To quote Wouter J. Hanegraaff from 'Magic I: Introduction' in the Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism (pp. 716-9):

In the post-colonial period Western scholars have become more sensitive about issues of ethnocentrism and Eurocentric arrogance, but the logical step of discarding the category of “magic” has not been taken. Many authors opt for half-way solutions such as speaking about “magic” while admitting that is a form of “religion”, but without explaining in what then relies its specificity. Others use adjectives such as “magico-religious”, but again without specifying in what respect this category is different from “religion” pure and simple. A more consistent and historically more fruitful approach would be to start by recognizing the religious pluralism that has in fact always characterized Western culture, and analyze magic as a largely polemical concept that has been used by various religious interest groups either to describe their own religious beliefs and practices or – more frequently – to discredit those of others. If any etic concept of magic is still considered necessary at all, it might be used as the common denominator of ‘a discursive field, in which different Occidentalist definitions of deluded or illusory beliefs were accompanied by doubts about the extent to which they were deluded, illusory, backward, or irrational’ (Pels 2003, 16).

Anthony H.

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:34 PM, D G Mattichak jr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I can't concur that magick is religion. It seems to me that magick is a parallel to religion and as Hutton points out in his book Triumph of the Moon, religious practice makes a supplication to the divine powers whereas magick attempts to control those same forces.
I also don't know whether Thelema is what is being practiced by those who perform Crowley's rituals such as the Gnostic Mass, after all the Book of the Law makes no mention of any such practice. It seems that there are those who would follow Crowley as some sort of messiah, following his compendium of practices without questioning Crowley's ability to actually understand the Book of the Law. The text of the Book of the Law is quite clear about Crowley's limited understanding of the Law which, to my mind at least, casts doubt on the practices that he devised for it. Whilst the ideas behind Thelema are not new it can be said that Thelema as we know it began in 1904 and so it is a modern interpretation of spirituality and not an ancient one.
Also, I can understand Wicca trying to make a connection with a tradition that predates its public emergence in the 1950s but in light of the findings of modern historians it seems unlikely. It would seem to me to make more sense to embrace the modernity of Wicca as a strength, not everything of value spiritually has to have its roots in a long forgotten past. Perhaps, like everything else, religion must evolve with us in order to remain relevant in the present day.
David G Mattichak jr
Author of A Comment on the Verses of the Book of the Law



--
"Magic is the highest most absolute and divine knowledge of natural philosophy advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a right understanding of the inward and occult vertue of things, so that true agents being applied to proper patients, strange and admirable effects will thereby be produced; whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers into nature, they because of their skill know how to anticipate an effect which to the vulgar shall seem a miracle."

- Lemegeton Clavicula Salomonis, Preface from Harl. 6483