Baby who failed to say 'Amen' starved by cult: court

Source: Guardian (UK)

The leader of a US religious cult was "outraged" when a one-year-old boy did not say "Amen" before a meal and ordered her followers to deprive him of food and water until he died, a prosecutor told jurors on Monday.

Three members of the now-defunct cult known as 1 Mind Ministries are on trial for murder in the death of Javon Thompson, who was around 16-months-old when he died of starvation and dehydration in either December 2006 or January 2007, according to authorities.

After the boy died, the cult members prayed for his resurrection, then destroyed all evidence of his death and stuffed his body in a suitcase, which they hid in a shed behind a home in Philadelphia, Assistant State's Attorney Julie Drake told jurors.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/baby-who-failed-to-say-amen-starved-by-cult-court-20100223-ovav.html

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

With the exception of Jesus and his true followers, (and they are few) they
have been throughout history.

So poetic in its simplicity. If you were in 18th century France you might live on that very phrase for months and it would get you into the elite of the wits of the period. Nothing else need be said. That little simple phrase says it all in its brevity; No need to back it up, because the hawker, who is obviously so wise that this phrase must be from Solon the lawgiver himself. "let them eat cake" is another good one, though there are those would say, that quote is just a modal to expose someone who just does not get it.

While I have some pretty strong feelings against most religons, there's a huge difference between most religous people and being bat-shit insane like these "cult" mambers.

close.. i dont have the chapter/verse,

Don't blame religion, blame humans. These brains would join a cult no matter what - certain types are attracted to that and not all cults are religious - gangs are a form of cults. Anyway this took some special cult mindset to go carry off. Most standard religions are not starving 1 yo babies. But you can find plenty of parents in the paper who are without religion. This particular brand uses religion for their mind control. You want to see mass mind control that kills - the Army.

It doesn't however make them cults though. Okay, I consider the military more of a cult than most religions. Still, it doesn't hit the real cult sites.

One of the reasons they couldn't "win" in Vietnam is that we draftees were pretty cult-resistant and at least sometimes unwilling to take insane orders.

LOL loving the deflection by the religious types: it is religion when it gets good PR, unless the actions look bad... in which case it is not religion it is something else. The ironic part is that the good PR parts of religion are not intrinsic to religious thought, where as the crazy shit that gets done under religious guidance would not usually get accomplished sans the presence of religion.

Wanting to have it both ways since day 1. BTW, Christianity celebrates the nailing to the cross of some dude, that is pretty saddist. I am sure there have been far more sadist cults out there, but Judeochristian traditions are pretty high up there.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Most of the world's problems stem from religion. Period.

Not unlike every other institution in the history of the world.

Incidentally, I'm not a part of any organized religion. But I feel compelled to point out, xians don't celebrate "some dude" being crucified. That part they lament, and weep over the "sacrifice" that the dude made to save them from their own damned fate.

xians celebrate the ressurection, where that dude rose from the dead, claiming power over his captors, his killers, even death itself..

That's what they celebrate. Good Friday is a time of soberness... Easter is a time of celebration.

I know it doesn't matter to you, and there are all sorts of other ridiculous things we could point out about the beliefs. But I just thought we should get that right.

Right, which is why they call they day on which he was supposedly killed "good friday" and attempt to evoke guilt about how he "died for your sins" as though it was something he chose to do for the good of humankind. In fact if you believe jesus had the magic jedi powers that let him walk on water, and rise from the dead then he pretty much had to choose his death.

Its definitely a celebration.

authoritarianism --

and not only teaches this crap, but says that a "one male god" backs it --

Most "standard religions" did kill to get their way, to destroy other religions,

and free thought.

That's the very basis of the Christian Crusades and the Inquisition --

and the very basis of the Papal Bulls on Native Americans and Africans enslaved here --

"Enslave them or murder them!"

How many babies' lives and citizens lives could be saved if the Church dissolved its wealth?


And just who does the Army "kill" for .... God & Country -- !!!

And that crap is still being used in the military if you recall Rumsfeld's Christian references

in war writings/instructions.

Well said..thank you.

the bible verses engraved on weapons used in Iraq. Bush even said the Iraq war was "a crusade".

It is not "Christian." Hitler and his crew hid under the guise of "Christianity." That is not proof to those who want to slam Christianity that it is bogus. The "Church" as you call it, is not one big central club. The Catholic Church is not the same as all Christian churches. They are very rich indeed. Many murders were committed against native peoples in he name of the Catholic Church. The Vatican holds the largest pornography collection in the world from what I have heard. I assure you that my church does not own porno, masterpieces or gold things.

I belong to a very poor Christian church that still supports its members financially when needed, emotionally and spirituality always. My pastor can barely pay our rent. It's just too easy for those without faith to lump all into one big pile but the problem is that it is NOT correct.

Be a believer or not. But let others be. A cult murder has nothing to do with the Messiah and His followers.

:hug:

Thank you. We believing folk need to improve the media image we and Our Lord have been getting.

Religion isn't the only institution that encourages blind obedience, but unfortunately for your argument, it is the particular one that encouraged the blind obedience that killed this 1 year old baby.

There is no 'special' cult mentality. The cult mentality is the same authoritarian obedience present in any organized religion, applied with an exceptional zeal. Mainstream religions do exactly the same thing on a larger and less personal scale. The catholic church's continued misinformation campaign about condoms spreading AIDS, for instance, has killed hundreds more people than this upstart pissant religion could ever dream of.

Blaming humanity as a whole for a particular, demented subset of its membership is bullshit. Its obvious that people can be gullible and that some seem pathologically inclined to be. This doesn't mean that religions and other organizations can't exacerbate and exploit this human flaw for fun and profit, and it certainly doesn't mean we can't call them out on it when they do. Humans can also be well educated and socialized to avoid committing inane atrocities at the say so of some pompous religious imbecile. We can choose which behaviors to foster in our society, and we will reap the fruits of those we choose to encourage.

There is no separating them. What other animals practice religion? Humans ARE religion. Where do you get the notion that religion is something separate from humans? There is not one without the other. So, yes BLAME RELIGION.

We have met the enemy and he is us.


mark

These monsters are created by religion.

I've long felt that the great future schism of conservatism will be between those who want militarism to be the religion of the state and those that want their religion (and only their religion, mind you) to be the religion of the state.

I could make a quip about religion being the only mass-delusion fairytale children carry into adulthood...but that's just low hanging fruit...any and all illogical mindless dogmatism whether theological or otherwise is functionally-religious in nature.

are sick bastards.

know I do." Jesus said, "Then feed my lambs." He then asked again, "Simon, John's son, do you love me?" and he replied "You know I do." And Jesus said, "Then tend my sheep," and he asked him a third time, "Simon, John's son, do you love me?" ... John 21

Whether or not one likes the miraculous elements in such texts, it is difficult to reconcile the texts with a policy of starving anybody: according to this story, Jesus comes back from the dead, enjoys breakfast with everybody, and then talks of feeding people as a token of love

I dont believe in getting between a person and their faith. However, a Democrat who opposes labor & environmental laws, supports lax guns laws, supports corporate personhood, opposes freedom of choice, defendes the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, etc etc isnt much of a Democrat. In fact, you could call them a D I N O. I think there are many "Christians" like this as well. They say they love Christ but their every action testifies otherwise. This cult is a good example.

This IS religion.

that is akin to "rape is sex"

these people this was their religion talking to them, telling them what they did was justified, so your analogy is quite appropriate, IMO.

Force of habit, is AUTOMATIC and does not allow for thinking. This is the only way that I could see this happening, NOT EXCUSE but see how someone could allow this to happen to a sweet little baby. One year olds aren't the verbal or articulate, for crying out loud.

sadism. I never understand how people just give over their minds and self determination. NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT EVEN ALLUDE ANYTHING NEAR DOING THIS TO ANOTHER ADULT HUMAN BEING, let alone A BABY!! WTF happens to people like this? Common sense says that you DO NOT HURT CHILD, for Christ's sake. In fact, Christ is recorded to have said that anyone who touches a hair on the head of one of "these" little ones would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck, then being thrown into the deepest sea.

That bitch was crazy as a rabid, shithouse rat. What would convince someone to follow some maniac's direction to torture an innocent baby boy to death and ostensibly, watch that baby slowly die a torturous death I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy? I think that everyone that participated in this crime against humanity needs to be made to go through the same thing that Baby did....but in the desert.. during a heatwave, covered in harvester ants and scorpions, while walking barefoot through a unending cactus patch.....UPHILL, WHILE BEING SHOT AT.

Here:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Violence and cruelty are part and parcel of the text.

That says ANYTHING about starving and dehydrating a child or anyone else. BULLSHIT..I have studied the Bible for the better part of almost 46 years and I have studied I cannot speak for Bibles that have been changed, ala Jehovah's Witnesses, mormonism but there is NOWHERE IN THAT BOOK WHERE IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT STARVING AND DEHYDRATING A HUMAN BEING, ESPECIALLY A CHILD. Sorry that you're wrong.

Here's a few places to start:
Mark 7:10
Exodus 20:12
Exodus 21:17
Leviticus 20:9

Here's a nifty tool to see various editions and translations, side by side, for comparison:
http://bible.cc/mark/7-10.htm

Young's Literal (From that page, take your pick):
"for Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, He who is speaking evil of father or mother -- let him die the death;"

Here's some references about punishment of people via starvation (often specifying the starving of children in specific):
Deuteronomy 32:21-26
2 Samuel 3:29
Jeremiah 11:22
Jeremiah 14:16
Jeremiah 18:21
Jeremiah 24:10
Lamentations 4:4-9
Ezekiel 7:14-28
Ezekiel 16:17
Revelations 6:8

I see your "NOWHERE IN THAT BOOK WHERE IT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT STARVING AND DEHYDRATING A HUMAN BEING" and raise you by no less than 10 places where it says something about starving humans to death, often as a form of punishment, four places where children should be murdered (just to start, there are lots more), would you really like to continue this?

I hate it when people don't even know their own sacred texts.

I'm a middle-of-the-road person on this issue, less fanatically opposed to religion that most of DU, but highly opposed to religious hypocrisy.

I still find the bible to be interesting and the words printed in red to be - for the most part - pretty decent wisdom as a basic guiding point for good living of my life.

But much of the bible is arcane or unconscionable. Paul was a tool. The OT was full of sadistic, sociopathic shit. It's just the way it is. Own it.

It's worth study, reflection, and attempts at understanding, IMHO.

I get a tad bothered when people claim that it doesn't say things when it clearly does, and vice versa.

In light of the direct chapter and verse references showing you're wrong?

BTW, I have one 2 many X chromosomes to be a "Sir" idiot. If you want believe what you want to believe, knock yourself out. Luckily, the sun will still rise if I never talk to you again.

I always swear that I'll never post on religion threads, but I always do.

That's a very misleading statement. This is no typical example of Xtian behavior. A lot of them are very misinformed, shall we say, but every one of the religious people I have known in my life, and I have known hundreds, would be appalled at this story - which is only about religion on its face - what it's really about is how fucked up some human beings can be.

But unlike you, I don't think that religion fucked them up - they were already that way and their fervor is only a symptom of a greater disease.

It's stupid and it's just plain wrong to make blanket statements like that. Some people's lives are unbearable - let them have their opiate.

I cannot imagine how a parent would allow that and have the nerve to call themselves Christians. I am a survivor of child abuse and horrific sexual abuse and will NEVER understand how anyone could allow this and use GOD'S NAME to justify it.

because most American Christians talk the Jesus talk and walk the Ayn Rand walk!

... plenty of Christians in the world are equally full of shit. Heck, not just Christians are the ones with a monopoly on hypocrisy.

are also atheist... cause I can't believe a word they say. They're just CYA all the time.

:thumbsup:

especially television evangelist types are con artists and not believers. They just want money.

Yet the Evangelicals LOVE her

Well, y'know...competition in the "I'm always right" category.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair would have eaten her for lunch.

Although this way of thinking, unfortunately, isn't *uniquely* American. More prevalent in America perhaps, but not strictly so. This particular mindset knows no boundaries.

What frightens me is seeing ever more of this. So much cruelty disguised behind the label of Jesus. Or might it be that attempting to be true to whatever interpretation of the Bible ferments in their minds brings about the cruelty in the first place? It is like a toxic fungus penetrating the rational mind. Seeking salvation in a manner where none can be found, one that brings misery, suffering and death upon fellow humans.

I'm inclined to think he didn't really care.

After the boy died, the cult members prayed for his resurrection, then destroyed all evidence of his death and stuffed his body in a suitcase, which they hid in a shed behind a home in Philadelphia, Assistant State's Attorney Julie Drake told jurors.

....about a million members.

Like the entire Methodist Church has the same policy in place. Thousands of Methodist children are starved, locked up, and tortured because they don't appropriately honor John Wesley.

a church full of grandmas and grandpas, singing hymns and starving children. </sarcasm>

either of those Churches are really open minded. I know Episcopalians have male and female priests as well as gays and lesbians. Rather progressive.
Cheers
Sandy

and usually the wine is good. If you were a choirboy/ alter boy/acolyte/in one of the great cathedrals and the bishop takes a liking to you, you might just get a little giddy, yes much better than the catholics,

Let me say, you're right. In fact, you're more than welcome in an Episcopalian church if you're an atheist or agnostic, as long as you respect the faith of the people around you. One caller to Stephanie Miller called himself a gay, atheist Episcopalian, and I knew exactly what he meant. I'm still largely an agnostic myself.

Anything can be perverted. This death has nothing to do with Christianity except that the criminals stole a few words.

Because they sure respect yours! Especially if you're atheist. How "big" of them to tolerate others. What progress!!!! :eyes:

We are speaking of discussions that go on inside a church. We're not talking about imposing religious beliefs outside the church.

Talk about openmindedness...not.

What does that mean? How exactly do beliefs stop at the church door?

This is as muddled and nonsensical as starving someone for not saying "amen".

We would have called CPS, immediately.

:hi:

:P

Seriously what a horrid story.

had the audacity to believe themselves answerable to a guy in a funny hat in Rome.

You think that murder committed hundreds of years ago by people who were Protestants means what, exactly?

YOUR religion (or, more precisely, religious viewpoint) is more important than anyone else's.

And, you're quite evangelistic about it.

Tell me what religion is this you are referring to? And how did you deduce that from my comment? And what is it I'm supposed to be evangelizing?

I read the one post rapidly and reacted totally inappropriately to your discussion.

My sincerest apology.

I am now guilty of my own hot button: not being to parse a sentence or an argument. Lack of critical thinking on my part.

a guy who murdered his own family, allegedly because they were moving away

from his male-supremacist god --

In reality, he had taken his mother's money and couldn't replace it --

and the family was in dire financial straights!

But a long, long history here of family religious insanity.

And thrown in a sad backing by his Lutheran priest/pastor --

The massacres in North Dakota and Minnesota are well documented.

Jesus Christ. :eyes:

doesn't mean that all modern doctors are quacks.

As a smart ass frenchman once noted; if you can be made to believe absurdities, you can be made to commit atrocities.

Argumentum ad verecundium? Just guessing here.

and I think Voltaire had plenty of experience dealing with religious zealots, so that's a fallacious fallacy. (Now I'm guilty of tautology?) :evilgrin:

Thanks!

Rp

Thank you!!

The complaint is that IF one thinks that his or her god requires child abuse, the believer has no psychological mechanism to refuse. If one starts out with the premise that life is unimportant because only the eternal afterlife matters, then nothing that happens in this life is important. If one further believes that one can be blocked from heaven because one has insulted god, what correction can possible be called excessive? This is especially true when one considers that the doctrine of redemption through the suffering of Christ makes suffering a virtue and a means to avoid damnation. Based on that, starving a child to death is a perfectly reasonable thing to do to make him repent and be put back on god's approved list.

"Another wonderful story of religion in action. Rec. nt"

The poster failed to make the distinction you made.

If "wonderful" is sarcastic, then it is another wonderful story of religion in action. I'm not really drawing a distinction. I'm only pointing out that some are more committed than others of following the logical consequences of their beliefs. Wasn't Abraham perfectly willing to kill Isaac? Wasn't that for the sole reason that god told him to? Does not the Bible command parents to kill disobedient children? Isn't it true that the only reason most Christians are unwilling to do so because they are not sure that their beliefs are correct?

It's true, that person was painting with an absurdly broad brush.

primarily females --

but including nature, homosexuals, Jews, Africans, native peoples --

pagans -- on and on --

They have in some part been shamed into not repeating their hatreds from the altars

as regularly as they used to --

but certainly democracy and equality for all remains an enemy of the Vatican.

I have to agree with you on this.
By the way...I have noticed your posts in the past and they have always had a good point and were logical as well as compassionate.
Keep up the great posts! :)

...........death penalty, but those religious fucktards should be hung by their genitals until dead. I don't know how or why you came up with that shit, but it is seriously sick.

I'm simply pointing out how religious thinking can make otherwise decent and well-meaning people perform atrocities.

Sophistry at its worst.

Remember a frightening story about a young girl whose mother had all of her teeth

pulled because she and a young boy were romantically involved -- !!

And imagine a dentist who would do such a thing!!

And then there's the notorious John List -- a Lutheran fanatic -- who may have used

his religion as an excuse to kill his entire family -- Wife, Mother, three children.

Male-supremacist religion turns the world upside down in favor of pain -- suffering/violence.

Patriarchy is a mirror image of violence --

This story is not about you, nor about the Methodists on my street, who I can promise you would react in sorrow to this sad tale, without a thought for themselves. You on the other hand, seem to be going far and away to find offense to act out, upon the grave of a tiny victim.
How very naff.

I need to invoke the <sarcasm> tag.

You clearly didn't follow the discussion.

Your point was clear. He/she is simply trying to guilt you because you're obviously not on board with wholesale religion-bashing.

The very first comment was "Another wonderful story of religion in action. Rec. nt"

I made a similar comment to sort of correct that broadbrush characterization of "religion."

Others jumped into the fray. My comment concerning methodists was an example of the absurd comments that followed my similar comment.

I worry for America's inability to parse a sentence, a paragraph, or an argument.

faith. The teacher Jesus told his followers that they would in fact face mockery and even persecution for his sake, and he clearly told them what to do in those cases. He said to rejoice. Celebrate. I wonder why that rule is rejected in favor of acting out huge dances of offense in the name of religion, when no one has mocked your religion, save for the awful people in the OP. No one said a thing that was not true. No one claimed it was 'all religious people'. You took that from comments about murderers.
Just saying. Here on DU, any criticism of any religious people, including those in the OP is met with all manner of whining, shouting, and snark, but never, ever with the rejoicing that was taught.
Were you not taught to rejoice when mocked? And on this thread, you nor yours were mocked. Murderous child abusers were called out. Deal with it.

Okay, maybe you weren't, but I was.

You argue like a schoolchild. And you read just about as well. I shan't put you on ignore, because I believe you believe yourself to be righteous. But you are not one to argue with (especially as there was no argument to begin with).

exploitive capitalism -- "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" --

as long as the Vatican stands against democracy and equality for all -- freedom of

thought -- then it is a broad-brush issue.

The list of Christianity's enemies is long -- beginning with females --

and the list of Christianity's violence to subdue those enemies is long --

It will take a very broad-brush to erase that history!!

But, certainly not all of them, or even a statistically significant number of them. Now, THERE's a broad brush for you.

And that's just ONE religion!

forcing them to work as slave labor, while disparaging them a being savages.

but religions quit being cults as they grow and develop

members -- eventually --

HOWEVER, I do not believe that the core cult commitment ever changes --

If you look at the Vatican they still do not acknowledge the full personhood

of females as they acknowledge the full personhood of males --

Organized patriarchal religion's war on women continues on --

Their commitment to influence government and to overcome democracy and equality of all

continues on --

Their intolerance for homosexuality continues on --

And their backing of elitism in "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature"

continues on --

Further, the Bible still stands with adoration for a violent all male-god!!

... into big money making cults!

Go BYU!

The republican party is a cult.

Religions can cross over to being cults but so can other groups.

Granted, fewer members abide by the teachings any longer --

either in regard to birth control or abortion --

HOWEVER, the Vatican still denies members a right to their own personal conscience --

despite Vatican II's teachings which have been the target of a right wing coup within

the church.

Basically, Vatican II/Pope John XXIII kicked Papal Infallability in the ass--!!

They share most, if not all, of the same characteristics.

It's no wonder people hate religion.

I HATE religion. I used to be a catholic, then mormon, then christian. Now, I'm an Atheist. I feel free and own of my brain 100%. Religion is an INTELLECTUAL SUICIDE.

they'd be fighting like hell to protect him. But, he was born, so they had to punish him painfully and cruelly to death.

:(

Because if Jesus returned to earth today, Glenn Beck would press the crown of thorns on his head, Rush Limbaugh would spit on him as Pat Robertson pounded the nails into his hands, Rick Warren would pound the nails in his feet, Tom Coburn would slash his side and Sarah Palin would pound the "King of the Jews" sign on the cross while everyone at Fox News would be leading their Republican sheeple in mass chants of "Praise God!"

it was a dope smoking cult based on worshipping a "queen" antoinette from what I have read, not a right to lifer cult. and they abstained from healthcare...strange strange strange!!!

We all know that is exactly the the type of cult that forms when Southern Baptists marry Mormons.

:sarcasm:

:P

:hide:

Kind of like a Scientology Jesuit?

I guess actually going out and reading about something before you paint it with a broad brush is just to hard???

Ramkissoon pleaded guilty last year to child abuse resulting in death and plans to testify against Antoinette, Williams and Cobbs. At her insistence, the plea deal included an extraordinary provision: If Javon comes back to life, the plea will be vacated.

... she's still really, really brainwashed, isn;t she?

??

that he might agree with hanging him, but unfortunately then the lesson would be wasted.


Lincoln, of course, said it much more eloquently, but that's the basis of it.


These people are seriously insane -- made insane by male-supremacist religion.

a coherent reply.

You never know when you are going to need to starve a child for your religion.
Gotta keep plenty of toddlers handy for that.

have you never seen good acts done in the name of God?

The question is: would those people do those good things if you took the religion away?

Could you still have all of the goodness, charity and everything else without it being coerced?

Some of us think the good would stay.

And then you'd get rid of all of the terrible stories like this one where otherwise gentle but gullible people participate in atrocities because of religion.

You have 100% free will to donate whatever you want and you will still be welcomed equally.

This story simply highlights that humans are flawed as a group. That is why you see pieces of crap priests, police officer, teachers, politicians, etc. I would never say teachers as a whole are terrible because someone in New York had relations with a student and the union fought to keep them on the payroll (even though the district won't allow them back in a classroom).

The irony of your interpretation of history is jaw-dropping.

Visit any Basilica in South America and you tell me if the Gold from which the chalices and adornments are made came from coercion or from love and adoration for God.

Were the Indigenous people of Peru truly 100% free to "donate" their labor and sometimes their lives in creating the monstrous cathedrals, or just 90% free? how about 60% free? The Church brought conquistadors with them. Conquest was about Gold and the Church.

How about Birth control? Are female followers around the globe 100% free to enjoy sex with their mate without conceiving? or is conception just what's expected of a woman in the Catholic church. 60% free? 20%? I'm not certain the Catholic Church really thinks women should have control over their own bodies.

And don't get me started on how children are treated by the emissaries of the Vatican, because if I have to hear another story about how the Church fights legal battles to protect it's bishops and priests from facing the law when they sexually molest young children, I think I'll scream. The Church has shown very little remorse on this issue in real terms.

The "Church" by definition is the human and earthly instrument of God's will isn't it? So forgive me if I see a whole host of ways the church coerces people into paying their way into heaven through blood, sweat, and tears.

Using your reasoning, I can go through damn near every country's history and show that every country and every citizen (thus, the world's population) should all be shown an equal amount of contempt. I don't think anyone would dispute what you said.

That said, you have unwittingly said EXACTLY what I said. All people are flawed and, thus, all organizations will have flawed people in it.

When you say "my church does not coerce" and then go on to say that humans are the problem you are conflating the Church with Religion which is precisely the problem. The CHURCH is god's human representative on earth... it is exactly the entity that has coerced people into slavery, and coerced women into sexual servitude time and time again...

The Catholic church was responsible for the genocide of a number of indigenous tribes. As were various denominations of Protestants. I would suggest that the narcissism of Monotheistic Christianity has played a part in that since very few Christian Missionaries have truly practiced any real tolerance for the beliefs of others.

If you feel that my condemnation is too harsh, than I wonder if any condemnation is worthy at all from your perspective. In my non-religious world, crimes are met with punishment when proven with facts. In the Religious world crimes are always argued away as inexplicable extensions of god's will, and as sins that are to be forgiven. Religious leaders depend on that sort of moral wavering to line their pockets and yes, coerce people as instruments of the Church.

Genocide and cultural imperialism, sir, is to be punished, though it seldom is up to this point. I don't care who has committed the act of oppression. You chose to stand for the Catholic Church and extol it's somehow benevolent intentions. I know a very different history of devastation and pure hubris.

Human beings have failings which organized patriarchal religion seeks to exploit --

Ego -- or fear of women -- how about a little male-supremacy to make a guy feel better?

Just about EVERY country has been conquered by organized patriarchal religion and its

violence!

And the main tool of patriarchy/male supremacy -- is organized patriarchal religion.

We are still using it -- look at Afghanistan and our creation of the Taliban/Al Qaeda

which we used to bait the Russians into Afghanistan in hopes of giving them a Vietnam

type experience!

CHURCH is organized to prey on human flaws "in the name of god."

And that's why our Founders gave us Separation of CHURCH & State --

and why they didn't give us Separtion of HUMANS & State -- !!!

Our local newspaper ran an article about building houses in the poor part of town. Evidence has shown that once a new house is complete, it is immediately worth $20,000 less than the cost. Thus, the only way to try and build up the neighborhood is to get government and/or charity involved.

In the previous decade, HUD had built 7 or 8 houses, Habitat for Humanity had built about 20 and Catholic Charities has built over 100.

Thus, I see plenty of good in my local church and diocese. However, no matter what I say, you will see us as nothing more than a terrible organization.

You go on hating and we will go on building houses for the poor.

Our local newspaper ran an article about building houses in the poor part of town. Evidence has shown that once a new house is complete, it is immediately worth $20,000 less than the cost. Thus, the only way to try and build up the neighborhood is to get government and/or charity involved.

A new car is also immediately worth less --
because it becomes "used."
No one disagrees that government should be involved . . . it is the instrument of the people.
However, CHURCH involvement is another issue, especially when we taxpayers are subsidizing CHURCH!
And subsdizing "faith-based" organizations.
Let's subsidize Habitat for Humanity and see how many houses they can build!


Corruption of government and discrimination are what create "poor" neighborhoods.
And that is because capitalism is based on exploitation -- if you don't understand that you
should go back and study that issue.
Further, the CHURCH itself, with "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" encourages
that exploitation for the profit of the few --
Exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal-life -- and even other human beings according
to various myths of "inferiority."

Our government and our government agencies have long ago been taken over by elites/corporations.
We are barred in most states/towns from creating permanent housing, for instance, for the homeless!
NYC could only provide costly hotel space. That's sheer insanity. And it is based on racism.

Thus, I see plenty of good in my local church and diocese. However, no matter what I say, you will see us as nothing more than a terrible organization.

You go on hating and we will go on building houses for the poor.

Granted, there are good people who support male-supremacist religions.
I don't understand why they do it, but along the way many of them are beginning to
make Swiss Cheese of the CHURCH in pushing to replace hatred with compassion and humaneness.

However, they have nothing to do with setting the agenda of the CHURCH. Nor did they create
the violent history of the CHURCH. Nor do they set the current agenda of the CHURCH>
And THAT is what has to be changed -- and what we are discussing.

Meanwhile, whatever the CHURCH does it should do it without tax-exemption except on the church
itself and its surrounding property and its soup kitchens.

All real estate holdings, all stock portfolios should be taxed.

I will just point out the Habitat for Humanity enjoys the same tax-exempt status that Catholic Charities does, so there is no need to "subsidize Habitat for Humanity and see how many houses they can build!"

it is a dictatorship --

Unless you consider Vatican II which sought to give the church a compassionate and

humane face and which acknowledged the right to personal conscience and free will even

in matters of using birth control. Unfortunately, there has been a right wing coup

within the church on Vatican II.

Birth control and abortion have always been issues of church dictates.

Humans are flawed, needless to say -- and organized patriarchal religions take advantage

of those flaws in swaying people to believe in middlemen to "god."

Religion is certainly different from police enforcement, or teaching -- no "god" dictates

their behavior, certainly!

Pedophile priests, however, are another issue . . . they are allegedly guided by religious

teachings and their "god."

Some GOP/Christian politicans, sadly, do use the flag and "god" to confuse the public, but

when we look at the behavior of those politicans we can see that it simply another false flag

activity to confuse the public.

Separation of Church & State is about religion --

NOT about police, teachers, nor politicians!!

I'm not clear what the correct term is for "Do as I say or burn in eternal torment". I usually use the term "coercion" in these situations but if you have a different word, that's fine by me.

Be that as it may, do you need to be threatened to engage in good behaviour?

I found it not to be the case for me. When I quit religion I felt like a nicer, more tolerant, more friendly, less prejudiced person. The points of view I began to consider were more numerous and my donations to charity more generous.

So I didn't need the threat of hell. And when I got rid of my faith, I was able to perceive the world much more clearly and make better, more reasoned decisions about my life.

We have had all sorts of minorities and even people of other religions enter our church and all have universally said they felt nothing but welcomed. People did not pre-judge them and accepted them for them.

I am guessing you went to an f-ed up church.

They just excommunicate!


All religions use guilt, usually of sex, and fear of death to torment their followers into believing stone age dribble. It's about control. Religion is ancient government, using magic and the nonexistent supernatural to hold onto authority. It became obsolete except as a social tool during the Renaissance and really obsolete in the "Age of Reason". It's been wrong so many times it's a wonder anybody still falls for it. Folks can make up a god that's the spirit of love and forgiveness and a symbol of how we're all brothers and stuff, but that character is not in the Bible (Jesus, if he existed, is talking to other Jews, y'know. Not everyone.) or the Koran.... or even the Vedas. Redefining god to make him relevant is a common thing. It's why we have so many sects.

But the Descartean duality that religion requires has for all practical purposes been debunked. Remove a part of your physical brain and it can change who you are. I can give you a chemical which when combined with the chemicals in your physical brain will change your personality and perceptions of reality. "You" are obviously a combination of your physical self, determined by your genes(3-d molecules with no spiritual anything) and your experiences, which only "remain" in memories (conscious and unconscious) that are stored in a physical brain by 3-d neurons. The majority of the functions that keep you alive you are totally unaware of and have little to no control over. Even physical actions, like catching a ball, are done and over with before you're consciously aware of them. What place is there for a "soul" in this reality? I am aware people do have "spiritual" experiences and I believe that DO... but they are also "in your brain" just like all your experiences.

Does this mean I should do nothing and not participate in "life"? Of course not! I am a social creature who enjoys interaction with other creatures. I love the beauty of a fine spring day, a quiet snow storm, a blazing sunset... the universe is beautiful! I live my life free of supernatural phantoms and guilt about offending some sky god. Life is good free from ancient superstitions. I don't fear death...but worry about the process of dying which can be awful. But oblivion sans judgment is nothing to worry about.

Show me where the Catholic Church in modern times has excommunicated someone for not tithing.

That is a sin you know.

I am saying the church does not force you to tithe and the reponse was

"They just excommunicate!"

Or, was it the individual knowing I was right trying to just completely change to topic to have some more fun simply bashing?

Believing you're moral when you do good things because you believe you're being 'watched' is not real.

What is it about religious types that feel entitled to have it all both ways?

If a religion claiming to follow/worship an all-good deity does wrong, does it mean that their deity is not all-good, or that the religion itself is flawed. If that is the case then, it puts religion (in this case Christianity) at odds with the supposedly all-perfect deity they are supposed to worship. Thus meaning the Christian deity is not all-perfect, since it created something that is flawed: humanity. Meaning that either the Christian religion is false, or the deity they follow is a crook.

No difference, of course --

People get together and do good things, with or without a god --

People get together and do bad things -- too often "in the name of god."

And the long history of violence by Christianity and the violence of the Bible

is still with us and should not be forgotten nor ignored!

"What's the difference between a good act done by any and one done "in the name of god"? No difference, of course --"

To the person served, there may or may not be a difference. If you are hungry and homeless, you are most likely grateful for some hot food and a clean, dry bed regardless of who provided it.

To the person serving, I know in my case there is a difference. As a Christian I am called by God to serve others, especially those most in need, those most at the margins of society. Would I still feel the same pull without a belief in God? Perhaps, I cant say for sure. I was baptised after birth and taken to church on Sundays by my mom, but I didnt truly believe until after college. Since then I have grown in my faith and become more certain of it, later going on to become more politically & civicly active.

One of the central tenets of Christianity is that we best serve God by loving his children on earth and caring for those who most desperately need it - the poor, the sick, the elderly, widows & orphans, the depressed and the addicted. Every good deed is an act of worship, a way of saying thanks to my creator for putting me here on earth and giving me life. Doing good is not REQUIRED to get into heaven but rather it is a natural manifestation of my desire to thank the Lord.

Hope this helps :)

But you should take a look at Hitchen's critique of Mother Teresa's motives and methods for the philanthropy she practiced in India.

Think what you will of it's conclusions or of Hitchen's rare political opportunism in bridging an allegiance with the Hawks in the Bush Administration (I think he even regrets it)... The criticisms are cogent and important to note. Her success was political in nature and she used her philanthropic mission as a tool to maneuver politics in some pretty conservative and reactionary ways.

Anyway... thought I'd mention it.

http://www.amazon.com/Missionary-Position-Mother-Teresa-Practice/dp/185984054X/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266947445&sr=8-7

Life is about pleasure --

Male-supremacist religion is about pain and violence --

Said Mother T. would not let them spend ANY money on their small personal needs, no money for medical equipment, supplies, doctors, surgeries, instruments, disinfectants, medicines,

NOT even a goddamn motherfucking BAND-AID (c). :banghead:

That is NOT a hospital. That is a place to let people lie around suffering and dying. She had no mercy for anyone. Nobody knew where her millions of dollars were -- probably in a Swiss bank account while she was fleecing some rich conservative people.

She preferred to let those under her care suffer rather than make them better because "it brought her closer to God"

Or perhaps she saved tens-of-thousands, and condemned millions?

Whatever the precise numbers or ratio, it is clear that her stead-fast opposition to any form of birth-control, a dogma of her religion, caused, and continues to cause, more human suffering than her saving of "one child at a time" could possibly have alleviated.

Just stick them in a cell with no food or water and let them pray to be resurrected after they die.

There are dozens of articles about this incident going back over two years.

being the excuse not the cause.

these folks are nuts. they'd be nuts with or without religion.

That's seriously f'd up. And they're stupid to boot; there are more effective ways to remove evidence.

Why?

Because they happen to be black?
That's rather disingenious, don't you think?

Why?

Because they happen to be black?
That's rather disingenious, don't you think?

for these sickos are devoid of any spirituality. They are a group of sick people hiding behind a god.

and too often they have been taught these violent concepts from youth --

and authoritarian ways of dealing with issues, children.

Couldn't agree more with you about true spirituality --

I grew up in a household that was Russian Orthodox... pretty fundamentalist in its own right. One thing was certain though, Christ the way I was taught, would be sickened to see such a bunch try to claim him for their own hate filled agenda.

They highjack everything and twist it for their own selfish purposes...

I am not religious, instead I am an athiest, but one thing I have always had was a respect for decent religious folks. So I disagree with them about there being a god, but they mean no harm.

These fools, they represent everything antithetical to Jesus' teachings.

That they could do this to a child. it really makes me feel sick. How could any sane person do this to a baby?

My youngest is 16 years old, so my memery may be hazy, but can a 1, 1 1/2 year old even be expected to say Amen.....or any thing on cue? I remember them babbling at that age, but expecting them so say amen on cue?


Macoy

But the 21 month only recently got from "mama" and "dada" to "mommy" and "daddy" and still pronounces "truck" as ... well .. you know. Even then, there are still sounds that he can't wrap his tongue around(e.g. "ss" and "yuh").

"Amen" would be asking a lot of a kid that young.

When I tried to get my 21 month old to say "Amen", he just shook his head and said "No".

Then I tried "So say we all" and he clapped his hands and said "Yay!"

But i remember she said some words, but babies can only say a few things and all develop at different times. my daughter did not say much until she got tubes put in her ears. that said, I think people should be given a test to see if they can be parents, i know that would be impossible to do, but some people are not fit to raise children.

The bible does not allow for the starvation of stubborn and rebellious children.

You're suppose to take them to the city gates and throw stones at them until they die.

Duh.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

you got a chuckle. I'm still forcing back tears, though. Should never check this site while on lunch at work.

I hope they all rot in their own personal hell.

to shed light on their fucking insanity? Or are they afraid they are treading on religious freedom, this is so twisted and bizarre.

Where the hell is their humanity????

dangerous. You should know a real cult when you see one. I'm going to go bring back links because there are many people following the world cults which is quite a bit different than showing up Sundays for an hour.

http://www.freedomofmind.com/

http://www.factnet.org/

http://www.csj.org/

From Fact net:

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT


Q) Anybody can unfairly attack a group they disagree with by calling it a cult or saying they are using coercive mind control. How does FACTNet prevent this type of problem and determine fairly whether or not a group is a cult?

A) FACTNet uses specific criteria to determine if a mind control system has been used, and does not suggest organizations are destructive or dangerous cults without careful research and determination that the evidence fits definite criteria. These criteria are threefold.

The first set of criteria comes from the group' use of a specific set of mind control tactics. Please see "A technical overview of mind control tactics" at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm for details or see http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html for a shorter version. These two documents are derived from the work of Dr. Margaret Singer professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.

The second set of criteria has to do with defining other common elements of mind control systems, as defined by Robert Jay Lifton's eight point model of thought reform. Please see "Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Point Model of Thought Reform" also at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm. If most points in this model are being used in a cultic organization, it is most likely a dangerous and destructive cult.

The third set of criteria have to do with defining common elements of destructive and dangerous cults. The following section will help clarify what some of those specific elements and criteria are.

Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults

The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering. They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.

The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.

The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members
and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social
contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.

The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their
ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

Read More about Margaret Thaler Singer

We Strongly recommend that you read the Influence Continuum

Continuum of Influence and Persuasion

And a lot of protestant denominations, as well.

When the catholic church controls you 24/7 and you give all of your money to it instead of 10%, we'll talk.

I see the obvious parallels, you choose not to. What is there to say?

is. There's a whole lot more to say. I posted that for the benefit for people such as yourself that really don't know the difference.

Any literal belief in the Bible fits that model --

Catholics are taught that the Pope is the one supreme ruler of the church and that they are supposed to obey him.
The Pope does issue commands about food and clothing and what not but his followers tend to ignore him a lot (abortion, contraception etc.)
If you really wanted to, we could make a checklist of your criteria and show that some match and some don't.

What you'd probably find is that the power of the Catholic Church is more cult-like, by your definition, in some third world countries and a lot less cult like in the developed world.

If it were a cult by the given definition, then the followers would all be rapturously obedient and devoted.

At least around here, they aren't, so it's not a cult.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.