h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

To start off with, Wicca was a religion, a pagan denomination until modern Wicca changed into a more new age idea and set of practices. It is based upon multi-facetted single divine - pantheist divine personified into male & female aspects - Wicca is one of the few pantheist faiths that allow for multi-facetted divine.

It is called a new religion because although it is a pagan religion it is only a few decades old and in fact has very little in common with early pagan religions.

There divine is not the oldest forms of deity you can find, their deity is similar to Gaia but very different to any previous divine ideas.

There is no rule by which wiccans live their life, no rules at all - there is however the fact that wiccans are pantheist and so can not harm, as wiccans believe divine is present in everything to harm something would in turn be harming their divine and therefore does not make sense.
The rede: If it harms none, do what you will is not a wiccan rule, in fact it is not even wiccan but part of modern wiccan thought which is a poem about the beliefs that drains the meaning from the wiccan ethics.

Wicca, I would argue, is a religion. I like Judy Harrow's description of Wicca as being analogous to a religious order within the Pagan community - specific oaths are taken in most Trads, there is usually a degree structure (not in terms of superior or inferior religious knowledge, but an acknowledgement of who's responsible for what), etc.

Not all Wiccans worship God and Goddess as many-aspected; many are true polytheists, worshipping discrete deities. This said, many Wiccans are either duotheistic/pantheistic/polytheistic or some combination thereof - I am a pantheist (the world and all in it is sacred and a manifestation of divinity) as well as a polytheist (my deities are their own entities); a covenmate of mine is a duotheist/pantheist. We are members of the same Wiccan Tradition. Complex, and often fuzzy, but not essentially problematic.

I'd also argue that, bad poetry though it is, the Wiccan Rede, though not a law or tenet of faith but an advisory (rede = advice) doesn't drain the life and meaning out of Wicca.

The often-quoted line "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" is a direct lift from Crowley (possibly with his permission, as he and Gardner were known to each other and corresponded frequently) and is deceptively simple. The advice given is that one's actions ought to always be carefully considered: what are the consequences and possible damage that might be caused by any specific act or the acts of a person taken as a whole? It is obviously impossible to never do any harm, much less to harm none; but it is ver possible, and, I would argue important for a person actively involved in a magicoreligious system to carefully weigh the probable outcomes of their actions and be prepared to take full responsibility for them. In my opinion, if Wiccan ethics are about anything, they are about this fundamental attitude of personal responsibility, and though I fail often in my efforts, I do feel strongly that as a Pagan who sees the Earth as a living Goddess, it would be a negation of my religion to do otherwise than try - it's the effort that counts more than the achievement. Or perhaps I just tell myself that to make myself feel better...

In my opinion, Wicca (as in any other religion) is subject to different sects of believers (just as Christianity is subject to the divisions of Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, ect.). And just as should be in other religions, each slight varient of the overall belief should not be reguarded as wholey wrong or heritical. As long as the core beliefs are held, the details of worship and/or personal preferences should not be considered a basis for judgement of validity.