Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





God Doesn't Follow the Law - How irrational love of religion in the U.S. fosters lawless religionists
Wednesday, 14 March 2007 11:21

by Christopher Ketcham

"History…furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
— Thomas Jefferson 

It is a certainty in the United States that no one knows or cares to know the exact value of the ecclesiastic demesne. We can, however, guess. In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant said that taxable church property amounted to $1 billion. One hundred and one years later, in a 1976 study that has never been replicated or updated, researchers Martin A. Larson and Rev. C. Stanley Lowell found that total ecclesiastical property by 1906 came to about $1.3 billion. According to Larson and Lowell, by 1936 it was $3.8 billion. By 1964, it had risen to a spectacular $79.5 billion. When Larson and Lowell tallied their figures for 1976, real church wealth amounted to at least $158 billion, with churches the owners of an estimated 10 percent of all U.S. property. The figure adjusted for inflation today comes to at least $560 billion, likely the greatest non-profit wealth expansion in history (with the real value likely much greater). The reason for the accumulation transcends the giving of the flock: It is due, rather, to a systemic political bias in the form of the generous tax exemption traditionally afforded religious property and income, an arrangement that in Western history is as old as the Sumerian kings and the pharaohs of Egypt.

At what rate this heaping fortune would be taxed is unknowable, and in any case the numbers themselves are largely suspect, given that churches refuse to disclose their finances, as they are not asked to. The Internal Revenue Service allows religion a freedom from regulation that exists nowhere else in American monetary life. Religious entities, an IRS spokesman assures, are the only non-profits not required to report their finances, nor are they even asked to file for a tax exemption, and thus there is no figure for the number and kind of entities receiving exemptions. The popular understanding of the First Amendment would appear to render this approach an absolute: If taxation be the power to destroy, then its application to religion, it is argued, is the incipient abridgement of free exercise.

Not every one agrees, of course, including James Madison, the chief architect and prime mover of the religion clauses in the First Amendment, which, in addition to securing free exercise, also enjoined government from enacting laws “respecting the establishment of religion.” Madison as early as 1784 came to regard church tax exemptions as a kind of subsidy – in effect an act of establishment. As early as 1817, he was already cautioning that “the danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S.” What Madison feared was not so much theocracy but what we might term theoligarchy, a creeping rule of the religious rich and few. “[T]here is an evil which ought to be guarded against,” he wrote, “in the indefinite accumulation of property…by ecclesiastical corporations.” His warnings were prompted, in part, by his disgust with the growing fashion in the 1810s of federal prayer days and days of thanksgiving and the presence of paid clergy in the halls of Congress, all of which he saw as regressive and which he lobbied to abolish, without success, toward the end of his presidency.

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

Madison in his concern was not alone. In 1875, President Grant, on the receiving end of a 900-foot petition of 35,000 signatories demanding the end of church tax exemptions, warned the nation in his state of the union that “so vast a property as here alluded to, without taxation, may lead to sequestration, without constitutional authority." Grant also worried, on a typically practical tack, as to the fairness of religious entities "receiving all the protection and benefits of Government” without bearing any of the cost. Less than a hundred years later, in 1959, the executive secretary of the World Council of Churches, Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, warned that “[w]ith reasonably prudent management the churches ought to be able to control the whole economy of the nation” within a century. Blake, a thoughtful clergyman and believer in the church/state wall, was not pleased at the idea.

The IRS today likes to pretend it maintains at least a few regulatory brickbats to bar the “ecclesiastical corporations” from direct influence in the halls of power. Chief among the rules is that churches shall not endorse candidates or otherwise engage their flocks in electoral efforts. This unfortunately did not sit well with certain congregants or their leaders in the run-up to the re-election of George W. Bush, whose victory arguably rested more than any other factor on the singular purpose and organization of an evangelical franchise. Mobilizing the faithful, Bush’s arch-fixer Karl Rove conducted weekly conference calls with the priests of the movement, who handed over membership lists for registration drives, while the Rev. Pat Robertson counseled at least 45,000 churches on the mechanics of working to re-elect the born-again president. All of this was in frank violation of IRS law.

Lack of oversight and disclosure coupled with timidity in regulation (or outright impotence) predictably leads to opportunity for fraud, or, at least, to generous allowances in the definition of “religious institution.” The village of Fleischmanns, New York, like all small towns a dependency of property tax, last year went bust after the majority Hasidic community declared their summer cottages “religious institutions.” Wiccan covens, brothels operating as churches of love, whole towns of New Ageists have received similar tax exemptions over the years. In Florida, a Biblical theme park, featuring live Jesus acts, demanded exemptions in a lawsuit that remains snagged in the courts, while in West Virginia a white supremacist group that worshiped, among other divinities, white people, received an exemption for land dedicated to prayer services (so did the Klu Klux Klan in Harrisburg, Penn.). The thieving psychobabble cult of Scientology retained its tax exemption by a simple name change: it became the Church of Scientology.

Meanwhile, the Austin, Tex., chapter of Ethical Society, the secular humanist group, fought bitterly in the regional federal appellates to win tax exemptions in 2004 for its atheist “ceremonies.” The Ethical Society victory, in retrospect, appears to dispel any meaningful curb on religious tax exemption claims. It makes hash of the Supreme Court’s only key ruling on property exemptions for churches, the Walz case of 1970. The Walz court offered that the religious tax exemption must be upheld primarily because it serves the social good of furthering the charitable function associated with religion – a function then as now purely ostensible and almost entirely taken up by social security for the disabled, county shelters for the homeless, state schools for the blind and deaf, etc. (The majority’s argument in Walz, it should be noted, is predicated on a delusion: Researchers at the University of Arizona concluded that just 3 percent of an average congregation’s total budget is spent on social services; only 6 percent of congregations have a staffer who devotes at least a quarter of his time to social services. “The bottom line,” said study author Mark Chaves, “is that most congregations are involved in social service activity in only a minor and peripheral way.”)

Anyway, charitable purpose was not a factor in the Ethical Society decision: Now it appeared that any group, charitable or not, that appears to worship just about anything – a newt’s tail, Mein Kampf, godlessness – presumably gets a tax exemption, or, at the very least, can tie up the courts demanding one. The prevailing thought is that the First Amendment (rightly) bars government from distinguishing between traditional religion and those beliefs that take the place of traditional religion – meaning that the only challenge to the tax exemption claim, under this interpretation, is to the sincerity of the belief, with state inquisitors left to invent new and exciting means for extorting these matters from the believing mind.

If verification and regulation are thus deemed illegal, and widespread fraud is therefore a given, the simplest way out of the morass, perhaps, is to tax the churches across the board, much as that similarly cherished creature of the First Amendment, the press, has been taxed and has not suffered for it, except to become more competitive (though the exemption might be retained for those elements of a church – schools, soup kitchens, shelters – that actually serve the charitable function). Indeed, why should a righteous free market fund believers over non-believers? As Ben Franklin noted, “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself, and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it…'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

[section break]

But don’t wait up nights for this eventuality, for in a society that boasts 325,000 houses of worship, roughly one for every 860 persons, in which church-going is the highest in our history (and the highest in the world), in which 83 percent of people take the Bible to be the “actual” word of God, half fear the devil, three-fourths believe in religious miracles, and a mere 9 percent swallow whole the concept of Darwinian evolution, there is no reason to expect the narcotizing effect of religion to cease its sway over presidencies, legislatures, and, most dangerously, over the high courts of the land, all of whom must in one forum or another answer to a public jealous of its hypnotic totems. Religion in the United States is more than simply respected. It is adored, petted, drooled over; it can do no wrong. This irrational consideration has catalyzed a silent but tectonic rifting not simply of the tax system but of the American legal system itself. Two separate and unequal set of laws now exist unquestioned: one for believers; and one, unbelievably, for everyone else.

One can date the beginnings of the change to the late 1960s, in the activist court of Warren Burger that brought the passion for civil rights to also bear, erroneously, on “equalizing” the field for religion. When in 1973 a group of Wisconsin Amish came before the Supremes demanding the right to remove their children from school in violation of the state’s compulsory child education laws (but in keeping with Amish practice), the court’s language, as penned by Chief Justice Burger, was unequivocal: the believer, by the inherent purity and goodness of belief, required special treatment. If, for example, the court could find a better means of applying the law in favor of the free exercise of belief, then it had better do so. Thus compulsory education, while important for the rest of Wisconsin, was not important for the Amish because it was determined the Amish, as believers, had an ideal lifestyle. Religion to the Burger Court was always, everywhere, a good thing. And by that apparent goodness religion stood, in essence, above the law.

The court’s language of course reflects a common and widespread belief among Americans that religion is a net benefit for society, anchoring a functional moral order, and that godless societies – morally adrift, spiritually bankrupt – would therefore tend to suffer worse social problems. It is a belief unsupported by the facts. A recent study in the Journal of Religion & Society found, in fact, that the inverse may be the case. Key indicators of social distress – such ashomicideandsuicide rates, mortality, STDs among juveniles,youth pregnancy, abortion and divorce rates – are less prevalent indeveloped democracies where people attend church less or are less inclined to believe in a divine creator. According to the report, “[the] data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical ‘cultures of life’ that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction and even abortion.” Study author Gregory S. Paul notes that Japan, France and Scandinavia have been most successful in fostering this “culture of life,” while noting that these three comprise some of the most godless developed democracies on the planet. By contrast, the highly religious, anti-evolution U.S. – the only prosperous first world nation to retain rates of religiosity “otherwise limited to the second and third worlds” – is almost always “the most dysfunctional” of the developed democracies, sometimes “spectacularly so.” The evidence, writes Gregory Paul, thus appears to “contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.”

The 1973 Wisconsin Amish decision, by linking this fabled “goodness” to an overarching privilege of legal exceptionalism, opened the gates to a flood of abuse. States keen on protecting the sanctity of free exercise – and feeling the pressure of a newly energized religion lobby, which saw opportunity in the Wisconsin decision – now passed laws that astonished common sense. Washington State, for example, exempted Catholic priests from reporting child abuse, with the full understanding, never spoken, that priests were particularly privy to such knowledge. Some states made it prohibitively difficult to prosecute clergy, to the point that prosecutors in Springfield, Massachusetts, who uncovered evidence that a priest had murdered an altar boy, were unable to compel discovery for an investigation. At least 30 states, including Alabama, California, Florida, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon and Vermont, passed laws freeing “faith-healer” parents from civil and criminal penalty if their children suffered or died from medical neglect. In 1998, Followers of Christ Church in Oregon allowed three infants to perish through faith’s medicine, prompting an investigation that uncovered a sprawling cemetery of children on the church property. But prosecutors were impotent under the exemption laws, and even when the Oregon legislature sought to amend its original foolishness, the faith-healing lobby stepped in to crush the bill with the usual bludgeon in these matters: the law that applies to everyone else, the faith-healers said, violates a believer’s right to choose God over the secular cure.

Under Bill Clinton’s enthusiastic touch, similar acts of ecclesiastic establishment reached a breakneck pace in the federal branch. Marci A. Hamilton, author of the recently published God vs. the Gavel and a professor at Cardozo Law School, writes that Clinton, more than any other president before him, “fostered an accumulation of religious power, and a union of church and state power, that threaten[ed] to undermine the Madisonian separation-of-power principle at the heart of the Constitution.” Bankruptcy laws were skewed to churches, the Church Arson Prevention Act skewed arson laws, the Parsonage Tax Exemption widened tax exemptions, and the International Religious Freedom Act made federal establishment a global affair. Against the Clinton crush of religiosity, his successor’s “faith-based initiatives” only appear as a furtherance of Democratic policy.

Perhaps most disturbing to proponents of disestablishment like Professor Hamilton – who, it should be noted, prays “every day,” being a devout Presbyterian –

was the passage in 1993 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, drafted as the organized response of the religion lobby to the Supreme Court’s “peyote case” of 1990. The peyote case determined, rather reasonably, that religious motivation is no defense to illegal conduct, such as the consumption of hallucinogens (in this case by American Indian peyote cults). The interpretation pushed by the religion lobby was that the peyote case spelled the beginning of the end of religious liberty – because believers would now have to obey the same law as non-believers.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act restored the allegedly lost religious freedom by expanding the license of religion to in fact break the law. Under the RFRA, believers could challenge the jurisdiction and application of any and all neutrally applicable laws (meaning the statutes that apply to everyone, such as the injunctions against homicide, rape, embezzlement, car theft, etc.). Prosecutors would not be free to apply those neutral laws to believers unless it showed the law was passed for a “compelling interest” with regard to the believer—that it was the most narrowly tailored law possible for the believer. The loopholes under RFRA were such that religious prisoners demanded the right to engage in sex acts before female prison guards; a father on a New England commune demanded exemption from child support because his money went to the benefit of religion on the commune. “Totally nuts,” says Hamilton, who on behalf of the tiny city of Boerne, Texas, challenged the RFRA to the Supreme Court, and got portions of the law thrown out in 1997 as unconstitutional. The religion lobby in answer birthed an ugly cousin of RFRA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which preserves an important feature of the RFRA. Under the RLUIPA, land use and zoning laws in the nation can be challenged literally because God may be directing the challenge, ie God wants that parking lot re-zoned for a 40-foot residential tower etc. The legislation pivotally places the burden of attorneys’ fees in RLUIPA cases on local governments trying to enforce an otherwise equitable law.

There is in all of this a kind of perverse self-satisfaction and narcissism that appears to have jettisoned some pretty basic Judeo-Christian values. “In effect,” writes Marci Hamilton in God vs. the Gavel, “religious entities have lobbied for the right to hurt others without consequences. That is a severe attack on the rule of law, which is supposed to guarantee that no one becomes a rule unto himself.” Havens for economic and social and political outlawry, whether they are hurting township tax rolls or colluding in child rape and murder or illegally abetting the election of a criminal president (who makes war and spies on citizens as a rule unto himself), the ecclesiastical corporations, whose existence Madison so lamented, today are helping to fashion a social order that fetishizes religiosity but also has with no regrets unmoored religion from that strange old notion of loving thy neighbor. Prof. Hamilton calls this achievement a triumph of “possessive individualism” – the secret sidecar to “ownership society” – and a “triumph of the urge to power, in Nietzche’s sense.”

Moreover, that the ecclesiastical corporations have secured and expanded power by the cynical application of law and a creative sympathy in the judiciary indicates their effectiveness indeed as corporate players. It should be remembered that modern American corporations, conceived by lawyers in the Gilded Age as the grotesque offspring of the 14th Amendment, transformed themselves into “legal persons” by similar courtroom machinations. So the corporation gained the rights of a person – among them, due process and equal treatment, the right to sue, hold property, borrow money – but none of the obligations. “Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience,” Edward Thurlow, the 18th century lord chancellor of England, remarked, “when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?” The history of the business corporation has in fact been the systematic lobbying for the removal of all regulatory constraints to its operations – in effect, as Professor Hamilton writes, “lobbying for the right to hurt others without consequences.”

The greatest corporate successes in this effort, the founding moments in corporate wealth and power, rest in the 50 years of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that enshrined the deranged definition of “legal person” and gave to capital and property the rights of men while relieving the men behind the money of their liabilities. Similarly, the church looks for the fundaments of its own kind of legal exceptionalism in the three pivotal decades of the Burger Court. If corporations are mere business machines that the courts have mistaken for a person, then churches are mere corporations that the courts have mistaken for godliness. Still, corporations must pay their taxes, however they try not to, and, in the end, they must answer to the marketplace. The corporate church answers apparently only to God.

Sic itur ad astra.
More from this author:
Bordering Chaos: A report from the birth-pangs of America's Citizen Border Patrol Militias (14183 Hits)
by Christopher Ketcham EDITOR'S NOTE: This article was originally published in a shortened, much-bowdlerized form in Salon.com. I ...
Notes from a Super Bowl Sunday with the TV B-Gone - Die, TV! (8790 Hits)
by Christopher Ketcham The TV-B-Gone, which fits in the palm of the hand, is a universal remote whose sole purpose and power is to shut down...
What Did Israel Know in Advance of the 9/11 Attacks? High-Fivers and Art Student Spies (17107 Hits)
by Christopher Ketcham On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, an FBI bulletin known as a BOLO ­— "be on lookout" ...
Bigger than Watergate: the cover-up that succeeded (15062 Hits)
by Christopher Ketcham   THE CHARGE Mark Felt as Deep Throat counseled his listeners to “follow the money,” advice...
Dependence Day, or What the Bald Eagle Told the Desert Rat about the 4th of July (7714 Hits)
by Christopher Ketcham Good party for the 4th here at Pack Creek Ranch: beer, fried turkey, music, starlight and moonrise and many...
Related Articles:
U.S. Military Has Killed Up to 238,000 Iraqi Civilians (15871 Hits)
A just-released study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, published in the current issue of the prestigious British medical journal The...
From Liberating Spirituality to Oppressive Dogma: The Politics of Religion (23912 Hits)
By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D. Spirituality is intrapersonal. It’s a liberating and uplifting awareness. It nurtures personal growth. It inspires...
When "anti-war" doesn't mean anti-war (9146 Hits)
by Mickey Z.   A casual stroll through most major U.S. cities would provide ample opportunity to encounter numerous stickers, buttons,...
All you need is love (...and a small, well-trained army) (8187 Hits)
by Mickey Z. Warning: This article has not been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Read at your own risk. Thomas...
No Arab, Palestinian Cheers for U.S. Democrats (9710 Hits)
By Nicola Nasser Arabs, at least at the non-official level, were quick to hail President George W. Bush’s mid-term electoral defeat and the...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (8)add comment

a guest said:

The world's leading theologians and religious scholars, including Urbano Alonso Galan (Vatican advisor on non-Catholic religions) and Fumio Sawada (leader of Japan's oldest religion, Yu-itsu Shinto) all concluded Scientology was a religion in every aspect. In fact their studies have provided clarity to the subject of what comprises a religion.

See: http://www.bonafidescientology.../index.htm

Amongst the many free services provided by the Church of Scientology are:

The largest independent and internationally credentialed disaster relief organization in the world (it works closely with the Red Cross and the United Nations) is the Scientology Volunteer Ministers program: www.volunteerministers.org

The disaster relief methods used in the program were all developed by L Ron Hubbard and are now taught by police, firemen, military, doctors, etc.

Hubbard's "The Way to Happiness" (www.TWTH.org) has been praised by religious, political and social leaders and is central to a hugely successful criminal rehabilitation program now in 2,000 prisons: www.criminon.org.

www.ScientologyHandbook.org has many "how-to" chapters that help anyone better better understand and learn skills to resolve problems.

March 14, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

I believe in Tax Exemptions for religion, but I do not believe that a church or church charity should be exempt from financial reporting. On the contrary, as people are donating money to these organisations, not only should there be compulsory financial reporting, but the financial reports should be subject to independant auditing and publically posted so we can all see where the money is going.
March 14, 2007
Votes: +1

a guest said:

Thanks a lot for such an important search on US religions, sects, cults and groups ! Fantastic.
Hats off for such an illustration of the public absurdity which is rampant into US Constitution: since the word religion itself has never been defined by the Founding Fathers, it's no surprise that zillionaire US "pastors" can run their flourishing non-democratic and sometimes dynastic quasi-kingdoms toward a religions' war.

It could even start by a US civil war, due to the fact that the 2nd amendment adds to such a risk.

May I add that the need for weapons could very well be understood in 1791, but quite insane in 2007?

Because at length, it's very evident for the french I am that such accumulation of richness, power and greed by those "pastors" can only lead their believers toward such an almost ineluctable end based on these two errors in these 2 amendments of the US constitution:

no definition of religion leads to no taxes, and allowance of weapons everywhere by the 2nd amendment.

Roger Gonnet, french anticult activist.
March 14, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Remarkable article - really fantastic.
No wonder that such a number of crimes and injustices happen under these two US Constitution Amendment: the first and the second.
Indeed, the first contains a major problem: there is nowhere a definition of religion in the US constitution or laws. That's how simili-religions tue scams found their ways up the Supreme Court, like Ron Hubbard's fraudulous system did.
The second is less sinny: it's only problem comes from the period when it was voted: here in Europe, most people would find ridicule to accumulate weapons in (almost) every family.

But your excellent article leads to a sad conclusion, when paralleled to these two Amendments, I and II, and to the insane decisions aboutr religions by the two last US presidents.

Religion war can happen. Perhaps it could even start by a civil war between US cults: some of them are indeed led by dynastic zillionaire "pastors" or by totalitarian pseudo-idealists measuring their membership by statitics and greedy money pumpings.

Too bad.

Roger Gonnet,
an anticult activist from France.
March 14, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

Russell Wellen said:

"the danger of silent accumulations & encroachments. . .
. . . by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S." You can say that again.

Another comprehensive piece of journalism by Christopher Ketcham.

Meanwhile, anybody want to open a storefront church with me?
March 14, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Irresponsible Gibberish
In is fact that our founding Fathers were devote christian men seeking to secure a foundation for a more christian society.

As the Declaration of Independance was being signed by the members of the Continental Congress on August 2, 1776, Samuel Adams declared:

"We have this day restored the Sovereignty to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reins in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come."

John Adams in writing to his wife Abigail on the Declaration, dated July 3, 1776:

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to Almighty God."

Further, the Declaration of Independance itself:

"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights:"

The Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were all written in accord with the Laws of God. It is irresponsible and misleading to state that true religion creates anything but a more humane society. The founding fathers knew it to be true.

Founding Father Dr. John Witherspoon:

"God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseperable."
"In free states where people have the supreme power in their own hands and must be consulted on all great matters, if there be a general corruption of morals, there can be nothing but confusion. So true is this that civil liberty cannot long be preserved without virtue."

James Madison, Cheif Archiitect of the Constitution:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government. Far from it! We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of Mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, and to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

William Penn wrote:

"Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants."

The erosion and decline of America began with the instution of the Federal Reserve, when the American government was handed to a few very rich men (bankers). Continued with the false interpetation of one of Thomas Jefferson papers and the US Supreme Court in 1947 declared that a wall must exist between the Church and the State. When the Church up to that point had always been a driving force in American politics, and in those times America prospered, florished, and was a safe place to live and raise children. From this point on America has been dissolving into a Godless society becoming increasingly overrun by godless lawless men. The Federal Reserve in control of OUR money, yes, it is monies that belong to the American citizens, have destroyed our way of life and security. Mother's had to leave home to work leaving our young unguided. Crime from that point on in our history has not just risen but has exploded!

Again in 1962 Our US Supreme Courts failed society out lawing prayer in school. In 1963 outlawing Bible reading, Justice Potter Stewart, the lone dissenting vote said, that the ruling had not led to a true neutrality with respect to religion but rather to the "establishment of a religion of secularism." Two days after the establishment of secularism the Wall Street Journal commented that atheism was now "the beleif to which the state's power will extend its protection. In 1980 outlawing of the Ten Commandments. It is documented that since 1962 Aptitude Scores in our schools have fallen, violent crimes have boomed, sexually transmitted diseases have boomed, unwed pregnancies- boomed, divorce rates skyrocketed.

Soon the only voice that will have the right to speak will be voices telling us that God is a lie, therefore our Constitution, and Bill of Rights are also lies. The Patriot Act has taken away more of our Rights laid out by our Founding Fathers, good Christian men whom spent hundreds of hours laying out a plan for a new form of government, one that would be Bible based. But, it also left the responsibilty up to the people to be informed and participate in government, to make sure that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were being upheld by government officials. Unfortunately, this is where we have failed, and it started with the so-called seperation of Church and State.

Remember all three documents are to be treated as a whole outline for our government. The definition of religion was stated in the Declaration of Independance and therefore, was not needed to be drawn out and explained further in the other two documents.

AEM, concerned American Citizen

PS an important book for all American to read:

Abandonment Theology: An Action Guide to Save America, by John W. Chalfant
Endorsed by Robert E. Wilson, National Chairman, Wake Up America

Read the Declaration and it is self evident thet the men who wrote it were very concerned with writing a piece that would clearly define a government that was based on the laws of God for society.

March 14, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

Funny how the sites you listed to prove scientology is a religion are ALL scientology sites.

The largest independent and internationally credentialed disaster relief organization in the world? Who acredetialed them?

The disaster relief methods used in the program were all developed by L Ron Hubbard and are now taught by police, firemen, military???

Can you name the police dept, fire dept and please tell us which goverments military is using programs developed by Hubbard?

I would love to see the answers to the above question's as I bet the would the other readers here.

As for the links, let me list a couple. xenu.net and xenutv.com are great links to see the dark side of scientology.
March 15, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

One last thing. Freedom of Religion is not Freedom to abuse others civil and human rights.
It is not Freedom to decide the laws don't apply to you just because some Sci Fi writer said so in a paper.
Freedom of Religion does not give anyone the right to "dispose of quiety and without sorrow" ( L.R. Hubbard quote) anyone who dares to speak out against you.

March 15, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123