So, one last post on this subject before I move on to (hopefully) more interesting topics.
When it comes up that I don't believe in karma, the law of three, or the Wiccan Rede, some folks have jumped to the conclusion that I have no morals whatsoever. Someone actually called me dangerous because they assumed I was just cursing people left and right for funsies.
Yeah, I don't actually do that. Real talk - I am a very lazy person. Very lazy. It takes a lot of prodding before I decide to get off my butt and whip out the big guns. To put it another way, in the last ten years I can count on one hand the number of times I felt that was necessary, and two of those times dealt with feeling repeatedly physically threatened. And even then we're not talking super curse that will curse you and your mom and your kids for seven generations or whatever, just like... some good old fashioned drive away magic. (Particularly harsh drive away magic, but still.)
I also find it odd that people would assume I have no moral guidelines at all, simply because I don't share theirs. Not true, of course. While I have no hard and fast rules or laws, I do look to things like the negative confessions of Egypt, and the Delphic Maxims of Greece, for guidance. Not all of them really apply to life in the modern age. (Rule your wife, for example...?) But there's a lot of wisdom there to pull from... control yourself, control your anger, love friendship, don't look down on people, give back, don't waste, don't gossip, despise strife, don't be deceitful, and so on. I'm sure somewhere in there is also don't be lazy, but look, we can't all be perfect.
In all of this, I am continuously reminded of an ancestor divination that was done for me many years ago. The ancestors saw me as scorpion, that is, someone who is very happy to go about their business in peace, but we all know what happens when you piss off a scorpion. (Also, fun scorpion fact, some species of scorpion can lower their metabolism significantly and spend a lot of time just sitting around. So it's fine if I am lazy. Right?)
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Witches don't hex? What?
So I guess a few days ago good old Raymond Buckland decided to come out and say that witches don't hex people.
Look. I don't care how influential you are in the community, you don't get to call the shots for all witches across all traditions. Period. End of story.
But apparently some are trying to say, oh, he didn't mean witches, he meant Wiccans! Dude has been part of the community for how long and still doesn't know there are non-Wiccan witches, and that you really should use the word Wicca for referring to, well, Wicca? Come on now. Plus, it's still not true. Neither Gardner or Valiente took a 'never hex' stance, and I kinda think they both count as Wiccans, considering, you know, they were the ones who really created Wicca.
Heck, Buckland himself includes some hexes and the like in his Practical Candleburning book, but in a second post he says woah now, that's not witchcraft, that's magic! Uh... okay? He also seems to want to double down on the whole witches follow the Wiccan rede thing. I honestly do not understand how anyone could actually be actively involved in the community for so long, and still hold such an outdated misconception.
So let's say it again. Not all witches are Wiccans. Not all witches follow the Wiccan rede, the rule of three, karma, or any other such notion. Witches certainly do hex. There have always been witches who hex. If some witches or traditions make the choice to never hex, that is their call, and I will always respect that - but again, none of those folks get to make that decision for everyone. That's just not how it works, and not how it should work.
And look, I do get where he's coming from, the overall point it seems he's trying to make. A lot of people have worked hard to shed some of the stigma around witchcraft, and so all this hexing talk that's been going on as of late, I get why some say, hey, that doesn't really make the community look great... But there's a right way and a wrong way to discuss that. Coming out and saying witches never hex, disregarding anything that's not Wicca, etc, is a truly terrible way to open a dialogue in the community. There are so many better ways to talk about your experiences and get your message and opinion out there, do we really have to resort to dictating how others practice? How is that helping anyone?
But apparently some are trying to say, oh, he didn't mean witches, he meant Wiccans! Dude has been part of the community for how long and still doesn't know there are non-Wiccan witches, and that you really should use the word Wicca for referring to, well, Wicca? Come on now. Plus, it's still not true. Neither Gardner or Valiente took a 'never hex' stance, and I kinda think they both count as Wiccans, considering, you know, they were the ones who really created Wicca.
Heck, Buckland himself includes some hexes and the like in his Practical Candleburning book, but in a second post he says woah now, that's not witchcraft, that's magic! Uh... okay? He also seems to want to double down on the whole witches follow the Wiccan rede thing. I honestly do not understand how anyone could actually be actively involved in the community for so long, and still hold such an outdated misconception.
So let's say it again. Not all witches are Wiccans. Not all witches follow the Wiccan rede, the rule of three, karma, or any other such notion. Witches certainly do hex. There have always been witches who hex. If some witches or traditions make the choice to never hex, that is their call, and I will always respect that - but again, none of those folks get to make that decision for everyone. That's just not how it works, and not how it should work.
And look, I do get where he's coming from, the overall point it seems he's trying to make. A lot of people have worked hard to shed some of the stigma around witchcraft, and so all this hexing talk that's been going on as of late, I get why some say, hey, that doesn't really make the community look great... But there's a right way and a wrong way to discuss that. Coming out and saying witches never hex, disregarding anything that's not Wicca, etc, is a truly terrible way to open a dialogue in the community. There are so many better ways to talk about your experiences and get your message and opinion out there, do we really have to resort to dictating how others practice? How is that helping anyone?
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Hypocrisy In Spellcraft
Today the subject of banishing came up in a community I belong to. For some reason, people seem to think that banishing has to be this awful, negative, harmful thing. It really does not have to be. (You all know you don't have to banish someone to the deepest pits of hell, right...?)
But what bothered me, is they said there's always an alternative, like if you have an awful neighbor, you should pray for them to get an out of state job, or whatever. You wouldn't want to be banishing them, because that would be influencing their situation. That was their direct reasoning for not wanting to banish, because it would influence that person.
Here's the thing. Banishing someone sure is influencing them - but so is praying for them to change jobs.
I get that a lot of witches aren't into causing harm, or working on magic on someone without consent, and fine, whatever works for you. But come on. If you're going to follow that (and often while insisting others do, too), shouldn't you be following it all the way? If you're against influencing people, you have to understand that even "positive" things are still influences. Also, just because you might think something is positive, doesn't necessarily mean the recipient thinks so.
But what bothered me, is they said there's always an alternative, like if you have an awful neighbor, you should pray for them to get an out of state job, or whatever. You wouldn't want to be banishing them, because that would be influencing their situation. That was their direct reasoning for not wanting to banish, because it would influence that person.
Here's the thing. Banishing someone sure is influencing them - but so is praying for them to change jobs.
I get that a lot of witches aren't into causing harm, or working on magic on someone without consent, and fine, whatever works for you. But come on. If you're going to follow that (and often while insisting others do, too), shouldn't you be following it all the way? If you're against influencing people, you have to understand that even "positive" things are still influences. Also, just because you might think something is positive, doesn't necessarily mean the recipient thinks so.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Animal Sacrifice
The topic of animal sacrifice is one that a lot of modern pagans tend to avoid, to the extent that at least one of the pagan message boards I've been a member of over the years has actually banned the topic. Even a hypothetical or historical discussion is against the rules.
I think part of this is a misunderstanding of what animal sacrifice entails. Common objections are that it's cruel to the animal, or a waste of food. Now to be fair, there have been many different cultures which practiced animal sacrifice, and they didn't all do it in the same way. Many cultures, however, brought the animal to the altar where it would be quickly killed, and then a part of the animal would be offered to a deity, or deities, and the rest would be shared among those present in a communal meal. In some cases, the part offered to the deities wouldn't even be a great part of the meat - in ancient Greece the more inedible parts of the animal were commonly the offering.
When I was younger one of my uncles raised pigs, and the whole family looked forward to the pig roast. He raised these animals with care, he knew what they ate, how they lived, and when the time came they were killed quickly. Family came from all around for this giant meal. I didn't even eat meat at the time, this was during my vegetarian years, but I still enjoyed getting to see all of my cousins, my extended family, getting to run around the fields, and of course who doesn't like side dishes? Now, no part of the pig was given as any sort of offering, but to me, that's really part of the spirit of an animal sacrifice. It's a family meal, where the Gods are honored as part of the family, as honored guests that we appreciate. The animals were killed anyway for the meat, does it really change much of part of the animal is given to the Gods?
Of course, most of us don't raise our own animals, myself included. (Although perhaps we fish, or even hunt? But that is a topic for another time.) While we can still certainly make offerings and have family meals, we no longer have that context where it would make sense to preform animal sacrifice. Still, when we do look at it in context, is it really that strange? Unless we're a vegetarian or vegan, we eat meat, and to eat that meat someone raised and killed that animal - and if someone chooses to raise their own meat, and they want to offer some of it... well, I just don't see why that's such a big deal. This shouldn't be the forbidden topic that it's often made out to be.
I think part of this is a misunderstanding of what animal sacrifice entails. Common objections are that it's cruel to the animal, or a waste of food. Now to be fair, there have been many different cultures which practiced animal sacrifice, and they didn't all do it in the same way. Many cultures, however, brought the animal to the altar where it would be quickly killed, and then a part of the animal would be offered to a deity, or deities, and the rest would be shared among those present in a communal meal. In some cases, the part offered to the deities wouldn't even be a great part of the meat - in ancient Greece the more inedible parts of the animal were commonly the offering.
When I was younger one of my uncles raised pigs, and the whole family looked forward to the pig roast. He raised these animals with care, he knew what they ate, how they lived, and when the time came they were killed quickly. Family came from all around for this giant meal. I didn't even eat meat at the time, this was during my vegetarian years, but I still enjoyed getting to see all of my cousins, my extended family, getting to run around the fields, and of course who doesn't like side dishes? Now, no part of the pig was given as any sort of offering, but to me, that's really part of the spirit of an animal sacrifice. It's a family meal, where the Gods are honored as part of the family, as honored guests that we appreciate. The animals were killed anyway for the meat, does it really change much of part of the animal is given to the Gods?
Of course, most of us don't raise our own animals, myself included. (Although perhaps we fish, or even hunt? But that is a topic for another time.) While we can still certainly make offerings and have family meals, we no longer have that context where it would make sense to preform animal sacrifice. Still, when we do look at it in context, is it really that strange? Unless we're a vegetarian or vegan, we eat meat, and to eat that meat someone raised and killed that animal - and if someone chooses to raise their own meat, and they want to offer some of it... well, I just don't see why that's such a big deal. This shouldn't be the forbidden topic that it's often made out to be.
Monday, March 4, 2013
The Wiccan Rede
There are two common misconceptions surrounding the Wiccan Rede that I'd like to address today.
The first misconception is that it's something all witches/pagans follow, or even that it's something that all witches/pagans must follow, and if they don't? Well, then they're not a real witch/pagan. Frankly, I don't understand how this makes sense to anyone - especially when it comes from 'elders,' or the more influential people in the community who really should know better.
Wiccans are pagan, that's true, but we know not all pagans are Wiccan. Likewise, not all witches are Wiccan. So why should all witches/pagans follow the Wiccan Rede, even if they're not Wiccan? (Heck, when you really get down to it, the Wiccan Rede is not even something truly emphasisied in all Wiccan traditions!) Yes, some non-Wiccans choose to follow the Wiccan Rede, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, there are a number of traditions and individual paths which have their own morals, ethics, and so on. The Wiccan Rede is not a part of every tradition, and it doesn't need to be. It really is that simple.
Beyond that, let's look at the meaning of the word rede. Rede doesn't mean law, and it doesn't mean commandment - instead it means something more along the lines of advice or counsel. A word of advice is a lot different than a set in stone law, so even if someone didn't follow the rede in every situation, would it really make them any less of a Wiccan/witch/pagan?
The second misunderstanding is from those who whittle the Rede down to two words, "harm none." It is impossible to never cause harm, but luckily the Rede does not say that. The Rede says "an it harm none, do what ye will" or, alternatively, "an ye harm none, do what ye will." An means if, and ye of course means you. If you harm none, do what you will. In other words? If whatever it is you're planning to do doesn't cause harm to anyone, go for it. The Rede is permissive, not restrictive.
If it does cause harm? The Rede doesn't actually say what to do in that situation, but we can assume that the advice is implying that one should carefully weigh their options in such a situation - perhaps that unnecessary harm should be avoided. However, no where does it say that causing any harm must always be avoided. An additional line to the Rede has been floating around for a while now "an it cause harm, do as ye must." Although it's not an 'official' part of the Rede, perhaps it does help clarify the spirit of the Rede more than just saying "harm none" does.
Now, to be fair, no, I am not a Wiccan, and no, I do not personally incorporate the Rede into my path. So perhaps it isn't my place to be commenting on what the Rede does or does not mean, since I don't even follow it... but, well, I figure since it's pushed on me so often I might as well toss my two cents in on the matter now and again. There are several different ways one could interpret the Rede, but I think taking the "harm none" approach just doesn't do it justice.
The first misconception is that it's something all witches/pagans follow, or even that it's something that all witches/pagans must follow, and if they don't? Well, then they're not a real witch/pagan. Frankly, I don't understand how this makes sense to anyone - especially when it comes from 'elders,' or the more influential people in the community who really should know better.
Wiccans are pagan, that's true, but we know not all pagans are Wiccan. Likewise, not all witches are Wiccan. So why should all witches/pagans follow the Wiccan Rede, even if they're not Wiccan? (Heck, when you really get down to it, the Wiccan Rede is not even something truly emphasisied in all Wiccan traditions!) Yes, some non-Wiccans choose to follow the Wiccan Rede, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, there are a number of traditions and individual paths which have their own morals, ethics, and so on. The Wiccan Rede is not a part of every tradition, and it doesn't need to be. It really is that simple.
Beyond that, let's look at the meaning of the word rede. Rede doesn't mean law, and it doesn't mean commandment - instead it means something more along the lines of advice or counsel. A word of advice is a lot different than a set in stone law, so even if someone didn't follow the rede in every situation, would it really make them any less of a Wiccan/witch/pagan?
The second misunderstanding is from those who whittle the Rede down to two words, "harm none." It is impossible to never cause harm, but luckily the Rede does not say that. The Rede says "an it harm none, do what ye will" or, alternatively, "an ye harm none, do what ye will." An means if, and ye of course means you. If you harm none, do what you will. In other words? If whatever it is you're planning to do doesn't cause harm to anyone, go for it. The Rede is permissive, not restrictive.
If it does cause harm? The Rede doesn't actually say what to do in that situation, but we can assume that the advice is implying that one should carefully weigh their options in such a situation - perhaps that unnecessary harm should be avoided. However, no where does it say that causing any harm must always be avoided. An additional line to the Rede has been floating around for a while now "an it cause harm, do as ye must." Although it's not an 'official' part of the Rede, perhaps it does help clarify the spirit of the Rede more than just saying "harm none" does.
Now, to be fair, no, I am not a Wiccan, and no, I do not personally incorporate the Rede into my path. So perhaps it isn't my place to be commenting on what the Rede does or does not mean, since I don't even follow it... but, well, I figure since it's pushed on me so often I might as well toss my two cents in on the matter now and again. There are several different ways one could interpret the Rede, but I think taking the "harm none" approach just doesn't do it justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)