Paganism

[Amy Sweet]

Since the topic has arrisen, and some have posted definitions (rather outdated and limited ones I would say) I will post this in order to begin a general discussion on paganism not related to the issue of the aformentioned news article, but as a subject unto itself. I have more to say on this, but it's 3am and I have to go to bed.

Witchcraft, or Wicca, is a form of neo-Paganism. It is officially recognized as a religion by the U.S. government.

This is a diverse movement that knows no central authority. Practitioners do not all have the same views, beliefs and practices.

Note that while all witches are pagans, not all pagans are witches. Likewise, while all Wiccans are witches, not all witches are Wiccan.


Wicca. A generic term for modern and contemporary witchcraft. It includes all the various types or traditions of modern and contemporary witchcraft, such as Alexandrian, Algard, Dianic, Gardnerian, Georgian, Seax-Wica, and so forth.
Source: Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca, by Craig Hawkins. Baker Books, 1996, p. 210


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Witch. Individual who practices or concurs with the views or experiences of witchcraft. Most witches view divinity as immanent in nature, seeing all life as sacred, thus denying any sacred/secular distinction. They are nature-oriented and also see no ultimate distinction between matter and spirit - the material and the spiritual. They may believe in or invoke a pantheon of gods and goddesses, but they primarily experience, and/or invoke, and/or worship the Mother or Triple Goddess and her male consort, the Horned God. Witches generally practice multiple forms of divination, participate in trance and other altered states, of conciousness, and perform magical spells and incantations. Most observe seasonal holidays and festivals (e.g. the summer and winter solstices). Most believe in some form of reincarnation. The widely believed notion that a female is a witch whereas a male practitioner is a warlock or wizard is a misnomer. The terms witch or wiccan apply to both genders.
Source: Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca, by Craig Hawkins. Baker Books, 1996, p. 210


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Witchcraft, (Also known as wicca, the craft, or the craft of the wise. ) An antidogmatic, antiauthoritarian, diverse, decentralized, eclectic, experience-based, nature-oriented religious movement whose followers are polytheists and/or pantheists, and/or panentheists, and in some sense believe in or experience and/or invoke and/or worship the Mother Goddess and generally here consort, the Horned God, as well. It is a generic term covering numerous perspectives on the subject.
Source: Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca, by Craig Hawkins. Baker Books, 1996, p. 210


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As Craig Hawkins points out in Goddess Worship, Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism, Wicca prides itself in being a diverse movement. Though neo-pagans share certain common beliefs and practices, Wicca knows no central authority, and practitioners do not all have the same views, beliefs and practices. The movement's primary ethical principle, referred to as the "Pagan Ethic" or "Wiccan Rede," is "If it harm none, do as thou will." (or ''wilt'').

This "create your own religion" approach contributes to the movements's popularity, as does the media's portrayal of Wicca:


(...) Trayer and Haddad-Friedman are members of a movement gaining an ardent following among teen-agers, mostly girls, who are in part captivated by the glossy new image of witches portrayed on television shows and in the movies. No longer the hideous, wart-covered crone of folklore and fairy tale, witches in hit television shows like ''Charmed,'' starring Shannen Doherty, and the 1996 movie ''The Craft,'' a favorite with teen-agers at video stores, are avatars of glamour, power and style.

Other youthful adherents of Wicca, seeking an alternative path to spirituality, are attracted by the craft's lack of structure and dogma.
[...]

The craft is ''especially appealing to the young people who want to be active participants in their own spiritual lives,'' said Wren Walker of the Witches' Voice.

Witchcraft is also a magnet for feminists, who identify with its female deity, and for environmentalists drawn by the reverence for nature. It also exerts a pull on the eccentric, the sensitive and the socially disconnected. Wicca ''empowers the marginalized,'' said John K. Simmons, a professor of religious studies at Western Illinois University, who has studied contemporary witchcraft. ''It appeals most of all to the intelligent, poetic young woman who is not necessarily going to go out for cheerleader or date the captain of the football team.''
Source: Like Magic, Witchcraft Charms Teenagers, New York Times, Feb. 13, 2000



Many serious practitioners of Wicca/Witchraft see the media's current fascination with their religion as a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it helps people to "come out of the closet." On the other hand, the media's version of The Craft is often criticized as inaccurate. The same is true for the ongoing discussion regarding the popular Harry Potter books:


Local Wiccans have come out against the claim the books promote their religion. They said the book is fiction, and does not represent their beliefs in any way.

''It really doesn't have anything to do with us,'' said Peter Mather, an initiated Wiccan priest who lives in Plymouth.

Mather said he has examined the books and found nothing having to do with his religion.
Source: Wiccans dispute Potter claims, The Citizen, Oct. 25, 2000


That said, "while witches are working hard at trying to shed their scary image", fact is that the religion isn't alway as benign as Wiccans claim it to be. See, for example, the items collected in our news articles database. The database includes news reports covering a wide variety of Witchcraft practices - illustrating the wide diversity in this religion (and also documenting the differences between ''old'' and ''modern'' witchcraft).


Witchcraft is often erroneously confused with Satanism. However, Wiccans do not believe that Satan exists, and thus they do not worship him.

That said, like Satanism, Wicca is a form of occultism.


I can't post a link, because my address bar is f**ing up on me. Sorry. I'll try again later.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I must say that most of my dealings with Wiccan practioners and those whose faith has been affected by Wicca usually have done so through the Scott Cunningham path which is more self-affirmative and environmental.

The "If it harm none" quote is unmistakably from the infamous Mr. Crowley and I had known it was a tenet of the Satanist Church when someone set up on in the 80s, but had been honestly unaware that it had become a tenet of Wicca. All practicing Wicca I know do not live by that tenet, but a more Cunningham or traditional mythology based one. That is one where you do not harm none (aka no "black magics" or destructive magicks) and also strive to make things better (healing souls, aiding those in need, saving the Earth). The Cunningham tenet proper also makes the semi-famous statement that "healing the world begins with healing the self".

Furthermore, Cunningham's books have all been on the shelves of the practicing Wiccan and even normal pagan friends I know as well as on the ones of those interested in learning more about it such as an environmentally minded devout Christian friend of mine.

I don't mean to say something as inaccurate as Cunningham is Wicca or the only path to Wicca (he's a solitary practioner advocate whereas contempory depictions often borrow from multi-person "coven"-centric advocates). Wicca is a diverse group as mentioned above and its pantheons range from just "Goddess" to pan-pantheonic comilations and rituals described in books reflect this versatility in the ones I have read. It and paganism are truly difficult to pigeonhole into an dominant philosophy of even Book of Laws. Even practicing Wiccans pick and choose among the spellbooks for one that most clearly mirrors what they are seeking.

 

[Kassiana]

I like "The Heart of Wicca" by Ellen Cannon Reed best, actually, but I do have "The Truth About Witchcraft Today" by Cunningham.

I'd encourage people interested in modern neo-Paganism to check out either www.religioustolerance.org or www.witchvox.com for more details. RT is run by a site that tries to be neutral and present all religions from the viewpoints of their followers, and does pretty well, IMO. Witchvox is a Pagan run site that encapsulates a lot of basic Pagan info and answers a lot of questions that "outsiders" might have about the religion.

Of course, if you want to chat with a Pagan, I'm here sometimes, too.

 

[TheEarl]

K: Wish that I'd known you last year, when I was researching the religion.

The Earl

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I kind of resent your author's appropriation of the word "witch" to define modern, mostly Western neo-pagans. There's a long history of witchcraft in this and other cultures that has nothing to do with the mother goddess and the horned god.

The Santeria religion for example puts Wicca to shame in terms of sheer numbers, and has a long history of female practioners who qualify as witches, but they operate in a framework of mostly Christian theology. The same is true of Voodoo, which combines elements of African religion and western Christianity. In Mexico there's a long tradiotion of Brujas or women sorcerers who have nothing to do with Wicca. Their tradition combines Catholic saint-worship with elements of native Meso-American religion.

Worse than this, though, is the problem that if all Wiccans are free to pick and choose the elements of their religion, who's to say what is and isn't a witch? Why can't there be Christian and Jewish witches? What gives these guys the authority to say what it is and isn't? How can anyone speak for all Wiccans?

---dr.M.

 

[TheEarl]

I kind of resent your author's appropriation of the word "witch" to define modern, mostly Western neo-pagans. There's a long history of witchcraft in this and other cultures that has nothing to do with the mother goddess and the horned god.

The Santeria religion for example puts Wicca to shame in terms of sheer numbers, and has a long history of female practioners who qualify as witches, but they operate in a framework of mostly Christian theology. The same is true of Voodoo, which combines elements of African religion and western Christianity. In Mexico there's a long tradiotion of Brujas or women sorcerers who have nothing to do with Wicca. Their tradition combines Catholic saint-worship with elements of native Meso-American religion.

Worse than this, though, is the problem that if all Wiccans are free to pick and choose the elements of their religion, who's to say what is and isn't a witch? Why can't there be Christian and Jewish witches? What gives these guys the authority to say what it is and isn't? How can anyone speak for all Wiccans?

---dr.M.

As I understand it, a witch is a Wicca who practises magick (the k separates magick from magic which is stage tricks). It's not an exclusive word and I don't think they're saying no-one else can use it. After all, 'witch' also means someone with a pointed hat and a broomstick and a mgic wand, or Hermione from Harry Potter.

The Earl

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I had a book of pagan (meaning non-Western and animist) spells and prayers taken from shamen and curers and "witches" that was titled "Technicians of the Sacred"

I like that idea: spiritual technicians.

I guess I'm wondering whether someone who practices ritual magic invoking the plantary or Kabbalistic spirits (like Crowley) but who doesn't subscribe to the Wiccan Mother Goddes/Horned God or nature-spirit theology still qualifies as a witch under the above definitions.

---Zoot

 

[TheEarl]

I guess I'm wondering whether someone who practices ritual magic invoking the plantary or Kabbalistic spirits (like Crowley) but who doesn't subscribe to the Wiccan Mother Goddes/Horned God or nature-spirit theology still qualifies as a witch under the above definitions.

---Zoot

If they followed the Wiccan Rede (kind of the Wiccan Commandments, although they're not very specific, mostly about not hurting anyone), then I'm sure they'd considered be a Wiccan witch. The definition's only to be a witch in Wicca; you can call anyone a witch if you like.

Just a note: It's my understanding that it's spelt magick when it's referring to a religious practise. Magic is stage tricks. I do know a Wicca who does both!

The Earl

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm entirely unsure whether a religion that lacks structure, centralization, or necessary components (one of the most boasted things about Wicca, as an example, even in the above definitions and clarifications) even qualifies as a religion. Seems more like a smattering of random beliefs, less like a faith.

Even "pagan-religions" or "heathen-religions" have structure, centralization, and necessary components... ranging from a tribal worship to truly global faiths.

Sort of like if a political construct preaches "do it your own way, there is no right way to do it, we have no centrally necessary tenets"... it may not, technically, be a political construct at all.

 

[TheEarl]

People can be Christian without necessarily going to church. People can be Wicca without belonging to a coven (which is the centralisation in Wicca).

The only difference that I see is that a lot of people will tell A that he's a bad Christian and is going to hell, whereas B can be just as good a Wicca outside of a coven. The centralization is there, there are basic tenets of the religion. It's not a case of 'Do whatever the hell you like.' There is structure, but it's not exhaustive and people are free to add their own interpretations onto the beliefs.

Mind you, Jedi is officially a religion in England. It came up in sufficient numbers on the last census after an joke e-mail campaign and so it's an officially recognised religion.

May the Force be with us all.

The Earl

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by TheEarl
People can be Christian without necessarily going to church. People can be Wicca without belonging to a coven (which is the centralisation in Wicca).

The only difference that I see is that a lot of people will tell A that he's a bad Christian and is going to hell, whereas B can be just as good a Wicca outside of a coven. The centralization is there, there are basic tenets of the religion. It's not a case of 'Do whatever the hell you like.' There is structure, but it's not exhaustive and people are free to add their own interpretations onto the beliefs.

I don't think that's an equitable comparison.

More accurate would be: "Some people will tell A that he's a bad Christian [because he doesn't go to Church]" and "Some people will tell B that they're a bad Wiccan [because they're not interacting in covens or ceramonies]".

Of course there's the argument of "But, no TRUE Wiccan would ever judge anyone like that ever in the world ever in their life at any point ever"... but, yes, it does happen. Defenses like that bring "No TRUE Christian would talk smack on a Christian for their lack of Church attendance"--which is also untrue.

I have, personally, heard Wiccan/Pagan/Whatever chicks seriously smack talk other ones for their lack of "seriousness" and how they're not in the local coven because they're poseurs or the like. This sort of cantdog-ian "Us/Them" viewpoint is NOT absent from the magical world of Wicca where everyone loves each other.

They're still people.

Just my view on it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oooo... as an aside, because I just remembered it. This was about four years ago:

I knew this really, really foxy chick. Brunette, 5'10"-ish, was beauty-pagent friendly and got into that kind of stuff. She was even in a sorority (She was a Theta). She was a decent friend of mine, not real close but we clubbed together and the like and she on-again-off-again dated a friend of mine.

So, she finds out that some other friends-of-a-friend are witches and into Wicca and spells and all that. So she starts asking about it and whether she can get down with it. They sort of blow her off, but subtley. The issue got dropped.

A few months later, it sort of comes up in the conversation while Foxy wasn't around (she was studying abroad), turns out they didn't want her in it because they didn't think she'd take it seriously and (and this was really hard to get them to admit, but they did) there was a healthy bit of jealousy. They saw what they were doing as a Response to the mainstream of everything--that included foxy sorority chicks.

SOL if you're not a sufficiently socially-ostracized woman and represent no threat to the attraction of sufficiently socially-ostracized men.

These chicks made me absoutely sick. What a bullshit thing to hold over someone's head who was, even if briefly, genuinely interested.

 

[TheEarl]

I don't think that's an equitable comparison.

More accurate would be: "Some people will tell A that he's a bad Christian [because he doesn't go to Church]" and "Some people will tell B that they're a bad Wiccan [because they're not interacting in covens or ceramonies]".

Of course there's the argument of "But, no TRUE Wiccan would ever judge anyone like that ever in the world ever in their life at any point ever"... but, yes, it does happen. Defenses like that bring "No TRUE Christian would talk smack on a Christian for their lack of Church attendance"--which is also untrue.

I have, personally, heard Wiccan/Pagan/Whatever chicks seriously smack talk other ones for their lack of "seriousness" and how they're not in the local coven because they're poseurs or the like. This sort of cantdog-ian "Us/Them" viewpoint is NOT absent from the magical world of Wicca where everyone loves each other.

They're still people.

Just my view on it.

Ah, now people will always be people, you're right, and Wiccan people are no better nor worse than Christian people. There'll always be those who see themselves as 'the only true believers.' Give man an idea and he makes himself an infallible belief out of it. However your rebuttal doesn't really hold true.

Some people will tell A that he's a bad Christian because he doesn't go to church, because the Bible told them that good Christians go to church. Some people will tell B that he's a bad Wicca because they're not in the local coven, because that's their opinion, which isn't backed up anywhere in the Wiccan Rede.

The covens are there if B wants them. But it's not a requirement of his religion to go there every week. The Bible tells Christians that they should attend church. That's the distinction.

The Earl

 

[Amy Sweet]

I like "The Heart of Wicca" by Ellen Cannon Reed best, actually, but I do have "The Truth About Witchcraft Today" by Cunningham.

I'd encourage people interested in modern neo-Paganism to check out either www.religioustolerance.org or www.witchvox.com for more details. RT is run by a site that tries to be neutral and present all religions from the viewpoints of their followers, and does pretty well, IMO. Witchvox is a Pagan run site that encapsulates a lot of basic Pagan info and answers a lot of questions that "outsiders" might have about the religion.

Of course, if you want to chat with a Pagan, I'm here sometimes, too.

LOL, when I was first reserching the topic, everyother person said, "go to Witchvox" so I resisted the idea. When I finally went I was like "Wow! This really is the place to go!"

I can be such a dope!

 

[Amy Sweet]

Worse than this, though, is the problem that if all Wiccans are free to pick and choose the elements of their religion, who's to say what is and isn't a witch? Why can't there be Christian and Jewish witches? What gives these guys the authority to say what it is and isn't? How can anyone speak for all Wiccans?

---dr.M.

There are Christian and Jewish witches, and of course there are people from both sides yelling "you can't do that! they are mutually exclusive!"

Oh well.

Anytime someone trys to define Witchcraft or Witches they come accross the problem that there definition will almost certainly limit who falls under the definition (of course what is a definition without limits?) and possibly offend some.

this definition, of course, is only ONE definition of witch/craft.

Just something to get the conversation started.

At any rate, it's a better definition than most of the dictionary ones quoted earlier. People need to learn that the dictionary had limits.

 

[Amy Sweet]

I'm entirely unsure whether a religion that lacks structure, centralization, or necessary components (one of the most boasted things about Wicca, as an example, even in the above definitions and clarifications) even qualifies as a religion. Seems more like a smattering of random beliefs, less like a faith.

Even "pagan-religions" or "heathen-religions" have structure, centralization, and necessary components... ranging from a tribal worship to truly global faiths.

Sort of like if a political construct preaches "do it your own way, there is no right way to do it, we have no centrally necessary tenets"... it may not, technically, be a political construct at all.

There are Wiccan's who are highly specific and structured. (Most notabley Gardnerian (sp?) Wiccans. [From which the entire Modern Wiccan movement arguably stems] Many other Wiccans and Wiccan wannabes >>>ducks and runs<<< consider them to be somewhat snobbish, while they* don't consider 'ecclectic' or solo wiccans to be real wiccans.

I guess it would be similer to the way [some] Catholics and Protostants feel about each other. (and I'm not trying to be mean or anything, just drawing a parallel.)

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Oooo... as an aside, because I just remembered it. This was about four years ago:

I knew this really, really foxy chick. Brunette, 5'10"-ish, was beauty-pagent friendly and got into that kind of stuff. She was even in a sorority (She was a Theta). She was a decent friend of mine, not real close but we clubbed together and the like and she on-again-off-again dated a friend of mine.

So, she finds out that some other friends-of-a-friend are witches and into Wicca and spells and all that. So she starts asking about it and whether she can get down with it. They sort of blow her off, but subtley. The issue got dropped.

A few months later, it sort of comes up in the conversation while Foxy wasn't around (she was studying abroad), turns out they didn't want her in it because they didn't think she'd take it seriously and (and this was really hard to get them to admit, but they did) there was a healthy bit of jealousy. They saw what they were doing as a Response to the mainstream of everything--that included foxy sorority chicks.

SOL if you're not a sufficiently socially-ostracized woman and represent no threat to the attraction of sufficiently socially-ostracized men.

These chicks made me absoutely sick. What a bullshit thing to hold over someone's head who was, even if briefly, genuinely interested.

Looks like we're right back to that whole deal with the article about the teacher and student getting "married" and screwing again. The religion didn't teach them that. It's part of their make-up, in a sense. Sounds like they got used to being outcasts, so to speak. Someone who seemed ingrained into the mainstream might be someone they don't think will take it seriously, as in see it as a religion instead of a trend. And jealousy, that's human nature.
They are just people after all.
I'd be willing to bet that if you did a study on people on death row, most of them ask for forgiveness from the Christian God before they die; are they any less Christian for the mistakes they've made? No, and we also can't judge all Christianity on these people.

Just rambling again,

Q_C

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
There are Wiccan's who are highly specific and structured. (Most notabley Gardnerian (sp?) Wiccans. Many other Wiccans and Wiccan wannabes >>>ducks and runs<<< consider them to be somewhat snobbish, while they* don't consider 'ecclectic' or solo wiccans to be real wiccans.

I guess it would be similer to the way [some] Catholics and Protostants feel about each other. (and I'm not trying to be mean or anything, just drawing a parallel.)

But, the problem with that comparison is that both are defined, greatly, by their structure, form, and practice... neither belive in a subjectivity of all matters. So, it begs the question, is subjective faith even a religion? Not a faith that "has subjective components", but a wholly subjective faith?

Even "harm nobody" is open vastly to interpretation (arguments that things like the Ten Commandments are also interpretive don't carry a lot of weight, as they're far more specific than a generality)... is vaccinating a baby "harm"? Is shooting a psychopathic killer without desire or hope of reform "harm"? Is racism "harm"? Is cheating on your spouse, technically "harm"?

When it comes down to it... one person's "harm" is going to be different than another's "harm", which makes the tenet "do whatever you want so long as you don't harm anyone" really, really subjective.

Its one of the reasons I have felt disinclined to consider Paganism a religion, as it doesn't really necessarily fit. Sort of how Scientology doesn't necessarily fit, but for spiritual reasons (structure they have in abundance).

 

[Quiet_Cool]

But, the problem with that comparison is that both are defined, greatly, by their structure, form, and practice... neither belive in a subjectivity of all matters. So, it begs the question, is subjective faith even a religion? Not a faith that "has subjective components", but a wholly subjective faith?

Its one of the reasons I have felt disinclined to consider Paganism a religion, as it doesn't really necessarily fit. Sort of how Scientology doesn't necessarily fit, but for spiritual reasons (structure they have in abundance).

True, the structure is lacking in the Wiccan faith, but consider this for a moment: Do you believe that, when the Bible was written (against the wishes of Jesus if I recall correctly, but I might not) was it truly intended that the church(es) that spawned from it be so structured, or was the book written for each person to love and learn from personally? Seems to me, and obviously so, that while some structure is necessary in religion, too much makes it a book of rules and not a spiritual guide at all.

Wicca has a lot fo structure, but it's provided by the religion itself (or by the variations of it, as mentioned before). One can practise in one's own way. It isn't necessary to go to church or practice in a coven, but there are commonly accepted and understood bases along the way. But there are commonly used symbols and other universals that nearly always apply. A Pentacle, the use of pentagrams, the meaning of a particular color of candle, or similarly used spells. You could say it is structured without losing itself beneath that structure, if you think about it...

Okay, still rambling,

Q_C

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Quiet_Cool
True, the structure is lacking in the Wiccan faith, but consider this for a moment: Do you believe that, when the Bible was written (against the wishes of Jesus if I recall correctly, but I might not) was it truly intended that the church(es) that spawned from it be so structured, or was the book written for each person to love and learn from personally? Seems to me, and obviously so, that while some structure is necessary in religion, too much makes it a book of rules and not a spiritual guide at all.

I think (and I preface this with being open that I'm not a religious scholar, but I got one of my undergraduate degrees in Religion, emphasis Early Christianity) that the question is too complicated to answer.

"When the Bible was written", first off, is so diverse. Which part? Even the Old Testament--taking just the Pentateuch into consideration--was written by four different authors in four very different times. I'm not sure you could consider the Old Epic author to have lived in a time, even, as it was an oral tradition that went back further that the actual writer. Was the Old Epic writer looking at an ordered Church? I would say no. The oral history of a closed people wasn't probably structure so much as story. The Priestly writer? More so, yes. A lot of that content was ordered and doctrine-esque (if we can use that word). The Jehovian? The Deuteronomic? Fuzzy. Some parts were more important than others, but we're talking about the giant shift from Hebraism (nomadic people, oral history, concered with the survival of the faith moreso than the rule of the faith) to Judaism (you mention later a religion of book-rules... you're talking, greatly, about Judaism; so many rules, some 3000 of them, for how to live).

That's not even touching the New Testament. Which varied, too, even in the synoptic Gospels. You can see the branches of Christianity (Gnostics, for instance; or Baptists) and what they emphasize to see how differently some parts are taken over others.

Do I think that it was meant to be a religion of structure? Yes. Yes, I do. Because that, fhousands of years ago, was the hallmark of religious superiority and success; it best served the goals of a people whose faith was entirely intertwined with each other to such an extent that the failure of one of them was the potential eradication of their way of life (social health, Pharoah, David, the kingdoms dividing, etc.).

Wicca has a lot fo structure, but it's provided by the religion itself (or by the variations of it, as mentioned before). One can practise in one's own way. It isn't necessary to go to church or practice in a coven, but there are commonly accepted and understood bases along the way. But there are commonly used symbols and other universals that nearly always apply. A Pentacle, the use of pentagrams, the meaning of a particular color of candle, or similarly used spells. You could say it is structured without losing itself beneath that structure, if you think about it...

Okay, still rambling,

Q_C

I guess what it comes down to is "We have rules... we have the one big rule: There are no rules" isn't actually a rule. Its a logical contradiction.

If at the same time "These symbols mean X" and "These symbols mean whatever you want them to mean" are both parts of the structure, then I'm not certain that can be called structure at all.

 

[Amy Sweet]

These chicks made me absoutely sick. What a bullshit thing to hold over someone's head who was, even if briefly, genuinely interested.

It's not that kind of religion.

Which is to say, Wiccans, Witches and Pagans don't 'recruit.'

If you told someone from the local Baptist church that you were 'kind of interested in Christainity' and had some questions, they would be praying with you to ask Jesus into your heart.

Yeah, Wicca is a bit more "intellectually elite/snobbish" it's not a religion that is handed to you- you have to do the work yourself. You have to show more than a passing casual interest. Other relgious groups and non religious groups are like this as well. A Freemason isn't going to answer a lot of questions by curious folk either. Wiccans don't proselytize- that is a very basic tenant among pretty much all pagans.

Some writers are happy to answer questions from the mildly curious- others aren't. Some go so far as to avoid mentioning that they are writers to avoid such questioning. Many many feel nothing but contempt at people who seem to think it would be 'cool' and they too could write a book. (Just tell me all your secrets.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
It's not that kind of religion.

Which is to say, Wiccans, Witches and Pagans don't 'recruit.'

If you told someone from the local Baptist church that you were 'kind of interested in Christainity' and had some questions, they would be praying with you to ask Jesus into your heart.

I think it more likely they'd give you the run down on the faith and its form, history, and function. I've got a friend (he's Catholic, too) who has helped a few people we know convert or join up with the faith. Every time they've gone in, they pretty much get a what's what, who's who, and how-does-this-work talk about Catholicism. I've never seen the zero-to-sixty "I'm curious about your relig--what? We have to pray right now?"

Yeah, Wicca is a bit more "intellectually elite/snobbish" it's not a religion that is handed to you- you have to do the work yourself. You have to show more than a passing casual interest. Other relgious groups and non religious groups are like this as well. A Freemason isn't going to answer a lot of questions by curious folk either. Wiccans don't proselytize- that is a very basic tenant among pretty much all pagans.

The Masons are a "secret society" though. I can see why they work as they do. But, if Wiccans don't proselytize... then what about Wiccans who proselytize? Are they not Wiccan?

Some writers are happy to answer questions from the mildly curious- others aren't. Some go so far as to avoid mentioning that they are writers to avoid such questioning. Many many feel nothing but contempt at people who seem to think it would be 'cool' and they too could write a book. (Just tell me all your secrets.)

What about the "genuinely curious"? Is there a difference between the mildly and the genuinely and how they're treated and who decides what constitutes mildly and genuinely?

And the tough part is, because its an "everyone's right in their own way" kind of faith, that means that those really bitchy witches are perfectly fine examples of the faith... as they are participating wholly in the bounds of it, no?

 

[Amy Sweet]

Its one of the reasons I have felt disinclined to consider Paganism a religion, as it doesn't really necessarily fit. Sort of how Scientology doesn't necessarily fit, but for spiritual reasons (structure they have in abundance).

Neither does Protastant(ism).

Like Protastant(ism), Paganism isn't really a religion, it's a group of religions defined an awful lot by what they are *not.* (Protostant is Christian but not Catholic, Paganism is Spritiual but not [mainstream] Christian, Muslim or Jewish, or not wholy those things)

Neither, also does UU- ism. (United Universalist)

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I think (and I preface this with being open that I'm not a religious scholar, but I got one of my undergraduate degrees in Religion, emphasis Early Christianity) that the question is too complicated to answer.

"When the Bible was written", first off, is so diverse. Which part? Even the Old Testament--taking just the Pentateuch into consideration--was written by four different authors in four very different times. I'm not sure you could consider the Old Epic author to have lived in a time, even, as it was an oral tradition that went back further that the actual writer. Was the Old Epic writer looking at an ordered Church? I would say no. The oral history of a closed people wasn't probably structure so much as story. The Priestly writer? More so, yes. A lot of that content was ordered and doctrine-esque (if we can use that word). The Jehovian? The Deuteronomic? Fuzzy. Some parts were more important than others, but we're talking about the giant shift from Hebraism (nomadic people, oral history, concered with the survival of the faith moreso than the rule of the faith) to Judaism (you mention later a religion of book-rules... you're talking, greatly, about Judaism; so many rules, some 3000 of them, for how to live).

That's not even touching the New Testament. Which varied, too, even in the synoptic Gospels. You can see the branches of Christianity (Gnostics, for instance; or Baptists) and what they emphasize to see how differently some parts are taken over others.

Do I think that it was meant to be a religion of structure? Yes. Yes, I do. Because that, fhousands of years ago, was the hallmark of religious superiority and success; it best served the goals of a people whose faith was entirely intertwined with each other to such an extent that the failure of one of them was the potential eradication of their way of life (social health, Pharoah, David, the kingdoms dividing, etc.).



I guess what it comes down to is "We have rules... we have the one big rule: There are no rules" isn't actually a rule. Its a logical contradiction.

If at the same time "These symbols mean X" and "These symbols mean whatever you want them to mean" are both parts of the structure, then I'm not certain that can be called structure at all.

Understood. Don't think we're entirely on the same page, but still...

My point overall is pretty simple. It makes sense to define religion by the structure of it, but that doesn't, in my viewpoint, mean that it is the only way to define it. Ultimately, what happened with the Bible was that different people interpretted what they read differently (and no, I'm not foolish enough to believe this was an innocent difference of interpretation, in every instance at least). Back in the day, meaning most days until now, a religion was most likely something that you found in an area. If you were from a certain town, chances were you, and everyone else, were all practitioners of a single religion. Maybe that could be said for entire countries. The rest of the world may not even know about said religion, because information doesn't travel so far given the time period. Christianity and other religions have been through this, and as dr_mabeuse said, early pagan religions existed as well, though they don't apply to Wicca as modern Christianity applies to "ye ole' christianity."
Maybe I rambled too much there. My point, overall is, that Christianity and other religions have taken these structures over time, and in places where they could grow unchallenged. Wicca isn't doing that. It's growing in a time and place when everything is global, and everyone has eight-million choices. Given three hundred years, we may have an official "Coven of Wicca" as a basis for an organised and structured religion. Not saying that it will, or even should, happen, but we're mostly seeing a religion that's not yet found its base. It has some common ground among its followers, but nothing that unifies all of them. If you look in the Bible (can't remember exactly where, but I'm sure you know, given your degrees) there's a list of several different icons and symbols, some other versions of the cross, some versions of the reversed cross. I think there's even one there that resembles an ankh (sp?). But one overall was chosen.
Don't know fi that makes my point or not (I'm too fucking tired to think straight). Apologies if it's confusing.

Q_C

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Neither does Protastant(ism).

Like Protastant(ism), Paganism isn't really a religion, it's a group of religions defined an awful lot by what they are *not.* (Protostant is Christian but not Catholic, Paganism is Spritiual but not [mainstream] Christian, Muslim or Jewish, or not wholy those things)

Neither, also does UU- ism. (United Universalist)

Well, Protestant-ism is not exactly defined by what it isn't. It has categorical imperatives. In this respect, it is very different than Paganism which has--seemingly--none.