…I don’t know whether to thank you or slap you ;).
Aw, what the heck? Thanks, Ghandi!
First, **Angel of the Lord ** I too, had you pegged for a devout Christian. Can’t judge a doper by their user name.
Secondly, knowing next to nothing about Wicca (or any major/minor religion) this has been an fairly informative thread for me.
Thirdly, having never watched Buffy more than once and never even heard of Teenwitch and the Curse (or what ever the shows are.) I wonder if someone at WB (the crappy entertainment network: No plot is too contrived for us!) would take a bunch of …say…Fundies and dress them up in hot/cool clothing and gave them their own show, would that inspire a whole new load of deer-cauhgt-in-the-headlights posers to imitate? I know I would rather have my children pose as wiccan’s than fundies, but call me crazy.
Better yet, dress up a bunch of old jewish ladies in belly baring outfits, OY! I can see Miami Beach now!
If i had a point to this, I’ve lost it.
For those so interested, the best book around for getting an understanding of Wicca (and Neo-Paganism in general) is Margot Adler’s Drawing Down the Moon (the '86 edition). For a REALLY indepth look at Wicca’s history, try Ronald Hutton’s Triumph of the Moon. Warning, it’s a very deep book, with lots of history, but you’ll find just about everything you want to know about Wicca’s history in there.
**Gaspode wrote:
To an outsider the whole thing seems ludicrous. Someone invents a religion based in part on ancient practices but largely just fabricated on the spot, a lot of other people add to it and take away from it and then one person starts saying to another that you haven’t done what’s necessary to be a Wiccan. Based on what? If I claim to be a Wiccan how do you know I’m not? What is the standerd for Wicca?**
For me, I’d compare the practices of the person or Coven in question to what Gardener wrote in his books back in the '50s. If there’s enough similar material, I’d say that their practices are based on Gardener’s work. Check out Triumph of the Moon for a good analysis of this.
If someone goes around claiming to be a 3rd Degree High Priest of Priestss, I’d ask which tradition they follow and who initiated them, then follow up those leads.
Of course, not every Nep-Pagan group follows Gardener’s work. The Asatruar (those who are true to the Aesir) are largely based on the work of Ered Thorsson and his Furthark book and other works.
There’s also a group of Celtic Reconstructionists based on the work of Alexei Kondratiev. His book The Apple Branch has recently been re-issued as Celtic Magic and gives a wonderfully detailed set of rituals based on what we historically know of Celtic society. Great stuff!
Let me put it to you this way.
There are lots of dialects of French. There is Parisian French. There is Montreal French. There is Saguenay French. There is Norman French. There is Senegalese French. There is Haitian French, etc. So if someone shows up fluently speaking something which they claim is French but that I (a speaker of Montreal French) do not understand, it could simply be that they are speaking a dialect of French that I do not understand.
However, if they have just skimmed through Berlitz’ French in Thirty Seconds and are now spasmodically choking out a sentence about their breakfast with President and Mme Chirac, I am going to draw the obvious inference that they do not speak any dialect of French at all, and are also a posing idiot.
In the absence of a (new) “Ask the Wiccan” thread… a couple of simple, and hopefully not too silly, questions:
I’ve heard from any number of people about the “Harm no one, lest it come back upon you threefold,” rule.
Is that generally accurate description of the rule?
Now assume I’m so pissed at someone that taking three-fold damage myself seems like a fair trade-off. That is, I’m interested in hexing them into losing a limb, to pick an example, and I’m quite willing to risk losing three of my own limbs if I can just get the bastard in question to lose one. Is there some fundamental tenent of Wicca that I’m violating? Obviously, I’m harming, but I’m also accepting the consequences. So I guess I’m asking, is there some rule that says, simply, “To heck with the back-upon-you-times-three business - don’t harm anyone, period?”
- Rick
That's what wrong with the world these days. All I hear is Aesir-this and Aesir-that. We wouldn't have all these problems if people would just start worshipping the Vanir.**Bricker wrote:
I’ve heard from any number of people about the “Harm no one, lest it come back upon you threefold,” rule.
Is that generally accurate description of the rule?**
No, it’s not. You seem to be conflating two different rules. The first is known as the Rede:
An it harm none, do what thou will.
This rule tells us to consider our actions and their consequences. Like a pebble dropped into a lake, the ripples of that action spread out and affect the rest of the world. If you do X, what will its consequences be and who will be affected?
The next is the Rule of Three.
This is more of a mystical principle. Both good action and bad have their effects, as stated above, but the “reflections” of those ripples come back to visit us 3 times. Why 3? The number 3 has magical/mystical significance rooted in Antique Pagan practices and in the Kaballah (sp?).
Now assume I’m so pissed at someone that taking three-fold damage myself seems like a fair trade-off. That is, I’m interested in hexing them into losing a limb, to pick an example, and I’m quite willing to risk losing three of my own limbs if I can just get the bastard in question to lose one. Is there some fundamental tenent of Wicca that I’m violating? Obviously, I’m harming, but I’m also accepting the consequences. So I guess I’m asking, is there some rule that says, simply, "To heck with the back-upon-you-times-three business - don’t harm anyone, period?"
Yes, you’re violating the Rede quite directly. Even tho you’re accepting the consequences of your actions, you’re still harming another. That’s the main point of the Rede, direct, willful harm. If you work within a group, something of this magnitude will likely get you expelled. If you’re a Solitaire (a solo practictioner) well, may the Gods have mercy upon your soul.
As I tried to show above, you’ve conflated two different (albeit related) Rules. I hope that answers your question.
**DocCathode wrote:
That’s what wrong with the world these days. All I hear is Aesir-this and Aesir-that. We wouldn’t have all these problems if people would just start worshipping the Vanir.**
Depending upon who you talk to, some folks do. I’ve had the opportunity to run into a Fam-Trad guy who claims to have roots in a family that follows old practices of just worshipping the Vanir.
Of course, modern scholars like to put all the old practices under the idea of modern Aesir worship. Read up about “The First War” and the exchange of hostages thereafter and you’ll get a better idea of what happened.
matt_mcl, you are my new hero. Is it just me, or has this thread been rife with excellent analogies? IMHO matt_mcl’s got my Matthew 6.5 analogy beat by a long way with this one.
Freyr covered Bricker’s question pretty well, but I just had one minor point to add.
There really isn’t such a thing as “hexing” in spellcraft as far as Wicca is concerned. I guess Freyr pretty much covered that, too, as to me a hex implies a spell with intent to do harm against someone or something. I’d just warn against using that terminology when discussing Wiccan spellcraft. Yeah, that’s my point. I knew I had one. 
The thing to bear in mind is, not only do my actions come back to me, others’ actions return to them too. If someone’s done something bad to me, I don’t have to lift a finger; their actions will come back to haunt them, one way or another. I might not be around to see it, but it’ll happen.
Sort of an instant karma thing?
Sadly, this does seem to be the norm in my experience. (It doesn’t help Lucki Chaarms much re. the OP… except perhaps to reinforce: “you’re not alone”). 
When you’re in the SCA the newbie, or the media, (or whoever) will talk either to the person who knows nothing (but is prepared to share their knowledge with everyone) or the authenticity nut who alienates everyone else and drives away interested newcomers, and any pictures taken will be of the chick in the rabbit fur bikini or the guy in the blue plastic chemical drum armour.
When you’re a gamer, the same applies to the offensive smelling socially-challenged waddling fan-boy who thinks that role-playing consists of how many levels he can acquire for his centaur paladin-ninja, or the obsessive Magic fan who can recite the text from every card back to Arabian Nights (and will do so with the slightest provocation), or the Goth / Person-in-black / Arm-chair Prince of Darkness / Wanna-be Vampire.
In sci-fi fandom, it’ll be the obese vulcan in the skin-tight Star Trek: TNG outfit, or the guy that claims that Klingon is a real language, or the obsessive BattleStar Galactica fan who insists that all other science fiction is derivative rubbish and wants to discuss the egyptian sybolism of the Viper pilots’ helmets, or the fanatic filk-singer whose voice makes those in the neighbouring rooms think that cats are being tortured.
And… when you’re a moderate, not-terribly socially-challenged, presentable, well-employed and reasonably serious gamer, sci-fi fan, and SCAer, you see the face of your interest/hobby that gets presented to the public and cringe.
PS: Interesting to see so many angels in a wiccan thread: Angel of the Lord, Johnny Angel, Jophiel…
It’s gonna get you… (insert singing smiley here)
Note-this is one of those fluffy teeny bopper boards-I just like going there because it’s amusing to see the ignorance.
Apparently, LC is NOT alone, nor is she a snob.
What a conversation Guin!
What is interesting is how these girls are all seeing themselves as being serious about their faith, while I would bet many of them would be seen as posers to someone who’d been practicing for ten years.
I think it points to the fact that someone who appears to practice a faith casually, may perceive themselves as having a deep faith…they are certainly not the people we are griping about! Why, look at their committment, they even wear a pentagram! (And have the rede memorized by heart, LOL - its what, less than ten words).
They may, in fact, see the very behavior someone like LC finds so annoying to be indicators of their committment.
And yes, few teenage girls who take up Wicca (or Paganism) stick to it (its been interesting to watch some of my vocally pagan friends discover the Episcopalian Church, or UU - and they were Wiccan in their twenties - and often for years).
Some people are lifelong spiritual searchers. Thank God (Gods, Goddesses, Fate, Luck, whathaveyou) that the maturity of the searching tends to get better with age and experience.
There’s this girl I know who goes to my school that I’ve known for two years (well, longer, but we first got to know each other two years ago). Two years ago she went through a number of things when she told me she was not a Christian anymore. She became an agnostic, than atheist, and then a Wiccan. She “been” a Wiccan for about a year and a half and I am fairly peeved at what she’s hoping to gain. She does a Wiccan type ceramony outside of the school we go to, hoping to rile the attention of the adminstration. It’s pretty hard to do that when they gave her the go ahead. She loves to see Christians try to convert her, 'cause she thinks it’s funny. She started this Alternate Religion Club at school, which I joined because she needed people (I’m agnostic). Well, she hasn’t come to her first two meetings, and I’m not going to another one. I don’t think she treats Wicca seriously, and uses it to make Christians angry. Personally I feel that she’s just an angry Christian. Something happened to her and she’s lashing out at her religion in all the ways she knows how. It’s real sad because she’s real smart and knows better than to manipulate a religion like that.
Actually this is an interesting point…
My (limited) understanding of The Rede is that it’s not limited to spells. It should extend to one’s actions everywhere, not just in magic, right?
How do you define “harm”? How much “for his/her own good” type stuff is allowed? To use a comic-booky/musical example (and please…let’s not start the magick works/doesn’t work debate!), for just a sec pretend that you had a Klansman and let’s also assume that you had the ability to cast a spell that actually changed his skin color to black (shows up that way in photographs and everything). Let’s also say you did so. On one hand, you have just harmed him by his standards. You may cost him his family, livelyhood, put him at serious risk for his life, etc.
On the other hand, damn, it would be poetic justice.
Acceptible or not?
How 'bout Matt saying in another thread that
“Deliberately shocking people or making them uncomfortable is a reasonably effective way of persuading them to forgo unethical behaviour. Several forms of this constitute an important portion of democratic discourse.”
Deliberately shocking people causes harm (discomfort) to those shocked as the shocked people define it. Certainly not vast harm (depending on the shock) in most circumstances and, as Matt said, it may do them some good. But they didn’t consent to it and probably wouldn’t.
In this case, who defines harm? The “shockee”, the “shocker” or some external third party? Do you believe in an ‘objective’ definition of harm or a subjective one?
Curiously,
Fenris
ahem
The problem of defining harm is hardly limited to those of us of the Wiccan faith. It’s kept philosophers up nights since the beginning of language. It’s certainly the lifeblood of the “Great Debates” section of this board.
I won’t pretend to speak for all my fellow Wiccans. But I’ve never taken it to mean literally three times in carefully-measured portions of harm.
I feel the rede is a way of metaphorically expressing two things:
[ul][li]You only get back what you put into the world, so if you’re miserable, spiteful, cruel person, don’t expect to be treated any better than you treat others. And don’t expect to escape the consequences of your actions.[/li][li]The basic principle of morality aren’t the rules set down in some book, but the pain you cause other people.[/li][li]** Hi Opal!**[/li][/ul]
In other words, a sort of religious existentialism. We have to sort out cruelty and kindness for ourselves, and based on context, because no rule is going to work for every situation.
No, I don’t think the universe keeps a scorecord (“Ok, he just scored 20 good points, so subtract that from his 50 evil points…”). I do think that if we live long enough, the evil we commit catches up with us, either in the form of external consequences, or by the way it eats us up inside.
This probably deserves it’s own thread, but anyway. . .
What has always troubled me about the Rede–when it is offered as a complete moral philosophy–is that it dosen’t offer much guidance when one is put in a position of chosing who to harm–if you are in a boat in the middle of the sea, and you can save a friend, a family member, a stranger, a baby or a convicted murderer–and only one of them–the Rede dosen’t offer much guidence. Nor does it help you decide between harming yourself or harming someone else–if someone is heads-over-heals in love with you, rejecting them is going to hurt them horribly. But staying with someone you don’t love and never loved kinda sucks. I don’t really have a problem with the harm principle per se, but I do not think it is a sufficient basis for making moral decisions.
You would have to have a very delicate constitution in order to be harmed by being shocked, methinks. (Of course I’m talking here about civil disobedience/épater les bourgeois type of shock here, not electricity.)
Startling people peacefully from their complacency and making them see the effects of their action or inaction has a long and most honourable history in the annals of the democratic process.
I shock people every day by being openly Queer/Pagan/geek/left-wing/me. It doesn’t harm them, but it hopefully makes them think.
Moving right along to the subject closer to hand, which might be better treated (indeed, has been) in Great Debates.
I’ve never treated the Rede as a law; as I practice, Wicca has no dogma and therefore no moral laws. I mean that we don’t have any set of laws that are absolute to every case. We needn’t justify ourselves according to an a priori set of rules. We don’t get off that easily.
What we do use (certainly what I use) is ethics, a matter of practical everyday responsibility, by which actions I take are considered in their context.
There is no absolute law against murder; what stands between me and murder is ethics, which I use to mean my ability to perceive that the victim is a human being and an incarnation of the God and Goddess, and as full of human worth as I.
(The basis of this belief could be that that since everyone and everything is an incarnation of Deity, since I venerate that deity I am both free to act how I wish and enjoined to consider the effects of my actions on other people and things. However, this could be thought of as a first principle that I don’t necessarily need to go all the way back to every time there’s an ethical decision at hand.)
What this all means is that there is no crib sheet. There is no easy test. As a human being, I am sentient; I have the ability to make ethical decisions based on my perception of the context in which I act. All power is responsibility, and with this power of sentience and empathy I consider it my responsibility to act ethically.
Most of the time, this is a breeze. The good thing about ethics is that most of the time, it is very easy to know the ethical thing. It is easier to push a little old lady into traffic than it is to go around her, but 99% of us don’t need a rule against murder, fear of punishment, etc., etc., to know that we oughtn’t to. We don’t even consider the thing. We simply step aside. Ethics are largely a matter of simple, everyday responsibility.
Our ethics are a sort of autopilot - most of the time they keep us ethical, within the boundaries of our awareness. (Since our ethics depend on our awareness of the world to function most amply, it’s essential to continue to expand our awareness).
Then when there’s a decision to be made, they sort of flash. Jiminy Cricket chirps at us. Whatever. But my ethical sense lets me know when I’m at serious risk of doing what I shouldn’t. Then I stop, and the decision gets shunted into my consciousness, and all of my mental faculties (reason, intuition, imagination, memory, common sense…) get called into service to help me make a decision.
At this point, it becomes much more difficult than checking chapter and verse to find out what I ought to do. I have to employ all relevant faculties in order to figure it out. Sometimes I realize my own ignorance of something important and delay the decision until I can do more research.
Since I make ethical decisions from my awareness of the context of my acts, I could say that contrariwise, when I do unethical things, it is out of ignorance of my situation, whether having simply been not in possession of a critical fact, or having been unable to empathize with someone whom I ought to have empathized with. Remorse is accompanied by a resolution to understand the problem and to fill in whatever flaw caused me to stumble.
It is my impression that very few people lack an ethical sense. I believe that those who commit dreadful actions do so out of one of many types of ignorance - factual ignorance; willful blindness, i.e. convincing yourself that certain consequences are more important than others when they aren’t; or failure to recognize others as human beings.
As emanations of the God and Goddess, very few of us are actually evil. But being human, we often err. And belief that set commandments could apply to every situation is a great error.
That’s what I believe. Subject, as all complex perceptions of the world are, to revision.