Salem and Morals

Madness is common in all epochs. And early colonial America and post-Renaissance Europe is no exception. In 1692, a little village called Salem in the colony of Massachusetts waged an extermination of witches from the area. This may come as a surprise, as happening during the Enlightenment, yet be not shocked! For the effects of enlightened thought trickled down over the decades, reaching the lay people last. The common people in Europe and nearly everyone in colonial America were still caught in the cloister of Medieval thought. This superstitious way of thinking was born out of the mysticism of the old Roman Empire and ancient Germanic and Norse mythology. Alas! Here in the Twenty-first Century, nearly all—no, I feel it is safe to say all—Westerners and the majority of Easterners are “Enlightened” and therefore are not clinging to Medieval thought. The morals of the late Seventeenth Century are varyingly different than the morality of the Twenty-first; and thus, my morals are a product of my time of living and are not influenced by the blunders of the past.

As stated previously, the port-village of Salem, Massachusetts went on a witch hunt in the year 1692. This was a time when religion still was a dominant physical authority as well as a spiritual and metaphysical one. Music, language, recreation, love, attire, and even business and banking were all subject to pious scrutiny and authority. The witch trials that occurred in Salem were the result of accusations made by the local minister’s daughters and niece of the witchcraft practiced on them by the older women in the village. The accusers demonstrated extreme convulsions and terror in the presence of the accused, leading many leaders in the town to believe the girls. This led to the hanging of nineteen people, and one other was killed in the process of pressing. Many others were tortured and imprisoned as well. Never before or since was one type of religion so hated and persecuted in a land of those who fled the same persecution on their former homeland.

The Salem Witch Trials present a curious parallel to events of recent decades. Joseph McCarthy waged a relentless war against Communism in 1950s America. McCarthy claimed to have amassed dozens of sources, documents, or witnesses that attest to his accusations. The proposed Communist or Communist sympathizer would usually resign his or her post quickly after being accused. Never before or since was one idea so hated and persecuted in America’s “free” land. I feel it should be known that The Crucible—which was based on the Salem Witch Trials—was written during the McCarthy era. Now the parallels seem constructed, don’t they?

Ever since laws were first enacted—during the heyday of Sumer, Ur, and Babylon—interrogators told suspects that a confession would spare them worse punishment than denial. Often this was true, and is now; yet, a sage might say to confess to a crime uncommitted is unwise. Think of it this way: if you admit to murdering someone you didn’t—in order to secure less punishment—you have let the real killer escape scot-free. True yesterday, true today, true tomorrow this is. That being said, it is important to note that justice is not always best served in the court of Law. Madame Justice is fair and equal and knows no discrimination and is only right. We often fail to remember that what’s lawful is not always right, and what is unlawful is not always wrong. That is why Prohibition was repealed; that’s why slavery was abolished; segregation outlawed; suffrage granted to all regardless of color, gender, or religion; there is a reason we have legislature and a Supreme Court. We have such institutions to correct what is wrong with Law.

Right and wrong are never white and black. For if it were that way, all of our souls would be black as a black hole; or either, as white as fresh virgin’s clothes. Taoism best represents this. Yin and Yang shows there is good and bad in every action. You might help an old lady across the street because she needs help, but you are also doing it because others are watching. If no one is around, you know God is watching, or if you don’t believe in God, you know you are there, and thus do it for your own soul. Hitler may have slaughtered twelve million human beings at the expense of his delusion, yet his delusion was purity. And while there are acts solely good and others solely bad, most are solely neither nor both. That is the main reason opposition to societal norms should never be suppressed. In 1950, Russian-born American scientist Immanuel Velikovsky published Worlds in Collision which suggested that the planet Venus sprung out of the planet Jupiter and caused severe catastrophes on Earth before setting into its current orbit (Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, episode 4: “Heaven and Hell” ). Now, his theory was completely rejected by experts—he was a psychiatrist—with such intense solidarity, and rightly so, for his ideas were wrong. However, the tragedy of this tale is that fellow scientists tried to suppress Velikovsky’s ideas. The suppression of minority ideas is equal to book burnings and censorship. None of those actions benefit anyone, and they never progress knowledge which is the only pursuit of science. Society follows the same pursuit. Changes in society always come from minorities (i.e., intellectuals for the Enlightenment, blacks for jazz and rock, etc.). In fact, minority ideas are catered to in many ways today, for fear of being discriminatory.

The Bible is considered the Ultimate Authority by many people. Those are the people who believe every word in the book is pure truth. On the other end of the spectrum are the people who believe the Bible is wholly false and such a fraud it should be burned. Most “Christians” however, fall somewhere in the middle, as do I. The Bible is a piece of literature, just as The Lord of the Rings is; but that does not mean it can’t be true. An autobiography is true, but it is also literature. And as we all know, literature is open to many interpretations. That does not mean, although, that you can interpret the Bible howsoever you wish. The Bible has certain things open for varied interpretation, like Genesis, Revelation, Noah’s Flood, etc. There are also things in the Bible not open to interpretation, like Exodus, the Sermon on the Mount, the Miracles, or the Resurrection.

Speaking of floods, let’s talk about destruction. The saying “that which doesn’t destroy us only makes us stronger” is believed my countless souls to be true inspiration. However, I feel that the quote is a misnomer. The Crucible mentions Abigail (niece of the village minister, who accuses several village women as witches) fleeing to Barbados after her goals are at risk of being exposed, and failing. She obviously wasn’t destroyed emotionally, since she never looks back. But, I don’t think she became stronger by it, seeing as though she fled her home and leaving everyone she knows behind her. In modern times too, this saying doesn’t hold up. I can be humiliated and nearly beaten into submission and still never recover. Not being destroyed leads to strength is like saying losing one leg but not the other makes you run faster. It is so absurd as to be preposterous.

The witch trials in Salem were in themselves total absurdities. Forget that they lived in a different time; they were just as smart as us now, but perhaps they were just so superstitious as to be unbelievable, or maybe they just wanted some blood—like Nero. But either way, what they did was inexcusable and is a tragedy of what happens when you have too much religion. Furthermore, my response to the Trials is testament to my thesis, that my beliefs and morals are a product of my time only and no other. The morals of Seventeenth Century Salem are representative of the 1600s. And also I said my beliefs are not influenced by the blunders of the past; I should perhaps embellish on that some. My morals are based on the current state of events and the history of dates in the context of today, not in the context of the times the events occurred. Why should they? We live now, not then, and so we should think in the context of now, and of no other time.

I think witch hunts are quite rare these days, but other hunts still rage on. China hunts for political enemies and public dissenters and rounds them up as the state becomes a key player in the world. Tabloids hang any public figure for any human mistake as being a “terrible person.” The Western governments hunt down those who use substances for pleasure and a high they so desperately crave and brand them as doped-up monsters. Why? Why do we keep up these persecutions, when all they do is keep the whole species back? Now I invite all those who read this to take it upon themselves not to persecute for doing so makes you no better than the judges in Salem, Massachusetts in the year of 1692. A better world will only come about when those who run things learn from the past and stop repeating it. Because, the less madness, the better. Yet no matter the epoch, madness will abound, and will be common.

Word count: 1,579