slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (09/27/85)
I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed
the Senate yesterday?
"(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday
to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the
practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved
legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting
Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News
THAT is what is wrong with tax exemptions for churches. It can
be used as a battering ram against religions. By denying tax
exemption to any religion, as has been done here, it becomes a
bonus to the others.
Wicca, running on a smaller budget than the major churches, anyway,
could be hurt badly by this. There will probably be an attempt to
take tax exemption from Thelema (after all, they will say, Crowley was a
Satanist. The people who make such decisions don't know better.) Then
how about Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism--after all they have all those
dieties with skulls and such, obviously Satanist. (:-)
Sigh.
So Falwell gets his millions without tax, and any religion that
some IRS person thinks is witchcraft does not. And you can bet your
booties that Helms (who sponsered this abomination) wants it to apply
to anything non-Christian. The bill itself is Christian in that the
definition of something as "Satanist" or "witchcraft" has no real
meaning outside of the Christian view. I hope someone takes this to
court. If this is not a law "respecting the establishment of any
religion," I don't know what is.
I'm just too mad to type anymore.
--
Sue Brezden
Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb
AT&T Information Systems
11900 North Pecos
Westminster, Co. 80234
(303)538-3829
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~wallace@ucbvax.ARPA (David E. Wallace) (10/02/85)
In article <40@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: > >I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed >the Senate yesterday? > > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News Yes, I noticed. If such a clause were to be enacted into law and sustained by the courts, I believe that it would be a grave blow to our constitutional right to freedom of religion. However, I have great faith in the ability of our courts to recognize such nonsense for what it is, even if it did manage to slip by the Senate. If this does make it into law, I would expect the ACLU to challenge it vigorously, even if other interested groups lack the resources to do so. Dave Wallace (...!ucbvax!wallace wallace@ucbkim.berkeley.edu)
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (10/03/85)
In article <40@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: > >I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed >the Senate yesterday? > > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News > > >So Falwell gets his millions without tax, and any religion that >some IRS person thinks is witchcraft does not. And you can bet your >booties that Helms (who sponsered this abomination) wants it to apply >to anything non-Christian. The bill itself is Christian in that the >definition of something as "Satanist" or "witchcraft" has no real >meaning outside of the Christian view. I hope someone takes this to >court. If this is not a law "respecting the establishment of any >religion," I don't know what is. > >I'm just too mad to type anymore. > >-- > > Sue Brezden > >Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb > AT&T Information Systems > 11900 North Pecos > Westminster, Co. 80234 > (303)538-3829 > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Your god may be dead, but mine aren't. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Amen, Sister Sue!! Let us now all get on our knees and pray to his Holiness Falwell (after, of course, you send him money.) -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/04/85)
> "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News > >[lengthy omission] > >I hope someone takes this to >court. > > Sue Brezden If it gets past the House and signed by the President (two additional hurdles I don't think the bill has yet passed), there will no doubt be a small army of lawyers eager to take it to court. And they will no doubt win. charli
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/05/85)
> > I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed > the Senate yesterday? > > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News > > The bill itself is Christian in that the > definition of something as "Satanist" or "witchcraft" has no real > meaning outside of the Christian view. I hope someone takes this to > court. If this is not a law "respecting the establishment of any > religion," I don't know what is. > > I'm just too mad to type anymore. > > -- > > Sue Brezden > > Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb > AT&T Information Systems > 11900 North Pecos > Westminster, Co. 80234 > (303)538-3829 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Satanism is not just a Christian view, just as a crime under the law is not just a Christian view. Police records I've seen talked about on the news gives very real evidence of the doctrines of satanic cults. These doctrines according to the various news reports support violence and in some cases murder. I'm not coming from an emotional or prejudiced point of view, I'm just echoing various news reports I've seen over the years. If the doctrines are indeed what police reports seem to indicate, then satanism and whichcraft have a very real meaning outside the Christian view and permeatesequally to secular as well as non secular groups.
jbn@wdl1.UUCP (10/06/85)
I didn't think there were any Satanists left; that was a 60s joke started by Tony LaVey in San Francisco, who used to be a carnival barker. Nobody involved in running the organization actually believed in that stuff. But there's a sucker born every minute, so they had plenty of members for a while. John Nagle
gnome@olivee.UUCP (GNOME) (10/08/85)
> In article <40@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: > >I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed > >the Senate yesterday? > > > > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News > > Yes, I noticed. If such a clause were to be enacted into law and sustained > by the courts, I believe that it would be a grave blow to our constitutional > right to freedom of religion. However, I have great faith in the ability > of our courts to recognize such nonsense for what it is, even if it > did manage to slip by the Senate. If this does make it into law, I would > expect the ACLU to challenge it vigorously, even if other interested groups > lack the resources to do so. > > Dave Wallace (...!ucbvax!wallace wallace@ucbkim.berkeley.edu) It just goes to prove that our "elected representitives" not only keep their constituents (sp) in the dark, they don't seem to know anything about any part of the Constitution. Lets see -- they are always trying to negate... Freedom of Religion, Right to keep and bear arms, Freedom from taxation w/o representation, Freedom of speech (what! you publish a newsletter on witchcraft!) The persecuted individuals of the future have no new continents to flee to. If we're not careful, we may end up in an updated, computer-enhanced version of 18th century England. Gary
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (10/08/85)
> I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed > the Senate yesterday? > > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News > > THAT is what is wrong with tax exemptions for churches. It can > be used as a battering ram against religions. By denying tax > exemption to any religion, as has been done here, it becomes a > bonus to the others. > > Wicca, running on a smaller budget than the major churches, anyway, > could be hurt badly by this. There will probably be an attempt to > take tax exemption from Thelema (after all, they will say, Crowley was a > Satanist. The people who make such decisions don't know better.) Then > how about Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism--after all they have all those > dieties with skulls and such, obviously Satanist. (:-) > > Sigh. > > So Falwell gets his millions without tax, and any religion that > some IRS person thinks is witchcraft does not. And you can bet your > booties that Helms (who sponsered this abomination) wants it to apply > to anything non-Christian. The bill itself is Christian in that the > definition of something as "Satanist" or "witchcraft" has no real > meaning outside of the Christian view. I hope someone takes this to > court. If this is not a law "respecting the establishment of any > religion," I don't know what is. Believe it or not, the Reagan administration is against this bill! (I was surprised, too.) Or, more precisely, they say that they will not (under current law) attempt to deny tax exemption to any religious group, regard- less of its tenets. Their reasoning: freedom of religion. The really appalling thing is that this idiot amendment passed by *voice vote*. (Source: today's N.Y. Times.)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/08/85)
> Satanism is not just a Christian view, just > as a crime under the law is not just a Christian view. > I'm not coming from an emotional or prejudiced point of view, I'm just echoing > various news reports I've seen over the years. Wow, brilliant! Again, Ray shows what a brilliant satirist he can be. Clearly his goal is to show that those who make the assertion that because something does not coincide with "a Christian view" it must be banned, are off their rocker. You have succeeded again in making those who would seriously hold the points of view you give off look extremely silly. Bra-vo! (Has anyone else noticed the sudden proliferation of other similar logons used for similar purposes, especially at universities, where ridiculous points of view are professed with regularity and ridiculousness? Is 'funny' at ??? an example? Are there others?) -- "I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I knew I was making chicken salad." "I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (up547413042) (10/08/85)
> > > > I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed > > the Senate yesterday? > > > > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News > > > > The bill itself is Christian in that the > > definition of something as "Satanist" or "witchcraft" has no real > > meaning outside of the Christian view. I hope someone takes this to > > court. If this is not a law "respecting the establishment of any > > religion," I don't know what is. > > > > I'm just too mad to type anymore. > > > > -- > > > > Sue Brezden > > > > Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb > > AT&T Information Systems > > 11900 North Pecos > > Westminster, Co. 80234 > > (303)538-3829 > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Satanism is not just a Christian view, just > as a crime under the law is not just a Christian view. Police records I've > seen talked about on the news gives very real evidence of the doctrines of > satanic cults. These doctrines according to the various news reports support > violence and in some cases murder. > I'm not coming from an emotional or prejudiced point of view, I'm just echoing > various news reports I've seen over the years. > If the doctrines are indeed what police reports seem to indicate, then satanism > and whichcraft have a very real meaning outside the Christian view and permeatesequally to secular as well as non secular groups. Actually, Satanism is in fact a Christian derived concept. Satan is the anti- Christ, etc. Without God, there could have been no Satan. Belief in Satan exists among Satanists and Christians, but not among other non- Judeo based religions (Moslems and Bahai'is and Mormons all believe Satan exists). My own personal feeling is that Satanists (who are few in number) are a group of lunatics. Acts ascribed to Satanic cults, however, are usually just acts done by off- balance people who are rebellious and are too easily persuaded by hype. Sort of like the Manson Family. Witches, on the other hand, do not believe in Satan, or God for that matter. Many ideas about Satan however were thought up by the Christian Church in a massive campaign against witchcraft (now called Wicca). The propoganda was made up by the Church because Wicca was the strongest rival religion to the Christians, and was very solidly based in the peasant population. Wicca, whose history may date back to thousands of years before Christ on an island just off Greece (But I can't spell the name - Mycenea ?) originally started as a monotheistic, matriarchal religion based on a deity called the Great Goddess or Great Mother. Eventually, with the invasion of the northern barbarians, a male deity was adopted as her consort (and who was actually made from out of the Goddess). This male deity was called the Great Horned Hunting God, among other names (They both were called by many names). In the rituals of this religion, the high priest would dress up like an animal, usually with horns (as in the name) and animal skins. Thus, the Christian Church gave Satan horns, a tail, and cloven hooves. The Church also killed outright a great number of the priests and priestesses of that religion and drove it underground, where it is for the most part today. Wicca is a very peaceful religion, and can in no way be associated with Satanism outside of the above. It is also not feminist as some women have tried to portray it due to the dominate figure in the religion, the Great Mother. All people in this religion are considered Her children. While I am not a follower of this religion, I feel it is quite a bona fide religion. Thus, I feel the bill is completely unjustified. And considering Jesse Helms wrote it, there is in my mind no doubt that there is a fundementalist Christian bias in it and I certainly hope it doesn't pass the House. If it does, it should be struck down by the court. -- Chris.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (10/08/85)
I just saw an AP story which reports that a poll conducted by them shows that 25% of the American people don't think separation of church and state is a good idea. For some reason, the figures were 30% for Protestants, 20% for Catholics, and essentially 0% among Jews. Gee, do you think that might have anything to do with minority status...
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (10/09/85)
> Satanism is not just a Christian view, just > as a crime under the law is not just a Christian view. Police records I've > seen talked about on the news gives very real evidence of the doctrines of > satanic cults. These doctrines according to the various news reports support > violence and in some cases murder. > I'm not coming from an emotional or prejudiced point of view, I'm just echoing > various news reports I've seen over the years. > If the doctrines are indeed what police reports seem to indicate, then satanism > and whichcraft have a very real meaning outside the Christian view and permeatesequally to secular as well as non secular groups. I don't think you, or the sponsoring senator, or most Americans know the first thing about satanism, the occult or witchcraft. I don't know much about it either, but laws already exist that prohibit the types of lawlessness you describe. Any American should be able to worship any deity he/she wants to. If they break the law in doing so that's another can of worms. The bill that is refered to above is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, clearly. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd CENSORED! |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/10/85)
<Jesse Helms> C'mon line eater! Note: This is STella Calvert, a guest on this account. In article <10512@ucbvax.ARPA> wallace@ucbvax.UUCP (David E. Wallace) writes: >Yes, I noticed. If such a clause were to be enacted into law and sustained >by the courts, I believe that it would be a grave blow to our constitutional >right to freedom of religion. However, I have great faith in the ability >of our courts to recognize such nonsense for what it is, even if it >did manage to slip by the Senate. If this does make it into law, I would >expect the ACLU to challenge it vigorously, even if other interested groups >lack the resources to do so. I called my local ACLU office, ready to volunteer some efforts on the religious freedom issue and was told that their membership is so divided on the subject of tax exemptions for churches that they aren't going to do a damn thing. STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (up547413042) (10/12/85)
> > Wicca, whose history may date back to thousands of years before Christ > > on an island just off Greece (But I can't spell the name - Mycenea ?) > > originally started as a monotheistic, matriarchal religion based on a > > deity called the Great Goddess or Great Mother. > > Although these people were rather conspicuous followers of the Mother, it`s > not at all clear they invented the idea. Moreover, I for one am glad that > their rituals have gone out of style. Why are you glad their rituals have gone out of style. I can think of only two reasons why a ceremony would be objectionable. One is that human sacrifice was involved. If it is that, then it should be noted that there is no evidence that it ever occurred there (though, on rare occassion, an animal was sacrificed). As far as is known, the sacrifice usually consisted of grains and fruits. The other reason maybe be that the rituals may have had some sexual content in them. This is most probably true in many, but not all, of them.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (10/13/85)
> > > Wicca, whose history may date back to thousands of years before Christ > > > on an island just off Greece (But I can't spell the name - Mycenea ?) > > > originally started as a monotheistic, matriarchal religion based on a > > > deity called the Great Goddess or Great Mother. > > > > Although these people were rather conspicuous followers of the Mother, it`s > > not at all clear they invented the idea. Moreover, I for one am glad that > > their rituals have gone out of style. > > Why are you glad their rituals have gone out of style. I can think > of only two reasons why a ceremony would be objectionable. One is that human > sacrifice was involved. If it is that, then it should be noted that there is > no evidence that it ever occurred there (though, on rare occassion, an animal > was sacrificed). I am indifferent to the sexual content of their rituals or of anybody else's favorite rituals. I was thinking of the sacrifice of the annual consort. If this practice was not included in Mycenean religion then I am happy to apologize to all Mycenean-Americans on the net. -- "Superior firepower is an Ethan Vishniac important asset when {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan entering into ethan@astro.UTEXAS.EDU negotiations" Department of Astronomy University of Texas
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/14/85)
The reports of satanic crimes are totally unsubstantiated. The police
reports simply say that someone, usually a child, reported some Satanic
crime, and that the police investigated and found no evidence. This doesn't
stop some fundamentalist sheriff in the South or Midwest, though, it just
causes him to think "Them devils sure are tricky". This is really just a
media phenomenon, self-sustaining because kids' imaginations feed each
other. When none of these cases ever comes to court after a couple of
years, this hysteria will run its course like its ancestors which it so
resembles, the witch scares of old.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/14/85)
> The reports of satanic crimes are totally unsubstantiated. The police > reports simply say that someone, usually a child, reported some Satanic > crime, and that the police investigated and found no evidence. This doesn't > stop some fundamentalist sheriff in the South or Midwest, though, it just > causes him to think "Them devils sure are tricky". This is really just a > media phenomenon, self-sustaining because kids' imaginations feed each > other. When none of these cases ever comes to court after a couple of > years, this hysteria will run its course like its ancestors which it so > resembles, the witch scares of old. > -=- > Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology > Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim > CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys. Absolutely not true. Many crimes are totally substantiated. But maybe I'm no expert like you, you of course looked through all the police records of all the cities across the U.S. to draw you conclusions, right? I've been thinking of doing just that, but I could'nt get a couples of years off from work.
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (10/15/85)
Well then, me bucko, let's see some of that evidence.
All I know is that in the many print and broadcast reports I've seen on the
current rash of reports of Satanic crimes, no evidence has been put forth,
and most of the reports have expressly indicated that no evidence has been
found for any of the accusations. If you have evidence for any crime
committed by Satanists, let's hear about it. Any missing person reports to
correspond with any of these alleged murders, for instance?
This is just a new witch-hunt. It is similar in many details to the witch
scares of old, particularly in the youth of most accusers and in the lack of
evidence for specific criminality. I am only disgusted (but not surprised,
since I come from Helms country) that an act officially enforcing a witch
hunt could be acceptable to so many high-ranking public officials.
-=-
Tim Maroney, CMU Center for Art and Technology
Tim.Maroney@k.cs.cmu.edu uucp: {seismo,decwrl,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 My name is Jones. I'm one of the Jones boys.wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (10/17/85)
In article <12312@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: [after quoting another article] >> The reports of satanic crimes are totally unsubstantiated. The police >> reports simply say that someone, usually a child, reported some Satanic >> crime, and that the police investigated and found no evidence. >Absolutely not true. Many crimes are totally substantiated. But maybe I'm >no expert like you, you of course looked through all the police records of >all the cities across the U.S. to draw you conclusions, right? I've been >thinking of doing just that, but I could'nt get a couples of years off from >work. Sir, if you didn't look through police records, where DID you get your information? If you have any information about Satanists engaged in illlegal actions, post it. But so far, all I've seen on this subject is at the "Well, I heard that ..." level. STella Calvert (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) Every man and every woman is a star.
oleg@birtch.UUCP (Oleg Kiselev x268) (10/18/85)
> > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News well, if you (like many people I know) are pissed off about this idiocy - write letters to your senator! Make sure it's not a form letter, or computer generated (i.e. everyone sends in the same thing). Make it short (1-2 pages). And from what I know, individual letters bear more significance than a 100 signature petitions ( exept if you manage to get quite a few of them in a la Californian Marijuana Initiative). If *you* don't act -- what makes you think *others* will? -- -----------------------------------+ With deep indifference, "I disbelieve an army of invisible | Oleg Kiselev. mind-flayers!" | DISCLAIMER: "OK. They are *still* not there." | I don't know what I am talking about and -----------------------------------+ therefore am not responsible for any damages to people who take me seriously! ...!trwrb!felix!birtch!oleg ...!{ihnp4|randvax}!ucla-cs!uclapic!oac6!oleg Nothing I ever say reflects the views or opinions of my employers. They knew who they hired though!
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/18/85)
> In article <12312@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > [after quoting another article] > >> The reports of satanic crimes are totally unsubstantiated. The police > >> reports simply say that someone, usually a child, reported some Satanic > >> crime, and that the police investigated and found no evidence. > >Absolutely not true. Many crimes are totally substantiated. But maybe I'm > >no expert like you, you of course looked through all the police records of > >all the cities across the U.S. to draw you conclusions, right? I've been > >thinking of doing just that, but I could'nt get a couples of years off from > >work. > > Sir, if you didn't look through police records, where DID you get your > information? If you have any information about Satanists engaged in illlegal > actions, post it. But so far, all I've seen on this subject is at the "Well, I heard that ..." level. > > STella Calvert > (guest on ...!decvax!frog!wjr) > > Every man and every woman is a star. I'm working on it, give me time.
ee178abk@sdcc7.UUCP (SAMEER NADKARNI) (10/20/85)
In article <40@drutx.UUCP> slb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) writes: > >I am pissed!!! Did anyone notice the disgusting act that passed >the Senate yesterday? >... >THAT is what is wrong with tax exemptions for churches. It can >be used as a battering ram against religions. By denying tax >exemption to any religion, as has been done here, it becomes a >bonus to the others. >... >Then how about Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism--after all they have all those >dieties with skulls and such, obviously Satanist. (:-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I don't know about Tibetan Buddhism, but in all my exposure to Hinduism (the real Hinduism, not some junk like Hare Krishna, Rajneesh or some other faith-- I hope you know the difference) I have *NOT* seen any diety with "skulls and such". If you don't understand what the diety looks like or what it is supposed to look like, then I urge you to not come to some arbitrary (and uninformed) conclusions. Upset enough about the act passed in the Senate, and even more so by certain uninformed, ludicrous remarks. Sameer Nadkarni
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (10/20/85)
> > "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday > > to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the > > practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved > > legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting > > Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News Ah. The secret is out at last. So *THIS* is how they decided to respond to Reagan's "Voodoo Economics". But, is it really possible to finance the government without resorting to witchcraft?