Thinking - I think Thinking is SO importnat ..
Hmmm there is something of a plague of "I didn't think it thru" going about in note these days.
Now I belong to that smallest of minorities who does think damn hard about what I think. What did I think, why did I think it, what else might be thought, what assumptions have I made, what have I NOT thought?
And so on. Lets look at how such a foolish middle class pastime can be SO important today ....
The other day I stumbled across this story:
So I had the temerity to think again. As I thought they were good and worthy thunks from a thinkler like myself I put them in here for the interesamusement of others.
I think this is an interesting case - unpleasantry aside.
I keep my eye open for this sort of thing because I think it is interesting not just in itself but also historically and in terms of process. The article I read mentions causing impotence and causing an ex wife to return to the husband - and are these the same as the April 2006 convictions I wonder!?
Now to begin with, I do not in fact rule out the possibility that this woman engaged in these activities. I likewise think it is somewhat dangerous to say this is "because of the religion of the country she lives in" because there is more to it than that. No one would seriously suggest that there is no witchcraft in Muslim countries or indeed countries with any strong accepted religion for that matter so we should take care that it does not overly affect our investigation.
The strictness of laws and cultural prerogatives aside, I reckon if I say *I* can cause such things to happen then why not someone else. Besides strict laws and high stakes have never historically stamped out the practice of witchcraft and magic to any real extent - indeed on the contrary ... often such social climates have caused them to flourish.
The works mentioned here are also interesting in that they are (strictly speaking) fairly simple and trite things. Yet still they are listed as supernatural occurrences and therefore religious offences. It is an important thing to bear in mind for the modern witch - that from one to the other is a small skip and a jump that is still made and often! This reinforces one consideration to my mind in an interesting way.
If we read back through history in the later days of western persecution we see a catalogue of annoyances of this sort. It would be interesting to hear how it is claimed she achieved them and inded how they will prove it. I wonder if they would be analogous or congruent with the methods we used?
Were they ligations? The returning wife scenario was described as a "spell" but in what sense etc? What proofs are in evidence (an important consideration in this instance as it is legal and from the standpoint of many of the old books of western persecution!) and in what ways will they be proved (there are after all many interesting ways in which witchery has been considered to be proven over the centuries round the world from didvinations, proof and auguries trials of the body etc)
Another pointer that raises through this process for me I also find intriging. If we leave aside the issue of specific religion for the moment and consider the situation as objectively as possible there is still a link in that, much of the later persecutive instances we see the same sort of instances and process.
Even such small things that attack the institutions used by religion to order society by ways considered to be supernatural are offences against the gods of those religions. In this way this is very akin to what is often erroneously called "burning times" examples.
Another way it seems very concurrent which is important to remember for the modern witch in the every day I imagine is the practical issue and result of such instnaces. Many may well do to query whether the unfortunate woman is indeed a witch or engaged in any actual spell work of any kind - it should not be simply taken as "read" by us either way!
Modern thinking with all manner of pointless bickering over what the word means also births any number of people who'd argue whether she was a witch over semantic issues etc
THAT SAID HOWEVER - let us not (as I suggest) underestimate the power of the practical upshot of this. As we have always known and should never lose sight of - should the "experts" say you are a witch ... then a witch you will be!
Another reason we must proceed with care I think is the following:
If nothing else - HOW DO WE KNOW SHE ISN'T GUILTY!? *I* sure as hell don't KNOW that!
Let us begin with the idea, (as I am sure these sort of people are aware!) it is NOT the function of police to try the case or weigh up the proofs or otherwise! The bit making adefinate and conscious point about the religious nature of teh polic in question is likewise simple agenda pushing really.
"The police are religious ... ?"
Well of course they are and no one should expect otherwise surely so mentioning it here is just to underline the implied "woeful treatment at the hands of religious fanatics" that "the poor illiterate and foolish woman" has suffered. Oh fer chrissakes - if you are on someone's side don't demean them - even by implication people!
Also it needs to be queried in that "beatings"; (in this case especially) is a term that needs defining! When one considers that in some parts of the world some of the tests for witchcraft involve physical tests ... yes it does need definition.
Naturally this highlinghts the possible dangers of leaping to conclusions from scant news from a tiney wee news piece I should hope.
In many ways these quotes from the human rights bunch, (should they be accurate) show the pushing of an agenda with little interest in the actual individual.
Not that I think this is bad per se! Hell if it came to it *I'd* be happy to be rescued at the price of condecension and being used as a poster boy for someone else's cause!
Still I think it should be asked, (lest we forget it!) How many times will human interest groups attempt to push the barrow of "tolerance for everyone" while attempting to juggle the over ripe fruit of "except for those who practice bits of their culture that we don't like"? I wonder how often it has to happen before it becomes so obvious that they themselves fall prey to those of their own?
I mean surely I am not the only one that wonders how you can say "everyone has the rights to be the way they are" when what you REALLY mean is "as long as they are like us!" and still look others in the eye!
Again don't get me wrong. I agree that is how the world IS, (irrelevant of whether *I* like it or not!) but surely it would be more effective if they accepted the mantle of "hypocrite" as well? Why discard such a useful weapon? It simply doesn't make sense to me.
Here we have people saying really that this court case should be voided because they say so. I am leaving aside for the now that they say so on religious grounds - that is for another time perhaps!
It proceeds from an obvious standpoint that witchcraft is absurd (opps! What? They weren't our friends after all - quelle surprise!) and frankly that is as naive and asinine a reason for halting a court case as I have ever heard. Perhaps if you don't think so try this on for size:
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in witchcraft"
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in God"
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in Santa Claus"
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in a free lunch at MacDonalds"
I can see a trend in there ..... can you?
Most certainly this is a deplorable situation - indeed anyone being killed can be considered so ... but I argue that fixing it is best done by avoiding knee jerk reactions and instead employing careful consideration of all the issues.
I mean ok let's look at the basic premise! She is a Witch.
If we don't at least consider that this may in fact be on the "up and up" what does it say about our faith in ourselves if nothing else? Why is it so inconeivable that she should be a witch and that, for reasons best known to her she HAS in fact done these things!?
I see this a lot when we consider back from where we are in the allegedly "Western World"!
How many times have we seen people talking about the stories in the Compendium for example and hear them saying: "But of course they weren't witches and you'd be worng to call them that .. oho ho ho should you think so!"
Why? Why are these people so obviously not witches?
Because they were said to have done things you don't do or don't like? Pretty fucking thin ice that argument really isn't it? In fact, while we are about it - it is almost as thin as saying "Because theye were listed as "Malefici" not "witch" or saying "because most of these stories are based on church taboos".
Let me let you in on some secrets ... firstly, when the people said "Witch" the Maleficium are pretty much what they meant ... "Witch" ain't what you called someone to be nice! That use did NOT exist befoer the rise of Wicca - and no the use of the gendered "wicca" as opposed to "wicce" does not count. Look it up.
Secondly, the Church has come up with many stupid stories and that has never stopped anyone form ANY FAITH or BACKGROUND giving them "a whirl" to see if there is "anything in it". Use your heads people!
I say that most often when people say: "But they probably weren't witches" it is more of an index of themselves. They say so in order to show their own moral preccadillos or to confer victim status - to the object or themselves.
Frankly if you don't think she could be a witch then you can't be one either - it is that simple. So why can't she be one ... might this story be not all the more interesting and useful if we attack it from that angle?
This story indeed is full of very interesting points for debate .. just like the world and we learn OH SO MUCH MORE if we suspend our stance and consider carefully before reacting either for or against!
Now I belong to that smallest of minorities who does think damn hard about what I think. What did I think, why did I think it, what else might be thought, what assumptions have I made, what have I NOT thought?
And so on. Lets look at how such a foolish middle class pastime can be SO important today ....
The other day I stumbled across this story:
Illiterate 'witch' to be beheadedThen, hot on the heels of the thought: "How much more interesting would this be if the woman WAS in fact a witch that just got busted!?" I saw the ususal responses shooting back and forth through cyberspace ...
Friday Feb 15 07:58 AEDT AEDT
A Saudi Arabian woman has been condemned to death for witchcraft after allegedly making men impotent.
Human Rights Watch has appealed to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to spare the life of the woman, who faces a public beheading. 's King Abdullah to spare the life of the woman, who faces a public beheading.
The ultra-religious state found Fawza Falih guilty of "performing supernatural occurrences" by turning two men impotent.
Judges were also told she cast a spell which caused a divorced man's ex-wife to return, in what is deemed another offence against Islam.
Falih retracted her confession in court, claiming it was extracted under duress and she did not understand what she was signing because she was illiterate.
However, she was condemned to death in April 2006 for "witchcraft, recourse to jinn (supernatural beings), and slaughter".
"King Abdullah should halt the execution of Fawza Falih and void her conviction for witchcraft," Human Rights Watch said in an open letter.
"The religious police who arrested and interrogated Fawza Falih and the judges who tried her in the northern town of Quraiyat never gave her the opportunity to prove her innocence against absurd charges."
The organisation also claims Falih has been hospitalised following beatings at the hands of the religious police.
Falih's age and nationality are unknown, but the statement did mentioned she had relatives in Jordan. .
Under strict Saudi law, women cannot drive, appear before a judge without a male representative or travel abroad without a male guardian's permission.
In November, Egyptian pharmacist Mustapha Ibrahim, who worked in the northern city of Arar, was beheaded by sword for "sorcery" under , was beheaded by sword for "sorcery" under Saudi Arabia's strict Islamic laws, for allegedly trying to separate a married couple.'s strict Islamic laws, for allegedly trying to separate a married couple.
So I had the temerity to think again. As I thought they were good and worthy thunks from a thinkler like myself I put them in here for the interesamusement of others.
I think this is an interesting case - unpleasantry aside.
I keep my eye open for this sort of thing because I think it is interesting not just in itself but also historically and in terms of process. The article I read mentions causing impotence and causing an ex wife to return to the husband - and are these the same as the April 2006 convictions I wonder!?
Now to begin with, I do not in fact rule out the possibility that this woman engaged in these activities. I likewise think it is somewhat dangerous to say this is "because of the religion of the country she lives in" because there is more to it than that. No one would seriously suggest that there is no witchcraft in Muslim countries or indeed countries with any strong accepted religion for that matter so we should take care that it does not overly affect our investigation.
The strictness of laws and cultural prerogatives aside, I reckon if I say *I* can cause such things to happen then why not someone else. Besides strict laws and high stakes have never historically stamped out the practice of witchcraft and magic to any real extent - indeed on the contrary ... often such social climates have caused them to flourish.
The works mentioned here are also interesting in that they are (strictly speaking) fairly simple and trite things. Yet still they are listed as supernatural occurrences and therefore religious offences. It is an important thing to bear in mind for the modern witch - that from one to the other is a small skip and a jump that is still made and often! This reinforces one consideration to my mind in an interesting way.
If we read back through history in the later days of western persecution we see a catalogue of annoyances of this sort. It would be interesting to hear how it is claimed she achieved them and inded how they will prove it. I wonder if they would be analogous or congruent with the methods we used?
Were they ligations? The returning wife scenario was described as a "spell" but in what sense etc? What proofs are in evidence (an important consideration in this instance as it is legal and from the standpoint of many of the old books of western persecution!) and in what ways will they be proved (there are after all many interesting ways in which witchery has been considered to be proven over the centuries round the world from didvinations, proof and auguries trials of the body etc)
Another pointer that raises through this process for me I also find intriging. If we leave aside the issue of specific religion for the moment and consider the situation as objectively as possible there is still a link in that, much of the later persecutive instances we see the same sort of instances and process.
Even such small things that attack the institutions used by religion to order society by ways considered to be supernatural are offences against the gods of those religions. In this way this is very akin to what is often erroneously called "burning times" examples.
Another way it seems very concurrent which is important to remember for the modern witch in the every day I imagine is the practical issue and result of such instnaces. Many may well do to query whether the unfortunate woman is indeed a witch or engaged in any actual spell work of any kind - it should not be simply taken as "read" by us either way!
Modern thinking with all manner of pointless bickering over what the word means also births any number of people who'd argue whether she was a witch over semantic issues etc
THAT SAID HOWEVER - let us not (as I suggest) underestimate the power of the practical upshot of this. As we have always known and should never lose sight of - should the "experts" say you are a witch ... then a witch you will be!
Another reason we must proceed with care I think is the following:
"King Abdullah should halt the execution of Fawza Falih and void her convictionDon't get me wrong - in her stead I would wish for the same but how loose and sloppy is the letter and assertion here? In every way as much as they claim the original claim is.
for witchcraft," Human Rights Watch said in an open letter.
"The religious police who arrested and interrogated Fawza Falih and the judges who
tried her in the northern town of Quraiyat never gave her the opportunity to
prove her innocence against absurd charges."
The organisation also claims Falih has been hospitalised following beatings at the hands of the religious police.
If nothing else - HOW DO WE KNOW SHE ISN'T GUILTY!? *I* sure as hell don't KNOW that!
Let us begin with the idea, (as I am sure these sort of people are aware!) it is NOT the function of police to try the case or weigh up the proofs or otherwise! The bit making adefinate and conscious point about the religious nature of teh polic in question is likewise simple agenda pushing really.
"The police are religious ... ?"
Well of course they are and no one should expect otherwise surely so mentioning it here is just to underline the implied "woeful treatment at the hands of religious fanatics" that "the poor illiterate and foolish woman" has suffered. Oh fer chrissakes - if you are on someone's side don't demean them - even by implication people!
Also it needs to be queried in that "beatings"; (in this case especially) is a term that needs defining! When one considers that in some parts of the world some of the tests for witchcraft involve physical tests ... yes it does need definition.
Naturally this highlinghts the possible dangers of leaping to conclusions from scant news from a tiney wee news piece I should hope.
In many ways these quotes from the human rights bunch, (should they be accurate) show the pushing of an agenda with little interest in the actual individual.
Not that I think this is bad per se! Hell if it came to it *I'd* be happy to be rescued at the price of condecension and being used as a poster boy for someone else's cause!
Still I think it should be asked, (lest we forget it!) How many times will human interest groups attempt to push the barrow of "tolerance for everyone" while attempting to juggle the over ripe fruit of "except for those who practice bits of their culture that we don't like"? I wonder how often it has to happen before it becomes so obvious that they themselves fall prey to those of their own?
I mean surely I am not the only one that wonders how you can say "everyone has the rights to be the way they are" when what you REALLY mean is "as long as they are like us!" and still look others in the eye!
Again don't get me wrong. I agree that is how the world IS, (irrelevant of whether *I* like it or not!) but surely it would be more effective if they accepted the mantle of "hypocrite" as well? Why discard such a useful weapon? It simply doesn't make sense to me.
Here we have people saying really that this court case should be voided because they say so. I am leaving aside for the now that they say so on religious grounds - that is for another time perhaps!
It proceeds from an obvious standpoint that witchcraft is absurd (opps! What? They weren't our friends after all - quelle surprise!) and frankly that is as naive and asinine a reason for halting a court case as I have ever heard. Perhaps if you don't think so try this on for size:
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in witchcraft"
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in God"
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in Santa Claus"
"The court case should be halted because it is absurd to believe in a free lunch at MacDonalds"
I can see a trend in there ..... can you?
Most certainly this is a deplorable situation - indeed anyone being killed can be considered so ... but I argue that fixing it is best done by avoiding knee jerk reactions and instead employing careful consideration of all the issues.
I mean ok let's look at the basic premise! She is a Witch.
If we don't at least consider that this may in fact be on the "up and up" what does it say about our faith in ourselves if nothing else? Why is it so inconeivable that she should be a witch and that, for reasons best known to her she HAS in fact done these things!?
I see this a lot when we consider back from where we are in the allegedly "Western World"!
How many times have we seen people talking about the stories in the Compendium for example and hear them saying: "But of course they weren't witches and you'd be worng to call them that .. oho ho ho should you think so!"
Why? Why are these people so obviously not witches?
Because they were said to have done things you don't do or don't like? Pretty fucking thin ice that argument really isn't it? In fact, while we are about it - it is almost as thin as saying "Because theye were listed as "Malefici" not "witch" or saying "because most of these stories are based on church taboos".
Let me let you in on some secrets ... firstly, when the people said "Witch" the Maleficium are pretty much what they meant ... "Witch" ain't what you called someone to be nice! That use did NOT exist befoer the rise of Wicca - and no the use of the gendered "wicca" as opposed to "wicce" does not count. Look it up.
Secondly, the Church has come up with many stupid stories and that has never stopped anyone form ANY FAITH or BACKGROUND giving them "a whirl" to see if there is "anything in it". Use your heads people!
I say that most often when people say: "But they probably weren't witches" it is more of an index of themselves. They say so in order to show their own moral preccadillos or to confer victim status - to the object or themselves.
Frankly if you don't think she could be a witch then you can't be one either - it is that simple. So why can't she be one ... might this story be not all the more interesting and useful if we attack it from that angle?
This story indeed is full of very interesting points for debate .. just like the world and we learn OH SO MUCH MORE if we suspend our stance and consider carefully before reacting either for or against!
posted by BissekArt at 12:14 pm
0 comments
