Sorry for the slow response, I was in classes all day today and only had a moment to review the posts, so if my response doesn't address your particular counterpoint, my apologies.
The first point I'd like to defend against is the 'Christians are not Jews'. This is an invalid metaphor- you're not going for the big picture. Christians are not Jews- they are members of a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Judaism is a monotheistic religion based on the teachings in the Hebrew Bible (for sake of argument & simplicity, the Old Testament, although that is not perfectly accurate.) They are both monotheistic religions with many similar tenets and even writings, however, the major shift involved in the advent of Jesus Christ messes with your metaphor too much.
A better example for this would be 'Border collies are not German Shepards'. They are both dogs, they (likely) share a common ancestor, and they are similar enough to allow interbreeding. (For all of our attempts at specialization, no breed of what we commonly refer to as a 'dog' is a different species.) (1)
You can also go back to Christianity for your example- orthodox Christianity vs Protestant. No-one called the Protestant Christians non-Christians, they just called them Heritics, and in terms of Catholicism they were. But they were still Christians. The PIRA still does this in North Ireland. To use the degree of seperation example, a Catholic Priest cannot be a Baptist Priest, but he is still a priest, and so is the baptist, and they are both CHRISTIAN priests.
The most extreme example I can think of is that of racial discrimination that has been so popular in our world; that is, people claiming that blacks are not humans. Do I even need to continue this example?
Thus, solitary Wiccans (or eclectic- I would like to address them separately because you -do- get to a degree of separation where it makes a difference) are NOT any form of BTW. They are not Gardnerians, they are not Alexandrian, CVW, or any other form. (2) They are, however, still a part of the bigger picture- as long as they follow the core components of Wicca, they are still Wiccan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what are these core components? Well, I'll pull in a few different sources here;
Taken from Wikipedia; admittedly not an authoritative source, we get:
Wicca (IPA: /ˈwɪkə/) is a nature-based religion popularised in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca)
That's an OK baseline, but it's not very descriptive.
One I prefer is from the BTW FAQ:
Although in recent years the diversity of the people who call themselves Wiccan has made a comprehensive definition impossible, some general statements can be made: All Wiccans worship a Goddess or Goddesses; most also worship a God or Gods. Practically all hold rituals inside a magic circle, usually at the time of the Full Moon and eight Sabbats. Practically all believe in and practice some form of magic.
(http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/articles/btwfaq.htm)
I personally would also remove the 'believe in' part of the last sentence- to me that is non-negotiable. The consideration of 'practicing' is a valid point that may vary from person to person for a wide variety of reasons.
If we head over to ‘Wicca for the Rest of Us’, we find the following:
• Is polytheistic religion focusing upon dedication to patron deities, typically a god and a goddess.
• Is a modern religion influenced by a variety of pre-Christian beliefs.
• Views the spiritual and material worlds as overlapping: the gods are not distant beings but entities whose presence we can experience.
• Stresses personal experience with divinity and developing greater harmony with the larger world.
• Views the universe as the product of complementary opposites in a system roughly akin to the Chinese concept of yin and yang.
• Teaches that we all are ultimately responsible for our own actions.
That’s pretty good- it matches what Wikipedia says in the terms of ‘modern religion’ and agrees with many of the points the BTW FAQ makes, and adds some new ones as well.
(http://wicca.timerift.net/wicca101/Basics.shtml#1)
Finally, let’s pull in Gerald Gardner’s earlier writings;
I’m pulling these from the Gardnerian BoS, published online at http://sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/index.htm
I think that we can agree that that’s a reasonable representation of the BoS?
The GBoS makes things a bit more difficult- it doesn’t have a section entitled ‘What is Wicca?’ Very likely Gardner never considered this important- he knew what it was, anyone that had the Book knew what it was, why did it need an explanation? He does give somewhat of a look into the question in his books ‘Witchcraft Today’ (p. 1954) and ‘The Meaning of Witchcraft’ (p. 1959), but as these are not in the public domain I’ll refrain from citing them. I am also going to refrain from citing anything listed in “The Old Laws” (p. 1961, arguably created late 1957) as these came after the bulk of the material Gardner composed of Wicca and were refuted by many of his peers, including his pupil Doreen Valiente.( Valiente (1989) The Rebirth of Witchcraft.)
…
Woah!? The BoS doesn’t say what you must be to be a Wiccan! What a concept! (3)
More importantly, he never states that to be a Wiccan you must be initiated, or, that your coven must trace itself back to his religion. (See note above)
Inline Note:
I can’t actually find the OP’s source for the following. I had assumed it was from here : http://web.archive.org/web/20050828073500/http://users.cwnet.com/~season/gardner/gthegods.htm
However, it’s not part of that text. I also can’t find a similar quote through judicious searching.
In fact, the primary argument used for initiatory, oath-bound traditions is this line;
Quote:
The Priests and Priestesses who directed these festivals were called the Wica, meaning 'The Wise Ones',
which the OP interprets to means that one must be initiated. Since Initiation is by definition the acceptance into a tradition (http://wicca.timerift.net/letters.shtml, 3rd line break. See note for full text and highlighted portion.) (4) However, no-where does Gardner state that one must be intitiated to be a Witch. In fact, pretty much every form of BTW recognizes ‘dedicants’ or students, it’s practically what you
have to be before you can reasonably expect to be initiated. (5)
So you see, attemping to put your path (or tradition) above others is merely and ego-trip for those who engage in it, and has no actual bearing beyond that. Claiming that what someone calls ‘Wicca’ is not Wicca is an unjust accusation, so long as they follow a reasonable well accepted definition of what Wicca is. Now, claiming to be a witch in a form of BTW is a different story. If someone were to claim to be a 1st degree initiate, and was not, any member of that tradition would have full rights to tell him that he was not. They would not have the right to tell him that he is not Wiccan- he ejsut isn’t a Gardnerian Wiccan, or an Alexandrian Wiccan, or another form. Any other arguments about what is and what is not Wicca is frankly on the same level of the arguments made by racists and the PIRA. (6)
(1) This is also not a perfect example; oftentimes Eclectic Wiccans will get to a point where they have so little in common with the original that they are no longer enough related for knowledge gained in one path to be applicable in another- in biology we would term this a 'degree of seperation', and would require two breeds of dogs to not be cross-breedable and produce fertile offspring. A wolf can, in theory, breed with a chihuahua and still produce a fertile offsprings.
(2) The exception to this being the idea of a BT Wiccan being 'separated' from her Coven but not expelled from it, as the case may be when a member moves and there is no longer a coven in the area. For a time the Wiccan may be considered 'solitary', but she is still, say, a 2nd Degree Gardnerian Wiccan.
(3) Admittedly, this is very likely because this edition of the BoS is very early, and at this point in time no-one considered ‘defining’ Wicca. Does the Bible define what a Christian is? Does the Torah define what a Jew is? No; it’s not necessary.
(4) Text taken from: http://wicca.timerift.net/letters.shtml
Quote:
"Self-initiation," however, is a contradictory in terms. Initiation is something conferred upon you by others. You cannot confer it upon yourself and thus cannot "self-initiate." What Solitaries do is go through a dedication ceremony, which is their declaration to the gods of their intent and, well, dedication to them.
I agree with this 100%. It may only be a matter of semantics but it’s an important point. A dedicated solitary is not a 1st degree BTW.
(5) This is one of those annoyingly accepted things that’s damned hard to source. One of the best sources I found is here: http://www.wintersend.co.uk/about.htm where the coven describes their initiation procedures.
(6) My intent here is to say that any argument based on tradition, heritage, initiation, or oaths is on this level.
And yet... sometimes when I look in the mirror I see myself....
And yet... sometimes I see the world behind grey eyes...
