**Here this may be more to your taste for an objective look leaning neither way pro or con;
though I believe the commentary at the end of the article is anti-Christian in substance. **
Yes, actually it is a bit better, however, I would note just for clarification that the page was not written by the University of Virginia, nor by any of the professors on its staff. It was written by a student for an undergraduate sociology class (graduate level classes start in the 500s), then expanded by another person, whose academic credentials are not included. Field research is listed, but it doesn’t say in what field.
“Created by Karen Junker and Vernieda Vergara
This page was initially created by Ms Vergara
for Soc 257: New Religious Movements, Spring Term, 1998.
The page was subsequently revised and expanded by Ms Junker
of Seattle, Washington who has done extensive field research
of modern Wiccans, Druids, Neopagans and Satanists.”
I don’t believe that the authors of the article are as up on current scholarship regarding the known facts of the witch hunts and known history of Wicca as would be ideal, based on some of their comments and other information I have read. In their defense, what they list was probably what was available at the time and reflected widespread misconceptions in the Neopagan community(Hutton’s book didn’t come out until 2001, for instance and the article was written in 1998). It also takes a very long time for scholarship to filter through and down.
As to “As in any religion, rigid scholarship is not a requirement for membership,” no, it isn’t, for Wiccans or Catholics, but that doesn’t make it extremely useful. Does that make misconceptions by the average “Catholic in the street” about the history of their religion accurate?
There really is, to my knowledge, no credible academic support to back up claims that Wicca as an organized religion such as that practiced by Wiccans currently existed before the advent of Gerald Gardner. I am not aware of any religion that worshipped the Triple Goddess as described by Wicca prior to the development of that image by Robert Graves, the poet, in his book “The White Goddess” (1948) or that pre-Christian religions in general viewed their Gods and Goddesses as simply interchangable facets of a single God and Goddess. It has more to do with the works of Frazer and others of the 19th century than with actual documentable pre-Christian practice.
The article itself says that. “Critics and experts have since drawn the conclusion that Gardner probably was involved in a form of Wicca, as in the Old Religion 3 of earth magic and herbal practices, but in time created a more ritualized and romanticized Wiccan form (Lewis, 173).” To go on to the footnote to clarify what is meant in this context by “The Old Religion”—
"On the use of the concept “Old Religion,” John Brightshadow Yohalem, Editor of Enchange: The Journal of the Urbane Pagan , writes: “Contrary to the statements of Gerald Gardner,Wicca was NOT a religion at all before his time, but consisted of various folk magic practices.Its practitioners were Christians with some heterodox traditions, many of which may have descended from ancient Pagan religions. But they were not themselves Pagans – unless you count all Roman Catholics as Pagans, which is arguable (both ways). The Great Witch Hunt came about during the era of the Reformation as an attempt of the hierarchy to rid the religion of these heterodox practicers. The people persecuted were themselves Christians whether or not they also practices witchcraft.” (11/08/98) "
It is not the claims that Gardner created Wicca that I found glaringly inaccurate in your original article, it is the claim that it is a survivor of a pre-Christian religion and that it is based on Hinduism: “Wicca, the craft, or the craft of the wise, is an ancient witchcraft religion which honor the gods of nature.” and “Wicca is a marriage between Witchcraft and Hinduism.” I would like to see citations of evidence for the use of Hinduism by Gardner, in particular.
I still prefer Professor Hutton’s work (he is a professor of history at Bristol University) overall as the best source currently available for a factual look as he looks into what can actually be supported by current scholarship and documentation, and being a book it is more in depth.
Overall, to be a new religion is not shameful. All religions at one time were new. Mythic language, stories and imagery are not shameful–the sacred stories are the way that religion speaks to our souls. Myths that embody deep truths grow up around things other than religion (George Washington and the cherry tree, for instance). However, historical facts are just that–supportable and documentable. Facts and myth are not interchangable and need to be evaluated differently.
It’s not magick, it is an ongoing relationship secured in faith.
You are right! Now that ya mention that, I notice cases like that all the time.