Once famed for housing the Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Reactor, Haddam, Connecticut is located about 27 miles outside Hartford. The town’s demographics paint a picture of exclusivity and affluence, with income and property values above state averages, substantially lower unemployment, and significantly lower minority populations than the state averages. A religious town, 71% of Haddam’s residents identify as Roman Catholic.

Chester Harris was recently elected to the Region 17 school board, which serves the towns of Haddam and Killingworth, Connecticut. Harris, a school van driver, holds a degree in theology from Toccoa Falls College, a private Christian school in Georgia. He’s a conservative Republican. He’s also a Creationist, and cites his faith and his “concerns” about the teaching of evolution as his reason for running for the school board:

I sort of got stuck on one thing with them, which was basically the teaching of evolution in the schools and how it tends to ride roughshod over the fact that various religions — Christian, Hebrew, Muslim — hold a theistic world view. Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God.

As might be expected, Harris parrots Creationist party lines. Who could forget this old chestnut?

[Believing that life evolved takes] a whole lot more faith than believing there was a creator who set all these things in motion and allows us to operate under free will.

And how about this space-saving conglomeration of “stop bashing my defenseless almighty god with your ‘facts’” and “it’s just a theory”?

It’s all still theory and faith. If that’s what they want to hold to, fine, but don’t denigrate me because I believe the other way. We’re both operating on faith. I just have faith in someone and they have faith in something.

Harris didn’t forget that time-tested favorite, “my beliefs deserve equal consideration in a science class even though they’re not based on — and even ignore — scientific evidence”:

It’s time for balance. … And I just want to be there so there’s a voice that says there’s room for all of us.

So, Harris has made it clear what his agenda is. He wants to introduce pseudoscience to the science classroom.

A Creationist on a school board isn’t a new thing . . . but it is for Connecticut:

An official with the state Department of Education said he cannot recall an instance of a school in the state witnessing the type of epic battle over evolution that has riven communities throughout the nation. Nor can he recall a creationist serving on a local school board.

If it can happen in Connecticut, long known as a “blue state”, where else can it happen?

Not in Oregon, at least not yet:

Schools may teach about explanations of life on earth, including religious ones (such as “creationism”), in comparative religion or social studies classes. In science class, however, they may present only genuinely scientific critiques of, or evidence for, any explanation of life on earth, but not religious critiques (beliefs unverifiable by scientific methodology). Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion nor may they circumvent these rules by labeling as science an article of religious faith. Public schools must not teach as scientific fact or theory any religious doctrine, including “creationism,” although any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught. Just as they may neither advance nor inhibit any religious doctrine, teachers should not ridicule, for example, a student’s religious explanation for life on earth.

While it is not permitted to teach “intelligent design” or creationism, note that Oregon’s teachers are forbidden from “ridiculing” a student’s religious explanations for life on Earth. Open to interpretation, no?

The Northwest Creation Network is working outside the schools (at present) to fill young minds with images of humans and dinosaurs coexisting. They combine pseudoscience with scare tactics, explaining in detail how the scientific theory of evolution leads to atheism:

Interestingly, the biologists in the National Academy of Science possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God. This decline in belief in biologists strongly indicates the nature of the cause, and the ability of the teaching of evolutionary biology to turn people away from a belief in God.

So far, the Creationists have been held at bay, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t tried. In 2007, Kris Helphinstine accepted a position teaching Evolutionary Biology for the Sisters School District. Instead, he handed out a young-earth creationist tract from Answers in Genesis, a radical Christian organization that links belief in evolution to Nazism. He was fired after eight days on the job.

How long will the Northwest Creation Network stay away from Oregon’s schools?

Related posts:

1. Oklahoma Defends God Against Evolutionists The state of Oklahoma is the first this year to...
2. Happy Darwin Day from Paliban Daily! Huh? Yes, we're wishing you a Happy Darwin Day! To...
3. High School Bans “Evolution” T-Shirts Fundamentalist parents strike again, forcing a high school to recall...

78% of Americans claim to be Christian…Then why are you supporting wars (Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 6:27-31)? Why are you not fighting day in and day out to turn America into a socialist or communist society (Matthew 19:21-24, Luke 14:33, Acts 2:44-45)? Which is it; Are you Christians, or are you capitalists? You cannot be both according to Jesus (Matthew 6:24).

What the heck is he talking about?

Then why are you supporting wars (Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 6:27-31)?

Matthew 5:38-42

38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

The person who believes this has anything to do with wars isn’t very familiar with the Bible.

“Turning the other cheek” does not mean accepting violence. It is a demand to be treated as an equal:

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek Of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but. in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days’ penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and, if one did, the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.

Giving not only your coat but your cloak is intended to degrade one’s creditors.

Why then does Jesus counsel them to give over their inner garment as well? This would mean stripping off all their clothing and marching out of court stark naked! Put yourself in the debtor’s place; imagine the chuckles this saying must have evoked. There stands the creditor, beet-red with embarrassment, your outer garment in one hand, your underwear in the other. You have suddenly turned the tables on him.

Likewise, being compelled to go a mile and going two has specific relevance to the time. Roman soldiers were legally permitted to compel non-citizens (like Jews) to carry their belongings for one mile, but no longer. Going a second mile would put the soldier in danger of punishment.

Sorry, these verses are not relevant to the challenge, and have nothing to do with war. ((Luke 6:27-31 repeats the same content.)

Why are you not fighting day in and day out to turn America into a socialist or communist society (Matthew 19:21-24, Luke 14:33, Acts 2:44-45)?

Matthew 19:21-24:

21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Our challenger forgets the next two verses:

25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Many of us have heard that “the eye of the needle” was a narrow gate near Jerusalem. However, there’s no evidence that it existed. The point of this passage is that the love of material possessions interferes with one’s proper focus, eternal servitude to God.

It has nothing to do with “a communist or socialist nation”, forcing people to give up their possessions against their will.

Luke 14:33:

33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Again, this is about forsaking (being willing to give up) material possessions, not about redistributing them in the name of “equality”.

Acts 2:44-45:

44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

The fact that apostles formed a commune does not relate to a commandment to form a communist nation.

Which is it; Are you Christians, or are you capitalists? You cannot be both according to Jesus (Matthew 6:24).

Matthew 6:24

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Again, this is about the relationship of man to material possessions and God. Does the challenger think that socialists don’t love money? That communists don’t love their material possessions?

There is no commandment here to support a particular economic system.

This challenge to Christians fails. The author does not understand the Bible verses he quotes, and does not present a single real challenge.

Let’s collaborate. Let’s establish a series of challenges based in accurate use of Scripture, to demonstrate to Christians how their views are inconsistent with the Bible.

Leave your ideas in the comments, or discuss in the discussion forum!

Related posts:

1. Coloradan Follows God’s Law, Executes Nonbeliever Co-Workers Derik Bonestroo, a lift operator at Eldora Mountain Resort (a...
2. Finally! A “Keep the Christ in . . .” Facebook Group Worth Joining Imagine my surprise checking things out on Facebook and discovering...
3. Join us on Facebook! Come join the Paliban discussion group on Facebook! http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=44072369183 Also,...

Scientology v. The World

Events in Australia this past week rekindle the flame of concern regarding the preferential taxation status of the Church of Scientology. After a March 10 broadcast by ABC’s Four Corners(1), chronicling allegations and court cases against the Church of Scientology, Senator Xenophon has made a fresh bid to challenge the tax-free status of the church(2). The Four Corners special outlines reports of child labor malpractice, physical and psychological abuse, coerced family separation, tax evasion and forced abortion(3), all allegedly perpetrated by the Church of Scientology.

This, the latest in a continuing series of rows with the church, comes only a year after French courts tried and convicted the Church of Scientology of fraud, charging the sect $900,000 in fines(4). The sect is not recognized as a religion in France, as it is in the United States. Germany has also taken a very strong stance against the organization. German officials “consider(s) the Scientology organization a commercial enterprise with a history of taking advantage of vulnerable individuals and (which has) an extreme dislike of any criticism. The German government is also concerned that the organization’s totalitarian structure and methods may pose a risk to Germany’s democratic society. Several kinds of evidence have influenced this view of Scientology, including the organization’s activities in the United States.” (5) Efforts to ban the organization from France were suggested by prosecutors but not pursued by the courts(6). This judgment follows yet another major court case in the United Kingdom that found the group culpable on several counts, requiring a fine of $235,000 and the possibility of prison time(7).

Scientology v. America

In America, the Scientologists have engaged in similar legal battles. In the late 1970’s, after the group lost its briefly-enjoyed tax exempt status, it was embroiled in an ongoing battle with the IRS that the church itself referred to as a ‘war’. Several high ranking members, including founder L. Ron Hubbard’s wife, Susan Hubbard, were imprisoned on a variety of charges including breaking into government offices, illegal electronic surveillance, and theft of classified government documents(8). Additional testimonies include harrowing accounts of personal harassment, illegal surveillance, stalking, malicious court filings and death threats (9). The Church is reportedly the sole client of several law firms and as early as 1991 was spending an estimated $20,000,000 annually on legal actions, according to Richard Behar in his Time Magazine article titled ‘The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power’.(10)

In the early 1990’s, with the aid of its own security and intelligence department, the Church of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs (OSA), which reportedly rivals the intelligence agencies of many countries(11)(12), the Scientologists were able to ‘negotiate’ a deal with the IRS which not only reinstated tax exempt status but provided unprecedented preferential status in violation of the First Amendment. According to the New York Times, “. . . the exemption followed a series of unusual internal IRS actions that came after an extraordinary campaign orchestrated by Scientology against the agency and people who work there.”(13) The group reportedly used “bugging of government offices, theft of classified files, private detectives pursuing senior government officials, [and] thousands of lawsuits” (14) in its campaign to gain leverage against the United States Government. They were successful with this campaign, procuring the aforementioned status for themselves with the IRS. Details and specifics of the secret meeting leading up to the arrangement, between David Miscavige, current leader of the Church of Scientology, and Fred T. Goldberg Jr, past Commissioner of the IRS, have remained sealed.(15)

In 2008, the reinstated and preferential tax status of the Church of Scientology was once again challenged in U.S. courts. The case was Sklar v. Commissioner.(16) An Orthodox Jewish family wanted the same tax deductions afforded Scientologists. Their lawyer argued that it was discriminatory to give Scientologists a tax break no other religion is permitted. The exemption in question was for the part of his children’s education provided by a yeshiva school, which is an Orthodox Jewish religious school.

The court relied on Hernandez v. Commissioner to deny his tax deduction(17). The irony here is that Hernandez v. Commissioner apparently applies to everyone in the country except Scientologists. The decision involved a Scientologist and specifically states that the kind of tax deduction they get is illegal. Judge Wardlaw, in oral arguments of Sklar v. Commissioner, pronounced the preferential status of the Church unconstitutional and in clear violation of the First Amendment. It’s a constitutional question of the separation of church and state. If religious education becomes deductible, it means that taxpayers are subsidizing religion. Unfortunately, the court found itself in no legal position to change a deal ‘negotiated’ by the Church of Scientology with the IRS.

The Public Face of Scientology

In addition to its schools and various ‘Orgs’, the church also operates under front organizations Narconon, Applied Scholastics, Criminon, and the Citizens’ Commission on Human Rights. The history of the organization, both internationally as well as in the United States, is riddled with constant legal battles, many of which have been termed by American courts as malicious and abusive on the part of the church(18). The courts have been used by Scientology’s army of lawyers, who target any who the Church of Scientology deem an enemy, or in their terms, a Suppressive Person.(19) As their founder L. Ron Hubbard wrote, “The law can be used easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.” – L.Ron Hubbard (A Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955)

As reported by Hubbard’s son; “My father and I created a ‘religious front’ only for tax purposes and legal protection ‘from fraud Claims’. We almost always told nearly everyone that Scientology was really science, not a religion, but that the religious front was created to deal with the government.” — Ronald DeWolf a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (son of L. Ron Hubbard), Affidavit in Schaick v. Church of Scientology, US District Court Mass., No. 79-2491 (20)

Last year, amid international scandal and proven culpability, as well as domestic challenge, the church continued to enjoy preferred tax status over all other religions in America. The affluent Scientology organization has recently built, or renovated, opulent Scientology churches, which it calls Ideal Orgs, in Rome; Malmo, Sweden; Dallas; Nashville; and Washington, DC. At its base, on the Gulf Coast of Florida, it continues buying hotels and office buildings (54 at last count) and constructing a 380,000-square-foot mecca that looks like a convention center.(21)

Scientology in a ‘Nut’ Shell

According to Scientology: Seventy five thousand years ago, Xenu was head of the Galactic Federation, an organization of 76 planets that had existed for 20,000,000 years. The planets were over-populated. Xenu’s solution was to gather up large numbers of the people and kill them, freezing their thetans (souls). He ended up with over 1.3 trillion frozen thetans. He transported the frozen thetans to Earth, which he called Teegeeack. The thetans were left in the vicinity of volcanoes which Xenu destroyed with atomic weapons.

Now, each human has their own thetan as well as clusters of thousands of these dead thetans inside them. Scientology, which asks its followers to sign a billion year contract, seeks to free humans from these dead thetans through costly auditing and training programs, totaling as much as $500,000 USD, so that they can be truly clear, super-human, eternal beings(22).

Did I mention that L. Ron Hubbard, before founding the Church of Scientology, was a very prolific Science Fiction writer?(23)

What Are Scientology’s Crimes?

Regardless of the delusional spiritual landscape created by a commercially-minded and imaginative entrepreneur, the mafioso style tactics, and subversive governmental interference should be enough to shut this scam down, or at least remove any legal or taxation preferences and protections it enjoys. If nothing else, an official investigation is certainly warranted. That is, unless America has willingly become the last safe harbor for charlatans and snake-oil salesmen seeking tax havens for their grotesque profits padded with tax payers’ money.

If the courts are truly unable to address a recognized breach of the First Amendment of the Constitution, a public Congressional Inquiry should be convened to determine if the IRS has been compromised through either blackmail, coercion, or collusion, to cause such a violation. Such a breach of the institution threatens the credibility of the entire system and could prove to further erode confidence in the government and democratic institutions of the United States of America.

The only apparent recourse seems to lay in the hands of the citizenry. Investigate and compile available references and links regarding this issue. Send them, and this article, to your government representatives and request that an official investigation and inquiry be launched immediately into the preferential tax exempt status of the Church of Scientology, including all relevant tax codes, agreements and settlements. Insist that an investigation, or a reason not to investigate, is produced and that communication and responses are in writing. The First Amendment and the Citizens of the United States deserve no less.

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” Thomas Jefferson

(1) – http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/03/abc-four-corners-scientology-ex-files.html
(2) – http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/xenophon-pushes-for-scientology-inquiry-20100312-q3wh.html
(3) – http://www.scribd.com/full/14464561?access_key=key-1fsp0mqjsb4aiy9a95ss
(4) – http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/nonprofit/2009/10/french-court-convucts-church-of-scientology-of-fraud.html
(5) – http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/germany/germany21.html
(6) – http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1901373,00.html
(7) – http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp861.htm
(8) – http://xenutv.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/marc_headley_v_cos_lawsuit.pdf
(9) – http://xenu.net/archive/personal_story/paulette_cooper/
(10)- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972865,00.html
(11)- http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/osahist.htm
(12)- http://www.factnet.org/?p=270
(13)- http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/nytimes/nyt-irs-030997.htm
(14)- http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/essays/irs.html
(15)- http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/19/us/scientology-denies-an-account-of-an-impromptu-irs-meeting.html?fta=y
(16)- http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Sk2lar.TC.WPD.pdf
(17)- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/490/680.html
(18)- http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/crtquot.htm
(19)- http://www.youtube.com/user/newyork420420?blend=2&ob=4
(20)- http://www.lermanet.com/cos/morejud.html
(21)- http://www.xenutv.com/blog/?p=4490
(22)- http://altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/xenu.htm
(23)- http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/l-ron-hubbard/

Related posts:

1. Texas Appoints Fundies to Rewrite Statewide Social Studies Curriculum Should schools teach that the Founders were Christians? Apparently, the...
2. No Lesbians Allowed at Rural Mississippi Prom Constance McMillen wanted to go to her high school prom,...
3. A Haitian without a Scientologist: Like a Fish without a Bicycle? Don't worry, the Scientologists are staying in Haiti. And they're...

Way back in 2004, Michael Newdow, an emergency room doctor from Sacramento, CA, sued Elk Grove Unified School District for forcing his 10-year-old daughter to say the words “under God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004 ruled that Newdow was correct in his assertion that this constituted a government establishment of religion; the US Supreme Court, however, dismissed the case because Newdow did not have custody of his daughter.

The dismissal came June 14, 2004, 50 years to the day from the time our “founding father” Ike Eisenhower introduced “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in an effort to distinguish the US from “Godless Communists”.

Newdow responded by filing a case in 2005 on behalf of other parents in the same district.

Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003, wrote for the majority in Thursday’s 2-1 ruling.

The Pledge is Constitutional. The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.

Was our Republic founded in 1954?

The dissenting judge, Stephen Reinhardt, was one of the three who voted in Newdow’s favor back in 2004. He wrote a 123-page dissent. In very small part:

Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the ‘under God’ version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools.

Newdow isn’t finished. He plans to ask the court to re-hear the case; if they refuse, he plans to appeal to the US Supreme Court. He doesn’t want people to think that this is about hating Jesus, though:

The whole argument that ‘under God’ wasn’t placed into the pledge for religious purposes is bogus. I hope people recognize this is not against God or people who believe in God. It’s about the government not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views.

Even the US attorney who defended the lawsuit agrees that it’s religious. Says Greg Katsas:

I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation was founded. There is a religious aspect to saying “One nation under God,” but it isn’t like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they’re not praying to God, they’re pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country.

The nation was founded in 1954? Being ruled by an imaginary friend is one of the ideals of the country?

Michael Newdow’s website, RestoreThePledge.com, provides you the opportunity to get involved in the campaign to restore the pledge to its pre-1954, secular ideal.

Related posts:

1. …So Help Me God A few days ago, we told you about atheist Michael...
2. Obama in Court: Same-Sex Marriage Equal to Incest, Child Marriage In a court brief filed in Federal court today, the...
3. Petition Drive: In God We Trust at Capitol Visitor Center? AFA Says YES! US Christians wail because nasty atheists don't want the US...

Due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events, the Itawamba County School District has decided to not host a prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School this year,” school board members said in a statement.

Yes, Constance’s constitutional right to free expression is a distraction, so rather than accommodating this brazen display of non-heteronormative individuality, the school has used her as an excuse to cancel the whole thing. I don’t know the details of this county’s social scene (although apparently the social hub is a bowling alley!), but in my high school, the prom was the most important event in all of high school. The school’s decision to pin this cancellation squarely on the fags only adds to the incredible hostility already found throughout the deep south.

Constance had this to say about the event:

All I wanted was the same chance to enjoy my prom night like any other student. But my school would rather hurt all the students than treat everyone fairly

According to the US Census data, about 96% of folks in Itawamba county affiliated with a congregation are evangelicals. Furthermore, about 92% of all people living in Itawamba county are ‘exclusively white’, and homosexual tolerance from  these folks has historically been pretty crap. Hell, Mississippi was one of the states that attempted to ban gay adoption, so these sort of ridiculously homophobic attitudes are none-too-surprising.

In an even more disgusting move, the school simultaneously called for a private prom to be held in lieu of the school-sponsored one. This would allow them the ability to keep the homos out while still satisfying their view of what a proper human being ought to be. The school, who does after all, represent the government in the area, is setting an example of how responsible adults ought to act when faced with such a threat to the status quo as this young woman represents.

Thankfully, the ACLU  has been closely following the case, and today filed suit against the county, hoping to reinstate the prom for everyone. Christine Sun, who will represent Constance in the upcoming lawsuit, said this:

It’s shameful and cowardly of the school district to have canceled the prom and to try to blame Constance, who’s only standing up for herself. We will fight tooth and nail for the prom to be reinstated for all students

It is a sad statement of the times that these folks require the ACLU to force them to do the right thing. Jesus himself sat down with the most marginalized members of his society and showed incredible compassion for all of them, but the bigotry of these Christian school board members is so strong that they must ruin the party for everyone just to continue their hate of one innocent girl who just wants to go to her prom like all her friends.

Shame on you, Itawamba Agricultural High School. I hope your pending destruction at court will teach you something, but I know better. Your students deserve better role models than you, so I’m glad courageous heroes like Constance McMillen are there.

Related posts:

1. School Courts Damnation with Sodomite Prom “Queen” A high school in Los Angeles has openly spurned God...
2. Satan Possesses Mississippi Coed A Pelahatchie, Mississippi high school student spent three days speaking...
3. Embryos Could Be People Too: Personhood Colorado, Mississippi Qualify Ballot Measures Personhood Colorado and Personhood Mississippi have submitted sufficient signatures to...

The Conference’s directive states that Catholic hospitals have “an obligation to provide patients with food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration for those who cannot take food orally . . . This obligation extends to patients in chronic and presumably irreversible conditions.”

Executive director Rev. Thomas G. Weinandy explains that if a patient’s advance directive states that she doesn’t want a feeding tube, “and the reason they don’t want it is they basically want to die, then the Catholic institution would explain to them they can’t cooperate with that and they would have to go to another institution.”

He follows with a hypothetical example of Catholic kindness and compassion:

If someone had a stroke and the doctor says he won’t die though he may be very sick, then they should give him nutrition and hydration [regardless of advance directives]. You can’t just starve him to death. It’s hard to know whether someone can regain consciousness or not.

Barbara Coombs Lee is president of Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit which provides end-of-life counseling and information on advanced directives (living wills). She comments,

If family members believe they know what mom or dad wants but get the message from hospital or nursing home staff that it’s sinful and wrong, that’s a pretty hard thing for a grieving family to deal with. It feels like someone is trying to guilt and shame them.

Guilt and shame. From religion? I can’t imagine.

Related posts:

1. Penn & Teller Episode About Catholic Church – Free Online! The entire episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t, in which...
2. Catholic Church Issues Pre-Sex Prayer The Roman Catholic Church, not content with its current methods...
3. Prop 8 Proponent Abandons Lawsuit Defense – “Fears for life” Hak-Shing William "Bill" Tam, one of the lead proponents of...

The New York Times reports that, following the Irish scandal (which we recently reported on), new abuse allegations have surfaced over the last few weeks in the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany.

Rev. Federico Lombardi, Press Office Director for the Vatican, addressed the issue by reading a note on Vatican Radio. In part:

. . . over recent weeks the debate on the sexual abuse of minors has also involved the Church in certain central European countries (Germany, Austria and Holland). And it is on this development that we wish to make some simple remarks.

The main ecclesiastical institutions concerned – the German Jesuit Province (the first to be involved, through the case of the Canisius-Kolleg in Berlin), the German Episcopal Conference, the Austrian Episcopal Conference and the Netherlands Episcopal Conference – have faced the emergence of problem with timely and decisive action. They have demonstrated their desire for transparency and, in a certain sense, accelerated the emergence of the problem by inviting victims to speak out, even when the cases involved date from many years ago.

Yes, a desire for transparency. Timely and decisive action. Remember those words.

Pope Benedict’s brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, directed the Regensburg boys choir from 1964 to 1994. Thirty years.

A number of abuse cases at the two Catholic Bavarian boarding schools from which the boys were drawn have since surfaced.

The director and composer Franz Wittenbrink, who lived in the Regensburg boarding school of the choir until 1967, said the school had an “elaborate system of sadistic punishments combined with sexual lust.”

He said the headmaster at the time “would choose two or three of us boys in the dormitories in the evenings and take them to his flat.” He said there had been red wine, and that the priest had masturbated with the pupils. “Everyone knew about it,” said Wittenbrink.

The likelihood that Ratzinger was unaware? Wittenbrink comments:

I find it inexplicable that the Pope’s brother Georg Ratzinger, who had been cathedral bandmaster since 1964, apparently knew nothing about it.

Der Spiegel reports on the “transparency” and “timely and decisive action” taken by the local diocese.

Despite many indications, the Regensburg Diocese did not make abuse cases public until contacted by SPIEGEL last Thursday. Now the chair has pledged to investigate everything rigorously and to present an interim report at the end of March.

“Timely and decisive action.” Covering up sexual abuse cases dating to the 1970s and 1980s is “timely and decisive”? This shows a “desire for transparency”?

Much as anti-gay California lawmaker Roy Ashburn “desired transparency” only after he was arrested for DUI leaving a gay bar, the Catholic cult only “desires transparency” after being caught for its decades-long strings of abuses and crimes.

With transparency like this, who needs curtains?

Georg Ratzinger responded to the allegations in a recent interview.

In an interview published Sunday, Ratzinger was quoted as saying by the Rome daily La Repubblica that there was “discipline and rigor” but no terror during his 30 years as head of the Regensburg choir from 1964 until 1994.

[He] said the abuse accusations also reflected “a certain animosity toward the church.”

That’s right. The people claiming that Catholic priests beat and sexually abused them are only doing so because they hate the church, not because they were beaten and sexually abused by pedophiles who went unpunished.

Related posts:

1. Catholic Church Asks Parishioners to Cover Costs of Sex Abuse Lawsuits In a revolting move clearly demonstrating the true depravity of...
2. Catholic Cardinal Blames Islamization of Europe on Atheists A leading Catholic cardinal blames secular thinking, and atheists in...
3. US Conference of Catholic Bishops Takes End-of-Life Decisions Away from Patients and Doctors The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has adopted a directive...

Ashburn told KERN radio:

Well, I am gay … Those are the words that have been so difficult for me for so long. But I am gay, but it is something that is personal. And I don’t believe — I felt with my heart — that being gay did not affect, wouldn’t affect how I do my job. Again, what happened through my own actions the other night changed all that.

He continued, explaining his virulently anti-gay voting record:

My votes reflect the wishes of the people in my district. And I have always felt that my faith and allegiance was to the people there in the district, my constituents. And so as each of these individuals measures came before the legislature, I cast ‘No’ votes, usually ‘No’ votes, because the measures were almost always about acknowledging rights or assigning identification to homosexual persons.

Inga [Banks, radio show host]: Did you agree with those votes?

Ashburn: I felt my duty — and I still feel this way — is to represent my constituents. I cherish the fact that we have a remarkable system of government, and that system of government provides for representatives elected by the people to go to the legislative bodies, whether it be Washington, D.C., or Sacramento, and to cast votes on behalf of the people, not my own point of view not my own internal conflict, certainly to use my best judgment. but to vote as my constituents would have me vote. There’s never been a doubt in my mind on the position of the majority, the vast majority of people in my district — the 18th senatorial district — on these different issues. And so I voted as I felt I should on behalf of the people who elected me.

So, it is clear. Ashburn, a closeted homosexual, voted against his own interests and those of people he supposedly cares for, voted in favor of discrimination against those people, and lied to his constituents — people who, his words suggest, would never have elected an openly-gay man to represent them — in order to secure re-election.

His nightmares are now coming true, as conservatives blast him. Randy Thommason of SaveCalifornia, demanding Ashburn’s immediate resignation, cries:

His lying, cheating ways have boiled over and the public’s trust has been shattered . . .

He vowed to be faithful to his wife, then broke his vows when he chose homosexuality over his marriage . . .

He repeatedly lied to people who asked him to honestly tell them whether he was living the homosexual lifestyle . . .

Now that he has openly identified with the ‘LGBT’ lifestyle, Ashburn is dramatically out of step with his constituents, has lost their trust, and is in danger of voting against their conservative family values . . .

I can’t even begin to list the things wrong with those statements.

Ashburn has decided not to seek re-election. Surprise, surprise. I imagine he’ll quietly fade into the background and hide like the coward he is.

Related posts:

1. Anti-Gay Lawmaker Arrested for DUI After Leaving Gay Club Once again, a virulently anti-gay lawmaker has been nailed (figuratively...
2. No Lesbians Allowed at Rural Mississippi Prom Constance McMillen wanted to go to her high school prom,...
3. AFA Attacks AAA over Gay-Friendly Policy Imagine the horror Don Wildmon must have felt. The dread...

The unidentified boy accepted a ride from the driver of New Beginnings Faith Tabernacle Baptist Church’s van. The driver soon pulled a gun and kidnapped the boy, taking him to church instead of school. They weren’t going to pray.

The man, 34-year-old Robert James Washington, Jr., a church volunteer, directed the 15-year-old boy into the pastor’s study. There, he ordered the teen to strip . . . then raped him. Once satisfied, Washington drove the boy to school.

KTBS3 News of Shreveport and KSLA 12 of Shreveport report that Washington, a volunteer at the New Beginnings Faith Tabernacle Baptist Church, did not know the boy. He is being held without bond pending an initial court appearance, and is charged with aggravated kidnapping and rape.

Related posts:

1. Baptist Pastor Takes Page from Landover Baptist School of Salvation For years, Landover Baptist Church has offered a Free Playstation...
2. Catholic Church Asks Parishioners to Cover Costs of Sex Abuse Lawsuits In a revolting move clearly demonstrating the true depravity of...
3. Nude Worship Offends People Who Don’t Attend That Church At White Tail Chapel in Ivor, Virginia, the Lord isn't...

Just over a week ago, members of the Secular Coalition of America met with Tina Tchen, the director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, and representatives from the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services. The Secular Coalition, led by executive director Sean Faircloth, a former Maine state legislator, is comprised of Secular Humanists, agnostics and atheists.

The agenda for the meeting was threefold. The group’s concerns: (2)

• That all children have access to necessary medical treatment regardless of their parents religious beliefs and that faith based childcare services be held to the same health and safety requirements as all other such services in the community.
• That secular, agnostic and atheist members of the military have the same protection as members of minority religions in the face of systemic Christian proselytizing and discrimination.
• That alternatives to government-funded faith based initiatives, that alienate those of no or different belief systems, and subject those needing service to religious proselytizing, be considered.

The President was not to attend the meeting, nor were any policy formulations or decisions to be made. The meeting was simply an audience with members of the Administration to express the views and concerns of 16% of the American population.(3)

None of the items on the agenda demand, or even request, the inclusion of the group’s practices or beliefs as public policy or law. None of the Secular Coalition’s points for discussion require the adherence to any theology or sectarian doctrine. None of the points of discussion were aimed at imposing any belief system onto the policies and laws of the United States. All of the points were aimed at protecting those who are either too young to choose for themselves, or have chosen differently, from religion’s intolerance, doctrinal dictates, discrimination, and proselytizing. The Secular Coalition was simply asking that the protections afforded by the First Amendment be upheld.

What was asked for was equal rights for all individuals, their belief systems or world views, and protection from any religion imposing its rules on others. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution’s Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another.(4)

Adherence to the First Amendment is all that was requested. There was no assault on any religion. There was no request to repeal, or infringe on, the guaranteed rights of any religion. There was no defamatory rhetoric used regarding this meeting, by the Secular Coalition, against religion.

In their press release, Secular Coalition for America Executive Director Sean Faircloth stated,

We are very pleased that the Obama administration is affording us this opportunity to present our positions on issues of high importance, issues of freedom and fairness that affect every American, regardless of belief. Our Founders knew that there was no place in American government for the privileging of religion, or of one belief over another, and that will be a central theme in our interaction with the White House.

The response from Christian groups, on the other hand, was anything but tolerant, or even civil.

“In God We Trust,” which states it “was founded to push back against… anti-religious activists,”(5) berated the White House for meeting with “hate-filled groups”. Says IGWT’s Chairman, Bishop Council Nedd (seen at left):(6)

It is one thing for Administration to meet with groups of varying viewpoints, but it is quite another for a senior official to sit down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation. President Obama seems to believe that it is a good idea to have a key senior aide plan political strategy with people who believe faith in God is a disease. Some of the people in this coalition believe the world would be better off with no Christians and no Jews and they aren’t shy about it. The fact that this meeting is happening at all is an affront to the vast majority of people of all faiths who believe in God.

Bill Donohue (seen at right), President of the Catholic League, said the meeting provided a “definitive answer” about the administration’s stance towards religion.

People of faith, especially Christians, have good reason to wonder exactly where their interests lie with the Obama administration. Now we have the definitive answer. In an unprecedented move, leaders of a Presidential administration are hosting some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation. (7)

Fear and defensiveness permeates the Christian response. Their high level of societal control was called into question. From the perspective of the religious, what non-theists represent is far more frightening than any opposing theology. The challenge represented by non-theists is a greater threat than any gun, bomb, sword or tank. Religions seem to thrive and even strengthen with war, conflict and martyrdom. They have no defense against the peaceful challenge of rational thinking.

This is one thing that unites the religious regardless of their creed. There is one thing of fundamental importance to their existence that they all share. They share the need for others to accept their tenets with unquestioning faith. They need to protect belief in that which can be neither observed nor proven. They cannot address each other on the fundamental veracity of their beliefs. They are unable to challenge each others credibility or legitimacy without challenging their own. They all suffer from the same fundamental and insurmountable weakness. To this end they will profess to be the stalwart champions of religious tolerance while locked at an impasse of contradictory and often diametrically opposed doctrine. As a result, even more than each other, they fear the non-theists. While religions may compete with each other for followers, territories, and wealth, they cannot threaten each other’s very existence as non-theism and rational thought can. While they may inflict financial and territorial losses on each other, rational thought has the potential to relegate them to the realm of mythology. The only perceived threat to their existence is rational thought and therefore they make effort to disenfranchise, disempower and discredit.

It is this fear, this realization of the vulnerability of theistic paradigms, that fuels the inappropriate and irrational aggression toward non-theists, as exemplified by Nedd and Donohue, and causes Christendom to continuously violate the First Amendment. Considering their tenuous position, the perception of non-compliant non-theists as a threat is understandable. The potentially apocalyptic impact of rational thought, peaceful non-compliance, and judicious intolerance of religious delusions, makes desperate measures, born of reactionary insecurity, understandable. Understandable but neither acceptable or legal.

Christianity in America has enjoyed, in violation of the First Amendment, preeminent and preferential status. Christian organizations have not done this simply by their numbers, which is precisely the kind of exploitation by a majority the First Amendment was designed to protect against, but because of their flagrant and successful attempts at insinuating themselves into politics and the legislative process. The fact that Christian organizations and churches have become overtly political organizations and political action committees, while enjoying tax exempt status, only compounds the affront to the American people and their Constitution.

Without proposing any assault on religion, or any new rules, this needs to be corrected. There is no need for new rules. The First Amendment must be adhered to and respected. The results of not doing so will be disastrous to American society. Religions can not be allowed to require anything from anyone who is not an adherent to their faith. Religious doctrine and dogma cannot be the basis for any law, policy, legislation or governmental procedure. It may, simply by coincidence, be in agreement with the law, or vice versa, but it cannot be the basis. Any status, access, influence or inclusion enjoyed by one religion, must be available to all religions, belief systems, and world views.

The First Amendment exists for the protection of individuals to practice their own religion as well as the protection of American society from religion. The failure of strict enforcement will invite all religions to demand the same generous latitude, political involvement, educational influence and untouchable status afforded Christian interests, organizations and institutions. After all, the First Amendment is clear about the equal status of religions. Unless Americans are willing to start compromising with Sharia Law(8), they may want to reconsider the carte blanche often afforded Christendom.

The United States of America is a secular country and its Constitution is a secular document. American Christendom has been allowed to violate the parameters of the First Amendment for far too long and must now be reigned in to compliance. The important point to remember is that religions exists within American society, not the other way around.

(1) – http://www.alan.com/2010/02/26/christian-groups-blast-white-house-for-meeting-with-atheists/

(2) – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/25/88475/obama-aides-to-meet-with-atheists.html

(3) – http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

(4) – http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

(5) – http://www.ingodwetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=53

(6) – http://www.alan.com/2010/02/26/christian-groups-blast-white-house-for-meeting-with-atheists/

(7) – http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/reaction_to_white_house_meetin.php

(8) – http://www.shariah.net/

Related posts:

1. Atheists Visit White House – Religious Right has Fit After meeting with various religious groups for many, many years,...
2. Liam Fox: Foreign Policy is Not a Faith Based Program Israel is the number one recipient of American foreign aid,...
3. Liam Fox: Religion and the Myth of Coexistence The "COEXIST" campaign is a beautiful notion. But by being...