In the thread that is now closed about Rifqa Bary who fled to a Christian organization in Florida from her home in Ohio people compared honor killings to being stoned by Christians. Here is post 20 from that thread, the first one I saw that mentioned it. It is mentioned subsquently in further posts.
Now for the purposes of this thread I am just trying to talk about the equivalency of this. If there is another form of Christian violence that is similar to honor killing you are welcome to make the argument.
Specifically excluded from this debate are killings in political wars that are tangentially religious. Also excluded are statistics from before 2000. We are only looking for contemporary examples.
So are Christian witch killings as prevalent? Do they account for 5000 deaths a year? Or is this a false equivalency?
I’m curious if there’s something special about honor killings that make them different from run-of-the-mill domestic violence. If Omar thinks his wife is a slut and kills her, is it notably different than if Elmer thinks his wife is a slut and kills her?
Though an interesting side note would be to control for domestic violence. How often is honor killing simply domestic violence? You bring up an interesting point.
My reading of the definition is that multiple family members get together to act on the execution. A single member wouldn’t be able to make such a choice on his own and have ti be called an Honor Killing.
I think it stacks up right along with White people enslaving black people, Europeans murdering American natives, Hutus massacring Tutsis, Turks starving Armenians, Romans . . . well, you get my drift.
You kill someone, I have issues with you. Your ancestors killed someone, you are not at fault.
If you espouse a political, philosophical, or religious belief that encourages murder, mass or retail, you are a murderer. Accessory before the fact for every murder done by your favorite hate group.
If you take any specific act in furtherance of the subsequent murder of anyone, you are guilty of accessory before the act of murder.
If you just believe that you have authority to make such judgments, you are a dangerous psychotic, but that is not illegal.
You are probably a genuine pain in the ass in a large number of ways, as well, and a sanctimonious prick. That too is legal.
Well, the execution of witches in Europe from about 1450 through 1750 was sanctioned by law. So far as I know honor killings are extralegal and have little or nothing to do with the judicial system. There’s a big difference right there I think. The total number of men and women executed for witchcraft over a 300 year period in Europe totaled about 55,000 though that’s really only an estimation which averages to 183 per year. Obviously some years were better and others worse with 1600 being considered by many historians to be the peak of the European witch-hunts. The Scottish govt. passed an anti-witchcraft law in 1563 and between that time and about 1717 they executed a little over 3,000 people for the crime.
In general there are three ingredients necessary for a large witch-hunt according to Brian Levack.
#1. Belief in maleficum (harmful magic) #2. Belief in diabolism (a conspiracy of devil worshiping witches) #3. An inquisitorial method of prosecution.
Some places in Europe, Portugal for example, had all three but never really experienced a lot of witch trials. Other places like Scotland, Bavaria, and some parts of France executed a relatively large amount of people. In Scotland 80% of the witches executed were women while in Iceland 90% were male and in Russia (I think) it was about 50/50. England treated the crime of witchcraft as if it were a secular matter and simply hanged their witches. The Scots burned theirs reflecting a belief that the witches crimes were not just secular but religious in nature.
The causes of the witch-hunts in Europe are varied from time to place. I don’t think you can make much of a comparison between them and honor killings. I don’t say this in an effort to point out one being worse than the other. I just don’t think apt comparisons can be drawn.
I find it hard to mentally compare witch killings with honor killings without first generalizing the ‘crime’ in question so far that it would include religious wars as well. Witch killings (almost by definition!) are murders of persons who are not in fact guilty of the crime in question, and are basically seized and murdered by a frenzied mob acting on craziness alone, or malicious secret agendas. Honor killings are (presumably) cases where the act inspiring the killing did actually happen, and what’s happening is that the legal system has outripped the culture in deciding how such acts should be responded to. The latter is a side effect of a culture that is archaic but otherwise logical (well, it has internal logic, however repugnant its premises might be); the former is a side effect of hysteria and mass blind ignorance. While either can be a result of religion, and both result in murder, I otherwise see very little similarity between the thought processes that motivate the two types of acts.
Frankly, while both are scary, the witch hunts scare me more - they’re indescriminate in who they go after. Honor killings may at least be avoided if you allow yourself to be cowed.
No, sorry, by and large they were not seized by by a frenzied mob acting on craziness alone they were seized by authorities and only executed after a deliberate trial. A witch was killed by a lynch mob in England 1707 and the head of the mob was later tried for murder and hanged for his actions (of course this was the twilight of the witch-hunting era in Europe anyway). As for malicious secret agendas, well, in some cases sure. A Bavarian duke in 1600 basically tried and killed the Pappenheimers (I think that’s what they were called) on trumped up charges to make it clear who was in control of his territory. In other cases I honestly believe that both authorities and accusers believed that the men and women on trial were witches. Remember, these people believed that harmful and beneficial magic was real.
As for not being a crime. Well, no, not by our definition. But Agnes Sampson of Scotland was known as a cunning woman and probably violated the 1563 Witchcraft Act which outlawed things like sorcery, necromancy, and all manner of “superstitious” beliefs. That’s why people went to see her, after all.
Okay, granted, I was too specific about the torch-and-pitchfork-weilding mob business. However I didn’t really mean to just refer to literal lynch mobs - I was also thinking about the pervasive aura of paranoia and fear and superstition that allows flimsy accusations to be propped up and to persist. The secular example would be McCarthy-like red scare stuff. To me, that is craziness, and not particularly comparable with honor killings - unless the honor killings are also happening based on actions that have not actually occured.
Now, based on your description persons like this Agnes would be more like the honor killings, in that they were openly flauting the social conventions and that came around to bite them in the butt. Personally I suspect that such people were the minority of those executed for witchcraft, though. Am I incorrect? (is there data to indicate either way?)
Strikes me that the religious end is overdone. It’s not all over the Islamic world, but in certain cultural zones. Just like modern witch stoning among Christians is entirely in Africa now.
There were European Christian honor killings in the Balkans during and immediately after the Yugoslavian civil wars. That was less than two decades ago.
But how prevalent is it? Abuse is outside of the bounds of this discussion. This is specifically about murder. Attempted murder is acceptable like the examples of honor killings stopped in the Netherlands provided by Maastricht in the other thread.
Odesio Interesting stuff but beyond the scope of this discussion I think. If it happened before 2000 then it’s not applicable.