There are two main contentions that Glenn asserts leading up to his American Revival. First, he claims that support and charity should not be provided through the government. Second, he claims that rights are granted by God and not by man. These comments have received a great deal of press this past week. While many took exception to his attack on churches that preach social justice(2), he received resounding support from conservatives on these two main points.

Social Service Programs as a Religious Function

Like the Republicans, Glenn exhorts the benefit of smaller government and rails against what he calls a nanny state with entitlement programs. Glenn proposes that all charitable acts should be religious in nature. He states that any such services or supports should be offered through churches or synagogues, or by individuals exercising their religious duty of almsgiving. He declares that social justice is forced charity, and dismisses Christian churches that preach or practice this philosophy as being not truly Christian, but progressives cloaking themselves in Christianity(3). He continues by stating that justice is only to be given by god and supporting this argument by explaining that that is why there is a judgment seat in heaven. According to this rationale, you may not get justice here, but if you behave as instructed, you may achieve it in the afterlife. Justice in society is not for man to create, it is the providence of God.

The wonderful convenience of this, is that it gives the wealthy complete control over the masses. If someone is born into poverty, it is the will of God. The fortunes of the affluent are likewise explained, and therefore claimed as God-given right. The wealthy are in a position to give only what they deem necessary and appropriate to give, and are never required to give enough to allow someone to break free of their poverty; only enough to maintain them in it, if they are so inspired. The only requirements they have are what they choose as their interpretation of Scripture. It creates a wonderfully cheap, impoverished working class for the elite who get to choose what each person’s allotment should or should not be.

With this power and control over the basic necessities of life, the power and ability to affect complete social change, and influence laws and legislation according to the will and advantage of the elite, is elementary. The masses, relying wholly on the wealthy for their survival, would have no recourse. Without options, one could be commanded to work for whatever wage was offered or face utter destitution. There would be no unemployment or social services, simply a large, cheap, desperate work force. This is apparently God’s will, and just happens to work really well with laissez faire, free-market, capitalist economic systems.

For someone who preaches the Constitution as much as he does, Mr. Beck seems to completely miss the point of it by being caught up in the very elitism that the document was drafted to protect Americans from. His system of charity hearkens back to the days of fealty to feudal lords for a pittance in return. His plan for the future is a revival of desperate hope of the oppressed, for benevolent masters governed only by their peity. This prescription for reform is nothing short of a road map to a two-tiered, wildly disparate, third world system with an extremely wealthy minority wielding complete control over a vast majority of impoverished and subjugated laborers.

Beck has co-opted the founding fathers as the clergy for his own messianic campaign, choosing excerpts from their works to support his theories and agenda. He has deified mere men and made their words gospel. He has re-contextualized their thoughts and subjected Americans to a destorted understanding of statements over two hundred years old and rejects any divergent views or development of their theses, as he interprets them, as heresy.

Rights Determined by the Clergy

Glenn is very adamant that rights can only come from God(4). The Declaration of Independence states, “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. This is what he considers unassailable proof of his assertion. He didn’t consider that the intention was to say that a person’s rights cannot be assailed, limited or controlled by another person. According to Glenn, your rights are the rights God gave you. What you have is what you’ve got. What you can achieve is what you are allowed. If God put you in a position where you don’t seem to have any rights, you apparently need to take it up with God, or simply wait until the afterlife. He seems completely distraught that the American Government would have the audacity to recognize the rights of its citizens, articulate them, codify them and legislate the protection of them(5). Once again we see a theocratic rationalization for concentrating power in the hands of Glenn Beck’s God fearing elite, to dole out as they see fit.

As Desmond Tutu so eloquently stated, “I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights.”

Mr Beck offers no description, nor does he cite any reference material to discover what rights are granted by God. A search of the Bible yielded only six mentions of rights(6):

Exodus 21: 7-11
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

Deuteronomy 21:16
Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn.

Psalm 82:3
Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Proverbs 31:8
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

Galatians 4:5
God sent his Son,born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.”

Hebrews 12:16
refers to Esau, who “sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.”

Although two of these encourage advocacy for the rights of the less fortunate, there is no definition as to what those rights are. Only two rights are represented in the remaining four verses. Three verses are dedicated to the property and inheritance rights of men, and one verse is dedicated to the right of women to be treated as chattel. As scripture fails to adequately discuss the issue of rights, I’m sure the implication is that church doctrine communicated through clerics would provide the necessary guide.

Therefore, a person’s rights could only be granted by, or affirmed by, the clergy, rather than their own democratically elected representational government. The Nineteenth Amendment would certainly have run into trouble with 1 Timothy 2:12-14 which allows women no authority over men which would include the right to vote for or against a man.

The world according to Glenn

On the basis of these two principles alone, that the people cannot provide for themselves as a collective through their government, and that the government of the people and by the people cannot articulate, codify and ensure the people’s rights, Mr. Beck would effectively take us back to a time ruled by Nobles and Clerics not enjoyed since prior to the French Revolution, with the potential upward mobility of share-croppers, or minors wholly determined by the company store. This would take the country much farther back than even Mr. Beck admits, as he races headlong towards yesteryear.

His desire to take the country back is not motivated by what is good for the country, but serves only to benefit those that currently enjoy privilege, while disenfranchising and disempowering the vast majority of Americans. This country doesn’t need to move backward, it needs to move forward. The use of religion and a God, as a surrogate to usurp the rights of the people, is based on failed societal models recycled throughout our history. The distorted past that Mr. Beck wants to revive, with an added and increased role of religion, is nothing but the ramblings of a terrified fool. The past is the comfortable domain of cowards and the status quo is the sanctuary of the elite.

Beyond Beck

This desire to abdicate responsibility to an omniscient being in order to avoid responsibility or accountability is destructive regardless of how tempting it may seem. America is ruled by a government of the people, by the people and for the people; not of the people, by the rich and religious, for God. The representatives of the people can and should recognize, articulate, codify, and ensure the rights of the people, by the people and for the people. The people must take collective action and provide services and supports for themselves through their government. The government is not the alien ‘other’, or ‘them’, as in the paranoid delusions of Mr. Beck. The government is made up of the representatives that Americans elect to represent their will. If their representatives fail in this, they can and should be replaced by the people. They should not be replaced by the clergy or the affluent, or their agents, that offer no such representation or democratic remedy.

America has evolved and progressed and will continue to do so. As new obstacles and past shortcomings are identified Americans will meet the challenges and move ahead, learning from their past so as not to repeat it. Americans must be careful not to follow the fearful call to retreat into the embrace of the devil they once knew simply because of the uncertainties inherent to the future. Is this not the land of the free and the home of the brave? Let Mr. Beck retreat into the past, if he wishes. Americans have the freedom to claim their rights and insist that their government recognize and ensure them, and the bravery to take those rights into the future that they will determine of, by and for themselves.

1 – http://www.glennbeck.com/
2 – http://mediamatters.org/research/201003120055
3 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR9Apn5N0MI
4 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiucQ_INghE
5 – http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-confirms-that-your-rights-come-from-god/
6 – http://www.ccfwebsite.com/archives/What_does_the_Bible_say_about_rights.pdf

Related posts:

1. Glenn Beck in Bed with Big Business There may be a modestly-successful boycott of his television show...
2. Tea Party Traitors, or, How Judson Phillips Poisoned Our Tea Judson Phillips, with help from his friends Glenn Beck and...
3. Blackmail, Bribery, Coercion: Scientology and the IRS Has the IRS been compromised in favor of the Church...

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. Glenn Beck: Revival of Irresponsibility Glenn Beck will soon tour the nation, promoting an "American...
2. Texas Appoints Fundies to Rewrite Statewide Social Studies Curriculum Should schools teach that the Founders were Christians? Apparently, the...
3. American Family Association Supports Legal Sanctions for Homosexual Behavior An American Family Association executive, official spokesman, and radio show...

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...

Recently, some female residents of Bristol, VA were handed a pamphlet titled Women & Girls by some, shall we say, “Godly folk”. The pamphlet asserts that females who refuse to dress modestly and instead choose to dress, oh I dunno, however the hell they want, are causing men to sin in their hearts and are therefore sinning themselves.

But wait, there’s more!

The pamphlet also suggests that female rape victims are partially responsible for rape:

“You may have been given this leaflet because of the way you are dressed,” it begins. “Have you thought about standing before the true and living God to be judged?”

“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states. “By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”

Gee.  That’s a great question.  Let me think about that one…

YES!

Rape is a crime.  Rape is not sexy, nor is it even sex.  Rape is an act of violence committed by a criminal who is unable to control his criminal urges.  No matter the provocation, the only person responsible for rape is the rapist. End of story.

Or maybe they’re right. Maybe this elderly woman was wearing a sexy, skimpy nightgown to bed, and the burglar just couldn’t control the devil inside him. Or perhaps this two-year-old girl was dressed way to inappropriately for her age. Hows about we make all women wear a burka? Maybe then rape would cease, right?

Oh, wait…

Let’s just put the kibosh on this right now. Rape is a very serious offense, committed by seriously disturbed individuals.  Rape is not some hot-button word that you can just throw on a pamphlet to pretend like you won an argument. Let me not even get into what the bible says about it.

Rape is not funny.  Rape is not trivial. And rape is not her fault.

Related posts:

1. David Letterman Suggests Palin Rape Monday night, late-night talk show host David Letterman suggested that...
2. Failed Faith Healing – Conviction in Oregon; God’s fault? Oregon couple prayed instead of taking (now dead) son to...
3. Featured Sermon: Your Conscience, or God’s Word? Pastor Billy-Reuben Gibson of Libertydale Bible Baptist Church asks whether...

Father Gabriele Amorth is the lead Exorcist of the Diocese of Rome. He has been a priest for 60 years. He is declared the “most famous Catholic exorcist in the world”, having performed over 70,000 exorcisms. In his own words, from a 2003 interview:

Of course [I was afraid of Satan], but I also knew that Jesus had beaten Satan and the Virgin had crushed him. So I put myself under the protection of both Jesus and Mary. ‘Wrap me in your cloak,’ I said to the Virgin, ‘and I will always feel safe.’ And in fact, over the years I have performed over 70,000 exorcisms and nothing has ever happened to me.

Note: Amorth began performing exorcisms in 1986. In 17 years (1986 – 2003), he claims, he performed 70,000 exorcisms. That’d be 11.3 exorcisms per day, every day, for 17 years. The energy this man must have! -Jenny

And yes, Amorth has daily chats with Satan himself. From 2000:

I speak with the Devil every day. I talk to him in Latin. He answers in Italian. I have been wrestling with him, day in day out, for 14 years.

Now, the man who has performed 70,000 exorcisms also informs that interviewer that it’s difficult to determine who is possessed:

It is not easy. There are many grades of possession. The Devil does not like to be seen, so there are people who are possessed who manage to conceal it. There are other cases where the person possessed is in acute physical pain, such agony that they cannot move.

It is essential not to confuse demonic possession with ordinary illness. The symptoms of possession often include violent headaches and stomach cramps, but you must always go to the doctor before you go to the exorcist. I have people come to me who are not possessed at all. They are suffering from epilepsy or schizophrenia or other mental problems. Of the thousands of patients I have seen, only a hundred or so have been truly possessed.

So, 70,000 exorcisms (50,000 at the time of the 2000 interview), of which only a hundred or so were “truly possessed”? How did he know the difference?

We can sort out the phoney ones. We look into their eyes. As part of the exorcism, at specific times during the prayers, holding two fingers on the patient’s eyes we raise the eyelids. Almost always, in cases of evil presence, the eyes look completely white. Even with the help of both hands, we can barely discern whether the pupils are towards the top or the bottom of the eye. If the pupils are looking up, the demons in possession are scorpions. If looking down, they are serpents.

Readers, you may be shocked that this brave and clearly eminently rational man went toe-to-toe with an imaginary bogeyman 70,000 (or maybe 100) times, and never once was harmed. You may be disturbed that he speaks to a figment of his imagination, and more so that it answers. However, his more recent statements will truly horrify you.

In a new book of Amorth’s memoirs released last month (presently only in Italian), Marco Tosatti — biographer of Pope John Paul — has released Amorth’s accusations of Satanic sects within the Vatican. Said Amorth,

Yes, also in the Vatican there are members of Satanic sects. There are priests, monsignors and also cardinals!

More explicitly, a segment of the interview:

- There are Satanists in the Vatican?

“Yes, even in the Vatican there are members of satanic cults.”

- Who is involved? Is it simple priests or laity?

“There are priests, bishops and even cardinals.”

- Forgive me, Father Gabriel, but how do you know?

“I know people who have been observing it, because they had the opportunity to observe it directly. And this is something that has been ‘confessed’ several times by the devil Even under obedience in the exorcisms.

- The Pope is informed of this?

“Of course, he was informed, but he does what he can. It is something terrifying. Keep in mind also that Benedict XVI is a German pope, he comes from a nation resolutely closed to these things. In Germany, in fact, there are almost no exorcists, and yet the Pope believes [in them]: I had the opportunity to speak with him three times before, when He was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He believes, and how! And he spoke explicitly in public several times [about this]. He welcomed our association of exorcists (in October 2005, BEM); [at the time] he also delivered a fine speech, encouraging us and praising our apostolate. And let us not forget that the devil and exorcism, John Paul II also spoke a lot about it. “

- While it’s true what Paul VI said that the smoke of Satan entered the Church?

“It’s true, unfortunately, because in the Church as there are followers of satanic cults. The details of the” smoke of Satan “, Paul VI spoke June 29, 1972. Then, as this sentence created a huge scandal, November 15, 1972, he devoted an entire speech to the devil, on Wednesday, with some very strong words. Of course, it broke the ice, lifting a veil of silence and censorship that has lasted too long but it had no practical consequences. It took someone like me– who was a nobody– to spread the alarm in order to get results.

He knows because people have observed it directly. Yet the defense?

Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Spanish priest and theologian who specializes in demonology and is now studying for his doctorate of theology in Rome, responded to Fr. Amorth’s assertions on March 1.

After reading reports of Fr. Amorth’s accusations pointing a finger at members of the clergy, including cardinals, Fr. Fortea declared that it is a “duty of justice” to speak out in their defense.

The Spanish priest then explained the sources of information used by Fr. Amorth to say that Satanic sects are operating in the Vatican.

In addition to the people that seek help for demonic possession, said Fr. Fortea, “innumerable persons come to us who claim to have visions, revelations and messages from Our Lord.” Among these, “a certain number offer apocalyptic messages and revelations about the infiltration of Satanism and the Masons within the dome of the Church.”

Is that what Amorth said? “I know people who have been observing it, because they had the opportunity to observe it directly. ” Is “observing directly” the same as “receiving a vision”?

The other source Fr. Amorth refers to, according to Fr. Fortea, is the demons who are being exorcised. Of this, the Spanish priest wrote that knowing whether or not the demon is telling the truth “is in many cases impossible.”

“Father Amorth does not have other sources of knowledge than the two that I just cited,” indicated the Spanish exorcist, “I refer to his own words for this affirmation.”

I can read his words. He says that the information comes in part from people who have directly observed, not from “visions from Our Lord”.

What do you think? Is this a vast cover-up? Are there Satanic sects in the Vatican?

Could it be an error in translation, and Amorth meant that there is “Sodomite Sex” in the Vatican?

Related posts:

1. American Family Association Supports Pat Robertson’s Haiti “Satan Pact” with Lies In a move that probably shouldn't come as a surprise,...
2. Penn & Teller Episode About Catholic Church – Free Online! The entire episode of Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t, in which...
3. Haiti Devil Pact Update! WorldNetDaily and Evangelical Christians Slam Robertson We've done some more digging, and added more historical facts...

The strategic positioning of Israel for U.S. interests in the middle East has its advantages. Although America has maintained relatively good relations with Jordan and Saudi Arabia, among others, Israel is by far America’s most reliable political ally in the region. In an area with shifting alliances and changing regimes, mostly unfriendly to America, the presence of a committed ally has its obvious benefits. The cost/benefit ratio of supporting Israel as that ally may have its critics, but the stakes are high, the options limited, and the alternatives lack the security of the current, lasting friendship.(2)

So, America has an ally in the Middle East that it gives support to, and that ally is Israel. What’s the big deal? Israel is a strong ally, both in the region as well as in the United Nations, with a similar political system, and one of the most powerful military’s in the world. What’s not to like? What’s the problem?

From Fact to Fantasy

From the aspect of military and economic relations and interdependence, there is nothing particularly unusual about such a relationship. Not everything about this type of relationship is always good, but it is perfectly rational and reasonable to foster such an agreement between two nations.

This is not to say that such a relationship is not possible, and should not be pursued, with other nations in the area, including the Palestinians. Nor is this to say that the relationship with Israel is to the exclusion of all other existing and possible relationships in the region; this is simply to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with such a relationship between the United States and Israel, or any two countries, for that matter.

Despite the relatively secure character of American/Israeli relations, international politics are rife with unexpected trauma. The tenuous nature of international relations is further, and unduly, stressed when decisions are made for reasons other than rational geopolitical or economic motives. Trade agreements, treaties, resources, alliances, protectorates and military cooperation may all be substantive considerations of reasonable and rational international relations. While religious beliefs and superstitions are implementation concerns and considerations, they are not credible, reliable, or desirable as a basis for policy, domestic or foreign. To base concrete decisions on fanciful notions is less than responsible and more than dangerous.

The Delusional Dilettante

During her meteoric rise to the world political stage, Sarah Palin made a point of consulting with Billy Graham regarding foreign policy with Israel, Iran and Iraq(3). Her questions were related to Biblical ‘End-Times’ prophecy and how foreign policy should be designed and implemented accordingly. She spent time with Mr. Graham accepting both his prayers and advice. This crash course on how to manage the end of the world also proved to be a valuable photo-op and chance for Mrs. Palin to further connect to her right-wing conservative Christian base.

In an interview with Barbara Walters, Mrs. Palin shared her concern over President Obama’s policy against Jewish settlement expansion. Her objections were based on her belief that many more Jews were going to be relocating to Jerusalem in the weeks and months ahead(4)(5). According to the Bible, Armageddon will not happen until the Jews have full control over Jerusalem, and Jesus won’t be coming back until we get that whole ‘Armageddon-war-to-end-all-wars’ thing out of the way. So, in Sarah Palin’s conservative Christian reasoning: We must support Israel, at all cost. We must help the Jews expand Israel and control the region so that Jesus can come back and either kill them or convert them to Christianity. According to the Christians, this is what happens after Armageddon. Those Jews that are not killed when Jesus returns are converted to Christianity. Considering this, the very vocal, pro-Israel, right-wing conservative Christian agenda does not seem very pro-Israeli at all.

The Jews/Israelis don’t care about the motivations of the Christian evangelicals. They don’t believe in the prophecies of Revelations in the New Testament. If a bunch of American Right-Wing Christian Conservatives want to keep sending them money and giving them a favored status, fine, let them. If conservative Christian administrations in America turn a blind eye to, or perhaps even encourage, expansionism in the area and the discrimination and oppression of Palestinians or Israeli Arabs, fine, bonus. They don’t care any more than I would if someone wanted to give me money and protect my interests because their interpretation of a religious myth, and the desires of an imaginary being, directed them to do so. Israel is doing the pragmatic thing and I would be surprised, perhaps even disappointed, to find they did not exploit it completely.

This week, it was announced that Sarah Palin, reportedly on advice from Jeb Bush and Bill O’Reilly, will be working diligently to enhance her foreign policy knowledge (7). In addition to her ongoing religious counseling on these matters, Sarah will further her education by teaming up with the poster boy for American Nationalistic Bible-Based Fundamentalism, Glenn Beck, in a series of live stage events to compliment the radio shows and television campaigns waged through Fox cable news(8). Beck, an avowed Mormon, right down to his magic underwear, makes no apologies regarding his belief that we are in the end times, and shares Palin’s vehement assertion that America must turn to God, become a Christian Nation, and live according to Biblical direction. Other than the ‘Constitution be damned’ nature of this ridiculous demand, the foreign and domestic policy implications are more than just potentially disastrous.

A History of Holy Hogwash

Just in case you’re feeling comfortable that the White House is safe from Palin’s Fundamentalist ravings, think again. These religious views are shared by several other politicians including Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush, H.W., and W., and have undoubtedly contributed to the abysmal state of U.S. relations in the area. As an example, in 2003, George W. told French President Jacques Chirac that he had to invade Iraq because of Biblical Prophecy(6). He stated that he saw the work of ‘Gog and Magog’, demonic forces referred to in Biblical text, in the middle East, and that they were a threat to Israel, God’s chosen people.

Yes folks, this was the President of the United States giving his reasons for waging an illegal and bloody war. As ridiculous as this sounds, and in fact is, America’s past President is not alone. In America, a country beset with a near majority of evangelical Christians that believe in Creationism and the second coming of Jesus, there is no shortage of people willing to direct the foreign policy and military strength of the most powerful Nation on the planet towards Armageddon. The seemingly indefatigable and incomprehensible belief by Christians, for the past 2000 years, is that the world as we know it is going to end, soon, and Jesus is going to come back and set everything straight. Aside from the unconscionable abdication of personal responsibility this represents, their delusion has the potential to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you give the means to end the world soon to a group of Fundamentalists who believe that it is God’s plan that the world end soon, they will most likely end the world soon. When you have these Fundamentalists, both Christian and Islamic, drawing lines in the sand, literally, you’re tempting the possibility of a world of hurt, literally.

If It’s Going to be Used It Must be Proved

Aside from the issue of foreign policy with Israel, Christian Fundamentalists have insinuated the Bible, as an authoritative source, into almost every aspect of public and governmental discourse. An obtuse document, widely open to a variety of interpretations, has been allowed the status of super-governmental dictate without even the most basic vetting process. This is an error that Americans must correct. The Scopes trial was only a start. If the Bible is going to be used as a basis for legal, policy, or legislative decisions, it must be subjected to, and pass, the same sort of legal litmus test as any other basis for such decisions.

American politicians regularly cite the Christian Bible, and its accompanying doctrine and dogma, as their reason for, or against, policy and legislation. It is a constant refrain in a myriad of debates including, but certainly not limited to, abortion, climate change, education, health care, foreign policy and gay rights. Any other document or text used in such a manner is subject to the investigation, discovery and proof of its credibility, before being allowed the power of such monumental impact. Why is this not the case with the Christian Bible and the decisions that are based on its text?

Christians accept the Bible and its teachings out of faith. Faith is a personal choice. Faith cannot be given to, nor imposed on, another. Non-Christians cannot be required to have faith in the mythology and theology of Christianity for their public policies and legislation. Non-Christians cannot be required to have their domestic and foreign policy based on another’s faith. If domestic and foreign policy is to be based on the Bible, for all American citizens, the Bible must be proven to be an historically and factually accurate document. If it cannot be, it cannot be used as a basis or reason for any political decision regarding either foreign or domestic policy. This is a point arguable under American law. It is a point that needs to be argued.

The American-Israeli relationship is important, as are many other relationships that America has with foreign powers, but not for the reasons, and certainly not for the agenda, of conservative Christian Fundamentalists. Abortion, civil liberties, gay-rights and education are all issues that need to be open to public discussion, debate and resolution, but again, not directed by the agenda and limitations of Christian Fundamentalists. The courts do not want to hear a case disproving the existence of the Christian god, yet we are subject to the authoritarian dictates, as interpreted by those looking for the interpretations they prefer, of that unproven being’s discredited holy text(9).

We don’t need to argue the proof of a god. What we must do, is demand the legal, scientific and historic credibility of the Bible if it is going to be cited when establishing policy, procedure, or law. Christians cannot be allowed to have it both ways any longer. If Biblical Christian teachings are going to be used as the basis for, or influence on, foreign and domestic policy, they must be proven credible, or be removed from the discussion as irrelevant. When Christianity decided to assert itself in politics and the affairs of the state, it removed from itself the protections of a personal choice of faith and has subjected itself to the rigors of academic and scientific analyses. This is not a case of religion being attacked, but a case of defense from the onslaught of tyrannical religious law and dangerously delusional prophecy. The rules have been skewed. Christians are not required to offer any proof of their religion, yet they are allowed to offer their religion as reason and basis for policy and legislation. This must stop. When it comes to politics; the Bible cannot be used unless the Bible can be proved.

Amen.

(1) – http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html
(2) – http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm
(3) – http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/28/sarah-palins-visit-with-billy-graham-dinner-prayer-and-a-phot/
(4) – http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/144111/what_sarah_palin’s_”jewish_people_will_be_flocking_to_israel”_prediction_really_means/
(5) – http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/17/sarah_palin_is_even_crazier_than_i_imagined
(6) – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
(7) – http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/02/25/bill-oreilly-nails-stephanopoulos-critique-palin-compares-nancy-pelo
(8) – http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33535.html
(9) – http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

Related posts:

1. AFA Attacks AAA over Gay-Friendly Policy Imagine the horror Don Wildmon must have felt. The dread...
2. Liam Fox: A Religious Assault on Democracy Last week, Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis launched an attack...
3. Anti-Gay Wisconsin Attorney General Ignores Duties for “Faith” J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General for the state of Wisconsin,...

The organization which met with Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement — the President himself did not put in an appearance — is the Secular Coalition for America. This 501(c)(4) non-profit lobbying organization has ten member non-profits, including American Atheists, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, and the Secular Student Alliance.

Christian organizations were naturally horrified by the subjects the Godless brought up for discussion:

• Child Medical Neglect: The atheists pointed out that many “faith-based” child care centers don’t have to meet health and safety standards that everyone else must meet. Expecting them to clean? But, won’t God keep the kids safe from E.coli?
• Proselytizing in the Military: Supported by news headlines about “Jesus Rifles”, SCA discussed their concerns about the increase in Christian evangelicals in the military and their self-described “duty” to spread the word of “god”.
• 
  Office of Faith-Based Initiatives: The SCA commented that the Obama administration’s expansion of Bush, Jr’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives unconstitutionally funnels the taxes of American citizens to religious organizations. What separation of Church and State?

How did religious organizations react? Did they hope that the Obama administration took this opportunity to witness to the damned? Perhaps express joy in the interest of other Americans in the future of our country? (Yes, our country. Not their country.)

Let’s not be silly.

Council Nedd, chair of In God We Trust:

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.

IGWT’s press release was paranoid and vitriolic, accusing the Obama administration of “meeting to plot political strategy with 60 atheist activists”.

The failure of people like Nedd to distinguish between atheists — people who simply don’t believe in a god or gods — and antitheists — people who believe religion is inherently destructive — is apparent in their histrionics. Nedd whined:

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. The President should tell the American people whether he believes these groups’ hate-filled views to be ‘mainstream’ and worthy of his supposedly inclusive administration.

Here we see Nedd’s true colors. An “inclusive administration” can only include people who share Nedd’s beliefs in invisible magic men.

Nedd was not alone. Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, wailed:

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!

Religious leaders, of course, never involve themselves in politics, and have always been completely shut out. For example:

President Obama and members of his administration avoided the Family’s “National Prayer Breakfast” like the plague . . . Oh, wait.

Obama immediately dismantled the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives founded by former President G.W. Bush . . . Oops, he expanded it.

Previous administrations have never met with religious figures, right?

Sure, James Dobson (Focus on the Family) visited the White House a reported 24 times, 10 to see President Bush in person.

Fine, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition visited the White House 50 times between February 2001 and March 2008, with six audiences with Bush.

Jerry Falwell? Only eight visits during the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, Obama has offered speeches on faith, thrown taxpayer funds to religious organizations, and sent lawyers to defend the Defens of Marriage Act by comparing homosexuality to incest and child rape.

Obama has dared to throw a bone — a wing, I believe, and broken — to non-theists. All Hell is breaking loose among Christians, who doubtless see this as the first tiny breach in their impenetrable dike of irrationality and intolerance . . . After all, in the good old days, Presidents took their stance on atheists:

No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God. – George H. W. Bush

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Nudist White House On his first full day as President, Barack Obama overturned...
2. Liam Fox: Christendom Crucifies the Constitution Leading Christian organizations blasted the Obama administration for meeting with...
3. Atheists Sue Over Inauguration Oh, yes. Those wacky atheists are at it again.This time,...

The Los Angeles Times reports that a new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (“Religion Among the Millennials”, available in full HERE) studied the Millenial generation — those born after 1981. The study is a meta-analysis of Pew Forum surveys from the 1970s to the present, comparing the responses of Millenials about their religious affiliation and about their beliefs with earlier generations.

When it came to religious affiliation, Millenials were less than enthusiastic; less than 20% attend religious services regularly. Some might assume that such a high number of “unaffiliateds” means most Millenials are irreligious. Not so.

While more question the existence of a god — only 53% of Millenials report being “certain” a god exists, compared to 71% of “Greatest Generation” members (born before 1928) — three quarters believe in an “afterlife”, and 79% believe in “miracles”.

These numbers are consistent between Millenials, the Greatest Generation, and all in between.

This American affection for magical thinking indicates that the move from strong religious affiliation is not the result of increased rationality or critical thinking among the younger generation. It may be a rejection of authority, or of certain doctrines, but doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods.

Importantly, the Millenials’ love of irrational beliefs is not the most disturbing result of the study. The affiliations chosen by Millenials who choose an organized religion over New Age “spirituality” are of even greater concern:

The Pew study shows . . . a decline in younger members of mainline Protestant denominations, such as Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists, while African American and evangelical Protestant groups have stronger affiliation among the young.

(Emphasis added.)

That’s right. The moderate denominations are falling by the wayside, and right-wing Fundamentalists are gaining new, young members.

What does this mean for our future?

Will we find ourselves with a population of 20% politically-active, highly-motivated evangelicals, and 80% disorganized, unaffiliated people who still think that a Christian Reconstructionist has more in common with them than a secular humanist?

Related posts:

1. Colorado’s Religious Bill of Rights: Religious Insurgents’ Latest Assault on Schools Religious insurgents attempted to ram a "religious bill of rights...
2. Study: Religion Linked to Racism A new study indicates that increased religiosity is linked tightly...
3. Study: Why Are Evangelical Kids Abandoning Jesus? Ken Ham (founder of the Creation Museum) commissioned a study...

I realize that such a statement sounds melodramatic and extreme. In fact, it sounds like something you may read on the placards hoisted high, by some of the very people that support the actions I’m referring to.

The following events were well reported and recorded during this past week. Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis proposed Senate Bill SB089 this past week, which would have undermined important democratic institutions. The vehicle for this subversion? A “Religious Bill of Rights” that, in addition to being an insult to the First Amendment, was deemed generally redundant to the ‘real’ Bill of Rights.(1)

This Bill was purportedly necessary for the protection of religious persons from attacks on their religious rights in the public school system, despite the fact that there was no evidence or even anecdotal testimony to support the need for such protection.

The particulars of the Bill and its outrageous demands have been well covered (2)(3). The two most controversial areas of concern?

• Special rights for teachers: Teachers would not have to teach anything that may disagree with their religious views, and may openly display their own religious material in their classrooms.
• Special rights for students: Students could refuse or oppose course material for the same reason, that it didn’t agree with their religious views(1).

The part of the story that I would like to draw attention to is the resulting effect such a Bill would have on the ability of the elected officials of the school board to implement the wishes and demands of the electorate. What is the affect on our democracy if the curriculum of our public school system is influenced by dictates from either one, or even several competing, religious theologies?

The bill is laden with tacit threats of increased and ongoing costly court challenges, even against individual board members, if the public school system refused to adopt and assertively implement its guidelines and demands. The goal of this blatant coercion was the usurping of the authority from our duly-elected school board officials.

The individuals on the school board are the representatives of the people and are required to be responsible to all of the people, on all matters relating to their schools, including curricula. Although not legally binding in its initial form, this Religious Bill of Rights would have usurped that authority over curricula and placed it, indirectly as well as possibly directly, in the hands of religious leaders and clerics. Senator Schultheis himself is a conservative Christian Fundamentalist.

The issues at stake are not whether a student or employee of the public school system can say a prayer before their meal or during lesson breaks, or peacefully study their religious text in the cafeteria during their lunch hour, or anything else as personal or benign. Such things are well within their existing Constitutional rights. What was at stake is the right for a religion to use the public school system as a venue for their proselytizing and means of imposing their discriminatory theological doctrine on society by having control over the public education system’s curricula . . . or by placing teachers in schools who will subvert curricula by refusal to teach certain lessons.

What was attempted was nothing shy of a deliberate move to subvert democratic institutions and the American Constitution for the imperialistic goals of religious sects and their attempt to promote only information that supports their dogma while censoring any information that may expose and challenge the inconsistencies, and lack of scientific or historical basis, of their unsupportable claims.

Fortunately, Senator Schultheis’ poor negotiating skills made killing the bill in committee possible(4).

Although Senator Schultheis is a very vocal and evangelical follower of Jesus, the wording of the Bill only referred to religions in general and plural. If these powers of veto or influence are applied equally to all religions, the resulting affects on the curricula would be crippling to our educational system.

Creationists often demand that their myth regarding the origins of humanity be taught along side the science of evolution, and given equal weight and credibility as an alternative explanation. If this is similarly intended with this bill, and is applied to all religions, the resulting chaos of irrationality could boggle the minds of some of our potentially best and brightest. We would be presenting children with a cacophony of ignorance, infusing ideas of a flat earth created in six days with stars as heavenly projectiles and the laws of physics subject to the whims of an imaginary, invisible, supernatural being. Additionally, the social impact of Christian and Islamic doctrine against any who do not share their faith, as well as the discrimination against women and homosexuals, would destroy the more tolerant, secular environment.

The danger of handing this sort of all-inclusive influence to several religions is obvious, but I’m sure that equal access to all religions was not the intent of this bill. The apparent motive behind this Bill is not in the name of religious freedom or tolerance, but in the name of freedom and tolerance for one specific religion. I’m sure that references to democracy would eventually be invoked to stave of any threat of competing theologies, ideologies, or even provable and observable truths, and preferential rights would be claimed, as a voting majority, by the most popular religion. All, in violation of the Constitution.

These sort of strategies employed are brilliant examples of political savvy and masterful statesmanship designed to erode the democracy from within by using its strengths against it. Equality, access, respect and tolerance, and the systems and institutions that have been developed striving towards these principles, are actively undermined with “divine” justification and absolution. Christianity and Islam, and any other authoritarian theologies, are the stated enemies of democracy.

The two most common religions in America, and globally, don’t require observance by their adherents alone. They require obedience and observance by an entire society. They are dictatorial and tyrannical and anathema to democracy. These religions require adherents to evangelize, to witness, and to spread the word of their “god” in order to convert the non-believers. These religions have rules and doctrines for society that adherents are commanded to demand, even of non-believers.

It is the duty of Christians, or followers of Jesus, and it is the same for Muslims, the devotees of Islam. They must be imperialistic and work to convert or coerce others to follow the doctrines and dictates of their religion. That is their role. The public sphere is not a place of acceptance, tolerance and cooperation where they seek only to coexist, but a place to be evangelized and bent to their will.

This close call was in the state of Colorado, ranked only the forty-first most religious state in America. Texas, ranked the eleventh most religious, has already reintroduced the Christian Bible as part of their curriculum and Kentucky, ranked tenth, seems as though it will soon follow suit.

These are not isolated incidents of extremists trying to impact the American system. Religious organizations and movements, in this case the conservative Christian Right, the followers of Jesus and American fundamentalists, are working vigorously to circumvent democratic processes in America’s public and governmental institutions. Cloaked in the guise of American traditional values and American patriotism, the Christian conservative movement works diligently to further its own agenda. It will not be one sweeping event of momentous individual impact that will establish fundamental political and social change; rather, small incremental changes building one upon the other will be the standard method of operation. Even if it means subverting the Constitution of the United States.

(1) – Colorado Religious Bill of Rights – Bill Text
(2) – http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/15/do-we-really-need-a-religious-bill-of-rights/
(3) – http://www.palibandaily.com/2010/02/17/colorados-religious-bill-of-rights/
(4) – http://coloradoindependent.com/47541/controversial-schultheis-public-schools-religion-bill-ends-in-a-whimper
(5) – http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=504

Related posts:

1. Colorado’s Religious Bill of Rights: Religious Insurgents’ Latest Assault on Schools Religious insurgents attempted to ram a "religious bill of rights...
2. Islam on Capitol Hill Organizer: “We Want to Islamize Democracy” Christian fundamentalists brewed up a storm of controversy over Friday's...
3. Atheists Visit White House – Religious Right has Fit After meeting with various religious groups for many, many years,...