The Musings of a Confused Man

I finished "reading" (even after a year, it still seems strange to call it "reading" when I'm actually listening to the book on audio) Terry Pratchett's The Wee Free Men for the second time. I really wish that Harper Audio would get around and put more of Pratchett's books on audio. The man's writing is absolutely incredible.

Personally, what amazes me about this book is the almost fairy tale "tone" to it. I don't remember quite the same tone in Small Gods (which I read the "old fashioned way") or Monstrous Regiment. Indeed, it makes me wonder if the man has a wide range of writing styles and "tones" at his disposal. Considering the number of books that he's written, I can't say as that would surprise me.

It's easy to get lost in this particular book, in my opinion. The Pictsies and young Tiffany are such great characters. They grow on you, and in a good way. And the interraction between them is absolutely incredible. When you look at the way that the Pictsies appraoch which suggests that a good head butt to be a proper and effective resolution to any problem to Tiffany's incredible tendency to over-intellectualize and analyze every little detail -- especially for a nine year old girl -- you end up with a curious interplay between them. It makes for a humorous part of the story.

And just for fun, Pratchett seems to like to throw in some legitimate spirituality. I find myself almost wondering if he does it just to see if anyone notices. For example, when Tiffany and the Queen have their final confrontation, Tiffany "wakes up." Pratchett describes the effects of this awakening as being a sort of hyper-awareness. Every scent, every sound, every pattern becomes blindingly clear to to Tiffany. And in this sense of awareness, Tiffany is able to both defeat the Queen and realize that she has to "go back to sleep." During this time, she acknowledges that no one could maintain this state of hyper-awareness indefinitely. She comments to herself that it would prevent them from getting anything done. To paraphrase her, "you could spend all day studying a rose, but the cheese would go unmade."

It seems to me that there is a real truth that applies to witchcraft in this. Witches seek a sort of heightened awareness, themselves. In her book, Witchcraft: Theory and Practice, De Angeles suggests an exercise that requires one to go about their routine for an hour each day taking note of as many details around them as they can, to become "fully aware" of everything. As part of this excercise, she also recommends sitting down sometime after the hour and writing down everything your mind recorded during the exercise. The idea behind doing this for a number of days is that it will stretch your awareness, enabling you to note more and more details.

But, as Tiffany says, this has to serve more purpose than creating a situation in which "we spend all day studying a rose and allow the cheese to go unmade." After all, witches are (in theory, at least) a practical bunch. So what is the purpose of such an exercise?

It seems to me that the point of becoming "more aware" is so that we can better control what it is we're aware of in the first place. By "waking up" -- to use Pratchett's term -- we give ourselves a chance to "go back to sleep," but to control how we "sleep." We have a greater control of what we're aware of. We're more able to filter out those details that are unimportant while not missing the ones that are -- even if they are rather subtle.

And perhaps the other part of this exercise is just to make sure we do realize we're "asleep." Perhaps a large part of this exercise is to bring us to the point that we understand that no matter how "aware" we think we are, there are still those little details, those subtle nuances, that slip past us without notice. Perhaps this is to help keep us humble and to remind us to question our "facts" on a situation from time to time.

On a message board, I watched someone come in and complain about the poor treatment she had gotten on another message board for a post she left. She went on about how someone accused her of being insulting and got a bit rude with her. After all, she was just trying to be helpful.

Now, I'm about to say something that would probably get me called a cynic. But if there's one thing that life has taught me, it's that people can be downright unkind and disrespectful when they're "trying to be helpful." "Helpful people" -- especially the ones that offer unsolicited help, tend to have an ego thing going, themselves. At least that's been my experience.

So a couple of us asked for further details before we told this would-be good samaritan how terrible her experience was. So she gave us a link to the conversation under discussion. Well, it didn't take long for some of us to find why the poor guy was offended. One simply had to read the paragraph he quoted during his protest.

The board this woman posted to was a discussion forum for a law enforcement resource and networking site, as near as I can tell. And she was posting information about "Wicca" (I will have to explain why I put that in quotes someday, I think) and Paganism. Basically, she wanted to inform the police officers there so that they would be better able to handle situations involving Pagans or crimes that looked ritualistic. A noble gesture, indeed. But there are just a couple of things that I would've avoided personally. Let me point out the first one by quoting a statement from her post:

You will also become better by not jumping to conclusions when you are at a crime scene or an alleged crime scene with evidence of "ritualistic crime."

Now, it seems to me that the underlying assumption our "educator" is making here is that these police officers currently jump to conclusions. Now, call me crazy, but I'm sure that these nice officers have gone through rigorous training on how to properly investigate a crime. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that one of the first lessons of investigating a crime -- whether there are ritualistic elements or not -- is probably don't jump to conclusions. So I can understand someone getting a wee bit bent out of shape when a perfect stranger suggests they'd do such a stupid thing. Whatever happened to giving people credit.

The second statement is of a similar nature. Allow me to quote it:

And, PLEASE, above all - if you have a question just ask a member of the pagan community or do some research for yourself.

Once again, our "educator" jumps to a rather insulting conclusion. I'm sure that police who investigate crimes are well aware of the value of research. In fact, I'm sure that they spend a good portion of their time both researching and consulting with experts in whatever subject becomes central to their investigation. To imply otherwise -- as this "educator" has done -- is to basically call these police stupid.

I'm sorry, but whatever happened to assuming that people were intelligent? Whatever happened to the bit of common sense that said that treating someone as if they were a fool is a good way to get off on a bad foot? Whatever happened to actually showing the people you're trying to "inform" a bit of dignity and respect!

Sure, I'm sure there are some bad cops out there. I'm sure that if one looks hard enough, you can find someone who does jump to conclusion. I'm sure you can find one who does skimp on the research. But to actually face a group of officers and assume that the ones you are addressing would do any such thing is a good way to show what an ass you are, in my opinion. And quite frankly, I think you should expect to be treated like an ass.

Honestly, if this is the kind of person that's handling "Pagan relations" with our valuable "boys in blue," I think we'd be better off not being represented at all.

The other night, a friend was showing me various "Goddess pictures" he's collected over the last few years. As I was sitting there, looking at them, I began to notice a pattern in all of them. All of the pictures, while drawn with exquisite talent and an eye for detail, seemed unreal to me. They all had this almost ephemeral look to them.

I began to notice that every picture of every goddess seemed to picture a slim, almost ghostly woman in a flowing gown of some short. And in each picture, it gave the deity pictured an appearance that was so idealized and stylized that she didn't seem...well, human. And not in a good way.

It seems to me that I've found this characteristic in a lot of "Goddess" artwork in the last five years. It's as if many artist try to create a lofty picture, but in effect creates a picture of an unreal, untouchable being. (Indeed, they almost look as if they'd be sullied or even broken if we touched them, much like a china doll.) Where is the artwork of real goddesses? Where are the pictures of Artemis walking through the forest in huntress clothes? Where are the pictures of Aphrodite, exuding enough sex appeal to make your average male pop a boner just looking at her? Where's the picture of the Mother Goddesses who actually look like they've held a child and had said child spit up on her?

We Pagans talk about how our gods are close to us. We talk about how they are readily available and even imminent. And yet, then we turn around and create artwork which almost seems to contradict this. I find myself wondering how much we believe our own words.

Not that I'm guiltless of this. I've had my times where I've pictured my own "china doll Goddess," too. I've pictured the gods as untouchable and unrealistically idealized. But I've also come to find more "realistic" images. I try to picture Freyja in a down-to-earth outfit that both exudes sex appeal and strength. I've tried to see her in the kind of garb as worn by the spakona. I've tried to see her as more real.

Today, I ran to Waldenbook's to pick up my order. I got a copy of both Witchcraft Today and The Meaning of Witchcraft by Gerald Gardner. After being told that they weren't available in the U.S. six to nine months ago, I was finally able to order a copy of them. Of course, I have used copies of both, but I was glad to get brand new copies. Especially since my used copy of Witchcraft Today is so old the pages are just about falling out and my copy of The Meaning of Witchcraft has a blank (misprinting) page in it. That was annoying when I found it. So I'm glad to have new, in print copies.

Personally, I'm ecstatic that Gardner's books are back in print. I loved reading them, and I think that they are very telling. I look at some of the things that Gardner makes so abundantly clear (such as the Goddess and God being "the little gods" rather than an Infinite Creator) that most people today never even stop to consider. There's just so much in his books that most Pagans don't even seem to know about these days.

Unfortunately, I don't expect that they'll sell many copies. It seems to me that the current consumer tendency towards "how to" books will keep Gardner's books to a rather small readership. Because after all, he doesn't give careful instructions on how to do any spells or rituals. In fact, he doesn't give any such details at all. Sure, he describes a couple things, but not in enough detail to do them effectively. His books are informative and descriptive rather than instructive. And because of that, most people will likely toss it aside. Heck, I doubt they'll even make it to the shelves on most bookstores. To be honest, I even told Jeanine an Waldenbooks not to bother stocking them, despite the fact that they're excellent books.

Of course, the "anniversary edition" of Witchcraft Today irks me in its own right. They've made it an "expanded edition" by adding extra essays from "big names" in Paganism. These "big names" include Judy Harrow, the founder of the Protean tradition; Ronald Hutton, of Triumph of the Moon fame; and Wren Walker, co-founder of The Witch's Voice. Now, let me say right up front that I have no problems with any of these individuals. They are all respectable individuals that have made good contributions to Paganism in general. And even their essays in this book aren't bad in their own right. My only annoyance with it all is that my first skim of this "added material" is primarily there to make the book appealing to the "Wicca is what you want to make it" crowd by stroking their egos. It's all about how Gardner was an "innovator" in his own days or how "Wicca" has changed since his day. I'm sorry, but I just find that sad. Why not let the man's book stand on its own right? Why not embrace the fact that the man was a Traditionalist and wrote from a Traditionalist standpoint. Why must everything be made to cater to the "eclectic" community.

Oh wait, that's where the money is, right? *sigh* Somedays, I hate that the publishing industry is a business.

Recently, I've been in a Harry Potter mood. In a few more days, I suspect I might actually consider getting out one of my Harry Potter books on tapes and going through it again. But that's a bit of a tangent. My recent Harry Potter mood is "background" for this entry, not the central matter.

While I was in the Harry Potter mood, I decided to do some searches for online stuff about Harry Potter. I found a list of the various "spells" mentioned or used in the books so far. I found some curious quizzes. They even have one about the unorganized "Harry Potter is evil incarnate" campaign. I actually enjoyed taking that quiz.

And naturally, I ran across a few sites that were apart of that particular campaign. I won't bother writing any remarkable details about any of them. Truth be told, I don't think there were any remarkable details. Just the usual nonsense. "Harry Potter encourages children to practice witchcraft!" "Harry Potter makes people who don't practice witchcraft look like losers!" "Harry Potter promotes disobedience and rebellion." Honestly, once you've seen one such site, you can pretty much expect a strong feeling of deja vu every time you visit another site of the same type. No one's ever accused Harry Potter protestors of being creative, and it's pretty obvious why.

But on the one site, I found a link to yet another open letter to Wiccans. One of these days, I think I'm going to start trying to keep a running tally of how many such letters I can find online. There are tons of them. And quite frankly, the people who write them don't seem to be any more creative than the people who go on about how evil Harry Potter is. That's probably partly because they're the same people a lot of times.

There's really nothing remarkable abou this "open letter" when compared to others of its kind. In fact, I think the only thing remarkable about it is that it's fairly representative of all such "open letters." And as I was reading this particular letter, I noticed a certain pattern. So I decided I wanted to reflect upon it.

What really catches my attention is the "background" of the person writing the letter. Most of the people I've seen write such letters naturally have experience in the occult. (I do note however, that this one admits that his experience is in Spiritualism rather than Wicca, though he fails to seriously address whether that distinction is important.) But more importantly, they're "driven" to it by some sort of psychological need, usually of an extreme nature. For example, in this particular letter, the writer was driven to it by the traumatic death of both of his parents and his own resultant fear of death.

In telling about these events that led to their interest in the occult, such writers often seem to make it a heart-rending story. Well, in fairness, I'm sure it was very heart-rending, and they're only telling it like it is. But as someone sitting here waiting to be "witnessed to," I still find it a bit bothersome. It seems to me as if the whole set up is to evoke an emotional reaction in me, to create a sympathetic state of mind where I will read the rest of the letter in such an emotional state. In some ways, I can't help but wonder if the writer isn't trying to be a wee bit manipulative, trying to get me to respond out of an emotionally charged state of mind rather than careful consideration of these words.

The other thing that bothers me is the implications of such a story. The writer never considers that their traumatic experiences and emotional unrest might not have contributed to their experiences of the occult, thereby biasing them. It seems to me as if there's this silent implication that the only reason someone might get involved in such things is because of emotional trauma and psychological problems. In effect, such letters seem to me to prey on those who are still emotionally wounded and use their wounded state to the advantage of the writer's own agenda.

This is why such letters have a different effect on me, I think. I don't identify with the "wounded child getting messed up with things he shouldn't." Instead, I look at such letters and go, "Wow, you really shouldn't have been messing with such things. You did all of this for completely the wrong reasons." And their failure to acknowledge these truths causes me to approach the rest of the letter with a heightened sense of skepticism.

I don't know, I think I'd be much more impressed by an "open letter" that was written by someone who didn't bring such emotional instabilities with them into their "occult experimentation." Or I could even be impressed if they didn't make such instabilities and insecurities the entire foundation for their foray into occult matters. Heck, I can even respect someone who would at least admit how such things might have biased their experiences and their interpretations of such experiences. At least then I would feel like I'm reading something written by a reasonable individual. But someone like this author, I can't help but look at his letter and shake my head. Because to me, the clear problem in his story is himself, not the occult.

One of the people whose blog I read regularly participates in the Witch's Weekly exercise. I haven't decided to commit to answering the questions every week myself, but I particularly likeed this week's set of questions. So I thought I'd take a run at them.

Do you feel that you are active in your spirituality?
I'm not as active as I'd like to be. I've recently been trying to get more pro-active about my spiritual development. This month, I've been starting to do fifteen minute breathing meditations. I hope to eventually get this to be a daily part of my practice, but I readily admit that I'm far from it right now. (I'm lucky if I get to it two or three times a week.)

This is one of those cases where I know I need more self-discipline. Unfortunately, I think it's too easy in Paganism to not take active, experiential steps like this. We spend so much time reading books about Paganism, that we tend to put the books aside and do our meditations, our devotions, and other things. Or maybe it's just me and I'm projecting my own failings on others. Who can say? But it's certainly something I'm working on correcting in my life.

What do you consider to be the most tedious task in your path?
This depends on my state of mind. In days when I let myself fool myself into thinking I'm "too busy," it's easy to claim that the meditation work is tedious. It's one of those things that it's easy to say "I don't have the time, and I'm not really getting anything out of it, anyway."

But when I actually stop and think about it -- and when I've actually been doing the meditations, I know that's a bunch of bull. Currently, my goal is fifteen minutes. And I know I can make fifteen minutes to meditate. I just have to be brutally honest about how much time (several times longer than fifteen minutes, I assure you) I waste watching television and surfing the web. I could easily take fifteen minutes away from these activities to do my meditation.

And when I'm doing it, I realize just how much I really do get out of it. I feel much calmer. I feel more energetic. And I feel like I could conquer the world and do anything. When I stop and think about it, I have to admit that the only reason I find it "tedious" is that I'm being wrong-headed -- and bull-headed -- about it.

What is your most enjoyable part of your spirituality?

I think what I really like about it is the nature of the "call" involved. As time goes on, I feel a gentle, loving "call" to my spirituality. My recent desire to gain more self-discipline is the result of such a gentle "call." It's this sense that I know I need to do these things, yet it completely lacks condemnation for not doing these things in the past. It's the fact that I can always look at where I am, pat myself on the back, and yet feel that pull to climb ever onward and upward. It's both challenging and encouraging.

I decided to answer the Witches Weekly questions again this week.

Do you wear any religious symbol jewelry/clothing? If so do you wear it openly in public?

On occasion, I wear a small silver pentagram (about the size of a dime) with a tiny piece of tumbled hematite in the center. But only on days where I feel like I need a self-reminder. Sometimes, I'll wear it under my shirt and other times I'll wear it in plain sight. It depends on what I'm doing that day and how much of a hassle I'm willing to put up with. For example, I have no problem wearing it openly at the mall, but if I'm going to stop someplace where I know an ultra-conservative relative will be, I prefer to avoid the feud.

How do you feel about the issue of wearing religious symbols in schools and how some young teens are forced to remove their religious fashions?

I have to wonder why teens are wearing religious symbols to school. Are they doing it to be cool? Are they doing it to rebel? How would they react if someone else made such a bold proclamation about their own faith?

Having said that, however, I think that students should have the right to express themselves in any way that does not directly interfere with the learning process. And I have a hard time imagining a serious way in which wearing a piece of jewelry could cause such an interference. Well, I can think of ways, but they involve issues much bigger than one's choice of jewelry.

Have you ever experienced a confrontation about wearing your jewlery in public? How did you handle the situation if so?

Nope. The closest I came to this was when I found out that one of the managers at my old job was complaining behind my back to coworkers about the pentagram pendant (a tacky pewter one about the same diameter as a coffee cup, I'm ashamed to admit) I was wearing at that time. He never said anything directly to me, which I personally found cowardly and dishonest. But that's the closest I've come to a confrontation, too.

You know, some Pagan message boards really disappoint me at times. It seems to me that a lot of people you meet there are looking for ego stroking more than any real religious devotion. In fact, a lot of these people seem to be interested in showing off how incredibly "spiritual" or "magical" they are.

For example, today, one person was talking about how they had all these past lives they could remember. And of course, in every one of these past lives except one, this individual "had power." The cynical, bastardly part of me just wants to scream "get over yourself." And of course, then you have the discussion about self-Initiation. And when someone mentioned they don't believe in it, someone threw out "well, who initiated the first witch, then?" I'm sorry, but that's an old question. Who gave a medical degree to the first doctor? And yet, I doubt anyone would be interesting in hiring a heart surgeon who was "self-degreed."

Of course, most people will scream that there's a difference between a doctor and a witch. Well, that may be true to an extent. But it does beg the question. Isn't being a witch more than a label to bolster one's self-esteem? Doesn't it actually mean something? To me, it does. To me, it means serving a god in a priesthood. To me, it's about actually working towards something. But to a lot of people out there, it just seems to be another status label. There seems to be no duties or responsibilities that come with it. Just something to impress others with.

Me, I think the most incredible thing that I've had happen to me is to hear people I consider far smarter than I am refer to me as "intelligent." To me, that made me smile from ear to ear. It also made me blush. Because I know that the person who said it doesn't give out compliments willy-nilly. But it also made me realize that I had an expectation to live up to. Because of this person's high standards, I suddenly had a compliment I needed to strive to live up to.

These are some old questions from the Witches' Weekly project. They're still floating around the Internet, so I thought I'd answer them even though they're "out of date." Besides, a good friend asked me to.

What do you find most annoying about the Pagan Community?

I personally think that much of the Pagan community is too self-absorbed. Everything is about "me, me, and me." I think that another diarist whose work I ran across recently used a most appropriate word: self-aggrandizement.

This shows up in many ways. The first way is how too many Pagans come to Paganism only with a thought for "what's in it for me?" They look for the magic to make their lives better. They look for something that will make them feel better. Or they look for something that "empowers" them. Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with any of these things. But they do not a religion make. At some point, one must realize that we're dealing with the Divine here. Wether we see gods as individual entities, "faces" of one Great Divine, or archetypes from the collective unconscious, we are dealing with something which is not just "another part of ourselves." We are communing with and drawing on "resource" that exists outside of ourselves. And yet, we treat this "resource" as if it's just for us. Personally, I find one of the great irony of Paganism is that we preach that we must use our natural resources like oil, coal, and woodland more respectfully and reverantly, yet never consider our implied lack of respect and reverance for our spiritual resources.

The other way that this "me mentality" expresses itself is our lack of self-criticism. Pagans as a whole are adverse to stopping and questioning themselves. Questioning another Pagan's basic perceptions and assumptions is dangerous. It gets you accused of being a "fundie" and all other kinds of things. And yet, I find it funny. Pagans usually accuse "fundies" of being "sheep" for not questioning authority. But if we as Pagans declare ourselves the authority, then does not consistency of our views require us to question the authority within?

Are there any specific symbols that are sacred to you or that you hold close to you?

Not really, no. I love the runes as whole, but I'm not sure that any of them appeal to me specifically. Perhaps Fe, though. After all, I love it's gentle reminder that I have all the "wealth" and resources I need and simply need to properly cultivate them.

What's one thing that you think the Pagan Community needs?

I think the Pagan Community mostly needs to get over itself. We as a whole need to remember that the world does not revolve around us, that the world is not out to get us, and that the world really couldn't care less about us in the great scheme of things. It seems to me that we need to realize that the universe is a grand and complex thing and that if we are to really "live in harmony with it" like we often claim to be trying to do, then we need to come to terms that we're an infinitely small speck -- and likely a relatively insignificant one, at that -- in it and take our humble place in it.

This entry may become a bit controversial, but it's something that's been on my mind for awhile. I was hoping to make it coherent, but I'm not sure it will be. Because things don't want to seem to fall into any "perfect order" in my mind, I decided to just dump out the stream of my thoughts without any particular order. So if you've read me in the past and find that this doesn't have my usual well-structured eloquence, please forgive me. But hopefully, it'll still have some valuable reflections in it somewhere.

Traditionally, the rites of Wicca have required ritual nudity. And I think that this is a good thing. In fact, I think that these rites should involve ritual nudity. It seems to me that it's a central component to the practice of this particular form of witchcraft. In fact, I often find it odd that (Neo-)Wiccans often will dogmatically cling to the words "harm none" in the Wiccan Rede (something which by its very name suggest it's merely advice) and yet completely ignore or discount the phrase "ye shall be naked in your rites" which occurs in the Charge of the Goddess (which by its very names suggests that it's a direct command). It's one of those strange oddities in Neo-Wicca that convinces me that it (1) has completely divorced itself from the true Wicca it tries to masquerade itself as and (2) has become an "anything goes religion."

Of course, ritual nudity in Neo-Wicca doesn't really make sense, I suppose. After all, Neo-Wicca is too "open." It wants to have public rites. It wants to be able to invite practically any random person into its celebrations. Because of this, the level of trust and intimacy that is required to make mandatory ritual nudity safe is simply not present. One cannot foster the safety that such vulnerability requires. As such, it's understandable why Neo-Wicca wishes to distance itself from ritual nudity.

However, in Wicca, ritual nudity still makes sense. After all, in Wicca, the rites are not open. Random strangers cannot be invited to the celebrations. Heck, not even friends of those participants in the rites are welcome. But because Wicca is an oathbound, initiatory (and initiates-only) religion, it fosters an atmosphere that makes ritual nudity both possible and wholly appropriate.

If you stop and think about it, it makes perfect sense. In Wicca, one joins an established coven. Membership is not guaranteed, and the seeker must approach the leader and members of the coven to seek initiation. Initiation is not an immediate process, and the seeker spends time with the leaders and members of said coven. There is a (usually extensive) period of relationship-building that takes place prior to any group magical work. It is during this time that both the seeker and the current members of the coven get to know one another and decide if there's a "good fit" here. It is only once it is determined that the "good fit" exists -- which includes the simple questions of whether everyone can trust each other and feel comfortable working with each other -- that the person is initiated into the coven and participates in the rites. (I'm ignoring the practice of filtering seekers through an "Outer Court" for the time being for simplicity, but the idea still applies to this as well.)

Because of the lengthy time between seeker introduction and ritual participation, there is plenty of time for trust to be built up to the point that everyone can become comfortable with being naked around each other during the rites. Certainly, there may still be some discomfort with the actual nudity at first, but there's a level of trust there that enables those all involved to work past those fears and step out into the realm of vulnerability. As time goes by, the closed nature of the group and the level of closeness and trust that's built up allows for the kind of safety that is required for proper and effective ritual nudity.

Gardner describes this in one of his books -- "The Meaning of Witchcraft," I believe -- indirectly. At one point, he is discussing ritual nudity and mentions an amusing conversation he had with a Witch in his coven. He mentioned his own membership in a nudist club, when a witch commented that she could never get naked in front of other people. When Gardner pointed out that she did exactly that at every ritual they held, she simply explained, "That's different. That's family!" This underscores the very nature of the relationship-building process that I'm talking about. Indeed, I'd propose that another question for determining "good fit" between a seeker and coven is the simple question of "Are we all comfortable enough with each other to be naked?" And to be honest, from what I'm coming to realize about Wiccan magic, I'm not sure I'd want to work magic with a group of people who couldn't answer that question yes, anyway.

Of course, a lot of people are probably screaming that it doesn't make any difference whether your naked or clothed during ritual. I actually disagree with them, and I will give my personal best argument for that shortly. But first, I need to put my answer into context. I do not currently practice Wicca. I am not an initiate. However, I am currently seeking a coven and hope to become an initiate in the future. As such, I have given a lot of thought to this very issue in my own life. I have often thought about the fact that if I am to respond to what I believe is the call of my heart, I will have to participate in a coven that performs their rites nude. And I'll be honest, the idea scares the crap out of me. I'm very self-conscious about my naked body. I have a hard time with the idea of letting my lover see me naked. So the idea of joining a small group of people and letting all of them see me naked scares the living crap out of me.

Surprisingly, that's the exact reason I think ritual nudity does make a difference. The fact that the whole idea scares me and some part of me wants to resist the idea tells me its significance. If nothing else, there are psychological implications to consider when it comes to ritual nudity.

I think too often, we tend to forget about how our state of mind and psychological makeup takes a part in ritual and magic. How our minds work and how they react to situations has a deep effect on the effectiveness and "flavor" of our magic and the results of our ritual. Overcoming my fear, giving into (earned) trust, and disrobing in front of others to work magic with them has a definite psychological effect on my mind, and it seems quite obvious that such an effect on my state of mind during ritual will have an effect on the ritual and the resulting magic. Indeed, it's people's reactions (usually negative) to the suggestion of ritual nudity that belies their own claims that "it doesn't matter."

I have tested this in my own personal practice. I have done meditations, performed rituals, and practiced magic both clothed and naked. And I can say for certain that there is a marked difference in one's state of mind at the time as well as the "feel" of the work at hand. And I would encourage anyone to experiment to this in their private work to see for themselves.

One of the Wicca I know has studied the historical practices of various crafts. Most notably, he's studied the craft of blacksmithing, and under the right circumstances, he can talk about the practice at some length.

Most interesting about his knowledge of and love for the smith's art, however, is a particular pet peev he's expressed a few times. And that's his pet peev about how some perceive the blacksmith's trade. You see, most people (myself included, I'm afraid) who start thinking about the art of ironwork immediately think of images of swords burning in teh furnace and being pounded out to strong, cutting blades between the anvil and hammer. Or they see the creation of shields, armor, or other instruments of war. However, after listening to talk of such image, B always manages to remind us to keep perspective. As he rightfully points at, the craft of armor and weapons has historically been a tiny part of the smith's trade. Much more of his time was spent forging daily items that one would need for their lives. The smith would build far more iron cooking utensils, nails, and other such daily necessities in a month than the number of swords and breastplates he'd pound out in years. Isn't it funny how we tend to forget things like that? We focus on the weapons and armor because we find the "flashy" or "fantastic," while forgetting the real work -- the work that most likely kept him fed on a regular basis -- of the blacksmith.

As I thought about this memory today at lunch, it occurred to me that Pagans on the whole (and here I go stereotyping again) tend to do this with more than the blacksmith's craft. We spend a lot of time looking at the "goodies" of our religion while ignoring the "daily necessities." How often do we talk about the spells we do or know, yet don't talk about the daily devotion or self-discipline that we place upon ourselves? How often do we speak of our Sabbats, and yet never discuss the careful planning, preparation, and other work that we endure before and after that make them so great? How often do we focus on the fantastic -- such as the experience we had when we came into contact with a spirit that one day -- while completely ignoring the changes in diet, exercise, and our general lifestyles that we need to make to better prepare our bodies for such experiences?

I'm as guilty as anyone. I'm doing my best when I have those "flash in the pan" kinds of experiences. I get on a spiritual high and I can do all kinds of things. And yet, I have yet to manage to get my meditation schedule to be as regular as I feel it should be. And my daily religious devotion needs a lot of work, there's no denying it.

I think that's what I like about the Wicca I know. They're so down to earth. I have sat in some of their homes and had incredibly ordinary discussions. Oh sure, we have our discussions that involve "witch stuff." But it's interspersed with discussions about pets, work, politics, and the fact that they need to clean and winterize the pool out back. And none of these discussion topics are treated as particularly more "special" than the others. It's a completely different attitude that I don't always see elsewhere, even in my own life.

It's a bit crazy here tonight. The kids are really carrying on. Their mother is currently working on rounding them up and sending them to bed. As I sit here listening to their insanity, I find myself wondering how long it's going to take them to calm down and actually fall asleep. I half suspect that we're going to end up wishing that we had some tranquilizers or something. Ah well, hopefully I'll get a few quiet hours before I head for bed. Besides, I got plenty of quiet time earlier today. So I can't complain.

When my sister was getting ready to go to her in-laws, I decided to take a quick nap. I figured that I needed it after staying up until after 1am. I was planning a nice short nap, but I ended up dozing for a full two hours. Oops! But I think I needed it, so it was all good.

Once I got done napping, I decided to read Witchcraft Today. I had three chapters left to read and I decided to finish it tonight. That way, it's all fresh for the book discussion. I do need to reread chapter two though. I plan on rereading each chapter as we start to discuss it, and Brian just called for the start of the chapter two discussion.

I've enjoyed reading the book this time around. Last time I read it (I think that was back in this past winter), I didn't get as much out of it. I guess I'm just in a better mental space to be able to appreciate what I'm reading this time. (I remember reading many of the quotes from the "What Gardner Said" site I love and being surprised at what I didn't remember, so I was glad to reread it anyway.) One of the things that I'm really noticing this time around is the number of times he repeats certain things. He tells about certain beliefs or about certain practices multiple times. In fact, there were a few times that I had to make sure I didn't accidentally "jump back" in the book because it sounded so familiar. Though each time he repeated something, I usually noticed he phrased it a bit differently or seemed to almost look at "another angle." (Not exactly, but I don't know how to express it better.) I'm thinking that these repetitions and the subtle differences in the presentation might be good to look into. I'm thinking at some point, I might reread with an eye to writing down the repeated material, copying what is said each time to look at it all side by side at some point. I'm not sure if it'll prove worthwhile, but I think there's only one way to find out.

I will occasionally use the word "Wicca" in my diary. Due to the state of affairs in the world, I figured I should probably make it clear what I mean when I say this word. You see, I don't use the word as it's generally used in the general Pagan community. In fact, if you hear my say "Wicca" and you immediately start thinking about anything that's been written in a book published by Llewellyn or a similar author, you're on the wrong page. For that reason, I would like to give my explanation of what I mean when I say "Wicca" so we all stay on the same page when reading my diary.

I believe that Wicca is an Oathbound (that means it involves solemn vows which include vows to keep certain secrets), initiatory ("only a Witch can make a Witch"), mystery (the core of the religion must be experienced through ecstatic revelation rather than academically believed) religion that originated in the New Forest region of England. The Wicca (which is the collective term used to refer to all initiates of this religion) are those people who can trace their initiatory lineage back to that region (usually through Sybil Leek or Gerald Gardner).

Anything else may be a form of witchcraft (after all, there are other forms of witchcraft than Wicca). It certainly might be Paganism. But it is not Wicca. Silver Ravenwolf is not Wicca. Scott Cunningham was a Wiccan initiate, but his books are not about Wicca. They are about Paganism and witchcraft. And they have some great gems of insight in them. His "Guide for the Solitary Practitioner" was the first Pagan book I ever read and I still cherish where it brought me. But what it described has some remarkable difference from the Wicca I'm coming to discover and love.

I think it would also be good to point out that by my own definition, I'm not one of the Wicca. It's my goal to eventually develop the necessary bonds with a coven and become an initiate, and I believe it will happen in the gods' good time. But for now, I'm content to be a generic, non-Wiccan witch. (I bring this up just to hopefully mitigate the accusations of "elitist bastard" that will be coming my way.) Because of this, I try to be very careful when I talk about Wicca. Because I am speaking as an outsider. An outsider that's trying to get on the inside, but an outsider nonetheless. As such, my statements about Wicca -- while as accurate as I can make them in my careful research -- should not be considered entirely authoritative. (They will also be apt to change as I get my butt kicked by the gods and/or those who are initiates and I learn my errors. Ah the joy of learning a path!)

For those who wish to know what Wicca is -- and to get a close idea of how it differs from the Neo-Wicca that many authors write about these days -- I would encourage you to pick up a copy of Gerald Gardner's two books. They are "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft." These two books tell a lot about the Craft of the New Forest region than most other books combined. (I particularly encourage people to note Gardner's descriptions and discussions of the God of Wicca and compare it to what most modern authors have to say. I sincerely believe that a careful reading of this will demonstrate one of the largest differences between Wicca and Neo-Wicca.) Another book I'd recommend is Vivianne Crowley's "Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Millennium." She's written a delightful book on Wiccan ritual. In her writings, her education in psychology really shines through.

Now, I'm not going to argue with people who call themselves Wicca despite not meeting my definition. My intent is not to invalidate anyone's beliefs (though I find myself wondering how calling one's beliefs by a name that doesn't fit in my opinion serves to "validate" those beliefs" anyway.) And I'm not here to start playing the "definition police." However, this is my diary, and as such, I intend to use words as I understand them. And as such, I felt it important to make it clear what I mean when I talk about Wicca.

You know, when it comes to ethics, I've never liked the whole concept of "harm none." Personally, it's always bugged me that so many Neo-Wiccans have held the phrase up as the definitive word on ethics. But it wasn't until I got thinking about it this morning that I really was able to express my beef.

Now, there are a number of reasons to have a beef with "harm none" as the ultimate guideline. For example, it's easiest to point out that when you get right down to it, 100% harmlessness is rarely possible, if not downright impossible. In fact, this is the one that I see get tossed up a couple times a year in Pagan chatrooms. And while it's a valid point, it misses one of the more fundamental problems with this idea. In fact, it's the same fundamental problem that haunts other systems of morality that are based on a series of prohibitions. And that's the problem that it's trying to define ethical considerations solely in terms of negative guidance.

Ethics are meant to guide activity. A person tries to determine what course in a given choice through his ethics. And an ethical system that only tells you what not to do or what results to avoid is severely limited. After all, once you weed out all the things you shouldn't do, you're still left with the question of what to do.

Consider for a moment this analogy. One should always drive safely. One can safely say that driving safely boils down to driving in such a way where one does not cause or become involved in accidents. In fact, an accident-free driving record is one of the two major factors insurance companies use to determine whether a given driver should qualify for a "safe driver discount." And yet, if you attended a driving safety course, you would expect the instruction of that course to include more than "don't get into any accidents." While the advice is perfectly valid and a commendable goal, it gives no indication on how to achieve it. It's a dictum based on negative action and not very helpful when applying it to the positive actions you must take. For that, you need positive advice, such as "always obey the speed limit" and "check your mirrors and blind spots regularly."

The same is true of ethics. Positive action must be taken. One cannot simply "not harm anyone," but must find guidelines for acting in a way that will bring about the goal (insofar as that goal is desirable, but that's another issue for another entry). In effect, the ethical system must be expanded offer positive guidelines that can be applied when considering positive action.

However, unlike my analogy, I don't think that "harming none" is a sufficient goal for ethics. Because we are creatures of positive action rather than negative action (it is more natural to "do something" than it is to spend much time "not doing something"), our ethics should lead us in this. Ethics should lead us to not only avoid wrong behavior, but to lead and even goad us into right behavior, which should be expressed in terms.

"Harm none" does not give us this. It keeps us in that half-ethical state of telling us to avoid wrong -- without actually giving practical advice on how to do so -- without leading us into action that we know is right. This is why I personally prefer to base my ethics on a set of values, those things that I see as right, honorable, and worthy of being upheld. In this sense, I think that people like Asatru with their Nine Noble Virtues (though I'm not entirely on board with them, either, though I still have yet to put my finger on why) are more on the right track when it comes to a matter of ethics.

I was introduced to something new today. I was a bit surprised. Not a lot, but a little. It seems that another school is out to abandon all Halloween activities. But unlike most schools -- who seem to make this decision to please uberconservative "Christians" with propagandistic views of the holiday, this one is actually cancelling due to what can only be described as "political correctness gone terribly wrong." You see, this school is concerned about "offending real Wiccans with the stereotypes about witches."

Now, I should point out that this isn't the only reason mentioned. It's just the reason that the article is focusing on. The school board actually cited three different reasons according to the article. And personally, I don't think any of them hold water. (And I find myself wondering what the primary reason is or if this is just a matter of trying to find any reason that will stick for a decision already made.)

Now, some people who have seen this article have commented that it doesn't mention any actually complaints from "real Wiccans." (The closest thing to it is merely a soundbite from an unrelated news program made by a Wiccan High Priestess while explaining her religion.) And it's a valid point. But sadly, I have no doubt that some "Wiccan" somewhere really is offended. (Heck, in my brash and younger days, I complained about such things myself. Fortunately, I've grown since then.) After all, there are some rather hypersensitive Wiccans (and Pagans of other persuasions, for that matter) out there. And it wouldn't take much to see some of them get their panties knotted.

Me, I find the whole thing silly. Then again, I find the stereotypes silly. But that's what makes them fun. I like playing with them. If I was in the middle of my town rather than off on some hill where no one sees me, I'd meet every trick-or-treater at the door in a painty hat and a fake wart on my nose. (Heck, I'd even cross-dress to be the traditional hag.) I think it's fun to do such things. And besides, I think that playing with the stereotypes reminds us not to take ourselves too seriously.

I went for my walk this evening. I didn't get out of bed or get laundry started early enough to commence my walk in the afternoon as has become my custom. And without clean laundry, my only other option was to walk in the nude. The chances of that happen are one in a google. Maybe even one in a google plex. Besides, considering the temperature out right now, that's jut not an option.

Overall, I give my exercise effort a B this week. I'm half tempted to go with a B-, but I think that's being too hard on myself. I actually managed to walk four days this past week. It's only one less than the five that I'm aiming for. I missed yesterday's walk because, quite frankly, I wasn't feeling well enough to go for a walk. I wasn't sure that I wouldn't get half way through it and suddenly find myself in dire need of a bathroom -- which would be nowhere to be found.

After my walk tonight, I went out and bought some music. I bought a sampler of trance music. I'm checking it out now. It's actually pretty good. I'd love to get more. Now I just have to find out who I might like. That's always the fun part. I know absolutely nothing about music. And to be honest, I don't have a huge desire to learn. I'm very superficial about my music. All I want to know is "this song sounds nice."

I also ran to Friendly's for supper. I had a lovely bacon cheeseburger. One of my favorite things. I was in a mood for some good beef. I probably had way too much, but it was worth it.

While there, I also read some. Friendly's is my favorite reading spot, after all. Much less distractions than at home. I continued on in my reading of Huson's book, "Mastering Witchcraft." I'm still having mixed feelings about it. I still think the guy's being more than a little pretentious. What gets me is that he always adds "of art" to the end of most things he's talking about. "Using your brush of art, write these runes on it with your paint of art." It just strikes me as being ridiculously wordy. I just have trouble imagining any of the witches I know and respect -- all who seem to be rather down to earth and plain spoken -- using such phrases.

Of course, the underlying reason for using such phrases also leaves me wondering. He's one of these people who seem to think that every little thing that you use in magic should only be used in magic. It should never be used for anything else. Now, in many cases, I agree with him. I think that the major altar tools -- such as the knife, the cup, and the censer -- should usually only be used for those purposes for which they were consecrated. There are good and sound reasons for this. But I'm not sure that really applies to such things as paint and other supplies. These are not the "great tools." These are "things a witch finds useful." And it seems that the no-nonsense style of witch magic would call for just pulling whatever was needed from an already existing of "mundane items." You need a piece of red thread? You go to your sewing kit, get the spool of red yarn that you bought to repair that dress, and you cut off what you need for your magic. You need to paint symbols on a tool or talisman? You grab the paint cans from when you painted the bedroom and you use a small quantity of it. Now sure, maybe the paint should be consecrated. So you pour out the small amount you will use into a smaller container and you consecrate it. You don't consecrate the entire bucket, thereby risking wasting it if you don't use it before it dries up. And I see no need to go buy something special for magic when you have a perfectly usable quantity of the same thing already.

I don't know, I just see the idea of keeping two separate sets of supplies for "mundane" and "magical" uses as entirely impractical. And that goes against the nature of witchcraft, in my opinion.

Every now and then, I hear various eclectics throw around the phrase "a year and a day." And to be honest, I somewhat cringe when I hear it. It's one of those cases where they've taken a phrase that came out of Traditional Wicca, taken it somewhat (if not completely) out of its original context, and changed what it's all about.

In the context most eclectics use it (and I suspect it can be traced back to some author somewhere, though I'm not sure which one), the idea is that one must study for a year and a day to become a Witch. It's also often assumed that one must study at a certain degree for that amount of time when for a year and a day before you can move on to the degree. In either case, it's not entirely correct.

First of all, "a year and a day" was not originally a hard and fast rule. In fact, I'm not sure it's a hard and fast rule today, but more a "rule of thumb." But before a certain time (sometime in the 1980's, if I've pieced together my information correctly), it wasn't even that. You see, back in the hay days of the 1950's, 1960's, and possibly even the 1970's, it was not unheard of to initiate new Witches on the spot. It also wasn't unheard of to Initiate new Witches into all three degrees in the same weekend. This was done for various reasons, all of which I doubt I'm even aware of. However, the basic reason boiled down to the fact that those who were doing these initiations felt it was the necessary, correct, and proper to do things at the time. (At the time, I believe it was primarily motivated by the feeling that it was necessary in order to ensure the survival of Wicca.)

At some point, the various High Priests, High Priestesses, and Elders slowly came to the conclusion -- both individually and collectively -- that this was not such a good idea anymore. They found that it didn't give New Witches the chance to truly come to grips with the Mysteries they were being introduced to, nor were they getting well prepared to run their own covens before being thrust into the position of High Priest or High Priestess. In effect, they got "fly by the seat of your pants" style training. Also, as they felt that the survival and continued propagation of Wicca was now assured, they decided that it would be more appropriate to slow down the training process and give Initiates a chance to truly grow in the Mysteries before thrusting them to the third degree and all of the responsibilities it entails. So Witches, covens, lines, and traditions began to set up systems of training to guide their Initiates (and in some-cases, their candidates for Initiation) through what they needed to properly experience the Mysteries of Wicca and work its magics (both big and little).

In addition to this, some of those Witches, covens, lines, and traditions considered the Mysteries. Recognizing that (1) a Witch's experience of the Mysteries gets deeper in each degree (or in some traditions, each degree involves slightly different Mysteries) and (2) to experience the full range and subtleties of the Mysteries requires the observance of the full Wheel of the Year, they decided that it would be wise for each Witch to experience the full spectrum of Mysteries at each degree by spending a minimum of one turn of the Wheel before moving on to the next degree. And hence, "a year and a day" was born.

It is important to note that, to the best of my knowledge, this is not a unilateral requirement among all lines and traditions of Wicca. This is just what some -- and probably even many -- have determined is a good thing. It is also important to note that this is often considered a minimum. It is not unusual at all for the teacher or student to decide that more time is needed, for whatever reason. One common example of this is in a case where a student does no live close enough to the covenstead to attend all of the rituals in the year. In such a case, the student may find it necessary to take a few turns on the Wheel in order to experience all of the rituals and their particular aspects of the Wiccan Mysteries. Or there may simply be a matter in the Witch's personal life that makes a longer timespan necessary.

You see, I think that's what bothers me. Eclectics seem to think that "studying a year and a day" guarantees one's Witchiness in some sense. It doesn't. No amount of studying -- either a year and a day or a decade and a year -- will ever accomplish that. The only thing that does that is the processes that makes one a Witch.

I also balk at the idea that "a year and a day" is always associated with studying. It's as if studying was what it's all about. It's not. Don't get me wrong here. I think studying is extremely important. But studying alone accomplishes nothing. It is the process of experiencing the Mysteries that make Wicca what it is that is important. And that's what "a year and a day" was originally all about.

You know, it's really quite ironic. After Artharaja and I talk about the Sacred Texts website and the supposed "Gardnerian BOS" they have on there, I find someone posting about that very thing on a message board. I think I managed to express amusement about the whole thing rather than annoyance. Though to tell you the truth, I'm both amused and annoyed.

Of course, whenever someone says "Look, I got the Gardnerian BOS," I first have the urge (and gave into it this time) to ask, "Really? Which one?" I mean, really, the idea of the Gardnerian BOS makes about as much sense as the idea of the paper towel. There's a bunch of them. It's my understanding that Gardner rewrote his BOS a few times himself -- or at least had each High Priestess he trained copy a slightly different version of it. And it's also my understanding that each High Priestess added to it as they passed it on to their own initiates. And that's the way it's been going ever since, though it's my understanding that some lines are more likely to add than others. So at best, any Gardnerian BOS would be one version of the Gardnerian BOS as received and possibly appended by a particular initiate. In this case, the culprit would be Aidan Kelly. And to be perfectly blunt, considering the smear job he attempts to do on his tradition's founder (and what I understand to be his shoddy research), I'd be dubious of any claims he makes.

Of course, the other thing that always gets me is that I don't see why people get all excited over finding a copy of "the Gardnerian BOS" anyway? Hello? This is (supposedly) the BOS of the tradition that most eclectics think is just a bunch of "arrogant elitist bastards," anyway? Remember that? Do they remember how they spend all this time justifying themselves by saying "well, Wicca has evolved beyond that, now." Well, if it's evolved beyond that, then why give a fuck about the BOS you've evolved beyond? Or is this just a case where deep in their hearts, they still believe that those "elitist bastards" might actually have something they want?

Honestly, people turn their nose up at Gardnerians and covet whatever they think they might have at the same time. It's sad, amusing, and annoying all in one.

You know, the Internet is a wonderful thing. The World Wide Web is a spectacular thing. It's a medium for the creative process that is available to many people far and wide. Diary sites like this one is a testament to that great fact. All of us on here can express our innermost thoughts, our most outrageous opinions, the fruits of our research on our favorite topic, and even our favorite cake recipe. I wouldn't trade that for the world.

The problem is, that's also the greatest weakness of it all. The truth is, any slob can write something and throw it up on a webserver for the world to see. It doesn't matter how ill-informed his opinion is, how disturbing his thoughts are, how uncritical his research is, or how disgusting his idea of the perfect cake tastes. Reasonably intelligent people figure this out quite quickly.

So why the hell is it that when a newbie wants to find out about Paganism and Wicca, the first thing they do is use this dubious resource as their primary -- or worse, sole -- source of information on the topic? Why is it they're willing to accept whatever someone who learned how to submit a link to www.witchvox.com says without a second of critical thought? Oh wait, I know! Because Wicca and Paganism is comprised of "anything goes" philosophy. I say "Phooey!" And that's being polite!

I'll be honest. Half the crap out there is just that, crap. Half of the sites are put up by someone who read one or two books (and I'll get into how crappy some of those books are some other time), decided they had it all figured out, and decided to share their "wisdom" with the world. Of course, half of them are really just sharing the "wisdom" some other author (book or web) already shared, often by copying their exact words. (We won't go into the number of times I've found certain things online that were copied directly out of one of Scott Cunningham's book without so much as a citation.)

I'm sorry, but if you're too cheap to actually go out and buy a book on the religion you're interested in (or here's a crazy idea, see if you can borrow a copy through a library), you don't have nearly enough dedication to follow it. Pick up a hobby instead, and start looking to explore your spirituality when you can put some real work into it.

I don't normally cut and paste other people's stuff in my blog, but this really gave me a chuckle.

The Charge of the Bunny Goddess
by Gwen Wolfrose

Listen to the words of the Great Fluff she who of old is known as Amethyst MoonPixie, Mosscovered Rosequartz, Moonwater Firedancer, Keltic Dragondream, Lady Mooncrystal HPS, Lady Raven, Malibu SparkleBarbie, and Wiccan MacMorrigan, and by many other names, most of them made up by an online name generator:

Whenever you have need of anything once in the month, and better it be when the bookstore is still open, then shall you gather and adore me, who am Queen of all Bunnies. There shall you gather, you who desire to learn the true Art of Bunnycraft, yet have not grown in your furry undercoat; to these I will teach the esoterism of true fluffiness. And you shall be free from anything that is not white light goodness; and as a sign that you are truly free, you shall quote Scott Cunningham as gospel, put curses on those who call you names, bless everyone with white light happiness, redefine everything so that it fits your way of thinking, and demand that the so called dark gods are just misunderstood, never again the burning times... except for Satanists, we can still burn them since they aren't pagan anyway. For I am covered with fur behold my cuteness. Keep pure your highest ideal; strive ever towards it and if anyone tries to stop you, change your screen name and rejoin their list to teach them a lesson. For mine is the determination to stomp out darkness wherever it may be whether they like it or not.

I am the Queen Mother Fluffer, Who can give the Gift of Joy unto the heart of man or woman so long as you are life affirming and positive ONLY. On Earth, I give the Knowledge that honesty is a crime if I do not agree with it; and beyond death, we will not discuss since death is a negative concept. I do not demand sacrifice, for behold; opening up a book does not require that much effort.

Hear ye the Words of the Bunny Goddess: She Whose Feet are fuzzy and soft, Whose Body encircleth the book store especially the Llewellyn shelf.

I, Who am the Fluffy Queen of the Earth and the White Light amongst the Internet, and the Mystery of why BTW's don't like it when I say Wicca is anything I want it to be because Scott said so, and the Desire to make up lies about them to make myself look like a hero to the other fluffers. I call unto thy soul, all ye who would be Bunnies: Arise! And come unto Me!

For I am the Soul of the Bunny, Who giveth Only Positive Life Affirming White Light to the Universe: from Me all things proceed, and unto Me nothing must return because it's your bad karma not mine so there. And before My Face, which is fuzzy and soft and known to all gods who are all benevolent, thine innermost Bunny Self shall be enfolded in the Rapture of the Infinite Bunny.

Let My Worship be within the heart that tolerates no darkness, for behold: all acts in the name of white light goodness and fluffiness are my rituals especially if Scott wrote it. And therefore let there be white light and fluff within you.

And thou who thinkest to seek for Me, know thy seeking and yearning shall avail thee not, unless thou knowest the Mystery: that if thou do not own a Scott Cunningham book and seekest Me, then thou shalt never find Me unless you google Me or join an email list full of my Children which are many because I am a Bunny after all...

For behold, I have been with thee from the beginning; and I am That which is attained at the end of Wicca for the Solitary Practitioner or the middle if you can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

Copyright © 2004 Gwen Wolfrose, all rights reserved.
May be reposted anywhere so long as this copyright is included.

I've not been keeping up with Witches Weekly. However, I decided to take a peek at this week's questions. Having looked at them, I decided they were well worth answering.

1. What do you think the role of pagan clergy is in our society/communities?

To e honest, I'm not big on "clergy." I personally have no use for them. Furthermore, a part of me would rather encourage the Pagan community as a whole to avoid them altogether.

However, this is because of the form of witchcraft that I practice. I am looking to join a priesthood, and become a direct priest and servant of the gods. As such, I don't expect to need or want the help of clergyperson. Sure, I might need some advice or assistance from time to time, but I can get that from a sister or brother witch.

Some people aren't interested in the kind of service I'm looking to take on, though. And I'm starting to understand that some Pagans still need and want trained clergy to offer pastoral, counseling, and similar services to them. I can respect that. However, as that's not something I'm entirely interested in having or offering, I'll leave that to those who are interested.

2. If there was a pagan temple in your community like the Temple of Sekhmet, would you use it for a place to hold handfasting, naming, and coming of age rituals?

I don't really know, to be honest. My initial reaction is to say no, however. For example, not being a devotee of Sekhmet, I would find it inappropriate to use a temple dedicated to her for my services. (Just as I'd personally find it inappropriate to get married in my old church.)

If it was a "general" temple not dedicated to any specific deity, I suppose I might consider it. But even then, it would depend on a large number of factors and circumstances. I think of the specific rituals mentioned and I'm not sure I'd have any of those events be a public rite anyway. If I were to have a handfasting, it would be a magical ceremony that woudl be held with my covenmates as a private affair. As such, we would probably have a private temple or workspace we would use instead. Even if we chose to use a public temple for some reason, we would probably work the rites ourselves and not involve those who run the temple.

Specifically on the subject of the handfasting, I should note that I do not intend to have a public handfasting. If my lover and I decide to have a public ceremony at all, it will be extremely simple and mostly civil. To be honest, the majority of my family wouldn't show up just because I'd be marrying another man. I don't need to add the complication of throwing a lot of "Pagan mumbo jumbo" at them. (Besides, they're not welcome to my spiritual and magical rites, anyway.)

3. Would you feel comfortable getting counseling from a member of the pagan community?

This is not an easy yes or no question, in my book. To be perfectly blunt, if I am lookig for a counselor, that counselor's religious practices are not my primary concern. I'm not sure they're even in my list of concerns at all. Sure, I might want a counselor who is "Pagan friendly" -- or at least doesn't see my belief in Pagan gods and magic as something that needs to be "cured." If I can find a counselor I can work with, though, I don't care if she or he is Pagan, Buddhist, atheist, or even a fundamentalist Christian. The primary concern is "can I work with this person to work through the healing process I'm here for?" Nothing else.

This morning, I decided to watch Disney's animated rendition of "Snow White" while I ate breakfast. It's your typical sweet and sappy Disney movie. We all know the pattern of these tales fairly well. The heroine starts out in rags, finds herself in a position of threat, hides away, makes some friends, is discovered by her nemesis, is "destroyed," is avenged, and is then revived by true love.

As I sat watching it, I had an idea. "Hey, let's read the original version out of our copy of Grimm's Fairy Tales." So after the movie was over, I rand upstairs, located my cherished book, and began to read it.

Man, I always knew Disney liked to change things, but I didn't realize how much they changed things until this reading. I had usually assumed they tended to just make things less gory (or to be faux witty about it, remove the most grim parts of Grimm). But man, they even changed the natuere of the seven dwarfs. In the original tale as told (or recorded, as is more accurate) by Jacob ad Wilhelm, the dwars were actually quite meticulous in their own housekeeping. In their written tale, Snow White (who it might also be noted was originally called Little Snow White, as she was only nine) found a spotless house in excellent order. Yes, the dwarfs do tell her that she has to cook and clean if she stays, but in the tale, it's apparently not because they need her services. Knowing that dwarfs in Teutonic mythology and lore are generally seen as the embodiment of industriousness, it seems to me that the original interpretation of the seven dwarfs' conditions to Snow White have more to do with the idea that one must make oneself productive in some way in order to stay in the realm of the dwarfs.

The other thing that stuck out to me is that in the written tale, it's not the Prince's kiss that awakens Snow White from her slumber. In fact, the Prince doesn't kiss her at all. Instead, when he comes to stay with the seven dwarfs and sees the beautiful maiden asleep in her coffin, he begs the dwarfs to allow him to take her back to his castle as "his most treasured possession." (We'll try to keep the inner feminist from barking too loudly about that poor choice of words on the tale-spinners' part.) While he is transferring Snow White and her coffin to his castle, the wagon hits a bump which dislodges the bit of poisoned apple from her throat. That is what revives her, not love's first kiss. Quite a difference, eh?

Now, I don't mean to bash Disney for these changes. Disney's animated movie is a work of beauty in its own right, and I'll hopefully enjoy it many more time times in my life. But that doesn't change the fact that it's very different from the tale as written down by the Brothers Grimm, and I'm glad I read their version as well. It just seems to be packed with so many details. In fact, I hope to explore why the story-tellers of old (those who actually recounted these tales to the Brothers) would have mentioned them. After all, these are folk tales, (and folk tales that come from the same cultural groups that developed the myths of my gods no less, so they're likely of value to me)and that means that they likely have much symbolism that would've been understood and seen as important. So some of the little details I hope to look into and find possible signficicance include:

1. The repitition of "splitting things" over the seven dwarfs (such as when Snow White eats a little from each of the seven plates she finds upon entering the house "so as to not clear any one plate" or when the seventh dwarf who gave up his bed to Snow White sleeps one hour with each of his six brothers in their own bed).

2. The three methods that the Queen uses to try and kill Snow White.

3. The fact that the Queen asks the huntsman to bring back Snow White's lung and liver so she can eat them.

4. The seven hills our mountains past which the seven dwarfs live.

I also find the introductory paragraph to the tale interesting. In this paragraph, the story-teller introduces us to the first Queen, Snow White's mother. This paragraph tells of the snowy morning where she pricked her finger so three drops of blood fell. It is upon looking at these red drops of blood, the white snow, and the black ebony of the window frame that the Queen suddenly wishes for a chile "white as snow, red as blood, and as black as the wood of the window-frame." It leaves me wondering if this is merely to describe the eventual beauty of Snow White, or if there's some deeper signficicance to these events and their resulting wish.

So now, I need to find a good commentary on this tale as well as the rest of those recorded by the Brothers Grimm.

I was just reading one of the liberal Christian blogs I like to keep up with, and discovered his recent entry about his son's confirmation in the Lutheran church. First of all, I'd encourage everyone to check out his son's "personal profession of faith" which he wrote. Personally, even though I don't necessarily share his views, I thought it was an excellent attempt by the young man to grapple with his own faith and what it means to him. I think that more young people should be encouraged to do this.

The (rightfully) proud father prefaces this by pointing out that this practice of encouraging confirmands to write their personal statements of faith as a part of the confirmation process is a relatively new one. He compares this practice to "back in the day" when he himself was confirmed, in which the confirmation process involved memorizing a number of various pieces of information (such as the Apostles' Creed and the ten commandments) and then being quizzed on it. He briefly mentions the anxiety he and his peers felt during this process and confesses that he wasn't sure how it really demonstrateded they were "ready to assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood in the church's eyes."

I'm inclined to agree with the blogger's point of view on that one. The confirmation process that his son recently went through strikes me as much more reasonable, not to mention valuable. This is based on my own firm belief that one's faith must be more than mere rote memorization of certain creeds, laws, and other doctrinal points and "bits of information" deemed "worthy." As I mentioned in my commemnt to the blogger, it seems to me that faith essentially requires the understanding and wisdom to apply all of that knowledge, lest said knowledge remain little more than "useless trivia" tucked away in some recess of the memory.

Towards the end of my time in church and involvement with my church's Sunday School program, I became more aware of this problem. Too often, our program would rely on rote memorization without actually teaching the kids much about what it means to live out one's faith. (Oh sure, we went over the ten commandments and told everyone that they shouldn't lie, cheat, steal, or the other assorted sins young children are most likely to be presented with, but a faithful life needs to be more than these things.) We filled those kids with our "head knowledge" and gave them little else. So it's nice to see that at least some churches are coming around and trying to correct that error.

Now if only today's pagans and witches would also catch wind of that idea. After all, we still too often rely on "head knowledge." What's the first thing we tell everyone who says they're interested in Paganism/Wicca/witchcraft? "Read, read, and read." We encourage them to fill their heads with information (and let's not forget that 99% of the information they'll probably find is bad.) But we don't talk about the practical, "living the faith" kinds of things.

So "newbies" become "collectors of things." They collect the various snippets of lore and poetry that have made it into the public domain (both legitimately and illegitimately), the lists of "healing crystals and their uses," the lists of "elemental correspondenses," the lists of "gods and their functions," and all kinds of other things.

But where's the serious contemplation of what it means to honor the old gods? Where is the deep searching of what it means to live "in tune with nature"? (Actually, I think "living in tune with nature" isn't as big a part of Paganism as some would suggest, but if people are going to bandy about that phrase, I think it a good idea to start talking about how to practically go about accomplishing it.) Where is the deep discussion of how the Wheel of the Year affects us on a deep, personal level?

Maybe like the Christian blogger I mentioned, these are things that will only be sorted when my own children start down the Pagan paths. Maybe it'll be longer than that. But I hope that we start thinking about these things now, so that this essential shift in focus happens some time.

I've run across several rposts of an AP article about a court ruling to allow students attending a "school for witches" in the Netherlands to write off the cost of tuition for tax purposes. Having seen it, I thought it would be a good idea for me to post my own thoughts.

First of all, I expect there to be a huge fuss over this. As the article indicates, there's already those who are of the opinion that this is little more than a government "endorsing witchcraft." And I suspect we will be hearing more of the same as the news gets out. (I can just hear the howls of outraged 700 Club fans now.) Of course, I find myself wondering why no one complains about the number of "church owned projects" that are being "endorsed" by the government due to the fact that the church can extend their tax exempt status to those projects. (Even my evangelical and rather conservative father is becoming disgusted with how American churches are -- in his opinion, at least -- abusing their tax exempt status by the things they claim as "church owned.") In my mind, all of this outrage underscores the deep-seated belief that Christians have the right to decide what constitutes a "religion" deserving of Constitutionally protected status.

Now, having said that, I have to admit that I have my own concerns about this decision. For example, according to the article, the court ruling indicated that scholing costs can be declared if said schooling increases their likelihood of employment and personal income. I find myself wondering how attending a school for witches reasonably does either. Unless the Netherlands actually allows for professional witches to hire out their services -- and for all I know, they do -- I don't see how this improves their employability. I've never seen a job opportunity where my circle casting or chanting skills have been all that relevant, let alone something that would give me a "leg up" on my competitors for the position. I might be able to argue that there are subtle life skills I have learned as I've practiced my Craft that have contributed to my effectiveness as an employee. However, that would be tough to argue. And it would be nearly impossible to argue that I'd specifically learned those skills thanks to a school in witchcraft. I'm just not sure how someone can reasonably demonstrate that an "education in witchcraft" has improved their employability except in very rare cases. (The other possibility that comes to mind is that one could become a professional tarot reader. But again, I can think of alternative -- and cheaper -- routes to get set up in that line of business.)

Of course, given where my interest lie, the idea of a "school" where you "learn witchcraft" -- and pay for it, no less -- just makes me bristle. The taking of money implies that anyone who can pay the almost $3000 and attend all the courses will become a witch. As I understand witchcraft, that's not how things work. Being a witch is learning more than the "right stuff." It's as much about attitude and the ability to see things in a certain way as it is about knowing the right things -- or even knowing how to do the right things. And these are things that one cannot guarantee a student will learn.

Now having said that, I'm sure that the people going to this school all learn something. And whatever they may be learning might be valuable. I'm just not sure it'll always be "witchcraft" that they've learned. And I certainly don't think it guarantees that every student who completes the course of study will attain "witchhood."

Sometime last week, I ran across this entry by a young Christian blogger. I decided to leave him a comment, though I get the impression he completely missed my point. I left him a second comment, hoping that maybe it'll clarify what I'm getting at.

Now, I'm going to set aside my personal feelings about his theology for the moment. I'm going to set aside the natural defensiveness some part of me feels over his comments about my religious practices. After all, at least on an "intellectual level," I can respect his right to hold his opinions on these things. I can even respect his right to express those opinions.

But at the same time, I can only feel that this is a young man without any practical direction, and that spells disaster in my mind. In all of his statements, I don't see even the slightest hint of a sense of how he's going to go about living a more "visible" relationship for God. Well, at least not beyond spouting off catchphrases and buzzwords like a motivational speaker.

Of course, part of me wonders if that's not part of the problem. I find myself wondering if he's been to one too many "revival meetings" of a certain sort. You know, those meetings where someone stands in front of a crowd, gives a number of compelling speeches designed specifically to stir everyone's emotions and get them "worked up for Jesus," but then leave their "revived" people to wonder what happened once the emotional high is over and real life set in. All because while said speaker(s) got them all worked up, they didn't do a very good job of keeping things going. (And let's face it, there's only so long you can keep an emotional high going. It's one reason churches don't have "revival meetings" every Sunday.)

What really worries me -- and what should worry all Christians out there -- is what kind of bridges this young man might burn in his current state. He's so hyped up that he almost seems to be looking for a "glorious confrontation." (Read his other two entries and you'll see more of what I'm talking about.) And while that sounds great in theory, it's a pretty good way of making some enemies. And you know, it's rather difficult to share any message, let alone the gospel message, with an enemy.

And as much as it bugs me, I have to admit that we witches and Pagans tend to be grudge-holders. We tend to look at someone like this young man who, in his sincere exuberance, tends to put a chasm between himself and those he wants to "save" by his poorly chosen words and deeds, and we tend to see all well-meaning Christians through the filter of our experiences with him. So we quit listening to all of them. The rude, the well-meaning but ill-prepared, the sincere and wise, they're all seen through the lense of past experience. And when that lense has the most confrontational of the lot embedded in it, it can create quite a distortion. (Natureally, those of us who have gained wisdom try to overcome this "filtering process," but even we can have our difficulties from time to time.

Hopefully, someone will take this young man aside and teach him some wisdom and compassion to go along with his enthusiasm and conviction. Otherwise, I suspect this will end badly. For everyone involved.

During this past Halloween season, I ran across an article by a woman named Catherine Edwards Sanders. In this article, she wrote a few comments on the growing interest in "Wicca" (she uses the term in a broader context than I do) and Paganism, as well as explaining how this growing interest represents a failure on the part of "the Church" as a whole. As part of her by-line on the article, she mentions that she also wrote a book on the same subject, whose title is Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality. Being the curious sort, I decided to order a copy. It came today, and so far I have torn through the preface and first chapter.

So far, I think the book deserves a fair amount of praise. This is not to say that I agree with everything the author says, mind you. Indeed, I think there are some points that need to be criticized. But so far, I think t