?

Log in

[icon] To Wiccans_Unite - Wiccans Untie!!
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.

Security:
Subject:To Wiccans_Unite
Time:07:36 pm
You know if you paid any real attention to this group you would see we have more important things to do then send anyone to you for "fun".

We love pointing out your hypocrisy of "Tolerant Wiccans and Pagans" yet you ban anyone who may be a friend or just watching this community.

You are nothing but spoiled little children who do not seem to understand the stupidity in which you have embroiled yourselves. One has to wonder what a community that is open to all pagans and wiccans truly is like if they ban certain pagans and wiccans for being friends with certain people or expressing opinions about certain things.

If you truly wanted to learn you would not be banning people.

I pity you for you will gain no knowledge but false knowledge, which will only get you hurt.

sad.
comments: Leave a comment Previous Entry Share Next Entry


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 04:12 pm (UTC)
Let's not start that "you read this so you're pathetic get a life!" crap. It's obvious that this is the internet and people read it. I'm not saying not to disagree- I am saying that name calling and other mocking is a waste of time. You can disagree all you want. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend until death your right to say it." I just think being mean about differing beliefs is counterproductive. I don't care to "get into it" insofar as that usually requires alot of back and forth, research and emotion and those are resources that could be put to something more productive then "Who is right, Karl or Raven?"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


karlthepagan
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 04:23 pm (UTC)
what beliefs again?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 05:42 pm (UTC)
Now- I don't believe in focusing on the lighter side of life to the exclusion of balance. I believe that the exaggeration present in how people talk about those 'fluffy bunnies' is uncalled for. Why not just talk about balance with them. I'm not saying you should try this on the closed community, but there are other communities to do so without being offensive and making comments like these:



"I love the goddess and that should be the most importent thing, right?? I LOVE HER and I know that she loves me!! and all living things, which is why I only eat fruit that has fallen on the ground by itself, and milk from the goat that my neighbor keeps in his yard, and THAT IS ALL. Meat is Mean, that is why they are only 1 letter different!!

I am practicing that thing I was talking about on TT, is it working??"




"You know, in this thread, _emerald_rose asks some relatively basic newbie questions. She might actually get more meaningful answers if she didn't kick the BTW off of her community.

Has it dawned on her that, for serious answers, you need serious, intelligent people there to give them?

*considers the source*

Probably not. And this is how fluff continues to spread like a cancer. "



"wiccans_unite has a suggested reading list, now.

While some of the books are actual scholarly works that *I* have a hard time getting through (which makes me doubt that some of the mindless wonders over there will be able to do so), Edain McCoy, Cunningham, and Silver RavenWolf show up all over the place.

I feel nauseated. I'm not sure if it's the list or the antibiotics I just took, though. :P"

"her fluffy white light world of wicca."

"a dozen interested newbies & fluffheads "

"No new spies for now. She's closed the membership entirely. "

----Too Busy, huh?


Some people do believe that the Goddess is a white light and love, I suppose. When they experience the darker side of life I suppose their opinions will be revamped- but do you really need to be so snarky about it? What's the point? Are you focusing on the darker aspects to balance their focus on light? Talking down to people doesn't make them take into consideration what you're saying. If Raven's being a twit then why not ignore her? Silvertree could have handled her own battle if she chose to take it...but she didn't. I think she's about the only one who is being mature about it all- even if I do disagree with her definitions.

Anyway- it doesn't really matter because you like this and will continue no matter what I argue...so there's no point it arguing at all.



(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


karlthepagan
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 05:57 pm (UTC)
2nd quote: that's a criticism of her draconian moderation

3rd quote: disagreeing with a specific author is not mocking beliefs

last quote: so what? people wanted to read friends-only posts.

I'll also note you didn't dig up anything that I said. Others are free to express their opinions including criticism of raven for what in their opinions are newbie wiccan stereotypes. Are you complaining to those people or is this guilt by association?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 06:05 pm (UTC)
It's not guilt by association- though saying everyone in Raven's community certainly seems close to that. It's what this community is expressing. I didn't say any one person said it- I was speaking of the group because the orginal post was speaking for the group. Besides which, I'm not saying people don't have a right to say it- I'm saying that these are statements that make fun of where people are coming from- their positions on life as of the moment. So what- if they're new why does anyone have to go on with elitist snobbery- why not teach with kindness, not bitterness? The reason "Wicca" as a whole is going to skew very far in many directions is because of the elitist snobs yelling and ranting instead of teaching. I believe that most people would be able to be won over with logic and truth instead of name calling. Those who can't- ignore them! They're not going to negativly effect anyone but themselves.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


karlthepagan
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 06:30 pm (UTC)
Noone here can speak for the whole group. We are not incorporated or organized in that way. Everyone has a different reason for being here.

By this same logic then, is it fair to say that wiccans_unite mocks the beliefs of British traditional witchcraft adherants? Isn't that hypocritical of you? If you force the members to endorse every other members' statements here then we must require the same of wiccans_unite.


No, that isn't the purpose, nor the cause, for this community's existance. It's a side-effect and when it happens it does not represent all of us.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 08:11 pm (UTC)
I know that no one can speak for the whole group. Point is that if anyone wants to speak as if wiccans_unite is one whole cohesive community full of "fluffies" and denounce the members as such, you're going to get the same treatment back.

I guess opinions come through no matter what one does.

...I wouldn't say the community was created to mock BTW but to provide a place to discuss practices and issues without being beaten over the head with the fact that they are different. Not that all BTW would do this- but that some have and that is why Raven created the community. It hasn't turned out to be a very good community- their original stated purpose is alot more useful then what it's become, unfortunatly.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


karlthepagan
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 09:01 pm (UTC)
"Point is that if anyone wants to speak as if wiccans_unite is one whole cohesive community full of "fluffies" and denounce the members as such, you're going to get the same treatment back."

Who exactly is doing that? I've not noticed much criticism of anyone other than the mod and her newfound despotism.
(Reply) (Expand) (Parent) (Thread)


beltainelady
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 09:17 pm (UTC)
Ya know...

I gotta wonder why y'all are so concerned about what BTWs think of you.

Little insecure about your place, eh?
(Reply) (Expand) (Parent) (Thread)


enyo
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 05:08 pm (UTC)
It's obvious that this is the internet and people read it.

But no one is holding a gun to your head and insisting that you read everything that we write. *You* choose to do that. *I*, personally, have a problem with someone who preaches tolerance and does exactly the opposite.

I just think being mean about differing beliefs is counterproductive.

1.) I don't see anyone in *this* group "being mean" because you believe differently. What I see primarily here is a disgust over lack of research and the unwillingness to do so, and a disagreement with terminolgy.

2.) Keep that in mind when Raven Twit next posts a diatribe about how BTWs are Meanie Fascist Poo-Poo Heads. Or anyone else who doesn't agree with her.

"Just because you are stupid does not make me a bitch."
-- Arwen Nightstar
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 06:11 pm (UTC)
But no one is holding a gun to your head and insisting that you read everything that we write. *You* choose to do that. *I*, personally, have a problem with someone who preaches tolerance and does exactly the opposite.


I have a problem with that as well. I'm not for banning people or for closed discussions. I think deleting posts and manipulating converstation is just as wrong and being rude and disrespectful to the point of driving people to distraction.

The terminology implies something about what it is speaking about. Terminology has alot to do with how people are viewed. It has been used throughout history to degrade and downplay certain groups. Disagreements on terminology can easily be generalized to being a disagreement about belief. If one were to say that solitary Wicca is not a valid path and apply a silly term like "neo-wicca" to it- it degrades the practice while exhalting the only-slightly-older by historical standerds BTW way. This is why I find it offensive when people force their terms on me. You can call me whatever you like, I suppose... and I don't have to like it. I also don't find it respectful. I have no problem with the beliefs and practices of others up until the point where they believe they must preach to me about my own beliefs. I like to discuss and argue and debate- but I don't want to be told to hush by anyone coming from any perspective. I've done research as well. I believe what I believe _is_ based on facts- but I also know that I don't know everything. There will never be a perfect agreement in a community. I'd like to be able to debate without being belittled. Flamewars are not what I'm after- knowledge is. I'd like to see both sides of the story.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


enyo
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 06:43 pm (UTC)
I have a problem with that as well. I'm not for banning people or for closed discussions. I think deleting posts and manipulating converstation is just as wrong and being rude and disrespectful to the point of driving people to distraction.

Bingo. Behold, that is one of the main problems that I have with wiccans_unite. There's not much unity when you're banning people left, right, and center.

The terminology implies something about what it is speaking about. Terminology has alot to do with how people are viewed.

You're right. It does. And, to me, when you say "Wicca is whatever you want it to be", and your response to disagreement is to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LA LA LA, I'm not listening!" or to throw a tantrum, *that's* when you earn the term "fluffybunny".

If one were to say that solitary Wicca is not a valid path and apply a silly term like "neo-wicca" to it- it degrades the practice while exhalting the only-slightly-older by historical standerds BTW way.

You know, I don't think I've *ever* heard someone say that solitary Wicca is not a valid path. I *have* heard people say that it's not a valid term. And you know what? I agree with them. Why I am Not a Wiccan, an essay that I wrote a few years back, explains this perfectly.

I do welcome your comments about it.

I'd like to be able to debate without being belittled.

I love debate. I don't think that anyone here has belittled *you* personally for your own particular set of beliefs.

Flamewars are not what I'm after- knowledge is.

Don't underestimate the power of a good flame war. Flame wars *do* offer knowledge, particularly if the combatants are firm believers in citing sources and differentiating between opinion/fact. I'm proud to say that I actually stripped the fur off of a few bunnies in a good flame war, and they've become fully functioning non-fluffy pagans because of that.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 08:03 pm (UTC)
Haha :) I don't think anyone here has attacked me personally...since no one knows me personally. I enjoyed your essay. I can agree that it's a valid argument. Defining Wicca as "whatever you want" is demeaning to it. The thing is if I were defining Wicca the emphasis would be placed on the fact that it is a religion. There are religions that have many many sects and many of those sects say one or all of the other sects are invalid. Looking at it from an unbias (well as much as possible...which isn't very possible...I'm trying to look at it as I looked at other religions in school) perspective the original form by Gardner has branched off. Other traditions have been created and the path of solitary has also been created. I believe that if you are a Wiccan you practice certain rituals, and hold certain morals and beliefs. You have traditions that are basic and would allow you to participate in those same rituals held by most other Wiccans no matter their traditon. The basic structure must be the same for it to all be Wiccan- or else it's another form of ritual, worship or magic.

Religions change. It's life and no matter how many bunnies you strip- there will be more. They will keep coming especially with authors like the Raven-doggy lady out there.

Buddhist, Christians- there are many who would call one sect or another false. It doesn't matter to the sect being called false. I'd just rather not have to avoid contact with people from other sects when I would think that we would have enough in common to be able to get along.

I also have a problem buying into the whole mystery and initiatory tradition only idea because Gardner himself published. That doesn't seem very secret to me. He also borrowed from so many people. See here is where it gets to the place I'm so tired of going. The origin of the religion. What exactly happened, as opposed to the myths spawned? I'd love to know- but you know what? I'm satisfied no knowing. I don't worship Gardner I worship my gods. I may use the same rituals, but it doesn't mean I must agree with every political rule involved. If that were true there would be far less Christians since they don't listen to the Pope. All those invalid sects shouldn't call themselves Christians because Christians must be baptised by a priest who received Holy Orders which can be traced back to Peter and the Apostles. That's initiation- even for the non-clergy members. Who would force that issue? Who would tell them to come up with another name? It is the original Christians, now "Catholic", who had to specify themselves just as those belonging to traditions in Wicca name themselves accordingly. It's just how language works, for better or worse I don't believe us discussing it will change it. (Wouldn't that be something- a handful of people on lj change the world!)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


beltainelady
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 09:21 pm (UTC)
apply a silly term like "neo-wicca" to it- it degrades the practice while exhalting the only-slightly-older by historical standerds BTW way.

Exactly how is "neo-wicca" degrading? The eclectic and solitary versions of Wicca *are* newer than the traditional forms, yes? So, tell me, how can it be degrading to be called "New Wicca"?

Do you think the Neoplatonists felt degraded to be considered a newer version of Platonists?

Or the neoclassical movement in Art was degraded because they were compared to the classics?

Goodness. The problem many of us have with wiccans_unite besides the hypocrisy is how thin-skinned people are. If you're secure in your practices and beliefs, than being considered different from something else shouldn't bother you.

At. All.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


babspace
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 12:06 am (UTC)
Exactly how is "neo-wicca" degrading? The eclectic and solitary versions of Wicca *are* newer than the traditional forms, yes? So, tell me, how can it be degrading to be called "New Wicca"?

I don't find it degrading in as much as I feel it's sometimes inaccurately applied.

For example, I am studying Seax-Wica, a tradition that is about half the age of the Gardnerian trad, was created by former Gardnerian Raymond Buckland and, I believe, is one of the first to allow solitary practitioners. Seax-Wica is not Neo-Wicca. It is a valid tradition. Yet by your definition any solitary Seax-Wican should be considered Neo-Wiccan, which would be incorrect.

I seem to recall hearing of other trads that are now allowing solitaries into their ranks.

Now, as I said I am studying this tradition. I haven't as of yet dedicated to it. So, for the time being I am a Neo-Wiccan, even if I do feel the term to be rather silly (Wicca is, after all only 50 years old).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 12:22 am (UTC)
See what I mean: Seax-Wica is not Neo-Wicca. It is a valid tradition.

The statement implies that Neo-Wicca is not valid. The term to me feels like it is just used to group "non-real" wiccans together because the "real" wiccans aren't secure enough in their faith to allow the new ones to call themselves Wiccan as well.

Shesh, I'm glad that I'm not the only one on here that thinks it's a silly term.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


beltainelady
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 12:34 am (UTC)
At least in my perspective, "neo-wicca" is applied to any non-traditional form. Seax-Wica is a valid tradition, so it doesn't really count.

The break is when there is no tradition being passed on; no lineage or lore; no connection to the past; no egregore.

That's where the major differences lie. Is Seax the same as BTW? No. Is it a valid tradition? Yes, just not BTW.

For me, I get snarky when there isn't a connection AT ALL. When people are professing to practice the very same rites that I do...and it's blatently obvious that they're not. Their practices may be wonderful and valid for them, but it's STILL NOT Wicca...not the Wicca I know. That's why I'll use a separate term to describe it: neo-wicca. It's different. I don't call brooms mops, nor mops brooms. They serve a similar function, and work in similar ways but they're still different and need to be marked as such.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 12:17 am (UTC)
"Neo-wicca" would be fine if Wicca had been created longer ago then it was. The term doesn't apply in the same way that Neo-Pagan does. One makes sense from a historical point- the other just makes it harder on solitaries to find their own way. I don't want to be shoved into a catagory called neo-wicca because to me that catagory includes people like the Raven-doggie and other such weirdos that I would rather not be associated with.

It is degrading to be labled arbitrarily. I can lable myself much more specifically by using descriptors that are not "neo" in front of Wicca. I have a strong bias against that particular term because I feel that it is inaccurate. The basic problem I have with the term is that I think it is way too soon for a Neo Wicca to be coming up. We are still in the early developing stages of Wicca itself. It's a religion and no one group owns it. If in 200 years a new form of Wicca came about then maybe it could be called neo...or you know what? If one wanted to call the "love and light" only Wiccans Neo because it is more heavily influenced by new age practices then what I do that would be fine. For myself I'd probably lable myself Celtic, or Eclectic with a strong Celtic base. I focus on the seasons, balance and the mysteries. For these reasons I don't think the term neo applies.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


sonicwylde
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 12:30 am (UTC)
If you are new to wicca you are neo-wicca plain and simple. If you join and established trad and are still new you are a neophyte. Deal.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 02:12 am (UTC)
First of all I think you misunderstood the term. All people who are new to Wicca cannot be neowiccans how it is being used here...people who join trads in this case would not be called neowiccan. Uhh...she was labeling the type of wicca not how long you were in it. Otherwise how long would you have to be practicing to be just wiccan? I've been practicing since I was covered in fuzz. ...but that's besides the point since you're using the term wrong.

And even if you were ri ght...you can say I am anything you want but unless I agree most of the people around me will listen to me- not you the unknown, unsubstantiated internet voice. So deal with that. You don't have the power to tell people what they are religiously.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


sonicwylde
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 03:15 am (UTC)
New trad initiates are called Neophytes.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


beltainelady
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 12:40 am (UTC)
. I focus on the seasons, balance and the mysteries. For these reasons I don't think the term neo applies.

All well and good...however, how can you be certain that the mysteries you're focusing on are the same as those worked within Traditional covens? Unless you've been initiated, you can't. Just because the the Wicca we've become to know isn't hundreds of years old doesn't mean that it can be made to include all sorts of practices that aren't even a part of it.

I don't know you or your practices personally, so I'm trying to speak in generalities...$RW isn't Wicca in my eyes, neither are many of today's popular authors. There's no way to practice the rites of the Wica without initiation. One can only approximate it by using published materials and personal gnosis.

I don't use the term in a degrading way (see my post to gabigabs. I use it simply to mark the difference between what I do, and what others do.

It's that approximation that makes non-Traditional Wicca "neo".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 01:07 am (UTC)
Ok, here's a question. What if someone from a trad taught me, but did not initiate me?
(Reply) (Expand) (Parent) (Thread)

leeoakfire
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 06:54 pm (UTC)
I have no problem with people holding different beliefs. I do have a problem with people co-opting my religion -- making it into something it never was, and then calling their religion by the name of my religion to such an extent that my religion is barely recognizable anymore.

Now that, is "name calling and mocking"!

Please hold your (universal you, not personal because I do not know you or what you believe) beliefs strongly, but call them what they are! Why do people have to co-opt other people's religions? Is it so difficult to understand that those actions may peeve those people who do hold to the original? Many of us have fought long and hard to be able to worship as we believe, and call ourselves Wiccan, and the name is being stolen from within! That does peeve me. It is cultural/religious theft. The original Wiccans have become the minority within what is called Wiccan -- and that is *just plain wrong*.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-08 08:04 pm (UTC)
Please see above. I disagree, but I also understand. It must be really very frustrating to have worked so hard and now have people who have not worked nearly as hard basterdize it. Wow I can't spell that word sorry. ^-^;
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

[icon] To Wiccans_Unite - Wiccans Untie!!
View:Recent Entries.
View:Archive.
View:Friends.
View:Profile.