The Baby-Jumping Colacho The Catholic festival-Spain

(picture from http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=569458 you can watch other pictures here http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/0,,30200-1317128,00.html )

Since 1620 Castrillo de Murcia has celebrated Corpus Christi with a bizarre event that sees grown men dressed as the Devil leaping over helpless babies, an act that is known as El Colacho.

The Catholic festival of Corpus Christi is celebrated all over Spain with processions, mystery plays and a wide variety of popular celebrations, but this one has to be the strangest. It is believed that as the incarnate devils jump they take all their evil with them and the children are cleansed.
The event's origins are vague, but the celebration is an example of the mix of traditional Spanish folklore and religion, and great fun to watch!
The celebrations continue for a few days but the most important day is the Sunday following Corpus Christi. The shadowy brotherhood of Santísimo Sacramento de Minerva - the people responsible for organising the celebrations - also chase and terrorise anybody and everybody in the town at regular intervals throughout the day.

http://www.whatsonwhen.com/sisp/index.htm?fx=event&event_id=13472

--------

It is wierd and it must be dangerouse for babies there. Would you put your baby on blanket down there ?

 

Uh, no.

 

i am sure it is not that bad. if it was they would not put their kids there.

 

religion has a tendency to turn people into irresponsible child abusing imbeciles. If they aren't throwing them off towers or mutilating their genitals, they have some dickhead in fancy dress jumping over them.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people?

being a victim of superstition and tradition is ok if you are an adult and are inflicting it upon yourself, But when children are needlessly put in danger because of your tradition and superstition you need to have a sit down and evaluate your state of mind.

 

No, it is that bad, and it wouldn't be the first time "tradition" has been practiced at the expense of children. Personally, in my book, utterly whacked.

 

why do you think your way is better? some people seems to be cornering the market on righteousness. who decides what is good and bad?

 

"My way?" I don't have a "way" respecting this, except to say some asshole jumping over infants, and very possibly tripping/injuring them, doesn't seem to me to be an outstanding idea. Righteousness doesn't enter into the equation, at least not for me; just the notion that stupidly placing kids in harm's way is, well, stupid, and wrong, to me.

It's called an "opinion," something often rendered on a "public forum."

 

In atheism, man becomes a god and able to make any laws they feel they want to. As far as this tradition is concerned, i would never ever put my kids in this situation and im catholic(melkite). This certainly isnt approved by the catholic or church or any priest i know.

 

very strange thing to say considering there are no atheists throwing children off towers, Jumping over babies and mutilating genitals in the name of no god. So considering you see us as gods (which is very kind of you) it's strange that the only people performing such atrocities are the religious.

 

Since you are responding to Pizza's post, jumping in in response to his response to me, I conclude you are trying to make a point, however much it makes no sense, in response to me or my post. In atheism, man does not become a god; man is, well, man, obviously. In a nutshell, we have only here and now to get along, and becoming worm food knowing you left the world better than you came in seems a decent thing to shoot for.

This is precisely my point. I don't know any rational person who would put their kids in this situation. Or anyone's kid. As I said, it's whacked.

 

i did not see anywhere that it said these children get hurt. you present an opinion that the kids get hurt. that is not an opinion it is a misrepresentation of facts.

 

Pizza, you would do well to simply read.

Just feeling a bit tetchy, this evening? Feeling like arguing for arguing's sake? What part of "potential for injury" comes off as "injury, every time," or even "any time?" Here, let me paint it quite broadly:

I consider this a stupid practice, that may needlessly injure these kids. Hence, I have a problem with it. If you'd like me to not have a problem with it, afraid you'll have to remain sorely disappointed, buddy.

 

look at all those people standing in the picture. this has been going on for 400 years, and these people feel safe. why do you think that the kids are in any danger? why do you think all these people have been doing this for centuries if it hurt their children?

 

They do it because it's tradition, it however doesn't take a genius to figure out all it takes is one misstep, one of the 'performers' tripping to cause some harm to the children.

I will support others 'traditions', I however would not put my child into such a situation as the possibility of harm is too great IMO.

 

Probably about the same reason I feel people running in front of enraged bulls in the street are in a potentially dangerous situation. Because, uh, they are? I dunno, ever see a long jumper trip at the moment of leaping?

Again, I don't know how many kids may, or may not have been hurt. As to why people do things for the sake of tradition that may bring hurt to them or their loved ones, perhaps asking the folks who emulate Christ's crucifixion by actually being crucified may shed some light?

Yeah, this really is an argument for the ages.

 

My point, really, Grim. This is not some loaded political agenda at play, just common sense that says - "oops!", and an adult male plows into six infants. Brilliant!

That said, I am just not interested in another marathon ridiculous argument fest over nonsense.

 

Oh come on pizzaman. Are you seriously going to sit there and claim that having a man dressed as the devil jumping over babies doesn't put them in any more danger than not having him jump over them? this is the point, The children are needlessly put at risk because of tradition. The fact is, letting a man jump over them is more dangerous than not letting him jump over them.

 

i would not put my children in harms way either, and neither would they.
the point is why would one think that these people or any other people would put their children in harms way? that is what i am objecting to.

 

I believe I'm actually agreeing with you and on the same page....

 

Because the possibility of bad happening in that situation is very, very great. Even if it rarely happens, the possibility is high.

Just because the likely hood of lightening hitting you is low, would you put your infant/small child outside in the middle of a lightening storm?