Freedom Defender

Students Free Speech Rights Violated by Pro-Abortion Professor

2006-04-19T10:48:00.000-05:00

Last month I wrote how Free Speech was under attack by the Government in Europe. This month the freedom to express dissent is under attack in America. Specifically the freedom to dissent with the US Governments policy of turning a blind eye to the killing of unborn babies.

This month a College Professor was caught in the act of tearing down a display made by the Right to Life of Northern Kentucky Students on their campus. To the right you can see the Professor who led students in her class to violate the freedom of Speech of Pro-Life Students. Professor Sally Jacobsen lead students under her in tearing apart the Right to Life group's approved display and throwing it in the garbage. According to a Northern Kentucky University student on the Laura Ingraham Show, Professor Sally Jacobsen coerced some of her students to tear apart the School approved display, which robbed Pro-Life students of their freedom to express themselves.

The Northern Kentucky Right to Life Students made a solemn cemetery for those lives who have not had the respect of getting a cemetery plot. Aborted babies are simply discarded and treated as less than human. When you look at their dead bodies you can see that they are more than just a ball of unwanted flesh. They are human and the Right to Life students at Northern Kentucky University gave these lost lives the human dignity they deserve by providing a memorial. The Right to Life students created a display, which created plots for those unborn who were killed.

How did Dr. Sally Jacobsen respond to this solemn respect of life? She tore apart their sign (upper right) and threw out their plots, desecrating the graves (left and below). I am sad that our country is in a condition that College Professors coerce young students to tear apart the hard work, art and free speech of other students.

It also saddens me that the tone of those on the pro-abortion side feel like their side is so indefensible (and it is) that they can not respond by expressing their views through art or speech, but instead attack the right to free speech of law biding Pro-Life student activists. You can see more of how those, who hate free speech, have destroyed the artistic expression of creative students, who care about life in the womb (see here). And to the right is a picture of the Professor Sally Jacobsen trashing the grave markers of the unborn babies, whose lives were lost.

Don't let freedom and liberty be silenced. Speak out and don't let lady liberty be shut up by Professors who hate free speech.

EU Bans Art Display Defending the Innocent

2006-03-02T01:01:00.000-06:00

Freedom of expression is prohibited in the EU if you care for the unborn. Europe is supposed to be a place where freedom of expression is permitted. Of course with the controversy of Danish Cartoonists, one may have reservations about cartoons which have potential to cause violent reactions to embassies or violence in the streets.

In this post, I am not addressing the issue of offending Muslims. I am concerned that Art challenging EU political policies is being censored and banned. Freedom of expression through art, which illustrates opposition to EU policies, is being suppressed.

Many Central and Eastern Europeans are unhappy with some of the EU's policies which fail to protect the lives of the most vulnerable of their citizens... the unborn. Instead of rioting in the streets or torching cars, artwork was made visually showing the horror of abortion and juxtaposing it with the horrors which occurred to children under German occupation in the 30's and 40's. This art censorship (removing the artwork) is reported in the article "Culture War puts crack in EU".

Although the article spins the story into a "progressive" propaganda piece, it obscures the fact that artwork is being removed because it is simply opposed to EU policy, which fails to protect it's unborn citizens. I suppose art in the EU can be profane and dirty, but if you dare try to have your art protect innocent unborn babies, they will remove your work and silence it.

If the EU continues this policy of silencing political decent through censorship and revoking rights of freedom of expression, than they are no different than Banana Republic dictators that they pretend they to be better than.

Kat Killers!!!

2005-06-23T12:30:00.000-05:00

In Austin, Texas the Alamo Drafthouse Downtown is showing the film "Casuistry: The Art of Killing a Cat". The Austin Chronicle has an article about the Cat killing snuff film. The article asks the question if the film is "Art" or is it a vile film glorifying violence?

The article makes no mention of the vicious maliciousness it takes to mutilate and kill a cat. Not to mention the precarious ground one stands on to make a film out of that story.

It seems like killing animals is en vogue now, because even PETA is getting in on the animal killing action. Yes, PETA, the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", has a policy that causes them to kill most animals given to them.

To my surprise, PETA kills 79.6% of the animals they take in. From 1998-2003 PETA killed 79.6% of all animals given to them, almost 1,800 animals per year. You can see more details about PETA's pro-killing animals stance on petakillsanimals.com. In fact, "two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were arrested on 31 felony animal-cruelty charges for killing and disposing of dogs and puppies in a dumpster".

How can PETA be for killing animals? How does PETA defend the fact that they've killed 79.6% of the animals given to them?

PETA believes that it is better to "euthanize" animals than to let them out on the streets. They believe that euthanizing almost 1,800 animals per year, is more humane than having them live on the streets. PETA believes it is better for animals to be killed than to let them look for food or to rely on the kindness of people who leave out food for stray animals. PETA believes this... do you?

Are PETA's actions morally equivalent to the perpetrators in "Casuistry: The Art of Killing a Cat"? Or is PETA's killing better?

PETA "programs include euthanizing animals it considers to be unadoptable.' However, Ahoskie veterinarian Patrick Proctor called at least two of the animals 'very adoptable' kittens".

What do you think about killing stray animals, like PETA does? Do you think that they have a better chance of survival as a stray than 79.6% chance of death they have at PETA? PETA believes that these strays have such a poor quality of life that it is better to kill them? Do you?

Here's what I think about PETA's pro-death stance:
I am quite spiciest. I believe that man and woman are made in God's image. God gave us the command to “fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground”. We have a spirit that animals do not have. I recognize that God gave man a special place above animals and I know that others do not recognize this. Because I believe this truth and others don't, PETA’s position on this is troubling to me for other reasons.

For those of the paradigm that people are not different than animals (and I bring this up because many in PETA have this view that man is not greater than animals), this is really a question of life versus quality of life.

For those who believe man is no more special than animals, this is the question "if the person or animal will not have a full healthy quality life, should we kill it"? It disturbs me to condone the ideals of the Culture of Death that PETA is promoting among animals. But on the other hand, I don’t feel that the sanctity of animals lives is as valuable as the sanctity of a human life.

I do feel that PETA is being hypocritical and that some animal protection organization should oppose their penchant for euthanizing animals. I believe their arguments for animals quality of life undermine the sanctity of those animals lives. Maybe I don’t disagree with their ends (although I have some suggestions for PETA to increase adoptions in their offices), but the means they use to mentally justify their killings is very troubling. I believe PETA is being hypocritical, but since we have been given authority to rule over the animals of the Earth, it may be best to euthanize these animals to avoid rabid wild animals from roaming the streets.

What do you think?

Science vs. Religion

2005-06-14T06:41:00.000-05:00

The term "science vs. religion" is a fallacy. It makes a good title of a post, but this only confuses the issue of the origin of the universe and the nature of man (and woman). Some people feel that religious people are AGAINST science, and are trying to stop science and progress. I have no desire to eliminate science and I do not believe that religion and science conflict at all. I believe that science is the study of God's creation and reveals the intangible laws God set in place.

I must clarify the discussion with more accurate definitions. Some proponents of Darwinism feel that science *IS* their religion. Or that science is the religion of rational people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science, according to Merriam-Webster Online, is not a belief... it is

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

Science is not a belief system. It is a logical methodical system to knowledge aquisition or a field of expertise in which one can gain knowledge. Science is valuable for everyone to learn.

I think it's great to teach Children how to study the world, to analyze it, to try to figure out how it works. Knowledge about the Earth and universe God created is a great thing. I'm not sure where some people get the idea that I, or any creationist, would be against science or learning. It sounds very narrow minded to say if someone is a creationist... that means they don't believe in science. I use math, logic and the scientific method every day in my job. I think science is great! It was one off my favorite subjects in school (except for the Darwinist propaganda part).

What I have a problem with is a belief system that is forced on children in the name of science. It is not science to say that man evolved from genetic goo (primordial soup) and then evolved into a primitive proto-primate and then into homo-sapiens. That is a belief. That is a faith.

Some might say that I may not buy the Darwinists theories, because I don't understand them. I understand it quite well thanks. Just because I am not a whole hearted believer in the Darwinist faith, does not mean I don't understand it. I could go into all the flaws in that theory and the cases that can't be explained but I'll just try to be positive. I'm also familiar because, Darwinism has been pushed on me in New York public schools since I was a child. Just because I didn't fall for it and I can see it's flaws, doesn't mean I don't understand it. In College it was hoisted on me again, but this time, at least in College, my University had the intellectual honesty to place it where it belonged... in the College of Liberal Arts, not in the College of Science.

What I object to is the Darwinist FAITH being pushed on our children. The science of Intelligent Design is not taught in school. You may not be as familiar with that field of science, because the Darwinists are trying to maintain a monopoly on our public schools. On the Intelligent Design Network website this is what they believe: "We believe objectivity will lead not only to good origins science, but also to constitutional neutrality in this subjective, historical science that unavoidably impacts religion. We promote the scientific evidence of intelligent design because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality". I don't see the harm in teaching our children science and not religion in SCIENCE class. Why must Darwinists force their religion in science class? If Darwinists must force religiously infused beliefs in the classroom, can't the science of Intelligent Design be taught too? Why must Darwinists be against this kind of objectivity? Let's put an end to this narrow mindedness in science and keep philosophy and religion in their proper contexts. Let's seek scientific advancement without prejudice.

I think we should strive for more and not settle for such a narrow-minded and religiously-partisan view in SCIENCE class; in a class that's SUPPOSED to teach children how to analyze the world objectively.

Just to clarify this is in NO WAY an argument about science versus religion, although it does make a catchy title for this post :) This is about the Darwinist faith on the origin of man versus Christianity. This is about Darwin's theories being forced upon children captive in classrooms. It's about Darwinism, which is a recycled version of the theory of Spontaneous Generation first mentioned in the 4th Century BC by Aristotle and later scientifically disproved by Louis Pasteur and Francisco Redi in the 17th Century (This was the theory that garbage actually turned into maggots and then flies and then rats). This is about Darwin's Theories, based on theories that garbage turns into rats, versus Intelligent Design. This discussion is about science vs. science or religion vs. religion. This is not about science vs. religion.

This Darwinist religion is being forced in our classrooms causing an Establishment of Religion in public Schools and in our Science classes. If faith was not being taught in public school I wouldn't be bringing this problem up. The problem is that faith in Darwinism is being forced on children in schools. Darwinists wouldn't like it if someone was forcing creationism on their kids. Please don't continue to allow forcing Darwinism on others kids... especially without balance.

Speaking of balance, there are many museums steeped in Darwinists philosophy and funded by those who promote Darwinist propaganda. Outside Cincinnati, in Northern Kentucky a Creation Museum has been erected. You can take a virtual walkthrough of it here. I haven't been there, so I don't really know what they say. But it's good to know that all of science hasn't closed their mind to one small dogmatic view (Darwinist random spontaneous generation theories).

Interestingly enough, there have been some scientific advancements BECAUSE of the Bible. This objective scientific truth is not taught in our classrooms, so you may not be familiar with it. In fact, scientists have been able to get a better knowledge of the physical world and it's phenomenon through reading the Bible:

"Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression 'paths of the sea' in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, 'If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them.' Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities."

"In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the 1.5 million cubic foot ark he was to build. In 1609 at Hoorn in Holland, a ship was built after that same pattern (30:5:3), revolutionizing ship-building. By 1900 every large ship on the high seas was inclined toward the proportions of the ark (verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping" in the World Almanac)."

Other examples listed in the page "Science And the Bible" show evidence of scientific truth in the Bible, but the two that I show here illustrate clearly that the Bible generated scientific advancements.

In summary the Bible itself has been a tool used to help scientifically advance society and the world in Oceanography and Nautical Technology. It has been a means of scientific advancement, not a deterrent, as some feel.

Also, the science being forced on children in schools is not objective. It is infused with one dogmatic view based on the ancient view of Spontaneous Generation (4th Century BC), where garbage turns into rats, updated with scientific jargon by Darwinists. This establishment of religion in the classroom is a violation of all our rights. Intelligent Design should be added to curriculums to give our students the best scientific knowledge about our origins, whether it be using theorem's derived by Darwin or Intelligent Design science. Let's not be prejudiced with our science and let's remain neutral.

Lastly and most importantly, God is not against science. Science does not threaten God. He is the creator of knowledge itself and the creator of the Universe. The false dichotomy of "science vs. religion", is just that... a false presumption. Science is the study of God's creation and reveals the intangible laws of nature God set in place.

Alternative Value Systems in America and Christianity: Can We Really All Get Along?

2005-06-10T17:51:00.000-05:00

We live in the greatest nation on Earth... the United States of America. This fact is tough for other nations to deal with, since it is self evident. In the dawn of the 21st Century, the United States is recognized as the greatest nation on Earth and some respond with envy and others respond with hatred.

We have a Constitutional Representative Government that has limited powers. The first and foremost of these restrictions on Government, is the Freedom of Religion (part of the First Amendment to the Constitution). There are times in the past where the Government has violated this restriction on itself and attempted to take more power from the people, than our founders permitted. This over-reaching of governmental power has been used to violate the rights of our citizens. Some say that as the majority religion in the USA in the past, Christianity, has been immune from the Government imposing it's views upon Christianity. Some feel that it warrants the way that Government is imposing on many Christian liberties now, although they are supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. Some feel that now Christianity is getting what it is long past due. I say that the rights promised to us in the Constitution are ours, whether we have a mainstream view (as Christianity has been for many years) or an alternative value system.

For educational purposes, I'll list some of the ways that the greatest nation in the world has struggled in invading citizen's religious freedoms. To protect the freedoms you have now, it is important to know how citizen's freedoms have been compromised in the past. This leads us to review the violation of religious rights of religious minorities or even "Pagans" in specific or other citizens who have alternative value systems. Violations of religious rights of people who call themselves Pagans is a tough subject to deal with. How should our society treat religious minorities that have a radically different value system? This question will become more pertinent in the next ten years, as Muslim immigration increases, but Muslims are not Pagans... who are the Pagans?

The religious minority Pagans could be Native Americans, Caribbean Peoples (Non-Christian Native American descendants from the Caribbean), Latin Americans (Non-Christian Native American descendents from Central & South America), Animists (mostly from Africa, Australia & SE Asia), Shintoists, Wiccans, Witches, Hindus, Druids, Gypsies, Pharaoh Worshipers, Mother-Earth Worshipers, Mintakans' Piccard-Worship, Satanists, Occultists, Bedouins, Zoroastrians and old-fashioned "Pagan"-Pagans (Pre-Christian European polytheists). Pagans are basically any polytheists/pantheists/mystics (except for the Pagan Satanists, who believe in God, but are supposedly fighting a "valiant rebellion" against an "unfair despot"). There have been times where their Freedom of Religion has been considered illegal action by the Government. I can think of primarily Caribbean Santeria.

In Florida, ritual animal sacrifice was illegal (except for Rabbi's) and the Santerian "Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye" would mutilate animals, not for food consumption. The courts agreed that the Santerian Pagans were being oppressed by the City of Hialeah's Ordinance 87-40 which punishes "[w]hoever . . . unnecessarily or cruelly . . . kills any animal". That religious persecution by the City of Hialeah against the Santerians was stopped, although PETA was pissed.

Other alleged infringements on Pagan Religious Freedom would be the prohibition of Drug use (Employment Division v. Smith). This case was one where drug counselors/rehabilitators were fired from their jobs, because of their religious use of a hallucinogenic drug (peyote). Although Libertarians would strongly disagree, the government has decided that there it is not an infringement on religious rights to require drug counselors/rehabilitators to be drug free, simply because a religion chooses to require this illegal activity in their religious ceremonies. The majority opinion from this case said that allowing a religious exception to the drug laws "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind". Libertarians may argue that the prohibition of drugs is not a serious impairment of a compelling Government Goal. But it's a weak leg to stand on for this specific case, where the drug users were supposed to be rehabilitation counselors.

I suppose that some could argue that Alcohol is a Drug. If that given is accepted, then you could say that it is discriminatory to accept the Roman Catholic's drinking of wine during service, but to deny the Native American their Religious use of peyote. That could be considered Religiously discriminatory drug laws. But as mentioned above, those in question were hired as rehabilitation counselors.

One website does a great job of explaining Religious Freedom and the Free Exercise thereof:
"THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

A. Free Exercise generally: LetÂs now turn to the second clause relating to religion, the Free Exercise Clause. Under this clause, the government is barred from making any law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. The Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from getting in the way of peopleÂs ability to practice their religions. [624 - 625]

1. Conduct vs. belief: The Free Exercise Clause of course prevents the government from unduly burdening a personÂs abstract "beliefs". (Example: Congress cannot ban the religion of voodooism merely because it disapproves of voodooism or thinks that voodooism is irrational.) But the Clause also relates to conduct.

a. Non-religious objectives: Free Exercise problems most typically arise when government, acting in pursuit of non-religious objectives, either: (1) forbids or burdens conduct which happens to be required by someoneÂs religious belief; or conversely, (2) compels or encourages conduct which happens to be forbidden by someoneÂs religious beliefs.

Example (government forbids conduct dictated by belief): The military prohibits any soldier from wearing a hat (other than a regular military cap) while on duty. This order prevents orthodox Jewish soldiers from wearing yarmulkes, which their religion requires them to wear at all times. (On these facts, the Supreme Court held that the Jewish officer-plaintiffs had a free exercise right that was being burdened, but that this right was outweighed by the need to defer to the militaryÂs judgment that discipline and uniformity require the ban on all non-standard headgear. [Goldman v. Weinberger])

Example (government compels or encourages conduct forbidden by the belief): The state awards unemployment compensation only to jobless workers who make themselves available for work Monday through Saturday. This rule has a non-religious purpose (making sure that only those whose employment is truly involuntary collect). But the statute strongly encourages conduct that violates the religious beliefs of some persons (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists, for whom Saturday is the Sabbath). Therefore, the rule raises significant free exercise problems. (In fact, the statute was held to violate the Free Exercise Clause as applied to Seventh Day Adventists. [Sherbert v. Verner]. The case is discussed below.)

B. Intentional vs. unintentional burdens: The Free Exercise Clause prevents the government from unduly interfering with religion whether the government does so intentionally or unintentionally.
1. Intent: If the interference with religion is intentional on governmentÂs part, then the interference is subjected to the most strict scrutiny, and will virtually never survive. [625 - 626]
Example: The Ps' practice Santeria, a religion involving animal sacrifice. D (the local city council), motivated by the citizenryÂs dislike of this religion and of the sacrifices, outlaws all animal sacrifice (but exempts Kosher slaughter). Held, the PsÂ Free Exercise rights have been violated. D has acted with the purpose of outlawing a practice precisely because the practice is motivated by religion, so DÂs act must be most strictly scrutinized. Because there is no compelling state objective here, and because any state objective that the state is pursuing (e.g., maintenance of public health) could be achieved by less discriminatory means, the law fails this strictest scrutiny. [Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah]

2. Unintentional burden: If government unintentionally burdens religion, the Free Exercise Clause is still applied. Here, however, the government action is not per se illegal. Instead, the Court traditionally uses a somewhat less stringent form of strict scrutiny. (But there are signs that the Court is cutting back on this strict scrutiny for unintentional burdens on religion. For instance, if the government makes certain conduct a crime, and this unintentionally burdens the exercise of religion, the Court does not use strict scrutiny, and instead uses "mere rationality" review.) [626 - 631]

C. Coercion required: The Free Exercise Clause only gets triggered where government in some sense "coerces" an individual to do something (or not to do something) against the dictates of his religion. If the government takes an action that unintentionally happens to make it harder for you to practice your religion Â but without coercing you into taking or not taking some action as an individual Â the Free Exercise Clause does not apply. [632]

Example: The federal government, without intending to affect any religious practice, wants to build a road. The effect will be to destroy Native American ritual grounds.
Held, there is no impairment of free exercise rights, because the Native American plaintiffs are not being coerced into doing or not doing anything Â external reality is simply being changed in a way that makes it harder for them to practice their religion. (But if government forbade the Native Americans from using existing grounds to pray on, this would be a violation, because the Native Americans would be coerced into not taking some action of their own.) [Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery AssÂn]

D. Denial of benefits: One way the government may be found to have interfered with a personÂs free exercise of religion is if the government denies the person a benefit solely because of that personÂs religious beliefs or practices. (Example: A state may not forbid practicing members of the clergy from holding elective state office, because this imposes a burden on the exercise of a religious belief. [McDaniel v. Paty])

E. Exemptions required: Because strict scrutiny is traditionally given even to unintentional impairments of religion, government must give an exemption to avoid such an unintentional interference with religion, if this could be done without seriously impairing some compelling governmental interest. (Example: P is denied unemployment benefits because he refuses to work on Saturday, his religionÂs holy day. Held, the state must exempt P from the requirement of Saturday work as a condition to unemployment benefits, since an exemption will not seriously undermine any compelling governmental interest. [Sherbert v. Verner]) [627 - 629]

1. Criminal prohibition: But thereÂs a special, recent, rule in the area of criminal prohibitions: A generally applicable criminal law is automatically enforceable, regardless of how much burden it causes to an individualÂs religious beliefs (assuming that the government did not intend to disadvantage a particular religion when it enacted its law). [631 - 632]

Example: A state may make it a crime to possess the drug peyote, and may enforce this rule against Native Americans who use peyote as a central part of their religious rituals. [Employment Div. v. Smith]

2. No serious impairment required: Also, even where no criminal prohibition is involved, government does not have to tolerate a serious impairment of some compelling governmental goal Â here, no exemption needs to be given, because strict scrutiny is satisfied. (Example: Even if a religiously-affiliated university honestly believes that its religion bars African Americans and whites from studying together, government need not tolerate interference with its compelling goal of eliminating racial discrimination, so government does not need to exempt the university from anti-discrimination laws.)"

The site continues:
"F. Conscientious objection: Probably Congress must (as it does) give an exemption for military service for conscientious objectors (i.e., those who believe that all war is evil). [633]
1. Selective c.o.Âs: But Congress need not give an exemption to "selective" c.o.Âs (i.e., those who do not believe that all war is evil, but who believe that the particular war in which they are being asked to fight is evil). [Gillette v. U.S.]

G. Public health: Government may have to sacrifice its interest in the health of its citizenry, if individualsÂ religious dictates so require. [634]

1. Competent adult: Where the case involves a competent adult, and only that adultÂs own health is at stake, government may probably not force treatment on the individual over his religious objection. (Example: A state probably canÂt force a JehovahÂs Witness to accept a blood transfusion or other life-saving medical care over that personÂs religious objections.)

2. Child: However, where the patient is a child whose parents object on religious grounds, the state may probably compel the treatment.

3. Danger to others: Also, if the case involves not only a health danger to the person asserting a religious belief, but also a health danger to others, then government probably does not have to give an exemption. (Example: P may be forced to undergo a vaccination over his religious objections. [Jacobson v. Mass.])

H. What constitutes a religious belief: Only bona fide "religious beliefs" are protected by the Free Exercise Clause. But "religious beliefs" are defined very broadly. [634]

1. Non-theistic: For instance, non-theistic beliefs are protected. That is, the belief need not recognize the existence of a supreme being. (Example: Public officials cannot be forced to take an oath in which they say that they believe that God exists. [Torcaso v. Watkins])"

In that court case the Supreme court listed Secular Humanism as a religion. The quote was that: "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others."

Continued:
"2. Unorganized religions: Similarly, unorganized or obscure religions get the same protection as the major religions. In fact, even if a personÂs religious beliefs are followed only by him, heÂs still entitled to free exercise protection.

3. Sincerity: A court will not sustain a free exercise claim unless it is convinced that the religious belief is "genuine" or "sincere." (The fact that the belief or practice has been observed by a religious group for a long period of time may be considered in measuring sincerity. But the converse Â absence of a long-standing practice Â does not mean that the belief is insincere.)
a. Unreasonableness: The court will not consider whether the belief is "true" or "reasonable". Even a very "unreasonable" belief (that is, a belief that most people might consider unreasonable) is not deprived of protection, so long as it is genuine. [U.S. v. Ballard] (Example: The practice of voodoo, including sticking pins into dolls representing oneÂs enemies, might be considered by most of us to be "unreasonable." But as long as such a practice is part of a personÂs genuine set of beliefs and religious practices, it will not be deprived of protection merely because most find it unreasonable.)"

Other religious minorites (not Pagans) such as the pro-polygamy Mormons and the Pacifist and "leave-school-after-8th-grade" Amish, have had their religious beliefs infringed upon by the United States Government. The Amish won, but the mormons lost their Religious Freedom in having multiple wives.

Drugs, Polygamy and Transportation needs have been considered to be a more compelling Government goal than the Freedom of Religious expression of Religious Minorities, by the US Supreme Court. Out of those three, only drugs has been the cause for Pagan persecution. The temporary persecution of Religious Minorities by military draft, forcing School completion until 12th grade and stopping the mutilation of Animals have all been rectified and the Government is no longer oppressing these Religious Minorities.

This site does mention, however, that the Freedom of Religion has been under assault lately. It does not say it directly, but it shows the lack of willingness of the Government to protect the First Amendment. They say: "In any event, all of free exercise law seems to be in the process of being scaled back, so the general rule that government must give an exemption where this can be done without seriously impairing a compelling governmental interest, may be on its way out." The Government has been siding against non-Secular Humanist religions lately and permitting or encouraging the erosion of the Constitution and Religious liberties.

I believe this scale back of Religious Freedom is going to change though. Not just because of the 2004 election results, but because of lawyers and the new influx of Muslim immigrants. In NYC the Public School Chancellor promised rooms for Muslims to practice salat (prayer at specific times during the day - noon). I believe soon Muslims will bring this policy preventing Muslims from observing salat (prayer at certain times of the day facing Mecca) into the courts. As Chancellor Levy promised, this may bring a requirement of prayer rooms into Schools to accomidate Orthodox Islam.

Right now the religious minority of fundemental Islam is having their Religious Freedoms infringed (not allowing the practice of Salat) by the Public School system.

Overall it's tough to make a balance for Religious Minorities, who have very different value systems. For the most part, I think the US does a pretty good job with the religious minorities specifically (but not Christianity or theism in general). It's mostly the Christians (arguably the majority) and just any theistic Religion (non-Secular Humanist, non-Atheist) that the US Government is subsidizing the dismantling of and targeting for oppression (aside from drug using Pagans, polygamous Mormons and fundamentalist Islamic Public School Children). Christianity, and theism in general, are under assault in the United States and I want to do what I can to defend it.

Atrocities of Atheism:Episode VI -- Return of the Believers (Conclusion)

2005-05-27T10:48:00.000-05:00

To view the global atrocities of Atheistic Governments please read:
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode I -- The Atheist Menace .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode II -- Attack of the Chinese .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode III .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode IV -- A New 'Killing-Field' .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode V -- The Evil Empire Strikes Back .

Atheists in the United States of America and summary:
The global atrocities of Atheism is why the advance of Atheism in the United States, is so troublesome. I explain some of the advances Atheism has had in taking over our culture in my articles "Is Atheism Bad for America?" and "The Rise of the Godless Religion". Not to mention the alarming fact that Secular Humanists extemists (aligned with Atheists) turned the might of the US Military to massacre a small religious group in Waco. Even in the United States, Atheist allies have used the military to wipe out a religious group. Don't think it can't happen here. Do not let our great nation turn into a mass murdering Atheistic Nation (Communist Regime).

Why do I write this? Is it because I think all Atheists are violent and murderers? No, of course not. I know some very nice Atheists. Do I mention all this to say that Atheism should be banned? No, of course not. Everyone in the United States of America has a God given right to believe any religion, even the right to believe in the absence of God. If Atheists want to hold fast to their unreasonable faith that their is no God, despite others personal testimony and overwhelming Teleological evidence, then that is their right to hold those beliefs. But forcing atheistic beliefs on others, through government coercion (as is the history of Atheism, whenever it takes control of governments) is wrong.

I mention these historical events because of the irrational fear that is being generated by the left, the Secular Humanist extremists and Atheist extremists about our nation turning into a "dreaded" Theocracy. The fear, irrationality and illogical conclusions that are being devised by these extemists are silly, although the left wing allies in the mainstream media promote this fear mongering. If any logical person looks at the last century, they would see that it is not people of faith, voting democratically, that has proven to be the real threat to civilization. The most unfair, oppressive, and human-killing regime's have been when Atheists have taken over governments. The untrue propaganda today, perpetrated by the mainstream media, is that people of faith are to blame for mass amounts of people's lives being taken. This is not based on the facts or truth of the past century, where the least tolerant religion of Atheism, forced its beliefs on people of faith or simply slaughtered hundreds of millions of them.

I pray that Atheism does not take over the US, because they have brought much bloodshed and oppression to every nation it has become the prominent religion. I am happy that in our last Presidential Election the wise people of the Untied States of America voted our faith, our moral values and voted to protect our Freedom of Religion. Those who believe in God took back this nation, from those who were trying to remove Him. Thanks to all of you who voted with moral values as your conviction. God bless America!

Atrocities of Atheism: Episode V -- The Evil Empire Strikes Back

2005-05-26T10:43:00.000-05:00

Introduced in Atrocities of Atheism: Episode I -- The Atheist Menace, I set forth the facts on how Atheism is the bloodiest religion in the world in the 20th Century. I did not go into detail of exact examples. That is why I will show some practicle examples of the horrors of militant Atheist governments. In this "Episode" we will look at how the Atheist Russian government viciously strikes down all religions besides Atheism.

Russian Atheist Government Atrocities:

"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. ...The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. By 1939 only about 500 of over 50,000 churches remained open" (from Anti-Religious Campaigns). "For over 70 years the Communist Party attempted to eradicate Christianity from Russia. Brainwashing, propaganda, infiltration of the Church, imprisonment, torture, concentration camps and executions failed to destroy people's faith in God and hunger for the Bible. Yet Communism continued to export not only its ideology of Atheism, Materialism and Economic Determinism, but its violent revolutionary methods, and its hatred of God, the Bible and the Christian Church. In the 1980's, 224 million Christians lived under severe state persecution, with another 70 million 'Crypto-Christians', who secretly worshipped God in 'underground' churches" (from Communist Liberation: Myth & Reality). "Soviet Communism was committed by its fundamental principles to an aggressive and militant atheism. It could not rest satisfied merely with a neutral separation between Church and State, but sought by every means, direct and indirect, to overthrow all organized Church life and to eliminate all religious belief"(from The Assault Upon Heaven). "The totalitarian Communist State employed to the full all forms of anti-religious propaganda, while denying the Church any right of reply. There was, first of all, the atheist instruction that was given systematically in every school. Teachers received such injunctions as these: A Soviet teacher must be guided by the principle of the Party spirit of science; he is obliged not only to be an unbeliever himself, but also to be an active propagandist of godlessness among others, to be the bearer of the ideas of militant proletarian atheism. Skillfully and calmly, tactfully and persistently, the Soviet teacher must expose and overcome religious prejudices in the course of his activity in school and out of school, day in and day out"(from The Assault Upon Heaven). Thousands of Christians were slaughtered by the atheist regime and it decimated the Orthodox Christian community. An incomplete list of names of Bishops alone that were slaughtered are listed here (then click "proceed"). "'The more representatives from the reactionary clergy and the recalcitrant bourgeoisie we shoot,' Lenin wrote in March of 1922, 'the better it will be for us. We must teach these people a lesson as quickly as possible, so that the thought of protesting again doesn't occur to them for decades to come.' When Lenin and his progeny were unable to teach the clergy a lesson, they simply murdered them. In 1922 alone, more than 8,000 priests, monks, and nuns were executed in the Soviet Union. Nearly a decade after the Revolution, however, 20,000 churches and mosques were still in operation. By 1941, that number shrank to less than 1,000" (from Ideas Have Consequences... Like Murder, Tyranny, and Repression). Even as late as 1971, there are reports of the Communist oppression of Christianity. The Atheistic government has been reported engaging in sentencing Christians to mental hospitals to get rid of their "sickness" of having faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "As the decades of Soviet rule passed, many Christians were sent to psychiatric hospitals because religion was categorized as mental illness". "'Special Psychiatric Hospitals' are known to exist in Kazan, Sychevka (Smolensk region), Leningrad, Cherniahovsk, Minsk, Dniepropetrovsk, Orel. It is very likely that they are also to be found in other regions. In many psychiatric hospitals special wards have been set aside for 'treatment' against dissidents of all complexions. The names of 60 victims of such 'treatment' have been published abroad. The Moscow Patriarchate, recognized by the atheistic government of the USSR, and kept under its control, maintains a stony silence".

The Russian Atheist Government ruthlessly removed Muslims from their homeland in inhumane conditions, killing hundreds of thousands. "Fearful of a pan-Islamic movement, the Soviet regime systematically suppressed Islam by force". "The Imperial Russian government was involved in all these mass expulsions. In the 20th century, the government of the Soviet Union perfected the crime of ethnic cleansing. During World War II, the Stalin regime used the resources of a highly organized state with a modern rail system to rapidly exile entire nations from their ancestral homelands. The Soviet government targeted the Muslim nationalities of the Caucasus and Crimea for deportation in their entirety. The Soviet political police, NKVD (Peoples Commissariat of Internal Affairs) exiled the [Muslim] Karachays, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Crimean Tatars, and Meskhetian Turks to Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Siberia, and other remote areas of the USSR in 1943 and 1944. These brutal forced relocations to desolate areas with poor material conditions resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths" (from Deportation and Fate of Crimean Tatars). For the Muslim Crimean Tatars alone, this religious cleansing process killed almost a hundred thousand. "Called the 'Surgun' (mass deportation) by survivors, nearly half (46%) of of 180,000 persons deported to 'Special Settlement Camps' in Uzbekistan, Siberia, and the Urals perished." (from 60th Anniversary of the Deportation of Crimean Tatars).

The Russian Atheist Government not only targeted Muslims and Christians for destruction, but this atheist government then turned it's attention to target the Jews. "Attacks on Judaism were endemic throughout the Soviet period, and the organized practice of Judaism became almost impossible"(from Anti-Religious Campaigns). "Millions of people in the Soviet Union became un-persons during [Stalin's Atheist] quarter-century rule. While the Georgian-born Stalin didn't particularly favor one nationality over another during his reign of terror, he was a 'breaker of nations,' as in Robert Conquest's book title and he had a particular hatred for Soviet Jews." (from How Stalin Murdered Jews).

To view the atrocities of other Atheistic Governments please read:
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode II -- Attack of the Chinese .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode III .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode IV -- A New 'Killing-Field'

And don't miss the exciting purposeful conclusion in:
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode VI -- Return of the Believers

Atrocities of Atheism:Episode IV -- A New 'Killing-Field'

2005-05-25T10:38:00.000-05:00

Atrocities of Atheism: Episode II -- Attack of the Chinese

2005-05-23T10:33:00.000-05:00

Introduced in Atrocities of Atheism: Episode I -- The Atheist Menace, I set forth the facts on how Atheism is the bloodiest religion in the world in the 20th Century. I did not go into detail of exact examples. That is why I will show some practicle examples of the horrors of militant Atheist governments. In this "Episode" we will look at how the Atheist Chinese government attacks all religions besides Atheism.

Chinese Atheist Government Atrocities:

Atheists of Communist China oppress the innocent East Turkestanese for their Muslim beliefs. A Japanese newspaper tells the tale of these oppressed Muslims: "Muslims are arrested on invalid grounds and sent off to labor camps, executed on groundless charges, and from time to time murdered en masse. They are not allowed to fast, and are prevented from receiving religious instruction. The method used to stop the Muslim population from growing is utterly inhuman: Women are forced to have abortions, and the children of those who have more than one child are taken away from them. ...The greatest assistance that can be given is to wage a struggle on the level of ideas to destroy the atheism that all that oppression stems from, and replace it with a just and proper morality. In that way, not just the Muslims of East Turkestan but all those who are wickedly killed all over the world, or are forced from their homelands just for saying, 'God is our Lord,' or can be helped" (from Chinese Torture in East Turkestan).

"Amalia Rubin from 'Students for a Free Tibet' revealed the atrocity the CCP laid on Tibetan people and Tibetan Buddhism. So far, one fifth of Tibet's population, 1.2 million Tibetans died under CCP's tyranny" (from ntdtv.com May 4th, 2005).

From 1959-66 the Atheistic government tightened it's strangle-hold over Tibetan Buddhism. "Monasteries were targeted as the backbone of Tibetan society. By 1966, before the Cultural Revolution began, 80% of central Tibet's 2,700 monasteries had been destroyed. Of 115,600 monks and nuns only 6,900 remained". "During the Cultural Revolution, all religious activity was banned; religious institutions were razed; texts and sacred objects destroyed; monks and nuns imprisoned and tortured; many were killed. By 1978, only eight monasteries were left standing, and 970 monks and nuns remained". The slaughter and persecution of these Tibetan Monks by the Atheistic government was horrific to take them from over 115 Thousand strong, down to less than one thousand.

Mao slaughtered Christians when he gained Atheistic control over China. This persecution of Christians in China continues today. Reporting from ntdtv.com May 4th, 2005 states: "Li narrated the stories of many Christian victims who were brutally persecuted by the CCP, as well as his own life experience in China's largest forced labor camp. ...[U]pon the call from God, he started to devote himself to collecting and publishing relevant documents pertaining to religious persecution of Christians in China, and founded the 'Investigative Organization of Religious Persecution in China'. Mr. Li published in New York and Europe six top-secret government documents, which revealed the systematic persecution of Christians by the Chinese government and a 'White Paper', compiled by him. His reports reveal that over 440 thousand Christians in China were sentenced to forced labor camp, and over ten thousand were persecuted to death". In 2002 the Atheist government reports on their Christian-related activities: "According to our investigation among House Church Christians, at this time there are 23,686 persons who have been arrested for religious activities, 4,014 persons sentenced to re-education, 129 persons killed, 208 persons handicapped, 997 persons placed under surveillance, 1,040 persons on the run, 20,000+ beaten, 10,000 fined (ranging from $.50 to $800,000)". "[P]rominent Beijing House church leader pastor Zhuohua Cai was tortured severely with electric cattle prods by his interrogators for his 'confessions' that he 'illegally managing a printing business and illegally profited 200,000RMB'.(US $25,000)".

China not only persecutes and murders official religions, but has waged war against religious movements or life philosophies, such as their inhumane treatment of members of Falun Gong. "Evidence has surfaced of over 100 torture methods being employed against Falun Gong practitioners in China's labour camps, detention centers, and mental hospitals. The goal is to eradicate Falun Gong, either by coercing its practitioners to renounce their belief, or by physically destroying them if they refuse. The tactics range from long-term sleep deprivation, being surrounded with loudspeakers demonizing their practice 24 hours a day, to being force-fed with human feces, or shocked and even raped with electric batons." There are many personal testamonies on Falun Gong websites. "I spoke the truth about Falun Gong, exercising my constitutional rights. I was unreasonably persecuted, and because of the severe abuse, I became disabled. I am condemning the Chinese government: they persecuted practitioners with savage mental and physical cruelty, and I am holding them responsible for the pain and suffering my family has had to endure because of the treatment I have received. I ask kind people around the world to join with me to help stop this persecution". "On October 21, 2000, Ms. Wang Lixuan and her eight-month-old son, Meng Hao, were arrested and detained at Tuanhe Labor Camp in Beijing, where they were tortured to death on November 7, 2000. When her family received the death notice and arrived in Beijing, they found the frozen corpses of Ms. Wang and her son. According to the coroner's examination, her neck and knucklebones were broken, her skull was sunken, and there was a needle stuck in her body".

To view the atrocities of other Atheistic Governments please read:

Atrocities of Atheism: Episode III
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode IV -- A New 'Killing-Field'
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode V -- The Evil Empire Strikes Back

And don't miss the exciting purposeful conclusion in:
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode VI -- Return of the Believers

Atrocities of Atheism: Episode I -- The Atheist Menace

2005-05-22T10:28:00.000-05:00

Some blame Religion for many of the Wars in the world. Ironically, in the 20th Century, Atheism (self-proclaimed absence of Religion) has committed most of the slaughter of innocent peoples. It has killed more than any religion has in the last Century.

Atheism is one of the world's least tolerant religions. It sees any other religion as a threat and when it takes over the Government (Communism) it systematically eliminates all other religions. Karl Marx himself wrote in the Communist manifesto that "communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion", thereby forcing the religion of Atheism upon those under communist/Atheist oppression. It propagandizes the masses into a mind-numbed state to coerce them into total submission to their new human god-tyrant (dictator), who then lords over their souls. Those who do not bow to the new religion of Atheism (the Communist State is now your god) will face their wrath, as mentioned in the Communist manifesto: "The Communists... ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions". This is where the mass murder of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews is perfectly legitimized by their State-is-god religion of Atheism. They are heartlessly slaughtered in the name of "progress". "The classic writings of the mature Marx -- the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital -- reveal that violence is a fundamental and necessary feature in his system". Apparently slaughtering Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews is "progress" in the eyes of Atheists who control Governments.

Atheistic Governments (Communism) have been responsible for up to 259 Million murders accros the globe, from 1900 to the year 1987 alone. Up to 126 Million of those innocent victims were at the hands of the Russian Atheistic Government. Second largest Militant Atheistic state is Communist China, murdering up to 114 Million people (most from multiple religions & religious movements). The Atheists of Vietnam, North Korea and Cambodia (Pol Pot) all have murdered over 3 Million people each between 1900-1987. Atheistic Governments (Communism) have had the bloodiest government ideology responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th Century. Atheistic Communism "was a nightmare which promised equality and justice, but which brought only bloodshed, death, torture and fear".

Zbigniew Brzezinski, however, author of "Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century", believes that only 175 Million people were killed by politically motivated carnage in the 20th Century. He has very conservative estimates. The distribution of deaths in Brzezinski's book is quite telling. In his list of Mass Deaths for the 20th Century, Atheistic Rule (Communism) beats out all military and all civilian deaths from all the wars in the past Century. Military War Deaths were listed at 33.5 Million worldwide, Civilian War casualties are listed at 54 Million worldwide compared to 60 Million deaths attributed solely to Communist/Atheist oppression (not including deaths of civilians or military personal during Communist/Atheist revolutions). According to him, 41%, almost half, of all the deaths in the 20th Century were committed by Atheist militant governments during peacetime, against their own people. The Historical evidence shows that Atheistic governments have been responsible for more deaths than organized religion in recent times.

"When searching for examples of state-sponsored barbarities, intellectuals are quick to point to the Spanish Inquisition or its Protestant imitation, the Witchhunt. How could anyone, modern academics wonder, persecute another for their beliefs? These same intellectuals, ironically, are often the very people who served as cheerleaders for political persecution and mass murder on a scale unmatched in human history. The Spanish Inquisition claimed slightly more than 2,000 lives during its 25-year apex between 1480 and 1505. One would be hard pressed to find any 25-day period in Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, or Cambodia under Pol Pot in which the killing was that slight. Yet it is a Torquemada or Salem that is equated with homicidal intolerance. The crimes of Communism are ignored. Being generous, one might suppose that intellectuals are simply blinded by the prejudices of our age and are unable to detach themselves and see the killing that has occurred right under their noses. A more cynical perspective might view their amnesia as a self-induced condition brought on as a method to absolve themselves of their own role in supporting murder... [A]cademics have been engaged in 'ideologically motivated self-deception' for more than 80 years, refusing to believe that their ideological cousins could be capable of such diabolical crimes." (from Ideas Have Consequences... Like Murder, Tyranny, and Repression). I will go into more detail of how the Atheistic ideology manifested in Communist governments has persecuted others with tenacity in the following posts:

Atrocities of Atheism: Episode II -- Attack of the Chinese .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode III .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode IV -- A New 'Killing-Field' .
Atrocities of Atheism: Episode V -- The Evil Empire Strikes Back .

And don't miss the exciting purposeful conclusion in:

Atrocities of Atheism: Episode VI -- Return of the Believers

World Religions' View of Taking Life

2005-05-16T00:02:00.000-05:00

Killing is not a sin in every religion, unlike some think. There are conditions in which killing is either acceptable or preferred in every religion. That is one reason some fear religion.

Original Orthodox Judaism has many laws that demand Capital Punishment (killing). They are listed here: "murder (Numbers 35:16) and rape (Deuteronomy 22:25)... adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), loving anything more than God (Leviticus 20:2), occult practices (Exodus 22:18), pre-marital sex (Leviticus 21:9), not observing the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and striking or slandering a parent (Exodus 21:15, 17)".

Christianity abolished the Jewish requirements for the death penalty for adultery (abolished by Jesus in John 4:1-42 and John 8:1-11). Christianity did not require the death penalty for "the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers" in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. In fact, Jesus came to conquer death. But Christianity too does permit killing in some instances, which I discuss in my article "Why Would a Christian Ever Be Pro-War???". Just for the record, Christians condemn the Crusades and realize the wrong that they were. That is why there was a reconciliation walk for the wrongs against the Muslim people.

Speaking of Islam, the Qur'an instructs Muslims to kill here: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (At-Touba 9:5). Other places the Qur'an recommends killing is listed here: Al-Baqarah 2:191, An-Nissa 4:89, Al-Maidah 5:33, Al-Anfal 8:17, At-Touba 9:14 and Al-Ahzab 33:61. For a "religion of peace", there are numberable commands to kill non-Muslims. Many religions do not have this mandate in their sacred documents.

Hinduism applies circular logic to killing. When Arjuna asks Krishna how he can kill his cousins, uncles, brothers and friend's sons, Krishna says it is ok to slaughter them in the Bhagavad-Gita, because "You cannot kill them, because they are dead already; their own actions have doomed them. You cannot be responsible for their deaths, because each one is responsible for his own death". Hinduism implies here that the killing of Arjuna's family and friends is ok, because it is their karma to be slaughtered. Also in 2002, there was about one killing a month in human sacrifice to the Hindu goddess Kali.

Child sacrifice was common in Incan religion.

Also in the Zulu religion a woman in 2002 reported sacrificing her own child, for the Zulu gods to make her husband rich.

In Secular Humanism, baby sacrifice (abortion) is considered the religious "moral right of women", if the baby would be an inconvenience, an economic drain, unwanted for ANY reason and a potential burden upon the god of the State/society (and therefore economically advantageous to kill). "46 million women around the world have abortions each year." 46 Million mothers every year worldwide sacrifice their babies in accord with Secular Humanist dogma. "Of these women, 78% live in developing countries and 22% in developed countries". This totals, to some's estimates, up to a loss of 836 Million babies lives terminated from 1920-2000. That is a lot of dead babies for the Secular Humanist beliefs.

Atheism has been the bloodiest and most violent religion among adults of the 20th Century, but I'll discuss their atrocities in my next post...

Religion: Do We Need It?

2005-05-05T01:16:00.000-05:00

Interested parties have inquired about my denominational leanings. For public interest, I'm a Born Again Christian who holds of a combination of Evangelical, Charismatic and Liturgical (Roman Catholic-like) views (I have been active member in each type of Church - and I am currently involved in a Bible believing Church). I guess mainstream American Christianity now is probably somewhere close to Evangelical Christianity and also has proponents of a Christian-moral-society. I believe I'm close enough to mainstream American Christianity to be able to speak for it. The Born Again Christians see Mainstream American Christianity filled with many non-believers. Some of the cultural-Christians think that Christianity is good and that it's the right way to do things (how can I argue with that?).

I have responded to people that have asked me if I was religious, "No. I'm not Religious. I'm Spiritual." I do however consider myself in the category of the "Religious Right". I do believe that the mainstream of American Christianity views itself as religious. I take my belief as not being "religious" mostly from lyrics of a Christian singer's song (Scott Wesley Brown). The song says "I'm not religious, I just love the Lord". I'm not religious in the sense that I am not "Baptist", I'm not "Roman Catholic", I'm not "Lutheran", I'm not "Presbyterian". A religion does not get me into heaven. Following a set of rules is not what saves me. Most religions are about following sets of rules.

What I follow is not a religion. I follow a man, who lived and walked the Earth 2000 years ago. I follow Jesus Christ. That makes me a Christian. The teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible are what I follow... not what some Church says (although I have a home Church that I attend regularly). I am a Christian because I took a look at my life and I realized that I've done things that are wrong (sin). I've done things that are hurtful to myself; I've done things that are hurtful to others; and I've done things that are hurtful to God (all of these three are sin). I've admitted that I AM a sinner.

I believe that Jesus Christ who was a man, but was also God (born of God through the virgin Mary), lived on this Earth. I believe that as a man Jesus (the son of God) did not sin. As a perfect sinless person Jesus was killed. Jesus did not resist being killed because he came to die for my sins. Jesus died for my mistakes.

I believe that we all don't deserve to go to heaven, because of the bad things that we have done. We can't do enough good deeds to get to heaven. There is no way I can work my own way into heaven. I know this because the Bible says "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags". Even our best efforts are filthy rags.

Instead of me spiritually dying for my mistakes for my sin... the perfect sinless Jesus Christ took my sin and died in my place. I believe Jesus went to Hell for my sins, in my place, and then Jesus conquered death and joined His Father in heaven, so that I may be free from the bondage and burden of my own sin and wrongs. This is how I can get access into heaven... not because of something I've done, but because Jesus did it for me. I just accept Jesus as my Lord (my leader) and my Savior (my forgiver) and I become a follower of Him.

This offer was not made exclusively for me but for all. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). It doesn't matter who you are... your race... your political ideology or even your sexual history (orientation). Jesus has offered his life for mine and for whosoever wants to accept Him as the Lord (leader) of their life.

Does that sound like something interesting to you?

Irrational Fear

2005-05-03T23:50:00.000-05:00

You know, one concern that I hear about is that Christians want to force other people into being Christians. One very funny comedienne, Maria Bamford, said something similar to this about the Bush administration being re-elected "Well... at least I know what I'll be doing for the next four years... walking through the nuclear holocaust on my way to my new mandatory Bible Study". In the Secular Humanist Bastion of New York City there was a conference of CONCERN about what to DO about the Religious Right called "Examining the REAL Agenda of the Religious Far Right". It seems that the Secularist left is trying to infuse the public with fear by spinning silly and outlandish conspiracy theories about Christians forcing Theocracy on people. It seems the unsuspecting moderate secularists attending the conference are so unfamiliar with Christianity that they are buying the propaganda these Human Secularist extremists are selling them (literally, at $75-$85 a pop for the entire conference). The Roman Empire forced people into Christianity after they got tired of feeding us Christians to lions... and it actually didn't work out too well for us Christians (although, admittedly it was better than being fed to lions).

Forced Christianization of the Roman Empire did not produce great results. The result of this was actually quite destructive to Christianity. The result was syncretization. What is syncretization?

Syncretization of Christianity is when people use the forms and symbols of Christendom, but still practice their own religion under the guise of Christianity.

"In the first century after Christ, His devotees carried the gospel all over the known world. Christianity was embraced by millions. It conquered even the pagan Roman world. Rival religions paled before it. Pagan religions collapsed before it...

Unfortunately, Christianity succumbed to a malignant temptation that turned the conquerors into the conquered.

Having overcome pagan superstitions of the past, Christianity began to absorb certain traditions which the apostles found detestable. In Rome, most of it began by the worship of images, ...and adaptation of pagan feast days, which diluted Christianity.

Satan had devised a ploy to destroy the Christian faith. The first step was to do it from within by corruption. Prophetically Paul had written, 'After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, ...speaking perverse things' (Acts 20:29,30)." (from "The Islamic Faith Compared with the Christian Faith")

Temples devoted to the Worship of Dionysus became Churches of the Blessed Mary. The Temples of Bacchus became Churches of St. Peter. Pagan rituals became part of the Church and the two become intertwined. Instead of relying on the power of Christ these new "Churches" settled for "having a form of godliness but denying its power" (2 Timothy 3:5) and the Bible says "Have nothing to do with them".

When Constantine’s son Theodious (379-395 AD) made all other religions besides Christianity illegal, forcing Christianity upon people. This only brought Paganism into the Church and corroded it from within.

The corruption of the Church began by absorbing Pagan principals into Christianity:
"The people of the Empire had long been accustomed to worshipping the many gods of Rome as well as those imported from conquered lands. In times of trial or to obtain a particular blessing, they would seek the patronage of a particular deity who specialized in their area of need. When the pagan religions were outlawed, the people lost their supernatural benefactors.

Before Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, tens of thousands of adherents to [Christianity] had been martyred, most in unspeakably horrible ways. Christians honored these 'dead in Christ' and venerated then through the long-standing cult of the dead. Many of these 'saints' were associated with miraculous healings and other supernatural wonders. It was but a simple matter to incorporate them into vacancies in the pantheon of outlawed pagan gods. These 'saints' assumed the roles of patrons for the various endeavors and concerns of the masses. And thus began the paganization of Christianity. No longer were God the Father and Christ the Son the principle focus of worship, now Mary and, to a lesser degree, the various 'saints,' began to increasingly occupy the spiritual energies of those now calling themselves 'Christians.' " ("How Mary Came to Be a Goddess")

Christians... especially fundamental Bible believing Christians do not wish to absorb more Paganism into the teachings of Christ. We don't wish to assimilate other religions into ours. We're not the boogeymen the Human Secularist extremists try to make people of faith out to be. We do not want Christianity by force. That is a misconception that is frequently perpetrated. There's no need to have fake Christians or false teachers come into Christianity. I'm sure we have enough already.

Why are Most Christians Conservative?

2005-05-02T19:08:00.000-05:00

Jesus believed in stopping violence and the rich giving to the poor, so why do Christians normally align themselves with conservatives? There are three main reasons that Christians are conservative. One is that those who want to force and coerse the wealthy into giving to the poor (the left) in their specific way, also promote the "Culture of Death", try to erode Christian values and spew hate language about Christianity. Secondly, those who persecute Christians have aligned themselves with big Government against the freedom to worship of the individual. Third, eliminating business consolidates more power in fewer hands, which enemies of Christ can use to persecute people of faith. These three are only theory, but the left has a history of oppression and outright violence against people of strong religious beliefs.

I believe it's the full comprehensive value system ("moral values") that comes with the Secular Humanization (secularization) of the left, that I mentioned in my post "The Rise of the Godless Religion", which forced the Christians to align with the Right Wing. The liberal mainstream chose the Secular Humanist value system over the Christian value system. By default the Christians aligned with the right, because the left abandoned them (yes abortion -taking of innocent life- is a part of this value system, but it's much more comprehensive than a single issue - although that's a big one).

One major policy issue that causes Christians to be more right wing prone is the alliance between leftists, Communism and atheism. The Secularist left's fondness for the Christian-slaughtering former USSR and Communist China does not help warm relations between the left and the Christian Community. Not to mention that the US left unleashed the power of the US military on it's own people to assault a religious minority (in Waco) - (not that the assaulted sect was good, but the United States secularist left unleashed the military on a religious group).

When organizations gain power, some members of that organization may choose to misuse power that has been granted to them. It's true for Governments, Politicians, Corporations, Charity Foundations, Humanitarian Groups... Whatever. That's part of the reason I'm pro-Capitalist (aside from Communist's and the Euro-lefts socialist anti-Christian policies). I prefer to have the power split between private industry and government, as opposed to the power completely consolidated in government bureaucracy. Shutting down private business consolidates more power in fewer places (increasing the power of Government) increasing the potential for misuse (besides I'd rather have the greedy-power hungry people in the world trying to make me fat by selling me fries, then by misusing Government power to oppress/persecute people).

Any powerful organization will drive the power-hungry people towards it. This is also a concern about Atheistic-Communism. This is where the state (USSR/Communist China) plays god, all other religions besides Atheism (Secular Humanism), are removed and people have no private industry. The Government has absolute power. And as Lord Acton and my Social Studies teacher always said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Atheistic-Communism removes all other possible sources of influence beside the Government... this only encourages corruption and oppression. The evidence of the atrocities of atheism is apparent. In my previous post "Atheism Is It Bad for America?" I stated, "Atheism is an extremely war-mongering bloodthirsty religion. Marxist-Atheism says that killing is inevitable when the workers rise up (legitimizing murder as a necessary part of evolution). Stalinist-Atheism is extremely murder-happy; anyone who disagrees with the State on any policy (doctrine) must be killed. Chinese Atheism slaughters Christians and Members of Falun Gong regularly. The religious persecution of Atheists against all other religions around the world, is wrong". There was an atrocity in the US of Human Secularists in the Government (Atheist-light) against religious minorities that concerns me... Waco. Even here in the United States Atheist allies (Human Secularist Extremists) were able to hunt down and annihilate a religious minority.

The reason I find the Human Secularist Extremists concerning is that as a small group they have been able to suppress/discriminate against Christianity. If they do take over the culture to be the majority religion... they could be even more oppressive with more people behind them. So it seems that this small but increasing group of extremists have been encroaching on Christian's first amendment rights and the more power they get... Admittedly concerns me. The Bolsheviks were extremely violent, but many people thought if they were just given the power they wanted, if they were appeased, then they wouldn't need to be violent. Well, I'm sure you know that once those Secular Humanist extremists took power, soon after began the Reign of Terror (and as it's name implies... it wasn't very nice).

I believe that our Government is a Republic, and not a direct democracy for a reason. There are some things that a government must do for the good of the people, in spite of a desire of the people to do things to hurt themselves. I suppose on some topics I am for our government reflecting our societies values and some topics I am against it. There are some communities that have become dependent on Government welfare, so much so that it is a dis-incentive for them to get a job in private industry to provide for themselves. This phenomenon has hurt some communities, but people living there will continue to vote for getting these funds at their communities own personal detriment. There is some element where personal responsibility comes in however and the Government doesn't need to make every decision for us. I don't think the government should legislate what people eat or how often people should eat certain foods, but some Americans diets are killing themselves. On the other hand, there are some values that the Government has the responsibility to be a good parent of the people and tell them no to policies which are not in their long term benefit (like the abolition of slavery in the pro-slave South).

I suppose I wouldn't be so concerned about the Secular Humanists if the Government was an arbitrator between the Secular Humanism and Christianity. Or if the battle for the moral values of government was an even playing field. But our government has been consistently favoring the Human Secularist extremist agenda. I'm concerned about those extremists agenda BECAUSE our Government is partial to them. It seems the people voted in the last election to try to fix this disparity between the will of the people and a zealous religious group's (Secular Humanist extremists) favored position. I guess I'm not as annoyed at the Government for it's favoritism, because coming from a Blue-State, I guess I just expect it. I do what I can to vote for the protection of Religious Freedom (it looks like it worked this time, in this election, but we'll see).

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe we should have mandatory prayer in School, but I'm against suppressing the Freedom of Religion to pray in School. I agree that forcing students to "pray" to "God" is discriminatory against Atheists, not to mention potentially confusing to Agnostics :) I don't believe that "prayer or silent meditation" is establishing a religion of the State... that's ridiculous. I don't believe that "prayer or silent meditation" in School is discriminatory against Atheists. Meditation is not pro-anything (not even religion); it's just pondering. I don't believe that offering an optional class about multiple religions (which were Roman Catholic, Protestant and Jewish) is establishing a State religion (which is what was argued in McCollum v. Board of Ed) I don't believe that a Bible Study holding a meeting in a Public building is an establishment of state religion (New York State tried to say it was in Good News Club vs. Milford). I don't believe that religious clubs should be discriminated against and singled out, because it violates our Freedom to express (also freedom of speech) Religious views. If there's a diving club class at a public school, that doesn't establish divers as a THE water affiliated activity and discriminate against water polo enthusiasts, even if the majority of the people in town do dive. If there are salsa lessons at a court-house after hours it doesn't mean the State is anti-waltz. The State allowing a group to meet there, shows at least some tolerance to the dance of salsa, it does not establish it as the "Dance of the State". Yet this is the type of argument the Secular Humanist extremists use to treat other religions with a discriminatory manner.

The Culture of Death

2005-04-27T00:10:00.000-05:00

The liberal mainstream media believes that there is hypocrisy of the Religious Right promoting a "Culture of Life". Are they right?

This will be best explained by illustrating what those who oppose the "Culture of Life" believe. The people opposed to the "Culture of Life" believe in the "Culture of Death".

What is the "Culture of Death" and what do they believe in?

1. Those who believe in the "Culture of Death" believe that if an innocent baby, still in it's mother's womb, is going to be born to a poor young single mother, that it is better for the baby to be murdered than to live.

2. Those who believe in the "Culture of Death" believe that an innocent baby, still in it's mother's womb, is not a person, but property of the woman. It denies life and personhood to a human baby. It says that the human being, in a mother's womb, has no Right to Life, as guaranteed in the founding documents of the United States. They believe that baby is not a human, but a slave of the mother's body. Alan Keyes states "abortion is to our time what slavery was to the 19th Century". The killing of a slave in 19th Century America is no more illegal than the murder of a baby in the mother's womb is today. That is what the "Culture of Death" says and that is how they want to keep it.

3. The "Culture of Death" says that a helpless woman of little intelligence left, should be murdered by the State instead of letting her die of natural causes or instead of letting her parents pay to take care of her. The "Culture of Death" says that letting her parents try new medical advances to try to cure the impaired woman is less humane than murdering her.

4. The "Culture of Death" says that mass-murderers deserve to be let free, back into the public, to kill, rape and mutilate more people. They say it is compassionate to give known mass murderers and rapists the oportunity to murder and abuse more people, so more death can occur. The "Culture of Death" values the life of those who continue to kill others and create more death over the life of innocent victims or potential victims who live their days respecting life. Many statistics show that mass murderers are unlikely to break from their pattern of taking life. Forensic psychiatrist Helen Morrison's research shows that "serial killers, in particular, can't be rehabilitated because their underlying condition 'is probably genetic.' She said their problems stem from an interaction of genetics, brain chemistry and the endocrine system". The "Culture of Death" argues that keeping these hardened mass murderers alive to kill more innocent people is worth more than the life of one of those innocent people.

5. The "Culture of Death" says that Dictators, who commit acts of genocide against their own people, slaughtering hundreds/thousands, should live to kill more innocent people. The "Culture of Death" says that life of one person murdering thousands of minorities, is worth more than the thousands of innocent people he kills. Furthermore, all of those people who are not killed by tyrants like this, who know of the atrocities, are "held in slavery by their fear of death" by ruthless Dictators. The "Culture of Death" value those who commit genocide, and enslave people with the fear of genocide, rather than valuing the thousands of minorities who are murdered or enslaved.

6. Human Cloning is another tool of the "Culture of Death". The "Culture of Death" says that it is good to harvest live human bodies for spare parts, even though this kills the donor, who is forced without consent to their will, to give their life, for their body parts. "In Therapeutic Cloning, a cloned human embryo is used for spare parts and is killed".

7. The "Culture of Death" tries to promote that "in-vitro fertilization is the only thing available to infertile couples, yet less than 0.5% of infertile couples in the U.S. are helped by in-vitro fertilization each year". This process is "monstrous and inhumane" and it is a "sacrifice of human beings for the profit of other persons" and "a prenatal massacre". This process of artificial procreation takes multiple eggs from the mother and fertilizes them with multiple sperm of the father. Any resulting babies showing abnormalities are murdered and the one best living embryo is selected for implantation. Those human lives that are not selected, are massacred. If these innocent human lives are not massacred, they are taken as slaves for medical experimentation, called Embryotic Stem Cell research, and will die from medical experiments.

8. The "Culture of Death" only supports Stem Cell research if it kills embryos (innocent babies). Even though "thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical-cord stem cells [and], no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells", those who are a part of the "Culture of Death" prefer killing human babies (embryos), rather than using already successful adult stem cells. This is just like the Nazi research done on living people in concentration camps... performing horrific medical experiments on enslaved people, where the experiment ends with the killing of the innocent being (Jew or embryo). Why use embryonic Stem-Cells with no proven success, over successful adult Stem Cells? ...to promote the "Culture of Death" and take more innocent life.

On April 4th the liberal media got their marching orders from those opposed to the Religious Right. The attempt is to pick apart the term "Culture of Life" and pretend that the support for life is either not real or a hypocrisy.

During Scott McClellan's April 4th Press briefing the liberal mainstream media unleashed their new anti-Religious Right assault. They asked Scott McClellan the following about President Bush, "knowing that the President fully supports the death penalty, used the death penalty, does he see it as a contradiction to use that phrase, 'culture of life,' and still support the death penalty?" They believed they had gotten Scott and he declined to answer. Neil Cavuto was asked this around the same time, as well as Republican Senator Pete Domenici. It appeared to be a concerted effort to attack the "Culture of Life" and discredit it.

The Bible is opposed to the "Culture of Death" and any human being with a conscience should be also. The Bible asks us to protect innocent life, not to kill the weak and needy. The Bible tells us to protect that life from the people who want to kill them. It says: "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:4).

I want to respond to this attack on the "Culture of Life" and affirm that supporting the death penalty is not a contradiction to the belief in the "Culture of Life". In fact, the Lord has given the State the power to punish evil-doers in Romans 13:4 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 to protect the innocent and provide justice, as seen in my Article "Why Would a Christian Ever be Pro-War?".

Those who believe in protecting life must speak out against these atrocities and ask our government to be humane and close the loophole that allows the "Culture of Death" to murder innocent babies. I do not believe that people should mimic the "Culture of Death" by becoming life taking vigalanties, but to be a positive influence on society and to urge our elected representatives to punish evil-doers and to protect the weak and needy.

The Bible concedes that death will reign over the Earth and maybe that is why this "Culture of Death" is so prominent now. The Bible Says:
Romans 5:12-14
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

Jesus beats death Hebrews 2:14-15
"Since the children have flesh and blood, [Jesus] too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil-- and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death."

1 Corinthians 15:24-26
"when [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

Sadly, according to the Bible, the power of death and the "Culture of Death" will be with us until the end, after Jesus returns, but He will finally destroy it. Until then, join with the Lord to protect the life of those that can't defend themselves. "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:4).

Public School Religion (Secular Humanism)

2005-04-13T15:20:00.000-05:00

Secular Humanism has created an establishment of Religion in our Public Schools. Who are they? And What do they believe?

Their affirmations (they don't like to call them beliefs) are listed online, here. The history of the establishment of their religion (although they like to say that they are not a religion) is on a "religious movements" website here. Not all of their beliefs are in opposition to Christianity, but many of their followers are opposed to Christianity. In fact, some of the beliefs come from Christianity (which is mentioned in the history of Secular Humanism).

I'm sure like many of the complaints people have against Christianity... I'm not opposed to Secular Humanism... just some of their followers and what they do with their religion (their "affirmations"). I mean overall it sounds very nice.

The problem with teaching sex education and evolution is that you teach morals when you teach those subjects. When you teach certain morals and exclude other morals ("religious" morals vs. religious-movement morals) you are declaring your morals superior and establishing a set of beliefs ("affirmations") by the State (Secular Humanism) and forcing other beliefs (so called "religious" beliefs) out. It's complicated to explain this because Secular Humanism uses the spin that they are not a religion to create a religious monopoly in the school system.

What I'm opposed to is forcing one religion's (or religious movement's) beliefs (affirmations) on everyone. I believe this is creating a State approved religion. The State says that these are the morals which will be taught and all other morals are banned.

This isn't exactly about sex education, but that's an example of Secular Humanist morals that are pushed in a classrom and that's easiest to point out. English class is a huge example of pushing Secular Humanist propaganda books as the reading curriculum in class. The books that are chosen to be read in class all promote morals... Secular Humanistic morals. The Secular Humanists claim that they are not a religion allows them to force other religious morals (besides theirs) out of the classroom thereby infusing their "affirmations" on the masses (especially the poor) without the pluralistic view (ironically against one of their own affirmations, but as long as their in charge it's ok).

This is establishing a State Religion in the classroom and oppressing other "affirmations" (religions). Secular Humanists should get their religion out of the classroom. If they are not willing to get their religion out of schools, at least allow the Freedom of Religion in the classroom and stop oppressing others.

Is Atheism Bad for America?

2005-04-12T22:34:00.000-05:00

I certainly do think it's scary that the Constitution has been violated and ignored with regards to our freedoms. I've found the 80's, 90's & beginning of the millennium’s erosion of the 1st amendment ("freedom of religion") by the Judicial branch of the Government very scary. In these decades Secular Humanism and Atheism forced other religions out of schools, creating a state religion of Secular Humanism/Atheism in schools and forcing all other religions out. Saying a prayer during graduation was declared illegal, even if students voted that they wanted a prayer during graduation, it was illegal (which is totally undemocratic, not to mention a violation for the freedoms of speech and religion). Even student led prayers during a football game at a school were declared illegal. Even having a "moment of silence or voluntary prayer" was declared illegal. Secular Humanism joined with the State to eradicate all other religions from schools besides Secular Humanism (or Atheism) (Prayers could have been Muslim, Christian, Hindu, pagan, whatever, but all other religions were kicked out of schools besides the alliance of Secular Humanism and Atheism).

Not only was Atheism and Secular Humanism making it illegal for all other religions to practice their faith in schools, but under Janet Reno (and Clinton's approval) the FBI was used and tanks were deployed in the streets against American citizens inside our country who were in a small religious minority (and not part of the Atheist/Secular Humanist religion). The problem is that no one really knows what happened there in Waco. People know that the FBI and the Justice Department (Janet Reno) screwed up (or planned to annihilate these non-Atheists/non-Secular Humanists) . It certainly made me think we were in the End Times when the Government (Justice Department) sent tanks in the streets to hunt down a religion (which was different than the State religion of Secular Humanism and Atheism) just because the State says their religion is dangerous. The Clinton administration (predominantly Reno) set the precedent to use military force against US citizens that have a religion that the State (or State religion - Secular Humanism or Atheism) says is "dangerous". What's further troubling is that no one has been held accountable for the atrocities of Waco, making it even more suspicious.

Some blame theism or a belief in God for many wars and deaths throughout history. There have been millions of deaths for Atheism (the State is God) since the beginning of the 20th Century. This has helped Russia win many Wars since it turned Communist. Russia's State religion of telling their masses that the State is god (their people must sacrifice all of themselves for the State) has helped them through many Wars.

Atheism is an extremely war-mongering bloodthirsty religion. Marxist-Atheism says that killing is inevitable when the workers rise up (legitimizing murder as a necessary part of evolution). Stalinist-Atheism is extremely murder-happy; anyone who disagrees with the State on any policy (doctrine) must be killed. Chinesse Atheism slaughters Christians and Members of Falun Gong regularly. The religious persecution of Atheists against all other religions around the world, is wrong. I pray that Atheism does not politically take over the US, because they have brought much bloodshed and oppression to every Nation it has become the prominent religion.

The Persecution of the Church

2005-04-11T12:00:00.000-05:00

There are multiple assaults on the religion of Christianity. That oppression in the United States comes mostly from Human Secularist exteremists. I certainly don't think it's right to oppress a religious group just because they used to be the majority religion, like how the Human Secularist extremists oppress Christianity. That oppression occuring from Human Secularist exteremists certainly doesn't "transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity", (one of the affirmations of Human Secularism). Instead, it selects a religion and oppresses it. Their goal seems to be to eliminate God, and Christianity specifically, from the mainstream. Since they have seized control of the Democratic Party, they have had the power to start pushing God out of the mainstream by legislative and judicial force.

God, thankfully, is still in the mainstream. I was concerned that He had not remained mainstream in American culture. I do believe he's not mainstream in Blue-State culture. Some of my Blue-State origins have given me the experience that the Human Secularist extemists have been successful there. Secular Humanist extremists are trying to forcefully eliminate God from the mainstream of all of the United States and then the world. Not that Secular Humanists have eliminated God currently from all of our American culture, although many places the Government does have laws prohibiting Freedom of Religion (guaranteed in the First Amendment). I don't believe all Secular Humanists are working to eliminate the ability to express faith in our culture, just the powerful extremist elites. I think the results of the 2004 election proves that God is still relevant in most American's lives and they were tired of the Anti-Christian biases of some of the more extreme Secular Humanist policies the Government has been promoting. I see the results of the 2004 election as a backlash against Secular Humanist extremism.

Some Lawyers have been defending the Freedom of Religion in courts (National Alliance Against Christian Discrimination) from "Activist Judges" who are trying to eliminate God from the mainstream. Many courts from previous years have been stacked with liberal Human Secular extremist Judges. This is why the fight is so strong now in the Senate against Bush-nominated Judges. The balance of power in Judges (Conservative/Liberal) may even out, if Bush's Judges are approved.

I am concerned about Secular Humanist extremists persecuting the Church, like how the Romans persecuted the Church in the old Roman Empire and Hitler's persecution of Christians during WWII. The Bible says that the Church will be persecuted, "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Timothy 3:12). Persecution of my Christian brothers and sisters around the world is terrible and sad. Many Governments are Anti-Christian and kill Christians. This website has a World map that you can select different parts of the world that the persecution of Christians is occurring:
http://www.persecution.net/world.htm.

Many Christians are being killed by Atheistic-communist Governments. Since we live in a Democracy, I try to vote in such a way, so that we do not end up being oppressed slaughtered minorities, which is what has happened in many former Christian nations (Russia, most predominantly). Our Secular biased news ignores atrocities that are perpetrated against Christians around the World (or if they show it, it's spun so it doesn't seem like Christians are being persecuted - they make it about race or nationality). In the End Times the Bible says that the Church will be persecuted, which is what makes Anti-Christian legislation in the United States scarier. Jesus prophesies: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me" (Matthew 24:6-9). So although being hated for Jesus isn't so bad, it's the persecution and death part, that I hope isn't in my lifetime. I will vote against Anti-Christian Laws to slow the persecution of the American Church (or maybe exempting the persecution of the American Church) to protect me, my Christian friends and my potential future children.

It's not so much Secular Humanists I'm against. I'm against Secular Humanist extremists, who want to use the Government to persecute Christians. There will also be a one world religion that arises to persecute the Church in the end times. It could be Secular Humanism that attacks Christians for not being an "open" to the morals of Secular Humanism (with some Anti-Christian morals) or it may be the new Rise of Global Islam. I don't know. Either way, I am not for being oppressed as a National policy and seeing my Religious Freedoms taken away.

Some groups like the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) have been successful in defending religious liberties, but we've had about 40-50 years of Democrats monopolizing the power of the Senate (until 2002) and they've had control over Judicial nominations. With the Secular Humanists guiding the Democrat Party; they've been able to block most, but not all non-liberal God-fearing Judicial nominations at all levels. This leaves the courts to side against religious liberties and increasing the power of the Secular Humanist extremists. Also, many Red-States (like Texas) have had Blue controlled legislatures (until 2002 also). These Presidential Red-States (but Intra-State Blue-legislators) have also wielded their internal Blue-power to keep liberal Judges in the presiding courts (although Texas Judge nominees have a different process).

It no longer looks like we are going down the Secular Humanist trail of Christian persecution that Hitler perpetrated. This precarious situation for Christians seems to be easing up since the last election. It may be that we, who believe in God, will regain some of the religious freedoms we lost in the last couple of decades. And I for one... thank God Almighty.

Separation of Church and State: Good Idea or Unconstitutional Persecution?

2005-04-10T20:26:00.000-05:00

You hear the term 'Separation of Church and State' a lot from the Secular Humanist liberal mainstream media. And they promote it as a good thing. In fact some go even as far to say that it is a constitutional principle... guess what? It's not in there. Is it in the Declaration of Independence??? Nope!

Where did the liberal media and the Secular Humanist extremists get their rhetoric from? The term "Separation of Church and State" was never in the Constitution. Where does it come from? It was in a DRAFT letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The Danbury Baptist draft letter in entirety said:

"Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson"

An online copy of the Danbury Baptist draft letter is located here.

The context of Jefferson's comment is that the legislators should not establish a state religion or laws that prohibit (oppress) religion (religious groups). In McCollum v. Board of Education District 71 in 1948 was the first time the meaning of this term was changed to remove God from Schools. They removed a class about religious views taught by coalition of Jewish, Roman Catholic & Protestant leaders. This class was not mandatory. This was one of the first assaults on the freedom of religion (people were free to take or not take this course - this was also an assault on the freedom of speech). Some may argue if someone is not comfortable with the separation in school, and wants their values taught in school, they are free to send their child to a private school. This is not true especially for the poor. The poor do not have the choice that rich people do to change Schools. If voucher system the Republicans proposed were implemented, that would be true, but now the Secular Humanist school system holds captive the poor and indoctrinates them with their State religion (Secular Humanism/Atheism). The voucher system for schools would help free the poor from this religious oppression, but the Secular Humanists in the Democrat party have fought hard to oppose the freedom to allow any beliefs besides their own indoctrination. I hope we the people can regain the freedom of religion in schools, as promised in the first amendment.

Some liberals get confused... I'm not trying to force a religion on anyone... right now the rights of students to express freedom of religion and even the choice to attend religious schools is being infringed upon (especially the poor are being infringed upon). I wish that the Government imposed Secular Humanism/Atheism was not forced in schools. I don't see why the typical liberal view of pluralism and highlighting the morals of each religion is so bad. I don't see what's wrong with it except that it breaks up the monopoly the Secular Humanists/Atheists have over the school system.

An example of this tyranny is that in California (of course) a Christian teacher was singled out and barred from handing out collected excerpts of the Declaration of Independence because it referenced "God" in it. This religious oppression in schools has gone too far... to prohibit handing out excerpts of one of our nations founding documents. It's getting absurd now.

The draft of the Danbury Baptist letter (not even the actual letter), where everyone gets the term 'Separation of Church and State' from, was written with the intent to prohibit a State forced religion, but now the Human Secularist extremists use it to give themselves a religious monopoly in the public School system. This letter was written to protect religious freedoms of speech and expression, but now it is being used to oppress religious freedoms in public schools. This is an egregious account of manipulation of original intent. This is an atrocity to the principles this letter was written to defend. Stand up for your freedom America, don't let the secular extremist left steal your liberty!

Texas Redistricting: An End to the Legacy of Slavery

2005-04-09T00:35:00.000-05:00

There was a lot of resistance to theTexas Redistricting issue. I was surprised there was so much hub-bub about the ability to redistrict. I guess it's just because I am familiar with my history and others... are not. It may just be that people are rusty on their precedents or their knowledge of US law. The issue was resolved long, long ago.

The Texas Redistricting issue was resolved in 1812 (Wikipedia: Gerrymandering). It's pretty old news. But then again, it's not surprising considering that during the 2002 elections, Republican congress-people broke the 130 year reign of Democratic Controlled Texas Congress ("Republicans gained control of the Texas House of Representatives for the first time in 130 years", PBS Article - "Tussle In Texas". It's easy to see that the Texas Democrats are/were upset that they've lost their 130 year, Government controlled monopoly to some Republican underdogs. The Democrat Congressmen haven't had to compromise their power for over much more than a Century.

I guess that's the emotional reason the ol' ruling Texas Democrat establishment is/was so upset. But, the redistricting process has been initiated whenever congressional power changes hands in all the US States. It's been an American tradition since 1812 (almost 200 years - so the redistricting tradition even dates back 60 years before the Democrats started their 130 year reign of monopolizing the Texas Congress).

Elbridge Gerry, in 1812, was the first to construct a strange shaped district in order to enhance his re-election prospects (Wikipedia: Gerrymandering). He created a district in the shape of, most people thought was, ... a Salamander. People balked and scoffed at him for his newly created Salamander shaped district. When people said it looked like a Salamander, one clever person remarked that it looked like a Gerrymander (using Elbridge's last name and merging it with this strange shaped district). The name immediately stuck. Gerrymandering is now part of the English language. It's Dictionary definition is "to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group" (Merriam-Webster Online: Gerrymander).

There is really only one main restriction on redistricting (Gerrymandering). Federal Standards for protecting Minorities in redistricting (Gerrymandering) were Championed by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to make sure minorities do not get unfairly treated by redistricting. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen lead the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect minorities from their votes being disenfranchised by Redistricting. 94% of the Senate Republicans voted for it, protecting minorities from racially biased redistricting, and 73% of Democrats voted to stop the protection of blacks (Republican Freedom Calander-August 4th, 1965). This protection for minorities that the Republicans championed, was the only provision restricting redistricting (districts must not disenfranchise minorities). There is nothing in our laws suggesting that redistricting (Gerrymandering) must be done during census years.

In 1967 the Congress passed laws stating that one Representative shall come from one district (as opposed to taking the top two from a larger district), thereby increasing the power of redistricting (Gerrymandering) whenever it is done.

Everyone knows that Texas is a Red-State, but the Texas Congress has not reflected the those views (It's been Democrat controlled). The Texas Congress doesn't reflect the views of the Texas people (everyone knows Texas is more of a Republican State, but Democrats have had the majority in the Congress in 2002), because the old Democrats of the slave days (130 years ago, Texas GOP History) kept redistricting the Republicans out of power every decade for 130 years (PBS Article - "Tussle In Texas"). Since the Democrats controlled the Texas Congress in 2002 (because of the old slavery controversy) and then continued to redistrict Republicans to keep them out of power for 130 years, this caused the Texas Congress of 2002 to be more Democrat. I don't think it's right for the current day Democratic Party to continue to benefit from the pro-slavery stance of their predecessors 130 years ago (especially when everyone knows Texan's views are more Republican).

So as far as my opinion on Texas redistricting. It's been part of our political system for almost 200 years. I guess Texas Democrats thought they were exempt from the political process everyone else in the nation follows (and the process of Gerrymandering in other non-US Democracies). I guess they thought that they were better than these underdogs who were trying to redistrict them. They might have thought 'How dare these people that we've had control over for 130 years, tell US what our future is'.

I think it's sad that the only way that the old Democrat establishment would allow the Republicans to redistrict, is to make them call two special sessions, waste the taxpayer money and then try to illegally run away from the Texas political process by going to other states. I'm sure it's hard to give up power, when you've had it for so long. I suppose I can grant some compassion on them, because it's tough to give up power that you expected you'd always have, when you loose (election of 2002).

Why Would a Christian Ever be Pro-War???

2005-04-07T09:44:00.000-05:00

Some people may be surpirsed to know that the Bible itself says that there is a time to kill. That specific verse doesn't explain in detail when that is, just that there IS a time to kill. This verse is Ecclesiastes 3:3.

There is a time that the Bible says that condones killing. There is a specific case that is listed as the right thing to do. Deuteronomy 19:11-13 says: "But if a man hates his neighbor and lies in wait for him, assaults and kills him, and then flees to one of these cities, the elders of his town shall send for him, bring him back from the city, and hand him over to the avenger of blood to die. Show him no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.". This is the law of the Lord. I believe that Christ has come to grant grace and that may overshadow Deuteronomy's command of "Show him no pity", even though it is commanded by God to kill without pity here. This is what God has stated as the right thing to do, for the good of the Nation (not necessarily the individual). This is also commanded in Exodus 21:12, "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death" and Leviticus 24:17 "If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death".

Jesus himself commanded his disciples to pick up swords and follow him in Luke 22:36-38. Jesus told His disciples if they didn't have a sword, to buy one. When the disciples presented swords to Jesus, Jesus approved.

Some Soldiers came to seek Godly advice about the morality of their occupation. They were not told, not to be soldiers. They were not told to quit. They were not told to not make War. The Bible addresses their moral question with the answer: "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay" (from Luke 3:14). They are told not to take money from people by threat (Thou shalt not steal) or to accuse people falsely (Thou shalt not bear false witness) to beat the innocent. They are not told to not make War. In fact they are told simply after those reiterations of the aforementioned two commandments, to be happy with their pay (which may be translated as... Thou shalt not covet). If the soldiers were commanded to be happy with their pay, then soldiering is certainly not condemned.

Furthermore, I do not believe that God intended the Military to be Godless. I do not believe God intended Armies to not have witnesses for Him planted among soldiers. I don't believe God would prohibit believers from being in the military and therefore not have any witnesses to testify to their fellow soldiers about who God is and the ability of God to save their souls.

Also God specifies in Romans 13:4 that Governments have been given the authority to bring wrath with the sword (what some may call War or others may call capitol punishment). Romans 13:4 says about rulers of Nations "if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (or evil-doer). God has given authority to Earthly rulers to bear the sword to punish evil doers.

The confusion here comes from the fact that our Bibles are written in English. The original Hebrew has 4 different words for the 1 English word kill. The Bible says "Thou shall not ratsach". This word does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional killing. For example manslaughter and intentional murder are both ratsach. Deuteronomy 19:4-6 says that if a murder is unintentional (manslaughter) than the killer has a chance to escape to a "City of refuge", this is a right that the intentional murderer does NOT have. Both intentional and unintentional murders are ratsach. And God commands us not to intentionally or unintentionally murder people. The other three Hebrew words are harag, shachat and muwth. What is the difference between these words? Great question.

I'll start with muwth (Translated as die 424 times, dead 130 times, slay 100 times, death 83 times, surely 50 times, kill 31 times, dead man 3 times, dead body 2 times, "in no wise" 2 times and other random words 10 times). This is the term for capitol punishment or the term for the punishment of death, because of poor moral choices or sin. This word means to execute (as in the death penalty). It may also mean that someone kills themselves with a sinful lifestyle (drugs etc.). The Lord did not say in the 10 Commandments "Thou shall not muwth", the Lord said "Thou shall not ratsach". This does not condone revenge or vengeance by an individual ("Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord", Romans 12:19), but He did grant authority to Governments to punish, by the sword (Romans 13:4), evil doers (those who are wrongdoers). God states this in Exodus 21:12, "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death" and Leviticus 24:17 "If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death". The Lord did not call punishment by death a sin. That is why muwth (punishment by death sanctioned by the Government) was commanded by God in Deuteronomy 19:11-13, which I listed above. Does God command people to sin? No. God outlawed murder (ratsach), but has commanded his people to execute evil doers (muwth) for the good of society (as in Deuteronomy 19:11-13).

Next is the word shachat, which means to kill/slay an animal. This difference in killing is specified in the Bible. The Bible makes a clear distinction between human life and animal life. God condems murder as a sin ("Thou shall not ratsach"), but commands animal sacrifice (shachat). Shachat, is used 81 times in the Bible (translated as kill 42, slay 36, offer 1, shot out 1, slaughter1). Also the terms zabach (translated as sacrifice 85, offer 39, kill 5, slay 5) and tabach (translated as kill 4, slaughter 4, slay 2, slain 1) are used to describe killing animals. God commands that animals be killed (zabach) in his name wherever He is to be honored. And God will bless those who kill/sacrifice animals in His name. Sometimes zabach/shachat/tabach is used for the murder of a person, but that is only if the killing of people is done in the style of killing an animal; this type of killing is not acceptable to God. When ratsach(murder) is called shachat(butchering-NIV), because of the style of the murder... it is more vicious (not condoned). But the killing of animals (food, sacrifice, clothing, etc.) is seen as acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. In fact God Himself killed an animal for Adam and Eve after they sinned in the Garden of Eden, to sacrifice to cover their sin and to clothe them (David Guzik commentary, section 5, verse 21). Some "animal-rights" extremists try to use "Thou shalt not ratsach" to say that we shouldn't eat/kill animals, but clearly God permits eating animals in Acts 11:7, where God commands Peter "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat". Also God himself killed animals for clothes for Adam and Eve, which the "animal-rights" extremists say is evil/wrong. Again, God is not the author of sin. He would not command us to sin. God commanded His people to kill animals (zabach/shachat/tabach) for sacrifice, food, etc., but commanded us not to murder people ("Thou shall not ratsach").

The most complex one, is the term harag. The word harag is used 167 times in the Bible (translated as... slay 100, slain 31, kill 27, murderer 2, destroyed 1, murder 1, out of hand 1, made(slaughter)1, put (to death)1, slayer 1, surely(kill)1). This means to slay or slaughter wholesale and without pity, as in a War. It can be also in an individual way to denote a viciousness of the perpetrator, like how Cain slaughtered his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8). This was a sinful act of Cain to slaughter/kill his own brother (to War against his own brother - and partly against God). In Ezekiel 9:6 God commanded "Slaughter [harag] old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary". That's a time God commanded to His people to kill/slaughter. It's a time God commanded to War against people. In the book of Ester, the King, because of Ester's Godly intervention, permitted the Jews to War against (kill) his Nation's armies in self-defense ("The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies" - Ester 8:11), to save the Jewish race. God willed this law and the Hebrews slaughtered their enemies, with God's help, protecting the Jewish people and allowing Jesus, the savior, to be born hundreds of years later. God Himself has slaughtered (harag) many Kings and Nations (Psalm 135:10). God gave a prophecy about the Nation of Tyre, in Ezekiel 26:6, that Tyre's settlements "will be ravaged by the sword [harag]. Then they will know that I am the LORD". Exodus 32:27 says "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing [harag] his brother and friend and neighbor'". So there are times that harag is sin and there are times that harag was commanded by God. That is EXACTLY what Ecclesiastes 3:3 says. Ecclesiastes 3:3 says there is "a time to kill [harag]". There is never a time to murder ("Thou shall not ratsach"), but the Bible tells us that there is "a time to kill [harag]". Is harag always acceptable to the Lord? No! Cain's action was sin. Many other times when people were slaughtered, it was because of sin... and it was evil. Can we conclude that all harag sin? No. God did command certain times that harag is the right thing to do. God has in His holy scriptures that there is "a time to harag". There are times that God commanded His people to slaughter other peoples or to defend their Nation from attacks. How do we know when it is right to defend one's family and people? How do we know when it is right to War against someone? When is War justified? This leads us to the concept of a "Just War", to describe when harag (War) is sinful and when it is the right thing to do.

What is a "Just War"? What are the conditions necessary to conduct a "Just War"? The "Just War" doctrine was created by Bishop Augustine of Hippo, a famous Theologian in the 4th Century. Some secularists attribute the Just War theory origins to Cicero in the 1st Century B.C.. This idea was further developed by the theologan Thomas Aquinas is the 13th Century. Others have followed in carrying on the idea of promoting a "Just War" ("Just War" origins & history from Wikipedia).

First and foremost in this doctrine is that God has given Government and States the sovereignty to wield the sword. As I mentioned above, Romans 13:4 says about rulers of Nations "if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer" (or evil-doer). Furthermore 1 Peter 2:13-14 says "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right". This authority does not specify wrongdoers or evil doers inside the Nation. God has given "the sword" to the state to protect it's people and to punish evil doers (which may include both muwth and harag). Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority." It must be a legitimate authority that wadges war. "The sovereign power of the state is usually considered to be legitimate authority. This means that citizens at their own will cannot attack another country without the permission of the sovereign" ("Just War" Wikipedia). For an individual "to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to 'take the sword,' but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment" (from Newadvent). In other words, an individuals actions of harag are accounted to the state and are not counted against them (they do not violate the command "Thou shall not ratsach"). Although citizen's can only wadge War under legitimate authority, under the "Just War" theory, there may be broader definitions of who is legitimate authority, such as NGO's (non-Government Organizations), like the PLO (Palistinian Liberation Organization) (they do not have a State), Al-Quada (they do not have a soveriegn State), Africans in the Darfur region of the Sudan (defending themselves against the Arab-Sudanesse Government assaults on them and selling them as slaves for profit), Godfathers (heads of Gangs, crime syndicates) or Eco-terrorists (ELF - Environmental Liberation Front). The definition might be more stringent than a soveriegn State, like no State has the right to declare war (even in self-defense); only the UN can legitimately approve of a war. But in general, a state is considered legitimate authority.

The second tennent of the "Just War" Doctrine is that the war must be fought for a just cause and right intention. Usually this Just Cause is self-defense, like how the Jews defended themselves, with the King's approval (because of Ester) against the armies/people trying to kill them ( "The king's edict granted the Jews in every city the right to assemble and protect themselves; to destroy, kill and annihilate any armed force of any nationality or province that might attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies" - Ester 8:11). "[S]ometimes it is necessary. When it swings open the doors of the stinking concentration camps, when it liberates the slaves, broken and exhausted, when it frees those who are about to be tortured and murdered by the hundreds or thousands or millions, when it makes freedom possible where before existed only gulag, it is a good, not an evil" (Adventis Today, "Sometimes War is Moral"). The example of Ester is not the only place where a just cause is mentioned (the Ester example of a Just Cause of self-defense). The Bible also commands us to "Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked." (Psalm 82:4). Some may use that verse to say that the US Civil War was a Just War, because it fought to end slavery and the oppression of a people. On a BBC website they mention 9 reasons that may be used as Just Cause for a war. These reasons are: Self-Defense (invasion, assassination of a prominent person, attack on honnor[bombing an embassy], attack on the state religion, economic attack), Assisting a Friendly Nation who was Invaded, Human Rights Violations or To Punish an Act of Aggression. Augustine says "(Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war" (from Newadvent). Augustine also comments that "(Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): 'True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.' For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention" (from Newadvent). Augustine here specifies that Empire Building (aggrandizement) and hatred of a people (cruelty) are evil. But Augustine also mentions virtuous reasons for War such as securing peace and punishing evil doers, as noble things to fight for. It should also be done with right intentions like creating a just peace, righting a wrong and assisting the innocent (Psalm 82:4) (and as long as other "Just War" conditions are met). Augustine also says that "(Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace" (from Newadvent).

The third point of a "Just War" is that it must only be wadged if there is a reasonable chance of success. Going to War with the odds stacked against you may seen noble, but it is unethical. It is unethical to kill and have a great loss of life for something that is inevidable. "[I]t would be unethical for a state to sacrifice the lives of its people (and the lives of its enemy's people) in a futile gesture that would not change anything". This makes "The Alamo" an unethical unjust battle, whose ends do not justify it's means. Some do argue however that a weaker power may break the resolve of a stronger power (like the 13 Colonies broke the resolve of the United Kingdom in the War for Independence or like Al-Quada boke the U.S.'s resolve to fight them in Mogadishu). That makes this more complex, but for the traditional "Just War", you do not fight a War you can not win. That is immorally sending people to their death.

The fourth point of a "Just War" is that it must be a last resort. On a web-site said it best, when it said: "Of course the non-violent, non-war solutions are always preferable, if they exist. Every one of them must be tried first if there is the slightest chance of success. Nobody is arguing that war is ever the first preferable alternative. It is the last. But sometimes it is necessary. When it swings open the doors of the stinking concentration camps, when it liberates the slaves, broken and exhausted, when it frees those who are about to be tortured and murdered by the hundreds or thousands or millions, when it makes freedom possible where before existed only gulag, it is a good, not an evil" (Adventis Today, "Sometimes War is Moral"). What are these alternatives that should be tried before War is initiated? These preferable alternatives are "diplomacy, economic sanctions, political pressure from other nations, withdrawal of financial aid, condemnation in the United Nations, and so on. These alternatives should be tried exhaustively and sincerely before violence is used." (BBC "Just War" - Last Resort). On the other hand, "Some writers don't think that 'last' in last resort refers to the sequence of time. They argue that last resort means that the use of force is ethical only when it is really necessary and when no reasonable alternative is left. They say that that war should be the least preferred course of action, but not necessarily the course of action that isn't tried until afterevery other course of action has failed.They argue that sometimes it will be morally better to go to war sooner rather than later. This might be because waiting too long would allow the enemy to do much more damage, or kill more people than an early war would have done; or may allow the enemy to become so established in another country's territory than far greater force will have to be used to remove him than would have been needed earlier" (BBC "Just War" - Last Resort).

These previous four are the criteria which must be met in order to fight a "Just War". This is called the Jus Ad Bellum criteria. The way in which the War is wadged must also be just in order for the War to be just. The actions of the participants in the War must follow the "Just War" Doctrine. The prescription of action during a "Just War" is called Jus In Bello.

First rule of fighting a "Just War" is that the killing (harag) must be directed at combatants and not at innocent non-participants. There sometimes is confusion over who is a combatant and who isn't, especially in the fog of War. Combantants are: "members of military forces, members of guerrilla forces (even though not in uniform, and anyone who takes up arms in the conflict, other than in direct self-defence", but they may be "soldiers who have been wounded or who have surrendered - this hasn't always been so - armies used to make a point of butchering enemy wounded or those who surrendered - although soldiers who surrender shouldn't be killed, it's quite legitimate to make them prisoners so that they can't attack you again, military personnel clearly identified as having specifically non-combatant roles such as medical staff and chaplains - such personnel are often injured or killed because their job takes them into the most dangerous parts of the battle" (BBC "Just War" - Just Conduct). Also there are people which MAY be considered "combatants" even though they don't have weapons (because they are not "innocent"); the people would be "civilians who are helping the war effort - these are people working to supply the troops and to provide them with weapons or helping in other ways. They aren't combatants in the sense of bearing arms, but they are an essential part of the war machine and constitute a threat to the other side" (BBC "Just War" - Just Conduct). People that are killed, who's deaths would certainly be considered ratsach (murder) are: "all citizens of neutral countries, unless they do something incompatible with their neutral status - like fighting for one of the armies involved in the conflict as a mercenary soldier, the old and the sick, children [although, children were historically used as combatants, e.g. the 'powder monkeys' in warships in the days of sail AND child soldiers are becoming more common in terrorist conflicts and third world armies, NOT TO MENTION THAT International conventions specify that countries should not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces" (BBC "Just War" - Just Conduct). The Bible says this in Proverbs 6:16-17, "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood". This verse have many believe that using any WMD's (like nuclear or chemical weapons) are immoral, because they do not kill only combatants, but innocent people as well, making the user of WMD's guilty of manslaughter (involentary murder - ratsach), which is far beyond a just death (a harag by justice - death by a "Just War").

The second rule of fighting a "Just War" is torture of combatants is forbidden. I don't think this is supposed to include Psychological Warfare, but I don't know. Psyops or Psychological Warfare may be called "torture" in the sense of how the US played Barney & Seasame Street Music really loud in Iraq which caused people to surrender. Yes Amnesty International filed a complaint that the US using Barney songs on Iraqi's was "torture". I'm not sure where the "torture" line is, but Psyops seems to be a gray area in a "Just War". (The advantage is that combatants may surrender without bloodshed, but is Psyops considered torturous means and therefore an unjust warfare tactic?)

I'm going to wrap this up quick... the next rules in a "Just War" are to treat POW's respectfully (not like Abu Ghraib), the force should be proportional to the offense and that drafting is unjust.

These are the times, that many argue that the Bible says that one may kill (harag), but it would not be murder (ratsach). These times are listed in Ecclesiastes 3:3, where the Bible says that there is "a time to kill [harag]". Why would Christians be pro-war? Sometimes War is more just then to allow evil (Nazi's, etc.) to continue it's oppression and murder.

The Rise of the Godless Religion

2005-04-06T00:22:00.000-05:00

There are many articles about the Religious Right, but founding fathers of liberal and conservative beliefs were both God fearing people. Television had shows where people were free to mention God. Now Political Correctness has pushed God out of Television and seeing 50's TV shows that mention God are refreshing, but shocking.

Were Democrats never religious? Did Democrats never believe in God. They once did. JFK a Democrat President said "There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and laughter". Former Democrat President Jimmy Carter said "You can not divorce religious belief and public service. I've never detected any conflict between God's will and my political duty. If you violate one, you violate the other". So the real story is not religion forcing its way into the right-wing, but godlessness that entered the Democrat party.

How did the Democrats loose their Christian roots? When did they forsake Christianity? When a new religion of Secular Humanism forced its way onto the scene and usurped control of the Democrat Party is when they left Christianity.

The Secular Humanists now control much of the Democrat Party. Who are these people? And what do they really believe? The Secular Humanist religion has a list of affirmations (they don't like to call them beliefs), which are listed online, here. The history of the establishment of their religion (although they like to say that they are not a religion) is on a "religious movements" website here.

How did these Secular Humanists get so powerful? This is really a one word answer... lawyers. I guess maybe Judges too... so lawyers and Judges (who are just glorified lawyers anyway). Lawyers started cashing in on suing the people of the United States (they sued the government, who would raise citizen's taxes to pay for it) for prayer and the mention of God in school. Lawyers initially started suing on behalf of Atheists and Secular Humanists. Once they saw how much money they could make off of attacking God... lawyers were SOLD!

Lawyers have traditionally aligned themselves with the Democrat party. Leftists would say that it is because they side with the common man against the big business interests. I've heard that the way that Lawyers find suing God so lucrative is one of the loopholes in Title 42 of the United States Code (which seems to be supported by section 405(2)(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this says "the Commissioner shall take into consideration the amount available for grants under this section"). Through this, lawyers can get paid by the Government grants (charging the US taxpayer) anytime they bring a lawsuit in the name of "non-Establishment of Religion clause" (where the lawyers get paid for attacking God references in public arenas and further promoting the government establishment of Atheism/Secular Humanism). Whether the plaintiff wins or looses... the government pays (the taxpayer is charged), for providing a service for the "public good" (where the "public good" means removing God from the Declaration of Independence). This is a systemically discriminatory Federally subsidized assault on God, at the expense of the taxpayer. Our government policy further promotes Atheism/Secular Humanism as the Establishment through this public funded anti-God assault on the Freedom of Religion (1st Amendment).

Furthermore leftist allies in the press have also contributed to the rise of Secular Humanism. A reporter from beleifnet, in April of 2003, describes the ascension of the atheists/Secular Humanists in politics and the media:

"journalists' parochialism blinds them to one of the biggest stories in American politics: how the Democratic Party has become a stronghold of fervent secularists, and how secularism ‘is just as powerful a determinant of social attitudes and voting behavior as is a religiously traditional outlook.’

Among political journalists, what you might call the "official story" holds that religious conservatives bullied their way onto the American political scene with the election of Ronald Reagan, and rudely brought into the political arena the culture war that had been raging since the 1960s.

That’s exactly wrong, say Bolce and De Maio, who attribute the "true origins of this conflict" to "the increased prominence of secularists within the Democratic Party, and the party’s resulting antagonism toward traditional values."

Until relatively recently, both major parties were of similar mind on issues of personal morality. Then came the 1972 Democratic Convention, at which secularists--defined as agnostics, atheists, and those who seldom or never attend religious services--seized control and nominated George McGovern. Prior to that year, neither party had many secularists among its delegates. Democratic delegates were split between religious and moral traditionalists on one side, and secularists on the other. They fought over moral issues: abortion, women’s rights, homosexuality, the family.

But in what Bolce and De Maio call a "secularist putsch," the non-believers triumphed, giving us what Richard Nixon mocked as the party of "acid, amnesty, and abortion," and instigating--with help from the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973--the long march of religious and moral conservatives to the GOP, which became the party of traditionalists by default.

By 1992, the parties had become thoroughly polarized around religious orientation. Only 20 percent of white Democratic delegates (N.B., this secular-religious antagonism is a white voter phenomenon, the authors say) went to religious services at least once a month, while over three times that number of white Republican delegates did.

But while the media have thoroughly reported the key role religious conservatives play in Republican Party politics, they’ve ignored the role militant secularists play in setting the Democratic Party's agenda. "Secularism," say Bolce and De Maio, "is no less powerful a determinant of attitudes on the contentious cultural issues than is religious traditionalism." Indeed, Republican traditionalists have not polarized politics by becoming more conservative, as conventional wisdom would have it. Instead, secularists (and to a lesser extent religious moderates) have become more liberal.

The divide has become so stark that the authors have discerned a new kind of voter: the "anti-fundamentalist." Twenty-five percent of white respondents in a survey called the American National Election Study expressed serious hostility towards religious conservatives, as opposed to only one percent who felt this strongly against Jews, and 2.5 percent who disliked blacks and Catholics to a strong degree. (Ironically, these are people who say they "‘strongly agree’ that one should be tolerant of persons whose moral standards are different from one’s own.") Eighty percent of these voters picked Bill Clinton in 1996, with 70 percent choosing Al Gore in 2000.

In other words, if the country's first Catholic presidential candidate, Al Smith, ran for president today, his enemies wouldn’t be the Bible Belt anti-Catholics rustics he faced in 1920, but today’s urbane anti-Christian bigots of liberal coastal cities.

This could be the most important development in American party politics of the past 20 years, say Bolce and De Maio—and America’s two leading newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, have both completely missed it. In a search of the Lexis-Nexis database of domestic political news stories, op-eds, and editorials those papers published from 1990 to 2000, the authors found only 14 stories that mentioned the religious gap between the two parties.

During this same time span, the Times and Post published 392 articles on the gender gap—which represented a 9 percent differential in favor of the Democrats. The average religious gap in these same elections was 42 percentage points."

But their most striking finding was the near total lack of editorial and news coverage devoted to the increased importance of secularists to the Democratic Party. The numbers are mind-boggling: 43 stories on secularist Democrats, 682 stories on traditionalist Republicans. In 1992, the Times alone published nearly twice the number of stories about Evangelicals in the GOP than both papers did about secularists among the Democrats for the entire decade.

The bias is even worse among television journalists, who filled the airwaves with stories about the "Religious Right" and the Republican Party, but who didn’t file a single story about the Secular Left’s relationship to the Democrats.

I suspect that most reporters, editors, and producers would be shocked by these findings. They really do think of themselves as, to pinch a phrase, "fair and balanced." Yet Bolce and De Maio cite a poll showing that a majority of TV news directors and newspaper editors felt that Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians "have too much power." Fully one-third considered these believers to be "a threat to democracy." The same survey found that only four percent thought nonbelievers had too much influence, and the number of media professionals who perceived secularists as a threat was … zero.

America is a far different place from its newsrooms. Belief in God is, for most Americans, a sign of character. According to a March 2002 national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, more than half of those polled thought negatively of "nonbelievers." Only half that number had a low opinion of the "Christian conservative movement."

Bolce and De Maio wonder if the media elite consciously do the Democrats a favor by not pointing out what, for all intents and purposes, they are: the Godless Party. 'Perhaps it is for this reason more than any other,' they write, 'that we do not hear in election-night analyses and postmortems that Democratic candidates have shorn up their base among the unchurched, atheists, and agnostics, in addition to the ritualistic accounts and warnings about how well Republicans are doing with evangelicals of the Christian Right.'" (Beliefnet - Are the Democrats Anti-Religion?)

In summary, rich elitist lawyers sued the taxpayer to use Federal Funds (taxpayers money) to forcefully eliminate God from the mainstream. This assault first focused on the school systems to eliminate all religions besides Atheism and Secular Humanism from Schools. Then it seems that through section 404 of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 the Secular Humanists used taxpayer money to propagandize the teachers into compliance with the Secular Humanist agenda. Section 404 says, "The Commissioner is authorized to arrange, through grants or contracts, with institutions of higher education for the operation of short-term or regular session institutes for special training designed to improve the ability of teachers, supervisors, counselors, and other elementary or secondary school personnel to deal effectively with special educational problems". This shows how the lawyers could proselytize public school teachers in the Secular Humanist religion at the expense of the taxpayer. (Preparing the groundwork to popularize this view to generate further profit for themselves at the taxpayers expense)

With the teachers fully proselytized and the rich lawyers promoting the Secular Humanist cause with federal public grants (taxpayers money), the Teachers Unions and the rich Lawyers imposed the Secular Humanist view upon the unsuspecting Democrat party in 1972, as the above article states. The media allies of the Unions and Lawyers promoted the Secular Humanist agenda. The media spun the events of the late 70's and 80's into the Religious Right bringing religious issues into politics. Which in reality, it was the Secular Humanist agenda which had a new alternative religious view already 'been brought' in 1972! (and those who believe in traditional religious Freedoms - had to align with the Republican party to have a voice).

There is difficulty in repealing this law. Repealing this law would also repeal public funding to prevent minorities from being discriminated against. If the Secular Humanists/Atheists continue to oppress religions, besides themselves, through the misuse (using it exactly to the opposite of it's intention) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, religious groups may be forced into a corner to repeal parts of the Act, leaving minorities vulnerable, just to get some relief from religious oppression. I pray that it doesn't have to come to that.

Proof of Mainstream Media Left-wing Bias

2005-04-05T10:55:00.000-05:00

Many people talk about the liberal bias of the mainstream media, but frequently it's mentioned with no proof or subjective evidence on story slants. Just from listening/watching the mainstream media, I think that their left-wing bias is hard to ignore, but many contend that it's not a slant towards Democrats, but a bias for sensationalism. I'm tired of the accusations and I am willing to offer objective proof that the corporations support a more left-wing ideology and it knowingly or unknowingly makes the mainstream media biased. The mainstream media is biased towards the left and the the mainstream media is the liberal media.

This list with links below shows the political bias of most the media organizations:
http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp

All of their political donations are split, but the splits show their political Bias

New York Times 94% of their donations are to Democrats

Discovery Communications (Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, Travel Channel, BBC America) 90% of their donations are to Democrats

Viacom (CBS, MTV, VH1, BET, CMT, Commedy Central, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Paramount Pictures, Infinity Radio Broadcasting) 81% to Democrats

USA Interactive (Home Shopping Network, Expedia, TicketMaster, CitySearch, Evite) 80% of their donations are to Democrats

NBC (CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, Telemundo, Bravo, Sci-Fi Channel, Universal Studios) 77% of their political donations are to Democrats

CNN 71% of their donations for more than the last 5 years are to Democrats

Hearst (ESPN, A&E, Lifetime, Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping, Oprah's Magazine, Redbook, Seventeen, Town&Country, SmartMoney, Local Broadcasting) 68% of their donations are to Democrats

Sony (Sony Pictures, Columbia Records, Epic Records, Legacy Records, Playstation, Electronics, Individual TV Shows: Seinfeld, Mad About You, Jepoardy, Wheel-of-Fortune, etc.) 67% of their donations are to Democrats

AOL Time Warner (Warner Brothers, Time Magazine, AOL, New Line Cinema, HBO, Turner Broadcasting) 63% of their donations are to Democrats

Cablevision (Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, NY Knicks, NY Rangers, Local Programming) 59% of all their political donations go to Democrats

Liberty Media (QVC, Starz Encore, Court TV, Game Show Network) 57%of all their political donations go to Democrats (from the top link)

Disney (ABC, Disney Movies) 55% of all their political donations go to Democrats

(Of course Clear Channel is 75% donations to Republicans)

Aside from the liberal mainstream media, there are many other Corporations that are "Blue Corporations". Someone started a myth that Corporations are Republican. It may be based on the fact that out of all Corporations in general, more money from Corporate donors go to Republicans, but many Corporations fund Democrats, the Democratic Party and Liberal Organizations. Corporations fund both Democrats and Republicans, although admittedly Republicans slightly more. Corporations who supported Kerry were Time-Warner, Microsoft, Viacom (CBS/MTV), Boston Capital, International Data Group, Mintz-Levin-Cohn-Ferris-Glovski-and-Popeo (Law Firm), Hale & Dorr and Skadden-Arps-Slate-Meagher&Flom (Law Firm), just to name a few (BBC News - Companies Donate for Access, PublicIntegrity.org, CommonDreams.org).

Corporations who funded last years' Democratic National Convention are Microsoft, American International Group, Fidelity Investments, John Hancock Financial Services, New Balance Shoes, Gillette, Liberty Mutual, Raytheon Corp, AT&T (the last 8 at $1million or more each), Nextel, Merck (these between $500,000 and $1Million each), Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis (the previous 4 being all big pharmaceutical companies that Kerry has spoken out against, but Kerry has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from them), Bristol Meyers Squibb (another Drug Company), the Boston Red Sox, Coca-Cola, Chrysler and others.

Tom Daschle was/is under investigation for being illegally funded by Corporations Microsoft, Qwest, AT&T and others. “Daschle himself is a master at collecting corporate cash. His top donor… is Northwest Airlines, where his wife is a top lobbyist”. In return, Tom Daschle signed for the Airline Industry bail out (Corporate Welfare) after 9/11.

Terry McAuliffe, the previous head of the DNC, brought much corporate money into the Democrat Party.
“In the early 90s, really big money began to pour into the DNC. McAuliffe recruited robust donations from Arco and Chevron, Entergy and Enron, Phillip Morris and Monsanto, Boeing and Lockheed, Citibank and Weyerhaeuser. Many of these corporations had all but abandoned the Democrats during the Reagan era. McAuliffe lured them back with promises of favorable treatment by a new generation of anti-regulatory Democrats attuned to the special needs of multinational corporations. This was the mulch bed from which the Clinton presidency took root." (from Counterpunch.org)

The companies listed above are liberal corporate donors (as well as a little background info on McAuliffe and Clinton). Most notably, the liberal media stands out as a large block. Law firms also stand out in general as "Blue Corps". I hope that's helpful information. I think it's fascinating!

This corporate sponsorship of Democrats is hidden from us by the Democrats allies and funders in the mainstream media. The mainstream media pretends that corporations only fund Republicans and that Democrats are "for the people". Who perpatrates this propaganda? The mainstream liberal media who give their money to get Democrats elected.

The deception of class warfare is generated by the liberal media, who pretend that Democrats are for the little guy and against corporate interests is a lie. The false impression about who the Democrats really represent is spread by the liberal media.

Next time you think the mainstream news is being objective think about the newsperson, editor and reporter's paycheck and ask yourself... how much of their personal money is going to a Democrat? Then tell me how they can be 100% objective when they spend so much to get one party elected.

Behind Closed Doors Democrats Jump in Bed for Corporate Interests

2004-11-02T19:23:00.000-06:00

What's the answer to "What would Corporations stand to gain by aligning themselves with" Democrats? Access.

"Companies, after all, are not charities. They have a legal obligation to look after their shareholders so money out ought to mean some benefit in. What they get above all is access. If the chief executive of Ford or GE calls the White House, phones in the Oval Office get picked up."

Corporations are for profit and look out for their own best interest. Why would a Corporation give money to a Republican in Massachusetts, when the Republicans don't win? What would a Corporation gain from supporting a looser? That's just wasted money. If a Corporation gives money to a New York Democrat, when the Corporation knows the Democrat will win, then the Corporation can say that they helped support the winner and they can get favorable treatment. If a Corporation supports the candidate against the winning Democrat (for the Republican), they gain nothing. This is also what gives incumbents an advantage. Corporations can have working mutually beneficial relationships with the current incumbent (even if they're a Democrat) and changing to a new person (even if they're a Republican) would mean starting from scratch on their relationship. It would be in a Corporations best interest to keep working with the current politician (Democrat), where they could get deals now and in the future (as opposed to starting over with a Republican and getting nothing now and maybe nothing later).

Why would current Corporations choose a Kerry Challenger? Everyone feels that this is a close election. It's best to hedge your bet. Corporations like Microsoft are from a Blue State (Washington), it continues to help them at the Corporate State headquarters to be more pro-Kerry. Especially since contributions are open, and everyone can see them (like Governors, Senators, Congressmen), it might hurt them more at the Corporate Headquarter state-level to be more pro-Bush. Other Blue State Corporations (New York Times, Viacom(CBS), NBC, New York Yankees, Boston Red Socks, Qwest, John Hancock Financial Services) can only be helped by supporting Kerry, because it will be friendly to the State Governments where they reside.

Bush has adopted fiscally liberal policies to get our economy back on track. Bush was borrowing money to stimulate our economy now. This has helped the stock market, but hurt bond markets. That means that Financial Institutions that trade stocks are going to have better profits with Bush, but Financial Institutions that are more of a Bond Business will have greater profits under Kerry, who promises to pay off the deficit (and Kerry will probably veto Republican spending bills, which would further improve Bond markets). Even though taxes may be raised, pro-Bond policies of Kerry will cause their profits to be greater.

Law Firms are overwhelmingly for Kerry, because Bush said he is opposed to frivolous lawsuits. Bush wasn't to decrease the amount that trial lawyers can profit off of people's hardships. Edwards and Kerry only want to increase the profits of their trial lawyer friends (which they spin as fighting for the little guy against evil Corporations, even though their Law Firms are giant Corporations).

Corporations will also donate for perfered status. For example Kerry has touted opening up our markets to Canadian Drugs that have not passed FDA standards to bring down the price of persciption drugs. Since Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Bristol Meyers Squibb have donated to the Kerry campaign, I'm sure the Canadian Competator to each of their Corporation's #1 profiting drug will not pass the bar to be allowed in to the US with all the other Canadian drugs that will be allowed in. These Big Drug Companies are buying exempt status from Kerry's policy.

Terry McAuliffe, current head of the DNC, was an expert at offering Corporations more reasons to align with Democrats. Terry McAuliffe "learned an early lesson. No enterprise was off-limits, no matter how tarnished the reputation of the company: weapons-makers, oil companies, chemical manufacturers, banks, sweatshop tycoons. Indeed, McAuliffe made his mark by targeting corporations with festering problems, ranging from liability suits to environmental and worker safety restraints to bothersome federal regulators. The more desperate these enterprises were for political intervention, the more money McAuliffe knew he could seduce into DNC coffers. What about environmental groups? Big labor? The traditional core of the Democratic Party? Not only didn't their objections (assuming they voiced any) matter, they actually made McAuliffe's pitch more appealing to the corporadoes. After all, the Republicans didn't have any sway over these organizations." (http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10192004.html). This is some of the reason that some Environmental complaints about Corporations I find very partisan. The Red Corporations get attacked for similar policies Blue Companies have, especially by news organizations like the New York Times, Viacom(CBS), NBC and even CNN (all shown as partisan here: http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp, http://www.campaignmoney.com/cnn.asp). Blue Corporations do not get held accountable and Environmental groups are told by their Democratic Party counterparts to focus on what Red Corporations are doing and not to focus on what the Blue Corporations are doing. It shows in the excerpt above that it actually helped if they were violators, because the Democrats had influence over these special intrest groups who might protest the Blue Corporations (like Environmentalists). This has always seemed highly hypocritical to me. But I guess like the Drug Companies supporting Kerry, they bought exempt staus.

For example Democrat Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has been a long time friend and ally to the Environmental lobbyists. During his last election Republican John Thune almost beat Daschle in a close race. The logging Companies courted Daschle to turn on his long time Environmentalist allies and create deforestation legislation to give them greater profits and stop the law suits Environmentalists has against the logging Companies. In fact, Daschle made the whole state of South Dakota exempt from the National Forest Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, so he could accept favor from the logging industry. Conversely, the logging industry bought exmption from Democrat Tom Daschle (the Corporation sponsored a liberal).

I believe this is why the liberal propaganda portrays many, if not all, Republicans as having no morals and no convictions. When many liberals give Corporations benefits, it may go against their morals, but they may see it as a necessary evil to win, to accomplish a greater good. On the other hand, when a conservative Republican cuts taxes, because they believe it is the best way to promote job gowth, it may seem to the liberal that the Corporations have total control over this valueless politician. The liberal never (or rarely if ever) sees that Republican as lowering taxes, because they believe lowering taxes is a good economic stimulus. When a Republican lowers Corporate taxes, the liberal sees a heartless sell-out to Corporate intrests, but the Republican may be lowering Corporate Taxes to stop Multinational Corporations from moving their Headquarters overseas to other nations, which would hurt the US economy. No, the liberal does not see reducing Corporate Taxes as stopping/reducing Corporations leaving the US, they see it as a shameless valueless sell-out of all conviction to Corporate intrests. The liberal Corporations of the New York Times, Viacom(CBS), NBC and CNN certainly resists the message, that these beliefs may be core convictions of candidates, from ever getting out effectively.

"In the early 90s, really big money began to pour into the DNC. McAuliffe recruited robust donations from Arco and Chevron, Entergy and Enron, Phillip Morris and Monsanto, Boeing and Lockheed, Citibank and Weyerhaeuser. Many of these corporations had all but abandoned the Democrats during the Reagan era. McAuliffe lured them back with promises of favorable treatment by a new generation of anti-regulatory Democrats attuned to the special needs of multinational corporations. This was the mulch bed from which the Clinton presidency took root. By 1994, Clinton himself had aligned himself to McAuliffe's magic touch. He tapped him as the chief fundraiser for the 1996 reelection campaign. In this capacity, McAuliffe masterminded some of the more risqué political fundraising operations since the Kennedy era." (http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair10192004.html) What happened to our Anti-Trust Laws? The New Democrats (McAuliffe and Clinton) of the 90's are the one's that gave "promises of favorable treatment by a new generation of anti-regulatory Democrats attuned to the special needs of multinational corporations".

In summary, there is no benefit for a Corporation to support a Republican over a Democrat, no matter how low they promise to make taxes, if there's no way the Republican can win (Dole). Corporations will side with the winners (whatever side that may be), not the losers. Although financially supporting Federally loosing candidates, can be beneficial, if the State's Governing Party agrees with that Corporations donation (New York Times, Microsoft, Qwest, Viacom, NBC, New York Yankees, John Hancock Financial Services). Liberal policies can make more money for certain Corporations (Lawyers). Conservative (fiscally conservative) policies of individual Democrats can benefit certain job sectors (like Kerry promising to pay down the deficit, thereby benefiting Financial Bond Market Corporations). And lastly Corporations can buy exempt status from whatever Liberal policies the Democrat candidate wishes to impose on non-donors.