Wiccan and Neo-Pagan thought and origins

[Tht1Gy!]

A while ago, in another thread for pagan/wiccan folks to share ideas, a poster, Carcano kept trying to engage me in a debate about the origins of Wicca. I did not engage. Told him/her that it was not the right thread.

Well, this would be that thread.

Carcano: Well, I dont see how the Wiccan Rede is consistant with relativism.
In relativism, there is no north star, a fixed point by which all can navigate...no absolute principle which is the same for everyone.
The wiccan principle of 'evil' or 'wrong' does have a fixed definition....the will to harm.
That and the notion of an invisible karmic fate has more to do with Hinduism and Buddhism than any pre-christian pagan tradition in europe.
Wicca was dreamed up sometime in the fifties and sixties by hippies who came in contact with english translations from eastern mysticism.
Druids? Vikings? We know little of their lore and ways. Heinrich Himmler tried to dig up those old traditions in the 1930s, in an attempt to replace hebrew derived religion in Germany. They actually had a SS naming ceremony to replace christian baptism!

Carcano: I believe its tremendously helpful to clarify points on Wicca's origins and principles.
Specifically, where does wicca's notions of karmic fate or cause and effect come from? I believe they come directly from eastern mysticism.
Is the wiccan rede a relativist or absolutist principle? I believe it can be demonstrated as absolutist.
Is wicca an ancient tradition whose modern incarnation is merely an extension? I would argue NO, it was dreamed up in the 50s and 60s by drawing on a huge number of influences gleaned from literature.
Understanding that gives you a big advantage. And I dont want you to get the impression that I'm against Wicca.
For anyone to be for or against Wicca there would have to be some definite shape to it...instead of the amorphous collection of vague mystical ideas that folks are just making up as they go along....in a perpetual state of schism and fragmentation right from the get go.
Similar to the early days of Christianity...except theres no orthodoxy in place with the secular power to force an idealogical unification.

There's basically three ways a person decides what to believe:
1. Believe something because you like it.
2. Believe something because your parents told you...and you like your parents.
3. Believe something because you have experienced compelling evidence.
Obviously, only the third has any basic integrity.

Carcano, To some extent, you're right. We're making it up as we go along. Proudly.
And yes, Gardner did his bit to revive information he found and mixed it with theosophy. I don't see a problem there. Of course he also tried to dogmatize and 'copyright' it as it were. There I do see a problem.
Since then there have been those who studied european anthropology, e.g. the feminists, and found more info, esp. the stuff that had been suppressed by the church.

I don't still don't see the problem.

Myself, I mix many different traditions together with the concept of following my personal Tao, and come up with my beliefs.
Why would it be more valid to follow a system entirely devised by folks who lived long ago and whom I've never met and am unable to judge their veracity and integrity.

I much prefer to trust my own judgement, understanding, and connection to spirit.

[Carcano]

Since then there have been those who studied european anthropology, e.g. the feminists, and found more info, esp. the stuff that had been suppressed by the church.
Now why would the Catholics try to suppress any feminine aspect of divinity?

It was they who raised Mary from scriptural obscurity to Mother of God status.

Her image is probably more prevalent in southern Europe than Jesus.

[Tht1Gy!]

Now why would the Catholics try to suppress any feminine aspect of divinity?

It was they who raised Mary from scriptural obscurity to Mother of God status.

Her image is probably more prevalent in southern Europe than Jesus.

Well, as I understand it, that was part of the usurpation of the the old religion, or the old ways. Meaning, while 'Pan' (and other horned god figures) was demonized into Satan, the goddess was sanitized, from a entity of fertility into the Virgin Mary. The easiest way to convert or replace a practice that had been observed since 24,000* BCE in one fashion or another was to adopt it. Turn an image that had wildness, and power into an image that was compliant and submissive to the will of Jehovah.

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

[Simon Anders]

Now why would the Catholics try to suppress any feminine aspect of divinity?

It was they who raised Mary from scriptural obscurity to Mother of God status.

Her image is probably more prevalent in southern Europe than Jesus.

Ah, but she was so damn perfect. She had a baby without having sex. You have to look at what the messages are for women and why so many men have whore/madonna complexes.

[Tht1Gy!]

Hey Simon, welcome aboard! This should be fun.
And to both of you**, Please feel free to invite anyone who can bring intelligent discourse, well-mannered debate and even respectful contention.

Take lively debate, temper it with respect,* and we'll all get smarterer.;)

*Unless someone is being a real asshole. lol

**Or anyone else for that matter.

[nova900]

Now why would the Catholics try to suppress any feminine aspect of divinity?

It was they who raised Mary from scriptural obscurity to Mother of God status.

Her image is probably more prevalent in southern Europe than Jesus.

I believe that was an attempt by the early Christians to replace Isis with Mary.The cult of Isis was far more widespread and popular than many theists today or even many historians will admit.She was the darling of the Roman Emperors.
A pretty good unbiased study was done by R.E Witt in the 70's..."Isis in the Ancient World". It's available in tradepaperback.

[Carcano]

the goddess was sanitized, from a entity of fertility into the Virgin Mary.

Turn an image that had wildness, and power into an image that was compliant and submissive to the will of Jehovah.

We have to remember that Mary was famously immaculate only for an instant, while receiving and conceiving the divine spark of the Lord. Not by choice, and certainly not for the rest of her life, as evidenced by brothers of Jesus, one of whom (James) became the leader of the Jerusalem church after the death of Christ.

Was she a powerless figure, submissive to the will of a male divinity? Not as her character was employed by the church, as an intermediary and also as a goddess of compassion.

The feminine aspect lends itself to benevolence, whereas the male aspect lends itself to wrath.

Nevertheless, it must be asked why immaculate conceptions were common devices for imparting an aura of purity. I believe it goes back to the spirit/matter dynamic.

Sex is of the body, in fact it fuses one's sense of self rather tightly to matter...easy to get into, hard to get out of. :cool:

One of my favourite writers in the 80s, who later went on to be a very controversial Guru of sorts, explains here that the origin of 'sin' is inherently a turning away from spirit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L1eGFZT3oU

[Simon Anders]

We have to remember that Mary was famously celibate only for an instant, while receiving and conceiving the divine spark of the Lord. Not by choice, and certainly not for the rest of her life, as evidenced by brothers of Jesus, one of whom (James) became the leader of the Jerusalem church after the death of Christ.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, a dogma of the Roman Catholic[1] Church, and also of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodoxy, which in their liturgy repeatedly refer to Mary as "ever virgin",[2] affirms Mary's "real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made Man." Thus, according to this Church dogma, Mary was ever-virgin (Greek ἀειπάρθενος, aeiparthenos) for the whole of her life, making Jesus her only biological son, whose conception and birth are held to be miraculous.

The dogma of Perpetual Virginity of Mary, states that Mary was a virgin before, during and after giving birth, and so covers much more than the doctrine of her virginal conception of Jesus, often referred to as the virgin birth of Jesus. (De fide).

This common tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary is one element in the well-established theology regarding the Theotokos in both East and West, a field of study known as Mariology.

Was she a powerless figure, submissive to the will of a male divinity? Not as her character was employed by the church, as an intermediary and also as a goddess of compassion. She was nice and emotional. Her greatness is that she gave birth to Jesus who was God's son and not really hers. She did what she was told.

And any doubt about this can be seen in the ways woman have been held strictly to more passive roles in Catholic societies.


Here's how one Catholic site defends the existence of brothers...

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

[Carcano]

The perpetual virginity idea is one of those things that were dreamed up by Catholic theologians hundreds of years after the gospels were written.

The new testament does not say cousins or step-brothers...it says brother.

[Simon Anders]

The perpetual virginity idea is one of those things that were dreamed up by Catholic theologians hundreds of years after the gospels were written.

The new testament does not say cousins or step-brothers...it says brother.

I have been responding to this...

Now why would the Catholics try to suppress any feminine aspect of divinity?

It was they who raised Mary from scriptural obscurity to Mother of God status.

So if it was Catholic theologians who did this and this idea was repeated by Catholic priests with the approval of the Vatican and thus believed in, at least officially by Catholics, well......

[Simon Anders]

Now why would the Catholics try to suppress any feminine aspect of divinity?
Well, you have a male God in three parts, and while Mary is special she is a human. Everyday people have, because she is supposed to be nice and the world is a harsh place, given her a central place in their hearts, with provisos about her lack of sexual congress and so on.

There is no Goddess counterpart to The Lord God.
Eve gets made from Adam - thus nicely avoiding the odd thing that a Male God would have the females carry the babies if we are so much like him. (yes, this got pulled out of Judaism, and both traditions have problems with female deities and power)

Priests are all male.
The Pope is male.

Males are the authority.
Males are in charge, including being in charge of women's bodies.
Catholicism is not unique in this among patriarchal religions, but it has doctrinal and habitual reasons for not wanting to know about female deities.

The Catholic Church has tended to go after strong women who did not fit in traditional roles.

Women in their place are holy, holy.
In there place!

It's a little like one of those mafia boyfriends. Man, do they talk you up, tell you how beautiful you are, how perfect...but man
challenge your role....
upside the head.

[nova900]

There is no Goddess counterpart to The Lord God.
Eve gets made from Adam - thus nicely avoiding the odd thing that a Male God would have the females carry the babies if we are so much like him. (yes, this got pulled out of Judaism, and both traditions have problems with female deities and power)

Priests are all male.
The Pope is male.

Males are the authority.
Males are in charge, including being in charge of women's bodies.
Catholicism is not unique in this among patriarchal religions, but it has doctrinal and habitual reasons for not wanting to know about female deities.

The Catholic Church has tended to go after strong women who did not fit in traditional roles.

Women in their place are holy, holy.
In there place!

.

True enough, but not surprising at all since all three Abrahamic religions are built upon the ideas of the bronze age Hebrews who happened to be devout Patriarchs.

[Simon Anders]

True enough, but not surprising at all since all three Abrahamic religions are built upon the ideas of the bronze age Hebrews who happened to be devout Patriarchs.Me, I'm not surprised, just trying to assuage the surprise of others.

[Nasor]

We have to remember that Mary was famously immaculate only for an instant, while receiving and conceiving the divine spark of the Lord. Not by choice, and certainly not for the rest of her life, as evidenced by brothers of Jesus, one of whom (James) became the leader of the Jerusalem church after the death of Christ.

Was she a powerless figure, submissive to the will of a male divinity? Not as her character was employed by the church, as an intermediary and also as a goddess of compassion.

The feminine aspect lends itself to benevolence, whereas the male aspect lends itself to wrath.

Nevertheless, it must be asked why immaculate conceptions were common devices for imparting an aura of purity. I believe it goes back to the spirit/matter dynamic.

Sex is of the body, in fact it fuses one's sense of self rather tightly to matter...easy to get into, hard to get out of. :cool:

You seem to be making the very common mistake of believing that Mary's "immaculate conception" was her becoming pregnant with Jesus without having sex. The "immaculate conception" refers to the idea that Mary was conceived without Original Sin. The immaculate conception occurred when Mary's mother became pregnant with Mary. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

The Immaculate Conception is, according to Roman Catholic dogma, the conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus without any stain ("macula" in Latin) of original sin. The dogma thus says that, from the first moment of her existence, she was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind, and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further believed that she lived a life completely free from sin.

[Medicine*Woman]

True enough, but not surprising at all since all three Abrahamic religions are built upon the ideas of the bronze age Hebrews who happened to be devout Patriarchs.
*************
M*W: True, but let me add my 1.5 cents (inflation, you know): Of course, the 'devout patriarchs' created a dominant male god in their own image, and it was probably to control the masses, especially women. We know from ancient history that the patriarchy destroyed the matrilineal societies that lived peacefully in a nurturing culture who essentially created the gods who destroyed them. The patriarchy took over these societies with war (and rumors of war). The rest is history.

[Simon Anders]

*************
M*W: True, but let me add my 1.5 cents (inflation, you know): Of course, the 'devout patriarchs' created a dominant male god in their own image, and it was probably to control the masses, especially women. We know from ancient history that the patriarchy destroyed the matrilineal societies that lived peacefully in a nurturing culture who essentially created the gods who destroyed them. The patriarchy took over these societies with war (and rumors of war). The rest is history.

Might as well chime in since this is one of those rare moments I actually agree with MW.

[Medicine*Woman]

Might as well chime in since this is one of those rare moments I actually agree with MW.
*************
M*W: Thanks!

[Carcano]

You seem to be making the very common mistake of believing that Mary's "immaculate conception" was her becoming pregnant with Jesus without having sex. The "immaculate conception" refers to the idea that Mary was conceived without Original Sin.
Well damn...theres another doctrine whipped up in the popular imagination, this time in England. Even Thomas Aquinas was doubtful of its veracity.

Certainly has nothing to do with gospel writings.

[Hapsburg]

On the issue of the origin of Wicca:
It is not an "Old Religion" or anything like that. Wicca, or the organization that became the first Wiccan coven, is (at most) about 80 years old; probably originates in the 1920's, as many esoteric groups were forming around that time. A British group calling itself the New Forest Coven combined parts of Hermeticism (an old philosophy that greatly influenced Renaissance esoterica, and permeated 19th/20th century occultism), and some parts of the Druid revivalist movement, which never was very accurate to historical Druidism, because the ancient Druids never wrote things down, so clues to their practices are fragmentary at best. Even modern Celtic Reconstructionism is a rough attempt.

In the 1940's, Gerald Gardner, who is as close to the religion's "Father" as we can get, reformed the New Forest Coven quite a bit; he knew it the information was fragmentary, so he grabbed eclectically from any source he could find: Hermeticism, Rosicrucianism, Aleister Crowley, British Folklore, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, and many others. In doing so, he built a new pagan religion centred on the practice of witchcraft, or folk magic. Witchcraft and ritual magic are still core to Wicca of any form, coven-based or not.

Wicca, then as now, venerates a pair of deities which Gardner and the NFC believed to be the indigenous gods of the British Isles and possibly even Neolithic Europe, a Great Goddess and a Horned God, whose names Gardner never revealed publically. He may have borrowed the idea of such figures from Margaret Murray's (now disproven) academic works, or more likely, they might have been integral to the NFC before Gardner joined it. It is unknown; but what is certain is that Gardner published books about his religious experiences in good faith, starting in and around 1949-1954. Though originally a strictly initiatory, esoteric fertility cult, it has gradually become more conventionally neopagan, and Wicca is now a broad, rapidly growing religion, with a traditionalist wing, eclectic reformers, and every hue in between.

[Carcano]

Amazingly, our only knowledge of this New Forest Coven comes entirely from Gardner's imagination...and nowhere else!

[Hapsburg]

Not quite -no- where else. There are others who were part of it around the time Gardner joined, but they said very little of it.
Regardless, it is likely that the NFC began in the 1920's, when Margaret Murray's ideas were published, and when a LOT of other esoteric and occult organizations got their start.

[Carcano]

There are others who were part of it around the time Gardner joined, but they said very little of it.

Joined...joined what?

There is no evidence of any New Forest Coven outside of Gardner's 'creative' writing.

[Simon Anders]

I mean for those of us with mixed ancestory, some mish mash of European countries plus anything else - as one example - we often cannot simply claim to our own satisfaction 'I am a Celt' or whathaveyou and follow to the best of our scholarship the rituals, etc. of the Celtic religion. It has been too long since our ancestors had their religion tortured, killed, suppressed 'educated' out of them, to draw such a straight line. So we go by feel. We may feel an affinity for Native American religions, but it would be odd, unless we clearly felt reincarnated or had some significant blood or upbringing in Native traditions, to take up one tribes beliefs. So we choose from amongst beliefs we resonate with - nature based, often magic based beliefs and rituals - ones we make, find ourselves or ones others with similar needs found and made. Religions are not static things anyway. They changed over time. Speaking of Native Americans you can see what a wild diversity came out of groups that were members of the same group not too long before. Individual shamans, etc. brought rituals and stories and practices into the group and religions evolved, even if they kept certain underlying principles.

A look at Christianity shows a wild and strange and very human evolution involving decisions and eliminations

think of the Catholic mass
or the texts that were included and now are not
and so on.

Attacking wicca because people created it is silly unless one wants to attack all religions this way. And even if one wants to do this latter, the criticism is empty. Those people generally claimed to be inspired by more than their own guesses. If you think they were right, then it is attractive to you. If you think they were wrong, then it isn't.

[Tht1Gy!]

Hermeticism (an old philosophy that greatly influenced Renaissance esoterica, and permeated 19th/20th century occultism),

so he grabbed eclectically from any source he could find: Hermeticism...
Alert: Blatant Thread Plug to follow:D

... and speaking of Hermetics... Here's a thread, complete with a link to a FREE .pdf book- The Kybalion.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84157

[Tht1Gy!]

I mean for those of us with mixed ancestory, some mish mash of European countries plus anything else - as one example - we often cannot simply claim to our own satisfaction 'I am a Celt' or whathaveyou and follow to the best of our scholarship the rituals, etc. of the Celtic religion. It has been too long since our ancestors had their religion tortured, killed, suppressed 'educated' out of them, to draw such a straight line. So we go by feel. We may feel an affinity for Native American religions, but it would be odd, unless we clearly felt reincarnated or had some significant blood or upbringing in Native traditions, to take up one tribes beliefs. So we choose from amongst beliefs we resonate with - nature based, often magic based beliefs and rituals - ones we make, find ourselves or ones others with similar needs found and made. Religions are not static things anyway. They changed over time. Speaking of Native Americans you can see what a wild diversity came out of groups that were members of the same group not too long before. Individual shamans, etc. brought rituals and stories and practices into the group and religions evolved, even if they kept certain underlying principles.

Attacking wicca because people created it is silly unless one wants to attack all religions this way...

My thoughts damn near exactly. Thx Simon. :)
Emphasis mine

[Carcano]

Attacking wicca because people created it is silly unless one wants to attack all religions this way.
The problem is not that Wicca was created by people...rather that the people lied about its creation.

[Simon Anders]

The problem is not that Wicca was created by people...rather that the people lied about its creation.That might be a problem for the liars, but it doesn't really matter any more in relation to people who are into Wicca.

[Carcano]

That might be a problem for the liars, but it doesn't really matter any more in relation to people who are into Wicca.
Except the Wiccans continue to repeat the lies.

[Tht1Gy!]

Except the Wiccans continue to repeat the lies.

Which (witch?) Wiccans, which lies?

[Simon Anders]

Except the Wiccans continue to repeat the lies.
See above Th1tguy.
But also, my sense of Wiccans is that most of them tend to focus on their rituals and nature, etc., and, at least the ones I know, make few claims about a history of their beliefs and are not so interested in that end of things. Much like most Christians could give a shit about the history of Christianity.

[Tht1Gy!]

Well I get what he's saying. But we've left most of that stuff behind and few us continue to repeat them. In fact, I don't know anyone who still buy into the "lies" Carcano talks about. Tho I hear of them. Kinda 'Urban Myth"ish, I think. Most of us are fully aware that while we are guided by research in to history, the "Old Religion" is not an accurate term and Wicca as it is practiced today is rather new.

And we're making it up as we go along. Proudly!!!

So I repeat: Which Wiccans, and what lies. Specificly. Do you actually know any practicing Wiccans who are doing this. Other than maybe a newbie who found an old book?
And if they refer to themselves as "A white witch", ugh. Please, please tell them to read Starhawk, Amber K, Buckland, and/or Cunningham.

[Carcano]

So I repeat: Which Wiccans, and what lies.
It starts with the writers and trickles down to the practitioners.

Do I have enough experience to comment on the current state of writings and beliefs? Yes, in fact I'd have to say I'm uniquely over-qualified.

The neighborhood isnt exactly awash in Wiccans, but they do hover about in their quiet way. There used to be a bookstore down the street called The Wiccan Rede, and I was in and out on many occasions.

I even bought a second hand book...and actually read it!!!

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4430/p1050371gh3.jpg

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7575/p1050373mq4.jpg

[Simon Anders]

Well I get what he's saying. But we've left most of that stuff behind and few us continue to repeat them. In fact, I don't know anyone who still buy into the "lies" Carcano talks about. Tho I hear of them. Kinda 'Urban Myth"ish, I think. Most of us are fully aware that while we are guided by research in to history, the "Old Religion" is not an accurate term and Wicca as it is practiced today is rather new.

And we're making it up as we go along. Proudly!!!

So I repeat: Which Wiccans, and what lies. Specificly. Do you actually know any practicing Wiccans who are doing this. Other than maybe a newbie who found an old book?
And if they refer to themselves as "A white witch", ugh. Please, please tell them to read Starhawk, Amber K, Buckland, and/or Cunningham.

I meant he should see above to your pointed question.

[Carcano]

I meant he should see above to your pointed question.
I think we covered that in the previous thread...and he made it clear he's not interested in truth vs. falsehood.

Remember, the human ego loves certainty.

[Tht1Gy!]

I think we covered that in the previous thread...and he made it clear he's not interested in truth vs. falsehood.

KMA! Carcano. I have done extensive reading. And while it's good that you've done some reading into the subject, one book does not constitute 'research'. And OK, I'll admit there are books that perpetuate myths, I still suggest you check out the authors I've listed. There are many other good authors

I maintain, I've never met these types you speak of.

Why is it wrong to follow one's Tao? Why must one follow the words of another in-toto?
If one looks into any discipline, regardless of what it is, from wicca, to the hard sciences, one will find good books and crap books. I repeat, one book does not "research" make.

[Tht1Gy!]

I meant he should see above to your pointed question.
Oh.:o

[Carcano]

KMA! Carcano. I have done extensive reading. And while it's good that you've done some reading into the subject, one book does not constitute 'research'. And OK, I'll admit there are books that perpetuate myths..
Thats just the book that I happen to own, and its content is typical of Wicca texts I see in bookstores and the library.

And its no wonder, if you look into the authors biography you'll notice that hes spent a lifetime involved with a wide diversity of wicca groups on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Carcano]

Why is it wrong to follow one's Tao?
Theres nothing wrong with following one's own path...as long as its truthful.

You dont even care if your beliefs are true or not.

When Gardner wrote the basis of the threefold law, he likewise didnt have a clue whether it was true or not, and furthermore didnt care.

He just sat down...and thought about it...it sounded cool...so he wrote it down.

[Tht1Gy!]

Theres nothing wrong with following one's own path...as long as its truthful.

You dont even care if your beliefs are true or not.
:wtf:
Dude you don't even know me, so how can you say such an absurd thing?

[Carcano]

Dude you don't even know me, so how can you say such an absurd thing?
Your right...I dont know you.

But I know what youve written. :cool:

[Medicine*Woman]

Your right...I dont know you.
But I know what youve written. :cool:
*************
M*W: Who we are in real life is not necessarily who we are in cyberspace. The Internet allows us to be whomever we want to be.

[Tht1Gy!]

Your right...I dont know you.

But I know what youve written. :cool:

OK How can you say such absurd shit? Also, you have a pic of a table of contents; so what? What are we supposed to make of that?
I was hoping for intellectual discourse not trolling or slander.

[Hapsburg]

*************
M*W: Who we are in real life is not necessarily who we are in cyberspace. The Internet allows us to be whomever we want to be.
Quite true.
On the internet I am very intellectual and compassionate, if a tad cruel with my sense humour.

In real life, I have a short temper and am usually selfish, sarcastic, and paranoid. I rarely debate people IRL, because most people I know are dumb as a sack of hammers, and not worth the time of day, let alone an expression of compassion or the grace of my presence.

Though I am taking strides and steps to reconcile the two into a recognizable unified form of action. :)

[Lordznebula5]

Not enough at all similar to ancient witchcraft.

Wiccans as I understand them are:

So many wiccans are pagans seeking fellowship. But if they follow any path "the wiccan path" and have rules set up as belonging to such I see this a rip off of nature or wilderness common decency laws.

Also drawn to more commercialism than the gatherer importance of nature.

Or perhaps haven't found themselves yet.

[hint: Ouija boards are not a cool option kids!]