Freedom Defender

Reporting on politics, society, principles, Christian interest and news that intrigues me.

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Students Free Speech Rights Violated by Pro-Abortion Professor

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.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

EU Bans Art Display Defending the Innocent

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.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Kat Killers!!!

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 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?

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Science vs. Religion

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.

Friday, June 10, 2005

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

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:

A. Free Exercise generally: Let’s 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 people’s ability to practice their religions. [624 - 625]

1. Conduct vs. belief: The Free Exercise Clause of course prevents the government from unduly burdening a person’s 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 someone’s religious belief; or conversely, (2) compels or encourages conduct which happens to be forbidden by someone’s 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 military’s 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 government’s 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 citizenry’s dislike of this religion and of the sacrifices, outlaws all animal sacrifice (but exempts Kosher slaughter). Held, the Ps’ 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 D’s 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 – but without coercing you into taking or not taking some action as an individual – 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 – 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 Ass’n]

D. Denial of benefits: One way the government may be found to have interfered with a person’s free exercise of religion is if the government denies the person a benefit solely because of that person’s 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 religion’s 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 there’s 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 individual’s 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 – 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.’s: But Congress need not give an exemption to "selective" c.o.’s (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 individuals’ religious dictates so require. [634]

1. Competent adult: Where the case involves a competent adult, and only that adult’s own health is at stake, government may probably not force treatment on the individual over his religious objection. (Example: A state probably can’t force a Jehovah’s Witness to accept a blood transfusion or other life-saving medical care over that person’s 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."

"2. Unorganized religions: Similarly, unorganized or obscure religions get the same protection as the major religions. In fact, even if a person’s religious beliefs are followed only by him, he’s 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 – absence of a long-standing practice – 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 one’s enemies, might be considered by most of us to be "unreasonable." But as long as such a practice is part of a person’s 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.

Friday, May 27, 2005

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

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!

Thursday, May 26, 2005

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

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