Shven

I have addressed your opinions - you've just ignored me on each occasion. I have many times pointed out that in the same way you cannot just declare yourself to be a member of any other closed religious group (such as the Knights Templar or the Catholic Priesthood) you cannot just declare yourself to be a Wiccan.

Heathen Dawn

I know you have pointed that out. But you see, every time you pointed that out, you did it as a bare assertion. We now know Shven thinks there is a criterion without which one cannot call oneself a Wiccan. We know that, and some of us happen to disagree. You and I are on equal footing here, because we both have made nothing but bare assertions.

Meanwhile, this deserves comment:

That is correct. But, but … Wicca is not a closed religious group. If you’ve been living under a rock for the past few decades: Wicca is no longer just an initiatory mystery religion. Things change.

Shven

I know. I'm just trying to explain the logic behind my bare assumptions

Well call me a conservative. If I were to publish a book called 'become a Knight Templar in 12 easy steps' or 'The Real Catholic Priest's handbook' it wouldn't change anything about the nature of those traditions.

Shven

That wasn't what I was saying. I was pointing out that I'm a product of my environment just like you.


Bad comparison. I have no problem whatsoever with people following Wiccan practises. since Gardner's works have had such an impact on neopaganism I myself follow quite afew Wiccan practises. I just think they should leave the name alone is all. do what the hell you like. Invent your own traditions left right and centre. Draw on what's inspired you and what works for you. But dont pretend that you haven't changed anything.

Shven

and to add: On the subject of Native American spirituality, I must say I am somewhat uneasy about the lack of respect it is shown by its western practitioners. they of course have the right to practise as they please and I wouldn't wish to deny them that, but I cant honestly say I approve of it.

Shven

Heathen Dawn

OK. You’re a conservative. It’s your right. You’re a conservative, which Gerald Gardner wasn’t. See again my article Quod Licet Gardner.

It’s appropriate that you mention Catholic priests. Part of the appeal of the Protestant Reformation was the putting of power into the laypeople, away from the exclusive hand of the priests. And Martin Luther didn’t even want to start a non-Catholic tradition, but the Catholic Church broke off with him, because they were conservative.

Hmmm … makes me glad I’m not a UK neopagan. No lineaged Wiccans in my area to look down upon me.

The NAME. That’s what’s bothering you. Incidentally, I addressed that in the above-linked article as well (search for AT&T inside it).

I’ve never pretended to have left everything unchanged. But, to give an analogy, we have a pure red with a value of #FF0000, and someone has changed it, lessening its luminance, making it have a value of #800000. Now I say it’s still red, just a different kind of red, while you say it needs to be called another name instead of “red” because it’s not #FF0000.

I don’t approve of the commercialisation of Native American spirituality. But then I don’t approve of any commercialisation of any spirituality (hence the licence under which my website is given). But I object to what those Lakota leaders say, that no-one has any right whatsoever to Native American spirituality except he or she be of Native American ancestry. That’s racism and corporate-style monopolism melded into one.

Shven

Gardner also wasn't a feminist but hey

Thats nice. doesn't really address my point though.

thats a pretty big jump from what I actually said.

I would say they're unix based personally. But then my knowledge of the subject is incredibly limited.

they may both be red, but at the same time one is maroon and one is scarlet. In this case red is the umbrella term. In the same way that Wicca and Discordianism are both neopagan but Wicca is not Discordianism and vice versa. the difference here is you think wicca is the umbrella term whereas I think it is a specific term.


I didn't say i disagreed with you, though I can understand why they feel like that. after the treatment of their people over the last couple of hundred years their traditions are all they really have left, and to see their oppressors take them for their own, along with everything else that was once theirs will in no way go down well.

I am not denying that you make some very good points, and I do appreciate why you hold your point of view. I just cant really agree with it

Shven

newtype_alpha

I see where you're coming from now. The thing you dont seem to understand is that Wicca IS an umbrella term since even among its fundamentalists it can be narrowed down to more specific followings (I.E. Gardnerian Wicca, Alexandrian Wicca, etc). In much the same way that "Christian" is an umbrella term that can also be broken down into smaller factions (Methodist, Baptist, Pentacostal, Catholic, Mormon). To say that only Gardnerians can be called Wiccans is exactly the same as saying that only Catholics can be called Christians. This is, of course, your opinion and you would be entitled to it. Having your opinion is not going to change the fact that not all Wiccans are Gardnerian Wiccans, let alone the fact that Gardner himself was at least as eclectic as half of the modern Wiccans who branch off and form their own religious paths.

I really have to agree with you there. It's one thing to study someone's beliefs and traditions and to draw on them for inspiration, it's another entirely to immitate them as an outsider with little or no knowledge of what the traditions actually mean. On the other hand I can see the racism angle if Lakota "zealots" start stonewalling non-Indians from assimilating into their culture for whatever reason--something many other Indian tribes have been known to do from time to time.

Shven

No it isn't. Just because somebody invents their own tradition and tries to validate it by attatching to it the label 'Wicca' does not mean that the nature of the tradition changes. If a Wiccan goes and changes the nature of their own tradition thats a different thing entirely.

Its not like that in the slightest. If I said that only Wiccans are neopagans then I would be saying something like that. what I am saying is like saying that you cant just declare yourself to be a member of an initiatory order. What part of this dont you understand? If I were to tell you that you couldn't just declare yourself to be a member of the Golden Dawn would you label me a fundamentalist?

Heathen Dawn

Irony alert: note that both newtype_alpha and I are Wiccans, while Shven is a non-Wiccan pagan, yet he’s the one who presumes to be able to judge what is Wicca, who is Wiccan and who isn’t.

If I understand it correctly, then one first has to be a Gardnerian Wiccan in order to fork it into some kind of Eclectic Wicca? That’s petty formalism. It makes no difference if it’s a Gardnerian insider or an ex-atheist newcomer who does the fork.

I’m being generous and truthful enough by not calling my path a branch of Traditional Wicca. More than that would be to cave in to pressure, as well as untruthful to the nature of my path.

And what I’ll say again is that Wicca is no longer just an initiatory mystery religion. Hasn’t been so for a long time. Even pagan elder Selena Fox of Circle Sanctuary says some traditions of Wicca are initiatory while some aren’t. She’s old enough to have been in the Wiccan scence when Gardnerian Wicca was the only Wicca existent, yet she isn’t as rock-hard in her view as you are.

There’s Traditional Wicca (Gardnerian, Alexandrian etc), Secular Wicca (Gods as metaphors, focus on nature-reverence), Christian Wicca (worshipping the Trinity of God the Father, Goddess the Holy Spirit and Their son Jesus) and many others, including mine (which doesn’t have an official name yet, though I’ve come up with something that may serve in the future). Wicca isn’t as narrow as you’d like it to be.