I was interested to note that the MM became more popular after the printing press was invented. One could assume that this innovation led to the discovery and persecution of more witches and sorcerors.

The infamous Malleus Malleficarun (MM) was, indeed, published after the Gutenberg Press was invented. I remember tracking the shift in how witches were perceived in Europe, and it’s really quite fascinating. They were moved from “some deluded women” of the canon episcopi (~9th-10th century ce), who were, basically, considered under canon law to be mentally “challenged”, to heretics and an active danger to Christianity. Check out Jeffrey Russell’s A History of Witchcraft for a great overview along with Carlo Ginzburg’s The Night Battles.

Wasn’t the MM also a scientific document? My hypothesis is that she’s a witch. If she floats, the hypothesis is proven.

Actually, according to the systems of the time, the MM wasn’t a scientific document. In fact, it was actually published illegally, and was more a collection of folk psychoses than what was considered, at the time, to be the scientific knowledge surrounding magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Getting back to Uganda, I would be interested to unpack the data supporting the supposed increase in child sacrifice. To be sure, one is too much, but given the nature of the crime and the subsequent outrage, one instance can practically feel like an epidemic.

Yeah, I agree the data is crucial. Remember back in the late 1980′s when the Satanic Panic was hitting North America? Some of the “estimates” being bandied around the talk show scene were 50,000 children a year being bred, raised and sacrificed. In Canada, from what I can recall without finding my old notes on it, the “estimates” were around 3-5k per year. At the time I was looking at this, I was unable to uncover more than 10 that might have been cases, and only 1 that definitely was.

Wasn’t the MM also a scientific document? My hypothesis is that she’s a witch. If she floats, the hypothesis is proven.

Hi Backwards Observer. Pretty much, although witchcraft and sorcery are both strong social institutions in the region. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a sorcerer really is just a sorcerer….

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

Hmmmm, this is a touch tricky, but here goes. First off, I use “morality” to refer to the “ethics” of a group’ basically, the pro-survival options / choices that work in and for that group. In this sense, “morality” is relative since it ties to a specific group at a point in space and time. The “morality” of the warm and fuzzy crowd is similar, and reflects the pro-survival options of that group. At this point in time, that tends towards what we generally call Politically Correct, with strong doses of anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism.

I’m not sure if that clarifies it or not – wry grin.

My understanding of the moral judgment applied by “warm and fuzzy” types was that they wanted to insist that morality is relative. In effect, it was “warm and fuzzy” because they would dismiss claims that “barbarism” is “immoral” by pointing out that “morality is relative.”

Am I conflating laymen’s terms with terms of art? The reason that I ask is that my understanding of “warm and fuzzy” seems to mix the two types you described: “[o]ne of the key differences … is that the “warm and fuzzy” version applies a moral judgement … while the original meaning simply says that you cannot analyze anything if it is taken out of context…”

As I thought I understood it, the “warm and fuzzy” approach mixes the two by assuming that (1) the actions of someone who is unaware of a moral code cannot be judged against that code and (2) whether individuals are aware of the moral code is a question of context (which could include “oppression” or any other form of victimizing).

As I debate whether to hit the “submit” button, I am wondering if my question makes any sense.

Hey Marc, do you have kids? Could you sacrifice them? Can’t imagine it? Can you be relative about it? Would you want to?

Yes, I have a daughter. Could I sacrifice her? Yuch, horrid question! But if “Could” is taken as “Can you possibly think of any situation where you would”, then the answer is yes. And yes, I can image it though it turns my stomach. Would I want to? NFW buddy-boy!

“Science”, in the Baconian via negativa sense isn’t comforting; for that you want the Positivist version.

Is it not okay to say that this is “inhuman”, unethical and abhorrent? Or should we try and understand and explain it scientifically?

You know, they aren’t opposed. “Inhuman”? No, it isn’t “inhuman” since it is something that humans do. “Unethical”? Definitely, at least according to my understanding of ethics. “Abhorrent”? Absolutely, to me. None of this precludes understanding and explaining it scientifically. Let me make one observation that you will probably hate: child sacrifice tends to be fairly common in cultures with a fairly high birth rate, massive social stress, and a low valuation of human life. We’ve certainly seen it before historically in those situations.

Interesting also how the “clients” often steal other people’s children, how the anti-human sacrifice and trafficking task force links this crime to rising levels of development and prosperity, and also how this is essentially an organized crime racket. Essentially, organized crime taking advantage of the belief system.

Quite interesting, and the information that most of the children are ‘stolen” really isn’t surprising; I would actually be much more surprised if most of the children involved were the “clients” children. As far as organized crime taking advantage of the belief system, again there is nothing new about this at all. Strip away the term “organized crime” and replace it with “a bunch of people out for their own good taking advantage of the belief system” and that would fit with many institutions. What I would like to know is if these organizers actually practice it themselves with their own children (i.e. are they “True Believers”) or is it merely a scam. The article implies the latter, but there have been cases of the former and it does make a difference in how you stop it.