C
Contarini
Guest
Define witchcraft.
There are at least four separate things we could be talking about:
- Deliberately entering into a relationship with the powers of evil. This is the way witchcraft was defined in the heyday of witchcraft persecutions (15th-17th centuries). In certain social contexts, a case could be made for banning this, but in modern democratic society one should treat any such people as one does Communists or radical Islamists or neo-Nazis–they should be tolerated as long as they don’t actually take actions to harm others. (This is probably a healthy approach to take in any social context, given how easily “witch hunts” both literal and metaphorical get out of hand.) However, any religion based on deliberate embrace of evil should be treated differently from other religions and should not be shown any mark of public respect. I am pretty sure that this has nothing to do with what you mean by “witchcraft,” but it’s probably the first meaning that comest to mind when Christians hear the term.
- “Maleficium”–the use of supernatural power to harm others. This was always the main issue driving witchcraft persecutions at the local level, even when the elites were obsessed with witchcraft in sense 1. Clearly such “witchcraft” should be illegal if it in fact exists. A decision on whether or not to ban it thus depends on one’s beliefs about the nature of the universe–a dilemma people in modern secular democracies don’t like to face. A case could be made that banning “maleficium,” if strict rules of evidence were maintained for determining what was and was not maleficium (i.e., you’d have to prove that the accused engaged in an action deliberately designed to cause harm), would be socially beneficial (at least in societies where magic was prevalent). But given how easily this got out of hand in the early modern period, I’m dubious. Particularly in serious cases (such as murder), our admission of circumstantial evidence could be just as deadly as the medieval/early-modern acceptance of self-incrimination under torture. I tend to think that the use of circumstantial evidence in capital cases is wicked anyway, but that’s another issue. . .
- Folk practices of pagan origin generally considered incompatible with orthodox Christianity. These should not be banned unless they are used to harm people, in which case see above!
- The modern religion to which you are probably referring when you identify yourself with witchcraft. While this is, to my taste, a rather thin, self-indulgent religion, you certainly have the right to practice it freely. However, since your religion certainly does not include 1 or 2, and has only the most tenuous connection with 3, the entire premise of your question is dubious.