I think most of the deaths are the people accused of witchcraft, murdered by angry mobs.

From an article in The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver

Evangelical pastors are helping to create a terrible new campaign of violence against young Nigerians. Children and babies branded as evil are being abused, abandoned and even murdered while the preachers make money out of the fear of their parents and their communities

So, his sentence should be changed to “resulting in scores of deaths of innocent children in Africa over the past two decades.”

“False accusations of Witchcraft is a sad reality in many parts of Africa, resulting in scores of deaths in Kenya over the past two decades. “

Fixed that for ya, Bill.

It staggers the imagination that anybody defends that guy, or the concept of witchcraft.  I don’t care what crazy things anybody believes, but using them as an excuse to abuse and terrorize people puts him out of the membership of decent human beings.

But doesn´t condemning false accusations of witchcraft require embracing some non-relativist morality, so that we can say it´s worse for welfare, inconsistent with human dignity, or something like that? Similarly, some non-relativist morality is required to embrace a number of values championed on this site, like equality for gays and women, if stronger reasons than ¨I prefer it,¨ ¨it is better suited to our society now,¨ or ¨supporting/criticizing this cultural practice suits my/our objectives right now¨ are to be offered. I am as comfortable with criticizing Donohue as with apologists for religion or multiculturalists who downplay the gravity of forced marriages, executing kids, and the like in other (usually religious) countries, but in my experience many or most Liberals would not be. The valence issue of whether we like Donohue for perpetuating an often anti-female idea like witchcraft masks deeper divisions: How about guardian angels (see that discussion); can we criticize the subtler results of that cultural belief?

“Witchcraft is a sad reality in many parts of Africa, resulting in scores of deaths in Kenya over the past two decades.”

I read that sentence three times, accidentally substituting “witch-hunting” for “witchcraft” because my brain just literally could not comprehend that Bill Donohue could actually think witchcraft exists. I was like, “He’s saying that people die in witch hunts and it’s sad, why are Pandagon so mad about this?” Then I read it a fourth time. Oh. Right.

I hope to God that he meant to say “belief in witchcraft is a sad reality, and witch-hunting results in scores of deaths.” Please let that be a misspoken sentence. Please.

Huh.  I think turning Bill Donahue into a newt could only improve his appearance in my eyes.

I knew a bunch of kids who went through the “I’m a witch” phase in high school.  Some of them got real, but some of them ran off and found Jesus instead.  It’s almost comic watching someone threaten you with evil spirit hexes when you’re in 9th grade only to have them threaten you with holy spirit damnation when you’re in college.

So, his sentence should be changed to “resulting in scores of deaths of innocent children in Africa over the past two decades.”

What does Donahue care?  It isn’t like they are fetuses.

Not that fetuses don’t die when their mothers are condemned as witches and murdered.

Many of those in Africa that have not been converted by the missionaries or Muslims are animists.  In the Billy-boy school of thought, this means they are pagans that practice witchcraft which we all know means they are bad polytheists* dabbling in dark arts.

*not to be confused with the “good” polytheists in denial known as Catholics

But doesn´t condemning false accusations of witchcraft require embracing some non-relativist morality, so that we can say it´s worse for welfare, inconsistent with human dignity, or something like that?

Uh, Luke, are you under the impression that witchcraft actually works?

Amanda, come one now, I don´t listen to right-wing talk radio, and in my experience the reluctance to embrace moral theories that would mandate that some actions or states of affairs are better than others is neither all that extreme or uncommon in American politics and society. And like it or not, characterizations of transcendentalist morality as ethnocentrist come from the left (though not this blog´s authors) and influence mainstream politics and debate. The right is too busy getting transcendentalist morality wrong. Obviously these are generalizations but ok ones.

Luke, all these issues you mention are not a matter of “I like that, it’s good”.

They are a matter of HUMANS GET RIGHTS REGARDLESS OF GENDER AND ORIENTATION.

What part of the human rights concept do you not get - besides the part where a penis and white skin and heterosexuality DON’T result in you getting extra special treatment and privileges?

Amanda, come one now, I don´t listen to right-wing talk radio, and in my experience the reluctance to embrace moral theories that would mandate that some actions or states of affairs are better than others is neither all that extreme or uncommon in American politics and society.

Again, your “moral theory” is based in the premise that witchcraft is real and it works.  Why are we supposed to take you seriously, again?

Yeah, because my prayer with a lit candle is so much evil than his prayer with candles…um…

I mean, my praying to a Goddess is so much more evil than his praying to the Virgin…wait…

nope; I’m at a loss here.  (He would probably call those things “witchcraft.”)

Sadly, Lauren, he put this statement up because he was unhappy that Sarah Palin was being criticized for her association with Kenyan witch-hunter Thomas Muthee.  You can see it if you click the link.  The Muthee wikipedia page has the deal with him driving a woman out of town for supposedly being a witch.

¨Uh, Luke, are you under the impression that witchcraft actually works?¨

Yuck, no. It seems there are some possible relativist claims here: It actually works given that people believe in it, or it is useful in a particular social setting with a particular structure and set of rule.

Off-topic, but holy shit:

Televangelist Tony Alamo was just arrested for soliciting sex with children.

It seems there are some possible relativist claims here: It actually works given that people believe in it, or it is useful in a particular social setting with a particular structure and set of rule.

Only if you assume that the people be accused of and persecuted for being witches actually are witches and that’s why they’re being persecuted.  There’s a reason why we have the term “witch-hunt,” you know.

Only if you assume that the people be accused of and persecuted for being witches actually are witches and that’s why they’re being persecuted.  There’s a reason why we have the term “witch-hunt,” you know.

They may not be witches, but they probably, as was mentioned before and as I hinted at, engage in religious practices that are considered witchcraft by people like Donohue.  If they practice an animist religion or the like, they probably have rituals, but, even if they didn’t, they still worship the wrong Deity, damn it, and so must be punished.

I see relativism as a deeply conservative doctrine for many of the reasons Luke suggests.  In keeping with my subversive role as a lefty academic, I’ve found some way to bash relativism in each of the three philosophy classes I’ve taught so far. 

Usually it’s with the argument about how relativism makes cross-cultural agreement and disagreement impossible.  If ‘x is wrong’ just means ‘my culture disapproves of x’, then two people from different cultures are talking about totally different things when they use the word ‘wrong’, and they can’t disagree.  It’s like if I said ‘my name is Neil!’ and Mnemosyne said ‘my name is Mnemosyne!’  Clearly that wouldn’t be a disagreement of any sort.  We’re talking about different people.  But we do have cross-cultural moral disagreements!  So relativism must be wrong, because it says people are just talking about their own cultures, making cross-cultural agreement and disagreement impossible. 

I also like the one about how it makes many moral reformers automatically wrong.  If you’re trying to tell your society that their moral values are fundamentally fucked up, relativism says that it’s impossible for you to be right.  If ‘x is wrong’ just means ‘my culture disapproves of x’, saying ‘x is wrong even though my culture approves of x’ comes out as a contradiction.  That’s a bizarre consequence, and it suggests that ‘x is wrong’ can’t just mean ‘my culture disapproves of x.’ 

Now, I will say this—a few of people I’ve met on the left, mostly in parts of the university outside the philosophy department, think their political views should make them relativists.  Here it is the duty of the philosopher to say, ‘No, don’t do that, you’re just going to fuck yourself up!’

Obviously these are generalizations but ok ones.

Wow, Luke, you figured out from a three sentence post that Amanda is a relativist opposed to transcendental moral theory because it’s racist?  You must be <strike>smarter</strike> dumber than most of my undergrads.

By the way, transcendentalist means something entirely different than what you seem to think.  Kant weren’t a transcendentalist, son.  Try Emerson.  For Kant, transcendental describes a method, not a theory; he was a deontologist.  Throw yer fancy words around somewhere else.

They may not be witches, but they probably, as was mentioned before and as I hinted at, engage in religious practices that are considered witchcraft by people like Donohue.  If they practice an animist religion or the like, they probably have rituals, but, even if they didn’t, they still worship the wrong Deity, damn it, and so must be punished.

Well, yeah, but people are not dying because of their practice of an animist religion.  They’re dying because the village or neighborhood needs a scapegoat, and that person is an outcast already.  They’re dying because they’ve been accused of using witchcraft against their neighbors within that animist religion.

This isn’t like when fundies freak out because a pagan moves in next door to them.  This is more like Salem circa 1692.

So according to Donohue, witchcraft works.

Can someone send me some of his toenail clippings so we can be rid of that fool once and for all, please?  I’m sure I could find something in a Dungeon Master’s Guide, a Harry Potter book, or from an episode of Sabrina that could teach me how to kill him then.  If I didn’t hate pets, I’d send my familiar spirit to steal his soul from his mouth while he sleeps.  Unless, of course, he has one of those screens on his keyhole that confound the spirit as it can’t go in and out over nine times nine times since it loses count after eighty-one.  Not to mention the salt on the floor!

The holy! It burrrrrrns!

Well, yeah, but people are not dying because of their practice of an animist religion.  They’re dying because the village or neighborhood needs a scapegoat, and that person is an outcast already.  They’re dying because they’ve been accused of using witchcraft against their neighbors within that animist religion.

That’s partially true - there are a lot of accusations of people using practices against one another.  However, that kind of paranoia is not as common until you start converting people to a new religion that condemns the practices and stokes the fires of terror of the others who do not convert, or who were already outcasts, as you pointed out.

Basically it takes people who are already superstitious and have never had a good education and then tells them “YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG!  THE WITCHES ARE OUT TO GET YOU!”

“Wow, Luke, you figured out from a three sentence post that Amanda is a relativist opposed to transcendental moral theory because it’s racist?”

Huh?!

¨By the way, transcendentalist means something entirely different than what you seem to think.  Kant weren’t a transcendentalist, son.¨

Who said anything about Kant. Or Emerson. In any case, from Webster.com: ¨tran·scen·den·tal adjective 3 in Kantian philosophy b: transcending experience but not human knowledge.¨ I don´t mean anything official by the word other than the applicability of moral rules regardless of social-cultural conditions. Though if you want an official talismanic invocation from what I said, I opt for transcendental institutionalism to reiterate that I am proposing that Liberals ought to judge social practices based on a perfect and universally applicable theory, not one rooted in social conditions. Your unprovoked and, in my view, quite incorrectly placed, condescension is a bit odd though.

Amanda, this attack takes me off guard, since I never thought you were or accused you of being a relativist hypocrite or anything close. Using witchcraft as a jumping off point to identify a problem with coherently criticizing really did not have anything to do with your arguments against it. Where did I characterize you as anything, much less a relativist or hypocrite?

I opt for transcendental institutionalism to reiterate that I am proposing that Liberals ought to judge social practices based on a perfect and universally applicable theory, not one rooted in social conditions.

Well, the hypothetical gods only know what that means,  but it’s off topic.  The point is, this Donahue guy seems to be saying that he believes that witches are using their black arts to kill people.  That’s not a belief about social practices—that’s a belief about physical facts.  And it’s a false belief—there is no such thing as “witchcraft” in the sense he uses it, and you can’t kill people by magic.  No amount of relativism can change those facts.  Donahue is simply showing himself to be a loon.

Now, while you can’t kill people by black magic, you can sometimes kill them by psychology—curse a true believer and have him despair and die—but that does not seem to be what Donahue is saying.  And of course, many people throughout history have been murdered due to popular hysteria about witchcraft—but that does not seem to be what Donahue is saying, either.

Personally, I’m closest in my reasoning to being a consequentialist. At it’s core are some pretty absolutist morals, but that’s tempered both by sympathy for cultural and situational factors, and also by the understanding that my own actions to prevent such actions have their own consequences. But it’s also reinforced by scientific understanding.

To my mind, superstitious and religious belief is untethered from observable reality, but using political power to oppress or suppress those views leads to far worse consequences than official tolerance, and private attempts at education or mockery.

From my own moral standpoint, what the church is doing to women in the name of hunting witches is an extreme abuse of non-state political power, and doesn’t strike me as much different any other action against a religious minority against the majority. Insert Godwin reference here.

None of that changes the fact that Bill Donohue is once again using his position at the head of an organization that CLAIMS to defend Catholics from the majority to berate and call for the oppression of other groups like women, gays, liberals, and “witches”. Reminds me a lot of the Klansmen claiming to be defending the White Race by oppressing everyone else.

This whole thread was started on a lame premise. As much as it pains me to say it, Donohue has made a perfectly valid statement, if we cut him some slack as we should and admit that the “accusations of” witchcraft, or “belief in” witchcraft is implied.

But that’s no reason why we can’t recall that what Donohue is talking about is a practice that is no different from the witchhunts of Europe in the name of Christianity a few hundred years ago. People who are unwanted and vulnerable or hell, just plain outnumbered, will always make excellent scapegoats for irrational charges like “witchcraft” - that way you can kill them and take their stuff.

And as a promoter of irrational beliefs Donohue is in no position to criticize any other group of people who follow irrational beliefs. If Donohue could get away with violent retribution against those who desecrate holy crackers, you know he would be retributing away right now.

Luke, you came in using right-wing code words* that had no connection whatsoever to the original post. What did you expect people to think?

*Not once have I seen anyone use the term “moral relativism” correctly in a political context. To the contrary, people uniformly apply these words to the claim that some crimes are wrong no matter who commits them.

Nancy, how do you figure? The paragraph does not make the slightest bit of sense on your interpretation:

Witchcraft is a sad reality in many parts of Africa, resulting in scores of deaths in Kenya over the past two decades. Bishop Muthee’s blessing, then, was simply a reflection of his cultural understanding of evil. While others are not obliged to accept his interpretation, all can be expected to respect it. More than that—Muthee should be hailed for asking God to shield Palin from harmful forces, however they may be manifested. And for this he is mocked and Palin ridiculed?

Or wait, do you mean Donohue’s being sarcastic here? Do you think he wrote this to mock some relativist strawman? I’m not sure that works. Again, people who associate it with liberals generally don’t seem to know what “moral relativism” means. Though, hmm, I suppose they do have a dim sense that liberals try to understand other cultures.

Does this mean Donohue’s being deliberately dishonest whenever he talks about anti-Catholic prejudice? That would certainly explain the odd claim that “When the religious freedom rights of any American are threatened, the Catholic League stands ready to fight for justice in the courts.” (Really, any American? Did they even help that student who wanted to put a Bible quote in her yearbook, like the ACLU did?)

Border police were yesterday questioning a man they arrested as he tried to smuggle a human head into Uganda from Kenya in a paper bag.

...

East African authorities fear the trade in human body parts for use in witch-doctors’ spells is growing, aping similar practices carried out in western African countries and South Africa. Traditional cultures outlaw the use of human flesh in such potions, but experts say desperate people turn to human body parts when an animal sacrifice is thought to be too weak. (The Telegraph, Oct. 21, 2005)

Maybe that’s what he meant.

Maybe that’s what he meant.

Donohue thought that having Bishop Muthee pray over Sarah Palin would help end the practice of selling human body parts in Africa?

Because Donohue isn’t denouncing that trade.  He’s saying that Palin was perfectly sensible to have Muthee pray over her because witches really exist and she needs protection from them.

I thought the Catholic Church had given up on witches over 100 years ago.  I guess Donohue wants to take us back to the pre-pre-pre-Vatican II days.

Mnemosyne;

Except that isn’t what he said. He said witches really exist and have killed lots of people in Africa, and therefore it’s perfectly normal for an African to think a person might need protection from them.

I don’t think you have any proof that Palin actually asked him to pray for protection from witches, as opposed to his doing it on his own.

Except that isn’t what he said. He said witches really exist and have killed lots of people in Africa, and therefore it’s perfectly normal for an African to think a person might need protection from them.

Only if you’re under the impression that everyone in Africa is from a small, superstitious village.  I can hear Donohue now: “Oh, those silly uncivilized Africans!  How can they believe such things!”

Not much of a defense there.  Either Donohue is saying that Palin’s church really believes in real witches, or he’s claiming that everyone in Africa is ignorant and superstitious so we should naturally expect a bishop from Africa to ask for protection from witches in every prayer.  Nice guy, your pal Donohue.

I don’t think you have any proof that Palin actually asked him to pray for protection from witches, as opposed to his doing it on his own.

You have no proof that she didn’t.  Given what we already know about her church, the speakers they’ve had, and what they believe, the evidence leans towards Palin really thinking she needed protection from witchcraft.

Mnemosyne;

The argument isn’t that Africans are all ignorant and superstitious and therefore it’s understandable they want protection from witches. It’s that there really are some people there who try to practice witchcraft, and that those people really do kill people (not just in poor villages, but sometimes in London), and therefore Africans want protection from witches.

Even if you had demonstrated an ability to follow simple arguments, your personal evaluation would not be enough to shift the burden of proof.

The podcast Dogma Free America does a good job of keeping on top of, inter alia, the persecution of alleged witches, albinos and others in Africa and elsewhere.

Before I go, SIF, do the claims you just mentioned remind you of anything?

SIF, is it your view (or Donahue’s) that Thomas Muthee was praying over Sarah Palin out of concern that a witch doctor might cut off her body parts for use in spells?  Historically, this has not been a problem for governors in the United States.

Random side note: A coworker of mine, who is Wiccan, wondered if that prayer will make the hand of God reach down and prevent her from voting for Obama.

...which was sarcasm on her part, in case the world’s gotten so crazy that wasn’t clear.

The argument isn’t that Africans are all ignorant and superstitious and therefore it’s understandable they want protection from witches. It’s that there really are some people there who try to practice witchcraft, and that those people really do kill people (not just in poor villages, but sometimes in London), and therefore Africans want protection from witches.

You do realize that these two sentences contradict each other, don’t you?

hf;

Those cases began with “recovered memories” of abuse which, had it happened, would have produced scarification or other readily detectable signs, which were absent. The cases I’m citing began when bodies turned up.

Slightly different.

Neil the Ethical Werewolf;

I have idea if Muthee believes that witches can successfully cast spells. I’m just pointing out that the one sentence of Donohue’s piece that was pulled out and held up for ridicule is, in fact, right.

Mnemosyne;

You’re confused, but I’m going to need you to tell me how you’re confused so I can correct you again.

I used to be Catholic - so I get to make fun of the Church all I want

This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church except insofar as lone wingnut Bill Donohue uses it as a club to bash others.

Donohue has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.  He is not endorsed by them.  “The Catholic League” or whatever he calls it is him in his basement with his own crazy.

Now some people might suggest that the Catholic Church fosters such craziness, but that’s another question.  When you mock Bill Donohue, you’re not mocking the Catholic Church—you’re mocking a freelance asshat.

I’m not a former Catholic either, but I’m also free to mock the Catholic Church (and Bill Donohue, and really, any idiot I damn well please) all I want! I mean, why the hell not? Like they deserve my unearned respect for their silly beliefs? Ha!

Anyway, I have never in my life met a person who is actually a cultural/moral relativist. There are people out there who claim it, but no one acts in a manner consistent with that belief. Anyone who thinks about it will understand that very quickly. Liberals in particular, with their tendency to believe that depriving someone of their human rights is wrong, regardless of who is being depriving and who is doing the depriving, definitely don’t fit the definition of “moral relativism.” It’s one of the more absurd lies told about Liberals. We do tend to extend more generosity and tolerance about cultural differences that are harmless or neutral, and we also tend to acknowledge that, while oppression of women, gays etc in some Islamic nations is a serious problem, we don’t exactly have everything all fair and just in our culture, either. The liberal attitude about this, if I may make yet another generalization, would seem to be more “Preacher, heal thyself!” We should be calling out problems wherever they are found - and we’re way less hypocritical if we at least attempt to address our own problems while calling Islamic, or Chinese, or some other culture on their shit.

Conservatives, and conservative wingnuts in particular, seem to wish to pretend that we have everything all figured out, and those other people over there are the bad ones. Who must subsequently be taught right, converted, democratized, or blown up.  I don’t think this should earn them the moral high ground.

I have actually met moral relativists. The ones I know are armchair philosophers who used to be extreme liberals until coming to the conclusion that even Noam Chomsky wasn’t far enough out there for them and are now some kind of weird spiritualists who refuse to believe that anything that happens on Earth matters.

Ok, so I know one guy like this. But I know him real well, because he’s my brother. And he’s actually said that there’s no moral problem with killing people, because it all depends on your point of view. I think he just does this to be an intellectual shock jock, but I wouldn’t call him a leftist so much as a spaceman. I mean, if you are floating in ether 300 miles above planet Earth, you are not actually on the left or the right, are you?

Liberals tend to work on a basic moral grammar that we consider universal, which boils down to: An it harm none, do as thou wilt. Anything you want to do that doesn’t harm anyone is fine. So gay marriage is fine, premarital sex is fine, extramarital sex is fine if the married parties say it’s fine, prostitution is fine if the prostitute genuinely freely chose the profession and isn’t being coerced in any way, and rape is bad because it causes pain and suffering. For more complex situations where the suffering of one party must be balanced against another, we tend to be practical—abortion is okay because the being that suffers in an abortion has no mind, probably can’t feel any pain, and because to be brutally honest making abortion illegal would probably not save that creature but could very well kill its mother, a person with thoughts and feelings.

Conservatives tend to be incapable of sensing this basic moral grammar, and have no internal moral compass. For this reason they either come up with obviously immoral systems where they try to logically explain why they deserve to have your stuff, or they follow some sort of code written down in a book and believe that everyone else should be forced to follow the same code. Things that hurt people are okay if not explicitly forbidden in that code (or explicitly forbidden by the authority figures they rely on to interpret the code), and things that hurt no one that are forbidden by the code are not allowed. So rape is okay if the code allows for it (raping your wife, for instance), but gays loving each other is not.

The problem I see here is that liberals work off a moral system that is genuinely universal to humans, but which can only be sensed by some humans and which can be overridden by the code-based systems, and conservatives work off systems that are all different from each other. So conservatives disagree with other conservatives *and* with liberals, whereas all liberals are going to pretty much agree on what is moral but will disagree with all conservatives. “Moral relativism” comes about when we say “Well, you’re operating on a cultural system, and so are they, and honestly, you’re both equally wrong”, and the conservatives don’t get that what we are *really* saying is “Neither of you are following the reasonable universal human moral standard”. Since they can’t sense the universal standard, they can’t understand why it should be a standard, and think our system’s as arbitrary as theirs. And since their code often requires an imaginary omnipotent being to enforce it, whereas ours is understood by us to be internal and universal, they think that when we say God is unnecessary we are saying morality is unnecessary, and accuse us of trying to destroy morality.

(Another aspect of this is that liberals tend to assume that all humans can sense the universal moral code, so we assume that humans are basically good; conservatives cannot sense this and believe humans must be forced to behave in moral ways, so they assume that humans are basically evil.)

Liberals tend to work on a basic moral grammar that we consider universal, which boils down to: An it harm none, do as thou wilt.

Are you saying that all liberals are Wiccan?  I think there are a few here would take offense to that, and, if that’s the case, then Grammar RWA and I were arguing a whole bunch of nothing on the guardian angels thread.

/good-natured fun-poking

You’re confused, but I’m going to need you to tell me how you’re confused so I can correct you again.

You said that all Africans are so afraid of being murdered by witches that they would automatically put it into any prayer that they say, even one said in Alaska.

If you can’t figure out why that’s offensive, I can’t help you.  You’re just going to have to go through life wondering why people abruptly stop talking to you for no apparent reason.

Mnemosyne;

Of course that’s not what I said. Maybe whenever you disagree with someone you automatically replace everything he says with more extreme or overgeneralized versions, which makes you look reasonable by comparison. But it’s a bad habit because it excludes you from participating in discourse, without your being aware of your self-exclusion.

The “moral relativism” that wingnuts fear doesn’t have as much to do with cultural differences as their fear of a changing moral zeitgeist. They’re peering out their windows at this crazy world where women wear pants, men marry men, and cats give birth to dogs, and they’re wondering where the craziness is going to end or when God’s going to decide he’s had enough. Premarital and gay sex used to be Wrong, and everyone knew it, and now it’s no big deal, everyone’s doing it, and we haven’t all been thrust into hell yet, and it’s confusing the living shit out of them. They’re constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop.