Era

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

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

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

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




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


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


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


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

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

Many Wiccans support Wiccan pseudo-history with two books:

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

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


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

Why does Wiccan pseudo-history upsets me?

I abhor pseudo-history in religions as a whole.

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

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

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

Any comments will be appreciated.

Regards,

Era

Postcard73

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

Scott (Postcard73)
BC&H Moderator

jon_frum

Era--

You may be interested in this book:

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

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

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

Well worth reading.

Waning Moon Conrad

Greetings, in fact....Merry Meet!

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

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

Doctor X

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

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

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

--J.D.

NiceWookie

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunfair

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

And I agree with what NiceWookie said.

nermal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ed

Jackalope

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

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

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

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

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

Kassiana

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

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