'Witch anger at Catholic club ban'

brummytom · 18-06-2009 10:06pm #1

A witches' coven leader has accused the Roman Catholic Church of prejudice after her group was banned from a parish social club.
Sandra Davis, 61, high priestess of the Crystal Cauldron group, booked Our Lady's club in Stockport, Greater Manchester for a Halloween Ball.
But when she tried to pay she was told the Diocese of Shrewsbury had decided the pagan group could not use it.

A diocese spokesman said the group was not compatible with the club's "ethos".
Mrs Davis, of Bridgehall, set up the Crystal Cauldron in Reddish as a pagan meeting place.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8107260.stm

Mrs Davis has since found a new venue for the ball and said it was a family event open to everyone.

Witchcraft - fun for all the family

javaboy · 18-06-2009 11:29pm

Copied from AH rather than moved.

philologos · 19-06-2009 10:33am

What else did she expect the Diocese of Shrewsbury to say?

The audio clip is just plain hilarious. She says she didn't expect that to happen in this day and age? What? The Catholic Church not to allow her to practice witchcraft which is against Catholicism on Catholic property?

"Burning times are still in peoples mind". What is this woman on? She may mean well but this is just ridiculous.

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 10:38am

Hosting a hollow'een ball is not practising witchcraft.
The hall said it was available for public bookings.

philologos · 19-06-2009 10:47am

Thaedydal wrote: »

Hosting a hollow'een ball is not practising witchcraft.
The hall said it was available for public bookings.

They also have discretion to reject anything that goes against a Catholic ethos on their premises. Some churches are more liberal than others on who they let into their hall. For example a church near where I live allowed Muslims in for their Friday prayers while they were finding another location for themselves. Some wouldn't dare dream of that though.

Just because bookings are public does not mean that there should be no restrictions on what kind of events should be allowed. The fact that this woman tries to whip this up into a persecution issue is the funny part really.

Tabnabs · 19-06-2009 10:48am

Jakkass wrote: »

The Catholic Church not to allow her to practice witchcraft which is against Catholicism on Catholic property?

Go on then, I'll bite.

What's your source for saying witchcraft is "against Catholicism"?

For me the most interesting paragraph was:

"It's not black witches and pointy hats, and we're not devil worshippers. We respect everybody's religion and we're trying not to have things in the shadows."

Who would have guessed the catholic church would not show understanding or openness... :rolleyes:

philologos · 19-06-2009 10:57am

Dyflin wrote: »

Go on then, I'll bite.

What's your source for saying witchcraft is "against Catholicism"?

By against I mean that witchcraft is forbidden in Catholicism and all mainstream forms of Christianity. Hence it is against the ethos to have any event associated with it in a church.

Dyflin wrote: »

Who would have guessed the catholic church would not show understanding or openness... :rolleyes:

It's the property of the Catholic Church. I think it is fine if they do not want to promote witchcraft which is going against their religion on their premises.

What do you mean by understand and be open? This generally does not mean handing over your property when it breaches your ethos.

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 10:59am

If that is the case then they should have taken the booking and they're policies should be amended is it not advailbile to the public but advailible under certain terms and conditions only.

philologos · 19-06-2009 11:04am

Thaedydal wrote: »

If that is the case then they should have taken the booking and they're policies should be amended is it not advailbile to the public but advailible under certain terms and conditions only.

You aren't explaining yourself very well as to why.

If bookings are subject to being acceptable by the ethos surely it was perfectly reasonable to tell this group to go elsewhere.

It's avaliable to the public under certain conditions.

You sound as if the term "being avaliable to the public" means you cannot have conditions or rules on bookings.

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 11:05am

The booking was accepted, they accepted the booking in good faith so did she and when she went to pay the depoist she was refushed, she was messed about. That sort of stuff would pissed me off no matter what sort of an event I was planning.

getz · 19-06-2009 11:09am

yes the [any] church has a right to not let in the club any thing wich goes against there belief ,but i question is ,as these witches were not there to practice there religion on the premises, just holding a dance,would the church stop protestant/muslim/jewish people also from booking the hall to have a party or dance ?

philologos · 19-06-2009 11:10am

Thaedydal wrote: »

The booking was accepted, they accepted the booking in good faith so did she and when she went to pay the depoist she was refushed, she was messed about. That sort of stuff would pissed me off no matter what sort of an event I was planning.

Problems of beauocracy happen everywhere. They probably should have been more immediate in telling her no, but they had every right to tell her no under the grounds that it is against Catholicism to have anything to do with the promotion of practice of witchcraft. Their premises, their rules.

getz: If the dance was to promote Islam, Judaism or any other religion I'm pretty sure that they would have told them no. However if it is entirely open and if it isn't for this purpose that would have probably been okay. It is up to them to decide what is kosher or not kosher on their property.

Generally you wouldn't have a pig market in a synagogue, likewise you wouldn't have an event promoting witchcraft on church property.

getz · 19-06-2009 11:28am

was the dance to promote witch craft ?if it was i would agree with you.the publicity the coven has got out of this could not be better for them.

philologos · 19-06-2009 11:35am

getz wrote: »

was the dance to promote witch craft ?if it was i would agree with you.the publicity the coven has got out of this could not be better for them.

Just listen to the audio clip on the BBC site. Sensationalist language. It's almost like the front page of tabloid newspaper. Anything that criticises Christianity or the Church gets publicity, it's just the way that society has gone

getz · 19-06-2009 11:42am

on recollection in most church schools in england[i am not sure if this has one] to be able to get goverment grants they have to have a catchment of children from other religions, during prayers it is standard practice for them to be provided a area on the churches premises for their prayers,so its not as though this is a big deal .

JimiTime · 19-06-2009 12:41pm

I worked in a pub in London for a while. Our function room could be booked by the public. It was still private property, and we reserved the right to refuse booking. It was still available to the public, but certain types of events were refused for various reasons.

This was a coven of witches, booking a halloween party. Halloween is a big day on the calender for witches IIRC, so its not just a fancy dress party.

Ironically though, the RCC don't seem to have issue with their adherants celebrating what is a pagan feast anyway.

Either way though, its far from persecution. It is discrimination, but so what. Discrimination is not automatically this horrid word.

'We are members of the anti-catholic league, could we rent your church for a seminar'.
'NO'
'Why'
'Because you are from the anti-catholic league, and this is a catholic church'
'Thats discrimination'
'Yes, it is, but it is justified.'

Witchcraft is no different, as it is in opposition to God. So someone who claims to be God fearing, would be quite entitled to discriminate against a coven of witches celebrating one of their feasts on his property.

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 1:26pm

Against which God? There are many according to pagan beliefs and this is the Paganism forum.

Tabnabs · 19-06-2009 1:34pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Witchcraft is no different, as it is in opposition to God.

I know wiccan's will be more than able to stand up for themselves, but the only opposition is in the mind of the catholics. The coven probably wouldn't give a flying **** who owns the hall, they only wanted a location (indoors as it's late Autumn) to hold their dance. There's no mention of any rituals, rites or nakedness anywhere. It was a Halloween Ball with an ABBA tribute act! Halloween isn't even a wiccan holiday ffs!

But stepping back from the details, it's a win-win situation. The catholics can go back to being small minded holier than thou's thinking they have saved their immortal souls and the wiccan group gets wide and free publicity and you can bet all the tickets for the new location are well sold out by now.

philologos · 19-06-2009 1:38pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Against which God? There are many according to pagan beliefs and this is the Paganism forum.

I think it's quite obvious which God is being referred to if we are discussing Catholicism.

If the Wiccans don't care who owns the hall. They can respect that the Catholic Church owns that hall and they can go elsewhere so as not to break their ethos out of respect.

Theres nothing small minded about it. Their religion prohibits it, therefore they cannot endorse or encourage witchcraft.

Is your problem with the fact that the Catholics refused, or with the Judeo-Christian value behind why they refused. I'm starting to think it is the latter.

JimiTime · 19-06-2009 1:53pm

Dyflin wrote: »

I know wiccan's will be more than able to stand up for themselves, but the only opposition is in the mind of the catholics. The coven probably wouldn't give a flying **** who owns the hall, they only wanted a location (indoors as it's late Autumn) to hold their dance. There's no mention of any rituals, rites or nakedness anywhere. It was a Halloween Ball with an ABBA tribute act! Halloween isn't even a wiccan holiday ffs!

Well, its their perogative. Witchcraft is particularly heinous to alot of Christians, so maybe they just did not such folk useing their hall. I'm surprised that those who call themselves witches are actually surprised by what happened.

But stepping back from the details, it's a win-win situation. The catholics can go back to being small minded holier than thou's thinking they have saved their immortal souls and the wiccan group gets wide and free publicity and you can bet all the tickets for the new location are well sold out by now.

Indeed. Insults about small mindedness aside, I'm sure the witches will just find somewhere else and the proprietors will be happy not to be hosting the event.

JimiTime · 19-06-2009 1:59pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Against which God? There are many according to pagan beliefs and this is the Paganism forum.

This seems a little obtuse of you. No offence was intended, but in the context of a 'Catholic' hall, I would have thought it was obvious. You are obviously making a point, but I'm not sure what it is?

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 2:01pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's quite obvious which God is being referred to if we are discussing Catholicism.

Given that this is the paganism forum and the beliefs of those here do not recognise the christian's gods dominion over them or the earth and all humans on it please respect this by making sure you are referencing the christian god by referencing to him as that and not assuming to mention god with a capital G auto magically references him.

Thank you.

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, its their perogative. Witchcraft is particularly heinous to alot of Christians, so maybe they just did not such folk useing their hall. I'm surprised that those who call themselves witches are actually surprised by what happened.

The U.K. is a lot more accepting of paganism and it is more highly publicly visible then over here and if she had never run into this sort of discrimination before then I can understand why she'd be shocked and surprised esp after they initially accepted the booking.

JimiTime · 19-06-2009 3:34pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The U.K. is a lot more accepting of paganism and it is more highly publicly visible then over here and if she had never run into this sort of discrimination before then I can understand why she'd be shocked and surprised esp after they initially accepted the booking.

Fair enough. I still completely understand why a witches coven is discriminated against from a catholic organisation. It really should not be surprising IMO.

philologos · 19-06-2009 3:42pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

The U.K. is a lot more accepting of paganism and it is more highly publicly visible then over here and if she had never run into this sort of discrimination before then I can understand why she'd be shocked and surprised esp after they initially accepted the booking.

This isn't discrimination. It's entirely fair. You ask for an event in a Catholic owned centre / hall. All applications are done by the rules. If your application violates the rules or in this case the ethos you cannot book the hall. Anything to do with witchcraft violates a Catholic ethos, therefore the coven could not book the hall.

That's fair enough. As I say, it's like expecting to have a barbeque with pork in a Jewish community centre. If I wanted to cook pork I would go elsewhere.

This woman probably means well, but the audio clip on the BBC link is totally off the wall. The guy interviewing her even asks her "Don't they have a right to tell you not to have this event on their premises?". You can tell that he doesn't agree with her either. It's only common sense that witchcraft isn't tolerated in buildings owned by a Christian church. Theres nothing shocking about it surely?

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 3:55pm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

1648

1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminating

Main Entry:
dis·crim·i·nat·ing
Function:
adjective
Date:
1647

1: making a distinction : distinguishing <a discriminating mark>2: marked by discrimination: a: discerning, judicious <discriminating buyers> b: discriminatory <accused of discriminating practices>

They are discriminating, but I never said that was a bad thing at all, infact pagans will discriminate as they do not believe that witchcraft is for everyone or paganism and will refuse to deal with, train or initate people they do not wish to or feel are not fit to be.

There are more meanings and nusances to that word then you think and you are seeking to be offended, we all discriminate.

JimiTime · 19-06-2009 3:56pm

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't discrimination.

I think that technically it is, but so what? 'Discrimination' sems to be a dirty word, as it conjurs up 'No Blacks' type things. Discrimination is not automatically bad. A Nazi discriminating against a Jew is bad, as its racist discrimination. A Jew discriminating against a Nazi is an entirely different matter. You know what I mean?

philologos · 19-06-2009 4:03pm

Applying the rules of the ethos to every application is about as fair as you will get. Witchcraft just happens not to be acceptable under said ethos but every application is considered equally.

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 4:08pm

They accepted the application and then went back on it, they screwed up /shrug and if she's shocked cos she has never been discriminated like that before then that's her take on it.

I do have a problem with so called community centres which are parish halls in disguise and will happily availd of community grants which call for the 'community centre' to be at the disposal of all the members of the community but then suddenly theres an issue
when a member of the community who is not a member of the local parish wishes to use the space and lo and behold the parish hall ethos is applied.

philologos · 19-06-2009 4:26pm

Yes, they reviewed it and they found it violated the ethos. Fair game.

It's not the fact that this person wasn't a Catholic, it's because they are promoting activity that is against the ethos. Hence they were rejected. I've yet to see what I am meant to be surprised about?

Nevyn · 19-06-2009 4:27pm

You are not, she was if thats how she feels about it then thats how she feels about it.

Talliesin · 20-06-2009 4:32pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Ironically though, the RCC don't seem to have issue with their adherants celebrating what is a pagan feast anyway.

The RCC has the holidays of All Saints and All Souls and to them Hallowe'en marks the start of that. There is a historical relationship between the two, but that does not make them the same.

The idea that [insert Christian holiday here] is one and the same as [insert Pagan holiday here] comes up in two ways. One is some Pagans who try to claim some sort of superiority on this basis, and the other is some Christians who don't celebrate some of the holidays in question and try to claim some sort of superiority on that basis (as well as deliberately conflating bigotry against Catholics and bigotry against Pagans so one can feed on the other). Neither argument rings true to my mind.

JimiTime · 21-06-2009 12:42pm

Talliesin wrote: »

The RCC has the holidays of All Saints and All Souls and to them Hallowe'en marks the start of that. There is a historical relationship between the two, but that does not make them the same.

The idea that [insert Christian holiday here] is one and the same as [insert Pagan holiday here] comes up in two ways. One is some Pagans who try to claim some sort of superiority on this basis, and the other is some Christians who don't celebrate some of the holidays in question and try to claim some sort of superiority on that basis (as well as deliberately conflating bigotry against Catholics and bigotry against Pagans so one can feed on the other). Neither argument rings true to my mind.

You are trying to establish my motivations, and i think what you say, while entirely wrong, is quite a fair assesment as it could look like what you described.

Talliesin · 23-06-2009 11:56pm

Unless you were writing pamphlets in the seventeenth century, you aren't the prototype of such arguments I was thinking of at all.

If you were writing pamphlets in the seventeenth century, congratulations on several grounds.

Lou.m · 24-06-2009 7:34am

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's quite obvious which God is being referred to if we are discussing Catholicism.

If the Wiccans don't care who owns the hall. They can respect that the Catholic Church owns that hall and they can go elsewhere so as not to break their ethos out of respect.

Theres nothing small minded about it. Their religion prohibits it, therefore they cannot endorse or encourage witchcraft.

Is your problem with the fact that the Catholics refused, or with the Judeo-Christian value behind why they refused. I'm starting to think it is the latter.

:-)

There is quite a lot which is against Catholicism:-)

I imagine tumble weed is quite prevalent .

And boredom.

Fine we will set up our own hall with gay people and poker and hookers and daiquiris and .......... i have a feeling a whole load of priests will turn up.

If only for the daiquiris we all know how much priests love daiquiris:-)

I like priests. Know a lot of them very well . Decent men. Human men.

See thing is there is not much that is against Witchcraft yet so much that is against Catholicism .........that's why they are nearly always the hypocrites.

If the catholic church wanted to keep everything that was against Catholicism out of that hall i imagine there would be far fewer priests by morning.

I fully approve of this ruling . Lets keep things separate shall we us to us and them to them...........although who is who i dont know really.

It seems to me if you are a devil in a dog collar and hide it you are in and if you are a human in a dog collar and admit you are devil to the world you're out!

Yes i fully approve of this ruling. Entirely in keeping with the teachings of Catholicism the gospels of almighty god the creator of the universe it is indeed what it is all about .......a church hall party.

How mundane, how boring, how small, how appropriate.

How lost in meaning and vanity it all is.
Church halls hmmm...well if you are going to make a stand i guess you gotta make it somewhere:-) Now thats a hell of a line they are drawing there.It might be more impressive if it was not drawn in biro though. IT is funny how religion gets reduced to little men with clipboards.

Is the catholic church familiar with Irony???

Dont you just love justice:-)!?!

By the way there are some decent priests around still i happen to know a few personally and i can vouch for the fact that they would not have a problem with the use of a hall for such a party............... .they never have before with me anyway.........as long as you buy them a drink:-)

philologos · 24-06-2009 9:12am

Lou.m wrote: »

:-)

There is quite a lot which is against Catholicism:-)

Witchcraft is considered to be sinful in Christianity in general. So I can understand the reasoning behind why they would want it off their property. For example if you went into a building with a Presbyterian ethos with alcohol they will tell you where to go. I know this because at my primary school they were arranging a bring your own booze party / BBQ on the grounds of the Presbyterian church for the parents. However they obviously had to change their arrangements on finding out. Which of course was the respectful thing to do. Likewise it would have been the respectful thing for the Wiccans to do in this case.

Lou.m wrote: »

Fine we will set up our own hall with gay people and poker and hookers and daiquiris and .......... i have a feeling a whole load of priests will turn up.

None of these people are against Christianity. Rather it is the act that is. The cocktails might be if they are opposed to serving alcohol on their grounds. The church I attend to doesn't have much of an issue with this for BBQ's or other church events.

Lou.m wrote: »

If only for the daiquiris we all know how much priests love daiquiris:-)

I like priests. Know a lot of them very well . Decent men. Human men.

I never said priests weren't human men. Indeed, I thought that was rather obvious. I personally see no need to deify priests like you are suggesting. I'm not even a member of the Church, but I can see that their decision is right on the ball. They have every right to refuse this gathering on their church grounds.

Lou.m wrote: »

See thing is there is not much that is against Witchcraft yet so much that is against Catholicism .........that's why they are nearly always the hypocrites.

So what? You're boasting in that Witchcraft has less rules? Are you kidding me? Most Christians would argue that God revealed to us these rules so as to protect us from the dangers of the world, and to keep us separate from certain worldly activities which could be to our detriment.

Lou.m wrote: »

If the catholic church wanted to keep everything that was against Catholicism out of that hall i imagine there would be far fewer priests by morning.

I'm still not quite getting your point for two reasons.

1) You haven't quite explained what Catholic priests do that is against Catholicism, apart from a lame excuse to say that being with gay people and prostitutes isn't acceptable. That isn't against Catholicism. Likewise, you go on about a cocktail. Drinking isn't forbidden in Christianity, drunkenness is. Hence they are perfectly fine doing this as long as they are careful.

2) You assume that I think that priests are perfect. I don't. What I do think is the Church has every right to enforce their ethos concerning their property.

Lou.m wrote: »

I fully approve of this ruling . Lets keep things separate shall we us to us and them to them...........although who is who i dont know really.

The Church doesn't have to tolerate what it considers to be against their faith on their grounds. It's as simple as that.

Lou.m wrote: »

It seems to me if you are a devil in a dog collar and hide it you are in and if you are a human in a dog collar and admit you are devil to the world you're out!

I'm still struggling to see the significance of this argument in this discussion so far.

Lou.m wrote: »

Yes i fully approve of this ruling. Entirely in keeping with the teachings of Catholicism the gospels of almighty god the creator of the universe it is indeed what it is all about .......a church hall party.

It's funny that you say this. It is entirely in keeping with the teachings of Christianity, Catholicism, and the Gospel to prohibit anything to do with witchcraft from their premises.

Lou.m wrote: »

How lost in meaning and vanity it all is.
Church halls hmmm...well if you are going to make a stand i guess you gotta make it somewhere:-) Now thats a hell of a line they are drawing there.It might be more impressive if it was not drawn in biro though. IT is funny how religion gets reduced to little men with clipboards.

Again, don't see the point with the above. Witchcraft was considered to be against Christianity in the first century also:

Acts 19:18-19 wrote:

Also many of those who became believers confessed and disclosed their practices. A number of those who practised magic collected their books and burned them publicly; when the value of these books was calculated, it was found to come to fifty thousand silver coins.

Lou.m wrote: »

Is the catholic church familiar with Irony???

Dont you just love justice:-)!?!

This is utterly irrelevant to whether or not they have the right to refuse the use of their property based on their ethos.

Lou.m wrote: »

By the way there are some decent priests around still i happen to know a few personally and i can vouch for the fact that they would not have a problem with the use of a hall for such a party............... .they never have before with me anyway.........as long as you buy them a drink:-)

Are you suggesting that those who want to be in keeping with their faith aren't decent?

Lou.m · 24-06-2009 11:04am

Jakkass wrote: »

Witchcraft is considered to be sinful in Christianity in general. So I can understand the reasoning behind why they would want it off their property. For example if you went into a building with a Presbyterian ethos with alcohol they will tell you where to do. I know this because at my primary school they were arranging a bring your own booze party / BBQ on the grounds of the Presbyterian church for the parents. However they obviously had to change their arrangements on finding out. Which of course was the respectful thing to do. Likewise it would have been the respectful thing for the Wiccans to do in this case.

None of these people are against Christianity. Rather it is the act that is. The cocktails might be if they are opposed to serving alcohol on their grounds. The church I attend to doesn't have much of an issue with this for BBQ's or other church events.

I never said priests weren't human men. Indeed, I thought that was rather obvious. I personally see no need to deify priests like you are suggesting. I'm not even a member of the Church, but I can see that their decision is right on the ball. They have every right to refuse this gathering on their church grounds.

So what? You're boasting in that Witchcraft has less rules? Are you kidding me? Most Christians would argue that God revealed to us these rules so as to protect us from the dangers of the world, and to keep us separate from certain worldly activities which could be to our detriment.

I'm still not quite getting your point for two reasons.

1) You haven't quite explained what Catholic priests do that is against Catholicism, apart from a lame excuse to say that being with gay people and prostitutes isn't acceptable. That isn't against Catholicism. Likewise, you go on about a cocktail. Drinking isn't forbidden in Christianity, drunkenness is. Hence they are perfectly fine doing this as long as they are careful.

2) You assume that I think that priests are perfect. I don't. What I do think is the Church has every right to enforce their ethos concerning their property.

The Church doesn't have to tolerate what it considers to be against their faith on their grounds. It's as simple as that.

I'm still struggling to see the significance of this argument in this discussion so far.

It's funny that you say this. It is entirely in keeping with the teachings of Christianity, Catholicism, and the Gospel to prohibit anything to do with witchcraft from their premises.

Again, don't see the point with the above. Witchcraft was considered to be against Christianity in the first century also:

This is utterly irrelevant to whether or not they have the right to refuse the use of their property based on their ethos.

Are you suggesting that those who want to be in keeping with their faith aren't decent?

Do the catholic church get Irony.....erm thats a no then:-)??
My god you reply fast:-)!!
I knew you couldn't keep away jackass you like me dont you;-)

My argument.......... .i dont have one because i dont care .........i just have a great sense of humour and a great sense of fun:-)

And i am just playing with you.

To be honest i am surprised the hookers and daiquiri comment didnt give it away!:-)

Thats the problem with the internet you can't sense my delicate withering humorous tone.

No human being is decent .........that is what makes us interesting.

I just dont get your logical linear analytical thought thingy........do i jackass;-)? Seriously dude humour ! IRONY!!!

I keep digressing all over the place:-)

Psst ...it is called FUN!

All i am saying is what i would say to the church in general

LIGHTEN UP!!

Dont ever take anything i might say seriously .....its dangerous!

Jeeze dude i cant believe you thought i was seriously suggesting something about the history of the relationship between the catholic church and witchcraft with the clipboard gag:-)

DUDE !!!:-)

GET OUT ITS A LOVELY AFTERNOON!!

I hope someone is paying you to be at that computer!

I cant believe you made all that serious bullet point critique to my schtick hun.

Witchcraft has no rules dude just guidlines;-) ITS FANTASTIC!!:-)

You dont see the point because you need to laugh!! AT ANY THING LAUGH AT US CRAZY PAGANS I DONT CARE JUST LAUGH!!!

PLEASE!

Lou.m · 24-06-2009 11:11am

I just think it was merely petty of them and pettiness makes baby Jesus cry!

And we all love baby Jesus!

Or at least respect others right to do so:-)

Lou.m · 24-06-2009 11:41am

AAh SCREW ALL THIS ARSEING ABOUT :-)

LE'TS JUST CURSE EM:-)

LESS TALK MORE CURSEY CURSE

MWAHAHAHAAH}:-) }:-)

NeilJ · 14-07-2009 4:35pm

I realise this discussion is probably dead at this point but I was just curious of one thing that is not explained in the article and I can't get the audio to work properly. Did the hall know that the hallowe'en party being organised was by a wiccan group before they cancelled the booking or after? That point does not come across at all and it seems to me quite likely that they may have not known at the time. Any time I have booked a hall for an event all that has been asked for is a name and phone number. If the hall did not know that the event was being organised by witches when they took the original book I think they were perfectly within their right to cancel the booking once they did find out.

'Witch anger at Catholic club ban'

Comments