Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Era · 05-05-2004, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brighid

In the sense of dogma and the ability to freely create whatever one desires Wicca to be, it is very much like "neo-paganism." This can be confusing, but in my view Wicca and neo-paganism are very similar, or at least they are similar at their roots even if Wicca branches off into many different directions.

Now there are individual sects/groups/covens that demand a strict adherence to specific modalities of Wicca - say Gardenian for example. They require specific rituals, specific readings, etc. and they discourage exploration outside of that tradition, and in some cases the debase the practices of other traditions/movements/ecclectic practices in the same ways Protestants and Catholics attack the other for not being a "true Christian."

Wicca is dynamic, creative, free flowing ... or it should be. Although I would not begrudge a coven that adheres to a specific path exclusively as long as it did not harm it's practitioners and I think they walk a fine line when they demand exclusivity.

Wicca should be about self-exploration, the entire idea of what was does not find within one will never find without, as can be found in the Charge of the Goddess. No one can dictate how an individual should follow the Path, or how they should or should not view the Gods of the Wiccan Pantheon, etc. I think this spirit is what is at the heart of "paganism", but I am quite sure there are other pagans, secular or otherwise, who might disagree.

Thank you for the recommendation of Hutton's book. I have seen it and had planned on getting it, so perhaps I will have to explore that option sooner rather than later.

What are your thoughts and the distinction between neo-paganism and Wicca?

Brighid

Hence according to your post; in general, neo-paganism is very similar to Wicca. I have perceived that comments of such kind permit newcomers to depict Wicca as a synonym of neo-paganism, but also it creates the assumption that the only lot that exists in neo-paganism is Wicca. Thus, it disregards a significant fact; that there are neo-pagans who do adhere to other creeds such as those who follow a Reconstructionist religion. Ironic it is that many of them favor the scholar spectrum, however their existence is usually ignored.

Regards,

Era

HelmetWB · 05-06-2004, 02:01 AM

I have perceived that comments of such kind permit newcomers to depict Wicca as a synonym of neo-paganism, but also it creates the assumption that the only lot that exists in neo-paganism is Wicca. Thus, it disregards a significant fact; that there are neo-pagans who do adhere to other creeds such as those who follow a Reconstructionist religion. Ironic it is that many of them favor the scholar spectrum, however their existence is usually ignored.

Is ‘The Triumph of the Moon’ by Ronald Hutton a source for “those who follow a Reconstructionist religion�?? Or do you have other sources in mind? I am strongly inclined towards a scholarly approach as a basis to examine and compare not just neo-paganism, but paganism in general, plus all other religions as well.

However, I tend not to judge pagans of whatever stripe too harshly. It has been my experience that pagans, whatever their level of academic seriousness, tend not to think that there is only one path to truth, or to the gods or goddesses or God or the Goddess. They might demand a particular ritual be followed within their own sect or group or coven but they tend not to condemn others for pursuing a separate path. However ‘silly’ one might find some of their beliefs, this ‘live and let live’ attitude is preferable to literalist Christians who condemn all pagans, Jews and even most other Christians to hell.

From an earlier post: However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about.

Although I agree with you that I would prefer folks having a ‘clue,’ I also think that cluelessness is a state of affairs that includes a rather wide swath (including academics) when it comes to the ancient world. We know, remarkably little, for instance, about the religion of the ancient Celts. Even the religion/s of the Greeks and Romans can be viewed (perhaps) correctly -- when seen from a specific angle -- in a dozen different ways. I have examples in my own library of academics who view ancient religion from one angle only, thereby missing a larger, more varied, and more interesting picture.

Thus, while I get your point, I’m not inclined towards your passion.

brighid · 05-06-2004, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Era

Hence according to your post; in general, neo-paganism is very similar to Wicca. I have perceived that comments of such kind permit newcomers to depict Wicca as a synonym of neo-paganism, but also it creates the assumption that the only lot that exists in neo-paganism is Wicca. Thus, it disregards a significant fact; that there are neo-pagans who do adhere to other creeds such as those who follow a Reconstructionist religion. Ironic it is that many of them favor the scholar spectrum, however their existence is usually ignored.

Regards,

Era

I would disagree. This discussion is about Wicca and it's pseudo-history, therefore I have attempted to confine my comments to the topic at hand so as not to derail the conversation into other subsets of neo-paganism. My familiarity with these other forms are also lacking in the sort of knowledge necessary to have a scholarly debate.

Wicca is simply the most popular neo-pagan religion and the one that gets the most attention, especially because of it's popularity in the media in recent times. I would say the popularity and continuity of the show, "Charmed" has something to do with, preceeded by "The Craft", etc. have something to do with it's greater acceptance and therefore we see it more.

Wicca also has a stronger appeal in those people seeking an alternative path to patriarchial religions that deny the divine feminine. So in a sense, I suppose it's ironic, but in reality I think this phenonema is rather explainable.

Wicca gets the most press and it's ranks are growing at far swifter rates than other neo-pagan movements, therefore it will dominate discussions of neo-pagan religions.

Brighid

Era · 05-06-2004, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelmetWB

Is ‘The Triumph of the Moon’ by Ronald Hutton a source for “those who follow a Reconstructionist religion�?? Or do you have other sources in mind? I am strongly inclined towards a scholarly approach as a basis to examine and compare not just neo-paganism, but paganism in general, plus all other religions as well.

The Triumph of the Moon is primarily about the history of Wicca. I truly recommend this web page if you desire to learn more about other facets that exist in neo-paganism, in specific, Reconstructionist religions. I anticipate that it is helpful.

Regards,

Era

Jackalope · 05-08-2004, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelmetWB

[B]
From an earlier post: However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about.

Although I agree with you that I would prefer folks having a ‘clue,’ I also think that cluelessness is a state of affairs that includes a rather wide swath (including academics) when it comes to the ancient world. We know, remarkably little, for instance, about the religion of the ancient Celts. Even the religion/s of the Greeks and Romans can be viewed (perhaps) correctly -- when seen from a specific angle -- in a dozen different ways. I have examples in my own library of academics who view ancient religion from one angle only, thereby missing a larger, more varied, and more interesting picture.

Thus, while I get your point, I’m not inclined towards your passion.

On the other hand, when it's your heritage being trashed, you may find you have stronger feelings. I was booked as a performer at a workshop that I was only later told was on "celtic shamanism." Had I known what travesties the workshop leaders were going to perform on british isles traditions, I would not have agreed to perform traditional music and dance there. I began to understand the smallest inkling of what native americans must feel about new agers and "plastic shamans."

Since I've spent a good portion of my life studying irish, scottish, and english music, song, and dance, most of what was passed off as "celtic" at that workshop was just plain offensive. And I still to this day fail to see how belly dance fit into either the "celtic" or "shamanism" categories, but the the workshop leaders insisted on shoehorning that in too. There were three of us performing traditional music and dance, and if we hadn't been hired, we'd have walked out when we saw the bizarre celtic wishfulism these folk practiced. Whatever it was, it had f-all to do with any tradition we knew.

And by the way folks, I'm highly amused to return after two weeks of touring England to find that you're still gnawing on the same subject and won't let it go. If you're going to define "Wicca" as a grab-bag category, then of course you can stick just about anything in there. However, many of the actual practitioners of that name will vehemently disagree with you on that point and tell you that if you want to do eclectic grab-bag roll-yer-own, it's neopaganism, not Wicca.

HelmetWB · 05-08-2004, 03:24 AM

On the other hand, when it's your heritage being trashed, you may find you have stronger feelings.

My ‘heritage’ is Scottish, English, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, German, Native American, African. All of which is hardly unusual for someone (like me) from an ‘old’ American family. In my view, my heritage is being ‘trashed’ in Iraq by the current American administration.

I was booked as a performer at a workshop that I was only later told was on "celtic shamanism." Had I known what travesties the workshop leaders were going to perform on british isles traditions, I would not have agreed to perform traditional music and dance there. I began to understand the smallest inkling of what native americans must feel about new agers and "plastic shamans."

But isn’t this merely an example of crass commercialism? And since so many folks can claim a significant amount of Celtic ancestry, it is hard to see how you’re going to be able to quash this sort of thing by playing the cultural ‘purity’ card. All of which is not to say that I don’t think that your point of view is legitimate (for you). If I had attended this event, my guess is that I might have enjoyed your contribution most -- but I might also have purchased some ‘crass’ trinket as well.

And by the way folks, I'm highly amused to return after two weeks of touring England to find that you're still gnawing on the same subject and won't let it go. If you're going to define "Wicca" as a grab-bag category, then of course you can stick just about anything in there. However, many of the actual practitioners of that name will vehemently disagree with you on that point and tell you that if you want to do eclectic grab-bag roll-yer-own, it's neopaganism, not Wicca.

My view is that folks should be allowed to define themselves. If someone claims Wicca as their religion then I’m inclined to allow them this self-definition. In truth, neopaganism (and paganism), Wicca, witchcraft are words that are bandied about in different ways by different practitioners. I prefer to allow whatever is out there to speak for itself.

Men as Gods · 09-22-2004, 05:04 PM

yeah, right on guys aginst wicca! its so true- it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. they use it to make themselves feel accepted (as any belief goes) and to not feel guilty for sex etc. the doctrine of reincarnation makes it so u dont really have to worry about screwing your life up

lets add to this debate- heres my thread with some of my thoughts on the subject
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...86#post1849386

Crucifiction · 09-22-2004, 06:08 PM

This is a great site, written by a Celtic Reconstructionist, that points out that Wicca is neither Celtic in origin nor deriviation:

http://www.celticcallings.com/resour..._pagan_faq.htm

While it does contain quite a bit of what is believed to be Celtic practices, it has drawn just as much from the religion of the Romans, the OTO, and Gardner's mind. In fact, Christianity appears to have just as much IF NOT MORE influence on Wicca than paganism does.

Shven · 09-23-2004, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Men as Gods

yeah, right on guys aginst wicca! its so true- it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. they use it to make themselves feel accepted (as any belief goes) and to not feel guilty for sex etc. the doctrine of reincarnation makes it so u dont really have to worry about screwing your life up

lets add to this debate- heres my thread with some of my thoughts on the subject
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...86#post1849386

Yep. all Wiccans are gothy teen girls
All atheists are dry minded rationalists with no love of life that want to destory religion
All black men who wear chains are gangsters and drug dealers
All white middle aged men are racists
All women are weaker than men...

You can put your ridiculous steretype where the sun shineth not, as it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Shven · 09-23-2004, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelmetWB

My view is that folks should be allowed to define themselves. If someone claims Wicca as their religion then I’m inclined to allow them this self-definition.

How about if they wanted to claim they were a pope?

09-22-2004, 05:04 PM	#57
Men as Gods Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: ont, canada Posts: 15	keep this thing going yeah, right on guys aginst wicca! its so true- it seems that everyone who follows this "religion" is just a gothy teen girl going through an identity crisis. they use it to make themselves feel accepted (as any belief goes) and to not feel guilty for sex etc. the doctrine of reincarnation makes it so u dont really have to worry about screwing your life up lets add to this debate- heres my thread with some of my thoughts on the subject http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...86#post1849386

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2004, 02:01 AM	#52
HelmetWB Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia (formerly Kansas) Posts: 129	I have perceived that comments of such kind permit newcomers to depict Wicca as a synonym of neo-paganism, but also it creates the assumption that the only lot that exists in neo-paganism is Wicca. Thus, it disregards a significant fact; that there are neo-pagans who do adhere to other creeds such as those who follow a Reconstructionist religion. Ironic it is that many of them favor the scholar spectrum, however their existence is usually ignored. Is ‘The Triumph of the Moon’ by Ronald Hutton a source for “those who follow a Reconstructionist religion�?? Or do you have other sources in mind? I am strongly inclined towards a scholarly approach as a basis to examine and compare not just neo-paganism, but paganism in general, plus all other religions as well. However, I tend not to judge pagans of whatever stripe too harshly. It has been my experience that pagans, whatever their level of academic seriousness, tend not to think that there is only one path to truth, or to the gods or goddesses or God or the Goddess. They might demand a particular ritual be followed within their own sect or group or coven but they tend not to condemn others for pursuing a separate path. However ‘silly’ one might find some of their beliefs, this ‘live and let live’ attitude is preferable to literalist Christians who condemn all pagans, Jews and even most other Christians to hell. From an earlier post: However, this tendency of some wiccan followers to associate themselves to a certain "school" (e.g. Norse, Celtic, Greek, Egyptian, etc.) really upsets me, as usually they have no clue what they are talking about. Although I agree with you that I would prefer folks having a ‘clue,’ I also think that cluelessness is a state of affairs that includes a rather wide swath (including academics) when it comes to the ancient world. We know, remarkably little, for instance, about the religion of the ancient Celts. Even the religion/s of the Greeks and Romans can be viewed (perhaps) correctly -- when seen from a specific angle -- in a dozen different ways. I have examples in my own library of academics who view ancient religion from one angle only, thereby missing a larger, more varied, and more interesting picture. Thus, while I get your point, I’m not inclined towards your passion.

05-08-2004, 03:24 AM	#56
HelmetWB Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia (formerly Kansas) Posts: 129	On the other hand, when it's your heritage being trashed, you may find you have stronger feelings. My ‘heritage’ is Scottish, English, French, Dutch, Scandinavian, German, Native American, African. All of which is hardly unusual for someone (like me) from an ‘old’ American family. In my view, my heritage is being ‘trashed’ in Iraq by the current American administration. I was booked as a performer at a workshop that I was only later told was on "celtic shamanism." Had I known what travesties the workshop leaders were going to perform on british isles traditions, I would not have agreed to perform traditional music and dance there. I began to understand the smallest inkling of what native americans must feel about new agers and "plastic shamans." But isn’t this merely an example of crass commercialism? And since so many folks can claim a significant amount of Celtic ancestry, it is hard to see how you’re going to be able to quash this sort of thing by playing the cultural ‘purity’ card. All of which is not to say that I don’t think that your point of view is legitimate (for you). If I had attended this event, my guess is that I might have enjoyed your contribution most -- but I might also have purchased some ‘crass’ trinket as well. And by the way folks, I'm highly amused to return after two weeks of touring England to find that you're still gnawing on the same subject and won't let it go. If you're going to define "Wicca" as a grab-bag category, then of course you can stick just about anything in there. However, many of the actual practitioners of that name will vehemently disagree with you on that point and tell you that if you want to do eclectic grab-bag roll-yer-own, it's neopaganism, not Wicca. My view is that folks should be allowed to define themselves. If someone claims Wicca as their religion then I’m inclined to allow them this self-definition. In truth, neopaganism (and paganism), Wicca, witchcraft are words that are bandied about in different ways by different practitioners. I prefer to allow whatever is out there to speak for itself.

09-22-2004, 06:08 PM	#58
Crucifiction Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The deformation age Posts: 1,809	This is a great site, written by a Celtic Reconstructionist, that points out that Wicca is neither Celtic in origin nor deriviation: http://www.celticcallings.com/resour..._pagan_faq.htm While it does contain quite a bit of what is believed to be Celtic practices, it has drawn just as much from the religion of the Romans, the OTO, and Gardner's mind. In fact, Christianity appears to have just as much IF NOT MORE influence on Wicca than paganism does.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.