Okay. Now, before we start this one, I want to make it quite clear that there are to be no insults, no personal attacks, no nastiness. Got that?!

On the "Are Books a Threat" thread, there've been a number of posts about the "Threefold Law" and "Rede" etc.

And I want to know what your take on it all is.

I'll give you mine to kick it all off and then it's over to you!

The Threefold Law is a Wiccan construct, and by that I mean that it was invented along with Wicca in the 40's/50's. (I'm giving Gerald Gardner (GG) the benefit of the doubt to some extent because he spent some time dreaming it all up, hence the 40's/50's timeline). Now. Gerald was a man who I'm not really prepared to mock, because, let's face it, anyone who can manufacture a religion and, within 50/60 years have that religion globally followed, copied, bastardised etc, deserves a place in history. That he was flawed and that his sources were, shall we say, less than authentically historic, is almost by-the-by. Credit where it's due.

But. If we look at the sources he based Wicca from, there's everything from the Masons, to Lord of the Rings. With a hefty dose of Frazer and Murray en route. And the bits that he didn't source, he made up. And why not.

And one of the bits he made up was the Threefold Law. Doreen Valiente, Gardner's most famous initiate and prolific author and Wiccan, admits this. She herself, a scholar, found no history of it. She came to the conclusion that GG made it up. She herself, I might add, has no truck with it.

At the time, if you think about it, the 40s and 50's were a time of huge upheaval, and so at times like that people like to anchor themselves to something safe. Something reassuring - a bit like when you're ill and you want your mum. You want comfort food and an old film on telly. Something safe. So at the time, Wicca was emerging and it must have terrified society which hadn't really got rid of the idea that witches were bad, occult was scary, and anyone involved must be bad. Wicked. So the threefold law was invented as a countermeasure. Though these weird people might celebrate rites naked, though they may see the Divine as female as well as male, they are handicapped from doing anything evil by the Rule of Three.

It was Karma with knobs on. Intended to almost say to fearful christians - hey, if you do wrong you get punished once. If WE do wrong, it comes back on us THREE TIMES as bad!!

Do I believe in it then? No. Not just because I'm not a Wiccan. Not just because it's made up (though it is very laudable I grant you). But because I believe that simply by being alive I'm harming someone or something. Because I believe that if someone does me or mine harm, I WILL exact whatever retribution I am able to. Which includes hexing. If I can (mis)quote the estimable Doreen Valiente again, she commented that "if someone does harm to someone you love, you find two friends, call yourselves Fold 1, Fold 2, and Fold 3, and go and visit the wrongdoer!"

I practise tooth and claw paganism. And that's why the threefold law doesn't hold any water.






Your turn!!!

If more people took more notice of Doreen Valiente than Gardner, the w/Wiccan world would be a better place.

I don't believe in the law of three, I do believe that you must be prepared to accept the consquences if you harm someone or something else and part of those consequences may take the form of your own harm bouncing back at you. Whether its 10% as bad as the original or 1000%, who knows. Its an infinite variable and none of can say for sure what influences that.

There was a time when I would have wholly subscribed to 3fold law and it harm none etc etc etc. But I'm older and wiser now. Also I've learnt because I love peace and loathe war does not mean I have to hate fighting for whats right and battling to protect me and mine. These things are not mutually incompatible.

I very much agree with you there. Doreen Valiente's books are excellent, and yet for someone ragarded as the Mother of Wicca, she believed in and carried out hexing, which is totally opposite to the Rule of Three and the niceties that brings with it and implies. After all a rule of three implies that if we do bad, it'll come back on us three times worse. errr, why? Same applies to if we do good, it'll come back on us three times better, the best example is that of being nice for folk and holding the door open for them, how many actually thank you or notice you? How many actually bump into you whilst you're holding that door open for them nicely and don't even apologise either. I believe in doing good for others, but I don't expect to get it back three fold, that's just plain greedy

I should also make it clear that I certainly respect Gardner and what he did, but have little respect for those who make a mockery of his work, with rubbish like Blue Wicca, Power Wicca, I mean what the f...?

I started out believing wholly in the three fold law, harm none and wiccan rede. Then further along the path the confusion started because it is impossible to guarantee that no-one got hurt, utterly impossible within magic or real life. Then I found that the three fold law didn't compute either for me, I take personal responsibilty for my work and actions (both magic and mundane), if I feel the need for some kind of revenge then my Gods, the person will have really asked for it. It ain't kiddy playground behaviour that requires sorting out like that but real serious problems and events.

But Pomona

Excellent description though And great thread missus

I'm not too sure if I really ought to get into this, I seem to have ruffled some feathers in the other post, also my family arent too happy me being in a forum or posting now Ive asked them about the beliefs and practices that have been passed down for goodness knows how long amongst us - I know my family were using the words "harm to none..so may it be" and "ground out negativity directed at me..and return it to the sender times three" in spells/rituals (whatever you would like to call them) well before the date wicca was invented, my great aunt is now 83 and learned from her grandfather from around the age of 5 apparently, her grandfather learned from his grandmother - so perhaps some mathematician can hazard a guess when?! She is determined that no way are her beliefs wicca and that they definitely pre-date wicca, and I discovered she has some rather uncomplimentary views about GG and his peers etc!

I dont think the old ways Ive learned have a category or they can be neatly pigeon-holed into a formal description, or at least Ive never thought of them as doing so, simply a respect and love of nature with other things thrown in which include healing.

I confess I dont know a lot about GG as the only book I read about wicca seemed to be such an artificial way of doing things I put it down before I finished reading it (maybe a mistake). It obviously suits some but my ways are very simple.

However I do know absolutely and utterly that the phrases I mentioned above were in use among my family well before GG invented wicca!

When I first started out I read about the Rede and the 3 fold law and I thought it was an admirable concept and I tried to live up to it. However my path diverged from Wicca pretty soon after and I thought about it and realised where it went was not where I was going and said a swift goodbye.

However (yes you are getting my life story here ) as time went by I have reconsidered my stance and this is how it, er, stands now:

I feel the Rede is a very good peice of advice and something of a guide. However I feel on a personal day by day level it can only be a guide. Unless we all get like that new Bhudda wannabe and stop eating and drinking we are going to hurt something just to live (I have my views about the taking of life animal and vegetable life for food which I won't go into here).

So I see it as a guide, something to aim for but if some bugger kicks me in the shins they'er gonna get something back!

Now the 3 fold law is a little harder to analyse, mainly coz people shift the boundaries when you query it.

Now I have all my life given to charity, to Christian charities, to local charities, to national ones and to big TV appeals. In all the time when I had money I freely gave it to good causes. So why, now when I am living on benefits do I not receive some of this back, I don't even care if its 1 times over but do I get anything, do I win any 'free' prize draws, do I gat approached by some rich eccentric and given a bag of cash - NO!!

In fact I'm lucky if I find a penny on the street, which itself is no comfort as I always pass them on to someone more needy, as I feel that is the right thing to do.

So I say why do I not get any goodwill back and I'm told that the return may not be in the same life time- so the boundary is moved. Well as I don't believe in reincarnation (at least in the generally accepted sense) that is no help at all.

And as to doing bad things and getting 3 times as bad back. Well it doesn't seem to have affected many of histories bad guys has it - unless their great great grandson suffers for the 'sins of his (fore)father'. And if its something that you have to subscribe into then kindly remove me from the mailing list.

What I do believe though is that you make your decision and you stick to it. If it blows up then don't try and deny it. Own up to your mistakes as well as your successes and try to learn by them.

Of course there are cases where doing a bad deeed, by intention or not, can result in a less than welcome pay back, but this does not automatically make a hard and fast rule.

So for me the Rede is an ideal but not a regulation and the 3 fold law is an occaisional act of coincidence and not set in stone. And as far as I'm concerned they are both just Gardner's idea of good PR for his new religion.

Kev

It should be plain common sense to think carefully about any significant actions you plan to take and their possible consequences before going ahead with them, whether mundane or magical.

zafeira, I don't know if the book you read was " Witchcraft Today " by Gerald Gardner. If not then maybe try reading it because at least then you would be forming your own opinion on the man and his work from source. I did find this website http://www.geraldgardner.com/index/main.shtml but it does not appear to have been updated within the last 2 years.

I want to make it clear although I also have some pretty uncomplimentary views/feelings about GG ( and yet conversely nothing but respect for Doreen Valiente ) its not because he invented so much stuff and passed it on as holy writ from centuries past that I don't believe in or subscribe to the rede, its just to me purely untenable and unworkable.

I most certainly will LadyCatCrimson, I joined this and other forums to learn as I felt I wanted to broaden my outlook further. I will too look for some Doreen Valiente publications (perhaps there are some that either you or the other posters could recommend?).

Having learned most of what I know about the old ways from my close family I realise how little I understand of other beliefs. We certainly were brought up being expected to carefully consider our actions and words and what effect they might have on others.

Nothing wrong with learning from your family what I mostly learnt from mine was that I must have been dropped from a silver spaceship at birth and just landed upon them

I personally enjoyed " Natural Magic " out of the Doreen Valiente books I have read. It's probably the one thats most " like me ". " Witccraft for Tommorrow " is probably one of her more wellknown ones even if the Tommorrow is now yesterday but a decent insight into her as a person I think.

Oh definately Natural Magic Absolutely wonderful book

Heh, its funny because, for some reason I had it in my head as Practical Magic, which is actually Marian Green, but knew it wasnt quite right ... so I did a search on Amazon to get the right title .... there was some guy reviewing Natural Magic & giving it a right slagging because it was " messy " and " unsubstantiated " customs and folklore and didnt have lots of nice little anal parcelled up spells and rules and regulations, for this he denounced her as being ignorant, I thought - dude, you haven't got a f***ing clue have you

I'm signed up (mostly) to the three fold rule, years ago I did a really bad thing and paid a very heavy price for it (and still am) so for me it kinda worked. On the plus side I wouldn't have spoken to my first spirits without the thing happening so may be I was destined to ... oh bugger it's getting confusing.

For me I think that if I do something bad I expect three times worse back (doesn't always stop me though) and it usually happens. I am reevaluation my 'path' after a recent brain fart and the points that were raised so I'll say to finish, that at the moment I belive in it but I'm open to corruption.


Oh Natural Magik by Dooreen is a great book, just reread it


BB

Moonwolf

thanks very much I will see if I can get a copy, its pay day Thursday so will be feeling rich for a while!

Learning from my family was and is wonderful and the traditions and beliefs go back a very long way as Ive already said, I doubt very much if the core of beliefs I learned will ever change much but I really do want to open my eyes to the ways others think, I certainly didnt realise how diversified the pagan beliefs were. Its great too to be able to phone my older relatives from time to time to ask how it was in their day when I find conflicting information on web sites where so far I have mostly been looking for the information.

Strangely enough last night I started reading The Triumph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton (no real reason except I'm reading anything and everything about pagan beliefs at the moment), its not the easiest of reads but I thought of Pomona's statement "And one of the bits he made up was the Threefold Law. Doreen Valiente, Gardner's most famous initiate and prolific author and Wiccan, admits this. She herself, a scholar, found no history of it. She came to the conclusion that GG made it up. She herself, I might add, has no truck with it. " when I read a passage saying just because no history could be found of a certain practice or belief it didnt mean it wasnt true or didnt happen - I'll have to wade through it again and see if I can find the exact words he used and in what context.

Oh well, I have the joy of cleaning the oven this morning - I think thats something I must add to the thread asking what I would like to be able to twitch my nose and do like Samantha in Bewitched, come to think of it I think all the housework might come under that wish!!

Oh, absolutely, I mean, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BUT... (you knew that there would be one didn't you?! ) evidence does help. And even a shred of evidence pointing towards a threefold karmic return would be better than nothing. The only "threefold" thing kicking around seems to be the Frazer and Murray insistence on a triple goddess etc - which there seems to be decidedly no historical evidence for. But that's another thread I think!

Can I ask, those of you who DO adhere to the "rule of three" - how do you make it work? I ask as an honest unbeliever - I can't believe that I can get through a day without harming someone/something - not intentionally (well, mostly ) but inadvertantly. I'll kill flies on the way to work when I drive, emitting toxic fumes aggravating the lung problems of a pedestrian. It's a silly example but I can't see any way around harming "none". And how far do you take it? I mean, I'm an animist, I believe that everything has a spirit - and that includes the meat and veg and fruit I eat. Causing harm. And that's just the inadvertant stuff.

How'd you work around stuff like that?

Dunno really, I mean to avoid doing all of that you'd have to kill yourself wouldn't you? But then you'd cause hurt and pain to your friends and family, use up solid fuels when they cremate you and pollute the atmosphere, or you'd have to be buried in the ground in an unbleached cotton shroud with no non-native flowers brought into that area as well. But then a worm might get hurt when the graves dug See what I mean? There's just no escaping the three fold law

Surely it only refers to not harming other human beings? I can't possibly see how else it would be workable.

I have to defend Gerald Gardiner, not only because I first learned from Gardinerian books but because of a special Samhain connection I experienced. But, when it comes to the 3 fold law I've always felt it was very Christian (or Xtian) based. Lots of wiccan teaching is based on church teaching. Most rituals were influenced by Catholic and Anglican pomp and circumstance complete with robes, bells, whips and cords, chalices and "breaking of the bread". This was a safe way of making ritual and ceremony work, but I think we (witches and wiccans) have all come a very long way in development and so for the "old ways" we are finding new ways to develop without using church-like things and that includes the 3Fold Law.

We have to develop into people who are honest with themselves and others. In my opinion, that includes realising you sometimes are hurt and sometimes hurt others. That isn't necessarily bad, wrong or unavoidable - its unpleasant but it is life (taking into account moderation of course).

What has bothered me and a few Druids I know is the new action used in ritual where people touch their heads, mouths and hearts. This is definitely Catholic practice and as a Druid said, "Don't they know that in effect what they are doing is shutting down their chakaras"!

I know we can all develop - so why not allow ourselves to do so in our new found understanding of the "old ways". Maybe the 3Fold Law has to go, and it could be wonderful finding something new in its place.

Blessings

trw

Yes I understand the way of thought of just because someone made it up doesn't mean you can't use it or its null and void. Otherwise that would wipe off the map a whole lot of stuff, including chaos magic ( well according to my limited understanding of it ) I dislike those that pretend something comes from somewhere else and make grandiose statements about it tho.

I do have some thoughts about threefold aspects of deities that arent Golden Dawnesque but can't clear the mental fog about where I got them from right now.

And banringwanderer, you have hit the nail right on the head about what made me draw away from wicca after an initial teenage interest in it. Its all too church for me. I like to be free.

Wot Pomona said, innit.

I think it is a nice ideal, and worth at least striving for. but it is unrealistic and unworkable.


in my family the ethic was always that you put the ones you care about before all others.

has to be said though, my nans always been a bit trigger happy with the hexcraft.

When I first started on my path I was reading alot of Wicca stuff, but the three fold Law and rede never really sat right with me, As has been said I found it to be an unatainable ideal. There is no way to really live by it succesfully.

The reason I drifted from Wicca to where I am now, (lol where is that ?!?) was as has been said already, I found it too confining and too formal.

It is a nice idea if everything is love and light, but honestly, I always thought the three fold law and harm none was a philosophic thought on taking responsibility.

If people don't think they are going to get 'caught' or won't get 'punished' for something they did, then there is no reason not to do it. I saw it as a warning to be careful and to understand what you are doing. I would never subscribe to it though because sometimes wars are necessary, if only for defense, and sometimes one has to kill another human, also for defense. It just doesn't work in real life or in magic IMHO.

I very much go with Galena.

I'm sure if taken to extremes it is unworkable (despite some buddhist? sect that wears face masks in case they should inadvertantly swallow an insect).

To me personally it means trying not to do harm to anyone by word or deed as best I can, thinking before I act and taking responsibility for my actions - my family only really looked upon it as meaning humans but somewhere along my path I felt it should be extended to meaning not to kill or harm animals etc too, therefore I am vegetarian and the butter and animal related products I eat are from organic farms - even in my garden I try every means possible to deter pests before killing them.

That sounds awful when in print, I can feel lots of peeps cringing, but thats the way I am so sorry folks if youre wanting to scream or strangle me!

Far from it, I'm interested! And I really hope you don't think I'm picking on you, it's just that you're raising issues I'd like to explore further

I used to be vegetarian. For, ooh, about 15 years. And even now, years later (I'm still very young you know! ) I can do without meat, I don't HAVE to have it. I also try and eat veg that I've grown myself or that is locally produced. I try, wherever I can, to eat meat that's been organically, ethically reared. Which means that meat's not often on the menu as it's so damn expensive when it's like that! But I'm realistic to know that there are so many non-edible products which are animal based that I CAN'T claim to be totally innocent.

Likewise the other contentious topic, vivisection. And it pains me to even type the word, I get so upset at the thought of what is done. BUT - I wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for that.

Where am I going with this? Where AM I going with this?! Okay. I don't think, personally, that paganism is limited to humanity. Christianity decrees that Yaweh created everything and everyone and that man has dominion, ownership over every other non-human living thing. Whereas for me (I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just my view) that a huge part of paganism is pantheism. A belief that EVERYTHING has a spark of divine spirit and therefore worthy of consideration and care. Not just human beings. Everything I do that keeps me alive necessitates a sacrifice on the part of another divine spark.

And THAT'S why I believe the Harm None is unworkable.

What Zafeira said earlier about the 'three times three' curse reminded me of something. I know what it was, it was the three witches' curse scene in 'Macbeth' - they used a number to potentise their spell, 'double double toil and trouble'. I can understand numbers having an effect within a spell.

If everything everybody did returned threefold, we'd be so busy being on the receiving end of things we'd have no chance to do anything at all!

I do accept the possibility of karma, as it is part of the anthroposophical system of knowledge that Rudolph Steiner put out. But in anthroposophy, I don't think it is a sense that every single thing you do will come back at you. There is an idea that after you die you go into a state in which you review your life and experience everything from the other person's point of view. Having felt the consequences of what you did, you then make decisions about whether you want to reincarnate into a situation where you will feel it and be able to learn from it.

So if you beat your child in the mistaken belief that it was a good thing to do, you might decide you needed the experience of being beaten as a child in your next life, in order to remove this tendency from your makeup. If that makes any sense at all. On the other hand, if you stabbed a torturer to death, this doesn't mean that you need to be stabbed to death yourself in order to evolve further. Preventing torture from taking place is already the action of an evolved being.

As for 'harm none', doesn't it all depend how you define 'harm'? Did my mother harm me by criticising me so much, or did she help me by giving me the chance to work with the issue of criticism?

"and harm none" is an ideal.

As with many ideals we fail to meet them, but who can say that it's a bad ideal?

Does failure to meet an ideal make that ideal invalid?

I don't believe that it does, I do believe though that we have to accept that we're not perfect and that others are equally imperfect.

We therefore also have to accept that many good ideals will not be met by ourselves and others.

Those ideals though are no less valid for that.

I'm no great fan of "Wicca" but I really can't knock the ideal of; "and harm none".

Well put Dave, I've missed your insights of late.

Kev

For me, I think that "live honourably" would cover how I view things.

No I dont think you're picking on me at all Pomona, I came on to this forum to learn from others' wisdom and share my beliefs if anyone wanted to know about them, this is exactly the sort of discussion that is thought provoking and from it I hope to learn and perhaps go a little further along my path, you are raising some very good points.

Along with being vegetarian I avoid as many non-edible products which are animal based as I can (leather for instance), within my beliefs I do the best I can and strive to improve and learn, personally I dont think we can do more within any faith or set of beliefs than doing our best. Where vivisection is concerned I avoid as many things that unnecessarily use animals for testing, again its not realistic to avoid everything, particularly where medical research is involved but I would buy (say) soap thats not been tested on animals in preference to some that has. I suppose this could be taken further by saying if I am using a petro-chemical product I must be harming some species somewhere because of global warming which of course does cause a bit of a dilemma. Basically I do my best to do as little harm as possible - it is not (in my opionion) possible to live life without harming anything but feel I should try to limit the amount I am doing. My family only really hold the opinion that it relates to people and I think these particular values have come to me by drifting around buddhism for a while.

Julai's post about karma is very similar to something I lean towards, this may sound strange but I believe in reincarnation but dont know that it happens, until I know rather than believe then that philosophy has to sort of sit on the sidelines, until I am more sure either way (by that I dont mean have physical proof but know in my mind).

Having read all the posts several times I am wondering if 'harm none' and the threefold rule are not actually totally different things rather than being part of the whole, I'm fairly convinced the wording after all nanna's rituals/spells regarding harm none were meaning that no unintentional harm should come to anyone as a consequence of her spell - for instance doing a spell to bring grandfather safely home from the war wouldnt be at the expense of someone else dying, that sort of thing.

Ive certainly been made to think a lot and really examine my beliefs by the discussion so far and this is the conculsion I think I have come to........ My beliefs are that as far as possible I should harm no person or animal, I should not chop down a tree or take off branches without a good reason, I should not destroy or damage any living thing if I can avoid doing so (I do have to eat but I give thanks for/to the plants when I cut them from my garden etc), I dont believe that if I do something my goodness or badness will be returned to me 3 times over but I do believe that I should take responsibility for my actions and again do no harm where possible. The reference I made above regarding "ground out negativity directed at me...and return it to the sender times three" was part of a spell nanna used - not a general statement about the threefold rule, sorry if it looked that way.

I like Dave's definitions and thoughts too, I wish I could put my thoughts down so easily without rambling so much

Well said.



Hey, no need to apologise, this was a topic I was interested in exploring It's interesting though, that sometimes a chant or a spell can have a line in it that you just recite out of habit without really thinking about what it actually means. Or maybe it's just me - I know I can be too pedantic sometimes and worry about every nuance and connotation...

It's turned into a good discussion though

As you so rightly say its possible to recite something without thinking about it simply because its the way it was taught to you or its been in the family for years. Ive always assumed the spells/rituals are in verse as it would have made them easier to remember during the times when not everyone could read and write (or for that matter the times when no ordinary person could) but being in verse its a lot easier to simply chant them without having to think what they really mean. I find very often I dont use the rhyming spells/rituals I was taught but my words come from the heart, I feel they are more effective that way.

Yes excellent discussion

I've always thought it was a crock. I can accept that what goes around comes around, but the three times over part has always struck me as moral scaremongering, bribing people to be nice and scaring them off being vile.

Three Fold Law, twaddle, it is an ideal, which is quite nice actually and if it makes someone who is preforming magic think a little bit more about what they are doing rather than just firing off spells, well, so to speak, then fine. Probably a very good "law" to impose on novice magicians/witches etc until they are more experienced and have a good understanding of the theory as well as practise. Especially with the advent of so much occult knowledge becoming more avialable that many are now self taught.

However, it is a totally unquantifiable concept, how on earth can the return be measured against what was sent out, what would be the equation, what force are you measuring exactly. Of course its semantics, on the most basic level what this law is really saying is "Think about the consequences". So, I do think the concept is laudable, I just think the delivery of that concept is twaddle. (My new favourite word at the moment, "Twaddle" hehehe.)

Harm None, exactly same as above, brilliant concept, delivery is twaddle, however, that's not to say the ideal behind the wording isn't something to strive for.

For me, good concepts to embrace when learning and stll new, yet as experience takes over and you slowly carve out your own flavour of magic, paganism, and how your morality fits within all, then you naturally begin to regulate yourself.

As a novice there are some spells I would not bat an eyelid at casting, except I was vaguely wiccan in flavour and felt hesistant. And while travelling, there were a couple of times I came very close to casting spells which i talked myself around to being ok. Yet as I sat there, about to begin, I couldn't ignore my experience, I couldn't ignore that I knew what I was going to do was wrong.

My head is no longer turned with hairy fairy thoughts of what I can achieve with magic, not because I think its crock, but because I know it works, and that knowlege, more than any type of law made up, encourages me to truly think about what I am doing.

So experience is my morality.

I take much of the material I've read on witchcraft, paganism, Wicca et al on board, but like the Bible a lot of it has needed paring down and maybe a little allegorical interpretation to suit me. While I understand that a lot of people find it easier to follow a book to the letter, I'm too much of a fan of the "this works, this doesn't" approach. I've never been uncertain of my path enough to need (faux) historical or literary sources to prove to myself I'm "genuine". If it strikes a chord, I'll use it, if it doesn't I'll ignore it.

"An it harm none...", as many people have already said, is a great ideal to aspire to. You might not ever achieve it, but it makes you stop and think before you do anything, who MIGHT be harmed, and how could that be avoided?

The Rule of Three was something I accepted when I was much younger, but now I read it as being similar to Karmic Law or the threat of Hell...something to keep you in line while you're developing your own moral code. Now I'm big and ugly enough to be comfortable with the idea that there is no "law" to any of the bad things that happen in the world; there are people out there who are total s**ts and never get the slightest retribution for any of it.

BUT...

I don't choose to behave like a swine to people because I think cruel and thoughtless treatment of people is wrong.

On the subject of the rede, I've always seen it as a exhortation to examine one's actions, for instance; If a man ran amok in a shopping centre shooting people with a high power rifle, it would be necessary to use force probabaly leathal force to stop him.

The problem is if you shoot him, you harm him, if you don't you allow harm to come to others. And taking the Rede at face value then your damned if you do and damned if you don't. Personnally I believe that the right thing to do would be to shoot the gunman, perhaps killing him, because this way the harm done would hopefully be minimised.

I therefore understand 'if it harms none' to be an ideal to be asspired to, whilst the reality is that all we can do is to minimise the 'footprint' of harm we all cause just through living our lives (ie. CO2 emmissions fro having to drive to work).

Thoughts?

I like the minimising the footprint of harm idea, makes good sense. I used to believe wholeheartedly in the rule of 3, back in the days when I didn't question anything, and just embraced everything I read as gospel. But that was a loooong time ago, and like most other people who've expressed an opinion on here, there came a point when I came to terms with the fact it was doo doo. As more than 1 person has said, how on earth would it be quantifable?
But, I don't think it's a bad ideal to aspire to in some ways, especially for beginners, Very pretty much summed it up for me. It kept me in check when I was young and impulsive. Now I don't need telling or a yard stick for my behaviour, if someone deserves a metaphorical slap then I'll give it (metaphorically!) and cope with the consequences if there are any. It's a hard world and you can't be too soft or you'll get eaten alive!

I have had a lot of thoughts about this one, and in my current philosophy i get:-

Do no harm....
for the sake of simply benefitting yourself, or without care of the consequences or because you have acted without thought about the consequences.

Threefold return.
only works if there is a Khamic jury, but, if you are reasonably non-psychopathic person at some point in your life, if you have acted iresponsibly and caused unecessary hurt,

You will regret what you have done.
Strike one.

You will need/want to atone for what you have done.
Strike two.

The person/object of the harm may have recovered/forgotten but you will still know you could have done better
Strike three.

Just a thought.

I think the Wiccan Rede was only intoduced to make Wiccans feel "responsible"for their actions and can't possibly applied in the real world, not only because it's unpractical but because people on the whole manupulate the meaning of their religion to their own advantage (or simply just ignore it). For example, the Bible clearly states that it is against God's law to kill another man but that doesn't stop Georgey boy from sending his troops all over the middle-east to wipe out anything that moves, yet in his mind he is saving the world from terror. Do you think that if a Wiccan was at the head of the table that thing's would be any different? If a job needed to be done where harm would come to some but would benefit others I'm sure the Wiccan Rede could be manipulated to suit the person's needs at the time.

I think something like "Respect all life" would be a more appropriate thing for people to adhere to.

I agree with those who've said they believe the Threefold Law was created as a way to reassure the masses that Wiccans aren't going to be casting any nasty spells on them.

I also think it doesn't sound natural. Who was it that stated that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"? It doesn't seem sensible to think that the energy you send out not only comes back to you, but comes back magnified three times.

Finally, I really don't like to read websites, or hear people talking about the Wiccan Rede / Threefold Law when they say that because of it Wiccans aren't allowed to do any harm, or that Wiccans are motivated to only do good things. How insulting! The reason I don't magickally or mundanely harm another is because I don't want to. I can decide for myself what constitues a moral action, and I don't need motivation to behave in an ethical manner.

I think that the only way that energy can be seen as coming back to you is through the idea that if you're a negative person you'll experience more negativity yourself; through putting yourself in a position where that's more likely to happen, or just because you see things in a negative light, so you don't appreciate the positive things.

I love it when people tell me that I should adhere to the wiccan rede or threefold law & I simply point out that although I am a witch, I'm not wiccan, it doesn't half leave them stumped Then point out that most wiccans don't adhere to it either, you completely confuse them that way

Dear Pomona,

"Can I ask, those of you who DO adhere to the "rule of three" - how do you make it work? I ask as an honest unbeliever - I can't believe that I can get through a day without harming someone/something - not intentionally (well, mostly ) but inadvertantly. "

My understanding on the Threefold Law is that it's simply a reminder that actions have consequences, and best be prepared to deal with them. In my experience within Wicca, there are no 'laws' in the sense that word is normally used, and any statement made by earlier Wiccans needs to be thought over, weighed up in the light of your own experience, and assessed accordingly. That a lot of Wiccan 'sayings' contain large elements of paradox actually helps with this. It's an initiatory mystery tradition, not a 'religion of the book'.

I greatly admire and respect both Gardner and Valiente, but neither can or should absolve me or any other Wiccan of the responsibility to think and learn for ourselves. Like other forms of Craft, like other forms of Paganism, Wicca is a pathway to the old Gods and Goddesses which you have to make sense of for yourself along the way.

Interestingly, some of the older Wiccans I know see the threefold law as being speciifically concerned with magical workings and that makes sense. If you truly believe you can curse effectively then it's worth considering that blood on your mind is at least as close to you as blood on your hands, and both will change you in ways you may not expect. The last thing a magician needs is an illlusion of detachment.

"I'll kill flies on the way to work when I drive, emitting toxic fumes aggravating the lung problems of a pedestrian. It's a silly example but I can't see any way around harming "none". And how far do you take it? I mean, I'm an animist, I believe that everything has a spirit - and that includes the meat and veg and fruit I eat. Causing harm. And that's just the inadvertant stuff.

How'd you work around stuff like that?"

By thinking about it, of course. And in doing that, most of the Wiccans I know find it doesn't need working round.

As you know, 'Rede' means counsel or advice, not law. And the first thing the Rede does is make you think about what consequences are shaped by your actions, and what 'harm' actually means. The Rede took its present form from Doreen Valiente, a notably tough lady one of whose more famous sayings was "Forgiveness means nothing unless you've got your foot on the malefactor's neck!". It was approved by Gerald Gardner, a patriotic and decidely non-pacifist Englishman with a lifelong fascination for weaponry. There are two components to every bit of information. What it tells us, or seems to be telling us, and where it comes from. Both need taking into account.

This is obviously a personal answer - there aren't any other kind in Wicca, but many of us find the Rede works just fine as a situational ethic that encourages peaceful outcomes while leaving your hands free for the other kind when there's really no better choice. I think there are two areas of misunderstanding when non-Wiccans talk about the Rede - and yes, the plethora of trashy 'pop-wicca' books is probably largely to blame for this.

The first concerns the focus and limits of responsibility. To a Christian mindset, ethical choices are about what you as an individual - a separate soul adrift in a 'fallen' world where you do not really belong - do in the sight of your God. Choices are right or wrong according to whether they accord with the revealed Divine will or not. As a Wiccan, I simply don't see the issue in that way. I'm a very small part of a vast, very complex, constantly changing, web of life in which everything lives by the death of other living things, and everything dies to feed other living things. This is sacred, this is good. If anyone has a problem with it, it's not so much the Wiccan Rede they are arguing with but life itself, and good luck to them because they'll probably need it. So, the way many of us in the Craft understand the Rede, it is not so much about what an individual does or does not do, as about how that individuals acts or omissions shape the outcomes of the situations they are part of.

The second concerns the nature of harm. Like most Wiccans I've discussed this with, I see myself as a part of nature and cannot imagine why anyone would think the normal operations of the web of life, including predation and defence, could be considered harmful. Some Wiccans are vegetarian or vegan. Some Wiccans raise animals for food or do a bit of hunting, most are somewhere in between, and you can justify all of these under the Rede as individual choices. If you are doing what nature and the Gods made you to do, it cannot be harm in any meaningful sense.

I respect your animist viewpoint, Pomona, as I've learned to respect your approach in general. I too believe everything has its own spirit, but see all spirits as part of the same web of being that we see, through other eyes, as the food chains and recycling processes of nature. If I pull an apple off its tree and eat it, I'm feeding myself and helping to spread the apple seed. If I catch a pigeon and eat it, I'm feeding myself and helping its kin survive as predation controls numbers much more kindly than starvation. The apple, the pigeon, and the old bearded git are in one sense each an individual object, but in a much deeper sense transitory parts of the web of life, with the same life flowing through all of us, and only doing what we are for. One day I in my turn will be earth for the roots of apple trees, and food for pigeons, and so it - and we - go on. To argue that this is harm is to argue that it is somehow wrong for life to live off life so that life can go on, and thus challenge the very foundations of reality. Wicca is pretty laid-back most of the time, I doubt we're that ambitious!

Moving on to interpersonal ethics, please consider this. Is a dead murderer or rapist more or less harmful to society than a live murderer or rapist? How can an individual using force in self-defence to prevent harm to themselves, and to prevent harm to society, be considered to be acting harmfully? A thwarted, violent, criminal might think so of course, but what weight should be given to that? Must we consider only the individual factors and ignore what they add up to? I'm not saying that this kind of understanding is the only way the Rede can be interpreted, there are many ways in which it can be understood, but as far as my experience goes it is the way a lot of Wiccans actually do think. And if it's not presumptuous to say so, likely the way both Valiente and Gardner thought.

I confess it was something of a shock when I first met Pagans who thought all Wiccans were ethereally detached, naive, folk who feltl guilty about their own lymphocytes chomping poor, innocent, bacteria. Fair enough, I could not deny that there might be more than one or two that are like that, but they are hardly representative of the Wiccan branch of the Craft. And personally, I'd rather be around folk who are too gentle to get by without others help, than folk who see other human beings as prey.

The Rede and the Three Fold Law are not there to tell Wiccans what to do. They are there to make us who are Wiccans think about what we do, and do not do. They're situational ethics, and if we shoogled a few words around they'd be pretty much what any humane but practical person could live by. Folk wanting clear, explicit, rules on how to live their lives might be better seeking them elsewhere.

Sorry. That was a bit of a rant - but where's the harm in that?

BB,

John Macintyre

Hi ThebanRingWanderer,

"Lots of wiccan teaching is based on church teaching. Most rituals were influenced by Catholic and Anglican pomp and circumstance complete with robes, bells, whips and cords, chalices and "breaking of the bread". "

Wow! Your Anglicans & Catholics down there must be real live-wires compared to the Kirk and the Catholics up here!! I've been to quite a few church services in my time and the similarities with Wicca completely escaped me. No one took their clothes off, no one danced or drummed, no one worked magic, no one called on, let alone invoked, the Gods and Goddesses, and sexual symbolism was notably absent. They didn't stand in a circle, and it's only relatively recently they've allowed priestesses to preside. Should I have been looking more closely?

And what do robes have to do with Wicca?

Fair enough, I realise that at their holy communion ceremonies, they drink wine and eat bread - but wine and bread have been around a lot longer than the Church. Sharing food and drink is a very common feature of nearly everybody's religion.

If you mean that many elements of religious practice are found in ancient Pagan rituals, Christian rituals, and modern Pagan rituals then I'm in complete agreement with you - but why single out Wicca?

BB,

John Macintyre