Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'Priest' arrested after two human skulls and hundreds of pounds of animal flesh, blood and bones

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
moobu2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:56 AM
Original message
'Priest' arrested after two human skulls and hundreds of pounds of animal flesh, blood and bones
found in his shed in Utah..
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 8:01 AM on 16th March 2011

They arrived at the house to search for drugs after arresting three men for possessing methamphetamines.
But police in Clearfield, Utah got a grisly shock when they opened Roberto Casillas-Corrales's backyard shed to find two human skulls and several hundred pounds of animal bones, flesh and blood on the floor and walls.

The remains emitted a strong stench and were surrounded by candles and symbols to form a shrine.

The 53-year-old said it was part of a ritual for his Santeria religion, of which he is a 'santero', or priest.
<snip>

'He's been performing some type of ceremonies in his backyard shed, and that would include the sacrificing of animals, lambs, sheep, goats, rams and chickens.'





He told officials he had bought the skulls for religious purposes three years ago in Cuba, where they had been removed from grave sites.

<snip>

'I've heard them chanting and heard something like stones or sticks being thrown on the ground.'
According to ksl.com, investigators now have to decide whether the sacrifices are against the law or are allowed as a religious freedom.
Brian Barnard, a civil rights attorney, told ABC4: 'If somebody is using that in a legitimate religious practice there should be an exemption.
'The constitution protects religious rights.'


I missed this one, it's from last month.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EmmettKelly Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. Boom shaka laka
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. deleted
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 12:20 PM by Silent3
(replied to wrong message)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. that cauldron looks more like Palo than Santeria.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Question is, who did the skulls belong to?
Not the kind of thing you leave on the shelf and not expect the local authorities to have questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. dug up from a grave in cuba, most likely
skulls exhumed from a grave are reputed to be very powerful in Santeria/Palo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. "in a legitimate religious practice"
I believe in freedom of religion, but only in the sense that I believe in freedom of thought and freedom of expression and pretty much freedom to do anything that doesn't infringe upon an equal degree of freedom for everyone else, with religion getting no special higher or lower status among those freedoms.

I certainly don't won't my government involved in deciding what constitutes a "legitimate" religious practice, and what does not. I don't think I deserve more restricted freedom and more regulation under the law than someone else who makes up unprovable mystical stories, claims fervent belief in those stories, and somehow thus enjoys a special legal status that I don't qualify for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frustratedlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. What's different from sacrificing animals for religious purposes and
the torture animals go thru during dog and cock fighting? Both are cruel to the animals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Teaser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. slaughtered correctly
the animal will experience a lot less suffering than in a dog/cock fight.

Still not fun for the animal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. Pedro Cerrano?


Pedro Cerrano: Is very bad to steal Jobu's rum. Is very bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mysuzuki2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. screw you, Jobu!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReturnoftheDjedi Donating Member (839 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. Fuck you, Jobu, I do it myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. Easy solution. Religious freedom is stupidly defined in this country.
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 12:51 PM by enki23
We already acknowledge that your religion cannot grant you the right to murder, at one extreme. The question is where to draw the other line, the line that defines which rights your religion can grant you that people who do not practice your religion do not share. The real question, however, is why the hell do we have to draw that line at all? If we agree that your religion grants you the right to neglect your children (christian science, etc.) or to abuse animals in ways that other people cannot (santeria, arguably also judaism, islam, etc.), then why should someone's failure to profess your creed remove from them a right they otherwise might have held?

Do we have separate sets of rights, such that one's professed religion determines which set applies? What reasonable secular justification can we come up with for that one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. I assumed Catholic priest. They don't need this to stick for readers who only
read the captions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GKirk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Well the word priest
was in quotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. That is very Old Testament of him. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC