War Goddess.net - Defining Witch, by Enyo Perseus

Defining Witch, by Enyo Perseus

Witch. Until this point, I thought the definition of "witch" was relatively simple. A witch is a person who uses magick.

I was informed on an e-list that an individual is not a witch unless he or she works with deity. Atheist witches are a joke; deist witches laugh at them.

Now, as a deist myself, this rather irritated me. What right does anyone have to determine that a practice is a community-wide joke? Now, had this individual been content to say that she finds atheist witch to be a misnomer, and viewed them as a joke, I certainly wouldn't have had a problem with that. They say that ignorance is bliss, and if she wants to remain in her state of bliss, then more power to her.

I've always believed that witchcraft is an art, not a religion. That whole "craft" thing in there kind of adds to it. My favorite way to explain it to someone who insists that witchcraft is his/her religion is to compare it to being a seamstress. To be a seamstress is to possess a gift for an art: the art of sewing. It is not a religious practice, although it can be incorporated into one's faith as a method of paying homage to a particular deity (usually Athena). However, a prayer to Athena is not required before the seamstress picks up the needle or seats himself/herself at the sewing machine. By the same token, to practice witchcraft is an art, a skill.

Then, along comes this individual... We'll call her "Q". Q insists that there is no historical precedent for an atheist practicing witchcraft. It's always been done with deity, except in the last one hundred years or thereabouts. I won't argue that with Q. Quite logically, this would be the case because of the fact that religion dominated nearly every facet of life. It only became commonplace for the community church to take a backseat in an individual's daily affairs within the last one hundred fifty years. Of course, there were probably always a handful of people here and there that didn't believe in any deity. Mind you, they most likely would not have been very vocal about it because of the community standards of the time, which dictated that there was a deity.

So, Q has determined that, since there's no deity, it's not witchcraft, but sorcery or High Magick.

That got me thinking. How does our society define witchcraft, witch, sorcery, and sorcerer? So, I did what I always do: I pulled out my handy-dandy 2,230-page dictionary, Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (ISBN 068131723x).

Witchcraft (p 2182, third column) 1. the art or practices of a witch; sorcery; magic 2. magical influence; witchery (see witch, craft)

Witch (p 2182, second column) 1. a person, now esp. a woman, who professes or is supposed to practice magic, esp. black magic or the black art; sorceress 2. an ugly or mean old woman; hag 3. a person who uses a divining rod; dowser 4. to affect as if by witchcraft; bewitch; charm 5. to bring by or as by witchcraft 6. to prospect with a diving rod; dowse 7. of, pertaining to, or designed as protection against witches (see wizard)

Sorcery (p 1821, first column) the art, practices, or spells of a person who is supposed to exercise supernatural powers through the aid of evil spirits; black magic; witchery (see sorcerer, magic)

Sorcerer (p 1821, first column) a person who practices sorcery; black magician; wizard

Now, nowhere in any of those definitions did I find anything regarding deity. So, how can the atheists possibly be guilty of redefining a word, when the word is already defined in the same context that the atheist uses?

To quote Dr. Evil, "Throw me a frickin' bone, here." I really don't get it.

I really don't get how someone can accuse an individual or group of attempting to redefine a word when said someone is trying to redefine the word, himself.