The Hypocrisy of the Rede

2006-09-27T11:46:00.000-07:00

The Wiccan Rede is the closest thing that any Wiccan can produce to an actual doctrine in that it seems to be the only thing that they all agree upon, and only just at that. Primarily they seem to all agree on the very last line: An it harm none, do what you will. Even with this there is divisiveness within the Wiccan camp. Such a simple thought, one would think that it would cause no consternation and yet there are multiple interpretations of this line to be found throughout the internet. A ‘noted expert’ on Wiccanism has written a very thought provoking piece concerning the interpretation of this simple line. If I may quote her, “These are just a few examples of areas some people consider to be 'gray areas' when deciding where to draw the line of "Harm None". You may agree with or disagree with all the points I've mentioned, and that is just fine. How you choose to live by the Rede is your decision.” For the full article by one Terri Paajanen, please follow this link: http://paganwiccan.about.com/cs/ethics/a/harmnone.htm. In the article you will see the ‘gray areas’ of which she writes.

Personal Wiccan schism aside, I wish to address the last line of the Rede as it is written: An it harm none, do what you will. Herein we see the total disregard for society and the social contract. The idea behind ‘do what you will’ is that of a total lack of responsibility. Freedom from responsibility, sadly too often considered an American right guaranteed by the US Constitution, is inherent in that phrase. Yet these same Wiccans loudly proclaim protected status of their so-called religion under the same US Constitution I have just mentioned. While the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights does in fact protect the individual’s religious freedom, it categorically does not say that the Federal Government is required to recognize any religion. A nation represents a society. A society has a social contract that is implicit to its existence. This contract is not written down, but rather is a living breathing thing understood by the people of a society. When a member of a society chooses to break the social contract in some manner they inherently give up their rights to the benefits of said society. It is the right of each individual to choose to live outside of society, but once that decision is made the same individual cannot claim the benefits of that society any longer. That is the law of nature as well as the law of man. However, this nation, this America, has for too long allowed those who violate the social contract to reap the benefits of the society they spurn. Not only is this an unforgivable atrocity upon the members of the society that keep and enforce the social contract, but it also serves to weaken the status of the outlaw. Thus the brave rebels who live outside the protection of the law are no longer figures to be grudgingly admired for their strength, but are in fact weaklings who exploit the laws to protect themselves from what they defy openly.

Let us now consider the first portion of the objectionable statement: An it harm none. Harm is more than conscious action to hurt. Harm occurs when one choose inaction where action would prevent harm to another. Thus by action or inaction we harm or help others daily. When combined with the idea of “do what you will”, the total concept of the vaunted last line of the Wiccan Rede is one of personal freedom in defiance of all others. Too often have I witnessed an adult that felt that their personal freedoms were more important that the mental, physical or spiritual well-being of their child. These same adults claim that they are doing what is right for them and blind themselves to their actions, or inactions, causing another generation to be reared with a lack of responsibility and concern for their fellow humans. It is convenient to consider only one’s own needs and desires and pass it off as acceptable because it caused harm to no other actively. It is also wrong. That Wiccans cannot even agree upon the interpretation of the Rede shows that this ‘religion’ has no cohesive thought or practice. It is an ethos with no ethos. Compare the Wiccan Rede to the Ten Commandments of Judeo-Christianity. Each of the Commandments handed to Moses by YVHV is very clear and the majority supports the social contract. Note also that the verbiage of the Ten Commandments does not say what you cannot do, they tell you what you SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do. YVHV allows His people to choose, but the implication is inherent that if you do not follow these laws you will be punished. The choice is still yours. The Ten Commandments are clear and easy to understand. All religions need some central tenet that informs the followers and defines the idea. Buddha taught that the path to Nirvana was to cease one’s outflow and thus cease the cycle of reincarnation. A central tenet, but it needed to be expounded upon. Yet it was still a clear concept. Wicca has a concept that is clear to anyone with a modicum of sense and that concept is lack of responsibility. Yet Wiccans all over use this to try and support how their way of life is better because it does not seek to harm others or control the minds of others. This is simply not true. Having the words “In G-d we trust” on money harms none. The Federal Government is not declaring that Americans have to follow the path of this G-d. Yet Pagans of all stripes protest. A courthouse with the Ten Commandments on the wall or on a monument harms none, and yet Pagans of all stripes demand it be removed. By that logic if I perceive harm in something a Wiccan does, the Wiccan in question MUST cease that action or else be in danger of violating their belief system; which is the definition of hypocrisy. Again we see that there is nothing ‘wise’ about ‘wicca’, this pretentious foolishness that attracts the mentally lazy and weak.

Re-examine the Rede and see it for what it truly is. Gain knowledge and become wise.

On the Origin of the Word Witch

2006-09-26T19:54:00.000-07:00

Wiccans will tell you that the words Wicca and Witch are Anglo-Saxon in origin and that they derive from the Anglo-Saxon word for ‘wise’. They will also tell you that Wicca is an ancient nature religion practiced by the Celts. Some Wiccans say that Wicca is not the religion practiced by the Celts but is a revival of a Celtic religion. Whatever the case may be, these individuals do nothing but demonstrate that far from being ‘wise’ they are in fact fools.

First, let us consider that by their own admissions, these Wiccans claim to follow a Celtic religion but then claim that it has an Anglo-Saxon name. While it is not unknown for things to be called by names other than the names of the culture that originated them, it is known, historically, that the Anglo-Saxon peoples never had religious practices in the manner of Wiccans and that early on they became Christians. It would be against logic to assume that an Anglo-Saxon Christian would call a practitioner of a Pagan religion ‘wise’. If one were to go further back to the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon beliefs, one would see beliefs in line with the Viking cosmology. The Norse/Viking belief system bears little to no resemblance to the Wiccan ethos.

Secondly, let us consider the word ‘wise’. Webster gives the derivation of wise as follows: Middle English wis, from Old English wIs; akin to Old High German wIs wise, Old English witan to know. Where is this ‘wicca’ word that the Wiccans claim is the Anglo-Saxon word for ‘wise’ and gave us the word ‘witch’?

Thirdly, the word ‘witch’ is in Webster’s dictionary and the etymology is given as follows: Middle English wicche, from Old English wicca, masculine, wizard & wicce, feminine, witch; akin to Middle High German wicken to bewitch, Old English wigle divination, and perhaps to Old High German wIh holy. Now we come upon an interesting point, for you see the word wicca is an Anglo-Saxon word in that it is Old English. And as we observe, the word is masculine and means simply wizard. But what is the origin of the word wizard? Observe: Middle English wysard, from wis, wys wise. The more perceptive reader will now see we have a problem. The Old English (Anglo-Saxon) words wicca and wicce are translated as wizard and witch respectively. We are literally saying that the word wicce is witch. Wizard, we can see, is defined as being from the actual word for wise (wis, wys). However, we also see that the word wysard is a Middle English word, not an Anglo-Saxon word. Thus our definitions, as provided by Webster beg the question. Wicca cannot mean ‘wise’ if a word for wise already existed, now can it? And of course, we know that the Old English word for ‘wise’, derived from the verb witan is not wicca.

Consider now the following piece of evidence: The German word for ‘witch’ is hexe. The word hex (both verb and noun) has the following etymology: Pennsylvania German hexe, from German hexen, from Hexe witch, from Old High German hagzissa; akin to Middle English hagge hag. So we see that the German word for witch is ultimately drawn from an older word that was akin to the Middle English word for hag. Let us look at the etymology for ‘hag’ then: Middle English hagge demon, old woman.

Thus it is plain to all to see that to claim that the name of your religion and its practitioners is drawn from an Anglo-Saxon word for wise or to suggest that the word was applied to those who were respected for wisdom, when it is plainly not the case, or to claim that your religion is ancient and Celtic but has an Anglo-Saxon name, are the supreme acts of a fool (1 : a person lacking in judgment or prudence).

Vae Victis

I Am Legend

The Hypocrisy of the Rede

On the Origin of the Word Witch