?

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 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) (Parent) (Thread)


beltainelady
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 02:01 am (UTC)
Still not Wicca. One does not learn the tradition until *after* initiation. No responsible and honorable elder teaches the traditional lore before initiation...it's not only disrespectful to the tradition but a violation of the oaths taken.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 02:14 am (UTC)
What about the many people whom I'm sure are disrespectful and violate their oaths after some political mess or other goes down? I'm just asking, I want your opinion. With so many factions do you think this never happens?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


beltainelady
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 02:19 am (UTC)
What about the many people whom I'm sure are disrespectful and violate their oaths after some political mess or other goes down?

What makes you think this happens? Political mess? Even after covens disband, for whatever reason, the majority of initiates maintain their oaths. Even the ones who go on to practice something other than Wicca.

Ask me a question about a real situation, don't reach for hypotheticals. I won't get into a straw-man discussion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


lkrobinson
Link:(Link)
Time:2005-02-09 02:50 am (UTC)
O-kay.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

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