response 1 of 33:

Jul 19 14:28 UTC 1998

        I dig Crowley's version (historical arguments aside):

        "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law,
         Love is the law, love under will."

        Meaning, as I understand it, that the law is will, but in the
Crowleyan sense of the "higher will" (a concept I'm not sure I agree with,
but I can understand what is meant by it) - which is love, but not forced
or artificial in any sense.

response 3 of 33:

Jul 19 16:28 UTC 1998

        The Crowleyan sense of will isn't quite so ... fatalistic, though.
One's true will isn't so much of one's obligations, as one's true
wishes, above and beyond "untrue" wishes and the pettiness of the present
moment.

response 5 of 33:

Jul 20 01:51 UTC 1998

I strongly disagree with the idea that "Will" in the original intent of the
Wiccan Rede meant "want/desire".  Gerald was certainly in contact with
Crowley, and strongly inflluenced by some of his ideas, and he also meant
"magical Will"- the strong and true purpose of your deepest soul, that which
furthers your karmic purpose in this life, etc.  The arguement between them
would have been (sorry, can't quote specifics, I'm not *that* educated) about
whether the caveat of "harm none" is necessary or is excessively binding, or
if it helps to remind people of their responsibility as they work toward
discovering their "true will". Anyway, in both cases it's about personal
responsibility.

response 7 of 33:

Jul 20 16:44 UTC 1998

Personally I think that the most critical part of the Rede is "An it 
harm none".

Too many people seem attracted to paganism in all it's flavours because 
of the "lack of rules" when it seems to me that paganism is potentially 
one of the most ethical worldviews around...

response 9 of 33:

Jul 20 23:35 UTC 1998

Good point, Bjorn -- and my question really applies to all pagan religions,
though the answer will be different for every religion.

response 11 of 33:

Jul 21 05:43 UTC 1998

Brighn, then it's ok for high school students to translate "wherefor", in
Romeo and Juliet, as "where" since everyone does it?...I guess I'm stubborn
enough, or optimistic enough, or something, to keep working for deeper (more
accurate?) understanding of language.

Bjorn, I'm not sure your ancestors would have thought in terms of doing
minimal harm.  For the Norse and Celtic hero cultures, and probably other
heroic cultures, more relevant values were about weighing personal honour;
does it increase one's own honour to take the risk of challenging someone of
equal or greater "honour price", and if one should lose, can one pay or is
it worth loss of status through becoming a client/debtor.  Challenging or
harming those of lower "honour price" is make less likely since it has an
attendant loss of personal honour/position.  Values are about boldness, wit,
eloquence, physical strength and beauty, truth, honour, respect of the gods,
etc. more than about harming none or about humility or tact or anything like
that.

Jazz, there's pagan in its original meaning; "people of the (local) land"
which came to mean "country folk, hicks" as those who followed the old ways
got relegated to out of the way places, which came to mean non-Christians once
that newer religion became the state religion, and is nowadays extended to
mean non-monotheist or non- Judeo/Christian/Muslim.  Then there's
Wiccan-influenced neo-pagan or other Western neo-pagan.  Wicca is not Celtic
although many neo-pagans use Celtic names for the gods and festivals.  Celtic
reconstructionism is, like it or not, mostly neo-pagan.  Ditto the American
druidic groups.  Also the pop-celtoid traditions like Witta or Pecti-wicca
or "American Welsh" or whatever.  Now, no where in this listing do we have
a place for the ceremonial magical paths (which may not choose to call
themselves religions), or pagan faiths which are not "neo" anything such as
the Hindu traditions, Native American, etc.  If we are asking about values,
we would have to ask in those directions, too- very different ones.

response 13 of 33:

Jul 21 19:44 UTC 1998

Let's go back a bit. In my first coven, when I was a student here, we chose
our rule from Rabellais' Abbe de Theleme -- I've forgotten the old French but
it was "Do what you will." This was voulez, which could also be translated
"wish." For Rabelais, who was an ex-monk, this meant getting away from long
lists of rules, which could be manipulated by anyone for destructive, hateful,
etc., purposes, and back to the notion that a really good person doesn't need
rules to follow. This was what Nietzsche was saying, and of course Croweley
took it from this antinomian tradition. The idea all along has been to train
the will, so you recognize the right path when you come to it. Rules are more
hindrance than help. What about Gardner's "An it harm none"? I take this as
a piece of public relations that really wasn't needed -- to let the world know
that we weren't bad witches trying to blast good people. At the same time,
this rule only caused trouble for us back when we were doing rituals to stop
the serial rapist -- of course he had to be stopped, even if it meant harming
him! Similarly with the ritual recently on the night before the Klan rally,
when a few of my friends were establishing a circle of protection around teh
City Hall. If protecting some people happens to harm others, should we forget
about protecting them?

response 15 of 33:

Jul 22 17:01 UTC 1998

Kami, you're talking about apples and oranges. Gardner may well have menat
"hhigher purpose" or somesuch, as much as Shakespeare meant "why" with
"wherefore." However, last I checked, Romeo and Juliet wasn't being used as
the foundation for a modern, active religious system. The Rede is.
functionally speaking, what's most relevant is how a tenet is being used
*today.*

response 17 of 33:

Jul 23 17:48 UTC 1998

I am nwe to the wiccan religon but so far i really love it.  It offers
everything i've been looking for in a religo9nand doesn't judge people.  Plus
you can practivce alone or with acoven..

response 19 of 33:

Jul 23 22:33 UTC 1998

John,  I disagree that it's necessary to cause harm sometimes.  

In the case of the serial rapist, influencing him to stop or be caught in no
way harms him.  It may be that in paying his debt to society he will lose his
freedom, but that isn't harm done him by those wishing him to be stopped,
that's the outcome of his own decision to rape.

And influencing him to stop his actions, if not defined too closely by the
ritual, can actually be doing a benevolence -- perhaps he will be stopped by
finding psychiatric help or lose his desire to strike out and cause pain.

I think it's extremely important to leave the details of an outcome to the
wisdom of the Universe and to work for a result "for the good of all and with
the free will of all".

(Well, OK, in the case of the insane, I might leave off the free will part. 
The rapist most likely didn't want to stop -- though it was to his benefit to
be stopped, karmickly, anyway.)

For instance, if you have an ongoing feud with a cantakerous neighbor, it might
be very tempting to try banishing him or maybe even something more extreme. 
But working for a peaceable end to the feud is a far better idea.  Afte all
there are several possible outcomes that end the feud with harm to none.  Maybe
he'll get a job offer in a far city - -where he's been wanting to live for some
time.  Maybe *you'll* get a chance to live someplace far more appealing or an
offer on your house far above market.  Maybe the two of you will find some
common ground and come to a truce over whatever issue was the contentious
point.  

All end the problem, which was the real goal in the first place.

response 21 of 33:

Jul 24 12:16 UTC 1998

        When it comes to the necessity or non-necessity of violence, I've been
strongly influenced by Heinlien's viewpoint - force has solved far more issues
than "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil", and "truth" or "lies", and will
continue to for the forseeable future.  If a group is not prepared to use
force, then there are other groups that are, and will consequently be
practiced in the use of force, who will be more than happy to take over those
groups that do not.  Non-violence is an evolutionary dead end.

response 23 of 33:

Jul 25 11:31 UTC 1998

Can't.  Sombody shot him.