I havea very basic question here.  I think it's been touched on in some
previous items, but not discussed in depth.

Background:  I've thought of myself as "a pagan" and a "hearth witch" for
decades.  I never really thought much more about labels than that, but if
asked whether I was a Wiccan, my answer was generally "No, not exactly".

See, I assumed Wiccan was a specific path of paganism -- sort of like Baptists
are a specific sect of Christianity.  I think of myself as a generic pagan
rather than the more specific Wiccan because I borrow freely from whatever
traditions speak to me.  Sure, there are Wiccan aspects to how I worship. 
There are also Hindu and native American aspects, and many others.

Recently however, I was told that I was being dishonest in not calling myself
Wiccan because that's what I am...

I dion't deny it -- I'm just not sure how to separate what a wiccan believes
from everything else I believe.  I have no idea whether I'm a Wiccan or not.

So...can anyone try to give me a hand in understanding what distinguishes a
Wiccan from any other Pagan tradition?

Thanks!

25 responses total.

        It's a good question.  I can think of several definitions as I
understand them, and I'm sure I could find a dozen people in this conference
alone who could correct me, or disagree with me, or take offence.

        Wicca's always had Celtic overtones - though most of the serious Celtic
believers I've met perfer to think of themselves as Wittan, instead - but also
conveys anything descended from Gerald Gardner, and can cover many different
theologies.

        Don't let them give you a hard time about labels;  the pagan community
hasn't agreed upon one yet. :)

Aaaaarrrrgh!  (sorry- overreacting, not actually upset)
1. Wicca is not Celtic, although it borrows some Celtic holiday names, etc.
Really.  And "Celtic Wicca" isn't.  Although some folks practice a hybrid
which uses Wiccan forms and Celtic deities, imagery, etc.
2. Witta is utter bullshit.  It's not even a possible word in any Celtic
language.  The book was Wicca with vaguely Celtic overtones, once again. Grr.
The Celtic pagans I know call themselves Celtic pagans or Druids or Filidh
or some such.

Now, to answer your question, Misti- I think you've got the right of it;
you're an eclectic pagan, a "hearth witch", and a very good one. 
*Technically*, a Wiccan is an initiate of one of the traditions descended from
Gerald Gardner's work.  I'd include "gardneroid eclectic" in that mix,
although "stuffy traditionalists" <g> would not.  So the Crafters are Wiccan,
to my way of thinking, since their basic training is pretty straightforward
Wiccan, even though they are not currently a recognized tradition. (Who
knows...<g>) Another local group, "The Wyrd Roots of the Sacred Forest" (I
think) are *not* Wiccan in their practice, although the influence is certainly
there.  Nor do they call themselves Wiccan, they are their own tradition (I've
forgotten the name, <sigh>) with its own intitiatory process and ritual
structure.

If you want to be more specific, you could certainly say you're "pagan with
Wiccan leanings" or "Wiccan-influenced pagan", but why worry about it? You
know what you do and believe, and who's job is it to judge you, beyond that?

And of course, there are plenty of people who consider themselves
pagan (Druids, Asatru, Lithuanian, etc.) who are very definitely
*not* Wiccan.

Pagan is an all-encompassing label that embraces many different paths. Its
a lot different than the denominations of Christianity. Christians believe
in God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, etc. while Pagans can have many different beliefs
and worship different pantheons. The fact that not all Pagans choose to follow
the Wiccan Rede and choose instead the Norse Rede of Honor (or something else
entirely) is a good example of this.

        Kami, I'll take you word for it that "Witta" does not exist in the
Celtic languages;  I'd like a chance to sit down with the group that I know
that professed to be of that faith, and ask them about it.  It could well be
that I'm mispelling the word - my Gaelic (Irish or Scottish) is nonexistent.

        From most of what I'd read of Gardner, he seemed fairly influenced by
Celtic traditions, thus, Celtic overtones.  Is there a Gardnerian tradition
or work that isn't?

Re Witta - Nope, you're not mispelling it, there's a book titled
"Witta" which claims to be based on Irish traditions, which is
probably where that group got its inspiration.  It's one of the
cheesier books out there - in addition to the word "Witta" not
making any sense in Irish (I'm told that it's makes as much sense
in Irish as the word "xyqueph" does in English), it also mentions
that the ancient Irish made offerings of potatoes to the Fair Folk.
Pretty impressive, given that potatoes are a New World crop that
wasn't grown in Ireland until the 16th century!  They must have
been great magicians, to make those potatoes fly across the
Atlantic and into their offering bowls.  >8)

I'll let Kami do her "Wicca is not Celtic" spiel, she's so much
better at it than I am.  >8)

I disagree that Wicca isn't Celtic, but then, the vehemence is coming from
people who've said that Wicca isn't Indo-European, which is silly. So I won't
pursue that further.

Here's my answer to the original question:
Most English speakers use "Pagan" to mean "neo-Pagan," and further to mean
"Pagan path of the 19th or 20th C. inspired by European non-JudeoChristian
spirituality." If you fall in that, you're Pagan. By rights, "pagan" also
*should" include Yoruban traditions (Voudon, Santeria), native American
traditions, and Asian spirituality (Buddhism, Shinto, etc.), but those
generally aren't included when Americans (at least) refer to "Paganism" (and
particularly to "neopaganism").

"Wicca" refers to a specific cluster of traditions, but has also come to refer
to any path that follows certain ritual and magickal formats, such as having
eight High Days (something other Pagans do, as well), four or five elements
(earth, air, fire, water, and sometimes spirit), emphasizing a male and a
female form of Deity, with the High Days representing their relationship
cycle, following some form of the Rede (an' it harm none, do what thou wilt),
having a High Priestess and (except some of the Dianics) a High Priest, and
so forth. Wicca is generally attributed to Gerald Gardner, who took influences
from QBL, the New Age of the time, allegedly reconstructed sources, and so
on.

That leaves "witch," somewhere in between the very broad "Pagan" and the very
narrow "Wiccan." I would say that a witch is anyone who uses Pagan techniques
to use magick.

re: resp:3 and resp:4

I didn't mean to imply that "all pagans share a belief set", but rather that
"Pagan" is an umbrella term much like "Christian" is an umbrella term.  I'm
very aware that there are many differnt (sometimes conflicting) belief sets
that fall under the umbrella Pagan -- and I kind of like it that way.

But it felt to me like calling myself Wiccan was not unlike someone having
read the bible and deciding that they liked the term "Baptist" to describe
their belief systems without ever having attended a Baptist Church, being
baptised, or studying exactly what it means to be Baptist.  They may have many
beliefs in common with Baptists -- but they probably have a lot of beliefs
in common with every Bible following group.

Sure, I've read some Wiccan texts.  And I like some of what I've read.  I've
also read Buddist, Hindi, Taoist, Druidic, and other texts.  And I've liked
some of what I read there, too.  But I've never, to my knowledge, been to a
Wiccan circle or studied with or been initiated by a Wiccan group. Instead
I read broadly and trust my instincts.  There's a feeling I get when I read
something or hear something that's "true" (for me).  I trust it because it
happes whether I'm familiar with a concept or not, whether I like the
implications or not.  It feels very satisfying -- even if it makes me question
the way I've been living or something I want to do.

re: resp:1 and resp:2  Thank you.  You both put into words what I felt
but hadn't found words for.

I firmly believe in "embroider your own" religion and philosophy.  Not because
it means I can do whatever I want.  If I'm true to my beliefs, I most
certainly *can't* do whatever I want.  But it seems to me that we're each here
on our own path and we have to find our own way.  We can read other people's
maps for an idea of the terrain -- but just taking everything some great
teacher says at face value is not only lazy -- it also means you won't be
following your path, you'll be following someone elses.  The lessons we need
to learn are on our own paths and the longer we put them off by trying to
follow a great teachers map instead of our own, the harder those lessons will
ht when we do.

*sigh*  OKay, I think I have an answer to my question.  Wicca is a specific
path with specific teachings and one is unlikely to be a Wiccan "by accident".
Therefore, I'm a Paganus Genericus with Wiccan influences.

Thanks, folks!  <grin>

(My how I do go on about these things ... one of my tenets, you see, is that
few criticisms are completely unfounded.  When someone criticises me, I
examine the possibility that they may be on to something.  It keeps me
honest.)

re resp:7   <laugh>  OK, that's easy.  I'm a witch.  ;)

Labels.  Somehow they only seem to confuse the issue.  ;)

        I would like to retract my earlier statement that even the Pagan
Community can't agree (somehow capitalization doesn't look right; neither does
non-capitalization, so I think I'll alternate).

Myself, I capitalize Pagan when I'm referring to what I described as
"European-based non-JudeoChristian paths" and I don't capitalize it when I'm
referring to non-JudeoChristian paths, regardless of the era or locality.

Brighn-
you said:
>people who've said that Wicca isn't Indo-European, which is silly. So I won't
 Who said that?  It's not a *traditional* Indo-European religion, but it's
certainly European-American in much of its population and a fair bit of its
underpinnings.

>*should" include Yoruban traditions (Voudon, Santeria), native American
Perhaps, but most practitioners of those traditions don't *want* to be lumped
in with neo-paganism, with Wicca, etc. and pretty strongly reject the term
"pagan" for that reason.  Ethnic Religion or Culture-based religion seems to
be more toward their taste, in some cases.

>"Wicca" refers to a specific cluster of traditions, but has also come to
refer
You give a pretty good, brief overview.  Thanks.

um, you said it at one point, actually...
maybe it wasn't what you meant, but it's what you said

OK, then I just said the same thing more precisely; Wicca is *not* an ancient,
traditional, Indo-European religion.  More, since it incorporates plenty of
non-Indo European deities, and practices (Cabala, for one...), it is not
really consistent with ADF's purview- which was probably the context of the
original discussion.  
Would you say that modern Europeans are an "Indo European Culture"?

Some are, but some supposedly aren't: ethnic Finns, Hungarians,
Basque -- who else?

I have a question that I hope won't sound too stupid: what's the
difference between magick and magic?

English has Yiddish words, too. That doesn't mean it's not an Indo-European
language. In general, I would say that cultures whose primary language is
Indo-European are Indo-European. Seems fairly straightforward to me. (That's
implied by Michael, too, since his non-IE European cultures speak non-IE
languages.)

MD> The letter "k". Isn't that obvious? =} Many people prefer to use the
spelling "magick" to refer to supernatural and metaphysical workings, leaving
"magic" to refer unambiguously to prestidigitation, that is, what David
Copperfield and Penn and Teller do.

        ... and to further cloud the issue, many schools of magick (the
Real Thing, supposedly) encourage charlatanism in order to get the ends
accomplished!

(Is magick pronounced differently from magic, or do you need to resort to
fingerspelling to get the distinction across in conversation? :)

I usually pronounce it "magic-ick" if it's spelled with a K, and
I'm in a sarcastic mood.

I've heard people pronounce magick as "Mage-ick" to separate it from magic.

Curious.  Amusing, I think.  

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "wicca" is simply one out of about
20 different ways of spelling "witch." The small type is blurred, but it seems
to give the first use in the year 1000. I suspect that a lot of people use
it as a less-confrontation name than "witch" -- for example Raven Grimassi's
"The Wiccan Mysteries," which is a hodge-podge of stuff from all over. Or
Vivianne Crowley's "Wicca," which includes Egyptian deities (but not Native
American traditions). Scott Cunningham's "Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary
Practitioner" includes an invocation to Isis. I suspect that you can call
yourself anything you want. For myself, I'd prefer to say I'm a Witch, and
not worry about what the Thought Police tell me I can or cannot call myself.

Why would it not be specifically Wiccan to call on Egyptian deities,
especially Isis?  That material was borrowed into Wicca early on, and
influenced Crowley pretty heavily as well.  Come to think of it, at least one
of the Alexandrian priestesses I know (other than Vivianne Crowley) is pretty
heavily into Egyptian, esp. Isis.  Given the notion of a "coven god/dess",
why *not* Egyptian?

<grins>  Yeah, why not?

        It's interesting to note that Gardner's Egyptian influences diverged
from Crowley's - Crowley (and the OTO and Arcanum Arcanorum) worshipped Nuit
and acknowledged Hadit (Hadit is to be emulated, not worshipped, at least by
male members of the group - for female members it's somewhat unclear, but
women tend to keep away from the OTO and AA anyways) - and Gardner left this
tradition in the 1940s.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss