posted August 11, 2006 08:55 PM         

If you havent heard of the term "fluffy bunny", here's some info for you:-

Fluffy Bunnies, Insta-witches, McWiccans, One-Book Witches, Wicclets, and Whitelighters: these are those people who, most broadly categorized, give the rest of us a bad name, not by doing bad or objectionable things but instead being unserious, sophomoric, or just plain wrong.

Wiccans will say that everyone is allowed to follow their own beliefs, and that any form of belief, whether another person agrees with it or not, counts as religion, and I agree. However, it does not necessarily make the practitioner a member of my religion, and I for one would prefer for them to stop embarrassing the rest of us with their antics.

The primary definition of a Fluffy Bunny is one who refuses to learn, refuses to think, and refuses to consider the possibility that they could possibly ever be wrong. Generall, they find one book, author or website and follow it as if it were the holy word, frequently denouncing anything that disagrees with it as obviously false. Fluffy Bunnies rarely get past the defense of "Because [insert favorite author here] says so." Sometimes they don't even get that far, responding to any and all criticism with something like, "You're just trying to persecute me!"

When I speak of Fluffy Bunnies, I do NOT mean those who disagree with me. Lots of people disagree with me. People I respect sometimes disagree with me. I respect them because they have actual reasons for their beliefs and are willing to consider the opinions of others - but just because they consider my opinion does not mean they are required to agree. Blindly agreeing with me is just as fluffy as blindly agreeing with the author of the week.

Likewise, being a newcomer to Wicca does NOT make one a Fluffy Bunny. All of us were new to this at one point in our lives. Moreover, having bad information does not make one a Bunny. There's still a lot of bad information available in books and websites, and if that is the first information you find, how can you know it's bad? There's only a problem when one stubbornly refuses to question that original information regardless of the mountains of contradictory evidence put before them.

*~*~*~*~*

Fluffy Bunnies are frequently attracted to Wicca for the sake of appearance. This includes those who:

Are into Wicca to upset their parents and just plain "be different". This generally occurs during the teenage years, but its amazing how many of the Fluffy Bunnies never really grow out of this stage.

Think black clothes and huge pentagrams are appropriate Wiccan dress. You're allowed to wear anything you want. If goth's your thing, so be it. But those who dress that way do so out of personal choice, not because of their religion. Author Laurie Cabot is the absolute worst, dressing day to day in a long black robe which she describes as "traditional Wiccan garb." And before you load yourself down with ten pounds of silver pentagrams, imagine a Christian wearing an equivalent amount of religious jewelry. I think we'd all find that truly obnoxious.

Believe the God and/or Goddess are an embodiment of love and want nothing but what's best for us. For a religion that has no embodiment of evil, how in the name of balance can our gods be dedicated to good and benevolence? The world that these gods are a part of exists in a state of equilibrium. Things live and things die. It is necessary, but it is not benevolent.

Think picking up one book on Wicca ever makes them Wiccan. No one possesses the Divine and Ultimate Truth. Wiccans are seekers, and everything you read helps you further develop and understand your faith. You're not going to agree with everything you read, and that's fine. You should allow yourself the opportunity to choose what you accept and what you do not. One book does not allow you to do that, and if you never put that information to use, then it doesn't matter if you have read a thousand books. Just reading books makes you student of the subject of Wicca. Wiccans actually practice and live by Wicca.

Think speaking a few words out of a book over a candle is how one makes magic. An entire library of books will not allow you to practice magic on their own. Magic involves belief, focus, practice, and serious intention. It also involves responsibility and a healthy dose of common sense. One class on magic at the local new-age store does not bestow mad majickkal skilz.

Preach that Wicca is all "goodness and light". The corollary to this is the exclamation of "So-and-so couldn't have done that. She's Wiccan!" Like everyone else in the world, we are not saints.

*~*~*~*~*

Other things to look out for:

Claims that Wicca is a "woman-thing". Both genders are equally welcome, which some women find to be a positive change from previous religious experiences, but Wicca is not about femininity. Some people will even say being a woman is the only reason they are a Wiccan. Wicca is a religion, not a political movement.

Those who took up Wicca to spite their Christian upbringing. We are not against any religion. Moreover, most of the accusations leveled at Christians in the name of Wicca were never committed against Wiccans, if indeed they were committed at all.

Overly ostentatious ceremonial tools. I have found that, in general, the more flashy (or even gaudy) the tools, the more interested the Wiccan is in appearances over any actual religion.

Liberal advertisement of titles or degrees. Since each coven is autonomous, the titles bestowed by one may mean quite a bit within the coven or even within the Tradition, but they don't mean squat to the rest of us. High Priestess So-and-so could be presiding over an entire coven of fluffy bunnies for all you know, while solitaries, no matter how well-learned, have not had the chance to have any titles bestowed upon them. Likewise, some covens denote their High Priest and High Priestess by the titles of "Lord" and "Lady." This means quite a bit within a Tradition, but is pretentious outside of it. If nothing else, we have no way of knowing who honestly earned that title and who has just tacked "Lord" or 'Lady" to the front of their name. If someone has honestly earned that title, it should be evident in their knowledge, not in their titles

Quoting Margaret Murray. This woman's writing is the basis of a lot of our supposed history. The problem is her work was debunked decades ago and the only people who take her seriously are some Wiccans and Pagans, including some very influential writers.

Users of "White Magic". This term makes no sense. It's most often used by those who swear up and down that witchcraft is not evil and was in fact only called evil by the Church as part of a smear campaign. If that's the case, then why the clarification? The existence of white magic implies an existence in black magic. The simple fact is that magic, like any tool, is neither good nor evil, although it can be used toward either purpose.

Odd spellings of magic. While some people have specific reasons for speaking of magick, a great many users of this term are simply looking for attention. It doesn't prove you're more knowledgable. It just shows you can't spell. More extreme Fluffies will even speak of "majick" or (good grief) "majik".

*~*~*~*~*~*

Here are some books that I recommend to you:-

- Scott Cunningham, Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner and Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the Solitary Practitioner
(These two books by Scott Cunningham are perfect for a beginner)

- Laura Wildman, What's Your Wicca I.Q.?
- Elen Hawke and Martin White, eds., Spellcaster: Seven Ways to Effective Magic
- Frater U.: D.:, High Magic
- Ellen Cannon Reed, The Heart of Wicca: Wise Words from a Crone on the Path
- Joyce & River Higgenbotham, Pagan Spirituality: A Guide to Personal Transformation
- Janet and Stewart Farrar, A Witches' Bible: The Complete Witches' Handbook
- Phyllis Curott, Witch Crafting: A Spiritual Guide to Making Magic
- Christopher Penczak, Sons of the Goddess: A Young Man's Guide to Wicca
- Amber Laine Fisher, Philosophy of Wicca
- Raymond Buckland's Complete book of Witchcraft
- Deborah Lipp, Elements of Ritual: Air, Fire, Water & Earth in the Wiccan Circle
- Ronald Hutton,Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft.
- Lilith McLelland, Out of the Shadows: Myths and Truths of Modern Wicca
- Gerald B. Gardner, Witchcraft Today

Books/Authors you should seriously AVOID:

- Silver Ravenwolf, To Ride a Silver Broomstick, or anything else by her

There is nothing in this book that can't be read in a hundred other books on Wicca, and it is all presented sophomorically. Her grasp of history is atrocious, and while she preaches tolerance on one hand she also repeatedly and blatantly insults Christianity. Her books are heavily padded with spells yet offers very little in the way of magical theory.

- Fiona Horne, anything by her
She targets teens, she commercializes Wicca, and she's an admitted atheist- a pretty strange representative for a religion. Her latest publicity stunt is Sci-Fi's Mad Mad World reality series.

- Barbara G. Walker, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets

At first glance this book appears to be a work of academia, which is where part of the danger lies. In fact, this is 1000 pages of attempting to define every goddess as an aspect of the Great Goddess or Triple Goddess, every saint as a stolen pagan deity, every god as a Sacrificial King and/or patriarchy's attempt to masculine a goddess, and every biblical woman as a deliberately misrepresented matriarchal leader. Its entire motive is to promote Goddess spirituality and give men a few kicks while its at it. Walker depends heavily on painfully outdated and even discredited source materials such as works by Frazer and Graves. There may be some actual information in this book, but its so peppered with nonsense that it becomes impossible to distinguish what might actually be legitimate information.

- Laurie Cabot, Power of the Witch

The self-professed "Official Witch of Salem" (despite the fact that there are hundreds of witches in Salem), this woman is just begging for attention. She wanders Salem, Massachusetts on a day-to-day basis in a long black robe, which she claims is traditional Wiccan garb, back from before the Burning Times. She's another big believer in quick fix magic (all you need for a good parking space is to visualize it before you enter the lot). Oh, and did I mention she named her Tradition after herself? Where Ravenwolf has exploited Wicca for money, Cabot has exploited it for attention.

*~*~*~*~*

If you would like more information.. Don't hesitate to ask.

posted August 12, 2006 12:42 AM         

Wow,
sounds like you have some pretty strong opinions.

I'm kind of a dilletante myself. My tastes are very eclectic. I take a little from this path, a little from that path, and I cut my own way through the thick. I like it this way, and I seem to do just fine. I dont think every whim is the voice of intuition, but neither do I try to force myself into any mold of what someone else insists a seeker, or a practitioner, is supposed to be. Maybe some day I'll settle down and really get to work. In the meantime, I'm happy just enjoying the view, and making nice with the beautifully flawed people I meet.

Personally, I dont want to put too much energy into criticizing people's choices of lifestyle. I dont spend my time thinking up, remembering, and repeating insulting names for those whose only offense is being a little sensitive, and trying on different "hats", to see what gives them a little comfort, in a world that can be more harsh on such sensitive souls than many of us would care to admit.

I say, if they want to call themselves something, let them. If they want to associate clothing with that something, let them. If flashy ornaments help them get into the character and mood, more power to them. If they practice an "ADD" form of Wicca, then fine, let them. A little focus is better than none, and, every single thought you hold (for even an instant), and any action you take, however slight, has SOME power in it. Nothing is off the path. Follow your bliss, and focus on what you feel inclined to focus on. Some people are more dedicated than others. That is great for them. But, if they have so much dedication, let them use it to focus on building themselves and others up, and not finding new and clever ways to tear others down in the name of "balance", or, in the name of protecting the name of Wicca. Let them become a beacon of what Wicca can be, and they will shine, and they will show, by example, what they believe it is, and not, by diatribe, what they believe it is not.

Does that make sense?

I would not want to intimidate someone with tales of the deep, when they are just getting their feet wet, and developing a taste for the sea. We all progress in our own time, and find what works for us. I dont think that is unrealistic at all. I dont think it is the right of any individual to take a fundamentalist position and define their religion for others, as if to say "only this is Christian," or, "only this is Wiccan". That is sad, to me.

I certainly envy and admire anyone who has the sharpness of intellect and the force of will necessary to discern between what is and is not the path for them, and to follow it with a singlemindedness of purpose. I would just be wary of anyone who speaks of defenders of love in disparaging terms. There is a balance, to be sure. But it doesnt need me to defend it. I'd rather know which side I'm on. I guess I like what I've heard the alchemists say. That there are two poles to everything, but true wisdom is the ability to polarize oneself in the direction of one's choice.

But maybe I'm wrong.
And maybe I have misunderstood you, Goddess.
You strike me as a very strong,
and very complex woman indeed.
I can only share openly the thoughts
which your thoughts have inspired in me,
as far as I am able to make sense of them.

HSC

"Love is the answer.
And you know that, for sure."
- john lennon

posted August 12, 2006 03:50 AM         

I have strong opinions, but only because I have been a Wiccan since birth, as my mother was one as well. Growing up, I have learned about the craft, as well as, numerous traditions that have sprung out from it. It's not that I am being a fanatic, or a preacher, but when you are passionate about something, you do tend to form your own opinions.

Why I shared my opinion? Well, neptune indicated a developing interest, and to guide him, I gave some infomation, as well as, a brief look to differentiate between genuine wiccans and fraudulent "fluffies". Now I know it may have sounded harsh, and perhaps to someone I might sound dogmatic. Well, would you call Linda dogmatic when she spoke about how astrology is a vital part of medicine and hence homoeopathy is more beneficial than allopathic medicine? Or when she told us all to avoid institutions and fraternal organizations like freemasonry (see the preface and introduction in star signs), as well as, not paying heed to the silly notion of Astrology 13? Linda was only guiding those new to the field of astrology, so that they won't be duped. Like astrology, Wicca is also plagued with numerous charlatans (like Silver Ravenwolf) who spread lies and incorrect infomation about the craft. And like astrology gets a bad name with all those trashy newspaper predictions, Wicca also gets tarnished by being compared to crappyshit like Charmed, Buffy, and HarryfuckingPotter. Would you like it if someone interested in astrology, is then led to believe that an astrologer's work is just to open up a "fortune teller" stand in a carnival and look at crystal balls, while predicting life or death questions, just by one's sun sign? See how ridiculous it is? That's how we Wiccan's feel when people think we are like "Charmed Ones", and dress all black with gothic make up, and oestentatious tools with "magical inscriptions".

Hence, I was only guiding neptune, as well as, anyone else who is interested in following the path, so that they can get a hold of authentic information, and not be duped by all the numerous charlatans and idiotic "online psychics" and other bullcrap like that. And the points that i cited about "fluffies" are actually true, because of the reasons cited. Bad information, and the whole, "feel good" notion of "picking and choosing" what suits one's dandy lil needs.

It's like someone claiming to be a vegetarian, and yet eating pot roast and pork chops. So when you say, " if they want to call themselves something, let them. If they want to associate clothing with that something, let them. If flashy ornaments help them get into the character and mood, more power to them." That's insulting to anyone who follows the path in an earnest manner.

But then again, anything i say and do over here is always misunderstood and ignored, so why even bother.

If this makes me dogmatic? Fine, so moteitfuckingbe!

Atleast it shows that i bother learning things and then researching stuff further on, instead of googling sugarcoated piecesofshit off and thinking that is it.

posted August 12, 2006 09:33 AM         

Merry Meet,

Thank you for the well thought out response. I didnt mean to upset you. I may have misunderstood a little bit. You do make an interesting point, when you compare it to people eating pork-chops and calling themselves vegetarians. Also, when you bring up the sun-sign astrologers in the daily news. I have similar feelings. The only thing I really disagree with is how you say it. You seem to look down on these people, and take pleasure in deriding them. That is really the only part of your post that disturbed me, and provoked me into offering my response. There are things I dont entirely grasp, like your emphasis on balance, as opposed to goodness, but, as I said, perhaps I am missing something. It does seem like a complex matter, and I would like to understand.

posted August 12, 2006 06:28 PM         

First of all, sorry if my post sounded rude, or harsh. It was late, and I was ****** at something else, and hence kinda took it out on the post with the swear words.

Now, as far as, "looking down" on the "fluffies", and taking "pleasure" in it.

Well, it's not something to gain pleasure out of, when you're discussing what fraudulent people do. I have nothing to gain out of this, only the hope that those who read my post, can understand what they tend to be/do, as well as, how to recognise them and be weary of them. If it seemed that I was taking pleasure, it's probably because my sense of humor is quite dark and sarcastic at times. However, the things these "fluffies" do is no laughing matter at all. Like the meat eating "vegetarians" and the "sun-sign astrologers", they contribute in spreading negative stereotypes, as well as, inaccurate infomation about Wicca (and any other form of paganism).

If you still wonder why make a big deal out of such people, as well as, authors who promote this. I shall cite the example of one of the worse authors of wicca 101 books, Silver Ravenwolf (with excepts from the book To Ride a Silver Broomstick):-

Many "authentic" Wiccans, including myself, do actively warn people against Silver Ravenwolf's books, and repeatedly I am asked: can't you simply agree to disagree?

With most authors, the answer is "yes". Differing theology is a matter of opinion. Ravenwolf's theology is not, however, what I object to. What I object to is her lousy history, lack of morality, and rampant religious bigotry.

----"If you intend to grovel before a God form, please stop here and throw this book away…The common act of sniveling at their feet is unacceptable. If you truly want that type of relationship with "higher-ups", there are plenty of well-cultured religions that will gladly open their arms to you. (page 43)"---

I cannot think of any religion that would describe its practices as "sniveling," and portrayal of another religion as such without so much as a reference is...unprofessional to say the least. "The common act" indicates that she thinks this sort of behavior is widespread - while she doesn't actually name Christianity as the offender here, I don't think I'm out of line inferring that's who she meant, although maybe there are other religions she's also attempting to slam.

---"I believe one of the biggest problems Witches face today is the influx of Christianity and its "turn the other cheek" melodrama. More and more individuals are leaving the Christian Kingdom in favor of ours, but they bring with them brains that have been hammered for years with another philosophy. (Page 270)"---

Heaven forbid that outside concepts and ideas ever make their way inside a Wiccan's head. There is a lot to learn from religions outside of our own. And this one-upmanship about where Wiccans tend to come from is nothing short of childishness. Of course most of us are former Christians. We live in a country that is mostly Christian to begin with. It's a simple case of percentages.

Personally, I believe one of the biggest problems we face today is Silver Ravenwolf. Particularly ironic is the fact that the "Craft Code of Honor" that she displays on her own website includes "Respect the religion of others." 1 So she's a bigot and a hypocrite.

---"There are two kinds of [divinatory] readings, those for magickal people and those for "once-borns" (a term Bried Foxsong, publisher of Sacred Hart, uses). Once-borns belong to other religions that do not believe in reincarnation or magick. (Page 152)"---

---"A once-born will get "hooked" before a magickal person, because they are totally unfamiliar with the intricacies of magick and divination. (Page 158)"---

Just in case you non-Christians thought you would be spared Ravenwolf's diatribe, don't fear, she hasn't forgotten you. Apparently all non-Pagans are so incredibly simple that they must be given special tarot readings (or other divining method) because they just can't handle a full-blown one. The arrogance is absolutely astounding.

There is a particularly offensive story on pages 49-50 describing how new people came with their one male God and forced the European medieval pagans through war to worship Him.

---"While in Persia, they came across a nasty God that was used in that country. And, wonder of wonders, he resembled the old God of the people in Europe. He was dark, half animal, with horns and a tail.

Bingo! They thought and rubbed their hands excitedly together. Now we know how to eradicate the old religion and bring in the new.

When they got back to Europe, they told the people that the old God was really Satan because he had horns and a tail. (Page 49)"---

I particularly like how the Christians "rubbed their hands excitedly together" like the bad guy in old movies just after he ties the heroine to the train tracks. Sorry, there is no one "old God" of the pagans. This is classic Murrayism, disproved 20 years before the publication of this book.

She finishes the section by saying: "I wrote this story to sound rather trite on purpose…It is a good story, though, for children, and an interesting one to tell around the fireplace." (Page 50) Good story for children? What sort of values are you preaching here?

Ravenwolf is also a very public sufferer of the More Persecuted than Thou Syndrome, and is dedicated to infecting every reader she can. Discussing her storybook version of the Charge of the Goddess, she says "it depicts the Goddess and God in the manner in which we believe in them, not in the negative light in which our general society has often put them." (Page xiii)

And what light, exactly, is that, Ms. Ravenwolf? When someone wishes to put us down, their comments usually revolve around Wicca and Wiccans, not the God and Goddess, and it's highly inventive to describe even this behavior as coming from "our general society". News flash, Ms. Ravenwolf: while there will always be outspoken Fundies, society in general really doesn't give a rat's ass about us.

And, of course, no More Persecuted than Thou Syndrome would be complete without mention of the Burning Times:

---"Burning Times: You will hear this often. It is in reference to a historical time from about 1000 CE through the 17th century when it is said that over nine million people were tortured and burned by church and public officials on the assumption that they were the Christian version of Witches...Historians indicated that the majority of people tortured and murdered were women and children. (Page 19)"---

While she doesn't flat out say it was "we" who were persecuted, why would she include this in her book if it had nothing to do with us? And try 40,000 to 100,000, not over nine million. As far as the women and children bit goes, that is historical fact (although the reasons were more complicated than that they were women and children), but what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand? Oh, wait, I forgot, another chance to dis Christianity.

OK, now for the really good stuff.

---"In response to "What do Witches do?" or "Tell me all about Witches," be very careful if you are not familiar with the questioner. Instead, get them to talk about themselves by using the conversation techniques you have learned. They may never get an answer to their question on the first meeting, but they will walk away thinking you are a great person anyway because you listened to them.

How do you steer them away from the topic of Witchcraft if you find yourself in a time or place that is not suitable for such a discussion? This is an easy one; just ask them exactly what they wish to know. Most often their questions are vague and you can give them an equally vague answer and ask them something about themselves. (Page 278-279)"---

First comes the presumption that non-Pagans are stupid enough to fall for this, followed by a pat on the back for deliberately misleading people.

And why exactly are you being asked these questions in the first place? If you are not familiar enough with the questioner to be talking about such things, why did you let this person know you were a Witch to begin with?

And speaking of telling the world about your witchiness...

---"I began by telling my father [that I was a witch], then my children and my two best friends; I went on to others that had known me for several years, and progressed to those who did not know me well at all. I told my new employer before I even accepted the job. (Page 277)"---

There is zero reason to tell a prospective employer what your religion is - by law he can't even ask. There's only two reasons you would behave like this - you're looking for attention, or you're looking for trouble, knowing that eventually you'll come across someone who will make an issue of it, at which point you can scream persecution at the top of your lungs.

---"As someone who works with magick, sooner or later you're going to be found out, anyway. Let's face it. You will probably carry yourself differently (confidence does that to a person). You may become more articulate, more sensitive, more ethical; happier, richer, healthier. You will succeed in your dreams where others spend their lives wishing instead. Eventually, people will wonder what you are doing right! People may also fear you. Not because you have threatened them, but because you obviously are not enjoying the same tragedies they are. (Page 278)"---

Excuse me? What sort of cult propaganda is this? News flash #2: non-magical people succeed at their dreams too. And anyone who thinks that Wicca or any other religion or organization will protect them from the tragedies of the world needs a serious and immediate wake-up call. Wicca doesn't make you anything. You are what you make of yourself, and you can do that equally well as a Wiccan, Christian, atheist, or anything else.

---"I personally don't recommend telling your friends or distant family members with the first year of your study of the Craft that you have taken on a new reality. (Page 32)"---

There goes the cult talk again. New reality? What reality were you living in before? And don't you just love the paranoia? They won't understand you, so you must hide from them until your powers have grown strong enough to start avoiding tragedies and other perks that will prove your new reality to others.

Directed specifically at teens is the following advice about explaining Wicca to parents:

---"Then we've got the double sneak-attack - working only with angels. Angels, angels everywhere and Mom or Dad won't even care. Sure, because everyone likes angels."---

I don't know what they call this approach in Ravenwolf's world, but where I come from this is called lying. Angels have little to nothing to do with Wicca. Oh, and another clue: if "sneak-attack" is an apt description for a plan to deal with parents, the ethics of such a plan should be seriously questioned.

And finally there is the issue of the simple lack of credible information in her writing. Below are just a few of her gems:

---"Satanic Witch: One cannot be a satanic Witch because Witches do not believe in satan. (Page 13)"---

Disregarding her painful lack of rudimentary capitalization skills, this sentence is so absolutely typical of Fluffy Bunnies. When the hell were we awarded the copyright on the word "witch"? Satanists have as much claim (if not more) to the term as we do. Just because Wiccans and other Pagans using the term "Witch" do not worship Satan does not mean Satanic Witches suddenly do not exist.

---"Another name for a solitary Witch is a "Natural Witch". (page 14)"---

Where she got this idea is beyond me. The concept of "Natural Witches" describes one predisposed toward Witchcraft from birth. Most Pagans don't even believe in such things. A Solitary Witch is simply one that practices (wait for it)...in solitary, as opposed to practicing with a coven.

---"The Wiccan Witch:…I personally like the word "Witch" very much. To me it means mystery, healing…The word "Wiccan" does not give me those feelings. It projects a different set of associations-weaving, church, New Earth, wicker furniture (don't ask me why) and the movie The Wicker Man (which although I despised, I fully understand). It also means "front", a way to bring the public into accepting our belief system for what it actually is, not what their preconceived ideas of a word dictates to them. (Page 14-15)"---

First of all, let me make clear that she is not specifying Wicca as merely one form of Witchcraft. She uses the terms interchangeably, as is evident by other such entries as Gardnerian Witchcraft and Alexandrian Witchcraft. Wicca doesn't mean "front", and I can't imagine why she would say that. She may think of it as a front, but that's an opinion, not a meaning. People who get published should have a basic grasp on the English vocabulary. Why she associates the word Wicca with church is likewise beyond my comprehension.

I imagine she likes the word "Witch" exactly because of those "preconceived ideas" people have about it - such as the very acceptable, historical associations with Satanism. That way she can self-righteously protest that she's being persecuted by the once-borns.

---"Wicca -- It is thought that this term was originally coined by Selena Fox of the Circle Sanctuary in an effort to describe the modern religion of WitchCraft (as begun by Gerald Gardner in England in the 1950's). There is NO difference between Wicca and WitchCraft. Anyone who tells you there is a difference is experimenting in the theory of Occum's Razor."---

Has she never read Gardner's The Meaning of Witchcraft? Or his Old Laws? Gardner himself introduced us to the term "Wica". The second C was added later (admittedly, I don't know by whom), presumably to reflect the Anglo-Saxon word wicca which is the root for the modern word "witch". And, incidentally, the name is Occam, not Occum.

---"...did you know that Mary Magdalene was not a temple prostitute? That the word "Magdelene" is a title of leadership, not the woman's last name? And that Mary Magdelene of Bible fame ran a temple to the Goddess, designed to educate the rich girls of Jerusalem? True, true...and true. AND, the reason the men hated her was because she believe in the Goddess, and they wanted to get rid of the Goddess."---

Considering that there has never in history been a worshipped entity known simply as the Goddess, I have serious difficulty believing in the credibility of any portion of this statement. Furthermore, just a little further down on the page Ravenwolf refers readers to Barbara Walker's Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets for more fascinating revelations. Yet Walker herself describes her repeatedly as Mary the ***** and cites "Magdelene" to mean merely "she of the temple-tower".

Worse, this passage is a part of the section on telling your parents that you're Wiccan. Clearly, the statement has nothing to do with Wicca or why one should be dedicated to it. Instead, it's another of Ravenwolf's pot-shots at Christianity.

Ravenwolf's bizarre world-view is not, however, confined to the religious realms:

---"For too many years women have been told that they must regard their cycle with an unkind eye, calling it a curse when actually it is a boon. Society has so dictated this to them that many feel weak, tired and disoriented because they are supposed to. (Page 19)"---

Actually, we tend to feel weak, tired, and disoriented because of pain and blood loss. I'm pretty sure that even if I had been raised by wolves my cycle would still be a pain in the ass.

---"Before performing all spells one should consult their divinatory vehicle not only to examine the outcome of your work, but to glean any extra information you should be aware of…For example, you wouldn't want to cast a spell for money and have your spouse or parents drop dead. (Page 178)"---

First of all, divinations reveal possibilities, not concrete outcomes. Anyone who becomes this dependent on divinations is a fool. Second, people do not drop over dead because you didn't correctly chant over a green candle (which is her standard money making spell). Can you fling fireballs from your fingertips as well, Ms. Ravenwolf?

Other amusing moments come from her definition of "Ceremonial Witchcraft" in a painful attempt to lump all workers of magic under the term Witchcraft, when in fact Ceremonial Magicians rarely if ever use that term to describe themselves. Then there's the moment when she traces the Dianic Tradition back to Margaret Murray. This book was written in 1993, more than 20 years after Murray had been totally discredited!

And a final quote of just true bizarreness:

---"It is my personal opinion that most people are attracted to the Craft not by its religious content, but by its scientific and technological allure. (Page 27)"---

If you are attracted to a religion for reasons other than its religious content, you are a poser. It's like saying you're a Christian because you like communion wine.

*~*~*~*~*

This is just one of the examples of how frauds and charlatans work in Wicca, and through that example, I hope you can see how damaging the spread of incorrect and inaccurate infomation can be.

If not, here's another example: Margaret Murray:-

Much of the nonsense you might hear uttered about the history of Wicca and witchcraft started with an anthropologist named Margaret Murray. She first published a book on the subject of European witchcraft in the 1920s, despite the fact that her entire academic background was in Egyptology. You will see her name in the bibliographies of many, many books on Wicca, particularly older books. I generally take mention of her as a reason NOT to purchase a book. What the Wiccan books that cite her generally fail to mention is that her witchcraft theories were thoroughly discredited several decades ago due to a painful and unprofessional lack of evidence.

Was she a sham?
Murray never claimed to be Wiccan or Pagan or a follower of the Old Religion, so she had nothing to gain from deception. She probably honestly thought she was promoting historical truth, although her research methods ranges from ignorant to outright deceptive. For example, she provides several quotes from witch-trial documents which are taken completely out of context, and at least one in which she removed the middle of a paragraph, running the beginning and end of the paragraph together as if they made one complete thought, completely changing the meaning of the text.

What did she teach?
She believed, in short, that there was an ancient Old Religion in Europe far predating Christianity and that it secretly survived for centuries despite the Church's attempt to destroy it, culminating in the great witch-hunts, which Wiccans have taken to calling the Burning Times.

According to Murray, the witch-cult was the oldest religion in the world and was practiced by Stone-Age people. Her evidence is two cave paintings, neither of which, according to historian Ronald Hutton, depict what Murray claims they depict. Even if they did, the evidence is way too slight to make such a sweeping claim. One image is supposedly a group of people dancing in a circle. The second is supposedly a priest in animal skins with deer antlers on his head.

Murray's theoretical witch-cult worshipped a single horned god which priests emulated by wearing horned headdresses. Christians, trying to exterminate the cult, claimed this horned god was Satan. Stories of witch gatherings in which Satan was present can thus be explained by a priest wearing a headdress. She initially believed that this cult survived until the 17th century, when the witch-trials finally wiped them out, although Gerald Gardner got her to write an introduction for his Witchcraft Today in 1954.

She provided several "facts" about witches that are now embedded within Wicca. For one, she claimed that covens always had thirteen members. For another, she listed the four holidays we now accept as the Major Sabbats. She also linked the word coven specifically to witches, even though the word originally merely meant an assembly, not a witch assembly.

Why did people believe her?
In the 1920s, there simply were very few English-speaking academics who considered the witch-trials a subject deserving of study. The trials had ended in large part because people stopped believing in magic and witchcraft. If there is no witchcraft, then there could have been no witches, and trial victims were accepted to be victims of a hysteria, end of story. Very few people were familiar with the evidence Murray was using. Thus, very few people realized how selective she was being or how badly she abused it.

The English world's ignorance of witchcraft is highlighted by the fact that the Encyclopedia Britannica allowed Murray to write their definition of witchcraft in 1929, even though Murray had published only a single book on the subject. That was Britannica's idea of a witch expert! The definition was published for forty years.

The very bizarre members of Murray's witch-cult
One of Murray's theories was that this secret pagan cult practiced voluntary human sacrifice. Every nine years a believer had to die. She puts forward several such victims, including King William Rufus (William II) of England, Saint Thomas Becket, and Saint Joan of Arc. Yes, note the "Saint" in two of those names.

Rufus was a bore of a man and detested by nearly everyone during his life, so much so that his body was quickly secured and buried before anyone could defile it. He died on a hunting excursion, when a friend "accidentally" shot him with an arrow. Ironically, historians tend to think it really was an accident. Murray suggests that this friend was in fact a fellow pagan carrying out Rufus's wishes: they had already willingly separated from the rest of a hunting party and were therefore alone.

Similarly Becket's murderers were in fact fellow pagans, according to Murray, flying straight into the face of all accepted history of the saint. Becket was a personal friend of King Henry II, and Henry arranged for him to become archbishop of Canterbury, as the politics between Church and State were not at their healthiest at the time. But Becket had a change of heart. Perhaps it was simply a bit of a power trip for him, or perhaps he did indeed experience a religious reverie. Regardless, Becket began opposing the King much as his predecessor had, until one night, while drunk, Henry famously uttered, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" Four knights took this to be an order, rode hard to Canterbury, and murdered Becket in his own cathedral. Henry was profoundly wracked by guilt, was censured by the Church, and submitted to a whipping by Church officers in penance.

The only odd fact of this whole story is that Becket had warning of the knights' arrival, and when his subordinates attempted to spirit him away, he refused. But instead of accepting this final act as submission to God's will (and one of the reasons why he was canonized), Murray spins this fantastical and quite illogical tale of secret religions and pagan sacrifice.

Joan of Arc's story is the most bizarre of Murray's fables. Instead of having her fellow pagans slaughter her, she allowed herself to be captured and burned at the stake at the hands of the Christian Church. What religious purpose can possibly be served at the hands of a nonbeliever? If this rather sophomoric religion that Murray depicts merely needed a death, then why did she not simply fall upon her sword, poison herself, even throw herself from a high wall? Instead, she was tortured, humiliated and possibly raped before suffering one of the most horrific and painful methods of execution possible.

To make such claims without a shred of evidence is just plain irresponsible. To take two great heroes of someone else's religion and claim they were, in fact, pagans is outright insulting. And even if this crazy religion did actually exist, why on earth would modern Wiccans want to be associated with it? I've never seen a Wiccan claim Joan or Becket as among our ranks, but the idea that we would associate ourselves at all with Murray's nonsense is depressing.

*~*~*~*~*

Now regarding my "emphasis on balance, as opposed to goodness"

First of all, what is "goodness"? Are you saying that goodness is a person who's a goody two shoes? Or a person who smiles and lets people do their own things in the hope of "peace and harmony"? That's just living in a fool's paradise.

Being idealistic is one thing (and I consider myself quite an idealist), but it's another thing to keep living in sugarcoated dellusions of "goodness" and "badness".

"Good" and "Bad" are just perceptions that are created by the individual through their own learnings and experiences. What's considered "Good" for one person or community, may be considered "Bad" by another.

An example can be the eating of pork. In Judaism, and Islam, the eating of pork is considered "Bad", as it's not kosher. However, Christians consider nothing "Bad" with it, hence they eat it as they feel it's "Good" to eat.

In the above example, a vegan would say, "Both way's it's bad to eat any kind of meat", but a nonvegetarian would say, "Meat, schmeat, as long as it's deepfried and delicious, who cares?"

So who's really right or wrong, or should i say, who is doing "Good" and "Bad"?

Another example could be the terrorists we so fear of these days. They claim that their actions are for the "Good" of their beliefs. And when George W, started the war on iraq, claiming it was for the "Good" of iraq as well as the rest of the world. Was there really anything "Good" about it?

Think about it.

Now as for balance.

Well, look at the world around us all. For the day we have night, for light we have darkness, for the sun we have moon, for masculine we have feminine... the list goes on.

Harmony can only exist if there is a balance between two opposing forces. Too much of one and too little of the other can only create chaos and harm. If there're too many men, and too few women, or vice-versa, well, try to imagine what could happen. An example of this was shown in a National Geographic documentary about a rural village in the desert state Rajasthan in India, where in a family where there were more than one son, a girl was married off to all of them, and bore each and every one of their children.

So you see, "Good and Bad" are just what they are, opposing forces. If there isn't any harmony between these forces, well, you can imagine the chaos.

At first it may seem a bit difficult to understand these concepts, so I would like to share my opinion on Good and Bad

First of all, i divide it all into 4 classifications:-

Good:Good
Good:Bad
Bad:Good
Bad:Bad

Good:Good:- An example can be Mother Teresa, whose sole purpose was to help the poor and destitute in the slums of Calcutta.

Good:Bad:- This is when people do Good things with questionable intentions. Like celebrities and politicians who go on "charity missions" for the sake of showing the world that they care, but only bother doing anything if there's paparrazi around.

Bad:Good:- This is when people do questionable things with "Good" intentions. Like killing people in the name of their religious faith. Or perhaps, "Robbing from the Rich to give to the Poor"

Bad:Bad:- Well, you can think about what this could mean.

---

To lighten the mood, I shall give some satirical definitions about common words.

ACCIDENT, n. An inevitable occurrence due to the action of immutable
natural laws.

ACCUSE, v.t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a
justification of ourselves for having wronged him.

AMBITION, n. An overmastering desire to be vilified by enemies while
living and made ridiculous by friends when dead.

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with
others.

CONVENT, n. A place of retirement for woman who wish for leisure to
meditate upon the vice of idleness.

COWARD, n. One who in a perilous emergency thinks with his legs.

DESTINY, n. A tyrant's authority for crime and fool's excuse for
failure.

ECCENTRICITY, n. A method of distinction so cheap that fools employ
it to accentuate their incapacity.

FAMOUS, adj. Conspicuously miserable.

FIDELITY, n. A virtue peculiar to those who are about to be betrayed.

FOREFINGER, n. The finger commonly used in pointing out two
malefactors.

HABIT, n. A shackle for the free.

HATRED, n. A sentiment appropriate to the occasion of another's
superiority.

HISTORIAN, n. A broad-gauge gossip.

HISTORY, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant,
which are brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly
fools.

KILL, v.t. To create a vacancy without nominating a successor.

LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.

LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.

MARRIAGE, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a
master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.

MARTYR, n. One who moves along the line of least reluctance to a
desired death.

MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right.
Having the quality of general expediency.

OMEN, n. A sign that something will happen if nothing happens.

ONCE, adv. Enough.

ORTHODOX, n. An ox wearing the popular religious joke.

PAIN, n. An uncomfortable frame of mind that may have a physical
basis in something that is being done to the body, or may be purely
mental, caused by the good fortune of another.

PERFECTION, n. An imaginary state of quality distinguished from the
actual by an element known as excellence; an attribute of the critic.

PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it.

PLEASURE, n. The least hateful form of dejection.

REALITY, n. The dream of a mad philosopher. That which would remain
in the cupel if one should assay a phantom. The nucleus of a vacuum.

REPORTER, n. A writer who guesses his way to the truth and dispels it
with a tempest of words.

RUMOR, n. A favorite weapon of the assassins of character.

VALOR, n. A soldierly compound of vanity, duty and the gambler's
hope.

WEDDING, n. A ceremony at which two persons undertake to become one,
one undertakes to become nothing, and nothing undertakes to become
supportable.

(Taken from "The Devil's Dictionary" by Bierce Ambrose)

*~*~*~*~*

I hope all that I've posted here helps. If something still irks you in anyway, do tell.

posted August 12, 2006 07:30 PM         

i'm not wiccan, but i like Silver Ravenwolf. there's a lot of light in her books. i don't abide by everything she has to say...but i do get good energy from her.

'n

posted August 12, 2006 08:35 PM         

i have a lot of respect for most wiccans. sorry i don't understand your religion well enough to have so much contempt for Silver.

i've seen the website before with the Silver Ravenwolf content you posted above... http://wicca.timerift.net/ravenwolf.shtml ... and the first time i read it, i wondered why they seemed to focus on only what they are not, rather than what they are...

is there another reason this webpage is more authentic than the other wiccan webpages that you seem so disparaging of?

well, i find light and truth in the most unlikely places... there are some happy things in Silver's books.

i guess there is a reason i'm not wiccan. i do love and honor goddess though.

be blessed.

posted August 12, 2006 09:01 PM         

Well, I never said that the webpage is more "authentic" than any others. However, it is one of the finest sources of infomation regarding the craft from a very honest and to-the-point POV. It isn't that it's the only good one, no, there are plenty, but this is what I feel is a good place to start.

As far as our "contempt" (as you put it) for Silver Ravenwolf. Well, we don't have any contempt for her. She's just the laughing stock for us Wiccans and other pagans. It's also amusing to us to see those who follow her books with dedication try to claim "persecution" at every little thing that doesnt go their way. An example could be this highschooler who was obsessed with Miss Ravenwolf, actually asked me if she could "Condemn my math teacher to christian hell for persecuting me with 5 days of detention". It's such reasons we Wiccan's tend to laugh upon the works of Miss Ravenwolf, as well as, those who follow her works with dedication.

However, when such people, claim that what they have learnt and practice is Wiccan belief, that's when the humor ends. It's such who create all the negative stereotypes about us Wiccans.

However, since you aren't Wiccan, perhaps the ideals placed in Silver's books would seem alright with you. Granted you don't follow them as anything to do with Wicca itself.

Never confuse truth with light, for they are completely different things. Truth, like "Good and Bad" are subjected to perception. Light is just the understandings we gain from our "Truths"

Ignorance may be bliss, but dellusions can be deadly.

posted August 12, 2006 09:25 PM         

i suppose there is just as much difference and diversity within wicca as there is in christianity and buddhism and other religions. there is a wide variety of belief and perception in such traditions as well. i suppose there are followers of every religion who harbor ill will towards others, who wish to use their 'religion' to garner revenge for perceived slights.

that's an interesting definition of light you have ~ thanks for sharing.

posted August 13, 2006 05:26 AM         

And it's authors like Silver Ravenwolf, and her like, that promote such sentiments, which are completely against every Wiccan principle.

posted August 13, 2006 02:56 PM         

thank you for discussing this with me ~ i'm finding lots to think about with this topic. i hope you don't view this conversation as an argument, as i enjoy your perspective very much.

the interesting thing about the srw books i have is that i purchased them after reading all the criticism about them, from the website you've posted here and others. they caught my eye in the bookstore one day, though i had seen them before, this day i felt compelled and curious, esp knowing all the 'bad press' out there about them.

i skimmed through them, and felt awash with a 'rebellious' spirit and purchased them.

i have enjoyed them...some of her ideas are similar to the ideas in other books i have...some of my books are on the topics of meditation, buddhism, feng shui, kabbala, gnosticism, energetic healing...among others. i enjoy a variety of perspectives and ideas.

Silver's books are not labelled as wiccan though...

i do enjoy learning from you. thanks again for sharing your perspective here.

posted August 13, 2006 09:45 PM         

I'm glad you're enjoying this discussion. Dont worry, I'm not viewing it as an arguement.

quote:

---

the interesting thing about the srw books i have is that i purchased them after reading all the criticism about them, from the website you've posted here and others. they caught my eye in the bookstore one day, though i had seen them before, this day i felt compelled and curious, esp knowing all the 'bad press' out there about them.

---

Well, that's only because you aren't Wiccan, as well as, you didn't have plans for following the path.

quote:

---

i skimmed through them, and felt awash with a 'rebellious' spirit and purchased them

---

One of the many things I pointed out about "Fluffies"

quote:

---

i have enjoyed them...some of her ideas are similar to the ideas in other books i have...some of my books are on the topics of meditation, buddhism, feng shui, kabbala, gnosticism, energetic healing...among others. i enjoy a variety of perspectives and ideas.

---

Silver Ravenwolf is also known for plagerising works of other authors and giving her own f-d up perception about it, confusing the novice reader. Examples can be found in the whole Mary Magdalene bit which was illustrated in the previous posts. In her texts about yoga, she has given completely innaccurate information about how one should control their divine breath (prana).

quote:

---

Silver's books are not labelled as wiccan though...

---

Unfortunately, Yes they are

However, if you enjoy Silver's books, and feel they fit you, by all means, do read them. But don't believe that what's written in them promotes the true spirit and beliefs of Wicca, or any form of paganism for that matter.

If you would like to read anything about Wicca, the list of books I gave out above are the best places to start.

posted August 13, 2006 10:30 PM         

thanks for answering. it's interesting i think, that for all the negative publicity Silver's books have received, that it makes them that much more compelling to read. and the quip about 'rebellious' i meant in a humourous, self-mocking way, hence the laughing emoticon following the statement.

so 'fluffies', as you term them, read Silver's books as a form of rebellion?? rebelling against what, wiccans who don't like them? i don't often give credence to critiques of things, be they movies, restaurants or books, etc...usually i like to see what i can discover myself.

here are a number of Silver's books ~

Solitary Witch: The Ultimate Book of Shadows for the New Generation

To Ride a Silver Broomstick: New Generation Witchcraft

To Light A Sacred Flame: Practical Witchcraft for the Millenium

A Witch's Notebook: Lessons in Witchcraft

these are a few, and of all her books, i haven't seen one with the word 'wicca' in reference to the subject matter. are there books of hers with which i perhaps am not familiar, about the subject of wicca?

i think in one of her books she states even that she doesn't prefer to use the word 'wicca' in her work. she does say that it's a term that gardnerian followers use, and maybe celtic as well, but it's not a term that she uses.

although i think there are books for solitary wiccans, don't wiccans usually practice in covens also? the books of Silver's that i've seen don't don't revolve much around coven craft.

i do appreciate the list of sources you've provided here; i have a few of the books in your list. would you mind sharing some of the websites that you consider good sources as well?

thanks Divine Goddess...interesting discussion.

posted August 13, 2006 10:52 PM         

quote:

---

i think in one of her books she states even that she doesn't prefer to use the word 'wicca' in her work. she does say that it's a term that gardnerian followers use, and maybe celtic as well, but it's not a term that she uses.

---

That just goes to show how much she truly knows about the subject of witchcraft (often known as Wicca)

And if you go to her publishers website http://www.llewellyn.com/ , and search for her titles... they are placed under the category of "Wicca".

Although, personally, they should be put under the catagory of fantasy-fiction.

quote:

---

although i think there are books for solitary wiccans, don't wiccans mostly practice in covens also? the books of Silver's that i've seen don't don't revolve much around coven craft.

---

Who'd want her? There is no rule that Wiccans must practice in Covens. I myself am a Solitary Wiccan (or Solitary Witch). It's hard to find a Coven, as well as, many a coven's unfortunately become too political (ironically, formed by those who began to practice wicca on a "fluffie" basis). It doesnt matter whether we're solitary or part of a coven, be it eclectic, dianic, gardenian, alexandrian, etc etc... However, it's always best to follow a tradition that feels "right" (as in we feel more drawn to it).

Some of the many traditions of Wicca are:-

Alexandrian Wicca
Animistic Tradition
Blue Star Wicca
Celtic Wicca
Correllian Nativist Church
Dianic Wicca
Eclectic Wicca
Faery Wicca
Gardnerian Wicca
Kemetic Wicca
McFarland Dianic
Odyssean Wicca
Seax-Wica
Stregheria

There are many more, but these are the most followed traditions.

posted August 13, 2006 11:24 PM         

Silver seems to have experience in covens that she's been associated with for a number of years, i don't know whether they are considered specifically 'wiccan' though ~

quote:

---

In November of 1991, she received her First Degree from Bried Foxsong of Sacred Hart and is on the rolls of the International Red Garters. She also carries Second and Third Degree status from the Temple of Hecate Triskele of the Caledonii Tradition, and now heads the Black Forest Circle and Seminary. Silver was eldered by Lord Serphant of the Family of Serphant Stone on 29 June 1996 at the Puff Gathering in North Carolina. Her hearthstone coven is known as Coven of the Omega Wolf.

...the Black Forest Circle and Seminary, an organization containing over 38 Clans (each consisting of several covens) spanning the United States and Canada

http://www.silverravenwolf.com/ocean/host.php?page=0

---

posted August 13, 2006 11:55 PM         

quote:

---

would these covens be despised by serious wiccans as 'fluffy' as well?

---

No, not at all. Although a friend of mine was a part of the Black Forest Circle and Seminary. Interestingly, many of her fellow coven memebers laugh at Silver Ravenwolf. You heard of the saying, "One bad apple, spoils it for the rest."

I have nothing against Silver Ravenwolf personally. I just seem to disapprove of the way her writings tarnish the craft.

quote:

---

i thought you made a distinction between the religion of wicca and the more general 'old religion' of witchcraft.

---

Do your own research.

However, it seems obvious that you love the works of Silver, and no matter what I or anyone says, it wont change your opinion of hers. So why drag it further?

posted August 14, 2006 01:57 AM         

Feel free to ask me anything you wish to know.

posted August 15, 2006 10:40 PM         

1)

quote:

---

"The God and Goddess are the embodiment of love and goodness and want only what's best for us."

---

A special subspecies of Bunny has been developed for those that espouse this view: "white-lighters". To the best of my knowledge, this term originated on the TV show Charmed. If that's the case, it would be the only positive thing that show has so far contributed to society.

As embodiments of the universe, the God and Goddess dwell everywhere and are within everything. This means that while they are many beautiful and bountiful things, they are also the raging storm, the thundering earth, and the sweeping fire. They are joyous birth and wasting disease, because all are part of the natural cycle of life.

We are very insistent in that we acknowledge no evil deity. In the interest of balance, how then can we possibly have a deity of goodness? The concept of an ever-benevolent supreme power is a Christian concept, and is in fact not found in historical pagan societies. And even in Christianity, while God may ultimately want is best for us, that does not mean he is always nice to us.

2.

quote:

---

"I believe in a God and a Goddess, But I only worship the Goddess because Christianity has so overemphasized the God."

---

The Wiccan God and the Christian God are very separate concepts. Speaking of the two as one in the same is absurd and insulting to both sides. The Wiccan God is one-half of a greater whole. Christians view their God as the supreme entity in itself. Moreover, Christians have not decided to ignore the Goddess out of spite. She does not exist in their world view. One cannot spite what does not exist. Therefore,basing your religious views and practices upon those of another religion makes no sense, and in this case leads us to do what we accuse Christianity of doing - rebuking one aspect of the whole, even though we acknowledge their existence. That is spite.

Many people identify more with one than the other, God or Goddess. There's nothing wrong in that. But both aspects should be at least some part of your life.

3.

quote:

---

"Balance does not consist of two (or very rarely at least), a two legged table will fall over. Balance consist of three or more. The Goddess ultimately contains all within an [sic] what can be more holistic and balanced that that?"

---

I would think the answer to this is obvious. Wicca is not a table.

4.

quote:

---

The Celts believed in a single Goddess split into three aspects, which the Christians stole as their trinity."

---

I'm so glad I wasn't drinking anything when I first read this. I've debated giving it multiple bunnies.

The Celts viewed many of their gods and goddesses in triple form. However, they were not divided into maid, mother, and crone. The Morrigan, for instance, was comprised of Badb, Macha, and Nemain, all goddesses of war and death. There is some association with sexuality and childbirth as well. These aspects, however, cannot easily be attributed to specific members of the triad - if forced, I'd say Macha might be Mother, with Babd and Nemain being Crone. There is however, no Maid aspect.

And, for the record, we have records of over 400 Celtic deities. The suggestion that they were monotheistic is ignorant at best, or else propagandistic. You cannot just reverse apply Wiccan concepts to historical mythologies because it sounds cool.

The Triple Goddess as represented in Wicca is a Wiccan concept. Pagan cultures did not divide their goddesses up as Maid, Mother, and Crone, nor did they generally envision specific goddesses as having maid, mother and crone aspects. Hekate is perhaps most spoken of in these terms by Wiccans, and it makes the Hellenists spit venom.

There are many female trios in various mythologies. That does not mean they are a Triple Goddess. The one group I can think of that does fit the pattern is the Three Fates of Greek mythology - one who spins the thread of life, one who weaves thread, and one who clips the thread at the end of life. They are not one goddess, however, but three closesly conencted goddesses. One example, or even a handful of examples, however, does not prove that they were all modelled on some older, greater goddess.

5.

quote:

---

"Wiccans are supposed to respect all religions so I worship all of the gods."

---

This is a symptom of Political Correctness having spiraled horribly out of control. We respect people's right to worship how they choose. That does not require us to believe a religion is correct, although we stress open-mindedness toward other religions and frequently embrace the fact that most religions transmit some part of a grander Truth. Furthermore, acknowledging that another religion possesses Truth or accepting the existence of other deities does not require us to worship those deities. Mythology is is largely lacking tales of gods that expect the entire world to worship them.

Logistically speaking, you cannot worship "all of the gods." There are hundreds or thousands of major deities around the world and literally millions of minor ones. You can admit you believe in all of them, but that is nowhere close to worshipping all of them. Even if you worship a single God and Goddess who you view as being composed of all these deities, you are still worshipping the God and Goddess, not their many faces. If you are not dealing with an individual facet on an individual level, claiming any connection with that facet is, well, stretching the truth at best.

6.

quote:

---

"Gardner got it wrong. The Rede reads 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.'"

---

Many suggest that Gardner borrowed and adapted the Law of Thelema from Aleister Crowley, which reads "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" in creating the rede. According to Crowley, if people knew their true wills and followed them, the would attune themselves to a harmony with the universe. Therefore spelling out the implications of doing harm was not necessary.

Even if this is the case, this does NOT mean that the Rede and the Law of Thelema are the same thing or hold the same meaning. Gardner could have been inspired by the Law and then took it in his own direction, creating a new entity. Worse, I've seen the Law of Thelema labeled as the Witches Rede. Crowley was neither a witch nor a Wiccan, and I very much doubt he'd appreciate his Law being relabeled, regardless of who may or may not have borrowed it.

7.

quote:

---

Including the "k" differentiates magick you do with directed thought, candles, herbs, oils, stones, and incense, from the magic with a "c" that a magician does on stage strictly for entertainment purposes...To be quite honest, the other reason I prefer to spell magick with a "k" is just because it looks neat, different, & unique."

---

I'm not astounded people do this. I'm just astounded people actually actually say it.

Aleister Crowley is the one responsible for adding the word "magick" to the occult vocabulary. He did express the wish to separate "real magic" from stage magic, although I see no reason why this is needed. The English language has tons of words with unrelated meanings. I've discussed magic in religion and history classes for years, and not once has anyone ever confused Celtic beliefs with David Copperfield. However, Crowley also wanted to separate himself from the magic (no "k") practiced by the Order of the Golden Dawn and others. Quite frankly, Crowley was an attention ***** and loved drawing divisions between himself and others. It's a lousy reason to start spelling a word differently.

Conversely, Crowley also gave reasons why he changed the word by adding a "k", such as the mystical significance of the numbers 6 (the number of letters in "magick") and 11 (K is the 11th letter of the alphabet). He also gave a distinct definition of what "magick" meant: "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." Will here is True Will - basically your higher and ultimate purpose in life. Hence, casting a spell to get Bobby to date you or a higher allowance would not be magick. So, when people use magick in this capacity, it makes sense. Interchanging it indiscriminately with magic, however, is silly.

Unfortunately, the real reason most people speak of "magick" is that which the Bunny above confessed to. Likewise, that reason has generated such English language abominations as "majik", "majick", "magik", and "majic". It's an attempt to be "kewl". If the only way you can define yourself as unique is by abandoning basic grammar skills, you might want to reassess your life. I promise that there are better methods.

8.

quote:

---

"Magick' is the correct, historical spelling."

---

Yes, "magick" was once considered an acceptable spelling of the word, just as "olde" was an acceptable spelling of "old". That doesn't make it any less pretentious now. About three hundred years ago all sorts of words ending in "ick" lost their "k". A couple hundred years before that English didn't even have standard spellings. Try reading the original Robin Hood stories or Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in their original English. The varying spellings make them almost unreadable.

And for the record, Gerald Gardner used the term "magic" in his books.

9.

quote:

---

"The Satanists stole our emblem!"

---

Actually, we both largely borrowed the pentagram from ceremonial magic, where it has existed for centuries before the advent of Satanism or Wicca, which are both fairly new movements.

10.

quote:

---

The Christians perverted our emblem!"

---

This claim presumes that the pentagram was first associated with Satanism due to claims of the Christian church, during its persecution of pagans. But no mention of the pentagram oriented in either direction can be found in witch-hunt documents.

11.

quote:

---

"I worship Bridgid/Cernunnos/etc. and therefore follow the the Celtic Tradition of Wicca."

---

Sorry, try again. Nearly all of the gods worshipped by Wiccans originate in another culture. That does not suddenly make us all Traditionalists. "Celtic" is, at best, the flavor of one's practices, particularly if the only thing Celtic about your practices is the deities themselves. There is nothing that unites "Celtic Wiccans;" no tradition is being preserved. Just because I am doing something (theoretically) Celtic and someone else approaches another aspect of their practice in a (theoretically) Celtic manner does not mean that we are actually doing anything in common. Worse, those who teach "Celtic" approaches to Wicca frequently aren't even teaching things that are actually Celtic.

12.

quote:

---

"My friends and I formed a coven last week and now practice the [insert made up name] Tradition."

---

Which part of "tradition" are we not getting? You can't just make up a tradition. That's like me serving meatloaf on Monday and stating that I have a tradition of serving meatloaf of Monday, even though I've never previously served meatloaf on Monday. Traditions are things that are, minimally, repeated over time in a predicable manner. Within Wicca, it generally also implies something that has been passed down to students.

13.

quote:

---

"Someone I know says her family has been passing down a Book of Shadows for five-hundred years."

---

I hate to break it to you, but this "person you know" is lying. According to Valiente in The Rebirth of Witchcraft, Gardner first came across the term Book of Shadows in a magazine in 1949,3 where the term actually referred to a Sanskrit document regarding divination through the studying of shadows. Gardner seems to have simply taken a liking to the name, even though the two documents have nothing to do with each other.4 Therefore, in reference to Wicca or witchcraft, the term was effectively invented by Gardner.

It's technically possible that the family in question has a book of herbal or folk magic lore, although highly, highly unlikely. Peasants were almost entirely illiterate. Generally everything they taught to their children was oral, not written. Moreover, books were hideously expensive until the 20th century. Thirdly, five hundred years is a very long time for a book to last even in relatively well-protected libraries. The oldest books I have ever handled were a mere three-hundred fifty years old, formerly owned by the well-to-do, and even they were crumbling and decaying.