Culture Ethics Intelligent Design Naturalism

Anthropologists oppose laws against child murder

Spread the love
File:Kinderopfer 2.jpg
Aztec burial of a sacrificed child at Tlatelolco/Wolfgang Sauber, GNU

From Hank Berrien at the Daily Wire:

A law under consideration in Brazil that would outlaw ritual infanticide and child killings by indigenous groups, called “Muwaji’s Law,” is vehemently opposed by the the Brazilian Association of Anthropology, which called it “the most repressive and lethal actions ever perpetrated against the indigenous peoples of the Americas, which were unfailingly justified through appeals to noble causes, humanitarian values and universal principles.” The association disparaged the proposed law as placing indigenous peoples “in the permanent condition of defendants before a tribunal tasked with determining their degree of savagery.”

The Brazilian Association of Anthropology is not the only depraved participant in the drama; Brazil’s National Indian Foundation, according to Davidson, won’t “collect data on child-killing among indigenous tribes, resists even acknowledging its existence in public, and said in a 2016 press release that raising the issue at all ‘is in many cases an attempt to incriminate and express prejudice against indigenous peoples.’”

Davidson tells the horrifying story from The Telegraph in 2007 about Márcia and Edson Suzuki, a pair of evangelical missionaries: … More.

For a materialist, that’s a reasonable stance. Humans are not special in their view. They make a point of asserting that. Some cultures kill unborn children in great numbers; others kill born ones. Lots of other animals kill their own offspring too.

So?

It’s further along than some may think. In Canada, traditional religious groups cannot hire students for the Summer Jobs program unless they sign a statement essentially agreeing to live baby dismemberment. In Quebec, Canada, there is pressure to extend killing to born individuals who cannot give consent. That sort of thing is starting to happen, slowly but surely, in other Western countries as well.

A world run by materialists (naturalists) is a very different place.

See also: Killing Innocent Children: Yes or No? Barry Arrington: (quoting) “… a handful of indigenous tribes in Brazil that engage in the ritual killing of infants and children—namely, those with a disability, twins, and the children of single mothers, all of whom are considered to be a bad omen—and the legal efforts underway to end the practice.” But, he asks, on what basis do materialists say this is wrong?

and

Fatal Flaws: A Canadian film chronicles the march of euthanasia

14 Replies to “Anthropologists oppose laws against child murder

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Are those indigenous peoples legally Brazilian citizens because, if so, then they are presumably already bound by any law against murder in that country. If they are not, then we enter Prime Directive territory. To what extent do the Brazilian authorities have a right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign people?

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    To what extent do the Brazilian authorities have a right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign people?

    Indeed. As someone wrote about another issue:

    The attestation and examples still amount to the government’s coercion on matters of conscience and religious belief. They foreclose the possibility of wide-ranging views and even healthy disagreement. The attestation remains unacceptable.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev (and BO’H): First, this is not a thread of main focus for me, but I think a comment could be helpful. So, I note that governing authorities hold powers to carry out duties, generally justified on the task of defence of the civil peace of justice. That peace duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. I would suggest that the first nations in Brazil are technically associated micro-states, which would give the senior state particular responsibilities. This fits the context of passing a federal law and applying it to a recognised abuse that violates the first right, life. Next, even were such states full orbed sovereign independent states (or even great powers), there are circumstances of abuse of fundamental rights that would legitimately lead to neighbouring states exerting sanctions. In extreme cases, that may well justify intervention backed by force of arms. There are many such cases, e.g. that which overthrew Idi Amin in Uganda. I suspect that sanctions and interventions against Rhodesia and South Africa, which were for far lesser rights violations than seems to be so here, were not viewed with general opprobrium. Where, too, if there is concern about Brazil and its potential for abuse, there are well known international bodies that could be induced to bring to bear a support and monitoring mission. If such were the real concerns. What we see here instead, seems to be a manifestation of the inherent incoherence of radical relativism and also of the impact of the sustained holocaust of living posterity in the womb. Perhaps, we should be thinking again — this is very close to the yardstick case I have often put up. KF

  4. 4
    EvilSnack says:

    So the tribes’ desire to kill children for the causes they cite trumps the right of the child not to be killed.

    I would really like to see the logic behind this conclusion, using only premises that the person arguing for the conclusion does not deny when it is convenient.

  5. 5
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Thankfully (and Aztec slaves would agree), Cortez and the Conquistadors were not religious pluralists. They believed there was a superior moral code by which they were able to end human sacrifice among the Incas.

    Tolerance for the killing of children, in the name of religious liberty is an outcome of philosophical relativism. It’s basically the atheist view (adopted in the USA and exported to the world). It’s the belief that no religion is really true and none are based on anything real. Religion is nice stories that comfort people – but none are better than others.

    Thus, religions that practice child-murder are protected. The highest moral norm here is “condescension to indigenous people to make reparations for Christian missionaries of the past”.

    The same people tolerate abortion. A child is a biological output with no inherent value. In the Christian view, a human being is sacred, created by God, with a destiny to fulfill.

    Obviously, the atheist view doesn’t understand or care about that. So, as would-be controllers of the culture – they’ll tolerate murder of children for the sake of appearing more progressive and advanced than the Christian missionaries of old, who didn’t hesitate to teach that the Christian religion has a higher and better moral standard and corresponds far more to reason than does the religion of the indigenous people.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    EvilSnack @ 4

    So the tribes’ desire to kill children for the causes they cite trumps the right of the child not to be killed

    No, but as I asked before, if they are effectively a sovereign state to what extent are you entitled to intervene in their affairs?

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Silver Asiatic @ 5

    Thankfully (and Aztec slaves would agree), Cortez and the Conquistadors were not religious pluralists. They believed there was a superior moral code by which they were able to end human sacrifice among the Incas.

    I would suggest it’s stretching a point to imply that the depradations of the Spanish Conquistadores in Southern and Central America was a humanitarian mission.

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, 6: Kindly see my comments on limits of claimed sovereignty at 3, ranging from micro associated state to great power. Perhaps you overlooked them. I note, that the natural law principle is highly relevant, and that radical relativism and subjectivism undermine respect for the law of our nature, which must prioritise right to life. KF

  9. 9
    Silver Asiatic says:

    I would suggest it’s stretching a point to imply that the depradations of the Spanish Conquistadores in Southern and Central America was a humanitarian mission.

    There were financial and military motives for the mission and there were abuses and exploitation. But the Conquistadores brought missionaries with them. Cortez requested them explicitly for spiritual (humanitarian) purposes. The teaching of Christianity and conversion of the entire continent was profoundly beneficial. It brought the truth about God to people who were living in darkness. This was a primary motive of the expedition.

  10. 10
    Allan Keith says:

    SA,

    The teaching of Christianity and conversion of the entire continent was profoundly beneficial. It brought the truth about God to people who were living in darkness. This was a primary motive of the expedition.

    The Incans had one of the largest empires in the world at the time. Population over ten million. Sophisticated agriculture and strong religious beliefs. I fail to see how slaughtering them through violence and European diseases benefitted them.

  11. 11
    vmahuna says:

    As an interesting Historical comparison, Christian (i.e., Roman Catholic) missionaries DESTROYED the Viking culture in Scandinavia by forbidding the practice of killing babies born to slaves (i.e., white North Europeans captured whilst viking). Since the female slaves were of course being used for sexual recreation, babies abounded, and in only a few generations there was a HUGE population of non-Nordic slaves in Scandinavia.

    So in only 100 years or so, the descendants of real Vikings were administrators of large agro-businesses that brought in higher, less risky profits. And at that point you didn’t want to acquire any MORE slaves by capturing “wild” ones. The ones you already had were breeding like rabbits.

    Many cultures practice, or practiced, infanticide. I would hope that here in the ultra-modern, super whizz-bang, Buck Rogers 21st Century that we can move past that.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    kairosfocus @ 8

    Sev, 6: Kindly see my comments on limits of claimed sovereignty at 3, ranging from micro associated state to great power. Perhaps you overlooked them. I note, that the natural law principle is highly relevant, and that radical relativism and subjectivism undermine respect for the law of our nature, which must prioritise right to life. KF

    I read the comment and I also found this piece informative:

    In 1973, Brazil passed the Indian Statute, which groups indigenous individuals into three categories: those who live in complete isolation, those in limited contact with the outside world, and those who are fully integrated into mainstream society. The statute states that tribes such as Kanhu’s are only subject to federal laws depending on their degree of assimilation into Brazilian life. It is thanks to this language that indigenous people do not face prosecution for child killing.

    The bill intended to crack down on the practice is informally known as “Muwaji’s Law,” after an indigenous woman who rejected her community’s expectation that she kill her disabled daughter in 2005. If the bill passes the Senate, it will be tacked on as an amendment to the Indian Statute and require the government agencies that oversee indigenous communities to take a series of proactive measures. One will be the creation of an up-to-date registry of certain pregnant women so that the government can keep an eye on those (such as single mothers or women carrying twins) whose newborns might be targeted for death by their tribes. Another measure will require that the public prosecutor’s office be notified immediately of reports of human rights violations committed against newborns or any other stigmatized members of indigenous communities, including the elderly. The amendment also stipulates that any citizen who learns that an indigenous person’s life or safety is at risk but does not report it to the authorities will “be penalized under the applicable laws.”

    In 2007, the bill was introduced by then-congressman Henrique Afonso, a member of Brazil’s evangelical caucus and the then-ruling Workers’ Party. It immediately created tensions between those who champion universal human rights, which prioritize the individual, and those who support cultural relativism, which favors the freedom of communities to organize themselves according to their own moral codes.

    This dichotomy is actually built into the country’s 1988 constitution, which extends “the inviolable right to life” to everyone within the country’s borders while also safeguarding “indigenous peoples’ social structure, customs, languages, beliefs and traditions.” The ratification of the constitution, after decades of dictatorial rule, was a watershed moment for the state’s attitude toward indigenous peoples. (The Indian Statute, ratified under military rule, by contrast, opens by specifying its intent to “integrate them, steadily and peacefully, into the national fold.”) Now, no longer would a multiplicity of tribes be forced to conform to external values. Tribal cultures and worldviews were suddenly granted, and understood to be worthy of, their own protections. But the unresolved contradiction in the constitution has forced subsequent generations of lawmakers to grapple with the question of how to deal with indigenous practices outsiders see as inhumane.

    This is a complex situation. European cultures have an appalling track record of atrocious ill-treatment of indigenous peoples in both North and South America, mitigated only a little by those few individuals who did what they could to help. The right to life which people are now trying to assert was blatantly ignored by their forebears and is still being brushed aside by individuals and companies who want to exploit the country’s natural resources without restriction. It must sound like hypocrisy in the extreme to those indigenous peoples to be told that the right to life is paramount after centuries in which it clearly was not as far as their oppressors were concerned, oppressors who otherwise held themselves to be good Christians.

    That said, I hold that the right to life should be universal and that must include the children and the elderly of the indigenous peoples. But even more importantly, if that right is to mean anything at all then the whites who have been and still are committing atrocities against these peoples should be held to account and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    Whether any of that will ever happen is doubtful although one can hope. But if at some point in the future we ever find ourselves on the receiving end of a program of extermination by some alien power we can hardly complain given our own history of such behavior.

  13. 13
    EvilSnack says:

    Seversky @ 6

    EvilSnack @ 4

    So the tribes’ desire to kill children for the causes they cite trumps the right of the child not to be killed

    No, but as I asked before, if they are effectively a sovereign state to what extent are you entitled to intervene in their affairs?

    This is the vaunted logic of atheism?

    Sovereign states consist of sovereign human beings. If the children are not sovereign human beings, neither are their adults, and neither is any political organization they form.

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev,

    Yes, there is federal legislation which governs Brazil’s dealings with its first nations (and there is a problem tied to logging and settlement in Amazonia, etc). The existing legislation first and foremost implies that the relationship is one of associated statehood creating a degree of autonomy within a broader polity. This does not change the force of the law of our morally governed nature concerns.

    The existing law obviously reflects the sort of compromise with an existing and entrenched phenomenon that obtained with say slavery in former days, or with the notorious colour bar of more recent ones.

    The question, then, is one of reform, and the tone and force of many responses, on the ground and in this thread reflects a critical flaw of cultural relativism: any would-be reformer is automatically wrong. What that boils down to is, that it is a matter of might and/or manipulation making new “right” by sheer balances of power. The principle that nihilism crouches at the door.

    And so, cultural relativism stands exposed as inherently amoral and morally bankrupt.

    The issue here, is that the intended victims of murder are weak, lack a powerful voice and are not popular with progressivist elites. Who, unsurprisingly (but sadly), are found in the balances acting against the very first right. Life.

    And BTW, in the days of the slave trade and slavery, it was those touched by Evangelical Awakenings who were in the forefront. A similar thing happened with abuses in India, starting with Suttee (widow immolation on her husband’s funeral pyre).

    This is an old story, made more difficult in our time because of the Anti-Christ mentality of far too many.

    It is time to think again.

    KF

Leave a Reply