Talk:Wiccan Rede/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Yes, rede is a (conscious) archaism - finding a Germanic word in Middle English that didn't make it into Modern English usage. It should be defined in the entry. --MichaelTinkler

Surely the obvious comparison is NOT to the 10 Commandments, but to the 'golden rule', of which it is (unless it is actually ancient, which no one seems to be asserting in these entries) a paraphrase.

Very good point. The comparison to the commandments gives insight into the Wiccan moral viewpoint, but I added a comparison to the Golden Rule. See if you like it better now. --Dmerrill
Isn't it more related to the Hippocratic oath? HK
Interesting. I'd never thought of that. Yes, it definitely is very similar, but as the Hippocratic oath isn't a religious belief I'm not sure how relevant it is here. But anyway, let's leave that comparison to the actual Golden Rule article rather than reproducing it under every single religion's version of the golden rule (there at least 8-10 of them). --Dmerrill

Comparing the Rede to the golden rule is fine, but saying that it is an expression of it, or equivalent to it in some other way, is simply wrong. --Lee Daniel Crocker


See what you think now. And thanks for your criticism. Unfortunately this is one area where I might be too close to the subject matter and need the criticism to examine my own preconceptions. I am trying to be factual and npov, truly. --Dmerrill
I'm starting to find this whole thing more interesting than i'd like -- I've run into people who swear up and down that they are Wiccans = witches, and that Wicca is the religion of witchcraft. I've always thought (from the little I've read on Wicca) that Wicca was a modern (not to say New Age) attempt to reconnect with Druidic and other Celtic traditions (for which we don't have a lot of evidence). When I combine this with the knowledge that many women accused of witchcraft, especially in the middle ages, may have been folk healers or herbalists, then the Hippocratic oath makes sense.

I've also been on a lot of religion bulletin boards where self-avowed Wiccans say that they are witches, but that their Wiccan religion prevents them from harming others...so could someone explain to me where this leaves witchcraft in the sense of people who practice magic, spells, incantations, etc, with or without a rejection of Christianity, with or without a touch of Satanism??? I'm sooo confused! HK

It seems to me that a person could practice many forms of 'magic' without rejecting Christianity and might even, in theory, accept the dogmas of Jesus's divinity and literal resurrection. The Christian Kabbalah springs to mind. What does the word 'satanism' mean to you? --Dan
It is quite simple: we do not practise harmful magick. - montréalais


Crowley said he received The Book of The Law in 1904 G.C., but I don't think he published it until 1909. Hence I say 'at least 1909'. --Dan

Please note that "the golden rule" isn't the venue of religion only: secular thought and ethics throughout human history have and had their various similar versions.

I do not agree that the Wiccan Rede is close enough to the "Golden Rule" to draw a parallel. The "Golden Rule" mandates the lack of inflicting harm based upon one's own preference and is therefore ego-centric; the Wiccan Rede prohibits harm without qualifiers. There is a version of the "golden rule" which states "What is distasteful to you, do not do unto others." This is also ego-centric: it mandates treating others as one wishes to be treated--- which I object to. A much superior mandate would be to treat others how THEY wish to be treated (baring harm), and not how we ourselves wish to be treated. Desertphile 05:19 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You may also wish to include something to the effect that the Rede proscribes harm to oneself as well as to others. "An it harm NONE, do as thou wilt." Many people forget this and assume the Rede allows any sort of behavior as long as no external harm is done. --Morgan

The article claims that "An it harm none, do what ye will" is one of the most common forms according to Google. However, "An ye harm none, do what ye will" (a variant which the article does not even mention) gets more hits: An it harm none, do what ye will (1740 hits) An ye harm none, do what ye will (2910 hits). Is there is a reason for omitting forms with "ye" instead of "it"? --Zundark 10:36, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The first published version of The Wiccan Rede was printed in 1975, in volume viii, issue 69 of "Green Egg" and was submitted by Lady Gwen Thompson, a hereditary witch who later founded the NECTW (New England Covens of Traditionalist Witches). The Official NECTW Website contains a copy of the ORIGINAL version of The Rede.

I thought it would be nice to add the above information, and to put a copy of The Rede on the Wiccan Rede page. The Rede contains much more than "An' it harm none, do as ye will."

Blessed Be, Nick. --nickdate 20:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Rede

the Wiccan Rede forbids harm absolutely. I have to dispute this. Read the construction of the phrase in its original "An it harm none, do what ye will." The Rede says nothing about actions which DO harm. The Rede gives permission for all acts that do NOT harm, but does not command at all. It is not a "thou shall not" proscriptive commandment, but a statement that, at best, gives permission for those things which do no harm. This is discussed in Wiccan Ethics and the Wiccan Rede by David Piper.

Propose - "There is some debate in the neo-Pagan, neo-Wiccan and Wiccan communities as to the meaning of the rede. The debate centers around the concept of the rede being advice (from the meaning of rede) not a commandment, as well as the fact that actions which do harm are not discussed in the rede." with link to article by Piper. --Vidkun 19:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd leave out "neo-Wiccan", as it is a neologism, but I encourage you to insert the rest of the above. The whole article needs a fairly major re-write. As it stands now it is entirely unreferenced, presents the entirety of a poem that may be under copyright, has a non-descriptive External links section, makes no mention of any text, and the Interpretations section reads like an essay. If you feel inspired to fix anything else while you're editing, please do so. Otherwise I will get around to it eventually. Jkelly 01:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)