There is no Orthodox Wicca. (In fact, just typing the phrase gives me the creeps). Perhaps there was a time when this aspect of Wicca did not in and of itself cause it to stand out, but by the time of the arrival of the Christianization of Europe, it was a pretty definitive difference. Wicca is the act of discerning and learning what Wicca is. It is its own verb.
The often-cited “fact” that Wicca is not a direct continuation of folk religion practices in pre-medieval Europe is based on the assumption that this would be important. Actually, if you lived in a completely different part of the world, and were never taught Wiccan traditions, and had never heard of Wicca, and of course did not consider yourself to be Wiccan, but were treated ill because of your failure to correspond to an institutionalized orthodoxy, you may be Wiccan enough to be understood by us as one of us in the way that most counts. (If, in addition to all that, you have a sense of the moral necessity to avoid bringing hurt to others via coercive malice, I’d say you are us).
Wicca, by that definition, was and is a threat to any Orthodoxy, and they have from time to time correctly identified us as so and persecuted us. We are wise to remember that. The multi-century witch-hunts of late medieval Europe are our Shoah because so many did die, because it was folks like us that did die, and because it symbolizes the others, varied and widespread and perpetual.
I’m curious, how? Maybe I misunderstood your post, unless you mean that Wicca is a threat simply because it offers another option to, as you put it, Orthodoxy. Other than that, I don’t get your point. The basic live and let live tennants of Wicca, as I understand them, offer no threat to a different religion, and I don’t believe there are Wiccan missionaries trying to convert the masses. Please elaborate. If anything I have just stated is inaccurate, please correct me.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Relax, I’m not as Dave as I look!- A Wallified sig!
Weirddave: You’re right about the “live & let live” part, and also about the non-existant Wiccan missionaries.
I myself am not Wiccan, so I can’t tell you much more about it than that, really. I don’t practice magick & stuff like that. I prefer to call myself Pagan. As a rule, we do not witness. We believe in practicing the religion that is right for you, if you have one. If you don’t, that’s fine too.
Current polytheistic practices, unlike the ancient Greeks & Romans, are no threat to anyone else’s religious practices. The ancient polytheists persecuted one-god worshippers just as badly as the one-god worshippers persecuted others later. Nowadays, though, we keep pretty much to ourselves, because some people still think we’re Devil worshippers, and other people think we’re just plain weird (well, we are, but we’re “good” weird, not “bad” weird. Pagans know how to party, man!).
Cristi, Slayer of Peeps
I made my husband join a bridge club. He jumps next Tuesday.
Thank you Cristi. BTW:{quote]but we’re “good” weird, not “bad” weird.
[/quote]
Is certainly something I of all people understand. Remember that when I move to Flint and run for Porn Czar.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Relax, I’m not as Dave as I look!- A Wallified sig!
I’m sure that the accused witches of Salem would take great solace in the empathizing with the self-proclaimed witches of our modern era, if only that Kodak moment could be had, while they were burning.
Trumpets sounding, AHunter3 with hands on hips, standing atop a hill, claims all kindess he surveys in the name of the Nation of Wicca. Everybody else will have to settle for what’s left.
Meanwhile, Johnny Angel claims all intelligence in the name of Secular Humanism.
By your fairly broad definition of Wiccan, wouldn’t the actual Shoah also be your Shoah?
So, Cristi, what you are saying is Wiccans have their roots in Witchcraft, which had it’s roots in pagan religions, and all three are very real? Just like Christianity has it’s roots in the Jewish religion? Ok, I can believe THAT line of reasoning. That makes sense to me. It’s probably what you have been saying all a long. Sorry if it was and I just never got it. Sometimes when I’m reading something in order for me to fully understand it, it has to be said in just the right way. So again, sorry for making you go through all the effort of repeating yourself. My bad.
Although I still stand by my claim that the parents of the girls allowed the hysteria to go on for their own greedy reasons. That is at least strongly implied in The Crucible.
“The bitch, oh the bitch, the bitch is back…I’m a bitch cuz I’m better then you, it’s the way that I move
The things that I do…” Elton John
“People try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend…” The Moody Blues
“To start, press any key. Where’s the any key?” Homer Simpson.
1)The Crucible is a work of literature. Miller’s goal was not to explain what happened in Salem; rather, he was seeking to make some very contemporary comments about McCarthyism. This is not to say that The Crucible is inaccurate, but that among the variety of information Miller had access to he picked those details most relevant to the current political scene. A book such as this [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0134425421/o/qid=956557488/sr=2-3/104-5306662-2938843][The Story of the Salem Witch Trials] would probably offer a more complete picture of the historical Salem. Or someone could drop Tomndeb a line and tell him to come give us the skinny–he is our most authoritative voice on American history since Pickman’s Model left and as unbiased a doper as we have…
The reason I object to modern day pagans or Wiccans claiming a distinct and personal tie to the victims of various witch persecutions is that those victims themselves would be appalled to think that they might someday become martyrs to such a cause. I, myself, suffer under no illusions that Wicca or paganism are in any way devil-worship. However, the victims of the burnings in Europe and of the witchhunt in Salem most assuredly would have. There is no reason to believe that they were any less backward and superstitious than their accusers; in pre-industrial Europe and even more so in colonial America there was no concept of religious plurality–there was only Christian and Satanic. From their perspective it would be as if pedophilia were to somehow become a cultural norm centuries from now, and the names of falsely accused pedophiles of today were trumpeted all over as martyrs to the cause. Even though the beliefs of these people were intolerant and morally deficient by our modern standards, it is still insulting to use them to champion a cause that was, in the pre-industrial mind, on par with rape or murder.
It is worth mentioning that the decision to pick on widows is standard with scapegoating practices-In times of great stress (which life in Salem undoubtedly was) people seem to have an almost innate need to scapegoat, and often kill, members of the community. These are often people that are drains on the community’s scarce resources. Carthaginians sacrificed children in times of war, the various people of Mesoamerica sacrificed other people’s warriors and occasionally children, the various witch trials sacrificed little old widows. It makes a sort of sense-why get rid of someone who can hoe a field when there are these others that the community is having to support and who are no longer capable of giving anything back? When, in the 1950s, the U.S. sacrificed a lot of screenwriters and a few actors, it served the same purpose as it did in Carthage millennia ago.
MandaJo, I agree with you 100 percent. Thank you for making my point so eloquently with your second point. I knew what I felt, couldn’t explain it though> Thank God there are clear thinkers like you in the world.
I am well aware that the author’s allegory of the Crucible was in reference to the McCarthy-era. But that just strenghtens my stance has far as I’m concerned.
Oh there is no question that tomndeb is an excellent historian, but I would like to point out that I have a degree in American History as well. Unfortunately, Salem is not my area of expertese.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Relax, I’m not as Dave as I look!- A Wallified sig!
All of what you say here is true, and you said it well. To respond to your request for clarification: Wicca is a threat to Orthodoxy because Orthodoxy is inherently threatened by any “heresy”, but particularly so by the fundamental rejection of any need for an official rendition of The Truth. Thus, fundamentalist Shi’ite Muslims might find common cause to work with fundamentalist Christians far more eaily than with a coalition of Unitarian/Universalits, secular humanists, neoWiccans, and SDMB addicts.
To be sure, some portion of those burned at the stake would have been equally comfortable morally (and far more comfortable physically) on the other side of the fire; but to the extent that the witch-burnings were a persecution of the wrong-thinking who rejected imposed theology due to a stubborn sense that the ones doing the imposing weren’t necessarily right, they are at least remote kin. And if they would hurt no others (in the specific sense that they would not burn others as witches or impose belief systems upon them), they are indeed “us”.
Pepperlandgirl: Yes! That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along! That’s why I like you. Eventually, you get it! You have tremendous potential, young lady. Keep it up.
MandaJO makes some very good points as well. I too am quite aware of the fact that the majority of the people killed in Salem and Europe were fine, upstanding Christians who did not deserve what they got. The Europeans in particular. The witch hunting in Europe was outrageous, and pepperlandgirl’s ideas about greed being a motivating factor are good ones, if you apply them to Europe. But I’d bet that there’s more than a few Christian martyrs that would look at what’s gone on with Christianity over the years and say “Huh? What the f*** are you guys talking about? I didn’t die for that.”
Cristi, Slayer of Peeps
I made my husband join a bridge club. He jumps next Tuesday.
People who are “different” have long been persecuted. This is true for people who choose to honor belief systems that are different from the majority in their area, it is also true for people who look different, speak differently, or just act differently.
Wiccans, and other people who consider themselves as pagans are often harassed and even assulted by people who insist that pagan beliefs are by definition wrong. And that pagans are simply misguided folks who will eventually “come around”. Pagans by defination are not satanist, pagans do not believe in the exisitance of satan. However, for many centuries, the word pagan has come to mean evil. I’ve done a bit of study in this area (for obvious reasons, it interests me)and most of this pagan=evil line of reasoning seems to stem from the activities of the Catholic church at the time of the Inquisition. The majority of people killed by the Inquisition as witches were not what we today would consider witches… but they were all “different”; people from outside the “norms” of society at the time. This meant that they had much less chance of having anyone stand up for them, and made it easier for the mob mentality to take over. As a modern pagan, I do not claim these people to be the “martyrs” of my faith. But, I do sympathize with their situation, and respect the difficulties they encountered for the sole reason of being themselves. I respect the difficulties of all people who have been persecuted for their beliefs, from jews for their religion to scientists for cuttng edge beliefs about the nature of the world around us to people who are persecuted because of the color of their skin or their country of origin.
That being said, it is not always easy to be a pagan especially in a small old-fashioned rural community. Most employers here will not allow time off becuase they do not consider my beliefs to be a “religion”. And, it was very painful to be told that my beilefs were not an acceptable topic for a high school project (although many others n the class were doing “religious” material)granted, this was a number of years ago. I must be careful where and when I speak of myself as pagan because I have be lectured, evanglized (if that’s the word) and on occassion physically harmed by people who feel threatened by my beliefs. Not to mention the oh so fun task of explaining myself to the people in my life (especially fun was the conservative christian parents of my SO.)
Pepperland, I’m not saying that the attitude of the young man you encountered was right (everyone has the right to practice the religion of their choice, and he would only have a gripe if he had applied to the school for permission to hold a pagan celebration and been denied) but, having seen the world from both sides, I would hazard a guess that his feelings of persecution, have a lot more to do with his life now then with the persecution of people in the past (be they witches or not)
Of course all of this is my humble opinion.
(I also apologize in advance for spelling and grammer errors. I’m trying to post between tasks while working)
“If we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research.” - Albert Einstein
pepperland: Be patient with your friend. I notice you’re in high school, and a lot of people (myself included blush) when they first begin a Wiccan path don’t understand it all that well and say things about it that aren’t true but that sound cool.
If you choose to confront him about his historical inaccuracies, do so gently but firmly. If he keeps saying this Wicca-is-an-ancient religion stuff, he’s going to make a fool of himself more times but one. It’s quite enough that it be based on ancient religions.
Also, please bear in mind that even though we don’t practice a religion similar to theirs, many modern Wiccans/Witches consider themselves spiritual heirs of the women who were murdered as witches. (This is, in some cases, justified by modern day events: check http://www.witchvox.com/cases/religioushate.html .)
Oh, and regarding calling ourselves Witches? That’s what the capital letter is for, dear. Anyway, ‘witch’ didn’t always mean woman who consorts with the devil. The original root wicce simply meant wise woman, magick worker, or midwife. It is related to the word wise and comes from the root wiccian “to bend”.
Surely you don’t mean that all Wiccans reject “any need for an official rendition of The Truth” Because if that’s what you meant, it’s a statement of Wiccan orthodoxy, and Wiccans who rejected the view would be heretics.
By this argument, Satanists also fall under Wicca’s big tent. For that matter, so does Satan. But I’ll bet Wiccans don’t go around saying, “Where not all Satanists!”
Pandora wrote:
There is no particular set of beliefs that are sine qua non for paganism. There is nothing contradictory in someone claiming to be a pagan and claiming to believe in Satan. Therefore, it is by no means true that pagans are by definition not athiests. But I don’t think that’s what you really meant. I think you’re just using ‘by definition’ as a form of punctuation. =)
If there is anything like a definitive description of what ‘paganism’ is, it would be the beliefs and practices of those who still followed Roman polytheism in the rural areas of the Roman Empire after Rome converted to Christianity. The original pagani (which is a Latin word roughly equivalent to our modern English term “rednecks”) were sneered at by urbanites who had almost universally converted at least nominally to Christianity. This is not unlike how our modern ‘rednecks’ are often ridiculed by the predominantly urban ‘pagans’ for adhering to their religion. It won’t be that long before the pagans will be in a position to be the persecuters themselves once more. So you have somthing to look forward to.
But if I may play advocatus diaboli, as it were, I should like to make it clear that when a Chrispy accuses you of Satanism, this doesn’t mean you are accused of knowingly worshiping Satan. The Chrispy view is that the gods and forces of nature that the pagans worship are actually demons in disguise. In my opinion, this argument doesn’t hold water. But maybe a lurking Chrispy would like to take up this line.
matt_mcl wrote:
That people want to call themselves witches is not the problem. The problem is that people who do so knew that it has been used as a negative term for centuries, which does not refer to their particular religion in any definitive way, and they want to take control of it and act as though they have a right to get indignant if people keep using the term the way they have done for a long time before the neo-pagans decided they owned it.
According to An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary by Bosworth and Toller, wiccian meant ‘to practise witchcraft.’ What source are you using?
Also, I don’t see any evidence here that ‘wise’ is any way etymologically connected.
MATT: Ever since the word “witch” was coined, it meant one who consorted with or recieved power from the Devil- Illust. Oxford Dict, pg 955 “1. A sorceress, esp. a woman supposed to have dealings with the devil or evil spirits”. Yes, and as I pointed out, the OED gives “wicce” as a ROOT of ‘witch’, but the two words are not the same & have not the same meaning at all. Wiccans are NOT Witches. There is a Church of Satan; it calls its members “witches” and does so correctly.
Wiccans are always tired of people confusing them w/satanists, gosh, whatEVER could be the reason?:rolleyes
Cute! Yes, paradoxically, one cannot establish this as doctrine among Wiccans because if you could, you couldn’t.
But it has been my observation that most Wiccans in the context in which they exist today reject doctrine and orthodoxy–not just this or that specific doctrine or orthodoxy, but the very notion of having one. And therein lies the attraction for me.
As an individual, I can equally well (and with full authority and accuracy) state that my religion is my own, without name until I name it. And I choose to make human fallibility–the inability to have an ironclad doctrine, the inability to have anything you can know for sure to hold onto–as my cornerstone. And as an individual choosing such a cornerstone, I could be wrong, I could be choosing the wrong postulate to build on. And I can’t fix or ameliorate that. Yet I choose it anyway.
Having done so, I then observe that I am in the company (conceptually speaking) of a great many Wiccans, and because it is good to share an understanding and give it a name to be called that others can recognize, I say I am Wiccan. (The reverence for the holiness within that which is natural, such as the rhythms of the seasons, appeals to me as well).
The main harm of organized religion is the imposition of ways of thinking, by coercion raw and coercion subtle. Here are a people who say “Do what ye will an it harm none”. It is my observation that most of them comprehend the imposition of a dogma or the establishment of a formal document of “things you gotta believe to be a good Wiccan” to be in violation of the “no harm” clause. And so it would be.
[ul][li]If it wasn’t a mandatory, school-sponsored event (although I question why it was even allowed on school grounds), then he had just as much right to complain as he did not to watch or listen. Personally, I would have just ignored the whole thing, but he chose to complain. My feeling is that if you took the time to, in effect, present your beliefs in public, then he had time to, in effect, “rebut” with his own. Frankly, you didn’t need to respond - all you needed to do was let him express himself. Then it would have been “even,” in a sense. IMO.[/li]
[li]You laughed at him. Yes, I know, you were laughing at what you perceived as his misguided logic and misunderstanding of history, but you still laughed at him. I’d be pretty pissed off, too. If he was the one putting on the presentation, and you went up afterwards and expressed your own objections, and he laughed at you, I think you might, in some small way, feel the way he did. The best thing you could have done was let him say what he had to say, then say, “Well, I’m glad we could talk about this - thank you.” Being “right” isn’t always the smartest path when dealing with people. IMO.[/ul][/li]
Esprix
Not to put too fine a spin on it, but Starhawk isn’t exactly a, unbiased research scholar but a popularizer. What original source does she acknowledge?
Saint Eutychus H.M.S.H. " ‘He is a prince’ , the minstrels sing.
Among men, yes. Among fools he is a king." Disney Shorts The Eutychus Papers