Well, its Sunday again, and a cold one.
As I mentioned recently, certain people on my team have suggested that I might be ‘over-doing’ Sunday religion. I must point out (if I can guys and gals!) that it not because they disagree with what I am saying; only that I’ve already clearly made my point and people should have got it by now (people who haven’t actually listened, of course, never will).
Please don’t get me wrong! I have not actually been ‘forbidden’ to write anything (I am far to independent for that, and they know it!); only that I should be aware that religion can be a ‘touchy subject’. Well, to give me my due as well, I am well aware of this and which is throughout all the years (since 1982 mainly) I have been writing about the esoteric, mysticism and religious beliefs (Wicca included as one of these), I have never referred to particular Churches or groups of people. I have written about the Divine Principle behind these (which many are striving to reach) yes; but not the individual denominations, or organisations or sects, or Circles and their methods of belief or worship.
The closest I have come in this direction is by explaining Wiccan beliefs and practice But I have never named people or gone into any detail about the actual ceremonies as these actually occur. I have only ever spoken very generally (and most of this was pre-1982); and even then, this was to dispel many of the myths as to what Wicca was NOT, and to dispel erroneous superstitious myths (about the ‘devil’ for example) that had been ascribed to it by ignorant people.
I have always maintained that the Divine Principle (or God) that lay beyond all of these was of far greater importance than arguing about very human beliefs or particular methods of worship.
May I give you a simple example? (Thank you, I knew nobody would say ‘no’!).
In 1974, I had cause to be in Court over five charges of ‘damage’ and ‘desecration’ in a cemetery near Highgate in North London. (I was later to be acquitted of the three major charges but erroneously convicted of the two lesser ones. I later took this case to the European Commission of Human Rights – but that’s another story).
Now, I had a public reputation as being a ‘white witch’ long before this case came to Court – indeed, it was because of this reputation that the police chose to take that case to Court. Indeed, due to their ignorance of such matters, the police attempted to turn the case into a ‘witchcraft trial’ (and in that respect, they partially succeeded!) and made ridiculous claims in Court that Wicca was really all to do with ‘Satanism’ and ‘black magic’ and involved ‘black magic orgies’ and all the rest of it.
The presiding judge over the proceedings was Judge Michael Argyle (now deceased), a devout Christian who made his views clear on any sort of ‘witchcraft’ or the ‘occult’ very clear from the beginning.
But to my real point:
When I was called to give my main evidence, I insisted that I be allowed to swear on the bible, explaining that those involved in Wicca accepted the existence of God, only maybe only worshipped Him in a different way.
At first he persisted that I should not be allowed to. But I also persisted saying that I was not prepared to give any evidence at all unless I was allowed to take the Oath. I won, and he had to let me do so.
If you can see the relevance of this important point, you may also be able to see why I see this Divine Principle or God (the two are really just different names for the same thing) as being so important.
In other words, this to me is the priority; above not only myself, but any other people.
Well, I hope you have not minded me clarifying that much K, but there is really so much hypocrisy and misguided supposition surrounding this subject.
In answer to a couple queries: To continue briefly what I was sayings about the books yesterday, yes, I confirm that any relearning text will be submitted beforehand to the relevant authorities. (Although this really only applies to the new book actually as the other has already been published). I am in no way obliged to do this (and they cannot stop me publishing this), but the only reason I want to do this is to prevent further lies and mis-statements being made about the content. Such statements have already be made in other directions. They will not be given the opportunity to arise again when, after all, the book is only setting the record straight; or more precisely, it is allowing other people to do so for themselves.