One of a number such self righteous web pages and sites. Such killjoys!!
More Bob Larson ignorance.
I can't count how many times I've been amused at McExorcist Bob Larson's ignorance. Particularly when he doesn't even bother to do some simple research to make sure whatever dreck he says is actually correct or not. One could almost go so far as to say that he relies upon his followers being as ignorant as he is.
His Constant Contact “ blog” for Monday, December 22nd is one good example. Even his “encouraging word” shows his ignorance.
Ho, ho, ho. It's getting a little harder to be jolly this Christmas season. First it was the release last week of Ridley Scott's "Exodus: Gods and Kings." (If you missed my blog about the extraordinarily offensive and unbiblical aspects of this film,(( I link deleted by me )) Now, just as you are getting ready to sing "Away in a Manger" comes a new book, Atheist Heart, Humanist Mind. Written by an executive at the home/apartment booking site AirBnB, Lex Bayer, in collaboration with a humanist chaplain at Stanford University (Didn't know they had such a thing, did you? Why not?), John Figdor. Having no divine source to ask, Bayer and Figdor surveyed fellow non-believers for their ideas of what non-Pentateuch edicts would best convey their values. As might be expected, no "shalt nots" turned up in the survey. No commands to avoid stealing and adultery. Just bromide platitudes, including:
Be open minded.
Strive to understand what is most likely to be true.
God is not necessary to be a good person.
Leave the world a better place.
Treat others as you want them to treat you. (Hmmm. Sounds familiar.)
I'm not sure such syrupy sentiments would have had much of an effect on Hitler or Stalin. And I'm certain that if read by pedophiles and drug dealers today these "suggestions" would not strike much fear into their hearts to change their ways. But ideas like this go down well in our compromised culture. Bayer, Figdor and their accomplices, didn't invent these ideas. Demons did. They are "doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1). Demons inspired such noble ideas? Other than the borrowed concept of treating others the way you wish them to treat you (Matthew 5:44), the drivel of the atheists' "ten commandments" are an excuse for feeling good while being blasphemous. As an exorcist, I've never met a demon who doubted the Bible, disbelieved the deity of Christ, or denied the existence of the Pit. I invite Bayer and Figdor on a weekend with me to observe the casting out of demons. They might come away with 10 better ideas about how to get to heaven and avoid hell.
An encouraging word: BORN OF A VIRGIN
A VIRGIN SHALL CONCEIVE (Isaiah 7:14). I capitalized the words because they are so astounding. Such a thing was impossible and had never happened. A woman would give birth without a human father. Why would Isaiah write this hundreds of years before Christ? Moreover, the Lord who inspired the prophet to pen these words added to the mystery. The child born of this astounding event would be named in advance: Immanuel, "God with us." We take this for granted. We often sing "O Holy Night" and recite the Christmas story without a thought regarding its amazing circumstances. Never forget the miracle that is the birth of Christ. Billions have been born since then, but never has God come in human flesh as a baby BORN OF A VIRGIN since that night in Bethlehem.
First let me address the “encouraging word” claim of born of a virgin. The incidence of “ virgin” birth, or to be more accurate, reproduction without a partner of the “ opposite” sex in OC the animal kingdom, is not impossible. It is called parthenogenesis and it happens in many species. His claim that “ such a thing was impossible and has never happened” is false both in mythology and in real biology. In human biology the ovum simply is fooled by some reason to act as if it was fertilized. The cells divide and the process goes on as normally. The offspring is, for all intents and purposes, clone of the mother. Mythologically speaking, virgin births are standard in many myths, as Joseph Campbell showed.
The claim that the god of the Bible “ came in human flesh as a baby” is BTW, blasphemy according to the same Old Testament Larson pretends to uphold in his “ blog”. You see, according to Jewish teachings, it is blasphemy to depict their god in any created form-- and a human is a created being. Not to mention Larson shows his ignorance of Christian theology regarding the birth and nature of the baby Jesus, which doesn't surprise me anymore. Simply put, Jesus only had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in him after John the Baptist baptized him. Before that time, Jesus was a son of God but not himself God. If Jesus was God in the flesh, there would have been no point in Satan supposedly tempted him in the wilderness.
Aside from, OC, the more obvious theological problem of a baby supposedly being god having the obvious biological and behavior problems of a human child. How can you punish a brat if he's supposedly god in the flesh when the little bastard misbehaves? And wouldn't his feces be holy shit?
Now onto his “ blog”
BTW Larson mistyped the name of the book. The real title Is "Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart".
(( some interesting stuff on that web page.))
I'm assuming Dummy McExorcist got the idea for his lousy " blog " from something like this:
(( right wing crap, no surprise.))
(( Usual CNN crap))
And , again no suprise, Larson pretty much copies from another person's work without attribution it. Otherwise known as plagarism.
As for being jolly this holiday season being “ hard” this year, it depends on the person, to be honest. I rather doubt mister upper class has nearly the same problems as a poor parent or guardian who can't afford a toy for their child. Or that he in his Scottsdale mansion knows what its like to be homeless and to be uncertain where he will get his next meal. Christmastime is hard for a number of people, but it also can be a merry time, no mater if one is poor or not.
The “ Exodus” movie he claims as “extraordinary offensive and unbiblical” ( an ironic comment considering his own various claims over the decades) is a view I haven't seen anywhere else, so obviously he is the only one who has this viewpoint about the movie.
And it must hurt him that the movie is getting good reviews.
His lame attack on the “atheist” commandments ( most of which he didn't list, as usual for him) includes his spin on his current exploitation ( the “demons” crap), which ( again, no longer a surprise to me) he shows he has a serious lack of credibility.
BTW the do unto others, known as the Golden Rule, is not exclusive of Christianity.
“ I'm not sure such syrupy sentiments would have had much of an effect on Hitler or Stalin. And I'm certain that if read by pedophiles and drug dealers today these "suggestions" would not strike much fear into their hearts to change their ways. But ideas like this go down well in our compromised culture.”
Fact; Adolph Hitler in his Mein Kampf defended Christianity and even the Pope at that time supported Hitler. Germany was quite Christian, yet that didn't stop the Germans from allowing the Nazis to commit their various and numerous evils. Larson's inference that the commandments would put fear into the hearts of drug dealers and pedophiles is ironic considering that child molestation, like rape, is not specifically prohibited in the Bible. Then again, the Bible also condones slavery. As for the atheist ideas “go down well in our compromised culture,” Larson, as usual, forgets to mention that some religions, not just Christianity, has opposed such things as voting rights for women, public education of the masses, and OC other faiths. IOW progress in the culture to break away from what are in some examples religion based barbarism.
Yes, I know to some Christians, tolerance of other religions is not something they condone at all. I was at first shocked to find out that there are some supposedly devout Christians who were proud of being intolerant of other paths, even of Christian paths not of their own that they looked down upon. For example, some Protestants deride Catholicism ( Jack Chick is one example of an anti-Catholic Christian publisher). I'd almost feel sorry for them if it wasn't for the fact that these same intolerant a-holes also whine about “ anti-Christian bigotry” they claim they “ suffered”.
As opposed to the real suffering and persecution Christians in some parts of the world face.
Basically moral and ethical behavior is not relegated to a specific religion. One can be an atheist, agnostic or humanist and be ethical and moral. OTOH one can claim to be strongly religious and be quite immoral, unethical and even evil. I've seen supposed “ Christians” whose words and actions serve more their religion's devil than Jesus Christ.
“ As an exorcist, I've never met a demon who doubted the Bible, disbelieved the deity of Christ, or denied the existence of the Pit. I invite Bayer and Figdor on a weekend with me to observe the casting out of demons. “
I gotta love his arrogance and his self promotion. I agree with Fr. Ashcraft that Larson probably has never, ever actually met a demon (assuming demons exist, that is, which I doubt). His claims about demons not doubting the Bible, etc., is not unusual since, naturally the alleged “demons” he supposedly “ exorcises” come from those who believe in the Bible, “ deliverance ministry” and the generational curses nonsense. IOW from people who act, whether intentionally or via belief, that they have demons or curses and respond as they think “ demons” act. '
Among Larson's claims is that half the world is supposedly demon possessed. If that is true, then even atheists have demons. And yet I have yet to hear of any atheist or skeptic exhibiting supposedly demon possession.
While I'm not totally supportive of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I do understand somewhat about their fight against the bully religion in America, Christianity.
Normally something from McExorcist this vacuous and stupid wouldn't merit a comment from me, but this one is just pathetic enough to give me some amusement.
(( And yes, he or whomever actually writes his dreck actually linked it as “ Is God 11 years old?”))
December 18th, 2014
(( Movie action photo of Christian Bale in center foreground running, wearing a sort of Greekish armor with a sword at his side. In background men obviously fighting in a battle in the sword slashing era of warfare))
If the sword wielding, blood-letting image above doesn't look like your idea of Moses, you have the same reaction as me. This week I saw the new movie, "Exodus: Gods and Kings," staring Joel Edgerton as Ramses the Pharaoh and Christian Bale as Moses. The Bible describes Moses as a humble, stuttering, God-fearing man. Bale's Moses is anything but that. He's violent, moody, uncertain, confused, and a bit bipolar. His brother Aaron, Moses' mouthpiece in Scripture, says nothing in the movie until a couple of lines at the end, hanging back as his brother bumbles his way toward a confrontation with Egypt's ruler. God is an irritable, 11-year-old boy speaking in distorted logic and riddles. If you thought that Russell Crowe's Noah was an unbiblical film (To read my review about that movie, link deleted by me)) for the blog, "Noah's Nonsense, April 2, 2014), "Exodus" is a lot worse with an overdose of carnage and action-chase sequences.
Moses carries a sharp sword, not a staff. He chisels the Ten Commandments on stone, instead of God's finger doing the job. Actually, we never are told what's on the stone. Perhaps reciting the Decalogue would be too uncomfortable for today's movie audiences to hear . . . all those thou shalt nots regarding taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain, committing adultery, killing, stealing, and coveting thy neighbor's wife etc. The puerile, bratty, obnoxious excuse for God almost makes one wish for a return of George Burns in the role. Waterspouts part the Red Sea, not the Lord. Gorging on human flesh by oversized crocodiles turns the Nile red. Moses' sister Miriam is a fearful, mendacious woman, not a prophetess of praise. Moses isn't setting his people free as an 80-year-old but as an ab-tight, swashbuckling 30-something. You get the idea.
This is a Moses for our tolerant age. Short of substance but long on style. I went because it's my job to check out what the devil is doing. Now you know, so you can save the price of a ticket. Perhaps we should have expected what we got when Bale, in a pre-release interview, called his character Moses "schizophrenic" and "barbaric." At the end of the movie, with white letters on a black screen, director Ridley Scott, a self-proclaimed agnostic, dedicates the film to his brother Tony. If that name doesn't ring a bell, he's the sibling who, on August 19, 2012, jumped to his death from the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles.Perhaps that's why the director of "Exodus" seems so intent on demeaning God. Is it is his own anger, hurt, and confusion coming through? Or is it just a movie?
An encouraging word: TRUST THE BIBLE
Of Scripture, God's Word says of its authenticity, "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). What's in the Bible is not conjecture or a collection of legends. It isn't fantasy or confabulation. It is God's Word and it was inspired and evoked by the Spirt of God. It did not come, as Peter says "by the will of man." Therefore it is trustworthy and inerrant. The next time a critic of the Bible levels the accusation that "a bunch of chauvinistic, ordinary men" gave us the Bible, remind them that there were 40 authors across the span of more than a millennium, without any substantive differences or contradictions. That's more than can be said for Homer or Seneca.
(( Rolls eyes))
Larson deliberately parades the Heston Moses image here as if that is the “ true version of Moses. If you actually read the OT, Moses was depicted engaged in warfare and did lead his butcherous troops into armed conflict.
Bear in mind that this new movie “ Exodus: Gods and Kings” is first and foremost an action move, with all the Hollywood theatrics to bring in audiences. Also bear in mind that to some scholars, the whole biblical Exodus story is itself a melodrama where there is little evidence to support the story as historical fact. Even the name of “ Pharaoh” is a guess.
Assuming that Moses existed, Larson forgot to mention that in the Bible Moses was a murderer, among other things. He might as well have dissed “ Evan Almighty” as he did with this movie, as Evan also dealt with a modern version of Moses.
I do like his pretentiousness, which as usual oozes from his “ blog”, much like toxic waste.
And such an important topic! I mean, here we are, currently with the shameful CIA torture expose, President Obama wanting relations with Cuba, North Korea hackers to Sony forcing a move to not be shown in theaters, as well as an upcoming Carnell movie, the Bill Cosby accusations and even something dumb about Jeb Bush, and what does Larson focus on? A Bible movie geared to the car chase and explosions crowd.
Sheesh. How about making a comment about the crappy “ feel good” Christmas movies ( mostly schlock) that airs on many channels this month? Really, very few of them are keepable classics. Most are just plain pablum. I must have seen three versions of “ The Christmas Carol” that were so loosely based on the Dickens novel for the modern audience that were just plain crap. Give me the George C Scott-- Edward Woodward or even the Jim Carey version over most of this Christmas dreck. They even overuse the trope of person gets “ redemption” at Christmas, showing the “ true holiday spirit.”
Then again, he did claim that all angels are male and there are no female angels, as in some Christmas depictions. Must be odd to be a supposedly supernatural being and have an organ that is used for peeing and screwing—and you're not supposed to do either one.
Guess angel balls have a different meaning to Larson as well.....
Okay, on to his comments:
“ If the sword wielding, blood-letting image above doesn't look like your idea of Moses, you have the same reaction as me. This week I saw the new movie, "Exodus: Gods and Kings," staring Joel Edgerton as Ramses the Pharaoh and Christian Bale as Moses.”
Actually the Bible depicts Moses' army as seriously slaughterers. Lotta bloodletting via the sword. “ Ramses the Pharaoh is an awkward wording. And why would anyone in battle have a dull sword instead of a sharp one?
“ The Bible describes Moses as a humble, stuttering, God-fearing man. Bale's Moses is anything but that. He's violent, moody, uncertain, confused, and a bit bipolar. His brother Aaron, Moses' mouthpiece in Scripture, says nothing in the movie until a couple of lines at the end, hanging back as his brother bumbles his way toward a confrontation with Egypt's ruler. God is an irritable, 11-year-old boy speaking in distorted logic and riddles.”
The movie is about Moses, the “ hero”. As such the focus is on Moses, not Aaron, and the drama about the Moses character would OC include personal conflict, thus the “moody” and “ uncertain” parts. As for the comment about the Bible “ God” as an irritable 11 year old boy, I could call Biblegod much worse than that—and have done so in the past. Like bloodthirsty tyrant, sadistic POS and an insane male with a god complex.
“ He chisels the Ten Commandments on stone, instead of God's finger doing the job. Actually, we never are told what's on the stone. Perhaps reciting the Decalogue would be too uncomfortable for today's movie audiences to hear . . . all those thou shalt nots regarding taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain, committing adultery, killing, stealing, and coveting thy neighbor's wife etc. “
(( Sniff, sniff)) What's that smell? Oh drat my irony meter burned up. Considering the allegations about Larson regarding sexual and financial matters, not to mention covetousness, this remark about the Decalogue being uncomfortable to hear strikes me as hypocritical on Larson's part.
As I understand the story, Moses had two separate pairs of tablets. The first he destroyed when he saw the Israelites “ disobeying God”. The second set supposedly was stored in the Ark of the Covenant or something. It is more reasonable to believe that Moses carved into the stone that supposedly “God” told Moses to supply rather than this same “ God” who supposedly created the stone in the first place having two stone tablets appear magically at the meeting place, then like some child “writing” on it with his finger.
And pretty much everyone knows what the Ten Commandments are, so wasting film time on showing each one is unnecessary.
“ The puerile, bratty, obnoxious excuse for God almost makes one wish for a return of George Burns in the role. Waterspouts part the Red Sea, not the Lord. Gorging on human flesh by oversized crocodiles turns the Nile red. Moses' sister Miriam is a fearful, mendacious woman, not a prophetess of praise. Moses isn't setting his people free as an 80-year-old but as an ab-tight, swashbuckling 30-something. You get the idea.”
Actually the Burns trio of “ Oh God” movies wasn't that bad ( even the third one were Burns was both God and Satan had some interesting bits, lame as it was). The whole Red Sea thing is dubious. Water spouts are no that big or strong. However if it was the Reed “ sea” and there was a cataclysmic explosion such as a volcano or an earthquake, then the “ parting of the waters” had a more natural explanation, though certainly no as dramatic as the various Moses movies depict. As for a red Nile, there is something called the “ red tide” which is a toxic accumulation that does kill marine life.
Again, Bale as Moses is the hero in this, so he has to be an “ ab-tight, swashbuckling 30-something” for the simple reason that the audience idealizes their heroes into handsome or beautiful young people in the prime of their lives ( usually in their thirties). It is why Harrison Ford in the last Indiana Jones movie was “ too old” for the audience to accept as an action hero. (other than the movie just pain sucked, that is)There are exceptions, like the RED and The Expendables movies, but for the most part in not only action movies but also in many other genres the protagonists are all young and attractive. When they are not, like in the movie “ Tammy” involving a fat woman who is at best plain, there is humor at the expense of the protagonist. This makes good actors who are not “ leading “ men or women hard to acquire any leading role and they are left with supporting roles.
Part of it is the biased view that a good looking person must also be a “ good” person. Larson himself made that “ lookism” bias some time back in regards to his “ blog” entry about a couple who were traveling to Arizona to “ exorcise' their children. I'm old enough to have learned that some of the most physically attractive people turn out to be selfish assholes who use their looks to their own benefit. And that some of the plain-looking people some overlook and almost literally do not see turn out to be the most caring and loving people one could ever hope to meet.
“This is a Moses for our tolerant age. Short of substance but long on style. I went because it's my job to check out what the devil is doing.”
Speaking of short on substance but long on style.....((cough cough-- teenage exorcists))
Granted it is a whitewashed Moses, as the one in the Bible commanded slaughtering of whole communities, including babies ( hey, how's THAT one for the “ real” Moses?) but for Larson to claim he went to see the movie because “ it's my job to check out what the devil is doing” is about as credible as him claiming he has a “demonic double” that impersonates him body and voice.
Oh wait, he did say that one......
Then again, if Ken Smith is right, it's hard for Larson to explain if he was, say spotted leaving a strip club. Nice excuse, though. “ Just investigating what the devil is doing.”
Right. And jimmy Swaggart was just “ ministering” to the prostitute in a hotel room.
And once again. Like when he did after the Anderson Cooper appearance, Larson resorts to ad hom attacking someone by mentioning the death of a loved one of the person he's attacking.
“ At the end of the movie, with white letters on a black screen, director Ridley Scott, a self-proclaimed agnostic, dedicates the film to his brother Tony. If that name doesn't ring a bell, he's the sibling who, on August 19, 2012, jumped to his death from the Vincent Thomas Bridge in Los Angeles.Perhaps that's why the director of "Exodus" seems so intent on demeaning God. Is it is his own anger, hurt, and confusion coming through? Or is it just a movie?”
What was that again about Larson doing “ counseling”?
I've been skipping through Michael Medved's book “ Right Turns” ( oh all right, I read bits of it while I'm taking a crap) and Medved claimed in that book that Hollywood supposedly takes pride in being anti-Christian. As it is I consider Medved to be a yammering yutz, no different than Ann Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh or any of the number of basically mouthy but useless people on TV, radio and the internet. I don't consider him any credible than Michael Savage ( Wiener). On his radio show I noticed when Medved has a truly challenging, intelligent caller ( which is rare. His screeners probably look for ranting idiots), Medved resorts to some not very honorable tricks before he drops the caller. So IMO Medved is just another asshole with a show.
Larson's “ encouraging word” is pretty bad. The simple fact is that the Bible is the work of men, written and edited by men. Had Larson ever actually studied the Bible, he would know that it is not inerrant and that it is “ a collection of legends” and “fantasy or confabulation.” He would also know that during the era of Constantine, the emperor had various councils of Christian lackeys who decided which Christian sacred texts were approved to be in the Bible and which were to be not only rejected but destroyed and their followers eliminated,
As for this comment: “ The next time a critic of the Bible levels the accusation that "a bunch of chauvinistic, ordinary men" gave us the Bible, remind them that there were 40 authors across the span of more than a millennium, without any substantive differences or contradictions. That's more than can be said for Homer or Seneca”-- I should mention the obvious: That for most of the Bible's existence, only the clergy were allowed to read it. Its been only since the Renaissance that the common people were allowed to have the education we now take for granted-- reading, writing, basic schooling.
If the Bible is inerrant as he claims, then there should not be any “differences or contradictions”, much less “substantive” as he claims, In fact depending on which “ translation” of the Bible one refers to, there are errors in translation and some serious contradictions in the New Testament alone.
Larson said there were 40 authors. According to some Christians, the only “ author” of the Bible is their god. The crack about Homer and Seneca again shows Larson's ignorance and hypocrisy. The reason why we have the writings of the Greek classics is not because of the Christian church . It is because of the Muslim reverence for knowledge that we have the works of Plato, Homer and so forth. Here is one nasty little historical fact; The Christian church thought the classical writings, since they did not glorify the Biblegod and included Pagan deities, were to be destroyed. They in effect thought the early Christians burning the Library at Alexandria was a good idea. Therefore through the rightly named Dark Ages where even the rulers were illiterate, most of the common people only knew what the church told them, and few of the church scholars and scribes ( who were the only ones who could read and write) even knew who Plato was—if that. At best Pagan myths were passed down orally until some honorable scholars finally wrote them down, sadly only in fragments and the original myths are lost to us.
Secondly, I find it ironic that Larson claims to believe in Jesus Christ-- who while he supposedly was a literate male in Judaism, never wrote a word of the Bible himself. Look it up. Even in the red letter Bible where Jesus' alleged words are in red, there is not one book if the Bible where Jesus is credited as an author. In fact what we supposedly “ know” about Jesus Christ comes solely from his alleged followers, and historians haven't found anything outside the Bible as evidence Jesus Christ actually existed. The recent fraud about the “ James, brother of Jesus” ossuary is IMO the attempt by Christians to latch onto any direct physical archeological proof that Jesus existed. Not belief “ proof” such as the dubious Shroud of Turin or the various alleged shards of the “ True Cross”, but empirical proof.
There are in fact errors, contradictions and the condoning of just plain wrong and evil things in this “ holy” book. One can even reasonably argue that Jesus was a false prophet and that the Book of Revelation that Christians pour over looking for signs of the “end times” was nothing more than an anti-Nero ranting tract.
Don't get me wrong. There are some good things in the Bible. But since Christians call this their “ word of god” , it would be Pollyannish to cherry pick only the good stuff and ignore the evils condoned in the Bible.
Like for example ( and on topic here) the armies of Gideon and Moses after butchering whole villages, including bashing babies heads against rocks, decided to keep the “ virgin girls” the “ spared” and divide the poor females up as if they were chattel. And OC after a hard day of slaughter, what do you think these “ armies of god” did to these young females? Hint: They specifically chose virgins ( or females they assumed were virgins. . We are talking about brute males here). The unspecified but obvious act the did was to, OC , “ celebrate their victory” by raping their female captives. This disgusting, evil act of rape is not specifically condemned in the Bible, In fact, women in the Bible where rape is concerned are treated as if they were sluts or damaged property to be sold off to their rapists in “ marriage”.
Larson's claims about the Bible do not pass honest scrutiny. Then again, neither does he.
As for his " tolerant age" jab, he might be grateful for that one. After all, tolerance is a good thing when you find out you are the one being tolerated-- Ziggy
Sunday, the Investigation Discovery channel had on an episode of " Most Evil" that included the R. Gene Simmons case.
SImmons was the control freak POS who committed incest on his own daughter, among other things and who during Christmastime 1987 in Dover Arkansas murdered 14 members of his own family, then went ona revenge shooting spree in Russellvile, Arkansas and murdered two more people.
Unfortunately this semi- interesting series did a melodramtic light " examination" of Simmons and why he did what he did. His sick "love" for his daugher, who was portrayed on the show as accepting of her molestation, even openly acting as his wife, while the real wife was meek, supposedly beaten both mentally and physically into submission. Most of the inetrview part was with his wife's sister, which was somewhat interesting.
Most times the true crime shows and books are truly informative. Anne Rule is a good example. However, I've read a few books that IMO were hackneyed crap. I read one book on the Simmons case " Zero at the Bone" but not " Rampage-- America's Largest Family Mass Murder" by Jim Moore yet.
I'm embarassed to say that some of the reviewers of this book have an atrocious lack of English grammar and spelling.
The law enforcement people involved in this case did a good job. Too bad that wasn't the case in the Nona Dirksmeyer case. In her case the probable kiler lived in the same apartment complex she did and he was previously convicted for attacking a female from behind. Unfortunately that murder case was farked up from various causes.
I remember Tempest Smith.
I remember that it's never right to make fun of someone's beliefs.
I remember that sticks and stones can break my bones, but names are
words of power that can wound the soul.
I remember that many mocked - and one died.
I remember Tempest Smith.
I remember that it takes all types to make a world.
I remember that nature likes biodiversity. This is true of beliefs and ideas as well.
I remember that I make a better witness to my own beliefs by simply living them, not belittling others.
I remember Tempest Smith.
And I remember that another person’s belief (or non-belief) is just as sincerely held as my own.
I remember to have the courage to say, "Hey, that's not right," when I see someone being ridiculed.
And the next time I am tempted to go along with the crowd and tease someone who is "different," I will remember Tempest Smith, and I will remember my pledge.
©2001 Cecylyna Dewr
Permission is expressly granted to reproduce this document wherever you think it will help. Please include this notice.
For more information contact
Pagan Pride Project – www.paganpride.org - (317) 916-9115.
PO Box 441422 Indianapolis, IN 46244
Bob Larson, as usual, goes into exploitation mode regarding the now stayed execution of Scott Panetti.-- and shows his hypocrisy regarding death row inmates
Thursday, Dec, 4th, 2014
What if a convicted killer on death row wanted to defend himself and called as witnesses the pope and Jesus Christ? What if that same convict, during his trial for murder, put himself on the stand and questioned himself by adopting a series of different personalities and voices to match? This scenario isn't only highly unusual, it's reality. Yesterday the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the state of Texas granted a last minute stay of execution to death row inmate Scott Panetti. On Sept. 8, 1992, Panetti shaved his head, dressed in military fatigues, armed himself with a sawed-off shotgun and hunting rifle and shot his in-laws, Joe and Amanda Alvarado, at close range in front of his wife and young daughter. Critics of this instance of capital punishment argued that Panetti, who dressed as a cowboy during his trial, was schizophrenic and suffered from psychotic delusions; thus, his severe mental illness was a mitigating factor in his violent acts. But what if there is another explanation? DID and demons.
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), known in popular parlance as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), is a fracturing of the mind, a fragmentation most often resulting from acute trauma. The afflicted individual has a need to survive by compartmentalizing horrific memories into categorical personality identities. For example, a person sexually abused when very young, may develop a child alter-ego state ("alter") to encapsulate the memory of the violation, keeping all of its pain and shame in a separate mental space. If subsequent additional abuses occur, other "alters" contain those memories and feelings. Thus, an individual may assume any number of alternate personalities, some acting out violent and even murderous behavior.
Does this explain why Panetti acted so bizarrely? Was the killer in camouflage a dissociated identity in Panetti's mind who expressed his violent rage in ways he wasn't completely aware of? Did he suffer some unspeakable horror as a child that led him to develop a murderous personality who could exact delusional revenge on scapegoated in-laws? We'll never know because he was labeled a "mentally ill" killer. I'm not suggesting he should have gotten off on such a presupposition, but it would have been helpful for future cases like this to investigate further his mental processes instead of writing him off as crazy.
Simply put, here's how this process works. An emotionally tortured individual develops an alter to hold the pain. Demons enter that vulnerable mental compartment and hide behind the alter. These evil spirits manipulate the dysfunctional alter to believe in evil and to commit evil acts. The real culprit here is the dissociation and the demonization. I am not excusing criminal acts with spiritual and psychological mumbo-jumbo. I am saying that the devil is cleverer than most courts and many mental health experts. Everyone loses in a case like Panetti: the killer, his victims, and due process of justice.
The Panetti case is “hot” now because, of all things, certain conservative and evangelical Christians are against him being executed. McExorcist, as usual for him, jumped on the “ demons” mention yo add his spin on the subject. Too bad for him he also adds his standby of Dissociative Identity Disorder” as inferring he knows about mental health issues-- which he really does not.
Simply put the whole “alter personality” claim has been questioned in recent years.
The DSM-IV had at best the dissociative identity disorder, which is little more than the renaming of multiple personality disorder, which itself has some questionable validity. The most famous case of alleged MPD, Sybil, turned out to be, as Debbie Nathan in her book on the subject points out, more “Sybil's' doctor calling various emotions as if they were different personalities, the intended branding of the Sybil story into a corporation, and the alleged “real” Sybil having a relationship with her doctor that went far beyond patient-therapist.
Oh and BTW this “ blog” entry contradicts an earlier blog entry he made this year where he was against mental health therapy for death row inmates.:
June 14, 2014
First there were "dead men walking" and now there are "dead men talking" - to their therapists. In California, land of all things exotic and trendy, courts have now required psychiatric care for mentally disturbed death row inmates. At San Quentin prison, a new 40-bed psychiatric hospital is soon to open for those destined to die by edict of the state. In some cases, 24-hour nursing care will be provided. Long-term mental health care for those destined to die? Part of the problem is that those sentenced to die are not being speedily executed. In fact, the last time California executed someone condemned to die was 2006 due to almost endless appeals. The bleeding-hearts behind this worry about mentally ill prisoner having issues with drug overdoses (drugs in prison?) and suicide. Proponents of such health care cite as an example one prisoner named Justin Helzer who hung himself with a bedsheet. They argue that with better psychiatric care, Helzer might still be alive and his problems of delusional thoughts cured. Never mind that Helzer was on death row for killing five people and dumping their dismembered bodies in a Sacramento River.
Of course most death row prisoners are mentally ill. That's why some of them killed, and others became mentally ill because of the guilt of their crimes. Should the law-abiding taxpayers be billed to take care of criminals to be certain they are thinking straight when they enter the execution chamber to pay for their crimes? Providing basic human needs is one thing, but seeking to emotionally fix a man to face judgment by death for his deeds is an exercise in misguided liberalism. To give those on death row a more reasonable right to a better life seems a bit overdone, when you consider that these men who were condemned to die gave their victims no right to life at all.
The Panetti case is , OC, covered pretty well online in various web sites, including, OC, Wikipedia.
Basically Panetti supposedly has schizophrenia, but some in law enforcement are doubting he is mentally ill and that he's faking it in order to avoid being executed.
In fat Penetti vs. Quarterman, a case the Supreme Court in 2007 heard and decided in their ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings.
According to Wikipedia:
In 1992 Scott Panetti killed his mother-in-law and his father-in-law, the parents of his second wife, Sonja Alvarado. He then held his wife and daughter hostage for the night, and surrendered to police the next morning. Three years later, Panetti was tried in a Texas state court for capital murder. Panetti sought to represent himself, and so the trial court ordered a competency hearing. Panetti was found to be suffering from a "fragmented personality, delusions, and hallucinations" for which he had been hospitalized over 12 times and for which he had been prescribed high doses of powerful psychiatric drugs for schizophrenia. Panetti's ex-wife, Jane Perry, testified at the competency hearing and described one of Panetti's psychotic episodes in 1986. During that episode, Panetti had "become convinced the devil had possessed their home and, in an effort to cleanse their surroundings, Panetti had buried a number of valuables next to the house and engaged in other rituals." Even with this testimony, Panetti was found competent to be tried and to waive his right to counsel.
A veteran of the US Navy, Panetti's defense at trial was that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. Standby counsel related that Panetti's behavior was "scary", "bizarre", and "trance-like." It was evident to standby counsel, based on Panetti's behavior both in private and before the jury, that Panetti was not competent, and that his behavior made a farce and mockery of the judicial process. Panetti had also allegedly stopped taking his medication a few months before the trial. Indeed, two months after the end of the trial, the trial court found Panetti incompetent to waive his right to state habeas counsel. Nevertheless, Panetti was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.
And obviously the “devil” and “ possessed” objects delusions were elements that Larson latched onto.
As I read that, I also remembered S. A. Tower's recent book “ From the Craft to Christ”, where some of the alleged “ ex-witches” burned their former Craft objects.
“ Panetti's ex-wife, Jane Perry, testified at the competency hearing and described one of Panetti's psychotic episodes in 1986. During that episode, Panetti had "become convinced the devil had possessed their home and, in an effort to cleanse their surroundings, Panetti had buried a number of valuables next to the house and engaged in other rituals." “
In fact, such a practice of destroying alleged demonic or cursed objects is “ normal' behavior of the “ spiritual warfare” of Christian “ deliverance ministry”. It is not crazy to them to claim that, for example, a depiction of a frog or an owl in the home is “ permission” for demons to enter the home.
Then again, those who believe invisible demons are pretty much everywhere, waiting to pounce at every opportunity and think that any object that does not “ glorify God” must therefore be some tool or trick of Satan.
Well, I did think that belief was some sort of mental illness. Still do, in fact.
And should I mention the current “ blood moon” so-called “ prophecies” that Hagee is exploiting with a book, etc.? Speaking of that “ signs and wonders”, bear in mind the obvious, that the Jewish festivals calendar is partly based on the lunar cycle. And wouldn't ya know, the new moon this month is on Yule, Dec 21st.
The web site Irrational Mind has a web page on this, written by Hanna Kozlowski on December 4th, where she explains some of this:
Panetti has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and hospitalized 15 times, and many disputed whether he could be held accountable for his actions through such severe punishment. He was sentenced for shooting and killing his in-laws in 1992. He attributed the crime to his alter-ego, a character named Sarge, and has shown signs of mental illness many times since. Prosecutors in his case maintained he was faking the symptoms.
Among those asking to reduce Panetti’s sentence were a group of conservative leaders who urgedTexas governor Rick Perry to commute the sentence.
Early signs of psychosis