Burning times

On "feeds", click header for video to the "Burning Times" song.

Many lives were lost during this time.  We as Wiccans do care for and love all living things.  We, even I do not hate Christians, nor do we hate Jesus.  I happen to be an eclectic solitary Wiccan.  I do have a disdain for ceremonial magick, since it can be abused very easily.  Blessed Be.

Burning times song

Tribute to our 300 year "tribulation" - 1484 - 1550

End of the burning times

The main ones who ended the burning times was an astronomer around the Rennesianse and a Protestant preacher who was once a Catholic priest.  Both attracted the attention of the Inquistion.  The one who was the preacher was Martin Luther, who nailed 95 theses on the door of the Wallisburg church in Germany.  He almost got burned at the stake for heresy until he gained the support of the German barons.  Luther then lived happily with a wife and had children.  Martin Luther started the Luthren church.

The other one was an Italian astronomer and scientist by the name of Galleleo.  He built a telescope that observed the moons of Jupiter.  Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are still known today as the Gallelian moons.  Gallielo even allowed the bishop to look at the moons through his telescope [Gallileo's telescope] and the bishop still denied their existance though he saw it through his own eyes.

These brave men, both Christians ended the horrible witch burnings.

The incident in Salem, Massachussetts colony was a hysteria that was caused by rottting rye that had ergot (ergot produces LSD).  The whole town was hallucinating on acid basically.  Only one person actually got burned at the stake and she was a slave.  All of the others were hung and one man was pressed to death.

The Burning Times

What if it happened again?

The Burning times

The term burning times has come to refer to "any threatened return of prejudice against or persecution of Witches and neo-Pagans by other religious groups, law enforcement agencies, employers, politicians and others." (See: Helms Amendment)

Historically the term designated, especially for witches, the period within Western history in which there occurred intense burning, also the various types of murdering of witches. This period is known for its vindictive witch-hunts which extended from the mid-15th century to the early 18th century.

The idea of burning witches, one of the cruelest forms of execution, is said to have originated with Saint Augustine (354-430), who said "that pagans, Jews, and heretics would burn forever in eternal fire with the Devil unless saved by the Catholic Church."

Witches, also were classed as heretics, during the time of the Inquisition. Heretics were not only disbelieves of the church doctrine, but, many also were accused of beings servants of the Devil by forming compacts with him to get his help. The accused were sentenced to execution by burning when found guilty of heresy, and few escaped this conviction of the church, which practically controlled every aspect of human life, because "Fire itself is the element of purification, and nothing less than fire could negate the evil that was said to be witches."

The 16th century demonologist, Jean Bodin, stated in De la Demonomanie des Sorciers:

Even if the witch has never killed or done evil to man, beast, or fruits, and even if he has always cured bewitched people, or driven away tempests, it is that he has renounced God and treated with Satan that he deserves to be burned alive...Even if there is no more than the obligation to the Devil, having denied God, this deserves the most cruel death that can be imagined.

However, all witches were not burned at the stake. It seems various countries had their preferred forms of execution. Hanging was preferred in England and the American colonies. In France, Scotland and Germany it was the custom to first strangle the condemned witches, as an act of mercy, before sending them to the hanging stand or garroting, and then cremating them to ashes.

Many witches were burned alive, needless to say. It is alleged by church authorities that many who were burned had either recanted their confessions at the last moment or did not repent for their crimes. The burnings were executed by civil authorities because the church would have no part in the murdering of people. An elaborate accounting system connected with the burnings was established which included expenses for the trail and the prisoner's incarceration in jail. Some trial in Scotland show that the burning of a witch consumed 16 loads of peat plus wood and coal. This debt was attached to the condemned person's estate or relatives. If the debt was so large, more than the person's estate value, or more than one generation of relatives could pay off, then it was carried over to the next generation.

It might be asked who collected this money? Usually it was collected by three parties in the time of the Inquisition: the Church, the Inquisitors, and the civil authorities. Here might be added two interesting details which helps to explain the popularity and the terminus of the Inquisition. The Church did not favor the Spanish Inquisition because the Royalty did not give a proportion of the property of the condemned to the church, and when the Papacy said such property could no longer be confiscated the Inquisition abruptly ended.

Witch lynchings and burnings continued infrequently into the late 19th century in England, Europe and Latin America. There are no reliable accounts as to the exact number of witches executed. Only estimates can be made. During the 150 year period of the Inquisition, in Germany where the most fierce witch hunts occurred, the minimum estimates range from 30,000 to 100,000.

A witch burning was a great public spectacle. Most of the village's population turned out to witness it. It has been pointed out that more burnings occurred in small hamlets than larger towns or cities because in the villages people were more superstitious. Also, neighbor was more likely to spy and tell on neighbor. This did occur, especially during the torturing of the witches. Many said their neighbors were witches in order to escape more suffering.

Usually the burning occurred shortly after sentencing. The interval between was just long enough to hire the executioner, construct the execution site and gather the fuel. However, in Scotland, the burning was preceded by days of fasting and preaching. The witch was strangled first, sometimes not completely. Then she was drugged unconscious or semiconscious to where she was tied to a stake or dumped into a barrel of tar and set afire. If the witch was not dead and managed to escape the flames then onlookers would shove her back into the fire.

Needless to say, because of superstition, cats, especially black cats were burned alive also.  The burning times was a 300 year tribulation for Witches and Wiccans.

The Burning Times

burning times

In 1484, a Catholic pope issued a Papal edict that commenced burning suspected witches at the stake.  Around the same time, two monks wrote a book called the Malleus Mallificarum or also known as the Witches Hammer.  (Mallificarum is Latin for evil witch (either male or female - not a harm none Wiccan.)  This book of all things it said, said that witches had sex with the devil and that the devil's penis was bone, horn and red-hot iron.  Before that, heretics and Jews were burned at the stake too.  Most accused witches were either mentally ill, exceedingly attractive women (thought to sexually bewitch men) or old women (thought to be evil spell casters, especially if they talked to themselves - thought to mutter evil spells) or the women who knew herbalism (competing with the male medical establishment).  About 9 million innocent people including Jews were tortured and burned in this manner.  Needless to say, Martin Luther, the one who preached salvation through faith alone nad not works almost got burned at the stake for heresy.  His success ended the burning times effectively.  Many burned witches were guilty by asscociation.

Salem, in all reality was a hysteria.  People were eating contaminated rye bread with ergot, which was hallucinagenic (like LSD).  Most of the accused witches were hanged, one was burned and a man was pressed to death.  In England, except under Queen Mary I (bloody Mary of the Scotts), witches were deprived of sleep and hung, not burned or legally tortured.

Unlike the American legal system, where a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, during the burning times, accused witches were guilty until proven innocent, usually and mostly always through intense torture.

By the way, the Bible was on the Roman Catholic Index, a list of forbidden books.

book burning

As the U.S. prepared to mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a small fringe church in Gainesville, Fla., planned to remember the day by burning copies of the Koran. The proposed action brought hundreds of protesters to the streets of Kabul and prompted a stern reprimand from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, who warned that the stunt would endanger troops.
While book burnings in our time have been acts of sensationalism and symbolism, in the past, torching texts was a tactic used by conquerors to wipe the slate of history clean. In 213 B.C., China's Emperor Shih Huang Ti thought that if he burned all the documents in his kingdom, history would begin with him. (He went as far as burying alive those scholars who continued to teach old ideas.) Eight centuries later, legend says, Caliph Omar burned some 200,000 objectionable books belonging to the library of Alexandria, warming the city's baths for six months. When the Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, the waters of the Tigris were said to have run black with ink from all the destroyed books. In 1492, after the Spanish conquered Granada, the last Muslim kingdom in Western Europe, they allegedly emptied many of the city's treasured libraries and set their contents all to flame.
Then there are those who have burned books to silence opposing views. Catholics torched the writings of Protestant reformer Martin Luther. The Nazis lit a towering bonfire of books by Jewish and leftist writers such as Franz Kafka, Sigmund Freud and Upton Sinclair. And many 1950s Americans, spurred by Senator Joseph McCarthy, hunted for procommunism books to burn. Speaking out against the red scare in a 1953 commencement address, President Dwight Eisenhower offered a powerful reminder. "[We must] not try to conceal the thinking of our own people," he said. "They are part of America."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2017204,00.html#ixzz1OrIUcluH

The Nazis did book burnings including the Bible.  The Catholics had the Bible on the Index.  The Soviet and Chinese regimes burned books too.

The Burning Times --- Rush - Witchhunt

The Burning Times

The burning times -- Persecution

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kj5jxpNRhPk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GzxrpP6BD6U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/kYt0SJy--7o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


DOES ANYONE NEED TO TUNE THE TV?

Persecution is persecution, no matter who the victim is.  It is evil and cruel.  Whether it is Christians being thrown to lions, the Holocaust (and there are neo-nazis that deny the holocaust) or witches being burned, it is not funny (I made cruel jokes about Christians being killed in Rome.)  We all need to work together and love each other despite the creed we follow.

About the burning times

I posted a cruel, angry post about Witches and Pagans and how righteous it was being burned at the stake.  I choose Wicca as my religion, because I was just angry.

Another thing is that Wicca must become more welcoming to minorities.  Most of Wicca is in English-speaking countries and few minorities join the Craft.  It also needs to be more democratic.  High priestesses are equal with the others, but respected for their worth.  It comes from a song called "The Burning Times."

Koran Burning vs. Real Patriotism

Koran Burning versus Real Patriotism

author: Devil's Advocate

Any fanatic can burn a book, or a flag, because it doesn't require rational explanation. But anyone with the brain of a troglodyte could appreciate there is complexity to the reality of most religions and belief systems. Once again high-minded religion plays its hand in the human affairs of politics, as Jones also sees the trumped up Muslim Mosque controversy, to be built close to ground zero, as seriously provocation. But real patriotism includes having a willing to seek out the truth.

Koran Burning versus Real Patriotism By the devil's advocate The burning of a book, be it secular or religious, offers little in the way of cogent criticism. Any fanatic can burn a book, or a flag, because it doesn't require rational explanation. And yet burning still has the dramatic effect of engaging violence through destruction. It is clearly an "inflammatory" act of rejection—showing no subtly and little thought. But anyone with the brain of a troglodyte could appreciate there is complexity to the reality of most religions and belief systems. For example, religions, as institutions, have generally helped societies establish norms of morality in "temporal" time for almost all societies; even if some have had a morbid focus of what happens after death. Still the major effect has been the same—securing peace and prosperity with standards of morality in the here and now—even if at times they could equal create a partial form of psychological slavery. And granted, there are moments in history when acts of defiance and rebellion are in order—such as when a government pretends to act in accordance with its own laws but does not. Surely then sedition of burning a symbol for such perceived hypocrisy or criminality, and as argued an act of free speech, sends some sort of message—even if it offers little in the way of diplomacy or any awareness to nuance. But what is striking about Rev. Terry Jones decision to burn the Koran, as he calls evil, is his complete lack of awareness of the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah, which can also be shown to be demonstrably evil in some of their passages. (See Charles Kimball's When Religion Becomes Evil, John Shelby Spong's The Sins of Scripture, or EvilBible.com and SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.) One could argue that Reverend Terrance Jones is just a narrow-minded and parochial man; or he is just one of many of the hoi polloi of populism easily stirred to passionate acts by self-righteousness and twisted demagoguery. But he clearly invokes, as his justification, the "absolute" truth or Biblical Truth as to why the Koran is evil. And this is the mindset of the fanatic—he sees things in terms of everything being either black and white or good and evil. And once again high-minded religion plays its hand in the human affairs of politics, as Jones also sees the trumped up Muslim Mosque controversy, to be built close to ground zero, as seriously provocation. This political debate was spurred on by the Anti-Defamation League, that also engaged in an inflammatory act by equally suggesting Islamism, the religion and followers, is evil; just like ADL has previously sponsored the showing of a film that also had similar prejudicial effects toward Muslims and the Islamic religion. Now the mosque issue has become a political potato with demagogues wanting to pounce all over it. But more importantly the controversy had the effect of reinforcing the conspiratorial "lie" that 9/11 was carried out by "radical Muslims;" when there is very strong indications that Osama bin Laden did not have a thing to do with 9/11—rather we Americans were subject to "phony" videos of him claiming responsibility, obviously created by "covert" third-party sources. Nevertheless the sound bite would play over and over again over the years until most Americans accepted it as gospel truth. Apparently the hidden "goal" of creating animosity and war between Western countries, that is those comprised of mostly Christians, and Islamic countries, was significantly advanced because of 9/11. Some people wanted a "clash" of civilizations, especially since the War on Terrorism closely overlaps those countries with oil, gas or need of pipelines. But real patriotism includes having a willing to seek out the truth about what really happened on 9/11 and why. Unfortunately there are few real patriots in the U.S. where people are more comfortable believing official lies and being misled by wedge issues. Not even most progressives would dare look too deeply into this event for fear of what they might learn. Yet one could ask a significant question about 9/11— "Who Benefited?" That is what mystery readers learn to ask. We know, for example, Larry Silverman, as the recent buyer of the Twin Towers, benefited. We know drug cartels re-opened the opium trade that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban had closed down to a trickle. We are sure investors in the military industrial complex again could make money on America's addiction to war. We know oil and energy companies were to benefit and financially they did. Also we know Israel benefited because they seriously wanted Iraq defanged and "strongly" lobbied the U.S. to go to war against their enemy. Right-wing elements that wanted more Executive Presidential command won out as some were even hankering for the de-establishment of American civil rights. Also 9/11 advanced an attempt to create more paranoia of all things Islamic and to create a multi-generation war as a new era of Christian crusades against the Islamic empire. And naturally George Bush's popularity initially went up when he became a war president—but being the mediocre man that he was he lost much of his standing over the longer run. Powerful spheres of influence actually benefited from 9/11. But how did Osama bin Laden, or countries and people in the Middle East such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or even Al Qaeda, to the extent that it is a real threat, benefit? There does not seem to be much logical motivation for such a provocative act of war against the security apparatus of the U.S.—and all the planning involved? Nevertheless, arguments about burning the Koran and whether a Mosque should be allowed in New York City work well as red herrings, because they continue to reinforce the idea that argued 19 Arabs, under the direction of one Osama bin Laden hidden in a cave on the other side of the planet, actually carried out this act of war against American civilians. Similarly the crafted incident of the pantyhose bomber around Christmas worked very well as a red herring to cover up and stop any debate on whether Muslims held in Guantanamo, for years now, had a right to a public trial. Instead the two corrupt parties of the United States have continued to allow the military to quietly ship those captives, some who were tortured, out of our country so we Americans will not see the details of how and why they got there—including children and elderly—as our judicial system continues to also degrade and be subjugated to more political authoritarianism. Nevertheless, despite some revealing videos that came out from the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as Loose Change, even within the context of a propaganda war meant to discredit it and conspiracy theorists, and also hireling idiots pretending to be truthers only to act stupidly and confuse issues to also discredit the movement, the reality seems that most Americans really don't care or want to know the truth about what really happened on 9/11; anymore than Rev. Terry Jones wants to know the truth about the Bible—that is it is "not" gospel truth—rather it is the product of human minds pretending to speak for a God—and meanwhile imposing their own ideas of a God on those naïve enough to believe and follow. And no doubt, Jesus himself, was a fanatic of sorts, at least we can gain such perspective from accounts written about him in the four gospels that spent plenty of effort creating frothy polemics between the "bureaucratic" Pharisees and that minority who claimed true righteousness. From there perspectives of bickering amongst various Jewish factions we can see attitudes of sanctimony on all sides—still the to-be Christians defined the church of believers as those people who practiced ethical standards—rather than relying on the more narrow presumption of Jewish heredity—and this is certainly radical because it still speaks to the Middle East today and their concerns of ethnic identity. But one outcome of authoritarian religions, like the three Abrahamic religions, is they help condition people to a tendency to blind obedience to authority, and equally to a blind form of patriotism that does not question government. It is similar to what Eric Fromm spoke of in his Escape From Freedom, a kind of apathy of evil, and what Eric Hoffer referred to as a "religiofication" of a political cause in his The True Believer. Factions of the Tea Party had an opportunity to see how corrupt the system has become. Instead, opportunists like Glenn Beck, and his "Restoring Honor" rally, are hoodwinking many of them, and steering them back to the two party system. (Shortly after the rally there was leaked a video clip of Beck having a photo shoot in which he was putting Vicks rub in his eyes to make him look like he was crying—real honest honor—don't yah know—like Sara Palin trying to sound like the people from Lake Wobegon, in Keiller's Prairie Home Companion Show—as if we are all so homey.) Yes, there they were calling for a religious revival like a bandwagon back to nowhere. And there is nothing to wanting to restore America's honor—since the Bush Administration especially did so much to spoil it. But then Glen Beck goes on to question President's take on Christianity, as branded as understanding the world through "liberation theology," that is seeing the world as victims and oppressors, as Beck worded it. But how funny a Fox news anchor would make such an accusation when Rupert Murdock's Fox News helped lie our people into going to war with an aftermath of killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in process? And how funny this newly minted Mormon would question Obama's interpretations of faith, when few Mormons said anything, while proselytizing in the south, about U.S. supported atrocities in Central America, whereas some Catholic priests were murdered when they risked their lives to speak out for the oppressed and poor? This cynical ploy on the part of Beck is another attempt to paint Obama as a Marxist, since liberation theology started in Latin America where some Catholic priests believed industrial countries were exploiting the people. Since then the propaganda has been one of labeling them all communists. Get it—there are no oppressed—there are no victims—and if you feel empathy there is something wrong with your religious instincts. Moreover this is an attempt to subordinate the power of religions to the power of modernity's economic religions—in which religions are not to criticize the "sanctity" of economic ideals—now we must maintain an unquestioning loyalty of economic propaganda—and see everything in terms of black and white or good and evil. Investor money can do not wrong; and therefore there should be no checks on how the wealth class invests money or make profit. Laissez capitalism is "beyond" human scrutiny like God has an authoritarian right to make commands, and control governments and their governed. (But the idea that religion should work for state power, or the power of the rich, is nothing new and it certainly does not foster the individual right to self-determination or personal opinion.) Glenn Beck is far more an issue than 15 minutes of fame for a redneck of a Pentecostal preacher from Florida. Beck calls liberation theology "collectivist" psychology. But every rightwing form of governance has demanded various forms of collectivist conformity—including some religions that have used the terrorism of threat of hell as the ultimate form of coercion—like one should not be concerned about political issues when one is so seriously concerned about what happens to the self after death. One wonders what kind of psyche Mr. Beck espouses—if not some kind of subordination to his own half-baked presumptions—even as he so readily espouses "individual" salvation. Somehow he wants Joe McCarthy's style of beheading individualism—while speaking in tongues? Besides Mormonism doesn't especially espouse a lot of individuality or does it? The Tea Party is partially right about big government and big spending. But what do they say about the huge increase in Homeland Security spending and its bureaucracy? Several weeks ago the Washington Post started reporting on a study called "Top Secret America" in which it revealed 1,200 government organizations and 1,900 private companies were working on counter-terrorism, intelligence and security, spending billions and billions of tax dollars. What does the Tea Party have to say about this? Both political parties are corrupt. Ralph Nader tried telling Americans but they accused him of an "ego" issue—total B.S. bought the fools swallowed it. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul were the two main party candidates who were interested in representing real Americans; but the mainstream media and the two corrupt parties, and the shadow government, were not going to let either become president. Obviously there needs to be change—but it is not going to come by having the blind lead the blind. Still the books have "already" been written. Good politicians need quote the books that have shed light on what has already been revealed to win elections. John Dean wrote a book on the authoritarian personalities in the Bush Administration—certainly Barbara Boxer could shed light on Carly Fiorina's obvious authoritarian personality with her accusations that Boxer had the temerity to question authority rather than just salute. Certainly good politicians can learn to teach Americans how to think. Why did all these people bother to write all these revealing books about our government and few, any of these candidates, are either education themselves or others? Why for example did David Brock bother to write his Blinded by the Right? Our founding fathers had a debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists. These people were educated to human foible and political vulnerability. These debates had little to do with some authoritarian God commanding anyone on anything. If patriots owe this country anything they owe themselves the responsibility of becoming more savvy than the currently are at with more chicken hawk poster boys crying on the mall.