The question is not how legitimate Wicca is as a religion, but how historical it is. Does Wicca have any direct linneage from the old Celtic religions? No, those religions died out and left scant written records. Are the beliefs and practices of modern Wiccans the same as those of the ancient Celts? Not likely at all. We have no way of knowing what the Celts actually thought or exactly how they worshiped, though we can make wild guesses, and the most popular wild guess is that they had modern eco-feminist sensibilities.
If you want an accurate idea of the history of paganism, a Wiccan is generally the last person you’ll want to turn to. However, increasingly many of them have a realistic view of their own religion and realize that it is a modern invention that pays tribute to the pagans of antiquity. So long as that’s understood, there’s nothing especially illegitimate to Wicca’s claims as a religion.
I do, however, have a couple of points of contention that come up when the issue of modern pagans comes up.
First, many neo-pagans have adopted the term `witch’ to which they have no historical claim. Yet, they expect everyone else to accept their hijacking of the term, applying the new sense of the word universally and retroactively. I’ve rambled on this point a bit more extensively in the P.A.G.A.N. thread.
Second, pagans often speak as though they are superior somehow to Christians, and they belittle the Christian faith. That Christians belittle them is no excuse. I criticize Chrispies who commit this same offense all the time.
I don’t mean you can’t make fun of other religions. I’ve never heard of a religion I wouldn’t make fun of. I’m what you might call a secular humorist. But I don’t like to be haughty or condescending about another person’s religion, even when I feel the need to be seriously critical of it.
And one will often hear the claim that what makes pagans superior is that rather than having the stultifying and often contradictory moral principles of the Judeo Christian tradition, paganisms’ only principle is “An ye do no harm…” This is always given in the archaic, although the expression is probably modern in origin. If someone has evidence to the contrary, bring it up, but as far as I can tell it doesn’t predate John Stewart Mill’s classic formulation of it, which is known in philosophy as Mill’s Harm Principle.
Unfortunately, if you seriously want to claim that it’s the only principle you need, it’s woefully inadequate. For example, and this is only the tip of the iceberg, it does not account for what constitutes harm, whether harm done unintentionally counts, whether there is such a thing as fit retribution or redemption for harm done, or even whether not doing good for someone constitutes doing harm.
The principle of harm is a useful consideration, one of about a dozen classic ethical principles that apparently don’t get a mention in whatever book the neopagan’s version of the harm principle came from:
[ul][li]Personal benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for the individual in question.[/li][li]Social benefit: acknowledge the extent to which an action produces beneficial consequences for society.[/li][li]Principle of benevolence: help those in need.[/li][li]Principle of paternalism: assist others in pursuing their best interests when they cannot do so themselves.[/li][li]Principle of harm: do not harm others.[/li][li]Principle of honesty: do not deceive others.[/li][li]Principle of lawfulness: do not violate the law.[/li][li]Principle of autonomy: acknowledge a person’s freedom over his/her actions or physical body.[/li][li]Principle of justice: acknowledge a person’s right to due process, fair compensation for harm done, and fair distribution of benefits.[/li][li]Rights: acknowledge a person’s rights to life, information, privacy, free expression, and safety.[/ul][/li]
It would be shallow to take even this entire list as an adequate set of moral principles. Judeo-Christian morality covers a lot more ground than this, and there have been thousands of years of hard thinking put into it. It is naieve and grossly concieted to think that all of this can be simply brushed away because it’s inferior to a one-liner of a moral principle whose author anticipated the advent of bumper stickers. If you think the harm principle is adequate, that’s fine. But don’t kid yourself that you’re the smart one.