Messages In This Digest (2 Messages)

1a.: Re: Problems with "Eclecticism" & "Eclectic" Wicca From: callisto_ma

2a.: File - TeachMe.html From: Witch_Essentials@yahoogroups.com

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1a.: Re: Problems with "Eclecticism" & "Eclectic" Wicca

Posted by: "callisto_ma" Kitana1064@aol.com callisto_ma

Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:11 pm (PDT)

Blackbird, thanks for taking the time and effort to offer a rebuttal.
There appear to be a number of erroneous assumptions about what I said
or about Trad Wicca so I'll try to clear these up or at least be more
plain about what I said:

1. Elitism.

"The Essay I am replying to seems to largely make the case for the
superiority and Authority of well established Gardnerian Trads over a
more personal and Eclectic Path"

Here we go, Trad Wiccans (BTW) are authoritarians and elitists for
pointing out any distinctions between it and another path. Somehow
stating that BTW is the religion as it was founded and intended to be
practiced isn't merely a statement of fact, but self-aggrandizement.
There is absolutely no legitimacy in saying BTW stating differences
equates invalidation. Does stating that Stregheria or Santeria or
Hinduism are different and not BTW implying either one is lesser than
it? No. Nor was anything dictatorial stated about whether others are
free to practice and believe what they want. The issue was, and is, what
Wicca is and who has the right to make statements about it. Which I was
quite clear on.

The long and short of it is, if the two "Wiccas" were the same
religion, then there was no reason for Gardner to establish Wicca as an
initiatory priesthood given he wanted the religion to continue. If Wicca
had changed (it hasn't), BTW would have faded out for a quicker,
individualized form. Gardner wanted to preserve the knowledge he claims
to have been initiated into by developing a stable framework in which it
could be perpetuated. Now, if it was possible to achieve that without
being coven based, would it not stand to reason that he would have
developed it as a practice for the lone practitioner? Think about it. It
would have been easier back then given there was greater ignorance and
prejudices towards non-Christian beliefs than there are today, so
solitary would have been a safer route. It would have spread faster and
farther than it has if all you needed to get started was
self-declaration and some DIY books.

But let's pretend Gardner was just short-sighted and Wicca had since
proved to be something that did not require initiatory training after
all. Well, EW's been around for awhile now. If it were true, it would
have rendered the Traditions superfluous. There would be a lack of new
initiates. The claim, "Wicca has changed," would actually be correct.
But it hasn't changed, the traditions haven't been diminished or
replaced, they continue to grow and exist on several continents now.

Why? Because BTW and EW are not the same. They're two completely
different practices, with completely different purposes, that appeal to
completely different types of people. So I don't see what the problem is
in acknowledging they're different. They are independent of each other.
A path being valid wasn't the point or even raised.

BTWs have never deigned to tell other practitioners of other paths what
they can choose to believe or practice. Do they state what is or isn't
the case regarding Wicca? Yes, since they are the ones who perpetuate
it. This is no different from any other religion. Buddhists monks will
state what is true of that path. So too will the Santerian Ifa, the
Baptist minister and the Greek Orthodox priest and so on. Yet, only
BTWs are admonished for speaking on behalf of their own religion. No
other clergy seems to share this maligning distinction.

It begs the question: by what right, authority and/or superiority do
non-BTWs (EW or otherwise) have to tell BTWs what they can and cannot do
regarding their own religion?

To be clear: the issue isn't whether another practice is valid. The
issue is claiming something is Wicca and everyone getting painted by the
same brush. BTW defined what Wicca is and for decades was the only
practice using the "Wicca" label. Whenever Wicca is defended and
explained to the mainstream, it is the what was established by BTW that
everyone defaults to when saying what is standard to Wicca.

2. Hutton is the "go-to" word on Wicca.

Hutton is known to many within the BTW community on a personal basis. He
is not, however, the end-all be-all or spokesperson on what is accurate
and true regarding BTW. And that is said without rancor and without
attempting to detract from his work or his opinion. Triumph of the Moon
has been out for several years now and has been thoroughly critiqued and
examined by BTWs and neo-pagans in general. Like any other book, ToftM
has its debatable points and ultimately is one person's take on the
information he gathered, not the definitive source on Wicca.

3. To address "Wicca is eclectic".

Regardless, the passage quoted from Hutton has no bearing on the stance
maintained in this or my previous writing. Blackbird, I respectfully
point out that you make the same flawed argument that others have made.
I.e., pointing to borrowed techniques as somehow proof that BTW is
eclectic. All religions borrow from other religions in their origins,
thus your argument and interpretation of Hutton's quote would render ALL
religions eclectic. And if all religions are eclectic, then it's a
immaterial point. Origins is one thing, what coalesces is another.

Even if one wants to argue that 'Wicca is eclectic" it did not, like
Eclectic Wicca, claim to be any practice that it borrowed from. Please
read that sentence again. It has never claimed to be Golden Dawn or
Freemasonry or any other practice one wants to claim it borrowed from.
Eclectic Wicca borrows from Wicca and claims that it's Wicca, even
though one will find other religions and beliefs borrowed from too. How
is it that it's still "Wicca" when it differs from person to person and
pulls on an infinite combination of other paths and practices?

The issue has never been whether EW is a valid practice in its own
right. That's never been on the table. Rather whether something is
"Wicca". BTW consists of multiple traditions, they're all recognized as
BTW. And the reason why they are recognized is because they all share
core practices, beliefs, knowledge and purposes that readily identify
them as being kin.

Once those elements are removed, as in the case of EW, it's something
else. EW was promoted as being Wicca -- i.e., BTW For One. But it's
not. It borrows some non-initiatory components, but even that varies
in extent from person to person. It's missing BTWs core knowledge and
purpose -- i.e., the very things Gardner established Wicca for in the
first place. So what's left? The newcomer is handed an empty casing in
which individuals are to stuff whatever they want. Yet somehow it's all
"Wicca". To go back to the can analogy: if you wanted beans, grabbed a
can labeled "Beans" and opened it, don't you expect to find... beans?
But the person who owns the can didn't have access to any beans, so he
filled it with artichokes because he really likes those. But he kept the
"Beans" label anyway. So what are you looking at, beans or something
else?

4. BTWs hold themselves in higher regard than all others.

"That seeming to be the case it seems to me at the very least odd; that
Pagan's that can only trace their lineages back to Gardner should hold
themselves above others on their own eclectic paths. If we compare Wicca
to the Native American Medicine Path, the Aboriginal Shaman of Australia
or any other surviving Indigenous path"

This is not only left field but patently false and not even remotely
connected to the discussion. Please quote what I wrote that could have
remotely given you that impression. BTWs speaking on behalf of their
practices has nothing to do with either First Nation practices or the
price of tea in China. Paganism is an extremely broad term, under which
are a multitude of practices. Though none of the paths you listed
consider themselves "pagan" as "pagan" commonly refers to Neo-Pagan
practices. Indigenous/aboriginal and reconstructed paths (e.g.,
Religio Romana, Hellenism, Kemeticism etc.) reject being lumped under
the pagan/Neo-pagan banner. I hope it goes without saying that
outsiders choosing to call these practices "pagan" anyway doesn't make
it so.

BTWs aren't holding themselves superior to anyone. The issue is, was,
and will continue to be what is part of Wicca and what is not. Again,
something BTWs seem to be the only ones ridiculed for defending their
religion. Native Americans are free to speak out on what is part of
their practices and what is not, who is entitled to claim their
practices and who is not. So too are shamans, and Jews and Gypsies and
every other practice in-between. But not BTWs!!! Oh no, then they're
elitist snobs putting down others. I'd like to see how well that
accusation would fly with the elders and clergy of other paths. It
wouldn't. So why do people think BTWs are any less entitled to defend
their practices than others?

Most importantly, by what right or authority do you or anyone else
making that accusation have to tell BTWs what they can say about their
own religion?

5. Your example of BTW in Place A versus Place B:

There's too much muddled together and this is already a wall of text.
Firstly, the specifics and validity of other pagan paths are irrelevant
to the conversation. They have no bearing on BTW and BTW has no bearing
on them. The issue is Wicca, not any and all other practices.

Suffice to say for BTWS, location is of no importance. Wicca is not just
about when sabbats are practiced or the Rede or circle casting. BTWs in
Australia and South America aren't handicapped any more than BTWs in
America are for not being in the UK. BTWs blend among one another all
the time, no one gets out of synch if a person earned his 1st degree in
one place, relocated and attained his 2nd in a different line in a
different part of the world and then came back or went elsewhere for his
3rd. Even within a Tradition, a person may start off in one coven of a
line but then become part of another coven in the same or different
line. Elders of one may officiate or stand-in for another coven in need.
Many BTWs are initiates of more than one tradition.

6. Making Claims & Due Dilligence.

"Still one should not falsely claim they are on an authentic (whatever)
path; unless they have done due diligence and can claim with out fear of
contradiction that they are on said path"

Ironically, you're making my point. BTW is authentic Wicca. Until
Gardner there was never, ever, in the history of the world, a religion
called "Wicca". And Wicca is a clearly defined, organized and
identifiable practice unto itself. Therefore, its practitioners are able
to state what is authentic to it and what is not. The problem is that
many practices claiming to also be Wicca have not, as you pointed out,
done due diligence and make claims that are not correct.

7. Prophets... What???

"Now this I find quote Bizarre myself - in that I know I have more than
once heard it said, or written - that the point of Wicca was to create a
Religion of Prophets"

What is truly bizarre is THIS statement. A religion of prophets?
Really? Please follow up with source material because it's utter
fantasy. How, exactly, are "prophets" to rise when; a) BTW doesn't have
prophets; b) all BTWs are initiated priests and priestesses, c) the
religion's practices are oathbound and only available to those priests
and priestesses and d) there is no laity? What, exactly, are these
Wiccans "prophesying" to and for what purpose? Name a Wiccan who has
promoted himself/herself as a prophet.

8. The Satan thing.

The issue of Satan, his existence, and whether the Christian god can be
worshipped within Wicca is entirely an EW issue, not BTW. Neither one
is part of BTW, nor any other aspect of the Christian pantheon. BTW does
not, contrary to your accusations, concern itself with Christianity or
any other religion. The BTW stance is that what one path believes
regarding another and its deities is irrelevant to that other path, so
BTWs don't concern themselves with such things. Believe it or not, it IS
entirely possible for paths to respect the sovereignty and beliefs of
each other without sharing beliefs.

BTW respects all forms of deities, even though they are not part of
Wiccan practice. Wicca does not concern itself with the Christian or any
other pantheon nor the beliefs of the Christian religion or any other
religion. Contrary to the accusation, BTWs do not claim authority over
other paths nor determine their legitimacy. Stating what is true of
*Wicca* is not the same as passing any judgement on another religion.

EW is a different path from BTW and thus a whole other matter. Any and
all beliefs, practices and pantheons are "up for grabs" when formulating
individual practices. So because anything and everything is allowed in
EW and each person is to do what feels right for him, the question that
was raised was a) who gets to draw the line on what's acceptable and
what's not? And b) if everyone's UPG is not only equally valid as
someone else's, and everyone is free to do what feels right and still
refer to his practice as being the same thing... how is this line drawn?
Especially when other pantheons haven't been divided into "acceptable"
and "unacceptable."

UPG is not unimportant, it's just not fact. There's a difference.
Something that holds true for the individual does not mean it holds true
across the board for everyone or the religion.

--- In Witch_Essentials@yahoogroups.com, "Blackbird" <blackbird_61@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I must say, It's with just a touch of disappointment that I sit down
to
> write this post; after all with 4000+ members too our group I'm sure
> there must be a good many self described Eclectic Wiccan's in that
> number; and it seems a shame none of them has chosen to write a word
to
> defend their path.
>
> As a Self Described Pagan, one might justly Argue I should keep my
nose
> out of this one, but I must admit on due consideration, I think it
best
> I not take that option seeing that no-one better suited to carry this
> banner has chosen to step forward; I have chose to pick it up myself.
So
> as best I can I will now lay out ...
> A Case for Eclectic Paganism
> If I may ...

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (7)

2a.: File - TeachMe.html

Posted by: "Witch_Essentials@yahoogroups.com" Witch_Essentials@yahoogroups.com

Mon Aug 1, 2011 1:56 am (PDT)

*** Teach Me Something, ***
Teach me something ....

Post A Favorite poem, or a Verse from that Poem
Tell me how that makes you feel about the Goddess

Post a Link to a Pic of a Favorite Card at Taroteca
<http://taroteca.multiply.com/photos/album/41/Gendrone> tell me
how you feel about that card.

Review a Favorite Book
<http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripb\
ooks&field-keywords=Wicca> that taught you something about
Wicca, the Tarot,
or gave you a spiritual insight

Our Group,
Will only become your group if you choose to participate, whether
to ask a Question, or Offer an Anwser, both are equally valuable
here, so please raise your voice, let yourself be heard.

It's your turn now,
Teach Me Something....

Brightest Blessings All, BB.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (24)