different gods and goddesses (Polytheism) and I'm sorry if you were made to feel that way at some point.

I agree with you that formal ritual isn't necessary to have a spirtual connection with the diety (or dieties). I join with a circle for the fellowship and sharing of energy and knowledge. Following the circle of the year, the seasons, is a way to reaffirm my connection with nature and acknowledge the affect I have on nature and the effect that nature has on me.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Also, as it's been said, saying one is wiccan is a way to meet other like minded people in the pagan community.
Well, no. BEING Wiccan is one way to meet other like-minded people in the pagan community. If you're Wiccan and meet other Wiccans, you know you've got some core beliefs in common. If, however, you just call yourself Wiccan without actually fitting the criteria, you're not necessarily going to have anything in common with other Wiccans.


What is most important here about drawing a line is, does the person make the religion look bad? Are they hurting others? Do they make people think that they are wiccan but talk bad about the religion? Or do they take the religion seriously?
Drawing a line is important, because, without a clear deliniation of what Wicca IS and what it ISN'T, the word itself is rendered meaningless. I rather like my religion, and would like it to continue to have meaning. There's room for PLENTY of diversity of belief in the Wiccan community while still holding onto those core beliefs.


I think that what matters the most is coming to your own conclusion about what you personally believe. Even though I believe basically everything about wicca, I don't claim to be wiccan because I don't believe in g-d as anything other than the lord and lady and I don't feel the need for formal ritual. It's really all up to the person doing the labeling that matters. If someone else thinks you are something other than what you are it's the person who's doing the labeling that has a problem, not the labelee. For instance I was describing my spirituality to someone and because, although I have a belief in G-d, because it's not a belief in the Christian I god I was labeled by that person as an athiest. Yeah I had a problem with it at first, because athiesm means no belief in G-d, but I have one and I know what I believe and that's all that matters.
I'm not talking about how others label you. I'm talking about how you label yourself. If you choose NOT to label yourself, more power to you - no argument here. If, however, you choose a label for yourself that doesn't fit, that's going to confuse people, plain and simple.

[Lunacie]

My guese would be that they became to big to not be accepted. With the influx of Wicca books, the info on the net, and the growing amount of untrained/uninitiated Solitaires creating there own Covens/Circles, the first traditions either had to accept or look silly. It is a subject that credits looking into. Just a guese from a non Wicca.
**soft smile** Actually I was asking whether someone made up these additions to Wicca out of thin air or "borrowed" them from other religions. Guess I wasn't too clear, eh?

[DebLipp]

**soft smile** Actually I was asking whether someone made up these additions to Wicca out of thin air or "borrowed" them from other religions. Guess I wasn't too clear, eh?

Depends on which additions you're talking about. The first schisms in Wicca all claimed to be a reversion to more ancient practice, but there's no evidence for that, except inasmuch as they reverted to more Ceremonial practice.

Subsequent trads made up stuff based on research, poetry, whim, common sense, or whatever. It really depends on each specific change. If you asked where X came from, we might be able to pin it down, but if you ask where changes in general came from, the only answer is "places."

Or as my son likes to say, "Wow. Stuff."

[Ben Trismegistus]

Subsequent trads made up stuff based on research, poetry, whim, common sense, or whatever. It really depends on each specific change. If you asked where X came from, we might be able to pin it down, but if you ask where changes in general came from, the only answer is "places."
Of course, not all the additions to subsequent trads were made up. In my experience, a lot of eclectic trads borrow from other extant traditions, such as Eastern philosophies (yoga, chakra exercises, etc.), and African and Native American shamanism and spiritual practices.

[DebLipp]

Of course, not all the additions to subsequent trads were made up. In my experience, a lot of eclectic trads borrow from other extant traditions, such as Eastern philosophies (yoga, chakra exercises, etc.), and African and Native American shamanism and spiritual practices.

Okay, but most of those remain distinct. I mean, no one says that chakras are a Wiccan system; they are clearly a Hindu system adapted for use by Wiccans. I was more talking about things that are now considered Wiccan but weren't originally part of the package. At least, I think that's what Lunacie was asking.

[Lunacie]

Okay, but most of those remain distinct. I mean, no one says that chakras are a Wiccan system; they are clearly a Hindu system adapted for use by Wiccans. I was more talking about things that are now considered Wiccan but weren't originally part of the package. At least, I think that's what Lunacie was asking.
I was talking about both things actually. I can't come up with anything specific at the moment that came from a different path or religion and has become part of a more recent Wiccan path.
But, sorry to say, there are Wiccans out there who don't bother to explain the history of things like chakra work or shaman practices. Some of them even write books that simply include those practices under the heading of Wicca.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Okay, but most of those remain distinct. I mean, no one says that chakras are a Wiccan system; they are clearly a Hindu system adapted for use by Wiccans. I was more talking about things that are now considered Wiccan but weren't originally part of the package. At least, I think that's what Lunacie was asking.
Gotcha - that's true.

[Shanti]

I think it is a personal choice if you want to draw a line or not. Individual freedom to make your own conclusions is best.

[dreamingmystic]

I agree that no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can or cannot do in regards to their spiritual beliefs. Everyone is free in this country to believe and to practice their spirituality as they choose (as long as they aren't breaking any laws. :fprisoner ) However, when those beliefs and practices veer too far from the core beliefs of the majority of those who follow Wicca, then they shouldn't be too suprised that the majority dismiss their claim to be Wiccan as invalid. Their beliefs and practices are not invalid, only the claim that those beliefs and practices are Wiccan.

If what you (generic you) believe and practice isn't the same as what the majority of Wiccans believe and practice, then it really isn't Wicca. One or two changes may indeed presage a new direction or growth for Wiccan, but when very little of what you (generic again) believe and practice is the same as what the majority consider to be the core values and practices, then it just isn't Wicca. And the same would be true of any religion or belief system.
I think an old quote comes in handy here. "To thine ownself be true" I see nothing wrong in revising a ritual or believing in Wicca (as an example) yet not adhering to all the tenents of Wicca, like the Reade or the three fold law. There's nothing wrong with an eclectic or going off on a solitary path, Most the of the time, the Gods or Goddess you dedicate yourself to (if thats your path) don't care what path you follow. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules in regards to rituals anymore than there are any hard and fast rules on developing a BoS.:durrrr:

[Lunacie]

I think an old quote comes in handy here. "To thine ownself be true" I see nothing wrong in revising a ritual or believing in Wicca (as an example) yet not adhering to all the tenents of Wicca, like the Reade or the three fold law. There's nothing wrong with an eclectic or going off on a solitary path, Most the of the time, the Gods or Goddess you dedicate yourself to (if thats your path) don't care what path you follow. I don't think there are any hard and fast rules in regards to rituals anymore than there are any hard and fast rules on developing a BoS.:durrrr:
**smile** "To thine own self be true" should be more important than "to thine own path be true", but if that path has veered too far from the core beliefs of Wicca, should it be called Wicca at all? I don't think the gods and goddesses care what we call our path, following a certain path is a way for us humans to form communities at the least. Why would you say you were from the Community of Tulsa when you really come from the Community of Denver? I would find it very confusing and wonder what your purpose was in telling a lie?

[MoonIsis]

After reading most of these posts I thought I would chime in and give my thoughts:

How dare someone tell me what I should believe based on a "title". I may not believe in some aspects of a religion, but that certainly does not make me a person who is not worthy of such a "title".

I know what I feel and I don't need a book to tell me otherwise. If you believe you are connected to religion and it is your path, you should do what you feel to be connected.

I have learned from this forum that religion can change and many different versions of a religion spawn over time. I guess you could say it is whatever works for you to feel that connection. At least that is how I feel. So much is said that you have to do "xyz" to be considered a Wiccan. I feel that once you start to explore all of the "spawned" children of Wicca, you should choose the aspects of the ones that best fit you.

[MoonIsis]

Actually, one example of this is that I don't follow one aspect of the wiccan rede.

Harm None: I'm sorry but if someone or something is going to do harm to me, I'm going to defend myself in whatever means necessary.

Now, does this not make me a Wiccan because I choose to not get the crap kicked out of me? I would certainly think not.

[dreamingmystic]

**smile** "To thine own self be true" should be more important than "to thine own path be true", but if that path has veered too far from the core beliefs of Wicca, should it be called Wicca at all? I don't think the gods and goddesses care what we call our path, following a certain path is a way for us humans to form communities at the least. Why would you say you were from the Community of Tulsa when you really come from the Community of Denver? I would find it very confusing and wonder what your purpose was in telling a lie?
I can see your point and probably would agree if Wicca itself wasn't a combination of older traditions as well as being a fairly recent path thanks to Gardner IMO. Whether or not you should call yourself a Wicca if you veer from the path is probably is up to the person him/herself. Aren't there different 'types' of Wicca, for example a Dianic tradition and various new age offshoots? They still refer to themselves as Wicca although may qualifiy the word. So, technically, you probably wouldn't be able to say you are following Wicca, according to your diffination of holding fast and true to the Gardnerian tenents of Wicca.:hmmmmm: :huh:

[Ben Trismegistus]

How dare someone tell me what I should believe based on a "title". I may not believe in some aspects of a religion, but that certainly does not make me a person who is not worthy of such a "title".:wtf: Look, if you're got black hair, and you go around calling yourself a redhead, that's incorrect, right? So, as a brunette, you're not "worthy" of the title of redhead.

And NO ONE is telling you what to believe. We're just saying that if what you already believe doesn't fit a particular sect, then don't call yourself a member of that sect.


Harm None: I'm sorry but if someone or something is going to do harm to me, I'm going to defend myself in whatever means necessary.

Now, does this not make me a Wiccan because I choose to not get the crap kicked out of me? I would certainly think not.Most of us on this thread have said that strict adherence to the Wiccan Rede is NOT a prerequisite of being Wiccan. However, there is NO interpretation of the Wiccan Rede that says that you should not defend yourself if you're attacked. Period.


I can see your point and probably would agree if Wicca itself wasn't a combination of older traditions as well as being a fairly recent path thanks to Gardner IMO. Whether or not you should call yourself a Wicca if you veer from the path is probably is up to the person him/herself. Aren't there different 'types' of Wicca, for example a Dianic tradition and various new age offshoots? They still refer to themselves as Wicca although may qualifiy the word. So, technically, you probably wouldn't be able to say you are following Wicca, according to your diffination of holding fast and true to the Gardnerian tenents of Wicca.:hmmmmm: :huh:The different types of Wicca, including the Dianic tradition, continue to adhere to the basic tenet of Wicca. As I've said before, there's a LOT of room for individual differences within Wicca, while still maintaining the core principles.

And be careful -- "core principles of Wicca" does not necessarily mean "Gardnerian tenets of Wicca". Yes, the Gardnerians were the first Wiccan tradition, but the core principles are shared by all Wiccans.

[mucgwyrt]

:wtf: Look, if you're got black hair, and you go around calling yourself a redhead, that's incorrect, right? So, as a brunette, you're not "worthy" of the title of redhead.

And NO ONE is telling you what to believe. We're just saying that if what you already believe doesn't fit a particular sect, then don't call yourself a member of that sect.


:woot:
Go Ben :D

[MoonIsis]

:wtf: Look, if you're got black hair, and you go around calling yourself a redhead, that's incorrect, right? So, as a brunette, you're not "worthy" of the title of redhead.

And NO ONE is telling you what to believe. We're just saying that if what you already believe doesn't fit a particular sect, then don't call yourself a member of that sect.

Most of us on this thread have said that strict adherence to the Wiccan Rede is NOT a prerequisite of being Wiccan. However, there is NO interpretation of the Wiccan Rede that says that you should not defend yourself if you're attacked. Period.

The different types of Wicca, including the Dianic tradition, continue to adhere to the basic tenet of Wicca. As I've said before, there's a LOT of room for individual differences within Wicca, while still maintaining the core principles.

And be careful -- "core principles of Wicca" does not necessarily mean "Gardnerian tenets of Wicca". Yes, the Gardnerians were the first Wiccan tradition, but the core principles are shared by all Wiccans.

I see what you mean by changing too much of a religion and labeling yourself as a practitioner of that religion even though the core beliefs have gone out the window. I may have jumped the gun on that one. I just hope people are not labeling someone who may need some guidance or who wants to be a wiccan as a non-wiccan because they don't practice the religion to the T.

[DebLipp]

I see what you mean by changing too much of a religion and labeling yourself as a practitioner of that religion even though the core beliefs have gone out the window. I may have jumped the gun on that one. I just hope people are not labeling someone who may need some guidance or who wants to be a wiccan as a non-wiccan because they don't practice the religion to the T.

I think that one of the things that has become very clear is that there is no T to practice in Wicca. Wicca as a religion wouldn't know a T if it sat on it and wiggled on the pointy parts.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Wicca as a religion wouldn't know a T if it sat on it and wiggled on the pointy parts.
That is a truly thought-provoking image, Deb. ;)

[Lunacie]

I can see your point and probably would agree if Wicca itself wasn't a combination of older traditions as well as being a fairly recent path thanks to Gardner IMO. Whether or not you should call yourself a Wicca if you veer from the path is probably is up to the person him/herself. Aren't there different 'types' of Wicca, for example a Dianic tradition and various new age offshoots? They still refer to themselves as Wicca although may qualifiy the word. So, technically, you probably wouldn't be able to say you are following Wicca, according to your diffination of holding fast and true to the Gardnerian tenents of Wicca.:hmmmmm: :huh:
What? Where did I say my defination was holding fast and true to the Gardnerian tenets of Wicca? I have no problem with folks qualifying things by saying Gardnerian Wicca, Alexandrian Wicca, Feri Wicca, Dianic Wicca, Eclectic Wicca, whatever. As long as the new tradition holds the same basic core beliefs that makes any tradition Wicca instead of something else, then add what you want and call it a new version of Wicca.

[MoonIsis]

I think that one of the things that has become very clear is that there is no T to practice in Wicca. Wicca as a religion wouldn't know a T if it sat on it and wiggled on the pointy parts.

That's what I'm trying to get across. I really don't follow a book. I just do what I feel based on information I read as a guide. Sorry to be confusing.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

I guess the way I see it is like this:

I can call myself a purple people-eater all I want. But if I'm not purple, and I don't eat people, what's the point? I'm just lieing to myself, and confusing a lot of other people, as well as being disrespectful to actual purple people-eaters.

Same thing goes for Wicca or any other religion. You can call yourself a Wiccan, but if you don't believe in or practice those things that makes Wicca what it is, then why would you do so?

A religion doesn't exist if it doesn't have certain principles that make it different from any other religion. If nobody in the religon had anything in common, then there is no religion.

[DebLipp]

I guess the way I see it is like this:

I can call myself a purple people-eater all I want. But if I'm not purple, and I don't eat people, what's the point? I'm just lieing to myself, and confusing a lot of other people, as well as being disrespectful to actual purple people-eaters.

Same thing goes for Wicca or any other religion. You can call yourself a Wiccan, but if you don't believe in or practice those things that makes Wicca what it is, then why would you do so?

A religion doesn't exist if it doesn't have certain principles that make it different from any other religion. If nobody in the religon had anything in common, then there is no religion.
I agree with you 100%. What I said before about the T was just by way of saying that we have principals and commonalities, but not precision. And most of us like it that way. Yes, there are trads that have a lot of structure, but Wicca isn't any one trad.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Yep, I knew that's what your point. Just sharing my point of view. The whole purple people-eater analogy has been in my head for a couple days and I just had to use it. :T

[MoonIsis]

Yep, I knew that's what your point. Just sharing my point of view. The whole purple people-eater analogy has been in my head for a couple days and I just had to use it. :T

Ok. I see. Makes sense. Now I see where you are coming from. Doh.! :foopsies:

[frigga]

Something I just thought of. Perhaps some use the term Wicca to basically get their religion across. Pagan being to broad. If they're talking to someone who may not know all there is to know about differences and similarities that are in Pagan religions, to say"I'm Wiccan", gets the point across to those without the knowledge. Now the person speaking knows they're not Wiccan, but to avoid lengthy explainations that time doesn't permit, they use the most widely accepted and understood term. Christains do this to, when some one asks, what religion are you, most would say Christain (except for Catholics, Lutherns, and Mormans! But those who are Asatru and Santaria would also make the distinction.). Am I making sense here?

[Crystal_Raye]

I don't think there will ever be a line. People believe in what suits them. I guess it tends to turn into a whole other perspective of things. I don't think there is anything wrong with extending your beliefs of wicca as long as no one goes crazy like scrafices babies or some dumb sh!t thing like that.
Maybe some day there will be a line drawn? Until then I have no idea :hrmm:

My thoughts exactly

[Ben Trismegistus]

Something I just thought of. Perhaps some use the term Wicca to basically get their religion across. Pagan being to broad. If they're talking to someone who may not know all there is to know about differences and similarities that are in Pagan religions, to say"I'm Wiccan", gets the point across to those without the knowledge. Now the person speaking knows they're not Wiccan, but to avoid lengthy explainations that time doesn't permit, they use the most widely accepted and understood term. Christains do this to, when some one asks, what religion are you, most would say Christain (except for Catholics, Lutherns, and Mormans! But those who are Asatru and Santaria would also make the distinction.). Am I making sense here?
Why call yourself something that you're not, just to save the time of explaining what you actually ARE?

If I wanted to go that route, I'd tell people I was still Jewish.

[Aquamarine Dreamer]

My opinion in if you wish to call yourself Wiccan and follow the Rede,that your wiccan.Not just anyone can claim to be wiccan.There need to be limits

[Phae Talon]

Okay, but most of those remain distinct. I mean, no one says that chakras are a Wiccan system; they are clearly a Hindu system adapted for use by Wiccans.

Actually, I think you would be surprised. Not too long ago I had a whole group of people trying to convince me that yoga was Wiccan. Sometimes I think that people who borrow from other cultures seem to think that because they do it and they are Wiccan that somehow that makes the practice Wiccan ... but, I am sure that is a whole other argument :ahhhh:

--Phae

[frigga]

Why call yourself something that you're not, just to save the time of explaining what you actually ARE?

If I wanted to go that route, I'd tell people I was still Jewish.
Oh, I totally agree! but let me give an example: I live in the Bible belt, half of the people here don't know anyother religion than their own, Christianity. We know there's a difference, and when I'm speaking to like minded individuals like those on this site and my friends, I tell them I'm Pagan. But I don't feel like wasting my breathe at differentiating between Paganism and Wicca when I a) DOn't have the time, literally, or b)know that my explanation won't do any good. By saying ones Wiccan, they're relaying the fact that they are an earth based religion and spare themselves the lengthy explanation of their often complex beliefs and difference betwen the two.

[dreamingmystic]

Then based on what you are saying Ben, is that Wicca can't evolve? (Just playing devils advocate here for a brief moment) I fully understand what you are saying, I just don't know as to whether I would agree. If someone practice most of the tenents of Wicca, but doesn't adhere to the Reade or the Three fold law, then, according to your definintion, they can't call themselves Wiccan. I think people will call themselves Wiccan as a matter of explanations to others as it is easily recognized to people who aren't Pagan.

I wouldn't call myself anything (except perhaps just Pagan) simply because I don't adhere to any specific school of thought. I believe in the balance of Nature but I don't use 'rituals' per se, I don't have an alter. I work with energy but don't necessarily use tools and I tend to be panthiestic rather than polytheistic, and although I enjoy the history of God and Goddess, I don't call on them. I do use visual. and meditation but seek a 'guide' rather than a Lord or Lady. I use aspects of Eastern traditions and shamanism mostly. But then again, I don't call or refere to myself as Wiccan.

[LittlePerson]

I have to agree with Frigga on that last one.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Nobody is saying that Wicca can't evolve. Just that there are certain things that make a Wiccan a Wiican. Christianity has evolved quite a bit over the centuries, but the one thing that has always united Christians from every era is their unflagging belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of G-d who died on the Cross for their sins and was resurrected three days later. Without that belief to call yourself a Christian would be a fallacy. That never kept other forms of Christianity from deviating from the original church. Think about it. There are Catholics, Orthodox, Baptist, Quakers, Amish, Presbyterian, Lutherans, even Pentecostals. Even with their many differences that one thing, their belief and fath in Jesus Christ as the Savior, unites them.

All we are saying is there is/needs to be the same type of defining point that unites all Wiccans. No one is saying that all Wiccans most believe and practice the same way, but that there must be/is a point at which the line is drawn, at which ones beliefs stop being Wiccan and start being something else. Though not a Wiccan, for me that point is duality. The Lord and Lady, light and dark, the two halves of the year, how each sabbat has it's opposite on the other side of the wheel...I could go on and on. But duality permeates every facet of Wicca and that seems to me should be it's defining point. Without that belief in duality being central to both their beliefs and practices but also to the universe, one stops being Wiccan in my eyes. Does that mean that those Dianics who don't recognize a male god are not Wiccan? For me yes it does. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

I think all we're doing here in this thread is trying to come to an agreement on what makes one a Wiccan, and at what point ones beliefs have changed so much that they can no longer be considered such.

[Æon Flux]

Christianity has evolved quite a bit over the centuries, but the one thing that has always united Christians from every era is their unflagging belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of G-d who died on the Cross for their sins and was resurrected three days later. Without that belief to call yourself a Christian would be a fallacy. .

Yeah... although I would like to add one thing though.
The whole basis of Christianity, if one should base it on Jesus, was love.
Love, forgiveness and not throwing stones unless you were clean from sin.
Unfortunately a lot of Christians do not follow these guidelines which were presented by Jesus Christ, the Son of the big G.
Now... wouldn't this also mean that, if a Wiccan who is not a member of a coven and a specific tradition cannot call herself Wiccan, a Christian who does not follow the guidelines set by the big G through Jesus Christ should not be able to call themselves Christians?

That's what I'm thinking.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Yeah... although I would like to add one thing though.
The whole basis of Christianity, if one should base it on Jesus, was love.
Love, forgiveness and not throwing stones unless you were clean from sin.
Unfortunately a lot of Christians do not follow these guidelines which were presented by Jesus Christ, the Son of the big G.
Now... wouldn't this also mean that, if a Wiccan who is not a member of a coven and a specific tradition cannot call herself Wiccan, a Christian who does not follow the guidelines set by the big G through Jesus Christ should not be able to call themselves Christians?

That's what I'm thinking.

I think you are delving to far outside of the scope of the topic. Belief and practice are two different things, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. And it seems to me we are discussing how one believes more than whether they practice those beliefs.

Not to mention that no one here has said only those Wiccans who belong to certain trads and practice in a coven are the only real Wiccans. Solitary Wiccans can be just as Wiccan as the next person. I don't think in all the lists of core beliefs anyone has listed working in a coven.

[Lunacie]

Nobody is saying that Wicca can't evolve. Just that there are certain things that make a Wiccan a Wiican. Christianity has evolved quite a bit over the centuries, but the one thing that has always united Christians from every era is their unflagging belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of G-d who died on the Cross for their sins and was resurrected three days later. Without that belief to call yourself a Christian would be a fallacy. That never kept other forms of Christianity from deviating from the original church. Think about it. There are Catholics, Orthodox, Baptist, Quakers, Amish, Presbyterian, Lutherans, even Pentecostals. Even with their many differences that one thing, their belief and fath in Jesus Christ as the Savior, unites them.

All we are saying is there is/needs to be the same type of defining point that unites all Wiccans. No one is saying that all Wiccans most believe and practice the same way, but that there must be/is a point at which the line is drawn, at which ones beliefs stop being Wiccan and start being something else. Though not a Wiccan, for me that point is duality. The Lord and Lady, light and dark, the two halves of the year, how each sabbat has it's opposite on the other side of the wheel...I could go on and on. But duality permeates every facet of Wicca and that seems to me should be it's defining point. Without that belief in duality being central to both their beliefs and practices but also to the universe, one stops being Wiccan in my eyes. Does that mean that those Dianics who don't recognize a male god are not Wiccan? For me yes it does. But I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

I think all we're doing here in this thread is trying to come to an agreement on what makes one a Wiccan, and at what point ones beliefs have changed so much that they can no longer be considered such.
Yes, for me too, the thing that makes Wicca different from other religions is the duality, the polarity, the balance. I think it's true that this is the one thing that makes all the Wiccan practices that have been listed here interrelate, the connection between all the things that have been suggested as "core". I don't know how clearly I'm expressing myself, I haven't been awake very long and I have a monster headache, but I seem to remember that Dianic Wiccans actually do recognize both a male god and a female goddess. They simply focus on the female aspect 98 percent of the time. There may be another group of Dianics who are not Wiccan who only recognize the female divine energy though. I'm just not able to think and remember clearly at the moment.

[Æon Flux]

I think you are delving to far outside of the scope of the topic. Belief and practice are two different things, orthodoxy and orthopraxy. And it seems to me we are discussing how one believes more than whether they practice those beliefs.

Oh... I'm sorry if I'm going outside the scope, but I guess the whole thing made sense in my head. :bigredblu
To me being judgemental as a Christian when all that Jesus said is speaking against it is like being a Wiccan and only hexing all the time.




Not to mention that no one here has said only those Wiccans who belong to certain trads and practice in a coven are the only real Wiccans. Solitary Wiccans can be just as Wiccan as the next person. I don't think in all the lists of core beliefs anyone has listed working in a coven.


Actually, what I was referring to in my clumpsy post ( I am very tired :needcoffe ) was the posts saying you had to be initiated into an oathbound tradition to be able to call yourself a Wiccan, and according to my knowledge, not a lot of solitare Wiccans are that.

Here is one of the posts :



They don't realize that the religion of Wicca is an oathbound, initiatory tradition, and if one hasn't gone through the initiations (not dedications, they are two different things), they cannot be Wiccan, by the definition of the ones who started the religion and made the rules in the first place. (Underlined text for emphasis only.)


That's what I was babbeling about.
Hope I got my message through this time. :collapse: Time to go get that coffee.

[Theres]

hmmmm... interesting thread, and i'm sorry i'm coming to it late.
but all i have to say on the topic i've said before, so allow me to dig out this dusty old relic... (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=11834&highlight=Eclectic)

[Koyote Song]

hmmmm... interesting thread, and i'm sorry i'm coming to it late.
but all i have to say on the topic i've said before, so allow me to dig out this dusty old relic... (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=11834&highlight=Eclectic)


I read your post...some good points...and noticed that you stated...'Wicca is a fairly well defined religion'. You also mention how other Pagan religions don't have as many fluffies because of their clear boundaries. I was wondering, what are these definitions for Wicca and where do they come from? How would you want them to be used to create a clear boundary?

I'm not nitpicking here...just trying to get your point of view on the subject. This discussion is an old one for me and am suprised it's lasted for these many years.

Another question for all readers...What's it going to take for those whom are Wicca to come together on this? What do you propose as a solution to this long lasting argument?

:ringaroun

[Theres]

I read your post...some good points...and noticed that you stated...'Wicca is a fairly well defined religion'. You also mention how other Pagan religions don't have as many fluffies because of their clear boundaries. I was wondering, what are these definitions for Wicca and where do they come from? How would you want them to be used to create a clear boundary?

I'm not nitpicking here...just trying to get your point of view on the subject. This discussion is an old one for me and am suprised it's lasted for these many years.

okay, you've called me on the most difficult part of my rant. okay, fair enough. but understand that that was posted more than two years ago, and while i still consider myself Wiccan, the me of back then would probably wonder "why?".
however, to answer your question...
Myst/Rain and i (and many others too) hashed this out a year or so ago (hey Rain, who are you now? ;) ), and i think we boiled it down to 4 or five critical points. from memory, they were (in no particular order)...

a belief in Goddess AND God.
a belief in reincarnation (or at least the cycle of birth, death and rebirth).
an adherence to the cycles of Nature (the seasons, sabbats, etc).
an adherence to the Wiccan Rede.
a belief in the three-fold law.

now remember, this is by no means definitive, just the points we boiled down that were (to our minds) peculiar to Wicca specifically. for instance, such things as cakes and ale, calling the quarters and the like were not included because they were derived from other ritual elements (the eucharest, ceremonial magick, etc).
note that this does not include any Christian crossover beliefs, or faeries, or alien colonisation, or scourging, or any other belief that is not specific to Wicca.

that thread is somewhere in the archives, i'm sure. but i can't remember the title, and i'm too lazy at the moment to look it up. (and yes, it is a very old discussion)

[Blueowl]

If you want to draw a line somewhere that is your choice..why does a name have to be put to it anyway? The whole point of Pganism is to each his own so to speak, and WIcca is more organized. But no matter what, there are always leaders and followers, and then there are those who just listen to what there is out there, use it as a guideline of sorts, and make it their own. does that mean they are pagan or wicca? To me there are freedoms to do what you will.It doesn't matter how or what way you do it. Its what you feel for yourself.

[Theres]

If you want to draw a line somewhere that is your choice..why does a name have to be put to it anyway? The whole point of Pganism is to each his own so to speak, and WIcca is more organized. But no matter what, there are always leaders and followers, and then there are those who just listen to what there is out there, use it as a guideline of sorts, and make it their own. does that mean they are pagan or wicca? To me there are freedoms to do what you will.It doesn't matter how or what way you do it. Its what you feel for yourself.

names ARE important. how chaotic would this board be if we all had the same name, or no names at all?

but as i have repeated over and over, doing whatever floats your spiritual boat is fine by me. but why call it something that it obviously is not?

[Koyote Song]

does that mean they are pagan or wicca?


Interesting side question...Maybe exploring that would better help with the original question. Before saying wether they are Pagan or Wicca...maybe we should determine what the difference between the 2 are. So, what's the difference? :fpeace:

by the way...this is an open question...not just ment for Blueowl.

[Kaylara]

Pagan is a broad term, basically meaning that you're not following a Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion. Wicca is one particular kind of pagan. Hence, all Wiccans are Pagan, but not all Pagans are Wiccan.

[Koyote Song]

Pagan is a broad term, basically meaning that you're not following a Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion. Wicca is one particular kind of pagan. Hence, all Wiccans are Pagan, but not all Pagans are Wiccan.

hhmm...so what would be the difference between Pagan and Eclectic Wiccan?

[Kaylara]

A pagan can be just about anything. An ecclectic wiccan would follow the basic tenents of Wicca, but take pieces from other sources as well, and incorporate them into the way they practice Wicca. The core of the beliefs would not change, but some of the practices would.

[Koyote Song]

Sounds good. Now how would you propose to solve the problem that folks have of 'What ever Goes' Wicca? ...if you check some of the previous posts...a good example is claiming yoga as Wicca...is it? :ack:

I'm bored...that's why most of the small little questions.

[Theres]

personally, i have no answer that would solve it (but i plan to keep on bitching about it anyway).

[Koyote Song]

personally, i have no answer that would solve it (but i plan to keep on bitching about it anyway).

LOL...Can't complain about an honest answer. :kooky:

[Kaylara]

Well, first, I would tell them to do a lot of research into it. Wicca does borrow from quite a few sources. But there are somethings that obviously are not. Yoga is one of them. So is karma. The ideas have influenced practices, yes, but they are not inherently Wiccan. The second thing I would say, is to work at it. It's not a cakewalk, freeforall, do what ever you want kinda thing. It's a religion. To understand it, you have to take the time to learn it. If you don't learn first, you cannot possibly understand what the religion's about. It's not easy. It's hard work. But it's very rewarding, if it's the right path for you. Making stuff up because you don't feel like working for it doesn't help anyone, the least of all, the person making it up.

Well, it's about 2am, and I'm just rambling incoherently at this point. :) I'll try to post something better when I'm more awake. :)

[Theres]

... It's a religion. To understand it, you have to take the time to learn it. If you don't learn first, you cannot possibly understand what the religion's about. It's not easy. It's hard work. But it's very rewarding, if it's the right path for you. Making stuff up because you don't feel like working for it doesn't help anyone, the least of all, the person making it up.

word sister!

[Koyote Song]

Well, first, I would tell them to do a lot of research into it. Wicca does borrow from quite a few sources. But there are somethings that obviously are not. Yoga is one of them. So is karma. The ideas have influenced practices, yes, but they are not inherently Wiccan. The second thing I would say, is to work at it. It's not a cakewalk, freeforall, do what ever you want kinda thing. It's a religion. To understand it, you have to take the time to learn it. If you don't learn first, you cannot possibly understand what the religion's about. It's not easy. It's hard work. But it's very rewarding, if it's the right path for you. Making stuff up because you don't feel like working for it doesn't help anyone, the least of all, the person making it up.

Well, it's about 2am, and I'm just rambling incoherently at this point. :) I'll try to post something better when I'm more awake. :)

Actually sounds right on the money so far...good advice and not just for Wicca. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have to add.
:fpeek:

[Blueowl]

I have not ever heard of Yoga being claimed as a Wiccan practice. Thta is very interesting. I do Yoga,but not considered part of my religion. (I consider myself a Pagan). I just do it because it feels good, and keeps my back (amoung other things) in shape. And I don't follow certain deities, I just believe in the god/dess. I do candle magick also, and sometimes, depending on wha tI do it for, I incorporate my sage wand into it too. I have an alter of sorts, but not something dedicated. I o alot of planting at this time of year..and when I get my greenhouse...I an really start producing some herbs to sell and for my soaps. And I am an empath. (Solitary). I don't have any ryhme or reason, I just do what the moment calls for. I believe inthe 3 fold law, and amost things with the Rede.

[Ladyvi]

yoga is a real good way to center yourself and realign your chakras .. in my readings at least . never tried it .. perhaps thats what they was using yoga for .. personally would rather do a hike in the forest or something.

[Blueowl]

Yoga is an excellent way to center yourself. I used the breathing techniques when I was in labor. I love Yoga. One of my favorite thing sto do. I just had never considered it as part of my religion per say. I just do it to keep myself in shape and get rid of the aches and pains...and get those endorphines going. Everyone is different, and we incorporate different things into our system of things.

[Koyote Song]

Yoga is an excellent way to center yourself. I used the breathing techniques when I was in labor. I love Yoga. One of my favorite thing sto do. I just had never considered it as part of my religion per say. I just do it to keep myself in shape and get rid of the aches and pains...and get those endorphines going. Everyone is different, and we incorporate different things into our system of things.

One of the many reasons i stoped calling myself Wiccan was because i started looking outside of the Excepted traditions...mainly shamanic studies and eastern thought and various different practices (Tia Chi, Rieki, many different philosophies). Once i began incorporating them in daily life and how i look and react to life...it was brought to my attention that i was not following a Wiccan path. Now before folks make comments to me on this...this was an online conversation within a newsgroup similar to Mystic Wicks a very long time ago. I make no judgements from what i was told then on individuals now...i'm just relating what happened. Since then i have come to terms with the idea that folks can simply label me as Pagan. It truly doesn't matter to me and for the sake of argument i'll keep it that way.

I do like to look into discussions like this to get an idea of where Wicca is or could be heading.

[Blueowl]

Yup Koyote, I know exactly what you mean!!! I was studying Wiccan at one point, but it was more "organized" is the only word I can think of than what I was looking for. Hence why i started just calling myself a Pagan, its a simple way of stating what some of your beliefs are without going to much into detail. Does that make sense?! I don't want to feel like I have to explain myself, because some things I feel are just personal and soemthing not everyone who asks needs to know..which is what is kewl about Paganism. Is that its all individual. It is the same in some ways, yet unique for each person. :fpeace: :bouncingb

[dr_zeus440]

when do we draw the line? HA, in my most humble and meek opinion, that will never happen. this trend towards dilution in wicca is just the same as the trend towards the same thing in everything else.

[Ben Trismegistus]

How to codify Wicca? Well, there's a question for the ages. I've got an answer, but it's unpopular.

The best way to do it would be the way the Christians did it in the 4th century. Before the Council at Nicea, Christianity was very much like Wicca today: a collection of disparate groups, all basically doing their own thing, with little or nothing in common. The Council at Nicea was able to decide exactly what Christianity IS and what Christianity ISN'T.

But the Council at Nicea made a big mistake that I personally wouldn't repeat. They declared their definition of Christianity to be THE ONE TRUE RELIGION, and for everything outside that definition to be HERESY. That's ridiculous, of course. I think that there's room in the Wiccan community a set definition, while also retaining the amazing diversity of beliefs and practices that make up the various Wiccan traditions.

So, I would propose of Wiccan Council of some sort, made up of Elders from all possible Wiccan traditions, deciding on a set of beliefs and practices that define what is Basic Wicca (not Traditional Wicca or Gardnerian Wicca, but just Basic Wicca, the basic beliefs and practices upon which the diverse differences can be overlaid). These would include (I'm postulating) belief in a God and Goddess of some sort and the dual polarity of all things, use of certain ritual practices and tools, as well as certain elements and correspondences. This way, anyone in the world who analyzes their own beliefs and sees that they fit those defined by the Council could say, "Oh look, I'm a Wiccan." Those who do not fit the definition would not be sent to Hell, of course. They would simply be invited to use a different label (Pagan, for instance) or no label at all.

Ideally, this definition would be broad enough that Wicca could continue to evolve as it has over the past 50 years. But the codification of Basic Wicca would have the added benefit of limited the use of the term "Wicca" only to those who share certain beliefs and practices, thereby creating an official definition for the term itself.

I realize that this is an unpopular solution and will probably never happen. But the alternative is that the word Wicca, and therefore the religion itself, continues to be further diluted until it fails to have any meaning whatsoever. Thankfully, there's a fair number of us still in the Wiccan community who are able to agree on a basic definition.

[Morr]

actually, Ben, Council of Nicea pretty much gave very basic sort of gray lines regarding Christianity.. it didnt completely define what christianity was or wasnt.. it was actually more about figuring out the nature of the holy trinity, which was pretty much the main problem the church had to deal with at the time because they wanted to form a strong definite force against Arian Christianity - which later disappeared with the conversion of King Clovis (of the Marovingian Line of Kings), who was baptised into Catholicism in December 25th, 481 AD (till then he was Arian)... and due to this conversion, the church aided Clovis with his conquests all over Europe, and in return, every place he conquered (wether Arian Christianity or Pagan), had all its citizens baptised & converted to Catholicism.

In fact, Catholicism didnt have its definite Do's & Dont's untill somewhere around the 15th century...

[Lunacie]

Even a short year ago I'd have been insulted at the idea of a council of Wiccans meeting to agree on the basic beliefs and practices. Now I think it's a very good idea. Why? Because until recently I had not seen a list of basic beliefs and practices that was, well, basic. Up until then it seemed like the only people who were proposing this idea were traditionalists and they wanted a lot more rules and dogma than eclectic Wiccans were comfortable with. Also more recently I have met more and more people who want to claim the name of Wicca without caring what the basic or core beliefs and practices are.

This wouldn't be about saying you can't call yourself Wicca because you don't do whatever, it would be about saying Welcome to Wicca because you DO do whatever, eh?

I'm not sure I expressed that clearly enough, anyone else want to try?

[Ben Trismegistus]

Even a short year ago I'd have been insulted at the idea of a council of Wiccans meeting to agree on the basic beliefs and practices. Now I think it's a very good idea. Why? Because until recently I had not seen a list of basic beliefs and practices that was, well, basic. Up until then it seemed like the only people who were proposing this idea were traditionalists and they wanted a lot more rules and dogma than eclectic Wiccans were comfortable with. Also more recently I have met more and more people who want to claim the name of Wicca without caring what the basic or core beliefs and practices are.
*grin* So much for the flame war I was hoping to start. ;)

[charmedkisses1]

:ahhhhhhh: I HATE it when people say they are eclectic Wiccan, when they are really combining all sorts of religions and spiritual paths. Wicca actually does have guidelines, not just the o so popular rede! You can have Wiccan influences, but you can't be 100% both. So please please stop saying your something if you're not. Some people work really hard to be where they are, does that make sense? That's all. :p
Love and Light
:huddle:

[Lunacie]

*grin* So much for the flame war I was hoping to start. ;)
Ha ha, try harder, dude. :T

[Morr]

:ahhhhhhh: I HATE it when people say they are eclectic Wiccan, when they are really combining all sorts of religions and spiritual paths. Wicca actually does have guidelines, not just the o so popular rede! You can have Wiccan influences, but you can't be 100% both. So please please stop saying your something if you're not. Some people work really hard to be where they are, does that make sense? That's all. :p
Love and Light
:huddle:

actually, ck, if someone says they are an eclectic wiccan yet combine other factors of different religions into their spiritual path, it doesnt make them any less Wiccan.. They just dont have a specific Wiccan Tradition that they follow.. but it doesnt mean they dont follow the main Wiccan guidline and live according to that.. they just throw in more minor factors that come from other religions..

[DebLipp]

How to codify Wicca? Well, there's a question for the ages. I've got an answer, but it's unpopular.

The best way to do it would be the way the Christians did it in the 4th century. Before the Council at Nicea, Christianity was very much like Wicca today: a collection of disparate groups, all basically doing their own thing, with little or nothing in common. The Council at Nicea was able to decide exactly what Christianity IS and what Christianity ISN'T.

But the Council at Nicea made a big mistake that I personally wouldn't repeat. They declared their definition of Christianity to be THE ONE TRUE RELIGION, and for everything outside that definition to be HERESY. That's ridiculous, of course. I think that there's room in the Wiccan community a set definition, while also retaining the amazing diversity of beliefs and practices that make up the various Wiccan traditions.

So, I would propose of Wiccan Council of some sort, made up of Elders from all possible Wiccan traditions, deciding on a set of beliefs and practices that define what is Basic Wicca (not Traditional Wicca or Gardnerian Wicca, but just Basic Wicca, the basic beliefs and practices upon which the diverse differences can be overlaid). These would include (I'm postulating) belief in a God and Goddess of some sort and the dual polarity of all things, use of certain ritual practices and tools, as well as certain elements and correspondences. This way, anyone in the world who analyzes their own beliefs and sees that they fit those defined by the Council could say, "Oh look, I'm a Wiccan." Those who do not fit the definition would not be sent to Hell, of course. They would simply be invited to use a different label (Pagan, for instance) or no label at all.

Ideally, this definition would be broad enough that Wicca could continue to evolve as it has over the past 50 years. But the codification of Basic Wicca would have the added benefit of limited the use of the term "Wicca" only to those who share certain beliefs and practices, thereby creating an official definition for the term itself.

I realize that this is an unpopular solution and will probably never happen. But the alternative is that the word Wicca, and therefore the religion itself, continues to be further diluted until it fails to have any meaning whatsoever. Thankfully, there's a fair number of us still in the Wiccan community who are able to agree on a basic definition.

BTDT.

It was tried several times. There's the set of guidelines that came out of the 70s, the first such gathering to attempt it. I think that Isaac links to it on www.neopagan.net, but I could be wrong. First Council of Witches or something, early Llewellyn-sponsored gathering in the Minneapolis area, if I'm not forsaken.

It's been attempted at least twice since then, but no document has ever been successfully produced. In fact, flame war is the only thing that has been successfully produced by the attempts.

[Lunacie]

Are you referring to the 13 Principles of Belief? http://wicca.timerift.net/laws/13principals.html

Reading through that again, I don't find any references to Wicca, only to Witchcraft. Granted, in the early '70s there wasn't such a gulf between the two, Wicca and Witchcraft, but it simply doesn't seem as defining of the Wicca of today as the lists that have been proposed on this thread.

[Koyote Song]

Are you referring to the 13 Principles of Belief? http://wicca.timerift.net/laws/13principals.html

Reading through that again, I don't find any references to Wicca, only to Witchcraft. Granted, in the early '70s there wasn't such a gulf between the two, Wicca and Witchcraft, but it simply doesn't seem as defining of the Wicca of today as the lists that have been proposed on this thread.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

I have been looking for a reference for that meeting since i saw this thread! I didn't want to start talking about it until i had a reference. :toofless:

[Ben Trismegistus]

It was tried several times. There's the set of guidelines that came out of the 70s, the first such gathering to attempt it. I think that Isaac links to it on www.neopagan.net (http://www.neopagan.net/), but I could be wrong. First Council of Witches or something, early Llewellyn-sponsored gathering in the Minneapolis area, if I'm not forsaken.

It's been attempted at least twice since then, but no document has ever been successfully produced. In fact, flame war is the only thing that has been successfully produced by the attempts.
Yeah, I suspect that it's a bit of a pipe dream. The 13 Principles isn't bad, but it's outdated.

Maybe I'll just write up a document and insist everyone does what I say. ;)

[LittlePerson]

Lunacie, the niceans formed a council 2000 years ago and look what it did to Christianity. Councils aren't always a good thing. They very often change history.

[Lunacie]

Lunacie, the niceans formed a council 2000 years ago and look what it did to Christianity. Councils aren't always a good thing. They very often change history.
Is there anything that doesn't change history? :halohead:

[Phae Talon]

BTDT.

It was tried several times. There's the set of guidelines that came out of the 70s, the first such gathering to attempt it. I think that Isaac links to it on www.neopagan.net, but I could be wrong. First Council of Witches or something, early Llewellyn-sponsored gathering in the Minneapolis area, if I'm not forsaken.

That sprung to my mind on hearing this idea as well. SRW mentions them in 'to Ride a Silver Broomstick'. From what I understand, they disbanded shortly after the document was released.

It's a noble idea ... though, somehow I doubt that a council that everyone can agree on would be easy to put together. You would always have someone screaming that they were left off because everyone else was being elitist.

--Phae

[Ben Gruagach]

That sprung to my mind on hearing this idea as well. SRW mentions them in 'to Ride a Silver Broomstick'. From what I understand, they disbanded shortly after the document was released.

It's a noble idea ... though, somehow I doubt that a council that everyone can agree on would be easy to put together. You would always have someone screaming that they were left off because everyone else was being elitist.

--Phae

The document was called "Principles of Wiccan Belief" and was drafted by the American Council of Witches. It apparently convened one and only one time, at the Spring WitchMeet that was held in Minneapolis, MN in 1974. The Council was a made up of representatives from various Wiccan traditions as well as a few solitaries. Carl Llewellyn Weschcke (the owner of Llewellyn Publishing) was involved in both the WitchMeet gathering and in the Council and the drafting of the Principles document.

You can read about it in the entry on Weschcke in "The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism" by Shelley Rabinovitch and James Lewis (which I've seen is now out in paperback) and also in Isaac Bonewits' excellent "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide."

The Principles are also on the web in many places, including at http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_stat1.htm with a blurb about the history.

[Theres]

this is probably not a popular opinion, especially among the chronic organisers here, but i cringe at the thougfht of a national Council of Witches.

while i am the first one to admit that Wicca is not 'whatever you want to believe', i don't believe that turning it into an organised religion along the lines of the Christian Church is in any way beneficial to the cause.
the few Pagan churches that i am familiar with are rather self important and heirarchal, and do more to move people away from the witchcraft aspects of Wicca than i care for.

i don't need another church, and i don't need another organisation laying it out for me THEIR way.
i can't give you a viable alternative, but i'm pretty sure this ain't it.

[Lunacie]

this is probably not a popular opinion, especially among the chronic organisers here, but i cringe at the thougfht of a national Council of Witches.

while i am the first one to admit that Wicca is not 'whatever you want to believe', i don't believe that turning it into an organised religion along the lines of the Christian Church is in any way beneficial to the cause.
the few Pagan churches that i am familiar with are rather self important and heirarchal, and do more to move people away from the witchcraft aspects of Wicca than i care for.

i don't need another church, and i don't need another organisation laying it out for me THEIR way.
i can't give you a viable alternative, but i'm pretty sure this ain't it.
I don't want to see Wicca turned into an "organized religion" either, but I don't think that having a set of beliefs and practices that are standard to the religion is a bad thing. Actually it might help convince people like G. Dubya that we're a "real" religion. It wouldn't mean that everyone had to agree to do things only one way, only that we want to be clear about what Wicca is all about. Less confusion, less arguments, maybe?

[Pesha]

Sorry for stepping in here.......I read this thread with interest. In my mind even the most disorganised being or creation has some set of rules it goes by. A Wiccan/ Witch church might be a good thing as long as it never forgets where it came from. To forget ones origins is to create another more self important and sadly possibly self rightious thing. Just my POV. Sorry for intruding.

BB
DS.

[Lala]

Sorry for stepping in here.......I read this thread with interest. In my mind even the most disorganised being or creation has some set of rules it goes by. A Wiccan/ Witch church might be a good thing as long as it never forgets where it came from. To forget ones origins is to create another more self important and sadly possibly self rightious thing. Just my POV. Sorry for intruding.

BB
DS.

There's "The Wiccan Church of Canada". Although I am a solitary practitioner, any encounters I've had with the members have always been postive. Everyone has been willing to give advice...but I do find it intimidating myself at times... All in all, I think they are postive.
this is from the website:
"Our goal is threefold:
First, to assist practicing Wiccans in achieving a spiritual balance that brings them into true harmony with the Gods.
Second, to bring to the non-Wiccan population an understanding that we are a positive, reputable and life-affirming religious and lifestyle alternative.
Third, to achieve for Wiccans the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by other more mainstream religions. "
www.wcc.on.ca in case you are curious

[Lunacie]

Which reminds me that there is also a Wiccan church in the U.S., The Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca. Here's a link to their pages: http://sitemap.cuew.org/

[Ben Gruagach]

Which reminds me that there is also a Wiccan church in the U.S., The Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca. Here's a link to their pages: http://sitemap.cuew.org/

There are many established Wiccan groups out there besides the Wiccan Church of Canada and the Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca. They list many of them at Witchvox -- plenty of the groups and covens there are formalized and established entities. (They have an item in each group entry about whether the group is "incorporated" or "501c3 Cert." which are the big tip-offs.) CUUPS is another one that has branches all over the place, and is a formal subgroup in the Unitarian-Universalist church.

It's interesting that within these formal groups they do have some structure to keep them going, but many of them are also very flexible when it comes to actual philosophy and theology. CUUPS for instance, as part of the UU church, doesn't usually try to impose a particular theology from what I understand (I'm not a UU or CUUPS member so I can't say for sure.)

It seems to me that a lot of this talk about "where do we draw the line" about Wicca is an attempt to impose a particular theology, to establish a Wicca orthodoxy and authority structure. I'm another one who thinks this is a really bad idea. One of our greatest strengths, in my opinion, is the diversity and autonomy we have within Wicca. We throw that away at our peril.

[Equinox]

Ben wrote:


CUUPS for instance, as part of the UU church, doesn't usually try to impose a particular theology from what I understand (I'm not a UU or CUUPS member so I can't say for sure.)

Ben is correct. Not just “usually”, either –in nearly all cases. CUUPS is part of the UU church, and one of our major points is that Creedal tests are not allowed. Everyone is encouraged to find for themselves what the truth is. It is even listed in our 7 priciples (it is principle # 4).

Here are the 7 principles. http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

Hey – 7 principles?!? Is that like a creed?!?! That’s a common UU joke – we try to thread the tricky balance of affirming everyone’s right to find out the truth for themselves, while actually standing for something as a group. It can be tricky.

So it is probably safe to say that CUUPS not only doesn't have a creed, but that it won't have a creed in the foreseeable future. We UU's are allergic to creeds.


Oh, and a thought-
Learning about evolution and history has shown me that in the long run, the things we do that leave something behind are more important that anything else we do. As long as religious movements like Wicca don’t have much organization and don’t do much to teach and grow, they will vanish quickly sooner or later. That’s much of the reason why atheists and agnostics have virtually no political voice today, even though they have been a significant religious trend for over a century.

An organized religion need not be dogmatic or oppressive. The UU church is organized and it would be hard to get more inclusive of everyone (Pagans, Christians, Atheists, gays, Hindus, you name it) than the UU church is. It has been organized for centuries, splitting off from the Congregationalists over a century ago. It will be interesting to see what happens with CUUPS and the other organized Pagan churches.

It all reminds me that today’s actions make the world of the future, and it is that world that our children, grandchildren, and their descendants must live in. The UU church provides a home for religious seekers like me, and I’m helping to make sure it will do that for religious seekers in the future.

[Ben Trismegistus]

It seems to me that a lot of this talk about "where do we draw the line" about Wicca is an attempt to impose a particular theology, to establish a Wicca orthodoxy and authority structure. I'm another one who thinks this is a really bad idea. One of our greatest strengths, in my opinion, is the diversity and autonomy we have within Wicca. We throw that away at our peril.
Well, I certainly don't want "orthodoxy". I would just like for there to be an agreed-upon base of beliefs and practices, nothing too specific, upon which the diversity and autonomy of Wicca can then rest securely.

I think we can find a happy medium between total chaos and dogmatic orthodoxy.

[Ben Gruagach]

Well, I certainly don't want "orthodoxy". I would just like for there to be an agreed-upon base of beliefs and practices, nothing too specific, upon which the diversity and autonomy of Wicca can then rest securely.

I think we can find a happy medium between total chaos and dogmatic orthodoxy.

And after 23 pages of discussion in this particular thread alone (and to be honest this discussion has been going on in many threads under many variations, and is a perennial topic on Pagan messageboards,) do you think we are closer to getting agreement from everyone?

I wonder if the people who feel uncomfortable about the diversity within Wicca would ever be happy. It would have been easier for them if Gardner had said his way was the one and only Wicca, with an authoritarian structre established to ensure that Wicca stayed a particular way. But he didn't do that. In fact, he spread the story that he was just trying to keep alive something that he had picked up from someone else, and left it very open for others to step forward and claim the very same thing. And voila! Lots of diversity.

[Edited to add in a letter I missed typing for a key word in there.]

[Theres]

Which reminds me that there is also a Wiccan church in the U.S., The Church of Universal Eclectic Wicca. Here's a link to their pages: http://sitemap.cuew.org/

there's also the Aquarian Tabernacle Church out of Index, Washington.

[Koyote Song]

Most Discussions on this subject is good. It alows folks to evaluate there own ideas and personal path...or atleast i hope it does.

[Aidron]

Well, I cannot say where 'we' draw the line, but I know where I do in terms of who I consider Wiccan. Granted, my opinion may not matter to them so it may be irrelevant, just as no one else's opinion of my spirituality matters to me.

If you wish to claim the title of Wiccan I feel there are a few guidelines that must be adhered to, regardless of whether or not you follow any specific tradition(s) or not.

1.) You must be familiar with the Rede (not just those eight lil' words everyone preaches) and accept it as words of wisdom that you should consider before you take any action in life.

2.) You must honored a balanced force. This is not to say that you must worship the 'Lord and Lady' or that you cannot honor one particular goddess or one particular god over the other. Balance comes in many forms and many females can be very masculine and many males can be very feminine. You cannot, however, only honor the light and love side of anything. Not only will that make me puke, but it will show me how little you know of the religion you claim to be apart of since in the beginning Wicca recognized and honored even the dark side of nature. People, however, fail to realize that dark is not the equivalent of evil.

3.) You must strive to bring about positive change in your life and the world around you.

And that's it. There are many things I consider necessary for me to take someone seriously in all religions, such as not being a total flake and screaming at the top of your lungs that you are Wiccan, Christian, a Buddhist, whatever just to get attention or to cram it down someone else's throat, but those are not Wiccan specific. If someone couldn't meet the guidelines above, well, they tell me they're Wiccan till they're blue in the face and I still won't buy it. Though I may punch them if they insist on telling me till they're blue in the face as I just don't have the degree of patience it would take to listen to someone ramble on for that long.

[Ben Gruagach]

Well, I cannot say where 'we' draw the line, but I know where I do in terms of who I consider Wiccan. Granted, my opinion may not matter to them so it may be irrelevant, just as no one else's opinion of my spirituality matters to me.

If you wish to claim the title of Wiccan I feel there are a few guidelines that must be adhered to, regardless of whether or not you follow any specific tradition(s) or not.

Loved your brief list, and the very honest and realistic rationale you gave, Raven! I agree with you completely.

One thing I would add to the list though is that in my opnion to be Wiccan also involves witchcraft in some form... whether it's active use of magick, magickal theory, or just magickal lore in one's spiritual practice. Gerald Gardner did call his books "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft" after all, so I'm not sure that a Wicca that is completely divorced from witchcraft is really Wicca.

But aside from that this leaves a lot of room for a lot of diversity. And I think that is great!

[Aidron]

Loved your brief list, and the very honest and realistic rationale you gave, Raven! I agree with you completely.

One thing I would add to the list though is that in my opnion to be Wiccan also involves witchcraft in some form... whether it's active use of magick, magickal theory, or just magickal lore in one's spiritual practice. Gerald Gardner did call his books "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft" after all, so I'm not sure that a Wicca that is completely divorced from witchcraft is really Wicca.

But aside from that this leaves a lot of room for a lot of diversity. And I think that is great!


I prefer to keep Witchcraft as far from Wicca as possible. This is mostly a result of me wanting to slap people left and right when they insist to be a Witch you must be Wiccan, as if they have the official claim over Witchcraft.

I believe most Wiccans do practice some form of magic, whether it be prayer, meditation, or what have you, but I would not necessarily consider all of them practioners of Witchcraft since they may be taking elements that are so far removed from what you usually see within Witchcraft (I do this) that it really belongs in another grouping all together.

Such as the ritual purification of Shintoism that involves you washing your hands and mouth (though you should not bring the cup to your mouth ever). This to me is magic, elemental magic for the purposes of purification, but I would not consider it Witchcraft. While it is in my opinion, it is much more a part of Shintoism, so I give it credit for this.

[Ben Gruagach]

I prefer to keep Witchcraft as far from Wicca as possible. This is mostly a result of me wanting to slap people left and right when they insist to be a Witch you must be Wiccan, as if they have the official claim over Witchcraft.

I understand the desire to separate Wicca from witchcraft (it makes us seem more respectable... since the word "witch" is still so loaded with negativity and flakiness.) But I really question whether a Wicca that is divorced from witchcraft is Wicca at all. Gerald Gardner's books were called "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft," after all. And I understand he rarely used the word Wicca at all (or Wica as he often spelled it) instead preferring to just call it Witchcraft.

The same with Doreen Valiente's books -- she was one of the most influential high priestesses that Gerald initiated, after all. Her books are all very clearly about Wicca being a religion based on witchcraft. It's not religion with an option for witchcraft.

I fully agree that Wicca is not the only form of witchcraft, nor is it the only religious form of witchcraft. (I see witchcraft as the craft or science of doing practical magick, which can be practiced in any spiritual context you like.) But I don't think it's honest or loyal to the basic premise of what Gerald Gardner and the other luminaries of our faith taught -- that Wicca is a religion based on pagan ideas and the practice of witchcraft as an inherent part of it all.

[Aidron]

I understand the desire to separate Wicca from witchcraft (it makes us seem more respectable... since the word "witch" is still so loaded with negativity and flakiness.) But I really question whether a Wicca that is divorced from witchcraft is Wicca at all. Gerald Gardner's books were called "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft," after all. And I understand he rarely used the word Wicca at all (or Wica as he often spelled it) instead preferring to just call it Witchcraft.

It's funny that you say that, as I tend to view most Wiccans as negative and flakey. I myself am not one, so that was an incorrect assumption on your part. I am simply a Witch. ;) I know full and well about Gerald Gardner's vocabulary, but in my personal opinion I think he was flakey, a bit self-absorded, and not too bright. Hence, I think they need to be divorced for the simple fact that neither one necessarily contains the other and to signify that they are seperate and very different manifestations.



The same with Doreen Valiente's books -- she was one of the most influential high priestesses that Gerald initiated, after all. Her books are all very clearly about Wicca being a religion based on witchcraft. It's not religion with an option for witchcraft.

That is debatable. I have seen many works that promote Wicca as a religion with little emphasis on actual practice and more emphasis on philosophy and the way you live your life, often but not always including things such as prayer and meditation, neither of which strictly belong to Witchcraft. Also, a religion based on Witchcraft is hardly what I would call Wicca personally since the structure of Witchcraft is so varied and Wicca is so set. For example one person may associate Air with yellow and mental ability, where another may associate Air with pale blue and tranquility in Witchcraft. Typically in Wicca the associations are the former.



I fully agree that Wicca is not the only form of witchcraft, nor is it the only religious form of witchcraft. (I see witchcraft as the craft or science of doing practical magick, which can be practiced in any spiritual context you like.) But I don't think it's honest or loyal to the basic premise of what Gerald Gardner and the other luminaries of our faith taught -- that Wicca is a religion based on pagan ideas and the practice of witchcraft as an inherent part of it all.

Again, it's debatable whether Wicca inherently includes magic and Witchcraft or not depending upon your research sources.

[Ben Gruagach]

It's funny that you say that, as I tend to view most Wiccans as negative and flakey. I myself am not one, so that was an incorrect assumption on your part. I am simply a Witch. ;) I know full and well about Gerald Gardner's vocabulary, but in my personal opinion I think he was flakey, a bit self-absorded, and not too bright. Hence, I think they need to be divorced for the simple fact that neither one necessarily contains the other and to signify that they are seperate and very different manifestations.
Sorry if you were offended by the implication that you were Wiccan. I'm very proud to be a Wiccan. I've been calling myself one now for over twenty years. And I also call myself a Witch, because I do practical magick.

But I'm afraid I disagree with you that Wicca and witchcraft have nothing to do with each other. That ignores the whole history of Wicca, where it came from, and what it includes.


The same with Doreen Valiente's books -- she was one of the most influential high priestesses that Gerald initiated, after all. Her books are all very clearly about Wicca being a religion based on witchcraft. It's not religion with an option for witchcraft.

That is debatable. I have seen many works that promote Wicca as a religion with little emphasis on actual practice and more emphasis on philosophy and the way you live your life, often but not always including things such as prayer and meditation, neither of which strictly belong to Witchcraft. Also, a religion based on Witchcraft is hardly what I would call Wicca personally since the structure of Witchcraft is so varied and Wicca is so set. For example one person may associate Air with yellow and mental ability, where another may associate Air with pale blue and tranquility in Witchcraft. Typically in Wicca the associations are the former.

Which of Doreen Valiente's books weren't about magick and witchcraft? I've read most, if not all of them, and can't identify any of them as being about Wicca as a religion divorced from the practice of witchcraft.

I have to admit you seem to have a very limited view of what Wicca is about and what Wiccans actually do and practice. The correspondence example, for instance, doesn't hold up well. I know of many Wiccans who happily argue about very basic correspondences like which element and tool is associated with which direction or colour. We don't all even worship deities from the same cultural myth system -- there are Wiccans who worship Aradia and Pan, others who worship Isis, those who worship traditional Celtic deities.

There seems to be some confusion about the relationship between Wicca and Witchcraft. A parallel relationship would be Roman Catholics and Christiantiy: Catholics (by most standards) are definitely Christian, but not all Christians are of course Catholics. Wiccans, in my view, are all Witches, but not all Witches are necessarily Wiccan (as you fully know with yourself as a perfect example.)

So how can it be impossible for Wicca to be based on witchcraft? It's like saying it's impossible for the Catholic religion to be based on Christianity. Even if Christianity were really diverse, and Catholicism were really set in its rules and way of seeing things, it doesn't make sense to say it can't be Christian because of that.


Again, it's debatable whether Wicca inherently includes magic and Witchcraft or not depending upon your research sources.

I know there are people today who are pushing to make Wicca divorced from witchcraft. I don't doubt that. I do question whether that is really Wicca at all since it's straying so fundamentally what Gerald Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Alex Sanders and Maxine Sanders, and pretty much all of the initial people were all about. We only have to read those primary sources for that to be clear. Wicca is a religion that is based on the use of magick. Yes, it's also based on pagan ideas, but it is also fundamentally about magick. That's why for so long they just called it witchcraft even though what they were practicing was just a subset of the larger witchcraft practices.

[Aidron]

Sorry if you were offended by the implication that you were Wiccan. I'm very proud to be a Wiccan. I've been calling myself one now for over twenty years. And I also call myself a Witch, because I do practical magick.

But I'm afraid I disagree with you that Wicca and witchcraft have nothing to do with each other. That ignores the whole history of Wicca, where it came from, and what it includes.

Not offended. Takes a great deal more than that to offend me, even if you are trying. ;)

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point, however. With that though, I'm dropping out of this thread. Nothing personal, you have good points regardless of the fact that I disagree with them. I've just had my fill of Wicca for awhile, personal reasons and all that.

[Ben Gruagach]

Not offended. Takes a great deal more than that to offend me, even if you are trying. ;)

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree on that point, however. With that though, I'm dropping out of this thread. Nothing personal, you have good points regardless of the fact that I disagree with them. I've just had my fill of Wicca for awhile, personal reasons and all that.

Hey, I understand. I get mightily annoyed by plenty of individual Wiccans myself, especially when they spout off questionable theories as fact, or assume that their particular tradition is somehow "real Wicca" and what everyone else is doing is somehow "fake Wicca." My problem (or blessing, depending how you look at it) is that I've been involved now for quite a while, and I've read a lot on the topic, and I've talked with a lot of different Wiccans about it all.

Do what your heart tells you is right for you. Listen to the Divine, however you identify Them. Share info with other people but remember that it's what you do, and what's in your own heart and mind, that really counts.

[DebLipp]

1.) You must be familiar with the Rede (not just those eight lil' words everyone preaches) and accept it as words of wisdom that you should consider before you take any action in life.

The "whole" Wiccan Rede that you refer to is a 26 stanza poem written and published by Gwen Thompson in 1975. How on earth can you justify the Rede as a 'test of faith' or even a rule of thumb when there are thousands of Wiccans who were around before a single word of the Rede was written?

[DebLipp]

I understand the desire to separate Wicca from witchcraft (it makes us seem more respectable... since the word "witch" is still so loaded with negativity and flakiness.) But I really question whether a Wicca that is divorced from witchcraft is Wicca at all. Gerald Gardner's books were called "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft," after all. And I understand he rarely used the word Wicca at all (or Wica as he often spelled it) instead preferring to just call it Witchcraft.

The same with Doreen Valiente's books -- she was one of the most influential high priestesses that Gerald initiated, after all. Her books are all very clearly about Wicca being a religion based on witchcraft. It's not religion with an option for witchcraft.

I fully agree that Wicca is not the only form of witchcraft, nor is it the only religious form of witchcraft. (I see witchcraft as the craft or science of doing practical magick, which can be practiced in any spiritual context you like.) But I don't think it's honest or loyal to the basic premise of what Gerald Gardner and the other luminaries of our faith taught -- that Wicca is a religion based on pagan ideas and the practice of witchcraft as an inherent part of it all.

Very well said. Wicca is rooted in witchcraft. The "gulf" between Wicca and Witchcraft has only been articulated in any widespread way for about five years. Generations of Wiccans consider(ed) the words Wicca and Witchcraft synonymous.

I'm all in favor of more specific definitions. Being clear about the difference between Wicca and Witchcraft is more respectful of non-Wiccan witches, who were there all along. However, it is bizarre to me that young Pagans today consider that there's something "wrong" or "flakey" about Wiccan authors of previous generations who used the terms interchangeably. It's NOT wrong, it's NOT flakey, it's just that, as one might expect, as Wicca has grown, more distinctions have been thought out and articulated.

[Ben Gruagach]

Very well said. Wicca is rooted in witchcraft. The "gulf" between Wicca and Witchcraft has only been articulated in any widespread way for about five years. Generations of Wiccans consider(ed) the words Wicca and Witchcraft synonymous.

I'm all in favor of more specific definitions. Being clear about the difference between Wicca and Witchcraft is more respectful of non-Wiccan witches, who were there all along. However, it is bizarre to me that young Pagans today consider that there's something "wrong" or "flakey" about Wiccan authors of previous generations who used the terms interchangeably. It's NOT wrong, it's NOT flakey, it's just that, as one might expect, as Wicca has grown, more distinctions have been thought out and articulated.

I understand too that the whole idea of "traditions" (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc.) didn't even really take off until sometime in the 1960s. I remember reading somewhere, perhaps it was in one of Doreen Valiente's books, that the term "Gardnerian" was coined by Robert Cochrane originally as a way to differentiate what he was doing from Gardner and his followers, who Cochrane didn't consider to be "real witches." But the term caught on, was embraced by those who were in Gerald's camp, and before long everyone was making up names for their particular versions of religious witchcraft.

It's the old thing: the more things change, the more they stay the same. The same conflicts keep coming up over and over, with just the names of the parties involved changing.

By the way, I thought that statement that Gwen Thompson's "Rede of the Wiccae" should be considered dogma to be a bit peculiar myself. Apart from the Wiccan Rede (the eight words at the very end) the rest is just a collection of lore and superstition about witchcraft and magickal practice, like types of wood to use in a ritual fire, ideas about correspondences, etc. Not exactly a statement of philosophy really, in my opinion.

Now, The Charge of the Goddess strikes me as much closer to a summary of philosophy. And even with that, I don't think there are many Wiccans who say it's dogma that must be followed literally.

[DebLipp]

I understand too that the whole idea of "traditions" (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc.) didn't even really take off until sometime in the 1960s. I remember reading somewhere, perhaps it was in one of Doreen Valiente's books, that the term "Gardnerian" was coined by Robert Cochrane originally as a way to differentiate what he was doing from Gardner and his followers, who Cochrane didn't consider to be "real witches." But the term caught on, was embraced by those who were in Gerald's camp, and before long everyone was making up names for their particular versions of religious witchcraft.

It might have been Cochrane. I'm having a brain fart on the name of the author and book that came out in the early sixties that condemned Gardner as an upstart and not a "real" witch, and then proceeded to outline a BOS quite similar to the Gardnerian. I thought he was the one who coined "Gardnerian." Damn, the name is on the tip of my tongue.


Now, The Charge of the Goddess strikes me as much closer to a summary of philosophy. And even with that, I don't think there are many Wiccans who say it's dogma that must be followed literally.

An inspired addition to this discussion. I personally think of the Charge as a sort of Wiccan holy scripture; it is the only text we have that is purported to be revealed instruction from deity. Even if not taken literally, it is far, far more important than the rede.

[Ben Trismegistus]

An inspired addition to this discussion. I personally think of the Charge as a sort of Wiccan holy scripture; it is the only text we have that is purported to be revealed instruction from deity. Even if not taken literally, it is far, far more important than the rede.
Agreed. Although I was surprised to find, while leafing through Drawing Down the Moon over the weekend, that the main idea for the Charge originated with Leland in Aradia. I don't know if Leland got it from somewhere else, but Aradia includes approximately the first third of Valiente's Charge nearly verbatim. The Charge was then improved first by Doreen Valiente in the 1950s (who depoliticized what Leland had written and expanded it) and then by Starhawk in the 1980s (who removed all the awkward "thee"s and "thou"s and made Valiente's imagery more all-encompassing).

The Charge is actually the one piece of long-form "scripture" (not that it's especially long) that I've been asked to memorize verbatim in my coven. I think it's a gorgeous piece of work, rivaling some of the best poetic prayers of Judaism and Christianity.

[DebLipp]

Agreed. Although I was surprised to find, while leafing through Drawing Down the Moon over the weekend, that the main idea for the Charge originated with Leland in Aradia. I don't know if Leland got it from somewhere else, but Aradia includes approximately the first third of Valiente's Charge nearly verbatim. The Charge was then improved first by Doreen Valiente in the 1950s (who depoliticized what Leland had written and expanded it) and then by Starhawk in the 1980s (who removed all the awkward "thee"s and "thou"s and made Valiente's imagery more all-encompassing).

The Charge is actually the one piece of long-form "scripture" (not that it's especially long) that I've been asked to memorize verbatim in my coven. I think it's a gorgeous piece of work, rivaling some of the best poetic prayers of Judaism and Christianity.

I'm surprised you didn't know about Leland.

I'd say it's less than a third. It's just the second paragraph, "Whenever ye have need" to "feast, dance, sing, make music and love, all in My praise."

The idea of a Charge spoken by the Goddess is much older. It's in Apuleus, which Doreen lists in the bibliography of her first book, so there you go.

The first charge that Gardner put together also had a lot of Crowley in it, to which Doreen objected. So Gardner dared her to write her own, which she did.

[Empress Stillnight]

[QUOTE=Ben Trismegistus]How to codify Wicca? Well, there's a question for the ages. I've got an answer, but it's unpopular.

The best way to do it would be the way the Christians did it in the 4th century. Before the Council at Nicea, Christianity was very much like Wicca today: a collection of disparate groups, all basically doing their own thing, with little or nothing in common. The Council at Nicea was able to decide exactly what Christianity IS and what Christianity ISN'T.

But the Council at Nicea made a big mistake that I personally wouldn't repeat. They declared their definition of Christianity to be THE ONE TRUE RELIGION, and for everything outside that definition to be HERESY.

Well, this is partly true, but there is more than that to Christian history. You see, there was a schism in which two groups were arguing whether or not God is a trinity. The Arians (not sure of spelling) said no, and the trinitarians said yes. The trinitarians prevailed at a council, and thereafter, orhodox believers insist that to be "truly" Christian, one has to believe in the trinity. That may have resulted in a homogenization of the faith, but it didn't change the minds of the Arians. They still viewed themselves as Christian.But even today, nontrinitarians are viewed as heretics by "mainstream" orthodox faiths. So it's not just religions outside of Christendom that are viewed as heretical, but also Christians who don't believe in the certain definition that the council decided Christianity would define itself as.

This is the kind of stuff that can pop up when someone decides to place exact perameters on a religion. One person's heretic is another person's avatar :flowers:

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps088.shtml

[Ben Trismegistus]

I'm surprised you didn't know about Leland.
I'm still a newbie where this stuff is concerned. I only seem more experienced than I am because I'm a talented bullshitter. ;)


I'd say it's less than a third. It's just the second paragraph, "Whenever ye have need" to "feast, dance, sing, make music and love, all in My praise."
Well, it's a healthy chunk. :) Until this weekend, I was under the impression that the verbiage itself came from Valiente.


The first charge that Gardner put together also had a lot of Crowley in it, to which Doreen objected. So Gardner dared her to write her own, which she did.
Yeah, that's a great story.

The way I think of it, Gardner was the idea man, Valiente was the poet. She took his ideas and made them pretty (among other things).