I know this because I read. Wicca has two chief deities, but they are not universally recognized.
The pronouncement that "Wicca has two chief deities" reflects a shallow and incomplete understanding of Wicca. In a way, it's as inaccurate (and easily as insensitive) as suggesting the "the Jews, the Muslims and the Christians should just set aside their differences because it's all just one God. Right?" Of course, such an oversimplification completely ignores the many differences, some subtle and some profound, between the beliefs and doctrines embraced by those followers whom we might identify with one of those three broad labels.
It is true that most Wiccan traditions refer to a God and Godess, but there is virtually no agreement as to who or what those deities really are, or that there are only two. Some traditions identify their deities with specific names and characteristics. Most do not. You see, Wicca, like many religions, including most neo-pagan paths, is not a "revealed" religion. The notion that this or that book contains the complete and accurate "word of God" is completely foreign to such belief systems. The followers are taught and encouraged to actively pursue their spiritual connection with the GAotU, rather than have it handed to them from a book, or pulpit. This not to say that these religions have no sacred law. Quite the contrary, it's just not handed down in printed and bound form.
As for the rest, you took several liberties with what I wrote and drew your own (false) conclusions. At no point did I write that I did not understand Wicca, that I sought to exclude them, label them, or infer that they were somehow inferior.
Really?
That just seems screwy to me...
...it seems that Masonic principals have at least some ties to one's faith, whatever it may be. It seems a bit out of place to be so cavalier with your faith to not care what book is used to represent it. It's a personal choice, I suppose. I just have a hard time believing it is one most would make.
So the notion that a candidate might rest his hand(s) on anything other than the "official" book of his faith is "screwy". What label then, would you chose for the Native American who, for example, chooses to use some other symbol to represent the gravity that he attaches to the promises he's making? And make no mistake, it is always a symbol. There's no magic in a book, any book, that will bind the man to his promises, so who are we to say what object he may choose to convey the seriousness of those promises?
Again, how our Brother embraces and engages with his deity is not a thing we may judge, only that he does so.