Father Ernesto wrote, “Before we baptize someone, we do three exorcisms on a person (or baby) and they are clearly called exorcisms.” The only thing that bothers me about the baptisms on babies (and I am Catholic, so we do that) is that it seems to indicate that UNbaptized babies are under the influence of the devil and thus, if they were to die unbaptized, the parents would be left to wonder if their beloved child is with God or…elsewhere. I may not be able to support my belief with scripture (except for one sentence that Jesus made about small children and the Kingdom) but I am going to choose to believe that until childen are old enough to make conscious decisions regarding right and wrong, they are under God’s protection. Do you think, Father Ernesto, that I am “wrong” to do that? I am not challenging you at all. I just really want to know how to view this. Thank you for your time.

But, then, you also turn around and claim that you are not being tendentious and that I am side-stepping. I will repeat my claim that I am using exactly the same type of logic that you are using. It makes as much sense to claim that the actions of some in Nigeria gives meaning to that particular Scripture as it makes sense to claim that the actions of Hitler and Stalin give meaning to atheistic humanism.

Try again.

I so very much appreciate the perpsective you bring to the dialogue. Many of us nth-generation Anglo-Americans are just beginning to grapple with the fact that Christianity’s center is moving from the developed world to the developing one. At the same time, however, we can become a bit starry-eyed about this growth at times and fail to remember that, e.g., African Christianity has its own particular problems, some of which we have exported to its shores and some of which, as you note, emerge from traditional sources. Thanks again for the insights.

While my own views aren’t precisely those you described, I can assure you that, no, you are not alone. Learning a bit more (but far from enough so far!) about the Jewish views of these matters has been helpful to me personally.

The point you make is quite right: comparing possession on the one hand with engaging in witchcraft on the other is indeed two different things. Mind you, that presupposes that one can can be possessed and that one can engage in witchcraft as ‘things’. I see no evidence of either being more than assertions but I do see belief in the assertions being true as having real and sometimes quite deadly consequences for those so accused. If one cannot criticize the belief itself – the validity of the assertion about possession being a real event with real evidence (otherwise, how can anyone religious or not know that someone is possessed compared to one who isn’t?) – without being charged as an atheist, and all the negative connotations that label carries with it in the world of the religious, then isn’t that quite revealing in itself?