Home           Wicca 101/FAQ           Glossary            About the Author           Email the Author        Questions of the Day         Email List

Questions to the Author
Because I am in the southern hemisphere do the positions of the elements need to be changed? and that also the dates of the holidays (for lack of a better word) need to changed? Download this as a file

The holidays are most certainly different for the southern hemisphere. All holidays are 6 months off from those in the northern hemisphere. Ostara should still fall on the Spring Equinox, Yule on the Winter Solstice, etc.

The arrangement of the elements that I give are the most common and traditional for Wicca. However, some people do use different arrangements, both Wiccan and non-Wiccan. Some people explain their arrangements according to geography. I generally do not, although I must say that south (the "warm" direction for us northern hemisphere folk) and fire make a very geographically logical pairing. I've never been to the southern hemisphere, however, so I'm going to sit this one out as to whether elemental correspondences are different down under.

I'm a little confused if there is no hell where do all the gods of the underworld fit in?

Oh-boy, let's back up a second. Hell is a distinctly Judeo-Christian concept, designed for evil-doers and/or non-believers, depending who you ask.

The Underworld is a much more general concept referring to any afterlife imagined as residing beneath or within the earth. Why you end up there depends on the culture. Evil-doers may receive divine punishment there, but the faithful just might also receive their reward, or everyone may just get the same general bland existence. Being a non-believer rarely if ever is addressed, although blasphemers may very well win special punishment. Osiris, Erishkegal, Hades and Persephone all rule their respective Underworlds, but they have nothing to do with Hell. They are not even necessarily unpleasant figures.

I have been calling my self Wiccan for about 5 years now, but I have never performed a ritual out of a book before. I know in the site it says you don't have to do spells to be Wiccan, but I have never felt any real conections to the rituals in the books either. Maybe they are the same thing, I don't know. In some books the words are inerchangable. I communicate with the Goddess and the God in my own special way. I know a lot of people will say I am not Wiccan because of this, but Wicca has always felt right to me. I respect your opinions so I wanted to know your thoughts.

Some will says that you are not Wiccan if you are not initiated into a coven. For those people, the books themselves aren't really Wiccan. But among those who accept the book-learned as Wiccans, I can't imagine why any (serious) person would think you have to recite rituals by rote. If those rituals mean nothing to you, then they are worthless to you.

On the flipside, I get very nervous when someone writes an "interchangeable" ritual. There are too many books that publish rituals to particular deities (even if those beings are "God" and "Goddess") and then add that you can insert the names of other deities if you so see fit. This isn't Mad Libs. I can only imagine that the gods look at form rituals the same way I look at form letters. If what you're saying is not pertinent to the one being addressed, what are the chances that he or she is paying it much attention?

The rituals in books are effective for many people, but not everyone. You need to find your path and what is effective for that path. Whether that path should be called "Wicca" is another question entirely and, honestly, secondary. One should label their path, not tailor their path to a label. But I certainly wouldn't boot anyone out of the Wicca club because they aren't mindlessly reciting something in a book, which may or may not have just been invented by the book's author to begin with!

i always seem to bump into other "Wiccan's" when i go out of town (school functions etc) and though they seem like awsome ppl they seem determined to hate christains. i met one girl was pissed off cuz we had to go inside a church! what keeps these ppl from seeing that wicca is simply another path leading to the same damned thing christianity does? okay, some christains dont look kindly on other religions, but most dont care. u'd think they'd realize that they are doing the exact same thing. anyway, i just wanted to point out that the rede is a full out poem, not just "and it harm none do what thou wilt"

It just goes to show that no group is immune from bigots. Some Christians get aggressive, and some Wiccans get aggressive, and it reflects poorly on both groups. Why would a Wiccan care if she had to enter a church? Was she afraid she would burst into flames? Does she fear that Christianity is contagious? That's just being deliberately problematic.

As for the Rede being that long poem by Gwen Thompson, do you have any evidence that it existed before 1975? You can't just say "you're wrong" without offering an argument.

In reference to ''I do disagree with you on one major issue - namely, it's my opinion that solitary practices are, by definition, not Wiccan.'' [part of a previous Question of the Day] i was under the assumption that, as a majority british traditional wiccans that were in a coven and american tradtional wiccans that were as a majority, solitary. if so, then either way, a wiccan is still a wiccan, both american trads, and british trads follow at the basic level, the same rede dont they?

I avoided the term "Solitary" in response to the letter you're quoting because it's not really the Solitariness that Trad Wiccans object to. They object to Eclectics being called Wiccan because they have not been trained in the rich material kept within the covens that they consider distinctive for their faith. (Eclectics are frequently Solitaries as well, which is why the words are sometimes interchanged, but they really mean two different things.)

I cannot comment on how things work in Britain. I know that it is different than here in the US. I also know that the term "British Traditional Wiccan" is used almost exclusively outside of Britain. The British themselves do not often use it. The word "British" in "British Traditional Wicca" refers to the origins of the Traditions, not the current location of its practitioners.

American Wiccans have a variety of practices. Many are Eclectic, many are Traditional, and many are British Traditional. But you cannot call Eclecticism a Tradition. It's an abuse of the word. Tradition involves practices and beliefs that are shared and repeated over time. There's nothing that unites Eclectics other than very basic Wiccan beliefs, because by their very nature they are picking and choosing varying beliefs.

Since the Rede is not a rule, it cannot really be "followed." I think pretty much all Wiccans accept that it is good advice, but you can't define a religion by one piece of advice. (I think most of the Ten Commandments are pretty good ideas, but that doesn't make me a Christian or a Jew.) There has to be more shared than that. Exactly how much has to be shared is what the community is in the process of debating. For instance, I can pretty much guarantee you that I do not worship the same two deities that British Traditionals worship. Their deities are not the grand God and Goddess described in most books that are made up of all the little gods and goddesses. They worship two distinct deities. I worship two distinct other deities. We share some of the same religious metaphors, we may even be following similar deities, but is that enough? And that is what is being debated.

I know someone that seems to think she is better than "book witches". She claims to be a "hereditary Wiccan" because she was taught by her Grandmother. She has continually made rude comments to me about the fact that I have quite a few books on Wicca and I have learned through those books and from the Internet. She also considers Wicca and Witch to be the same thing, which is fine for her but I do not think they are one in the same. Also, she has stated that to be Wiccan, you have to practice magic which I don't agree with since I very rarely perform spells.

Some Traditionalists think that people who learn from books cannot be Wiccan, and they have a lot of complaints about magical information in books, although I've never heard one make such a blanket statement about "book witches."

There are some people who call themselves hereditary witches. Theoretically it means they learned their practices from within their family. There is no such thing, however, as a hereditary Wiccan. That's like calling my mom a hereditary Christian, because her parents were also Christian. She may have been raised in that faith, but she still chose to remain within it, and her Christian "lineage" certainly doesn't make her better at being a Christian than other people are! That would just be goofy.

I don't know of anyone who still says witches and Wiccans are the same thing. Some will say that Wicca is a branch of witchcraft, but to same that they are one in the same means that all witches are Wiccan, when, in fact, there are thousands of witches who accept that their beliefs and practices have nothing to do with Wicca, and many are annoyed when people insist on calling them Wiccan!

You certainly do not have to cast spells to be Wiccan. Many people consider circle casting and the like to be "magic." That's just an issue of terminology, however.

Incidentally, there's a pretty widespread joke in the Pagan community about witches learning all they know by their grandmother. It's a story people have invented for themselves so many times that it's difficult to take any claim of it seriously, although I'm sure that there are a few people who have learned magical practices from their grandmother.

I do disagree with you on one major issue - namely, it's my opinion that solitary practices are, by definition, not Wiccan.

I can certainly understand your arguments, and some Trad Wiccans feel the same as you. I would not be adverse to Eclectic Wiccans (of which I am one) finding another term for themselves, but so far that hasn't happened, and I do not believe people should take terms forced upon them by others (such as "neo-Wicca").

However, I'm not adverse to us remaining under the Wicca banner either, for a number of reasons. One, while some Trad Wiccans object to us, many others accept us. Second, the original instructional books on Wicca came from Trad Wiccan authors. Clearly, they were not writing for other Trads, because Trads don't need published books. They were writing for Eclectics. Apparently, they thought it was appropriate for Wicca to flourish outside of an initiatory coven.

It's a question of definitions, and how much change is too much change before a new entity is formed. It's a valid debate.

I do wonder, however, if as many Trads were concerned about this issue if it were not for the fact that so many 15 year old Eclectics started running around bragging about being high priestesses on the incidents in which Eclectics have told Traditionalists that the Traditionalists were practicing Wicca wrong. *slap forehead*

I was wondering if you are going to put your website in a PDF or DOC formation for your readers to download.

I considered that a while ago, actually. The problem is time and formating. Websites do not read like books. Hyperlinks let you jump from page to page, while books are designed so that page 10 doesn't require any knowledge that hasn't been provided on pages 1-9. So I think a PDF or DOC file would be difficult to read. Also, there's the bunny image issue. The bunnies that are peppered throughout the site look silly in a DOC file. But when you take them out, it reads like I am supporting the bold phrases that the bunnies usually associated with, instead of arguing against them. (That's also why I'm stodgy about people publishing my pages elsewhere and prefer links.)

I am working on a manuscript which goes into much more depth than the website. Should that be published, I will certainly make it available on the site, although it would have to be purchased. The site itself would remain operational and free.

How do you feel about Raymond Buckland?

I really haven't read much of his stuff. I'm not a big fan of the Big Blue Book. It isn't that it's bad, however, it's just that it doesn't provide much that others don't, and other books generally provide more.

Buckland was trying to make Wicca accessable without violating his oaths in that book. He is coming from a very Traditional approach, but without the Traditional details, and that leads to a lot of vagueness. I've also got historical quibbles with the book, but I have the same quibbles with just about any Wicca book that come out in the 1980s.

I find his Signs, Symbols and Omens to be a helpful reference tool from time to time. I mostly wish he had given more information on the images instead of mostly publishing a book of pictures.

I haven't read his other stuff. I know one Seax-Wiccan (a Tradition founded by Buckland), and what he describes sounds very rational and realistic and well thought out. If it weren't that I personally feel NO pull from Saxon mythology or culture, I would probably have picked up some of his books on it.

my problem is defining myself to others. i do not advertise my beliefs, but if someone asks a question or starts a discussion, i want to answer. the trouble is that even within its own constraints wicca is so broad and tolerant and differently interpretated. i am not part of a coven, i dont decorate myself with hundreds of symbols or wear robes, i dont do 'magyck' but iweave spells with intent where necessary, i do practice healing and natural remedies, and i live my life accirding to nature and the rede and the 3 fold law. how can i explain myself definitavely to others without either frightening them or sounding like a fraud?

I find a good rule of thumb in portraying myself honestly without making a spectacle of myself or frightening people is, first and foremost, answer the question asked. If someone asks me what my religion is, I say "Wicca." I don't explain what that means unless someone asks (or in the odd circumstance that they react decidedly weird to that answer). Lots of people know what that means, and even if their image of Wicca isn't exact what I practice, does it matter in the context of the conversation? Lots of people also have no idea what that means, and if they care, they ask, and then you give further explanation. This way, you tend to not overload them, frighten them, or, quite frankly, bore them with info they don't want. ;)

If they do, go weird on you, find out what is making them uncomfortable. Often times they have something in mind that just isn't true. For instance, if you tell them you believe in magic, maybe they have images of blood drinking and Hollywood-type black mass ceremonies. It doesn't matter why they connect those images. You just need to explain that that is NOT what you are doing.

Also, avoid comparing yourself to other religions. State what you do believe in, not what you don't believe in. "I don't believe in Satan" doesn't tell someone the first thing about Wicca, plus it might make them wonder if they should be suspecting you worship Satan.

If you're worried about sounding like a fraud, I'm guessing you have in mind some objections you think you'll hear (or you have already heard). Consider in advance what you would say to those statements. Some people are going to think we're dupes because we believe in magic and multiple gods and whatever else, and they have that right, and if the claim is "You're a fraud because you believe in magic," there's nothing you can do but agree to disagree. But if the accusations have to do with believing in magic in a scientific world or following a religion that is less than a century old, there are arguments that can be made to those accusations. (I really don't get why only old religions can be true. Can you imagine if St. Paul had thrown his hands up in disgust at this new religion he felt called to 2000 years ago? Thought evolves as much as biological specimens.) But if someone doesn't bring these objections up, don't feel compelled to defend against them, because then we just sound defensive.

I was curious if the magic practiced by some Wiccans would fall into the category of Theurgia or Goetia? I don't completely understand the difference between the two either.

The dictionary definition I have for theurgy is "magic performed with the help of beneficent spirits." Certainly some Wiccans' practices would fall under that category, as they work with elementals and other beings. But I've also seen the word defined as "God magic," essentially being those magical practices that bring you closer to God (or the gods), as opposed to works that have wholly practical, material goals. This would most certainly still apply to Wiccan practices.

Goetia generally refers to practices descending from the Lesser Key of Solomon, including the forcing of demons into servitude. These demons have strong Judeo-Christian origins, and some Wiccans don't even believe in their existance. Wiccans generally consider magical compulsion to be morally wrong (or simply impossible), although interactions with spirits are not considered quite the same as interactions with mortals. (After all, many Wiccans will banish a troublesome spirit.) I'm guessing there are a few Wiccans also interested in Goetia. It is not, however, part of our specific practices or beliefs.

Your passionate defending of Christianity looks DEFINITELY like you are a Christian, or, to say better, an Abrahamic spy inside Wicca intending to destroy it from inside. Christianity together with Islam and Judaism DO deserve hatred and despise of all people who think themselves to be FREE.

So, what you're saying is "Real lovers of freedom hate Christianity, Judaism, and Islam"?!?!?!? What a great slogan. I'm sure it will catch on.

Really, I'm otherwise speechless. Some moments of idiocy are beyond words.

The first topic is you stated that the wiccan religion started mid 20th century and my friend says her spirit is in fact over 500 years old and that she has reincarnated multiple times. Strangely enought the farthest life she can remember was back in scotland and that she was killed in a raid. Even stranger from what she described that she looked like and some notes from my insane great great (uber great) grandfather's journal entries, I think that he was the one who killed her. I have to say that was pretty freaky. So do wiccans really reincarnate or is that not a belief. Further of one of the many rituals she mentioned to me that she does one in particular grabbed my attention. Do you know if there is something called a blood slave. She says she has done this multiple times for her boyfriends. Basically what she told me that it was, was cutting herself in two different places and bleeding into two separate bottles then giving the bottles to the one she was in a relationship with. If the bottles get broken, stolen, or the blood pours out the contract formed is null and void. Thus making her a slave until such time. So my question to you is this is she making this stuff up or are these actual practices?

Many Wiccans, probably the majority, believe in reincarnation. Gardner (the effective founder of the Wicca) refers to it in his first book, published in 1954. Just because our religion is young, however, does not mean that our souls are. They may profess many religions through their various cycles. There is nothing that says that a Wiccan has to reincarnate as a Wiccan.

Past lives are a slippery slope. Even if you accept that people do reincarnate and that it is possible to distinctly remember that previous life, that does not mean that everyone who claims to have a past life experience had a real past life experience. Obviously, I cannot determine whether your friend viewed a real incident in the past or not. Personally speaking, however, (and please note this is entirely opinion), I get more sceptical when people start talking about multiple people reincarnating together or knowing another person's ancestor in a past life. I mean, seriously, out of the entire world, you and her are in the same place now, just as she and your uber-great grandfather were hundreds of years ago, half a planet away? That's one heck of a coincidence.

As for the blood slave ritual... I've never, ever heard of such a thing. It may be a magical practice somewhere, but it certainly isn't Wiccan, and if she's claiming to be Wiccan I don't know why she would (theoretically)submit herself to her boyfriends in such a compulsory way. It sounds more like she's a closet submissive who hides her particular fetish behind a magical explanation.

A whole lot of magical practitioners believe it is impossible to flat out control someone through magic anyway. Nudge them in a direction, yes, but constantly command them against their will? No. And certainly not from dribbling a little blood into bottles.

I am having troubles interpreting the Myth of the Goddess (Now G. had never loved etc). Does Death represent the God? In that case, does that mean Gardner did not actually see God and Goddess as equals (or rather: that first there was the God, and he 'made' the Goddess a part of divinity)? Also, I don't quite get what is meant by: "Thus only may you attain to joy and knowledge". "Thus" being "the pangs of love"? If I interpret this literally, it's quite scary. I assume these things should not be interpreted literally, of course, but I just don't see how to interpret it another way. Last of all, I don't get this part of the myth: "As you receive not my hand on your heart, you must receive Death's scourge." Is that even a choice? What's the difference?

Yes, Death is the God. Traditionally, the God is, among other things, lord of the underworld. My understanding has always been that Gardner saw the God and Goddess as equal. I don't see how he gave her divinity. She is not omnipotent (neither is he), and she seeks him to gain knowledge of things she does not know (namely, the mystery of Death, although she picks up a few other things along the way.)

The Myth of the Goddess is to be understood at several levels. It's a fundamental piece of Traditional Wicca (and largely missing from recent publications, unfortunately). It is something that can only be fully understood over time. But Wicca is not always pretty, just like life. The "scourge and the kiss" is a common symbol representing mercy and severity. The fact is that true love is not without pain. It's one of the reasons some people are afraid to fall in love. If you aren't emotionally attached, you can't be hurt when he or she leaves, or if something happens to him or her. We gain nothing of importance without some pain or struggle.

As for your final question, I think the line needs to be read in its context. One, she wishes to know the mysteries of Death. He is offering two options - which she ultimately realizes is the same thing. It also mirrors the story of Ishtar or Inanna, a Mesopotamian goddess who was forced to strip away her garments before entirely the realm of Death and then was forced to die (or, later, send someone in her place), because one cannot enter the Underworld without death.

I decided to try a spell to get rid of my cats anger and jealousy towards my dog (she was REALLY attacking him and she was out for blood) because I was afraid that my dog was going to start fighting back (he's a german shepard so that wouldn't have been pretty). ...I woke up the next morning with a note on my apartment door telling me that I had to get rid of one of my pets because the pet policy had changed. I didn't even think about the spell when this happened and after a couple of weeks of trying to find her a home with family and friends with no luck my husband took her to a shelter. We just found out that she was put to sleep because she was acting violent towards the other cats there. Do you think that my spell could have caused this to happen? I keep telling myself that it was just a coincidence and that my cat may have had something wrong with her to cause her to turn violent but there is this little voice in the back of my head saying that my spell could have gone wrong and caused my cat to be put down.

I find it extremely unlikely. If your ultimate purpose was to stop the dog and cat from fighting, I could see how the notification of change in the pet policy might have come from it (although presumably the policy itself had already been changed before your spell). Spells work through a path of least resistance, and it was easier to separate the two animals than change the nature of one of them.

But if the purpose of the spell was to reduce the cat's anger and jealousy (which is what you stated), I'm thinking the it simply didn't work and the notification was a coincidence.

Either way, you have to remember that your cat was having issues before you tried anything. You tried magic because the cat was violent. When you were forced to get rid of one pet, you chose the cat (because of her violence, perhaps?), and the shelter destroyed the cat specifically because, once again, she was violent.

It's important for us to be sensitive to connections between possible causes and events, but it's just as important to not be paranoid. Some people get so freaked by a "backfired" spell that they never want to touch magic again, which is like never getting onto a bicycle again after you fall down the first time. Conversely, some people get so engrossed in magic that they try to solve all their problems with it, which doesn't work terribly well either.

When tragedies happen, it's not uncomon for us to blame ourselves on some level, regardless of any logic to it. I think it's our fear or randomness. But sometimes bad things just happen.

You said that, in general, society doesn't give a damn about us. Well, I live in fairly-rural, small town Alabama - right in the middle of the Bible Belt. Having seen burning crosses more than once, I beg to differ.... I'm not telling you all this to smart off or be rude. I'm just letting you know that, yes, there are some places where the society average is opposite than that of what you wrote.

Which is why I talk in generalities. There certainly are completely wackbonk Christians out there that cause us grief every change they get. (There's also more than a few wackbonk Wiccans out there too...) There's also Christians that fully support diversity and are interested in our beliefs from an academic point of view. And there's a whole lot that really just don't care one way or the other, and when people say otherwise (like "Christians will never understand you and will only condemn you"), then listeners or readers start being pre-emptively defensive, which is rude and obnoxious. I'm not suggesting you ignore what you can plainly witness! But one bigot, or even an entire community of bigots, does not speak for the entire world. I mean no more and no less.

You mention there are different types of "witches" and I know there are different sects of wicca (solitary, druid, Traditional, etc). I was wondering how the teachings differ. I have explored many books and web sites, but all the fundamentals are the same.

Witches use a large number of adjectives to further define themselves: kitchen witches, green witches, etc. It generally simply explains their own approach to witchcraft. They aren't organized groups. There are also some witches who cluster according to religious beliefs, such as Feri witches and Reclaiming witches. Feri is a particular path, and one that I really don't know a lot about. I believe you have to be initiated to be considered Feri, but that's not really my area. Reclaiming is a much broader approach, spearheaded by people like Starhawk.

Some Wiccans, particularly Traditional Wiccans, still see Wicca as a type of witchcraft (a fact I need to update this site with). However, the explanation that keeps the terms connected tends to go back to ideas of Wicca and/or witchcraft being an ancient religion, which ithey are not. The word "witchcraft" has never referred to a religion. For a great many of us, it therefore makes no sense to say that a religion - Wicca - can somehow be a subsection of something that is not a religion. That's like saying Christianity is a subsection of fasting. Many Christians fast, but that doesn't make one a subsection of the other.

So, I continue to say (along with a great many others) that witchcraft is a magical practice, regardless of your religion. And it's generally not formally organized, the same way that bicyclists are generally not formally organized - each person does his own thing, although he may learn it from someone or share information with others and even sometimes practice it with others. Wiccans certainly regularly practice it within their covens.

I like to divide Wicca into tree groups: Eclectics, Traditionals, and British Traditionals (BTs). Eclectics are uninitiated. They learn from books and piece together their faith from a variety of sources. They frequently are Solitaries, meaning simply that they practice alone.

There are several types of British Traditionals, including Gardnerians and Alexandrians. You join one of these particular groups, and each one has its own beliefs. All of these groups require initiation and oaths of secrecy regarding some of their beliefs and practices, so I can't tell you want makes them different from each other!

Druids are not Wiccans. They are an entirely different religion. Some people call themselve "Celtic Wiccans" and act as if it is a distinct Tradition, and they shouldn't. Following a certain pantheon does not make you aprt of a Tradition. You can take two Celtic Wiccans and find that they have nothing in common other than their basic Wiccan practices - they probably don't even worship the same gods, although they draw their gods from the same (very) general pantheon. Celtic Wiccans are still not Druids, however.

For Eclectics, the fundementals really do tend to be the same from book to book. It's a problem with being an Eclectic - we have no teachers to turn to, and there is very little "advanced" material available. Wicca isn't a by-the-book religion. The point isn't to blindly follow a ritual word for word. The point is what that ritual evokes within you and teaches you. I strongly suggest that you find a Wiccan forum and start seeing what other Wiccans are doing and talking about. Once we get the basics down, we start learning off of each other.

[C]couldn't we say that wicca does draw from older religions but isn't one itself. Even though it was created fifty years ago most people think it is older due to references to pantheons.In some aspects is wicca older than christianity?

Wicca most certainly draws from older religions, and some of those influences are indeed older than Christianity. However, the many of the influences on Christianity are older than Christianity too! No religion exists in a vacuum. Pagans often complain about the patriarchal nature of Christianity, but it emerged first among Jews within the Roman Empire - two extremely patriarchal cultures. Critics of Christianity also frequently object to their relatively low opinion of sex and the physical body, but certain Roman intellectuals were abstaining from sex because they believed that one lost life potency through ejaculation. Some even castrated themselves either through surgery (and I use that term loosely!) or by tying cords around the top of the testicles. I'm not even a man but I don't like thinking about that for too long!

But the parts and the whole are two different things. Just because we celebrate a holiday called Samhain doesn't mean we are celebrating it like it was celebrated two thousand years ago, and even if we were, that means that one small piece is old. Wicca isn't "about" Samhain anymore than Christianity is "about" December 25th being Jesus's birthday (which they borrowed from a Roman belief). Christianity is about Jesus, regardless on which day he was born.

I can think of no distinct practice within Wicca that dates back before Christianity. Many people worship pre-Christian gods, but their view of those gods and their approach to those gods is an amalgamation of old and new ideas. The people who are interested in practicing as close to the old ways as possible generally follow a reconstructionist religion, not Wicca, and even many of THOSE people will describe their religion as ultimately modern, since these religions have had to be reconstructed after centuries of disuse, and information and tradition has undoubtably been lost in the interim.

Think of it this way. Your little brother makes a house out of Legos. That house is the Old Religion of your preference. You take apart his house and build a Lego batmobile. You're using some of the bricks from the house, and some pieces from another set entirely, and you end up creating something that is totally not a house. Is it really helpful to say that in some aspects your batmobile is actually a house?

Yes, Wicca draws from older religions. However, if you want to date Wicca from the age of its oldest pieces, then you also have to date Christianity from the age of its oldest pieces. And unless you're counting the very vaguest notions of religion and magic, I think Christianity would still win, although the exercise would really be impossible to carry out with any sort of authority as one attempts to distinguish what should count as an "influence." (Thirty years ago plenty of people were saying that because cave men honored nature and we honored nature we were both therefore following the same religion! Which is roughly equivalent to saying because they eat and I eat I therefore must be a cave man. On top of which, we don't actually have any evidence that cave men honored nature, although we cautiously presume it.)

im just wondering where do you get all your info from and all that you know about wicca and itz history ect. i wanted to disagree with u about her but after re-reading her bookz over i totally see what you mean ( and kinda wonna kick myself for not noticing the obvious) but i would like to know if your totally 100% sure of what you are talking about before i take any knowledge from your site ( which i would like to do because after reading pretty much every paragraph on this site u sound alot like how i look at wicca and pagans and how i would like to keep looking at it).but as a person who is still trying learn and wanting to be ( for all the right reasons) i want to get the right information before accidently passing on wrong information to someone....

Go you! The world would be only fractionally as fluffy if more people were a little more concerned about the validity of their sources. Multiple sources are always better than a single trust, even if you really trust that source.

Much of the historical information I gained from classes and readings from over the years. Some of it has been in my head so long I can't note a specific book, although quite a bit of the information can be found in a decent history textbook. So, if you doubt a fact, particularly a history fact, try a bit of your own research. You can even try Googling it, as long as you're mindful of the sites it brings up. Some pages are scholarly endeavors created by professors, while others are from students, whether college-aged or junior high, and thus have a higher likelihood of being wrong. Be very careful of historical facts on Wiccan or Pagan sites: the information presented most often represents what the author wishes history was like, not anything actually based on evidence. They generally get their ideas of history from other Wiccans, while historians get their ideas of history from actually looking at centuries old documents (among other things).

I hold an MA in history. My main topic area during undergrad was Medieval and Renaissance Europe, particularly England. My main topics in grad school included Renaissance Europe (particularly Renaissance Occult thought), Wicca, and modern Paganism. I have published an article on Margaret Murray and her effect on Wicca. I have endeavored to check my facts on this site. However, no writer is perfect. There have been improvements to the site over the years as readers have pointed out various things. Usually it was more a case of providing more information or a more sophisticated answer rather than correcting a flat out wrong statement. However, less than forty years ago the Encyclopaedia Britannica was stating that witches were really followers of an ancient, pan-European, pagan religion. That's a pretty credible source, but on that fact, they were just plain wrong, as many, many, many historians demonstrated once they started considering the historical witch-trials to be a subject worth studying.

As for my Wiccan "credentials," I have been a dedicated a Solitary Eclectic for 13 years, and I have been studying Wicca for a total of 17 years.

wicca embodies the beliefs i've always held but i'm insecure about my body and am having issues with the open sexuality. i'm just a kid and i know that. and, though i dont think ppl should have to feel ashamed of their bodies or sexuality, i'm wondering if it's too much. any advice?

Wicca teaches that sex is not dirty, that we shouldn't be ashamed of it, and that it is a natural and beautiful thing. But Wicca also teaches us to be responsible for our own actions and warns us of the consequences of harmful behavior. Just because we do not scorn sex does not mean we are looking for it all of the time, or even that we should. Healthy relationships are encouraged, but unhealthy ones sought out simply for the sake of having sex are actively discouraged. What constitutes "healthy" varies somewhat from person to person. Some Wiccans are polyamorous, actively participating in multiple relationships at once, with all participants being aware that the relationship is not monogamous. Many, many Wiccans, however, are monogamous and even married. I personally can't emotionally deal with more than one guy at a time. We also see sex as a sacred thing, but we are very personal about how we honor that. For me, sex is something I only share with someone I deeply care about. It's not something I have ever done indiscriminately - to do so would be to cheapen it.

Many covens (particularly Traditional ones) practice the Great Rite in actuality. However, it is my understanding that it is always performed privately, not in view of the rest of the coven. Some do not, and some make it optional. I, for example, am married. I pledged to be faithful to my husband. I know there are covens that respect that. If I was considering joining a coven, and they were insistent about the Great Rite, I simply would not join - not because they are bad people, but because I am clearly not a good fit for that coven.

People have this idea that Wiccans steel themselves to "get through" their first Great Rite. If that is the mindset of the person, they absolutely shouldn't be going through with it. The Great Rite is not random sex. Part of the point of coven dynamics is that you honestly trust and love your covenmates - which you've probably known for years by the time you're ready for the Great Rite. (Performing skyclad works on a similar principle. In most covens, you study for at least a year before becoming initiated, and you do not need to be skyclad (if the coven even works skyclad) until initiation. This, among other things, let everyone get to know each other. Not one is asking you to strip down in front of strangers.) Pretending to trust and love them is counterproductive and even harmful for everyone. Not even coven is suitable for a person, and not every person is suitable for a coven. If you come to realize you and your coven are not a good fit, you should part ways, not grin and bear it - an important thing to remember regardless whether the coven practices the Great Rite in actuality!

You also comment that you are young. Obviously, I don't know how old you are, so I'll make some general comments. No Wiccan I know thinks that 14 year olds should be having sex. Nor do they generally think that there is a magic age in which everyone is suddenly ready. There are lots of 18 year olds and 20 year olds that really aren't ready for sex either. It's a big step, and not one that should be taken lightly. And even if you want to remain a virgin until marriage, that is your choice. Wicca just teaches to do it for the right reasons. We shouldn't be scared or shamed into virginity (or, afterward, chastity). But we shouldn't just cast it aside either. There are lots of very serious ramifications of sex: pregnancy, STDs, emotional repercussions (particularly if you discover afterwards that your partner is actually a jerk). Being honest about those dangers and your own limits is nothing to be ashamed of.

And if someone is prodding you to "be a good Wiccan and have sex with me," run away very, very fast. The person is a first rate creep on a whole lot of levels.

I recently ran across a book titled, "Mastering Witchcraft," by Paul Huson. Having thumbed through it and found an initiation into witchcraft by way of saying the Lord's Prayer backwards ( and I DO mean BACKWARDS )I started having misgivings about the rest of the content. Am I right about this tome, or am I just having flashbacks from my Christian upbringing? I will say it is my tendency that when one thing is questionable, everything else associated with it becomes suspect, as well.

Congratulations! You just made my brain bleed. I have never read this book, but I found a PDF copy at http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/MasteringWitchcraft.pdf after reading reviews of it at Amazon.com. Over and over, people on Amazon keep saying that this is solely a book on magic, having nothing to do with religion, and certainly having nothing to do with Wicca. But, having flipped through the PDF, this book is heavily influenced by Wicca, including mentions of Aradia and Cernunnos, the eight Sabbats, inclusion of the "athame" (a word first used by before Gardner), use of the term "skyclad." With these Huson mixes a liberal (and somewhat random) dose of Ceremonial Magic, and then, just for a little more shock value, he describes all this as the Black Arts, and the back cover boasts that Huson carefully explains "all the satanic rituals and practices," even though Satan isn't really covered in the book (at least that I could find in my scanning of the document) and I'm pretty damn sure any half-serious Satanist would laugh his head off at this book.

And just to top things off, Huson just might have made some of the book up. Some of the symbols on the ritual items looked familiar, so I looked them up in Raymond Buckland's "Signs, Symbols & Omens." And then I laughed. After Buckland goes through more familiar Wiccan inscriptions, he explains: "Some traditions also have sigils on other tools. In 1970 Paul Huson presented a book (Mastering Witchcraft) purportedly on Witchcraft, which was in fact a mixture of Wicca and Ceremonial Magic." (p. 218) So, to the best of Buckland's knowledge, some of these inscriptions exist only in Huson's book.

So, the short view of things: this book is a mess, and you have every right to question it. It represents no tradition I am familiar with, and it isn't always even internally coherent. A Wiccan has no reason at all to recite the Lord's Prayer backwards, nor do most non-Wiccan witches. It's a stereotypical component of the Black Mass as envisioned by Christians. I don't know whether real Satanists even use it, but really, they are the only people who would have a logical use for it. Huson explains that when you recite it, you should "visualize great iron shackles struck off your hands and feet." Well, that's great imagery if you're feeling particularly put upon by Christianity, but what about the rest of us?

Thank you so much for bringing this book to my attention.

I'm 15 going on 16 and I'd really like to become Wiccan. I've tried researching but I still can't find out a whole lot about self initiation. Could you maybe help me please? Maybe just give me a website or a book please?

Ok, first of all, slow down. This isn't a race. Since you haven't been able to find info on "self-initiation," I'm getting the impression that you have not been studying for very long. Seriously, take some time to get to know the beliefs that you're wanting to commit yourself to. Maybe you have and you've just been unlucky on this one topic...I'm just going by my usual experiences. But when someone says they would "really like to become Wiccan," I start seeing warning flags.

Initiation is something that is conferred upon you by others. It is something that occurs within covens. While some older books speak of self-initiation, it is generally understood today that such a thing is not really possible. Solitaries perform what is called a dedication. It's not a specific ceremony. Some people create elaborate rituals, while others do little more than declare their intentions to their gods, usually within a circle. Seen in this light, dedication is less about "becoming Wiccan" and more about acknowledging something that you already are. It's not about a properly executed ceremony. It's about knowing what you believe, who you serve, and how Wicca is a productive path for those specific goals (and as you explore your own faith and beliefs, you may even come to find that Wicca is NOT the best path for you, and there is little point in trying to showhorn beliefs into a framework that doesn't work).

How long does it take for a spell to work? And could you explain more about hte whole thing with envoking the power inside could you explain it better to me.

Depends on the spell. People sometimes expect overly dramatic results from magic, and they are usually disappointed. Oftentimes one cannot even point to an event and say "See, my spell worked!" For instance, if you did a spell to find a job, but you didn't put in any job applications, your spell is unlikely to cause an employer to call you up out of the blue and offer you work. However, if you are filling out applications, working on your resume, and getting interviews, who is to say that it was your spell or your resume that got you the job?

I don't think an adequate answer can be given to your second question, although some writers like to pretend otherwise. Witches do not just sit down one day, say "I'm going to evoke my inner power," and get fantastic results. They study, practice, and frequently meditate. The important thing to remember is that the power is, indeed, ultimately evoked from yourself. It doesn't come from your tools or your candles or your quartz crystals, although they may assist in the evocation process.

...recently I have had to be put onto anti-depressants, rather reluctantly, as I could have terrible mood swings where I could not leave my bed for all the money in the world and I just didn't want to be here, living. I've always been a very emotional person, up and down all the time, very nervy and aggressive at times. Now I have been on this medication for just over a month and I feel amazing. The world just seems so much brighter and peaceful, not so hectic and stressful. But I do have my doubts and worries about working any magicks or energies whilst I'm under such a strong medication. Although I am very positive and my outlook on life has changed dramatically, for the better, would it be fair to say that working magick/performing spells could be a mistake as I am not really "me"? I'm truly sorry if this is confusing as being on anti-depressants is certainly an odd experience but I feel sometimes that this pill is influencing my emotions (which is its job) and that this may disrupt any flow of energy when performing spells etc.

I'm more concerned about the underlying conditions than the medication itself, actually. Your brain has a problem, a physical problem stemming from an imbalance of chemicals. Your medications are meant to stabilize that imbalance. They allow your true personality to not be masked by the effects of the imbalance.

People often think of anti-depressants as "happy pills," but they aren't. If they were, the more you took, the better you'd feel. I became a raging bitch for a month after a communications breakdown between doctor and pharmacist put me on a triple dose of medication, while my mother knows someone who drove his car through his garage because he "didn't see it" after a similar mistake had him taking a quadruple dose of Prozac. The point is simply to correct an imbalance within our brains, not slather on artificial happiness. The drugs just don't work that way. (Regardless of what Tom Cruise says.) We generally recommend people with mental or emotional disorders to avoid magic, as spellworking can agitate the problems, and the problems can influence your spellworking. Many people feel it is important to avoid magic when they're suffering any extreme emotion, such as hate, because of the influence it can have on the working.

If your problems are corrected by medication, I see no problem with you working magic. However, if the doctors are still trying to adjust your medications, or you feel "off," I'd suggest waiting. I've gone through the medication game as well (for minor depression), and I know that it is essentially a guessing game. The doctor tries a likely drug and a likely dose and then waits to see how you will react. I went through half a dozen different drugs before they found the right kinds and combinations, and one of the drugs made me go half-crazy.

I would say that if you're feeling "influenced," (as you describe), you might want to hold off. But just feeling happy is no reason to worry. In short, if you're concerned, listen to yourself.

I am a pacifist. I would use violence to protect a child or someone unable to help themselves not because I necessarily believe it is right but because my choice is not thier choice. I have never attacked someone's beliefs or said they aren't really Wiccan because they aren't pacifists etc. because I don't think that is true. I am a pacifist because something deep inside of me tells me that's what is right for me. What I was shocked by was how much that belief is disparaged by others in the community. One pagan (referring to an article by another pacifist) said that the person was obviously an idiot that didn't really understand the Rede's intent and wasn't really Wiccan etc. Now if it was just one person then I would ignore it yet I've been noticing a huge increase in the bashing and I just don't get it! I can't fully and articulatly (Sp?) explain my beliefs except the firm knowledge that it is right for me. How would you explain this backlash and what are your own views on pacifism and it's place in modern Wicca and Paganism?

Not knowing what article this person was responding to, I can only guess at their motivations. There ARE people who will insist until they are blue in the face that Wiccans HAVE to be pacifists because the Wiccan Rede tells them to "harm none." If the article was stating that, then I can completely understand why this person was annoyed by the article. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the article's author wasn't Wiccan, but I would agree that he (or she) didn't know what he was talking about, because the Rede:
1) Doesn't command that we do anything
2) Doesn't say "harm none." Is says we are allowed to do all things that harm none. It doesn't explicitly say how we should approach things that do cause harm.

The "harm none" rhetoric is one of the biggest misunderstandings within Wicca. It's simple, concise, and it can easily be chirped at a "persecutor," whether real or imagined. (As in "You don't know anything about Wicca. Our greatest rule is "harm none," so if you say that Wiccans are in any way dangerous, you're just an idiot.") The "harm none" idea has also led to some really sad stories. I know of one Wiccan who refused to report an abusive husband to the police, because sending him to jail would be harming him!

I strongly believe that the best action is the one that harms least. Being a true pacifist - refusing to strike back even when you or another innocent is being physically harmed - certainly takes a great deal of courage and conviction, but I personally believe that there is no shame in protecting yourself or others. In fact, if I stood by and did nothing (presuming, of course, that there was any way I CAN help. Getting myself shot alongside the original victim is just a waste) I would consider myself partially responsible for the harm inflicted. Doreen Valiente once stated that doing nothing harms everyone, and I agree. There are times when we need to stand up and hurt a few people's feelings or even knock a few people's heads for the greater good. But the force used should always fit the circumstances: Neo-Nazi rallies should be met with rallies promoting tolerance, not with physical attacks on the Neo-Nazis. If deadly force is necessary to protect yourself, I find it totally acceptable, but if you manage to knock your assailant unconscious, you don't get to keep kicking him. Avoiding harm includes avoiding harm directed at yourself. Sometimes a little harm in needed to stop a greater harm from occurring.

I also don't believe that the gods generally visit some sort of divine punishment upon pacifists. As previously stated, the Rede is not a law. It's advice. Karma is simply the consequences of one's actions, not divinely handed out rewards and punishments, and the consequence of refusing to defend yourself is that you're going to take a serious beating and maybe even be killed. A very few people believe that is better than causing harm themselves, and that is their choice, but I don't personally agree with it in most circumstances, and I certainly don't think Wicca (or any other Pagan religion, to the best of my knowledge) expects or demands it of us.

I'm pending between strong atheism and Discordianism / Wicca. I think about your page as a refreshing view on Wicca and I hope you can answer me some questions.
1. What do you think about Discordian Wicca (mixing up Discordianism and Wicca)?
2. What do you think about the following phrase "Take any religion you want, but don't take your religion too serious"?
3. What are your opinions about secular Humanism or why would you prefer Wicca to secular Humanism?

1. I know very little about Discordianism, as it has never really appealed to me. If I'm not mistaken, the only real rule is that there are no rules, right? I'm guessing your Discordian beliefs could be strongly influenced by Wicca, but I'm not sure you can really be both at the same time, because Wicca is more structured than that. Considering that you're still considering the possibility that you're an atheist, I'm doubly unsure that Wicca is for you. It IS a religion. It involves beliefs in divine beings. if you don't believe such beings exist, you're no more Wiccan than you are Christian or Muslim or Hindu or any other religious person.

2. There are an infinite number of possible beliefs, and I believe a great many of them hold portions of the Truth. Many people, particularly Pagans, deliberately borrow pieces of beliefs from multiple sources. There are good and bad ways of doing this, but it certainly can be legitimate if its done with thought and consideration. However, people need to be sensitive to the fact that borrowing a piece of one religion does not make one a member of that religion. A lot of people have beliefs that simply do not have names. That doesn't make them illegit, it just makes them unnamed. What is does NOT make you is a "Discordian Native American Shamanic Wiccan Buddhist Jew," or whatever it is that has influenced you.

I don't think religion has to be dreary, stodgy and boring. You can laugh and sing and dance and have fun with your religion and still be serious about it. In fact, you can even laugh ABOUT your religion and poke fun at it and still be serious about it. But I do think you should be serious about it. If you're not serious, then you're just playing at being religious. It's not a roleplaying game.

3. I prefer Wicca to secular Humanism because I am religious. I believe in the supernatural. I believe that there are powers in this universe grater than us and that they have intelligence. However, I also believe that we must take responsibility for our own actions. Wicca does not accept that these beings make us do things. They may ask us to do things in their name, but it is still our choice whether we follow through (and if we find those requests to be immoral, we should reconsidering why we worship such beings!) Religious people can be just as rational and as scientific as atheists, and my religious quests over the years have been directed by a healthy dose of skepticism.

[M]y father is a baptist preacher and i was curios as how or if i should tell him i'm not afraid of him it's just i don't want to offend his beliefs

I strongly believe that no one is ever required to share their religious views with others. If you wish to keep your beliefs private, that is entirely your right. However, a lot of people want to share their beliefs with at least family members for a variety of reasons (including giving an explanation as to why they are no longer going to church).

If you are going to talk about it with your father, be respectful. You're probably going to want to explain not only why you've chosen Wicca, but also why you left Christianity. It is this second point that I think scares and upsets most parents. They have this wonderful religion that makes total sense to them, and, as such, many of them cannot fathom why anyone would want to leave. They may also feel like they've raised you badly. Also, make it clear that you still respect his beliefs, even though you've decided that you do not share them.

Try to answer his questions as best you can while avoiding being over-defensive. Don't presume that his is going to think you're worshiping Satan, for instance. Lots of people know better than that. You might want to try and guess what some of his questions will be beforehand so that you can be prepared with solid answers, but let him actually ask his questions first. You'll sound less lecturing. ;)

Finally, bring up the conversation directly. Don't leave your books in the open so that he stumbles upon them and then has to ask you, and don't start the conversation five minutes before you know your father has to leave for work.

I had a question about homosexuality and the general Wiccan views on that. I, as a non-heterosexual, have found that it is generally accepted, but I wondered how it fits in with the whole polarity- and balance-idea in Wicca.

The Rede states that we are freely allowed to do all those things that cause no harm. I'm always taken that to mean that Wicca accepts both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, so long as they are healthy. (An exploitive relationship is another thing entirely, but that can occur regardless of someone's orientation!) In the past, some authors have voiced hesitations about including homosexuals within Wiccan rituals, although I have not heard of any doing so recently, and I know some have even changed their minds on the topic over the years.

Overall, Wiccans are generally accepting. Some covens are even entirely homosexual, while others are mixed. I don't personally know of a coven today that is specifically hetero-only, but I'm guessing that they exist. That in itself is not a bad thing. A hetero-only coven may simply focus on very hetero imagery, the same way that homosexual covens use very homosexual imagery.

We are about polarity and balance. However, gender is just one of many, many ways that people can be categorized. And while Wicca traditionally uses very heterosexual imagery, it is in many ways just that: imagery. The union of God and Goddess represents the union of two energies generally viewed as male and female. But male energies and male people are not the same thing. Thus, the Great Rite is not about physical sex. It is about the union of two halves, and I think that lesson can be understood regardless of an individual's orientation.

I have recently acquired "An ABC of Wichcraft", by Doreen Valiente. Frankly,I don't know what to do with it, but read it time and time again just to make sure I undestood it right. To mention a few things: she constantly drops Margaret Alice Murray's name and takes great pains to mention all those mean persecutors and the horrible things they did to those poor people. I also read more about demons there then I would care to know. It's quite understandable that, by the time thas book was first printed, that was much misinformation about witchcraft, and she aimed to provide the "Witch's"point of wiew. oK, I know she was talking about Witchcraft, not Wicca; but still, as one of the Elders of this religion, I expected her research to be more academic and less focused on the grotesque. Any thougts about this?

For all of Valiente's Traditional training, her personal beliefs appear to be extremely eclectic, combining Wicca, non-Wiccan witchcraft, witch-trial history, Murrayisms, theories of matriarchies, and anything else that appealed to her that day. She can be a headache to read (at least for me), particularly "An ABC of Witchcraft."

The book was published in 1973 - three years after Murray's definition of witchcraft was removed from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. I imagine that if she presented her view of things to a history professor at that time, he would have brought the Red Pen of Death down upon it. But she didn't. She's not an academic, and she didn't write with anything approaching academic standards. To her, the truth is obvious and doesn't need explaining. Like Murray, Valiente uses the bits of historical evidence that fit her beliefs and either ignores the rest or explains it away as fabrication to discredit the Old Religion, which she believed she was following until the day she died.

I can only guess as to why she spent so much time on the "grotesque." Since she so fervently believed that her religion had been targeted by witch hunters, she may have thought that trial records demonological tomes were good source material. It's the same error that Murray made, except that Murray discounted everything supernatural as invented tales, while Valiente accepted the existence of supernatural events, although not in quite the same light as the authors of her sources.

I would like to read more about stregheria, or Italian witchcraft. Any good information out there? What do you think of Raven Grimassi, as he seems to be the most well-known author to attempt the subject?

I haven't read anything from Grimassi, but I'm not thrilled with what little I know. Looking at his website, http://www.stregheria.com/default.html, two gigantic problems leap out at me. First is him talking about "the Old Religion." That's always an alarm bell. Second, his main source appears to be Charles Leland's Aradia: Gospel of the Witches. Indeed, in one of his books, he includes a section comparing "tenets of Gardnerian Wicca with excerpts from Leland's work, demonstrating that their appearance in print predates Gardner's writings." (http://www.ravengrimassi.com/books.html#Italian_Witchcraft) He doesn't seem to get that no one is arguing that - it's pretty clear that Gardner plagerized certain passages right out of Leland's work. And the whole argument is largely moot considering that historians see no reason why they should believe that Leland's work is not largely fiction, considering the lack of corroborating evidence and the circumstances in which it was written (a local Italian woman who supposedly practicing this form of witchcraft happily telling Leland just what he wanted to hear).

I'd suggest you take a look at the Aradia text, which can be found here (for free!): http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/aradia/index.htm. You can read more on my opinion of this document here: http://wicca.timerift.net/laws/aradia.shtml.

I was just curious as to if you ever saw or read The Mists of Avalon and what your thoughts were on it?

I confess I have seen the TV movie but have not read the book. I thought the movie was great. It was well thought out. Things were very internally consistent, and I thought that it succeeded in its goal to retell the story of King Arthur from the women's point of view, being true to the original tale while still making it into something new.

There is also piles of Neopagan imagery used: the worship of a Goddess, the crescent moons tattooed on the foreheads of the priestess, the struggle between old and new religions. And none of this is a problem because it is fiction. The author took a variety of popular concepts and wove them into an engaging tale. I was in no way surprised to learn that Marion Zimmer-Bradley was, in fact, Wiccan for many years.

The author never claims to be portraying actual history or ancient mythology. In addition, the movie never uses the word Wicca, so I cannot complain that she was misrepresenting us or our history. There are people who take it as history, but that's not the movie's fault. The only things that really tie Mists of Avalon to reality at all is the location (Glastonbury) and the fact that Christianity is a real religion. Then again, all of those movies based on Tom Clancy novels take place in real locations, but I've never heard of someone thinking that Clear and Present Danger was a real story.

What I would like to know is the typical Wiccan response to illness. I have gotten the feeling of body-mind-spirit balance and holism but really have not seen it spelled out. From what I read I see it as being as personal and different among Wiccans as it would be to a member of any other religion. Perhaps a combination of western medicine and herbal medicine for the physical, alternative therapies for the mind and spirit with perhaps aura cleansing. I see Wiccans with healing spells alongside their Tylenol or Excedrin. I would appreciate your thoughts on the "typical Wiccan response to illness".

Wiccans generally accept modern medicine and science. Minor ailments might be traced back to more holistic causes, but if a Wiccan goes to the doctor or the hospital, it's because they believe they need professional medical help, and Wiccans are not generally hesitant about seeking such help. Wiccans may or may not use a variety of techniques alongside of Western medicine such as those you have listed.

We actually generally recommend that people not practice magic when they are ill. For one, it can be draining, and a sick body has better things on which to spend its energy. Furthermore, the disruption caused by the illness can interfere with effective spellcasting. We particularly stress this for those acutely suffering from psychological problems. This includes not only magic but also some of the more spiritual practices. Intense experiences (which is often the goal) can complicate psychological disorders. To offer a very blatant example, can you imagine a schizophrenic who hears voices attempting to hear MORE voices? Our imagination plays tricks on the best of us. A schizophrenic simply does not have the tools at hand to separate truth from fiction in this scenario.

If a Wiccan practices with a group, however, that group frequently works magic on the behalf of an ill member. But we do not expect such efforts to work miracles. Magic works alongside conventional medication and treatments. To use your example, magic and Tylenol together works better than Tylenol (or magic!) alone.

On the "Fluffy Bunnies" page of this site, you say that having bad information doesn't make one a bunny. My question is how can we be sure who is right, you or the others who disagree?

Evidence. If you hear conflicting facts, you should ask their sources why they believe such a thing. If they can't even articulate an answer, there's your first big tip-off. It sounds crazy to many people, but I have asked multiple people why they insisted that Wicca was thousands of years old, and I've been told multiple times "I just know it in my heart." Even more commonly the person had gotten offended my the question and insisted that "I don't have to justify myself to you!" Well, if you want me to take you seriously, yes you do. Especially when you're making a claim that is contradicted my mounds of evidence that I /can/ rattle off!

If they can articulate an answer, you have to evaluate it. If their answer is "Silver Ravenwolf says so," you might want to find out about this Ravenwolf person and whether she's a good source. Here's a rule of thumb: if the claim is about Wiccan practice, the sources should largely be Wiccan. If the claim is about history, the sources should largely be historical documents and historians. If the claim is about modern Druids, the sources should largely be Druids, and so on.

Sometimes the argument may sound good even when it isn't, which is part of the reason why I insist that just having bad info doesn't make you Fluffy. What if the person referred you to a couple of books written by Dr. Margaret Murray, and you had no idea who Murray was? Or they referred you to an old Encyclopedia Brittanica, whose Witchcraft entry was written by Murray until 1969? She's a doctor, she has two books, she's attached to a university, sounds pretty good.

Until you come across someone who can hand you piles of information on why Murray is a hack. To be sure, I don't expect anyone to think Murray is a hack just because I say "Murray is a hack." That's why I give explanations of what she did and the problems with her work on this site, and I can hand out much more lengthy arguments to those who want them - complete with bibliography. It's not just my argument. It's the argument of dozens of respected historians - in comparison to exact zero historians that still support her theory of witchcraft.

First off, I absolutely love your website. But I do have a question regarding martiarchal societies. I fully agree that there is little evidence to support the belief that there were martiarchal civilizations in the West, but in one of my Asian history classes my professor was quite adament about the strong possibility that Japan was once a martriarchal society. Have you heard of this and do you have any thoughts on it?

Nope, never heard of the suggestion. Japan is, however, way way way outside of my usual historical stomping grounds. I have had multiple professors insist that there is no known matriarchal civilization anywhere. However, I can make three caveats to that:

1. The unfortunate fact is that people who make these claims in the west are frequently less familiar with Far Eastern material.
2. There is a difference between a civilization and a culture or society when academics are talking. It means you can be sitting among a small matriarchal tribe and honestly write "there are no known matriarchal civilizations."
3. The above statement in no way insists that matriarchy has never existed, simply that there is no conclusive evidence of one. There are lots of truly ancient societies which we know very, very little about. Furthermore, it doesn't mean that all societies are patriarchies. There are far more than just those two options.

I'm just now learning about Wicca and one of my friends tries to explain to me the connection between luck and energy. I have always believed & have experienced that what you put out will return to you, but what she's saying is beyond me. What, if anything, does luck, which is by chance, have to do with energy?

Nothing immediately comes to mind. The only thing I can guess at is that she means that people who do good things are luckier as the universe attempts to return the goodness. If that is her opinion, however, I completely disagree with her. Among other things, it suggests that people who suffer accidents beyond their control are less ethical people than those who are not accident prone. It's a very whitelighter view, where the good guys always win and the bad guys always lose.

[An alert reader suggested the following information:] Perhaps the proposed correlation between luck and energy has something to do with what is called "micro telekenesis." http://www.psipog.net/show.php?id=2 The idea is that you put forth energy specificly to change the odds, such as the draw of a card or the roll of a die.I first heard of it from a friend, who found out about it here. The site I just linked has nothing to do with Wicca or indeed any religion. And I think that may be the problem above: the friend who's teaching the questioner about Wicca is also teaching them about things which aren't specificly Wiccan. Anyway, just pointing out that it could be something other than karma-esque pseudo-justice.

What is the legal reason that most covens can't allow people under the age of 18 in to their covens? I could understand an ethical reason, such as they aren't mature enough to handle it or something or the other, but what legal ramifactions occur when someone under 18 is allowed in a coven?

In part, it depends what occurs in a coven. Any coven that practices skyclad is in danger of various sexual misconduct charges if they involve a minor. Parents also have a legal right to determine what religious ideas are taught to their children. This normally only comes up in custody cases when divorcing parents are of two different faiths, but an irate parent can conceivably cause a coven trouble if the parent objects. Regardless of the potential for trouble, the ethical coven wishes to respect parental rights anyway. An angry parent might also attempt allegations of things such as contributing to the delinquency of a minor (especially if alcohol is involved).

Remember that the accusation does not need to necessarily stick to ruin someone. Legal fees can mount up quickly, as can emotional stress, so most covens do not want to even tempt the situation. Back in the 1980s, dozens of people were charged with a variety of crimes including kidnapping and child rape in conjunction with Satanic rituals. Not only were none of these people found guilty, none of them were even Satanists! (Nor were they Wiccans, Pagans, or other non-mainstream religions. It was total hysteria.) In the end, these people were vindicated, but in the intervening years they spent thousands of dollars in legal fees, lost custody of their own children, and were derided by their communities. Some Wiccans fear similar scenarios occurring again - after all, some fundamentalists refuse to stop equating Wicca (and other religions) with Satanism.

I do not mean to come across as rude or ignorant, but truth is I am very new to Wicca. I want to learn as much as i can, but I have a question concerning Womens roles within the religion. During my research...I havefound references to suggest that even wicca is a patriarcial religon. I am only 14 so I may not understand all the information you've rovided, but a patriarcial view isn't possable in a modern religion is it? I am totally confortablewith Wicca, but i was just wondering, becuase of a rather nasty confrontation with an older man within a 'coven' who said that women were beneath men within Wicca. Thankyou for taking the time to consider my question.

You are in no way being rude, and it sounds like this is am important question for you to ask.

Wicca is generally extremely egalitarian - men and women are held in equal importance. Some, in fact, consider that while the High Priest and High Priestess are equal partners, the High Priestess is "first among equals," although others, including myself find that to be rather contradictory. In the Ardanes, there are some statements that women have taken offense to over the years, such as "For the Gods love the Wica, as a man loveth a woman by mastering her," but it also states that the High Priestess chooses the High Priest. (http://wicca.timerift.net/laws/old_laws.shtml) Moreover, many Wiccans, including most Eclectics, ignore that document altogether, for a number of reasons, some of which I've laid out on the above page.

There is a branch of Wicca taught by Gavin and Yvonne Frost that at least was fairly patriarchal - to the point that many people didn't even count it as Wiccan. It had a single male god, and it gave sexual instructions for young girls that were...disturbing to say the least.

I would be very wary of a coven of adults that accepts 14 year-olds. Every coven I know of insists that petitioners be at least 18 year old, for both legal and ethical reasons. If this adult is telling you that you have do something as an "inferior woman" to function in the coven that makes you uncomfortable, run, run, run, run, run. And, depending on what it is, tell the police. (Sex with 14 year olds, for example, is illegal in most states.) It's rare, but there are people who use covens (or even form new ones) for the purpose of exploiting impressionable but honestly interested people, particularly young people.

I am still in self dedication to further become a witch and I am just concerning about my altar. I live in a small apt w/ my husband he isn't into this thinks but I like a lot and he doens't minda just respect me and the enviromment but my concern is how should I put my Altar? Which basic elements can I let in the Altar? I need ideas!!! I don;t know to do Rituals yet I am doing the sabbats and Ritual of the moon and I like a lot and I feel very protected and sensible. Should I do Rituals to order to help my friend or she needs to ask me for help first?

Many, if not most, Wiccans (I can't speak as certainly about non-Wiccan witches) believe it is impolite to work magic on someone without their knowledge. You could offer to work something for her and see how she feels about it, however.

As for your altar, that really depends on your own preference. Many people do not have permanent altars set up: they have the various pieces in a box somewhere lay them out when they are doing rituals. There are numerous reasons for do this: lack of space in the home, presence of roommates or family members who either don't know or aren't comfortable with it, general privacy issues, the witch's desire to work outside, where it is rarely feasible to erect a permanent altar, or the witch's desire to travel to other locations for her rituals.

If you want a permanent altar and your husband is all right with that, you can erect it as normal. His gaze will not profane your tools, if that is your concern, although many witches request that other people not handle their tools. If you are looking for a formal layout of an altar, they are provided in a large number of books. Many Eclectics, however, develop their own, personally meaningful layout.

Where do we go after this life is over?

A great many Wiccans believe in reincarnation, generally from human to human, with no implication of a caste system (such as the one used in the Hindu system of reincarnation). There is also a belief among many that the dead go to the Summerland, which is just what it sounds like: a happy, brightly lit afterlife. For some, the Summerland is merely a rest stop in-between incarnations. For others, the afterlife very much mirrors this one, and that when one dies in the Summerland (the term continues to be used, even though it no longer much resembles the traditional understanding of the Summerland), they are then reborn into this world again. A few believe that the Summerland has a counterpart, a Winterland, a sort of self-made hell for obsessive souls, tormented by the object of their desires. Neither the Summerland nor Winterland have much historical root, believed in mostly by Pagans, Spiritualists, and some near-death investigators.

i am just starting out on the path of Wicca. i have researched many faiths and have come to believe that wicca best suits me. but after reading your site i am left with nothing more than i came with. it seems like the bulk of sit is trashing someone you don't like. sure you may not agree with other's teachings, but isn't your ranting and raving about a certain author just as silly as some of that's authors notions?

We are talking about the same site, right? Because last I checked, http://wicca.timerift.net dedicated one page to Silver Ravenwolf, one page to Fiona Horne, and some critical comments about a couple other authors on the Book Review page. (That is, after all, what a review is, if the reviewer doesn't like the work.) How then can you say that my entire website, comprising of over 100 pages, is dedicated to "trashing someone [I] don't like?"

And while "ranting and raving" might be as silly as some of these authors' notions, that's not really what I'm doing. Ranting and raving is saying something like "This person sucks. She's totally stupid. No one with a brain should read her work." Do I do that? Ever? No, I criticize. I point out problems and I explain why they are problems. If someone was teaching that 2+2=57, is it ranting and raving to explain to people that the equation is wrong?

[writer's response:] your comments and pages is just trash.

Ah, yes, when you can't answer a question intelligently, throw random insults. I'm impressed. And grammatically incorrect insults to boot.

[writer's response:] you're just making my point solid and showing your true character. the funny thing is i wish other people had the chance to see this and see how not wiccan you are.

Hello...it's on a webpage. Lots of people get to see it. Although most people don't count not agreeing with you to be "not Wiccan." I would like to think that being rational and reasonable in the face of random insults is generally not considered "not Wiccan" either.

I am writing to give my opinion on the quote "angels have nothing to do with wicca" on your webiste. I have been a involved with wicca for 7 years now and have read many books on wicca and angels. In Ravenwolf's book, "Angels, Companions in Magick" she states that Angels do not "belong" to any religion. Wicca is flexible enough to allow you to use any energy from a god/goddess/angel as you like, Ravenwolf also has a list of Gods/godesses in her book "To Ride a Silver Broomstick" that you can use in your magickal practices. Ravenwolf has come from a christian background and loves angels! She may have had bad experiences with christians/other religions in the past and that's why you think she refers to christians in her text. Please read her book "Angels, Companions in Magick" and then decide whether "they have nothing to do with wicca" or not.

Ravenwolf said 9 million people were murdered in the Burning Times too. Doesn't make it true.

Angels are rooted in Judeo-Christianity. Other religions may have figures with wings, but that does not make them angels. Saying all beings with wings are angels is like saying all people with dark hair are Asians. If you work with Michael or Uriel or Raphael, you are working with a Judeo-Christian entity, a being who works in the service of the Judeo-Christian god.

Now, this in no way keeps witches from working with them. In fact, it does not even keep Wiccans from using them, although I strongly caution people to consider the ramifications of working with entities in the service of a deity you do not believe in or at the very least do not follow. But just because a Wiccan works with an angel does not suddenly make Wicca "about angels." There are generally cakes and ale at Wiccan gatherings, but that doesn't make Wicca "about cakes and ale" either. It's called lying, pure and simple, and Ravenwolf suggests the angel connection because angels sound safer than pagan gods to worried Christian parents. She even says as much, calling it the "double sneak-attack."

BTW, quoting Ravenwolf to prove that Ravenwolf is right doesn't really work either.

This is a friend of .... My name is ... and i have a problem with your dismissing silver without what appears to me as no wiccan knowledge for a practicer of your caliber. Now you can not read this and continue to live in ignorance or you can take some of the criticism you're throwing out.You say that silver is bad because she denouces christianity.

Well, i have a problem with you

You say that a solitary witch is not a Natural witch. Wrong! A natural witch is a solitary witch, I've read three other books saying this NOT including silver Ravenwolf. Then Dismiss Silver saying that christianity is incorrect HELLO it is incorrect if you are a witch there is not NO christian god or Satan, making christainity incorrect in a witch's eye. Which brings me to the Satainist line. Repeat after me: NO REAL WITCH WORSHIPPED SATAN OR THE CHRISTAIN GOD. None. First and far most no should embrace satanic witches or defend them- They not only ruin the wiccan name they disgrace it, Backing up the Claims that witches worship the devil. You need to stop living under a rock, Crack open a book and read up on your so called Religion and get out more. Things are changing and leaving you behind.

In retrospect, I think I'm splitting hairs on complaining about Ravenwolf's "incorrect theology" quip. (My brain differentiates theology and belief, but that distinction is probably not helpful here.) There is nothing wrong in disbelieving in Christianity. There is nothing wrong in not believing in the Christian god. However, Ravenwolf goes MUCH farther than that. She doesn't just disbelieve in the religion: she insults it. She also accuses it of all sorts of things that are, quite frankly, untrue.

As for a solitary witch being the same as a natural witch, if you want me to take you seriously, you're going to have to actually name the books you're referring to, not just state that they exist somewhere. If you have actual evidence, that would at least give reason why some people are honestly confused, although it still doesn't make logical sense. Why would learning on your own, from a book, make you somehow more "natural" than those who learned from a coven? That just doesn't make any sense. The books you're referring to are not fiction, right? Because Kate Tiernan's "Sweep" books DON'T COUNT. (Although she uses the term "blood witch.")

Wiccans do not worship Satan or the Christian God. However, witches can worship whoever they want. They are not the same thing. They haven't been the same thing in decades, ever since we figured out that quoting Margaret Murray was a bad idea. There ARE Satanist witches. I'm sorry if you feel that sullies your pretty little word, but perhaps you should actually read about Satanists before you get so pissy about them. But, whether you like them or not, that still doesn't mean that we suddenly have a copyright on the word "witch" and keep the other kids from using it. There are PLENTY of Christian witches. Again, sorry if that ruins your elite little witch club.

Perhaps, instead of reading your friend's email, you should read some of the pages on my site that address these issues. I would suggest "Wiccans, Witches, and Pagans" as well as the information under "Myth and History." You should also scan the older Questions of the Day for previous questions about the terminology about Wiccans and witches.

Is it possible for someone to accidently do magic, with no back round in or training in the art?

The practical answer I think is yes, although the technical answer might depend on your definition of magic. Do you count psychic phenomena as magic? Because those are reported to occur all the time without training or conscious effort. Some people are, for a variety of reasons, more open to "supernatural" forces. Divinatory images may come to someone without provocation, and some find that when they wish for something hard enough it may come true. Sometimes it's assuredly coincidence, but magic is all about asserting the will, so a strong enough will might effect a reaction without the owner's deliberate usage.

If you're concerned about reading a spell from a spellbook and activating it, however, I wouldn't worry. Words are a tool used by a witch. They have no power on their own.

A friend of mine claims to be a practicing Wiccan. But I also observed that she is a strong Marian devotee of the Lady of Guadalupe and of the Lady of Fatima. This has me confused. Is it possible for a Wiccan to be a devoted Catholic?

I pointed this out to her and she sees no problem at all. She said the Church's strong disapproval of Witchcraft stems from a mistraslation of the title "Witch" to the Spirit Conjurer of Endor, the woman who conjured the Spirit of Samuel for King Saul, and the supposed reason why Saul fell from grace. She said the title for that woman should have been The Conurer of Endor.

My questions are:
1. Do witches conjure the spirit of the dead?
2. Is it possible for a person to be a Witch and a devoted Christian at the same time? My friend seems to be quite at home with the idea.

Some witches conjure spirits of the dead, generally through séances. It generally involves spirits that want to communicate. Today, a witch is simply someone who practices non-ceremonial magic. There is no uniting set of rules or code of ethics. There are witches who curse and hex. There are also many who don't (most, in my experience, although I imagine the cursing and hexing kind are quieter about their activities). You can't really generalize about witches anymore than you can generalize about needle pointers or bicyclists.

Yes, there are Christian witches. While the Bible has several passages condemning witches, the appearance of the word "witch" in these passages is only a few hundred years old. The original Hebrew word didn't mean what the English word "witch" has meant, just as the historical understanding of "witch" is not the same as the modern understanding. The Bible does spell out various magical practices that are to be avoided, which some modern witches do practice. There's two ways of getting around that. First, a Christian witch can simply limit her practices. Second, I've yet to meet a Christian witch Bible-literalist. There's all sorts of rules in the Bible that most Christians don't follow, such as stoning people who work on the Sabbbath and requiring women to be veiled in church. The Bible is not just a product of two religions. It's the product of the cultures in which those religions developed, and that culture is not our culture. Some Christians believe very strongly that any magic is, in fact, un-Godly. That's their right too.

Not all witches, however, are Wiccan. Wicca involves a religious belief. Today, the word is usually used to describe certain polytheistic beliefs - which are by nature contrary to Christianity. You friend is probably going by an outdated use of the word that used to be equated with "witch." There is a group of people who consider themselves "Christian Wiccans," and I've written about them here: http://wicca.timerift.net/christianwicca.shtml. I don't think they have a very good grip on Christianity OR Wicca, personally.