by R.W. EbonRose

Created on: February 13, 2007   Last Updated: May 11, 2007

I feel that this article needs to start with a very simple, yet infinitely important statement, one so crucial that it needs to be set apart as it's own paragraph:

Paganism IS NOT Wicca.

Any time I see an attempt to define Paganism online, the explanation is at least very heavy with Wiccan ideology, if it mentions anything else at all. Wicca is not, in any way, the summation or evolution of Pagan beliefs. It is, in fact, an extremely young religion, having been founded by Gerald Gardner is approximately 1954, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he drew information from allegedly ancient sources. Most people who call themselves Pagan follow gods and traditions that are older than Jesus.

My first major point of contention regarding this topic is the widespread belief that all Pagans follow the Wiccan Rede, the core of which is "An it harm none, do what though wilt". This is a purely Wiccan concept, and should not applied to any other type of Pagan. Now, granted, any decent person has a baseline morality that will deter them from harming people, animals, and things, but only in Wicca do we find such a naive concept as this. At this most basic level, we perform harm unto something every single day just by eating. And if you eat meat, this concept is totally undeniable. Something had to die to provide you with that food, and what greater harm is there than killing? As a non-Wiccan Pagan, I have no qualms about participating in cycles of life, which includes consuming other living things in order to survive. You will also find in any non-Wiccan magical path the means to intentionally harm someone. And let's face it, honestly, sometimes people need to be hurt.

This leads well into something that, while I've never seen it as an "official" belief of Wicca, is perhaps even more naive than the Rede: the concept of "black" and "white" magic. This, in a nutshell, is absolute rubbish. Magic doesn't come in flavors, people, it simply is. Aleister Crowley defines magic as "The science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will". While I'm certainly not attempting to preach about Crowley here, I personally feel that his definition of magic is the best I've ever seen. Notice, if you will, that morality is not mentioned in the least. That's because magic can be used for any purpose that the practitioner desires. It's our own morality, not some cosmic decree, that decides if a particular magical affect is "good" or "bad". While generalities will usually apply,

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>