Messages In This Digest (25 Messages)
- 1a.
- Re: Fun Friday--This is a Good One! From: LadyFromDover@aol.com
- 2a.
- Re: To Ani--a Dragonbaby From: Ani
- 2b.
- Re: To Ani--a Dragonbaby From: Lady Nightshayde
- 2c.
- Re: To Ani--a Dragonbaby From: Ani
- 3a.
- Re: A Witch By Any Other Name From: Aspen May
- 3b.
- Re: A Witch By Any Other Name From: Storm Wynd
- 3c.
- Re: A Witch By Any Other Name From: Michelle
- 3d.
- Re: A Witch By Any Other Name From: Lady Nightshayde
- 3e.
- Re: A Witch By Any Other Name From: Sibyl Walski
- 3f.
- Re: A Witch By Any Other Name From: Michelle
- 3g.
- Re: A Witch By Any Other Name From: Beth Patterson
- 4a.
- Re: From: Colin
- 5.
- Daily Feng Shui Tip for May 14, 2011 From: Lady Nightshayde
- 6a.
- Could You Please Help? From: Lady Nightshayde
- 6b.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: LadyHawk_Jax
- 6c.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: Hazell Mccardell
- 6d.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: Lady Nightshayde
- 6e.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: LadyFromDover@aol.com
- 6f.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: Hazell Mccardell
- 6g.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: Lady Nightshayde
- 6h.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: Lady Nightshayde
- 6i.
- Re: Could You Please Help? From: Beth Patterson
- 7.1.
- Insights From: Lady Nightshayde
- 8.
- A Few Photos of Tim and Miranda's Wedding at Fernandina Beach, FL. From: Lady Nightshayde
- 9.
- The Wedding Pictures From: Lady Nightshayde
Messages
- 1a.
-
Re: Fun Friday--This is a Good One!
Posted by: "LadyFromDover@aol.com" LadyFromDover@aol.com ladyfromdover
Sat May 14, 2011 8:22 am (PDT)
ty for the fun Fridays, I love them may I share them on my face book page.
Pam.
- 2a.
-
Re: To Ani--a Dragonbaby
Posted by: "Ani" ani_shadowdragon@peoplepc.com mystressacksunamoon
Sat May 14, 2011 9:00 am (PDT)
Awwww......how adorable...Thank you Lady for all you are and all you do.....Love and hugs
Ani
- 2b.
-
Re: To Ani--a Dragonbaby
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 11:53 am (PDT)
Awwww......how adorable...Thank you Lady for all you are and all you do.....Love and hugs
Ani
You are most welcome. I know how much you love dragons
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
- 2c.
-
Re: To Ani--a Dragonbaby
Posted by: "Ani" ani_shadowdragon@peoplepc.com mystressacksunamoon
Sat May 14, 2011 1:07 pm (PDT)
Oh yeah....I can almost breathe fire...lol
----- Original Message -----
From: Lady Nightshayde
To: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [13Witches] To Ani--a Dragonbaby
Awwww......how adorable...Thank you Lady for all you are and all you do.....Love and hugs
Ani
You are most welcome. I know how much you love dragons
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
- 3a.
-
Re: A Witch By Any Other Name
Posted by: "Aspen May" aspen_may@hotmail.com aspen_may
Sat May 14, 2011 11:55 am (PDT)
Thank you for sharing this. I enjoy Mike Nichols' work, even if I don't always agree with everything. When I first started studying this path, I came across some base philosophical issues and contradictions that I was having difficulty reconciling. Some articles of his helped me approach those issues in a different way and move through them.
-Aspen
"If thou adorest Luna, then What thou desir'st thou shalt obtain!"
-Aradia, Gospel of Witches
"Curse you, tiny toilet!"
-Vector, Despicable Me
To: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
From: glaistig1753@yahoo.com
Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 03:45:06 +0000
Subject: [13Witches] A Witch By Any Other Name
*** A WITCH BY ANY OTHER NAME ***
(The Great Wicca vs. Witchcraft Debate)
by Mike Nichols
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
- 3b.
-
Re: A Witch By Any Other Name
Posted by: "Storm Wynd" stormwitch01@yahoo.com stormwitch01
Sat May 14, 2011 4:04 pm (PDT)
Michelle,
This debate resulted in The Colorado Witch Wars with curses and negative spells
cast Witch against Witch!
Local businesses, Circles, Covens and the lives of individual Witches were
destroyed in the process.
In some cases local economies have suffered due to the loss of Incomes from
Psychic Faires, Conventions and so forth.
Many, many Witches left the Denver - Colorado Springs area. Sadly, the vacuum
created was filled by Focus On The Family!!
This is a debate which can not be settled, can not be won and truly doesn't
really matter.
What we practice and what we believe is what works for us as individual Witches.
Who am I to say that what I believe is the only way and what someone else
believes is a load of bull?
Perhaps I see the world in an overly simple and overly straight forward view.
However, I respect all Witches as fellow Witches and I don't care if they are
green, purple, Black or White, male, female, whatever tradition, straight, gay,
Wiccan or not. To me, what matters is our intention in the Magick and the other
works we do together.
The minute details of what we believe are personal and I ask, "Why does it
matter?"
My obedience to the Rede is a personal matter between Me and My Deities and is
not subject to public debate or judgment. Unlike many religious sects who can be
seen on the news killing one another over such details, Wiccans should avoid
judging others or arguing this matter with non-Wiccans as no good will come of
it and much harm can be done.
All Witches should respect all other Witches. All Wiccans must focus on the
Rede, which sometimes results in us biting our tonques and walking away from a
fight like this one.
Let us simply honour, love, respect, and enjoy the company of our fellow Witches
and may we all focus on the positive. May we all hold hands in our Great Circle
and perform beautiful, wondrous, positive Magick. May these things always be
enough!
These are just the views of an old simple solitary eclectic Wiccan Candle Witch
and a little food for thought!
Brightest Blessings,
Stormy )O(
Life is a journey,
enjoy the ride ~
just avoid kissing the trail!
_____________________ _________ __
From: Michelle <glaistig1753@yahoo.com >
To: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 10:45:06 PM
Subject: [13Witches] A Witch By Any Other Name
Merry meet everyone, I found this article and really wanted to post it due to
getting a tone of criticism from another group that i have recently left, by
addressing the fact that Witchcraft is in itself a religion.I think it is well
written and I hope you all enjoy it.
*** A WITCH BY ANY OTHER NAME ***
(The Great Wicca vs. Witchcraft Debate)
by Mike Nichols
Most Recent TextRevision:
Monday, March 27, 2006 c.e.
- 3c.
-
Re: A Witch By Any Other Name
Posted by: "Michelle" glaistig1753@yahoo.com glaistig1753
Sat May 14, 2011 5:13 pm (PDT)
Hi, Stormy,
I'm sorry, I am actually sad to hear that pagans can be so prejudice against each other, I was hopeful that we had gone beyond all that.
Anyways the post was meant to show that Witchcraft is a realign almost from its very base, that's all I wanted to show here, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing to do with Witchcraft or Wicca being write or wrong, just the plain and simple fact that Witchcraft back into history was practiced as a religion. Which I have found that some people like to fight about, which is what I encountered in the last group I brought this up in, I got told that you cannot have Witchcraft as a religion ?? that witchcraft was the practice of magik and nothing else??, it could only be viewed as sorcery?. While I don't care what others practice,Gods bless their diversity, I just wanted to prove my point that Witchcraft is a practicing religion, as valid as any other . While some people may read this post and get upset, I apologize but just like I wont tell them what to believe, please don't tell me what to believe. And in the end it dose not matter, all are free to practice and believe in whatever makes them happy and makes their life better.
Pagans need to stick together in such a unaccepting world and I'm sure the Lady and Lord are saddened to see pagans arguing amongst themselves. Thank you for your veiws.
Bright Blessings,
Michelle
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crispy and good with ketchup"
--- In 13Witches@yahoogroups.com , Storm Wynd <stormwitch01@...> wrote:
>
> Michelle,
>
> This debate resulted in The Colorado Witch Wars with curses and negative spells
> cast Witch against Witch!
>
> Local businesses, Circles, Covens and the lives of individual Witches were
> destroyed in the process.
>
> In some cases local economies have suffered due to the loss of Incomes from
> Psychic Faires, Conventions and so forth.
>
> Many, many Witches left the Denver - Colorado Springs area. Sadly, the vacuum
> created was filled by Focus On The Family!!
>
> This is a debate which can not be settled, can not be won and truly doesn't
> really matter.
>
>
> What we practice and what we believe is what works for us as individual Witches.
> Who am I to say that what I believe is the only way and what someone else
> believes is a load of bull?
>
> Perhaps I see the world in an overly simple and overly straight forward view.
> However, I respect all Witches as fellow Witches and I don't care if they are
> green, purple, Black or White, male, female, whatever tradition, straight, gay,
> Wiccan or not. To me, what matters is our intention in the Magick and the other
> works we do together.
>
> The minute details of what we believe are personal and I ask, "Why does it
> matter?"
>
> My obedience to the Rede is a personal matter between Me and My Deities and is
> not subject to public debate or judgment. Unlike many religious sects who can be
> seen on the news killing one another over such details, Wiccans should avoid
> judging others or arguing this matter with non-Wiccans as no good will come of
> it and much harm can be done.
>
> All Witches should respect all other Witches. All Wiccans must focus on the
> Rede, which sometimes results in us biting our tonques and walking away from a
> fight like this one.
>
> Let us simply honour, love, respect, and enjoy the company of our fellow Witches
> and may we all focus on the positive. May we all hold hands in our Great Circle
> and perform beautiful, wondrous, positive Magick. May these things always be
> enough!
>
> These are just the views of an old simple solitary eclectic Wiccan Candle Witch
> and a little food for thought!
>
> Brightest Blessings,
> Stormy )O(
>
>
> Life is a journey,
> enjoy the ride ~
> just avoid kissing the trail!
>
>
>
>
> _____________________ _________ __
> From: Michelle <glaistig1753@...>
> To: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, May 13, 2011 10:45:06 PM
> Subject: [13Witches] A Witch By Any Other Name
>
>
> Merry meet everyone, I found this article and really wanted to post it due to
> getting a tone of criticism from another group that i have recently left, by
> addressing the fact that Witchcraft is in itself a religion.I think it is well
> written and I hope you all enjoy it.
>
> *** A WITCH BY ANY OTHER NAME ***
>
> (The Great Wicca vs. Witchcraft Debate)
>
> by Mike Nichols
>
>
> Most Recent TextRevision:
>
> Monday, March 27, 2006 c.e.
>
- 3d.
-
Re: A Witch By Any Other Name
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 5:25 pm (PDT)
In some cases local economies have suffered due to the loss of Incomes from Psychic Faires, Conventions and so forth.
Many, many Witches left the Denver - Colorado Springs area. Sadly, the vacuum created was filled by Focus On The Family!!
This is a debate which can not be settled, can not be won and truly doesn't really matter.
The Witch Wars in Jacksonville, FL heated up in the late 90's and early 2000's. Coven was pitted against coven, study group against study group, and many groups simply disbanded. My group simply chose not to participate in this atrocity and went, for lack of a better word, underground. While there is still a large Pagan community in Jax, and my group does take part in an event from time to time, we remain autonomous. Only 1 group that I am aware of "does it all": holds the public rituals, the monthly Esbats, the Sabbats, etc. I know some of the people in this particular group, but I detest politics and refuse to participate in the "my group is better than your group," "or "you aren't doing it correctly," et. al. I am content being out of the public eye and the Pagan political debacle.
I have to smile sometimes when someone tells me that "so and so was wondering whatever happened to Lady Nightshayde and her group."
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
- 3e.
-
Re: A Witch By Any Other Name
Posted by: "Sibyl Walski" antakarana@cot.net marachela2002
Sat May 14, 2011 5:26 pm (PDT)
Hi Michelle,
I thought this article was fascinating, both from a linguistic and
historical point of view. Thank you for sharing it. It's a keeper for me!
Sibyl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michelle" <glaistig1753@yahoo.com >
To: <13Witches@yahoogroups.com >
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:45 PM
Subject: [13Witches] A Witch By Any Other Name
Merry meet everyone, I found this article and really wanted to post it due
to getting a tone of criticism from another group that i have recently left,
by addressing the fact that Witchcraft is in itself a religion.I think it is
well written and I hope you all enjoy it.
*** A WITCH BY ANY OTHER NAME ***
(The Great Wicca vs. Witchcraft Debate)
by Mike Nichols
"A difference that makes no difference is not a difference."
--Ambassador Spock
It took more than twenty years before I first ran across the notion that
Witchcraft and Wicca were not the same thing. I don't remember where I first
read it, but I do remember feeling bemused at such an assertion, and assumed
the author had failed to do adequate research into the origins of the word
"witch". I also assumed I'd heard the last of it. I assumed wrong!
Over the years, I've seen this sentiment turning up more and more, in
conversations, in online discussions and websites, and even in published
works on Witchcraft. It is often stated with such conviction that one might
conclude it is the very least one needs to know on the subject. The author
is usually at pains to convey the distinction that Wicca designates a
religion, whereas Witchcraft is merely the practice of magic. In recent
years, I have come across three further amplifications: The first is that
some groups identify themselves as practicing Wicca exclusively, as a
religious or spiritual path. As such, they do not hold with the more
"debased" practice of Witchcraft or other magic! The second is that some
groups claim that Witchcraft predates Wicca (which they apparently believe
was invented by Gerald Gardner) and is therefore more "authentic". The third
is that only practitioners who are in a lineal descent from Gardner or one
of his covens may use the word Wicca to describe their tradition. All others
would have to default to the word Witchcraft for their praxis.
Needless to say (or is it?), this so-called "distinction" between Witchcraft
and Wicca came as a huge surprise, and a bit of a shock, to those of us who
embarked upon this path back in the 1960s and '70s. Although the term Wicca
was known (as the origin of the word Witch), it was seldom used. We were
Witches, pure and simple. And we practiced Witchcraft, or sometimes "the
Craft", or (based on a popular but incorrect etymology) "the Craft of the
Wise", or "the Old Religion". But nobody practiced "Wicca". Even Gardnerians
called themselves Witches, typically modified by others to Gardnerian
Witches. On the rare occasion when the word Wicca did come up, it was used
interchangeably with Witchcraft. Most often, it was when someone was trying
to dodge the issue. Potential father-in-law: "So what is this weird cult my
daughter says you're into?" Boyfriend (blood draining from face):
"Uhhhhh..... OH! I think you must mean Wicca? yeah, that's it... Say, how
about those Dodgers?" The attempt to make a distinction between the
spiritual, devotional, or celebration side of our religion, and the more
utilitarian use of ritual and ceremony to effect desired changes in our
world, would never have occurred to us. One of the principle tenets of
Witchcraft is that the spiritual and material sides of life interpenetrate
one another and cannot be meaningfully separated. To attempt to do so is to
encourage the sort of Neo-Platonic dualism that has bedeviled our Western
society for centuries and led to, among other things, the demonizing of sex
and the body, and disdain for our environment. In fact, any attempt to
separate Wicca from Witchcraft, the religious practice from the magical
practice, is not only historically misguided, but politically dangerous. It
plays us directly into the hands of our detractors. But I am getting ahead
of
myself.
The first question to tackle is where this idea came from. It clearly wasn't
there in the 1960s. Nor can it be found in the writings of the 1970s. In
fact, an unambiguous reference to this idea does not occur until the late
1980s! So the first thing to realize is that this notion is of far more
recent vintage than most people would believe. Books about Witchcraft (such
as Sybil Leek's Diary of a Witch, in which she speaks of Witchcraft as a
religion) began to be published frequently from the 1960s onward, yet they
used the word Wicca quite sparingly. In fact, the first popular book to use
the word Wicca in the title did not appear until 1988! This was Scott
Cunningham's Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner. Had this title
appeared in bookstores in the '60s or '70s, the most likely reaction, even
from Witches themselves, would have been "Huh?!" They would have recognized
the word, but would have wondered why such an obscure term should have been
preferred to a common one. Not coincidentally, Scott Cunningham was among
the first writers to claim there is a difference between Wicca and
Witchcraft.
But is there really a difference? In point of fact, "wicca" and "witch" are
the same word. This cannot be overstated because few people today believe
it. Nonetheless, it is true. Wicca is simply the earlier form of the word
witch. Proof of this can easily be found in the twenty-volume Oxford English
Dictionary. The O.E.D. (as it is known by scholars) is the highest court of
appeals for questions of etymology. "Witch" comes from the Saxon word
"wicca". That is a noun with a masculine ending, and (hold on to your pointy
hats!) it should properly be pronounced "witch'-ah", not"wick'-ah"! In the
Saxon tongue, nouns had either masculine or feminine endings, depending on
their referents. The feminine form was "wicce", properly pronounced
"witch'-eh". Note the same word was applied to both males and females, with
only the ending changed. As the word evolved into modern English, the gender
ending was dropped, leaving us with a word that is pronounced "witch", and
ultimately spelled that way.
When you consider that the Saxon "cc" was pronounced "tch", it becomes
easier to understand how the modern word "witch" is derived from the Old
English "wicca", and how, ultimately, they are the same word. To say that
they are different words, with a different provenance, and different
meanings, is to ignore these simple facts. While we're at it, here's one
more surprise: the word "wiccan", although typically used by modern Witches
to modify a noun ("This is a Wiccan ceremony."), is not an adjective. It's a
plural noun. One wicca, two wiccan. That's the masculine plural ending,
obviously. The feminine plural form would be "wiccen" (rhymes with
bitchin'). ;) Although in modern English, the "s" or "es" plural ending is
the most common, the "an" or "en" plural is not unknown, the most obvious
example being child > children.
So how is it that Wicca came to be seen as distinct and separate from Witch,
in both provenance and meaning? One might speculate that Gerald Gardner
himself played a role. Not only did Gardner revive and popularize the craft
of the witch, he also revived and popularized the older Saxon form of the
word, wicca. In doing so, however, he spelled it with only one "c",
rendering it as "wica" in his writings. This tended to undermine the correct
"tch" pronunciation of the original "wicca", and thus to obscure its obvious
connection with the word "witch". Further, it may have encouraged the now
common pronunciation of "wicca" as "wick'-ah", an entirely new critter in
our English lexicon. This criticism of Gardner 's spelling may actually be
too harsh considering "wicca" dates to a time before dictionaries or
standardized orthography were invented.
Incidentally, there are some authors today who are so convinced that Gardner
invented modern Wicca, or Witchcraft (as opposed to simply reviving it),
that they also mistakenly believe that he invented the word "wicca" itself!
(Even more amusing, an article on a well-known Wiccan website recently
claimed that Selena Fox invented the word Wicca in the 1960s!) Again, anyone
who takes the trouble to do a modicum of research will discover the
antiquity of the word. According to the O.E.D.(and as noted by Doreen
Valiente), the oldest extant appearance of the word "wicca" can be found in
the Law Codes of Alfred the Great, circa 890 C.E. Alfred was a Christian and
zealous about converting everyone under his rule to his faith. Those who
followed the pre-Christian "superstitious" practices of their Pagan
ancestors were called Wiccan, whether they were Alfred's own countrymen, or
the Celtic people in the areas Alfred was conquering. What did the Celts
themselves call these people, in 890? Not Wiccan, because that was the Saxon
word for it. Very probably, they used someform of the modern word "druid".
That being the case, we have a scenario
dating back over a thousand years, where the word "Witch" was applied to
people who called themselves "Druid". This is one reason I have always
believed that Druidism is one of the tributaries (and a large one!) of
modern Witchcraft. (This will no doubt give hissy-fits to all those authors
who have written Wicca-Isn't-Celtic articles.)
So now the question becomes, did the word Wicca become totally extinct at
some time before Gardner resurrected it? The answer will come as a shock to
many. It may have been "extinct" in the sense of being replaced by "witch"
in common usage, but it continued to be known in its earlier form, "wicca",
even before Gardner came onto the scene. One quick and obvious proof of this
is that J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, used the
word "wicca" when drafting his earliest manuscript of The Two Towers. We
know this because Tolkien's son Christopher has meticulously documented his
father's creative process throughout twelve volumes of analysis. In volume
seven, "The Treason of Isengard", Ch. XX, "The Riders of Rohan", Christopher
mentions, in a passing footnote, that Tolkien uses the word "wicca"
apparently to identify the characters Gandalf and Saruman, who were
otherwise called "wizards" throughout the trilogy. The word "wicca" is
written in the margin next to the scene discussing the identity of a
mysterious old bearded man wandering Rohan. Tolkien was writing this draft
in 1942, ten years before Gardner published his first treatise on Wica. So
it is impossible for Gardner to have influenced Tolkien's use of the term.
Nor did Tolkien influence Gardner , since this marginalia was unpublished.
These were totally independent uses of the same word by different authors
working in different fields, with Tolkien
giving the more common spelling a full decade before Gardner.
Therefore, if Wicca is merely an earlier form of the word Witch, and still
extant in the decades before Gardner , it seems highly unlikely that Wicca
and Witchcraft mean two different things. Of course, to make them perfectly
parallel, one should give the latter the fuller Saxon form, Wicce-cræft. But
what did the word Wicca actually mean? How does one define it? Before
traveling too far down that road, it will be necessary to dismiss a couple
of pop etymologies that have gained favor in recent decades. The first is
that "wicca" is the origin of our modern words "wisdom" and "wise".
Hence, Wicce-cræftis the "Craft of the Wise". This is a lovely concept, and
one embraced by many practicing Witches today who call their religion "the
Craft of the Wise", or simply "the Craft" for short. Sadly, this etymology
is no longer supportable. Still, it is easy to see how the confusion arose,
since the two concepts touch each other at many historical points. It was a
common practice for many centuries to refer to the village herbalist or
midwife as either a "witch" or a "wise woman". As Reginald Scott says in his
Discoverie of Witchcraft(published in 1584), "At this day it is indifferent
to say in the English tongue, 'she is a witch,' or 'she is a wise woman.'"
We also know that the male equivalent of such a person was often termed a
"wizard" (remember Tolkien's wizards, also designated "wicca"), and wizard
is etymologically connected to the words "wisdom" and "wise". Finally, it
will be recalled that King Alfred applied the word "wiccan" to people who
very probably referred to themselves by a variant of the word "Druid", which
has been translated as "oak wisdom" or "oak wise". So the connection between
"witch" and "wisdom", if not linguistic, is a long-standing and stubborn
one.
A slightly more recent attempt at the etymology of "wicca" relates it to an
ancient word that meant "to twist or bend". Supporters of this theory
"explained" it by saying that Witches are people who "twist or bend"
reality -- a reference to their magical workings. The only thing that seems
twisted or bent about this explanation is that it is strained almost to the
breaking point. So if "wicca" doesn't mean either "twisted" or "wisdom" (or
Twisted Wisdom -- which would be a great name for a Pagan rock band), what
does it mean? My own inclination is to follow the lead of historian Jeffrey
Burton Russell and trace the word wicca back to its ultimate origin in the
Indo-European root word, *weik2. Linguists now believe that *weik2 had a
meaning that was about halfway between our modern concepts of "religion" and
"magic". It might best be explained by drawing a Venn diagram of two
overlapping circles, one labeled "religion" and one labeled "magic". *Weik2
would apply to the area where the two circles overlap. And this meaning is
just what one would logically expect. (Interestingly, the only other word in
any modern Indic language that is also traced back to *weik2 is the word
"Veda", a word used to designate Hindu sacred scriptures, once again
underscoring its connection to religious tradition.) So then, is Wicce-cræft
or Witchcraft a religion? Is someone designated as Wicca or Witch a follower
of that religion? The short answer is that it all depends on what you mean
by "religion". Scholars of comparative religion will already know where I'm
going with this. In our Western culture, we tend to think of religion in
very narrow terms. We suppose it always comes with certain trappings and
structures, and that it remains highly consistent over time. We might assume
a religion must have specific beliefs, that it has sacred scriptures, that
it has a recognizable clergy, that it has some connection to a God or Gods,
that is has a specific set of rituals, that is has a hierarchy of followers,
or that it champions a certain set of moral precepts. Surprisingly,as
travelers to the Orient have discovered, many of the world's great religions
break one or more of these rules. All the more so do the hundreds of
smaller, tribal, and aboriginal religions break them. Some of these
religions are little more than a loose collection of rituals and devotions
that change dramatically over time. They are not the large-scale,
well-funded, organized religions typical of the West. Rather, they might
best be described as "folk religions". It is in this sense that Witchcraft
is a religion. And always has been. And always will be.
No, of course Witches don't practice their rituals the same way their Pagan
ancestors did two thousand years ago. Neither do Christians still gather in
catacombs to hold their agapes. But that doesn't mean they aren't followers
of Christianity. Any more than Witches aren't followers of their own ancient
religion. Of course Witches didn't call their religion "Witchcraft" two
thousand years ago. Neither did Christians call theirs "Christianity". They
didn't even speak the same language! Any more than Witches did! The Jewish
religion once had many Gods (and Goddesses! -- see the work of Raphael
Patai) and, according to archeological evidence, kept them well into Roman
times, long after the monotheistic reforms were supposed to have taken
place. (There's something you won't hear from your local Rabbi!) Early
Christians had many Gods and Goddesses, too, as anyone familiar with the Nag
Hammadi Library knows only too well. Yes, I'm speaking of "Gnostic"
Christians, but remember they probably outnumbered the proto-orthodox
Christians by the second century and, as recent archeological discoveries
have shown, spread as far as the British Isles ! What eventually became
"normative" Christianity had to be painfully hammered out at Nicea and
similar Church
councils over the centuries. Most religions, including Christianity, have
gone through just as many changes down the centuries as Witchcraft has, and
yet we don't doubt their continuity. Why should Witchcraft be held to a
different standard?
When Christianity and Witchcraft first began to clash, Christianity
certainly regarded Witchcraft as a competing religion. In the "Canon
Episcopi", a part of official Church doctrine, which may date back to the
fourth century, Witches were accused of following the Goddess Diana. It
wasn't until later that the Church shifted its stance and began accusing
Witches of devil-worship, instead. Although Margaret Murray is the scholar
usually credited with the thesis that European Witchcraft was the remnants
of the old, pre-Christian Pagan faith, she was by no means the first to
suggest this. That honor should probably go to German linguist and
folklorist Jacob Grimm (yep, that Jacob Grimm, of Grimm's Fairy Tales fame).
However discredited some of Murray 's ideas may have become, to jettison her
core thesis (and Grimm's) may be throwing the baby out with the bath. Modern
historian Carlo Ginzburg, in his exploration of the "Benandanti" in
sixteenth and seventeenth century Italy , has unearthed much well-documented
evidence of the survival of ancient European Pagan spiritual practices well
into the Christian era. Since this material has been widely accepted even by
skeptics, could it also throw new light on that pivotal 1899 publication by
Charles Godfrey Leland, Aradia, or The Gospel of the Witches, which examines
the survival of Witchcraft practices in Tuscany? If one defines "religion"
in the broad sense used by scholars of comparative religion, it seems clear
that Witchcraft does indeed meet the criteria. But Witchcraft is even more
than that.
It is also the practice (or the "craft") of magic. As we have seen, "wicca"
may have come from a word that mixes elements of religion and magic in equal
parts. Why is this so important? Because it underscores the idea that
religion and magic are not mutually exclusive, that they can exist side by
side harmoniously: that religious people can use magic to improve their lot,
and that people who use magic can be spiritual, religious, "good" people.
Academics had long tried to drive a wedge between religion and magic. This
can be traced back to the pioneering work of Sir James Frazer and The Golden
Bough. Although modern occultists may honor him for codifying the "laws" of
magic, he had another agenda. Like most social scientists of his day, he was
overwhelmed by Darwinian thinking and began applying evolutionary theory to
everything, even to areas where it didn't fit. Consequently, magic, in
Frazer's view, was nothing more than a debased precursor to "true" religion.
As he saw it, the evolution went something like this: Mankind started with a
flawed version of cause and effect, called sympathetic and contagious magic.
Then, as he evolved, he became animistic, invoking the spirits that inhabit
every river, tree, and rock. Then, as he became still more enlightened, he
became polytheistic, believing in many Gods and Goddesses, each with
different functions. Finally, as man evolved int the paragon of reason that
he is today (sic!), he became monotheistic, realizing there could be only
One True God.
Granted, this model was quickly dismantled, at least in academic circles.
Theodore Gastor, professor of comparative religion, took Frazer to task for
this idea, in his preface to a newer critical edition of Frazer's The Golden
Bough. Gastor rightly points out that even the most "primitive" magician
does nottypically perform magic without invoking a God or Goddess. And in
even the most "sophisticated" monotheistic religions, there is still a
goodly amount of magic,
although it may be re-christened as "liturgy" and "prayer". (In the West,
the Catholic Mass is the parade example of magic as liturgy.) In fact,
Gastor goes on to posit that religion and magic are inescapably found
together throughout all cultures of the world, throughout all periods of
history. Although academics have accepted this revision, non-specialists
have been slower to catch on, and the Frazerian model still holds sway for
many. It especially appeals to those "sophisticated" monotheists who believe
they have already attained the zenith of theological ideals, and that the
practice of magic could not possibly have a place in it. Apparently, there
are even some new "Wiccan" groups that buy into this, seeing themselves as
religious only, and holding themselves above such practices as magic. To sum
up, it seems that the current drive to separate Wicca from Witchcraft, to
say that one refers to religion while the other refers to magic, is full of
"Frazerian residue". It appeals to those who are uncomfortable with the
thought that religion and magic can happily co-exist. (I suspect that it
appeals mainly to Witches who are recent converts from monotheistic creeds,
yet have ported a certain amount of their previous belief system into their
new faith.) Yet both historically and linguistically, it can be shown that
Witch and Wicca are the same word, and that they both mean the same thing, a
combination of religion and magic. I am perfectly aware, however, of
something that linguists call the "etymological fallacy", i.e. that a word
means its etymology. We all know that the meaning of words can change over
time. Maybe this has already happened to the word Wicca. Maybe too many
people have too often repeated the
newborn platitude, "Wicca and Witchcraft are not the same thing." Perhaps it
is already too late to turn the tide of opinion. Nonetheless, supporting
this view would be a catastrophic mistake for a religion like ours. And more
to the point, it could be politically dangerous.
It wasn't long ago that Witches were sometimes arrested for the "crime" of
"fortune telling", e.g. for reading Tarot cards, etc. In many such cases,
Witches were able to mount a successful defense by arguing that such magical
practices were part of their religion. However, I can envision a scenario in
the not-too-distant future where the prosecutor will counter with, "That's
not true! Her religion may be Wicca, but she was merely practicing
Witchcraft!" In a culture like ours, in which all magic is seen as suspect
by the increasingly political majority religion, it is perilous to allow a
dark line to be drawn between religion and magic. Words like Witch and Wicca
present us with a unique
opportunity to erase that line. These words are the linguistic equivalent of
a petri dish in which the cultures of religion and magic have been allowed
to mix in equal proportions. I believe it is important for us to champion
this unique mix of beliefs. When I first embraced Witchcraft as my path, I
knew I was embracing both a religion and a practice of magic. Therefore, I
will continue to proclaim that I am a Witch, and I am Wiccan, for it means
the same thing. It is my religion, and it is my craft. It is my life.
ADDENDUM: First of all, many thanks to the literally hundreds of you who
took the time and trouble to email me following the publication of this
article at The Witches' Voice web site. To my great shock and surprise,
about 80% of that response was supportive. (Of course, maybe those who
disagreed with my views were less inclined to write.) Of the remaining 20%,
three questions turned up with such regularity that I thought I'd better
address them in an addendum here. 1.) Many of my correspondents seemed to
think the words "witchcraft" and "magic" are synonyms. Hence, they would
ask, "Well if Witchcraft=Wicca, what do you call someone who practices
magic, and yet is not Wiccan? Or a Witch?" Oddly enough, I call them
magicians. Which seems kind of self-evident to me. Using the word
"witchcraft" as a synonym for "magic" is linguistically quite recent. For
example, the first occurrence of using the word "witchdoctor" to describe an
African tribal shaman wasn't until the 1860s! So I restrict the use of the
word-group Witch/Witchcraft/Wicca/Wiccecraef t, to northwestern Europe ,
where it originated and had its original referents. When I find magic being
practiced in other cultures, I call it magic. Although my true preference is
to call it by its own native word, whether Voudoun, Santeria, or whatever.
2.) Many people wrote to insist that they practice magic in a non-religious
way. (Many cited ceremonial magicians as a good example of this -although
ceremonial magicians are awfully fond of invoking archangels!) In my
article, I have argued that it is nearly impossible to practice magic in a
non-religious way. Bear in mind that I am using the word "religion" in its
most universal sense, as a scholar of comparative religion uses it. Folk
religion does not require the worship of (or even the belief in!) a god or
goddess. Simply to honor your ancestors by perpetuating their ways of doing
magic would qualify most Family Traditions as "religious" from an Eastern
perspective. About the only way one could do magic in a "non-religious" way
is to make it up out of whole cloth! But even then, I'd bet dollars to
doughnuts that one would end up "borrowing" symbols from one's cultural
background, and that takes us back to "religion" again. 3.) Finally, some
practitioners of traditional British Witchcraft wrote to say they avoid the
use of the word "Wicca" because it represents, to them, a
Gardnerian-influenced, and diluted version of what they themselves practice.
I sympathize with this concern and can only say that the word "Wicca"
belongs to us traditionalists just as much as the word "Witch" does, because
it is ultimately the same word, and it was there first. If those who dilute
our praxis have tried to make the word "Wicca" uniquely their own, then it
is high time we re-claimed it! I hope this answers a few of the objections
raised against my original article, and perhaps articulates some of the
unspoken assumptions that undergirded it.
Most Recent TextRevision:
Monday, March 27, 2006 c.e.
Text editing courtesy of Acorn Guild Press
...
Document Copyright © 2006 by Mike Nichols.
HTML coding by: Mike
Nichols © 2006
Permission is given to re-publish this document only as long as no
information is lost or changed, credit is given to the author, and it is
provided or used without cost to others.
Bright Blessing
Michelle
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for thou art crispy and good with
ketchup".
--------------------- --------- ------
Material submitted to this list is for your own personal use and is not to
be forwarded without the express permission of the poster.
Community email addresses:
Post message: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: 13Witches-subscribe@yahoogroups. com
Unsubscribe: 13Witches-unsubscribe@yahoogroups. com
List owner: 13Witches-owner@yahoogroups. com
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this
message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only, and is NOT
an infringement of copyright.
http://www4.law.cornell. edu/uscode/ 17/107.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
- 3f.
-
Re: A Witch By Any Other Name
Posted by: "Michelle" glaistig1753@yahoo.com glaistig1753
Sat May 14, 2011 6:11 pm (PDT)
Hi, Sibyl, and thank you, I'm glade it was enjoyable :D!
Bright Blessings,
Michelle
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crispy and good with ketchup".
--- In 13Witches@yahoogroups.com , "Sibyl Walski" <antakarana@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Michelle,
>
> I thought this article was fascinating, both from a linguistic and
> historical point of view. Thank you for sharing it. It's a keeper for me!
>
> Sibyl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michelle" <glaistig1753@...>
> To: <13Witches@yahoogroups.com >
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:45 PM
> Subject: [13Witches] A Witch By Any Other Name
>
>
> Merry meet everyone, I found this article and really wanted to post it due
> to getting a tone of criticism from another group that i have recently left,
> by addressing the fact that Witchcraft is in itself a religion.I think it is
> well written and I hope you all enjoy it.
>
>
>
>
> *** A WITCH BY ANY OTHER NAME ***
>
>
>
> (The Great Wicca vs. Witchcraft Debate)
>
> by Mike Nichols
>
>
>
>
>
> "A difference that makes no difference is not a difference."
>
> --Ambassador Spock
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It took more than twenty years before I first ran across the notion that
> Witchcraft and Wicca were not the same thing. I don't remember where I first
> read it, but I do remember feeling bemused at such an assertion, and assumed
> the author had failed to do adequate research into the origins of the word
> "witch". I also assumed I'd heard the last of it. I assumed wrong!
>
>
>
> Over the years, I've seen this sentiment turning up more and more, in
> conversations, in online discussions and websites, and even in published
> works on Witchcraft. It is often stated with such conviction that one might
> conclude it is the very least one needs to know on the subject. The author
> is usually at pains to convey the distinction that Wicca designates a
> religion, whereas Witchcraft is merely the practice of magic. In recent
> years, I have come across three further amplifications: The first is that
> some groups identify themselves as practicing Wicca exclusively, as a
> religious or spiritual path. As such, they do not hold with the more
> "debased" practice of Witchcraft or other magic! The second is that some
> groups claim that Witchcraft predates Wicca (which they apparently believe
> was invented by Gerald Gardner) and is therefore more "authentic". The third
> is that only practitioners who are in a lineal descent from Gardner or one
> of his covens may use the word Wicca to describe their tradition. All others
> would have to default to the word Witchcraft for their praxis.
>
>
>
> Needless to say (or is it?), this so-called "distinction" between Witchcraft
> and Wicca came as a huge surprise, and a bit of a shock, to those of us who
> embarked upon this path back in the 1960s and '70s. Although the term Wicca
> was known (as the origin of the word Witch), it was seldom used. We were
> Witches, pure and simple. And we practiced Witchcraft, or sometimes "the
> Craft", or (based on a popular but incorrect etymology) "the Craft of the
> Wise", or "the Old Religion". But nobody practiced "Wicca". Even Gardnerians
> called themselves Witches, typically modified by others to Gardnerian
> Witches. On the rare occasion when the word Wicca did come up, it was used
> interchangeably with Witchcraft. Most often, it was when someone was trying
> to dodge the issue. Potential father-in-law: "So what is this weird cult my
> daughter says you're into?" Boyfriend (blood draining from face):
> "Uhhhhh..... OH! I think you must mean Wicca? yeah, that's it... Say, how
> about those Dodgers?" The attempt to make a distinction between the
> spiritual, devotional, or celebration side of our religion, and the more
> utilitarian use of ritual and ceremony to effect desired changes in our
> world, would never have occurred to us. One of the principle tenets of
> Witchcraft is that the spiritual and material sides of life interpenetrate
> one another and cannot be meaningfully separated. To attempt to do so is to
> encourage the sort of Neo-Platonic dualism that has bedeviled our Western
> society for centuries and led to, among other things, the demonizing of sex
> and the body, and disdain for our environment. In fact, any attempt to
> separate Wicca from Witchcraft, the religious practice from the magical
> practice, is not only historically misguided, but politically dangerous. It
> plays us directly into the hands of our detractors. But I am getting ahead
> of
> myself.
>
>
>
>
> The first question to tackle is where this idea came from. It clearly wasn't
> there in the 1960s. Nor can it be found in the writings of the 1970s. In
> fact, an unambiguous reference to this idea does not occur until the late
> 1980s! So the first thing to realize is that this notion is of far more
> recent vintage than most people would believe. Books about Witchcraft (such
> as Sybil Leek's Diary of a Witch, in which she speaks of Witchcraft as a
> religion) began to be published frequently from the 1960s onward, yet they
> used the word Wicca quite sparingly. In fact, the first popular book to use
> the word Wicca in the title did not appear until 1988! This was Scott
> Cunningham's Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner. Had this title
> appeared in bookstores in the '60s or '70s, the most likely reaction, even
> from Witches themselves, would have been "Huh?!" They would have recognized
> the word, but would have wondered why such an obscure term should have been
> preferred to a common one. Not coincidentally, Scott Cunningham was among
> the first writers to claim there is a difference between Wicca and
> Witchcraft.
>
>
>
>
> But is there really a difference? In point of fact, "wicca" and "witch" are
> the same word. This cannot be overstated because few people today believe
> it. Nonetheless, it is true. Wicca is simply the earlier form of the word
> witch. Proof of this can easily be found in the twenty-volume Oxford English
> Dictionary. The O.E.D. (as it is known by scholars) is the highest court of
> appeals for questions of etymology. "Witch" comes from the Saxon word
> "wicca". That is a noun with a masculine ending, and (hold on to your pointy
> hats!) it should properly be pronounced "witch'-ah", not"wick'-ah"! In the
> Saxon tongue, nouns had either masculine or feminine endings, depending on
> their referents. The feminine form was "wicce", properly pronounced
> "witch'-eh". Note the same word was applied to both males and females, with
> only the ending changed. As the word evolved into modern English, the gender
> ending was dropped, leaving us with a word that is pronounced "witch", and
> ultimately spelled that way.
>
>
>
>
> When you consider that the Saxon "cc" was pronounced "tch", it becomes
> easier to understand how the modern word "witch" is derived from the Old
> English "wicca", and how, ultimately, they are the same word. To say that
> they are different words, with a different provenance, and different
> meanings, is to ignore these simple facts. While we're at it, here's one
> more surprise: the word "wiccan", although typically used by modern Witches
> to modify a noun ("This is a Wiccan ceremony."), is not an adjective. It's a
> plural noun. One wicca, two wiccan. That's the masculine plural ending,
> obviously. The feminine plural form would be "wiccen" (rhymes with
> bitchin'). ;) Although in modern English, the "s" or "es" plural ending is
> the most common, the "an" or "en" plural is not unknown, the most obvious
> example being child > children.
>
>
>
>
> So how is it that Wicca came to be seen as distinct and separate from Witch,
> in both provenance and meaning? One might speculate that Gerald Gardner
> himself played a role. Not only did Gardner revive and popularize the craft
> of the witch, he also revived and popularized the older Saxon form of the
> word, wicca. In doing so, however, he spelled it with only one "c",
> rendering it as "wica" in his writings. This tended to undermine the correct
> "tch" pronunciation of the original "wicca", and thus to obscure its obvious
> connection with the word "witch". Further, it may have encouraged the now
> common pronunciation of "wicca" as "wick'-ah", an entirely new critter in
> our English lexicon. This criticism of Gardner 's spelling may actually be
> too harsh considering "wicca" dates to a time before dictionaries or
> standardized orthography were invented.
>
>
>
>
> Incidentally, there are some authors today who are so convinced that Gardner
> invented modern Wicca, or Witchcraft (as opposed to simply reviving it),
> that they also mistakenly believe that he invented the word "wicca" itself!
> (Even more amusing, an article on a well-known Wiccan website recently
> claimed that Selena Fox invented the word Wicca in the 1960s!) Again, anyone
> who takes the trouble to do a modicum of research will discover the
> antiquity of the word. According to the O.E.D.(and as noted by Doreen
> Valiente), the oldest extant appearance of the word "wicca" can be found in
> the Law Codes of Alfred the Great, circa 890 C.E. Alfred was a Christian and
> zealous about converting everyone under his rule to his faith. Those who
> followed the pre-Christian "superstitious" practices of their Pagan
> ancestors were called Wiccan, whether they were Alfred's own countrymen, or
> the Celtic people in the areas Alfred was conquering. What did the Celts
> themselves call these people, in 890? Not Wiccan, because that was the Saxon
> word for it. Very probably, they used someform of the modern word "druid".
> That being the case, we have a scenario
> dating back over a thousand years, where the word "Witch" was applied to
> people who called themselves "Druid". This is one reason I have always
> believed that Druidism is one of the tributaries (and a large one!) of
> modern Witchcraft. (This will no doubt give hissy-fits to all those authors
> who have written Wicca-Isn't-Celtic articles.)
>
>
>
>
> So now the question becomes, did the word Wicca become totally extinct at
> some time before Gardner resurrected it? The answer will come as a shock to
> many. It may have been "extinct" in the sense of being replaced by "witch"
> in common usage, but it continued to be known in its earlier form, "wicca",
> even before Gardner came onto the scene. One quick and obvious proof of this
> is that J.R.R. Tolkien, author of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, used the
> word "wicca" when drafting his earliest manuscript of The Two Towers. We
> know this because Tolkien's son Christopher has meticulously documented his
> father's creative process throughout twelve volumes of analysis. In volume
> seven, "The Treason of Isengard", Ch. XX, "The Riders of Rohan", Christopher
> mentions, in a passing footnote, that Tolkien uses the word "wicca"
> apparently to identify the characters Gandalf and Saruman, who were
> otherwise called "wizards" throughout the trilogy. The word "wicca" is
> written in the margin next to the scene discussing the identity of a
> mysterious old bearded man wandering Rohan. Tolkien was writing this draft
> in 1942, ten years before Gardner published his first treatise on Wica. So
> it is impossible for Gardner to have influenced Tolkien's use of the term.
> Nor did Tolkien influence Gardner , since this marginalia was unpublished.
> These were totally independent uses of the same word by different authors
> working in different fields, with Tolkien
> giving the more common spelling a full decade before Gardner.
>
>
>
>
> Therefore, if Wicca is merely an earlier form of the word Witch, and still
> extant in the decades before Gardner , it seems highly unlikely that Wicca
> and Witchcraft mean two different things. Of course, to make them perfectly
> parallel, one should give the latter the fuller Saxon form, Wicce-cræft. But
> what did the word Wicca actually mean? How does one define it? Before
> traveling too far down that road, it will be necessary to dismiss a couple
> of pop etymologies that have gained favor in recent decades. The first is
> that "wicca" is the origin of our modern words "wisdom" and "wise".
>
>
>
>
> Hence, Wicce-cræftis the "Craft of the Wise". This is a lovely concept, and
> one embraced by many practicing Witches today who call their religion "the
> Craft of the Wise", or simply "the Craft" for short. Sadly, this etymology
> is no longer supportable. Still, it is easy to see how the confusion arose,
> since the two concepts touch each other at many historical points. It was a
> common practice for many centuries to refer to the village herbalist or
> midwife as either a "witch" or a "wise woman". As Reginald Scott says in his
> Discoverie of Witchcraft(published in 1584), "At this day it is indifferent
> to say in the English tongue, 'she is a witch,' or 'she is a wise woman.'"
> We also know that the male equivalent of such a person was often termed a
> "wizard" (remember Tolkien's wizards, also designated "wicca"), and wizard
> is etymologically connected to the words "wisdom" and "wise". Finally, it
> will be recalled that King Alfred applied the word "wiccan" to people who
> very probably referred to themselves by a variant of the word "Druid", which
> has been translated as "oak wisdom" or "oak wise". So the connection between
> "witch" and "wisdom", if not linguistic, is a long-standing and stubborn
> one.
>
>
>
>
> A slightly more recent attempt at the etymology of "wicca" relates it to an
> ancient word that meant "to twist or bend". Supporters of this theory
> "explained" it by saying that Witches are people who "twist or bend"
> reality -- a reference to their magical workings. The only thing that seems
> twisted or bent about this explanation is that it is strained almost to the
> breaking point. So if "wicca" doesn't mean either "twisted" or "wisdom" (or
> Twisted Wisdom -- which would be a great name for a Pagan rock band), what
> does it mean? My own inclination is to follow the lead of historian Jeffrey
> Burton Russell and trace the word wicca back to its ultimate origin in the
> Indo-European root word, *weik2. Linguists now believe that *weik2 had a
> meaning that was about halfway between our modern concepts of "religion" and
> "magic". It might best be explained by drawing a Venn diagram of two
> overlapping circles, one labeled "religion" and one labeled "magic". *Weik2
> would apply to the area where the two circles overlap. And this meaning is
> just what one would logically expect. (Interestingly, the only other word in
> any modern Indic language that is also traced back to *weik2 is the word
> "Veda", a word used to designate Hindu sacred scriptures, once again
> underscoring its connection to religious tradition.) So then, is Wicce-cræft
> or Witchcraft a religion? Is someone designated as Wicca or Witch a follower
> of that religion? The short answer is that it all depends on what you mean
> by "religion". Scholars of comparative religion will already know where I'm
> going with this. In our Western culture, we tend to think of religion in
> very narrow terms. We suppose it always comes with certain trappings and
> structures, and that it remains highly consistent over time. We might assume
> a religion must have specific beliefs, that it has sacred scriptures, that
> it has a recognizable clergy, that it has some connection to a God or Gods,
> that is has a specific set of rituals, that is has a hierarchy of followers,
> or that it champions a certain set of moral precepts. Surprisingly,as
> travelers to the Orient have discovered, many of the world's great religions
> break one or more of these rules. All the more so do the hundreds of
> smaller, tribal, and aboriginal religions break them. Some of these
> religions are little more than a loose collection of rituals and devotions
> that change dramatically over time. They are not the large-scale,
> well-funded, organized religions typical of the West. Rather, they might
> best be described as "folk religions". It is in this sense that Witchcraft
> is a religion. And always has been. And always will be.
>
>
>
>
> No, of course Witches don't practice their rituals the same way their Pagan
> ancestors did two thousand years ago. Neither do Christians still gather in
> catacombs to hold their agapes. But that doesn't mean they aren't followers
> of Christianity. Any more than Witches aren't followers of their own ancient
> religion. Of course Witches didn't call their religion "Witchcraft" two
> thousand years ago. Neither did Christians call theirs "Christianity". They
> didn't even speak the same language! Any more than Witches did! The Jewish
> religion once had many Gods (and Goddesses! -- see the work of Raphael
> Patai) and, according to archeological evidence, kept them well into Roman
> times, long after the monotheistic reforms were supposed to have taken
> place. (There's something you won't hear from your local Rabbi!) Early
> Christians had many Gods and Goddesses, too, as anyone familiar with the Nag
> Hammadi Library knows only too well. Yes, I'm speaking of "Gnostic"
> Christians, but remember they probably outnumbered the proto-orthodox
> Christians by the second century and, as recent archeological discoveries
> have shown, spread as far as the British Isles ! What eventually became
> "normative" Christianity had to be painfully hammered out at Nicea and
> similar Church
> councils over the centuries. Most religions, including Christianity, have
> gone through just as many changes down the centuries as Witchcraft has, and
> yet we don't doubt their continuity. Why should Witchcraft be held to a
> different standard?
>
>
>
>
> When Christianity and Witchcraft first began to clash, Christianity
> certainly regarded Witchcraft as a competing religion. In the "Canon
> Episcopi", a part of official Church doctrine, which may date back to the
> fourth century, Witches were accused of following the Goddess Diana. It
> wasn't until later that the Church shifted its stance and began accusing
> Witches of devil-worship, instead. Although Margaret Murray is the scholar
> usually credited with the thesis that European Witchcraft was the remnants
> of the old, pre-Christian Pagan faith, she was by no means the first to
> suggest this. That honor should probably go to German linguist and
> folklorist Jacob Grimm (yep, that Jacob Grimm, of Grimm's Fairy Tales fame).
> However discredited some of Murray 's ideas may have become, to jettison her
> core thesis (and Grimm's) may be throwing the baby out with the bath. Modern
> historian Carlo Ginzburg, in his exploration of the "Benandanti" in
> sixteenth and seventeenth century Italy , has unearthed much well-documented
> evidence of the survival of ancient European Pagan spiritual practices well
> into the Christian era. Since this material has been widely accepted even by
> skeptics, could it also throw new light on that pivotal 1899 publication by
> Charles Godfrey Leland, Aradia, or The Gospel of the Witches, which examines
> the survival of Witchcraft practices in Tuscany? If one defines "religion"
> in the broad sense used by scholars of comparative religion, it seems clear
> that Witchcraft does indeed meet the criteria. But Witchcraft is even more
> than that.
>
>
>
>
> It is also the practice (or the "craft") of magic. As we have seen, "wicca"
> may have come from a word that mixes elements of religion and magic in equal
> parts. Why is this so important? Because it underscores the idea that
> religion and magic are not mutually exclusive, that they can exist side by
> side harmoniously: that religious people can use magic to improve their lot,
> and that people who use magic can be spiritual, religious, "good" people.
> Academics had long tried to drive a wedge between religion and magic. This
> can be traced back to the pioneering work of Sir James Frazer and The Golden
> Bough. Although modern occultists may honor him for codifying the "laws" of
> magic, he had another agenda. Like most social scientists of his day, he was
> overwhelmed by Darwinian thinking and began applying evolutionary theory to
> everything, even to areas where it didn't fit. Consequently, magic, in
> Frazer's view, was nothing more than a debased precursor to "true" religion.
> As he saw it, the evolution went something like this: Mankind started with a
> flawed version of cause and effect, called sympathetic and contagious magic.
> Then, as he evolved, he became animistic, invoking the spirits that inhabit
> every river, tree, and rock. Then, as he became still more enlightened, he
> became polytheistic, believing in many Gods and Goddesses, each with
> different functions. Finally, as man evolved int the paragon of reason that
> he is today (sic!), he became monotheistic, realizing there could be only
> One True God.
>
>
>
>
> Granted, this model was quickly dismantled, at least in academic circles.
> Theodore Gastor, professor of comparative religion, took Frazer to task for
> this idea, in his preface to a newer critical edition of Frazer's The Golden
> Bough. Gastor rightly points out that even the most "primitive" magician
> does nottypically perform magic without invoking a God or Goddess. And in
> even the most "sophisticated" monotheistic religions, there is still a
> goodly amount of magic,
> although it may be re-christened as "liturgy" and "prayer". (In the West,
> the Catholic Mass is the parade example of magic as liturgy.) In fact,
> Gastor goes on to posit that religion and magic are inescapably found
> together throughout all cultures of the world, throughout all periods of
> history. Although academics have accepted this revision, non-specialists
> have been slower to catch on, and the Frazerian model still holds sway for
> many. It especially appeals to those "sophisticated" monotheists who believe
> they have already attained the zenith of theological ideals, and that the
> practice of magic could not possibly have a place in it. Apparently, there
> are even some new "Wiccan" groups that buy into this, seeing themselves as
> religious only, and holding themselves above such practices as magic. To sum
> up, it seems that the current drive to separate Wicca from Witchcraft, to
> say that one refers to religion while the other refers to magic, is full of
> "Frazerian residue". It appeals to those who are uncomfortable with the
> thought that religion and magic can happily co-exist. (I suspect that it
> appeals mainly to Witches who are recent converts from monotheistic creeds,
> yet have ported a certain amount of their previous belief system into their
> new faith.) Yet both historically and linguistically, it can be shown that
> Witch and Wicca are the same word, and that they both mean the same thing, a
> combination of religion and magic. I am perfectly aware, however, of
> something that linguists call the "etymological fallacy", i.e. that a word
> means its etymology. We all know that the meaning of words can change over
> time. Maybe this has already happened to the word Wicca. Maybe too many
> people have too often repeated the
> newborn platitude, "Wicca and Witchcraft are not the same thing." Perhaps it
> is already too late to turn the tide of opinion. Nonetheless, supporting
> this view would be a catastrophic mistake for a religion like ours. And more
> to the point, it could be politically dangerous.
>
>
>
>
> It wasn't long ago that Witches were sometimes arrested for the "crime" of
> "fortune telling", e.g. for reading Tarot cards, etc. In many such cases,
> Witches were able to mount a successful defense by arguing that such magical
> practices were part of their religion. However, I can envision a scenario in
> the not-too-distant future where the prosecutor will counter with, "That's
> not true! Her religion may be Wicca, but she was merely practicing
> Witchcraft!" In a culture like ours, in which all magic is seen as suspect
> by the increasingly political majority religion, it is perilous to allow a
> dark line to be drawn between religion and magic. Words like Witch and Wicca
> present us with a unique
> opportunity to erase that line. These words are the linguistic equivalent of
> a petri dish in which the cultures of religion and magic have been allowed
> to mix in equal proportions. I believe it is important for us to champion
> this unique mix of beliefs. When I first embraced Witchcraft as my path, I
> knew I was embracing both a religion and a practice of magic. Therefore, I
> will continue to proclaim that I am a Witch, and I am Wiccan, for it means
> the same thing. It is my religion, and it is my craft. It is my life.
>
>
>
>
> ADDENDUM: First of all, many thanks to the literally hundreds of you who
> took the time and trouble to email me following the publication of this
> article at The Witches' Voice web site. To my great shock and surprise,
> about 80% of that response was supportive. (Of course, maybe those who
> disagreed with my views were less inclined to write.) Of the remaining 20%,
> three questions turned up with such regularity that I thought I'd better
> address them in an addendum here. 1.) Many of my correspondents seemed to
> think the words "witchcraft" and "magic" are synonyms. Hence, they would
> ask, "Well if Witchcraft=Wicca, what do you call someone who practices
> magic, and yet is not Wiccan? Or a Witch?" Oddly enough, I call them
> magicians. Which seems kind of self-evident to me. Using the word
> "witchcraft" as a synonym for "magic" is linguistically quite recent. For
> example, the first occurrence of using the word "witchdoctor" to describe an
> African tribal shaman wasn't until the 1860s! So I restrict the use of the
> word-group Witch/Witchcraft/Wicca/Wiccecraef t, to northwestern Europe ,
> where it originated and had its original referents. When I find magic being
> practiced in other cultures, I call it magic. Although my true preference is
> to call it by its own native word, whether Voudoun, Santeria, or whatever.
> 2.) Many people wrote to insist that they practice magic in a non-religious
> way. (Many cited ceremonial magicians as a good example of this -although
> ceremonial magicians are awfully fond of invoking archangels!) In my
> article, I have argued that it is nearly impossible to practice magic in a
> non-religious way. Bear in mind that I am using the word "religion" in its
> most universal sense, as a scholar of comparative religion uses it. Folk
> religion does not require the worship of (or even the belief in!) a god or
> goddess. Simply to honor your ancestors by perpetuating their ways of doing
> magic would qualify most Family Traditions as "religious" from an Eastern
> perspective. About the only way one could do magic in a "non-religious" way
> is to make it up out of whole cloth! But even then, I'd bet dollars to
> doughnuts that one would end up "borrowing" symbols from one's cultural
> background, and that takes us back to "religion" again. 3.) Finally, some
> practitioners of traditional British Witchcraft wrote to say they avoid the
> use of the word "Wicca" because it represents, to them, a
> Gardnerian-influenced, and diluted version of what they themselves practice.
> I sympathize with this concern and can only say that the word "Wicca"
> belongs to us traditionalists just as much as the word "Witch" does, because
> it is ultimately the same word, and it was there first. If those who dilute
> our praxis have tried to make the word "Wicca" uniquely their own, then it
> is high time we re-claimed it! I hope this answers a few of the objections
> raised against my original article, and perhaps articulates some of the
> unspoken assumptions that undergirded it.
>
>
>
>
> Most Recent TextRevision:
>
> Monday, March 27, 2006 c.e.
>
> Text editing courtesy of Acorn Guild Press
>
>
> ...
>
> Document Copyright © 2006 by Mike Nichols.
>
> HTML coding by: Mike
>
> Nichols © 2006
>
>
>
> Permission is given to re-publish this document only as long as no
> information is lost or changed, credit is given to the author, and it is
> provided or used without cost to others.
>
> Bright Blessing
> Michelle
>
> "Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for thou art crispy and good with
> ketchup".
>
>
>
> --------------------- --------- ------
>
> Material submitted to this list is for your own personal use and is not to
> be forwarded without the express permission of the poster.
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: 13Witches-subscribe@yahoogroups. com
> Unsubscribe: 13Witches-unsubscribe@yahoogroups. com
> List owner: 13Witches-owner@yahoogroups. com
>
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this
> message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who
> have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
> non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only, and is NOT
> an infringement of copyright.
> http://www4.law.cornell. edu/uscode/ 17/107.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
- 3g.
-
Re: A Witch By Any Other Name
Posted by: "Beth Patterson" purrrpaws4444@yahoo.com purrrpaws4444
Sat May 14, 2011 6:20 pm (PDT)
Witch wars? I've never heard of that before. I can't even fathom the concept..........
Beth
Blessed, Mystical, Magickal Cats
                      &
Curious, Creative, Clever Bunnies
--- On Sun, 5/15/11, Lady Nightshayde <LadyNightshayde9@aol.com > wrote:
 Coven was pitted against coven, study group against study group, and many groups simply disbanded. My group simply chose not to participate in this atrocity and went, for lack of a better word, underground. Â
- 4a.
-
Re:
Posted by: "Colin" gunner508@gmail.com gunner508uk
Sat May 14, 2011 12:43 pm (PDT)
I have no problem with black pudding and find it very tasty. Squid ink
pasta I have never had but have eaten squid in its own ink, so no problems,
pigs feet, trotters if you like, I have eaten, there isn't much on them to
be honest, Pimento loaf ok, Tapioca is a no no in any form. I reserve
judgement on the other items.
On 13 May 2011 20:47, Lady Nightshayde <LadyNightshayde9@aol.com > wrote:
>
>
> The further down the list I got, the sicker I became. I don't see how
> anyone can eat these things.
> 13 Freaky Foods for Freaky Friday
>
- 5.
-
Daily Feng Shui Tip for May 14, 2011
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 1:23 pm (PDT)
Daily Feng Shui Tip by Ellen Whitehurst for Saturday, May 14
You might think that on 'Stars and Stripes Forever Day' I would want to explore the history behind old Betsy and Old Glory. However, today I will share the energies of this day that surround the symbols and colors on our American flag: stars, stripes, red, white and blue. We'll start with stars, since they are symbolically evocative of hope. Whenever I want a client to be more hopeful I advise they put a green star somewhere in their line of sight to activate positive results. Stripes or any sort of columnar shape evoke associations with trees and roots and therefore can sometimes symbolize ancestry and family. So, striped wallpaper in a family oriented room is actually a nice energetic interior design trick. And, of course, there are those three colors that are as American as apple pie -- if that pie were red, white and blue, that is. Speaking of red, if you desire to be noticed and to stand out in a crowd then you should definitely wear red. On a job interview, Feng Shui says that you should don the much more conservative blue. And the color white represents innocence and purity, so that might be the best color to keep from wearing your heart on your sleeve during that nervous first date. Run this info up the flagpole because it certainly does give new meaning to Stars and Stripes forever!
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
- 6a.
-
Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 1:39 pm (PDT)
A short time ago my newly married daughter Miranda and her hubby Tim were sitting outside enjoying the cooler than usual weather (in Yulee, FL). All of a sudden the wind picked up and rain started coming down in sheets. Tim was closing the garage door when a huge tree in their front yard crashed down on both their vehicles. Several minutes later, a tree in the back yard came down on the rear of the house demolishing the roof and everything in the back left part of the house. No other houses in their neighborhood were damaged. Miranda called me a few minutes ago and I could tell she was close to being in shock. She said she was now in the house with their two dogs, a pit and a blond lab, both big babies, and the dogs we running around scared to death. She said she was watching the rain pouring through the hole where the roof was. I told her to get out of there. They were in touch with their insurance company and were told that none of the damage was covered since it was an "act of God." Would ya'll (yep, I'm a Georgia peach) please light candles for Miranda and Tim to help them get through this.
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
- 6b.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "LadyHawk_Jax" ladyhawk_jax@yahoo.com ladyhawk_jax
Sat May 14, 2011 3:10 pm (PDT)
Oh that must be so devastating!  Candles lit and prayers for Miranda and Tim... oh, and the 'Big Babies' ;)Â
Love, Light and Abundant Blessings,
LadyHawk
Â
Â
Â
--- On Sat, 5/14/11, Lady Nightshayde <LadyNightshayde9@aol.com > wrote:
From: Lady Nightshayde <LadyNightshayde9@aol.com >
Subject: [13Witches] Could You Please Help?
To: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com , whisperingwitches@yahoogroups. , MagickalMeals@com yahoogroups. com
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2011, 4:39 PM
Â
A short time ago my newly married daughter Miranda and her hubby Tim were sitting outside enjoying the cooler than usual weather (in Yulee, FL). All of a sudden the wind picked up and rain started coming down in sheets. Tim was closing the garage door when a huge tree in their front yard crashed down on both their vehicles. Several minutes later, a tree in the back yard came down on the rear of the house demolishing the roof and everything in the back left part of the house. No other houses in their neighborhood were damaged. Miranda called me a few minutes ago and I could tell she was close to being in shock. She said she was now in the house with their two dogs, a pit and a blond lab, both big babies, and the dogs we running around scared to death. She said she was watching the rain pouring through the hole where the roof was. I told her to get out of there. They were in touch with their insurance company and were told that none of the
damage was covered since it was an "act of God."Â Would ya'll (yep, I'm a Georgia peach) please light candles for Miranda and Tim to help them get through this.Â
Â
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ Âgroup/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ Â ÂNightshaydesNews
- 6c.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "Hazell Mccardell" hmccardell@yahoo.com hmccardell
Sat May 14, 2011 5:15 pm (PDT)
I have one lit for them. I live in Live Oak . We have a T storm comming in now from the west of me.
On Sat May 14th, 2011 4:39 PM EDT Lady Nightshayde wrote:
>A short time ago my newly married daughter Miranda and her hubby Tim were sitting outside enjoying the cooler than usual weather (in Yulee, FL). All of a sudden the wind picked up and rain started coming down in sheets. Tim was closing the garage door when a huge tree in their front yard crashed down on both their vehicles. Several minutes later, a tree in the back yard came down on the rear of the house demolishing the roof and everything in the back left part of the house. No other houses in their neighborhood were damaged. Miranda called me a few minutes ago and I could tell she was close to being in shock. She said she was now in the house with their two dogs, a pit and a blond lab, both big babies, and the dogs we running around scared to death. She said she was watching the rain pouring through the hole where the roof was. I told her to get out of there. They were in touch with their insurance company and were told that none of the damage was
covered since it was an "act of God." Would ya'll (yep, I'm a Georgia peach) please light candles for Miranda and Tim to help them get through this.
>
>
>
>The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
>
>
>Love Each Day,
>Lady Nightshayde
>
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
>http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
>http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
>http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
>
>
- 6d.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 5:35 pm (PDT)
I have one lit for them. I live in Live Oak . We have a T storm comming in now from the west of me.
Thanks--I appreciate it.
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
- 6e.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "LadyFromDover@aol.com" LadyFromDover@aol.com ladyfromdover
Sat May 14, 2011 5:36 pm (PDT)
candles are lit for Miranda and Tim, hope thy were not hurt,
Pam - 6f.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "Hazell Mccardell" hmccardell@yahoo.com hmccardell
Sat May 14, 2011 5:39 pm (PDT)
You are welcome. I think this storm will fall apart soon so it won't get to yulee.
On Sat May 14th, 2011 8:35 PM EDT Lady Nightshayde wrote:
>
>
>I have one lit for them. I live in Live Oak . We have a T storm comming in now from the west of me.
>
>
>
>
>Thanks--I appreciate it.
>
>
>
>The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
>
>
>Love Each Day,
>Lady Nightshayde
>
>
>
- 6g.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 5:45 pm (PDT)
candles are lit for Miranda and Tim, hope thy were not hurt,
Pam
Thanks Pam. They are both fine physically. I feel so bad for them especially since they just got married April 16 and paid for the wedding and reception themselves, so they were already strapped financially.
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
=
- 6h.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 5:49 pm (PDT)
Oh that must be so devastating! Candles lit and prayers for Miranda and Tim... oh, and the 'Big Babies' ;)
Thank you. Neither of the dogs like thunder; they always find a good place to hide.
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
- 6i.
-
Re: Could You Please Help?
Posted by: "Beth Patterson" purrrpaws4444@yahoo.com purrrpaws4444
Sat May 14, 2011 6:10 pm (PDT)
Oh thank Goddess they weren't hurt!!
Â
{{{{{{{{Candles lit ~~~~~Â prayers sent}}}}}}}......
Â
Â
P.S. friggin' insurance co's
Beth
Blessed, Mystical, Magickal Cats
                      &
Curious, Creative, Clever Bunnies
--- On Sat, 5/14/11, Lady Nightshayde <LadyNightshayde9@aol.com > wrote:
Â
- 7.1.
-
Insights
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 5:37 pm (PDT)
LET IT GO
The things you control, you take care of. The things you don't control, you let take their own course.
Dom Capers
If you can't make it better, you can laugh at it.
Erma Bombeck
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
- 8.
-
A Few Photos of Tim and Miranda's Wedding at Fernandina Beach, FL.
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 5:59 pm (PDT)
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
- 9.
-
The Wedding Pictures
Posted by: "Lady Nightshayde" LadyNightshayde9@aol.com nightshayde99
Sat May 14, 2011 6:15 pm (PDT)
Sorry the pictures didn't come through; at least they didn't come through on mine.
The light of a hundred stars cannot equal the light of the Moon.
Love Each Day,
Lady Nightshayde
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/13Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/Whispering Witches/
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/MagickalMe als/
http://groups.yahoo/group/ NightshaydesNews
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
Material submitted to this list is for your own personal use and is not to be forwarded without the express permission of the poster.
Community email addresses:
Post message: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: 13Witches-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: 13Witches-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: 13Witches-owner@yahoogroups.com
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only, and is NOT an infringement of copyright.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
Community email addresses:
Post message: 13Witches@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: 13Witches-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: 13Witches-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: 13Witches-owner@yahoogroups.com
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only, and is NOT an infringement of copyright.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
MARKETPLACE
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Its really looking Different from others and thanks for sharing and thanks for blog..
RăspundețiȘtergereWeb Design Company Bangalore
Web Designing Company Bangalore
Web Development Company Bangalore