Conference hydra::dejavu

    Perhaps the availability of guns in the USA attracts the apocalyptic
    religious psychotic type. Also as there is freedom of religion they are
    all but immune from any form of restraint by the civil authorities.
    
    Jamie.

    RE: .0
    
    >>Is it an unfounded impression?
    
    Well, that depends. How many occurrences have there been in the last
    200 or so years in the states?
    
    >>If not, does anyone have a hypothesis why the US would be more prone
    to this sort of thing?
    
    Well, at the risk of being barraged with flames .... a judicial system
    that doesn't work the greatest (No, I do not have any ideas for a
    better one), the broken home syndrome, (since mommy and daddy couldn't
    make it, I'll make my own family and they will ALL love me), weapons
    are really super easy to get here, (Please, NRA do not dump on me,
    truth is truth, I didn't say it was right or wrong ... simply easy),
    and some people are just plain mentally indisposed.
    
    Blessed be,
    Janet
    

    I find it interesting that so many of the cults and demon-worship
    groups are found in the "Bible Belt."  I remember seeing a couple of
    specials on television in California that showed some of these cult
    groups and their activities up to and including murder.  What most
    (okay, let's be honest here...) what ALL of these groups had in common
    were that they were in the "Bible Belt" or other areas where a lot of
    the children had parents who were religious fanatics that yelled
    damnation and brimstone continuously.  The children went into
    adolescense (sp?) and got into groups that worshipped the devil and
    performed sacrifice.
    
    You here about small pockets of voodoo groups but in general, you don't
    find California riddled with these luny cult groups, nor New York, nor
    Detroit, nor Washington DC, nor Chicago.  No, they are usually out in
    BFE Indiana, or Texas, or some teeny tiny little town no one has ever
    heard of until something of this magnatude happens.
    
    Is it that the people were kept under such a tight religious rein that
    they went bananas?  Like the college kids who go off the deep end their
    freshman years because they had such strict households.
    
    Is it becuase people living in the little rinky-dink towns get bored? 
    Drugs?  Crazy?
    
    I know that a few people might take offense to my implication that it
    is geographically driven, but I've lived a lot of places in this
    country, and we never had anything like this in Florida.  You didn't
    turn on the television to find that a string of murders had been tied
    to some satanic worship group "holing up" in some little house in the
    middle of nowhere...
    
    It's very sad.
    
    I agree with the bit about gun control...but our lax justice system,
    our tendency to treat criminals better than the victims doesn't help
    either!
    
    

    
    RE:-1
    
         Excuse me the church of satan is located in San Francisco.  Also
    the Jones Town cult had it's temple in SF.
         There many violent religions in this world and they can't all 
    be traced to the USA or the "Bible Belt".
                                                         Gale A.
    
                                                          

    Re .3:
    
    My own arm-chair theorizing about geography is that the wide-open
    spaces of these states gives a lot more opportunity for isolation.
    It's a lot harder to build a private world in the middle of urban
    sprawl; it can certainly be done, but it has to depend a lot more
    heavily on powers of imagination and concentration, always in short
    supply.
    
    The only places in, say, New England where you could find similar
    isolation are in upstate Maine and Vermont.  And, low and behold, there
    IS at least one curious little cult-like group in Vermont (the name
    escapes me) that has had some run-ins with the state government because
    they don't want to their children be educated in public schools and
    have a hard time satisfying the state that the children are adequately
    educated at home.  Immunization came into it, too, I think.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Oh you don't need wide open spaces to have religious extremist cults
    setting up shop, even in Holland we have them. However they tend to all
    live in one area rather than a compound. One particular group hit the
    headlines, as they do every 10 years or so, when an epidemic of 
    poliomyelitis hit their children. Although the vaccine is available to
    prevent this disease, they do not believe in putting medicine into a
    healthy body. So their children are crippled, some die and they shrug
    it off as "God testing them".

    Jamie.

Yes, I know cults exist everywhere, but I think there's a qualitative
difference between cults which refuse education or modern medicine, and
those which have a messianic basis and may be inclined to mass suicide.
I somehow doubt that, for example, people like the Christian Scientists
(which may not fit the definition of "cult", here, anyway) would ever do that.

There was an interesting and, I believe, crucial point mentioned on one
radio program which helps to identify such cults: their members are
agressively isolated from society. That is, they live in an isolated
place, and the cult leaders know things that their followers don't,
depriving members of information and contact with the world. This is
most certainly not the case even with Scientologists, for example, and
not the case with the cults which Jamie described.

It's fairly easy to see how people who are totally deprived of external
contact, and relentlessly subjected to a psychotic's picture of the
world, could become dysfunctional to the point of mass suicide. My
question is: why does this seem more likely to happen in the US? There
are large enough spaces in Europe for this to occur (consider Findhorn,
for example), but it doesn't seem to.

    Re .7

    >There was an interesting and, I believe, crucial point mentioned on
    >one radio program which helps to identify such cults: their members are
    >agressively isolated from society. That is, they live in an isolated
    >place, and the cult leaders know things that their followers don't,
    >depriving members of information and contact with the world. This is
    >most certainly not the case even with Scientologists, for example, and
    >not the case with the cults which Jamie described.

    Ah well, yes and no. There are certain parts of the country where they
    live and no outsiders do. They come into contact with their own kind
    all the time and seldom meet outsiders. Their beliefs are thus
    reinforced and thus seldom questioned, and their leaders are very much
    their absolute rulers.

    Jamie.

Well, that would certainly render them more susceptible to such
behavior. However, again, the critical difference seems to be: are
these people free to make contact with outsiders if they want?

    It is discouraged, their leaders are their spokesmen and are always
    present when they media are there.

    Jamie.

    IMO, there's a little more to it than just forced isolation with a
    'psychotic.'  The boundary control processes that occur between extremist 
    groups and the larger social world are as Mike said, both psychological
    and physical.  It can sometimes be very subtle.  There is in some
    cases more direct restraint or coercion going on, but much of the
    time, isolation becomes an accepted part of the subculture.  
    
    Marc Galanter carefully studied charismatic groups of various types for 
    many years and made some interesting observations, such as that the 
    apparent 'glassy eyed stare' sometimes associated with members of certain 
    cults might serve a purpose in helping to socially isolate cult members 
    while they are in physical contact with non-members.
    
    Galanter also had some tragically accurate things to say several
    years ago about what happens in terms of group dynamics when
    a charismatic group becomes physically isolated as well as 
    psychologically alienated, and pressure is brought to bear on their
    sense of identity and group boundaries, such as happens when
    authorities attempt to confront them in various ways.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    One theory of mine that doesn't appear to have been mentioned yet as to
    why this sort of thing doesn't happen in Europe (at least not on the
    scale of the American episodes) is that European culture is much, much
    older, and religions such as Catholicism are centuries old. These are
    'in-bred' into us at all times, with churches and cathedrals on every
    corner. The 'standard' religions are so widespread and so ingrained
    into our culture that people are less inclined to search elsewhere.
    
    Americans are also bombarded with so much choice at every turn. They
    are generally more diverse, which I guess has a lot to do with the size
    of the country, and there is no 'set' religion in America as in say,
    Italy (Catholicism) or Britian (Church of England). Having said all
    that, 24 of the 88 that died at Waco were English, so maybe I'm talking
    rubbish! 
    
    Europe is so much older than America, culture wise. I'm sure that has a
    lot to do with it.
    
    Ian

    It's true that the U.S. is historically on the 'leading edge' of
    unusual religious pheomena, but it is not limited to the U.S. or
    _purely_ a cultural artifact by any means.  Such things seem to
    thrive here for a number of reasons.  
    
    E.g., Mesmerism began in Europe, but gained particular force in religious
    variants in the U.S., including mind cure, Christian Science, and some
    forms of revivalist faith healing.
    
    Spiritualist movements sometimes began in Europe or other places outside 
    the U.S., and then took on a unique form on being transplanted to the U.S..
    
    Is the unique U.S. expression of religious movements related to the
    appearance of extremist cults, or is it a completely different
    phenomena ?  What is the dividing line between a cult in an urban
    environment and one in open spaces ?   Do we consider the MOVE
    situation in Philadelphia a few years back a cult in the same sense as 
    Koresh ?   
    
    							todd
    
    							todd

    Is the VINEYARD considered a church or a cult???  

    
    Webster's 2nd New Riverside University Dictionary defines a cult as: n.
    1. A system of religious worship.
    
    By this definition, ANY religious group may be considered a cult.  What
    kind of position would the people of the Catholic faith take if they
    were refered to as a "CULT"?  Or how about the Mormons?  Can you see
    somebody remarking, "Oh, they belong to that Jewish cult!"
    
    The word "CULT" has somehow became the verbal gesture symbolizing that
    a group of people are about a half a bubble off plumb! 
    
    But isn't it really just a matter of size and wealth?  
    
      Person 1:  "Hello!  I am a member of the Frizbee-ites!  We beleive
                  that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you
                  can't get it down!  [Smile]"
    
      Person 2: (Thinking to themself) "Another one of those nutsy-coocoo
                 CULTS!!"
    
      Person 1: "We have over 3 bazillion members and own a whole bunch of
                 medium size countries!"
    
      Person 2: "Sounds like a respectable religion!  Tell me more!"
    
    
    At this point I pose this question:
    
    Aren't "MOST" cults just a respectable religion that hasn't had a
    chance to grow yet?
    
    
    What if in Italy at the beginning of Catholicism people gathered around
    and shouted Hindu chants and played rock music and started knocking
    down the walls and a fire broke out and, well, you know the rest.
    
    I'm not defending David Koresh and his followers.  And the mishaps of
    what took place in Waco are definitely a subject of protracted
    dicussion.  But if people start going after every small group that
    comes along as if they were nut cases, a lot of decent worshippers may
    never get the chance to become a good healthy religion.
    
    It's definitely something to think about.
    
    Well, I've said my piece for now.
    
    
                     Dave
    
    
    

    AP 04/25 23:11 EDT V0820

    Copyright 1993. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. 

    WACO, Texas (AP) -- Cult leader David Koresh's brother-in-law, David
    Jones, was the first victim identified from the fire that devastated
    the religious group's compound last week, authorities said Sunday.  

    Jones, 38, was killed by a gunshot blast to the right side of his face,
    said David Pareya, a McLennan County justice of the peace.  

    Court records had earlier identified Jones as the mailman who notified
    Koresh that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was preparing
    to raid the site. Jones, 5-foot-11 and 155 pounds, was the brother of
    Koresh's wife, Rachel Jones. She, her three children, and her father
    also were believed to be among the victims of the fire.  

    "Yes, I already know. I have no comment," said Mary Jones, the victim's
    mother.  

    Investigators said they determined it was Jones by matching
    fingerprints and dental records.  

    Pareya declined to speculate whether Jones' frail physique could be
    attributed to the conditions inside the compound during the cult's
    51-day standoff with federal authorities.  

    He could not detail the caliber of the bullet or the angle it entered.
    Pareya said the corpse was found atop a cinderblock structure where
    Koresh stashed much of his ammunition.  

    Investigators expect Jones' identity to be the first of many. They said
    Sunday they're confident they'll match names with 43 other corpses.  

    "They have a 90 percent probability of identifying the people that have
    been recovered," Pareya said.  

    Four more bodies have been located and are expected to be sent to
    medical examiners Monday. As many as 86 people were believed to have
    died in the fire April 19. They had been holed up after a Feb. 28
    shootout that killed four federal agents. 

    re: .15,
    	Yes, you're right, it's not as simple as labelling a small
    	group of people as lunatics.  Cults, in the pejorative sense,
    	probably are as you suggest an expression of a general religious 
    	impulse.
    
    	The implications are not at all captured as a matters of size and 
    	wealth.  Those are concomittant factors, I think.  There are also
    	considerations of small group religious experience in general
    	being much more intensely communal and interpersonal, there's
    	a matter of charismatic leadership of a small group, there's
    	forms of isolation possible for a small group that cannot occur
    	for a mainstream religion as a whole, and so on.
    
    	You could say, using the common pejorative connotations,
    	that a particular subgroup of Jews is a 'cult,' but not the
    	religion itself.  
    
    	There's a generic definition (which you provided) which seems to
    	be relatively archaic in practice (!), a specialized definition within 
    	sociology (which I provided a month or so ago in some related note 
    	here), which is used mainly in the literature of that field; and a 
    	common usage definition, which is pejorative, connotating 'a bunch of 
    	extremists or lunatics somehow involved in religion.'  
    
    >Aren't "MOST" cults just a respectable religion that hasn't had a
>    chance to grow yet?
    
    Going back to sociology, this is a fairly consistent finding,
    that small group personal religious experience can become
    institutionalized and grow into established religions.  Many argue
    (perhaps most eloquently, William James, a founder of modern
    psychology) that the personal religious experience is really transformed
    by this institutionallization, and this is believed by some to be
    the impetus for new cults, and further, new denominations.
    
    A classic example often given is the Methodists, which started out
    as a small highly charismatic group and evolved into an established
    denomination, many of the characteristic practices changing
    significantly during this evolution.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    I think it's the other way around:  Respectable religions are just
    silly cults that have become so familiar that we don't think of
    laughing at them.  (Think of "table manners" instead of "religions"
    if you want to think about this non-judgmentally.)
    
    		*		*		*		*
    
    "He could not detail the caliber of the bullet ...."
    
    I'm not surprised; shotguns don't normally use bullets.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    
    	Is it me, or has anyone else noticed that there were supposed
    	to be as many as 86 people held up in the compound.  40+ bodies,
    	were recovered, and there are underground bunkers...
    	
    	If you think back to the beliefs of Charles Manson, The "Blackies"
    	were going to rise up against the "Whities", but Manson felt the
    	"Blackies" needed someone to show them what to do.  He felt that
    	himself, and his "family" would hide in the "pit", and when the
    	"Blackies" had risen up against the "Whities" and won, then he and
    	his family would emerge from the "pit" and be the rulers of the
    	the world.
    
    	Although I don't believe David Koresh to be racially motivated,
    	the fact that they have only recoverd approximately half of the
    	bodies expected and there are known bunkers and maybe some unknown,
    	Who wants to bet that Koresh, after hiding in one of the bunkers,
    	"emerges from the pit" to claim the second resurrection of Christ.
    
    	Just my 2 cents...
    
    
    	kath

    When I was first reading the responses about the differences, or
    rather, subtle lack of, between religions and cults I wanted to argue
    that a lot of those people, particularly the children, were held
    against their will.  I started to think of Guyana (sp?) and those
    children who died with no choice given to them...
    
    I started to realize that all the religions of the world do the same
    thing...
    
    The children that are raised Jewish or Catholic by their parents were
    given no choices.  The choice of their religions and their beliefs were
    chosen for them.
    
    If I look at it that way, then I see even fewer differences between
    cults and religions.
    
    I was told when I was quite young that although I had a mother and
    father, God made me, God made the world, etc etc.  As I got older I was
    further instructed on the Catholic religious beliefs, and when I got
    even older I was taught how other people didn't think as we did.
    
    When I got into the Catholic school it was played out that all those
    other religions were just misguided and it was my role as a member of
    this church to go out and spread our beliefs and get more people into
    our way.  I remember talking to my friend when we were about seven and
    telling her about God, etc etc
    
    I remember feeling pretty good because then I would get the approval of
    my church...which was important to me at that time.
    
    Sure enough, my friend got involved with a church, and although it
    wasn't mine, I remember feeling as if I'd done what I was supposed to
    do...
    
    As I got older I began to question a lot of the teachings, the dogma,
    the beliefs.  I remember being ridiculed, being told I was bad, being
    told all sorts of things when I questioned.  That also reminds me of
    the cults.  The members who might question often end up being punished
    for what they do.
    
    It's kind of disturbing to look at cults and religions being so
    similarm but it seems like the religions are just cults that  have been
    "socially accepted."
    
    hmmmmmmmmmmm
    
    

    
>         Excuse me the church of satan is located in San Francisco.  Also
>    the Jones Town cult had it's temple in SF.
    
Re. 4    
 
    Now I know where to store my NITRO ....
    Why do people join these cults.. I guess people seem to use 
    religion as an excuse to acted out their fantasies or nightmares... 
    
    Regards,
    
    -R-
    

    Re .21

    >Why do people join these cults..

    This in itself is an interesting study. It appears that they tend to
    recruit people who are sort of, directionless. In that they have no
    firm commitments in life. Now depending on the cult determines the
    method of indoctrination, some with apparent love, others with
    confusion. But once in you are not allowed to leave easily.

    I have met several people who have escaped cults, some Christian others
    were not. But there is a great similarity in their stories. On entry
    individual thinking and asking questions were discouraged. In the
    Christian ones, the pitying, knowing smile was used to ward of
    questions. The others used different methods which also tended to imply
    that, by questioning things you proved that you were not yet far enough
    along the path of knowledge to understand the answers even if you were
    given them.

    All the ones that I spoke to managed to come to their senses and get
    out. One had to secretly move to a new address to get clear of them.
    All were pursued and strenuous attempts were made to get them back. Dire
    threats of spending eternity burning in hell were readily brandied
    about and in some cases physical damage to property mysteriously
    happened.

    They uniformly seem to be left with some emotional scars, one for
    example will cross the road to avoid passing members of the cult,
    despite the fact that he was not a member of the cult in this country.

    For myself I avoid them like I would a rabid dog. Ron L Hubbert's mob
    have a personality testing station in Amsterdam and occasionally offer
    me a test, they catch the rough edge of my tongue as do the Jehovah's
    Witnesses when they come a calling pretending to be a Bible reading
    group.

    Jamie.
          

    	Eric Hoffer's _The_True_Believer_ is often cited as an interesting
    	(non-technical) description of the psychology and sociology
    	of religious fanaticism.
    
    	I don't agree with all of his views, but I agree that it makes
    	fascinating reading, and I recommend it to anyone attracted to
    	the topic.  He argues for a particular personality
    	type of sorts that is prone to seek out things to believe
    	strongly in, and describes various aspects of the personal
    	and interpersonal dynamics that arise from people of this
    	type getting together into groups, or becoming part of
    	social movements.
    
    					kind regards,
    
    					todd

    Disallow questions and threaten you with eternal damnation if you
    leave????  Sounds like the catholic grade school I went to.  I was told
    that asking questions showed tht my faith waqs week, and I should pray
    more (the nuns never answered ANY questions).   If I persisted, they
    would send me to the priest, to be streightend out.  Actually, the
    priests were well educated and would actually answer questions and/or
    allow discussion.
    
    When I was in 6th grade, my grandmother died.  She was not catholic.
    When I returned to school (we had to travel, so I was out several days)
    after the funeral, the nun ask if the funeral mass was nice.  I told
    her
    that gramdma was not catholic and she went balistic.  She told me I
    should not have attended the funeral.  Then she told me that I would
    never meet grandma in heaven because she was not of the true faith.
    
    Now by 6th grade I was thinking and speaking for myself (not as
    obnoxious as I am now, but well on my way).  I told her that my
    grandmother was a kind and gentle person who lived a faultless life,
    and if she didn't make it to heaven, it was a sure thing that most of
    the nuns I knew would not.  I missed a few more days of school while my
    ever supportive mother got me reinstated.
    
    I now live a much happier life as a pagan (funny thing, my grandmothers
    maiden name was Pagan).  I guess I can be counted as someone who
    escaped a cult.  Most of my family is still catholic, so I am not anti
    catholic, just anti ignorance.
    
    NOTE - all you catholics out there.  I know the church has changed a
    lot, and that the group I grew up with was not representative of the
    modern church, or so I am told.
    
    Blessed Be/Judy
      
    

    
    
                     <<< Note 1830.24 by CAADC::BABCOCK >>>
                          -< cult?? sounds familiar >-
    
    
         Judy,
              This is simular to the point I was trying to make in .15 and
    also to the note in .20 (At least in my eyes.)  I'm glad to see I'm not
    the only one who has noticed a certain level of ignorance around the
    world.  I don't have an anecdote to share on a religious experience.  I
    was very fortunate (In my opinion) to have parents that didn't force me
    into any religion and let me make my own choices.  By the time I was
    eight years old I had explored about five different religions.  If I
    were to classify myself today, which I hate doing, I would have to say
    that I am closest to being agnostic. (And I use the word loosely!)
    
        I don't see anything wrong with people having religious beliefs as
    long as it helps them attain and/or maintain a comfortable existense
    and it's by their choice.  If it is forced on them in such a manner that
    could be considered "brainwashing" then I cringe!!  But then, you don't
    brainwash children, you teach them, right?
    
    	The discussion of religion in general, I'm sure, is a protracted
    subject of another notes file so I think I'll end this here. ;^)
    
    D.
    
   P.S.
  }}  NOTE - all you catholics out there.  I know the church has changed a
  }}  lot, and that the group I grew up with was not representative of the
  }}  modern church, or so I am told.
    
    Are we trying to head somebody off at the pass here? <Big Grin>
    
    

    re: .25,
>    and it's by their choice.  If it is forced on them in such a manner that
>    could be considered "brainwashing" then I cringe!!  But then, you don't
>    brainwash children, you teach them, right?
    
    	This is a subject of great interest to me.
    	How exactly would you recognize 'brainwashing,'
    	and a 'brainwashed person' ?
    
    	(As opposed, for example, to 'consistency in upbringing' and
    	'strong convictions').  
    
    	Is it a matter of going to some extreme
    	in the normal socialization process , or a different kind of 
    	upbringing entirely ?
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    To  me brainwashing is when it is all-inclusive...the person in
    question, whether it be a child or an adult, is not allowed to think
    freely for themselves...they are force-fed a belief and taught that
    that belief is the only belief, the true belief.  
    
    This is another argument for why religion is similar to cults...because
    Jews think they are the chosen people, the only ones who will be saved. 
    Catholics think they are the only ones who will ever get into heaven
    because they believe in Jesus Christ, (that eliminates any Jews from
    getting in, according to them), and there are several religions that
    are out there spreading the word that if people join them and believe
    like them, then they too will be saved.  They profess that their way is
    the only way. 
    
    Those groups do not allow for questioning.  They often do not allow for
    free-thinking.  To me, this is brainwashing.
    
    I also went to Catholic school and I was "programmed" very heavily to
    their way of thinking.  But I always had a mind of my own, and I always
    questioned.  In their eyes I was a deviant because of this.
    
    To me if they feel threatened by questions to the point of eliminating
    the questioner or punishing them, that also supports cult like and
    brainwashing atmospheres.
    
    The fact that the members are allowed no free choice makes me feel it
    is brainwashing.
    
    Often times the members are in no position to fight this on their own
    because they are either too young to know the difference, or they are
    confused and searching for an answer so desperately that they swallow
    everything they are told as truth.  
    
    

It seems like other people are getting to discuss this, so I'll try. Any 
other time in this notes ocnference when I said anything negative about 
the Catholic Church...

For me, it was like brain-washing. I was not allowed to question. My 
parents were born in Italy and are strict, old-fashioned Roman Catholic 
and to them, there just is NO OTHER WAY, and EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG! That 
is the way that I was raised. Jews were really bad, as well as 
Protestants. All of these people were going to Hell, because they were 
wrong. I wasn't allowed to question anything. If I did, I sinned. I had 
the problem, not the Church. 
	I've gone through a lot of hatred in the last few years of the CC 
but I am moving away from that now. Most of their teachings I find 
riducolous but that is me. Everyone must find their own path, their own 
truth. To interfere with another is violating Cause and Effect. What 
doesn't work for me, may work for my parents or for someone else. For me, 
I believe that Christianity may have started off in the begining with 
truths but lost them as well as losing their mystical traditions. For me, 
that is the most important part of my spirituality, mysticism, direct 
communication with the spirits, the Great Spirit. Mathew Fox talks about 
a monk that he always quotes sayind something like "If Christianity does 
not re-find and get back to it's mystical roots, it might as well close 
up shop and go home." It is now far removed from that. We all at one 
time, had an earth based spirituality with no middle men. We had mystical 
experiences, we communicated with the the Spirits, Great Spirit directly. 
Many of us are returning to that because that is what we feel in our 
hearts. We feel a pull to return to these ways. These ways involve direct 
experience. There is a huge difference between Belief and Knowing. 
Someone telling me something or something I believe is just a belief 
until I directly experience it and it becomes Knowing. Many of the things 
I involve myself with now involve Knowing, finding Truth for myself. 

As for cults, perhaps more and more people are getting disillusioned with 
this "modern" life, but instead of trusting their hearts and their own 
inner knowing, they give their power over to someone else. Some of these 
people are very powerfull and really draw people in, but they are working 
aggainst Cause and Effect. We are all spiritual beings trying to become 
human beings. We are all trying to learn and we all need to do that for 
ourselves. These powerfull people interfere with this learning 
experience, saying this is the only way, but it catches up with them 
before long.

Just my 2 cents,
Sam

Re .27:

I think you may be misinformed about the exclusivity of some religions.

    "Jews think they are the chosen people, the only ones who will be saved."

The Christian concept of salvation doesn't really map neatly into Judiasm.
In any case, as I understand Jewish thought on the matter (or *some* Jewish 
thought -- Jewish thought is even less monolithic than Christian thought, if 
possible), righteous gentiles can look forward to just as happy a fate in the 
World to Come as righteous Jews.  Jews are not specially chosen for salvation,
but specially chosen to be the bearers and keepers of the Law. 

   "Catholics think they are the only ones who will ever get into heaven"

Things have changed since Vatican II.  The Catholic church does not teach that 
only Catholics go to Heaven, or so I understand from reading through the 
conference Lyceum::Catholic-Theology, under topic 216.

   "Those groups do not allow for questioning.  They often do not allow for
    free-thinking."

I find that a very strange description applied to Judaism.  The Catholic 
church is much more uniform, but it has plenty of dissent within it, too.

Earl Wajenberg

    re: .27,
    	Hasn't anyone ever posessed a fervent belief 
    	without having been 'brainwashed' ?
    
    						todd

    >"enlightened yet repulsive"
    
    What qualities do you find repulsive in people, Mike?
    

	"new age satanic crowd" ??  
	
	^ ^
	0 0
	 c
	 O

    Yes you get all sorts in here.
    
    Jamie.

    We haven't had an interesting satanism discussion in any of these 
    conferences since Mikey? Morgan left us.
    
    <sniff>
    
    							todd

      EARRTH::MMERCIER     
        
    >  I do find most people repulsive however, 
      >specially the new age
      >satanic crowd that is all hunky dunky happy about those that 
      >do in anything resembeling a Christian or Catholic religious 
      >organization.
    
      That is rather repulsive... isn't it.. 
    
      But they weren't the ones who laid seige to Waco, Mike.
    
    >  That header is all that remained of a brilliantly vicious shot 
    >  across their bow over the trash in this entry; and I only made it
    >  to the .3 note.   And theres even gunphobes here...  Almost too
    >  good to be true. 
    > You would have been proud; ifin I get time I will re-write the
    >  message, tho it will be better, cuz I have hade time to think it 
    >  out a bit more.
    
    I'm looking forward to reading it.
    
    >  Where's your header...? You come down or sumthin...
    
    s'a long story.... 

    This one is beginning to sound er, interesting. Shall I get the pop
    corn?

    Jamie.

    My 2 cents;
    
    	Ok.  I was raised the Irish Catholic Girl.  My mother still goes
    	to Bible study 3 times a week.  My father still wears a suit and
    	tie on Sunday.  My cousin Terence was ordained a Priest four years
    	ago after 10 years of studying theology.
    
    	I was forced (as were my 4 brothers and 3 sisters) to go to church
    	every Sunday and Holy day.  We visited La Salette twice a year. 
    	My parents both go on retreat several times a year.  And my Dad has
    	collected for the Bishops Fund every year for as long as I can 
    	remember.
    
    	BUT - I in no sense feel I was "Brainwashed".
    
    	How does a child know what religion even "is" until taught?
    	At some point someone has to teach you something of some religion
    	for you to make any choice.
    
    	At Batism, my God Parents made the choice to teach me about
    	being Catholic, standing in front of the church to say they
    	will take responsibility to make sure I was taught Catholic.
    	If my parents couldn't teach me for whatever reason, they 
    	would take over.  
    
    	I then was taught.  In my teenage years, I was given a CHOICE.
    	At Confirmation time, I CHOOSE to say; Yes, I believe what I've
    	been taught and I want to be Catholic.  OR I CHOOSE to say; No,
    	I have questions, and I'm not sure if I want to be Catholic.
    	
    	I'm then either Confirmed or not.  MY CHOICE.
    
    	So if you don't mind, please stop talking about religion in
    	such a GENERAL sense.  There is no GENERAL way to discuss
    	ANY religion.  Whether the religion is Jewish, Catholic, 
    	Protestant, Witchcraft, etc. there is no general way to discuss
    	any of them.
    
    	I also have my Catholic School Horror stories.  But I don't
    	judge my entire religion based on some mis-guided nuns.

    One thing is clear through this whole thing...we all have our own
    beliefs based on our own personal experiences.
    
    I've heard the Catholic church has changed...not St. Valentine's, among
    others...
    
    My mother, step-father, some co-workers and myself can all share the
    Catholic school horror stories and we all went at different times.
    
    What I feel is my opinion.  I do not put it in here to get people angry
    or to offend, but one always runs a risk when talking about religion
    which so many people hold so dear...
    You had a good point .40 when you said that at Confirmation you were
    given a choice...
    
    Nice...I was told, "You are going to be Confirmed," and there was never
    any question about it...
    
    so some get choices, some don't...
    
    

    >>Nice...I was told, "You are going to be Confirmed," and there was
    >>never any question about it...
    
    >>so some get choices, some don't...
    
    	The last thing the Bishop asks the Confirmation group before
    	he begins the ceremony is for anyone who does not wish to be
    	confirmed to stand.  The choice was not given to me by my parents
    	but by the church.
    
    	Granted, with parents, relatives and the congregation looking 
    	on, its a hard thing to do, but my brother Martin did it and
    	then decided 2 years later that he did want to be confirmed and
    	he was.
    
    	As a matter of fact, after Martin stood, the Bishop then ask him
    	to please stay and enjoy the ceremony.  He gave a quick homily 
    	regarding choice and also reinforced to the congregation that 
    	Martin did the right thing if he felt he was not ready or had
    	questions.  
    
    	The Bishop also talked to my parents on the side to ensure that
    	Martin's decision was not going to make his home life unbearable.
    
    	Martin continued to go to church and, as I said, was confirmed 
    	2 years later, when he felt that was what he wanted.
    
    	My cousin (the Priest), descibes it this way;
    	
    	"The question of whether or not to be confirmed is personal. 
    	 You must believe in your decision.  But most who do not want
    	 to be confirmed, will do it anyway and never say anything.
    	 The choice is there, but they look at it not as a choice of
    	 confirmed or not confirmed, but a choice of make waves or not
    	 make waves."
    
    	Either way, you did have a choice.
    
    	regards,
    
    	kath
    

    Hard thing for a 12 year old to do... is the age still 12?

    Yes, the age is still 12, and had I stood up, I think I would have been
    excommunicated from my family!
    
    They are very very strict Catholics (most of them...) and it was put
    into my head since I was about six...
    
    "First you make Holy Communion, then you make Confession, then you make
     Confirmation.  Every Easter you renew your Baptismal vows.  Someday
    you will either get married or enter the church, and you may receive
    the sacriment of the Sick and the Dying."
    
    I went to church every single Sunday, every holy day, and most days
    during school, including every First Friday.
    
    For a twelve year old to feel that they have the choice after they had
    been told implicitly for the last six years of their life, is unlikely.
    
    The Bishop in my ceremony did NOT ask if anyone felt they weren't
    ready.  Believe me, I would have remembered that!
    
    I am amazed to hear that story...it's nice that your brother had the
    courage to do it...
    
    
    

    Sunday I attended my neice's confirmation.  She is 16.  Most of the 
    group was around that age, some were seniors in HS.  They were old
    enough to make choises and during the year that they spent in
    preparation (community service, retreats, classes...) they could choose
    to drop out.  No one twisted their arms (much..  there is always family
    expectations and peer presure).  Louisa knew what she was doing and did
    it by choise.  I was happy for her.  Their parish is very active.  They
    make religion part of life.  I can understand why my brothers family is
    happy with their faith and their church.  It is very different from the
    church I grew up in.
    
    I accept and respect their catholicism (?SP) and they accept and love
    me even if I am a pagan and a few tunes short of a hymnal.
    
    Why is my brother not as damaged by the church we grew up in as I am???
    Simple... he is a boy.  It was holy and god like to be male, and a 
    sin to be female (remember Eve).  Oh well...  that's all holy water
    under the bridge.
    
    Judy
    

    I'm a few tunes short of a hymnal myself... :-)  

    Well, I just have to jump in on this one..
    
    I never had a choice as to whether or not to be confirmed. My Dad had
    converted to Catholic when I was pretty young, and we all went to
    church every Sunday, I recieved Confession, Communion as everyone else
    does. 
    
    Then came the year of my confirmation. I was not a happy camper during
    this year, as my CCD instructor was ramming this stuff down my throat,
    and I wasn't really buying into all she said. 
    
    No choice was ever mentioned. You just DID it! Period. End of
    discussion. I'm positive the Bishop never asked if anyone felt they
    weren't ready, because I would have been on my feet in a heartbeat.
    Family or no family!
    
    I'm glad to hear though that some churches DO give the option of being
    confirmed at that time, or at a later date, or never if that is the
    choice. 
    
    BTW, the Bishop gave me a fat lip when I kissed his ring! :-( Not a
    good ending to a harrowing (for me) day! ;-)
    
    FWIW,
    
    Y

I never had a choice either. A choice was not mentioned and even if it 
was, there would NEVER be a choice in my family. As a child I could not 
question. 

I was at an interesting talk given by Eagle Man, an Oglala Lakota Sioux 
last night where he was talking about these things and said "Never let 
anyone come between you and the Great Spirit. We don't need middlemen. We 
have a direct connection." And that's the way it was in the past for all 
races. We once trusted in direct experience, in mystical experiences. 
Some words in a 2000 year old book are possibly someone else's 
experiences, possibly not. I don't know because I wasn't there. So it's 
just belief, not knowing. In earth-based spirituality, the emphasis is on 
Knowing, not believing. Noone is forced to accept anything. Noone does 
accept anything until thay see, feel, taste, and touch it, for that is 
when it becomes real for you. 

These words are not meant to upset anyone. I'm just stating my opinions. 
I just a two-legged like the rest of you.

Sam

    
    
    	You all had a choice.  You just chose not to make waves...
    	
    	kath

    I'm sorry, but at 12 years old, when no CHOICES were EVER mentioned,
    one does not FEEL they HAVE a choice! If you don't FEEL you have a
    choice, then you don't. My opinion, but a VERY strong one.
    
    As soon as I could get away from the church, I did. I guess that even
    though I went though the ceremony, it didn't really mean anything to
    me. I still had all the questions, so how could I have actually
    CONFIRMED anything? I guess I went though the motions because I had no
    choice, but I think I had my fingers crossed too! ;-) 
    
    I have to adnmit that when I was in high school, my parish had a pretty
    cool priest. He's the one that told me confession was hogwash, and you
    needn't go to confession. If you were truly sorry for anything you did,
    you would be forgiven, by a kind and loving God. Again, one didn't need
    a middle man to be forgiven.
    
    He's not a priest anymore BTW. I wonder why? ;-)
    
    
    Y

    
    re: .50
    
    	I don't mean to be argumentative, but, the part of the
    	ceremony when the bishop asks if there is anyone who doesn't
    	want to be confirmed, has always been part of the ceremony,
    	the same way the part of a wedding ceremony states, 'is there
    	anyone with any reason why these two should not be wed'.
    	and 'do you take this man..?' (you are given a choice there too)
    	Not many change thier mind at that stage in the game, but
    	some actually have. (because they could)
    
    	I agree things have change, such as the age of the children
    	being confirmed.  My parish has always made the kids wait 
    	until senior year for confirmation so they were old enough
    	to make the decision.  It's unfortunate that some parishs are
    	still confirming so young.
    
    	regards,
    
    	kath

    Well... at the ceremony last sunday a) there was no bishop, b)if the
    question was ask, I did not hear it.
    
    The bishop of Milwaukee is said to have ahh.."political" problems and 
    is taking some time off.  He delegated the local parish priests to 
    confirm their our students.
    
    What the priests may have as the kids as each one knelt before them, I
    do not know (but will ask Loiusa when I see her), but there was no
    public, group asking.
    
    note - your ceremomy may vary along with your milage.
     
    Judy
    

    You can differ all you want. My Bishop never said any such thing! He
    acted like he didn't want to be there in the first place! Very grumpy
    guy. You weren't there, so you don't know. If he HAD said that, I would
    have been gone! I didn't want to be there in the first place. If the
    Bishop had given me a choice, I would have had an argument for my
    family. This did not happen. He never said it. Your church may have
    been different, but don't assume we are not telling the truth, just
    because YOU were given a choice.
    
    If the Bishop had read rthe ceremony straight from the book, maybe it
    would have been said, but he didn't. I hitnk he had his own 'version'
    of the ceremony in his head or something. This could be why the choice
    was not given. It was HIS choice to not offer a choice!
    
    Y

    
    
    	I never said you weren't telling the truth, just thought
    	maybe you didn't remember the whole ceremony. (not knowing
    	your age).  
    
    	I spoke with my cousin (the priest) before entering the last
    	note to make sure I knew what I was talking about.
    
    	But you are right, I wasn't there, and if he didn't offer 
    	you a choice, you were short changed.  Sorry to hear that.
    
    	regards,
    
    	kath

    kath:
    
    I also say that NO CHOICE WAS GIVEN at my ceremony.  I would have
    remembered this and because for me it was not all that long ago that I
    made it, I am not "forgetting."
    
    I think one thing is very very clear in here...
    
    Many of us had different experiences based on the fact that we went to
    different schools or churches in different cities and states.
    
    I have attended Catholic school in Michigan and Louisiana, and Catholic
    churches in Michigan, Louisiana, Florida, Virginia, and California,
    when I've lived there respectively.  I can tell you that every state
    basically followed the same dogma, but there were a lot of variances in
    the methods...
    
    In Louisiana (Christ the King), Florida (St. Ignatius [sp?]), and
    Michigan (St. Valentine's), the churches and schools were very strict
    and very out-dated.  They taught that women were nothing but
    temptation, evil, the whole bit, and there were never any women that
    had any place in the church, other than playing the organ.  They
    punished children by smacking hands with rulers, and other methods that
    were meant to belittle and humiliate.
    
    This is not necessarily the way churches in California acted, as I
    found them to be more liberal.  Today there may be changes.  However,
    when I was young, there were NO CHOICES given.  You just did things. 
    God forbid you questioned...then you were punished.
    
    Kath, I think it is wonderful that you had a positive experience with
    the church, but I seem to see from this note that I am not the only one
    who had a negative one.
    
    I went through the motions of confirmation although I had so very many
    questions that always went unanswered, but not unpunished.  When I
    questioned my family, upon one opportunity, I was verbally attacked,
    accused of being ungrateful for what God had given me, etc etc, and how
    dare I question?
    
    So, you are saying that I was supposed to feel I had a choice?  Hmmmm,
    I was never told I had one.  I was never told my opinion mattered when
    it came to the religion I was following, and I was never told my
    questions were valid.
    
    Now, to an adult, who cares?  I don't care what the church or its
    priests, nuns, etc think of my beliefs or feelings, but to a child who
    wants validation and approval, it means a lot.
    
    After my confirmation I remember thinking, "Whew, that's over with. 
    Now I can go on with my life.  I fulfilled my duty, now I can go my own
    way."
    
    I did, too...
    
    See, as an adult I have the choice of going or not going to church.  As
    a child I did not.  I remember protesting about why I had to go to
    church on Sundays since I went every day at school.  That is a
    punishment I would like to forget.
    
    ....
    
    nope, no choices here...
    

                           
    What I find most important is how one is on the inside...the inner
    life.  Then there are no choices.  While people on the outside can
    restrict your physical environment, there is still always a place
    inside you where the real God is, that they cannot do anything about.
    
    I didn't really have much of a choice about churches, etc., when I was
    growing up either.  I don't really think many people do, actually.  
    Fortunately my guardian angel knew this, saw the situation, and put 
    invisible earmuffs on me while I had to sit through countless hours of 
    church and Sunday School.  Except for the fun times when we played 
    angels in the Xmas play, or things like that.  I did manage to memorize
    a few important things like the 10 commandments, and a few Bible
    verses.  But not much else.
    
    I never questioned, never gave opinions.  I just wasn't there...instead
    I was inside myself having a wonderful time.  (;^)  Daydreaming.  Or
    perhaps 'meditating' is a better description.  I have very little
    memory of that time.  It just sort of happened, and that was life.
    
    Somewhere along the way I was baptized and confirmed a Methodist.  I
    was a teenager by that time.  Was it a choice?  Yes.  Was it a *real* 
    choice?  Of course not.  It was a choice in that I could choose to or 
    not to.  (And if I couldn't choose, then hey, that was life.)  It was 
    not a choice because I could not choose between becoming a Methodist 
    and, say, becoming a Hindu.    
    
    Now, having consciously chosen to become initiated as a yogic disciple
    last year, I can say that finally I made a choice in these matters. 
    And yet did I?  No.  Because the choice was still limited to what I
    knew at the time.  Now I know more, and realize more choices.  Such is
    the path to the Infinite.
    
    Don't let the past forms hold you back.  Make your own choices now.  
    And if they upset your parents, your church, or anyone who is still
    trying to impose their belief system onto you, then so much the better. 
    (;^)  Have some fun with it!  That's what life is really all about.
    
    God is about Laughter.  It really is a Cosmic Joke in the end.
    
    There is suffering.  It is quite real.  That's why it is the 
    responsibility of those who have realized the Joke to turn back and
    help those who are suffering, so that their pain may be eased and that
    eventually they too may see the Joke and laugh with every fiber of
    their Being too.
    
    Cindy

One thing that occurred to me over the weekend regarding this question was the 
fact that, whehter or not our bishop 'gave us a choice' in the confirmation
ceremony way back when, we did not have anything to choose from.  

As a 41-year-old (ouch!) female raised from birth in the Roman Catholic church,
I was brainwashed thoroughly in the old traditions.  As some have pointed a few
out here, they included:  women as inherently evil; women as entirely 
responsible for the 'Fall of Man' from the Garden on Eden AND from God's grace;
the Roman Catholic church as the exclusive path to heaven/salvation; ALL other
religions as inherently wrong and their devotees on their way to hell;  an
individual's inability to think for himself; the necessity for a priest to 
interpret God's Will for the general population; the necessity for a priest to
intercede with God for 'us' individual Catholics; the absolute subjugation of 
the female to the male, and her obedience and submission to his will in all 
things, as he (any male) was God's representative in the family (so to disobey
a male would be to disobey God); the desirability of martyrdom for 'the Faith;'
etc., etc., etc..  And yes, the nuns DID tell us that patent leather shoes 
really did reflect up, and we were forbidden to wear them, along with sleeveless
dresses (I wore one to Sunday mass when I was in the 1st grade - Sr. Marietta 
hauled my little tush to the back of the church, went up one side of me and down
the other for 'tempting the boys,' and sent me home in disgrace).

What the nuns and priests did not teach us in grade school were the basic 
tenants of any other religion (we were even forbidden, under pain of sin, to 
enter the church of another religion), or any other way of thinking about the 
world.  The CHURCH was RIGHT, and EVERYONE ELSE WAS WRONG. Period.  End of 
discussion.  Therefore, IMHO, even if the bishop said the words giving a choice, 
I believe it was only lip service.  A child raised under those circumstances 
could not possibly have the basic information needed to realize there WAS 
anything else to choose (other than hell and eternal damnation).  It was not 
until well past confirmation, on into junior/senior high school, that we were 
allowed to study other religions and their doctrines, and always with the 
emphasis on where they were WRONG, and Catholicism RIGHT.

I consider myself to be in recovery from a cult.

Mary Krampf   

 


 

    Gee MAry, you didn't go to St. Mary Chez. in Milwaukee, did you??
    I got kicked out of church one morning in 3rd grade for wareing a scarf
    with a picture of Disney's TinkerBell on it.  The nun thought it
    obsene (I was clueless).  My mother roared with laughter.
    
    Blessed be,
    Judy
    

RE:  .59


No, Judy.  This was in St. Patrick's in Corning, NY, in the Rochester, NY 
diocese.  Sr. Marietta was one of the older nuns (Sisters of St. Joseph), and
was built like a little bird.  When my mother heard why I was sent home, she
called the convent and raised HELL.  Needless to say, that didn't help my
standing with the nuns any.

M.

    My experience being raised in a 'reformed' Jewish family was 
    at extreme odds with that of most of y'all responding here.  I was
    provided an opportunity at Jewish education, which I accepted
    but did not excel at, basically had no real option about
    Bar Mitzvah (since this is really in practice more for the family
    than the individual in my estimation for the reformed Jews I know),
    and provided yet another option to be confirmed (which I turned down
    and was given no great flak over, though my father considered it his
    failing).
    
    We were always told that being Jewish was a bloodline and a culture 
    rather than a creed, but that our personal worship was entirely our choice.
    I've seen a tremendous variety of different kinds of Jewish worship
    within the rather loose constraints of 'reformed practice.'  The main
    constants, beside monotheism and Hebrew language seem to be
    a love of books and learning, a practical approach to work, and a 
    knowledge of Jewish tradition.  But then, like I said, I didn't
    excel at my religious studies, so don't consider me representative.
    
    Nothing could be farther from brainwashing than my religious
    studies.  In fact, if they had brainwashed me a little more, I might
    possibly have done better, who knows ?  :-)
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    I believe that the single greatest determinant in cults is social
    dislocation, if you expand your definition of cults to include the
    non-religious, political sort of cult.  I am thinking of Maoism in
    China and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.  
    
    Both China and Cambodia are ancient, highly traditional societies that
    were fractured by war (Japanese invasion of China and the spillover
    from the US in Vietnam), industrialization, and the breakdown of old
    mores.
    
    As previous noters mentioned, the US is experiencing dislocation from
    many sources. 
    
    Laura
    
    (And hi to folks who haven't heard from me in a long time.  I thought
    I'd stop in for a visit, maybe set awhile.  :-) )

    
    It's taken me a few days to read through all the replies on this topic,
    an important one for me, since I too "grew up Catholic". My present
    feelings are, however, quite different from most here. I should state
    my belief here that organized religion is, for the most part, only as
    good as the people you learn it from, and that seems to be the problem
    here. 
    
    I went to Catholic school all my life, but fortunately, have very
    enlightened parents, thus, all the dogma and inflexibility of
    pre-Vatican II Catholicism was tempered by them. I even had a choice
    whether I wanted to go to church on Sundays. They felt, as I do, that 
    religion is a personal thing and you can worship just as easily by
    thanking God for a beautiful day at the park, as sitting in church
    especially if you'd rather be somewhere else. What that did was to 
    make me go to church when I really wanted to make a special effort,
    which to me, God appreciates more than being there because you have to.
    
    Today, although I don't classify myself as Catholic I still go to the 
    Catholic church when I feel the need to go, since I don't know the
    rituals of any other, but I would feel comfortable in any house of God.
    My son, who is 3 1/2 is in Catholic pre-school and you can be sure that 
    he gets the same "deprogramming" from me that I got, after all the
    church didn't evolve *that much* :^)
    
    BTW, for the person that stated that the Jews believe they will only be
    saved, read about them more. The Jewish faith, which I have studied
    somewhat, does not require a belief in the afterlife, so there is no
    mention of salvation. They are only enjoined to act as the laws of God 
    require them to in this life. The strict interpretation of their
    religion states that they only live through the memory of their deeds
    and through their progeny. It is the closest religion to my set of
    beliefs that I have found, though I have not thought to convert.
    
    Sorry to ramble on so, it's a subject near and dear to me.
    
    
    Marilyn

    re: .63, MILLS_MA, 
    
>    religion states that they only live through the memory of their deeds
>    and through their progeny. It is the closest religion to my set of
    
    That's my understanding as well.  I was never given any 
    impression of an afterlife in my Jewish education, though I don't
    recall it being explicitly denied either.  
    
>    beliefs that I have found, though I have not thought to convert.
    
    Then (as you probably know) you have the dilemma that many Jews do not
    really accept converts to Judaism, because of its cultural connotations
    in addition to the religious ones.  Even as an unconfirmed 'reformed'
    Jew, I have a negative feeling about conversions to Judaism in general
    that was inspired from my early upbringing.
    
    The best comparison I can think of to explain this is to say that it would
    almost be like converting to become Polish or Italian, though that's
    not quite an accurate analogy.  There is a definite theology based on
    the Torah and Talmud to study, and so on, but 'creeds' vary very
    widely among individuals, who are linked by more than beliefs.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    RE:  -1 and -2
    
    Agreed on your representations of the Jewish view of after-life.
    
    In theory, Jews are supposed to accept converts as one of their own. 
    The stories we hear about rabbis trying to discourage convert
    candidates  are based not on their rejection of converts, but on
    testing the  candidates' sincerity and conviction.
    
    Unfortunately many Jewish individuals treat converts, or "Jews by
    choice" as they prefer to be called, differently from born Jews.  This
    is certainly not supported by our morality.
    
    I would never urge a person to conversion to Judaism.  If anything, I
    question, "Do you really want to take on all this?  Both the
    obligations and the history of persecution?"  
    
    I do provide a lot of support to candidates, according to their needs. 
    I don't take a position for or against it, just try to respond to where
    they are at.  I still provide a lot of support and advice to a close
    friend who converted several years ago.  
    
    The hardest tasks for Jews by choice are:
    
    1.  Feeling they have equal status with born Jews
    2.  Learning many of the informal, non-written things, including subtle
    social attitudes and prioritizing various practices
    
    Laura

    re: .65,
    Yes, I see what you mean.
    
    And whose behavior is 100% consistent with the moral standards of their
    religion in practice ?   Such a requirement would be unreasonably
    extreme and probably counterproductive.  My feeling is that virtually 
    anytime you establish a firm literal moral precept, you select one 
    positive value against another, and by this tradeoff, prepare the ground 
    for extremism (for better or worse).  Self-sacrifice against survival, for 
    example, or emphasis on group identity against personal identity or species 
    identity.   The more strongly we emphasize Jewish group identity, for
    example, the more it promotes the counter-side of exclusivity that
    leads to the attitudes toward 'choice' that you mentioned.  And makes
    it possibly impossible for all of the moral precepts to be equally
    obeyed.
    
    Maybe this kind of dilemma is part of what makes Taoism attractive to many
    people, and maybe even polytheism.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    Taoism leads one down a middle path... it avoids all extremes.. it 
    stresses adaptation to current conditions to avoid conflict.

>  Taoism leads one down a middle path... it avoids all extremes..

Isn't that a bit extreme? :-) I mean, it's possible to be too moderate,
isn't it? A little wildness now and then is necessary ... or at least
so it seems to me ...

    The middle path isn't necessarily moderate.. :-)
    
    The path is defined by the situation... by the circumstances.. 
    
    Balance does not equate to moderate.. :-)  .. and it includes a little
    of most everything one chooses to include actually... :-) ... which 
    brings us to desire.

    Adaptation to circumstances doesn't seems quite the same as
    the _Dune_ "Golden Way" from Topher's note that you alluded to in another
    topic.  Adaptation to the current circumstances wouldn't neccessarily
    involve 'transtemporal feedback,' just perhaps a sweeping grasp of the
    existing circumstances and trends.  I think it has very different 
    implications regarding intentionality than the ability to see alternate 
    futures and choose one.   Then again, 'the Tao that can be discussed
    is not the Eternal Tao,'  or something like that... ?
    
    					todd			

DWOVAX::STARK 
    
    >Adaptation to circumstances doesn't seems quite the same as
    >the _Dune_ "Golden Way" from Topher's note that you alluded to in another
    >topic.  Adaptation to the current circumstances wouldn't neccessarily
    >involve 'transtemporal feedback,' just perhaps a sweeping grasp of the
    >existing circumstances and trends.  
    
    oh... I think I understand.
    
    >I think it has very different implications regarding intentionality 
    >than the ability to see alternate futures and choose one.   
    
    hmmmm ... perhaps... 
    
    Do you think they might be variations of the same thing?   
    
    Crossing-over is the term I use to describe seeing alternate futures
    and selecting one... but... in principle.. it doesn't seem all that
    different from steering along within the flow one is already in...
    I mean... the principle is the same.. don't you think?
    
    >Then again, 'the Tao that can be discussed
    >is not the Eternal Tao,'  or something like that... ?
    
    :-) ...yea...
    				
                                                          

    Re a few back, Todd and Laura,
    
    Though I know of the lack of acceptance of converts or Jews by choice,
    the reason I choose not to convert is that I have adopted a lot of the 
    Jewish beliefs/teachings and added them to others that I've gotten from 
    other religions/cultures. As far as the Judaic beliefs that I hold, they 
    are mostly the ethical rules of conduct, rather than any religious
    practices.
    
    I totally agree about the conversion problems, most of the Jews I know
    come from either a German or Russian background and the difficulty of 
    assimilitating are tremendous. No problem, they accept my acceptance
    and adherence to the ethical side of Judaism, but they know I'm not
    a "wanna be" (for lack of a better term).
    
    
    Marilyn

     Re. -1
    
    Not-so-small Nit
    
    The Branch Davidians were *not* a break-off group of the Seventh Day
    Adventists, who indeed workship on Saturday, but of the Church of
    Latter Day Saints (Mormons) who worship on Sunday. The Mormons did not 
    acknowledge this off-shoot.
    
    
    Marilyn
                    

RE: .74

    I don't know the facts in the matter, but the Branch Davidians were
    widely reported as an offshoot of the 7 Day Adventists.  The form in
    which representatives of the 7th Day  Adventists denied any current
    connection, seemed to support that contention.  In fact, though, the
    "Koreshians" seemed to be an offshoot of the Branch Davidians.

                                         Topher

             <<< HYDRA::DISK_NOTES$LIBRARY:[000000]DEJAVU.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Psychic Phenomena >-
================================================================================
Note 1830.73     lethal cults (the Branch Davidians and others)         73 of 74
VAXRIO::MARCOS                                       70 lines   6-AUG-1993 08:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	COVERT::daemon "John R. Covert  03-Aug-1993 0934" 
Subj:	Desperado #3080

CONTRIBUTIONS TO RAGMOP::T_PARMENTER
[t_parmenter@ragmop.enet.dec.com]
SUBSCRIPTION REQUESTS TO COVERT::DESPERADO-REQUEST
[desperado-request@covert.enet.dec.com]

	If 93 per cent of the American people think the Branch Davidians
        brought it all on themselves, as discovered by a scientific poll
        in USA Today, I haven't met any of them.  Peter Jennings (a
        Canadian) certainly thinks so.  His special report the night of
        the massacre was titled "Choosing to Die".

I believe they had all the chances to move out, and choose not to take it, I
know I am not 93 percent, but around here, there was almost 100 percent
agreement that they could have walked out, but chose not to do so, so the 
problem was their own.  Kidnapping and the like, and can you give one good
reason to have such a stach of arms, in a CHURCH.  I see it as they were 
going in with trouble fully on their minds and the intent.  When I go to
church, we do not keep a supply of weapons there.  



	Those crazy Branch Davidians.  They thought the federal
        government was their enemy and out to get them and that they
        would all die. Such an idea!

Gee, maybe they made their own enemys.

        In their eight-month planning process for the raid, the BATF
        failed to learn that David Koresh frequently jogged alone, out of
        sight of the compound in the early morning hours.

Maybe you want to join the BATF as intellegence arm.  This is not a well known
or published item.  Where did you get this?

        In their eight-month planning process, the BATF concluded that
        since the Branch Davidians were a church, they should be raided
        on a Sunday morning.  The planning process failed to turn up the
        fact that the Branch Davidians are a branch of the Seventh Day
        Adventists, so called because of their belief that Saturday is
        the Sabbath.

as stated in the next reply to your entry... NOT TRUE.

	The BATF could not plan their way into a pay toilet with a nickel
	head start.  And the FBI could not plan their way back out
	without a tank.

GEE, I guess the feds will hire you to do all their Toilet Planning.

	The most pathetic sight:  The BATF flag -- a 2x3 black rectangle
	with the letters BATF on it -- flying over the ashes of the
        compound while Texas Rangers searched for bodies.

If they did not ignite themselves, the Texas Rangers, would not have had to 
search for bodies.

	The most pathetic statement, uttered as tanks bashed down the
	walls and fired tear-gas inside, "This is not an attack!  This is
	not an attack!"  Talk about believing in the power of words to
	shape reality.
	
What would you have said?  Something really great I'll bet.

	That is not to say that David Koresh didn't have a "death wish"
	or a "martyr complex" or all those things Peter Jennings thinks
	he had, but why should the feds cooperate so enthusiastically?

David Koresh appeared to have a death wish, and with that wish impressed on the 
people who followed him, can you say "Jonesville", I thought you could.  

	I saw one federal geezer declaiming to a press conference, "We
        can't allow religious fanatics who think the end of the world is
        coming to arm themselves."  We can't?  And why not?  Who is to
        say?

I guess that you are saying that anyone can store up all the arms they want of
what ever type and just take or keep anyone they want, and it is all right.
I am with the ' federal geezer'.

	There are hundreds, thousands of cults.  Most firearms are legal.
	If you think the Branch Davidians were dangerous, read up on the
	Mormons some time.

I have and they are the parent organization.

	If I'm an enthusiastic Christian with a sawed-off shotgun can I
	expect to be invaded by lamebrained federal lawmen with tanks and
	recorded Buddhist chants?  Can I expect to die?

Well, a sawed-off shotgun, is illegal in all states.  So you can expect to be
invaded by some "lamebrained federal lawmen with tanks".  Remember if you 
can't do the time, then do not do the crime.  Also Crime does not pay.

	Last year they accused Koresh of assaulting a rival Branch
	Davidian and siezed all his firearms.  They were not able to
	convict on the assault charge and the guns were returned.  Hence
	the totally illegal trial, conviction, and seizure of weapons by
	means of fire and publicity.
	
Do you mean that you can take and hold people against their will?  What a 
concept!  And brandish firearms when confronted by the law.  BATF got involved 
due to the illegal weapons cached in Waco.

	Whose tank was that?  Was it an *FBI* tank?  What is the FBI
	doing with a tank?

It was an ARMY Tank, belonging to the National Guard I believe.  There were
army folk involved too.

	And where is the public outcry?

I guess that you are one of the 7 percent.  the rest are not so vocal or
understand the situtation better than you do.

Dave

What's this have to do with psychic phenomena?

		Dave

    
    
re:    <<< Note 1830.76 by CSC32::D_ROYER "Chi beve birra campa cent'anni." >>>
    
    	A couple of nits...
    
    
>and can you give one good
>reason to have such a stach of arms, in a CHURCH.  I see it as they were 
>going in with trouble fully on their minds and the intent.  When I go to
>church, we do not keep a supply of weapons there.  
    
    	Freedom of religion is one of the things this country was founded
    on. Also, the right to keep and bear arms. If these people want to keep
    firearms in their church, that is their right (not privilege, RIGHT, as
    guaranteed under the constitution). You or I may not agree, but our
    agreement is not a pre-requisite...
    
>Maybe you want to join the BATF as intellegence arm.  This is not a well known
>or published item.  Where did you get this?
    
    	This was published many times in many newspapers and magazines (as
    well as on-line publications). The local townsfolk new it, the local
    sheriff new it, the BATF somehow didn't manage to figure it out...
    
>If they did not ignite themselves, the Texas Rangers, would not have had to 
>search for bodies.
    
    	The juries still out on who burned who.....there's alot of
    unanswered questions here, and I think it's presumptuous of anyone to
    try and state that thier opinion is fact...
    
>What would you have said?  Something really great I'll bet.
    
    	How's about the truth? "We're spraying CS gas in your compound to
    force you out. The carrier for CS gas is propane...if you have any
    fire's burning, extinguish them now. No smoking please...."
    
>David Koresh appeared to have a death wish, and with that wish impressed on the 
>people who followed him, can you say "Jonesville", I thought you could.  
    
    	David Koresh *appeared* to have a death with....key word there...
    
>I guess that you are saying that anyone can store up all the arms they want of
>what ever type 
    
    	Why not? As long as they don't shoot anyone illegally, there's not
    a problem. This is America after all...
    
>Well, a sawed-off shotgun, is illegal in all states.  So you can expect to be
>invaded by some "lamebrained federal lawmen with tanks".  
    
    	Bzzzzz! Wrong! You may own a sawed off shotgun by simply getting a
    federal "special weapons" permit. Not hard to get mind you...you just
    need a clean record.
    
>BATF got involved 
>due to the illegal weapons cached in Waco.
    
    	So they claim. It's funny that just 3 months before the Sheriff at
    Waco had been down to confiscate all the firearms at the Koresh
    compound. He was forced to return them all when it turned out they were
    all legally owned! Fancy that. It's also interesting how this "big
    raid" happened when the BATF was up for funding renewal. Can you say
    trying to justify your existence so you can get more funding?
    
>Do you mean that you can take and hold people against their will?  What a 
>concept! 
    
    	DSS (Dept of social services) was down there many times to check on
    the children and mothers. They always came back with a big "no
    problem". I wonder where BATF got the idea that people were being help
    prisoner? If you want to dig up some interesting details, why don't you
    look back at how many times the govt's story changed over the course of
    the seige? More than you think....
    	
    	
    	Bottom line is, the govt did not have sufficient reason to invade
    the Davidian compound. I may not like David Koresh's views on God and
    the world, but he had a right to them. I believe many people died for
    all the wrong reasons.....
    
    	
    				as always, just IMHO..take it as you will,
    
    
    							jim s.
                                                

> In fact, though, the
> "Koreshians" seemed to be an offshoot of the Branch Davidians.

I had thought the name "Branch Davidian" was derived from David Koresh. No?

Anyway, I'm still curious why these things haven't been reported to
happen outside the US.

    >Anyway, I'm still curious why these things haven't been reported to
    >happen outside the US.

    I could answer that, but the chances of you reading it before it was
    set hidden are so minimal that it is really not worth the trouble.

    Jamie.

Hey, I get up pretty early, Jamie :-).

    
    Oh, go ahead, Jamie.  I won't set it hidden.
    
    However still that leaves Topher and Todd...
        
    Cindy

    Can someone out there tell me what has happened with the trial of the
    survivors of Koresh's maddness. I read somewhere a fair while ago that
    the trial was underway, and since then I've seen and heard nothing. I
    really would like some news. Thanks.
    
    Graham

From:	CRL::"interest@Mainstream.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon"  7-JUN-1994 19:10:53.44
To:	Multiple recipients of list <interest@mainstream.com>
CC:	
Subj:	Waco Sentencing  - talk.politics.guns

In article <1994Jun5.044402.10103@lgc.com>, cww@zycor.lgc.com (Chris Walker) writes:
In the *Austin American Statesman* today, there is an article regarding
the guidelines to use to sentence the Branch Davidians.  
Quotes are from the article.

Probation officers are recommending 30-40 year prison sentences, triple
or quadruple what Davidians faced following their conviction.  "It looks 
like the government is going to get its pound of flesh one way or the 
other," said John Carroll, attorney for Renos Avraam.  

Essentially, the sentence is being increased because "federal probation 
officials recently determined the cult members' crimes involved illegal,
automatic weapons."  Using an automatic weapon or a silencer in a violent
crime is a mandatory 30-year sentence according to Federal law.  

There is a dicussion of the reinstatement of the verdict, the one that 
Judge Walter Smith said that he would set aside but decided not to do so.  
This resulted in Ruth Riddle being arrested at the airport to face thirty
years when she had thought she had been acquitted. 

Normally, federal judges uses reports which detail defendants lives and
criminal history.  Sentencing is normally done on an individual basis.
Sentencing will be done on June 16-17.  The judge could reject the
probation office's recommendations but an attorney I consulted said that
this rarely happens as the probation officer is an employee of the judge.
Normally, the judge "rubber-stamps" the probation officer's recommendations. 

"Hopefully, the judge will call it fair and square," said Rocket Rosen,
attorney for Kevin WHitecliff and Livingstone Fagan.  "There was no
evidence they ever handled automatic weapons.  This is pure vindictiveness."
This is reflected in statements made in defense motions against the 
prosecution motions to reinstate the convictions a few months ago.

The FBI claims to have found 48 automatic weapons after the fire.  However,
this is difficult to believe since Kathy Shroeder had said during the trial 
that they had converted only three and that she was the only one 
who remained alive who knew at the time as this was a secret for the
"inner circle" only.  In addition, since crucial evidence such as the 
right front door and a safe with tens of thousands of dollars disappeared, 
who is to say that they didn't *plant* evidence at the crime scene?

"They can't just go in now and say that obviously they were machine guns,"
said Carroll.  "Certainly the government was not pleased with the verdicts,
and if they can get a tougher sentence this way, they'd like it."

Bill Johnston contended that there is "ample evidence" that automatic
weapons were used by the convicted cult members.  However, the court
never attempted to prove that any Davidians used automatic weapons in
the commission of a crime nor did the government successfully place a
gun in every hand.  By not putting an automatic weapon in the hand 
of each Davidian when sentencing them would amount to *collective
sentencing*, and idea that is foreign to American law but part of the
new notion of conspiracy that the court attempted to put over people but
failed to convince the jury of.

Other Davidians to be affected by the extended sentencing include
Brand Branch, Jaime Castillo and Graeme Craddock.  Paul Fatta is facing
15 years for machine gun possession and conspiracy to manufacture
automatic weapons. 

Make no mistake, this is an attempt to correct the verdict by a government
that is on the defensive.  This is a turning point in American society.
If the events in Waco and the subsequent actions of the Federal government
are not challenged, we are guaranteed an era of increased government power.
The Waco debacle proved that the federal government can do anything
it wants to anyone at anytime and get away with it.  Not only will they
hang together, the courts will be in their pockets all the way.  At least
as regards major events.  There was a pretense at following the law here,
but upon close examination, from the investigation, the issuing of the 
warrant, the *non*-service of the warrant, the siege and the trial nothing
stands scrutiny well.  Every action digs government officials deeper into
their evasions.

I do not know if this case will make it to the Supreme Court.  Let us hope 
that they make the right decision and respect the rule of law, something 
that is now lacking of the Federal government in Texas.  
-- 
Chris Walker
cwalker@zycor.lgc.com

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA10606; Tue, 7 Jun 94 19:12:05 -0400
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA01876; Tue, 7 Jun 94 19:07:11 -0400
% Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n8ino.mainstream.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA15183; Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:05:10 -0400
% Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 19:05:10 -0400
% Message-Id: <199406072228.SAA14652@n8ino.mainstream.com>
% Errors-To: craig@Mainstream.com
% Reply-To: interest@Mainstream.com
% Originator: best-rkba@mainstream.com
% Sender: interest@Mainstream.com
% Precedence: bulk
% From: Craig Peterson <craig@Mainstream.com>
% To: Multiple recipients of list <interest@mainstream.com>
% Subject: Waco Sentencing  - talk.politics.guns
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: Personal interest list

From:	CRL::"interest@Mainstream.com" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 28-JUN-1994 00:38:19.57
To:	Multiple recipients of list <interest@mainstream.com>
CC:	
Subj:	Waco Jury Uninformed

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 94 02:11:26 EDT
From: LarRay@aol.com
Subject: Waco Jury Uninformed
To: libernet@Dartmouth.EDU

Gary Hunt, who held David Koresh's power of attorney during the BATF-Davidian
standoff in 1993, publishes, from offices in Phoenix, AZ, via FAX, the
Outpost of Freedom.  His phone number is (602) 863-4912.  Call him if
interested in getting on his FAX subscription list.   

Mr. Hunt's June 22 Outpost of Freedom seems especially interesting to persons
who believe the Fully Informed Jury is essential to freedom in the U.S.  If
FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Assn., 1-800-835-5879) goals were the law of the
land, the following judicial travesty, about which Mr. Hunt writes, may have
been avoided:

In his writing, Mr. Hunt tells about a conversation he had with San Antonio
jury foreman Sarah Bain.  They discuss Bain's letter to federal judge Walter
J. Smith, who sentenced several surviving Davidians to very long jail terms.
 In her letter, Bain indicates the government did an end run around the jury
in order to unfairly sentence these remaining Davidians.  A full copy of Mrs.
Bain's letter is available by phone request at (602) 863-4912.


THE DAVIDIAN TRIAL-(IN)JUSTICE IN AMERICA
By Gary Hunt

 I spoke with Sarah Bain the other day.  She was foreman of the jury for the
Branch Davidian Trial.  She was also the author of a letter which was sent to
Judge Walter Smith, who presided over the (Branch Davidian) Trial (at San
Antonio, TX), in which she asked the Court to understand what led to the verdi
cts which were handed down.
 In the letter, while discussing the Count Three (using or carrying a
firearm) she describes the thoughts of the jury, "At the time the jury
questioned among ourselves how sentencing could be carried out fairly, since
there surely must be a more serious penalty for 'using' as opposed to
'carrying' a firearm, and since we were not charged to identify which
defendants, if any, should be found guilty of actually 'using' the firearms."
(Underlines mine-GH)  She points out that this charge carries "a penalty of
from five to thirty years in prison."  This is followed by the exclamation,
"I am incredulous!"
 It is clear by the letter that, "the crimes that the 'carrying/using' took
place was that of aiding and abetting a voluntary manslaughter and not
conspiracy to murder or aiding and abetting murder (all defendants were found
not guilty of these charges)."
 She later discusses the charges against Graem Craddock, and says, "we felt
we had no choice but to find him guilty in Count Three.  We even discussed
whether or not this was not a type of double jeopardy-not of being tried
twice for the same crime but of being punished twice for the same crime."
 Ruth Riddle "retrieved a 'long gun' from under her bed and had passed it
downstairs.  It is unfathomable that, for this act, she is facing even five
years, much less thirty years, in prison."  Sarah clarifies this issue when
she states, "If we had interpreted 'carrying' literally, she would be totally
free since there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she even walked
to the window of her room while in possession of a firearm!"
 Regarding other defendants, she says "on Count Two: the five individuals
found guilty: Brad Eugene Branch, Kevin A. Whitecliff, Jaime Castillo,
Livingston Fagan, and Renos Avraam, were not found guilty of voluntary
manslaughter, but of aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter...the jury
never believed these individuals themselves committed the crime of voluntary
manslaughter.  Further, we did believe, and the charge to the jury gave
credence to the belief, that aiding and abetting was a 'lesser charge'."
 This is not consistent with what the Court relayed through the press.
 Regarding the bringing back of the "carrying" charge, she states, "We
certainly had no knowledge that the penalty for a guilty verdict would be
tied to a conspiracy charge as alleged in Count One."  
The Sentence on this charge was 30 years for the five named above.
 Obviously, the Court perceived the guilt differently than the jury, or the
Court has it's own agenda.
Sarah concluded her letter with 'It is now in the Court's hands to assure
that our intentions are not belied."  Based on our conversation, Sarah now
feels that the judge ignored her letter, ignored the intent of the jury, and
ignored the determination of the jury.
 Sarah, when asked if she believed that Judge Smith intended to give the
Davidians as close to life terms as he could, said this was probably true.
 She made clear that what has come of the Trial is not what the jury
intended.  The charge to the jury was 68 pages.  As indicated by the portions
of the letter above, there was misunderstanding.  Moreover, Sarah is fully
aware that it was difficult to understand the charge as well as the verdict
sheets.
 Sarah was grateful that the manslaughter option was there.  She felt that
some of the jurors would have had to find some guilt and perhaps gone with
the conspiracy to murder charge.  The manslaughter charge stated that if the
agents were killed "after adequate provocation" the charge should be
manslaughter.  There was no doubt in the jurors' minds that "adequate
provocation" existed.  Sarah felt this left some burden on the government.
 She was appalled that those who were even remotely associated with the death
of the agents got ten years for that relationship.  "Those who carried
weapons got thirty years," she said.  "This does not equate in my book."
 Sarah indicated the jurors were looking forward to hearing a religious
expert who was on the defense witness list.  The expert would have given more
background about the church.  Jury members were disappointed when that
testimony was not allowed.
 The jury also looked forward to Dick DeGurien's testimony, which would have
corroborated Jack Zimmerman's testimony.  Sarah felt that more evidence,
which was not allowed, may have helped the jury to understand more of what
occurred on both Feb. 28 and April 19, 1993.
 When asked if she felt that the jury felt that the Davidians were within
their right to defend themselves, Sarah replied that she felt this would be
the feeling of the jury.  They felt the manslaughter charge was the lowest
charge they could go because lives were lost.  When asked whether there was
an option for "justifiable homicide", Sarah said there was no option that
might have allowed a lesser charge.  Based on the instruction, they felt a
guilty verdict was necessary and that the manslaughter charge was the best
they could do.
 The arrest warrant cover page, for David Koresh's arrest, was presented.
 But there was no affidavit in support thereof.  We are still wondering if
there was a "legitimate" reason for the events of Feb. 28, 1993.
 There can be little doubt that (in)justice in  America is a tool of
government which is used to "get back" at those who, in this case, defend
their very lives.  A law enforcement officer who kills a citizen (whether the
citizen is armed or not) is given time off, with pay, pending an
investigation.  When and if the case goes before a coroner's inquest, nearly
every case is "justifiable homicide."  Why is that option available to
police, but not available to...the American People"?
 Renos Avraam: 40 years
 Brad Branch: 40 years
 Jaime Castillo: 40 years
 Graem Craddock: 20 years
 Livingston Fagan: 40 years
 Paul Fatta: 15 years
 Ruth Riddle: 5 years.
 And the sentence for America?  Despotism


% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by easynet.crl.dec.com; id AA09065; Tue, 28 Jun 94 00:43:24 -0400
% Received: by crl.dec.com; id AA20857; Mon, 27 Jun 94 18:32:54 -0400
% Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n8ino.mainstream.com (8.6.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id SAA05754; Mon, 27 Jun 1994 18:30:35 -0400
% Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 18:30:35 -0400
% Message-Id: <199406271911.PAA03231@n8ino.mainstream.com>
% Errors-To: craig@Mainstream.com
% Reply-To: interest@Mainstream.com
% Originator: best-rkba@mainstream.com
% Sender: interest@Mainstream.com
% Precedence: bulk
% From: Craig Peterson <craig@Mainstream.com>
% To: Multiple recipients of list <interest@mainstream.com>
% Subject: Waco Jury Uninformed
% X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0b -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
% X-Comment: Personal interest list