Child witches
May 18, 2009 2:27 AM Subscribe
Throughout history children have been involved in witchcraft accusations. But in the modern age, this could be considered a form of abuse against children. It may be wrong to starve or torment or kill a child witch. Some video: 1, 2, 3.
If you watched the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary that aired in November 2008, and which features in the you tube links in the OP, and want to donate to the cause, you can do so here. More info on the organisations - CRARN and Stepping Stones Nigeria can be found here.
I would urge anyone to see the video. It's heartrending stuff. In common with many others, I finished watching the program and went straight online and gave money. It's pretty powerful stuff.
posted by MuffinMan at 3:45 AM on May 18, 2009
I would urge anyone to see the video. It's heartrending stuff. In common with many others, I finished watching the program and went straight online and gave money. It's pretty powerful stuff.
posted by MuffinMan at 3:45 AM on May 18, 2009
End Of The Wicked - Helen Ukpabio.
I should have put these comments into just one post, I know.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:47 AM on May 18, 2009
I should have put these comments into just one post, I know.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:47 AM on May 18, 2009
"It may be wrong to starve or torment or kill a child witch."
It may be?
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:28 AM on May 18, 2009 [13 favorites]
It may be?
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:28 AM on May 18, 2009 [13 favorites]
It may be?
I'm torn between deriding this understatement and making a seriously off-color joke about very small rocks.
posted by 7segment at 4:55 AM on May 18, 2009
I'm torn between deriding this understatement and making a seriously off-color joke about very small rocks.
posted by 7segment at 4:55 AM on May 18, 2009
It may be?
Well, if it's a witch, you then have to determine whether it's a good witch or a bad witch. And then, if it's a bad witch, you might need to starve or torment or kill it.
No, of course the correct answer is that there are no witches, child or adult, not if by witch you mean someone with supernatural powers and not simply someone with amateur pharmacology skills and the like. But what can you do about belief in witches when a large majority of people believe in similar supernatural wackinesses and the leaders of the most advanced nations in the world ask hidden spirits for help?
But I'm late for lunch. Today's special is fillet of a fenny snake. I come, Graymalkin!
posted by pracowity at 5:01 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well, if it's a witch, you then have to determine whether it's a good witch or a bad witch. And then, if it's a bad witch, you might need to starve or torment or kill it.
No, of course the correct answer is that there are no witches, child or adult, not if by witch you mean someone with supernatural powers and not simply someone with amateur pharmacology skills and the like. But what can you do about belief in witches when a large majority of people believe in similar supernatural wackinesses and the leaders of the most advanced nations in the world ask hidden spirits for help?
But I'm late for lunch. Today's special is fillet of a fenny snake. I come, Graymalkin!
posted by pracowity at 5:01 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't know what they think a "witch" is or could do, but it seems to me that if it were worth worrying about, a witch could do something actually bad. So if the accused were a witch, they could and would fuck the witchfinders up for messing with them. But they didn't. That proves, ipso facto, that they were not a witch, and furthermore, by accusing them of being a witch and ruining their lives and treating them horribly and/or killing them, the witchfinders have done worse than a witch possibly could have.
Why this simple chain of logic never seems to occur to people in societies in which "finding witches" is practiced, I honestly do not know.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:47 AM on May 18, 2009 [3 favorites]
Why this simple chain of logic never seems to occur to people in societies in which "finding witches" is practiced, I honestly do not know.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:47 AM on May 18, 2009 [3 favorites]
That proves, ipso facto, that they were not a witch
Not really. Their accusers can always claim that their "faith in a higher power" (stronger magic, but good magic) saved them from the curse of the small penis or whatever it was that the witch was up to.
posted by pracowity at 5:52 AM on May 18, 2009
Not really. Their accusers can always claim that their "faith in a higher power" (stronger magic, but good magic) saved them from the curse of the small penis or whatever it was that the witch was up to.
posted by pracowity at 5:52 AM on May 18, 2009
That's even dumber - if faith is all it takes to resist the witch, then the witch is only a threat to the faithless, who are already damned.
Sometimes I think humans are made up of a number of interbreeding "subtypes", orthogonal to ethnicity or race: the good, the dumb, the nasty, and the really dumb and nasty.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:00 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Sometimes I think humans are made up of a number of interbreeding "subtypes", orthogonal to ethnicity or race: the good, the dumb, the nasty, and the really dumb and nasty.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:00 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
The good, the dumb, the nasty
A spaghetti-porn classic.
posted by rokusan at 6:05 AM on May 18, 2009 [5 favorites]
A spaghetti-porn classic.
posted by rokusan at 6:05 AM on May 18, 2009 [5 favorites]
there are real witches in our midst. eaters of flesh. masters of the curse. here in the U.S. they come to our houses in white shirts offering the words of their master. some of us engage them in conversation or debate. others just holler "honey, don't answer the door, it's the fucking jehovah's witnesses".
posted by kitchenrat at 6:10 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by kitchenrat at 6:10 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
if faith is all it takes to resist the witch, then the witch is only a threat to the faithless
No, see, normal faith with nightly prayers and church on Sunday and so on is fine when you live among good people, but you still might be hurt by a sneaky witch actively attacking you in concert with the devil (opening act?). Once you discover the evil being hidden in your midst, however, you can attack back with your prayers and exorcisms and so on. And if you're good enough and give enough to the church, God will make sure you beat the devil. Didn't you take Inquisition 101?
posted by pracowity at 6:13 AM on May 18, 2009
No, see, normal faith with nightly prayers and church on Sunday and so on is fine when you live among good people, but you still might be hurt by a sneaky witch actively attacking you in concert with the devil (opening act?). Once you discover the evil being hidden in your midst, however, you can attack back with your prayers and exorcisms and so on. And if you're good enough and give enough to the church, God will make sure you beat the devil. Didn't you take Inquisition 101?
posted by pracowity at 6:13 AM on May 18, 2009
I don't know what they think a "witch" is or could do
A witch can make the person who "cures" them rich. It is just another version of people in the US or Germany or wherever peddling horoscopes, clairvoyancy, miracle cures, amazing machines that burn fat or whatever.
By peddling the idea that natural catastrophes or misfortune are caused by a specific individual, "priests" exploit ignorance and latent superstition/religiosity by presenting themselves as a solution. For a hefty fee, of course.
It's not just religion, of course: declaring someone is a witch is an easy way to remove someone from the community: children are susceptible because they are smaller, weaker and don't earn much. Girls especially, because they aren't as valuable as boys. Anyone with an obvious developmental or behavioural problem is a good target. In some cases, you can get declared as a witch just for having annoyed someone powerful in the community.
It's a morally acceptable catch-all for unburdening a community of its problems, just as it wasn't so long ago that immoral women found themselves locked up in mental asylums nearer these shores.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:23 AM on May 18, 2009
A witch can make the person who "cures" them rich. It is just another version of people in the US or Germany or wherever peddling horoscopes, clairvoyancy, miracle cures, amazing machines that burn fat or whatever.
By peddling the idea that natural catastrophes or misfortune are caused by a specific individual, "priests" exploit ignorance and latent superstition/religiosity by presenting themselves as a solution. For a hefty fee, of course.
It's not just religion, of course: declaring someone is a witch is an easy way to remove someone from the community: children are susceptible because they are smaller, weaker and don't earn much. Girls especially, because they aren't as valuable as boys. Anyone with an obvious developmental or behavioural problem is a good target. In some cases, you can get declared as a witch just for having annoyed someone powerful in the community.
It's a morally acceptable catch-all for unburdening a community of its problems, just as it wasn't so long ago that immoral women found themselves locked up in mental asylums nearer these shores.
posted by MuffinMan at 6:23 AM on May 18, 2009
Airport security people should be warned. Imagine the destruction one seemingly harmless witch child could do in a full aeroplane. They can fly, so they may even escape before crash.
posted by Free word order! at 6:23 AM on May 18, 2009
posted by Free word order! at 6:23 AM on May 18, 2009
Why do people who believe in a god mock other people who believe in a witch?
posted by notreally at 7:14 AM on May 18, 2009
This is one of the many reasons why we need more atheism in the world. And education. If you recall the story of that dumbass that Sarah Palin took instructions from, you will understand why religion must die a quick death.
posted by kldickson at 7:24 AM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by kldickson at 7:24 AM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's right: The way to beat the devil is to beat the children.
Does evil even have to try these days?
posted by yeloson at 9:11 AM on May 18, 2009
Does evil even have to try these days?
posted by yeloson at 9:11 AM on May 18, 2009
Why do people who believe in a god mock other people who believe in a witch?
Do they? I thought most mainstream Christianity necessitated belief in evil magic.
posted by ODiV at 9:19 AM on May 18, 2009
Do they? I thought most mainstream Christianity necessitated belief in evil magic.
posted by ODiV at 9:19 AM on May 18, 2009
This is one of the many reasons why we need more atheism tolerance in the world. And education. If you recall the story of that dumbass that Sarah Palin took instructions from, you will understand why religion absolutism must die a quick death.
Fixed that for you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:14 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Fixed that for you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:14 AM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
If you recall the story of that dumbass that Sarah Palin took instructions from, you will understand why absolutism must die a quick death.
I bet Louis XIV is quaking in his boots!
posted by nasreddin at 10:40 AM on May 18, 2009
I bet Louis XIV is quaking in his boots!
posted by nasreddin at 10:40 AM on May 18, 2009
Sometimes you question the existence of a weapon like a flamethrower. Sometimes you don't.
Anyway most kids don't weigh the same as a duck.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:03 AM on May 18, 2009
Anyway most kids don't weigh the same as a duck.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:03 AM on May 18, 2009
Yes, Empress, let us be more tolerant of the witch-burners.
Oh, you meant other people should be more tolerant. I see.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:28 AM on May 18, 2009
Oh, you meant other people should be more tolerant. I see.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:28 AM on May 18, 2009
Yes, Empress, let us be more tolerant of the witch-burners.
Oh, you meant other people should be more tolerant. I see.
Please don't be obtuse.
If you would like a more direct statement, try this: "claiming that this incident means that we need to eradicate religion is like saying that we need to Kill All Dogs Everywhere just because the neighbor's Rottweiler tried to bite you."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:39 AM on May 18, 2009
Oh, you meant other people should be more tolerant. I see.
Please don't be obtuse.
If you would like a more direct statement, try this: "claiming that this incident means that we need to eradicate religion is like saying that we need to Kill All Dogs Everywhere just because the neighbor's Rottweiler tried to bite you."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:39 AM on May 18, 2009
Except it's not a single incident, it's pretty much the entire history of religion, and it's more like a call for dogs that don't bite people rather than killing all the dogs.
Jesus, religious people like to fantasize about being killed for their faith.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:45 AM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Jesus, religious people like to fantasize about being killed for their faith.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:45 AM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Except it's not a single incident, it's pretty much the entire history of religion, and it's more like a call for dogs that don't bite people rather than killing all the dogs.
How is "religion must die a quick death" NOT a call to wipe out all religion?
And how is the absolutism behind such an idea any different than the absolutism you decry?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2009
How is "religion must die a quick death" NOT a call to wipe out all religion?
And how is the absolutism behind such an idea any different than the absolutism you decry?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:01 PM on May 18, 2009
Jesus, religious people like to fantasize about being killed for their faith.
And what precipitated this comment?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:02 PM on May 18, 2009
And what precipitated this comment?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:02 PM on May 18, 2009
How is "religion must die a quick death" NOT a call to wipe out all religion?
And what precipitated this comment?
I'm sure that talk about killing dogs was not in the slightest intended to imply that the eradication of religion is the same as the mass murder of the religious.
And how is the absolutism behind such an idea any different than the absolutism you decry?
Yes, it's absolutism I'm decrying, and not a millennia-long history of torture and murder. Well done. You clearly have been reading my posts in this thread and are not in any way responding to the fantasy posts by someone you'd rather be arguing against making arguments that you'd rather be arguing against.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:49 PM on May 18, 2009
And what precipitated this comment?
I'm sure that talk about killing dogs was not in the slightest intended to imply that the eradication of religion is the same as the mass murder of the religious.
And how is the absolutism behind such an idea any different than the absolutism you decry?
Yes, it's absolutism I'm decrying, and not a millennia-long history of torture and murder. Well done. You clearly have been reading my posts in this thread and are not in any way responding to the fantasy posts by someone you'd rather be arguing against making arguments that you'd rather be arguing against.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:49 PM on May 18, 2009
....*shrug* Okay, I tried. Nice talking to you.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:50 PM on May 18, 2009
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:50 PM on May 18, 2009
Please correct me if I am putting words into your mouth, Pope Guilty, but I think what you are getting at is that superstition, and to a greater extent religion, have absolutism inherent in them because "God cannot be wrong."
Once you start from "God cannot be wrong," then all one must do is cast about for whatever bit of religious text that calls for something one might care to do, like kill someone, and find it.
Most of the Western religions do have a strong "but Jehovah/God/Allah said so" element to them. Religion is perceived as the "higher truth." You can render unto Caesar until the cows come home, but "right" is always "right," and mere physical evidence is some combination of trickery, willful blindness, and pure foolishness. Revealed truths "win" over rationality and experiment.
Similarly, superstition does not admit for evidence, either, though from a different angle. These revealed truths are rumor and tales passed from hand to hand, parent to child. These have yet to be codified into a religion, but hey, someone's still missing a penis over here!
From the absolutism of religion comes total authority. Who are you, after all, to question God? Where were you, bucko, when I made the whales?
Hence, while absolutism does indeed correlate highly with suck, religion is rife with absolutism. The higher truths are absolute. This appears to be a necessary feature of most religions. One need not question, "Could that child actually not be a witch?" because the answers have been already supplied and the authority granted to do whatever you must to deal with the situation.
The millennia-long history derives from this. Give humans a sense of absolute rightness and God-given authority and they always get up to something nasty with it. Sure, you can get it with a Great Leap Forward, but religion seems to create that level of oppression with it wherever it goes.
Questions and doubt are the antidotes, and we know how well doubt goes over in organized religion.
I'll give the Quakers a pass, for now.
posted by adipocere at 2:22 PM on May 18, 2009
Once you start from "God cannot be wrong," then all one must do is cast about for whatever bit of religious text that calls for something one might care to do, like kill someone, and find it.
Most of the Western religions do have a strong "but Jehovah/God/Allah said so" element to them. Religion is perceived as the "higher truth." You can render unto Caesar until the cows come home, but "right" is always "right," and mere physical evidence is some combination of trickery, willful blindness, and pure foolishness. Revealed truths "win" over rationality and experiment.
Similarly, superstition does not admit for evidence, either, though from a different angle. These revealed truths are rumor and tales passed from hand to hand, parent to child. These have yet to be codified into a religion, but hey, someone's still missing a penis over here!
From the absolutism of religion comes total authority. Who are you, after all, to question God? Where were you, bucko, when I made the whales?
Hence, while absolutism does indeed correlate highly with suck, religion is rife with absolutism. The higher truths are absolute. This appears to be a necessary feature of most religions. One need not question, "Could that child actually not be a witch?" because the answers have been already supplied and the authority granted to do whatever you must to deal with the situation.
The millennia-long history derives from this. Give humans a sense of absolute rightness and God-given authority and they always get up to something nasty with it. Sure, you can get it with a Great Leap Forward, but religion seems to create that level of oppression with it wherever it goes.
Questions and doubt are the antidotes, and we know how well doubt goes over in organized religion.
I'll give the Quakers a pass, for now.
posted by adipocere at 2:22 PM on May 18, 2009
Absolutist atheism has held sway over societies in the past, and is just as capable of witchfinding, cruelty, idiocy, and spawning atheistic equivalents of Sarah Palin. While far more numerous absolutist theisms exist and have existed, this is just because it's much easier to make (uncollectable) promises on behalf of a deity ("Odin will reward you in Valhalla", "Jesus will save you", "Cthulhu will eat you first ... or last") than it is to make such promises on behalf of the Great Nothing, which Does Not Give A Damn, literally.
Non-absolutist theisms tend to be pretty much harmless, and just like non-absolutist atheisms, are the practitioner's own business, because part of that non-absolutist requirement is the willingness of the practitioner to let others mind their business too.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:52 PM on May 18, 2009
Non-absolutist theisms tend to be pretty much harmless, and just like non-absolutist atheisms, are the practitioner's own business, because part of that non-absolutist requirement is the willingness of the practitioner to let others mind their business too.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:52 PM on May 18, 2009
Non-absolutist theisms tend to be pretty much harmless, and just like non-absolutist atheisms, are the practitioner's own business, because part of that non-absolutist requirement is the willingness of the practitioner to let others mind their business too.
Which is why I would argue that, just maybe, it is the absolutism itself which is the problem, not the matter one is being absolutist about.
Both of which are separate issues from perceiving kids as witches, which to my mind is an example of absolute batshitinsanity as opposed to religious thought.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:17 PM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Which is why I would argue that, just maybe, it is the absolutism itself which is the problem, not the matter one is being absolutist about.
Both of which are separate issues from perceiving kids as witches, which to my mind is an example of absolute batshitinsanity as opposed to religious thought.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:17 PM on May 18, 2009 [2 favorites]
Absolutist atheism has held sway over societies in the past
Where? Pol Pot? Stalin's Soviet State? Mao? Hitler?
These were not strictly "Atheist states" but were extreme cults of personality dictatorships where The Dictator became State and The State became God. And all of these were extremely recent and lasted a mere infinitesimal speck of time in comparison to theistic states and theistic oppression which has existed for thousands of years. And Theistic oppression continues to exist and thrive to this very day and shows no sign of abating.
Not a very robust comparison IMHO.
posted by tkchrist at 4:23 PM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Where? Pol Pot? Stalin's Soviet State? Mao? Hitler?
These were not strictly "Atheist states" but were extreme cults of personality dictatorships where The Dictator became State and The State became God. And all of these were extremely recent and lasted a mere infinitesimal speck of time in comparison to theistic states and theistic oppression which has existed for thousands of years. And Theistic oppression continues to exist and thrive to this very day and shows no sign of abating.
Not a very robust comparison IMHO.
posted by tkchrist at 4:23 PM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Both of which are separate issues from perceiving kids as witches, which to my mind is an example of absolute batshitinsanity as opposed to religious thought.
Superstition breeds ignorance. It doesn't always. But if history is any guide it does more often than not.
And. Theistic religion IS superstition. There is simply no other way to parse it. A belief in the supernatural.
Now combine that with absolutism and you have a recipe for centuries of terror. There nothing like having God and the keys to eternal life on your side to lend unbelievable force to a particular dangerous movement.
posted by tkchrist at 4:30 PM on May 18, 2009
Superstition breeds ignorance. It doesn't always. But if history is any guide it does more often than not.
And. Theistic religion IS superstition. There is simply no other way to parse it. A belief in the supernatural.
Now combine that with absolutism and you have a recipe for centuries of terror. There nothing like having God and the keys to eternal life on your side to lend unbelievable force to a particular dangerous movement.
posted by tkchrist at 4:30 PM on May 18, 2009
Superstition breeds ignorance. It doesn't always. But if history is any guide it does more often than not.
But it doesn't always. You just said so yourself.
And "superstition" is not the only thing that breeds ignorance. Bigotry does a fine job of that as well. So does partisanship. So does extending rebellion from your upbringing to the point that you've ended up with a bug up your butt the size of an emu.
Now combine that with absolutism and you have a recipe for centuries of terror.
No, the reason that we've had centuries of terror is more simply attributed to the fact that people can just be real shits sometimes.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:44 PM on May 18, 2009
But it doesn't always. You just said so yourself.
And "superstition" is not the only thing that breeds ignorance. Bigotry does a fine job of that as well. So does partisanship. So does extending rebellion from your upbringing to the point that you've ended up with a bug up your butt the size of an emu.
Now combine that with absolutism and you have a recipe for centuries of terror.
No, the reason that we've had centuries of terror is more simply attributed to the fact that people can just be real shits sometimes.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:44 PM on May 18, 2009
So does extending rebellion from your upbringing to the point that you've ended up with a bug up your butt the size of an emu.
So does extendingrebellion a belief system from your upbringing to the point that you've ended up with a bug up your butt dangerous levels of cognitive dissonance the size of an emu inquisition.
Two can play at that. See how cute and annoying that "FTFY" nonsense can be?
Not sure where you got your statement from other than pulling it out of your own emu sized ass.
No, the reason that we've had centuries of terror is more simply attributed to the fact that people can just be real shits sometimes.
So you're saying there are no dangerous ideas. Just dangerous people?
posted by tkchrist at 5:02 PM on May 18, 2009
So does extending
Two can play at that. See how cute and annoying that "FTFY" nonsense can be?
Not sure where you got your statement from other than pulling it out of your own emu sized ass.
No, the reason that we've had centuries of terror is more simply attributed to the fact that people can just be real shits sometimes.
So you're saying there are no dangerous ideas. Just dangerous people?
posted by tkchrist at 5:02 PM on May 18, 2009
Now combine that with absolutism and you have a recipe for centuries of terror.
Wars are fought over resources, not make-believe bullshit. Plenty of people who desire resources will utilize religious as a tool to instigate the "getting" of said resources, but no one "goes to war" because God told them to. They go to war because they want something that someone else has and they're unwilling to beg or barter for it.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 5:36 PM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Wars are fought over resources, not make-believe bullshit. Plenty of people who desire resources will utilize religious as a tool to instigate the "getting" of said resources, but no one "goes to war" because God told them to. They go to war because they want something that someone else has and they're unwilling to beg or barter for it.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 5:36 PM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
I never MENTIONED absolutism. Empress brought that into the discussion and then got pissy when I said she was responding to fantasy arguments she wanted to engage with rather than mine.
...and then suddenly adipocere is responding as if I'd mentioned absolutism. What are you people smoking?
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:42 PM on May 18, 2009
...and then suddenly adipocere is responding as if I'd mentioned absolutism. What are you people smoking?
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:42 PM on May 18, 2009
Wars are fought over resources, not make-believe bullshit. Plenty of people who desire resources will utilize religious as a tool to instigate the "getting" of said resources, but no one "goes to war" because God told them to. They go to war because they want something that someone else has and they're unwilling to beg or barter for it.
posted by tkchrist at 6:25 PM on May 18, 2009
posted by tkchrist at 6:25 PM on May 18, 2009
Oops. I meant to quote that not re-post it.
Wars are fought over resources, not make-believe bullshit. Plenty of people who desire resources will utilize religious as a tool to instigate the "getting" of said resources, but no one "goes to war" because God told them to. They go to war because they want something that someone else has and they're unwilling to beg or barter for it.
Well. This is just not true. Certainly many many wars are over resources and the like. But many have also been over nothing but ego and irrational hatreds with literally nothing gained.
So. Then are you too postulating there are no dangerous ideas. Only dangerous people?
posted by tkchrist at 6:28 PM on May 18, 2009
Wars are fought over resources, not make-believe bullshit. Plenty of people who desire resources will utilize religious as a tool to instigate the "getting" of said resources, but no one "goes to war" because God told them to. They go to war because they want something that someone else has and they're unwilling to beg or barter for it.
Well. This is just not true. Certainly many many wars are over resources and the like. But many have also been over nothing but ego and irrational hatreds with literally nothing gained.
So. Then are you too postulating there are no dangerous ideas. Only dangerous people?
posted by tkchrist at 6:28 PM on May 18, 2009
They go to war because they want something that someone else has and they're unwilling to beg or barter for it.
Dang it. I missed this too. My Meta-Fu SUCKS today.
Anyway. This again is not true. People have gone to war to murder people they hate. What they want is the Death of The Other.
And anyway. So what. If religion is pretext for something more practical doesn't change the facts that religion very often is used and it's used for a reason. Becuase it's highly effective at manipulating and motivating people. Possibly more so than just about any other ideology. Becuase you when you control a religion you control Eternal Life.
And since nobody is biting the "dangerous ideas vs. danger men" bait (and wisely - because you know where the argument will go) I will suppose that most of you agree that there are indeed dangerous ideas above and beyond dangerous people. Dangerous ideas like fire arms. Dangerous ideas like eugenics. Like slavery. Like mutually assured destruction made possible with nuclear weapons.
Dangerous ideas that make flawed people MORE dangerous.
I propose that theism in the form of organized religion is in itself a pretty dangerous idea.And it's an idea of men. Not god. God did not invent religion. Men did.So yes. People can be "real shits sometimes" and these people are fueled and made more dangerous by dangerous ideas.
So when we learn our lessons we attempt to control dangerous ideas. We try to do it with racism and eugenics. With firearms. Sometimes we out and out ban dangerous ideas as simply too dangerous. Slavery is one.
I propose this to you. In a thousand years if much of humanity doesn't look back on our current conceptions of organized theistic religion as a dangerous idea that had to be controlled than I propose to you there will be no humanity present to entertain the notion. I don't think we need to kill the idea. That's a bit extreme and likely not possible beciase I think we have a need to find meaning for ourselves.
But people sure as shit better recognize the problem and stop hiding behind this hardly veiled Old Testiment "fallen man" bullshit.
posted by tkchrist at 6:45 PM on May 18, 2009
Dang it. I missed this too. My Meta-Fu SUCKS today.
Anyway. This again is not true. People have gone to war to murder people they hate. What they want is the Death of The Other.
And anyway. So what. If religion is pretext for something more practical doesn't change the facts that religion very often is used and it's used for a reason. Becuase it's highly effective at manipulating and motivating people. Possibly more so than just about any other ideology. Becuase you when you control a religion you control Eternal Life.
And since nobody is biting the "dangerous ideas vs. danger men" bait (and wisely - because you know where the argument will go) I will suppose that most of you agree that there are indeed dangerous ideas above and beyond dangerous people. Dangerous ideas like fire arms. Dangerous ideas like eugenics. Like slavery. Like mutually assured destruction made possible with nuclear weapons.
Dangerous ideas that make flawed people MORE dangerous.
I propose that theism in the form of organized religion is in itself a pretty dangerous idea.And it's an idea of men. Not god. God did not invent religion. Men did.So yes. People can be "real shits sometimes" and these people are fueled and made more dangerous by dangerous ideas.
So when we learn our lessons we attempt to control dangerous ideas. We try to do it with racism and eugenics. With firearms. Sometimes we out and out ban dangerous ideas as simply too dangerous. Slavery is one.
I propose this to you. In a thousand years if much of humanity doesn't look back on our current conceptions of organized theistic religion as a dangerous idea that had to be controlled than I propose to you there will be no humanity present to entertain the notion. I don't think we need to kill the idea. That's a bit extreme and likely not possible beciase I think we have a need to find meaning for ourselves.
But people sure as shit better recognize the problem and stop hiding behind this hardly veiled Old Testiment "fallen man" bullshit.
posted by tkchrist at 6:45 PM on May 18, 2009
And since nobody is biting the "dangerous ideas vs. danger men" bait (and wisely - because you know where the argument will go) I will suppose that most of you agree that there are indeed dangerous ideas above and beyond dangerous people. Dangerous ideas like fire arms. Dangerous ideas like eugenics. Like slavery. Like mutually assured destruction made possible with nuclear weapons.
Frankly, the reason why I "hadn't bit" the "dangerous ideas vs. dangerous men" argument yet wasn't because I was cowed by anything, it was because I had to eat dinner.
But since you asked --
Ideas are tools. It takes the person using them to make them be dangerous or helpful. Sure, a hammer is dangerous when you use it to bonk someone on the head. But, if you use it to pound a nail into wood, well, then it's dang useful.
I was about to say that the one dangerous idea that I could think of was absolutism, but you know, even here I think it's got a use too. There are things that we should be absolutist about -- like, the notion that you shouldn't arbitarily kill someone else for no reason. That kind of sucks. And we all absolutely agree on that.
So no, I do not believe that there are dangerous ideas. Only dangerous people.
Not sure where you got your statement from other than pulling it out of your own emu sized ass.
In my experience, the people who are decrying religion the loudest often have some past issues that they still haven't processed regarding their religious upbringing. The ones who have settled things for themselves, well, they aren't quite as Zealous about it.
...Because, see, I know that it's not atheism as a whole that's not making them be this way, and so that's why I'm not dismissing it with "see, that's what being a non-believer gets you." Or saying things like, "This is one of the many reasons why we need more religion in the world. And education. If you recall the story of that dumbass that Richard Dawkins took instructions from, you will understand why atheism must die a quick death." Because I think saying something so all-encompassing like that is actually not true. Because -- atheism, like other ideas, is not a dangerous idea, and so it can't be held accountable for human fuckupery.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:32 PM on May 18, 2009
Frankly, the reason why I "hadn't bit" the "dangerous ideas vs. dangerous men" argument yet wasn't because I was cowed by anything, it was because I had to eat dinner.
But since you asked --
Ideas are tools. It takes the person using them to make them be dangerous or helpful. Sure, a hammer is dangerous when you use it to bonk someone on the head. But, if you use it to pound a nail into wood, well, then it's dang useful.
I was about to say that the one dangerous idea that I could think of was absolutism, but you know, even here I think it's got a use too. There are things that we should be absolutist about -- like, the notion that you shouldn't arbitarily kill someone else for no reason. That kind of sucks. And we all absolutely agree on that.
So no, I do not believe that there are dangerous ideas. Only dangerous people.
Not sure where you got your statement from other than pulling it out of your own emu sized ass.
In my experience, the people who are decrying religion the loudest often have some past issues that they still haven't processed regarding their religious upbringing. The ones who have settled things for themselves, well, they aren't quite as Zealous about it.
...Because, see, I know that it's not atheism as a whole that's not making them be this way, and so that's why I'm not dismissing it with "see, that's what being a non-believer gets you." Or saying things like, "This is one of the many reasons why we need more religion in the world. And education. If you recall the story of that dumbass that Richard Dawkins took instructions from, you will understand why atheism must die a quick death." Because I think saying something so all-encompassing like that is actually not true. Because -- atheism, like other ideas, is not a dangerous idea, and so it can't be held accountable for human fuckupery.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:32 PM on May 18, 2009
Atheism is unlike religion in that it makes no demands, issues no orders, execrates no people. Such things can be done by atheists, but atheism alone does not have the ability to do any of those things; these are necessarily the work of atheists. No religion can make that claim.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:57 PM on May 18, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:57 PM on May 18, 2009
Atheism is unlike religion in that it makes no demands, issues no orders, execrates no people. Such things can be done by atheists, but atheism alone does not have the ability to do any of those things; these are necessarily the work of atheists. No religion can make that claim.
Okay, but the quality of the idea itself isn't quite my point. I mean, feminism is unlike religion as well, as is Republicanism, liberitarianism, militarism, bagism, shagism, dragism, madism, ragism, tagism, this-ism, that-ism...
They all have their proponents. Some people are able to adhere to the tenets of any of those isms without using those isms to justify their own ill behavior, and some are able to adhere to those isms without insisting that everything would be better if everyone thought exactly that same way and if we wiped out the opposing ism entirely. And -- some are not able to adhere to the tenets of their ism without falling into that trap.
Whether you're talking about theism, atheism, or hell, even Jedi-ism, you've still got some people who are just plain over-zealous about it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:39 PM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
Okay, but the quality of the idea itself isn't quite my point. I mean, feminism is unlike religion as well, as is Republicanism, liberitarianism, militarism, bagism, shagism, dragism, madism, ragism, tagism, this-ism, that-ism...
They all have their proponents. Some people are able to adhere to the tenets of any of those isms without using those isms to justify their own ill behavior, and some are able to adhere to those isms without insisting that everything would be better if everyone thought exactly that same way and if we wiped out the opposing ism entirely. And -- some are not able to adhere to the tenets of their ism without falling into that trap.
Whether you're talking about theism, atheism, or hell, even Jedi-ism, you've still got some people who are just plain over-zealous about it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:39 PM on May 18, 2009 [1 favorite]
The biggest problem here is that you're acting as if those ideologies and points of view are equally meritorious, as if they were differentiated only by personal preference, as if they were beyond evaluation in and of themselves.
You want to pretend that ideas don't have consequences, and, well, no, I'm not going to go along with your fantasy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:09 AM on May 19, 2009
You want to pretend that ideas don't have consequences, and, well, no, I'm not going to go along with your fantasy.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:09 AM on May 19, 2009
Shagism sounds like a good ideology. Zealots of the world unite, I say.
posted by MuffinMan at 3:55 AM on May 19, 2009
posted by MuffinMan at 3:55 AM on May 19, 2009
The biggest problem here is that you're acting as if those ideologies and points of view are equally meritorious, as if they were differentiated only by personal preference, as if they were beyond evaluation in and of themselves.
You want to pretend that ideas don't have consequences, and, well, no, I'm not going to go along with your fantasy.
No, some ideas are better than others.
But an idea just sitting there in someone's head doesn't do a damn thing. It is someone's ACTION that actually affects other people. And someone's INTERPRETATION OF that idea that affects other people.
Consider: arguably, anti-semitism is arguably a detestable idea. However -- if someone is an anti-Semite, but his anti-semitism moves him to become a recluse in the woods, taking himself off the grid and avoiding other people and never harming anyone, then...what harm does his anti-semitism actually do anyone else? He is simply a person walking around with a belief existing in his head, but that belief existing in his head has driven him clear of people, so no one is otherwise affected by his anti-Semitism. In the absence of his action, what affect does his belief itself have?
Now -- consider that someone is agnostic, but is so fervent about his agnosticism that he derives the idea that no churches should exist ever, because "mankind doesn't know for sure so we shouldn't pretend we do." This train of thought ultimately inspires him to commit a series of arsons against religious institutions, and in one or two cases there are people trapped inside. Is the agnosticism itself at fault in that case, or is it the man's delusion?
Finally: you want to pretend that every single person is affected by an idea in exactly the same way. If everyone were indeed affected by religious dogma in exact lock-step the same way, why do we not hear of EVERYONE stoning witches and shunning their gay children and the like? Why are the majority of those ascribing to a given faith religious moderates? Why are there Christians who reject creationism, if religion is that much of a compelling force such as you claim?
....Let me warn you, too, that the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is a common one amongst the religious zealot, so if you truly detest religious thought you may want to avoid using it when you respond. I'm just watching out for you, there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:00 AM on May 19, 2009
You want to pretend that ideas don't have consequences, and, well, no, I'm not going to go along with your fantasy.
No, some ideas are better than others.
But an idea just sitting there in someone's head doesn't do a damn thing. It is someone's ACTION that actually affects other people. And someone's INTERPRETATION OF that idea that affects other people.
Consider: arguably, anti-semitism is arguably a detestable idea. However -- if someone is an anti-Semite, but his anti-semitism moves him to become a recluse in the woods, taking himself off the grid and avoiding other people and never harming anyone, then...what harm does his anti-semitism actually do anyone else? He is simply a person walking around with a belief existing in his head, but that belief existing in his head has driven him clear of people, so no one is otherwise affected by his anti-Semitism. In the absence of his action, what affect does his belief itself have?
Now -- consider that someone is agnostic, but is so fervent about his agnosticism that he derives the idea that no churches should exist ever, because "mankind doesn't know for sure so we shouldn't pretend we do." This train of thought ultimately inspires him to commit a series of arsons against religious institutions, and in one or two cases there are people trapped inside. Is the agnosticism itself at fault in that case, or is it the man's delusion?
Finally: you want to pretend that every single person is affected by an idea in exactly the same way. If everyone were indeed affected by religious dogma in exact lock-step the same way, why do we not hear of EVERYONE stoning witches and shunning their gay children and the like? Why are the majority of those ascribing to a given faith religious moderates? Why are there Christians who reject creationism, if religion is that much of a compelling force such as you claim?
....Let me warn you, too, that the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is a common one amongst the religious zealot, so if you truly detest religious thought you may want to avoid using it when you respond. I'm just watching out for you, there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:00 AM on May 19, 2009
Religion in its pure sense is good. It teaches 10 simple commandments. If someone were to follow these commandments you wouldn't get bullshit like this. So please don't blame religion on all the world's problems. Blame the people that misinterpret it's message or misrepresent it.
In regards to this whole witchcraft thing in Africa, in any society that is having a hard time making it, they tend to want to blame something. Just look at the dark ages, colonial times, etc. All of these situations had a bunch of people trying their hardest in a bad situation. They did not want to accept the fact that their best wasn't good enough, that they faith was lacking so they made a scape goat. They picked the laziest, different outsider they could find and said all of their problems are because of him/her molesting the cows. A "Witch" burning later and everyone's faith in the way things are going is restored until another tough patch hits... then they find a new "witch". As for Africa, I think the majority of the continent has these bad situations where noone wants to say "we are trying our hardest but this place fucking blows ass". So they pick the weakest, laziest person in the community and turn them into their problem causing witch.
Lastly for the Atheists in the room, it is easy to cherry pick a few random occurrences of idiots burning witches in back water miserable countries in the name of religion to denounce religion. However I promise you if we did away with religion for good and lived in these perfect faithless communities come hard times the leaders of the community would instead of saying "Hi all I really fucked up!" they would find the weakest, laziest person and turn them into a scape goat for all of their problems. Because you see religion is not the problem here... human nature is.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 7:08 AM on May 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
In regards to this whole witchcraft thing in Africa, in any society that is having a hard time making it, they tend to want to blame something. Just look at the dark ages, colonial times, etc. All of these situations had a bunch of people trying their hardest in a bad situation. They did not want to accept the fact that their best wasn't good enough, that they faith was lacking so they made a scape goat. They picked the laziest, different outsider they could find and said all of their problems are because of him/her molesting the cows. A "Witch" burning later and everyone's faith in the way things are going is restored until another tough patch hits... then they find a new "witch". As for Africa, I think the majority of the continent has these bad situations where noone wants to say "we are trying our hardest but this place fucking blows ass". So they pick the weakest, laziest person in the community and turn them into their problem causing witch.
Lastly for the Atheists in the room, it is easy to cherry pick a few random occurrences of idiots burning witches in back water miserable countries in the name of religion to denounce religion. However I promise you if we did away with religion for good and lived in these perfect faithless communities come hard times the leaders of the community would instead of saying "Hi all I really fucked up!" they would find the weakest, laziest person and turn them into a scape goat for all of their problems. Because you see religion is not the problem here... human nature is.
posted by Mastercheddaar at 7:08 AM on May 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Backing up a bit:
Certainly many many wars are over resources and the like. But many have also been over nothing but ego and irrational hatreds with literally nothing gained.
And earlier:
These were not strictly "Atheist states" but were extreme cults of personality dictatorships where The Dictator became State and The State became God.
I agree with you that these were not "atheist states". I agree with you that the Dictator became State and the State became God.
Just like with so-called "theistic societies" -- they TOO were oligarchies where the elite became the State and the State became God.
It goes both ways. You can't blame one philosophy for mucking up one group of people, but then absolving a different philosophy when another group of people following it do the same thing. Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, and the House of Borgia were all exactly the same -- they were madmen who used a given philosophy to suit their purposes. The actual philosphy they use didn't actually matter so much as the fact that they misused it.
Which is why I maintain that the way to stop the Pol Pots and the Borgias and the child-witch-killers of the world is NOT to "do away with religious thought" but rather to "do away with batshit insane thought." Because THAT is ultimately the problem. You wouldn't have been able to turn Osama bin Laden into a nice guy if you'd raised him without a religion -- he still would have been an utter shit. The only difference is that he'd have given you a different reason why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:17 PM on May 19, 2009
Certainly many many wars are over resources and the like. But many have also been over nothing but ego and irrational hatreds with literally nothing gained.
And earlier:
These were not strictly "Atheist states" but were extreme cults of personality dictatorships where The Dictator became State and The State became God.
I agree with you that these were not "atheist states". I agree with you that the Dictator became State and the State became God.
Just like with so-called "theistic societies" -- they TOO were oligarchies where the elite became the State and the State became God.
It goes both ways. You can't blame one philosophy for mucking up one group of people, but then absolving a different philosophy when another group of people following it do the same thing. Pol Pot, Osama Bin Laden, and the House of Borgia were all exactly the same -- they were madmen who used a given philosophy to suit their purposes. The actual philosphy they use didn't actually matter so much as the fact that they misused it.
Which is why I maintain that the way to stop the Pol Pots and the Borgias and the child-witch-killers of the world is NOT to "do away with religious thought" but rather to "do away with batshit insane thought." Because THAT is ultimately the problem. You wouldn't have been able to turn Osama bin Laden into a nice guy if you'd raised him without a religion -- he still would have been an utter shit. The only difference is that he'd have given you a different reason why.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:17 PM on May 19, 2009
I agree with the 'ideas are tools' analogy. Until they impact the real world, they are impotent. This is why my tolerance to others peoples differing ideas varies with how much they affect the real world. I don't care about what people believe or how they practice that in their own private lives. Once they start knocking on my door to evangelise I start to become annoyed. When they try to influence the state I become angry. And when they use their beliefs to justify hurting other people who don't agree - I'm really pissed off.
'Religion' itself, at least in mainstream forms such as Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism - are all likely incorrect in their beliefs (at LEAST 3 of those have to be). But at the core they all preach love and respect for other creatures, especially fellow humans. So it's definitely the people who are responsible for evil and immoral acts.
Would the world be better off without any religion? On balance, probably. It's a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Arguing about it won't change the fact though, religion is here to stay.
* * *
Religious belief vs atheism isn't the issue here anyway. The abuse and murder of these 'witch children' is a moral issue, and any personal or collective reaction should be based in ethics. It is OK, in fact necessary, to pass moral judgement on the actions of other individuals or groups.
This is why it is useful to have secular laws, police, courts. It's also why we send aid to people who need it, and why we send peacekeeping forces to impose order in foreign countries. Or should have sent ... (Rwanda? Darfur?)
There's no 'maybe' about it. It is wrong to starve, torment, or kill anybody. Regardless what the perpetrators believe or how strongly they believe it.
posted by joz at 7:47 PM on May 19, 2009
'Religion' itself, at least in mainstream forms such as Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism - are all likely incorrect in their beliefs (at LEAST 3 of those have to be). But at the core they all preach love and respect for other creatures, especially fellow humans. So it's definitely the people who are responsible for evil and immoral acts.
Would the world be better off without any religion? On balance, probably. It's a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Arguing about it won't change the fact though, religion is here to stay.
* * *
Religious belief vs atheism isn't the issue here anyway. The abuse and murder of these 'witch children' is a moral issue, and any personal or collective reaction should be based in ethics. It is OK, in fact necessary, to pass moral judgement on the actions of other individuals or groups.
This is why it is useful to have secular laws, police, courts. It's also why we send aid to people who need it, and why we send peacekeeping forces to impose order in foreign countries. Or should have sent ... (Rwanda? Darfur?)
There's no 'maybe' about it. It is wrong to starve, torment, or kill anybody. Regardless what the perpetrators believe or how strongly they believe it.
posted by joz at 7:47 PM on May 19, 2009
« Older Zoroastrianism... | The (illustrated) doctrine of the strenuous life Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by twoleftfeet at 2:42 AM on May 18, 2009