|
|
| Author |
Message |
md
|
|
Evil in the name of Wicca
| 
Jun 27 14:04 UTC 1996 |
Has anyone caught the recent documentary on HBO about the trials
of two teenage boys convicted of torturing three children to
death? It happened in some extremely grain-belt place, where the
population seems to be mostly very decent people who
understandably don't know an awful lot about Wicca. The two boys
knew mainly what they'd picked up from bogus sources like song
lyrics and Alistair Cowley (sp?).
There's no question that they did it (the testicles of one of the
victims were found in a jar of alcohol under one of the boys'
beds), but what bothered me a bit about the prosecution's case is
that they kept on using the boys' connections to Wicca as
evidence, in itself, that they'd committed the crimes. It seemed
to me that just saying "That person is a follower of Wicca" was
enough to set the jury against them. Not good. How do you
respond to things like this?
|
| 33 responses total. |
robh
|
|
response 1 of 33:
|
Jun 27 14:29 UTC 1996 |
I wish I knew. >8( I've heard too many stories of children
taken away from their mothers, store owners harassed by both
the citizenry and the police, and the like. Apart from
continually trying to educate the public as to what Wicca
really is, I can't think of anything.
(First Amendment right to freedom of religion? Only applies
to real religions, boy.)
|
void
|
|
response 2 of 33:
|
Jun 27 15:30 UTC 1996 |
not everyone thinks of aleister crowley as a bogus source, although there
are lots of folks who strongly disagree with him. ;)
we don't get hbo, so i didn't see the film. the sad fact is, because wicca
and paganism have endured several hundred years' worth of misinformation,
outright lies, oppression, and worse, the ideas about it which have been
planted in our culture are...inaccurate, to say the least. had the defense
in this case had any wits about him, he would have gotten in touch with real,
practicing pagans or witches and gotten them to testify that wicca is not
inherently evil.
when personally confronted with that kind of ignorance, i invariably become
embroiled in a theological discussion. sometimes i manage to convince the
other person that paganism and satanism are not synonymous. other times, i'm
not so successful. in any case, i regard it as my duty to educate as many
people as ask me about the true nature of wicca and paganism.
|
jazz
|
|
response 3 of 33:
|
Jun 27 15:39 UTC 1996 |
It's difficult to break a thousand-year-old chain of prejudice that
is continually reinforced. In simple PR terms, there's more mud-slinging
against Wicca than not, from public television and movies to private Christian
televangelism.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 4 of 33:
|
Jun 27 18:23 UTC 1996 |
Anyone who uses religious, skin-color difference (No, I will not say
Race unless we're talking about things not human), or anyother conviennient
qualifer as "evidence" doesn't deserve to be a juror or judge. No religion
deserves this kind of treatment.
|
birdlady
|
|
response 5 of 33:
|
Jun 27 18:50 UTC 1996 |
Agreed. The boys should of been found guilty of murder/torture *regardless*
of what religion they were. The lawyers proved themselves to be weak if they
had to use religion as an argument in the case.
|
kami
|
|
response 6 of 33:
|
Jun 27 19:05 UTC 1996 |
Sigh. Same stuff, different day. First the Christians were supposed to
eat babies, then the witches, then the jews, then the gypsies. It's a
wonder any kids ever live to grow up...:{ As it happens, a friend of mine
worked on an ambulance squad that ran across a rash of kids castrating
themselves- turned out to be really warped gang stuff. A lot of them died
or developed serious infections. It took quite a while to get to the source
and get it stopped. Uggggghhh!
I don't suppose there's any need to go on, in this forum, about how much
such wilful harm is anathema to Wiccan belief, but certainly it's part of
the PR we're still forced to spend too much time on.
Void, you're right- the defense lawyers could have come up with plenty of
proof that Wiccan's aren't that kind of perverts. And you're also right
that Crowley isn't a "bogus source" although plenty of people use his
writing as an excuse for pretty out-of-line behavior and mind-games. I
certainly wouldn't recommend his writing too freely.
We'll have arrived when we're just too *boring* to sensationalize a movie
or trial...Sigh.
|
jenna
|
|
response 7 of 33:
|
Jun 27 19:51 UTC 1996 |
well i guess the thing i.. these kids did this because they were vicious jerks
who more than likely didn't really know a whole hell of a lot about
Wicca. It;s too bad it couldn't be left out of court.
Because i mean... they obvioulsy had enough to get the kids without
mentioning any thought religious affiliartions. I woudl say too
that anyone who really believed the whatchamacall that words
(basic ideas) of Wiccan philosophy and religion wouldn't be
cutting anybody's testicles off, or hurting them in any way.
YOu oughta be able top sue these prosecuters for slandering
your religion IMHO.
|
bjorn
|
|
response 8 of 33:
|
Jun 27 21:13 UTC 1996 |
Well, I'm sick enough as it is. Say good-bye to me in terms of this itemOf
course, I'll probably forget why I forgot it.
|
void
|
|
response 9 of 33:
|
Jun 28 16:09 UTC 1996 |
jenna, i think you mean the wiccan rede: "an it harm none, do what thou
wilt."
any defense attorney worth his/her salt would have been able to prove that
pagans are not into harming other critters or people.
did anyone, perchance, tape this movie? i'd like to see it now that it's
been mentioned.
|
md
|
|
response 10 of 33:
|
Jun 28 17:13 UTC 1996 |
I didn't tape it. It's been repeated a couple of times on
HBO and HBO2. I think it's called "Paradise Lost."
|
kami
|
|
response 11 of 33:
|
Jun 30 02:45 UTC 1996 |
Void, in this weather, anything you do, you wilt...<g>
(sorry. needed that. strawberries anyone, fresh picked?)
|
jenna
|
|
response 12 of 33:
|
Jun 30 08:28 UTC 1996 |
(yes void... I *DID* mean that; and knew i meant it ...I just
didn't want to get hyperspciefic here .)
|
void
|
|
response 13 of 33:
|
Jul 1 05:55 UTC 1996 |
sorry, jenna. didn't mean to make you get too specific. ;)
|
arianna
|
|
response 14 of 33:
|
Sep 10 21:31 UTC 1996 |
One word: ugh.
Why is it that Christianity can claim it's place in the sun because it was
persecuted for so long, and yet Wicca cannot, even tho' it's been persecuted
*longer*?.....
|
kami
|
|
response 15 of 33:
|
Sep 11 01:29 UTC 1996 |
It's an interesting paradox that the dominant culture/religion is *still*
able to use the rhetoric of a pursecuted minority, but that can be partly
explained by its fragmentation- you won't hear paranoia from the more
mainstream, established denominations, even the Catholics. Christianity is
not a monolith. Consider; there are liberal, pro-choice christians and
then the "religious right". Try this for an alternative to moral majority;
mouthy minority. That's who's crying persecution nowadays. That said, let
us use their pet whine to remind us not to prove that adage that the
oppressed quickly becomes the oppressor. Look at the *worst* of black
american culture; the "whitey owes us" attitude, defeatism and anti-
intellectualism, waiting for a hand out. Let us, instead, keep the "moral
high ground" by refusing to fall into Christian-bashing and an "offensive
defense", by refusing to whine or engage in petty coup-counting. Has
*wicca* been persecuted all that long, or are we in danger or believing our
own mythic history? Mythic history is important. It gives a people pride,
draws us together, teaches us what we aspire to be- that's what stories of
a lost golden age can do, for example. But really- Wicca AS WE KNOW IT dates
back to Gerald Gardner, no farther! Yes, it has roots in the Bronze age or
earlier, it has roots in the Alexandrian and Greek philosophies, it has roots
in Medieval alchemy and the rituals of the Templars and the Masons, and in
the ageless and ever changing folklore of Western Europe, but it is NOT those
things. It's a rich, powerful, vibrant, CURRENT amalgam of all of them,
and even newer threads. Again, there are many faiths which claim venerability,
to be lost revelations re-found, or divine dictation, from the moment they
are created by their founders. Can we not have the strength and courage,
the deep honesty, to state out loud that we are a new and evolving faith with
deep roots and new, high-reaching branches? That, certainly, is consistent
with our beliefs- that we are each our own priest or priestess of the gods,
that god/dess is within each and all of us and available to everyone, that
our word is powerful and must be true. It's also scary to buck the tide.
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 16 of 33:
|
Sep 15 06:42 UTC 1996 |
Right, that is why i call myself neopagan.. because there really isn't much
of any such thing as a pagan anymore, unless they follow a reconstructed
faith, like Wicca.
That admitted, I still say that Christianity sucks, and would personally not
grieve a bit if all the Bibles in this world vanished yesterday. I've met
plenty of Christians who don't suck, but far more who DO.
|
jenna
|
|
response 17 of 33:
|
Sep 16 21:49 UTC 1996 |
even the reconstructed faiths don't have much claim to the name
seeing as they make he whole thing up themself...
actually i think the people who should be using the term neo-paare he
reconstructionists..
since pagan is a generic term, and I have no idea how it was coined,
but it seems ok for anybody who wants to use it to use it, consider
all the various uses of it I've heard.
As for disappearing Bibles... I don't approve of destruction of
books... or intellctual ideas. Even if they have been misused.
as someone who was in Germany in th 30's and earlier said:
"wherever they burn books, they will ultimately burn people"
only that's not exactly a direct quote... but the idea is direct
and i can't remember his name. Still.. it's pretty silly to wish
the Bible disappeared.
|
kami
|
|
response 18 of 33:
|
Sep 17 04:38 UTC 1996 |
There is a lot of beauty in the bible, especially the psalms, the book of
David, etc. There is also a blueprint for a fascinating and pretty complete
society in Deuteronomy (?- the 4th book), although there are aspects to it
which seem kind of barbaric to us.
There is a real difference between Wicca and the reconstructionist paths like
Asatru and some of the neo-pagan Celtic groups. Wicca is quite a hybrid,
the others try to be culture-specific. Then there are groups, such as
Santeria, who will tell you their not NEO anything. People get into such a
snit over names that sometimes they fail to communicate their real similarities
and differences. Pagan *is* a pretty general term, and I'm comfortable with
it, but some folks won't wear it, dunno why, and too scarily many think it's
an acronym for "people against goodness and niceness" or "people against god
and nation" or something like that, or just that we're all evil. We can own
the name and try to make it clear that we're just folks and as valid as anyone
else, or we can dodge it, but whatever name we call ourselves, those who want
to be afraid will find that name and make it a word of fear, so we might as
well pick one worth defending and stick to it.
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 19 of 33:
|
Sep 18 02:52 UTC 1996 |
Fine. I still don't see where anyone gets off calling themselves base "pagan",
except in the most generic sense.
And, I'm sure if all the Bibles dissappeared, they'd just try to re-write it,
and maybe this time they'd come up with something worthwhile. I've read it.
What isn't outdated is Schizoid, and if there's anything left at all, it's
hateful, or panicking to the faithful Xtians. Yes, wonderful tome.
ANd calling me hypocritical for saying hateful-sounding things is pointless.
I know very well where my hypocrisy lies, and it's not something I can rid
myself of, so why not let it be, and just be who I am?
|
jenna
|
|
response 20 of 33:
|
Sep 18 22:05 UTC 1996 |
The Bible has some merit, if you know how to look for it.
I've read the old testament... some of it...
|
ladyevil
|
|
response 21 of 33:
|
Sep 19 00:40 UTC 1996 |
*Nod* The old testament seems to be less FUBAR than the New, I'll give you
that.
|
void
|
|
response 22 of 33:
|
Sep 19 11:02 UTC 1996 |
re #19: i've been calling myself a pagan for years. what's the problem?
|
kami
|
|
response 23 of 33:
|
Sep 19 14:14 UTC 1996 |
I don't see a problem with it, either. It's not very specific, but then,
not everyone belongs to a "denomenation". I suppose that, technically, since
we're *not* members of "pagan" cultures to start with, it would be more
specific to use "neo-pagan", but then, those who aren't "neo anything" don't
generally call themselves pagan, they have more specific designations. I
don't think it's all that big a deal, mostly. Depends who you're dealing with.
|
brighn
|
|
response 24 of 33:
|
Sep 19 20:53 UTC 1996 |
The Book of Job isn't FUBAR?
*blink* Jonah? Exodus? these are scary books...
Eve wasn't the first woman, Lillith was. She was exicsed from the Book of
Genesis. She wouldn't be a good little sexslave to Adam.
Sorry, me, I'll take the Gospels and Song of Solomon and pitch the rest. =}
Psalm 69: "God, I know you're supposed to punish my enemies, not me, but if
you're having mental blocks, here are some ideas for some great tortures..."
Pagan> Ain't nothing wrong with calling yourself a hick. I know plenty of
people who do. =} That's what "pagan" originally meant, after all, so if
we're going for originality (which Kami seems to be doing), well, then, nope,
we ain't hicks. Country bumpkins. Hillbillies. Heathens. Pagans. Now,
pagan *currently* means non-JudeoIslamChristian, so I guess that's a lot
broader.
|