Boys 'used for human sacrifice'

[YankeyMCC]

"Children are being trafficked into the UK from Africa and used for human sacrifices, a confidential report for the Metropolitan Police suggests."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4098172.stm

[Up2Late]

1. Oh, that is awful

Sick people.:cry:

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. What sick, evil people

what is going on in this world? Faith-based torture and human sacrifice? Maybe we should just shut down all churches and abolish religion. Religion certainly seems to do more harm then good most of the time.



Sita Kasanga was one of three people who tortured a girl she believed to be a witch.

[MichiDem]

3. That's a pretty broad brush

you're using there.

[GoBlue]

6. Unless I missed it....

the last time checked, it was pretty clear that the broad majority (>80%)of people in the world belong to a religion. I don't think there's any need to say more.

[PittPoliSci]

92. something tells me...

about 80% of the people in the world aren't summarily torturing and sarcificing children to appease their god. don't knock all religion because of people like that.

[Taxloss]

12. It's only a matter of degrees.

The central ritual of Christianity is the symbolic drinking of blood.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Oh, for heaven's sake.

This is a small bunch of fundie fanatics, probably from one of those syncretisti cults originally from Africa.

Far more churches (like mine) are into feeding and finding housing for homeless youth than are into sacrificing them--by several thousands of orders of magnitude.

[Taxloss]

16. "It's a radical minority. We're shocked, shocked I tell you."

The alibi of so many religious, political, and social organisations accused of great crimes.

Faith requires a surrender of the self and a lessening of the value of human life. On a fundamental level. Christianity emphasises sacrifice as worthy; indeed, desirable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. In this case it IS a radical minority, and I would bet

not under the umbrella of any larger organization.

In other words, these are "free-lancers" who are doing what they do separate from any larger religious organization.

Asking mainstream religions to take responsibility for a bunch of loonies who practice human sacrifice is like asking the Democrats to take responsibility for the Symbionese Liberation Front. There's simply no ideological or organizational connection.

[Taxloss]

19. There's no organisational connection, but there certainly is an

ideological connection. Christianity is based on the notion of redemption through death - Christ died to allow others to live, and the horrible deaths of the saints are emphasised in Christian lore as being necessary (somehow) to their sainthood. The central ritual of Christianity is the symbolic consumption of the blood and flesh of a dead man. If you are a Christian - and I used to be one myself - then you endorse these concepts without even thinking them odd.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Big jump from there to human sacrifice

which, by the way, is an extremely rare practice among groups that have even the remotest connection to Christianity. I've tried to think of historical examples, and I can't. I couldn't find any references to Christians practicing human sacrifice when I googled "human sacrifice"+"Christians," either.

From what I've been able to find on Google, the London cases are evidently the work of syncretistic sects--churches that have incorporated indigenous African beliefs, such as witchcraft.

[Taxloss]

24. Here's a historical example:

Redemption through death in the Salem witch trials.



The witchcraze afflicted Europe as well; for a time in Germany, so many witches were burned that certain southern German towns found themselves coated in human fat.

Human sacrifice is certainly not a widespread practice, but it is not indirectly linked with Christianity by any means. Few religions place such an emphasis on death.

[Arianrhod]

27. I would agree with you that witch- and heretic-burning

constitute Christian "human sacrifice".

Interestingly, except for Bavaria, there were no witch burnings in Germany. There were also no witch burnings in Italy. What's interesting about this is that the official stance of the Catholic Church was to let witches be (hence Italy). The burnings in Catholic Bavaria were largely a class war engaged in by the local Prince, rather than a religious thing. The rest of Europe's persecution was largely incited by the Protestants (especially in England, where the Protestants were so frenzied that they decided they could no longer stay in a country that looked upon witches and Catholics as human beings. The Separatists therefore split from Elizabeth's queendom, and headed for America, where they landed as the Puritans.)

Conservative estimates are that 100,000 men, women and children were burned as witches from the 16th to the 18th Centuries, a period of about 150 years. The youngest witch executed was in Bavaria, and she was 11 years old.

A genuine threat to the State!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. And recent studies of the Salem witch trials have shown

that the patterns of accusation followed social distinctions amongst the townspeople; that the accusers were on one side of a set of property disputes and the accused on the other.

Look underneath any so-called "religious" dispute, and you'll find ethnic, economic, social, and other factors lying beneath it.

Nor is religion the only excuse that people use for persecution. Look at the Cultural Revolution in China. The stated purpose was to "purify" China of "bourgeois" influences, but in fact, it was part of a power struggle within the Chinese Communist Party. If you don't think there was "human sacrifice" involved, then you've never talked to survivors of that period.

[Taxloss]

35. How does that excuse religion?

The fact that other excuses are used doesn't let faith systems off the hook - besides, Maoist zealotry certainly carries religious characteristics. Religion itself is deeply implicated whichever way you cut it.

[Tigress DEM]

117. Personally, I don't excuse religion.

However, there is a difference between the core teachings of Christ and what has been built up around them.

It's like Christianity is the raw wood. You can make it into a chair or a bed or a house or a baseball bat. Still even though these things have innocent purpose, you can confine a person in a chair, bed or house and beat them with the baseball bat.

It doesn't mean that those things are bad in and of themselves. It means that the person with deadly intent is responsible for their actions in misusing them.

So in looking at times when governments have used religion as a weapon to control the masses and people have abdicated their responsibility to live up to the true messages in Christianity, it is the responsibility of those who chose to use religion as a weapon or as a scape goat to justify following their wrong hearted desires.

Religion itself may not be the best way to connect to Christian teachings sometimes. Still it doesn't mean there aren't basic reasons it works for people and usually keeps people behaving in honorable ways that are respectful of others.

[Taxloss]

134. Of course, religion is never to blame.

The Word is neutral. It can be fashioned into a whip or a pair of shoes.

This is all bollocks, of course. The Word is not neutral, and if it was the most religious states would not be the most dishonorable and violent states in the world.

Case study: Rwanda, most Christian country in Africa.

Case Study: Saudi Arabia.

Yes, governments can manipulate religiojn to control the masses - so the question you should ask yourself is if you should endorse a system that hands this power to the government?

[Tigress DEM]

203. So you would let the manipulators go scott free and blame "religion"?

Come on, religion isn't any more neutral than the sun is frozen, but the power involved can be something good for some people.

I understand about the abuses, but I still go to those who perpetuated the abuse and not the basic teachings of Christ as the reason for the abuse.

I would hold those who claim to be Christians to the standard of Christ's example - no one can really pass that test, but if someone claims they are following his way while abusing children or murdering people it's an obvious "duh" that they aren't following the correct path.

[Taxloss]

211. Tigress, I was being sarcastic.

But Christianity is so fragmented, what is the correct path?

Answer carefully -wars have been fought over this.

[Tigress DEM]

215. I go for the simplest one...

Love one another as I have loved you and your God with your whole heart and soul.

Keep your nose out of your neighbor's business for the most part:
ie: deal with the log in my own eye before looking at the speck in my neighbors.... judge not lest ye be judged

But if someone is in need do the right thing.
Feed His sheep, be the one who really represents the Christian mores by giving aid and comfort whenever you can.

Take care of myself so I have the abundance to give - works in the keep my nose out of other's business / I am my own responsibility - I too may need help sometimes, but that doesn't make me helpless.

Stand up to Pharisees wherever they lurk. Call them on their stuff.

Don't argue excessively with other believers. Agree to disagree.

Pray for your enemies.

[beam me up scottie]

73. "Look underneath any so-called "religious" dispute, ...

and you'll find ethnic, economic, social, and other factors lying beneath it. "

So nobody was ever persecuted because of religion ?

[PittPoliSci]

95. It seems to me...

that you are actively seeking to vilify anyone who possess any religious belief. What I want to know is, do you think that religion has ever done anything good?

[beam me up scottie]

106. Well I would suggest you read my posts

again and then show me exactly where I "actively" sought " to vilify anyone who possess any religious belief "

I'll wait here.

[LanternWaste]

99. I would say that...

I would say that *most* religious persecutions had, at their core, a more... secular agenda (power, money, etc.).

Were people persecuted simply due to religious beliefs one or the other held? Absolutely. But the old, staid, "more people have died becuase of religion" argument has been illustrated as simplistic and/or erroneous interpretations of the underlying events.

[beam me up scottie]

107. It has?

I'd like to see the proof.
Please post your sources so that I can read them for myself.

[LanternWaste]

114. In a nutshell...

Well, it's never called a "proof" when we're talking about History... it's called "evidence" (quite a bit of difference)...

Also, let me qualify something. I'm not a trusting individual, so to me, the internet is not quite the research tool you guys probably think it is. I still use the library (but, the sources I'll bne naming are probably on the internet for all I know... I'm just a bit of a Luddite and like to have boks in front of me rather than a link to some monkey's daily blog). So you'll get names of (available) books, but no links :)

...Before I get to the particular facts, there is more than just a factual problem here. There is a theoretical problem as well and I would like to make the point that we must distinguish between what an individual or group of people do and what the code that they allegedly follow actually asserts. The fact is that there are people who do things consistently that are inconsistent with the code that they allegedly follow. But often times when that happens, especially where religion is concerned, the finger is pointed not at the individual who is choosing to do something barbaric, but at the code he claims to represent. The only time it's legitimate to point to the code as the source of barbarism is if the code is, in fact, the source of barbarism. People object to a religion that used barbaric means to spread the faith. But one can only use that as an objection against the religion if it's the religion itself that asserts that one must do it this way, as opposed to people who try to promote the spread of the religion in a forceful fashion in contradiction to what the religion actually teaches.

Now in Europe it was a little different. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for practicing witchcraft in 1431. Over a period of 300 years, from 1484 to 1782, the Christian church put to death 300,000 women accused of witchcraft, about 1000 per year. Again, I don't want to minimize the impact of 1000 lives lost a year, but here we're talking about a much, much smaller number over a long period of time than what has been claimed in the past.

In America we're talking thirty-five people. In Europe over 300 years, we're talking about 300,000. Not millions. The sources here are World Book Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Americana . You can also read in Newsweek , August 31, 1992. I'm keeping the sources simple so they are readily available.

There were two Inquisitions. One of them began right around the end of the first millennium in 1017. It began as an attempt to root out heretics and occurred chiefly in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The Spanish Inquisition followed in the fourteenth century and was much bloodier. It began as a feudal aristocracy which forced religious values on society. Jews were caught in the middle of this and many of them were killed. About 2000 executions took place. The Inquisition that took place at the turn of the millennium, less than that. So we're talking about thousands of people, not millions.

There were actually seven different Crusades and tens of thousands died in them. Most of them were a misdirected attempt to free the Holy Land. Some weren't quite like that. There were some positive aspects to them, but they were basically an atrocity over a couple hundred years. The worst was the Children's Crusade. All of the children who went to fight died along the way. Some were shipwrecked and the rest were taken into slavery in Egypt.

A blight on Christianity? Certainty. Something wrong? Dismally wrong. A tragedy? Of course. Millions and millions of people killed? No. The numbers are tragic, but pale in comparison to the statistics of what secular criminals have committed.

My point is not that Christians or religious people aren't vulnerable to committing terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things; it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to these kinds of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

My source is The Guinness Book of World Records . Look up the category "Judicial" and under the subject of "Crimes: Mass Killings," the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. The Walker Report published by the U.S. Senate Committee of the Judiciary in July 1971 placed the parameters of the total death toll in China since 1949 between 32 and 61.7 million people. An estimate of 63.7 million was published by Figaro magazine on November 5, 1978.

In the U.S.S.R. the Nobel Prize winner, Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimates the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.

Finally, in Cambodia "as a percentage of a nation's total population, the worst genocide appears to be that in Cambodia, formerly Kampuchea. According to the Khmer Rouge foreign minister, more than one third of the eight million Khmer were killed between April 17, 1975 and January 1979. One third of the entire country was put to death under the rule of Pol Pot, the founder of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. During that time towns, money and property were abolished. Economic execution by bayonet and club was introduced for such offenses as falling asleep during the day, asking too many questions, playing non-communist music, being old and feeble, being the offspring of an undesirable, or being too well educated. In fact, deaths in the Tuol Sleng interrogation center in Phnom Penh, which is the capitol of Kampuchea, reached 582 in a day."

Then in Chinese history of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries there were three periods of wholesale massacre. The numbers of victims attributed to these events are assertions rather than reliable estimates. The figures put on the Mongolian invasion of northern China form 1210 to 1219 and from 1311 to 1340 are both on the order of 35 million people. While the number of victims of bandit leader Chang Hsien-Chung, known as the Yellow Tiger, from 1643 to 1647 in the Szechwan province has been put at 40 million people.

China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. The Chinese at two different times in medieval history, somewhere in the vicinity of 35 million and 40 million people. Ladies and gentlemen, make note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view or ideologies that had left God out of the equation. None of these involve religion."

Many, many more examples to give, but I think you get the idea. None of us should be absolute when it comes to thinking we're right and the opposition wrong, yes?


From an informal topic-paper written some years back. Not trying to change anyone's mind.. just attempting to show that even we on the left are guilty of repeating "Bumper-Sticker" philosophies from time to time. You may find a few, juicy, off-topic straw-men to hit me with, as I've editied the copy rather quickly (better than having a twenty page topic-paper in this thread). Hope you crack some books and do some research into this yourself! It's very interesting stuff!

:toast:

Edited for clarity

[beam me up scottie]

127. The Guinness Book of World Records ?

Yeah, I'll crack open that book and research history...:eyes:
Then I'll move on to the bible.
Isn't that were chimpy gets his information?

"You may find a few, juicy, off-topic straw-men to hit me with, as I've editied the copy rather quickly"

Who needs strawmen ?

You have no proof so you insult my intelligence, accuse me of thinking in absolutes and then predict that I will need to make up strawmen.

Honestly, for someone with your obviously superior knowledge and lecturing skills, I would have thought that you wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.

See ? I was wrong about something.



"Also, let me qualify something. I'm not a trusting individual, so to me, the internet is not quite the research tool you guys probably think it is."

"you guys probably think it is "?

How do you know what I think about the internet as a research tool?
Perhaps your superior intellect affords you the ability to read minds as well?

"Many, many more examples to give, but I think you get the idea. None of us should be absolute when it comes to thinking we're right and the opposition wrong, yes?"

WHERE did I exhibit absolute thinking ?

SHOW me.

It shouldn't be difficult since you can use your research skills to easily scan my posts on this thread in under a minute.


edit grammar

[LanternWaste]

133. Whoa....

Didn't mean to imply *anything* insulting to you. Sorry if you interpreted it that way.

...The internet is seen as a valuable research tool (by "you guys", I meant everyone who thinks that to be true... not you personally).

You *didn't* exhibit absolute thinking in this instance, but I believe everyone does (including myself, more than I'd like to admit) from time to time. Recognizing it is a great way to put the brakes on it. If there was an indictment from that statement, it's a worldwide indictment- not an indictment, insult or gibe at you. To me, it's not an insult, simply a vocal illustration of part and parcel of the human condition.

I'm sure if the Guiness Book is not a valid enough source for you, you can find more sources that would substantiate the numbers. I found lots of them. I even mentioned a few more in the bit I edited for the post :)

No, I don't have superior knowledge OR lecturing skills. Wish I did, though.

History has no proof, so none cane be illustrated. Lot's of evidence though, and lot's of different interpretations. Actually, I thought I did a pretty good job of addressing your specific question with sources and valid interpreation of them, though it appears you don't think so.

Lighten up my, friend. Anyone can find insults anywhere if they look hard enough for them, even in places where they don't exist. :)

Again, sorry if you thought I was targeting you rather than rreplying to you. I value your insights and perspectives in this discussion and haven't thrown them away or denigrated you. I hope you can believe that.

[beam me up scottie]

136. Actually I do believe it.

If you meant no offense, then none taken.

I always welcome insight from others and like to think that I am capable of learning every single day that I am alive and conscious.

I actually enjoy reading history, there are quite a few excellent historians on DU.
Religious history is subject to interpretation by historians as well as apologists.
I might argue with a poster's version of history and present facts to bolster my argument, but when I see the latter making broad brush statements, I call them on it.

I do constantly try to avoid making the same mistake when I post.

[Taxloss]

162. Would it illuminate matters here if I said I had a

BA in history from Cambridge? The UK Cambridge, that is. As a student of the medieval period - with a diversion into Enlgish colonialism - I have studied Christianity left, right, and centre. Hell, I wrote a special paper on the First Crusade, and was lectured by Riley-Smith (who was linked to on this site slamming the film "Kingdom of Heaven"). I also wrote the paper "Conviction or convenience? The uses and abuses of political prophecy in 15th century England", which remains the only text on that subject.

I know my stuff.

[beam me up scottie]

168. It would.

And I look forward to reading more about your studies when you decide to post more on the subject.

(if you decide to post more on the subject!)

[Taxloss]

188. I'll see if I can dig up my paper on the subject.

And post it in A&A.

[Gelliebeans]

Please do Taxloss

I am very interested in the topics you are discussing ;)

[Julius Civitatus]

218. I agree. I also read recently about witch-hunts in Protestant Europe

Their viciousness and insanity was such that the persecuted and killed nearly 300,000 people accused of practicing witchcraft. The anti-witch fever that agitated northern Europe made the Inquisition look feeble in comparison.

Ironically enough, history is written by the winners, and we have acquired the belief that the Inquisition was the worst of human tragedies in that era... when the Dutch, German and British were burning people at the stake, nilly willy. Still, the history that came to us of that period was written by British and Dutch, which at the time were mortal enemies of the Spanish Empire.

The Inquisition, as brutal as it was, killed over 2,000 people and processed about 35,000 (there are very detailed trial records in Seville, Spain, of each process undertaken by the Inquisition).

It is estimated that more than 200,000 people and as many as 300,000 were burned by the anti-witchcraft tribunals in northern Europe.

Interesting how often history is mixed with propaganda.

[roguevalley]

278. its estimated between 1500 and 1700 about 17 million women were

killed as witches in Europe. A silent holocaust.

[Taxloss]

144. It's never to do with religion, is it?

Presumably the crusades had more to do with socioeconomic disparities beteween post-Roman Europe and the Muslim Levant, and much less to do with religious leaders in Western Europe stirring up religious hatred based on entirely imaginary abuses of Christians in the Holy Land. Google "First Crusade Clermont".

[beam me up scottie]

161. Why of course not, Silly Rabbit !

Just look at all the wonderful things christianity has done for women and children in Africa !

And as an atheist, I shouldn't feel threatened at all by the fundies in this country.

And the pope really cares about all of the people dying from aids in third world countries.

And abstinence works.

And mother t would have helped her suffering charges if she could have.

And gays don't need to fear the reichwing, because they hate the sin and love the sinner.

And only the GOOD people are christians, the others are just pretending.

Did I miss anything?

[Taxloss]

167. But as a threatened minority,

don't you feel overjoyed that we're being pushed into the vanguard by the brave and proud liberal Christian majority? Apparently we're called "Operation Human Shield". Once we're wiped out, the wets might take the fundies seriously.

[beam me up scottie]

169. Yes, I especially admire

their tolerance and lack of discrimination when it comes to offering me as a sacrifice.

[Taxloss]

174. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

As far as I read that, we atheists are deader then the colonel's crunchy chicken salad. I personally look forward to the horrified and scanda;ised posts when we do not rise up and form a shining army on a hill. That's when 7%/17% appears on my sig.

[beam me up scottie]

180. Just look at what happens when

you criticize christianity.

Why are we supposed to be reverent to a religion because some of its adherents didn't want to burn us ?

Gee, thanks for that.

[Taxloss]

184. Hey, look at it this way.

We atheists are the "boiling point" of religion. When we start getting burned at the stake, hung from lampposts, and so on, that will probably be the point those liberal Christians who don't like the fundies make their stand. Maybe. But we have to go in first.

[beam me up scottie]

193. Sort of like decoys.

Disposable ones.

[Taxloss]

195. Red shirts.

Your screen name tells me you know what I mean.

[beam me up scottie]

202. I do. I do.

:evilgrin:

Great scott, man!
What time is it across the pond ?

[Taxloss]

204. I'm a night owl.

[beam me up scottie]

205. Me too.

Sleep, who needs it?
There are so many other things to do.

Hopefully you don't have to work today.

[Taxloss]

207. I work 24/7.

My entire life is a blend of pleasure and money-making activities.

ON EDIT: With stretches of boredom.

[beam me up scottie]

208. You know,

I once considered a career as a sex-worker.

[Zhade]

227. You never told me that!

:evilgrin:

[Tigress DEM]

118. When religion is used to harm, it's being mis-used.

It's like blaming the car for the accident instead of the nut behind the wheel.

Know what I mean? :silly:

[beam me up scottie]

128. How does that prove that

nobody was ever persecuted because of religion?

[Tigress DEM]

135. Did I SAY that no one was ever persecuted because of religion?

Religion is a box we put around beliefs. The core beliefs of Christianity are in conflict with the origional post's issue of human sacrifice - which is different from self sacrifice.

Has the church been used as a deadly weapon? Yes. If you read all my posts, you'll see what I believe about that.

But I don't for instance blame the Republican's basic beliefs for what is happening now. I blame the people who are doing the deeds for what they have done and for abusing the tennants of Christianity by their behavior.

When I see people using Christianity as a weapon, it's the same thing. Those who do it are wrong to do it, but is the basic message of Christianity a crock of shit? Not in my opinion.

Does a person who truly follows the teachings of Christ think for a moment that killing another to save yourself is right? No. Then there is a difference in the teachings of Christ and the trappings of religion and even further down the path the misuse of religion against people by those in power. Still, I blame those who misuse religion, not the institution itself.

I personally have a problem with MS Religion, but I don't confuse my issues with any justification to dump on the genuine beliefs of many people or the concept as a whole because at one time it was there for me and I learned a lot about how to be a decent human being through following the example of Christ.

[beam me up scottie]

142. Christianity

is incompatible with other belief systems as well as those without beliefs in god or gods.

The goal is to convert everyone, is it not?

Isn't that why they have spent centuries invading other lands and converting the natives so that they too will be "saved"?

Did you read Manic Expressions posts on what Africa was like before her people were "saved" by christians?

Saved from what? Thoughts and beliefs independent of christianity?

As for the rest of the "basic message" not being a crock of shit, that is entirely your opinion. You can believe whatever you want to, I could care less.

When I am told by christians that their religion says that I am unworthy because I do not believe in their god or their myths and that I need to be saved in order to go to their special place in the sky, then I have a problem with christianity.

A big problem.

Maybe not all denominations actively seek to convert others but the message is the same, that their god is the one and only true god.

[Tigress DEM]

153. Not all denomonations seek to convert...

At it's most basic level Christians are to lead by example.

There is the piece in there that you only get saved through the sacrifice of Christ and I honestly don't know how to reconcile that, but there are plenty of Christians who will share what they believe is the truth and let another person decide for themself.

The Evangelical religions are the ones who seek to actively convert, but I would say even within that realm the outlandish behavior of facing someone with the choice of "believe or die" is still probably politically motivated - even if within the higherarchy of the church itself.

I think of it this way, in Christ's time, people thought that epilepsy was demon possession. We know have a scientific understanding and medications that can help control that medical problem. How much else do we simply not know?

I think that there may be some way that each religion is valid in its own way for the individuals that it works for. Jesus himself said not to get upset about those who believe differently and in particular he mentioned the Samaritans who were a lot more prone to secular behaviors, but weren't necessarily bad people.

My dad and I had a great relationship, and so did he and my sister, my mother had this whole love hate thing going on with him. Maybe it's the same with God and us, our relationship is built on our own experience, the knowledge we have from history and our ability to understand personally so one basic loving essence can be percieved by individuals differently.

I don't think that the Pygmy God of the Forest is that much different than my God in concept. So if that is someone's faith, I don't knock it.

I don't have to know how that all works out to know what works for me and to leave other people to sort their own beliefs out. I can share what I believe with the caveat that I'm never about to force my faith on anyone.

That would be like running up to a homeless person and shoving a hamburger all at once into their mouth.... No mater how hungry that person might have been, escaping from the lunatic trying to murder him with a big mac is going to become the new focus.

[beam me up scottie]

164. Do you think that your analogy

comparing me to a homeless person is just a wee bit insulting?

Maybe you didn't mean it that way but that's exactly the kind of attitude I'm talking about.

Christianity teaches that I lack something, and I resent that.

I do more than resent that, I despise the religion that teaches it.

I support your right to believe whatever you want and I may respect you as a person.

Just don't expect me to respect your religion, because I don't.

[Tigress DEM]

173. Dude, slow down.

What I said is that I would never foist my views upon someone - AT ALL because I see people who do that as ridiculous, as in the analogy I gave. Even if a person really wanted to believe, such a delivery would defeat the purpose.

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm simply explaining what I believe because this is the topic we are discussing. I don't believe in trying to convert people at all. If someone benefits from what I say, fine, if something else works for them, that's great too.

Since you've already decided what Christianity means to you and are comfortable with you bag of resentment, I guess that's where you're at. I'm sure you have other things that work for you and I'm not going to judge one way or another if you are right or wrong. How could I? I do well enough to figure out where my head is at from day to day. :dilemma:

I respect your right to believe anything you want, but when you pull your resentments out of your bag and fling them at me, I don't like it. If I can respectfully explain my point of view, I guess I'd like the same courtesy from you. My objection is to the delivery not your right to your beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

182. You asked me questions.

I answered them.

I have been neither disrespectful of you nor intolerant of your beliefs.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

198. In many cases, there was something else going on as well, and

religion was a convenient label. If one religion is persecuting another, it's often because the persecuted have something (land, status, resources) that the persecutors want. The Crusades are an example. Behind the Crusades were the desires of the rulers of Europe to grab the wealth and resources of the Arabs, but it would have been hard to get a bunch of peasants to march off to the Middle East just to make their kings richer. The war had to be phrased in terms of "liberating Jerusalem from the infidel," even though the Arabs actually allowed Christian and Jewish pilgrims free access. One of the most telling examples of the underlying non-religious nature of the Crusades was the sacking of Constantinople, then a Christian city, but one far more luxurious than anything the Western European peasants had ever seen.

The roots of the Northern Irish situation go back to the British bringing over Scottish settlers in the 17th century to dilute Irish resistance to their rule. The so-called Scotch-Irish were given preferential treatment, and the "Catholic" civil rights movement of the 1960s began as the indigenous Irish trying to get equal treatment.

Cases in which the two sides were actually fighting about theology ("Transubstantiation!" "No, Real Presence!" or "Jesus was the Son of God!" "No, he was the last great prophet before Mohammed!") are extremely rare.

There were a few incidents of true religious riots in the Eastern Mediterranean region in the last days of the Roman Empire, with people actually clobbering each other over the head over doctrinal differences. That hasn't happened very often.

When the Romans were persecuting the Christians, they didn't care particularly what the Christians believed, since they had all sorts of religions within their empire. They cared that the Christians wouldn't worship statues of the emperor, and that was considered politically treasonous.

When the Catholics threw the Muslims and Jews out of Spain, they not only achieved ideological conformity but also got to confiscate their considerable wealth.

The Thirty Years War was a great excuse to go out and grab some territory from your rival prince who happened to be of the "other" religion.

Suppressing the indigenous religions of the Native Americans was a way to demoralize and subjugate them, because the white conquerors knew that their religions could serve as a rallying point for resistance, as with the Ghost Dance of the late 19th century.

If two economically competing groups share the same religion, they'll find some other excuse to kill each other: tribe (several instances in Africa, Rwanda being the most recent), ethnicity (Bangladesh was East Pakistan until its Muslim Bengali population revolted against rule by the Urdu-speaking population of West Pakistan, sparking an extremely bloody retaliation on the part of West Pakistan) language (there have been language riots in India between speakers of Hindi and speakers of Dravidian languages), social class, or even, as in Somalia, where everyone is Muslim and everyone is Somali, clan loyalties.

So in answer to your question, yes, sometimes people do persecute each other for religious reasons. In other cases, it's simply an excuse to grab their goodies.

[beam me up scottie]

219. Thanks for the clarification.

I understand that it is a convenient tool for the powerful but what is it when the people blindly follow the "word" of god?
What I see on a daily basis where I live is definitely persecution by religious zealots. I listen to these people every day where I work. For some, it's a convenient excuse to hate, for others, it is what is standing in the way of this country's future as a christian state.
They may not be ready to burn me yet but I'm not willing to advertise that I'm an atheist.
I know many gay people who feel the need to keep a low profile as well.
Signs of hatred are everywhere.

[LanternWaste]

122. Even not so recent

Even not so recent. Hate to show my age...

First year college HIST course (way back in 1985) had a wonderfully enlightnening manual (Gads! If I could remember it's name) that postulated that very thing... Salem twnshp villagers wanted to break away from Salem Village (or vice-versa).

Turns out that some junior-historians found all the accused were on the side that wanted to start a new incorporated twnshp and every accuser would, in one way or another lose money from the split.

Will call my pal, Al when he gets back into town and ask him for name of textbook... it rocked my world at the time and helped me realize for the first time that there is NO Black & White in historical studies... just different applications of evidence and sources.

[trotsky]

146. I think you're missing the point.

Religion, even when not the primary motivating factor, is a wonderful ENABLER for humanity's most horrible acts.

It's pre-packaged to control people. It tells them there is a universal entity who gave you life, who has a plan for you, and - here's the setup - your priest or king is that entity's spokesperson!

Without religion, could the Salem victims have been tried as witches? Nope. Might the accusers have found some kind of secular justification for killing them? Maybe, though it would have been a lot harder. Religion made it simple.

[YankeyMCC]

163. What would the accusers have done

without the religious beliefs that they used against the accusers?

I live near Salem, I should know the history better but I don't, I never heard these stories before about it. But let's say for the moment this account is close enough, I have heard that personal land disputes were involved in at least one case so it may be so.

The superstition about witches, coupled with the xian, remedy for witches in the neighborhood was the weapon of choice. It provided the most effective means of ridding the accusers of the accused.

I'm about to make a comparison and please bare with me. I'm not someone who thinks religion is the root of all that is wrong with the world and that anyone who is a theist is a fool. But I do feel superstitions can be dangerous. And this is a good example in my opinion.

I fully support people's right under the 2nd amendment to bare arms. But there are some arms that are just too good at killing. And that's why I support strong gun regulation.

Maybe a terrorist or mass murderer will still find a way to kill people, but if they didn't have automatic rifles maybe they'd kill less, or maybe they'd have to work harder to kill that many people and that would take time and be more complex and allow for someone to stop them. Maybe. But certainly an Ak47 makes it easier and quicker.

It seems to me this is a parallel with religions. If the town already buys into the religion and it has a built in tool, the treatment of witches, the accusers have a quick effective means of turning the town agains the accused.

Maybe the accusers would've found another excuse to get the accused killed. But it would've been more difficult without the religious/state connection. Maybe all they would've been able to do is get them kicked out of town or dispossessed of property instead of getting them killed.

Religion isn't the only ideology that is used like this but it's a popular one over the ages.

[Arianrhod]

249. Absolutely.

The witch hunts of that period were almost exclusively driven by social or political power games. Much like Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and *'s America, citizens were encouraged to spy upon and report their neighbors for "suspicious" activity. The bottom line was that neighbors who didn't get along were generally turned in--especially those with little money.

The Christian Church played a role in the Burning Times, but I also recognize and acknowledge that there were other factors at work as well.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

269. Some may remember the scene in The Sorrow and the Pity

where a French pharmacist admits to having betrayed his Jewish business competitor to the Gestapo.

No matter what the motivations of the Nazis were, the motivation of that French pharmacist was pure greed, and he probably would have turned his competitor in if he had been, say, a Gentile member of the Resistance.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Do you have a source for that statement?

I have seen documentation of many burnings in Medieval Europe.

[Arianrhod]

250. Anne Llewellyn Barstow, "Witchcraze"

She is a historian whose figures and descriptions come from the official documents of the period. She lists the recorded executions by nation in an appendix.

[beam me up scottie]

260. She mistakenly implies that

witches were only persecuted because of misogyny.
Other historians seem to reject her revisionist history due to the obvious mismanagement and deletion of data.

Fine for you maybe, but I'm not buying her ridiculous theory.

[Arianrhod]

295. That's a major theme of hers, yes.

Accepting the fact that misogyny continues to play a large role in much of Western "Civilization", I'm personally willing to overlook her focus there. Besides, as a writer, I understand that one's book has to have a point, and can't just meander all over the place, if one expects people to read and comprehend it. Most historians have a theme in mind when presenting their outlook.

However, Barstow does go to the trouble of pointing out that gender was only one aspect of the persecution. Her charts starting on page 179 indicate the number of accusations and executions by gender. She in no wise claims that men were not killed for being witches, but the numbers she presents indicate that it was primarily women who took the fall. There is a reason for that. If you wish to attribute it to a personal agenda on her part, that's your prerogative.

Historians always disagree with one another. Norman Davies points this out clearly in the Introduction to his epic work, Europe. History is not a cut-and-dried set of facts that can be set on a shelf and admired by everyone. Rather, it is a painstaking piecing together of evidence from many sources, of logic and reasoning, and sometimes, of careful and tentative speculation. (Which is why it's so hard to accept "histories" like the New Testament, in which the authors confidently describe other people's feelings, thoughts, and motivations--even those that were expressed in private meetings decades earlier.) I suppose Francis Fukuyama would find little agreement with the conclusions of Howard Zinn, even though they're looking at the same evidence.

That being said, which historians in particular have refuted Barstow? I'd honestly like to read at least one of them.

[Tigress DEM]

113. Still, you don't see anywhere where Jesus said to burn witches.

So what the church did in these instances is a crime against its own basic teaching. An awful aberration.

In fact, Jesus stood up for the prostitute about to be stoned and drew in the sand the sins of those who accused her and knowingly said, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

Jesus wasn't about judgment and political bullshit. The ones he got the angriest at were the Pharisees because they acted all pious in public, but were the most corrupt sinners behind closed doors.

[Arianrhod]

252. Ooooh, do I ever disagree with you. :)

Not about whether Jesus said we should burn witches. (But the Old Testament says so.) Nor about the Church violating its own teachings. (IMO, it has done that consistently throughout its history.) But rather, that "Jesus wasn't about judgment and political bullshit". I think he was incredibly political. My sources for so believing include Robert Eisenmann (one of the primary translators of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and J. Guignebert (one of the founders of the "Historical Jesus" movement in the 1930s). Personally, I think that his anger at the hypocrisy of the Pharisees was either 1. unfounded; or 2. made up by the Church. The Pharisees were not the evil pack of liars the Bible makes them out to be. In fact, almost immediately after Jesus' crucifixion, they traveled to Caesaria Philippi to petition the Emperor to have Pontius Pilate deposed for his crimes against the people. The Emperor obliged, and called him back to Rome. This is documented by the Roman records, and it occurred around 36 CE.

My personal opinion was that Jesus was a genuine Messiah, a political rebel who desired to make war against the Romans, and who was therefore constantly under their surveillance. This would explain his sudden movements, often taking place at night. Or his own lying to his family, telling them he wasn't going to Passover, only to head for Jerusalem after all "in secret". He wasn't the "gentle savior" of Church dogma, that's for certain. Something weird was going on with him and his band of merry men. And my opinion is that that "something" was very political in nature.

[CAcyclist]

55. And Don't Forget Lynching nt

[Tigress DEM]

112. Yes, the Church has been crazy at times...

This is historically proven, but I think you are jumping to conclusions in this instance without the full evidence.

Just because a meeting place is called a church doesn't mean it's a gathering of Christians.

And as I said before, self sacrifice is different than human sacrifice especially when you go and steal a person out of their home and sell their life to save your own. That isn't part of Christianity.

[Taxloss]

171. It is a gathering of Christians if they declare themselves

Christians - Otherwise, where do you draw the line? This unwillingness from liberal Christians to tackle the evil wacko Christians is one of the things undermining Christianity in the UK and the USA today. Stop making excuses for these people and whack them head on.

[Tigress DEM]

199. Oh, I'd love to tackle the evil wacko Christians....

I just don't want people putting me in the same catagory or telling me that my faith in general is the "reason" for the abuse.

I'm saying hold these people accountable for not behaving in a Christlike manner and I will hold the words and deeds of Christ up to them and tell those blowhard assholes to quit blaspheming the name of MY God. I have done so at times, maybe not so vehemently, but I'm not shy about telling a fellow Christian to walk the walk not just talk the talk.

Excuses? No way. There is no excuse for those who would claim they are "right" to do something evil because God is on THEIR side. That's such a huge dish of shit that it wouldn't even fit in the Grand Canyon.

What did we agree on? "Institutionalized Religion" vs the actual faith of true believers as having many crazy tennents that people who would use the power of "God is on OUR side" to make people do terrible things, thinking they won't be held accountable.

The funny thing is it would be more loving and charitable of me to walk up to each of these wackos and tell them where they are off track, because if no one does, according to my understanding of how it works... they will rot in hell.

Serves 'em right, but I guess if it can keep them from hurting more people, even if it would help them in the long run, I guess it would be better to confront them.

[Montanan]

Christianity was FOUNDED upon human sacrifice. Hello? n/t

[Tigress DEM]

98. Wrong. Sacrifice of self and killing someone else are two different things

The sacrifice Jesus made was a choice for the benefit of humanity in general. Still, he didn't have his disciples take him up and yank out his beating heart and eat it or some crazy thing like that and he didn't decide that a young child could take his place because they were less tainted.

A person standing up for their beliefs and being martyred for their beliefs is also different than bringing an innocent child who has no choice in the matter and spilling their blood for one's own gain.

[VegasWolf]

109. The bible condones human sacrifice. The christians believe in both

testements.

[Tigress DEM]

125. Where do you see that in the New Testament?

Human Sacrifice as giving up someone else's life for your own?

Not self sacrifice where one voluntarily accepts death based on your own beliefs.

The human sacrifice the article refers to has people kidnapping children and using that innocent death as some sort of atonement for their own sin.

Jesus said He is the way the truth and the light, and His sacrifice was to put an end to the old "an eye for an eye" mentality and he didn't say to kill others in order to be saved anywhere in the New Testament.

So this may come down to a difference of opinion on types of human sacrifice and whether Jesus indicated that His followers should kill others to save themselves.

Did Jesus honor people who might chose death over denying Him? Yes. Were there martyrs? Yes, but did the Christians go out and kill for atonement? No.

Does that make sense?

[VegasWolf]

179. Never said new testement. said christians believe in both. no deniability!

[Tigress DEM]

181. Both WHAT then?

human and sacrifice?

I wonder if you're in IT - we type so fast we leave out stuff.

I must be missing a previous post or something then because I don't know what both you are referring to and I reread the post and still don't see it.

[VegasWolf]

183. No Tigress :) Meant Old and New Testements. The Old Testement is

rife with all kinds of shit, like god sending 40 bears to tear apart little children because they were belittling his prophet. Christians, especially the snake kissers like Ashcroft believe in the
Holy Bible which contains both the Old and New Testements. I totally agree that the prophet Jesus would never advocate such a thing.

[Tigress DEM]

192. Thanks for the clarification.

I hate people using Christianity as a way to hold power over and abuse people.

My basic point is usually that Christ was never like that, never taught that and if people are doing these things, the aren't really being good Christians, whatever they might think or say to the contrary.

I can call myself a canary all day long, but it ain't gonna happen.

Neither does murdering and pulling the cloak of Jesus Name over oneself justify the murder. God might forgive someone if they repent, but it doesn't make the deed right to begin with.

[VegasWolf]

197. Cheers! nt

[jbnow]

222. Hey, hey it wasn't 40 bears.

That would be mean. He only sent two bears.
They killed 42 children.
But those kids were teasing some strange bald guy! Do kids who tease deserve to live?

I agree that teachings and actions attributed to Jesus are the only bright side of the bible. The OT is filled with horrors and orders to kill and pillage. The NT is better but there are a lot of questionable teachings there too.

If it was the teachings of Jesus people followed, they'd be fine people to have around. But instead things are done in "his name" that are the exact opposite of his teachings. Whether it's the crusades or witch burnings or what we see today like gay bashing and wars and burdening the poor to give to the rich...it is anti-the Jesus Christ they claim to serve,

If he was in a grave he'd turn over. He must think "Oy vay, glad I am not a Christian"

Spirit is a unite and builds bridges, religion too often a divider that bombs the bridges.

[beam me up scottie]

234. "Hey, hey it wasn't 40 bears."

"That would be mean. He only sent two bears."

:rofl:

[VegasWolf]

265. Thanks for the correction!! It's been about 30 years since I looked at

a bible. I forget.

[Montanan]

170. Jesus had a choice?

I thought his death was his Dad's idea.

[Tigress DEM]

209. He could have said, "No"

Disclaimer:
Sorry for the rant. Multiple other posts got me going. This isn't directed at you.
:rant:

Jesus could have said, "No." Would have been a hell of a lot tougher for those of us here on Earth, though. The whole concept of divine forgiveness for people who felt God was judging them constantly and without mercy unless they did countless things to earn redemption was something the world needed to evolve beyond. (Maybe still need to accept.)

Even if Christ were only a man who sought with his own life and death to teach us to accept forgiveness and love one another and believe with our whole heart and souls that there is a loving God who wants what is best for us, how is that so awful?

I don't get how people don't see that part and just look at the stupid things people have done to abuse people with religion. It isn't only Christianity that has been used against people.

Hindus treat their cows as sacred and it really is an economically sound way for their people to survive, but I really don't think it's a God thing as much as someone realized people would do it if they taught them that God said so. Cow walks in my house and takes a dump, uh uh, no way would I tolerate that.

Budihsts took on the code of the Samauri to justify their acts of war and make it honorable. Geneva Convention before it's time, maybe, but a real God thing? I don't think so.

Same honor code idea for the Kamakazi's in WWII. My God doesn't tell us to hurl ourselves at our enemy, but to pray for them and not become like bees who in hurting our enemy kill ourselves.

Islam doesn't have a problem cutting off a thief's hand - even if he's only 5 years old. What's THAT about?

Greeks believed in a multitude of dieties and they were such hedonists that they couldn't keep their civilization alive even though they were more intelligent than most of their contemporaries.

Romans didn't believe in much, but they sodomized young boys to such an extent and with such brutality that to this day people think any gay man is a danger to children.

Pagans glorify nature and are nasty to people (justifying it with the "I'm taking my portion of evil in the world" please, most people screw up enough naturally that they don't really need to try harder in that department.)

So we're going to blame it all on religion and in particular Christianity. I don't think that's in any way a factual assessment of the world as we know it.

Just my opinion.

[Taxloss]

194. What about Abraham and Isaac?

Sacrifice is fundamental to that fable, I'd say.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

200. You forget that Isaac never actually gets sacrificed

Most Biblical scholars see this story as a "reason" for the fact that the Jews, unlike their neighbors, did not practice human sacrifice as a rule.

[Taxloss]

206. Big Whoop

conveniently forgetting the fact your God condones the idea of sacrifice and murder?

[Tigress DEM]

96. I think "Church" as a building where people go to "worship" something

is how this is defined. There really isn't a referrence to Christianity in the article. It sounds like some of the extreme voodoo beliefs.

Even though some bits of voodoo were tolerated on a don't ask, don't tell kind of basis at one time in Christian churches in the deep south - nothing like this. Maybe the priest might look the other way if a member had some love charm or something like that.

I think though that kind of activity would have to involve a group fully practising the black arts of voodoo and people attracted to those cults are steeped in superstition and the idea that they can overcome limitations through powerful magic.

A lot of cults use the framework of churches to hide themselves and/or to profane Christianity.

[Tigress DEM]

105. Self sacrifice and SYMBOLIC rememberance...

First of all the choice to sacrifice the life is made by the person doing the dying - even in the case of martyrs because many of them were promised they would be released if they recanted their beliefs.

Second, a person being willing to die for what they believe or for the benefit of others is a nobel idea because it is the ultimate loving gesture. Purchasing an innocent child an marking them for death to allieviate your own suffering is obviously a different thing.

If a friend of yours saw you were in the path of a car and pushed you out of the way at the crucial moment getting killed himself instead, you would probably feel an obligation to honor that sacrifice and remember what a good friend he was. That is what this whole symbolic rememberence is, we don't get any magical benefit from the host or wine.

I know Christianity is really screwed up these days. I can't walk into my church because of the hypocricy I see, but I don't confuse the words and deeds of Christ with the box of religion that man has built up around Him.

[Taxloss]

191. The choice to sacrifice the life is NOT made by the person doing the dying

The entire point of martyrdom is that they are given an impossible choice to make: lie, or die.

"If a friend of yours saw you were in the path of a car and pushed you out of the way at the crucial moment getting killed himself instead, you would probably feel an obligation to honor that sacrifice and remember what a good friend he was."

Certainly. I don't see what that has to do with a being that apparently created the universe.

"we don't get any magical benefit from the host or wine."

Yes you do, you get eternal life. If you don't, why bother doing it?

[Tigress DEM]

213. Whether I agree with someone's belief or not...

I still am in awe of someone who believes so strongly that they would rather die than be forced to recant everything that makes them feel alive.

Jesus proposed that his death was in our stead, so it is like a friend saving your life.

In Christian tradition, once you accept Jesus in your heart, you have eternal life. It's just a matter of trying to do better and hopefully not screw up really badly after that because knowing Him personally simply makes you want to be a better person. I know it sounds stupid, but it does work for a lot of people.

There is forgiveness, but a person isn't supposed to be about pushing it to the limit and saying "time out" just before dying, although many Catholics have been accused of such things. The Borgias for one example.

The host deal is a different kind of benefit, it isn't "magical" like screwing some innocent child and magically being healed of HIV. It's a way in your heart to remember and honor a sacrifice made and to feel that impact in the here and now so you can make better decisions.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

248. What you don't know about religion could fill a baptismal fount

Check with most protestant religions and you're find that transubstantiation is pretty much a Catholic thing -- hardly the "central ritual" of christianity. And as Lydia pointed out, there's pretty much a quantum leap from the Passion to ritualistic murder.

[Taxloss]

282. I suppose Christ was just chewing air when he talked about

bread, flesh, wine, blood, eternal life and all that. I forgot the part where he said "but I only mean the Catholics".

Seriously, though, you need to brush up your study. Transubstantiation may be a Catholic thing, but consubstantiation is a Protestant thing - while the biscuit does not "turn into" flesh, it symbolises flesh. Which is precisely what I said. And means you're precisely wrong.

"there's pretty much a quantum leap from the Passion to ritualistic murder" - I fear you will never appreciate how funny that statement is. :rofl:

[toopers]

257. You are missing a couple of things about religions.

Most "single deity" religions do not condone the killing of others to relieve a person of his own suffering. In other words, my killing you does not relieve me of my suffering. As a matter of fact, it would increase my suffering -- according to most Christian religions.

I would say that the central ritual in Christianity is the praying/talking to God, not the consumption of his son's flesh and blood.

[Taxloss]

283. You don't go to church much, do you?

God won't like that.

[JerseygirlCT]

20. "and a lessening of the value of human life"???

Where the hell did you pick that one up from?

You have a great deal of learning to do.

Sacrifice as worthy, yes indeed. Self-sacrifice, not that of others. And not in the way you're evidently using the word.

Save the ugliness. You do nothing to further understanding in the world with this kind of hate.

[Taxloss]

22. "Ugly bigotry"?

For simply suggesting that faith undermines notions of the self and of free will? I'm not the one who needs to do more learning.

And you're perfectly right that it's self-sacrifice that is emphasised - but that is a notion that has been twisted here into self-sacrifice by proxy, as it has been since the beginning of Christianity.

Please don't accuse me of hatred. That comes close to ugly bigotry in itself.

[Tigress DEM]

129. People, Christians, don't beat up on Taxloss for having a different view.

But, really there was only one proxy. No Christian has ever been told by Jesus to hurt another. I think that if people honor those who have made great sacrifices it is for the good it does our own soul in opening up to greater challenges.

I can find inspiration in the lives of saints. I can find the same kind of inspiration by reading about someone who is handicapped, but is so much more skilled than I am at something. It is this inspiration that if someone else has lived their life according to deep beliefs that I can challenge myself to live up to my potential.

I don't think everyone has to be Christian to be "good" but sinful behavior is sinful behavior, not true Christianity.

[JerseygirlCT]

160. You didn't say

"undermine notions of self and of free will". You accused religious people of "lessoning the value of human life". Then you just about accused Christians of cannibalism.

I don't care what your beliefs are -- you're quite welcome to them. But pointing nasty fingers at a very large and diverse group of people is ugly, period. I really thought we were better than that here. Apparently not.

It's called stereotyping, and it's bigotry. Make of that whatever you will.

[JerseygirlCT]

165. Look

I don't want to argue -- I really don't.

I just DO NOT get why you and several others feel the need to paint all believers, all Christians, in fact, with this same ugly broad brush?

What do you think you accomplish? What's the purpose? To hurt people here? Piss people off (you obviously succeeded with me)?

These people have nothing to do with Christianity. They may call themselves what they will, but what they do is nothing that they would be called to do as Christians. Their behavior negates any claim they have to that name.

[Taxloss]

187. You're really desperate to be hurt, aren't you?

Elsewhere on this thread, atheism is being happily and intrinsically linked to mass murder, and we atheists are not leaping about claiming to be deeply wounded and horribly shocked. We're calmly tackling the issue with facts. Why can't you Christians do the same, without jumping into persecution mode?

[JerseygirlCT]

236. I'm not in persecution mode

as I said -- you believe as you will. I just find the continual barrage of attacks on religion in general a little strange here. Why is it such a fixation?

I missed any atheist attacks farther down -- this whole thread is getting unwieldy now, and I haven't the energy to open a zillion new posts. I'd object just as strenuously to stereotyping of that sort, believe me.

And if you'd like facts, the facts are that this group is nothing like Christian. Were we to even accept that they are, then they are, in fact, a tiny, tiny, fringe off-shoot, with no real connection to Christianity around the world -- which is a highly diverse group to begin with.

[beam me up scottie]

172. You misquoted him AGAIN.

THIS is what he posted:

"Faith requires a surrender of the self and a lessening of the value of human life. On a fundamental level. Christianity emphasises sacrifice as worthy; indeed, desirable."

Stop trying to twist his words.

Since when is criticizing religion stereotyping or bigotry?

How dare you accuse people of being bigots based on your twisted version of their words?

[Taxloss]

176. I did not accuse Christians of cannibalism,

I said that your central ritual symbolises/mimics cannibalism. And you can dress it up with as much grape juice as you like, it still does. Christ, at the moment of his death, emphasises immortality through the consumption of flesh. So you don't eat human flesh. You just pretend to eat human flesh.

And I'm ugly?

[muriel_volestrangler]

230. It's after exchanges like this

that I think that the Religious Hatred Bill in the UK is going to be a nightmare. Any conversation about religion so easily descends into accusations of bigotry. Taxloss, are you going to be able to walk the streets of London without constantly fending off charges under the act?

[Taxloss]

292. As I said in PM,

a few hilarious test cases and it will be dead.

[Chovexani]

33. I beg to differ

Faith requires a surrender of the self and a lessening of the value of human life.

Not mine, but thanks for playing the home game! :hi:

[Taxloss]

36. What do you mean?

Sorry, I don't get the meaning of "home game".

[LanternWaste]

120. Faith: trusting in that of which we do not have full knowledge of.

I've been taught that Biblical faith is nothing more than "trusting in that of which we do not have full knowledge of..."

And, if that's the case (which I believe it to be), we ALL practice faith in simply drivng to work (unless someone amongst us has full knowledge of every driver in the relevent vicinity, including their driving habits, mechanical relliability of their vehicle's, etc..)

[VegasWolf]

104. Yes, and the catholic priests say this is a waste of young lives. nt

[Zynx]

263. Oh yes because we all know that countries without religion are civilized.

Like Stalin's Soviet Union or Pol Pot's Cambodia. Oh yes. The lack of religion there saved many lives now didn't it?

[Taxloss]

288. You're late, Zynx.

I would hardly call nations in the grip of personality cults "non-religious". Non-Christian, maybe. But you religionists get several thousand years of torture and slaughter in before the 20th Century, so cool it.

[mom cat]

4. Frightening...Faith based torture and murder. 300 kids "missing"

[Dover]

5. I thought this was a story about our young soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan

They, too, are human sacrifices.

[D-Notice]

7. Is this linked to the

paedophile-rings that are supposed to include high-profile members of the UK govt?

[Megahurtz]

77. I wouldn't be surprised.

:(

[Karmadillo]

8. Kick

n/t

[mondo joe]

9. No different than the Right's sacrifice of our youth to war to appease

their god and the wallets.

[Taxloss]

11. Big difference.

The London sacrificers believe, genuinely believe, that they care for those they are sacrificing. That is what makes them so sick and evil.

The RW warmongers don't care at all.

[Tigress DEM]

137. You are right in the case of the Aunt....

She thought her neice was possessed and required the beating to get the demon out. And the Aunt wasn't looking for any benefit to herself only her neice.

However, the article goes on to state that many children are being kidnapped and used by people who think they can buy their way out of disease or suffering.

Unfortunately, I can see how this is somewhat like the RW warmongers because they are putting others out there to take the heat while they hide out counting their money.

I still feel like apologizing for how you are being treated on DU, people get a bit snippy about these issues. Hang in there.

[Taxloss]

149. Thank you Tigress.

You earn a place in my buddy list for that

[Tigress DEM]

159. Blushing

:blush:

How kind of you!

[emad]

10. 'Child sacrifices in London' - London Evening Standard

'Child sacrifices in London'
By Richard Edwards Crime Reporter, Evening Standard
16 June 2005

African boys are being murdered as human sacrifices in London churches, according to a shocking Scotland Yard report.

The Met has uncovered a trade in black boys being trafficked into the capital.

A number of fundamentalist sects believe powerful spells require the ritual killing of male children.

The leaked report also reveals countless examples of African children being killed after being identified as "witches" by church pastors.

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/19328071?source=Evening%20Standard&ct=5

[icymist]

13. Didn't we learn anything from the Dark Ages?!?

identified as "witches" Holy Shit!!! Here we go again!

[woo me with science]

31. There were similar headlines in the 1980's here in the US....

...including a FRONT PAGE STORY on Time or Newsweek, with a photo of a baby encircled by a snake. Inside was a breathless story insisting that thousands of children were being sexually abused and murdered in large-scale, intergenerational cults in the US.

It turned out to be complete hysteria.

[Minstrel Boy]

158. "It turned out to be complete hysteria" - You keep saying that

like it was true.

[woo me with science]

214. Yes, but the difference is that I am relying on evidence....

not repressed memories.

[Minstrel Boy]

232. It's not all about recovered memories, you know.

There are also unrecovered memories, confessions, physical evidence.

And there are NO recovered memories in THIS story, period.

[woo me with science]

246. Let me clarify...

I never stated that I thought repressed memories are involved in this story. What I have said is that I am bothered by the eagerness to believe these bizarre and extreme allegations, when the article itself states that at this point they are based on rumors. The investigation of this boy's death is heating up this way because of STORIES of a conspiracy...not because the investigators have uncovered bodies of the hundreds of murdered children, or evidence of the actual existence of these organized child murderers. The investigation is following the stories...Because there is an investigation does not mean there is proof yet. So I am saying...hold off. Wait for the evidence.

I say this, because something very similar happened in the US in the 1980's regarding satanic ritual abuse, and people didn't wait for the evidence, and there were devastating consequences. Yes, SRA is very much connected with repressed memories. If you deny that, you are denying a very well-documented reality about the people who claim these experiences. And the media went nuts with it.

It took YEARS and a full-scale FBI investigation to debunk the claims. I understand that you still believe these stories, but everything I have ever seen offered as concrete evidence from people on your side falls apart with scrutiny. There is a lot of really flawed argument out there, and a lot of survivors pointing to other survivors' stories as "proof."

And a full-scale investigation by the FBI could not find any evidence either.

I hope people in the UK have learned something from our experience, and will withhold judgment about this case until there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE of this alleged massive importation and murder of children.

[BamaBecky]

261. I find you response VERY TROUBLING............

To highlight your characterizations:

"bizarre and extreme allegations"
"based on rumors"
"STORIES of a conspiracy"
"there were devastating consequences"
"SRA is very much connected with repressed memories"
"YEARS and a full-scale FBI investigation to debunk the claims"
"people on your side"
"falls apart with scrutiny"
"flawed argument"

Your words are very revealing. It's obvious that you know "no one" who has ever suffered at the hands of satanists. You personally {that means you *YOURSELF* have never listened to a SRA victim's experience} and more to the POINT, have no experience with trying to help the victims. It is further QUITE obvious that you HAVE NOT made an SERIOUS open minded study of this "the most egregious cultural phenomenon" known to man, save cannibalism. Yet, you willingly chalk the whole thing off to being allegations, rumor, conspiracy, flawed and debunked. Your response, void of any compassion or concern, squarely places you among the individuals in this country who ACTIVELY work to make the victims appear to be fools. I will remember your name, as will any victims who read your words. I'm not a victim, but I have worked to help them.

Oh, and just so you will know the truth when you step in it, repressed memories, is a conspiracy devised by THOSE PROFESSIONALS, who would like nothing better than to hide the truth of SRA from the American Public. And you want to cite proof that the FBI couldn't find evidence???? That's actually the funniest thing you said. Take, for example, a lesson from how the FBI handled 911 intelligence. Sibel Edmonds comes to mind. I'm not downing the FBI....merely pointing out how vulnerable the FBI is to political pressure. And to carry the "thought"....just a little bit further....yes, I would find it very easy to believe that the FBI COULD BE POLITICALLY INFLUENCED as far as SRA is concerned. Draw your own conclusions!

Oh....I almost forgot....You said their were devastating consequences. Really? Do you mean that the perpetrators GOT OFF SCOTT FREE? Did you mean that the victims were victimized all over again by an investigation that failed to find proof? Did you mean that the children were not believed? Was it that the counselors were characterized as putting words in children's minds? Perhaps you were speaking of the grief the parents felt, knowing that their children would live a scared life, needing counseling for their abuse issues? On that we agree....all of that was devastating.....truly devastating.

Bama :puke: :argh: :mad: :spank: :banghead: :sarcasm:

[Andy_Stephenson]

267. What she

said

[woo me with science]

270. Yes...

the stories of nationwide SRA child murders and government-supported sexual programming of children are bizarre and extreme. And they have been unsupported by evidence.

I am sorry that my posts upset you so much. I know that you believe in these things fervently. So does my sister.

Take care.

[BamaBecky]

271. oh, so you don't even believe your sister????

it figures

[woo me with science]

276. n.b.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1553203&mesg_id=1555509

[hiley]

274. BamaBecky

I could not agree more with your response.

[Megahurtz]

264. Antfarm.....

You apparently know nothing about Satanic Ritual Abuse in the 80's, except from what you've learned from the mainstream media.

[BamaBecky]

272. incorrectomodo

[Megahurtz]

281. Okay, I get it,

antfarm is in denial over what happened to his own sister.

[BamaBecky]

285. that is certainly one possibility.........we only have his version?..n/t

[Megahurtz]

293. How do YOU assume that the investigators

have not "uncovered bodies of the hundreds of murdered children, or the evidence of actual exsistance of these organized child murderers"???

If they have, do you think they would tell you or reveal it to the general public for that matter???:think:

Investigations of this sort are very covert, especially if it's an ongoing investigation - hello!!!:think:

Even if the case is closed someday you will probably never know (or believe) the real truth.

[Megahurtz]

266. He is using the term "hysteria" because

it's sort of a "generic debunker's buzzword" that he repeats just because he's heard so many other people repeat it, because they've heard other people repeat it too, and on and on.

I have a feeling he doesn't know shit about the subject.

[BamaBecky]

275. I agree...running all over this page...dising his sister.....something

tells me......that antfarm is running away from some "deeper" truth....that he doesn't want to face.....so he attacks the messenger...in this case...his sister.....

What a swell guy!
Bama

[woo me with science]

279. Thank you for illustrating brilliantly

the line of thinking that underlies these stories, and the rage that is expressed toward people who insist on evidence for them and threaten the belief system.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am repressing years of cult abuse, eating babies, sexually serving hundreds of men, and being raped and beaten on a daily basis. Perhaps my sister is right. I must have maintained a busy schedule, because somehow I found the time to study violin and play on the tennis team, too. Perhaps I should seek "help" of the kind my sister is getting so that I can recover those memories and "heal."

Yes, indeed. I am the one who needs help.

I am only teasing...I mean you no malice, honestly. I love my sister, and I miss her terribly. I miss the confident, healthy person she used to be. I only hate what has happened to her, and sometimes humor is the only way to cope. Also a way to highlight the ridiculousness and tragedy of it all. I know I will never convince you, because you are living in this world, and these beliefs are now a big part of who you are and how you see yourself. I do understand that. I wish you no ill. I hope you find peace.

Thank you for engaging with me here and speaking honestly. It is important that people see these discussions. As for myself, I am tired now and am going to get some iced tea.

[BamaBecky]

284. Here is the deal

Something is a miss here....something is not right.....Again...I'm going to suggest to you to that at the very least you sister have the best available help.....people that slice up their arms have indeed some abuse issues.....

You are not helping her by ridiculing her healing process....

You may have escaped trauma.....hot damn for you! You were lucky!

For some yet {unknown, unacknowledged} reason.....you seem to have some real issues with the healing process or even believing her. I'm in no position to agree or disagree with you as to the quality of your sister's care. I just don't think the entire story you have painted adds up. Could it be, you dearly love and respect her perpetrator, and perhaps you are angry over the shame that her healing process brought out into the wide open??

At any rate.......if not for you, and if you do love her, support her, and get her some quality care that you can have some faith in.
Face what's going on with her, face it. Stop making fun of it, ridiculing it, debunking it. It's extremely unfair to her for you to act this way.
Bama

[Megahurtz]

294. Yes, you are deeply hurting your sister by discounting her. n/t

[On the Road]

15. It *IS* on the BBC

Otherwise, it might be a suspect story. There have been many detailed reports of child sacrifice, including from supposed eyewitnesses, that turn out to have been fabricated.

[lateo]

18. We found a witch!

This story is fucking unbelievable. I believe the devil had possessed the people beating the children to death....not the other way around.

[woo me with science]

30. i tend to agree

lots of hyperventilating based on very little evidence so far.

[ernstbass]

23. This is hideous

[onager]

25. Here we go again: "those wackos aren't REAL Xians!"

:rofl:

Same argument we hear about the Falwells and Dobsons and Robertsons. Well, they might not be the brand of Xian who hangs around DU. But they certainly think of themselves as "real Xians."

Maybe somebody needs to publish a guidebook on "How To Recognize A Real Xian." (Bracing myself for the flood of sappy New Testament quotes from the "Jesus was a liberal" gang.")

No, even better: let's just have an updated version of the Thirty Years War. With any luck, the various believers will reduce each other's populations to the point where reality-based citizens can go about their business, without having to cater to the emotional needs of people who actually believe in Great Pink Sky-Pixies.

Richard Dawkins got it right: "Fundamentalism is just a symptom. The disease is religion."

[Arianrhod]

29. I would qualify that Dawkins statement

with the phrase "institutionalized religion".

I know some very good Christians, who I in no way blame for the persecution and execution of my ancestors, or even for the ludicrous political climate of superstition-saturated modern America. I question their loyalty to such an institution, but that's a different subject.

When religious authority is mixed with political authority, the result is disaster. But religion in and of itself is not necessarily harmful. The 60s CounterCulture was largely built on religious ideals. I can't fault the Flower Children for that. (I can fault them for a lot of things, but not that.)

So I would say that the disease is not religion per se, but rather the use of religion for personal gain.

[Tigress DEM]

143. WoW! Thank you. Excellent point.

I have had pagan friends off and on in my life and I think a sampler my mother had is probably based on the "old beliefs".


There is a little bit of good
in the least of us

And a little bit of bad
in the best of us

So it hardly behooves
ANY of us

To talk about the rest of us

[Arianrhod]

247. I like that. :) n/t

[Tigress DEM]

140. The irony is even though they "think of themselves as real Xians"

it will be a big shock to them when they come face to face with God and he says, "Who are you? I used to know you, didn't I? Back when you really believed, before you became a Pharisee?"

These people really aren't behaving in a true Christian manner though, and that offends those of us who really believe in the things Christ taught us to do, feed the hungry, take care of the sick, love one another and such.

I'm not a great fan of religion, but I do believe in Christ and He really set a great example of how to live as a decent human being. Why do people have to get so disrespectful of that just because religion has been manipulated by the powerful?

[Gelliebeans]

221. LOL

How to Decipher Real Xians For Dummies; a guidebook

:evilgrin:

[libertypirate]

26. If this bothers you read "The Franklin Coverup"

By John Decamp

It is not a new story just an ignored one...

How many true stories have been ignored?

[woo me with science]

28. This sounds fishy to me.

If you read the article carefully, there is very little evidence for any of the conclusions they are suggesting here. It reminds me of the satanic witch scares of the 80's here in America. It looks like they are basing this speculation largely on the claims of a limited group of people who *say* these groups exist on a wide scale.

It is easy, even in America, to find groups of people who will swear up and down that children are being sexually assaulted and murdered in large-scale, intergenerational satanic cults. This fabrication is so widespread (thanks to the legitimization of it by Geraldo and his cohorts in the 80's) that I am sure I will get flamed for this post by some of them who hang out at DU. In America, this misconception is the result of a social movement that started in the 1980's...the recovered memory therapy debacle. The vast majority of people who believe in these things are part of a certain social network, and they COME TO BELIEVE in these cults only later in their lives, when they recover "memories" or become involved with others who have. It is a *social* phenomenon.

In this case, we read that much of this speculation is being fueled by rumors collected in specific boroughs in London, in large part by social workers. Just FYI, US social workers make up a large group of the believers in American cult child murderers, too.

At one time, the FBI in the United States was taking claims of widespread child murder seriously, too, AS THEY SHOULD HAVE. During this time, the FBI certainly generated reports like the one you see here, outlining the need to investigate. But once they did full-scale investigations, they were left with the conclusion that the widescale groups simply do not exist. It is *always* possible to find individual sicko cases or sicko isolated groups and to assume large-scale conspiracy based on that.

The one thing that makes this case worth aggressive scrutiny is the allegation that actual boys are missing. But missing does NOT automatically equal ritual sacrifice in cults. It doesn't even necessarily mean dead, because we are dealing with government records and bureaucracy here.

A few months ago I saw an article on the missing African boys in London. I wish I could remember where I saw it, but essentially someone was making a very plausible case that the records on these boys could have been faked for financial reasons. In other words, the *same* boys could have been put into government records multiple times in order to duplicate social services benefits for multiple families. I'm not saying that this is what has happened. I am only pointing out that this article is speculating with very few facts, and there may be other explanations for the "evidence" that is offered here.

So far we have evidence of one child who has been harmed by some sick guardians, and a mountain of speculation. No one has yet pointed to masses of children's bodies, and we don't even have good evidence yet that the cultish practices being described are actually being carried out by a specific group beyond this sick family. So far we have rumors in a small community and one poor child.

We have no idea what is going on here, folks. Let's wait for an actual investigation before leaping to the belief that hundreds of children are being systematically abducted and sacrificed.

Now let the flaming begin.

[Chovexani]

34. No flaming here

This sounds just like the SRA hysteria of the '80s. Same bullshit, different decade.

One group of very sick people does not an epidemic (or a conspiracy) make.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. Good point

especially considering that the churches involved are those founded by African immigrants, and therefore, likely to be targets for rumors.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. There's also the torso of 'Adam'

who has never been identified. This does mean there was one undocumented child who was murdered, in what appears to be a ritual.

Yes, it's only one body; but the chances of one of the 'undocumented' children being murdered at random by some psychopath are pretty small (and there are no similar murders of known children). Almost certainly, the murderer knew the boy - and no-one else who did has come forward to identify him.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

59. AGREE 100% - This story and the "motive" for this story seems questionable

No bodies?
Witnesses?-remember McMartin Pre-school in the 80's?
Reliable witnesses aren't always reliable in WITCH HUNTS.

public opinion is so easily manipulated!
These guys who created this story are probably laughing their asses off at the gulibility of the general public.
Now if they could only use their creative imagination to stimulate progress rather than fear they'd be on to something!

There's that famous quote "there's a sucker born every minute"
or the famous saying
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people All the time, but you can't fool All of the people All of the time"
Anyone know who wrote this quote?
was it Mark Twain?

[Zhade]

70. Barnum and Lincoln, respectively.

NT!

[Minstrel Boy]

78. "there's a sucker born every minute"

Ask not for whom the sucker sucks. It may suck for thee.

[woo me with science]

81. there sure is....

everybody who buys a copy of "the courage to heal" and spends her live savings recovering memories of abuse that never existed.

it would be hilarious if it weren't so fucking sad.

[Frederik]

87. This is not a case of

"recovered memory"

[woo me with science]

91. You misunderstand...

I mention the recovered memory hysteria to show how it is possible that people leap to conclusions, spin stories, and develop elaborate conspiracy theories that end up being debunked in the end. It is a cautionary lesson.

[Minstrel Boy]

103. an "elaborate conspiracy theory" is what you're spinning

suggesting a vast web of deceit tied to a "recovered memory industry."

How about judging cases on their merit, rather than prejudging because - if I recall correctly, and forgive me if I'm not - your family has been stung by an erroneous memory?

[woo me with science]

110. (response has been edited to add more)

I am not the one belieeeeeeeving that hundreds of children are being ritually murdered based on rumors.

I repeat. I am the one waiting for facts before leaping to the conclusion that these allegations have any truth to them. And, yes, my family was "stung" by a quack therapist who helped my sister develop memories that BOTH she and I were satanically ritually abused from infancy until we left for college. Thank you for volunteering my history on this thread.

My sister graduated with honors from a good university, she build a great career directing a university department, and she was building a loving family, until she made the mistake of seeking out therapy for a problem she was facing. It was her terrible luck to find a quack doctor who started her on a search for memories. Now that is all she does.... She can't hold a job anymore, she cuts her own arms up, she is on disability, and she spends her days coming up with more and more bizarre and hellacious "memories" of abuse by literally hundreds of people in every town we ever lived in. For her stories to be true, the neighbors would have had to spend all their time running over to our house to abuse us. She claims I was in the snake pit being sodomized right along with her. I am thankful every day that our father died before she could accuse him of all this garbage. My heart breaks for my mother. Recovered memory therapy isn't a joke--it is malpractice. It hurts people.

So yes, I am bothered when I see people start to believe horrible stories of ritualized child abuse without waiting for actual evidence. Groupthink is a serious thing, and it can be devastating to innocent people. That is why FACTS are so important.

But thank you for proving my point that the believers in the satanic ritual abuse nonsense would come flying out to defend these rumors.

[BamaBecky]

277. something isn't adding up antfarm.......you need to get to the

truth ......make sure you and your sister find the best possible help available......good luck
Bama

[Megahurtz]

280. Sounds like you're in DENIAL, Dude. n/t

[Megahurtz]

268. LOL!!!

:rofl:

Perfect!

[Frederik]

86. There is a body

a little boy has been found, and appears to have been ritually murdered.

The "guys who created this story" is the Scotland Yard, who aren't usually known to be suckers.

[woo me with science]

89. Apparently

you didn't read my original post on this. Yes, ONE body has been found. That is exactly my point. One body does not justify leaping to the conclusion that hundreds of children are being imported for ritual abuse and murder.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. Your original post did seem to ignore the body

because you said we had just one child mistreated by her guardians. But as well as that, we have had the limbless body; and the article also talks about the Victoria Climbie case (although I hadn't heard that had been connected with anything religious or ritual - I thought it had been put down to simple sadism).

[woo me with science]

108. I count two children in the story....

the body of the boy, about whom nothing is known, and the child who was beaten to death by relatives.

Neither child gives any evidence of what the story is claiming...an organized effort to import hundreds of children for ritualized murder. In fact, the story STATES that this supposition is based entirely on rumor at this point.

I am always dismayed when people are so willing to leap to outlandish conclusions in the absence of facts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. 3 children in all

Victoria Climbie, who was killed in 2000, by her great aunt and her partner; 'Adam', the torso; and the girl who was tortured as a witch (but not actually killed) by her aunt and 2 friends, who were convicted a couple of weeks ago. The first 2 cases prompted the police to set up the inquiry of which this story is leaking the report.

That there are churches who believe children are witches or possessed is not in doubt - they had people talking about it on film, and also holding down a child and trying to pour water down his/her throat while they were clearly resisting it (I'd have thought it constituted assault, myself).

The claims of the ritual killing come from the immigrants, not from social workers. That does not make them true, of course.

[woo me with science]

131. It reminds me....

of the little girl who was killed by "holding therapy" a couple of years back in the US. There are always groups with strange beliefs and practices, and always individual instances of abuse.

You make a good point. I didn't mean to imply that the social workers were planting the stories or anything even remotely like that...just that we have to be careful, when reading these stories, about what is offered as evidence. In the US, the testimony of therapists and social workers lent credibility to the satanic scare in the 80's, due to their having degrees and titles and firsthand knowledge of "victims." It took actual FBI investigations and better research to debunk the claim of widespread satanic abuse and murder of children. The article suggests that officials are gathering rumors of this wide-scale horror, but also suggests that we have little more than rumors at this point.

I am all for getting the facts. It is the readiness to accept rumors of wide-scale ritualized importation and murder, in the absence of facts, that bothers me.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

121. I was in a hurry-should have said pile of "bodies"-one body is not

a vast network of African Boys beign sacrificed.
I should have typed slower.
That still doesn't negate my original point.

[woo me with science]

124. Your point was clear and appreciated.

But you see the hysteria that surrounds this.

[Megahurtz]

262. Uh huh......

:eyes: and Bohemian Grove is a bunch of shit too, right NIGHT TRIPPER???

:sarcasm:

[Megahurtz]

61. > > >

:eyes:

[Minstrel Boy]

79. a report commissioned by the UK Department of Health in 2000

(originally from The Independent):

Satanic abuse no myth, say experts

A specially commissioned government report will this week conclude that satanic abuse does take place in Britain. It will say that its victims have suffered actual abuse and are not suffering from "false memory syndrome".

The report, ordered by the Department of Health, focuses on the experiences of 50 "survivors". Compiled by Dr John Hale, director of the Portman Clinic in London, and psychotherapist Valerie Sinason, it will reopen the debate which started a decade ago with testimonies from children in Nottingham, Rochdale and Orkney.

...

Last week, it emerged that police were investigating the alleged sexual and physical abuse of up to 4,000 children in care homes and council-run homes in Devon. Ms Sinason, who has treated 126 ritual abuse survivors, said yesterday that in many cases children were tortured by being held under water or made to believe they had witnessed the murder of infants as part of the satanic ritual.

"Some children are born for the purpose of abuse and are not registered on birth certificates," she added. "The abusers use trickery to convince children they have taken part in murder. This increases the power of the abuser."

More here and here.

[woo me with science]

80. This is utter nonsense.

During the height of the satanic panic in the US, there were worried "experts" too. It was either Time or Newsweek (not exactly chopped liver when it comes to media) that ran a full page cover photo of a baby wrapped in a snake. The feature article inside screamed that satanic cults are thriving throughout the US. This article was also based on the testimony of "experts."

It turned out to be nonsense. bunk. pure hysteria.

The problem is that there is an industry behind the recovered memory phenomenon. It gets very political. There is a phenomenon now of "survivors" self-selecting themeselves into the therapy profession, and so the nonsense continues, aided by the mushrooming of professional schools in the US with garbage standards for training and research. There is no shortage of people willing to proclaim themselves "experts," provide quotes for newspaper articles, and stir up law enforcement and government agencies who then have no choice but to respond. Somehow no bodies are ever found. Somehow nobody actually can find one of these rituals in progress. I will wait for the results of the actual investigation, thank you.

[Frederik]

88. So how do you know

the UK Dept of Health report is similar to the American "satanic panic" in the 80s? Oh, that's right, you don't, you're just talking out of your ass.

[woo me with science]

94. It's eerily familiar.

Same types of accusations. Same types of reliance on rumor as "evidence."

Actually, I am the one waiting for facts here. You are the one seeming to believe this bullhockey based on rumors alone. I wonder why that is.

[Frederik]

116. Have you read the report then?

[woo me with science]

123. Yes, i have....

read multiple reports about this nonsense. They become very familiar after awhile. What you have here, by the article's own admission, is concern by "experts" that these cults exist. Appeal to authority is one of the fallacies of logic. I'll tell you what. When you get a copy of the report, and it has solid evidence of widespread, multigenerational satanic abuse and ritual murder of children, send me a note and post it for me. I won't be holding my breath, though.

I read about MKUltra long time ago, when I was first learning about all this crap. I have also seen for myself the shoddy methodology behind most of the recovered memory "research" that is out there.

MK Ultra was a failed, small-scale, time-limited government project. There have been lots of them. Do you remember "remote viewing"?

It has been latched onto by "survivors" as one of a buffet of options available to them as alleged abuse providers. MKULTRA, the Masons and the Shriners (those hospitals for crippled children are a great cover), satanic covens, daycare centers...

Yes, abuse happens. But there is nothing to support the allegations of widespread, systematic abuse by the government or satanic cults.

[Minstrel Boy]

150. There is a great deal to support it, but you dismiss it ALL out of hand

because - well - these things simply don't happen.

I'd like to live in your world.

[woo me with science]

156. I have yet to see "a great deal to support it."

Neither did the FBI.

[BamaBecky]

286. I think that is what we are gently trying to tell you...

there is something that you are not seeing here.......and only you can break down the walls...........
Bama

[Megahurtz]

258. He definitely IS talking out of his ass. n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

101. an industry behind recovered memory?

Do you know who is behind the so-called False Memory Syndrome?

MKULTRA PROGRAMMERS were original Directors of the False Memory Foundation.

From my blog here:

"The expert witnesses who spoke in Patty Hearst's defense - Dr Martin Orne, Dr Margaret Singer, Dr Louis Jolyon West and Dr Robert Lifton - all testified that DeFreeze had deliberately created for her a new personality, using classic techniques, but she did not meet the full criteria for a 'Manchurian Candidate' because she did not suffer from amnesia. The names of all four witnesses should be familiar to us now as MKULTRA scientists, contracted through CIA cut-outs such as the 'Human Ecology Foundation.' Orne, Singer and West went on to become Board Members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, which discredits the returning memories of survivors who met the 'full criteria,' who may have endured trauma beginning in childhood, lasting for decades."

I really wish it were all "nonsense, bunk, pure hysteria," but my wishing doesn't make it so.

[woo me with science]

102. LOL

I bet you quote Corydon Hammond, too.

[BamaBecky]

287. Thanks!...He needs to look into this "hysteria".....maybe he

is a soul that will seek out the truth of all of it. We can only led the horse to water....you can't make them drink. People have to want to own the truth for themselves, then seek it out. Funny thing is antfarm thinks we don't know the history! Geeze I hope he can find it within himself to start the journey towards greater knowledge, for his sister's sake!
Bama

[BamaBecky]

289. Just because you are afraid to believe the truth....doesn't mean the truth

does not exist. Son, you don't have a clue! Furthermore, you are doing a great disservice to the survivors. You have bought the debunking conspiracy theory hook, line and sinker....without doing your homework. Where are you critical thinking skills? The real truth here is you can't handle the truth. You can't bear the truth. I feel sorry for closed minded disinformation artists such as yourself. You actually sound like you believe what you are "dishing out". This is all just so unfortunate for you and your sister.....she has a chance....sounds like you are so closed minded and couldn't recognize the truth if you fell face first into it.
Bama

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Are you fucking serious ?

"The influence of Christian beliefs has been a tremendous blessing to the women and children of Africa, lifting up their well-being in a way that billions of aid dollars can't."

Where the hell did you hear that ?

By the way, how is that kool aid ?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

43. Give me a break

That is a ridiculous statement.

Tell that to the Christian fundamentalist rebels in Uganda who use children as targets or cannon fodder. Tell that to the children who have been raped by their Christian overlords. Tell that to the Christians who twiddled their thumbs or encouraged the slaughter while hundreds and thousands were massacred in Africa. Tell that to people in India who have been denied access to hospitals because they were non-Christian. Tell that to people who have been told that they need to convert to Christianity to receive aid after the tsunami. Tell that to them, because they will be angered by your wrong claims.

The funny thing is that in ancient Egypt, those "heathens" gave women more rights than any Christian nation could ever claim. The position of women in society drastically declined with the introduction of monotheistic and male-dominated religions, namely Christianity. This is true for everywhere from Ireland to the Indus valley.

I would love for you to give me an actual example of your foolish and ignorant beliefs.

Christianity has brought about more suffering and imbalance to the world than almost any other influence in the past 2,000 years.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. Maybe you need to crack open an history book now and then....

...because you might just find out that religion has caused more wars and genocidal acts throughout history than any other cause.

[megatherium]

50. Actually, religion has been used as an excuse for more wars

and genocidal actas throughout history than any other excuse.

And don't forget the most killings in the 20th century were done by two avowed atheists (Stalin and Mao), and one maniac who pretended to be Catholic but instead was motivated by racist pseudoscience and the need for lebensraum (Hitler). Each of these killed tens of millions.

[trotsky]

52. Oh please, not the commie/atheist junk again.

Russia and China killed people not because they weren't atheists, but because they weren't conforming to the concept of communism as defined by those tyrants. Communism WAS the religion.

[megatherium]

82. Well, if communism is a religion then so is secular humanism.

And we have to keep all the religion out of the schools, hmm?

[trotsky]

139. Explain to me

the difference between religious neutrality and secular humanism.

[megatherium]

145. There isn't any difference

but to fundamentalist Christians, teaching evolution in the biology classroom without allowing the discussion of creationism amounts to teaching the "religion" of "secular humanism". My point was merely that it's silly calling the communism of Mao or Stalin a religion. The fact is that religious people have killed lots of people, and non-religious people have likewise killed lots of people. As I first said, any old excuse will do.

[trotsky]

148. There most certainly is a difference.

If you can't see it, then I understand why you think the way you do.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Hitler was a devout christian.

And the other two didn't start wars and kill in the name of atheism.

Nice try though.

[megatherium]

84. Hitler was a devout Christian? Really?

The Nazis believed that Christianity was a religion of weaklings (because it preached compassion and charity), a religion that came from Judaism. The truth of the matter is that the Nazis sought to replace Christianity with a nationalist creed of blood and land, suitable for good Aryans. (That religion might have had superficial Christian elements or trappings, but it wouldn't have been Christian.) They pretended to be Christians because of the inconvenient fact that the populace was still attached to that faith.

[beam me up scottie]

115. Again, nice try.

But the facts don't support your version.

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."2 (Hitler admired religious figures).

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided."3 (Hitler believed in Heaven).

"I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party ... The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times ... How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."4 (Hitler was inspired to become a radical anti-Semite by the Viennese Christian Social movement, whose attitudes are almost identical to the far-right American Christian fundamentalist movement today).

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."5 (Hitler obviously believed in a supreme being).

"Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be 'discovered' by an election"6 (Hitler was fond of paraphrasing the Bible (Mark 10:25 in this case), and he does this many, many times elsewhere in the book).

"The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality."7 (affirming that Hitler's only real problem with his childhood religion was the fact that its power base was not in Germany).

"I had so often sung 'Deutschland u:ber Alles' and shouted 'Heil' at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction."8 (the "divine court of the eternal judge" seems a rather strange idea from anyone but a Judeo-Christian, since Pagan and Eastern religions generally lack any such divine judgemental entity, to say nothing of atheism)

"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."9

"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."10 (recalling World War I).

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe."11 (it would appear that Hitler agreed with modern "intelligent design" creationists on the existence of a Creator).

"Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth ... Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world ..."12 (Jerry Falwell? Is that you?)

"But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God"13 (note that when he says "images of God", he refers to racially pure Aryans; this sentence comes in the context of a diatribe against racial intermixing).

"While both denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers for their doctrine-- an activity which can boast but very modest success compared to the advance of the Mohammedan faith in particular-- right here in Europe they lose millions and millions of inward adherents who either are alien to all religious life or simply so their own ways. The consequences, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable."14 (Hitler agrees with George W. Bush that religion and morality are intertwined).

"Also noteworthy is the increasingly violent struggle against the dogmatic foundations of the various churches without which in this human world the practical existence of a religious faith is not conceivable ... The attack against dogmas as such, therefore, strongly resembles the struggle against the general legal foundations of a state, and, as the latter would end in a total anarchy of the state, the former would end in a worthless religious nihilism."15 (Hitler, trying to equate criticism of dogma to an assault on civilization)

"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."16 (Hitler tries to define racial intermarriage as defiance of God's will, in exactly the way modern racists do, particularly in the southern American states; indeed, 40% of Alabama voters voted to keep interracial marriage illegal in November 2000)

"And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form. Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world."17 (Hitler believes in the afterlife, and he agrees with modern Christian fundamentalists about the importance of religious matters over material matters)

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."18 (Hitler demonstrates the common anti-Semitic view that Jesus was an Aryan rather than a Jew, and glowingly described him as "the great founder of the new doctrine".

"The Jew almost never marries a Christian woman; it is the Christian who marries a Jewess ... The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew ... With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people."19 (Hitler echoes Martin Luther's thoughts on Satan and Jewry; note that Hitler openly admired Luther, who wrote the virulent anti-Semitic screed "On Jews And Their Lies", and the infamous Kristallnacht was committed on Luther's birthday. Also note that he reiterates his hatred of intermarriage, but this time on religious rather than racial grounds. He tends to use the terms "German" and "Christian" interchangeably, which makes sense since he believed that Jesus was an Aryan and that true Christianity recognized the supremacy of the Aryan race).

"The future of a movement is conditioned by the fanaticism, yes, the intolerance, with which its adherents uphold it as the sole correct movement, and push it past other formations of a similar sort ... absolute intolerance also provides long growth ... The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."20 (Hitler explains why he thinks religious intolerance is good, agreeing in principle with modern right-wing Christian fundamentalists who bemoan that if they are not intolerant of diversity, their belief system will have no future).

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."21

"The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bull's horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack."22 (Hitler's own words demonstrate clearly that despite the common myth that the religion of Nazism was Nordic paganism, he actually regarded the Nordic pagan revival movement with nothing but contempt and derision, and Rosenberg was obviously charting his own path).

"A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work 'silently,' but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure."23 (isn't it interesting that you could easily imagine many of these quotes coming from the mouth of a modern-day preacher?)

"By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious-dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence."24 (Hitler equates religious dogma to ethics and morality, again just like modern right-wing intolerant Christians)

"Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise."25 (Hitler believes in the Genesis story of expulsion from Paradise).

"The task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission."26

"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."27 (Hitler believed that Aryans are holy and were created in God's "image", while other races evolved from apes, hence his hatred for racial mixing because it diluted God's image).

"It would be more in keeping with the intention of the noblest man in this world if our two Christian churches, instead of annoying Negroes with missions which they neither desire nor understand, would kindly, but in all seriousness, teach our European humanity that where parents are not healthy it is a deed pleasing to God to take pity on a poor little healthy orphan child and give him father and mother, than themselves to give birth to a sick child who will only bring unhappiness and suffering on himself and the rest of the world."28 (Hitler outlines some of his eugenics ideas; note that he described black humans as "Negroes" and white humans as "European humanity". Like the medieval European Christian conquerors, he obviously thought of black people as sub-human, and he often described Czechs as "sub-humans" as well)

"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"29 (Hitler believes that racial mixing is an extension of "original sin")

"It doesn't dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."30 (again, he repeats his belief that Aryans come from God while other races evolved from apes).

"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god"31 (just for fun, try asking people whether quotes like this came from Jerry Falwell or Adolf Hitler).

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."32 (again Hitler repeats his belief that the Aryan race was created by God, and that it would be a sin to dilute it through racial intermixing with inferior races which evolved naturally).

"If the German nation wants to end a state of affairs that threatens its extermination in Europe, it must not fall into the error of the pre-War period and make enemies of God and the world; it must recognize the most dangerous enemy and strike at him with all its concentrated power. And if this victory is obtained through sacrifices elsewhere, the coming generations of our people will not condemn us."33 (he seems to have learned the lessons of the Biblical Old Testament well: God punishes the people when they disobey him, so they must not make an enemy of God)

"For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!'"34

"we National Socialists must hold unflinchingly to our aim in foreign policy, namely to secure for the German people the land and soil to which they are entitled on this earth. And this action is the only one which, before God and or German posterity, would make any sacrifice of blood seem justified: before God, since we have been put on this earth with the mission of eternal struggle for our daily bread..."35 (again, Hitler tries to justify his actions as the will of God, as countless Christians have done before him).

"And so he advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven-stormer back to Lucifer. Germany is today the next great war aim of Bolshevism. It requires all the force of a young missionary idea to raise our people up again, to free them from the snares of this international serpent..."36 (Hitler explaining that the German people must send the "heaven-stormer" back to Hell).


2Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, Volume 1, Chapter 1.
3Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 1.
4Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 2.
5Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 2.
6Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 3.
7Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 3.
8Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 5.
9Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 6.
10Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 7.
11Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 9.
12Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 10.
13Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 10.
14Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 10.
15Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 10.
16Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 11.
17Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 11.
18Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 11.
19Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 11.
20Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 12.
21Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 12.
22Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 12.
23Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 12.
24Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 12.
25Ibid, Volume 1, Chapter 12.
26Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
27Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
28Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
29Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
30Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
31Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
32Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 10.
33Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 13.
34Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 13.
35Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 14.
36Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 14.
37Ibid, Volume 2, Chapter 2

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.shtml

[megatherium]

141. Nice try indeed.

You post a 3,021 word (!!) response that seems to be trying to equate Nazism with Christianity. Yeah, right. Tell that to Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the other Christians who paid with their lives for their resistance to Nazism. If Hitler thought of himself as Christian, it was a twisted, broken Christianity (as evidenced by his insane belief that Jesus was an Aryan not a Jew). And I don't buy the notion that he was a Christian because he said/believed he was. Any bizarre mass murderer could call themself a progressive, but that wouldn't really be true. Take Ted Kacsinski, for example.

Over and out.

[beam me up scottie]

151. So YOU get to decide who is a christian and who is not ?

I see, I am sorry to have offended you, I had no idea I was speaking with god himself. :sarcasm:

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true.

I know our fearless leader believes that to be the case, but he's also wrong.

Actually, my entire post consisted of quotes from Hitler and you countered with what?

Your belief that Hitler wasn't a christian because he killed other christians?

I hope that's not the best you can do.

But then again, that's probably the kind of logic I should expect from someone who thinks they know who is a real christian and who is not.

"over and out" ?
:eyes:

[Tigress DEM]

166. Scotty

Why are you so angry? Are people here ripping into you because you have a different opinion? Or do you need to be right about Hilter being a "Christian" for some particular reason?

People who use Christianity to harm people are trampling over the heart of the law. Love one another as I have loved you and love God with your whole heart and soul is the basic guideline of Christianity.

Someone who walked with MLK in the day would not walk up and call someone a nigger. Just by knowing what MLK stood for and what it took for someone to stand by him, you can see that, right? And if that person did do it, you can understand how they are dishonoring what MLK did and how that makes them untrue to the beliefs MLK held?

It's the same with looking at Christians and phony Christians and misguided Christians and politicians who use religion as a weapon. Those who muck it up are responsible for their own behavior and will be held accountable some time in some way.

It doesn't make the whole thing a sham though. Instead of blaming religion, hold the bozos who muck it up accountable. I don't think you will get as much flak for that, but maybe you're tough and can handle the flak.

Whatever your beliefs are, I'd never presume to tell you that your world definition is the cause of all that is wrong in the world. It seems like that is what you want to say about Christianity, but maybe I'm wrong. Help me understand if you can.

[beam me up scottie]

178. First of all, my post was a reply to

megatherium, not you.

Secondly, stop patronizing me.

I never said that good people cannot be christians but I'm sick and tired of hearing that you have to be christian to be good.

I don't CARE if you believe that or not, it is what I hear EVERY DAY.

I hear it from OUR GOVERNMENT every day.

How dare you try to compartmentalize my anger ?

Do you do that to gay people too ?

Blacks ?

How about other minorities ?

Since when does the fact that there are good christians negate the damage done by the rest of them ?

I would never question why a gay person is angry at straight people.

I would realize that he does not hate me because I am straight.

Do you think I am incapable of discerning between the christians who mean me harm and my friends and neighbors who would defend my right to not believe ?

Oh, apparently you do ...

"...is the cause of all that is wrong in the world. It seems like that is what you want to say about Christianity"

[Tigress DEM]

190. I think this conversation would be easier if you didn't personalize..

This is a general forum and I like megatherium, feel it's my place to define true Christianity as different from the shit people are preaching at you. I take as much offense, if not more, about those who would tell you or anyone that you have to be Christian to be good.

Secondly, I'm not patronizing you. I'm trying to hold a civil dialogue with you and understand where you are coming from because it really sucks to believe in Christ and have all these assholes abuse His name to get their jollies.

How am I attempting to compartmentalize your anger? By telling you to be mad at the bozos who misuse religion instead of the whole thing? OK, I guess, but I don't think you'll ever make a dent in religion itself and why destroy whatever good is in it in the process. I see that as a fruitless battle with only negative outcome for you and those who get in your way.

"Since when does the fact that there are good christians negate the damage done by the rest of them?" Did I say that? No. I was NOT defending anyone who uses Christianity to hurt others. Quite the opposite. I said the ones who are responsible for doing that damage aren't acting very Christlike and are accountable for their deeds.

"I would never question why a gay person is angry at straight people." Not all gay people are angry at straight people. I have friends of all types and it hasn't been an issue because they know I respect them.

"Do you think I am incapable of discerning between the christians who mean me harm and my friends and neighbors who would defend my right to not believe ?"

I don't know. It's hard to understand where someone is coming from and what they believe unless you ask.

"Oh, apparently you do ...

"...is the cause of all that is wrong in the world. It seems like that is what you want to say about Christianity"


Even what you quoted me saying (out of context I might add) doesn't prove the point you set out to make. I was asking you if that's what you were implying. If you have the ability to discern between those two groups, and I have no reason to doubt what you say, then why does it upset you that I too see these two groups?

It seems like this is a really sore subject for you and I don't want to be party to making it a worse one. I was just trying to reach out and understand you and I really don't appreciate the sarcasm. If you knew me, you'd know how far off beam your statements are, but you don't know me so it's been a hell of a misunderstanding. I'll leave it at that.

Sorry if I gave you any grief, I didn't mean to.

Take care.

[beam me up scottie]

201. I really don't think you were trying to give me grief.

I understand where you are coming from and you are, I'm sure, a much more peaceful person than I am.

But I was NEVER a militant atheist until I saw what was happening in this country.

I realized that I no longer had the luxury of remaining neutral.

I see how atheists are accused of hating christians on this board simply because they criticize religion and it infuriates me.

It paints us into a corner where we must defend ourselves.

Then we're angry resentful atheists.

Some atheists may believe christianity is evil, I don't.

I argue just as passionately with bigots of all stripes.

YOU are not a bigot, but they are here.

On another thread I would probably learn a great deal from you, and I will re-read this thread tomorrow and notice all of the great points,but I've been pissed off since our little friend insulted African cultures and it seems like I've been fending off accusations since then.

It's been difficult to even keep up.

I apologize if I gave the impression that I disrespect you, I don't.

I think we need more thinking liberal christians, a LOT of them.

We have been fighting the zealots for ages, so if we seem angry, understand it's because we don't feel that we should have to defend our anger to others. We feel like others should have witnessed and acknowledged our battles instead of taking offense at our anger.

Most of my friends are christians, I no more blame them than I blame you for the crimes committed in the name of christ.

I do expect them to acknowledge those crimes and I wonder why some seem to be unable to do that.

I am sorry for offending you, trust me, it was not my intent.

Peace

[Tigress DEM]

210. That's good. No offense taken.

I DO acknowledge the crimes and I think it's more repugnent because these people claim to do these deeds in Christ's name.

Maybe it's my unconventional upbringing that makes me different (Catholic Mom who was a Dr Who fan, Methodist Dad - got to choose my religion at 10 years of age and visited everything from Baptist to Jewish Temple in the process - major anthropology and sci-fi buff. Got red shirted once in a book, if that's what you meant by that one post.) I myself can't tolerate most "come to Jesus" "holy rollers" except on a good day and doing my best not to judge them.

In fact, I think I am not as peaceful about this as you think I am. I've actually had better luck talking about my faith with atheists and pagans or anyone except died in the wool fundamental Christians. However, in my lifetime I've met so many good people and those who really "get" what Christ was about that I can usually find common ground there with anyone.

I had started a book, "Common Sense Christianity" but I've not gotten back to it for awhile. My major contention was that these who do terrible things and claim to know Christ are mistaken or waaaay off track. I'd like to call all Christians to be more understanding and not judgemental of the world in general and to take the log out of our own eyes first.

I think that is what America had going for it to begin with, freedom of religion (and conversely freedom FROM religion) if only because it is such a powerful thing it must not be confused with the state or used by the state to enslave people to doctrine.

[beam me up scottie]

216. You should talk.

As much as possible, seriously.
You have a lot to say and people need to hear it.
We obviously cannot tell moderate christians to wake the hell up (doesn't go over too well for some reason) but if they hear it from liberal christians, it may just sink in that their freedoms are being threatened as well.

I hate to divide people into christian and non but our government seems to be furthering the division and so many can't see what's happening. Our morality and patriotism have been questioned for years and now it's not just us anymore. According to the fristians, you're either with them or against them.

Most liberal christians on du already understand that we need to be proactive in everything we do. The ones who don't get it are the moderates that think we're radicals.

It's like women's rights, we stand to lose everything we fought so hard for because some women think it's only about abortion and they don't need to worry about it.
Or young girls who don't vote. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I hope they all wake up before it's too late.

[Tigress DEM]

220. Yeah the government is furthering the division....

but the good news is that makes it even more clear to many Christians, without anyone having to tell them, that this right wing stuff is out of line.

It still helps to talk about it and reinforce what really needs to be done.

[megatherium]

175. I'm sorry to have replied to you in anger.

I meant to drop out of this discussion (hence my "over and out"), but you're right, I certainly can give a better argument than I did. (And of course, I don't have the right to decide who is a Christian. Only Christ has that right.)

Anyway, here's a better argument: This is an extended quotation from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster, 1959, page 240):

And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Geermanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler said publically in 1941, "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable."
What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the "National Reich Church" drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who among his other offices held that of the "the Fuehrer's Delegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction for the National Socialist Party." A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:
1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably . . . the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.
7. The National Socialist Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publication and dissemination of the Bible in Germany . . .
<...>
18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of saints.
19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
30. On the day of its foundation, thee Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels . . . and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.

(This is from the Thirtieth Anniversary Edition, by the way.)

Again, sorry for the disprectful tone.

Cheers,

megatherium

[beam me up scottie]

186. Great post.

It made me think, and that's what I like!
No sweat about the previous exchanges, I have had to apologize profusely many many times on this board.
It comes with the territory, we're all here because we care about dethroning the thugs who have hijacked this country.

Mein Kampf was a record of Hitler pouring out his soul, proof that he was a religious fanatic. I do not dispute the fact that his idea of christianity was twisted and dark, it was.

But my issue, and it's a BIG one, is that when people deny that Hitler was a christian, they do it by claiming that it was because he was immoral.

In other words, they use morality as a definition of christianity.

Does that explain it any better ?

I didn't do a very good job of making my point, and I apologize for that.

[megatherium]

196. It does explain it a lot better, thanks.

And yes, I'm also here because I am in the anti-Bush resistance movement.

[Zhade]

68. Atheism WAS NOT THE MOTIVATING FACTOR in those regimes.

I'm sorry, but I am fucking sick and tired of people pretending Stalin and Mao's atheism, rather than their brutal natures, were the cause of all those deaths.

They would have murdered millions even if they'd been fundamentalists Christians, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Wiccan, or...

They were murderous tyrants. Their brand of atheism was merely a convenient pretext to blame some of those deaths on.

[megatherium]

83. Now you get my point.

Humans like to kill other humans, wholesale and retail. Any excuse will do. So please don't blame religion. Or socialism. Or big-endism or little-endism.

[Zhade]

85. It's not the same, though I understand the point you're trying to make.

The difference is that religion persuades its followers to accept some things for which no evidence exists aside from personal subjective experiences that may connect to The Truth - or may originate in the believer's mind, separate from any outside connection to anything.

Atheism - as defined by most non-militants (who wrongly and arrogantly demand that there are no gods, rather than explaining that there is no convincing evidence of any gods) - insists on not accepting things without objective evidence.

IMHO, it's easier to manipulate with lies and propaganda those who are capable of accepting as true events and actions that have no supporting evidence. Those whose default stance is to question rigorously and only accept as truth those things that can be proven to be true are more likely to challenge the lies and examine the propaganda, and thus will not so quickly fall prey to the hysteria-driven misinformation that leads to horrific wars and nationalistic destruction.

Though, of course, both sides are capable of weakness, cowardice, evil, greed, or any number of things that might hasten the jingoistic death cult's arrival.

[beam me up scottie]

130. Where did he blame religion ?

Quit trying to put words in peoples' mouths.
It's ineffective, not to mention insulting.

[NawlinsNed]

217. Religion hasn't caused jack

Stupid, selfish people doing stupid, selfish things caused the wars and genocidal acts. Religion was just one of many excuses that could have been used to get said stupid, selfish people motivated to fight.

[trotsky]

235. Religion is unique.

When someone says, "God told me to do this" - how do you counter that? Reason & logic are right out the window, but more importantly, you can't even counter it with more religion. "Well, God told me that it was really Satan that spoke to you!" Instant holy war.

No, religion is uniquely dangerous and lends itself far too well to these types of abuses.

[shrike]

244. Don't know that it's the cause of wars

Money and power is the cause of most wars. I'm sure we can all agree on that. But genocide -- well, ethnic and religious hatreds could be the cause of those acts, yes.

[Zhade]

71. Welp, he didn't last long. Good.

What an idiot!

[trotsky]

40. Welcome to DU, potatoe.

Can you explain to me how denying Africans the use of birth control has "lift(ed) up their well-being"?

And speaking of how certain cultures "retard and brutalize the human beings who were unlucky enough to be born into them," well, I'd say based on the attitude of today's Republican party, America might just be heading down that path.

[Ariana Celeste]

42. Good job!

You just insulted ALL Non-Christians with that statement!

These guys want to continue to enjoy lording it over women and weaker males.

I'm sure Christian women have alwaaays been equal right? :).

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. Oh, my....words fail me.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Me too.

(And anybody here will tell you how rare THAT is.)

Glad they didn't fail Manic Expression !

[karlrschneider]

46. There's a university very near you, I suggest

you attempt to matriculate.
:eyes:

[onager]

62. But don't matriculate too much...

...or you'll go blind.

Jesus told me so.

[manic expression]

47. You are beyond wrong.

The simple fact that this was done in CHURCHES proves you wrong. It actually proves that Christianity itself has brought about such occurrences.

I do believe that your perception of non-Christian religions and cultures is bigoted. Have you the slightest idea of any African culture at all? It would be good of you to know that Africa was the center of tremendous civilizations and empires while Christians were sitting in their petty fiefdoms, wallowing in ignorance and oblivion and waiting for the apocalypse :rofl:. Here, I'll let you find some semblance of knowledge on Africa and its indigenous peoples, get back to me when you find some respect, logic and tolerance. I thought colonialist mindsets were a thing of the past, but unfortunately, I was wrong.

Maybe you should go to "Ignorant Colonialist Underground". I think you'll find some like-minded people there.

[beam me up scottie]

49. You

rock .

:applause:

[bicentennial_baby]

51. Holy crap that's ignorant

Your words, not you, since I cannot attack the messenger...You are lacking in knowledge and awareness...unless you're a reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes or David Livingstone...

[nine30]

53. Organized religion is the root of all evil

(most of it anyway)

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

56. Here, educate yourself.

The Question of Atheist Hospitals

http://www.americanatheist.org/aut03/T1/ittner.html

Of the 13% of religious hospitals, all of them are maintained by public funds. Those public funds are not paid for exclusively by the religious, they certainly aren't supported by American churches. If the religious hospitals were to be truly religious and separated from secular governmental subsidies they would collapse. The question that the Christian apologist should be asked is, "Where are all the truly religious hospitals?" Slapping a Catholic or Methodist label upon a hospital wall isn't sufficient enough to create a truly independent, private religious hospital free from Atheist support.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

72. "Almost un-christian" ?

Talk about arrogant. :eyes:

Actually, I think your statements were VERY christian.

The same type of christian as Freddy Phelps or Jerry Falwell.

[komplex]

111. So what you are saying...

The Religious hospitals serve those that are too poor to have their own insurance. Without Religious hospitals, the poor and uninsured would be dying in the streets.

[trotsky]

138. No, and that just proves you didn't read the article.

Thanks for playing, though.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

152. did YOU read the article?-I mean it takes at least 60 seconds to do it !

Demonizing immigrants--seems it doesn't bother us over here in the good 'ol USA-where Muslims are all terra-ists and hate "freedum"-
England has always had a racism problem with the massive amounts of foreigners that immigrated from the extensive Empire.

I'm sure there are some very primitive practices going on but not on any large scale enough to generalize that all Africans are murderers of children and they're all giving them HIV.

[trotsky]

155. Ah, OK, maybe you should read the article that *I'm* referring to,

and not jump in mid-thread to attack someone for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the subtopic being discussed.

Sheesh.

[komplex]

224. You mean where it says this..

Despite the religious label, these so-called religious hospitals are more public than public hospitals. Religious hospitals get 36% of all their revenue from Medicare; public hospitals get only 27%. In addition to that 36% of public funding they get 12% of their funding from Medicaid. Of the remaining 44% of funding, 31% comes from county appropriations, 30% comes from investments, and only 5% comes from charitable contributions (not necessarily religious). The percentage of Church funding for Church-run hospitals comes to a grand total of 0.0015 percent.

So I must have missed the part where the rich and well-off qualify for Medicare.

[trotsky]

233. That doesn't have anything to do with it.

Of COURSE only the poor qualify for Medicare. That's not the focus of the article! It's to show that religious hospitals aren't all that "religious" at all, especially in terms of the source of their funding.

To take the fact that they receive larger amounts of Medicare funding than public hospitals and spin in into some sort of belief that without religious hospitals, the poor wouldn't get care, is dishonest and wrong. Sounds like something a FOX News report would do.

[komplex]

237. Oh, Yes! of course, because Public Hospitals

have plenty of empty bed space, ER doctors are picking their noses out of boredom and nurses are doing their toes because Religious Hospitals are taking away all their business.

Or do you expect the free-market to take care of it?

[trotsky]

238. OK, this is pointless.

The focus of the article was to show that "religious" hospitals actually receive the vast majority of their funding from government & secular sources.

So the fact that they are "religious" has nothing at all to do with them serving the poor. Those hospitals would still almost certainly exist even if they weren't "affiliated" with a religion. (Which, as the article shows, is barely more than sticking "Methodist" or "Catholic" or whatever on their sign.)

You're trying to change this into some kind of debate about medical care for the poor, and no matter how hard you try, it's not going to work.

[komplex]

239. Only because your article makes no sense.

The focus of the article was to show that "religious" hospitals actually receive the vast majority of their funding from government & secular sources.

Right, because Religious hospitals serve the poor. So obviously, secular sources believe that Religious Hospitals offer good care.

So the fact that they are "religious" has nothing at all to do with them serving the poor. Those hospitals would still almost certainly exist even if they weren't "affiliated" with a religion. (Which, as the article shows, is barely more than sticking "Methodist" or "Catholic" or whatever on their sign.)

What you have to remember is Medicare and Medicaid pay less than the going rates, so by serving the poor you have a slim margin to begin with. There's an old saying in the non-profit sector, No Margins No mission. People got to eat, bills got to get paid, the money has to come from somewhere.

Secondly, We actually don't know if those hospitals would exist or not because the article doesn't go into detail about who actually founded those hospitals. The article only focuses on the funding of the operations. If the article was truly about founding Reglious Hospitals, it would focus on where the money came to build the walls before the first welfare recipient checks in We would have to assume that either the state would have picked up the burden, increasing taxes or a for profit private enterprise would spend the money and build the hospital to serve the poor, HAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!Oh My GOD! I Slay ME!!!!!, for-profits serving the poor. Ha!

The article only shows that Religious hospitals, get the most of their money by serving those with the least ability to pay. Now I know that Religious institutions serving the poor hurt you sensibilities, but I have to live with the inquisition, you have to live with this.

Now how about you and all your Atheist friends get together and buy a hospital and slap "Madeline O'Hare" on the name and tell us how easy it is to run a non-profit. Because, last time I checked, some taxpayers, who fund these "Secular Public Hospitals" believe in God

[trotsky]

240. Sorry, but you're talking nonsense.

When you understand the issue a little better, and want to discuss it rather than what you view are atheist "sensibilities," please come back. Til then! :hi:

[trotsky]

241. Oh, and by the way:

The claim that the religious build hospitals gives the illusion that the religious are more charitable than the secular, non-religious. With hospitals, at least, that isn't the case. Every hospital writes off a certain percentage of medical revenue as charitable care. The religious hospitals aren't the least charitable of hospitals, but they're close to it. For-profit hospitals provided, on average, only 0.8% of their gross patient revenue as charity care; religious hospitals came in with 1.9%. On the other hand the secular non-profit hospitals had 2% and the godless secular public hospitals provided 5.1%.

You're concerned about treating the poorest of the poor? Your religious hospitals ain't cutting it.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taxloss]

243. But you ARE talking nonsense.

Do you want atheists to organise and start building hospitals? I thought your type was a bit threatened by the non-existent notion of "organised atheism". That;s like saying Doonesbury fans should build a hospital - completely irrelevant.

[beam me up scottie]

251. Victory ?

Please, he ran circles around your strawman arguments.

It's okay, it was never really a fair fight to begin with.

Shame on Trotsky for engaging a reading comprehension-ally challenged individual.

[trotsky]

255. I accept my 20 lashes with a wet noodle.

That is what the Evil Atheist Conspiracy Handbook calls for in this case, right?

Oh crap, I'm not supposed to talk about that in public...

[beam me up scottie]

256. OK ! That's it !

Your rubber chicken privileges are suspended for one week.
You can turn over the chicken at the clubhouse.

[Taxloss]

290. Sssssshhhhhh!

Theyll see the B-BAD!

[manic expression]

58. Sure...

why not start off with Scandinavia, France, Canada and Britain (countries with very secular governments and little religious fervor)? Compare this with, say, the Middle East, which has been run by "religiously motivated people". How about we compare the hospitals of Cuba, a country run by those "God-less Communist atheists", to the rest of Latin America. I would love to see your head explode when you realize the truth.

Also, don't forget about those Christian-run hospitals in India, which ONLY accept Christians and REFUSE to treat any non-Christians, no matter what the case is. Yeah, so compassionate and tolerant :eyes:

You sound like Tom Buchanan in "The Great Gatsby": "You see, whites have made everything that contributes to civilization, science, and art...and things like that" :crazy:

[onager]

64. Brief historical note...

...that, of course, won't make a damn bit of difference to the Twue Bewievers.

When the Xian missionaries swept into Africa expecting to find "ignorant idol-worshipping savages" (in their view), they were amazed to find whole tribes who already worshipped one god and followed a written moral code.

They had to be converted anyway, since those Africans were Muslims.

[manic expression]

66. Right....

Very true.

It is disgusting how people put the label of "savages" on people who are merely different from them (to me, it seems that whenever colonialists portray a culture as "idol-worshipers", the "savages" end up being infinitely more wise, insightful, respectful and tolerant than those who are accusing them).

What I find even more silly is the fact that most indigenous religions in Africa are monotheistic (even though there is nothing wrong with polytheism at all). Some people really don't have a clue.

[Taxloss]

75. Most non-Muslim African cultures weren't polytheist

They were animist or pantheist. But there was great diversity.

Also, we shouldn't forget that Africa was an is home to two of the oldest Christian churches - the Copts and the Ethiopians, both of which I believe are older than Catholicism.

[manic expression]

76. Yes...

Many of the religions believe in a god which is apathetic to the human world, and so they use their ancestors as intermediaries to that god. And yes, there is great diversity (the same can be said for just about anything in Africa: music, languages, beliefs, lifestyles and more).

Well, I think Ethiopia converted to Christianity along with the rest of the Roman Empire when Constantinople took power. The Catholic Church came into being when the Bishop of Rome declared himself superior to other Christian leaders after Attila the Hun (a long time after Ethiopia's conversion). The Orthodox Christians rejected this.

[Megahurtz]

60. There are some really twisted people out there.

:puke:

[woo me with science]

74. Yes there are some...

However, that fact does not prove the existence of large-scale cults sexually abusing and murdering children.

BTW, your response to me up there was a masterpiece of logic and verbal expertise. Now I belieeeeeeve!

[Frederik]

90. I'm sure you know a lot more about this case

than the Scotland Yard, who has actually investigated it.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

147. Scotland Yard has never hyped anything no? Why make public unproven

allegations?
What purpose could there possibly be to do this?
Could it be that Witch hunts are great for the hunters and the PR they get?

Speaking of recent witch hunts-MJ's prosecutor thought he'd get famous-he bit the dust hard because he never had a case from the beginning-(it takes very little to get a grand jury to indict -listen to Bernie Ward KGO.com for more on that)-
- but I'm sure it was well worth the gamble for him --especially since he was gambling with 7 million dollars of California tax payers' money.

And sensational stories are always true right?
Especially when they're about "good" vs "eeeval".

[woo me with science]

212. You need to read more carefully.

The article ITSELF states that these allegations of widespread importation and murder of boys are based on rumors. The investigation of this boy's death is heating up this way because of STORIES of a conspiracy...not because the investigators have uncovered bodies of the hundreds of murdered children, or evidence of the actual existence of these organized child murderers. You need to realize that investigations follow rumors. That is how it works.

Now when something very similar happened in the US in the 1980's regarding satanic ritual abuse, the media went nuts. It took YEARS and a full-scale FBI investigation to debunk the claims...and because of this irresponsible behavior, there are still deluded people out there who continue to promulgate the myth of widespread, multigenerational SRA cults sexually abusing and murdering children. You can find quack therapists in every major city in this country who believe this shit.

I hope people in the UK have learned something from our experience, and will withhold judgment about this case until there is ACTUAL EVIDENCE of this alleged massive importation and murder of children.

[Megahurtz]

259. Mmm Hmm.......

:eyes:
Well, you're certainly NOT an archive of accurate information yourself.

[Montanan]

69. "Faith Crimes"... A very useful term. n/t

[0007]

93. Is junior too old?

[cascadiance]

97. How long before Alex Jones finds they've also gone to Bohemian Grove

He's found them doing "human sacrifices" there before!



http://www.infowars.com/exclusive_new_bg.htm

[LanternWaste]

126. Great Thread

This is a great thread and I'm bookmarking it. Lot's and lot's of differeing perspective and very little actual denigration of a person's faith (or lack of faith).

These are the types of posts that convince me DU is GREAT! (Can't do my Tony the Tiger imitation over the internet, but you get the idea...)

Hope to find more interesting replies tomorrow during my lunch hour!

(DU needs some good, old-fashioned cheerleaders for threads like this one :) )

[GetTheRightVote]

132. Man's inhumanity to man, horrible, totally horrible

:kick:

[onager]

154. More on Hitler The Atheist...

From the classic psychiatric study of Hiter, The Psychopathic God by Robert G.L. Waite. From the subchapter "Hitler As Religious Leader:"

Since Hitler saw himself as a Messiah with a divine mission to save Germany from the incarnate evil of "International Jewry," it is not surprising that he likened himself to Jesus...

He did not view the (Nazi) Party and the Reich merely as secular organizations...he told his followers: "We are not a movement, rather we are a religion."

The institutional pattern he used for creating his New Order was the Roman Catholic Church, which had so greatly impressed him. As a boy, he had dreamed of being an Abbot...

Hitler saw striking parallels between his Ministry Of Propaganda and And Enlightenment, and the Church's Congregation For the Propagation of the Faith (Congregation de Propaganda Fide).

He remarked that his task was not to communicate knowledge but "holy conviction and unconditional faith..."

In reminiscing about the institutions and ideas that had influenced him, Hitler said that he had learned a great deal from Marxist terrorism, from the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," and from the Freemasons.

But, he concluded, "Above all I have learned from the Jesuit order..."

[Taxloss]

185. Oh yes, that atheist Hitler

who repeatedly referenced God and the divine in his speeches, and who clearly believed in a divine plan for Germany. He might not have been Christian, but he CERTAINLY wasn't atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

189. But he WAS a christian.

By denying that fact, christians are saying that he could not have been christian because he was immoral.

That irritates me a little.

[Endangered Specie]

157. Its these things that make it very VERY hard to be anti-capital punishment

:grr:

[geckosfeet]

177. Oh,,,, I thought that this was a post about US military recruiting,,,

My bad.

[yodermon]

223. Nothing new here, at all.

The Infanticidal mode of childrearing is the oldest psychoclass. It is only shocking to us since our "civilized" cultures have progressed to the Intrusive, Socializing, and/or Helping modes. This chart may help:



The adults in the OP article are only restaging their own incredibly abusive childhoods, nothing more.

WE ALL restage our childhoods. ALL OF HISTORY is the collective restaged childhood of humanity.

Childhood defines the culture, not the other way 'round, as most historian would argue.

from http://psychohistory.com/htm/eln08_childrearing.html

Children throughout history have arguably been more vital, more gentle, more joyous, more trustful, more curious, more courageous and more innovative than adults. Yet adults throughout history have routinely called little children "beasts," "sinful," "greedy," "arrogant," "lumps of flesh," "vile," "polluted," "enemies," "vipers" and "infant fiends."1 Although it is extraordinarily difficult to believe, parents until relatively recently have been so frightened of and have so hated their newborn infants that they have killed them by the billions, routinely sent them out to extremely neglectful wetnurses, tied them up tightly in swaddling bandages lest they be overpowered by them, starved, mutilated, raped, neglected and beat them so badly that prior to modern times I have not been able to find evidence of a single parent who would not today be put in jail for child abuse. I have searched so hard during the past three decades for any exceptions to this extremely abusive pattern that I have offered a prize to anyone who could find even one "good mother" prior to the eighteenth century-the definition being one who would not today be incarcerated for child abuse. No one so far has claimed the prize. Instead, historians have assumed that my evidence for routinely abusive parenting must be terribly exaggerated, since if it were true it "would mean parents acted in direct opposition to their biological inheritance," and surely evolution "wouldn't be so careless...as to leave us too immature to care properly for our offspring."2

Also see War as Righteous Rape and Purification
http://psychohistory.com/htm/eln06_war.html

Happy people don't start wars. They don't need "purifying" or "liberation," and their everyday lives are already full of hope and meaning, so they don't need a war to save them from anything.

What sort of strange emotional disorder is it that war cleanses, liberates and saves people from? And how can killing, raping and torturing people be acts that purify and restore hope in life? Obviously war is a serious psychopathological condition, a recurring human behavior pattern whose motives and causes have yet to be examined on any but the most superficial levels of analysis.
...
Because those societies which have the harshest child-rearing practices have been shown to produce low-esteem adults who have the highest incidence of murder, suicide and war,32 the study of human violence can most fruitfully begin with examining the findings of clinicians who have closely interviewed murderers and determined their motives.
...
Both statistically and clinically, researchers have found violent adults have only one thing in common: poor childrearing.38 Studies of homicidal youths, for instance, found 90 percent could be documented as coming from severely emotional, physical or sexually abusive families.39

(please note that I am not in wholesale agreement with the writings and ideas espoused by Mr Lloyd deMause).

[humus]

225. when i first read the topic

Boys 'used for human sacrifice'

I thought that the sacrifices were
going to pertain to the 1,800 "boys" who have
have died in the crude oil ritual
of the Church of the Non-Evolutionary Chimp.

[The Animator]

226. Well I would simply propose that if one is determined to follow a religion

All that need be done is to simply study the rules set forth by your Deity of choice, and do your best to follow them. The world over, the rules set forth by any deity I've heard of are all fundementally the same. No additional guidance is necessary really, as long as you fully understand the guidleines, you could live out the rest of your life thinking for your self, and doing what you beleive to be right.

You only really run into problems when you fall in with a large group of people, being led by someone, using your religion to try and convince you to do something that runs counter to your best interest. If your connection to your Supreme being is a personal and intimate one, aren't you the only one qualified to determine what your God wants you to do?

[QC]

228. Could this be the most lunatic thread in the history of DU?

The competition for that title is always very stiff, of course, but I think this thread is definitely a contender.

[shrike]

245. Yep

Bizarre thread, bizarre story. Don't believe a word of it -- yet.

[Megahurtz]

291. Yeah, Yeah, I know....

:eyes: things like this just never, ever happen do they?:eyes:

:sarcasm:

[RandomKoolzip]

254. You said it.

Man...DUers can start flamewars about anything.

BTW: I have no idea how the investigators in this case have elevated the murder of one boy into a situation where thousands of African males are shipped into the UK for ritual human sacrifice....that's like saying that Aruba is a hotbed of Satanic ritual murder because one American white girl turned up missing there.

Alarmist much?

[PennyLane]

229. Perhaps.......

......we could offer them our Boy, George! }(

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hiley]

273. There is nothing tin foil about it really

people say conspiracy theory but who cares what they say.
poo on them if they can not handle the truth.
Tell away and welcome to du !

hiley:hug:

[lonestarnot]

253. OMG!