BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:45 PM

bullshit. you provided a link to a phony hoax website. not even worthy of writing up in a tabloid for checkout line consumption. Sam Raimi did better when he was 22. Are you really completely unfamiliar with notions of credible evidence and the demands of logical skepticism?

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:52 PM

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/4026447.htm

Florida's embattled child-welfare agency -- the Department of Children & Families -- employs at least 183 people who have been arrested and punished for an array of felonies including child molestation, child abuse, sex crimes, drug dealing, even welfare fraud against the agency itself, a Herald investigation has found.

For instance, the head of the agency's data-security team in Tallahassee is listed on the state's list of sexual predators for molesting a 5-year-old boy...

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 09:55 PM

You have to be able to recall what was said at one site as you go to another, Buck. Requires cognitive ability. Sorry you're not up to it. Your 'big picture' will always be the size of a postage stamp, but then you'll always be happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 10:29 PM

Children sacrificed to Moloch? Yes. That's one of the reasons the Romans wiped out the Carthagenians. For some reason they hated human sacrifice. Since Scipio Africanus plowed salt into the dead earth of Carthage, There's no evidence the cult has survived.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Troll
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 10:37 PM

GUEST, you have obviously been brainwashed by the CIA to post these totally fantastic acusations against the Bush family. Their reasons for having you do this are not yet quite clear but may have to do with using you as some kind of Red Herring to shift attention away from other matters.

OK, BOZO. PROVE THAT I'M WRONG!!!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 10:59 PM

Go to Santa Fe in September when the locals burn Zozobra at the stake. Join in the cheers as he burns in agony. This yearly affair makes the Bohemian Club bonfire pale into clichéd insignificance.
Free to everyone, no club fees necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 11:03 PM

Bill Clinton got a blowjob and it stopped the U.S. government in it's tracks. I guess GW participating in human sacrifices isn't as serious a character issue as a blowjob. What the heck was I thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 11:08 PM

The History of the
Burning of Will Shuster's Zozobra

Zozobra is a hideous but harmless fifty-foot bogeyman marionette. He is a toothless, empty-headed facade. He has no guts and doesn't have a leg to stand on. He is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. He never wins. He moans and groans, rolls his eyes and twists his head. His mouth gapes and chomps. His arms flail about in frustration. Every year we do him in. We string him up and burn him down in ablaze of fireworks. At last, he is gone, taking with him all our troubles for another whole year. Santa Fe celebrates another victory. Viva la Fiesta! - A.W. Denninger

Ah, GuestQ, but maybe he is real? Can you personally prove that he is not? Sounds dark and ominous to me.

Frankly, I like best troll's insight. I think he has blown GUEST's cover; GUEST is working for the CIA and is botching it. Just wait until they catch on. GUEST is going to have to pull his computer under the bed with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: NicoleC
Date: 30 Jan 03 - 11:17 PM

"The bodies are burned to ash, no doubt."
Bwahahahaha!

Heaven forbid that the voice of science intrudes, BUT --

Okay, do me a favor, since you love surfing the internet for "truth." Look up the average temperature inside, say, a large bonfire -- heck, let's say a petroleum fueled bonfire -- and the temperature required to cremate a body.

Here's a hint -- even today, our crematoriums at 2000+ degrees Farenheit can't completely burn bones. They have to be pulverized.

"But that area of California is notorious for it's number of kids found in shallow graves"
Damn, it is? You know, I live in "that are of California." As you might guess, I keep up with the news, and I can't say I've ever heard such an allegation. No Cal if notorious for many other things, mind you, but not kids found in shallow graves.

*BRRRRRNT* Wrong answer, try again.

You know, I think all those Bohemian Grove conspiracy theorists get it confused with Burning Man.

P.S. Of course, you had better not believe me. I might be Dick Cheney trying to cover my tracks!

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:17 AM

The Bushes will be wanting your crematorium expertise before long, NicoleC. Send that resume to the White House.

And it's Polly Klaas...foundation named after her. Petaluma, CA. And forgive me for not acknowledging California as the model of sanity we all know it to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 03:00 AM

OK having looked at a number of your threads, I gather that you Hate GW and his company of merry men, you also believe that we are all going to die ( well ok that bits true and holds water)everything is a great cospiracy ( but the rest of the world cant/wont see it)
What exactly are YOU going to do about it!!!!

Now if everything that you say is TRUE then shit why worry cos we is all dead anyhow!!! and what will this demon worshiping mob get out of a dead world??? cos if we is all gone who are they going to boss around???

Live Long and keep your fantasy to yourself, the rest of us have enough proplems in the real world without you adding to them.

ORC'S are great diplomats!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:21 AM

Nah, Troll, you're wrong. What Guest really is, is a spotty adolescent, child of a long absent, but abusive & alcoholic, father & a hooker. This could easily explain the desparate insecurity, that runs alongside the constant need to seek attention that has been perpetually displayed. Obviously brought up in such an appalling environment, it would also explain Guest's inability to understand the logical demolotion of his 'theories' that has been offered time & again by virtually every board member who has bothered to reply to him. And unsurprisingly, this poor, neglected child is also a complete social inadequate who can only interact through a keyboard, limiting his education, world view, & social skills even further, thus resulting in the regular abuse sprinkled ranting that he posts...

Well, it's a good theory, isn't it? It certainly fits all of the available evidence doesn't it? The trouble is, Guest Nutball, (assuming you're still reading this & haven't gone off on a froth-at-the-mouth fruit loop) there are thousands of possible sets of circumstances that could produce the kind of person who would post the inane garbage that you do. I just made my theory up. Is it right? I very much doubt it, but I'll lay odds on that most people on this board would lend a thousand times more credence to *my* self-admittedly invented theory, than they would to any of those of yours that you so desparately need to believe in.

As to "Modern man worshipping Moloch", no you didn't need to repeat it fourteen times before I could understand it. You believe it's absolutely true, I believe he's just participating (assuming he is actually there anyway, which seems doubtful) in some juvenile frat tradition. Shall I repeat that for your benefit fourteen times, or do you get the message first time? I see no 'evidence'. I see no 'proof'. Nobody here has seen any 'evidence' or 'proof'. Images can very, very easily be manipulated, or even faked in this day & age (clue: the machine you're using to talk to the rest of us is probably capable of doing the job...).

Stop saying "the video shows...", because it shows f*** all! Prove that is genuine. Prove it has not been manipulated. Prove it has not been faked. If you manage to do that, you then have to prove that they really believe in Moloch & aren't just playing around, having a fun bonfire.

For crying out loud, Guest, even the man you're using as evidence says 'mock sacrifice'. Mock Sacrifice. MOCK SACRIFICE. MOCK SACRIFICE!!! Am I getting through yet? Etcetera. But you seem to have decided they're sacrificing real victims all by your little, lone, sad, self...

You don't want to believe us. You just like the attention & the sound of your own voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: NicoleC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:30 PM

"And forgive me for not acknowledging California as the model of sanity we all know it to be."

Ahhh... now I understand. It's believable because everyone knows all sorts of crazy stuff goes on in California!

And if you know all about California (population 34 million) from Annette Funicello beach party movies and a few tired videos of 60's love-ins, I guess it all makes perfect sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:45 PM

Raedwulf opines, "...I believe he's just participating...in some juvenile frat tradition...."

Oh yeah...frats burn children in human sacrificial ceremonies. Whacky frats. What was I thinking? I'm glad GW gets time off from the job to burn babies, or he might make a mess of things, huh?

But enough sarcasm. What are the facts in this case?:
*Bohemian Grove exists
*The Bushes go there
*Each July they have a 'Creamtion of Care' ceremony where they sacrifice to a 40-foot stone owl. Even if you don't believe the video that was taken at the risk of life, there are plenty of credible descriptions of the ceremony on the internet...from upright social figures who apparently view human sacrifice like you do...just a frat thing.
*CONCLUSION: We have a man in the White House who participates in demonological human sacrifice ceremonies.
*PROGNOSIS: Not good, unless you're a 40-foot owl god.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:51 PM

point 3 is not proven. Amazing jump of conclusion from toasting marshmallows in hte open air to "sacrifice." Where's your evidence for "sacrifice" and "demonological" and "owl god." Sorry, this elevator is missing too many floors (and I don't think it goes all the way to the top).

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:53 PM

Hey, Nicole -- we're having a love-in next month -- bring your yacht!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: NicoleC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 12:59 PM

All-riiight! I'll harvest some of the buds growing in my closet, wax up my surfboard and drive down in my '74 VW Thing!

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:18 PM

Far out, man!! Just don't drive through that grove place. I hear they sacrifice virgins, and are very nearsighted as well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:26 PM

*COOL!* Any extra room for a frozen Canuck in that '74 VW Thing Nicole?

BTW if it makes anyone feel any better, Moloch is no 'demon'. According to Farrar's dictionary of 'The Gods of the World',
Moloch is (was) a deliberate Hebrew misvocalization of the Phoenician 'm-l-k' ('malek' or 'melek') meaning simply 'king' or 'lord', The Hebrews turned this title into a derogatory word for a 'heathen' god - in this case, Baal-Hammon of Carthage, the ancient god of fertility, vegetation and wisdom, to whom sacrifices were allegedly made.

But animal sacrifices were ritually offered by the Hebrews to Yahweh even up to Jesus' time, if not later. And it's odd that Yahweh Himself commanded Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac as a token of loyalty! Must have been the politically correct thing for these tribal gods to do at the time ...

Apparently the ancient Hebrews did the same 'demonizing' with the word Sin. 'Sin' was the ancient Chaldean, Sumerian, Assyro-Babylonian God of the Moon, of wisdom, of measuring time. Known as "He whose deep heart no god may penetrate', he was the enemy of evil-doers, portrayed as a old man with a beard the color of lapis lazuli. Mount Sinai was named after him. But we all know what his name means today! So does that make him a 'demon' now? Hmmmmmm

More importantly, does it really matter at all?

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 01:47 PM

No, it doesn't matter at all. Big deal if the Prez is into child sacrifice. Make sure your kids register for the upcoming draft.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:10 PM

Methinks I've sighted A Theory:

The current person occupying the White House and serving as the President of the United States is NOT, I repeat NOT, George W. Bush!

Can't be.

It's simple: his parents sacrifice to Moloch. Moloch wants the first-born child -- not the second or sixth, but the first. The first child born to George Herber Walker Bush and wife Barbara was George W. Bush (born July, 1946). This child *had* to be sacrificed to Moloch!

Hence the person in the White House CANNOT be who he says he is!

I suspect that he's really Saddam Hussein, and the person in Iraq is a body double....

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: NicoleC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:16 PM

I don't think I need to worry about that "virgin sacrifice" bit, Amos :)

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:20 PM

Wonderful, Rapaire! Now all you need is a chintzy webpage and you can save the world - then maybe take command yourself! Just ask our expert GUEST to help you set it up ...

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 02:47 PM

Nicole:

That's why I mentioned the nearsighted part.... :>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: NicoleC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 03:55 PM

Ah, I see. The high priests are supposed to be able to spot virgins just by looking at them, but they're nearsighted and won't admit their mistakes... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:20 PM

As m'lord Mulligan says, point 3 not proven. You've missed the train again, Guest Nobody, (are you standing in the middle of nowhere waiting for a Greyhound, I wonder...).

You haven't proved that the 'Cremation of Care' ceremony is a bona fide human sacrifice. You haven't proved any more than the vaguest of links 'twixt Dubya & the Bohemian ("The Bushes attend Bohemian Grove, Bohemian Grove holds annual bonfires allegedly to Moloch, therefore Bush worships Moloch! [rollseyes] Doh! This is beyond even Homer Simpson's brand of logic...).

So no, "*CONCLUSION: We have a man in the White House who participates in demonological human sacrifice ceremonies." is utter, utter bolocks, because you've still failed to prove the slightest link between Bush & human sacrifice, or between Bush & Moloch.

You are one sad sorry little individual, Mister I Can't Bear To Admit To A Name Guest. BTW, "we", "our" - sorry to disappoint, but I'm not on your side of the pond. The Shrub ain't my president, pal. If I thought you represented the average intelligence of the American voter, I wouldn't wonder that he was apparently & allegedly Prez. As it is, I'm tempted to give credence to some conspiracy theories, but your particular variations are a deal too much to swallow...

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:29 PM

That's right. Your boy Blair is GW's lapdog. Is that where you get your handle from...the wolf/lapdog connection?

It doesn't really matter if they throw a Barbie doll into the fire in front of the 40-foot owl demon at Bohemian Grove. It's still participation in a pagan ritual and not acceptable of people (lots of foreign leaders participate too...wouldn't be surprised if your wormy old Windsor family fouls the air there), such behavior is simply not acceptable on the part of people claiming to be Christian.

So point # 3 is valid.

And did you see the story the other day about how your military is going to cordon off London at the first sign of a bio outbreak? At least in America we have guns when the killing-for-food starts. We can protect ourselves. But you folks...you're seriously deluded if you think GWBush with his Windsor and NM Rothschild and Lord Wakeham and BCCI connections isn't your problem. He's made your Prime Minister his whore, you twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 04:34 PM

But in fairness, some people say our current mess is really just the Brits' way of reasserting Empire. The Rothschilds have a fondness for England, and America was allowed to think of itself as free when, all the while over the past couple hundred years, the Bank of England (the world's first central bank) has been pulling our strings. So maybe Britain is about to take control of the world. What a thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:05 PM

I like that scenario better, Gusty. Let's go with it!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: NicoleC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:16 PM

Yep. Few seem to recall that having the position of the world's biggest bully never lasts forever. The Romans seem to have had the longest go at it, but eventually all the ill-will they stirred up came back and bit 'em. I think the Brits feel shortchanged that they didn't get to be top dog for as long, and want another go at it :)

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 06:18 PM

Well, they did it with such panache, you know -- elegance, as it were; they made such an art out of supercilious superiority that its never been rivalled seriously since, except perhaps by Al Qaeda! :>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: stevetheORC
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 07:56 PM

We are superior in every way and lets not have any of you colonial types forgetting it or we will have our puppet GW sacrifice you all to a 40 ft high barbie doll dressed in pink.
As for her most Majestic Queeny I thought that everyone knew that she is in charge of the intenational arm of murder inc (based at mother care)

ORC'S is even more Supirior n Snooty so suck a lemon:0))

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:17 PM

I still think the Demon President would make a great movie. I'm surprised they've never made it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 08:25 PM

"The Omen" series came pretty close with the character of Damien Thorne.
Brrr it just got colder in here ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: JennyO
Date: 31 Jan 03 - 11:50 PM

GUEST said:

"..it's still participation in a pagan ritual..."

You are showing your ignorance here, obviously equating "pagan" with "devil worship" You, and many others like you, believe the bad press and misrepresentation that has been promoted by the Christian Church for centuries, designed to make people fear what they don't understand, thereby making them easy to control.

I am a pagan. I am not a devil worshipper, I don't sacrifice babies or anything else. In fact my way of being involves having respect for all beings, and always working for the highest good in the world. Yes, we sometimes have rituals, and you, looking through your particular filter, could put any meaning you want on them, when in fact they are about honouring the earth, the elements, and the great goddess, and bringing about positive changes, for the good of all.

I am not closed to the idea that some of what you have said may be true, but I can't prove it, and even if I could, there is nothing I can do about it, and nothing you can do about it either. That does not mean I am giving up. It means that I choose to live in the world with love for every living being, and looking at the REALLY big picture, love is the only thing that is ultimately going to make a difference in the world. This is what works for me.

If your present way of being works for you, that is fine, but you aren't necessarily going to get agreement from folks like me who have a different way of being. If agreement is what you want, then I would suggest that you be more careful of the words you use, try not to confuse other people's assumptions and opinions with facts, only speak your truth, not somebody else's, and you might gain more respect from some of us here.

Jenny

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Peg
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 12:01 AM

In my experience, Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who enjoys reminding all of his constituents (that would be every American who ever listens to a word he says) that we are a Christian nation, that God is responsible for all the good in the world, and that prayer is more effective than thought.

I was mortally offended when he pulled the religion card today while speaking about those who died on the Columbia space shuttle. How fucking tasteless. Did he even stop to think that not all of those people or their families believed in the same religious ideology that he does? Peter Jennings immediately commented upon it saying Bush was offering his "personal religious" views; well done, I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:10 AM

Peg, if I had your attitude I'd be careful about speaking English in public places. After all, a few people there might speak a different language, and heaven forbid I might offend them!

If anyone feels threatened by a consoling passage from the Bible (or any other 'sacred text') read by their leader during a poignant moment of national grief, their own personal religious convictions - or lack of them - must be pretty insecure. Bone up, I say!

According to stats posted here on Mudcat recently, over 75% of Americans do claim Christianity as their basic belief system. Surely their needs and desires deserve a bit of respect and recognition! So get with the picture ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:17 AM

PS - since the passage chosen is from Isaiah, it's familiar to Jews and Muslims as well as Christians. No offence intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Peg
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:38 AM

daylia:

I speak English in public places frequently. I lecture at a local college in fact. Gosh imagine those young minds I'm polluting.

Anyway, the reason I was offended by Bush's biblical quoting has nothing to do with Christianity itself. As the leader of a diverse nation, and as a world leader commenting upon an *international* (not just national: one of the astronauts was an Israeli and one was an immigrant from India) tragedy, I believe he ought to make more of an effort to avoid imbuing his words with his own PERSONAL religious views. (Mr. Jennings, a Canadaian, apparently agreed with me).

It is no secret that Bush has taken every available opportunity to foist his Christian beliefs upon the US public, beginning with his inaugural address in which not just God but Jesus was invoked several times. This country has a clearly-stated separation of church and state. To assume every person in the throaes of grief turns to the Christian God or Jesus is narrow-minded and arrogant. Government should not be a platform for religion. Any religion.

Your assessment of my own religious convictions is patently incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 08:58 AM

Peg - The President, as well as every other citizen of the US is entitled to express his religious beliefs (or lack of them) without sanction. Just because someone speaks their beliefs publicly doesn't mean they are "shoving them down anyone's throat". I don't hold to any particular religious belief system, yet I find none of them threatening and all of them quite interesting!

So I say again, the only way I'd felt 'threatened' by someone else's beliefs, is if my own personal convictions (and self-esteem) were pretty flimsy. So rather than trying to change them, I'd just work on myself!

Peace

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:20 AM

Daylia:

I think you're mixing it up with the wrong tabby, ma'a'm.

I find public protestations of belief to be completely tolerable in individuals speaking as private individuals, however thick-headed. When Bush professes them from his bully pulpit as the Furless Leider of the Western World, it is another matter. I consider it an invasive and presumptuous abuse of position.

It is not a matter of feeling threatened by the belliefs involved at all -- I have long since outgrown my fear of fairy tales. The notion that Christianity is threatening as a belief set is ridiculous, or humorous at best.

But what can be a threat is mob psychology and mass mindless reactions. Making religous views into a part of political commentary from the top opens the door to some serious manipulation, an art of which Mister Bush is a perfervid practitioner.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:48 AM

Amos and Peg, I do see your point(s). But does that mean that anyone who accepts a position as 'public servant' must forfeit their right to religious freedom of expression for fear of possible offending or influencing someone? If so, then isn't everyone's 'freedom' at risk?
   
I'm no fan of GWBush by any means, but if he'd quoted from Shakespeare instead ('O death where is thy sting' or something) would that be 'offensive' to anyone not of English background, or anyone who didn't care for Shakespeare? Undoubtedly there'd be some who found anything he said offensive!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

D:

No it does not. It is very clear when an individual speaks as a person, individual citizen, and when he takes on the role of Government Representative. Mister Tush was speaking in his role as President. As the Official Moron of the United States, he could have been more sensitive to this issue, but he subscribes to arrogance as apreferred modus operandi, I think.

Unfortunately he does not understand what the difference between Church and State implies, nor does he know or care why it is an honored principle over centuries. Quoting from Shakespeare of any poet in any language who writes outside the framework and vocabulary of a religion would havebeen far preferable in my mind. There are some things that are common to all humanity, and Christianity is NOT one of them. A sense of the infinite may be. The sting of death, which you mention above, is certainly. THe Holy Trinity, certainly not.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 11:56 AM

Amos it sure seems that the 'seperation of Church and State' still has a long long way to go before it's reality! Aren't the words 'One nation under God' still inscribed on your currency, part of your Oath of Allegience? (Pardon me if my ignorance is showing!) And isn't the Church of England still headed by the Queen herself? Hmmmmmmmm

I agree - non-religious poetry would have been a less inflammatory choice. Maybe such a volume could be compiled and humbly presented to the Presidential speech-makers!

In the meantime, what's all this doing on a thread about sacrifices to Moloch? Think I'll mosey off now to greener pastures ... might be hard to find them under that 6 ft of snow though!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Peg
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 11:58 AM

Daylia:

If it was not clear the first time, I am not threatened one whit by Christianity. I was raised as a Catholic and know my bible and find most of the Christians I'm personally aquainted with to be perfectly acceptable human beings.

And no, I do not need to "work on myself" to increase my self-esteem in order to not feel threatened by Christianity. I am well-versed in comparative religion (yes, I find them all interesting as well and have done a fair amount of research and writing on religious history) and my self-esteem is actually quite healthy.

What I DO feel threatened by is the very opposite of what you are suggesting: that somehow the president should be able to make narrow-minded, highly-personal and divisive religious comments at a time when his priority (as a world leader called upon to offer words of condolence and comfort) should be inclusion, and tolerance. This is not about "freedom of speech" or even freedom of religion. By making it clear he considers himself the leader of a Christian nation, Mr. Bush creates an atmosphere in which religion, and religious beliefs, are part of the public theatre. When, again, government cannot work, nor can democracy prevail, unless a state's ruling body remains secularly detached from such matters. That's why we have a clear separation of church and state. The effort to create a pervasive atmosphere of Christian beliefs and the so-called "family values" associated with them makes people such as myself (not to mention other non-Christians) vulnerable to persecution on the grounds of religious belief. Don't believe me? Look up what happened to the military pagans who sought to exercise their "freedom of speech" at Fort Hood.

By the way, statistics show that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 01:01 PM

"This is not about "freedom of speech" or even freedom of religion." Peg, I mean no offence, but that is exactly what I was talking about.

"That's why we have a clear separation of church and state." You do?   I don't see any evidence that this is much more than wishful thinking.

"By making it clear he considers himself the leader of a Christian nation, Mr. Bush creates an atmosphere in which religion, and religious beliefs, are part of the public theatre."

Religion is very much a part of the 'public theatre', as it always has been throughout human history. And according to these statistics Mr. Bush is indeed the leader of a 'Christian nation'!

According to stats from the 2002 census at the above link -

86.8% of Americans view themselves as 'religious'.

70% of Americans think it is 'extremely important' that their President be 'strongly religious'.

82% of Americans identified themselves as Christian in 2002, compared with 89% in 1949.

50% of Americans are very uncomfortable when presidential candidates express how religious they are. (aside - so how can 70% of you want a 'strongly religious' President, then? Pretty confusing!)

Anyway, that sounds like Bush leads quite the 'Christian' nation to me, whether the words are popular or not. And truthfully, I have noticed that if there's one kind of Christian more 'dangerous' to the religious freedom of their neighbours than the 'fundamentalist' kind, it's the disgruntled 'ex-Christian' types! That's why I don't affiliate myself with any particular group.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 05:34 PM

How easily deceived you folks are. GWBush isn't a Christian. Never has been. The official version is that he had his 'irresponsible years', then he was 'saved' by no less than Billy Graham during a stroll by the ocean. Hogwash. If you look at what he DOES and not what he says, he's no Christian. In everything he says, he is directing you 180 degrees away from what he really means. Always.

I don't especially mind GW putting on the act, though, because the Constititution talks about our rights being 'God-given'. The framers did that so no human could take them away, as Bush/Clinton want to do. They would actually have to defy God in order to strike down our Constitution, and that SHOULD be a bit too much for the American public to bear. So let GW rave on about his religiousness...it'll just make it harder for him to suspend our 'God-given' rights when he tries.

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 09:09 PM

Well, at least God doesn't think he's George Bush...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 10:44 PM

By your arguments, o nameless GUEST, the vast majority of those calling themselves Christian are not. How many people do you know who will literally turn the other cheek?

Subject: RE: BS: Sacrifice to Moloch?
From: Peg
Date: 02 Feb 03 - 11:10 PM

Daylia;
if you're seeking to offer back-handed insults, the particular ones you've chosen ain't gonna work on me. I am not a "disgruntled ex-Christian type". I am not "dangerous" to the cause of religious freedom and in fact work every day of my life to help further it and very publicly too, I might add. Your oh-so-superior refusal to affiliate yourself with any particular group is noted. We call that sort of remark "passive-aggressive" or "wishy-washy" where I come from, or, at least, we wouldn't seek to judge others' religious views when we can't seem to commit to one ourselves. When you're willing to put yourself on the line for your beliefs get back to me.


The statistics you cite seem manipulated at best, fraudulent at worst. There is simply no way in hell (you'll pardon the expression) that 82% of Americans are Christians...makes you wonder just who those pollsters were asking! Kind of like all these polls these days that say a vast majority of "Americans" are in favor of going to war with Iraq! They sure as heck have not asked me or any of my friends, co-workers or colleagues...

I live in Boston, a fairly international city, and am well aware that Christianity does NOT represent anything approaching an 82% majority. Perhaps those pollsters were only asking people in Arkansas? Polls are only as effective as their representative samples and the questions they're asking, not to mention the processing of their data...I don't tend to trust them. It offends me that polls are used to gauge public opinion--because most polls are biased, and many people seem to think they need to be part of some majority. Look around enough and you'll find some poll to refute every other poll. I don't think they're an effective way of measuring much of anything, from voter preferences to religous preferences. You yourself have pointed out the discrepancy between people who want a religious president and yet are uncomfortable with his expression of such a sentiment. That right there should tell you such polls contain spurious information. But then, I tend to think polls are for the gullible and most people don't read them very closely.

As for the separation of church and state, it's right there in our Constitution. And it's been upheld by the Supreme Court a number of times.