Girl suspended for...

[Aethian]

Deleted, changed my mind about getting into this.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm saying that if a Wiccan schoolkid claimed to cast a spell to make someone sick, it should at least be treated as an attempted attack on the teacher.

What? No. That's barely a step above thought crime. That's like rounding up a kid for saying he thinks his teacher is going to Hell.

I could claim that I'm flogging you about the head and neck as we speak with the wet end of my quivering junk across the astral plane. That doesn't mean its an attempted attack if you thought you felt something brush your hair.

[SkullKing]

if she believed an action would cause harm, and then did the action with the purpose of harming, it makes sense that theoretically it should be treated as an attack, but I can´t see how this would be enforced realistically

[Andara Bledin]

As far as I know, the US only prosecutes for attacks that have a realistic chance of success.

Otherwise, voodoo dolls and every form of effigy would be prohibited, and we know that they aren't.

If she honestly believed that a spell would cause another harm, she needs psychiatric help, not punishment. Well, maybe some counseling on not wishing others harm, but I suspect we've all run afoul of that at times, particularly while we were still kids.

[Gravekeeper]

if she believed an action would cause harm, and then did the action with the purpose of harming, it makes sense that theoretically it should be treated as an attack, but I can´t see how this would be enforced realistically

It does not make sense because its effectively wishing ill will on someone else. Something we have all done if not do on a constant daily basis. Whether or not we believe said ill will has any effect is irrelevant. Its a motive without a crime.

Besides, any teenager trying to "cast spells" at a teacher is more than likely hoping rather than believing they work. Then desperately watching the target whilst in the throws of confirmation bias. -.-

Not to mention within the bounds of Wiccan beliefs this would be the kind of action that would be forbidden anyhow and would come back to bite you in the ass. All forms of Wicca specifically have a no no on this one. Whether it's the Wiccan Rede or the Rule of Three.

It's like blaming a murder on Christianity because its prohibited in the Ten Commandments.

[Rapscallion]

Glad we were able to get the petty insults into the this thread, I was afraid there might be substance to the discussion.

I can manage substance. I figured you'd already know of this.

Islam is divided into two main camps over who was the spiritual successor of Mohammed. Some information here about the background. Some atrocities in the name of a different version of the same faith here.

Christianity was at it a bit longer than Islam. One of the more close-to-home versions was this fellow, with some rumblings still going on. Same religious text, differences of opinion, and quite a few people died horribly.

A whilst back, the protestant and catholic versions were at odds during the Elizabethan era. There were rather a number of deaths involved. I could link stuff, but you probably know all about those.

I could cite more, but I suspect you're more than aware of similar stuff.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

As far as I know, the US only prosecutes for attacks that have a realistic chance of success.

Otherwise, voodoo dolls and every form of effigy would be prohibited, and we know that they aren't.

Jails would be full of heart broken teenage girls that tore up pictures of their cheating exes whilst wishing Cindy ends up giving him herpes. -.-

[Gravekeeper]

I could cite more, but I suspect you're more than aware of similar stuff.

Wicca is a decentralized modern religion. So it has no central power base nor ever has had one and doesn't have 2000 years of cryptic text that's been translated 14 times for people to argue over. Unlike certain sects of the Abrahamic religions, denominations of Wicca do not have an overwhelming need to define themselves as right and other Wiccans as wrong. -.-

[Ginger Tea]

Let's not forget that some schools have banned students from having a death note note book, you or I could write any ones name in it, but the odds of someone dying of a heart attack (if no other cause of death is entered) are phenomenally small.

Yet as the mythos of the book is you write someone's name in a book means you wish ill on them is rather well known, or at least more than I expected it to be, if schools were so afraid of the book, they should write the students name in it, see that they do not infact die of a heart attack and give it back to them as it's just an overpriced novelty notepad, no more dangerous than one with a hello kitty hard cover.

[s_stabeler]

it depends, in my opinion, but I'm referring to directly threatening a teacher with making them sick, not talking with your friends about it. It's the student actually threatening the teacher more than what they are threatening the teacher with.

[Gravekeeper]

it depends, in my opinion, but I'm referring to directly threatening a teacher with making them sick, not talking with your friends about it. It's the student actually threatening the teacher more than what they are threatening the teacher with.

That's a different ballgame. She made no threats against the teacher and casted no spell. That was bullshit the assistant principle made up and accused her of because she had some books on Wicca.

Looks like this story was turned into a made for TV movie.

[SkullKing]

It does not make sense because its effectively wishing ill will on someone else. Something we have all done if not do on a constant daily basis. Whether or not we believe said ill will has any effect is irrelevant. Its a motive without a crime

there is a difference between wishing ill and causing ill. If one wishes ill, it is ok, if one takes steps to cause ill, it is more complicated. even if the action itself was ineffective, the person though it would be effective. Similarly like one person trying to give something she thought was poison to someone else, but is actually harmless. even though there was no murder, there was an attempted murder.

I agree it is ridiculous to try and legislate, spells and vodoo dolls and whatnot. But I understand that s_stabeler said that from a moral/philosophical point of view, making an action you believe will cause harm on someone else, is an attempted attack, even if failed or inefective.

[Hyena Dandy]

Islam is divided into two main camps over who was the spiritual successor of Mohammed. Some information here about the background. Some atrocities in the name of a different version of the same faith here.

Christianity was at it a bit longer than Islam. One of the more close-to-home versions was this fellow, with some rumblings still going on. Same religious text, differences of opinion, and quite a few people died horribly.

A whilst back, the protestant and catholic versions were at odds during the Elizabethan era. There were rather a number of deaths involved. I could link stuff, but you probably know all about those.

I could cite more, but I suspect you're more than aware of similar stuff.

And once again, that's not at all like Wicca is.

Catholics and Protestants argued, but they argued over doctrinal/political/religious differences. Muslims argued over the successor of Muhammed. You are, in fact, pointing out ways in which those things are totally separate from Wicca. The closest analogy would be if there were Mormons who thought Joseph Smith didn't really translate ancient golden plates, and in fact made it all up off the top of his head, but both sides agreed that's not that big of a deal, really.

Wiccans are arguing over what the history of their faith is - Not what the right PATH of their faith is. What you're linking for Christianity is things Christians know happened. You're rigt, I DO Know about all the things you linked. I know they happened. They are, in fact, proof positive that Christianity and Islam existed at the times of those things.

Some Wiccans say that Wicca existed for thousands of years, some say it started in 1950. That's what is meant when someone said no-one agrees what's true or not. Additionally, you can find a Wiccan who's a Gardnerian, and a Wiccan who has the exact same beliefs, but doesn't call herself a Gardnerian, and they'll get along totally fine because Wicca doesn't really teach that there's one right path.

What you're talking about are political, social, and theological disputes about interpretations of specific things, that they can agree on sourcing what they disagree about. As a nonstructured faith, Wiccans don't do that in the same way. If Wicca gained greater organization, they might. But as it is, it IS totally unlike any dispute of modern organized religions.

Using those examples is insulting Wicca by not actually bothering to figure out what it's actually about. I called it a petty insult, and have been shown nothing to make me think otherwise.

[Rapscallion]

And once again, that's not at all like Wicca is.

It's exactly how it will be, and I pointed out how the mainstream religions are at the moment.

Catholics and Protestants argued, but they argued over doctrinal/political/religious differences.

Doctrinal differences being matters of what they believe, right?

Muslims argued over the successor of Muhammed. You are, in fact, pointing out ways in which those things are totally separate from Wicca.

Incorrect.

The only difference between wicca and other religions is the aspect of numbers. Get enough numbers together, and the anarchy of well-meaning people will organise. It's human nature. Leaders will take over, and someone will want something done, and rationalise away the thricefold law of return or whatever it's called these days, and shit will occur.

It's how the world is.

I've begun pondering the concept of instead of removing religion as an aim, removing people. Bit harder to accomplish, of course. Not necessarily preferable. However, the main flaw in every socio-economic grouping (religious, political etc) is people.

Wiccans are arguing over what the history of their faith is - Not what the right PATH of their faith is. What you're linking for Christianity is things Christians know happened. You're rigt, I DO Know about all the things you linked. I know they happened. They are, in fact, proof positive that Christianity and Islam existed at the times of those things.

That they existed is not in doubt; as to whether or not this was a good thing...

As for wicca, once there are enough practitioners, they will follow the same path of division. Humans run into a limit of about a hundred to a hundred nad fifty people they associate with - try looking up the monkeysphere concept. We have hardwired limits in our wetware, and that's when things split and divide and we tribalise.

It'll happen just the same.

What you're talking about are political, social, and theological disputes about interpretations of specific things, that they can agree on sourcing what they disagree about. As a nonstructured faith, Wiccans don't do that in the same way. If Wicca gained greater organization, they might. But as it is, it IS totally unlike any dispute of modern organized religions.

It'll happen just the same. Get to critical mass, and the same paths will be trodden.

Using those examples is insulting Wicca by not actually bothering to figure out what it's actually about. I called it a petty insult, and have been shown nothing to make me think otherwise.

I don't need to understand wicca in great detail. I've got a reasonable amount of knowledge of people, though. I'm no trained sociologist, but I've done a bit of reading and can recognise trends.

By the way, christians, muslims, and wiccans all believe in the existence of supernatural beings and perform various acts based on this, usually prayer in one form or another. If anyone has been able to reliably prove any sort of end result of these prayers through reliable reproduction, I missed the press release. Other than that, we're talking about unsubstantiated claims, so on a macro level they are the same in function.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

The only difference between wicca and other religions is the aspect of numbers. Get enough numbers together, and the anarchy of well-meaning people will organise. It's human nature. Leaders will take over, and someone will want something done, and rationalise away the thricefold law of return or whatever it's called these days, and shit will occur.

I will concede to your argument that if things were different, they'd be different.

I was under the impression when you had made your comment, you were not speaking from the other end of a time vortex. Someone made a statement about Wicca as it is today. You made a statement in response to that, that that's how other modern religions are.

If you are from the future, then no, your statement was not a petty insult. If you are not, however, you have STILL not shown me anything to back it up.It is irrelevant to what was said at the time, which was about Wicca as it is now. Your point appears to be that Wicca, if it had more followers, and was established in the same way other major religons are, would be more like other major religions.

If your point is that if things are different, they're not the same, then I suppose you're right. I was trying to argue about the differences held by different Wiccans today, not future Wiccans, who I have no contact with and thus cannot make a statement about what they think one way or the other.

It also remains that the point that I made, that Wicca is different, and the 'what's true/what's not true' is a substantively different debate being made in a substantively different manner, has still not actually been contested, perhaps because you feel you don't need to know about Wicca, and thus what the debate actually is, to discuss it.