Are Wiccans Satanic? (Earth, tradition, beliefs, myth, pagan)

[Seyorni]

You neglected to proofread "prrofread."

...Jist funnin' ya.

[pensive]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Their PR people should have nixed that term on day one....

Why? Gerald Gardner and those that knew him often commented that every time some "exposee" about "the evils of witchcraft" hit the newstand, there'd soon follow a steady influx of sincerely interested people trying to find out more about witchcraft? In a lot of senses, the sensationalism that some writers tried to attribute to witchcraft only served to help Gardner and friends in keeping Wicca alive in the mid-1900's.

[Seyorni]

No such thing as bad publicity, eh?

[pensive]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

No such thing as bad publicity, eh?

Some of the early "big movers" in Wicca seemed to believe that, yes. I'm not sure I totally agree with them. Especially these days. Then again, I'm also not big on "PR" -- regardless of its nature -- in the first place.

[Fluffy]

I shouldn't even get started on this, but it was mentioned, so I shall. There is NO such thing as "Black Magick". Magick has no color, and anyone who says it does surrounded themselves with too much media and not enough actual fact. People who claim to practice "Black Magick" are nothing more than fluffs using that media-ized term as a means of frightening others who have no idea about any kind of magick. It's the whole "I'm Wiccan and I practice black magick, so FEAR ME!" thing. Now people always try to win this argument by saying "Yes, there is such a thing as black magick. That's the bad kind of magick, curses and stuff." But first: Wiccans don't cast curses (they do however have the power to, they just refuse to as it goes against all they believe) so anyone who says they're Wiccan and cast curses are fluffs, and second: True, there is such a thing as "bad magick" but still, this magick has no color, it is not black just as healing magick is not white. It is good and bad, simply put.

I totally agree with you on this one C1. The reasoning we both have for thinking this probably differs but alarm bells always ring in my head when I read anything as stereotypical as assiging the colours white and black to something. However, to look at something objectively you have to encompass all beliefs on the matter. Otherwise its just as good as a Protestant telling a Catholic that the Pope is not infalliable and transubstantiation is a myth. Some people do seem to believe in black magick and amongst these some are Wiccans. Although the term is probably used more often by people trying to satanise Wicca more than Wiccans who believe in it, I still hesitate to put the term in inverted commas for this reason.

Why? Gerald Gardner and those that knew him often commented that every time some "exposee" about "the evils of witchcraft" hit the newstand, there'd soon follow a steady influx of sincerely interested people trying to find out more about witchcraft? In a lot of senses, the sensationalism that some writers tried to attribute to witchcraft only served to help Gardner and friends in keeping Wicca alive in the mid-1900's.

The only probably with this, pensive, is that you get a large number of people who completely destroy any respect Wicca might have had by going around saying that they are a big bad witch who will curse you, your parents and your pet gerbil should you look at them in the wrong way. It certainly created interest but it also spread a huge amount of misinformation, most of which is simply accepted by some Wiccans. Is this why you dont totally agree with the "big movers" in Wicca?

[pensive]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

The only probably with this, pensive, is that you get a large number of people who completely destroy any respect Wicca might have had by going around saying that they are a big bad witch who will curse you, your parents and your pet gerbil should you look at them in the wrong way. It certainly created interest but it also spread a huge amount of misinformation, most of which is simply accepted by some Wiccans. Is this why you dont totally agree with the "big movers" in Wicca?

In a sense, yes. However, I think it goes beyond that sort of thing. In a more general sense, I just think that times have changed and that Witches need to re-evaluate the matter of "publicity" in the light of our times.

Truth be told, the early "movers" I'm talking about (such as Gerald Gardner, Alex Sanders, and even Doreen Valiente and Patricia Crowther, though neither of them were quite the "media hounds" in the sense of the first two gentlemen to the best of my knowledge) began publicizing information about Wicca in the 1950's through the 1970's. They were trying to get out a bit of information about a form of witchcraft they knew in love. In 1954 (I may be a year or two off there), Gardner wrote his first nonfiction book on the topic. In it, he described a battered tradition of witchcraft that he claims to have learned from a small coven. He described it as something where much had been forgotten, and he feared that it would die out soon. So he took this as his opportunity to write a bit about it so that a bit were known of them, as well as following the instructions of the witches he knew who told him to "let everyone know that they are not evil."

The effect that his book had was incredible. People began to seek him out to learn more. Some -- including both Valiente and Crowther in turn-- even sought him out to be initiated and trained. From there, some of those people (including both women I've mentioned) began to write further. Other people like Alex Sanders also began to become involved in this.

In their time, this was about getting the ball rolling. It was about letting people know they existed so that those who were called to this Craft could find them, join the family, and preserve that Craft against what Gardner originally thought would be it's immanent extinction. So for them, "any publicity was good publicity" simply because it meant the survival of Wicca.

However, by the 1980's (if not the mid-1970's), the survival of Wicca was more or less ensured. Today, Wicca is thriving on at least three continents -- and I suspect more. So the need to "get the word out" is no longer essential to the survival of Wicca. As I said, the times have changed, and it's time for Witches to re-evaluate their actions based on that shift. So we can and should be more picky about the kind of "publicity" we encourage or generate.

The thing is -- and this is where I probably differ from a lot of people here -- it seems to me that many people are still fighting the "Wicca isn't evil" battle. And I'm not sure that's necessary or prudent. Gardner and his contemporaries fought that battle, and I think they've put enough evidence out to convince those "ears that will hear." Do some people still think Wicca is evil? Absolutely! But let's be serious, if they still think that in spite of the writings of several authors over the past few decades indicating the contrary, will they ever change their minds? I doubt it. So why fight a losing battle.

Instead, I think that it's time to practice a modicum of Silence. Not total and complete, but within reason. Instead of convincing people that Wicca is not evil, I think we'd be better off getting the majority of people to ignore Wicca -- or even better, forget about it altogether.

But that's just me.

[Fluffy]

The thing is that the level of intolerance towards Wicca is perhaps higher than other religions. For example if I wanted to have a serious discussion about Christianity with any of my school friends then they would probably enter into this quite willingly. This would be the same for almost anyone I know. However, as soon as Wicca is mentioned, or more importantly the word witch, then people react mockingly and with much scorn. People don't treat Wicca as evil anymore. They treat it as a joke. The religion for depressed teenagers who are deliberately trying to be different from everyone else. Which is such a tragic way for a this religion to be viewed.

I think we'd be better off getting the majority of people to ignore Wicca -- or even better, forget about it altogether.

This is certainly a very Wiccan viewpoint on the matter that is for sure . After being ridiculed, this is something I would encourage as well. I can't get past the idea that this is more avoiding the problem than dealing with it though. It is certainly a much easier thing to do that encourage more tolerance of Wicca. I would be so much happier if it were tolerated than ignored and I think, no matter how most Wiccans view proselytising, that many of them would be a lot happier as well.

[pensive]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I would be so much happier if it were tolerated than ignored and I think, no matter how most Wiccans view proselytising, that many of them would be a lot happier as well.

Tolerance for me is not based on my religious practices, though. It's based on the fact that I am a human being just like everyone else. I think we sometimes lose sight of that.

[Fluffy]

Tolerance for me is not based on my religious practices, though. It's based on the fact that I am a human being just like everyone else. I think we sometimes lose sight of that.

Perhaps thats where it should come from. I'm just happy as long as it comes from somewhere .

[zero9]

This may or may not be a dead discussion. (First couple days here, might as well start somewhere).

I've actually heard this question more than a few times. And the obvious reasons to why this isnt true is because Wiccans have their Gods, Satanists ARE their Gods. Satan is nothing more than a symbol for the Religion itself.

Wicca is earth based, where would Satan come into play? I can see where people would become confused since there's the misconception that the Horned God is Satanic because, well, he has horns. But wouldnt that make you look at cows and wonder, "are we eating Satan?"

Silly question but good nevertheless.