Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why is the New York Times into witchcraft now?


To see the progressive war on science in action, it’s best to watch it unfold at a dinosaur medium:

Apparently, the NYT hasn’t quite hit rock-bottom yet. Somebody at the Gray Lady said, “Hold my beer and watch this.”

In a bizarre article titled “Here’s What Being a Witch Really Means,” author Pam Grossman explains, “My grandma Trudy used to tell us that she had ‘healing hands.’ I soon discovered that I did, too.” What sort of healing? Well, Ms. Grossman says that her grandma could make her headaches vanish by simply touching her forehead. Apparently, she resurrected a dying horse, too.

Notwithstanding the Lazarus Horse, the headache “cure” has an easy explanation: The placebo effect.

Anyway, not to be outdone by her show-off grandmother, Ms. Grossman later discovered that she, too, had the power to heal… or at the very least, make horny teenagers kiss each other

Alex Berezow, “New York Times Promotes Witchcraft, Condemns Itself In Op-Ed” at American Council on Science and Health

Unfortunately, we know “what’s with.” The Timesers are victims of the progressive war on science. It’s awful to watch. In some ways, the war on math is even worse.

What’s really interesting is that naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” appears to offer little protection from this sort of thing.

The good news is, we have far less to fear from hexes than from anti-free speech legislation and crackdowns on academic freedom at the universities.

We really must encourage them all to spend more time, much more time, on hexes.

See also: Bill Nye As “A Terrible Spokesman For Science” (cf Alex Berezow)

Why has a historic medical publication gone weird? (cf Alex Berezow)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

I've read this at least 10 times, and I still can't quite get the POINT of your argument. Are you saying simply that Americans are not allowed to discuss personal beliefs about Magic in public?? Or do you just REALLY not like the New York Times? (A lotta people don't like the New York Times) I was working on a longer counter-argument, but for starters, PROFESSIONAL ethnologists no longer make ANY distinction between "magic" and "religion". See "Inside the Neolithic Mind" by David Lewis-Williams and David Pearce. All "religion" (including magics) are composed of 3 parts: doctrine, ritual, and personal religious experience. Any particular religion emphasizes one of the parts over the other 2. And so, for example, the Roman religion emphasized Ritual to the practical exclusion of the other 2. Conversely, to the Romans, ANY ritual WAS Religion. So for example, an American style 4th of July Parade would have been considered a religious event. In the same theme, after Christianity (i.e., Catholicism, "catholic" meaning "universal") took over as the official religion of the Roman Empire, ANY "ceremony" (e.g. a Birthday Party) REQUIRED the presence of a Priest, to insure that no heresies or devil worship occurred at the Ceremony. So perhaps a better distinction is that made in the Oxford History of Magic: ceremonies done in public are "religion"; ceremonies done in private are "magic". Otherwise, the same words are said in the same way. That is, a Greek witch would call upon the same gods using the same words said over at the temple. The real difference is that getting a curse placed on someone COST LESS if you used a mere witch. Bought and paid for curses were so common that the VAST majority of ancient (Greek and Roman) writing unearthed by archeologists are little lead foil scrolls, carefully rolled up. And when they are (very carefully) UN-rolled, they contain a Curse (May Zeus cause Zeppo's horses to run slow in the chariot race). And the reason they've been preserved is because the "operating instructions" for a professional curse required that the curse be buried on the cursee's property (i.e., in the stable where the horses are kept, or under the steps by the guy's door). I can go on, but it's been several years now since I was reading up on Magic and Religion, and I'm not sure which pile the books are in. But in closing I will again mention the Historical Fact that in the ENTIRE history of the world, the ONLY country that converted to Christianity without producing a SINGLE martyr was Ireland. And WHY were there no Christian martyrs in Ireland? Because the DRUIDS were not going to kill a man (or woman) for what they believed about God. When the Protestant Christians invaded Catholic Ireland, the Protestants murdered Irish for the crime of BEING Irish (and therefore probably a closet Catholic) in Ireland, their own country. So where exactly is the moral superiority? Vince O'Mahony vmahuna

Leave a Reply