I try to be tolerant of religion but then I read stuff like this

[ex-khobar Andy]

From HuffPost:

Grandfather, Uncle Arrested After Girl, 3, Killed In Alleged Exorcism

Arely Naomi Proctor died after family members performed a ceremony because they believed she was “possessed by an evil spirit,” court documents show.

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) — The grandfather and uncle of a 3-year-old girl killed last fall during an exorcism at a Northern California church were arrested this week in connection with her death, police said Friday.

The child, Arely Naomi Proctor, died last September after family members performed a ceremony because they believed she was “possessed by an evil spirit,” court documents show. The Santa Clara County medical examiner’s office ruled the death a homicide caused by asphyxiation.


[Apparently the child cried a lot.]

. . . .

The grandfather [pastor of the 'church' where this happened] told the Mercury News last week that he performed a ceremony on the child to “liberate her of her evil spirits.” He didn’t want to reveal the details of the exorcism but said his granddaughter was asleep when she got to the church and the ceremony took two hours.

“If you read the Bible, you’ll see that Jesus casts away demons and made sick people healthy again,” he told the newspaper. “It’s not when I want to do it, it’s when God, in his will, wants to heal the person. The preacher is like an instrument of God; what we do is what God says.”

Really, I don't think this is what the FFs had in mind with the 'Freedom of Religion' thing. And I know many people - mainly Christians and Muslims - who are very observant and are very fine people. But is there a way to say that the Constitution does not mean that anyone can start a religion and do whatever shit you want, because it's protected?

[MajGenl.Meade]

is there a way to say that the Constitution does not mean that anyone can start a religion and do whatever shit you want, because it's protected

That would be the laws of the land, ex-kA. These benighted fools were arrested and criminally charged. What part of "what you are doing is illegal" do you think they didn't get?

Presumably the part about killing a child . . . (not part of most religions, including Christianity). Specifically, I don't think asphyxiation is one of the methods recommended by Jesus and, judging by his other sayings, is probably contraindicated.

[BoSoxGal]

Disgusting that this child’s mother was so twisted by superstition that she killed her child thinking she was possessed rather than getting her evaluated and treated for night terrors, which are pretty common in young children.

Religion makes people stupid and callous.

[Sue U]

demons

Look, I'm not gonna say categorically that demons don't exist (pretty sure I met a few back in the '80s), and as far as I can tell most girls 12-16 are possessed by evil spirits, but holy fuckballs these people are horrific.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Religion makes people stupid and callous.

And you think 'religion' is the only thing that does that? Donald Trump? Kim Kardashian? Any North Korean leader? Putin? The list is endless long before one arrives at 'religion'.

But you know - prejudice and bias be prejudice and bias

[BoSoxGal]

Sorry Meade, I meant to say religion makes people extra stupid and callous.

I should also point out that Dear Leader in North Korea is a god - he’s so divine he doesn’t even poop. Putin uses Russia’s state religion to manipulate his people and justify atrocities. Donald Trump is using evangelical Christianity to carve out a space for fascism in America - so is most all of the GOP. The Kardashians are ostensibly devout adherents of orthodox Christianity themselves.

So yeah, religion is behind a net gain in stupidity and callousness in this world. As it ever has been.

[Joe Guy]

I believe that people who believe in God and treat others with dignity and respect should be recognized and appreciated as truly good people. I also believe there are many more good Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. than there are stupid and dangerous religious people.

The referenced exorcism was approved by truly stupid and dangerous people. The parents would have probably ending up killing the child in some other way or ruining its life.

Unfortunately, there are dangerous religious(?) fanatics who do more harm than good in this world, as they get rich taking advantage of others while they claim to speak for God.

On the other hand, some of the most evil people in the world aren't religious but want you to believe they are....

Take Donald Trump, for example. Please...

[ex-khobar Andy]

Well the Bible is pretty well saturated with child killing at various intervals. But that wasn't really my point. Mass was celebrated during Prohibition with real wine because exceptions were built into the enabling legislation for the 18th Amendment. Suspiciously, the volume of wine reserved for religious purposes increased during Prohibition years, by about 800,000 gallons. People have all sorts of reasons for finding religion. And religion finds a way of excepting itself from the rules.

Maybe 20 years ago, in those faraway days when 'casual Friday' meant a sports jacket or a blazer instead of the everyday suit, I was in Kleinhans in Buffalo buying a rather decent tweed jacket. Best part of $150, IIRC. Chap ahead of me in the line for the cashier was getting something similar and we admired each other's choice. As he paid, he produced a piece of paper to show the assistant - "OK, no tax." When I got to pay, he of course rang me up for the $150 plus 8% sales tax = $162. "How come he didn't have to pay tax?" I asked. "He's a pastor."

So yes, I get that the laws of the land about murdering small children probably won't be bent for me and my storefront church. I stand by my point that what we have nowadays is far from the freedom of religion envisaged by the FFs.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I believe that people who believe in God and treat others with dignity and respect should be recognized and appreciated as truly good people. I also believe there are many more good Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics etc. than there are stupid and dangerous religious people.

FTFY.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry Meade, I meant to say religion makes people extra stupid and callous.

First:

Second: Desmond Tutu? Florence Nightingale? Tolkien? Susan B Anthony? Chesterton? Rosa Parks? CSLewis? Sojourner Truth? MLKing? Corrie ten Boom? etc

Third: education makes women extra unfit for their proper place. Is that a reasonable statement?
[Hint: answer is "no"]

Fourth: "religion is behind a net gain in stupidity and callousness in this world. As it ever has been" is unhistorical, false, fake news and typical blind prejudice

I don't like prejudice in any of its forms

[MajGenl.Meade]

(Some blather about human history and Prohibition) . . . (Some blather about sports jackets and confusing the Federal government which mandates "Regardless of whether you're a minister performing ministerial services as an employee or a self-employed person, all of your earnings, including wages, offerings, and fees you receive for performing marriages, baptisms, funerals, etc., are subject to income tax" with State sales tax) . . . (and then continued confusion as to what the FFs meant by freedom of religion - which was intended to stop the government from establishing a particular religion and thus favoring it with power, riches and preferment while simultaneously banning and/or disabling all other religions

So then . . . nothing, Andy?

[Joe Guy]

I believe that people who believe in God and treat others with dignity and respect should be recognized and appreciated as truly good people. I also believe there are many more good Catholics, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics etc. than there are stupid and dangerous religious people.

FTFY.

You really didn't fix it for me. I was referring only to religious people based on the '....tolerant of religion.....' thread title. Agnostics and atheists aren't the people who are often criticized here for their beliefs and possibly made to feel that despite their beliefs, they are being tolerated.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Recently we've had to go through the Q-Anon thing which holds that the Democratic Party, under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, has been secretly abusing children in pizza places. If only we had listened to the religious right we, and the kids, might have been spared all this.

So now we learn that the Southern Baptists (you know, the good folk who split from the regular old-fashioned Baptists because they wanted to keep slavery as a thing because, you know, the Bible says it's OK and besides all those heathen African are now Christians because we brought them over here so they could be freed of those false gods they had over there yes slavery is an excellent civilizing influence on the world) are the ones who have really been running pedophile sex rings.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... bc/619122/

and

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... up/629954/

Now of course it isn't all Southern Baptists by any means. Just as by far the majority of Catholic priests are not child abusers. (My favourite book character when I was growing up was Don Camillo - if you have never read the books and the stories of the priest's struggle with Peppone, the communist mayor, do give them a try.). But Southern Baptists and associated conservative fundamentalists are huge supporters of Trump. Remember when one of them told AOC it was time to eat babies in order to fight climate change and AOC obviously thought that the poor woman was having a mental crisis and it might be better to seek some sort of medical intervention rather than discuss the best sauce or the appropriate wine to have with it, or indeed to try to talk her out of her culinary tastes?

It's probably best if Biden does not try to persuade voters that it's not the Dems but the SB leaders who seem to get their jollies from kiddie sex. But how do we reclaim these voters?

[BoSoxGal]

For others who couldn’t access the Atlantic articles in Andy’s post, here’s a CNN article that details the sickening happenings in the southern Baptist church:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/23/us/south ... index.html

[MajGenl.Meade]

The SBC's response to sexual abuse allegations over the course of two decades was largely driven "by a small cadre of staff" as well as its outside lawyers, the report said.

I'm sure it's not all lawyers doing this but . . . you know, generalizations being what they are . . .

[Sue U]

The SBC's response to sexual abuse allegations over the course of two decades was largely driven "by a small cadre of staff" as well as its outside lawyers, the report said.

I'm sure it's not all lawyers doing this but . . . you know, generalizations being what they are . . .

A more fulsome version:

The response to such allegations was largely handled by a few senior EC leaders and outside attorneys who were "singularly focused on avoiding liability for the SBC to the exclusion of other considerations," the report said.

If true, the lawyers were giving some really bad legal advice and neglecting their duty to be counselors as well as advocates. At this late date, and with the all-too-obvious example of the Catholic church, there's no excuse for this kind of cover-up.

The point, however, is not that it's "a few senior EC leaders" or "a small cadre of staff," but that this group was in charge of the organization's response. (Although I will also note that a former president of the SBC is among those accused of sexual assault.)

[Burning Petard]

My take-away from way back with Watergate, and more lately, the collapse of the Boy Scouts of America and lots of scandals in between--the coverup is ALWAYS worse than just admitting it.

snailgate

[Big RR]

That's a lesson we all (or at least most of us) learned as kids, that sadly seems to be forgotten by many in adulthood.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The SBC's response to sexual abuse allegations over the course of two decades was largely driven "by a small cadre of staff" as well as its outside lawyers, the report said.

I'm sure it's not all lawyers doing this but . . . you know, generalizations being what they are . . .

A more fulsome version:

The response to such allegations was largely handled by a few senior EC leaders and outside attorneys who were "singularly focused on avoiding liability for the SBC to the exclusion of other considerations," the report said.

If true, the lawyers were giving some really bad legal advice and neglecting their duty to be counselors as well as advocates. At this late date, and with the all-too-obvious example of the Catholic church, there's no excuse for this kind of cover-up.

The point, however, is not that it's "a few senior EC leaders" or "a small cadre of staff," but that this group was in charge of the organization's response. (Although I will also note that a former president of the SBC is among those accused of sexual assault.)

Unlike Nixon and the Roman Church, the SBC (too late and/or better late than never) instigated the independent investigation and exposure of the grim truth. But we don't want to emphasize something like that, do we?

[Big RR]

I believe the RC church also initiated independent investigations in many countries; certainly too little too late, but then it's amazing to see what institutions will do when their backs are up against the wall. How much better it would have been if they, and other abusive institutions (like the SBC) had done such public investigations in the first place, but they apparently sought to protect their money and power as opposed to their members. Why would we want to emphasize the damage control they were later forced into after their attempts to cover everything up were exposed? there's far much more benefit to emphasizing that their attempts at coverups did not work, if only to dissuade other institutions from doing the same thing.

Face it, institutions claiming to be teachers and arbiters of morality would have known that what they did was plainly wrong by the same principles they taught, but they chose to do that wrong and victimize more people anyway. And, IMHO, that is what should be emphasized, and what they must account for.