>LINKS AND RESOURCES
(READ FAQ PAGE FIRST BEFORE SENDING AN EMAIL)
» WICCA MAIN PORTAL
» WICCA IS NOT SATANISM...BUT...
» WICCA...THE OLD RELIGION???
» THE "GOOD" WITCH'S BIBLE???
» CHRISTIAN WICCA?
» MYTH OF THE MATRIARCHY
» NEOPAGAN HOLI-DAZE
» PAGAN HUMAN SACRIFICES???
» BURNING TIMES BALONEY
» THE SALEM WITCH TRIALS
» WAS JOAN OF ARC A WITCH?
» WEBSTER'S ESSAY ON WITCHCRAFT (1890)
» MERLIN THE WIZARD
» CULPEPPER, NICHOLAS
» ALEISTER CROWLEY
» MOTHER SHIPTON
» WRIGHT, ELSIE and GRIFFITHS, FRANCES (FAIRIES DEBUNKED!)
» MARGARET MURRAY
» GERALD GARDNER
» CUNNINGHAM, SCOTT
» LEEK , SYBIL
» MARTELLO, LEO
» ALEX SANDERS
» SYBIL LEEK
» BUCKLAND, RAYMOND
» RAVENWOLF, SILVER
» SLATER, HERMAN
» COCHRANE, ROBERT
» COLLINS, LANCE (A.K.A. John Todd...the crazy fake ex-Wiccan who became a real Wiccan)
JOAN OF ARC...A WITCH???
(NOTE: Wicca isn't Satanism and Wiccans don't believe in Satan. Since I know this, thanks for not emailing me and telling me what I already know.)
How The Wiccans Try To Hijack Joan of Arc Via History Revision
Perhaps the most blatant form of history revision is when Wiccans and Neopagans try to claim Joan of Arc as one of their own. These ideas stem from the writings of a quack anthropologist named Margret Murray. Murray lived to be 100 and claimed to be a witch herself in her final years even allowing herself to be initiated into Gerald Gardner's original Wicca coven. It seems claiming to be a Wiccan must have fulfilled some kind of life long fantasy for the old gal. At any rate, it shows she had an axe to grind, which explains why she would falsify her data.
Murray's ridiculous books were published in the 1920's and became widely read among occultists. Soon, people began forming witch-cults of their own based on Murray's books. These groups were the forerunners of Gerald Gardner's Wicca covens. They became a sort of a proto-Wicca.When Murray was finally initiated into Gardner's nudie (or "skyclad") coven, it was her delusion coming full circle!
Murray claims Joan of Arc, executed for witchcraft, really was one of these "Dianic witches". The first problem with this is Joan of Arc wasn't executed for witchcraft, she was killed for heresy (and even then, it was a trumped up charge). In order to try to link Joan of Arc to witchcraft, Murray made the claim that St. Joan is never recorded as having used the phrase "Our Lord" in the original language of the condemnation trial transcript, and never identified "the King of Heaven" as Jesus Christ.
Both of these claims are lies. In fact, in all of the five early copies of the trial transcripts do quote her as saying "Nostre Seigneur" in the medieval French which means"Our Lord"! In the first set of charges there is a copy of a letter in which Joan of Arc places the names "Jesus" and "Mary" at the top. Joan of Arc also identifies the King of Heaven as "the son of Saint Mary", or in other words, Jesus Christ. In another set of letters, one of these, dated July 17, 1429, contains the phrase "King Jesus, the King of Heaven".
Another one dated two weeks earlier makes another reference to "King Jesus" Yet another, dated March 23, 1430, threatens to lead a crusading army against a group called the Hussites unless they return to orthodox Roman Catholicism, which Joan describes as,"the original Light". This hardly seems to be the words of a Pagan or witch! Murray claimed to have read all these documents. Scholars today have determined either Murray lied about reading them, or she read them and then lied about what they contained.. Murray like Leland before her, mentions Diana being worshiped by her fictitious witch-cult.
A Roman Catholic Bishop noted in an Edict called Canon Episcopi that some people claiming to have practiced witchcraft had stated that "they flew with the goddess Diana". From this document Murray and Leland have created a goddess worshiping witch-cult. Canon Epscopi, rather than mentioning some kind of condemnation on Goddess worshipers, instead warns Christians not to believe in witchcraft because the stories of flying witches flying through the night air and such are (obviously) fantasy. It's certain the Roman Catholic clergy would have recognized a sect of goddess worshipers and would have called them such had one been in their midst.
Why then is there no mention of a cult of Diana worshipers, or worshipers of any goddess for that matter? Because there wasn't one. The Roman Catholic church would have mentioned such a cult., had one existed. But why did the alleged witches mention Diana? One reason could be because there probably existed some spells that contained the name Diana in them, and this could be why Diana's name is mentioned in Canon Episcopi. Stephen Flowers mentions in his book Gaderbok, An Icelandic Grimorie that in North Carolina in the 1970's, a woman turned up who used the names of "Jesus, God, and Thor" in a healing prayer...assuming the story can be believed. The woman was not an Odinist, and considered herself a Christian (although she obviously had some strange ideas). The name of "Thor" in the prayer is a throwback to when her ancestors worshiped Thor. It could be these women knew Diana's name from a spell that had survived. But more likely, these women repeated the name Diana because they heard it mentioned at church.
Even though no one outside the clergy owned a Bible before the invention of the printing press, the scriptures were read allowed in church during services. The worship of Diana is specifically denounced in the Bible, in the book of Acts. Act 19:24-27
"For there was a certain man named Demetrius, a silver-worker, who made silver boxes for the images of Diana, and gave no small profit to the workmen;Whom he got together, with other workmen of the same trade, and said to them, Men, it is clear that from this business we get our wealth.And you see, for it has come to your ears, that not only at Ephesus, but almost all through Asia, this Paul has been teaching numbers of people and turning them away, saying that those are not gods who are made by men's hands: And there is danger, not only that our trade may be damaged in the opinion of men, but that the holy place of the great goddess Diana may be no longer honored, and that she to whom all Asia and the world give worship, will be put down from her high position."
Let's remember that Gnostic thinking inverts and perverts what Orthodox Christian thinking holds to be true. It is probably no coincidence that people wanting to practice witchcraft would call on Diana, because the Bible is against it. If goddess worship is an indicator of Witchcraft, then Joan of Arc certainly does NOT seem guilty of being a Wiccan or witch.. English documents leave little room for doubt as to the actual motive behind her trial. There are still in existence financial records proving that the English government paid and summoned the judges and assessors from people loyal to the King of England.
Although the chief judge, Pierre Cauchon, was French, he was a salaried official of the English occupation government and appointed Bishop through secular patrons. The records of eyewitnesses repeatedly say Joan of Arc was prosecuted for heresy solely because the English wanted to exact revenge for her army's victories against them. Even http://usminc.org/images/joan_miniature.jpgJoan's judges dropped the charges of witchcraft before the final set of 12 articles were drawn up.
Contrary to Murray's claims, she had the support of most of the other clergy throughout Europe, such as Jacques Gelu (Archbishop of Embrun), Jean Gerson, and others. Her friend Pierronne was executed by the same pro-English faction - not for witchcraft (which was never included in the charges) but merely for having stated that Joan was a devout Christian, which angered the English and their allies. Murray consistently makes ridiculous statements founded on a frivolous things such as Joan's name, stating "Joan" is a Witch name. Joan was probably the most common female name during that time period from the records that we have from that period, not just among "witches". It would be like saying a Mexican named "Jesus" must be the Christ returned based solely on his name, or everyone named "Adolph" must therefore be a Nazi.
Another example of Murray's fabrications is how she deliberately twists statements made by Joan of Arc into something they were not. For instance, in the surviving documents, Joan made fun of Friar Sequin's accent as a a harmless bit of humor, and traditionally historians have viewed it as such. Sequin himself must not have been offended by her joke, since he approved her, and even declared that she was sent by God. Murray however misinterprets Joan's quotes to Friar Sequin to pretend that her comments showed "contempt for the clergy"! Like Leland, she wanted to find her witch cult very badly.
The Roman Catholic Church used the term "Maiden" ("La Pucelle" - "virgin") when it canonized Joan of Arc as a "Holy Maiden". It is a standard Roman Catholic category for female saints. However, once again Murray takes a leap off the deep end and claims that the term could have "no other meaning" than a Pagan identification! Murray seems to completely disregard Joan's own explanation that she had promised her saints to keep her virginity, which made her a maiden, NOT because she was some sort of a member of an underground Pagan cult!
Joan of Arc was a person who had a sincere belief of the Christian faith of her day. She was falsely accused and killed for political reasons. For Margaret Murray to make these outrages claims is to slander the memory of a great Christian martyr. Christians everywhere should be outraged at the allegation! In another instance in her book, Murray claims Gilles de Rais was also a witch and a close associate of Joan of Arc. Rais was also known as "Bluebeard", because of the bluish-grey tint to his beard. The documents concerning Joan of Arc barely make any mention him, and are hardly evidence of being a close associate.
Rais was likewise never accused of being a member of a Pagan group. The charges brought against him revolved around the murder of large numbers of children., which is why even to this day child killers are sometimes called "Bluebeards". Rais said he had sacrificed children on the command of a "demon" named "Barron". This is sounds more like what we today would call a 'Satanic cult", not a Pagan religion. Even though Ba'al and Molech worship involved infant sacrifice, there was no evidence to suggest that these cults ever existed in France. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest Rais was a member of some kind of surviving cult of either of these (by then) long forgotten gods.
More than likely, Rais was a serial killer not unlike David Berkowitz or John Wayne Gasey, not a "Satanist" at all. In many cases murderers claim they were compelled to kill by voices in their heads, like Rais claiming a demon told him to kill. Rais himself, as the evidence also proves, said that he didn't adopt this mentality until some point after Joan's death. Joan of Arc had nothing to do with the child murders of Rais, just as she had nothing to do with the later treason committed by another of her commanders, Duke Jean II d'Alencon. In fact, many eyewitnesses confirmed that she tried to force all of her commanders to "live as good Catholics" while she was with them.
The Real Joan Of Arc
The real Joan of Arc was a woman who was deeply sincere in her beliefs. She was not a Wiccan, Pagan, or sorceress. She was a sincere Christian. Joan was killed for her beliefs for political reasons, not because she was a "witch". She could not have possible have been a Wiccan since Wicca was not created until 1954.
At this point in life, I'm an agnostic, so I don't really have a dog in this fight. But calling Joan of Arc a "Pagan" completely inaccurate, and just plain wrong. It's hardly fair to such a brave young woman to try to re-brand her a herectic when clearly she was a devoted Christian who died for what she believed in!
No part of this website may be reproduced by any means in any way shape or form without express written consent of the owner. Some of the materials on this web site are copyrighted by others, and are made available here for educational purposes such as teaching, scholarship, and research FREE OF CHARGE. Title 17, Ch. 1, Sec. 107 of the US Copyright law states that such Fair Use "is not an infringement of copyright"(click here to read it all). Links to external web sites do not necessarily constitute endorsements, but are provided as aids to research. NONE OF THESE MATERIALS ARE TO BE SOLD. All HTML is Copyrighted by Uncommon Sense Media. .