Talk:Wiccan morality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who has the correct interpretation of the Rede?

"... it is sometimes misinterpreted to mean 'do no harm at all'"? Why would that be a misinterpretation? I'm actually not just being contrary here, I think there's great insight and wisdom to be gained through grappling with the Rede, attempting to find a literal interpretation that actually works. So what if it at first seems impossible? In Wicca we are learning to do the impossible, to resolve all paradox and grasp the inner workings of reality. Spoon-feeding people with dogmatic interpretations of lore doesn't help in this process.

If it were up to me we would give next to no interpretation of Wiccan doctrine here at Wikipedia, but failing that we should at the very least attribute these interpretations to the authors whose opinions they are, rather than presenting them as bald fact. Fuzzypeg★ 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Where I would go with this, is first to declare my POV: I don't think the Rede says anything about actions which do harm. Now, from a neutral point, it's easy to show that it doesn't say anything about actions which cause harm, as the wording "An it harm none, do what ye will" doesn't have anything in there, specifically, about actions which cause harm. It could be interpreted to infer that actions which cause harm are to be avoided, but that's not what it says, and wikipedia isn't the place for interpretation. Additionally, it has been written about by at least one author, David Piper, in his article "Wiccan Ethics And The Wiccan Rede", which does offer an interpretation that, as nothing is specifically said about actions which harm they aren't forbidden. It also goes into the issues of whether the Rede, the name of which derives from counsel or advice, should be interpreted to be a proscriptive commandment, and how would ANY Wiccan be able to follow a goal of "no harm" and still manage to eat meat, for example. I know that in the line of the Tradiiton in which I'm studying, we take the actual construction view of the Rede. revising and extending I'd also add that in looking at the AC Rede, it prescribes what we should do (what we will), as opposed to proscribing what we shouldn't do - If it harms none, do what you will. Is that now as clear as mud?--Vidkun (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Dispute: Attitude to homosexuality

This section is pure opinion. The only cited fact is Gardner's rejection of homosexuality. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Inline Citations.

I had added the "Nofootnotes" template to the sections Bibliographical and encyclopedic sources and Academic studies, but they where removed.

In my opinion, large portions of this article are speculative, un-sourced opinion, and completely debatable. This template requests contributors to "...improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate." Why would they be removed? The link does not refute the reason needing additional citations using the listed references.--151.201.149.209 (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is ridiculous - it needs to be removed. Wiccans are not anti-homosexual. This is offensive and innacurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinnerinn (talk • contribs) 03:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Attitude to homosexuality: DELETED

"Although Gardner's covens initially demonstrated an aversion to homosexuality, claiming that it brought down "the curse of the goddess" Witchcraft Today, Rider, 1954, pp. 69, 75. and even going so far as to say that homosexuals could not become Witches, it is now almost universally accepted in Wicca. Gardner's reasoning was based on his understanding of polarity]] as being only possible on a physical level between Witches of the opposite sex, something that was popularised by the Wiccan authors Stewart Farrar and Janet Farrar However, most Witches see these writings as being a product of the times, citing the Charge of the Goddess as proof of the divine acceptance of homosexuality: "For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals".

For those, who wish to re-include this into the article, I won't fight you if you want to do that. However, I wish to point out some things.

The first line: "Although Gardner's covens initially demonstrated an aversion to homosexuality, claiming that it brought down "the curse of the goddess" Gerald Gardner" is inaccurate. It is Gerald Gardner, himself who wrote that homosexuality brought down "the curse of the goddess" not his individual covens. This sentence commits a grammatical mistake; by implying that the subject of the sentence (Gardner's covens) is the one doing the action, when in truth it was another related subject (Gardner.) If his covens had done a collective work about homosexuality, this could have been true, but they did not, so it is not. It is verifiable that Gardner wrote about an aversion to homosoxexuality. But, it is not verifiable whether or not individual members within the covens believed precisely the same.

There are other problems as well. "Even going so far as to say" is a problematic phrase. What is too far for one person to say, may not be far enough for another. This lack merits with Neutral Point Of View.

There are weasel words and peacock phrases. E.g. "most witches"..."citing the Charge of The Goddes as proof of the divine acceptance of homosexuality." Can we verify that "most witches" cite the Charge in such an interpretation? Another example: "it is now almost universally accepted in Wicca", would need proper citations, and verification. Also, "almost universally" is improper usage of terminolgy. This is a peacock phrase, because it is equivocable to "it is a widely accepted belief by many Wiccans that..." Also, the term "now" is used wrongly... When is "now?" Does "now" mean "this year", "today" or when I am reading the article?

As mentioned above. The opinion given in this section is speculative, meaning that the section is dubious.

Also, there is only one source. One source is better than none, but that source was improperly attached to the wrong suubject. There should be at least one more non-Gardnerian source included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpeaceful (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The final point in question, is, is it necessary?

Thanks Wolfpeaceful (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)