Lots of "words" and "meanings" being thrown around on this thread.
Well, it's a verbal medium. That's what we have to work with here. ;-)
New-Age does not mean Nuage...
For the most part, I have to disagree with you here. I think in common parlance, when people use the term "New Age" (or "Nuage" or "Newage (rhymes with sewage)"), they are not thinking solely in terms of pop-culture astrological "eras" (which only some people even find credible astrologically speaking), but using it as a descriptor of the modern, highly eclectic, capitalist, personal "spirituality" that is an outgrowth of Christian Science, Spiritualism and misunderstood Eastern philosophies, but has picked up bits and pieces of just about any and every belief system along the way.
The Newage system/attitude is inherently consumerist and racist at its core, and I have yet to meet anyone involved in it that hasn't been tainted by those values to one extent or another (though some people manage to leave and regain their sanity). I say this as someone who explored the Rebirthing cults and similar groups in the 1980s, and since the '70s have watched th Newage plagues creep further and further into both the mainstream as well as corrupting and damaging other, more traditional communities.
...does not mean Pagan does not mean Wicca.
The post-Internet Neopagan milieu has been heavily influenced by Newage trends and assumptions. And aspects of Paganism and Wicca have been incorporated into many Newage groups and scams (as we all know they also attempt to rip off and incorporate First Nations ones).
You cannot use the terms Nuage/Pagan/Wicca etc all in the same breath.
No, these words don't actually mean the same thing to those of us who've been around for a long time and know their origins. However, as some people have more recently muddied the boundaries extensively, and have sometimes used them interchangeably, I do think its understandable when someone assumes otherwise. There are certainly frauds out there making it seem that it's all the same thing. For some people, it is.
I am Pagan.
If it's not too personal a question, may I ask which culture/community/tradition?
This simply means that I do not subscribe to any beliefs "of the book", for instance "The Christian Bible", "The Muslim Qur'an" etc.
Um, well, we have two definitions at work here. Small "p" "pagan" means "non-Abhramic", and also incorporates all "non-religious persons". But in modern usage, capital "P" "Pagan" or "Neopagan" is also used to refer to those who follow some sort of, usually European, Pre-Christian tradition (or, as in the case of some Wiccans, those who *believe* their tradition is Pre-Christian, whether or not it actually is). (See Adler for more on the terminolgy issues. Hutton may cover it as well, iirc.)
Wicca comes under the umbrella term Pagan although it often does have some form of liturgy. Many also place Buddhism in this category.
Wicca is considered a form of Neopaganism, but your point about liturgy confuses me. Ethnic Pagan traditions have liturgy. Wicca has liturgy. Properly, I think only BritTrad Wicca, which is very heavy on liturgy, should even be considered Wicca, as the Neo-Wiccan traditions have departed from it heavily. (Not expressing a preference here, just historical fact. I'm not a Wiccan, and consider all forms of Wicca eclectic and mostly made-up, however I think the traditions who coined the term should have the right to define it.) If by the lack of liturgy you're referring to eclectic Neopagans who make it up as they go along but call themselves Wiccans (or people who got the word from Buffy the Vampire Slayer), but have never trained in a traditional, lineaged group, I don't think they should really be called Wiccans. But I don't really care what those folks are called *shrugs*
What really confuses me is your calling Buddhism "Pagan". Um, no. There are eclectic Neopagans who dabble in Buddhism, and call themselves "Buddheo-Pagans", but that doesn't make Buddhism itself Pagan or Neopagan. And calling Buddhism (small "p") "pagan" is an insult, imho.
And then there are the smaller, lesser known groups of Asatru, Goth, etc etc.
??satrú is a Germanic/Norse stream of Polytheistic Reconstructionism. With the Eddas, a good deal of surviving folklore, and at least one priest of the old traditions surviving in Iceland into my lifetime, they've had a lot to build on. While there has been the serious problem of racists being attracted to it, as well as some who don't consider themselves racist still using source materials written by racists, for those who actually adhere to its better principles, it is an ethnic tradition with about as much validity and heft to it as you'll find among white folks. However, "Goth" is a musical/fashion style affected by some of the younger Neopagans, not an historical magical tradition. (Unless you're speaking about some spiritual traditions of the real, historical Goths... which afaik have nothing to do with the sort of "spooky Neo-Wicca" that some young people are calling "Gothic".)
And just FYI... I personally think that Gerald Gardiner was a certifiable nutcase.
I don't agree that Gardner was "certifiable". Like many men of his time and background, he had some ugly sexual issues that found their way into his work. His particular neuroses have never appealed to me, and I find many of them gross, laughable, or even psychologically harmful. His work has even sowed the seeds for physical and sexual harm, as his interest in bondage and whipping, even if described in his writings as not being done to injure people, have been used by some as an excuse to tie women up and rape and beat them (and then tell them to shut up about it because it's a secret religious ritual). He has a lot to answer for.
I hate that Gardner insisted that his sexual problems and other lies were somehow a part of Celtic culture or religion. Gardner didn't know shit about the Celts, he was a Brit. I will never support the fact that he lied, and tried to tell people that his eclectic mishmash, which also ripped off his ideas of First Nations practices, was Celtic. I'm still dealing every day with people that bought that line.
So, no, I personally have no respect for Gardner, but I do think that anyone who's using Wiccan ideas or structures as part of their practice (as are most Neopagans) does owe him honest treatment by being aware of what parts of their practice were created by him. What decisions they make from there on in are on their heads, but I don't think they can both criticize his obvious, serious problems while also using what he wrote.
Barnaby wrote:
Due to the sexual predilections of its inventor, Gerald Gardner, many "Traditional" Wiccan ceremonies involve ritual nudity, blindfolding, binding, flagellation and sexual intercourse, do they not?
I am not a Gardnerian or Alexandrian initiate, but as far as I know from acquaintance who are, yes, the rituals regularly involve nudity. Most of it sounds pretty tame and non-sexual, if at times silly, and the few rituals I've attended with BritTrad people did not involve any sexual activity, coercion or manipulation. However, "scourging", blindfolding, binding and sometimes intercourse are part of some of the initiation rituals of BritTrad covens. It's in their official materials. The rituals are supposed to be secret, but people do talk.
Whether the sexual stuff is kept as just symbolism or actually engaged in varies among groups. Most I've heard of just keep it symbolic. While I know of covens that have never done anything untoward, I also know of situations where women were raped and battered, and the "tradition" used as the excuse. In those cases I was involved in trying to get the abusers banished from Neopagan gatherings. Sometimes we succeeded, but in other cases some prominent Neopagan event organizers refused to believe the rape survivors and defended the abusers.
