Maryland mom kills 2 of her children during attempted exorcism

[trotsky]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/19/justice/maryland-exorcism-deaths/index.html?hpt=us_c2

A Maryland mother stabbed two of her children to death and wounded two others while attempting an exorcism, authorities said.

Zakieya L. Avery, 28, was charged Saturday with two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted first-degree murder, Montgomery County Police said in a statement.

...

"Investigators have learned that the two defendants believed that they were performing an exorcism. The investigation into this motive and other aspects of the crime continue at this point," police said.

Not just one disturbed individual, but two. Working together based on their religious beliefs. Which of course since we can't prove the children *weren't* possessed, we mustn't judge.

[Htom Sirveaux]

1. The problem isn't necessarily the exorcism.

Surely you can have an exorcism that doesn't involve the death of the person you are trying to help. Now, if they insisted that the ritual in question did require the death of the subject, then yeah, the underlying belief would be the problem.

[trotsky]

3. How do you know?

Perhaps they believed that inflicting fatal wounds would only hurt the demon, and the child would later be healed by god?

[Htom Sirveaux]

4. As I said, then I would agree that the underlying belief

was a problem.

[trotsky]

5. Well, not quite.

What you said was:

if they insisted that the ritual in question did require the death of the subject

In my example I noted that perhaps they didn't think the children would be wounded, or believed that they would be healed by god. You are right though, dangerous beliefs nonetheless.

[Iggo]

44. Think she mighta just stabbed 'em anyway?

Exorcism or no exorcism?

[struggle4progress]

72. "... Zakieya L. Avery .. was charged .. with two counts of first-degree murder

and two counts of attempted first-degree murder"

Murder in the first degree is defined and discussed in the Maryland Code 2-201; here is link to text of the law (pdf) at the state legislature website: the primary definition "a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing" probably motivates the charge -- as the crime seems not to involve poisoning and as arson, burglary, carjacking, kidnapping, rape, robbery &c seem not to apply

[rug]

2. Are you actually using these people to attempt a dubious point about religion?

It appears that the family was receiving assistance from county social services, and Ms. Avery had come to the attention of the court system. Mr. McCarthy told the court that Ms. Avery had a history of mental illness that included being involuntarily committed. What needs examination — and county officials say a review is customary after a child fatality from neglect or abuse — is whether there were missed signals and whether points in the system need to be tightened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/montgomery-county-must-examine-whether-it-missed-signals-in-exorcism-deaths/2014/01/24/020844c2-83b3-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

[Warren Stupidity]

6. First of all it was two women, only one of whom is covered by your post.

Secondly, where did these two women get the idea that people could be possessed by demons and that some ritualistic process of casting out these demons could be performed? Were they enthralled with The Exorcist and confused theater with reality? I suppose that is possible. More likely they learned from their religious upbringing that demons could possess people and that an exorcism could cure people possessed by demons.

Perhaps, just perhaps, society should not pander to religious delusions like demonic possession.

[rug]

8. Bullshit.

It's repellent to use these minority women, one of whom had been involuntarily committed, with open cases with social services, to make a point about how stupid they are to buy into religion.

Oh, and two dead children killed by a mentally ill mother make excellent talking points.

"enthralled with The Exorcist", my ass.

Talk about privilege.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Who said anything about their being stupid?

Really rug, your invented racism angle and made up arguments are lame, even for you.

[rug]

20. Your privilege is showing, Warren.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Your shamelessness is evident.

As always rug, when your argument is in trouble you pull a diversion stunt.

[rug]

23. I'm not the one trying to score points with dead children.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Funny. Happens to me all the time in the Gungeon.

[rug]

26. Hilarious.

[hrmjustin]

7. Yes we can judge them. They killed two children so yes we can judge them.

[trotsky]

9. How do you know their religious beliefs were false? n/t

[hrmjustin]

10. I don't give a damn what the hell their religious beliefs are!!!

They killed two kids put these murderers in jail.

[trotsky]

11. According to some, unless we can prove their beliefs are wrong...

we are in no position to judge them, or tell them they are wrong. I am glad you are not of that mindset, hrmjustin.

[hrmjustin]

12. Listen I am all for religious tolerance but there are lines and this clearly crosses it.

[skepticscott]

13. So you're intolerant, in other words

At least about some things. Join the club, but don't count on everyone here to admit they belong.

And I assume the next time someone here says that we mustn't judge people for their deeply held beliefs, when we can't PROVE they're wrong, you'll cite this incident and take them properly to task, right?

[hrmjustin]

14. If someone is hurting someone else either physically or mentally based on their religious

belief then we must challenge it.

[skepticscott]

15. Good, then we agree that such things

cannot be tolerated, and that any who upbraids someone else for being "intolerant" of them is a raving lunatic. Some here just love to fling the smear of "intolerant bigot" over such things. Glad you're not one of them.

[Dorian Gray]

45. I think it's pretty shitty

making the murder of two children into a semantic argument about intolerance. #Callmeintolerant

Of course they should be prosecuted and no belief, religious or otherwise, should be used to excuse their actions. If they are found mentally incapacitated, as I suspect the woman with a previous diagnosis of a mental disorder will be, so be it. Did religious belief actually encourage their actions? Possibly. I'd GUESS mental illness also played a role, though. (Though how the hell am I to know for sure what their motives were. Only they know.)

[skepticscott]

55. On the contrary

it's a highly practical and relevant argument about intolerance, and the way it is defined and used as a smear and an insult by some in this room, against people who simply can't see their way clear to "tolerate" this kind of religiously motivated idiocy.

Yes, this is an extreme example...that's how you test principles.

[LeftishBrit]

106. I disagree

Last edited Tue Jan 28, 2014, 04:01 AM - Edit history (1)

I think that 'testing principles' by expecting exactly the same response to ordinary situations as to extreme ones risks inappropriate responses in lots of ways.

For example, it can lead to the attitude that either one must follow a leader blindly or one is with the 'enemy'. It can lead to the attitude that because communist governments were mostly viciously authoritarian, anything other than unbridled capitalism is a threat to freedom. This sort of attitude was behind Prohibition: because abuse of alcohol can undoubtedly cause violence, family breakdown, disease and even death, it was deemed appropriate to ban alcohol altogether. Nowadays, similar attitudes lead to the 'war on drugs'.

I'm not saying that you believe in following leaders blindly, free-market ideology, or absolute prohibition of alcohol or drugs. Obviously you don't. However, the idea that one must either be totally intolerant of a characteristic, or tolerate its most extreme abuses, seems to me unreasonable in the same way.

[skepticscott]

109. Perhaps I should have been clearer

And said that extreme cases test principles which are laid down as absolute (which is the default state of a bare-bones principle). It is the testing at the extremes that lets us know just how broadly a principle can and should be applied in real life.

"We should be tolerant of the religious beliefs and practices of others" is a bare bones principle, stated without exception or qualification. When one of those practices involves human sacrifice, that's the kind of extreme case that we use to find out if there should be exceptions or refinements to the general principle.

[Dorian Gray]

117. See, I don't care about testing principles here though

I care that a children were killed. I sometimes read threads (not just in religion, but about other topics) and really find it difficult to believe that death can lead people to feel vindicated in an internet discussion/argument.

[skepticscott]

118. You don't have to care

But I do care. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened, and people not caring about principles and the rational limits on them is one of the reasons that it continues to happen.

[Dorian Gray]

120. I care about not killing people

I care about providing proper mental health services to those who need them. I care about being honest and good. I don't give a shit about winning an argument on a message board, though.

[skepticscott]

123. You hold the same misguided view

as others on this board that this is somehow about individual people "winning". It's not. Not remotely. That point if view is simply a handy way for people to dismiss things that disrupt their worldview and agenda.

[Dorian Gray]

131. I know you believe that

and I have seen the arguments ad infinitum on these boards. I usually don't get incensed enough to participate because my views on religion are all over the place and change on a daily basis. This thread, however, struck me as particularly disturbing. I certainly don't dismiss things that disrupt my worldview, and I have no agenda here.

You can dismiss my post if it makes you feel better. But in the end a child is dead at the hands of her mother. And yes, I want to find out how and why this happened to make sure it doesn't happen any more. For real. Not internet speculation.

[skepticscott]

142. It's not a matter of "believing"

You've said right out, as have others here, that you think some people here are only concerned with "winning" as individuals in the discussions that take place. It's been explained any number of times why that's not the case, but for some reason, that meme just keeps getting repeated.

[trotsky]

68. Extreme situations are often where we find holes in logic.

This is such a case. I don't minimize the deaths of children in any way. But it really produces a problem for those who deem religious beliefs to be just "another way of knowing" about the universe, and declare them separate from (but equal to) other types of knowledge gathering. I think it's important to talk through these cases and find out exactly where and how we draw the lines of where beliefs can be criticized and doubted and where they cannot, lest someone be labeled an intolerant bigot.

[Dorian Gray]

119. I get that people are searching for answers

some do it in a methodical and scientific way. Some do it in a faith filled way. Regardless of that, there is something twisted about what happened here, if they were actually and truly involved in an exorcism. That is not about finding answers or "knowing". Abusing a child to the point of killing her is criminal behavior. Was it born out of religious belief? Possibly a contributing factor. Possibly. At this point we don't know. We just know that's what they told the cops. And if that was what they believed they were doing? I will be the first to say that whatever religious beliefs that person was learned was harmful to her and her mental state.

[trotsky]

138. But what about an "answer" found in a "faith filled way"?

What if the actions of the women in this case DID come from finding an answer in a "faith filled way"? That appears to be their claim. The concept of exorcism comes from religious beliefs. Faith that there are evil spirits who can possess people, and a god who will help cast them out. Is something wrong with that answer? A global church holds it as a truth. Are they wrong? Can you PROVE they are wrong? If not, are you still justified in saying it's wrong?

[LeftishBrit]

130. But can one not say the same about any sort of beliefs?

There are many types of beliefs about the world which can have good or bad or even fatal effects. I would say that the misuse of nationalism, for example, or of certain economic ideologies, can have quite as serious consequences as the misuse of religion.

I think that any belief can be criticized in the sense of pointing out that the evidence contradicts it. But the lines to be drawn, in my view, with regard to when we should cease to be tolerant, and bring in social or even legal pressures, are when people are harming others. Just as I think that (for example) a person who believes that danger is the spice of life should be able to take part in extreme sports, but not to endanger others by speeding; or that a person who believes that all modern medicine is just a tool of Big Pharma should be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment for themselves but not for their children.

So, with regard to religious beliefs, people can believe in any religion or none, for all I care; but if they believe in harmful exorcisms, then they must be prevented from putting this into practice and endangering or even killing children. If they believe, like the followers of the Pearls, that beating babies and young children is godly, then they must again be prevented from doing so. If they have some belief that I don't think is well-founded, but doesn't bring others into danger or harm, then I think they have a right to their belief, so long as I am not required to share it too.

I do think that the parents must have had a mental illness to bring their behaviour to such extremes.

[Dorian Gray]

132. I 100% agree with this

great post

[trotsky]

134. Absolutely!

But religious beliefs present a unique scenario: how do you show they're wrong? Like in the Greta Christina essay I keep posting, if we start off the bat by saying our beliefs are special, sacrosanct, not part of this world, can never be proven wrong, where does that lead us? Well, it can lead directly to the events described in the OP. That's the harm of religious beliefs. That's the harm in the attitude of "well, if you can't PROVE someone wrong then you can't say they are!"

Even the notion of what's a "harmful" exorcism is up for debate. I would say ANY exorcism is, as even a non-fatal, non-harmful one could prevent someone from getting the legitimate medical care they need.

[Htom Sirveaux]

207. Very, very well said!

[Starboard Tack]

93. A "raving lunatic" LOL. How low can you limbo dance to justify such bigotry?

Thought you'd learned your lesson last week. I guess not.

Now you use the actions of severely disturbed individuals to attack religious tolerance. Don't you see how your extreme distortions and insults contribute to your ongoing marginalization? I guess not.

[skepticscott]

96. Since you failed miserably to provide any evidence

to back up your smears, there was nothing to learn.

Except that when you say "I'm done with you", you mean exactly the opposite.

[Starboard Tack]

99. You provide the evidence in many of your posts.

Why should I quote your bigoted attacks, when you continue to repeat them. I was done with you in another thread, but I'll call you on your intolerance and twisting of the truth, whenever I happen to come across it. It's important that others, who may not be accustomed to your bigoted remarks, understand who they are dealing with. Now I'm done with you in this thread.

[skepticscott]

100. Ah, yes, the old "I've already given the evidence" dodge

Old and tired and the last refuge of a failed argument.

Go ahead, Tack...everyone is watching to see if you can prove that you're not full of shit and flinging it to boot. Show everyone some of these alleged "Many posts"

[okasha]

16. I think there's a clear criterion here.

It's not so much about what we "tolerate" as it is about what we allow. And we have created a legal system that does not allow a private citizen to kill another person except in self defence or to protect a third party from imminent danger of serious bodily harm.

Killing a child is a criminal act. Whether the mother belongs in a jail or in a hospital, though, appears to be questionable.

[hrmjustin]

17. Yes. We do not allow acts of violence or murder against another.

Looks like mental issues might have played a role here. It is a horrible story.

[trotsky]

57. But surely she didn't *intend* to kill her children.

She only wanted to remove the evil spirits that had possessed them. That doesn't make her automatically mentally ill, does it?

[struggle4progress]

73. "... Zakieya L. Avery .. was charged .. with two counts of first-degree murder

and two counts of attempted first-degree murder"

Murder in the first degree is defined and discussed in the Maryland Code 2-201; here is link to text of the law (pdf) at the state legislature website: the primary definition "a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing" probably motivates the charge -- as the crime seems not to involve poisoning and as arson, burglary, carjacking, kidnapping, rape, robbery &c seem not to apply

[trotsky]

75. We can certainly judge her by what the law says.

But we have no right to judge her religious beliefs.

[struggle4progress]

77. I have seen no reporting on the "religious beliefs" of either Avery and Sanford, so

I have no basis for any opinion on that topic

[trotsky]

80. Great!

[Goblinmonger]

125. cbayer's husband should be chiming in any minute

to tell you you are intolerant.

I'm waiting for that moment.

[seattledo]

53. And what about the other xtians that influenced them?

The should share at least some of the blame.

[hrmjustin]

58. The church that they belonged to are distancing themselves from this.

There are a lot of questions as to why this went down this way. Before we put blame on people questtions need to be answered.

[struggle4progress]

74. Feel free to provide actual evidence about influences on Zakieya Avery and Monifa Sanford

[trotsky]

83. What we have heard so far from the police is that the women claimed...

they were performing an exorcism.

If you have any evidence otherwise, or perhaps some evidence that the police are lying, now would be the time to present it.

[struggle4progress]

108. seattledo indicated "the other xtians that influenced them ... share at least some of the blame"

so I inquired into the evidence for such influences

I am aware of Avery's former ties to Maranatha Brethren Church in Hagerstown, but none of the stories I've seen seen indicate any of their ideas originated there:

A former family pastor says exorcism was never brought up ... Pastor Dan Thornton of Maranatha Brethren Church says the Harris family moved to Hagerstown with the prospect of a new job ... Members drove them to Sunday Service, doctor's offices, bought them groceries, clothes and even furniture ... Members took the mother to counseling but they don't know for what type of mental health issues, Thornton said ...
Former family pastor says exorcism never brought up
Surae Chinn, WUSA 2:16 p.m. EST January 20, 2014

[trotsky]

135. So, do you have any evidence the police or women are lying? n/t

[struggle4progress]

111. Here's another link on the Maranatha Brethren Church and Avery:

... At the time, she was living in Hagerstown, Md., said Pastor Dan Thornton of Maranatha Brethren Church there. He met Avery through a program that provided groceries, haircuts, dental care and other services to families. Members of the church gave Avery and her family rides to church and bought furniture for them. The family was forced to leave its apartment and was going to leave behind the furniture, Thornton said. But he and others retrieved the furniture, sold it at a garage sale and gave the money to Avery’s family. He said she projected confidence but suffered from mental illness. Church members regularly gave her rides to mental health counseling sessions, he said ...
Police: Mother charged in deaths of 2 toddlers thought she was performing exorcism
By Dan Morse and DeNeen L. Brown
Published: January 18

[trotsky]

136. Yep, a disturbing church and set of religious beliefs to be sure.

Found any evidence that the police or the women are lying yet?

[struggle4progress]

18. It's a sad story, about the murder of several children whose mother has a history of mental illness

"Investigators .. learned .. the .. defendants believed .. they were performing an exorcism" tells us very little about what happened here: it doesn't even tell us exactly what the unnamed investigators said or how they inferred what defendants "believed"

[Warren Stupidity]

21. We know they were conducting a religious ritual.

And we were told explicitly right here in this forum barely a week before this incident that there was nothing at all wrong with major religious institutions promoting belief in demonic possession and exorcism. The timing could not have been worse. And now the excuse is that well heck these women were crazy. Probably true, but the claim that religious idiocy like exorcism is harmless is indefensible, and yet here it is being defended.

[rug]

24. Really? And what religious ritual does a psychotic mind follow?

You do know what a ritual is.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Is it your claim that a psychotic person cannot practice religion?

[rug]

32. What's the ritual performed in their psychotic state, Warren?

You do understand the incoherent state of psychosis, don't you?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. You know they were in a psychotic state?

[rug]

107. You know they were performing a religious ritual?

I like my odds.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. You've asserted they were in a psychotic state, based on what evidence?

[rug]

116. You've asserted they were performing a religious ritual.

What kind? Did they say this?

Sacerdos ab Ordinario delegatus, rite confessus, aut saltem corde peccata sua detestans, peracto, si commode fieri possit, Sanctissimo Missæ sacrificio, divinoque auxilio piis precibus implorato, superpelliceo et stola violacea indutus, et coram se habens obsessum ligatum, si sit periculum, eum, se et astantes communiat signo crucis, et aspergat aqua benedicta, et genibus flexis, aliis respondentibus, dicat Litanias ordinarias usque ad Preces exclusive. Postem dicat:

Ne reminiscáris, Dómini, delicta nostra, vel paréntum nostrórum: neque vindíctam sumas de peccátis nostris.

Did they perform any other ritual acts?

Anything?

Or was it the product of a disordered mind done while killing children.

[Warren Stupidity]

122. I see, you know you put yourself in a corner and now you are just playing last word.

Fine, have the last word.

[rug]

141. I'm not out on a limb claiming these murders are a religious ritual.

Don't look down.

[struggle4progress]

27. You got links for any of that?

"They were conducting a religious ritual," you say. Really? Do you actually have anything more substantial than "investigators .. learned .. the .. defendants believed .. they were performing an exorcism"?

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Maryland mom kills 2 of her children during attempted exorcism.

Exorcism (from Greek ἐ???????ό?, exorkismos - binding by oath) is the practice of evicting demons or other spiritual entities from a person or an area they are believed to have possessed.[1] Depending on the spiritual beliefs of the exorcist, this may be done by causing the entity to swear an oath, performing an elaborate ritual, or simply by commanding it to depart in the name of a higher power. The practice is ancient and part of the belief system of many cultures and religions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism

[struggle4progress]

33. So you've established that the headline editor here used the word "exorcism." But that seems

even further removed, from the material facts of the case, than something else already established in this thread: namely, that the reporter here used the word "exorcism"

You may wish to avoid careers that depend on careful attention to actual details, as you currently exhibit no interest in actual details

[Warren Stupidity]

38. The police, as has been reported many times, have stated this.

[struggle4progress]

40. It's a strange quote: did all "police" chant this is unison? Or is it from some definite person

and (if so) who?

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Really? That is your argument?

[trotsky]

71. "She thought the devil was in the kids"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-md-mom-who-stabbed-tots-thought-devil-was-in-kids/

"She thought the devil was in the kids, and that's sort of the thing she centered it around as to why she had to conduct an exorcism," said Capt. Marcus Jones, director of the police department's major crimes division. "She just thought that there were evil spirits within the kids."

Another woman charged in the killings, Monifa Denise Sanford, 21, made similar statements during questioning, police said.

So the women involved believed they needed to conduct an exorcism, this isn't just a claim by the police.

[struggle4progress]

76. That might move closer to actual facts: it indicates Marcus Jones used the word "exorcism"

It's not clear whether Jones has direct personal knowledge of the suspects' statements or whether he is simply summarizing what he was told by others

Other news reports attribute similar statements to Jones, such as

... “This was all about what was in their minds,” said Capt. Marcus Jones, commander of the county’s major crimes unit. “They felt like there was something bad going on with the children, and they were trying to release it” ...

but again without clarifying for us whether Jones' statement is based on direct personal knowledge or is simply a summary of what he understands from others' statements to him

[trotsky]

79. You can believe what you want to believe.

Just like the murderers.

[struggle4progress]

82. I have taken no stand on such questions as "What did Avery and Sanford believe?"

or "What motivated the suspects?" since I currently have no basis for an opinion

[trotsky]

84. The basis I am using is what the police have said.

I have seen no evidence to indicate they are lying - do you have any?

[kwassa]

28. We don't know that they were conducting a religious ritual.

We know very little about what happened inside this townhouse. It will come out, with investigation, but right now, we know little, outside of the mental illness record.


About five miles from where I am right now. This is local.

The religious aspect:

http://www.darryljoyceministries.org/

As mentioned in our press release on this past Wednesday, the parties who are alleged in these crimes are former members of our church. They were not members of our church at the time the crimes were committed. In fact, they left our church several months ago.

The acts of the accused parties, of using some sort of religious rite, to remove demons from the children is in no way condoned or promoted by Exousia Ministries. Also, Exousia Ministries in no way commissioned the accused parties, nor any other person in our congregation, to perform dance rituals to chase away evil spirits, either within or outside of our church, as has been reported in the media.

We chose to remain silent on this horrific tragedy for several days to respect the wishes of the bereaved families for privacy, and to allow the Montgomery County, Maryland Police Department to conduct its investigation.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. We have had multiple reports from the police stating exactly that.

[struggle4progress]

34. Do feel free to post links to any of those reports

[Warren Stupidity]

36. From the link at the op.

"Investigators have learned that the two defendants believed that they were performing an exorcism. The investigation into this motive and other aspects of the crime continue at this point," police said.

[struggle4progress]

43. You claimed "We have .. multiple reports from the police" -- but provide no links to police reports

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Ah - indeed, I meant multiple reports of the police clearly stating

this was an exorcism. Clearly stated. No reports of the police retracting that statement. Unless you can show evidence otherwise, this was an exorcism.

[struggle4progress]

78. So far, what we actually know is that Captain Marcus Jones, director

of the Major Crimes Division of the Investigative Services Bureau of the Department of Police in Montgomery County MD has been quoted, using the word "exorcism" (see e.g #71)

You apparently believe that from Jones' statement, we can (by appealing to Wikipedia's definition of "exorcism," which you cite in #29) infer that this tragedy flows from unspecified religious beliefs of Avery and Sanford and associated unspecified religious rituals

To evaluate your thesis, we should still need to consider carefully actual facts in the case -- but such actual facts are not yet in evidence in this thread

[struggle4progress]

166. ... Montgomery County Police Department Capt. Marcus Jones ..., who spent hours

combing through the unparalleled crime scene, says despite Hollywood's portrayal of exorcisms and witchcraft, Avery's townhome was remarkably normal. "There were no candles, documents, or literature, nothing indicating a ritual had been held," Capt. Jones added ...

Zakieya Latrice Avery and Monifa Denise Sanford denied bond
By Kevin Lewis
January 21, 2014 - 11:24 am

[muriel_volestrangler]

220. And that link says they were prepared for an exorcism

Members of ExouSia Ministries, a small Christian congregation which worships at a Germantown elementary school, Avery and Sanford told investigators they'd recently created a side-car clan they called the Demon Assassins. The four-member group maintained a rank and order, with Avery positioned as "commander" and Sanford, "sergeant."

According to comments made in court, Avery and Sanford had scheduled an in-home exorcism Thursday evening for a group member named Troy. Only problem, Troy never arrived for his appointment. Then around 5 a.m. Friday, both women reportedly became convinced a demonic spirit had invaded the soul's of all four children, turning their young eyes dark black.

[struggle4progress]

221. I already summarized all that two days ago in my #113 down-thread

[struggle4progress]

168. ... Investigators spoke to the pastor of the church Avery attended,

Exousia Ministries in Germantown, Jones said. “This is not being ordered, not part of their religion, not what is being preached,” Jones said ...
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Germantown women accused of killing children in exorcism held without bond
Hearing for Monifa Sanford postponed until Friday
by St. John Barned-Smith

[trotsky]

178. Again I ask...

how do you know the pastor is telling the truth, yet you claim the police and the women are lying?

And the trickier question - if the police are lying, and making up the religious connection, then why would they report truthfully what the pastor said?

[skepticscott]

180. It may be a while

before that answer can be found on Google.

[kwassa]

35. There is only one police force involved, with one report. No specifics.

With nothing beyond the initial statement.

Most of the information is unknown, no matter how much you choose to try to exploit this to make a very weak and very tasteless allegation.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. You all seem to have your own facts.

The police say it was an exorcism. This has been widely reported for days. I guess the lot of you have other ways of knowing that contradict the police.

[kwassa]

42. Have I stated one untrue thing? Nope.

The police say that it was an exorcism, but have given no further details.

That is all you need. Apparently you need little to jump to a final conclusion.

Some with real critical thinking skills might note that there is no facts, or evidence presented so far, and withhold both judgment and conclusions until such evidence is presented.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. "jumping to a conclusion" - no, restating the undisputed account of this crime.

It was an exorcism - nobody outside of this discussion seems to be disputing that.

[Dorian Gray]

46. Actually

the police state that the suspects believed they were performing an exorcism. They didn't condone the exorcism. And there can be variables... like mental illness or a complete lie on the suspects parts.

[Warren Stupidity]

48. Who said the police "condoned the exorcism" - seriously wtf?

[Dorian Gray]

121. Nobody said that....

Of course not. They reported the women claimed that they were performing an exorcism. THere was either and a) mistaken belief that they were performing an exorcism or b) a lie to cover up their abuse of the children.

In either case, the exorcism is bullshit.

[trotsky]

139. You have presented a false dilemma.

Those are not the only two options.

A third is that they REALLY WERE performing an exorcism, that there REALLY WERE evil spirits in the children. Are you ruling that out?

A fourth is that god commanded them to kill the children. He did it to Abraham, according to the bible. At the last second he changed his mind, but Abraham was ready to do it. That story is used to demonstrate exemplary faith in god. Do you think god can talk to people? If not, can you prove he doesn't?

[trotsky]

54. The single largest Christian church on the planet still acknowledges exorcism as a real procedure...

that will expel demons and evil spirits from possessed individuals.

This specific case aside, do you think exorcism is real, kwassa?

[hrmjustin]

41. I have to say I am having a hard time putting into words what I think of exorcism.

A very large part of me worries that people can be taken advantage of by people who are out for a buck. I am also cam concerned that it could have a negative outcome in some way for the person involved.

Another part says if the person agrees or a real doctor says it won't do damage then I say who am I to judge. Although I have problems with doing this on someone who can not consent to it.

I never put much stock in them and when I saw some on tv I thought it looked silly. But another part of me says you never know.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Thank you. I can't imagine why people are pretending this wasn't one

and I was horrified at the prior discussion that we had, before this incident, where pretty much the same people were arguing that it was an acceptable religious practice. At least you are willing to admit that it is a very dubious religious practice.

[struggle4progress]

115. ... Montgomery County Police Department Capt. Marcus Jones ..., who spent hours

through the unparalleled crime scene, says despite Hollywood's portrayal of exorcisms and witchcraft, Avery's townhome was remarkably normal. "There were no candles, documents, or literature, nothing indicating a ritual had been held," Capt. Jones added ...

Zakieya Latrice Avery and Monifa Denise Sanford denied bond
By Kevin Lewis
January 21, 2014 - 11:24 am

[trotsky]

140. I think we can agree that people can think they are performing an exorcism and...

they don't need to do it as portrayed in movies.

So, do you have any evidence that the women or the police were lying about the women claiming they were performing an exorcism?

[struggle4progress]

161. ... Investigators spoke to the pastor of the church Avery attended,

Exousia Ministries in Germantown, Jones said. “This is not being ordered, not part of their religion, not what is being preached,” Jones said ...
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Germantown women accused of killing children in exorcism held without bond
Hearing for Monifa Sanford postponed until Friday
by St. John Barned-Smith

[trotsky]

167. Well clearly we have every reason to trust the pastor of the church...

while assuming that the women themselves, and the police, are lying.

Wait though - if the police are lying, as you believe, why would they report the pastor's words truthfully?

What an interesting pickle you just put yourself into.

[trotsky]

56. Is it possible for someone who is NOT mentally ill...

to believe that demons and evil spirits are real, and that exorcism is a real process that will remove them from a possessed individual?

[get the red out]

52. While I believe the exorcism was idiotic

Wouldn't whatever mental illness was most likely at play have driven these people to the same end with a different method/motive?

Seems a very terrifying combo, extremist religion and mental illness.

[Iggo]

60. Oh, there's mental illness at play, alrighty.

[goldent]

59. What would you stab the exorcisee?

I think the "exorcism" is a red herring for a murder driven by serious mental illness.

[trotsky]

61. You can certainly think that if you want.

But you have no evidence this wasn't a real exorcism attempt.

[goldent]

62. I have a little evidence

Most of what I know about exorcism I learned from the movie but in a real exorcism I'd wager that you don't stab to death the subject. Seems counterproductive.

[trotsky]

64. But what if you believed that by stabbing the possessed individual...

the evil spirit would be killed/expelled, and then god would heal any wounds that the person suffered?

[cleanhippie]

65. Pssst, hey trotsky... Youre using logic.

You know how this always turns out.

[goldent]

66. I've never heard of anything like that

so I remain skeptical - maybe someone with more knowledge of exorcism can comment.

[trotsky]

67. Is there only one way an exorcism can be performed?

What if god spoke to an individual directly and told them they had to use a knife to stab the possessed person?

Can you rule out that possibility?

[goldent]

70. Well I've put in the 2 cents of my skepticism

Maybe someone with more knowledge of this case and of exorcism can comment on your questions.

[cleanhippie]

63. The mental gymnastics that many are performing to remove blame from religion here is impressive.

Its like a TED talk on Cognitive Dissonance.

[trotsky]

69. It's truly an interesting thing to observe, no doubt. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

85. It is quite understandable seeing as how many of those gyrating also

pronounced exorcism and demonic possession beliefs as "harmless", or "metaphors", and basically perfectly acceptable religious practices and teachings. Understandable but completely dishonest. Confronted with the manifest harm of indoctrinating people in delusional beliefs of demonic possession and exorcism, what else to do but run away muttering a stream of diversions and absurd denials?

[trotsky]

86. Exactly. n/t

[cbayer]

87. You have so distorted this that it has become unrecognizable.

The previous discussion was about priests of the RCC being trained to perform exorcisms. There are rules and requirements around priest performed exorcisms. There is no risk of physical harm and those seeking exorcisms have to be medically evaluated, including a psychiatric exam, before they are performed. That would include the parents of a child felt to be posessed.

Had these people who believed that this child needed an exorcism seen a priest instead of thinking they should do it on there own, this would not have happened.

No one claimed that exorcism was a good thing or that belief in people being possessed necessarily made sense. But as long as people do think that and seek exorcism, it is certainly better for it to be done with some oversight and by someone who is not overtly psychotic.

So you can continue to post distortions of what the previous discussion was about and how it might apply in this situation, but it must be recognized for the gross distortion that it is.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. Just a harmless ritual, a metaphor. nt.

[cbayer]

89. When done by a priest it generally is a harmless ritual.

That's why the church is trying to regulate it to some extent.

It might have prevented this tragedy had the woman seen a priest.

Since she didn't, one can't even assume that this had anything to do with anything except her underlying psychiatric illness.

If your distortions were done in good faith, that would be one thing.

Your using them to smear other DU members is quite another.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. except of course when it isn't, as was documented in the other discussion, and which evidence you

dismissed out of hand.

But I agree that given this event, you really have no choice but to act the way you are acting, either that or admit that just maybe, just possibly, indoctrinating people to believe in this kind of total bullshit is probably not a good idea.

[cbayer]

92. Exactly right.

That's why I and others said that it wasn't necessarily a bad thing for the church to be pursuing further oversight of this.

You presented no evidence to show that priest performed exorcisms caused harm and that was what was asked for.

You presented only anecdotal evidence, such as this, that harm had occurred in some cases.

You also have no idea what this woman's concept of possession or exorcism is. You don't know whether she got it from a religious "indoctrination" or whether it was a product of her known psychiatric illness or both or neither.

You continue to distort this in order to make it look like people took a position they never took.

And you are using the tragedy of a person suffering from a horrible illness to do it.

Hope that gets you lots of points. It's got to be worth something.

[trotsky]

94. What is your obsession with "points," cbayer?

Why do you feel justified in putting down other points of view that way?

[skepticscott]

95. How about if the church just said instead

"There is absolutely no evidence that demons exist or that demonic possession of people can occur. If someone you know is exhibiting symptoms that make you think they are possessed, they may be suffering from any of a number of recognized medical problems, and should be examined by a doctor as soon as possible".

And then repeat that, over and over and over, as often as they repeat their indoctrinating propaganda about abortions, contraception and homosexuality. Wouldn't that be a more rational approach than their current one, which reinforces false and potentially dangerous beliefs among gullible and superstitious people?

[trotsky]

91. Wait, so when you accuse other DUers of promoting genocide...

simply because they oppose the Catholic takeover of hospitals, are YOU making distortions in order to smear other DU members?

Is it OK for you to do that, but no one else should?

[Goblinmonger]

126. Except that it makes people not get the help they really need.

Like mental health treatment. Like medication. No, instead, they believe that a priest is going to expel a demon from them which will solve all their problems.

Or are you saying you believe in demonic possession?

[struggle4progress]

114. ... Montgomery County Police Department Capt. Marcus Jones ..., who spent hours

through the unparalleled crime scene, says despite Hollywood's portrayal of exorcisms and witchcraft, Avery's townhome was remarkably normal. "There were no candles, documents, or literature, nothing indicating a ritual had been held," Capt. Jones added ...

Zakieya Latrice Avery and Monifa Denise Sanford denied bond
By Kevin Lewis
January 21, 2014 - 11:24 am

[Warpy]

81. I'd like to see her evaluated for postpartum psychosis

but this is a punitive country with a mental health system that is the world's joke and our disgrace.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Oh Trottles. Why are you still peddling this hateful, intolerant drivel.

You come begging to have a conversation and look what you do. Put up pure flame bait. It's obvious you have no interest in having an intelligent conversation about anything.

[trotsky]

98. I realize how much you love to post personal insults, ST.

But rather than attack you personally in return, I would merely ask, what is your opinion on exorcism? Can it be legitimate?

[Starboard Tack]

101. Oh Trottles. What personal insult?

Why would you want to attack me personally? Because I point out your inflammatory tactics? Because you like to attack the beliefs of others and will stoop to any level to garner support for your intolerance?
Your post is not about exorcism. It is about using a tragic murder, committed by a deranged woman. Do you seriously think anyone here believes you want an intelligent conversation about exorcism or anything else?

All you are interested in is the UPROAR created by your flame bait. You must crave attention really badly to stoop to this level.

If you want to earn some respect and really discuss exorcism, think about posting something like this
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/19/italian-priests-see-interest-in-exorcism-rise-under-pope-francis/

I'm not prepared to discuss anything with you, besides your behavior. You need to earn some respect first.

BTW, Trottles is a term of endearment. There is something about you that I love. Don't ask me why.

[trotsky]

102. I am really not sure why you choose to engage in such malicious, abusive behavior.

Even if you believe I deserve all the vitriol you can hurl at me.

But I will not respond in kind.

[Starboard Tack]

103. Are you ready to discuss your behavior and the points I made?

Or do you want to keep playing your flame war? You have an opportunity to grow here, and maybe become a better person.
I bear you no malice whatsoever. I see a reasonably intelligent human being expending his energy in a very negative and hateful way. I don't think you are evil, or a bad person. Your comment above makes me think that maybe you have a history of being abused. If so, then you have my sympathy.
However, any abuse you may have suffered does not give you license to abuse others, who come here for friendly discussion about religion and how it affects our lives. Attacking every believer, by cherry picking the most horrendous acts committed by deranged individuals, only serves to further marginalize you.
I'm one of the few who hasn't given up on you yet, but that's me, tolerant to the end.

[trotsky]

104. I will respond when your nasty, passive-aggressive attacks and smears stop.

But not until then.

[cleanhippie]

112. More passive-aggressive bullshit.

[skepticscott]

105. Pot, meet kettle

Sheesh, talk about flamebait. Talk about a post with no intellectual content whatsoever. With no intent other to insult and provoke.

Which seems to be what you're all about any more.

[Goblinmonger]

127. Hey, justin in showing a good amount of intolerance up above

Why aren't you tut-tutting him? I mean, I know the answer, but I'd love to hear your reason.

[Starboard Tack]

144. Really? Intolerance of what exactly? Murder?

I f you see him as being intolerant, why don't you take him to task? Is that because you support intolerance? I thought you had a little more integrity than to join in this kind of flame fest, which really has nothing to do with religion.
I don't know Justin. I'm a lot more familiar with Trottles and have developed a certain fondness for him. I feel somewhat protective toward him, especially when he falls under the influence of the more strident and manipulative bigots. He really is not a bad person and this OP does not serve him well.

[skepticscott]

145. You're the only one here

who is trying to provoke a flame fest, with your condescending, passive aggressive taunts and insults. Plenty of other people have no trouble grasping that an exorcism is exactly about religion (where else did these people even get the notion of such a thing?), and about the dangers of religion teaching and reinforcing false beliefs.

[trotsky]

147. I would like to request you stop using that nickname for me.

I also do not need your "protection" and would appreciate it if you would refrain from using that kind of imagery when talking about me.

Thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

151. "Imagery"? What imagery?

Are you asking me to stop using "Trottles", or are you telling me that you would like to request that I refrain from using that nickname. You don't sound too sure, or maybe you are being overly polite, but to be on the safe side, as I don't want to hurt your feelings, I won't call you Trottles anymore.

Now, regarding your "protection"; try to see it as a kind of secular exorcism. I'm just watching your back, bro'. The RCC does not have a monopoly on demons, demonic possession, or bad influences.

[trotsky]

154. Of course I can't stop you from using whatever names you want on me.

The "imagery" I'm referring to is the picture you are painting of me as a helpless, childlike individual who is easily swayed by others and who needs or wants your "protection." You can behave however you want - it's certainly not going to hurt my feelings, but I thought perhaps you'd like to behave like an adult and discuss the issues, you know, to set an example of how you think we should all behave.

Because right now the example you are setting is deplorable, to say the least.

So, are you ready to dispense with the personal snipes and attacks? Would you like to return to the subject and tell me if you think exorcism is a religious belief that is harmless and shouldn't be challenged?

[Starboard Tack]

186. I act like an adult in adult situations.

When I see the kids misbehaving in the sandbox, I try to get them to behave and that necessitates acting like a parent. You and the little gang of angry hateists throw mud pies at the believers and sometimes, they throw mud pies back at you. I'm not a believer, so I feel no parental responsibility toward them.

You, OTOH, claim to represent an atheist POV, my POV. The way you go about it, however, is not representative of most atheists. I don't think you want an honest conversation, or you wouldn't post inflammatory stories such as this. Did you honestly think anyone here was going to defend these murders? Of course not. Your intent is to nudge your victims, who are fellow duers, btw, into a corner, then bully them into agreeing with you about how horrific it all was, and then draw the hateful conclusion that their own personal beliefs contribute to acts like this.

Please tell me where I'm wrong.

You already know my views on religion, including exorcism. So don't try to bait me. I've told you before, I have very little interest in religion, but I have lot of interest in people and getting along and being tolerant of personal beliefs. Again, I am tolerant of their personal beliefs, as much as I may dislike them, but NOT, necessarily, their actions. Neither do I associate the actions of one person with the beliefs of another person.

[trotsky]

189. *sigh*

I have attempted to keep things straightforward and respectful with you here and have gotten nothing but continued attacks and sniping. I invite anyone to read our exchange and make their own judgment. I will simply not stoop to your level.

I posted this story because it is an example of religious beliefs gone bad. Specifically where a very common belief (that evil spirits can possess individuals and an exorcism can remove them) escalates out of control. I did not expect - nor did I ask - anyone to defend murder, so please stop trying to assign that position to me.

What I wanted someone to do was defend the universal policy of respecting religious beliefs, especially when they cannot be proven wrong. This is a policy for which your wife, for instance, has staunchly advocated. I have long insisted that such an approach will lead to conflict - and here is a real world example.

So I will await your next response to see if you can behave like you want others to behave. That means no snark, no insults, no passive-aggressive smears, none of what you've been doing this whole thread. If you continue to exhibit the same behavior, you will not get a response.

Are you ready to try?

[Starboard Tack]

196. You did not post this as "an example of religious beliefs gone bad"

You might fool a handful of that, but you sure as hell don't fool anyone who knows you and your tactics.

You take extreme examples of religious nuttery, like this, and try to bait any people of faith into defending it. Doesn't seem to be working too well, does it?

Tolerance does not lead to conflict. You and your buddies SS, CH and W.Stupidity feed on conflict. None of you has the least interest in honest discussion, let alone resolving any conflict. That's why very few respond to you guys. Look at CH, for example, he's down to posting about the Pope's fucking pigeons being attacked. That is so sad. And SS, who mostly just talks to himself these days.
But you're lucky. At least I'm talking to you.
Now, put up something valid to defend your "position" and I'll consider joining the discussion. But please, no more of this kind of trash.

Good luck with thinking you can use me to have a conversation with my wife . You should've figured out by now that she's quite a bit smarter than me.

[skepticscott]

192. Inflammatory? Oh, please

This actually happened, dude. It's not like someone made this up. Someone killed two kids trying to perform a religiously motivated and dictated ritual. If people are inflamed by seeing a factual story that is related to religion, the problem lies with them and not with the truth. Pointing out the potential dangers (and in this case, real consequences) of promoting and accepting false beliefs (as often happens with religion) is entirely relevant and appropriate in this group.

[skepticscott]

152. Not hard to see

Why some here are loved and admired so much.

[struggle4progress]

113. After more research, I have found accounts attributed to Montgomery county prosecutor,

John McCarthy, on the events

According to McCarthy:

Avery and Sanford met at ExouSia Ministries in Germantown. They form a group "Demon Assassins" with two other women they knew, with Avery holding the "rank" of "commander" and Sanford the "rank" of "sergeant". On Thursday, the women had scheduled an "exorcism" for someone named "Troy," who (for some reason) did not come. Early Friday morning, the women became convinced the children had become infested by demons, which they thought were turning the children's eyes black, a situation which they hoped to remedy by breaking the children's necks, strangling them, or stabbing them

The prosecutor noted Avery has a history of psychological problems and Sanford has a history of suicide attempts; he sought psychiatric evaluations

ExouSia Ministries says the women stopped attending the church several months ago

Here are the links:

Zakieya Latrice Avery and Monifa Denise Sanford denied bond
By Kevin Lewis
January 21, 2014 - 11:24 am

Prosecutor: Md. women held in toddlers’ deaths called themselves ‘demon assassins’
By Dan Morse, Published: January 21

Atty: Exorcism murder suspects called selves "demon assassins"
By Erin Donaghue CBS News
January 22, 2014, 10: 37 AM

[trotsky]

137. Yup, more religious ties.

Found any evidence yet that the police or the women are lying?

[Brettongarcia]

148. Of course we cannot fully try a case, until it goes to court; all facts are not in evidence yet.But

The vast preponderance of evidence here points to exorcism. The country prosecutor would not be issuing remarks that he thought to be false, or that could not be substantiated; he would know that would seriously undercut his fuller legal case, later on.

Of course, attempting to really, legally, fully know about anything, is hard just going from newspaper reports. Yet given that this is all we have at the time? The vast preponderance of the evidence is that the defendants thought they were performing an exorcism. The fact that they had stopped attending church a few months before, does not prove they still did not have this religious notion in mind. The fact that the defendants had psychiatric problems, does not rule out a deluded belief they were performing an exorcism.

Your obsessive demand for full evidence, in a case that has not yet even gone to court, would be useful in distinguishing a trial, from a newspaper report. But given that the news is for the moment, all the information we have, and it points very strongly to exorcism, your continuous and obsessive demands for every detail, seem excessive, and unreasonable. Even compulsively defensive.

[okasha]

211. I disagree.

So far, nothing at all has been made public that would constitute evidence--much less a "vast preponderance of evidence."

The police have reported, and I see no reason to doubt them, that the two women said that they were attempting to perform an exorcism. But neither do I see any reason to doubt the police when they say they found no other indication that that an attempted exorcism had taken place.

Rituals, whether secular, religious or somewhere in between, involve at least a modicum of ritually identified paraphernalia, dress or behavior. The ony behavior that we yet know about is the women's attempts to kill these children. The officers on the scene have explicitly stated that no ritual objects were found, nor, apparently, anything identifiable as ritual dress.

Until further developments are made public, the only thing that "the vast preponderance of evidence" shows is that two children were killed and two others injured and that the two women had a history of psychiatric disorders. How even those two facts are connected is not yet clear.

[skepticscott]

212. Let's get this straight

So far, nothing at all has been made public that would constitute evidence--much less a "vast preponderance of evidence."

And:

the only thing that "the vast preponderance of evidence" shows is that two children were killed and two others injured and that the two women had a history of psychiatric disorders.. Wow..that's a whole lot of "nothing at all". Maybe you should try again and get your story straight.

Frankly it doesn't really matter if the women had an official Exorcism Cloak, or a bottle of Acme Holy Water. What matters is that they had been led to believe that there was such a thing as demonic possession, and that real demons could be purged by doing things to the people possessed. And they didn't learn beliefs like that on American Idol.

[rug]

213. Nope, nothing at all to do with mental illness.

No need to examine their blood chemistry under a microscope.

[Brettongarcia]

214. Mental illness is not an exclusive diagnosis; they could be mentally ill AND religious

It seems in fact that their church pimped, built up, their mental illness; making them "warden"s of spiritual policing and so forth. And giving them the language to apply to their crime: exorcism.

By the way, the Catholic Church is currently building up exorcisims.

[okasha]

216. Speculation amd supposition

are not evidence. The church has explicitly denied that it bestowed any such office on these women and stated that exorcism is not a part of its ministry.

Are you saying that you have "some other way of knowing" what the church did? Or are you just happily engaged in wishful thinking?

[Brettongarcia]

217. 1) Exorcism is part of much Christianity; the individual church or not, that's the background.

2) Specifically this church did have spiritual "wardens" and odd things like that.

3) Apparently the accused parties mentioned demons, and/or "exorcism."

This much is in evidence to date.

Is this is complete legal case? Of course not.

We cannot frame a complete legal case here, without a trial. But this is what we have to date. The best we have is informal evidence; and at most only a preponderance of that.

But given those limitations and caveats?

Exorcism remains the best and most-substantiated guess to date. Pending a full trial.

[okasha]

231. I hate to be the one to break this to you,

but one can go through twelve years in Catholic school and decades more regularly attending other Christian churches--plus regular Native American ceremony--without ever encountering the word "exorcism" except in popular media.

Do you have a link for these "Wardens" you mention? They are not necessarily odd. The Senior and Junior Wardens of an Anglican or Episcopal Vestry are the elected lay chair and co-chair of the parish administrative body.

[Brettongarcia]

232. Read the papers: the Church is currently training more exorcists; it thinks it needs them

The Church today is re-emphasizing exorcism.

In any case, whether the subject is fully current or not, there are always the dark historical roots of religion, lying under the surface. Waiting to be reactivated. Those who know the history of the churches, now about them. And all it takes is the slightest disturbance, to see them in action again.

So it shouldn't surprise any of us that most of the parties involved in the latest case of that, are explicitly using the word "exorcism" to describe what went wrong.

There are many liberal Christians who want to say the dark side of religion is safely behind them; they want to assure us that modern, spiritual, "real" Christianity, has safely fixed all that.

But the newspapers constantly tell us otherwise.

[okasha]

234. The papers don't seem to have that link I requested.

Could you suppply that, please?

As numerous threads here have mentioned, exorcism is quite a hot topic in contemporary popular culture. There have also been several sensationalized news accounts of children dying in "exorcism attempts." Since Exousia Ministries does not seem to be involved in exorcisms, it would seem possible if not probable that the two accused women got their ideas on the subject from TV or the tabloids. I very seriously doubt that they've studied the history of the Catholic Church or are up-to-date with its affairs.

[rug]

219. And they are two entirely different things.

I am bemused at the valiant, but hollow, efforts to cast these killings as a religious practice.

BTW,

[Brettongarcia]

233. I hope the times are changing; but the murderous past of Christianity is all over the Old Testament

Even in parts of the New.

Unfortunately too, the old superstition is always ready to re-surface. For example? The Church is currently training more exorcists, the newspapers affirm. To exorcise, explicitly, demons. One might hope it is a metaphor; but....

Far more serious: the Religious Right is always dying to start Armageddon in the Middle East. Since, ironically, these deluded souls think that even if everybody dies, they of all people, come out on top.

I don't think liberal Christians should ever be too complacent that the bad old days are firmly behind even "good," liberal Christians.

To be sure, the new pope backs some of my longstanding theological innovations.

[el_bryanto]

124. See this is why the religious forum is a waste of time

If this is taken as a serious argument against believers, and clearly it is by some.

Nobody on this board has ever seriously argued that people should be allowed to murder people if they feel their religion commands it. Nobody has argued that all religious practices should be tolerated legally.

You seem very keen on pretending that religious folk on this board believe that all religious practices should be tolerated - they don't and you know it.

Hey Trotsky - what about the other side of the question? What religious practices are you willing to tolerate? If I cut my hair a certain way because i feel it is pleasing to God are you ok with that? What about avoiding Pork or Shellfish? Are you ok with me praying as I please so long as I don't disrupt other people with my prayers? Would it offend you if I go to church; if i go to synagogue; if I attend mass? What if I tithe or throw money into the collection plate? Would it offend you if I taught my kids what I believe?

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

128. This is pretty on point

to the exorcism discussion in another thread. Take a look at it. Take a look at the number of people saying exorcism is harmless. Now come back to this thread and see if you can't find a reason why this is a relevant discussion.

[trotsky]

133. You've already made it perfectly clear you don't care what I think.

You've dismissed all my legitimate concerns about the pope and his church with a single personal smear, so no, I'm not interested in giving you any of my opinions.

[skepticscott]

143. You seem to weigh in here a lot

for someone who thinks this forum is an utter and complete waste of time.

Be that as it may, now that you're here, perhaps you can see the important point being made, that teaching, fostering, promoting, encouraging or reinforcing false beliefs or beliefs in things that are not real is not necessarily harmless, and can, in fact, be quite dangerous. The fact that people have the right to teach or to believe that people can be possessed by demons and that certain rituals can drive those demons out does not mean that they should, or that such beliefs and teachings should be exempt from harsh criticism.

The issue and the principle involved is much bigger than this one incident, tragic though it is.

[cbayer]

146. I disagree that this group is a waste of time

There are a lot of people who post in this group who are interested in having discussions on a variety of topics.

There are a lot of people who respect and understand that not everyone sees things the way they do, but enjoy finding areas of commonality and seeing where they can work together.

There are far fewer people who are as you describe.

[skepticscott]

149. Some of us also see that

the fact that people have different views and opinions doesn't mean that they are all equally valid, equally close to the truth, and equally deserving of being taken seriously. There are those of us here who realize that agreeing on what is true and what is not, on what is real and what is not, is the most important common ground that two people, or two groups of people, can have. And that a discussion where some ideas are rejected as wrong or false (as opposed to one that eschews any discrimination between ideas on the basis of reason and evidence) is sometimes necessary to get there.

There are those of us who care to expound these points, as I have done. And there are those who take pleasure in flinging insults and bile, with no intellectual content whatsoever. And those who, rather sadly, applaud and support the latter.

[cleanhippie]

150. Youre lucky this isnt real life where you would have to say that with a straight face to others.

[skepticscott]

155. Yes, we can see the much larger group

of religionists who favor respectful, civil and meaningful discussions of the common grounds of their deep and abiding faith(s) over in the Interfaith Group. Makes you wonder why any of them would wade in here when they have that instead, unless they secretly love being as smug, snarky, condescending, bigoted and hypocritical as they accuse others here of being.

[Leontius]

185. I've wondered the same thing about the group that inhabits the Bitch & Moan group.

The crude condescending BS spewed there not satisfying enough I guess.

[skepticscott]

191. Ironically, it was bitching and moaning

by the religionists that motivated the creation of the Interfaith Group in the first place. A bunch of them whined constantly that they couldn't have "serious", "respectful" and "meaningful" discussions of their "faith" in here, because of the mean ol' atheists spoiling everything, so they wanted a safe haven (despite already having one). And what happened? Exactly as some of us predicted here, they really had nothing meaningful to discuss at all (nor even much that was trivial, for that matter), and the room became a ghost town within a few months.

Atheists and Agnostics, on the other hand, make good use of our room, and come in here to discuss things too. But apparently the only place the religionists can be happy is in what they claim to be a bile fest of a room.

[rug]

201. Why? Is that a threat?

[cleanhippie]

215. U mad, bro?

[rug]

218. At internet tough guys?

More like amused.

[cleanhippie]

222. Lol

Don't go away mad, rug...

[rug]

223. I couldn't possibly. You provide too much entertainment.

[cleanhippie]

224. Cool story, bro.

[rug]

225. .

[cleanhippie]

226. Nice summation of your argument.

[rug]

227. . .

[cleanhippie]

228. Nice selfie.

[rug]

229. I can't say it hasn't been productive but I'll leave you to your own devices now.

[cleanhippie]

230. Seems like you're keeping all the devices for yourself.

[trotsky]

156. Very true, cbayer.

Not everyone sees things the same way. For instance, you have compared wanting to remove the influence of RCC dogma on medical care to advocating "genocide." I am not aware of anyone else who has that view, but you do.

I think we should talk about our views and look at why they conflict rather than gloss over them - or portray others as being evil, and not worthy of interaction simply because of their opinions on religion.

Do you agree?

[el_bryanto]

160. “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel. ” - Robert Frost

There are a number of people in this forum who are only interested in destroying religious belief.

Bryant

[trotsky]

162. And evidently a number of them who are committed to making false claims about others. n/t

[el_bryanto]

164. You can lie about my record all you want

I'm not going to engage until you answer a simple question - what religious practices are you prepared to tolerate? We both know you won't answer that question, so there's no point engaging.

Bryant

[trotsky]

170. I'll happily answer that question when you retract your vicious smear and apologize.

I have never called you a name or dismissed you as a "crank" of any kind.

[cbayer]

165. I understand that.

But there is a larger number that aren't, and that group includes a fair number of nonbelievers.

Anti-theists are only a small subgroup of theists.

Fortunately what I see in the press is a growing number of groups that include both believers and non-believers working together for shared goals.

And the growing number of nones add to their numbers.

As atheism become more "normalized", I think we will see less antagonism from the subgroups, and that's a good thing for everyone, imo.

[el_bryanto]

169. There are two types of posts (generally) in this forum

Ones that last 3-6 posts at best. And ones that have legs. The ones that have legs are the ones that the anti-theists (to use your language) get involved in.

Bryant

[cbayer]

171. Or, to put it another way, it's the ones where people take the bait.

But, I disagree. I have lots of rather long conversations with members that are very civil and constructive.

And we often find common ground while discussing something.

The long ones you refer to rarely, if ever, find common ground.

So what's the point?

[el_bryanto]

172. I must miss those conversations. nt

[cbayer]

177. It all depends on who you choose to engage with. nt.

[trotsky]

184. This is why, cbayer, when you make your comments about "teams" and "points"...

that it looks so mind-blowingly hypocritical.

I think you're a better person than this. At least I hope you are.

[el_bryanto]

190. I think the wisest choice, for believers, is not to engage this board at all nt

[skepticscott]

193. And will you be

following your own advice? Leading a group back to re-inhabit the Promised Land of the Interfaith Group? Or are you going to demand yet another new group where you all can go to do...whatever it is you don't want to do here?

[el_bryanto]

194. You keep asking so I'll just answer.

There are days when I am in a bad mood and want something to distract myself - and will come back here probably. I shouldn't, but I probably will. I'll delude myself that I'm standing up for something when really there's nothing to be gained here but aggravation.

That said, I'd be better off just staying in GD and a few other boards where all discussions don't break down into people who despise each other spitting invective. I'd like to be more a secularist, with my religion not really playing a role in my participation here.

Of course even in GD, you will regularly see posts about religion, so I'm sure I'll get sucked back into these pointless discussions.

Bryant

[trotsky]

199. I don't think it is useful to pretend you are somehow above the behavior you claim to oppose.

You, for instance, labeled everyone who criticized the pope with a vicious personal smear. So really, you have no claim to the high road. You're not fooling anyone.

[el_bryanto]

202. You do keep distorting the record

I said that there were some people who were anti-catholic cranks, I didn't say that everybody who criticized the pope was an anti-catholic crank. For God's sake, I've criticized the Pope.

Find me a place where I said that everybody who criticizes the pope is an Anti-Catholic Crank and I'll apologize and donate $100 to the charity of your choice.

What I was describing was people who had a negative opinion of the Pope and felt like they had to interject that into every conversation about the Pope on any subject. I call them anti-catholic because they clearly are. I call them cranks, because, at the time, they were a minority at DU; most DUers were able to see the Pope in a more varied light. But there were a few who felt it essential that at every positive mention of the Pope, particularly on economic issues, it had to be mentioned that the Pope was Misogynist or Homophobic or supportive of Child Abuse.

Bryant

[trotsky]

203. I've distorted nothing.

You claim to oppose "people who despise each other spitting invective" but that's EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID, regardless of the size of the group to which you think you directed the slur.

[el_bryanto]

204. "You, for instance, labeled everyone who criticized the pope with a vicious personal smear."

So you stand by this lie?

Bryant

[trotsky]

205. I stand by my TRUE statement.

Here is your post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4235352

My opinion is that it is a small number of DU Anti-Catholic Cranks who make it their mission to upset any post in which the Pope is praised. You see the same names showing up again and again. Posts agreeing with praising the pope usually outnumber those cranks 2 or 3 to 1.

You have divided the responses to pope threads into two categories: those who agree with praising the pope, and those who don't. And you labeled everyone who didn't agree with the praise (i.e., critics) an "Anti-Catholic Crank."

Your hateful words. You own them.

[el_bryanto]

206. I'm happy to own them. They are accurate.

Or they were for that time. I've dropped that language, as I decided it wasn't helpful, but I'm not going to apologize for it, because it's accurate.

There are a small number of people on this board who hate Catholicism and manifested that hatred by interjecting their hatred of it in any discussion of the Pope whether relevant to the issue or not.

I am curious about this whole TRUE statement bullshit though.

You, for instance, labeled everyone who criticized the pope with a vicious personal smear.

Are those your words or aren't they? And if they are your words do you feel like they are honest?

And don't we all see how pointless this is?

Bryant

[trotsky]

209. I do see how pointless this is.

You used a smear, and then tried to pretend you're above that behavior. Don't be surprised when you get what you give, then.

[skepticscott]

210. Oh my gosh

you mean we harshly criticize a religion and its leader that have done everything they can to make abortion illegal, everywhere, forever, that have tried to block access to contraception for women all over the world, that have declared homosexuality an aberration, have tried to ban gay marriage and adoption, and that refuse to grant equal rights to women? On a progressive web site?

WTF were we thinking?

But do tell us why all of these people who hate Catholicism so completely have criticized the church for treating nuns like shit?

[rug]

208. Linkie?

[cbayer]

195. I would ask that you reconsider that position, but it is

up to you, of course.

I was going to give you some history here, but have decided not to because I really hate that junior high school bullshit.

There are some very good people posting in here, both believers and non-believers and everything in between. Religion is a huge issue in politics these days and an important area for democrats to form coalitions and alliances to advance the causes and candidates that this site is set up to promote.

I'm not sure that I have any solution to address how this group is constantly disrupted. My own solution works fine for me. Though the situation remains annoying, it is no more than that.

At any rate, I think there are enough people here that would like to see this work to make it work.

I guess withdrawing from this group would be one approach, but what then?

[skepticscott]

198. Ah, "to advance the causes and candidates that this site is set up to promote"

You mean like safe, legal abortion, free access to contraception for women who want it, equal rights for women and homosexuals (including same-sex marriage), an end to religious indoctrination and promotion in schools and other government agencies? Those causes? The ones that wouldn't even BE "causes" if not for religious bigotry, ignorance and intolerance? The ones that the pope and his church fight tooth and nail against, while you and your little clique play apologist for him? The ones that the people you disparage here on a daily basis (guess that's how you define "coalition&quot have been fighting religious influence on for years?

Those causes, cbayer?

[skepticscott]

175. Yes, we know you'd love a forum that was all threads

where a few people agree with the OP, share group hug smilies and then move on to the next cut and paste from Salon.

But that's a fantasy world that no one wants to live in. Visit the Interfaith Group if you'd like to see how popular that discussion model is, even among religionists. Despite your dismissal, and your circling the wagons with your "team", sometimes getting at the truth takes a little more work than that. Not everyone has the stomach for it, and if you don't, that's nothing much against you, but you should at least try to recognize that there is a very legitimate point of view that differs from yours. You WILL try to do that, won't you, cbayer?

And seriously..are you actually claiming that any thread that can't be wrapped up in six replies or less has to involve "bait" of some sort? Really? I see you posting more than six replies yourself in many, many threads..if that's flamebait, then you're as guilty of feeding the fire as anyone, I'd say.

[skepticscott]

174. And yet, you'd be unable

to cite even a single post from anyone saying that they "want to destroy religious belief".

The claim that "belief" (which exists entirely in the mind) could even BE "destroyed" by anyone with their posts in this forum is so patently ridiculous that I wouldn't even bother to call it a lie, since no sensible person would swallow it in the first place.

[cbayer]

153. Like I said, it's a very small group.

[hrmjustin]

157. Agreed!

[trotsky]

159. So true!

I am very glad I have only seen one person try to make the argument that removing the influence of RCC dogma from hospital services is the equivalent of genocide! Hopefully the group of people making such disingenuous and harmful assertions stays small.

[trotsky]

158. Aw, that's cute.

How readily you dismiss different points of view with a little smiley. Why it's almost like you don't actually practice what you preach.

[mr blur]

163. Couldn't care less what pathetic things you do to boost your belief in the ridiculous.

You're in the right place for it.

[hrmjustin]

176. I understand it can be frustrating at times to be a believer here.

Hugs to you my friend.

[skepticscott]

179. Ah, yes

the persecution is just terrible here, isn't it? And yet, you keep coming in, instead of having all of your deep, meaningful discussions of faith and religion in the Interfaith room, safe from all the perceived oppression and bigotry of the mean ol' atheists.

Wonder why?

[hrmjustin]

181. You know other than you and a few others most of the atheists here are very nice to me.

People can be polite and get their points across. It can be done.

[skepticscott]

182. You're free to take whatever tone you feel is effective

I'm sure you'll grant me the same freedom, right? Tolerance! That's what makes life worth living, right? Tolerance and the embrace of people who see things differently than you.

Or so I keep being told.

[hrmjustin]

183. As I said, you can make your points while being polite. How you handle yourself is

your choice.

[skepticscott]

187. Thank you so much

for deciding for me how I can best make my points, and then telling me to do it that way. Not sure how I would have managed without your help.

[hrmjustin]

188. Look you don't like me then don't bother with me. If you don't want to hear my

responses then don't address me.

[rug]

200. It's more a reason why the OP should not be taken seriously.

[LeftishBrit]

129. Truly horrible.

[Swede Atlanta]

173. This is the problem with religious beliefs..

they can easily be manipulated to justify all manner of intolerable and unacceptable behavior.

I am a Christian but no where in my religious tradition would we ever encourage, condone or proselytize to engage in behavior that is harmful to others - children or adults.

These two need to be tried for murder. They can introduce evidence they acted out of personal religious conviction during the sentencing phase. A jury may accept this as a mitigating factor in determining the sentence.

But this cannot be used as defense of the underlying crime. In our society we do not accept a religious defense for murder. We accept self-defense but not religious defense. It can be viewed at sentencing as a mitigating factor.

We cannot every allow people to believe that they can engage in whatever behavior they want simply because they hold certain religious beliefs under the guise of freedom of religion.

Circumcision is a good case in point where genital mutilation of male infants is allowed under color of religious freedom when it is an irreversible mutilation of a male penis by parents who cannot know the intent or desire of the child. They circumcise because it is "their" faith or ethnic tradition. But it is nonetheless genital mutilation for which the parents should be held accountable. A young man should be able to make that decision for himself when he reaches an appropriate age of maturity. And of course the grotesque practice of female circumcision is enough to want me to equate that with murder.