The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

As I read over the case on Wiki, I noted the clear fact that the religious beliefs, and practices of the then suspects played a large role in the acting detectives motivation to arrest, and prosecute them.

This case along with the Satanic Panic of the 80's
shows how ignorant people can be when confronted by something that they are not educated about, or when the only information comes from opponents with fundamental agendas.

So the topic for discussion is, should people with nontraditional beliefs, and practices be more proactive in educating, or countering misinformation that slanders their beliefs and practices?

After watching Geraldos Satan's Underground show I gagged.

The whole angle was on how horrid murder by "satanic cults" was and it ran with that in the most sensational way.

There was a few breaks when he passed the interview to a LaVeys Daughter but he quickly scuttled past it.

Now I don't naively dismiss such murders, and actions by people killing in the name of the Devil. But I do take issue with the same thing Mr Aquino did, that anyone that murders in the name of Satan is likely to have gotten their "low down" of what a satanist does/is from a Traditional Church. From that info they reversed the churches ideals, and acted out in kind. These are people that are absolute examples of sensationalist.

As far as the beliefs of the WM3 I sincerely believe that the practices of the suspects played a major role in the detectives grudge.. that and the fact that they all had been outcast types.

I believe wholeheartedly that people with 'non traditional' beliefs can and do receive unfair treatment from the rest of the population, even from people that hold positions of power. I think that providing people with information meant to educate them would be a positive step... but who says they will read or listen to said information? I think that their perception of any untraditional belief system as negative is pretty...ingrained. I think that murders done in the name of the devil are usually committed by people with an illness...not by actual satanists.

Sadly it is the established (traditional) religions that educate people as to what they believe "those people" do.
In to many cases negative input comes from people who seek to impress their religious peers with sensational tales of disturbing varieties. Weaving yarns that are simple intended to present themselves as someone who was a deviant, and who know wants to be on the good side.

Intolerance of Religion Must Not Be Tolerated

As the number of new religious movements continue to increase in membership, the necessity to defend the right of people to worship as they please, as long as they do not harm others, is also increasing. Religious bigotry stems mostly from ignorance, fear, and spiritual competition. None of these need be reasons for engaging in religious intolerance and bigotry. I'll address why this is so here. But first, I would like to write about "tolerance" itself. The word is defined here as follows:

TOL·ER·ANCE (n.)

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

2.a. Leeway for variation from a standard. b. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.

As Robert Green Ingersoll pointed out, to "tolerate" someone is to make an "assumption of authority" and it is therefore invalid to say to another "I tolerate you" or "I tolerate your religion / beliefs." One does not have the authority to "tolerate" someone else's religious beliefs: that is the default condition, and requires no act or largesse on anyone's part. Therefore when I write about religious tolerance, I am speaking about the fact that one has no right to perform any wrongful act against a person or group based only upon that person's or group's religion, religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs. The default is if they cause no harm, leave them alone.

Note that harmful actions caused in the name of a church, religion, or religious belief are certainly open to criticism: it is not being intolerant or bigoted to castigate criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. Indeed, it is a human being's duty to oppose criminal acts regardless of who commits them. Crimes committed in the name of religion are still crimes, and must therefore be denounced.

Molko v. Holy Spirit (46 Cal. 3d 1092; 762 P.2d 46; 1988 Cal. LEXIS 236; 252 Cal. Rptr. 122) to wit: "However, while religious belief is absolutely protected, religiously motivated conduct is not." (Sherbert v. Verner (1963) 374 U.S. 398, 402-403 [10 L.Ed.2d 965, 969-970, 83 S.Ct. 1790]; People v. Woody (1964) 61 Cal.2d 716, 718 [40 Cal.Rptr. 69, 394 P.2d 813].) "Such conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society." (Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, 310 U.S. at p. 304 [84 L.Ed. at p. 1218].)

Crusaders torturing Jews
Crusaders torturing Jews.
IGNORANCE. Discriminating against someone for their harmless religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) out of ignorance is probably the second greatest "reason" religious discrimination and bigotry occurs. People may believe they "know" something about a church, religion, or religious belief that they do not in fact know; what they believe they know may be inaccurate. It is often the case that the only sure way to know what a religion actually teaches is to watch how members actually behave: if they do no harm, and do not cost non-members their time, money, and other resources, then ignorance is not a valid excuse for intolerance and bigotry. Education is the cure for ignorance. That education must come from the church or religious individuals themselves, as well as from the community that church resides in. (However, it is very often the case that the best information about a church or religion comes from people who have once been members but are no longer members.) If the community is not being harmed by a church, one must TOLERATE THAT CHURCH. One has no moral or ethical reason to do otherwise.

FEAR. People trust what they know, and distrust that which they are not familiar with. If one encounters an unfamiliar church or religion, it is only fair, ethical, and moral to withhold judgment for or against that church or religion until it has demonstrated itself worthy of fear--- which the vast majority never do. When the "newness" of the church or religion wears off, the fear will diminish.

SPIRITUAL COMPETITION. The worse offenders against religious tolerance are members and leaders of competing religions. This is a shame, as those who are religious bigots have failed to understand the fact that to be accepted themselves, they must accept others. There are many reasons why people belong to the religions they do: the chief one being geography and familial tradition. If they are happy with their religion, and if they harm no one, there is no reason to object to their choice of spirituality.

If someone's religion "does not break your bones or pick your pocket," you are ethically and morally obligated to LEAVE THEM ALONE and thus tolerate them. It costs you nothing to do so, and it is wrong to do otherwise.


David M. Rice

Source.. Holysmoke.org/tolerate.htm

along with this excerpt ...

Occult Crime:
A Law Enforcement Primer


This is the electronic version of the precedent-setting report concerning "occult crime" in the United States of America. At the time of its commission, several American communities had been plagued with "mass hysteria" among small groups of people (almost exclusively Fundamentalist Christians) who believed that Satanists and other "occultists" were among them, kidnapping children, burning and looting businesses, and terrorizing their victims in secret midnight "Satanic" rituals. Many of these communities were ravaged with hatred and fear; many innocent people were sent to prison with little or no valid evidence against them other than the words of little children who claimed to be victims, and yet were later found to be lying or confused (deliberately or not) by their "therapists."

source.. http://holysmoke.org/report/index.htm

Sadly, this is such a constant throughout history... Hell, even the Bible was "reworked" (shall we say, diplomatically) in order to eschew older practices for the sake of promoting the church and thrusting it forward as the only acceptable form of worship. Women became witches, cats became the target of extinction and anyone not conforming received some kind of torture to motivate acceptance, or died as an example.

Soon, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you're risking being burned at the stake.

The Problem is that Religion should not be 100% dogmatic.If one follows a Dogma 100%,regardless of logic,then one actually becomes a ``sinner`` so to speak.
Every Dogma must be slightly adapted to fit the time in which it is used.For example human sacrifice in Ancient Babylon was acceptable as the General populace didn`t know any better and were run by a high caste of priests who controlled all religious and political knowledge.But in our time,we have education,differing viewpoints and in most countries freedom of Religion.No Person should be put on Trial or punished just because they do not follow a certain Dogma to the letter.If we do this,we throw away almost 2800 years of human Progress(if not more)