What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Bring back the British empire (okay, not really)

This appalling story is so bad that it leaves one, as a blogger, in the all-too-familiar position of feeling that one ought to blog it but not knowing what to say. It seems that the only excuse for burdening other people with the knowledge that child sacrifice for purposes of bringing prosperity has made a comeback and is now a huge problem in an African country, now, in this very day and age, and that the police aren't doing anything about it is that one has something at least mildly interesting to say about it. I'm not sure that I do, plus I'm working on a technical paper. But one wants a break occasionally from a technical paper, and what better break could there be (blogger sarcasm) than writing a blog post about child sacrifice in Uganda.

The linked story speaks for itself, but if you don't want to read it, here are some brief facts. In Uganda, witchdoctors and their henchmen kidnap children, chop them up, and bury their bodies in places dictated by clients who purchase the service in hopes that the sacrifice of a child will bring prosperity to their businesses. The problem has gotten so bad that the police have been pressured and have started an Anti-Human Sacrifice Police Task Force (not sure why it isn't "human sacrifice," but it's allegedly to address the problem of child sacrifice), but the task force's own numbers of child sacrifices taking place are suspiciously low, and all in all it looks like window dressing over a situation of corruption and indifference to the kidnap and ritual murder of children. In one case, a child actually survived and has identified one of his would-be murderers, a local witch doctor named Awali, but the police claim his eyewitness testimony isn't good enough and won't arrest Awali. An undercover news organization sent a group to pose as potential customers. Awali bragged of his child sacrifice service to them. They reported it to the police, but he remains free. People have called on the government to "regulate witch doctors" in the country, whatever that might mean, apparently without effect.

The first thing that struck me about this story was the nightmarish concurrence of ancient darkness with modern jargon. A child sacrifice police task force??! Worse, an ineffective child sacrifice police task force? Everything old is new again, and when it's new, it gets the bizarre patina of the bureaucratic state, which makes it look like a satiric situation in a dystopian future novel. Regulating witch doctors? Does this mean we want child sacrifice to be safe, legal, and rare? Okay, I admit, it probably means they want the witch doctors confined to sacrificing only goats, but you have to admit that the very notion of regulating witch doctors who are presently engaging in child sacrifice (as opposed to executing them all, for example), makes one feel that one has entered a crazy and unreal world. (To be clear, the news story reports that a pastor very concerned about this horror is calling for the police to regulate witch doctors. That may be the BBC's own phrase. If it's accurate, though, this seems to mean that "regulation" of some sort is the best the pastor can hope for from the authorities.)

The second thought that came to me was the title of this post. No, I don't mean it seriously. Nor do I think that there is any other country, especially not Britain, who at this time would rule Uganda in such a way as to put a stop to this or even very seriously curtail it. If we decided to add Uganda to our empire (and who would want it?), our soldiers would probably have to undergo sensitivity training, led by Awali and his cronies, on how to accommodate indigenous religious practices. But if it were possible to bring back the old British empire and hang Awali, should anyone be crying? Slightly more seriously: Granting that the point is practically moot, and granting all the problems for the country holding the empire of holding an empire, could there never be a real-world situation in which it would be better for all concerned if a very dark country were ruled from outside in such a fashion that the dark impulses and practices of its native culture were suppressed?

The third thought is this: We should maybe be looking askance at immigration from Uganda. And "native religious leaders" (by which I mean leaders of native, non-Christian religions) should absolutely be prohibited from immigrating to the U.S. Yes, this is discrimination in immigration. Bully for discrimination in immigration. Do we really want a Child Sacrifice Police Task Force in Omaha, Nebraska? Worse, do we really want an ineffective Child Sacrifice Police Task Force in Omaha, Nebraska?

Comments (41)

Granting that the point is practically moot, and granting all the problems for the country holding the empire of holding an empire, could there never be a real-world situation in which it would be better for all concerned if a very dark country were ruled from outside in such a fashion that the dark impulses and practices of its native culture were suppressed?

One of the advantages of just war theory properly stated is that it does NOT preclude wars in which the just country choosing to fight is not actually on the defensive from attacks by an unjust aggressor country. There are possible situations where it is just to go in and wipe out the government of a neighbor. Rwanda was a case in point. This (Uganda) is shaping up toward a similar goal, although the problem would have to get a lot worse to match Rwanda. It is my impression that one of the reasons we Christians think God told the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites was precisely on account of their culture-wide child sacrifice.

But I don't want to drag this discussion off into just war theory. Instead of going to war, are there measures other countries can take that might have some real impact? What about withdrawing recognition to the Uganda government? Short of that, what about taking away aid until they accept US "advisors" in their police task forces and their justice system? Even Obama probably feels squeamish about giving support to child sacrificers. (Such measures wouldn't even offend the religion du jour, Islam.)

Cue Michael Bauman to come here and say how wicked we are for advocating violence against Uganda for their differing beliefs.

Sad to think that there are people horrified by this who don't blink at the child sacrifice that goes on daily within our own borders under the protective label of "free choice."

Though by that I don't mean to complain about Euro-centrism. Euro-centrism rocks, and this is obviously a vicious example of how third-world cultures can be uniquely terrible. But still, just sayin'...

The Elephant

The British imperial angle reminds me of a scene from one of Kipling's Mowgli stories, where Mowgli's (human) parents were to be burned as witches.

Buldeo said that nothing would be done till he returned, because the village wished him to kill the Jungle Boy first. After that they would dispose of Messua and her husband, and divide their lands and buffaloes among the village. Messua's husband had some remarkably fine buffaloes, too. It was an excellent thing to destroy wizards, Buldeo thought; and people who entertained Wolf-children out of the Jungle were the worst kind of witches.

But, said the charcoal burners, what would happen if the English heard of it? The English, they had heard, were a perfectly mad people, who would not let honest farmers kill witches in peace.

In the end, Mowgli helps his parents escape to the safety of a British-controlled village.

Mark Steyn observes in his latest column that "London administered the vast sprawling fractious tribal dump of Sudan with about 200 British civil servants for what, with hindsight, was the least worst two-thirds of a century in that country’s existence."

The more one learns of sub-Saharan Africa, past and present, the less one blames the colonialists.

Tony, excellent suggestions. And much better than war.

Masked Elephant, I _can_ make one connection between the two types of child killing: relativism. I imagine you'd find plenty of undergraduates willing to defend both (abortion and African child sacrifice) on grounds of relativism. In the African case, it would take the form of cultural relativism: "It might not be wrong in their culture." (Tell that to the children's relatives, of course.)

Steve, indeed. Here is a post of mine from 2007 on Ian Douglas Smith of Rhodesia:

http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2007/11/one-of-good-guys.html

"...but you have to admit that the very notion of regulating witch doctors who are presently engaging in child sacrifice (as opposed to executing them all, for example), makes one feel that one has entered a crazy and unreal world."

"We should maybe be looking askance at immigration from Uganda. And "native religious leaders" (by which I mean leaders of native, non-Christian religions) should absolutely be prohibited from immigrating to the U.S."

"...could there never be a real-world situation in which it would be better for all concerned if a very dark country were ruled from outside in such a fashion that the dark impulses and practices of its native culture were suppressed?"

I doubt the British really suppressed this practice effectively as opposed to driving it underground. A focus on child sacrifice in Uganda on your part is perhaps too narrow. After all Uganda Christians (some of whom are closely tied to some socially conservative Americans) are behind recent efforts to pass laws making gay folk eligible for execution. (I note in passing your silence on that atrocity in the making.)

Anyway, other nations would do well to use whatever leverage they have to pressure Uganda on this and other matters. I'll also note that the president (ours) has just sent some "advisers" to Uganda to help deal with a particularly obnoxious problem.

We can't legally limit immigration based on religion but we would do well to closely examine both Christians and non-Christians for traditionalist and socially conservative values that are incompatible with our liberal democratic values.

We should have a little humility here in view of our own nations failure to properly use the police powers of the state to eliminate the dark impulses and practices of certain of some of our own benighted cultures.

Steve and Lydia,

Speaking of Uganda and empire, we are just now sending troops there to help the Ugandan government deal with the inappropriately titled Lord's Resistance Army:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/10/14/us/politics/politics-us-uganda-usa.html?_r=1&hp

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I do know that back in the day, the British knew how to properly run an empire. What happened?

"I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I do know that back in the day, the British knew how to properly run an empire."

That the British (in general) knew how to run an empire better (in general) than the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Belgian Crown is a more correct statement. They also failed because empires don't work and undermine the mother country.

I doubt the British really suppressed this practice effectively as opposed to driving it underground.

My gosh. It almost sounds like Al _does_ want child sacrifice to be safe, legal, and rare. Heck, this is _exactly_ the argument given by liberals against laws against various practices (abortion and prostitution come to mind) which they actually want legalized on the grounds that allegedly this will make these practices more humane (for somebody), cleaner, and "better" in various ways.

By all means, let's not drive child sacrifice underground. Let's keep it in the open where we can watch it. And if it _seems_ that the numbers are going down, let's cynically and without good evidence assume that it's still going on at the same rate but has merely been "driven underground."

We can't legally limit immigration based on religion but we would do well to closely examine both Christians and non-Christians for traditionalist and socially conservative values that are incompatible with our liberal democratic values.

First, actually, since immigration is not a right possessed by people who aren't even here, we probably _can_ legally limit immigration based on religion. Second, way to obscure differences, Al. Chopping up children into their component parts and burying their bodies on construction sites as a sacrifice to bring prosperity is just another example of ideas "incompatible with our liberal democratic values." By all means, let's examine _all_ of those, as they are all equal, of course.

After all Uganda Christians (some of whom are closely tied to some socially conservative Americans) are behind recent efforts to pass laws making gay folk eligible for execution. (I note in passing your silence on that atrocity in the making.)

Well, I found a BBC blogger who alerted us in 2009 to the impending law - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/12/ugandas_antigay_hate_law.html - which he describes as a "mandate for gay genocide." So then I looked at the proposed law to which he refers us - http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf - and, unless I read too quickly, couldn't find anything in it about executing homosexuals. The most severe punishment was life in prison for particular, but not all, offenses. It appears that the death penalty must have been in the originally proposed version, but later dropped after people like Rick Warren, Scott Lively and Don Schmierer protested. They still think it's too harsh (and by Western standards it is), but here's what the various churches supporting the (original) bill said in a letter to Rick Warren, in which they demanded an apology, (and found here: http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/12/19/uganda-national-pastors-task-force-against-homosexuality-demand-apology-from-rick-warren/) regarding execution:

What’s the death penalty all about?

Some people have asked about the rationale of a death penalty mentioned in the Bill. There has been a lot of misinformation about this matter with headlines such as: “Gays face death penalty in Uganda”. These headlines are deliberately misleading. This penalty applies only in special cases termed “aggravated homosexuality”, which include, those convicted of unlawful homosexual rape of a child or handicapped invalid; This is a conviction of paedophilles! As highlighted in the problem of “virgin rape cures HIV/AIDS” the offender can be a person living with HIV; a parent or guardian of the victim where there is abuse of authority! Finally is the use of drugs to stupefy the child so that they can rape them!. Clearly, the intent of this penalty is to protect weaker members of society from being victimized. Please note that for over 15 years Uganda has had the same penalty for persons who have carnal knowledge of minors heterosexually, mainly to protect against sexual abuse of girls by men. This time, this provision intends to provide equal protection of boys, among others.

Perhaps the death penalty for child rape sounds harsh to our ears (though not to mine), but to accuse Lydia of "too narrow" a focus is only to say that she should have dealt with two atrocities rather than one. But why should she do that since there was only one to begin with?

Thanks much, Bill, for the exceedingly helpful research.

In any event, I can't quite get over "values that are incompatible with our liberal democratic values." Simultaneously downplaying the horrific evil of child sacrifice and imputing evil to anything that a liberal would say is "incompatible with liberal democratic values." Know some curmudgeonly bloggers highly sympathetic to monarchy? Why, that's sort of like child sacrifice, isn't it? Maybe we should deport Mencius Moldbug. I've known some people who won't let their daughters wear pants. Well, there you have it. And over on VFR they've argued against the female vote. Obviously, child sacrifice has plenty of company in the roster of "values that are incompatible with our liberal democratic values."

Good old tu quoque from good old Al. Since some Christians are not sufficiently effusive in their joyful worship of buggery as the highest form of wuv twoo wuv, you Christians have no business criticizing the ancient & multicultural practice of child sacrifice. Which I, as an enlightened and broadminded person, cannot bring myself to condemn in louder voice than an inaudible tut-tut. Or maybe just a single, silent tut.

Which I, as an enlightened and broadminded person, cannot bring myself to condemn in louder voice than an inaudible tut-tut. Or maybe just a single, silent tut.

My impression as well, David.

"Thanks much, Bill, for the exceedingly helpful research."

Actually William's description falls somewhat short. Here is the proposed law before the changes. I'll see if I can find the new one. You all can check it out but the whole minor thing is a sham. Under this draft an 18.01 year old could be executed for sex with a 17.99 year old. Anyway, the proposal is a civil rights disaster, read it for yourselves and decide if this is a good idea.

http://nationalpress.typepad.com/files/bill-no-18-anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

The law a was changed because of those who cared enough to stir up a fuss a couple of years ago when present company was blogging about neither child sacrifice or homophobia run a muck.

Meanwhile, if you want to see a few witch doctors who sacrifice children strung up - no problem here as long as due process is followed - and I can tie a mean hangman's knot.

Has anyone else ever noticed that whatever we're talking about, Al thinks we should be talking about something else? Al, do you have your own blog? If not, maybe you should. It might help you not to feel like you constantly have to be telling us that we should be talking about what you would prefer to be talking about.

Al, Lydia's right: if child sacrifice is wrong, then proclaiming that it is wrong isn't somehow defective because you are not also talking about homosexuality. Get a grip.

We can't legally limit immigration based on religion but we would do well to closely examine both Christians and non-Christians for traditionalist and socially conservative values that are incompatible with our liberal democratic values.

I assume by "legally" you mean that it is unconstitutional. (Whether the current laws allow it, they can be changed to allow it if the Constitution doesn't forbid it.) It is not easy to prove that such would be unconstitutional, since manifestly non-resident aliens do not have American civil rights.

Okay, I see a problem with the bill already in section 1.1, where it says that same sex attraction is "not an innate or immutable characteristic".

Well sure, probably not ALWAYS. As COURAGE has proven, there is the case here or there of a homosexual man "turning" heterosexual. But that statement seems to me to be MOSTLY false.

I highly doubt that most gay men consider their sexuality to be something that can be changed if they just wanted to.

And I'm inclined to believe them, especially since not even all the people (I haven't checked the statistics, but I'm willing to bet that not even MOST people)in organizations like COURAGE, which is aimed at ending same-sex attractions, end up ending their attractions to people of the same sex.

It seems to me to be just flat out wrong to claim otherwise.

Also, I think al makes a valid point about the rape issue; according to the bill, if an eighteen year old engages in homosexual acts with a 17 year old who's birthday is in a week he can be executed if convicted.

That said, that's pretty much my only issue with the bill along with the previously mentioned quote from section 1.1. Amend that section (no idea how, I'm no lawyer or philosopher) and I think it's fine, actually.

Plus, I really don't want Al's attempted threadjack to a point-by-point discussion of a law that wasn't passed anyway and that would not have been as bad as *child sacrifice* (!!) anyway should be encouraged.

To put it a bit differently, we are not discussing whether or not some proposed law is imprudent, overly draconian, or a "civil rights disaster." We are discussing kidnaping children, decapitating and castrating them, and burying their bodies on construction sites to bring prosperity. I'm sorry, but the comparison is simply ludicrous, and I won't be a party to it.

Hello Lydia --

This post and the ensuing comments have been fascinating (as usual - that's why I keep coming back here!), but I'm moved to ask a question:

If I were to say "Bring back the British Empire! (Yes, really!)," how would you respond? I understand that there is a distinct and coherent American aversion to the idea of Empire along the old British model, but the place of the Empire within the body of Conservative thought more generally is not exactly cut-and-dried and I would be very interested to read your critiques or even mere impressions of the notion.

I ask this - in the spirit of full disclosure - as a Commonwealth citizen and staunch Imperial Anglophile (Anglo Imperiophile?), though a sympathetic and contented reader for all that.

If I were to say "Bring back the British Empire! (Yes, really!)," how would you respond?

I think Lydia pretty much answered this question toward the end of her post. I agree with her in sentiment and would probably go even further.

If you mean "bring back the British Empire" with contemporary Britain in mind, I'm quite sure it would not improve anything for anybody. Indeed it would be a disaster all the way around. But if you mean bring back the old stalwart British Empire, with its unvarnished Anglo-Christian cultural imperialism, I'll raise a glass to that!

As an aside, if we're resurrecting old empires, the Spanish and Portuguese empires should return first, because what they left behind has proven to be more enduring and there is less catching up to do.

Look, every nation in the developing world that had the privilege was better off as a colony of Christian Europe. There is no reason why this arrangement could not, and should not, have continued in perpetuity. The kinks would have been worked out over time. Especially in the Catholic world, the native cultures were not obliterated but transformed. It's no accident that Europe's loss of faith coincided with de-colonialization. To a large degree anti-colonialism was born in Europe and exported to the colonies.

I truly don't understand why the owners of this website don't ban a troll like "al". He brings nothing to the discussion unlike a couple of other liberal commenters. He's an annoying leftist believer, not a "I'm a liberal but would like to dialogue with you" type.

It seems to me to be just flat out wrong to claim otherwise.

According to liberalism gender is a social construct but sexual orientation is unchangeable. Go figure.

We are discussing kidnaping children, decapitating and castrating them, and burying their bodies on construction sites to bring prosperity.

To go through the particulars: This partakes of kidnapping, torture, murder, and idolatry. That is, it involves 4 of the WORST POSSIBLE crime and sin categories.

As an aside, if we're resurrecting old empires, the Spanish and Portuguese empires should return first, because what they left behind has proven to be more enduring and there is less catching up to do.

Jeff, I am afraid that there is considerable doubt that this is valid. Look at Mexico, which suffered from severe anti-Catholic persecution in the government in the past and then moved into a long period of barely legal toleration. And then countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua that had revolutions every 10 years with tin-pot dictators ("banana republics", indeed).

Especially in the Catholic world, the native cultures were not obliterated but transformed.

You mean like Pizarro and his band of ruffians, who murdered the king and virtually enslaved the Incas? There is considerable variety in how the Spanish and Portuguese treated the natives, and there was certainly some suppression of local culture, enough to give a person pause before making your claim.

As the main post shows, I'm all in favor of obliterating some aspects of native culture, and my Protestant hang-ups :-) give me plenty of worries about syncretism. But even if everything is done with overwhelming wisdom--keeping only the good and getting rid of the bad, enslaving no one but stopping evildoers--in general I tend to think empires are unsustainable in the long run (maybe the very long run) and bad for the countries that run them. And this is when the countries that run them start out pretty good, like the British Empire. Eventually, Britain not only lost its old Christian culture but, quite simply, was running out of money. After WWII they couldn't hold down that vast empire. It was impossible, sad though the consequences were (including for the natives) of disassembling it. What was more inexcusable was their _demand_ that local democracy or some such thing be put into place behind them even when local colonists would have taken over and kept things on an even keel better. If you have to leave, leave, but let the people who have been here for generations carry on as best they can behind you in that case. Don't try to micromanage the transition to some kind of "new vision," which ended up being communism or rule by some wicked native "strong man" often as not, and everyone was worse off.

How many politically incorrect things have I managed to say in a few words right there? Lost count.

I suppose the colonial adminstrators of Lord Salisbury's days wouldn't have hestitated to get a grip on such a situation (as described by Lydia) in Uganda. Post-imperial guilt has long since washed way the robust moral and political certainties of the 19th century. The effete governing class in Britain today couldn't rule an empire: it's hardly in control in these islands.

It's not, as Conrad makes out, the corruption of white people by 'unspeakable' native practices that creates the horror, the horror...... What's blameworthy is the moral cowardice of civilized men and women who fail to confront and to extirpate the horror of barbarism.

This talk about child sacrifice reminds me of a couple of good things the Brits did in India.
The first good thing they did was to outlaw suttee, the horrid practise of burning a Hindu widow alive on her hsband's funeral pyre. When some Hindus complained to one British governer that this was an established custom, he replied that hanging murderers was an established custom of the British!
The second good thing they did was to surpress the evil Thug cult that terrorized India for hundreds of years. The Thugs were worshippers of the goddess Kali, and their worship involved ritual murder. A brave policeman by the name of Sleeman took on the Thugs and wiped them off the face of the earth. His incrediable story is recounted in "Thug, Or A Million Murders". Oh, btw, many Hindus were grateful as all get out that Sleeman supressed the Thugs. His memory was revered for generations by them.

Lydia

I noticed this report on the Beeb, and I thought about e-mailing you at the time. It was followed by another report:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15280776

and then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15284417

My initial response -if these reports are accurate, I'm for a military crusade. Even Ancient Rome would have wiped this out. If there was ever a case for capital punishment...
And I would bar immigration for any Ugandan who had so much as a strange tatoo (unless that Ugandan was a child who we even thought might be at risk); in fact every civilised country should until the business was completely snuffed out by the Ugandans. And there is no doubt - ritual abuse has been imported into the UK:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6324415.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6297279.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6169845.stm


However I would like to do a little more digging.There have also been some very different horror stories connected to satanic abuse in the British Isles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5272092.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/4/newsid_2521000/2521067.stm

The South African Government has a police task force to deal with occult crime. When they last spoke in London, they stated that they found these allegations of satanic abuse credible. The Metropolitan Police force was underwhelmed by their approach.

The "witch doctor" was posed quite well, just in the shadows, for someone who was being secretly filmed. The camera angle was impressive. It reminded me of "noir". Now the children in the BBC report received wounds from someone. Something horrible has happened, or is happening. It might be ritual abuse and murder; it might be child labour and murder.

I just hope the Beeb's journalists aren't putting sensationalism ahead of veracity.

Graham

"I'm all in favor of obliterating some aspects of native culture"

Yip, I think that's necessary. That said, I think that a lot of ritual murder/abuse has nothing at all to do with "traditional" folklore. It seems to be tied into the total collapse of traditional society, and the ensuing moral anarchy, that followed after the rapid modernisation of Africa in the post colonial age. "Traditional" magic was invented for every desire, including bloodlust.

Now someone should check to see if that is the case. Because we're on the verge of a moral collapse in the West. And we've more than our fair share of bloodlust.

Graham

I just hope the Beeb's journalists aren't putting sensationalism ahead of veracity.

Graham, this isn't a matter of questioning children over and over again to get them to tell a predetermined tale. The adults whose children have disappeared tell the same thing. The BBC would have had to make up *wholesale* the claims about what Awali told them. And it would mean that they made up, also, the songs being sung by the children against child sacrifice. And are they making up the existence of the police task force? That seems unlikely. Yet the task force was formed in response to some phenomenon. It seems, in other words, like everybody in Uganda--adults as well as children--admits that this sort of thing is going on, that it is believed to bring prosperity, that child sacrifice is a real part of native culture (whether one wishes to call it "traditional" or not--I don't think the "white man" taught them to believe that sacrificing children and burying their bodies on your construction site would bring prosperity).

That doesn't sound at all like the Orkney situation in which children are pressured to give evidence of abuse that may or may not have occurred.


it might be child labour and murder.

I don't quite see how that fits with the nature of the injuries involved, nor with all the other facts alleged supporting an actual child sacrifice phenomenon going on, which _would_ predict the actual injuries.

The suttee story is very incompletely known to Westerners. The suttee was not common among Hindus and in 18C it was practiced only among Bengali kuleen Brahmins and Rajputs of the West. That is, only two castes out of thousands of castes all told.

There exist temples to individual suttees even now, showing that it was never a mass phenomenon.

However, child sacrifice by Tantriks is common among Hindus even now.

Actually William's description falls somewhat short.

No it doesn't. That first draft of the bill still says what I said it says - the death penalty is only for aggravated homosexuality as laid out in the quote I gave.

The law a was changed because of those who cared enough to stir up a fuss a couple of years ago

Yuh, again, what I already said, and those people who kicked up the fuss were the very sorts of people you accused of wanting to commit an atrocity: Christians. It's just a big subject changer and - though I hate to resort to ad hominem - you're a bore.

That is, only two castes out of thousands of castes all told.

Oh, well, then, that's okay. Who needed the Brits? It was only widows from a couple of castes being burned alive anyway.

Lydia
I was referring to the work of the Lord's Resistance Army and similar groups when I referred to "child labour". It's the understatement of the century...we are talking about the abduction, torture and murder of tens of thousands of children.

I have pointed to the work of one other similar police unit which, to my knowledge, is treated with a degree of scepticism. And I don't doubt that one local ministry fears child sacrifice.

All that said, I've also pointed to evidence that ritualistic murders do occur, and that one might have taken place in the UK. And, obviously, lots of ancient cultures promoted human sacrifice. I just wondered if this type of murder might be a sign of what happens when traditional societies collapse, rather than a reversion to primitive pagan practices.

Maybe it amounts the same thing.

Graham

Maybe it amounts the same thing.

No, I don't think so. I don't think that Aztec human sacrifice practices were an example of a "traditional society" collapsing. Except that the tribes they conquered and sacrificed - yes, those collapsed I suppose.

We should have a little humility here in view of our own nations failure to properly use the police powers of the state to eliminate the dark impulses and practices of certain of some of our own benighted cultures

Wow. I didn't realize al was anti-abortion.

Just to clarify:
1) Ritual murders have certainly occurred on the African continent. The murders of albinos in Tanzania and Burundi are notorious, and well established. There have been several well established cases in Uganda to my knowledge (that is, where the motive was beyond doubt, and where we can be sure that a child's body was not mutilated postmortem). However, the BBC needs to establish that child sacrifice can keep a person in business in Kampala. They might have the necessary evidence. (Nothing should surprise a Christian when it comes to the darkness of the human heart). But they owe the public full disclosure of all the evidence.
2) It is not surprising to find communities who are afraid of witch-doctors. This does not constitute evidence of very much at all.
3) Quite often cases of ritual murder are followed by the mass cleansing of witches from an area. (One reason to have a police unit dedicated to occultic crimes is to prevent mob justice. The state is making it clear that it is their job to investigate all crime.)
4) A bizarre fusion of Christian Pentecostalism and traditional magic is very popular in Africa. This has led to the murder of alleged "witches" in Kenya in recent years, and in Uganda in the past. It has led to the murder of one child in Britain.
5) I am simply asking that the BBC apply the same standards of evidence that they would to a report of child sacrfice in New Orleans.

Graham

PS: Ugandans blame child sacrifice on European culture. They claim that white settlers imported it with Free-masonry and Satanism.
And I would never argue that all child sacrifice is due to the collapse of a moral culture! A bit of sense, please!

I suppose I should clarify that I don't think that Europeans imported the practice. I think that it is part and parcel of what we would call "black magic" or, better yet, "paganism".
And I think that there is a clear link between paganism, pre and post-modern, and the delight in taking innocent life.

graham

We Brits weren't great at surpressing these practices. To this day we do not know who was behind the "man-leopard" murders in Kenya 1945-49.
We could not stop the "medicine murders" in Lesotho either, which took place in the same period.(A type of ritual killing which had its roots in the Basotho battlefield practice of taking a piece of a fallen enemy to make medicine. Under our "care" the battles stopped; the battlefield rituals mutated into ritual killings.)

And then we have the nerve to complain about American Foreign Policy...

G

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.