Hey no problem. The case is interesting and there are many, many more like it. Here's an interesting point that further supports my arguments. Fundamentalist Christians are not the only people legitimately concerned about this, and another very solid reason we should accurately describe the problem stems from valid concerns of law enforcement agencies. Detective J.B. Chase of the Middletown Police Dept. in Fairfield Township, Ohio, has since 1994 given a presentation on "Cults, the Occult and Deviant Behavior" to various police precincts in over ten states. A similar example from his hometwon of Ohio, 1987, is when John Fryman invited Monica Lemen into his trailer which contained a Satanic alter and dismembered her body. Now granted, in this case Fryman acted alone, and was poor Monica Lemen a "random person off the street?" I don't know and I don't wish to argue semantics; to me, this is religious ritual abuse, to the point that a presumably secular (but in theory probably not %100 so) law enforcement agency has developed entire programs to teaching junior and senior officers how to deal with and recognize RRA and RRA-inspired crimes.

Sorry if you feel I've been unclear; I've stated my point several times in the thread, but here it is again from a few comments back, considerably expanded and modified to reflect usage of the new, non-denominational RRA (religious ritual abuse):

Earlier someone said,

The idea that religious groups take random people off the streets for their sacrifices does not square with our knowledge of the history of religion.

Discussing the history of religion, archaeologists have discovered the remains of dozens of children sacrificed to Tlaloc during the Tenochtitlan offerings, with others going to Ehécatl and the more-known Quetzalcóatl. Northern Peruvians such as the Early Chimu regularly practiced religiously motivated human sacrifice. While Livy and Polybius remain silent, Tertullian, Plutarch, Orosius and Diodorus Siculus all mention the practice of child sacrifice in Carthage, with some accounts as detailed as to describe the horrific method of roasting some poor kid on a bronze plate. Religiously motivated human sacrifice (as well as rape, murder, torture, etc.) has occurred throughout history, and not all of its victims were volunteers. Some of them were chosen at random.

Religiously motivated individuals and groups have participated in RRA in the name of myriad deities throughout history. As of today, evidence that there is an underground cabal which abuses and kills people in rituals to Deity X, Y or Z appears speculative and erroroneous. However, that nobody abuses and kills people in rituals to Deity X, Y or Z is equally erroroneous; that zero or negligible instances of RRA occur is a dangerous misperception. Several occur annually in states across the country. Livestock, pets and property are victimized in RRA-related activities as well. Nonetheless, obsessing over RRA and persisting in witchhunt mentalities is unhealthy for us all. Since some religiously-motivated people still participate in abuse and sacrifice for ritualistic reasons, completely denying RRA is equally unhealthy and can possibly blur the efforts of legitimate law enforcement agencies.

Although, to be perfectly honest with you I would make some reservations about "ritual abuse" in which any particular belief system is involved (Satanic, Christian or otherwise) for the purpose of avoiding overgeneralization..

Good point. We should just roll with RRA (religious ritual abuse) and that way there's no denomination hook or inference to isolate, offend, enrage, panic, etc.

Yes, Christopher, I would call that Christian / clergy / church ritual abuse (CRA). 100%, no question about it. And if you really wanna tango, I think psychological and physical CRA occurs in pulpits and schools across America very often, to a FAR greater extent than all instances of SRA combined. In fact, I think Christians, atheists, the general populace and especially the IRS should be far more worried about CSA than SRA.

Well, I'll admit that you're consistant - most believers I know would dismiss the lunatic involved as not being a "True Christian" (TM) or that "the devil made him do it" or some other such defense.

Although, to be perfectly honest with you I would make some reservations about "ritual abuse" in which any particular belief system is involved (Satanic, Christian or otherwise) for the purpose of avoiding overgeneralization - in the scenario I proposed I pulled sacrifice ritual in question right out of the scriptures used by those in Judeo-Christian faiths (you can argue all you want about the NT "redeeming you from the curse of the law" and what not all you wish - those rituals are still in your scripture and thus fair game) and thus consdier it valid Christian Ritual Abuse in light of those pre-existing doctrines, whilst such sacrifice rituals don't exist at all in the doctrines of any major Satanic churches (theistic or otherwise) and thus the reason I don't consider the accusations of Satanic Ritual Abuse valid.

Now, if some one started making accusations of "Satanic Hatred Rituals" or something to that effect I would be inclined to take them somewhat more seriously - as such rituals involving the symbolic dissmemberment and burning of enemies actually do exist in their doctrines. Of course, to my knowledge no one is accusing them of promoting "hate" through their rituals...

Thank you for the information about the Pahler case. I was unaware of any Satanic murders. I was surprised that there was one but, on second thought, I should have realized that some crazies would kill for Satan.

I think the problem in this thread is that your first few posts seemed to imply that SRA occurred in such a number that Satanists are something we should worry about. It was not stated but I (and others) assumed it from the tone. After reading your later posts, I am not sure what you think. If you clarify your views, I think the debate would be meaningful.

Do you think Satanists are a significant issue? Roughly, how many murders do think Satanists commit in the name of their religion per year?

Thanks,

Curtis

You said that I,

...decry the panic and damage of the witchhunts, and then say that we do have to stay on guard. What I keep asking you is, on guard against what? And you avoided my question.

I did and do decry the panic and damage of the witchhunts; however, please quote me directly to support your allegation I said we have to "stay on guard." Those words are your interpretation of something else I said. Not trying to condescend here, but it would strengthen your debating style if in every instance you would respond to your opponent's direct words rather than your interpretations of them.

As far as "keep asking," you asked once, and I didn't "avoid" your question - I didn't answer it simply because I have not suggested that anyone do anything, nor have I said we must "stay on guard."

And you also appear to contradict yourself. Above, you said correctly that I "decry the panic and damage of the witchhunts." Then, referring to the panic / hysteria / witchhunt mentality, you say,

You are trying to legitimize a dangerous attitude...

When in fact I decried said attitude.

You continue,

The point is not that Satanism is harmless, the point is that you have not presented any reason to single out a group of people and ominously hint that they could be a danger to our children

That's because I don't think people should ever tar a group with the stain of that group's individual members' iniquities. Do you?

Moving on,

I prefer the middle path and try to avoid extremes and false dichotomies as much as possible. Here's my argument summarized:

Religiously motivated individuals and groups have participated in ritual abuse and sacrifice in the name of myriad deities. Undeniable fact of history.

As of today, that there is an underground cabal which abuses and kills people in rituals to Deity X, Y or Z appears speculative and erroroneous.

That nobody abuses and kills people in rituals to Deity X, Y or Z is equally erroroneous.

Since it appears there is no cabal, obsessing over SRA is unhealthy for us all. Since some religiously-motivated people still participate in abuse and sacrifice for ritualistic reasons, completely denying SRA is equally unhealthy.

That's my argument. No more, no less.

I don't give a damn about Satanists--they're idiots, and I'm sure a fair number of them are seriously messed up.

And you say I'm being inflammatory??

...stop enabling the witchhunt.

Really?

I'll return to sift through the pertinence of your last comment to my position, but the short reply is you're putting quite a bit into my words that I've not said.

bbk,

Hat tip for the slight backup here, and when I have time I would like to add something to your last comment, which almost 100% agree with.

Christopher,

Since your comment is succinct and straight-forward, and does not put words in my mouth that I did not say or even imply, I'll answer it first and quickly:

...if the defendants sacrificed the girl to the biblical Yaweh/El (there is biblical precident for this - see the story of Jephthah's daughter) would you call it "Christian Ritual Abuse?" I strongly doubt it...

Yes, Christopher, I would call that Christian / clergy / church ritual abuse (CRA). 100%, no question about it. And if you really wanna tango, I think psychological and physical CRA occurs in pulpits and schools across America very often, to a FAR greater extent than all instances of SRA combined. In fact, I think Christians, atheists, the general populace and especially the IRS should be far more worried about CSA than SRA.

Now let me ask you a potentially revealing question: Why did you doubt I would label a clergy killing as CRA?

I'd say that there is more of that in Christianity than there is in Satanism. And where it would/could occur in Satanism, I'd probably say that the SRA is CRA since theistic Satanism is typically a denomination of Christianity. And anyway, what's the difference between Christians torturing someone because they want to get Satan out and Satanists torturing someone because they want to put Satan in? Isn't it SRA in either case, since it somehow relates to Satan?

No offense, but who are you to deny the defendants' expressed intent?

Tell me, if the defendants sacrificed the girl to the biblical Yaweh/El (there is biblical precident for this - see the story of Jephthah's daughter) would you call it "Christian Ritual Abuse?" I strongly doubt it...

Here's the deal though - I came here and read this article. I liked it and agreed with it, a fact I stated right off the bat. My concern was that, to me, it seemed Ebonmuse was possibly taking the opposite extreme on the issue - that zero instances of SRA exist. I wanted to know if he really believed that zero people got sacrificed in rituals in this country today; that was the impression I got.

Here's the deal, though. You keep acting as though people getting 'sacrificed in rituals' is something relevant and important in this debate.

Some people are insane, and do insane things. Like killing a girl ritualistically. This is terrible. But the ritual, although perhaps important to the killer and the psychiatrists, is...how can I put this? Not the point. When a killer carves crosses into his victim and claims that he killed to appease the God of Abraham, I don't start thinking that Christian ritualistic abuse needs to be addressed. It's a killer, with a twisted mind, using common and powerful symbols.

To paint individual murders as instances of the workings of an underground, organized cabal, is, of course, to misinform. Note that I've never once said the Pahler case represented the workings of an underground, organized cabal. Yes or no?

No. But you want to insist that just because there is no organized cabal, we can't say there are zero instances of Satanic ritual abuse! To which I keep replying: what is your point? That killers sometimes use Satanic imagery and rationalization? They also sometimes use Christian, or political, or new age woo.

Yes, I'm being insistent. Because I see what you are doing as inflamatory. You decry the panic and damage of the witchhunts, and then say that we do have to stay on guard. What I keep asking you is, on guard against what?

And you avoided my question. What are we supposed to be doing, with regards to 'Satanic' killings, that we don't do? What is different about them and what special attention to the Satanic part is necessary? If you don't think there is a cabal, what's the point of singling out these symbols, as opposed to the others that sick people use? What's the special danger in Satanic delusions, as opposed to other types?

But it would be an equal and opposite tragedy to think that since McMartin and other cases turned up zero evidence of a cabal, that nobody's children are in danger of being sacrificed and abused by religious groups in the name Deity X, Y, or Z.

That's all I'm saying, and I don't think it's that unreasonable.

Yes, it is.

You are trying to legitimize a dangerous attitude by claiming that because some killers are Satanists, or use Satanic imagery, this presents a special danger that needs special attention (even if there isn't actually an organization). What kind of attention, you leave carefully blank. Well, you don't want panic, but...

And in the light of the witchhunt atmosphere, that is irresponsible and unreasonable. Unless you have a reason why someone who chants to Satan as they kill indicates necessary action or attention on the part of society in ways that a killer who hates their mother or wears a clown suit doesn't, you are merely trying to give credibility to an unforgivable attitude of ignorance and harm: the idea we have to stay on guard against Satanists who might be a danger to our children.

It's like responding to an article saying that burning witches at the stake was terrible by pointing out that there were women who believed they were witches who sometimes poisoned people or did harm, so we can't drop the witchhunt entirely. It's inappropriate.

We do not need to connect ritual murder with Satanism in order to guard our children. I don't give a damn about Satanists--they're idiots, and I'm sure a fair number of them are seriously messed up. But I could say the same about several Christian sects. The point is not that Satanism is harmless, the point is that you have not presented any reason to single out a group of people and ominously hint that they could be a danger to our children--so watch out.

It is that attitude that is a danger. Either come up with a reason why Satanistic killings are unique and must be labelled and our children specially protected from them, or stop enabling the witchhunt.

Also, let's not forget that there are several varieties of Satanists. There are the theistic types which amount to just another denomination of Christianity. They're messed up people who go back and forth between Satanism and mainline Christianity and sometimes they do things like murder 15 year old girls to win Satan's favor for their garage bands.

Then there are atheistic Satanists who seem to have nothing at all to do with Satan other than having had adopted his namesake for promotional purposes. Why, given the behavior of theistic Satanists, would these people choose to make such an association? For mere shock value, I suppose. So if other people end up thinking that they're a bunch of evil bastards, it's because they had it coming to them. I personally think that they're doing as much as any group of atheists could do to foster misunderstanding about what atheism really is. At a time when there's a lot of criticism to be given to anti-theistic groups like the RRS, what about the Satanists who help fuel the stereotype that atheists are devil worshipers? It seems that the rest of us have to pay the price so that some tiny group of self righteous antisocial twits can promote themselves. Not my idea of a group I want to lend my support to.

In my last comment, I said,

...to deny ALL instances of SRA is to misinform.

and you responded, in a thinly-veiled accusational tone,

No. To paint individual murders as 'instances of SRA' is to misinform.

Here's the deal though - I came here and read this article. I liked it and agreed with it, a fact I stated right off the bat. My concern was that, to me, it seemed Ebonmuse was possibly taking the opposite extreme on the issue - that zero instances of SRA exist. I wanted to know if he really believed that zero people got sacrificed in rituals in this country today; that was the impression I got.

Reread my first comment:

While I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the McMartin case, it seems you've painted the issue as all-or-nothing when it's likely there is middle ground. Are you arguing that zero instances of Satanic ritual abuse actually take place? While I doubt the instances and victims of SRA are as high as some fanatics claim; I also doubt they are zero, and with good reason.

When I say "all-or-nothing" I mean the unreasonably high numbers alarmists cite vs. zero, which is equally unreasonable.

Yes, the context Ebonmuse is in refers to an "organized, underground cabal." I'm not alleging that such a thing exists. We were always in agreement on that point. I think you're possibly committed to a definition of SRA that requires an organized, underground cabal, whereas I'm not, and this is the source of the confusion.

To paint individual murders as instances of the workings of an underground, organized cabal, is, of course, to misinform. Note that I've never once said the Pahler case represented the workings of an underground, organized cabal. Yes or no?

I have said and still maintain that the Pahler case and many others like it are individual examples of Satanic ritual abuse. Three words. The Pahler case was "Satanic" because the defendants were professed Satanists. The Pahler case was "ritual" because the defendants admitted they wanted to perform a sacrifice to Satan in order to achieve musical prowess - a basic power or success ritual. The Pahler case was "abuse" for obvious reasons.

This whole mess started because after I asked Ebonmuse if he thought zero SRA occurred, Leum called me out with, "Got any legit cases of SRA?" or whatever. Not being a fan of strawman argumentation, I said "Gimme a definition to go by." Note that Leum's definition did not include an organized, underground cabal, and note that the case I provided matched the definition Leum provided, perfectly.

You've got some other questions / concerns going, too:

The kids in the case you brought up were prosecuted.

I know. Not only that, at least one of them confessed and all three were convicted.

No one ignored them because they said they were Satanists.

I know, and never alleged such.

Do you think the prosecutors found evidence of a group of Satanic worshippers acting with them and egging them on and society ignored it because everyone thought, 'hey, Satanism isn't a real danger. So I guess we won't bother with the Satanistic organization that taught these kids what to do.'

No, and I never alleged such. Interestingly, though, the widespread acceptance of the mistruth that zero instances of SRA occur could very easily allow such an attitude to develop.

Is there a McSRA's responsible for 50,000,000 served? Probably not. But it would be an equal and opposite tragedy to think that since McMartin and other cases turned up zero evidence of a cabal, that nobody's children are in danger of being sacrificed and abused by religious groups in the name Deity X, Y, or Z.

That's all I'm saying, and I don't think it's that unreasonable.