Witch Burnings

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by TheEndIsNigh

What would you suggest.

Not teaching it in school would be a start.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Fourth Hunter

I think the issue isn't the mysticism, or the superstition. Those are a tenet of human nature; we need something to hold onto. The issue is when people misinterpret and become fanatics. And as soon as that becomes outlawed and gone, when does religion go the same way? Maybe I'm paranoid, but I have a hard time getting on board with any kind of eradication of beliefs.

I assume you mean misinterpretting a belief system?

How can anyone misinterpret a belief system? Are you saying that if someone doesn't believe something exactly the same as you do then they have misinterpretted it? Doesn't the other person think exactly the same thing about you?

Surely, because a belief system cannot be proven then everyone's viewpoint about it is as valid as eveyone else's.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Sorry, I have to firmly disagree. Most of these beliefs encourage (some even demand) such hatred and divisiveness; they promote violence against the outsider, especially one who is believed (due to the criteria set down in these beliefs) as one in league with "the power of darkness", etc. Had we not challenged, fought against, and combatted in every way the beliefs set forth by, say, Sprenger and Kramer in the Malleus Maleficarum, or James' Daemonology, or Mather's Wonders of the Invisible World, or any of the other books supporting such beliefs, the bloodshed would simply have never ended.

Difficult to believe. Impossible to prove. Almost any mindless violence becomes increasingly vulnerable to the will of society. Even in Salem the witch burnings were under severe societal pressure to stop almost from the beginning.

Such beliefs are absolutely antagonistic to any genuinely humane or humanistic society or growth of a culture. They are atavistic nonsense that demand muddled thinking, lack of reason in favor of superstition, and abrogation of one's freedom in favor of authority. Such beliefs can no longer be allowed to go without intense challenge if we wish to survive the challenges ahead. We need every bit of our courage, our ability to think, to reason, and to critically examine, if we wish to not find ourselves repeating the worst of (and I know this is a politically incorrect phrase, but dammit, it's perfectly on target in this instance) the Dark Ages.

JD, as I read through your posts on this subject I was stuck by the fact that your view of "heaven" [where people are educated to the point that they mostly lose all kinds of superstition and mysticism] is more unlikely than than a religious view of heaven. Humanity's track record at being able to bring the masses to deal entirely logically is abysmal at best. Any mass movement to date has had to have had a set of passionately held shared beliefs (ie prohibition, women's sufferage, and abolitionism, to name some American examples). I do not believe that simple logic or the scientific method can ever rise to that level of emotional appeal in most of us.

[Fourth Hunter]

I agree that it's awful, but by attacking them for their beliefs, I feel we put ourselves on a slippery slope that puts us on their level. The only way to fix this is to simply turn the tables, and that is simply not a good change.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Parson

Difficult to believe. Impossible to prove. Almost any mindless violence becomes increasingly vulnerable to the will of society. Even in Salem the witch burnings were under severe societal pressure to stop almost from the beginning.

Sorry, Parson, but you're quite mistaken there. Rebecca Nurse, for instance, was found "Not Guilty" at her trial, but then pressure was brought to bear publicly forcing the judges to reverse their verdict, and she was hanged as a witch. There was no great public outcry against the entire movement -- quite the reverse -- for a good long while, until enough people were imprisoned and/or under sentence of death to cause serious disruption all 'round. And what finally brought the whole thing to a halt was when an accusation was made affecting someone near to the Governor. Until then, even though some were beginning to doubt, there was no general trend against the trials.

And as for the rest -- look at the evidence again. Wherever there is a belief in witchcraft, sorcery, etc., it is regarded with suspicion and fear, as are those seen to be practitioners. The beliefs themselves foster ignorance rather than knowledge; fear rather than understanding; hatred rather than compassion; and exclusion rather than acceptance. They create a label for the outsider, as well as a way to eliminate him (or her). And throughout history, where such beliefs flourish, they result in such senseless deaths. Look at the history of the witch panics in Europe (not as many died as was long believed, if more recent evidence is accurate, but it's still a staggering number). And in nearly every case historically (or contemporaneously), it isn't the populace that calls such things to a halt, but a more educated group or individual who is able to combat these beliefs by ridicule and evidence. In this, it isn't really much different from pogroms or any other form of racial or ethnic prejudice. I'd say that the proof, in this case, is very much "in the pudding" of historical evidence.

JD, as I read through your posts on this subject I was stuck by the fact that your view of "heaven" [where people are educated to the point that they mostly lose all kinds of superstition and mysticism] is more unlikely than than a religious view of heaven. Humanity's track record at being able to bring the masses to deal entirely logically is abysmal at best. Any mass movement to date has had to have had a set of passionately held shared beliefs (ie prohibition, women's sufferage, and abolitionism, to name some American examples). I do not believe that simple logic or the scientific method can ever rise to that level of emotional appeal in most of us.

First, I intensely dislike the use of the term "my view of 'heaven'", as it is nothing of the sort. It is an ideal, if you will (though even there I'm uncomfortable with the terminlogy) to be striven toward, but it is unlikely to ever be truly gained. It is simply a way of bettering the odds by increasing genuine knowledge and reducing the amount of ignorance, superstition, and the fear that these produce. Replace such ignorance with knowledge, and we improve as a society -- again, the proof is in the quality of life (overall) we have achieved following the Enlightenment as opposed to that existing for the majority before that point. While we've a very long way to go (I'm not even sure there is an ultimate point beyond which we shouldn't attempt to reach on such improvement), it's rather difficult to ignore the advances we have made when one looks at history without the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia. Especially where beliefs of this kind are concerned. Again, where such beliefs flourish, ignorance, fear, poverty, want, are all nourished and accepted, not fought -- because such beliefs foster the view that anthropomorphic forces beyond our control or understanding run the universe, rather than natural forces that we may learn to harness or adapt to; and because they foster the divisiveness described above, rather than unity of effort.

Rationality or the scientific method may not ever rise to that level, nor should they. But they can work much better than ignorance and superstition to aid such noble human impulses as empathy, compassion, the desire to eliminate (or alleviate) suffering, hunger, want; because they provide genuine, demonstrably effective tools at learning how to alter the causes of these things, whereas the beliefs being defended here only continue to see them as beyond our ability to change.

[TheEndIsNigh]

Originally Posted by Parson

... Humanity's track record at being able to bring the masses to deal entirely logically is abysmal at best.

On the contrary humanities ability is highly successful at indoctrinating just about whatever it wants. It just requires the will and required ruthlessness to carry it out. That and the forsight and conviction to see it through. These are long term aims perhaps requiring centuries. All the major religions recognise this and they put the effort in. Starting from an early age they indoctrinate frighten and threaten through the ages of reason until they produce the perfect result - a believer. Of course mechanisms are built in to cope with decenters and heretics - maybe burning at the stake - that'll teach them, and re-enforce the believers.

The twentieth century has seen many attempts at 'new religions' some could have succceded but for the lack of true conviction in those attempting it.
North Korea is probably the best example, unfortunately tainted by the reason for the brainwashing - keeping the powers that be in power.

I'm fairly sure I could bring about a non-mystic society if I needed to, though just at the moment I'm busy with other projects as those who have read my other posts will be aware. Oh it might not be pleasant for quite a few people but it's been done before, it can be done again. Might need a few attempts too.

Really the best example of what can be done occurs every year at about the time of the winter soltice. Adults indococtrinate a belief system in their children based around events that happened long ago. The children are led to the places of worship, wide eyed and innocent where they are introduced to the practises, secret lore and figure of reveration surrounding a maraculous event. These beliefs are then re-enforced and conditioned further by the promise of wonderful rewards to come for the good, and threats of diabolical punishment for the bad.

Then in the fulness of time the eucharist is revealed and they all open their presents.

What I have never understood is, when the full horror of these events are truly revealed years later the children -now mature and reasoning adults NEVER, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, believe another word the parents, teachers, authority figures say and NEVER re-examine everything the lying ba****ds said and say :-

Well what else have they lied about.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by TheEndIsNigh

What I have never understood is, when the full horror of these events are truly revealed years later the children -now mature and reasoning adults NEVER, FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, believe another word the parents, teachers, authority figures say and NEVER re-examine everything the lying ba****ds said and say :-

Well what else have they lied about.

LOL good post TEIN. Not quite true though. I used to be a Methodist lay-preacher but now I'm a born-again atheist.

Interestingly though, as you say, I hadn't done any re-examining of what I had been told just as a by-product of enquiring thought. It took a specific fairly common event to trigger a train of thought that ended in a logical, life changing conclusion.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Sorry, Parson, but you're quite mistaken there. Rebecca Nurse, for instance, was found "Not Guilty" at her trial, but then pressure was brought to bear publicly forcing the judges to reverse their verdict, and she was hanged as a witch. There was no great public outcry against the entire movement -- quite the reverse -- for a good long while, until enough people were imprisoned and/or under sentence of death to cause serious disruption all 'round. And what finally brought the whole thing to a halt was when an accusation was made affecting someone near to the Governor. Until then, even though some were beginning to doubt, there was no general trend against the trials.

And as for the rest -- look at the evidence again. Wherever there is a belief in witchcraft, sorcery, etc., it is regarded with suspicion and fear, as are those seen to be practitioners. The beliefs themselves foster ignorance rather than knowledge; fear rather than understanding; hatred rather than compassion; and exclusion rather than acceptance. They create a label for the outsider, as well as a way to eliminate him (or her). And throughout history, where such beliefs flourish, they result in such senseless deaths. Look at the history of the witch panics in Europe (not as many died as was long believed, if more recent evidence is accurate, but it's still a staggering number). And in nearly every case historically (or contemporaneously), it isn't the populace that calls such things to a halt, but a more educated group or individual who is able to combat these beliefs by ridicule and evidence. In this, it isn't really much different from pogroms or any other form of racial or ethnic prejudice. I'd say that the proof, in this case, is very much "in the pudding" of historical evidence.



First, I intensely dislike the use of the term "my view of 'heaven'", as it is nothing of the sort. It is an ideal, if you will (though even there I'm uncomfortable with the terminlogy) to be striven toward, but it is unlikely to ever be truly gained. It is simply a way of bettering the odds by increasing genuine knowledge and reducing the amount of ignorance, superstition, and the fear that these produce. Replace such ignorance with knowledge, and we improve as a society -- again, the proof is in the quality of life (overall) we have achieved following the Enlightenment as opposed to that existing for the majority before that point. While we've a very long way to go (I'm not even sure there is an ultimate point beyond which we shouldn't attempt to reach on such improvement), it's rather difficult to ignore the advances we have made when one looks at history without the rose-colored glasses of nostalgia. Especially where beliefs of this kind are concerned. Again, where such beliefs flourish, ignorance, fear, poverty, want, are all nourished and accepted, not fought -- because such beliefs foster the view that anthropomorphic forces beyond our control or understanding run the universe, rather than natural forces that we may learn to harness or adapt to; and because they foster the divisiveness described above, rather than unity of effort.

Rationality or the scientific method may not ever rise to that level, nor should they. But they can work much better than ignorance and superstition to aid such noble human impulses as empathy, compassion, the desire to eliminate (or alleviate) suffering, hunger, want; because they provide genuine, demonstrably effective tools at learning how to alter the causes of these things, whereas the beliefs being defended here only continue to see them as beyond our ability to change.

Sorry JD, didn't mean to offend with my use of "heaven."

I am no expert on the Salem Witch Trials, but what I've read seems to indicate that as soon as the ordinary people felt that they were safe from the accusations (basically of the two teenage girls) there was more than a little distancing from the murderous accusations and conduct.

I hope that you don't think I'm defending the "witch" burnings?! On the contrary I see them as a horrific example of what people are capable of doing to others as they try to gain something for themselves. I am forever frustrated by the Christian church's ignoring of the words of Jesus: "Let him who would be greatest among you be servant of all." And when government and religion get together we usually have a monster which gives spiritual power to the secular and worse secular power to the spiritual. Neither of which is then able to do their ordained tasks.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Parson

Sorry JD, didn't mean to offend with my use of "heaven."

On that one -- while I might use "my idea of heaven" in a somewhat frivolous vein ("my idea of heaven is a free pass to the Libraries of Alexandria and Tlön", for instance), in application to myself, I simply intensely dislike it being used in a serious discussion, as I hold no belief in a heaven (or an afterlife, or a utopia, etc.). The furthest I would go is, as I mentioned, an argument for that which increases the odds for better results. Perfection I don't think we can ever attain, nor am I at all certain we should if we could.

I am no expert on the Salem Witch Trials, but what I've read seems to indicate that as soon as the ordinary people felt that they were safe from the accusations (basically of the two teenage girls) there was more than a little distancing from the murderous accusations and conduct.

It's been some little while since I read the various histories of the trials (and transcripts of the trials, for that matter), a little less time since I read -- or re-read -- Mather's Wonder's of the Invisible World and some more recent articles on the trials, but such a feeling did not set in until quite a long way into the hysteria; and it wasn't two teenage girls, but a group of girls... to begin with, anyway; others joined in the act as things went along, including some (at least veiled) accusations by the Rev. Samuel Parris, who certainly supported the trials, to an even sterner degree than Cotton Mather at his worst... right about the same level as Judge Hathorne, to be frank. (He also showed no signs of remorse or recanting of his original stance.)

I hope that you don't think I'm defending the "witch" burnings?! On the contrary I see them as a horrific example of what people are capable of doing to others as they try to gain something for themselves. I am forever frustrated by the Christian church's ignoring of the words of Jesus: "Let him who would be greatest among you be servant of all." And when government and religion get together we usually have a monster which gives spiritual power to the secular and worse secular power to the spiritual. Neither of which is then able to do their ordained tasks.

And yet isn't it in the (KJV) Bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? (Ex. 22:18). (Or, if you prefer any of the other translations: "You shall not allow a sorceress to live" [NAS]; "Never let a witch live" [God's Word]; "Any woman using unnatural powers or secret arts is to be put to death" [Bible in Basic English]; "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live" [Douay-Rheims Bible]; or

When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out before thee.

-- Deuteronomy 18:9-12)

No, I didn't think you were defending witch burnings, but I am more than a little taken aback at how many people defend the rights of belief systems that are specifically set up to create scapegoats and murder, exile, torture, mutilate, or otherwise maltreat them, under the auspices of "divine command", over the use of reason, compassion, knowledge, and learning. Such beliefs are simply morally reprehensible. They are designed to hurt, maim, or kill. There might be a tiny smidgeon of justification if belief in such things had any sort of evidence to support it; but without even that, there is simply no justification for the continued existence of these barbaric customs and beliefs. All these beliefs have ever brought the world is pain, suffering, and heartache, and it is long past time for them TO GO.

[Parson]

JD Worthington said:

And yet isn't it in the (KJV) Bible "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? (Ex. 22:18). (Or, if you prefer any of the other translations: "You shall not allow a sorceress to live" [NAS]; "Never let a witch live" [God's Word]; "Any woman using unnatural powers or secret arts is to be put to death" [Bible in Basic English]; "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live" [Douay-Rheims Bible]; or

JD, you always find the way to stir the pot a bit. You quote 2 versions I've never heard of!! Your mind must be an encyclopedia! But you knew I would have to deal with this. First, it is not clear from the Old Testament what is meant by sorceress. The Hebrew root is rare. If we let Scripture be our guide one of the other uses of the root for "sorceress or witch" is found in Ex. 17:11. Which would seem to indicate what is being condemned is worship of another "god" which would make the condemnation the same as breaking one of the 10. My sources could conceive of no reason why this was limited to females.

But as I am not Jewish, but Christian, I would prefer to let the New Testament witness be my guide. Acts speaks of sorcery twice, and both times (8:9 and 19:19) we have the people, certainly men and likely both men and women, who when they meet the truth about Jesus recognize a greater power. But there is no hint of trying to kill. Neither would I, nor should any Christian. Our spiritual weapon is God's Word and Love.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Parson

JD, you always find the way to stir the pot a bit. You quote 2 versions I've never heard of!! Your mind must be an encyclopedia! But you knew I would have to deal with this. First, it is not clear from the Old Testament what is meant by sorceress. The Hebrew root is rare. If we let Scripture be our guide one of the other uses of the root for "sorceress or witch" is found in Ex. 17:11. Which would seem to indicate what is being condemned is worship of another "god" which would make the condemnation the same as breaking one of the 10. My sources could conceive of no reason why this was limited to females.

But as I am not Jewish, but Christian, I would prefer to let the New Testament witness be my guide. Acts speaks of sorcery twice, and both times (8:9 and 19:19) we have the people, certainly men and likely both men and women, who when they meet the truth about Jesus recognize a greater power. But there is no hint of trying to kill. Neither would I, nor should any Christian. Our spiritual weapon is God's Word and Love.

The thing is, in doing so, you are very much "cherry-picking"; which is fine, except that it once again turns the source you're using into "the big book of multiple choice", which opens up the whole other can of worms of why any of it should be taken as being more "accurate" in spiritual matters or god's intent than any other. And let's face it: Biblical scholars and interpreters from earliest times on would seldom agree with you on this, whether said scholars include the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum (or Pope Innocent VIII, whose papal bull was used -- some argue erroneously -- as a preface to that guide for ecclesiastical witch-hunters) or the Mathers or... well, just about any biblical scholar until extremely recent times.

And as far as the New Testament is concerned: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy but to fulfill." (Or the ISV: ""Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I didn't come to destroy them, but to fulfill them"; NAS: ""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill"; God's Word: ""Don't ever think that I came to set aside Moses' Teachings or the Prophets. I didn't come to set them aside but to make them come true"; etc.) And, even though it has usually been argued "fulfill" here means "to bring to completion" (or, according to Wesley, "To establish, illustrate, and explain its highest meaning, both by my life and doctrine"), there is also the meaning "to reinforce" in there, as well; especially as "to bring to completion" would also mean inevitably to bring to an end. Such is certainly the way many other (especially older) biblical scholars have read it; in which case the older passages concerning witches (or sorceresses) would by no means be overturned.

Which brings me back to my original point: these superstitious beliefs in witchcraft have invariably been designed to cause precisely the sorts of barbaric treatment we're dealing with here; and again I say that there is no room in a civilized society for any system of belief which not only encourages, but frequently commands, such acts to be undertaken.

[Quokka]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Which brings me back to my original point: these superstitious beliefs in witchcraft have invariably been designed to cause precisely the sorts of barbaric treatment we're dealing with here; and again I say that there is no room in a civilized society for any system of belief which not only encourages, but frequently commands, such acts to be undertaken.

JD can I just clarify something, the article says that 11 people were burnt to death in their houses, with the perpetrators using a list of supposed witches in the region but as far as I could see there's no mention of what any of the victims may have done to be placed on that list.

I admit I've got almost no knowledge of witchcraft in Africa and sorry if I'm misreading this but:

"designed to cause precisely the sorts of barbaric treatment we're dealing with here"

and

"...which not only encourages, but frequently commands, such acts be undertaken."

That seems pretty harsh, that the victims brought this on themselves when we have no real information on what actions they did to be given this treatment?

Was it the victims beliefs regarding witchcraft that was the reason for the deaths or the people who burnt them? You'd have to assume they're not the same thing (edit: or are they? is that where you mean that witchcraft created the situation? That the witches deliberately created fear of themselves for power/status etc?)

but would this have been any different if they had been believers in any other religion or is there something inherent in witchcraft that you believe creates this reaction in others?


Sorry that got a bit rambling in the end again but I am curious to understand that better, I wasn't sure about my last question especially considering the recent postings but I think I can trust the maturity of Chroniclers to keep this an open discussion.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Quokka

JD can I just clarify something, the article says that 11 people were burnt to death in their houses, with the perpetrators using a list of supposed witches in the region but as far as I could see there's no mention of what any of the victims may have done to be placed on that list.

I admit I've got almost no knowledge of witchcraft in Africa and sorry if I'm misreading this but:



That seems pretty harsh, that the victims brought this on themselves when we have no real information on what actions they did to be given this treatment?

Was it the victims beliefs regarding witchcraft that was the reason for the deaths or the people who burnt them? You'd have to assume they're not the same thing (edit: or are they? is that where you mean that witchcraft created the situation? That the witches deliberately created fear of themselves for power/status etc?)

but would this have been any different if they had been believers in any other religion or is there something inherent in witchcraft that you believe creates this reaction in others?


Sorry that got a bit rambling in the end again but I am curious to understand that better, I wasn't sure about my last question especially considering the recent postings but I think I can trust the maturity of Chroniclers to keep this an open discussion.

No, no, no... I was saying that the beliefs themselves, when it comes to witchcraft, command these sorts of actions against persons deemed to be witches. Witchcraft didn't create the situation; frankly, I see no reason to believe that witchcraft per se (that is, the actual "magical" or mystical abilities covered under that rubric in most belief systems) actually exists. So, no, I wasn't saying anything at all about the victims having brought this on themselves.

Now, whether they believed themselves to be witches or not is a different matter. Growing up and living in a region where such beliefs are common, there generally are some people who see themselves in that category, for various psychological/emotional reasons -- whether it be that they are actually mentally disturbed/ill (delusional, psychotic, schizophrenic, etc.) or because such a belief bolsters their self-esteem and gives them a sense of empowerment; but I am not saying that they "asked for it" in doing so. I was addressing the fact that the systems of beliefs are designed to set up the category, define what it takes to fall within that category, and then arbitrarily and rigidly punish those who are seen as being within that category -- all based on something which has no basis in reality, if all the millennia of research into the topic has any validity. There's not a shred of reliable evidence for such a thing, yet people are pigeonholed and put through these things based upon a series of primitive beliefs.

[Quokka]

Just to be clear, when I asked did the accused witches create the conditions for these attacks. I meant via social means, by promoting their belief in magic, not by actual magic.

I still think there's a bigger division between a belief in witchcraft and the reaction to it (and again thats based on little knowledge of it) but thanks for answering my post.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Quokka

Just to be clear, when I asked did the accused witches create the conditions for these attacks. I meant via social means, by promoting their belief in magic, not by actual magic.

I still think there's a bigger division between a belief in witchcraft and the reaction to it (and again thats based on little knowledge of it) but thanks for answering my post.

Not quite sure what you mean by a division between the belief and the reaction here, but to respond to the first part of this (and clarify on a point with my earlier response): Even if the people accused of being witches thought they were such, if the belief itself were either diminished or eliminated from the community in general, such situations as this simply could not arise. After all, we have people who claim (either from genuine beilef, or with a view to pull a scam) to be Jesus Christ, Napoleon, Aleister Crowley, Lucifer, Cleopatra, Nefertiti, etc., but people don't generally see them as a threat, but rather as someone who is delusional or a scam artist.

Again, eliminate the belief -- the foundation of such fear and thus such acts -- and you eliminate the basis for the acts; at least this basis... and if such an act occurs, they must find some other rationalization for it, rather than having one ready to hand that promotes such a reaction.