Personally, I’m still sort of upset by those “faddish” Jews and Christians who “ripped off” Zoroastrianism and other earlier Middle Eastern faiths.
** trader_of_shots** and Latros - I suggest you both take a quick tour through http://www.religioustolerance.org/ . It does wonders for fighting ignorance. For the obnoxiousness, you’re on your own.
(Does Buffy have anything to do with Wicca? Is he/she thinking of Charmed? Since I’ve never bothered to watch either, I’m pretty sure I haven’t based my religious beliefs on them.)
I’ll go for EOA, thank you 
I realise I’m offending some but I just don’t get why someone should actively choose a religion that is completely made up.
I can understand that people believe silly things if they are brought up in a certain belief system. It is hard to turn your back on your own background. I can also understand that people find past religions cool, I do too. But to make such a leap as to go and really believe all of that is totaly weird. Especially if you know it was all just the ramblings of some 1900’s romantics.
Ok, they are a peaceful lot (absolutely un-celtic, btw) and that is a good deal better than some other religions. Maybe the claim of calling it a religion could be defendable but that is no warrant against people calling it plain silly, cause it is.
So anyone who ever converted to any religion is a loony in your book. OK, now I know how to rate your opinion.
I use “Wicca/Wiccan” because it is shorter and simpler than saying “I am not an atheist or an agnostic, really, I have beliefs and understandings that are spiritual and cover the same territory addressed by the theologies of major religions, but mine is not yours or any of these others that you have heard about, and may be antithetically opposed to a lot of what you believe” while having much the same effect.
[/quote]
In the case of people like you, shorter and simpler go by the wayside. I have my own. I didn’t “make it up”. I can (and do, quite often, on this board) express my understandings and perspectives with or without using the “G” word. You belittle that which you do not understand. It appears that you assume that this phenomenon which is loosely called “religion” is no more than a wrapped package of beliefs that people believe without knowing, and that that is all that they have ever been. If so, you assume too much. Other people–the original central figures in most of the moldy old established religions bieng among them–have “had their own” too.
I have one problem with the movement. Different people use the same words to mean different things. I say, there should be some kind of international council where they agree on precise meanings for pagan, neopagan, wiccan etc.
Latro-I find your comments offensive in the extreme. There are numerous atheists on the SDMB who can argue their case without resorting to insults.
Yeah, but Doc, that’d be dogma - which is anathema to Pagans. Even if there were, then you’d have a bunch of Pagans calling themselves pro-council or non-council or arguing about who got to be on the council. We like things the way they are - each Pagan figures it out for herself, and we go our merry way.
**DocCathode asked:
I say, there should be some kind of international council where they agree on precise meanings for pagan, neopagan, wiccan etc. **
snicker laugh guffaw 
Sorry, Doc, I’m not laughing at you, just the idea of the NeoPagan community getting together and trying to hammer out anything. There was a ‘council’ meeting like you describe in the '70s, but right now, I can’t find its results in my notes. I’ll try later.
But for you, here are some definitions that seem to work:
Pagan: best modern term would be civilian. The word was used to differentiate between those who were in “the army of the Lord” (Latin, militas) and those who were not.
NeoPagan: Any of the various faith arising in Europe or North American in the 20th century that are based on recreations of the original Pagan faith of Europe. One is example is Wicca. Others would be Asatru or Celtic Reconstructionism.
Wicca: Any of the NeoPagan faiths based upon the writings of Gerald Gardner. Examples would be Gardnernian Wicca or Alexanderian Wicca.
**Latro wrote:
I realise I’m offending some but I just don’t get why someone should actively choose a religion that is completely made up. **
Go back and read Triumph of the Moon. Its history of Wicca and the general rise of Paganism in the 19th and 20th century will help explain a lot.
Also, the main point: it works. It’s a religion that gives satisfactory spiritual and religious satisfaction to those who follow it.
Also remember, when Gardner wrote his books, he was doing so in sincerity. He fully believed that the Murraryite hypothesis was true and he was “recreating” a lost religion. Read up on some anthropological theory and you’ll understand that many anthropologists of that time believed that “primitive” cultures were “living fossils” and it was their duty to “preserve” and “reconstruct” these cultures before they were lost to time.
Let me respond to some points with a slightly different point of view. An additional viewpoint might be helpful.
I think this is a point that bears repeating. I know that even I, a person with great sympathy towards pagans, roll my eyes at the pop-culture version of Wicca that has been presented as representative of neo-Paganism. It is not. It is a gross cariacature of the beliefs of serious Wiccans; more reprehensibly, it has been created for marketing (and thus, for profit-oriented) purposes, because it is a ‘sellable’ version that teenagers seem to enjoy.
The long and short of this is that “The Craft” and “Sabrina the Teenage Witch”, and that sort of entertainment, has done for neo-Paganism about what Jonathan Edwards has done for serious discussion about an afterlife.
There are a lot of serious Wiccans and other neo-Pagans out there. Being less sensational (and, thus, marketable for the media), they attract far less attention than the idiots who believe they are the reincarnation of a female shaman-queen who reigned in Atlantis 15,000 years ago, or whatever.
Yikes. I wish Scientology hadn’t been referred to here, but here goes.
There are a lot of dubious claims that go along with Wicca in particular, and, to a lesser extent, neo-Paganism as a whole. Because these religions are both lacking a universal code of beliefs as well as non-dogmatic, there are a lot of opinions being thrown around.
There is absolutely no proof of a direct line from modern Paganism in any form – including Wicca – to practitioners of any ancient religion, including druidism. Some people will fervently claim that they learned their religion from their grandmothers or other relatives and claim it has been in their family line for quite some time, but because of persecution there is no proof. I tend to take this about the way I take it when people claim that they had a religious experience and met God. I neither believe it, nor disbelieve it. I don’t give it much serious consideration.
**
Now, here I would disagree. The entire foundation of the Wiccan year and its major holidays is built on the Celtic model. Among Wiccans, it is far more common to run into people who revere Rhiannon, or even the Morrigan, rather than Zeus.
The worldview as a whole, however, is fundamentally modern. It has very little similarity with ancient religions. The God/Goddess duality is new and, honestly, bears greater connections to modern religions (like Christianity). The idea that everyone is “really” worshipping the God or Goddess, when they say otherwise, is really the sort of relabeling that is similar to Christianity. (I’m sure you can see the distaste I have for this particular practice.)
I’m not saying Wicca is equivalent with druidism or any form of ancient Celtic spirituality. It is clearly different. However, I think you are too eager to divorce Wicca from the Celtic tradition.
**
There really is no “The Celtic Path”, unfortunately. Celtic reconstructionist groups are diverse and many, and there is no unifying spiritual path that is shared. While they do sympathize with one another, the process of becoming a druid is largely personal and based on the individual (be it through academic research, meditation and reflection, or what have you).
There is really nothing that makes modern Celtic reconstruction necessarily more Celtic than Wicca other than personal preference. I have met Wiccans that had a much better handle on ancient Celtic beliefs than some self-proclaimed druids, and I have also met very sincere druids who have studied history and mythology in their personal spiritual quests. As we have very little knowledge of Celtic ritual and religious observance, many druids use a Wiccan basis for rituals. This is not a bad thing. We simply just can’t reconstruct what we don’t know about. My point is that Wiccans and druids overlap greatly.
Yes, but many of the individuals who started the Celtic Reconstructionist movement did not consult these sources, or have been just as ‘creative’ with them as Wicca has been with their own history. Let’s not forget that the beginnings of Celtic Reconstructionism are extremely humble. Read Stuart Piggott – modern druid groups started out as the equivalent of Elk Lodges, for goodness sakes.
There is a great deal of interesting information to be had about the ancient Celts. We can learn a great deal about their way of life and society, their legends, and so forth. As for their personal religious beliefs, the actual rituals and religious observance, and the general context of the legends that we do have – well, we have virtually nothing of that. Thus, as I said, the way a modern druid decides to worship is largely personal and based on what is, essentially, an educated (or, for some, uneducated) guess that is hopefully tempered with spiritual inspiration.
**
I’m afraid I must disagree. Wicca and Celtic reconstructionists are very sympathetic groups, and there is simply too much overlap to make such a blanket statement. Neither are unified religions, either – the old saying goes that you can ask a group of 10 modern Pagans a spiritual question and get 12 different answers.
Wicca and Celtic Reconstructionism both present themselves, and hope to be, religions based on ancient practices. This is more or less true depending on what group or individual we are looking at. In my experience, Celtic Reconstructionists do tend to have put more work into studying their ancient predecessors, but they hardly have the monopoly on this. It would be simpler to say that Wiccans simply draw on more ancient sources and attempt to create a synthesis, whereas Celtic Reconstructionist druids simply are more focused on the Celtic peoples.
Well, the best modern term for the word “Pagan” would probably be “bumpkin”, even though it literally means somebody who lives in the country, as contrasted to the city. It was used by primarily Christian city dwellers in the ancient and early medeval world as a perjorative…sort of like “Look at those hicks out in the countryside who still worship those old gods.”
And, even though it hasn’t happened yet, I don’t think there’s anything intrinsic about neo-paganism making it hierarchical, except that a lot of neo-pagans are former Christians making a conscious decision to reject religious hierarchy. It would be possible to create a hierarchical neo-pagan group.
There’s no question in my mind that Wiccans have really increased in number these past 20 years, and I’m pretty sure that most modern Wiccans are converts from some other religion. It’ll be interesting, I think, to see what those people brought up Wiccan do with the religions, esp. if the time comes that they start outnumbering converts.
**Captain Amazing wrote:
Well, the best modern term for the word “Pagan” would probably be “bumpkin”, even though it literally means somebody who lives in the country, as contrasted to the city. It was used by primarily Christian city dwellers in the ancient and early medeval world as a perjorative…sort of like “Look at those hicks out in the countryside who still worship those old gods.”**
I beg to differ. Check out the OED and how it defines pagan. It directly address this issue.
It’ll be interesting, I think, to see what those people brought up Wiccan do with the religions, esp. if the time comes that they start outnumbering converts.
There already are several people who grew up in a Wiccan household. I don’t know of any studies about them yet. Whether they keep to their parent’s faith or not.
Sounds like a research topic to me!
Freyr,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Apparently, the roots of “Pagan” are still controversial, with the older explanation being mine and the newer being yours. Apparently, the language in the original texts can be ambiguous. Here’s an article looking at both the arguments, and giving a compromise answer…that “Pagan” first referred to those who weren’t in the “army of Christ”, then later was used as a slur to mean rustic.
Captain Amazing, yeah, I was taking my definition from the '89 OED, but it looks like things aren’t that cut and dried. I agree, the compromise looks good.
Thanks for the aritcle!
Whee-ooh. I know, it boggled me when I realized how little people mostly know about Wicca. Hell, our darlin’ little President doesn’t think Wiccans count as a religion! You wouldn’t believe the furor that caused when he announced that (whilst he was still governor, I believe; certainly before he became Pres.)
OK. Mom converted to Wicca when I was about eleven. I had a pretty interesting experience with religion around that time – spent one year in a Nordic coven, spent another year in Catholic school. I got to do a lot of amateur comparative religion, and MAN did they ever borrow from each other!
In its basic sense, the Wiccans I’ve known don’t really follow any one set of deities. They tend to be duotheistic (is that even a word? It should be) along cultural lines – for example, the Nordic coven revered Woden and Freya. No, they weren’t husband and wife, but they did complement each other well. Most of what I saw was consciousness of the cycles of nature and thanks to BGITS (BigGuy(s)InTheSky) for, well, everything in the world. The biggest (really, only) rule of the belief was “An it harm none, do as ye will.” The other “rule” people quote is really more of something to remember: “what you do will be visited upon you sevenfold.” In other words, the belief is this: Don’t hurt anyone, or you’ll get smacked; be good to people and your good deeds will be rewarded.
Not sure what is objectionable about that. A (G)od by any other name, and all that. I doubt that BGITS really minds what anybody calls it. I don’t think we can anthropomorphize it that much. And maybe BGITS has some specific rules that it wants, but I doubt that being successful in the world has much to do with who you have sex with or what you do every seven days. Religion is to make us feel better. It does a fine job at that; why make it something it isn’t?
Huh?
Catholic chuch borrows from Wicca?!?!
Huh?
Tripple Huh?
Just wanted to chime in with those recommending Triumph of the Moon. It’s a well-researched and very interesting read.
damn hamsters…
I had a nice and well thought out response, detailing how the religions are similar, but let’s just say that I was slightly inaccurate. The religions both borrowed from the same sources – both Wicca and Catholicism have their roots in ancient, preChristian pagan beliefs.
Oh, ah, OK.
Yes, agree with you there.
Although Catholic church’s roots go back directly to those beliefs. Wicca goes back to beliefs people had in the 1900’s, about pre-christian beliefs.
No, sorry, haven’t read Triumph over the Moon yet.
Disagree if you mean to say that they have their roots exlcusively in pre-Christian pagan beliefs. That Christianity has its roots in pre-Christian beliefs is undeniable - it’s practically tautological - but its roots are mainly in Judaism, which is not generally classed as a pagan religion.