Why are all Pagan's and Witches looked at as evil?

Great Debates
61

freyr: well, you are right, in that “wicca/neopaganism” started around that time, as an “organized” faith. But there are some documented direct line roots going back to the 1800’s. Of course, (blessedwolf)some of the wiccan/neopagan ceremonies & traditions are “borrowed/ reconstructed” from much earlier archaeological info we have, but there are no direct line sources going back beyond the 19th century.

My faith is almost a “New” faith also. The Celtic Christian Church, atho founded somewhere back around the 5th century, went mostly underground from about 1200>1900, so the link with the past, altho there, is rather tenuous. I find it interesting, that a couple of the “oldest” faiths have such appeal to the modern generations.

62

I’m a Christian who believes that magic is real, and inherently moraly neutral, which makes me a complete raving heretic to some. My ideas re: magic come mostly from reading Katherine Kerr, Katherine Kurtz, C.S.Lewis, Watchman Nee, and the Bible. What can the Wiccans here tell me about the relevance of such sources to the current Wiccan religion.
In my veiw, God created the spiritual reality first, then the physical, with the physical as a reflection of the spiritual (sort of like The Matrix). I’ve got to go now, but would love to talk with more Wiccans re: the nature of magic, or even the nature of reality.

63

The best work on Neo-Paganism is still Adler’s Drawing Down the Moon. Highly recommended. Get the 1986 edition, if you can find it.

As I mentioned before, Russell’s book (see above) is also a good source.

64

Daniel, can you substantiate these claims with some cites? Author, title, year of publication? Because until you do, I cannot accept your assertations. Satan has already pointed out this is a habit of yours in debate.

I consider Margot Adler’s Drawing Down the Moon to be one of the best scholarly works on the history of NeoPaganism and Wicca. She talks about Margaret Mead, Gardner, and Crowley, and the fact that they pretty much made it up as they went along. Gardner had no mystical initiation into a long-underground Druidic tradition or anything else. He conjured it out of thin air to sound a little more impressive and compete with some of the other brand new New Age religions.

NeoPaganism and Wicca were both created out of whole cloth. I am a Wiccan and a Pagan, and I have absolutely no problem with that. Trouble comes when Pagans feel the need to clothe their beliefs with some grand history, as though it gives their beliefs more validity.

Rose, I think the title of your OP would have been better phrased as “Why do some people think all Pagans and Wiccans are evil?”. Some people do, or at least they talk as though they do. I chalk it up to the same column of willful ignorance that I put racism in.

There are Pagans, Wiccans, and Witches out there that do their sisters and brothers little good by making outlandish claims and purposefully antagonizing others. There is a type of agressive behavior known as “reactive bullying” wherein a person baits another, trying to get a response, and when they succeed, go crying “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!”.

There are those who take the name of Witch because it shocks and frightens others. There are those who do it because it’s exotic and cool. There are those who take it because they crave romance and mystery. Overall, I don’t think we suffer any more than any other religion with the exception that we are the new kid on the block and there are a great many misperceptions about who we are and what we believe.

Welcome to the board, and congratulations on starting up a great thread.

65

It’s a great pity that all religions tend to be judged by the words and actions of only the loudest and most extreme (read media-worthy) minority in their ranks. I know a number of Christians who are deeply embarrassed by the vocal fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists, just as I know many pagans who don’t want to be confused with what can only be called the pagan fundamentalists (“you must conduct these rituals at these times with a licensed priestess etc etc”). It seems that there are always a few extremists out there determined to taint the pot for everyone who might be interested in listening otherwise.

And it isn’t only religion. Lots of secular movements start out as something with a new and interesting point of view, only to attract a few whacko converts who think they have found the one true fill in the blank. John Gray’s “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” is one, just as Est or TM in the '70’s and '80s were others. They worked for some people, not for others.

The problem seems to be that there are some people out there who think that there is only one one to look at any issue. You only have two choices - my way or the wrong way. Well, just as certain clothes look good on me but not on you, and aspirin relieves my headaches while ibuprofen works for you, difference is a fact of life. No religion or world view has ever, ever been able to eradicate that fact (thank goodness), only to drive it undergound for a while. The only way to make everyone the same is to kill them all.

I happen to find some basic truths in all religions. If it wasn’t there, it wouldn’t catch on. It’s the dogma that limits us. I have no problem with “do unto others” or “love thy neighbor”. What I do not need is someone to tell me exactly how I am supposed to do unto them or love them.

66

Which claims, and what are we debating? Is the thread here “When did the wicca/pagan faith start”? No. I back up every important point I make in the main debate. Why do I have to back up with a solid cite every single thing I say, even points that are not being argued? Do you? Does satan? No. You have made several assertions, and backed one of them up. My original point was that wicca/ neopaganism IS a “new” religion, and has no roots back to the Stone age, or anything remotely like that. And that is what my cite and source said. Do you disagree with that? Are you trying to say that the "craft’ goes back to the paleolithic? :rolleyes:

Now, since there were some “Neo-druids” around during the Victorian period, and some of their stuff has much similarity to wicca/neopaganism, I will accept that the “craft” has some direct roots going back to that period. I am not argueing that it does, but it MIGHT very well do so. There are many similarities in traditions, ceremonies, etc.
It could be co-incidence, also, I guess. :rolleyes:

67

THERE ARE SEVEN <7> ASSERTIONS HERE, DO YOU HAVE CITES FOR EVERY ONE OF THEM?

68

phouka wrote:

I consider Margot Adler’s Drawing Down the Moon to be one of the best scholarly works on the history of NeoPaganism and Wicca. She talks about Margaret Mead, Gardner, and Crowley, and the fact that they pretty much made it up as they went along. Gardner had no mystical initiation into a long-underground Druidic tradition or anything else. He conjured it out of thin air to sound a little more impressive and compete with some of the other brand new New Age religions.

Uh, not exactly. Gardner WAS a member of the Golden Dawn Society, and probably received some training in magic there, tho the Golden Dawn seems to steal most of their material from Jewish Kabbalistic traditions and cut/paste old gods into it. Gardner was a folklorist and an amateur anthropologist when he spent time in Malaysia and Ceylon (Drawing Down the Moon, 1986 pg 60-61).

Because of this, I’d say he used that training to create Wicca. It’s not ENTIRELY out of whole cloth. :slight_smile:

69

I am by no means any expert on Neopagan metaphysics, theology, or practice, but I would hazard the observation that distinguishing between nature worship, the generic Universal Spirit manifesting in male/female guise, and ceremonial Magick of various types would be a positive first step. Any further action without making the appropriate distinctions is much the same as criticizing my worldview because I happen to “belong to the same religion” as Jerry Falwell. And Wicca, Neopaganism in several “styles”, and the Golden Dawn and Crowley groups seem to me to have at least as much difference as the Coptic Orthodox, Down-Home Baptists, and Unitarians do in the broad scale of Christianity.

70

OK, I gotta say this. All you people who think that everything is “magick”? If everything is magick, then in what way is the word “magick” useful? If I use magick to get out of bed, take a leak, brush my teeth, turn on the coffee maker, etc, then this is a word that has no meaning.

“I believe in Magick, since everything in the Universe is Magick?” OK, fine. I could say that everything in the Universe is caused by leprechauns. But invoking magick to explain the universe is not helpful, since it introduces concepts that are not neccesary. You say that blood circulates because the heart pumps and because of magick. I say that blood circulates because the heart pumps. How does your invocation of magick help to explain the circulation of the blood? Or the movement of the stars and galaxies? Or how a caterpilar changes into a butterfly?

This is why I view pagans with some skepticism. Not because they are evil, but because they are…well, I’ll just say it. Idiots. Awww, I’m sure you pagans are nice people and all, but I just can’t understand this religion thing. I understand most Christians. Their parents taught them such and such when they were little kids and they didn’t know any better. But if you’ve rejected those false parental teachings, why do you have to go off and invent your own silly teachings that are equally false? Makes no sense.

71

Um, most pagans I know (myself inclded) think that blood circulates because the heart pumps. Caterpillars do this cool cocoon thing, that I’m sure someone else could explain better, because I don’t know much about it. It’s really neat, though! As for the movement of the stars and galaxies, again, there’s other people here that could give you a scientific explanation, but like the caterpillars, it’s pretty darn cool.

Magick? Myself, I don’t think so. Mysterious and wonderful? Absolutely.

72

Hmmm…blood circulates because

(a) the heart functions as an organic pump. [Cold practical explanation]

(b) the heart functions as an organic pump, an evidence of magic in the universe…

(c) the heart functions as an organic pump, because a universal, omnibeneficient God created it that way…

(d) the heart functions as an organic pump, because the workings of evolutionary biology developed such an organ…

(e) the heart functions as an organic pump, because the workings of evolutionary biology developed such an organ, because God created a universe in which it would…

(f) the heart functions as an organic pump, because the workings of evolutionary biology developed such an organ, because God created a universe in which it would, and that’s magical…

Please feel free to continue this train of thought as the spirit (or random jostlings of neural matter) moves you. :slight_smile:

73

Lemur, perhaps it goes back to the point I was trying to make earlier? In other words, maybe some people use the word “magick” not to imply supernatural occurances (events which defy natural laws) but to express reverence and wonder for a universe in which events occur within a framework of natural laws (whether we recognize/understand these laws or not). I call it all “miraculous” but I believe the intent may be the same. So, to describe everything as “magick” (or “miracles”) does not render the term “magick” meaningless, if the intent to express wonder/reverence/appreciation. I like it. Reminds me to appreciate the world around me in all its mundane glory. :wink:

As a slight thought off-topic: Why do so many people seem to demand the supernatural from their deities? Perhaps I should gather my courage and gasp start my own thread…

74

lemur, you don’t understand the concept. Thanks for the flame though. It is always nice hearing ignorant people talking about what they don’t know.

Anyway, everything is magick. It is not anything really special. I think of it like a force that is necessary for all life. In other words the Earth is here for us to live on and we are here to live on it. We maintain the life and that is magickal. It is just how life is. I think it is magickal that life could develop out of a chemical soup of some kind as is the current popular theory in science. I also think it is magickal that we can affect nature to do our bidding or even that we have our own thoughts. Calling one an idiot in such a belief is truly ignorant. There is no need for name calling on a relatively non-threatening topic.

Everything is divine and everything is magickal. We have proof as we can touch, see, and feel it all around. It is one way that some animist pagans find meaning in life. Christians find meaning through their working through Christ. Buddhists find meaning by trying to achieve one. Hindus acheive meaning by following their concepts of Dharma and Kharma (among other things). It needs restating, Animistic pagans find meaning through the presence of nature. There is nothing idiotic about it. It is just different than other paths. I suppose scientists find meaning by determining how natural phenomena works. I can agree with the scientific ideology I take it one step further by believing that nature is divine. I believe that was explained in one of my previous posts pretty well. You can learn to read rather than respond right away if you like. It would make a big difference assuming that in your reading you are granted some miraculous insight into comprehension which doesn’t seem to be there by your last posting.

Does this answer any of your questions?

HUGS!
Sqrl

75

Crud, I should have hit preview. LAMaxwell made the point that I believe I tried to make earlier. Good work.

HUGS!
Sqrl

76

Thank you, Sqrl! Although, I think you made the point better than I did.

So, I take it that you do not require a belief in events which bend or break natural laws in order to believe in the Divine? Cool. Why does God have to perform parlor tricks in order to inspire faith? I think the way things really seem to work is pretty damn amazing.

Pamela

77

Lovely job, you two.

If you don’t mind my interjecting a teensy bit of Christian stuff into a paganism thread (and you’ll see why in a minute), St. John, who as the disciple Jesus loved knew Him best, always made it a point to show how Jesus’s supposed miracles were “signs” – his chosen word – pointing to what Jesus was teaching, and were usually done out of compassion for others.

The miracles in my life, at least have been God working through people to help other people. And David B. has witnessed two miracles: the births of his children.

And I too have seen magic, in the joy shining from the eyes of three wonderful little kids, in beautiful days and warm friendships, in love between two people, in a kinship with animals encountered “by chance” (as Gandalf would say).

Maybe the point we’re all making, with our disparate terms, is that much of what the world is all about is in the terms we use to define it to ourselves. If you see it as mechanistic, that’s all it will ever be. If you see it as magical, then magic will shine back at you. And if you see the work of a kindly God in it, then He will be there when you look for Him.

Peace to you both! :slight_smile:

78

“Everything is divine and everything is magickal”

See, that’s what I can’t understand. How is it helpful to say this? If everything I can imagine has a certain quality, and nothing in the universe can lack a certain quality, then how can we say that such a quality exists?

I mean, I can say that everything in the universe has wakalixies. You say, well, what are wakalixies? I say, everything around you exhibits wakalixy behavior. Well, what have I really done? Nothing, I have actually confused things because I have introduced a hypothesis without consequences. If there is no difference between a universe with wakalixies and a universe without wakalixies, why are we even talking about wakalixies? It is meaningless, and the only reason to talk about wakalixies is to explain how meaningless it would be to talk about wakalixies, which is why I am doing it.

You think life cannot exist without “magick”? Well, that’s nice. But since you cannot explain what magick is, or what affects it has, or what the difference between a magickal and a non-magickal event is, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I hold that there is nothing magickal about life, it is made of ordinary matter arranged in extraordinary ways. There is no special substance that life has that non-life does not. We take in dead carbon atoms every day, they become part of our bodies, we excrete them. They were not transformed by being part of our bodies, there is no vital essence. That does not mean that life does not exist, it means that life is a natural process, not a supernatural one.

By defintion I exclude supernatural phenomena from the universe. If they are part of the universe, they are natural. We may not understand the universe, but I believe it is knowable. Why? Because we animals already understand enough about the universe to stay alive. If the universe really were unknowable, how could we decide what we needed to do to stay alive? We couldn’t tell if we should eat food or rocks, if we should touch the hot stove or not. So we are inescabably lead to the conclusion that the universe is at least partially knowable. So when you have a phenomena that you say is supernatural, I disagree, it is either natural or illusionary.

If you want to say that you have awe and humility in the face of the immensity and complexity of the universe, why not say that? In my opinion, calling something “magick” or “divine” is really a degradation of reality, it is trying to anthropomorphize reality, to make it cute and cuddly. Well, the universe is not cute and cuddly, and words like “magick” are simply pathetic, they reveal how limited we humans are in our comprehension of the universe. To borrow a term from the theists, it is blasphemy.

And Polycarp: I know you didn’t mean to seem to say that I find the universe cold and mechanical. Perhaps you could express what you really meant in a better way. I am a non-theist, that does not mean that my life is empty and meaningless.

79

mag·ic (mjk)
n.

     1.The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking
        the supernatural.
     2.
          a.The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural
             effects or control events in nature.
          b.The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
     3.The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
     4.A mysterious quality of enchantment.

adj.

     1.Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: “stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his
        magic chains at curfew time” (John Milton).
     2.Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.

v. tr. mag·icked, mag·ick·ing, mag·ics.

   To produce or make by or as if by magic.

[Middle English magik, from Old French magique, from Late Latin magica, from Latin magic,
from Greek magik, from feminine of magikos, of the Magi, magical from magos, magician,
magus; see magus.]

Other definitions or interpretations of the word, used within the framework of a conversation in English, only confuse the issue. If by saying “magic” you mean something other than what is listed here, please, use a different word and define it.

80

they are using a diffrent word (magick) magic however owns magick