This may not be the place for this so I apologise in advance.

Yesterday I was talking with Dave about how we'd both been living as Pagans long before we knew that was the word for it or had looked into Paganism. Much of the basic stuff I learned about when I first started out on my path I thought 'oh, well I've been doing that for years' I make my own way now, I learn from sources and I take what appeals and if I come across something I don't think I need or agree with I leave it. Now, for beginners I found most primer stuff is Wiccan which is a big problem for me as it is very regimented and seems to take the line that 'this is how it's done - don't argue and don't ask awkward questions' There was no room for people who didn't think the Goddess was more important than the God, who didn't like dressing up, who couldn't see why you needed circles and elements called into a space they were already in, who couldn't see a divide between the magical and the mundane, who refuse to add a K where a K don't need to be .

I know that I'm probably doing wicca a disservice, I know that I haven't studied it with depth but I've looked at as much as I can stomach and I can't agree with it. It's not that it's too 'love and light' not all wiccans are that way I know. It's that it doesn't seem to allow for people to find their own truth, you just have to accept what your HP says and that to me flies in the face of everything a witch ought to be. I also have a problem with claims of Traditional Wicca - how traditional is something that was invented in the last century? and why is it better than something that's been done for centuries?

I don't mean to have a go at wiccan here, this is just how I feel and I'm keen to see what others think, especially if wiccans out there can show me better examples than I've found myself.

Well, I'm not wiccan and, like you, I never could be. I can't accept Wiccan methodolodies and beliefs and work with them. However...



Not quite - to my understanding, you enter a Wiccan circle/coven in perfect love and perfect trust. Now this does mean that you accept the teachings of your HP/HPS, but in the same way that you might accept the teachings of anyone more experienced than yourself. You respect their knowledge and leadership skills and allow them to lead you in ritual since they know what they are doing. Admittedly it takes a certain mind set to go even that far, but if you have that mind set then you are doing yourself no disservice by abiding by Wiccan coven rules.

During your training your HP/HPS starts you out with copied sections from their BOS, teaches you certain ways of doing things, certain philosophies and beliefs. But it is a rare teacher of any kind who does not expect and encourage their student to quest for themselves. Everyone I know who has ever trained someone else expects them to ask awkward questions, to challenge what they have been taught, to grow in their own way and not just to parrot what has been spoon-fed to them.



On the whole, its about as valid as any other pagan path. No pagan path has lain undistubed since the dawns of time. There has been constant re-evaluation, incorporation of new beliefs, changes in philosophies, new ideas and the introduction of new leaders and methodologies. Just because Gardner started his path in the 50s does not make it any more valid than any other path started since, its true. But neither does it make it less valid than the ceremonial orders started in the 19th century, or the healing knowledge of the cunning folk who constantly incorporated new ideas alongside traditional cures and spells.

And it doesn't really take that long for something to become traditional - after three years of the same person getting up first on New Years Day, lighting the fires and opening the curtains, it could be said to be a tradition within your family. How long do you think it takes something to be traditional? I wasn't aware there was a time limit...

Traditional Wicca differentiates itself, understandably, from the many 'bastardised' forms of Wicca which have developed since. If you are studying traditional wicca you stick to the teachings and methods of Gardner, Sanders etc. whilst at the same time developing your own methods. But that traditional basis is there. Its no 'better' than any other path in itself, but it is better for those who follow it. Just as Christianity is 'better' to Christians than Islam, though they follow the same God.

Hmmm, well as a Wiccan I was bound to reply eh! I work as a solitary. I do worship the Goddess and the Horned God and they are both important. The circle of life would not continue without them both. I don't always dress up (although I like to) and I don't feel the need to follow certain rules. I couldn't work within a coven because I'm not good with authority. Makes my heckles raise! And I never did like being told what to do by anyone! I also don't follow the Gardnerian beliefs or any other modern thought line. I have similarities, but no religion, spiritual or otherwise, should be strictly guidelined or regimented. I found my path over years of searching and finally being led by the Goddess herself so I know it is right for me. Doesn't make it so for everyone else. After all, we're all different and that's what makes us so wonderful. I'm certainly not all peace and light, although I couldn't say I'm nasty either. I'm human and am embracing what was always there and has taken me 30 years to realise. I am at the beginning of a lifelong path that will see me progress, learn and experience all sorts of things, good and bad. I enjoy ritual and wish I had the energy and time to do more of it more often.
I like spelling magik with a k, so nah nah nah.
Oh and my last casting involved no circle casting!!! Oh the shock! The horror!! I think these things are useful and I have a power base where I'm at my strongest within a cast circle but, again, that's me.
As for the elements, I like to acknowledge their presence and I'm not dismissing them at the end of a ritual, more giving my thanks for thier acknowledging me.
Does that make me odd as a Wiccan? I don't know. Maybe. And I am definitely a beginner in my eyes.
The idea of Gardnerian being called 'traditional', to me is *expletive deleted*. What is traditional anyway?! That's like calling people normal. There's no such thing.
Brightest blessings,
Hugs,
P.
P.S:Think I like typing that out fully too instead my customary BB. We all change and grow.
Edited for my appalling spelling!

I'm interested in Wicca although I don't follow that particular path.
The reason for my interest really stems from the amount of literature out there, it's hard to find a good book on Paganism, but very easy to find terrible books on Wicca (although of course there are great ones out there as well)
Therefore I tend to buy books on Wicca as I do find it interesting and I can extract certain amounts of information from it which I can use in my daily life.

As you've probably gathered; this topic comes about as a result of a conversation that Esk and myself had yesterday.

As Esk has stated, we were both living a pagan lifestyle with basic Pagan beliefs being a part of our lives long before we realised that our beliefs fell under the general title "Pagan".

We were not taught about the deities by any individual but rather combined what we felt in our souls with other information and idea's that we picked up as we went along. I don't believe that it is any co-incidence that our beliefs are pretty much the same as everyone elses here. We mostly knew, through intuition maybe, how the world turns despite in my own case having been indoctrinated with christianity (attempted) into my late teens.

Whilst I appreciate that there is much variation within "wiccan" belief systems and structures, my main issue would be with the very idea of any kind of Hierarchy within pagan belief and practice, especially if that hierarchy is based on a modern interpretation of what Pagans should or shouldn't be and be doing to express their beliefs.

I tend very much towards green craft and as such do not see how the individuality that seems to have always been a part of greenwitchcraft is helped by enclosure within any kind of hierarchical structure.

For me it is about my relationship with the deities and this can only be held through my personal comuning with them. I simply do not feel that anyone else can do that for me or that any set ritualistic structure to which they adhere is necessarily the correct way for me to approach the lord and lady.

Certain coloured candles, certain coloured robes, certain words and all of the symbolisms that go along with them undoubtedly have their place within our approach to the gods and our mind-set whilst doing so, but I cannot believe that the lord and lady pay as much attention to this as to the very act of joining with them through whatever form and manner that we may choose provided that this is done with genuine respect and love.

I cannot therefore accept that one mans method of approach is any more valid than anothers providing that it is done in that genuine respect and love and do not understand some individuals proposal in insisting that we can only approach the lord and lady in a very specific manner.

This is my issue of contention with "structured wiccan groups" and Gardnerian groups in particular as they have considerable influence within Paganism today and may lead some individuals along a path that may not necessarily be the correct one for that individual. That individual may not then be fulfilled in his joining with the deities as it has not been done in an individual manner.

I cannot help but see the investiture of hierarchical structures and dogma as a path away from our truly individual and unique joining with the lord and lady.

Oxon, it's not that I'm saying it's not a valid path, just that too many Traditional Wiccans seem to claim it's older than is indeed the case.

I've often had encounters with different wiccans, and so have others that may well start out with all the things you've said, that of course you can question and work things out for yourself but it's not been long before the shutters come down and it's all about 'well that's what I was taught and if you tried it you see it is better' Which drives me up the wall!

What I've said is based on my experience of wicca and wiccans, I have had some really nasty things said because I wouldn't fall into their line.

They ain't Traditional Wiccans then

There are two definitions of a traditional wiccan. The first is a wiccan who follows a Garderian/Alexandrian type path, is well aware of the history of that path and knows damn well it was instigated in the 50s or afterwards. Traditional in that sense applies to the tradition invented with the name of Wicca as its label.

The second definition of a traditional wiccan is the wiccan who does not follow one of these paths but who describes themselves as a wiccan (rather than a plain old witch or pagan because wiccan is more 'proper' ). These are the ones who will claim that their path is older than anything anyone else can come up with (including religions which may have been worshipped by the first amoeba to crawl up the beach), the ones who will claim that the burning times really were as bad as Margaret Murray says they were, and that all the poor unfortunates who got torched were Wiccans, they just didn't want to admit to it... The ones who claim that cunning men and women were wiccans really. Have I made my point yet? I have a feeling you've been encountering the latter variety. Unfortunately they're a lot more widespread.

You have indeed made your point. These people did claim to be traditional wiccans though, so you can't blame me if that's what I thought they were.

Not blaming you in the least hon - just pointing out that someone saying 'I am ... (insert title)' doesn't make them that...

Which is indeed worth remembering...

Come on Oxon... no-ones yet addressed my reservations of a possible loss of individual meeting with the deities by using methods decided upon by another.

I'll save that for tomorrow morning hon - as it is, I'm leaving work in *checks watch for the nth time that day* ten minutes or so and still can't get into Valley from home...

It seems to me, Dave, that it might be possible to join with a Wiccan group (or coven, I don't know what they call themselves) and follow that way for so long as you got something out of it, and then make a choice to leave and search for other ways. You can always add to your experience. When you outgrow a certain way of being, the struggle it takes you to break free and search for more, is a thing that strengthens you.

I was with a born-again Christian group once. It was hard to live that way and I drifted away from it, but took some teachings away with me. While I was with them it is true that I followed a narrow belief system, and it was not one that would put me in touch with any non-Christian deities, obviously, but nontheless it taught me some things about religious or spiritual feeling, which are not tied to being born-again X.

I agree entirely that we gain through experience but it concerns me a little that Gardnerian or Alexandrian Wicca may not alway's be "taught" from such an openminded point of view.

I've obviously had similar experiences to Esk in my conversations with "wiccans" in that they appear to think that there is a correct way and an incorrect way of joining with the deities. Whilst I believe firmly that it is the purity and honesty of the approach that is important on an individual basis.

Also one of my early reasons for rejecting christianity and "mainstream religion" generally was their lack of tolerance of other peoples views.

Whatever gods we recognise we must surely be able approach them as individuals.

Interesting thread. Like Julai and Dave I was a Christian too, and don;t ever want to be part of a group again. The Wicca that I have read about so far does seem a trifle dogmatic, aand it doesn;t appeal to me at all. But if suits other people, that's fine too. I think if I had stayed a Christian I would have ended up as a hermit

I think the point that Julai made to is very valid - the spirituality that transcends religious labels, whatever they are, and that you can learn in any religion.

Cheers
Finvarra

Indeed, as with my self, I held a very Pagan view point as a child and though my time as a Christian suppressed these understandings and replaced them with those from the Bible, it was a book of Wicca (and not a very good book either) that made them wake up and be heard again.

My journey since re-embracing these feelings and ideas has been one of clarification, understanding and generally getting to know the Pagan me once more.



Perhaps you are assuming a bit here Dave. Do you really know that your beliefs are pretty much the same as everyone elses here?

There are Pagans who see Divinity in many and varied ways, from a single Divine showing itself as multiple godforms, through polytheists, animists and duotheists right the way along to those with an atheist view point. AFIK there are residents of the Valley that hold all these viewpoints, and as such although agree on many things would not say that they share pretty much the same beliefs.

Even within Christianity many of the key Pagan conventions are accepted - only with a big 'Jahweh Inside' sticker on the outside.

Which I suppose means that you could share a belief in the result but not the method.



The main variation between 'wiccas' is between the accepted 'Trad Wiccas' which are of course much more defined and constant, and the 'neo-wiccas' born from the plethora of books on the subject. But that being the case, accept with the many on solitary paths, the main ideas and structures are similar.

I am surprised that you have a problem with the idea of there being any kind of Hierarchy within pagan practices, as if you consult the history books you will see people of all paths as being describes as High Priest of this or High Priestess of that. While it is a Pagan ideal that each person is able to enter into their own relationship with Divinity, in practice if you want people to work together, which is afterall the whole point of a coven/circle, then you have to have someone up there directing things.

Consider: A group of people playing musical instruments can make music, but to be an orchestra requires a conductor.

With regard to a hierarchy with a modern interpretation of things, what would you expect in the modern world? We no longer live as our Pagan ancestors did and the issues that effect us are largely modern ones too. Perhaps it would be good to follow practices as they were in the 'good old days' with no or at least minimal influence from modern understandings, but surely in that direction lies stagnation and in itself betrays the principles of Nature, namely that things change and grow to survive.



Fair enough, is anyone out there telling you that you are wrong? Are you being forced to join a group and defer in your spiritual growth to the leadership of another?

In truth some people prosper with the support and direction of a group while others are the opposite. Both ways are equally valid - its just down to your preference.



If this works for you, why cant a group set up work for others? As I said above no-one is forcing people to join in groups.

As you say you do do not feel that a set ritual would be the correct way for you to approach your lord and lady, can you not see that for others the idea of approching their gods without following set methods would seem hard to swallow.

Who is to say that their gods do not appreciate the ritual, whereas yours are a bit less formal?



In many cases these things are nothing more than props and set dressings which serve only the purpose of faccilitating the correct state of mind to promote contact with the divine or to work whatever magics are needed.

You say here that you cannot believe the lord and lady pay that much attention, well as I have said before it depends on the deities you deal with. Certainly Andred gets a little ansty with me if I miss a ritual with no valid reason.



I fully support you here with the qualifications I have given above. What works for one may not work for others and that extends to gods as well as people.



But surely its down to the individual, if they want to be wiccan they have to follow the wiccan convententions adhered to by their group. If it doesn't work for them then they leave and look for another path. Joining a coven shouldn't mean you enter into slavery to that branch of the craft. Yes you may need to hold to promises of secrecy but that is understandable, but you do not need to hold on to those practices if you feel they don't work for you.


Some people need their hands held and others don't. If you need to be part of a group then that group needs some direction to work effectively if you work better alone then a group set up wont offer anything to you.

quite simply Wicca is defined by its structure and ritual, just as an ecclectic's path is defined by the aspects they incorporate and a solitary's by their instincts and intuition.

Kev

Ok, cover your eyes Trad wiccans. Rude phrase time...... How about following an eclectic wiccan path.

Uncle Gerald invented wicca 50 odd years ago drawing elements together from a variety of traditions and experiences he had, and maybe a touch of traditional witchcraft (I think the jury is still out about that one. Haven't read my way through the Hessleton books yet) There is some good stuff included in Wicca, and for many it works extremely well. That says much for the system.
But it doesn't work for all. That doesn't mean that people cannot adopt aspects of the wiccan tradition they have found work for them. Chuck in a few other aspects you might have discovered in your wider pagan studies and you might find you have a very effective path.
It won't be trad wicca, and perhaps out of defference to trad wiccans it might be an idea not to use the label. But it will be an effective path. Just coz much of it could come under the wiccan label doesn't mean it has to contain all wiccan tradition, or that it has to have the name. After all, as Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
There is no need to throw away all of wicca. Bits will work wonderfully. But there is no reason why you shouldn't develop aspects that work better for you. I have a feeling that Uncle Gerald did just that when he created wicca.

BB

Mike

Cosmic fool; Your response being excellent I have to say that I do not disagree with anything that you've said here.

There is a very broad range of aproaches within Paganism and I believe that there should be and that this range confirms our individuality.

I really cannot disagree with a single point in your response but I am unconvinced of the validity of some hierarchical sytems. Whilst persons such as myself can see the possible pitfalls of such a system, those on the inside may not. Especially if they have come to Paganism via a narrow route rather than the broad path that many of us may have trodden.

I fully appreciate that the majority of groups operate with every intention of maintaining a balance within their group whereby no single individual attains a status "closer" to the deities than any other. Unfortunately there are occasions when this balance is lost and such lack of balance does occasionally lead to an abuse of a "power" that really shouldn't have developed in the first place.

I say this after discussion with one individual that I met fairly recently that had been involved with a Pagan group in the south of England and had recently left that group because they felt that they were being asked to work in a way and to a level that they felt to be overly intrusive and abusive.

This of course enforces your comment to the effect that people are free to leave. You also proposed that some persons may need their hands held. I agree, but feel that it is exactly those persons that are at risk of following someone elses path rather than their own even to the point of being led into practices that may be emotionally and phscologically harmful to such possibly vulnerable people.

With regard to ancient hierarchical systems, yes of course they existed but I firmly believe that such systems may have developed with every good intent but that most peaked in an abuse of power, spiritualism used as a control over people.
I am not convinced that such systems, even the ancient ones, were always the correct path, on an individual level, for many of their devotee's.

It's very interesting to note that all of the points of view and arguments for and against, can just as easily be applied to all religions as well as political structures which leads me to point point out, fairly obviously admittedly, that we are really discussing human nature itself here.

Whilst I am fulfilled following a solitary path, I fully understand that this does not work for other individuals.

I would love to meet with a few of you guys and fully intend to do so in the not to distant future at a social level. As has been pointed out in other recent posts; it is refreshing to meet with fellow Pagans even on a social level as we all approach life in a similar way. Elunedd; I may be visiting your Birmingham moot if you'll have me.

I also really enjoy debates such as this as I think it is one of the most effective ways of learning about my fellow Pagans and having my occasionally extreme views moderated a little. Were all here to develope and learn. Thanks all.

Harder, I must try harder



This is where you are in the hands (pun intended) of the leader. A genuine teacher knows when to let go so that their student can grow on their own. Unfortunatly there will alwas likely be someone who thinks that the only way is their way and tries to convinve their charges of that.

Of course that there are some who don't know whats best for their 'followers' just as there are those that know whats best but seek to subvert people for their own ends, but this does not mean that the idea of a structured group is invalid, nor that when handled properly is not succesful.

Though like you, I would not feel comfortable as part of such a group

Kev

Seeing as no one else has brought it up, is this where the difference between wicca and Wicca come into play?

Personally, I'm with Esk and Dave, albeit for slightly different reasons. I don't have a problem with those who wish to follow a more hierarchichal path, it's all the rules and regulations I can't deal with! Of course I'm overstating that a bit, but not by much. I keep coming across elaborate rituals in various books, some of which purport not to be following Wicca, but which use virtually the same tools in the same manner with the same or only very slightly different wording and I'm like, good grief, surely the deities you worship don't need all of this is the intent is there and well meant?

Now, I'm not saying that a full blown ritual every so often is a bad thing, just that maybe it would be better if tailored towards the Deity/ies involved as well as season and what's at hand, rather than copying something someone's already written, for Deities that are very different from the ones one is following.

Gosh, can you tell I'm a solitary?

Dryad

i started off as wiccan, it's where i first found out about paganism too, i had a friend who claimed to be wiccan and had a lot of SRW books

after doing some internet research i discovered that while i like the ideas of where wicca came from, i didn't like the founder, nor did i like the strict set rules, i am my own person and i don't like to be controlled by someone, fine i can accept my parents and my manager, but not someone else!

also i did not and still do not agree with the harm none rule, or the wiccan rede nor the widespread wiccan belief in the 3-fold law, as i said a while ago in a ruder way elsewhere forgetting about the wiccans who inhabited that particular forum

the way i see it is a wiccan is someone who follows the wiccan rede, which version i don't care, but that's what they believe and they can keep those beliefs

i like my own path where i can do what i want and can learn by my own mistakes, not because someone is telling me to learn

and i know i've probably upset a few people, but this is why i don't like the harm none rule, i like being able to say what i feel like in situations, and not have to hush because i might upset someone *shrugs*

*flees the board*

Don't you dare flee Leigh, this thread was started to hear all opinions of Wicca, yours as valid as any.

the last time i voiced my opinion on a UK board about wicca i should have been tortured

Put it this way - if they can't cope with a little dissent how solid is their faith? Say what you like.

Though always with respect, don't you think?

Kev

Natch Cos, I didn't think Leigh needed telling that though.

Great to read the opinions on here. Makes me think more about what I believe and whatnot. And quite right Esk. If people get affronted by someones opinion about their faith, it does make you wonder how strong their faith really is. We all learn far more by questioning and listening to all opinions.
Bright blessings,
Hugs,
P.

Oh I know Leigh from other forums (sorry Leigh I haven't been visiting PL that often recently) so I have no doubts there.

Just making a point lest we have any less tactful members here who might decide that gives them carte blanche to incur the wrath of the mods in later posts

Kev

Having never been taught in the ways of Wicca or ever being initiated in to a Wiccan coven, I can't say if I am a fan or not.

Tibb

First off, I'm not a Wiccan and I have no intention of becoming one. I suit practicing along and I drop parts of Wiccan philosophy for other Neo-Pagan and some Eastern ideas.

However, I think that some of the heat slung at Wicca is to some extent unfounded. The coven has a high priest and priestess because the group require leadership. They are not there to dominate them, and if the coven had any sense they would demote - or leave - if the high priest/ess started abusing their position. The coven require leaders to give the coven some direction - in the same way that an alpha wolf leads its pack. Outside of the group high preists don't have power over the members, they are free to explore their own spirituality and practices, but in the group they have to have common goals.

Other than two leaders, there isn't a heirachy. The levels of initiation are for the individual's own benefit so that they can see how far they have come, and to take them into the group mysteries in stages - it indicates levels of initiatian into the group to keep secrecy and the group's unique identity (instead of just spilling out the groups unique heritage to all who are interested), but all members of the circle are considered equal.

Gerald Gardner did not know everything, but then neither does any other human being - alive or dead, so he's in good company. He may have been a bit of a charlatan, a bit woolly about where he got things from. He may not stand for what Paganism has become but if he hadn't been a bit cheeky, Wicca, and maybe the rest of Neo-paganism may never have taken off at all.

Pamela, I'm not sure why you take the name "wiccan" if you don't agree with Gardner or any other modern group since it is these groups that invented the term. Of course you are entitled to take whatever description you feel fits but it seems a bit self-defeating, wouldn't a simple "witch" be more in keeping with your beliefs?

Spirited

I'm glad you have found that to be the case with the bits of Wicca you've experienced Spirited, that's how it ought to be, if it's going to be done. My point of view is however based on MY experience of wicca and wiccans, that is the face of it that met me, and others I know. I don't rant away on baseless preconceptions. The discription line was a reference to the habit of many of the people who I'm talking about explaining away almost everything I questioned by saying 'Gardner teaches us that' like that's supposed to make it so. I'm not saying he should have known everything, I'm saying it doesn't hurt to point out that he didn't.

I take the name Wiccan because it's in keeping with what I believe. That doesn't mean I'm in keeping with some pre-concieved idea made up by someone else, no matter how famous! I don't believe the name was 'made-up' by those groups but taken to describe what they believe. I take it for what I believe, which obviously varies from theirs. Prove them right, or me wrong if you really feel the need. And yes, it does seem I get called witch more often these days. Maybe I'll find as I experience more that I'll become more comfortable with that but presently I'm not. Possibly because I don't want it to become public local knowledge bearing in mind I live in upper middle class suburbia with alot of christians on my doorstep. I'm proud of my beliefs and won't lie about it, but to call it wiccan is more accepted then witch is. I have two young children to take into account too.
Bright blessings,
Hugs,
P.

With regard to misconceptions by non-pagans of our beliefs:

I know of at least two people that were introduced to Paganism through Wicca and organised Wiccan groups. Both have left those groups as they have developed their personal understanding of Paganism.

My very good freind Marie is a third generation Witch (or whatever terminology you prefer). Marie became part of a Wiccan group purely so that she could express her beliefs among people of like minds, but left them after twelve months because there was a power structure within the group that she felt to be totally inappropriate to Pagan principles. This was not simply a structure of leadership in teaching but a definate attempt to control the group by two individuals.

The other person I know less well but I do know that she joined a Wiccan group because of her innate interest/belief in Pagan ideas and ideals. She too left after about twelve months for very similar reasons to Marie but with the additional issue of not only power and control issues by members of that group but more worryingly actual attempts at coersion into what she considered to be inappropriate physical and phsychological abuse, fortunately her basic beliefs were strong enough to allow her to continue along her own path putting her previous bad experience of organised Pagan groups behind her.

Incidentally, both said that they were sick of hearing about Gardner and felt that he was almost replacing the Lord and Lady in deity status and prioritisations.
I know how contentious that statement is but the words are not mine, only sentiments passed on to me by the people I have mentioned.

I fully understand that organised groups are usually set up with the best of intentions but there is no escaping the the time worn and proven adage that "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Which leads me to point out what seems to be developing into a serious misconception by non-Pagans of the genuine beliefs and aims that most persons considering themselves Pagan, by whatever title, really live by.

Pamela I do not quite understand your aversion the the term "Witch" for the reason you give, ie that people are worried more by the idea of living alongside a Witch as opposed to a Wiccan. Do you think that non-Pagans hold a kinder conception of Wiccan than Witch ?

This is certainly not my experience.

I have found that many non-pagans are now viewing the term "Wiccan" as refering to organised groups often with some generally considered "questionable" practices and now verging on "cult status". I fully understand that this is a misconception but try explaining the fallacy of that misunderstanding to your average anti-Pagan/anti cult christian.

The term Witch on the other hand, I believe, in the minds of many non-pagans, is viewed as far less threatening as it does not indicate association with such organised and possibly, in fairness, generally misunderstood organised Wiccan groups.

I know that this is only my understanding of the issue based only on my experiences and my discussions with other people that have had direct contact with some of those groups and I fully understand that people have every right to express their beliefs in whatever way they see fit.

I also know that maybe we should not be worrying about misconceptions of our beliefs but rather attempting to gently put straight those misconceptions.

I personally do not think that Wiccan groups are helping in this area, if anything they are creating an air of isolation, exclusivity and secrecy in the minds not only of many solitary Witches and Pagans but also in the minds of the general non-Pagan public.

Further I would point out that Paganism in whatever form has existed since the dawn of man, predating the new religions by at least many tens of thousands of years.

One of Gardners ideals, from my understanding of much that I have read, was to promote Paganism in the modern world. That in itself I find more than a little presumptious. Does anyone seriously believe that Paganism would ever die out for lack of a modern title after surviving despite all to this date.

I don't really want to get bogged down in the debate about the use of parephernalia for Pagan ritual, as apparently proposed by Gardner and therefore in general "Wiccans". I would just say however that I certainly don't need it all in order to communicate with the deities.

I'm never not communicating with them, they are a part of me and I of them.

I have to say that is part of the reason why I am not Wiccan and have never considered becoming Wiccan either, because I don't think I would be comfortable with the structure, I like working at my own pace and being able to do what I feel comfortable doing.

It seems your experiences differ from mine somewhat Dave. Calling yourself Wiccan around here wouldn't cause so much as a ripple amongst most except maybe the most devout Christians (and we do have a few). To call myself Witch outright would cause a major reaction! Unfortunately the prejudice for preconcieved ideas has a stronghold. And I'm not the most popular person as it is simply because I dress differently to most! Those that know me better like me, but even some of them won't speak to me by choice if others are around.
With a daughter aged 6 at the local school, the last thing she needs, or me for that matter, is problems at school from other children or the teachers. I'd be happy to be open with them about what I believe but most simply look at you as though you're mad or don't want to know. So I don't say anything. Makes me sound a little paranoid perhaps but being that my house is privately rented and I do not wish to be chucked out hardly suprising.
Having never been part of any coven I can't comment on how they're run. My curiosity in all pagan paths will no doubt teach me alot and hopefully overcome the current issues. I have read alot of Wiccan based books and get along with many of the concepts involved although there are areas I don't agree with too. But then this was one of reasons for joining this group. So I could discuss the different paths and reason etc and discover the truth within myself.
Bright blessings,
Hugs,
P.

Wicca has a problem simply because it is the largest, best-known, most influential and longest established of the modern Pagan traditions. That unfortunately means that more nonsense has been published about Wicca than any other Pagan tradition, and that more people in the Pagan community have quarrelled with Wiccans than with members of any other Pagan tradition. Hence the surprisingly bad reputation Wicca has among some sections of the modern Pagan community.

People often assume that published books on Wicca are definitive of Wiccan belief and practice, or that statements by individual Wiccans are true for the whole of the Craft rather than just that person's opinion. And of course, relative newcomers to Paganism are much more likely to make these mistakes than folk who have been around for a while and learned to be very wary of generalisations. One generalisation I will make is that for almost any statement anyone makes about Wicca, you will probably find some Wiccans who strongly disagree with it!

It's unfortunate that some people, when they first start exploring Paganism, get the misleading impression that it's all Wicca, and even that they need to be initiated into a coven straight away. This very seldom seems to work out well. No one is going to benefit much from any Pagan path unless they approach it with a high degree of commitment and a reasonable amount of knowledge. Especially self-knowledge! And unless you spend a fair amount of time reading, and asking questions, and thinking critically about what lots of different people tell you, and seeking experiential knowledge of the sacred, you're not going to be in a position to judge what is right for you. No one should think about becoming a Wiccan to see what it's like, because if approached with that attitude it's unlikely to seem like anything. Hence the common phenomenon of people bouncing from path to path on a monthly basis and feeling disillusioned with all of them. As with any other committed path, it should be sought because the seeker knows Paganism, and knows themselves, well enough to know that this is the path they must take.

I remain a little puzzled by the statement that Gardner didn't know everything. Not becuase it isn't true, but because it's so self-evidently true that there doesn't seem a lot of point in saying it.

BB,

John Macintyre (a Wiccan)

Well John, as I've said why I made that statement, I can't help it if you still don't know why I did.

Based upon the way that I've gotten to know some of you guys in the last couple of months, I think that the majority of us are old and wise enough to not be taken in by "common misconceptions" and are very capable of making informed decisions based upon long experience of sidestepping red herrings.

It still concerns me that it is the very people who are not so well equipped are the very ones most likely to take a path not suited to them and led by others.

John

I am under the possibly mistaken impression that Druidry and not Wicca is the longest established of the modern Pagan traditions.

I also doubt whether Wicca is the most influential of the modern Pagan traditions as even Winston Churchill was a Druid. But I do admit that Druids can also be Christains and so therefore may not always be Pagan even if their history and traditions stem from Pagan roots.

I've never had a problem arise when I've told people I'm a practising witch (and don't know if I'll ever get it totally right, hence the practice ), but then perhaps I've just been fortunate. From other posts on here I know that others have had a problem, so I can appreciate Pamela's caution, especially in view of her child being at school.

It's the whole paraphenalia thing that puts me off with Wicca - as Dave said, I feel no need for all the ritual tools to communicate with the divine. The formal rituals and the calling of the quarters doesn't sit well with me either - why call something that's already there?!

That said, I've never had any contact with a coven either, and therefore can't comment on the benefits of one, or not, as the case may be. I can see Pamela's point, in that it gives her the opportunity to discuss ideas - but in discussing those ideas with someone who's on a specific path, there is a chance that their devotion to their chosen path might colour their views, so as someone who's gone to them to discuss Paganism in general, it might be an idea to bear that in mind.

If it's general Pagan discussion you want, Pamela, why not do it here - there are enough of us in here, following various paths, for the discussion to be completely general!

Hi Esk:

"Well John, as I've said why I made that statement, I can't help it if you still don't know why I did."

Sorry, I didn't mean your explanation didn't make sense, I just wondered why the attitudes you encountered were taken seriously enough to raise. As far as I know there is a very small, and rapidly dwindling, number of Wiccans who actually knew and worked with Gardner. Of those I've met, I can only think of one who seemed to regard him as infallible or as the fount of all knowledge, and I rather suspect there was another agenda at work there. The rest seemed to view him with a mixture of quite genuine respect and equally genuine exasperation, and had known from very early on that he was pulling their legs on quite a few subjects. If practices were to be regarded as 'strictly Gardnerian', that would seem to require that they be pursued with an open minded and eclectic willingness to adapt and evolve with experience, as that certainly seems to have been the way Gardner approached things.

Different folk will have different experiences, of course. It's just that I've met very, very few Wiccans with the attitudes you described - though it might be quite fun to meet more.

BB,

John Macintyre

Hi Akasha,

"I am under the possibly mistaken impression that Druidry and not Wicca is the longest established of the modern Pagan traditions."

No disrespect to Druids intended. It's just that not only are some modern Druids are Christians, as you acknowledge below, but at the time Wicca was emerging, nearly all (but not, admittedly, quite all) Druids seem to have been Christians. You can certainly trace modern Druidry all the way back to an energetic 18th Century Welshman, but the emergence of specifically Pagan Druid Orders seems a much more recent phenomenon.

"I also doubt whether Wicca is the most influential of the modern Pagan traditions as even Winston Churchill was a Druid."

He was a Druid, certainly, but I've not seen any solid evidence to suggest he was a Pagan, or that he influenced modern Paganism - mind you, I suppose we're as likely to fight on the beaches as anywhere else! For that matter the present Archbishop of Canterbury is a Druid and while conservative Anglicans might well regard him as a Pagan, I don't think he'd quite see it that way himself.

I certainly wouldn't wish to suggest that Druidry isn't a very large, energetic and creative modern Pagan tradition, it obviously is. I just don't think you'll find quite as many Druids around as Wiccans (even though some folk are both) or quite as many references to Druidry in Pagan resources as there are to Wicca, or as many Pagans either borrowing ritual techniques from Wicca or rigorously trying to purge their ritual practices of anything which might be mistaken for Wicca. Which is all I really meant by it being the most influential.

BB,

John Macintyre

OK I am being pedantic here but... paganism has only really existed since the Romans coined the phrase, before that it was simply 'what the priests, gods, elders tell us to do..'



Actually Paganism was gone and forgotten by the masses for quite some time. The modern rise of Paganism can be seen to stem from the neo-classical revival in the 18th Century and from there on to such as the woodcraft movement (before and more properly after its split from Baden Powells Scouting Movement). At this time most pagan based movements were little more than substitutes for Freemasonry and often largely Christian in belief with little pagan about them, for example the Druid revival which was little more than a breakaway lodge pursuing Christian ideals but using some token pagan lables.

While I would not say that Gardner was responsible for the popularity of Paganism he, and his creation, did play a part. Certainly the amount of texts published by Wiccans make up the majority of todays Pagan literature, while they are often more trouble than they are worth such books do at least enable a presense of Pagan related subjects on the shelves of our stores.

Without Gardner being 'out there' talking about Wicca and encouraging others to do so Paganism may not have actually disappeared but it may have been completely subsumed by the New Age ideals growing out of the sixties Hippy movement.



Same here, but even I sometimes feel the need to use an aid, whether it is a photo or a poem to help shift my mental state.





Hmmm lets see the general non-pagan populace POV

Witch - ugly evil old crone, evil woman, doing evil things, black magic, curses, evil deeds

Wiccan - sexy lesbian Willow, sexy Charmed ones, sexy young sexy girls in sexy clothing doing - interesting- things with wands

Dave, I am not saying that you are wrong there, but the views of the general populace are shaped by popular culture and direct experience (unfortunatly more often the former over the latter) and very few would have done the research to realise that Wicca started off as a group practice, but would probably be well aware of witches gathering in covens at the full moon and having orgies for satan.

Those that have done the research are either commited anti-pagan/fundie Christians who don't care what the truth is because we are all evil devil worshippers, or people who have some interest in Paganism may be due to knowing a pagan.

In my experience telling someone that you are studying wicca is less shocking than saying that you are studying to be a witch. All I can say is that the neighbourhoods we associate in seem to be polar opposites.

Kev

Quote:

"OK I am being pedantic here but... paganism has only really existed since the Romans coined the phrase, before that it was simply 'what the priests, gods, elders tell us to do..' "

Sorry Cosmic but yes, you are being extremely pedandic here.

I know that you are not seriously suggesting that paganism didn't exist before the good old Romans arrived and will therefore not get into my previously stated views about the merits or otherwise of "labels". Red herring therefore respectfully ignored...lol.

Quote:

"Actually Paganism was gone and forgotten by the masses for quite some time."

I disagree entirely. Paganism had several recorded revivals throughout medieval britain and right through into the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries thus logically indicating that although it may at times have been forgotten by the masses, there was always, during any period of our history, a small minority of individuals that did not forget and that passed their beliefs on.

This can be clearly seen to have happened in our case by looking at simple country lore and traditions, along with myths and legends, much/many of which is/are based on "pagan"concepts but that simply lost it's/their label/labels for "quite some time".

"quite some time" what ? fifty a hundred, two hundred years?

I am not a person that will simply take what I read at face value, but prefer to apply my own thoughts and theories to any "given" knowledge or understanding.
We need to read a great deal between the lines or we fall into the trap of only seeing past events from a modern perpsective that I'm sure in many cases bears little likeness to the actual perceptions of the people that were there and in those "historical" situations as they happened.

I've repeatedly seen aspects of historical understanding revised even during the last thirty years and know that this is a natural progression. Such revisions are usually instigated in the light of new archeaological finds and are therefore usually a positive revision; getting us closer to the people of the time.

In several instances such revision has promoted ideas that I already held previously as likely posibilities.

True history isn't simply what we now find written down, true history includes all that happened alongside but that wasn't recorded and that we need to search for in order to gain a truer understanding of past events.

Gardnerian Paganism is from my perspective just another link in the historical chain of Pagan revivals and no more or less valid than previous revivals, the point being that that it shouldn't automatically be assumed to be be completely correct and that we have a duty to examine and where necessary revise our own approach.

That is why I believe that some, not all by any means, precepts of Gardnerian Paganism may not be appropriate for all and am more than a little frustrated that this version of Paganism recieves undue attention where other paths are equally valid.