you may think you're intellectually advanced, felix, because you condemn so quickly what you don't or choose not to understand.

its this same ethnocentric, small minded, and some what racist attitude that is the real disgust here.

go spread you're hate somewhere else.

it takes more balls to believe or have faith in something than it does to blindly condemn, as you callously do.

i give respect to those people making animal sacrifices.

whos eating a burger for lunch.

believing in santeria or voodoo, or paganism, or any shamanistic earth & spirits mumbojumbo takes way more faith then the judeo christian brainwashing which came to americas and forced on people of african descent at the end of a sword...

anyway if i kill a cat for chango the monkey god is that ok?

Do you still walk on all fours?

ANY religious, spiritual belief that manifest the power of a supreme being by imposing power on a defenseless creature is merely esthetically fukdup!

Killing animals for what? forgiveness? really?

"The argumentation is puzzling at times. For example, there is a whole chapter devoted to proving that most of the scholarly world is wrong about the reality of child sacrifice at the time the Abraham story took place. The evidence D. adduces does not seem convincing, but it does not matter, for "regardless of whether the story of Abraham represents the end of the practice of child sacrifice, religious interpreters have had to valorize Abraham's willingness to offer up his child. For this is the theological point of the story" (107). Then the argument goes on to assert that child sacrifice should not be the context for interpreting the story anyway. Then why spend all these pages discussing it? This instance points up the questions of how myth or legend is related to historical reality in its birth and how to determine exactly what myth's legacy is. D. uses the term "legitimizing" to connect the myth with social consequences. But juxtaposition of ideas is not proof of connection, and legitimacy and legacy are concepts too vague on which to hang a thesis.

In the concluding chapter D. sketches some of the connections between patriarchal power as epitomized in the Abraham story and the ways in which children are sacrificed today, for example, through physical and sexual abuse, poverty and the welfare system and war. She does not say that religion is essentially or primarily about abuse but rather about power and authority. But the abuse of that power, justified in some way by the Abraham story, is what patriarchy is all about.

Abraham on Trial is complex, sweeping, and, in this reviewer's judgment, unsatisfactory. There are too many loose ends. D. has dealt with a myth which, she asserts, though not the cause of abuse and the poor treatment of women, nonetheless provides their justification. She claims that the chapters are not meant to form an argument built up layer upon layer, but she does heap up information, argument, and assertion in the expectation that it will elicit a guilty verdict for a sort of theological patriarchy. Alas, it adds up to a mistrial."

Religion is am systematic AB-use of moralistic power based on ILL-logical, UN-scientific, yet only mythical proof

It's about as logical as taking communion.

It's 2010, if you still need religion for some sort of personal belief system, then so be it. It's really none of my business and I could care less about what fantasy you believe in. But DON'T bring your voodoo blood rituals to our parks. It's disgusting!

You would think the Park Dept would hire people with some common sense.

how so, catboy?

She believes in Santeria and Animal Sacrifices. She might as well believe the world is flat.

Human race is heading downward, all they do is breed excessively and each new generation is dumber.

You put that in some hot water, add a potato, you got yourself a STEW going baby!