A Reference List For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part Two of Two Parts)
Richard Ballard
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat -- last
updated on June 3, 2003. Part One of this message appeared in
an earlier message. Each issue's new and significantly changed
paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.
<*> [RB comment: I have provided a discussion of Wicca-related
definitions in earlier messages entitled "Definitions for
Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)".]
I recommend the following text *despite reservations*:
9) "Wicca for Men: A Handbook for Male Pagans Seeking A
Spiritual Path" by A. J. Drew
4 stars -- A Readable Text with a Misleading Title
Most Wiccan Traditions emphasize the Wiccan Goddess and
women's issues over the Wiccan God and men's issues. Author
A. J. Drew offers a Wiccan Tradition with better female/male
balance: the Tradition honors the Goddess and God equally,
and its rituals provide meaningful roles for women and men both.
Nevertheless, I believe this readable and informative text does
*not* live up to its title because Mr. Drew does *not* discuss
witchcraft and Wicca from a strictly male-oriented viewpoint.
"Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott
Cunningham emphasizes ethics over dogma and suggests how
solitary worshippers can modify Wicca to fit their beliefs. I
believe that Mr. Cunningham's text is better suited for those
seeking a strictly male-oriented viewpoint of Wicca.
<*> While the statement makes me uncomfortable, I must praise
A. J. Drew's candor. On page 154 Mr. Drew discusses self-
initiation into Creation's Covenant's Wiccan Tradition, and
states "This is not a decision you should take lightly. If
you were raised in a traditional Western religion, you are
about to throw away the religion of your parents and their
parents."
I am *not* a member of 'Creation's Covenant'.
I recommend the following text *despite reservations*:
10) "The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion
of the Great Goddess" by Starhawk
5 stars -- A Witchcraft Tradition and Political Manifesto
"The Spiral Dance..." relegates the Horned God and men to a
weak supporting role. *No-where* in the Twentieth Anniversary
Edition of "The Spiral Dance: ..." (original text plus two
appendices giving Tenth Anniversary comments and Twentieth
Anniversary comments, respectively) does Starhawk state that
she is a Wiccan. Starhawk states (pp. 6,16) that her Reclaiming
Tradition has roots in Victor and Cora Anderson's Faerie
Tradition. Nevertheless, this text is very well-written and
provides detailed insight into a non-Wiccan feminist Tradition
not available in other texts.
=====================================
My reviews of these texts appear on the Amazon.com
website. All of the reviews appear in one place. To
access these reviews:
A) Access "http://www.amazon.com" (no quotes);
B) Click on "Friends & Favorites";
C) Under the category "Search for Friends"
Enter "rjballard"
Click GO
D) Scroll to the bottom of this short webpage
E) Click "See all of Richard Ballard's reviews"
F) Scroll down this page (and successive pages)
to the reviews of interest.
=====================================
I specifically do *not* recommend:
11) "Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the Solitary Practitioner"
by Scott Cunningham
3 stars -- A Disappointing Sequel
Scott Cunningham's excellent first text "Wicca: A Guide For
The Solitary Practitioner" defines a Tradition based upon belief
in the Wiccan Goddess and the Wiccan God, concern for the
Earth, social consciousness, and the right not to be dominated
by others. This Tradition is flexible, and Mr. Cunningham offers
suggestions how solitary Wiccans can modify this Tradition to
better suit their individual philosophy and needs.
I believe Mr. Cunningham's sequel "Living Wicca: A Further Guide
for the Solitary Practitioner" addresses no well-defined audience
for the following reasons: It assumes knowledge a Wiccan novice
will not have, but does not supply details needed by experienced
Wiccans. The sequel weakens the free and open Wiccan concepts
that Mr. Cunningham presented in his first text for the solitary
practitioner. In many ways the sequel discounts solitary Wiccan
practice and directs the solitary practitioner toward Coven
membership -- contradictions to statements and philosophies that
Scott Cunningham expressed in his excellent earlier text "Wicca:
A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner".
I can *not* recommend this text because I believe these
inconsistencies defeat the sequel's stated purpose.
I am *not* a member of the 'Church of All Worlds'. I am *not*
a member of 'The Church of Satan'. I am *not* a member of
'The Temple of Set'.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
12) "To Ride A Silver Broomstick: New Generation Witchcraft"
by Silver RavenWolf
4 stars -- New Generation Witchcraft is *not* Wicca
I believe Ms. Thayer (Silver RavenWolf) utilizes Wiccan concepts
plus New Age concepts to define New Generation Witchcraft. The
result is not Wicca: A) Ms. Thayer provides (pp.14-15) a
definition of Wicca unlike any Wiccan definition that I have seen
elsewhere; B) I believe that Wicca, with its worship of both The
Wiccan Goddess and The Wiccan God, should be a gender-neutral
religion. Ms. Thayer's statements (pg 274) indicate that New
Generation Witchcraft is not gender-neutral; C) Most Wiccan
traditions follow The Rede. New Generation Witchcraft explicitly
ignores ethics (Chapter 21), and I believe that several of
Ms. Thayer's writings are contrary to The Rede.
My belief is that New Generation Witchcraft is attractively-
packaged New Age occultism, but it is not Wicca. New Generation
Witchcraft appears to be designed for a parent having difficulty:
the parent can form a family Coven, an exclusive Coven that
avoids outsiders to the detriment of the children's (and the
parents') social development.
I can *not* recommend New Generation Witchcraft to prospective
Wiccan novices or their families.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
13) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft"
by Denise Zimmermann and Katherine A. Gleason
3 stars -- A nice Craft text with serious omissions
"The Guide ..." is very professionally produced. I believe its
primary audience is women in transition (e.g., discharged career
women, divorcees, empty-nesters and widows) who seek new motivation.
"The Guide ..." discusses a range of New Age topics and provides
a nice discussion about the Wiccan religion and witchcraft, but it
omits discussion of domineering, left-handed witchcraft. [E.g.,
some spells are punitive, some witches practice necromancy, and
some Coven initiations include (a-hem) secret rituals and (a-hem)
binding commitments.] I believe that "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham plus "Inside A Witches'
Coven" by Edain McCoy provide a better and clearer introduction
for prospective Wiccan novices.
"The Guide ..." reads like professionally-prepared marketing
literature, but I can *not* recommend "The Guide ..." to
prospective Wiccan novices because of the omissions discussed
above.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
14) "True Magick: A Beginner's Guide" by Amber K
3 stars -- A Weak Introduction To Witchcraft
I believe this text is written in a style and level of detail
suited for middle-school-aged children. It is a broad shallow
overview of witchcraft. It contains serious errors (it equates
witchcraft and Wicca) and omits to differentiate between solitary
Wiccan worship and Wiccan Coven membership. It does not discuss
Coven social structure or binding initiation rituals -- serious
omissions in an introductory text.
I believe that middle-school-aged children would be better served
by discussing Scott Cunningham's "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" plus Edain McCoy's "Inside A Witches'
Coven" with their biological parents and/or legal guardians.
I can *not* recommend "True Magick: A Beginner's Guide" to
prospective Wiccan novices because of the errors and omissions
discussed above.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
15) "Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers,
and Other Pagans in America Today" by Margot Adler
4 stars -- A Paganism Survey Text Unsuited For Beginners
Margot Adler's "Drawing Down The Moon: ..." was originally
published in 1979. The Revised and Expanded Edition is
copyright 1986 with an 'Appendix III: Resources' added in 1997.
I believe that Paganism is a dynamic, very rapidly changing
culture. (For example satanism, a religion that some people
include under Paganism, is *not* discussed within Ms. Adler's
text.) Due to its age I consider "Drawing Down the Moon: ..."
a historical description. I believe that prospective Wiccan
novices want current information about modern Wicca and Paganism,
*not* historical descriptions.
"Drawing Down The Moon: ..." is written like a sociological
survey text. I have read this lengthy text completely *twice*,
and I believe it is dry, difficult reading for a prospective
Wiccan novice. Unlike other Wiccan and witchcraft texts,
"Drawing Down The Moon: ..." does *not* include personal
experience descriptions. I believe that prospective Wiccan
novices want descriptions of *modern* Paganism and witchcraft.
I believe that "Inside A Witches' Coven" by Edain McCoy and
"The SABBATS: A New Approach to Living the Old Ways" by Edain
McCoy include better descriptions (including personal
experience descriptions) of modern Paganism and witchcraft.
I can *not* recommend "Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids,
Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today" to
prospective Wiccan novices for the reasons discussed above.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
16) "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
Warlocks, & Covens" by Paul Huson
4 stars -- The History and Tools of Dark Magick
I believe Wicca is a magick user's religion celebrating human
fertility and the Earth's fertility -- a beneficient religion.
I believe that witchcraft is goal-oriented use of magick and
magickal tools with *no* ethical and *no* moral constraints --
potentially evil magick use that contradicts the Wiccan Rede
("An Ye harm none, do what Ye will"). I do *not* equate
witchcraft to Wicca.
"Mastering Witchcraft: ..." provides Paul Huson's historical
views of daemons (fallen angels). Mr. Huson attributes magick
to the Nephilim, the children of the 'sons of God' (Genesis 6:4)
who mated with the daughters of man. The Nephilim exist in other
cultures' histories -- e.g., the Norse Giants and the Greek Titans.
According to Mr. Huson the Nephilim perished during the Great
Flood, but their spirits survived due to their angelic nature.
Mr. Huson states that the Nephilim are able to reincarnate and
that ***all magickal knowledge is derived from them***.
<*> Paul Huson's text makes me uncomfortable, but I must praise
Mr. Huson's candor. On page 6 Mr. Huson states "Whether you
believe the Christian bugaboos and fear to lose your soul in
return for the powers or, like us, gamble well spent, is up
to you." Mr. Huson goes on to discuss the legal consequences
of intimidation (pp. 28 and 174), poison rings (pg.44),
adulterants for food, drink, and cigarettes (pp. 102 and 189),
planetary (torment) spells for indifferent or neglectful lovers
(pp. 107-111), the Dumb Supper [a silent supper communing with
a dead spouse (and I believe punishing a separated or divorced
spouse)] (pp. 111-115), love dissolution spells (pp. 125 and
189-190), binding the victim's soul or deep mind (pg. 136),
mandrake root and devil's weed (pg. 146), the basis of vampire
and werewolf legends (pg. 152), banishing (pg. 169), exorcism
fumigations (pg. 170), ligature (pp. 179-180), bondage and
sensory deprivation [the witch's bridle/cradle (pg. 180) and
hoodwinks (pg. 220)], and erection of a psychic booby trap
(pg. 185).
I believe that Mr. Huson's text "Mastering Witchcraft: ..." is
unfair and is antithetical to a magick-users' religion
celebrating the Earth's and human fertility. I believe this text
concentrates more on ****dominating/mastering people**** than
upon mastering witchcraft.
I can *not* recommend "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide
for Witches, Warlocks, & Covens" to prospective Wiccan novices
for the reasons discussed above.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
17) "The Book Of The Law" by Aleister Crowley
3 stars -- An Interesting Presentation of Ethics
Aleister Crowley's "The Book Of The Law" is a seminal work
for some magickal disciplines and is much discussed among Wiccans,
but I do *not* recommend that prospective Wiccan novices study
"The Book Of The Law". I believe that "The Book Of The Law"
is *totally* unsuitable for novices due to its cryptic style.
I also believe that any novice attempting to read "The Book Of
The Law" would quickly give up in frustration.
Crowley's "The Book Of The Law" is cryptic reading until a person
discovers the key, but the nature of the key is controversial and
subject to (mis)interpretation. While scholars interpret the key
as a matter of faith, I believe that most Magickians interpret the
key differently based solely upon the language of 21st Century
popular culture. Also (in a manner analogous to Islamic tenets
concerning the Quran) "The Book Of The Law" warns *against* casual
study of "The Book Of The Law" by the unknowledgeable.
I believe that "The Book Of The Law" is *totally unsuitable* for
prospective Wiccan novices due to its cryptic nature, and due to
the fact that its warning against casual study makes it a topic
of *unknowledgeable speculation*.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
18) "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" by Aleister Crowley
4 stars -- Aleister Crowley Revealed
Aleister Crowley's "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" (MTP) is a
seminal work for some magickal disciplines and is much discussed
among Wiccans, but I do *not* recommend that prospective Wiccan
novices study MTP. I believe that MTP is *totally* unsuitable
for novices due to its cryptic style, and that any novice
attempting to read MTP would quickly give up in frustration.
[After having read many Wiccan texts and more than one year's
participation in Wiccan-related Internet newsgroups, I read MTP
twice taking copious notes before I felt that I understood the
text.]
Crowley's MTP discusses his ritual magick, but MTP is cryptically
written and subject to (mis)interpretation. Furthermore, there
is similarity between some rituals appearing in the "The Satanic
Rituals" by Anton LaVey (founder of 'The Church of Satan') and
rituals discussed within MTP. I believe that Anton LaVey was
*very* familiar with MTP.
I believe that "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" is *totally
unsuitable* for prospective Wiccan novices due to its cryptic
nature and its apparent similarity to satanic rituals. MTP is
valuable reading for scholars with sufficient knowledge to
differentiate between magick and satanism.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
=====================================
Some question the appropriateness of my providing *any* comments
concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I believe that
detachment is valuable -- *not* having vested interests can bring
objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my information
can be ignored with little effort***. I do *not* tell people how
to worship or practice magick in their circles or in their own homes.
And a list of Wicca-related texts based upon my study of Wiccan-,
Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts and participation in Wiccan-
related Internet newsgroups threatens no one.
*****End of Part Two*****
The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited or remunerated by Amazon.com, any author, or
their agent(s).
I am _not_ qualified to provide legal or medical opinions.
The comments contained herein are my opinions.
Some people do not agree with my opinions.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan or a satanist.
I am a single man who lives alone in his private home.
My home is my sanctuary.
*****Come as a friend or don't come at all.*****
No players in I owns.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Cults In Our Midst: ..."
by Margaret Thaler Singer
Richard Ballard
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
><*> Copyright 2003 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
>Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat -- last
>updated on June 3, 2003. Part One of this message appeared in
>an earlier message. Each issue's new and significantly changed
>paragraphs begin with a <*> marker.
>
><*> [RB comment: I have provided a discussion of Wicca-related
>definitions in earlier messages entitled "Definitions for
>Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of Two Parts)".]
<snip>
<snip>
I specifically do not recommend:
19) "The Satanic Witch" by Anton Szandor LaVey
5 stars -- satanic witches prefer cleverness to magick
Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan'. In
"The Satanic Witch" Mr. LaVey discusses his lessons for satanic
witches. Mr. LaVey's witches are temptresses who have made pacts
with the devil and use clever sexual ploys to "cloud men's minds
and make simpering idiots out of them." Mr. LaVey dismisses a
Wiccan as somebody who "either is kidding herself or has much
to learn."
IMO the Wiccan religion must include morality and ethics (so-called
'good faith') to distinguish Wiccan worship from generic witchcraft.
Mr. LaVey teaches his satanic witches to use bad faith ploys to
exploit men. Clever bad faith ploys might make a golden first
impression, but the gilt quickly wears thin -- satanic witches
do *not* have lasting relationships. And once the gilt fades,
the satanic witch moves to the next partner, and the next, and
the next. This constant whirling might create a constant revenue
stream for the satanic witch and her Coven, but it whirls her life
constantly. And in a downsizing United States domestic economy,
the opportunities for new partners will become fewer and meaner.
Where will the satanic witch find herself (and her children) when
the merry-go-round runs out of brass rings?
IMO honor and good faith are powerful magick that must be included
within Wiccan worship. In "The Satanic Witch" Mr. LaVey teaches
his satanic witches the use of bad faith ploys to exploit men
partners. In teaching these bad faith ploys I believe that
Mr. LaVey is exploiting his own satanic witches. And in the
long run Mr. LaVey's satanic witches help nobody, including
themselves and their children. I can *not* recommend Mr. LaVey's
"The Satanic Witch" for these reasons.
Richard Ballard
Part One is contained in an earlier message titled "A Reference
List For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One of Two Parts)".
Helpful definitions were included in earlier messages entitled
"Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of
Two Parts)". Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs
begin with a <*> marker.
I recommend the following text *despite reservations*:
9) "Wicca for Men: A Handbook for Male Pagans Seeking A
Spiritual Path" by A. J. Drew
4 stars -- A Readable Text with a Misleading Title
Most Wiccan Traditions emphasize the Wiccan Goddess and
women's issues over the Wiccan God and men's issues. Author
A. J. Drew offers a Wiccan Tradition with better female/male
balance: the Tradition honors the Goddess and God equally,
and its rituals provide meaningful roles for women and men both.
Nevertheless, I believe this readable and informative text does
*not* live up to its title because Mr. Drew does *not* discuss
witchcraft and Wicca from a strictly male-oriented viewpoint.
"Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott
Cunningham emphasizes ethics over dogma and suggests how
solitary worshippers can modify Wicca to fit their beliefs. I
believe that Mr. Cunningham's text is better suited for those
seeking a strictly male-oriented viewpoint of Wicca.
While the statement makes me uncomfortable, I must praise
=====================================
=====================================
Paul Huson's text makes me uncomfortable, but I must praise
Mr. Huson's candor. On page 6 Mr. Huson states "Whether you
believe the Christian bugaboos and fear to lose your soul in
return for the powers or, like us, consider the gamble well
I specifically do *not* recommend:
19) "The Satanic Witch" by Anton Szandor LaVey
5 stars -- satanic witches prefer cleverness to magick
Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan'. In
"The Satanic Witch" Mr. LaVey discusses his lessons for satanic
witches. Mr. LaVey's witches are temptresses who have made pacts
with the devil and use clever sexual ploys to "cloud men's minds
and make simpering idiots out of them." Mr. LaVey dismisses a
Wiccan as somebody who "either is kidding herself or has much
to learn."
Mr. LaVey teaches his satanic witches to use bad faith ploys to
exploit men. Clever bad faith ploys might make a golden first
impression, but the gilt quickly wears thin -- satanic witches
do *not* have lasting relationships. And once the gilt fades,
the satanic witch moves to the next partner, and the next, and
the next. This constant whirling might create a constant revenue
stream for the satanic witch and her Coven, but it whirls her life
constantly. And in a downsizing United States domestic economy,
the opportunities for new partners will become fewer and meaner.
Where will the satanic witch find herself (and her children) when
the merry-go-round runs out of brass rings?
IMO honor and good faith are powerful magick that must be included
within Wiccan worship. Mr. LaVey teaches the opposite --
Mr. LaVey teaches the use of bad faith ploys to exploit men
partners. In teaching these bad faith ploys I believe that
Mr. LaVey is exploiting his own satanic witches. And in the
long run Mr. LaVey's satanic witches help nobody, including
themselves and their children. I can *not* recommend Mr. LaVey's
"The Satanic Witch" for these reasons.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
=====================================
Some question the appropriateness of my providing *any* comments
concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I believe that
detachment is valuable -- *not* having vested interests can bring
objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my information
can be ignored with little effort***. I do *not* tell people how
to worship or practice magick in their circles or in their own homes.
And a list of Wicca-related texts based upon my study of Wiccan-,
Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts and participation in Wiccan-
related Internet newsgroups threatens no one.
Ultimately, each reader must judge individually.
*****End of Part Two*****
The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited or remunerated by Amazon.com, any author, or
their agent(s).
I am _not_ qualified to provide legal or medical opinions.
I got no problems
20:51:00
20:52:00
'Life in the trailer park'
is a *long* sentence
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Combatting Cult Mind Control"
by Steven Hassan
Michael Shields
Ah, well, as you say, you offer information. But why include Christianity
(satanism)? There are more appropiate groups for that.
wise owl
assumes knowledge that novice Wiccans don't have.
Richard Ballard
"wise owl" <burnt...@mindspring.com> writes:
>"Iiving Wicca" is an intermediate text, and a good one. Of course it
>assumes knowledge that novice Wiccans don't have.
>
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote:]
I believe that Scott Cunningham's predecessor text
"Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner" is an
excellent text that defines a free and flexible Tradition
for anyone who decides to become a Wiccan.
IMO "Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the Solitary Practitioner"
contradicts that earlier, free and flexible Tradition and implies
"Don't be a solitary worshipper -- join a Coven". IMO this makes
the text's title misleading. I also wonder if "Living Wicca: ..."
was completed by ghost writers during the last stages of
Mr. Cunningham's terminal illness -- the two texts' writing
styles are noticably different.
I got no problems
20:05:15 20:05:15
Richard Ballard
"Michael Shields" <wiseow...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Ah, well, as you say, you offer information. But why include
>Christianity (satanism)? There are more appropiate groups
>for that.
>
>>And a list of Wicca-related texts based upon my study of
>>Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts and
>>participation in Wiccan-related Internet newsgroups
>>threatens no one.
>>
>>Ultimately, each reader must judge individually.
>>
>> *****End of Part Two*****
I distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
My perception is that satanism is more a dominance philosophy
than a religion. I believe that 21st Century society is growing
poorer, and some peoples' response is to embrace the
dominance philosophy contained within satanism.
Avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion -- "The
Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey makes that clear.
However IMO more people today (in response to worsening
economic conditions) are embracing the satanic dominance
attitude/philosophy rather than the religion.
I got no problems
20:05:15 20:05:15
Wise Owl
(and Hell) are an integral part of Christian mythology.
Wise Owl
> contradicts that earlier, free and flexible Tradition and implies
> "Don't be a solitary worshipper -- join a Coven".
Well, let's see. On page 34 of "Living Wicca," he writes: '"But such
initiations (as described) won't be recognized by covens." Solitary Wiccans
don't belong in covens.'
In the chapter on tools, he writes: "The use of these tools (study, thought,
prayer and experimentation) is the most effective method by which Solitary
Wiccans can increase their knowledge and understanding of Wicca."
In the chapter on teaching he writes: "Since we're Solitary Wiccans, it
certainly isn't necessary to teach others. However, it can be especially
rewarding..."
This is the thrust of the whole book! I could quote from it all day.
Incidentally, your comments on a lack of focus on romantic love in Wiccan
writing also struck me as strange. I have seen numerous examples of it. For
example, Gwydion O'Hara writes in "Pagan Ways:" 'The bonding of a man and a
woman can be a sacred act of devotion and understanding. Through deep and
spiritual love a man may better come to understand the female nature and a
woman better understand the male nature. .... It is said that we are
spiritually both male and female. To this end, the man-woman relationship is
given as a sacrad gift from the Gods.'
Richard Ballard
"Wise Owl" <wiseow...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>IMO "Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the Solitary Practitioner"
>>contradicts that earlier, free and flexible Tradition and implies
>>"Don't be a solitary worshipper -- join a Coven".
>
>Well, let's see. On page 34 of "Living Wicca," he writes: '"But
>such initiations (as described) won't be recognized by covens."
>Solitary Wiccans don't belong in covens.'
Here "Living Wicca: ..." is pointing out a potential disadvantage
of Wiccan solitary worship. BTW, the quoted statement is not
universally true. In the predecessor text "Wicca: A Guide For
The Solitary Practitioner" Scott Cunningham proposes a free and
modifiable Wiccan Tradition. And in "The Tree: The Complete
Book of Saxon Witchcraft" author Raymond Buckland presents his
Seax-Wica Tradition. The Seax-Wica Tradition includes the
ability to leave and reenter a Coven at any time with *no penalty*.
And in the Seax-Wica Tradition, Covens recognize solitary
worshippers who have self-initiated. Clearly these flexible
features could be incorporated within the free and flexible
Tradition that Scott Cunningham proposes in "Wicca: A Guide For
The Solitary Practitioner"
>In the chapter on tools, he writes: "The use of these tools (study,
>thought, prayer and experimentation) is the most effective method
>by which Solitary Wiccans can increase their knowledge and
>understanding of Wicca."
I do not understand your point, other than noting that the
quotation mentions Wiccan solitary worshippers. There might
be some limitation on the 'experimentation' available to
Wiccan solitary worshippers.
>In the chapter on teaching he writes: "Since we're Solitary
>Wiccans, it certainly isn't necessary to teach others. However,
>it can be especially rewarding..."
>
>This is the thrust of the whole book! I could quote from it all day.
Again I do not understand your point, other than noting that the
quotation mentions Wiccan solitary worshippers. Other texts (for
example "Inside A Witches' Coven" by Edain McCoy) discuss the
concepts of 'circles' -- social groups that meet to discuss
Craft-related issues but that do *not* include the oath-bound
information or the binding commitments that I associate with
Wiccan Coven membership. Wiccan solitary worshippers could
participate in social circles without becoming Coven members.
IMO the 'circle' concept allows Wiccan solitary worshippers
to retain their free and modifiable Tradition (and their
autonomy) while gaining most of the advantages associated
with Wiccan Coven membership.
IMO the thrust of "Living Wicca: ..." is to point out the
DISadvantages of Wiccan solitary worship, implying that any
person who chooses to become a Wiccan should join a Coven. This
thrust runs counter to the text's title.
>Incidentally, your comments on a lack of focus on romantic love in
>Wiccan writing also struck me as strange. I have seen numerous
>examples of it. For example, Gwydion O'Hara writes in "Pagan Ways:"
>'The bonding of a man and a woman can be a sacred act of devotion
>and understanding. Through deep and spiritual love a man may better
>come to understand the female nature and a woman better understand
>the male nature. .... It is said that we are spiritually both male
>and female. To this end, the man-woman relationship is given as a
>sacrad gift from the Gods.'
Your quotation parallels the Taoist concept of yin and yang
and IMO is *not* related to romantic love.
I have not read "Pagan Ways: ...". My earlier comments (in a
different thread) concerning Wicca's apparent lack of romantic
love were motivated by the fact that in some Wiccan Traditions,
the High Priest/ess designates couples at each sabbat celebration
(possibly including the coupling of Wiccan parents' children).
IMO this social whirl does not reinforce romantic love or stable
(biological) family relationships. Teaching is teaching, but IMO
this sabbat-related social whirl is wasteful. Partners invest
their time and energy in each other, but continuously switching
partners at each sabbat destroys earlier investments.
Richard Ballard
"Wise Owl" <wiseow...@mindspring.com> writes:
>It isn't possible to distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
>Satan (and Hell) are an integral part of Christian mythology.
>
>>I distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
>>
>>My perception is that satanism is more a dominance philosophy
>>than a religion. I believe that 21st Century society is growing
>>poorer, and some peoples' response is to embrace the
>>dominance philosophy contained within satanism.
>>
>>Avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion -- "The
>>Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey makes that clear.
>>However IMO more people today (in response to worsening
>>economic conditions) are embracing the satanic dominance
>>attitude/philosophy rather than the religion.
My understanding is that satanism has rejected Christianity's
tenets, choosing a left-handed dominant path of its own. In
that sense, satanism acknowledges Christianity by rejecting
Christianity.
My experience is that Christianity does not concentrate on
satan or hell. And in my experience Christianity ignores
(rather than acknowledges) satanism.
I am not qualified to provide religious opinions.
arb
> published in 1979. The Revised and Expanded Edition is
> copyright 1986 with an 'Appendix III: Resources' added in 1997.
> I believe that Paganism is a dynamic, very rapidly changing
> culture. (For example satanism, a religion that some people
> include under Paganism, is *not* discussed within Ms. Adler's text.)
Why should it be? Her book is a survey of Paganism, not Christianity.
arb
Wise Owl
> >Well, let's see. On page 34 of "Living Wicca," he writes: '"But
> >such initiations (as described) won't be recognized by covens."
> >Solitary Wiccans don't belong in covens.'
>
> Here "Living Wicca: ..." is pointing out a potential disadvantage
> of Wiccan solitary worship.
You are being deliberately obtuse. That is NOT the point of the author.
BTW, the quoted statement is not
> universally true.
I didn't say it was.
> >In the chapter on tools, he writes: "The use of these tools (study,
> >thought, prayer and experimentation) is the most effective method
> >by which Solitary Wiccans can increase their knowledge and
> >understanding of Wicca."
>
> I do not understand your point, other than noting that the
> quotation mentions Wiccan solitary worshippers.
The point is, the author is guiding readers to solitary practice. I could
quote 100's of examples from the book.
There might
> be some limitation on the 'experimentation' available to
> Wiccan solitary worshippers.
>
> >In the chapter on teaching he writes: "Since we're Solitary
> >Wiccans, it certainly isn't necessary to teach others. However,
> >it can be especially rewarding..."
> >
> >This is the thrust of the whole book! I could quote from it all day.
>
> Again I do not understand your point, other than noting that the
The point is, the author is guiding readers to solitary practice. I could
quote 100's of examples from the book
Jani
"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030712204057...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> In article <bepnn3$e82$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Wise Owl" <wiseow...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >It isn't possible to distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
> >Satan (and Hell) are an integral part of Christian mythology.
> >
> >>I distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
> >>
> >>My perception is that satanism is more a dominance philosophy
> >>than a religion. I believe that 21st Century society is growing
> >>poorer, and some peoples' response is to embrace the
> >>dominance philosophy contained within satanism.
> >>
> >>Avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion -- "The
> >>Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey makes that clear.
> >>However IMO more people today (in response to worsening
> >>economic conditions) are embracing the satanic dominance
> >>attitude/philosophy rather than the religion.
>
> My understanding is that satanism has rejected Christianity's
> tenets, choosing a left-handed dominant path of its own. In
> that sense, satanism acknowledges Christianity by rejecting
> Christianity.
The concept of left-hand path is derived from christianity, though. As far
as I know, satanists themselves do not see it as "left-hand", any more than
pagans define themselves as "not-christian".
>
> My experience is that Christianity does not concentrate on
> satan or hell. And in my experience Christianity ignores
> (rather than acknowledges) satanism.
Hmm. There seems to be an increasing interest in exorcism and the like
amongst Brit christians, which would tend to belie that ..
Jani
Richard Ballard
Circles and Covens.
In article <20030712204059...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
In many ways unmoderated Internet newsgroups like
alt.religion.wicca (ARW) serve as Pagan 'Circles', allowing
free discussion of Pagan concepts and issues. Anyone
and anybody are free to participate in ARW, and anyone
and anybody are free to ignore ARW participants and to
delete uninteresting ARW message threads. The result
is unstructured and chaotic but is free and unbound.
Some will dislike my next statement, but IMO *moderated*
Internet newsgroups like alt.religion.wicca.moderated
(ARWM) resemble 'Covens'. The moderators act as
High Priest/ess, controlling the message threads that
appear on the moderated newsgroup and controlling
which individuals are allowed to provide messages to the
moderated newsgroup. Established and approved moderated
newsgroup members provide messages without moderator
oversight. Controversial moderated newsgroup members
receive continuous and keen moderator oversight, and *who*
is considered 'controversial' depends upon which newsgroup
moderator is active at a given time. (For example, all
moderators are not equally concerned about gender issues.)
The moderators urge argumentative dialogue participants
to transfer their dialogue to direct e-mail (rather than air
the dialogue publicly on the moderated newsgroup), but
'argumentative (and contentless)' is a judgment call.
The result is an orderly and on-topic newsgroup, but free
discussion can be constrained by moderator concerns.
I began my Pagan-related Internet newsgroup participation
in November 1999 on Internet newsgroup ARWM. The ARWM
moderators and participants were knowledgable and I
learned much through my ARWM participation. Gradually I
increased my Internet newsgroup scope to include other
Pagan-related newsgroups. I avoided ARW for several years --
excessive message volume and too chaotic.
As I became increasingly knowledgable about Wicca and
Paganism my ARWM participation became increasingly
controversial. My relationship with the ARWM moderators
remained orderly, but increasingly the messages that I
provided to Internet newsgroup ARWM inexplicably did
*not* appear. In early 2003 I dropped my participation in
Internet newsgroup ARWM and switched to Internet newsgroup
ARW, preferring ARW's free and open forum to (IMO) ARWM's
orderly but constrained forum.
Wiccan Coven members take an oath to abide by the High
Priest/ess's authority and decisions. As individuals grow
(and as different people assume the High Priest/ess's
office), keeping oathbound obedience to the Coven High
Priest/ess's authority might pose difficult and unanticipated
problems. Liberal Coven members might chafe under a
conservative High Priest/ess's authority, and conservative
Coven members might chafe under a liberal High Priest/ess's
authority.
IMO Circles provide the same social and discussion
possibilities as Covens, but Circle participants are not
bound by Coven oaths, are not bound by oathbound secrets,
and are not bound by the authority of the Coven High Priest/ess.
Circle participants have retained their individual autonomy.
Jani
> Some will dislike my next statement, but IMO *moderated*
> Internet newsgroups like alt.religion.wicca.moderated
> (ARWM) resemble 'Covens'. The moderators act as
> High Priest/ess, controlling the message threads that
> appear on the moderated newsgroup and controlling
> which individuals are allowed to provide messages to the
> moderated newsgroup. Established and approved moderated
> newsgroup members provide messages without moderator
> oversight. Controversial moderated newsgroup members
> receive continuous and keen moderator oversight, and *who*
> is considered 'controversial' depends upon which newsgroup
> moderator is active at a given time. (For example, all
> moderators are not equally concerned about gender issues.)
As I understand it, the moderators work according to the charter, not their
personal prejudices and predilictions. That's why some posts are let through
despite general dislike for the poster, because the content of the post is
valid.
> The moderators urge argumentative dialogue participants
> to transfer their dialogue to direct e-mail (rather than air
> the dialogue publicly on the moderated newsgroup), but
> 'argumentative (and contentless)' is a judgment call.
> The result is an orderly and on-topic newsgroup, but free
> discussion can be constrained by moderator concerns.
I disagree. Free discussion is constrained only by a rejection of personal
attacks on other posters.
> Wiccan Coven members take an oath to abide by the High
> Priest/ess's authority and decisions. As individuals grow
> (and as different people assume the High Priest/ess's
> office), keeping oathbound obedience to the Coven High
> Priest/ess's authority might pose difficult and unanticipated
> problems. Liberal Coven members might chafe under a
> conservative High Priest/ess's authority, and conservative
> Coven members might chafe under a liberal High Priest/ess's
> authority.
An oath is a bond between individual and deity. Personal politics are not
relevant. It is the office of HP which can be considered as interpretative,
not the individual.
> IMO Circles provide the same social and discussion
> possibilities as Covens, but Circle participants are not
> bound by Coven oaths, are not bound by oathbound secrets,
> and are not bound by the authority of the Coven High Priest/ess.
> Circle participants have retained their individual autonomy.
A Gardnerian coven would have little use for members who did not have
individual autonomy. A cult group would, and so, apparently, do wikkins. A
genuinely autonomous individual makes a conscious and aware choice to be
oathbound and, should other people be involved, must always be prepared for
the offer of oath-taking to be rejected.
Far too many people assume that because *they* feel like joining a group,
the group will automatically welcome them, and then retreat into a huff when
it's made clear that they have not proved themselves.
Jani
Richard Ballard
In article <20030712204057...@mb-m29.aol.com>,
rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard) writes:
>In article <bepnn3$e82$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>"Wise Owl" <wiseow...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>It isn't possible to distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
>>Satan (and Hell) are an integral part of Christian mythology.
>>
>>>I distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
>>>
>>>My perception is that satanism is more a dominance philosophy
>>>than a religion. I believe that 21st Century society is growing
>>>poorer, and some peoples' response is to embrace the
>>>dominance philosophy contained within satanism.
>>>
>>>Avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion -- "The
>>>Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey makes that clear.
>>>However IMO more people today (in response to worsening
>>>economic conditions) are embracing the satanic dominance
>>>attitude/philosophy rather than the religion.
>
>My understanding is that satanism has rejected Christianity's
>tenets, choosing a left-handed dominant path of its own. In
>that sense, satanism acknowledges Christianity by rejecting
>Christianity.
>
>My experience is that Christianity does not concentrate on
>satan or hell. And in my experience Christianity ignores
>(rather than acknowledges) satanism.
First I want to state that IMO satanic concepts permeate
21st Century popular culture and broadcast entertainment.
I urge anyone who doubts this statement to view the VCR tape
"Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages" by director Benjamin
Christensen. This 1929 film depicts witches as brides of
satan (women who have made a binding commitment to satan)
and is laden with 1929's satanic concepts. View "Haxan: ...",
compare its satanic concepts with 21st Century popular culture
and broadcast entertainment, and judge for yourself whether
satanic concepts permeate 21st Century popular culture and
broadcast entertainment.
I also want to state that IMO a binding commitment to satan
(like legal marriage) is severable (like legal divorce). The
strongest bonds in 21st Century society are financial bonds.
IMO in the 21st Century a binding commitment to satan can
be broken *at some cost*. The magnitude of that cost depends
upon the friendly resources the bound individual has -- friendly
resources do not cost.
A baptized inactive Methodist, I view satanism as a cultural
influence rather than a religious influence. My views of satanism
are tempered by the fact that I have traveled on three continents
and personally have viewed several different cultures. My views
of satanism also are tempered by the fact that I matured in the
late 1960's / early 1970's, a time of a diverse and dynamic
counterculture emergence in the United States. These experiences
affect my cultural opinions, including my opinion of satanism.
I (simplistically?) view satanism as a culture that states "Most
people automatically submit to authority. Satanists can use
dominance to assert their authority and cause other people to
submit to their wishes." This is my (simplistic?) view of
satanism's dominant, left-hand path.
My observations of diverse cultures cause me to believe that
all cultures are not equal -- some cultures have greater
cultural substance, integrity and value than others. My
observations of diverse cultures also have taught me that
all cultures are not equally suitable to my personal goals
and desired lifestyle.
The 1960's / 1970's was an era when the United States was a
cultural 'melting pot' -- immigrants to the United States were
expected to become members of a strong and homogeneous
United States society. One of the issues of the 1960's / 1970's
United States counterculture emergence was that subcultural
groups had the right to determine their own subculture. This
issue increasingly is accepted in the 21st Century United States,
but the issue was very controversial in the 1960's / 1970's.
I find satanism's dominant subculture personally *not* appropriate.
IMO the right to define one's own personal culture includes the
right to exclude aspects of other's cultures from one's own
personal culture. Satanists dogmatically dominate and often
attempt to insert satanic concepts into other peoples' personal
culture -- an infringement upon other peoples' right to define their
own cultures.
At the same time, individuals must deal with the dominant satanic
concepts and attitudes that increasingly permeate 21st Century
United States society. (And as the United States' domestic economy
continues to downsize, so-called 'cutthroat businesses' will assert
their own brands of dominance when dealing with employees.) Dealing
with these dominant satanic attitudes often requires that individuals
assert greater personal dominance than they otherwise would.
What is the difference between being a dominant satanist and
rebuffing dominant satanic attitudes and behaviour through your own
personal dominance? IMO the difference is that you choose your friends
-- an individual should not have to assume dominant attitudes and
behaviour to cope with friends. And ultimately a person draws the line
at his/her home's front door.
Hendrik
the more light you shine on it, the more it narrows. Just ignore his monthly
spam.
"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030712204059...@mb-m29.aol.com...
Richard Ballard
"arb" <magi...@earthlink.net> writes:
I am a baptized inactive Methodist. I distinguish between
satanism and Christianity.
My perception is that satanism is more a dominance philosophy
than a religion. I believe that 21st Century society is
growing poorer, and some peoples' response is to embrace the
dominance philosophy/attitude contained within satanism.
IMO satanists believe that people naturally submit to
authority, and that people naturally will submit to the
(perceived) authority of dominant satanists.
Avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion -- "The
Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey makes that clear.
My understanding is that satanism has rejected Christianity's
tenets, choosing a left-handed dominant path of its own. In
that sense, satanism acknowledges Christianity by rejecting
Christianity.
My experience is that Christianity does not concentrate on
satan or hell. And in my experience Christianity ignores
(rather than acknowledges) satanism.
However IMO more people today (in response to worsening
economic conditions) are embracing the satanic dominance
attitude/philosophy rather than the religion. And in response
to a downsizing United States domestic economy, employees
increasingly must deal with cutthroat employers' dominance
attitudes.
These factors make satanism significant in Paganism and
in 21st Century society. That Ms. Adler does not address
satanism is IMO a sign that "Drawing Down The Moon: ..."
is an out-of-date text.
Richard Ballard
"Wise Owl" <wiseow...@mindspring.net> writes:
>>>Well, let's see. On page 34 of "Living Wicca," he writes: '"But
>>>such initiations (as described) won't be recognized by covens."
>>>Solitary Wiccans don't belong in covens.'
>>
>>Here "Living Wicca: ..." is pointing out a potential disadvantage
>>of Wiccan solitary worship.
>
>You are being deliberately obtuse. That is NOT the point of
>the author.
As I stated earlier, I believe that "Living Wicca" ..." advocates
Coven membership over solitary worship.
I have read both "Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the
Solitary Practioner" and the predecessor text "Wicca:
A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner" both (apparently?)
authored by Scott Cunningham. In "Wicca: ..." Scott
Cunningham presented a free and flexible Tradition for
those who decide to become Wiccan solitary worshippers.
IMO "Living Wicca: ..." systematically removes the freedom
and flexibility from that Tradition, leaving *no advantage*
to the remaining (solitary worshipper oriented) Tradition
and suggesting that somebody who chooses to become a Wiccan
would be better served by joining a Coven (an attitude I do
not support).
In addition, "Living Wicca: ..." was written late in
Mr. Cunningham's life, probably during the last stages of his
terminal illness. IMO the writing styles of "Wicca: ..." and
"Living Wicca: ..." are *markedly different*.
I wonder if ghost-writers (with their own opinions and agendas)
co-authored "Living Wicca: ..." ***without *** strong supervision
from Mr. Cunningham.
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030712204057...@mb-m29.aol.com...
>
>>In article <bepnn3$e82$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>"Wise Owl" <wiseow...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>>>It isn't possible to distinguish between satanism and
>>>Christianity. Satan (and Hell) are an integral part of
>>>Christian mythology.
>>>
>>>>I distinguish between satanism and Christianity.
>>>>
>>>>My perception is that satanism is more a dominance philosophy
>>>>than a religion. I believe that 21st Century society is
>>>>growing poorer, and some peoples' response is to embrace the
>>>>dominance philosophy contained within satanism.
I want to make an additional observation linking poverty
and satanism.
The Islamic religion (like satanism) uses the goat to symbolize
satan. Islam historically blames the goat for stripping the
bark from the trees that protected and stabilized the agricultural
lands of the Middle East. Denuded of bark by goats, the trees
died; then the arid impoverishing desert invaded the agricultural
lands and impoverished the people. My interpretation is that
Islam blames satan's trickery for causing Adam and Eve's expulsion
from the Garden of Eden and for the resultant impoverishment of
the Islamic faithful on Earth.
I am not an Islamic scholar.
>>>>Avowed satanists *do* view satanism as a religion -- "The
>>>>Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey makes that clear.
>>>>However IMO more people today (in response to worsening
>>>>economic conditions) are embracing the satanic dominance
>>>>attitude/philosophy rather than the religion.
>>
>>My understanding is that satanism has rejected Christianity's
>>tenets, choosing a left-handed dominant path of its own. In
>>that sense, satanism acknowledges Christianity by rejecting
>>Christianity.
>
>The concept of left-hand path is derived from christianity, though.
I am not qualified to comment on your statement.
>As far as I know, satanists themselves do not see it as "left-hand",
>any more than pagans define themselves as "not-christian".
Quotation from "The Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey,
c1969, ISBN 0-380-01539-0, pg. 52:
"The Satanic religion has not merely lifted the coin -- it has
flipped it over completely. Therefore, why should it support
the very principles to which it is completely opposed by
calling itself anything other than a name which is totally in
keeping with the _reversed_ doctrines which make up the
Satanic philosophy? Satanism is not a white light religion;
it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal -- all of
which is ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand
Path."
I am not qualified to provide religious opinions.
I got no problems
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030713080835...@mb-m07.aol.com...
>
>>Some will dislike my next statement, but IMO *moderated*
>>Internet newsgroups like alt.religion.wicca.moderated
>>(ARWM) resemble 'Covens'. The moderators act as
>>High Priest/ess, controlling the message threads that
>>appear on the moderated newsgroup and controlling
>>which individuals are allowed to provide messages to the
>>moderated newsgroup. Established and approved moderated
>>newsgroup members provide messages without moderator
>>oversight. Controversial moderated newsgroup members
>>receive continuous and keen moderator oversight, and *who*
>>is considered 'controversial' depends upon which newsgroup
>>moderator is active at a given time. (For example, all
>>moderators are not equally concerned about gender issues.)
>
>As I understand it, the moderators work according to the
>charter, not their personal prejudices and predilictions.
>That's why some posts are let through despite general dislike
>for the poster, because the content of the post is valid.
Internet newsgroup moderators (like all humans) have
flaws and have perspectives based upon their
personal experience.
>>The moderators urge argumentative dialogue participants
>>to transfer their dialogue to direct e-mail (rather than air
>>the dialogue publicly on the moderated newsgroup), but
>>'argumentative (and contentless)' is a judgment call.
>>The result is an orderly and on-topic newsgroup, but free
>>discussion can be constrained by moderator concerns.
>
>I disagree. Free discussion is constrained only by a rejection
>of personal attacks on other posters.
In my experience some moderators (subjectively) consider
'politically not correct' statements to be de facto attacks
against unnamed subgroups of moderated newsgroup members
(equivalent to a 'class action suit' in the legal Courtroom).
In my experience some moderators use this perspective as a
rationale to (subjectively) squelch 'politically not correct'
messages within moderated newsgroups, heedless of the
quality of the messages' content. (BTW, profanity is *not*
the issue here.)
>>Wiccan Coven members take an oath to abide by the High
>>Priest/ess's authority and decisions. As individuals grow
>>(and as different people assume the High Priest/ess's
>>office), keeping oathbound obedience to the Coven High
>>Priest/ess's authority might pose difficult and unanticipated
>>problems. Liberal Coven members might chafe under a
>>conservative High Priest/ess's authority, and conservative
>>Coven members might chafe under a liberal High Priest/ess's
>>authority.
>
>An oath is a bond between individual and deity. Personal
>politics are not relevant. It is the office of HP which can
>be considered as interpretative, not the individual.
Moderators' personal experiences determine their perspectives.
Coven's _Book of Shadows_ often contain oathbound information
affecting individual Coven members. And Coven's binding oaths
sometimes include financial commitments from the initiate to the
Coven. If a binding oath truly is between the individual and
the deity, then the High Priest/ess (an office that changes
hands periodically) is the deity's agent on Earth.
>>IMO Circles provide the same social and discussion
>>possibilities as Covens, but Circle participants are not
>>bound by Coven oaths, are not bound by oathbound secrets,
>>and are not bound by the authority of the Coven High Priest/ess.
>>Circle participants have retained their individual autonomy.
>
>A Gardnerian coven would have little use for members who did not
>have individual autonomy. A cult group would, and so, apparently,
>do wikkins. ...
An individual who in good faith makes a binding oath loses
some autonomy. IMO Circles provide the same potential
social and discussion benefits as Covens, and Circles
do not require binding oaths or loss of autonomy.
> ... A genuinely autonomous individual makes a conscious and
>aware choice to be oathbound and, should other people be involved,
>must always be prepared for the offer of oath-taking to be rejected.
>
>Far too many people assume that because *they* feel like joining
>a group, the group will automatically welcome them, and then
>retreat into a huff when it's made clear that they have not proved
>themselves.
>
>Jani
Not being invited to join a Coven is *not* the issue.
Willingness to accept a Coven's binding initiation
and oaths (with some subsequent loss of individual
autonomy due to promised obedience to the
High Priest/ess's dictates) *is* the issue.
Jani
> In article <HY2Qa.10036$ZU3.76...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
[]
> Quotation from "The Satanic Bible" by Anton Szandor LaVey,
> c1969, ISBN 0-380-01539-0, pg. 52:
>
> "The Satanic religion has not merely lifted the coin -- it has
> flipped it over completely. Therefore, why should it support
> the very principles to which it is completely opposed by
> calling itself anything other than a name which is totally in
> keeping with the _reversed_ doctrines which make up the
> Satanic philosophy? Satanism is not a white light religion;
> it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal -- all of
> which is ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand
> Path."
>
> I am not qualified to provide religious opinions.
Yes, but there's more to satanism than laVey, entertaining though he is.
Jani
Jani
> In article <4UcQa.10388$VJ1.79...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> "Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> >"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030713080835...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> >
> >>Some will dislike my next statement, but IMO *moderated*
> >>Internet newsgroups like alt.religion.wicca.moderated
> >>(ARWM) resemble 'Covens'. The moderators act as
> >>High Priest/ess, controlling the message threads that
> >>appear on the moderated newsgroup and controlling
> >>which individuals are allowed to provide messages to the
> >>moderated newsgroup. Established and approved moderated
> >>newsgroup members provide messages without moderator
> >>oversight. Controversial moderated newsgroup members
> >>receive continuous and keen moderator oversight, and *who*
> >>is considered 'controversial' depends upon which newsgroup
> >>moderator is active at a given time. (For example, all
> >>moderators are not equally concerned about gender issues.)
> >
> >As I understand it, the moderators work according to the
> >charter, not their personal prejudices and predilictions.
> >That's why some posts are let through despite general dislike
> >for the poster, because the content of the post is valid.
> Internet newsgroup moderators (like all humans) have
> flaws and have perspectives based upon their
> personal experience.
I wasn't implying that the mods were ab-human. However, the very fact that
they *do* have different perspectives means that a questionable post has to
be measured against the charter, since that's the only impartial criterion.
I really don't think any of the arwm mods would deliberately flout the
charter, en masse, just to prevent someone from posting - hel, they even let
one of Tales's through a couple of months ago.
>
> >>The moderators urge argumentative dialogue participants
> >>to transfer their dialogue to direct e-mail (rather than air
> >>the dialogue publicly on the moderated newsgroup), but
> >>'argumentative (and contentless)' is a judgment call.
> >>The result is an orderly and on-topic newsgroup, but free
> >>discussion can be constrained by moderator concerns.
> >
> >I disagree. Free discussion is constrained only by a rejection
> >of personal attacks on other posters.
> In my experience some moderators (subjectively) consider
> 'politically not correct' statements to be de facto attacks
> against unnamed subgroups of moderated newsgroup members
> (equivalent to a 'class action suit' in the legal Courtroom).
> In my experience some moderators use this perspective as a
> rationale to (subjectively) squelch 'politically not correct'
> messages within moderated newsgroups, heedless of the
> quality of the messages' content. (BTW, profanity is *not*
> the issue here.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "politically not correct" in this context -
can you offer a hypothetical example?
>
> >>Wiccan Coven members take an oath to abide by the High
> >>Priest/ess's authority and decisions. As individuals grow
> >>(and as different people assume the High Priest/ess's
> >>office), keeping oathbound obedience to the Coven High
> >>Priest/ess's authority might pose difficult and unanticipated
> >>problems. Liberal Coven members might chafe under a
> >>conservative High Priest/ess's authority, and conservative
> >>Coven members might chafe under a liberal High Priest/ess's
> >>authority.
> >
> >An oath is a bond between individual and deity. Personal
> >politics are not relevant. It is the office of HP which can
> >be considered as interpretative, not the individual.
>
> Moderators' personal experiences determine their perspectives.
> Coven's _Book of Shadows_ often contain oathbound information
> affecting individual Coven members. And Coven's binding oaths
> sometimes include financial commitments from the initiate to the
> Coven. If a binding oath truly is between the individual and
> the deity, then the High Priest/ess (an office that changes
> hands periodically) is the deity's agent on Earth.
In a sense, yes, but the HP/S is just as much oathbound to the group as any
other member. There's a limit to how far his or her personal views could be
brought to bear with regard to coven business. (Bear in mind, I'm talking of
British Wicca here - I get the impression that some American covens are far
more lax.)
>
> >>IMO Circles provide the same social and discussion
> >>possibilities as Covens, but Circle participants are not
> >>bound by Coven oaths, are not bound by oathbound secrets,
> >>and are not bound by the authority of the Coven High Priest/ess.
> >>Circle participants have retained their individual autonomy.
> >
> >A Gardnerian coven would have little use for members who did not
> >have individual autonomy. A cult group would, and so, apparently,
> >do wikkins. ...
> An individual who in good faith makes a binding oath loses
> some autonomy. IMO Circles provide the same potential
> social and discussion benefits as Covens, and Circles
> do not require binding oaths or loss of autonomy.
The oath works both ways, in the sense that any loss of personal autonomy is
balanced by the benefits derived from membership - but the objective is not
to turn the members into sheeple, since their individual qualities are what
makes their contribution valuable.
>
> > ... A genuinely autonomous individual makes a conscious and
> >aware choice to be oathbound and, should other people be involved,
> >must always be prepared for the offer of oath-taking to be rejected.
> >
> >Far too many people assume that because *they* feel like joining
> >a group, the group will automatically welcome them, and then
> >retreat into a huff when it's made clear that they have not proved
> >themselves.
> >
> >Jani
> Not being invited to join a Coven is *not* the issue.
>
> Willingness to accept a Coven's binding initiation
> and oaths (with some subsequent loss of individual
> autonomy due to promised obedience to the
> High Priest/ess's dictates) *is* the issue.
Yes, but you seem to be saying that it's all one-sided, in that the
individual invariably loses and the coven invariably gains, and therefore
individuals should be wary. I'm pointing out that covens can be wary of
unsuitable individuals, as well.
Jani
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "politically not correct" in this context -
> can you offer a hypothetical example?
>
Perhaps his desire to define the Rede, his belief that In God We Trust"
is on the USA Great seal, his belief in ab ancient Orish potatoe goddess
(this at least he has modified after years to the existance of said
goddess pre Gradner), etc.
Oh I am sorry you wanted a hypothetical example, perhaps baby powder
that is not formular. *sighes* Have fun.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Jani
<ba...@dmcom.net> wrote in message news:3F11D8...@dmcom.net...
> Jani wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "politically not correct" in this
context -
> > can you offer a hypothetical example?
> Perhaps his desire to define the Rede, his belief that In God We Trust"
> is on the USA Great seal, his belief in ab ancient Orish potatoe goddess
> (this at least he has modified after years to the existance of said
> goddess pre Gradner), etc.
Ah, yes, I've tactfully side-stepped the references to McCoy. Life's too
short :)
> Oh I am sorry you wanted a hypothetical example, perhaps baby powder
> that is not formular. *sighes* Have fun.
Well, I would have thought that those posts were against the charter in that
they persisted in equating wicca with satanism. That's not a matter of the
mods being PC, or dealing unfairly with a particular poster.
Jani
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
You questioned the relationship between satanism and the
so-called 'left hand path'. I documented the relationship.
Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan' and has
authored texts available through the popular press. 'The
Temple of Set' is an offshoot of 'The Church of Satan'. To
my knowledge 'The Temple of Set' has not provided descriptive
literature in the popular press.
In the 21st Century many people question the importance of
textual references. That something has been published
indicates that a publisher has judged that the content
financially merits publication, and indicates that a
copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content --
rough indications of content quality control.
IMO website URLs are *not* acceptable as scholarly references.
Revising webpage content is as difficult as revising a form
letter, and a record of webpage content changes is *not* maintained
for later public scrutiny. (Remember George Orwell's novel "1984"?)
In addition, offsite web hosting services are not expensive --
IMO the existence of a website does not imply a significant
financial (or quality) commitment.
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
As I stated earlier, when 'a questionable post has to be measured'
the moderator's life experience determines both whether the
message originally is considered questionable, and also determines
the moderator's perspective when measuring the message's
acceptability. As in George Orwell's novel "Animal Farm", all
moderators' experience and perspectives are not equal.
>>>>The moderators urge argumentative dialogue participants
>>>>to transfer their dialogue to direct e-mail (rather than air
>>>>the dialogue publicly on the moderated newsgroup), but
>>>>'argumentative (and contentless)' is a judgment call.
>>>>The result is an orderly and on-topic newsgroup, but free
>>>>discussion can be constrained by moderator concerns.
>>>
>>>I disagree. Free discussion is constrained only by a rejection
>>>of personal attacks on other posters.
>>
>>In my experience some moderators (subjectively) consider
>>'politically not correct' statements to be de facto attacks
>>against unnamed subgroups of moderated newsgroup members
>>(equivalent to a 'class action suit' in the legal Courtroom).
>>In my experience some moderators use this perspective as a
>>rationale to (subjectively) squelch 'politically not correct'
>>messages within moderated newsgroups, heedless of the
>>quality of the messages' content. (BTW, profanity is *not*
>>the issue here.)
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "politically not correct" in this
>context - can you offer a hypothetical example?
Almost universally Wicca is based upon a three-role
Goddess deity -- Crone, Mother and Maiden. IMO the
sensitivity that some ARWM moderators have towards
female-critical generic comments approaches chauvinism.
>>>>Wiccan Coven members take an oath to abide by the High
>>>>Priest/ess's authority and decisions. As individuals grow
>>>>(and as different people assume the High Priest/ess's
>>>>office), keeping oathbound obedience to the Coven High
>>>>Priest/ess's authority might pose difficult and unanticipated
>>>>problems. Liberal Coven members might chafe under a
>>>>conservative High Priest/ess's authority, and conservative
>>>>Coven members might chafe under a liberal High Priest/ess's
>>>>authority.
>>>
>>>An oath is a bond between individual and deity. Personal
>>>politics are not relevant. It is the office of HP which can
>>>be considered as interpretative, not the individual.
>>
>>Moderators' personal experiences determine their perspectives.
>>Coven's _Book of Shadows_ often contain oathbound information
>>affecting individual Coven members. And Coven's binding oaths
>>sometimes include financial commitments from the initiate to the
>>Coven. If a binding oath truly is between the individual and
>>the deity, then the High Priest/ess (an office that changes
>>hands periodically) is the deity's agent on Earth.
>
>In a sense, yes, but the HP/S is just as much oathbound to the
>group as any other member. There's a limit to how far his or her
>personal views could be brought to bear with regard to coven
>business. (Bear in mind, I'm talking of British Wicca here - I
>get the impression that some American covens are far more lax.)
Human history is full of instances where leaders' agendas turned
in the wrong direction and the leaders' were (peacefully or
violently) overthrown by their constituency. I vote in *every*
Governmental election. IMO by making a good faith oath of
obedience to the Coven's High Priest/ess, the Coven initiate
has surrendered much of his/her right to vote and has surrendered
much of his/her autonomy. Where is it written that a
High Priest/ess's authority is limited to Coven-specific matters?
In some Traditions the High Priest/ess couples Coven members (and
their children) differently at each Sabbat ritual -- a very personal
decision. Where is it written that the High Priest/ess can not
intervene in Coven members' mundane concerns such as housing and
use of spare/guest bedrooms?
>>>>IMO Circles provide the same social and discussion
>>>>possibilities as Covens, but Circle participants are not
>>>>bound by Coven oaths, are not bound by oathbound secrets,
>>>>and are not bound by the authority of the Coven High Priest/ess.
>>>>Circle participants have retained their individual autonomy.
>>>
>>>A Gardnerian coven would have little use for members who did not
>>>have individual autonomy. A cult group would, and so, apparently,
>>>do wikkins. ...
>>
>>An individual who in good faith makes a binding oath loses
>>some autonomy. IMO Circles provide the same potential
>>social and discussion benefits as Covens, and Circles
>>do not require binding oaths or loss of autonomy.
>
>The oath works both ways, in the sense that any loss of personal
>autonomy is balanced by the benefits derived from membership -
>but the objective is not to turn the members into sheeple, since
>their individual qualities are what makes their contribution
>valuable.
IMO the secretive nature of the Coven initiation and rituals
makes it difficult for initiates to objectively weigh the benefits
of Coven membership versus their loss of personal autonomy if/when
they decide to join the Coven. IMO 'Circles' offer the same
social and discussion benefits as Covens without incurring loss of
personal autonomy through the Coven oath of obedience to the
High Priest/ess's authority.
>>> ... A genuinely autonomous individual makes a conscious and
>>>aware choice to be oathbound and, should other people be involved,
>>>must always be prepared for the offer of oath-taking to be rejected.
>>>
>>>Far too many people assume that because *they* feel like joining
>>>a group, the group will automatically welcome them, and then
>>>retreat into a huff when it's made clear that they have not proved
>>>themselves.
>>>
>>>Jani
>
>>Not being invited to join a Coven is *not* the issue.
>>
>>Willingness to accept a Coven's binding initiation
>>and oaths (with some subsequent loss of individual
>>autonomy due to promised obedience to the
>>High Priest/ess's dictates) *is* the issue.
>
>Yes, but you seem to be saying that it's all one-sided, in that
>the individual invariably loses and the coven invariably gains,
>and therefore individuals should be wary. I'm pointing out that
>covens can be wary of unsuitable individuals, as well.
>
>Jani
Life has taught me the advantages of associating with individuals
rather than organizations. Commitments to individuals tend to
be bounded and negotiable. Commitments to organizations tend to
be open-ended and dictated. And organizations change faster than
individuals.
Relayer
"Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left-Hand Path"
> In the 21st Century many people question the importance of
> textual references. That something has been published
> indicates that a publisher has judged that the content
> financially merits publication, and indicates that a
> copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content --
> rough indications of content quality control.
New Falcon press also has some useful titles for exploration of the LHP,
like this:
http://www.newfalcon.com/books/pacts_with_the_devil.htm
and this:
http://www.newfalcon.com/books/psychopaths_bible.htm
Richard Ballard
Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
Anton LaVey founded 'The Church of Satan', a fact that
ties his texts to that organization. Is the text
you reference above officially acknowledged by any
satanic organization?
I am not qualified to provide religious opinions.
I got no problems
Richard Ballard
>Jani wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "politically not correct" in this context -
>>can you offer a hypothetical example?
>
>Perhaps his desire to define the Rede, his belief that In God We Trust"
>is on the USA Great seal, his belief in ab ancient Orish potatoe goddess
>(this at least he has modified after years to the existance of said
>goddess pre Gradner), etc.
Bard, your nitpicking allusions were boring when they
first occured, and their smell has not improved with age.
If you are seeking perfection you have come to the
wrong place. If (which I doubt) you are seeking
fair comments we might have something to discuss.
>Oh I am sorry you wanted a hypothetical example,
>perhaps baby powder that is not formular. *sighes*
>Have fun.
Bard, do you *really* want me to elaborate on the
concept of (a-hem) baby powder that is not suitable
for infants, and baby powder's role in Pagan activities?
(SNIFF. If you want we could call it 'pixie dust'.)
If not, in the future please keep your nattering nabobs
of negativism to yourself.
BTW Bard, a good quote to remember:
"Don't argue with the ocean -- it ain't listening."
-David Crosby
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> Bard, your nitpicking allusions were boring when they
> first occured, and their smell has not improved with age.
Hardly allusions, do you want message IDs?
>
> If you are seeking perfection you have come to the
> wrong place. If (which I doubt) you are seeking
> fair comments we might have something to discuss.
If you would make fair comments, it would be useful.
>
> >Oh I am sorry you wanted a hypothetical example,
> >perhaps baby powder that is not formular. *sighes*
> >Have fun.
>
> Bard, do you *really* want me to elaborate on the
> concept of (a-hem) baby powder that is not suitable
^^^^^^^^^^
this is an allusion
> for infants, and baby powder's role in Pagan activities?
Yes please tell me of your personal knowledge which pagan activities use
this substance.
> (SNIFF. If you want we could call it 'pixie dust'.)
^^^^^^^^^^^
this is an allusion
> If not, in the future please keep your nattering nabobs
> of negativism to yourself.
>
Considering the amount of harm you are trying to do to the pagan
community I have been relitively silent. You have a posting history of
believing things that are trie that are patently false. Your book list
has been attacked by other posters because of some of the books you
recomemd. I have never seen any one praise your list as being a good
one.
Richard Ballard
document. Rather than waiting until 21 days before the
Mabon sabbat to issue a version containing the revisions, I
am reissueing the Lammas version in its entirety. Additions
and revisions are marked with a <*> marker.
*****Beginning of document*****
Copyright 2003 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.
Part One is contained in an earlier message titled "A Reference
List For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One of Two Parts)".
Helpful definitions were included in earlier messages entitled
"Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two of
Two Parts)".
I recommend the following text *despite reservations*:
9) "Wicca for Men: A Handbook for Male Pagans Seeking A
Spiritual Path" by A. J. Drew
4 stars -- A Readable Text with a Misleading Title
Most Wiccan Traditions emphasize the Wiccan Goddess and
women's issues over the Wiccan God and men's issues. Author
A. J. Drew offers a Wiccan Tradition with better female/male
balance: the Tradition honors the Goddess and God equally,
and its rituals provide meaningful roles for women and men both.
Nevertheless, I believe this readable and informative text does
*not* live up to its title because Mr. Drew does *not* discuss
witchcraft and Wicca from a strictly male-oriented viewpoint.
"Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott
Cunningham emphasizes ethics over dogma and suggests how
solitary worshippers can modify Wicca to fit their beliefs. I
believe that Mr. Cunningham's text is better suited for those
seeking a strictly male-oriented viewpoint of Wicca.
While the statement makes me uncomfortable, I must praise
A. J. Drew's candor. On page 154 Mr. Drew discusses self-
initiation into Creation's Covenant's Wiccan Tradition, and
states "This is not a decision you should take lightly. If
you were raised in a traditional Western religion, you are
about to throw away the religion of your parents and their
parents."
I am *not* a member of 'Creation's Covenant'.
I recommend the following text *despite reservations*:
10) "The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion
of the Great Goddess" by Starhawk
5 stars -- A Witchcraft Tradition and Political Manifesto
"The Spiral Dance..." relegates the Horned God and men to a
weak supporting role. *No-where* in the Twentieth Anniversary
Edition of "The Spiral Dance: ..." (original text plus two
appendices giving Tenth Anniversary comments and Twentieth
Anniversary comments, respectively) does Starhawk state that
she is a Wiccan. Starhawk states (pp. 6,16) that her Reclaiming
Tradition has roots in Victor and Cora Anderson's Faerie
Tradition. Nevertheless, this text is very well-written and
provides detailed insight into a non-Wiccan feminist Tradition
not available in other texts.
=====================================
My reviews of these texts appear on the Amazon.com
website. All of the reviews appear in one place. To
access these reviews:
A) Access "http://www.amazon.com" (no quotes);
B) Click on "Friends & Favorites";
C) Under the category "Search for Friends"
Enter "rjballard"
Click GO
D) Scroll to the bottom of this short webpage
E) Click "See all of Richard Ballard's reviews"
F) Scroll down this page (and successive pages)
to the reviews of interest.
=====================================
I specifically do *not* recommend:
11) "Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the Solitary Practitioner"
by Scott Cunningham
3 stars -- A Disappointing Sequel
<*> Scott Cunningham's excellent first text "Wicca: A Guide For
The Solitary Practitioner" defines a Tradition based upon belief
in the Wiccan Goddess and the Wiccan God, concern for the Earth,
social consciousness, and the right not to be dominated by others.
This Tradition is free and flexible, and Mr. Cunningham suggests
how solitary Wiccans can modify this Tradition to better suit
their individual philosophies and needs.
<*> IMO the sequel "Living Wicca" ..." discourages solitary worship
in favor of Coven membership. IMO "Living Wicca: ..." systematically
removes the freedom and flexibility from the Tradition that Scott
Cunningham defined in "Wicca: ..." , leaving *no remaining advantage*
to the original (solitary worshipper oriented) Tradition and
suggesting that somebody who chooses to become a Wiccan would be
better served by joining a Coven. I do *not* support this attitude.
IMO people choosing to become Wiccans are best served by combining
solitary worship with Circle membership. (A Circle is a social group
that meets to discuss Craft-related issues but that does *not* include
the oath-bound information or the binding oaths of obedience included
in Wiccan Coven initiations.) Wiccan solitary worshippers joining
Circles do not sacrifice their personal autonomy through oaths of
obedience to a Coven High Priest/ess, and Circle membership offers
most of the social and discussion advantages of Coven membership.
<*> ***I can not overstress this issue.*** A Coven's High Priest/ess
has the right to squelch 'improper discussion'. As individuals grow
(and as different people assume the High Priest/ess's office),
keeping oathbound obedience to the Coven High Priest/ess's authority
might pose difficult and unanticipated problems. Liberal Coven
members might chafe under a conservative High Priest/ess's authority.
Conservative Coven members might chafe under a liberal
High Priest/ess's authority. Wo/men Coven members might chafe
under a particularly strong and chauvinistic High Priest/ess's
authority. And many Coven oaths include penalties for leaving
Coven membership.
<*> In some Wiccan Traditions, the High Priest/ess designates couples
for each sabbat celebration (possibly including the coupling of
Wiccan parents' children). IMO this social whirl does not reinforce
romantic love or stable (biological) family relationships. Teaching
is teaching, but IMO this sabbat-related social whirl is wasteful.
Partners invest their time and energy in each other, but repeatedly
switching partners at each sabbat destroys earlier investments.
<*> And where is it written that a High Priest/ess's authority is
limited to Coven-specific matters? Where is it written that the
High Priest/ess can not intervene in Coven members' mundane concerns
such as housing and use of spare/guest bedrooms?
<*> In addition, "Living Wicca: ..." was written late in
Scott Cunningham's life, probably during the last stages of his
terminal illness. IMO the writing styles of "Wicca: ..." and
"Living Wicca: ..." are *markedly different*. I must wonder if
ghost-writers (with their own opinions and agendas) co-authored
"Living Wicca: ..." ***without *** strong supervision from
Scott Cunningham.
<*> I can *not* recommend "Living Wicca: ..." because its de facto
Coven-bound orientation runs counter to its title statement, and
because I believe that Wiccan solitary worshippers who participate
in Circles achieve most of the benefits that Covens offer without
sacrificing their personal autonomy through binding oaths of
obedience.
I am *not* a member of the 'Church of All Worlds'. I am *not*
a member of 'The Church of Satan'. I am *not* a member of
'The Temple of Set'.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
12) "To Ride A Silver Broomstick: New Generation Witchcraft"
by Silver RavenWolf
4 stars -- New Generation Witchcraft is *not* Wicca
I believe Ms. Thayer (Silver RavenWolf) utilizes Wiccan concepts
plus New Age concepts to define New Generation Witchcraft. The
result is not Wicca: A) Ms. Thayer provides (pp.14-15) a
definition of Wicca unlike any Wiccan definition that I have seen
elsewhere; B) I believe that Wicca, with its worship of both The
Wiccan Goddess and The Wiccan God, should be a gender-neutral
religion. Ms. Thayer's statements (pg 274) indicate that New
Generation Witchcraft is not gender-neutral; C) Most Wiccan
traditions follow The Rede. New Generation Witchcraft explicitly
ignores ethics (Chapter 21), and I believe that several of
Ms. Thayer's writings are contrary to The Rede.
My belief is that New Generation Witchcraft is attractively-
packaged New Age occultism, but it is not Wicca. New Generation
Witchcraft appears to be designed for a parent having difficulty:
the parent can form a family Coven, an exclusive Coven that
avoids outsiders to the detriment of the children's (and the
parents') social development.
I can *not* recommend New Generation Witchcraft to prospective
Wiccan novices or their families.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
13) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft"
by Denise Zimmermann and Katherine A. Gleason
3 stars -- A nice Craft text with serious omissions
"The Guide ..." is very professionally produced. I believe its
primary audience is women in transition (e.g., discharged career
women, divorcees, empty-nesters and widows) who seek new motivation.
"The Guide ..." discusses a range of New Age topics and provides
a nice discussion about the Wiccan religion and witchcraft, but it
omits discussion of domineering, left-handed witchcraft. [E.g.,
some spells are punitive, some witches practice necromancy, and
some Coven initiations include (a-hem) secret rituals and (a-hem)
binding commitments.] I believe that "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham plus "Inside A Witches'
Coven" by Edain McCoy provide a better and clearer introduction
for prospective Wiccan novices.
"The Guide ..." reads like professionally-prepared marketing
literature, but I can *not* recommend "The Guide ..." to
prospective Wiccan novices because of the omissions discussed
above.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
14) "True Magick: A Beginner's Guide" by Amber K
3 stars -- A Weak Introduction To Witchcraft
I believe this text is written in a style and level of detail
suited for middle-school-aged children. It is a broad shallow
overview of witchcraft. It contains serious errors (it equates
witchcraft and Wicca) and omits to differentiate between solitary
Wiccan worship and Wiccan Coven membership. It does not discuss
Coven social structure or binding initiation rituals -- serious
omissions in an introductory text.
I believe that middle-school-aged children would be better served
by discussing Scott Cunningham's "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" plus Edain McCoy's "Inside A Witches'
Coven" with their biological parents and/or legal guardians.
I can *not* recommend "True Magick: A Beginner's Guide" to
prospective Wiccan novices because of the errors and omissions
discussed above.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
15) "Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers,
and Other Pagans in America Today" by Margot Adler
4 stars -- A Paganism Survey Text Unsuited For Beginners
<*> Margot Adler's "Drawing Down The Moon: ..." was originally
published in 1979. The Revised and Expanded Edition is
copyright 1986 with an 'Appendix III: Resources' added in 1997.
I believe that Paganism is a dynamic, very rapidly changing
culture. [For example satanism, a dominance attitude/philosophy
and a religion (documented in 1969) that some people include
under Paganism, is increasingly significant in 21st Century
United States society. Satanism is *not* discussed within
Ms. Adler's text.] Due to its age and omissions I consider
"Drawing Down the Moon: ..." an outdated historical description.
I believe that prospective Wiccan novices want current information
about modern Wicca and Paganism, *not* historical descriptions.
"Drawing Down The Moon: ..." is written like a sociological
survey text. I have read this lengthy text completely *twice*,
and I believe it is dry, difficult reading for a prospective
Wiccan novice. Unlike other Wiccan and witchcraft texts,
"Drawing Down The Moon: ..." does *not* include personal
experience descriptions. I believe that prospective Wiccan
novices want descriptions of *modern* Paganism and witchcraft.
I believe that "Inside A Witches' Coven" by Edain McCoy and
"The SABBATS: A New Approach to Living the Old Ways" by Edain
McCoy include better descriptions (including personal
experience descriptions) of modern Paganism and witchcraft.
I can *not* recommend "Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids,
Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today" to
prospective Wiccan novices for the reasons discussed above.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
16) "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
Warlocks, & Covens" by Paul Huson
4 stars -- The History and Tools of Dark Magick
I believe Wicca is a magick user's religion celebrating human
fertility and the Earth's fertility -- a beneficient religion.
I believe that witchcraft is goal-oriented use of magick and
magickal tools with *no* ethical and *no* moral constraints --
potentially evil magick use that contradicts the Wiccan Rede
("An Ye harm none, do what Ye will"). I do *not* equate
witchcraft to Wicca.
"Mastering Witchcraft: ..." provides Paul Huson's historical
views of daemons (fallen angels). Mr. Huson attributes magick
to the Nephilim, the children of the 'sons of God' (Genesis 6:4)
who mated with the daughters of man. The Nephilim exist in other
cultures' histories -- e.g., the Norse Giants and the Greek Titans.
According to Mr. Huson the Nephilim perished during the Great
Flood, but their spirits survived due to their angelic nature.
Mr. Huson states that the Nephilim are able to reincarnate and
that ***all magickal knowledge is derived from them***.
Paul Huson's text makes me uncomfortable, but I must praise
Mr. Huson's candor. On page 6 Mr. Huson states "Whether you
believe the Christian bugaboos and fear to lose your soul in
return for the powers or, like us, consider the gamble well
spent, is up to you." Mr. Huson goes on to discuss the legal
consequences of intimidation (pp. 28 and 174), poison rings
(pg.44), adulterants for food, drink, and cigarettes (pp. 102
and 189), planetary (torment) spells for indifferent or
neglectful lovers (pp. 107-111), the Dumb Supper [a silent
supper communing with a dead spouse (and I believe punishing
a separated or divorced spouse)] (pp. 111-115), love dissolution
spells (pp. 125 and 189-190), binding the victim's soul or deep
mind (pg. 136), mandrake root and devil's weed (pg. 146), the
basis of vampire and werewolf legends (pg. 152), banishing
(pg. 169), exorcism fumigations (pg. 170), ligature (pp. 179-180),
bondage and sensory deprivation [the witch's bridle/cradle
(pg. 180) and hoodwinks (pg. 220)], and erection of a psychic
booby trap (pg. 185).
I believe that Mr. Huson's text "Mastering Witchcraft: ..." is
unfair and is antithetical to a magick-users' religion
celebrating the Earth's and human fertility. I believe this text
concentrates more on ****dominating/mastering people**** than
upon mastering witchcraft.
I can *not* recommend "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide
for Witches, Warlocks, & Covens" to prospective Wiccan novices
for the reasons discussed above.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
17) "The Book Of The Law" by Aleister Crowley
3 stars -- An Interesting Presentation of Ethics
Aleister Crowley's "The Book Of The Law" is a seminal work
for some magickal disciplines and is much discussed among Wiccans,
but I do *not* recommend that prospective Wiccan novices study
"The Book Of The Law". I believe that "The Book Of The Law"
is *totally* unsuitable for novices due to its cryptic style.
I also believe that any novice attempting to read "The Book Of
The Law" would quickly give up in frustration.
Crowley's "The Book Of The Law" is cryptic reading until a person
discovers the key, but the nature of the key is controversial and
subject to (mis)interpretation. While scholars interpret the key
as a matter of faith, I believe that most Magickians interpret the
key differently based solely upon the language of 21st Century
popular culture. Also (in a manner analogous to Islamic tenets
concerning the Quran) "The Book Of The Law" warns *against* casual
study of "The Book Of The Law" by the unknowledgeable.
I believe that "The Book Of The Law" is *totally unsuitable* for
prospective Wiccan novices due to its cryptic nature, and due to
the fact that its warning against casual study makes it a topic
of *unknowledgeable speculation*.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
18) "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" by Aleister Crowley
4 stars -- Aleister Crowley Revealed
Aleister Crowley's "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" (MTP) is a
seminal work for some magickal disciplines and is much discussed
among Wiccans, but I do *not* recommend that prospective Wiccan
novices study MTP. I believe that MTP is *totally* unsuitable
for novices due to its cryptic style, and that any novice
attempting to read MTP would quickly give up in frustration.
[After having read many Wiccan texts and more than one year's
participation in Wiccan-related Internet newsgroups, I read MTP
twice taking copious notes before I felt that I understood the
text.]
Crowley's MTP discusses his ritual magick, but MTP is cryptically
written and subject to (mis)interpretation. Furthermore, there
is similarity between some rituals appearing in the "The Satanic
Rituals" by Anton LaVey (founder of 'The Church of Satan') and
rituals discussed within MTP. I believe that Anton LaVey was
*very* familiar with MTP.
I believe that "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" is *totally
unsuitable* for prospective Wiccan novices due to its cryptic
nature and its apparent similarity to satanic rituals. MTP is
valuable reading for scholars with sufficient knowledge to
differentiate between magick and satanism.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
19) "The Satanic Witch" by Anton Szandor LaVey
5 stars -- satanic witches prefer cleverness to magick
Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan'. In
"The Satanic Witch" Mr. LaVey discusses his lessons for satanic
witches. Mr. LaVey's witches are temptresses who have made pacts
with the devil and use clever sexual ploys to "cloud men's minds
and make simpering idiots out of them." Mr. LaVey dismisses a
Wiccan as somebody who "either is kidding herself or has much
to learn."
Mr. LaVey teaches his satanic witches to use bad faith ploys to
exploit men. Clever bad faith ploys might make a golden first
impression, but the gilt quickly wears thin -- satanic witches
do *not* have lasting relationships. And once the gilt fades,
the satanic witch moves to the next partner, and the next, and
the next. This constant whirling might create a constant revenue
stream for the satanic witch and her Coven, but it whirls her life
constantly. And in a downsizing United States domestic economy,
the opportunities for new partners will become fewer and meaner.
Where will the satanic witch find herself (and her children) when
the merry-go-round runs out of brass rings?
IMO honor and good faith are powerful magick that must be included
within Wiccan worship. Mr. LaVey teaches the opposite --
Mr. LaVey teaches the use of bad faith ploys to exploit men
partners. In teaching these bad faith ploys I believe that
Mr. LaVey is exploiting his own satanic witches. And in the
long run Mr. LaVey's satanic witches help nobody, including
themselves and their children. I can *not* recommend Mr. LaVey's
"The Satanic Witch" for these reasons.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
=====================================
<*> Some people question the appropriateness of my providing _any_
comments concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I
believe that detachment is valuable -- _not_ having vested interests
can bring objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my
information can be ignored with little effort***. I do _not_ tell
people how to worship or practice magick in their circles or in
their own homes. And IMO a list of Wicca-related definitions based
upon my studying Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts
and participating in Wiccan-, craft- and Pagan-related Internet
newsgroups threatens no one.
*****End of Part Two*****
<*> The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).
<*> I am *not* an Islamic scholar.
<*> I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.
Relayer
The Temple of Set. You *were* just talking about them, the previous line.
> I am not qualified to provide religious opinions.
So why do you keep doing so.
R.
Richard Ballard
Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>
>>In article <_MwQa.58296$Ph3.5999@sccrnsc04>,
>>Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
>>
>>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>>
>>>>You questioned the relationship between satanism and the
>>>>so-called 'left hand path'. I documented the relationship.
>>>>
>>>>Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan' and has
>>>>authored texts available through the popular press. 'The
>>>>Temple of Set' is an offshoot of 'The Church of Satan'. To
>>>>my knowledge 'The Temple of Set' has not provided descriptive
>>>>literature in the popular press.
>>>
>>>"Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left-Hand Path"
>>
>>Anton LaVey founded 'The Church of Satan', a fact that
>>ties his texts to that organization. Is the text
>>you reference above officially acknowledged by any
>>satanic organization?
>
>The Temple of Set. You *were* just talking about them,
>the previous line.
I do not recognize 'Uncle Setnakt' as a publicly acknowledged
officer or member of The Temple of Set. Would you care to
elaborate?
>>I am not qualified to provide religious opinions.
>
>So why do you keep doing so.
>
>R.
My discussion reflects daily occurrences in my locale.
Richard Ballard
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>
>>Bard, your nitpicking allusions were boring when they
>>first occured, and their smell has not improved with age.
>
>Hardly allusions, do you want message IDs?
Message IDs are superfluous and flatuent because the issues
you seek to turn into emergencies are not consequential.
>>If you are seeking perfection you have come to the
>>wrong place. If (which I doubt) you are seeking
>>fair comments we might have something to discuss.
>
>If you would make fair comments, it would be useful.
You are the wrong person to judge comments for fairness, Bard.
>>>Oh I am sorry you wanted a hypothetical example,
>>>perhaps baby powder that is not formular. *sighes*
>>>Have fun.
>>
>>Bard, do you *really* want me to elaborate on the
>>concept of (a-hem) baby powder that is not suitable
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> this is an allusion
>
>>for infants, and baby powder's role in Pagan activities?
>
>Yes please tell me of your personal knowledge which pagan
>activities use this substance.
>
>>(SNIFF. If you want we could call it 'pixie dust'.)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> this is an allusion
>
>>If not, in the future please keep your nattering nabobs
>>of negativism to yourself.
Bard, there is more than one way to execute a binding oath.
One method is (politely spoken) "Now young woman, you owe me
money, your credit is exhausted and if you can not pay me in
cash you must work off this debt." (Sometimes young woman's
credit is exhausted because young woman's friend charged it
up to the limit.) Pixie dust can be very expensive, particularly
if Tinkerbell likes to play rough with young women.
No allusion there, Bard.
>Considering the amount of harm you are trying to do to the
>pagan community I have been relitively silent. You have a
>posting history of believing things that are trie that are
>patently false. ...
The Pagan community is diverse. Some are nature- and
environmentally-oriented, others are sexually- and
entrepreneurally-oriented. I have done *nothing* to
discredit the entire Pagan community. But the magick
that some entrepreneurial Pagans sell is expensive and
exploitive, both of the customer and of other Pagans.
> ... Your book list has been attacked by other posters
>because of some of the books you recomemd. ...
And I have refuted their complaints within my documents.
> ... I have never seen any one praise your list as being a good
>one.
>
>--
>news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
>news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
>news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
>Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
For that matter, Bard, I never have seen anybody praise the
FAQs you so laboriously advertise in the SIG at the BOTTOM
of each message that you POST. Can you provide notorized
testamonials, or do you plan to flood me with message IDs?
And Bard, when was the last time you revised your FAQs?
When was the last time you had something new or different to
say in your FAQs? Your FAQs are not Egyptian hieroglyphs.
I mark the new and significant changes every time I issue
my documents that you so HATE. Jealous, Bard?
Remember that quotation, Bard?
"Don't argue with the ocean -- it's not listening."
David Crosby
My documents improve at each issuance due to new material and
changes, just like ocean waves hammering the shore. If my memory
serves me, Bard, your FAQs have stagnated for quite a while --
nothing new under the sun, Bard?. Nothing improves by sitting on
its butt forever. And it is difficult to sleep while waiting for
the POSTman.
My comments are based upon my readings, my observations,
and my arms-length knowledge of past acquaintances' lives.
I have lost track of a number of past acquaintances.
Jani
[]
> Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan' and has
> authored texts available through the popular press. 'The
> Temple of Set' is an offshoot of 'The Church of Satan'. To
> my knowledge 'The Temple of Set' has not provided descriptive
> literature in the popular press.
I think Relayer is answering that one ..
> In the 21st Century many people question the importance of
> textual references. That something has been published
> indicates that a publisher has judged that the content
> financially merits publication, and indicates that a
> copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content --
> rough indications of content quality control.
> IMO website URLs are *not* acceptable as scholarly references.
In many cases, they are - both MLA and APA citation rules include website
referencing. Online academic journals are certainly acceptable.
> Revising webpage content is as difficult as revising a form
> letter, and a record of webpage content changes is *not* maintained
> for later public scrutiny.
There are web archives - not all sites disappear into a black hole when
they're taken down.
(Remember George Orwell's novel "1984"?)
The same process can take place with print copies as well, eventually - once
something is out of print, it only lasts as long as the last surviving copy.
Once that's gone, there's no guarantee that a re-issue is the same as the
original.
Jani
Jani
> In article <mzjQa.10872$B05.82...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> "Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
[]
> >>>As I understand it, the moderators work according to the
> >>>charter, not their personal prejudices and predilictions.
> >>>That's why some posts are let through despite general dislike
> >>>for the poster, because the content of the post is valid.
> >
> >>Internet newsgroup moderators (like all humans) have
> >>flaws and have perspectives based upon their
> >>personal experience.
> >
> >I wasn't implying that the mods were ab-human. However, the very fact
that
> >they *do* have different perspectives means that a questionable post has
to
> >be measured against the charter, since that's the only impartial
criterion.
> >I really don't think any of the arwm mods would deliberately flout the
> >charter, en masse, just to prevent someone from posting - hel, they even
let
> >one of Tales's through a couple of months ago.
> As I stated earlier, when 'a questionable post has to be measured'
> the moderator's life experience determines both whether the
> message originally is considered questionable, and also determines
> the moderator's perspective when measuring the message's
> acceptability. As in George Orwell's novel "Animal Farm", all
> moderators' experience and perspectives are not equal.
There was a rejected post not long since which was queried by the poster,
and a lengthy dialogue ensued not only as to the reasons for the rejection,
but also in answer to the poster's original question (which had been phrased
in a manner that was highly derogatory to Wicca). The mods, and others on
the group, were quite willing to explain why the first post was rejected and
also to deal with the issue actually being raised. That doesn't strike me as
dogmatic or didactic on the part of the mods.
>
> >>>>The moderators urge argumentative dialogue participants
> >>>>to transfer their dialogue to direct e-mail (rather than air
> >>>>the dialogue publicly on the moderated newsgroup), but
> >>>>'argumentative (and contentless)' is a judgment call.
> >>>>The result is an orderly and on-topic newsgroup, but free
> >>>>discussion can be constrained by moderator concerns.
> >>>
> >>>I disagree. Free discussion is constrained only by a rejection
> >>>of personal attacks on other posters.
> >>
> >>In my experience some moderators (subjectively) consider
> >>'politically not correct' statements to be de facto attacks
> >>against unnamed subgroups of moderated newsgroup members
> >>(equivalent to a 'class action suit' in the legal Courtroom).
> >>In my experience some moderators use this perspective as a
> >>rationale to (subjectively) squelch 'politically not correct'
> >>messages within moderated newsgroups, heedless of the
> >>quality of the messages' content. (BTW, profanity is *not*
> >>the issue here.)
> >
> >I'm not sure what you mean by "politically not correct" in this
> >context - can you offer a hypothetical example?
> Almost universally Wicca is based upon a three-role
> Goddess deity -- Crone, Mother and Maiden. IMO the
> sensitivity that some ARWM moderators have towards
> female-critical generic comments approaches chauvinism.
I haven't noticed that at all - the objections I've seen have been towards
posts which equate Wicca with the more objectionable end of cultism, which I
think is a reasonable objection to make. If the discussions centre more on
the Goddess than the God, presumably that reflects the lack of patriarchal
monotheistic male chauvinism in Wicca - arwm isn't christnet, after all.
[]
> >In a sense, yes, but the HP/S is just as much oathbound to the
> >group as any other member. There's a limit to how far his or her
> >personal views could be brought to bear with regard to coven
> >business. (Bear in mind, I'm talking of British Wicca here - I
> >get the impression that some American covens are far more lax.)
> Human history is full of instances where leaders' agendas turned
> in the wrong direction and the leaders' were (peacefully or
> violently) overthrown by their constituency. I vote in *every*
> Governmental election. IMO by making a good faith oath of
> obedience to the Coven's High Priest/ess, the Coven initiate
> has surrendered much of his/her right to vote and has surrendered
> much of his/her autonomy. Where is it written that a
> High Priest/ess's authority is limited to Coven-specific matters?
> In some Traditions the High Priest/ess couples Coven members (and
> their children) differently at each Sabbat ritual -- a very personal
> decision. Where is it written that the High Priest/ess can not
> intervene in Coven members' mundane concerns such as housing and
> use of spare/guest bedrooms?
I've heard of one or two (American) HP/S who were downright bossy, and their
covens didn't last. I have never known of a British Wiccan coven where the
HP/S exercised unwanted interference over such issues as where coven members
lived, or who stayed at their houses. I've no doubt there *are* groups where
such unacceptable interference in members' lives goes on, since I've
certainly seen it amongst Christians, but it's not something that's at all
prevalent in my experience of Wiccans.
[]
> >>An individual who in good faith makes a binding oath loses
> >>some autonomy. IMO Circles provide the same potential
> >>social and discussion benefits as Covens, and Circles
> >>do not require binding oaths or loss of autonomy.
> >The oath works both ways, in the sense that any loss of personal
> >autonomy is balanced by the benefits derived from membership -
> >but the objective is not to turn the members into sheeple, since
> >their individual qualities are what makes their contribution
> >valuable.
> IMO the secretive nature of the Coven initiation and rituals
> makes it difficult for initiates to objectively weigh the benefits
> of Coven membership versus their loss of personal autonomy if/when
> they decide to join the Coven. IMO 'Circles' offer the same
> social and discussion benefits as Covens without incurring loss of
> personal autonomy through the Coven oath of obedience to the
> High Priest/ess's authority.
If one views religion as primarily a social activity, then one could fill
the calendar quite satisfactorily with social events and discussion groups
from various faiths. I strongly suspect that this is the level at which
wikkin (as opposed to Wiccan) covens stop, in any case. There is no point
trying to explain initiation into a mystery religion to those who can't
comprehend it, one might as well try and explain transubstantiation to a
baptist.
>
> >>> ... A genuinely autonomous individual makes a conscious and
> >>>aware choice to be oathbound and, should other people be involved,
> >>>must always be prepared for the offer of oath-taking to be rejected.
> >>>
> >>>Far too many people assume that because *they* feel like joining
> >>>a group, the group will automatically welcome them, and then
> >>>retreat into a huff when it's made clear that they have not proved
> >>>themselves.
> >>>
> >>>Jani
> >
> >>Not being invited to join a Coven is *not* the issue.
> >>
> >>Willingness to accept a Coven's binding initiation
> >>and oaths (with some subsequent loss of individual
> >>autonomy due to promised obedience to the
> >>High Priest/ess's dictates) *is* the issue.
> >
> >Yes, but you seem to be saying that it's all one-sided, in that
> >the individual invariably loses and the coven invariably gains,
> >and therefore individuals should be wary. I'm pointing out that
> >covens can be wary of unsuitable individuals, as well.
> >
> >Jani
>
> Life has taught me the advantages of associating with individuals
> rather than organizations. Commitments to individuals tend to
> be bounded and negotiable. Commitments to organizations tend to
> be open-ended and dictated. And organizations change faster than
> individuals.
Some do. An organised structure composed of individuals with a strong sense
of personal ethics and integrity tends not to, though. I would totally agree
that if the individual is not able to find such a structure, they would be
better off not joining any group except for very superficial social
purposes. That's assuming the individual has sufficient autonomy and
personal integrity to recognise the difference in the first place, of
course. I have no objection to my younger children attending social
activities or public rituals (such as naming or joining ceremonies) of any
religious group - but until they're old enough to make a conscious and
informed decision about commitment, that's as far as it goes. My eldest is,
not surprisingly, an agnostic with a keen academic interest in theology and
the sociology of religion, and unlikely to be taken in by any pseudo-Wiccan
HP/S, hellfire preacher or other cultist.
Jani
Relayer
> In article <tpIQa.54342$wk6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
> Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
>
>
>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <_MwQa.58296$Ph3.5999@sccrnsc04>,
>>>Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You questioned the relationship between satanism and the
>>>>>so-called 'left hand path'. I documented the relationship.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan' and has
>>>>>authored texts available through the popular press. 'The
>>>>>Temple of Set' is an offshoot of 'The Church of Satan'. To
>>>>>my knowledge 'The Temple of Set' has not provided descriptive
>>>>>literature in the popular press.
>>>>
>>>>"Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left-Hand Path"
>>>
>>>Anton LaVey founded 'The Church of Satan', a fact that
>>>ties his texts to that organization. Is the text
>>>you reference above officially acknowledged by any
>>>satanic organization?
>>
>>The Temple of Set. You *were* just talking about them,
>>the previous line.
>
>
> I do not recognize 'Uncle Setnakt' as a publicly acknowledged
> officer or member of The Temple of Set. Would you care to
> elaborate?
The book is written by High Priest Don Webb.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885972105/qid=1058272691/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1016966-7040951?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I am told it is basically a standard primer for the TOS.
<shrug>
R.
Relayer
> In article <tpIQa.54342$wk6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
> Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
>
>
>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <_MwQa.58296$Ph3.5999@sccrnsc04>,
>>>Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You questioned the relationship between satanism and the
>>>>>so-called 'left hand path'. I documented the relationship.
>>>>>
>>>>>Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan' and has
>>>>>authored texts available through the popular press. 'The
>>>>>Temple of Set' is an offshoot of 'The Church of Satan'. To
>>>>>my knowledge 'The Temple of Set' has not provided descriptive
>>>>>literature in the popular press.
>>>>
>>>>"Uncle Setnakt's Essential Guide to the Left-Hand Path"
>>>
>>>Anton LaVey founded 'The Church of Satan', a fact that
>>>ties his texts to that organization. Is the text
>>>you reference above officially acknowledged by any
>>>satanic organization?
>>
>>The Temple of Set. You *were* just talking about them,
>>the previous line.
>
>
> I do not recognize 'Uncle Setnakt' as a publicly acknowledged
> officer or member of The Temple of Set. Would you care to
> elaborate?
Figinn
This guy really makes my head hurt.
Time to bring HP Figinn back from the ashes ...
Figinn
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030714071004...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>
>>In the 21st Century many people question the importance of
>>textual references. That something has been published
>>indicates that a publisher has judged that the content
>>financially merits publication, and indicates that a
>>copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content --
>>rough indications of content quality control.
>
>>IMO website URLs are *not* acceptable as scholarly references.
>
>In many cases, they are - both MLA and APA citation rules
>include website referencing. Online academic journals are
>certainly acceptable.
To my knowledge most online academic journals
supplement (and mirror) paper academic publications.
>>Revising webpage content is as difficult as revising a form
>>letter, and a record of webpage content changes is *not* maintained
>>for later public scrutiny.
>
>There are web archives - not all sites disappear into a black hole
>when they're taken down.
>
>>(Remember George Orwell's novel "1984"?)
The websites cited in the Pagan community are not known
for their archival strength.
>The same process can take place with print copies as well,
>eventually - once something is out of print, it only lasts
>as long as the last surviving copy. Once that's gone,
>there's no guarantee that a re-issue is the same as the
>original.
>
>Jani
Library of Congress.
Furthermore, most popular publishers take pains to note when
a publication has been revised as part of a reissuance --
it is good sound business practice to note modifications as
'improvements'.
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
In my ARWM experience, non-profane messages on a diverse
range of topics simply never appeared over a week's period after
several ARWM readers commented 'This is supposed to be a safe
(noncontroversial) newsgroup.' The experience reminded me of not
being invited to a neighborhood party. Rather than trouble
myself and the moderators, I chose to leave ARWM. Happily (unlike
some Wiccan Coven Traditions) there is no penalty for leaving ARWM.
Often issues dealt more with autonomy, particularly in one's
private life. In my locale we have a local corruption of the
word 'mason'. The corruption is "Ma's own" and the implication
is that Ma owns the house and holds the house keys, an awkward
attitude to face if you are a single man living in his private home.
(BTW, there are a number of boarding houses in my locale.) I
am sensitive to this topic, particularly given Wiccan Covens
with secret binding oaths of obedience.
I expect this issue to grow as the United States domestic economy
continues to downsize. There already is much un(der)employment
and housing is an expensive commodity.
I classify a number of groups and philosophies under Paganism.
Another common local phrase here is "You two", implying "Zoning
allows up to three unrelated people to live in a single family
house -- marry a divorced woman [preferably with children] or
take in boarders." (Boarders can be a divorced woman with
children, or less often, two single men. These combinations
have fewer housing options than young marrieds without children
or unmarried career women.)
Wiccans are included within my locale's Pagan groups that
attempt to affect housing use. A dearth of elderly housing
in my locale causes Wiccans to be concerned about housing for
senior women (who often have expended their home equity to
survive in an economy paying two percent APR on long-term
FDIC-insured CDs). Wiccans are among the strong advocates
for "You two" boarders.
I am not a Pagan and as a private home owner I experience
*social pressure and hostility* from Pagans (among others) as a
result of local housing availability/affordability concerns.
When I first encountered these social attitudes I was incredulous.
I have encountered these attitudes repeatedly over a several year
period, and consider the attitudes an unfair popular/Pagan solution to
social welfare problems that the Government is not actively addressing.
My response is to remember that it is easier *not* to invite a guest
to your home than to ask that guest to leave.
BTW, a local civil servant (who I had not been introduced to) walked
up to me one day and said "We will house four people on your
house's second floor -- you can live on the third floor." I said
nothing -- I turned and silently walked away from her.
Some people's attitude is that in terms of housing, my cuup
runneth over and I am being selfish not boarding others in
my private home. I consider such *social pressure and hostility*
an unfair attack on my personal freedom. I control the use of
my private home and whom I invite as guests (if any). To my
knowledge the United States Government has not (yet) instituted
'the housing police'.
[If my knowledge of The United States Constitution's Bill of
Rights is correct, during wartime the military can order that
the militia be housed in private homes, but homeowners must
be compensated. The United States Constitution contains NO
stipulation that allows Government to forcibly house civilians
in your private home. Of course, should martial law ever be
declared within the United States, Constitutional rights would
be suspended and ??? Given our downsized domestic economy
(with its shrunken tax revenues), given the many Army base
closures that have occured during the past decade, and given
our volunteer Army with a higher married percentage than a
drafted Army, I believe that military housing shortages are
a current and ongoing problem in the United States.]
>>>>An individual who in good faith makes a binding oath loses
>>>>some autonomy. IMO Circles provide the same potential
>>>>social and discussion benefits as Covens, and Circles
>>>>do not require binding oaths or loss of autonomy.
>>>
>>>The oath works both ways, in the sense that any loss of personal
>>>autonomy is balanced by the benefits derived from membership -
>>>but the objective is not to turn the members into sheeple, since
>>>their individual qualities are what makes their contribution
>>>valuable.
>>
>>IMO the secretive nature of the Coven initiation and rituals
>>makes it difficult for initiates to objectively weigh the benefits
>>of Coven membership versus their loss of personal autonomy if/when
>>they decide to join the Coven. IMO 'Circles' offer the same
>>social and discussion benefits as Covens without incurring loss of
>>personal autonomy through the Coven oath of obedience to the
>>High Priest/ess's authority.
>
>If one views religion as primarily a social activity, then one
>could fill the calendar quite satisfactorily with social events
>and discussion groups from various faiths. I strongly suspect
>that this is the level at which wikkin (as opposed to Wiccan)
>covens stop, in any case. There is no point trying to explain
>initiation into a mystery religion to those who can't comprehend
>it, one might as well try and explain transubstantiation to
>a baptist.
Life is full of mysteries. Some mysteries are very expensive
to explore.
Covens have different methods to solve their problems.
Some of the methods are entrepreneural. IMO there are
real advantages for somebody who chooses to become a
Wiccan to learn *exactly* what benefits Covens offer beyond
'solitary worshipper who participates in a Circle' before
taking Coven binding oaths of obedience. And ask the cost.
Richard Ballard
Relayer <rel...@dreamtheater.zzn.com> writes:
<Amazon.com URL snipped by RB>
>I am told it is basically a standard primer for the TOS.
>
><shrug>
>
>R.
Thank you for the information.
j11
nos...@verizon.net wrote on 07/15/2003 10:01 AM:
> "Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030715054718...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> This guy really makes my head hurt.
>
> Time to bring HP Figinn back from the ashes ...
Please. I miss HP Figinn; especially at times like these...
I got no problems either.
j11
Richard Ballard
"Figinn" <nos...@verizon.net> writes:
You again? I would expect a Phoenix to rise from the ashes.
Figinn I would expect to rise from the pages of Charles Dickens'
"Oliver Twist".
Next I expect you to tell me that The Artful Dodger
drives an oversize RAM pickup truck with Jethro Tull's
"Thick As A Brick" blaring on the CD player ...
Figinn
> In article <_OTQa.2973$s_3...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>,
> "Figinn" <nos...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> >"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030715054718...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >
> >This guy really makes my head hurt.
> >
> >Time to bring HP Figinn back from the ashes ...
> >
> >Figinn
> You again? I would expect a Phoenix to rise from the ashes.
> Figinn I would expect to rise from the pages of Charles Dickens'
> "Oliver Twist".
Well, I'm assuming that you knew "Fagan" was the Oliver Twist character and
were just attempting to be cute.
> Next I expect you to tell me that The Artful Dodger
> drives an oversize RAM pickup truck with Jethro Tull's
> "Thick As A Brick" blaring on the CD player ...
Figinn doesn't like Jethro Tull. Don't know about Fagan tho.
Figinn
25-6-4
867-5309
Figinn
news:BB39AC28.8ED0%j4hd...@earthlink.net...
> in article _OTQa.2973$s_3...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net, Figinn at
> nos...@verizon.net wrote on 07/15/2003 10:01 AM:
>
> > "Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030715054718...@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >
> > This guy really makes my head hurt.
> >
> > Time to bring HP Figinn back from the ashes ...
>
> Please. I miss HP Figinn; especially at times like these...
> I got no problems either.
> j11
As soon as the additions are done. You still have to submit your fashion
stuff tho :)
Figinn
Jani
> Bard, there is more than one way to execute a binding oath.
>
> One method is (politely spoken) "Now young woman, you owe me
> money, your credit is exhausted and if you can not pay me in
> cash you must work off this debt." (Sometimes young woman's
> credit is exhausted because young woman's friend charged it
> up to the limit.) Pixie dust can be very expensive, particularly
> if Tinkerbell likes to play rough with young women.
>
> No allusion there, Bard.
Yes, Richard, it's all allusion and implication. If you mean to say that
pagans are drug-dealers, then please say so. If you have no evidence to
substantiate this, then your allusions and hints are mere propaganda.
> >Considering the amount of harm you are trying to do to the
> >pagan community I have been relitively silent. You have a
> >posting history of believing things that are trie that are
> >patently false. ...
> The Pagan community is diverse. Some are nature- and
> environmentally-oriented, others are sexually- and
> entrepreneurally-oriented. I have done *nothing* to
> discredit the entire Pagan community. But the magick
> that some entrepreneurial Pagans sell is expensive and
> exploitive, both of the customer and of other Pagans.
Bard stated that you were *trying* to do harm to paganism, and that does
appear to be the case. You refer, allusively, to what appears to be
drug-dealing, prostitution and abuse that you, personally, have observed -
and attribute it all to pagans and wiccans. If you have evidence, then
please present it. I very much doubt that pagans wish to have the same
accusations of deliberate hiding-from-the-truth levelled at them, as have
been levelled at christians over the past few years, but your
unsubstantiated hints and digs give pagans no opportunity to deal with the
matters that you purport to expose.
> For that matter, Bard, I never have seen anybody praise the
> FAQs you so laboriously advertise in the SIG at the BOTTOM
> of each message that you POST. Can you provide notorized
> testamonials, or do you plan to flood me with message IDs?
> And Bard, when was the last time you revised your FAQs?
> When was the last time you had something new or different to
> say in your FAQs? Your FAQs are not Egyptian hieroglyphs.
>
> I mark the new and significant changes every time I issue
> my documents that you so HATE. Jealous, Bard?
Control, Richard. Bard has never expressed hatred towards you, or your
posts, nor has he indicated any jealousy of you. You are the one
demonstrating a lack of control, here.
Jani
Jani
<snip>
Richard, this is ninety-nine-percent complaining about the way your local
housing policies operate, and very little to do with paganism or coven
structure. If you don't own your property outright, and it's possible for
the local council to re-allocate the house you live in, then you should take
it up with whatever your equivalent of the municipal authority is. If you
own it outright, then what is the problem?
If you're serious about this complaint of local people pressurising you to
take in lodgers, then for gods' sake say so, and you might get some valuable
feedback. Local political pressure happens *everywhere* and has nowt to do
with paganism.
Jani
Richard Ballard
"Figinn" <nos...@verizon.net> writes:
>"j11" <j4hd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:BB39AC28.8ED0%j4hd...@earthlink.net...
>
>>in article _OTQa.2973$s_3...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net, Figinn at
>>nos...@verizon.net wrote on 07/15/2003 10:01 AM:
>>
>>>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:20030715054718...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>>>
>>>This guy really makes my head hurt.
>>>
>>>Time to bring HP Figinn back from the ashes ...
>>
>>Please. I miss HP Figinn; especially at times like these...
>>I got no problems either.
>>j11
>
>As soon as the additions are done. You still have to submit
>your fashion stuff tho :)
>
>Figinn
Talk to Jeff, Ptah or Lisa.
Originally I met them at the Lounge.
Nothing to work up a sweat about.
Fashion should suit the environment.
I got no problems
20:05:50 20:05:50
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030715054718...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
>>In article <3F12D0...@dmcom.net>, ba...@dmcom.net writes:
>>
>>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>
>>Bard, there is more than one way to execute a binding oath.
>>
>>One method is (politely spoken) "Now young woman, you owe me
>>money, your credit is exhausted and if you can not pay me in
>>cash you must work off this debt." (Sometimes young woman's
>>credit is exhausted because young woman's friend charged it
>>up to the limit.) Pixie dust can be very expensive,
>>particularly if Tinkerbell likes to play rough with young women.
>>
>>No allusion there, Bard.
>
>Yes, Richard, it's all allusion and implication. If you mean to
>say that pagans are drug-dealers, then please say so. If you have
>no evidence to substantiate this, then your allusions and hints
>are mere propaganda.
As I stated previously, I have done *nothing* to discredit
the entire Pagan community -- a few bad apples does
not discredit appledom, and a few bad peaches does not
discredit peachdom. But drugs (and drug-related debts)
are one method some people use to (attempt to) control
others. This is true both within the Pagan community and
within overall society. Sweet ol' Granny usually isn't a
drug dealer (unless she has plenty of muscle backing her up).
And (a-hem) alchemy always has been a magickal concern.
Frankly, most of the Pagans I meet are too poor to afford
expensive recreational drugs. In fairness I do not know
their history and I do not ask.
>>>Considering the amount of harm you are trying to do to the
>>>pagan community I have been relitively silent. You have a
>>>posting history of believing things that are trie that are
>>>patently false. ...
>>
>>The Pagan community is diverse. Some are nature- and
>>environmentally-oriented, others are sexually- and
>>entrepreneurally-oriented. I have done *nothing* to
>>discredit the entire Pagan community. But the magick
>>that some entrepreneurial Pagans sell is expensive and
>>exploitive, both of the customer and of other Pagans.
>
>Bard stated that you were *trying* to do harm to paganism,
>and that does appear to be the case. You refer, allusively,
>to what appears to be drug-dealing, prostitution and abuse
>that you, personally, have observed - and attribute it all
>to pagans and wiccans. If you have evidence, then please
>present it. I very much doubt that pagans wish to have the
>same accusations of deliberate hiding-from-the-truth levelled
>at them, as have been levelled at christians over the past
>few years, but your unsubstantiated hints and digs give
>pagans no opportunity to deal with the matters that you
>purport to expose.
Local problems (sometimes) get solved locally -- this is not
my job or responsibility. These problems will not get solved
on the Internet, and the Internet is ripe ground for slander
charges. But social pressure to censor generic problem
discussion will not improve the situation for any one or
for any body.
>>For that matter, Bard, I never have seen anybody praise the
>>FAQs you so laboriously advertise in the SIG at the BOTTOM
>>of each message that you POST. Can you provide notorized
>>testamonials, or do you plan to flood me with message IDs?
>>And Bard, when was the last time you revised your FAQs?
>>When was the last time you had something new or different to
>>say in your FAQs? Your FAQs are not Egyptian hieroglyphs.
>>
>>I mark the new and significant changes every time I issue
>>my documents that you so HATE. Jealous, Bard?
>
>Control, Richard. Bard has never expressed hatred towards you,
>or your posts, nor has he indicated any jealousy of you. You
>are the one demonstrating a lack of control, here.
>
>Jani
On the contrary, Bard has repeatedly attempted to discredit me
based upon several (acknowledged by me) *trivial* erroneous
statements that I made -- for example, the exact composition of
The Great Seal of The United States. WHO CARES OTHER THAN BARD?
After an infinite iteration of these same annoyances, rather
than asking "Bard, why are you being such as a*s?" I started
asking substantitive questions comparing Bard's FAQs to my
periodically-issued documents that Bard so ENTHUSIASTICALLY and
PREDICTABLY attacks.
Now, while we are discussing it, in the last week Bard has
reissued his Pagan FAQ and his ARW version 2.0 FAQ on
the Internet newsgroups. Examination of those documents
indicates that the "Alt.Pagan Frequently Asked Questions
(Version 4.01 FAQ)" was "Last-modified: Febuary 2002" and
the "Alt.Religion.Wicca Frequently Asked Questions Version 2
(FAQ 2.0)" was "Last-modified: 5 June 2001". I consider
Wicca and Paganism in general to be *very dynamic and
evolving* social cultures that are affected by the worsening
United States domestic economy. I have something additional
to say about Wicca and Paganism *every sabbat*. And the combined
volume of my "Definitions ..." two documents and my
"A Reference List ..." two documents that I issue ~21 days
before each sabbat approaches 100K of unformatted text.
I am concerned about the flood of negativity that I observe
on Pagan-related newsgroups (above and beyond the flood
of unnecessary profanity that I ignore). I am attempting to
provide Wiccan- and Pagan-relevant information in a positive
and socially-constructive manner, but every aspect of Paganism
is not peachy.
And when the author of documents that have *not* been
modified in ***over a year*** repeatedly and predictably
takes trivial cheap shots at me, I believe it is reasonable
to suggest why these cheap shots keep occuring. If Bard
feels competitive I believe that Bard's time would be best
spent upgrading his own documents.
Out of control? No. My periodic messages are issued in
one e-mail name with predictable titles -- they are easy
to killfile.
But I do not hide my head in the sand, either.
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>Richard, this is ninety-nine-percent complaining about the way
>your local housing policies operate, and very little to do
>with paganism or coven structure. If you don't own your property
>outright, and it's possible for the local council to re-allocate
>the house you live in, then you should take it up with whatever
>your equivalent of the municipal authority is. If you own it
>outright, then what is the problem?
>
>If you're serious about this complaint of local people
>pressurising you to take in lodgers, then for gods' sake
>say so, ...
I did -- right here on ARW.
You do not challenge a civil servant in her place of employment.
>... and you might get some valuable feedback. Local
>political pressure happens *everywhere* and has nowt
>to do with paganism.
>
>Jani
IMO there is increasing tendancy within all types of groups
(including Pagan groups) to want "ins" with local government.
The following document uses the word 'Circle' in the manner that
most Wiccan documents use the word 'Coven' -- admittedly,
Covens form circles during their sabbat rituals. The following
Wiccan Rede version includes the Coven's right of eminent
domain in item 70:
"A New Wiccan Book of the Law
A Manual for the Guidance of Groves, Covens, & Individuals
Compiled and edited by Lady Galadriel
© Copyright 1992 by Lady Galadriel
Moonstone Publications
PO Box 13384
Atlanta, GA 30324 USA
1. The Laws were created to give our lives form and order, that
all might be balanced throughout all of the planes. In truth
there are two sets of laws which govern us -- one setting forth
the ways of the Wiccan, and the other the ways of the Universe.
Both are important; each should be observed with respect and
treated with honor. The Laws were shaped and molded to govern
us, to teach us, to advise us, and to counsel us during our time
of mortal life on earth.
<snip>
66. Let each Circle of Light maintain and dedicate unto the
Goddess and the God all things that are required for Their
rituals, for what is blessed in the name of the Gods rightly
belongs to Them, and the Priest or Priestess shall be the
caretakers thereof.
67. Any of the Circle, who are of sufficient rank, and wish
to form a new Circle, shall tell the High Priestess and the
Elders of their intentions. Members of the old Circle may
join the new Circle when it is formed, but if they do so they
must leave the other Circle, unless otherwise instructed.
For it is an old law that while each Wiccan may join the Circle
of choice, no Wiccan's energy should be divided between two
or more Temples.
68. The Elders of the old and new Circles shall meet in peace
and with respect, to decide the level of interaction and
connection between the Circles. Yet it is known that the
splitting of a Circle often means strife. So only if it is
truly in a spirit of peace and harmony should the Circles
meet for the celebration of the Great Festivals.
69. None shall enter the Circle with a sickness or an ailment
which may be passed on to the Lady's other children - for to do
so causes harm to yourself, as well as to others of the Circle.
Rather should the Elders go unto the sick one, that through the
love of the Gods they shall be made well and whole once more.
[RB comment: Coven-based eminent domain --
who determines 'full price'? ]
70. It has been judged that if any of the Craft need a house
or land, and none will sell, it shall be lawful to incline
someone's mind so as to be willing to sell, providing it harms
none and the full price is paid without haggling.
71. The High Priest or High Priestess shall heed all complaints
of all Pagans and Wiccans, and strive to settle any differences
between them, with reason and with justice.
72. In the matter of quarrels or disputes between the members of
the Circle, the High Priestess shall convene the Council, and
inquire into the matter. The Council shall hear each person
privately, and then both together. And they shall decide justly,
not favoring one side nor the other.
[RB comment: Unhappy children flee the Circle.]
73. If an agreeable resolution cannot be reached, then the
dissenting Wiccan must void the Circle, for a Circle of Light
cannot be properly formed where there is disagreement and discord.
And when a Circle is not properly formed, the energy within is
either dissapated, or turns ugly, festering like a hidden sore.
So let dissenters leave, but only with love in their hearts and
yours, for even though your paths may diverge, you are still all
children of the Wicca, and there must be no violence between us.
Bear no grudges, hold no thoughts of vengeance, for this will rot
away the foundation of your power.
[RB comment: Free thinkers flee the Circle.]
74. It has ever been recognized that there are some people who
can never agree to work under any others. At the same time there
are also people who cannot rule justly. To those who must ever be
chief there is but one answer: "Void this Circle, and seek another
one, or if ye be of sufficient rank, then form a Circle of your own."
To those who cannot rule justly, the answer shall be: "Those who
cannot bear your rule will leave you". For none may circle with
whom they are at variance, because to do so angers the Gods, and
hinders the Craft.
[RB comment: The Universal Rule of Three.]
75. Those that do wrong without knowledge shall be held innocent;
those that do wrong through carelessness shall be judged lacking
in wisdom, and dealt with according to the nature of the transgression.
Those who do wrong with deliberation and forethought shall be thrice
punished, and the Lords of Karma shall lay low their pride.
<snip>
84. Any Priestess, Priest, or Elder who consents to a breach of the
Laws regarding the use of the Craft to cause harm to others must
immediately be relieved of office, for it is the lives of the children
of the Goddess which they endanger, as well as the honor of the Craft.
[RB comment: Clever method to put The Maiden on ice for at least
one year. ]
85. The High Priestess may take a Sabbatical from her Circle, if
her personal life and duties require it, for up to a year and a day.
During that time, the Maiden shall act as High Priestess. If the
High Priestess does not return at the end of a year and a day, then
the Initiates of the Circle shall name a new Priestess. Unless
there is good reason to the contrary, the person who has done the
work of the Priestess should reap the reward. If someone else is
named, then the Maiden should continue in that office.
86. Each Priestess and Priest shall choose their own consorts, yet
let them select from those who are wise in the learning of our people,
and thus others shall abide by the wisdom of their choice. Yet if
the Circle feels the decision is ill-advised, or that they cannot
abide and work in honor and trust with that consort, then they may
request a gathering of all concerned to meet and to talk, and to
resolve the balance with love and honor. For only those who are
pure and strong, keen and wise, patient and loving, can effectively
and properly carry out the duties of a Keeper of the Circle.
[RB comment: Consort (86) versus mates and children (87)? ]
87. Those of the Priesthood shall not neglect their mates, or their
children, or their house, nor anything which is in their possession;
nor shall the sick and the needy be neglected for the sake of the
Circle. Therefore let them adjust the one thing against the other,
that neither should suffer, and that which is given by the Gods is
treated with love and respect.
[RB comment: Priest (88) versus mates and children (87)? ]
88. Long ago, at the time of Creation, it was deemed that the female
should hold the power of life-giving. So mightily was the male force
drawn to the love and beauty of the Creation of life, that he
surrendered unto her keeping the force of his powers in the
furtherance of life. Yet the Priestess must always remember that
the flames which light the fires within her come from the Priest.
Therefore she must use the force wisely, and only with love, and she
must honor and respect him, who is the activator of the Life Force.
HERE ENDS A NEW WICCAN BOOK OF THE LAW."
IMO I have adequately and concretely documented
Wiccan interest in real estate.
BTW, excerpts from copyrighted document (especially when
presented with value added comments) are exempt from
copyright violations.
I got no problems
20:50:05 20:50:05
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> On the contrary, Bard has repeatedly attempted to discredit me
> based upon several (acknowledged by me) *trivial* erroneous
> statements that I made -- for example, the exact composition of
> The Great Seal of The United States. WHO CARES OTHER THAN BARD?
In the context you where contending the USA was founded my Christians.
It is not the error itself that matters as much as the flase things you
believe and you rarely admit to being in error. One time you admitted to
a spelling error which was a minor error as related to the belief you
held (as still might).
> After an infinite iteration of these same annoyances, rather
> than asking "Bard, why are you being such as a*s?" I started
> asking substantitive questions comparing Bard's FAQs to my
> periodically-issued documents that Bard so ENTHUSIASTICALLY and
> PREDICTABLY attacks.
Hey regs of this group take turns attacking your posts, I do not reply
to many of your posts.
>
> Now, while we are discussing it, in the last week Bard has
> reissued his Pagan FAQ and his ARW version 2.0 FAQ on
> the Internet newsgroups. Examination of those documents
> indicates that the "Alt.Pagan Frequently Asked Questions
> (Version 4.01 FAQ)" was "Last-modified: Febuary 2002" and
> the "Alt.Religion.Wicca Frequently Asked Questions Version 2
> (FAQ 2.0)" was "Last-modified: 5 June 2001".
The FAQ are modified when the group indicates a desire for
modification. I maintain the FAQs as the group desires. It would not
be proper for me to write the FAQ to reflect my views, if I did that the
FAQs would become Bard's FAQ on <foo>.
I consider
> Wicca and Paganism in general to be *very dynamic and
> evolving* social cultures that are affected by the worsening
> United States domestic economy. I have something additional
> to say about Wicca and Paganism *every sabbat*. And the combined
> volume of my "Definitions ..." two documents and my
> "A Reference List ..." two documents that I issue ~21 days
> before each sabbat approaches 100K of unformatted text.
However as you freely and often proclaim you are not pagan. It appears
you relay too much on McCoy's deffinitions (or at least have indicated
in the past using them).
>
> I am concerned about the flood of negativity that I observe
> on Pagan-related newsgroups (above and beyond the flood
> of unnecessary profanity that I ignore). I am attempting to
> provide Wiccan- and Pagan-relevant information in a positive
> and socially-constructive manner, but every aspect of Paganism
> is not peachy.
How come no one appears to see your posts as positive?
>
> And when the author of documents that have *not* been
> modified in ***over a year*** repeatedly and predictably
> takes trivial cheap shots at me, I believe it is reasonable
> to suggest why these cheap shots keep occuring. If Bard
> feels competitive I believe that Bard's time would be best
> spent upgrading his own documents.
It is true you do incorprorate some changes more often then I do.
However replacing bad information with other bad information is not
useful to the Pagan comminity.
>
> Out of control? No. My periodic messages are issued in
> one e-mail name with predictable titles -- they are easy
> to killfile.
>
If you want your posts to have more acceptance, I would advise that you
remove most of McCoy's book (her first one certainly can be useful as an
introductatory book to witchcraft. I did note that you now comsider
Witta no longer has an ancient potatoes goddess, however argue that
because potatoes existed in Ireland before Gardner, Witta is a valid
path older then Wicca (or words to that effect).
Oh and please remove the belief that Wicca allows for any path to be
invented and considered valid. This certainly is incorrect. Wicca does
consider many paths are valid, however never has held the belief that
all paths are valid. We could work on warlock and other deffinitions as
well if you desire your posts to be more accepted. I of course would
prefer that you start your posts indicating you are a Christian, others
have asked you to do so as well.
I have also asked you to get a better newsreader. You do not have to
give up up aol address to use another reader. If you did get a better
reader you could cross post your reading list and deffinitions as oposed
to multi-posting thus save bandwidth (also on that note, I suspect
alt.magick does not desire your lists being posted there, they have
little to do with Wicca).
As for hating you, that is not so. I do dislike your lists because of
the many errors contained with in them.
As for an Editor piblishing only good books based on content so as to be
reliable, this certainly is untrue. The sell books to make money, if a
book claiming the Washington was a Christian instead of a Deist and the
revenue protential was high, they would still publish the book (even if
they knew it was false, and they might not know it). There are few
pagan publishers compared to the number of non pagan ones. While it is
posible that some non pagan publishers know enough about paganism to be
able to judge the reliaibility of a book's content, I suspect they are
few in numbers. Even then they might publish the book if they believed
it would be profitable.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
>
> HERE ENDS A NEW WICCAN BOOK OF THE LAW."
>
What you posted appears to be a derevitive work og Grander's laws.
http://www.draknetfree.com/sheathomas/oldlaws.html A few are added,
however seperating from covens, the use of magic to achieve goals
certainly are recognisable.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos38.htm offers the old laws with
passages number, you might find it interesting to see how closely the
New book of Law compares to the old laws.
The URLs are safe for you to go to, I detect no hostile code. However
if you desire to be better protected, disable javascript, java.
Jani
> In article <zQ1Ra.13480$F33.10...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> "Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Richard, this is ninety-nine-percent complaining about the way
> >your local housing policies operate, and very little to do
> >with paganism or coven structure. If you don't own your property
> >outright, and it's possible for the local council to re-allocate
> >the house you live in, then you should take it up with whatever
> >your equivalent of the municipal authority is. If you own it
> >outright, then what is the problem?
> >
> >If you're serious about this complaint of local people
> >pressurising you to take in lodgers, then for gods' sake
> >say so, ...
>
> I did -- right here on ARW.
> You do not challenge a civil servant in her place of employment.
You do if she's contravening local government regulations. What bye-laws do
you have there which state that privately-owned houses can be requisitioned
at will by civil servants?
> IMO there is increasing tendancy within all types of groups
> (including Pagan groups) to want "ins" with local government.
>
> The following document uses the word 'Circle' in the manner that
> most Wiccan documents use the word 'Coven' -- admittedly,
> Covens form circles during their sabbat rituals. The following
> Wiccan Rede version includes the Coven's right of eminent
> domain in item 70:
OK, I'm currently ploughing through the very prolific output of this
Galadriel person on the web, bear with me ... but re s70 -
> [RB comment: Coven-based eminent domain --
> who determines 'full price'? ]
>
> 70. It has been judged that if any of the Craft need a house
> or land, and none will sell, it shall be lawful to incline
> someone's mind so as to be willing to sell, providing it harms
> none and the full price is paid without haggling.
"Judged" by whom? "Lawful" by what definition? What exactly does she mean by
"incline someone's mind"? I don't see this standing up in court, Richard,
it's an open invitation to using any tactics one likes provided they don't
give the appearance of "harm".
From what I've seen so far, if this bunch are local to you, you have my
sympathy.
Jani
Jani
<ba...@dmcom.net> wrote in message news:3F1549...@dmcom.net...
> Richard Ballard wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > HERE ENDS A NEW WICCAN BOOK OF THE LAW."
> >
>
> What you posted appears to be a derevitive work og Grander's laws.
>
> http://www.draknetfree.com/sheathomas/oldlaws.html A few are added,
> however seperating from covens, the use of magic to achieve goals
> certainly are recognisable.
The s70 that Richard's on about, in the new laws, isn't worded in the same
way as the old one and certainly implies that coven members have some sort
of right to bring pressure to bear on non-wiccans to sell their property,
"full price" or not. Did anyone ever accurately date the old laws, btw? I
seem to recall some debate as to whether Gardner had invented them himself.
Jani
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> The s70 that Richard's on about, in the new laws, isn't worded in the same
> way as the old one and certainly implies that coven members have some sort
> of right to bring pressure to bear on non-wiccans to sell their property,
> "full price" or not.
Hmm "[O] 'Tis adjudged lawful an anyone need a house or land, an none
will [85] sell, to incline the owner's mind to be willing to sell,
provided it harmeth him not in any way, and that the full worth is paid,
without haggling. Never bargain or cheapen anything
which you buy by the Art. "
vs.
"70. It has been judged that if any of the Craft need a house
or land, and none will sell, it shall be lawful to incline
someone's mind so as to be willing to sell, providing it harms
none and the full price is paid without haggling."
Of course Mr. Ballard is correct about what fair value is, whom
determines it after the seller's mind has been bent. Of course it is
very hard to make sure no harm will occur as well.
Did anyone ever accurately date the old laws, btw? I
> seem to recall some debate as to whether Gardner had invented them himself.
>
The debate continues as to if he was told them or invented them.
However
A footnote to this
" [135] say, "Speak not to
me of such. It frightens me. 'Tis evil luck to speak of it." For this
reason: the Christians have spies everywhere. These speak as if they
were well affected, as if they would come to Meetings, saying, "My
mother used to go to worship the Old Ones. I would that I could go
myself." "
says this
"My Lady Epona points out that this is precisely what Charles Cardell
had claimed; that is, this paragraph is a response to Cardell, and so it
was probably inserted into the Craft Laws after the run-in with the
Cardells and Olive Green in 1959. This again is an indication that
Gardner did not promulgate the Craft Laws as a document for the Book of
Shadows until about 1960, when Mr. Q was initiated."
Jani
<ba...@dmcom.net> wrote in message news:3F155B...@dmcom.net...
> Jani wrote:
>
> >
> > The s70 that Richard's on about, in the new laws, isn't worded in the
same
> > way as the old one and certainly implies that coven members have some
sort
> > of right to bring pressure to bear on non-wiccans to sell their
property,
> > "full price" or not.
>
> Hmm "[O] 'Tis adjudged lawful an anyone need a house or land, an none
> will [85] sell, to incline the owner's mind to be willing to sell,
> provided it harmeth him not in any way, and that the full worth is paid,
> without haggling. Never bargain or cheapen anything
> which you buy by the Art. "
>
> vs.
>
> "70. It has been judged that if any of the Craft need a house
> or land, and none will sell, it shall be lawful to incline
> someone's mind so as to be willing to sell, providing it harms
> none and the full price is paid without haggling."
You see what I mean, though, that addition of "any of the Craft" implies
that the potential seller is not "of the Craft" and then that "lawful
inclining" becomes very suspect.
> Of course Mr. Ballard is correct about what fair value is, whom
> determines it after the seller's mind has been bent. Of course it is
> very hard to make sure no harm will occur as well.
Precisely. There's a bit of a difference between trying to act according to
the Rede (even though it's logically impossible) and deliberately twisting
it around so that the whole thing becomes situational.
>
>
> Did anyone ever accurately date the old laws, btw? I
> > seem to recall some debate as to whether Gardner had invented them
himself.
> >
>
> The debate continues as to if he was told them or invented them.
> However
>
> A footnote to this
>
> " [135] say, "Speak not to
> me of such. It frightens me. 'Tis evil luck to speak of it." For this
> reason: the Christians have spies everywhere. These speak as if they
> were well affected, as if they would come to Meetings, saying, "My
> mother used to go to worship the Old Ones. I would that I could go
> myself." "
>
> says this
>
> "My Lady Epona points out that this is precisely what Charles Cardell
> had claimed; that is, this paragraph is a response to Cardell, and so it
> was probably inserted into the Craft Laws after the run-in with the
> Cardells and Olive Green in 1959. This again is an indication that
> Gardner did not promulgate the Craft Laws as a document for the Book of
> Shadows until about 1960, when Mr. Q was initiated."
Interesting. Some of the language would appear to be seventeenth-century,
it's true, but it's hardly beyond Gardner or others to have imitated 17thC
speech well enough to pass muster.
Jani
Richard Ballard
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>HERE ENDS A NEW WICCAN BOOK OF THE LAW."
>
>What you posted appears to be a derevitive work og Grander's laws.
Bard, IMO the content is more important than the derivation (if any?).
The following document uses the word 'Circle' in the manner that
most Wiccan documents use the word 'Coven' -- admittedly,
Covens form circles during their sabbat rituals. The following
Wiccan Rede version includes the Coven's right of eminent
domain in item 70:
"A New Wiccan Book of the Law
<snip>
[RB comment: Coven-based eminent domain --
who determines 'full price'? ]
70. It has been judged that if any of the Craft need a house
or land, and none will sell, it shall be lawful to incline
someone's mind so as to be willing to sell, providing it harms
none and the full price is paid without haggling.
71. The High Priest or High Priestess shall heed all complaints
<snip>
HERE ENDS A NEW WICCAN BOOK OF THE LAW."
IMO I have adequately and concretely documented
Richard Ballard
>Richard Ballard wrote:
>
>>On the contrary, Bard has repeatedly attempted to discredit me
>>based upon several (acknowledged by me) *trivial* erroneous
>>statements that I made -- for example, the exact composition of
>>The Great Seal of The United States. WHO CARES OTHER THAN BARD?
>
>In the context you where contending the USA was founded my Christians.
>It is not the error itself that matters as much as the flase things you
>believe and you rarely admit to being in error. One time you admitted to
>a spelling error which was a minor error as related to the belief you
>held (as still might).
You should study the history of the Rhode Island colony, Bard.
Roger Williams founded that colony specifically as a place of
religious tolerance.
>>After an infinite iteration of these same annoyances, rather
>>than asking "Bard, why are you being such as a*s?" I started
>>asking substantitive questions comparing Bard's FAQs to my
>>periodically-issued documents that Bard so ENTHUSIASTICALLY and
>>PREDICTABLY attacks.
>
>Hey regs of this group take turns attacking your posts, I do not reply
>to many of your posts.
Others' opinions of my messages is not your concern.
You regularly and predictably complain when I issue my
documents ~21 days prior to each sabbat.
>>Now, while we are discussing it, in the last week Bard has
>>reissued his Pagan FAQ and his ARW version 2.0 FAQ on
>>the Internet newsgroups. Examination of those documents
>>indicates that the "Alt.Pagan Frequently Asked Questions
>>(Version 4.01 FAQ)" was "Last-modified: Febuary 2002" and
>>the "Alt.Religion.Wicca Frequently Asked Questions Version 2
>>(FAQ 2.0)" was "Last-modified: 5 June 2001".
>
>The FAQ are modified when the group indicates a desire for
>modification. I maintain the FAQs as the group desires. It would not
>be proper for me to write the FAQ to reflect my views, if I did that the
>FAQs would become Bard's FAQ on <foo>.
A statement I repeatedly have made (and a statement I believe you
repeatedly have contested) is that prospective Wiccan Novices
are interested in current Wiccan/Pagan practices, not arcane
history and texts. My documents get modified on each issuance.
Your documents have not been modified in over a year. IMO the
difference is one of currency and relevance to prospective
Wiccan novices.
>>I consider
>>Wicca and Paganism in general to be *very dynamic and
>>evolving* social cultures that are affected by the worsening
>>United States domestic economy. I have something additional
>>to say about Wicca and Paganism *every sabbat*. And the combined
>>volume of my "Definitions ..." two documents and my
>>"A Reference List ..." two documents that I issue ~21 days
>>before each sabbat approaches 100K of unformatted text.
>
>However as you freely and often proclaim you are not pagan. It appears
>you relay too much on McCoy's deffinitions (or at least have indicated
>in the past using them).
I rely on *many* authors and several Pagan/Wiccan-related
newsgroups in addition to my observations in my locale.
That you fervently dislike Edain McCoy's writings is another
matter of opinion. And I specifically have addressed your
'Witta' and 'potato' issues in my documents -- that is responsive.
>>I am concerned about the flood of negativity that I observe
>>on Pagan-related newsgroups (above and beyond the flood
>>of unnecessary profanity that I ignore). I am attempting to
>>provide Wiccan- and Pagan-relevant information in a positive
>>and socially-constructive manner, but every aspect of Paganism
>>is not peachy.
>
>How come no one appears to see your posts as positive?
It is estimated that 90% of Internet readers *never* provide
a single message to any Internet newsgroup. In addition,
my documents are addressed towards novices who (reasonably)
might feel hesitant to refute adverse opinions stated by somebody
who carries a list of Pagan-related FAQs in his SIG. I have
read your FAQs, and I consider the information I provide to
address Wicca and Paganism from a different perspective.
Squelching alternate perspectives might be called attempts
at censorship.
>>And when the author of documents that have *not* been
>>modified in ***over a year*** repeatedly and predictably
>>takes trivial cheap shots at me, I believe it is reasonable
>>to suggest why these cheap shots keep occuring. If Bard
>>feels competitive I believe that Bard's time would be best
>>spent upgrading his own documents.
>
>It is true you do incorprorate some changes more often then I do.
>However replacing bad information with other bad information is not
>useful to the Pagan comminity.
Once again, my documents are address to prospective Wiccan novices.
I have made it straightforward for dissenting experienced Wiccans
and Pagans to filter my documents.
>>Out of control? No. My periodic messages are issued in
>>one e-mail name with predictable titles -- they are easy
>>to killfile.
>
>If you want your posts to have more acceptance, I would advise that you
>remove most of McCoy's book (her first one certainly can be useful as an
>introductatory book to witchcraft. I did note that you now comsider
>Witta no longer has an ancient potatoes goddess, however argue that
>because potatoes existed in Ireland before Gardner, Witta is a valid
>path older then Wicca (or words to that effect).
NO. I consider the right to define and modify one's Wiccan
Tradition a basic right of solitary worshippers, Covens and
authors. Ms. McCoy has defined her own Wittan Tradition
(much as Gerald Gardner defined the original Wiccan Tradition).
In my documents I have addressed the potato issue at length and
historically/linguistically. I am not going to further replow
that ground in this message.
>Oh and please remove the belief that Wicca allows for any path to be
>invented and considered valid. This certainly is incorrect. Wicca does
>consider many paths are valid, however never has held the belief that
>all paths are valid. We could work on warlock and other deffinitions as
>well if you desire your posts to be more accepted. I of course would
>prefer that you start your posts indicating you are a Christian, others
>have asked you to do so as well.
The basic issue here is conservative Wiccan opinion versus
liberal Wiccan opinion. I am not a Wiccan or Pagan, but my
liberal opinion is based partially upon "Wicca: A Guide For
The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham and partially
upon "The Tree: The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft"
by Raymond Buckland that discusses the Seax-Wica Tradition.
The fact that conservatives accept more than one Wiccan
Tradition (e.g., most conservative Wiccans recognize the
Gardnerian and the Alexanderian Traditions) implies that
further variation is possible.
>I have also asked you to get a better newsreader. You do not have to
>give up up aol address to use another reader. If you did get a better
>reader you could cross post your reading list and deffinitions as oposed
>to multi-posting thus save bandwidth (also on that note, I suspect
>alt.magick does not desire your lists being posted there, they have
>little to do with Wicca).
None of your business -- I work offline by choice. And I address
my documents to Internet newsgroups where I believe lurkers will
find the information useful. I no longer provide my documents
on newsgroups ARWM, ATW and AW. These three newsgroups either
have more experienced readerships or have particular agendas
that IMO make my documents not suitable there.
>As for hating you, that is not so. I do dislike your lists because
>of the many errors contained with in them.
'errors' is your conservative perspective and opinion.
>As for an Editor piblishing only good books based on content so as to be
>reliable, this certainly is untrue. The sell books to make money, if a
>book claiming the Washington was a Christian instead of a Deist and the
>revenue protential was high, they would still publish the book (even if
>they knew it was false, and they might not know it). There are few
>pagan publishers compared to the number of non pagan ones. While it is
>posible that some non pagan publishers know enough about paganism to be
>able to judge the reliaibility of a book's content, I suspect they are
>few in numbers. Even then they might publish the book if they believed
>it would be profitable.
I have said that publishers publish books based upon *marketability*
and profitability. I also have said that Wicca and Paganism are
evolving as the market for Wicca and Paganism changes (i.e.,
new people enter). Conservatives might not like it, but things
change and organizations evolve, Bard. I attempt to address my
documents to prospective Wiccan novices and to the types of
information a prospective novice would want.
Prospective Wiccan novices get an opportunity to vote, Bard.
That vote can be for solitary worship versus Coven membership,
that vote can be for one of several Traditions, or the vote can
be to stay home and not go to the polling place.
>--
>news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
>news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
>news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
>Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
I got no problems
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030716073533...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>
>>In article <zQ1Ra.13480$F33.10...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>>"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>Richard, this is ninety-nine-percent complaining about the way
>>>your local housing policies operate, and very little to do
>>>with paganism or coven structure. If you don't own your property
>>>outright, and it's possible for the local council to re-allocate
>>>the house you live in, then you should take it up with whatever
>>>your equivalent of the municipal authority is. If you own it
>>>outright, then what is the problem?
>>>
>>>If you're serious about this complaint of local people
>>>pressurising you to take in lodgers, then for gods' sake
>>>say so, ...
>>
>>I did -- right here on ARW.
>>You do not challenge a civil servant in her place of employment.
>
>You do if she's contravening local government regulations. What
>bye-laws do you have there which state that privately-owned houses
>can be requisitioned at will by civil servants?
Historically, organized and coordinated *social pressure* (for
example, shunning, which can include de facto 'denial of service' --
e.g., 'by the book' work slowdowns and extraordinary bureaucratic
delays) have been employed by several communal societies, by the
military, and by English boys' schools.
>>IMO there is increasing tendancy within all types of groups
>>(including Pagan groups) to want "ins" with local government.
>>
>>The following document uses the word 'Circle' in the manner that
>>most Wiccan documents use the word 'Coven' -- admittedly,
>>Covens form circles during their sabbat rituals. The following
>>Wiccan Rede version includes the Coven's right of eminent
>>domain in item 70:
>
>OK, I'm currently ploughing through the very prolific output of
>this Galadriel person on the web, bear with me ... but re s70 -
[RB comment: Unannotated snippage by Jani, including snippage of
copyright notice and original author's contact information.]
>>[RB comment: Coven-based eminent domain --
>> who determines 'full price'? ]
>>
>>70. It has been judged that if any of the Craft need a house
>>or land, and none will sell, it shall be lawful to incline
>>someone's mind so as to be willing to sell, providing it harms
>>none and the full price is paid without haggling.
>
>"Judged" by whom? "Lawful" by what definition? What exactly does
>she mean by "incline someone's mind"? I don't see this standing
>up in court, Richard, it's an open invitation to using any tactics
>one likes provided they don't give the appearance of "harm".
I believe the document (written by another) speaks for itself
in suggesting a Coven's right to 'eminent domain'. "incline
someone's mind" is a vague phrase, suggesting to me "Wouldn't
you be happier somewhere else?" based upon my experience.
A Lot can happen. And Noah felt very safe -- no breeze was
going to dislodge his ark from atop the mountains of Ararat.
>From what I've seen so far, if this bunch are local to you,
>you have my sympathy.
>
>Jani
I got no problems
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> <ba...@dmcom.net> wrote in message news:3F155B...@dmcom.net...
> > Jani wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The s70 that Richard's on about, in the new laws, isn't worded in the
> same
> > > way as the old one and certainly implies that coven members have some
> sort
> > > of right to bring pressure to bear on non-wiccans to sell their
> property,
> > > "full price" or not.
> >
> > Hmm "[O] 'Tis adjudged lawful an anyone need a house or land, an none
> > will [85] sell, to incline the owner's mind to be willing to sell,
> > provided it harmeth him not in any way, and that the full worth is paid,
> > without haggling. Never bargain or cheapen anything
> > which you buy by the Art. "
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > "70. It has been judged that if any of the Craft need a house
> > or land, and none will sell, it shall be lawful to incline
> > someone's mind so as to be willing to sell, providing it harms
> > none and the full price is paid without haggling."
>
> You see what I mean, though, that addition of "any of the Craft" implies
> that the potential seller is not "of the Craft" and then that "lawful
> inclining" becomes very suspect.
*nods* I see the difference now, the old law the craft could be used to
get a home for anyone, the new law can only be used to get a home for
one of the craft. As for reading both of them I infer that the seller
would not be of the craft in any case. It would have been discouraged
to use the art against another of the craft, though not clearly spelled
out in the Old laws. At best the aet can be used to bind Christians
that seek to harm othersm be they of the craft or not. " So it is Ardane
that none shall use the Art in any way to do ill [45] to any,
howevermuch they have injured us. And for long we have obeyed this law,
"Harm none" and nowtimes many believe we exist not. So it be Ardane that
this law shall still continue to help us in our plight. No one, however
great an injury or injustice they receive, may use the Art in any to do
ill or harm any. [50] But they may, after great consultations with all,
use the Art to prevent or restrain Christians from harming us and
others, but only to let or constrain them and never to punish, "
This is the only time I can find the art being used against another of
the craft.
"however much you are tempted, and never consent to its being broken. If
you know it is being broken in the least, you must work strongly against
it, and any High Priestess or High Priest who consents to it must be
immediately deposed, for 'tis the blood of the Brethren they endanger. "
>
> > Of course Mr. Ballard is correct about what fair value is, whom
> > determines it after the seller's mind has been bent. Of course it is
> > very hard to make sure no harm will occur as well.
>
> Precisely. There's a bit of a difference between trying to act according to
> the Rede (even though it's logically impossible) and deliberately twisting
> it around so that the whole thing becomes situational.
I have always considered as much as what the rede says and does not say,
after all Gradner did get into a witch war. I do suspose they could
hire an apraiser to value the proporty.
http://www.starkindler.org/hist-jp.html
Offers, ampoung other info. "I have also been told by two different
sources that Bracelin helped Gardner write "The Laws". In The Rebirth Of
Witchcraft, Doreen states that she did not see The Laws until the mid
1950s, when she and her partner Ned Grove accused Gardner of concocting
them in order to re-assert control over the coven"
>
> Interesting. Some of the language would appear to be seventeenth-century,
> it's true, but it's hardly beyond Gardner or others to have imitated 17thC
> speech well enough to pass muster.
>
Both Gardner and Crowley had the capibility to dress up what they
wrote. A writting style to make things appear older then they were.
Jani
> Others' opinions of my messages is not your concern.
> You regularly and predictably complain when I issue my
> documents ~21 days prior to each sabbat.
His complaints are in respect of inaccuracies and your highly subjective
perspectives in those posts, though, and several others have made similar
criticisms at other times.
> A statement I repeatedly have made (and a statement I believe you
> repeatedly have contested) is that prospective Wiccan Novices
> are interested in current Wiccan/Pagan practices, not arcane
> history and texts. My documents get modified on each issuance.
Whatever the current status of the debate regarding the origins of Wicca,
your reading/ reference lists tend to concentrate on the more superficial
elements of neo-paganism rather than encouraging novices to do some serious
background reading on Wicca, or on pre-christian paganism in general.
Recommending the "latest version", and modifying that latest version every
time, would in the end be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that no-one
considering Wicca as their personal path would see it as having any
historical basis or structural core.
> >How come no one appears to see your posts as positive?
> It is estimated that 90% of Internet readers *never* provide
> a single message to any Internet newsgroup. In addition,
> my documents are addressed towards novices who (reasonably)
> might feel hesitant to refute adverse opinions stated by somebody
> who carries a list of Pagan-related FAQs in his SIG.
It might equally well be said that inexperienced individuals would be
hesitant to refute dogmatically stated opinions by someone whose sig implies
professional and academic qualifications.
> >It is true you do incorprorate some changes more often then I do.
> >However replacing bad information with other bad information is not
> >useful to the Pagan comminity.
> Once again, my documents are address to prospective Wiccan novices.
> I have made it straightforward for dissenting experienced Wiccans
> and Pagans to filter my documents.
Would it not be far more valuable for the novices whom you purport to
address to see *why* there is dissent, and to read the views of experienced
pagans and Wiccans in conjunction with yours, which you freely admit are the
subjective opinions of an outsider? I can understand why pagans would
killfile you in exasperation, but from my POV to leave your opinions
unchallenged would imply to newcomers that they are correct, which presents
a very unbalanced perspective to such newcomers.
> >If you want your posts to have more acceptance, I would advise that you
> >remove most of McCoy's book (her first one certainly can be useful as an
> >introductatory book to witchcraft. I did note that you now comsider
> >Witta no longer has an ancient potatoes goddess, however argue that
> >because potatoes existed in Ireland before Gardner, Witta is a valid
> >path older then Wicca (or words to that effect).
> NO. I consider the right to define and modify one's Wiccan
> Tradition a basic right of solitary worshippers, Covens and
> authors. Ms. McCoy has defined her own Wittan Tradition
> (much as Gerald Gardner defined the original Wiccan Tradition).
Then would it not be more accurate to include material in your reading/
reference lists which documents the origins of Wicca as well as its current
variations? Modifications can only be based on an original, after all,
otherwise they are not modifications.
> >Oh and please remove the belief that Wicca allows for any path to be
> >invented and considered valid. This certainly is incorrect. Wicca does
> >consider many paths are valid, however never has held the belief that
> >all paths are valid. We could work on warlock and other deffinitions as
> >well if you desire your posts to be more accepted. I of course would
> >prefer that you start your posts indicating you are a Christian, others
> >have asked you to do so as well.
> The basic issue here is conservative Wiccan opinion versus
> liberal Wiccan opinion. I am not a Wiccan or Pagan, but my
> liberal opinion is based partially upon "Wicca: A Guide For
> The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham and partially
> upon "The Tree: The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft"
> by Raymond Buckland that discusses the Seax-Wica Tradition.
> The fact that conservatives accept more than one Wiccan
> Tradition (e.g., most conservative Wiccans recognize the
> Gardnerian and the Alexanderian Traditions) implies that
> further variation is possible.
Yes, variation upon what is already established. The separation between
Gardnerian and Alexandrian, as exemplified by the Farrars, for instance, is
nothing like the gulf between those variants taken in tandem and the newage
proliferation which currently labels itself "Wicca".
And I address
> my documents to Internet newsgroups where I believe lurkers will
> find the information useful. I no longer provide my documents
> on newsgroups ARWM, ATW and AW. These three newsgroups either
> have more experienced readerships or have particular agendas
> that IMO make my documents not suitable there.
You've just stated that in your opinion, the vast majority of lurkers don't
post. How do you know that those interested in Wicca are not lurking on the
groups you mention?
> >As for hating you, that is not so. I do dislike your lists because > >of
the many errors contained with in them.
> 'errors' is your conservative perspective and opinion.
If your concern is to provide *accurate* information to prospective
newcomers to Wicca and paganism in general, surely it would be as well to
take note of those who are more experienced?
> I have said that publishers publish books based upon *marketability*
> and profitability. I also have said that Wicca and Paganism are
> evolving as the market for Wicca and Paganism changes (i.e.,
> new people enter). Conservatives might not like it, but things
> change and organizations evolve, Bard. I attempt to address my
> documents to prospective Wiccan novices and to the types of
> information a prospective novice would want.
And you don't think that a prospective novice would want information on the
origins of Wicca, or reliable academic studies on pre-christian paganism?
> Prospective Wiccan novices get an opportunity to vote, Bard.
> That vote can be for solitary worship versus Coven membership,
> that vote can be for one of several Traditions, or the vote can
> be to stay home and not go to the polling place.
*Informed* choice, Richard. Offering only the subjective opinions of a
christian on recent populist texts doesn't give the opportunity for the
voter to exercise informed choice, does it?
(btw, could you re-post your response, message ID
news:20030715054718...@mb-m14.aol.com, which for some reason has
vanished from my server before I had chance to reply. Thanks.)
Jani
j11
nos...@verizon.net wrote on 07/15/2003 6:00 PM:
> "j11" <j4hd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BB39AC28.8ED0%j4hd...@earthlink.net...
>> in article _OTQa.2973$s_3...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net, Figinn at
>> nos...@verizon.net wrote on 07/15/2003 10:01 AM:
>>
>>> "Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:20030715054718...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>>>
>>> This guy really makes my head hurt.
>>>
>>> Time to bring HP Figinn back from the ashes ...
>>
>> Please. I miss HP Figinn; especially at times like these...
>> I got no problems either.
>> j11
>
> As soon as the additions are done. You still have to submit your fashion
> stuff tho :)
>
> Figinn
Working on a "Tattooing Do's and Don't's" even as we speak, o great one.
I am not a tattoo artist.
I am not really even a fashion consultant, but WTF. :D
j11
Richard Ballard
Hmmm. Judge, jury and executioner?
In that case objectivity is out the window and
there is no reason for further discussion.
Where's my dictionary? Is the word 'arrogant'
spelled with one or two R's?
I got no problems
20:50:05 20:50:05
Richard Ballard
j11 <j4hd...@earthlink.net> writes:
>in article vQ_Qa.1500$EZ2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Figinn at
>nos...@verizon.net wrote on 07/15/2003 6:00 PM:
>
>>"j11" <j4hd...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:BB39AC28.8ED0%j4hd...@earthlink.net...
>>
>>>in article _OTQa.2973$s_3...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net, Figinn at
>>>nos...@verizon.net wrote on 07/15/2003 10:01 AM:
>>>
>>>>This guy really makes my head hurt.
>>>>
>>>>Time to bring HP Figinn back from the ashes ...
>>>
>>>Please. I miss HP Figinn; especially at times like these...
>>>I got no problems either.
>>>j11
>>
>>As soon as the additions are done. You still have to submit
>>your fashion stuff tho :)
>>
>>Figinn
>
>Working on a "Tattooing Do's and Don't's" even as we speak,
>o great one.
>I am not a tattoo artist.
>I am not really even a fashion consultant, but WTF. :D
>j11
I recommend that any person interested in getting tattooed
read the two Frequently Asked Questions documents (FAQs)
provided periodically on the rec.arts.bodyart Internet newsgroup.
Reading these FAQs will answer many questions, and will help
interested persons ask informed questions when evaluating
tattoo artists and their facilities. I further recommend that
anyone being tattooed follow their tattoo artist's skin care
instructions.
I have no tattoos.
I got no problems
20:50:05 20:50:05
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030716124209...@mb-m15.aol.com...
>
>>In article <3F1542...@dmcom.net>,
>>ba...@dmcom.net writes:
>>
>>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>
[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote to ba...@dmcom.net:]
>>Others' opinions of my messages is not your concern.
>>You regularly and predictably complain when I issue my
>>documents ~21 days prior to each sabbat.
>
>His complaints are in respect of inaccuracies and your highly
>subjective perspectives in those posts, though, and several
>others have made similar criticisms at other times.
And I have adressed those *specific* criticisms repeatedly.
>>A statement I repeatedly have made (and a statement I believe you
>>repeatedly have contested) is that prospective Wiccan Novices
>>are interested in current Wiccan/Pagan practices, not arcane
>>history and texts. My documents get modified on each issuance.
>
>Whatever the current status of the debate regarding the origins
>of Wicca, your reading/ reference lists tend to concentrate on
>the more superficial elements of neo-paganism rather than
>encouraging novices to do some serious background reading on
>Wicca, or on pre-christian paganism in general. Recommending
>the "latest version", and modifying that latest version every
>time, would in the end be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that
>no-one considering Wicca as their personal path would see it
>as having any historical basis or structural core.
I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
*prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
>>>How come no one appears to see your posts as positive?
>
>>It is estimated that 90% of Internet readers *never* provide
>>a single message to any Internet newsgroup. In addition,
>>my documents are addressed towards novices who (reasonably)
>>might feel hesitant to refute adverse opinions stated by
>>somebody who carries a list of Pagan-related FAQs in his SIG.
>
>It might equally well be said that inexperienced individuals
>would be hesitant to refute dogmatically stated opinions by
>someone whose sig implies professional and academic qualifications.
I feel qualified to comment, and I bring education and ~100K
of relevant text to the Internet. I also address issues that
others choose not to discuss, issues that are relevant in
my locale.
>>>It is true you do incorprorate some changes more often then I do.
>>>However replacing bad information with other bad information is
>>>not useful to the Pagan comminity.
>>
>>Once again, my documents are address to prospective Wiccan novices.
>>I have made it straightforward for dissenting experienced Wiccans
>>and Pagans to filter my documents.
>
>Would it not be far more valuable for the novices whom you purport
>to address to see *why* there is dissent, and to read the views of
>experienced pagans and Wiccans in conjunction with yours, which you
>freely admit are the subjective opinions of an outsider? I can
>understand why pagans would killfile you in exasperation, but from
>my POV to leave your opinions unchallenged would imply to newcomers
>that they are correct, which presents a very unbalanced perspective
>to such newcomers.
You are discussing 'newcomers'. I am discussing (*uncommitted*)
*prospective Wiccan novices -- different.
Others are free to comment. If the comments are derogatory with
little substance I will point that deficiency out, particularly
is the same derogatory substanceless comments occur repeatedly.
>>>If you want your posts to have more acceptance, I would advise
>>>that you remove most of McCoy's book (her first one certainly
>>>can be useful as an introductatory book to witchcraft. I did
>>>note that you now comsider Witta no longer has an ancient
>>>potatoes goddess, however argue that because potatoes existed
>>>in Ireland before Gardner, Witta is a valid path older then
>>>Wicca (or words to that effect).
>>
>>NO. I consider the right to define and modify one's Wiccan
>>Tradition a basic right of solitary worshippers, Covens and
>>authors. Ms. McCoy has defined her own Wittan Tradition
>>(much as Gerald Gardner defined the original Wiccan Tradition).
BTW, this is not the time or the place to debate 'Witta' --
I have detailed discussion in my original document.
>Then would it not be more accurate to include material in your
>reading/reference lists which documents the origins of Wicca
>as well as its current variations? Modifications can only be
>based on an original, after all, otherwise they are
>not modifications.
I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
*prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
>>>Oh and please remove the belief that Wicca allows for any
>>>path to be invented and considered valid. This certainly is
>>>incorrect. Wicca does consider many paths are valid, however
>>>never has held the belief that all paths are valid. We could
>>>work on warlock and other deffinitions as well if you desire
>>>your posts to be more accepted. I of course would prefer that
>>>you start your posts indicating you are a Christian, others
>>>have asked you to do so as well.
BTW, I clearly state I am not a Pagan early in my documents.
My documents describe 'warlock' sufficiently. And this
plethora of preferences is a bit presumptuous.
>>The basic issue here is conservative Wiccan opinion versus
>>liberal Wiccan opinion. I am not a Wiccan or Pagan, but my
>>liberal opinion is based partially upon "Wicca: A Guide For
>>The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham and partially
>>upon "The Tree: The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft"
>>by Raymond Buckland that discusses the Seax-Wica Tradition.
>>The fact that conservatives accept more than one Wiccan
>>Tradition (e.g., most conservative Wiccans recognize the
>>Gardnerian and the Alexanderian Traditions) implies that
>>further variation is possible.
>
>Yes, variation upon what is already established. The separation
>between Gardnerian and Alexandrian, as exemplified by the Farrars,
>for instance, is nothing like the gulf between those variants
>taken in tandem and the newage proliferation which currently
>labels itself "Wicca".
Doesn't matter -- variation is variation. Acceptability of
variation magnitude is a conservative versus liberal issue.
>>And I address
>>my documents to Internet newsgroups where I believe lurkers will
>>find the information useful. I no longer provide my documents
>>on newsgroups ARWM, ATW and AW. These three newsgroups either
>>have more experienced readerships or have particular agendas
>>that IMO make my documents not suitable there.
>
>You've just stated that in your opinion, the vast majority of
>lurkers don't post. How do you know that those interested in
>Wicca are not lurking on the groups you mention?
Long experience with the subject matter discussed in those
newsgroups. IMO those newsgroups are less likely to attract
(*uncommitted*) prospective novice lurkers.
>>>As for hating you, that is not so. I do dislike your lists
>>>because of the many errors contained with in them.
>
>>'errors' is your conservative perspective and opinion.
>
>If your concern is to provide *accurate* information to
>prospective newcomers to Wicca and paganism in general,
>surely it would be as well to take note of those who are
>more experienced?
Different orientation -- I address my documents to (*uncommitted*)
prospective novices. So-called more experienced people can
address their comments to committed newcomers -- a different
audience. So-called more experienced people can laboriously
document what their opinions -- I document my opinions.
>>I have said that publishers publish books based upon *marketability*
>>and profitability. I also have said that Wicca and Paganism are
>>evolving as the market for Wicca and Paganism changes (i.e.,
>>new people enter). Conservatives might not like it, but things
>>change and organizations evolve, Bard. I attempt to address my
>>documents to prospective Wiccan novices and to the types of
>>information a prospective novice would want.
>
>And you don't think that a prospective novice would want information
>on the origins of Wicca, or reliable academic studies on pre-christian
>paganism?
I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
*prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
This is the third time in this message I have repeated the above
paragraph. I do not want to address this issue again.
>>Prospective Wiccan novices get an opportunity to vote, Bard.
>>That vote can be for solitary worship versus Coven membership,
>>that vote can be for one of several Traditions, or the vote can
>>be to stay home and not go to the polling place.
>
>*Informed* choice, Richard. Offering only the subjective opinions of a
>christian on recent populist texts doesn't give the opportunity for the
>voter to exercise informed choice, does it?
Others are free to bring descriptions of arcane texts and history
to the Internet. I document my opinions based upon my reading
and upon activities hap pening in my locale.
j11
I do have tattoos. Thank you for the suggestion.
j11
Richard Ballard
j11 <j4hd...@earthlink.net> writes:
I have no tattoos, but I know people who have extensive,
difficult-to-patch pastel tattoos. I know the care
these people take to keep their extensive pastel tattoos
looking attractive.
IMO the two rec.arts.bodyart FAQs are well-written
and informative. These FAQs stress the skin care
required to prevent damage to pastel tattoos, and
the FAQs stress health considerations required
during and after tattoo application.
Figinn
<snip older stuff>
> >Working on a "Tattooing Do's and Don't's" even as we speak,
> >o great one.
> >I am not a tattoo artist.
> >I am not really even a fashion consultant, but WTF. :D
> >j11
>
> I recommend that any person interested in getting tattooed
> read the two Frequently Asked Questions documents (FAQs)
> provided periodically on the rec.arts.bodyart Internet newsgroup.
> Reading these FAQs will answer many questions, and will help
> interested persons ask informed questions when evaluating
> tattoo artists and their facilities. I further recommend that
> anyone being tattooed follow their tattoo artist's skin care
> instructions.
>
> I have no tattoos.
Never in all my days have I seen someone so quick to offer opinions on
things second hand.
"I have no tattoos but here, this is my recommendation on what to do. I had
a friend that once got a tattoo."
"I'm not a Wiccan but here, read my recommended reading list. I looked up
Wicca in the dictionary and read half a book about it once."
"I'm not a laywer, but here's my informed interpretation of the legal
system. Oh yeah some dude told me some stuff about it too."
Dear Richard, it really makes me wonder if you actually *do* anything. All
I've ever seen you do is give middling advice based on things you've heard
about, read about or deluded yourself into believing.
To some degree *what* you write isn't the issue. It's the fact that you
seem to have this illogical requirement to comment on things that you have
limited experience with. In some cases it's ok. The rec.arts.bodyart FAQ
is quite good. Having had 5 tattoos myself, I feel qualified to offer an
opinion on it. When I first considered getting a tattoo, I didn't ask
people that had never had one. I didn't worry about things people told me
that had never had one but "knew somebody" that had one. Some dude telling
me "I hear they hurt" meant infinitely less to me than someone with several
tattoos explaining *what* it felt like and how it would hurt more or less in
different spots and so forth.
Your periodic Wiccan bullshit you serve up is a little different and that
has been pointed out to you several times. I feel like some of the others
that you clearly do more harm than good. Any writing of that sort is going
to be slanted towards the agenda of the author, that's just how it works.
In your case, the author is a casual observer and/or someone with an issue
against Wicca.
It would be much more acceptable if you stated you were anti-Wiccan or even
an ex-Wiccan. I myself am an ex-Wiccan, so once again I feel more qualified
than you to give an opinion. However if I wrote documents such as yours I
would clearly label myself as an ex-Wiccan. Thereby allowing the readers to
know where I'm coming from. You do not do this or you tuck it way down at
the bottom. It is painfully transparent why.
I read with great amusement your conversation with Bard about update
frequency. Frequently updated bullshit is still that ... bullshit. The
dynamic of the A.R.W. group indeed changes over time. However, the FAQ is
still relevent and should be relatively *unchanged* over time. Just be glad
that I don't keep the damn thing ... I'd have a kook section where it would
be highly recommended to avoid your ramblings until much more qualified
people had been consulted. Until such time, you can be assured that those
"more qualified people" are going to make sure that 'prospective wiccan
novices' are aware of the issues with your writings.
Figinn
--
'Life in the trailer park' next to Richard Ballard is a *life* sentence.
Happiness is finding a place that serves ... alcohol.
ba...@dmcom.net
Just be glad
> that I don't keep the damn thing ... I'd have a kook section where it would
> be highly recommended to avoid your ramblings until much more qualified
> people had been consulted.
I opose placing any such list in the FAQ, however should the group
desire it such a section could be added. Should such names be placed in
the FAQ I certainly would not one to list one name.
Figinn
> Figinn wrote:
>
> Just be glad
> > that I don't keep the damn thing ... I'd have a kook section where it
would
> > be highly recommended to avoid your ramblings until much more qualified
> > people had been consulted.
>
> I opose placing any such list in the FAQ, however should the group
> desire it such a section could be added. Should such names be placed in
> the FAQ I certainly would not one to list one name.
Aww, I was just kidding ...
But probably a good reason why I don't maintain a FAQ ... hehe.
Figinn
Aunty Kreist
>From: rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard)
>Date: 7/17/2003 9:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030717094308...@mb-m14.aol.com>
What in the world is a pastel tattoo?
>IMO the two rec.arts.bodyart FAQs are well-written
>and informative. These FAQs stress the skin care
>required to prevent damage to pastel tattoos, and
>the FAQs stress health considerations required
>during and after tattoo application.
>
> I got no problems
>20:50:05 20:50:05
>'Life in the trailer park'
> is a *long* sentence
>
>Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
>--
>Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
>Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
>Last book review: "Combatting Cult Mind Control"
> by Steven Hassan
Love, Aunty xxx
And out of the darkness, the Zombie did call
True pain and suffering he brought to them all
Away ran the children to hide in their beds,
for fear that the devil would chop off their heads
j11
Tattoo in a pastel color. Looks like a watercolor. Very pretty, but not
really that much more difficult to keep looking nice. Why this is an issue,
I do not know.
j11
Richard Ballard
"Figinn" <nos...@verizon.net> writes:
I avoid problems.
>To some degree *what* you write isn't the issue. It's the fact that
>you seem to have this illogical requirement to comment on things that
>you have limited experience with. In some cases it's ok. The
>rec.arts.bodyart FAQ is quite good.
Then why are you complaining about my recommending it?
>Having had 5 tattoos myself, I feel qualified to offer an opinion on
>it. When I first considered getting a tattoo, I didn't ask people
>that had never had one. I didn't worry about things people told me
>that had never had one but "knew somebody" that had one. Some dude
>telling me "I hear they hurt" meant infinitely less to me than
>someone with several tattoos explaining *what* it felt like and
>how it would hurt more or less in different spots and so forth.
>
>Your periodic Wiccan bullshit you serve up is a little different and
>that has been pointed out to you several times. I feel like some of
>the others that you clearly do more harm than good.
Specifically *who* have I harmed by providing information?
>Any writing of that sort is going to be slanted towards the agenda
>of the author, that's just how it works. In your case, the author
>is a casual observer and/or someone with an issue against Wicca.
>
>It would be much more acceptable if you stated you were anti-Wiccan
>or even an ex-Wiccan.
I am not anti-Wiccan or ex-Wiccan. I deal with people as individuals.
>I myself am an ex-Wiccan, so once again I feel more qualified than
>you to give an opinion. However if I wrote documents such as yours
>I would clearly label myself as an ex-Wiccan. Thereby allowing the
>readers to know where I'm coming from. You do not do this or you
>tuck it way down at the bottom. It is painfully transparent why.
I am not anti-Wiccan or ex-Wiccan. I deal with people as individuals.
>I read with great amusement your conversation with Bard about update
>frequency. Frequently updated bullshit is still that ... bullshit.
>The dynamic of the A.R.W. group indeed changes over time. However,
>the FAQ is still relevent and should be relatively *unchanged*
>over time.
That is your conservative opinion.
>Just be glad that I don't keep the damn thing ... I'd have a kook
>section where it would be highly recommended to avoid your ramblings
>until much more qualified people had been consulted. Until such time,
>you can be assured that those "more qualified people" are going to
>make sure that 'prospective wiccan novices' are aware of
>the issues ...
their issues
>... with your writings.
I provide my periodic messages in one e-mail name
(RBall...@aol.com) and with predictable titles.
They are easy to filter.
My providing opinions and references to information sources
is an action that should threaten no one.
Others are free to offer specific alternatives to the opinions
and references I provide -- the Internet is free.
Someone offering *specific alternatives* (rather than empty
derogatory comments) to my opinions and references does not
threaten me, but it means ***somebody else must do the work,
particularly in constantly evolving documents.***
For that matter, somebody offering empty derogatory comments
in response to my opinions and references does not threaten me,
but the empty derogatory comments help no one and accomplish
nothing.
>Figinn
>--
>'Life in the trailer park' next to Richard Ballard
>is a *life* sentence.
I skipped the trailer park -- too dusty.
>Happiness is finding a place that serves ... alcohol.
Happiness is not requiring intoxication to find happiness.
I got no problems
20:50:05 20:50:05
'Life in the trailer park'
j11
Figinn
I might submit you should try harder.
> >To some degree *what* you write isn't the issue. It's the fact that
> >you seem to have this illogical requirement to comment on things that
> >you have limited experience with. In some cases it's ok. The
> >rec.arts.bodyart FAQ is quite good.
>
> Then why are you complaining about my recommending it?
Because you moron ... the recommendations of someone who has no personal
experience are guesses at best. You seem to have a thing for tattoos, as
they are mentioned in your little 100K docs you submit. This does not
qualify you to provide opinions on them. Based on your other opinions, I'd
say you have no qualifications to provide opinions on any topic I've seen on
this newsgroup to date.
> >Having had 5 tattoos myself, I feel qualified to offer an opinion on
> >it. When I first considered getting a tattoo, I didn't ask people
> >that had never had one. I didn't worry about things people told me
> >that had never had one but "knew somebody" that had one. Some dude
> >telling me "I hear they hurt" meant infinitely less to me than
> >someone with several tattoos explaining *what* it felt like and
> >how it would hurt more or less in different spots and so forth.
> >
> >Your periodic Wiccan bullshit you serve up is a little different and
> >that has been pointed out to you several times. I feel like some of
> >the others that you clearly do more harm than good.
>
> Specifically *who* have I harmed by providing information?
Anyone who reads your crap and thinks your opinion counts for something.
> >Any writing of that sort is going to be slanted towards the agenda
> >of the author, that's just how it works. In your case, the author
> >is a casual observer and/or someone with an issue against Wicca.
> >
> >It would be much more acceptable if you stated you were anti-Wiccan
> >or even an ex-Wiccan.
>
> I am not anti-Wiccan or ex-Wiccan. I deal with people as individuals.
Mr. Blanket Statement deals with people as individuals. How cute.
> >I myself am an ex-Wiccan, so once again I feel more qualified than
> >you to give an opinion. However if I wrote documents such as yours
> >I would clearly label myself as an ex-Wiccan. Thereby allowing the
> >readers to know where I'm coming from. You do not do this or you
> >tuck it way down at the bottom. It is painfully transparent why.
>
> I am not anti-Wiccan or ex-Wiccan. I deal with people as individuals.
Mr. Blanket Statement deals with people as individuals. How cute.
> >I read with great amusement your conversation with Bard about update
> >frequency. Frequently updated bullshit is still that ... bullshit.
> >The dynamic of the A.R.W. group indeed changes over time. However,
> >the FAQ is still relevent and should be relatively *unchanged*
> >over time.
>
> That is your conservative opinion.
Seems to be the majority opinion as well. How cool when that happens.
> >Just be glad that I don't keep the damn thing ... I'd have a kook
> >section where it would be highly recommended to avoid your ramblings
> >until much more qualified people had been consulted. Until such time,
> >you can be assured that those "more qualified people" are going to
> >make sure that 'prospective wiccan novices' are aware of
> >the issues ...
>
> their issues
Your issues. You obviously have them with Wicca or you wouldn't bother.
> >... with your writings.
>
> I provide my periodic messages in one e-mail name
> (RBall...@aol.com) and with predictable titles.
> They are easy to filter.
Yes but it's more fun this way.
> My providing opinions and references to information sources
> is an action that should threaten no one.
Only to people who believe you're full of shit, passing off as some fucking
Wiccan guru.
> Others are free to offer specific alternatives to the opinions
> and references I provide -- the Internet is free.
I don't claim to be a Wiccan guru. Nor do I wish to spend a lot of time
putting canned junk, unfounded opinions and questionable definitions
together monthly like you do. I do not wish to mislead people, give blanket
statements or misrepresent Wicca for folks that might think it would be a
good path for them.
I do however know how to call a spade a spade.
<snip the rest of the standard Ballardism Auto-Reply(tm)>
I'm really starting to wonder if you're really a person or just an
auto-reply generator that some poor soul programmed some time in the past.
Figinn
Aunty Kreist
>Date: 7/17/2003 1:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <BB3C565C.9263%j4hd...@earthlink.net>
Oh, ok. Thanks. :) I've seen some people with really pretty floral pieces with
pastel colors. They're very nice.
Jani
> In article <CngRa.366$472.2...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
> "Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>
> >"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20030716124209...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> >
> >>In article <3F1542...@dmcom.net>,
> >>ba...@dmcom.net writes:
> >>
> >>>Richard Ballard wrote:
> >>
> [RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote to ba...@dmcom.net:]
> >>Others' opinions of my messages is not your concern.
> >>You regularly and predictably complain when I issue my
> >>documents ~21 days prior to each sabbat.
> >His complaints are in respect of inaccuracies and your highly
> >subjective perspectives in those posts, though, and several
> >others have made similar criticisms at other times.
> And I have adressed those *specific* criticisms repeatedly.
You have not always addressed them *directly*, though.
> >Whatever the current status of the debate regarding the origins
> >of Wicca, your reading/ reference lists tend to concentrate on
> >the more superficial elements of neo-paganism rather than
> >encouraging novices to do some serious background reading on
> >Wicca, or on pre-christian paganism in general. Recommending
> >the "latest version", and modifying that latest version every
> >time, would in the end be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that
> >no-one considering Wicca as their personal path would see it
> >as having any historical basis or structural core.
> I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
> *prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
> not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
> descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
You constantly draw a distinction between your subjective view of modern
wiccan practices and "arcane texts and history" - there are plenty of
Wiccans who still practise what you seem to regard as an outdated and
obsolete religion. To present only one view, and one grounded in a non-pagan
paradigm, is not balanced.
> >>It is estimated that 90% of Internet readers *never* provide
> >>a single message to any Internet newsgroup. In addition,
> >>my documents are addressed towards novices who (reasonably)
> >>might feel hesitant to refute adverse opinions stated by
> >>somebody who carries a list of Pagan-related FAQs in his SIG.
> >
> >It might equally well be said that inexperienced individuals
> >would be hesitant to refute dogmatically stated opinions by
> >someone whose sig implies professional and academic qualifications.
> I feel qualified to comment,
Why?
and I bring education and ~100K
> of relevant text to the Internet.
Education should be objective, and there is nothing very relevant about
re-posting several long paragraphs over and over again in lieu of a genuine
rebuttal of an argument.
I also address issues that
> others choose not to discuss, issues that are relevant in
> my locale.
They're very specific issues which, as you say, are relevant to *you*.
Couching them in broad allusive terms which imply to those "prospective
novices" that your personal experiences are illustrative of Wicca and
paganism as a whole is not accurate, though.
[]
> >>Once again, my documents are address to prospective Wiccan novices.
> >>I have made it straightforward for dissenting experienced Wiccans
> >>and Pagans to filter my documents.
> >Would it not be far more valuable for the novices whom you purport
> >to address to see *why* there is dissent, and to read the views of
> >experienced pagans and Wiccans in conjunction with yours, which you
> >freely admit are the subjective opinions of an outsider? I can
> >understand why pagans would killfile you in exasperation, but from
> >my POV to leave your opinions unchallenged would imply to newcomers
> >that they are correct, which presents a very unbalanced perspective
> >to such newcomers.
> You are discussing 'newcomers'. I am discussing (*uncommitted*)
> *prospective Wiccan novices -- different.
They would be newcomers to Wicca and/ or paganism, would they not?
> Others are free to comment. If the comments are derogatory with
> little substance I will point that deficiency out, particularly
> is the same derogatory substanceless comments occur repeatedly.
What of those who make substantive criticisms? You seem reluctant to address
those, except by reiterations of your original points.
[]
> >>NO. I consider the right to define and modify one's Wiccan
> >>Tradition a basic right of solitary worshippers, Covens and
> >>authors. Ms. McCoy has defined her own Wittan Tradition
> >>(much as Gerald Gardner defined the original Wiccan Tradition).
>
> BTW, this is not the time or the place to debate 'Witta' --
> I have detailed discussion in my original document.
> >Then would it not be more accurate to include material in your
> >reading/reference lists which documents the origins of Wicca
> >as well as its current variations? Modifications can only be
> >based on an original, after all, otherwise they are
> >not modifications.
> I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
> *prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
> not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
> descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
No, Richard, you are not addressing it, you are merely repeating yourself.
If you wish to present yourself as knowledgeable about Wicca, and in a
position to educate others about the religion, then demonstrating at least a
nodding acquaintance with its origins would improve your own credibility in
that regard.
>
> >>>Oh and please remove the belief that Wicca allows for any
> >>>path to be invented and considered valid. This certainly is
> >>>incorrect. Wicca does consider many paths are valid, however
> >>>never has held the belief that all paths are valid. We could
> >>>work on warlock and other deffinitions as well if you desire
> >>>your posts to be more accepted. I of course would prefer that
> >>>you start your posts indicating you are a Christian, others
> >>>have asked you to do so as well.
>
> BTW, I clearly state I am not a Pagan early in my documents.
> My documents describe 'warlock' sufficiently. And this
> plethora of preferences is a bit presumptuous.
Your posts equate warlocking with secular divorce. This is not accurate, and
you should make it *much* clearer that this is a local mis-use of
terminology.
>
> >>The basic issue here is conservative Wiccan opinion versus
> >>liberal Wiccan opinion. I am not a Wiccan or Pagan, but my
> >>liberal opinion is based partially upon "Wicca: A Guide For
> >>The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham and partially
> >>upon "The Tree: The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft"
> >>by Raymond Buckland that discusses the Seax-Wica Tradition.
> >>The fact that conservatives accept more than one Wiccan
> >>Tradition (e.g., most conservative Wiccans recognize the
> >>Gardnerian and the Alexanderian Traditions) implies that
> >>further variation is possible.
> >
> >Yes, variation upon what is already established. The separation
> >between Gardnerian and Alexandrian, as exemplified by the Farrars,
> >for instance, is nothing like the gulf between those variants
> >taken in tandem and the newage proliferation which currently
> >labels itself "Wicca".
>
> Doesn't matter -- variation is variation. Acceptability of
> variation magnitude is a conservative versus liberal issue.
But you are not generalising, in your posts, about conservative versus
liberal. You are virtually ignoring the foundations on which *all* other
variations are based, in favour of updating superficial and subjectively
observed variations.
> >>And I address
> >>my documents to Internet newsgroups where I believe lurkers will
> >>find the information useful. I no longer provide my documents
> >>on newsgroups ARWM, ATW and AW. These three newsgroups either
> >>have more experienced readerships or have particular agendas
> >>that IMO make my documents not suitable there.
> >You've just stated that in your opinion, the vast majority of
> >lurkers don't post. How do you know that those interested in
> >Wicca are not lurking on the groups you mention?
>
> Long experience with the subject matter discussed in those
> newsgroups. IMO those newsgroups are less likely to attract
> (*uncommitted*) prospective novice lurkers.
Logic would suggest that ARW, being high-volume, frequently off-topic and
beleagured with crossposts, would be far less popular with novice lurkers
than the other groups.
[]
> >If your concern is to provide *accurate* information to
> >prospective newcomers to Wicca and paganism in general,
> >surely it would be as well to take note of those who are
> >more experienced?
> Different orientation -- I address my documents to (*uncommitted*)
> prospective novices. So-called more experienced people can
> address their comments to committed newcomers -- a different
> audience. So-called more experienced people can laboriously
> document what their opinions -- I document my opinions.
Why should those experienced in Wicca and paganism address themselves solely
to the "committed"? Presenting accurate information is presenting accurate
information, whoever the audience might be.
[]
> >And you don't think that a prospective novice would want information
> >on the origins of Wicca, or reliable academic studies on pre-christian
> >paganism?
> I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
> *prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
> not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
> descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
>
> This is the third time in this message I have repeated the above
> paragraph. I do not want to address this issue again.
You haven't yet addressed it at all. I look forward to your doing so, rather
than reiterating your false dichotomy between your very subjective opinions
on modern Wicca, and "arcane history".
[]
> >*Informed* choice, Richard. Offering only the subjective opinions of a
> >christian on recent populist texts doesn't give the opportunity for the
> >voter to exercise informed choice, does it?
>
> Others are free to bring descriptions of arcane texts and history
> to the Internet. I document my opinions based upon my reading
> and upon activities hap pening in my locale.
Exactly. It is your extremely circumscribed view of selected texts coupled
with what appear to be rather dubious social and political activities within
a very small area. I do appreciate that you seem to have had unpleasant
experiences, both personally and politically, with the neo-wiccan community
in your neighbourhood. However, to present these in a form which implies
they have a much broader application, and carry the weight of academic
qualification, is, in my view, unethical.
Jani
Richard Ballard
aunty...@aol.comeondown (Aunty Kreist) writes:
[RB comment: In Message-id:
<20030717094308...@mb-m14.aol.com>
Richard Ballard wrote:]
>>I have no tattoos, but I know people who have extensive,
>>difficult-to-patch pastel tattoos. I know the care
>>these people take to keep their extensive pastel tattoos
>>looking attractive.
>
>What in the world is a pastel tattoo?
Many tattoos are applied using saturated color (e.g.,
primarily dark black, but also dark red and dark blue)
inks exclusively. The advantage of using saturated
color inks is that should the tattooed area later become
damaged due to abrasion, skin dryness or sunburn,
the tattoo can be patched without 'color match' problems
-- i.e., dark black is dark black, etc.
When tattoos employing pastel colored inks are damaged,
the tattoo artist can encounter 'color match' problems
similar to the paint matching problems that auto body
shops encounter. Light-colored pastel inks are difficult
to exactly color match, particularly if the skin damage
changes the underlying skin's characteristics (e.g., as
the result of sunburn).
Individuals receiving tattoos employing pastel-colored
inks must be especially careful that their tattoos do not
become damaged if they want to maintain the beauty
of their pastel-colored tattoos.
I have no tattoos, but I know people who have extensive,
difficult-to-patch pastel tattoos. I know the care
these people take to keep their extensive pastel tattoos
looking attractive.
>>IMO the two rec.arts.bodyart FAQs are well-written
Richard Ballard
j11 <j4hd...@earthlink.net> writes:
Many tattoos are applied using saturated color (e.g.,
primarily dark black, but also dark red and dark blue)
inks exclusively. The advantage of using saturated
color inks is that should the tattooed area later become
damaged due to abrasion, skin dryness or sunburn,
the tattoo can be patched without 'color match' problems
-- e.g., dark black is dark black, etc.
When tattoos employing pastel colored inks are damaged,
the tattoo artist can encounter 'color match' problems
similar to the paint matching problems that auto body
shops encounter. ***Light-colored pastel inks are difficult
to exactly color match, particularly if the skin damage
changes the underlying skin's characteristics (e.g., as
the result of bad sunburn).***
Individuals receiving tattoos employing pastel-colored
inks must be especially careful that their tattoos do not
become damaged if they want to maintain the beauty
of their pastel-colored tattoos.
I have no tattoos, but I know people who have extensive,
difficult-to-patch pastel tattoos. I know the care
these people take to keep their extensive pastel tattoos
looking attractive.
>>>IMO the two rec.arts.bodyart FAQs are well-written
>>>and informative. These FAQs stress the skin care
>>>required to prevent damage to pastel tattoos, and
>>>the FAQs stress health considerations required
>>>during and after tattoo application.
In November 1998 I downloaded the "rec.arts.bodyart:
Alternative Bodyart FAQ" from the Ohio State FAQ website.
I do not know if the "rec.arts.bodyart: Alternative Bodyart
FAQ" still is available on the Internet. This FAQ discusses
thermal branding of human skin. ***The "rec.arts.bodyart:
Alternative Bodyart FAQ" is a very uncomfortable document.***
IMO the rationale for thermal branding of human skin (rather
than tattooing) are:
1) Rite of passage in some organizations and societies
2) Economical and fast alternative to group tattooing
3) No possibility of infection from a red hot branding iron
4) Once healed, thermal brands are free from the maintenance
problems associated with (pastel-colored) tattoos
5) Punishment and deterrent (e.g., pain inflicted as example
both to an individual and to the overall group -- this ain't
Nirvana)
Richard Ballard
More below.
In article <Y8ERa.14337$EZ2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Figinn" <nos...@verizon.net> writes:
I have issues with organizations that limit personal
freedom and initiative. The most controversial statements
I make are cautionary statements dealing with the binding
oath of obedience that some Wiccan Covens require that
initiates make to the High Priest/ess.
>>>... with your writings.
>>
>>I provide my periodic messages in one e-mail name
>>(RBall...@aol.com) and with predictable titles.
>>They are easy to filter.
>
>Yes but it's more fun this way.
>
>>My providing opinions and references to information sources
>>is an action that should threaten no one.
>
>Only to people who believe you're full of shit, passing off as
>some fucking Wiccan guru.
>
>>Others are free to offer specific alternatives to the opinions
>>and references I provide -- the Internet is free.
>
>I don't claim to be a Wiccan guru. Nor do I wish to spend a lot of time
>putting canned junk, unfounded opinions and questionable definitions
>together monthly like you do. I do not wish to mislead people, give blanket
>statements or misrepresent Wicca for folks that might think it would be a
>good path for them.
>
>I do however know how to call a spade a spade.
>
><snip the rest of the standard Ballardism Auto-Reply(tm)>
>
>I'm really starting to wonder if you're really a person or just an
>auto-reply generator that some poor soul programmed some time in the past.
At least you are not insulting me by calling me an automaton.
Several times in the past I studied so-called
'artificial intelligence'. In each study I decided I preferred
the real thing.
>Figinn
How can you know where you are going
if you can not remember where you have been
(and with whom)?
Figinn
> Your contentless insults do not merit a reply.
You need to get more fun out of life, Richard.
Figinn
Richard Ballard
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030716215442...@mb-m04.aol.com...
>
>>In article <CngRa.366$472.2...@news-text.cableinet.net>,
>>"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>news:20030716124209...@mb-m15.aol.com...
>>>
>>>>In article <3F1542...@dmcom.net>,
>>>>ba...@dmcom.net writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Richard Ballard wrote:
>>>>
>>[RB comment: Richard Ballard wrote to ba...@dmcom.net:]
>>>>Others' opinions of my messages is not your concern.
>>>>You regularly and predictably complain when I issue my
>>>>documents ~21 days prior to each sabbat.
>>>
>>>His complaints are in respect of inaccuracies and your highly
>>>subjective perspectives in those posts, though, and several
>>>others have made similar criticisms at other times.
>>>
>>And I have adressed those *specific* criticisms repeatedly.
>>
>You have not always addressed them *directly*, though.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>>Whatever the current status of the debate regarding the origins
>>>of Wicca, your reading/ reference lists tend to concentrate on
>>>the more superficial elements of neo-paganism rather than
>>>encouraging novices to do some serious background reading on
>>>Wicca, or on pre-christian paganism in general. Recommending
>>>the "latest version", and modifying that latest version every
>>>time, would in the end be a self-fulfilling prophecy, in that
>>>no-one considering Wicca as their personal path would see it
>>>as having any historical basis or structural core.
>>
>>I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
>>*prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
>>not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
>>descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
>
>You constantly draw a distinction between your subjective view of modern
>wiccan practices and "arcane texts and history" - there are plenty of
>Wiccans who still practise what you seem to regard as an outdated and
>obsolete religion. To present only one view, and one grounded in a non-pagan
>paradigm, is not balanced.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>>>It is estimated that 90% of Internet readers *never* provide
>>>>a single message to any Internet newsgroup. In addition,
>>>>my documents are addressed towards novices who (reasonably)
>>>>might feel hesitant to refute adverse opinions stated by
>>>>somebody who carries a list of Pagan-related FAQs in his SIG.
>>>
>>>It might equally well be said that inexperienced individuals
>>>would be hesitant to refute dogmatically stated opinions by
>>>someone whose sig implies professional and academic qualifications.
>>
>>I feel qualified to comment,
>
>Why?
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>and I bring education and ~100K
>>of relevant text to the Internet.
>
>Education should be objective, and there is nothing very relevant about
>re-posting several long paragraphs over and over again in lieu of a genuine
>rebuttal of an argument.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>I also address issues that others choose not to discuss,
>>issues that are relevant in my locale.
>
>They're very specific issues which, as you say, are relevant to *you*.
>Couching them in broad allusive terms which imply to those "prospective
>novices" that your personal experiences are illustrative of Wicca and
>paganism as a whole is not accurate, though.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>[]
>
>>>>Once again, my documents are address to prospective Wiccan novices.
>>>>I have made it straightforward for dissenting experienced Wiccans
>>>>and Pagans to filter my documents.
>>>
>>>Would it not be far more valuable for the novices whom you purport
>>>to address to see *why* there is dissent, and to read the views of
>>>experienced pagans and Wiccans in conjunction with yours, which you
>>>freely admit are the subjective opinions of an outsider? I can
>>>understand why pagans would killfile you in exasperation, but from
>>>my POV to leave your opinions unchallenged would imply to newcomers
>>>that they are correct, which presents a very unbalanced perspective
>>>to such newcomers.
>>
>>You are discussing 'newcomers'. I am discussing (*uncommitted*)
>>*prospective Wiccan novices -- different.
>
>They would be newcomers to Wicca and/ or paganism, would they not?
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>Others are free to comment. If the comments are derogatory with
>>little substance I will point that deficiency out, particularly
>>is the same derogatory substanceless comments occur repeatedly.
>
>What of those who make substantive criticisms? You seem reluctant to address
>those, except by reiterations of your original points.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>[]
>
>>>>NO. I consider the right to define and modify one's Wiccan
>>>>Tradition a basic right of solitary worshippers, Covens and
>>>>authors. Ms. McCoy has defined her own Wittan Tradition
>>>>(much as Gerald Gardner defined the original Wiccan Tradition).
>>>
>>BTW, this is not the time or the place to debate 'Witta' --
>>I have detailed discussion in my original document.
>>
>>>Then would it not be more accurate to include material in your
>>>reading/reference lists which documents the origins of Wicca
>>>as well as its current variations? Modifications can only be
>>>based on an original, after all, otherwise they are
>>>not modifications.
>>
>>I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
>>*prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
>>not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
>>descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
>
>No, Richard, you are not addressing it, you are merely repeating yourself.
>If you wish to present yourself as knowledgeable about Wicca, and in a
>position to educate others about the religion, then demonstrating at least a
>nodding acquaintance with its origins would improve your own credibility in
>that regard.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>>>>Oh and please remove the belief that Wicca allows for any
>>>>>path to be invented and considered valid. This certainly is
>>>>>incorrect. Wicca does consider many paths are valid, however
>>>>>never has held the belief that all paths are valid. We could
>>>>>work on warlock and other deffinitions as well if you desire
>>>>>your posts to be more accepted. I of course would prefer that
>>>>>you start your posts indicating you are a Christian, others
>>>>>have asked you to do so as well.
>>
>>BTW, I clearly state I am not a Pagan early in my documents.
>>My documents describe 'warlock' sufficiently. And this
>>plethora of preferences is a bit presumptuous.
>
>Your posts equate warlocking with secular divorce. This is not accurate, and
>you should make it *much* clearer that this is a local mis-use of
>terminology.
I disagree with your opinion. One can be de facto divorced
from a person, a group or a society. Typically warlocks are
shunned with some degree of thoroughness and severity.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>>>The basic issue here is conservative Wiccan opinion versus
>>>>liberal Wiccan opinion. I am not a Wiccan or Pagan, but my
>>>>liberal opinion is based partially upon "Wicca: A Guide For
>>>>The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham and partially
>>>>upon "The Tree: The Complete Book of Saxon Witchcraft"
>>>>by Raymond Buckland that discusses the Seax-Wica Tradition.
>>>>The fact that conservatives accept more than one Wiccan
>>>>Tradition (e.g., most conservative Wiccans recognize the
>>>>Gardnerian and the Alexanderian Traditions) implies that
>>>>further variation is possible.
>>>
>>>Yes, variation upon what is already established. The separation
>>>between Gardnerian and Alexandrian, as exemplified by the Farrars,
>>>for instance, is nothing like the gulf between those variants
>>>taken in tandem and the newage proliferation which currently
>>>labels itself "Wicca".
>>
>>Doesn't matter -- variation is variation. Acceptability of
>>variation magnitude is a conservative versus liberal issue.
>
>But you are not generalising, in your posts, about conservative versus
>liberal. You are virtually ignoring the foundations on which *all* other
>variations are based, in favour of updating superficial and subjectively
>observed variations.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>>>>And I address
>>>>my documents to Internet newsgroups where I believe lurkers will
>>>>find the information useful. I no longer provide my documents
>>>>on newsgroups ARWM, ATW and AW. These three newsgroups either
>>>>have more experienced readerships or have particular agendas
>>>>that IMO make my documents not suitable there.
>>>
>>>You've just stated that in your opinion, the vast majority of
>>>lurkers don't post. How do you know that those interested in
>>>Wicca are not lurking on the groups you mention?
>>
>>Long experience with the subject matter discussed in those
>>newsgroups. IMO those newsgroups are less likely to attract
>>(*uncommitted*) prospective novice lurkers.
>
>Logic would suggest that ARW, being high-volume, frequently off-topic and
>beleagured with crossposts, would be far less popular with novice lurkers
>than the other groups.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>[]
>
>>>If your concern is to provide *accurate* information to
>>>prospective newcomers to Wicca and paganism in general,
>>>surely it would be as well to take note of those who are
>>>more experienced?
>>
>>Different orientation -- I address my documents to (*uncommitted*)
>>prospective novices. So-called more experienced people can
>>address their comments to committed newcomers -- a different
>>audience. So-called more experienced people can laboriously
>>document what their opinions -- I document my opinions.
>
>Why should those experienced in Wicca and paganism address themselves solely
>to the "committed"? Presenting accurate information is presenting accurate
>information, whoever the audience might be.
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>[]
>
>>>And you don't think that a prospective novice would want information
>>>on the origins of Wicca, or reliable academic studies on pre-christian
>>>paganism?
>>
>>I have addressed this concern repeatedly. IMO (*uncommitted*)
>>*prospective* novices are interested in current Wiccan practices,
>>not arcane texts and historical detail. Others are free to bring
>>descriptions of arcane texts and history to the Internet.
>>
>>This is the third time in this message I have repeated the above
>>paragraph. I do not want to address this issue again.
>
>You haven't yet addressed it at all. I look forward to your doing so, rather
>than reiterating your false dichotomy between your very subjective opinions
>on modern Wicca, and "arcane history".
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
>[]
>
>>>*Informed* choice, Richard. Offering only the subjective opinions of a
>>>christian on recent populist texts doesn't give the opportunity for the
>>>voter to exercise informed choice, does it?
>>
>>Others are free to bring descriptions of arcane texts and history
>>to the Internet. I document my opinions based upon my reading
>>and upon activities hap pening in my locale.
>
>Exactly. It is your extremely circumscribed view of selected texts coupled
>with what appear to be rather dubious social and political activities within
>a very small area. I do appreciate that you seem to have had unpleasant
>experiences, both personally and politically, with the neo-wiccan community
>in your neighbourhood. However, to present these in a form which implies
>they have a much broader application, and carry the weight of academic
>qualification, is, in my view, unethical.
>
>Jani
Having a clearly stated limited scope is fair.
My messages are addressed primarily to the *uncommitted*.
I have no intention of broadening that scope.
***Somebody else can carry the already committed.***
Jani
"very uncomfortable", I should keep away from anything about extreme
bodymods ..
Jani
"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030718122803...@mb-m18.aol.com...
Aunty Kreist
>From: rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard)
>Message-id: <20030718115718...@mb-m23.aol.com>
Thank you, Richard. That was very helpful.
Richard Ballard
document. Rather than waiting until 21 days before the
Mabon sabbat to issue a version containing the revisions, I
am reissueing the Lammas version in its entirety. _New_
additions and revisions are marked with a <*> marker.
*****Beginning of document*****
Copyright 2003 by Richard J. Ballard -- All Rights Reserved.
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.
<*> Part One is contained in an earlier message titled
"A Reference List For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One
of Two Parts)". Helpful definitions were included in earlier
messages entitled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices
(Part One/Two/Three of Three Parts)".
I recommend the following text *despite reservations*:
9) "Wicca for Men: A Handbook for Male Pagans Seeking A
Spiritual Path" by A. J. Drew
4 stars -- A Readable Text with a Misleading Title
Most Wiccan Traditions emphasize the Wiccan Goddess and
women's issues over the Wiccan God and men's issues. Author
A. J. Drew offers a Wiccan Tradition with better female/male
balance: the Tradition honors the Goddess and God equally,
and its rituals provide meaningful roles for women and men both.
Nevertheless, I believe this readable and informative text does
*not* live up to its title because Mr. Drew does *not* discuss
witchcraft and Wicca from a strictly male-oriented viewpoint.
"Wicca: A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner" by Scott
Cunningham emphasizes ethics over dogma and suggests how
solitary worshippers can modify Wicca to fit their beliefs. I
believe that Mr. Cunningham's text is better suited for those
seeking a strictly male-oriented viewpoint of Wicca.
While the statement makes me uncomfortable, I must praise
A. J. Drew's candor. On page 154 Mr. Drew discusses self-
initiation into Creation's Covenant's Wiccan Tradition, and
states "This is not a decision you should take lightly. If
you were raised in a traditional Western religion, you are
about to throw away the religion of your parents and their
parents."
I am *not* a member of 'Creation's Covenant'.
I recommend the following text *despite reservations*:
10) "The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion
of the Great Goddess" by Starhawk
5 stars -- A Witchcraft Tradition and Political Manifesto
"The Spiral Dance..." relegates the Horned God and men to a
weak supporting role. *No-where* in the Twentieth Anniversary
Edition of "The Spiral Dance: ..." (original text plus two
appendices giving Tenth Anniversary comments and Twentieth
Anniversary comments, respectively) does Starhawk state that
she is a Wiccan. Starhawk states (pp. 6,16) that her Reclaiming
Tradition has roots in Victor and Cora Anderson's Faerie
Tradition. Nevertheless, this text is very well-written and
provides detailed insight into a non-Wiccan feminist Tradition
not available in other texts.
=====================================
My reviews of these texts appear on the Amazon.com
website. All of the reviews appear in one place. To
access these reviews:
A) Access "http://www.amazon.com" (no quotes);
B) Click on "Friends & Favorites";
C) Under the category "Search for Friends"
Enter "rjballard"
Click GO
D) Scroll to the bottom of this short webpage
E) Click "See all of Richard Ballard's reviews"
F) Scroll down this page (and successive pages)
to the reviews of interest.
=====================================
I specifically do *not* recommend:
11) "Living Wicca: A Further Guide for the Solitary Practitioner"
by Scott Cunningham
3 stars -- A Disappointing Sequel
Scott Cunningham's excellent first text "Wicca: A Guide For
The Solitary Practitioner" defines a Tradition based upon belief
in the Wiccan Goddess and the Wiccan God, concern for the Earth,
social consciousness, and the right not to be dominated by others.
This Tradition is free and flexible, and Mr. Cunningham suggests
how solitary Wiccans can modify this Tradition to better suit
their individual philosophies and needs.
IMO the sequel "Living Wicca" ..." discourages solitary worship
in favor of Coven membership. IMO "Living Wicca: ..." systematically
removes the freedom and flexibility from the Tradition that Scott
Cunningham defined in "Wicca: ..." , leaving *no remaining advantage*
to the original (solitary worshipper oriented) Tradition and
suggesting that somebody who chooses to become a Wiccan would be
better served by joining a Coven. I do *not* support this attitude.
IMO people choosing to become Wiccans are best served by combining
solitary worship with Circle membership. (A Circle is a social group
that meets to discuss Craft-related issues but that does *not* include
the oath-bound information or the binding oaths of obedience included
in Wiccan Coven initiations.) Wiccan solitary worshippers joining
Circles do not sacrifice their personal autonomy through oaths of
obedience to a Coven High Priest/ess, and Circle membership offers
most of the social and discussion advantages of Coven membership.
***I can not overstress this issue.*** A Coven's High Priest/ess
has the right to squelch 'improper discussion'. As individuals grow
(and as different people assume the High Priest/ess's office),
keeping oathbound obedience to the Coven High Priest/ess's authority
might pose difficult and unanticipated problems. Liberal Coven
members might chafe under a conservative High Priest/ess's authority.
Conservative Coven members might chafe under a liberal
High Priest/ess's authority. Wo/men Coven members might chafe
under a particularly strong and chauvinistic High Priest/ess's
authority. And many Coven oaths include penalties for leaving
Coven membership.
In some Wiccan Traditions, the High Priest/ess designates couples
for each sabbat celebration (possibly including the coupling of
Wiccan parents' children). IMO this social whirl does not reinforce
romantic love or stable (biological) family relationships. Teaching
is teaching, but IMO this sabbat-related social whirl is wasteful.
Partners invest their time and energy in each other, but repeatedly
switching partners at each sabbat destroys earlier investments.
<*> And where is it written that a High Priest/ess's authority is
limited to Coven-specific matters? Where is it written that the
High Priest/ess can not intervene in Coven members' mundane concerns
such as housing and use of spare/guest bedrooms? I discuss housing
issues extensively in my accompanying "Definitions for Prospective
Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two/Three of Three parts)" messages.
In addition, "Living Wicca: ..." was written late in
Scott Cunningham's life, probably during the last stages of his
terminal illness. IMO the writing styles of "Wicca: ..." and
"Living Wicca: ..." are *markedly different*. I must wonder if
ghost-writers (with their own opinions and agendas) co-authored
"Living Wicca: ..." ***without *** strong supervision from
Scott Cunningham.
I can *not* recommend "Living Wicca: ..." because its de facto
Coven-bound orientation runs counter to its title statement, and
because I believe that Wiccan solitary worshippers who participate
in Circles achieve most of the benefits that Covens offer without
sacrificing their personal autonomy through binding oaths of
obedience.
I am *not* a member of the 'Church of All Worlds'. I am *not*
a member of 'The Church of Satan'. I am *not* a member of
'The Temple of Set'.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
12) "To Ride A Silver Broomstick: New Generation Witchcraft"
by Silver RavenWolf
4 stars -- New Generation Witchcraft is *not* Wicca
I believe Ms. Thayer (Silver RavenWolf) utilizes Wiccan concepts
plus New Age concepts to define New Generation Witchcraft. The
result is not Wicca: A) Ms. Thayer provides (pp.14-15) a
definition of Wicca unlike any Wiccan definition that I have seen
elsewhere; B) I believe that Wicca, with its worship of both The
Wiccan Goddess and The Wiccan God, should be a gender-neutral
religion. Ms. Thayer's statements (pg 274) indicate that New
Generation Witchcraft is not gender-neutral; C) Most Wiccan
traditions follow The Rede. New Generation Witchcraft explicitly
ignores ethics (Chapter 21), and I believe that several of
Ms. Thayer's writings are contrary to The Rede.
My belief is that New Generation Witchcraft is attractively-
packaged New Age occultism, but it is not Wicca. New Generation
Witchcraft appears to be designed for a parent having difficulty:
the parent can form a family Coven, an exclusive Coven that
avoids outsiders to the detriment of the children's (and the
parents') social development.
I can *not* recommend New Generation Witchcraft to prospective
Wiccan novices or their families.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
13) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft"
by Denise Zimmermann and Katherine A. Gleason
3 stars -- A nice Craft text with serious omissions
"The Guide ..." is very professionally produced. I believe its
primary audience is women in transition (e.g., discharged career
women, divorcees, empty-nesters and widows) who seek new motivation.
"The Guide ..." discusses a range of New Age topics and provides
a nice discussion about the Wiccan religion and witchcraft, but it
omits discussion of domineering, left-handed witchcraft. [E.g.,
some spells are punitive, some witches practice necromancy, and
some Coven initiations include (a-hem) secret rituals and (a-hem)
binding commitments.] I believe that "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" by Scott Cunningham plus "Inside A Witches'
Coven" by Edain McCoy provide a better and clearer introduction
for prospective Wiccan novices.
"The Guide ..." reads like professionally-prepared marketing
literature, but I can *not* recommend "The Guide ..." to
prospective Wiccan novices because of the omissions discussed
above.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
14) "True Magick: A Beginner's Guide" by Amber K
3 stars -- A Weak Introduction To Witchcraft
I believe this text is written in a style and level of detail
suited for middle-school-aged children. It is a broad shallow
overview of witchcraft. It contains serious errors (it equates
witchcraft and Wicca) and omits to differentiate between solitary
Wiccan worship and Wiccan Coven membership. It does not discuss
Coven social structure or binding initiation rituals -- serious
omissions in an introductory text.
I believe that middle-school-aged children would be better served
by discussing Scott Cunningham's "Wicca: A Guide For The
Solitary Practitioner" plus Edain McCoy's "Inside A Witches'
Coven" with their biological parents and/or legal guardians.
I can *not* recommend "True Magick: A Beginner's Guide" to
prospective Wiccan novices because of the errors and omissions
discussed above.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
15) "Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers,
and Other Pagans in America Today" by Margot Adler
4 stars -- A Paganism Survey Text Unsuited For Beginners
Margot Adler's "Drawing Down The Moon: ..." was originally
published in 1979. The Revised and Expanded Edition is
copyright 1986 with an 'Appendix III: Resources' added in 1997.
I believe that Paganism is a dynamic, very rapidly changing
culture. [For example satanism, a dominance attitude/philosophy
and a religion (***documented in 1969***) that some people include
under Paganism, is increasingly significant in 21st Century
United States society. Satanism is *not* discussed within
Ms. Adler's text.] Due to its age and omissions I consider
"Drawing Down the Moon: ..." an outdated historical description.
I believe that prospective Wiccan novices want current information
about modern Wicca and Paganism, *not* historical descriptions.
"Drawing Down The Moon: ..." is written like a sociological
survey text. I have read this lengthy text completely *twice*,
and I believe it is dry, difficult reading for a prospective
Wiccan novice. Unlike other Wiccan and witchcraft texts,
"Drawing Down The Moon: ..." does *not* include personal
experience descriptions. I believe that prospective Wiccan
novices want descriptions of *modern* Paganism and witchcraft.
I believe that "Inside A Witches' Coven" by Edain McCoy and
"The SABBATS: A New Approach to Living the Old Ways" by Edain
McCoy include better descriptions (including personal
experience descriptions) of modern Paganism and witchcraft.
I can *not* recommend "Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids,
Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today" to
prospective Wiccan novices for the reasons discussed above.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
16) "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
Warlocks, & Covens" by Paul Huson
4 stars -- The History and Tools of Dark Magick
I believe Wicca is a magick user's religion celebrating human
fertility and the Earth's fertility -- a beneficient religion.
I believe that witchcraft is goal-oriented use of magick and
magickal tools with *no* ethical and *no* moral constraints --
potentially evil magick use that contradicts the Wiccan Rede
("An Ye harm none, do what Ye will"). I do *not* equate
witchcraft to Wicca.
"Mastering Witchcraft: ..." provides Paul Huson's historical
views of daemons (fallen angels). Mr. Huson attributes magick
to the Nephilim, the children of the 'sons of God' (Genesis 6:4)
who mated with the daughters of man. The Nephilim exist in other
cultures' histories -- e.g., the Norse Giants and the Greek Titans.
According to Mr. Huson the Nephilim perished during the Great
Flood, but their spirits survived due to their angelic nature.
Mr. Huson states that the Nephilim are able to reincarnate and
that ***all magickal knowledge is derived from them***.
Paul Huson's text makes me uncomfortable, but I must praise
Mr. Huson's candor. On page 6 Mr. Huson states "Whether you
believe the Christian bugaboos and fear to lose your soul in
return for the powers or, like us, consider the gamble well
spent, is up to you." Mr. Huson goes on to discuss the legal
consequences of intimidation (pp. 28 and 174), poison rings
(pg.44), adulterants for food, drink, and cigarettes (pp. 102
and 189), planetary (torment) spells for indifferent or
neglectful lovers (pp. 107-111), the Dumb Supper [a silent
supper communing with a dead spouse (and I believe punishing
a separated or divorced spouse)] (pp. 111-115), love dissolution
spells (pp. 125 and 189-190), binding the victim's soul or deep
mind (pg. 136), mandrake root and devil's weed (pg. 146), the
basis of vampire and werewolf legends (pg. 152), banishing
(pg. 169), exorcism fumigations (pg. 170), ligature (pp. 179-180),
bondage and sensory deprivation [the witch's bridle/cradle
(pg. 180) and hoodwinks (pg. 220)], and erection of a psychic
booby trap (pg. 185).
I believe that Mr. Huson's text "Mastering Witchcraft: ..." is
unfair and is antithetical to a magick-users' religion
celebrating the Earth's and human fertility. I believe this text
concentrates more on ****dominating/mastering people**** than
upon mastering witchcraft.
I can *not* recommend "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide
for Witches, Warlocks, & Covens" to prospective Wiccan novices
for the reasons discussed above.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
17) "The Book Of The Law" by Aleister Crowley
3 stars -- An Interesting Presentation of Ethics
Aleister Crowley's "The Book Of The Law" is a seminal work
for some magickal disciplines and is much discussed among Wiccans,
but I do *not* recommend that prospective Wiccan novices study
"The Book Of The Law". I believe that "The Book Of The Law"
is *totally* unsuitable for novices due to its cryptic style.
I also believe that any novice attempting to read "The Book Of
The Law" would quickly give up in frustration.
Crowley's "The Book Of The Law" is cryptic reading until a person
discovers the key, but the nature of the key is controversial and
subject to (mis)interpretation. While scholars interpret the key
as a matter of faith, I believe that most Magickians interpret the
key differently based solely upon the language of 21st Century
popular culture. Also (in a manner analogous to Islamic tenets
concerning the Quran) "The Book Of The Law" warns *against* casual
study of "The Book Of The Law" by the unknowledgeable.
I believe that "The Book Of The Law" is *totally unsuitable* for
prospective Wiccan novices due to its cryptic nature, and due to
the fact that its warning against casual study makes it a topic
of *unknowledgeable speculation*.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
18) "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" by Aleister Crowley
4 stars -- Aleister Crowley Revealed
Aleister Crowley's "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" (MTP) is a
seminal work for some magickal disciplines and is much discussed
among Wiccans, but I do *not* recommend that prospective Wiccan
novices study MTP. I believe that MTP is *totally* unsuitable
for novices due to its cryptic style, and that any novice
attempting to read MTP would quickly give up in frustration.
[After having read many Wiccan texts and more than one year's
participation in Wiccan-related Internet newsgroups, I read MTP
twice taking copious notes before I felt that I understood the
text.]
Crowley's MTP discusses his ritual magick, but MTP is cryptically
written and subject to (mis)interpretation. Furthermore, there
is similarity between some rituals appearing in the "The Satanic
Rituals" by Anton LaVey (founder of 'The Church of Satan') and
rituals discussed within MTP. I believe that Anton LaVey was
*very* familiar with MTP.
I believe that "MAGICK In Theory And Practice" is *totally
unsuitable* for prospective Wiccan novices due to its cryptic
nature and its apparent similarity to satanic rituals. MTP is
valuable reading for scholars with sufficient knowledge to
differentiate between magick and satanism.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
I specifically do *not* recommend:
19) "The Satanic Witch" by Anton Szandor LaVey
5 stars -- satanic witches prefer cleverness to magick
Anton LaVey is the founder of 'The Church of Satan'. In
"The Satanic Witch" Mr. LaVey discusses his lessons for satanic
witches. Mr. LaVey's witches are temptresses who have made pacts
with the devil and use clever sexual ploys to "cloud men's minds
and make simpering idiots out of them." Mr. LaVey dismisses a
Wiccan as somebody who "either is kidding herself or has much
to learn."
Mr. LaVey teaches his satanic witches to use bad faith ploys to
exploit men. Clever bad faith ploys might make a golden first
impression, but the gilt quickly wears thin -- satanic witches
do *not* have lasting relationships. And once the gilt fades,
the satanic witch moves to the next partner, and the next, and
the next. This constant whirling might create a constant revenue
stream for the satanic witch and her Coven, but it whirls her life
constantly. And in a downsizing United States domestic economy,
the opportunities for new partners will become fewer and meaner.
Where will the satanic witch find herself (and her children) when
the merry-go-round runs out of brass rings?
IMO honor and good faith are powerful magick that must be included
within Wiccan worship. Mr. LaVey teaches the opposite --
Mr. LaVey teaches the use of bad faith ploys to exploit men
partners. In teaching these bad faith ploys I believe that
Mr. LaVey is exploiting his own satanic witches. And in the
long run Mr. LaVey's satanic witches help nobody, including
themselves and their children. I can *not* recommend Mr. LaVey's
"The Satanic Witch" for these reasons.
I am *not* a Wiccan, a witch, a Pagan, or a satanist.
=====================================
<*> I purposefully have not included any Internet website URLs
within my listed references. In the 21st Century many people
question the importance of textual references. That something
has been published indicates that a publisher has judged that
the content financially merits publication, and indicates that
a copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content -- rough
indications of content quality control. While librarian
professional organizations apparently have citation rules for
Internet online academic journals, these journals typically
supplement and mirror the contents of paper professional
journals (archived by the Libary of Congress). The websites
cited in the Pagan community are not archivally stable, revising
webpage content is as difficult as revising a form letter, and
a record of webpage content changes is *not* maintained for
later public scrutiny.
<*> Some people question why I have not included their favorite
Wiccan historical texts within my reference list. I have addressed
this concern repeatedly. IMO *not committed* prospective Wiccan
novices are interested in current Wiccan practices, not arcane
historical texts. I have limited time for discretionary reading
and I have limited my current scope to those materials that I
believe *not committed* prospective Wiccan novices will find
most interesting -- that's fair.
<*> Others are free to bring descriptions of arcane texts and
history to the Internet. I document my opinions based upon my
reading and upon activities hap pening in my locale. Others can
assemble descriptions of arcane Wiccan history texts of interest
to *committed* Wiccans and can provide those descriptions on the
Internet. I consider that task outside of my current scope --
I might reconsider in the future. In the mean time I do *not*
want to dilute my current efforts on behalf of *not committed*
prospective Wiccan novices and 'throw the baby out with
the bath water'.
Some people question the appropriateness of my providing _any_
comments concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I
believe that detachment is valuable -- _not_ having vested interests
can bring objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my
information can be ignored with little effort***. I do _not_ tell
people how to worship or practice magick in their circles or in
their own homes. And IMO a list of Wicca-related definitions based
upon my studying Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts
and participating in Wiccan-, craft- and Pagan-related Internet
newsgroups threatens no one.
*****End of Part Two*****
The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).
I am *not* an Islamic or Judaic scholar.
I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.
$600K for a starter house in LA?
Phoenix
It's quality and his reasons for posting it, are open to debate.
P
"Richard Ballard" <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030724162359...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Richard Ballard
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.
Part One is contained in an earlier message titled
=====================================
=====================================
And where is it written that a High Priest/ess's authority is
limited to Coven-specific matters? Where is it written that the
High Priest/ess can not intervene in Coven members' mundane concerns
such as housing and use of spare/guest bedrooms? I discuss housing
issues extensively in my accompanying "Definitions for Prospective
Wiccan Novices (Part One/Two/Three of Three Parts)" messages.
=====================================
I purposefully have not included any Internet website URLs
within my listed references. In the 21st Century many people
question the importance of textual references. That something
has been published indicates that a publisher has judged that
the content financially merits publication, and indicates that
a copy editor has (at a minimum) reviewed the content -- rough
indications of content quality control. While librarian
professional organizations apparently have citation rules for
Internet online academic journals, these journals typically
supplement and mirror the contents of paper professional
journals (archived by the Library of Congress). The websites
cited in the Pagan community are not archivally stable, revising
webpage content is as difficult as revising a form letter, and
a record of webpage content changes is *not* maintained for
later public scrutiny.
Some people question why I have not included their favorite
Wiccan historical texts within my reference list. I have addressed
this concern repeatedly. IMO *not committed* prospective Wiccan
novices are interested in current Wiccan practices, not arcane
historical texts. I have limited time for discretionary reading
and I have limited my current scope to those materials that I
believe *not committed* prospective Wiccan novices will find
most interesting -- that's fair.
Others are free to bring descriptions of arcane texts and
history to the Internet. I document my opinions based upon my
reading and upon activities hap pening in my locale. Others can
assemble descriptions of arcane Wiccan history texts of interest
to *committed* Wiccans and can provide those descriptions on the
Internet. I consider that task outside of my current scope --
I might reconsider in the future. In the mean time I do *not*
want to dilute my current efforts on behalf of *not committed*
prospective Wiccan novices and 'throw the baby out with
the bath water'.
Some people question the appropriateness of my providing *any*
comments concerning Wicca, witchcraft, Paganism or satanism. I
believe that detachment is valuable -- *not* having vested interests
can bring objectivity. In addition, I offer information -- ***my
information can be ignored with little effort***. I do *not* tell
people how to worship or practice magick in their circles or in
their own homes. And IMO a list of Wicca-related definitions based
upon my studying Wiccan-, Craft-, Pagan- and satanic-related texts
and participating in Wiccan-, craft- and Pagan-related Internet
newsgroups threatens no one.
*****End of Part Two*****
The comments contained herein are my opinions. This message
was not solicited by Amazon.com, any author, any artist, or their
agent(s), publisher(s), producer(s) or distributor(s).
I am *not* an Islamic or Judaic scholar.
I am *not* legally qualified to provide medical, psychological,
legal, financial or religious opinions, but I have discussed some
issues with my Attorney and have read extensively in these areas.
I have strong opinions.
There is short term thinking,
there is long term thinking, and
there is a time and a place for both.
$600K for a starter house in LA?
I got no problems
05:50:21 20:00:21
1 02 03 06 09
21 8 23 05
Richard Ballard
Issued approximately twenty-one days before each sabbat.
Each issue's new and significantly changed paragraphs begin
with a <*> marker.
<*> Part One is contained in a concurrent message titled
"A Reference List For Prospective Wiccan Novices (Part One
of Two Parts)". Helpful definitions were included in earlier
messages entitled "Definitions For Prospective Wiccan Novices
(Part One/Two/Three/Four of Four Parts)".
=====================================
=====================================
=====================================
*****End of Part Two*****
202.5 cm. 99.1 kg.
I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
$10K rise in new home costs
due to higher plywood prices?
$600K for a starter house in LA?
What about gas for the Chevy?
'Life in the trailer park'
is a *long* sentence.
There is short term thinking,
there is long term thinking, and
there is a time and a place for both.
05:35:09 _8:35:03
1 02 03 06 09
21 8 23 05
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ