From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Freedom of Religion
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:29:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.160656.1620@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>
>>Now let us turn to this matter of 'Freedom of Religion'
>>and its implications for the Roman Catholic 
>>Church and Other Such Groups as May Be Fetal Idolators.
>
>>Are we to Allow 'Freedom of Religion' to be USED
>>as a Cover for Blood Rituals and Cannibalism?
>
>
>It would seem to me that it can only be considered cannibalism by those
>who believe the doctrine.  Since the court is not permitted to believe
>any religion, it would be forced to conclude that the bread and wine were
>just that and nothing more.  You cannot prosecute people for _thinking_
>that they are consuming the body and blood of Christ any more that you can
>prosecute someone who smokes a joint of oregano, thinking it is
>marijuanna.

Speaking as one who has been baptized, had comunion, and been confirmed
(gak), I can say plainly that I don't know any catholics and never have
that actually think too long on that old line about transubstantiation.
It just isn't confronted.  You're told by the priests that it's "really
the body and blood of christ" but -- well, picture this.  You first
confront this as a child in first grade or so.  The priest gives you
the usual line about it being the actual body and blood of christ, and
the little kids all say that it's not possible and HOW is it done, and
why does God(tm) want us to eat somebody's skin and what does blood taste
like (since the priest drinks it all; it's quite unusual for any member
of the congregation to taste sacramental wine.  I've done it only about
twice).  Then, you get the typical answer that adults give kids when the
kids pin them down on something that isn't too well supported.  The
priest dissembles, alludes to things mystical, and talks about trusting
God(tm), and we kids get the message that you just don't dwell long on
this question.

I mean, it TASTES like a cracker, for God(tm)'s sake!  How the HELL is
this going to be someone's flesh?  Everyone considers it to be symbolic
only; ask a catholic about it, and see if they don't get vague and just
kind of say something like, "Well, it's got christ's spirit in it," or
something.  They aren't being deliberately evasive, and many truly do
think that the spirit of christ is in the cracker.  They just don't take
the transubstatiation terribly seriously.  (At least in the States;
American catholics give the pope headaches.)  

Anyway, the body/blood of christ thang isn't really thought about, and
you get the message early on that you just don't give it much thought
and trust the guys in charge. 

>You would have better luck pursuing the "serving alcohol to minors" angle.

Again, most catholics don't taste the wine more than about three or four
times; I add to my two only because I've seen married couples who get
hitched in a mass drink the wine.  Generally, the priest drains the
whole chalice. 

Blessings,
Janis 

P.S.: I actually got up the courage to read the _Malleus Maleficarum_
straight through -- not just excepts, the whole damned thing.  I heartily
encourage anyone who doubts the truth and the real evil behind the
Burning Times to read it.  My jaw actually dropped when I read some
stuff.  You know how the male pronoun is usually used to denote gender-
neutral stuff?  Well, they use "she" EXCLUSIVELY to talk about evil and
wicked people -- EXCLUSIVELY.  They talk about how men can be witches
and stuff, but then talk only of evil "she's" and "her's".  They target
women specifically and systematically, for anyone who doubts the
misogyny of the early church.  Had I read anything like this in school,
I would have renounced the catholic church even earlier than I did.  (As
it is, I just kind of lost interest and dropped out.)  I have never in
my life read anything so evil and hateful before; it's _Mein Kampf_ with
the pope's seal of approval.  It is specifically stated that the
Inquisitor in the court should call a woman an adulteress and concubine
no matter her guilt or innocence because "although this is beside the
point, yet such questions engender more suspicion than would be the case
with a chaste and honest woman who stood accused."

Read this book, and then talk of the Burning Times.  Else you are not
informed -- I was not as well-informed as now before *I* decided to read
all of it.  Later, I'll type in and post the Papal Bull that started it
all.  

I say again, every person alive who considers themselves Witches or
Pagans must read this.  Every person alive should read it, as an example
of what we must be on guard against -- especially those in the xtian
churches, who must bend their will toward making sure that it NEVER gets
this out of hand again.  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton