Wicca

[Checkmite]

New drkitten has it about right.

Wicca is older then Christianity and was based on "The Old Religion" which was pagan, usurped then co-opted by Christian mythos..under grave penalty if One was caught practicing the beliefes...Look out, The Priests would suffer no rival.

Non. There were several local religions, some of which were earth-based, that were ousted by the eventual conquest of Christianity. Wicca may claim to be descended from these religions - but the ties are vestigial at a stretch. Aside from the fact that Wicca is arguably earth-based, and that it makes a big deal about solstices and such, it has nothing in common with these older religions. Wicca is only a few decades old. The greater portion of Wiccan dogma, for example the "Rede", is completely new. When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.

 

[CFLarsen]

When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.

Cue: The Beautiful People?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Non. There were several local religions, some of which were earth-based, that were ousted by the eventual conquest of Christianity. Wicca may claim to be descended from these religions - but the ties are vestigial at a stretch. Aside from the fact that Wicca is arguably earth-based, and that it makes a big deal about solstices and such, it has nothing in common with these older religions. Wicca is only a few decades old. The greater portion of Wiccan dogma, for example the "Rede", is completely new. When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.

I have to agree with JK on this one, especially that last senetence. Truthfully, very little is known about the ancient religions that Wiccans claim to be the inheritors of. Most of the Wiccans I have met claim that their ceremonies are Celtic in origin. The problem I have with that is that very little is known of the ancient Celtic religion. The Romans pretty sucessfully stomped it out by the end of the 1st century A.D. while recording very little of it. The Celts themselves didn't record it either, what with them having no written language and all. So I am pretty dubious about anyone who claims to have knowledge of Celtic ceremonies. This includes almost every "witch" I have ever met.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

No I agree with You both . I just pointed out the pre-cursors , not that any particular practice or sect as identical to it's progenitor. Like the Reformed movement in Judaism or the Catholic-Protestant schism, or Sunni VS Shiia'.

They all had common roots and yet share a particular trait of " My Religion is the True Religion", I'm agnostic and believe none.

I thought that was plain in My last paragraph.

 

[drkitten]

New drkitten has it about right.

Well, thank you, but....

Wicca is older then Christianity

No,

and was based on "The Old Religion" which was pagan,

No,

usurped then co-opted by Christian mythos

No,

..under grave penalty if One was caught practicing the beliefes

No,

...Look out, The Priests would suffer no rival.

and,... No.

All of these statements are twentieth-century myths made up by the neopagans.

As is essentially the entire following paragraph:

It was basically not a worship of nature but the representative god and goddess. The Goddess a symbol of fecundity in nature.. This centered around the seasons and planting cycles based on the moon ( which as we know is not woo-woo). The spring or rebirth of nature was seen for what it was a kind of reawakening or resurrection of nature. Sound familiar ? -Easter The God was more Bacchanalian with a Pan like character, goat hooves horns like character later "The Green Man". He was turned in to the Devil. Christmas replaced Samhain the winter soltice which existed back to the druids again BCE.

In fact, very little in your entire post can be historically supported; among the few "facts" that you got right is that Judaism predated Christianity. But as a history, or as a description of the "pre-cursors," it's slightly less accurate than Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is as a description of England of the fourth century CE. The precursors you describe never existed, either as a unified set of "Goddess worshippers" or even as local sects.

 

[Z]

Let me just reinforce this a bit:

I am a qualified Wiccan priest - inasmuch as any Wiccan tradition has a right to claim 'qualified' priests. I've actually taken a formal course of study to achieve my credentials... And I will agree that modern Wicca owes more to Gardner and Crowley than it does to ancient Celtic rituals or Norse mythology. However...

Crowley and Gardner were not the first to put forth concepts such as the Wiccan Rede and some of the ritual forms. Family traditions with roots in medeival (sp? I never get that one right) Europe have existed in scattered pockets throughout the English-speaking and Spanish-speaking world. Granted, there are also many people making false claims about 'family traditions' - but at least a few have internal documentation that can be verified. Many of these, in turn, borrowed ideas from pre-Christian mythos... But just as no modern Christian faith can claim to be the same as the faith started in the early years after Christ, so too can no modern form of Paganism claim to be the same as its early ancestors.

Now, Dr. K, it IS true that the early Christian church usurped many Pagan rituals and practices in order to gain more control over local cultures. However, there was never One Olde Religion - rather, polytheistic worship has existed in a thousand forms for a very long time. It is also true that many attributes commonly associated with the modern concept of the Devil were deliberate twistings by the Catholic church to turn good Pagan deities into evil Christian demons - though not directly by the Church itself, but more appropriately by the artisans and writers who associated with the Church.

Anyway, Modern Wicca is itself not a singular religion either - like Christianity, most folks are hard-pressed to define Wicca in such a way as to include all sects of Wicca. Nor is Neopaganism synonymous with Wicca - more like Neopaganism is the broad group, while Wicca is a more selective sub-grouping. But a lot of folks forget that Paganism also includes groups that do not follow the Wiccan Rede as well as any non-Abrahamist faith, essentially, depending on definition. Buddhists would be Pagans too, IIRC.

 

[Nex]

As a sidenote, Wicca and witchcraft in modern Western civilisation are two different things. The first is a religion, the second a practice (whether real or imaginary). Wicca is a polytheistic faith, mostly, though there are a couple sects that focus on the goddess or the god exclusively. Witchcraft is basically a practice of superstition, psi, and magic-with-or-without-the-K.

Some will find this site amusing. Some will not. It's informative in its own snarky way.

Non. There were several local religions, some of which were earth-based, that were ousted by the eventual conquest of Christianity. Wicca may claim to be descended from these religions - but the ties are vestigial at a stretch. Aside from the fact that Wicca is arguably earth-based, and that it makes a big deal about solstices and such, it has nothing in common with these older religions. Wicca is only a few decades old. The greater portion of Wiccan dogma, for example the "Rede", is completely new. When one looks closely, it becomes apparent that those who invented Wicca were believers in the Beautiful People myth.

Exactly.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Buddhists would be Pagans too, IIRC.

Buddhists are not Pagan. Even Tibetan Buddhism, which lays claim to many gods, goddesses, demons, and devils, openly admits that all these entities are "in your head." Each entity symbolises a fear, desire, hatred, or other imperfection of soul. Buddhists do not worship Buddha, but revere him as a mentor.
At least, that's what I've come to understand it as. (My first-year philosophy of religions prof was Buddhist.)

 

[Checkmite]

Cue: The Beautiful People?

Thank you.

 

[crimresearch]

The dictionary makes the non-Abrahamist distinction for pagans, but I think Buddhism is too heirachical and heavily doctrinaire to really be Pagan.

 

[CFLarsen]

but at least a few have internal documentation that can be verified.

So, let's.

Where can I see this documentation?

 

[richardm]

There wasn't a single witch ever executed in Salem, and I have very little doubt that I could count the number of real "witches" ever burned in medieval Europe on one hand and still have enough fingers left to play a clarinet.

Hang on. While I'm quite happy to accept that they weren't really witches, the reason given for executing them was that they'd participated in witchcraft. Although I can see your point, saying "There wasn't a single witch ever executed in Salem" is a misleading statement, I think, because 25 people went to their graves on the basis of accusations of witchcraft.

Ditto the burning in Europe. There were lots of people burned for witchcraft. Yes, the huge majority of them weren't really witches even if they said they were, but ostensibly that was the reason they were executed.

 

[Z]

No, I'm pretty sure Gardner thought it up with Crowley's help. Gardner said some lady named "Dorothy Clutterbuck" taught it to him, but there's no record of this woman ever existing within his lifetime. Traditional Gardnerian practice and ceremony so closely resembles Ceremonial Magic practices, it is thoroughly reasonable to conclude he based it almost entirely off of Crowley's information of the Golden Dawn and other oathbound ceremonial traditions of the early twentieth century.

Pretty common misconception. Whether or not Dorothy Clutterbuck ever existed (most of us are very skeptical of that) the fact remains that what Gardner pushed off as 'Wicca' was, as you have properly surmised, a form of practice based largely on ceremonial magic as practiced by Crowley and his Golden Dawn group... but Wicca (in practice, not so much in name) precedes Crowley by quite a bit.

Wicca made a showing in the early-to-mid 1950's-- there's no way there could be familial traditions handed down over even a hundred years, let alone thousands. There may be tiny bits and pieces of old European traditions wedged into it, but as a whole it is quite modern.

No, the name of Wicca made a showing in the early-to-mid 1950s. Various families have had traditional practices passed down for generations, and while verifying exactly how MANY generations the practices went through is difficult at best, at least two that I am personally familiar with {appear to} have reasonable documentation of Wiccan practice well before the 1950s.

(Mind, I'm boiling 'Wicca' down to the core essential - "An it harm none, do what thou will" - with a general faith in a non-Christian deity/deities.)

Ann Moira, author of Green Witchcraft, claims to have family records demonstrating Wiccan beliefs for several generations; the Correllian Nativist Church also claims similar records. I've seen family Bibles where special notes were made in the geneologies as far back as 1812 denoting 'Wisdoms', 'Wicce', etc... granted, much of that may well have been added during the 20th century, but I highly doubt every instance was so forged.

Buddhists are not Pagan. Even Tibetan Buddhism, which lays claim to many gods, goddesses, demons, and devils, openly admits that all these entities are "in your head." Each entity symbolises a fear, desire, hatred, or other imperfection of soul. Buddhists do not worship Buddha, but revere him as a mentor.
At least, that's what I've come to understand it as. (My first-year philosophy of religions prof was Buddhist.)

According to most definitions of 'Pagan' I've ever seen, the only non-Pagan faiths are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and related faiths. Buddhism (core teachings) are Pagan, in that they do not refer to the God of Abraham. Likewise, Taoism, Shinto, etc. are all Pagan faiths. Paganism has absolutely nothing to do with whether the gods are 'in your head' or not, nor about organization or hierchy or doctrination, but about whether or not they worship Abraham's Sky Daddy.

Larsen, I won't lie to ya - I don't personally have any resources that specifically prove pre-1950's Wiccan beliefs. I have seen resources, but I haven't seen those resources tested or verified. Like I said, those family bibles and records might well have been forged to add an air of legitimacy to the whole shebang. Or they might well be authentic. Certainly, Wicca is no more or less true than any other faith! And at least Wiccans aren't knocking at your door at 8:00 AM on Saturday morning trying to get you to convert!

For my own part, I'm not concerned with legitimacy of family traditions or anything else. I don't practice any of Gardner or Crowley's creative embellishments. I follow a modified form of the Rede - which, essentially, is a core teaching common to most faiths, reworded endlessly, and often ignored - and I generally think of myself more as an eclectic Christian/Taoist/Shamanic/Buddhist/Pagan/Wiccan, since I have beliefs and practices from each of these faiths fully intertwined within my system of worship. Now - show me how long this combination of faith has existed and tell me again just how it stacks up against any other faith?

At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll (I can get you contact info for the latter, if you like) if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents. As far as I'm concerned, Wicca didn't exist until I discovered it in 1993, Episcopaleanism until 1989, and Christianity in general until 1978. (Since only those things I am aware of really exist... )

-- ugh, I've been arguing with lifegazer for too long...

 

[CFLarsen]

At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll (I can get you contact info for the latter, if you like) if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

No, no, no. This is a cop-out, also used by other believers: We can only see the evidence, if we are "really, honestly" interested in it.

Problem is, once believers find out that the people asking for the evidence are skeptics, we are told that we are not "really, honestly" interested. And the door is slammed shut.

Either put the evidence forth, with no conditions whatsoever, or shut up.

 

[Z]

No, no, no. This is a cop-out, also used by other believers: We can only see the evidence, if we are "really, honestly" interested in it.

Problem is, once believers find out that the people asking for the evidence are skeptics, we are told that we are not "really, honestly" interested. And the door is slammed shut.

Either put the evidence forth, with no conditions whatsoever, or shut up.

No reason to get so ugly, Larsen. I'm not copping out - I'm telling you I don't have any evidence myself, and am not really interested in it one way or another. I'm not claiming you can only see evidence if you already believe it, nor am I slamming any doors shut - I have no doors to slam.

Anyway, read what I wrote, instead of leaping down my throat like you do to every other believer. I wasn't giving you conditions by which I would present evidence; I was suggesting who you, yourself, might contact to gain such evidence (if it exists) for yourself.

Really, CF, have some java. You're waaaay too strung out this morning!

 

[CFLarsen]

No reason to get so ugly, Larsen.

It's not about getting ugly or being high strung. It's about evidence. Either you can produce it, or you cannot.

I'm not copping out - I'm telling you I don't have any evidence myself, and am not really interested in it one way or another. I'm not claiming you can only see evidence if you already believe it, nor am I slamming any doors shut - I have no doors to slam.

"If you are really, honestly, interested". Your words, not mine. That's a cop-out. If not, why the condition?

Why are you not in the least bit interested in whether or not there is evidence?

Anyway, read what I wrote, instead of leaping down my throat like you do to every other believer. I wasn't giving you conditions by which I would present evidence; I was suggesting who you, yourself, might contact to gain such evidence (if it exists) for yourself.

Really, CF, have some java. You're waaaay too strung out this morning!

Why do you think I should treat you different from anyone else with claims (they can't back up)?

 

[crimresearch]

Paganism has absolutely nothing to do with whether the gods are 'in your head' or not, nor about organization or hierchy or doctrination, but about whether or not they worship Abraham's Sky Daddy.

I should have been more specific...

The dictionary makes the Abrahamist distinction because of common *usage* and a Western bias.

The word itself has nothing to do with Abraham, and actually refers to village/rural religions, and neither Buddhism, nor Confucianism, or later (non-shamanistic) versions of Taoism, can be properly called Pagan.

Unless you are seriously proposing that everyone from Asia is an uncivilized hick.

 

[Dancing David]

We may be running a risk of starting off on a "No True Scottish Witch" fallacy discussion, but I think that comparing syncretic Haitian folk religions with 17th century European beliefs is a non-starter. There's very little evidence to support the idea of a substantial hold-over or practice of pagan (or even obviously syncretic) beliefs in "core" Europe between about 1300 and the neo-pagan revivals of the 20th century. The modern earthy-crunchy neopagan witch simply did not exist in Europe, and you can look for her in vain.

The definition of "witch," therefore, has shifted over the centuries. In the 17th century, it was akin to "Satanist" or "demonologist," specificially a person who consorted with acknowlegedly evil spirits within the ontological framework of the Christian church. The idea that this was somehow a method of assuring religious orthodoxy or a power struggle between the folk religionists and the church hierarchy is ludicrous at several levels. FIrst, it's the reason there is no "save the dodo's" ecological movement -- there are no dodo's left, and similarly, there were no folk religionists left by the 17th century. Second, there was a genuine power struggle going on at the time between the Catholic and Protestant churches -- there was a well-established method of dealing with assuring religious orthodoxy and establishing power, specifically under the guise of dealing with heretics. Heresy and witchcraft are, and were, radically different crimes. Third, most of the witchcraft events were not related to the church hierarchy (one of the differences between witchcraft and heresy), but were produced almost entirely as a local, political, and largely lay dispute. The areas of Europe where the church was the strongest were, almost ironically, the areas with the least amount of witchcraft hysteria.

On a strict reading of the definition of "witch," there were by definition no witches, as evil spirits don't exist. On a slightly less strict reading, your "assumption" that "some number of the people burned by the church were also Xian practioners of witchcraft" (meaning people who self-admittedly attempted to consort with evil spirits) is at best a very tenuous assumption, and really doesn't fit the available evidence. Just to start out with,.... the church wasn't the organization that burned witches. If an accused witch was executed, it was typically done by the burgermasters of Bad Shoeshein, in response to a public accusation raised by the citizenrly, and over the protests of the local clergy.....

It is a form of the True Scotsman to argue that only pagans(non-Xians) are witches, which is what I am pointing out. Anytime(exageration) that there is an established church that has the trappings of mysticism I believe that you will have the co-occurent rise of folk magic, so ergo, there were some minority of people burned during the witch trial who were practioners of non approved folk magic. I don't think you can argue that folk magic just 'went away' the hexes of the Pennsylvania dutch would be a good example of Xian folk magic that came from Europe in the 16 and 17 century.

On a slightly less strict reading, your "assumption" that "some number of the people burned by the church were also Xian practioners of witchcraft" (meaning people who self-admittedly attempted to consort with evil spirits) is at best a very tenuous assumption, and really doesn't fit the available evidence.

You are setting your own defintion of witch there to make the arguement, witches are people who call themselves witchs or are reffered to by other people as witches. Are you saying that you exclude 'brujas y brujos' or the 'strega'?

I beleive that I am making a statement that the church had reason to try to remove practioners of folk magic and that a certain number of them would call themselves witches.

You will find that I already grant as assume that most of the witches that were incinerated were executed to profit the temporal lords and the coffers of the church. I am merely pointing out that the church would have had very good reasons to persecute practioners of folk magic that would style themselves as witches.

 

[Dancing David]

Also important here is the fact that Mexico and the Caribbean nations never experienced a "spate" of witch trials and execution the way Europe did. Folk magic in Latin America is irrelevant - the argument here is against the supposition that witches were persecuted in the manner claimed by Wiccans and other new agers. To support drkitten's explanation, I will reiterate that Wiccans are rather hostile toward the "stereotype" of a witch - the black clothes, brooms, evil spells, familiars, and the like - which they hold as complete nonsense; and that therefore it makes no sense for them to be protesting the church's crusade against witches of that stereotype. One can only assume that when these modern day "witches" insist that "witches were persecuted in medieval Europe", they must be using the same definition of witch that they apply to themselves. And of those types of witches, there were very few at most, and quite likely none at all, in that place at that time.

Most definitly , the 'three million' figure is a gross exageration and was taken on as a banner by the radical feminist movement in the seventies, I myself have never beleived that modern wicca is in any way associated with the ancient folk religions.

There is another feminist myth that appears to be even more pervasive about the origin of the phrase 'rule of thumb', I don't have acsess to the OED to check it out.

Some of the old texts of witches don't portray them in the robes but naked on the broom stick. I thought the stereotype came from the wizrd of OZ. As I have stated before I feel that the vast majority of witches in europre were most likely Xians.

 

[Dancing David]

I have to agree with JK on this one, especially that last senetence. Truthfully, very little is known about the ancient religions that Wiccans claim to be the inheritors of. Most of the Wiccans I have met claim that their ceremonies are Celtic in origin. The problem I have with that is that very little is known of the ancient Celtic religion. The Romans pretty sucessfully stomped it out by the end of the 1st century A.D. while recording very little of it. The Celts themselves didn't record it either, what with them having no written language and all. So I am pretty dubious about anyone who claims to have knowledge of Celtic ceremonies. This includes almost every "witch" I have ever met.

Especialy since the only records we have of modern witchcraft would indicate that it was started by the Gardners with help from Crowley.

The prime witch goddess of the sixties and seventies is Aradia and obvious latin word.

Isn't celt a roman word. And the celtic provinces are the ones that adopted the roman ways the most!

Some druids feel that the religion was stomped out when the romans sacked the holy isle of albion.

 

[Z]

It's not about getting ugly or being high strung. It's about evidence. Either you can produce it, or you cannot.

I never claimed I could produce it, nor even that it was accurate evidence. Read what I wrote.

"If you are really, honestly, interested". Your words, not mine. That's a cop-out. If not, why the condition?

How is that a condition? I'm telling you to contact these people if you're really interested; if you aren't, then why bother? To re-word it, if you're interested in what evidence families may have of a pre-1950s Wiccan faith, these are two people that would most likely have such evidence - if it exists. (Really, honestly are just my emphasis - they aren't conditions.)

C'mon, do you think I was trying to say, "If you're not honestly interested in the evidence, don't talk to these people"? Really, Larsen, I can't figure out your problem with the sentance.

Here - let me quote exactly what I said, again:

At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll (I can get you contact info for the latter, if you like) if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

Now, let's analyze this a bit - first, remove the personal note:

At any rate, CF, try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

and the intro

Try contacting Ann Moira or Don Lewis High-Correll if you're really, honestly, interested in their family documents.

Now, how is this sentence a cop-out? I'm telling you that, if such evidence exists, these would be two people who could show it to you. I don't have such evidence - I got into Wicca in the 90s, not back in the 50s or 20s or any time prior. My mom was Roman Catholic and my father was a pragmatist. I'm not claiming hereditary witchcraft - but there are people who DO make these claims, and these are two individuals who might be able to help you out, if you're really interested in seeing the records. (If you weren't really interested, you won't bother trying to contact them, will you?)

Really, Larsen, who crawled up your socket and died today?

Why are you not in the least bit interested in whether or not there is evidence?

Because I didn't become Wiccan on the basis of how long the faith has been around; I didn't become Wiccan based on whether it existed in one family or another, whether it existed in the 1500s or only last week, or whatever. I really don't care when the traditions started, or who first wrote the Rede, or what authority figures claim to have had a part in writing the rituals, etc. That doesn't matter one whit to me, and is one reason I generally steer clear of book-faiths, seeing as they're all about trying to one-up each other on the authority and legitimacy issues. I really don't care whether Ann Moira's grandmother stole their practice of witchcraft from Crowley or whether she learned it at her grandmother's knee, etc. It doesn't change things for me one whit. If you came to me next week with a new religion cut from whole cloth, as the expression goes, and it made sense to me, I might join it. (Good luck, though, as even the faith I practice doesn't entirely make sense to me.)

Why obsess over who created a religion, for Pete's sake? None of them are any more or less legitimate than any other - does Judaism deserve some special respect for having existed for thousands of years longer than, say, B'nai Brith? Are the members of the Olympian Reconstruction Temple to be applauded for returning to actual Greek worship practices of ancient times, more so than those who just whisper quick prayers to their deity of choice today?

Now, as I said before (you're welcome to verify my post), Ann Moira, author of Green Witchcraft, claims to have family records demonstrating Wiccan beliefs for several generations; the Correllian Nativist Church also claims similar records. I've seen family Bibles where special notes were made in the geneologies as far back as 1812 denoting 'Wisdoms', 'Wicce', etc... granted, much of that may well have been added during the 20th century, but I highly doubt every instance was so forged. Note, I'm not claiming this as fact, only that I've seen these records and doubt that every instance was forgery. My belief. Not fact, per se. Not truth, but opinion.

Why do you think I should treat you different from anyone else with claims (they can't back up)?

I'm not making claims - I'm repeating claims made by others, and offering two names of people from whom you can yourself find out more about these claims. All I'm claiming is that I've seen these records. I even admit they could be faked or forged. Do you actually read posts, or do you just attack anyone who posts who has faith in anything?