Are you a good witch or a bad witch?

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:20 pm

This thread was originally part of my discussion of Levander's Sinister Forces but got pretty far off topic so I introduce it here. I make some generalizations about how people on this site use the term "witchcraft" and I'm really talking out of my ass here. I've seen such generalizations on this site, but I have no real idea how predominant they may be, so apologies in advance for stereotyping. I will have to make yet another apology to my wife for reading this book, as I did with Dave McGowan's book, Programmed to Kill. It's not the content, per se, but the characterization of all this stuff as "witchcraft". Without having read the book, I really can't say how this comes out in Levenda's book but it comes up in McGowan's book and on this site so I wanted to make a brief statement about that. My wife is a "pagan." Neo-paganism is a growing movement of those seeking spirituality who are alienated from the Christian church. Their focus is that the most direct representation of the divine is nature itself...and will metaphorize (it's my post...I can make up words if I want to!)or spiritualize these forces as gods or goddesses...but at heart will usually suggest that all the "gods" are simply representative forms of a deeper underlying reality. The neo-pagans like to link back to ancient practices, and often want to link back to times for which we have no clear records, and fully acknowledge that they often have to "make it up as they go along". Indeed, paganism tends to have almost as many different forms as practitioners...no orthodoxy at all. This is extremely important to understand. There is no orthodoxy and absolutely no way to enforce any orthodoxy. And then there is Wicca. Wicca, officially started by Gerald Gardner back in the 40's, I think, definitely has some of the connections that make people like the author of this book nervous. I can certainly understand that, as Gardner tracks right back to Crowley, and I believe actually founded an OTO temple before "discovering" Wicca. I say "discovering" because he claimed to have gotten much of it from material handed down secretly among covens for many generations, but I think even Wiccans now acknowledge that he pretty much made it up, combining pagan and folk-pagan beliefs with some Golden Dawn type stuff. So, I understand how people who research this stuff can be concerned. But modern Wicca, like neo-paganism, from what I've seen, really has no central guiding authority of any kind. We have tons of books in our house to "guide" practitioners, and there is simply nothing in those books that equates with Thelemic stuff, say. You might argue that it's just buried deeper down and Wicca was designed to make this stuff more palatable. Maybe that was the intent, but those who seize on it now (whom I know and read, anyway) manifest no "symptoms" of evil, if you will. They hold by Gardner's own credo for wicca "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt." Notice, naturally, the comparison to "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". The harm none business seems significant. They do not all, unfortunately, practice that other Gardner credo which we may summarize, "And ye practice Wicca, you shalt wear no clothes." So no naked covens covorting around my house, I'm afraid. So, I really don't know what underlying currents Gardner and Wicca might have begun with. But I've met many Wiccans and neo-pagans and there is simply nothing they are doing or believing that causes me concern. And with no hierarchy whatsoever, there is really no way they, as a group, could even be manipulated one way or the other... And guess what? No animal sacrifice. My wife, in fact, is a vegetarian. In addition, wicca and neo-paganism have been outlets for those truly lacking other arenas in which to find feminine aspects of the divine. Lord knows (pun intended) they won't find it in Christianity. The feminine elements of the divine and the closeness and reverence for nature are two elements many feel are missing in Christianity that lead them to Wicca. Why do I bring this up? It is the term "witchcraft" in the title of Levander's book and its use on sites like this more generally which is of concern. I think of McGowan's book, which is excellent in parts (and delves into much that Levander's book gets into) but he had a section where he used "confessions" from witch trials to get an understanding of occult practices. Clearly, as these confessions were elicited under torture, the narratives which emerged probably had much more to do with what these women (primarily) thought the torturers wanted to hear than what they'd actually done. And surely the stories of what "witches do at night" were whispered in every town and village (and probably posted by Inquisitors after trials) that similarities in these accounts could be explained. In a book I have, The Encylopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, (based on lots of contemporary source material) all but one case (I should post about that one case, though...very interesting...the only one in the book which had many of the occult elements we recognize today, contained physical evidence and which involved, unlike most cases, rather prominent citizens) really had characteristics of, "That old lady looked at my cow and then it died, so she's a witch." No standards for evidence at all. So utilizing this testimony is problematic at best. Now, when we use the term "witchcraft" this has an awful lot of baggage. For the church, clearly, any pre-Christian rituals could have easily fallen into this category (those not absorbed into church ritual.) But I sense in much of the writings on this site and elsewhere this adopted worldview that, sure, the Christian church has done some bad things, but pre-Christian beliefs and rituals were all certainly evil and horrifying and any manifestation of those today might as well be lumped into the category "witchcraft" or, worse, "Satanism." Satanism, of course, is a term that depends on Christianity for its very existence and has no value when thinking of pre-Christian paganism. I'm extremely nervous, for example, about what I will find Levander's connections to Native American practices might be but I withhold judgment till I get the book. There's a reason we use the term "witch hunt" to mean hysteria of an ill-defined "other", in which many are unjustly prosecuted. I think there is some real validity, too, to the idea that a very patriarchal system, the church, stamped out any manifestations of spiritual belief or practice which were led by women. What seems to be happening, and not just among fundamentalists, I'm afraid, is that the terms "witchcraft" and "pagan spirituality" and "Satanism" are almost getting used interchangeably. And especially here in the South, where fundamentalists are so prominent, this makes people of non-dominant religions quite nervous. And while sites like this one will certainly not flinch from examining the ill that professed Christians do, Christians per se do not necessarily face the same suspicion as pagans and modern day "witches." I often see significance of different dates as well which "prove"... I don't know what. My wife celebrates Beltane and Samhein and Yule and all sorts of pre-Christian holidays that are simply based on the natural cycles of our planet and many of which were absorbed directly into the church. (This leads to the rather illogical conclusions of certain fundamentalists that many such holidays and symbols such as Christmas trees and the Easter bunny prove that much of the church is actually "Satanic"...except, of course, for their own denomination.) Now I understand that the occult groups who are the creepy/scaries also utilize these dates...so they can have some explanatory value. We just have to make sure that we think in the right directions. "This group is avowedly Satanic, so the actions taken on this particular date are probably ritualistic and symbolic." And not, "Some group does things on a certain date, therefore they are Satanic" Remember, that these pagan holidays preceded any ideas of Satan anyway. So the moral of this disjointed rant is that the use of the term "witchcraft" seems quite loaded to me. It feeds into Christian fundamentalist prejudice and can be manipulated quite easily to mean anything non-Christian (in fact, anything non-fundamentalist Protestant.) And I want people to be careful in using the terms in this way. Personally, I've always believed that the problem with magick, "white" or "black" is that it doesn't actually work. This site (I don't know about the book) suggests that perhaps it does. What I can't get a handle on is whether the majority view here is that all such "magick" is necessarily evil or for ill. On this I can speak with some authority....whether or not it works, there are a growing number of practitioners who practice "magick" for purposes of good and are even warned that harm inflicted through the use of magick will come back to them threefold. So, I'm curious...do the majority of people who read this site who believe that "black magical practices" are at play in the world also believe that "white magick" is possible? Is the practice of "magick" whether not it actually "works" necessarily evil? Do you find yourself automatically assuming that any belief incorporating pre-Christian, pagan elements must inherently be "evil"? Finally, I apologize for logical holes in this rant big enough to drive a truck through. I'm accepting that there are evil occult elements at work in the world, but trying to suggest that some distinctions should be made and I don't think I've done that very well. I also don't know that this even needed to be said on this site as I find most of the posters here to be fairly sophisticated and capable of fine-grained distinctions. But...I done wrote it, so now I'm a gonna post it!

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:26 pm

but Levenda addresses his use of the term on his <a href="http://sinisterforces.info" target="top">Q & A forum</a>: Hmmmm. Where to begin? As mentioned in the book, the inspiration for "Sinister Forces" came from a Watergate-era two-part Village VOICE article entitled "Patriotic Witchcraft" by Craig Karpel. My subtitle is essentially an homage to that, as my title is a reference to the Alexander Haig remark concerning the 18-1/2' gap in Nixon's Oval Office tapes, which was said to have been caused by "sinister forces". As for using the term "witchcraft" and its implications for followers of Wicca and Wicca-based groups, let me take a bit more time to address that (it is also addressed in other places in Sinister Forces, although not in Book One). Wiccans do not own the term "witchcraft," although some would like to think they do. It was in use long before there was a Wicca. My investigation of the available documents shows me that Wicca was a twentieth century creation of Gerald Gardner, a fellow expatriate who lived in Malaya (now Malaysia) and who was something of an expert on the kriss. He and Aleister Crowley put together the first Book of Shadows, as is evident by the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram (taken from the Golden Dawn), the poems by Kipling, the correspondence between Gardner and Crowley, etc. This is not to malign Wicca or Wiccans; it is simply a statement of fact, just as the Ordo Templi Orientis was created by a couple of German occultists in the twentieth century: it is not the actual Knights Templar, but that does not make the OTO any less valid for what it is. We see in the King James version of the Bible the famous citations: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. and Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Were the ancient spellcasters of Biblical times in the Middle East actually Wiccans? I am certain the one would not recognize the other. That doesn't mean I agree with the Biblical injunction about killing witches of any variety! All of that being said, I know a LOT of Wiccans, and have been involved with Wiccans since the late 1960s, and knew Raymond Buckland, Herman Slater, Leo Martello, and many others. The Wiccans I know understand I do not intend to malign them with my usage. They understand that just because a couple of eccentric Brits decided to call their cult "witchcraft" did not mean that no one else could use the term. During the Salem witch trials -- which are examined at length in my book -- the term "witchcraft" was used to describe the activities of Tituba and others in the Salem community. As I describe, and as other historians have pointed out, there were people practicing spell casting and occult rites in Salem at that time. These people did not call themselves Wiccans. They were most probably not Wiccans in the modern sense of the word. Thus, I cannot, in all honesty, refer to the Salem "Wicca" trials. So, if historians and academics are permitted to use the term "witchcraft" in connection with Salem, I believe I should be allowed the same leeway in using the term "witchcraft" when I deliberately modify it with the use of the adjectives "American" and "political". Otherwise, I could have easily used the subtitle: A Book of Shadows of American Political Wicca ... which, of course, I did not do. As for "grimoire," that is a term that has more to do with medeival ceremonial magic than it does with Wicca, so no one should have a problem with that. As for the term "Satan," I am very clear about how that word is used in the Introduction, and I stand behind it. Just as the Wiccans don't own the term "witchcraft," the Church of Satan does not own the term "Satan" which is common to many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the pagan and quasi-pagan sects of the ancient Middle East. I nowhere in Sinister Forces -- or anywhere else,for that matter -- state that witches (or Wiccans) worship Satan. There have been many self-professed "witches," however, who have claimed to worship Satan, as did those of the LaVey's organization. They did not mind the association. Whose point of view should I honor? In my book, I document the cases of occultists who were deeply involved in political action and intelligence operations. These were real occultists, involved in real political conspiracy. Some of them were famous New Age heroes. Their occult beliefs and practices went hand in hand with their intelligence activities. Let's not avoid this chapter of our history because it is important, regardless of who is offended. In my last book, "Unholy Alliance," I document the political activities of Aleister Crowley during both WW I and WW II; in Sinister Forces, I talk about the political involvements of Crowley's disciple, Jack Parsons. There is no way around this data. Granted, Crowley was not a Wiccan ... but he helped Gardner create Wicca. In short, my intention is not to attack or malign the Wicca movement. I do feel I can use the term "witchcraft" in just the way I have, though. It is a reference to the Salem trials, and is also a reference to the Craig Karpel article above-mentioned. The term "witchcraft" was very deliberately used in both cases, with definite meanings and connotations, that had nothing to do with Wicca. My view of "witchcraft" in this context is as a practice subversive of government (which, depending on the government, is not necessarily a bad thing!), as something equating to "rebellion": this may be the rebellion of revolutionaries against the State, of "alternative religionists" against the Church, or of political conspirators against our democratic principles ... or against the tyranny of unlawful government. It is a word that is subject to many meanings, many interpretations, beyond the purely denominational one of the relatively recent Wicca phenomenon. I am clear about my meaning, and I really don't believe that anyone is going to read Sinister Forces and use the book as an excuse to bring the Burning Times back again. They may use it as a tool to examine their political faith more closely, however, and if they do that then I have done my job.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:39 pm

Thanks for the link...I didn't notice the Q and A and had only read his blog. I think that's a fair response. (I'll still have to apologize to my wife though!) And though his response is fair, the conflation of "wicca", "witchcraft" and "satanism" is still done by those with sloppier or more ideologically driven thinking. I'm searching now to see if the book is available locally. I'm curious about your take on my questions at the end. Can "magick" be a force for good? (I'm still to be convinced that magick does anything...but wanted others' take on this.)

by **Seventhsonjr** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:01 pm

I think it is important to look at the word origins and etymology of the words "Wiccan" "Pagan" and "Satan" and "witch" as opposed to the religious or political institutional assignments for these words. "Pagan" Pronunciation: 'pA-g&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix —more at PACT: Main Entry: pact Pronunciation: 'pakt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin pactum, from neuter of pactus, past participle of pacisci to agree, contract; akin to Old English fOn to seize, Latin pax peace, pangere to fix, fasten, Greek pEgnynai Akin also to "Pay" or country. In other words the term pagan refers to the folks who live close to nature and are at peace with the universe. Usually country folks who have to be close to the divine in nature in order to survive and as opposed to those who live in urban and highly structured institutionalized societies. Main Entry: Wic·ca Pronunciation: 'wi-k& Function: noun Etymology: probably from Old English wicca wizard —more at WITCH: Main Entry: [1]witch Pronunciation: 'wich Function: noun Etymology: Middle English wicche, from Old English wicca, masculine, wizard & wicce, feminine, witch; akin to Middle High German wicken to bewitch, Old English wigle divination, and perhaps to Old High German wIh holy Main Entry: [1]wiz·ard Pronunciation: 'wi-z&rd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English wysard, from wis, wys wise 1 : archaic : a wise man : SAGE 2 : one skilled in magic : SORCERER 3 : a very clever or skillful person Main Entry: [1]wise Pronunciation: 'wIz Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English wIse; akin to Old High German wIsa manner, Greek eidos form, idein to see Main Entry: Sa·tan Pronunciation: 'sA-t&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek, from Hebrew s´AtAn adversary devil O.E. deofol "evil spirit," from L.L. diabolus, from Gk. diabolos "accuser, slanderer" (scriptural loan-translation of Heb. satan), from diaballein "to slander, attack," lit. "throw across," from dia- "across, through" + ballein "to throw." Jerome re-introduced Satan in L. bibles, and Eng. translators have used both in different measures. In Vulgate, as in Gk., diabolus and dæmon (see demon) were distinct, but they have merged in Eng. and other Gmc. languages. Playful use for "clever rogue" is from 1601. Meaning "sand spout, dust storm" is from 1835. Devilry is from 1375; deviltry (178<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> is a corrupt formation from it. Devilled "grilled with hot condiments" is from 1800. The Tasmanian devil so called since at least 1829, from its propensity for killing young lambs (other voracious fish or animals have also been named devil). Phrase a devil way (c.1290) was originally an emphatic form of away, but taken by late 14c. as an expression of irritation. Devil's advocate (1760) is L. advocatus diaboli, one whose job it is to urge against the canonization of a candidate for sainthood. Devil-may-care is attested from 1837. Devil's books "playing cards" is from 1729, but the cited quote says they've been called that "time out of mind" (the four of clubs is the devil's bedposts); devil's coach-horse is from 1840, the large rove-beetle, which is defiant when disturbed. "Talk of the Devil, and he's presently at your elbow" [1666]. Aptitude Test. Satan proper name of the supreme evil spirit in Christianity, O.E. Satan, from L.L. Satan (in Vulgate, in O.T. only), from Gk. Satanas, from Heb. satan "adversary, one who plots against another," from satan "to show enmity to, oppose, plot against," from root s-t-n "one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary." In Septuagint (Gk.) usually translated as diabolos "slanderer," lit. "one who throws (something) across" the path of another (see devil), though epiboulos "plotter" is used once. "In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity." [Elaine Pagels, "The Origin of Satan," 1995] Satanic "pertaining to Satan" is first recorded 1667 (in "Paradise Lost"); meaning "diabolical" is from 1793. Satanism "worship of Satan" dates from 1896, with ref. to France, where it was said to be active at that time; Satanist is attested from 1559, applied by their enemies to Protestant sects.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:06 pm

Release date says December 2005. Did you all who have the book get it from his site?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:10 pm

I wish I had more time to get into this - it probably deserves a blog post at some point - but I absolutely do think there is a light side as well as a dark to what we call magick. (Whatever that is.) I'm very fond, for instance, of the work of Dion Fortune, and I think "The Society of Inner Light" she founded is an <a href="http://www.innerlight.org.uk" target="top">interesting example</a> of how Western esoterica can be a force for good. ("Its principle work is the expansion of consciousness into the psychic and spiritual realms, commonly known as 'the inner planes'. This extended experience is not regarded as an end in itself, or a means to personal power or knowledge, but as a way of dedicated service to God and all evolving life.") This runs counter to magick used to accrue power and aggrandize the Self. (When I write of the military-occult complex, it's generally to that brand of magick I'm referring.) Also I should say that people are entitled to walk whichever path they choose, so long as no injury is done to innocents.

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:39 pm

I believe that Carl Jung believed in the power of a collective unconscious. But then, he also had Nazi sympathies and flirted with the occult, if I remember right. Every time I see Jack Parsons name I am reminded of an ancesstress of mine, Mary Bliss Parsons, who was tried for witchcraft about 20 years prior to the Salem trials. I always find it interesting that the group of girls accusing citizens of witchcraft in the Salem incidents were in fact involved in occult-like activities, and the townspeople actually came to them for advice based these practices. Weird logic. <a href="http://www.coryfamsoc.com/resources/articles/witch.htm">www.coryfamsoc.com/resour.../witch.htm</a> "...In the long and bitter winter of 1691-92, some young women and girls at Salem Village had some meetings to learn palmistry and fortune-telling from Tituba. She was skilled in necromancy and various magic arts---perhaps African in origin, perhaps practiced by Indians---and found apt pupils in the children, who soon acquired proficiency in their use. Tituba claimed to know how to discover witches and the children may have read about evidences of witchcraft, but at any rate those impressionable young people soon began to act queerly and have spasms and fits. These sessions apparently fired the imaginations of the girls, several of whom later started performing nightmarish fits and telling tales of witchcraft and of being possessed of evil spirits amongst them in Salem. On 20-Jan-1692, nine-year-old Elizabeth Parris and eleven-year-old Abigail Willams began to exhibit strange behavior, such as blasphemous screaming, convulsive seizures, trance-line states and mysterious spells. Within a short time, several other Salem Girls began to demonstrate similar behavior...."

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 1:46 pm

Quick definitions (Necromancy) noun: conjuring up the dead, especially for prophesying noun: the belief in magical spells that harness occult forces or evil spirits to produce unnatural effects in the world

by **Avalon** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:46 pm

I once saw an astute observation pointing out how most of us with any sense would not take the advice given by random people encountered on the street terribly seriously. So why would we decide that the advice we could get from random dead people would be any better?

by **chiggerbit** » Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:23 pm

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:47 am

And though his response is fair, the conflation of "wicca", "witchcraft" and "satanism" is still done by those with sloppier or more ideologically driven thinking. The sloppiness comes from both sides, particularly in terms of the conflation of “wicca” and “witchcraft”. Fundies of the Christian description use this slippage to equate Wicca to devil worship, whilst Wiccans claim that, because Satan isn’t a part of the Wiccan canon, Satan has no role in witchcraft. Each antagonist equates Wicca and witchcraft, and then comes to opposing (and equally false) conclusions. It feeds into Christian fundamentalist prejudice and can be manipulated quite easily to mean anything non-Christian It was the Christian prohibitions against witchcraft that made the term attractive in the first place. “Witchcraft” was claimed by Gardner because it had cultural currency –it had a subversive mystique that continues to draw converts. Imagine if Wicca was marketed for what it is – “Hi, here is an occult system that was invented by this guy about fifty years ago who was originally a fantasy author who wrote about witches, but then he lied to everyone and pretended he was a real witch, and he started this religion that he pretended was thousands of years old but he it made up yesterday with Alistair Crowley, and then he got to have sex with all these women before they could join. We’ve toned it down a bit now and you don’t have to be naked for rituals anymore.” Instead, it’s “Hi, here is a religion that is the natural and organic evolution of ancient paganism and witchcraft that honors the divine in nature, in women, and in the turn of the seasons.” Take a look at the historical practice of ‘witchcraft’. Wiccans have a Hallmark vision of the village ‘wise woman’ mashing some herbs together, but if you actually read surviving European occult tablets, books and scrolls from the last few thousand years, they are predominantly concerned with necromancy, demonology, and curses. The odd love spell features here and there, but ‘witchcraft’ (in terms of fringe occult practice) usually involved eating a dead baby bird, scratching something about someone you hate onto an iron tablet, and burying it under the full moon. That’s what the writers of the Bible were referring to. And, frankly, who can blame them? As an ex-Wiccan (and practicing non-Christian) I realize that Wicca and paganism are harmless, and that the fundie vitriol is ill-informed, but if you call yourself Darth Vader, the Star Wars fans are likely to think you are up to no good too.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:19 pm

Yeah, I think your "revised marketing plan" wouldn't pull in too many converts! I think, however, we should note that Gardner and everyone who has added their own twists and spins to wicca since, borrow from all kinds of sources and that is where the resonance comes from...Most importantly, there really isn't, as far as I know, any sort of alternative for people wanting to focus on the feminine aspect of the divine. It is the idea of the "goddess" that is most appealing to my wife, and in fact she identifies more as "pagan" than wiccan. The cult of Mary in the Catholic church was and is, I think, a result of worshippers trying to find this feminine aspect of the godhead. I don't mean in the DaVinci code kinda way, I simply mean relating to an aspect of the divine that isn't masculine. But it's not worth it for many people to become Catholic simply to worship Mary. I think also the desire to put nature at the forefront of spirituality is another important aspect. Wicca (don't tell my wife I said this!) is a rather faulty vehicle, but it and scattered and incipient neo-pagan groups are about all that are out there. The nice thing about "nature worship" is that, unlike more abstract concepts of god, your object of veneration is extremely available and accessible. Just step outside your door or head to the nearest park. Some people turn to Native American spirituality looking for some of the same things. This quickly turns, quite often, into a sort of cultural imperialism that I am not comfortable with. If I see another book or talk by a blonde-haired, blue-eyed "medicine man or woman" I think I will puke. People certainly have a right to embrace Native American thought, but it does often end up exploiting that thought and expropriating it for other agendas. So maybe wicca will become subsumed in or give way to a more generalized nature worshipping cult of the goddess. And I do think, in whatever form, that to worship "the goddess" is to partake in a very, very ancient tradition indeed. I think that is a third aspect that attracted people to Wicca. Although discredited now, I still think many wiccans feel they are partaking in an ancient spiritual practice and that sense of history and connection to the past is intoxicating (in a good way). Well, we know that Wicca itself is slightly newer than advertised (ahem) BUT references to various gods and goddesses and holidays that clearly ARE carried down from more ancient times and based on natural cycles are part of Wicca. You don't need Wicca for these, but people who came upon these through Wicca felt nourished and sustained by them. Probably the same deal for modern day "Druids." Druidism wasn't even a religion as far as I can tell, but simply a priestly caste of the British celts, but I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area. But I can relate to the idea of sacred oak trees and sacred springs and spirits of nature. And I am fascinated by how some of these very same trees and springs and even gods and goddesses were subsumed into Christianity (the gods as "saints"). So to want to return to these pre-Christian ideas, especially for those disenchanted with so many aspects of Christianity, makes sense. A lack of written records and overt efforts by the church to distort and erase these ideas from history means that one will have to be somewhat creative in "reproducing" these beliefs. As for calling themselves witches...well, I guess we'd need to know what the term "witch" actually means to know who is most correct in appropriating it. Seventhsonjr suggests it simply means "wise" which I think is the way the modern wiccans think of it. Were those engaged in "necromancy and demonology" calling themselves witches? I don't know. I don't even know what sources to rely on to know anything about what these practices (I'm talking about primarily European practices as that's where the word orginates) were actually like. Did those burying those tablets call themselves "witches" and their work, "witchcraft"? Again, I don't know. And I was under the impression that those who created the more formal magical systems didn't use the term "witch", though I suppose I could be wrong. In any event, it's definitely the goddess aspects of Wicca that my wife is into rather than the elements left from the Golden Dawn.

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:32 pm

> I think, however, we should note that Gardner and everyone who has added their own twists and spins to wicca since, borrow from all kinds of sources and that is where the resonance comes from... “Resonance” usually translates us – “I want this stuff to be real so bad that I’m going to ignore the outright lies and contradictions”. I would be much less skeptical of Wicca if followers were able to honestly appraise the patchwork history of the movement, rather then this constant revisioning and relabelling. Most importantly, there really isn't, as far as I know, any sort of alternative for people wanting to focus on the feminine aspect of the divine. Here's a few. Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism. Confucianism. Taoism. Shintoism. Kemeticism. Asatru. Dodekatheism. I still think many wiccans feel they are partaking in an ancient spiritual practice and that sense of history and connection to the past is intoxicating (in a good way). Which is, as you’ve acknowledged, a mass delusion. Wiccan ritual practice and spiritual practice has nothing to do with pre-Christian religion, as any cursory glance at a classical or historical text will illustrate. It’s particularly odd that Wiccans relabel themselves as “pagans” and throw about the names of old gods to fabricate some sort of spiritual/historical continuity, when pre-Christian European countries such as Greece and Rome had prohibitions against witchcraft, and happily put witches and sorcerers to death. The willingness of millions of Wiccan practitioners to lie to themselves and others about the basic history and nature of their religion gives it a vague cultic milieu. It’s even more concerning that Wiccans are now dropping “Wicca” as a label, now that it has been discredited and lost its mystique, in favour of generic “witch” and “pagan”. It’s typical of cults to cycle through names when they wear the last one out. But to cry foul when Christians point to Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft … prohibitions that have been in place for three thousand years before Wicca as a warning against poisoners and curses-for-hire types … prohibitions that were shared by most of the “pagan” religions that Wicca claims to emulate … it’s all a bit much, don’t you think? Particularly when I’m trying to get raise awareness of child torture and ritual abuse, and I have to swim through self-righteous gothic teenagers and balding middle-aged occultists with a fabricated persecution complex.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:31 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>“Resonance” usually translates us – “I want this stuff to be real so bad that I’m going to ignore the outright lies and contradictions”.<hr></blockquote> LOL...replace "resonance" with "religion" and I think you have a truer statement! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Here's a few. Hinduism. Mahayana Buddhism. Confucianism. Taoism. Shintoism. Kemeticism. Asatru. Dodekatheism. <hr></blockquote> Hinduism definitely has goddesses, but some religions such as Hinduism are so culturally specific that I don't know that many people from outside India convert. Though I'm sure it does happen sometimes. Still, all the priests are men, no? I'm not aware that Buddhism has an emphasis on the feminine, as Buddha was male (the human one), or on nature. It certainly is up there with my favorite religions though (as if anyone could care about that list. Hey, what about Hinayana and Theraveda Buddhism?) Confucianism is right out altogether when it comes to goddess worship, at least from a feminist perspective, more of a worship of traditional social order and ancestors and certainly VERY culturally specific...I can't say anything about Taoism because it is the path that cannot be named. It does seem to come closest, but sadly the Taoist outreach here in the Southeastern US is rather shabby, so wayward wiccans are unlikely to come into contact with it. Shintoism is a little too wrapped up in emperor worship, but it definitely has the nature part down...again, not really something I see reaching out to the West that much (this may be different in Australia.) Remember, it was that these alternatives were not "accessible" that was my point. Never heard of Kemeticism or Asatru and the only 12 God system I can think of is those on Olympus, and I didn't think that was followed much anymore. And I would add to your list the Native American spirituality, which is actually the one most accessible to seekers here. I named my own reservations about that in my last post, though. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It’s typical of cults to cycle through names when they wear the last one out.<hr></blockquote> It's also typical of cults to have a strong central authority...and Wicca has none. I've never met two wiccans who believe the same things or practice in the same way. Sure, it's a hodgepodge, but that really prevents cult-like control. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It’s particularly odd that Wiccans relabel themselves as “pagans” and throw about the names of old gods to fabricate some sort of spiritual/historical continuity, when pre-Christian European countries such as Greece and Rome had prohibitions against witchcraft, and happily put witches and sorcerers to death.<hr></blockquote> I've really lost your point here. "Witches" however you define them, have been burned by all kinds of people. Just because some of those folks were themselves Pagan doesn't really say anything one way or the other about others who choose to call themselves pagan. Christians killed other Christians, too. Yay inquisition. Greece, and particularly Rome used religion as a tool of state (though the mystery cults are perhaps an interesting exception I'd like to know more about). I'm actually not too familiar with Roman persecution of witches or what, in fact, that could even mean since the word witch is Anglo-Saxon in origin. Who, exactly, were they burning? You'll have to educate me some on that point. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But to cry foul when Christians point to Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft … prohibitions that have been in place for three thousand years before Wicca as a warning against poisoners and curses-for-hire types … prohibitions that were shared by most of the “pagan” religions that Wicca claims to emulate … it’s all a bit much, don’t you think?<hr></blockquote> Hmmm...well, I usually hear "witches" say exactly what you said, it wasn't a ban on "witchraft" per se, but on those practicing evils such as poisoning. So please don't use the bible against us. However, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is pretty strong stuff, especially...and listen closely here...SINCE NO ONE EVEN AGREES ON WHAT THE HELL ONE IS! That little ban that you mention led to the deaths of tens of thousands (no, not millions as even witchcraft apologists will now agree, I think) of people. So yeah..I cry foul too. What wiccans and many actually complain about is intolerance from fundamentalists. I live in the Southeast USA...maybe you don't have this where you are...but ANYTHING that is not protestant Christianity is "of the devil" in the view of many of these fundamentalists, including and ESPECIALLY, everything on your list. And, of course, wicca and satan-worshipers are synonyms in their lexicon. Look, we are all searching. We all have such a limited grasp of "the truth" whatever that might even mean that all our sytems fall very short. You can go on criticizing wicca in those harsh terms if you want. I'm not Wiccan and I think Gardner was a whacko...but I respect the search that these folks are on. You didn't name your religion, though you said it was non-Christian, but name it, and I could tear it to shreds as you've attempted to do with Wicca. I can do the same to Christianity in terms of how it got started and how it got twisted. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Particularly when I’m trying to get raise awareness of child torture and ritual abuse, and I have to swim through self-righteous gothic teenagers and balding middle-aged occultists with a fabricated persecution complex.<hr></blockquote> The way is to gather evidence and get it out there. I think our recent case in Louisiana shows that it's the Christian churches that may have more to worry about from your explorations than wicca. And the Catholic church has already shown it has not only skeletons in the closet but skeletons in the bedroom, bathroom, living room and ball room. Despite a wiccan wife, I take these RAT allegations very seriously, though I can't say for sure what it all MEANS in the big picture. I don't think that Wicca is descended from the witches of the burning times, but I don't think that the "demonic conspiracy" or whatever is either. In fact, I think that many (maybe not all) who try to trace this conspiracy in an unbroken line back to Baal or whoever fall into the same problems you are criticizing Wicca for. So I'm not sure why the wiccans are standing in your way, here.

by **chiggerbit** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:08 am

Excellent response, Dream's End, especially to the last quote which did not incite you into a food fight. Food fights tend to generate high emotion, but also tend to only polarize participants.

Are you a good witch or a bad witch?

Are you a good witch or a bad witch?

Don't know if you've seen this,

Thanks for the link

Re: Are you a good witch or a bad witch?

ordering?

yes I believe it can

Re: Thanks for the link

Re: Thanks for the link

Dead can dance (but watch your toes)

Re: Dead can dance (but watch your toes)

Re: Dead can dance (but watch your toes)

Good post, bio

Re: Good post, bio

wicca

Re: wicca

Who is online