Witches versus happy clappy nutballs! It's On!

My understanding is that “spiritual warfare” is praying against spirits. No more – but sometimes in groups, and sometimes because someone misidentifies red wine as blood and gets people going. (Why hasn’t their God told them this then?)

Someone in the previous thread went to the trouble to look up their weapons:

Pommy bastard said :

Oh and I notice that their main weapons* are going to be; “repentance, prayer, and worship”

So how scary is that!

housebound said :

This thread is one-sided. What a tolerant bunch we are.

A group threatens to come here and PRAY, and people feel all threatened. If their God isn’t as real or powerful as they claim, why all the angst?

Umm… no. I believe the term used was “offensive spiritual warfare”. I believe that is slightly more threatening than “we are coming to pray”.

What I find so offensive is their unprovoked attack on a group who have done nothing more than practice beliefs other than their own. Isn’t that the basis of terrorism ?

I propose something like this to truly freak EVERYONE out.

Who is with me ?

They picked a fight by telling people they would come to pray – using rather violent language – but in effect harmless (unless singing, repenting and clapping and whatever else they pray does more than we know). Why would anyone need to defend themselves against that?

Oh bollocks, VY.

One bunch of nasty, bigoted, self-righteous nutballs picked a fight with a bunch of largely harmless hippy loons and rightfully copped a verbal flogging on this forum.

For some reason you want to have a go at the hippies because they’ve had the balls to stick up for themselves against these nasty b@stards.

caf said :

What it means dear VY is that so far we have seen nothing from either side beyond violent language, and I know which side started throwing that around. It’s a bit rich to then start complaining about it.

I agree, dear Caf. But violent language does not equal physical violence. My argument all along is simply that one group of nutballs has copped a flogging here, whereas the other group of nutballs (who has also used violent and bigoted language) seem to have successfully played the victim.

And I think that’s sloppy debate.

And by the way, arguing about ‘who started it’ kinda reminds me of kindagarten…

What it means dear VY is that so far we have seen nothing from either side beyond violent language, and I know which side started throwing that around. It’s a bit rich to then start complaining about it.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

caf said :

VY, I’d just look at who it was who started throwing around terms like “spiritual warfare” in this case. Live by the flaming sword…

Which means what, exactly? My understanding is that the term ‘spiritual warfare’ refers to rites invoking spiritual activity, and has nothing to do with physical violence.

What’s your argument? That it’s okay to be a bigoted arseh0le just so long as you’re not violent?

I remain unconvinced.

caf said :

VY, I’d just look at who it was who started throwing around terms like “spiritual warfare” in this case. Live by the flaming sword…

Which means what, exactly? My understanding is that the term ‘spiritual warfare’ refers to rites invoking spiritual activity, and has nothing to do with physical violence.

VY, I’d just look at who it was who started throwing around terms like “spiritual warfare” in this case. Live by the flaming sword…

Jim Jones…… + 1

Despite some Christians misunderstanding my beliefs, I have no beef against an entire religion, but, I do have a problem with fundamentalist zealots who believe there is only one “true” way to whatever it is they are after, (this goes for all fundamentalist nut jobs, not just Christian ones).
Don’t push your opinions down my throat, and I will as normal most likely not even mention my beliefs in polite conversation (mainly because of negative sterotyping by some, who feel me and my ilk eat babies, sacrifice willy nilly etc).
I have read most of the religious texts around, found a text that appeals, and thats my choice. I live in a house with a Buddhist, an atheist, a Christian and myself, a non baby eating Satanist. We are a happy little family, and often engage in lively discussions over the dinner table, we respect that we all have our own beliefs, and generally hold the rule, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, you do what ever floats your boat to get you through the day.

Jim Jones said :

Nobody called *all* Christians “a bunch of intolerant, bigoted hatemongers”. It was specific description of Danny Nalliah and his bunch of fundy fools, and this was very obviously the case.

Untie your knickers and have a bex, mate.

All I’m saying is that this debate seems to be about bagging one group of religious persons as crazy, hatemongering bigots, whereas another religious group seems perfectly entitled to pursue their own rites and beliefs as if it were the most natural thing in the world (despite admitting they hate the other group).

I’m not associated with either group here, but the debate seems very one sided. I will concede that Pastor Danny seems to be a fruit loop, but there still doesn’t seem any real reason for such a bizarre reaction from some posters.

and for the 3-post nutbag award, I’d like to quote from a pamphlet disseminated by the Catch the Fire Fools:

5. Ask the Lord to give you insight. Spot Satan’s strongholds in the area you living in (brothels, gambling places, bottle shops, mosques, temples – Freemason/ Buddhist /Hindu etc. witchcraft)

[ … ]

7. If you are ready to pray against it, do so. If not bring it to your church and ask your intercessors through the pastor to pull these strongholds down.

For those with an interest in Nalliah and his group, I’d suggest checking out the crikey.com archives on the man, which includes such highlights as:

“Nalliah fired off an offensive press release on Tuesday blaming the Victorian bushfires on abortion.”

“prosecuted for religious vilification following attacks on Muslims, including calling them “demons” and associating them with drug-trafficking, in the group’s newsletter.”

” attacked gays and lesbians, and in December the group criticised the Federal Government for dumping Warwick Marsh as a men’s health ambassador following Crikey’s revelation of a homophobic publication by Marsh’s group. A press release attacked the Prime Minister and Nicola Roxon for “pandering to homosexual couples” and adopting an “official government policy ?—?if you don’t think homosexuality is normal you have a problem. You are to be discriminated against.”

and, my favourite:

“regularly claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh”

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Calling all Christians (and I quote) “a bunch of intolerant, bigoted hatemongers ” is equivalent to calling all Muslims crazy suicidal terrorists.

Neither of which is true.

Making such generalisations about any other group typically gets you strung up on this site (as well it should).

Nobody called *all* Christians “a bunch of intolerant, bigoted hatemongers”. It was specific description of Danny Nalliah and his bunch of fundy fools, and this was very obviously the case.

Untie your knickers and have a bex, mate.

Skid said: On the other hand, intolerance is ‘Unable or indisposed to tolerate, endure or bear; unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions, beliefs, practices, or people’

And the tolerance on this site to anyone with religious beliefs really fits this definition – someone on the previous thread on this topic was threatening something akin to fire bombing against the CTFM people.

Really, these guys have been silly enough to believe some silly story spun by a local for whatever reason, and then publish it on the web, and then threaten to PRAY to a God most people here don’t believe in but still, for some reason, violently oppose. Pointing this out leads to accusations of defending them. Obviously, fire bombing is a much more tolerant and respectful act.

For the record – it looks line red wine to me.

Calling all Christians (and I quote) “a bunch of intolerant, bigoted hatemongers ” is equivalent to calling all Muslims crazy suicidal terrorists.

Neither of which is true.

Making such generalisations about any other group typically gets you strung up on this site (as well it should).

The dictionary is a sinful book.

@Housebound:

My dictionary here defines tolerance as “the disposition to be patient and fair towards those whose opinions or practices differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry; the disposition to be patient and fair to opinions which are not one’s own”.
On the other hand, intolerance is “Unable or indisposed to tolerate, endure or bear; unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions, beliefs, practices, or people”.

You can be tolerant and productive by engaging an opponent, but tolerating hate speech is not tolerance, its quietly condoning it.

Embracing one, means by its nature, rejecting the other.
Accept a redefinition of the former at your peril, or accept we’re truly through the looking glass here, and exist in your wonderful state of doublethink.

The Religious Right have reframed a definition of societal tolerance to one legitimising their right to be intolerant of permissive behaviours they dont like, while demanding that everyone else be permissive of the Religious Right’s own intolerance.
ie: They’re using their (re)definition of tolerance to attack secular tolerance as a cornerstone of democratic government for their own ends and in order to limit society’s tolerance of others, and people here are willing to encourage it as being a good citizenry?

Making an exception for one form of condoned hatred opens the floodgate for other kinds.

If anyone from CTFM wanted to engage us or their opponents here, I’d at least read what they had to say. Instead they’re happy simply preaching to their converted.

Oh the last refuge of the losing scoundrel: “This debate is biased against me!”

Apologists for Pol Pot make the same complaint.

housebound said :

If the worst thing a terrorist did was pray – yep, hugging would probably be quite appropriate, even as a special day, if done in a socio-cultural-religiously appropriate way. (Of course, that would redefine terrorism, but that’s another story)

It is true that hugging someone who is either threatening or committing a violent act (a generic definition of a terrorist) could be difficult, even dangerous. I know of a lot of Christian terrorists, but no Wicca ones spring to mind (I’m choosing to exclude those who tend to be linked to my “religion” for burning churches and playing metal, Wicca don’t believe what we do, as we don’t belive what they do).
As I say frequently when there is trouble around
“EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY AND NO ONE GETS HURT”

The date for this holy-battle would be better changed to the 31st of October for Halloween (or I suppose Samhain *sp?*) then it would be on. I imagine it would go a bit like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw

If the worst thing a terrorist did was pray – yep, hugging would probably be quite appropriate, even as a special day, if done in a socio-cultural-religiously appropriate way. (Of course, that would redefine terrorism, but that’s another story)

neanderthalsis said :

religions like to play the victim card

I fixed it for you.

housebound said :

This thread is one-sided. What a tolerant bunch we are.

A group threatens to come here and PRAY, and people feel all threatened. If their God isn’t as real or powerful as they claim, why all the angst?

It’s hilariously ironic that you’re sticking up for a bunch of intolerant, bigoted hatemongers in the name of ‘tolerance’.

What’s next, national hug a terrorist day?

This thread is one-sided. What a tolerant bunch we are.

A group threatens to come here and PRAY, and people feel all threatened. If their God isn’t as real or powerful as they claim, why all the angst?

Minority religions like to play the victim card

although here, of course, neandethalsis, mtainsliewitches is rather just setting out the ‘defend thyself’ stool, no? it isn’t ‘playing the victim card’ when there is a seemingly credible threat against you!

as i think i have quoted elsewhere here, lifted from a fave bumper sticker, ‘the christian right is neither’…

Its not much violence, but the next verse is where they blind the sorcerer and give his job away.
(the New Testament is kind of tame and sort of dull compared to the Old one…)

I agree that this is a bit of an unbalanced thread, though. Maybe we can hope for some self-proclaimed prophet draped in nothing but shredded rags to notice it in the next few months, and make his own set of YouTube videos?

I am loath to refer to Pastor Danny and his merry band of whackjobs as Christians. The hatred and ultra-conservative nutjobbery that he and his minions espose certainly doesn’t reflect the teachings of the bloke who 2000 years ago was nailed to a tree because he said we should be nice to each other.

And as for MtAinslieWitches, your average Christian wouldn’t kill witches merely because someone a few thousand years ago said they should. If we all took the bible literally there would be wide spread incest, murder, stonings, beatings, etc. Minority religions like to play the victim card of big mean nasty christians picking on them because they believe in crystals, magic, Labor Party economic management, chakras and other mythical creatures.

Skidbladnir said :

VYBerlina: Acts 13:8-10 (or just float your mouse over the link)

Thanks skid. The passage refers to a disagreement, but nothing suggesting violence or killing.

The only reason I’m harping on this is because this thread seems very one sided to me.

LMR said :

That paster is a nutsackjobbie though.

“Pastor” is open as an adopted title thanks to the Reformation’s idea of a Priesthood of All Believers.
Pastor Danny Nalliah falls into the peculiar branch of Conservative Evangelicalism (as in, technically not Fundamentalism) which are a bastardisation of Protestant Reformationists.
IE: He is just a guy with no formal qualification or study, standing up the front of a room displaying attention-seeking behaviours and has delusions that he is of elevated importance in his construct, which is inspired by book.
People listen to him and so reinforce his delusions.

Apparently just because Australian practice has allowed Christianity to enjoy a privileged historic position, competing non-Christian religious systems deserve either no place of equal privilege, and nor will Pastor Danny won’t accept a diminished position for Christianity in governance.

So he picks on one of the groups greenlit for scapegoating by his chosen Skybeard thousands of years ago.

Sound like a fair analysis?

VYBerlina: Acts 13:8-10 (or just float your mouse over the link)

The Bible’s all good and well until someone points how stupid bits of it are, at which point the cherrypicking begins.

If the Old Testament is so irrelevant to Christians, why does it appear in the Bible at all?

MtAinslieWitches said :

Greetings VYBerlinaV8_the_o

Christians WOULD kill Witches and Pagans, if they could legally. The mistranslation of their Bible commands them to, not to comply would be against ‘the Word of God’. Get educated, read Exodus 22:18 KJB ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’. On the contry our main tenent is ‘An it harm none, do what you will’.

Yes, is it not natural to hate those who would try to repress, outlaw, persecute or otherwise infringe on my rights (rites), in a democratic country, to practice my lawful religion? Acusations as Heinous and defamatory as animal or child sacrifice, from people who have no idea what we do (did you know its a Christian sin to even research Witchcraft or Paganism, the sole authority on the subject for Chrictians is the Bible) is unacceptable.

And really, if your not a Witch, Pagan, Christian or supporter of either then you probably dont know what your talking about, under those circumstances its wise to be quiet and listen, you may learn something.

Blessed Be

Magister
Mt Ainslie Witches

Interesting, one of the few sensible comments on this topic. Got a New Testament reference at all?

And please don’t suggest I don’t know what I’m talking about – I’ve first hand experience on both sides of the fence.

LOL @ Y’all

This all sounds like a blast, if the weather is nice I might drag the bbq up mount ainslie on the 17th.

Suppose I should think about choosing sides, not a hard choice, if there is one thing pagans do well I reckon it would be partying, and pagan girls are HOT and easy from what Ive read LMAO

That paster is a nutsackjobbie though.

I got a chuckle out of that.

Greetings VYBerlinaV8_the_o

Christians WOULD kill Witches and Pagans, if they could legally. The mistranslation of their Bible commands them to, not to comply would be against ‘the Word of God’. Get educated, read Exodus 22:18 KJB ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’. On the contry our main tenent is ‘An it harm none, do what you will’.

Yes, is it not natural to hate those who would try to repress, outlaw, persecute or otherwise infringe on my rights (rites), in a democratic country, to practice my lawful religion? Acusations as Heinous and defamatory as animal or child sacrifice, from people who have no idea what we do (did you know its a Christian sin to even research Witchcraft or Paganism, the sole authority on the subject for Chrictians is the Bible) is unacceptable.

And really, if your not a Witch, Pagan, Christian or supporter of either then you probably dont know what your talking about, under those circumstances its wise to be quiet and listen, you may learn something.

Blessed Be

Magister
Mt Ainslie Witches

VY – the Christians are coming with the sole intent of stopping other people practising their beliefs.

You can’t get more clear cut than that. It doesn’t need to involve violence to be bigotry.

MtAinslieWitches said :

Greetings All,

Let me get a few things straight here.

The Christians hate Witches and Pagans on religious grounds through zealot misinterpretation of the Bible, we hate Christians as a defensive response.

Witches and Pagans want nothing more than to live in peace and to be able to practice our religion without prejudice or fear of persecution.

Have no illusions about it, the Christians would KILL all of the Witches and Pagans, and anyone else who disagrees with them, if they could! Its also the Christians pushing for the removal of religious vilification laws so they can publicly attack other religions safely.

Oh and I-filed
’19th century theosophical raving loony fringe cult rubbish, courtesy of the Theosophist Burley Griffins?’ That made me chuckle, its almost poetry. Seriously though Burley Griffin and his wife did design Canberra based on occult symbolism and sacred geometry, but what ever you think about that it makes for a beautiful city.

Blessed Be

Magister
Mt Ainslie Witches

Christians would KILL witches? Today? Any evidence to back this up? I’m starting to think both sides are being bigoted. And you admit you hate Christians anyway (because of their religion – what do we call that again?).

Jim Jones – do you think ‘spiritual warfare’ equals physical violence? I doubt it. What is ‘spiritual warfare’ if not a religious rite?

I don’t think any of this is particularly healthy or balanced, but I think this debate is quite one sided.

Greetings All,

Let me get a few things straight here.

The Christians hate Witches and Pagans on religious grounds through zealot misinterpretation of the Bible, we hate Christians as a defensive response.

Witches and Pagans want nothing more than to live in peace and to be able to practice our religion without prejudice or fear of persecution.

Have no illusions about it, the Christians would KILL all of the Witches and Pagans, and anyone else who disagrees with them, if they could! Its also the Christians pushing for the removal of religious vilification laws so they can publicly attack other religions safely.

Oh and I-filed
’19th century theosophical raving loony fringe cult rubbish, courtesy of the Theosophist Burley Griffins?’ That made me chuckle, its almost poetry. Seriously though Burley Griffin and his wife did design Canberra based on occult symbolism and sacred geometry, but what ever you think about that it makes for a beautiful city.

Blessed Be

Magister
Mt Ainslie Witches

Addison said :

Why are any of them bigoted? Each group dislikes the other on religious grounds (go ask a practicing witch, or for that matter many posters here, what they think of Christians), and have said they will perform religious rites relating to their beliefs. Has either said they hate the other, or made threats of violence? Or are we perhaps all overreacting a bit…

You really should read the post before expressing your opinion.

The happy clappy types are being shipped in *specifically* to wage ‘spiritual warfare’ against a bunch of harmless nutsacks. They’re not here to have some harmless ‘religious rites’, they’re coming to stop the wiccans and pagans ‘practising satanic witchcraft’.

Nalliah and his lot are undeniably bigoted. That’s not even up for debate. If you think otherise, you should apply for an internship with Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder General.

Why are any of them bigoted? Each group dislikes the other on religious grounds (go ask a practicing witch, or for that matter many posters here, what they think of Christians), and have said they will perform religious rites relating to their beliefs. Has either said they hate the other, or made threats of violence? Or are we perhaps all overreacting a bit…

Fair call Jim Jones, it was probably overkill to suggest bigoted for the witches.

Sounds like I wasn’t clear – sorry.

Yes, I do think that the Happy Clappy types are bigots. As you’ve pointed out, it’s bigotry that has motivated their trip.

I was arguing that the witches aren’t bigoted by opposing such actions – really, all their doing is sticking up for themselves. To call the witches bigoted seems a very large stretch.

Sure, they’re completely insane. But bigoted?

Not the most reliable source of definitions, but Wikipedia:

”
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats members of a group (e.g. a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.[1] Bigotry is the corresponding mindset or action.
”
If one has to travel interstate and then call others to ‘spiritual’ arms etc etc then I suggest it meets the above definition. If one has to call others to ‘defend’ then why not? As I said the ‘witches’ are the lessor of the two and bigot is probably a harsh word I agree but I said it and no turning back now!

johnboy said :

Hate filled nut jobs trucking in from across the country to attack harmless members of our own community is, however, a source of both.

If that isn’t bigotry, then I don’t know what is.

+1 for the word nutsackery, and I would like to propose that it would make an excellant tag to go with “nutters”

IMHO, the whole lot of them are nutsacks, but I fail to see how their act of opposing the particularly vicious and intolerant brand of fundamentalist Christian nutsackery is some sort of bigotry.

You seem to be swinging the word ‘bigoted’ around in a pretty haphazard fashion.

We really shouldn’t give the ‘happy clappy nuballs’ or the ‘witches’ the time of day now should we? On the one hand, the Christians are coming to instill Nazi-type hatred (through prayer mind you) against the witches just because witches’ beliefs don’t align with their own. On the other hand, the call to arms by ‘witches’ appears to be an attempt to make a mockery out of the ‘nutballs’ and that in itself is bigoted.

Of course I am an Athiest so indifferent to faith: pagan, wiccan, or spiritual, and I do realise that this post contains more cynicism and satire than not, and I accept the weighting between the two on the point of bigotry is more on the ‘nutball’ side but still… glass houses, stones?

And now… my rant may appear hypocritical as I have a morbid curiosity to go and see the show so I will be there but only there as an observer and with no affiliation to anything. I think those who do attend and not affiliated in any way to the two should do the same.

I think my favourite part of RiotACT 3.5 is that we now have a “NUTTERS” tag.

Wow this is going to be great entertainment. I’m going up just to watch the festivities.

switch said :

Did you see the Olympic torch relay?

Can’t say I was a fan of how that turned out either.

> Hate filled nut jobs trucking in from across the country to attack harmless members of our own community is, however, a source of both.

Did you see the Olympic torch relay?

Who is this Mr Ainslie fellow?

artuoui said :

There’s a wicca and pagan ‘community’ in Canberra now? And they’re the ones giving events credibility?
Right, I’m outta here.

Artuoi, didn’t you know that Canberra’s very design is based on 19th century theosophical raving loony fringe cult rubbish, courtesy of the Theosophist Burley Griffins?

johnboy said :

No, we knew there were wiccans doing wiccan things in Canberra, we don’t see it as a cause of either concern or surprise.

O, what a sheltered life I’ve had.

Grrrr said :

Sheesh, where’s the “I’ll be there for amusement” poll option?

I’d vote for “I’ll be supporting local rationalists”…

Sheesh, where’s the “I’ll be there for amusement” poll option?

housebound said :

Right… so a Christian pastor from out of town says there’s witches doing witches’ things in Canberra. We all laugh because it is so clearly ridiculous. Then the local pagan/wicca community organise a counterevent, as if to say witches really are a force here in Canberra.

Waiting for the next installment.

No, we knew there were wiccans doing wiccan things in Canberra, we don’t see it as a cause of either concern or surprise.

Hate filled nut jobs trucking in from across the country to attack harmless members of our own community is, however, a source of both.

Right… so a Christian pastor from out of town says there’s witches doing witches’ things in Canberra. We all laugh because it is so clearly ridiculous. Then the local pagan/wicca community organise a counterevent, as if to say witches really are a force here in Canberra.

Waiting for the next installment.

There’s a wicca and pagan ‘community’ in Canberra now? And they’re the ones giving events credibility?
Right, I’m outta here.

The local wicca and pagan community have just given this “event” some cred by taking it seriously enough to organise a counter rally. Sounds like a good weekend to go to the coast.

According to the poll, two zealots will show up. (Or maybe two people clicked the wrong button.)

Sorry Danny, Aint no blood there. I had some for me and that was for my homies.

So… anyone up for a “Reason Rally”?