Tucker Carlson has always been a something of a tool. It's not that he's a conservative, but rather that he seems to have a remarkable ability to trivialize almost anything he doesn't agree with and hone in on its least relevant points. Case and point - Carlson recently interviewed a practicing witch named Amanda Yates Garcia on his show, and ignored her political points because he just had to know whether witches used "eye of newt" in spells. What that has to do with anything is anybody's guess.
If anybody out there has doubts about magick being a niche interest with a tiny following, there you go. On a political show, a witch brings up real political issues. But all the host wants to know about is "eye of newt" - which, by the way, is a thing because newts have eyes. I don't know of any spells calling for that as an ingredient, though. That's not just Carlson's personal cluelessness there - that's the level at which most people understand what we do.
What Carlson doesn't understand here is that when somebody engages in prayer with a specific intent, that's the same damn thing as a spell. Purely devotional prayers are different, but whenever you are "praying for xxx to happen" you are casting a spell. Even if you don't consider yourself a witch or a sorcerer or a magician. We just use specialized techniques to make our "prayers" more efficient and more likely to work.
Any federal regulation against spells would have to outlaw directed prayers as well, and when you look at it that way it should be clear that this would constitute an illegal restriction on free exercise of religion. So no, there's no law against spells, and it would be entirely unconstitutional to create one.
“Sincere question: Is eye of newt an actual ingredient?” Carlson asked. Garcia rolled her eyes.
“I think the real problem is not whether or not eye of newt is an actual ingredient,” Garcia said. “The real problem is we’re about to have some kind of big nuclear extravaganza with North Korea. The real problem is that we’re punishing immigrant children. The real problem is that we’re causing students to go into deep debt. I don’t think the real problem is whether or not we use eye of newt.”
“I’m not suggesting it’s a problem,” Carlson laughed. “I’m with you on the student debt, by the way.” He then pushed forward with his original question. “Is eye of newt an actual thing or not?” he insisted.
“Eye of newt? Isn’t that from Shakespeare?” she replied. “I think he was probably using a bit of poetic license.” Most witches use what’s on hand, such as candles and paper, Garcia said.
If anybody out there has doubts about magick being a niche interest with a tiny following, there you go. On a political show, a witch brings up real political issues. But all the host wants to know about is "eye of newt" - which, by the way, is a thing because newts have eyes. I don't know of any spells calling for that as an ingredient, though. That's not just Carlson's personal cluelessness there - that's the level at which most people understand what we do.
Carlson also asked about a “binding spell” Garcia and others have cast on President Donald Trump to prevent him from harming others, whether or not she was worried about the supernatural consequences of spells and if there were any federal regulations on witchcraft.
What Carlson doesn't understand here is that when somebody engages in prayer with a specific intent, that's the same damn thing as a spell. Purely devotional prayers are different, but whenever you are "praying for xxx to happen" you are casting a spell. Even if you don't consider yourself a witch or a sorcerer or a magician. We just use specialized techniques to make our "prayers" more efficient and more likely to work.
Any federal regulation against spells would have to outlaw directed prayers as well, and when you look at it that way it should be clear that this would constitute an illegal restriction on free exercise of religion. So no, there's no law against spells, and it would be entirely unconstitutional to create one.
No comments:
Post a Comment