From: amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: alt.wicca, anyone?
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:35:24 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at Austin


B.A. Davis-Howe writes:
>amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik) writes:
>>On the subject of creating an alt.wicca newsgroup, I would ask just
>>what topic(s) do we want to see here?  Is the idea to be more specific
>>than paganism?  To just include Wicca in all its various forms, but
>>omit that which is not Wiccan?
>
>>[...]
>>So I guess I want to know whose definition of Wicca will be used inthe
>>naming of this newsgroup, if indeed it gets off the ground.
>
>Susan, I would always welcome you, but I would not consider your religion to
>be part of the core subject material of the group.  I always appreciate it for
>comparison and contrast however, and you are one of the few people who have
>given me feedback on my Wiccan-specific posts.

Thanks, sweetie.  :) So I guess I count you in the "Susan's not
Wiccan" camp.

>I would want the group to focus on Wicca, but not to demand credentials, or
>to refuse to allow anyone but a Wiccan-type Witch to post, if it did become
>moderated.  (A sidenote, do you usually capitalise Witch?  I've only seen
>Wiccan Witches capitalise it before.  Part of the stuff that ailsa and I have
>been discussing.)

Yes, I capitalize it, when talking about someone like me, or you, or
anyone else here who practices Craft.  For witches in fairy tales, I
don't.

>Do you think it would be more productive to make it soc.religion.witchcraft,
>rather than s.r.wicca?  If so, how broadly would we define Witchcraft?  Would
>we need to specify that we are talking about it in the context of religion,
>not just magical power?  Would we define it by cultural lines?  I have been
>working on an essay on the boundaries of Wicca, but I wouldn't know where to
>begin bounding Witchcraft.  (The Wicca essay will be posted soon.)

Hm.  Big-time posers.  I'm not really sure, because I'm not sure I'm
in favor of such a change.  In fact, at present I'm pretty sure I'm
not in favor of it.  I definitely wouldn't want a moderated group.
(Realistically, how many fundies have we had bother us?  All our
harassments come from within, which just reinforces my opinion that
moderation would not be a good idea.)  But assuming it was a fait
accompli, and being presented with these questions, I'd have to say
that soc.religion.witchcraft would be my preference (as opposed to
.wicca).  Specified, of course, that we were talking about a religion
(that's why the push is for a soc.religion classification, right?).
Then people could make clear their denominations (Wiccan and what
type, et cetera) if they wanted.  I would not suggest defining the
structure of the group by cultural lines, since the Saxon-based word
Wicca is so broadly used to cover many different cultural bases.

I'm not really sure we could "bound," or really define, Witchcraft.  I
mean, look how much trouble we had with P/paganism.  That's why I
really don't like the idea.

But if it goes over, I hope everyone will let me play anyway.  :)

-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"Queens never make bargains."  -- The Red Queen, _Through the Looking Glass_
-----amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu--------------The University of Texas @Austin---
Newsgroups: alt.pagan