(*This should go without saying, but for any newcomers who found this page via the Google-y Oracle and have even the slightest doubt, MODERN PAGANS DON’T DO HUMAN SACRIFICE. We think it’s a BAD thing. Are we all clear on that? Good. Let’s proceed.*)
Terror Tales October 1934
Last March I promised commentor TK I’d do a post (or two) on sacrifice – the bloody kind – for Halloween. Well, TK, I haven’t forgotten. It starts today: a modern Pagan’s take on religion’s sordid past of death and dismemberment in the name of a god. This post’s not so gruesome (yet!), but I promise to get to the juicy stuff (pun intended) in Part 2.
To start off, however, we need a clear definition of what human sacrifice means.
Human sacrifice is the [lowercase] pagan practice of ritually killing people in a superstitious desire to appease their barbaric and bloodthirsty gods.
Hmm… Something doesn’t sit well with me about this definition, although it sure sounds like the one I’ve heard most of my life. What could be wrong with it??
Oh wait. It defines human sacrifice as something only Pagans do. *sigh* Royal readers, the sordid truth is that that ain’t the case. So let’s get rid of that definition.
Wikipedia (purveyor of all knowledge) offers a different definition:
Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings as part of a religious ritual (ritual killing).
Hmm… I like this one better; there’s no specific mention of Pagans as the human sacrificers. However, I still disagree – even though this has been provided for us by the mighty wikipedia. I argue that this definition still unfairly makes human sacrifice a “Pagan†thing to the exclusion of other religions – it just does it more subtly. Bear with me for a moment here; it’s funny how a couple words make a big difference in perception. Compare these examples with the definition above:
1) According to ancient sources like Tacitus’s Germania (a first century Roman account of the Germanic tribes) and Caesar’s Gallic War (Julius Caesar’s first hand account of his war to defeat the Gauls), in Germanic and Celtic culture priests were often in charge of doling out punishment to convicted criminals. When a crime called for capital punishment, they made a religious ritual out of the execution by offering the condemned to the gods before hanging them (or whatever form of execution the crime called for; hanging was one of the more common).
This, according to the Wikipedia definition, counts as human sacrifice. It is a religious ritual in which people are dedicated to a god or gods and then killed. The fact that they were legally condemned criminals who were going to die anyway doesn’t change that it fulfills the definition.
2) There is currently an ongoing investigation in Peru regarding fourteen shamans who have been murdered (“shot, stabbed, or hacked with machetesâ€) over the past year and a half. Evidence has led the investigation towards two men who belong to a church that believes “the shamans are people possessed by demons, so they have to be killed.â€
Should the men be convicted, this would not, according to the wikipedia definition, count as human sacrifice because while the murders were religiously motivated, the shamans were not killed as part of a religious ritual.
For another example of this kind of religiously motivated killing, see GG’s article on the murdering of witches in sub-Saharan Africa. This sickening practice is still happening around the globe.
3) Before battle, Vikings were known to ritually throw a spear over the battlefield, hallowing the ground and dedicating all who died on the field to Odin (and possibly helping them attain a place in Valhalla).
This could be argued as human sacrifice by the wikipedia definition because there was a formal ritual that made the fight a sacred event and dedicated the soon-to-be-dead to a god.
4) On 9/11 Islamists crashed four planes, killing nearly 3,000 people because of a man’s fatwa and the belief that Islam should take over the world. Maybe the terrorists considered flying the planes to be a ritual, but I haven’t read anything that leads me to believe that.
Nearly 3,000 people died in the name of a religion, and yet this is not human sacrifice.
Now, I’m not denying there are examples of gory, macabre, still-beating-heart-ripped-out human sacrifice done in the past by “pagans†(I will get to those next time!). I am saying, however, that the way we define words can help create and sustain prejudice. I have provided examples in which capital punishment and war are considered human sacrifice, but hacking a man to death with a machete or using technology to murder thousands, both in the name of religion, are not. Not that war and capital punishment are happy things (and the crimes for which most ancient societies issued capital punishment are ludicrous by modern standards), but I hope you will agree with me that the accepted definition of “human sacrifice†needs some adjustment.
I propose a better definition:
Human sacrifice is the act of killing one or more human beings in honor of, in propitiation to, or under the (assumed) instruction of a divine power.
I don’t believe formalized ritual is what makes the act a human sacrifice. If a person died because somebody thought a god wanted it to happen, what else would you call that? (Besides tragically misguided.) If a religious organization condoned or aided an adherent in committing murder, does it make a significant difference whether or not the killers cast a circle or shook a rattle? Readers, what say you to this more encompassing definition?
In two weeks,* on El Dia de Los Muertos, I will use my definition as we proceed to the blood and guts.
*Next week is the DC40 campaign’s Texas day, and I’ll be using the opportunity to write about religious freedom (at least of the kind that doesn’t involve human sacrifice). I hope all of you will stop by! I’d love to see comments from as many people as we can get celebrating diversity and freedom!
+ Featured Image: Abraham’s Sacrifice (based on the Biblical story of Abraham (almost) sacrificing his son Isaac to Jehovah)
++ I apologize for the magazine cover. I couldn’t help myself.
12 comments
T.K. says:
Oct 19, 2011
Thank you for rembering.
Yeah but, your definition still relates human sacrifice to the honor of, propitiation to, or assumed instructions of a divine power.
There are many ways human life/lives are sacrificed that have nothing to do with divine power. I guess I’m suggesting there are several definitions of human sacrifice, your suggestion is certainly one of them.
And yes, GG looks extremely classy as a cultist human sacrifice.
Do/did they always sacrifice the classiest damsels?
Waiting for the juicy part 🙂
GG says:
Oct 19, 2011
Aw, thanks, T.K. (and Jax)! I try to look my best even when I’m under the knife. *tee hee*
You raise an interesting academic point about disposing of human life in the absence of divine intention. Is there such a thing as human sacrifice outside the context of a religious offering? If yes, how so? Can you provide us with an example?
Last we chatted, Jax and I agreed that killing people (which is uber bad in any context) outside of a religious context is just plain ole murder — a la Dexter, if you will. It’s not a sacrifice.
Jax says:
Oct 19, 2011
TK (and GG) y’all bring up good points. The way I see it, sacrifice comes from the Latin “sacer” + “facere” (holy + to make). While now we sacrifice our deserts to our diets, the original meaning of the word was specific to a religious purpose.
I don’t deny that today “sacrifice” by itself has a much broader definition. However, I would argue that sometimes two words put together mean more than the sum of their parts. I can be in an office that has a way to post mail, but that doesn’t make it a “post office.” A gift card is a card with monetary credit on it, but it’s not a “credit card” (and it’s not always a gift). To me, “human sacrifice” falls into this category. Human life can be sacrificed without it necessarily being a “human sacrifice.”
To tell a really sad example, my grandfather fought in WWII. When he was in the back of a truck, a grenade was thrown in and his best friend jumped on it. He sacrificed himself for everyone in the truck, saving my grandfather (and allowing me to be born – may his soul be most literally blessed). He was a human who sacrificed his life, but I wouldn’t call that a “human sacrifice.” To me, when you stick the word “human” in front of “sacrifice, the “sacred” meaning of sacrifice is relevant again.
Although I have heard people say things to the effect of, “The Iraq War is a mass human sacrifice to the god of oil” I think that type of usage is using literary license and not sticking with the purer definition of the word.
Obviously I’m not the word authority of planet Earth, so you will find differences of opinion!
GG, I would like to point out that in the same paragraph in which you say killing people “is uber bad in any context” you bring up Dexter, who saves lives by killing people. Is it uber-bad to kill somebody if it’s to save somebody else? Just thought I’d toss that out there as an ethical quandary. 🙂
GG says:
Oct 21, 2011
Good point, Jax. Killing for the purpose of saving (or defending) others is acceptable. For example, Osama Bin Laden — that MF had to go.
Interestingly, though, his death — and the death of others who fall in battle against the U.S. — are deaths that are publicly vetted. That is, though a declaration of war, federal funding of warfare and public participation in the military, we sanction military action — and the death of our “enemies” — at a social level.
I dig Dexter, but he remains a murderer. His killings are absent public consent. Not that I wouldn’t consent, given the opportunity and given his intentions. But the opportunity is NOT given. And so, Dexter the Cool Cat is Dexter the Cold Killer.
I am open to argument on this!
Etta says:
Apr 26, 2016
Good to find an expert who knows what he’s tailnkg about!
T.K. says:
Oct 19, 2011
GG – the examples I would site would be similar to JAX’s grandfather’s best friend. Be it a soldier, a fireman, a policeman (the xxxman not intended to be sexist) or just some average person who is a human sacrificing their life for someone else. Not to call that a human sacrifice just seems….empty to me.
JAX – word authority or not, you’re always factual and interesting. The main point I will take from this post is that NO, MODERN PAGANS DON’T DO HUMAN SACRIFICES.
Jax says:
Oct 20, 2011
TK, you got the most important part! haahhahahaa
Although you do bring up another really interesting point. I’m looking at hs from a modern Pagan perspective in which I get asked the question: “But didn’t they do… HUMAN SACRIFICE?????” like I’ve got a ritual knife in my closet ready to kidnap some innocent victim. But from what I read, a lot of the times ancient cultures didn’t look at it as something that they were doing to people, but a gift that someone was giving for the tribe. There was one tribe (which I wrote about, but I didn’t write this particular story) who would select a sacrifice a year ahead of time. He would be crowned King for a year and treated as the incarnation of a god. He lived in a palace, people showered him with gifts, he had four women living with him, and then at the end of the year he gave his life up for his people and, they believed, went to live with the sun in glory for his selfless act.
From an ancient pagan perspective, human sacrifice meant giving your life up for the good of others. Which would be exactly in line with what you’re talking about. I guess since, like other modern Pagans, I don’t see human sacrifice (or animal sacrifice) as something asked of us by the gods, I see their actions as misguided and a waste of life. Whereas men and women who selflessly give their life for others as members of the military or firemen or policemen etc (no offense taken at the XXXmen 😉 ) is not misguided or wasteful, but amazing and heroic.
From the perspective of the one sacrificing his or her life, they are coming from a similar psychological place. From the perspective of the one holding the knife, they aren’t. A definition of HS, however, that was about self-sacrifice for bettering the community, however, would no longer include definitions of murder in the name of a god – such as the witch and shaman murders or 9/11 or even the Satanic Panic ritual cult murder fictions that I grew up hearing.
Hmm…. interesting and much to think about. Thanks TK!
k! says:
Oct 25, 2011
I haven’t put a lot of thought into this before typing which could get me into trouble, so bear with me. But… “sacrifice,” to me, has one critical component that hasn’t be discussed yet. In the context of honoring your gods, it represents the killing of something (or someone, to be more to the point) that has *value* to you as a person, as a community, as a culture, as a religion.
So by that definition, no, 9/11 is NOT human sacrifice. Nor is the killing of prisoners, who have no perceived societal value. To me, it’s only sacrifice if you’re giving up something you care about. Your warriors. Your horses. Your livestock. Your maidens. Your children. Your slaves.
The pagans I know today “sacrifice” along this same philosophical arc. Giving up something that has meaning to you personally. Tithing is the same concept, from my (Christian) point of view.
Just to muddy the waters a little more. 🙂
Jax says:
Oct 31, 2011
This is a good point, K! I have discussed this with Pagans who say exactly the same thing you just did. But I think the idea of sacrifice as giving up something (or someone) of personal value is a modern one. For example, animal sacrifice was performed by most cultures back in the day, including the Jewish ancestors of modern Christianity. They did kill the literal fatted calf… then they ate it. It wasn’t giving it up in the sense of going without. It was eating a nice meal (often a nicer one than people normally ate – the opposite of going without) in community and in honor of the gods. “To make sacred” (the Latin breakdown of sacrifice) was not about giving up, but dedicating.
There’s an asceticism in the post-Conversion faiths, like Buddhism and Christianity, that I don’t think was present in the pre-Conversion faiths. I wonder if this has to do with life getting more abundant. In an ancient society in which a community is just scraping by, the idea of giving up things of value isn’t holy, it’s wasteful precious resources and could kill you. A god would be pretty vicious to ask those who have the bare minimum for survival to give up what they have. But today when we have more than we need, letting go of things we care about is emotionally difficult, but actually makes our lives better without the clutter and attachment to unnecessary things. Maybe I have a too generous view of the gods, but I don’t think they ask things of us for the sake of asking. I don’t think we have to prove anything to them just for the sake of proving. St. John in the desert with his hair shirt and locust dinner has always left me non-plussed. I don’t get what good his “sacrifice” of all human comforts does for him, his G/god, or anybody else.
The Aztecs (who I’m posting about this week; they were seriously crazy) sacrificed prisoners of war on their altars. They didn’t have an attachment to these people; they weren’t even members of their community. But to the Aztec mindset, this still satisfied their gods’ demand for blood sacrifice. It even had the extra-added benefit to them of terrifying the neighboring communities into leaving the Aztecs alone – even though the Aztecs were a small population compared to the tribes surrounding them and could have easily been overwhelmed. That was human sacrifice with bloody flint knives and carved altars and chanting priests, but it was in no way giving up something they cared about.
Somewhere along the way we changed our minds about what sacrifice meant and it became about giving up, but personally I don’t look at it exactly that way. I make charitable donations because I think it’s important to support my community. But the donations are not sacred to me in any way, so it’s not a true sacrifice (even though sometimes I miss the money!). Whereas donating blood last year (the one I wrote about) was more of a sacrifice – not because that pint was of such great value to me (my body remade it in, what, a couple days?), but because I offered it up with spiritual purpose. While sacrifice as giving up is definitely a definition of the term now, I think it is a new way of looking at the word and not a necessary part of the definition. Just my opinion. 🙂
Brad Sullivan says:
Nov 5, 2011
Loved the post and discussions – adding on a different perspective on “St. John in the desert with his hair shirt and locust dinner.” (love the description) While the wardrobe and meal put him in line with some prophets, and while he definitely had to sacrifice some comforts to live that way, I don’t know that it was done to please God. The ascetic life, at its core, is a practice seeking simplification in order clear away distractions and know God through prayer and contemplation – similar benefits to what you mentioned above, “letting go of things we care about…[making] our lives better without the clutter and attachment to unnecessary things.” I think that’s what he and other ascetic communities were / are going for.
Jax says:
Nov 8, 2011
Interesting, Brad. I hadn’t thought about it that way. So St. John was not trying to please God with his asceticism, but was, like a shaman who uses a smoke lodge to go on a vision quest, forcing an altered mindset to bring him closer to the divine? (But on a long term scale instead of the shorter but more intense vision quest.) Not because Jehovah wanted him to, but because he believed there’s a closeness to the divine attained through mind-altering activities? I mean, there’s asceticism, and then there’s wearing a camel shirt – which is taking ascetic one further and purposefully causing continual discomfort and pain. Extreme asceticism? The marathon version of a shaman’s divine sprint?
Granted, I think I’m being ascetic when I only drink one coffee in the morning, so what do I know about the lifestyle. 🙂
cyp says:
Dec 7, 2014
you are so full of self righreous bs. Human sacrifice was widely practice by all pagans. And they did not kill only person condemned to death (although even so, condemning someone to die because they broke a branch froma tree or killed an animal is in no way justifiable). Usually pagan sacrifices were usually person considered as pure, young people and most of times children. Most pagan religions believed that a good crop could be accomplished by killing a few people once or twice a year. Usually they killed animals, but if the crops were really bad they usually made human sacrifice. And is not prejudice or stereotype against pagans, it is historical truth. And it can be proven without a doubt. And although you try to put christianity and jewdaism in the same bowl with pagan religions, you should remember that the law of the true God is against murder. Each human being is made in the image of God so killing one is an offence to God himself. That is suicide is a sin.