From: Maia <maia>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:20:07 -0500

I had several thoughts in response to Mary's post.

First, I think that there are some pretty wild misconceptions about witchcraft as it exists in the real (consensual) world. There is nothing in Wicca that encourages
"the committing of heinous crimes." Fundamentally, Wicca is based on a reverence for all life, and all matter -- a reverence that plenty of Christians limit to humankind.

Second, those who have mixed up Satanism and Wicca aren't even comparing apples and oranges, it's more like apples and orangutans. Satanists are probably closer to Christians in ideology, because most Wiccans' theologies leave no place for a belief in Satan. Remember, Lucifer is Jehovah's fallen angel, and belongs in that hierarchy, not in Wicca.

Third, there are as many kinds of Christians as there are people on this list. And whether or not the bible is the one true word of the Christian god, there is also the undeniable fact that no two people read any book the same way, and thus the bible is open to the same (mis)interpretations and
(mis)perceptions as any other work of literature. How many authors complain that their readers project their own opinions all over a book? If the bible is really The Word, I imagine that the Christian god must have the greatest complaint of all! And finally, of course, are the "publishing errors". Or how else can I explain the half a dozen different versions of the bible that sit on my shelf?

Is Witchcraft fun? Well, taking Wicca as one representative of "witchcraft" for the moment, I guess it would have to depend. Is church fun? Sometimes. Easter Sunday is a blast, though it follows up on some pretty gorey details of a man hanging in agony. And Christmas is fun in a soft, sweet way, though it too comes on the heels of the story of a generation of slaughtered children. Religion is complex, whose ever it is. Wicca is no more so or less so than any other religion, except that without the presence of an overriding dogma or text, it is perhaps more flexible to the needs of its people.

Do I think Rowling consulted Deuteronomy? Probably not, though the bible has been the source for some pretty imaginative fantasies to date. One interesting project is to consider who Christ would be if he existed in a different context. What kind of role would he take in Harry Potter-land? Some know that in Narnia he is often a lion, in a world where the animals speak aloud and magic forms the very breath of existence, and in Middle?rth he may hold one home in Gandalf, who is yet clearly a wizard among wizards, and not The Wizard of all. And these indeed are magical creatures, warlocks and magicians even - do you see how easily the terms can be (conf)used?

If you want to look for danger in Harry, don't look to its witchcraft - it doesn't hold with any beyond the name itself. And if you want to put forth antiquated definitions of witchcraft, then we should at least apply the same standard to all of us on this list... I imagine that all of the women, at the very least, will burn for our indecencies in this dialogue with unknown men. Poor witchcraft, which has come to symbolize everything ever despised or outlawed or feared by one (western) group or another - 'tis a term as heavy-burdened as god.

In all of this debate, am I concerned that children will think that witchcraft is fun? Hardly. I am more concerned that the media display will fuel the ignorance that holds any differing theology as an element for ridicule or condemnation. And worse, I fear that such hostility will fuel the anti-spiritual attitude which dominates in academia today, where it is safer to hold no faith at all, lest it be shattered when it cracks against the ivory walls.

Maia
Received on Tue 30 Nov 1999 09:20:07 AM CST